I’m trying to figure out if Logan County Friend of Coal Art Kirkendoll got what he wanted out of today’s two-hour, closed-door meeting between West Virginia political leaders and executives of most of the state’s major coal producers.
We’ve posted a news story on the event, West Virginia leaders seek coal answers from White House, on the Gazette’s Web site. As the lead says, the outcome of the meeting is some sort of friendly agreement among Gov. Joe Manchin and the state’s congressional delegation to speak “with one voice” to try to clarify what the Obama administration is up to on coal policies.
Everybody seemed to agree with the comments from the two coal executives Manchin invited to address the press in the Capitol during a “media availability” after the meeting — which was moved at the last minute from a public conference room in the Capitol building to the “party tent” Manchin had erected adjacent to the governor’s mansion for social events.
Patriot Coal President Paul Vining and CONSOL Energy President Brett Harvey both said that the U.S. EPA is changing the rules regarding Clean Water Act permits for strip mines, and the industry just wants to know exactly what those rules are now.
Their remarks (there are quotes from both in my print story) were a far cry from the yelling and shouting by hundreds of coal miners at the now-infamous Corps of Engineers permit hearing/pro-coal rally.Vining and Harvey didn’t sound much like state Sen. Majority Leader Truman Chafin, either. Vining even appeared to acknowledge the conclusions of a previous Coal Tattoo post, that is, that there isn’t an immediate permit crisis that calls for immediate action by EPA:
We’re very concerned about our employees in the long term. It may not be next week or next month.
Not that Vining and his company aren’t concerned. He told reporters that Patriot Coal now employs 600 to 800 fewer employees in West Virginia:
I’m not implying that’s because of permits. It’s because of economic conditions. But as we add more uncertainty, it adds that much more risk.
Also interesting was that Rockefeller said that the White House meeting West Virginia leaders are seeking doesn’t have to be a face-to-face with President Obama — something Manchin had previously sought.
The press conference struck me as one of these times when everybody was trying to be on their best behavior. Rockefeller put it this way:
We’re tired of the yakking. We’re tired of people screaming at each other. Honest dialogue is what’s needed.
Manchin did slip up once and start down the road of talking about the federal government “usurping the power” of the state. I’m told that during the closed-door meeting, Rep. Shelley Moore Capito actually asked what the state could do to force EPA to return West Virginia’s “sovereignty.”
After the meeting, Rep. Nick J. Rahall told me that he continues to believe that EPA is doing its job by reviewing Clean Water Act permit applications pending before the federal Army Corps of Engineers:
What we’re into here is the implementation and enforcement of the Clean Water Act by EPA as the law gives them the right to do.
Rahall said that previous failure by EPA to enforce the law was part of what led to environmental group lawsuits that bottled up permit issuance by the Corps of Engineers.
Rahall and Capito, the only Republican member of the state’s congressional delegation, agreed on one thing: That they want to get the political component out of the discussion of the future of coal mining.
Rahall said: “We have to get beyond the premise that this is about politics.”
Capito said: “It really doesn’t matter the politics of it. It’s all about these folks and the people they employ and the communities they live in.”
But there was one big elephant that wasn’t in the room when those comments were made … Massey Energy President Don Blankenship attended the closed-door session, but did I didn’t see him at the press conference, and he certainly didn’t go to the podium and speak.
And over at the West Virginia Red blog, here’s what one of Blankenship’s former political operatives wrote that today’s meeting was supposed to be about:
The environmental extremists don’t get it. Today’s meeting is not about saving the environment or finding some balance between mining coal and saving salamanders. This meeting is about formulating a strategy to combat the Obama administration’s assault on coal and the mining industry.
Most of the environmental groups that are supportive of the Obama administration’s policy on coal have no desire to find a compromise between the coal industry and the environment. The end goal for them is to completely eliminate coal, coal mining, and mining jobs from our state and country’s energy mix.
It’s very simple to understand. You don’t invite people who are trying to destroy your industry or business to a meeting where you plan to discuss the course of action required to save your industry.
For example, can you imagine the President inviting Taliban representatives to the meetings he his currently hosting to formulate our strategy in Afghanistan? The environmental movement has no desire to see the “big bad” coal operators, their employees, and their shareholders do well. The environmental movement wants to kill the coal industry.
There are also rumors swirling about the political implications from today’s meeting. Environmental extremists are speculating that one or more of the conservative Democrats at today’s meeting is considering a primary challenge against Congressman Nick Rahall. Others speculate that a high profile Democrat could switch parties and take on Rahall as a Republican.
Congressman Nick Rahall deserves a Democrat primary challenge; after all he has said the Environmental Protection Agency is just doing its job. Rahall has grown more liberal and more confident as his seniority in the House has grown. He has lost touch with the Democrats and West Virginians he represents in Congress.
I don’t know what was said during the closed-door meeting … but I know this isn’t what West Virginia’s political leaders — including Rep. Capito, who is certainly pretty popular with the West Virginia Red blog crowd — were telling the press after the meeting.
And last, but most certainly not least in all of this: While we don’t know where Sen. Robert C. Byrd is going to come down on all of this exactly (his West Virginia staff director, Anne Barth, declined to speak at the press conference), Sen. Rockefeller had some mighty interesting things to say about whether increased regulation and limitation of mountaintop removal is needed:
It isn’t going to be the same as it always has been. We have to make adjustments.
I don’t think so much about mayflies, but I do think about those people [who live downstream]. There will have to be adjustments.
Subscribe to the Coal Tattoo
At the very least, it seems quite obvious now that someone was being less than truthful about what the agenda of the meeting was. Any excuses given for keeping out potentially dissenting voices were just that–excuses. Gov. Manchin might as well have just come right out and said that only the interests of coal company CEOs were of interest to him today.
It sure looks like coal CEOs have got their political representation all lined up now… what about the rest of us?
Who will speak for residents negatively impacted by mountaintop removal? Who will speak for the residents of the Dunkard Creek watershed? Who will speak for anyone else who views West Virginia as a Mountain State, not an extraction state?
I’ve got a longer response to the meeting here:
http://www.wvablue.com/diary/5256/ask-not-what-you-can-do-for-coal-but-what-you-can-for-west-virginia
[...] Blogs @ The Charleston Gazette – » Manchin’s big closed-door coal industry summit blogs.wvgazette.com – view page – cached I’m trying to figure out if Logan County Friend of Coal Art Kirkendoll got what he wanted out of today’s two-hour, closed-door meeting between West Virginia political leaders and executives of… Read moreI’m trying to figure out if Logan County Friend of Coal Art Kirkendoll got what he wanted out of today’s two-hour, closed-door meeting between West Virginia political leaders and executives of most of the state’s major coal Read less [...]
First, this closed-door, private meeting with industry sure reminds me an awful lot of the way Arch Moore ran the Governor’s Office. Has Manchin been taking notes?
Second, it looks like Rahall is the only one willing to bluntly say “Things were done wrong in the past and now we’re paying for it.” Although Rockefeller seems to agree that peoples’ welfare is more important than somebody’s pocketbook.
They’re not changing the rules, they’re just enforcing the rules that West Virginia’s DEP was ignoring at the behest of the politicians. It should be obvious to Kirkendoll whether the permit is legal or not.
Its hard not to agree with the comparison between Arch Moore & Joe Manchin. If you notice in the article, Capito & Manchin have taken the same line about states’ rights against the EPA. Haven’t heard much of that kind of talk since the fight to save segregation.
reminds me of Bush II’s private Energy Meeting – details of which are still not known –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Task_Force
It would be nice if you could write an article without all the little blue highlight shots at the coal industry. It would also be nice if you could write a full article without all the gramatical errors. Hope they turn off your power and you freeze in the dark.
Rockefeller’s comment is interesting, in view of what he said about MTR today on “West Virginia Morning” ( http://www.wvpubcast.org/newsarticle.aspx?id=11995 ): “We need it, we can’t exist without it, because you can’t build a high school, you can’t build a house, you can’t build an industrial park without having a place to put it.
“So, we go up there and we make our case. Yes, they will see us. Will they be entirely comfortable about it? I’m not sure, and I don’t care.”
Secondly, Brian, to what “gramatical errors” are you referring? I’m pretty nerdy about grammar, and Ken’s not a writer who makes many such errors. And you’re not in a very good position to be throwing stones, in view of the misspelled word in your comment,
Well I guess they have made their goal clear.
“The environmental extremists don’t get it. Today’s meeting is not about saving the environment or finding some balance between mining coal and saving salamanders.”
Environmental extremist? I ask; what can be more extreme than blasting an entire mountain into a pile of rock and mud rubble, endangering the lives of the communities below with boulders, fly-rock, poisoned water, and poisoned air? Salamanders? It’s not the Salamanders we are trying to protect. It is us that we are trying to protect.
This meeting is no different than Obama’s and the pharmaceutical industry or Hillary Clinton’s and her private meetings on healthcare in the early 1990′s. Are coal company personel allowed to sit in on meetings with the EPA and the “consultants” they are using to prop up their so called new evidence of surface mining’s downstream impacts.
Also the EPAs actions don’t just impact Mountaintop Removal but all mining surface, underground, and refuse areas.
So, the fact that Rockefeller acknowledges that surface mining can’t continue the same as it always qualifies as an Earth-shattering comment? I think even the evil coal industry is smart enough to realize that it can’t go forward using the status quo. What this blog never seems to acknowledge, however, is that it is very difficult for an industry to meet the demands of regulators when those regulators keep changing their demands. The EPA’s latest actions represent quite a drastic change from how the federal government was handling surface mine permits. Do you really expect the coal industry to sit back and watch a 180-degree regulatory turn without questioning it?
Mighty interesting:
You need to actually read my blog a little more carefully before saying that it “never seems to acknowledge” something.
The very post you commented on, for example, quoted comments from two coal CEOs making the point you complain Coal Tattoo never reports on:
“Patriot Coal President Paul Vining and CONSOL Energy President Brett Harvey both said that the U.S. EPA is changing the rules regarding Clean Water Act permits for strip mines, and the industry just wants to know exactly what those rules are now.”
The same point has been made in other posts:
http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2009/11/04/coal-tattoo-investigates-is-there-a-mtr-permit-crisis/
http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2009/10/15/rahall-uses-clean-water-act-hearing-to-defend-mtr/
http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2009/10/02/epa-and-mtr-heres-whats-wrong-with-the-permits/
(And while EPA hasn’t been especially good and putting a precise bar up to show the coal industry how much damage is too much, my guess is that the coal industry would be complaining even if EPA did do that.)
http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2009/09/14/manchin-on-epa-and-mining-permits/
I’m not sure that any other media outlet has published as much material outlining the complaints the coal industry has about what EPA is and isn’t doing with permits … if so, I’d like to see it.
Ken.
There is only one way to properly regulate mountaintop removal and that is to outlaw it.
We obviously have very different opinions on what constitutes balanced journalism. To me, regurgitating some comments from industry here or there does not balance out all of the veiled (and not so veiled) potshots lobbed at industry in virtually every Coal Tattoo post.
This is a blog format and as the blogger you can use whatever tone or agenda you feel is appropriate, and I understand that. But to throw a bunch of links at me in an effort to convince me that you’re providing some kind of objective coverage of this issue is, frankly, a joke. The way to provide balanced coverage is not to outline industry’s stance in one sentence and then turn around in the next and criticize that stance (usually sarcastically).
If the goal of this blog is to report coal-related news while also bashing the big bad coal industry is your goal, then clearly you’ve succeeded. If you’re goal is to report coal-related news while also maintaining some sort of journalistic objectivity (which from your reply to me above seems to be of some importance to you), then you clearly have a long way to go.
If you really are an objective, professional journalist, why aren’t you covering any of these issues from the other side of the coin? For instance, why don’t you look into what is actually driving EPA Region 3 to be so hell bent on turning upside down a permitting system that has been years in the making? And why is it doing it without so much as setting any tangible or transparent regulatory goals for industry or, for that matter, its colleagues like the Corps? This is all being done behind closed doors with little to no transparency, but that isn’t an issue that seems worthy of any real journalistic probing. There are other angles to approach these stories than the hackneyed “Industry Bad/Environmentalists Good” angle.
Mighty interesting:
You’re welcome to your own views of what constitutes good journalism, and I appreciate your initial comment and your reply.
There’s an assumption built into your last paragraph though — that is, that there’s nothing wrong with this permitting system that “has been years in the making” and that what EPA is doing is therefore bad public policy.
So far, I haven’t seen credible evidence to support the notion that the permit process was working toward the ultimate goal of the Clean Water Act, that is, protecting the quality of our rivers and streams. Through quite a number of stories and (starting this year) blog posts, I’ve reported on the developing scientific consensus about the great damage being done to forests, streams and communities by mountaintop removal.
There’s little doubt in this journalists’ mind that the weight of the scientific evidence about this damage shows that the previous permitting process that you praise wasn’t protecting the environment. That’s not me saying it. That’s scientists. I’m just reporting their conclusions.
Do you agree that the damage was being done and that the previous permitting scheme wasn’t as protective as intended?
The next part of your question regards whether EPA is setting any “tangible and transparent” goals for industry.
Well, they’ve stated their goals are compliance with the water quality standards (including narrative standards) and with the 404(b)(1) guidelines.
Does the coal industry feel these standards are clear? No. Have I reported that? Yes.
However, and this is where I’ll agree with you …
Has EPA been as clear as it could have been about stating where the line is between what it considers acceptable and not acceptable in meeting those guidelines? Of course not.
Have I reported that fact? Yes.
You complain about me posting a long line of links to previous things I’ve written. But if you would actually read those stories, you’d see that I’ve pointed out several times that EPA hasn’t stated a clear goal in a way that the industry finds understandable…the very thing you complain I haven’t reported.
And as for whether I have explored the transparency, or lack of transparency, of what EPA has or hasn’t been done … well, I’d suggest you make a call to the EPA Administrator’s press office and ask what reporter bugs them the most for answers to these kinds of questions.
On that score, though, I think you have to ask yourself: Was the coal industry complaining when the Bush administration went behind closed doors and hijacked the EIS to turn it into a way to streamline permitting, rather than toughen environmental standards, as had been intended?
And, in some ways, isn’t industry’ argument that — “Oh gosh, why won’t EPA tell us what their goal for us is?” — a bit of a PR red herring? My guess is that ANY change in standards would meet opposition, no matter how clearly EPA explained it … that’s what industries do. They fight increased regulation of their activities. I’ll have a very interesting new post soon about that very point.
In the meantime, if you have any specific questions that you feel EPA needs to answer (other than the standard, “Why are you out to shut down the coal industry”?), post them, and I’m happy to try to get answers.
Ken.
There are, indeed, one heck of a lot of “rules” about coal mining.
This is hardly suprising — coal mining affects so many aspects of our world — the air, the water, nearby communities, the economy, our transportation system, worker’s health and benefits and safety, etc., etc.
And, it’s also not suprising that these rules are the subject of a lot of competing pressures.
One point that my late friend Richard diPretoro, a former underground coal miner who got a master’s degree in hydrogeology, used to make, was that there is a particular pressure on coal business interests to push the limits of and indeed, try to “roll back” ANY set of rules.
Richard would say: “there’s lots more mineable coal in the ground all over the world than is needed at any given moment, and usually a surplus of capital, people, and machines to can dig it up. The almost unlimited supply in the ground at any time, the relatively inelastic demand for coal, combined with a surplus of what you need for production, means that the companies that can reduce costs below competitors are going to win out, creating a constant pressure to reduce costs.”
He would continue, “One classic way to reduce costs is to reduce the costs associated with the rules about mining — legacy costs for former miners’ benefits, water treatment, spoil placement, whatever.”
Richard contrasted the coal business with the chemical industry, with huge fixed capital plant costs, which he said really did want certainty and fixed rules, and then could live with them, even if they were very strict and costly. “Coal,” he said, “will always be pushing against the rules.”
My take is that a lot of people in the coal business did a pretty successful job of limiting and even “rolling back” certain costs under the Bush Administration.
Now, under the Democrats, there’s pushback from people who have environmental concerns as a priority, because (as one high-placed West Virginia political leader recently told me, “the coal people got greedy.”
According to Richard’s analysis, that’s sort of a built-in feature of the industry. I’m no economist, but I respected Richard’s take, and it comports with my limited experience. What do you think, Coal Tattooistas?
Ken, that was an excellent reply and thought provoking. There is no question that mining, like most all of man’s activities, does do damage to the environment. Congress has recognized the need to balance the energy needs of the nation with environmental protection. Many at the Governor’s summit also acknowledge this. Not everyone agrees on what this balance is.
The coal industry has changed and improved protections as required by regulators. Many people that comment in this blog do not want any kind of balance such as Bo who says “There is only one way to properly regulate mountaintop removal and that is to outlaw it.”
So how does Obama’s EPA define balance concerning the largest domestic energy source? If they can’t articulate a specific answer then let’s continue as we were until they can answer the question.
Casey,
I wouldn’t presume to speak for Bo … but I think that what I hear from some in the environmental community is that their idea of balance is to eliminate mountaintop removal, but continue to have coal mined, mostly — if not entirely — underground.
Their view is that “balance” would be best achieved by eliminating what is a very damaging form of surface mining, and allowing coal to be mined in other ways.
And while the UMWA has noted that the Sierra Club’s PR releases seem aimed at eliminating all coal, it’s interesting to note that their report, covered here on Coal Tattoo, suggested continued — and in fact, increased — mining by deep mining methods:
http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2009/10/13/mtr-economics-limits-wont-be-the-end-of-the-world/
I’m not saying they’re right about that … and folks in the coal industry make the point that permit challenges being undertaken by EPA and some rule changes advocated by the environmental community also affect deep mining and impoundments. And of course, environmental and citizen groups challenge permits for some strip mines that they believe would cause unacceptable damage.
Tom makes some great points about the back-and-forth of how regulations are written and enforced in a political system where the leadership philosophy of agencies can change every four years. Of course, elections do have consequences. And while West Virginia didn’t support the current president’s election, enough of the rest of the nation did.
Tom mentions his friend Richard diPretoro, whom I had the fortune of meeting in the mid-1980s in Morgantown and getting to know. Richard used to tell me back then that global warming was going to force American society to burn less coal and that he though it would be good to start moving slowly in that direction, to help blunt the negative economic impacts.
Richard’s idea was to stop the most damaging forms of mining which, back then, many folks considered to be mining in the acid-producing seams in northern West Virginia, in Preston, Mon and Taylor counties. I often wonder what Richard would say today about mountaintop removal.
Again, folks, I’m working on what I hope will be a very interesting post on these issues … stay tuned, and I’ll look forward to your comments.
Ken.
Hey Brian,
Just in from “Usage and Abusage”: A full article or a complete article?
Yes on Ken’s comment:
“what I hear from some in the environmental community is that their idea of balance is to eliminate mountaintop removal, but continue to have coal mined, mostly — if not entirely — underground.”
This is the common opinion of coalfield resident activists and environmental activists here.
That said, it’s obvious that as a society we also need to be moving to more renewable energy and energy efficiency – coal will run out sooner than many think, according to some experts who say there may only be 20 yrs left of mineable coal. Other experts give longer projections.
Regardless, with global warming a transition does need to begin.
Community owned financial models for wind power are being successfully used elsewhere in the US – see Windustry.com if you’re interested in learning more about a more decentralized approach to wind that is shown to provide more jobs for local people, and keeps more of the profits in the community, as compared to corporate wind.
I find it interesting that people without a degree in Mine engineering or geology keep saying that we can mine ALL coal using underground methods. YOU CANT, geology prohibits this,Not the greedy coal companys. Be prepared for two things if Surface mining is outlawed. One, the death rate in underground coal mines will skyrocket. This due to inexperienced miners entering the work force and to coal seams being mined that will not support proper roof or rib conditions. Two, Longwall technology is advancing toward automated low vein systems that can mine in as low as 3′. That means that a longwall might be under your house in the near future.
My husband worked in 29 inch coal for many years. If he would have had 3 feet of coal he would have thought he was in heaven. Longwall mining has been around here since at least the early 70′s. None of us know if the coal underneath us has been longwalled or not. They installed a longwall system in 42 inch coal back in the 70′s also. Stop using scare tactics. What you are saying is very old news to men who have worked underground for many years.
We knew enough about it that we bought subsidence insurance on our home many many years ago. Too bad we can’t get MTR insurance on our homes now.
Scott 14 –
you need to read more closely what people are saying before you comment … I don’t think anybody is saying that ALL of the coal in Appalachia can be mined by underground methods.
And in fact, Coal Tattoo’s discussion of that very issue has been pretty detailed and sophisticated…
For example, we published this guest blog from mining engineer Gene Kitts of ICG:
http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2009/07/23/special-guest-blog-exclusive-why-surface-mine/
In that, Gene explained some of the technical and geologic (and economic) reasons for choosing surface mining for one site as opposed to deep mining.
But we also had this blog post that I wrote based on statements from Patriot Coal executives and experts about how at many of their sites, they can mine much of the available coal (though not at all sites, and certainly not all of the coal) by deep mining methods:
http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2009/08/14/exclusive-patriot-coal-says-we-can-mine-it-underground/
Even the Sierra Club report I mentioned in my comments here said only that “some” of the coal currently mined by MTR could be mined by underground means.
As for the dangers of underground mining, I’m sure that if companies such as yours, CONSOL, work hard they can avoid any increase in death or injury rates, and I’m also sure that CONSOL’s CEO, Brett Harvey, will continue to advocate that the industry stop accepting injuries, deaths and violations — and work toward the goal of zero in all of those areas.
Ken.
The only folks missing were the Baldwin Felts Detective agency.
Ken,
I sit in a presentation from Gene Kitts today. He has a civil engineering degree, not a mining engineering degree. That’s not saying he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, he’s very intelligent, I just wanted to point that out. He even mentioned you in the presentation today and the interview you posted.
Nanette,
Your husband may have worked in very thin seams of coal many years ago, but like others have mentioned it just isn’t economical or near as safe for today’s standards. That last comment you made reminded me of when my grandparents told me about how cheap groceries were back in the day. Your husband’s experience from many years ago doesn’t equal up to the knowledge we have today, especially with safety. It just isn’t safe to mine most of the surface seams underground. For example Consol wouldn’t touch most of the surface seams underground because of their “absolute zero” accident policy. The surface seams don’t have good roof support. Imagine trying to put a 10-15 ft roof bolt up in a 3 ft seam. Nobody is going to take the risk or waste the money to mine those low seams undergound in our area.
Casey these weren’t surface seams that he worked in. He has worked in drift, slope and shaft mines. You can believe it or not but he is a certified mine boss, union fire boss, certified electrician for surface, tipple and underground and is certified to run every piece of equipment underground and surface. He never stopped learning, although he would have never taken a job on any surface mine site. He never believed in that sort of mining. He always said that surface mining was a shame and disgrace and that anyone could do the work on the surface mine, but it took a special kind of man to work underground. I totally agree with him.
I also have to wonder if the blasting on these MTR sites make the rock strata more unstable and harder for roof control for underground mining.
You make it sound as though he mined coal with a carbide lamp on his head. Yes, he worked many years in the mines, but not in your grandparent’s day. He last worked in 1996. He has kept up his certifications as well. Not because he has too, but he likes to go and see the men and the fact that he worked hard to get those certifications and he doesn’t want them to go dead. My Dad did the same thing and he kept up his certifications until he died even though he was well past retirement age.
My husband is well aware of the laws and changes in the industry. That hasn’t changed his outlook on how mining should be done.
[...] global warming-denying union-busting coal barons (CEOs from Virginia, Texas and St. Louis) held a bizarre seance with faltering West Virginia politicians last week and whipped them into an unfounded frenzy about [...]
[...] global warming-denying union-busting coal barons (CEOs from Virginia, Texas and St. Louis) held a bizarre seance with faltering West Virginia politicians last week and whipped them into an unfounded frenzy about [...]
[...] Local West Virginia citizens are arrested in their own State Capitol and Department of Environmental Protection, while out-of-state coal companies are courted by West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin in a closed-door meeting. [...]
[...] my post last evening, I decided to focus on Rockefeller’s comments that some changes need to be made in the way [...]
[...] was the scene at the West Virginia Capitol back in early November, when the stae’s political leaders turned out in force to join Gov. Joe Manchin in backing the mining industry against what they say is the Obama administration’s “war [...]