[Coach_Owens87]

With this being the Coal Appreciation day, and with the Coal rally occuring at the Knott County sportsplex, I figured this would a be a good time to put some opposing facts out there.

Mine operators in WV are not restoring mountains to the "approximate" original contour. Despite the countinous rants of MTR supporters, swearing the mine operators always obey the law, it seems the facts contradict them again.

"CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- Coal operators in Southern West Virginia are not restoring large strip-mining sites to their 'approximate original contour,' despite a state policy change meant to require such reclamation, according to a previously unpublished federal government report.

U.S. Office of Surface Mining investigators found that reclaimed mining sites were left much lower in elevation than required to meet the approximate original contour formula spelled out in their approved permit applications.

In one of the eight instances examined by OSM -- the most extreme example in the federal agency study -- the mine operator left the land more than 200 feet lower than required by a permit approved by the state Department of Environmental Protection.

Under federal law, mine operators must generally put strip mine sites back the way they were prior to mining. The law calls this 'approximate original contour,' or AOC. In limited circumstances, operators that proposed post-mining development can leave mined sites flattened or with gently rolling hills."

Full article here

http://sundaygazettemail.com/News/200907250119

[Mr.Kimball]

With this being the Coal Appreciation day, and with the Coal rally occuring at the Knott County sportsplex, I figured this would a be a good time to put some opposing facts out there.
Mine operators in WV are not restoring mountains to the "approximate" original contour. Despite the countinous rants of MTR supporters, swearing the mine operators always obey the law, it seems the facts contradict them again.

"CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- Coal operators in Southern West Virginia are not restoring large strip-mining sites to their 'approximate original contour,' despite a state policy change meant to require such reclamation, according to a previously unpublished federal government report.

U.S. Office of Surface Mining investigators found that reclaimed mining sites were left much lower in elevation than required to meet the approximate original contour formula spelled out in their approved permit applications.

In one of the eight instances examined by OSM -- the most extreme example in the federal agency study -- the mine operator left the land more than 200 feet lower than required by a permit approved by the state Department of Environmental Protection.

Under federal law, mine operators must generally put strip mine sites back the way they were prior to mining. The law calls this 'approximate original contour,' or AOC. In limited circumstances, operators that proposed post-mining development can leave mined sites flattened or with gently rolling hills."

Full article here

http://sundaygazettemail.com/News/200907250119

Put opposing facts out there , yeah right!!!:eyeroll:

[phs1986]

LMAO.... Knott County is a prime example of GOOD USE of land "after" strip mining has been done. Grants Branch up in Stone is another. People enjoy these places and wouldn't have them to go to IF the mine reclaimation crew hadn't done their work!!!

[Benchwarmer]

LMAO.... Knott County is a prime example of GOOD USE of land "after" strip mining has been done. Grants Branch up in Stone is another. People enjoy these places and wouldn't have them to go to IF the mine reclaimation crew hadn't done their work!!!

Good points

[Wildcatk23]

LMAO.... Knott County is a prime example of GOOD USE of land "after" strip mining has been done. Grants Branch up in Stone is another. People enjoy these places and wouldn't have them to go to IF the mine reclaimation crew hadn't done their work!!!

Thats Just One Example,Strip Mining Has There Advantages And Disadvanteges

It Requires Less Workers to do the job, and if not reclaimed properly you get new atv trails

[phs1986]

Thats Just One Example,Strip Mining Has There Advantages And Disadvanteges

It Requires Less Workers to do the job, and if not reclaimed properly you get new atv trails

The Hatfield/McCoy trail is a very large trail that brings in thousands of tourists every year just to ride! Some of the trail IS reclaimed mine sites while the others are just mountainous trails that have been made for the riders to use safely.

I know that there are both pro's and con's to strip mining but if it is done correctly, reclaimed the proper way, and the land used for an opportunity of economic advancement for the area, by all means give us new jobs! Give us a place to enjoy time with our families! Give the area golfers a new course! Give us a new facility for the kids to enjoy instead of us going to get them out of jail! Give us a new dirt track to go watch a night of racing! Give us a "man-made" lake to enjoy and fish in! Gosh, the sky is the limit!!! There is a lot of money that can be made, jobs to be looked at, and land that can be re-used for a greater purpose!!! I'm sorry if that offends anyone but that is just the way I feel. Why stop at re-planting the trees and grass? Why not make the land into something useful and prosperous for our communities!!

[outdoorsman43]

The Hatfield/McCoy trail is a very large trail that brings in thousands of tourists every year just to ride! Some of the trail IS reclaimed mine sites while the others are just mountainous trails that have been made for the riders to use safely.

I know that there are both pro's and con's to strip mining but if it is done correctly, reclaimed the proper way, and the land used for an opportunity of economic advancement for the area, by all means give us new jobs! Give us a place to enjoy time with our families! Give the area golfers a new course! Give us a new facility for the kids to enjoy instead of us going to get them out of jail! Give us a new dirt track to go watch a night of racing! Give us a "man-made" lake to enjoy and fish in! Gosh, the sky is the limit!!! There is a lot of money that can be made, jobs to be looked at, and land that can be re-used for a greater purpose!!! I'm sorry if that offends anyone but that is just the way I feel. Why stop at re-planting the trees and grass? Why not make the land into something useful and prosperous for our communities!!

:Thumbs: Couldn't have said it any better. I got to see the beginning of the Hatfield/McCoy trail last night when I went out to the game. Friend of mine said he has rode on it once before, said it was really something.

[Wildcatk23]

The Hatfield/McCoy trail is a very large trail that brings in thousands of tourists every year just to ride! Some of the trail IS reclaimed mine sites while the others are just mountainous trails that have been made for the riders to use safely.

I know that there are both pro's and con's to strip mining but if it is done correctly, reclaimed the proper way, and the land used for an opportunity of economic advancement for the area, by all means give us new jobs! Give us a place to enjoy time with our families! Give the area golfers a new course! Give us a new facility for the kids to enjoy instead of us going to get them out of jail! Give us a new dirt track to go watch a night of racing! Give us a "man-made" lake to enjoy and fish in! Gosh, the sky is the limit!!! There is a lot of money that can be made, jobs to be looked at, and land that can be re-used for a greater purpose!!! I'm sorry if that offends anyone but that is just the way I feel. Why stop at re-planting the trees and grass? Why not make the land into something useful and prosperous for our communities!!

Im not saying these things shouldnt happen im saying they dont. Strip mining is just a quicker cheaper version of mining. Areas can be filled in to its natural state, BUT the process can take up to 30 years,

And These days when Coal Companys are done destroying are naturally beautiful countryside they drop a pond in with sludge still contaminating it and stock it full of fish that 3 days later are floating on top of the pond, maybe your county had made use of its Strip Mining but i dont know one area in Martin County where strip mining has resulted in us a new golf course, a new facility a new lake, We get land that becomes an attraction for flooding and erosion Strip mining destroys animal life and vegetation.

It's not a necessary process but it saves money for the coal companies. Its extremely destructive They basically find a mountain with coal under/in it, then blow the top off the mountain with dynamite and scoop out the coal. It's much faster and cheaper than digging tunnels the downside is whole mountains get destroyed just to get coal out of the ground faster and cheaper.

[outdoorsman43]

Im not saying these things shouldnt happen im saying they dont. Strip mining is just a quicker cheaper version of mining. Areas can be filled in to its natural state, BUT the process can take up to 30 years,

And These days when Coal Companys are done destroying are naturally beautiful countryside they drop a pond in with sludge still contaminating it and stock it full of fish that 3 days later are floating on top of the pond, maybe your county had made use of its Strip Mining but i dont know one area in Martin County where strip mining has resulted in us a new golf course, a new facility a new lake, We get land that becomes an attraction for flooding and erosion Strip mining destroys animal life and vegetation.

It's not a necessary process but it saves money for the coal companies. Its extremely destructive They basically find a mountain with coal under/in it, then blow the top off the mountain with dynamite and scoop out the coal. It's much faster and cheaper than digging tunnels the downside is whole mountains get destroyed just to get coal out of the ground faster and cheaper.

You really need to look at the other side of the story. After the coal has been mined, the law states to reclaim the mined mountain(s). Mining operations do this. Do you think once coal is mined in an area then it just stays the way it is? Trees are replanted and the vegetation comes back just as good, if not better than it was before being mined.

As phs stated, a lot of positives come from mountain top removal. Just look at the city of Hazard, a lot of it is nothing but reclaimed property. A state-of-the-ark golf course, StoneCrest in Prestonsburg is nothing but reclaimed mountains. The wildlife (such as deer, elk, turkey, wild birds, rabbits, foxes, etc.) end up with even better habitat, with brush and cover, and open areas which they often prefer. Mountain top removal by no means destroys wildlife in any way. You've got to understand what you are arguing against before you make the statements you make.

The only thing wrong with mountain top removal is that there is a SMALL amount of pollution released. Mining companies do what they can to minimize it. This thread isn't about that, so I won't get into that. But you need to understand what you are arguing against here.

[Wildcatk23]

You really need to look at the other side of the story. After the coal has been mined, the law states to reclaim the mined mountain(s). Mining operations do this. Do you think once coal is mined in an area then it just stays the way it is? Trees are replanted and the vegetation comes back just as good, if not better than it was before being mined.

As phs stated, a lot of positives come from mountain top removal. Just look at the city of Hazard, a lot of it is nothing but reclaimed property. A state-of-the-ark golf course, StoneCrest in Prestonsburg is nothing but reclaimed mountains. The wildlife (such as deer, elk, turkey, wild birds, rabbits, foxes, etc.) end up with even better habitat, with brush and cover, and open areas which they often prefer. Mountain top removal by no means destroys wildlife in any way. You've got to understand what you are arguing against before you make the statements you make.

The only thing wrong with mountain top removal is that there is a SMALL amount of pollution released. Mining companies do what they can to minimize it. This thread isn't about that, so I won't get into that. But you need to understand what you are arguing against here.

And your only looking at the positives,

Only thing Wrong? Try

Land becomes an attraction for flooding and erosion
Strip mining destroys animal life and vegetation
SUBSIDENCE: falling 5-6 feet lower than you were minutes before, so essentially its like little hills taking over the terrain
Have you ever heard of Buffalo Creek WVU
The Buffalo Creek Flood was an incident that occurred on February 26, 1972, when the Pittston Coal Company's coal slurry impoundment dam #3, located on a hillside in Logan County, West Virginia, USA, burst four days after having been declared 'satisfactory' by a federal mine inspector.[1]
The resulting flood unleashed approximately 132 million gallons (500,000,000 L) of black waste water, cresting over 30ft high, upon the residents of 16 coal mining hamlets in Buffalo Creek Hollow. Out of a population of 5,000 people, 125 were killed, 1,121 were injured, and over 4,000 were left homeless. 507 houses were destroyed, in addition to forty-four mobile homes and 30 businesses.[1] The disaster also destroyed or damaged homes in Lundale, Saunders, Amherstdale, Crites, Latrobe and Larado. In its legal filings, Pittston Coal referred to the accident as "an Act of God.

I know what your thinking, Well That Was 30 Years Ago, Try This One That Happned In My County,
The Martin County Sludge Spill was an accident that occurred after midnight on October 11, 2000 when the bottom of a coal sludge impoundment owned by Massey Energy in Martin County, Kentucky, USA, broke into an abandoned underground mine below. The slurry came out of the mine openings, sending an estimated 306 million gallons (1.16 billion liters) of sludge down two tributaries of the Tug Fork River. By morning, Wolf Creek was oozing with the black waste; on Coldwater Fork, a ten-foot (3 m) wide stream became a 100-yard (91 m) expanse of thick sludge.
The spill was over five feet deep in places and covered nearby residents' yards. The spill polluted hundreds of miles (300 - 500 km) of the Big Sandy River and its tributaries and the Ohio River. The water supply for over 27,000 residents was contaminated, and all aquatic life in Coldwater Fork and Wolf Creek was killed. The spill was 30 times larger than the Exxon Valdez oil spill (12 million gallons) and one of the worst environmental disasters ever in the southeastern United States, according to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.[citation needed] The spill was exceeded in volume by the Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill in 2008.

[outdoorsman43]

I am aware of and knew about both of these instances. Those happenings are unfortunate.

The point is that this nation needs coal and there is no way to just instantly quit mining coal like the EPA thinks. I have no problem with switching to alternative fuels, but we have to make the transition in a slow process. Only reason I say that is because coal is going to run out one day. If coal was unlimited, then I would be for mining it until the end of time. Obama and the administration need to understand that the way they are going about this is ludicris.

[Wildcatk23]

I am aware of and knew about both of these instances. Those happenings are unfortunate.

The point is that this nation needs coal and there is no way to just instantly quit mining coal like the EPA thinks. I have no problem with switching to alternative fuels, but we have to make the transition in a slow process. Only reason I say that is because coal is going to run out one day. If coal was unlimited, then I would be for mining it until the end of time. Obama and the administration need to understand that the way they are going about this is ludicris.

I Agree With You 100%, We Need Coal And During Are Lifetimes We Probally Always Will, I Was Just Saying That The Coal Industry doesnt always do what they said therwe going to do and said they did, but just because we need coal doesnt mean we should let them ruin are countys, you understand where im coming from dont you?

[outdoorsman43]

I Agree With You 100%, We Need Coal And During Are Lifetimes We Probally Always Will, I Was Just Saying That The Coal Industry doesnt always do what they said therwe going to do and said they did, but just because we need coal doesnt mean we should let them ruin are countys, you understand where im coming from dont you?

I understand where you are coming from. You only understand somewhat of the argument. Accidents (like the incidents you mentioned) are unfortunate, but like the old saying goes, "accidents just happen" and they are going to happen regardless of how we get energy. Nothing in this life is perfect and never will be. As for destruction of mountains and animal habitat, there are more mountains being torn apart for building highways and creating roadways than for mining coal. But, both building highways and mining coal have to be done.

Just imagine if our primary energy source was nuclear energy. Could you imagine the accidents we would have then? It would be much, much worse I promise. If it got into our water supply. That water would be ruined for years and years. I'm just throwing some things out there.

Things could be a lot worse than they are right now.

[hawg laig]

I am for strong environmental regulations.
That being said, all of us folks in East KY worrying about the impact of strip mining is like a 45 year old hooker who just finished her 25th year working in a brothel, worrying about when she lost her virginity. TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE. I say we mine very bit of coal we can however we can, built power plants here, and make the rest of the county pay through the nose for electricty. If we are going to wreck our environment the we should profit, and not just coal jobs; if you're a manufacturing business, software business, or service industry, move to the mountains and we will sell you power cheap. You stay where you are at, then prepare to pay.

[Old School]

With this being the Coal Appreciation day, and with the Coal rally occuring at the Knott County sportsplex, I figured this would a be a good time to put some opposing facts out there.

Mine operators in WV are not restoring mountains to the "approximate" original contour. Despite the countinous rants of MTR supporters, swearing the mine operators always obey the law, it seems the facts contradict them again.

"CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- Coal operators in Southern West Virginia are not restoring large strip-mining sites to their 'approximate original contour,' despite a state policy change meant to require such reclamation, according to a previously unpublished federal government report.

U.S. Office of Surface Mining investigators found that reclaimed mining sites were left much lower in elevation than required to meet the approximate original contour formula spelled out in their approved permit applications.

In one of the eight instances examined by OSM -- the most extreme example in the federal agency study -- the mine operator left the land more than 200 feet lower than required by a permit approved by the state Department of Environmental Protection.

Under federal law, mine operators must generally put strip mine sites back the way they were prior to mining. The law calls this 'approximate original contour,' or AOC. In limited circumstances, operators that proposed post-mining development can leave mined sites flattened or with gently rolling hills."

Full article here

http://sundaygazettemail.com/News/200907250119

There are a couple of items that stick out about this report. First it is a draft version and not a final version, secondly the report has never been made public. So how did the gazette obtain a copy?

Regardless, of how the report was obtained, it is difficult to respond to such a report when you've never seen it, and are relying on the comments from a person who is on the opposing side.

Below are a few comments I found in Mr. Wards report.
"At virtually every site, there were certain areas where the actual measured ground surface was significantly above or below the proposed lines shown in the permit," said a draft of the OSM report obtained by the Sunday Gazette-Mail.

"OSM engineers and inspectors completed a draft of their report in June 2008, but the agency has never finalized the document or made it public."

"As part of a lawsuit settlement with environmentalists in West Virginia, the DEP wrote a new formula that aims to define when a mining proposal meets AOC and, at the same time, optimize the size of valley fill waste piles."
"OSM investigators studied four permits that were supposed to meet the AOC rules and four that received AOC variances."

"On both types of permits, federal officials found that the final reclamation configuration did not match that spelled out in the DEP-approved permits. In some instances, post-mining elevations were slightly higher than required by the permits."

Remember, only 4 MTM permits that were to meet AOC guidelines were studied, one was 24 feet another was 205 feet. I wonder what the other two were? Were the elevation changes above or below the guidlines?
"But in most cases, mine operators left the land much lower than required by their permits. The elevation changes ranged from 24 feet to 205 feet, according to the draft OSM report."

"Tom Clarke, director of DEP's Division of Mining and Reclamation, said he is waiting on a report from one of his staff on ways to address the issues raised in the OSM report. But Clarke also downplayed OSM's findings, saying federal officials found only "minor differences" between permits and on-the-ground reclamation results."

I found the following on Mr. Ward's web site.
As per 1977 SMCRA
… That surface configuration achieved by backfilling and grading of the mined area so that the reclaimed area, including any terracing or access roads, closely resembles the general surface configuration of the land prior to mining and blends into and complements the drainage pattern of the surrounding terrain, with all highwalls and spoil piles eliminated.

[Coach_Owens87]

You really need to look at the other side of the story. After the coal has been mined, the law states to reclaim the mined mountain(s). Mining operations do this. Do you think once coal is mined in an area then it just stays the way it is? Trees are replanted and the vegetation comes back just as good, if not better than it was before being mined.

As phs stated, a lot of positives come from mountain top removal. Just look at the city of Hazard, a lot of it is nothing but reclaimed property. A state-of-the-ark golf course, StoneCrest in Prestonsburg is nothing but reclaimed mountains. The wildlife (such as deer, elk, turkey, wild birds, rabbits, foxes, etc.) end up with even better habitat, with brush and cover, and open areas which they often prefer. Mountain top removal by no means destroys wildlife in any way. You've got to understand what you are arguing against before you make the statements you make.

The only thing wrong with mountain top removal is that there is a SMALL amount of pollution released. Mining companies do what they can to minimize it. This thread isn't about that, so I won't get into that. But you need to understand what you are arguing against here.

lol, if you honestly think vegetation grows back better on reclaimed mines, then you are truly lost. I can state facts, give links, or other sources that prove you wrong, but it does no good, as no one listens, or either fails to understand the facts. I can take you to several mine sites here in knott county that have been "reclaimed" more than 20 years ago, and the only thing on those sites or a few bushes and a few trees here and there. Most reclamation is a joke.

As far as a little pollution, thats a joke too. One example of this would be selenium, MTR puts large amounts of selenium into the waterways, but even small amounts can be dangerous when it undergoes biomagnification. Biomagnification is a simple process, here is an example. A small amount of X pollutant is released into a water way, the fish consume this, in turn the fish are consumed by other predators, be it other fish, or birds. These other predators eat large amounts of the polluted fish, which means that the prey are highly toxic. The prey die, have offspring, or leave their waste in streams, meaning the cycle of toxicity will continue for generations. DDT is a prime example of this.

The maximum in discharges of selenium (82ug/l) is over 15 times the threshold for toxic bioaccumulation. So this means that it doesn't take long for selenium to become toxic in the streams and waterways. I have conducted studies with other classmates that show MTR sites do decrease the density and diversity of species downstream.

And before you bring out your typical crap about the streams being buried or polluted are only ephemeral streams, please read the second study, she describes why this argument from coal companies is absurd, and completely ignorant. These streams are vastly important to wildlife, and water quality because when water is not present on the surface, it still resides in underground pools, which seep through the surface and filter the water. Many animals depend on these streams, and they have highly diverse species populations.

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:vOR-...clnk&gl=us

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:naiH...clnk&gl=us

[Old School]

Thats Just One Example,Strip Mining Has There Advantages And Disadvanteges

It Requires Less Workers to do the job, and if not reclaimed properly you get new atv trails

Surface mining does not nesessarily mean fewer jobs. Below is a segment of a article written by Gene Kitts (Why We Surface Mine)


"Now, let’s talk about jobs. It’s popular among opponents of Appalachian surface mining to say that more miners would be employed if we stopped surface mining and switched to underground mining. It’s true that surface mining is more productive than deep mining. Using Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) data (See page 16 of the .pdf) for the first three months of 2009, WV surface miners produced 3.99 tons per employee-hour compared to 2.94 tons per employee-hour for WV deep miners. Simply stated, 120 surface miners could mine 1 million tons per year while 163 deep miners would be required to produce the same output (1,000,000 tons / tons per employee hour / 2080 hours per employee per year).
Let’s imagine that a 10 million ton block of coal could actually be mined using either deep or surface mining methods. Surface mining would recover about 80% of the reserve, so 120 miners could work for eight years (960 employee-years) to produce eight million tons. Deep mining would recover about 50% of the reserve due to the requirement to leave pillars and barriers in place, so 163 miners would be employed for five years (815 employee-years) to recover five million tons. (See Glossary at page 69 of http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/acr/acr.pdf for definition of Recovery Factor.)
Three million fewer tons would be mined and the equivalent of 145 jobs for one year would not be created. In addition, the overlying seams that are too thin or too close together or too near the top of the mountain to deep mine would be recovered by surface mining, so the actual tonnage and longevity of the surface mine would be greater. The argument that deep mining creates more jobs simply breaks down when one considers all of the factors involved."

[outdoorsman43]

lol, if you honestly think vegetation grows back better on reclaimed mines, then you are truly lost. I can state facts, give links, or other sources that prove you wrong, but it does no good, as no one listens, or either fails to understand the facts. I can take you to several mine sites here in knott county that have been "reclaimed" more than 20 years ago, and the only thing on those sites or a few bushes and a few trees here and there. Most reclamation is a joke.

As far as a little pollution, thats a joke too. One example of this would be selenium, MTR puts large amounts of selenium into the waterways, but even small amounts can be dangerous when it undergoes biomagnification. Biomagnification is a simple process, here is an example. A small amount of X pollutant is released into a water way, the fish consume this, in turn the fish are consumed by other predators, be it other fish, or birds. These other predators eat large amounts of the polluted fish, which means that the prey are highly toxic. The prey die, have offspring, or leave their waste in streams, meaning the cycle of toxicity will continue for generations. DDT is a prime example of this.

The maximum in discharges of selenium (82ug/l) is over 15 times the threshold for toxic bioaccumulation. So this means that it doesn't take long for selenium to become toxic in the streams and waterways. I have conducted studies with other classmates that show MTR sites do decrease the density and diversity of species downstream.

And before you bring out your typical crap about the streams being buried or polluted are only ephemeral streams, please read the second study, she describes why this argument from coal companies is absurd, and completely ignorant. These streams are vastly important to wildlife, and water quality because when water is not present on the surface, it still resides in underground pools, which seep through the surface and filter the water. Many animals depend on these streams, and they have highly diverse species populations.

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:vOR-...clnk&gl=us

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:naiH...clnk&gl=us

Even if all this hoopla is true, how do you suppose we mine our coal?? I bet you have no such answer for that. Quit mining it, right? Just another uninformed arguer that just doesn't understand what he/she is arguing against. Would you rather have nuclear energy as our primary energy source so it would be ten times as dangerous? I don't know about the rest of you, but as long as the mining companies follow all guidelines, regulations, and laws of the D.E.P. (which are strict and must be followed), then I have no problems.

Let's look at your article. If the mining operations aren't following laws and regulations, then they will be forced to follow them, or will be fined until they can't even think about mining coal anymore. I am for all regulations and laws that are in effect by the D.E.P. and most mining companies follow these. I mean, do you think if mining companies don't follow the laws and regulations then nothing happens?? And so we should kill the coal industry?? Come on. If laws aren't followed (and they are strict, yet solid laws), then penalties and fines are issued. There is no beating around the bush for the mining operations. It's the EPA that is creating all of this ridiculous problems for the coal industry right now.

You should do a tad bit of research on the "other side" of the coal industry, maybe a little cap-and-trade research would help you too. Then you might understand my point-of-view a little better. I highly doubt either of those things will happen though. :eyeroll:

[Old School]

And your only looking at the positives,

Only thing Wrong? Try

Land becomes an attraction for flooding and erosion
Strip mining destroys animal life and vegetation
SUBSIDENCE: falling 5-6 feet lower than you were minutes before, so essentially its like little hills taking over the terrain
Have you ever heard of Buffalo Creek WVU
The Buffalo Creek Flood was an incident that occurred on February 26, 1972, when the Pittston Coal Company's coal slurry impoundment dam #3, located on a hillside in Logan County, West Virginia, USA, burst four days after having been declared 'satisfactory' by a federal mine inspector.[1]
The resulting flood unleashed approximately 132 million gallons (500,000,000 L) of black waste water, cresting over 30ft high, upon the residents of 16 coal mining hamlets in Buffalo Creek Hollow. Out of a population of 5,000 people, 125 were killed, 1,121 were injured, and over 4,000 were left homeless. 507 houses were destroyed, in addition to forty-four mobile homes and 30 businesses.[1] The disaster also destroyed or damaged homes in Lundale, Saunders, Amherstdale, Crites, Latrobe and Larado. In its legal filings, Pittston Coal referred to the accident as "an Act of God.

I know what your thinking, Well That Was 30 Years Ago, Try This One That Happned In My County,
The Martin County Sludge Spill was an accident that occurred after midnight on October 11, 2000 when the bottom of a coal sludge impoundment owned by Massey Energy in Martin County, Kentucky, USA, broke into an abandoned underground mine below. The slurry came out of the mine openings, sending an estimated 306 million gallons (1.16 billion liters) of sludge down two tributaries of the Tug Fork River. By morning, Wolf Creek was oozing with the black waste; on Coldwater Fork, a ten-foot (3 m) wide stream became a 100-yard (91 m) expanse of thick sludge.
The spill was over five feet deep in places and covered nearby residents' yards. The spill polluted hundreds of miles (300 - 500 km) of the Big Sandy River and its tributaries and the Ohio River. The water supply for over 27,000 residents was contaminated, and all aquatic life in Coldwater Fork and Wolf Creek was killed. The spill was 30 times larger than the Exxon Valdez oil spill (12 million gallons) and one of the worst environmental disasters ever in the southeastern United States, according to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.[citation needed] The spill was exceeded in volume by the Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill in 2008.

IMO reclaimed surface mines help prevent flooding more than they cause it. With the drainage systems used in today surface mining, runoff is diverted around the hillside and through a series of ditches and ponds before going into the streams. Concerning animal life, on our mining property it seems to be thriving with bears, deer, turkey, rabbits, squirrels, fox, and coyotes and various types of birds. Vegation takes a little longer, all of our reclaimed sites seem to be doing very well.

As for Buffalo Creek and Martin County disasters those were slurry impoundments which are primarily used by deep mines and has nothing to do with surface mining. One way that you could look at it is that neither would have happened if we were only surface mining.

[outdoorsman43]

IMO reclaimed surface mines help prevent flooding more than they cause it. With the drainage systems used in today surface mining, runoff is diverted around the hillside and through a series of ditches and ponds before going into the streams. Concerning animal life, on our mining property it seems to be thriving with bears, deer, turkey, rabbits, squirrels, fox, and coyotes and various types of birds. Vegation takes a little longer, all of our reclaimed sites seem to be doing very well.

As for Buffalo Creek and Martin County disasters those were slurry impoundments which are primarily used by deep mines and has nothing to do with surface mining. One way that you could look at it is that neither would have happened if were only surface mining.

That's a great point. Do you think the 'tree huggers' will look at it that way? Maybe...nah, definitely not.

[Coach_Owens87]

Even if all this hoopla is true, how do you suppose we mine our coal?? I bet you have no such answer for that. Quit mining it, right? Just another uninformed arguer that just doesn't understand what he/she is arguing against. Would you rather have nuclear energy as our primary energy source so it would be ten times as dangerous? I don't know about the rest of you, but as long as the mining companies follow all guidelines, regulations, and laws of the D.E.P. (which are strict and must be followed), then I have no problems.

Let's look at your article. If the mining operations aren't following laws and regulations, then they will be forced to follow them, or will be fined until they can't even think about mining coal anymore. I am for all regulations and laws that are in effect by the D.E.P. and most mining companies follow these. I mean, do you think if mining companies don't follow the laws and regulations then nothing happens?? And so we should kill the coal industry?? Come on. If laws aren't followed (and they are strict, yet solid laws), then penalties and fines are issued. There is no beating around the bush for the mining operations. It's the EPA that is creating all of this ridiculous problems for the coal industry right now.

You should do a tad bit of research on the "other side" of the coal industry, maybe a little cap-and-trade research would help you too. Then you might understand my point-of-view a little better. I highly doubt either of those things will happen though. :eyeroll:

Ive already expressed my opinions on this numerous times, and this isnt hoopla, its scientific fact. This has been studied, and the same results have been found in numerous scientific experiments/studies.

I didn't say we have to stop mining coal, but MTR cant continue the way it is right now. If we do have centuries of coal left, do you expect to just blow the tops off of mountains for hundreds of years? By the end of next year, an estimated 1.4 million acres of forest will have been destroyed. That's in the 40 years since MTR has been a common practice. If this continues for another 200 years at its current pace, that would mean that nearly 9 million acres will be destroyed before we run out of coal. Is that really a sound plan?

Nuclear isnt the answer to all our energy solutions, becuase it has a lot of negatives too. But energy sources like solar, wind, hydro, or waste to energy are options. None of these by their self is an answer, but by using many different procedures we can greatly decrease our need for fossil fuels.

[NEXT]

Martin Co. is not a good example, as most mines there did not fall under reclamation law because of when they were permitted.........

You can also build whatever you want in Martin Co. but there is 0 industry there to attract people and no roads to get to it.........

[outdoorsman43]

Ive already expressed my opinions on this numerous times, and this isnt hoopla, its scientific fact. This has been studied, and the same results have been found in numerous scientific experiments/studies.

I didn't say we have to stop mining coal, but MTR cant continue the way it is right now. If we do have centuries of coal left, do you expect to just blow the tops off of mountains for hundreds of years? By the end of next year, an estimated 1.4 million acres of forest will have been destroyed. That's in the 40 years since MTR has been a common practice. If this continues for another 200 years at its current pace, that would mean that nearly 9 million acres will be destroyed before we run out of coal. Is that really a sound plan?

Nuclear isnt the answer to all our energy solutions, because it has a lot of negatives too. But energy sources like solar, wind, hydro, or waste to energy are options. None of these by their self is an answer, but by using many different procedures we can greatly decrease our need for fossil fuels.

So you are saying that after a mountain top is mined and reclaimed it is useless? That is truly laughable. The pollution argument I can somewhat understand people making. The tree hugging garbage is what I really don't understand. It absolutely makes no sense. How can anyone make the argument that animal habitat, etc. is being destroyed? An elk's natural habitat consists of open areas. Your very own county has the largest elk herd east of the Mississippi River. White-tailed deer often prefer open areas surrounded with woodland cover to bed in. How often do you see wildlife in an open field? I, for one see it pretty often. These improved habitats for wildlife in this area are a credit to strip mining and mountain top removal whether you like or not.

I agree with making the transition to alternative fuels as I have said time and time again. A slow transition is the only way it will work. Not the way Obama and the administration are going about it by the letting Lisa Jackson and her ignorant environmental mob run wild.

[Coach_Owens87]

IMO reclaimed surface mines help prevent flooding more than they cause it. With the drainage systems used in today surface mining, runoff is diverted around the hillside and through a series of ditches and ponds before going into the streams. Concerning animal life, on our mining property it seems to be thriving with bears, deer, turkey, rabbits, squirrels, fox, and coyotes and various types of birds. Vegation takes a little longer, all of our reclaimed sites seem to be doing very well.

As for Buffalo Creek and Martin County disasters those were slurry impoundments which are primarily used by deep mines and has nothing to do with surface mining. One way that you could look at it is that neither would have happened if we were only surface mining.

The problem with this is that its only your opinion, and the scientific facts disagree with what you are saying.

Not all surface mines increase flooding, but the majority due, as pointed out in this study.

"We can say that MTR/VF mining can increase downstream flood risks, and that there is a very high probability that this has occurred and will occur downstream of some fills. On balance, results suggest that an increase in peak flows is more likely than a decrease or no change. However, our results also show that there is likely to be a great deal of variation, and that at a significant number of sites no increase in peak flows or flood risk will occur."

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:4Loz...clnk&gl=us

This study is probably a little biased, and lean towards the coal industry as it comes from the university of kentucky, and they have some partnerships with friends of coal. But this was the only study I found that wasn't an abstract.

[TheRealVille]

Ive already expressed my opinions on this numerous times, and this isnt hoopla, its scientific fact. This has been studied, and the same results have been found in numerous scientific experiments/studies.

I didn't say we have to stop mining coal, but MTR cant continue the way it is right now. If we do have centuries of coal left, do you expect to just blow the tops off of mountains for hundreds of years? By the end of next year, an estimated 1.4 million acres of forest will have been destroyed. That's in the 40 years since MTR has been a common practice. If this continues for another 200 years at its current pace, that would mean that nearly 9 million acres will be destroyed before we run out of coal. Is that really a sound plan?

Nuclear isnt the answer to all our energy solutions, becuase it has a lot of negatives too. But energy sources like solar, wind, hydro, or waste to energy are options. None of these by their self is an answer, but by using many different procedures we can greatly decrease our need for fossil fuels.

Most, not all, people on here that favor coal, could care less about the effects some mines might have on the enviroment, as long as their standard of living doesn't get hurt.

[outdoorsman43]

Most, not all, people on here that favor coal, could care less about the effects some mines might have on the enviroment, as long as their standard of living doesn't get hurt.

How do you suppose we get our energy RealVille? I'm not even going to argue about the coal industry anymore as you know my take and I know yours. The environment (not "enivroment :biggrin is of course, not as good as it can be, but what is your take on alternative fuels? Should we make that transition like Obama is anticipating or the logical way?

[Coach_Owens87]

So you are saying that after a mountain top is mined and reclaimed it is useless? That is truly laughable. The pollution argument I can somewhat understand people making. The tree hugging garbage is what I really don't understand. It absolutely makes no sense. How can anyone make the argument that animal habitat, etc. is being destroyed? An elk's natural habitat consists of open areas. Your very own county has the largest elk herd east of the Mississippi River. White-tailed deer often prefer open areas surrounded with woodland cover to bed in. How often do you see wildlife in an open field? I, for one see it pretty often. These improved habitats for wildlife in this area are a credit to strip mining and mountain top removal whether you like or not.

I agree with making the transition to alternative fuels as I have said time and time again. A slow transition is the only way it will work. Not the way Obama and the administration are going about it by the letting Lisa Jackson and her ignorant environmental mob run wild.

Did I say it was completly useless? I think not. But under 5% of reclaimed mines are being put to some commercial/residential use. So that means that 95% of that land sits, with no commercial or residential use, and has a greatly reduced habitat. So is this what youre idea of the land being used correctly?

The elk argument is garbage, because this species of elk that uses the mine sites are not native to this region. They are a subspecies of the elk that lived here in past centuries. and the majority of the elk that where here made permanent homes in Central ky.

When the elk where being introduced, central kentucky was a primary spot they wanted to release them, but the citizens wouldn't allow it, as farmers where afraid of the damage they would cause to crops. So the next best option was the open fields left by strip mining. So the argument you're trying to make is garbage.

And trying to say that MTR helps wildlife is completely ignorant. Appalachia is not the Midwest, our habitat, and ecosystem is not that of the open fields and prairies. We have a mountainous and rugged terrain, species have adapted to that. Leave the science to those who study it.

[TheRealVille]

How do you suppose we get our energy RealVille? I'm not even going to argue about the coal industry anymore as you know my take and I know yours. The environment (not "enivroment :biggrin is of course, not as good as it can be, but what is your take on alternative fuels? Should we make that transition like Obama is anticipating or the logical way?

I think we should use all forms of renewables, as well as coal, until we can gradually wean ourselves from fossils. At any rate, whether we start now or wait 100 years, Kentucky coal miners will have to suffer and retrain.


I know the spelling of environment, I just typed to fast or forgot a letter. If you have seen very many of my posts, you will know I have given a few grammar lessons on here as well. Thanks for helping though.

[outdoorsman43]

Did I say it was completly useless? I think not. But under 5% of reclaimed mines are being put to some commercial/residential use. So that means that 95% of that land sits, with no commercial or residential use, and has a greatly reduced habitat. So is this what youre idea of the land being used correctly?

The elk argument is garbage, because this species of elk that uses the mine sites are not native to this region. They are a subspecies of the elk that lived here in past centuries. and the majority of the elk that where here made permanent homes in Central ky.

When the elk where being introduced, central kentucky was a primary spot they wanted to release them, but the citizens wouldn't allow it, as farmers where afraid of the damage they would cause to crops. So the next best option was the open fields left by strip mining. So the argument you're trying to make is garbage.

And trying to say that MTR helps wildlife is completely ignorant. Appalachia is not the Midwest, our habitat, and ecosystem is not that of the open fields and prairies. We have a mountainous and rugged terrain, species have adapted to that. Leave the science to those who study it.

At least one poster against coal on here studies something. You've stated some disadvantages that coal operations "cause", so why not look at the advantages? I'm pretty sure it's a no-contest advantages over the disadvantages. I doubt you will see it that way, but might when you're paying the utility bills in a few years. :biggrin:

I think we should use all forms of renewables, as well as coal, until we can gradually wean ourselves from fossils. At any rate, whether we start now or wait 100 years, Kentucky coal miners will have to suffer and retrain.


I know the spelling of environment, I just typed to fast or forgot a letter. If you have seen very many of my posts, you will know I have given a few grammar lessons on here as well. Thanks for helping though.

Too, not "to". I'm just having a little fun RV. I do like your take on my question though, first time we've ever agreed I think. Maybe we will start agreeing more often, nah.

[Coach_Owens87]

At least one poster against coal on here studies something. You've stated some disadvantages that coal operations "cause", so why not look at the advantages? I'm pretty sure it's a no-contest advantages over the disadvantages. I doubt you will see it that way, but might when you're paying the utility bills in a few years. :biggrin:

I have looked at the "advantages", if you can call it that. Coal provides jobs, cheap energy (but very dirty), and is very important to our economy. But the nation is changing, people see that our old ways are destroying our planet. We cant continue to do things the way we are now. At some point, we will have to get away from coal, so why not start that change now, lets begin to make this transition, and stop holding ourselves back. People in the coal industry claim that coal is our only hope for the economy, and if there is any truth to that, its no ones fault but our own. We have to look past coal, because one day it will be gone.