The biggest thing that everyone interested in the Farmington (Consol No. 9) Mine disaster wanted (wants?) to know is why. What exactly was the cause of the explosion? Really though the important question is what ignited the blast. As we know, conditions were right for an explosion, but what started it in the first place? More exactly, not just what, but who and where. While we (the authors of this blog) have some fairly strong opinions about this, there is only one person who has ever made a claim that he knew beyond a doubt what the ignition source was. That man was Paul J. Componation, a mining expert involved in the investigation, and his assertion was that the cause was smoking.
I will attach screen shots and quotes about this, but his statements can be seen on website comments for the book Farmington No. 9 by Bonnie Stewart. They are out in the open so we feel it is appropriate and right to consider them. Mr. Componation also indicates that he is suspect of the intentions of the author, yet after having read the book thoroughly and having the complete, unredacted report on hand, combined with having seen every available video and read every other available account, we feel the book is honest. The research done was seemingly sound, the information in the book matches other known facts, and frankly since no smoking gun is shown by the book, it wasn't done to be sensationalistic or to exploit the families of the victims. But we digress. He says smoking caused the initial explosion, and that the book is at the least wrong, and at worst deliberately misleading. His ignition claim is the only one ever made, so let us consider it.
Consider this: in order for someone smoking to have set the initial explosion off, there would have to be sufficient methane where the smoker was to cause an initial methane explosion, and also the person smoking would presumably either not know or not care that methane was at a dangerous level where he was. We know for a fact that the No. 2 fan went down, and was down for hours. The alarm system that should have alerted people and cut power had been deliberately bypassed, so the mine continued to operate with insufficient ventilation. It is a fact that the mine was already inadequately ventilated with all fans up and running, but combined with the low barometric pressure that night, methane levels had to be high. There can be no doubt that there was sufficient methane and sufficient float coal dust to propagate and sustain a huge explosion. That's what happened after all! But we already know these facts. We are talking here specifically about the source of ignition.
How could Mr. Componation know beyond a doubt that smoking was the ignition source? Our personal, thorough, yet unprofessional analysis concludes that the explosion most likely started way off in the west end of the mine, an area unexplored by teams before the mine was sealed off for the final time. If smoking started the explosion down there, nobody could possibly know that. He had to have some sort of evidence found in an area of the mine that was explored, for it to be certain, unless his evidence was through testimony that someone on a crew was a regular smoker in the mine and he is just coming to that conclusion because it seems likely. It must be said that Componation was an experienced, capable mining expert with theoretically no axe to grind, yet states that he was not allowed to write a report where smoking was the cause. Again, this implies that he had solid evidence.... unless the fact that he wasn't allowed to write that report means that the evidence was deemed unsound by his superiors. I mean, someone can be pretty sure of something that they cannot prove to be true, right? Without proof, though, it cannot be known to be true. Just being pretty sure is not good enough.
The miners at No. 9 may have occasionally played things fast and loose, but we know they didn't "mudcap" the buried mining machine up north, something Danny Kuhn thought might have been the ignition source. (This does imply it had been done before though.) But that wasn't it, and explosion evidence seems to indicate it did not originate anywhere down south. Where could his proof have been found?
What if the initial explosion actually happened at the bottom of the Llewelyn shaft? This is something that we have considered at length. That area was completely devastated, and force/direction data there is not clear. Had it begun there, would evidence of smoking have survived what that area was subjected to throughout the entire event? We do not believe it could have. Meaning, even if smoking did provide the ignition at that location, Mr. Componation could not have found such evidence there. So what did he see, and where did he see it? Beyond physical evidence of smoking, of which there are no mentions made in the official report NOR are there any mentions made of smoking anywhere in any other accounts besides his, what evidence could he have that made him feel sure that smoking was the guaranteed source of ignition? We have no idea, but are trying to find out. It appears that he has passed away, so unfortunately we cannot get the details from him personally, which is most unfortunate. We have no doubt he could have materially added to our understanding of the No. 9 disaster.
Would a determination in line with his original report, which he said he was not allowed to submit, have changed any of the legal proceedings which followed? Hard to say. Mine officials didn't make anyone light up, unless it was a mine official that lit one up and blew it up himself! Now, if a boss had ordered a crew to mudcap that continuous miner out, that would be a different matter, but we would probably never know that!
If Mr. Componation did have some kind of definite proof of smoking being the ignition source we may never know. We are making attempts to locate family members to ask, but we will not pry. Keep in mind though, his assertion is significant because it remains the only one claiming to know the ignition source for a fact. That alone is worth pursuing. Again though, no methane, no explosion. The presence of the methane was the real danger, and THAT is something that the company had to know about.
What do we then make ultimately of his statement that smoking was the source of ignition? We do not see how that could be knowable. We know for a fact that regardless of where the ignition source was, nobody survived from that area. We believe that none of the explored areas showed any clear sign of the primary ignition. We know that ventilation would have been the worst in the west heading, sections 9 and 10. We know that the recovery teams left water sealing the west end, knowing it was holding back methane. Any number of ignition sources could have been present way off down there, yes including smoking but also many, many other possibilities. We find at present no way to agree or even suspect that smoking was the ignition source, as zero evidence is available to support that conclusion besides Mr. Componation's assertions.
(The cause of the explosion was excessive methane levels due to poor ventilation, period. The explosion was greatly enhanced by the coal dust throughout the mine. The lack of adequate rock dusting played heavily into the "quality" of the explosive mixture of coal dust and methane and air. The presence of the methane was due to inadequate ventilation. The cause of the poor ventilation is due to a fan being down, bleeders being blocked by roof falls, enormous unventilated gob areas, insufficient stoppings throughout the mine, and a ventilation plan that could never, ever have worked even in ideal conditions. During high barometric pressure the methane in No. 9 was probably more manageable. During low barometric pressure, it was not manageable. To our way of thinking, the ignition source is less critical than the completely inadequate handling of the methane.)
