Massey Energy officials have said they want an open, transparent and complete investigation of what caused the deaths of 29 mines at the company’s Upper Big Branch Mine in Raleigh County, W.Va., four months ago.
But today’s Massey briefing for families of the miners who died was held behind closed doors. Three uniformed Charleston Police Department officers guarded the door of the ballroom at the Embassy Suites Hotel.
CEO Don Blankenship declined to talk with reporters afterward, and his general counsel, Shane Harvey, only took a couple of questions in a brief session with the media following the meeting.
The news release didn’t say a whole lot, either, but here’s the quote from Blankenship about the purpose of the meeting:
The purpose of today’s meeting was to keep the families informed of key developments associated with the UBB investigation. Massey Energy will continue to do our part in updating families on key information obtained during this continuing inquiry.
The key thing being pushed today seems to be the idea that Massey has concluded from the evidence available thus far that methane monitors in the mine’s longwall section had not been disabled prior to the April 5 explosion that killed 29 workers.
Media reporting on the methane monitor issue continued this weekend, with a lengthy overview in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (featuring the first interview MSHA chief Joe Main has given anybody in quite a while) and a piece Saturday by the Wall Street Journal online. Of course, Howard Berkes at National Public Radio has really led the way on this angle on the Upper Big Branch story (see previous stories here and here).
The problem here for Massey, at least according to the state’s top two investigators, is that nowhere near enough evidence has been gathered or data analyzed to draw such a broad conclusion yet about the methane monitors at Upper Big Branch.
As we report in the Gazette tomorrow:
Officials from two state investigation teams said physical evidence is still being gathered, interviews about methane monitors at the mine still being conducted, and data from those monitoring systems are only now beginning to be analyzed.
“I think it’s premature for Massey to suggest that they have come to a conclusion,” said Davitt McAteer, Gov. Joe Manchin’s special investigator. “The investigation thus far does not support a conclusion that a methane monitor was or was not disabled.”
Ron Wooten, director of the West Virginia Office of Miners Health, Safety and Training, agreed.
“We do not have information at this point to say that they have or have not been tampered with,” Wooten said.
Subscribe to the Coal Tattoo
So, how long does it take to determine if a methane monitor has been “bridged” and/or is non-functional on a piece of mining equipment?
If Massey Energy was misreprenting themselves to those families, their punitive damages liability would skyrocket in wrongful death lawsuits.
This circus keeps growing. It’s time to wrap up whether or not the methane monitoring devices were or were not functional at the time of the explosion. That aspect of the investigation cannot be difficult to do.
Massey can buy any miner’s widow or orphan without the impedance of the state of West Virginia. Sad state of affairs, but i guess it fails under “economic development”. When the police guard the door and the press report what serves the masters, well, feudalism is alive and living in Almost Heaven…..THANK GOD not many folks know what feudalism means…..
CourtJester,
Did you actually read the post or just the headline … both this post, and our print story today (http://wvgazette.com/News/201008020671 ) are hardly reports based only on the Massey press release. We quote two government investigators directly disputing what Massey had to say.
Ken.
I want to know why three uniformed Charleston police department officers were guarding the door to a meeting between officers and legal counsel of a company and private citizens in a privately-owned hotel. Can one hire uniformed Charleston police department officers as easily as Governor Manchin hopped on Massey’s private jet to fly from Florida back to West Virginia after the explosion at Upper Big Branch mine? The lines are so blurry they have just about faded away between government and King Coal in this woebegone state.
With so much bias and animosity against Massey and Blankenship, it is difficult for a person to separate the wheat from the chaff. Ken Ward’s articles should be placed on the Opinions Page.
I find it hard to believe that McAteer and Wooten don’t believe someone could come to a conclusion before they did. You can come to a conclusion at any time. It may be right and it may be wrong, but you can do it.
As to why the meeting between Massey and the Families was private, it is obvious to a thinking person that it was not the time for a bunch of rowdys and protesters to intervene in a somber review. Massey got it right….
TomK1931
You don’t provide any examples of the “bias and animosity” from the coverage of the deaths of 29 workers at one of Massey’s mines … I’d appreciate some specifics.
Ken.
how long was Ellis Portal unguarded before the underground investigation began?
And methane detectors not bridged? There is plenty of evidence of this just as their is evidence that the longwall was shut off before the accident.
And what about the inspector who was told to stop writing violations at Massey.
Ken, you have spent so much time writing about MSHA that you just ignore the State agency, don’t you?
CourtJester,
You are right about one thing … I need to write more about the state agency. No question about it.
We’ve made mention many times on Coal Tattoo of the evidence about bridging out of methane monitors …
I’m not sure what inspector you are referring to who you allege stopped writing violations at Massey … some reports of that after the Aracoma fire I believe were later discredited by the person who supposedly said that stuff.
I’ve asked about the “unguarded” mine entrances before, several times, and federal and state officials have denied that occurred. If you have information otherwise, by all means tell us about it.
Ken.
Ken, I know for a fact that Ellis Portal was guarded only by a company guard until the UG investigation started. MSHA and the State were at the other entrance 24/7. Look for the video camera evidence. Or ask for documentation that Ellis was guarded by MSHA, etc… I mean, if a control order was issued, one would think that someone from the state would be able to show that they were watching Ellis Portal.
The inspector worked for the Agency two years ago and quit when he was told to lay off of Massey violations. He inspected several Massey mines, including UBB. You might look at the violations issued during the past 5 or 6 years. When you do, you will pick up the pattern real quick about who issued violations. You will see a peak of safety when this inspector was on duty and the drop when he left.
I ain’t got no problem laying everything at the feet of Massey, but if the State and MSHA had been during that jobs, this wouldn’t have happened.
CourtJester,
I’m not sure how in the world you think a newspaper is going to get the “video camera evidence” for any security cameras on Massey’s property. Massey certainly isn’t going to provide it, and I very seriously doubt that MSHA or the state have obtained it … I have asked about the Ellis portal previously, as I said, and the explanation that I was given was that MSHA inspectors were assigned to UBB and that they monitored all of the mine entrances, periodically checking them, but not guarding them 24 hours a day. Those are the facts as I’ve been able to gather them.
I will look into the inspector situation you mention. But you may not be aware of this: MSHA redacts the names of inspectors from the citations and inspection reports when it provides them through FOIA … now, it is often not that hard to track down that information, but without the official names attached to each report, it will be difficult to determine a pattern as you suggest. But I will give it a shot.
Ken.
Not MSHA, Ken. The State. The State. The State.