Mountaintop removal, coal and your Sunday paper
Readers of today’s Sunday-Gazette Mail got an interesting mix of stories relating to the coal industry … I think it was especially interesting if you came across these stories, like I did, reading the print edition (Yes, we still do one of those — and if you really want to support independent journalism in West Virginia, click here to subscribe. These are tough times for the newspaper business, and that’s all I’ll say in this totally self-serving and shameless plug).
First, at the top of page 1A, we have Rick Steelhammer’s story about students from Lutheran volunteer groups delivering clean bottled water to the folks in the Prenter area of Boone County.
Now, Boone County is West Virginia’s top coal-producing county. It’s also the state’s top producer of strip-mined coal, and home to the largest United Mine Workers-organized mountaintop removal complex, Hobet 21.
So, how could a county where the coal industry is so successful need a bunch of kids to bring clean water in for residents to drink? Seriously — how could this happen?
As Rick points out, and as Coal Tattoo and others in the media (especially Vicki Smith at the AP) have noted, folks in and around the Prenter area — backed up by some scientific reports — believe their water has been dangerously polluted by the underground injection of coal slurry. The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection has continued to punt — missing deadlines and ignoring legislative mandates to come up with a report on this problem. So the citizens did their own report, and their lawyers commissioned an expert study by Scott Simonton, a scientist who also happens to sit on the state Environmental Quality Board. I’ve posted some legal papers, including one of Simonton’s reports, here, and this is what he concluded:
 There is no better way to move contaminants from a solid, such as rock, as a dissolved or suspended constituent than to grind it up to a fine particle size and mix it with water. This is what occurs when coal slurry is produced.
Slurry, slurry waters and natural waters that have come into contact with the slurry have undoubtedly migrated from the injection points into the drinking water wells in the subject communities.
…I believe that coal mining and related activities have likely contaminated the drinking water supply in the Seth/Prenter area.
[EDITED to clarify:
Now, I’m not saying Hobet 21 caused the Prenter pollution — it is not located in the Prenter area, and obviously is not the cause of that particular water pollution (though Hobet 21 is causing serious problems related to selenium in the Mud River watershed).
But the connection or question I’m trying to draw is two-fold:
1. If coal and mountaintop removal are so good, why are residents of West Virginia’s top coal-producing county forced to have volunteer students bring them clean water? Wouldn’t the jobs and tax revenue from coal and mountaintop removal allow the county to fix this problem?
2. In many places — Prenter/Seth being one — rather than fixing these sorts of public health problems, coal causes or contributes to them.
END EDITING]
Next, on page 1C, at the top of the Sunday Perspectives page, we’re treated to a commentary from Matt Wasson, condensed from his previous Huffington Post piece on whether an EPA crackdown on mountaintop removal will cost coalfield communities jobs.
For those who really want to dig into this issue, I’d recommend checking out the HuffPost piece, in large part because Matt posted some of his source documents there. And stay tuned to Coal Tattoo, because we’re going to be continuing to write about and discuss this.
Just to summarize, Matt digs back to some of the economic studies performed as part of the big federal government Environmental Impact Statement on mountaintop removal, and finds:
The results of the jobs model were also nothing like the cataclysm that mountaintop-removal supporters are predicting … The study showed that 10 years after the 35-acre permitting [watershed size for valley fills] restriction were imposed (again, implying a 65 percent decrease in mountaintop removal production) there would be 1,345 fewer mining jobs compared to the business-as-usual scenario. [NOT the 77,000 jobs the National Mining Association has warned us of…Ken].
Also, as Matt points out:
…both production and employment were projected to decline by 20 to 25 percent over the following decade even if no restrictions were put in place …Â
… Rather than grandstanding over the potential for small job losses in a rapidly declining industry, West Virginia’s leaders would serve their constituents better by working to bring emerging growth industries into the state — and quickly.
To toot my own horn a little bit, I wrote about these studies — and the greatly inflated estimates of job losses in the coal industry — years ago, see here and here. Nobody listened then. We’ll see if our political leaders have gotten any smarter or more interested in a real discussion of these issues.
Finally, as I flipped the Perspective section over, I saw below the fold an op-ed commentary by my old buddy Bill Currey of the Coal River Group. I’m all for the work this organization is doing … good on them for spending their time to clean up the local river they love.
But I can’t help noticing — again — that Bill pretty much ignores the problems that coal mining are causing for the Coal River watershed. I wrote about this in 2004, when the Gazette did its series on the Coal River’s problems and potential. As I wrote at the time, cleanup efforts by the state Department of Environmental Protection have focused on abandoned coal mines, residential sewage and other things — but not on active mining operations:
Over the past year, the Coal River’s problems and promise have gotten increasing attention.
In large part, the publicity has come from a coalition of Charleston-area residents — led by two former chemical company officials — who worry that residential sewage discharges make the river unsafe for swimming and boating.
But farther south, along the upper Coal’s headwaters — along Marsh Fork and Pond Fork, and in places like Whitesville and Sundial — folks say that the chemical company employees and the DEP officials have things backwards.
Residents here point to repeated blackwater spills from preparation plants, hundreds of miles of streams buried by valley fills and other repeated violations of water pollution rules by the coal operations that line the valley.
If anything is killing the Coal River, these residents say, it is the river’s very namesake.
And instead of focusing on abandoned mines and residential sewage, residents want to see the DEP crack down on the area’s active mining operations.
“The mining companies are the biggest polluters, but what’s happening is that the people are being blamed for the pollution,†said Janice Nease, an activist with the group Coal River Mountain Watch.
“That’s a plan that goes nowhere,†Nease told DEP officials. “It doesn’t protect us, and it doesn’t clean up our water.â€
25 comments
“First, at the top of page 1A, we have Rick Steelhammer’s story about students from Lutheran volunteer groups delivering clean bottled water to the folks in the Prenter area of Boone County. Now, Boone County is West Virginia’s top coal-producing county. It’s also the state’s top producer of strip-mined coal, and home to the largest United Mine Workers-organized mountaintop removal complex, Hobet 21.”
Hobet and Prenter are completely irrelevent to each other. Maybe you haven’t been to Boone county, but it’s not all one big coal mine. They are a good distance away from each other. That was just another cheap shot at Hobet by Ken Ward.
Daniel,
I have been to Boone County many, many times — and I am well aware that Prenter is not near Hobet 21 (thought Hobet 21 certainly is the cause of dangerous selenium pollution in the Mud River watershed, as I’ve written many times.
You miss my point:
Boone County is West Virginia’s top coal-producing county. It’s the county with the most mountaintop removal.
If coal mining and mountaintop removal were so good for Boone County, I would think that residents there would not need to have students come on spring break to deliver them clean water.
I’m not suggesting the Hobet 21 caused the pollution in the Prenter area. But, the evidence is clear that other coal mining operations did.
Rather than bringing prosperity, coal has caused problems for the people of the Seth/Prenter area.
And I say again — and I would love a good answer to this from the coal industry — if coal is so good, why are the places that it is mined so poor?
Ken.
Ken,
In reference to the “77,000 jobs the National Mining Association has warned us of” - it would sure be interesting to get the NMA’s breakdown on that. You haven’t, by chance, asked them for such a breakdown, have you?
Ken,
I’m originally from Boone county, so feel I have some more experience with the area than you. I’m going to respond to some of your comments.
“I have been to Boone County many, many times — and I am well aware that Prenter is not near Hobet 21 (thought Hobet 21 certainly is the cause of dangerous selenium pollution in the Mud River watershed, as I’ve written many times.”
How dangerous (if at all) the selenium is the local fish/animals is still up in the air to the people that live around Hobet. The mine has been there for about 30 years and there are still many fish in the creek and animals in the mountains. With fish having a much smaller lifetime than people, I’d imagine that there has been plenty of time for results to show if there was substantial damage. Pointing out a handful of fish with deformities while they are just past egg stage doesn’t mean much. Part of natural selection is having more young than can survive, thus allowing for the strongest of the generation to survive. Seems like it’s working out there.
That’s not the point of this article, but worth argument.
“And I say again — and I would love a good answer to this from the coal industry — if coal is so good, why are the places that it is mined so poor?”
That is a question for the local residents/government. Coal companies cannot be responsible for how people spend their money. No matter how much money you put into a community, if it is not spent well there will not be anything to show for it.
To quote from your article:
“1. If coal and mountaintop removal are so good, why are residents of West Virginia’s top coal-producing county forced to have volunteer students bring them clean water? Wouldn’t the jobs and tax revenue from coal and mountaintop removal allow the county to fix this problem?”
Residents are not forced to have volunteer students bring them clean water. This seems to be more of a local government problem. Why haven’t city water lines been put in place? Where has local government been spending tax money from the coal mines? It’s not the place of the mines to tell the government how to spend money.
Daniel,
Well, I’m not a fisheries biologist or an expert in the effect of selenium on aquatic life. But Dennis Lemly is THE expert on this issue in the country, perhaps in the world. And he has said in a sworn statement that the watershed is on the brink of a “major toxic event.”
See this story:
http://wvgazette.com/News/Mining+the+Mountains/200804260261
Personally, I think we should listen to scientists on these sorts of issues. You are certainly welcome to disagree with that. But let’s not pretend the science doesn’t show there’s a problem, because it does.
You know one of the big misconceptions is that science MAKES public policy. It doesn’t. It can only guide public policy — and if politicians or the public (such as yourself) won’t listen, it’s not really science’s fault.
On your other response, that it’s a government problem — you’re right. The issue in Seth/Prenter is a government problem. And the problem is that the government has not regulated to underground injection of toxic coal slurry in a way that protects the community’s water supply.
I’d also agree that it’s not the place of mines to tell the government how to spend money … but that’s what happens every day at the state Legislature: Coal lobbyists tell the government not to spend money on stronger regulation of the mining industry.
The other point, of course, is that these folks had good water, until the slurry injection started. Why should folks have to get city water if they had good water to start with? How neighborly is it for one neighbor (a coal company) to ruin another neighbor’s water?
Ken.
Matt,
The 77,000 jobs number is in the NMA press release:
http://www.nma.org/newsroom/press_release_detail.asp?idVar=139
Of course, that’s almost up to the total number of ALL coal mining jobs nationwide:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/acr/table21.html
It’s not clear to me if NMA is arguing here (as the mining industry often has) that a ban on valley fills ends all coal mining, including deep mines, or if they are saying it would eliminate all direct surface mining jobs in Appalachia (about 19,000), plus spinoff positions at contractors, vendors, etc.
Perhaps someone from the NMW could comment here to clarify what they are saying…or if not, I’ll ask them.
Ken,
I’m sorry but pulling a single scientist, even if he is “THE expert” on the subject doesn’t mean much against what I (or anyone else that wants to travel there) can see with my own eyes (healthy fish in these streams). If this whole situation is such a problem, there would be more people trying to “put their hands in the cookie jar” just like any other expanding issue the public views as a problem (global warming is a good example for this). If there was a certain scientist who was “THE expert” on what showed humans do not cause global warming, he would be considered a kook. An opinion without unbiased support doesn’t hold much water. Dennis Lemly’s claim to scientific fame is his work with selenium, how would it not help him to claim it was causing problems? This is the same as the coal companies saying you can take selenium pills for you health and they are great for you. Both should be taken with a grain of salt. While it seems you take everything the coal companies say with a grain of salt, Dennis Lemly doesn’t hold the same stance with your articles from what I’ve read.
What we’ve just witnessed in the exchange between Ken and Daniel is the problem that plays out all over this country in various environmental discussions.
One side says “The science says . . .”
And the corporate side replies “N0 it doesn’t.”
So the other side says “Here’s the scientist and he says . . . ”
And the corporate side says “Well, that’s just one scientist. There are LOTS of scientists.”
Ultimately, it is the maddening dichotomy between those who want to use knowledge and those who want to ignore the same and simply “believe.”
It is, in sum, the final act of “Peter Pan” in which the audience is told if they’ll only BELIEVE in Tinkerbell, she’l be real. As long as the coal industry and its adherents BELIEVE they aren’t doing anything wrong, then, to their eyes, they aren’t.
This, encapsulated, is the sad story of Science’s sojourn in the wilderness in the last eight years.
Here is an article about an EPA study finding no mayflies (the corner stone of stream ecologies) around Hobet. Ken Ward will be familiar with it.
http://www.wvgazette.com/News/200806111567
Daniel, you say that you are originally from Boone County. Where do you choose to live now and why? If it is not in this county, is it because the quality of life here has been so degraded by mining practices and poor regulation that you don’t want to live here anymore? No Hobet is not near Prenter, but Patriot Coal ( originally Peabody) and Massey subsidiaries are that I know of.
Well I was born and raised here and I still live here. I care about Boone County and my fellow residents here. It is sad that outsiders have to come in here to help with something as basic as providing clean water. More coal is mined here than anywhere else, but our roads are in shambles because of the heaviness of the coal trucks that travel these roads by the hundreds each day. We have no public sewage here, and water gets to only to easy to get to areas. We are a sacrifice zone, we realize it and I think Mr. Ward in his own way has made it known by his writings about the ills in this county and state.
We do have a huge problem in this county Daniel whether you want to admit it or not. It is not just a Boone County problem, it is a state and national problem as well. That is why I am hoping and praying that the new administration will put it’s foot down in a very heavy way on the mining industry. I don’t care if the operations are union or nonunion, if they are destroying the land and water they need to be shut down. Period. People and their health are far more important that mining company profits.
I’m not in Boone county because I’m in school. When I’m not in school, my residence is in Boone county. This has turned into an argument against me because I’m trying to show the other side of the story. Nanette, what would there be in Boone county without coal mines? Nothing. Sorry, but that’s how it is. If you lived in Charleston you wouldn’t like the chemical plants, you just happen to live in Boone, so coal mines are your complaint. It is called progress, and you’re right it is a sacrifice zone. You choose to live in Boone county, as do I when I can. It isn’t about coal company profits, it’s about the way of life we live. If you are so against the coal companies, cut off your power from AEP, or go to solar panels/wind power. Stop buying things made of steel, they use coal to make steel too.
If they shut down the coal mines like you would like to happen, the cost of living will skyrocket. Instead of steady rises in your electricity rate, it will jump overnight. About half of our energy in America comes from coal. Shut down the coal mines, double the prices at least for electricity. That affects everyone. That isn’t what is needed in the recession we have right now.
I was trying to have a good discussion on the subject because I feel like the coal industry is not fairly represented and I’m turned into “corporate America’s badguy.” It’s pretty hypocritical that there can be countless arguments against anything corporate, yet if their is a voice to back up the corporate side, it is automatically wrong. I’m not arguing against Ken here, I feel like he did confront my opinion with respect. I’m done with this conversation overall though because it isn’t going anywhere.
Nanette,
I’m going to jump in here — you’ve gone beyond what I think is a reasonable way of discussing things. I don’t think you needed to make a personal attack or criticism of Daniel — by questioning where he lives, etc.
While I think that Daniel’s off base in his criticisms, and doesn’t really understand the way science works — that being that the findings of a scientist who publishes in the peer-reviewed literature are much more meaningful than a company-paid report submitted in support of a permit application (or even eye-witness testimony of someone who lives there), he approached the conversation in a polite and reasonable way.
Daniel is right: You then targeted him, and made a bunch of assumptions about him based on his views. That’s called prejudice.
Frankly, to my friends in the environmental community, this is a trend I see on the Coal Tattoo discussions that is discouraging. Everyone who disagrees with you isn’t evil. They might just disagree — and the best way to convinced them they’re right to disagree is to turn the discussion into a personal attack on them, as Nanette did.
I’m going to leave her comments up there, though, so everyone can see what I’m talking about.
So far, I’ve had to block far more comments from so-called environmentalists than I have from coal company folks or coal miners who folks who are the “pro-coal” side. That’s pretty disappointing, I think.
I hope your comments, Nanette, haven’t drive Daniel from Coal Tattoo. And if he’s still reading, I’ll apologize on the blog’s behalf and encourage him to continue taking part.
Again — to everyone and all sides:
This blog is not the place to take out your personal anger and frustration. Get your own blog if you want to do that — I’m going to start becoming even more heavy-handed than I have been with this.
So please folks, don’t get personal and I insist that you disagree without being disagreeable.
If you don’t like that, go to www.wordpress.com, and start your own blog for free.
Ken.
I apologize to Daniel and to you Mr. Ward. I didn’t mean to cause harm. Daniel, if you are reading this please accept my sincere apology. I hope that when you get out of school you become successful at the career of your choice.
Coal Tattoo is a valuable resource … I hope that I haven’t run any readers or commentors away. Again my sincere apology.
“If coal is so good then why are places it is mined so poor” is a good question. I do not believe you can jump to the conclusion of a relationship since there are many poor areas in this country that do not have coal mines. Is education a factor? Maybe the high cost associated with infrastructure in a state that only has 3% flat ground is an issue. Maybe if coal mining was more profitable, higher taxes and more jobs would improve many areas. Granted coal companies have occasional years with good profits, the long term return on capital of coal companies has been terrible and several companies are currently in bankruptcy. It is easy to move many jobs for many industries off-shore, but you can’t move coal reserves which WV has. Leaders want to capitalize on our assets to create wealth. WV has lost a lot of citizens because of the failure to create jobs and grow the WV economy. Without growth you have poor, and the only growth industry in WV has been lawyers and maybe health care. Cost benefit analysis has to be done without emotions. Good luck, huh?
A simple query: if the profitability for coal companies is such a narrow proposition, then why do people like Don Blankenship make the money they do? How much talent does it take to NOT make a profit at something?
I’ve heard it asserted that a single Mountain Remover working on an extraction site can be responsible for as much as $50 million dollars worth of coal per year. For that, he MAY get $60,000. On the other hand, the CEO, who never drives a dozer, sets a charge, works in the dust and filth, and can’t even turn a profit (look at the number of quarterly losses for Massey over the years) brings home money measured in millions.
When it has to do with taxes or answering questions about why the areas with the most coal extracted are, without fail, the poorest, the coal companies plead their own poverty and narrow profit margins. When it’s time to sign the CEO’s check, however, the money flows faster than toxic waste from a mine blow-out.
“Wealth” is being created, alright; just not among working folks, and not in the communities most profoundly affected by Mountain Removal.
A skeptic might think that someone’s playing fast and loose with the books.
Casey, you’ve raised some valid questions. It’s a pity the coal industry wants nothing to do with honestly answering them.
Back to the water problems at Prenter.
While coal mining activity undoubtedly has played some part in the degradation of water quality in the Prenter watershed it is very possible that it is not the only contributor.
1. Mining activity, of various types, and by many different companies, has taken place in Prenter since the late 1800s, long before any type of regulation. I could be that the past is just catching up with us.
2. There is a reclaimed solid waste fill (garbage dump) on the Prenter side of Williams Mountain, which was used by Boone County for many years, which could be contributing to these problems.
3. Untreated sewage from homeowners has been, and still is, drained into the entire length of Prenter hollow.
4. It is definitely beyond comprehension that illegal drug activity (meth labs) has contributed to the problem.
While it pains me somewhat to agree with Mr. Ward, I do concede that water quality is a problem that Boone County officials need to deal with right away, and it should have been put into the budget long ago. However, I think we need to take a look at all of the possible contributors to this problem and not blame it entirely on the coal industry.
If it was “the past catching up with us,” wouldn’t one expect to have seen some degree or another of similar problems over the years in the same area? It appears, based upon scientific testing, that the past IS catching up with folks up Prenter Holler, but it’s the RECENT past (not shouting; don’t see a way to do “bold” or “italic” here). These problems started appearing in the wake of unregulated slurry dumping by the coal companies. While I agree that “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” doesn’t constitute proof, per se, it creates at least the appearance of something worth investigating.
I agree, Coal, that sewers going into creeks are a problem. The question, however, is whether human waste (sorry, Ken; not trying to be icky for icky’s sake) contains heavy metals like arsenic and selenium, among others. If they do, it’s not because such heavy metals occur in high concentrations in normal human excresence. It has to come from somewhere else.
Are arsenic and selenium by-products of a meth lab? How many meth labs would Prenter Holler need to make the water there as toxic as it is?
Meth labs, human waste and even a county dump all pale by comparison with the toxins in coal waste, which has been dumped by the thousands (millions? billions? who knows?) of gallons in the areas adjacent to Prenter.
Mr. Kincaid,
My point: There is a water quality problem, but there is no definative proof that the currently permitted and regulated coal operators are responsible for causing the problem.
Lets quit playing the blame game and get this particular problem taken care of.
The main thing is that Boone County needs to step up and put an emergency plan into action to get potable water to the Prenter area.
AS a resident of Prenter area for 30 years I’d like to say we have tried every avenue with all levels of government. No one wanted to listen much less help us until we got outside reporters interested and it took lawyers to get our water tested. WE started out trying to “just” get water without blame but it doesn’t work that way in Boone co. Also my husband was an underground, union miner for 30 yrs. He was forced into retirement because the coal company didn’t report his injury and is still fighting him for what’s rightfully his….his worker’s comp benefits. This has been going on since Oct. 2004. He was forced to retire so we can have health care that also tells our doctors what meds we can take or they won’t pay for it. My husband is one with stage 3 kidney damage. I could not even get one local reporter to write a story about his injury not being reported. So yes coal rules in Boone county, WV.
The people of the valley and the organizations have brought temporary clean water to Prenter. They have also worked to make the agencies move faster to get water permanent water to Prenter.
But there are other communities out there just like Prenter and Rawl, that have no idea their illness may be because their well water has been tainted. People are working to identify those communities as well.
All people deserve clean water. Even if it is a just a possibility, people that live close to sludge injection sites should know about that possibility.
The WV DEP suspected that injected sludge/slurry moves. The company knows too, as I know a few security guards that “guard” the point where the company thinks some slurry is likely to “pop” out at. Of course they won’t talk to some one that could make the difference, but they know. And they tell family and locals.
There is also concern with the slurry/sludge dams that sit over old abandoned mine works (especially with only 100 feet between dam and old mine works) that could leach into underground water.
With a lawsuit, the dots to make that connection and proof should be evident soon.
Coal,
What you call “the blame game” is also known as “establishing liability.” If the science establishes, as it appears to be doing, that coal companies are responsible for the water problems, who should pay to remedy them: the companies who are liable or the taxpayers who are not?
In the end, it all comes back to that question Ken keeps asking, but no coal advocates seem willing or capable to answer: why are the poorest, most stricken areas of this state the places in which coal most thrives? Corrollary to that: what do we do about it?
[…] Blogs @ The Charleston Gazette - » Mountaintop removal, coal and your Sunday paper 2009 March 30 tags: blog, mountaintop removal, op-ed, West Virginia by caostaff Blogs @ The Charleston Gazette - » Mountaintop removal, coal and your Sunday paper. […]
Mr. Ward:
I follow your articles and blog occasionally, and find you to be a fairly reputable journalist who appears to want to give the coal industry reasonable opportunities to defend itself from the increasing storm of protest against it. There is one particular statement used by yourself and other journalists to condemn coal mining that is grossly exaggerated and totally untrue, and is unjustly turning reasonable readers against coal mining on a daily basis.
The persistent, totally untrue and outrageous claims being made by yourself and other journalists that “tons of mine waste debris are being dumped in the streams and rivers of Appalachia by coal mining†appear to be a blatant and calculated attempt to misrepresent the truth to readers. This obvious misrepresentation and distortion of facts clearly violates the very code of ethics for a journalist that is the cornerstone of journalism credibility.
The following quotation comes from the Society of Professional Journalist’s website “Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty.â€
It goes on to say that all journalists should:
Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible. And that journalists should always “Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.†See the below web site for further details.
http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
In truth the only “streams†affected by the valley fill method as applied by coal mining are ephemeral streams. Wikipedia’s definition of a stream is “…a body of water less than 60 feet wide with a current, confined within a bed and stream banksâ€. No such dumping of debris in these type waters are allowed or condoned by anyone, nor should they be. The definition of an ephemeral stream is “streams that flow only during and immediately after precipitation†and goes on to say that “ …there is no clear demarkation between surface runoff and ephemeral streamâ€. The mountain hollow drains that only flow during heavy precipitation events are the only “streams†affected by hollowfills, and it’s time yourself and other “credible†journalists followed your own code of ethics and made that clear to your readers.
While the actual legal definition and perception of “stream areas†can be debated by reasonable minds from both sides, the sensationalist and grossly exaggerated journalistic trend to define coal mining excess spoil areas at the head of hollows as “destroying streams and rivers†clearly borders on the ridiculous to those who truly understand what’s happening.
Also, you recently wrote a column that referred to mining as the top national polluter of toxic releases. What you didn’t mention in sufficient detail is that coal mining toxic releases were a small percentage of what the actual top polluter industry was (metal mining) as reported by the EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory data for CY 2007. What you also conveniently disregarded was that the closest industry polluter to coal mining with toxic releases was the printing/ publishing industry, which ran very close to coal on the EPA/TRI 2007 statistics as recently released. (See website at http://www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/tri07/pdr/SectionB.pdf), page B-8 for specific data).
No reasonable person can honestly say that coal mining does not have its fair share of environmental concerns, however it is one of the most highly regulated industries in the country. Also journalists always seem to ignore all the
All most of the coal industry people ask is that you and other journalists refrain from gross exaggeration and misrepresentation to the general public of the actual impacts, and put its issues in a fair context with other industries (including your own). Then we can discuss ways to help the industry become better environmental stewards while affordable alternative energy options are being developed.
Jeff
Jeff,
Thanks for reading, and thanks for your post and your kind words.
I should not for the record that I am not a member of the Society of Professional Journalists. That’s not to say I necessarily have that big a problem with their Code of Ethics. I’m just not a member. I am a member of the Society of Environmental Journalists (www.sej.org), which has a much more stringent membership criteria to keep out people who do PR or lobbying.
Anyway, to respond to your points:
1. Not to bee too blunt, but you’re wrong on the issue of waste dumping in streams. Ephemeral streams at NOT the only streams affected by valley fills. You can pull any Corps of Engineers permit document and see what for yourself. Both the Programmatic EIS and the Buffer Zone EIS make this clear.
Further, the science described in both of those studies — as well as numerous peer-reviewed articles such as the one by Greg Pond and Margaret Passmore at EPA explains that the damage to these headwaters streams is a serious threat to downstream water quality and ecology. That study is available at EPA’s website, as is the programmatic EIS.
2. On the TRI post you mention, you must not have read the whole thing…any reader could easily see that metal mining was by far the greater polluter, and that coal’s numbers were much smaller. As I wrote:
The metal mining sector reported nearly 1.2 billion pounds of toxic releases and waste disposal, according to disclosures companies filed with EPA. Coal mining reported far less, but still more than 13.4 million pounds of emissions and waste disposal. Both sectors cut their emissions, coal by about 10 percent and metal mining by 8 percent.
Anybody who reads that can see that 13.4 million pounds is far smaller than 1.2 billion pounds. At least I think my readers are smart enough to know that.
As for your comments regarding printing and publishing, thanks for that information. No — I haven’t written about that. But this is a blog about mining, not about general environmental issues or about environmental issues relating to printing and publishing. I’d encourage you to start such a blog. I for one would read it.
Ken.
I believe that 90% of the population thinks these “streams” are some place that you might trout fish after reading a news article. And 90% of them, don’t really care about the issues. Anyway, I enjoyed the exchange.
Mr. Kincaid has repeated the question why we have poor areas where coal is mined. Do we know that these areas would be less poor without coal? I think that prosperity comes from growth and from jobs, particularly higher paying jobs. Higher paying jobs employ educated people in more value added industries. Coal mining provides good paying jobs but has not been a growth industry. We need growth industries that require education and training for many of the positions so young people will not move out of state after their education. I think coal communities would be worst off economically without coal mining. County administrators can tell you of all the services that would be cut. It is good to see some industries locate on reclaimed mining sites. It would be good to have our state liabilities funded and our courts more moderate, so more businesses would be attracted to WV. Wild & Wonderful and Open for Business.
Leave a Comment