MINORCA OPENCAST PROTEST GROUP
RESEARCH REPORT No 2
UK OPENCAST/ SURFACED MINED COAL: IT’S ROLE IN
PROVIDING UK ENERGY SECURITY
STEPHEN LEARY, CHAIRPERSON, MINORCA
OPENCAST PROTEST GROUP 2008 - 2009
Summary
This report reviews recent trends in the use of coal for energy generation
purposes, the sourcing of that coal and changes in the production of
domestically produced coal. Consideration is then given to future estimates
for the demand for coal and what implications this carries for indigenous
coal production, the creation of up to 180 new opencast mines between
2007 and 2025 and the possibility that, by then, the UK will only be
producing opencast coal for electrical generating purposes. Before drawing a
number of conclusions from the report the report indicates which parts of
the country could be affected by the increased number of future opencast
planning applications.
OPENCAST COAL: ITS ROLE IN PROVIDING UK ENERGY SECURITY
PAGE 1
CONTENTS
SECTION
TITLE
PAGE Nos.
Section 1
Report’s Conclusions
3-5
Section 2
The Reasons for this Report
5-6
Section 3
Introduction
6
Section 4
UK Coal Demand and Supply 1988
7-10
- 2008
Section 5
Pollution Issues and Future Trends
10-13
in the Demand for Coal.
Section 6
Short Term Energy Supplies and the
13-15
Demand for Coal
Section 7
Energy Security and the 20m tonne
15-21
target for Indigenous Coal Production
Section 8
Deep Mines and the Future Supply of
20 - 22
Coal
Section 8
The Myth about ‘Clean’ Coal
22-23
Section 9
Future Areas that may face Opencast
23- 25
Mining Applications between now and
2025
References
26-31
Current and future reports in this series
31-32
Copies of this paper are available on:
http://www.leicestershirevillages.com/measham/minorca-protest.html or
http://mopg.co.uk/
Steve Leary can be contacted about this research paper on:
OPENCAST COAL: ITS ROLE IN PROVIDING UK ENERGY SECURITY
PAGE 2
steveatmopg@googlemail.com
1) REPORT CONCLUSIONS

This discussion of past and current trends argued that a sustainable
domestic coal industry seems to be dependent on increasing the
proportion of coal produced by opencast methods, eventually up to
100%.

It seems that there are no projections currently for the use of coal if
CCS technology does not prove itself to be viable either practically or
commercially. Until CCS is proven to be commercially viable the Energy
Markets Review team should include a projection on the demand for
coal which includes this possibility. (Section 5)

This discussion of past pollution issues suggests that there is likely to
be a continuing decline in the demand for coal and that this level of
demand is difficult to predict until the Carbon Capture and Storage
systems prove themselves to be commercially viable. Even then newer
technologies such as Underground Coal Gasification could have a
significant impact on the future need for mined coal for generating
purposes. (Section 5)

A future report in this series should look further at the future demand
for coal topic so that an estimate can be given for the demand for coal
when the following factors, for example, can be addressed:

The impact of the revised LCPD when it takes full effect in 2016

The above plus evidence that carbon capture works or does not
work

The impact of attempts to make more efficient use of the energy
network such as the ‘intelligent grid’ idea

The increasing impact of renewable and bio-fuels

Consumers reducing their consumption of electricity.
This is going to be an increasingly important issue for those
communities facing new opencast mining applications for sites that, if
OPENCAST COAL: ITS ROLE IN PROVIDING UK ENERGY SECURITY
PAGE 3
the planning application was granted, would still be coaling during and
after 2016. (Section 5)

As at September 2009, there is no immediate threat to the security of
supply. One later indication was that stockpiles of coal were expected
to increase during the winter of 2009 /10 as it looked as though gas
would be a cheaper fuel to use as the ‘base load’ fuel for producing
more than 50% of the UK electricity supply. (Section 6)

In the future the bulk of indigenous coal production is going to be
from opencast coal, which is likely to be between 50 and 60% of the
production in the medium term rising to 100% in the longer term,
Planning approval would have to be on average for 10 new opencast
mines each year between 2007 and 2017. If extend this time horizon
to 2025 as Wicks does, then the prospect is that between 2007 and
2025 180 new opencast sites will need to gain planning permission.
(Section 7)

In the future Energy Security issues will be used to justify granting
planning permission for new opencast mines so that UK coal
producers can assure generating companies that they will be able to
provide indigenous coal for up to 5 years in the future. This
demonstrates the interdependence between Planning Policy and
Energy Policy. (Section 7)

What was an aspiration target of producing 20m tonnes of indigenous
coal proposed by the Coal Forum is rapidly gaining the reputation of
being an official government target, locking in the need for a
predominantly opencast based indigenous coal industry for the
foreseeable future. (Section 7)

Those opposing opencast mining applications will be in a ‘Catch 22’
situation where the new ‘Need for Coal’ argument could be wheeled
out to justify every new application. Thus objectors will be ‘holed
below the waterline’ before they even lodge an objection. (Section 7)

Unless there is some public subsidy new deep mines are unlikely and
the existing deep mines, given recent experience, have a tenuous
OPENCAST COAL: ITS ROLE IN PROVIDING UK ENERGY SECURITY
PAGE 4
future. Evidence exists that the last deep mine may close as early as
2021, making the Governments Energy Security policy dependent on
Opencast Coal. If any of them shut even more opencast coal
production is likely. (Section 8)

In the opinion of those opposed to Opencast Mining, by relying on
opencast coal for its Energy Security, the Government is allowing
opencast operators to ‘borrow’ large tracts of the countryside, often in
remote places where to transport the coal they have to use road
transport, rip the countryside apart, create holes up to 200 metres
deep, on sites that can be larger than Minorca’s at over a mile long
and half a mile wide, destroy natural habitats, create noise and dust in
a tranquil area, blight the lives of thousands of people all to produce
‘clean’ coal. (Section 9)

Numerous areas of the UK are at risk of being the victims of opencast
mining in the future, 9 counties in England, 10 in Scotland, 3 in Wales
and 1 in Northern Ireland. In addition 21 unitary authorities across
England Scotland and Wales could also be affected. (Section 10)

In light of this evidence, it may be appropriate to suggest that the
Energy and Climate Change Select Committee ask for further
information on the issue of whether, in the foreseeable future, the
fulfilment of Britain’s Energy Security policy is going to be dependent
just on the production of opencast coal which will affect one or more
of the local authority areas listed above. (Section 10)
2) THE REASONS FOR THIS REPORT
This report has been written for all current and future groups and
organisations that are or will be formed to oppose opencast coal mining
applications. Its purpose is to ensure that such groups both better
understand why such an application has been made and be more capable of
opposing such applications. The report reviews the demand for opencast
coal especially for power generation purposes in order to enable such
groups to challenge the ‘Need for Coal’ arguments that have been
successfully employed at recent Public Inquiries. Why the ‘Need for Coal’
arguments were developed was explored in the first report in this series1.
This report attempts a deeper analysis of trends for past, present and future
OPENCAST COAL: ITS ROLE IN PROVIDING UK ENERGY SECURITY
PAGE 5
opencast coal use. It makes no claims to being authoritive; the author has
limited expertise in the subject of Energy Policy. On the other hand this is, as
far as is known, the first attempt to write such a report from the perspective
of opposing opencast mining applications. Hopefully, future reviews will
build on this initial effort and better aid in the development of ideas that not
only effectively dispute the ‘Need for Coal’ arguments but enable groups in
the future to effectively oppose opencast mining applications. If you have
any observations on how to improve this report then let the author know. His
email address is at the end of the report.
3) INTRODUCTION
This report begins by analysing trends in the use and supply of coal in the
UK over the last twenty years. It then demonstrates the declining trend of
using coal as a primary fuel, the trend to use imported coal rather than
domestically produced coal for power generation and, in the declining
domestic market for coal, the increasing role being played by opencast coal
production. Then consideration is given to the implication of these trends for
domestic coal production in the future as, firstly increasing attempts are
made to lessen the degree of pollution caused by burning coal especially for
power generating purposes and secondly the Government seeks to ensure a
secure energy security. The paper then argues that there is no short term
threat to the security of supply for coal as stockpiles of coal are rapidly
increasing. It then suggests what the future implications are of the apparent
‘official policy’ to ensure that indigenous coal production stabilises at
around 20m tonnes for the foreseeable future as part of a longer term
energy security policy, with between 50-60% of this coal initially being from
opencast sites before, in the 2020’s, all our indigenous coal production is
possibly from opencast coal. Whether such a policy is compatible with the
idea of ‘Clean’ Coal is then discussed as are the reasons why deep mine coal
will play such a reducing role. The 20m tonne target suggests that 10 new
sites will be needed a year, which means that between 2007 and 2025, 180
communities could face the same problems as the communities around the
Minorca site face – the prospect of having an industrial site for opencast coal
imposed on them by a benign planning system unless they oppose it. Areas
of the country where this is likely to happen are indicated at the end of the
report before summarising the report’s conclusions.
OPENCAST COAL: ITS ROLE IN PROVIDING UK ENERGY SECURITY
PAGE 6
4) UK COAL DEMAND AND SUPPLY 1988 – 2008
The position of Coal in Britain’s energy supply mix has changed dramatically
over the last twenty years. This period spans the period during which the
industry was de-nationalised on the one hand and then exposed to world
energy prices and international market forces on the other. Later in this
period growing concerns about the relationship between burning coal and
pollution have also had an effect on the demand for coal. This has led to
major adjustments for Britain’s coal industry. In the first part of this period,
coal’s share of Britain’s energy mix fell from approximately 31% to 23% as
natural gas took an increasing share of the market
2
Latterly, since 1993,
pollution concerns have also been a contributory factor. European
Community legislation aimed at reducing the level of Acid Rain meant that
coal fired power stations had, over time, to reduce their emissions of Nitrous
Oxide (NOx) and Sulphur Dioxide (SO2). As Beynon et al point out
“ Meeting the NOX emission targets mainly involved the fitting of low NOX
burners at the power stations, however meeting the SO2 targets presented
the power station operators with a far greater challenge. When the electricity
generating companies were privatised in 1991 only three power stations in
England (Drax, Ratcliffe and Ferrybridge - totalling 8GW of capacity) were
planned for flue gas desulphurisation (FGD) equipment. Later one station in
Scotland (Longannet) would join the list. PowerGen refused to have FGD
installed at Ferrybridge and the installation of more FGD was ruled out by the
generators. Burning cheaper imported low sulphur coal was seen as one
possible option - but converting to other low/non-sulphur fuels
was the main option that the generators would adopt in 1990s, building new
generating capacity, using "cleaner" natural gas as the fuel.” 3
From 2001, this policy within the EU has been revised in two ways, with the
revised Large Combustion Plants Directive (2001) and from 2005 the EU
Emissions Trading Scheme (EU EAT). The former, according to the
International Energy Agency’s (IEA) Clean Coal Centre, is aimed at reducing
further the emissions of NOx and SO2, so that
OPENCAST COAL: ITS ROLE IN PROVIDING UK ENERGY SECURITY
PAGE 7
“The requirements of the revised LCPD for existing facilities mean that by
2016,all major pulverised coal fired power plants will have to install FGD (for
>90% removal of SO2) and SCR (for >85% NOx removal)” 4.
As the IEA point out this alone leads to a significant increase in the cost of
using coal. In addition, from 2008 the second phase of the EU EAT scheme
came into force. This scheme is aimed at pricing the use of carbon as a
polluter into the price of energy usage. As coal as a fuel source was rated the
highest emitter of carbon, it further disadvantages coal as a feed stock for
energy production. The IEA go on to summarise the current position as
“In the shorter term, the combined impact of the EU ETS and the revised
LCPD is a key factor, which must be considered, that is creating uncertainties
with regard to the future life of fossil-fuel based, especially coal-fired,
power stations”. 5
These factors are affecting the use of coal and will continue to influence coal
as a choice for a feed stock in the future. However the future use of coal is
even cloudier, given the uncertainty over whether Carbon Capture will work
(see below).
These concerns have had three affects on the UK Coal Industry. The first
change has been the relative decline in importance of coal as a feed stock in
meeting Britain’s energy needs as cheaper gas gained market share.
Secondly the domestic production of Britain’s coal declined even faster than
coal’s share of the domestic energy market. Lastly the sourcing of
domestically produced coal has changed. Deep mined coal now accounts for
less than 50% of domestically produced coal whilst opencast’s share of the
domestic market has grown. This is mainly due to deep mined coal being
relatively more expensive to produce than surface mined coal. Each of these
trends is looked at more closely below.
Table 1 below illustrates how coal consumption has changed over the last
twenty years. In that time coal consumption has fallen by 45% and its share
of the energy supplied market has fallen by 47%. Since 1999 a degree of
stability has been established, possibly caused by a rise in the price of gas
thus making the relative price of coal cheaper. However, this degree of
OPENCAST COAL: ITS ROLE IN PROVIDING UK ENERGY SECURITY
PAGE 8
stabilisation in the share that coal has taken of the domestic market has not
meant a renaissance for Britain’s domestic coal industry.
Table 1
UK CONSUMPTION OF COAL AS A PRIMARY FUEL 1988 – 2008
YEAR
IN MILLION TONNES
6
% SHARE OF ENERGY
SUPPLIED
1989
108.1
31.7
1994
82.1
23.6
1999
56.5
15.9
2004
61.3
16.7
2006
68.1
18.7
2008
58.9
16.9
Table 2 CHANGES IN THE SOURCING OF COAL CONSUMED IN BRITAIN
MILLION TONS (thousand tonnes)
YEAR
DOMESTIC
7
% OF COAL
PRODUCTION CONSUMED
IMPORTED
% OF COAL
COAL
CONSUMED
(est.)
(est.)
1989
99820
89
12137
11
1994
49785
76
15896
24
1999
37077
65
20293
35
2004
25096
41
36153
59
2006
18079
26
50529
74
2008
17604
29
43875
71
OPENCAST COAL: ITS ROLE IN PROVIDING UK ENERGY SECURITY
PAGE 9
Statistics about the sourcing of this coal reveal that as the market for coal
has shrunk, imports of coal have tended to replace the domestically
produced coal consumed in Britain as Table 2 shows. Over the last twenty
years imports have risen by 361%, whilst domestic coal production has fallen
by 82%.
The third change to note in these changes to the supply of coal in Britain has
been the relative increasing importance of the role opencast coal plays in
supplying Britain’s energy needs. As Table 3 makes clear, as Britain’s
domestic coal production has declined, an increasing share of that
production has been met by opencast coal production. Since 2005 the bulk
of the domestic production has been met by opencast production in three of
the last four years (2005, 2007 and 2008). The conclusion from this section
is clear, that a sustainable domestic coal industry seems to be dependent on
increasing the proportion of coal produced by opencast methods.
Table 3) THE SOURCING OF BRITAIN’S COAL PRODUCTION (thousand tonnes)
8
YEAR
DEEP- MINED
1989
79762
80
18657
19
99820
1994
31854
64
16804
34
49785
1999
20888
56
15275
41
37077
2004
12542
50
11993
48
25096
2005
9563
47
10445
52
20498
2006
9444
52
8635
48
18075
2007
7674
46
8866
54
16504
2008
8096
46
9509
54
17604
JAN – JUNE
3801
44
4844
56
8,645*
2009
% (est.) OPENCAST
% (est.)
TOTAL
5) POLLUTION ISSUES AND FUTURE TRENDS IN THE DEMAND FOR COAL
OPENCAST COAL: ITS ROLE IN PROVIDING UK ENERGY SECURITY
PAGE 10
In light of what has already been discussed the major factors influencing the
future demand for coal for electrical production is going to be determined by
both pollution control issues and attempts to reduce energy consumption.
These trends are now the subject of The Energy Markets Outlook reports, co
produced by the Government and Ofgem since 2007. (The role of The Energy
Markets Outlook reports is explained in Section 6). The two latest reviews of
the demand for coal for generation purposes show significantly different
projections for coal consumption after 2016. The 2008 reports lowest of six
estimates was for the demand for coal for generating purposes could fall
from approximately 48m tonnes in 2016 to approximately 19m tonnes in
2017.9 This lowest estimate was from the Coal Forum Generation Sub Group
and it was based on an estimate of the full effects of the Large Combustion
Plants Directive taking effect after 2016, and having no new Carbon Capture
and Storage (CCS) or CCS ready power generating stations on stream.
By 2009 it seems, the picture has changed dramatically in favour of coal. The
2009 report paints a very different picture, partly because it includes
assumptions on future coal consumption generated by the four new
commercial sized CCS demonstration generating plants which the
Government is committed to enabling with a subsidy – one of which at
Hatfield in Yorkshire has already been agreed in principle. In the 2009 report
all of the projections presented assume the effectiveness and commercial
viability of CCS techniques and here the lowest project demand for coal in
2016 is for approximately 30 - 33m tonnes annually from 2016 to 2021.
Even the most optimistic projections expect the demand for coal for
generating purposes to decline from nearly 60m tonnes in 2008 (Table 1) to
42 -40m tonnes between 2016 -2020
10
It seems that there are no
projections currently for the use of coal if CCS technology does not prove
itself to be viable either practically or commercially.
On the ‘old’ pollution issues to do with reducing Nitrous Oxide and Sulphur
Dioxide emissions generators will either favour low sulphur imported coal or
all coal burning power stations will have to fit the technology to remove
Nitrous Oxide or Sulphur Dioxide, which will increase to cost of using coal.
This may mean, all else being equal, that this will reduce the demand for
coal. On the ‘new’ pollution issue, that of Carbon Capture and Storage, the
more optimistic forecasts put forward in the 2009 Energy Markets Outlook
report can be criticised as this technology has yet, ironically, to pass its acid
OPENCAST COAL: ITS ROLE IN PROVIDING UK ENERGY SECURITY
PAGE 11
test of being commercially viable. Perhaps the safest forecast is still that for
19m tonnes by the Coal Forum in the 2008 report. As a further indication of
the degree of uncertainty about the future demand for coal, McCloskey’s,
who publish leading titles on the state of the coal industry and organise an
annual Coal UK Conference and Dinner, indicates the following in its
statement advertising its 2010 event
“The UK has both the only coal industry in Western Europe that could have a
long-term future and the biggest market for imported coals in the Atlantic
sector. However, the UK is also the focus of intense inter-fuel competition
and of deep uncertainty about the future demand for coal.” 11
Another additional development which may result in a reduction in the
demand for mined coal to be used for generating purposes was
announcements made by Clean Coal plc not only for licences to explore the
extent of off shore coal reserves amenable to be used for Underground Coal
Gasification in the Solway Firth, off the coast of North East England,
Humberside and Swansea Bay
12.
If the initial investigation shows that these
reserves can be exploited in an environmentally safe way and it is
commercially viable then these reserves alone could meet 5% of Britain’s
energy needs. These developments have not been included in the Energy
Markets Outlook report for 2009. So far there is no indication whether this
new technological development, if successful, will replace all or some of
indigenous coal production, especially opencast production.
This discussion of past pollution issues suggests that there is likely to be a
continuing decline in the demand for coal and that this level of demand is
difficult to predict until the Carbon Capture and Storage systems prove
themselves to be commercially viable. Even then newer technologies such as
Underground Coal Gasification could have a significant impact on the future
need for mined coal for generating purposes. However the perceived need to
ensure a secure energy supply could increase domestically produced coal’s
share of the declining market for coal as Section 7 indicates.
A future report in this series should look further at the future demand for
coal topic so that an estimate can be given for the demand for coal when the
following factors, for example, can be addressed:

The impact of the revised LCPD when it takes full effect in 2016
OPENCAST COAL: ITS ROLE IN PROVIDING UK ENERGY SECURITY
PAGE 12

The above plus evidence that carbon capture works or does not
work

The impact of attempts to make more efficient use of the energy
network such as the ‘intelligent grid’ idea

The increasing impact of renewable and bio-fuels

Consumers reducing their consumption of electricity.

The development of alternative technologies for using coal for
generation purposes in situ
This is going to be an increasingly important issue for those communities
facing new opencast mining applications for sites that, if the planning
application was granted, would still be coaling during and after 2016.
6) SHORT TERM SECURE ENERGY SUPPLIES AND THE FUTURE DEMAND FOR
COAL
Since 2001 this issue has become of increasing importance to the
Government which realised that unless it took action Britain would face an
energy crisis caused by the convergence of a number of factors, namely the
decline in indigenous gas supplies and the need to replace ageing coal and
nuclear generating capacity. Although new generating capacity has come on
stream it is all gas powered and while this helped to reduce the degree of
pollution it has made Britain increasingly dependent on imported gas,
especially Russian gas which is not thought to be a reliable source of supply.
The first report in this series outlined how this growing realisation by the
Government has affected Planning Inquiry decisions on opencast mining
applications
13
and influenced MOPG writing a Supplementary Submission
14
opposing UK Coal plc’s Minorca application challenging the ‘Need for Coal’
arguments. In that Supplementary Submission document, MOPG challenged
two possible definitions of the ‘Need for Coal’ argument, Security of Supply
and Energy Security. As far as the Security of Supply argument went MOPG
argued that
“ ‘Security of Supply‘ targets are not specified in Government guidance. It
seems that there is an intention to build up stocks of coal at power stations
to counter act any interruption in either imported coal or gas supply.
OPENCAST COAL: ITS ROLE IN PROVIDING UK ENERGY SECURITY
PAGE 13
However no targets have been published for these coal stocks. There must
be a ceiling to how much coal can be stored for the following reasons:
Unless there is some form of subsidy the generating companies are
paying for coal they are not using.

Limited storage area capacity
 To offset the risk of spontaneous combustion and it is expensive to
manage large stocks of coal3
Without knowing the answer to whether we do or do not have adequate coal
stocks at generating stations, we do not know if we have ‘security of supply’.

‘Security of supply’ can also refer to the medium term, in that strategic coal
reserves can be protected in the ground by managing development on and
close to them. If this definition is considered, then there is a strong
argument for leaving the coal in the ground where it can be reserved for a
“National Emergency”. This would ensure that coal is available when it is
most valuable both to the mining company and the country.” 15
The idea behind this first definition about Security of Supply stems from the
events leading up to the Miners Strike of 1984 / 85, when the national
amount of stockpiled coal reached nearly 60m tonnes
16.
80m tonnes of coal was used by generating companies
In 1982, just over
17,
making it an
average coal burn of 219,178 thousand tonnes of coal a day. (80,000,000 ÷
365) A rough estimate suggests that a secure supply at the end of 1983
amounted to 273 days or 9 months supply (60m tonnes ÷ 219,178 = 273)
The nearest we can get to estimating a current equivalent figure is to repeat
the exercise with more up to date figures. In 2008 power stations burnt
47.801m tonnes of coal
18,
making the average coal burn 130,962 thousand
tonnes of coal a day (47,801,000 ÷365=130,962). The level of coal stocks
held at power stations by September 2009 had risen to 22.894m tonnes
19.
These stocks represented 172 days or 6 months supply of coal.
(22,894,000). Moreover these coal stocks are increasing. Since January 2008
they have increased from 10.303m tonnes to 22,894m tonnes an increase of
12.591m tonnes – or an average increase of nearly 600,000 tonnes a month
(22,894,000-10,303,000=12,591,000÷21= 599,714 tonnes). Projecting this
rate of increase forwards 9 months supply of coal at generating stations,
35,850,000m tonnes (47,801,000÷4x3) will be reached in 21 months time,
in May 2011. However, since March 2009, there has been an even more rapid
OPENCAST COAL: ITS ROLE IN PROVIDING UK ENERGY SECURITY
PAGE 14
increase in coal stocks from 13.594m tonnes to 22.894m tonnes, an
increase in 7 months of 9.300m tonnes, averaging 1.329m tonnes a
month.19 At this rate of increase the 9 months figure of 35.850m tonnes will
be reached much earlier, in June 2010 (2,591,000÷1,329,000=9 months).
As at September 2009, there is no immediate threat to the security of
supply. A later indication was that stockpiles of coal were expected to
increase during the winter of 2009 /10 as it looked as though gas would be
a cheaper fuel to use as the ‘base load’ fuel for producing more than 50% of
the UK electricity supply during this winter.20
7) ENERGY SECURITY AND THE 20m TONNE TARGET FOR INDIGENOUS COAL
PRODUCTION
Energy Security has been a growing issue of national importance to the
Government since the turn of the century. The recent Energy White Paper,
“Meeting the Energy Challenge” set out, as its goal, a strategy of how in the
future Britain was to achieve Energy Security and contribute to lessening the
risk of Climate Change. In the Executive Summary security of supply was
defined as
“The UK faces two main security of supply challenges:
• our increasing reliance on imports of oil and gas in a world where energy
demand is rising and energy is becoming more politicised; and,
• our requirement for substantial, and timely, private sector investment over
the next two decades in gas infrastructure, power stations; and electricity
networks.
We need to manage the potential risks associated with higher imports of
fossil fuels. These include:
• increased competition for energy resources in the face of growing global
energy demand;
• reserves becoming increasingly concentrated in fewer, further away places;
• the need to purchase supplies from markets which are neither transparent
nor truly competitive; and
• the possibility that there will be insufficient investment in key producer
countries in new oil and gas production.” 21
OPENCAST COAL: ITS ROLE IN PROVIDING UK ENERGY SECURITY
PAGE 15
Most of the discussion about secure energy supplies concerns the risks
being associated with being import dependent for gas and oil from areas of
the world which are increasingly distant and politically unstable.
22
Coal is
mentioned specifically in paragraphs 4.25 – 4.31 and arguably the most
important paragraphs are these
“4.29 The Coal Forum 23 does not discuss commercial matters, though the
Forum has acted as a catalyst for meetings between producers and
generators outside the Forum, which have generated a wider appreciation
of the long-term investment needs of mine operators. The Coal Forum will
publish an interim overview report in summer 2007.
4.30 Emerging findings from the Coal Forum suggest that continuing access
to supplies of UK produced coal benefits both the generating industry and
other industrial coal users; such supplies can help to manage any potential
risk to supplies from international coal markets.
4.31 Making the best use of UK energy resources, including coal reserves,
where it is economically viable and environmentally acceptable to do so,
contributes to our security of supply goals. The Government believes that
these factors reflect a value in maintaining access to economically
recoverable reserves of coal”
The detail of what this all means in terms of the demand for coal and,
especially for opencast coal and new planning applications, is not to be
found in this White Paper but in papers from the Coal Forum, the annual
Energy Markets Outlook Reviews and The Energy Security Report produced in
2009. The Coal Forum has been pressing the Government to make a public
statement about the need to mine 20m tonnes of coal per annum, For
example the 2008 Coal Forum Review contained the following observation of
what this could mean in terms of opencast mining.
“A reasonable assessment of ongoing production rates from surface mining
of between 10-12 mtpa would suggest that operators will need to prepare
and submit an increased number of planning applications than has been the
case in recent years. The potential for high and sustained world coal prices
suggest that operators may very well accept the risk of initial refusal and the
subsequent additional cost of appeal, albeit reluctantly. However, it is in
OPENCAST COAL: ITS ROLE IN PROVIDING UK ENERGY SECURITY
PAGE 16
everyone’s interest to engage all affected and involved parties at the earliest
possible opportunity. The MPA (the local authority responsible for Mineral
Planning decisions) in particular should have an integral and even earlier role
in this regard in their preparation and identification of mineral development
documents.” 24
In addition, a presentation by the Coal Authority on meeting the future
demand for coal made at the first meeting of the Coal Forum 14/11/2006
indicated the following
“The Challenge – Production of 20 mtpa of indigenous coal to 2017.
1. The challenge can be met - but!
2. £ 326m investment to produce additional 60mt of deep mine
output (up to 2017) - 50mt after 2017.
3. 60mt of replacement opencast coal needs planning consent (to
2017).
4. Generally, sites will need to be smaller and low impact.
5. 60+ planning consents will be needed.
6. Recognition by generators of the production target.” 25
So in the medium term it seems the bulk of indigenous coal production is
going to be from opencast coal, which is likely to initially be between 50 and
60% of the production, meaning that planning approval would have to be on
average for 10 new opencast mines each year between 2007 and 2017.
The Energy White Paper created a new body, the Energy Markets Outlook
26
to review, on an annual basis, how to achieve future energy security. This
meant assessing the future demand for coal and other energy sources. In
the 2008 report the following statement about opencast coal appeared
“6.6.4 The surface mining industry aims to maintain production through a
five-year rolling site replacement programme which requires a sufficient
flow of planning consents for new mines. Few sites in production now have
sufficient reserves to be active beyond 2012, but there are extensive
unworked shallow coal reserves suitable for surface mining, subject to
approvals within relevant minerals planning guidance. 26
OPENCAST COAL: ITS ROLE IN PROVIDING UK ENERGY SECURITY
PAGE 17
It therefore seems that energy security issues are now being used to justify
granting planning permission for new opencast mines in order that UK coal
producers can assure generating companies that they will be able to provide
indigenous coal for up to 5 years in the future. This reinforces the
arguments already made by MOPG about the interdependence between
Planning Policy and Energy Policy in its Further Response Submission
27
Since then further indications about the expected role for opencast coal in
meeting the UK’s energy needs have been noticed. The Right Honourable
Malcolm Wicks M.P.(ex Energy Minister appointed by the Prime Minister as
his Special Representative on International Energy, an official new
Government post) published his own independent report on Energy Security
in August 2009. This report contained important comments on issues
related to opencast coal. Chapter 3 “What the Global Trends Imply for the
Medium-and Longer Term Energy Security” has Figure 39 “ UK Production
and Consumption of Coal 1995 – 2025” shows UK Coal production falling
from 40m tonnes in 1995 to 20m tonnes around 2008 and then stabilising
at around this level for the foreseeable future.28
Later when discussing if, in the medium term, the UK could achieve a greater
degree of energy independence Wick’s makes the following comment with
regard to coal
3.46” Could expanded use of UK coal replace gas in power generation? With
much greater investment and a different approach to opencast mining,
the UK could potentially produce as much coal as it is forecast to
consume in 2020 but it is difficult to envisage how consumption could
be expanded further without relying on imports and there would also
be environmental implications from both increased production and
consumption of coal.” 29
In the chapter which discusses the ‘Actions we could take within our own
Borders’, Wicks makes these further comments about the future role of coal
and the demand for coal
“6.24 Given the abundance of proven coal reserves and its relative low cost
OPENCAST COAL: ITS ROLE IN PROVIDING UK ENERGY SECURITY
PAGE 18
and flexibility to meet fluctuations in demand for power, I believe that there
is a long term future for coal in the UK’s energy mix.. Indeed, given the
importance of supply diversity to our security, it would be foolish to abandon
coal. However that future is contingent on coal being able to be part of our
low carbon future. It must be part of the solution, not as now part of the
problem.
6.25 By 2016, we will have seen a third of the UK’s coal fired power plants
close due to the Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD), with further
closures likely to follow under the proposed Industrial Emissions Directive,
so it is the right time to be thinking and acting radically on the UK coal
policy. CCS could enable new coal plants to be part of the low carbon
economy but the technology has never been tested on a commercial scale
and as a complete process on a power station. The UK is taking a leading
role in developing this and the Budget announced plans to make funding
available for up to four demonstration plants. The Government is treating
this with the urgency it needs, and is consulting on a proposed new financial
and regulatory framework for coal power stations that will explore the
pathway from CCS demonstration to deployment.
6.26 If CCS does enable resurgence in the use of coal, as part of a low
carbon electricity mix, then the UK will need to consider where to obtain
additional coal from. As set out in Chapters 2 and 3, importing coal
does not give rise to the same energy security issues as gas (or oil), but
it will support security if we can have a balance of sources of supply,
including a strong domestic component. With major investment in both
deep mines and planning permission to exploit further surface mines,
UK coal production could be retained at current levels of around 20
million tonnes per year through to at least 2025.” 30
What was initially a target set by the Coal Forum to judge its own
performance against the need to produce 20m tonnes of indigenous coal, is
becoming accepted as an ‘official’ target. From the point of view of those
opposing opencast mine applications, this development, if true, has serious
consequences for those opposing current and future planning applications.
Doubt surrounds whether this is can genuinely be an ‘official’ target: if the
10 new opencast sites a year indicated by the Coal Authority in its 2006
OPENCAST COAL: ITS ROLE IN PROVIDING UK ENERGY SECURITY
PAGE 19
presentation from 2017 to 2025 are taken as a reliable estimate, a total of
180 new opencast sites would need to get planning permission between
2007 and 2025.
Further evidence about this apparent creeping collusion about 20m tonnes
of coal being an ‘official target’ which those applying for planning
permission for new opencast mines could possibly use for future
applications was supplied in the 2009 Energy Markets Outlook report,
published in December 2009, where the following additional statement to
the five – year rolling programme appears.
6.6.6 The recent report – ‘Energy Security: a national challenge in a changing
world’- by the Prime Minister’s Special Representative on International
energy, Rt. Hon. Malcolm Wicks MP identified that indigenous coal
production could be maintained at around 20 million tonnes per annum
through to at least 2025 with major investment in deep mines and planning
permission to exploit further surface mines.” 31
By default it seems that a new policy for opencast coal production is taking
shape which, if not challenged, will prejudice groups trying to oppose new
opencast mine applications efforts before they even start. They will be in a
‘Catch 22’ situation where the new ‘Need for Coal’ argument could be
wheeled out to justify every new application. As these recent developments
directly affect the current (at the time of writing, January 2010) Minorca
application, we had been in close touch with our late local M.P. David Taylor
on this issue.
On the 24/11/09 during a debate on Energy and Climate Change Mr Taylor
asked this question of Ed Milliband in the House of Commons
“With 800 million tonnes of coal in north-east Leicestershire ready to be
extracted, I would be the first to support the advance of clean coal
technology, but does the Secretary of State recognise that in the interim,
there is a risk of an expansion of open-cast coal, which is one of the most
environmentally damaging activities that we can see in the midlands of
England? That should be headed off, should it not?
OPENCAST COAL: ITS ROLE IN PROVIDING UK ENERGY SECURITY
PAGE 20
Edward Miliband (Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate
Change; Doncaster North, Labour)
“It is important to say that the position on open-cast mining has not
changed and the planning guidance has not changed. The Government's
position is as it has been. It is for that planning guidance to be properly
interpreted.” 32
Up to November 2009 then there is no official Government target for UK
coal production, but it may just be a matter of time. This is why MOPG
began to develop its counter arguments.
33
8) DEEP MINES AND FUTURE COAL SUPPLY
On the eve of Coal Industry’s de-nationalisation, 15 deep mines were
working.34 Since then deep mines have continued to close, their owners
claiming exhaustion of reserves, geological difficulties or flooding as the
cause. The question of why this is the case and why future coal needs cannot
be met from current or new deep mines is very relevant. The 7 deep mines
left in England are expected to meet between 40 -50% of our future coal
needs – but only as long as they do not meet new geological problems. If
they did, and their owners, including UK Coal plc, closed these pits, then
opencast coal production could be expected to increase dramatically. The
second determining issue is the price of coal, which does fluctuate over time.
The more expensive coal becomes the more likely will be the prospect of
deep mine investment to extend the life of a mine. The cheaper coal
becomes the more likely the prospect of the closure of deep mines as it
becomes uneconomic to extend the life of a mine by accessing new seams
New deep mines are even more unlikely. The reason for this is the costs
involved in sinking a new shaft down to the coal. One of the more recent
reports on this topic, published in the Financial Times in 2004, suggested
that the costs would be between £300 and £350m and take up to eight years
to develop. Currently, it seems, no British company would be willing or
indeed capable of taking on such a financial burden especially with the
current state of uncertainty over the future demand for Coal.35 A future
report in this series will focus on recent developments in UK Coal plc,
Britain’s largest coal producer.
OPENCAST COAL: ITS ROLE IN PROVIDING UK ENERGY SECURITY
PAGE 21
Unless there is some public subsidy new deep mines are unlikely. Evidence
for this view comes from the Minutes of Evidence from the Trade and
Industry Select Committee Report on the 2007 Energy White Paper. Mr
Darling the then Energy Secretary was asked a question on this topic by Judy
Mallaber MP
“Q22 Judy Mallaber: There is not a role for government in encouraging
further exploitation of our coal reserves in deep coal mining.
Mr Darling: You could only do that by subsidising it.” 36
Unless there is this subsidy, the Minutes of Evidence from another Trade and
Industry Select Committee Report in 2006 suggest that by 2021 -2026 our
deep mines will either be uneconomic or exhausted and that it will be
opencast coal underwriting the UK’s Energy Security policy
37.
A recent check
on mining company web sites shows the following position:
Table 4) LIFE EXPECTANCY OF ENGLISH DEEP MINES
DEEP MINE
COMPANY
38
LIFE EXPECTANCY +
NOTES
Daw Mill
UK Coal plc
2028
Kellingley
UK Coal plc
2019
Wellbeck
UK Coal plc
2017
Thorsley
UK Coal plc
2017
Harworth
UK Coal plc
mothballed
Hatfield
Powerfuel plc
2022
39
(will need
£100m investment to
extend mines life)
Maltby
Hargreve’s Services plc
2017 -2025
This situation may occur earlier than this, given recent experience of closing
deep mines, If any of them shut even more opencast coal production is
likely.
9) THE MYTH ABOUT ‘CLEAN’ COAL
This analysis suggests that the British public are not being told the full story
about how ‘clean’ the coal is that is being be used to generate electricity now
OPENCAST COAL: ITS ROLE IN PROVIDING UK ENERGY SECURITY
PAGE 22
and in the future. This report’s contention is that the Government is locking
us into sustaining an energy mix which relies on the continuing provision of
opencast coal to provide the mainstay of domestic coal production for the
foreseeable future. By only stressing the promise of lowering carbon
emissions during the combustion process the Government lulls the public
into a false sense of energy security as if coal is readily found in some
pristine state lying on the surface and all that needs to be done is to collect
nature’s bounty.
In the opinion of those opposed to Opencast Mining, by relying on opencast
coal for it’s Energy Security, the Government is allowing opencast operators
to ‘borrow’ large tracts of the countryside, often in remote places where to
transport the coal they have to use road transport, rip the countryside apart,
create holes up to 200 metres deep, on sites that can be larger than
Minorca’s at over a mile long and half a mile wide, destroy natural habitats,
create noise and dust in a tranquil area, blight the lives of thousands of
people all to produce ‘Clean’ Coal. Clean Coal? It is hardly that.
Operators of such sites will argue that they minimise the disturbance and
over time restore the countryside – if they didn’t they would not get planning
permission. Nevertheless, this domestically produced opencast ‘Clean Coal’
is produced by one of the most environmentally damaging forms of land use
which disrupts the lives of local communities. The tragedy of pursuing this
policy is that many more communities are likely to find they are going to be
asked to pay the price of having Dirty Coal produced on their doorstep whilst
the Government and the generators only want to praise the virtues of ‘Clean
Coal’.
It should also be noted that imported Coal may not be any cleaner in this
sense either. Beynon, Cox and Hudson noted back in 1999 that the
development of large opencast sites especially in South Africa was one of the
causes for closing deep mines in the UK in the 1970’s. South Africa is still a
major source of imports of coal to the UK today.40
10)
FUTURE AREAS THAT MAY FACE OPENCAST MINING APPLICATIONS
BETWEEN NOW AND 2025
This analysis suggests that between now and 2025 that an informal target of
20m tonnes of UK coal production exists. As yet it is not official Government
OPENCAST COAL: ITS ROLE IN PROVIDING UK ENERGY SECURITY
PAGE 23
policy, but since this figure has now appeared on two official publications it
may just be a matter of time before a coal operator tries to argue in new
application that such a target exists. If this is the ambition, then the
proportion of this figure to be met from opencast mining is between 50 and
60%, or10 -12m tonnes of coal for the next 15 years. After that it seems it
will be met only from opencast coal reserves.
If we look to the historical record for where opencast mining has occurred or
where known reserves of shallow coal exist in the UK it suggests which parts
of the country will be likely to experience anew opencast mining applications
Counties (England)
Co Durham, Cumbria, Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Northumberland,
Shropshire, Staffordshire and Warwickshire
Unitary Authorities (England)
Barnsley, Bolton, Gateshead, Newcastle Upon Tyne, Leeds, Rotherham, St
Helens, Stoke on Trent, Sunderland, Wakefield, Walsall and Wigan,
Counties (Scotland)
Borders, Clackmannanshire, Dumfries & Galloway, East Ayrshire, Falkirk, Fife,
Midlothian, North Lanarkshire, South Lanarkshire and West Lothian.
Unitary Authorities (Scotland)
Falkirk and Perth & Kinross
Counties (Wales)
Carmarthenshire, Flintshire and Powys
Unitary Authorities (Wales)
Blaenau Gwent, Bridgend, Merthyr Tydfil, Neath Port Talbot and Wrexham.
41
Additions ought to be made to this English list, one is Nottinghamshire,
where evidence has emerged last year that UK Coal plc is prospecting in the
area of Cossall and Telford and Wrekin as an addition to the Unitary
Authority list as UK Coal plc gained permission for an opencast site at
Huntington Lane.
42
OPENCAST COAL: ITS ROLE IN PROVIDING UK ENERGY SECURITY
PAGE 24
In addition to these traditional areas associated with the ‘old’ areas of coal
mining, in Northern Ireland communities around Ballymoney, North Antrim
have known of the possibility of open casting for ‘brown’ coal, lignite. This
would be a major development if it went ahead as plans from the developers
have included building a 500kw power station close to the site which would
burn the 660m tonne lignite deposit for up to 30 years, but so far the local
people through the Collective Objection to Lignite Development (COLD)
campaign have halted this proposal.43
In light of this evidence, it may be appropriate to suggest that the Energy
and Climate Change Select Committee ask for further information on the
issue of whether, in the foreseeable future, the fulfilment of Britain’s Energy
Security policy is going to be dependent just on the production of opencast
coal which will affect one or more of the local authority areas listed above.
© Stephen Leary
References
1) ”Coal, Collusion and Communities”, Steve Leary, Minorca Opencast Protest
Group, October 2009. See
http://www.leicestershirevillages.com/measham/mopg-reports.html
2) Coalfields Research Programme Papers:
“Discussion Paper No 1: The Decline of King Coal”, H Beynon, A Cox & R
Hudson, Cardiff School of Social Science, 1999. Table 1: UK Inland
Consumption of Primary Fuels Percentage shares (energy supplied basis), p
2, See
http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/socsi/contactsandpeople/huwbeynon/coalfie
lds-research-programme.html
3) Coalfields Research Programme Papers:
“Discussion Paper No 1: The Decline of King Coal”, H Beynon, A Cox & R
Hudson, Cardiff School of Social Science, 1999. Table 1: UK Inland
Consumption of Primary Fuels Percentage shares (energy supplied basis), p
10, See
http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/socsi/contactsandpeople/huwbeynon/coalfie
lds-research-programme.html
OPENCAST COAL: ITS ROLE IN PROVIDING UK ENERGY SECURITY
PAGE 25
4) International Energy Agency Profiles:
“European legislation (revised LCPD and EU ETS) and Coal: PF 07-03”,
IEA Clean Coal Centre, 2007. See
http://www.ieacoal.org.uk/publishor/system/component_view.asp?LogDocId=81592&Ph
yDocID=6248
5) International Energy Agency Profiles, et al 2007
http://www.ieacoal.org.uk/publishor/system/component_view.asp?LogDocId=81592&Ph
yDocID=6248
6) Table1.1.1” Inland consumption of primary fuels and equivalents for
energy use 1970 -2008. Energy Statistics: Total Energy, DUKES Long Term
Trends” (internet only) Department of Energy and Climate Change,
September 2009. See:
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/source/total/total.aspx
7) Figures based on 2.1.1 “Coal production and stocks 1970 to 2008”.
Estimated percentages by the author. Energy Statistics: Total Energy, DUKES
Long Term Trends (internet only). Department of Energy and Climate
Change, September 2009. See:
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/contrereatedent/cms/statistics/source/total/tot
al.aspx
8) All figures except for 2009 based on 2.1.1 “Coal production and stocks
1970 to 2008”. Energy Statistics: Total Energy, DUKES Long Term Trends
(internet only). Department of Energy and Climate Change, September 2009.
(Estimated percentages by author.
*2009 figures for 1st six months only. Figures based on Table 2.1
Supply and Consumption of Coal. (Estimated percentages by author).
See:
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/source/coal/coal.a
spx
OPENCAST COAL: ITS ROLE IN PROVIDING UK ENERGY SECURITY
PAGE 26
9) Coal Demand for Power Generation, Chart 6.3, “Energy Markets Outlook”,
December 2008, Department of Energy and Climate Change. See
http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file49406.pdf
10)Coal Demand for Power Generation, Chart 6.3, “Energy Markets Outlook”,
December 2009, Department of Energy and Climate Change. See
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/uk_supply/mar
kets/outlook/outlook.aspx
11)
As seen on the McCloskey Group web page for conferences on
20/12/09. See:
http://conf.mccloskeycoal.com/story.asp?storycode=64666
12) ”North Sea coal could be burnt underground”, Robin Pagamenta, The
Times On Line, 9/12/09. See
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_res
ources/article6949322.ece
13) ”Coal, Collusion and Communities”, Steve Leary, Minorca Opencast
Protest Group, October 2009. See
http://www.leicestershirevillages.com/measham/mopg-reports.html
14) “Further Response to Application by UK Coal Mining Limited The Former
Minorca Colliery Coal and Fireclay Surface Mining Scheme.
Application Number: 2009/c088/07”, Stephen Leary, December 2009
http://www.leicestershirevillages.com/measham/mopgs-response-andobjections-to.html
15) “Further Response to Application by UK Coal Mining Limited The Former
Minorca Colliery Coal and Fireclay Surface Mining Scheme.
Application Number: 2009/c088/07” p 3
16) “Coal Production and Stocks, 1970-2008” (DUKES 2.1.1.) Internet Only
Department of Energy and Climate Change. See
OPENCAST COAL: ITS ROLE IN PROVIDING UK ENERGY SECURITY
PAGE 27
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/source/coal/coal.aspx
17) “Inland Consumption of Solid Fuels 1970 -2008” (DUKES 2.1.2) Internet
Only. Department of Energy and Climate Change See
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/source/coal/coal.aspx
18) Table 2.5 “Coal Consumption”, Monthly Tables
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/source/coal/coal.aspx
19) “Stocks of Coal at end of Period”, Stocks of Coal (Monthly Figures),
Department of Energy and Climate Change. See
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/source/coal/coal.aspx
20) “RPT–Gas sidelining coal in UK power generation-Centrica”, Reuters
2/12/09. See
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKGEE5B10ZK20091202
21) “Meeting the Energy Challenge, A White Paper on Energy”, Executive
Summary, p 19. See
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/publications/white_paper_07/whit
e_paper_07.aspx
22) Meeting the Energy Challenge op cit para 1.14 -1.18 and 4.03 – 4,10.
23) The role of the Coal Forum has already been explained in “Coal,
Collusion and Communities” pgs 3-4. Steve Leary, Minorca Opencast Protest
Group, October 2009. See
http://www.leicestershirevillages.com/measham/mopg-reports.html
24) The Coal Forum 2008 Review, Department of Energy and Climate
Change. See
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/uk_supply/energy_mi
x/coal/uk_forum/uk_forum.aspx
OPENCAST COAL: ITS ROLE IN PROVIDING UK ENERGY SECURITY
PAGE 28
25) “The Coal Resource”, presentation by Albert Schofield, Coal Authority at
the first meeting of the Coal Forum 14/11/2006. See
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.berr.gov.uk//ener
gy/sources/coal/forum/meetings/page37296.html
26) “Meeting the Energy Challenge” op cit para 4.36-4.37, op cit
27) “Energy Markets Review 2008, Department of Energy and Climate Change
p 86. See
http://www.decc.gov.uk/EN/Search.aspx?Search=energy%20markets%20outl
ook&AllWords=True&PageNumber=1&ResultsOnPage=10
28) “Further Response to Application by UK Coal Mining Limited The Former
Minorca Colliery Coal and Fireclay Surface Mining Scheme.
Application Number: 2009/c088/07” p 2
http://www.leicestershirevillages.com/measham/mopgs-response-andobjections-to.html
29) “Energy Security A National Challenge in a Changing World”, Rt. Hon.
Malcolm Wicks M.P. Department of Energy and Climate Change, Graph 39
Figure 39 p 70
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/change_energy/int_e
nergy/security/security.aspx
30) Op Cit p 80.
31) Op Cit p 109.
30) Energy Markets Outlook, p 85, December 2009, Department of Energy
and Climate Change. See
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/uk_supply/markets/o
utlook/outlook.aspx
32) “Energy and Climate Change & Environment Food and Rural Affairs,
Debate on the Address”, 24th November 2009, House of Commons. See
OPENCAST COAL: ITS ROLE IN PROVIDING UK ENERGY SECURITY
PAGE 29
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2009-11-24b.405.3#g410.5
33) “Further Response to Application by UK Coal Mining Limited The Former
Minorca Colliery Coal and Fireclay Surface Mining Scheme p 3-4.
Application Number: 2009/c088/07”, Stephen Leary, December 2009
http://www.leicestershirevillages.com/measham/mopgs-response-andobjections-to.html
34) Coalfields Research Programme Papers:
“Discussion Paper No 1: The Decline of King Coal”, H Beynon, A Cox & R
Hudson, Cardiff School of Social Science, 1999. p 11. See
http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/socsi/contactsandpeople/huwbeynon/coalfields
-research-programme.html
35) “Fuel prices raise hopes for future of coal mining operations in UK”
Financial Times 23/8/04. See
http://www.minesandcommunities.org/article.php?a=1912
36) Coalfields Research Programme Papers:
“Discussion Paper No 1: The Decline of King Coal”, H Beynon, A Cox & R
Hudson, Cardiff School of Social Science, 1999. P 5.See
http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/socsi/contactsandpeople/huwbeynon/coalfields
-research-programme.html
37) Trade and Industry Select Committee : Minutes of Evidence Energy White
Paper 21/6/07,
38) Trade and Industry Select Committee: Minutes of Evidence, Dependence
on Gas and Coal Imports, 20/6/06, where the then Chief Executive of UK
Coal plc, Gerry Spindler predicted that unless coal prices rose substantially
that the deep mines could close in ten to twenty years. See
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmtrdind/1
123/20ju0601.htm
OPENCAST COAL: ITS ROLE IN PROVIDING UK ENERGY SECURITY
PAGE 30
39) Current sources of information on the life expectancy of English Deep
mines can be found on the following web sites:
UK Coal plc – Deep Mines
http://www.ukcoal.com/dm-locations
Powerfuel – Media Centre
http://www.powerfuel.plc.uk/id16.html
Hargreves – 2009 Annual Report 2009 p 13
http://www.hargreavesservices.co.uk/uploads/2009annualreport.pdf
These sites were consulted on 5/1/2010 for this information.
40) Authors estimate based on figures from an undated Powerfuel press
release “Hatfield resumes production”. See
http://www.powerfuel.plc.uk/id16.html
41) “Summary of information on coal for land-use planning purposes”.
2006 British Geological Survey, 39pp. (CR/06/107N) (Unpublished) .
Information based on amalgamating information from Table 5 Permitted
reserves of coal in working opencast sites and those not yet worked at 31st
December in year stated (2003-2005) p18 and Appendix 4 Opencast Coal
Production by MPA and Country 1997 – 2006. Chapman, G.R.; Highley,
D.E.; Cameron, D.G.; Norton, G.E.; Taylor, L.E., and P.A. Lusty.
http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/7454/
42) “Action group launched against opencast mine plan” Nottingham Evening
Post 14/10/09 and “Telford coal mine wins the go ahead” 8/10/09 Telford
Journal. See
http://www.telfordjournal.com/2009/10/08/telford-coal-mine-wins-thego-ahead/ and
http://www.telfordjournal.com/2009/10/08/telford-coal-mine-wins-thego-ahead/
43) Lignite Collective Objections to Lignite Development. See
http://www.justsaynotolignite.co.uk/index.html
PAST AND FUTURE REPORTS IN THIS SERIES
Research Report 1 Coal, Collusion and Communities, October 2009
OPENCAST COAL: ITS ROLE IN PROVIDING UK ENERGY SECURITY
PAGE 31
This paper explores why, from the adoption of the revised Minerals Planning
Guidance 3 (MPG3) up to October 2009, coal operators have been
increasingly successful at winning appeals for opencast mines in England
and the possible implications this has for future planning applications.
See the following web page in order to download a copy
http://www.leicestershirevillages.com/measham/mopg-reports.html
Forthcoming
Research Report 3 UK Coal plc- An Alternative Report.
Research Report 4 Current Title: Collisions of Interest, Planning Policy and
Opencast Coal.
OPENCAST COAL: ITS ROLE IN PROVIDING UK ENERGY SECURITY
PAGE 32