Rock of Reliance-A Story About Coal, and the Heart of Montana - Part 2

Signal Peak, Between a Rock and a Hard Place

 

March 15, 2023

Can you tell which one of these landscapes has been mined? Answer in Part 3

In Part one, diving into accusations against Signal Peak Mine, we started giving the other side of the story. Continuing on;

Further accusations against the local mine are as follows; "Under its original permit, Signal Peak committed to monitoring water levels in the region. But it succeeded in getting that provision removed, one of almost 300 revisions to the permit that environment groups say have been made without public input." Response from Holland & Hart; "DEQ approved the mine's current water monitoring and spring impact detection and mitigation protocols in 2013. The updated water monitoring and impact detection protocols replaced and superseded outdated permit provisions. MEIC challenged DEQ's use of and reliance on the updated water monitoring and spring impact detection and mitigation protocols in administrative litigation before the Montana Board of Environmental Review. On June 19, 2022, the Board rejected MEIC's factual and legal claims it their entirety, including claims challenging the mine's water monitoring and spring impact assessment protocols." Again, the MEIC is creating claims found by law to be without merit. Signal Peak has been fully in compliance with the regulations determined by DEQ.

"Earlier this year, the Interior Department, urged by local environmental groups to investigate, said it believed the mine was violating ownership disclosure rules, and had failed to update its mining permit." Response from Holland & Hart; "On July 6, 2022, MEIC petitioned the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation & Enforcement (at the Department of the Interior), Montana DEQ, and the U.S. Attorney's Office to inspect the mine. MEIC further requested an order that Signal Peak cease operations. On September 2, 2022, DEQ determined that the allegations contained in the petition – apart from an administrative housekeeping issue – were without merit. Signal Peak immediately provided DEQ with information responsive to this housekeeping issue. On October 13, 2022, DEQ notified Signal Peak that it had "satisfactorily addressed DEQ's concerns." When issues come up, it seems that SPE is diligent to correct error. This is never brought to light by their accusers.

When asked, "Could you please detail SPE's current hydrologic monitoring efforts in the area?" Holland & Hart response; "DEQ approved the mine's current water monitoring and spring impact detection and mitigation protocols in 2013. The protocols set the qualitative and quantitative hydrologic monitoring and reporting requirements. The protocols are also designed to detect impacts to subsided water resources, and monitoring data (together with detected impacts) are communicated to DEQ in detailed annual hydrologic reports. By way of example, Signal Peak detected a diminution of flow at Bull Spring in 2016 potentially attributable to undermining and associated subsidence. Signal Peak notified DEQ and employed DEQ-approved mitigation measures until Bull Spring flow returned to pre-mining levels in 2019. In its June 6, 2022 decision, the Montana Board found Signal Peak in compliance with its water monitoring and spring impact assessment protocols." Signal Peak Energy is operating with integrity in the bounds of the law, in spite of overwhelming opposition. They continue to follow the regulations set forth by the DEQ.

In Hiroko's article, she states, "Earlier this year, a coalition of environmental groups alleged that SPE has failed to abate unlawful disposal of toxic waste; is violating regulations regarding lawful discharge of polluted water; is violating permit requirements for evaluating impacts to the hydrologic balance; and is violating the requirement to disclose the identity of mine owners-in particular SPE has not disclosed who owns the Gunvor Group, Ltd." Holland & Hart response; "On July 6, 2022, MEIC petitioned the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation & Enforcement (at the Department of the Interior), Montana DEQ, and the U.S. Attorney's Office to inspect the mine. Therein, MEIC alleged, among other things, the unpermitted disposal of wastewater. MEIC further requested an order that Signal Peak cease operations. On September 2, 2022, DEQ determined that the allegations contained in the petition – apart from an administrative housekeeping issue – were without merit. With respect to ownership and control, Signal Peak has provided ownership and control information requested by DEQ and required by law. Signal Peak understands that Gunvor has provided additional information regarding the nature of its ownership." Again, Signal Peak is following the environmental guidelines and the law including the wastewater. I have to wonder if city sewage systems face such scrutiny.

"What is the status of SPE's mine expansion plans?" Holland & Hart response; "State and Federal regulators approved an expansion of the mine in 2013. Future expansions, if any, will be subject to review by State and Federal regulators as provided by law." By the response, it is safe to conclude that the mine does not make any expansion without State and Federal approval.

Lastly, another accusation that Signal Peak Energy was accused of "failing to report worker injuries, and illegally dumping toxic slurry." The mine was fined one million dollars. The response from Holland & Hart; "When the unlawful actions of Signal Peak personnel were brought to the attention of the company's owners, Signal Peak took swift and comprehensive remedial measures to terminate all employees involved in this misconduct, install a new executive leadership, and revise internal policies and procedures to ensure that similar wrongdoing will not reoccur. Signal Peak ultimately settled charges relating to this misconduct by pleading guilty to misdemeanor violations and by paying a fine of $1,000,000. The referenced Assistant U.S. Attorney lauded Signal Peak's cooperation with the investigation at the sentencing hearing:

. . . when this case first blew up with Mr. Price's colorful activities, it caused [. . .]

some pretty big heartburn at Signal Peak and they, to their credit, did the right thing.

They cleared out pretty much all of management. The people that are there now are not

the people that were there. * * * . . .

Without [Signal Peak's] assistance we probably would not have known as much about

what happened at Signal Peak Energy as we do. And so we needed to acknowledge that there was a goodfaith effort on their part to clean house, and they delivered on that point.

Ex. 11 at 7-9. Mr. Rubich went on to explain that the U.S. Attorney's Office had agreed to this misdemeanor for two reasons: "the cooperation and [Signal Peak's] willingness to change both management and the structure of Signal Peak in terms of making sure that what happened there does not happen again." Id.

Your characterization of the 2013 and 2015 slurry disposals is not accurate. Monitoring activities confirm that there was no potential impact to surface water and no other environmental hazards resulting from these disposals. Furthermore, this manner of slurry disposal does not constitute "illegal dumping" and is routinely permitted by the Mine Safety and Health Administration and the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). According to the December 7, 2021 Order of Abatement from the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, "[s]uch disposal could be accomplished within the law, provided the operator first received an approved minor revision from Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and a permit from the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)." Signal Peak has fully complied with this Order of Abatement, resulting in the DEQ terminating and vacating its prior notice of noncompliance." Again, the issues were delt with concerning the unlawful actions of Signal Peak employees, who's employments were terminated. Signal Peak has continued to operate the mine within the law, and fix any errors that they become aware of.

The media pushed trend is environmental self-righteousness. They are selling it, and people are buying it. At the end of the day, these "priests of power" climate alarmists must plug their own devices in for a recharge, ultimately using power that comes from coal. Activist groups find any opportunity to villainize oil and coal, with the intent of creating a stir so that more legislation is created to further restrict, if not shut down, the whole process. They clog the court system with complaints and litigation with an unstoppable pipeline of funding. With the aid of the mainstream media, the process gains public traction. Rinse, repeat. The funding for environmental causes seems to have no bottom.

Why are environmental action groups so bolstered to "throw anything at the wall and see what sticks"? Are local people being used by activist groups? Is there a "pay-off" for the green movement, and those who file legal complaints? If the goal of the activists to shut down coal mining succeeds, what would that look like? Why can't a legal business go about its business without continual resistance?

In part three of A Rock of Reliance, the focus of the coal mining impact within the community and state will be further laid out. How much will Montana be fiscally affected if activists succeed in the shutdown of coal mining? It may be greater than you can imagine. This conflict is more about money and power, than about electrical power. Though the money and power of who is the bigger question. Stay tuned for part three.

 

Reader Comments(0)

 
 

Powered by ROAR Online Publication Software from Lions Light Corporation
© Copyright 2024

Rendered 03/14/2024 06:47