Mountaintop Removal Mining

[LadyTevar]

In the thread on the Mine Explosion in WV, the topic of traditional mine v/s mountaintop removal was raised.

Mountaintop Removal (MTR), also known as Mountaintop Mining (MTM) is a practice that started in the mid-60s to more quickly reach coal reserves inside the Applachian Mountain chain. It has both proponents and opponents as to its efficiency, safety, and more recently its effect on the environment.

I will admit I am an opponent of this method, which as of 2006 produced roughly 30% of the coal mined in WV. The rest is produced by the traditional tunnel mining methods.

My arguments against MTR can best be summed up in pictures:

Step ONE: Layers of "OverBurden" (layers of dirt above the coal layer(s) ) removed

Step TWO: Overburden and Waste Dirt ("Spoils") are dumped in a valleyfill

Step THREE: Draglines remove the coal, with the spoils placed over the valleyfill in SpoilPiles

Step FOUR: "Recovery" process is started, planting grass seed over the spoil piles

Step FIVE: All Coal removed, the area is landscaped to 'return to its natural state'


By law, Mining corporations are to reclaim the site to the land's pre-mining contours. As you can see by the difference in Step 1 and Step 5, this is nearly impossible. The removed soil has filled a nearby valley, blocking it totally. The mountain itself is not just diminshed in size, but has been shifted sideways by over half the width of the valley-fill. While the mountain has probably been reseeded, perhaps even planted with young trees, the valley has vanished, along with any streams or ecological niches that may have been within the valley.

As such, I propose that MTR is the more dangerous method of removing coal.

EDIT: GOT IMAGES WORKING

[Samuel]

What is the pollution effects on the local population? What is the value of the land that is despoiled (assume that it takes so long to be restored that we can ignore if we discount)? How much does it save in comparison to shaft mining?

[MKSheppard]

It's Safer

In Butte, Montana, conventional deep mining methods killed on average of 25 people a year in accidents. After the Berkeley Pit opened, and through economies of scale, drove other subsurface mines out of business; and caused a shift to open pit mining in that region; you know how many people died in 27 years of operation at the Pit? Six.

It's just as environmentally destructive as deep mining methods

It produces exactly the same amount of waste per ton of ore they rip out of the earth. The difference is, in an Open Pit Mine, you rip a lot more out of the earth far more efficiently and safely for the workers; so the scale of the waste is greater; but also more easily managed; since instead of twenty deep mines producing waste; you just have a single source that can be more efficiently managed.

[Alyrium Denryle]

It's just as environmentally destructive as deep mining methods

It produces exactly the same amount of waste per ton of ore they rip out of the earth. The difference is, in an Open Pit Mine, you rip a lot more out of the earth far more efficiently and safely for the workers; so the scale of the waste is greater; but also more easily managed; since instead of twenty deep mines producing waste; you just have a single source that can be more efficiently managed.

Seeing as Mountain Top removal is not the same thing as open pit mining, what exactly is your point dumbfuck?

[Samuel]

Do open pit mines have different mortality rates than mountain top removal ones during operation? It seems to me they use the same exact method so they should mave similar numbers of deaths.

Also, I think Sheps point is that less people die from mountain top removal and that the value of the numbers who live is worth more than the landscape. How much value does the land they devestate have?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Do open pit mines have different mortality rates than mountain top removal ones during operation? It seems to me they use the same exact method so they should mave similar numbers of deaths.

Also, I think Sheps point is that less people die from mountain top removal and that the value of the numbers who live is worth more than the landscape. How much value does the land they devestate have?

Huge quantities. Not only in economic value, but the intrinsic value of nature itself. The watesheds that get destroyed/poisoned also supply drinking water to the entire region through groundwater recharge and direct extraction.

[open_sketchbook]

I remember reading on these forums (I think Darth Wong posted it) that there are towns near such coal mines where the water contamnination is so bad that wellwater comes out of the taps black.

[General Brock]

Pollution happens from traditional mines as well. I'm all for protecting ecosystems, but an ecosystem can be restored and recovered easier than the dead brought back to life. Sure, every watershed can be unique, but even if species were threatened with extinction, there can be attempts made to relocate.

If the coal is going to be taken or way or another, human life should have priority and making sure nature can heal the damage after the very next. Mountain top removal seems to offer the best bet for both objectives.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Pollution happens from traditional mines as well. I'm all for protecting ecosystems, but an ecosystem can be restored and recovered easier than the dead brought back to life. Sure, every watershed can be unique, but even if species were threatened with extinction, there can be attempts made to relocate.

If the coal is going to be taken or way or another, human life should have priority and making sure nature can heal the damage after the very next. Mountain top removal seems to offer the best bet for both objectives.

You dont know a damn thing about ecosystem restoration. Restoring an ecosystem, restoring every life lost when an entire valley with its watershed is flooded in rock and heavy metals like mercury and selenium is as impossible as bringing someone back to life. Hell, under those conditions restoring an ecosystem that even resembles what was there before is not possible. The ecosystem cannot be restored, and many of the species there are endemics who wont survive in other areas. To say nothing of the damage to the watershed upon which humans depend.

Strip mining for coal has a better track record than that.

Sorry, but as callous as it is, a few dozen humans a year is not worth that, considering how many die every day from starvation it is a drop in the bucket. More people die as loggers, or in commercial fishing every year.

Maybe a better solution would be to phase out the use of coal.

[Samuel]

You dont know a damn thing about ecosystem restoration. Restoring an ecosystem, restoring every life lost when an entire valley with its watershed is flooded in rock and heavy metals like mercury and selenium is as impossible as bringing someone back to life. Hell, under those conditions restoring an ecosystem that even resembles what was there before is not possible. The ecosystem cannot be restored, and many of the species there are endemics who wont survive in other areas. To say nothing of the damage to the watershed upon which humans depend.

Can't you just bring in a new layer of soil and dump it on top?

Sorry, but as callous as it is, a few dozen humans a year is not worth that, considering how many die every day from starvation it is a drop in the bucket. More people die as loggers, or in commercial fishing every year.

Yes, but there is a difference- they are worth more. A peasent in Africa who makes one dollar a day and works from 15 to 65 makes about 18,500 in their lifetime. A miner can do that in half a year. Of course, mining isn't a profession like medicine that requires extremely high levels of training and is inaccessible to most, but there is a benefit of having experienced miners compared to say working to death people who flunk highschool.

[Alyrium Denryle]

As a matter of fact, lets expand on this further. As far as dangerous jobs are concerned, coal miners in the US do not even make the top ten. There are all manner of things that could be done to reduce the death rate of say.... roofers 94 of whom die every year.

Perhaps actually having regulations on mines that are effective and not basically written by the coal industry would reduce the 25 deaths a year we see in coal accidents. Hell, giving teeth to the regulations that exist would be more effective. Afterall, the fines for violations of current regulations are probably lower than the cost of meeting safety standards. That last bit I would need to check on.

Can't you just bring in a new layer of soil and dump it on top?

No. Heavy metals will leach through the soil into the water table, the organisms that lived along the elevation/temperature and moisture gradient you have just leveled are gone, and invasive plants are the ones that colonize the new area.

Yes, but there is a difference- they are worth more. A peasent in Africa who makes one dollar a day and works from 15 to 65 makes about 18,500 in their lifetime. A miner can do that in half a year. Of course, mining isn't a profession like medicine that requires extremely high levels of training and is inaccessible to most, but there is a benefit of

A person is a person. Are we to value human life based upon how much they make? Tell me, how many african children is Bill Gates worth in a utilitarian calculation regarding who shall live and who shall die? (Note: His income is 1.1 billion a year. Average global per capita income is 8.2k. That makes him worth the lives of some 13 thousand average people)

That said, 25 per is not a significant percentage of the number of mine workers. They probably lose more than that to other professions or retirement per anum.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Ghetto Edit: Fucked up a zero. Bill gates is worth ~130 thousand people.

[Samuel]

Afterall, the fines for violations of current regulations are probably lower than the cost of meeting safety standards. That last bit I would need to check on.

The true value you need to worry about is fines times the odds of getting caught. If the question is "is the cost of safety regulations less than the cost of mountain top removal" you have a much better case.

Are we to value human life based upon how much they make? Tell me, how many african children is Bill Gates worth in a utilitarian calculation regarding who shall live and who shall die?

I'm working off of income because you can use the income people make to help other people. Specifically the difference between you and your replacement. Doesn't utilitarian value individuals who can help other individuals more than others?

[SirNitram]

Here's a general list of what happens, enviromentally, when you perform mountaintop mining.

Deforest the entire top.
Remove topsoil. In theory alone, it is saved and put back later. In reality, waivers are forced out of people to use 'topsoil substitute'.
Rock and subsoil is blasted out of the way explosively, throwing dust and rocks everywhere.
The various stuff removed is dumped in a nearby valley. This is called 'valley fill'. Valleys which have rivers? Eh, who cares! Money is made by moving it out of the way fastest. The rivers are simply buried.

Science has a long bit on it, but it's behind a paywall. FOr those with access and a desire to read: Science 8 January 2010:
Vol. 327. no. 5962, pp. 148 - 149
DOI: 10.1126/science.1180543


The EPA has identified a number of enviromental issues with this.

an increase of minerals in the water -- zinc, sodium, selenium, and sulfate levels may increase and negatively impact fish and macroinvertebrates leading to less diverse and more pollutant-tolerant species

· Burial of headwater streams by valley fills causes permanent loss of ecosystems.
· Concentrations of salts as measured by conductivity are, on average, 10 times higher downstream of mountaintop mines and valley fills than in un-mined watersheds.
· The increased levels of salts disrupt the life cycle of freshwater aquatic organisms and some cannot live in these waters.
· Water with high salt concentrations downstream of mountaintop mines and valley fills is toxic to stream organisms. To date, there is no evidence that streams that undergo a restoration process have returned to their normal ecological functions after the mining is completed.

And of course, let's remember this article: Link

Arsenic. Barium. Lead. Manganese. More. Corrode the enamel off teeth and cause rashes. Don't even let the water touch you: It's THAT bad.

Mountaintop removal's price is plenty pricey. The water doesn't need to be black or smell funny. It'll kill you all the same if you're not careful. But people dying from the toxins a little at a time is less of a news story, so people think underground mines.. Where there can be a sudden theatre of the macabre.. Are more dangerous.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The true value you need to worry about is fines times the odds of getting caught. If the question is "is the cost of safety regulations less than the cost of mountain top removal" you have a much better case.

The chances of getting caught are low because the largest coal companies discriminate against unionized workers (and the costs of the resulting lawsuits are less than their costs of obeying the law in this case), and pretty much write the legislation that regulates them, as well as promote anti-regulation officials and public policy. They have stacked the deck. As a result, needless deaths occur. That is the point.

Additionally:
Mountaintop removal has a cost that is much larger than the lives of humans (In terms of loss of life alone, I do not accept the notion that humans are qualitatively different from non-humans, and that any difference is a quantitative one. As a result there come numbers of dead animals that outweigh the number of dead people. Thousands to millions of animals dead from one mountain top removal probably outweighs 25 people per anum, and that assumes that mountain top removal stops all mining related accidental deaths). If we wish to optimize a benefit/cost ratio of our coal mining extraction we ought look for ways of not having to pay a non-human cost that is so staggeringly large.

I'm working off of income because you can use the income people make to help other people. Specifically the difference between you and your replacement. Doesn't utilitarian value individuals who can help other individuals more than others?

All other things being equal it does. On the other hand, income is not the only means by which this should be measured. In fact it is very poor. Even if we grant that one can use income as a proxy, that does not invalidate the objection to valuing the life of a person as a function of their income.

If I have X number of dollars, who am I better off giving it to? A relatively wealthy person who will notice the marginal increase in their wealth less, or the poor person? Hell, why not split it among a multitude of poor people such that each receives X/n, each one of whom will receive a greater benefit from the smaller amount? In the case of giving a mine worker money so he can help people, or giving it to poor people so they can help themselves... why not bypass the middleman?

When you start talking about people's lives, the suffering caused by the death of your average miner and your average african fisherman is approximately equal. The economic loss of losing a mine worker is negligible because there are plenty of eligible mine workers with whom to replace him. Thus the two are basically equal in this respect.

The only exception to this equality is in the case of a functional difference between two named individuals. A homeless person and a doctor for example.

[MKSheppard]

The Upper Big Branch mine was expected to produce 1.6 million tons of coal this year before the accident.

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3

Basic breakdown of Occupational Statistics

In 2007; there were 67 mining fatalities reported to MSHA.

27 were in underground locations (40%)
40 were in surface locations (59%)

A cursory look at that says "hey, maybe underground mining is safer!"

But then you look at the overall statistics of occupation:

322,500~ people working in Surface Locations (85%)
57,200~ people working in Underground Locations (15%)

With a basic work-year of 2,080 hours a year per employee; this comes out to:

670.8 million work hours a year for 40 fatalities; or 0.06 deaths per million work hours.
118.98 million work hours a year for 27 fatalities; or 0.23 deaths per million work hours.

Additionally, less people are needed for surface mining:

120 surface miners can produce 1 million tons/yr
163 deep miners can produce 1 million tons/yr

Applied to the Big Branch Mine's production of 1.6 million tons of coal a year; these stats emerge:

Surface Mining

Workers: 192~
Man Hours/Yr 399,360
Average Deaths over 20-year period: 0.48

Underground Mining

Workers: 261
Man Hours/Yr 542,880
Average Deaths over 20-year period: 2.5

The recovery rates for the different methods are:

Surface Mining: 80+%
Underground Conventional: 50%
Underground Longwall: 60-80% (depending on how the coal seam behaves does it stay straight, or does it zig zag all over?)

You can see how a surface mine reliably recovers in excess of 80+ % of the coal reserves in an area; this not only means the mine is in operation longer, providing jobs longer than an underground mine, but also reduces the number of abandoned mines that litter the landscape after a vein has become uneconomic to mine.

Basic breakdown of Waste+Other Statistics applied to Big Branch Mine's production of 1.6 million tons/yr

Surface Contour Mining

Liquid Waste: 384 tons/yr
Solid Waste: 16,000 tons/yr
Dust: 160 tons/yr
Totals 16,544 tons/yr

Surface Area Mining

Liquid Waste: 1,920 tons/yr
Solid Waste: 16,000 tons/yr
Dust: 96 tons/yr
Totals 18,016 tons/yr


Underground Conventional

Liquid Waste: 1,600 tons/yr
Solid Waste: 4,800 tons/yr
Dust: 10 tons/yr
Totals 6,410 tons/yr


Underground Longwall

Liquid Waste: 2,560 tons/yr
Solid Waste: 8,000 tons/yr
Dust: 16 tons/yr
Totals 10,576 tons/yr

You can see from the above, that while surface mines do produce a prodigous amount of solid waste and dust; their liquid waste production is pretty much well below the average of an underground mine; and the solid waste production of underground mines of both types is no slouch either.

Since your average waste rock is about 106 pounds per cubic foot, the numbers break down, assuming a rectangle that's 500~ feet wide (the width of a river valley near Big Foot, WV) as:

Big Branch Under. Conventional: 4,800 tons = 90,566~ ft3 = 18 ft long, 500 ft wide, 10 ft high
Big Branch Under. Longwall: 8,000 tons = 150,943~ ft3 = 30 ft long, 500 ft wide, 10 ft high
Big Branch Surface: 16,000 tons = 301,887 ft3 = 60 ft long, 500 ft wide, 10 ft high

If we assumed that Big Branch operated for 20 years before shutting down; the waste pile would be this long:

Big Branch Under. Conventional: 360 ft (0.06 miles)
Big Branch Under. Longwall: 600 ft (0.11 miles)
Big Branch Surface: 1,200 ft (0.22 miles)

Clearly, even with surface mining, the waste problem is not that spectacular; and surface mining on average produces less liquid waste, thus enabling smaller ponds full of crap; thus a smaller impact on the environment.

Underground mining isn't without it's impact on the environment either. You get such fun things as ground subsidence (very much a problem with Longwall mining), which is particularly fun if something was built above the mine, contamination of underground aquafiers, which is particularly more of a problem since you're actually digging closer to the aquafier with underground mining and producing more liquid waste per ton.

And in our hypothetical Big Branch Mine comparison, it's five times more dangerous to the miners than working on a surface version of the Big Branch mine; and the conditions are far more conductive to mass deaths, due to working in enclosed environments; whereas in a surface mine, the deaths if something goes really bad, ends up being in ones or twos, such as whoops, a side ramp in the pit collapsed, sending a guy in a mining truck tumbling down to the bottom of the pit. If he wore his seatbelt he's likely to have survived; as opposed to a methane explosion which can catch and kill a dozen people in a second.

[SirNitram]

So. Will you be providing what toxins are immediately exposed to the public from underground mining, or will you simply be conceedng your position in A-OK with sending arsenic and selenium into the water supply of the public, and pretending that's not a safety concern?

[Alyrium Denryle]

So. Will you be providing what toxins are immediately exposed to the public from underground mining, or will you simply be conceedng your position in A-OK with sending arsenic and selenium into the water supply of the public, and pretending that's not a safety concern?

He is also not making a distinction between mountain top removal, and other forms of surface mining which are less destructive. Heaven forbid measures of spread even be factored into statistics like this

[LadyTevar]

Now that I finally have the images working in the OP, more of what Allyrium and I have been saying should be made clearer.

Open Pit Mining is not the same as Mountain Top Removal. In fact, coal is not even in the list of minerals extracted via open pit:

Materials typically extracted from open-pit mines include:

* Clay
* Coquina
* Diamonds
* Gravel and stone (stone refers to bedrock, while gravel is unconsolidated material, as found in glacial or fluvial deposits)
* Granite
* Gritstone
* Gypsum
* Limestone
* Marble
* Metal ores, such as copper, iron, gold, and molybdenum

Now, view the pictures:

Open Pit, the Udachnaya Pipe
HUGE PIT

MountainTop Removal


Another, from the Charleston Gazette's files:

[Alyrium Denryle]

So not only do you remove metric teratons of earth in the form of waste (I am pretty fucking sure that shep's stats only include the waste from the actual refining of the ore from the seam), but you then fill an adjacent valley with what is left of the mountain, destroying two landscapes for the price of one!

Yes shep. Great idea. I have an elephant farm in siberia I want to sell you.

[Losonti Tokash]

I find it amusing that Shep would bring up the Berkeley Pit immediately before claiming that the environmental effects are more manageable, considering that (among other things) when a flock of geese made the mistake of landing there during their migration, they were all killed within seconds.

[MKSheppard]

He is also not making a distinction between mountain top removal, and other forms of surface mining which are less destructive. Heaven forbid measures of spread even be factored into statistics like this

Mountain Top Removal seems to be a term conjured up and popularized by the opponents of the practice; it's very hard to find that term in the technical journals of the mining industry.

And yes; so-called MTR is actually in the statistics I put forth:

Surface Area Mining: Primary technique used in flat to gently rolling landscapes found in the midwest to west. Link

Surface Contour Mining: Primary technique used in hilly to mountainous landscapes found in the east. Link

So yes, the statistics I found are comparable to West Virginian mining.

[MKSheppard]

I find it amusing that Shep would bring up the Berkeley Pit immediately before claiming that the environmental effects are more manageable, considering that (among other things) when a flock of geese made the mistake of landing there during their migration, they were all killed within seconds.

Let's be honest. Did anyone miss those [Canadian] geese? Also, they most certainly were not killed in seconds like you claim. More like over a period of several days as they ingested the contaminated water at a superfund site.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Mountain Top Removal seems to be a term conjured up and popularized by the opponents of the practice; it's very hard to find that term in the technical journals of the mining industry.

Gee... I wonder why the term was used in Nature...

Surface Area Mining: Primary technique used in flat to gently rolling landscapes found in the midwest to west. Link

Surface Contour Mining: Primary technique used in hilly to mountainous landscapes found in the east. Link

Where is it exactly? Contour mining is where they shave off the leading edge of a coal containing geographic contour like a hillside.

It is not the same as leveling a mountain.

Let's be honest. Did anyone miss those [Canadian] geese? Also, they most certainly were not killed in seconds like you claim. More like over a period of several days as they ingested the contaminated water at a superfund site

The geese have moral value for their own sake you sociopath. Moreover it would not just be the geese that died, but rather every aquatic organism into who's watershed the effluent from that area leached through the groundwater or was expelled as effluent in addition to every terrestrial organism that drank the fucking water.

[SirNitram]

He is also not making a distinction between mountain top removal, and other forms of surface mining which are less destructive. Heaven forbid measures of spread even be factored into statistics like this

Mountain Top Removal seems to be a term conjured up and popularized by the opponents of the practice; it's very hard to find that term in the technical journals of the mining industry.

And yes; so-called MTR is actually in the statistics I put forth:

Surface Area Mining: Primary technique used in flat to gently rolling landscapes found in the midwest to west. Link

Surface Contour Mining: Primary technique used in hilly to mountainous landscapes found in the east. Link

So yes, the statistics I found are comparable to West Virginian mining.

Actually, they're not.

MSHA uses 'Mountaintop mining' and 'Mountaintop removal' in official documents. Which proves you're, oh, full of shit: Mountaintop removal and Mountaintop Mining

Poor Shep. It looks like while contour mining can be used in mountaintop mining sites, it's not the same thing.