[Old School]

The link below is to a blog site (coal tattoo) maintained by Ken Ward Jr. for those of you that don't know Ken, he is a reporter for the Charleston Gazette who is anti-coal. Recently Ken ask Gene Kitts a Vice President with ICG (International Coal Group) to write something for his blog to explain why coal companies would choose surface mining over underground mining.

This is a very good article, especially for those that are not familiar with the mine plannig process.

http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/20...face-mine/

[Wildcatk23]

From a Recent Mountain Top Removal discussion in Frankfort, KY Dr Danny (Lt Gov) : It's all about Mountain Top DEVELOPMENT. Nina Suzzane: Then why don't you sale the Idea of blowing up Mountains to the People in North Carolina? Dr Danny: Well, those mountains don't have any coal. Nina Suzzane: But,sir, you said it was all about DEVELOPMENT.

[Hoot Gibson]

That is a good article, Old School, but I do not think most surface mining opponents are interested in learning the facts about surface mining. If they can remain ignorant of the facts, then they can demonize coal companies with a clear conscience. I do not fault local residents who oppose surface mining nearly as much as I do people who criticize it from a great distance, such as the Left Coast types.

I sometimes wonder what surface mined areas will look like in 500 or 1,000 years myself. However, I suspect that the years will be much kinder to areas that are mined by MTR methods than they will be to contour stripped areas.

[Old School]

That is a good article, Old School, but I do not think most surface mining opponents are interested in learning the facts about surface mining. If they can remain ignorant of the facts, then they can demonize coal companies with a clear conscience. I do not fault local residents who oppose surface mining nearly as much as I do people who criticize it from a great distance, such as the Left Coast types.

I sometimes wonder what surface mined areas will look like in 500 or 1,000 years myself. However, I suspect that the years will be much kinder to areas that are mined by MTR methods than they will be to contour stripped areas.

Telling people that coal mined by the surface mining method can be mined by underground methods. That surface mining employees fewer miners than underground mines are primary talking points for the anti coal groups. I think that Gene's article really breaks it down to where most non mining people can understand the surface mining concept.

I visit several anti mining sites from time to time and you would be surprised to see the misinformation they have posted. However this misinformation is not realized by those who have no mining knowledge.

I can't say what these areas will look like in 500 years, but I've seen areas that were mined about 20 to 25 years ago and they are looking real nice.

[Hoot Gibson]

Telling people that coal mined by the surface mining method can be mined by underground methods. That surface mining employees fewer miners than underground mines are primary talking points for the anti coal groups. I think that Gene's article really breaks it down to where most non mining people can understand the surface mining concept.

I visit several anti mining sites from time to time and you would be surprised to see the misinformation they have posted. However this misinformation is not realized by those who have no mining knowledge.

I can't say what these areas will look like in 500 years, but I've seen areas that were mined about 20 to 25 years ago and they are looking real nice.

I have been on many beautiful reclaimed MTR areas teeming with more wildlife than was ever there before.

The big lies that the anti-mining types tell that always get under my skin is when they quote the number of miles of waterways that have been filled and destroyed. To a casual reader not familiar with mining, the image conjured is mountains of dirt dumped into pristine rivers and that is the image the liberal media and mining foes intend to create.

[miragesmack]

I guess I'm a casual reader, but you make mining sound glorious. Now, as a kid, we used to go to Eastern KY a lot, so I did see strip mining first hand. The last time when I was a teen, for a funeral, I remember my dad nearly dying as a pall bearer, lugging that casket up the side of a mountain.

But isn't MTR eliminating a lot of the mountainous terrain? I saw a coal developer on a TV show once, and he claimed it was, but that it was a good thing. I got the impression from him that "flat" was good, and "hilly" was bad. Sounded like a typical developer to me, just wanting more flat land for other uses, even if they seem like good uses, such as playing fields, parks, etc. Yes, it may be green, and more useful, but is that always the best thing?

I don't know, I guess I'm just old school. I kinda like to keep mother nature as it is for the most part. There are other ways to drill, though I'm sure they cost more. I'm kinda hoping we get our nuclear program rolling anyway, to coexist with the coal industry, then maybe so much land doesn't have to be altered. I also support drilling for oil off our coast, so I'm not a tree hugger by any means. It just seems to me there is a better way.

[Hoot Gibson]

I guess I'm a casual reader, but you make mining sound glorious. Now, as a kid, we used to go to Eastern KY a lot, so I did see strip mining first hand. The last time when I was a teen, for a funeral, I remember my dad nearly dying as a pall bearer, lugging that casket up the side of a mountain.

But isn't MTR eliminating a lot of the mountainous terrain? I saw a coal developer on a TV show once, and he claimed it was, but that it was a good thing. I got the impression from him that "flat" was good, and "hilly" was bad. Sounded like a typical developer to me, just wanting more flat land for other uses, even if they seem like good uses, such as playing fields, parks, etc. Yes, it may be green, and more useful, but is that always the best thing?

I don't know, I guess I'm just old school. I kinda like to keep mother nature as it is for the most part. There are other ways to drill, though I'm sure they cost more. I'm kinda hoping we get our nuclear program rolling anyway, to coexist with the coal industry, then maybe so much land doesn't have to be altered. I also support drilling for oil off our coast, so I'm not a tree hugger by any means. It just seems to me there is a better way.

There are large areas of coal reserves that are not safely and economically minable by any other method. When mountain top removal methods are used, most of the "mountain" is untouched. A "flat topped" mountain is not as pretty to look at from a distance but it is a whole lot easier to hike, fish, or hunt on one. Deer and other wildlife thrive on reclaimed mountaintops.

When an area can be mined by surface mining methods, then it should be mined that way. Recovery rates for mountain top mining can reach 85 or 90 percent.

Augering is an extremely wasteful mining method that generally recovers no more than 35 percent of the area penetrated (150 to 200 feet, tops) and makes the remaining reserves less attractive for mining. Underground mines are required to test drill when mining close to old auger holes or other deep mines, which makes such mining more dangerous and more expensive.

Highwall mining theoretically recovers coal at a higher rate than augering but recovery depends on highwall conditions and the geometry of the coal seam outcrop.

Underground room and pillar mining typically recovers 50 to 60 percent of the coal in place. In ideal conditions, the recovery rate can be a little higher but adverse roof conditions can result in much lower recovery rates.

Longwall mining is done in areas where the amount of cover over the seam is too great to deep mine. This type of mining, in good conditions, is capable of recovering 70 percent or more of the coal in place.

When coal is mined using the wrong mining method because of unreasonable regulations, resources are wasted and safety is compromised.

If you have never been on an active surface mining operation, then you would be shocked at the level of destruction that you would see on your first visit. However, most people are surprised at how much different an mined out area that has been properly reclaimed is, as compared to the horror stories and pictures recycled by liberal newspapers such as the Charleston Gazette, Lexington Herald-Leader, and the Louisville Courier-Journal. Unfortunately, stories in our own newspapers get picked up by the national media and reprinted and read by the armchair environmentalists who own private jets and sprawling estates.