Cool...

Post #38,332 by bepatient 5/11/02 4:38:57 PM Reply	Cool... ...now I'm a shill :-) You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #38,335 by Brandioch 5/11/02 5:19:03 PM Reply	If the shoe fits, wear it. You characterized mining waste as "dirt". You've claimed to be in the environmental industry. That makes you a corporate shill. Please...people...its DIRT. eventually followed by: I know its more complicated than the >just dirt< argument I started with...but...... No, not "more complicated", your ORIGINALY statement was completely inaccurate. You are defending the practice with inaccurate and misleading claims. And you have claimed experience in this matter. Now, why kind of creature defends corporate practices with misleading and inaccurate claims that are supposedly based on his experience in that industry? A corporate shill.
Post #38,336 by bepatient 5/11/02 5:42:25 PM Reply	Read the other post... enviro-boy. As if the name dropping is meant to be impressive. The Help Desk guys at my company don't know how to drill for oil or make PVC...so...draw your own conclusion. I've made no claims to the environmental business. I work for an oil company. A >regulated< company. Deal with the facts. The facts in coal mining are simple. Overburden is >dirt<. Mine waste is NOT overburden. The first paragraph describes the material as dirt and rocks. That is overburden and NOT mine waste. So...it is dirt. The complication? Without a closer look at the revisions...it is not clear to me...from the article...that the rule changes are only about overburden. The Judge did use the term "mining waste". However, I also know this Judge. He is not as much pro-clean water as he is anti-mining. So I will reserve further comment until I research the specific rule being changed. If, after research, it turns out that the rule concerned overburden...then I will return and not waiver on the classification of..."Dude...its just dirt" You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #38,339 by Another Scott 5/11/02 6:14:52 PM Reply	Case is here (.PDF). [link\|http://www.wvsd.uscourts.gov/opinions/index.cfm\|http://www.wvsd.usc...ns/index.cfm] - specifically: [link\|http://www.wvsd.uscourts.gov/opinions/index.cfm\|[link\|http://www.wvsd.uscourts.gov/opinions/kftcvace.pdf\|http://www.wvsd.usc...kftcvace.pdf]]. It's an 83kB .PDF. Purportedly acting under the CWA, 33 U.S.C. \ufffd 1344 (\ufffd 404), the Corps has permitted surface coal mining operations to dispose of overburden waste from mountaintop removal coal mining by filling hundreds of miles of streams in Appalachia. Appalachian coal occurs in narrow seams separated by dirt and rock called \ufffdoverburden\ufffd or \ufffdspoil.\ufffd In mountaintop removal mining, the overburden is blasted with explosive charges and pushed out of way to expose the coal seams. The overburden, which is nothing but waste, is disposed of by creating valley fills, that is, literally, filling the valleys with waste rock and dirt. Because mountain streams run into the valleys, creating massive valley fills has the inevitable effect of covering and obliterating many streams and the lifeforms within. He does seem to be talking about overburden, though tailings are also mentioned.... Another story about the case is [link\|http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/virginia/dp-wv-mountaintopremoval0508may08.story?coll=dp-headlines-virginia\|here] from a Virginia paper. Cheers, Scott.
Post #38,342 by Ashton 5/11/02 6:55:08 PM Reply	Al punte - in second link: Excerpt: The corps has historically viewed excess rock and dirt from mountaintop removal mines as waste, while the EPA has said fill was anything that replaced waterways with dry land for any purpose. Both agencies have modified their definitions of fill material and the proposed changes were published in the Federal Register last Friday. Under the agencies' revised definition, mine wastes qualify as allowed fill material. Haden said the proposed rule "rewrites the Clean Water Act. Such rewriting exceeds the authority of administrative agencies and requires an act of Congress." U.S. Rep. Frank Pallone Jr., D-N.J., said Wednesday he would introduce bipartisan legislation to block the proposed changes. While Haden's 1999 opinion was overturned, his findings on valley fills have not been questioned by a higher court. The U.S. Supreme Court decided in January not to consider the issue. Emphases added. There appears to be miscommunication / infighting between at least two agencies + the inevitable screwing with Language for fun & quick profit. If the New Convenient definition of 'waste' is deemed to include now tailings! -- then clearly the matter violates both the spirit and the law: Clean Water Act. But with This Supreme Court, should it ever deign to reexamine this appeal -?- is there any question how it would rule? Ashton giving odds -
Post #38,354 by Brandioch 5/11/02 11:29:48 PM Reply	Make a buck now and poison land for the future? Hey, that's a no brainer. Support the economy BOTH ways. First, you have the money TODAY -and- You have the employment from cleaning up the mess TOMORROW. Now, the companies making the money TODAY will be doing their part by making those campaign contributions -and- The companies making the money TOMORROW will be paid off by taxing the rest of us (and they'll be making those campaign contributions from their profits). It's a win/win situation. Everybody's happy!
Post #38,367 by Ashton 5/12/02 6:16:05 AM Reply	Propose: world meeting of Corp CIEIOS and BODs of top 1000 Corporations [compulsory]: To be held on the new ship constructed by Ford Motor Co. in the old Pinto works: The Titanic II (It is so modern that no lifeboats are needed at all) While the meeting will be tax deductible, carrying insurance on the ship may prove uneconomical. No problem. Corps understand lean and especially, mean. Ashton Antarctic Elite Tours v-LLC

Welcome to IWETHEY!