Mountaintop removal question: Elected officials respond
Readers may recall that I took up the challenge last week from Clem Guttata at West Virginia Blue, who asked who would be the first reporter in West Virginia to get one of our elected officials to answer this question:
“If West Virginia wants to maximize coal mining employment, doesn’t more underground mining do that instead of more mountain top mining?â€
I posed this question to U.S. Sens. Robert C. Byrd and Jay Rockefeller, Reps. Nick J. Rahall, Alan Mollohan and Shelley Moore Capito, and Gov. Joe Manchin. I gave them a deadline of noon today to respond…I got responses back from Rockefeller, Rahal, Capito and Manchin. Nothing from Byrd or Mollohan. Here’s what they said. What do you think?
Sen. Jay Rockefeller:
“We need to keep all options on the table to maximize jobs and protect our local economies in these difficult times. Underground mining should be pursued where ever practicable. However in some areas surface mining is the only economically viable way to access the coal resources.
“I think back to when I served as Governor, and I pushed for haulback technologies for West Virginia coal mining, which was a system that would create more jobs with more environmental protections. Initially, this was met with resistance, but it worked well to prevent sediment from running off the mountain, and ultimately employed more people in the coal mines.
“When it comes down to coal mining techniques, our solutions must keep jobs and local economies at the forefront, but that doesn’t mean we can’t also make progress for the environment and for West Virginias’ quality of life. We can and we will.”
Rep. Nick J. Rahall:
“In general, underground coal mining generates more employment although not all coal seams lend themselves to this form of extraction. As it currently stands, there are more people employed by underground mining operations in West Virginia than at surface mines. According to the Energy Information Administration, 13,441 people were employed by underground coal mining operations and 6,608 worked for surface coal mining operations in West Virginia in 2007.”
Rep. Shelley Moore Capito:
“Coal is one of our nation’s most abundant energy resources and it provides nearly all of West Virginia’s electricity power. Like many in our state, I believe coal and the thousands of jobs it produces can and should play a key role in the economy of our state and in the push for broad-based energy independence.
“We know that coal reserves that are suitable for surface mining aren’t always suitable for underground mining. But we also know that much of the same permitting process applies to both types of mining, and the current controversy over one set of permits is likely to have an impact on coal mining in general.
“The larger question is over the direction this Congress and the Administration appear to be taking when it comes to coal. We’ve seen the first salvo from the EPA, and we know that the burden from the cap-and-trade debate looming on the horizon would fall squarely on the back of states like ours.
“We all have an interest in ensuring that mining practices leave a smaller long-term footprint in our communities, but to abandon mining altogether risks thousands of West Virginia jobs.”
Gov. Joe Manchin:
“The governor understands just how vital coal mining is to our state’s economy and what it means for the opportunity to provide quality jobs to our citizens. Regardless of the method used to extract coal - from underground to surface mining - the governor wants to make sure that safety is at the forefront of the mining process. In the case of which form of mining is more effective at maximizing employment, the governor feels that the coal reserve base will determine which form is the best practice.Â
It is important to note that he believes that there is a balance to be had involving mining and that there must be a purposeful and beneficial post-mine land use plan in place to benefit our citizens.Â
One of the world’s most-pressing issues is the growing demand for energy. The governor believes that West Virginia will continue provide the coal that powers this nation, by doing it in a cleaner and more responsible manner.â€Â
13 comments
It appears to me that the coal industry and assorted politicians are saying on the one hand, that we have 200 years of coal left, but on the other hand, that we have so few coal seams left we have to do MTR or we’ll not have any coal to mine.
If we really had 200 years of coal left to mine, then it would seem to me that we would take our time using the method that had the least impact and employed the most workers — and limiting one form of mining wouldn’t have much impact on our ability to get at the remaining reserves.
What do others think of this potential discrepancy in the talking points?
In a period of economic uncertainty, if we believe we can reduce coal production by banning or limiting mountaintop mining, without impacting the price of electricity, steel, or other industry impacts, then have at it. While we are at it, why not increase the gas tax by $2 per gallon. More money for road construction (jobs), and more conservation by families that drive to much. We would reduce national consumption of oil, imports of oil and enjoy new tax revenue. If my logic works, Cap & Trade would be great for us as well.
How much of our electricity is generated by coal?? Less American coal means MORE imports of coal from South America, and less employment income for WV families. I wish we could have it all, but that has never seemed to work for my family.
[…] via Blogs @ The Charleston Gazette - » Mountaintop removal question: Elected officials respond. […]
West Virginia’s political leaders still believe that we need to meet the growing demand for energy, but right now that demand is shrinking due to the ongoing economic crisis. A recent study (http://www.dailynews.lk/2009/03/25/fea02.asp) has shown carbon dioxide emissions could go down from %40 to %50 by the end of this year. That means we are using less, not more energy, and that includes coal.
So why not leave the thin seams of coal in the ground for now, while we wean ourselves off of fossil fuels, which will be necessary to avoid the worst effects of climate change?
West Virginia’s leaders are living in the past and need to join in the effort to reduce carbon emissions now or risk being left behind. I know this blog is about coal mining, but the real issue we are dealing with here is climate change and its potentially disastrous effects to all life on Earth. While there is much more at stake in this debate than just mining jobs, the solutions, like developing domestic wind and solar power, would create more and better jobs without destroying the mountains and streams on which West Virginians also depend for their livelihoods.
Thanks for your comment Mike…as for the topics covered by this blog, we certainly do cover climate change issues…some of the general science, but most specifically as it concerns coal.
See the CCS, Climate Policy and Climate Science topics for more posts on this. Ken.
Readers,
Also, I’m going to pass this along — Mark Ferrell, a spokesman for Sen. Byrd, says that Sen. Byrd answers the question this way:
“Yes.”
Surface Production 2006 44% of WV Total, Surface 2007 45% of WV Total. Can we cut 40% of WV coal production without impact? OK, no NEW surface operations, so we lose 10% of prodction a year as existing surface operations finish producing. Ask a coal miner about the thickness of a seam of surface coal vs underground. Then ask the underground folks how many large seam jobs remain.
I encourage some readers to get more facts. Underground jobs will not replace surface jobs, and certainly the cost per ton from harder to reach underground seams will not be lower than surface mined coal.
Is this the “change” you wanted?
Right now the choice underground operations are underway or already exhausted. ICG is mining over two thousand feet down in the Pocahontas 3 seam. I guess some people think its better to put more miners below drainage and have incresed risk of methane emissions or drowning than to operate on the surface; or maybe its just easier to put someone else’s life at risk. You don’t have to do it, so what does it matter?
I’ve seen that “change” query more than once. Are you under the impression that Obama carried West Virginia? He didn’t.
Because West Virginia went with McCain, it leaves Obama the relative political luxury of doing the right thing, without bowing and scraping to the corporate executives who worked tirelessly to defeat him. Among other things, that may mean nothing more complex than taking the muzzle off the EPA that’s been there for the last eight years.
This inquiry goes far beyond “jobs,” and to suggest otherwise betrays a rather obvious bias.
Thank you very much for asking this question (a longer acknowledgment here: http://www.wvablue.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4226 ).
A nice side-effect of recent EPA letters… our state’s political leaders now take these kinds of questions more seriously. You mentioned something along these lines on your blog recently: in the past, when a player like labor broached the topic of changes in coal mining, it got its hand slapped.
Now there is room to have (more) rational science-based discussions. That’s a start toward finding answers that will work for the most West Virginians both short-term and long-term.
Fred Mills important comment brings me back to my worry — it seems to me that we are running out of coal in WV — why else would people be saying there’s hardly any underground mine-able coal left and we need to get at every last thin coal seam via strip mining?
Like Mr. Mills, I don’t want to see underground miners up to their knees/necks in water, but I also don’t want to see us stripping away God’s mountains for a few inches of coal.
But, my point is, I think the fact that we are doing either of these things means that coal is running out.
This makes me very concerned, and I think we need to start thinking yesterday about a swift and just diversification of our economy here in WV.
I would like to see our elected officials thoughts on that issue. i could be wrong — but how else do they justify the type of dangerous mining we’re doing right now?
This is not meant as self-promotion, but I’d like to make sure that readers know that I addressed the jobs issue, including some of the surface vs. underground issues, in this Sunday’s Perspectives section with some pretty good data to back it up - here’s the link:
http://www.wvgazette.com/Opinion/Op-EdCommentaries/200903280393
But I’d like to add a little more that there wasn’t space for in that commentary. First of all, to reiterate from the commentary, the Hill & Associates study from 2001 indicated that there would be some compensation from underground mines if valley fill permitting was restricted - not enough to replace all of the reduction in mountaintop removal production, but a significant amount. That doesn’t mean the same exact seams would be mined using underground methods, but that the market for underground mined coal would improve.
More importantly, what most of the respondents fail to recognize or address is the fact that demand for Appalachian coal is way down in 2009 and mines are being idled left and right - almost all underground mines. Here are some excerpts from some recent coal industry publications to drive home the point:
“How much more does production need to be cut in the Eastern coal- fields? The simple answer from a large number of producers and sellers is: a whole lot more.
Most large producers have already announced sizeable trimming efforts, and reductions by smaller operators, while more difficult to estimate, are no doubt taking place. But in the current market environment in which demand is seriously slumping, the cutbacks are expected to continue in fairly big numbers. ”
From: “Production cuts? Ain’t seen nothin’ yet” in the March 23rd, 2009, edition of the U.S Coal Review.
Why is this relevant? Because if an avalanche of 404 permits goes through, it will mean that a whole lot of underground mines will be idled right away and there will be a massive production shift toward lower-cost surface mining methods. Here’s how a commentary in the Coal & Energy Price Report from February 16th described the likely fallout of the 4th Circuit ruling that released the avalanche of pending permits:
” “Mines that were forced into long haul-backs will now be able to start using a permitted valley fill site and reduce costs,†a market analyst noted.
In general, the decreased threat to surface mining is bearish to prices. The spread between the cost of deep- and surface-mine coal will “probably be pretty significant,†a mining executive said. The heavy regulatory impact on the cost of underground mining has not been relieved, and on the surface front, “the black cloud looks like it’s going to go away,†for a while.
Given the weak economy and downward pressure on coal prices, in general, the table suddenly has tilted in such a way that more underground mines will be in danger of falling off the cliff. Deep mine operators who have been reluctant to idle mines in the face of a potential forced shut- down of surface jobs might re-think their hesitation.”
To summarize, then, this is not as simple as surface miners losing jobs. The whole industry is contracting at the moment and if the EPA were to focus on protecting a small number of surface mining jobs, they would do so at the expense of an even greater number of underground jobs.
The National Mining Association is not interested in jobs, they are representing the big companies who are looking for nothing more than bigger profits. Unfortunately, that’s where the campaign contributions come from, not the workers, and so many legislators are dancing to the NMA’s tune.
Miners should keep all this in mind - as far as I’ve heard, there are no Massey executive offices in danger of being idled.
Limiting surface coal production would certainly result in other coal production, some of which could be WV deep mining with more manhours required per ton. I just don’t buy that this is really what coal critics want. Valley fills are still required for waste. Deep mining has higher injury rates. Methane is released from deep mines, particularly as deeper seams are mined, and methane can cause more warming than CO2 (are you still eating beef?). And you still have coal being burned.
What you really want is no coal so why not abandon this argument?
Leave a Comment