By: Lydia Crawley
A new independent study has been released by two West Virginia-based geologists, Nick Fedorko and Mark Thomas. The study claimed that there is a “principal hazard” of subsidence to the site selected for the Ridgeline power plant project.
“The principal hazard of building infrastructure over old mine works is subsidence: surface
instability due to collapse of coal pillars and overburden,” the report states.
Fundamental Data has stated publicly that the land selected for the project was not undermined. During a town hall meeting in Davis on May 16, Lewis Reynolds, a representative of Fundamental Data said, “The gas plant site is one of the few places in this area that is actually not undermined. The notion that these tanks might be on undermined property is in fact the exact reason why it is there.”
Reynolds later stated in the meeting, “We need stable ground for this type of facility.”
The Parsons Advocate reached out to Fundamental Data through their Public Relations Representative for comment, but as of press time, has not received comment on this latest report.
In the study, Fedorko and Thomas describe that while the Upper Freeport coal was not mined beneath the project area, Bakerstown coal was mined from the Davis Coal and Coke Mine No. 23, which was closed in 1949. However, the report does detail that publicly available information does not give final areal extent of mining and the amount of coal is uncertain.
“Thomas, which is about 2.2 miles from the Project Area, has at least 20 subsidence sites that are documented in the inventory maintained by the Office of Abandoned Mine Lands and Reclamation. In June 2026, a portion of Brown Street previously damaged by mine subsidence collapsed again,” the report states.
The report does state that no subsidence events have been documented in the Project Area for the Ridgeline Project. Estimates given in the report for overburden depth calculations for the selected sites within the Project Area by Fedorko and Thomas in the report vary from 15 to 175 feet, which are similar in value to the subsidence sites in the Town of Thomas.
“Subsidence features can include open sinkholes or cracks, sinking or shifting ground, and in some cases bulging ground. All of these features can damage homes, buildings, roads and other infrastructure, creating general hazards…No subsidence events or features are known within the Project Area, which does not imply they have not occurred or will not occur in the future.” – Nick Fedorko and Mark Thomas
While the project site itself has no history of subsidence issues, many in the area believe that the history of neighboring Thomas could be a warning for the site, with sites in the Town still falling prey to subsidence after mitigating factors such as grouting applied. The Brown Street subsidence site has seen its share of issues over the decades with multiple attempts to stabilize the ground under the street.
The geologists stated that they found the proposal for constructing three, large diesel fuel storage tanks above what they termed, “abandoned mine on potentially unstable surfaces” of particular concern. The report further states concern over the possibility of fuel leaks or spills of either accidental or subsidence-induced nature entering mine works and traveling through interconnected tunnels away from the Project Area and into surface and groundwater.
It is a sentiment that Tucker United and many in the Tucker County community have shared since details of the project first came to light.
“Storing up to three million gallons of diesel on top of this undermined site threatens us and our neighboring communities downstream,” says Amy Margolies, Executive Director of Tucker United. “These are unacceptable risks.”
Another chief concern Fedorko and Thomas raised in the report was that of methane accumulation in the abandoned mines. The report states that the Project Area could create pathways for the escape of methane to the surface and in confined spaces could create an explosive environment.
“Methane may be accumulating in the Bakerstown and Upper Freeport mines, sourced from
collapse of coal pillars and overburden and seepage from unmined coal,” the report states.
The study suggests the most effective course of prevention would be to uncover and remove the remaining coal from the underground mine before constructing on the surface above. Barring that, a second approach would be to conduct a geotechnical investigation that would include drilling and investigation with cameras and other techniques to detect voids in the area. Any voids could then be filled with grout to stabilize the surface. It is a technique commonly done in advancement of commercial or industrial development to abate further subsidence after an initial event.
“Responsible companies care about understanding and mitigating the risks posed by their development proposals,” says Margolies. “Once again, Fundamental Data has shown it is not a responsible partner that cares about reducing the risks to our community’s safety and wellbeing.”
