Laserfiche WebLink
showing bore hole methane being transported to "heater"). The system in use at West Elk has <br />been described as a modification of a flare burner design; in other words, the heating system is <br />using the same technology used to flare mine gas. See P.M. Soot el al., "Coal mine methane <br />utilization options," in 11th U.S./North American Mine Ventilation Symposium 2006, <br />Mutmansky & Ramani, eds. at 410-11, excerpts attached as Exh. 17 (discussing coal mine <br />methane flaring and stating that "[t]his same burner design was subsequently modified for <br />application as an air heater at an active coal mine," presumably the West Elk Mine). Another <br />MSHA official, Mr. Hubert E. Sherer, has stated that the hazard of the combustion process being <br />used at the West Elk Mine and flaring was virtually the same, given that in both processes there <br />is a flame that ignites the methane. He stated that most flares are probably safer than powering a <br />ventilation fan. See Declaration of E. Zukoski (Apr. 28. 2008) at 1-2, attached as Exh. 10. <br />The Forest Service presents no valid technological - or common sense - reason that West <br />Elk could not flare in virtually the same manner as it is now combusting the methane to heat the <br />mine. <br />C. Other MSHA Officials Contradict Mr. Davis's Conclusions upon <br />which the Forest Service Relies. <br />Third, MSHA's statements that flaring can be done safely; that it is a proven technology <br />that has been performed safely for a century; and that it is performed routinely in other countries <br />at working mines remain uncontroverted by the record. Mr. Davis's statements do not negate <br />those made by Mr. Sherer. When appellants contacted Mr. Sherer after Mr. Davis wrote his <br />letter, Mr. Sherer continued to stand by statements he originally made to the Forest Service. See <br />Exh. 10. <br />APPEAL OF E SEAM METHANE DRAINAGE WELLS PROJECT, APRIL 28, 2008 PAGE 17