• 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
Russell797 said:
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.
Click to expand...

It WAS the EPAs fault. They engaged in bad engineering decisions and continued to dig in an unstable area without minimizing the risk of a landslide undoing all the drainage work.

https://www.usbr.gov/docs/goldkingminereport.pdf
 
ludin said:
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
Click to expand...

Keyword Almost - Not all- So once again you are in error
 
jamesrage said:
Which is why a law requiring that they have the funds set aside and can't touch is a great idea.
Click to expand...

James- Seems pretty simple to me. But other just do not get that
 
JANFU said:
Companies have left the taxpayers footing the bill. So you are in error.
Do you agree with that?
Click to expand...

I just showed you companies are required to buy bonds to cover mining.
Why did you ignore the link?

If a company goes out of business who is going to pay for it?
 
JANFU said:
Keyword Almost - Not all- So once again you are in error
Click to expand...

Nope but you are free to ignore all think links you want.
 
Fledermaus said:
Umm

No.

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

Corporation have no "personal responsibility" and certainly none for the environment. Their responsibility is to the stock holders and the stock holder only.
 
ludin said:
I just showed you companies are required to buy bonds to cover mining.
Why did you ignore the link?

If a company goes out of business who is going to pay for it?
Click to expand...

And other companies left the taxpayer footing the bill. Is there a problem understanding this?
 
ludin said:
Nope but you are free to ignore all think links you want.
Click to expand...

Your words- ALMOST-Not all- But many- What is the issue understanding that companies have left the taxpayer paying the costs.
Or do you deny that companies have never left the taxpayer to foot the costs???
 
OpportunityCost said:
It WAS the EPAs fault. They engaged in bad engineering decisions and continued to dig in an unstable area without minimizing the risk of a landslide undoing all the drainage work.

https://www.usbr.gov/docs/goldkingminereport.pdf
Click to expand...

Yes, they screwed up. That's what people do sometime. The point is they should not have had to be there in the first place had the irresponsible corporations taken care of THEIR responsibility.
 
Fledermaus said:
Some have, others haven't.

And?
Click to expand...

It's their responsibility. If corporations must be forced to do it then they should be. We can not allow "others haven't". That goes for all forms of pollution. It has to be part of the cost of doing business. No using the waterways and the atmosphere as a free garbage dump. It's been going on to long and has to be stopped....we need more regulation not less. A lot more.
 
JANFU said:
EPA seeks to ensure mining companies can pay cleanup costs | TheHill



Mining companies should have sufficient funds for cleanup/closure
Yes
No
Other
Click to expand...

To require mining companies to have such funds before they can begin mining is as oppressive as requiring any start up business to have sufficient funds to deal with any problem that could possibly occur from whatever product or service is involved. The state can negotiate whatever deal it wants to make with mining companies who want to mine on state lands. Private owners should negotiate whatever deal they want to make with mining companies on their property.

I remember one incident in West Virginia--I was there and met a land owner. A mining company had negotiated with him to mine a huge chunk out of the side of a hill. This provided a handsome sum to the land owner. When the project was done, there was a very large flat area at the base of the mountain and the farmer was thrilled. It provided space for him to put up a new barn and cattle pens. Flat bottom land is in very short supply in West Virginia. But. . .the EPA rule was that the mining company had to restore the mountain to its pre-mined condition as much as possible. Petitions from the farmer and miner fell on deaf ears so the mining company had to put all that dirt back and the farmer's improved property went away. The farmer could truck out all that dirt which he couldn't afford to do. And the mining company wasn't allowed to do it for him.

And that is why blanket rules for everybody can be so oppressive and counter productive.
 
JANFU said:
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
Click to expand...

That would not be unlimited liability. The whole nature of a corporation is that liability is limited to the equity of the Company.
 
Phys251 said:
But isn't this liberal big government socialism?
Click to expand...
No. Big government socialism would be the government paying for it collectively with everybody's money. Cleaning up one's own mess is personal responsibility, the antithesis of socialism.
 
AlbqOwl said:
To require mining companies to have such funds before they can begin mining is as oppressive as requiring any start up business to have sufficient funds to deal with any problem that could possibly occur from whatever product or service is involved. The state can negotiate whatever deal it wants to make with mining companies who want to mine on state lands. Private owners should negotiate whatever deal they want to make with mining companies on their property.

I remember one incident in West Virginia--I was there and met a land owner. A mining company had negotiated with him to mine a huge chunk out of the side of a hill. This provided a handsome sum to the land owner. When the project was done, there was a very large flat area at the base of the mountain and the farmer was thrilled. It provided space for him to put up a new barn and cattle pens. Flat bottom land is in very short supply in West Virginia. But. . .the EPA rule was that the mining company had to restore the mountain to its pre-mined condition as much as possible. Petitions from the farmer and miner fell on deaf ears so the mining company had to put all that dirt back and the farmer's improved property went away. The farmer could truck out all that dirt which he couldn't afford to do. And the mining company wasn't allowed to do it for him.

And that is why blanket rules for everybody can be so oppressive and counter productive.
Click to expand...

It is not oppressive and has plenty of precedent. You can not be a bank or an insurance company unless you meet certain capital requirements.
 
AlbqOwl said:
To require mining companies to have such funds before they can begin mining is as oppressive as requiring any start up business to have sufficient funds to deal with any problem that could possibly occur from whatever product or service is involved. The state can negotiate whatever deal it wants to make with mining companies who want to mine on state lands. Private owners should negotiate whatever deal they want to make with mining companies on their property.

I remember one incident in West Virginia--I was there and met a land owner. A mining company had negotiated with him to mine a huge chunk out of the side of a hill. This provided a handsome sum to the land owner. When the project was done, there was a very large flat area at the base of the mountain and the farmer was thrilled. It provided space for him to put up a new barn and cattle pens. Flat bottom land is in very short supply in West Virginia. But. . .the EPA rule was that the mining company had to restore the mountain to its pre-mined condition as much as possible. Petitions from the farmer and miner fell on deaf ears so the mining company had to put all that dirt back and the farmer's improved property went away. The farmer could truck out all that dirt which he couldn't afford to do. And the mining company wasn't allowed to do it for him.

And that is why blanket rules for everybody can be so oppressive and counter productive.
Click to expand...

How many of those occur and how many cleanups cost the taxpayer millions or 10's of millions.
Insurance can also be purchased. If they cannot cleanup, they cannot afford to mine. Unless you are in favor of taxpayer paying?
 
upsideguy said:
That would not be unlimited liability. The whole nature of a corporation is that liability is limited to the equity of the Company.
Click to expand...

Nope- Unlimited- think of oil spills. All assets on the block. Why should the taxpayer take the risks??
 
AlbqOwl said:
To require mining companies to have such funds before they can begin mining is as oppressive as requiring any start up business to have sufficient funds to deal with any problem that could possibly occur from whatever product or service is involved. The state can negotiate whatever deal it wants to make with mining companies who want to mine on state lands. Private owners should negotiate whatever deal they want to make with mining companies on their property.

I remember one incident in West Virginia--I was there and met a land owner. A mining company had negotiated with him to mine a huge chunk out of the side of a hill. This provided a handsome sum to the land owner. When the project was done, there was a very large flat area at the base of the mountain and the farmer was thrilled. It provided space for him to put up a new barn and cattle pens. Flat bottom land is in very short supply in West Virginia. But. . .the EPA rule was that the mining company had to restore the mountain to its pre-mined condition as much as possible. Petitions from the farmer and miner fell on deaf ears so the mining company had to put all that dirt back and the farmer's improved property went away. The farmer could truck out all that dirt which he couldn't afford to do. And the mining company wasn't allowed to do it for him.

And that is why blanket rules for everybody can be so oppressive and counter productive.
Click to expand...
In theory I'm with you. If a benefit can be found between two parties, and it doesn't negatively affect others, I say go for it. Problem is, laws are reactive, not proactive. We get oppressive blanket laws BECAUSE of the relative few who act irresponsibly and leave toxic waste without a care in the world.

What would be a good happy-medium?
 
radcen said:
No. Big government socialism would be the government paying for it collectively with everybody's money. Cleaning up one's own mess is personal responsibility, the antithesis of socialism.
Click to expand...

Corporations have no personal responsibility. Their only responsibility is to the stock holders. They must be forced to do what is right for society at large. They clearly do not want to. We wouldn't even be having a dispute over global warming if that were not the case. The corporations are paying to make the problem "go away".
 
Russell797 said:
Corporations have no personal responsibility. Their only responsibility is to the stock holders. They must be forced to do what is right for society at large. They clearly do not want to. We wouldn't even be having a dispute over global warming if that were not the case. The corporations are paying to make the problem "go away".
Click to expand...
FWIW, in this scenario I have no issue with requiring something from corporations, i.e. insurance, bond, whatever.
 
reinoe said:
A good idea in theory. The problem, I trust neither the Democrats or the Republicans to have a rational definition of "clean-up".
Click to expand...
Can't disagree. I do think it a good idea, but rarely does a good government idea stop there. There are fiefdoms to be ruled, ya know.
 
radcen said:
No. Big government socialism would be the government paying for it collectively with everybody's money. Cleaning up one's own mess is personal responsibility, the antithesis of socialism.
Click to expand...

No that's called corporatism. In practice that's what we have now. And I expect corporatism to grow under Trump.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom