Talk:Coal mining

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Energy
Energy Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, which collaborates on articles related to energy.
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of mid importance within energy.

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Mining This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mining,
a WikiProject which aims to improve all articles related to Mining.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within Mining articles.

This article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Globe icon
 This article or section deals primarily with the United States and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

Is this really a valid and or necessary part of the article--

"The World Championships in coal-carrying take place every Easter Monday, at Ossett in West Yorkshire, UK The race starts from the site of the old Savile & Shaw Cross colliery."

It may be and I am not saying it is not, but I am just wondering if this really pertains to coal mining? --Wp1782 02:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


It may have irreversible negative effects to the envrinmoent, but it currently is a very neccessary source of energy. The average American consumes approxiamaetely 2.8 tons of coal annually be it from energy production, steel production or even concrete production. Over 50% of America's energy production is generated through coal. I agree it is a nasty source of energy, and we need to focus our energies on a cleaner energy/renewable energy source, but for the time being, coal is without a doubt very important to the well being of America. Not to mention the economical gains to our nation from our coal exports.

That may be, but it is fair to mention both sides. Consider adding some information about the uses of coal that you mentioned, but remember that this is an article, not a debate, as I noted below. yEvb0 21:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Random words on the talk page

Coal mining is an unessary energy sorce.Most disadvantages of coal energy are enviromental issues assioced with the production and the useage of coal.This could be stopped or reduced by using alternitive forms of energy such as Geo thermal and or Solar energy. Australia has the sufficent amounts of sun to maily run on Solar energy, using this will mean having to use a back up sorce of energy (coal). This would reduce the Coal production dramatically. If we don't stop using it, it will eventually lead to irrevisible impacts towards nature.

That may or may not be, but this is an article about coal mining, not a forum for debate. yEvb0 21:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question:MTR history

Mountaintop removal is said to be a "relatively new" form of coal mining. This article needs to reference MTR and when it started. MPS 15:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

MTR was first done in 1970 [1]. The article currently says "the past 30 years"; how precise do we want? Doubleplusjeff 03:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Miners' Conditions

In the Appalachia Mountains, coal miners and their families live under horrible conditions due to the system the industry has locked them under. I can't seem to find any information about this on wikipedia though. Could this somehow be added? Uranther 02:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Not true. I worked for a coal mining company in the Appalachia coal region, so I know first hand. Unfortunately in the areas with coal reserves, there is not much economy. Many people work in the mines because there is not many other jobs. Not to mention, miners are paid relatively well. The average miner makes approx $50,000 annually in KY/WV. In a region with very little economy other than coal production, this is not bad. Also, these men and women are making a decent salary, and college education is not required. I will concede that the conditions these people work in are not ideal though. But the stuff you read about and the "documetaries" about how mine owners/corporations take advantage of their employees is simply propaganda.

Propaganda? No. Current situation? No. History? Yes - and an important part of history, in my opinion. To make a long and ugly story short, in the late-1800's and early-1900's new-hire coal miners in the Appalachians were required to purchase all their equipment, and even rent and furnish their residence from the company-owned store at inflated prices. Thus they started work in debt to the mine owners, and the idea was that they would work off the debt, paying a little out of each paycheck until they got ahead. Until the debt was paid off, miners were paid in 'scrip' instead of actual money, and the scrip was only accepted at company-owned stores, once again at vastly inflated prices. The entire system was stacked to such an extent that miners were never able to work off their debt to the company - which was an extremely effective anti-Union technique. If you were suspected of being pro-Union, you'd be fired, and since your home was rented from the company, you and your family were thrown out onto the street, blacklisted, with pockets full of scrip money that wasn't accepted anywhere. The system persisted in Appalachia until the coal miners finally won the right to unionize. For more info, see West Virginia Mine War of 1912-1913, and the Battle of Blair Mountain. 'Card 22:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First use of coal for mechanical energy

The first commerical task for mechanical energy from any fossil fuel was a coal-powered steam-driven water pump used to pump out water from a coal mine in England in 1969 It was designed by Thomas Savery.

[edit] Possible Bias in the Mountaintop Removal Section=

"Mountaintop removal is a form of surface mining that takes place at the topmost portion of a mountain, and is a technique that is commonly applied in Appalachia. Utilized for the past 30 years, mountaintop mining involves removing the highest part of the mountain for the maximum recovery of coal. This process has generated controversy, especially due to the use of hollow fills, or areas where rock and dirt from mining excavation are placed according to a plan designed by engineers and approved by government agencies. Critics argue the process has resulted in a significant loss of mountain streams; however, most fills are placed in areas where no stream is present and actual stream loss has been minimal."

This section appears to be biased, as it mentions the controversy over MTR mining without presenting an argument from the critical POV, and in general appears to argue that MTR is a safe practice. A more value-neutral summary of MTR needs to be written. 74.131.226.231 15:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A coal miner could load up to sixteen tons a day in 1947...

...So how many tons can a coal miner load in a day, today? How many tons is the norm for a coal miner to load in a day as of 2006? --129.130.233.20 20:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The question isn't relevant today. In the early 1900's miners worked as individuals. They were forced to rent all of their equipment from the company that owned the mine, and they were paid by the ton. They would manually load the coal into mule carts deep within the mine, and then haul the coal to the surface where it would be weighed. More weight = more pay. Today miners are paid by the hour, and most of the work of actually loading and transferring the coal is done by machine. 'Card 04:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing sentence?

Coal production in China (highest in the world) is only double compared with USA[6].

I'm not sure I understand the meaning of this sentence. I am assuming it means China's production is twice that of the US, but I am reluctant to change it without understanding the meaning. Suggestions? Sari5150 04:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are correct on the intent of the statement. It is incorrect, however. Check out this site for 2002 production by nation http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_coa_pro-energy-coal-production.

[edit] Very dissapointing article

Was this solely written by the mining industry? Is anyone really expected to believe that black lung has disappeared from coal miners, with 4000 new cases every year in the US and 10 000 new cases every year in China? Did the opening paragraph really say that the conditions inside coal mines were similar to those of New York City? The company who sponsored this PR article should be site-banned. Sad mouse 16:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, coal mining is not even among the top 10 most dangerous occupations in America per capita. Pilots, truck and taxi drivers, loggers, fishermen, roofers and other occupations face greater on the job risks than coal miners.

I cut this section from the modern safety analysis because it didn't have any references. Normally I would add a "citation needed" tag, but due to the POV of this article I think it safer to leave this in the discussion page until it has been confirmed. When I tried to confirm the statistic I found this article, which actually has mining (not specifically coal mining) as the second most dangerous occupation in America (per capita) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10725454/ Sad mouse 20:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Toxicity of Carbon Monoxide

The article states that Carbon Monoxide can be toxic at concentrations as low as 5ppm, yet the main article for Carbon Monoxide claims that anywhere between 0.5 and 5 ppm is a normal background level in homes. I find it hard to believe that toxic levels of CO can be considered a normal background level, especially given that the latter article quotes a figure of 200ppm for Mexico City (although problems related to pollution are known to be extremely bad in Mexico City, so it's quite likely that the levels there are somewhat dangerous and are possibly a health hazard.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiealtphreak (talk • contribs) 21:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal

I've stumbled upon the article sub-surface mining and thought it could be incorporated into the section on underground mining, as the topic is the same. Opinions, please! Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 08:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: this is my first merge proposal, so if I had done something wrong, please tell me. Naturally, the merge should be followed by an appropriate redirect. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Almost two weeks, nothing. I will wait a few more days before performing the merge. --Ouro (blah blah) 09:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Further to that not all coal mining is underground (I don't beleive there are very many if any any operating undergound coal mines in Canada anymore, but there are still quite a few open pit coal mins in British Columbia and Saskatchewan. Even the first two pictures on the coal mining article are of surface operations.--Kelapstick 12:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I will try to get around to appropriate action as soon as I can, I am a little busy in meatspace right now. Thank you all for your input! Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 11:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Its been a while so I've removed the tag in the article Sansumaria (talk) 12:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is "Coal mining region" a misspelling?

Ladies and gentlemen, I've just created the Category:Coal mining regions (for an evident reason), but probably misspelled the name :(. Should it ultimately be "coal-mining region" in literate English (as in the respective article's name), or both versions qualify? If I'm mistaken, I would also ask the community to start cat renaming/recat procedure immediately, before my cat becomes populated.

Sorry for asking stupid questions, but I've just returned from a lenghty Wikibreak, feeling like a newcomer. Thanks, Ukrained (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Globalise tag

This article now seems reasonably balanced, to me, of a worldwide view. Is anyone unhappy if I remove the tag? Sansumaria (talk) 11:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Courtney Richmond!!!

she is alsome —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.216.83.191 (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)