Robert Browman

Note: This is one of a series of in-depth articles I am writing on the coal industry and mountaintop removal as part of my role as lead writer and co-editor for the documentary film The Coal War. I write regular blog posts and articles for the site.

by Robert Browman
http://thecoalwar.com

Massey Energy CEO Don Blankenship. (Public Domain)

On April 5, 2010, an explosion at Massey Energy’s Upper Big Branch coal mine in West Virginia killed 29 miners. The incident was the worst coal mining disaster in the United States in forty years.

In the aftermath of the accident, much of the criticism of the company has focused on Massey’s CEO, Don Blankenship.

Opponents have long characterized the 60-year old Blankenship as an unscrupulous coal baron who flouts the law, buys political favor and sacrifices miner and public safety for the sake of profit. In the wake of the Upper Big Branch tragedy, investors and politicians are taking a hard look at Blankenship as well.

New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, who is responsible for the New York State Common Retirement Fund, which holds $14.1 million worth of Massey stock, has called for Blankenship’s resignation. “Massey’s cavalier attitude toward risk and callous disregard for the safety of its employees has exacted a horrible cost on dozens of hard-working miners and their loved ones,” DiNapoli said.

Blankenship is no stranger to controversy. He is active in West Virginia politics, often employing tactics that ride on the edge of commonly acceptable business practices.

In 2004, Blankenship spent $3 million on a campaign to unseat a West Virginia Supreme Court justice he thought might rule against Massey in a case pending before the court. The campaign was successful, and when the case was heard, the new judge ruled in Massey’s favor.

A challenge to that case ultimately landed in the U.S. Supreme court, which overturned the state court’s ruling, finding that the justice’s failure to recuse himself was a Constitutional violation. In the Supreme Court’s majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, “Not every campaign contribution by a litigant or attorney creates a probability of bias that requires a judge’s recusal, but this is an exceptional case.”

In an editorial about the case, USA Today called Blankenship’s tactics “venemous,” and wrote, “Blankenship has inadvertently done what no reform group ever could: He has vividly illustrated how big money corrupts judicial elections. It puts justice up for sale to the highest bidder.” The New York Times wrote “The majority’s recognition of the threat posed by outsize contributions amounts to a crucial statement that judges and justice are not for sale.”

Blankenship then set his eyes on the West Virginia Legislature, vowing to do “whatever it takes” to help the Republican party secure a majority in what has traditionally been a Democratic stronghold. According to the New York Times, winning candidates in the state usually spend less than $20,000 on their campaigns. Blankenship spent $6 million on various political initiatives, including donating funds to 60 candidates.

U.S. Representative Nick J. Rahall II, a Democrat from West Virginia, told the New York Times, “Don Blankenship would actually be less powerful if he were in elected office. He would be twice as accountable and half as feared.”

Blankenship’s effort to change West Virginia’s political landscape ultimately failed when at least 31 House Democrats he targeted for defeat retained their seats, leaving Democrats in control of the Legislature.

Blankenship is outspoken, and his personal political views have long riled environmentalists, organized labor, and some in the mainstream of the political spectrum.

In a speech at the Tug Valley Mining Institute, Blankenship lashed out at those who criticize him. “It is as great a pleasure for me to be criticized by the communists and the atheists of the Charleston Gazette as to be applauded by my best friends,” he said. “People are cowering away from being criticized by people that are our enemies. Would we be upset if Osama Bin Laden was critical of us?”

Blankenship is a staunch opponent of government regulation of the mining industry. He and Massey fight regulation by claiming the company acts responsibly towards the environment on its own.

But Blankenship’s views suggest he is less than concerned about pollution. “If Pelosi thinks that decreasing CO2 in this country is going to save the polar bears, she’s crazy,” he said during a speech. “If CO2 emissions are going to kill the polar bears, it’s going to happen. What we do here is not going to do it.”

Blankenship also denies the existence of global warming. “They can say what they want about climate change. But the only thing melting in this country that matters is our financial system and our economy,” he said.

In an interview with E&E TV a year later, Blankenship solidified his position. “I don’t deny the science behind global warming. I deny that there is any science that supports global warming”, he said.

Blankenship also believes energy conservation is a slippery slope which will lead to the erosion of the American way of life. “I have spent quite a bit of time in Russia, China and India in the last year or two, and I can tell you, that’s the first phase,” he said. “You go from having your own car, to carpooling, to riding a bus to riding mass transit, and you eventually get down to where you’re walking. And your apartments go from being nice apartments and homes with your own bathrooms, to sharing bathrooms and kitchens with four families, that’s what socialism and the elimination of capitalism and free enterprise is all about.”

Blankenship is a proponent of the controversial surface mining process called mountaintop removal. The process involves blasting up to 400 vertical feet off the top of mountains to expose underlying coal seams. Excess debris from the blasting, which often contains toxic byproducts from the mining process, is dumped in high volume into surrounding valleys and streams.

Opponents of mountaintop removal point to scientific studies showing severe environmental and health consequences resulting from the process, as well as irreparable damage to communities and culture as life-long residents are forced from their ancestral land.

The Environmental Protection Agency reports that “the impact of mountaintop removal on nearby communities is devastating. Dynamite blasts needed to splinter rock strata are so strong they crack the foundations and walls of houses. Mining dries up an average of 100 wells a year and contaminates water in others. In many coalfield communities, the purity and availability of drinking water are keen concerns.”

Blankenship disagrees. “Mountaintop mining does less damage than urban construction because it is temporary and properly managed with proper drainage controls and so forth. It is something that is ugly during construction, but if you look at it 20 years from now you can hardly see it.” Blankenship told WVIncOnline`.

Critics say the coal extracted via mountaintop removal can be mined by traditional means, without destroying pristine environmental areas, uprooting residents, and putting communities at health risk. They contend coal companies engage in the environmentally devastating process to reduce the amount of labor needed to mine coal, thereby improving bottom-line profit.

In 1950, it is estimated there were 125,000 coal miners working in West Virginia. By 2005, there were approximately 15,000.

The EPA reports that more than 700 miles of streams were buried under valley fills between 1985 and 2001, and over 800 square miles of mountains have been destroyed by blasting. The agency estimates that 2,200 square miles of forests will be destroyed to make way for mountaintop removal sites by 2012.

Proponents of mountaintop removal claim the process provides jobs for local communities while providing energy for the rest of the country. Environmental activists have long argued the health risks and damage to the environment outweigh those benefits, but their efforts have yet to stop the politically powerful coal companies.

As Massey begins blasting on one of the last untouched mountains in Appalachia — Coal River Mountain — local residents have embraced a new tactic: an alternative energy project. Activists with The Coal River Wind campaign say building a wind farm on Coal River Mountain would provide enough renewable energy to power 150,000 homes, provide new jobs for the local community, while allowing the coal company to mine coal underground.

Lorelei Scarbro, who is working to gain political support for the project, believes the choice for Coal River Mountain is clear. “One is clean energy that will last forever, and the other is dirty energy that is finite and will some day run out, ” she said.

But Blakenship believes that any move towards renewable energy makes the country less competitive. “Teach your children to speak Chinese, because if we’re going to play around with windmills and solar panels, we’ll fall behind,” he told NPR.

Massey is the leading practitioner of mountaintop removal in West Virginia. Blankenship is one of the most vocal advocates of the process.

Leading up to the recent tragedy at the Upper Big Branch mine, Massey Energy was cited for numerous violations by federal regulators. The mine has received more than 1,000 safety citations during the last five years, including 50 citations the month prior to the disaster. Two safety violations were issued the day of the explosion.

Blankenship has mocked regulators who work to make mines safe, saying, “the very idea that they care more about coal miner safety than we do is as silly as global warming. ”

Many are now questioning why Massey failed to act when notified of so many safety issues at the Upper Big Branch mine.

During an interview with Forbes Magazine in 2003, Blankenship was clear about his company’s approach to the regulatory process. “We don’t pay much attention to the violation count,” Blankenship said.

In 2005, Blankenship wrote a memo to mine superintendents that critics say illustrate his profit over safety approach. “If any of you have been asked by your group presidents, your supervisors, engineers or anyone else to do anything other than run coal (i.e., build overcasts, do construction jobs, or whatever) you need to ignore them and run coal,” Blankenship wrote. “This memo is necessary only because we seem not to understand that coal pays the bills.”