Mountaintop Removal Mining

[MKSheppard]

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.

Actually, yeah it pretty much is. First you shave off the leading edge of the geographic contour containing the coal; and truck away all the crap from that shave in 300~ ton haul trucks.

Then you shave off the leading edge of THAT shave, and so on so on until the job is done, in the process levelling said mountain or hillside.

The geese have moral value for their own sake you sociopath.

These are Canadian Geese, Aly. Does anyone miss them? I certainly don't. They are just nothing but grass-powered crap machines. If we could cull the Canadian Geese population by 80%, that would help a lot in various areas.

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

How far does this danger go from the Pit? Dilution is a wonderful thing.

in addition to every terrestrial organism that drank the fucking water.

Birds are pretty much the only terrestial organism that can actually get down to drink the water; due to the rather steepish contours of the Berekely Pit. Well, I suppose mountain goats could, but they aren't exactly widespread in North America...

[LadyTevar]

Shep, would you like to explain why the first link you posted has this warning on it?

As of April 30 2007, this document is NO LONGER IN USE by the World Bank Group. The new versions of the World Bank Group Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines are available at http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/enviro.nsf/Co ... Guidelines

The link leads to a page that has pdfs on both Coal Mining and Coal Processing.




Your Second Link is interesting, mostly because of who wrote it:

By Gene Kitts, Senior Vice President-Mining Services, International Coal Group, Inc.

. A Coal Executive would of course have all the best statistics at his disposal to make his case.
Mr. Kitt does provide two great pictures of a typical 'contour mining' site, showing the layers that a surface mine digs through in order to reach the most valuable coal seam. It seems that out of a 200ft cliff-face, they have only 5-8ft of coal seam. The other 190ft of rock is Spoil that must be moved and deposited in a Fill...

I'm not good at math. What's 190ft x the large amount of land shown in the topographical map Mr. Kitts includes in his pdf?
I see sections marked as 450ft and 600ft. The section in orange is listed as 100' cover, which I believe refers to the amount of material buffer to prevent a mine from busting out the side of the mountain. The yellow section is marked as "too narrow to deep mine", although one section is listed as 600ft wide and the other as 450ft wide. The whole area is approx 6000ft from top to bottom, with another 2000ft along the sidearm.
So, once again, help me with the math here: 190ft of Spoil x 450ft wide x 6000ft long =
And where is that Spoil going to be dumped? In the typical Mountaintop Mining, it would simply be dropped into the nearest valley....


The LastLink is to a 2007 CDC pdf comparing Underground and Surface Mining. It is a very easily read and understood paper, with easy-to-read graphs.This is where Shep got his numbers for employees in mining operations.

A total of 55,617 employees,2 or 57,222 full-time equivalent (FTE)3 employees, were reported to MSHA as working at underground mining locations in 2007. This is in contrast to 322,506 employees (or 279,541 FTE employees) that were reported as working at surface locations.

However, let's go look at the Notes section:

Notes: All analyses of accident data exclude office employees. Occupational fatalities exclude all cases under 17 years of age.
Further statistical methodology is available on the NIOSH Internet [http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/statistics/method.htm].
Data in the above tables may not add to totals shown because of independent rounding. Caution should be used when interpreting rates based on a small number of events.
1. Mines at which only independent contractors were working did not show any employment and were not counted.
2. Average number of employees working at individual mines during calendar quarters of active operations (includes office workers).
3. Full-time equivalent employees computed using reported employee hours (2,000 hours = 1 FTE).
4. Surface work locations include surface operations at underground mines, surface operations (strip or open pit), auger, culm banks, dredge, other surface operations, independent shops and yards, and mills or preparation plants.
5. Mining sectors include coal operators, metal operators, nonmetal operators, stone operators, sand and gravel operators, coal contractors, and noncoal contractors.
6. Includes actual days away from work and/or days of restricted work activity. For permanently disabling injuries only, statutory days charged by MSHA were used if they exceeded the total lost workdays.

So.... the stats Shep gave on employment were for ALL surface operations, not just coal. That skews the tally a bit, doesn't it? Also, why is there a difference between Coal Operators and Coal Contractors? Does it have to do with Union v/s NonUnion operations like most of Massey Energy's mines? Does it reflect the way Massey Energy sub-lets its mines to smaller operations (still non-union). Does this count Employees who work Part-Time at all?

[MKSheppard]

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?

Major coal mining in Maryland died out in the 1950s, just as Surface Mining was beginning to appear, thence the 800~ abandoned mine sites in Western Maryland are conventional underground mines; and a major problem is acid, iron, sulfur, aluminum, etc etc drainage through these abandoned mines into streams nearby. Link



That's drainage from abandoned Consolidated Coal mines built in the 1900s. By the 1930s, the place had the pH of about hydrochloric or sulfuric acid.

It's obviously improved since then...

Anyway, the entire bit about "ZOMG EVIL SURFACE MINES CAUSE POISON ZOMG IN OUR WATAR!" is a brilliant fucking red herring.

The same problems apply equally to underground mining; because a lot of these mines run at or under the water table; and since they're underground; when it rains a lot, the rainwater wants to get into the mine.

So you have to constantly run dewatering pumps; which pump the water that leaches into the mine out. This water of course, is going to be high in various "fun" items since it got into the mine itself.

Hmm yeah, that's probably the source of the huge discrepancies between the liquid waste generated by surface and underground mines.

Hanging onto the "IT RUINZ OUR WATER" is just a nice back door way of banning or severely restricting mining, which is going to be so useful in the Appalachian region; where there just isn't anything else to replace Coal as a major economic industry.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I was under the impression that the minute you mine anything out of any corner of the earth, you are essentially condemning the area to an environmental wasteland. So why the fuss about the nature of it?

[Alyrium Denryle]

It's obviously improved since then...

Just because water is clear does not mean it is clean dumbfuck. That was also 70 years ago. Is it OK to have a watershed upon which humans and other life depend contaminated with concentrated death for 70 years?

The same problems apply equally to underground mining; because a lot of these mines run at or under the water table; and since they're underground; when it rains a lot, the rainwater wants to get into the mine.

Well duh. None of us are claiming that any coal mining is clean

Hmm yeah, that's probably the source of the huge discrepancies between the liquid waste generated by surface and underground mines.

Yes. And guess what, the earth that is leveled off the top of a mountain gets placed directly into the bottom of the local watershed so that when it rains, runoff gets into it and leaches through to the groundwater, such that all of the rainwater in that watershed eventually leaches through contaminated soil, not just the amount that goes through the mine. This however is not counted as liquid waste because it is not what is pumped out of the mine.

I was under the impression that the minute you mine anything out of any corner of the earth, you are essentially condemning the area to an environmental wasteland. So why the fuss about the nature of it?

Because some methods are worse than others.

[SirNitram]

Anyway, the entire bit about "ZOMG EVIL SURFACE MINES CAUSE POISON ZOMG IN OUR WATAR!" is a brilliant fucking red herring.

Ah, the idiotic flailing of a beaten fool.

Surface mining is not mountaintop mining.. Not even by the EPA's standards, the MSHA's standards, nor those by Science or Nature. Strike one. Arsenic and Selenium do alot worse than acidify the water. Strike two. The measure of damage is not, of course, pH. If you were more interested in legitimately arguing a point instead of screeching like a spanked child, you'd notice the standards are on the conductivity of the water.

So. You can continue to throw this little temper tantrum. I will continue to point back to scientific journals, MSHA, and the EPA.. And all documents which are up to date. You might show some pretty pictures, but for those of us interested in LOGIC, part of this little forum, the cold hard numbers and the exact categorization of the toxins hold alot more weight than your rantings. ANd of course, morality wise, you cherrypick and use outdated materials.. Which say they're outdated on the surface!

[LadyTevar]

These are Canadian Geese, Aly. Does anyone miss them? I certainly don't. They are just nothing but grass-powered crap machines. If we could cull the Canadian Geese population by 80%, that would help a lot in various areas.

While I admit that the SCA has actually been told "if you want, the wild geese can count as archery targets" by various parks & recreation people we've dealt with, it still does not excuse the fact that Canada Geese are a large part of the Ecosystem. In fact, they may be overpopulated because the other wetland-dwelling migratory birds such as the Sandhill Crane, the Whooping Crane, and the Great Blue and Green Herons have been losing population due to human depredation of habitat.

So, even if the Canada Goose leaves slimy green poop everywhere, they're STILL a species that should not be dying from poisoned water.

[SirNitram]

I was under the impression that the minute you mine anything out of any corner of the earth, you are essentially condemning the area to an environmental wasteland. So why the fuss about the nature of it?

You're not, is the thing. A poorly managed mine which evades regulations regarding such might, but the instant you pull a lump of coal from the ground, it does not become a toxic wasteland. Take, for example, this example: Link



Yes. That's a mine. It's a sand tar site, but you get the idea.

Furthermore, even if the mine area itself were lost, we're talking about enviromental impacts on the nearby water supply.. Those downriver from it, and every human downriver.

[Alyrium Denryle]

How far does this danger go from the Pit? Dilution is a wonderful thing.

The entire fucking watershed

Birds are pretty much the only terrestial organism that can actually get down to drink the water; due to the rather steepish contours of the Berekely Pit. Well, I suppose mountain goats could, but they aren't exactly widespread in North America...

I am not talking about just the mining site dumbass, but rather the entire contaminated watershed.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Yes. That's a mine. It's a sand tar site, but you get the idea.

Even surface strip mining, the removal of topsoil to get at a coal seam in flat land is not that bad once they have restored it. They remove the soil, take the seam, then replace the topsoil. Responsible companies like Luminant Energy place all of their waste into secure impound sites (unlike what is done in mountain top removal) and replace all of the material they removed including its hydrologic features with little contamination. They even fund grad students to make absolutely sure that they did a good job and that all the living things that were once there come back. A friend of mine is doing her masters on the amphibians that come back after a site is restored, and how long it takes them to do so.

There are however, only a few companies that actually do this properly.

[LadyTevar]

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.

Actually, yeah it pretty much is. First you shave off the leading edge of the geographic contour containing the coal; and truck away all the crap from that shave in 300~ ton haul trucks.

Then you shave off the leading edge of THAT shave, and so on so on until the job is done, in the process levelling said mountain or hillside.

Shep, I believe my very first post shows that Contour Mining =/= MountainTop Mining, aka MountainTop Removal. The TOP of the MOUNTAIN is bulldozed away to get at the coal seam. THEN, yes, there may be some contour mining, but it is not the same.

BTW: didn't you start out comparing MTR to Open Pit mining? Now it's Contour Mining?
Doing a little moving of your own, aren't you? Don't drop the goalpost, now.

[MKSheppard]

Shep, would you like to explain why the first link you posted has this warning on it?

Considering that the table I consulted on page 2 of that that document is referenced: Edgar, T. F. 1983. Coal Processing and Pollution Control. Houston, Tex.: Gulf Publishing; so fucking what?

I'm sure you can find that book in any reputable university library to check for accuracy, or do you need me to drive down to the University of Maryland at College Park and take a photograph of the fucking revelant page of that book at the Engineering and Physical Sciences Library?

The link leads to a page that has pdfs on both Coal Mining and Coal Processing.

Page 14 of that PDF on the guidelines for Coal Processing are so enlightening. Oil, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Cobalt, Zinc, Lead, Iron, Nickel, Mercury, Vanadium, Manganese, Phenol, Cyanides, etc etc acceptabul limits.

In the end it doesn't matter what kind of mine is used, surface or underground or how careful you are in digging the damn stuff out, because the coal has to be processed BEFORE it can be used, all more so now that Clean Air regulations are now in effect, meaning more processing of coal before it's burned; which means more fun stuff like Mercury etc is leached out of the coal at the production site (West Virginia) before it's sent to the point of use (power plant in Virginia).

A Coal Executive would of course have all the best statistics at his disposal to make his case.

Course he would. Same as how a Targeteeer would have all the best statistics at his disposal to point out how a pre-emptive nuclear first strike is safer than absorbing a disarming Red First Strike.

It seems that out of a 200ft cliff-face, they have only 5-8ft of coal seam.

Actually 18~ feet.

Hummm...6,000 ft long cut; 450 ft wide cut, and 180 ft high cut; that's 486,000,000 ft3 of stuff that's moved during the operation to get to the coal; and that's roughly a block 16,000 feet long, 500 feet wide, and 60 feet high; or about a valley some three miles long filled up. Which you know, isn't that big.

Course, in real life, the actual amount of crap moved would be much less; since the slope of the mountain would subtract a lot of volume; but for a rough SWAG, a rectangular block works fine.

So.... the stats Shep gave on employment were for ALL surface operations, not just coal. That skews the tally a bit, doesn't it?

Good catch there. I went off the first page, not the second in that PDF. Doom on Me.

Second page goes into more detail; and I'll just throw in the contractors as well:

Underground Coal Operator/Contractor: 42,989 with 21 deaths in 2007
Surface Coal Operator/Contractor: 79,947 with 13 deaths in 2007

Running that through the average worker year of 2,080 man-hours gets you a fatality rate of:

Underground Coal Miner: 0.23 fatalities per million man hours worked.
Surface Coal Miner: 0.08 fatalities per million man hours worked.

So yeah, if you work as a underground coal miner, you are three times as likely to die as a surface coal miner.

Additionally, as I mentioned earlier; the types of deaths that occur in a surface mining incident are more of outliers; such as guy in 2.5 ton truck gets run over by 190 ton haul truck in bad weather/fog; guy gets his coat snagged in a conveyor belt and is dragged/crushed in the gears, as opposed to mass death incidents like the recent methane gas explosion which killed 25 guys at the BBM.

[MKSheppard]

Ah, the idiotic flailing of a beaten fool.

Actually; I've zeroed in on the key crux of the matter. Trying to get coal mining restricted in the United States is political suicide, due to the large number of coal plants in the US; plus the fact that a not insignificant swathe of the US is dependent on coal mining for a very big percentage of their economy.

So it's easier to focus on a specific type of mining; such as surface mining, and demonize it; while leaving out the fact that many of the issues are not unique to surface mining; e.g. arsenic and selenium leakage into nearby water.

Average concentration of Arsenic in Coal in the US is about 24 parts per million. Link

Average concentration of Selenium in West Virginian coal is about 4.2 parts per million. Link.

Other Trace Elements found in Coal

Obviously, if you're moving 1.6 million tons of coal a year (as the BBM mine was programmed to do before the recent accident); that is a non trivial amount of arsenic and selenium being moved in the form of the coal itself.

Additionally, in order to ensue the safety of the workers in the underground mine from coal dust explosions; you are going to have to regularly spray the tunnels down to keep the dust to a manageable level and ventilate them well, which both lead to the spread of these trace materials in more concentrated form.

A couple of years ago, I briefly worked as a carpet cleaning guy; and part of my training was on Environmental regulations.

Seems that carpet cleaning generates a surprisingly large amount of heavy metals in concentrated form; because these metals are all present in very diluted form in just about every type of soil.

When you clean the dirt out of the carpets; you concentrate the accumulated metals into a nice liquid form. Thus we had to empty our waste-water tanks into approved sanitary systems -- e.g. we had to pipe them down into people's toilets via a hose attachment, rather than emptying our tanks into stormdrains.

Same principle applies to a working underground mine; though obviously on a bigger scale.

Okay, you've just sprayed several miles of tunnels in the Upper Big Branch mine Map of it with water to keep down the explosion hazard from coal dust.

What do you do now with the wastewater that's now chockfull of all the selenium, arsenic, and the 312 other trace heavy metals? Dump it in a pond somewhere?

It comes back to the fact that it's much easier to get people to connect on a emotional level (my god that's so horrible!) to a huge scar that's ripped away half the side of a hill than it is for a tunnel leading into a mountain that's been hollowed out (man; just look at the Upper Big Branch Mine Map HERE).

[SirNitram]

Ah, the idiotic flailing of a beaten fool.

Actually; I've zeroed in on the key crux of the matter. Trying to get coal mining restricted in the United States is political suicide, due to the large number of coal plants in the US; plus the fact that a not insignificant swathe of the US is dependent on coal mining for a very big percentage of their economy.

Strange. The EPA has done just that. You want it to be political suicide, so you can argue from legality.

So it's easier to focus on a specific type of mining; such as surface mining, and demonize it; while leaving out the fact that many of the issues are not unique to surface mining; e.g. arsenic and selenium leakage into nearby water.

I'm not demonizing it. I'm calming pointing out that one type of mining, Mountaintop Mining(Not surface mining, no matter how often you claim otherwise, no matter how you cry and hew over getting the 'crux' of the matter.) does far more damage than any other. You, however, want to move the focus AGAIN.. Away from all points prior, and now farcically pretend restricting mining is 'political suicide', much to the surprise of the EPA and several peices of existing legislation.

Average concentration of Arsenic in Coal in the US is about 24 parts per million. Link

Average concentration of Selenium in West Virginian coal is about 4.2 parts per million. Link.

Other Trace Elements found in Coal

Obviously, if you're moving 1.6 million tons of coal a year (as the BBM mine was programmed to do before the recent accident); that is a non trivial amount of arsenic and selenium being moved in the form of the coal itself.

Clearly. But the question is not 'Is there going to be arsenic or selenium', you insipid retard, it's 'is it really safer when one type of mine directly dumps tons of stuff containing this directly into streams and rivers moving to the rest of the water supply.

Additionally, in order to ensue the safety of the workers in the underground mine from coal dust explosions; you are going to have to regularly spray the tunnels down to keep the dust to a manageable level and ventilate them well, which both lead to the spread of these trace materials in more concentrated form.

But not nearly as much of a spread as simply detonating it in open air, where it can blow hither and thither. But we're takling about these materials in the drinking water.

A couple of years ago, I briefly worked as a carpet cleaning guy; and part of my training was on Environmental regulations.

Seems that carpet cleaning generates a surprisingly large amount of heavy metals in concentrated form; because these metals are all present in very diluted form in just about every type of soil.

When you clean the dirt out of the carpets; you concentrate the accumulated metals into a nice liquid form. Thus we had to empty our waste-water tanks into approved sanitary systems -- e.g. we had to pipe them down into people's toilets via a hose attachment, rather than emptying our tanks into stormdrains.

Same principle applies to a working underground mine; though obviously on a bigger scale.

This works. Of course, what we're talking about is the fact that mountaintop mining dumps this waste not into the stormdrains, but just upriver from where drinking water is taken. Quite different from running it through the entire waste processing infrastructure.

Okay, you've just sprayed several miles of tunnels in the Upper Big Branch mine Map of it with water to keep down the explosion hazard from coal dust.

What do you do now with the wastewater that's now chockfull of all the selenium, arsenic, and the 312 other trace heavy metals? Dump it in a pond somewhere?

Nope. Especially when that pond is immediately connected to a civilian water supply. Which is what mountaintop mining does. Thank you.

It comes back to the fact that it's much easier to get people to connect on a emotional level (my god that's so horrible!) to a huge scar that's ripped away half the side of a hill than it is for a tunnel leading into a mountain that's been hollowed out (man; just look at the Upper Big Branch Mine Map HERE).

So in your witty rebuttal, you.. Continue to conflate two objectively different types of mines, and then explicitly say you SHOULDN'T dump the waste into the water supply directly, which is what mountaintop mining does.

Thanks for proving my points, wonder-dunce.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Nope. Especially when that pond is immediately connected to a civilian water supply. Which is what mountaintop mining does. Thank you.

What happens is that is waste material gets placed into a lined and secure* impoundment.

*Secure is relative. Ideally, they are secure, but due to lax enforcement and companies trying to pad their bottom line by cutting corners they are often anything but.

[SirNitram]

Nope. Especially when that pond is immediately connected to a civilian water supply. Which is what mountaintop mining does. Thank you.

What happens is that is waste material gets placed into a lined and secure* impoundment.

*Secure is relative. Ideally, they are secure, but due to lax enforcement and companies trying to pad their bottom line by cutting corners they are often anything but.

Not in the Massey's MT mining sites. Coal slurries are few and far between, but that doesn't stop him from building one within, I beleive, 200 feet of a school(The legal distance is 1000ft).

[Alyrium Denryle]

Nope. Especially when that pond is immediately connected to a civilian water supply. Which is what mountaintop mining does. Thank you.

What happens is that is waste material gets placed into a lined and secure* impoundment.

*Secure is relative. Ideally, they are secure, but due to lax enforcement and companies trying to pad their bottom line by cutting corners they are often anything but.

Not in the Massey's MT mining sites. Coal slurries are few and far between, but that doesn't stop him from building one within, I beleive, 200 feet of a school(The legal distance is 1000ft).

I was referring to shaft mining... but yeah. That SOB is like Snidely Whiplash. He may as well tie little girls to railroad tracks while twirling his Evil Moustache(tm)

[General Brock]

You dont know a damn thing about ecosystem restoration.

No, I do not, beyond understanding you need everything from the microfauna on up in a suitable medium. Given the chance, nature will build a new ecosystem, it will not start out as diverse as the one before it, and it will take centuries before its good to look at.

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.

Yes, the pre-existing watershed is killed. Centuries if not millenia of natural adaption gone. Somehow I don't see this bothering those who would otherwise be directly affected by human deaths.

To say nothing of the damage to the watershed upon which humans depend.

Its a safe bet that those mine owners haven't been too fussy about where they put the tailings from a tunnel mine, so the watershed and groundwater are already at risk.

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.

Too callous. No-one likes to be written off for someone else's big picture. If tunnel mining saves more lives in the long term outside miners, then that would be the better selling argument.

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

That's apparently not on the table, any more than a properly regulated tunnel-coal mining industry. Obama has put a stop to the mountain top removal for now, but how long will that last? The people don't have much alternative employment to the mining corporations and as yet nothing but hand-wringing is being done to tighten up enforcement of the the regs on tunnel mining.

Meanwhile, the mine from the OP is no longer usable and looks like a mini-environmental as well as safety disaster on its own, which will present a leeching hazard and possibly even a sinkhole hazard for generations. There is also now pressure to open a new mine elsewhere.

If it were a mountain top removal mine, that local area would be ruined, the miners still alive, and coal would still be extracted. Eventually, the miners would leave, some token replanting done, and nature will eventually reassert itself. One couldn't look at the mountain and pretend everything is OK because it still looks green, however.

[Alyrium Denryle]

No, I do not, beyond understanding you need everything from the microfauna on up in a suitable medium. Given the chance, nature will build a new ecosystem, it will not start out as diverse as the one before it, and it will take centuries before its good to look at.

It will take longer than centuries for the Appalachians to exist again. That mountain chain is a hot-bed of endemism. Species exist there that evolved there, have tiny ranges and live nowhere else. Even excluding them, the system gets invaded by non-native plants which literally choke the life out of the new ecosystem.

Yes, the pre-existing watershed is killed. Centuries if not millenia of natural adaption gone. Somehow I don't see this bothering those who would otherwise be directly affected by human deaths.

That does not mean they are ethically correct.

Its a safe bet that those mine owners haven't been too fussy about where they put the tailings from a tunnel mine, so the watershed and groundwater are already at risk.

You dont seem to get it. When you blow up a mountaintop to get at a coal seam, you place the mountain in the valley. The watershed. Destroying it outright, and because of the material a mountainside contains beneath clay layers and top soil, that massive amount of rock and soil is contaminated with selenium, arsenic, lead, mercury etc. The watershed is permanently contaminated if the stream flows at all (underground via leaching). This contaminates everything down stream including major rivers. Do you not see a problem with this? This even excludes the contaminated liquid and solid waste from the coal processing.

In a tunnel mine, they are required to place their waste into secure impoundments, their distance from local water sources being constrained. However they dont follow the law, and the EPA is basically in their pocket. Mayhaps the law ought have some teeth.

Too callous. No-one likes to be written off for someone else's big picture. If tunnel mining saves more lives in the long term outside miners, then that would be the better selling argument.

And it does due to watershed damage. Shortened lives due to heavy metal exposure, death from drinking your tap water...

That having been said, people are written off for someone else's big picture, and even more so for someone's monetary gain all the fucking time. I realize that most people's ethics are disgustingly incomplete insofar as they view nature as possessing the purpose of serving man, but that does make them justified.

[General Brock]

It will take longer than centuries for the Appalachians to exist again. That mountain chain is a hot-bed of endemism. Species exist there that evolved there, have tiny ranges and live nowhere else. Even excluding them, the system gets invaded by non-native plants which literally choke the life out of the new ecosystem.

A new ecosystem with new plants for a different Appalachians. Its not a trivial loss, but for most people it will be.

That does not mean they are ethically correct.

Its not ethically correct to let miners die, either. The company says its OK for profits, environmentalist says its OK for biodiversity. Neither is a particularly winning argument, but if I were a West Virginian a little hard up for opportunities, I'd go with the argument that pays the bills and gives a chance of a better future for my family, because that's what a man would actually risk death for.

You dont seem to get it.

Mountain top mining significantly reduces the risk of dying in a mining accident. The 'not personally dying' part I get. I also get the biodiversity argument, but if I were a miner, I'd also know which argument makes more sense.

When you blow up a mountaintop to get at a coal seam, you place the mountain in the valley. The watershed. Destroying it outright, and because of the material a mountainside contains beneath clay layers and top soil, that massive amount of rock and soil is contaminated with selenium, arsenic, lead, mercury etc. The watershed is permanently contaminated if the stream flows at all (underground via leaching). This contaminates everything down stream including major rivers. Do you not see a problem with this? This even excludes the contaminated liquid and solid waste from the coal processing.

Of course I see the problem. However, since a more rational system isn't being followed, its hard not to grab what one can, like maybe a few miners' lives.

In a tunnel mine, they are required to place their waste into secure impoundments, their distance from local water sources being constrained. However they dont follow the law, and the EPA is basically in their pocket. Mayhaps the law ought have some teeth.

The entire system needs an overhaul. If the laws were enforced, but the mining companies tossed people out of work, the government would have to back down unless the miners had something better to do to secure their livelihood.

And it does due to watershed damage. Shortened lives due to heavy metal exposure, death from drinking your tap water...

Bottled water and water filters are very profitable businesses. You can't afford those if you don't have a job.

That having been said, people are written off for someone else's big picture, and even more so for someone's monetary gain all the fucking time. I realize that most people's ethics are disgustingly incomplete insofar as they view nature as possessing the purpose of serving man, but that does make them justified.

The mining company majority owners don't appear to see nature as serving man, so much as man and nature serving them. For nature is to truly 'serve man', it should be protected and allowed to do its job. For people to serve people, they must be given the security to act responsibly without penalty.

That attitude enabled the labour movement allied with intellectuals to make the gains that they did at the turn of the century. That shared sense of purpose does not appear to exist anymore.

The miners know they are being screwed over by the companies and politicians, but for the better educated and informed to be openly telling them essentially the same thing from a better economic position, will not ever win them over to begin building a better system. If anything, it allows cons like Blankenship to continue to present themselves as being on the worker's side.

[Alyrium Denryle]

A new ecosystem with new plants for a different Appalachians. Its not a trivial loss, but for most people it will be.

And most people operate on a bad metaphysical and teleological premise. Namely that nature exists to serve them and that it has no moral value other than as an instrument for human enjoyment. When the organisms that get buried alive, driven to extinction, and competitively excluded as a result of mountaintop removal do in fact exist for their own sake and have moral value.

Its not ethically correct to let miners die, either

What is the marginal utility of a miner? Do a certain number of miners outweigh every tree, salamander, bird, fish, insect, mammal, and other humans who are within that valley and downstream of the watershed? Do you have a moral argument that makes sense to show their their utility in terms of the maximization of the ratio between non-suffering and suffering?

The company says its OK for profits, environmentalist says its OK for biodiversity. Neither is a particularly winning argument

You act as if by restricting or banning mountaintop removal, and protecting people are mutually exclusive. They are not. Enforcing or tightening existing regulations on other mining methods would accomplish the same goal and do a better job of protecting the environment. Additionally, there is non-significant human suffering from the watershed damage caused by mountaintop removal to add into the equation. Have no not read this thread as is your responsibility? I am not referring to an abstract measure like biodiversity. It has value through ecosystem services to people (like water quality) but it is not the point. Rather, I am referring to the direct harm caused to organisms. The death, destruction and pain caused by mountaintop removal. Have you ever seen the effects of Selenium poisoning?

I'd go with the argument that pays the bills and gives a chance of a better future for my family, because that's what a man would actually risk death for

Yes. Risk death to be a wage slave to a company that removes most of the proceeds from coal mining from the state. The logic used to make that decision and to prop up the very companies that risk their lives for their personal gain is poor.

Mountain top mining significantly reduces the risk of dying in a mining accident.

It also creates and environment of economic hardship and suffering for lack of potable water everywhere down stream of the mining site.

There are multiple variables to consider. Not just death. Also see above at the mutual exclusivity false dilemma you are creating.

Of course I see the problem. However, since a more rational system isn't being followed, its hard not to grab what one can, like maybe a few miners' lives.

Or one could enforce a more rational system. Shock! Gasp! Oh, wait. That is the smart thing to do so people never do it.

Bottled water and water filters are very profitable businesses. You can't afford those if you don't have a job.

Then one ought support policy decisions which fix the root problem rather than perpetuating a cycle of wage slavery and environmental degradation. If the europeans can do that, I see no reason why the US cannot. Of course that assumes that the united states is not populated by a combination of greedy murderous sociopaths and dumbfucks.

The mining company majority owners don't appear to see nature as serving man, so much as man and nature serving them.

True. And the world would be better off if they were Octoberized*.

That attitude enabled the labour movement allied with intellectuals to make the gains that they did at the turn of the century. That shared sense of purpose does not appear to exist anymore.

Indeed. See the teaparty movement as a reason why. <screed=marxist, because I dont know of another good way to put this> The bourgeois have fooled the working class into supporting the interests of said bourgeois, using the American Dream as a tool. They have tricked the lower class into thinking that one day, they will, if they work hard enough, be rich and thus seek to maximized the gains of the rich.</screed>

If anything, it allows cons like Blankenship to continue to present themselves as being on the worker's side.

Anti-intellectual fervor propped up by early-mid 20th century populists, continued through the red scare, and now taken over by the right wing. I am aware.


*Octoberize (verb):
1) The process by which a group of people re-enacts the october revolution of 1917
2) To systematically line up predatory business executives against a wall and maximize bullet efficiency.

**Not that I am seriously advocating this as a policy or anything... but it is a dream I have. One that I realize can never again be made real.

[LadyTevar]

Let's take this down to the nitty-gritty, shep.

That 3-mile holler was right next to the mine, and probably did not have any people living there. However, as we've seen from the last few days of media coverage, the Miners who are doing the mining, as well as their families, friends, neighbors, the school their children go to, the community the miners shop and eat in, is also next to the mine. The mine that is dumping heavy metal into their water supply, via the valleyfill and the slurry ponds.

So, the miners working atop the mountain are doing well, not dying of methane explosions, but what of those families, friends, neighbors down below? The ones who are seeing black water seeping from their water pipes, who are unable to even wash their clothing because of the arsenic, selenium and other heavy salts in their water?

The miner's safety is better -- but is it worth the price of poisoning their families and neighbors?!

[Alyrium Denryle]

Let's take this down to the nitty-gritty, shep.

That 3-mile holler was right next to the mine, and probably did not have any people living there. However, as we've seen from the last few days of media coverage, the Miners who are doing the mining, as well as their families, friends, neighbors, the school their children go to, the community the miners shop and eat in, is also next to the mine. The mine that is dumping heavy metal into their water supply, via the valleyfill and the slurry ponds.

So, the miners working atop the mountain are doing well, not dying of methane explosions, but what of those families, friends, neighbors down below? The ones who are seeing black water seeping from their water pipes, who are unable to even wash their clothing because of the arsenic, selenium and other heavy salts in their water?

The miner's safety is better -- but is it worth the price of poisoning their families and neighbors?!

I think we know what he will say.

[General Brock]

And most people operate on a bad metaphysical and teleological premise. Namely that nature exists to serve them and that it has no moral value other than as an instrument for human enjoyment. When the organisms that get buried alive, driven to extinction, and competitively excluded as a result of mountaintop removal do in fact exist for their own sake and have moral value.

No arguments with that.

What is the marginal utility of a miner? Do a certain number of miners outweigh every tree, salamander, bird, fish, insect, mammal, and other humans who are within that valley and downstream of the watershed? Do you have a moral argument that makes sense to show their their utility in terms of the maximization of the ratio between non-suffering and suffering?

No. Given the chance, I'd seek to avoid the question in the first place. That's not happening in WV, where people are being forced to choose between bad options.

You act as if by restricting or banning mountaintop removal, and protecting people are mutually exclusive. They are not. Enforcing or tightening existing regulations on other mining methods would accomplish the same goal and do a better job of protecting the environment. Additionally, there is non-significant human suffering from the watershed damage caused by mountaintop removal to add into the equation. Have no not read this thread as is your responsibility? I am not referring to an abstract measure like biodiversity. It has value through ecosystem services to people (like water quality) but it is not the point. Rather, I am referring to the direct harm caused to organisms. The death, destruction and pain caused by mountaintop removal. Have you ever seen the effects of Selenium poisoning?

Selenium is also a trace nutrient. Phytomediation can help with the heavy metal problem. Yes, I read the thread. Mountain top removal bad. Tunnel mining bad. Tunnel mining not as bad as MTR if its done right, which it is not. Mountain top mining is safer for people at the expense of quality of life and the life of the pre-existing ecosystem and non-human lives within it.

Responsible resource extraction is not happening and WV is screwed. The people with a real clue consider miners expendable in 'versus' positions only the mining companies are positioned to win in the long term.

Yes. Risk death to be a wage slave to a company that removes most of the proceeds from coal mining from the state. The logic used to make that decision and to prop up the very companies that risk their lives for their personal gain is poor.

Yet for some reason its dominant. Perhaps because the people selling it do a better job than the opposition.

It also creates and environment of economic hardship and suffering for lack of potable water everywhere down stream of the mining site.

There are multiple variables to consider. Not just death. Also see above at the mutual exclusivity false dilemma you are creating.

I didn't create the dilemma. Its there already.

Or one could enforce a more rational system. Shock! Gasp! Oh, wait. That is the smart thing to do so people never do it.

Amazing how that happens. Probably something to to with smart and informed people somehow not connecting with the misinformed and ignorant unless its to exploit them. People can do stupid things in accordance with their measure.

Then one ought support policy decisions which fix the root problem rather than perpetuating a cycle of wage slavery and environmental degradation.

I completely agree. However, a removed mountain top might later be used for a geothermal power plant, or a solar farm, or a wind farm. Phytomediation and phytomining might help with the heavy metal contamination and keep the dust down. A stripped mountain starkly brings the problem of unsustainable 'development' to light. The ideal solution, not having to mine coal, should be worked towards.

If the europeans can do that, I see no reason why the US cannot. Of course that assumes that the united states is not populated by a combination of greedy murderous sociopaths and dumbfucks.

Well, I can just see the unwashed masses flocking to that banner.

The mining company majority owners don't appear to see nature as serving man, so much as man and nature serving them.

True. And the world would be better off if they were Octoberized*.

The Russian revolution didn't work out in the long run. It really didn't work out well in the short run. Greedy murderous sociopaths and their lackeys are surprisingly adaptable, so its easy to pick who'd actually win in an October scenario.

Indeed. See the teaparty movement as a reason why. <screed=marxist, because I dont know of another good way to put this> The bourgeois have fooled the working class into supporting the interests of said bourgeois, using the American Dream as a tool. They have tricked the lower class into thinking that one day, they will, if they work hard enough, be rich and thus seek to maximized the gains of the rich.</screed>

Oddly enough, people buy into that. They also buy into sustainable development and responsible regulation, when they can understand its in their best interest to do so. The mining corporations appear far better at backing their views with social capital.

Anti-intellectual fervor propped up by early-mid 20th century populists, continued through the red scare, and now taken over by the right wing. I am aware.
...
*Octoberize (verb):
1) The process by which a group of people re-enacts the october revolution of 1917
2) To systematically line up predatory business executives against a wall and maximize bullet efficiency.

**Not that I am seriously advocating this as a policy or anything... but it is a dream I have. One that I realize can never again be made real.

The October revolution replaced one set of sociopaths with another. Shortly thereafter, said sociopaths set about liquidating intellectuals they didn't like. For some reason the 'left' constantly disempowers and disenfranchaises itself while the right only grows stronger and more clever.

[Samuel]

The ideal solution, not having to mine coal, should be worked towards.

You do realize we are still going to need metals and other minerals that have to be extracted using similar processes?

However, a removed mountain top might later be used for a geothermal power plant,

Yes, lets build geothermal power plants on mountain tops. I'm sure using heat from the Earth's interior is best utilized at points furthest possible from the interior.

The Russian revolution didn't work out in the long run. It really didn't work out well in the short run. Greedy murderous sociopaths and their lackeys are surprisingly adaptable, so its easy to pick who'd actually win in an October scenario.

Hey- if you remove the profit incentive you remove the incentive to be efficient- in this case ignoring safety rules. Of course you have the problem of people trying to meet quotas, but without the money gained from the activity they have alot less political power.

Or just go normal ruthless safety regulations.