• Mossberg Owners is in the process of upgrading the software. Please bear with us while we transition to the new look and new upgraded software.

War on coal casualties

James River Coal furloughs 525 miners

http://www.wkyt.com/wymt/home/headlines ... 83411.html

Officials with James River Coal Company have confirmed to Mountain News they have furloughed 525 coal miners at three mines across our region.

Officials with the Richmond, Virginia based company said Monday night the layoffs occurred at operations at the McCoy Elkhorn complex in Pike and Floyd counties, the Bledsoe complex in Leslie and Harlan counties and the Long Branch Surface mine in London.

Hundreds of miners throughout the region could be without jobs.

Word is spreading that one coal company laid off or furloughed hundreds of miners.

However, company officials will not confirm any of it.

James River Coal Company runs several mines in Eastern Kentucky with the latest layoffs appearing to be centered around Pike, Harlan and Leslie Counties, potentially more than 500 jobs in Pike County alone.

At a time when the Eastern Kentucky coal industry has seen a steady decline in jobs officials say losing that many jobs at these mines would devastate the area.

"It's important for people to remember for everyone one direct lob lost we lose at least three other jobs that are dependent on that coal miner for their livelihood, so this is a very very serious economic time for Eastern Kentucky. There's really nowhere else in the country that has felt the kind of loss in production and employment like we've seen in Eastern Kentucky," said Bill Bissett, President of the Kentucky Coal Association.

Bissett says there are many reasons for the industry's issues, including competitive prices of natural gas and extensive regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency.

As of right now there is no word on specific numbers or if the layoffs will be permanent.

Mountain News did receive a copy of a letter that was given to a furloughed miner at a Bledsoe mine. The letter states that all the furloughed miners will keep their benefits for up to three months.

Mountain News tried several times today to contact officials at James River Coal. Our calls were not returned.

rsz_3coal_furlough.jpg
Click to expand...
 
And the beat goes on. The furniture biz is being hit hard around here also. Lane is likely going to layoff 1400+ in MS next month. Furniture Brands, which includes many well known brands besides Lane is selling off most of it's assets.

But Obama says the economy is doing great. :roll:

http://djournal.com/news/lane-lay-1400/
 
What those tools don't understand is if many industries are doing poorly, everyone is doing poorly.

It's not a trickle down economy when it's all gone to shit.

Anyone who doesn't know that virtually every industry in dependent on virtually every other industry has clearly not thought it through entirely.

And more people are waking up realizing that if you break the back of energy producers that you break the back of America.
 
John A. said:
What those tools don't understand is if many industries are doing poorly, everyone is doing poorly.

It's not a trickle down economy when it's all gone to shit.
Click to expand...

Oh, I think they understand. They just don't give a shit. Yet.
 
The EPA is going to be proposing some new draconian rules to further punish the coal industry. If you read the link you'll find that some of the technology isn't even developed yet:
New clean-energy rules pushed through by the Obama administration are raising concerns that they could cripple the coal industry -- and may require power plants to use technology so risky that even the president's former top energy official once warned it could "kill."
The EPA, by Friday, is expected to release a new proposal to set the first-ever carbon dioxide limits for new power plants.
To meet those emissions caps, power plants would likely have to use what is known as "carbon-capture technology," which involves burying the carbon underground.
The technology, which is still under development, remains expensive and not commercially available. But there are lingering safety risks.
Steven Chu, who served until recently as President Obama's energy secretary, cautioned in a 2007 talk sponsored by the Berkeley Lab in California that the process could be dangerous and bring legal challenges -- as well as additional costs -- for the companies involved.

We have to do this because of the terrible effect that coal has on global warming:"Responding to climate change is an urgent public health, safety, national security and environmental imperative," she said. She noted that power plants account for roughly 40 percent of U.S. "carbon pollution." She said the revisions to the proposal reflect "new information and the extensive public comments" the agency has received. "The evidence is overwhelming and the science is clear," Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz told a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Wednesday. "The threat from climate change is real and urgent. The basic science behind climate change is simple. Carbon dioxide makes the Earth warmer, and we are admitting more and more of it into the atmosphere."

According to the UN, they won't give up on global warming even as they themselves have reports of cooling and record ice this year. I guess that doesn't support the agenda:
The United Nations won't give up its hard-line position that global warming is occurring and man is to blame. But at some point it's going to have to deal with the reality of the world around it. The U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says it is 95% sure that human activity — the burning of fossil fuel for energy — is causing our planet to warm. So on what, we wonder, will the IPCC blame the coming cooling period? Because one is coming. At least that's what the IPCC itself reportedly is saying. The London Telegraph wrote Sunday that a leaked IPCC report "has led some scientists to claim that the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century." And why not? As the Telegraph has noted, "There has been a 60% increase in the amount of ocean covered with ice compared to this time last year, the equivalent of almost a million square miles." Yes, that's right. The dire predictions of an iceless Arctic made in 2007 were wrong, just as the fearful projections of an increase in global-warming-caused disastrous storms have also been off the mark in a missed-by-the-width-of-the-universe sort of way. Whether Earth cools or not is a question that won't be answered until a few more years or decades pass. But this we do know: Earth has not warmed in at least 16 years, maybe more. Data from Britain's Met Office, that nation's arbiter of all things climate, shows global temperatures have been flat since the late 1990s.

article on new regs: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-safety-cost-concerns-over-epa-new-coal-regs/
article on UN: http://news.investors.com/ibd-edito...-ice-increases-million-square-miles-by-60.htm
 
^^ But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

We are fast approaching the time when such action will be necessary and inevitable.
 
"The EPA ... does not anticipate this rule will have any impacts on the price of electricity, employment or labor markets or the U.S. economy," the EPA wrote in its analysis.
Click to expand...

Translation of Gubmint speak: "With these new regulations the EPA expects electricity will soon cost double, more people will lose jobs in places that can least afford it and the economy will dump further. As we produce less electricity you'll be lucky to not have rolling blackouts unless the grid crashes"
 
There's an interesting website that compiled a interactive map and statistics showing which states are losing money and which are gaining. www.howmoneywalks.com . Not specific to energy/coal but worth a look. It's a little slow to load, apparently due to high traffic.
 
Harlan County (KY)

Lost $56.01 million in annual AGI*

chart


This chart stopped at 2010, an in the last two years, it is even worse.

And even the counties that has the two largest cities in KY has lost. And certainly some in part due to decreased coal severance taxes.

Fayette County (KY) Lexington
Lost $455.45 million in annual AGI*

Jefferson County (KY) Lousiville
Lost $1.32 billion in annual AGI*
 
GunnyGene said:
There's an interesting website that compiled a interactive map and statistics showing which states are losing money and which are gaining. http://www.howmoneywalks.com . Not specific to energy/coal but worth a look. It's a little slow to load, apparently due to high traffic.
Click to expand...

Very interesting website. All the big city counties in OH have lost revenue, especially Hamilton (Cincinnati). One main reason is that the City Council passes laws and programs that they don't need to fund...it is passed on to the county for some damned reason. The county in also responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of Paul Brown Stadium (Bengals) but Cincinnati gets the revenues form the stadium. It infuriates the county residents that they need to pay for Cincinnati issues.

We are looking at getting the hell out of OH as well. Hopefully within the next 5 years. Headed south to NC or TN...
 
TN is actually pretty good OA.

By law, they have to have a balanced budget YEARLY.

Their sales tax is 3% more than ours a few miles north, BUT they don't have to pay yearly taxes on boats, and cars, and houses, and such and when all is said and done, is actually less.

My Dad used to own a houseboat in Claiborne County TN just north of Knoxville and we spent a lot of time in the area growing up.

I could've met dual citizenship requirements LOL

And truthfully, I would like to buy a little piece of property in that same area for the reason I stated above.

My home and family is here, but my heart has been roaming for a long time now.

I also liked northeast Florida south of Jacksonville.

Their taxes are very low.
 
I lived in FL three times...Ft Walton Bch for 3-3 1/2 yrs; Homestead for 6 1/2 (until Andrew relocated all of us); and Orlando for 14 mths. My daughter lives west of Jax with her mom.

Florida is filling up, both from the north and the south (way south). Communicating was difficult in S FLA...too many immigrants that didn't try to learn English. Very, very crowded. Same with Orlando. FWB was very different then than it is now. Back in the '80s the town almost dried up each winter. I didn't recognize the place the last time I went through there. Also, way too crowded. Always thought I'd move back but I doubt that will happen now. The panhandle is more open but it is getting very crowded as well.
 
OhioArcher said:
I lived in FL three times...Ft Walton Bch for 3-3 1/2 yrs; Homestead for 6 1/2 (until Andrew relocated all of us); and Orlando for 14 mths. My daughter lives west of Jax with her mom.

Florida is filling up, both from the north and the south (way south). Communicating was difficult in S FLA...too many immigrants that didn't try to learn English. Very, very crowded. Same with Orlando. FWB was very different then than it is now. Back in the '80s the town almost dried up each winter. I didn't recognize the place the last time I went through there. Also, way too crowded. Always thought I'd move back but I doubt that will happen now. The panhandle is more open but it is getting very crowded as well.
Click to expand...

Everyplace is getting more crowded. There's 3 times as many people on the planet as there were when I was born. Worldwide, we add about 75million new people annually. We all know what causes that ;) .
 
GunnyGene said:
OhioArcher said:
I lived in FL three times...Ft Walton Bch for 3-3 1/2 yrs; Homestead for 6 1/2 (until Andrew relocated all of us); and Orlando for 14 mths. My daughter lives west of Jax with her mom.

Florida is filling up, both from the north and the south (way south). Communicating was difficult in S FLA...too many immigrants that didn't try to learn English. Very, very crowded. Same with Orlando. FWB was very different then than it is now. Back in the '80s the town almost dried up each winter. I didn't recognize the place the last time I went through there. Also, way too crowded. Always thought I'd move back but I doubt that will happen now. The panhandle is more open but it is getting very crowded as well.
Click to expand...

Everyplace is getting more crowded. There's 3 times as many people on the planet as there were when I was born. Worldwide, we add about 75million new people annually. We all know what causes that ;) .
Click to expand...

yeah, alcohol... :lol:
 
alcohol may add to it, but I think you and I need to sit down and have a little talk.
 
It's hard to believe they actually are admitting this. I guess they realize they can do what they want and nobody will stop them.

An Environmental Protection Agency proposal designed to reduce CO2 emissions and reduce global warming will actually have no “notable CO2 emission changes.”

So a rule that will essentially ban new coal-fired power plants will actually have no impact on global warming. Got it.

“The EPA does not anticipate that this proposed rule will result in notable CO2 emission changes, energy impacts, monetized benefits, costs, or economic impacts by 2022,” the EPA writes under the comments section of its proposal.

The EPA also admits that “the owners of newly built electric generating units will likely choose technologies that meet these standards even in the absence of this proposal due to existing economic conditions as normal business practice.”
 
carbinemike said:
It's hard to believe they actually are admitting this. I guess they realize they can do what they want and nobody will stop them.

An Environmental Protection Agency proposal designed to reduce CO2 emissions and reduce global warming will actually have no “notable CO2 emission changes.”

So a rule that will essentially ban new coal-fired power plants will actually have no impact on global warming. Got it.

“The EPA does not anticipate that this proposed rule will result in notable CO2 emission changes, energy impacts, monetized benefits, costs, or economic impacts by 2022,” the EPA writes under the comments section of its proposal.

The EPA also admits that “the owners of newly built electric generating units will likely choose technologies that meet these standards even in the absence of this proposal due to existing economic conditions as normal business practice.”
Click to expand...

They're wrong about the economic impacts. There have been and will continue to be increased costs of electric generation, which means increased costs of downstream products and services that rely on electricity - things like aluminum production, manufacturing of practically everything, etc.
 
“the owners of newly built electric generating units will likely choose technologies that meet these standards even in the absence of this proposal due to existing economic conditions as normal business practice.”[/i]
Click to expand...

Boy whoever wrote this last sentence really nailed it.

What has been considered "NORMAL BUSINESS PRACTICE" since the 1970's and the creation of the EPA is excess taxation by the EPA.

Look up cap and trade and tax credits that companies could buy and sell as needed to meet their "business standards".

Here's the real scoop since there may be many who may be ignorant of how this works so you can better understand what the last paragraph of the article means.

A business buys so many "tax credits" at the beginning of the year where pollution is concerned.

Some companies don't use them all and they have an excess in tax credits at the end of the year and in order to save some of their money can sell them to other companies who exceed their expected limits so at the end of the year, it all works out the same in the end of pollution is going to be the same anyway, but it adds up to a big production tax no matter how you look at it just because they operated and produced a product.

Whether it is these big steel mills, electricity producing power plants, maple syrup or anything that creates any kind of smoke or exhaust on an industrial level.

Now, back to the subject pertaining more to coal fired plants that have switched over to gas fired or other means of heating water to turn into steam to turn their turbines to make them spin so they can make electricity, I want to ask you a sincere question.

Have you seen a DECREASE in your electric bill in the last 5 years the EPA has been directed to bankrupt coal by the president and force them by taxation to undergo a huge financial burden to switch the type of fuel they use so the EPA won't come down on them like Thors hammer and so they can maintain their permits just to be allowed to continue to operate and produce the product (electricity, something we all use)?

Have you seen a DECREASE in your grocery bill?

Or decrease in cost of anything for that matter?

Chewing gum?

Anything?

Because that is something that gets passed along to the consumer in the end.

Serious questions. Have you?
 
John, thought you might enjoy a little Boxcar Willie. :) Some good coal train video.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPnciunYwHg[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyk3AEXvmLg[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9QCcCq4nGI[/youtube]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top