MTR Part V: Controversy about the proposed change

Controversy Ensues
As is to be expected with any hot button issue, opinions vary and opposition is fierce. Here are just a few examples:
Opponents’ opinions
“OSM proposes to change the rule to conform with its deviant behavior rather than requiring the coal industry to comply with the law.” (Lyric, 2007)
“It would exempt from the stream buffer zone rule those very mountaintop removal activities that are most destructive to streams, including “permanent excess spoil fills, and coal waste disposal facilities” — in other words, giant valley fills and sludge-filled lagoons.” (Lyric, 2007)
"What they are doing is, they are sacrificing Kentucky to the coal-mining powers," said Patty Wallace of Louisa, who is active with the group Kentuckians For the Commonwealth.” (Bruggers & Dunlop, 2007)
Tom FitzGerald, director of the Kentucky Resources Council, said yesterday that OSM has mischaracterized both the state of existing law and the impact of its proposed rule. "It's irresponsible from an ecological standpoint," FitzGerald said of the rule change sought by OSM. "It caters to worst mine plans rather than best practices, and it will further fuel outrage of people in the coalfields, in the scientific community and those who rely on coal-fired power and are tired of seeing coal mined in such an irresponsible manner." (Bruggers & Dunlop, 2007)
Supporters say
Bill Caylor, president of the Kentucky Coal Association, an industry group, said the proposed rule “merely continues the status quo. I don't see things changing at all. This rule simply recognizes existing practice." (Bruggers & Dunlop, 2007)
Ben Owens, an OSM spokesman, contended that the new rule "would not legalize anything that was not legal before." (Bruggers & Dunlop, 2007)
Courts rule
“The original rule was upheld by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which overturned a lower court decision holding that substantial portions of streams could not be buried under excess spoil or other mining-related structures.” (Bruggers & Dunlop, 2007)
“In October 1999, the Federal District Court ruled that the SBZ rule prohibits valley fills in streams and held that the Stream Buffer Zone Rule is more stringent than the Clean Water Act 404(b)(1) guidelines on placing fill into streams. There is concern such an interpretation of the SBZ rule makes it inconsistent with SMCRA.” (Mining, 2007)
“In April 2001, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the Oct 1999 decision on constitutional grounds (11th Amendment).” (Mining, 2007)
“In May 2002, in Kentuckians for the Commonwealth, Inc. v Rivenburgh, the district court held that SMCRA did not authorize the disposal of overburden in streams.” (Mining, 2007)
“In February 2003, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in KFTC v. Rivenburgh, stated that SMCRA at 515(b)(22)(D) envisions that overburden would be placed in waters of the U.S. and reversed the May 2002 District Court decision.” (Mining, 2007)
Resulting confusion
It becomes more and more obvious that not only is the rule unclear, but SMCRA contains a great deal of ambiguity regarding the practices of mountaintop removal. I find it difficult to imagine that OSM truly believes that valley fills, which in effect destroy headwaters streams, constitute a minimization of adverse impacts. However, it seems that the problem lay not in the SBZ rule but in the interpretation of SMCRA and other relevant laws.

Coal-to-Liquid Fuels

The House recently held a hearing on coal-to-liquid technology. They concluded that not only can't the industry compete with out federal support, but it will do nothing to reduce greenhouse emissions.

"The unavoidable fact is that liquid fuel made from coal contains essentially the same amount of carbon as is in gasoline or diesel made from petroleum. Given these results, it is not surprising that a recent Battelle study found that a significant coal-to-liquids industry is not compatible with stabilizing atmospheric CO2 concentrations below twice the pre-industrial value. "--David Hawkins, NRDC

It doesn't look like King Coal will be coming to the rescue of the planet anytime soon.

The Clean Coal Misnomer

Surely you've seen those billboards along the road, reading "Clean, Green Coal." Probably you've snickered at them, as have I. But what are they really talking about? I did a little looking and it didn't take long to figure out that "clean" is a relative term when used to refer to coal. It may even refer to the washing process companies have been employing for years and we know current coal power plants are far from clean. But what it more often refers to is several new technologies that are supposed to make coal cleaner. Notice I say 'supposed to' because these technologies are largely unproven and really don't solve the problem anyway.

One such technology is coal-to-liquid gasefication, which can be used to make zero-sulfur 'clean' diesel. This is a fairly common practice in South Africa and was used by Germany during WWII. The first-ever US plant is purported to be up and running by 2009 in NE PA. And it will be able to use waste coal for it's input. (read article at: http://www.governing.com/articles/4coal.htm)

This seems to be a good way of getting rid of the ugly black gob piles that dot the Pennsylvania landscape. Pollutants like mercury are easier to remove from liquefied coal so they aren't released into the environment. It all seems like a great idea.

But what about electricity generation? Isn't that the real problem contributing to the environmental crisis with all the CO2 emissions heating up the atmosphere. Well here again, clean coal can come to the rescue, or can it? The process of burning this fuel for electricity is called integrated gasification combined cycle, or IGCC, and it makes possible the capture of CO2. Again, a good thing. But the problem is what to do with the CO2 once you have it.

Carbon sequestration. An oft-used buzz word in the world of clean coal marketing. But does it really work? Well, frankly, I don't know and neither do the experts. If it works, the problem could potentially be solved. The technology has been used in oil extraction but for different purposes under different circumstances. So the basic way of it is: it might work. Is that really enough to call coal clean? Not in my opinion, but greedy coal companies and politicians don't care about my opinion or yours. They just want to make more money. Coal is abundant and cheap. The rise in oil prices has made these new approaches more feasible. And most people aren't paying enough attention to notice the half-truths.

With the end of peak oil, coal will become more important to the economy. But at what cost? It hardly makes sense to replace one fossil fuel with another. Bottom line is that using coal releases CO2. It can't be avoided and therefore is not a sustainable solution to either our energy or climate problems.

Welcome!!

Welcome to the Northern Coal Queen Blog where I will be writing about the coal legacies and environmental issues of Appalachia. The urbanized east coast has been raping and pillaging Appalachia of her natural resources from the start and I for one, am sick of it. I and so many others work tirelessly at mending the wrongs of the past and trying to prevent or stop the ones that still happen today. This beautiful part of the world, already scarred and damaged, is second only to the rainforest in species diversity. Let's keep her that way.

For more info or to volunteer visit the following:
www.accwt.org
www.wpcamr.org