Gleision Mine Disaster
- Thread starter legendrider
- Start date
Graigwen
Well-known member
When discussing this furher we need to remember that Cobb was an expert witness for the defence at the trial of the mine manager and mine company. Most of what he wrote was high quality factual detail.
It was part of his job to float possible explanations that the 1984 workings might, just by incredible chance, have filled with water a few hours before the blast that caused the breach. Put yourself in the place of the jury. Would you be able to say beyond reasonable doubt that such an event did not occur? I don't think so - although personally I don't find his arguments for this sudden flooding very convincing, but they are not completely implausible. He is just putting the case for what might have occurred, introducing doubt is part of his job
For what it is worth I thought about what the jury would have done if the mine manager's evidence had instead been along the lines of "I looked at the flooded 1984 workings and found no more water than usual ponded there. I thought it safe to proceed with cautious advance drilling". I don't think he would have been convicted without further evidence.
Incidentally, the "Like a tap turned half on" of water coming out of an earlier advance drill hole should not be interpreted as evidence that the 1984 workings were not flooded at that time. There is no suggestion that the hole reached the 1984 workings. If you are drilling a few metres in front of you, holing through into a void will be immediately noticeable. That hole terminated in coal/rock and was just a warning that some water was around.
In answer to Tom Ferry's point about the weather before the accident, Cobb did consider this. He said "The rainfall the day before the incident was only 0.4mm. It is highly unlikely that the inflow from rainfall would have been high enough to cause the flood.".
Sometimes we have to accept that full evidence will never be available.
.
.
It was part of his job to float possible explanations that the 1984 workings might, just by incredible chance, have filled with water a few hours before the blast that caused the breach. Put yourself in the place of the jury. Would you be able to say beyond reasonable doubt that such an event did not occur? I don't think so - although personally I don't find his arguments for this sudden flooding very convincing, but they are not completely implausible. He is just putting the case for what might have occurred, introducing doubt is part of his job
For what it is worth I thought about what the jury would have done if the mine manager's evidence had instead been along the lines of "I looked at the flooded 1984 workings and found no more water than usual ponded there. I thought it safe to proceed with cautious advance drilling". I don't think he would have been convicted without further evidence.
Incidentally, the "Like a tap turned half on" of water coming out of an earlier advance drill hole should not be interpreted as evidence that the 1984 workings were not flooded at that time. There is no suggestion that the hole reached the 1984 workings. If you are drilling a few metres in front of you, holing through into a void will be immediately noticeable. That hole terminated in coal/rock and was just a warning that some water was around.
In answer to Tom Ferry's point about the weather before the accident, Cobb did consider this. He said "The rainfall the day before the incident was only 0.4mm. It is highly unlikely that the inflow from rainfall would have been high enough to cause the flood.".
Sometimes we have to accept that full evidence will never be available.
.
.
tomferry
Well-known member
Agreed it is very hard to say without more first hand accounts which is the critical information that is missing . I can see why family members further down the line are pressing on another investigation , my personal opinion is though I don?t believe a true answer is their now, I think the manager knows exactly what happened if he is wrong he will never say and to finally seal the fate the only other evidence is with miners who are the fatalities. I do believe ilegal workings may be found and it be proven old surveys are wrong for the old workings but leave the mine in peace now .
Cantclimbtom
Well-known member
Maybe again I'm being deeply na?ve, but suggesting and driving possible explanations to the jury, to undermine the beyond-reasonable-doubt status of the prosecution's argument, is the job of the defence team's lead barrister. And the job of an expert witness is to state a professionally competent honest opinion, not spin stories and supposals. (I warned you I might be na?ve)Graigwen said:
I'm sure he doesn't, otherwise he wouldn't have overseen firing the facemikem said:
PeteHall
Moderator
I've got to dig the file out of archive, but my colleague Adam did steer me to the following article following his evidence at the trial: https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/gleision-colliery-trial-geologist-says-7078113
Apparently he got a tough grilling from the defence QC, and had to remind them several times that he was giving evidence as a witness, not an expert witness. Basically, his job was to survey the mine workings for the HSE and work out how much water had been released.
If I can find the relevant files (and if they are ok for public viewing) I'll share what I can.
Apparently he got a tough grilling from the defence QC, and had to remind them several times that he was giving evidence as a witness, not an expert witness. Basically, his job was to survey the mine workings for the HSE and work out how much water had been released.
If I can find the relevant files (and if they are ok for public viewing) I'll share what I can.
PeteHall
Moderator
I've found the archive folder, which includes a lot of information. I will see if I can find out what is in the public domain and what can be shared.
It seems that our work was to laser scan the mine to calculate the volume of water that would have been released and therefore the area that would have been flooded by the inrush. Adam's not in the office today, but I'll have another chat with him later now I've found the folder.
It seems that our work was to laser scan the mine to calculate the volume of water that would have been released and therefore the area that would have been flooded by the inrush. Adam's not in the office today, but I'll have another chat with him later now I've found the folder.
alanw
Well-known member
The inquest will not take place until "the early part of 2026".
Gleision mine deaths: Inquest won't be held until 2026
Four men died in 2011 when thousands of gallons of water flooded the mine they were working in.
www.bbc.co.uk
It's already 13 years since they died. It's clear from the number of documents and lawyers involved that the objective is to allocate blame. I don't think anybody would spend that amount of money unless liability for compensation was at stake. They'd have been better just giving the money to the families.
The sensible thing to do would be an investigation by engineers and other experts to find out what happened and how similar events can be avoided, without allocating blame, as in marine and air accidents.
The Public Inquiry into Covid is the same; the reason the UK can't fund the NHS, defence, etc, is because we have this culture of trying to get every detail right and then getting so bogged down it's actually worse. We can't afford it. If we accepted the pragmatic solution there would still be huge savings even if we occasionally had to fix things afterwards.
The sensible thing to do would be an investigation by engineers and other experts to find out what happened and how similar events can be avoided, without allocating blame, as in marine and air accidents.
The Public Inquiry into Covid is the same; the reason the UK can't fund the NHS, defence, etc, is because we have this culture of trying to get every detail right and then getting so bogged down it's actually worse. We can't afford it. If we accepted the pragmatic solution there would still be huge savings even if we occasionally had to fix things afterwards.
Cantclimbtom
Well-known member
Not sure if I was daft the first time or if the description is slightly different this time, but from the link in Alanw post I saw something I missed last time...
I'd thought they were breaking out coal or clearing rock from the face with the charge and accidentally broke into the flooded old mine nearby and maybe they misjudged the proximity or the old survey was accidentally (or deliberately... non declared extraction) not including some workings.
However the link says "... after a controlled explosion to improve air circulation.." which makes me think they were actually trying to break a hole into old workings? (Exit for stale air?) And if so the miscalculation was that the section was flooded.
I'd thought they were breaking out coal or clearing rock from the face with the charge and accidentally broke into the flooded old mine nearby and maybe they misjudged the proximity or the old survey was accidentally (or deliberately... non declared extraction) not including some workings.
However the link says "... after a controlled explosion to improve air circulation.." which makes me think they were actually trying to break a hole into old workings? (Exit for stale air?) And if so the miscalculation was that the section was flooded.
Not necessarily. It could have been a connection to alter the air circuit within their own mine.
I think there was more detail in one of the reports, if you want to do some searching.