This news story originally provided by The Charleston Gazette

July 30, 2005

Blankenship downplays coal silos' importance

By Ken Ward Jr.
Staff writer

Massey Energy President Don Blankenship on Friday downplayed the importance of two controversial new coal silos at a Massey operation adjacent to a Raleigh County elementary school.

Blankenship said neither silo at Massey subsidiary Goals Coal Co.’s operation near Sundial is crucial to Massey.

During a conference call with industry stock analysts, Blankenship discussed the Goals Coal controversy in response to a question about the status of the company’s environmental permits.

Blankenship said he knows of no “significant issues” concerning Massey permits and the company’s production targets.

“Overall, we are OK with permits,” Blankenship said. “The speed with which we’re getting them has not changed much, but some of the larger ones we’ve gotten have put us in good shape.”

“We do have the issue that’s been highly publicized about the silo at Goals,” Blankenship said.

“It’s primarily a quality control and cost issue as opposed to a production issue,” Blankenship said. “It’s not overly significant.”

On Tuesday, the state Department of Environmental Protection revoked its June 30 permit approval for the second of two new silos Goals Coal planned for its preparation and loadout facility near Sundial.

The DEP said an agency investigation had found the silo was “permitted based on inaccurate maps and may be outside the legal permit boundary.”

The Goals Coal operation is adjacent to Raleigh County’s Marsh Fork Elementary School, and the second silo is just 220 feet from the school property line.

Under state and federal law, no new mining operations are allowed within 300 feet of a school.

In permit applications, Massey said the silos would be used to allow more efficient storage and shipment of different grades of coal. The silos at Goals Coal would only be allowed if they were within the operation’s original permit boundary.

The DEP has said the first silo, which is completed, is also outside the permit boundary shown on company maps. But, the agency does not plan to take any action concerning that facility.

Massey Energy officials have told the DEP and the state Surface Mine Board that they plan to appeal the DEP order blocking the second silo.

In a letter to the DEP, Massey said the permit boundary should be judged based on a marker at the mine site, not on old, inaccurate maps.

During Friday’s conference call, Blankenship said he was watching closely the permit review for a new Massey operation in Logan County near the site of the historic Battle of Blair Mountain.

Blankenship said there have been protests against the permit because, “there was a union, nonunion battle there in 1920 or something [and] that has been under some additional scrutiny.”

Blankenship said Massey could meet its production goals without that permit.

To contact staff writer Ken Ward Jr., use e-mail or call 348-1702.