Technological advances have made underground mining more thorough and invasive, and although miners were able to access previously deadly areas, the cost of the failure of equipment was much greater than before. That is to say that not only did mining become more efficient, it is much more capable of stripping the land of its resources and comes at greater capital and labor risks than previously. LeCain points out advances such as hydraulic mining allowed faster mining, square set timbering, steam powered pumps, steam powered ventilation, and artificial supplies of oxygen allowed miners to access underground areas that at one point would have been impossible to reach due to noxious gas, or being entirely underwater. The consequences of these advancements include over-mining, the mindset that mining engineers could repair whatever environmental damage they had caused, the necessity of greater capital, increased risk if equipment failed, more gendered views of nature and the hard sciences than before, and the creation of unions.
Quite frankly from everything I know about mining (which in all fairness is not a wealth), there is no real way to make it non-environmentally damaging before, during, or after as technology stands right now. The field itself is inherently parasitic, and the damage that has been done at some mines will have to be maintained indefinitely. That being said, I am optimistic that the advent of new mining technologies may contribute to the ability of mining engineers and environmental specialists to mitigate environmental damages. Human desire of resources mined constitutes that mining is not going anywhere any time soon, so I think it is imperative that mining becomes less hard on the environment even if incrementally over the lifespan of the field. Or, perhaps it is more fair to say, that mining becomes a less parasitic pursuit before ewe run out of resources to mine for.