Bluegrassrivals

I was really depressed today when I read the new laws that the bush administration will be passing on MTR friday, but then I stumbled upon this article. The guy in this interview really smashes the crazy ideas of some of the false prophet TV preachers and the crazy right wing nut jobs they continually back. I really hope more people will start to see things the way this preacher does.


http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/11/07/johnson/

I quick response a little off topic, but how is the Bush Administration passing new MTR laws? Aren't both the House and Senate controlled by Democrats? I do believe it has to be approved by both before Bush has a say in it.

Also, MTR keeps the Eastern KY & SW West Virginia economies afloat. There are not enough coal seams for it to be practical to do underground mining as efficiently as MTR can be done. Not to mention, in the mountainous region where this takes place, it provides level ground for development that otherwise could not happen..ie..Airports, Golf Courses, possible Coal to Liquidation Plants, factories.

Beef Wrote:I quick response a little off topic, but how is the Bush Administration passing new MTR laws? Aren't both the House and Senate controlled by Democrats? I do believe it has to be approved by both before Bush has a say in it.

Also, MTR keeps the Eastern KY & SW West Virginia economies afloat. There are not enough coal seams for it to be practical to do underground mining as efficiently as MTR can be done. Not to mention, in the mountainous region where this takes place, it provides level ground for development that otherwise could not happen..ie..Airports, Golf Courses, possible Coal to Liquidation Plants, factories.

Beef, you may have just given one of
the most straightforward statements
of "the needs of man above all" I
have read of late. Human economics,
human development projects: It
was practical and useful to execute
Jesus, but in the long run, it proved
disastrous for the polity of Jerusalem;
so it is with short sighted, anthropocentric
policies.

Well you could have just easily researched the topic and found out about it yourself, but I guess since you are incapable of doing that I will have to answer the question.

This article im going to show was written by John Cole, The new york times also did a story on this, and I believe the Lexington Herald leader also ran a front page article on this yesterday.

"The Bush administration is set to issue a regulation on Friday that would enshrine the coal mining practice of mountaintop removal. The technique involves blasting off the tops of mountains and dumping the rubble into valleys and streams.

It has been used in Appalachian coal country for 20 years under a cloud of legal and regulatory confusion.

The new rule would allow the practice to continue and expand, providing only that mine operators minimize the debris and cause the least environmental harm, although those terms are not clearly defined and to some extent merely restate existing law.

The Office of Surface Mining in the Interior Department drafted the rule, which will be subject to a 60-day comment period and could be revised, although officials indicated that it was not likely to be changed substantially.

The regulation is the culmination of six and a half years of work by the administration to make it easier for mining companies to dig more coal to meet growing energy demands and reduce dependence on foreign oil."

The guy in the Interior department used to be involved heavily with mining before being given this job by bush. So it makes sense that he would draft this new rule. And since all officials in the EPA that oppose bush have resigned becuase they weren't allowed to there jobs, there is really no way for a government agency to oppose it.

But I guess everyone should think like you beef, and we should believe that bush would have no interest in helping out the coal industry when they donated to his party the last two elections.

I didn't provide a link for the article I gave in my last post, so here it is.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8597

Coach_Owens87 Wrote:But I guess everyone should think like you beef, and we should believe that bush would have no interest in helping out the coal industry when they donated to his party the last two elections.

I didn't say that Bush didn't support it, I was pointing out that he can not make a new law regarding it. Maybe a new regulation, but not a law. So Congress has the ability to change this regulation if they would like to make a law about it.

I know that Bush supports the coal industry and I am completely greatful for it as are many others in Eastern KY.

Well Beef you're right that bush cant change laws without the approval of congress. But he has done it before. Research the Clean water act and see how just a few years ago he changed the law by redefining the word "fill", it allowed companies to dump waste into streams. So if he has done it before, why not do it again.

I really don't consider this a new law, since it is only clarifying the existing 100 foot buffer zone rule which was adopted in 1983.

The 100 foot buffer zone was never intended to apply to (as anti-coal people) call them "epemeral" streams. Epemeral streams are no more than dry ditches that only carry water when it either rains or snows.

Anti-coal people say the new rule will allow the current practice to expand, but I don't see how that can happen when coal companies have to minimize the amount of material being placed in the valley fill.

We take coal as a given; we take oil as a given...
because our way of life, our house payments and
car payments and insurance and our kids' education
are based on this way of life. And, like the
people of Pompei, since the mountain has rumbled
all our lives and nothing much seems to have
happened, we are caught completely by surprise
when the lava flows and obliterates us and our
way of life...

Old School Wrote:I really don't consider this a new law, since it is only clarifying the existing 100 foot buffer zone rule which was adopted in 1983.

The 100 foot buffer zone was never intended to apply to (as anti-coal people) call them "epemeral" streams. Epemeral streams are no more than dry ditches that only carry water when it either rains or snows.

Anti-coal people say the new rule will allow the current practice to expand, but I don't see how that can happen when coal companies have to minimize the amount of material being placed in the valley fill.

Well Old school, you done one of two things, either you never read the new regulations, or you failed to comprehend them. This would all but do away with the buffer zone rule, this is evident by statements like "no larger than needed", "Minimize", "Aviod", so basically what this does is leave everything in the hands of coal operators.

And please stop trying to define a stream, we all know what one is. I think about 95% of the streams in appalachia are "Epemeral" now, were in a huge drought. So I guess coal companies should go ahead and fill those in while there dry.

I think you should consider working for the bush adminstration, youre really good at taking issues, and rewording them and twisting things so they work out best for you.

Coach_Owens87 Wrote:Well Old school, you done one of two things, either you never read the new regulations, or you failed to comprehend them. This would all but do away with the buffer zone rule, this is evident by statements like "no larger than needed", "Minimize", "Aviod", so basically what this does is leave everything in the hands of coal operators.

And please stop trying to define a stream, we all know what one is. I think about 95% of the streams in appalachia are "Epemeral" now, were in a huge drought. So I guess coal companies should go ahead and fill those in while there dry.

I think you should consider working for the bush adminstration, youre really good at taking issues, and rewording them and twisting things so they work out best for you.

First this ruling does not do away with the buffer zone, as your anti-coal buddies are leading you to believe. Oh...I forgot as you stated in another thread that your a college student in pre med I believe and I quote "I know all of Coals Dirty Secrets" . It must be nice to know everything at such a young age.

Second it does not leave everything in the hands of the Coal Operators, why do you want to turn everything around and twist them so they work best for you. Coal companies have to apply to the State for a mining permit this includes calculating the volume of earth proposed to be moved (in Cubic Yards). They also calculate the amount of yardage that can be placed in the mined area during the reclamation process, a valley fill is designed to hold the remaining yardage. 20 years ago it was cheaper to place the extra material into hollow fills, but today to place material into a valley fill could cost coal companies millions of dollars in Mitigation fees before the first load of material is placed in the fill area. For Coal companies to cut cost Valley Fills will become smaller to stay away from paying these mitigation fees.

Third tell me how can you justify calling a dry ditch or gully (epemeral) a stream, when most of these gullies or ditches are no more than 6 inches deep and 12 inches wide, and only have water running through them after it rains. Apparently you don't know what a stream is, so I will continue to define a stream.

If by taking issues and rewording and twisting them around so they help your cause would get someone a job in the Bush adminstration, then D.C. would be infested with Environmentalist and Liberals.

I don't know about "buffer zones" and
complex legalease. I don't know any
"big boss" coal people. I've never talked
to a mining engineer. I do know that my
grandparents had their lives changed irreversibly
when a slurry pond "broke" and made of their
land and stream a wasteland. I do know that
money matters more than trees and beauty to
most people I know.

Old School Wrote:First this ruling does not do away with the buffer zone, as your anti-coal buddies are leading you to believe. Oh...I forgot as you stated in another thread that your a college student in pre med I believe and I quote "I know all of Coals Dirty Secrets" . It must be nice to know everything at such a young age.

Second it does not leave everything in the hands of the Coal Operators, why do you want to turn everything around and twist them so they work best for you. Coal companies have to apply to the State for a mining permit this includes calculating the volume of earth proposed to be moved (in Cubic Yards). They also calculate the amount of yardage that can be placed in the mined area during the reclamation process, a valley fill is designed to hold the remaining yardage. 20 years ago it was cheaper to place the extra material into hollow fills, but today to place material into a valley fill could cost coal companies millions of dollars in Mitigation fees before the first load of material is placed in the fill area. For Coal companies to cut cost Valley Fills will become smaller to stay away from paying these mitigation fees.

Third tell me how can you justify calling a dry ditch or gully (epemeral) a stream, when most of these gullies or ditches are no more than 6 inches deep and 12 inches wide, and only have water running through them after it rains. Apparently you don't know what a stream is, so I will continue to define a stream.

If by taking issues and rewording and twisting them around so they help your cause would get someone a job in the Bush adminstration, then D.C. would be infested with Environmentalist and Liberals.

You can give me all the legal crap the coal adminstration feeds you, it doesnt matter, it's all bull. These restrictions, permits, and fines mean nothing. These big companies can pay off the measly fines they are given, so what does it matter?

Even before the proposed legaslation was passed illegal valley fills were being constructed. All a company had to do was ask for a waiver to allow the valley fill to be completed, and most of these were granted.


And you keep saying im being mislead, if being mislead means that I study a subject, look at all the facts, and then come to the conclusion I feel is correct, then I guess Im guilty. And it does feel good to know that im an educated young man with a bright future.

Lastly, the argument over streams is silly, weve already had this debate. I can justify them being streams becuase that is what they are called, be it ephermal or intermittent. You cant deny that streams are being buried, and I cant prove to you that they were intermittent or ephemeral becuase they no longer exist, so I feel this argument is going nowhere because neither one of us is going to budge.



I was hoping I would get some replies on what people thought of the interview, but I guess that isnt going to happen.

Coach_Owens87 Wrote:You can give me all the legal crap the coal adminstration feeds you, it doesnt matter, it's all bull. These restrictions, permits, and fines mean nothing. These big companies can pay off the measly fines they are given, so what does it matter?

Even before the proposed legaslation was passed illegal valley fills were being constructed. All a company had to do was ask for a waiver to allow the valley fill to be completed, and most of these were granted.


And you keep saying im being mislead, if being mislead means that I study a subject, look at all the facts, and then come to the conclusion I feel is correct, then I guess Im guilty. And it does feel good to know that im an educated young man with a bright future.

Lastly, the argument over streams is silly, weve already had this debate. I can justify them being streams becuase that is what they are called, be it ephermal or intermittent. You cant deny that streams are being buried, and I cant prove to you that they were intermittent or ephemeral becuase they no longer exist, so I feel this argument is going nowhere because neither one of us is going to budge.



I was hoping I would get some replies on what people thought of the interview, but I guess that isnt going to happen.

Here you go again, if you knew anything about the rules and regulations of coal mining, you would know that mitigation is real, and mining permits have designs and guidelines for the following that include Clearing, Road Construction, Pond Construction, Valley Fills, Sediment ditches, Highwalls, Blasting Plan, Ground Control Plan, Tree Planting, Reclaimation Plan, Seeding Plan and other various guidlines are all real. You would also know thatif a company continues to recieve the same violation over and over, they would go into "Show Cause", which means the permit could be revolked, but since you studied the subject and looked at all the facts I'm sure you already knew this.

Let me ask you if the restrictions, permits and fines mean nothing, then why do we waste our time applying for a permit, arguing about mitigation measures and then why are the anti-coal people trying to add more restrictions, wanting premits re-designed and wanting to have the fines increased?

Just because some anti-coal group calls it a stream, does not make it a stream. If a anti-coal group called a mule a racehorse does that make it a racehorse?

I enjoyed the article Coach and I was pleasantly suprised. You and Cavemaster seem to have Old School and Beef in the corner once again. Those 2 sound like a broken record. If they attend or attended college and I'm assuming they do or did I'll bet their professors were perplexed by their opinions.

Old School Wrote:Here you go again, if you knew anything about the rules and regulations of coal mining, you would know that mitigation is real, and mining permits have designs and guidelines for the following that include Clearing, Road Construction, Pond Construction, Valley Fills, Sediment ditches, Highwalls, Blasting Plan, Ground Control Plan, Tree Planting, Reclaimation Plan, Seeding Plan and other various guidlines are all real. You would also know thatif a company continues to recieve the same violation over and over, they would go into "Show Cause", which means the permit could be revolked, but since you studied the subject and looked at all the facts I'm sure you already knew this.

Let me ask you if the restrictions, permits and fines mean nothing, then why do we waste our time applying for a permit, arguing about mitigation measures and then why are the anti-coal people trying to add more restrictions, wanting permits re-designed and wanting to have the fines increased?

Just because some anti-coal group calls it a stream, does not make it a stream. If a anti-coal group called a mule a racehorse does that make it a racehorse?

Again you just keep mentioning the same things. Goodness, please come up with something else useful in this debate. The reclamation you speak of is a joke, and I know this not only from what ive seen, but I know straight from the source. All mining companies are worried about is soil erosion, so they plant some grass and move on.

To answer you're question on why you waste time getting permits, I really don't know, companies can basically do what they want so the whole legal issues are really a joke. As of right now the coal companies basically rule this area, and if it wasn't for people like me and others, you would get by with it unchallenged, but I just cant let that happen. Before I answer the rest of this question, please stop referring to all people who oppose mtr as ANTI-Coal, I'm not necessarily anti-coal, I just despise MTR. I would rather have Underground mines that follow safety rules, then the devastating practice of MTR. Now back to the question, we argue over these issues because a lot of people are starting to see how greedy, and shady the coal industry is, they don't care about anything but a profit, and whatever the have to destroy to get that profit is fair game. So I will debate this issue, I will fight to get new laws in place and make sure they are followed, I will fight to protect this area until I die, or the mountains are gone, whichever comes first.


P.S. If you want to call a mule a racehorse, then thats fine with me, it's your mule.

DevilsWin Wrote:I enjoyed the article Coach and I was pleasantly suprised. You and Cavemaster seem to have Old School and Beef in the corner once again. Those 2 sound like a broken record. If they attend or attended college and I'm assuming they do or did I'll bet their professors were perplexed by their opinions.

Im glad someone else enjoyed the article. It was so refreshing to see someone with a christian view on this issue besides the greedy, false prophet TV evangelicals I see on TV. I often wonder why so many people from the "right" claim to be christian, but they are only worried about profit. If im not mistaken someone once said that you can't worship money and god, but maybe im wrong, If I am im sure Old School will quickly correct with the right answer.

DevilsWin Wrote:I enjoyed the article Coach and I was pleasantly suprised. You and Cavemaster seem to have Old School and Beef in the corner once again. Those 2 sound like a broken record. If they attend or attended college and I'm assuming they do or did I'll bet their professors were perplexed by their opinions.

:thatsfunn :thatsfunn

I'm not for or against it...hopefully we won't need it one day..

Coach_Owens87 Wrote:Again you just keep mentioning the same things. Goodness, please come up with something else useful in this debate. The reclamation you speak of is a joke, and I know this not only from what ive seen, but I know straight from the source. All mining companies are worried about is soil erosion, so they plant some grass and move on.

To answer you're question on why you waste time getting permits, I really don't know, companies can basically do what they want so the whole legal issues are really a joke. As of right now the coal companies basically rule this area, and if it wasn't for people like me and others, you would get by with it unchallenged, but I just cant let that happen. Before I answer the rest of this question, please stop referring to all people who oppose mtr as ANTI-Coal, I'm not necessarily anti-coal, I just despise MTR. I would rather have Underground mines that follow safety rules, then the devastating practice of MTR. Now back to the question, we argue over these issues because a lot of people are starting to see how greedy, and shady the coal industry is, they don't care about anything but a profit, and whatever the have to destroy to get that profit is fair game. So I will debate this issue, I will fight to get new laws in place and make sure they are followed, I will fight to protect this area until I die, or the mountains are gone, whichever comes first.


P.S. If you want to call a mule a racehorse, then thats fine with me, it's your mule.

Apparently the reclaimation that you're looking at was either mined prior to 1977 when there was no reclaimation to speak of or a mine site that went into bond forfiture, but I'm sure with you knowledge of mining you know the difference.

If your as you want me so say anti-mtr and you want to stop the use of valley fills and sediment ponds, then my friend you are ANTI-COAL, because as you know underground mines cannot operate without valley fills or sediment ponds, but once again you probably allready know this.

Yes mining companies are concerned with soil erosion, as any environmentalist should be
and that is why we plant grass as soon as possible and also plant trees on a later date.

Yes Coal companies are out to make a profit just like any other business operating today, can you name any business that is not out to make a profit? But as we've debated before to say they don't care about anything but profit and what ever they have to destroy is fair game is just flat out ridiculous and you know it.

As far as me mentioning the same thing, why don't you get some new material.

P.S. FYI I named my mule "ole 87"

Old School Wrote:Apparently the reclaimation that you're looking at was either mined prior to 1977 when there was no reclaimation to speak of or a mine site that went into bond forfiture, but I'm sure with you knowledge of mining you know the difference.

If your as you want me so say anti-mtr and you want to stop the use of valley fills and sediment ponds, then my friend you are ANTI-COAL, because as you know underground mines cannot operate without valley fills or sediment ponds, but once again you probably allready know this.

Yes mining companies are concerned with soil erosion, as any environmentalist should be
and that is why we plant grass as soon as possible and also plant trees on a later date.

Yes Coal companies are out to make a profit just like any other business operating today, can you name any business that is not out to make a profit? But as we've debated before to say they don't care about anything but profit and what ever they have to destroy is fair game is just flat out ridiculous and you know it.

As far as me mentioning the same thing, why don't you get some new material.

P.S. FYI I named my mule "ole 87"

Sorry to bust into the fantasy world you live in where coal companies do such a great job reclaiming but this just isn't true. The mining sites I refer to are not sites created prior to 1977, as I stated many previous times one visit to google earth, or microsofts satellite image program called terra-server, which offer up to date, high quality satellite images, and you can get a up close view of all the mining sites going on at the moment, and you can see all the "reclaimed sites" you say are so great. Google is offering a program with up to date stats on the mass of land mined, the date the operation started, the company mining, and when the job is done they show images of the reclamation process, so everyone can now have an eyewitness view of reclamation. *Spoiler* Nothing is there, just grass.

The point I made about coal companies not caring what the cost is for thier profit is not ridiculous, here is one example. In Inman Virginia Jeremy Davidson, 3 years of age, was killed by a rock that came from a strip job above his home. A couple of dozers where working and pushed the rock over the hill, which tore through his home. The company called the accident a "act of god". They were fined $15,000, they later appealed the fine. If that isnt heartless I dont know what is. I can give you more of these stories that you wont hear at any coal convention, becuase those things are minor compared to the progress of man.

I know that you dont believe what I say, thats why I keep telling you to go look at google earth, maybe you just choose not becuase you know im right? just a thought.

Undergound mining Again you just feed me more crap from the mining companies, I read an article today stating the same thing, that undergound mining is not possible without SOME valley fills, I would rather have that going on while we search for new energy sources, than sit around and watch mountains being blown away. This may sound horrible, and is a little off subject, but a lot of people are probably going to get a little richer due to the accident in Utah, now than can use propaganda and say Underground mining is dangerous, we need to blast off mountains.

And I do offer new material, every time we debate I offer it, but all you can give is meaningless stats, on how much profit is made. I dont care about that, im not a pro-business person as you seem to be. I get my materail from studying both points of view, you only get your info from the people who line your wallet.

Horse Racing I feel honored to have a mule named after me. IF only it can give you as hard of a time as I do then it has lived a good life.

Coach_Owens87 Wrote:Sorry to bust into the fantasy world you live in where coal companies do such a great job reclaiming but this just isn't true. The mining sites I refer to are not sites created prior to 1977, as I stated many previous times one visit to google earth, or microsofts satellite image program called terra-server, which offer up to date, high quality satellite images, and you can get a up close view of all the mining sites going on at the moment, and you can see all the "reclaimed sites" you say are so great. Google is offering a program with up to date stats on the mass of land mined, the date the operation started, the company mining, and when the job is done they show images of the reclamation process, so everyone can now have an eyewitness view of reclamation. *Spoiler* Nothing is there, just grass.

The point I made about coal companies not caring what the cost is for thier profit is not ridiculous, here is one example. In Inman Virginia Jeremy Davidson, 3 years of age, was killed by a rock that came from a strip job above his home. A couple of dozers where working and pushed the rock over the hill, which tore through his home. The company called the accident a "act of god". They were fined $15,000, they later appealed the fine. If that isnt heartless I dont know what is. I can give you more of these stories that you wont hear at any coal convention, becuase those things are minor compared to the progress of man.

I know that you dont believe what I say, thats why I keep telling you to go look at google earth, maybe you just choose not becuase you know im right? just a thought.

Undergound mining Again you just feed me more crap from the mining companies, I read an article today stating the same thing, that undergound mining is not possible without SOME valley fills, I would rather have that going on while we search for new energy sources, than sit around and watch mountains being blown away. This may sound horrible, and is a little off subject, but a lot of people are probably going to get a little richer due to the accident in Utah, now than can use propaganda and say Underground mining is dangerous, we need to blast off mountains.

And I do offer new material, every time we debate I offer it, but all you can give is meaningless stats, on how much profit is made. I dont care about that, im not a pro-business person as you seem to be. I get my materail from studying both points of view, you only get your info from the people who line your wallet.

Horse Racing I feel honored to have a mule named after me. IF only it can give you as hard of a time as I do then it has lived a good life.

Hey Coach I took your advice and visited both Google Earth and Microsoft Terra Server as you suggested, I was expecting to see up to date, high quailty satellite images where you can get a close up view of mining sites accross Eastern Ky. and Southern WVa. as you claimed, but what I found was totally different. Maybe I done something wrong, but here's what I found, on Google Earth the mine areas were either colored white or they had a red tint covering the mine areas either way I could not tell anything about these areas if they were reclaimed or not, I tried to take a close up view of other areas (not colored or tinted) but the images became blurry at a distance I was still unable to tell anything about these photo's. You also mentioned that these photo's were up to date, when I noticed that areas that we mined in August 2003 were not shown on these maps, heck they hadn't even broke ground for the new Super Wal-Mart in Louisa when these photos were taken. I then pulled up Mircrosoft Terra Server and found that some of these photo's haven't been updated since 1990, I pulled up areas here in Eastern Ky. and the latest update I could find was 1995. Furthermore Terra Server is based on some satellite images and a lot of USGS (United State Geological Service) aerial photographs which were most likely flown over 25 years ago and at a very high altitude thus making it very difficult to view without special equipment.

P.S. you don't give me a hard time I love these little conversation we have, and I hope we can have many more of them in the future.

Old School Wrote:Hey Coach I took your advice and visited both Google Earth and Microsoft Terra Server as you suggested, I was expecting to see up to date, high quailty satellite images where you can get a close up view of mining sites accross Eastern Ky. and Southern WVa. as you claimed, but what I found was totally different. Maybe I done something wrong, but here's what I found, on Google Earth the mine areas were either colored white or they had a red tint covering the mine areas either way I could not tell anything about these areas if they were reclaimed or not, I tried to take a close up view of other areas (not colored or tinted) but the images became blurry at a distance I was still unable to tell anything about these photo's. You also mentioned that these photo's were up to date, when I noticed that areas that we mined in August 2003 were not shown on these maps, heck they hadn't even broke ground for the new Super Wal-Mart in Louisa when these photos were taken. I then pulled up Mircrosoft Terra Server and found that some of these photo's haven't been updated since 1990, I pulled up areas here in Eastern Ky. and the latest update I could find was 1995. Furthermore Terra Server is based on some satellite images and a lot of USGS (United State Geological Service) aerial photographs which were most likely flown over 25 years ago and at a very high altitude thus making it very difficult to view without special equipment.

P.S. you don't give me a hard time I love these little conversation we have, and I hope we can have many more of them in the future.

I can understand the problem with terra-server, they do have issues with out of date photos. I believe you can purchase a version with better photos, but im not for sure on that. Google earth is another story, their photos are up to date, they made a huge update last october, so most of their images are from that date.They have something called national memorial for the mountains, it's a special feature that gives some great details about specific mine sites in eastern ky and WV. It has markers to show all mine sites currently in progress. Since you know the mining industry you should be able to find some mines that you know are reclaimed, I viewed a few that are located around route 80 from hindman to hazard, I know some of these sites have been done for 10 years or more, and there is no sign of substantial reclamation.


Tinted photos Maybe you used a different version of the program than I did, but with my google earth I was able to get relatively close views of the sites, for example I could see plainly the sparse grass and trees planted at the Kayford mountain mine site in West Virginia.

I done some research and it appears google earth 3 had colored images, but with the 2006 updates, and the new version, google earth 4, the tinted images are replaced with high resolution images.

here is a link to some info on the program

http://earth.google.com/faq.html

Question 5 answers your question about the problems you occured. Even on the areas that you say are discolored you can plainly see that no reclamation has happened.


there is a feature on google earth called "National Memorial for the mountians", The memorial is run by ilovemountains.org, I know you will say it's a environmental site, but that doesnt matter, the photos they provide are real, and are not doctored. You can use this feature by going to the key features key on the left hand side, then go to global awareness.

Here is a link to the site which has a sample of how the program works. The photos on this page come after the late 06 updates, so go take a look.

http://www.ilovemountains.org/memorial/

after the feature was added on google earth, the Ilovemountains.org petition grew from 2 people to over 12,000 in one week. So people are starting to see the truth.

Here is a link to that info:
http://www.gearthblog.com/blog/archives/...moval.html

http://www.gearthblog.com/blog/archives/...gle_e.html

First, I just want one thing cleared up. Why exactly are you against MTR? I am not a big ecological fanatic so this could be the biggest problem we have in seeing the same thing.

But I did watch the 2 videos that are on ilovemountains.org and here are some things that I discovered.

1. "Our way of life is being destroyed" What exactly is being destroyed? Is it the looks of the mountains? Correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe that if you really want to see your lives destroyed, the just imagine what it would be like if the coal industry decided today to pack up and leave (after reclaiming the land). Talk about the loss of jobs and money into the economy. Now that would be destroying jobs. I know I have said this before but coal is what runs this region. Without it there would be NO money in the economy. There is nothing else here. Sure I am looking at it from the business side of things, but guess what, business is what makes the world work.

2. Just a little note on the videos. They never showed what reclaimed land looked like. All they showed was active mines. Of course the land is going to look bad. What do you expect?

3. The woman talking about her home being flooded. I'm sure she never got flooded before the mining started. What a joke that was.

4. Then the video gets into talking about how coal provides so much energy and everyone in the US has used at least some coal energy but they could stop MTR and use alternate sources of energy. Explain to me exactly what other forms of energy could be used in this situation. Wind, solar, nuclear, water? Yes, they are all good sources but it doesn't seem to be that any of them are up to the task as of now to come in and take over what coal provides. The only exception to this is water but then you have the environmentalists complaining when a dam blocks a river. Wind and Solar are both still in developing and testing stages and no one wants to deal with the nuclear waste so that is why these plants are not being built. Right now coal is the best source of energy and the cheapest energy that we have. Price doesn't matter? Yea, go ask someone to increase their power bill by 30% and see how happy they get. Gas has finally reached the world average and people are outraged. Doubt anyone wants to pay any more for energy.

5. Shows the sludge ponds. But you are going to have these ponds no matter which form of mining you choose. So to use this in an argument you are totally ANIT-Coal not just anti-MTR.

6. This is from the guy at the "Funeral for Mountains" -- "West Virginia is Mountains. West Virginia is not coal!" Now tell me exactly what WV would be without coal. As mentioned in #1. NOTHING! Talk about a poor and pitiful place to live with no work.

7. And just like Old School I had problems with Google-Earth while try to look at problems. And remind you, I was using the Google Earth provided on ilovemountains.org. I could not zoom in very close nor could I tell if these shots were from active mines or not.

Reclamation is a Long process. You can't expect to see a forest with 50 foot trees the day after a coal company closes up shop. It will take time to get back to where it was but time is what the environment has. Time is not what these economies have without the Coal Industry.

Great post Beef. :Thumbs:

I will have to disagree Google Earth is not up to date as you say, according to their own web site and Question No. 3 anyways which states "Google Earth aquires the best imagery available, most of which is one to three years old. I know of one area that is now four years old. Question No. 4 on Google Earth also states the information in Google Earth is collected over time and is not "real time" in nature. I also checked out the page on Island Creek Ky. mine site located in Pike County and the page on Lost Mountain mine site located in Perry County Ky. and I found something odd between the two sites they both showed the same and only reclaimation photo, kind of odd don't you think, is it just a mistake or was it intentional. What other erroneous information are the anti-coal people giving the public?

I went back to Google Earth again and scanned the Eastern Ky area and every mine site that I clicked on has been either shaded white or tinted, and I don't care what you say you can not tell how a mine site has been reclaimed in those photographs. I also zoomed up on several areas including towns, mine sites, my home I even zoomed up on the Marsh Fork Elem. and I couldn't get close enough to see the silos behind the school, I know their there but the photo was to blurry and Karford Mtn. there is no way you could make anything out without knowing what is actually there. Since the anti-coal people are the ones working on this, here's a question for you. Why are the mine sites whited out or a tint added to them? Wasn't the purpose of the web site to show everyone what these mining sites actually looked like? Are the anti-coal groups trying to cover things they don't want the public to see like good reclaimation area?

One more item and I'm calling it a night. The following is a true story. A good friend of mine who by the way was a environmentalist (believe it or not) was couriousabout what went on behind closed doors at a anti-mining meeting being sponsored by a local environmental group. As these anti-coal people came up one by one and told their stories or shared their photographs, a man from the Western part of the U.S. wanted to share some photographs that he had take a few days before. After showing the active mine photo's he started showing some photographs of reclaimed areas, this man was told by the group that they never show pictures of reclaimed mine areas. Why are anti-coal people afraid to show good reclaimation pictures to the public? Why won't anti-coal groups place good reclaimation pictures on their web sites and in their hand outs?

Old School Wrote:I will have to disagree Google Earth is not up to date as you say, according to their own web site and Question No. 3 anyways which states "Google Earth aquires the best imagery available, most of which is one to three years old. I know of one area that is now four years old. Question No. 4 on Google Earth also states the information in Google Earth is collected over time and is not "real time" in nature. I also checked out the page on Island Creek Ky. mine site located in Pike County and the page on Lost Mountain mine site located in Perry County Ky. and I found something odd between the two sites they both showed the same and only reclaimation photo, kind of odd don't you think, is it just a mistake or was it intentional. What other erroneous information are the anti-coal people giving the public?

I went back to Google Earth again and scanned the Eastern Ky area and every mine site that I clicked on has been either shaded white or tinted, and I don't care what you say you
can not tell how a mine site has been reclaimed in those photographs. I also zoomed up on several areas including towns, mine sites, my home I even zoomed up on the Marsh Fork Elem. and I couldn't get close enough to see the silos behind the school, I know their there but the photo was to blurry and Karford Mtn. there is no way you could make anything out without knowing what is actually there. Since the anti-coal people are the ones working on this, here's a question for you. Why are the mine sites whited out or a tint added to them? Wasn't the purpose of the web site to show everyone what these mining sites actually looked like? Are the anti-coal groups trying to cover things they don't want the public to see like good reclaimation area?

One more item and I'm calling it a night. The following is a true story. A good friend of mine who by the way was a environmentalist (believe it or not) was couriousabout what went on behind closed doors at a anti-mining meeting being sponsored by a local environmental group. As these anti-coal people came up one by one and told their stories or shared their photographs, a man from the Western part of the U.S. wanted to share some photographs that he had take a few days before. After showing the active mine photo's he started showing some photographs of reclaimed areas, this man was told by the group that they never show pictures of reclaimed mine areas. Why are anti-coal people afraid to show good reclaimation pictures to the public? Why won't anti-coal groups place good reclaimation pictures on their web sites and in their hand outs?

I wont debate with you on the whole google earth thing, maybe you just don't want to admit the reclamation isnt as good as you claim, or one of us is blind and isn't seeing what is really in the photos. The kayford mountain site is clearly visible, anyone else who reads this post should go look at them, they will see the truth.

Your claim that they are handing out bad info, and bad photos, Ilovemountains.org has no control over the satellite images, google acquired those, the only thing ilovemountains does is provide the info on the links, you're more than welcome to challenge that info, but the photos are not doctored as you claim.

Question: If those photos are so horrible, why would 12,000 people sign a petition in just one week after the images were posted? Are those 12,000 people so stupid that they couldn't tell a doctored photo?

If you took the steps I said and viewed the global awareness/memorial for the mountains you would clearly see the photos, but I should have known that you wouldn't, you're to blinded by the coal industry to admit something that doesn't fit well with your agenda. You question the photos, but here is a great question for you, if reclamation is a good as you claim, then I shouldnt be able to tell a reclaimed area, from one that isnt? right? didnt you say they put it back to the original condition before mining


As far as the good reclamation photos, ive never been to an "anti-coal" meeting so I wouldn't know what has been said, or is said at those meetings.(Remember I study this on my own, I don't need someone to tell me what is true.) To me you're story really holds no water, that would be like me saying why don't coal groups show bad reclamation photos, it's simple, that would be bad PR.

Ive seen photos from coal groups on reclamation, and they all back what ive been saying, on most of these sites nothing is planted besides grass, and on the ones that do have sparse trees, no effort was made to replace the mixed forest that once lived on the mountain, becuase it is impossible for that forest to return to the destroyed land.

These links are from some sites that show before and after photos of reclamation. One of these is from a "coal freindly" site. Like I said, reclamation is a joke.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=h...n%26sa%3DN

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=h...n%26sa%3DN

The last link shows a site in knott county, some homes or buildings sit on it, but no sign is found of the trees you claim should be there, you can also look in the background and see that the same is true for the mining sites in the distance.


The real story is that if the reclamation was so great, and mining companies planted back this fantasy world where flora and fauna are wonderfully re-entered into the environment no one would be complaining. But thats not true, it's not just "crazy tree-huggers" that are crying foul, some universities are devoting entire classes to the subject, duke for example has a website on the issue.


The only real way to argue you this is with the studies done on the subject. What does the science say? Well the science and studies back my point of view. So what does this mean? Well in the case of this debate, absolutely nothing, I know that you aren't going to see things my way, and im definitely not going to see things your way, so it's kind of pointless for me to waste my time trying to prove that what im saying is the truth. I have better things to do than to argue with some old man. I will continue to spread what I believe is the truth, and I plan to give this information to people with an open mind, not a biased one. The cavemaster said it great in another thread with his analogy to the "smoker", you're only going to look for info that backs what you believe, and you will ignore anything that disagrees, even if it leads to your demise.

If only people could see things like the "green preacher" the world would be a better place. But sadly that isn't happening.

I still can't get over the fact that you expect a whole forest of trees to be there after a company moves out. And the links you provide seem to show land that has been reclaimed pretty well. As I said, you can't expect trees there overnight.

And no comments about my post?

Coach_Owens87 Wrote:I wont debate with you on the whole google earth thing, maybe you just don't want to admit the reclamation isnt as good as you claim, or one of us is blind and isn't seeing what is really in the photos. The kayford mountain site is clearly visible, anyone else who reads this post should go look at them, they will see the truth.

Your claim that they are handing out bad info, and bad photos, Ilovemountains.org has no control over the satellite images, google acquired those, the only thing ilovemountains does is provide the info on the links, you're more than welcome to challenge that info, but the photos are not doctored as you claim.

Question: If those photos are so horrible, why would 12,000 people sign a petition in just one week after the images were posted? Are those 12,000 people so stupid that they couldn't tell a doctored photo?

If you took the steps I said and viewed the global awareness/memorial for the mountains you would clearly see the photos, but I should have known that you wouldn't, you're to blinded by the coal industry to admit something that doesn't fit well with your agenda. You question the photos, but here is a great question for you, if reclamation is a good as you claim, then I shouldnt be able to tell a reclaimed area, from one that isnt? right? didnt you say they put it back to the original condition before mining


As far as the good reclamation photos, ive never been to an "anti-coal" meeting so I wouldn't know what has been said, or is said at those meetings.(Remember I study this on my own, I don't need someone to tell me what is true.) To me you're story really holds no water, that would be like me saying why don't coal groups show bad reclamation photos, it's simple, that would be bad PR.

Ive seen photos from coal groups on reclamation, and they all back what ive been saying, on most of these sites nothing is planted besides grass, and on the ones that do have sparse trees, no effort was made to replace the mixed forest that once lived on the mountain, becuase it is impossible for that forest to return to the destroyed land.

These links are from some sites that show before and after photos of reclamation. One of these is from a "coal freindly" site. Like I said, reclamation is a joke.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=h...n%26sa%3DN

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=h...n%26sa%3DN

The last link shows a site in knott county, some homes or buildings sit on it, but no sign is found of the trees you claim should be there, you can also look in the background and see that the same is true for the mining sites in the distance.


The real story is that if the reclamation was so great, and mining companies planted back this fantasy world where flora and fauna are wonderfully re-entered into the environment no one would be complaining. But thats not true, it's not just "crazy tree-huggers" that are crying foul, some universities are devoting entire classes to the subject, duke for example has a website on the issue.


The only real way to argue you this is with the studies done on the subject. What does the science say? Well the science and studies back my point of view. So what does this mean? Well in the case of this debate, absolutely nothing, I know that you aren't going to see things my way, and im definitely not going to see things your way, so it's kind of pointless for me to waste my time trying to prove that what im saying is the truth. I have better things to do than to argue with some old man. I will continue to spread what I believe is the truth, and I plan to give this information to people with an open mind, not a biased one. The cavemaster said it great in another thread with his analogy to the "smoker", you're only going to look for info that backs what you believe, and you will ignore anything that disagrees, even if it leads to your demise.

If only people could see things like the "green preacher" the world would be a better place. But sadly that isn't happening.

You won't debate the Google Earth photo's because you can't justify the photographs. If the mines sites haven't been covered with white or tinted and are natural photo's, then explain to me why like cleared farm land, areas under development such as roads, subdivisions, shopping centers etc. are not colored or tinted? Whenever something has been added or deleated from a photograph (such as tinting areas or adding a white overlay) then it has been doctored and is useless for any purpose. I hope people visit Google Earth and see for themselfs.

To answer you question on Reclaimation: for one thing you could never zoom in close enough to see how well a site has been reclaimed, regardless of what you say the photo's simply do not show enough detail. If you are really interested in seeing a reclaimed mine site you need to get off of google earth and terra server because they are absolutly worthless for this purpose. I would suggest you visit a mine site and judge for yourself.

To answer your question about the petition. In today's world anyone will sign a petition on anything if you paint a bad ennough picture for them, heck these signatures could be from anti-coal groups across the world for all you and I know.

Questions: Where are these people from? Are they familiar enough with the facts? Do they even know what they are looking at? Did they recieve any information from the coal industry? Did they base their opinion solely on information provided by anti-coal groups?

You say I'm blinded by the Coal industry and I fell to admit to something that doesn't fit my agenda. That sort of sounds like the pot calling the kettle black doesn't it. Maybe you should look into the mirror or are you afraid you what you'll see. As I said before I've been involved in the mining industry for over 25 years, I've worked in production on both Surface and Underground mines and I've worked in engineering and I know what we do everysingle day and I can pick up a newspaper or go to numberous web sites and see the bogas information the anti-coal groups are putting out for the public to see. I never said we put land back to its orginal condition before mining, if I remember correctly I said the AOC requires land to be returned to approximately 80%. I'm not sure what year the AOC came into effect, regardless only a property owner can ask for a variance to leave the land flatter, so it can be used for other purposes. Actually most land owners ask if we can leave the ground flat where some want to build homes, other want to build barns or just to let their cattle to graze.

You may study on your own, but everyone needs a tutor at some point in thier lifetime.

You seem to be fixated with trees on reclaimed sites, as Beef stated trees do not grow 50 foot tall overnight this may help to explain the process to you, remember trees are planted during the final phase of the bond release. Lets say we have a large mining operation going on and we started production in 1990, by 1992 we should be able to start planting grass on small areas or our mine site as the years go by we continue to reclaim and to plant grass to control erosin. After mining is completed in the year 2000 and everything has been reclaimed we apply for the first phase of the bond release, a complete bond release may take anywhere from 6 to 8 years to complete. Since we won't plant trees until we apply for the final bond release which in this case should be around the year 2005. Then you'll need to give the trees time to grow that should take about 15-18 years for them to blend in with the undistrubed areas, which in this senario would be around the years of 2020-2023. BTW we just planted around 50,000 trees on some of our sites and the only way you could seem them is if you were standing on top of them.

We don't seem to have a problem growing trees as a matter of fact we have one area that has a 15 year growth and it is doing great. So that as you say blows your theory of trees not growing on a reclaimed mine site out of the water.

The link you refer to in Knott County looks like a farm to me, the barn, watering pond and feed shed kind of give it away, but you ask why aren't there any trees, well my guess is that the owners ask it to be left as hay land or pasture land when the coal company applied for the mining permit. Which if it was permitted as hay land or pasture land then trees are not required to be planted.

I agree with what the cavemaster said and I see both sides every day, but you on the other hand refuse to accept any information unless its from the anti-coal groups.

You may call me an OLD MAN but remember this, old people may not be as crazy as you may think, I remember when I thought I knew everything about everything and after being brought back to earth a few times I learned that I just needed to sit back and listen more, and over the years it has paid off.