But local counci support for something is not a glowing endorsement. IIRC the Northumberland CC approved planning permission for an opencast mine at Druridge Bay, which is now a country park. They have little interest in preserving the environment.
There's been opencast sites up that way & some of those that are finished are now nature reserves. Same with a lot of disused gravel pits.
Also, but in Yorkshire not Northumberland, St Aidens RSPB reserve was once a massive opencast & is now a massive reserve, & so was Fairburn Ings.
It's just the burning of what comes out of the ground that's the problem.
I too reckon it's a non-runner.
I was talking about this at work, this morning, with 3 other ex-miners. We all agreed that there wouldn't be enough coal mining knowledge to man it up.
The youngest miners in the last mines to close are now in their 60s.
Not that it makes much difference but 50s not 60s.
So lets see where we are with this.
Unsuitable for steel mills.
Not enough to make a difference to warming enough homes via power stations.
No actual miners fit enough to do the work.
.
Its a nuclear bomb shelter for the government.
Not that it makes much difference but 50s not 60s.
I don’t suppose age is really the issue. More the fact that none of them will have actually been near a coal mine for 30+ years
Age is an issue, Binners, when I worked for the NCB in the 80's, the over 50's were getting their redundancy, no question. That kind of hard work is not for the older end.
I don’t doubt that for a second. It’s difficult to imagine a more physically demanding job.
But I’m thinking that even if they were up to it (which I doubt) they won’t have done it for decades and I imagine it’s a very different job nowadays, as most things are
i watched a documentary thing on Youtube or Water bear.
a environment scientist bloke from america was on. he said words to the effect that no matter what the rest of the world did to look after the environment and the planet, the damage done by the big 4 culprits, China, USA, India and Russia would still undo the good work do by the rest. he also said, that those 4 would never stop doing what they are doing, and would never reach any safe levels.
So on that note, a new coal mine in cumbria, to supply some local jobs to a area with little work, is a good thing in my book.
I don’t think man-power would be an issue. Contract mining services exist in most areas of mining. They could fill the skills gap.
TBH I’m pretty conflicted about the Cumbrian mine.
Ultimately, I’d love to see all coal stay in the ground but, as Ernie said somewhere above, we need lots of steel for the switch to a low emission economy. It’s pretty sad/ironic that most of this is going to be produced using coking coal.
Also, I’m resigned to the idea that China, Russia, India, Turkey etc.. are so hooked on coal that leaving the Cumbrian coal in the ground will make negligible difference to climate outcomes.
The fact is we need lots more mines to source the so-called critical elements required for the switch (Li, REEs, Ni, Cu, Co etc..). We are nowhere near meeting the supply required, and it all looks pretty ****in bleak to me.
I too reckon it’s a non-runner.
I was talking about this at work, this morning, with 3 other ex-miners. We all agreed that there wouldn’t be enough coal mining knowledge to man it up.
So why is it being backed up with £165 million of private money then? I have no idea where the West Cumbria Mining Company are getting their £millions from but how do you imagine have they managed to convince anyone to lend money for a non-runner?
I just don't understand why some people appear to think that it simply can't happen. The government just needs to give its approval and it can go ahead.
When the Channel tunnel was given the go ahead no one suggested that it would never happen because no one in the UK had any experience of building tunnels under the Channel.
I can't imagine that lack of expertise is going to be an unresolvable problem.
Going to be used in making the steel for "the line"
I just don’t understand why some people appear to think that it simply can’t happen. The government just needs to give its approval and it can go ahead.
Correct, no reason it won't happen, it is not a government project.
If you read the explanation there is demand from European steelmakers and this demand is not expected to decrease significantly. Even if it does, the proposed mine's cost of production in both financial and carbon terms is less than its US competitors so there should be an overall good in net terms if it replaces them.
UK jobs. UK exports. UK profits to tax. No taxpayer cash involved. Meets a demand that is there and not going away. Won't even generate any local pollution by being burnt here. What is the problem?
If they can't find miners or make a profit it will close and everyone will be happy.
Of course they will find miners. It's like the oil filed. Need a few skilled people to instruct, some training and attractive wages (and it will be very good wages, tough work don't get me wrong but probably tough to match wages) and people will be beating the door down. These things ramp up and so will the supply of workers.
It was touted by conservative MP's as useful to the UK Steel industry. That's not true. So this was either a lie, or they don't know what they're talking about.
So on that note, a new coal mine in cumbria, to supply some local jobs to a area with little work, is a good thing in my book.
They're all for it because the town center is apparently a waste town, and the population are desperate for some sort of funding, but the town center will remain a waste town and as the project starts the population will start complaining when the 24/7 big trucks start hitting the roads.
Whatever beautiful scenery is going to be affected also when they start pouring out millions of cubic meters of debris that comes from digging it.
Of course they will find miners.
Poland probably, or somewhere else but not local, as said previously, we dont really have a stock of tradsemen ready to go.
Sellafield has opened new offices in Whitehaven with the aim of bringing more hard cash into the town centre. The harbourside is actually really nice!
So Whitehaven isn't quite a 'waste town'. Although it is full of jam eaters...
Well after not having any strong opinion on the particular matter of the Whitehaven mine I sought the opinion of organisations and those that I trust.
Opposition from those whose sole concern is the environment and the effects of human activity on the planet, such as the WWF, is absolutely overwhelming. So on that basis I am happy not to remain neutral. I was particularly struck by this comment:
A landmark report from the International Energy Agency stated that “no new coal mines or extensions of existing ones are needed” on the road to net zero, adding that existing sources of coking coal production are sufficient to cover demand through to 2050.
The UK I believe is a member of the International Energy Agency, you can't be a member of an organisation and simply ignore the stuff that you find inconvenient.
I was also impressed by the fact that the Government’s top climate change advisor, John Gummer, the Tory politician who famously forced his 4 year old daughter to eat a beef burger in front of TV cameras at the height of the Mad Cow epidemic, said that approving the mine would be “absolutely indefensible”.
If John Gummer says it's absolutely indefensible it really must be indefensible.
Something can be a net benefit even if it is not needed. That is the case being made in this instance based on the decision letter. It refers extensively to the Independent Commission report, which I haven't read, but I think that is the gist. Anyway here is is if you are interested (paras 18 to 38).
Poland probably, or somewhere else but not local, as said previously, we dont really have a stock of tradsemen ready to go
Of course. Every big engineering project is mainly imported labour either from across the country or across the world. People travel across the the world for rotations on oil fields and mines. I don't know why anyone would think this would be any different.
Something can be a net benefit even if it is not needed.
Well obviously. But whatever the benefits might be they don't appear to be benefits for the environment.
Otherwise it is hard to fathom why a multitude of widely respected organisations concerned with environmental issues, such as Greenpeace and the WWF, should be so strongly opposed to the proposal.
You would expect them to be enthusiastic supporters of a proposal which benefits the environment, would you not?
Apparently not even the government's top climate change advisor supports the proposal.
I think you need to look at the Cayman Islands private equity fund managed by EMR Capital for the biggest possible benefactor of this proposal.
And I am not sure how high up their list of priorities the environment and the residents of Whitehaven are.
don’t know why anyone would think this would be any different.
Because it is being touted that the majority of the 500 jobs the scheme will create will go to local people. I would expect it to be a condition of planning permission.
500 employees doesn't exactly make a huge engineering project imo.
It’s quite something watching the Tory muppet who drew the short straw tonight on Question Time trying (and failing quite comprehensively) to justify this nonsense
The more detail comes out, the more ridiculous this whole thing seems.
Last deep mine, one of the super pits, Kellingley closed almost 7 years ago to the day but i doubt any of the Yorkshire miners will cross the border. It would be interesting to know what sort of mining it will be. Long wall is pretty automated and needs mechanics and engineers rather than traditional miners and is highly skilled. There are still mine equipment manufacturers in the UK, mainly exporting out to China to be copied.
For the record it's a bonkers idea harking back to the dam busters, Spitfires over Dover and the early fifties. Coal has no place in the modern world except in China and even they have woken up and smelt the smog.
You would expect them to be enthusiastic supporters of a proposal which benefits the environment, would you not?
Not really, I think they would object to any new development of any fossil fuel, they would prefer that money to be invested in green technologies but that ignores real world economics that there is going to be a long term demand for fossil fuel. That has been taken into account and a sensible pragmatic decision has been made in my view.
It’s difficult to imagine a more physically demanding job
Yip. I do wonder how viable the jobs are nowadays with the much more modern h&s laws, working condition laws etc. Even if they can get round that, they'll have to offer eye watering wages to attract people, or attract those that are so destitute they have no other options, which is effectively exploitation
but that ignores real world economics
Yes that is precisely my point. The argument in favour of this scheme is only really about 'real world economics' and not about the environment at all, which is presumably why Greenpeace and the WWF aren't enthusiastic backers of the scheme.
And there is no point ignoring environmental issues which are likely to have a profound effect on real world economics btw. Climate catastrophes don't generally provide a very good business environment.
If the negative effect on the environment of opening a new mine producing 3 million tons of coal per year outweighs any environmental benefits of not transporting coal half way round the world then it is obvious that it shouldn't be permitted.
Nothing frankly is more important than protecting the planet. If you want to encourage new economic activity then the obvious area to focus on is the huge potential of the renewable industry, not outdated technology which is suffocating the planet.
It would be interesting to know what sort of mining it will be. Long wall is pretty automated
Think they were looking at room and pillar at the time of the original application - so more conventional continuous miners; quicker to get mining and lower initial outlay but need more staff for shuttle cars or running flexible conveyors. Longwalls are expensive and time consuming to set up but optimal for bigger mines. One of the main manufacturers of all this gear Joy Global - now Komatsu - still have a good presence in the UK.
Isn't this just about principles?
That we/they are environmentalists when it suits them, but will happily abandon those principles for the sake of 500 jobs. Are we really at the point when we "can't afford principles"?
Personally I think this is a cynical and calculated move by the tories. They have calculated that their "base" is more worried about the economy than the environment, to the point that they would give the former absolute priority over the latter.
This also has the benefit of being wonderfully nostalgic, and has lots of potential for some juicy xenophobia, racism and anti-EU sentiment..... all high-word-scores on the Tories reelection scrabbleboard.
But most of all, I don't think it's a coincidence that the Trade Unions in the UK are all ramping-up and (feel free to disagree) are gaining widespread public support - meanwhile the government announce what? Only the bloody re-birth of the UK mining industry.
I also agree that they'll be a tory donor behind this somewhere. Just because the Tories just can't seem to help themselves - corruption is one of their guiding principles.
For those saying there is no place for coal. On its way out. The world disagrees. According to BP World Energy Review coal production has been fairly stable for 10 years. Year to year variation but overall stable.
Unfortunately when you look at total global energy mix the picture's not exactly rosy. Regardless the UK's impact on this is probably piddling.
https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix
So why is it being backed up with £165 million of private money then?
How much public money will be sunk into this? The Asfordby Superpit cost £400mn+ by the time it closed in 1997
£400mn/4 years building and 6 years mining
Total nonsense. It’ll take years to bring coal out
18 months after the start of construction apparently, it will use some existing mine shafts. So possibly operational before the next general election
Not having a go at you Ernie, but honestly, 18 months? See Crossrail Elizabeth Line, 2018 opening became 2022
Existing mine shafts and workings are prone to flooding and collapse they dont last once they've been left for decades. Again an 18 moth projection seems very optimistic.
Lets just all agree that the tories are yet again talking absolute pish.
Wait until the locals find out that much of the ‘expertise’ and skills comes from places like Poland given there hasn’t been much new coalmining in the UK for 30-odd years, unless of course they’re planning on sending pensioners down the pit?
Major projects like Crossrail, HS2 have been critically dependent on technical expertise from abroad as they don’t reside in the UK anymore.
There’s something very Hunger Games like about politicians from Panem/London building a coal mine in District 12/Cumbria and touting it as a great levelling up opportunity which benefits all.
As with everything else these shysters do, particularly as none of their stated reasons actually stand up to scrutiny, you have to ask… why are they REALLY doing this?
My bet is that a few years down the line, we’ll be looking back at millions and millions paid out in ‘consultancy fees’ to their mates, with the usual suspects pocketing dodgy government subsidies, and not an ounce of coal will have made it out of the ground in Cumbria
They say there’s no government money going into this. Does anyone else believe that? Someone, somewhere will be trousering some big kickbacks. It’s just the way this lot operate
It’s quite something watching the Tory muppet who drew the short straw tonight on Question Time trying (and failing quite comprehensively) to justify this nonsense
You might have warned me that the ghastly Oakeshott woman was on the panel <shudder>
She is absolutely vile, but I think we've crossed some kind of boundary when even she was wading in to the hapless Tory bloke.
Even their former cheerleaders have deserted them now
But whoever he was on QT (does anyone know who any of these lot are nowadays?) he was failing miserably to justify this farce. It does make you wonder why they're burning what little political capital they have left on nonsense like this
Might it just be one in the eye for Extinction Rebellion and all this royal family nonsense as distractors from the crises that joe public is facing?
Lets just all agree that the tories are yet again talking absolute pish.
So why did Labour and the Liberal Democrats on Cumbria County Council initially give the scheme their full support?
For several years the government refused to get involved claiming that it had to be a local decision and had nothing to do with them.
The government only finally agreed to get involved under intense pressure from environmentalists who wanted them to stop the scheme.
I agree that the current Sunak government is cannot be trusted on the environment, I also agree that the scheme has the backing of the Northern Research Group, but the claim that the Whitehaven mine proposal is some bizarre longstanding Tory plot is clearly bollocks.
Cumbria County Council, which is run by a Lab-LibDem coalition and on which the Tories are very much a minority, has declared that it is now, since the decision was taken out of their hands, officially "neutral" on the matter.
If it is all just a cynical and calculated move by the Tories, as suggested, then why haven't Labour and LibDem councillors in Cumbria always opposed it?
Cumbria County Council "unanimously approved" the scheme in 2019, despite the fact that there were only 37 Tories out of a total of 84 councillors.
I think that the predominant motivation for this is their ongoing culture war bullshit.
They're doing this mainly to keep their 'please take us back to the 1950's' Brexiteer pensioner base onside
Lets open a coal mine. That'll wind the lefties up and have them superglueing themselves to diggers in Cumbria. Then Suella can announce new laws allowing us to deport them all to Rwanda or declaring Martial law or some other right wing bollocks that the ERG are demanding this week and the Daily Mail can help us build our Enemy of the State narrative
And Lee Anderson thinks its a good idea, so that probably tells you everything you need to know...
https://twitter.com/LeeAndersonMP_/status/1600842510485852160?s=20&t=RRTtJGbVso7FV6XaIiDEmg
"It wasn’t an easy decision. All of us would prefer to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and we recognise that during construction there will be disruption to many local residents.
However we felt that the need for coking coal, the number of jobs on offer and the chance to remove contamination outweighed concerns about climate change and local amenity.”
- Liberal Democrat Chair of Cumbria County Council development committee.
The argument in favour of this scheme is only really about ‘real world economics’ and not about the environment at all, which is presumably why Greenpeace and the WWF aren’t enthusiastic backers of the scheme.
No, the discussion of the project's net environmental benefit is based on real world economics. Namely the project is expected to produce coking coal, which is required to make steel, at a lower price than the existing swing suppliers and at a lower environmental cost.
Nothing frankly is more important than protecting the planet. If you want to encourage new economic activity then the obvious area to focus on is the huge potential of the renewable industry, not outdated technology which is suffocating the planet.
Which we do and have been doing for many years, this is a question of whether something else should be discouraged or indeed stopped. There are no significant incentives that I am aware of.
the project is expected to produce coking coal, which is required to make steel, at a lower price than the existing swing suppliers and at a lower environmental cost.
I understand that the project is to produce coking coal which is required to make steel, although apparently other methods are available. It also sounds reasonable and likely that it will effect the cost of steel.
What you haven't explained is how you have reached the conclusion that it will result in a net "lower environmental cost". Which is weird because it is the single most important thing to most people.
I have no personal opinion on the matter as I have neither the time, inclination, nor the expertise. I defer that to organisations and individuals whose motivations I trust, such as the WWF.
If in their expert opinion the Woodhouse Colliery is a shite idea then that's good enough for me. Whatever the opinions of Tory ministers and LibDem councillors.
