Q) Why does UK Coal need Minorca’s Coal?
Click here for the answer
New Question
Q) Will UK Coal finish with open-casting on the Minorca site within four and a half years?
Click here for the answer
Q) Many people think that because UK Coal was granted Planning Permission for Long Moor it will automatically be granted planning permission for Minorca. Is this view correct? Is Minorca another Long Moor application? Will UK Coal automatically be granted planning permission? Click here for the answer
Q) At a time when jobs are scarce won’t this bring 50 new jobs to Measham? (updated 15/11/09)
A) The pamphlet UK Coal produced for the public exhibitions mentioned “Employment: up to 50 people”. The possibility of this proposal creating local (short term) jobs was investigated at the Long Moor Public Enquiry into another local opencast site proposal 4 miles away at Ravenstone. In 2005/2006, FOIL. (Fighting Opencast in Leicestershire) claimed that UK Coal wanted to use a
“skilled flexible and professional workforce”
They then further commented
“ If the workforce at Long Moor were to be recruited locally they were likely to be inexperienced. If experienced they were unlikely to be local”
The Inspector shared FOIL.’s scepticism
“ It was said that the jobs would be offered to local people, in that the majority of the workforce would be taken from within 20 miles of the site, although I share the doubts of FOIL that the skilled and experienced workforce would be found locally”.
It is our argument that if UK Coal is successful in their planning application for Minorca, its start date is going to closely coincide with the closure of the Long Moor site. The 30 approximately UK Coal employees already in employment their will then be transferred to the Minorca site. It’s not 50 new local jobs at all.
In addition UK Coal does not always end up employing the number of people they indicate. At Long Moor they claimed that they would be employing 30 people. On a recent visit by members of MOPG we found that they were employing 25, a decline of nearly 17% in job opportunities. Applying the same logic to Minorca, it’s not 50 jobs but 42 jobs.
So far no account has been taken of local jobs that may be lost as a consequence of UK Coal gaining this planning application. It should be born in mind that a local hotel, a bed and breakfast establishment and a small caravan site might all be adversely affected, resulting in a loss of employment, as opencast coal and tourism do not go together. As we get more information on this issue we will update this answer.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTs, AFTER THE MEETING ORGANISED BY MEASHAM PARISH COUNCIL WITH UK COAL ON 22/10/09.
After what UK Coal’s representatives said it seems that there will even fewer unskilled jobs on offer than were previously thought. The unskilled jobs would be for someone to run the Canteen, a Weighbridge Operator, a Security Guard and a Cleaner.
Q) What contribution will Minorca’s coal make to meeting the country’s energy needs? (updated 18/11/09)
A) According to UK Coal’s Annual Report and Accounts for 20071, 55m tonnes of coal (approx) were used by the UK Electricity Supply Industry in 2007. Minorca’s 1.75m tonnes will be extracted over three years and three months. If we average this out over thirty nine months it gives a monthly extraction rate of just less than 35,000 tonnes a month, equal to less than 408,000 tonnes a year. Minorca would contribute 0.8% of the annual coal consumption in the UK. For this we will endure over 4.5 years of an industrial site, over 5 years of disturbance on this mainly greenfield location and 25 years before the landscape begins to look at all mature again.
Since this comment was written there has been more speculation about the need for the UK to a secure energy supply2. Minorca’s contribution to ensuring this secure supply would be a relative drop in the ocean. It will take four and a half years to extract 1.75m tonnes of coal. The average monthly production will make less than 35,000 tonnes of coal available for electrical generation. If there was a sudden need to switch dual fuel power stations from burning gas to burning coal because of a sudden interruption in supplies of gas this coal would not fill the gap for very long.
Coal can be stockpiled by UK Coal and at generating stations up to a point, but the more coal that is stockpiled the greater the chance of spontaneous combustion and it gets expensive to manage coal stocks3.
Currently there is no interruption to coal supplies. Between June and July 2009 coal stocks at generating stations in one month increased by 1.3m tonnes, equal to nearly 75% of Minorca’s total production over four and a half years4.
NOTES
1) UK Coal’s 2007 Annual Report can be found at this web page
http://www.northcote.co.uk/company_links/by_Index.asp?SIT=1&IID=FTSE%20Small%20Cap&SDL=NI02884
2) For example MP Malcolm Wick’s Report “ Energy Security : A National Challenge in a Changing World”, published in August 2009. Malcolm Wick’s was appointed the Government's Special Representative on International Energy after being the Energy Minister in 2008. You can download the report from this web site:
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/change_energy/int_energy/security/security.aspx
3) For example see the following:
V. Fierroa, J. L. Mirandaa, *, C. Romeroa, J. M. Andrésa, A. Arriagab, D. Schmalcand G. H. Visserc , “Prevention of spontaneous combustion in coal stockpiles: Experimental results in coal storage yard”, Copyright © 1999 Elsevier Science. See article abstract at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TG3-3WFXDC7-3&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1098310626&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4af3e1ad558a6a88ff0e7d4d0375181f
4) For evidence of this increase in coal stocks see:
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/source/coal/coal.aspx
and click on Monthly Tables: Stocks of Coal
Q) Where will the coal be going and what contribution will it make to the operation of that power station?
A) We know that if UK Coal wins its argument and digs out the coal it will be going to Ratcliffe Power Station. On 5/1/08 The Guardian, published a correction to the statement about coal consumption at Ratcliffe that it had made in “ Up for Grabs”, an article published in its Society section on 2/1/08.
“Ratcliffe burns much more than one tonne of coal a day, as we said in the article above. When all four units are on it burns 812 tonnes of coal an hour. This has been corrected”
There we are then. All this proposed disruption is to get 1.25m tonnes of coal. This will keep Ratcliffe going for less than 65 days. We face four and a half years of this for 65 days energy supply at one station. Does it make sense?
Q) Is it true that this is the second time UK Coal has applied to extract coal from this site and that they were refused planning permission before?
A) It is true that RJB Mining, a company which became UK Coal, applied for planning permission in 1995. Leicestershire County Council refused to grant planning permission for the following reasons:
“ The proposed development is considered to be unacceptable and contrary to Minerals and Waste Disposal Policy 5 of the Leicestershire Structure Plan because of the cumulative impact of the following:
· The applicant has failed to demonstrate that its proposed scheme of working and restoration of the site is operationally compatible with the restoration techniques required to ensure with reasonable certainty that existing soils on the site will be restored to a quality which retain their existing value as a long-term national resource in accordance with the aims of Government as set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note PPG7 ‘The Countryside and the Rural Economy’ and is contrary to Environmental Policy 6 of the Leicestershire Structure Plan and Policy 3 of the Minerals Local Plan Review and
· levels of both noise and dust resulting from the proposals will give rise to an unreasonable reduction in the amenities of nearby residential properties and are likely to result in a detrimental impact upon the existing pig-breeding unit at Measham Field Farm
· the location of the proposed development within the defined North West Leicestershire Priority area and its close proximity to the currently expanding residential limits of Measham would result in an additional environmental burden on an area where County Council policies actively seek to improve the environment of the area and increase confidence in its future”.
This suggests that not all proposals are ‘done deals’ as many like to think and that it is worth fighting this new proposal that wants to extract twice as much coal now compared to 1995. In this case bigger means worse, not better.
Q) Is it true that the proposed site for the Minorca Opencast Mine is located within the boundaries of the National Forest?
A) Yes this is true. If approved, the National Forest will then include an industrial site over a mile long and half a mile wide, creating a temporary change in the landscape that we think will be very visible from certain locations. How this is compatible with the development of an initiative, the National Forest idea, that was part of the regeneration process for the local economy away from a dependence on coal towards tourism for example, remains to be seen.
Q) What risks would a development such as an opencast coal mine pose to my health?
A) This is a very controversial area. MOPG has done some research on this, which is inconclusive in its findings (see our article in Issue 10 of the Minorca Protest News “Health fears due to the prospect of Opencast Mining at Minorca”. At present, because of the uncertainty of the degree of extra risk posed by the dust, especially those small particles invisible to the naked eye which are generated by working a site such as Minorca and the distances these particles can travel (3 to 4 miles) MOPG would advise that the risks to individual health be taken seriously. The only really safe option seems to be to oppose the planning application.
Q) How much extra traffic would transporting the coal add to the local road system and what difference could it make to the local road system and future land use?
This proposal will generate other extra traffic. It is not clear whether these 12 movements an hour include moving the fireclay off the site. Nor is it clear where this fireclay will be transported too. The fifty or so site workers will commute to work, generating extra traffic twice a day. It will generate other traffic as well, Tankers to provide the diesel to run the equipment for example, caterers, local government officers and other visitors.
This extra industrial traffic will have to be accommodated onto an existing rural road system. Details of the impact of the extra traffic on the design and visual appearance of the local road system are not yet clear, but expect some hedges to be altered, roads permanently widened in places and traffic lights to be installed at some junctions. These changes / ‘benefits’ are likely to be permanent.
This increase in the local road capacity may have future implications for land use in years ahead. UK Coal, who owns the land, has another company, Harwoth Estates, which is responsible for managing and developing land UK Coal own. Once the capacity of the local road system to take more traffic has been increased permanently it might be easier for Harworth Estates to offer the Minorca Site for future development and to permanently change the use of the land to residential or industrial use.
FAQ
