Talk:Coal mining

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)

Dangers to miners

May I point out that comparing numbers of fatalities between countries during a year (or any period) does not imply anything about differences in safety conditions because the countries don't necessarily produce the same amount of coal or have the same number of people working in the coal mining industry. To draw inferences about safety conditions, a different statistic (such as fatalities per million tons of coal production or fatalities per million coal mining workers) would be needed. 196.41.124.8 (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That is a good point, do you know where there are any of those available. They would be quite helpful.--Kelapstick (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree - someone do it! Sansumaria (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I fixed a claim that was not supported by the cited article. The citation claims approximately 30 deaths/year due to mining accidents and claimed that 0.02% of miners die annually, vs. 0.016% of drivers (for which no source is given). First, the math is wrong. This article itself gives a figure of 104,824 coal miners in the USA, and 30/104824 is 0.0286%, so it's been rounded weirdly compared to the other figure: it should compare 0.016% to 0.029%. Second, it's misleading, because it neglects non-accident risks, like black lung. As such, I changed it claim approximately 30 accident deaths/year, which is what the cited article says. 72.1.186.174 (talk) 08:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Archiving

Hi, is there a concern that this page is too long? I'm happy to help archive it. --Elonka 00:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Old, old old. So yesterday... Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Done.  :) --Elonka 02:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Production figures

Updated figures with new reference. Old reference, World Coal Institute understated production in some countries such as U.S., where WCI figures were 200 million tons less than official U.S. production figures. This is a significant difference. Other WCI data needs verification with other sources, but haven't gotten there yet. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 12:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

United States

Removed data on production by state because it is dated and duplicated exactly in article Coal in the United States. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 12:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Impoundment

Removed section because it was a one-line promo for a nonprofit org in West Virginia, not appropriate for a global article, and not a significant issue in coal mining. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 13:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

historical coal mining technology

Can anyone suggest an appropriate location or article structure for historical coal mining technology? I'm thinking of tipple, breakers, etc.

There is this: Tipple, which in my view is not at all satisfactory.

And there was this: [1], which has since been removed. Perhaps a Historical coal mining technology article could be created, but this information might be more appropriate in a subsection of another article. Just looking for suggestions here... Richard Myers (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The definition in breakers didn't belong because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, having said I would suggest that you create articles such as Coal tipple and Breakers (coal mining), keeping in mind citing sources (if available, I know finding sources for mining articles is difficult), as even if you add the content to an existing article without sources it is likely to be deleted. Personally I know nothing about either subject (or coal mining in general).--kelapstick (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

16 Ton

My grandfather used a term and I would like it included in the coal minning article under history. The term was not understood by anyone at his death but I happened to be flying with an old coal minner from Kentucky and he told me its meaning. I can't find a citation anywhere in literature or on the web but believe it to be worthy of your system.

In the early days of minning miners in shafts were expected to cut 16 ton of coal a day. The miners worked in teams of 5. When the miners were working very hard they could cut 100 ton of coal. When an old miner is asked "How are you doing" a response of "Cutting a hundred" meaning they were doing great.

Please find a way of including this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.156.54.26 (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, unless that information can be referenced, it would fail the policies on reliable sources and verifiability. If you can provide a published source the information can possibly be included. The Seeker 4 Talk 19:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea, as stated by Theseeker4 though, would would need to have a "reliable source". :) Good idea!

Sniper120 (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Methods of Extraction, fix?

Noticed "Coals occurring below 300 feet (91 m) are usually deep mined.", I think it should be "Coal occurring below 300 feet (91 m) is usually deep mined.". I think it would sound better. Sniper120 (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Coal seams

I was redirected to this article via 'Coal seams'. I think there should be another article on coal seams though, for example what are they and how are they formed? 81.143.36.29 (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Mt/yr

In the article, it is mentioned that 7036 Mt of coal is mined per year. Could someone clarify this for me: does this mean metric tons, or the uncommon measurement of megatons? 75.109.4.239 (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I would assume Mt means millions of (metric) tons, or Megatonnes. An American would probably try to describe this as trillions of pounds.

But the units problems in this article are more serious than this. The annual production in Australia is stated as 428 Mt and then stated later as 428 short tons ( US 2000 pound tons ), which is a rather substantial discrepancy.Eregli bob (talk) 06:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Info about child labour

http://www.awesomestories.com/history/child-labor/in-the-mines Stars4change (talk) 00:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Same image appears twice

Hi everyone. I've never contributed to a talk page before. Up to now, my edits have been largely confined to fixing typographical errors. However, I noticed in "Coal Mining" that the same image of the Cerrejón mine in Colombia appears twice in this article. I would think that one of the images should be removed in favor of another one (or none at all).
As a side question to all you talkers, is this the kind of post that editors leave on the talk pages? I'm just learning how to edit Wikipedia, and I want to make sure I'm following protocol.
Cheers!
Venice85 (talk) 03:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Venice85. I looked at the article, and didn't notice the same image twice. There are two somewhat different images of the Cerrejón mine in Colombia. Because coal mining is a worldwide industry, i think replacing one of the images with a different photo from another part of the world would be a very reasonable endeavor.

As a general practice, editors leave a fairly wide variety of comments on talk pages. Any comment offered with the intent of improving an article is certainly welcome. best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 08:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)