Let me preface this post by saying that I don’t know the practical differences between potash mining and mining for coal. More than likely coal mining is more fundamentally dangerous than potash mining, which may explain why all 72 miners trapped for over a day in a Canadian potash mine fire appear to have made it out safely.
[Luc Morrison, 26,] said it was a typical night shift until about 1:30 a.m. Sunday, when the lights went out. At first, he thought it was a power bump, but as the minutes ticked away in the gloom of the mine, it became clear it was something more serious.“All you had was your headlamp,” he said.
Word quickly spread that there was a fire in the mine.
The buildup sounds familiar, the sort of tragedy that we hear about at regular intervals. This part, however, stood out:
Morrison left in a truck to head to one of the emergency refuge stations, which had enough internal oxygen supplies to last at least 36 hours, as well as water, food, blankets, chairs and beds.
…”We had good oxygen in there. We had oxygen bottles and some supplies there to keep a guy going,” said [Dan] Bulischak, who is from Russell, Man.
“A lot of us – most of us, if not everyone – knew we were fairly safe there because the smoke was going away from us, and everyone pretty much knew that. So the main concern of everyone was just to wait it out in that area, with a group of 30 guys sweating it out.”
…Morrison and his companions were able to speak to their families on radiophones on Sunday night but didn’t reach the surface until about 6 a.m. Monday.
It seems like a no-brainer to point out that the incident at Sago could have ended differently if the thirteen miners had refuge stations, 36 hours of oxygen and radiophones. I don’t know whether potash mining is inherently less dangerous than mining for coal, but if so then it seems doubly ridiculous that our coal miners couldn’t dream of the sort of luxury-in-refuge that the Saskatchewan miners enjoyed. John’s earlier post listed archaic safety technology that you find in America mines today and the mining industry association’s pathetic attitude towards upgrading:
Bruce Watzman, vice president of safety, health and human resources at the National Mining Association, said it was not the responsibility of coal operators to develop new safety equipment. “We’re not in the self-rescuer manufacturing business,” Mr. Watzman said.
It’s obvious that the industry will not upgrade itself. Governmental oversight means nothing when government has industry associations write the rules and then hires industry veterans to implement them. Credit where credit is due, Governor Manchin did more than just appoint a blue-ribbon commission of stuffed suits and campaign donors, but political winds blow fickle and the problem of mine safety encompasses more of America than just West Virginia. If we care about miners, and insisting that we at least meet Canada’s standards for safety seems like a good way to show that we care, then people who detest labor unions may have to learn to detest them a little bit less. Right now there’s nobody else going to bat on the miners’ behalf.
JWeidner
I don’t know much about either kind of mining, but is there any reason to think that either method is more dangerous than the other (other than differences in the ways the mines are managed)? I mean, it seems like both involve digging minerals out of underground seams, which require workers to basically enter the bowels of the earth and remove it through manual and/or machined labor.
Doesn’t seem to be much difference to me, other than the product that is brought up as the end result.
By the way John, if you’re into fiction (don’t know your reading habits), you might check out Rose by Martin Cruz Smith. I tend to like his writing regardless, but I really enjoyed this book. It’s a novel about a socially disgraced mining engineer returning to his hometown of Wigan, Lancashire (an English coal mining town in the 1870’s) at his sponsor’s request to help solve the disappearance of a local curate. That his sponsor is the Bishop of Wigan, and the curate engaged to his daughter only serves to heighten the mystery.
Perry Como
Why do you hate corporate profits?
CJ
I’m not a mining expert, but I did just listen to an interview with the president of the company that owns the mine. Since potash doesn’t burn, and is sometimes used as a fire retardant, potash mining is safer than coal mining. The fire in the Canadian mine was apparently in the poly pipe used to dewater the mine. The fire was large enough to put out dangerous combustion byproducts, but was likely self limiting.
At any rate, there were the refuges, which the coal miners didn’t enjoy.
CJ
Paul Wartenberg
The situation with the mining industry failing to police itself is why I don’t entirely agree with the libertarian principle of small government: at some point, safety regulations are needed and need to be enforced. Workers and consumers both need protections from industry/business always obsessed with profits and bottom lines and cost cuttings.
vinc
Doesn’t seem to be much difference to me, other than the product that is brought up as the end result.
I know nothing about potash, but, in addition to what CJ said, the geology of the surrounding rock is probably different. Some rocks might be much more prone to act unpredictably.
Also, coal tends to form in layers–like one coal pancake in a stack of rock pancakes… so you end up removing a lot more material in a coal mine than in some other types of mines.
Mary
The radio account I heard today mentioned that potash miners at that mine were statistically safer than downtown Winnipeg high rise workers.
cue obvious jokes about Winnipeg, “downtown” and “high rises”
And yes, potash mining is safer than coal mining, BUT …
stickler
Why?
Follow the Golden Rule.
Those who have the Gold, make the Rules. And we have the best government money can buy. Black boxes are damned expensive. Building them to save a few miners — and, really, how many explosions are there in a given year? — would seriously erode corporate profits.
This is not a system where corporations are expected to act as stewards, or citizens. Don’t like it? Then don’t vote for the GOP.
The Other Steve
Canadian politics are simply differently… They care about individuals a bit more.
Mark B.
I’m not in the coal industry, but I do have experience in hard-rock underground mines as a geologist, and I can tell you that MSHA mandates rescue chambers, first-aid equipment, and at least 2 alternate access routes in every large US hard-rock mine. In addition, all miners are briefed on how to get in and out of their work areas, and mine maps and ommunications stations are required on every level.
From what I understand, the coal miners had both their W-65 self-rescuers (which convert CO to CO2 for 1 or 2 hours) and access to SCBA units (which have built-in O2 supplies). What they lacked was knowledge of alternate escape routes, and that’s what killed them in the end. I also found the lack of refuge chambers shocking – while they may not be required in coal mines, most major underground operators know enough to provide them anyway, as it beats having to replace trained personnel and 10 years of litigation costs.
Regardless of how a corporation should feel about individuals, skilled underground miners are a premium commodity right now, and companies that skirt or disregard basic safety precautions are not only negligent, but incredibly stupid.
BadTux
Canada is a parlimentary democracy. The United States is a semi-monarchial Republic (explicitly designed that way — the Presidency was designed to give George Washington semi-monarchial powers because George refused to be monarch). That explains a lot about why Canadian politics and U.S. politics have gone in such different directions since the Commonwealth was declared. Even their current “conservative” government doesn’t have a majority in Parliment and thus is forced to rule by consensus, rather than via fiat. When forced to rule by consensus, you can’t ignore the wishes of the minority parties, including the minority parties that represent workers. If you do that, the minority parties can band together and force a no-confidence vote and force new elections, something that no self-respecting party leader wants to see happen.
From a Libertarian point of view, “government” is when a group of people band together to provide mutual assistance to each other. Unions are a quite Libertarian idea, since at their essence they are employee-owned labor contracting organizations (some more than others… for example, in one city I lived in, the masonry union was basically the employer for all masons in the city, including providing all benefits, when contractors needed bricklayers or someone to lay concrete block they went by the union hall and sub-contracted some). Corporations — people gathering together to own a business providing goods and services — are a Libertarian idea too, though the grant of limited liability (a government intervention) isn’t Libertarian in origin but, rather, statist in origin (since it is a product of the power of the State). The Libertarian ideal is voluntary communities of individuals who contribute towards the common good of their community where it is more cost-effective (it is, for example, more cost-effective for the 1,000 homeowners of a subdivision to hire a contractor to pave their streets, than for each individual homeowner to hire said contractor to pave only the street in front of his house… thus the “homeowner’s association”).
From a Libertarian viewpoint, the Canadian situation is not ideal, but is closer than the U.S. situation to idea. In the Canadian system those who are not members of the plurality party still have significant input into the system, so while their participation is not voluntary, at least they have some control over the State does to them. Under the U.S. system, the minority party has no such significant input into the system, meaning that not only is their membership in the State involuntary, but the State gives them no opportunity to have any control over what the State does to them.
This is an inherent flaw in the American system, and one which Americans refuse to face up to. There is a reason why every “strong-man” dictator in the world puts into place a strong-President weak-Legislature system like in the United States, and why virtually every functioning democracy in the world (as vs. dictatorships wearing democratic clothing) uses the Parlimentary model. It is because the parlimentary model gives people more opportunity to have control over what the State does to them. This is also why, despite the lack of a Bill of Rights, Australia and Britain have as much freedom as the United States. They may not, for example, have anything about “freedom of speech” written into their respective Constitution or Founding Documents, but in general people have significant freedom of speech in both countries, to the point where their press appears able to tackle controversial topics that our American press fears to tackle.
Of course, a good Libertarian believes that the State, as an involuntary body, needs to be shrunk down to the bare minimum of functions necessary to preserve life and limb and property, and most power devolved to the local level where you can simply move across the city limits into the next city if you disagree with the way things are going in one city. But reality dictates that we are going to need a State for the foreseeable future (it simply isn’t practicable to fund a modern military on a voluntary basis, and while the radical Libertarians might insist that nobody would attack us if we were Libertopia and quit intervening overseas, the fact of the matter is that overseas intervention is often necessary in order to preserve access to resources we need), which is why at least having a parlimentary democracy as the basis of said State (so that at least the minorities have a voice in said government) would be a very, very good thing from a Libertarian point of view.
I expect it to happen in America about the time that cows fly…
– Badtux the Libertarian Penguin
BumperStickerist
Ummm … the pilots aren’t inside the black box?
.
Krista
Badtux – nicely put. Of course, there’s always a catch-22 when it comes to government. If it’s a minority goverment, they can’t do anything too wacky. But they also can’t perform any necessary sweeping changes (like abolishing our unecessary, rubber-stamp, crony position Senate.) By the same token, however, a majority government can get a lot done…but that sometimes isn’t a good thing. (GST tax, anybody?) And of course, being Canadians, we’re highly unlikely to start rioting in the streets over injustices and bad government — we save that for after hockey games.
Cyrus
Yeah, I’ve never understood that. Even putting aside doctrinaire libertarians who want to get down to the level of individual cities, “voting with your feet” seems to be the answer to every problem with a federalist proposal. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, what will a girl in Colorado do if she gets knocked up? No problem, just go to California. Texan gays want to get married? They can move to Vermont or Massachusetts. All those God-fearing Texans won’t have to support sin and sodomy, Californians will get rich off their abortion racket, teenage boys in New Hampshire will fart Lucky Charms and everybody wins!
Everybody except for the teenager in Colorado who couldn’t afford to have a kid and now has to pay for a trip to California on top of everything else, and the Texans who have to leave behind their whole lives to have some legal benefits that most people take for granted. But who cares about them, right?
Why do some people think tyranny – or corruption, or plutocracy, or whatever – is any better coming from a neighbor than from a distant government? And why is it considered justifiable for a minority to have no viable option but to uproot themselves to have something like equality? A lot of people seem to believe that almost anything goes at the local or state level as long as it’s (maybe, somewhat) easier to have a hand in the decision-making than it is at the state or federal level – huh?
I know why we have our current federal system. And it’s useful for compromises and half-measures. If something would be the right thing to do but supporting it in Congress would be political suicide, having it in some states is better than in none. But a lot of people – Brian is the example that comes to mind around here, and there are plenty in real life too – seem to think that federalism actually answers questions instead of just avoiding conflict. There are a lot of problems that it just can’t solve.