W.Va. mine owner accused of putting safety second
By TIM HUBER, AP Business Writer Tim Huber, Ap Business Writer 16 mins ago

JULIAN, W.Va. – The coal mine rocked by an explosion that killed at
least 25 workers in the nation's deadliest mining disaster since 1984
had been cited for 600 violations in less than a year and a half, some
of them for not properly ventilating methane — the highly combustible
gas suspected in the blast.

The disaster at the Upper Big Branch mine has focused attention on the
business and safety practices of the owner, Massey Energy, a powerful
and politically connected company in Appalachia known for producing big
profits, as well as big piles of safety and environmental violations and
big damage awards for grieving widows.

"There are mines in this country who have operated safely for 20 years,"
said J. Davitt McAteer, head of the federal Mine Safety and Health
Administration in the Clinton administration. "There are mines who take
precautions ahead of time. There are mines who spend the money and
manpower to do it."

He added: "Those mines haven't been blown up."

Four other miners were missing and feared dead underground in Monday's
blast, believed to have been caused by a buildup of methane, a naturally
occurring gas that is odorless and colorless.

Last year alone, MSHA cited Upper Big Branch for 495 violations and
proposed $911,802 in fines. Production more than tripled during that
period, according to federal records. So far this year, the agency has
found 105 violations at the mine.

Upper Big Branch is one of Massey's biggest underground mines, with more
than 200 employees, and it is not uncommon for big coal mines to amass
hundreds of violations a year — and to contest many of them, as Massey
does. But most big mines don't have as many serious infractions as Upper
Big Branch, industry experts said.

At least 50 citations charge the company with "unwarrantable failure" to
comply with safety standards such as following an approved ventilation
plan, controlling combustible materials or designating escape routes.

"I've never seen that many for one mine in a year," said Ellen Smith,
editor of Mine Safety & Health News. "If you look at other mines that
are the same size or bigger, they do not have the sheer number of
`unwarrantable' citations that this mine has."

Massey has had problems elsewhere, too. In 2006, two miners were killed
in a fire at Massey's Aracoma Alma No. 1 mine. Massey settled a wrongful
death lawsuit for an undisclosed sum, and its subsidiary Aracoma Coal
Co. paid $3.7 million in civil and criminal penalties.

Testimony showed Massey CEO Don Blankenship suggested firing two
supervisors for raising concerns about conveyer belt problems just
before the belt caught fire.

"Massey has a history of emphasizing production," said Pittsburgh lawyer
Bruce Stanley, who represented the miners' widows. "I'm concerned that
they may not have learned the lessons of Aracoma."

In an interview less than 24 hours after the disaster at Upper Big
Branch, Blankenship insisted the mine is no more dangerous than others
of comparable size, and he defended the company's track record in a
perilous business.

"It's natural that the enemies of coal would view Massey as the primary
enemy," he said.

He pointed out Massey's many innovations, such as installing steps in
place of ladders and putting protective cages on underground vehicles
even though the government doesn't require them.

"I think that I've proven that we run safer coal mines — you know, most
of the time — and accidents sometimes happen. We've got to figure out
what happened here," he said.

Kevin Stricklin, an MSHA administrator, said that the number of
citations at the mine appeared high, and that he was concerned about the
more serious violations. "It means the operator was aware of some of
these conditions," he said.

Massey is contesting 36 percent of all violations at Upper Big Branch
since 2007, The Associated Press found. Overall, U.S. mine operators
contest 27 percent. Challenging violations can enable a mine owner to
stave off the heavier punishment that the government can impose on
companies that have been deemed repeat offenders.

Massey became a political and industrial powerhouse under the guidance
of Blankenship, who rose from poverty to become one of corporate
America's highest-paid and least apologetic executives, a guy who
proudly displays in his office a TV set with a bullet hole from a
striking union miner's rifle.

He freely spent millions of dollars from his personal fortune to help
install a West Virginia Supreme Court justice, a maneuver that led to an
important conflict-of-interest ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, and
on a failed bid to elect a Republican majority in the state Legislature.

Under Blankenship, Massey clawed to the top of the Appalachian coal
industry, shrewdly buying up coal deposits to amass more than 2 billion
tons of reserves. It is a major economic force regionally, with more
than 6,000 high-paid miners in some of the poorest counties in America.

Operating nonunion mines across southern West Virginia, eastern Kentucky
and southwestern Virginia, Massey more than doubled its profit to $104.4
million in 2009 from the year before, despite slumping demand for coal
amid the recession. The company expects to be shipping 2 million tons of
coal a year to India by next year.

Massey has managed to push the United Mine Workers union out of all of
its operations except for a single processing plant.

Blankenship's hard-driving approach was illustrated in a 2005 memo in
which he told mine workers that if their bosses ask them to build roof
supports or perform similar tasks, "ignore them and run coal."

"This memo is necessary only because we seem not to understand that the
coal pays the bills," he wrote.

Few workers are willing to openly criticize Massey because of its
powerful hold on people's livelihoods in Appalachia.

But Terry Holstein, who worked at Upper Big Branch, said it took him 10
years to decide he didn't like the way Massey ran the mine. He left in 2006.

"It was like they wanted production more than they wanted safety,
myself, you know what I mean?" he said. "They speak safety first, but
production's really first for them." Well
--


In more progressive countries, Blankenship would be charged with
criminal violations...

On Apr 6, 7:40*pm, hk wrote:
W.Va. mine owner accused of putting safety second
By TIM HUBER, AP Business Writer Tim Huber, Ap Business Writer 16 mins ago

JULIAN, W.Va. – The coal mine rocked by an explosion that killed at
least 25 workers in the nation's deadliest mining disaster since 1984
had been cited for 600 violations in less than a year and a half, some
of them for not properly ventilating methane — the highly combustible
gas suspected in the blast.

The disaster at the Upper Big Branch mine has focused attention on the
business and safety practices of the owner, Massey Energy, a powerful
and politically connected company in Appalachia known for producing big
profits, as well as big piles of safety and environmental violations and
big damage awards for grieving widows.

"There are mines in this country who have operated safely for 20 years,"
said J. Davitt McAteer, head of the federal Mine Safety and Health
Administration in the Clinton administration. "There are mines who take
precautions ahead of time. There are mines who spend the money and
manpower to do it."

He added: "Those mines haven't been blown up."

Four other miners were missing and feared dead underground in Monday's
blast, believed to have been caused by a buildup of methane, a naturally
occurring gas that is odorless and colorless.

Last year alone, MSHA cited Upper Big Branch for 495 violations and
proposed $911,802 in fines. Production more than tripled during that
period, according to federal records. So far this year, the agency has
found 105 violations at the mine.

Upper Big Branch is one of Massey's biggest underground mines, with more
than 200 employees, and it is not uncommon for big coal mines to amass
hundreds of violations a year — and to contest many of them, as Massey
does. But most big mines don't have as many serious infractions as Upper
Big Branch, industry experts said.

At least 50 citations charge the company with "unwarrantable failure" to
comply with safety standards such as following an approved ventilation
plan, controlling combustible materials or designating escape routes.

"I've never seen that many for one mine in a year," said Ellen Smith,
editor of Mine Safety & Health News. "If you look at other mines that
are the same size or bigger, they do not have the sheer number of
`unwarrantable' citations that this mine has."

Massey has had problems elsewhere, too. In 2006, two miners were killed
in a fire at Massey's Aracoma Alma No. 1 mine. Massey settled a wrongful
death lawsuit for an undisclosed sum, and its subsidiary Aracoma Coal
Co. paid $3.7 million in civil and criminal penalties.

Testimony showed Massey CEO Don Blankenship suggested firing two
supervisors for raising concerns about conveyer belt problems just
before the belt caught fire.

"Massey has a history of emphasizing production," said Pittsburgh lawyer
Bruce Stanley, who represented the miners' widows. "I'm concerned that
they may not have learned the lessons of Aracoma."

In an interview less than 24 hours after the disaster at Upper Big
Branch, Blankenship insisted the mine is no more dangerous than others
of comparable size, and he defended the company's track record in a
perilous business.

"It's natural that the enemies of coal would view Massey as the primary
enemy," he said.

He pointed out Massey's many innovations, such as installing steps in
place of ladders and putting protective cages on underground vehicles
even though the government doesn't require them.

"I think that I've proven that we run safer coal mines — you know, most
of the time — and accidents sometimes happen. We've got to figure out
what happened here," he said.

Kevin Stricklin, an MSHA administrator, said that the number of
citations at the mine appeared high, and that he was concerned about the
more serious violations. "It means the operator was aware of some of
these conditions," he said.

Massey is contesting 36 percent of all violations at Upper Big Branch
since 2007, The Associated Press found. Overall, U.S. mine operators
contest 27 percent. Challenging violations can enable a mine owner to
stave off the heavier punishment that the government can impose on
companies that have been deemed repeat offenders.

Massey became a political and industrial powerhouse under the guidance
of Blankenship, who rose from poverty to become one of corporate
America's highest-paid and least apologetic executives, a guy who
proudly displays in his office a TV set with a bullet hole from a
striking union miner's rifle.

He freely spent millions of dollars from his personal fortune to help
install a West Virginia Supreme Court justice, a maneuver that led to an
important conflict-of-interest ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, and
on a failed bid to elect a Republican majority in the state Legislature.

Under Blankenship, Massey clawed to the top of the Appalachian coal
industry, shrewdly buying up coal deposits to amass more than 2 billion
tons of reserves. It is a major economic force regionally, with more
than 6,000 high-paid miners in some of the poorest counties in America.

Operating nonunion mines across southern West Virginia, eastern Kentucky
and southwestern Virginia, Massey more than doubled its profit to $104.4
million in 2009 from the year before, despite slumping demand for coal
amid the recession. The company expects to be shipping 2 million tons of
coal a year to India by next year.

Massey has managed to push the United Mine Workers union out of all of
its operations except for a single processing plant.

Blankenship's hard-driving approach was illustrated in a 2005 memo in
which he told mine workers that if their bosses ask them to build roof
supports or perform similar tasks, "ignore them and run coal."

"This memo is necessary only because we seem not to understand that the
coal pays the bills," he wrote.

Few workers are willing to openly criticize Massey because of its
powerful hold on people's livelihoods in Appalachia.

But Terry Holstein, who worked at Upper Big Branch, said it took him 10
years to decide he didn't like the way Massey ran the mine. He left in 2006.

"It was like they wanted production more than they wanted safety,
myself, you know what I mean?" he said. "They speak safety first, but
production's really first for them." Well
--

In more progressive countries, Blankenship would be charged with
criminal violations...

Actually, dumbass, they were about average for the number of
violations. If they were stringent enough to not have any violations
ever, they'd be out of business. Then you wouldn't have electicity in
your basement so that you could post lie after lie in rec.boats while
hiding with your guns drawn.

On 4/7/10 12:18 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 19:40:56 -0400,
wrote:

W.Va. mine owner accused of putting safety second

As someone who was the safety officer at a big US corporation, the
biggest problem is making the employees actually follow the safety
procedures. My wife had a similar problem in the construction
industry.


I have a feeling that was not the problem at this mine.

--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym

On 4/7/10 12:18 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 19:40:56 -0400,
wrote:

W.Va. mine owner accused of putting safety second

As someone who was the safety officer at a big US corporation, the
biggest problem is making the employees actually follow the safety
procedures. My wife had a similar problem in the construction
industry.


I've probably been on a thousand commercial and heavy construction sites
since the 1970s...and the safest sites are always the ones on which
labor and management play an equal role in patrolling and watching, and
in educating the workers about avoiding injury or worse. I was on a site
in St. Pete some years ago and watched as the company rep consulted with
the steward for a minute and then they both went over to a worker and
sent him home for the day without pay. He had been warned about the need
to wear steel-toed construction shoes and he kept showing up without
them. Minor incident, but telling.

Dangerous work can be made safer if management, especially, takes worker
safety seriously. That was not the case with the coal mine under
discussion.



--
Conservatives - just pretend Obama's health care legislation is another
unnecessary war and you'll feel better about it.

On Apr 7, 12:40*pm, hk wrote:
On 4/7/10 12:18 PM, wrote:

On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 19:40:56 -0400,
wrote:

W.Va. mine owner accused of putting safety second

As someone who was the safety officer at a big US corporation, the
biggest problem is making the employees actually follow the safety
procedures. My wife had a similar problem in the construction
industry.

I've probably been on a thousand commercial and heavy construction sites
since the 1970s...and the safest sites are always the ones on which
labor and management play an equal role in patrolling and watching, and
in educating the workers about avoiding injury or worse. I was on a site
in St. Pete some years ago and watched as the company rep consulted with
the steward for a minute and then they both went over to a worker and
sent him home for the day without pay. He had been warned about the need
to wear steel-toed construction shoes and he kept showing up without
them. Minor incident, but telling.

Dangerous work can be made safer if management, especially, takes worker
safety seriously. That was not the case with the coal mine under
discussion.

Do you think anybody here besides Don believes anything you say? So,
do tell, since I'm in the industry, just what heavy industrial sites
have you been affiliated with?

On 4/7/10 12:49 PM, Loogypicker wrote:
On Apr 7, 12:40 pm, wrote:
On 4/7/10 12:18 PM, wrote:

On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 19:40:56 -0400,
wrote:

W.Va. mine owner accused of putting safety second

As someone who was the safety officer at a big US corporation, the
biggest problem is making the employees actually follow the safety
procedures. My wife had a similar problem in the construction
industry.

I've probably been on a thousand commercial and heavy construction sites
since the 1970s...and the safest sites are always the ones on which
labor and management play an equal role in patrolling and watching, and
in educating the workers about avoiding injury or worse. I was on a site
in St. Pete some years ago and watched as the company rep consulted with
the steward for a minute and then they both went over to a worker and
sent him home for the day without pay. He had been warned about the need
to wear steel-toed construction shoes and he kept showing up without
them. Minor incident, but telling.

Dangerous work can be made safer if management, especially, takes worker
safety seriously. That was not the case with the coal mine under
discussion.

Do you think anybody here besides Don believes anything you say? So,
do tell, since I'm in the industry, just what heavy industrial sites
have you been affiliated with?


You're "in the industry..." Now that's a laugh...your job as a flagman
on highway asphalt jobs hardly counts.

I've worked on sites on which substantial refractories were being built,
where power plants and cooling towers were under construction, where
long suspension bridges were being built.


--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym

On 07/04/2010 10:24 AM, hk wrote:
On 4/7/10 12:18 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 19:40:56 -0400,
wrote:

W.Va. mine owner accused of putting safety second

As someone who was the safety officer at a big US corporation, the
biggest problem is making the employees actually follow the safety
procedures. My wife had a similar problem in the construction
industry.


I have a feeling that was not the problem at this mine.

Agreed. Going for the little guy is stupid. Even though that is what
will happen.

Get the CEO, make him personally pay out of his own pocket $20,000,000
to the families without being re-imbursed by the company. And the
company match the payout to the families for another $20,000,000.

If they complain, double it.

If they still want to fight it, lay down criminal negligence carges on
top of it with jail time for the senior executives and board members.

Then there will be progress.

--
Liberal-statism is an addiction to other peoples money.

On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 12:18:15 -0400, wrote:

As someone who was the safety officer at a big US corporation, the
biggest problem is making the employees actually follow the safety
procedures. My wife had a similar problem in the construction
industry.

The direction has to come from the top. Employees are quick to catch
on whether or not senior management is serious about safety
procedures. If not, corners will be cut where it is convenient to do
so. I worked for AT&T and other Bell System companies for a short
time back in the 60s and the company left no doubt in anyones mind
about the seriousness of safety procedures. Training and awareness
were constant, and violations were dealt with quickly and firmly.
That's what it takes.

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 07/04/2010 10:24 AM, hk wrote:
On 4/7/10 12:18 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 19:40:56 -0400,
wrote:

W.Va. mine owner accused of putting safety second

As someone who was the safety officer at a big US corporation, the
biggest problem is making the employees actually follow the safety
procedures. My wife had a similar problem in the construction
industry.


I have a feeling that was not the problem at this mine.

Agreed. Going for the little guy is stupid. Even though that is what
will happen.

Get the CEO, make him personally pay out of his own pocket $20,000,000 to
the families without being re-imbursed by the company. And the company
match the payout to the families for another $20,000,000.

If they complain, double it.

If they still want to fight it, lay down criminal negligence carges on top
of it with jail time for the senior executives and board members.

Then there will be progress.

--
Liberal-statism is an addiction to other peoples money.


Woooooo.... so much for abstaining from gov't intervention. Or, are you
talking about trial lawyers???? You're a BOZO!

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 18:58:54 -0600, Canuck57 wrote:


Agreed. Going for the little guy is stupid. Even though that is what
will happen.

Get the CEO, make him personally pay out of his own pocket $20,000,000
to the families without being re-imbursed by the company. And the
company match the payout to the families for another $20,000,000.

If they complain, double it.

If they still want to fight it, lay down criminal negligence carges on
top of it with jail time for the senior executives and board members.

Then there will be progress.

Or learn from the Chinese, and execute the CEOs. Fines just don't cut
it, when 25 are dead.