Have a read boy`s,

http://www.hse.gov.uk/mining/gleison-mine-incident-report.pdf 

Tragic, and maybe not avoidable. The plans they were working to were adequate, and they were practising advance drilling to check for water, so why did it happen?

At least the court got it right. The HSE report only deals with facts, not apportioning blame, but, having read many accident investigation reports in other fields, I don't see any of the facts pointing towards either negligence or incompetence.

The report itself is typical of HSE, well written and comprehensive, but there just is not enough information to draw a firm conclusion. In that respect it reminds me of the report on the Longannet flood, which fortunately caused no injuries or deaths, but closed a colliery with the loss of far too many jobs.

I have had a go at fixing the Wikipedia entry, which implied that some mysterious explosion, not a routine and intentional blasting operation, triggered the flood. Also added a reference to the HSE report.

A very interesting read..

---

I love the title
"A factual report by the Health and Safety Executive"
Do they do other sorts?

---

Tragic yes,but definitely avoidable,

If advance boring was used adequately they would have tapped the water trapped in the central workings,not fired holes that water was running at half tap as mentioned,
Water running out of holes advancing to any old workings should ring the alarm bell`s to any experienced Miner`s,

Firing from within the confines of that roadway with water running out of shotholes instead of using a long cable out to the main would have been suffice to save lives.

The position of water and colouration marks on packs and timber higher up the 80`s drift showed where the inrush water was held,therefore the manager never got to the bottom of the 80`s drift the previous day,not prior to firing,even though that point was near on 50m from point of breach,partly filled with silt from being under water from its abandonment in 1984,
When the Eastern workings were in operation water was pumped into the central abandoned workings and the overflow passed under the roadway of the belt drift into the Monk`s level,hence the 37m cautionary barrier,which in this case was entered without permission from the Inspectorate,

Avoidable?definitely.

Anyone interested in the legal side this is of interest:

http://www.kennedyslaw.com/files/Uploads/Documents/Health%20and%20Safety/Kennedys%20-%20Defending%20corporate%20manslaughter.pdf 

---

I love the title
"A factual report by the Health and Safety Executive"
Do they do other sorts?

I've seen reports with a lot more speculation and opinion included. I suspect they are more careful to keep things factual if legal action is likely?

Still, a very tragic event for those involved.

A trial lasting three months. A nice earner.;D

Cannot help thinking that if I was blasting into a flooded passage I would show a little caution. Blast a small hole first, not one the height and width of the passage. Easy to be wise after the event. I can only assume that these miners were working against the clock and wanted to get into the old working to improve the circulation.

---

I've seen reports with a lot more speculation and opinion included. I suspect they are more careful to keep things factual if legal action is likely?

Note that this report has been published after the conclusion of the trial.

I would also like to comment on what I see as the inappropriateness of the Corporate Manslaughter charge brought against the mining company. The thinking behind the act was in a legal remedy for situations where someone's death was brought about by gross breaches of health and safety but where due to the size of the company and complexity of its senior management structure the blame could not be placed on a single human entity such as a director or CEO.

Obviously you cannot send a company to jail, so a fine, usually in the proportion of 10% of annual turnover is usual.
However in this case the mining company is a very small company not in line with the thinking behind the act, and its not rocket science to see that the incident would result in the company ceasing trading anyway. So even in the return of a guilty verdict its unlikely a fine would be paid.

From what I can turn up on the web it seems they never had assets of more than about £200K, so how was the interest of justice being served, never mind value to the taxpayer?

---

A trial lasting three months. A nice earner.;D

Cannot help thinking that if I was blasting into a flooded passage I would show a little caution. Blast a small hole first, not one the height and width of the passage. Easy to be wise after the event. I can only assume that these miners were working against the clock and wanted to get into the old working to improve the circulation.

It does`nt work like that,when heading a narrow drivage ,to advance one has to fire a V formation in the coal,then additional bore holesare fanned from the V to straighten up,hence why primmed holes were found on investigation.

I've seen reports with a lot more speculation and opinion included. I suspect they are more careful to keep things factual if legal action is likely?

Note that this report has been published after the conclusion of the trial.

Ah yes, sorry Roy I didn't notice that, I guess it existed before the trial though but wasn't published until after?

Still, where I've reported incidents to the HSE and they've investigated (fortunately very few and relatively minor) the reports have contained alot more opinion and recommendations. I suspect if a prosucution was likely or expected they would have been a lot more cagey about what they reported.