[Old School]

Yeah yeah yeah...We've had this debate before. I know that most companies claim that they will use the land for development to save them from reclaiming the land. Well reclaiming it with more than grass anyways.

I don't really know how they go about choosing a plan, but from the dozen or more reclaimed sites that I have visited, I'm guessing there is a big demand for unused pasture land. Only 2-5 Percent of abandoned mine land is used in some sort of developmental way (according to what source you read). From what I read that includes Pasture land also.

This is from the Kentucky environmental quality control, and they state that only 5 Percent is being used. Coal companies and people like you claim that we need the flat land, if we need it so damn bad, why don't we use it? My guess would be that we don't really need it in the first place, or people would be jumping all over the opportunity to have it.
http://www.e-archives.ky.gov/Minutes/EQC/050928.pdf



I really cant believe that 600-800 trees per acre, that must be some sort of unwritten law that coal companies claim to go by. From what I understand there is no law set on how many they must plant, so I really doubt any company would plant 600-800 on mine sites, many of which are 1,000 acres or more. Like I stated, ive visited over 15 mine sites, and none of those have had more than 15-20 trees per acre. The ones I've visited average around 5-10 trees per acre.

The damage being caused by Mountaintop removal is destroying this place, and everyone with knowledge on the subject knows it. There has been several Environmental impact studies done on the subject, and they all state the same thing. All except the last one, which was edited substantially by the bush administration, they didn't want people knowing the destruction being caused.

The following sites show how the estimated 6.8% of land to be mined is really a horrible estimation. The math to get that number is really flawed. It also shows photos of the mined land, and future mine sites.

http://windpub.com/mtr2.htm

http://www.epa.gov/region3/mtntop/eis.htm


A recent survey also shows that 71% of people oppose MTR within 50 miles of their home. And 70% percent of people disagree with the new proposal by the current administration. But only 49% of Americans know about MTR. Thats a really low number.
90 Percent of people, crossing all political lines, agree that the US should look into other energy sources before expanding MTR.

The coal companies are losing support, and their losing it fast. It's good to know that the majority of Americans think like I do. Ahhh, it's a great feeling.

This survey is unbiased, they surveyed 501 men, 500 women, from all across the country. They based this survey on Geographic region, sex, age and race. All people surveyed are over 18.

http://www.700mountains.org/release091307.cfm

http://www.blog.thesietch.org/2007/09/17...-for-coal/

http://www.enn.com/ecosystems/spotlight/23024

Any information that I didnt give, should be contained on those sites.

Coal Companies "Post Mining Land Use Plans" may be approved for forest, industrial or agicultural use, regardless it is the responsibility of the land owner to use this property after mining has been completed. Remember it's the land owners, not the coal companies who decide which post mining land use plan to apply for.

The 600-800 trees per acre that I mentioned is a company policy, even though most other companies have similar guidelines, some are more and some are less, companies are required to maintain a certain amount of grouth before a final bond release can be obtained. As for the 15 sites you visited, What did the post mining land use plan call for? Was it forest where trees would be planted or was it industrial or agicultural where trees would not be planted?

The windpub site you mentioned is a anti-coal site, in which their first statement predicts that more than 50% of Perry and Knott Counties will be mined by MTR is absurd. This is just another instance of the propaganda placed out there by anti-coal groups. Geological conditions alone will prohibit this from occuring.

This unbiased surveyed as you say was done by "Opinion Research Corporation" for the 700 mountains watchdog group, which is a anti-coal group and if you go to their web site it states under the header on the front page stop destructive MTR coal mining. The 1001 adults surveyed lived in the continental U.S., where does it state how many were from the West, South, or the North. How many of these people even know what MTR is, If they didn't how was it explained to them, How many of these people have only seen the propagande placed out there by the anti-coal groups. With that being said IMO your theory of a unbiased survey just went down the old crapper.