Re: Would God approve mtr?

by Aaron Sun Feb 10, 2008 10:00 am

No, there are times that underground mining is the only way to go.

The bottom line is, it's not safe enough and for that I blame our government. They have oversight and they've failed miserably in overseeing this industry. It's been that way for years. All you have to do is read the headlines to see that.

by ziggy Sun Feb 10, 2008 1:38 pm

Aaron wrote:I note you left all links off as to who much rain was recorded, which is part of the equation.

Well now Aaron, 5 or 6 years ago here, 'afore you frequented these halls of cyber learning, ole' SamCogar was parroting Bill Raney's and Bob Wise's version of that event- saying that "9 to 11" inches of ran is what caused that flooding. And when I showed readers that all the actual on the ground rainguages and recorded data indicated less than half that much rain actually fell in most locations in the flooded areas, Sam tried all manner of subterfuge to discredit Ziggy and NOAA and boost the propagansa of Raney and Wise.

But, as Sam is fond of saying, that was on the old forums, and so I ain't got a link to it.

But if you want to know how much rain fell during those events, it is easy to look up. I posted it a dozen times or more on the old forums. But nowhere will you find NOAA or other recorded credible weather service agancy data showing anything like the fantastic amounts of rainfall that Sam and Bob Wise and Bill Raney found necessary to recklessly tout in order to shift the blame for those disasters from MTR coal operators to God. God did a lot during those rain events. But SamCogar and Bill Raney and Bob Wise somehow found it necessary to double hype and even triple hype God's actual performance to save their asses- sort of like counting votes in Mingo County.

by ziggy Sun Feb 10, 2008 1:51 pm

SamCogar wrote:Right on, and a couple more really good places to look for those "deleterious effect on the people" is over there off I-79 in the Clarksburg/Bridgeport area.

It is awsome I tell ya.

The Meadowbrook MTR site is the oldest and smallest but ya can still see hundreds n' hundreds of victims roaming around there every day.

But now the super-duper one is the conjoined East Point MTR site and the New Point MTR site where you can see THOUSANDS of victims roaming around there every day of the week.

But iffen ya wanna see what I mean, ya better get there early ...... or you will just be another one of those victims a roaming around n' around ...... looking for a place to park your vehicle.

Thank you for makiing my point, Sam. Those are examples of where MTR, for the purpose of long term economic development for the benefit of several generations of tens of thousands or sometimes even millions of people can make sense. The Charleston airport is another example. And certain "cut anf fill" highway segments are another.

But with MTR for the exclusive pourpose of mining coal and then virtual abandonment, the economic benefits accrue to only a very few people, and for a very short period of time. But the increased and more frequent flooding from runoff from those stripped sites lasts for centuries. Hell, former coal operator and governor Cecil Underwooid fired Bill Maxey, his Division of Forestry Drector, just for pointing out that it will take centuries- perhaps a thousand years or more- to regrow a new hardwood forest of those barren MTR sites. And Maxey was not even accused of being factually inaccurate- only of being politically incorrect.

by ziggy Sun Feb 10, 2008 2:04 pm

Aaron wrote:I'm not saying there isn't vast amounts of room for improvements and Massey or every other coal company shouldn't do what the can to ensure those improvements are implemented.

Just like Sherm though, you would still be against MTR if Massey met the most stringent requirements, even though it is much safer for miners, and would be safer for the environment. In fact, I don't believe there's any way you support mining, unless it's the government running industry and distributing the wealth in a proper, socialized manner to the poor working man.

The thing with one sided agenda's is the critic often loses credibility.

So just because someone might want more stringent mining rules than already exist, it is OK for coal operators to flaunt their criminal activities and for agencies charged by law with enforcemnent to disregard the existing rules?

That would be like suggesting that since maybe some people would like to see lowered highway speed limits, that traffic cops should not enforce existing speed limits.

Too, which one of us is the "critic"? You lament one sided credibility. But you seem OK with no credibility whatsoever.

by Aaron Mon Feb 11, 2008 8:06 am

ziggy wrote:
Aaron wrote:I note you left all links off as to who much rain was recorded, which is part of the equation.

Well now Aaron, 5 or 6 years ago here, 'afore you frequented these halls of cyber learning, ole' SamCogar was parroting Bill Raney's and Bob Wise's version of that event- saying that "9 to 11" inches of ran is what caused that flooding. And when I showed readers that all the actual on the ground rainguages and recorded data indicated less than half that much rain actually fell in most locations in the flooded areas, Sam tried all manner of subterfuge to discredit Ziggy and NOAA and boost the propagansa of Raney and Wise.

But, as Sam is fond of saying, that was on the old forums, and so I ain't got a link to it.

But if you want to know how much rain fell during those events, it is easy to look up. I posted it a dozen times or more on the old forums. But nowhere will you find NOAA or other recorded credible weather service agancy data showing anything like the fantastic amounts of rainfall that Sam and Bob Wise and Bill Raney found necessary to recklessly tout in order to shift the blame for those disasters from MTR coal operators to God. God did a lot during those rain events. But SamCogar and Bill Raney and Bob Wise somehow found it necessary to double hype and even triple hype God's actual performance to save their asses- sort of like counting votes in Mingo County.

I'm not SamCogar, Bill Raney or Bob Wise, I wasn't on the forum 5 or 6 years ago and you've still not posted the links for the rain totals.

by Aaron Mon Feb 11, 2008 8:16 am

ziggy wrote:
Aaron wrote:I'm not saying there isn't vast amounts of room for improvements and Massey or every other coal company shouldn't do what the can to ensure those improvements are implemented.

Just like Sherm though, you would still be against MTR if Massey met the most stringent requirements, even though it is much safer for miners, and would be safer for the environment. In fact, I don't believe there's any way you support mining, unless it's the government running industry and distributing the wealth in a proper, socialized manner to the poor working man.

The thing with one sided agenda's is the critic often loses credibility.

So just because someone might want more stringent mining rules than already exist, it is OK for coal operators to flaunt their criminal activities and for agencies charged by law with enforcemnent to disregard the existing rules?

That would be like suggesting that since maybe some people would like to see lowered highway speed limits, that traffic cops should not enforce existing speed limits.

Too, which one of us is the "critic"? You lament one sided credibility. But you seem OK with no credibility whatsoever.

I've never said current rules and regulations should not be followed. Once again, your bigotry causes you to assume something that is just not true and once again you're dead wrong.

I believe all rules and regulations should be followed to the letter of the law and any and all violations should be proscuted to the fullest extent of the law. That is where your government is failing miserably.

I would say what is criminal is the actions of MSHA inspectors. IMO, any inspector that fails to ensure rules and regulations and as a result of that failure, an employee is injured or killed, the inspector should be held JUST as responsible as the company and suffer some sort of consquence, whether it be a fine, loss of employment or criminal charges.

by SamCogar Mon Feb 11, 2008 8:17 am

ziggy wrote:
Aaron wrote:I note you left all links off as to who much rain was recorded, which is part of the equation.

Well now Aaron, 5 or 6 years ago here, 'afore you frequented these halls of cyber learning, ole' SamCogar was parroting Bill Raney's and Bob Wise's version of that event- saying that "9 to 11" inches of ran is what caused that flooding.

Yeah, he was Aaron, because that is what the media was reporting.

In the first weeks after the flood, the media reported as much as 11 inches of rain in the Pineville and Mullens area. Those reports persisted through September. However, the rain gages of the National Weather Service show the most rain on July 8 was 5.32 inches at Mullens. The 11-inch-reading came from a gage that malfunctioned, according to Weather Service officials. In the first weeks after the flood, the media reported as much as 11 inches of rain in the Pineville and Mullens area. Those reports persisted through September. However, the rain gages of the National Weather Service show the most rain on July 8 was 5.32 inches at Mullens. The 11-inch-reading came from a gage that malfunctioned, according to Weather Service officials. http://www.wvcoalfield.com/flooding.htm

Aaron, ya see ole Ziggy believes what best proves his bias. All the rain gages worked perfectly ....... except one. And ole Ziiggy believes "it only rains the most .... exactly where a rain gage is placed to measure it". Ya know, like any rainfall one (1) to five (5) miles from where the rain gage is positioned ..... doesn't count ...... and will not affect flooding.

YUP, ole Ziggy believes that if rain gages are placed at Point A and Point B, five (5) miles apart, and both those gages record 5.32 inches of rainfall, ..... then it is absolutely impossible for there to be any less, ... or any more, .... rainfall inbetween those two Points.

ziggy wrote: And when I showed readers that all the actual on the ground rainguages and recorded data indicated less than half that much rain actually fell in most locations in the flooded areas, Sam tried all manner of subterfuge to discredit Ziggy and NOAA and boost the propagansa of Raney and Wise.

YUP, that is what all but one (1) of the rain gages "measured", with 5.32 inches at Mullens. And Aaron, guess how much rain they is necessary to cause flooding.

Many flooded areas did get as much rain in six hours as usually falls in the entire month of July. The Weather Service found that it takes 1.8 inches to 2.9 inches of rain in three hours to cause flooding in these areas. However, the amount of rain was not as excessive as was thought right after the flooding. Many residents felt that something more than the rain was responsible. Perhaps all the timbering and mining up on the mountains should take part of the blame.
http://www.wvcoalfield.com/flooding.htm

So ya see Aaron, they got twice as much rain as needed to cause flooding ....... but they don't know how long it took for the bulk of that rain to hit the ground. They could have gotten 3.9 inches of it in the first 30 minutes and the remainder 1.42 inches in the next 5 1/2 hours. And 2 to 4 inches in 30 minutes is akin to "flushing a commode" ..... no matter where it falls in the hills of WV.

ziggy wrote: But, as Sam is fond of saying, that was on the old forums, and so I ain't got a link to it.

But if you want to know how much rain fell during those events, it is easy to look up. I posted it a dozen times or more on the old forums. But nowhere will you find NOAA or other recorded credible weather service agancy data showing anything like the fantastic amounts of rainfall that Sam and Bob Wise and Bill Raney found necessary to recklessly tout in order to shift the blame for those disasters from MTR coal operators to God. God did a lot during those rain events. But SamCogar and Bill Raney and Bob Wise somehow found it necessary to double hype and even triple hype God's actual performance to save their asses- sort of like counting votes in Mingo County.

Aaron, and here is the 1st part of that "look up".

THE FLOODS OF 2001

On Sunday, July 8, and again at the end of the month, the rains came. From Gauley Bridge south to Jenkin Jones, from the New River Gorge west to Buffalo Creek, the creeks and rivers surged over their banks; rocks and logs tumbled off the hillsides; sand and mud settled on lawns and gardens like an endless wasteland

The violent storms cut through a swath of southern West Virginia, about 50 miles wide and 100 miles long. They swept through significant communities, including Glen Ferris, Oak Hill, Whitesville, Oceana, Mullens, Pineville and Anawalt. At least 1,500 families lost their houses, and thousands more had extensive damages.

http://www.wvcoalfield.com/flooding.htm

Aaron, Zigster has no frigging conception of the amount of rainfall that fell during that storm and therefore he just assumes there wasn't enough water to cause such severe flooding. So, lets do a quick calculation of that quantity.

But instead of 11.0 inches, ….. or even 5.32 inches of rainfall, lets just figure 4.0 inches.

Area of rainfall = 50 miles by 100 miles = 5,000 square miles.
5,000 (sq miles) = 3,200,000 acres
3,200,000 acres = 139,392,000,000 sq feet
1 sq foot = 144 sq inches
144 sq inches x 4.0 inches of rainfall = 576 cubic inches of water per sq foot of area
576 cubic inches = 2.49 gallons of rainwater falling on every sq foot of land
139,392,000,000 sq feet x 2.49 gallons of water = 347,086,080,000 gallons of water
That is 347.086 BILLION gallons of rainwater.

or,

139,392,000,000 sq feet x 4.0 inches of water = 46,464,000,000 cubic feet of water
That is 46.464 BILLION cubic feet of rainwater.

And to give you a perspective how much water that is, to wit:

While not exceptionally high, the Niagara Falls are very wide. More than 6 million cubic feet of water fall over the crest line every minute in high flow (360 million gal/hour), and almost 4 million cubic feet on average (240 million gal/hour). It is the most powerful waterfall in North America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niagara_Falls

That 46.464 BILLION cubic feet of rainwater is 129 times as much as what flows over Niagara Falls in one (1) hour at high flow …. or, ……. 193.6 times as much as what flows over Niagara Falls in one (1) hour at average flow.

Yup siree Aaron, Zigster believes that if there was no MTR’ing or timbering, those 4 inches of rain (2.5 gal/sq ft) is going to lay right on the sides of those hills and trickle down nice and easy like and not cause any flooding.

Razz

.

by ziggy Mon Feb 11, 2008 8:59 pm

Aaron wrote:I'm not SamCogar, Bill Raney or Bob Wise, I wasn't on the forum 5 or 6 years ago and you've still not posted the links for the rain totals.

I didn't need to- 'cause I knew ole' Sam would do it for me. And the most he came up with was 5.32 inches.

by Aaron Tue Feb 12, 2008 9:10 am

ziggy wrote:
Aaron wrote:I'm not SamCogar, Bill Raney or Bob Wise, I wasn't on the forum 5 or 6 years ago and you've still not posted the links for the rain totals.

I didn't need to- 'cause I knew ole' Sam would do it for me. And the most he came up with was 5.32 inches.

I've been in all those areas of the state and I recall those floods. 5.32 inches of rain in that short amount of time has no where to go but the streets of towns like Mullins, Whitesville and Logan. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

I was talking to a guy I know about his last night and he tells me that all the mining around Mullins is underground so how is MTR responsible for that flooding???

by SamCogar Tue Feb 12, 2008 9:48 am

ziggy wrote:
Aaron wrote:I'm not SamCogar, Bill Raney or Bob Wise, I wasn't on the forum 5 or 6 years ago and you've still not posted the links for the rain totals.

I didn't need to- 'cause I knew ole' Sam would do it for me. And the most he came up with was 5.32 inches.

Well now Zigster, didn't the media report that 11 inches of rain in the Pineville and Mullens area. To wit:

In the first weeks after the flood, the media reported as much as 11 inches of rain in the Pineville and Mullens area. Those reports persisted through September. However, the rain gages of the National Weather Service show the most rain on July 8 was 5.32 inches at Mullens. The 11-inch-reading came from a gage that malfunctioned, according to Weather Service officials.

And if the National Weather Service said that 5.32 inches was measured at Mullins .... then that 11 inches of rain must have been measured at Pineville .... 15 miles away, right?

And the Weather Service officials said that rain gage at Pineville malfunctioned, ..... right.

Well Zigster, following are picture of a Standard Raingages, .... maybe you could tell me what type was a Mullins and Pineville and what malfunctioned with one (1) of them?

Would God approve mtr? - Page 2 P0000259

Would God approve mtr? - Page 2 P0000259

Standard Raingage - for measuring precipitation, simply insert the measuring stick and record the amount. Dump the water out of the can and you are ready for the next storm.

If the above type is at Pineville, I find it hard to believe that it malfunctioned.

Would God approve mtr? - Page 2 P0000258

Would God approve mtr? - Page 2 P0000258

Fisher-Porter Recording Raingage - this instrument records precipitation at 15-minute intervals to the nearest 10th of an inch (0.1 inches).

Would God approve mtr? - Page 2 P0000262

Would God approve mtr? - Page 2 P0000262

Weighing Bucket Raingage - another way of measure precipitation on a continuous basis, this one weighs the amount of water collected and converts it to inches. The amount is recorded on paper, similar to the way it is done on the hygrothermograph.

Zigster, if the gages were 15 miles apart then it is absolutely possible that both their readings were accurate.

But if the Weather Officials have convinced themselves that one of them malfunctioned, ........ how do they know which one it was?

.

by ziggy Tue Feb 12, 2008 1:03 pm

Aaron wrote:A funny thing occurred to me when I was doing a search for mining disasters. Of all the ones I could find, none were from mountain top mining???

Try google. Here's just the first one of about 18,600 hits for mountaintop removal disaster

http://www.ohvec.org/galleries/mountaintop_removal/006/index.html

by Aaron Tue Feb 12, 2008 1:22 pm

I didn't say there were no MTR sites in Logan County. I know there are plenty of MTR sites there, including Lyburn.

You do realize that Lyburn is 50+ miles away from Mullins and wouldn't have an effect on flooding in Mullins unless there were biblical rains in Logan County!!!

by ziggy Tue Feb 12, 2008 3:17 pm

Aaron, you were the one who said:

funny thing occurred to me when I was doing a search for mining disasters. Of all the ones I could find, none were from mountain top mining???

I showed you that there were indeed some.

Massey Valley Fill Disaster
Lyburn, WV
July 19, 2002

Photos extracted from video taken by Bob Gates photonzx@intelos.net
Imagine sleeping restlessly, if at all, any night it rains. Imagine getting up every half hour to check that the creek near your home isn't rising swiftly and running dark with sediment and debris. Imagine wondering each time it rains if you are about to lose your possessions and even your life.
That's what life is like for residents who live close by valley fills and sediment ponds at mountaintop removal (MTR) operations. Many residents wonder if their communities will be the next hit by flooding, flooding brought on by hard rains and made worse because of mountaintop removal. Click here for Charleston Gazette coverage.
On July 19, an early morning thunderstorm (3 to 3 1/2 inches during a three-hour period) brought disaster to the little community of Winding Shoals Hollow at Lyburn in Logan Co., WV. Huge, rain-saturated chunks of a giant valley fill at Bandmill Coal Corp., owned by Massey Energy, cleaved away from the valley fill and crashed into a sediment pond below.

Massey brought big equipment to the valley fill to begin cleaning up. Note in the foreground where the tidal wave of sediment and debris-laden water cascaded over the side of the sediment pond's dam.

The falling debris completely filled the sediment pond, causing it to overflow and send a tidal wave of sediment-laden water churning down Winding Shoals Hollow, destroying two homes, damaging about ten others and hurtling 8-10 vehicles downstream. No one was killed, though there were some narrow escapes.

Would God approve mtr? - Page 2 Back-door

Would God approve mtr? - Page 2 Back-door

Would God approve mtr? - Page 2 Front-door

Would God approve mtr? - Page 2 Dog-house

Above: three pictures of one of the destroyed homes.

by Aaron Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:10 pm

You do realize Ziggy that Lyburn is 50 miles away from Mullins, which is where I was talking about. I guess you missed that part of my statement, huh.

by TerryRC Thu Feb 14, 2008 8:08 am

I've been in all those areas of the state and I recall those floods. 5.32 inches of rain in that short amount of time has no where to go but the streets of towns like Mullins, Whitesville and Logan. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

Spot on Aaron.

I highlighted a few words in your statement. The reason is to point out that if the hills around those watersheds had been properly timbered, leaving a decent percentage of canopy and ground vegetation, the window that you called a "short amount of time " would have been widened as trees, plants and even organic material on the ground provide a physical obstacle to the rain. It doesn't "block" the rain, but it slows the rate at which it ends up in the creeks and rivers.

Also, streams and creeks filled with sediment are far more prone to flooding than those that aren't.

by Aaron Thu Feb 14, 2008 8:20 am

I'm not disagreeing with you TC. In fact, I think timbering played more of a role then mining did in the flooding, especially in parts of Wyoming and Fayette County. Anyone with even the slightest bit of common sense can look at some of the clear cut mountain sides and know that it's just not right.

As with mining, I believe timbering should be closely regulated. The failures are as much, if not more so, the governments. Ziggy refuses to admit that. His his twisted view of the situation, coal mine companies are composed of evil men hell bent on destroying the environment while screwing the working man and they'll tell any lie, break any law and go to any length to do so.

Never mind that the first line of defense in any safety program is the employee and their personal conduct. It's all Don Blankenship's fault. He is personally for the floods and dust in all of southern West Virginia.

by SamCogar Thu Feb 14, 2008 10:22 am

Neither one of these two article on "flash floods" cite timbering or Mountain Top Removal mining as PRIMARY causes of said flooding.

They both cite ..... rainfall intensity and duration, ...... rainfall intensity and duration, ........ rainfall intensity and duration, ...... rainfall intensity and duration. Razz

Floods are the most common and widespread of all weather-related natural disasters. Most communities in the United States have experienced flooding after spring rains, heavy thunderstorms, or winter snow thaws. Floods have enough power to change the course of rivers and bury houses in mud. And flash floods are the most dangerous kind of floods, because they combine the destructive power of a flood with incredible speed and unpredictability. Learn more about the force of flash floods when you read through this lesson.

Many things can cause a flash flood. Generally they are the result of heavy rainfall concentrated over one area. Most flash flooding is caused by slow-moving thunderstorms, thunderstorms that repeatedly move over the same area, or heavy rains from hurricanes and tropical storms.

Dam failures can create the worst flash flood events. When a dam or levee breaks, a gigantic quantity of water is suddenly let loose downstream, destroying anything in its path.

Flash flood waters move at very fast speeds. They have the power to move boulders, tear out trees, destroy buildings, and obliterate bridges. Walls of water can reach heights of 10 to 20 feet and generally carry a huge amount of debris with them. http://weathereye.kgan.com/cadet/flood/about.html

http://weathereye.kgan.com/cadet/flood/index.html

flash floods and floods ... the Awesome Power!

A PREPAREDNESS GUIDE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Weather Service
July 1992
NOAA, FEMA, and The American Red Cross

flash floods - #1 weather-related killer in the United States!

How do flash floods occur?

Several factors contribute to flash flooding. The two key elements are rainfall intensity and duration. Intensity is the rate of rainfall, and duration is how long the rain lasts. Topography, soil conditions, and ground cover also play an important role. (But they don't mean shidt without both of those key elements. )

Flash floods occur within a few minutes or hours of excessive rainfall, a dam or levee failure, or a sudden release of water held by an ice jam. Flash floods can roll boulders, tear out trees, destroy buildings and bridges, and scour out new channels. Rapidly rising water can reach heights of 30 feet or more. Furthermore, flash flood-producing rains can also trigger catastrophic mud slides. You will not always have a warning that these deadly, sudden floods are coming. Most flood deaths are due to FLASH FLOODS.

Most flash flooding is caused by slow-moving thunderstorms, thunderstorms repeatedly moving over the same area, or heavy rains from hurricanes and tropical storms.

Occasionally, floating debris or ice can accumulate at a natural or man-made obstruction and restrict the flow of water. Water held back by the ice jam or debris dam can cause flooding upstream. Subsequent flash flooding can occur downstream if the obstruction should suddenly release.

June 9, 1972 Black Hills
Rapid City, SD
15 inches of rain in 5 hours
238 fatalities
$164M in damages
Source: National Weather Service

Flash Flood Events
June 14, 1990 Shadyside, Ohio...
4 inches of rain in less than 2 hours produced a 30-foot high wall of water...
26 dead...damages $6-8M.

August 1, 1985 Cheyenne, Wyoming...
6 inches of rain in 3 hours...
12 dead...damages $61M.

http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/brochures/ffbro.htm

by ziggy Thu Feb 14, 2008 3:20 pm

Aaron wrote:As with mining, I believe timbering should be closely regulated. The failures are as much, if not more so, the governments. Ziggy refuses to admit that. His his twisted view of the situation, coal mine companies are composed of evil men hell bent on destroying the environment while screwing the working man and they'll tell any lie, break any law and go to any length to do so.

You blame the government. OK. Government has been woefully inadequate to enforce the law. But how does that excuse corporate outlaws who should obey the laws in spite of government slothfulness? How does that excuse corporate bribers who spend millions on lawyers and political action to assure that government agencies do not enforce the laws?

You analogy is comparable to vehicle driver who cause multiple traffic wrecks- but who then blame the government for not making them obey the traffic laws. The primary responsibility is on employees and mine operators- just as the primary responsibility for traffic safety is on drivers and vehicle owners.

by SamCogar Fri Feb 15, 2008 9:03 am

ziggy wrote:
You blame the government. OK. Government has been woefully inadequate to enforce the law. But how does that excuse corporate outlaws who should obey the laws in spite of government slothfulness? How does that excuse corporate bribers who spend millions on lawyers and political action to assure that government agencies do not enforce the laws?

And your analogy is comparable to drug dealers, drug users, crooks, robbers and murders who do their "thing" - but who then blame the Police and the Courts for not making them obey the laws.

And all your rhetoric is "HORSEHOCKY", ..... the primary responsibility is on those who are charged with "enforcing the Laws".

It is government agencies that enact the Laws ....... and therefore it is their duty to enforce them.

Zigster, you do not hold those government agencies accountable for enforcing the Laws that they enact ....... because you know damn well they would have to be arresting themselves.

.

by Aaron Fri Feb 15, 2008 10:12 am

ziggy wrote:
Aaron wrote:As with mining, I believe timbering should be closely regulated. The failures are as much, if not more so, the governments. Ziggy refuses to admit that. His his twisted view of the situation, coal mine companies are composed of evil men hell bent on destroying the environment while screwing the working man and they'll tell any lie, break any law and go to any length to do so.

You blame the government. OK. Government has been woefully inadequate to enforce the law. But how does that excuse corporate outlaws who should obey the laws in spite of government slothfulness? How does that excuse corporate bribers who spend millions on lawyers and political action to assure that government agencies do not enforce the laws?

You analogy is comparable to vehicle driver who cause multiple traffic wrecks- but who then blame the government for not making them obey the traffic laws. The primary responsibility is on employees and mine operators- just as the primary responsibility for traffic safety is on drivers and vehicle owners.

You are right on one thing. Mine safety is first and foremost individual employee responsibility, regardless of how a company treats safety.

You keep crying about corporate 'outlaws', claiming they are breaking laws just to break laws. Since you've insinuated that before, you have proof, correct!!!

You analogy is comparable to vehicle driver who cause multiple traffic wrecks while operating within the confines of the law set up by the government- but are blamed by loon fringe groups who insinuate that the driver is reckless and purposefully breaking the law anc causing accidents solely for the sake of causing the accidents.

Your statement was wrong. That is what you should have said.

by **Stephanie** Fri Feb 15, 2008 10:17 am

You are right on one thing. Mine safety is first and foremost individual employee responsibility, regardless of how a company treats safety.

You keep crying about corporate 'outlaws', claiming they are breaking laws just to break laws. Since you've insinuated that before, you have proof, correct!!!

They don't break laws just to break them, Aaron. They break laws to increase profits.

by Aaron Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:06 am

Stephanie wrote:
You are right on one thing. Mine safety is first and foremost individual employee responsibility, regardless of how a company treats safety.

You keep crying about corporate 'outlaws', claiming they are breaking laws just to break laws. Since you've insinuated that before, you have proof, correct!!!

They don't break laws just to break them, Aaron. They break laws to increase profits.

Show me which laws they are breaking Stephanie.

Sherm's court injucntion that he linked had nothing to do with any law Massey was breaking. It addresssed how the Corp of Engineers issued permits.

by **Stephanie** Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:26 am

Oh how I hate being on dial up.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/6944ea38b888dd03852573d3005074ba?OpenDocument

Massey Energy to Pay Largest Civil Penalty Ever for Water Permit Violations

Release date: 01/17/2008

Contact Information: Contact: Roxanne Smith, 202-564-4355 / smith.roxanne@epa.gov

(Washington, D.C. – Jan. 17, 2008) Massey Energy Company Inc. has agreed to pay a $20 million civil penalty in a corporate-wide settlement to resolve Clean Water Act violations at coal mines in West Virginia and Kentucky, the Justice Department and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced. This is the largest civil penalty in EPA’s history levied against a company for wastewater discharge permit violations.

"This is a landmark settlement for the environment, and raises the bar for the mining industry," said Granta Nakayama, assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. "Today's action reiterates the message that EPA will enforce environmental laws."

“The measures required by this settlement represent a significant step forward in the way that mining facilities currently address Clean Water Act compliance,” said Ronald J. Tenpas, assistant attorney general in charge of the Justice Department’s Environmental and Natural Resources Division. “This settlement will greatly benefit citizens in West Virginia and Kentucky and improve many of our nation’s waters for years to come.”

As part of the settlement, Massey, the fourth largest coal company in the United States, has agreed to take measures at all of its facilities that will prevent an estimated 380 million pounds of sediment and other pollutants from entering the nation’s waters each year. These compliance measures are unprecedented in the coal mining industry.

In a complaint filed on May 10, 2007, the government alleged that Massey violated its Clean Water Act permits more than 4,500 times between January 2000 and December 2006. The complaint alleged that Massey discharged excess amounts of metals, sediment, and acid mine drainage into hundreds of rivers and streams in West Virginia and Kentucky. Many of the pollutants were discharged in amounts 40 percent or more than allowed. Some pollutants were discharged at levels more than 10 times over the permit limits.

The complaint also alleged that Massey spilled large amounts of slurry, which is waste containing metals and sediment, into local waterways numerous times. Sediment can clog streams and harm fish habitats. The spills occurred as a result of failures in the processing, storage, and transportation of coal slurry.

In addition to the penalty, Massey will invest approximately $10 million to develop and implement a set of procedures to prevent future violations. Massey will implement an innovative electronic tracking system that allows the company to quickly address compliance problems and correct any violations of permit limits. This measure fits within a comprehensive environmental compliance program that Massey has agreed to implement, which includes in-depth internal and third-party audits, employee training, and a plan to prevent future slurry spills.

Massey will also set aside 200 acres of riverfront land in West Virginia for conservation purposes and protection from future mining. The company is also required to perform 20 projects downstream from mining operations.

Massey, the largest coal producer in Central Appalachia, owns and operates approximately 33 underground mines and approximately 11 surface mines in West Virginia, Kentucky and Virginia, with corporate headquarters in Richmond, Va. Massey controls 2.3 billion tons, or approximately one-third, of the coal reserves in Central Appalachia.

The company holds hundreds of state-issued wastewater discharge permits. The permits allow the company to discharge certain pollutants in limited amounts to rivers, streams, and other water bodies. Some pollutants must be treated with chemicals prior to discharge, while others must go through a settling process. Massey is required to monitor discharges regularly and report results to the state agency. Permits are issued for a five-year term.

The consent decree, lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, is subject to a 30-day public comment period and approval by the federal court.

by **Stephanie** Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:28 am

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N29301159.htm

Coal miner Massey fined $1.5 mln for fatal fire
29 Mar 2007 22:58:57 GMT
Source: Reuters
Alert Me | Printable view | Email this article | RSS [-] Text [+]

(Adds committee chairman comments paragraphs 2-4)

By Steve James

NEW YORK, March 29 (Reuters) - Massey Energy Co. was fined $1.5 million, the largest amount ever for mine safety violations, after two miners died last year in a fire at one of its West Virginia coal mines, the U.S. Department of Labor said on Thursday.

The announcement by the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) prompted the chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, which is holding hearings in Washington to examine mine safety laws, to call for even tougher action.

"I am outraged that these mine operators intentionally skirted basic health and safety regulations and that MSHA allowed it," said Rep. George Miller, a Democrat of California.

"When mine operators choose to flout basic safety requirements, MSHA has to be there aggressively to prevent such tragedies before they happen," he said. "MSHA should be issuing tougher standards and enforcing them strongly to protect workers from irresponsible mine operators."

Last year, 47 coal miners were killed on the job in the United States, including 12 in an explosion at International Coal Group's Sago mine in West Virginia. ICG idled the mine last week for economic reasons.

In a statement, MSHA said its investigation of the Jan. 19, 2006, fire at Massey's Aracoma Alma Mine No. 1 determined that 25 violations of mandatory health and safety laws contributed to the accident.

The regulator noted that in March 2006 it referred the case to the U.S. Attorney's Office for possible criminal charges.

SEVERITY

"The number and severity of safety violations at the mine at the time of the fire demonstrated reckless disregard for safety, warranting the highest fine MSHA has levied for a fatal coal mining accident," said Richard Stickler, assistant secretary of labor for mine safety and health.

A spokeswoman for the agency told Reuters that the previous highest fine was $540,000 for an accident that killed two miners in Fire Creek, West Virginia, in 1991.

She said Massey was assessed $60,000 for each of the 25 violations at Aracoma. Asked about the Sago blast, also in January 2006, she said that investigation is not complete.

Richmond, Virginia-based Massey said it was reviewing the Aracoma report and had no specific comments. It did say, however, that it appeared there were conditions at the time of the fire that did not meet Massey's safety standards.

At Wednesday's Congressional hearing, senior Republican committee member Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, of California, outlined subcommittee oversight activities following last year's accidents.

"It became abundantly clear that we needed better mining communications technology, more modern safety practices inside U.S. mines, and improved enforcement of current mine safety laws," he said. "But I believe ... that our nation's mine workers are better off today than they were a year ago."

But Chairman Miller said many of the 47 deaths might have been prevented had the MSHA heeded warning signs.

He said a report by the committee's Democratic staff said the Bush administration had stacked the agency with industry insiders and failed to collect fines from mine operators that broke the law.

"Mine operators who do not take the safety of their employees seriously should not be allowed to mine coal, period," Miller said. "There are mine operators who would rather pay their fines than change their behavior."

by Aaron Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:37 am

I see a massive failure here on part of MSHA inspectors.

I'm sure Massey appealed this decision. Do you have a link to the final decision?

by Sponsored content

Would God approve of mountaintop removal stripmining?