Talk:Anthracite

Geology Mid‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Anthracite is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mining High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mining, a collaborative project to organize and improve articles related to mining and mineral industries. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, or visit the project page, where you can see a list of open tasks, join in the discussion, or join the project.MiningWikipedia:WikiProject MiningTemplate:WikiProject MiningMining articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Energy Low‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 11, 2007 and February 11, 2008.

Untitled

Have removed the following segment by Virtualsunil as it blatant book plug and has little relevance with respect to this article. Khukri 09:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virtualsunil I reverted you twice now please, stop this article is about anthracite in general not about indian coal or what specifically happened in 2005. Please create a new article where it can be reviewed for it relevance. Please stop just adding it to this article. Khukri 09:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:3RR

Anthracite Coal Reserves

Is there any information about existing reserves of anthracite coal, today? Based on the means of mining anthracite coal in Pennsylvania (i.e. from mine slag heaps) it might be inferred that there is little coal left in Pennsylvania. Can this be substantiated? L Hamm 16:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other places ?

This article would give the impression that Anthracite is only mined in the US, whereas in 2003 3.1 million short tons were extracted in the UK (http://www.cslforum.org/uk.htm) which is actually more than the US. It might be better to split some of the stuff off to say Pennsylvania Coal Fields and just indicate the reserves and extraction rates from the various sources here.

In Response to the above 2 inquiries

State records indicate that 2.3 million tons were mined in 2004, this excludes refuse reclamation.

(http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/bmr/annualreport/2004/table07.htm)

Linking page here:

(http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/bmr/annualreport/2004/Anthracite.htm)

One thing to note about refuse reclamation is that it is used almost exclusively in power plants, fresh mined anthracite is used almost exclusively for heating in homes and commercial buildings. If the current state of fuel prices continue you can pretty much bet your last dollar that fresh mined anthracite production will increase, the industry has pretty much been dormant for the last few decades and there was a large surplus the last few years. This is simply not the case now.

Due to the historical impact that Pennsylvania anthracite has had on the US industrial revolution I think that information should stay. One of the reasons so much information is avaialble for Pennsylvania anthracite is because production was so prevalent at the turn of the century, do a search for anthracite and you'll come up with nothing but links for Pennsylvania information.

Economic value

This section deals solely with the US: the header should be adjusted accordingly. I don't have the knowledge to add info from other parts of the world, sadly. 86.138.104.116 11:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthracite purest coal?

I thought that graphite is purer, although not commonly used to burn, it is still the purest amongst the coals. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Exodii (talk • contribs) 08:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Anthracite's the purest combustible coal.

COAL IS NOT A MINERAL

Coal is not mineral. It is organic, or was, and therefore does not fit the defintion of a mineral. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.64.188.31 (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Clarification Request

Can someone clarify in the article what is meant by the sentence here: "During the American Civil War, Confederate blockade runners used anthracite to avoid giving away their position to the blockaders."
- Is it just that the anthracite coal since it is clean buring and doesn't make much soot would make the blockader running ships less conspicuous?

title

This does seem to be only about the USA. could the title be changed to reflect this? Petethewhistle (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, but you could add more info to give it a better worldwide view, if it seems too biased right now. 71.207.12.70 (talk) 04:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

production vs extraction?

"Current anthracite production averages around 5 million tons per year."

Is that production of anthracite (a natural process) is around 5 million tons per year, or the mining of anthracite averages around 5 million tons per year?

Welshie (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is supposed to be mine production but that figure is quite wrong anyway - it is not sourced and seems to be someone's guesswork so should be removed. China alone produces about 260 million tonnes of anthracite on top of about 2050 million tonnes of other coals--Mountwolseley (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mercury content

Is there mercury in anthracite? Badagnani (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some parts are written strangely

Underground fires "Vents in uninhabited areas remain undiscovered." Really? How would you know? Maybe someone found one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fogus (talk • contribs) 07:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anthracite coal briquettes

Dear Sir or Madam, where where used anthracite coal briquettes? What tipe of binding substance where usualyy used in the producing of anthracite coal briquettes?

Oleg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.90.4.48 (talk) 12:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metric vs Imperial

Short ton, long ton, hundred weights... can USA please get with it and stop being so damn retarded. Metric only please. (like the rest of the damn world). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.80.179 (talk) 23:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merging High grade anthracite into this page (Anthracite)

I propose merging the High grade anthracite article with the Anthracite article based on WP:DICTIONARY. The information contained in the high grade article could be easily covered in the anthracite article. --Tobias1984 (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. No need at present, nor in the foreseeable future, for this content forking. --Bejnar (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Beagel (talk) 09:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not opposed in principle - it's a growing industry but still niche. So where to put it? Will start a separate discussion about other things that could be usefully done to this page.Pmorley1 (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some problems with this page

The anthracite page currently does not really reflect the state of the global market, nor its uses. I've added a couple of paragraphs here and there, but in my opinion the page would benefit from some reworking. It still rather gives the impression that the industry is US-centric and largely extinct, neither of which is the case. While the historical US anecdotes are very interesting, could they perhaps be moved elsewhere?

Another problem is that there is a shortage of suitable sources. I have access to a couple of industry reports from consulting firms, but they are not available on the Internet and as some information is commercially sensitive it would not be appropriate to upload them. I can summarise some of the contents, but then how to go about referencing it?

I've created a draft page in my userspace - would invite further comments and suggestions.

Apologies for any rules/protocol I may have infringed here due to being new and unaware, and thanks in advance for any assistance.

Pmorley1 (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Couple corrections

The "Coal House" in Lewisburg, one of a few coal buildings in West Virginia, USA, and depicted in this article is made from high rank bituminous coal, not anthracite. I have removed it as it is not relevant to the article.

The sedimentary rocks of the folded and thrust-faulted Appalachian Ridge-and-Valley province of the eastern USA, are in no way regarded as metamorphic rocks as they exhibit no mineralogical transformations. Calling anthracite a metamorphic rock is dubious, as both bituminous and anthracite coal are just hydrocarbons (like petroleum) with much of their hydrogen removed by pyrolysis-like reactions and so are not minerals at all. It have to be altered to graphite (which is a mineral) to be considered metamorphic. PJD 108.17.71.242 (talk) 05:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anthracite formation sits midway through the anchizone according to this book on low-grade metamorphism. The main mineralogical transformation associated with the very low grade metamorphism in the Appalachians is an increase in illite crystallinity, which correlates with coal rank and vitrinite reflectance (see this paper by Bayan et al). Mikenorton (talk) 11:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Anthracite. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Superlatives?

At the time of writing, the article says: "It has the highest carbon content, the fewest impurities, and the highest calorific content of all types of coal except for graphite."

According to this, then it is not. Graphite is. This line should not be here. Comments from mineralogy experts? -- Alexf^(talk) 13:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anthracite. 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/20090326053910/http://www.faculty.uaf.edu/ffrg/min454/Handout2_UMM.doc to http://www.faculty.uaf.edu/ffrg/min454/Handout2_UMM.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anthracite. 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/20090207182227/http://www.uksmokecontrolareas.co.uk/index.php to http://www.uksmokecontrolareas.co.uk/index.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]