DOCSLIB.ORG

AN ANALYSIS of ACTIVIST RESPONSES to ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROVERSIES in WEST VIRGINIA By

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
AN ANALYSIS of ACTIVIST RESPONSES to ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROVERSIES in WEST VIRGINIA By AN ANALYSIS OF ACTIVIST RESPONSES TO ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROVERSIES IN WEST VIRGINIA by Ashley T. Fuller A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Natural Resources and Environment) in the University of Michigan 2012 Doctoral Committee: Professor Dorceta E. Taylor, Chair Professor Margaret E. Dewar Associate Professor Julia Wondolleck Assistant Professor Rebecca R. Scott, University of Missouri Copyright Ashley Fuller © 2012 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my committee members Drs. Dorceta Taylor, Margaret Dewar, Julia Wondolleck, and Rebecca Scott for guidance and support. Other professors have provided feedback during this process including Drs. Maria Carmen Lemos, Ted Parson, Rebecca Hardin, Arun Agrawal, Andy Hoffman, Rachel Kaplan, Paul Mohai, Ivette Perfecto, Steve Yaffee, Michaela Zint, Saundra Schneider, Thomas Lyon, and Lan Deng. Also, I would like to thank administrators and former administrators Darlene Ray- Johnson, David Allan, Dean Rosina Bierbaum, and Bill Currie as well as the Office of Academic Programs staff for help over the years. Thanks as well to the IT staff who have untangled many computer troubles for me, in particular Moe Daraiseh and Mike Emery. And I must thank the library staff who provided me with so much research support during my studies—in particular, Katherine Morse, Julia Proctor, Sigrid Cordell, Nicole Scholtz, Jenifer Green, Lori Tschirhart, Carl Shannon, Shevon Desai, Charles Ransom, Susan Turkel, Tim Utter, and Jeffrey Pearson. Dave Karczynski is the best copy editor ever—I am so grateful for his help. My family and friends, in particular those who are fellow students, have provided me with moral support and sound advice. Of these, Shumaisa Khan, Megan Reif, Valenta ii Kabo, Sarah Lashley and Claudia Rodriguez deserve particular thanks. Also, Café Ambrosia’s staff provided moral support (and tea), for which I am grateful. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................... ii LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................. xii LIST OF IMAGES ............................................................................................... xiii LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................... xiv LIST OF ABBREVIATONS ............................................................................... xvi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................. 21 Environmental Justice Studies: Who is Impacted? Where Does Pollution Come From? ................................................................................................................ 21 Recent Innovations in Environmental Justice Studies ...................................... 24 Land Use Variables and Environmental Justice ........................................... 26 Politics, Community, Psychology, and Environmental Justice Studies........ 27 Environmental Justice Over Time ................................................................ 29 Social Movement Theory .................................................................................. 30 What is a social movement? ............................................................................. 30 Rational Choice Theory .................................................................................... 32 iv Mobilization and Social Movements ................................................................ 36 Structural Theory .......................................................................................... 36 Identity and Framing and Cognitive Factors ................................................ 40 Social Movements and Environmental Justice ................................................. 43 Negotiation and Environmental Justice ............................................................ 46 Literature Review Summary ............................................................................. 51 CHAPTER 3: METHODS .................................................................................... 54 CHAPTER 4: A HISTORY OF COAL ................................................................ 65 THE ORIGINS OF COAL MINING ................................................................ 65 Coal Mining in Europe.................................................................................. 65 Health, Equity, Labor, and the Environment ................................................ 66 Coal in America ............................................................................................ 70 Labor Conditions and American Coal Mining .............................................. 71 Coal Enters the Modern Era .......................................................................... 73 Coal Today .................................................................................................... 74 THE COST OF COAL...................................................................................... 77 Pollution and Climate Change ...................................................................... 77 MOUNTAINTOP REMOVAL MINING......................................................... 80 THE CONTEMPORARY COAL INDUSTRY ENVIRONMENT ................. 85 v THE HISTORY OF COAL MINING IN WEST VIRGINIA .......................... 88 CONTEMPORARY COAL MINING IN WEST VIRGINIA ......................... 90 CHAPTER 5: THE WHITESVILLE CASE STUDY .......................................... 96 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 96 STAKEHOLDERS ........................................................................................... 98 Massey Corporation ...................................................................................... 98 Massey and the Whitesville Conflict .......................................................... 100 Governmental Actors Involved in the Whitesville Case ............................. 103 Whitesville and Environmental Groups in Whitesville .............................. 107 AN ENVIRONMENAL MOVEMENT FORMS ........................................... 115 The Environmentalist Stance ...................................................................... 115 Massey’s Stance .......................................................................................... 116 The Union Stance ........................................................................................ 119 Government Actors and Mountaintop Removal ......................................... 120 Changing Representations of the Issue ....................................................... 120 STAKEHOLDER ACTIONS IN THE DISPUTE .......................................... 124 The Dispute Begins ..................................................................................... 124 Early Litigation and Governmental Involvement ....................................... 127 Massey Fights Environmental Litigation .................................................... 130 vi Another Court Battle ................................................................................... 132 The Dispute Continues: Protest, Lobbying, and Federal Involvement ....... 134 A New Federal Administration ................................................................... 138 OUTCOMES OF THE DISPUTE IN WHITESVILLE ................................. 142 ANALYSIS OF THE WHITESVILLE CASE ............................................... 147 Attachment to Place .................................................................................... 147 Attachment to Nature .................................................................................. 148 Need for Jobs .............................................................................................. 151 Health and Safety ........................................................................................ 153 Action Channels .......................................................................................... 154 CHAPTER 6: THE NAOMA CASE STUDY .................................................... 156 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 156 STAKEHOLDERS IN THE NAOMA CASE ................................................ 157 Naoma ......................................................................................................... 157 Massey Now Alpha ..................................................................................... 164 Government and Union Actors ................................................................... 164 INITIAL STAKEHOLDER STANCES ......................................................... 165 Mountain Justice ......................................................................................... 165 Massey and the Coal Industry ..................................................................... 166 vii Government Stances ................................................................................... 166 STAKEHOLDER ACTIONS IN THE NAOMA CASE ................................ 167 Birth of Mountain Justice............................................................................ 167 Early Government Responses ....................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Massey Energy Co
    Case 5:10-cv-00689 Document 83 Filed 03/11/11 Page 1 of 170 PageID #: 1266 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY In re MASSEY ENERGY CO. ) Civil Action No. 5: 1 0-cv-00689 SECURITIES LITIGATION ) ) CLASS ACTION ) This Document Relates To: ) The Honorable Irene C. BerBergerg ) ALL ACTIONS Jury Trial Demanded ) CONSOLIDATED AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS Case 5:10-cv-00689 Document 83 Filed 03/11/11 Page 2 of 170 PageID #: 1267 TABLE OF CONTENTS GLOSSARY v I. NATURE AND SUMMARY OF THE ACTION 13 A. Fallout from the 2006 Fire at Massey’s Alma No. 1 Mine 14 B. Massey Created a New Corporate Image to Lure Investors by Purporting to Implement Safety Improvement Initiatives 17 C. Notwithstanding its Purported Safety Improvement Initiatives, Massey Prioritized Production Over Safety During the Class Period, Culminating in the Disaster at Upper Big Branch 18 D. After the Explosion, Criminal and Civil Investigations Revealed Deceptive Tactics Used by Massey to Cover Up its Safety-Last Approach to Coal Mining During the Class Period 20 E. Massey Restates its Critical NFDL Safety Metric and Blankenship Resigns 23 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 25 III. PARTIES 25 A. Plaintiffs 25 B. Massey 26 C. The Officer Defendants 26 D. The Director Defendants 28 IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS 32 A. Massey and its Subsidiaries 32 B. Blankenship’s Rise to Power and Reign at Massey 35 C. Before the Class Period, Massey Was Embroiled in Criminal and Civil Litigation Arising from Unlawful Safety Practices in 2006 37 D.
    [Show full text]
  • Alpha Complaint
    Case 2:14-cv-11609 Document 1 Filed 03/05/14 Page 1 of 32 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; the STATE OF WEST ) VIRGINIA by and through the WEST VIRGINIA ) DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; the ) PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL ) PROTECTION; and the COMMONWEALTH OF ) KENTUCKY by and through the KENTUCKY ENERGY ) AND ENVIRONMENT CABINET ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) Civil Action No. ________2:14-11609 ALPHA NATURAL RESOURCES, INC.; ALPHA ) APPALACHIA HOLDINGS, INC.; ALEX ENERGY, INC.; ) ALPHA PA COAL TERMINAL, LLC; AMFIRE MINING ) COMPANY, LLC; ARACOMA COAL CO., INC.; ) COMPLAINT BANDMILL COAL CORP.; BELFRY COAL CORP.; BIG ) BEAR MINING CO.; BROOKS RUN MINING COMPANY, ) LLC; BROOKS RUN SOUTH MINING LLC; CLEAR FORK ) COAL CO.; CUMBERLAND COAL RESOURCES, LP; ) DELBARTON MINING CO.; DICKENSON-RUSSELL ) COAL COMPANY, LLC; DUCHESS COAL CO.; EAGLE ) ENERGY, INC.; ELK RUN COAL CO., INC.; EMERALD ) COAL RESOURCES, LP; ENTERPRISE MINING ) COMPANY, LLC; GOALS COAL CO.; GREYEAGLE ) COAL CO.; HARLAN RECLAMATION SERVICES LLC; ) HERNDON PROCESSING CO., LLC; HIGHLAND MINING ) CO.; INDEPENDENCE COAL COMPANY, INC.; JACKS ) BRANCH COAL CO.; KANAWHA ENERGY CO.; KEPLER ) PROCESSING CO., LLC; KINGSTON MINING, INC.; ) KINGWOOD MINING CO., LLC; KNOX CREEK COAL ) CORP.; LITWAR PROCESSING CO., LLC; MARFORK ) COAL CO.; MARTIN COUNTY COAL CORP.; NEW ) RIDGE MINING CO.; OMAR MINING CO.; PARAMONT ) COAL COMPANY VIRGINIA, LLC; PAYNTER BRANCH ) MINING,
    [Show full text]
  • Will Massey Energy Company Suffer Severe Penalties in Clean Water Act Case?
    A BNA, INC. DAILY ! ENVIRONMENT REPORT Reproduced with permission from Daily Environment Report, Vol. 2007, No. 186, 09/26/2007, pp. B1 - B6. Copyright ஽ 2007 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) http://www.bna.com ENFORCEMENT CLEAN WATER ACT When Wall Street analysts calculated the statutory maximum civil penalty in a Clean Wa- ter Act case against Massey Energy Company and several affiliated companies, a great deal of negative ‘‘buzz’’ was generated because of the potential magnitude of the fine, according to the author of this article. However, the author says the courts have been very reluctant to impose statutory maximum penalties. In this article, the author provides background on the issues in the case and, based on his experience as a consultant in these matters, offers his view of how the penalty actually will be calculated. Will Massey Energy Company Suffer Severe Penalties in Clean Water Act Case? BY ROBERT H. FUHRMAN conclusion. Even assuming the government is success- ful in its assertion of liability, my opinion, which I ex- all Street analysts and media reports have sug- plain in detail below, is that the likely penalty is in the gested Massey Energy Company faces a poten- range of $1.5 million to $7 million if this case is adjudi- W tial liability of $2.4 billion for alleged violations cated. of the Clean Water Act.1 I was retained by the company to assess its liability and have reached a far different Case Background 1 This figure appeared in several publications, including On May 10, 2007, in the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Consent Decree: United States of America V. Massey Energy Company, Et Al., Civil Action No. 2:07-0299
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 2:07-0299 ) Hon . John T . Copenhaver, Jr. MASSEY ENERGY COMPANY, et al ., ) ) CONSENT DECREE Defendants . ) ) TABLE OF CONTENTS I . BACKGROUND . ..... .... .... ... .. .. .... ..... .... ... ... ... ..... ... .-1­ II . JURISDICTION AND VENUE . ..... .... .. .. ... .... .... .. .... -2­ III . APPLICABILITY . ..... .... .. ... .. ... ... .... ... ... .. ... .... ... ... -2­ IV . DEFINITIONS . ..... .... .... ..... ... .. .. .:... ..... ... ... ... .... ..... .... -3­ V. CIVIL PENALTY ... ... ... .. .... ... ... ... .... .... ... .... .... ... ...... .... -7­ VI . COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS . ... .... ... .... ..... ... ... .... ... .. .... .... -8­ VII . INJUNCTIVE RELIEF . .... ..... ... ... .. ... ..... .... ..... ... ... ..... -12­ VIII . ADDITIONAL INJUNCTIVE RELIEF .. ... ... ... .. ... ... .. .. .... -20­ IX . REPORTING REQUIREMENTS . .... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... ... .... .... -21­ X. STIPULATED PENALTIES . ..... .... .. ... ..... .... ... .. ... .... .... -27­ XI . FORCE MAJEURE . ...... ..... ... ... ... ... .. .. .... ...... .... :.. ..... .... .-31­ XII . DISPUTE RESOLUTION . ...... ... .... ... .. ... .. ... ... .... .... .. .. -34­ XIII . INFORMATION COLLECTION AND RETENTION ... .... ....... ..... ..... ., . -37­ XIV. EFFECT OF SETTLEMENT/RESERVATION OF RIGHTS . ....... .... .... ... -39­ XV. COSTS . .... .. .... ..... ... .... .... ...... ... .... .... ... -41­ XVI. NOTICES
    [Show full text]
  • Twists and Turns in Ancient Roads: As Unidentified
    CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE WAR ON COAL: EXPLORING THE DARK SIDE Patrick Charles McGinley∗ To see coal purely as a gift from God overlooks the many dangerous strings attached to that gift. Similarly, to see it as just an environmental evil would be to overlook the undeniable good that accompanies that evil. “Failing to recognize both sides of coal—the vast power and the exorbitant costs—misses the essential, heartbreaking drama of the story.1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ............................................................................................... 256 I. Coal at the Millennium .......................................................................... 258 II. History of Coal ..................................................................................... 262 A. Early History .................................................................................... 262 B. Coal and the Industrial Age .............................................................. 262 C. Coal and Industrialization in the United States ................................ 263 III. Coal’s Dark Side: Examining its Externalities .................................... 265 A. The Socio-Economic Costs of Coal Mining and Burning ................ 266 1. Industrial Awakening in the Coalfields .............................. 266 ∗ Professor McGinley is the “Judge Charles H. Haden II Professor of Law” at West Virginia University. In the print version of Volume 13 Issue 2, the Vermont Journal of Environmental Law mistakenly inserted the name of a purported "co-author."
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of Ohio
    Supreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed February 23, 2015 - Case No. 2015-0127 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO ROBERT E. MURRAY, et al., : Ohio Supreme Court Case No. 15-0127 : Plaintiffs-Appellants, : : v. : On appeal from Cuyahoga County Court of : Appeals, Eighth Appellate District THE CHAGRIN VALLEY PUBLISHING : COMPANY, et al., : Court of Appeals Case No. 101394 : Defendants-Appellees. : : MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO APPELLANTS’ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF JURISDICTION OF APPELLEES THE CHAGRIN VALLEY PUBLISHING COMPANY; H. KENNETH DOUTHIT, III; TODD NIGHSWONGER; DAVID C. LANGE; DOUTHIT COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; SALI A. MCSHERRY; AND RON HILL J. MICHAEL MURRAY (0019626) (COUNSEL OF RECORD) [email protected] LORRAINE R. BAUMGARDNER (0019642) [email protected] BERKMAN, GORDON, MURRAY & DeVAN 55 Public Square, Suite 2200 Cleveland, OH 44113 (216) 781-5245 / (216) 781-8207 (facsimile) Attorneys for Defendants-Appellees The Chagrin Valley Publishing Company, H. Kenneth Douthit, III, Todd Nighswonger, David C. Lange, Douthit Communications, Inc., Sali A. McSherry, and Ron Hill Mark S. Stemm (0023146) (COUNSEL OF RECORD) [email protected] L. Bradfield Hughes (0070997) [email protected] PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP 41 South High Street, Suite 3200 Columbus, Ohio 43215 (Continued) J. Philip Calabrese (0072709) [email protected] Tracy S. Francis (0080879) [email protected] PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR LLP 950 Main Avenue, Suite 500 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Kevin Anderson, pro hac vice PHV Registration No. 3507-2015 Ohio Admission Pending (0092847) [email protected] FABIAN & CLENDENIN, PC 215 South State Street, Suite 1200 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Michael O. McKown (0013378) [email protected] Gary M. Broadbent (0083876) [email protected] 46226 National Road St.
    [Show full text]
  • Robert C. Byrd Miner Safety and Health Act of 2010
    111TH CONGRESS REPT. 111–579 " ! 2d Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Part 1 ROBERT C. BYRD MINER SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT OF 2010 JULY 29, 2010.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, from the Committee on Education and Labor, submitted the following R E P O R T together with SUPPLEMENTAL AND MINORITY VIEWS [To accompany H.R. 5663] [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] The Committee on Education and Labor, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 5663) to improve compliance with mine and occupa- tional safety and health laws, empower workers to raise safety con- cerns, prevent future mine and other workplace tragedies, establish rights of families of victims of workplace accidents, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. The amendment is as follows: Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. (a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Robert C. Byrd Miner Safety and Health Act of 2010’’. (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for this Act is as follows: Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. Sec. 2. References. TITLE I—ADDITIONAL INSPECTION AND INVESTIGATION AUTHORITY Sec. 101. Independent accident investigations. Sec. 102. Subpoena authority and miner rights during inspections and investigations. Sec. 103. Designation of miner representative. Sec. 104. Additional amendments relating to inspections and investigations.
    [Show full text]
  • Democrats Content to Let Gonzales Twist in Wind
    MN_A_8_A8_LA_1_08-07-07_tu_2_CMYK 2007:08:06:23:30:19_ A8 TUESDAY, AUGUST 7, 2007 , LOS ANGELES TIMES THE NATION Desperate effort to aid miners A predawn collapse Trapped underground trapped 6 men 1,500 Hundreds of rescuers dug through a collapsed underground shaft Monday in an attempt to rescue six feet underground in a miners trapped in a Utah coal mine. Here’s an approximate boundary of the Crandall Canyon Mine: Utah coal mine. Provo 191 Detailed NEV. By Ashley Powers UTAH CALIF. and Janet Wilson Price Times Staff Writers Huntington Electric Lake UTAH Reservoir 6 huntington, utah — Res- cuers drilled and smashed Cleveland through solid rock Monday in an Reservoir Miners attempt to reach six coal miners trapped 31 Huntington trapped deep underground by a Miller Flat 10 15 MILES massive predawn cave-in. Reservoir 29 Searchers said they were within 1,700 feet of the miners but their initial approach failed. Workers could not contact the miners. Authorities were uncer- tain whether the men were still Miners trapped 1,500 Mine entrance alive. feet below ground A top mining company official said the collapse was caused by 31 an earthquake, but seismolo- gists said they suspected the re- Main shaft verse. Company officials and hun- Rescuers dig dreds of workers at the Crandall through cave-in Canyon Mine — 140 miles south of Salt Lake City — focused on trying to reach the six men, who were believed to be about 1,500 feet below the surface and 3.4 miles from the mine entrance. Mine rescue teams from around Utah were arriving Mon- day night as other miners, ex- Digital image from Google Earth hausted and covered in black Retreat mining dust, promised to return after a The miners may have been using a technique called retreat mining, which involves gleaning the coal in few hours’ sleep.
    [Show full text]
  • Msha Could Not Show It Made the Right Decision in Approving the Roof Control Plan at Crandall Canyon Mine
    MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION MSHA COULD NOT SHOW IT MADE THE RIGHT DECISION IN APPROVING THE ROOF CONTROL PLAN AT CRANDALL CANYON MINE Office of Inspector General—Office Audit Date: March 31, 2008 Report Number: 05-08-003-06-001 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR March 2008 Office of Inspector General Office of Audit WHAT OIG FOUND MSHA was negligent in carrying out its BRIEFLY… responsibilities to protect the safety of miners. Specifically, MSHA could not show that it made the Highlights of Report Number: 05-08-003-06-001, right decision in approving the Crandall Canyon MSHA Could Not Show It Made the Right Decision Mine roof control plan or that the process was free In Approving the Roof Control Plan At Crandall from undue influence by the mine operator. MSHA Canyon Mine, to the Assistant Secretary for Mine did not have a rigorous, transparent review and Safety and Health, dated March 31, 2008. approval process for roof control plans consisting of explicit criteria and plan evaluation factors, WHY READ THE REPORT appropriate documentation, and active oversight In August 2007, "a major coal bump/bounce" and supervision by Headquarters and District 9 occurred in the Crandall Canyon Mine (Emery management. Further, MSHA did not ensure that County, Utah) precipitating a tragedy in which nine subsequent inspections assessed compliance men lost their lives: six miners, and three rescue with, and the effectiveness of, approved plans in workers who died attempting to save the miners. continuing to protect miners. At the time of the incident, the mine operator was conducting a high-risk mining technique known as MSHA and mine operator officials worked together retreat mining in which pillars of coal previously left to develop rescue plans related to the August 2007 to support the mine roof are removed to maximize tragedy, with MSHA exercising final approval resource recovery.
    [Show full text]
  • Families of Mine Disaster Victims Seek Accountability Angie Robertson
    Public Interest Law Reporter Volume 13 Article 13 Issue 2 Spring 2008 2008 Families of Mine Disaster Victims Seek Accountability Angie Robertson Follow this and additional works at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/pilr Part of the Oil, Gas, and Mineral Law Commons Recommended Citation Angie Robertson, Families of Mine Disaster Victims Seek Accountability, 13 Pub. Interest L. Rptr. 200 (2008). Available at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/pilr/vol13/iss2/13 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by LAW eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Public Interest Law Reporter by an authorized administrator of LAW eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Robertson: Families of Mine Disaster Victims Seek Accountability Loyola Public Interest Law Reporter FAMILIES OF MINE DISASTER VICTIMS SEEK ACCOUNTABILITY by ANGIE ROBERTSON twelve miners, in West Virginia, which killed T andhe 2006 the 2007Sago minemine disasterdisaster at Crandall Canyon in Utah, which killed nine miners, once again revealed the dangerous working conditions in coal mines and brought renewed national attention to the need for thorough mine inspections.1 Mining remains one of the most dangerous occupations in America, with a fatality rate more than seven times higher than the average for all private indus- tries.2 Because coal remains the source of 50 percent of the energy used in the United States, and energy use continues to rise, this fatality rate could poten- tially increase. 3 200 Published by LAW eCommons, 2008 1 Public Interest Law Reporter, Vol. 13, Iss. 2 [2008], Art. 13 No. 2 * Spring 2008 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Massey Energy Company 2007 Annual Report Any X 26765
    Massey Energy Company Energy Massey 2007 MAssEy EnERgy CoMpAny Annual Report p.o. BoX 26765 RICHMonD, VA 23261 (804) 788-1800 Meet the energy behind massey energy Massey energy coMpany 2007 annual report finanCial highlights shareholder information Year Ended December 31, (In millions, except per share, per ton Common Stock Information Comparison of Cumulative Total Return for the and number of employees amounts) 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 at February 15, 2008, there were 80,491,644 shares Period December 31, 2002 to December 31, 2007 outstanding and approximately 6,800 shareholders $ 800 Consolidated Statement of Income Data of record of Massey energy’s common stock. $ 700 produced coal revenue $ 2,054.4 $ 1,902.3 $ 1,777.7 $ 1,456.7 $ 1,262.1 Registrar and Transfer Agent $ 600 Total revenue SM 2,413.5 2,219.9 2,204.3 1,766.6 1,571.4 Wells Fargo Shareowner Services $ 500 Income (Loss) before interest and Shareowner relations Department $ 400 income taxes 179.7 111.0 (20.9) 46.2 (17.5) p.o. Box 64854 Income (Loss) before cumulative effect St. paul, Mn 55164-0854 $ 300 of accounting change 94.1 41.6 (101.6) 13.9 (32.3) For change of address, lost dividends or lost stock $ 200 net income (loss) 94.1 41.0 (101.6) 13.9 (40.2) certificates, write or telephone: $ 100 Income (Loss) per share – Basic Wells Fargo Bank, n.a. $ 0 p.o. Box 64874 Income (Loss) before cumulative effect 12/02 12/03 12/04 12/05 12/06 12/07 of accounting change $ 1.17 $ 0.51 $ (1.33) $ 0.18 $ (0.43) St.
    [Show full text]
  • Response of Omar Mining Company, A.T
    NORMA ACORD, ::<L 'RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK West Virginia Residents, f SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS Plaintiffs and Class Representatives, ~~l,~,j·:' OF WEST VIRGINIA Plaintiff/Petitioner, v. Appeal No. ______ Civil Action No. 04-C-lSl-0 CO LANE COMPANY, a West Virginia Circuit Court of Logan County corporation, individually and as a successor-in-interest to Cole & Crane Real Estate Trust; COAL & CRANE REAL ESTATE TRUST, a West Virginia trust; LOGAN COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, a West Virginia public body; WEST VIRGINIA COAL & COKE COMPANY, a West Virginia corporation, OMAR MINING COMPANY, a West Virginia corporation, individually and as successor-in-interest to West Virginia Coal & Coke Company; A.T. MASSEY COAL COMPANY, a West Virginia corporation, individually and as a successor-in-interest to West Virginia Coal & Coke Company; MASSEY ENERGY COMPANY, a Virginia corporation, individually and as a successor-in-interest to West Virginia Coal & Coke Company; RICHARD FRY, a West Virginia resident, individually, Defendants/Respondents. RESPONSE OF OMAR MINING COMPANY, A.T. MASSEY COAL COMPANY, INC., AND MASSEY ENERGY COMPANY TO PETITION FOR APPEAL Daniel L. Stickler (WVSB # 3613) Jonathan L. Anderson (WVSB # 9628) JACKSON KELL Y PLLC 1600 Laidley Tower Charleston, West Virginia 25301 (304) 340-1000 Counsel for Respondents Omar Mining Company, A. T. Massey Coal Company, Inc., and Massey Energy Company {C1863023.1 } TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 II. KIND OF PROCEEDING AND NATURE OF RULING BELOW .................................. .2 III. STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................. 3 A. Historical Background ............................................................................................. 3 1. 1920-1954: Coal & Coke's Operations in the Island Creek Valley ............. 3 2.
    [Show full text]