This article was downloaded by: [University of California, San Diego]

On: 14 January 2015, At: 15:24

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Minerals & Energy - Raw Materials Report

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/smin20

An Analysis of the Coal Mining Industry in the United

States
a a
Vladislav Kecojevic & R. Larry Grayson
a
Department of Energy and Mineral Engineering , The Pennsylvania State University ,
USA
Published online: 23 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: Vladislav Kecojevic & R. Larry Grayson (2008) An Analysis of the Coal Mining Industry in the United
States, Minerals & Energy - Raw Materials Report, 23:2, 74-83, DOI: 10.1080/14041040802181790

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14041040802181790

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of
the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied
upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall
not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other
liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 2008; 2:74–83

An Analysis of the Coal Mining

Industry in the United States
by VLADISLAV KECOJEVIC and R. LARRY GRAYSON
Department of Energy and Mineral Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University, USA

Abstract
The coal mining industry is a vital
economic sector for many countries
including the United States (US). Coal
is the primary fuel for electricity gen-
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 15:24 14 January 2015
1978 to nearly 1.1 billion tonnes in discusses the issues challenging the
2006. This paper provides an overview coal industry regarding its future,
of coal reserves in the US and an including accurate estimation of
analysis of the coal industry’s historical reserves, regulatory limitation on car-

eration in the US and it is the cheapest data with respect to the number of bon dioxide emissions, mine workers’
and most abundant source of energy. mines, total production, productivity, safety, mine productivity, and resource
The production of coal increased sig- the number of employees, and safety optimization, as well as current efforts
nificantly from 573 million tonnes in and environmental records. It then to address them.

INTRODUCTION eighteen, seventeen and twelve per cent, respec-

According to the US Energy Information
Administration (EIA 2007a), coal was used to
generate 51.1 and 50.4 per cent of electricity in
2005 and 2006, respectively. The total coal-based
power generation was 1,992 and 1,969 billion
kWh in 2005 and 2006, respectively.
In 2006, almost ninety-two per cent of the coal
produced in the US was used in power-generating
plants, while the remaining quantities were used
for coke plants and various industrial, residential
and commercial sectors (US EIA 2007a). Data
published by the National Mining Association
(NMA 2007a) indicate that some states in the
union rely almost entirely on coal to produce
electricity. For instance, ninety-eight per cent of
total electricity generation in West Virginia came
from coal in 2006, while the average retail price
was five cents per kWh. In North Dakota, ninety-
four per cent of electricity was generated from
coal, and the average retail price of electricity was
six cents per kWh. Wyoming and Kentucky
generated ninety-five and ninety-two per cent of
electricity from coal, respectively, with average
retail prices of 5.3 and 5.5 cents per kWh,
respectively. In contrast, states with low coal-
based power generation pay substantially higher
prices. For example, New Jersey, New Hampshire
and Connecticut consume coal-based electricity at
tively, and have average retail prices of 11.9, 13.9
and 14.7 cents per kWh, respectively. The relation-
ship between lower average retail prices of
electricity and higher consumption of coal for
electricity generation correlate very highly, e.g. at
20.79 in 2006. The correlation excludes the three
strictly hydroelectric states (Washington, Oregon
and Idaho).
US coal production has contributed signifi-
cantly to the collective well-being of people by
making electricity available to society at large and
allowing the nation to maintain its high standard
of living. It is expected that population growth will
increase demand for electricity, suggesting that
coal will continue to play a vital role in the US
economy. However, future growth of coal produc-
tion and usage will likely be linked to the
development of a national policy on carbon
dioxide (CO2) emissions. To better understand
the future implications on the industry, coal
reserves will be described and the historical trends
will be examined with respect to the number of
mines, coal production and financial data, pro-
ductivity, the number of employees, and safety
and environmental records. These descriptions
will lead to an understanding of the important
issues facing the coal industry in the future:
environmental impact, determination of recover-
able coal reserves, future mining conditions and

74 2008 Taylor & Francis ISSN 1404–1049

DOI 10.1080/14041040802181790 MINERALS & ENERGY VOL 23 NO 2 2008

demographics. Further, they will demonstrate how
a mature industry can respond to the pressures
and challenges of modern times in order to satisfy
a nation’s pressing energy needs.
COAL RESERVES
The US is endowed with the largest coal reserves in
the world (US EIA 2007b). Coal accounts for
nearly ninety-five per cent of the nation’s fossil
energy reserves and is larger than either world
petroleum or natural gas reserves, when measured
in terms of oil equivalency. A study by the US
Geological Survey (USGS) suggests that there are
almost 3.6 trillion tonnes of coal resources in the
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 15:24 14 January 2015
US (Averitt 1975). However, most of these
resources would be very difficult to extract with
current mining methods and technology, and the
US Energy Information Administration estimates
Figure 1. Coal Regions in the United States. Source: US EIA (1999).
Coal Mining Industry in the United States
that recoverable reserves are about 243 billion
tonnes (EIA 2007b). The US government controls
80.7 billion tonnes, i.e. one-third of the nation’s
coal reserves (Coleman 2007). The second largest
holder is Great Northern Properties Limited
Partnership with 18.1 billion tonnes, followed
by Peabody Energy with 8.5 billion tonnes,
Consol Energy, Inc., with 3.9 billion tonnes and
Arch Coal, Inc. with 2.6 billion tonnes. The study
completed by the EIA (2007b) also indicates that
large reserves of the world’s coal (in billion
tonnes) can be found in Russia (156.9), China
(114.3), India (92.5), Australia (78.9), South
Africa (48.9), Ukraine (34.4), Kazakhstan (30.8),
Serbia (16.3), Poland (13.6), Brazil (9.9) and
Germany (6.3).
There are four types of coal in the US including
anthracite, bituminous, sub-bituminous and lig-
nite (Figure 1). The heating value for anthracite
MINERALS & ENERGY VOL 23 NO 2 2008 75
 V. Kecojevic and R.L. Grayson
coal can reach 35 MJ/kg. Bituminous and sub-
bituminous coals have heating values ranging
from 24 to 34 MJ/kg and 18.6 to 30 MJ/kg,
respectively. Lignite contains the lowest heating
values, which ranges between 9.3 and 18 MJ/kg.
COAL MINING INDUSTRY – PRODUCTION,
WORKFORCE, SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL
RECORDS
Historical data on coal production in the US is
collected by the US Department of Labor’s Mine
Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) and the
US EIA.
Surface and underground mining are the
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 15:24 14 January 2015
primary methods of coal production. In 1978,
there were 3,293 surface and 2,692 underground
coal mines. By 2006, these numbers dropped to
1,002 surface and 654 underground coal mines
(US MSHA 2008). Figure 2 shows historical data
on the number of coal mines in the US.
Underground coal production has grown from
208 million tonnes in 1978 to 326 million tonnes
in 2006. Over the same time, surface coal produc-
tion has increased from 365 million tonnes to
730 million tonnes in 2006 (US MSHA 2008).
Figure 3 shows historical data on coal production in
the US. Surface mine production, mostly carried out
in the western part of the US, has doubled over the
Figure 2. Number of Coal Mines in the US.
76 MINERALS & ENERGY VOL 23 NO 2 2008
last three decades. Economies of scale derived from
larger mines, coupled with larger and/or more
flexible equipment, largely account for this increase,
particularly in the Powder River Basin in Wyoming.
At the same time, underground coal production,
mostly located in the eastern and middle parts of
the country, has increased almost 120 million
tonnes, largely due to technological improvements,
such as the introduction of longwall mining as well
as larger, more powerful and more reliable equip-
ment.
Total coal production in 2006 was 1,056 billion
tonnes. The leading five coal-producing states were,
in decreasing size, Wyoming, West Virginia,
Kentucky, Pennsylvania and Texas (US EIA
2007a). These five states produced more than
seventy per cent of total production in the US,
while Wyoming alone accounts for almost forty per
cent of total production. The five leading consump-
tion states include, in decreasing size, Texas,
Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Illinois.
Anthracite coal is extracted by surface and
underground mining in Pennsylvania and it
accounted for only 0.1 per cent of total US
production in 2006 (US EIA 2007a). Bituminous
coal is also mined by surface and underground
mining in the eastern and central US, and this type
of coal accounted for 48.3 per cent of total

Figure 3. Coal Production in the US.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 15:24 14 January 2015
production. Almost all quantities of sub-bitumi-
nous coal are extracted by surface mining in the
western part of the US. This type of coal accounted
for 44.3 per cent of total production. Lignite coal is
mined in the north and south parts of the US and it
accounted for 7.3 per cent of total production.
Data compiled by the US EIA (2007a) show that
the largest coal producer in 2006 was Peabody
Energy. The company produced 188.6 million
tonnes or 17.9 per cent of total US coal produc-
tion. Peabody Energy is the world’s largest private-
sector coal company. According to its 2006 public
report (Peabody Energy 2007), the company’s
world coal production was 204 million tonnes,
fuelling almost ten per cent of US and more than
two per cent of the world’s electricity. Peabody
Energy’s total revenue was $US5.3 billion. The
second largest coal producer was Rio Tinto Energy
America (121.9 million tonnes or 11.6 per cent of
total US production). The company reported
$US1.428 billion in revenues in 2006 (Rio Tinto
Energy America 2007). Arch Coal, Inc. produced
117.4 million tonnes or 11.1 per cent of total
US production. According to the Wik Invest
(2008), the company’s revenue in 2006 was
$US2.53 billion. Foundation Coal Corporation
accounted for 62.8 million tonnes or six per cent
of total US production and $US1.47 billion in
revenues (Foundation Coal 2007). Consol Energy
Coal Mining Industry in the United States
produced 57.36 million tonnes of coal or 5.4 per
cent of total US production. Official company data
indicate a total of $US2.4 billion in revenues
(Consol Energy 2007). These five companies
produced almost fifty-two per cent of total US
production in 2006.
Analysing the data on coal production provided
by the US EIA (2007a), it is noted that the largest
producing surface mine was Arch Coal’s Black
Thunder Mine. This mine produced 84 million
tonnes in 2006. The second largest producing
mine was Peabody Energy’s North Antelope/
Rochelle Mine, with 80.3 million tonnes. Rio
Tinto Energy America’s mines include the Jacobs
Ranch Mine, the Cordero Rojo Mine and the
Antelope Mine, which produced 36.3, 36.0 and
30.7 million tonnes, respectively. All these surface
mines are located in the Powder River Basin coal
region in Wyoming. The top five underground
mines in terms of production were Consol’s Enlow
Fork Mine in Pennsylvania (9.7 million tonnes),
Consol’s McElroy Mine in West Virginia (9.5 mil-
lion tonnes), Consol’s Bailey Mine in
Pennsylvania (9.2 million tonnes), Peabody’s
Foidel Creek Mine in Colorado (7.8 million
tonnes) and Arch Coal’s Sufco Mine in Utah
(7.1 million tonnes).
Almost the entire amount of coal produced was
consumed in the US. Coal imports and exports
MINERALS & ENERGY VOL 23 NO 2 2008 77
 V. Kecojevic and R.L. Grayson
represented small portions of total US coal
production and use. According to the US EIA
(2007a), the US exported 45 million tonnes of
coal, while 32.8 million tonnes were imported in
2006. The average open market (sold on the open
market to other coal companies or consumers)
mine price was $US22.82 per tonne. The average
open market sales price of anthracite coal was
$US39.55 per tonne, followed by $US35.66 for
bituminous, $US12.62 for lignite and $US9.02 for
sub-bituminous coal. The average open market
sales price of coal from underground and surface
mining was $US34.72 and $US17.12 per tonne,
respectively.
Historical data show that the headcount in the
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 15:24 14 January 2015
coal industry significantly decreased over the last
twenty-eight years, until recently. In 1978, there
were 255,588 employees engaged in coal produc-
tion, preparation, processing, development, main-
tenance, repair shop, or yard work, including
office workers and contractors. By 2006, this
number dropped to 122,975 (US MSHA 2008),
although it was up about five per cent over 2005.
Figure 4 shows historical data on the number of
employees in coal mining.
According to US MSHA (2008) data, the entire
coal mining industry recorded a total of 402 mil-
lion working hours in 1978. By 2006, this number
dropped to 235 million hours. In 1978, mining
Figure 4. Number of Employees in Coal Mines in the US.
78 MINERALS & ENERGY VOL 23 NO 2 2008
productivity was 1.4 tonnes per employee per
hour, while in 2006 the productivity significantly
increased to 4.5 tonnes per employee per hour. In
2006, the largest surface mine, Black Thunder,
employed 990 workers and recorded 2.278 mil-
lion working hours. The productivity was 36.8
tonnes per employee per hour. In the same year,
the largest underground mine, Enlow Fork,
employed 569 workers and recorded 1.441 mil-
lion working hours. The productivity was 6.7
tonnes per employee per hour.
According to the National Mining Association
(NMA 2007b) and US Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS 2007), the median age in US coal mining is
forty-seven. Average hourly earnings in 2006 were
$US22.08, while average weekly and annual earn-
ings were $1,093 and $66,600, respectively.
The federal government introduced the Mine
Safety and Health Act in 1977 in order to reduce
deaths, injuries and illnesses in the nation’s mines.
The act is enforced by the US Department of
Labor’s MSHA. The historical record of coal
mining injuries continues to show a significant
decline, until recently, and the number of fatalities
has dropped from one hundred and fifty-three in
1981 to twenty-three in 2005, the lowest number
of coal mining fatalities ever recorded (MSHA
2008). In 2006 and 2007 coal fatalities were 47
and 33, respectively. The majority of fatalities

Figure 5. Number of Fatalities in Coal Mining in the US.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 15:24 14 January 2015
occurred in underground mines. Figure 5 shows
the total number of fatalities for coal mining that
has occurred from 1978 through 2006 (MSHA
2008). To address the elevated number of fatalities
in 2006, the US Congress passed the Mine
Improvement and New Emergency Response
(MINER) Act of 2006.
Although progress has been made – over the last
twenty-eight years the number of US coal mining
fatalities, fatality incidence rates and injuries have
decreased – the number and severity of mining
incidents and injuries remains unacceptable. The
US National Mining Association created an
independent commission in January 2006 to
examine the conditions under which new and
existing technologies and training procedures can
improve safety in underground coal mines. The
Commission released its report in December
2006 (Mine Safety Technology and Training
Commission 2006). This report calls for a new
paradigm for ensuring safety in the US under-
ground coal mines that focuses on systematic and
comprehensive risk management as the founda-
tion from which all life-safety efforts emanate.
Although the focus of the Commission was to
achieve zero fatalities and zero serious injuries in
the US underground coal mining industry, this
approach and these goals should also be applic-
able to the US mining industry as a whole.
Coal Mining Industry in the United States
The federal government also introduced the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
(SMCRA) in 1977 in order to protect citizens
and the environment from potential adverse
effects of the mining process and to ensure that
mined land is returned to beneficial use after
mining is completed. The act is enforced by the US
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement (OSM). Since the passage of
SMCRA the coal industry has reclaimed in excess
of 8,000 km2 of mined lands (US OSM 2008a).
An enormous effort has been conducted to remove
abandoned mine land hazards and scars, a vast
legacy from earlier coal mining. OSM provided
more than $US3 billion to its partners to clean up
dangerous abandoned mine sites, and the
Abandoned Mine Land Program has eliminated
safety and environmental hazards on 1,271 km2
since 1977 (US OSM 2008b).
ADDRESSING THE ISSUES CHALLENGING THE COAL
INDUSTRY
Future production and use of coal in the US will
depend largely upon potential regulations and
limits related to CO2 emissions, availability of
new technologies that will be able to capture and
sequester CO2, availability and use of renewable
resources, and whether the country will increase
MINERALS & ENERGY VOL 23 NO 2 2008 79
 V. Kecojevic and R.L. Grayson
the use of nuclear energy for electricity generation.
According to the study completed by the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2007),
the US alone produces about 1.36 billion tonnes
per year of CO2 from coal-burning power plants.
Additionally, with the rapid development of the
economies in China and India, the increase in coal
use and emission of CO2 is expected to increase.
The major challenge is to find a way to reduce and
mitigate CO2 emissions while allowing coal to
meet the world’s pressing energy needs.
Based on past performance in reducing other
emissions, the reduction of CO2 emissions appears
feasible with technology investments. The US has
made enormous progress over the last couple of
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 15:24 14 January 2015
decades in reducing many air pollutants, including
SO2, NOx and particulates from coal power plants
(Grayson and Warneke 2006). Presently the coal
industry is attempting to address this issue by
supporting FutureGen initiatives as the technology
answer to achieve capture and storage of CO2 while
tapping massive coal reserves. Some large coal
producers and users in the world and the US
Department of Energy have shared resources and
created the consortium called The FutureGen
Industrial Alliance (2007) in order to design, build
and operate the world’s first coal-fuelled, near-zero
emissions power plant. Peabody Energy is presently
in negotiations to pursue a similar project in China
(P. Hatz 2007, personal communication). In both
projects, the consortia intend to use cutting-edge
technologies to produce low-cost electricity and
hydrogen while capturing and permanently storing
CO2. Recently however, the president’s budget has
sought a restructured approach to FutureGen,
preferring instead funding for ‘cutting-edge carbon
capture and storage (CCS) technologies at multiple
commercial-scale Integrated Gasification Com-
bined Cycle (IGCC) coal power plants’ (NMA
2008). The time-line on development of an opera-
tional prototype, full-scale FutureGen plant was
forecasted for 2013 (FutureGen Alliance 2007),
while the restructured approach could lead to a
quicker implementation of both IGCC and CCS
technologies, since IGCC pilot plants have been
achieved.
IGCC plants currently cost about twenty to
twenty-five per cent more to build than conven-
tional state-of-the-art coal plants (Berlin and
Sussman 2007). Further carbon capture and
storage technology, through reduction of IGCC
plant efficiency, would add another twenty-five to
80 MINERALS & ENERGY VOL 23 NO 2 2008
forty per cent to the cost. These additional costs
thus pose an economic viability challenge to
adoption of the technology in a world without
regulatory requirements to control greenhouse gas
emissions, but they could be overcome by tax
credits and other financial incentives. It will be
instructive to follow the efforts now underway to
reduce mercury emissions from coal power plants,
which were mandated in strict 2005 regulations.
On the basis of estimated coal reserves of
243 billion tonnes, the US has two hundred and
thirty years of coal at the current production rate
of 1.056 billion tonnes per year. However, a
recent study by the Committee on Coal Research,
Technology, and Resource Assessments (2007),
established by the National Research Council of
the National Academies, questions whether the
estimates on these reserves are reliable and if
federal policy makers can formulate a coherent
national energy policy. The committee indicated
that these estimates on coal reserves are based on
input data and methods that have not been
reviewed or revised since the early 1970s and that
they are inadequate for any informed decision
making. In addition, the combination of differ-
ent factors, such as predicted increase in coal
production and more detailed reserve analysis
that take into account location, quality, recover-
ability and transportation issues, may substan-
tially reduce the estimated number of years of
supply. The Committee believes that coal will be
available to meet US needs through 2030, and
that reserves will probably be sufficient to meet
needs for more than one hundred years at the
current level of production. However, the
Committee suggests a co-ordinated federal–
state–industry initiative to establish the magni-
tude and characteristics of the US recoverable
coal reserves using modern mapping, coal char-
acterization and database technologies. A partial
reassessment effort on major coal seams in the
US was undertaken over the period 1995 through
2002 by the USGS and several state geological
surveys in a series of studies on major coal
basins. A quote from one of the studies on the
Northern and Central Appalachian Basin coal
regions gives a relatively updated perspective on
availability of coal reserves in that basin:
Total original resources were calculated for
five of the coal beds and zones – the
Pittsburgh, Upper Freeport, Fire Clay,

Pond Creek, and Pocahontas No. 3 – and
are estimated at about 84 billion tonnes, of
which about 59.4 billion tonnes remain.
Much of the remaining coal in all five coal
beds and zones is thinner (v1 m), deeper
(w300 m), and higher in ash and sulfur
than the coal that has been mined; however,
economic resources are still available and
mining in each coal bed and coal zone will
continue throughout this decade and into
the next, given current market conditions
(USGS Northern and Central Appalachian
Basin Coal Regions Assessment Team
2001).
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 15:24 14 January 2015
As a single example, these resources would last
approximately one hundred and sixty-five years
at a current consumption rate of 360 million
tonnes per year – provided they ultimately
translate into reserves. Over time the price of
coal and economic growth dependent on coal
will ultimately determine what fraction of this
resource will be economically viable, particularly
where coal seams are less than 1 m thick and
deeper than 300 m. It is clear, however, that the
USGS reassessment programme will better
inform policy makers concerning the potential
role of coal in the US, and this information can
be integrated with information on other ener-
gy resources, both fossil fuels and renewable
sources, in one day rationalizing a national and
global energy policy.
As is apparent from the aforementioned USGS
studies, and emphasized by Grayson (1999) and
the Committee on Coal Research, Technology,
and Resource Assessments report (2007), the coal
mining industry will face very different working
conditions in the future. Most of the easily
accessible, shallow coal deposits are mined out,
and surface mining is expected to remove more
overburden in order to reach deeper coal seams.
The EIA 2006 coal report (US EIA 2007a) portends
the ultimate transition over time to underground
coal, particularly when the recoverable reserves at
producing mines (69 per cent surface mineable)
are compared to the estimated recoverable reserves
(43 per cent surface mineable) and to the
demonstrated reserve base (32 per cent surface
mineable). Underground mining will need to
reach to deeper and thinner coal seams, usually
with higher gas content and potentially more
complex ground-control issues. These conditions
Coal Mining Industry in the United States
may have adverse effects on economic decisions
related to mine profitability and the health and
safety of the coal mining workforce.
Employment in the coal mining industry,
particularly in surface mining, has been declining
for more than three decades, until recently. In
addition, much of the mining workforce is
reaching retirement age. The National Mining
Association (2007c) estimates that the nation will
need approximately 50,000 new coal miners
across the US to meet increasing demand and to
replace retiring miners over the next ten years. In
addition, at least three hundred new mining and
minerals engineering graduates are needed
annually to keep up with projected growth
(Freeman 2004).
CONCLUSIONS
Today’s coal mining is a high-technology,
mechanized industry with strict standards of
engineering design and operation. Historical
trends of the coal mining industry show an
increase in production and productivity in the
face of variable market conditions in the past
three decades. Surface mining is the primary
method of coal extraction. The coal industry has
improved its safety and environmental records
substantially.
The future challenges the US coal industry faces
are potential limitations on CO2 emissions and a
more accurate determination of the nation’s coal
reserve base. More difficult mining conditions are
expected in the future, which will require the
industry to focus on improved mine worker health
and safety, environmental protection, and mine
productivity and resource optimization.
The future role of coal in the US economy will
depend on how well the industry addresses the
challenges and issues. The impact of new technol-
ogy to generate electric power with coal cost-
effectively, and particularly with carbon capture
and storage, could prove pivotal. The viability of
the industry over time will also depend on the
ultimate amount of economic reserves as the price
of coal and the cost to produce it fluctuate. The
forecast for coal’s role in the US remains optimistic
over the next few decades, but it is certainly clouded
by the issues beyond that time frame. The role of
coal globally, however, is more uncertain, given the
consumption rate by China and most likely soon
by India, especially when coupled with the growing
global call for carbon capture and storage.
MINERALS & ENERGY VOL 23 NO 2 2008 81
 V. Kecojevic and R.L. Grayson
References
Averitt, P. 1975. Coal resources of the United States.
Washington DC: US Department of Interior. 131
p. US Geological Survey Bulletin 1412.
Berlin, K, Sussman, RM. 2007. Global warming and
the future of coal: the path to carbon capture and
storage. Washington DC: Center for American
Progress. 59 p. [Cited 2008 May 1]. Available
from: http://www.americanprogress.org/.
Coleman, LL. 2007. Coal producer survey 2006.
Washington DC: National Mining Association.
[Cited 2007 Oct 21]. Available from: http://www.
nma.org/pdf/coal_producer_survey2006.pdf.
Committee on Coal Research, Technology, and
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 15:24 14 January 2015
Resource Assessments. 2007. Coal research and
development to support national energy policy.
Washington DC: National Research Council
of the National Academies, The National
Academies Press. 170 p.
Consol Energy [Internet]. 2007. Quick facts.
[Cited 2007 Dec 8]. Available from: http://www.
consolenergy.com/content.asp?c5QuickFacts.
Foundation Coal [Internet]. 2007. Foundation
Coal: mining the past – powering the future.
3rd Annual Bear Stearns Commodities & Capital
Goods Conference. New York. [Cited 2007 Dec
8]. Available from: http://ir.foundationcoal.
com/events.cfm.
Freeman, L. 2004. SME – professions at risk, supply
and demand of professionals. Las Vegas (NV):
SME Workgroup.
FutureGen Alliance [Internet]. 2007. [Cited 2007 Dec
20]. Available from: http://www.futuregenalliance.
org/.
Grayson, RL. 1999. Mine health and safety:
progress and prospects for the future. Min
Eng. 51(6):63–65.
Grayson, RL, Warneke, JR. 2006. Coal’s role in
sustaining society. Min Eng. 58(10):23–29.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology [Internet].
2007. The future of coal. [Cited 2007 Oct 22].
Available from: http://web.mit.edu/coal/The_
Future_of_Coal.pdf.
Mine Safety Technology and Training Com-
mission [Internet]. 2006. Improving mine
safety technology and training: establishing
U.S. global leadership. National Mining
Association. [Cited 2007 Oct 28]. Available
from: http://www.coalminingsafety.org/documents/
msttc_report.pdf.
National Mining Association [Internet]. 2007a. Cost
per kWh & percent of coal generation. [Cited 2007
82 MINERALS & ENERGY VOL 23 NO 2 2008
Dec 12]. Available from: http://www.nma.org/
pdf/c_map_use_cost_electricity.pdf.
National Mining Association [Internet]. 2007b.
Profile of the U.S. coal miner – 2006. [Cited
2007 Nov 20]. Available from: http://
www.nma.org/pdf/c_profile.pdf.
National Mining Association [Internet]. 2007c.
Fast facts about coal. [Cited 2007 Nov 20].
Available from: http://www.nma.org/statistics/
pub_fast_facts.asp.
National Mining Association. 2008. President’s
budget request reflects FutureGen funding shift,
cuts USGS mineral policy program funds,
slightly boosts mine safety, funding. Min
Week. 14(6):1–2.
Peabody Energy [Internet]. 2007. Corporate & social
responsibility report 2006. [Cited 2007 Dec 8].
Available from: http://www.peabodyenergy.com/
pdfs/CSRR_Report2006.pdf.
Rio Tinto Energy America [Internet]. 2007.
Sustainable development report – vision for
the future. [Cited 2007 Dec 8]. Available from:
http://www.rtea.com/pages/stakeholders/RTEA%
20Stakeholder’s%20Report%202006.pdf.
US Bureau of Labor Statistics [Internet]. 2007.
Occupational employment and wage estimates.
[Cited 2007 Dec 8]. Available from: http://
www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs004.htm.
US [EIA] Energy Information Administration.
1999. U.S. coal reserves: 1997 update. Annual
energy review 2006. Washington DC: US
Department of Energy, Office of Coal,
Nuclear, Electric, and Alternate Fuels (Doc.
# DOE/EIA-0529 (97)). [Cited 2007 Dec 2].
Available from: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ftproot/
coal/052997.pdf.
US [EIA] Energy Information Administration.
2007a. Annual coal report 2006. Washington
DC: US Department of Energy, Office of Coal,
Nuclear, Electric, and Alternate Fuels (Doc. #
DOE/EIA-0384 (2006)). [Cited 2007 Dec 4].
Available from: http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/
pdf/aer.pdf.
US [EIA] Energy Information Administration.
2007b. Annual energy review 2006.
Washington DC: US Department of Energy,
Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric, and Alternate
Fuels (Doc. # DOE/EIA-0384 (2006)). [Cited
2007 Dec 4]. Available from: http://www.eia.
doe.gov/aer/pdf/aer.pdf.
US Geological Survey Northern and Central
Appalachian Basin Coal Regions Assessment
 Coal Mining Industry in the United States

Team. 2001. 2000 resource assessment of se-
lected coal beds and zones in the Northern and
Central Appalachian Basin Coal Regions. US Geolo-
gical Survey Professional Paper 1625-C, 2 CDs.
US Mine Safety and Health Administration
[Internet]. 2008. Mining industry accident, injury,
employment, and production statistics. US
Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health
Administration. [Cited 2008 Jan 1]. Available
from: http://www.msha.gov/accinj/accinj.htm.
US Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement [Internet]. 2008a. OSM technology
transfer. Washington DC: US Department of
Interior. [Cited 2008 Jan 3]. Available from:
http://www.techtransfer.osmre.gov/.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 15:24 14 January 2015
President and Congress 2006. Washington DC.:
US Department of Interior. [Cited 2008 Jan
3]. Available from: http://www.osmre.gov/pdf/
2006OSMAnnualRt.pdf.
Wik Invest [Internet]. 2008. Arch Coal; [cited 2008
Jan 10]. Available from: http://www.wikinvest.
com/stock/Arch_Coal_(ACI).
Vladislav Kecojevic
Department of Energy and Mineral Engineering
The Pennsylvania State University
154 Hosler Building
University Park, PA 16802
USA

US Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Tel: 814-865-4288

Enforcement [Internet]. 2008b. Report to the E-mail: vuk2@psu.edu

MINERALS & ENERGY VOL 23 NO 2 2008 83