Coal Tattoo

COAL TRAIN

A C.S.X. train loaded with coal winds its way into the mountains in this Nov. 21, 2004 file photo taken near the New River at Cotton Hill in Fayette County, W.Va.  (AP Photo/Jeff Gentner)

The latest coal production forecast is out from West Virginia University’s Bureau for Business and Economic Research, and the news isn’t good:

West Virginia’s coal industry has seen production decline significantly over the past several years. After climbing to nearly 158 million short tons in 2008, the state’s coal mine output has tumbled in each successive year to an annual total of approximately 115 million short tons in 20141─or a cumulative decline of 27 percent. The overall rate of decline was much smaller during 2014, as mines in the state produced roughly 0.8 percent fewer tons of coal in comparison to 2013. Unfortunately, however, this slower rate of decline is expected to be temporary and preliminary data already indicate mine output fell 4 percent on a year-over-year basis during the first quarter of 2015 to an annualized rate of 110 million short tons.

While coal production within West Virginia has declined rapidly over the past several years, the downward trend in statewide production has been much more significant when compared to most of the nation’s other major coal-producing regions. Aggregate non-West Virginia coal production in the US was estimated to have increased 1.7 percent during calendar year 2014, leaving it at about 87 percent of production levels achieved during 2008. As a result, this has caused West Virginia’s market share of total U.S. coal tonnage to fall appreciably over the past several years, retreating from 13.5 percent in 2008 to 11.5 percent in 2014.

 Why is this happening?

The fall-off in the state’s coal production has been driven by a combination of weak export demand, declining domestic use of coal in electricity generation, changes in emissions compliance standards for utilities and increasingly challenging geologic conditions in Southern West Virginia.

The short-term forecast:

The baseline forecast calls for state coal production to decline to approximately 104 million short tons in calendar year 2015 before contracting further to 98 million short tons in 2016. Numerous factors are expected to weigh on West Virginia coal production over the next two years, with declines likely in both the state’s northern and southern coalfields. After replenishing their coal stockpiles following an extremely cold first quarter of 2014, inventories of coal at electric utilities grew appreciably over the latter half of the year and have stayed at relatively high levels through the first several months of 2015 due to increased use of natural gas. Utilities are expected to draw down from existing stockpiles slowly in 2015, which will weigh heavily on thermal coal production. Domestic industrial use and export demand for coal are also expected to remain weak during the next two years.

And the long-term forecast:

Coal production in West Virginia is expected to rebound moderately between 2017 and 2020, rising to an annual average of nearly 105 million tons in 2020. Retirements of coal-fired generation will taper off and, while no measurable amount of capacity additions to the coal-fired fleet are likely, an expected increase in natural gas prices should allow coal to regain some share of electricity generation. For the remainder of the outlook period, statewide coal production is expected to fall, contracting to less than 96 million short tons in 2035. This will be driven entirely by losses in production in the state’s southern coalfields. Northern West Virginia production will likely experience a solid rebound through 2020 that will then remain relatively stable level over the remaining portion of the forecast.

More on WVU, Gordon Gee and Massey Energy

Geephoto

It’s WVU Day up at the statehouse, so I guess we’ll be treated to a lot of “selfies” of university President E. Gordon Gee. But there’s a timely report out from West Virginia Public Broadcasting, in which someone from our state’s news media finally questions Gee about his history and relationship with Massey Energy and indicated former Massey CEO Don Blankenship.

Public Broadcasting’s Scott Finn asked Gee to comment on the four-count indictment that alleges his old friend led an effort to violate safety laws, thwart government inspections, and then lie to securities regulators and the investing public at the Upper Big Branch Mine, where 29 workers died in an April 2010 explosion (recall that Gee had not only served on Massey’s board, but on that board’s safety and environment committee — well, that is, he did, before he resigned those posts under pressure from environmental groups and Ohio State students).

Scott asked him:

Dr. Gee I know you’re not just concerned about student safety, but worker safety as well. Until you resigned from the Massey Energy Board of Directors in 2009, you served as chairman of their Safety, Environmental and Public Policy committee. In light of that, what’s your reaction to the federal indictment of former Massey CEO Don Blankenship in relation to the Upper Big Branch Mine Disaster.

Gee responded initially:

Well, you know, obviously, I think all of us who were every involved in mining in this state, and I certainly was, believe that the safety of our workers is the number one priority.

But Gee dodged any comment on the indictment, saying:

… It is probably inappropriate for me to comment on the indictment itself because I’m not engaged in it, I’m not familiar with it. I think this is a matter for the federal courts and a matter for them to resolve.

Scott pressed on, noting the findings of Davitt McAteer’s report on Upper Big Branch — that Massey Energy had a terrible safety culture, one McAteer’s team described as “the normalization of deviance,” and asked Gee:

I know you care deeply about safety, what do you think kept you and the other Massey board members from understanding the depth of the safety problems.

But here’s what else he had to say, according to the Public Broadcasting story:

“During my service on the Massey Board, that was clearly the focus on our board, was on safety and safety measures,” Gee said …

Gee said that safety was “always our number one concern” during his time on the board, and that they were “working very hard to solve the problems we had,” he said.

“These are large companies. I ran Ohio State University, which is the largest university in the country, and West Virginia University, which is one of the very large, complex institutions, and I don’t know everything that goes on there. So you have to have that sort of trusting relationship of having good people doing good things,” Gee said.

For the record, Gee was one of the named defendants in a lawsuit against Massey officials over safety conditions that were supposed to have been remedied under an earlier settlement, but — judging from the 29 dead bodies at Upper Big Branch — were not. Alpha Natural Resources, which bought Massey, settled that suit for $265 million. And U.S. Attorney Booth Goodwin had said in court records that former Massey executives and board members “may be or may become” targets in his office’s criminal investigation.

Continue reading…

WVU, Gordon Gee and Massey Energy

gee2

If you believe the anonymous sources being quoted by most of West Virginia’s media outlets, it appears that Hoppy Kercheval is going to get his wish.  As the Gazette’s MacKenzie Mays is reporting:

E. Gordon Gee, former president at West Virginia University and more recently Ohio State University, will serve as the interim president at WVU starting in January, sources confirmed Thursday.

The WVU Board of Governors unanimously approved an interim president for the school in an emergency meeting on Thursday, but delayed a public announcement for a Higher Education Policy Commission meeting scheduled for Friday at 9 a.m.

Now, it’s not clear from the reporting thus far exactly how the WVU board managed to unanimously approve Gee as interim president without publicly naming him. Remember that the West Virginia Open Governmental Proceedings Act generally prohibits agencies from taking votes during closed-door executive sessions. And, the law generally prohibits agencies from voting on motions that are written in a manner which obscures the precise matter being considered. And in interpreting the statute, the open meetings committee over at the Ethics Commission has said that public bodies must name names when they are voting on personnel items.

In any event, the other thing that seems to be absent from any of these discussions — most of all from Hoppy’s column promoting Gee for the post — was any mention of Gee’s role in overseeing the environmental and safety practices of the former Massey Energy coal empire.

Gee served on the Massey Board of Directors for nearly a decade, from late 2000 until his resignation from that board (under pressure from environmental groups and from students at Ohio State University, where he was then president) in May 2009. Importantly, he served on a board committee whose duty it was to oversee management’s handling of environmental and worker safety issues.

Continue reading…

WVU’s Peng takes us down wrong energy road again

Plant Scherer, Southern Company

On the one hand, perhaps it is good news that the latest op-ed from West Virginia University mining engineering professor Syd Peng isn’t a ridiculous rant against air pollution standards and efforts to curb the global climate crisis.

spengBut it’s unfortunate that Dr. Peng’s commentary was published on Sunday, following a week that saw some very forward-thinking efforts aimed at moving West Virginia toward a more honest, open and inclusive discussion about the ongoing decline in Southern West Virginia’s coal industry, coal’s role in global warming and ways our state’s people could work together to diversify the coalfield economy.

Sure, Dr. Peng makes a few valid points. But like his previous Gazette commentaries we’ve debunked on this blog (see here and here) Dr. Peng again takes us down wrong roads with false choices that have us fighting the same old fights over and over again.

First for his valid points. Dr. Peng writes:

If we’re smart, we shouldn’t be content with just exporting coal. We ought to jump at the opportunity to demonstrate and then sell advanced coal technologies and American know-how to China, India and other countries whose economic growth requires more and better use of coal … U.S. technology for carbon mitigation could make it easier for countries to make better use of the trillions of tons of coal in the world. Capturing a share of the global market for coal technology would be a huge prize. With world coal use growing at a breakneck pace and a race on to raise coal-burning efficiency while reducing its carbon footprint, we need focused government support, particularly to develop and demonstrate technologies for carbon capture and storage (CCS).

While many in the environmental community scoff at CCS, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has listed it as a much-needed (though very uncertain) mitigation strategy for climate change, and the Union of Concerned Scientists has specifically backed the notion that the United States should forge ahead with CCS research if for no other reason than the help reduce greenhouse emissions from the developing world’s burning of coal.

The problem is that, while Dr. Peng laments the lack of advancement on CCS technology being perfected and deployed, he just can’t bring himself to even mention what experts agree is probably the most crucial step needed to make CCS happen:  For the federal government to put a price on carbon emissions by putting in place some sort of greenhouse gas limits. By leaving this important piece of the puzzle out of his commentary, Dr. Peng sets readers up for the false conclusion that some anti-coal zealotry by the Obama administration on CCS research — not inaction by Congress and opposition by the coal industry to greenhouse gas limits — is the root of this problem.

Continue reading…

Hendryx leaving WVU, but research will continue

Word had been circulating for a few weeks, but West Virginia University researcher Michael Hendryx made it official this weekend with a Facebook post:

I have some news that has been difficult to share but no more procrastination. I am leaving WVU for a new job at Indiana University in Bloomington. I start there on August 1. I will be a professor in public health there as I am here.

Importantly, Dr. Hendryx explained:

We are moving because my wife got a great job offer there that was too good to pass up. I imagine there might be some speculation that I was pressured to leave or something, but that is not the case.

He continued:

To those of you who are aware of my work, please know that it will continue. We are collecting air samples in communities impacted by MTR right now. I am working on more community health surveys. MTR needs to stop because it is harmful to human health, and I am going to continue to work on this, as are others who are here in WV and elsewhere.

We’ve written about Dr. Hendryx and his work many times in the Gazette and on this blog (see here, here and here, for example), but I can’t help but remember his story about trying when he first moved to West Virginia to find literature in scientific journals about the potential human health impacts of large-scale strip-mining:

Hendryx is clearly mining a rich vein of health issues in coal country and his work points to alarming impacts of the most destructive form of mining. Part of what makes his work so interesting is that no one had done it before. Mountaintop removal mining has been a controversial issue in Appalachia since at least the mid-1990s and coalfield citizens have long complained of health problems, and possible links to coal and rock dust from blasting and trucking, contaminated streams and groundwater, and toxic chemicals at coal preparation plants. Yet when Hendryx arrived in West Virginia he found almost no scientific health investigation work underway.

“When I did a literature review I couldn’t find anything!” he said. “I was really surprised. There were lots of stories, lots of anecdotes about health problems for people in mining environments but very little, almost no research.”

I asked him why he thought no other researchers had looked into these issues.

“I’ve asked myself that same question,“ he said. “When I first started to talk to some of my colleagues here at the University, um, I think they were skeptical. I think they probably assumed that the health problems here were due to other factors, they were just the result of poverty, or just the result of poor health behaviors like smoking, and didn’t think that the mining contributions were real. I don’t know why. But the more I look, the more I’ve seen and the more concerned I’ve become. And from a public health perspective I really think the coal mining problems we have in the state is one of the biggest health problems we face.”

The work that Dr. Hendryx started — and that he and others are continuing — really changed the nature of the discussion about mountaintop removal — even if political leaders don’t want to hear about it and the coal industry is spending a ton of money trying to challenge his work.

WVU paper provides more on MTR, health links

We’ve talked before on this blog about West Virginia University research that found rats exposed to dust from mountaintop removal communities showed changes in the diameter of blood vessels, which could in turn reduce blood flow. The research is among the work going on now that aims to explain the findings of WVU’s Michael Hendryx that residents living near mountaintop removal sites face greater risks of serious disease, including cancer and birth defects.

Well, the full scientific paper on this issue is out now. You can read the abstract here, but the full paper is available by subscription only I’m afraid. Here’s the abstract:

Objective

Air pollution particulate matter (PM) is associated with cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. In Appalachia, PM from mining may represent a health burden to this sensitive population that leads the nation in cardiovascular disease, among others. Cardiovascular consequences following inhalation of mountaintop mining (MTM)-derived PM (PM-MTM) are unclear, but must be identified in order to establish causal effects.

Methods

PM was collected within 1 mile of an active MTM site in southern West Virginia. The PM was extracted and was primarily <10 μm in diameter (PM10), consisting largely of sulfur (38%) and silica (24%). Adult male rats were intratracheally instilled (IT) with 300 μg PM-MTM. Twenty-four hours following exposure, rats were prepared for intravital microscopy, or isolated arteriole experiments.

Results

PM-MTM exposure blunted endothelium-dependent dilation in mesenteric and coronary arterioles by 26%, and 25%, respectively, as well as endothelium–independent dilation. In vivo, PM-MTM exposure inhibited endothelium-dependent arteriolar dilation (60% reduction). α-adrenergic receptor blockade inhibited perivascular nerve stimulation (PVNS)-induced vasoconstriction in exposed animals compared to sham.

Conclusions

These data suggest that PM-MTM exposure impairs microvascular function in disparate microvascular beds, through alterations in NO-mediated dilation and sympathetic nerve influences. Microvascular dysfunction may contribute to cardiovascular disease in regions with MTM sites.

Continue reading…

In this Jan. 27, 2012 photo, a deck hand secures a barge in one of the chambers at the Montgomery Lock and Dam along the Ohio River in Monaca, Pa. Each barge holds an estimated 1,500 tons of coal, according to lock master Rick Greenwood.  (AP Photo/Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Keith Hodan)

When last we left our good friend, West Virginia University mining engineering professor Syd Peng, he was wrongly opining — contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court’s declaration — that the federal Clean Air Act wasn’t the proper tool for regulating global warming pollution.

Apparently, testifying on behalf of coal-mine operators in mine disaster cases isn’t taking up all of Dr. Peng’s time these days. So we had in yesterday’s Gazette another op-ed about national energy policies. The op-ed was headlined, “We need to back fossil fuels,” as if the nation and state aren’t doing a lot of that already:

Responsible people recognize that oil, natural gas and coal must provide a major share of the nation’s fuel mix to avoid potentially devastating economic consequences.

Like Dr. Peng’s earlier Gazette op-ed piece, “Congress should block EPA,” this latest commentary does little more than parrot the conventional line of the coal industry that funds WVU’s mining engineering school (see here, here and here).

But along the way, Dr. Peng doesn’t exactly get his facts right. Let’s review

First, Dr. Peng writes in his first two paragraphs:

We have an urgent national priority: moving forward with the development and demonstration of energy-efficient technologies that would enable America to burn fossil fuels more cleanly and cheaply.

With the outlook dimming for nuclear power and renewable energy sources, there are growing concerns that efforts to maintain air quality and combat global warming will fail as energy production increases in the years ahead.

With the outlook dimming for renewable energy sources? What is he talking about?

Even a freshman student at WVU could use Google to find this U.S. Energy Information Administration website that explains:

Renewable energy consumption increased by about 8% between 2008 and 2009, contributing about 8% of the Nation’s total energy demand, and 10% of total U.S. electricity generation in 2009.

And you don’t have to be a member of the West Virginia Coal Hall of Fame to find the most recent EIA projections that show:

Use of renewable fuels and natural gas for electric power generation rises: The natural gas share of electric power generation increases from 24 percent in 2010 to 27 percent in 2035, and the renewables share grows from 10 percent to 16 percent over the same period.

Dr. Peng may be correct, or at least reasonably close, when he writes that:

Fossil fuels meet 84 percent of U.S. energy demand, and the Energy Information Administration forecasts they will continue to be the primary energy sources well into the future.

But in his zeal to defend fossil fuels, and bash anything else, Dr. Peng writes:

Despite the Obama administration’s efforts to derail development of fossil fuels, energy companies are not backing off. Thanks to new technology and innovation, companies are tapping into vast domestic supplies of oil, natural gas and coal. And they are doing this without any new tax breaks or subsidies.

More than three-quarters of all energy tax breaks go to renewables such as solar and wind though they account for only 2 percent of electric power generation.

It’s true that the Obama administration has tried to take some reasonable steps to reduce some of the environmental impacts of fossil fuels, especially coal — things like tougher water quality guidance  standards on mountaintop removal and stronger air pollution limits on coal-fired power plants and on the booming natural gas drilling industry.  But President Obama also personally rejected EPA’s plans to combat smog, has ignored demands from environmental groups and scientists that he ban mountaintop removal altogether, and the administration has been very supportive of the natural gas boom overall, despite citizen concerns about the potential impacts.

And this subsidy stuff? Well, Dr. Peng sounds a lot like Sen. Joe Manchin, who tries to argue that coal doesn’t get government subsidiaries and renewable energy does, and assertion we’ve debunked before here on Coal Tattoo.

Continue reading…

UPDATED:HERE’S today’s Gazette print story about this study.

As noted last night in Coal Tattoo’s comments section, a Yale University researcher hired by the National Mining Association has published the first peer-reviewed paper that offers a response to the 20 papers that West Virginia University’s Michael Hendryx has produced over the last four years exploring the links between living near mountaintop removal mines and facing increased risks of health problems, including cancer and birth defects.

The paper, by Dr. Jonathan Borak and others, is called “Mortality Disparities in Appalachia: Reassessment of Major Risk Factors.”  It’s published in this month’s Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, with its abstract available for free here. As frequent Coal Tattoo reader and commenter Casey pointed out, the industry consulting group Environmental Resources Management Consulting has helpfully posted the entire paper on its company website.

Here’s the abstract, which describes the study’s objective, methods, results and conclusions:

Objective: To determine the predictive value of coal mining and other risk factors for explaining disproportionately high mortality rates across Appalachia.

Method: Mortality and covariate data were obtained from publicly available databases for 2000 to 2004. Analysis employed ordinary least square multiple linear regression with age-adjusted mortality as the dependent variable.

Results: Age-adjusted all-cause mortality was independently related to Poverty Rate, Median Household Income, Percent High School Graduates, Rural–Urban Location, Obesity, Sex, and Race/Ethnicity, but not Unemployment Rate, Percent Uninsured, Percent College Graduates, Physician Supply, Smoking, Diabetes, or Coal Mining.

Conclusions: Coal mining is not per se an independent risk factor for increased mortality in Appalachia. Nevertheless, our results underscore the substantial economic and cultural disadvantages that adversely impact health in Appalachia, especially in the coal-mining areas of Central Appalachia.

Now, we’ve yet to hear anything from the National Mining Association trumpeting the findings. I have to express some shock that it hasn’t shown up on West Virginia MetroNews or in the Daily Mail yet. Maybe the NMA has learned from its previous problems attacking Dr. Hendryx, like the time the industry’s law firm tried to suggest that any increased rate of birth defects in Appalachia was caused by inbreeding.

Some readers may recall that about two years ago, the industry lobby went kind of crazy about a preliminary analysis that Dr. Borak did for them, with the NMA’s PR outfit “tweeting”:

Yale professor debunks bogus studies on the health effects of Appalachian surface mining.

When asked about it, Dr. Borak said his studies did no such thing and that he had never referred to the work by WVU’s Hendryx as “bogus.” The National Mining Association retreated, and apologized for its PR tactics.

Continue reading…

WVU tries to distance itself from faculty research

WVU President James Clements

Just got this fascinating email message from my good friend John Bolt, a former Associated Press newsman now working as director of public relations for West Virginia University:

Dear Ken:

I wanted to share with you a statement we recently developed about research of all kinds conducted at West Virginia University.

The statement, which was not developed in reaction to any particular research being conducted on campus, is an effort to explain the role of research at an institution such as WVU and clarify that the institution itself takes no position on the findings – except in the sense of supporting a researcher’s right to do research and reach supportable conclusions.

The findings of any particular research project do not reflect, nor should they, any particular opinion or position of the University itself.

Here’s the statement:

Faculty members at West Virginia University have an obligation and responsibility to conduct research. It is part of WVU’s mission as a land-grant university to gather and analyze data and then contribute this analysis to inform the discussion and understanding around various issues affecting the lives of West Virginians and others around the world. WVU’s research strives to be data-driven, objective and independent. It is not influenced by any political agenda, business priority, funding source or even popular opinion. WVU faculty follow accepted academic practices, and those research findings are subject to intense review and challenge by academic peers – including review of data sources, methods and analysis. This doesn’t mean everyone agrees with the findings, but assures the process followed to reach those findings is valid and unbiased. Accordingly, WVU stands behind its researchers’ quest for knowledge as they help society address the issues which confront it.

Accordingly we’re asking those who write about our faculty’s research to refrain from describing those as a “WVU study” or using other phrasing that would imply or could be interpreted as the institution taking a position on any particular issue. Other phrasing might be “a study conducted at WVU,” or “a study by WVU faculty member …”

Thanks for considering this approach.

Sincerely,

John

Over the last five years, Michael Hendryx and other researchers at West Virginia University, in conjunction with scientists at Washington State University and elsewhere,  have published 18 studies in peer-reviewed science journals about the potential public health impacts of mountaintop removal coal mining.

The studies have been widely debated among folks who follow coal industry issues. They’ve been cited at least twice in Congressional testimony by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. They’ve been covered most recently by CNN in a nationally televised, hour-long documentary.

But if you read the Charleston Daily Mail, you might not know a darned thing about this research. Daily Mail reporters and editors don’t think it’s news.

That alone would be hard enough to imagine — and impossible really for the Daily Mail to defend. How in the world is it not news when scientists at the state’s land-grant institution publish not one, not two — but 18 — papers that raise serious questions about public health dangers related to activities of one of the state’s major industries?

But not content to simply ignore the news value of this research, the Daily Mail on Monday published an 840-word, scurrilous attack on Dr. Hendryx, his fellow researchers and their work (and perhaps, by extension, anyone who has cited this work and said it looks kind of important).

In not-so-subtle terms, coal industry publicist T.L. Headley makes some serious allegations. He carefully avoids accusing Dr. Hendryx by name of any wrongdoing, but the implication is clear:

The claims by some in the “science for hire” community that coal mining causes the myriad health problems faced by many West Virginians is a classic example of prostitution of science in the service of a political agenda.

Science for hire? Prostitution of science?

I checked with Dr. Hendryx — he’s probably getting tired of being asked this question — and he told me he’s received no funding from anti-mountaintop removal groups or any environmental groups. His work is being done as part of his job at the university. (Crazy notion, huh? A public health researcher at the state’s land-grand university researching the public health impacts of a major industrial activity in the state.)

Does the Daily Mail have some evidence that Dr. Hendryx has taken money from anti-coal groups and then tried to cover up that funding? If so, why don’t they publish that evidence, rather than allowing this sort of attack?

Continue reading…

There’s a new study out from West Virginia University researchers that advances their previous work trying to understand the public health impacts of living near mountaintop removal mining operations (see here, here and here).

Emily Corio over at West Virginia Public Broadcasting reported on this first earlier today, and WVU’s Robert C. Byrd Health Science Center issued this press release on the study:

Research has shown an increase in health disparities as a result of coal mining in Appalachian communities. A new study conducted by the West Virginia University School of Medicine shows that the disparities are especially concentrated in mountaintop mining areas. Those areas have the greatest reductions in health-related quality of life even when compared with counties with other forms of coal mining.

The study itself, published in the current issue of the American Journal of Public Health, concludes:

Residents of mountaintop mining counties reported significantly more days of poor physical, mental, and activity limitation and poorer self-rated health compared with the other county groupings. Results were generally consistent in separate analyses by gender and age.

Mountaintop mining areas are associated with the greatest reductions in health-related quality of life even when compared with counties with other forms of coal mining.

Further:

These disparities partly reflect the chronic socioeconomic weaknesses inherent in coal-dependent economies and highlight the need for efforts at economic diversification in these areas. However, significant disparities persist after control for these risks and suggest that the environmental impacts of MTM may also play a role in the health problems of the area’s population.

Authors of the study were Keith J. Zullig and, yes, our friend Michael Hendryx, both of the medical school’s Department of Community Medicine.

Using a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention four-question survey, researchers talked to residents in West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia about their physical and metal health.

Researchers used data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, the world’s largest telephone health survey systemResidents were divided into groups who lived near mountaintop removal mining, those who lived near other coal mining and those who didn’t live near any mining.

Zullig explained:

Self-rated health and health-related quality of life were significantly reduced among residents of mountaintop mining communities in the unadjusted and adjusted models.

Mountaintop mining county residents experience, on average, 18 more unhealthy days per year than do the other populations. That’s approximately 1,404 days, or almost four years, of an average American lifetime. When mountaintop mining and other coal mining counties were not separated in a previous study, there were 462 reduced health-related quality of life days across an average American life.

Hendryx said that  this study also looked at the health effects on both men and women.  A common belief is that if coal mining causes health problems, those problems are mostly occupational related problems experienced by coal miners themselves, he said.

Continue reading…

Here’s the new Nike WVU graphic

And this is the new text that goes with it:

For generations coal mining has been a way of life in West Virginia. As has Mountaineer football. West Virginians know about hard work. They know about pride. They know that to respect the past you’ve got to fuel the future both on and off the field. In 2010, the Mountaineers are ready to go to work and put it all on the line for West Virginia University.

Update: Nike to modify WVU uniform graphic

This just in from Nike:

The new WVU football uniform was designed to celebrate the football team and honor the heritage of coal mining in the state.

We are modifying the graphic of the player on our website to address concerns.


In the wake of complaints from coalfield citizens groups, West Virginia University’s athletic department issued this statement today about the Nike ads:

The concept for the uniform design was to honor the coal miners of West Virginia and their heritage. Their hard work and dedication are the same characteristics of the Mountaineer football team.

The graphics surrounding the promotion of the uniform which featured 10 teams and an iconic representation of each school were designed by Nike and reviewed by the WVU athletic department. The intent was for the player on the field to be surrounded by coal and not as an endorsement of any one form of mining technology.

We are in discussions with Nike about the graphic.

So far, WVU President James Clements has refused to comment on the situation.

The AP’s Vicki Smith has the jump this morning on the results of the final portion of the legislatively mandated study of coal-slurry injection practices in West Virginia.

I’ve posted Vicki’s story on our Mining the Mountains site, and you can read the final report from West Virginia University researchers here.

Here’s the bottom line:

The process for development of analyses of what is known about water contamination from coal slurry injection and known, probable, or potential effects upon human health involves a comparison of the known toxicity of coal slurry components “downstream” (either riverine or underground) water contamination, compared to known or suspected human toxicities from the peer-reviewed literature. There are innumerable considerations in this process, and no effort can be complete. For example, the current state of science measures inorganic compounds and elements better than organics, and provides a much richer data base on their health consequences. This is one of many immutable “data gaps” that we identified in this investigation. The absence of sufficient data implies a need to learn; it does not necessarily imply the absence or presence of a problem or a means to do assessments in the absence of data.

Vicki put it this way in her story:

Legislators have waited 31/2 years and spent more than $220,000 to learn whether coal slurry pumped into abandoned underground mines is dangerous to people who live nearby. The answer? No one knows.

A new 418-page report by researchers at West Virginia University concludes that while the wastewater from cleaning coal could potentially affect water supplies, wells and public health, there’s no proof it has or will.

Continue reading…

Yesterday afternoon, just as I was settling in to watch the Senate hearing on coal-mine safety, a fascinating “tweet” from the National Mining Association’s Mining Fan (that’s their logo above) popped onto my computer screen:

Yale professor debunks bogus studies on the health effects of Appalachian surface mining.

Wow … sounds like something worth checking out right away … apparently, I thought, a professor at a respected university has “debunked” the work of West Virginia University’s Michael Hendryx and concluded the Hendryx studies were “bogus.”

Well, it turns out, not so much — the statement, which was repeated on a National Mining Association Facebook page — was so out of line that NMA officials have pulled it from the Internet, taken back, if you will.

So what are we talking about? Well, Coal Tattoo readers certainly recall the work of WVU’s Hendryx, who has published a series of peer-reviewed studies that pointed to increased illnesses and premature deaths among Appalachian residents living near coal-mining operations and questioned whether the costs of those health impacts are greater than the industry’s economic benefits to the region.

As you can imagine, the coal industry was none too pleased about these studies. My buddy Roger Nicholson at International Coal Group wrote an op-ed piece attempting to debunk Hendryx. The National Mining Association went a step further, hiring Yale’s Jonathan Borak to take a closer look at the Hendryx studies.

Continue reading…

acid_mine_drainage2

West Virginians who live near streams polluted by coal mining are more likely to die of cancer, according to a first-of-its kind study published by researchers at West Virginia University and Virginia Tech.

The study provides the first peer-reviewed look at the relationship between the biological health of Appalachian streams and public health of coalfield residents.

Published in the scientific journal EcoHealth (Subscription required), the paper compares cancer death rates to population figures, coal production figures and a new index of how far people live to various types of coal-mining operations.

“We’ve known for years that stream organisms can be sentinels of environmental quality,” said study co-author Nathaniel Hitt, a Virginia Tech stream ecologist who now works for the U.S. Geological Survey. “What we have now shown is that these organisms are also indicators of public health.”

Hitt wrote the paper with Michael Hendryx, a WVU epidemiologist who has published a series of other scientific articles that linked mining to poor public health and found coal costs Appalachian more in premature deaths that the industry provides in economic benefits.

Continue reading…

Mine Explosion

Nick Prillaman of Beckley, W.Va., is hugged outside of Marsh Fork Elementary School Tuesday, April 6, 2010 in Naoma, W.Va. On Monday Prillaman’s uncle Benny Willingham, 61, of Corinne, W.Va., was killed in an explosion at Massey Energy’s Upper Big Branch Coal Mine. (AP Photo/Jeff Gentner)

West Virginia University has announced that it is collecting condolence messages for the families of miners killed in the Massey Energy mine disaster in Raleigh County.

WVU has set up a blog and plans to deliver the condolence messages to the families. Kimberly Colebank, director of WVU’s Center for Civic Engagement, said:

As Mountaineers united and proud of our state and our people, we offer our heartfelt sympathy to the communities affected by the loss of so many valuable and contributing lives by sending wishes for healing and comfort.

WVU students protest ‘dirty coal money’ donations

clements.jpg

This just in via an e-mail message from the West Virginia University student chapter of the Sierra Club:

At 11:00 AM, delegates from the West Virginia University Sierra Student Coalition will be presenting over 1,000 petition signatures to university president Jim Clements at his office in Stewart Hall on the university’s downtown campus.

In the petition, faculty, students, and Morgantown residents ask the university to reject future donations from coal corporation CEOs Bob Murray and Don Blankenship, and demand that the WVU College of Engineering and Mineral Resources chair be named in honor of the miners who made the ultimate sacrifice, and not Murray, whose criminal negligence caused their death.

The Sierra Student Coalition will issue a statement at the event.  The press is invited to attend.

The WVU Sierra Student Coalition is a grassroots environmental organization striving for real improvements in our campus and community.

Coal Tattoo readers will recall that WVU named a chair’s position in its mining engineering department for a $1 million donation from Bob Murray of Murray Energy. WVU also recently collected a $500,000 donation from Blankenship’s Massey Energy.

I’ve asked to talk to WVU President  Jim Clements to get his reaction to the student petition. Let’s see if Clements has decided to be any more open with the press and the public than he was the last time I wanted to talk about WVU’s dealings with the coal industry.

WVU’s Clements won’t talk about Bob Murray donation

clements.jpg

Some Coal Tattoo readers had questions following my post last week about West Virginia University (my alma mater) naming a chair in its mining engineering department for controversial coal operator Bob Murray in exchange for a $1 million donation to the school.

Does WVU want students to learn the kinds of mine safety practices by Murray’s company that led to the deaths of six miners and three rescuers — and prompted more than $1 million in safety fines and calls for a criminal investigation — at the Crandall Canyon disaster in August 2007?

Or maybe WVU thinks Murray set a good example for students when he tried to use his friendship with Republican U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky  to get federal mine safety inspectors to back off enforcing the law at one of Murray’s mines?

Perhaps WVU especially thinks that students could learn from watching Murray’s nationally televised tirades against labor unions, government inspectors and the media  while families of his workers waited for word on whether those Crandall Canyon miners were dead or alive?

Continue reading…