[Old School]

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?

Apparently Coach is speechless:Clap:

[thecavemaster]

Sludge ponds, black lung, trapped miners, environmental
degradation BUT jobs and cars and houses and boats.
Beef and Old School: here is the old rube: you give
us your souls, we'll give you a way to make a living.
What you guys don't seem to want to admit, is that
that "way" (like smoking cigarettes) gives temporary
satisfaction but leads to long-term suffering and
loss. Who would deny that the coal industry has
provided jobs? a certain economic security? But
at what cost? And, my friends, there has been, is,
and will yet be a cost.

[Old School]

Sludge ponds, black lung, trapped miners, environmental
degradation BUT jobs and cars and houses and boats.
Beef and Old School: here is the old rube: you give
us your souls, we'll give you a way to make a living.
What you guys don't seem to want to admit, is that
that "way" (like smoking cigarettes) gives temporary
satisfaction but leads to long-term suffering and
loss. Who would deny that the coal industry has
provided jobs? a certain economic security? But
at what cost? And, my friends, there has been, is,
and will yet be a cost.

Could you elaborate more on the long-term suffering and loss, let's hear your thoughts you ask at what cost there has been and you seem to think there will be more, apparently you have something on you mind. You also mentioned sludge ponds, black lung, trapped miners and environmental degradation, would you care to elaborate on these issues.

[Coach_Owens87]

Apparently Coach is speechless:Clap:

Nope, Like I stated I have better things to do than engage in this pointless debate. Ive been loaded with homework the last couple of days, so I haven't had a lot of time to view the site.

Again you just mention the same things, I know that you worked in coal industry for many years, and that you know all the laws regarding reclamation. But none of that really matters to me, anyone can know the laws, but knowing if they are enforced is the real issue. Judging from what I've seen and read, the reclamation laws, and the CWA (Clean Water Act) are all but looked over. And with Bush doing an all out assualt on all laws that protect the environment, companies can get by with this. Just research how bush changed the CWA.

Google Earth
You can debate the pictures all you wont, like I said, I encourage other people to visit the site, or to visit abandoned mine sites and come to their own conclusion. We aren't going to give in on our beliefs so debating is pretty meaningless.


Since you have been beating a dead horse this whole thread, I feel I can do the same. The facts that really matter to me is that 98% of abandoned MTR sites are not used, but politicians, and coal companies still say that the flat landed is needed, doesn't make sense to me.

over 700 miles of streams have been buried, between 1985 - 2001, this is from the EPA.

an estimated 2,200 square miles of forest will be destroyed by 2012. EPA

Now matter how many laws, or stories you throw my way nothing can disprove that devastation being caused by MTR.

All of this is going on while this region is stricken with poverty, and in desperate need of an economic boost, but the "boom-bust" coal industry has a stranglehold on this area. Coal has not and will not move this area forward.

I know you feel that Im nothing more than a know-it-all college student who thinks we can solve all the worlds issues, and that isn't far from the truth. I totally agree that we all neede a tutor, Im just glad the tutors in my life don't have such a biased, false view on issues such as this.

I hope that by the time im your age I can have more to do with my life than defend a dying energy source with a young brat.

[thecavemaster]

Could you elaborate more on the long-term suffering and loss, let's hear your thoughts you ask at what cost there has been and you seem to think there will be more, apparently you have something on you mind. You also mentioned sludge ponds, black lung, trapped miners and environmental degradation, would you care to elaborate on these issues.

I am suggesting that things like coal mining and clear
cutting the rain forests and over ranching grasslands
provide short term economic benefits. These activities
provide jobs and energy and function in our current
economic system. However, each of these things, individually
and collectively, come with a cost. They come with a
human and environmental toll. I am not seeking to
say that a tobacco farmer causes lung cancer; however,
burning tobacco in a cigarette loaded with chemicals
does. Mountain top removal, and other such practices,
produces jobs, produces coal, which benefits the
current economy, BUT MTR comes at a cost, which, unless
one is in real denial, must be conceded without need
for "let's hear your thoughts."

[Old School]

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.

This may be the reason your not seeing a lot of trees in those pictures and why a lot of the land is flat, also this may or may not help you understanding the reclaimation process. After the 1977 ruling a coal company had three options for their post land use methods (1) Forest land use in which trees are planted, and is used primarily on Contour mining areas. (2) Hay land / Pasture land is preferred by property owners who want to leave their property flatter so they can use it to farm, graze cattle, build barns etc., trees are not planted on these areas. Today to have this method approved the property owner has to prove to the state how they plan to use this land. (3) Industrial/Commercial use, which would basically leave the land flat this method was the most popular in the late 70's and 80's. During the late 70' and early 80's a coal company along with approval from the property owner could claim that there were plans for either Industrial or Comercial use. Today it is very difficult to have a Industrial/ Commercial post land use approved, you basically have to have a contract with a company stating they will build on this particular site. I personally don't see any company agreeing to this since it will take nearly 3 years to obtain a mining permit, then depending on the size the permit about 5 years or so to mine the area, then at least anoth 5 years to obtain a bond release, that means a company would have to wait around 13 years from signing a contract before they could ever start construction on their buildings. Here's a few question for the areas that you are looking at on Google, Do you know when they were permitted? When were they mined? Could they have been permitted as Industrial/Commercial post land use or Hay land / Pasture land? I personally don't know the answer to those questions, but you and the anti-coal groups seem to jump to conclsions before you know all the facts.

You keep saying that reclaimation is a joke and that trees will never grow on destroyed land. Since I visited the sites that you recommended and I think it's only right that you take a look at these sites that shows recalaimed sites from all across the U.S.


http://www.mii.org/reclcoal.html

http://www.coaleducation.org/ky_coal_facts/default.htm

[Old School]

If your not sure what a Ephemeral Stream is click on the link below, there are seven pictures of Ephemeral Stream taken before any mining started in this area.

http://www.kentuckycoal.com/Mountaintop%...Waters.htm

Anti-Coal groups and others claim that over 1,000 miles of streams have been buried by coal mining, with the majority of the that length coming from streams like you see in the photographs, where they consider the stream starting at the top of the ridge. If the anti-coal groups have their way a mining company would have to stay at least 100 feet away from the streams like you see in the photo's in the link posted above. Judge Chambers also ruled a few months ago that the sediment ponds built in these areas or any other waterway are illegal that these streams belong under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers.

[Old School]

I am suggesting that things like coal mining and clear
cutting the rain forests and over ranching grasslands
provide short term economic benefits. These activities
provide jobs and energy and function in our current
economic system. However, each of these things, individually
and collectively, come with a cost. They come with a
human and environmental toll. I am not seeking to
say that a tobacco farmer causes lung cancer; however,
burning tobacco in a cigarette loaded with chemicals
does. Mountain top removal, and other such practices,
produces jobs, produces coal, which benefits the
current economy, BUT MTR comes at a cost, which, unless
one is in real denial, must be conceded without need
for "let's hear your thoughts."

Why stop at Coal Mining and Clear Cutting the forest? In my opinion everything man does has some impact on the environment, from farming to the vehicles we drive to the chemicals we use every singe day, these also have a impact on the environment, they also provide jobs, and benefit the economy. But this disscussion is about coal mining, as I stated earlier, everything man does has some impact on the environment some more than others. Some think MTR has a huge impact on the environment while others like myself think the impacts are minimal, and that the positives outweigh the negatives.

[Coach_Owens87]

This may be the reason your not seeing a lot of trees in those pictures and why a lot of the land is flat, also this may or may not help you understanding the reclaimation process. After the 1977 ruling a coal company had three options for their post land use methods (1) Forest land use in which trees are planted, and is used primarily on Contour mining areas. (2) Hay land / Pasture land is preferred by property owners who want to leave their property flatter so they can use it to farm, graze cattle, build barns etc., trees are not planted on these areas. Today to have this method approved the property owner has to prove to the state how they plan to use this land. (3) Industrial/Commercial use, which would basically leave the land flat this method was the most popular in the late 70's and 80's. During the late 70' and early 80's a coal company along with approval from the property owner could claim that there were plans for either Industrial or Comercial use. Today it is very difficult to have a Industrial/ Commercial post land use approved, you basically have to have a contract with a company stating they will build on this particular site. I personally don't see any company agreeing to this since it will take nearly 3 years to obtain a mining permit, then depending on the size the permit about 5 years or so to mine the area, then at least anoth 5 years to obtain a bond release, that means a company would have to wait around 13 years from signing a contract before they could ever start construction on their buildings. Here's a few question for the areas that you are looking at on Google, Do you know when they were permitted? When were they mined? Could they have been permitted as Industrial/Commercial post land use or Hay land / Pasture land? I personally don't know the answer to those questions, but you and the anti-coal groups seem to jump to conclsions before you know all the facts.

You keep saying that reclaimation is a joke and that trees will never grow on destroyed land. Since I visited the sites that you recommended and I think it's only right that you take a look at these sites that shows recalaimed sites from all across the U.S.


http://www.mii.org/reclcoal.html

http://www.coaleducation.org/ky_coal_facts/default.htm

I took a look at those sites, and I guess to some people those relcamation sites would be bueatiful, great open pastures, rolling hills, but this is appalachia, not the midwest. Most of the pictures I saw were just grass, some companies put in wetlands and other wildlife habitats, but most of that was for non native game species, such as rocky mountain elk. It just doesnt make sense to take out 10,000 acres of forest, put in a 100 acre wetland, and say you helped the environment.

I understand most of what you mentioned in your article, I have written some essay papers on the subject. I have read a great deal about the SMCRA signed in 1977. The problem with the law IMO is that it leaves most of the regulation of the law in control of the state, the federal government just oversees the process. The last two Ky Governors have been very coal freindly, and a lot of waivers have been issued from the state and Corps of Egineers that allowed illegal valley fills. Lets keep in mind that Strip mining isnt really the best term for the mining happening today, MTR is massive compared to the forms of strip mining that where around in the 70's.

I remember reading, and I guess you could clarify this, that companies must put up a bond that covers a certian percentage of reclamation cost before they mine. This has lead to problems, a lot of companies only end up paying that amount in total for various reasons (bankruptcy, state waivers, etc.), this leaves the state to pay the rest, and in most cases reclamation is only done with the small amount of money put up the companies before mining. This leads to very poor reclamation. My cousin who is a foreman at a MTR site in knott county told me, and this is in his words " We just had to pay to plant grass before we mined." Doesnt sound like his company is too concerned about reclamation.

Google
I do not know when all mine sites where permitted, but by using the feature from ilovemountains.org you can view all of that. I think they have somewhere around 20 mine sites that you can tour. It has the date when mining started, the company mining, pictures of the land before mining, the image of the mining process, and a virtual picture of the site after mining, they get that info from the blueprints released about the proposed mine site from the mining companies, and the corps of egineers.


I remember reading a paper from Loyal Jones, a reat appalachain citizen, he said that the appalachain people's best traits are what is keeping us down. We dont like confrontation, we get so involved with individuals that we dont realize what is going on socially in the country. These family ties keep many people from challenging big companies, no one wants to see people lose jobs. But what is there to lose, counties that produce coal have no better of an economy than bodering counties that dont produce coal. We need to move forward, find better sources of energy, we need to protect what is really important to this area, the natural beauty of this land. The land that we all call home, but if people like you have they're way, there wont be any appalchia left.

[thecavemaster]

OLD SCHOOL: As you suggest, life is full of pluses
and minuses, and we will never agree about MTR and
clear cutting and overfishing...yada yada yada. I
will say this: the Iriquois used to teach their children
to think of the next seven generations before taking
action. Modern western civilization does not thus
believe nor teach. Perhaps it will take seven
generations to settle this "debate." Until then,
let us agree to disagree.