Ex Mine CEO Going To Prison.

[John]

Took long enough, but the ex CEO of the Upper Big Branch coal mine is looking at a year behind bars and a hefty fine, not big enough for 29 lost lives though.

Upper Big Branch.

[dazbt]

Apr 7, 2016 5:53:34 GMT -5 John said:

Took long enough, but the ex CEO of the Upper Big Branch coal mine is looking at a year behind bars and a hefty fine, not big enough for 29 lost lives though.

Upper Big Branch.

What exactly has been found guilty of?

[John]

Apr 7, 2016 8:37:28 GMT -5 dazbt said:

Apr 7, 2016 5:53:34 GMT -5 John said:

Took long enough, but the ex CEO of the Upper Big Branch coal mine is looking at a year behind bars and a hefty fine, not big enough for 29 lost lives though.

Upper Big Branch.

What exactly has been found guilty of?

Click on the Upper Big Branch link, the story is there.

[dazbt]

Apr 7, 2016 8:58:11 GMT -5 John said:

Apr 7, 2016 8:37:28 GMT -5 dazbt said:

What exactly has been found guilty of?

Click on the Upper Big Branch link, the story is there.

Yep, read that and still don't understand what the generalised statement "a misdemeanor conspiracy to violate mine safety standards at Upper Big Branch" really refers to, the only points I gathered from other media reports of the trial result was that he was responsible for notifying the mine (miners) of an imminent Inspectorate visit and the suggestion of indirect intimidation of miners. What are the proper details of the court's findings and what specifically was he found guilty of?

[John]

Apr 7, 2016 10:11:40 GMT -5 dazbt said:

Apr 7, 2016 8:58:11 GMT -5 John said:

Click on the Upper Big Branch link, the story is there.

Yep, read that and still don't understand what the generalised statement "a misdemeanor conspiracy to violate mine safety standards at Upper Big Branch" really refers to, the only points I gathered from other media reports of the trial result was that he was responsible for notifying the mine (miners) of an imminent Inspectorate visit and the suggestion of indirect intimidation of miners. What are the proper details of the court's findings and what specifically was he found guilty of?

From what I read, he was putting undue pressure on his mining personnel to keep machines running when they should be stopped for essential safety work, hence the shearer not having a full compliment of working sprays. You could say coercion to break rules, ever been in that position? I have, and dug my heels in and stood my ground, but not everyone can do that, some breakdown and carry out the orders for fear of losing their jobs. Pre warning his staff of a visit by the Inspector is against the law here, another point given to the Jury.
He demanded a production report via the phone every 30 minutes too, the man was obsessed with profits over safety. Whether it was the ultimate reason for the gas/coal dust ignition, who knows??
Obviously, stone dusting hadn't been carried out according to the rules, or the dust explosion wouldn't have carried as far as it did, probably could have been stopped by adequate stone dust barriers or water barriers.

As it was a "gassy" mine, looks also that ventilation wasn't up to par either, I don't buy the "pick excuse" in the MHSHA video, broken pick causing sparking, we all know that's normal even with a full compliment of new picks if there are pyrites in the seam, BUT, in saying that, would a full compliment of water dust suppression sprays have cooled down the area being cut, preventing the first ignition of CH4??? On that one, you'd have dealt with that problem with Anderson's and could add more facts.

Problem over here is executives of mining companies put too much pressure on mining staffs with no come backs on them when something happens, remember Crandall Canyon?? the CEO got away with that "cock up" he should have been facing charges, although the company did get fined. No, in the UBB mine accident, thy were trying to send a message to mine owners.