The 115th Congress and The Trump administration

[Tornicade]

more on the stream dumping.

Kentucky has 58 coal-waste impoundments and MSHA has seven applications for impoundments pending in Eastern Kentucky, said officials with the agency's field offices in Pikeville and Barbourville.
That includes the proposed 560-acre impoundment that has sparked opposition in Perry County. It would be more than seven times the size of the 72-acre Martin County impoundment that failed and could hold 2.3 billion gallons.

Steve Sorke, an MSHA impoundment supervisor in Barbourville, said the larger impoundments are not unusual.

Those in Perry County concerned about Coastal Coal's proposal to build the 560-acre structure at Dunraven say the failure of the Martin County impoundment increases their worries.

Janice Misner said she and several other residents met with Coastal Coal officials the day the Martin County impoundment failed -- but hadn't yet heard the news. She said they asked company environmental engineer Mike Hansel what would happen if the Coastal Coal impoundment failed.

"He looked at me and said these things never break," she said.

(The Courier-Journal Oct. 22, 2000)

What really gets me is after all this. this company applied for a permit for additional ponds. almost immediately
http://www.wise-uranium.org/mdafin.html

in the late eighties. private coal companies sold out to larger corporations that were subject to the demands of investing stockholders.

These companies don't give a shit about the local population of the mines they buy.

They make claims about losing money. even filing bankruptcy. get everything liquidated then all of sudden seemed to have an endless supply of cash to reorganize.

Regulations are necessary to protect the people from these companies who disdain safety regulations and do anything they can to avoid them.

What's also important is enforcing these regulations.

The company in this case knew there was a problem in 1994 and ignored it. then when the shit literally hit the fan they claimed they shouldn't be penalized for violating regulations over 5 years before due to statute of limitations.

And this practice isn't isolated. it is widespread amongst the industry.

I personally don't trust corporations to make the right calls without regulations because they have proven time again they are unscrupulous even with regulations.

are they suddenly gonna start doing the right thing when they aren't mandated or don't have to ? no for the stockholder business model it will always be do things the cheapest way possible.

 

[Notorious]

Serious question: Are the Trump defenders in here OK with the way he's communicating with world leaders/allies?

Media with an Axe to grind and hated by the administration suddenly has his phoneline tapped? The most secure phone line in all of the world... The same media who can't even do the most basic rudimentary fact checking. The kind they would need to do to even be allowed to pass a college journalism course. Come on man...

 

[Notorious]

And when the ice caps melt, we'll have even more!

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/09/rising-seas-ice-melt-new-shoreline-maps/

There are more than five million cubic miles of ice on Earth, and some scientists say it would take more than 5,000 years to melt it all. If we continue adding carbon to the atmosphere, we’ll very likely create an ice-free planet, with an average temperature of perhaps 80 degrees Fahrenheit instead of the current 58.


Something tells me we'll figure it out in the next 100 years, 4900 years before disaster.

 

[Notorious]

more on the stream dumping.

Kentucky has 58 coal-waste impoundments and MSHA has seven applications for impoundments pending in Eastern Kentucky, said officials with the agency's field offices in Pikeville and Barbourville.
That includes the proposed 560-acre impoundment that has sparked opposition in Perry County. It would be more than seven times the size of the 72-acre Martin County impoundment that failed and could hold 2.3 billion gallons.

Steve Sorke, an MSHA impoundment supervisor in Barbourville, said the larger impoundments are not unusual.

Those in Perry County concerned about Coastal Coal's proposal to build the 560-acre structure at Dunraven say the failure of the Martin County impoundment increases their worries.

Janice Misner said she and several other residents met with Coastal Coal officials the day the Martin County impoundment failed -- but hadn't yet heard the news. She said they asked company environmental engineer Mike Hansel what would happen if the Coastal Coal impoundment failed.

"He looked at me and said these things never break," she said.

(The Courier-Journal Oct. 22, 2000)

What really gets me is after all this. this company applied for a permit for additional ponds. almost immediately
http://www.wise-uranium.org/mdafin.html

in the late eighties. private coal companies sold out to larger corporations that were subject to the demands of investing stockholders.

These companies don't give a shit about the local population of the mines they buy.

They make claims about losing money. even filing bankruptcy. get everything liquidated then all of sudden seemed to have an endless supply of cash to reorganize.

Regulations are necessary to protect the people from these companies who disdain safety regulations and do anything they can to avoid them.

What's also important is enforcing these regulations.

The company in this case knew there was a problem in 1994 and ignored it. then when the shit literally hit the fan they claimed they shouldn't be penalized for violating regulations over 5 years before due to statute of limitations.

And this practice isn't isolated. it is widespread amongst the industry.

I personally don't trust corporations to make the right calls without regulations because they have proven time again they are unscrupulous even with regulations.

are they suddenly gonna start doing the right thing when they aren't mandated or don't have to ? no for the stockholder business model it will always be do things the cheapest way possible.

Can you point to the specific points of the updated Stream Protection Rule passed in December that specifically keep the environment safer?

 

[David.]

Media with an Axe to grind and hated by the administration suddenly has his phoneline tapped? The same media who can't even do the most basic rudimentary fact checking. The kind they would need to do to even be allowed to pass a college journalism course. Come on man...

With the mass hysteria over things that haven't been true.. lately..?.. going to have to hold out on opinion.

 

[Tornicade]

So here's the problem. You are using someones detailing of a coal spill as proof this law is good. Of course environmental disasters are bad. How does that mean the law is good? What you need to look at is the law. Does it actually do anything to stop the potential problem Tornicade listed? The answer is no...

The Department of Interior’s own reports show that essentially all coal mines have no off-site impacts, that lands are being restored successfully, and mines are being operated safely and in accordance with existing state and federal regulations. The Stream Protection Rule is simply a regulation in search of a problem.

The rules went into place after being updated on 1/19/17. All 11 coal mining States including Ohio sued the government over this rule and vowed to overturn it under Trump. They must all hate the environment? Or perhaps the law isn't really addressing a problem, but rather creating one.

You know how you guys keep saying that the problems with Mexico will increase our prices on imports? How bad that is for us? What do you think baseless rules with 0 environmental effect do?

So you manage to sneak in a law shutting down coal mines under the guise of "environmental protection" by updating a 30 year old rule. Did we somehow stop producing power through coal in this country? Did we create a bunch of new nuclear power plants? Nope.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money...us-coal-imports-up-but-exports-down/13368199/

We just buy it from other countries since we can't make it here. Most likely we are buying the cheapest source. Which means from countries with little to no environmental protections. So the Earth is actually getting polluted and in much worse ways.

To top it off our prices go up and we also lost jobs basically to be able to buy cheap coal from another country who doesn't have restrictions in place. I guess somehow this is a win for you? You traded producing coal in a country with environmental regulation to buy coal from a country without any.

Can you explain to me how this is good for the environment?

I would rather important coal from some other country willing to contaminate their waters than contaminate are own.

you seem to forget that George bush scrapped the stream protection in 2008 and it was struck down by the federal court in 2014 for a stream buffer zone that was in place for decades.
http://earthjustice.org/news/press/2014/federal-court-strikes-down-bush-era-stream-dumping-rule

Coal Mines have been following the 1983 guidelines. they never adapted the 2008 Bush change because it was being litigated in court until 2014.

so there isn't gonna be any measurable effects because te mines and the states are still following the 1983 guidelines.

 

[Notorious]

I would rather important coal from some other country willing to contaminate their waters than contaminate are own.

you seem to forget that George bush scrapped the stream protection in 2008 and it was struck down by the federal court in 2014 for a stream buffer zone that was in place for decades.
http://earthjustice.org/news/press/2014/federal-court-strikes-down-bush-era-stream-dumping-rule

Coal Mines have been following the 1983 guidelines. they never adapted the 2008 Bush change because it was being litigated in court until 2014.

so there isn't gonna be any measurable effects because te mines and the states are still following the 1983 guidelines.

But we actually have all kinds of regulations and protections in place. Other countries don't. At least you are honest that it has nothing to do with protecting the environment.

Can you show me what things would change in the new update from December? The one from 1983 is pretty solid. What you listed before was obviously an atrocity. Can you show me how the new law would have prevented it from happening again?

 

[Binkster]

Media with an Axe to grind and hated by the administration suddenly has his phoneline tapped? The most secure phone line in all of the world... The same media who can't even do the most basic rudimentary fact checking. The kind they would need to do to even be allowed to pass a college journalism course. Come on man...

You guys are unreal. I'd laugh but it's actually concerning now.

You think the only way the media gains access to private information... is via wiretap? Are you serious? Wiretapping the White House?! And the irony that you belong to a sports forum that discusses information via "sources..."

Trump's administration already has more leaks than the Iraqi Navy. He literally just tweeted about Australian refugees.

And still you'll try to cast doubt on this or his communication with Mexico?

Am I going insane?

 

[Tornicade]

Can you point to the specific points of the updated Stream Protection Rule passed in December that specifically keep the environment safer?

The steam protection regulations require permit assessments make water table assessment. including underground water which impacts well water.
This allows the states and federal government to asses the risk of local water table in case of a disaster.

West Virginia and Kentucky as well as other applachian states are riddles with networks of bad water because permits are granted without this information.

Current rules (from 1983) don't allow states and federal agencies to properly asses the threat in the event of a spill or collapse or misplaced dumping.

Having this information allows both the mining companies and the permit agencies to anticipate any futures issues and potentially address them before they happen

keep in mind that even though this is called an Obama regulation these changes have been campaigned by local watchdog groups for over the last decade.

aka the people who drink the water,

 

[David.]

You guys are unreal. I'd laugh but it's actually concerning now.

You think the only way the media gains access to private information... is via wiretap? Are you serious? Wiretapping the White House?! And the irony that you belong to a sports forum that discusses information via "sources..."

Trump's administration already has more leaks than the Iraqi Navy. He literally just tweeted about Australian refugees.

And still you'll try to cast doubt on this or his communication with Mexico?

Am I going insane?

There was also a supposed unprecedented ban on all muslims, the awful Firing of the virtuous sally Yates because said "Muslim ban" was "unconstitutional", various hoax hate crimes, 13 sexual assault cases unsubstantiated, pissgate, etc etc etc etc etc..

You're going to disagree with someone that distrusts the same media that tells us pence calls for electro shock therapy? Jeff sessions = kkk, when he actually prosecuted the mfers?

You don't want the dust to settle before making decisions? How is that rational? Sorry, I don't see flipping out before all the information has come through as something that has benefitted anyone recently.

frankly, all of this screeching is more than irritating at this point.. fb is uninhabitable, my friends are perpetually triggered on misinformation and the SAME DEMAGOGUERY THEY'RE ACCUSING TRUMP OF, and there's a mass protest of my work for uber that is in turn fucking with my livelihood because "they support trumps ban" (they didn't).

I'm asking that before you do the same stuff at the drop of the hat that's been done recently like blocking innocent people that had nothing to do w trump or his ill reported Muslim ban from flying, for example, to just calm your tits and wait 12 hours before you go ape on everybody. You guys are circle jerking with vitriol as Vaseline over someone saying "ending slavery was good".

If you can't wait for all the facts, your prerogative, but this shit isn't a game for my actual life and I've seen a lot more damage to it from gross overreactions to bullshit reporting than anything trump has actually done, and sorry, I'm going to wait and you're not going to pressure me into believing what's mostly been bullshit from the media to this point.

Yes, this is the same site that deals with guys that reference "multiple sauces". Ironically, you're the one believing Chris broussard in this analogy.

 

[Sebastian]

It states in the article, if I read correctly, that it was something that was being looked into by the Obama administration, but they did not green light it.

Pretty strange that news articles run that Trump makes unexpected appearance to meet body of SEAL, and then hours later it turns out he gave the green light.

Just a weird article in general, and extremely strange about the mass children and women casualties, and Spicer's quote about finding information that will prevent in-US terrorist attacks?

You and King Stannis are the military guys, iirc. Does the whole operation seem off to you? Disregard the "axe to grind" angle. It seems the trifecta was a reach and an assumption based on the results.

I can't say for certain without knowing more. Like @The Human Q-Tip said, it isn't rare for things to go badly. Without knowing who the officials are or what jobs they hold, it is difficult to say whether the statements are political or whistleblowing.

If it was an operation already approved but delayed for operational reasons then there is no reason to assume that Trump had much to do with the outcome. If he rushed something to win laurels or the situation had changed since its approval last month, and there is proof, then yes, it is not a good sign. It would be another sign of his impulsive nature.

However, without knowing more, I can't really debate its merits.

 

[Notorious]

The steam protection regulations require permit assessments make water table assessment. including underground water which impacts well water.
This allows the states and federal government to asses the risk of local water table in case of a disaster.

West Virginia and Kentucky as well as other applachian states are riddles with networks of bad water because permits are granted without this information.

Current rules (from 1983) don't allow states and federal agencies to properly asses the threat in the event of a spill or collapse or misplaced dumping.

Having this information allows both the mining companies and the permit agencies to anticipate any futures issues and potentially address them before they happen

keep in mind that even though this is called an Obama regulation these changes have been campaigned by local watchdog groups for over the last decade.

aka the people who drink the water,

So nothing specific can be cited from the new rules? I guess that's why all 11 coal states sued. That and the fact it was basically a way for the government to shut down coal to benefit foreign producers, again at a much greater detriment to the environment.

 

[Tornicade]

But we actually have all kinds of regulations and protections in place. Other countries don't. At least you are honest that it has nothing to do with protecting the environment.

Can you show me what things would change in the new update from December? The one from 1983 is pretty solid. What you listed before was obviously an atrocity. Can you show me how the new law would have prevented it from happening again?

Actually I specifically said it has everything to do with the environment.
My uncle died in the mines. My Grandmother worked in the coal mines and my dad lost his back and lungs in the coal mines.
These coal mines have no scruples. they don't care about the local residents they don't care abut the miners themselves. they buy shoddy safety equipment and continue to buy the shoddy equipment even after they realize the stuff is crap to save a dime. It isn't just my opinion just google coal and class action lawsuits and youll find plenty of information supporting my opinion
They would rent you out a home they already sold to someone else if they could.

How would of it impacted Massey? first off permit issuers would of known that abandoned mine had hit an underground water table and most likely would of required more action than a a below regulation liner before allowing an impoundment


https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/07/27/2015-17308/stream-protection-rule

Our proposed rule would address loss of stream miles in two ways. First, we propose to amend the standards governing excess spoil and coal mine waste to minimize both the generation of excess spoil and the placement of excess spoil and coal mine waste in perennial or intermittent streams. Second, we propose to adopt standards that would minimize mining through perennial and intermittent streams. When mining through a perennial or an intermittent stream does occur, our revised standards would require that the permittee restore both the hydrological form and the ecological function of the mined-through stream segment.

Midwestern studies of reconstructed stream segments demonstrate that restoration of hydrological form and ecological function after mining through a stream is technologically feasible and attainable. In Illinois, case studies documented that streams flowing through channels reconstructed after mining can approach the regional biological diversity found in streams in unmined watersheds in that region.[14] Another Illinois study focused on 25 miles of low-gradient perennial streams with moderately disturbed premining watersheds. Those stream segments were relocated in the 1980s to facilitate mining and then were restored in their approximate premining location, although two of the three streams were routed through permanent pit impoundments for part of their length. In general, the study found that the premining hydrological form and ecological function of the streams have been successfully restored, based on a comparison with relatively undisturbed segments of those streams that are upstream of the mining operations.[15] The exception is fish abundance and diversity, which is substantially lower, perhaps, the authors suggest, because of the lack of mature riparian timber and instream woody debris.[16] In addition, monitoring of habitat, water chemistry, and biological parameters of a low-gradient stream in Indiana that flows through a channel reconstructed after mining has demonstrated rapid recovery of the stream's ecological function.[17]

https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2015-17308/p-215
Most adverse impacts of surface coal mining operations on water quality occur as a result of the excavation and fracturing of the rock layers above the coal seam. The mining process converts mostly solid rock, which has few pore spaces and thus offers little opportunity for chemical reaction with air and water, into highly fragmented mine spoil, which contains a vastly greater number and volume of pore spaces and thus offers much greater opportunity for chemical reaction with air and water. Surface water and groundwater infiltrate the pore spaces in mine spoil placed in the backfilled area of a mine or in an excess spoil fill and react with air and the surfaces of the rock fragments to produce drainage with high ionic concentrations. Specifically, water percolating through an excess spoil fill or the backfilled area of a mine typically contains substantially higher concentrations of sulfate, bicarbonate, calcium, and magnesium ions, as well as some trace metals, compared to the concentrations of those ions and metals in groundwater discharges and surface runoff from areas undisturbed by mining.[20]



Start Printed Page 44441
When sulfate is the dominant anion in those discharges, the result can be acid mine drainage, which mobilizes metals such as iron, manganese, aluminum, and zinc that are directly toxic to fish at high levels.[21] But high concentrations of sulfate ions do not necessarily result in acid mine drainage because groundwater discharges and surface runoff from backfilled areas and excess spoil fills often also contain elevated concentrations of alkaline ions (especially calcium, magnesium, and carbonate ions), which neutralize the acidic sulfate ions, thus preventing the formation of acid mine drainage.[22]

However, alkaline ions also can have negative impacts on water quality and aquatic life. Elevated concentrations of alkaline ions in mine drainage may result in significant increases in the pH and electrical conductivity of streams that receive discharges from mined areas.[23] Elevated concentrations of both these ions and sulfate ions are highly correlated with elevated electrical conductivity in streams, which is highly correlated with the loss or absence of pollution-sensitive species of aquatic insects and fish even when in-stream habitat downstream of the mining activity is otherwise intact.[24] The adverse impacts may extend far downstream. One study found that adverse impacts from both surface and underground mines on water quality in Appalachian streams extended an average of 6.2 miles downstream from the mine

 

[Tornicade]

So nothing specific can be cited from the new rules? I guess that's why all 11 coal states sued. That and the fact it was basically a way for the government to shut down coal to benefit foreign producers, again at a much greater detriment to the environment.

Nowhere do any of the states claim the rules doesn't protect the environment. on a side note. puco is closing two coal plants in ohio and changing to other type of plants because the coal plants are losing money. Ohio is suing cause they don't like the federal government telling them how to manage mining

The rule eliminates state discretion in regulating coal mining consistent with local needs and circumstances,” the complaint says. “The rule effectively makes mining impossible in vast areas of the country, despite the fact that coal is one of the nation’s base fuel supplies for electric power generation, further harming the states and their citizens.”

The suit is a separate challenge similar to one launched last month by North Dakota that challenged the federal government’s rule-making power over mining.

The rules are aimed at preventing mining that would permanently pollute streams and threaten forests. They will require mining companies to restore mined areas and plant trees and vegetation. In addition, the rules add reporting requirements, mandating companies test and monitor streams that may be affected by mining.

The states said in the letter to Congressional leaders that the new rules are one-size-fits-all and “unwarranted” standards that will impose costs on the nation’s electric supply and have a “disastrous effect on coal miners.”

The suit says the rules aren’t just an update to existing regulations but a total rewrite of the Surface Mining Act.

“Contrary to the Surface Mining Act’s directive to entrust the states with primary authority given the diversity in physical conditions and other circumstances between the states, the rule imposes requirements that are far too specific to constitute ‘minimum standards’ and instead resemble the specific implementation decisions that the Surface Mining Act empowers state regulatory authorities to make,” it says.

The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, which provides authority for the rules, specifying states’ authority under the law and the federal government's right to make rules the states must follow, saying "states with an approved state program shall implement, administer, enforce and maintain it in accordance with the act.”

In addition to arguing that the rule usurps state primacy, the suit alleges the federal government didn’t properly include states in the rule-making process and seeks to destroy the health of coal mining across the country.

“The agency also ignored requests from state and members of Congress for 90 days to review the rule’s supporting environmental and regulatory impact and analysis,” the states’ letter said. “Instead, [OSMRE] moved forward with its rule without significant and genuine consultation with the states.”

Coal is responsible for an estimated $528 million in state revenues and $643 million in state expenditures. The $528 million in revenues includes $224 million from the coal severance tax and revenues from the corporate income, individual income, sales, property (including unmined minerals) and transportation taxes as well as permit fees. The $643 million in estimated expenditures includes $239 million to address the industry’s impacts on the coal haul road system as well as expenditures to regulate the environmental and health and safety impacts of coal, support coal worker training, conduct research and development for the coal industry, promote education about coal in the public schools and support the residents directly and indirectly employed by coal. Total costs also include $85 million in tax expenditures designed to subsidize the mining and burning of coal.

The Impact of Coal on the Kentucky State Budget examines coal-related state revenues and expenditures in three parts.

1. Industry-generated revenues and expenditures. A review of coal industry-generated revenues to the state and expenditures from the state suggests that the industry actually costs more than it brings to the state. Using state budget and other official state agency data, we estimate the coal industry generated revenues of $303 million for Fiscal Year (FY) 2006. In the same year, on-budget spending to support coal industry activities totals more than $270 million and off-budget tax expenditures add $85 million to the coal industry’s bill for a total of more than $355 million. The net direct impact of the industry on the state budget for FY 2006 is an estimated –$52 million.

2. Revenues and expenditures attributable to direct employment by the industry. State data sources suggest that FY 2006 revenues attributable to direct employment in coal total $83 million while coal employees’ share of state expenditures totals $73 million. The net impact of direct employment in coal on the state budget for FY 2006 is $10 million.

3. Revenues and expenditures related to indirect employment attributable to the coal industry. Based on public data and the use of economic impact multipliers, revenues generated by the employment of Kentuckians in supply industries and in sectors that serve those employed by coal total $142 million for FY 2006. State spending to support those whose employment is indirectly attributable to coal totals $214 million. The net impact of indirect employment on the Kentucky state budget is –$73 million.
http://www.maced.org/coal/exe-summary.htm

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Serious question: Are the Trump defenders in here OK with the way he's communicating with world leaders/allies?

If those reports are accurate, no.

But that's a huge if.

First, we don't know if the media is reporting accurately whatever it was they heard.

But more importantly, the slow pace of confirmations means that virtually every political appointee at State was appointed by Obama -- that the group that apparently was bursting into tears at Trump's immigration order. So I would not trust anything that may have come from one of those folks, and we don't know the sources for those stories.

This is honestly really sad -- never before felt that the majority of stuff reported by the media is at least distorted, if not outright false.