Eight years after a federal judge prevented Arch Coal Inc., one of the biggest and most active players on the West Virginia coal mining scene, from obtaining a permit to mine 3,113 acres near Blair, WV in Logan County, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued the permit instead. Though slightly smaller in size at 2,278 acres, the "dredge-and-fill" permit nevertheless allows Arch's Spruce No. 1 Mine to bury nearly seven miles of streams and is the largest permit ever issued in the history of mountaintop-removal mining in West Virginia.
This is a devastating blow for the folks in Logan County -- and all over West Virginia, really. What's even more devastating are the loopholes and provisions that allow streams to be buried and ecosystems to be destroyed by a "Clean Water Act" permit. Yesterday, three fast-acting environmental groups represented by Joe Lovett, a straight-shooting environmental lawyer who's been following this case from the start, filed papers to secure a temporary restraining order to block the operation from moving forward. So far, the judge hasn't responded.
Sadly, the local papers seem to be the only ones covering this historic and potentially catastrophic act of environmental terrorism.
Comments
View as Flat
amazingdrx Posted 3:17 pm
31 Jan 2007
Get the army out of natural resource policy and environmental decison making.
Is there a more corrupt function of government than military contracting? Doubtful, given the outright fraud that is the war on Iraq.
How easy is it for coal industry lobbyists to bribe these military minds? With cheney head lobbyist working from the inside.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
bryankwalton Posted 11:28 pm
31 Jan 2007
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:06 am
01 Feb 2007
Maybe that is a way to bend the coal impulse in a cleaner direction? Natural gas used in fuel cell/turbines with the CO2 sequested by algae solar collector systems that produce biodeisel for transportation fuel and cellulose that can be used in the fuel cell.
The fuel cells also use biogas from waste.
Maybe calls for conversion of coal to natural gas would start this whole shift to renewables moving? It looks like "clean" coal and fuel farming will win out in terms of slopping at the government subsidy trough otherwise.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
sunflower Posted 1:19 am
01 Feb 2007
I wonder about efficiency and scale. I've heard that plants are 2% efficient. And the solar energy solar converting CO2 would exceed the energy of the coal burned (less Hydrogen). Yowza! Paper & calculator...
1 GW(e) = 3 GW(t) coal = 26,000 GWh/year = 275 square miles of 2% efficient algae solar collectors per coal power plant in sunny climates. ($77 bn?)
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 1:32 am
01 Feb 2007
Think algae solar collectors are going to solve the problems discussed in this post -- "a 'dredge-and-fill' permit [that] allows Arch's Spruce No. 1 Mine to bury nearly seven miles of streams and is the largest permit ever issued in the history of mountaintop-removal mining in West Virginia"?
I can't think of any technology that can make the mountaintop-removal process remotely "renewable."
Victual Reality
Permalink
sunflower Posted 1:47 am
01 Feb 2007
Coal is the enemy of the human race
Permalink
jory cunningham Posted 5:42 am
01 Feb 2007
Earthjustice has been fighting hard, challenging permits in federal court for four mines that would dump millions of tons of rock and debris into nearby streams and valleys, burying them forever. These permits were issued by the Army Corps of Engineers without the required environmental studies and impact statements. We have been working with many local environmental groups fed up with flooded properties, blown up mountains, poisoned drinking wells and much more.
If you are interested you can find out more on our Stop Mountaintop Removal campaign website:
www.stopmountaintopremoval.org
Jory Cunningham
Earthjustice
www.earthjustice.org
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 11:43 am
01 Feb 2007
Mountain tops - priceless.
Then why are mining-rights sold for less than infinite cost?
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:55 am
03 Feb 2007
Conversion of coal to natural gas underground using natural bacteria. Then feeding the CO2 from using the natural gas in fuel cells to algae in solar collectors.
Wouldn't you rather have NRDC and other environmental groups and the democratic party support this alternative over "clean" coal power plants or coal to liquid fuel or nuclear power or fuel farming? 100s of years worth of natural gas from coal are right under our own territory. This would destroy the status quo POV on energy.
We are coming down to the '08 wire with zero political traction for anything but "clean" coal, fuel farming, and nuclear power. If Hillary is elected on that platform, forget any change in the path to global climate disaster.
Algae in solar collectors maybe 1000 times more productive than fuel farming sunflower, and will only need space on rooftops and over parking lots to make 10% of the liquid fuel we now use. But that ought to be enough if a shift to serial plugin hybrid drivetrains is acomplished. It seems to be starting.
Oil will also last a lot longer if demand is reduced by 90%. Even our own domestic supplies ought to be enough until the complete transition to renewable fuel occurs. Biogas should be able to replace natural gas eventually too, as solar collector algae systems produce cellulose to substitue for biogas in fuel cells.
This will provide clean, renewable backup power for wind, water, and solar power, which should eventually provide most of our power needs.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink