F-2: Mine Safety

Statement of the Case: Engineer A, the Chief Engineer for a long-established mine, engaged

Geoscientist B to study the mine operations and to devise more efficient methods for extracting

ore from the old mine. During a site inspection, the geoscientist travelled down the shaft into the

drifts (tunnels) which led to the ore face. During this detailed tour of the mine, Geoscientist B

observed many infractions of safety provisions: methane detectors were missing from the deepest

parts of the mine; ventilation was poor in many areas of the mine; shoring was old and appeared

to be deteriorating; thick dust covered equipment and could have been a source of dangerous

dust explosions. Although Geoscientist B had not been hired to examine mine safety, the

geoscientist nevertheless mentioned these concerns to Engineer A, who agreed that safety was a

major worry. Engineer A explained that several proposals for safety improvements had been

made over the years, but the senior mine management had rejected them, citing the marginal

profitability of the mine and the fact that costly changes could cause the mine to close.

Question: If you were Engineer A or Geoscientist B, what would you do at this point?

Outcome: Geoscientist B stated that a professional should not condone such unsafe practices by

ignoring them and suggested that a combined, direct warning to the mine management might be

more convincing than the engineer’s previous safety proposals. Engineer A agreed, and they

made up a list of the most essential safety measures. The warning on mine safety was prepared as

a chapter in the geoscientist’s report on ore extraction. Engineer A and Geoscientist B cited the

Westray mine disaster, which killed 26 miners, and they quoted sections from the Westray

inquiry, showing similarities with the Westray practices. They also explained that the possibility

of injury or death because of the dangerous mine conditions was a far more serious financial risk

than the potential of mine closure.

Geoscientist B presented the report to senior management, and Engineer A supported the safety

warning and emphasized that safety measures need to be taken whether the mine’s productivity

justified them or not. After a brief discussion of the report, the senior management agreed to all

of the proposed safety measures, saying that they simply had been unaware of the seriousness of

the situation.

Authors’ Comments: This example is typical of many cases where the initiative of Professional
Engineers and Professional Geoscientists, and their commitment to the public welfare, as stated
in the Code of Ethics, has resulted in safer and more productive workplaces.

[Infraction- a violation or infringement of a law or agreement.

Ore - a natural aggregation of one or more minerals that can be mined, processed, and sold at a profit.]