[Redneck]

I have very little faith in anything the MSHA does, or the EPA for that matter. So them being on a site everyday doesn't mean anything to me.

To say they have done some damage is being very conservative, they broke the law 4,500 times in a six year span, and thats just in water violations. The things they are doing to correct their wrongdoings in no way make up for the damage done to the environment. Dirt tracks, and jobs are temporary things compared to the long term damage they have done to the environment.

Lol, who do you think wrote those violations up?

[Coach_Owens87]

Lol, who do you think wrote those violations up?

Well my first guess would be the EPA, but they have failed in regulating so many other issues that the fines on Massey Energy doesn't really make up for it. They released an environmental impact survey that was conducted over a span of several years, it pretty much proved the MTR is destroying the environment in this area. It showed that there is widespread, irreversible damage being caused by MTR, but the study was changed severely by the bush administration, and really wasn't taken into account. So the study really meant nothing.

Also, the Corps of Engineers, and the EPA hand out permits to dump waste material in streams like they're candy. They need to do more, and require individual permits from coal companies to protect streams before MTR occurs. The SMRCA and CWA are not being help up at all. So I have little faith in the EPA.

Here is some good sites with some perspectives on how the EPA is failing.

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/storie...300&EDATE=

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:ycr...cd=1&gl=us

[phs1986]

I am finished with this one...... I DO NOT want to say something that I should not say.... therefore.... continue the discussion and I will check it periodically as a moderator to ensure that the rules are being followed..... So with that being said....

Let's keep it on topic so I don't have to close it!!

[phs1986]

One thing that the threads on this topic have shown is that there is a distinct line between people who support and oppose MTR. The people who support it either work in the mines, have family who do, or are politicians who get rich from coal companies. Almost everyone else opposes it, well at least the ones who know about it. A lot of people in this country have no clue what is going on in this region.

65% of people oppose the Bush plan to ease environmental regulations against MTR, and 88% of the country thinks we should look to other fuel sources before resorting to more mining. It feels good to know that im not in the minority.

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

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/storie...300&EDATE=



And what really makes me sick is that Coal Companies already have a clear path to destroy Appalachia, and some people are trying to make it easier for this to happen. But yet people still say that the environmental damage is minimal, and the economic benefits outweigh the negative effects, when most evidence points to the contrary. I guess people are ok with selling off our land to the highest bidder, just as long as they offer us jobs while they destroy it.

I do want to comment on this and I AM done::::

Would you prefer to work at what you do now and take care of 5 or 6 families who are drawing KY medical insurance, provide them with food or better yet... let YOUR money provide them with the food stamps they will need to survive for the month... and OH... lord don't let me forget the electricity bill..... we can't have them freezing to death now can we? Oh... what about clothes and money for school for the kids...... OOPS... the water bill has to be paid.... car insurance (that is if they even have a car what with not having a job or nothing)........WHAT I am trying to get across is this is the ONLY way many men have to provide for their families!!!! You do what you have to do to survive...... IF mining were THAT bad... there wouldn't be the abundance of jobs in that profession....

I'm OUT!

[Coach_Owens87]

I do want to comment on this and I AM done::::

Would you prefer to work at what you do now and take care of 5 or 6 families who are drawing KY medical insurance, provide them with food or better yet... let YOUR money provide them with the food stamps they will need to survive for the month... and OH... lord don't let me forget the electricity bill..... we can't have them freezing to death now can we? Oh... what about clothes and money for school for the kids...... OOPS... the water bill has to be paid.... car insurance (that is if they even have a car what with not having a job or nothing)........WHAT I am trying to get across is this is the ONLY way many men have to provide for their families!!!! You do what you have to do to survive...... IF mining were THAT bad... there wouldn't be the abundance of jobs in that profession....

I'm OUT!

lol, and what was that supposed to prove? Im gonna freeze and starve without coal? The whole let them freeze in the winter rhetoric is way outdated, and is getting annoying.

I never said coal didn't provide jobs, it does, and it is the only job many people in this area have. What I'm trying to say is that this is wrong, we deserve better. Our economy is so tied up in coal that it dominates everything, and we are lead to believe we can't survive without it. We're sacrificing our land, and the health of our generation, and future generations for the greed of coal companies. Ive never worked in the mines, and I don't plan on it, but I do know many people who do, and they are all hard workers. I know they do the best to provide for their families, as most people do. I just believe the destruction of our land, and our people must stop.

And the last sentence you had was just hilarious, "if it were that bad there wouldn't be any jobs in that profession!" Come on, you know that isn't true. Money talks, and that is what is keeping the practice of MTR alive, it's cheap, and provides a major profit for the companies. They don't care what damage is done, they just sit back and enjoy the riches.

[vundy33]

I think most people that are pro-mtr overlook the negative effects, becuase they never mention them, or just completely ignore them.

You're right about that.

[TidesHoss32]

OK, and this isnt too much of a direct shot at you, and Im gonna try to say this as politely as I can. You have absolutely zero idea of what your talking about concerning MSHA or their inspectors. Let me put it to you this way. MSHA inspectors are basically brainwashed into thinking that any and every violation is an S&S violation (very serious violations, and stiff fines follow), and 99.9% of the time, you can bet your last dollar that its written up, and there is NO avoiding a written violation concering an S&S. No they arent bought, and there isnt a mine anywhere thats went violation free everytime they step foot on its property. Some are serious. Some arent, but that is their job, and trust me CO87, they do it well. I am speaking, of course, for underground mining, so you may have a point as far as strip mining. But I can tell you, from first hand experience, that no matter what you do underground, it will be wrong. Every single thing you do is critiqued. Every detail, from the color tabs on a fire extinguisher, to the cleanliness of a section, is combed over with an extra fine comb.

I have very little faith in anything the MSHA does, or the EPA for that matter. So them being on a site everyday doesn't mean anything to me.

To say they have done some damage is being very conservative, they broke the law 4,500 times in a six year span, and thats just in water violations. The things they are doing to correct their wrongdoings in no way make up for the damage done to the environment. Dirt tracks, and jobs are temporary things compared to the long term damage they have done to the environment.

[Coach_Owens87]

OK, and this isnt too much of a direct shot at you, and Im gonna try to say this as politely as I can. You have absolutely zero idea of what your talking about concerning MSHA or their inspectors. Let me put it to you this way. MSHA inspectors are basically brainwashed into thinking that any and every violation is an S&S violation (very serious violations, and stiff fines follow), and 99.9% of the time, you can bet your last dollar that its written up, and there is NO avoiding a written violation concering an S&S. No they arent bought, and there isnt a mine anywhere thats went violation free everytime they step foot on its property. Some are serious. Some arent, but that is their job, and trust me CO87, they do it well. I am speaking, of course, for underground mining, so you may have a point as far as strip mining. But I can tell you, from first hand experience, that no matter what you do underground, it will be wrong. Every single thing you do is critiqued. Every detail, from the color tabs on a fire extinguisher, to the cleanliness of a section, is combed over with an extra fine comb.

Well tidehoss I respect that you have first hand experience in underground mining, but last time I checked this thread was on MTR.

The MSHA may write fines up, and they may do a decent job at it, but it does no good when they go unpaid, or if the fine is just ridiculous, like the $10,000 fine for the company that killed a boy with a boulder from a strip mine. Many fines are so minimal that they do nothing to deter mining companies from breaking the rules, it isnt uncommon to hear of mine sites having dozens of serious violations, but still being allowed to mine. The MSHA and the EPA also done horrible jobs in preventing and responding to the Inez slurry spill.

I may not have your first hand experience in mining, but im not clueless to what goes on, and my opinions on the EPA and MSHA aren't unfounded.

[vundy33]

OK, and this isnt too much of a direct shot at you, and Im gonna try to say this as politely as I can. You have absolutely zero idea of what your talking about concerning MSHA or their inspectors. Let me put it to you this way. MSHA inspectors are basically brainwashed into thinking that any and every violation is an S&S violation (very serious violations, and stiff fines follow), and 99.9% of the time, you can bet your last dollar that its written up, and there is NO avoiding a written violation concering an S&S. No they arent bought, and there isnt a mine anywhere thats went violation free everytime they step foot on its property. Some are serious. Some arent, but that is their job, and trust me CO87, they do it well. I am speaking, of course, for underground mining, so you may have a point as far as strip mining. But I can tell you, from first hand experience, that no matter what you do underground, it will be wrong. Every single thing you do is critiqued. Every detail, from the color tabs on a fire extinguisher, to the cleanliness of a section, is combed over with an extra fine comb.

Great post...when my dad was a foreman at a surface mine a few years back they wrote him a fine for a 1 INCH crack in the glass of an excavator...They take that stuff serious. To many people die around here because of careless crap.

[Old School]

It's great that they done this, but it doesn't make up for their MTR practices or other harms they have done to the environment.

Massey Energy recently had to pay a 20 million dollar civil law suit for their Clean water act violations in West Virginia and Kentucky. That was the largest civil penalty ever for water permit violations.

Here is an excerpt from the EPA about this lawsuit.

In a complaint filed on May 10, 2007, the government alleged that Massey violated its Clean Water Act permits more than 4,500 times between January 2000 and December 2006. The complaint alleged that Massey discharged excess amounts of metals, sediment, and acid mine drainage into hundreds of rivers and streams in West Virginia and Kentucky. Many of the pollutants were discharged in amounts 40 percent or more than allowed. Some pollutants were discharged at levels more than 10 times over the permit limits.

The complaint also alleged that Massey spilled large amounts of slurry, which is waste containing metals and sediment, into local waterways numerous times. Sediment can clog streams and harm fish habitats. The spills occurred as a result of failures in the processing, storage, and transportation of coal slurry.

In addition to the penalty, Massey will invest approximately $10 million to develop and implement a set of procedures to prevent future violations. Massey will implement an innovative electronic tracking system that allows the company to quickly address compliance problems and correct any violations of permit limits. This measure fits within a comprehensive environmental compliance program that Massey has agreed to implement, which includes in-depth internal and third-party audits, employee training, and a plan to prevent future slurry spills.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf...enDocument

So they violated the law 4,500 hundred times, polluted our streams, rivers and drinking water, but they can put in a dirt track and things are ok? For every good thing they've done, I can show you something bad.

I like that Massey took responsibility and has agreed to change their ways, but it still doesn't take back the damage already done to our mountains and streams.

Massey was forced to do good things, which is probably why they are doing these things in Logan County. It's not becuase they are so generous, they just have to do these things.

So I guess this all goes into rednecks perspective that Big companies dont do bad things. lol, it sure looks that way.

We all know that Massey Energy was sited for 4,500 water violations from January 2000 thru December 2006, now let's see how it happened. First Massey has 33 underground mines and 11 surface mines with hundreds and hundreds of ponds and discharge points on these permits, these may also include ponds that were built for underground mines, prep plants, roads and there could be even more ponds if other permits are in the bond release phase. How do they arrive at the total number of violations? One would think they violated their clean water act permit 4,500 times, but that may not be the case, most ponds are sampled monthly with the water quality report being sent to the State DEP or EPA offices each month. Most ponds are monitored for PH, Iron, Manganese, Aluminum and Settleable Solids now let's use January as an example and say that a sample was taken on January 20th and it was determined that the PH was to high, the company would not receive one violation, but 31 violations one for each day of the month, if you were out on PH and Settleable Soilds you would not have 2 violations but 62 violations and in a worst case scenario you could have over a hundred violations on any pond in any given month.

In my personal expericences, I have seen where a sample was taken a few hours after a thunderstorm and the settleable solids were to high and the company was sited for 30 violations, there was also a few cases where a pond had been built for a couple of years with no disrubance at all, not even logging behind it and when a sample was taken the Aluminum was out of compliance, yet we received 30 or 31 violations.

The point of this post is that anyone can take the number of violations and make it sound worse that it actually is Massey was sited for 4,500 violations, but in reality how many days did they violate their permit.

Massey will also set aside 200 acres of riverfront land in West Virginia for conservation purposes and protection from future mining. The company is also required to perform 20 projects downstream from mining operations.

[Old School]

You see negative effects on strip mines no matter how big the company is that performs them. The fines hurt smaller companies more than bigger ones though.

It doesn't matter if it's a multi-million dollar corporation, or a small town mine company, when you wipe out thousands of acres of pristine forest, bury the nearby streams, push all the waste into valleys, and then just plant grass to "reclaim" the land, negative effects are bound to happen.

Sorry but I find that statement hilarious, here's the difinition for pristine:
pristine - 1)having its orginal purity, uncourrupted or unsullied
Synonyms - unpolluted, untouched

Now over the years I've traveled all over Eastern Kentucky and Southern West Virginia and I've only seen a handful of pristine forest, they were either mined, logged, or had gas wells and gas lines running all over the place, its also funny that the anti-coal groups refer to the dirt and rock being placed into the small hollows where water only flows when it rains as waste, but when this is practiced for other reasons such as property development, road construction they don't refer to it as waste. what's the difference. Sorry be we don't just plant grass and leave it, over the past 10-12 months we have planted over 100,000 trees on our property which included various species such as Red Oak, White Oak, Pines etc. but yes we do plant grass because it helps prevent erosion and it is also required in our permits, and I know you don't want us to break the law lol.

[Old School]

One thing that the threads on this topic have shown is that there is a distinct line between people who support and oppose MTR. The people who support it either work in the mines, have family who do, or are politicians who get rich from coal companies. Almost everyone else opposes it, well at least the ones who know about it. A lot of people in this country have no clue what is going on in this region.

65% of people oppose the Bush plan to ease environmental regulations against MTR, and 88% of the country thinks we should look to other fuel sources before resorting to more mining. It feels good to know that im not in the minority.

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

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/storie...300&EDATE=



And what really makes me sick is that Coal Companies already have a clear path to destroy Appalachia, and some people are trying to make it easier for this to happen. But yet people still say that the environmental damage is minimal, and the economic benefits outweigh the negative effects, when most evidence points to the contrary. I guess people are ok with selling off our land to the highest bidder, just as long as they offer us jobs while they destroy it.

As you well know I work in the mines and have done so for almost 30 years, and I agree not many people outside Appalachia know anything about coal mining, here's a true story two years ago a friend of mine went to California on vacation and he began talking to a couple who were high school teachers there in California, when one ask him what his profession was, he told them he was a coal miner she said do they still do that. Most of the people who are against mining do not live in this region and don't know anything about it except what they see on internet posted by anti-coal groups which only show active mine sites and refuse to show any reclaimed mine sites or anything postive about mining.

If you are referring to the buffer zone ruling, and if it is approved, it will not change the way mining is conducted, it only clarifies the ruling.

[Coach_Owens87]

As you well know I work in the mines and have done so for almost 30 years, and I agree not many people outside Appalachia know anything about coal mining, here's a true story two years ago a friend of mine went to California on vacation and he began talking to a couple who were high school teachers there in California, when one ask him what his profession was, he told them he was a coal miner she said do they still do that. Most of the people who are against mining do not live in this region and don't know anything about it except what they see on internet posted by anti-coal groups which only show active mine sites and refuse to show any reclaimed mine sites or anything postive about mining.

If you are referring to the buffer zone ruling, and if it is approved, it will not change the way mining is conducted, it only clarifies the ruling.

That is where you are completely wrong, nearly 1,500 people went to Frankfort on valentine's day to protest the practice of MTR and the buffer zone ruling. Since you already admitted that people outside of this region no very little about mining, it would only make sense that the people who oppose it live in this region. A lot of people oppose MTR, but the coal companies want us to believe that everyone is just perfectly fine with it, which is no where near the truth.

If people were to gain knowledge about MTR, I'm sure most of them would oppose it. A recent poll showed that nearly 2/3 of the country, some 65% opposed the new buffer zone rule change, and 88% of people, crossing all politcal lines believed we should look into other energy sources before trying to expand mining practices.

We already know that we completely disagree on the "clarification" of the buffer rule. The definition of "fill" has been changed by the Bush administration to include waste., so streams are already being polluted. The 500 foot buffer rule is really all we have left to enforce the CWA, and keep our streams clean.

Anyone wanting to form thier own opinion on this should research the subject, and look at it from both sides, and I think the insanity of this ruling will be clear.

here are a couple of links to sites providing information on the rule change.


Office of Surface mining
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:76XB...d=10&gl=us


OHVEC
http://www.ohvec.org/newsletters/woc_200...le_02.html

http://www.mindfully.org/Heritage/2004/S...6jan04.htm

[Old School]

That is where you are completely wrong, nearly 1,500 people went to Frankfort on valentine's day to protest the practice of MTR and the buffer zone ruling. Since you already admitted that people outside of this region no very little about mining, it would only make sense that the people who oppose it live in this region. A lot of people oppose MTR, but the coal companies want us to believe that everyone is just perfectly fine with it, which is no where near the truth.

If people were to gain knowledge about MTR, I'm sure most of them would oppose it. A recent poll showed that nearly 2/3 of the country, some 65% opposed the new buffer zone rule change, and 88% of people, crossing all politcal lines believed we should look into other energy sources before trying to expand mining practices.

We already know that we completely disagree on the "clarification" of the buffer rule. The definition of "fill" has been changed by the Bush administration to include waste., so streams are already being polluted. The 500 foot buffer rule is really all we have left to enforce the CWA, and keep our streams clean.

Anyone wanting to form thier own opinion on this should research the subject, and look at it from both sides, and I think the insanity of this ruling will be clear.

here are a couple of links to sites providing information on the rule change.


Office of Surface mining
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:76XB...d=10&gl=us


OHVEC
http://www.ohvec.org/newsletters/woc_200...le_02.html

http://www.mindfully.org/Heritage/2004/S...6jan04.htm

The attendance at the Frankfort meeting was estimated at 1,500, now I've been to many get-togethers similar to this one, where the estimated attendance was double of the actual turn-out. If 1,500 did attend this gathering, and there are over 500,000 people that live in the coal fields of Eastern Ky. which calculates to less than one-half of one percent of the population of Eastern Ky. came to this meeting. You came up with 65% of the Country being against mining (65% seems awful high) which would mean about 200 million people, so yes I think it safe to say most of the people against mining do not live in Eastern Ky. Where do all of these people go to see what MTR is about....right the internet and these sites are provided by groups like the Sierra Club, OHVEC, Mountain Justice, and several others anti-coal groups who falsely portray coal companies and the way MTR is conducted.

As I've said all along, I have no proplem with other energy sources and I think we do need to develop other sources, but we have to develop these sources and build on them, before we outlaw coal mining completely. Coal produces 50% of the total electriticy for the US and almost all of the electrical needs in Kentucky and West Virginia, common sense tell me that you just can't stop mining coal when there's no alternative to replace it with. Once again the buffer zone will not expand mining, and I find it funny how anti-coal groups refer to it as "waste" like it's trash that would be taken to a land fill when it is actually soil and rock both of which are natural minerals.

Everyone needs to realize what these anti-coal groups are calling a stream, "Anything that carries water" this includes small drains that that start at the top of the hill or mountain and flow only when it rains or snows or drains that only flow 3 or so months out of the year. Next time your out and about just look up onto the hillside and see how many of these drains you can spot and picture staying 100 feet away on each side. Many will say that they are ok with underground mining, but oppose surface mining, if coal companies are not allowed to use these drains to place excess fill material it will practically do away with surface mining altogether and underground mines will also be adversely effected because they use these drains to place excess material when they construct their portal areas and let's not forget about the slurry impoundments where the excess rock from the underground mines are placed.

The mining companies have been operating under the same guidelines for around 30 years and now some lawyers and environmentalists have decided that they want to define a stream as starting at the top of the hill or mountain and should include anything that carries water even if it only for 1 day a month.

The impact of a coal companies staying 100 feet away from a stream (stream as defined by anti-coal groups starting at the top of the hill) would mean that no sediment ponds, no slurry impoundments, no surface mining, no underground mines sites could be constructed, basically shuting down the mining industry

I'm not familar with the 500 foot buffer zone, maybe you could tell me more about it.

[Coach_Owens87]

The attendance at the Frankfort meeting was estimated at 1,500, now I've been to many get-togethers similar to this one, where the estimated attendance was double of the actual turn-out. If 1,500 did attend this gathering, and there are over 500,000 people that live in the coal fields of Eastern Ky. which calculates to less than one-half of one percent of the population of Eastern Ky. came to this meeting. You came up with 65% of the Country being against mining (65% seems awful high) which would mean about 200 million people, so yes I think it safe to say most of the people against mining do not live in Eastern Ky. Where do all of these people go to see what MTR is about....right the internet and these sites are provided by groups like the Sierra Club, OHVEC, Mountain Justice, and several others anti-coal groups who falsely portray coal companies and the way MTR is conducted.

As I've said all along, I have no proplem with other energy sources and I think we do need to develop other sources, but we have to develop these sources and build on them, before we outlaw coal mining completely. Coal produces 50% of the total electriticy for the US and almost all of the electrical needs in Kentucky and West Virginia, common sense tell me that you just can't stop mining coal when there's no alternative to replace it with. Once again the buffer zone will not expand mining, and I find it funny how anti-coal groups refer to it as "waste" like it's trash that would be taken to a land fill when it is actually soil and rock both of which are natural minerals.

Everyone needs to realize what these anti-coal groups are calling a stream, "Anything that carries water" this includes small drains that that start at the top of the hill or mountain and flow only when it rains or snows or drains that only flow 3 or so months out of the year. Next time your out and about just look up onto the hillside and see how many of these drains you can spot and picture staying 100 feet away on each side. Many will say that they are ok with underground mining, but oppose surface mining, if coal companies are not allowed to use these drains to place excess fill material it will practically do away with surface mining altogether and underground mines will also be adversely effected because they use these drains to place excess material when they construct their portal areas and let's not forget about the slurry impoundments where the excess rock from the underground mines are placed.



The mining companies have been operating under the same guidelines for around 30 years and now some lawyers and environmentalists have decided that they want to define a stream as starting at the top of the hill or mountain and should include anything that carries water even if it only for 1 day a month.

The impact of a coal companies staying 100 feet away from a stream (stream as defined by anti-coal groups starting at the top of the hill) would mean that no sediment ponds, no slurry impoundments, no surface mining, no underground mines sites could be constructed, basically shuting down the mining industry

I'm not familar with the 500 foot buffer zone, maybe you could tell me more about it.

I made a mistake on the buffer zone rule, it is 100 feet, not 500 as I had posted.


The Real story

I guess people should go "coal friendly" sites to get the real story on how mining occurs. I believe that if you want to know the business side of things you should visit the coal sites, but if you want to see the environmental harm done you should most likely look at it from an environmental point of view, and sites like Sierra club provide a great insight into that. There isn't really a site that provides equal information from both sides of the issue, so to really understand the subject you need to look at it from both sides, and in doing this my opinion is that the environmental harm done isn't worth it.

Protesters

We have both agreed that most people outside of this region haven't heard of MTR, and I find this very disturbing. Knowing that most people outside of Appalachia don't know much about this, I believe we can safely say they dont have an opinion on it. Using this logic that we both agree on, it's only practical to say that most people who have a distinct stance on this issue are informed on the subject, and most likely live very close the a coal producing region.

And we already know that Coal produces more than half of the country's electricity, we don't need to hear that for the millionth time, I think everyone has a grasp on that. And us "Coal Hating" people aren't trying to shut down the mining industry, as your trying to persuade everyone into thinking, we just want to protect the environment, and look for renewable reliable energy sources while we have the time to do it.


Waste
We say that mine waste is dumped into streams because that is the term for it, although I will agree that some sites need to clarify what this waste is. Just because the "waste", or overburden, that is being dumped into streams is natural, doesn't mean it is healthy, or that it should occur. These things have been buried in the ground for thousands, maybe millions of years, and aren't meant to be taken out and dumped into creeks, streams and Rivers. I don't think mountains blast themselves apart and then fall into streams and rivers "naturally". This overburden, or waste being dumped into the streams contain mercury, lead, copper, iron, chromium and other metals that do not occur naturally in streams and are disastrous to wildlife, and humans if they get into our drinking water.


Frankfort
IMO 1,500 making a trip to the capital to oppose MTR is a huge turnout. Not everyone is an activist, so I'm sure the 1,500 people who went aren't the only ones who oppose the practice. A lot of people oppose the Iraq war, but we don't see all of them at rallies, or protests, but that doesn't change the fact that they are against the war. The same thing applies here.

Over 43,000 thousand people commented on the stream buffer zone rule, and the overwhelming majority opposed it. This issue really wasn't a national story, so I feel it's safe to say that the majority of people who commented on this issue, either for it, or against it where from the Appalachian coal fields. Those numbers also hold up well with the polls taken on the subject . So twist it however you want, but a lot more people than you are willing to admit oppose mtr.

A lot of people that are opposed to MTR in this region are miners themselves, although most are underground miners. They dont want mining to stop, they just want our land to be protected. Here is a story about a miner who is opposed to MTR, and he lives in eastern ky.

http://www.uky.edu/CommInfoStudies/IRJCI/MTR.htm

Crap

You've been giving the same crap about the buffer zone rule for the past 5 months. Since you hate the sites I mention, I'll give you some info straight from the source, according to the Office of Surface mining, 1,208 miles of streams were destroyed between 1992-2002. Regulators also approved 1,603 more valley fills between 02-05 that will bury 535 more miles of streams. As you can see it's not just these crazy "tree-hugging" hippies who are giving this info, the OSM is handing out these stats. Your precious coal companies even admit to destroying over 1000 miles of streams, so why don't you complain to them about what is and isn't a stream.

Why Bother?

If the Buffer Zone Rule wasn't holding back coal companies from expanding their mining practices, I see no reason to change it. I dont think a few people complaining would make them want to change a 30 year old rule, they hear complaints all the time, so they should be accustomed to this.

[Old School]

I made a mistake on the buffer zone rule, it is 100 feet, not 500 as I had posted.


The Real story

I guess people should go "coal friendly" sites to get the real story on how mining occurs. I believe that if you want to know the business side of things you should visit the coal sites, but if you want to see the environmental harm done you should most likely look at it from an environmental point of view, and sites like Sierra club provide a great insight into that. There isn't really a site that provides equal information from both sides of the issue, so to really understand the subject you need to look at it from both sides, and in doing this my opinion is that the environmental harm done isn't worth it.

Protesters

We have both agreed that most people outside of this region haven't heard of MTR, and I find this very disturbing. Knowing that most people outside of Appalachia don't know much about this, I believe we can safely say they dont have an opinion on it. Using this logic that we both agree on, it's only practical to say that most people who have a distinct stance on this issue are informed on the subject, and most likely live very close the a coal producing region.

And we already know that Coal produces more than half of the country's electricity, we don't need to hear that for the millionth time, I think everyone has a grasp on that. And us "Coal Hating" people aren't trying to shut down the mining industry, as your trying to persuade everyone into thinking, we just want to protect the environment, and look for renewable reliable energy sources while we have the time to do it.


Waste
We say that mine waste is dumped into streams because that is the term for it, although I will agree that some sites need to clarify what this waste is. Just because the "waste", or overburden, that is being dumped into streams is natural, doesn't mean it is healthy, or that it should occur. These things have been buried in the ground for thousands, maybe millions of years, and aren't meant to be taken out and dumped into creeks, streams and Rivers. I don't think mountains blast themselves apart and then fall into streams and rivers "naturally". This overburden, or waste being dumped into the streams contain mercury, lead, copper, iron, chromium and other metals that do not occur naturally in streams and are disastrous to wildlife, and humans if they get into our drinking water.


Frankfort
IMO 1,500 making a trip to the capital to oppose MTR is a huge turnout. Not everyone is an activist, so I'm sure the 1,500 people who went aren't the only ones who oppose the practice. A lot of people oppose the Iraq war, but we don't see all of them at rallies, or protests, but that doesn't change the fact that they are against the war. The same thing applies here.

Over 43,000 thousand people commented on the stream buffer zone rule, and the overwhelming majority opposed it. This issue really wasn't a national story, so I feel it's safe to say that the majority of people who commented on this issue, either for it, or against it where from the Appalachian coal fields. Those numbers also hold up well with the polls taken on the subject . So twist it however you want, but a lot more people than you are willing to admit oppose mtr.

A lot of people that are opposed to MTR in this region are miners themselves, although most are underground miners. They dont want mining to stop, they just want our land to be protected. Here is a story about a miner who is opposed to MTR, and he lives in eastern ky.

http://www.uky.edu/CommInfoStudies/IRJCI/MTR.htm

Crap

You've been giving the same crap about the buffer zone rule for the past 5 months. Since you hate the sites I mention, I'll give you some info straight from the source, according to the Office of Surface mining, 1,208 miles of streams were destroyed between 1992-2002. Regulators also approved 1,603 more valley fills between 02-05 that will bury 535 more miles of streams. As you can see it's not just these crazy "tree-hugging" hippies who are giving this info, the OSM is handing out these stats. Your precious coal companies even admit to destroying over 1000 miles of streams, so why don't you complain to them about what is and isn't a stream.

Why Bother?

If the Buffer Zone Rule wasn't holding back coal companies from expanding their mining practices, I see no reason to change it. I dont think a few people complaining would make them want to change a 30 year old rule, they hear complaints all the time, so they should be accustomed to this.

If you coal hating people (as you define yourself) aren't trying to shut down the coal industry, then why did West Virginia Sen. Jon Hunter introduce SB588, which would prevent companies from dumping excess dirt and rock into valley's and essentially end mining in West Virginia.

Maybe mountains don't blast themselves in to the river and streams, but they do naturally erode over time, just look at how the landscape has changed over millions of years.

When a coal company applies for a mining permit they have to supply to the state samples of the overburden from coreholes, these samples determine if overburden could cause water problems, and if so a special handling plan will be developed such as encapsulation cells that are elevated above the pit floor and not in a hollow fill, once the material has been placed in the cell it is then coverd to a specified depth with cohesive material to ensure that water does not penatrate the cell. The other day I was traveling route 119 from Logan Wv. to Pikeville and started noticing the highwalls along the road, there were several places that had iron stains on the rock and down the ditchlines. Does the state require encapsulation cells for road construction?

I realize there's alot of people against coal mining, I also think that a lot of them are uninformed about the true mining process, because they only take information provided by anti-coal sites which say we blow the top 800-1000 foot off a mountain and push it into the valleys and streams. Funny thing is just how many places in Eastern Ky and Southern Wv. have 1000 foot of relief from the valley to the top of the mountain?

Before any coal company will be granted a mining permit, they have to either own or lease the surface rights from the land owner, and every land owner that we have delt with always ask us if we can leave the land flat. IMO if a land owner wants his land to be mined then he should have that privilege to do so. We have delt with a few land owners that would not sign a lease because they did not want their land distrubed which is their right and I respect that right. Several of the land owners are using their reclaimed mined property for grazing cattle, some have built barns others grow hay and a few homes have been built on these properties.

Mining companies were doing fine until about 10 years ago, and were content with what we had and stayed within the mining laws, then a few people tried to change the buffer zone ruling, and if it weren't for the anti-coal groups we would not have to be trying to clarify the buffer zone rule today. When you have people like Sen. Hunter from Wv. trying to outlaw mining, and people like you who continue to lead the public to believe that your not against all mining just MTR is just bogus.

[Coach_Owens87]

[/B]


If you coal hating people (as you define yourself) aren't trying to shut down the coal industry, then why did West Virginia Sen. Jon Hunter introduce SB588, which would prevent companies from dumping excess dirt and rock into valley's and essentially end mining in West Virginia.

Maybe mountains don't blast themselves in to the river and streams, but they do naturally erode over time, just look at how the landscape has changed over millions of years.

When a coal company applies for a mining permit they have to supply to the state samples of the overburden from coreholes, these samples determine if overburden could cause water problems, and if so a special handling plan will be developed such as encapsulation cells that are elevated above the pit floor and not in a hollow fill, once the material has been placed in the cell it is then coverd to a specified depth with cohesive material to ensure that water does not penatrate the cell. The other day I was traveling route 119 from Logan Wv. to Pikeville and started noticing the highwalls along the road, there were several places that had iron stains on the rock and down the ditchlines. Does the state require encapsulation cells for road construction?

I realize there's alot of people against coal mining, I also think that a lot of them are uninformed about the true mining process, because they only take information provided by anti-coal sites which say we blow the top 800-1000 foot off a mountain and push it into the valleys and streams. Funny thing is just how many places in Eastern Ky and Southern Wv. have 1000 foot of relief from the valley to the top of the mountain?

Before any coal company will be granted a mining permit, they have to either own or lease the surface rights from the land owner, and every land owner that we have delt with always ask us if we can leave the land flat. IMO if a land owner wants his land to be mined then he should have that privilege to do so. We have delt with a few land owners that would not sign a lease because they did not want their land distrubed which is their right and I respect that right. Several of the land owners are using their reclaimed mined property for grazing cattle, some have built barns others grow hay and a few homes have been built on these properties.

Mining companies were doing fine until about 10 years ago, and were content with what we had and stayed within the mining laws, then a few people tried to change the buffer zone ruling, and if it weren't for the anti-coal groups we would not have to be trying to clarify the buffer zone rule today. When you have people like Sen. Hunter from Wv. trying to outlaw mining, and people like you who continue to lead the public to believe that your not against all mining just MTR is just bogus.

You made a great point, it takes millions of years for mountains to erode, and humans destroy them in a matter of months, huge difference.

Post-Mining

You keep repeating the same thing about post mining use, and I will keep repeating this, over 90% of mined land is not being used. So I dont really think this flat land is helping anything, we have more land than we will ever use. And you mention that they must own the surface rights, which is true, but when you go into a poverty stricken area, and offer people much needed money for their land, a lot of people sell out. And in a lot of cases, companies use decades old, and sometimes more than century old mineral rights to invade on peoples land. There are so many loopholes companies can use to acquire mining rights.

Against mining

I like how you always have to say people who oppose mtr, are against mining in general, which isn't true. Some people may oppose the whole mining industry, but most of the people who oppose MTR, especially in this region, are specific in what they oppose. You're trying to demonize people who oppose MTR and make it seem like only a few oddballs are against it, which couldn't be farther from the truth.


And comparing road construction to MTR is just laughable. The damage done by road construction doesn't even slightly compare to MTR, you even acknowledged this in previous post.

The anti-coal sites as you call them, do not state that 800-1000 feet is blown off of every mountain, just in certain cases. Although I agree this is misleading, it's better than your coal sites offer, they really don't give a good insight into the damage caused by MTR. Most sites give a brief overview of the process, and then show small portions of a select few "reclaimed sites". There are some environmental sites that give a good look at how MTR is performed, but they give a different perspective on the outcome of mining.

I believe that programs like the Google Earth site that ilovemountains.org is running really give a good look at MTR. Pictures don't lie, and when people see the damage that is being done for themselves it's hard not to oppose this practice. One thing I dont like about the program is that it's really hard to get a sense of the extent of the damage, it's really hard to grasp the size of some of these mine sites.



I look into the proposal from WV, and see for myself what is going on.

[Old School]

You made a great point, it takes millions of years for mountains to erode, and humans destroy them in a matter of months, huge difference.

Post-Mining

You keep repeating the same thing about post mining use, and I will keep repeating this, over 90% of mined land is not being used. So I dont really think this flat land is helping anything, we have more land than we will ever use. And you mention that they must own the surface rights, which is true, but when you go into a poverty stricken area, and offer people much needed money for their land, a lot of people sell out. And in a lot of cases, companies use decades old, and sometimes more than century old mineral rights to invade on peoples land. There are so many loopholes companies can use to acquire mining rights.

Against mining

I like how you always have to say people who oppose mtr, are against mining in general, which isn't true. Some people may oppose the whole mining industry, but most of the people who oppose MTR, especially in this region, are specific in what they oppose. You're trying to demonize people who oppose MTR and make it seem like only a few oddballs are against it, which couldn't be farther from the truth.


And comparing road construction to MTR is just laughable. The damage done by road construction doesn't even slightly compare to MTR, you even acknowledged this in previous post.

The anti-coal sites as you call them, do not state that 800-1000 feet is blown off of every mountain, just in certain cases. Although I agree this is misleading, it's better than your coal sites offer, they really don't give a good insight into the damage caused by MTR. Most sites give a brief overview of the process, and then show small portions of a select few "reclaimed sites". There are some environmental sites that give a good look at how MTR is performed, but they give a different perspective on the outcome of mining.

I believe that programs like the Google Earth site that ilovemountains.org is running really give a good look at MTR. Pictures don't lie, and when people see the damage that is being done for themselves it's hard not to oppose this practice. One thing I dont like about the program is that it's really hard to get a sense of the extent of the damage, it's really hard to grasp the size of some of these mine sites.



I look into the proposal from WV, and see for myself what is going on.

I attached a link from the U.S. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Stream Buffer Zone, Frequently Asked Questions, like these:

Q) Is it true that OSM's Proposed Rule Will "Enshrine" the practice of Mountaintop Mining?
A) No. OSM's proposed rule is consistant with SMCRA of 1977.

Q) What will this rule make legal that was illegal before?
A) Nothing. The proposed rule does not legalize any previoulsy illegal practice.

There are several other questions and answers, that you may find interesting.

http://www.osmre.gov/news/082407faq.pdf

Let me try to clarify my statement, many of these properties are small in size ranging from 10 to 300 acres total, and the area that is distrubed on these properties are usually only a fraction ot the total acreage. Today the contour mining method is mainly used on our properties so there is very little room for flat land, most of the land owners ask us to try and leave it as flat as possible, many are satisfied with a few flat acres so they can build barns, cabins etc. Like I said earlier if a land owner wants his property mined and left flat or flater than it was before mining then that should be his or hers right, you or no one else should have the right to tell them they have to leave as it is. Again you keep saying that the land is not being used and are blaming the coal companies for this. How can coal companies develop property that they do not own?

What is wrong with buying someones property if they want to sell, it is their decission to sell or not, after all it could help them out of poverty and get a fresh start.

Your talking about the old Broad Form Deed issue which has been illegal since I don't know when. For anyone to surface mine today they have to have rights to both the coal and to the surface, by either lease or ownership, so even if someone else owned the mineral a company cannot legally come onto your property without your permission, they can however mine the coal from underground as long as they don't distrub the surface.

Here's why I keep saying that people who oppose valley fills the Buffer Zone Rule are against mining. If companies are not allowed to use valley fills, it not only affects MTR but it also affects contour mining more than MTR, there's simply no where to place the excess material. How does not having valley fills affect underground mining, first there's the question of where do you place the excess material from the mine portal, how do you build access roads across streams that you have to say 100 feet away from, and since 99% of all underground coal mines have to have their coal processed which means they have to have an impoundment, which would be illegal since we have to stay out of the streams. In a nut shell if we can't use valley fills or can't build ponds in the streams (as one envirornmental group has filed suit on)
means no underground mines, no slurry impoundments and no coal mining that my friend is why I say if you are for banning valley fills and staying 100 feet away from streams you are against mining.

That comment was not intended to compare road construction to MTR as a whole, but saying the mining industry is held to higher standards than others, you always blame mining for any and all water problems, I was pointing out what I noticed by just driving down the road, and you may want to pay more attention to the creeks I'm sure you'll notice several trash dumps and straight pipes, but that's another thread.

I been to several anti-coal sites that have made the comment of 800-1000 feet being blown off, I just read it on OHVEC's site a few minutes ago. If there is a environmental site out there that shows the true mining process please share it with me.

I have tried Google earth several times and everytime I'm only able to see a shaded area.

[Coach_Owens87]

I attached a link from the U.S. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Stream Buffer Zone, Frequently Asked Questions, like these:

Q) Is it true that OSM's Proposed Rule Will "Enshrine" the practice of Mountaintop Mining?
A) No. OSM's proposed rule is consistant with SMCRA of 1977.

Q) What will this rule make legal that was illegal before?
A) Nothing. The proposed rule does not legalize any previoulsy illegal practice.

There are several other questions and answers, that you may find interesting.

http://www.osmre.gov/news/082407faq.pdf

Let me try to clarify my statement, many of these properties are small in size ranging from 10 to 300 acres total, and the area that is distrubed on these properties are usually only a fraction ot the total acreage. Today the contour mining method is mainly used on our properties so there is very little room for flat land, most of the land owners ask us to try and leave it as flat as possible, many are satisfied with a few flat acres so they can build barns, cabins etc. Like I said earlier if a land owner wants his property mined and left flat or flater than it was before mining then that should be his or hers right, you or no one else should have the right to tell them they have to leave as it is. Again you keep saying that the land is not being used and are blaming the coal companies for this. How can coal companies develop property that they do not own?

What is wrong with buying someones property if they want to sell, it is their decission to sell or not, after all it could help them out of poverty and get a fresh start.

Your talking about the old Broad Form Deed issue which has been illegal since I don't know when. For anyone to surface mine today they have to have rights to both the coal and to the surface, by either lease or ownership, so even if someone else owned the mineral a company cannot legally come onto your property without your permission, they can however mine the coal from underground as long as they don't distrub the surface.

Here's why I keep saying that people who oppose valley fills the Buffer Zone Rule are against mining. If companies are not allowed to use valley fills, it not only affects MTR but it also affects contour mining more than MTR, there's simply no where to place the excess material. How does not having valley fills affect underground mining, first there's the question of where do you place the excess material from the mine portal, how do you build access roads across streams that you have to say 100 feet away from, and since 99% of all underground coal mines have to have their coal processed which means they have to have an impoundment, which would be illegal since we have to stay out of the streams. In a nut shell if we can't use valley fills or can't build ponds in the streams (as one envirornmental group has filed suit on)
means no underground mines, no slurry impoundments and no coal mining that my friend is why I say if you are for banning valley fills and staying 100 feet away from streams you are against mining.

That comment was not intended to compare road construction to MTR as a whole, but saying the mining industry is held to higher standards than others, you always blame mining for any and all water problems, I was pointing out what I noticed by just driving down the road, and you may want to pay more attention to the creeks I'm sure you'll notice several trash dumps and straight pipes, but that's another thread.

I been to several anti-coal sites that have made the comment of 800-1000 feet being blown off, I just read it on OHVEC's site a few minutes ago. If there is a environmental site out there that shows the true mining process please share it with me.

I have tried Google earth several times and everytime I'm only able to see a shaded area.

Ive already been to the OSM's site and read the FAQ's. Since they are the ones wanting to clear up the ruling, I'm sure they wouldn't admit that this could free up companies to do more mining. You cant tell me that taking the 100 foot "buffer" out of the rule, and stating that they can dump fill material into streams as long as they show they have "minimized" the waste isn't going to change mining practices. Thats just ludicrous.

It's not just this administration that has tried to loosen restraints on coal mining. The Bush administration is very friendly to the coal industry, the first bush actually tried to open up millions of acres of national forest to strip mining.


Land

This whole BS about landowners wanting it a certain way is just trying to take people away from the real issue. I'm sure that some landowners do want there land left flat, but a lot of landowners just sell out and let the coal companies take over. And you are right that poverty plays a big role in people selling out, but the money they get for their land isnt going to provide them with a "fresh start". Coal companies know that people in this region are very stricken with poverty, and offering a buyout is a really easy way to acquire mining rights. I know a lot of cases where people just let the mining rights go and acquire money once the company is done, but in many cases they never see the money, or the company will go "bankrupt" before the have to pay up. I know a guy who was just offered $100,000 dollars for his land and home, which was appraised for around $350,000, and this isnt counting what the coal is worth, he laughed when they proposed the offer. Most people in this area dont have a home that would bring that much money, and a lot of people here probably dont know what their home, or the minerals under it are worth, or so selling out seems like a good option. This "blood money" isn't helping anyone. Paying $100,000 dollars for land, and then making millions on the coal seems like a pretty good business deal.

When coal companies keep saying that we need the flat land, while the vast majority is being unused im going to keep calling them out on it.

You keep saying that we want to stop all mining, which isn't true. I believe the real issue, and my stance on this issue is to control mining. Strip mining in the old days and contour mining are usually a lot smaller than the MTR sites today. There is a difference between valley fills, and illegally dumping fill material into creeks, streams and rivers. Mountaintop removal is nothing more than a cheap way to mine coal, and it helps no one besides the mining companies. It doesn't provide the amount of jobs they claim, and it definitely doesn't impact the economy as much as coal companies want us to think. According to the 2002 economic census data, Surface mining accounted for 1.2% of jobs in WV, and only brought in 2.6 percent of the states total revenue. All this is happening while the areas being mined are some of the poorest in the state, and the nation.

http://www.census.gov/econ/census02/guide/INDSUMM.HTM

I find it funny that when anything bad happens that is related to mining like flooding, landslides, are sometimes slurry impoundment breaks, they just claim it was an "act of God".


And again you must not be reading the sites, they say UP TO 800 FEET, thats a big difference from stating that all surface mines disturb 800 feet. I agree that environmental sites do not offer a complete, detailed step by step look at the process, most just give a brief overview, and then show facts about how it is harming our environment. This goes both ways though, If you can show me one coal site that gives facts about the environmental harm, please show me. IMO science and facts have more merit than rhetoric from multi-million dollar companies, but we all know that money talks the loudest.

Illegal Property use

Just because mining companies cant legally mine own your land doesn't stop them from doing it. There are many cases of people losing land to mining companies because of confusion over land ownership. Many old deeds only say from "this pine tree to that oak", so if a mining company takes out that tree, how are you to prove you own the land? A lot of mining companies also provide people with a survey of their land, only to use that survey later to illegally mine on their land. Here is a story about that, and how the coal companies tried to intimidate this man into letting his land go. This man really has heard it all from coal companies, from being offered $100,000 for his land, after being told the coal was worth millions, being bullied in an attempt to get his land, and other tricks the coal companies have.

http://www.stopmountaintopremoval.org/larrys-story.html

This isn't a one time case, coal companies use force and intimidation when money doesn't work. Of course you want admit to this though.


So this is why people from outside the region are speaking out, things have got to change, and if Appalachians aren't going to stop it, someone is. This isnt only affecting us, it affects everyone.


Here are some more first hand stories, told by the people who experienced them on how MTR is killing our land.

http://www.ohvec.org/issues/mountaintop_...ooklet.pdf

[Old School]

Ive already been to the OSM's site and read the FAQ's. Since they are the ones wanting to clear up the ruling, I'm sure they wouldn't admit that this could free up companies to do more mining. You cant tell me that taking the 100 foot "buffer" out of the rule, and stating that they can dump fill material into streams as long as they show they have "minimized" the waste isn't going to change mining practices. Thats just ludicrous.

It's not just this administration that has tried to loosen restraints on coal mining. The Bush administration is very friendly to the coal industry, the first bush actually tried to open up millions of acres of national forest to strip mining.


Land

This whole BS about landowners wanting it a certain way is just trying to take people away from the real issue. I'm sure that some landowners do want there land left flat, but a lot of landowners just sell out and let the coal companies take over. And you are right that poverty plays a big role in people selling out, but the money they get for their land isnt going to provide them with a "fresh start". Coal companies know that people in this region are very stricken with poverty, and offering a buyout is a really easy way to acquire mining rights. I know a lot of cases where people just let the mining rights go and acquire money once the company is done, but in many cases they never see the money, or the company will go "bankrupt" before the have to pay up. I know a guy who was just offered $100,000 dollars for his land and home, which was appraised for around $350,000, and this isnt counting what the coal is worth, he laughed when they proposed the offer. Most people in this area dont have a home that would bring that much money, and a lot of people here probably dont know what their home, or the minerals under it are worth, or so selling out seems like a good option. This "blood money" isn't helping anyone. Paying $100,000 dollars for land, and then making millions on the coal seems like a pretty good business deal.

When coal companies keep saying that we need the flat land, while the vast majority is being unused im going to keep calling them out on it.

You keep saying that we want to stop all mining, which isn't true. I believe the real issue, and my stance on this issue is to control mining. Strip mining in the old days and contour mining are usually a lot smaller than the MTR sites today. There is a difference between valley fills, and illegally dumping fill material into creeks, streams and rivers. Mountaintop removal is nothing more than a cheap way to mine coal, and it helps no one besides the mining companies. It doesn't provide the amount of jobs they claim, and it definitely doesn't impact the economy as much as coal companies want us to think. According to the 2002 economic census data, Surface mining accounted for 1.2% of jobs in WV, and only brought in 2.6 percent of the states total revenue. All this is happening while the areas being mined are some of the poorest in the state, and the nation.

http://www.census.gov/econ/census02/guide/INDSUMM.HTM

I find it funny that when anything bad happens that is related to mining like flooding, landslides, are sometimes slurry impoundment breaks, they just claim it was an "act of God".


And again you must not be reading the sites, they say UP TO 800 FEET, thats a big difference from stating that all surface mines disturb 800 feet. I agree that environmental sites do not offer a complete, detailed step by step look at the process, most just give a brief overview, and then show facts about how it is harming our environment. This goes both ways though, If you can show me one coal site that gives facts about the environmental harm, please show me. IMO science and facts have more merit than rhetoric from multi-million dollar companies, but we all know that money talks the loudest.

Illegal Property use

Just because mining companies cant legally mine own your land doesn't stop them from doing it. There are many cases of people losing land to mining companies because of confusion over land ownership. Many old deeds only say from "this pine tree to that oak", so if a mining company takes out that tree, how are you to prove you own the land? A lot of mining companies also provide people with a survey of their land, only to use that survey later to illegally mine on their land. Here is a story about that, and how the coal companies tried to intimidate this man into letting his land go. This man really has heard it all from coal companies, from being offered $100,000 for his land, after being told the coal was worth millions, being bullied in an attempt to get his land, and other tricks the coal companies have.

http://www.stopmountaintopremoval.org/larrys-story.html

This isn't a one time case, coal companies use force and intimidation when money doesn't work. Of course you want admit to this though.


So this is why people from outside the region are speaking out, things have got to change, and if Appalachians aren't going to stop it, someone is. This isnt only affecting us, it affects everyone.


Here are some more first hand stories, told by the people who experienced them on how MTR is killing our land.

http://www.ohvec.org/issues/mountaintop_...ooklet.pdf

Can you keep a straight face when you say "This Will Expand Mining". The coal industry has been using valley fills for over 30 years, so explain to me exactly how will it expand mining by continuing to use valley fills, as before all mining operations will have to comply with SMCRA, Clean Water Act and other Federal and State regulations. If you were to go back 10 years and compare the the size of the valley fills then as to the size of the valley fills today you would find that they have been greatly reduced in acreage, this is mainly do to the cost of mitigation, which could run upwards of one million dollars, depending on the size of the valley fill.

Why do you have such a problem with coal companies buying property? People buy and sell property everyday, just check your local newspaper. How do you know that the money made buy selling one's property would not provide a fresh start? Most companies would prefer to lease the property as to buying it, and here's why when a company buy a property it has to pay for it at the time of the purchase and will not see any return on their money for at least 2 or 3 years maybe longer, also if for some reason the amount of coal is not on the property as first thought the company loses. If the property is leased then the owner is paid for each ton removed.

In all my life I've never heard of anyone mining the coal and paying for it when their done. As for the guy being offered $100,000 for his land that appraised for $350,000, I believe I'd laugh too, I guess the property was only worth $100,000 to the company I hope he didn't sell.

You keep talking about coal companies making millions, but did you ever think about how many millions they spend in order to make one million.

You have to explain to me what you ment when you said "There is a difference between valley fills and illegally dumping fill material into creeks, streams and rivers" BTW if you ever see a valley fill being dumped into a river please give me a call, I'd love to see it. lol.


I believe the link below says "coal companies use explosive to blast as much as 800'-1000' off the tops of the mountains"

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


I'll respond to your other comments later.

[Cats Fan]

All the golf courses I've been too in this area are always very busy, especially on the weekends.

So there may be more than you think.

As for MTR, I'm for it. It brings more jobs to smaller areas and provides area for parks and homes.

Exp: StoneCrest in Prestonsburg.

We have a horse show park, around 30+ homes, state of the art golf course, and 5 baseball/softball fields.

It may have its cons but StoneCrest has done wonders for the city of Prestonsburg.

MTR is great for large coal companies because it requires less workers, so some people lose jobs due to this mining technique. Machines replace workers!

As for homesites, ask residents of Spradlin and Mays Br. what it done to their home when many were lost due to flooding.

MTR, specifically StoneCrest, has had negative consequences for Prestonsburg as well.

[phs1986]

MTR is great for large coal companies because it requires less workers, so some people lose jobs due to this mining technique. Machines replace workers!

As for homesites, ask residents of Spradlin and Mays Br. what it done to their home when many were lost due to flooding.

MTR, specifically StoneCrest, has had negative consequences for Prestonsburg as well.

Just wait until all-stars are held there.... when the cash flow that comes from this tourney hits the area as a whole, (resturants, hotels, shopping, etc.) the residents of P-burg will be GLAD to have a facility such as this!! From what I have seen of the place it looks really nice.

[Cats Fan]

Just wait until all-stars are held there.... when the cash flow that comes from this tourney hits the area as a whole, (resturants, hotels, shopping, etc.) the residents of P-burg will be GLAD to have a facility such as this!! From what I have seen of the place it looks really nice.

I was just addressing the detriments of MTR in P-burg. I agree that MTR has many positives as well.