This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mountaintop removal mining article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To-do list for Mountaintop removal mining:
|
On 30 August 2012, it was proposed that this article be moved to Mountaintop mining. The result of the discussion was withdrawn. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 20 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Morgan.emma, RenLK. Peer reviewers: Tlaloc0011.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 01:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 2 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SandersJR, Camisasn28.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 04:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This is a quite POV article -- at the very least, the mining industry's position should be cited. -- Jaysbro 14:45:35, 2005-09-06 (UTC)
"
The Economist recently labeled the coal industry 'Environmental Enemy No. 1.'" ...
The source really seems to cite the burning of coal as Environmental Enemy #1; not the industry, and certainly not MTR. I moved this fact to the article
Coal.
Doubleplusjeff 00:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
This is the worse POV I have ever discovered on Wiki. From the first sentence the inflammatory and prejudice words flow. “often referred to as mountaintop mining/valley fills (MTM/VF),” Not all MTR mines involves valley fills. Some mines use the excess spoil to reclaim older pre-law mines. Other MTR mines utilize small hollow fills in combination with back stacking on bench. Trying to confuse the MTR mining and the valley fill issues is an attempt paint all surface mining on the top of a ridge with the more controversial practice of valley filling. Using the word “extreme topographic destruction and deforestation of the summit” ” is inflammatory. Would these same terms seem appropriate in the description of what happens when a contractor starts building a new housing sub-division. 66.63.211.79 ( talk) 02:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)reed@setel.com
Unless someone can make serious corrections I will change the section on "Process" to the following in order to remove POV comments and add more detailed facts: >>>Land is deforested prior to mining operations and the resultant lumber is either sold [1] or burned. [2] According to the federal surface mining law SMCRA, the topsoil is supposed to be removed and set aside for later reclamation. [1] however, coal companies are often granted waivers and instead reclaim the mountain with "topsoil substitute." The waivers are granted if adequate amounts of topsoil are not naturally present on the rocky ridge top. Once the area is cleared, miners use explosives to blast away the overburden, the rock and subsoil, to expose coal seams beneath. The overburden is then moved by various mechanically means to areas of the ridge previously mined. These areas are the most economical area of storage as they are located close to the active pit of exposed coal. If the ridge topography is to steep to adequately handle the amount of spoil produced then additional storage is used in a nearby valley or hollow, creating what is known as a valley fill or “hollow fill”. [3] A front-end loader or excavator then removes the coal, where it is transported to a an often on-site processing plant. and washed. Millions of gallons of by-product from this coal processing, called coal sludge or slurry, are often stored nearby in open-air pools isolated from natural waterways by earthen dams. This procedure allows any usable coal particles to separate from the water and settle to the bottom. Once coal removal is completed, the mining operators back stack spoil from the next area to be mined into the now empty pit. After backstacking and grading of spoil has been completed topsoil (or a topsoil substitute) is layered over the spoil layer. Next grass seed is spread in a mixture of seed, fertilizer, and mulch made from recycled newspaper. Dependant on mostly surface owner wishes the land will then be further reclaimed by adding trees if the post mining land use is forest land or wildlife habitat. If the land owner has requested other post mining land uses the land can reclaimed to be used as pastor land, economic development or other uses specified in the SMCRA. [4]
Because coal usually exists in multiple geologically stratified seams, miners can often repeat the blasting process to mine over a dozen seams on a single mountain, increasing the mine depth each time. This can result in a vertical descent of hundreds of extra feet into the earth. [1] Many of these seams mined in the MTR method are to thin to be mined using any other method of mining. <<< End of "process" changes
I have spent many years of my life working in the design and planing of MTR mines. I have retired from the industry for 15 years and love the mountains of East KY and WV. I have a healthy respect for the emotions that this subject brings out in good people on both sides. Wiki is not the place for debating POV for either side. This page should be factual and informative only. 66.63.211.79 ( talk) 05:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reed@setel.com
The coal slurry impoundments mentioned in the "process" section have nothing to do with MTR mining. They are for disposal of waste materials from coal washing operations, which is done regardless of the mining method. Most pre-date the MTR mining going on in their vicinity. Mention of the impoundments should be removed as that are a topic for a separate article.
Also, draglines are used to excavate the blasted overburden, above the coal - not the coal. The coal is removed with front-end loaders and trucks, or shovels and trucks if the seam is thick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.166.92 ( talk) 22:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, so maybe I should just go ahead and make the edit, but this is my first time actually making any kind of a contribution (not quite the first time I've wanted to, though :-) ). It seems to me that, in the Introduction, the phrase, "It is most closely associated with coal mining in the Appalachian Mountains, located in the eastern United States, the most biologically diverse temperate hardwood forests in the world", while technically factual (though unsourced), still reeks of POV. Unless some direct mention is made of environmental concerns in the Introduction, shouldn't this be moved to the Criticism section? Editing this to read "It is most closely associated with coal mining in the Appalachian Mountains, located in the eastern United States" would leave the clarity of location untouched, while removing the unexpected and out-of-place reference to ecological concerns.
References
burns
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dateformat=
ignored (
help)
Reverted back to include Toxic West Virginia reference. This is not link spam, this is an actual documentary that is directly related to this article. Thus this is a related to this piece and needs to be included. Also, you do not gain anything from google as wiki marks all links do not follow! (comment by User:Vicebs)
In the Economics section a reference is needed for the sentence "Proponents argue that in certain geologic areas, MTR and similar forms of surface mining allow the only access to thin seams of coal that traditional underground mining would not be able to mine. MTR is some times the most cost-effective method of extracting coal and provides high paying jobs[15].[citation needed]" A good reference can be found on the web at the site http://www.coaleducation.org/Ky_Coal_Facts/default.htm. I do not know how to add citation. Someone please add this site. Click "employment" on left margin and then "employment/ wages by county" for detailed informaition. This same site also has some great information of reclamationa and post mining land uses.
Also please add a section on Reclamation and Post mining land uses. A wonderful citation for this section would be the video from the state of Kentucky's web site on Coal Education. http://www.coaleducation.org/miningtv/Elk_in_KY/Elk_in_KY.htm. Please add this to help balance this article. 199.43.48.149 ( talk) 15:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)reed@setel.com
Below is text I removed which I believe to be too biased or promotional. I think it would be good to have a summary of movements that are fighting against MTR, which summary could include a lot of material from this addition, but a laundry list of musicians who released albums and wrote books doesn't seem appropriate. -- Rschmertz 18:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I just did some major re-edits to the page, but my main point for writing on the discussion page is that I removed a US-centric tag from the page. The reason I removed it is that, while this page does concentrate on the US primarily, the practice takes place almost exclusively, as far as I've ever heard, in the appalachian mountains located in the US. While I've heard about plenty of strip mining in other countries, and a few MTR sites out west, but I've never heard of an MTR site in another country, so basically MTR is as American as Mount Rushmore and the tag seems as aptly placed here as it would be on that page. D-rew 00:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, the thing is that really, MTR is by far most common in the US, so yeah, its not much help focusing on another country that hardly practices MTR at all. -- 66.32.252.104 19:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I tried to include "U.S." where sentences related specifically to the U.S. I also added a reference to Peru's Yanacocha gold mine, which appears to use MTR. Doubleplusjeff ( talk)
So, the links section is too big, and I'm having difficulty whittling it down because so many of the different links are so similar (community groups against MTR). For most of them it would be difficult to justify which ones are more important, but I don't advocate deleting all of them because methinks they are an important part of the MTR debate. Any help i could get in this area would be...well...helpful. D-rew 21:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe add a subsection for the dozen-odd grass roots groups? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.10.180.196 ( talk) 12:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Why was the Mountaintop Removal Mining Index link removed? Seems like the kinda link we want. D-rew ( talk) 02:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking about creating a seperate page for the controversy over MTR per pages like Free trade controversy and Global Warming controversy. Thoughts? D-rew ( talk) 01:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
"Some controversy over the practice stems from both the extreme topological and ecological changes that the mining site undergoes, as well and the storage of waste material generated from the mining and processing of the coal."
I edited it to read
"The controversy over..."
but it was reverted by TMLutas for this reason "Some people just don't like coal and oppose MTR as a way to incrementally kill all mining."
Despite a lack of evidence to the contrary I edited in the poorly worded statement "More generally many object to the use of coal as an energy source." which was rv by Djoeyd114, as NPOV issue.
My question is, how should it read? I think we should say what the controversy over MTR is, and not wishy-washy around it. If there is something besides the issues listed that is controversial about MTR, it seems like it should be added to make this page all the more encyclopedic. Opinions? D-rew 21:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Anyone have a quality photo of a valley fill? The article refers to these over and over, but the textual description is difficult to convey what one actually is. Please include a photo thumbnail if you have one. Doubleplusjeff —Preceding comment was added at 18:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ohvec.org/galleries/mountaintop_removal/008/10.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.ohvec.org/galleries/mountaintop_removal/008/index.html&usg=__guTK_Xuaq6w1781p53zKF7abz4I=&h=394&w=525&sz=30&hl=en&start=15&sig2=hpXp6ZW7L7L6Xg3iYUw3Cw&tbnid=qOhmcl8AeTPpqM:&tbnh=99&tbnw=132&ei=P6wpSZzbHqDMefe8vMQC&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmartin%2Bcounty%2Bcoal%2Bimpoundment%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den -- Flashdark ( talk) 19:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Since you mentioned it, what is the reason for removing the global tag? Athene cunicularia ( talk) 06:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Isn't this just a kind of strip mining? Isn't the main difference that this tends to remove more surface layers (and are not expected to restore them)? In theory a strip mine might be shallow and could work its way beyond the horizon, by having one working trench and placing the removed surface layers behind it as it progressed. Removing a mountain top implies not gluing together a replacement (which is not practical with current costs and materials). -- SEWilco ( talk) 19:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
NOTE: The thread about the Buffalo Creek Flood was moved from another section of the Discussion page to here, for semantic cohesion.
While the Buffalo Creek Flood illustrates the danger of slurry ponds, this particular dam wasn't a result of mountaintop removal, but rather another type of coal mining. Of course, the article doesn't directly attribute it to MTR, but perhaps another example would be better.
Doubleplusjeff 03:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
It is not stated in the article that either of the two sludge ponds mentioned, either at Marsh Fork Elementary School, or the Martin County Sludge Spill, are related to MTR. If they are related to MTR, this fact should be stated and documented. If not, they should be moved to the article on coal sludge ponds.
Plazak (
talk) 13:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
There are MTR mines above both the Marsh Fork School and at Martin County Coal, where the Oct 2000 spill occurred. I have personally seen both of these mine sites and photos are here http://www.appvoices.org/images/MarshForkAerial_full.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flashdark ( talk • contribs) 19:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
The photo shown in the link above does not show a MTR mine above the impoundment. I live in the center of the MTR area and have worked on MTR jobs. Most MTR mines do not have sludge ponds. Sludge ponds are used in conjunction with "coal washer plants" that primarily porcess coal mined from underground mines. The sludge spills should not be allowed in this article. 199.43.32.81 ( talk) 21:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Reed@setel.com
I work for MSHA in a Division responsible for slurry/tailings ponds. The Shumate Prep Plant and Impoundment (near Marsh Fork school) and the Brushy Fork Prep Plant and Impoundment up the valley, both have received almost all their coal from underground mines. This will change a bit as the MTR operations nearby start up - but the slurry imprisonments have nothing to do with MTR - they would be needed regardless of the mining method.
I will remove the reference to them in the "Process" section - which itself needs much further amplification. The "sludge pond" section really doesn't belong in this article at all but needs to be in a separate article or as an expansion to the (currently incomplete) Tailings pond article. I'll let someone else remove this section and take the flack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.166.92 ( talk) 23:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I reduced the number of external links (~30 down to 2). Most of the links were to grassroots groups who oppose MTR or videos by them, some were EPA stuff (the two i kept are). Not sure if they were the right ones to keep but something had to be done. I also added the no more links tag, so if links are to be added, they should be discussed here first, subjects like this tend to draw lots of external link attention.-- Kelapstick ( talk) 20:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I copied the criticism section in a new article ( Criticism of mountaintop removal mining) and the see also links that were to opponents of MTR mining, as they are more related to the criticism of MTR than to MTR itself. The leading two paragraphs are still in this article, but the criticism is large enough to warrent its own. The criticism section of any article should not make up half the content, even if it is a controversial subject.-- Kelapstick ( talk) 06:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I removed the forced image size of the two pictures in the article heading, they were pretty big, and overlapped (on was centred). They maybe should be a little bigger and moved somewhere further down the article (or not). Also there is an image of a Dragline at the Centralia Coal Mine, is that an MTR mine, the mine's article doesn't say anything about it.-- kelapstick ( talk) 21:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Though it appears to have been discussed in years past, I took a look at this article, and it only took a moment or two for it to reek of bias to me. I've found numerous places where both the writing and the content appear to have a conspicuous lack of neutrality, earning a flag for each. To go over a few of the more prominent examples that stuck out:
Overall, I see that this article DOES have the potential to be neutral, but it's got a long way to go. And right now, the lack of neutrality is almost certainly the biggest single detriment to the article: normally lack of solid content and inline citations/sources are the biggest hurdle toward getting to B/GA+ status, but this article already has way, way more good sources listed than any other Start-class I've seen. It just needs stronger neutrality. Nottheking ( talk) 18:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
This article is still as biased as it was.
This article was added as a subset to the "Surface Mining" article. Where it belongs.
Additionally, the proper name is Mountain Top Mining. MTR is only used by environmentalists... Google: "Mountain Top Removal Mining" the only results are from environmentalist sites.
By allowing the name to stay this article remains a POV issues and furthers an agenda.
Deletion of article, merging under surface mining, renaming to its proper name: Mountain Top Mining.
PeterWesco ( talk) 07:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Boundarylayer ( talk) 11:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was withdrawn. Cancelled per WP:SNOW Article move request has been cancelled. WP:SNOW PeterWesco ( talk) 16:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Mountaintop removal mining → Mountaintop mining – WP:POVTITLE WP:PRECISION. Mountaintop Removal Mining is "new speak" used by environmental groups. MTM is the name used in text books, non-agenda publications, the US Goverment, etc. To illustrate this point I refer to one of the POV references used in the article: http://www.grist.org/article/epa-sleep-in-lisa-jacksons-fundamental-misunderstanding/ The aforementioned source describes their anger that the government has not adopted their terminology. The continued use of MTRM instead of MTM is a continued demonstration on the blatant POV of this article. MTR/MTRM will still be referenced in the article and it will be done in a way to remain NPOV and certainly not how MTM is currently referenced. Precision: As discusssed below, MTM is surface mining and always requires the removal of the mountaintop. PeterWesco ( talk) 06:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Term | GBooks | GNews | GScholar | JSTOR | WorldCat | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mountaintop removal mining | 184,000 | 3,340 | 157 | 572 | 33 | 135 |
Mountaintop mining | 110,000 | 2,920 | 104 | 711 | 39 | 100 |
See here Large Numbers of Birth Defects Seen Near Mountaintop Mining Operations 2011- http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110623090001.htm
& http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111212153119.htm Cumulative Impact of Mountaintop Mining Documented Boundarylayer ( talk) 14:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Cancelled per WP:SNOW Article move request has been cancelled. PeterWesco ( talk) 16:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Is there a specific term for mining on the summit of a hill instead of a mountain or are they called the same thing? Hilltop removal mining does not redirect to this article. Volcano guy 07:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
It's Hobet, not Hobit, you ignorant, murderous environmental liberals. As for POV, this entire article is written from one that paints all capitalists and workers as some kind of demonic entity. It's skewed so far left that it's nothing more than socialist propaganda.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mountaintop removal mining. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I have added informaiton to the legislation section. Some information pertained to what was previously posted, but I have added the most recent information I could find. Camisasn28 ( talk) 23:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Wikipedia, I added a reference to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to the section on reclamation of Mountaintop Removal mine sites. I also included links to other relevant pages from within the section, including the wiki pages on erosion and reforestation. I felt that it was important to include the legislation the laid the groundwork for how MTR mine sites are reclaimed today. SandersJR ( talk) 17:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
"Critics contend that...", this transition sentence comes across as ambiguous. The opposing groups pertinent to this topic are not clear. I also do not think that a "Critics" section is necessary or helpful. Would a section providing historical context of opposing groups that have been involved be more effective? Morgan.emma ( talk) 03:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Translate it 202.47.55.103 ( talk) 08:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mountaintop removal mining article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To-do list for Mountaintop removal mining:
|
On 30 August 2012, it was proposed that this article be moved to Mountaintop mining. The result of the discussion was withdrawn. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 20 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Morgan.emma, RenLK. Peer reviewers: Tlaloc0011.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 01:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 2 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SandersJR, Camisasn28.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 04:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This is a quite POV article -- at the very least, the mining industry's position should be cited. -- Jaysbro 14:45:35, 2005-09-06 (UTC)
"
The Economist recently labeled the coal industry 'Environmental Enemy No. 1.'" ...
The source really seems to cite the burning of coal as Environmental Enemy #1; not the industry, and certainly not MTR. I moved this fact to the article
Coal.
Doubleplusjeff 00:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
This is the worse POV I have ever discovered on Wiki. From the first sentence the inflammatory and prejudice words flow. “often referred to as mountaintop mining/valley fills (MTM/VF),” Not all MTR mines involves valley fills. Some mines use the excess spoil to reclaim older pre-law mines. Other MTR mines utilize small hollow fills in combination with back stacking on bench. Trying to confuse the MTR mining and the valley fill issues is an attempt paint all surface mining on the top of a ridge with the more controversial practice of valley filling. Using the word “extreme topographic destruction and deforestation of the summit” ” is inflammatory. Would these same terms seem appropriate in the description of what happens when a contractor starts building a new housing sub-division. 66.63.211.79 ( talk) 02:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)reed@setel.com
Unless someone can make serious corrections I will change the section on "Process" to the following in order to remove POV comments and add more detailed facts: >>>Land is deforested prior to mining operations and the resultant lumber is either sold [1] or burned. [2] According to the federal surface mining law SMCRA, the topsoil is supposed to be removed and set aside for later reclamation. [1] however, coal companies are often granted waivers and instead reclaim the mountain with "topsoil substitute." The waivers are granted if adequate amounts of topsoil are not naturally present on the rocky ridge top. Once the area is cleared, miners use explosives to blast away the overburden, the rock and subsoil, to expose coal seams beneath. The overburden is then moved by various mechanically means to areas of the ridge previously mined. These areas are the most economical area of storage as they are located close to the active pit of exposed coal. If the ridge topography is to steep to adequately handle the amount of spoil produced then additional storage is used in a nearby valley or hollow, creating what is known as a valley fill or “hollow fill”. [3] A front-end loader or excavator then removes the coal, where it is transported to a an often on-site processing plant. and washed. Millions of gallons of by-product from this coal processing, called coal sludge or slurry, are often stored nearby in open-air pools isolated from natural waterways by earthen dams. This procedure allows any usable coal particles to separate from the water and settle to the bottom. Once coal removal is completed, the mining operators back stack spoil from the next area to be mined into the now empty pit. After backstacking and grading of spoil has been completed topsoil (or a topsoil substitute) is layered over the spoil layer. Next grass seed is spread in a mixture of seed, fertilizer, and mulch made from recycled newspaper. Dependant on mostly surface owner wishes the land will then be further reclaimed by adding trees if the post mining land use is forest land or wildlife habitat. If the land owner has requested other post mining land uses the land can reclaimed to be used as pastor land, economic development or other uses specified in the SMCRA. [4]
Because coal usually exists in multiple geologically stratified seams, miners can often repeat the blasting process to mine over a dozen seams on a single mountain, increasing the mine depth each time. This can result in a vertical descent of hundreds of extra feet into the earth. [1] Many of these seams mined in the MTR method are to thin to be mined using any other method of mining. <<< End of "process" changes
I have spent many years of my life working in the design and planing of MTR mines. I have retired from the industry for 15 years and love the mountains of East KY and WV. I have a healthy respect for the emotions that this subject brings out in good people on both sides. Wiki is not the place for debating POV for either side. This page should be factual and informative only. 66.63.211.79 ( talk) 05:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reed@setel.com
The coal slurry impoundments mentioned in the "process" section have nothing to do with MTR mining. They are for disposal of waste materials from coal washing operations, which is done regardless of the mining method. Most pre-date the MTR mining going on in their vicinity. Mention of the impoundments should be removed as that are a topic for a separate article.
Also, draglines are used to excavate the blasted overburden, above the coal - not the coal. The coal is removed with front-end loaders and trucks, or shovels and trucks if the seam is thick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.166.92 ( talk) 22:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, so maybe I should just go ahead and make the edit, but this is my first time actually making any kind of a contribution (not quite the first time I've wanted to, though :-) ). It seems to me that, in the Introduction, the phrase, "It is most closely associated with coal mining in the Appalachian Mountains, located in the eastern United States, the most biologically diverse temperate hardwood forests in the world", while technically factual (though unsourced), still reeks of POV. Unless some direct mention is made of environmental concerns in the Introduction, shouldn't this be moved to the Criticism section? Editing this to read "It is most closely associated with coal mining in the Appalachian Mountains, located in the eastern United States" would leave the clarity of location untouched, while removing the unexpected and out-of-place reference to ecological concerns.
References
burns
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dateformat=
ignored (
help)
Reverted back to include Toxic West Virginia reference. This is not link spam, this is an actual documentary that is directly related to this article. Thus this is a related to this piece and needs to be included. Also, you do not gain anything from google as wiki marks all links do not follow! (comment by User:Vicebs)
In the Economics section a reference is needed for the sentence "Proponents argue that in certain geologic areas, MTR and similar forms of surface mining allow the only access to thin seams of coal that traditional underground mining would not be able to mine. MTR is some times the most cost-effective method of extracting coal and provides high paying jobs[15].[citation needed]" A good reference can be found on the web at the site http://www.coaleducation.org/Ky_Coal_Facts/default.htm. I do not know how to add citation. Someone please add this site. Click "employment" on left margin and then "employment/ wages by county" for detailed informaition. This same site also has some great information of reclamationa and post mining land uses.
Also please add a section on Reclamation and Post mining land uses. A wonderful citation for this section would be the video from the state of Kentucky's web site on Coal Education. http://www.coaleducation.org/miningtv/Elk_in_KY/Elk_in_KY.htm. Please add this to help balance this article. 199.43.48.149 ( talk) 15:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)reed@setel.com
Below is text I removed which I believe to be too biased or promotional. I think it would be good to have a summary of movements that are fighting against MTR, which summary could include a lot of material from this addition, but a laundry list of musicians who released albums and wrote books doesn't seem appropriate. -- Rschmertz 18:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I just did some major re-edits to the page, but my main point for writing on the discussion page is that I removed a US-centric tag from the page. The reason I removed it is that, while this page does concentrate on the US primarily, the practice takes place almost exclusively, as far as I've ever heard, in the appalachian mountains located in the US. While I've heard about plenty of strip mining in other countries, and a few MTR sites out west, but I've never heard of an MTR site in another country, so basically MTR is as American as Mount Rushmore and the tag seems as aptly placed here as it would be on that page. D-rew 00:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, the thing is that really, MTR is by far most common in the US, so yeah, its not much help focusing on another country that hardly practices MTR at all. -- 66.32.252.104 19:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I tried to include "U.S." where sentences related specifically to the U.S. I also added a reference to Peru's Yanacocha gold mine, which appears to use MTR. Doubleplusjeff ( talk)
So, the links section is too big, and I'm having difficulty whittling it down because so many of the different links are so similar (community groups against MTR). For most of them it would be difficult to justify which ones are more important, but I don't advocate deleting all of them because methinks they are an important part of the MTR debate. Any help i could get in this area would be...well...helpful. D-rew 21:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe add a subsection for the dozen-odd grass roots groups? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.10.180.196 ( talk) 12:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Why was the Mountaintop Removal Mining Index link removed? Seems like the kinda link we want. D-rew ( talk) 02:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking about creating a seperate page for the controversy over MTR per pages like Free trade controversy and Global Warming controversy. Thoughts? D-rew ( talk) 01:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
"Some controversy over the practice stems from both the extreme topological and ecological changes that the mining site undergoes, as well and the storage of waste material generated from the mining and processing of the coal."
I edited it to read
"The controversy over..."
but it was reverted by TMLutas for this reason "Some people just don't like coal and oppose MTR as a way to incrementally kill all mining."
Despite a lack of evidence to the contrary I edited in the poorly worded statement "More generally many object to the use of coal as an energy source." which was rv by Djoeyd114, as NPOV issue.
My question is, how should it read? I think we should say what the controversy over MTR is, and not wishy-washy around it. If there is something besides the issues listed that is controversial about MTR, it seems like it should be added to make this page all the more encyclopedic. Opinions? D-rew 21:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Anyone have a quality photo of a valley fill? The article refers to these over and over, but the textual description is difficult to convey what one actually is. Please include a photo thumbnail if you have one. Doubleplusjeff —Preceding comment was added at 18:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ohvec.org/galleries/mountaintop_removal/008/10.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.ohvec.org/galleries/mountaintop_removal/008/index.html&usg=__guTK_Xuaq6w1781p53zKF7abz4I=&h=394&w=525&sz=30&hl=en&start=15&sig2=hpXp6ZW7L7L6Xg3iYUw3Cw&tbnid=qOhmcl8AeTPpqM:&tbnh=99&tbnw=132&ei=P6wpSZzbHqDMefe8vMQC&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmartin%2Bcounty%2Bcoal%2Bimpoundment%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den -- Flashdark ( talk) 19:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Since you mentioned it, what is the reason for removing the global tag? Athene cunicularia ( talk) 06:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Isn't this just a kind of strip mining? Isn't the main difference that this tends to remove more surface layers (and are not expected to restore them)? In theory a strip mine might be shallow and could work its way beyond the horizon, by having one working trench and placing the removed surface layers behind it as it progressed. Removing a mountain top implies not gluing together a replacement (which is not practical with current costs and materials). -- SEWilco ( talk) 19:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
NOTE: The thread about the Buffalo Creek Flood was moved from another section of the Discussion page to here, for semantic cohesion.
While the Buffalo Creek Flood illustrates the danger of slurry ponds, this particular dam wasn't a result of mountaintop removal, but rather another type of coal mining. Of course, the article doesn't directly attribute it to MTR, but perhaps another example would be better.
Doubleplusjeff 03:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
It is not stated in the article that either of the two sludge ponds mentioned, either at Marsh Fork Elementary School, or the Martin County Sludge Spill, are related to MTR. If they are related to MTR, this fact should be stated and documented. If not, they should be moved to the article on coal sludge ponds.
Plazak (
talk) 13:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
There are MTR mines above both the Marsh Fork School and at Martin County Coal, where the Oct 2000 spill occurred. I have personally seen both of these mine sites and photos are here http://www.appvoices.org/images/MarshForkAerial_full.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flashdark ( talk • contribs) 19:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
The photo shown in the link above does not show a MTR mine above the impoundment. I live in the center of the MTR area and have worked on MTR jobs. Most MTR mines do not have sludge ponds. Sludge ponds are used in conjunction with "coal washer plants" that primarily porcess coal mined from underground mines. The sludge spills should not be allowed in this article. 199.43.32.81 ( talk) 21:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Reed@setel.com
I work for MSHA in a Division responsible for slurry/tailings ponds. The Shumate Prep Plant and Impoundment (near Marsh Fork school) and the Brushy Fork Prep Plant and Impoundment up the valley, both have received almost all their coal from underground mines. This will change a bit as the MTR operations nearby start up - but the slurry imprisonments have nothing to do with MTR - they would be needed regardless of the mining method.
I will remove the reference to them in the "Process" section - which itself needs much further amplification. The "sludge pond" section really doesn't belong in this article at all but needs to be in a separate article or as an expansion to the (currently incomplete) Tailings pond article. I'll let someone else remove this section and take the flack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.166.92 ( talk) 23:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I reduced the number of external links (~30 down to 2). Most of the links were to grassroots groups who oppose MTR or videos by them, some were EPA stuff (the two i kept are). Not sure if they were the right ones to keep but something had to be done. I also added the no more links tag, so if links are to be added, they should be discussed here first, subjects like this tend to draw lots of external link attention.-- Kelapstick ( talk) 20:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I copied the criticism section in a new article ( Criticism of mountaintop removal mining) and the see also links that were to opponents of MTR mining, as they are more related to the criticism of MTR than to MTR itself. The leading two paragraphs are still in this article, but the criticism is large enough to warrent its own. The criticism section of any article should not make up half the content, even if it is a controversial subject.-- Kelapstick ( talk) 06:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I removed the forced image size of the two pictures in the article heading, they were pretty big, and overlapped (on was centred). They maybe should be a little bigger and moved somewhere further down the article (or not). Also there is an image of a Dragline at the Centralia Coal Mine, is that an MTR mine, the mine's article doesn't say anything about it.-- kelapstick ( talk) 21:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Though it appears to have been discussed in years past, I took a look at this article, and it only took a moment or two for it to reek of bias to me. I've found numerous places where both the writing and the content appear to have a conspicuous lack of neutrality, earning a flag for each. To go over a few of the more prominent examples that stuck out:
Overall, I see that this article DOES have the potential to be neutral, but it's got a long way to go. And right now, the lack of neutrality is almost certainly the biggest single detriment to the article: normally lack of solid content and inline citations/sources are the biggest hurdle toward getting to B/GA+ status, but this article already has way, way more good sources listed than any other Start-class I've seen. It just needs stronger neutrality. Nottheking ( talk) 18:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
This article is still as biased as it was.
This article was added as a subset to the "Surface Mining" article. Where it belongs.
Additionally, the proper name is Mountain Top Mining. MTR is only used by environmentalists... Google: "Mountain Top Removal Mining" the only results are from environmentalist sites.
By allowing the name to stay this article remains a POV issues and furthers an agenda.
Deletion of article, merging under surface mining, renaming to its proper name: Mountain Top Mining.
PeterWesco ( talk) 07:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Boundarylayer ( talk) 11:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was withdrawn. Cancelled per WP:SNOW Article move request has been cancelled. WP:SNOW PeterWesco ( talk) 16:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Mountaintop removal mining → Mountaintop mining – WP:POVTITLE WP:PRECISION. Mountaintop Removal Mining is "new speak" used by environmental groups. MTM is the name used in text books, non-agenda publications, the US Goverment, etc. To illustrate this point I refer to one of the POV references used in the article: http://www.grist.org/article/epa-sleep-in-lisa-jacksons-fundamental-misunderstanding/ The aforementioned source describes their anger that the government has not adopted their terminology. The continued use of MTRM instead of MTM is a continued demonstration on the blatant POV of this article. MTR/MTRM will still be referenced in the article and it will be done in a way to remain NPOV and certainly not how MTM is currently referenced. Precision: As discusssed below, MTM is surface mining and always requires the removal of the mountaintop. PeterWesco ( talk) 06:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Term | GBooks | GNews | GScholar | JSTOR | WorldCat | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mountaintop removal mining | 184,000 | 3,340 | 157 | 572 | 33 | 135 |
Mountaintop mining | 110,000 | 2,920 | 104 | 711 | 39 | 100 |
See here Large Numbers of Birth Defects Seen Near Mountaintop Mining Operations 2011- http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110623090001.htm
& http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111212153119.htm Cumulative Impact of Mountaintop Mining Documented Boundarylayer ( talk) 14:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Cancelled per WP:SNOW Article move request has been cancelled. PeterWesco ( talk) 16:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Is there a specific term for mining on the summit of a hill instead of a mountain or are they called the same thing? Hilltop removal mining does not redirect to this article. Volcano guy 07:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
It's Hobet, not Hobit, you ignorant, murderous environmental liberals. As for POV, this entire article is written from one that paints all capitalists and workers as some kind of demonic entity. It's skewed so far left that it's nothing more than socialist propaganda.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mountaintop removal mining. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I have added informaiton to the legislation section. Some information pertained to what was previously posted, but I have added the most recent information I could find. Camisasn28 ( talk) 23:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Wikipedia, I added a reference to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to the section on reclamation of Mountaintop Removal mine sites. I also included links to other relevant pages from within the section, including the wiki pages on erosion and reforestation. I felt that it was important to include the legislation the laid the groundwork for how MTR mine sites are reclaimed today. SandersJR ( talk) 17:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
"Critics contend that...", this transition sentence comes across as ambiguous. The opposing groups pertinent to this topic are not clear. I also do not think that a "Critics" section is necessary or helpful. Would a section providing historical context of opposing groups that have been involved be more effective? Morgan.emma ( talk) 03:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Translate it 202.47.55.103 ( talk) 08:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)