Comments on: Federal No. 2: Hilda Solis and Joe Main speak

By: Federal No. 2 Mine resumes production « Coal Tattoo

Federal No. 2 Mine resumes production « Coal Tattoo — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 23:00:48 +0000

[...] As we’ve reported, Federal No. 2 is the subject of federal criminal investigation that is looking into alleged falsification of methane tests by mine managers. [...]

By: eastwood78

eastwood78 — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 23:41:06 +0000

Ken: Do you know if the state and federal investigators did explore further into what the Patriot Coal Foreman told them more than a year ago? The UMWA surely knew about this situation, and they to could have investagated further about this dangerous practice. Thank you if further information could be furnished. Keep up the good work Ken.

By: Ken Ward Jr.

Ken Ward Jr. — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 18:18:22 +0000

In addition, here’s the link to the story mentioned by coal miners’ wife:

http://wvgazette.com/News/BeyondSago/201003010521

A Patriot Coal foreman told state and federal investigators he was ordered more than a year ago not to keep records of explosive methane levels he discovered inside sealed portions of the company’s Federal No. 2 Mine in Monongalia County.

Ken.

By: Ken Ward Jr.

Ken Ward Jr. — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 18:16:55 +0000

edmo,

Under the Mine Act, it is the responsibility of the mine operator — the company — to ensure that proper methane tests are taken. And under that law, if someone the company hires to do that doesn’t, the fault legally is that of the operator. It’s a strict liability statute.

Ken.

By: coalminer's wife

coalminer's wife — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 16:33:18 +0000

edmo – Did you read this article (yes, it is the gazette) “Methane test issue started more than a year ago, mine foreman says”. Sheds a little more light on the situation.

By: edmo

edmo — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 15:55:03 +0000

coalminer’s wife….maybe he was just lazy and did not want to travel his course….but it is always good to blame the operator. 90% of the operators, salary, and hourly personnel are truly dedicated to safe production. As with any company and labor force there is that 10% that need to be out.

By: Bill Howley

Bill Howley — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 15:32:09 +0000

One thing is for certain in this whole mess – it is never a good thing for industry regulators to be in awe of the companies they are supposed to be regulating.

By: coalminer's wife

coalminer's wife — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 14:49:56 +0000

The operator is definitely to blame. Patriot Fed 2 promoted an environment that the bottom line is at the top of the list. Believe me, the atmosphere of worshipping the almighty dollar at Patriot has been a significant force since the split from Peabody. The foreman are working in a constant state panic of due to threats of layoff and/or dismissal.

And, edmo, one newly hired foreman, with little experience is not going to manufacture false safety reports without his mentors’ guidance. (Let me guess, you are a ‘company’ guy.)

By: vashti

vashti — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 13:57:00 +0000

i concur with V809 that making hasty statements without all the facts makes no sense. who knows whether the foreman acted under duress or on his own? the reason federal may have a higher accident rate, just speculating here, is that some mines encourage people who have on the job injuries NOT to report it. they let them sit in the bathhouse and do nothing rather than report it.
the reason they got the praise at federal is because they have all the cutting edge safety stuff. the real story behind all that is that no matter how much safety equipment you have accidents happen. mining is a dangerous job. people who take safety seriously keep more accidents from becoming tragedies.

By: edmo

edmo — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 21:26:38 +0000

The operation (operator) should not be blamed for the actions of one. It does not matter whether it is a represented or non-represented operation an individual made a decision to circumvent the law, not the company. Punish the foreman, not the company

By: rhmooney3

rhmooney3 — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 20:08:33 +0000

This is a UMWA mine — for sure, they are very on-top of what’s going on.

This is a criminal investigation, not just a mine safety investigation.

The federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) provides for limited exceptions for such situations.

As usual, most things are not as perfect as they are presented.

By: Ken Ward Jr.

Ken Ward Jr. — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 18:41:03 +0000

Vnxq809,

Far too often, government officials hide behind saying “it’s an ongoing investigation” and that gets them off the hook from having to tell the public anything.

Federal and West Virginia FOIA laws do not protect nearly that much information as government officials would have us believe.

In this case, it would be refreshing if Secretary Solis and Assistant Secretary Main would be as open as West Virginia mine safety director Ron Wooten, who explained the facts as he knew them to me a week ago about this situation. It might also be refreshing if Solis and Main admitted that perhaps the DOL’s praise of this operation was a bit over the top, given what is now known about the mine’s monitoring of methane behind its seals.

Ken.

By: Vnxq809

Vnxq809 — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 18:24:21 +0000

Ken,

In light of the ongoing investigation @ Federal #2 – I feel that both Secretary Solis & Mr. Main’s remarks are obviously guarded but appropriate. You seem genuinely disappointed that folks aren’t piling on here. Your remarks here & on the initial posting breaking this story seem to indicate that.

Again – this is an ongoing investigation. What do you expect them to say?

Vnxq809