St. Bees Coal Mine

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 C Witter 19 Mar 2019

St. Bees Head

A plan has just been approved by local councillors for a coal mine off the shore of St. Bees:  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-47629731

I can't see how this is a good thing for anyone, and wonder what the Cumbrian climbing community thinks.

CW

p.s. I know it's not a neat fit, but I'm putting this is the 'Crag Access' forum, because I think it's an issue that could potentially affect an important climbing environment, and one in which the BMC stepping up to raise climbers' concerns might be considered relevant. I really don't want it to end up in the troll dungeon that is 'Off Belay'. Ta!

Post edited at 20:06
3
In reply to C Witter:

As I understand it, anything round St Bees Head is unlikely to trouble climbers, largely due to being some distance beneath their feet. The physical infrastructure for the mine will be closer to Whitehaven.

Of course, that's all got a big 'in theory' badge on it, and there's plenty of time for things to change. Whether the UK needs this is a moot point, though the west Cumbria region will benefit from the increased employment opportunities.

T.

In reply to C Witter:

Yup climbing trumps jobs. 

The infra structure will be inland and the mining under the sea. Nothing much to object to, other than congestion on the a595 but that is being slowly dealt with. 

5
 Enty 19 Mar 2019
In reply to Presley Whippet:

>

>  Nothing much to object to, other than congestion on the a595 but that is being slowly dealt with. 

And the regression to burning coal.

E

6
OP C Witter 19 Mar 2019
In reply to Presley Whippet:

I don't particularly want to get into a debate, to be honest, but the way I see it:

a) there are many local people who are angry about this plan

b) none of these politicians are seriously interested in solving the economic problems of West Cumbria

c) good jobs could be created in other ways that don't undermine the environment in which these workers live

d) West Cumbria already has the destructive nuclear energy and weapons industries inflicted upon it, and these have hardly led to prosperity

e) politicians have a "be grateful for what you get" attitude toward the area; recognising the real scarcity and poverty, they expect people to just roll over whenever there is the sniff of jobs on offer.

11
 Lord_ash2000 19 Mar 2019
In reply to C Witter:

Sounds like it'll bring much-needed jobs and industry to the area. Sellafield won't be there forever and places which don't diversify will die as the one big employer shrinks down over time. 

As for climbing, I doubt it'll have any effect, it's all underground. 

7
In reply to C Witter:

> I don't particularly want to get into a debate, to be honest, but the way I see it:

> b) none of these politicians are seriously interested in solving the economic problems of West Cumbria

Given the politicians that have voted to allow this project are local politicians, I suspect you're wrong on that point.

T.

 a crap climber 19 Mar 2019
In reply to Enty:

> And the regression to burning coal.

In reply to Enty:

Stand to be corrected, but the interest in the coal is for use in iron ore smelting (iirc this was what the mining company were saying a few years ago when they first proposed the idea according to the local newspaper). Arguably this is just as bad, as the coal still ends up as CO2 in the atmosphere. However the vast majority of iron is still made this way, so in my mind it's less clear cut than if it was used for power generation, where the alternatives are more mature/well established.

Seen a few people on Facebook making similar comments, so did a bit of googling this afternoon (again this may be b*llocks). The main alternative to smelting in a blast furnace is called direct reduction, which involves heating the ore in a stream of suitable gas. This is generally natural gas, or synthesised from coal. So still used fossil fuels and creates pollution, but according to one source reduces CO2 emissions by 8-17%. This method accounted for 4.7% of iron production in 2013. Found one company promoting a method using hydrogen gas, which if obtained through electrolysis of water using renewable energy sources (along with electric heating of the ore) would provide a much lower emission source of iron. Clearly this would involve substantial up-front costs compared to continuing to use existing smelters.

I guess there is a small silver lining that if mining the coal off St. Bees head is looking to be economically viable (it previously declined due to having to go deeper and further out to sea, making it increasingly difficult, dangerous and expensive, along with the various other factors that ended the industry in the UK), then rising costs may make other approaches to iron production seem more attractive, though of course the timescale for that to happen may well be too slow.

Not really sure what point I'm trying to make. I guess it's just not quite as black and white as if it was intended solely for power generation. The most environmentally friendly production method available relies on plentiful supplies of clean energy. We haven't reached that point yet, and perhaps if/when we do then we'll be at a point where the climate catastrophe has largely been put on hold. I guess we could try to cut down on steel usage, but that doesn't seem to be a dialogue that anyone's is really having.

Sorry for the rambling post

 Mark Eddy 19 Mar 2019
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

Sellafield will be around for rather a long time yet. And they have big expansion plans, although not sure how that's progressing

 Simon Caldwell 19 Mar 2019
In reply to Enty:

> And the regression to burning coal.

Depends if the alternative is not burning coal, or mining coal elsewhere and importing it to the UK to burn

 FactorXXX 19 Mar 2019
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> As for climbing, I doubt it'll have any effect, it's all underground. 

Think of the cavers!
Second thoughts don't as they're all a bunch of weirdo's!

 ebdon 19 Mar 2019
In reply to Enty:

The coal is coaking coal to be used for steel making rather than thermal coal as A crap climber had said. Also I understand the access is through old gypsum works so I wouldn't worry about st bees.

 Ridge 19 Mar 2019
In reply to C Witter:

> I don't particularly want to get into a debate, to be honest, but the way I see it:

> a) there are many local people who are angry about this plan

Also many like the idea of new jobs.

> b) none of these politicians are seriously interested in solving the economic problems of West Cumbria

The people of Cumbria voted for them, so I'd expect they'd want to keep on the good side of voters, even if for purely selfish reasons. Who else is interesting in solving the issues?

> c) good jobs could be created in other ways that don't undermine the environment in which these workers live

The mine surface works are going to be built on the highly polluted old Marchon site, so it'll probably involve cleaning up the environment.

Could you outline the other ways of creating good jobs in the area?

> d) West Cumbria already has the destructive nuclear energy and weapons industries inflicted upon it, and these have hardly led to prosperity

Sellafield and BAE must directly employ nearly 15,000 people, with at least as many in the supply chain, plus those 15k well paid people buy cars, fitted kitchens, furniture and frequent shops, pubs and restaurants in the area. West Cumbria would be an economic wasteland without them.

> e) politicians have a "be grateful for what you get" attitude toward the area; recognising the real scarcity and poverty, they expect people to just roll over whenever there is the sniff of jobs on offer.

That's politicians for you.

2
In reply to Ridge:

Thanks for that, you saved my fat fingers a lot of work. 

We must never forget that Cumbria is not here for its residents, it exists for those who visit occasionally to enjoy and to dictate its future. 

1
 spenser 20 Mar 2019
In reply to a crap climber:

Unfortunately to get hydrogen from water via electrolysis you can't use pure water, this is none conductive. Instead you need to use brine (or something similar), this results in chlorine being generated:

https://revisionscience.com/gcse-revision/chemistry/acids-bases-salts-elect...

Whether or not we can make use of chlorine in the quantities which it would be produced if we were carrying out widescale electrolysis of brine to generate hydrogen is a different matter. One of those joyous balancing games!

 gravy 20 Mar 2019
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

"Sellafield won't be there forever" - quite right, just a few thousand years to go...

OP C Witter 20 Mar 2019
In reply to Presley Whippet:

> We must never forget that Cumbria is not here for its residents, it exists for those who visit occasionally to enjoy and to dictate its future. 

I did say I don't want a debate, so this will be my last post, but your rightist nonsense has rankled me - just as it was intended to do. Straight off the bat: I'm talking to Cumbrians here, not encouraging tourists to 'dictate' to anyone.

Anyone who has actually visited Whitehaven or Barrow will understand that this economic model of allowing enormous companies to move in and dictate the life of the town has not solved the social or economic challenges of these places. It's basically a C19the economic model, and rather than creating strong and diverse economies, it leads to towns being held hostage by one key industry - knowing they will sink if that industry sinks. This has a corrosive effect on local and national politics, and gives these companies far too much power. E.g. We find we're renewing Trident and the West Coast of Cumbria is voting Tory, for no reason other than fear of losing "British jobs".

Whilst these companies may provide jobs, many of the jobs are in fact low-paid and intensive; there is a reliance on contractors and temporary contracts, a culture of bullying, dirty and run down work environments, and serious safety issues. Meanwhile, these companies make huge profits, which are not reflected in the infrastructure and development of these areas, but are merely pumped out of the area. A few exceptions - e.g. Sellafield's plan to stump up £2.6m for a 'business hub' - just prove the rule, that these companies have gotten away for far too long with making serious money in an impoverished area that they have failed to contribute to in a fair and sustainable way.

This situation should make us more angry given that these companies receive huge amounts of public money. If even a fraction of this public money were invested in this area in other ways, it could be used to create a far more sustainable and beneficial economy.

And this is without getting into the ways in which weapons sales distort global politics and destroy lives, the fears and realities of pollution and contamination, mismanagement, bribery and corruption, seismic activity, problems with enormous water usage, etc. etc. Look also at the ways in which central government have undermined local democracy with regard to Lancashire fracking and burying radioactive waste under the Lake District. I'm sure others can give a far more complete picture than me.

For the Tory heartlands: government investment, new transport links and less cuts. For Cumbria: cuts, closures and dirty industries - and be grateful you get anything at all.

 

8
 a crap climber 20 Mar 2019
In reply to spenser:

You can add sulphuric acid to get hydrogen and oxygen. The electrolyte gets acidic as the gasses are produced, so you just add more water. (this is just dredged from my memory of secondary school chemistry, so may not be entirely right)

Dunno what the implications of increased sulphuric acid demand would be though

 kevin stephens 20 Mar 2019
In reply to C Witter:

> Whilst these companies may provide jobs, many of the jobs are in fact low-paid and intensive; there is a reliance on contractors and temporary contracts, a culture of bullying, dirty and run down work environments, and serious safety issues. 

This is total bullshit, have you ever been in the BAE site, or even seen the cars in the employees carpark? Maybe you can post a link to their safety record?

 spenser 20 Mar 2019
In reply to a crap climber:

Fair enough, most of the focus on generation of hydrogen at the minute seems to be on Steam Gas Reformation and Electrolysis of Brine from what I've seen, I hadn't considered other processes really.

 Simon Caldwell 20 Mar 2019
In reply to spenser:

I don't know much about the processes available, but I'm sure that everything will have been considered (there's money to be made!) so if a process isn't used then there'll be a good reason.

 kevin stephens 20 Mar 2019
In reply to C Witter:

> d) West Cumbria already has the destructive nuclear energy and weapons industries inflicted upon it, and these have hardly led to prosperity

I think that what you meant to say was that the town of Barrow in Furness has grown around and because of a historical ship building industry

Lusk 20 Mar 2019
In reply to C Witter:

> Whilst these companies may provide jobs, many of the jobs are in fact low-paid and intensive; there is a reliance on contractors and temporary contracts, a culture of bullying, dirty and run down work environments, and serious safety issues.

Have you ever worked as a contractor on an industrial site?  I have.

Low paid - NO
Bullying - NO
Dirty - OK, can be, nature of the job
Run down etc - NO
Serious safety issues - absolutely NOT

In reply to C Witter:

You don't want to get into a discussion, yet you post on a discussion forum. How very odd. 

I feel quite aggrieved, this is the first time in my life that I have been accused of being right wing. I do not see a desire to secure worthwhile, well paid employment in Cumbria as right wing.

My many years in the service of my colleagues as a trade union representative, area secretary and caseworker quite obviously put me in the same bag as Rees Mogg and his peers.

Thanks ever so much, I would rather you had called me a c##t. 

OP C Witter 20 Mar 2019
In reply to Presley Whippet:

> Thanks ever so much, I would rather you had called me a c##t. 

Ha. Fair enough! I apologise - I took your comment the wrong way. But, you were pulling my chain. 

Why don't I want to get into a discussion? Because it always goes this way. I just wanted to raise the story and leave. But, I do need to apologise for calling you right-wing, as you're right that it's a bit too strong, even for the internet.

 rka 20 Mar 2019
In reply to C Witter:

Went down Haig pit in early 70's scary place. The mine had lots of problems with faults, gas and water. Travelled by train 7 miles out under the sea to the working face which was about 1 m high. Behind where the coal was being ripped there was about 30m of unsupported suspended ceiling. The access ways, conveyor's and riping machine had huge hydralic jacks to prevent collapse but they expected the un-supported rock to collapse but had no idea when "just keep yer hands and feet under jacks marra, da nos".

Travelled back to main shaft on man riding conveyors in pitch black.  At the base of the main shaft was a large walled off tunnel. Our tour guides father had been killed by a gas explosion and was entombed there. https://haigpit.wordpress.com/disasters/

 Tony Jones 20 Mar 2019
In reply to rka:

Thanks for the post and the informative, if rather sobering, link.

I'm a bit conflicted by all this as a South Walian by birth who can remember the jobs, community and income generated by coal but who recognises the awful toll the industry had on the health of those it employed, the devastating impact on the local environment, and also the wider and potentially more damaging effects that burning fossil fuels has on the future of our planet. However, as has already been noted, the coal to be mined in West Cumbria is coking coal for the steel industry. It will be transported by rail so any impact on local roads will be negligible.

If I have a concern it is that, post-Brexit, I fear it may be difficult to recruit people who are prepared to work down a pit even if it bears little resemblance to the kind of place that Bill Peascod* would have worked in.

*His autobiography Journey After Dawn is well worth seeking out for those wishing to gain an insight into west Cumbrian mining (and climbing) life.

 Lord_ash2000 20 Mar 2019
In reply to gravy:

> "Sellafield won't be there forever" - quite right, just a few thousand years to go...

Actually, the general plan is to have the site back to fields within 100 years. 

And that is the point, it's all good right now, but the site as a whole is probably at or just past peak employment, over the coming decades it'll get smaller and smaller as areas are decommissioned and jobs finished. So long before that 100 years is up we'll see a big drop off in employment in the area. So it's now that we need to be looking at opening new, proper industries in place to take up the slake rather than waiting until we've got 1000's already on the dole wasting away then trying to regenerate. 
 

 gravy 20 Mar 2019
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

Hmmm - are they just going to grass over the hot cells and all the other contaminated radioactive shite and just pretend it isn't there in 100 years? they can't even move the rusty barrels of crap they have so any idea it won't be there long after we're gone is a fantasy (or should I say predicated on a non existent technological magic wand for a solution).

I'm all for a real economy but don't believe the hype about any clean up soon.

1

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...