<Cyclone Gonu Thread 2-Muscat and Bandar Abbas now in the projected path of Gonu (updated at 8p EDT) The Oil Drum Localism and some thoughts on Social Change>

67 comments on Coal Mining Reserves - a cautious note

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

Heading Out on June 4, 2007 - 7:53am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Getting the coal from a surface mining operation is safer, cheaper and gets more of the coal out that does underground mining (rough rule used to be 50% for underground 85% for surface). Most surface mining operations are disruptive while they are going on, since they are moving large quantities of soil and rock to reach the underlying coal. Mountain top removal is one of the more controversial of these, since it does not replace the rock, as it was. However there are relatively strict regulations for the restoration of the land after mining is over. Some of this land then provides places to build things such as hospitals and schools, and has more value than it had previously. However there are some strong opinions on both sides of this issue. One rarely sees pictures, for example, of how the land looks after it is restored, generally it is shown during mining, or from areas that were extracted before the current regulations were put in place.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
NeverLNG on June 4, 2007 - 11:21am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

One rarely sees pictures, for example, of how the land looks after it is restored, generally it is shown during mining, or from areas that were extracted before the current regulations were put in place.

Is that because there are not pictures, or because an environmentalist conspiracy exists to suppress the good things about modern coal mining?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Heading Out on June 4, 2007 - 12:07pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Well I thought about putting up a golf course picture (Twisted Gun Golf Course, W.Va or Stonecrest in Kentucky), but instead thought that this is a bit less controversial, it is just a farm.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
PeakOil Tarzan on June 4, 2007 - 1:28pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

From the windshield of a car, many of these "reclaimed" strip mines look fairly lush. However, if you get out on the ground and walk them, they are quite barren -- usually just a sparse cover of Kentucky 31 Tall Fescue with a little trefoil or sericea mixed in. I'd bet that most of these that are less than 5 years old have no more than a 30% ground cover. Without significant organic amendments -- yard waste, sewage sludge, what have you -- these areas will take decades to develop a healthy and productive vegetative cover.

In my opinion, the "improving the economics of the region by making flat land" argument is crapola. There isn't significant enough economic activity (for a variety of reasons that aren't likely to change) in Appalachia to make use of much of this area. But if you tell someone that you've just created a great parking lot, I guess they'll be more likely to overlook the fact that the mine spoil supports only a sickly stand of fescue.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
NeverLNG on June 4, 2007 - 1:58pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

has anyone tried reclaiming and rebuilding the soil with permaculture techniques? Is it effectively lost forever?

Seems like with some care,quite a lot could be done -- and it would be cheap land for all the millions who will be displaced from the coast with rising sea levels.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
PeakOil Tarzan on June 4, 2007 - 2:45pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

A lot more could certainly be done. But it all costs money and no one spends any more than they have to.

I worked on some coal mine reclamation projects when I was employed by one of the Southeastern Land Grant schools and I think we were able to improve some things -- particularly in the areas of topsoil salvage, spoil mixing (some rock types for reasons of texture and chemistry just naturally weather to a more desirable soil parent material), and (top)soil amendments. But it would admittedly have been much more expensive to implement all of the things that we recommended. And some of our recommendations were not politically popular (sewage sludge amendments). So, in the end, what you end up with are a lot of half-measures.

Bottom line: It's just damned hard to create a healthy vegetative cover with only bulldozed rock and a hydro-seeder. Mother Nature will eventually finish the job for you but on her own time. Meantime, you're living with a destroyed ecosystem, you've grossly increased rainfall runoff (which, in the narrow stream valleys characteristic of the Appalachian Region is just what you don't want to do) and you've created a lot of just plain ugly places.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Dezakin on June 4, 2007 - 4:44pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Sure...

But why should I care?

I'm being a bit smarmy here sure, but I really dont know why I should care about mountaintops being scarred in the middle of nowhere. Isn't this just an aesthetic issue?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
PeakOil Tarzan on June 4, 2007 - 5:15pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Well, I guess that depends on what you value. In my mind, it is rarely a question of simple aesthetics. The Appalachian corrider is, for instance, an important flyway for migratory songbirds -- songbirds that help to control insects in wood-producing forests in Appalachia or in New England or South America. It also happens that the Appalachian Highlands sit atop the sub-continental divide between the Atlantic and the Gulf and so essentially form the headwaters region for much of the freshwater runoff in the Southeastern US. So, there are water quality issues, as well.

But your question does, I think, reflect our attitude, as a society, about things that are "out of sight, out of mind." The coal-bearing portion of the Appalchians has been made, in effect, a national sacrifice zone. But that was well underway before anyone thought about Peak Oil or Climate Change and I expect that process to continue.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
eric blair on June 4, 2007 - 11:08pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

But why should I care?
I'm being a bit smarmy here sure,

No, you've already emotionally invested in seeing Fission Power be the "way to go", so you don't care.

in the middle of nowhere.
Your 'middle of nowhere' is someone else's somewhere.

Isn't this just an aesthetic issue?

No. Educating you on heavy metal issues is pointless however, as you have shown a desire to remain ignorant.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
buzzinator on June 6, 2007 - 10:14pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

It's clearly different out west here in Wyoming but as we produce so darn much of the stuff (480 million tons last year) it might be interesting to compare how the land is mined. Most of the Powder River Basin is gently rolling with the largest seam, from the Fort Union formation, dipping gently to the west toward the Bighorn Mountains. On the western edge of the basin it dips much more steeply to the east and very little is economically minable. Seams are to thick to mine underground. State regs require the mining companies to set the topsoil aside, seed it and keep it separated from subsoil and subsequent overburden layers. The topsoil is to be replaced at the end of reclamation and seeded to "similar" vegetative cover. It takes over a century to create one inch of topsoil so it's clearly a precious commodity. The overburden layers are replaced in the same stratigraphic order in which they were found. Digging 100 foot seams of coal does not produce 100 foot deep holes as the overburden expands greatly while sequestered and does not seem to compact nearly as much as pre-mining. Mined areas are made to blend in topographically with surrounding land. Is it perfect? Absolutely not, but no open pits or highwalls left behind.
I have personally seen some decent reclamation done on pits opened in the early 80s. One big problem has been reestablishing native shrubs such as sagebrush ( Artemisia tridentata). A lot of experimenting was taking place in the mid-80s with direct planting of sage seedlings. At least reclamation today doesn't simply consist of seeding crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum)as was done along hundreds of miles of highways in Wyoming and some of the oldest mine pits in the region. It's a great vegetative cover but pure stands lack diversity of plant species and it has low value as wildlife forage. Plus, any monoculture is not desirable for long term ecosystem stability. I don't know if companies have gone that extra mile including shrubs as it was more expensive than just drilling seed with machines. Still, so much of that land is/was good pronghorn habitat it made sense to try. It has been a number of years since I worked directly with the federal coal program there but it's quite a different world out here in the dry west. Areas that are seeded are irrigated with water produced on site from pit de-watering. Acid mine leaching is not a problem in the Powder River Basin as there is so little sulfur in the coal and not nearly the precip to carry acids off site.
This is not meaning to imply mountain top mining back east is environmentally acceptable. The sulfur/acid leaching and poisoning of fresh water streams draining old mines is inexcusable. Many of my kin still live in those hollers and towns in the region. Don't want to see their homeland destroyed in the name of efficiency and economy.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jbunt on June 8, 2007 - 3:18pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

jbunt

It will take "decades" to recover. Wow!!!! How long is that relative to the age of the earth? 50%? We cannot wait decades.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
NeverLNG on June 4, 2007 - 1:21pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Thanks. Are there more? All I hear is stories about destroyed environments and displaced people and ruined rives. It's good to see that isn't always the case

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ThatsItImout on June 5, 2007 - 2:55am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Heading Out said,
Mountain top removal is one of the more controversial of these, since it does not replace the rock, as it was. However there are relatively strict regulations for the restoration of the land after mining is over. Some of this land then provides places to build things such as hospitals and schools, and has more value than it had previously.

Sadly, by reading the words of Heading Out and others, I have failed terribly in my effort to gain any concern about the blasting of the Appalachian region.

While concern is great about the ecological damage befalling the 18 to 30 sqaure miles of Alberta, an area with (and I do not want to make it a contest, it is simply true) far less ecological diversity than the Appalachian Region, we will get a place to build buildings, as Heading Out points out, and so there is considered no great loss in the American South....

Let's look at just a small sample of what is being lost, as the mining regions of Appalachia have become the biggest North American market for explosives:

http://zeeman.ehc.edu/envs/Hopp/resources.html

http://www.dlia.org/

http://www.dlia.org/atbi/species/index.shtml
We will for the moment use the Smoky Mountains as an example of Appalachia, although there are many "micro environments" in Appalachia containing even greater variety of species:
If we take the catagory of “flowering plants, we get:
Arales
Calamus, Arum, Duckweed
Commelinales
Spiderwort, Yellow-eyed Grass
Cyperales
Sedge, Grass
Juncales
Rush
Liliales
Century-plant, Yam, Iris, Lily, Catbrier
Najadales
Pondweed
Orchidales
Orchid
Typhales
Bur-reed, Cat-tail
Magnoliopsida
(Dicotyledons)
Apiales
Carrot, Ginseng, Birthwort
Asterales
Aster
Callitrichales
Water-starwort
Campanulales
Bellflower
Capparales
Mustard, Caper
Caryophyllales
Amaranth, Pink, Goosefoot, Carpet-weed, Four o'clock, Pokeweed, Purslane
Celastrales
Holly, Bittersweet
Cornales
Dogwood
Diapensiales
Diapensia
Dipsacales
Honeysuckle, Teasel, Valerian
Ebenales
Ebony, Sweetleaf
Ericales
Clethra, Heath, Indian Pipe, Shinleaf
Euphorbiales
Boxwood, Spurge
Fabales
Pea
Fagales
Birch, Beech
Gentianales
Dogbane, Milkweed, Gentian, Logania
Geraniales
Touch-me-not, Geranium, Wood-Sorrel
Haloragales
Water Milfoil
Hamamelidales
Witch-hazel, Plane-tree
Juglandales
Walnut
Lamiales
Borage, Mint, Verbena
Laurales
Strawberry-shrub, Laurel
Linales
Flax
Magnoliales
Custard-apple, Magnolia
Malvales
Mallow, Linden
Myrtales
Loosestrife, Melastome, Evening Primrose, Mezereum
Nepenthales
Sundew
Nymphaeales
Water-lily
Papaverales
Fumitory, Poppy
Plantaginales
Plantain
Podostemales
River-weed
Polygalales
Milkwort
Polygonales
Buckwheat
Primulales
Primrose
Ranunculales
Barberry, Moonseed, Buttercup
Rhamnales
Oleaster, Buckthorn, Grape
Rosales
Stonecrop, Currant, Rose, Saxifrage, Storax
Rubiales
Madder
Salicales
Willow
Santalales
Sandalwood, Christmas Mistletoe
Sapindales
MapleSumac, Horse-chestnut, Rue, Quassia, Bladdernut
Scrophulariales
Acanthus, Trumpet-creeper, Butterfly-bush, Olive, Broom-rape, Figwort
Solanales
Morning-glory, Dodder, Waterleaf, Phlox, Potato
Theales
Mangosteen, Tea
Urticales
Hemp, Mulberry, Elm, Nettle
Violales
Rock-rose, Cucumber, Passion-flower, Violet

Or how about some mosses?
Bartramiaceae
Bryaceae
Mniaceae
Buxbaumiales
Buxbaumiaceae
Dicranales
Bruchiaceae
Dicranaceae
Ditrichaceae
Leucobryaceae
Fissidentales
Fissidentaceae
Funariales
Ephemeraceae
Funariaceae
Grimmiales
Grimmiaceae
Ptychomitriaceae
Hookeriales
Hookeriaceae
Hypnales
Amblystegiaceae
Brachytheciaceae
Entodontaceae
Fabroniaceae
Hylocomiaceae
Hypnaceae
Leskeaceae
Myriniaceae
Plagiotheciaceae
Pterigynandraceae
Sematophyllaceae
Thamnobryaceae
Theliaceae
Thuidiaceae
Isobryales
Fontinalaceae
Leucodontales
Anomodontaceae
Climaciaceae
Cryphaeaceae
Hedwigiaceae
Leptodontaceae
Leucodontaceae
Neckeraceae
Orthotrichales
Orthotrichaceae
Polytrichales
Polytrichaceae
Pottiales
Pottiaceae
Seligerales
Seligeriaceae
Tetraphidales
Tetraphidaceae

Or Liverworts, Hepatophyta
Order
Family
Jungermanniales
Acrobolbaceae
Calypogeiaceae
Cephaloziaceae
Geocalycaceae
Gymnomitriaceae
Herbertaceae
Jubulaceae
Jungermanniaceae
Lejeuneaceae
Lepidoziaceae
Plagiochilaceae
Porellaceae
Pseudolepicoleaceae
Radulaceae
Scapaniaceae
Trichocoleaceae
Marchantiales
Aytoniaceae
Conocephalaceae
Marchantiaceae
Ricciaceae
Metzgeriales
Aneuraceae
Blasiaceae
Fossombroniaceae
Metzgeriaceae
Pallaviciniaceae
Pelliaceae

Of over 11,000 moth and butterfly varieties in North America, there are more than one thousand in the Great Smoky Mountains alone, much less the entire of Appalachia
Bombycoidea
Bombycidae
Silkworm moths
Saturniidae
Emperor moths
Sphingidae
Hawk moths
 
Choreutoidea
Choreutidae
Metalmark Moths
Cossoidea
Cossidae
Carpenterworm Moths
 
Drepanoidea
Drepanidae
Hooktip Moths
Thyrididae
Picture-Winged Leaf Moths
 
Gelechioidea
Amphisbatidae
Moths
Autostichidae
Moths
Coleophoridae
Casebearer Moths
Cosmopterigidae
Cosmet Moths
Deoclonidae
Moths
Elachistidae
Grass Miner Moths
Gelechiidae
Twirler Moths
Glyphidoceridae
Moths
Oecophoridae
Concealer Moths
Xyloryctidae
Moths
 
Geometroidea
Geometridae
Geometer Moths
Uraniidae
Swallowtail Moths
 
Gracillarioidea
Bucculatricidae
Moths
Gracillariidae
Leafminer Moths
 
Hepialoidea
Hepialidae
Ghost Moths
 
Hesperioidea
Hesperiidae
Skippers
 
Incurvarioidea
Adelidae
Longhorned Fairy Moths
Incurvariidae
Leafcutter Moths
Prodoxidae
Yucca Moths
 
Lasiocampoidea
Lasiocampidae
Lappet Moths
 
Mimallonoidea
Mimallonidae
Sackbearer Moths
 
Nepticuloidea
Opostegidae
White Eye-Cap Moths
Noctuoidea
Arctiidae
Footman and tiger Moths
Lymantriidae
Tussock Moths
Noctuidae
Owlet Moths
Nolidae
Nolid moths
Notodontidae
Prominent Moths
 
Papilionoidea
Lycaenidae
Gossamer-winged butterflies, and blues and coppers
Nymphalidae
Browns, fritillaries, admirals, and monarchs
Papilionidae
Swallowtail butterflies
Pieridae
Yellow-white butterflies and sulphurs
 
Pterophoroidea
Pterophoridae
Plume Moths
 
Pyraloidea
Crambidae
Snout moths
Pyralidae
Snout Moths
 
Schreckensteinioidea
Schreckensteiniidae
Bristle-Legged Moths
 
Sesioidea
Sesiidae
Clearwing Moths
 
Tineoidea
Acrolophidae
Tube Moths
Psychidae
Bagworm Moths
Tineidae
Fungus Moths
 
Tischerioidea
Tischeriidae
Trumpet Leafminer Moths
 
Tortricoidea
Tortricidae
Leafroller Moths
 
Yponomeutoidea
Acrolepiidae
False Diamondback Moths
Glyphipterigidae
Sedge Moths
Lyonetiidae
Lyonet Moths
Yponomeutidae
Ermine Moths
 
Zygaenoidea
Limacodidae
Slug Caterpillar Moths
Megalopygidae
Flannel Moths
Zygaenidae

The people who preach environmentalism and "localism" are now so far removed from their own nation that they are not capable of even seeing the real damage for the smokescreens.

My apology for interrupting the important discussions, thank you though for your time in reading and looking.

Roger Conner Jr.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
WNC Observer on June 5, 2007 - 10:47am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Roger:

A thought: Why not let the people who actually live in the area -- the people that are effectively the "caretakers" of that local environment, and are the ones that actually have to live with the consequences -- why not let THEM be the ones that get to decide whether, and to what extent, such coal mining takes place? Who else would be in a better position to decide whether the benefits outweigh the costs?

What we have right now are big, non-local corporations funded by big, non-local investors making decisions approved by big, non-local governments to exploit this resource, and then telling the local people that the jobs from the mining and the restoration work afterwards will be to "their benefit". I don't see much evidence that the local people are actually consulted about any of this.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
PeakOil Tarzan on June 5, 2007 - 2:29pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

WNC, if I can butt in here, the mineral rights, as you would expect, are often owned by large corporate enitities that are often located many miles away. That is part of the ongoing tragedy of Appalachia (though, the region is in no way unique in this regard; it just happens to have been the focus of a lot of attention, historically).

Coal (as in "King Coal") is the entire economy in much of the coal-producing Appalachians. This owes to the fact that the land is poorly suited for larger scale ag and is geographically remote (and difficult to traverse). Hence, it is relatively sparsely settled. Coal mining, when things are booming, can provide a decent wage, but as you would expect, when the entire economy is dependent upon a single industry, when things go bad, everyone suffers.

When you talk to the local population, you find that they have a love-hate relationship with coal. They like the money but hate what mining does to their health and their environment. There is also a tendency among long-timers to be a bit fatalistic, having been through many economic downturns, seen the health of their loved ones (particularly earlier generations) deteriorate and having had to live with decisions that are made by rich, powerful men in far-away places, for so many years.

I hear what you are saying, but this isn't the way that the extractive industries work.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
WNC Observer on June 5, 2007 - 5:14pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Part of the problem is an interpretation of the law of mineral rights that allows more than minimal disturbance of the land surface in order to extract minerals under the surface. I would define a "minimal" amount of disturbance to be that caused by typical oil drilling or deep shaft mining operations. Those have enough of an impact on the land as it is.

I am not saying that open pit mining should be totally prohibited, just that subjecting it to a higher level of regulation is not an unjustified violation of property rights.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

67 comments on Coal Mining Reserves - a cautious note

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version