Show UNITED STATES COPPER OUTPUT Engineering and Mining Journal Places Last L st Years Production Production Production tion at 91 Lbs METHOD OF COMPUTATION WHY CONTRIBUTION AP APPEARS APPEARS PEARS PEA S LESS WAS The production of or copper in the United States in 1906 1908 was pounds In our preliminary statistics published Jan 15 5 0 1907 we reported OO pounds Our final figures differ from tr m the preliminary by less than tha 03 p per r cent They how an increase over oer 19 of only 48 per r cent says the Engineering Mining Journal The details of ot the production in com corn comparison parison with the figures for toro 1904 and and 1503 1905 are given In tho the following table Production of Copper In the United States In Pounds State 1904 1001 1905 1900 1906 1900 Alaska Arizona California t Colorado Idaho Michigan h Montana 00 New Mexico So and East 82 Utah J Wyoming 1 J 1 Other tates states a Total a This figure includes s pounds of ot copper produced In the form of or Milestone bluestone blu stone and also considerable copper which be longs not to other states but to those above enumerated to which however It cannot bd be b accurately accurate allocated Our statistics are based on reports of ot the copper content of blister copper ex except except copt that a comparatively small part of ot the total production which could not be conveniently reported In that way wa was reported as refined copper allocated ac Bc according according cording to the states of ot origin This in a little into the statistics but such discrepancies as there may be on that account are Immaterial In view of ot tho the incorporation of ot o this re fined copper In the total instead of ot the copper content 0 of ot blister from which it was derived the copper In byproduct sulphate corresponding with mth it It has bas been included In the grand total The Michi Michigan Michigan gan production of or course Is reported en as refined copper Method of Computation The computation of or the production of or copper on the basis bast of ot the copper content of ot blister produced gives the production In the nearest practicable way wa to Its origin and permits a classification among the states of ot origin with a degree of ot ac accuracy accuracy accuracy curacy that no other method of or collecting the statistics affords However even on this basis it Is Impossible to make an ab absolutely absolutely accurate allocation The blister copper coppel basis Is not the proper one upon which to reckon consumption because this copper Is several months in transit and process of or refining before It is put in final marketable mark table form and the time is variable Thus in 1905 1900 the time of or transit was longer lonser than ordinarily because of or the congestion in railway traffic during the latter portion of or the year Moreover the fine copper content of ot the blister copper produced does not represent exactly what finally is delivered In marketable form because there Is a aloas loss in refining which en on the grand total of ot so large an output as the American amounts amo to a a consider considerable considerable able figure We Fe have hase not make any al allowance alow lowance ow ne for su h loss because It has not been done In previous years and It has been considered desirable to leave the statistics for tor 1906 1006 In a form torm directly com corn comparable COmparable parable with those for 1505 1105 Regarding Output The reasons the changes in the pro of the various anous states have been discussed in previous articles so that it is unnecessary to enter further into that subject at the present time The only ex explanations that are required refer to the statistics for Alaska Utah and other state Alaska did not so much copper coppel in 1906 as Is credited in tho the above table but the smelters produced that quantity of ot copper from Alaska ore a considerable le part of ot which was mined in 1905 The decrease in the of ot Utah which Is shown in the above table is statistical rather than real It is ex explainable explainable by b a more complete distribution of or the product of or the smelters in Utah than was made In the previous year These smelters receive a great deal of or ore from other states especially California and Idaho In 1905 those states received credit for fol less than their whole production production production tion while Utah received credit for more As M a matter of ot fact tact the copper production production tion of or Utah increased in 1906 1006 but a con considerable considerable portion Dortlon of ot Its ore was not smelted going Into the stock of ot raw ma material material materm term of ot the Garfield Smelting company com pan whose plant was put In operation during the year Our statistics being based on blister copper production the tho copper con content content content tent of ot this material was not included Approximately elY the same caine quantity will re remain remain remain main in stock so long as the Is In operation and amid when the latter ceases I operation Its copper content will appear in the production for that year ear Under the caption of oC Other States Is included tho the production of Nevada eada Washington I Oregon South Dakota and Texas to together together together gether with an nn allowance of ot pounds lOt of copper in byproduct sulphate for the reason explained above aboe and together with I further quantities of or copper which were i actually act produced but could not possibly lie be distributed according to the states of or origin n nTh The Th above statistics are ar based ased on re reports reports i ports received from every producer in the I United States among which all nIl duplica duplications I lions have hae been carefully eliminated In entering the totals for the several states I the nearest thousand has been used in I order to have round figures in each case ca e |