The Economic Aspect of Geology Part 42

How far such a procedure might be possible without the compelling common interest of war is debatable.

The great powers of the Reparations Committee, previously noted, and of the recently formed European coal commission, already indicate the general nature of the machinery for international control which might be exercised through a league of nations. It is not our purpose to argue for international control or for any specific plan of control, but rather to outline the problem. The question is not an academic one.

Various kinds of international control are present facts, and the problem relates to the possibilities of more effective organization of existing agencies.

CONSERVATION IN ITS INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

The interests of conservation, considering both its physical and its human energy phases (p. 362), seem to call for an international understanding in the use of mineral resources which will result in the minimum hindrance to their free movements along natural channels of trade. The essential fact of the concentration of mineral supplies in comparatively few world localities, and the fact that no nation is supplied with enough of all varieties of minerals, mean that artificial barriers to their distribution cannot but impose unnecessary handicaps on certain localities, which may be anti-conservational from a world standpoint. If the few countries possessing adequate supplies of high-grade ferro-alloy minerals, for instance, were to restrict their distribution by tariffs or other measures, the resulting cost to civilization through the handicapping of the steel industry would be a large one. Or if, for the general purpose of making the United States entirely self-supporting in regard to mineral supplies, sufficiently high import tariffs were imposed on these minerals to permit the use of the low-grade deposits in the United States, earlier exhaustion of the limited domestic supplies would follow, and in the meantime the cost to the domestic steel industry would be serious. Cost may be taken to represent the net result of human energy multiplied into raw material.

The movement would therefore be anti-conservational. If each state in the United States were to start out to become entirely self-sustaining in regard to minerals, and by various regulations were able to prohibit the use of minerals brought in from without, or the export of its excess of minerals, the waste in effort and materials would be obvious. Nature has clearly marked out fields of specialization for different localities, and the effective use of mineral supplies is just as much a matter of specialization as the effective use of man's talents. If the United States, because of its vast copper deposits, is in a position to specialize in this line and to aid the world thereby, this should involve recognition of the fact that other countries are better able to specialize in other commodities,--thereby forming a basis for mutual exchange, which is desirable and necessary for world development.

This conservational argument against artificial barriers does not necessarily imply complete elimination of tariffs or other restricting or fostering measures. Within limits these may be necessary or desirable in order to maintain differences in the standard of living, or in order to permit the growth of infant industries; but to carry these measures to a point where they interfere with essential mineral movements determined by nature is obviously anti-conservational.

For some mineral commodities, international cooperation may prevent duplication in efforts and the development of excessive supplies in advance of the capacity of the world to use them. Partly because of lack of such cooperation, certain mineral commodities have been developed in such large quant.i.ties in various parts of the world that it may be many years before demand catches up with development. In the meantime, large and unnecessary interest charges are piling up. This financial loss measures the loss in effectiveness of collective human effort.

In the above discussion, little reference has been made to shortage of total world supplies as an argument for international cooperation. This is an argument often cited, and with some effectiveness during the war.

It is the writer's view that this phase of the problem has been much exaggerated. Except for certain periods during the war, in considering the world as a whole adequate supplies of all mineral commodities have been available at all times. They have been developed as rapidly as needed, in some cases more rapidly; and geological conditions seem to indicate that this condition will continue for some time in the future, through national and individual effort. Combined efforts of governments seem hardly necessary as yet to accomplish this purpose. In fact, there is rather more danger of over-development, without due regard to the working of the interest rate, which might be prevented by international cooperation. The main problem now is not one of total supplies, but of their effective and equitable distribution.

EXPLORATION IN ITS INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

When an explorer or prospector leaves his own country to discover and acquire minerals in other countries, with a view to exportation, it is reasonably obvious that he must first acquire a sound knowledge of at least some of the elements of international trade in minerals,--such as shipping facilities, rates, tariffs, att.i.tude of the government toward ownership, toward export, etc. For example, the prospector for oil in foreign countries will not get very far without considering the recent steps taken by foreign governments, and mentioned on pp. 131-132.

The necessity of study of the international situation in conducting domestic exploration is not so generally recognized; and yet anyone today who confines his attention solely to the local physical facts of the situation, and who ignores international considerations, may find himself in difficulties. The investigation of international questions is not merely desirable from the standpoint of general information, but may be vital to the business or professional success of the explorer. For instance, he might take up the exploration and development in the United States of fertilizers and ferro-alloy minerals which are ordinarily imported; and without understanding the severe limitations imposed by the foreign situation, he might find himself with a property, sound from a physical standpoint, but financially a failure. It is comparatively easy, by running over the long list of mineral commodities used in the United States, to eliminate, on international grounds, a considerable number from the field inviting financial success, and to concentrate on others whose economic relations are sound. In the rapid changes during and since the war, the necessity for consideration of world conditions has been brought home at heavy expense to many business and professional men engaged in the mineral industry.

VALUATION IN ITS INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

For mineral commodities of limited supply and steady demand, market conditions may be more or less taken for granted, and valuation may be based on local considerations. For a large number of mineral resources, however, the compet.i.tive market conditions are anything but stable, because of foreign compet.i.tion. It is necessary not only to know the basis for this compet.i.tion, but also to be able to follow intelligently its various changes. The value of many of our mineral deposits in recent years has varied widely with changes in the foreign situation.

RELATIVE POSITION OF THE UNITED STATES IN REGARD TO SUPPLIES OF MINERALS

The United States is more nearly self-sustaining in regard to mineral commodities as a whole than any other country on the globe. The following statement summarizes qualitatively our position:

1. Minerals of which our exportable surplus dominates the world situation:

Copper.

Petroleum has belonged in this cla.s.s until recently. In the future imports will be required (see 5 following).

2. Minerals of which our exportable surplus const.i.tutes an important but not a dominant factor in the world trade:

Cement.

Coal.

Iron and steel.

Phosphates.

Silver.

Sulphur.

Uranium and radium.

3. Minerals of which our exportable surplus is not an important factor in world trade. Small amounts of most of these minerals have been and will doubtless continue to be imported because of special grades, back-haul, or cheaper sources of foreign supply, but these imports are for the most part not essential as a source of supply:

Aluminum and bauxite.

a.r.s.enic.

Artificial abrasives and emery (except Naxos emery).

Asphalt and bitumen.

Barite.

Bis.m.u.th.

Borax.

Bromine.

Building stone (except Italian marble).

Cadmium.

Feldspar.

Fluorspar.

Fuller's earth.

Gold.

Gypsum.

Lead.

Lime.

Magnesite.

Mineral paints (except umber, sienna, and ocher from France and Spain).

Molybdenum.

Pyrite.

Salt (except special cla.s.ses).

Talc.

t.i.tanium.

Tripoli and diatomaceous earth.

Zinc.

4. Minerals for which the United States must depend almost entirely on other countries:

Cobalt.

Nickel.

Platinum and metals of the platinum group.

Tin.

5. Minerals for which the United States will depend on foreign sources for a considerable fraction of the supply:

Antimony.

Asbestos.

Ball clay and kaolin.

Chalk.

Chromite.

Corundum.

Diamond dust and bort.

Garnet.

Graphite.

Grinding pebbles.

Manganese.

Mercury.