[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.

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.