mobiles, or all the other products that we need in the land, can be said to be an inferior use for gas. Now, let us look at another petroleum product. Gasoline is a fuel. It is a magnificent fuel. This is almost a gasoline age. But I have heard nobody protest that old dobbin needed protection, that it would be a superior use to burn gasoline in an automobile that milady can make her party pleasantly and nicely and insist that the drudgery of hauling of freight be done by the horses and mules. I don't see any horses or mules hitched to that truck pictured up there on the wall. I think that is a good use for gasoline. I do not believe that is an inferior use, as compared, say, to the operation of a car which might, under this same arrangement be set up as a superior use. In fact, the thing is no more than an effort on the part of the coal people to restore lost markets by legislation, or by regulatory rules. It is no more and no less than that, and we do not believe that the Congress of the United States would ever intend that legislation be used for the benefit of any specific group or classification of citizens to the exclusion of the natural, normal use of their products and their commodities in competition with the other fuel, or other commodities. At the present time the demand for gas is tremendous. Every city in the United States wants it. To get that gas is going to require that unrelenting efforts are going to be made to find more gas, that every foot of gas be conserved. We believe that that best can be accomplished by Government regulation of the pipe line, State regulation of the distribution, and State regulation of the gathering facilities. I would like to go further, but I know your time is short, but I will try to answer any questions you may wish to ask. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions, gentlemen? (No response.) The CHAIRMAN. You have made a very fine statement, Mr. Allen. Coming from Memphis I would expect a citizen of that city to make a good statement. Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, sir. The CHAIRMAN. It is my understanding that so-called Boss Crump rules because of his efficiency in the administration of his citizens. Mr. ALLEN. He does a swell job. The CHAIRMAN. It has been my privilege to associate with former Mayor Crump as a Member of Congress, and also with your former Mayor Chandler, who was a Member of Congress, and I can assure you that I consider it a privilege to have been associated with them. I recognize their ability and their honesty of purpose. I would appreciate it if you would carry to each of them my high regard and respect. Mr. ALLEN. I will do it, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. I also want the record to make a note of the fact that Congressman Cliff Davis has been associated with this committee in the hearings that have been held, and is here this morning. We are glad to have him in our midst, and hope that he will feel free to make any statement he may wish. The CHAIRMAN. The next witness will be Mr. William J. Harper, of Cleveland, Ohio. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM J. HARPER, CHIEF COMBUSTION AND CONTRACT ENGINEER, REPUBLIC STEEL CORP., CLEVELAND, OHIO Mr. HARPER. I have here some statements from about 50 industrial customers which I would like to submit for the record. (The statements are filed with the committee:) Mr. HARPER. My name is William J. Harper and I reside in Cleveland, Ohio. I am chief combustion and contract engineer for Republic Steel Corp. The main manufacturing centers of Republic Steel Corp. and their operations are as follows: Troy, N. Y.: Blast furnaces. Buffalo, N. Y.: Blast furnaces and steel-plant operations. In addition, there are manufacturing divisions known as Union Drawn Steel Division, Steel and Tubes Division, and Truscon Steel Co., with plants located in various cities throughout the United States. The parent company, Republic Steel Corp., and its subsidiary, Truscon Steel Co., employ approximately 62,000 people. The principal products of Republic Steel Corp. are coke, merchant iron. slabs, billets, bars, stainless steel, alloy steel of all grades, pipe, sheet, strip, skelp, and byproducts. In the production of coke for our blast-furnace operations we carbonize 23,000 tons of coal a day. In our metallurgical operations we use oil, natural gas, and coke oven gas. Our purchases of natural gas each year amount approximately to 7,500,000,000 cubic feet from the East Ohio Gas Co., of Cleveland, Ohio, at 37.8 cents per thousand cubic feet; 4,500,000,000 cubic feet from the Alabama Natural Gas Co., of Gadsden, Ala., at 18.5 cents per thousand cubic feet; and,000,000,000 cubic feet from the Peoples Gas, Light & Coke Corp., of Chicago, Ill., at 19 cents per million B. t. u. We produce and consume approximately 98,000,000 cubic feet of coke-oven gas each day. In the operations of normalizing, annealing, and heat-treating furnaces we use natural gas, regardless of its cost, in preference to other fuels, due to the product we are able to obtain because of the control we can get with natural gas which we cannot very well get with oil or coal. We are dependent upon natural gas in many of our operations, and any limitation in supply will affect them materially. It is our understanding that the proposed amendment to the Natural Gas Act will eliminate the possibility of the control of end use and will aid considerably in providing adequate natural gas in the areas in which we operate, and we are therefore in favor of its passage, because the severe curtailments of natural gas which we have experienced in the last number of years has had a deleterious effect on production and employment. Furthermore, we believe that industry should be permitted to choose the fuels that are most desirable for its operations and should not be subjected to governmental regulation in its choice. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions, gentlemen? (No response.) The CHAIRMAN. We thank you, Mr. Harper. Mr. HARPER. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. The next witness will be Dr. W. K. Lewis, professor of chemical engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. STATEMENT OF DR. W. K. LEWIS, PROFESSOR OF CHEMICAL ENGI NEERING, MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY BOSTON, MASS. Dr. LEWIS. If I may, I am going to hand in here a short statement of my background for the record. I think that the essential thing for me to point out is that I am a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and that I have done, and am still doing, a certain amount of consulting work with the Standard Oil Development Co., the subsidiary of Standard of New Jersey, and the Humble Oil & Refining Co. of Texas. The CHAIRMAN. We will have that background in the nature of personal data made a part of the record at this point. I am very glad to have you introduce it. I have always been of the feeling that the amount of importance you attach to a statement depends upon the amount of experience the individual has who makes the recommendation. I know you have had a background of experience, and I know. your thoughts will be given serious consideration. We are glad to have you with us today. Dr. LEWIS. Thank you. My personal background is as follows: Born, Laural, Del., 1882. Graduated in chemical engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1905. Studied in Breslau, Germany, 1906-8-Ph. D. in chemistry. Research associate in applied chemistry, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1908-9. Chemist and acting superintendent, tannery, W. H. McElwain Co., Merrimack, N. H., 1909-10. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in chemical engineering since 1910-from time to time in charge of department of chemical engineering. Member: American Chemical Society, American Leather Chemists Association, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, American Academy Arts and Sciences, British Institution of Chemical Engineers, British Society Chemical Industry, National Academy of Sciences, American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers. Consultant, directly or through the institute's research laboratory of applied chemistry and school of chemical engineering practice, with Bethlehem Steel Corp., Hercules Powder Co., Eastern Corp.-paper, General Electric Co., Standard Oil Development, Humble Oil & Refining Co. Worked in 1917-18, first in the Bureau of Mines and later in the Chemical Warfare Service, in charge of research on problems of gas protection. Worked in 1940-45 as consultant in National Defense Research Committee. Author and coauthor of articles and books on chemical engineering and applied chemistry. I have had similar consulting contact in the past with General Motors, Goodyear Tire & Rubber, Dunlop Tire & Rubber Co., both with the American company and the British, in the textile and paper industry with the Ludlow Manufacturing Associates, Nashua Manufacturing Co., Denniston Manufacturing Co., with the Vacuum Oil Co. before it was combined with the Standard Oil Co. of New York, with Eastman Kodak, with Monsanto Chemical Co.-particularly originally with the Merrimack Chemical Co. which was absorbed by Monsanto, but my contacts continued with them after that time-with the gas manufacturing subsidiary of the Boston Consolidated Gas Co., which is now the Eastern Gas & Fuel Associates, I think, but which at that time was the New England Coke & Manufacturing Co., operating subsidiary of the Boston Consolidated at that time, and with the Revere Sugar Refinery. A summary of the subject matter I would like to present to the committee has been prepared, and as I understand it, turned in to the committee. There is one error that I would like to have corrected on the record, if I can. The first sentence of the statement says that I am dean of chemical engineering. I am no such thing. I am a professor of chemical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The CHAIRMAN. We will not hold that against you, Doctor. Dr. LEWIS. I am anxious to give the committee as clear a picture as I practicably can of the relationship of natural gas to the other types of fuel and of energy. It is the purpose of this paper to discuss the significance to the over-all fuel picture of the United States of various processes for generating both gas and oil from coal and to indicate possible future effects of the development of atomic energy on this field. In doing so I wish to emphasize at the start that natural gas is definitely not an irreplaceable resource. Neither technically nor economically can it be so regarded. Both natural gas and oil are completely replaceable by synthesis of these products from coal and by this means the reserves of gas and oil can readily be extended for more than 1,000 years into the future. It is today technically feasible to manufacture methane from coal and, if desired, a gas with a heating value considerably higher than that of methane can be made. Even by present processes, the cost of manufacture of gas from coal need not be prohibitive and, with certain contemplated improvements now actually the subject of advanced research, the cost of synthetic gas might easily be brought below the delivered cost of natural gas in many areas of this country. In my personal opinion, I do not think it unreasonable to look for considerable commercial development of these synthetic processes within, say, 10 years. Such a development would obviously mean that natural gas would lose some of its present markets. It would, in effect, be backed up into the producing areas. In view of the 50 years or more supply of natural gas now known, and the rapid rate of new discoveries, this backing up might, in fact, create a problem of surplus in the gasproducing regions. Adding to this the outlook for atomic power conceivably might mean that, far from concern over future shortage of gas, we will never actually use up all we have. COMPOSITION AND PROPERTIES OF NATURAL GAS Natural gas is composed predominantly of a mixture of saturated gaseous hydrocarbons of low molecular weight, of which methane is the most important. Indeed, methane is often used as synonymous with natural gas. There are limited amounts of inert gases, such as carbon dioxide and nitrogen. The most important use of natural gas is as a fuel. For this use it possesses two advantages, other than low cost, over competitive gaseous fuels. In the first place, it has a higher heating value per unit of volume than the competitive gases (nearly double that of ordinary city gas), so that less of it need be piped to get the same amount of heat. In the second place, the compounds of which it is composed are more stable chemically. (Thus, ordinary city gas contains hydrocarbons which deposit as gums in lines, meters, burners, and the like.) However, neither of these two disadvantages of the competitive gaseous fuels is serious. In comparison with competitive solid and liquid fuels, gas is much more convenient to use; this is particularly true relative to solid fuels. However, natural gas shares this convenience value with other gaseous fuels, subject to the limitations indicated above. Natural gas is an important source of carbon and hydrogen for chemical uses. However, natural gas suffers under the disadvantage that it is so unreactive and chemically inert that, when one wishes to use it as a source of chemical raw materials, one usually converts itor, as it is called, reforms, it-to a mixture of hydrogen and the oxides of carbon, preferably carbon monoxide, for use. Such a mixture of hydrogen and the oxides of carbon, so-called blue water gas, has been produced from coal and coke on a tremendous scale for some 75 years. The production of gas of this sort in this country is of the order of 100,000,000,000 feet a year. In other words, if one wishes to use natural gas as a chemical raw material, in the most important cases it is first converted into exactly the sort of a gaseous mixture which has long been and is today made from coal on a scale far greater than it is made from natural gas. Occasionally, natural gas can be used directly as a source of raw material for chemical manufacture, as in its oxidation to formaldehyde. However, formaldehyde is also made competitively by converting a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide, blue water gas, to methyl alcohol and oxidizing this to formaldehyde, a process in which, as indicated above, the only advantage of natural gas over coal is cost and convenience. The essential advantage of natural gas both as a fuel and as a source of chemical raw materials is its cheapness. The most important measure of its industrial value is its energy content. At 5 cents a thousand cubic feet it is from this point of view equivalent to good coal at about $1.25 a ton. |