The Ketchikan miner., 1909-01-09
Copper Production in 1907

copper Production ln lWi
 The production of copper in the United States in 1907, accoriing 10 reports returned by the smelters of ..sc ceuutry to the United Geological sa. v.y. amounted to s6s, se6. 4el pounds s's.r rro 'uc,ion in ls9S, complied on ,he sa,ne hasiS, was al1, S0o, 6S2 pounds, S,.0 tn,t of 1905 WAS sSs. 7sa, a67 pounds. F. .,a the record production of leo6 the ,a, pn, for 1907 shows decrease of \, ,S0s'. ial pounds. or 5.s per cent. ,'aa> .s the largest actual decrease >ytg recorded. and is the largest rel .,ive decrease since lSS6, when the percentage of decrease WAS 5.5. h lso1. for ths 6rst time since 1901, the production wss smaller than that of the proceeding year. and for the first time since 1872 the production was smaller than for the second proceeding year.
 The smelter GU, put chosen by the Survey as representative of the copper ou, put of the country is made up of ,hs production of blister copper and of furnace refined or so called "ingot copper" of Michigan plus the Michi- gan copper cast into snodes for elect rolysis. It thus consists of the final product of the distinctly smelling operations and does not include the product of any additional distinctly refining process The figures of the smelter productions of 1907 are based on direct returns made confiden:ially to the Geological Survey by all but one of the known smelling companies sha, handled the United States ores, concentrates, or mates in 1907.
 The quantity of copper given as the output of the mines ot the United States in 1901. based on reports col lected by field agents of the Geological Survey from sll mining companies in ,he country which produced copper during the-yesr, was s49. l5l. olo pounds a quantity a5 per cent less than the product of the smelters Tor the same period. By far the greater portion of the mines output is treated directly in smelters owned bs or having con- necsion with the mining companies, and this large part of the mine pro- duction is reported on practically the same basis ss the smelter production. But many oi tho mine returns are based ou the actual or estimated recov- cry from the ore shipped from the mines during the year, whereas the smelser returns indicate the quantity 0. copper actually turned out al the reduction works in that period. ln a state like Montana, therefore, oper- asiou of the smeIters at full capacity for few days after the mines had begun to reduce shipments would ac- count for 8 distinct excess in smelter output over that reported from the mines. This faet-thas when curtail- ment of produ etiou had once been de- cided on the mines were able to exc cute the plan more promptly than the smelsers-is responsible for the great er part oi the difference between mine and snelter production of the copper in 1y0-. In l%6, when mine and shelter production were conducted al practically the same rate. returns from the two sources were in very close correspondence, the mine output being only Q. g per cent less than the pro- duccion Of smelters- 4 second cause Of the difference iu favor of the smell CT 6gures is the fact that the smleters recover more copper than the mines are paid for. The difference on this account is smaller than that due to other causes. but it is especially inn portant in States like Colorado, where the greater part of the production is from custom ores generally low in copper.
 In a report On the production Of AOOs- iih5 yASs otEU published by Ehe United States Geo. logical Survey as an advance chapter from Mineral Reserves of the United States, Calendar Year 1907, L. C. Graton, of the Survey. presents de- tailed discussion of the condition Of the industry for that year for the country as whole aud for individual States. Copies of this report may be obtained by applying 10 the director of the Survey. Washington, D. C. 4 summary Of the copper production. also prepared by Mir. Graton. was is- sued by the Survey early in the pres ent sumner. Copper Times.
 Who is Benefited by tine Timber