The return of coal mining. Bet Arthur Scargill is chuffed

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.

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/cumbria-coal-mine-woodhouse-colliery-climate-change-a8830046.html

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…

Cumbrian Coal Mine.
I spoke up today for the next generation of coal miners in Cumbria.
Labour MPs scowled at me.

Short memories. pic.twitter.com/oGYo8huIad

— Lee Anderson MP (@LeeAndersonMP_) December 8, 2022

“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.

i have just been talking to my mate Pete, from over the road. he was one of the last batch to finish at Kellingley when it shut 7 years ago. he is 58. worked there all his working life from being 16.
i mention this new pit opening in Cumbria. he mentioned that he is in a facebook group with old miners and former NUM employees. he said it has been long known that the pit was going to happen, and also that the government had plans for more pits to open in the future.

The mine is forecast to produce 2.8 million tonnes of coal per year; assume 10 year lifespan so…28 million tonnes.
On average, mining a tonne of coal generates 400kg of waste.
Mining 28 million tonnes of coal will generate 11.2 million tonnes of waste.
How and where will that be disposed of?
How will the coal be ‘cleaned’?
How will the coal be moved away from the mine to a port for export – I’m assuming rail; is there an existing railhead and what works are required to upgrade a local port?

As for ex-miners stating authoritatively that gov has plans for more pits – if true, that would be known by environmental groups and would have been well publicised.
I’m calling that nothing more than wishful thinking by a few deluded individuals.

It’s simple – the Tories have looked around at the state of the country, all the strikes going on and they’ve agreed that something doesn’t look quite right. Some Thatcher-worshipper must have just pointed out that there aren’t any coal miners on strike.

So they’re creating some coal miners, who can then go on strike before being brutally crushed by the Tory Government.

Was probably a Liz Truss idea but she’s not stayed around long enough to see any of it through.

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.

It is in the document I linked, the mine will have a three pronged strategy to deal with Co2 emissions associated with its operation – mitigation, avoidance and offset. They are committing to use electric machinery and vehicles using electricity from green sources, bio diesel for trains, methane capture and reuse and to offset anything left over in line with the Climate Change Committee guidelines. This will make it considerably more “green” than competitor mines so if, as anticipated, they knock out production from those competitors there is a net saving.

The owners of the new mine are so convinced by the public good of the project, they’ve hidden the ultimate ownership of the investment fund in a Cayman Island operated shell company.

So that’s all fine legitimate and above board I’m sure, and not at all in any way shady.

Get those bailouts ready.

You open a mine on a hokey plan, promise a load of stuff. Sell it on. It goes kaput later, but not your problem anymore.
Borrowed directly from the fracing cookbook

Is it not better to dig it out here than import it from China / Russia?

I was under the impression that China was importing huge amounts of coal from Australia.

Thing is, it really doesn’t matter that much where the coal comes from. Unless the global use of coal drops, it makes no difference where it is dug up and burned, the effect on the environment is the same.

This will make it considerably more “green” than competitor mines so if, as anticipated, they knock out production from those competitors there is a net saving.

Okay so you have highlighted how this mine will will result in a net lower environmental cost.

What you still haven’t explained is why there does not appear to be one single environmental group which supports the project. In fact they all seem to be strongly opposed to it.

Why might that be? Why would organisations such as the WWF and Greenpeace be so strongly opposed to a proposal which has such obvious benefits for the environment? It doesn’t make sense.

Hols Australia was producing sod all a few years ago whilst China was still opening more faces and mines. We were selling 10 to 12 pump systems a year to China, each represented a full on long wall operation which makes Cumbria look like kids digging a sand pit. The Austealian market was dead, may have changed in the last couple of years.

Why might that be? Why would organisations such as the WWF and Greenpeace be so strongly opposed to a proposal which has such obvious benefits for the environment? It doesn’t make sense.

No idea, I don’t really follow them.

stumpy – australia is world’s largest net exporter of coal and 6th largest producer.

No idea, I don’t really follow them.

Oh come on, have a wild guess! Surely you must have an idea?

And why are you following the Independent Commission report on the proposal but not the Climate Change Committee which is an independent statutory body whose purpose is to advise the government?

This is what the Chairman of the CCC Lord Deben had to say about the proposal:

“The opening of a new deep coking coal mine in Cumbria will increase global emissions and have an appreciable impact on the UK’s legally binding carbon budgets. The mine is projected to increase UK emissions by 0.4Mt CO2e per year. This is greater than the level of annual emissions we have projected from all open UK coal mines to 2050.”

It is clear the CCC believes that Woodhouse Colliery will have a significantly negative impact on Net Zero.

And whilst it might compare favourably with established practices, as you appear to highlight, that does not necessarily mean that it is the appropriate way forward.

This is what Greenpeace UK policy director had to say about the proposal:

“There’s a technological revolution building in steel-making, but this approach could make the UK a backwater in the 21st-century clean tech race”

The Austealian market was dead, may have changed in the last couple of years.

“May have” carries a lot of weight in that claim.

https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/features/five-coal-exporting-countries/

With exports of 249.4Mtoe in 2018, Australia is the leading coal exporting country in the world — accounting for 29% of the world’s total coal exports. In 2018, Australia produced 301.1Mtoe of coal, consuming about 15% for domestic needs.

This is what the Chairman of the CCC Lord Deben had to say about the proposal:

“The opening of a new deep coking coal mine in Cumbria will increase global emissions and have an appreciable impact on the UK’s legally binding carbon budgets. The mine is projected to increase UK emissions by 0.4Mt CO2e per year. This is greater than the level of annual emissions we have projected from all open UK coal mines to 2050.”

This conflicts with what the Government report suggests, without going through the workings it is difficult to form a conclusion. I did see him on Newsnight the other night and I couldn’t follow the logic of his argument.

This is what Greenpeace UK policy director had to say about the proposal:

“There’s a technological revolution building in steel-making, but this approach could make the UK a backwater in the 21st-century clean tech race”

I don’t think this follows at all.

Scargill famously had a nice flat in (ISTR) The Barbican funded by the unions. Oh the innocence and transparency of the old days..

I don’t think this follows at all.

I don’t see why not. You are backing investing £millions in extracting coal in an allegedly more environmentally friendly manner. The point I believe Greenpeace are making is that £millions should instead be invested in steelmaking without the use of carbon.

https://www.ssab.com/en/fossil-free-steel/purewaste

I am not backing it, I am not against it, as you have sensibly pointed out it is private money and it is up to them what they spend it on. We can put incentives in places to encourage behaviour but that is it. Saying it should be invested in a different way is a pretty useless argument in the context.

Sorry I thought you were backing the proposal.

Obviously I am not claiming that the people with £165 million to invest in the proposed colliery should be forced to invest it in something else.

But the UK government can do a lot more than just put incentives in places to encourage behaviour. It can say “you can’t do this but you can do that”.

Which if the government is serious concerning its commitment to COP27 it must do.

Failing private investment in developments such as fossil free steel then obviously the government can step in. Obviously all profits to eventually come from this government investment would need to be kept out of private hands.

Although forcefully restricting the use of carbon intense steel should provide an incentive I would have thought.

Would the mine actually employ 500 people, though?

Here you are mefty, from a source that you can trust – the Daily Telegraph 😉

The strongest and most comprehensive criticism of the proposed Woodhouse Colliery that I have yet seen :

https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fbusiness%2F2022%2F12%2F08%2Fgoves-cumbrian-coal-mine-economic-diplomatic-idiocy%2F

The Government has degraded this country’s diplomatic credibility for no economic purpose. It has once again damaged efforts to turn Britain into a global clean-tech hub, the real growth accelerant this decade if only they would grasp the chance.

“Economically, it is investing in the technologies of the last century. Socially, it is pursuing jobs in industries that are on the way out. Politically, it is undermining the UK’s authority on the most important global issue of our times”

Sorry I thought you were backing the proposal.

The difference is semantic but was used to emphasise its a question of not banning something.

But the UK government can do a lot more than just put incentives in places to encourage behaviour. It can say “you can’t do this but you can do that”.

And a mining company would say fine we will go off and look for some other mining opportunities.

Anyway we have strayed off the subject.

Read the Daily Telegraph article, it is clearly extremely well researched and covers every aspect of the proposal.

If I wasn’t 100% convinced before reading that article I am now.

Would the mine actually employ 500 people, though?

It depends how they’ve counted, but 25 years ago that would be normal to operate a big UK colliery

Would the mine actually employ 500 people, though?

I would think the answer to that is yes, though I would have thought to extract about 3m tons/year it would be more, given actual miners in shifts, support staff, truckers etc etc.

Question should be how many of them will be local and from the UK and how many will come from coal producing countries like Poland or India.

It is false to say coking coal is required to make steel. There are already alternatives in production which provide a significant reduction in emissions. The gov is completely contradicting its climate change commitments allowing investment in old technology rather than encouraging new tech and providing the infrastructure to support it.

E.g.
https://www.h2greensteel.com/