Mountain Top Removal

[blow_tornado_dog 12]

what is everyone's opinion on this?

[Deleted Account 5,203]

what is everyone's opinion on this?

 

Terrible for the environment and unnecessary to remove adequate amounts of coal.

[blueinbama 259]

Terrible for the environment and unnecessary to remove adequate amounts of coal.

 

I agree, but obviously safer I would think? Not a vote for this, btw, just an observation. You couldn’t pay me enough money to go down into a coal mine.

[gridironguru 11]

Terrible for the environment and unnecessary to remove adequate amounts of coal.

 

So you think that under ground mining can produce adequate amounts of coal do you?

They can if you dont mind having an occasional blackout and Im sure there have been some outlaw companies that has done some bad things in the business over the years but MTR is also MTD (Mountain Top Development) Theyd be no Hazard Ky with out MTR it is an old mine site now flourishing. As far as being bad for the enviroment the same thing goes back into the hollow fills that comes out dirt and rock im sure you have all kinds of Data from these tree huggin liberals that will tell you different but then again there the same people that said Buckwheat in the White House was the answer too...I beg to differ and would love to do as you bleeding heart liberals want and Just go home" and see how long it would take you to change your mind...Wouldnt take too long..You guy's like to be comfortable when you run your damn mouths..

[Deleted Account 5,203]

I agree, but obviously safer I would think? Not a vote for this, btw, just an observation. You couldn’t pay me enough money to go down into a coal mine.

 

Safer in some respects, but more dangerous in others. Safer in that one wouldn't have to go down in the ground and deal with those myriad problems, but not as safe insofar as it's incredibly challenging to do controlled blasts in this hilly terrain. You risk so much by mudslides, dammed rivers, and structural damage from explosions, which can directly result from mountaintop removal.

 

This is aside from byproduct minerals that come from mountaintop removal that cause secondhand damage once they enter the food supply and atmosphere.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

So you think that under ground mining can produce adequate amounts of coal do you?

They can if you dont mind having an occasional blackout and Im sure there have been some outlaw companies that has done some bad things in the business over the years but MTR is also MTD (Mountain Top Development) Theyd be no Hazard Ky with out MTR it is an old mine site now flourishing. As far as being bad for the enviroment the same thing goes back into the hollow fills that comes out dirt and rock im sure you have all kinds of Data from these tree huggin liberals that will tell you different but then again there the same people that said Buckwheat in the white house was the answer too...I beg to differ and would love to do as you bleedingheart liberals want" Just go home" and see how long it would take you to change your mind...Wouldnt take to long..You guy's like to be comfortable when you run your damn mouths..

 

Wow, looks I pissed in some mine foreman's Cheerios with that one...

 

You obviously don't know me very well to call me a "bleedingheart (SIC) liberal". If you'd pop by this forum more than every couple of months, you'd figure that out in a heartbeat.

 

I think that underground mining can produce a current sustainable amount of coal for at the very least 246 years, that is, if those "bleeding-heart liberals" will keep the environmental regulations status quo. That's IF we are unable to use the possible reserved we have, which total between 2 and 50 times that available amount. And since you want some information (when you don't provide any yourself), I'll provide some. Here's the first: http://www.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=coal_reserves

 

There have been no major blackouts in the Appalachian region (outside of weather-related incidents), so I'm not sure from where on Earth you get that line of reasoning. We don't live in California, and we don't place NEARLY the drain on available energy resources that Los Angeles does. Perhaps because we're about 1/5000 of their size...

 

Plus, it's simply misinformed and wrong to say that mountaintop removal has no greater impact that plain sub-surface mining. First, blasting at mountaintop removal sites spews more dust, sulfur, and fly-rock into the air than does normal mining. This not only threatens the wildlife (which this area certainly loves, considering it has shut out wind energy for that reason), but it affects humans secondarily when this leeches into the groundwater and wildlife. The EPA has confirmed that there are higher levels of sulfur and mercury in streams, which is resulting in decreased biodiversity in Appalachian lakes and streams. Second, the blasting from mountaintop removal can cause structural damage to nearby structures, including homes and businesses, which is not at issue in sub-surface mining. Third, the species of grasses and trees, such as "lespedeza sericea", most often planted after mountaintop removal has taken place have both killed native grasses and do not adequately grow in "valley fill". I could go on, and on, and on, and on...

 

I cannot honestly believe we're having this discussion. Here's a list of articles for you to read, if you are still contrarian:

http://www.grist.org/article/reece/

http://www.infobarrel.com/Why_Mountain_Top_Removal_Mining_is_Bad_for_the_Environment

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/05/removing-mountaintops-coal-bad-dumping-fill-in-valleys-worse.php

http://www.good.is/post/mountaintop-removal-must-end/

http://appalachiarising.org/2010/09/thousands-march/

http://endmtr.com/

http://mountainjustice.org/kentucky/water.php

Edited October 20, 2010 by UVAObserver

[gridironguru 11]

I could go on, and on, and on, and on...

 

Im sure you could.......There have been no black outs because WE MINE STEAM COAL..

90% of underground coal goes for metalurgical and as our Communist friends who are buying up coal properties at a rate quicker than a cock roach breeds you'll need us more than you know....They'll take it all over seas for steel.. There are new ports being built now to load the coal and export..The guy from the Ukrain who bought UCC is currently building one guess where that coal is going....People like you will never know till what you need is gone as long as you turn a faucet and have water and flip a switch and have light and heat all's good in your world...

[Deleted Account 5,203]

I could go on, and on, and on, and on...

 

Im sure you could.......There have been no black outs because WE MINE STEAM COAL..

90% of underground coal goes for metalurgical and as our Communist friends who are buying up coal properties at a rate quicker than a cock roach breeds you'll need us more than you know....They'll take it all over seas for steel.. There are new ports being built now to load the coal and export..The guy from the Ukrain who bought UCC is currently building one guess where that coal is going....People like you will never know till what you need is gone as long as you turn a faucet and have water and flip a switch and have light and heat all's good in your world...

 

You were the one that said that we'd be risking blackouts! So, in 2 posts, you've managed to state the fact that there are no blackouts due to steam mining, while in the first say that there's a risk of blackouts if we don't mountaintop mine. That sounds the slightest bit like you have two incompatible positions, wouldn't you say?

 

Not only this, you're playing on fear and paranoia to try to get me to change my mindset (protip: that's a losing proposition), while I've brought down a barrage of facts and sources to prove why mountaintop removal is bad for the environment and health. As I've said and proven, we have 246 years to find another source (which will likely be solar or hydrogen). We don't need mountaintop removal. Appalachia doesn't need it. The people don't need it.

 

Plus, there's a simple solution to keeping Communist China from buying up coal properties: DON'T SELL TO THEM. That is, if China's buying up properties anyway, of which I don't have any evidence. China has certainly been buying Appalachian coal and energy, but that's much different from buying the properties. That's what you get in a free enterprise system: you want the product, be willing to pay what it takes to get the product. The problem seems to be more with the mining operators and AEP than it does the Chinese.

[GMan 3,569]

Does it create jobs and put food on the table???

 

That's good enough for me...

[Deleted Account 5,203]

Does it create jobs and put food on the table???

 

That's good enough for me...

 

Incredibly shortsighted. Ask the folks in Boone County, WV and those who live around Marsh Fork Elementary whether "creating jobs" and "putting food on the table" is "good enough" for them...

[GMan 3,569]

Incredibly shortsighted. Ask the folks in Boone County, WV and those who live around Marsh Fork Elementary whether "creating jobs" and "putting food on the table" is "good enough" for them...

 

Marsh Fork Elementary is getting a new school out of the deal...land just purchased the other day...

 

http://www.register-herald.com/todaysfrontpage/x1637968081/Marsh-Fork-school-land-purchase-is-finalized

[Deleted Account 5,203]

Marsh Fork Elementary is getting a new school out of the deal...land just purchased the other day...

 

http://www.register-herald.com/todaysfrontpage/x1637968081/Marsh-Fork-school-land-purchase-is-finalized

 

Well, at least Massey's using their money to do something other than pay off judges...

You want to talk about an organization that is the scum of the scum, you talk about Massey Energy.

[gridironguru 11]

You were the one that said that we'd be risking blackouts! So, in 2 posts, you've managed to state the fact that there are no blackouts due to steam mining, while in the first say that there's a risk of blackouts if we don't mountaintop mine. That sounds the slightest bit like you have two incompatible positions, wouldn't you say?

 

Not only this, you're playing on fear and paranoia to try to get me to change my mindset (protip: that's a losing proposition), while I've brought down a barrage of facts and sources to prove why mountaintop removal is bad for the environment and health. As I've said and proven, we have 246 years to find another source (which will likely be solar or hydrogen). We don't need mountaintop removal. Appalachia doesn't need it. The people don't need it.

 

Plus, there's a simple solution to keeping Communist China from buying up coal properties: DON'T SELL TO THEM. That is, if China's buying up properties anyway, of which I don't have any evidence. China has certainly been buying Appalachian coal and energy, but that's much different from buying the properties. That's what you get in a free enterprise system: you want the product, be willing to pay what it takes to get the product. The problem seems to be more with the mining operators and AEP than it does the Chinese.

 

Why dont you wipe the brown matter from your eyes and see what I wrote,THERE HAVE BEEN NO BLACKOUTS BECAUSE WE MINE STEAM COAL! and far as not selling coal to over seas customers thats where the GREED FACTOR KICKS IN and yes theyll sell to the high bidder..Im done arguing with you your a very well educated IDIOT and daddy told me a long time ago when you argue with an idiot they'll just bring you down to there level and beat you with experience. Remember an old coal miner when you accomplish doing us in and your huggin a freaking COLD stove while you sit in the dark.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

Why dont you wipe the brown matter from your eyes and see what I wrote,THERE HAVE BEEN NO BLACKOUTS BECAUSE WE MINE STEAM COAL! and far as not selling coal to over seas customers thats where the GREED FACTOR KICKS IN and yes theyll sell to the high bidder..Im done arguing with you your a very well educated IDIOT and daddy told me a long time ago when you argue with an idiot they'll just bring you down to there level and beat you with experience. Remember an old coal miner when you accomplish doing us in and your huggin a freaking COLD stove while you sit in the dark.

 

First, let's break this down for you, because you're showing trouble comprehending your own writing:

 

Post #1: You stated that we risk blackouts if we don't use mountaintop removal.

Post #2: You stated that there are no blackouts because we mine steam coal.

 

Assuming that the PROCESS doesn't change, your two posts are blatantly incompatible. You're the one that might need to remove the fog from your eyes. At least when I post something that's so obviously wrong, I go back to correct it.

 

Second, I never said that I was against coal mining; in fact, I am strongly FOR continuing this method of harvesting energy which has brought so much life to the region. So, you'd be smart to simply quit making blind assumptions, especially since you've shown that you have failed to do the work to reveal what my views truly are.

 

What I am against is needless, unnecessary methods of obtaining the coal, which is what mountaintop removal is. Not only are you trying to harvest tiny seams of coal (less than 3 feet thick), you're polluting the land/water and doing irreparable damage to the ecosystem. Simply put, there's minimal gain and EXTRAORDINARY loss.

 

Third, you're already conceding this argument by resorting to "ad hominem" attacks. You know your position doesn't have a leg to stand on, and so you result to calling me an "IDIOT". Do you realize how weak and pathetic "ad hominem" attacks are? It's the tool of the weak.

 

I implore you, stop making yourself look foolish. A wise man knows when to quit when he is defeated. Show me something and do the same.

Edited October 21, 2010 by UVAObserver

[the_truth 10]

Im not a coal miner, and I dont play one on tv. So from an uneducated idiot on the subject it appears to me that there are bad consequences to both. Old abandon mines have there own problems as well. Havent there been explosions from old mines filled with gases and floods from old mines filled with water. If mountain top removal sites are reclaimed there is minimal damage to the environment.

 

Yes, we need the coal, Yes we need the jobs. Let the coal companies do there job the easiest and best ways that they see fit within the laws of the land. Let them lobby to change the laws if they see fit.

 

And yes I would rather have a congressman that takes contributions from a coal operator than one who takes them from terrorists.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

Im not a coal miner, and I dont play one on tv. So from an uneducated idiot on the subject it appears to me that there are bad consequences to both. Old abandon mines have there own problems as well. Havent there been explosions from old mines filled with gases and floods from old mines filled with water. If mountain top removal sites are reclaimed there is minimal damage to the environment.

 

Yes, we need the coal, Yes we need the jobs. Let the coal companies do there job the easiest and best ways that they see fit within the laws of the land. Let them lobby to change the laws if they see fit.

 

And yes I would rather have a congressman that takes contributions from a coal operator than one who takes them from terrorists.

 

I appreciate your perspective, and while I agree that there is a greater positive out of reclaiming, I must say that I respectfully disagree with the stance that there's just minimal damage to the environment with reclaimed mountaintop removal sites.

 

The first reason is that reclamation isn't truly reclamation at all. According to the U.S. Office of Surface Mining, just 8 percent of reclamation land was returned to its original state as forest. Barely over 1 percent of reclaimed land was used for commercial purposes according to that same agency; the mountaintop removal industry loves to tout just how much land will become available for commercial purposes. The ground reclaimed is physically unstable, which doesn't support human traffic and building.

 

The second reason, coming much from the first, is that the land becomes unsuitable to support the fauna and wildlife that it did prior to the mountaintop removal. The rocky, unstable soil cannot support the diverse trees and grasses that grew prior to the mountaintop removal. Really all that can grow are scrub trees and non-native grasses, one of which I've mentioned earlier in this thread. The fields are just biologically impoverished after mountaintop removal.

 

The third reason is one I've listed earlier in this thread: no amount of reclamation is going to remove the sulfur, selenium, mercury, and other dangerous chemicals from the groundwater and soil once the mountaintop removal has begun. Just because grass is planted doesn't mean that the soil supporting it isn't toxic. This leeches into the groundwater, which we all drink. And studies have shown that selenium and mercury cause greater instances of cancer.

 

The fourth reason is that the landscape is permanently changed, and not for the better. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, water temperatures in streams do not exhibit as much daily rise and fall in reclaimed mountaintop removal areas, which harms river life. In addition, the particulate silt is significantly smaller, which causes more damage to river and stream wildlife. Also, mountaintop removal causes 3%-21% greater peak flow of rivers, which can lead to greater instances of mudslides and flooding.

 

Mountaintop removal accounts for barely 10% of the mining jobs in Appalachia, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. It's not as if placing significant limits on mountaintop removal is going to completely destroy the mining industry; in fact, it would put more miners back underground, obtaining coal in a biologically-safe manner. I'll just say again: the small benefit it provides is significantly outweighed by the damage its doing. If nothing else, I hope what I'm posting here shows this clearly.

Edited October 21, 2010 by UVAObserver

[stu_bean 1,058]

I appreciate your perspective, and while I agree that there is a greater positive out of reclaiming, I must say that I respectfully disagree with the stance that there's just minimal damage to the environment with reclaimed mountaintop removal sites.

 

The first reason is that reclamation isn't truly reclamation at all. According to the U.S. Office of Surface Mining, just 8 percent of reclamation land was returned to its original state as forest. Barely over 1 percent of reclaimed land was used for commercial purposes according to that same agency; the mountaintop removal industry loves to tout just how much land will become available for commercial purposes. The ground reclaimed is physically unstable, which doesn't support human traffic and building.

 

The second reason, coming much from the first, is that the land becomes unsuitable to support the fauna and wildlife that it did prior to the mountaintop removal. The rocky, unstable soil cannot support the diverse trees and grasses that grew prior to the mountaintop removal. Really all that can grow are scrub trees and non-native grasses, one of which I've mentioned earlier in this thread. The fields are just biologically impoverished after mountaintop removal.

 

The third reason is one I've listed earlier in this thread: no amount of reclamation is going to remove the sulfur, selenium, mercury, and other dangerous chemicals from the groundwater and soil once the mountaintop removal has begun. Just because grass is planted doesn't mean that the soil supporting it isn't toxic. This leeches into the groundwater, which we all drink. And studies have shown that selenium and mercury cause greater instances of cancer.

 

The fourth reason is that the landscape is permanently changed, and not for the better. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, water temperatures in streams do not exhibit as much daily rise and fall in reclaimed mountaintop removal areas, which harms river life. In addition, the particulate silt is significantly smaller, which causes more damage to river and stream wildlife. Also, mountaintop removal causes 3%-21% greater peak flow of rivers, which can lead to greater instances of mudslides and flooding.

 

Mountaintop removal accounts for barely 10% of the mining jobs in Appalachia, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. It's not as if placing significant limits on mountaintop removal is going to completely destroy the mining industry; in fact, it would put more miners back underground, obtaining coal in a biologically-safe manner. I'll just say again: the small benefit it provides is significantly outweighed by the damage its doing. If nothing else, I hope what I'm posting here shows this clearly.

I'm glad somebody with intelligence is actually making a valid point here. Anybody that doesn't believe the impact needs to go look at some satellite photos of the area and see.

[gridironguru 11]

I appreciate your perspective, and while I agree that there is a greater positive out of reclaiming, I must say that I respectfully disagree with the stance that there's just minimal damage to the environment with reclaimed mountaintop removal sites.

 

The first reason is that reclamation isn't truly reclamation at all. According to the U.S. Office of Surface Mining, just 8 percent of reclamation land was returned to its original state as forest. Barely over 1 percent of reclaimed land was used for commercial purposes according to that same agency; the mountaintop removal industry loves to tout just how much land will become available for commercial purposes. The ground reclaimed is physically unstable, which doesn't support human traffic and building.

 

The second reason, coming much from the first, is that the land becomes unsuitable to support the fauna and wildlife that it did prior to the mountaintop removal. The rocky, unstable soil cannot support the diverse trees and grasses that grew prior to the mountaintop removal. Really all that can grow are scrub trees and non-native grasses, one of which I've mentioned earlier in this thread. The fields are just biologically impoverished after mountaintop removal.

 

The third reason is one I've listed earlier in this thread: no amount of reclamation is going to remove the sulfur, selenium, mercury, and other dangerous chemicals from the groundwater and soil once the mountaintop removal has begun. Just because grass is planted doesn't mean that the soil supporting it isn't toxic. This leeches into the groundwater, which we all drink. And studies have shown that selenium and mercury cause greater instances of cancer.

 

The fourth reason is that the landscape is permanently changed, and not for the better. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, water temperatures in streams do not exhibit as much daily rise and fall in reclaimed mountaintop removal areas, which harms river life. In addition, the particulate silt is significantly smaller, which causes more damage to river and stream wildlife. Also, mountaintop removal causes 3%-21% greater peak flow of rivers, which can lead to greater instances of mudslides and flooding.

 

Mountaintop removal accounts for barely 10% of the mining jobs in Appalachia, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. It's not as if placing significant limits on mountaintop removal is going to completely destroy the mining industry; in fact, it would put more miners back underground, obtaining coal in a biologically-safe manner. I'll just say again: the small benefit it provides is significantly outweighed by the damage its doing. If nothing else, I hope what I'm posting here shows this clearly.

 

Only thing your posting makes clear is your trying to force your argument as I am mine..The other obvious thing is we definitley wouldnt like each other and I'll leave it at that.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

Only thing your posting makes clear is your trying to force your argument as I am mine..The other obvious thing is we definitley wouldnt like each other and I'll leave it at that.

 

I agree that we're trying to force our arguments, though I am forcing mine with facts and reason while you have been forcing yours with assumptions and hearsay. I think we probably have more in common than we'd like to admit: we're just never going to see eye-to-eye on this issue, though. And life's too short to stay upset about that forever.

[bhs7695 185]

I appreciate your perspective, and while I agree that there is a greater positive out of reclaiming, I must say that I respectfully disagree with the stance that there's just minimal damage to the environment with reclaimed mountaintop removal sites.

 

The first reason is that reclamation isn't truly reclamation at all. According to the U.S. Office of Surface Mining, just 8 percent of reclamation land was returned to its original state as forest. Barely over 1 percent of reclaimed land was used for commercial purposes according to that same agency; the mountaintop removal industry loves to tout just how much land will become available for commercial purposes. The ground reclaimed is physically unstable, which doesn't support human traffic and building.

 

The second reason, coming much from the first, is that the land becomes unsuitable to support the fauna and wildlife that it did prior to the mountaintop removal. The rocky, unstable soil cannot support the diverse trees and grasses that grew prior to the mountaintop removal. Really all that can grow are scrub trees and non-native grasses, one of which I've mentioned earlier in this thread. The fields are just biologically impoverished after mountaintop removal.

 

The third reason is one I've listed earlier in this thread: no amount of reclamation is going to remove the sulfur, selenium, mercury, and other dangerous chemicals from the groundwater and soil once the mountaintop removal has begun. Just because grass is planted doesn't mean that the soil supporting it isn't toxic. This leeches into the groundwater, which we all drink. And studies have shown that selenium and mercury cause greater instances of cancer.

 

The fourth reason is that the landscape is permanently changed, and not for the better. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, water temperatures in streams do not exhibit as much daily rise and fall in reclaimed mountaintop removal areas, which harms river life. In addition, the particulate silt is significantly smaller, which causes more damage to river and stream wildlife. Also, mountaintop removal causes 3%-21% greater peak flow of rivers, which can lead to greater instances of mudslides and flooding.

 

Mountaintop removal accounts for barely 10% of the mining jobs in Appalachia, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. It's not as if placing significant limits on mountaintop removal is going to completely destroy the mining industry; in fact, it would put more miners back underground, obtaining coal in a biologically-safe manner. I'll just say again: the small benefit it provides is significantly outweighed by the damage its doing. If nothing else, I hope what I'm posting here shows this clearly.

 

How do you know those percentages of from the U.S. Geological Survey are anything close to accurate? Are they not a federal run agency? Has the federal government shown how much they can lie and "mis-inform" the public?? The information I get from the West Virginia Coal Association is about 11% of the reclaimed land is used for commercial developments. A lot of that 89% left over has to do with businesses wanting to come into WV and the developments wanting to come to a lot of these outlying areas where the populations are very small. Not over how stable the reclamation site is to support commercial growth.

 

Go and take a soil sample from a maintained house yard, golf course, base development for a new Wal-Mart shopping center, or interstate/road and see how much "sulfur, selenium, mercury, and other dangerous chemicals" are found to be polluting the groundwater and such. I would say it's close to being equal.

 

Like I've said before, I guess we all need to go back to using candle light to see by in our homes and horse-drawn carriages for transportation. Then we will have to worry about PETA being on our a$$es over using the horses!

[gridironguru 11]

I agree that we're trying to force our arguments, though I am forcing mine with facts and reason while you have been forcing yours with assumptions and hearsay. I think we probably have more in common than we'd like to admit: we're just never going to see eye-to-eye on this issue, though. And life's too short to stay upset about that forever.

 

You dont see what I see every day,you dont or couldnt phathom the beauracacy and tight rope I walk to produce coal for energy and Sir We do it in a responsible way.I've been bombarded (by bus loads at times) of idiots 300 miles away that make a trip here to tell me and my coworkers how we should do things when you can plainly see from there attire and hygeine they've never worked a job in there life. Im way past upset Im damn right irate and sick and tired. I see the behind the scenes and I know the agenda and I'll fight till I die for what I think is right and I'll promise you and time will tell the tell MTR is benificial to our region. Im sure you like the pretty mountains we all do but I also see the good it has done the land that has been put to use ,towns that have been built on MTR land...The good outways the bad in my eyes and a you'll find more see it my way than yours. But believe what you will..

[Deleted Account 5,203]

How do you know those percentages of from the U.S. Geological Survey are anything close to accurate? Are they not a federal run agency? Has the federal government shown how much they can lie and "mis-inform" the public?? The information I get from the West Virginia Coal Association is about 11% of the reclaimed land is used for commercial developments. A lot of that 89% left over has to do with businesses wanting to come into WV and the developments wanting to come to a lot of these outlying areas where the populations are very small. Not over how stable the reclamation site is to support commercial growth.

 

Go and take a soil sample from a maintained house yard, golf course, base development for a new Wal-Mart shopping center, or interstate/road and see how much "sulfur, selenium, mercury, and other dangerous chemicals" are found to be polluting the groundwater and such. I would say it's close to being equal.

 

Like I've said before, I guess we all need to go back to using candle light to see by in our homes and horse-drawn carriages for transportation. Then we will have to worry about PETA being on our a$$es over using the horses!

 

The U.S. Geological Survey is an impartial, unbiased agency that uses objective standards of measurement to produce the most accurate scientific data possible. Its data has appeared in multitudes of scientific journals. In short, you're not getting better than that unless you commission your own survey by pouring endless amounts of money into it. Trying to impugne my source is ludicrous to the point of hysteria. Of all the places to attack the integrity of my argument, you just chose the absolute worst.

 

By the way, your "source" has EVERY incentive to be biased. The "West Virginia Coal Organization"? You don't have to be schooled to take a guess at from where that Organization derives its profits. That's like asking Bill Gates if he supports computer technology or asking Mary Todd Lincoln if she likes John Wilkes Booth. But I digress. Even taking your source's information at face value, 11% is a pitifully small percentage, as much as the coal industries publicizes how mountaintop mining reclamation can be used for industrial purposes.

 

Again, taking your source at face value, if developers don't want to come into those outlying areas, isn't this a reason NOT to promote mountaintop mining reclamation for commercial purposes? It seems a little ridiculous to pander to a base that doesn't exist. If you build it, and they still don't come, doesn't it seem to you to be an epic, massive failure?

 

Going further, you're simply assuming that the selenium, mercury, etc. levels would be equal regardless of site. I've provided evidence and links to show that they ARE different, and markedly different. Where's your evidence? You've given me some evidence already. Put aside your assumptions, and give me FACTS.

 

And I am getting sick of people saying "when you're cold" and "we all need to go back to using candlelight". Challenging an environmentally unsound practice is NOT the same as saying "all coal mining must stop immediately!". Mountaintop removal accounts for TEN percent of mining. If the math I learned at Springville Elementary is right, that still leaves NINETY percent (9/10, 90%, .9, 9-10) of mining completely unaffected by this ecologically devastating method of mining. I will say, YET AGAIN, I strongly support underground mining and would never call for its abolition. I am simply decrying the devastation that mountaintop removal does to Appalachia for miniscule benefit. I'm not even saying to eliminate it entirely. I am saying to expand it would have devastating consequences on the environment and this region.

 

What can I do to make myself clearer? I strive for precision and clarity, yet it seems like it's not sinking in...

Edited October 21, 2010 by UVAObserver

[Deleted Account 5,203]

You dont see what I see every day,you dont or couldnt phathom the beauracacy and tight rope I walk to produce coal for energy and Sir We do it in a responsible way.I've been bombarded (by bus loads at times) of idiots 300 miles away that make a trip here to tell me and my coworkers how we should do things when you can plainly see from there attire and hygeine they've never worked a job in there life. Im way past upset Im damn right irate and sick and tired. I see the behind the scenes and I know the agenda and I'll fight till I die for what I think is right and I'll promise you and time will tell the tell MTR is benificial to our region. Im sure you like the pretty mountains we all do but I also see the good it has done the land that has been put to use ,towns that have been built on MTR land...The good outways the bad in my eyes and a you'll find more see it my way than yours. But believe what you will..

 

I agree, I don't see what you see every day. I agree further, that it speaks poorly on individuals to disrupt you and your profession when you're engaging in a fully legal line of work. I am grateful to you, your company, and the rest of the coal miners for putting in their hard, back-breaking work to power this region and this country. Please, don't mistake me on that.

 

However, what I do in school and what I will do once I leave this school in 2 months is look objectively at every source of information that I can possibly find to get as close to "the truth" as I possibly can. To me, that means giving due diligence to both sides of the aisle before coming to a decision. When I get into a debate, I don't say things lightly. I say them to get my well-reasoned points on the table and to challenge the assumptions of others. Not to make people mad, but to get information out there. Strangely, a lot of what I did this summer focused on mining law and mineral law, so it's not as if I'm touching this subject for the first time. I've already got a jump start on a lot of the research, which might not be the most fair thing.

 

I've already put my arguments on the table, and you yours, so there's no use to till that old ground again. Facts aside, statistics aside, what concerns me most about mountaintop mining removal is that we're carving into the tops of mountains for such a small amount of coal compared to underground mining that the results and later effects make it completely not worth it. Just like someone who spends their life savings to find in old age that they have nothing to fall back on, so I am gravely concerned that mountaintop removal is plundering resources for a short-term gain that can have crippling long-term consequences. I cannot deny that it's profitable: else mining companies wouldn't be doing it. I'm just deeply worried for the future.

 

I'm not irate with you, not at all. I would hope that you wouldn't be with me, either. Life's just too short to spend too much time being upset.

[Beaverteeth 10]

Well, at least Massey's using their money to do something other than pay off judges...

You want to talk about an organization that is the scum of the scum, you talk about Massey Energy.

 

Well when they pay 10 Million in taxes a year to that county... they need to build there own dam school... There only "scum" becuse they stand up to BS Dems that are putting this region in the gutter. The media paints the picture!. Come to work with me one day and i bet you will shut your trap.

[bhs7695 185]

The U.S. Geological Survey is an impartial, unbiased agency that uses objective standards of measurement to produce the most accurate scientific data possible. Its data has appeared in multitudes of scientific journals. In short, you're not getting better than that unless you commission your own survey by pouring endless amounts of money into it. Trying to impugne my source is ludicrous to the point of hysteria. Of all the places to attack the integrity of my argument, you just chose the absolute worst.

 

By the way, your "source" has EVERY incentive to be biased. The "West Virginia Coal Organization"? You don't have to be schooled to take a guess at from where that Organization derives its profits. That's like asking Bill Gates if he supports computer technology or asking Mary Todd Lincoln if she likes John Wilkes Booth. But I digress. Even taking your source's information at face value, 11% is a pitifully small percentage, as much as the coal industries publicizes how mountaintop mining reclamation can be used for industrial purposes.

 

Again, taking your source at face value, if developers don't want to come into those outlying areas, isn't this a reason NOT to promote mountaintop mining reclamation for commercial purposes? It seems a little ridiculous to pander to a base that doesn't exist. If you build it, and they still don't come, doesn't it seem to you to be an epic, massive failure?

 

Going further, you're simply assuming that the selenium, mercury, etc. levels would be equal regardless of site. I've provided evidence and links to show that they ARE different, and markedly different. Where's your evidence? You've given me some evidence already. Put aside your assumptions, and give me FACTS.

 

And I am getting sick of people saying "when you're cold" and "we all need to go back to using candlelight". Challenging an environmentally unsound practice is NOT the same as saying "all coal mining must stop immediately!". Mountaintop removal accounts for TEN percent of mining. If the math I learned at Springville Elementary is right, that still leaves NINETY percent (9/10, 90%, .9, 9-10) of mining completely unaffected by this ecologically devastating method of mining. I will say, YET AGAIN, I strongly support underground mining and would never call for its abolition. I am simply decrying the devastation that mountaintop removal does to Appalachia for miniscule benefit. I'm not even saying to eliminate it entirely. I am saying to expand it would have devastating consequences on the environment and this region.

 

What can I do to make myself clearer? I strive for precision and clarity, yet it seems like it's not sinking in...

 

The U.S. Geological Survey is not "impartial or unbiased" if it is federally supported in my opinion. I never said said that the WVCA wasn't unbiased but they are entitled to their own studies and reports. As a matter of fact, I don't believe there is a completely truthful entity or agency in this world that reports on anything nor do I think there is a 100% fool proof way of reporting. I do believe in looking at multiple sources before deciding my opinion and I've looked and experienced many in my lifetime dealing with MTR.

 

I am sick and tired of people attacking MTR with the amounts of pollutants/damage they claim MTR is responsible for. Attacking MTR is attacking coal mining....PERIOD! Underground mining is disturbing mother Earth the same as MTR, rock quarries, gold mines, diamond mines, etc. The only difference is underground isn't nearly as visible as MTR or other above ground mining practices so the activists do not care as much to attack it. Do you think that all the other mining activities don't pollute the underground water and/soil? I just flat out do not see how one can be attacked and not any of the others.

 

All that says to me is it is about only one thing.......POLITICS!

 

Like I said, let all just shut everything down and go live in the woods. I guess the industrial revolution was the worst thing that humans have ever done on this planet.