Mountaintop removal mining has recently become one of the most controversial methods of mining for coal. Recently, there has been a growing protest against the practice. Although mountaintop removal has large environmental and social costs, it is more cost-effective for the coal company. The reason is because of the physical process of mountaintop removal mining.
Due to the technology, power, and brute force of modern mountaintop removal mining, taking apart an entire mountain can happen as quickly as one year, yet leave lasting damage. First, any forests are clearcut, which eliminates the local wildlife and ecosystem. For more on clearcutting, check out this article. Next, explosives are used to blast up to 800 feet of mountaintop. Then, the remaining soil is shoveled and either trucked away or pushed into the mountain’s valleys. After this, huge machines called draglines, which weigh up to 8 million pounds and as tall as 20 stories, dig deeply into the mountain for the coal. Although coal companies are required by law to restore the land as best they can to its original shape, many companies in fact do not actually follow through. Even when they do, the reclamation sites end up nothing like the original, since the soil often becomes acidic and infertile.
Environmentally, mountaintop removal mining entails a tremendous disruption of the local ecosystem. The actual removal of the mountaintop destroys the forest which once lived there, including biologically diverse plant and animal wildlife. Dumping soil into valleys often clogs up waterways, leaving a path of destruction for miles. Water and fish from these waterways can contain toxic amounts of nickel, lead, cadmium, iron, and selenium, reducing the amount of fish and aquatic wildlife in the area.
Mountaintop removal mining doesn’t just hurt the local environment, but also, the local community. Nearby residents must put up with the noise and dust that comes from the explosions. These explosions can even cause vibrations and shrapnel to crack the foundations of their homes. Because the explosives are so capital-intensive, the coal company requires less workers, and there are less jobs in the community, forcing many residents to leave town in search of jobs. When a scenic landscape used to draw in tourists to a town, removing any mountains tarnishes the view and damage the local tourist industry.
The most devastating consequences stem from the massive amount of waste that gets generated from removing an entire mountain. Liquid waste, which contains the water that cleaned the coal and carcinogenic chemicals used to wash the coal, is stored in slurry waste impoundments. Sometimes, these spill into the environment, wreaking havoc on the local plants, animals, waterways, and communities. One spill of 306 million gallons of liquid waste created sludge up to 15 feet thick in local residents’ backyards and seeped into 75 miles of waterways.
The worst spill in terms of human costs occurred in Buffalo Creek, West Virginia in 1972. A sludge pond had been contained by an earthen dam, and the Pittson Coal Company had been warned the dam was in danger of breaching. When it did, at least 132 million gallons of black wastewater flooded the valley, killing 125 people, leaving 4,000 homeless, and causing 50 million dollars of damage. While these may seem like the worst-case scenarios, there are many impoundments which are still considered at high risk today, including 45 impoundments in West Virginia alone.
On the other hand, there are many who defend mountaintop removal mining and claim that it can actually help the community. Coal mining provides a source of jobs in areas where jobs are getting scarce, and provide a cheap source of energy essential to the powering of the local economy. Even physically, the process of mountaintop removal can help to flatten the land, allowing for airports, housing, and shopping centers to be built.
Activists counter that there are better alternatives. One safer and less environmentally destructive option is high-wall mining of coal, or mining through the side of the mountain, which doesn’t require the destruction of the entire mountain, but instead, only access to layers of coal. Another alternative, in terms of providing jobs for the coal miners, is to create programs for coal miners to work on reclaiming abandoned coal mines, which would boost the local economy and its people. Lastly, a more long-term alternative is wind farms, which create jobs, energy, and significantly reduces the number of carbon emissions.
Legally, there is still a contentious battle being fought over regulation of mountaintop removal mining. Although environmentalists considered it a triumph when the EPA began to review the permits for mountaintop removal mining, the EPA has recently declared its approval for 42 new permit applications. Worse yet for environmentalists, the Obama administration has decided not to block these permits, despite President Obama having previously declared his public concern about mountaintop removal.
While there may still be a legal battle, the battle over public opinion seems to have been won by activists’ attempt to limit mountaintop removal mining, and two-thirds of Americans opposed an effort to allow the expansion of mountaintop removal mining. Only time can tell whether mountaintop removal will carry on, but it is very likely that the pressure to address its environmental and societal effects will continue to remain strong in the future.
