The news that Michael Gove has finally approved a new coal mine in Cumbria is still sinking in. The whole sorry saga has been dragging on for years, with the can being kicked down the road for far too long, seemingly because politicians lacked the guts to make a decision that they knew was right, but which they also knew would bring howls of protest down on their heads. Those howls of protest come from far and wide, just as did the opponents of the mine whenever there seemed to be any chance at all that it might get the go-ahead.

BBC

Pride of place has to go to the British Broadcasting Corporation. The report on the decision is reasonably balanced, in my opinion, and I give the BBC credit for that. But only for that. For years it has felt as though the BBC was running a determined campaign to ensure that the coal mine never opened (of course, it might not, given the ongoing campaign against the positive decision). The BBC’s opposition really became obvious in 2021 in the run-up to COP 26 in Glasgow. Here’s a flavour of the BBC headlines (I provide embedded links to facilitate reading the articles, should you be so minded) last year, all posts under the headlines being either unattributed or written by the now departed (from the BBC) Roger Harrabin:

8th January 2021: Greta Thunberg criticises Whitehaven coal mine plan

14th January 2021: Government defends Cumbria coal mine green light

The tone of the entire article struck me as hostile:

Environmentalists have reacted with astonishment and disbelief, saying the carbon from burning coal is clearly a global concern.

Extensive quotes were offered up from representatives of Greenpeace and CPRE (both hostile). No quotes were offered (nor indeed any arguments in favour supplied) from supporters of the mine.

8th February 2021: Cumbria coal mine: Climate tsar urged to quit over ‘reckless’ plan

By way of explanation:

The UK’s climate tsar, Alok Sharma, has been urged to resign unless the prime minister scraps plans for a new coal mine in Cumbria.

1st March 2021: Cumbria coal mine plan ‘damaging PM’s reputation’

12th March 2021: Cumbria coal mine: Public inquiry after government U-turn

“Analysis” (by Roger) of the decision quoted “local Conservatives” and “supporters of the mine” (unnamed) as being the two groups in favour, while quoting extensively from opponents Tim Farron, Ed Miliband, Professor Rebecca Willis and Professor Mike Berners-Lee from Lancaster University, Kohn Kerry, “[o]ne of the world’s leading climate scientists, the American James Hansen”, “the government’s climate advisers, along with a crowd of green groups”, as well as noting that “yesterday Alok Sharma was again rebuked by MPs over the plan”. Eleven paragraphs were devoted to the opponents of the mine, while two were devoted to its supporters. Nicely balanced, then!

And for good measure, we had this (unattributed) piece from 29th June 2022: “Cumbria coal mine proposal is indefensible, says UK climate chief”. Lord Deben’s opposition to the mine was quoted extensively, with a quote from Friends of the Earth energy campaigner Tony Bosworth thrown in for good measure (no quotes or arguments cited from anyone in favour of the mine).

Since the reasonably balanced article reporting the decision earlier this week, the BBC has also offered up:

Whitehaven coal mine: An almighty row only just beginning. This time the author is the balanced Chris Mason, and now we find things like this:

Until then, 40% of the coal needed to make steel in the UK, metallurgical coal, the stuff this new mine will dig up, came from, you guessed it: Russia.

Since then, alternative suppliers have been found, but nonetheless the issue of energy security is a salient one…

…The government is arguing their decision is in keeping with their emissions obligations because the alternative would be importing the coal, and alternatives to using coal are a long way off.

And plenty of people in west Cumbria are delighted.

A county with a proud mining heritage sees a proud mining future too.

To my mind, there is more balance in that single article than in any that appeared last year on the BBC website.

The Guardian

Of course, the Guardian. Needless to say the Guardian has long campaigned against the coal mine. This week, since the decision broke, it has given us:

Cumbria coalmine protests planned as local opposition grows

Admittedly it quotes a couple of people who might be described as “local”, but this is stretching “local” a bit:

Carole Wood, the chair of South Lakes Action on Climate Change, said the group was crowdfunding to explore a potential legal challenge.

It is noticeable that a lot of the froth in Cumbria comes from Tim Farron’s constituency. Speaking of whom, the Guardian also offers us this:

“New Cumbria coalmine ‘like opening a Betamax factory’, says Tim Farron”

Mr Farron is duly quoted:

“The only argument at all for this mine that I think has any merit is it will create jobs. The jobs will be created for a very short period of time and they will go if the business case for the mine is as weak as it obviously is.”

The Liberal Democrat MP said the Cumbrian coast was a far more sensible place to invest in “green, renewable energy”.

He added: “This is not only foolish in fact, it’s also foolish politically, as it makes us a laughing stock when it comes to us trying to talk to other countries like China about how they reduce their carbon emissions.”

Well, I suppose we should be grateful that he recognises that bringing jobs to a depressed area with high unemployment is a good thing. Many of the opponents in the main give me the impression that they don’t care about jobs. The problem, of course, with arguing that the better alternative is “green” jobs, is that they never seem to materialise.

As for China and laughing stocks, I think you’re the one having a laugh, Tim. As Brendan O’Neill pointed out in his excellent article in Spiked today, China produces 13 million tonnes of coal a day whereas the new Cumbrian coal mine is projected to produce 2.8 million tonnes of coal a year. Brendan links to an article in Mining [Dot] Com, dated 24th October 2022, which provides some statistics that really ought to give opponents of the mine reason to think again:

China’s September coal production jumped 12.3% from a year earlier to 390 million tonnes, official data showed on Monday, reaching record average daily levels as mines resumed operation after heavy rainfall in the summer months.

The average daily output was equivalent to 13 million tonnes, according to data from the National Bureau of Statistics, which compares to 11.95 million tonnes per day in August and 11.14 million tonnes per day a year earlier.

But back to the Guardian:

Could Cumbria coalmine be stopped despite government green light?

MPs

Look no further than the last Guardian article I cited. Some wondrous quotes from a couple of politicians on different sides of the debate, but in agreement about this (even if they did express their views with differing levels of stridency):

Caroline Lucas, Green Party MP for Brighton Pavilion, vowed to keep fighting: “This government has backed a climate-busting, backward-looking, business-wrecking, stranded asset coalmine. This mine is a climate crime against humanity – and such a reckless desire to dig up our dirty fossil fuel past will be challenged every step of the way.”

Philip Dunne, the Tory MP who is chair of the environmental audit committee in parliament, said: “Coal is the most polluting energy source, and is not consistent with the government’s net zero ambitions. It is not clear cut to suggest that having a coalmine producing coking coal for steelmaking on our doorstep will reduce steelmakers’ demand for imported coal. On the contrary, when our committee heard from steelmakers earlier this year, they argued that they have survived long enough without UK domestic coking coal and that any purchase of coking coal would be a commercial decision.”

Tim Farron we have already heard from, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. How about the Labour Party? Here’s another Guardian (sub) headline from this week: “Ed Miliband vows party will seek to prevent ‘climate-destroying’ plan and if elected would deliver green jobs”. Fuller quote:

Ed Miliband, the shadow climate change secretary, said: “A Labour government will leave no stone unturned in seeking to prevent the opening of this climate-destroying coalmine, and instead ensure we deliver the green jobs that people in Cumbria deserve.”

Of course, it’s not a climate-destroying coal mine. The emissions associated with it are utterly insignificant compared to emissions from coal produced in China, India, Indonesia, Russia and scores of other places (and that’s assuming one signs up to the quasi-religious cult that believes in climate destruction).

What does beggar belief is that a Labour shadow minister – a senior Labour politician, would be so keen to destroy new jobs in an area of high unemployment and deprivation during a cost-of-living crisis. As a former Labour Party activist, I find that very hard to take, but it reminds me why my activism on behalf of the Labour Party is in the past and not current. I recall the words of Neil Kinnock to a Labour Party conference in 1985:

I’ll tell you what happens with impossible promises. You start with far-fetched resolutions. They are then pickled into a rigid dogma, a code, and you go through the years sticking to that, outdated, misplaced, irrelevant to the real needs, and you end in the grotesque chaos of a Labour council – a Labour council – hiring taxis to scuttle round a city handing out redundancy notices to its own workers.

I see parallels a-plenty.

Conclusion

I can do no better than end with a quote from the Spiked article by Brendan O’Neill mentioned above:

The overwrought apocalypticism of the likes of Ms Lucas… demonises in the most hysterical fashion perfectly normal and in fact good endeavours. The Cumbria coalmine will create hundreds of well-paid jobs. It will increase the independence and dignity of working-class families in Cumbria. It will help to reduce the UK’s reliance on coal imports. These are positives. They should be celebrated. Of course to Ms Lucas and other middle-class greens, that local communities in Cumbria have welcomed the coalmine only shows that they’re ‘nostalgic’ for the past and that they’ve been ‘seduced’ by a plan that will actually make them ‘suffer’. Patronising much? The Cumbrian working classes who can’t wait to start mining are a paragon of reason in comparison with the Guardianistas madly sobbing about coal being a crime against humanity.

90 Comments

  1. Hot off the press today from the Guardian:

    “John Kerry examining likely impact of new UK coalmine
    US climate envoy says he will publicly criticise UK’s approval of Cumbrian mine if it adds to emissions”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/dec/10/john-kerry-examining-likely-impact-of-new-uk-coalmine

    John Kerry, the US climate official, has said he is closely examining the UK government’s approval of a new coalmine, over concerns that it will raise greenhouse gas emissions and send the wrong signal to developing countries.

    Kerry, Joe Biden’s special envoy for climate, said he was taking a close interest in the mine, the first to get the go-ahead in the UK for 30 years, and that he would speak out publicly against the approval if it did not meet strict criteria.

    According to statista:

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/949260/number-active-coal-mines-united-states/

    by 2021 there were still 970 active coal mines in the USA. I suggest, Mr Kerry, that you mind your own business, and go back to the country whose politics is controlled by your administration, and see what economic harm you can do there rather than seeking to deny jobs here to people in an a depressed area of high unemployment.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. And while you’re at it, Mr Kerry, read this:

    “The US is a rogue state leading the world towards ecological collapse
    George Monbiot”

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/dec/09/us-world-climate-collapse-nations

    here are two extraordinary facts about the convention on biological diversity, whose members are meeting in Montreal now to discuss the global ecological crisis. The first is that, of the world’s 198 states, 196 are party to it. The second is the identity of those that aren’t. Take a guess. North Korea? Russia? Wrong. Both ratified the convention years ago. One is the Holy See (the Vatican). The other is the United States of America.

    This is one of several major international treaties the US has refused to ratify.

    As usual, IMO George gets more than a little carried away, but he does have a point.

    Like

  3. Need one go further than remind people of Caroline Lucas’s opinion: the Cumbrian coal mine will be “climate busting”. Ask her about coal mines in other countries: Indonesia approx. 250; India 285; USA 970; China 1,110. The UK has 3, and is thinking of opening another one. Not sure Cumbria will do much “busting”.
    Wouldn’t it be nice to hear that sort of point put to Ms Lucas on the BBC? Not a chance…

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Indeed Dr Pollock. One might add Germany to that list (and many others).

    I find myself asking on a daily basis why UK politicians hate the British people so much.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. It does amaze me when activists say that the approval of the Cumbrian mine gives the wrong message to China. Are we really so full of self-importance that we think China gives a rat’s arse what we do? Are we that naive that we think China would have changed its ways if we had rejected the proposal? Delusion, more than anything, seems the order of the day.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. The argument is very simple. Very easy to confront the dreams about it.
    The world needs steel. Steelmaking needs coal. Now do you want the coal to come from our own country where it employs many people in well-paying jobs, or should the coal come from a country with lower environmental controls so you can salve your pollyanna feelings?
    If they won’t answer or start talking of fantasy manufacturing, hit them with their hypocrisy of needing steel and carbon fuels for their cosseted lifestyles.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. John, the hubris is immense, isn’t it?

    The people campaigning for the UK not to have coal mines, not to frack for gas, not to have ICE cars, not to have gas central heating, not to eat meat, etc etc, all really seem to believe that we in the UK can make a difference to the global climate (in some cases, I even fear that they believe we can make a difference to the UK climate if not to the global climate). They all also seem to believe (or want to believe) that the rest of the world cares about what we do, and will adjust its behaviour accordingly.

    It’s fair enough for them to believe in climate apocalypse, since they’re spoon-fed a diet of little else, but the terrifying thing is the failure to accept that the policy response needs to be logical and impactful, and that we in the UK can’t affect climate change if the rest of the world doesn’t play ball (and it isn’t, and there’s no sign that it’s ever going to do so).

    Wearing my old lefty hat, the bit that particularly infuriates me is that the people campaigning to keep unemployed people poor and out of work tend to be rather comfortably off themselves. How dare they!

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Chris Morris,

    I agree, of course. The problem is that steelmakers in the UK have been heard to mutter things to the effect that they don’t need Cumbrian coal. And they don’t, inasmuch as they can get the coal they need from abroad. But they do need coal, and will continue to do so for many years to come. No coal, no steel. No steel, no renewables industry.

    Presumably the people behind the proposed coal mine believe they can mine the coal economically and sell it cheaply enough for steelmakers to buy it from them and for them to make a reasonable profit on it. If not, that’s their lookout. I struggle when politicians claim that it doesn’t make economic sense – in the globalist capitalist world that most of the UK’s politicians are signed up to, that’s not the call of politicians, it’s the call of the businessmen and women who are promoting the business (so long, of course, that they don’t demand financial help from the taxpayer).

    Speaking of which, if we shouldn’t support or allow uneconomic businesses, as many politicians contend in the context of the proposed coal mine, why are we still subsidising renewables?

    Like

  9. “New Cumbria coalmine: backlash grows as steel industry plays down demand
    ‘Red wall credentials’ suspected at Westminster as real reason for approval by Michael Gove”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/dec/11/new-cumbria-coalmine-backlash-grows-as-steel-industry-plays-down-demand

    On an on it goes. If the mine had been allowed to proceed when first mooted, rather than being delayed time after time, its coal might actually be in use by now. The plan on the part of opponents seems to be to try to keep kicking the opening date for the mine down the road in the hope that their much-vaunted “green” steel plans become a reality. But that’s an issue for the developers of the mine, not for its opponents. The opposition is nakedly political.

    Like

  10. And they’re not done yet – talk about obsession:

    “The Observer view on the indefensible decision to open a deep coalmine in a climate crisis”

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/dec/11/the-observer-view-on-indefensible-decision-to-open-a-deep-coalmine-in-a-climate-crisis

    The decision to approve a new £165m coalmine in Cumbria reveals an unpleasant truth about the government. It demonstrates, with brutal clarity, that No 10 has no credible green agenda and does not understand or care about the climatic peril our world is facing.

    Ministers are clearly focused only on short-term, tactical gain – in this case, to give a brief boost to local employment – at the expense of forming a strategy for reaching net zero carbon emissions by 2050 and maintaining world leadership in the battle to limit the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on our climate.

    A “brief” boost to local employment. How shocking, in a deprived area with high levels of unemployment!

    And they insist it will be “brief”:

    British steelmakers will be legally required – as part of our climate obligations – to move to low-carbon production in the next 13 years. When that happens it will no longer be able to use coking coal. Output from Woodhouse colliery therefore has no long-term future in Britain.

    And yet the final paragraph in the article opens with this:

    Scientists estimate that the colliery will lead to the release of 250m tonnes of carbon dioxide over the next 30 years.

    Well what’s it to be? 13 years or less, and “these jobs are going to be short lived” or 30 years or more? Make your minds up. If you’re going to oppose it, at least try to be consistent in your arguments!

    And even if it should be 250 million tonnes of emissions over 30 years, it might be helpful if you put that into some sort of context – it represents, on current numbers (which will probably grow between now and at least 2030), around 8 months of emissions from Chinese coal mines (never mind the ones in India, Indonesia, Russia, USA etc).

    Also, given that the mine is projected to release 2.8 million tonnes a year, someone needs a maths lesson – 30 x 2.8 = 84 million, or at least it did when I went to school. I’m not surprised that no link is offered to the claim of 250 million tonnes of emissions over 30 years.

    Like

  12. When did Lucas last call out the ‘crimes against humanity’ of the steel manufacture needed for wind turbines, using the same coking coal she moans about now?
    ‘- – –
    Re the 13 or 30 years comment, could that be something to do with future carbon capture plans?

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Well, that didn’t take too long:

    Friends of the Earth, enemies of the working class…

    “Whitehaven coal mine: Friends of the Earth to launch legal fight”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-64165419

    …Niall Toru, lawyer at Friends of the Earth, said: “With the world facing a climate emergency, we shouldn’t have to take this challenge to court.

    “Any sensible government should be choosing to leave coal in the ground and accelerating the transition to a safe, clean and sustainable future.”

    Rowan Smith, solicitor at Leigh Day which is representing the group, added: “A critical issue raised by Friends of the Earth during the inquiry was the signal that granting a new coal mine in the middle of a climate emergency would send to the rest of the world.

    “Friends of the Earth believes that this was never properly grappled with by either the Inspector or the Secretary of State. We hope that the court will agree that this argument justifies a full hearing.”…

    Like

  14. Mark –
    ““A critical issue raised by Friends of the Earth during the inquiry was the signal that granting a new coal mine in the middle of a climate emergency would send to the rest of the world.”

    they must have missed/ignorant off your link – https://www.miningreview.com/coal/global-coal-consumption-rises-to-all-time-high-amidst-energy-crisis/

    partial quote from above link –
    “Keisuke Sadamori, IEA Director of Energy Markets and Security says – ….Coal demand is stubborn and will likely reach an all-time high this year, pushing up global emissions. At the same time, there are many signs that today’s crisis is accelerating the deployment of renewables, energy efficiency and heat pumps – and this will moderate coal demand in the coming years. Government policies will be key to ensuring a secure and sustainable path forward.”

    dream on Keisuke.

    Like

  15. Old news, but still worth a read:

    “Lützerath: German coal mine stand off amid Ukraine war energy crunch”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64187212

    Compare Whitehaven. No villages will be destroyed by that coal mine. I wonder why John Kerry thought it appropriate to intervene regarding the Whitehaven mine but hasn’t (so far as I am aware) made any comments about this. Remember:

    The land around and under Lützerath is rich in lignite – the dirtiest form of coal. The mine, a bleak and dull brown man-made canyon which stretches over 35 square kilometres, yields 25 million tonnes of the stuff every year.

    Like

  16. “New Cumbria coalmine likely to break UK’s climate pledge, analysis says
    Whitehaven colliery will release about 17,500 tonnes of methane every year, estimates thinktank”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/17/cumbria-coalmine-uk-climate-goals-methane-emissions

    The new coalmine in Cumbria is likely to prevent the UK from meeting its internationally agreed commitment to reduce emissions of the powerful greenhouse gas methane, analysis has suggested.

    The Whitehaven colliery, controversially approved by ministers shortly before Christmas, will release about 17,500 tonnes of methane every year, according to estimates from the Green Alliance thinktank.

    That is about the same as 120,000 cattle, or about half the beef herd in Cumbria at present, and could put the UK’s methane-cutting targets out of reach.

    The analysis comes as campaigners also raise concerns about the filing of more than 100 oil and gas drilling licence applications.

    The government had received 115 requests from oil and gas companies for new licences, which campaigners said would endanger the UK’s and global climate targets and send the wrong signal internationally.

    Philip Evans, a climate campaigner at Greenpeace, said: “These new licences will make Britain’s homes and businesses more reliant on the volatile gas market, making further energy crises more likely and doing nothing to reduce bills.

    “Then there’s the fact that the world has agreed to move away from fossil fuels as quickly as possible to maximise our chances of getting climate change under control, and the government’s failure to consider the full carbon cost of new drilling makes the entire process unlawful.”

    Whatever “the world has agreed”, it isn’t binding and it isn’t being implemented by most countries around the world (including the ones that matter, as putting out most and/or growing emissions). Would comfortable middle class people please stop campaigning against working class jobs in an a deprived area of high unemployment, especially as the mine going ahead will make no difference to the world’s climate, whatever campaigners claim.

    Like

  17. “The Whitehaven colliery, controversially approved by ministers shortly before Christmas, will release about 17,500 tonnes of methane every year, according to estimates from the Green Alliance thinktank.

    That is about the same as 120,000 cattle, or about half the beef herd in Cumbria at present, and could put the UK’s methane-cutting targets out of reach.”

    this has to be the most stupid comment.

    will Attenborough give an methane estimate for Africa I wonder!!!

    Like

  18. dfhunter,

    You only have to posit the issue in those terms, and you instantly realise the folly, futility, and impossibility of the net zero agenda.

    Like

  19. “Why this town wants its coal mine back amidst the climate crisis”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/video/2023/mar/07/why-this-town-wants-its-coal-mine-back-amidst-the-climate-crisis-video

    The controversial decision to approve a new coalmine in Cumbria was met with dismay by UK environmental groups, with many wondering what it meant for a country that has pitched itself as a leader in the green energy revolution. But in the town of Whitehaven where the mine is to be situated, the feeling is very different, with vast support across the political spectrum. The Guardian’s Richard Sprenger travels to the Mirehouse estate, a short distance from the Woodhouse Colliery site, to find out what lies behind this positivity in the face of a profound climate crisis

    Like

  20. “Whitehaven coal mine legal challenge rejected”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-65253462

    A legal challenge opposing the UK’s first major coal mine in more than 40 years has been rejected.

    South Lakes Action on Climate Change (SLACC) and Friends of the Earth had called for the High Court to quash government approval for the mine at Whitehaven in Cumbria.

    They argued Levelling Up Secretary Michael Gove’s backing was based on “errors in law”.

    The government said it acted on advice of the independent planning inspector.

    Approved in December, the Woodhouse Colliery scheme will see millions of tonnes of coking coal extracted for steel production.

    Operator West Cumbria Mining says it will create 500 highly-skilled jobs with up to 1,500 more in the supply chain….

    However, perhaps inevitably:

    Carole Wood, chairwoman of SLACC, said the two groups would use their right to contest the High Court’s ruling at a specially convened hearing.

    Like

  21. Mark,

    That’s good news.

    ‘South Lakes’ – the RICH area of Cumbria, a world away from the economically deprived NORTH WEST lakes region of Whitehaven and environs. This is the photo they choose to advertise their coalmine campaign. Look at them – a pathetic looking bunch of middle class, middle-aged, climate cultists with time on their hands, living in the well-to-do areas of Windermere, Coniston and Kendal, who haven’t got the foggiest notion of what it’s like to grow up and live in a working class former industrial town like Whitehaven and try to find a decent, secure income. The Whitehaven coalmine has given Whitehaven residents hope for a brighter future. They don’t need people like this interfering in order to save the planet from a completely fictional ‘climate crisis’.

    Liked by 1 person

  22. Jaime, my thoughts exactly. There is little more annoying to this grizzled old one-time Labour supporter than comfortably-off people campaigning against well-paid jobs in a depressed area of high unemployment. They like to think of themselves as enlightened progressives. I think of them as insufferable.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. “Lords amendment to energy bill may stop new coalmines in England
    Change to bill says opening and licensing of new coalmines by the Coal Authority to be prohibited”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/apr/17/lords-amendment-to-energy-bill-may-stop-new-coalmines-in-england

    An amendment to the energy bill currently going through the House of Lords means that it will not be possible to open a new coalmine in England.

    The amendment may still be reversed in the House of Commons, but it marks the growing frustration of politicians as they press the government to move faster and harder on the climate crisis.

    Liberal Democrat peers tabled an amendment to the energy bill which decrees that within six months of the energy security act being passed, the secretary of state has to ban the opening or licensing of new coalmines.

    The vote was won by just three votes at 197-194, after the amendment was backed by Labour and crossbencher peers.

    The government has recently been criticised for green-lighting a new coalmine in Cumbria, which experts have said would add to the difficulties of meeting the UK’s net zero goals.

    The amendment reads: “Within six months of the day on which this act is passed, the secretary of state must by regulations prohibit the opening of new coalmines and the licensing of new coalmines by the Coal Authority or its successors.”

    For the amendment to be removed, the government will have to table another amendment in the Commons to get rid of it.

    Abolition or serious reform (to make it democratic) of the House of Lords is long overdue. How dare these comfortable people legislate against well-paid jobs in poor deprived areas?

    Liked by 1 person

  24. “Merthyr Tydfil: UK’s largest opencast coalmine to shut”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-65399546

    The UK’s largest opencast coalmine must close after an extension to keep it running was rejected.

    It means production at Ffos-y-Fran, near Merthyr Tydfil, must now stop after 16 years of excavation.

    The operators asked for an extension until 2024, arguing coal from the mine was needed by the steel industry.

    But planning officials advised that the proposed extension did not fit with Welsh government policies on tackling climate change….

    Like

  25. They are literally waging war against cheap, home-grown, easily exploitable energy sources, which benefit us all and which provide jobs in some of the most economically deprived areas of the UK. My contempt for these treacherous, unhinged, ‘I’m alright Jack’ eco-nutjobs knows no bounds.

    Liked by 1 person

  26. The BBC can’t let it go:

    “Ffos-y-Fran: First minister supports closure of coalmine”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-65417495

    The Welsh first minister has welcomed the decision to close the UK’s biggest opencast coalmine.

    Mark Drakeford said ending production at Ffos-y-Fran, near Merthyr Tydfil, was in line with government policy.

    “We should not be extracting finite resources from the globe in an era of climate change,” he told BBC Wales.

    What a strange quote regarding extracting finite resources. What does he think we are doing extracting the resources need to make renewables work? And what strange times we live in – a Labour First Minister welcoming a decision that will render working-class people unemployed.

    Liked by 1 person

  27. All that fuss over one modestly-sized proposed mine. Meanwhile…

    “Coal India readies 52 projects to reach 1 BT target”

    https://www.constructionworld.in/energy-infrastructure/coal-and-mining/coal-india-readies-52-projects-to-reach-1-bt-target/40932

    To attain the one billion tonne coal production target by the fiscal year 2025–26, state-run Coal India Ltd (CIL) has developed 52 coal mining projects, including 13 new coal blocks, a company official said.

    “In addition to the expansions and new construction, we are attempting to increase underground coal mining to obtain better grades of coal that will lessen India’s reliance on imported coal. Eight of the 52 projects are underground ones, he said.

    In FY23, Coal India produced 703 million tonnes of coal; their goal for FY24 is 780 MT. By FY26, when India is expected to begin exporting coal, it has set a goal to generate 1 billion tonnes of coal.

    A total of 271 MT of coal from these coal projects will go into the production of CIL in FY26. Their entire peak rated capacity will be 445 MT and will occur throughout the course of several coal mining projects through the financial year 2030–31.

    The majority of new coal projects are being developed in Jharkhand, where Bharat Coking Coal Ltd is working on one project and Central Coalfields Ltd is working on 15. In Maharashtra, ten projects are in the works, and in Chhattisgarh, nine.

    13 new mining projects have been lined up by the CIL through its various subsidiaries, and they will increase 27.4 MT in FY26. 130 MT, or 29% of the combined PR capacity of the 52 projects, is the peak rated capacity of the greenfield projects.

    To reduce negative environmental effects, the state-run coal company is concentrating on green mining techniques. It intends to increase output of underground coal by four times, from the current level of 26 MT in FY23 to 100 MT by FY28.

    Like

  28. “Locals in this British seaside town could revolutionise green energy – if the government lets them
    Rebecca Willis”

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/18/british-seaside-town-revolutionise-green-energy

    The seaside town of Whitehaven, in the north-west of England, found itself at the centre of a political storm in May, when the levelling up, housing and communities secretary, Michael Gove, gave his approval for the UK’s first new deep coalmine in more than 40 years just outside the town.

    But Whitehaven may soon be known for more than climate-wrecking coal. That is the ambition of Project Collette, a £3bn proposal for a windfarm off the Cumbrian coast to be part-owned by the local community – instigated by the Green Finance Community Hub in collaboration with the engineering firm Arup and community energy specialists Energy4All – and with the potential to power nearby industry. If Cumbrians could stand on the sandstone cliffs and look out at wind turbines they owned, and that had provided jobs for local people, that might just build the political support and engagement that is so vital to reaching our climate targets?…

    Alternatively, locals in this British seaside town could already have 500 well-paid jobs (with many more jobs spinning off) in a productive industry (a coal mine) that won’t kill birds and won’t be a blight on the landscape, if “greens” from outside the area would desist from bringing Court cases with a view to trying to stop the mine and ensuring that people in an area of high unemployment remain on the dole.

    Liked by 1 person

  29. Mark – from – https://www.westcumbriamining.com/
    “West Cumbria Mining Limited (WCM) is a privately owned UK company, based in West Cumbria, focussed on producing high quality metallurgical coal to supply the steel industry at home and in Europe.”
    and
    “For use by steelmakers as a direct replacement for USA coals. It has highly attractive properties for steelmaking, including ultra-low ash and very low Phosphorus. With excellent existing infrastructure, this can be delivered on a ‘just-in-time’ basis to Europe, using a variety of vessel sizes up to Cape or by rail to UK steelmakers.”

    wonder where coal for power stations comes from? – https://www.britishgas.co.uk/energy/guides/energy-sources.html#:~:text=Just%20over%20half%20of%20the%20coal%20in%20the,imported%20from%20countries%20like%20the%20USA%20and%20Venezuela.

    “Phasing out coal
    The UK’s reliance on coal is reducing every year with only two coal-fired power stations connected to the UK grid.
    By 2025 coal will be phased out completely as part of the country’s commitment to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050.
    Where we get our coal
    Just over half of the coal in the UK average electricity mix is mined in the UK. The rest is imported from countries like the USA and Venezuela.”

    ps – probably get stuck in the bin again, so a song to cheer me up –
    https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=oh+well+fleetwood+mac&view=detail&mid=6239A8A4CC66A8DFB3826239A8A4CC66A8DFB382&FORM=VIRE

    Like

  30. dfhunter,

    Apologies for your comment’s temporary sojourn on the Naughty Step.

    Like

  31. “Fresh calls to scrap Cumbrian coalmine amid steel industry’s green push
    UK’s coal-hungry blast furnaces likely to be replaced, making economic case for mine ‘dead in the water’ says local MP”

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/nov/07/fresh-calls-to-scrap-cumbrian-coalmine-amid-steel-industrys-green-push

    News of the likely closure of the UK’s steel blast furnaces has prompted calls for the government to reconsider approval for a controversial Cumbrian coalmine that had been planned to supply the industry.

    On Monday, British Steel announced that it plans to replace its two blast furnaces at Scunthorpe, while Tata Steel is considering closing its two at Port Talbot, in a dramatic reshaping of the UK steel industry. Both companies will instead rely on much cleaner electric arc furnaces, which use 87 times less coal.

    West Cumbria Mining plans to produce 2.8m tonnes of coking coal a year at Woodhouse colliery in Whitehaven for use by “steelmakers in the UK and EU”. However, the blast furnace closures would mean a dramatic reduction in coal use by the UK industry, and would probably mean that the vast majority of the Cumbrian coal would have to be exported.

    Tim Farron, the MP for Westmorland and Lonsdale in Cumbria and former leader of the Liberal Democrats, said the announcement from British Steel “means that any economic case for a new coalmine in Cumbria is now completely dead in the water”….

    I’ve news for the Guardian – Tim Farron is not the (or even a) local MP, so far as the proposed mine is concerned. His constituency is on the other side of the county and on the other side of the Cumbrian mountains, a very long drive away.

    And what a brilliant strategy. Let’s destroy thousands of jobs in the steel-making industry for the net zero cause, and in the process let’s undermine potential jobs in the coal-mining industry. Why do our MPs hate working class people so much? And, another interesting point – one of the arguments originally used by the anti-mine lobby was that the coal it produced would be exported and not used domestically. Now Farron seems to have reversed that argument in his desperate fervour to deny good quality jobs to a depressed region.

    Liked by 1 person

  32. Mark,
    for some reason Tim Farron always gets a negative say (moan) on MSM about anything.
    I find him a bit irritating as he seems to think as ex leader of the Liberal Democrats he still has clout.

    wonder what he has to say about the following –
    https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/US-Coal-Exports-To-Europe-Soar-Despite-Energy-Transition.html

    https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/commodities/europe-energy-crisis-coals-making-a-comeback-heres-why-2022-9

    PS – reading “Black Gold” by Paxman at the moment, subtitled “the history of how coal made Britain”

    only quick comment from the book so far is, we were exporting coal from Newcastle to Europe from the start it seems.

    Liked by 1 person

  33. Mark Jenkinson (Con) still supports and he IS a local MP:

    “Mark Jenkinson, the Conservative MP for Workington in west Cumbria and a former apprentice with British Steel, said he still 100% supported the new mine because of the continued need for coking coal in electric arc furnaces, and the desire to avoid emissions associated with transporting it into the UK.”

    It would be even better if he was to come outright and say, ‘I support this mine, not only because coking coal is still needed but primarily because it will provide MY constituents with much needed employment during very challenging times. Tim Farron, NOT a local MP, is NOT concerned about depriving MY constituents of these much needed jobs in order to virtue signal his support for Net Zero.’ He won’t though, because he risks being slapped down by the Net Zero zealots in his own party. Ugghhh! Makes me sick.

    Liked by 1 person

  35. Really? On what planet? What arrogance! Do these people really believe that China and India are ploughing ahead with massive expansion of huge coal-fired electricity generation because we in the UK are talking about opening one small coal mine? Lord Turner might believe that, I very much doubt that he’s correct:

    “Allowing Cumbria coalmine was ‘disaster’ for climate diplomacy, says Lord Turner
    Former chair of climate change committee says UK’s decision has encouraged other countries to keep exploiting fossil fuels”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/16/allowing-cumbria-coalmine-was-disaster-for-climate-diplomacy-says-lord-turner

    The UK’s decision to open a new coalmine in Cumbria was a “disaster” that encouraged other countries to press ahead with fossil fuels, and the continued expansion of North Sea oil and gas is likely to continue the harm, a former chief adviser to the government has said.

    Other countries are using the UK as an excuse for pressing ahead with fossil fuel projects despite their climate commitments, according to Adair Turner, the first chair of the Committee on Climate Change and a former head of the CBI.

    Lord Turner told the Guardian that he had “literally been involved in discussions” in China and India where UK decisions had been given as a reason for not moving faster on the climate.

    “I can tell you that [the Cumbrian coalmine] was a disaster globally, and in China and India, where I was engaged in debates [on reducing greenhouse gas emissions], I have had people say ‘yeah, but you’re building a new coalmine in the UK’,” he said.

    “So that was a disaster for our reputation, and it provides arguments for the people within government or within interest groups in China and India to say ‘oh look, the UK is supposedly committed to net zero, but it’s not serious, it’s building a new coalmine’. And the same occurs with new oil and gas fields in the North Sea.”…

    They might have told him that, but if he believes them, then I suggest that he was in the wrong job. They (China and India) would have done it anyway. The most that can be said is they chuckled as they told the neo-colonialist to mind his own business.

    Like

  36. 1st – “Lord Turner told the Guardian that he had “literally been involved in discussions” in China and India where UK decisions had been given as a reason for not moving faster on the climate.”

    why was he is any discussions, who payed him for his discussions?

    2nd – Is the Lord so thick he really thinks “the Cumbrian coalmine was a disaster globally”
    wonder how much he gets paid to spout sh*t.

    Like

  37. “New coal mine’s business case ‘is dead'”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx71wzp9qego

    The business case for the UK’s first new deep coal mine for 30 years is “dead”, a Cumbrian MP has said.

    Westmorland and Lonsdale Liberal Democrat MP Tim Farron said the country’s two largest steel manufacturers did not want the coking coal the mine near Whitehaven in West Cumbria would produce.

    “And I obviously think that digging coal and other fossil fuels out of the ground to burn them in a climate emergency is just stupid,” he said….

    …Mr Farron said 100% of the coal would need to be exported to make the mine viable.

    West Cumbria Mining has been approached for comment but previously said it would “assist the steel industry migration towards the government objective of a zero net carbon emissions target by 2050”.

    The company has permission to dig until 2049 and expects to create about 500 jobs.

    Mr Farron said these would be short term because the mine’s business case “didn’t stack up”.

    He said there was “a level of cruelty” in the government’s support for the mine, accusing it of giving false hope of jobs for political reasons….

    Creating 500 well-paid jobs in a deprived area – that would just be cruel, wouldn’t it? As for the business case, isn’t that for the business owners to decide, especially if (unlike Mr Farron’s much-loved “renewables”), they’re neither seeking nor going to receive taxpayer-funded subsidies?

    Like

  39. The endless Guardian obsession with small mine that hasn’t even opened yet just goes on and on:

    “Government documents ‘blow gaping hole’ in its case for Cumbrian coalmine
    Michael Gove said UK needed coal to make steel, but business department papers drafted around same time say it will not”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/mar/02/government-documents-said-to-blow-gaping-hole-in-its-case-for-cumbrian-coalmine

    …When Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, approved plans to build the Woodhouse Colliery near Whitehaven in December 2022, he said the UK would need the coal in order to carry on making steel.

    But the newly revealed documents, drafted around the same time at the then Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), say the opposite. According to these papers, officials predict with “high certainty” that technology such as electric arc furnaces will lead to the successful decarbonisation of UK steel production by 2035….

    And if they’re wrong?

    Liked by 1 person

  40. The people who oppose this mine and think that the British steel making industry should be based only on arc furnaces (using prodigious amounts of allegedly ‘Green’ electricity), meaning that Britain can never again produce its own virgin steel, whilst other countries crack ahead regardless, are fanatics, extremists. They harbour an obsessive fossil fuel phobia, of coal especially, but one which is largely limited to fossil fuels extracted on British soil. They are encouraged and enabled in their extremist views by the law itself, by Net Zero legislation, drafted in by a Conservative government. They are using this government legislation to oppose ANY development of industry involving fossil fuels and they are engaing in active lawfare (funded by profit-driven Green billionaires) to further their ideological aims. Sunak pontificates in front of No.10 about the ‘threat to our democracy’ coming equally from Islamic extremists (which his government taxi’d across the Channel), plus the threat from the mythical ‘far right’, but he completely ignores the threat to our very lives and livelihoods posed by green fanatical extremists emboldened and enabled by Government policies and government introduced legislation. Now the Conservative government are going to willingly hand over this poisonous legacy of home grown and imported extremism to Labour, so they can further exploit its destructive potentialities in order to completely destroy our nation.

    Liked by 3 people

  41. Mark Jenkinson MP has got into a hilarious exchange with JSO activists on X, who travelled up from Kendal to campaign for the closure of the mine. He’s accused them of basically lying, being terrorists and part of the great unwashed!

    But I can’t post the tweets unfortunately because WP is sodding around again.

    Like

  43. Thanks for the link Jaime – partial quote –

    “As the world passes tipping points that threaten the breakdown of ordered civilization, world leaders, captured by the interests of oil lobbyists and big business, are failing to protect our communities. British citizens are sick of being led by liars and crooks. Until we stop Tory oil, gas and coal, supporters of Just Stop Oil will continue taking proportionate action to demand necessary change”

    Said 10? people who are the British citizens voice & must be heard

    Liked by 1 person

  44. JSO morons have turned up at Mark Jenkinson’s constituency office. One of them claims to be an NHS nurse who is accusing him of endangering children’s health by supporting the opening of the coal mine! If she’s representative of the quality of employees in the NHS then God help us. Also, if the cop that turned up, claiming that the posters were only ‘temporary’ and did not constitute criminal damage is representative of the calibre of Cumbrian police officers, then also God help us. They pasted those posters onto the windows with wallpaper paste or similar. That IS criminal damage. Apparently, they’ve now been arrested at home, probably after the cop checked his police manual to discover that it was indeed criminal damage. IMO, they should also have been arrested for being criminally stupid.

    Liked by 1 person

  45. Jaime,

    I was never a criminal lawyer, so I claim no expertise regarding identifying whether or not something represents criminal damage. However, a few seconds on the internet suggests that the policeman outside Mark Jenkinson’s office claiming that there was no criminal damage, may well have been wrong. Here are a few extracts from the CPS website:

    https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/criminal-damage

    Section 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971:

    A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another, intending to destroy or damage any such property, or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged, shall be guilty of an offence.

    And the CPS commentary:

    Any alteration to the physical nature of the property concerned may amount to damage within the meaning of the section. The courts have construed the term liberally and included damage that is not permanent such as smearing mud on the walls of a police cell…

    It rather sounds as though the actions in question would have constituted criminal damage if committed within a police station, so why are they not criminal damage when committed against an MP’s office?

    Liked by 2 people

  46. Jaime – what a joke the police response was in that clip, it will embolden these JSO nutters in future intimidating stunts & you have to wonder, if the police take no action to protect law abiding Citizens, how long before someone gets seriously hurt.

    Liked by 1 person

  47. It was the arrogant and dismissive attitude of that cop which also got to me. He wasn’t even talking to one of us law-abiding plebs, he was talking to the local MP! Still, at least he was not upholding the law without fear or favour, so that’s something I guess!

    Liked by 1 person

  48. “MP hits out at ‘spoilt middle-class climate clowns'”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0de49lyxvmo

    An MP has hit out at what he called “spoilt, middle-class climate clowns” after his office was targeted by Just Stop Oil protesters.

    Mark Jenkinson’s constituency office on Senhouse Street in Maryport was targeted by protesters at about 08:10 BST on Friday, who covered the windows in posters reading “Stop Tory Coal”.

    Two women have been arrested following the protest, which was against plans for a new coal mine in West Cumbria.

    Just Stop Oil branded Mr Jenkinson’s comments “adolescent”….

    Which is a bit rich from people whose behaviour is adolescent in the extreme.

    …He [Jenkinson] said the window cleaner, who had just left, had to return to clean-up “after these overgrown attention-seeking babies”.

    “Unfortunately, the film on the glass has been scratched and some of the paintwork damaged by the childish antics of these spoilt, middle-class climate clowns,” he added.

    He further criticised the protesters who he said had driven to the area in cars that run on fossil fuels, used plastic tape and paper made from the felling of trees, as well as leaving items behind for others to clean-up….

    Interesting that they use a convoluted form of words to avoid denying his claim:

    …In response to the MP’s claims about driving cars and using other polluting materials, the group said: “For the record, he hasn’t a clue how our people got there.”

    If they didn’t drive there in ICE cars, why not simply say as much? No comment either regarding his claims about their use of other polluting materials.

    PS I am no Mark Jenkinson fan, and I won’t be voting for him at the next general election. That is not to say, however, that the actions of JSO are remotely justified. Middle class people from comfortable homes travelling to a deprived area to campaign to deny jobs to poor and unemployed people. How very progressive and liberal! If the opening of the coal mine would make a difference to anything, they might have a point, but it won’t. On the other hand, not allowing it to open with have a direct and negative effect on the lives of poor and unemployed west Cumbrians who might be lifted out of poverty by the employment opportunities it offers.

    Liked by 2 people

  49. Exactly Mark, I don’t support Jenkinson; he is just another of the Tory party faithful and he voted in favour of forcing car manufacturers to make EVs and fine them for producing too many ICE cars, which makes him rather a hypocrite, but his views on these JSO morons coincide with mine.

    This appears to be his last tweet on the issue and he has disable replies. The point is, Cumbria Police response was not adequate at the time and it remains to be seen whether these idiots will actually be charged with criminal damage. He obviously had to push them to make the arrests. Another example of climate activists being given the softly softly treatment by British police. The PC who arrived ‘swiftly’ – after the criminal damage had been done – said it was a “peaceful protest” and “at this time no offences have been committed”. Not good enough.

    Liked by 2 people

  50. This makes the Cumbria police look rather foolish. Perhaps they should educate their officers on the law. But let’s see if the four of them are charged with criminal damage. It’s interesting to note that only one of them is an actual constituent of Jenkins.

    Liked by 1 person

  51. In addition to blocking all further extraction licences of oil and gas from the North Sea (or not), the anti-jobs, anti-growth, anti-working class Labour government has now thrown the Whitehaven coal mine to the Green Blob lawfare wolves.

    BREAKING: New Communities Secretary Angela Rayner has decided there was an error in the law in the previous government’s decision to grant planning permission for the West Cumbria coal mine – and the government won’t be defending that decision against legal challenges

    https://x.com/TomSheldrickITV/status/1811435057938149421

    Liked by 1 person

  52. Well spotted Jaime. It does rather look as though the oil and gas extraction licence muddle was, as I feared, no more than a cock-up.

    Like

  53. Working class hero Rayner destroys 500+ working class jobs in West Cumbria:

    Coking coal

    Only for steelmaking

    Can’t make steel without it Lower emissions than imports

    500 direct jobs

    1500 supply chain jobs

    £169m foreign direct investment

    Where are our local voices?

    Ideological madness

    https://x.com/markjenk/status/1811453867726426133

    Islington socialite Ed Miliband destroys hundreds of thousands of jobs in the North Sea oil and gas industry, based in eastern Scotland.

    Liked by 2 people

  54. Jaime, thank you for your latest comments. And let us remember what Labour’s big brother, the WEF, has taught us, namely that we will own nothing (not even a job, and perhaps not even agency over our own bodies where mRNA/Covid jabs are concerned). WEF has also instructed us that we will be happy.

    Well, I can report that I am far from happy. I am already not happy with this week-old, posturing LINO government; blight-wing government is probably better terminology.

    The future’s dim; the future’s Miliband. Regards, John C.

    Liked by 2 people

  57. This “stranded asset” in British Columbia is being re-floated:

    Northern B.C. coal mine comes back to life after 24 years

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/quintette-mine-conuma-resources-open-24-years-1.7317288

    The metallurgical coal mine was closed 24 years ago because of a decline in coal prices. The worldwide demand for metallurgical coal has made it economical again. All the coal will be exported as it is not used in BC.

    “To see the excitement and know the people who have been here for way longer than I have, get to see that operation come back online. I think it’s huge. It’s huge for people’s morale.”

    “It’s something that the rest of the world will continue to need as long as steel is being made,”

    The people of West Cumbria are not as fortunate given the UK government ideological fixation with NZ.

    Liked by 1 person

  59. “High Court decision expected on UK coal mine plan”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdrlrkz5k2ro

    A decision is expected on plans to build the UK’s first deep coal mine in more than 30 years.

    High Court judge Justice Holgate is expected to issue his ruling later regarding plans for the facility to be built in Whitehaven, Cumbria.

    The proposal by West Cumbria Mining (WCM) had received the go-ahead by the previous Conservative government in December 2022.

    But legal challenges were submitted by Friends of the Earth and South Lakes Action on Climate Change (SLACC), who claimed the decision was flawed.

    The environmental campaigners claimed permission did not take into consideration the impact of burning coal on the environment – only from running the mine.

    At a hearing in July, the newly elected Labour government decided not to defend the decision to grant permission for the project, citing “an error in law”.…

    A Labour government, seeking not to defend working class jobs. O tempora. O mores. However, given the basis of the appeal against the planning permission is such that, following the recent Supreme Court decision I fear the coal mine development won’t now go ahead and those well-paid jobs in an area of deprivation and high unemployment won’t now be created. Well done everyone involved.

    Liked by 1 person

  60. Wait, so a coal mine can be closed down in this country on the basis of the outsourced emissions from the burning of the exported coal, is that correct? So why cannot the closure of the Grangemouth oil refinery be legally opposed on the same basis, i.e. that it will inevitably result in a net increase in emissions due to the necessary transportation and import of fuel/oil from abroad? Why cannot the closure of the Port Talbot steelworks be opposed on the basis that it will necessarily require the increased import (and increased CO2 emissions) of virgin steel manufactured abroad (using coal) into the UK? How is it that seemingly one rule applies when industry is being forced to close down because of outsourced emissions but another rule applies when industry is being closed down on the basis of domestic emissions only, completely ignoring the increase in outsourced emissions?

    The government should lead efforts to keep the Grangemouth refinery open. The U.K. is losing too many industrial plants and jobs. Importing instead increases world CO 2 and does big damage to our economy.

    https://x.com/johnredwood/status/1834458105121280281

    Liked by 2 people

  61. Jaime: agree 100%. Oil/gas/coal is going to be consumed anyway, whatever the origin, so local sourcing is the lowest-emission option.

    This applies to the North Sea as well. Restricting production by taxation and blocking licences will simply increase the proportion of our supplies which have to be imported with consequential higher emissions – especially in the case of LNG.

    Like

  62. And now, as night follows day, we have this:

    “Coal mine plan quashed by High Court”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdrlrkz5k2ro

    …In his judgement, Mr Justice Holgate said: “The assumption that the proposed mine would not produce a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions, or would be a net zero mine, is legally flawed.”…

    I don’t blame him – following the recent Supreme Court decision in the Horse Hill case, I don’t see how he could have concluded otherwise. Such is the state of UK law in these crazed days. The BBC has opened it up for a “Have Your Say” and the vast majority of comments with the most “likes” are angry about it. As a disillusioned old leftie, this one particularly resonated with me:

    50 years ago nobody would have believed a newly elected socialist government with a massive majority would immediately deny the elderly financial help,ban coalmines and coalminers jobs,cancel new railways,cancel new roads, allow the steel industry to collapse and authorise the bombing of USSR. How things have changed!!

    Liked by 1 person

  63. Maybe the Cumbrian coal mine should be allowed to go ahead after all….

    “Exported gas produces far worse emissions than coal, major study finds

    Research challenges idea that sending liquefied natural gas around the world is cleaner alternative to burning coal”

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/04/exported-liquefied-natural-gas-coal-study

    Exported gas emits far more greenhouse gas emissions than coal, despite fossil-fuel industry claims it is a cleaner alternative, according to a major new research paper that challenges the controversial yet rapid expansion of gas exports from the US to Europe and Asia.

    Coal is the dirtiest of fossil fuels when combusted for energy, with oil and gas producers for years promoting cleaner-burning gas as a “bridge” fuel and even a “climate solution” amid a glut of new liquefied natural gas (or LNG) terminals, primarily in the US.

    But the research, which itself has become enmeshed in a political argument in the US, has concluded that LNG is 33% worse in terms of planet-heating emissions over a 20-year period compared with coal.

    “The idea that coal is worse for the climate is mistaken – LNG has a larger greenhouse gas footprint than any other fuel,” said Robert Howarth, an environmental scientist at Cornell University and author of the new paper…..

    I haven’t had time to read the study, but it’s here if anyone else would like to do so:

    https://scijournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ese3.1934

    Liked by 1 person

  64. Wow, if this guy has got his sums right, then this graph explodes the myth that coal is a ‘dirty’ fuel as regards global warming. It shows total lifecycle of CO2-equivalent emissions (including methane) of various fuels (ignore the heat pump). Natural gas and coal produced and used domestically are virtually the same as regards lifecycle emissions! LNG exported produces more lifecycle emissions than either domestic coal or natural gas. I presume also that before Biden blew up the Nordstream pipeline, the gas imported into Europe (not liquefied and not tankered) was also not much worse than gas produced and used domestically in terms of lifecycle emissions. The Tories shuttered and even blew up our coal fired power stations and banned fracking. Labour have shut down our last mine. We could be using coal and gas produced locally, with significantly less total lifecycle emissions, instead of having to import LNG from the US. If the media were to make this public, it would cause a storm of protest, I am sure. Of course, the loons will still argue that we should be using 100% ‘renewables’, but, it’s now acknowledged that we are going to need fossil fuel powered generation as back up for many years to come and it now turns out that had we not closed down our coal mines, banned fracking and blew up our coal-fired power stations, we would be producing less CO2 and methane emissions overall compared to having to import gas from the States!

    Details are in the caption following the image
    Figure 3

    Like

  65. Jaime; I’ll read the article later but two comments come to mind….

    Howarth has been campaigning against natural gas for many years. Iirc, his claims have often been shown to be inaccurate and overblown.

    If this uses the “n times stronger than CO2” claim for methane then it fails because, as we know, methane’s absorption spectrum is almost completely swamped by water vapour which is typical present at 20,000 times the concentration.

    Like

  67. “Deep coal mine plans officially dropped”

    http://bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy0ynqqzezvo

    Plans for the UK’s first deep coal mine in more than 30 years have officially been abandoned.

    Planning permission for the mine at Whitehaven, Cumbria, was overturned by the High Court last year following a campaign by environmental groups.

    Developer West Cumbria Mining (WCM) was then given a deadline by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) to decide whether it wanted to continue its planning permission application.

    WCM has now dropped these plans, MHCLG said….

    So that’s 500 well-paid jobs and many more in the support sector that won’t now be created, in a depressed area of high unemployment.

    Instead west Cumbria is now being plagued with inappropriate and environmentally-damaging solar farm applications that won’t create long-term employment and are offering a few insulting trinkets for the natives. Where is the campaign from the environmental protest groups now?

    Liked by 2 people

  68. Mark – from Welcome to West Cumbria Mining – partial quotes

    “Net Zero Operations WCM will operate a world leading, legally binding emissions mitigation scheme. This will utilise an electrical mining fleet, renewable electricity tariff, methane capture and elimination, zero emission transport schemes and carbon offsetting for residual emissions. WCM’s commitment significantly exceeds the UK Climate Change Committee ‘Net Zero Test’ for all new projects (including Scope 1,2 & 3 emissions).”

    “Premium High-Quality Steelmaking Coal For use by steelmakers as a direct replacement for USA coals. It has highly attractive properties for steelmaking, including ultra-low ash and very low Phosphorus. With excellent existing infrastructure, this can be delivered on a ‘just-in-time’ basis to Europe, using a variety of vessel sizes up to Cape or by rail to UK steelmakers.”

    Since the UK demand is about to collapse, I can understand why.

    Like

  69. The government has offered to buy the coking coal that is essential to keep steel production going at British Steel in Scunthorpe, the BBC has been told.

    British Steel has been warning for several days that the raw materials needed to keep its plant’s two blast furnaces operational are running out.

    Sources said the government was putting the offer in writing to British Steel’s Chinese owner Jingye, which will decide on whether to accept it.

    Separately government sources said the materials need to be paid for within the next two days or production will cease at the British Steel plant within weeks and cannot be restarted. The Department of Business and Trade did not comment.

    Jingye has said the furnaces are “no longer financially sustainable”.

    Talks are set to resume between British Steel bosses and government officials on Thursday, with unions saying the situation is on a “cliff-edge”.

    The government has not ruled out nationalising British Steel, which employs 2,700 people, saying all options remain on the table.

    Coking coal, which has to be imported, can take 45 days to arrive once it’s been ordered. The plant also needs iron ore but that tends to arrive more quickly than coal.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp311nr7w34o

    So, this ridiculous government is now desperately trying to keep (Chinese owned) British Steel in operation by offering to buy emergency supplies of coking coal to keep the furnaces going – coking coal which the Whitehaven mine would have supplied but which Miliband effectively threw under the bus by refusing to defend it against a vexatious lawsuit funded by the Green Blob. What a sick farce.

    Liked by 2 people

  70. Behind a paywall, unfortunately, but the headline says enough:

    “Royal Navy on alert to escort shipment in steel crisis

    Military may be mobilised after MPs vote to seize control in Scunthorpe”

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/royal-navy-on-alert-to-escort-shipment-in-steel-crisis-mn269ggrg

    At a time of heightened international stress, when the government says the ability to manufacture primary steel is a vital national interest (a view with which I agree) the declining number of Royal Navy vessels may have to be used to escort foreign coal to the UK. Reminder – we could have had high-quality coking coal from the mine in west Cumbria that the government refused to allow to go ahead because of net zero.

    Liked by 1 person

  71. The Times and the Sunday Times – two different outfits, I realise – are going for it with regard to the steel mess:

    “Decline of coal raised electricity costs — and shattered our steel industry

    Port Talbot, Redcar, the dramatic attempt to rescue Scunthorpe: it all comes back to energy prices”

    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/its-the-end-of-coal-that-shattered-the-steel-industry-qlhvrbssh

    Unfortunately, it’s also behind a paywall.

    Liked by 1 person

  72. “China warns UK against ‘politicising’ British Steel as officials race to keep furnaces burning”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c1kj0mpne3wt

    …We’ve been hearing this morning that the supplies required to keep the two furnaces at the Scunthorpe plant going – coking coal and iron ore – are already in the country as the race continues to keep the plant burning.

    But the supply chain for those vital materials can be “erratic”, steel consultant Bill Penn tells BBC. For reference, coking coal can take 45 days to arrive once it’s been ordered...

    I suppose that’s probably true if you have to import it instead of bringing it across the Pennines from west Cumbria.

    Liked by 3 people

  73. There’s something very fishy about this whole ‘nationalisation’ deal. Supposedly, the government ordered emergency supplies of coking coal from Japan (a country which imports coking coal itself!) which could take up to 5 days to be delivered, but amazingly, the supplies are ‘now in the country’. Supposedly, the coal from the Cumbrian mine would have been unsuitable because it was too high in sulphur according to a report paid for by South Lakes Against Climate Change. But we’re not being told what grade this latest coking coal is – and there are apparently quite a few different grades. Also, only a few months ago, British Steel had to shut down one of their furnaces because they used inferior quality coke – but they managed to restart the furnace. But we’re told that if the furnaces are shut down, they can’t be restarted, which is why the government had to step in urgently to ensure supplies of coking coal. It’s all very weird. Made weirder by the Labour MPs who have taken to social media to brag about being on their way to ‘save British Steel’ – on a Saturday! Just surreal.

    Liked by 2 people

  75. Jaime,

    The opponents of the coal mine threw everything they could think of at it to ensure it didn’t open, and some of it was mutually contradictory. It had too high a sulphur content to make steel; it was going to be exported to make steel abroad and so wouldn’t enhance UK security but would increase greenhouse gas and; and so forth.

    Liked by 1 person

  76. Mark, the coal from the Whitehaven mine would be ideally suited to making coke to mix with iron ore to make steel, but the reason for it not being used in any great quantity had the mine gone ahead (Tata Steel said they would use some) is because of stringent sulphur dioxide emissions regulations (to stop non existent ‘acid rain’). That’s the only reason. Other countries outside of Europe do not have such stringent emissions requirements, hence the assertion that most of the coal would be exported. Our steel industry of latter days had no problems making steel from coking coal dug from British mines. But all those pits have been closed down and they were at great pains to ensure that our newest coking coal mine was never opened.

    Liked by 2 people

  77. Jaime,

    Yes, that would make sense. The usual UK virtue-signalling: adopting “world-leading” standards that stop us making things here that we need, so we export the jobs and the problem to countries with lower environmental standards, then we import the finished product from places that experience greater pollution to satisfy our needs. Very virtuous.

    Liked by 4 people

  79. Jit – good question. Had a look at Woodhouse Colliery | West Cumbria Mining

    A few quotes –

    “The mine has planning approval to operate until 2049 and will support the supply of a critical raw material to steelmakers in the UK and EU.”

    “One of the largest steelmaking coal resources in Europe with proven resources of more than 216 million tonnes.

    100% of production is high-quality metallurgical coal, equivalent to USA High Volatile ‘A’ – a highly desirable product to steelmakers.

    Significant logistical benefits – rail connection to UK steelmakers, 18 hours to key European ports including Rotterdam.

    Application of modern, proven mining method and equipment (runout and pocket partial extraction).”

    “Experienced project team with combined +100 years of relevant mining development and operational experience

    Key suppliers identified, with a focus on local and UK companies wherever possible

    Very high level of interest from job-seekers, with many applications from mining and tunnelling experienced personnel based in the UK

    Supported by a board and investors with huge resource industry experience and capability”

    Found this link, but not sure how useful – Reasons behind the price premium for U.S. metallurgical coal exports – U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

    Partial quote which mentions “sulfur” –

    “In addition, fewer competing producers take part in the metallurgical coal market than in the thermal coal market. Only three other countries—Australia, Canada, and Russia—have the reserves necessary to produce and export substantial amounts of metallurgical coal of similar quality as the United States. China produces more than half of the world’s metallurgical coal, but it is all consumed domestically. Australia is the largest exporter of metallurgical coal, followed by the United States, Russia, and Canada.

    Metallurgical coal also differs fundamentally from thermal coal because it is more expensive to produce. Metallurgical coal reserves in the United States are found almost exclusively in the Appalachia region, where mining primarily occurs in underground operations. The cost of mining metallurgical coal typically exceeds that of producing thermal coal because the majority of metallurgical coal is mined from thinner seams. Mining operations must use lower-capacity mining equipment and require more manpower. Also, most metallurgical coal must be treated to rid the coal of ash and sulfur impurities, resulting in lower yields. Although mining costs are higher for metallurgical coal, the higher export price more than offsets the higher cost.”

    Liked by 1 person

  80. Thanks Dougie – I searched for “USA High Volatile ‘A’” to get its characteristics, but it isn’t really very clear to me. The “volatile” part includes other molecules than sulphur dioxide.

    But the fact that they mentioned UK and EU should perhaps indicate a tolerable sulphur level.

    Like

  81. The Guardian article about Scunthorpe to which I referred this morning on the TCANZ thread said this about the cancelled Cumbrian mine project:

    ‘But the coking coal that was to be produced from this mine would not have been of a high enough quality to be used in the Scunthorpe steelworks, with at least 85% of it earmarked for export. This is because of its high sulphur content.‘

    Is that accurate?

    Like

  82. Robin,

    I simply don’t know. The opponents of the mine were unmarked in the number of claims they produced in an attempt to thwart it. Outside the Brexit debate, I don’t think I have seen such levels of hysteria. It was like a religious crusade.

    The result is that trying to learn the truth is almost impossible. Internet algorithms always promote the net zero/alarmist search results first. So, I just don’t know.

    Liked by 1 person

  83. Robin/Mark, The West Cumbria Mine website says:

    “The metallurgical coal produced by WCM will be high quality ideally suited for the UK and EU steelmakers blending requirements, having ultra low ash and phosphorous with very high fluidity. This is a key component of the blend to produce coke for the highest grades of quality steel.”

    No mention of Sulphur but the claim that it would be “ideally suited” implies it would meet all criteria.

    Liked by 2 people

  84. MikeH,

    That’s what I thought, but this whole area has been made so confusing and controversial by the anti-mine lobby that I sat on the fence.

    Regardless, though, I remain angry that comfortable middle class people (who no doubt regard themselves as virtuous) actively campaigned against well-paid productive jobs in a depressed area of high unemployment, just so that they can preen about the UK setting an example that the rest of the world isn’t following. Also, what about the balance of trade? Exports could have been helping; instead we have to import, and the net effect is to exacerbate our balance of trade deficit. There was a time when this would have been considered important, but not in the crazy world of net zero.

    Liked by 3 people

  85. Mark; Agree 100%. It’s the same ignorant, blinkered stupidity which is throttling our oil and gas production from the N. Sea. As a shale gas campaigner used to say about our growing reliance on importing gas….”Why are we so keen on keeping Qataris in Ferraris?”

    Liked by 2 people

  86. According to WCM, the coal from the mine is comparable to US HVA metallurgical coal and there is no evidence presented by SLACC or anyone else that this is not the case. It is comparable to US HVA because of its very low ash and phosphorous content and because it is a high volatility meaning that it contributes to fluidity in the coke blend. As MikeH quotes above:

    “The metallurgical coal produced by WCM will be high quality ideally suited for the UK and EU steelmakers blending requirements, having ultra low ash and phosphorous with very high fluidity. This is a key component of the blend to produce coke for the highest grades of quality steel.”

    For producing high quality coke for steel making, this is really all that matters, as long as the sulphur content is not excessively high, as would be the case with thermal coals.

    The hype about it ‘not being suitable for British or European steel-makers is entirely based on another fake environmental scare story – ‘acid rain’. Hence, the SLACC commissioned report quotes a letter from the Materials Processing Institute (itself a Green Blob infiltrated organisation) to Maggie Mason at SLACC which states:

    Sulphur – High, undesirable for a good quality coal [Incorrect. Sulphur is low, though higher than typical US HVA, but this does not in any way affect the quality of the metallurgical coal]. UK carboniferous coals generally have higher total sulphur contents than their US equivalents. This led to them being phased out of use as prime metallurgical coals in the early 1980’s as high sulphur emissions from coke plants in the UK, in the form of H2S, caused acid rain formation that severely damaged the environment in Scandinavia and northern Europe. [The UK made high quality steel with high sulphur content metallurgical coal before the 1980s: it could do so again if it were not for EU legislation based on the ‘acid rain’ scare story – legislation which was not repealed after Brexit] Consequently, the Environment Agency imposed restrictions on the use of high sulphur coals for cokemaking. At Scunthorpe, for example, the cokemaking operations are constrained on S input, meaning the use of an individual coal in the blend with total S above 0.8 %db is not permitted (a limiting value of 0.75 %db is used to ensure compliance). Cost penalties for S content are irrelevant in this situation. To meet S emissions limits for coke plants across Europe, similar legislative constraints are applied, and again cost is not the issue.

    SLACC are using one fake environmental scare story (acid rain) as an additional prop to take down a viable industry on the basis of another fake environmental scare story (greenhouse gas caused ‘dangerous’ global warming). Now, with the highly embarrassing revelation that the government only a few weeks ago shut down Whitehaven, which could have provided high quality coking coal, when the same government is importing coking coal from abroad to ‘save British Steel’, the usual suspects are dragging up the SLACC report to ‘prove’ that the coal from Whitehaven would have been of no use anyway, so it’s irrelevant that it got closed down.

    Liked by 1 person

  87. I like this from an engineer named Bob at Judith Curry, regarding our debt to Promethius.

     “We must be clear. If society decides not to use fire, we all will die, starting with the poor and weak. Fire and its reactant, CO2, keeps us alive and will for the foreseeable future.

    We must be frugal, particularly with energy. We are not.

    We must teach the young that technology is not evil, per se. It benefits mankind. The evil is in the both the wrong application of technology and the theft of the resultant benefits to the few, not the many. We must hurriedly produce STEM graduates in professions which we destroyed by regulation and/or government action. Fission and fusion will be in the mix, with geothermal, hydro etc. Trump is correct, we must bring back heavy industry to the US and deeply consider robotics and AI in a free society.

    Or be conquered by others.”

    Like

  88. It seems others are trying to get to the bottom of this question – for political reasons:

    British Steel executives have admitted that UK coal could fuel its blast furnaces, adding to pressure on Ed Miliband over the blocking of a new Cumbrian mine.

    Richard Tice, the deputy leader of Reform UK, said executives confirmed to him last week that coke derived from the mine’s coal would have been of a sufficiently high purity for steel production.

    Telegraph link.

    Liked by 4 people

  89. Kathryn Porter (Watt-Logic) has a long and detailed article – Busting the British Steel bailout myths – about Scunthorpe which says this about the value of coke from the cancelled Cumbrian mine for blast furnaces:

    There is some debate over the suitability of the Cumbrian coal for steel-making. This is high-sulphur coal which would normally need blending for use in making steel. High-sulphur coals typically have sulphur contents exceeding 1.0%, whereas low-sulphur coals used in coke production often have sulphur contents below 1.0% and usually below 0.6%. To achieve a blended coal mix with a sulphur content suitable for coke production (generally below 1.0%), the proportion of high-sulphur coal in the blend must be limited.

    The Cumbrian mine produces coking coal of between 1.5% and 1.8% sulphur content. The Australian coal which is likely to be in the shipment from Japan is probably low sulphur coal (<0.6%) as this is the typical Australian export quality. On the face of it, it would appear that the Cumbrian coal is unsuitable for use at the Scunthorpe foundry, but it’s not so simple, because high-sulphur coal can be blended with lower sulphur coal and still have an acceptable specification. Typically up to 30% of the blend can have a high sulphur content. This means that some Cumbrian coal could have been used at Scunthorpe, reducing the import requirement.

    Much later in the article (as I noted it’s long) she says this:

    Of course, coking coal needs to be sourced, and this should come from the closest mines possible – shipping coal from Australia makes no sense. The UK has plenty of coal deposits including the Midlothian field in Scotland and the Aberpergwm Colliery in Wales both of which produce coals suitable for coking (Aberpergwm produces high-grade anthracite with low sulphur and ash content which is suitable for certain metallurgical processes).

    If you’ve got time and would really like to understand what’s happening at Scunthorpe, it’s worth a read.

    https://watt-logic.com/2025/04/17/british-steel-bailout-myths/

    Liked by 3 people

  90. “UK taxpayers on hook as failed Cumbria coalmine investors sue government

    Singapore firm using secretive international legal system to seek compensation for climate concerns blocking plans”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/aug/11/uk-taxpayers-on-hook-failed-cumbria-coalmine-investors-sue-government

    The UK government is being sued in a secretive “corporate court” after a proposal for a new coalmine in Cumbria was quashed by the high court. If successful, UK taxpayers would have to fund a substantial compensation payment to the mine’s investors.

    It is the first such case to be filed against the UK government by a fossil fuel company as a result of climate policy. The case uses investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) rules agreed in a 1975 trade agreement between the UK and Singapore, where the major investor in the coalmine is incorporated.…

    Given the commitment of Starmer and Hermes to international treaties, I assume the UK government will comply fully with any award made?

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.