• 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

http://www.wkyt.com/wymt/home/headl...laid-off-at-Harlan-County-mine-303086211.html

More than five dozen miners laid off at Harlan County mine
By: Rebecca Ollier
Posted: Fri 12:51 PM, May 08, 2015
By: Rebecca Ollier

  • [URL='http://www.wkyt.com/home']Home



Harlan County, Kentucky (WYMT) - We are following some breaking news out of Harlan County.
A spokesperson tells us 64 miners are now without a job because of a lay off this morning.
It happened at the Clover Lick Number 3 mine in Cumberland.
That mine is owned by Alpha Natural Resources.
WYMT asked the spokesperson why this happened. They released this statement.
"Due to the downturn of the economy it was beyond control and very regrettable."
[/URL]
 
That sucks John and I'm sorry for those folks. I wish they had given an honest answer why. The economy still is bad but it's the Obama attack on the coal industry that killed there jobs.

I was thinking about this today when I read that the Prime Minister of Australia has come out publicly to call "global warming" a UN power grab for a one world order.
 
Sorry to see this happening John.

It's sucks to read about it, but I can't imagine how tough it is to have it happening in your own neighborhood. I wish the miners and their families all the best...
 
Yeah, it's bad when even chain restaurants that have been here for 40+ years are announcing they're going to be closing soon.

Even our Long John Silvers is doing just that.

I think there are in total of 9 local businesses that have announced going out of business sale just this year.

When there is no jobs, there is no money to spend, people move away.

When people move away, there's a serious ghost town effect that goes on.

All the young adults that are graduating from High School this month, have nothing to look forward to as far as staying and starting their family.

It's a fact of life that they will have to leave home (town) and go somewhere else to work to be able to do it because there is no single industry that is here that will support it just like my oldest son has.

For far too long, our local Gov't has depended on coal, and until the last decade, has had a few booms and downfalls, but it has always sustained the economy.

And the mine owners/operators has succeeded in keeping out other industries by staying active in politics and lobbying (cough cough) elected officials business decisitions and now it's really biting everyone in the ass.

Despite what you may see on TV, there are many honest, hard working and good people here. And it's a great place to live and have a family and business.

But there isn't anything here to stay for.

If you can't support yourself and a family, what else is there to do?

Sorry for the long rant, but I'll call a spade a spade when I see it.

But there has been a massive "Reagan-ese" effect all across the country when production started moving overseas and all that nafta bullshit. That has hurt us (nationwide) just as bad as the Democrats policies have.

Spade.
 
http://www.twincities.com/ap conten...-feds-to-consider-carbon-impact-of-coal-mines

Rulings require feds to consider carbon impact of coal mines
By Colleen Slevin And Matthew Brown Associated Press
Posted: 05/15/2015 02:39:05 PM CDT | Updated: a day ago
DENVER (AP) — Beset by power plant closures, growing regulatory scrutiny and proposed changes in how they pay royalties, coal mines are facing a new obstacle — a review of how coal extracted and burned will impact the air and global warming.
Under a series of rulings by U.S. judges in Denver over the last year, federal agencies that approve mining projects have been told to take into account coal's indirect environmental impact along with traditional concerns about mine dust and equipment emissions.

The immediate effects of the rulings appear limited to a single mine in northwestern Colorado that could lose its permit if a new environmental review isn't completed within four months. But industry representatives fear the rulings, if allowed to stand, could set an example for other judges to follow and eventually threaten the mines that make up the backbone of an industry already facing uncertainty.

Two of the rulings involving Colorado mines, from U.S. District Judge R. Brooke Jackson, say greenhouse gas emissions need to be considered in environmental reviews. A similar case threatens to block production at another mine, in the coal-rich Powder River Basin of Montana and Wyoming. Another federal judge also recently ruled that a mine on the Navajo Nation must consider the effects of burning coal before expanding.

The agency at issue in the two most recent cases, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, is part of the Interior Department and regulates the environmental effects of mining across the country. Office spokesman Chris Holmes said the agency is still reviewing the rulings and hasn't decided what do to next. But fighting them would put the Obama administration in an awkward position because of its efforts to cut emissions of carbon dioxide, the most prevalent greenhouse gas.

The cases focused on coal from federal leases, which account for about 40 percent of U.S. production, but could open the door to similar legal challenges across the industry.

In his most recent decision, issued May 8, Jackson said the surface mining office must redo an environmental review for a coal mining project that's been underway for nearly a decade in northwestern Colorado or he would yank the mine's permit. The Colowyo Mine says losing the permit would lead to job losses for some of its 220 miners.

Colowyo is one of two mines that provide most coal for Colorado's Craig Station power plant, which generates about 8 million tons of greenhouse gases annually, according to federal emissions data.

Jackson, an Obama appointee, said if the government "can predict how much coal will be produced, it can likewise attempt to predict the environmental effects of its combustion."

Coal industry representatives said mines already face delays in permitting and adding more review would make matters worse. Colorado Mining Association President Stuart Sanderson said calculating a mine's contribution to global warming is meaningless because it's dwarfed by unregulated emissions in the developing world.

"It's pushing the envelope of regulation that is not in the nation's interests," Sanderson said of the rulings.
But legal experts say the rulings reflect an emerging trend of linking fossil fuel extraction to climate change.
"The agencies could continue to act just as they have been, but the cost of what they're doing will be more public and clear," said Justin Pidot, an assistant professor at the University of Denver's Sturm College of Law.

While he doesn't think the Colowyo mine will be forced to close, Mark Squillace, director of the University of Colorado's Natural Resources Law Center, said the more thorough reviews could lead the government to deny coal mining meant for export.
"I think the government is going to have to give serious thought to whether they're going to allow that to go forward," he said.
Environmentalists say the rulings will help open up what they view as an industry-tilted process so the public can decide if burning coal is worth the cost.

"I think the more we learn and the more honest accounting we get from the federal government, the more we will decide we don't like it," said Jeremy Nichols of WildEarth Guardians, which sued to stop the mining in northwestern Colorado and also was part of lawsuits to block mine expansions in Somerset, Colorado, and Decker, Montana.

In the Somerset case, Jackson stopped the expansion of Arch Coal, Inc.'s West Elk mine last year partly because the Bureau of Land Management considered but rejected calculating the impact of future greenhouse emissions.

In April, another Denver federal judge, John Kane, ruled that the surface mining office must consider the effects of burning coal at a northwestern New Mexico power plant before allowing an expansion of the Navajo Nation's Navajo Mine. Environmentalists there were mostly concerned with mercury pollution impacting fish in the San Juan River.

The Navajo Nation company that owns the mine has appealed Kane's ruling. The government did not appeal the West Elk ruling.
In the Montana case, WildEarth Guardians and the Northern Plains Resource Council sued to block the mining of more than 117 million tons of coal, which would extend the life of Cloud Peak Energy's 280-worker Spring Creek mine by 13 years.

The environmental groups have asked U.S. District Judge Susan Watters to halt mining until its environmental impacts are more thoroughly vetted.

Cloud Peak and Montana Attorney General Tim Fox have entered the case on the side of the Interior Department, which wants it dismissed. In a notice to Watters' court filed Wednesday, attorneys for Wildearth Guardians were quick to point out their victory in Colorado in support of their arguments against Spring Creek.
————
Brown reported from Billings, Montana. Felicia Fonseca in Flagstaff, Arizona, contributed to this report.
 
Here's a good one on some states efforts to finally fight back against the fed over reach based on an executive order from the emperor and carried out by his minions at the EPA.

Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin is leading a state rebellion against the Obama administration’s effort to impose on states the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan to limit carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants burning fossil fuels.
Earlier this month, Fallin vetoed a bill in the Oklahoma legislature that would have required the state to develop a State Implementation Plan, SIP, to comply with EPA proposed rules mandating a 30 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. The proposal arises from the Obama administration’s continued insistence that anthropogenic, or human-caused, climate change is a serious threat to U.S. national security.
There is growing resistance by states to the Clean Power Plan, or CPP, regulations issued by the EPA in response to President Obama’s June 2, 2014, executive orders. It’s virtually certain several states will unite in seeking a federal district court injunction once the EPA formally publishes the new rules by next month.
States such as Oklahoma are determined to challenge Obama’s use of the 1970 Clean Air Act to justify his administration’s “war on coal.”
In open defiance of federal authority to regulate Oklahoma’s energy policy, Fallin signed Executive Order 2015-22 on April 28, prohibiting the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality from submitting to the EPA a plan specifying how the state will comply with final rules regarding the operation of state power plants.
Charging that Obama’s executive order and the resulting EPA CPP regulations exceed the authority of the federal government under the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide, Fallin is setting up a classic federal-state constitutional crisis that has the prospect of advancing to the Supreme Court for final resolution.
“EPA has historically interpreted its authority under the Clean Air Act as only being able to regulate emissions from power plants,” Fallin’s executive order reads. “However the proposed regulations seek to go beyond that traditional authority and regulate all aspects of state energy systems.”
Texas looks certain to join Oklahoma in a legal challenge once the EPA promulgates final regulations to force states to limit carbon-dioxide emissions from fossil fuel-burning power plants.
On May 7, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott met in Washington with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Texas Republican Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz to discuss the EPA’s proposed CPP plan.
“The EPA’s latest attempt at imposing burdensome regulations represents an unprecedented meddling with Texas in order to push the Obama Administration’s liberal climate change agenda,” Abbott said after the meeting. “The EPA’s newest suite of rules, led by the Clean Power Plan, seeks unprecedented control over the State’s energy mix that will certainly result in higher energy prices for Texans and will threaten the reliability of Texas’ electric grid.”
Abbott said that during his conversation with McConnell, he “expressed grave concerns that the EPA’s proposed action will burden Texas far more than any other state, killing jobs and stagnating Texas’ unprecedented economic growth, and I offered my full support for his efforts to fight this federal government overreach.”
On March 19, McConnell wrote a letter to the National Governors Association expressing his opposition to the EPA’s Clean Power Plan.
“The EPA’s stated rationale for attempting to shut down America’s coal-fired power plants is to combat global climate change,” McConnell wrote. “Yet, this costly effort is largely symbolic unless and until other major nations impose similar requirements on their own economies.
“Even then, the EPA admits that the ‘climate’ benefits of the CPP cannot be quantified and has refused to estimate the impact it would have on global temperature or sea levels,” McConnell stressed.
While Abbott was in Washington, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced the state intends to mount a legal challenge to the final EPA rules.
The Texas Public Policy Foundation, TPPF, applauded Paxton’s announcement, with Distinguished Senior Fellow-in-Residence and Director of the Armstrong Center for Energy and the Environment Kathleen Hartnett White joining the foundation’s Fueling Freedom Project Director Doug Domenech in issuing statements applauding Paxton’s announcement.
“The EPA’s attempt to commandeer state governments to mandate what the EPA itself has no authority to mandate should be resisted as soon as possible on every level,” White said. “Hopefully, federal courts will stop the clock on the EPA’s impossible timelines until full judicial review is complete.”
“Recent Supreme Court decisions suggest that the EPA’s most ambitious overreach in this Clean Power Plan rule will be overturned,” White said. “As the Supreme Court recently noted, the high court frowns upon EPA’s discovery of elephants in a statutory mouse holes.”
“The attorney general is right,” said Domenech. “The consequences of the EPA’s unconstitutional plan will be devastating to the Texas economy and to the pocket books of every Texas family.”
White, in a TPFF-published paper titled “The Facts About the Clean Power Plan,” dated April 2015, argued the EPA was attempting to nationalize each state’s electric-power sector, much as the federal government under Obama “has nationalized the health care system through Obamacare and national banks through Dodd Frank.”
“The total amount of CO2 emissions that the EPA hopes to gain across the country by 2030 would be emitted by China in less than two weeks,” she continued. “Over half of Texas’ coal fired plants will be forced to close under CPP. That is anywhere from 19-25 plants.”
“The EPA’s Clean Power plan rule would destroy the Texas competitive electricity market and make carbon content – not price, reliability or safety – the first priority for dispatch of electric power to the grid,” she said.
Thomas K. Lindsay, the director of the Centers for Tenth Amendment Action and Higher Education at the TPPF, writing in RealClearPolitics.com, noted that opposition to the EPA’s plan is shaping up in 32 states, where legislatures, governors and/or attorneys general have expressed opposition.
“Across the country, a storm is rising in opposition to federal overreach,” Lindsay wrote. “This opposition will succeed if states continue to once again “act like” states, taking it upon themselves to reclaim our Constitution and, with it, our liberties.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/u-s-states-rebel-against-obamas-war-on-coal/#CyZfRjCuH3jSEMHs.99
 
Not my video, but some of you may be interested in seeing some of this. All of it was done in my home town, and some of it in my neighborhood.

Seeing the shut down coal mine is disheartening though.

 
Sure is pretty country in eastern Kentucky John. Went threw there way back when, when I was visiting friends outside of Bristol.
 
Thank you.

I couldn't imagine living anywhere else. This is my home.

I've always been partial to Northeastern Tennessee, but in all fairness, that really isn't far from home either.

I can be in Virginia or Tennessee between 15 - 35 minutes, depending on the route I took to get there.
 
True. My friends live in Virginia and work in Tennessee .
cheers, I hope your community can come past onto the other side of this in a positive way. Are there any working coal mines left in eastern Kentucky ?
 
Not my video, but some of you may be interested in seeing some of this. All of it was done in my home town, and some of it in my neighborhood.

Seeing the shut down coal mine is disheartening though.

Sorry to hear of those layoffs John...you're right though what are people supposed to do? Gotta be able to make a living. We've got out share of ghost towns in BC. Some were mining towns and some were forestry and sawmill towns...now empty except for the retired folks and diehards.

Beautiful country there in Harlan...similar to BC...lush and mountainous.
 
I've never been to British Columbia. If it's like it is here, then it would be alright in my book.

I had an aunt that married a gentlemen from Ontario when he was here in the 1960's helping build a coal tipple. She obviously moved to Canada and made a family and lived there happily until her death in 2010 and was buried at New Hope Cemetary in Cambridge, Ontario.

She always spoke fondly of Canada.

Except for the tobacco taxes. She'd always buy several cartons of cigarettes while visiting here to take back with her in her luggage.

But that's a story for another day.
 
I'll take it but I wish the states that are starting to fight Obama and the EPA had done this years ago. I wonder how long it will be until the "do nothing" scotus hears the states arguments versus the overbearing EPA and the executive orders that are ruining our power grid.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who’s reportedly mulling a run for the presidency, said his state isn’t going to abide President Obama’s planned reduction rules on coal-fired plants because the standards would prove impossible to abide. “[They're] unworkable,” he said, in a letter to Obama, the Associated Press reported.
He also called them “riddled with inaccuracies [and] questionable assumptions” and said they will not lead to “significant and meaningful changes” in the anti-pollution fight, the AP reported.
Wisconsin, along with 14 other states, has sued the Environmental Protection Agency to block the Clean Power Plan, a vision from Obama to curb carbon dioxide emission levels by 30 percent by 2030.
Walker said the regulatory compliance costs could hit his state at around $13.4 billion. The rules would also hike electricity rates by almost 30 percent, he said.
Democratic senators have written their own letter, urging governors to comply with the EPA.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/scott-walker-wisconsin-to-buck-obamas-coal-regs/#UA3HfUA88zqiqSQd.99
 
The EPA isn't just screwing us up here in the Mountains mining it.

Just another example.

http://newsok.com/u.s.-supreme-court-rejects-oklahoma-appeal-on-epa-rule/article/4851334

excerpt:

U.S. Supreme Court rejects Oklahoma appeal

OG&E warned last year that the EPA’s plan could require an investment of more than $1 billion to reduce emissions at coal units in Red Rock and Muskogee.

----------------------------

And this is one of the big catches about using natural gas instead of coal.

Who is going to pay the estimated $1 billion to retrofit or build new power plants?

Electric company CONSUMERS of course.

Not only that, while natural gas appears less expensive on the surface, coal keeps a more constant temperature while making heat to make the steam that turns the turbines (yes steam is what you see coming out of those smokestacks) natural gas requires more fuel to be consumed for the same amount of temperature and duration.

Just think of it like this.

If you are going to BBQ something on a grill, if you use charcoal, you light it, let it heat up and then use the hot coals to cook with because it maintains heat for long periods of time.

But with natural gas, you have to be using the gas the ENTIRE time you want heat. Making it less efficient as coal and more expensive.

This is the main concepts the administration is ignoring and in no certain terms, misleading and lieing to people that don't really understand how things work.
 
I guess SCOTUS isn't going to give Barry a victory on every single agenda item after all.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, slapped down the Environmental Protection Agency’s landmark air-quality regulation, criticizing the federal entity for failing to take into consideration how its implementation would hike costs.
The justices said in a ruling released Monday the EPA went above and beyond what was lawful under the existing Clean Air Act when it determined limits on certain toxins and pollutants without looking at the costs of compliance.
Specifically, the case, Michigan v. EPA, focused on the agency’s regulatory limits of mercury and other pollutants from coal-fired power plants
The EPA said its rule would cost about $9.6 billion, but bring about $37 billion – and up to $90 billion – in environmental benefits, including the prevention of 11,000 or so premature deaths and 130,000 cases of asthma each year. EPA also said the regulatory impact analysis shouldn’t have any bearing on whether the regulations themselves were appropriate, the Hill said.
But the justices, led by Antonin Scalia, wrote in their final decision: that’s not true.
They said the EPA “unreasonably” interpreted the Clean Air Act by failing to consider compliance costs and then determining if the regulation was “appropriate and necessary,” the Hill reported.
The ruling will have an immediate effect, given some power plants in the country were also forced to adopt the regulations and reduce certain emissions.
“[This ruling is a] vindication of common sense that is missing in much of the administration’s regulatory actions,” said National Mining Association president Hal Quinn in a statement reported by the Hill. “The decision effectively puts EPA on notice: reckless rule making that ignores the cost to consumers is unreasonable and won’t be tolerated.”
 
I guess Barry is turning his nose up at SCOTUS

Obama set to announce steeper emissions cuts from US power plants

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-steeper-emissions-cuts-from-us-power-plants/

excerpts

Initially, Obama had mandated a 30 percent nationwide cut in carbon dioxide emission by 2030, compared to 2005 levels. The final version, which follows extensive consultations with environmental groups and the energy industry, will require a 32 percent cut instead, according to White House officials.

The focus on renewables marks a significant shift from the earlier proposal that sought to accelerate the ongoing shift from coal-fired power to natural gas

The Obama administration previously predicted emissions limits will cost up to $8.8 billion annually by 2030, though it says those costs will be far outweighed by health savings from fewer asthma attacks and other benefits. The actual price is unknown until states decide how they’ll reach their targets, but the administration has projected the rule would raise electricity prices about 4.9 percent by 2020 and prompt coal-fired power plants to close.
 
I guess Barry is turning his nose up at SCOTUS

(face palm) What the %$#@ is wrong with this country? How does he get away with this and why are the other branches of government letting him. I don't know what to say anymore. The EPA also just took over everything to do with water even if a dry creek bed hasn't seen rain in 99 years. If anyone thinks they own land, think again.
 
You are correct carbinemike.

Just wait until the EPA starts enforcing all the pollution laws against civilians rather than companies.

Just wait until you see people with notebooks looking around your car to see if it's leaking oil (because of run off), and if there is too much dirt being washed away after excavating because it's going down stream to somewhere else.

You think the EPA is bad now, just wait for it.

I give it 5 years tops before my prediction is fact.
 
Back
Top