[smallpoxgirl]

Many of you may be aware of Peabody Coal's Black Mesa strip mine and the absolute ecological and cultural devastation that has been wrought in that isolated part of the desert by the mine.

Peabody is currently has applied to the Office of Surface Mining for permission to expand the mine using even more of the precious desert aquifers in a wasteful and capricous way, digging an even bigger, uglier wound in the ground, displacing even more Navaho traditionals off their lands, and pumping even more CO2 into the atmosphere at the Mohave generating station in Nevada.

The public comment period with the Office of Surface Mining for this proposal ends on 2/6/07. More info about the issue can be found here: http://www.stoppeabody.org/

[ClubOfRomeII]

Peabody is currently has applied to the Office of Surface Mining for permission to expand the mine using even more of the precious desert aquifers in a wasteful and capricous way, digging an even bigger, uglier wound in the ground, displacing even more Navaho traditionals off their lands, and pumping even more CO2 into the atmosphere at the Mohave generating station in Nevada.

Rather than trying to interfere with an honest business just trying to make a buck, why don't you try and shut down the wasteful consumers using their product? If they don't use the product, Peabody will have no reason to increase the size of the mine?

Whats wrong with a petition to shut down large tracts of Las Vegas developement, maybe close 1 in every 2 casino's? Seems like it makes more sense than going after an honest business just supplying a wanted commodity.

[smallpoxgirl]

Seems like it makes more sense than going after an honest business just supplying a wanted commodity.

Anyone that would describe Peabody coal as an honest anything is either ignorant of the facts, or disingenous. Peabody coal was pulled enough crooked schemes and scams on that reservation to make Ticky Dicky look like a saint.

[gampy]

I saw the title of this thread, and thought..."cool, a Half-life video game thread!"

Sorry, I'll leave now.

[50mpgVWTDI]

I guess I am one of your "ignorant" people.

We live in the area and are familiar with Peabody. Well liked by all.

Care to share with me why we are all ignorant?

Best,

[ClubOfRomeII]

Seems like it makes more sense than going after an honest business just supplying a wanted commodity.

Anyone that would describe Peabody coal as an honest anything is either ignorant of the facts, or disingenous. Peabody coal was pulled enough crooked schemes and scams on that reservation to make Ticky Dicky look like a saint.

While I hate to defend business in general, I'm guessing that if they had done anything particularly bad they would be...I dunno... prosecuted? Board of directors indicted? Fined billions of dollars so they could no longer fund the "crooked" operations and "scams"?

[ClubOfRomeII]

I guess I am one of your "ignorant" people.

We live in the area and are familiar with Peabody. Well liked by all.

Care to share with me why we are all ignorant?

Best,

At some point in time you will learn that it is quite common in the Peaker world to adhere to a philosophy which can be most accurately described as "kill the humans, save the world".

I don't mean this characterization in a bad way, it really isn't a surprise that Peak oil appeals to those looking for a mechanism to bring about the result they fervently desire.

Holding up a particular company ( or country, or person, or government, well, anyone really ) and using strong action words with connotations of how terrible they are is just par for the course.

[MonteQuest]

Peabody is currently has applied to the Office of Surface Mining for permission to expand the mine using even more of the precious desert aquifers in a wasteful and capricous way, digging an even bigger, uglier wound in the ground, displacing even more Navaho traditionals off their lands, and pumping even more CO2 into the atmosphere at the Mohave generating station in Nevada.

Point of clarity:

The Mohave Generating Station was shut down on December 31, 2005. Final closure came on June 21, 2006.

FINAL CLOSURE OF MOHAVE GENERATING STATION SIGNALS END OF ERA FOR THE WEST’S DIRTIEST POWER PLANT AND SIGNALS NEW ERA OF CLEAN ENERGY FOR NAVAJO AND HOPI PEOPLE

Link

[s]Part of the proposal is to reopen it.[/s]

Correction. The link says that's in the proposal, but here is actually what the proposal says:

No new Federal actions are anticipated for the continued operation of the MGS, including installation of new pollution control devices, thus, the rebuilding of the MGS is not a part of the project being considered in this EIS. However, the impacts of continued operation (or closure) of the MGS will be considered in the EIS, as appropriate. The impacts of the continued operation (or closure) of the MGS are documented in a Preliminary Environmental Assessment For the Mohave Generating Station Continued Operation Potential Project prepared as directed by the California
Public Utilities Commission Administrative Law Judge assigned to Commission proceeding

Link

This is my backyard, so to speak.

[threadbear]

I guess I am one of your "ignorant" people.

We live in the area and are familiar with Peabody. Well liked by all.

Care to share with me why we are all ignorant?

Best,

Shill alert!

[Cobra_Strike]

I saw the title of this thread, and thought..."cool, a Half-life video game thread!"

Sorry, I'll leave now.

My thoughts exactly I was disappointed.

[americandream]

I guess I am one of your "ignorant" people.

We live in the area and are familiar with Peabody. Well liked by all.

Care to share with me why we are all ignorant?

Best,

At some point in time you will learn that it is quite common in the Peaker world to adhere to a philosophy which can be most accurately described as "kill the humans, save the world".

I don't mean this characterization in a bad way, it really isn't a surprise that Peak oil appeals to those looking for a mechanism to bring about the result they fervently desire.

Holding up a particular company ( or country, or person, or government, well, anyone really ) and using strong action words with connotations of how terrible they are is just par for the course.

It's evident you are one of those adoring workers who haven't so much as sniffed the coffee fumes downwind from a board room lunch time meeting.

The don't give a fook mate...oh yeah..and they're smart when it comes to warming up the plebs.

[ClubOfRomeII]

It's evident you are one of those adoring workers who haven't so much as sniffed the coffee fumes downwind from a board room lunch time meeting.

And why would you say that? Seems like the original poster couldn't even get the story right, according to Monte's response. Just another "get everyone stirred up for fun and blame whatever company is handy" for it type exercise.

It doesn't require me being some sort of suckup to the company to notice a difference between someone arm waving an opinion biased towards their agenda and reality.

[MonteQuest]

Seems like the original poster couldn't even get the story right, according to Monte's response. Just another "get everyone stirred up for fun and blame whatever company is handy" for it type exercise.

Well, the link was misleading. I knew the true story because I as involved in shutting down MGS. Peabody Coal fought the National Park Sevice and other environmental groups over the air pollution MGS caused, particulary over Grand Canyon NP.

In 1998, the Grand Canyon Trust, Sierra Club, and National Parks and Conservation Association filed a lawsuit against the owners of Mohave. In a comprehensive review of the plant’s operations, the plaintiffs alleged that it routinely violated its opacity limits (a measure of plume density) and that the owners claimed exceptions to these limits during startup and shutdown that were not included in Nevada’s operating permit. They further alleged that the State of Nevada had undermined Clark County’s attempt to require that Mohave dramatically reduce its sulfur emissions. These violations, the lawsuit argued, also threatened the health of people who lived near the plant. Residents testified to “chocolate skies,” “enormous puffs of soot-black smoke,” and “the smell of sulfur on windless days.”

While the lawsuit worked its way through federal court, the plaintiffs met for several months with Mohave’s owners to negotiate a settlement. The court-accepted consent decree was signed on December 15, 1999. It provided six years for renegotiating coal and water contracts and for installing pollution controls at the power plant that would significantly reduce its nitrogen, sulfur, and fine particle emissions. Unfortunately, at this time, the owners have not fulfilled any of the agreements negotiated in the consent decree.

http://www.grandcanyontrust.org/programs/air/mohave.php

However, SRP (Salt River Project) would like to restart the plant. That's why that want to see the EIS completed. But, they would have to fulfill the agreements negotiated in the consent decree mentioned above.

In addition to completing the EIS, a number of steps must be completed before Mohave can resume operations. These steps include, among others, the construction of approximately $500 million in additional pollution-control systems to significantly reduce emissions from the plant. The new emission-control systems will include advanced retro-fit technology that will protect public health and visibility in the Grand Canyon and other national parks.

Link

[Elan_Rasa]

Just googled this topic "black mesa peabody water aquifier" and it looks like this issue is live and well in the local community. I would encourage those who are interested to look at this information themselves and decide where you personally stand on this issue.

There is certainly need for continued energy and investors are have a desire for profit, but we all need to decide how we feel about investing in companies that focus on the short term profit in order to sacrifice the future. In this case, it does appear that Peabody is trying to save some money by tapping more and more into the natural aquifer that local communities rely on.

Too long we have focused on material greed at the cost of our own current and future survival. How long will this go on? Given the costs that we are about to face with GW, PO, and the like, how long can we personally afford to ignore these issues and at what cost to our own humanity. I think that before too long we will all have to answer these questions, whether to our children/grandchildren or to ourselves.

Choose to be informed and then take a stance. ER.

[americandream]

It's evident you are one of those adoring workers who haven't so much as sniffed the coffee fumes downwind from a board room lunch time meeting.

And why would you say that? Seems like the original poster couldn't even get the story right, according to Monte's response. Just another "get everyone stirred up for fun and blame whatever company is handy" for it type exercise.

It doesn't require me being some sort of suckup to the company to notice a difference between someone arm waving an opinion biased towards their agenda and reality.

Reality 101 investment:

Any opinion less than the bottom line is not investment driven but driven by wishful thinking.

Application:

If you harbour one iota of any illusion as to a company's ultimate objective other than profit (which by definition precludes any deviation from that objective and is accompanied by a syndrome called "denialism") then I am afraid that on the scale of 1-10 arm waving, you are up there within viewing range of the summit and well ahead of your liberal colleague, poxy girl.

[ClubOfRomeII]

If you harbour one iota of any illusion as to a company's ultimate objective other than profit (which by definition precludes any deviation from that objective and is accompanied by a syndrome called "denialism") then I am afraid that on the scale of 1-10 arm waving, you are up there within viewing range of the summit and well ahead of your liberal colleague, poxy girl.

Not at all, I know why companies do what they do, and I offered an alternative solution EXACTLY in line with what you have mentioned. Get a petition going to stop demand and they won't have a profit motive to develope more supply.

If they can't make money digging up the landscape, they won't. But it always seems easier to bash the company than convince fellow citizens to clean up THEIR act, isn't it?

[americandream]

If you harbour one iota of any illusion as to a company's ultimate objective other than profit (which by definition precludes any deviation from that objective and is accompanied by a syndrome called "denialism") then I am afraid that on the scale of 1-10 arm waving, you are up there within viewing range of the summit and well ahead of your liberal colleague, poxy girl.

Not at all, I know why companies do what they do, and I offered an alternative solution EXACTLY in line with what you have mentioned. Get a petition going to stop demand and they won't have a profit motive to develope more supply.

If they can't make money digging up the landscape, they won't. But it always seems easier to bash the company than convince fellow citizens to clean up THEIR act, isn't it?

I guess you need to ask yourself who came first, the cornucopian (proactive/reactive?) consumer or the cornucopian bottom line focussed supplier.

Who for example inspired the compulsion to derive a sense of purpose and status from ensconscing oneself in a 4 rubber tyred, crude oil powered, and state of the art (by Victorian standards) carriage?

Was it the consumer? If not, has the consumer assumed this role in the progression of events from a historical point A?

[smallpoxgirl]

The Mohave Generating Station was shut down on December 31, 2005. Final closure came on June 21, 2006.

No new Federal actions are anticipated for the continued operation of the MGS, including installation of new pollution control devices, thus, the rebuilding of the MGS is not a part of the project being considered in this EIS. However, the impacts of continued operation (or closure) of the MGS will be considered in the EIS, as appropriate. The impacts of the continued operation (or closure) of the MGS are documented in a Preliminary Environmental Assessment For the Mohave Generating Station Continued Operation Potential Project prepared as directed by the California
Public Utilities Commission Administrative Law Judge assigned to Commission proceeding

Might want to reread that Monte. There are three alternatives considered in the EIS. Alternative A is to build a plant at Black Mesa to produce and "wash" coal slurry, rebuild the pipeline to the Mohave Generating Station (MGS), and pump 5.4 million tons of coal per year through the pipeline to MGS so that it can resume operation. Alternative B expands the mine without provisions for getting coal to Mohave. Alternative C is to make no changes. While the environmental impacts of re-opening of MGS aren't, per se, part of this EIS, it is clearly the intended purpose of alternative A to provide coal to MGS so that it can resume operation. From the EIS:

Until it's suspension in December 2005, the Black Mesa mining operation produced about 4.8 million tons of coal annually, all of which were delivered to the Mohave Generating Station. The LOM revision would allow the Black Mesa Mining operation to continue through 2026 under a permenant Indian Lands Program permit. The LOM revision does not propose to change the Black Mesa mining methods, but would increase the average annual production rate of the Black Mesa mining operation to about 6.35 million tons per year.

A new coal washing facility (refer to Map 2-2) would be constructed adjacent to the existing Black Mesa coal-preparation facilities and operated as part of the Black Mesa mining operation to meet the anticipated future coal use requirements for the Mohave Generating Station. (quoted from page 2-2 of the EIS)

link to the EIS

[frankthetank]

Anyone want to dispute this finding from another site:

A 1 GW coal power plant consumes about 4 million tons of coal per year, releasing about 5.2 tons of Uranium and 12.8 Tons of Thorium into the environment. This is enough fertile material to generate about 5 GW in an IFR or 13 GW in an LFTR. So the coal plant is wasting 18X the energy it generates!

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev ... lmain.html

Another poster pointed out the Chinese want to get uranium from the coal ash.

If this is even close to being true, we are wasting a valuable resource!

[aahala2]

Anyone want to dispute this finding from another site:

A 1 GW coal power plant consumes about 4 million tons of coal per year, releasing about 5.2 tons of Uranium and 12.8 Tons of Thorium into the environment. This is enough fertile material to generate about 5 GW in an IFR or 13 GW in an LFTR. So the coal plant is wasting 18X the energy it generates!

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev ... lmain.html

Another poster pointed out the Chinese want to get uranium from the coal ash.

If this is even close to being true, we are wasting a valuable resource!

I think we should stick with science, not with science fiction.

Where are the IFR's in the US, now in commerical operation? Or ever
or now being built? If anyone can answer that, I'll tell you where we
keep the unicorns.