[Coach_Owens87]

I know my stats are estimates, I told you that was all I could find. Buts it's as close as I could get.

I could only find estimates on how much of that land has been developed, some sites, which arent from "Tree-hugging" sites say that as little as 2% has been developed. A look at google earth, which has constantly updated photos, shows that very little land is developed, Anything above 5% would be a stretch. A lot of Strip sites are located in isolated areas, which make them very hard to get people into moving business there.

The slurry ponds companies leave sometimes develop into marshes and attract small amounts of wildlife, they call this a "wildlife reserve" and claim it to be a developed area. Most of these sites are just small ponds surrounded by vast amounts of nothing but grass and dirt, hardly a wildlife reserve in a forested area.

______________________________________________________________________
I'm not talking about your stats being estimates, I'm talking about where they say 1.2 million acres were permitted, that does not mean that 1.2 million acres were actually mined. Some companies have the luxury of permitting about 5 years ahead of their current mining, also it is almost impossible to mine every acre of a permit. During my 27 years in the mining I have found that we may average 85% to 90% of the acreage permitted will be distrubed, also the estimated 1.2 million acres is not broken down to tell how many acres were permitted for Haul Roads, Prep Plants, River Loading Facilities, Deep Mines, Slurry Impoundments or other Coal related projects.

You may be able to Google and see the active mining operations, but can you tell which areas have be reclaimed, we currently have two or three permits that I think would be hard to tell from Google's photo's.

If I'm not mistake you are the one that said that 90% of the land is not being used, so that would mean that 10% is being used, in another thread you said only 1% of the land was being used, then the other day you said 10% was being used and now you're saying only 5% in being used, would you please pick a number and stick with it.

I'm glad you brought up the issue about some strip mine sites being located in isolated areas, and without building better access to these areas they will never be used. Coal severance tax money would really help in these areas.

Now let me ask you a question exactly what is a slurry pond company?

Are you referring to "wetlands" ?[/QUOTE]

Yes You can take my stats and rip them apart, which is fine, I expected you to do that. I know all I have is estimates, but at least I provided a number that has some type of study to back it. You didnt provide any of the such on land being mined.

The google photos from google earth are updated, real time photos, they have a special program on that now called "memorial for the mountains" in which you can take close up looks at some active and closed mine sites. You can zoom in to about 1,500 feet above the land, and you can go closer to some sites, so the photos are high quality. They also provide before and after photos so you can judge reclamation efforts for yourself. Google earth is a satellite based program that allows you to view any point in the world.

I need to proof read my post, I didn't mean slurry pond companies, but rather slurry ponds left by companies.

And I did not say 90%, I stated that some sites estimate between 1-2% being used, and some go as high as nearly 10%. The most accurate estimate seems to be that 2% of mined land has been developed. But no more than 10% has been developed.