My friend, Mr. J. J. Kermode, of Liverpool--the well-known fuel oil expert--has taken the most prominent part in calling general attention to the immense superiority of fuel oil over coal, and it is due to this gentleman’s untiring energies that not only does our Navy to-day use fuel oil to such an extent, but that those responsible for ocean passenger transport have taken the matter up so seriously. There are three general headings under which fuel oil use will affect transport costs. They are as follow: (_a_) by increased passenger or cargo capacity, (_b_) by increased speed, and (_c_) by a great reduction in running costs. As to the increased capacity, I have already shown that fuel oil can be stored in considerably less space than coal, and the simplicity of both bunkering fuel oil, and using it on vessels, has also been touched upon. With reference to the increased speed which vessels utilizing fuel oil can attain over those running on coal, I have a concrete example in front of me. Two sister ships of the Eagle Oil Transport Company--the _San Dunstano_ and the _San Eduardo_--each of 9,000 tons deadweight capacity, are fitted to burn coal and fuel oil respectively. Upon a trip carried out under careful observation, the weight of fuel consumed worked out as two to three in favour of fuel oil, while the indicated horse-power developed showed an 18 per cent. improvement in the case of the oil-fired vessel. But the striking fact of the comparison is that the _San Eduardo_ made the round voyage to Mexico--out and home--eight days quicker than the other, this additional speed being solely due to the fact that with fuel oil it was possible to maintain consistent speed throughout the voyage--an impossible matter when coal is consumed. If space permitted, I could enumerate many cases where the results in favour of fuel oil are even more strikingly apparent, but I will content myself by briefly referring to calculations made by Mr. Kermode, based upon voyages of our largest liners: they are sufficiently interesting and suggestive to record here. On an average, says Mr. Kermode, to maintain a speed of 25 knots, 5,500 tons of coal are consumed upon the voyage between Liverpool and New York by one of the mammoth liners; or 11,000 tons for the round trip. Some 3,300 tons of fuel oil--which could be stored if necessary (and as will frequently be done in the future) in the double bottom of the vessel--would, by automatic stoking, do even more work than 5,500 tons of coal. Calculating the daily consumption of 600 tons of coal now used for 24 hours, this represents about 2,000 tons less fuel on a five days’ trip, land to land run, or 4,000 tons less, out and home. The utilizing of the vacant space thus saved for merchandise would bring in a very handsome income. Of the 312 firemen and trimmers now employed for a coal-fired liner, 285 might be dispensed with, and occupation found for them under healthier conditions ashore,