• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

EPA rule- Mining companies should have sufficient funds for cleanup/closure

EPA rule- Mining companies should have sufficient funds for cleanup/closure

  • Total voters
    43
JANFU

JANFU

Land by the Gulf Stream
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
59,355
Reaction score
38,895
Location
Best Coast Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
EPA seeks to ensure mining companies can pay cleanup costs | TheHill

Under the regulation, companies mining noncoal minerals like gold, silver, copper or lead would have to demonstrate to the EPA that they can afford cleanup costs once the mine is closed, through mechanisms like bonds, insurance or self-insurance.

The amount of money a company would be responsible for would be determined by an EPA formula.

“Far too often the American people bear the costs of expensive environmental cleanups stemming from hard-rock mining and mineral processing,” Mathy Stanislaus, the EPA’s assistant administrator for land programs, said in a Friday statement.

“This proposed rule, once finalized, would move the financial burden from taxpayers, and ensure that industry assumes responsibility for these cleanups,” he said.
Click to expand...

Mining companies should have sufficient funds for cleanup/closure
Yes
No
Other
 
joG said:
It has to be priced into the product and paid for by the consumer.
Click to expand...

Everything is. Some people don't understand that every tax on business ends up on a price tage.
 
It seems reasonable to me as long as it's done well... Like don't require the mining company to have the raw cash beforehand. It would have to built into their budget/future pricing.

It also depends on what "clean-up" really means... just filling up the hole? restoring the landscape?
In my opinion they simply just need to "clean-up" enough to the point where the mine doesn't affect the surrounding property, Through toxic runoff and such... and if they do, they are held liable as a company.

The big issue is liability and accountability when something does go wrong. If the company does more damage than it is worth, I think the shareholders/owners should have some liability/obligations themselves.
 
If the operators of the Gold King Mine had properly cleaned up and closed off the mine, the disaster which the EPA personnel caused never would have happened. The EPA gets blamed for the disaster, but they were only there because the owners of the mine failed on their part to properly secure it. Actually two companies were confronting each other over who was responsible, and so nothing was done. The EPA was forced to intercede due to the dispute and accidentally let loose the breach of toxic water the companies had created.

The public response? It's all the EPA's fault....hang the bastards.
 
Last edited:
celticwar17 said:
The big issue is liability and accountability when something does go wrong. If the company does more damage than it is worth, I think the shareholders/owners should have some liability/obligations themselves.
Click to expand...
They should have unlimited liability. If that entails stockholders and such receiving nothing for the sales of corp assets to address the cleanup, then they lost their money
 
jamesrage said:
Companies by law should be required to clean up their mess.
Click to expand...

Problem is they do not set aside funds for that, and in the event of bankruptcy, they walk and the taxpayer is on the hook.
 
JANFU said:
Problem is they do not set aside funds for that, and in the event of bankruptcy, they walk and the taxpayer is on the hook.
Click to expand...

That's exactly right. They abandon the mine in bad shape, and leave it to the EPA and the tax payer to deal with. Then when something goes wrong they blame the EPA.
 
I think regulations naturally should be in place to make sure mining is done efficient and safe. I say all mining not just coal. We should do the best we can accomplish without depriving ourselves of the resources we need to maintain our quality of life.

I think a coal mine located near a power plant are more efficient by logistics. I think the coal mines, the power plant, and every one down to the end user of electricity is responsible for efficiency and the environment. I think taxes should be levied on everyone involved in the process and used to return the environment back to as good as possible.

Unfortunately the taxes levied on these industries is used to line the pockets of government workers and elected officials. I think we should have a separate tax to line their pockets so the American people can see exactly how much they are costing us.
 
JANFU said:
Problem is they do not set aside funds for that, and in the event of bankruptcy, they walk and the taxpayer is on the hook.
Click to expand...

Almost all states require mining companies to have bonds or be bonded to get a mining permit
Per mine. If the company fails to cleanup the mine then the resulting agency hits the bond.

The company is then responsible for paying the bond back.
APMA Permitting
 
The land cleanup is the short sighted perspective on coal. I've seen strip mine areas around DuBois, Pa. that have been turned into resort lake areas and are not only attractive, but a solid recreational investment for the community. A true better than in the beginning restoration and lots of different profession/trades have profitted handsomely from the project. It's a good model for strip mine restoration. As terrific as it is, it is only a short term perspective on coal because it is relative to what the human eye sees now, in real time. The mitigation of the carbon dioxide moved into the atmosphere by burning coal is the problem. Global Warming is not a right now human eye view because its' time frame is hundreds of years. One moves the coal to a power plant that becomes a monopoly distribution octopus collecting huge sums of money back to one source to profit Corporate investors that have no liability because of the key word "corporate" and draining the money from LOCAL communities. This system worked good until reality came knocking. CO2 and Global Warming are a true threat to all communities. The solution is renewable energies that are built LOCALLY, operate LOCALLY, maintain money flow within the LOCAL community, and are relatively non-polluting. All that LOCAL means LOCAL jobs and businesses. The Energy MONIES stay in the LOCAL community and generate infrastructure. Why would governments instigate roadblocks to prevent Renewable Energies? How about because the politicians are rented by the Corporations that are negatively impacted by renweable energy. That would be mainstream USA Energy Corporations. Big political power. It's always about money and power. Big Energy wants Solar fields of huge acreage and huge windmills to maintain Centralized Collection of Monies. The KEYWORD is LOCAL. Tell your Congressperson.
 
EPA rule- Mining companies should have sufficient funds for cleanup/closure
Click to expand...

definitely. it helps to prevent situations in which a company ruins land for generations and then taxpayers are stuck with the cleanup bill after that company tanks.
 
JANFU said:
Problem is they do not set aside funds for that, and in the event of bankruptcy, they walk and the taxpayer is on the hook.
Click to expand...

Which is why a law requiring that they have the funds set aside and can't touch is a great idea.
 
Fledermaus said:
No... It is common sense and taking responsibility for one's mess.
Click to expand...

Oh so all of a sudden government regulations can be a good thing?

Congratulations and welcome to common-sense liberalism!
 
This is too big to be done by Presidential command, it must be done through Congressional bill turned into law.
 
Fledermaus said:
Umm

No.

Personal responsibility. Something that SHOULD NOT REQUIRE Government regulation. Nice try though.
Click to expand...

Oh you think corporations are going to voluntarily clean up their own messes?! As they used to say, "cool story bro."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom