Task: songer_appel2_1_4

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 

Your task concerns the second listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)", specifically "mining". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.

PER CURIAM:
Appellees move for an order allowing their printing costs in full as taxable under Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, rule 39 (c). The Clerk of the Court, believing that 28 U.S.C. § 1923(c) still applies, would limit the costs for the printing of the brief as provided in said section to $75 whereas the amount actually paid for printing of appellees’ brief is $889.09. Under the new Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, effective July 1, 1968, the subject of costs is covered by Rule 39. Rule 39(c) provides as taxable cost:
“The cost of printing or otherwise producing necessary copies of briefs, appendices, or copies of records *
The Enabling Act (28 U.S.C. § 2072) which empowered the Supreme Court to promulgate the new Rules provides:
“All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force and effect after such rules [take] effect.”
It would thus appear that 28 U.S.C. § 1923(c) has been superseded by Rule 39(c). Therefore, Section 1923 no longer applies and we must look to Rule 39(c) for the awarding of costs.
Appellees’ bill of costs is allowed in full as authorized by Rule 39.

Question: This question concerns the second listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)", specifically "mining". What subcategory of business best describes this litigant?
A. oil and gas
B. coal
C. metals
D. other 
E. unclear
Answer:

Answer: A