Talk:Coal mining/Archive 1

Comment
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)

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)

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 . The article currently says "the past 30 years"; how precise do we want? Doubleplusjeff 03:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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. &#39;Card 22:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

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.

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)

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. &#39;Card 04:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)


 * Oppose. Although coal mining has the biggest share of sub-surface mining activites, there are also oil shale, uranium etc sub-surface mining, so it can't to be merged into coal mining. To improve the articles and to avoid duplication, I propose to move the text concerning underground mining methods from the Coal mining into Sub-surface mining.Beagel 09:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I agree with Beagel. If sub-surface mining was only for coal mining, then the merge would make sense. I think the underground mining section should be removed except for a stub-like "teaser" and leave a link to the Sub-surface mining article. --Mukk 17:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Because Subsurface mining also deals with mining for other than coal, I would keep it as a separate article.  However, I believe that it should be renamed Underground mining (soft rock) as a counterpart to the article Underground mining (hard rock).Plazak 22:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree woth Plazak, when I moved Underground mining (hard rock) from Hard rock mining the intention was to create a Underground mining (soft rock) article to cover coal, salt and similar mining methods, but I never got around to it. --Kelapstick 03:14, 12 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)

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:, 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)

Correction needed for Callide Mine
The Callide mine appears twice in the mining table. In addition the Blair Athol mine has been closed on 23.Nov.2013. I would suggest to correct the table. Not done: 128.135.196.94 (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It's economy, stupid! (c)
The article in its current state gives no fecal matter at all for the really important things like the "global coal market", Rotterdam coal exchange, China-driven global shift in coal mining, Australian exports and so on. A sorry picture indeed( Ukrained2012 (talk) 11:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Newer Energy Statistics Available
Some of the production numbers here are getting old, especially in the mining by country section. The 2012 IEA report is available here: http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/kwes.pdf

but I don't know how to edit new sources in. Especially important is China, which in 2007 produced a little over 40% of the world coal but today produces about half. The old reference should be replaced.

24.59.185.62 (talk) 06:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)Anon 5/18/13

Turkey Mine Collapse
Hey everyone, I think there needs to be a comment mentioning the mine collapse in Turkey that happened in May under the "danger to miners" section, especially because it was so recent, showing there are still real dangers to any miners. Let me know what you all think. ModestOhaio (talk) 19:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Image to add to this article
Hello. My name is Robert and I'm here as an official representative of Peabody Energy. I have been hired by Peabody to upload and add images owned by the company to articles related to coal mining. Last week I uploaded a few images to Wikimedia commons and have sent an email granting permission for these images to be used on the site. I wanted to ask about adding one of those images to this article. I have uploaded two images of miners using a laser scanner to conduct a profile of a minesite. I think either one of these images would be a good fit for the "Modern mining" section of this article because it discusses how modern technology and equipment have changed the way miners work. I would suggest "Coal miners conduct laser profiling of a minesite using the Maptek Isite laser scanner" as a caption for the image but I'm open to other suggestions as well. Is someone here able to add this image into the article for me? Thank you for reviewing this request. Robert PEnergy (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Coal Miner Laser Profiling.png
 * File:Coal_Miners.png
 * we're very glad to have the images. HOWEVER Wikipedia can accept them ONLY if they come with a CC by SA3 license (see Creative Commons license that explains this) from their owner (Peabody I assume). That essentially means that ANYONE can use the images without permission if they cite the source. Rjensen (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Rjensen. Thanks for getting back to me. I just checked both images and it looks like OTRS has received the permissions email from Peabody and the images are approved for use on the site. Peabody is aware that anyone is able to use these images now that they are licensed as ccby3.0.
 * Would you be able to add one of these images to the "Modern mining" section? Robert PEnergy (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Robert--good to see the permissions are all there! We use photos to tell a story and in this case we need a detailed caption and a reliable secondary source to explain what's going on. (and it needs date and what mine is involved) Rjensen (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I processed permission requests for two sets of images, one set earlier to day and everything looked in order. I'm very happy to see that Peabody is respecting our desire for neutrality. -- S Philbrick (Talk)  00:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Closing request: please proceed and add one or the other of the images. – S. Rich (talk) 06:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, S. Rich. Other work drew me away for a while, but I very much appreciate all the responses here. I have now added the top image into the article with what I hope is a helpful and appropriate caption. Robert PEnergy (talk) 15:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Coal mining. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091202053007/http://www.dme.gov.za:80/energy/coal.stm to http://www.dme.gov.za/energy/coal.stm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Who in the USA uses the word Colliery?
The following statement: "In the United States, United Kingdom, and South Africa, a coal mine and its structures are a colliery." - I have never heard of a coal mine in the USA referred to as a colliery (Southern Appalachian Mountain region). Colliery appears to be British in origin. If it an underground mine the access portal area and structures are a "Mine Yard" or its a support facility its either "loadout" "tipple" or "processing plant", if its a surface mine its ____ type of surface mining. Based upon MSHA, it appears that the word was used in the high days of Anthracite mining (http://arlweb.msha.gov/century/colliery/colliery.asp) so maybe its still used in the northern Appalachians? What about the western USA and Canada? Edwiki2005 (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I have never heard colliery applied to a coal mine in the US. Certainly in the western US, they are referred to as coal mines. I can't say about Canada.  Plazak (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * it was the usual term 100 years ago. the professional magazine in USA was Colliery Engineer  Rjensen (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Based upon the above statements and the definition in the Wiki article for colliery, I believe the following may be true.Edwiki2005 (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC) 1) Colliery was a word once used to describe an underground coal mine operation in the Appalachian Mountains in the late 1800s and probably up to the early 1950s when anthracite mining was common. 2) This word is no longer used in the USA. 3) I suspect it went out of use because a colliery, from the definition in the article, indicates that the mining, transport, and cleaning operation are all at the mine site and the coal is produced from a single underground mine. Today, there are few coal mines that operate in this manner (at least in the Appalachians). Usually there are multiple mines feeding one wash plant, with one or more loadouts associated. Therefore, by conjecture, since self contained collieries have become rare (and in some areas non-existent), the word stopped in use in the U.S.A. and has mostly been forgotten.

I will tweak the intro article accordingly, and leave this talk up (temporarily), for any future information and input that may change the conclusion that colliery is no longer used in the USA.Edwiki2005 (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * the word is obsolete in US & used in Britain & Australia. I doubt there is support for hypothesis #3. "Anthracite, or “hard" coal, was mined and processed at complexes called “collieries,” which consisted of all the various components needed." http://books.google.com/books?id=jrdPAQAAMAAJ term was used in 1940s = https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=colliery+coal+pennsylvania&tbs=,cdr:1,cd_min:Jan+1_2+1940,cd_max:Dec+31_2+1960&num=10 Rjensen (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 one external links on Coal mining. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070419170121/http://midlomines.org:80/history.html to http://www.midlomines.org/history.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.clb.org.hk/public/contents/news?revision_id=19324&item_id=19316
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707074336/http://www.abareconomics.com/publications_html/ams/ams_09/ams_sept09.pdf to http://www.abareconomics.com/publications_html/ams/ams_09/ams_sept09.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090206104056/http://www.bp.com:80/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_publications/statistical_energy_review_2007/STAGING/local_assets/downloads/spreadsheets/statistical_review_full_report_workbook_2007.xls to http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_publications/statistical_energy_review_2007/STAGING/local_assets/downloads/spreadsheets/statistical_review_full_report_workbook_2007.xls
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081013144159/http://www.coal.gov.uk:80/resources/cleanercoaltechnologies/CoalMineandbedmethane.cfm to http://www.coal.gov.uk/resources/cleanercoaltechnologies/CoalMineandbedmethane.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140516231051/http://abandonedmines.org/ to http://www.abandonedmines.org

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)