THE OIL-COAL WAR

Grey River Argus, 8 February 1940, Page 10

THE OIL-COAL WAR

POTENTIAL OIL SUPPLIES OF THE COALFIELDS

(Concluding article from “The Glasgow Weekly Herald,” 25th. Aug. 1,928.)

In these articles, for three issues: past, the remarkable invention which 1 Scotland houses for the extraction or oil from coal, has been dealt with exhaustively. The low-temperature I carbonising retort of Mr. Charles Turner has been explained, the most important points of consideration being the production by ■ this means, from one ton of ordinary bituminous} coal, of 30 gallons of crude oil and 13 cwt. of valuable smokeless fuel for domestic and industr.al purposes. It is claimed that the means is here provided, as proved by various scientific bodies for the transformation ofi Britain into a vast oil-field whereby all the idle coal pits will be put into operation with the resultant absorption in the industry of those miners at present unable to find employment.

It is now fairly widely known just what claims are put forward for this invent’on, but there is another consideration—the position of Britain in the * rapidly developing Oil-Coal, war, and how she might yet be supreme in the world of economics.

Britain's Chance. For the purpose of illustration, it| is worth recalling what Mr. Turner} exclaimed when asked by the writer j what his invention promised in development, and how the world organisation would affect Britain. “I do not intend ever to part with my rights,” Mr. Turner declared. “I hold patents for the whole world — 41 countries all told. I desire above all things to keep my invention for the sake of Britain.”

And again: “We need cheaper, fuel; we need cheaper oil. It is not for a private concern to attend to that. It is a national responsibilltv.” “One of the reasons,” said Mr. Turner, ‘‘why I will never part with my rights is that, if Britain keeps control, she will, be able to liquidate her National Debt. It is obvious wny I so much desire my own country to keep the rights.” “American money, for instance,' will be used in the development of the plant in that country. They can-| not then complain of what would indeed by a real grievance—that foreign money was being "imported" to exploit their own natural resources. Their own finance would earn a share of the profits, but under the terms of the agreement, the patentholders would require a certain percentage as a royalty for the privilege of operating. This will be the procedure of development in every Stat. They benefit and our country automatically shares in their ben? fit. In that light, it is dangerous to use the word exploitation—it becomes econom c development. Export Protection. Where there is a danger of a country producing oil more than her requirements, clauses of agreement will stipulate that there will be no for-, eign competition. The - aim is to make every country, where at ah possible by mineral deposits, selfsupporting in oil supply. Esthonia, by reason of cheap labour and easy miffing facilities, is able to produce o’l-shale at 1/- _ per ton. She, therefore, would obviously be able to export oil and sell it in Britain, even taking into consideration the cost of transport, at a lower figure than we can possffily produce from our own coal. But we are protected by the proposed prohibition tn the terms of agreement for development abroad. Australian shale has a potential production of 140 gallons, per ton. That country would also be able to cause serious troub'e in other countries where the coal has a yield ot but, say, as in our case. 30 gffi on* oi oil. It is therefore, apparent ..that rome protection would be absolutely essential. . A new situation arises when India is concerned —and while considering this vast country it is interesting o keep in mind that Mr. Turner •mrds India as the land holding out <h- greatest promise of development under the oil-from-coal regime.

Gigantic Scheme. Indian coal is produced cheaply, but tins is nullified by the disastrous cost of transport, which increases the price of the mineral by 400 pei’ cent. Now, by means of the low-tempera-ture carbonising retort, the coat would be transformed into oil on the spot. (And Indian coal is capable of giv ng 70 gallons to the ton.) The r.-Sidue of the fuel, according to Mr. Turner, would be used to generate electricity, which could be produced at the low cost of a tenth of a penny per unit. By electrifying the raii- ; ways, the transportation problem I would be solved. It is not possible to generate’ power to-day and to supply ' it economically at anything like one i penny per unit, far less one-tenth of a penny. This scheme of electric generation, it might be pointed out, is one of the manv companion schemes of the on- : from-coal extraction process which the inventor plans to develop in this country. The benefit resulting in Britain is almost inconceivable. To-day the pipe-fine charges for conveying oil from the foreign wells to the ports is a crushing ‘ cost “of production. But the expense of reachJ ing the consumer with the oil does J not end there. Therg, is then the I harassmg question of transportation ’I by oil-tankers. Bv the time the oil ’ reaches these shores from America or I any other country its cost has soared 1 far above the production rates. This would cease to exist when } every country was producing her own oil bv the utilisat’on of her coal ■ resources. There would be no lonJ ger any ocean conveyance of oil as j'l we know it. Oil-tankers would hecome/as rare as the sailing vessel of ’ square-rigged glory is to-day. Time is at Hand. i s It might go on interminably, this 3 consideration of the world-wide efy fects of the development of the low j temperature carbonisation of coalEveryone is more or less agreed that >, the time has come when scientists fl must consider ways and means of - allowing Brita’n to obtain the full - value of her coal and make herself independent of other countries for o' her oil. J. I # a Inspiring Picture. e As’ exhaustively as possible, wc have reviewed the process and the m_j ventor’s cla ms. We have seen how c h proposes to bring prosprity to our v coal industry, make Britain not onty ‘ v self-supporting in oil but also sui. preme in the world markets, and give 0 us increased credits on such a scale that we m : ght easily liquidate the I National Debt and free ourselves I from crippling taxation. And not I only Britain, but every other counl Iry is promised hte benefit of the m-i-i vention.

It is a remarkable picture—one that is inspiring, heartening to the utmost. Prosperity breeds content. Would we thus reach a world peace by another route? It remains to be seen.

Such a remarkable invention cannot long remain in the background. It is acknowledged on every hand that it is just such a process that the country awaits to see an accomplished fact. Whether it be the Turner process or any other, if the potentialities are such as have been considered, its adoption cannot come too soon. Let us have it. Then we may judge for ourselves. Developments Expected.

Since these articles lirst started to appear in “The Weekly Herald iemarkable developments have been taking place, and movements from all parts of the country and the farthest corners of the world have been made with a v’ew to coming to some agreement with the inventor. It mav be that very shortly the world will hear more of this coal miracle. As we suggested in introducing this series, the subject is one of national importance, and the public may want to know why such an invention should not be placed on an economic basis for the benefit of the country. (Concluded.)