Eli Would Like To Air Himself A Grievance

The following is a guest grievance from the brother Vandelay...

The Bush administration is set to issue a regulation on Friday that would enshrine the coal mining practice of mountaintop removal. The technique involves blasting off the tops of mountains and dumping the rubble into valleys and streams. NY TImes, Aug 24, 2007

MTR stands for mountain top removal, an insidious practice that the coal industry has used for the last 40 years, mostly in the mid-Atlantic Appalachian states, that has never been legalized but only tolerated because the industry shells out such enormous sums of cash to the campaign coffers of prominent politicians in those states. MTR entails planting thousands of tons of explosives into the peaks of mountains, setting them off, waiting 2 weeks for the dust to settle, and then tearing the rest of the mountain apart looking for coal. One by one up and down the range until you run out mountains.

President Bush-shit, in typical low-life cowardly fashion waits until all provisional laws that regulate mining in these states are 2 days from renewal and then orders the Dept of Interior to change the rules in favor of allowing the coal industry to continue this practice indefinitely. No hearings, no debates- or if there were good luck finding out through the USELESS-ASS American crap media.

The Appalachian mountain range is one of the oldest and most exquisite ranges on the planet. It is home to an incredible diversity of plant and animal life that is integral to the health of the entire eastern seaboard. Yes, even fat, disgusting, beer-sucking, retarded hairless apes benefit from not drowning in massive floods or starving from desertification. The place still holds its wonder and awe after 150 years of relentless pummeling from industry, railways, damns, highways, developers, energy plants, chemical plants and general overuse and neglect. But over 60 percent of its former glory is destroyed beyond recovery. The Great American chestnut tree is extinct, as well as over 750 species of birds, fish, and ground dwellers combined.

Animals and plants aren’t the only losers here. The explosions dislodge entire foundations, sewer systems, telephone lines, pools, and anything else that is in the vicinity. The refuse that is dug up is dumped in the nearest stream or valley. This material contains arsenic, sulphur, mercury and a host of other underground toxic elements including radioactive material. Yes, traces of uranium and plutonium that have been buried for millions of years are excavated and found in the slough. The dust from the explosions and mining operations travels hundreds miles filling the air across the land. So you have enormous human health risks everywhere these operations take place.

In 2002, for instance, the Environmental Protection Agency rewrote clean water regulations in a way that magically added mine waste to the list of materials that can be used to fill in streams for development and other purposes. In 2004, confronted with yet another obstacle — the so-called stream buffer zone rule prohibiting any mining activity within 100 feet of a stream — the administration decided that the rule only required companies to respect the buffer zone “to the extent practicable,” in effect green-lighting further dumping. The new rule not only reaffirms the 2004 rule but also seems specifically to authorize the disposal of “excess spoil fills,” a k a mine waste, in hollows and streams. -NY Times, Aug 27, 2007

So what’s the downside to all this, you ask. Well, without reiterating what I’ve already posted I’ll let you read straight from the horse’s ass. The EPA, no friend of the environment, puts it like this. You know we're living in really fucked-up times when the President not only shits all over the country he vows to protect, but even all over himself.

Comments

[puddy]

Brother vandelay,

You are an ill-informed lout, so far as I can tell. You can be pissed off at Bush all you want; I couldn't care less.

To generalize mining companies as lobbyists who fill the coffers of politicians...just the same as any other industry that wants something, is absurd. That argument is junk.

MTR is the worst form of surface mining, to be sure, but it is also not the happy-go-lucky raping of the land like you say. No one blasts the top of a mountain off just "looking for coal."

Did you ever hike in the hills of Eastern Kentucky? Neither did most of the people that now play golf on several courses that now sit on former MTR sites. Or work at prisons and industrial sites that formerly had no place to be built because so much of the Appalachia is unusable land, thereby creating jobs where none were for people who needed other alternatives than coal mining.

Did you ever live in a town that had MTR approximately 2 miles from your house? And, in living in that town, did you ever experience absolutely no problems whatsoever from said mining in the first 18 years of your life?

Did you ever live in a community that was filled with lots of well-meaning good people who worked at places that were supposedly ruining the local land that they should cherish? Did you ever say "I know those people in the (Northeast/West/Washington) probably mean well, but they've never been here and can't possibly begin to understand what mining means to this region, and unfortunately MTR is an ever-decreasing part of that industry?"

ANd your posts about dumping bad refuse and water are junk, too. Trust me on this, no one gets away with this anymore. That might have been a valid argument 35 years ago, but when SMCRA was passed the scrutiny was amplified greatly. Try getting an MTR permit, and you'll understand.

Mining has its faults; MTR is certainly not exempt. It also has its benefits. Not the least of which is that yours and everyone else's power bills are somewhat manageable each month.

You can have your opinion, but realize that there are others out there who feel just as strongly as you do, in the opposite direction.

I'm not saying MTR is good for the environment; I would never be so ignorant as to suggest that. I am saying that there is a lot more to the story that you do not, and most likely could not, understand.

[Schmoopie]

I will disagree vigorously with puddy and give Mr. Vandelay an "amen, brother."

[Jack Klompus]

The irony of this all is that the practice of MTR was accelerated by the Clean Air Act Extension of 1970. Sulfur-level regulations on coal emissions forced miners to explore for low-sulfur coal -- which just happens to be found easily by blasting off mountain tops. Way to go, EPA.

[SL22]

Then put the prison next to the mountain, prick. Are we out of land or something?

[SL22]

I believe it, Klompus. That's how everything seems to work. Alanis Morrisette could write another song about it. People try to do something good and f things up even worse.

[SL22]

(But I still think there's gotta be a better solution than blowing up mountains)

[Itchy]

I have zero love for the coal mining companies. None. Even though they employed most of the men in my home town.

But they also screwed them. Layoffs. Selling the mines when several men were close to retirement. Claiming bankruptcy to avoid paying out hefty retirements. All sorts of lovely shifty behavior.

And, due to the lovely renovations that mining does to the lay of the land my entire hometown was underwater in 2001. Homes and businesses have YET to return.

The roads are a disgrace. The rivers are disgusting. It's an ugly and depressing place to visit. And yes, it is all because of the mines. So any good that the mines may do, makes no difference to me. None. For I've seen the harm first hand.

So, you'll excuse me if I don't click through all the links for facts in regard to this...I don't need to be any angrier than I already am...

[Art Vandelay]

Puddy, what happened when you turned 19?

[Jack Klompus]

"The roads are a disgrace. The rivers are disgusting. It's an ugly and depressing place to visit. And yes, it is all because of the mines. So any good that the mines may do, makes no difference to me. None. For I've seen the harm first hand."

If you don't like the sound of African drums, don't live in Harlem. If you don't like disgraceful roads and disgusting rivers, don't live in coal-mining Appalachia.

[Art Vandelay]

Itchy, if you don't mind me asking, what is your home town?

[Assman]

Leaving the economic and legal discussion to the side for a second....

Isn't changing the landscape of an area a terrible idea all on its own? I can't say whether or not the pollution it creates is that big of a deal or whether or not aesthetically I should give a shit, but pretty much everything I can remember about meteorolgy and earth science makes one believe that the removal of mountain tops would:

a.) alter the climate, plant life, animal life and local ecology everywhere the wind blows;

b.) make areas that are habitable or farm-capable into desert landscapes;

c.) potentially alter hurricane paths to locations that don't typically prepare themselves for that kind of weather;

d.) and pretty much screw over every other weather-dependent industry that isn't the mining business in the area?

[Art Vandelay]

If you don't like the sound of African drums, don't live in Harlem. If you don't like disgraceful roads and disgusting rivers, don't live in coal-mining Appalachia.

If you don't like cyclists, don't live in Atlanta?

[Jack Klompus]

"If you don't like cyclists, don't live in Atlanta?"

If you don't like cyclists, don't live anywhere. Not much I can do about it. They're everywhere.

And if you don't like Massholes, don't live in New England or Florida.

[Itchy]

If you don't like disgraceful roads and disgusting rivers, don't live in coal-mining Appalachia.

I don't. I left. But family remained...

[Itchy]

Itchy, if you don't mind me asking, what is your home town?

I'd rather not give that info out publicly, for I am shy and strange that way.

[M. Butler]

Who has been putting out their coals on my floor?

[M. Butler]

Itchy was the girl whose story the movie "the accused" was based on. Just outside of D.C.

[Art Vandelay]

b.) make areas that are habitable or farm-capable into desert landscapes;

My brother can probably speak to this better but I'm pretty sure we're talking about Alpine landscapes, none of which would support a farming environment. Although, I wouldn't have thought you could have a golf course at 5,000 feet above sea level either so what do I know.

[Assman]

My brother can probably speak to this better but I'm pretty sure we're talking about Alpine landscapes, none of which would support a farming environment.

Nah, not like that. I'm talking about the areas on either side of the mountain. Like, the clouds form over the mountaintops and make for rainier conditions on the inland side. A lot of the rain you get in those areas comes from wind going over mountaintops. That's the reason you have such quick climate shifts on either side of mountain ranges. Most deserts are bordered by mountains for a reason.

Our weather patterns and climates are determined by the natural borders around us. Coasts, mountains, rivers, etc. Over time, removing the tops of mountains would make a difference. Not necessarily to the folks right next to the mountain, but to the folks that depended on it being there.

[puddy]

Schmoopie,

That's not very vigorous disagreement, but you are certainly welcome to your opinion.

Art,

I moved to college, and my statements were directly about living next to them. Although, my mother still lives in the same house, and still no damage/permanent fog/bad water.

Prestonsburg, in East KY, to your question about hometown.

SL22, ever try to build a structure on the side of the mountain? There is no "next to the mountain," in most cases. I expect a little more from you, especially considering mining has played a pretty large role in PA as well as KY and WV. But hey, I'm just a prick, what do I know?

I knew there would be contradictory anecdotal evidence, as provided by itchy. There should be, and I put more stock in that than someone making a blanket statement about how ruining mountains that weren't being used for hiking/outdoorsy event and putting real jobs in its place is so bad.

This is not so different from putting up suburbs now or urban areas years ago. Greenland/grassland/trees removed from areas for structures, and absolutely no energy created from the removal.

Again, I never said "WHOO! LET'S MTR EVERY MOUNTAIN! GO MINING!" I specifically said that MTR has issues. It is the blanket statements that, to me, are the result of unfounded outrage and yes, some level of ignorance, that I take issue with.

[Art Vandelay]

Assman...Oh. I'm gonna stop pretending like I know what I'm talking about now.

[puddy]

Also, Art, 5,000 feet above sea level is a huge jump. My hometown's airport sits at 600 feet msl. The golf courses are not going to be more than 3-400 feet higher than that.

I think Denver has plenty of golf courses that are a lot higher elevations than these places.

[Eli]

"You are an ill-informed lout, so far as I can tell. You can be pissed off at Bush all you want; I couldn't care less."

First off, you've offered no statistics, articles, or any type evidence to support your claims- which, in fact, you didn't even make any other me being a lout...and thanks for the compliment.

Secondly, since when do only those citizens who are threatened life and limb by these types of circumstances have the credibility to speak out against them? If you take the time to look into the issue you'll see that the people living in these areas are constantly urging others to help them in whatever ways they can. Even the damn EPA in that last link I put in suggests as much and read the post by Itchy. You're just not on the ball.

Another thing, I have been through many of those areas affected by the coal industry and seen what it looks like. It looks a lot like any other forested area that is blown apart, bulldozed, and abandoned looks like- total crap! You don't have to travel very far outside your back door to see evidence of mismanaged development and resource acquisition projects. Your argument is pointless.

And I never suggested that these operations are "happy go lucky" as you say. In fact, they are intentional and manipulative and that is what makes them so nefarious. They have the backing of a President who thinks he now has the power to frickin' legislate and pass into law whatever he damn well pleases. Yea, I'm a little pissed off by that. I volunteer for the Appalachian Mountain Club which has around 90,000 of members. The organization is dedicated to leading conservation efforts through out the entire Appalachian region. Many of its members are corporate leaders who are also dedicated to finding ways to integrate business interests and preserving the environment. So you don't have to be on one side of the line or the other to make a difference. But I will tell right now, the coal industry does not share that view- it is a bottom line industry that is only interested in profit through resource exploitation.

When you have the congress and the executive branch circumventing the law in order to reimburse the special interest groups that helped put them in power, I think everyone who cares should be pissed. Whether you care less or not is irrelevant.

[puddy]

MTR entails planting thousands of tons of explosives into the peaks of mountains, setting them off, waiting 2 weeks for the dust to settle, and then tearing the rest of the mountain apart looking for coal. One by one up and down the range until you run out mountains.

Happy go lucky. But maybe I can't see for the dust that won't settle.

Secondly, since when do only those citizens who are threatened life and limb by these types of circumstances have the credibility to speak out against them

Certainly you have the right to speak out against them. Just be sure to remember that your opinion is no more valid than someone who does live there, and sometimes less so. Sorry, I'm having a hard time typing this because I have only one hand. I lost the other when it was smashed by flying rock when I was 14.

It's more dangerous to pick your kids up at school than to live around mining. This fear and loathing of all things mining is so short sighted it borders on complete ignorance.

Even the damn EPA in that last link I put in suggests as much and read the post by Itchy. You're just not on the ball.

I'm not talking about Itchy. Itchy has obviously had a different experience than I have, and I said that means more to me than most opinions. It is tough over here, off the ball, though.

Another thing, I have been through many of those areas affected by the coal industry and seen what it looks like. It looks a lot like any other forested area that is blown apart, bulldozed, and abandoned looks like- total crap! You don't have to travel very far outside your back door to see evidence of mismanaged development and resource acquisition projects. Your argument is pointless.

Another thing...I've lived in these places. And they are little different from small towns in say, Indiana, where maybe the farming went bad or whatever else bad happened. I can go to LA and end up in the wrong part of town and see people with severe social and personal problems, but is it fair of me to say that based on this evidence, California has these issues. You even supported my point that you can see the ill effects of industry without going further than your back door.

There are some irresponsible people out there. Some have taken advantage of the laws. You can make these statements about any industry/commercial endeavor. Singling out coal mining is folly.

When you have the congress and the executive branch circumventing the law in order to reimburse the special interest groups that helped put them in power, I think everyone who cares should be pissed

You want to make an argument about circumventing the law, that's fine, and valid. However, in taking such a stance on the regulation in question, your point is severely clouded.

[Eli]

"You want to make an argument about circumventing the law, that's fine, and valid. However, in taking such a stance on the regulation in question, your point is severely clouded."

I have no idea what your point is on the above statement. But anyway, you seem to be agreeing with me on most of the stuff I laid out- you just have a problem with my abrasive language against the coal industry. I think the damage they've exacted on the environment and their attitude towards it all is repulsive and they should be stopped from continuing MTR operations...completely. That's my belief and there's a lot folks who agree with that.

Larry Gibson, (http://www.wiretapmag.org/rights/43134/)
a West Virginia resident, has been battling the coal industry for 22 years. His family has owned hundreds of acres of land in Appalachia since 1772. He is in his seventies now and he has been shot at, a victim of arson, his dogs have been killed and he is still battling the coal companies because he will not sell his land to them and he is suing to have them stop MTR because of the damage it is causing to his property.

If you feel something is absolutely, egregiously wrong in the world then why not speak out against.

[Art Vandelay]

He is in his seventies now and he has been shot at, a victim of arson, his dogs have been killed and he is still battling the coal companies because he will not sell his land to them and he is suing to have them stop MTR because of the damage it is causing to his property.

Damn puddy...and you're gonna sit here and complain about losing a fucking hand?

[Jack Klompus]

"He is in his seventies now and he has been shot at, a victim of arson, his dogs have been killed"

Seventy years in West Virginia and he's only been shot at once? That's pretty damn good.

[puddy]

I have no idea what your point is on the above statement.

I agree with you here.

You went through an entire post about the horrors of MTR, but then you offered this, which I now seem to grasp was your main idea:

When you have the congress and the executive branch circumventing the law in order to reimburse the special interest groups that helped put them in power, I think everyone who cares should be pissed. Whether you care less or not is irrelevant.

That was my point there. You buried your lede.

If you had said "Here is my point: the executive branch is taking liberty with and circumventing the law, here is an example," then yes, we have little beef. What you did was make it seem as though MTR was your problem, when I don't think you have proven that you are qualified to talk about that.

What statistics do you want? That MTR is in steady decline, as is all mining in the Appalachian region (due in part to depletion, in part to economic/fiscal factors, in part to a workforce that is finally starting to branch out)? That no new MTR permits have been issued, at least in KY for some time?

You made blanket statements about MTR that are exceptions, not rules. That is what I take issue with. I would never impugn someone's right to make an intelligent argument. I just happen to think that yours was more vitriolic and reactionary than well-reasoned and intelligent. You think mine is the same way.

I'm OK with disagreement, because I'm comfortable knowing that there are different opinions in the world. I'm also comfortable in knowing which ones to speak on.

[puddy]

I fouled up the em stuff there, so it reads a bit confusing. Not all the italics are quotes, some are mine. Sorry about that, all.

fuck the heck? note to self: don't put the em code anywhere.

[Assman]

I fixed the italics. Rant on.

[Eli]

Well, don't most people state their points strongly if that's how they feel about it. This is a blog site- I'm not writing a legal brief here. Your point on the MTR and the mining industry being in decline is a new claim. And I believe your wrong.

http://www.pwc.com/extweb/ncpressrelease.nsf/docid/257B72676FDED57C852572FF00678F56

Big coal has the Administration on it's side. I've shown how the EPA is changing its rules to benefit the industry. The EPA does what the White House tells it to do- one phone is all it takes. That's the connection. I didn't feel I had to spell that out- my bad.

Granted, the industries in Kentucky and West Virginia do not produce as much coal as the companies in Wyoming where surface and drag line mining operations are more extensive, but that's hardly a case for supporting the practice and it misses the point that these areas are much more vulnerable due to the array of life they support and the significant impact that pollution in these areas will have on the surrounding regions. The impact will be, as it has been in the past, very economically damaging to the tourist and hunting industries these states rely on for considerable revenue. That is, if wildlife reserves go into decline and rivers become nasty and unfishable.

I have yet find a report or article claiming MTR operations are on the decline. I have found the exact opposite assessment which I've already posted.

[SL22]

I have no problem with coal mining. I, for one, like electricity. I just don't think that blowing up mountains is the best way to do it.

And yes, the prick comment was a bit extreme.

[SL22]

I should rephrase that. I know nothing about coal mining and wouldn't know what the best way is. But I would imagine that blowing up mountains is not the best solution here.

There, that was better.

[Jack Klompus]

"But I would imagine that blowing up mountains is not the best solution here."

It is the most cost-effective solution for mining companies. But if you're Larry or one of them Grape-Nut eatin' muthafuckas that likes to soak in one of the "most exquisite ranges on the planet," then it's probably not the best solution.

[puddy]

I don't have my information in front of me as I am at home, but I will provide fully attributable coal mining information tomorrow. Probably afternoon.

Coal Mining is on the rise. Appalachian Surface mining is not, and I do believe it to be in decline. I'll hapily recant if I am wrong (OK, I'll at least reacnt; I make no promises to my elation level).

Also, the past few years were good for coal prices, which did see some smaller surface (and underground) mines re-open to particpate in the boom. These are, by and large, not MTR operations.

[puddy]

and thanks for fixing the italics, assman.

[Art Vandelay]

Damn. Klompus is on fire in this thread.

[SL22]

"Most cost effective for the mining companies" doesn't make it the best solution. But hey, if we blow up all of the mountains, just look at how cost effective it will be to build new roads!

[Eli]

All's well on the coast. I guess it's time for my Grape Nuts.

[jackie]

I've got nothing informed to add, but just wanted to say this thread is thoroughly entertaining.

Nice work getting things rolling, Eli.

Oh yeah, credit where credit is due. This right here by Puddy was some damn good stuff:

"Happy go lucky. But maybe I can't see for the dust that won't settle."

[Jack Klompus]

"All's well on the coast. I guess it's time for my Grape Nuts."

You have a much better sense of humor than your brother.

[Jack Klompus]

"Oh yeah, credit where credit is due. This right here by Puddy was some damn good stuff:

"Happy go lucky. But maybe I can't see for the dust that won't settle.""

Puddy's been throwing heat. And, this may be the first time I've seen someone called a "lout."

[Puddy]

All data obtained from Platts CoalDat product. Platts is a leading energy research company that is a subsidiary of McGraw-Hill.

Appalchian coal mining is split into two disticnt coal producing regions: Northern App (NAPP) is Northern WV and Southwestern PA; Central App (CAPP) is Southern WV and Eastern KY and parts of VA

In 1990, Appalachian coal mining was at its high: 455 million (mm) tons mined. This includes all underground and surface in the two major coal supply regions in Appalachia. IN 2006, production was 372 mm tons. That's an 18% decrease.

In 1990 surface mining in these areas was 160.1 mm tons. In 2006, it was 160.3 mm tons. I will point out here that I was in error concerning the overall decline in surface mining. The decline has been exclusively underground mining. For the continuing purpose of this discussion, as it pertains to surface mining, I will discard U/G mining information.

There are some issues with the presentation of data on MTR operations. A mine must only report as MTR is it uses that method exclusively. Very few mines use this method exclusively. Those mines that do produced a mere 1.7 mm tons in 1990, down to 0.7 million tons in 2006. That is information that is not very pertinent since it makes up less than 1% of all surface mining.

Therefore, one must make assumptions, which will lead to aggressive estimates that overstate the mountaintop removal method, but which are the best statistics I have at hand. For the rest of this discussion, I will consider any operation that uses the dragline, a large piece of machinery that removes the overburden (blasted away material) to expose the coal seam, in conjunction with smaller equipment is used to extract the coal (usually a large bulldozer/endloader). Production at those mines was 32 mm tons in 1990, and 15 mm in 2006.

The majority of surface mining in these areas has been done using a contour or combination method that employs different methods than MTR (still destructive, but not as drastic to the observer). I admit it is difficult to ascertain what additional tonnages are MTR-type. I think that those MTR numbers in the above paragraph are low, but I also think that any addition would be proportionate.

There are more statistics, but I wanted to give the conversation some color, and I certainly did not want to be viewed as just someone spouting anecdotal evidence.

To summarize, I was wrong about the overall decline in surface mining, if not overall decline in mining. I stand by my comments about the methods at issue.

[Art Vandelay]

You have a much better sense of humor than your brother.

Actually douche, knowing your penchant for the low hanging fruit, I was a little disappointed the tree-hugging blast didn't come sooner.