-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
This will make you grateful for your job, no matter how much it sucks.
- Thread starter entremet
- Start date
- Status
dave is ok
aztek is ok
When you're as rich as Don Blankenship you can buy the state government pretty handily - and that is pretty much what he did.
I hope what you are saying is true about Massey since the buyout - but it's been less than two years since Upper Big Branch disaster and I personally have a hard time believing much has changed.
Captain Tuttle
Member
I used to be a foreman in a surface non-metal mine (Limestone). MSHA has a lot of power, the way the regulations are written the inspector has quite bit of leeway in interpreting the codes (as opposed to OSHA where everything is very detailed and spelled out). Surface non-metal had two mandatory three day inspections every year; the inspector has access to all of the mine's records and has full access to the site. From what I understand you guys in coal have it a bit different, is it right that there is usually a MSHA guy on site at all times? I think this was an issue in the MAssey case; a company not committed to safety got chummy with the inspector who overlooked a bunch of things.
In my experience MSHA is a good organization and will work with a company that's open and willing to do the same. That fine you got for the bandaids thing is ridiculous though. S&S violations (Significant and Substantial) were very rare for us but they got the attention of the people in corporate whenever one was issued.
MSHA is a federal organization, the only thing that we dealt with the state on was DEP stuff (this was in PA though). Not saying that Massey didn't do any of that stuff though, inspectors (and management) were looking the other way imo.
Nemesis121
Member
Putting him to work there would convince him...
I have worked some hard jobs in my life, and I always LAUGH MY ASS OFF when I hear my friend bitch about his comfy sit on his ass for 12 hours of day/3 days a week job, he works 3 days for the week and bitches about his job.
The_Darkest_Red
Member
Understandable, and hopefully we can help change your views of the industry in general through our actions. I really mean that.
And just as a side note, the state government is far less of an influence in the mining industry than the federal. MSHA (Mine Safety and Health Administration) is the major player when it comes to industry regulation.
Our company runs quite a few mines so it isn't practical for an MSHA inspector to be at each one on a daily basis but they are almost always somewhere on our property every day. It's also illegal for any of the miners working on the surface to notify the underground workers that MSHA has arrived, so it's not like they can just completely change everything and start acting differently when the inspectors are coming. MSHA is also known to do "blitzes" where they will send a multitude of inspectors (possibly as many as ten) to a mine at a random time (maybe a random 3rd shift) to do a complete and thorough inspection.
MSHA is a massive influence on the coal mining industry, to the point where much of the work I do (and much of the work that many of my co-workers do) is plans specifically sent to them for their approval. You would not believe how many different aspects of an underground coal mine require some type of plan.
Many people who aren't involved with the industry gasp when they see statistics about how many violations are written and that type of thing, but when you spend some time working around mines you start to understand just how detailed and stringent the regulations are.
williamsan
Member
Yeah, a friend of mine started working at a surface mine late last year. He's doing really well for himself now.
José Mourinho
cocknose
I hate my job.
Well, when you're so damn reasonable, there's not a whole lot to discuss!
But really... as a layperson - while I admit our reliance on coal... I just can't see a place for coal in a healthy sustainable future. I mean, has the invigorated efforts of the coal industry to reduce harm resulted in metrics that are similar to or better than any alternative (nuclear or sustainable) power solution?
How does the coal industry account for the numerous externalities that it has the reputation for producing? And how effective has it been at reducing these externalities? Is the pressure purely external? Or is there a great deal of internal pressure as well?
Does coal have a wind down plan, or plans to diversity into alternative energy sources? Or is the industries reliance on coal as revenue such that it will always motivate them to fight for its continued use even in the face of obsolesence?
The_Darkest_Red
Member
It's true that we will eventually have to transition away from coal entirely given the fact that it is a non-renewable resource. There isn't much arguing to be done over that point.
I don't think the question should be, "is this better than the alternative"? That question assumes that we have the option to ask that question without considering any of the consequences that might come with answering it with "no, so let's just stop mining it". My point is that we are in a position where we need all of the energy we can possibly get, and we need it from many different sources. There is just no way our country could completely drop coal from its energy portfolio overnight, so instead we need to focus on mining it as safely and cleanly as possible in the future, while also being aware of how to handle that transitional period when it arrives.
As far as the externality issue goes I believe we are making great progress towards reducing them. The school where I graduated from is very involved in coal research, and there are constant refinements and advancements being made in the areas of coal processing, coal burning, and health and safety issues. I'm sure most of the influence for these adaptations has been external, especially in regards to environmental related advancements, but isn't that how things usually work? Either way I can certainly attest to the existence of internal pressure towards reducing those externalities at the company I work for, but obviously I can't speak personally for the entire industry.
As for your last question regarding a wind down plan, I think that is a question for folks who are well above my pay-grade.
It's true that we will eventually have to transition away from coal entirely given the fact that it is a non-renewable resource. There isn't much arguing to be done over that point.
I don't think the question should be, "is this better than the alternative"? That question assumes that we have the option to ask that question without considering any of the consequences that might come with answering it with "no, so let's just stop mining it". My point is that we are in a position where we need all of the energy we can possibly get, and we need it from many different sources. There is just no way our country could completely drop coal from its energy portfolio overnight, so instead we need to focus on mining it as safely and cleanly as possible in the future, while also being aware of how to handle that transitional period when it arrives.
As far as the externality issue goes I believe we are making great progress towards reducing them. The school where I graduated from is very involved in coal research, and there are constant refinements and advancements being made in the areas of coal processing, coal burning, and health and safety issues. I'm sure most of the influence for these adaptations has been external, especially in regards to environmental related advancements, but isn't that how things usually work? Either way I can certainly attest to the existence of internal pressure towards reducing those externalities at the company I work for, but obviously I can't speak personally for the entire industry.
As for your last question regarding a wind down plan, I think that is a question for folks who are well above my pay-grade.
Haha. Thanks for the clear answers. Makes me feel a little better about our future at least. Maybe, possibly we can avoid a major decline in human history from which we would be unable to recover...
Still very much think that we're still in for a hell of a shit ride in the next 50 years though.
Darth Pinche
Member
My first thought as well.
The_Darkest_Red
Member
It's okay, even if coal doesn't do it I'm sure we'll find some other way to completely ruin our world that has nothing to do with energy. Stay positive!
Harry Dresden
Member
I grew up in Southern WV. 90% of the men on my father's side of the family have worked in the Coal Mines at one point in their life.
My dad worked in the mines all through my childhood as a 'general labor' which meant he did pretty much anything and everything.
He was a school teacher until my sister was born, then he went into the mines because they pay was better. After I was born my (my sister is 2-years older) my mother went back to work and my dad got laid off at the mines (this was the late 80s) and he went back to teaching where he still is today.
TL
R - In the USA coal mining is a good industry to work in, especially if you are in good with the unions and have some family connections with the companies in your area.
My dad worked in the mines all through my childhood as a 'general labor' which meant he did pretty much anything and everything.
He was a school teacher until my sister was born, then he went into the mines because they pay was better. After I was born my (my sister is 2-years older) my mother went back to work and my dad got laid off at the mines (this was the late 80s) and he went back to teaching where he still is today.
TL
R - In the USA coal mining is a good industry to work in, especially if you are in good with the unions and have some family connections with the companies in your area.
PdotMichael
Banned
too bad your Uran is not that cleaner or healthier for the miners or the environment
... a misinformed meme that needs to be corrected at every turn.
New nuclear power is essentially melt-down proof, uses recycled uranium (in the form of thorium), and apart from the disasters (which are a non-issue given that the new nuclear is meltdown proof), provide the safest energy of any energy source available - even after accounting for all chains of production (mining, construction, operation, maintenance).
one big issue with constructing any alternative energy plants in the local population.
nuclear may be safe, but people are uneasy about having a nuclear plant in their backyard. someone mentioned "hippies", but these folks are very wealthy non-hippy types most of the time. they can influence local governments.
people do not want wind farms where they live, because they are "ugly" and "noisy". yes this actually happened in ny.
you have to first educate the population about the benefits, try to sway their pre-conceived notions. make them understand whats sustainable and whats not, and why does it matter.
not to mention solar/wind farms actually are very hard to justify from an economic viewpoint, as you do not actually make the money back in a justiafiable period of time. the plants are extremely expensive to build, and may take hundreds or thousands of years of service for payback. these are hard to justify to businessmen and politicians who make the actual decisions on new projects.
nuclear may be safe, but people are uneasy about having a nuclear plant in their backyard. someone mentioned "hippies", but these folks are very wealthy non-hippy types most of the time. they can influence local governments.
people do not want wind farms where they live, because they are "ugly" and "noisy". yes this actually happened in ny.
you have to first educate the population about the benefits, try to sway their pre-conceived notions. make them understand whats sustainable and whats not, and why does it matter.
not to mention solar/wind farms actually are very hard to justify from an economic viewpoint, as you do not actually make the money back in a justiafiable period of time. the plants are extremely expensive to build, and may take hundreds or thousands of years of service for payback. these are hard to justify to businessmen and politicians who make the actual decisions on new projects.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Your information is about 60 years old. There have been many advances in uranium mining techniques and uranium recovery techniques. Modern reactors are also more efficient.
Besides, even if we only had enough uranium for 50 more years, that's more than enough time for us to have advanced solar/wind/algae/fusion power to a commercially viable level.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/sci...uclear-small-modular-reactors?click=pm_latest
Not just hippies, idiots too. I mean just look at how Germany has moved away from Nuclear, you can't blame that only on hippies.
Wasn't there some new reactor being built that is basically fail proof, more efficient, less waste produced, ect?
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
I don't think it'll be that bad. So far, we've been on a positive trend line for peace and prosperity. With the pace of technology progression as fast as it is, I foresee a relatively bright future for the world.
This guy's TED talks have a lot of insight into the stats of how the world has improved over the years.
http://www.ted.com/speakers/hans_rosling.html
This one's pretty good: http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_at_state.html
I think in general, it's better if we operate in a manner that assumes the worst and hopes for the best.
Assume that we're going to have a terrible decline; hope that we'll be able to reach the other side of the tech singularity nonetheless.
This (at least on basic assessment) should motivate us to transition towards a sustainable future ASAP in order to not just avoid the terrible weathering but to get to that 'utopian promise'.
Worst case scenario is assuming that we'll make it there somehow, becoming complacent and of course falling short.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Well, it's always nice to hope for the best, but do we really need to assume the worst, especially if the data does not support it? Show me hard data that the world is going to hell in a handbasket and I'll be gladly become more pessimistic about our future.
Does that not amount to basically scare tactics? Scare the population into action with portents of doom that are actually not representative of many contemporary trend lines over time of human welfare improvement?
Acknowledging that the world is getting better does not necessarily lead to a complacent population. People understand that creating a better world takes work.
Additional stats on the world getting better:
World Violence Decline
http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html
Environment stats:
http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/aqtrends.html#airquality
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Air_pollution_statistics
As the trends of human welfare and prosperity of the developing worlds come closer to that of the first world nations, I see no reason why their environmental trends should not follow suit accordingly. Especially once we've already done all the hard work of inventing and perfecting green technology.
- Status