Environmental/Health Concerns on Coal Mining in Powder River Basin Area?

[VFTR55]

I almost posted this in the "Lay of the Land" subforum, but figured it's somewhat more relevant here.

Have there been any issues with water contamination, air pollution, eminent domain, etc from all the coal companies in northeast WY on the Powder River Basin?

I'm no "greenie," but with all the (public) coal companies operating in the area, I wonder if they've been good stewards to their neighbors in NE WY. I live in northeast TN, about 60 mi south of some big coal mines in the Appalachians of VA & WV, and while I'm far enough away that any pollution would probably fester out by the time it reached these parts. Certain activist groups, however, claim a myriad of chronic health effects from residents in the immediate area.

Anybody got perspective on this?

[manfromnevada]

I don't know of any problems, but that won't stop the enviro-crazies until  we're all sitting under a single fluorescent bulb centrally located in our 600 sq foot house. The sky is falling! Global warming! ooops. Climate Change! We have to add a monster tax to everyone (in the U.S.) so our temperature doesn't climb 0.25 degrees per decade! The horror!

Sorry for my sarcasm. Or not. Out here we dig monster open pit mines and I'm sure some coal dust escapes. We have the biggest mines in the country not 100 miles from here. Long coal trains are an every day sight. It takes industry, dirt and grime, and yes, some pollution, to get this stuff to market. But again, I've not heard of any eco-disasters around here.

Mac

[Paul Bonneau]

The wind blows any dust to Kansas. 

Any place has environmental problems - especially the ones with lots of people. Whether these problems really matter is another question altogether. It does happen sometimes; Libby, Montana had a hell of a problem with their mica (vermiculite) mine because it also contained asbestos. But I haven't heard of anything like that in Wyoming.

[craigercj]

The only problem may be an increase in PM10 concentrations on certain days, but I'm not aware of any non-attainment in WY. Southwest Wyoming hit some pretty high levels of ozone not too long ago from the methaners. Shouldn't be any water pollution problems other than slight problems with runoff control in major rain events.

Coal mining in WY isn't coal mining out east. It's a whole different ball game, and the companies out here are much more effective in remediation and reclamation. I think this is partly due to the fact that there is a noticeable difference in culture at Wyoming mines, in respect to stewardship, compared to eastern mines. It is also due to more favorable conditions. Thick seams means less disturbance per ton of coal, there is less groundwater to deal with, and the land is usually relatively flat grasslands. This makes it much easier to control runoff and to design and implement a post-mining topography. Post-mining land use is almost always cattle grazing, so re-veg usually only includes grasses.

[craigercj]

Also, I haven't heard of any eminent domain problems, though people who were around when the PRB ramped up will know better. Many mines are acquiring more coal leases and work with the landowners regarding surface rights. The LBA at the mine I was at last summer was entirely on private land, and we worked with the landowner rather than try to just take the land over. I'd say this is common. The landowners have a huge amount of leverage over the coal mines, and the mines deal with it. We had to drill the landowner a water well before he would even talk about allowing exploration drilling on his land. If you have recoverable coal under your land, there is a lot of money to be made.

[VFTR55]

The only problem may be an increase in PM10 concentrations on certain days, but I'm not aware of any non-attainment in WY. Southwest Wyoming hit some pretty high levels of ozone not too long ago from the methaners. Shouldn't be any water pollution problems other than slight problems with runoff control in major rain events.

Coal mining in WY isn't coal mining out east. It's a whole different ball game, and the companies out here are much more effective in remediation and reclamation. I think this is partly due to the fact that there is a noticeable difference in culture at Wyoming mines, in respect to stewardship, compared to eastern mines. It is also due to more favorable conditions. Thick seams means less disturbance per ton of coal, there is less groundwater to deal with, and the land is usually relatively flat grasslands. This makes it much easier to control runoff and to design and implement a post-mining topography. Post-mining land use is almost always cattle grazing, so re-veg usually only includes grasses.

Good response.

It was just one of those spontaneous questions that pops up in a mind allowed to wander about a new "adventure" somewhere else. Having lived here all 24 of my years, I haven't seen coal mining beyond this little swath of area. And given the difference in economic & governmental philosophies of WY citizens to, say, the enviro-commies of Virginia, I'd suspect that your point about culture has something to offer as a positive with stewardship. That, plus the geological factors like active mining depths, methods of extraction, etc.


Hell, I get enough exposure to welding fumes and construction site PM to where I've got a good "protective coating" in the ol' lungs. Bring that black lung crap on. 

[VFTR55]

Also, I haven't heard of any eminent domain problems, though people who were around when the PRB ramped up will know better. Many mines are acquiring more coal leases and work with the landowners regarding surface rights. The LBA at the mine I was at last summer was entirely on private land, and we worked with the landowner rather than try to just take the land over. I'd say this is common. The landowners have a huge amount of leverage over the coal mines, and the mines deal with it. We had to drill the landowner a water well before he would even talk about allowing exploration drilling on his land. If you have recoverable coal under your land, there is a lot of money to be made.

I suppose that the larger coal reserves have been surveyed and mapped out, such that anyone putting more than several acres up for sale would know if their land has considerable amounts, and would adjust asking price accordingly...

[M1A4ME]

Let me start by saying that different coal has some difference in mineral make up/trace contaminants??

My folks live in a "holler" in WV that has an old strip mine running all the way around the inside of it.  That part of WV has anywhere from 1 to 3 old (and sometimes new) strip mines in most of the hollers.  

Their water runs out of the old mines dug into those old strip mines.  Good stuff, too.  Up until about 15 years ago everyone in that area (several small towns) got their drinking water from one old coal mine or another.  The only change then was the Public Service District convinced most folks to shut off their individual little water systems and hook up to "county water".  The PSD water comes from the same mines.  They pump it to treatment stations and "treat" it.  Then pump it back to all the homes and charge folks for it.

That mine water has brook trout in it.  They aren't real big right there behind the house, but the creek is only about 18 to 24 inches wide and 2 to 6 inches deep.  There are bigger trout farther down where the creek is wider and deeper.  If brook trout live/reproduce in it, the water can't be that bad.

Most of those "mine water" creeks have brook trout, crawfish, salamders, etc. living in them.

The coal seams out there may be completely different, then again, maybe someone has a reason to tell folks how polluting coal is.

By the way, you know who owns coal?  I mean who owns the big coal reserves and the big coal mining companies?  In 1982 only one of the top 20 largest coal companies was a Coal Company.  That was Westmoreland Coal Co.  They were down around number 17 or 18 on the list of the 20 biggest.  All the rest on that list were owned by the oil companies and the steel companies.  Westmoreland is gone now.  That's right.  The oil companies used their profits from the first big oil shortage back in the 70's to purchase the future (when oil really does run out).  There's really no such thing as competition.

[craigercj]

The oil and steel companies have largely gotten out of the coal business, their reserves acquired by true coal and mining companies. It's true that oil companies started the basin, but coal companies rule the game now. Peabody Coal, Arch Coal, Foundation Coal, Kennecott Energy (Rio Tinto), and Kiewit Mining Group are the big players in the PRB and Wyoming. Consol is trying to get in the game as well near Sheridan. Any other producers are probably power companies like Black Hills Power and Pacific Corp. Chevron and Anadarko are still in the mining game in southwest WY.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/acr/table10.html

[craigercj]

Also, Westmoreland is very much alive and well in North Dakota, Montana, and Texas.

(wish I could figure out how to edit posts).

[Paul Bonneau]

The Clark Fork, downstream of Butte, MT also is pretty notorious for the mine-related problems. It's not unreasonable to be asking these questions. However I think most of the difficulty is for landowners who don't like the way the mines have damaged their property. If you don't own a ranch, or do own land including the mineral rights, maybe it's not likely to be a problem.

In this thread I've mentioned some pressure groups that deal with these issues. Keeping in mind the inevitable biases, you can still get some information from their sites.

[sbeckman]

Also, Westmoreland is very much alive and well in North Dakota, Montana, and Texas.

(wish I could figure out how to edit posts).

As a member you should be able to edit your posts.

the Modify button at the upper right hand corner should be available. (I used that to edit this post)

[VFTR55]

The Clark Fork, downstream of Butte, MT also is pretty notorious for the mine-related problems. It's not unreasonable to be asking these questions. However I think most of the difficulty is for landowners who don't like the way the mines have damaged their property. If you don't own a ranch, or do own land including the mineral rights, maybe it's not likely to be a problem.

Thanks for that perspective and the link, Paul. As long as private property rights are respected and a man can have an open line of communication, and come to mutual agreements with any mining firms on how to resolve any issues, that's good enough, for me anyways.

Obviously, if a certain landowner had a small brook flowing through his property, branched from a larger stream that was getting toxic by-products spilled into it, that's a form of trespassing...I'm sure there's a lawyer-jargon phrase for that "offense." But if these folks in Butte are a reputable bunch, surely a resolution can be struck without bringing in the mediators, i.e. gov't.

[VFTR55]

I meant to say "could be struck," not "can"...last thing you folks need is come-lately people trying to tell natives how to run things.