There are many sections in the story where it is obvious that the primary reasons for the coal company's actions are in order to preserve their power. Throughout the story, their account of what actually happened continued to be modified so that with the story as it was at the time, their position of power would be most preserved. The first instance of this came in the initial reaction to the tragedy. When the facts were not gathered yet, Pittston released a statement declaring that the disaster was an “Act of God”. (pg. 10) By putting blame entirely on God, Pittston tried to place all responsibility for the disaster on natural occurrences, attempting to absolve themselves from corporate responsibility or negligence. The second occurrence came shortly thereafter, when Pittston said that the Buffalo Mining company was to blame, rather than the parent corporation, Pittston. (Pg 13) This attempt to shove blame, once again, was an attempt to cut losses and allow the survivors to sue the small company, leaving the parent company in tact. This method of disassociating by way of a “corporate veil” is a commonplace method of cutting losses that the author was obviously familiar with. This is why Stern sought to break this corporate veil so that the true perpetrators would be held accountable. It was only through a court decision that it was determined that Pittston would be held responsible, if anyone, for the Buffalo Creek Disaster. Later on page 71, when it was very clear that someone was to blame, the Buffalo Mining company decided to set up claims offices where victims and families of victims could come and seek settlements directly with the company. On the surface, this seems like a humanitarian thing to do, and the right thing to do for those who had just suffered a great deal. However, I believe that Pittston and the Buffalo Mining company were aware of just how much they were to blame, and were once again attempting to cut their losses. By settling with...