Archive for the ‘Media coverage’ Category

Friday roundup, Feb. 10, 2012

Friday, February 10, 2012

In this photo taken on Wednesday, Feb. 8, 2012, and provided by China’s Xinhua News Agency, workers load coal onto a train in Jiujiang, east China’s Jiangxi Province. The Nanchang Railway Administration and Shanghai International Port (Group) Company have given priority to coal transportation to ensure power generation during this continuous cold weather period, according to Xinhua News Agency. (AP Photo/Xinhua, Hu Guolin)

Let’s start this week’s review of coal news and commentary with a great and timely piece from Scientific American that was headlined, Retiring Old Coal Plants: Bust or Blessing for Local Communities? It tells us:

Last month, when FirstEnergy Corp. decided to close six coal-fired power plants in its home state of Ohio and two other states, the moves became instant political ammunition for Republicans, who blamed the Obama administration’s environmental regulations for the closures.

Because of the regulations on toxic power plant emissions announced last month by U.S. EPA, “500 hardworking Americans in three states will lose their jobs — not to mention the countless indirect jobs,” asserted Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio).

But the causes for the closures were not quite as simple or as immediate as that. Other forces helped push the FirstEnergy plants to the brink, according to energy experts. They include an underperforming U.S. economy, which is suppressing growth of electricity demand, and the lowest natural gas prices in a dozen years, which have made new gas-fired generation a compelling choice for utilities.

Plus, there are offsetting benefits. They begin with the potential for many more jobs in drilling, pipelines, steel, tools, chemicals and related industries — employment that will be created thanks to the surge in development of natural gas from the Utica and Marcellus shale deposits running underneath the state’s east side. The benefits also include a substantial reduction in health threats caused by the toxic emissions, EPA says.

It’s a great read, and a piece that West Virginia political leaders should take a minute to consider.

In a somewhat related piece, Bloomberg reported this week:

American Electric Power Co. (AEP), the largest U.S. coal consumer, reduced by 13 percent the amount of coal-fired generation it will shut because of new environmental regulations, saying it may get state support to spend $940 million to keep a Kentucky unit operating.

The company still plans to close power plants with about 5,138 megawatts of capacity, Chief Executive Officer Nick Akins said at an investor conference in New York today. The Columbus, Ohio-based company said in June that new U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rules would force it to retire as much as 5,909 megawatts of capacity.

The difference stems from the company’s decision in December to seek a 31 percent rate increase to fund environmental equipment needed to keep its Big Sandy Unit 2 in Kentucky operating, Akins said later in an interview. State regulators have indicated American Electric may be able to recover from customers the almost $1 billion needed to keep the unit operating, he said.

(more…)

Where did Gov. Tomblin get miner drug-testing bill?

Friday, February 10, 2012

We all know that the official federal investigation of the Upper Big Branch Mine Disaster didn’t fine that drugs or alcohol had anything to do with the April 5, 2010, explosion that killed 29 West Virginia coal miners. And it’s clear that separate reports by independent investigator Davitt McAteer and the United Mine Workers union made no recommendations about instituting a state-run drug-testing program for miners, especially when most of the state’s major coal producers already have such programs.

So how did Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin come up with the cornerstone of his mine safety legislation, a proposal to require drug-testing of miners?

Well, to hear the governor tell it — on statewide radio no less — the proposal was among the measures the state Office of Miners Health, Safety and Training recommended be included in the administration’s legislative response to the worst U.S. coal-mining disaster in nearly 40 years.  That sure sounded like what the governor said on Thursday, when he appeared on the MetroNews program “Talkline,” to defend his proposal following two days of legislative hearings that included harsh criticisms of it. The governor said:

My staff sat down with both labor and industry in joint meetings, when the recommendations come to us from the director of mines to propose this bill … This is not something that just came unilaterally from my office.

That just didn’t sound right to me … What I knew was that the state mine safety office back before the session had sent the governor’s office nine legislative proposals to the governor’s office. Some of those ended up in Gov. Tomblin’s bill once it was finally introduced. Others didn’t. But drug-testing language was not among those recommendations.

I asked the public relations spokeswomen for Gov. Tomblin and for the state mine safety office about this … and here’s what gubernatorial communications director Jaqueline Proctor told me in an e-mail yesterday afternoon:

OMHST did offer 9 recommendations to the Governor’s office.  A drug testing program was not included. The Governor did not intend to suggest otherwise.  It should be noted, however, that OMHST strongly believes that we need a drug testing policy.   He believes that his legislation will make our mines safer, and he looks forward to working with the Legislature in accomplishing that goal.

So who did recommend this language? Whose idea was it to turn a bill about Upper Big Branch — a disaster caused not by drugs or alcohol, but by the flagrant violation of long-standing and recognized safety practices by Massey Energy — into a piece of legislation aimed at making coal miners relieve themselves in a cup?

Good question. I’ve asked the governor’s office that, but haven’t heard back from them yet. If they respond, I’ll update this blog post.

In the meantime, it’s worth remembering that Gov. Tomblin and his staff made significant and industry-friendly changes in a committee-written Marcellus Shale bill after meeting with oil and gas lobbyists — and then refused to make public any correspondence or other documents about those discussions with the industry, saying company lobbyists had acted as “consultants” for them on the issue

Friday roundup, Feb. 3, 2012

Friday, February 3, 2012

Train cars full of coal head to the FirstEnergy Corp., coal-fired power plant in Eastlake, Ohio is seen on Thursday,  Jan. 26, 2012.  FirstEnergy Corp. says it will shut down six older, coal-fired power plants in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Maryland, affecting about 530 employees on Sept. 1.  The Akron, Ohio-based utility said Thursday that the move is related to new environmental rules. (AP Photo/Amy Sancetta)

Well, folks, Sunday is the 3rd anniversary of the launching of this blog. In a post called, “Welcome to Coal Tattoo,” I wrote:

… One thing that I want to note is that it seems that there are really two separate discussions going on about coal.

One of them is out there in the broader world. Scientists, policymakers and even investors are becoming more and more convinced that the downsides of coal have to be addressed. One way or the other, coal-fired power’s contribution to global warming must be dealt with. To these folks, the question is: Can coal have a place in our energy mix in a carbon-constrained world?

The other discussion is happening here in West Virginia, and in other coal communities. Locally, the issues are different, and in many ways much more emotional. It’s a battle between families who rely on coal to put food on their tables and send their kids to college, and folks who live near coal mines and are tired of blasting, dust, and water pollution. To these folks, the questions are: How can we protect coal’s future or how can we shut down mountaintop removal?

These two discussions are starting to intersect a little bit. Activists who don’t like mountaintop removal are talking more and more about climate change. But there’s still a huge disconnect between the way the broader world talks about coal and the way we here in the coalfields do.

Perhaps the scientists and activists who understand what coal burning is doing to our climate should try to understand a little more about how a third-generation coal miner in Eastern Kentucky feels. And maybe that coal miner should be a little more open to hearing what the world would be like if we don’t do something about rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Most importantly, maybe the policymakers in Washington need to understand what the economic impact of climate change regulations is going to be on places like West Virginia and Wyoming. And maybe politicians and government officials in places like Charleston, W.Va., need to come to terms with the fact that change is coming to this industry.

I hope this blog contributes a little bit to helping these discussions along. I welcome thoughts, comments, suggestions and criticisms on how to get this job done.

As always, I welcome your thoughts and comments on all things coal and on how this blog can do better.

The news everybody who is on the inside of these controversies — mostly PR people, lobbyists, and journalists — is talking about comes from a Time magazine blog reporting (later picked up by Politico) earlier this week:

… The biggest and oldest environmental group in the U.S. finds itself caught on the horns of that dilemma. TIME has learned that between 2007 and 2010 the Sierra Club accepted over $25 million in donations from the gas industry, mostly from Aubrey McClendon, CEO of Chesapeake Energy—one of the biggest gas drilling companies in the U.S. and a firm heavily involved in fracking—to help fund the Club’s Beyond Coal campaign. Though the group ended its relationship with Chesapeake in 2010—and the Club says it turned its back on an additional $30 million in promised donations—the news raises concerns about influence industry may have had on the Sierra Club’s independence and its support of natural gas in the past. It’s also sure to anger ordinary members who’ve been uneasy about the Club’s relationship with corporations. “The chapter groups and volunteers depend on the Club to have their back as they fight pollution from any industry, and we need to be unrestrained in our advocacy,” Michael Brune, the Sierra Club’s executive director since 2010, told me. “The first rule of advocacy of is that you shouldn’t take money from industries and companies you’re trying to change.”

I see this whole thing as a bit of a sideshow … it’s fodder for some of the coal lobbyists I heard at this week’s West Virginia Coal Association meetings to make nasty comments about the Sierra Club. And it was too bad that the United Mine Workers of America union joined in that, issuing a name-calling news release about the Sierra Club so soon after former UMWA President Richard Trumka called for constructive discussions between differing groups about the future of coal.

This reminded me that one of the folks I know whose been wrestling with Chesapeake Energy over its impact on his homeplace is a fellow I met many years ago when he was walking a UMWA picket line and I was covering a coal strike. The people and communities impacted by these industries are quite a lot alike and are even sometimes one in the same. Dust-ups that cause more friction between citizens who suffer damage from extractive industries and the folks who work for those industries do little but play into the hands of those in these industries who don’t want to be reformed.

Moving on to the rest of this week’s coal news and commentary:

– The Economist had a take on how “Tighter regulation, bountiful natural gas and declining installation costs for renewable energy herald the end of America’s coal era“:

To some, regulations prove the current administration’s hostility to coal. To others, however, they are a long-overdue attempt to gauge a putatively cheap fuel’s true external costs. A National Academy of Sciences report estimated that the external costs unrelated to climate-change costs (to human health, crop and timber yields, building materials and recreation) of coal-fired power plants in 2005 totalled $62 billion. A study of coal’s effects on Kentucky’s budget in 2006 found that it contributed $528m in revenue, but its on-budget costs—training, support, repairs to the roads, R&D for the coal industry—totalled $643m. A study in West Virginia in 2009 also found the coal industry a net cost to the state.

(more…)

Friday roundup, Jan. 27, 2012

Friday, January 27, 2012

In a Monday Jan. 23, 2012 photo, Sheila Combs, president of the Upper Big Branch Mining Memorial Group, looks over a sign showing what the Upper Big Branch Miners Memorial will look like in Whitesville, W. Va. Media outlets report that work began Wednesday, Jan. 25, 2012 on a memorial for 29 miners killed in the 2010 explosion of the Upper Big Branch mine.   (AP Photo/The Register-Herald, Rick Barbero)

One of the more interesting stories out there this week was a glowing profile of our buddy Joe Main, the assistant secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health. It was published on a site called govexec.com and is apparently part of a book about various Obama administration officials. Here’s a little to give you the flavor of it:

After an explosion in April 2010 killed 29 workers in Massey Energy’s Upper Big Branch mine in West Virginia, Main faced the competing demands of disaster management and day-to-day operations. His experience provides three leadership lessons for all executives responding to a crisis …

While the instinct might be to shift all of an agency’s resources into responding to a major event like the Upper Branch mine explosion, Main knew MSHA’s routine operations must continue without interruption. “I’ve lived through these experiences before, so I knew what to expect,” he says. “You have to be careful not to let everyone run into the fire. I knew I had to leave some people here in headquarters in order to keep the place running.”

Looking back, Main says, “I’m proud that I was able to keep the agency running in spite of Upper Big Branch. We had a successful strategy in place and we kept it going. We kept doing our work . . . The key thing is to stay focused.”

Starting on the day of the tragedy and during the months that followed, MSHA took a close look at its operations, Main says. “You have to ask yourself and the agency, ‘What did we miss? How did this happen? What have we learned?’ he says. “And finally, ‘What changes do we need to make?’ “

Regular readers of this blog have a pretty good idea about some of the things that went wrong … if MSHA ever publishes its “internal review” report on Upper Big Branch, maybe we’ll find out more.

(more…)

Friday roundup, Jan. 20, 2012

Friday, January 20, 2012

A lift unloads a coal barge that broke away on the Monongahela River , right, on Thursday, Jan. 19, 2012,  in Pittsburgh. U.S. Coast Guard officials say an incident that occurred about 2:30 on Thursday morning started a chain of events resulting in three loose barges going downriver and temporarily closing four bridges into downtown Pittsburgh, including the Liberty Bridge, top, and the Panhandle Bridge, just downriver . All of the bridges have since reopened after they were inspected. (AP Photo/Keith Srakocic)

Let’s start this week with a nice takeout piece and good overview by Chris Nelder, written for Smart Planet.com called “Regulation and the decline of coal power.” It starts off:

Coal is fading as the power generation fuel of choice in the U.S., but it’s not just because of the EPA.

Where have we heard this before? Well, here’s what Nelder says:

Coal-burning utilities and their industry partners have mightily protested new EPA regulations, due to go into effect last weekend, that would curb emissions of mercury, sulfur dioxides, nitrogen oxides, and other metallic toxics such as arsenic from power plants. A federal appeals court delayed enforcement of the regulations on December 30 after hearing a challenge brought by power-plant operators and utilities, six states, the National Mining Association and the IBEW electrical union. Their arguments hardly need recitation: The regulations are expensive and “draconian.” They’re job-killing. They’ll raise the price of grid power. The EPA is overstepping its authority. Yadda yadda yadda.

Having had a long look at the data, however, I think the industry doth protest too much.

Citing the great work of the fine folks at Downstream Strategies, Nelder writes:

Central Appalachian coal has ceased to be competitive on price largely because those mining operations are much older. As with oil, we burned the best, cheapest, and most abundant coal deposits first, and the Appalachian mountains have simply become mined-out. The best coal reserves are depleted, and producers now must move on to thinner, less productive, more geologically challenging deposits with lower energy content. Overall, domestic U.S. coal now has 20 percent less energy per kilogram than it did in 1949, and the quality is still declining.

Shifting from underground mining to surface mining (mountaintop removal) improved productivity through the 1990s, the researchers note, until it maxed out in 2000. At that point, labor productivity fell by 25 percent, and the price of Central Appalachian coal began to rise. By 2008 it had doubled and lost its price competitiveness.

His piece concludes:

So in reply to the coal-fired power sector’s bleating about regulatory uncertainty, I say: The only uncertainty is how quickly, and how much, the noose tightens around your neck. While I have questioned both the economics of shale gas production and the claims about its reserves, there is no arguing about price. As long as the shale gas phenomenon can bring gas to market for under $4 per million BTU, the economics are tilting in its favor. The cost of renewables will continue to drop, while the cost of coal will continue to rise. That’s the hard reality of price, and it has nothing to do with regulatory uncertainty.

And even though regulatory uncertainty does pose a problem for coal plant owners, those regulations can only be good news for the health of the public and the environment. It’s cynical and shameful to pretend to a principled stand against overweening federal regulation when you’re really just trying to squeeze a little more life out of filthy old plants that are destined for retirement anyway. The public has gotten wise to your game, and your onslaught of glossy prime-time ads isn’t convincing anybody that you’re clean or green. Concerns about killing acid rains, billions of dollars in health destruction, and general environmental contamination have begun to weigh more heavily than adding a fraction of a penny to the cost of a kilowatt-hour. The public now knows that the price of power from renewables and gas is on the verge of being competitive with coal, and that if no externalities (like carbon emissions) are allowed into the calculation, coal is already a hands-down loser. Your “jobs, jobs, jobs” mantra is wearing thin. We don’t just need any old jobs, but the right jobs, in order to become a more healthy, safe and sustainable society.

In a Thursday, Jan. 19, 2012 photo, University of Kentucky students with the university’s Beyond Coal Coalition, unfurl a large banner on the lawn beside William T. Young Library on the UK campus in Lexington, Ky. They want UK to shutter their coal boilers. The banner was made of 6 king size sheets sewn together. Some of the students sat on the corners to keep the banner from blowing in the wind. (AP Photo/Lexington Herald-leader,Charles Bertram)

(more…)

Coming soon: Latest DEP report on Prenter water

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

After filing my own blog post and print story on yesterday’s press conference on the new reports concerning coal-slurry contamination of the Prenter community’s water supplies, a couple folks pointed out to me the story that Taylor Kuykendall did for The State Journal’s website. In particular, they told me to check out the quotes from DEP Secretary Randy Huffman.

I did, and here’s what was in the story:

However, not everyone agrees with the idea that coal slurry injection has caused water problems at Prenter.

“We studied specifically the possibility the slurry injection had migrated into the water, and there’s not a geologic connection between where it was store and where their problem is,” Department of Environmental Protection Director Randy Huffman told the Associated Press. “The injection site in Prenter is not the source of their problems.”

It looks like the quotes were lifted from an AP story that is nearly three years old.

Now, some readers may recall — I’m sure Prenter-area residents will remember — that their community was not included in the coal-slurry injection study that WVDEP did a few years back. Agency officials believed the slurry injection occurred too long ago and too far from residential drinking wells to be a good fit for their Legislature-ordered review.

(more…)

Blue-Green Alliances and the Future of Coal

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

A coal truck drives through an railroad tressel near downtown Welch, W.Va., Wednesday, Feb. 9, 2011.  (AP Photo/Jon C. Hancock)

Over the years, I’ve come to the conclusion that when most politicians start talking about balancing jobs and the environment, it signals they’re getting ready to get pretty weak on environmental protections … but maybe that’s an unfair conclusion to draw in all circumstances.

There’s no question that, when it comes to coal mining controversies, the industry’s public relations machine has done a great job of trying to make things about “jobs versus mayflies.” The media, especially in the coalfields of West Virginia, has done little to help — mostly ignoring the growing scientific evidence that links living new mountaintop removal to increase rates of serious health problems, like cancer and birth defects. The notion that polluting water, air and land impacts not just lizards and fish, but people, isn’t one that is given a lot of attention in the context of mountaintop removal.
Following last Friday’s major speech about global warming and “the future of coal” by AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, the discussion of all of this is continuing in the comment section of a post I wrote called, “What will we do about coal’s crisis in the making?” And we were reminded just yesterday of the very real connection between coal’s environmental pollution and public health, with the release of two new expert reports about the slurry contamination in the community of Prenter.

But for those wanting to think and discuss more about the connections — or lack of connections — between the labor and environmental movements, historian and writer Erik Loomis has an interesting post on the blog Lawyers, Guns and Money, called “Blue-Green Alliances.”  Loomis opines:

This gets to the complexities of the blue-green alliance, or the coalition between labor and environmental groups to craft policies that builds a unionized and sustainable future. There are clear areas where labor and environmentalists should have a common agenda–green technology, worker health, pollution. But there are equally clear lines that demarcate where the two groups can and can’t work together, particularly in extractive industry unions. My book-in-progress explores how logging unions in the Pacific Northwest organized around environmental issues, broadly defined. In the 1970s, a strong blue-green coalition (though I don’t believe the term had been invented yet) existed in the Northwest, with logging unions allying with environmentalists to keep workers safe and force timber companies to comply with the era’s new environmental regulations. But this was fraying at the same time it was peaking. The International Woodworkers of America had long criticized the timber industry’s unsustainable cutting, but when the rubber met the road and environmentalists in the 1970s and 80s were demanding increased wilderness areas and the protection of the last remaining old-growth stands, how could they vote their own members out of work? Especially when their union was coming under attack from so many other sides, with mills shutting down left and right?

The lesson from both the Northwest forest and Trumka’s coal miners is cultural. In the end, cultural divides shouldn’t stop anyone from promoting environmental positions with as much vigor as possible. But there is something very real about the resentment engendered when so-called outsiders (a term that can mean so many things) demand the end of an extractive industry without much thought into where workers are going to go. Even though those jobs are probably going away anyhow, it gives business a convenient target to direct workers’ ire. Of course, I don’t have any great answers about how to avoid this problem except to build understanding between the two constituencies, hoping that alliances over keeping workers’ bodies safe and air and water clean lead to stronger connections that allow environmentalists and labor to build toward understanding on the more intractable issues.

 

What will we do about coal’s ‘crisis in the making’?

Monday, January 16, 2012

There’s an op-ed in this weekend’s Gazette-Mail that is worth a look — and worth a detailed read by our region’s political leaders. It’s by West Virginia native Lou Martin, who teaches history now in western Pennsylvania at Chatham University. Lou writes of a “crisis in the making” in Boone County, where coal is such a big part of the economy, yet good coal seams are playing out and competition from other regions threatens future production levels:

In May, CNN Money reported that 3,800 of the county’s 8,600 employed people worked in the mining industry. And a report by economists at WVU and Marshall titled “The West Virginia Coal Economy 2008″ reported that 60 percent of the county’s roughly $35 million in property tax revenue came from coal. While those figures certainly speak to the importance of coal to Boone today, they also represent the potential for devastation when the coal companies leave. Imagine when half of those jobs and tax revenues disappear as Downstream Strategies predict they will. Boone County will be left with slurry ponds, “reclaimed” mountains and dirty water.

Lou warns:

As a society, we do not plan well for economic transitions; nor do we tend to plan for the long term. Our elected officials have a vested interest in helping businesses and industries that are here now, not imagining future businesses and industries. Coal companies focus only on this year’s profits. Unions protect current members’ jobs. Planning the future of Boone County is too important to leave up to the president of the West Virginia Coal Association, the CEO of Alpha Natural Resources, the president of the United Mine Workers, or even government officials like Sen. Manchin and Gov. Tomblin.

This time, the people need to plan out their own future. What do we want the future economy to look like? I propose that we try to create a society that will last for another 100 years, 200 years, or maybe even 1,000 years. But under the current plan, Boone County will face utter devastation –economic and environmental — in just 25 years.

For those who don’t know him, Lou Martin has written extensively about the working-class people of Appalachia, with a focus on the steel and pottery country of West Virginia’s Northern Panhandle (see here, for example).  And, he’s observed what has happened in those parts of the world in recent years, writing in his West Virginia University doctoral dissertation:

Beginning in the 1960s, local potteries began closing up shop until only Homer Laughlin remained. When Weirton Steel showcased its “mill of the future” in 1967, that moment proved to be the high point for the company and its workers. Thereafter, foreign competition, mismanagement, and global economic forces beyond any individual company’s control undercut Weirton Steel’s position in the market. By the 1980s, working families in Hancock County were faced with many tough decisions and sad realities as the winds of “creative destruction,” in the words of economists, picked up thousands of industrial jobs and carried them to the distant frontiers of industrial capitalism. The county’s population declined from about 40,000 in 1980 to about 30,000 in 2000. Many of those who remain are retirees who have watched helplessly as pensions and health insurance evaporated amidst bankruptcy hearings and corporate takeovers.

The deindustrialization of Hancock County underscores the ongoing nature of the industrial restructuring that brought new industries and industrial jobs to the county a century before. Workers struggled for decades to achieve a modest, dependable income and a decent life. During those decades, they continually adapted to new technologies, shifting markets, and changes within the working class. At the height of their influence locally, the rural-industrial workers of Hancock County also joined with like-minded Americans around the country to roll back the New Deal order and transform postwar America. The wrenching economic changes of the last quarter of the twentieth century, however, have left many working families to wonder what it was all about.

Dave Thearle, a member of the United Mine Workers of America, waves an American Flag during a labor rally in Waynesburg, Pa., Friday, April 1, 2011. (AP Photo/Keith Srakocic)

As I read, I was reminded of passages from the speech AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka gave on Friday at the United Nations:

Now, some people’s response is to demand that we end all coal production now—they say “End Coal.” Never mind that such a thing is simply not going to happen—there is no substitute now for metallurgical coal and if we stopped burning coal this afternoon and cut the power in the U.S. grid by 50 percent, as Mayor Bloomberg advocates, he’d be reading handwritten memos by candlelight this evening. Given that reality, it’s important to think about how that slogan is heard in places like my hometown of Nemacolin, Pennsylvania.

Nemacolin lives on coal—the coal mine my grandfather and my father went down to every day of their working lives, the power plant the mine feeds, the rail lines that carry coal to other plants. When these folks hear “End Coal,” it sounds like a threat to destroy the value of our homes, to shut our schools and churches, to drive us away from the place our parents and grandparents are buried, to take away the work that for more than a hundred years has made us who we are.

So why, in an economy without an effective safety net, would the good men and women of my hometown and a thousand places like it surrender their whole lives and sit by while others try to force them to bear the cost of change.

The truth is that in many places – and not just places where coal is mined – there is fear that the “green economy” will turn into another version of the radical inequality that now haunts our society—another economy that works for the 1% and not for the 99%.

You can read the speech for yourself here and you can also see the initial reactions from a couple of the most outspoken anti-mountaintop removal activists in the comments section.

It’s certainly true that Rich Trumka didn’t mention mountaintop removal — and there’s no doubt we haven’t heard much from the Rich’s old friends at the United Mine Workers about the growing body of science that links living near mountaintop removal to serious health problems, to increases risks of cancer and birth defects among coalfield children. I’ve asked the question on Coal Tattoo before, “Exactly what sort of environmental protection does the UMWA support?” At the same time, I’m not sure that the way to build strong coalitions is to do what citizen groups did a few years back when the UMWA’s media spokesman, Phil Smith, took part in a roundtable aimed at trying to find common ground on heated and complicated coal industry issues.

And gosh, to hear the president of the AFL-CIO to speak so eloquently about what is without a doubt a much larger global crisis — climate change — was a truly remarkable moment. Just go back and read part of it:

Today, as we meet together, scientists tell us we are headed ever more swiftly toward irreversible climate change—with catastrophic consequences for human civilization. We must have a stable climate to feed the planet, to ensure there is drinking water for our cities but not floodwaters at our doors. A stable climate is the foundation of our global civilization, of our global economy—the prerequisite for a profitable investment environment.

And to those who say climate risk is a far off problem, I can tell you that I have hunted the same woods in Western Pennsylvania my entire life and climate change is happening now—I see it in the summer droughts that kill the trees, the warm winter nights when flowers bloom in January, the snows that fall less frequently and melt more quickly.

And what about economic transformation, about green jobs and a stronger economy? Rich Trumka said:

Even so, some will ask, why should investors or working people focus on climate risk when we have so many economic problems across the world? The labor movement has a clear answer: Addressing climate risk is not a distraction from solving our economic problems. My friends, addressing climate risk means retooling our world—it means that every factory and power plant, every home and office, every rail line and highway, every vehicle, locomotive and plane, every school and hospital, must be modernized, upgraded, renovated or replaced with something cleaner, more efficient, less wasteful.

Taking on the threat of climate change means putting investment capital to work creating jobs. It means building a road to a healthier world and a healthier world economy–one less dependent on volatile energy prices, one where many more of us have the things that modern energy makes possible.

Reading the Trumka speech and the reactions to it also reminded me of the wise words of the late Sen. Robert C. Byrd:

Change is no stranger to the coal industry. Think of the huge changes which came with the onset of the Machine Age in the late 1800’s. Mechanization has increased coal production and revenues, but also has eliminated jobs, hurting the economies of coal communities. In 1979, there were 62,500 coal miners in the Mountain State. Today there are about 22,000. In recent years, West Virginia has seen record high coal production and record low coal employment.

And change is undeniably upon the coal industry again. The increased use of mountaintop removal mining means that fewer miners are needed to meet company production goals. Meanwhile the Central Appalachian coal seams that remain to be mined are becoming thinner and more costly to mine. Mountaintop removal mining, a declining national demand for energy, rising mining costs and erratic spot market prices all add up to fewer jobs in the coal fields.

These are real problems. They affect real people. And West Virginia’s elected officials are rightly concerned about jobs and the economic impact on local communities. I share those concerns.

Remember that Sen. Byrd also told us that “the time has come to have an open and honest dialogue about coal’s future in West Virginia.” Of course, that is exactly the oppose of what we heard last week from Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin, in a State of the State address that mentioned coal only to cheer-lead, as opposed to actually leading. And it’s exactly the opposite of what other political leaders are doing when they dodge questions about the mountaintop removal health studies.

Even for those political leaders who support mountaintop removal — or who are afraid not to support it — go back and read Lou Martin’s op-ed piece:

… Even if we cannot agree on mountaintop removal, change is still coming. A 2010 report by Downstream Strategies predicts that coal mining in Central Appalachia will decline by more than half over the next 25 years (from 234 million tons in 2008, down to 99 million tons in 2035) for reasons ranging from competition from natural gas to depletion of the most productive reserves.

There’s a crisis in the making … what are we going to do about it?

Friday roundup, Jan. 13, 2012

Friday, January 13, 2012

A group of Bosnians transport coal for heating in horse drawn carts, on a road near Sarajevo ,Bosnia, on Monday, Jan. 9, 2012. The average unemployment rate is up to 42 percent according to the Bosnian government. Collecting coal by hand and selling it on a local market is the only way an impoverished category of the Bosnian population can survive the winter. (AP Photo/Amel Emric)

In the wake of this week’s State of the State address by Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin — and the governor’s full-speed-ahead view, no holds barred view of fossil fuels — it’s interesting that the Brookings Institute has a new report out that tells us:

State clean energy funds (CEFs) have emerged as effective tools that states can use to accelerate the development of energy efficiency and renewable energy projects. These clean energy funds, which exist in over 20 states, generate about $500 million per year in dedicated support from utility surcharges and other sources, making them significant public investors in thousands of clean energy projects.

It’s especially interesting because it discusses a kind of Washington paralysis that Gov. Tomblin doesn’t seem to mind — inaction on climate change and green energy:

Washington is again paralyzed and pulling back on clean energy economic development. Deficit politics and partisanship are firmly entrenched and the raft of federal financial supports made available through the 2009 stimulus law and elsewhere is starting to expire.

No wonder it’s hard to imagine—especially if you’re sitting in the nation’s capital—how the next phase of American clean energy industry growth will be financed or its next generation of technologies and firms supported.

And yet, one source of action lies hidden in plain sight. With federal clean energy activities largely on hold, a new paper we are releasing today as part of the Brookings-Rockefeller Project on State and Metropolitan Innovation argues that U.S. states hold out tremendous promise for the continued design and implementation of smart clean energy finance solutions and economic development.

Specifically, we contend that the nearly two dozen clean energy funds (CEFs) now running in a variety of mostly northern states stand as one of the most important clean energy forces at work in the nation and offer at least one partial response to the failure of Washington to deliver a sensible clean energy development approach.

To date, over 20 states have created a varied array of these public investment vehicles to invest in clean energy pursuits with revenues often derived from small public-benefit surcharges on electric utility bills. Over the last decade, state CEFs have invested over $2.7 billion in state dollars to support renewable energy markets, counting very conservatively. Meanwhile, they have leveraged another $9.7 billion in additional federal and private sector investment, with the resulting $12 billion flowing to the deployment of over 72,000 projects in the United States ranging from solar installations on homes and businesses to wind turbines in communities to large wind farms, hydrokinetic projects in rivers, and biomass generation plants on farms.

In so doing, the funds stand well positioned—along with state economic development and other officials—to build on a pragmatic success and take up the challenge left by the current federal abdication of a role on clean energy economic development.

Stephen Lacey had a good report on this on the Climate Progress blog:

Congressional commitment to action on clean energy policy in 2012 is about as secure as Kim Kardashian’s wedding vows.

So with states once again representing the major driver for renewable energy, how can they keep the momentum going at a time when federal enthusiasm is at its lowest level in years? The key, according to a new report from the Brookings Institution, is for states to focus not just on project-level deployment, but to shift some funds toward support broader sustainable economic goals that foster the clean energy economy from the ground up.

Creating an integrated clean energy economy is about more than simply deploying renewable energy projects. It’s about putting the structures in place to support technological innovation, boost local manufacturing, and create the supply chain to support a new industry.

The authors point to states like California, Massachusetts and New York, which have set aside good chunks of money from these funds to create cleantech research hubs, business incubators, and worker training programs. These help build the industry from top to bottom and potentially keep greater amounts of economic value within a state.

(more…)

Will Tomblin, Legislature fix mine cleanup fund?

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Ry Rivard has an important story at the top of the front page of today’s Daily Mail, reporting:

Coal companies should pay more to help clean up forsaken mine sites in West Virginia, the board overseeing state mine reclamation money said Monday.

The state Department of Environmental Protection’s Special Reclamation Advisory Council voted unanimously to recommend the state nearly double a mine reclamation tax on coal companies.

The story continues:

The proposed reclamation tax increase, which has to be approved by the Legislature, would add to the money the state now receives to clean up mine sites when mining companies don’t.

The state currently collects about $21 million a year from the reclamation tax, which is levied on each ton of coal produced in the state. This tax is different from the state’s much larger severance tax on coal, which is expected to raise about $400 million this year for the state and funds numerous programs.

If the increase were approved, the reclamation tax would go from 14.4 cents per ton to 27.9 cents. That would bring in an additional $17.4 million next year to clean up mine lands, a DEP spokeswoman said.

West Virginia Coal Association President Bill Raney, who is also a member of the reclamation fund advisory council, said nobody likes to see tax increases but the tax has to be raised to help keep reclamation funds solvent. Costs to the state for cleaning up mine sites is rising because, among other things, a 2011 court agreement requires the state to comply with stricter environmental standards than before.

“When all of these things come together, it just had to be done,” Raney said.

We’ve reported many times on the huge financial problems facing the state’s special reclamation program (see here, here, here and here) and, of course, the question now is whether Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin and legislative leaders will listen to the advisory council. Last year, the Legislature did nothing, at least in part because the administration did not back the advisory council’s recommendation to increase the tax.

Stay tuned …

Friday roundup, Jan. 6, 2012

Friday, January 6, 2012

Afghans miners and local residents wait for news outside a coal mine in Narin, Baghlan province, north of Kabul, Afghanistan, Saturday, Dec. 24, 2011. An Afghan official says 11 miners have died in an accident at the coal mine in central Afghanistan. (AP Photo/Jawed Dehsabzi)

As I scanned through the news I missed over the holiday season, I unfortunately stumbled onto the sad story of 11 coal miners who died in an explosion just before Christmas in Afghanistan:

Although fatal accidents are relatively rare, safety conditions at mines in Afghanistan are among the worst in the world. Some mines employ children as young as 10 years old and miners usually work by hand and have little ventilation, equipment or safety gear.

And more recently, there was this terrible report out of the Philippines:

Authorities resumed searching Friday for victims of a landslide that killed at least 22 people in a remote Philippine gold-mining village where miners work their small-scale claims with pickaxes. Officials have no good estimate of how many people are missing but say early reports of up to 100 were overblown. Many could have stayed elsewhere for the Christmas holiday, they said, or may have fled their mountainside shanties earlier in the night when the hill started to crumble.

And the New Zealand Herald had this helpful story that explained findings so far in the investigation of the Pike River Mine Disaster there:

As a long list of safety failures at the Pike River mine were read out, the sound of muffled weeping could be heard from the public gallery at the Greymouth District Court.

It was one of many moments when the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Pike River disaster left family of those who died distressed, angry or incredulous.

Mountains of evidence – much of it disturbing – have been presented to the inquiry since it began its mammoth effort to uncover the reasons for the deaths of 29 miners in July.

It’s interesting to note how much of the Pike River investigation has taken place in public, out in the open – in contrast to the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration’s secretive probe of the Upper Big Branch Mine Disaster.

Speaking of Upper Big Branch, let’s not forget that lawyers for Alpha Natural Resources and attorneys for families of some of the miners who died are meeting this weekend at Glade Springs Resort for a mediation session aimed at resolving wrongful death and injury cases filed as a result of the April 5, 2010, explosion.  Kris Maher reported in The Wall Street Journal:

Settling the suits through mediation would allow Alpha to resolve litigation that could go on for years, and spare families an emotionally draining trial. “That’s why we settle cases, in order to have certainty as opposed to the crap shoot of a jury trial,” said Robert Bastress, a law professor at West Virginia University in Morgantown, who isn’t connected to the case.

Benny Jones, a lawyer representing two families of deceased miners and an injured survivor, said a settlement would bring some closure to his clients. “It’s just wearing them out,” said Mr. Jones, who is optimistic a settlement can be reached. “They committed to spend a tremendous amount of money recently to settle old cases, so it would appear from my point of view that they do want this behind them,” he said of Alpha.

To date, 11 families of deceased Upper Big Branch miners have each accepted $3 million settlements offered earlier by Massey and agreed not to sue the firm. Lawyers for the other families expect that settlements would be based on compensatory damages from lost wages as well as an amount for punitive damages.

Some legal experts said investigative reports that faulted Massey for failing to prevent a massive coal-dust explosion could result in higher payments. “This is a particularly egregious case because you had so many killed and the violations, and the anger is so high down there,” said Mr. Bastress of West Virginia University.

(more…)

USA Today: Prosecute rogue coal operators

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

An editorial in USA Today asks:

Even as federal officials were heralding this month’s $209 million settlement in one of the worst U.S. mining disasters in history, the families of the 29 men killed in that explosion were wondering: Isn’t anyone going to be prosecuted for our loved ones’ deaths?

The newspaper’s answer?

Good question. At least for now, the answer is no — a sad and unsatisfactory climax after nearly two years of criminal investigations, along with two damning reports that found mine owner Massey Energy put profits above safety and was so lax that it laid the groundwork for what one study called a “preventable” explosion at West Virginia’s Upper Big Branch Mine.

As I mentioned before, given the MSHA investigation report’s direct linking of the mine disaster to Massey’s policy for advance notice of government inspections, it’s probably unfair to say that neither of the two criminal cases brought so far by U.S. Attorney Booth Goodwin and his team had nothing to do with the April 5, 2010, explosion that killed 29 miners.  Longtime Upper Big Branch security director Hughie Elbert Stover was convinced of lying to investigators and trying to destroy evidence about this Massey policy, which MSHA’s report said directly contributed to the disaster by covering up some serious safety problems at the mine.

Given the extent of the safety problems that MSHA did find at Upper Big Branch, though, it remains unclear why agency officials didn’t do more to put a stop to the violations. It’s clear that MSHA didn’t use every tool in its toolbox prior to April 5, 2010 (see previous posts here and here). It’s all well and good for MSHA to tout its use of “flagrant penalties” at Upper Big Branch after 29 miners got blown up … why wasn’t this authority used before the disaster?

In its editorial, USA Today repeats the call for tougher criminal sanctions in the nation’s mine safety laws, to make it easier to hold executive responsible for serious and repeated violations. The newspaper concludes:

Attorney General Eric Holder and U.S. Attorney Booth Goodwin, of the Southern District of West Virginia, have pledged to continue investigating individuals associated with the Upper Big Branch tragedy. Let’s hope that their pledges are more meaningful than the empty promises of safe mines that families are so used to hearing from Congress and the industry.

For too long, safety-flouting companies have been able to buy their way out of trouble.

Not surprisingly, USA Today makes no mention of the growing evidence of MSHA’s own failings at Upper Big Branch — not a word from the newspaper’s editors about what independent investigator Davitt McAteer described as “proof positive that the agency failed its duty as the watchdog for coal miners.”

(more…)

Key MSHA testimony about UBB kept secret

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

Over at the State Journal, Taylor Kuykendall has made an interesting point regarding the huge document dump the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration did yesterday when it released its report on the Upper Big Branch Mine Disaster:

In a release of documents Tuesday, the Mine Safety and Health Administration said it released all the transcripts of UBB investigation interviews except those which were asked to be held by prosecutors. Goodwin said his office holds “not many more than 10 or a dozen” of the hundreds of interview transcripts.

Of the interviews missing from the transcripts released, one notable omission was the transcript of the interview with Bob Hardman, the MSHA district manager who took charge of the rescue effort. Hardman’s interview has been cited in MSHA’s report as well as in the independent investigation led by Davitt McAteer, but was not part of the release.

It’s worth noting that Hardman not only took charge of the mine rescue effort, but his work in that regard was harshly criticized by top mine rescue team members from his own agency. And not for nothing, but as district manager, Hardman was also in charge of ensuring that proper inspections and enforcement actions were taken at Upper Big Branch, and that agency officials properly reviewed mine ventilation, roof control and other plans for the operation.

A closer look, though, shows that there is more than one notable omission. In fact, Hardman is just one of at least eight MSHA District 4 personnel who were interviewed by the government investigation team whose transcripts are not among the 265 interview transcripts posted online by MSHA yesterday.

Among them: Two of Hardman’s top assistants, Rich Kline and Linke Selfe. Also not included was the transcript of the interview of Joe Mackowiak, a top MSHA district ventilation specialist who spent a fair amount of time on Upper Big Branch issues. Back in May, we reported that Mackowiak had made a desperate attempt in the weeks before the disaster to get then-Massey vice president Chris Adkins to sent in a company ventilation expert to help fix repeated airflow problems at Upper Big Branch. MSHA has also withheld from public scrutiny the testimony of two agency inspectors, Keith Sigmon and Jerome Stone, who were involved in policing Upper Big Branch. We know these folks were interviewed, because their testimony is cited and footnoted in the McAteer team’s report.

Interestingly, MSHA did release a transcript of the testimony provided by Kevin Stricklin, the agency’s coal administrator.

Yesterday’s document dump included 265  transcripts, and MSHA had previously released 25 transcripts related to the mine rescue effort at UBB.

The MSHA report says agency officials conducted 310 formal interviews in front of a court reporter. So that means they’ve released 290 transcripts — and of the 20 that they have withheld, nearly half are testimony of MSHA employees or former MSHA employees.

U.S. Attorney Goodwin told Taylor:

We asked MSHA to hold back just a very few transcripts. Ordinarily the purpose of that is so that we can have the opportunity to examine them, have the opportunity to look through them. I wouldn’t take a big cue or clue from which one we asked to be held back. Oftentimes, it’s because some of these individuals will ultimately be our witnesses down the road.

Blankenship back in the coal business?

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

ABC News has this interesting report tonight:

There are new indications that Blankenship may be attempting a return to the industry that helped him build a massive personal fortune, but also tarnished his image as the man at the helm during the deadliest American mining disaster in decades …

… Kentucky state incorporation records show that scarcely a month after Blankenship agreed to step down as CEO of Massey Energy, he signed papers identifying him as the president of a newly-named company, McCoy Coal Group Inc. McCoy is the family name of Blankenship’s mother.

The status of McCoy Coal and Blankenship’s role with the firm remain unclear — calls to the company’s lawyer and to Blankenship’s attorney have not been returned.

The corporate records in question are online here.

MSHA to expand pilot project for appeals

Friday, December 2, 2011

Here’s the latest from The Associated Press, based on yesterday’s U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration press release:

The head of the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration said Thursday he’s adopting a new conferencing system that was piloted with mine operators earlier this year in an ongoing attempt to reduce the backlog of contested violations.

Director Joe Main had said in October that both sides liked the pilot program, but he was still evaluating whether it would continue.

On Thursday, he said it will.

Starting in January, operators will be able to request a conference regarding a contested citation or order, but only after MSHA proposes a penalty assessment.

Main said the new system will help reduce the backlog by resolving disputes before they end up in litigation. It may also help improve overall communication among operators, miners and MSHA.

(more…)

Blankenship resurfaces – with a morality lecture?

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Without a doubt, one question I get asked more than any other is: “What’s Don Blankenship up to these days?”

One thing I know for sure is that Blankenship testified under oath a few months ago that he now lives in Johnson City, Tenn. I haven’t been able to confirm persistent rumors that he’s back in the coal business in some capacity.

But this morning, readers of the Charleston Daily Mail’s editorial page were treated to an op-ed under Blankenship’s byline. Headlined “The 2004 allegations against McGraw hold up: Child molesters do not belong in public schools,” the piece is a take on — of all things — the Penn State University football program’s child rape scandal. The article begins:

Joe Paterno and the Penn State football program have gotten a lot of deserved negative media publicity the past few weeks. The Penn State coaches and administrators failed to report to authorities that a child molester was on their staff.

Public and media outrage has been pretty much unanimous. Many at Penn State who remained quiet about the incident have lost their jobs.

The Penn State incident reminded me of the Warren McGraw 2004 State Supreme Court race. Contrast Joe Paterno’s action with Warren McGraw’s action.

Joe failed to properly report the incident he was aware of, but Justice Warren McGraw voted to not only release a recently convicted child molester from prison but literally ordered that the molester work at a school as a custodian.

Wow. It’s hard to know where to start with this. But let’s give it a shot …  First of all, is Blankenship’s comparison between the Penn State situation and the case of Tony Dean Arbaugh a valid one?

At Penn State, top university officials and athletic program administrators are alleged to have ignored reports that a one-time assistant coach sexually assaulted or had inappropriate contact with at least eight underage boys. If proven true, the allegations show that Penn State officials tried to avoid a law enforcement investigation that would have gotten to the bottom of the situation and punished those responsible.

In the Arbaugh case, then-Justice Warren McGraw voted (along with Justices Joe Albright and Larry Starcher) to release from prison Tony Dean Arbaugh, who was jailed after pleading guilty to one count of first degree sexual assault for abusing his half-brother. Justice McGraw didn’t try to cover up Arbaugh’s crime. He simply voted that Arbaugh — himself a sexual abuse victim — needed another chance in life.

The Supreme Court’s 3-2 ruling in that case spelled out Arbaugh’s past very clearly, outlining both what had happened to him and what he had done to others:

The appellant in this case, Mr. Arbaugh, has lead a long and painful life. He endured a long history of sexual assault at the hands of two of his adult male family members, beginning when he was seven or eight years old. These assaults included oral sex, sodomy, mutual masturbation, and “dry humping.” Mr. Arbaugh was also sexually assaulted by one of his teachers for a period of four years. As a result of these attacks, Mr. Arbaugh began acting out sexually against his younger half brother … He plead guilty under the information to one count of first degree sexual assault.

(more…)

Friday roundup, Nov. 18, 2011

Friday, November 18, 2011

In this Saturday, Nov. 12, 2011 photo, the body of a miner killed after a gas leak at the Sizhuang Coal Mine lies on the ground in Shizong county of Qujing city, in southwestern China’s Yunnan province. The gas leak hit one underground platform of the mine Thursday and spread to another platform, trapping 43 miners. It was China’s second deadly mining accident in less than a week. (AP Photo)

Without a doubt the most interesting article about coal that I read this week was the one headlined Coal Exports Are Bigger Threat Than Tar Sands Pipeline, written by Eric de Place on on Sightline Daily, a website covering American’s northwest. The piece got much broader attention when it was cross-posted by Joe Romm on his Climate Progress blog.

Here’s what it says:

The planned Keystone XL oil pipeline has earned major national attention for the damage it would do to the climate. At the same time, another climate drama is playing out with much less attention as coal companies make plans to export huge quantities to Asia by way of Pacific Northwest ports. It’s pretty clear that both projects are environmental horror stories, but I’ve been wondering: which one is worse?

So, from the “King Kong versus Godzilla” files, here’s my analysis of their carbon impacts. It turns out, coal exports are actually the bigger problem—and that’s really saying something.

The result surprised me: coal exports look to be an even bigger climate disaster than the pipeline. There are, in fact, quite a bit more direct emissions from burning the coal than from the oil. That’s true even when one counts the energy-intensive tar sands extraction and processing—and, of course, there are plenty of upstream emissions associated with coal mining that I’ve left out of the equation here. (In order to make a roughly direct comparison, I also omitted emissions associated with both products’ mining, refining, transportation, and so forth.) Clearly we can ill afford either one of these projects, but until we have a clear energy policy that respects climate science we’ll be wrestling with these kind of killer projects one at a time.

Also from Climate Progress, there was a great piece called Big Coal: Children’s Health and Clean Air Are Not Worth Our Spending One Penny of the Billions in Cash We’re Sitting On that explains:

The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, or ACCCE, is a coal industry coalition leading the charge to block the mercury and air toxics reduction rules. These efforts include spending $35 million on misleading television ads. Its members include major utilities such as Southern Company and DTE Energy. Huge coal companies are also major ACCCE supporters, including Arch Coal and Peabody. Other members include railroads that haul coal.

ACCCE is a vocal opponent of the air toxics rule for utilities. They even have a “countdown clock” for the days until the safeguards are issued. Its members are primarily concerned that the air toxics rule “is the most expensive rule the EPA has ever written for coal-fueled power plants.”

But this claim ignores the fact that the 22 ACCCE companies have nearly $18 billion in cash reserves, which should substantially ease their ability to withstand any economic impact of cleanup.

(more…)

Another Kentucky coal miner dies

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Erica Peterson of WFPL reports:

A Harlan County coal miner has died from injuries he sustained weeks ago in a surface mining accident. Twenty-eight-year-old David Middleton died in a hospital yesterday.

Middleton’s death is the eighth coal mine-related fatality in Kentucky this year. Half of those deaths have happened during the past three weeks.

That’s 19 coal miners killed on the job in the U.S. this year.

Another take on the future of Appalachian coal

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

In this Wednesday, Aug. 17, 2011, photo, coal lies in piles around a conveyor system at a mine near Meta, Ky. Coal is deeply linked to the culture and economy in Central Appalachia but the industry is facing an expected collapse in production over the next few years. (AP Photo/Ed Reinke)

We’ve had a lot of coverage on this blog about the projections for major declines in Central Appalachian coal production in coming years. It’s been one of our major topics (see here, here, here, here and here).

So, I wanted to be sure that Coal Tattoo readers didn’t miss the op-ed that appeared in yesterday’s Lexington Herald-Leader. Headlined, “Future burns bright for E. Ky. coal,” the piece was written by Jerry Weisenfluh, who is associate director of Kentucky Geological Survey at the University of Kentucky.

Weisenfluh was responding to the recent AP story on this topic, and more specifically to the findings of a Downstream Strategies report that was among the main pieces of analysis cited by AP (and cited repeatedly by Coal Tattoo). He writes:

The central argument of the Downstream paper revolves around the relationship between mine productivity and coal prices. Mine productivity (tons per worker hour) increased steadily throughout the 20th century but has been declining since 2000.

This reversal coincided with a dramatic increase in coal prices. The report implies that this association is due to the additional employees needed to mine the thinner seams now available in Central Appalachia and uses this as evidence of depletion.

There is a serious problem with this argument.

Specifically, he writes:

The decline in mine productivity is a national trend. This suggests that there are other, more important factors affecting mine productivity. The more likely reason is the additional employees needed for complying with new safety and environmental regulations, because this would impact mines irrespective of their location.

There is no doubt that significant reserve depletion has resulted in mining of thinner seams leading to higher mining and processing costs. But it’s inaccurate to suggest this implies an accelerated collapse in production. There are technological advancements and market conditions that could change the current trend in production.

(more…)

Friday roundup, Nov. 4, 2011

Friday, November 4, 2011

In this photo released by China’s Xinhua news agency, rescuers work at the Qianqiu Coal Mine belongs to Yima Coal Group after an explosion of rock in Sanmenxia, central China’s Henan Province, Friday, Nov. 4, 2011. The sudden explosion of rock following a small earthquake killed four miners and trapped 57 others, the state news agency reported. (AP Photo/Xinhua, Zhu Xiang)

Families in the coalfields of China are waiting for word on the fate of at least 50 miners,  less than a week after 29 Chinese coal workers died in a massive explosion.  A Bloomberg story reminds us:

An average of more than six people a day died in the country’s coal mines last year compared with 48 people for the entire year in the U.S., the world’s second-biggest producer, data from the two governments show. China last year ordered supervisors to accompany miners into the pits.

In 2009, more than 100 people were killed in an explosion in the northeastern province of Heilongjiang. That was the nation’s worst mining disaster since December 2007, when 105 were killed at the Xinyao pit in Shanxi. Last year, a blast in central Henan province killed at least 48 miners.

The Oct. 29 explosion in Hunan was the deadliest this month. In other accidents, 17 were killed in Guizhou, 14 in Henan, 13 each in Chongqing and Heilongjiang and 11 in Shaanxi, according to reports by the official Xinhua News Agency.

The Chinese government aims to reduce deaths per million metric tons of coal produced by more than 28 percent in the five years through 2015, according to a circular published earlier this month. The number of people killed in coal mines declined 28 percent to 1,419 in the first nine months of this year compared with a year earlier, Xinhua reported on Oct. 21, citing Zhao Tiechui, head of the State Administration of Coal-Mine Safety.

Closer to home, Jessica Lilly of West Virginia Public Broadcasting had this story:

In a speech on the United States House floor, Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller recapped the United Mine Worker Association’s report into what happened at the Upper Big Branch. The union wants families of the victims to have a right to elect a representative during the investigation.

Under the Mine Act, any two living employees of a mine can elect a person or organization to be what’s called a ‘representative of miners’ at any time. This representative is allowed to travel with inspectors, point out problems, and examine any written citations. Mine safety advocate Tony Oppegard says it’s a right that’s simply not used enough.

“It seems to me the greater problem is that MSHA does not encourage miners to be miners’ reps,” Oppegard said.

“I think they don’t encourage it because a lot of inspectors and personnel probably feel more comfortable at mines where there are not miners reps because then they feel like they don’t have someone looking over their shoulder.”

And in West Virginia, an op-ed in the Gazette raised the age-old question of who owns our state’s great mineral wealth:

The last systematic study of land ownership patterns (done in 1981) found that nearly 60 percent of land in the sample of West Virginia counties studied was corporate-owned — and the percentage is even higher for mineral ownership. This is a result of conscious exploitation by outsiders and local elites who were able to buy up much of the mineral wealth of the state around the turn of the last century.

The inequality that is the focus of Occupy Wall Street can be felt acutely in southern West Virginia communities that are some of the poorest in the state, yet are surrounded by some of the richest coal reserves in the country.

(more…)