Do not entrust your life to mining professors: rely on your own judgement

Here is an example of confused reporting that pricks one’s interest and sets the canary alarm bells ringing: 

  

The shutdown [of the Tower Mine, Utah] came a day after University of Utah researchers presented findings about the dangers of deep coal mining at a conference at the federal Bureau of Land Management in Salt Lake City.

William Pariseau, a professor of mining engineering, determined the solid coal barriers at Tower were sufficiently large to support the mine, but his analysis did not take into account geologic conditions that could contribute to cave-ins.

“If these operators say they’re seeing things that trouble them, and they won’t continue their operation because its not safe, I believe them,” said Kim McCarter, chairman of the university’s Department of Mining Engineering.

UtahAmerican said Tower is the deepest operating coal mine in the United States. At that depth, the mountain is bearing down on the mine with a force of 3,025 pounds per square inch, McCarter said.

I do not know either of the professors, although I know of both professors, who are respected in the circles in which I move.  I have tried to Google more on them but their web sites at the University in Salt Lake City are down–maybe due to an overload of curious like me.  What I write in what follows is not intended to reflect on the professors—let that wait until we can get copies of their papers and/or presentations, which were, no doubt, more thorough than the report indicates.

Mining is not science.  There is, I suspect, no “science” of mining.  Too often we hear supporters and critics of mining say that science supports the conclusion that the mine will be safe.  They say this in a way that is formatted to lead us to believe that the truth has been established.  In practice all they mean, all that has happened, is that one or two scientific principles have been applied in calculating a stress, for example–like McCarter did.  Mere use of an equation, the application of elementary maths and physics, does not constitute “scientific proof” of anything, net alone mine safety. 

Mining may be “engineering” if, like my old professor, you define engineering as the art of applying scientific principles to the real world.  I have always liked that definition of engineering. Many do not, for they believe it degrades engineering to an art…at the expense of claims that engineering is a science.

Take a look at what is reported of William Pariseau above.  He calculated, using elementary maths and physics, that the “solid coal barriers at Tower were sufficiently large to support the mine.”   But watch out:  there is the caution that his analysis did not “take into account geologic conditions that could contribute to cave-ins.”   In other words, as an engineer he formulated a very simplified model of the reality out there, applied a bit of maths and physics and calculated a stress less than the stress required to break an intact piece of rock in the laboratory.  Not a good basis to entrust your life to the coal barrier’s performance.

And as an engineer, Pariseau presumable posted his warning:  I have not considered the actual geology and how it could affect the cave-in potential.  That is where the “art” part of engineering comes in.  Professor Jennings, my old professor of geotechnical engineering, would never make a practical decision without his friend the professor of geology at his side.   Jennings repeatedly told us: we engineers can calculate how the soil and rock might behave; but only the geologist has the skill (art) to tell how the soil and rock will behave. 

But even with two famous professors agreeing (McCarter & Pariseau; Jennings & Brink), we still have no more than an exercise in the application of elementary science underlying an exercise in judgment–the art of making a practical decision. 

Nowhere do either of these sets of professors claim–or exercise–truth in any absolute sense.  They are no more successful than million philosophers in reaching the elusive goal of truth.  Point is, if the geology bumps, the mine collapses, and people are dead, regardless of how many idealized calculations are on paper or presented at conferences. 

That is why we need regulators of integrity and independence.  And that is why ultimately we have no other route to safety than that embedded in McCarter’s statement, which I repeat: 

“If these operators say they’re seeing things that trouble them, and they won’t continue their operation because its not safe, I believe them,”