Talk:Coal-seam fire

WETMAN

Could the image be made a little darker? --Wetman 22:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• See your discussion page, anyway I made it smaller for ya'll.
• Have fun! Have to run!
• Cheers
• Scotty

Southern Ohio mine fire

During a labor dispute over wages in 1884, striking miners sabotaged a mine at New Straitsville, Ohio by using oil-soaked timbers as an accelerant. The coal seam was fourteen feet (5m) across and extended an undetermined distance into the earth. After several days the fire had become evident but by then it was too late to stop it from spreading. Later on, the water temperature in wells in the area was rising. Eventually the water was hot enough to make instant coffee and tea. By 2002, smoke started issuing from the ground in Wayne National Forest. It is estimated that by 2005, more than two hundred square miles (484 sq km) of coal has burned. -Ohio Historical Society. Musicwriter 01:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Merge with coal fire?

No need to merge mine fire with coal fire. Mine fire implies it's a fire in a mine, whereas many coal seam fires aren't associated with mines, and start naturally. Mine fires also include other types of fire, including mechanical accidents, etc. I don't see them as being entirely congrunent; however, coal seam fires are a type of mine fire, so I don't see any problem with duplicating the info. Bytes are cheap, after all. Rolinator 09:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I am adding a cross-reference, which ought to be sufficient. Peterkingiron 23:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

You also get coal fires in power station coal stockpiles, completely different to mine fires, so I suggest we keep them separate.--Graham Proud 22:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think someone merged them. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is another consideration: The German "Coal Fires" article is interesting in this respect. The contents are:

COAL MINE FIRES
Spontaneous
Artificially ignited
Coal fires worldwide (with subcategories India, USA, Germany, Rest of Europe, Africa, China, Other)
Avoidance
Identification
Extinguishing
Monitoring
FIRES IN COAL DEPOTS
FIRES AND COAL TRANSPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
PEAT FIRES

I would like to get some of this wealth of information into the English site and will begin with translating and incorporating here the "coal mine fires" subsection of the German article (which is, by the way, a featured article), but we may want to think about how to cover the other aspects as well. The English "Coal" article has a subheading on "underground fires." How should this all be ideally structured? Put a subsection on the "coal" site about "Fires," listing all the possibilities, with a link to this "coal seam fire" page? Opinions?
--Remotelysensed (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

--Remotelysensed (talk) 16:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Reference

Journal of Geophysics and Engineering, vol 3, p 212-Stone 07:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

How much coal is actually burning in China?

There are two different estimates in the article for Chinese Coal Burning.

Section: Environmental impact lists it as 20 – 200 million tons of coal a year

Section: China lists it at 10 to 20 million tons.

Source (3), "Fire in the Hole" lists it as 20 to 200 million tons.

Source (4), "How China's scramble for 'black gold' is causing a green disaster" lists it at 10 to 200 million tons.

A good "global" estimate would be nice too. Other more accurate estimates?--Keelec (talk) 12:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I went ahead and updated the China section to the #4 Reference 10-200 Million, and updated the reference.--Keelec (talk) 12:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Uninhabitable

How much land area is not safely inhabitable because of underground coal fires (upwelling pollutants, risk of collapsing sinkholes)? For how long? How many people and towns has this affected? Cesiumfrog (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

"List of mine fires" is wrong title

The section under "List of mine fires" is not merely mine fires notably the Burning Mountain and Smoking Hills were never mines. In fact the Smoking Hills aren't even a coal deposit! These do bear a similarity to mine fires and coal seam fires, but the title is plain wrong. 173.228.89.150 (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Correction, the Smoking Hills are a deposit of Lignite and oil shale. Lignite is brown coal. It may be low grade but it is still coal. However you are correct in that it has never been mined. Mediatech492 (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Canadian fires??

Merritt and Carmacks articles make no mention of fires at all. The first BC entry says nothing either, but its footnote briefly notes a coal seam fire 40 km north of town. StarryEye (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Broken link

the reference #25 to the South African coal fires is now a dead link.

I think this may be a suitable replacement link: http://limpitlawconsulting.com/05Limpitlaw%20et%20al%202005%20Post%20Mining%20Rehabilitation%20Land%20Use%20and%20Pollution%20at%20Collieries.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.57.120.141 (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coal seam fire. 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/20081016041053/http://www.otago.ac.nz/geology/research/environmental_geology/restoration/wangaloa/wangaloa.html to http://www.otago.ac.nz/geology/research/environmental_geology/restoration/wangaloa/wangaloa.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 03:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coal seam fire. 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/20100721032957/http://www.tourismelkford.ca/Burning%20Coal%20Seam.html to http://www.tourismelkford.ca/Burning%20Coal%20Seam.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 05:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Non sequitur?

The section "Microbes and drug discovery" seems out of place. There are all sorts of "thermal vents", and I see nothing in this section specifically referring to coal seam fires or the vents which might (?) be associated with them. If such a connection was intended, it needs to be more clearly tied to the rest of the article. If there is no connection, then this section should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.176.249 (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Going to ref #20, it looks like the introduction to that paper provides background to establish the connection, but I lack the scientific expertise to interpret it and rewrite it correctly. I agree with you that, as it stands, it doesn't make sense in the context of the article. Schazjmd (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Another cause.

Last time I was at Burning Mountain, there was an informative sign there. One of the things on it was the suggestion that the fire had been started by an earthquake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:E448:D401:4858:548F:3D90:614A (talk) 08:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)