[DevilsWin]

The U.S. Office of Surface Mining wants to exempt valley fills from a 20-year-old rule that prohibits any mining activity within 100 feet of a stream.

What do you think? Full story below.

http://www.kentucky.com/181/story/199883.html

[Coach_Owens87]

A lot of church groups oppose MTR. There is actually a "Christians for the mountains" group that speak out against this practice.


There is going to be a meeting over the proposed rule change in hazard on Oct. 24th, I know I will be there to voice my opposition. Other people should show up also, no matter what their viewpoint is, it's healthy to see both sides of the issue.

[thecavemaster]

I once worked in a situation where levels of Toulene (a solvent) were WAY too high for OSHA levels. This guy I knew raised a ruckus about it and got laid off (permanently). When court actions were begun, the company told the workers that this could shut the plant down, resulting in all losing their jobs. This guy began to receive death threats and threats to his family... his dog got poisoned. Broken in spirit and bank balance, he hung himself. Of all the things people are funny about, they are funniest about money. MTR is no different; whether it is ecologically unsound or not is not relevant to "economic considerations." Truth? It doesn't matter. Need dictates vision and version of truth.

[DevilsWin]

A lot of church groups oppose MTR. There is actually a "Christians for the mountains" group that speak out against this practice.


There is going to be a meeting over the proposed rule change in hazard on Oct. 24th, I know I will be there to voice my opposition. Other people should show up also, no matter what their viewpoint is, it's healthy to see both sides of the issue.

I wonder if, "You know who" will be there rooting for the Mining companies? I think his name is "Old.... Something". LOL

[TidesHoss32]

Not being a smartass, but what time is that meeting, and where will it be??

A lot of church groups oppose MTR. There is actually a "Christians for the mountains" group that speak out against this practice.


There is going to be a meeting over the proposed rule change in hazard on Oct. 24th, I know I will be there to voice my opposition. Other people should show up also, no matter what their viewpoint is, it's healthy to see both sides of the issue.

[Coach_Owens87]

Not being a smartass, but what time is that meeting, and where will it be??

When: Oct. 24. 6:00 - 9:00 pm

Where: Hazard Community & Technical College, Hazard Campus, Jolly Center, Room 208, One Community College Drive, Hazard

[TidesHoss32]

When: Oct. 24. 6:00 - 9:00 pm

Where: Hazard Community & Technical College, Hazard Campus, Jolly Center, Room 208, One Community College Drive, Hazard

Thanks..

[Fenix]

I am truly undecided on this issue as I'm rather ignorant to the idea. Could some of you fill me in on your opinions?

[Coach_Owens87]

I am truly undecided on this issue as I'm rather ignorant to the idea. Could some of you fill me in on your opinions?

The best opinion I could give is to research the subject. Just google Mountaintop removal and you are hit with thousands of sites, and a lot of opposing viewpoints. I really wouldnt go by what other people say, study it and come to your own conclusion.

here are some sites to start with.

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integri...ining.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/23/us/23c...nd&emc=rss

http://www.mountainjusticesummer.org/facts/steps.php

http://www.osmre.gov/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountaintop_removal_mining

http://www.uky.edu/KGS/coal/coal_mining.htm

http://www.stopmountaintopremoval.org/wh...moval.html

http://www.appvoices.org/index.php?/site/mtr_overview/

[Old School]

I am truly undecided on this issue as I'm rather ignorant to the idea. Could some of you fill me in on your opinions?

About 20 years ago a law was passed requiring mining companies to maintain a 100' foot buffer zone around streams, meaning no mining or placing excess material in these streams. The big question now is what defines a stream, basically there are 3 types of streams that are in question Perennial, Intermittent and Ephemeral. 1) A Perennial stream carries flowing water continuously throughout the year regardless of weather conditions. 2) A Intermittent stream carries flowing water under normal weather conditions, but does not flow during the dry seson or minor drought periods. 3) Ephemeral streams only flow during a rain or snow event, basically surface runoff.

Anti-Coal groups want Ephemeral streams, dry streams, drainage ditiches etc. to be considered as a Perennial stream. The Coal Industry defines a stream as one that flows year round such as a perennial stream.

If Ephemeral streams were to be included in the 100 foot buffer zone, it would make valley fills used for placing excess material and sediment ponds which are used to collect water running off of mining operations before entering the stream channel illegal. Anti-Coal groups want you to believe that this will only effect Mountain Top Removal and Surface mining operation, which is completely false. By allowing Ephemeral streams to be included in the 100 foot buffer zone would have a major impact on underground mines that use Impoundments or Refuse Fills, which today is nearly 98% of all underground mines in the U.S. Without the use of Ephemeral streams for valley fills, sediment ponds, impoundments any new mining will be brought to a halt.

[Old School]

I wonder if, "You know who" will be there rooting for the Mining companies? I think his name is "Old.... Something". LOL

You'll know in only 9 more days :wenumber1

[Coach_Owens87]

There was a recent meeting held at Pikeville College on Mountaintop removal. I read from two different sources that those who opposed the practice far outnumbered those who agree with it. Those who where there that agreed with MTR are exactly who you would think they would be, Bill Claylor of the Kentucky Coal association, and several coal business men, who have a lot to gain out of MTR.

The meeting was moderated by Former Governor Paul Patton, who is very coal friendly. The students and attendees who opposed MTR really stuck it to those who support it. Don't believe just read these two reports on it. It's great to see that most people who are informed on the issue oppose it, while those who claim to be informed on both sides of the issue like some "Old" members on here, really just hit the same talking points that all pro-mtr people do.

http://www.wkyt.com/news/headlines/10324...l#comments

http://www.kftc.org/blog/archive/2007/10...forum/view

[Old School]

Gee Coach, if I didn't know any better, I'd think that you don't like me any more........but I know that's not the case now is it. Coach this is what I think we should do, if I can leave work early on the 24th, you and I can get together before the meeting, maybe grab a bite to eat, my treat.

[Coach_Owens87]

Gee Coach, if I didn't know any better, I'd think that you don't like me any more........but I know that's not the case now is it. Coach this is what I think we should do, if I can leave work early on the 24th, you and I can get together before the meeting, maybe grab a bite to eat, my treat.

I never disliked you, we just don't agree on a very important issue in my life. I wouldn't mind the dinner, just where would you prefer to eat? But now when the meeting starts, the kindness and friendship ends, I have to speak my mind. lol.

[Redneck]

Posted by: Jordan Location: Hindman
I like how the coal companies say we need more flat land, when 98% of the mined land is currently not being used. We have all this flat land in a mountainous region, and we're not using it, but yet they claim we need more. Thats absurd. The truth is that MTR is destroying Appalachia. For proof all anyone needs to do is just drive around Eastern Ky. It's a shame that we are letting these coal companies destroy this land that makes us who we are. It must be stopped.

Mountains is who we are, BUT, COAL MINING is who we are too. Appalachia has been known for COAL MINING for decades, why should it change now. All the land that is mined is cleaned up and reclaimed. All these people would be complainin if Appalachia was known for loggin and there weren't any trees coverin the mountain side.

[Coach_Owens87]

Posted by: Jordan Location: Hindman
I like how the coal companies say we need more flat land, when 98% of the mined land is currently not being used. We have all this flat land in a mountainous region, and we're not using it, but yet they claim we need more. Thats absurd. The truth is that MTR is destroying Appalachia. For proof all anyone needs to do is just drive around Eastern Ky. It's a shame that we are letting these coal companies destroy this land that makes us who we are. It must be stopped.

Mountains is who we are, BUT, COAL MINING is who we are too. Appalachia has been known for COAL MINING for decades, why should it change now. All the land that is mined is cleaned up and reclaimed. All these people would be complainin if Appalachia was known for loggin and there weren't any trees coverin the mountain side.

Reclamation is a joke, anyone who is not in the coal business will tell you that. Just go to a "reclaimed" site and see if it is back to it's original contour before mining. The law states that it must be. You cant take out thousands of acres of mixed Mesophytic forest, which can contain up to 23 species of trees per acre, and replace it with a flat piece of land with grass and shrubs. Thats not reclamation. I know many strip mines that have been abandoned for ten years and only contain about 1 tree per every 2 acres. I just don't see how that qualifies as reclamation. People need to understand that trees struggle to grow on the destroyed land, the topsoil is taken away and replaced with rocky dirt, and the grass that is planted takes away all the root space trees need to grow.

Logging: Your right we would complain if logging took all the trees, it happened before, and the logging business cleaned up their practice somewhat. Although logging is still causing some problems in the region, such as landslides.

I really don't know why I try to debate people on the damage we are doing to this earth, it seems people are too stubborn to realize what is happening. That and a lot of companies don't want to give up that income, no matter what damage they are causing.

[Old School]

Reclamation is a joke, anyone who is not in the coal business will tell you that. Just go to a "reclaimed" site and see if it is back to it's original contour before mining. The law states that it must be. You cant take out thousands of acres of mixed Mesophytic forest, which can contain up to 23 species of trees per acre, and replace it with a flat piece of land with grass and shrubs. Thats not reclamation. I know many strip mines that have been abandoned for ten years and only contain about 1 tree per every 2 acres. I just don't see how that qualifies as reclamation. People need to understand that trees struggle to grow on the destroyed land, the topsoil is taken away and replaced with rocky dirt, and the grass that is planted takes away all the root space trees need to grow.

Logging: Your right we would complain if logging took all the trees, it happened before, and the logging business cleaned up their practice somewhat. Although logging is still causing some problems in the region, such as landslides.

I really don't know why I try to debate people on the damage we are doing to this earth, it seems people are too stubborn to realize what is happening. That and a lot of companies don't want to give up that income, no matter what damage they are causing.

FYI, Coal companies are not required to replace the land back to it's originial contour. Depending on how the Post Mining Land Use Plan in the mining permit is approved by the State. The land owner has 3 options (Post Mining Land Use Plan) in which the property can be reclaimed, 1) Forest Land is where the land is placed back to approximate original contour, and trees are planted. 2) Hay Land / Pasture Land where the land is left somewhat flatter, more suitable for grazing livestock and farming, no trees are planted in this option. 3) Industrial Areas are left flat and are suitable for commerical development no trees are planted in these areas. In most cases the property owner decides how they want their land left not the Coal Companies. The DEP (Department of Environmetal Protection) in West Virginia is now claiming that loose uncompacted fill areas are better for tree growth, instead of placing topsoil over fill areas.

As a rule when we plant trees we normally plant 600 to 800 trees per acre and estimate that we have a 75% survival rate.

[Coach_Owens87]

FYI, Coal companies are not required to replace the land back to it's originial contour. Depending on how the Post Mining Land Use Plan in the mining permit is approved by the State. The land owner has 3 options (Post Mining Land Use Plan) in which the property can be reclaimed, 1) Forest Land is where the land is placed back to approximate original contour, and trees are planted. 2) Hay Land / Pasture Land where the land is left somewhat flatter, more suitable for grazing livestock and farming, no trees are planted in this option. 3) Industrial Areas are left flat and are suitable for commerical development no trees are planted in these areas. In most cases the property owner decides how they want their land left not the Coal Companies. The DEP (Department of Environmetal Protection) in West Virginia is now claiming that loose uncompacted fill areas are better for tree growth, instead of placing topsoil over fill areas.

As a rule when we plant trees we normally plant 600 to 800 trees per acre and estimate that we have a 75% survival rate.

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.

[Redneck]

I really don't know why I try to debate people on the damage we are doing to this earth, it seems people are too stubborn to realize what is happening. That and a lot of companies don't want to give up that income, no matter what damage they are causing.

Maybe you should live thru the winter months without any electricity then see what you have to say about MTR or coal minin in general.

[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.

[Coach_Owens87]

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.

My sites are no more absurd than the pro-mtr sites you give me to visit

Ive read that 50% of Perry and Knott counties will be mined from several other sources, that was just a site that a had a lot of info compacted into one site. By looking at the photos from google earth, it clearly shows that nearly 30-40% of Perry County has already been mined. I couldnt find a site with the exact amount of land that has been mined, so I cant calculate if that percentage is correct. I know that 640 acres = 1 square mile, so when I find the amount of land mined in those counties I will get back to you with the number.

Unbiased All the info on the survey that you needed was on the site. It clearly stated that only 49% percent of people had heard, and have an understanding of MTR. I guess you just didn't read the site.

You can call my info biased if you want, but it's no more biased than the sites you have given me. You have listed several Coal company sites with reclamation info, coal facts, and economic benefits of mining, so please don't give me the crap that my sites are any worse than that. At least my info can give other sources with facts to back their info. kentuckycoal.org which is a site you have given me several times, is so biased an uninformative. They must think the readers of this site didn't get past 8th grade, they just give the most general info, and only the info that agrees with their agenda. Readers who take that seriously must not know what truthfulness in reporting and journalism is. But I should expect that from you, you watch Fox News.

here is are some examples from their site:

# MYTH: “Mountaintop mining flattens the mountain.”
FACT: In Kentucky, the topmost portion of the mountain is mined and generally leveled for the maximum recovery of coal. Once reclaimed, it still looks like a mountain. What’s left is flatter, more useful land on the top of the mountain.

As we already know, the great majority of land is not being used. So thats a lie.
And when reclaimed it does not look like a mountain, mountains do not flatten out on top, so to be truthful they should say it looks like a plateau.

“Every valley shall be filled in, every mountain and hill shall be made low; The rugged land shall be made a plain, the rough country, a broad valley. Then the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all mankind shall see it together; for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.” Isaiah 40:4-5, (New American Bible)

So the coal companies say religion shouldn't get involved, but yet they take a bible verse and make it seem that it supports MTR.

The coal industry does an excellent job on reclamation. We have won numerous state and national reclamation awards. Industry’s efforts over the years to encourage fish and wildlife has resulted in a resurgence of wildlife---a direct result of leaving open spaces, trees and shrubs that provide nourishment for wildlife and ponds that contain water year round. There is more wildlife than ever in Kentucky, in part because of reclaimed coal lands. And, it is on reclaimed land where mountain elk are now thriving.

So beacuse they win awards from coal companies on reclamation we should thank them for destroying our forest and putting in a pond.

They also state that it helps wildlife, So I guess god and nature got it wrong over the life of the earth when they developed this land. So life has been here for millions of years, but it was wrong all that time, what the mountains really needed was for humans to tear them down, take out all the plants that give animals food, and replace it with a pond and grass. God should thank us that we corrected his mistakes.

Come on, they put non-native elk in, which are suited to flat land life, and they claim they helped this area. Thats a joke, don't just claim your helping, give me scientific proof that you are, ohh wait, they cant, becuase it don't exist!

Coal companies are trying to put out false info, and propaganda to make themselves look good.


I even gave you a site to the EPA which confirms all the things I have been saying. Although the EPA really has no power to stop MTR, they listed all the damages it has caused. I guess you just conveniently skipped that site.


My visits
Of the sites I have visited 7 were to be forested, 3 where pasture land, and the last 5 where to be developed, only one of those has been, it now houses the Knott County Sportsplex.

The 7 that where to be reforested have no more forest than a Kansas wheat field. So you can say that most companies plant X number of trees, but from what I have seen, it just ain't happening. (Im actually going later this evening to visit another mine site, Im taking photos for an Appalachian studies course, im doing a project on social issues). Just like a lot of things coal companies say. And your just like them, you sugarcoat the truth to make yourself look good. I'm glad I have that wisdom you so valiantly speak of, becuase I can see through the crap you and the coal companies are trying to feed me. We all know any big company is not in it for the public good, they're in it for profit. Now that the public is becoming informed, the coal industry is trying to save face.

And one more thing, you claim coal is helping this region, and given us so much economic gain. I really don't see how you get that when the coal producing counties have the highest poverty rates in the state. But it's just more crap that the all knowing, wise man "Old school" tries to give us on a daily basis.

[Redneck]

I wish they would just go ahead and close this thread like they did the other one.

[Old School]

My visits
Of the sites I have visited 7 were to be forested, 3 where pasture land, and the last 5 where to be developed, only one of those has been, it now houses the Knott County Sportsplex.

And one more thing, you claim coal is helping this region, and given us so much economic gain. I really don't see how you get that when the coal producing counties have the highest poverty rates in the state. But it's just more crap that the all knowing, wise man "Old school" tries to give us on a daily basis.

Can you give me the permit numbers of the jobs that you visited, so I can verify their Post Mining Land Use Plan.

Eastern Kentucky does have the highest poverty rates in the state, but how can you blame the the poverty issue on the major industryfor the region. What would our economic sitution here be if there had never been any coal mining? The poverty issue is not the fault of the coal companies, the average miner will make over $50,000 to $65,000 annually.

Little ole me, an all knowing and wise man.......thank you very much for your admiration it really means a lot to me.

[Coach_Owens87]

Can you give me the permit numbers of the jobs that you visited, so I can verify their Post Mining Land Use Plan.

Eastern Kentucky does have the highest poverty rates in the state, but how can you blame the the poverty issue on the major industryfor the region. What would our economic sitution here be if there had never been any coal mining? The poverty issue is not the fault of the coal companies, the average miner will make over $50,000 to $65,000 annually.

Little ole me, an all knowing and wise man.......thank you very much for your admiration it really means a lot to me.

Yes I can look up the permits and give them to you.

As for as the poverty issue, yes I can lay blame on the coal industry. They have dominated this region for over 100 years, and really have isolated the region to any more job opportunities. But yet coal companies claim that they help this region so much, when in reality they don't.

You ask where our economy would be without coal, and my answer is that it would be in the same shape. By simply comparing average family income, and poverty rate between coal producing and non coal producing counties you really get the same numbers. Here are some examples.

Compare coal producing counties in the region to non-producing counties.

Coal Producing:
Knott county: Pop. 17,649
Average income for household: $20,733
Percent of people below poverty line: 31.10%

Perry County: Pop. 29,390
Average income: $22,809
Below poverty line: 29.10%


Non Coal producing:
Powell County: Pop. 13,273
Average income for household: $25,515
Percent below poverty line: 23.50%

Rowan County: Pop. 22,094
Average income: $28,055
Below poverty line: 21.30%

All info from wikipedia.

As you can see coal makes no noticeable difference at all to a counties economy. Another lie from the coal companies.

[Old School]

Yes I can look up the permits and give them to you.

As for as the poverty issue, yes I can lay blame on the coal industry. They have dominated this region for over 100 years, and really have isolated the region to any more job opportunities. But yet coal companies claim that they help this region so much, when in reality they don't.

You ask where our economy would be without coal, and my answer is that it would be in the same shape. By simply comparing average family income, and poverty rate between coal producing and non coal producing counties you really get the same numbers. Here are some examples.

Compare coal producing counties in the region to non-producing counties.

Coal Producing:
Knott county: Pop. 17,649
Average income for household: $20,733
Percent of people below poverty line: 31.10%

Perry County: Pop. 29,390
Average income: $22,809
Below poverty line: 29.10%


Non Coal producing:
Powell County: Pop. 13,273
Average income for household: $25,515
Percent below poverty line: 23.50%

Rowan County: Pop. 22,094
Average income: $28,055
Below poverty line: 21.30%

All info from wikipedia.

As you can see coal makes no noticeable difference at all to a counties economy. Another lie from the coal companies.

Explain to me how the coal industry has isolated this region, when in all reality they have help open the area up, without the coal industry would we have the airports, 4 lane highway that were built to help transport coal, prisons (which pay as much or more than the mining companies do) and the many more business that are in operation today because of coal mining.

These non coal producing counties you mentioned, for instance Powell County's close proximity to the Lexington/Winchester area enables many residents to work in the numerous industries, and therefor are not solely relying on just one industry to support the whole county. As for Rowan County, Morehead State University and the Rowan County School system are probably the largest employers, but over the last 6-10 years Rowan County has really developed with many new business locoating to thte area, so they also do not rely on one industry to support them.

[Old School]

[quote=Coach_Owens87]

You can call my info biased if you want, but it's no more biased than the sites you have given me. You have listed several Coal company sites with reclamation info, coal facts, and economic benefits of mining, so please don't give me the crap that my sites are any worse than that. At least my info can give other sources with facts to back their info. kentuckycoal.org which is a site you have given me several times, is so biased an uninformative. They must think the readers of this site didn't get past 8th grade, they just give the most general info, and only the info that agrees with their agenda. Readers who take that seriously must not know what truthfulness in reporting and journalism is. But I should expect that from you, you watch Fox News.

here is are some examples from their site:

# MYTH: “Mountaintop mining flattens the mountain.”
FACT: In Kentucky, the topmost portion of the mountain is mined and generally leveled for the maximum recovery of coal. Once reclaimed, it still looks like a mountain. What’s left is flatter, more useful land on the top of the mountain.

As we already know, the great majority of land is not being used. So thats a lie.
And when reclaimed it does not look like a mountain, mountains do not flatten out on top, so to be truthful they should say it looks like a plateau.

“Every valley shall be filled in, every mountain and hill shall be made low; The rugged land shall be made a plain, the rough country, a broad valley. Then the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all mankind shall see it together; for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.” Isaiah 40:4-5, (New American Bible)

So the coal companies say religion shouldn't get involved, but yet they take a bible verse and make it seem that it supports MTR.





**********************************************************
*************************************************************
The "Fact" that you mentioned is true, what is left is flatter and more useful land,
as I've mentioned several times in this thread, it is the resposnibilty of the land owner to use the land not the coal companies. I personally don't believe that religion should be brought into the MTR debate, but some on both side think that it should be.

If you really believe that www.kentuckycoal.org is uninformative, then apparently you don't know what to look for, because a lot of the information is provided by the state.

[Coach_Owens87]

Old school, I have constantly answered all the questions you have gave me with honest truthful answers, and all you can do is give excuses to make the coal industry look better.

First off lets get to the point, I do not, and will never believe the majority of information given from the government, whether it be local, state, or national. I can take a lot of info from the state, only show a portion of it, and make it look like the information favors my view. Just watch Bill O'rielly, he's mastered this form of deception. I guess cave master was right, age does not always bring wisdom, in your case wisdom has long passed.

You asked where our economy would be without coal, I showed you. It would probably be in the same shape. but again you make it seem that coal is only responsible when something good happens in the economy. If anything bad happens, you cant blame our major source of income. Come on oldschool, you can do better. If coal is so great, we should really be ahead of those economies that don't have coal, right? Well at least I get that impression when I listen to you.


Historical context of coal
In a historical context, coal has opened the region up somewhat, but it has probably hampered this region more than anything. The constant coal booms and bust have really hampered the economy here for nearly 100 years. You can go to a coal site, such as coaleducation.org, and they will show you pretty little pictures of coal towns, which make life there look great. But thats not the truth. The companies owned their homes, and gave them credit for pay instead of cash. A majority of workers in coal towns ended up owing the company money when they retired. The credit would only be useful in that coal town, this kept workers from striking, or quiting work. And when they did strike, the companies just took their homes, or in some cases, just called in the government to rid the problem. So there's another lie from your precious coal companies.

Coal does have a major impact on our economy, the workers from coal companies spend their earnings at local stores, and the coal companies buy machinery from local manufactures, but what happens when coal prices take a plunge, it's simple, our economy follows suit. This can be seen recently with the coal boom in the 70's, and the bust in the 80's. We are so dependent on coal that it has hampered us from having a stable economy over the last 100 years. This is where non-coal producing counties in Appalachia have a distinct advantage on us.

This leads to a big problem for our future, what happens if we find another abundant renewable resource of energy? Well first our economy would bust, we have not set got any other great jobs here to keep the region afloat. We're destroying our land, which really isn't ours, were just keeping it till the next generation comes around. Everything that makes this region what it is, is being destroyed for the gain of a few rich people. But I don't really know why I complain, this has happened all throughout history, but you should be wise enough to know that, right? One example, and a very old one is the Mayans. They cut down their forest, and used all their resources to help their empire grow, but ultimately this doomed them. When all the resources they used to build there empire where gone, the civilization ceased. This is a perfect example for is going to happen here.

Old forms of mining at least left us our land, but MTR is taking that from us.

[Old School]

Old school, I have constantly answered all the questions you have gave me with honest truthful answers, and all you can do is give excuses to make the coal industry look better.

First off lets get to the point, I do not, and will never believe the majority of information given from the government, whether it be local, state, or national. I can take a lot of info from the state, only show a portion of it, and make it look like the information favors my view. Just watch Bill O'rielly, he's mastered this form of deception. I guess cave master was right, age does not always bring wisdom, in your case wisdom has long passed.

You asked where our economy would be without coal, I showed you. It would probably be in the same shape. but again you make it seem that coal is only responsible when something good happens in the economy. If anything bad happens, you cant blame our major source of income. Come on oldschool, you can do better. If coal is so great, we should really be ahead of those economies that don't have coal, right? Well at least I get that impression when I listen to you.


Historical context of coal
In a historical context, coal has opened the region up somewhat, but it has probably hampered this region more than anything. The constant coal booms and bust have really hampered the economy here for nearly 100 years. You can go to a coal site, such as coaleducation.org, and they will show you pretty little pictures of coal towns, which make life there look great. But thats not the truth. The companies owned their homes, and gave them credit for pay instead of cash. A majority of workers in coal towns ended up owing the company money when they retired. The credit would only be useful in that coal town, this kept workers from striking, or quiting work. And when they did strike, the companies just took their homes, or in some cases, just called in the government to rid the problem. So there's another lie from your precious coal companies.

Coal does have a major impact on our economy, the workers from coal companies spend their earnings at local stores, and the coal companies buy machinery from local manufactures, but what happens when coal prices take a plunge, it's simple, our economy follows suit. This can be seen recently with the coal boom in the 70's, and the bust in the 80's. We are so dependent on coal that it has hampered us from having a stable economy over the last 100 years. This is where non-coal producing counties in Appalachia have a distinct advantage on us.

This leads to a big problem for our future, what happens if we find another abundant renewable resource of energy? Well first our economy would bust, we have not set got any other great jobs here to keep the region afloat. We're destroying our land, which really isn't ours, were just keeping it till the next generation comes around. Everything that makes this region what it is, is being destroyed for the gain of a few rich people. But I don't really know why I complain, this has happened all throughout history, but you should be wise enough to know that, right? One example, and a very old one is the Mayans. They cut down their forest, and used all their resources to help their empire grow, but ultimately this doomed them. When all the resources they used to build there empire where gone, the civilization ceased. This is a perfect example for is going to happen here.

Old forms of mining at least left us our land, but MTR is taking that from us.

1) What is this fixation you have with Bill O'Reilly, you have brought him up several times recently, I know your a secert culture warrior member aren't you, remember the spin stops here. lol Just think before long you'll be watching Hannity

2) In post #23, I ask you. What would our economic situation be here if there had never been any coal mining? Your answer was to compare the average income and the percentage of people below the poverty line from 2 coal producing counties (Perry and Knott) to 2 non-coal producing counties (Rowan and Powell). That's like comparing apples to oranges, coal is the only major industry in Knott and Perry Counties or even in the surrounding counties. Where as Powell County residents have the opportunity to work in nearby Winchester/Lexington areas where there are several different industries operating to maintain an economic balance. Rowan County has Morehead State University and the Rowan County Board of Education along with several other business to maintain a economic balance. On the other hand Perry and Knott Counties only have the coal industry to rely on for their economy, so their economy is only as good as the coal market. You also said that without coal our economy "would be in the same shape" as it is today, now do you really believe that. Think about this (based on 04 info.) Eastern Kentucky alone employed 13,272 coal miners, that earned wages of 613 million dollars per year, now consider that for each coal miners job another 5 are created either directly or indirectly to coal mining. For this example, I'll be conservative and use 3 additional jobs per miners job, that means an additional 39,816 jobs, now let's assume that these additional job pay an average of $22,809 per year (Average income of Perry County) that's another 908 million dollars annually. Total earned wages for these 53,000 jobs is 1.5 billion dollars annually, even if you subtract one third for taxes that's still 1 billion dollars annually, and this doesn't include property taxes, mineral taxes, severance taxes or any other taxes. If the coal industry is shut down which you are trying to do, Eastern Kentucky stands to lose 53,000 jobs and 1 billion dollars in earned wages after taxes, and you think the economy would stay the same, surely your not that gullible. I really wish there were other industries in Eastern Kentucky to help strengthen our economy, but today there's not, so for now we have to rely on coal as our major industry like it or not. If I understand you correctly you think the economy (without coal) would be similar to that of Rowan and Powell Counties today. Explain to me what would drive our economy?
3) How did you get the impression from me that "We should really be ahead of those Counties whose economy doesn't have coal? I have never said coal is the greatest thing on Earth, however I did say that coal is the only major industry in Eastern Kentucky.
4) You stated in post #27 that "our economy would be the same shape today without coal", but later in the same post you said "coal does have a major impact on our economy". Well which one is it or do you even know, apparently you don't even know what your talking about.
5) Let me see if I understand you correctly, you accused the coal companies of lying because you looked at some pretty pictures of people in coal towns that looked happy and you know that's not possible, because they rented their homes (boy, I glad no one rents a house or apartment today) and were given credit instead of pay. Did I understand you right?
Here's a link to a story I'm sure you'll enjoy I first read this in the Lexington Herald. When Inland Steel bought the town of Wheelwright Ky. they had all the homes upgraded, paved all the streets, built a swimming pool, a 9 hole golf course and a telephone company, a dental office and a hospital for the employees of the company to use anytime they wanted. Now I know all coal camps were not like this one, but not all were as bad as you say either. Coal mining in the early 1900's was a rough way to make a living, but surviving during the 31 year period from 1914 to 1945 was just as grueling could you imagine living through WWI, 1914-1918, and then The Great Depression 1929-1941 and then WWII 1941-1945, honestly I don't think any of us could live through it today.
6) You said "What happens if we find another abundant renewable recource of energy? and answered that by saying our economy would go bust. Let me ask you what happens if anti-coal groups get their way and shut down coal mining, Eastern Kentucky loses 50,000 jobs and 1 billion on wages annually. What would happen to our economy then? Right it would go bust.

http://www.coaleducation.org/coalhistory/mech.htm

[Coach_Owens87]

I bring up Bill O'rielly becuase you and him both think your right on everything, but both of you have your facts completely wrong. And there will never be a day when I am a viewer of Hannity, he just may be a bigger idiot than O'Rielly. As I stated before, any network that gives memos telling their employees exactly what to say has lost all credibility as a trustworthy journalistic organization.

As for my comparison, I find it very fair to compare to county economies, relatively close in distance, and relatively close in population. Now If I compared Knott County, to say Orange County Florida, that would be an unfair comparison. I was just trying to show that other counties in this same region have just as good as an economy as we do, and they don't produce coal.

I did say that our economy would be in the same shape it is now without coal, but that doesn't mean coal doesn't have an impact on our economy, It does, I never implied that. I was just simply stating that without coal, other jobs would emerge and our economy would be relatively the same. Thats why I compared the coal-producing counties to non coal producing.

And please do not give the bull of coal companies playing savior. You list one example of a company buying a town, (and they're not even a coal company) but you don't mention the hundreds of other small coal towns in which life was miserable.
I mentioned that site because they set up an illusion that coal towns where loved by all and that life was prosperous and full of happiness, that just wasn't the case. You constantly say that the info I give is slanted and presents the wrong image, I was just proving that the coal companies are guilty of this also.

And try to come up with a better example, just where did this great deed from inland steel get Wheelwright? Nowhere, the company doesn't exist anymore and 40% of people in Wheelwright are below the poverty line. Im sure they're all lining up to thank inland steel for getting them to the prosperous point they are now.

You ask how our economy can survive without coal, what will push this economy? Well that is a problem we all must face, coal will not last forever. And it's a known fact that the coal producing counties of this region do not have a very diverse economy. So education is a very important step in getting diversity into our job market. After people get an education we need to offer jobs to these people in order to get them to stay in the region and kick start our economy. Coal companies claim that reclaimed surface mine sites are being used, but in reality they are not. As badly I hate to say this, some sites could be used for business purposes, while whats left of this areas mountains should be protected and use to attract tourism, which would bring in a load of jobs, hotels, businesses, attractions etc. Our economy can survive without coal, other areas of Appalachia are experiencing great economies without coal.

If all coal stopped being mined tomorrow, and our economy went bust, we have no one to blame but ourselves. We let this region revolve around one income. We let coal dominate this region and did not try to establish any other major occupations. Greedy rich companies and people have only worried about their selves and not what is best for this region.

[Redneck]

How'd the meetin go? Was it like the one in WV where over 75% of the people there against MTR were young bloods (19-22 years old) who didn't have a clue about anything. One even said, "Uh, uhh, uh man, a uhh, a dude that lives down teh road from me, uhhhh, he uhhhh, he got a brain tumor from surface minin."