Why is the M$M Neglecting Vital Part of Mine Collapse Story?

[Nbadan]

Why Are the New York Times and So Much of the MSM Neglecting a Vital Part of the Utah Mine Collapse Story?



Yesterday, while speaking at the Aspen Institute's Forum on Communications and Society, I commented on how the mainstream media have, with a few exceptions, been focusing on only one aspect of the Crandall Canyon Mine tragedy -- the desperate attempt to rescue the trapped miners -- while paying scant attention to investigating the reasons why these miners were trapped in the first place.

I specifically mentioned Sunday's New York Times piece by Martin Stolz, who had been dispatched to Huntington to cover the story. Stolz's report was filled with details about the progress rescuers had made through the collapsed mine (650 ft), and the capabilities of the hi-res camera being lowered into the mine (can pick up images from 100 ft away) -- but not one word about what led to the collapse, including the role retreat mining might have played in it, or the 324 safety violations federal inspectors have issued for the mine since 2004.

The story, like most of the TV coverage, featured Bob Murray, the colorful co-owner of the mine. Stolz painted a picture of Murray emerging from the mine "with a coal-blackened face and in miner's coveralls to discuss the latest finding with the families of the missing miners."

Cue the swelling music and start the casting session. Your mind reflexively begins to wonder who would play Murray in the Crandall Canyon TV movie. Wilfred Brimley? Robert Duvall? Paul Newman?

Of course, Murray's role in all this is much darker than that of the compassionate boss given to delivering script-ready lines like, "Conditions are the most difficult I have seen in my 50 years of mining" and "There are many reasons to have hope still" (as he has been quoted saying in two other Times stories).

He is a politically-connected Big Energy player whose company, Murray Energy Corp., has 19 mines in five states, which have incurred millions of dollars in fines for safety violations over the last 18 months.

Probably won't see that in the TV movie.

Murray has also continued to insist that the mine collapse was the result of an earthquake -- a claim disputed by seismologists.

So why has so much of the coverage focused on folksy Bob Murray, the stalwart and kindly mine owner, instead of mining mogul Robert Murray, who may have been at least partly responsible for decisions that led to the disaster?

It's because, as Jon Stewart has put it, one of the best ways to deal with members of the media is show them a shiny object over here, which distracts them from investigating the real story over there. And the hopeful, coal-covered, and always camera-ready Murray has been very shiny indeed. Especially when his face is blackened from a recent PR stint down the mine.

Back in Aspen, at a party for conference participants last night, Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., who had been in the room during my panel, came up to me and told me -- more than a little defensively -- that the Times had in fact reported on the safety violations last Wednesday.

Yes, I replied, but that was a few paragraphs in a single story five days ago. But while the Times has continued to cover the rescue, there was no follow up on the possible causes on Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, or Monday.

During that time, the Times has been thoroughly scooped by the Salt Lake Tribune, which uncovered a memo revealing that there had been serious structural problems at the Crandall Canyon Mine in March -- in an area just 900 feet from the section of the mine that collapsed last week. And even AP did much better than the paper of record. AP reporter Chris Kahn wrote about the role retreat mining -- "a sometimes dangerous mining technique that involves pulling out leftover sections and pillars of coal that hold up the roof of a mine" -- might have played in the collapse.

Despite so many questions left unanswered about the mine's safety and the decisions the mine's owners made, the Times did no follow up. Indeed, New York Times readers -- and shareholders -- would have been better (much better) served if Times editors had spared the expense of sending reporters to Huntington and had just republished the reports from the Salt Lake Tribune and AP.

Instead, last night, Sulzberbger preferred to rationalize away his paper's choices. "I'm told that 324 violations are not a lot," he said to me.

Maybe not if you work in an office on West 43rd Street; but if you make a living by going underground to excavate coal, even one serious safety violation is one too many. And of the 324 violations, 107 were considered, in the words of a federal mine safety agency spokesman, "significant and substantial."

And if, as Sulzberger claimed, 324 violations are not a lot, why not do a story on that -- questioning whether we should be wasting taxpayer money looking for insignificant and insubstantial transgressions?

Let me stress that I am only focusing on the Times because of my exchange with Sulzberger; in fact, most of the MSM's coverage of the tragedy has tilted towards the shiny objects causing them to neglect the issues that might help prevent yet another story about the desperate attempt to rescue yet another group of trapped miners.

So we continue to get cloying coverage like the segment on AC360 last night. This is how Anderson Cooper introduced Murray: "He's really been the public face of this ordeal, keeping the families up to date -- he meets with them once or twice a day -- trying to explain the latest rescue efforts." So Murray got to go all aw shucks: "Mr. Cooper, I appreciate you having me on your program. And I appreciate the interest of all Americans in our tragedy."

But we get precious little on the Murray who had enough political muscle to get a Mine Safety and Health Administration district manager who had cracked down on safety issues at one of Murray's mines reassigned (clearly, contributing $213,000 to Republican candidates over the last ten years, as well as another $724,500 to Republican candidates and causes through political action committees connected to Murray's businesses, has its benefits). The Murray who rails against the United Mine Workers Association, claiming it wants "to damage Murray Energy, Utah American and the United States coal industry for their own motives." The Murray who called Hillary Clinton "anti-American" for saying America needs a president who will fight for workers' rights, and telling a Senate committee this summer that Al Gore and Congressional Democrats are bent on "the destruction of American lives and more death as a result of his hysterical global goofiness with no environmental benefit."

So many angles for the media to pursue -- and that's before we even get to the miners' families. A couple of family members have already spoken out about the fears for the mine's safety circulating in the community prior to the collapse.

If these stories and preliminary reports are right and it is proved that the tragic collapse at Crandall Canyon was caused by the owners' decision to proceed with retreat mining despite concerns about structural safety at the mine, then Mr. Murray should be spending less time talking to reporters, and a lot more time talking to his lawyers.

HuffPost's Max Follmer has more on Bob Murray here (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/why-are-the-new-york-t_b_60412.html).

[1369]

With MSHA, 324 citations aren't a lot as most will be dismissed and of the 107 S&S, most will be mediated down to a lesser citation or dismissed outright.

Most of my work is done in MSHA covered facilities. During a visit by inspectors they will cite you for the most obscure items.

[johnsmith]

With MSHA, 324 citations aren't a lot as most will be dismissed and of the 107 S&S, most will be mediated down to a lesser citation or dismissed outright.

Most of my work is done in MSHA covered facilities. During a visit by inspectors they will cite you for the most obscure items.


You are absolutely right, and for that matter, an S&S citation can consist of things as small as not having a fire extinguisher inspected and then not correcting the problem.

The guy that wrote this article didn't do his research and people like Dan believe it hook, line, and sinker. And by the way, 1369, maybe you can correct me in this, but don't district managers rotate areas every four-five years within MSHA?

I know inspectors rotate annually.

Again, 324 in a span of 4 years is not absurd.

I'm not saying this isn't a tragedy, but let us not make it into a political issue when it clearly is not.

[boutons_]

Murray jumped on the "seismic cause" with such enthusiasm, (an Act of God, not my responsibility), "The lady doth protest too much, methinks". Murray has stunk from the get-go.

Exactly like dubya and dickhead, immediately after the 2000 election, began saying at every opportunity the economy was tanking badly,

1) their very first opportunity to do what has become knee-jerk, refuse all responsiblity and all accountability for everything

2) slime Clinton, as he was the obviouse cause since it was not even 20 Jan 2001.

3) to lay the groundwork for the one of the primary, secret reasons that the Repugs wanted th WH: ramming through massive, pay-back tax for the super-rich and corps, which was there one and only legislative action until 12 Sep 2001.

[johnsmith]

Murray jumped on the "seismic cause" with such enthusiasm,
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks". Murray has stunk from the get-go.

Exactly like dubya and dickhead, immediately after the 2000 election, began saying at every opportunity the economy was tanking badly,

1) their very first opportunity to do what has become knee-jerk, refuse all responsiblity and all accountability for everything

2) slime Clinton, as he was the obviouse cause since it was not even 20 Jan 2001.

3) to lay the groundwork for the one of the primary, secret reasons that the Repugs wanted th WH: ramming through massive, pay-back tax for the super-rich and corps, which was there one and only legislative action until 12 Sep 2001.


Dude, what the fuck does this have to do with the mine accident?

[Spurminator]

:lmao

[smeagol]

Dan and boutons are fucking idiots. There is no other explanation.

[Nbadan]

You are absolutely right, and for that matter, an S&S citation can consist of things as small as not having a fire extinguisher inspected and then not correcting the problem.

The guy that wrote this article didn't do his research and people like Dan believe it hook, line, and sinker. And by the way, 1369, maybe you can correct me in this, but don't district managers rotate areas every four-five years within MSHA?

I know inspectors rotate annually.

Again, 324 in a span of 4 years is not absurd.

I'm not saying this isn't a tragedy, but let us not make it into a political issue when it clearly is not.

Why have safety guidelines and regulations first place if the companies are just gonna ignore them? What if businesses like restaurants and grocery stores took such a blasé' attitude towards following food safety standards? Do you think the M$M would be all over that? Just because 324 citations in 4 years isn't unusual for this type of business doesn't mean that there is necessarily something wrong with the inspection process but maybe the company had a tendency to be a risk-taker...

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Note:

The Associated Press and Salt Lake Tribune are part of the "mainstream media."

How mainstream, you ask?

http://www.sltrib.com/portlet/layout/html/sitemap/mng_sitemap.jsp

[xrayzebra]

Why have safety guidelines and regulations first place if the companies are just gonna ignore them? What if businesses like restaurants and grocery stores took such a blasé' attitude towards following food safety standards? Do you think the M$M would be all over that? Just because 324 citations in 4 years isn't unusual for this type of business doesn't mean that there is necessarily something wrong with the inspection process but maybe the company had a tendency to be a risk-taker...

Why? Well hell, don't you know. Bush wants to kill miners
that is why.

[Nbadan]

Heckuva job, Dick!

Mine Safety Czar Richard Stickler: Another Bush Fox Guarding the Henhouse
Posted on August 15, 2007 at 12:33 PM.


The man who will oversee the federal government's investigation into the disaster that has trapped six workers in a Utah coal mine for over a week was twice rejected for his current job by senators concerned about his own safety record when he managed mines in the private sector.

President George W. Bush resorted to a recess appointment in October 2006 to anoint Richard Stickler as the nation's mine safety czar after it became clear he could not receive enough support even in a GOP-controlled Senate.

In the wake of the January 2006 Sago mine disaster in West Virginia, senators from both sides of the aisle expressed concern that Stickler was not the right person to combat climbing death rates in the nation's mines.

Democrats, led by West Virginia Sens. Robert Byrd and Jay Rockefeller, and Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy, questioned the safety record of the mines Stickler ran when he was a coal company executive.

Over the course of his career in the private sector, Stickler managed various mining operations for Bethlehem Steel subsidiary BethEnergy Mines, Inc.

The Charleston (W.Va.) Gazette reported in January 2006 that three workers died at BethEnergy mines managed by Stickler during the 1980s and 1990s.

Alertnet (http://www.alternet.org/wire/#59856)

[Spurminator]

Why have safety guidelines and regulations first place if the companies are just gonna ignore them? What if businesses like restaurants and grocery stores took such a blasé' attitude towards following food safety standards? Do you think the M$M would be all over that? Just because 324 citations in 4 years isn't unusual for this type of business doesn't mean that there is necessarily something wrong with the inspection process but maybe the company had a tendency to be a risk-taker...

The point is you are singling out this one.

[1369]

Why have safety guidelines and regulations first place if the companies are just gonna ignore them? What if businesses like restaurants and grocery stores took such a blasé' attitude towards following food safety standards? Do you think the M$M would be all over that? Just because 324 citations in 4 years isn't unusual for this type of business doesn't mean that there is necessarily something wrong with the inspection process but maybe the company had a tendency to be a risk-taker...

When you get S&S citations for having an employee not disconnect his oxy/acetylene rig and cap the bottles when he walks 20 yards to a portacan when he's going to go right back to working, not having a crane operator wear a life vest when working on a pier (when he's 15' from the water and not to mention having him wear one restricts him from running the crane properly) and not having a rubber boot on the welding lead connection to the welding machine even though the door of the welding machine is closed and secured, yea there's something wrong with the inspection process.

[johnsmith]

Why have safety guidelines and regulations first place if the companies are just gonna ignore them? What if businesses like restaurants and grocery stores took such a blasé' attitude towards following food safety standards? Do you think the M$M would be all over that? Just because 324 citations in 4 years isn't unusual for this type of business doesn't mean that there is necessarily something wrong with the inspection process but maybe the company had a tendency to be a risk-taker...


Dan, you have no idea what you are talking about on this one. This is typical of your responses, you believe everything you read and don't bother to research the issue.

A subcontractor working for us right now is currently fighting off $37,000 dollars worth of fines incurred at a mine site in Colorado. $37,000 is a lot of money and one would think that the infraction would have to be reasonably serious in order to demand a fine that hefty. Well Dan, the fine is based on not having toeboards properly in place on scaffolding that was three feet off the ground.

Toeboards are used to prevent objects from being kicked over the side of scaffolding, decking, etc, and striking someone that may be walking underneath. Now Dan, unless the mine site in question had hundreds of midgets working for it, then I'm pretty sure that no one was going to be hit from above when the scaffold was only three feet off the ground.

Do you think that merits $37,000 dollars and 24 different fines? I don't. And it's only going to cost the company thousands and thousands of dollars to fight these citations in order to clear it's name.

What you fail to understand is that out of a 1000 citations MSHA writes, I would guess that 1 or 2 of them actually has a positive effect on the well-being of miners.

[Nbadan]

What you fail to understand is that out of a 1000 citations MSHA writes, I would guess that 1 or 2 of them actually has a positive effect on the well-being of miners.

So even by your own numbers 362 citations were serious enough to be warranted. All I'm saying is what if that happened in every industry? People would be up in arms....

Besides, eventually, Murray is gonna crash and burn...

[1369]

So even by your own numbers 362 citations were serious enough to be warranted. All I'm saying is what if that happened in every industry? People would be up in arms....

I wish it was in every industry, then peeple would truly see how out of hand things get.

I get cited for having a fire extinguisher 22' away from a welder instead of 20' amd on my way home I see house roofers working without fall protection, riding the bucket of a 580 case to shuttle material, workers in a open excavatioon without a trenchbox, ad nauseum.

Dan, did you know you can tell an OSHA inspector to leave your site and he has to, while an MSHA inspector can show up unannounced?

And the 362 citations? While "technically" they are violations per CFR, common sense will show most, if not all, were well within the realm of safe work.

In a nutshell, if the journalists actually followed up on what came about of these citations instead of "EVERYONE PANIC!", a much different story will emerge.

And Murray? He'll be fine, but he's fixing to have a pretty large fight on his hands will the UMW heirarchy.

[Nbadan]

Still wanna keep sucking on Roger Murray's tit boys?


HUNTINGTON - The fifth borehole drilled in search of six men trapped in the Crandall Canyon mine showed the worst results yet - a near-complete cave-in within the main escape tunnel.

A mere six inches exist between the ceiling of the mine and tons of rubble.
So organizers of the consistently disappointing search for the miners will begin drilling a sixth borehole today, targeting the area where the missing men were working. If it, too, shows no signs of life, mine co-owner Robert Murray said Wednesday the borehole will be the last.

"If we don't find anyone alive in that hole," he said, "there is no place anyone in our company or would know where to drill."

St Louis Tribune (http://www.sltrib.com/ci_6695430)

======


Robert Murray insists that his company did not change the mining plan at Crandall Canyon after purchasing a joint interest in the mine last August.

But documents obtained by The Salt Lake Tribune clearly contradict Murray's assertion, and show that Murray's company sought and received approval from Federal regulators to make a significant, and, experts say, risky change to the mining strategy.

Records of the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) show that, after Murray acquired a 50 percent ownership in the mine on Aug. 9, 2006, his company repeatedly petitioned the agency to allow coal to be extracted from the north and south barriers - thick walls of coal that run on both sides of the main tunnel and help hold up the mine.

That stands in stark contrast to statements Murray made Monday asserting that his company's mine plan, and that of the previous owner, were one and the same. "Some have incorrectly reported that after I bought the mine I changed the mining plan. That is not correct," Murray said.

St Louis Tribune (http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_6685703)

[johnsmith]

Still wanna keep sucking on Roger Murray's tit boys?



St Louis Tribune (http://www.sltrib.com/ci_6695430)

======



St Louis Tribune (http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_6685703)


So basically MSHA allowed them to do it.

WHy is that Murray's fault?

Dan, you don't understand what you are fucking talking about and you are too quick to believe everything you read.

[xrayzebra]

Still wanna keep sucking on Roger Murray's tit boys?



St Louis Tribune (http://www.sltrib.com/ci_6695430)

======



St Louis Tribune (http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_6685703)


What is your point Dan? Send more miners down there
to get killed? They have already lost three miners trying
rescue six.

[smeagol]

Dan, is there anything about the people that govern you that makes you happy?

[Wild Cobra]

Maybe we should go back to the ugly practice of strip mining?

[DarkReign]

Dude, what the fuck does this have to do with the mine accident?

I shoulda quoted Spurm....:lmao

[boutons_]

"Maybe we should go back to the ugly practice of strip mining?"

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/08/23/us/coallarge.jpg


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/logoprinter.gif (http://www.nytimes.com/)
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/ads/spacer.gif


August 23, 2007

Rule to Expand Mountaintop Coal Mining

By JOHN M. BRODER (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/john_m_broder/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
WASHINGTON, Aug. 22 — The Bush administration is set to issue a regulation on Friday that would enshrine the coal mining practice of mountaintop removal. The technique involves blasting off the tops of mountains and dumping the rubble into valleys and streams.

It has been used in Appalachian coal country for 20 years under a cloud of legal and regulatory confusion.

The new rule would allow the practice to continue and expand, providing only that mine operators minimize the debris and cause the least environmental harm, although those terms are not clearly defined and to some extent merely restate existing law.

The Office of Surface Mining in the Interior Department (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/i/interior_department/index.html?inline=nyt-org) drafted the rule, which will be subject to a 60-day comment period and could be revised, although officials indicated that it was not likely to be changed substantially.

The regulation is the culmination of six and a half years of work by the administration to make it easier for mining companies to dig more coal to meet growing energy demands and reduce dependence on foreign oil.

Government and industry officials say the rules are needed to clarify existing laws, which have been challenged in court and applied unevenly.

A spokesman for the National Mining Association, Luke Popovich, said that unless mine owners were allowed to dump mine waste in streams and valleys it would be impossible to operate in mountainous regions like West Virginia that hold some of the richest low-sulfur coal seams.

All mining generates huge volumes of waste, known as excess spoil or overburden, and it has to go somewhere. For years, it has been trucked away and dumped in remote hollows of Appalachia.

Environmental activists say the rule change will lead to accelerated pillage of vast tracts and the obliteration of hundreds of miles of streams in central Appalachia.

( Who the fuck cares? Better destruction of W Va than ANY energy conservation efforts! http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif )


“This is a parting gift to the coal industry from this administration,” said Joe Lovett, executive director of the Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment in Lewisburg, W.Va. “What is at stake is the future of Appalachia. This is an attempt to make legal what has long been illegal.”

Mr. Lovett said his group and allied environmental and community organizations would consider suing to block the new rule.

Mountaintop mining is the most common strip mining in central Appalachia, and the most destructive. Ridge tops are flattened with bulldozers and dynamite, clearing all vegetation and, at times, forcing residents to move.

The coal seams are scraped with gigantic machines called draglines. The law requires mining companies to reclaim and replant the land, but the process always produces excess debris.

Roughly half the coal in West Virginia is from mountaintop mining, which is generally cheaper, safer and more efficient than extraction from underground mines like the Crandall Canyon Mine in Utah, which may have claimed the lives of nine miners and rescuers, and the Sago Mine in West Virginia, where 12 miners were killed last year.

The rule, which would apply to waste from both types of mines, is known as the stream buffer zone rule. First adopted in 1983, it forbids virtually all mining within 100 feet of a river or stream.

( 100 ft! wow! that's super cautious http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif )


The Interior Department drafted the proposal to try to clear up a 10-year legal and regulatory dispute over how the 1983 rule should be applied. The change is to be published on Friday in The Federal Register, officials said.

The Army Corps of Engineers (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/army_corps_of_engineers/index.html?inline=nyt-org), state mining authorities and local courts have read the rule liberally, allowing extensive mountaintop mining and dumping of debris in coal-rich regions of West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee and Virginia.

From 1985 to 2001, 724 miles of streams were buried under mining waste, according to the environmental impact statement accompanying the new rule.

If current practices continue, another 724 river miles will be buried by 2018, the report says.

Environmental groups have gone to court many times, with limited success, to slow or stop the practice. They won an important ruling in federal court in 1999, but it was overturned in 2001 on procedural and jurisdictional grounds.

The Clinton administration began moving in 1998 to tighten enforcement of the stream rule, but the clock ran out before it could enact new regulations. The Bush administration has been much friendlier to mining interests, which have been reliable contributors to the Republican Party (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/republican_party/index.html?inline=nyt-org), and has worked on the new rule change since 2001.

The early stages of the revision process were supported by J. Stephen Griles, a former industry lobbyist who was the deputy interior secretary from 2001 to 2004. Mr. Griles had been deputy director of the Office of Surface Mining in the Reagan administration and is knowledgeable about the issues and generally supports the industry.

In June, Mr. Griles was sentenced to 10 months in prison and three years’ probation http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif for lying to a Senate committee about his ties to Jack Abramoff (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/jack_abramoff/index.html?inline=nyt-per), http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif the lobbyist at the heart of a corruption scandal who is now in prison.

Interior Department officials said they could not comment on the rule because it had not been published. But a senior official of the Office of Surface Mining said the stream buffer rule was never intended to prohibit all mining in and around streams, but rather just to minimize the effects of such work.

Even with the best techniques and most careful reclamation, surface or underground mining will always generate mountains of dirt and rock, he said.

“There’s really no place to put the material except in the upper reaches of hollows,” the official said. “If you can’t put anything in a stream, there’s really no way to even underground mine.”

He said the regulation would explicitly state that the buffer zone rule does not apply for hundreds of miles of streams and valleys and that he hoped, but did not expect, that the rule would end the fight over mine waste.

Mr. Lovett of the Appalachian Center said the rule would only stoke a new battle.

“They are not strengthening the buffer zone rule,” he said. “They are just destroying it. By sleight of hand, they are removing one of the few protections streams now have from the most egregious mining activities.”

[johnsmith]

"Maybe we should go back to the ugly practice of strip mining?"

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/08/23/us/coallarge.jpg


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/logoprinter.gif (http://www.nytimes.com/)
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/ads/spacer.gif


August 23, 2007

Rule to Expand Mountaintop Coal Mining

By JOHN M. BRODER (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/john_m_broder/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
WASHINGTON, Aug. 22 — The Bush administration is set to issue a regulation on Friday that would enshrine the coal mining practice of mountaintop removal. The technique involves blasting off the tops of mountains and dumping the rubble into valleys and streams.

It has been used in Appalachian coal country for 20 years under a cloud of legal and regulatory confusion.

The new rule would allow the practice to continue and expand, providing only that mine operators minimize the debris and cause the least environmental harm, although those terms are not clearly defined and to some extent merely restate existing law.

The Office of Surface Mining in the Interior Department (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/i/interior_department/index.html?inline=nyt-org) drafted the rule, which will be subject to a 60-day comment period and could be revised, although officials indicated that it was not likely to be changed substantially.

The regulation is the culmination of six and a half years of work by the administration to make it easier for mining companies to dig more coal to meet growing energy demands and reduce dependence on foreign oil.

Government and industry officials say the rules are needed to clarify existing laws, which have been challenged in court and applied unevenly.

A spokesman for the National Mining Association, Luke Popovich, said that unless mine owners were allowed to dump mine waste in streams and valleys it would be impossible to operate in mountainous regions like West Virginia that hold some of the richest low-sulfur coal seams.

All mining generates huge volumes of waste, known as excess spoil or overburden, and it has to go somewhere. For years, it has been trucked away and dumped in remote hollows of Appalachia.

Environmental activists say the rule change will lead to accelerated pillage of vast tracts and the obliteration of hundreds of miles of streams in central Appalachia.

( Who the fuck cares? Better destruction of W Va than ANY energy conservation efforts! http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif )


“This is a parting gift to the coal industry from this administration,” said Joe Lovett, executive director of the Appalachian Center for the Economy and the Environment in Lewisburg, W.Va. “What is at stake is the future of Appalachia. This is an attempt to make legal what has long been illegal.”

Mr. Lovett said his group and allied environmental and community organizations would consider suing to block the new rule.

Mountaintop mining is the most common strip mining in central Appalachia, and the most destructive. Ridge tops are flattened with bulldozers and dynamite, clearing all vegetation and, at times, forcing residents to move.

The coal seams are scraped with gigantic machines called draglines. The law requires mining companies to reclaim and replant the land, but the process always produces excess debris.

Roughly half the coal in West Virginia is from mountaintop mining, which is generally cheaper, safer and more efficient than extraction from underground mines like the Crandall Canyon Mine in Utah, which may have claimed the lives of nine miners and rescuers, and the Sago Mine in West Virginia, where 12 miners were killed last year.

The rule, which would apply to waste from both types of mines, is known as the stream buffer zone rule. First adopted in 1983, it forbids virtually all mining within 100 feet of a river or stream.

( 100 ft! wow! that's super cautious http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif )


The Interior Department drafted the proposal to try to clear up a 10-year legal and regulatory dispute over how the 1983 rule should be applied. The change is to be published on Friday in The Federal Register, officials said.

The Army Corps of Engineers (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/army_corps_of_engineers/index.html?inline=nyt-org), state mining authorities and local courts have read the rule liberally, allowing extensive mountaintop mining and dumping of debris in coal-rich regions of West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee and Virginia.

From 1985 to 2001, 724 miles of streams were buried under mining waste, according to the environmental impact statement accompanying the new rule.

If current practices continue, another 724 river miles will be buried by 2018, the report says.

Environmental groups have gone to court many times, with limited success, to slow or stop the practice. They won an important ruling in federal court in 1999, but it was overturned in 2001 on procedural and jurisdictional grounds.

The Clinton administration began moving in 1998 to tighten enforcement of the stream rule, but the clock ran out before it could enact new regulations. The Bush administration has been much friendlier to mining interests, which have been reliable contributors to the Republican Party (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/republican_party/index.html?inline=nyt-org), and has worked on the new rule change since 2001.

The early stages of the revision process were supported by J. Stephen Griles, a former industry lobbyist who was the deputy interior secretary from 2001 to 2004. Mr. Griles had been deputy director of the Office of Surface Mining in the Reagan administration and is knowledgeable about the issues and generally supports the industry.

In June, Mr. Griles was sentenced to 10 months in prison and three years’ probation http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif for lying to a Senate committee about his ties to Jack Abramoff (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/jack_abramoff/index.html?inline=nyt-per), http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif the lobbyist at the heart of a corruption scandal who is now in prison.

Interior Department officials said they could not comment on the rule because it had not been published. But a senior official of the Office of Surface Mining said the stream buffer rule was never intended to prohibit all mining in and around streams, but rather just to minimize the effects of such work.

Even with the best techniques and most careful reclamation, surface or underground mining will always generate mountains of dirt and rock, he said.

“There’s really no place to put the material except in the upper reaches of hollows,” the official said. “If you can’t put anything in a stream, there’s really no way to even underground mine.”

He said the regulation would explicitly state that the buffer zone rule does not apply for hundreds of miles of streams and valleys and that he hoped, but did not expect, that the rule would end the fight over mine waste.

Mr. Lovett of the Appalachian Center said the rule would only stoke a new battle.

“They are not strengthening the buffer zone rule,” he said. “They are just destroying it. By sleight of hand, they are removing one of the few protections streams now have from the most egregious mining activities.”



So that's why the media is neglecting a vital part of the mine collapse.

[inconvertible]

funny how murray was nowhere to be found from the day the 3 miners died, until he popped up on larry king about 4-5days later.

....and was prancing and dancing in front of the cameras every day until the cave-in.