| Submit your comments on this article |
| Economy |
| Coal company cuts 500 jobs, blames environmentalists |
| 2009-12-10 |
| Chalk up another 500 jobs to the list of jobs President Obama will need to create or save. A Pittsburgh-based coal company, CONSOL Energy, will lay off nearly 500 of its West Virginia workers next year and its CEO blames environmentalists dead-set against mountaintop mining who have waged "nuisance" lawsuits for the job loss. But CONSOL Energy's political problems are not unique to the mining industry, which has suffered under the Obama Administration. The Environmental Protection Agency is already holding 79 surface mining permits in West Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee. The EPA says these permits could violate the Clean Water Act and warrant "enhanced" review. And, agency went even further in October, announcing plans to revoke a permit for the Spruce No. 1 Mine in West Virginia. The latest setback for the coal industry was announced on Tuesday when CONSOL Energy said close to 500 workers would lose jobs at their Fola Operations location near Bickmore, West Virginia in February 2010. CEO Nicholas J. DeIuliis said the poor economy compounded by legal challenges by environmental activists forced CONSOL to slash jobs. "It is challenging enough to operate our coal and gas assets in the current economic downturn without having to contend with a constant stream of activism in rehashing and reinterpreting permit applications that have already been approved or in the inequitable oversight of our operations," he said in a statement. "Customers will grow reluctant to deal with energy producers they perceive are unable to guarantee a reliable supply due to regulatory uncertainty. It inhibits the ability to remain competitive." The Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, the Sierra Club, the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy and the Coal River Mountain Watch were the various groups active on the legal challenge CONSOL Energy refers to. OVEC's Executive Director Janet Keating told the Washington Times she believes CONSOL Energy is using the lawsuit as an excuse to layoff workers, although she says "we don't hide the fact we don't like mountaintop mining." "The price of coal has dropped in half and I think we are a convenient target, a convenient scapegoat," she said. "This ruling does not even go into effect for 60 more days so doesn't that tell you something?" Ms. Keating added. "Suddenly, all the sudden they are issuing these layoff notices as if the world is ending." District Judge Robert C. Chambers handed down the ruling in question on Nov. 24. He said the Army Corps of Engineers violated the law by not giving the public enough information during the public comment period for permits issued by the government, although he wrote the error "did not stem from any wrong-doing on the part of the mining companies." |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #22 Polymers and pharmaceuticals. Sounds like Delaware, New Jersey and Philadelphia. Not far from Anthraciteland. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2009-12-10 17:45 |
| #21 Coal mines in Wyoming are so much cheaper to operate that we have almost continuous coal trains running back to the midwest to fuel generating plants (& maybe gassification plants too, I don't know.) You don't have to be close to the mine with your value-adding industry as long as the total cost to mine and transport is low enough. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2009-12-10 17:00 |
| #20 Are those industries located near coal mines? If not, why not Deacon? (honest question, not snark) |
| Posted by: lotp 2009-12-10 16:45 |
| #19 rjschwarz, there are no other industries to take the place of coal. I don't believe it's a dead-end industry, either. How will polymers be made without coal? Coal gassification is the #2 source for raw materials for polymers and certain pharmaceuticals. Oil is #1. If coal goes away what will replace it? |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2009-12-10 15:30 |
| #18 This is just another blip in the Trans-Appalachian depopulation, oops, Obama administration. Consider what is happening to the eastern, non-agricultural half of the midwest - an area from Central Michigan, through Detroit and Ohio, across Western Pa. down through KY.. It's one thing to claim that industry evolves, jobs are lost and added by the "creative destruction and chaos of capitalism". This is a whole other category - the conscious and intentional de-industrialization of an area the size of most large nations. It might work, but it's also the policy we explicitly rejected in post-war Germany. I guess we at least won't be exporting the coal to China. |
| Posted by: Halliburton - Mysterious Conspiracy Division 2009-12-10 15:27 |
| #17 Besoeker, certain industries fade and new ones grow to take their place. I believe the coal producing states should be moving away from an industry that is clearly a dead end. I also believe there are ways to transition to other jobs that don't require shutting down everything at once which is what will eventually happen to the coal industry the way things are going now. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2009-12-10 15:09 |
| #16 What's everyone bitching about? Bambi the candidate clearly stated he intended to bankrupt the coal industry. It's about the only promise he shows any evidence of trying to keep. >:-( |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2009-12-10 14:08 |
| #15 lotp, that's why chemical plants are located close to coal fields. Abundant water and plenty of raw materials. Most people have no idea how many things are made from coal. It's not just for burning. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2009-12-10 13:50 |
| #14 I have chosen decline. That means you STFU. |
| Posted by: B. Hussein Obama 2009-12-10 13:32 |
| #13 Y'know, we're not building new nuclear plants for much the same reasons (or should I say the same people) that we're shutting down coal operations. I thought I read earlier that one of the recent coal projects being shut down was a gasification plant. In short, the sort of heavy industry abu was talking about. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2009-12-10 13:14 |
| #12 Coal is raw material for petrochemical industry, lotp. Yes, but it is bulky and expensive to transport far and the other requirements for petrochemical processing are scarcely at hand in W VA. |
| Posted by: lotp 2009-12-10 12:42 |
| #11 Under stimulus program accounting rules, do those count as jobs "saved"? |
| Posted by: Mike 2009-12-10 10:59 |
| #10 Not everyone can join the Air Force or run out and get a gummit job rjschwarz. Not everyone who works in the coal industry comes down with a chronic illness by the way, but most do eventually pay taxes, raise kids, and die. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-12-10 10:18 |
| #9 Yes people would be out of jobs but some would have jobs. Jobs without the black lung. The other thing is you don't have to delete one before starting up the others. If kids in Highschool start to realize that the coal jobs are gone (or going away) perhaps they'll be better motivated to stick it out. Or join the Air Force as a friend of mine did to escape the mines. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2009-12-10 10:07 |
| #8 I really believe that these enviros should be refused all products made from whatever they are trying to ban. Don't like coal? Cut off power and let them install solar cells. Don't need all those brightly dyed clothes either. Beside they prefer ugly hemp. At a minimum, cut off the percentage of power that is fueled by coal. In Al Gore's case, he would be entitled to 40% of the average electricity use of a family, not the 20X he currently enjoys. |
| Posted by: ed 2009-12-10 09:32 |
| #7 Mining domestic coal is not halal. Making the United States totally dependent upon Arab produced crude oil is Barry's goal. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-12-10 08:25 |
| #6 My nephew lost his job in July as an engineer for building/modifying coal-fired generating stations. Good thing Obama's saved or created so many jobs for these coal and coal-related workers. Oh, wait...., he hasn't (and can't - but he could at least get out of the way and let others create them.) |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2009-12-10 07:56 |
| #5 Coal is raw material for petrochemical industry, lotp. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2009-12-10 07:45 |
| #4 Maybe. An industrial base would have required easy access to raw materials or transportation and a skilled workforce or a targeted jobs training program that pays sufficiently well to allow miners to leave their jobs to join. And when you have all that the industry must be profitable after the cost of materials, labor and shipping. Those factors aren't abundant in W VA. Transportation in particular is a problem. That's why Byrd was able to get a document processing center for the Feds set up there but not heavy industry. |
| Posted by: lotp 2009-12-10 07:43 |
| #3 For a small fraction of the boodle that Robert Byrd named after himself, a replacement industrial base could have been built. |
| Posted by: abu do you love 2009-12-10 02:41 |
| #2 Perhaps, but I suspect that would leave a lot of former miners looking for jobs somewhere else. Not as many jobs and a good many of the new jobs would require a college degree except perhaps the security guards. |
| Posted by: tipover 2009-12-10 01:37 |
| #1 Coal mining is dangerous and coal is dirty stuff. It would be better if West Virginia built a few nuclear plants to sell electricity to some of their neighbors and got out of the coal business all together. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2009-12-10 00:52 |