Death of deep mined coal in Britain.
Frank the tank
Posts: 6,553
So Britains last deep coal mine (Kellingley) has done it's last shift today. It is the end of an era and one quite frankly I'm very sad to see pass. This country is sitting on millions of tons of coal and we're leaving it in the ground. We pretty soon will also have lost the ability to ever recover it should it again be a viable energy source, as the knowledge and expertise literally dies out.
I have nothing but admiration for people who have worked underground risking life and limb, every last one of them are special.
Today is a very sad day indeed for Great Britain.
Miners, past and alas no longer present, I salute you!
I have nothing but admiration for people who have worked underground risking life and limb, every last one of them are special.
Today is a very sad day indeed for Great Britain.
Miners, past and alas no longer present, I salute you!
Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.
0
Comments
-
An absolute disgrace.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
Frank, I was raised in a pit village. I remember everything covered in grey dust/grime.
I also remember all the old miners coughing and wheezing, not to mention dying.
Do you think I miss it?0 -
Please address the other thread.
I struggle to keep attention on one thing at a time as it is.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
If you are that bothered don't be. The coal isn't going anywhere fast and people learned how to get it out once without any history to look back on so future generations will be able to learn again.0
-
I'd love my town to be covered in grime and surrounded by spoil heaps, whilst keeping thousands of people employed in highly paid employment and spending their wages in local shops everything else that well paid people spend their wages upon.Frank, I was raised in a pit village. I remember everything covered in grey dust/grime.
I also remember all the old miners coughing and wheezing, not to mention dying.
Do you think I miss it?
Fuck the mines off, as has happened, people end up being employed (well some of them) in no skilled low paid jobs, no union representation and can be fucked off on a whim.
Yes, unemployment is at it's lowest level for years, but are the jobs any good? High pay,security,pension scheme. I think not.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
Absolute bloody disgrace. The Nearby coal powered Drax power station is importing Coal from Columbia.
Edf is French Government Owned, Eon is German Owned, This and previous Government have repeatedly sold off our birth rights, and as to say Pit communities should be grateful not to be surrounded by slag heaps and covered in soot anymore, I hope to Christ that comment is tongue in cheek!
Do you think any of those communities their infrastructure or labour force are going to get a sniff of anything from future renewable and green energy plans??? Will they feck it will all be tendered out to the Chinese , Germans and India.
I cant think of the last time a UK company won a substantial Uk Government Tender. Except maybe G4S.
The leadership of this country has continually and successfully managed to divide and conquer, I m off to the shed to sharpen my pitch fork , I ve had enough of these Oxbridge shite bags.0 -
I'd love my town to be covered in grime and surrounded by spoil heaps, whilst keeping thousands of people employed in highly paid employment and spending their wages in local shops everything else that well paid people spend their wages upon.Frank, I was raised in a pit village. I remember everything covered in grey dust/grime.
I also remember all the old miners coughing and wheezing, not to mention dying.
Do you think I miss it?
fark the mines off, as has happened, people end up being employed (well some of them) in no skilled low paid jobs, no union representation and can be farked off on a whim.
Yes, unemployment is at it's lowest level for years, but are the jobs any good? High pay,security,pension scheme. I think not.
So Frank, you would be chuffed to bits if your son had come home from school and said he had seen his career teacher and now wanted to work down the pit would you?0 -
A quick search of the internet shows that there are currently 34 open cast mines in the UK. Are these somehow less worthy than a deep coal mine?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
-
A quick search of the internet shows that there are currently 34 open cast mines in the UK. Are these somehow less worthy than a deep coal mine?
No not at all.
How about , the Government/ Tax payer didn't bail out any banks after 2007? The city of London is made to Levy a 1.5% transaction tax on all financial trades, Oh and all of a sudden it becomes more desirable for Financial institutions to do their business in Hong Kong and not in the Square Mile of London.
Talk about bloody subsidised industries being given favourable trading environment through tax payer subsidies, suppose it all depends on what colour shirt or even school tie you wear.0 -
Rubbish Tim.A quick search of the internet shows that there are currently 34 open cast mines in the UK. Are these somehow less worthy than a deep coal mine?
No not at all.
How about , the Government/ Tax payer didn't bail out any banks after 2007? The city of London is made to Levy a 1.5% transaction tax on all financial trades, Oh and all of a sudden it becomes more desirable for Financial institutions to do their business in Hong Kong and not in the Square Mile of London.
Talk about bloody subsidised industries being given favourable trading environment through tax payer subsidies, suppose it all depends on what colour shirt or even school tie you wear.
Most of us know fine well what may have happened if there had been a run on the banks. Nothing to do with school ties (and remembering it was Gordon Brown who ordered the bail out)."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Rubbish Tim.A quick search of the internet shows that there are currently 34 open cast mines in the UK. Are these somehow less worthy than a deep coal mine?
No not at all.
How about , the Government/ Tax payer didn't bail out any banks after 2007? The city of London is made to Levy a 1.5% transaction tax on all financial trades, Oh and all of a sudden it becomes more desirable for Financial institutions to do their business in Hong Kong and not in the Square Mile of London.
Talk about bloody subsidised industries being given favourable trading environment through tax payer subsidies, suppose it all depends on what colour shirt or even school tie you wear.
Most of us know fine well what may have happened if there had been a run on the banks. Nothing to do with school ties (and remembering it was Gordon Brown who ordered the bail out).
Lets reverse the situation then. I freely admit that Financial services and specifically those conducted in the city of London contribute massively to the GDP and economy of this nation.
Coal underpinned the industrial revolution in this country. From the steam mill to the iron furnace, admittedly this was an 19th century concept and time had moved on.
But from the railways to the canals and every piece of heavy industry that this once great country built empire on, it was fuelled by coal.
If we accept (which I do ) that the luddites lost and this has now been replaced by a services industry, could you imagine the consequences of such a withdrawal and betrayal by any government from this sector.
That is what over time and whole scale those who built their communities and lives on heavy industry in this country have suffered!
We live in a country were 10% have 50% or the wealth , and there yield grows at a rate of 21% per annum and the gap is getting greater.
We have a Government that seems content to insure that whilst this 10% elites wealth grows , their responsibility or liability to pay back into the system diminishes.
We are all in it together.
I have friends who have worked for Delottie and KPMG since they graduated nearly 30 years ago and these firms now would nt even interview first class honours students who aren't Oxbridge post grads.
I Don't know what the total tax spend was on bailing out the banks, but I am fairly sure a similar government investment into , steel and coal , would have resulted in a greater national economic gain.0 -
Tim,
What you're talking about are two different things. The banking bailout was necessary to prevent a run on the banks and possibly much worse.
Investment into coal and steel is throwing good money after bad if the Kellingley economics are as bad as my research suggests on the other thread. All we would be doing there is delaying the inevitable and wasting money in the process. Sometime we need to accept that industries rise and fall, or the ability of higher waged countries to compete in certain commoditised markets is simply not practical - and that sometimes there is not a lot we can do to stop it."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Tim,
What you're talking about are two different things. The banking bailout was necessary to prevent a run on the banks and possibly much worse.
Investment into coal and steel is throwing good money after bad if the Kellingley economics are as bad as my research suggests on the other thread. All we would be doing there is delaying the inevitable and wasting money in the process. Sometime we need to accept that industries rise and fall, or the ability of higher waged countries to compete in certain commoditised markets is simply not practical - and that sometimes there is not a lot we can do to stop it.
I accept that Stevo. But were is the economic sense of importing coal from Columbia to fire Uk power stations? Fair enough its £30 a tonne rather than £48 . So immediately there is a net saving!
But now you have 600 blokes on the dole, who spent £100 week in the local economy, who no longer do so! and at least 50% of them will continue to live off the welfare state. I don't have an algorithm for that and no way of knowing if its absorbed by a £18 a tonne saving on importing coal?
A countries prosperity cannot all be about a balance sheet surely? Individual self worth is never taken into account, I ve suffered redundancy and unemployment through my own fault and not, And the abject feeling of worthlessness wasn't all about loss of earnings, and more about lack of Contribution.
i.e we end up fostering a culture about taking out , rather than contributing. And this becomes cyclical, were by a generation lives on welfare and produces another that knows no different.
I don't understand , this " Run on the Banks" thing? Fundamentally does it mean those who have money tied up in banks and underpin the banking system , would have withdrawn that money and thus left nothing for capital investment?
I See statements such as the World Debt level is £236 trillion, Exactly who does the World owe that sum to?
I m a very naïve person, But fundamentally to me , if you give people the means to make a living , that's what they will do. If you withdraw that , what can they do?0 -
Tim,
What you're talking about are two different things. The banking bailout was necessary to prevent a run on the banks and possibly much worse.
Investment into coal and steel is throwing good money after bad if the Kellingley economics are as bad as my research suggests on the other thread. All we would be doing there is delaying the inevitable and wasting money in the process. Sometime we need to accept that industries rise and fall, or the ability of higher waged countries to compete in certain commoditised markets is simply not practical - and that sometimes there is not a lot we can do to stop it.
I accept that Stevo. But were is the economic sense of importing coal from Columbia to fire Uk power stations? Fair enough its £30 a tonne rather than £48 . So immediately there is a net saving!
But now you have 600 blokes on the dole, who spent £100 week in the local economy, who no longer do so! and at least 50% of them will continue to live off the welfare state. I don't have an algorithm for that and no way of knowing if its absorbed by a £18 a tonne saving on importing coal?
A countries prosperity cannot all be about a balance sheet surely? Individual self worth is never taken into account, I ve suffered redundancy and unemployment through my own fault and not, And the abject feeling of worthlessness wasn't all about loss of earnings, and more about lack of Contribution.
i.e we end up fostering a culture about taking out , rather than contributing. And this becomes cyclical, were by a generation lives on welfare and produces another that knows no different.
I don't understand , this " Run on the Banks" thing? Fundamentally does it mean those who have money tied up in banks and underpin the banking system , would have withdrawn that money and thus left nothing for capital investment?
I See statements such as the World Debt level is £236 trillion, Exactly who does the World owe that sum to?
I m a very naïve person, But fundamentally to me , if you give people the means to make a living , that's what they will do. If you withdraw that , what can they do?
A subsidy of £18 per tonne and a production of 1.2 m tonnes costs over £21m a year. Spread that over the 450 lost jobs and it works out at £48k per job.0 -
So, basically the choice taken was to put 400 families on perpetual benefits as that is cheaper than paying them £48k per annum.A subsidy of £18 per tonne and a production of 1.2 m tonnes costs over £21m a year. Spread that over the 450 lost jobs and it works out at £48k per job.
Sensible choice.
Fills me with hope for the future.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Stevo.
You've got your head in the sand if you think UK finance industry doesn't get what amounts to large subsidies.
If it looks like sh!t, smells like sh!t etc. And it's not just about the bailouts too. It's the regulatory environment that costs the taxpayer.
There is an imbalance.0 -
Tim, have a loom at my maths on the other thread about the level of subsidy. Even higher than Ballys estimate. It made no economic sense at all.Tim,
What you're talking about are two different things. The banking bailout was necessary to prevent a run on the banks and possibly much worse.
Investment into coal and steel is throwing good money after bad if the Kellingley economics are as bad as my research suggests on the other thread. All we would be doing there is delaying the inevitable and wasting money in the process. Sometime we need to accept that industries rise and fall, or the ability of higher waged countries to compete in certain commoditised markets is simply not practical - and that sometimes there is not a lot we can do to stop it.
I accept that Stevo. But were is the economic sense of importing coal from Columbia to fire Uk power stations? Fair enough its £30 a tonne rather than £48 . So immediately there is a net saving!
But now you have 600 blokes on the dole, who spent £100 week in the local economy, who no longer do so! and at least 50% of them will continue to live off the welfare state. I don't have an algorithm for that and no way of knowing if its absorbed by a £18 a tonne saving on importing coal?
A countries prosperity cannot all be about a balance sheet surely? Individual self worth is never taken into account, I ve suffered redundancy and unemployment through my own fault and not, And the abject feeling of worthlessness wasn't all about loss of earnings, and more about lack of Contribution.
i.e we end up fostering a culture about taking out , rather than contributing. And this becomes cyclical, were by a generation lives on welfare and produces another that knows no different.
I don't understand , this " Run on the Banks" thing? Fundamentally does it mean those who have money tied up in banks and underpin the banking system , would have withdrawn that money and thus left nothing for capital investment?
I See statements such as the World Debt level is £236 trillion, Exactly who does the World owe that sum to?
I m a very naïve person, But fundamentally to me , if you give people the means to make a living , that's what they will do. If you withdraw that , what can they do?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Specifically what subsidies or effective subsidies?Stevo.
You've got your head in the sand if you think UK finance industry doesn't get what amounts to large subsidies.
If it looks like sh!t, smells like sh!t etc. And it's not just about the bailouts too. It's the regulatory environment that costs the taxpayer.
There is an imbalance.
Also bearing in mind the bank levy paid by that particular sector and the significant amount of irrecoverable VAT borne by the finance sector."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Specifically what subsidies or effective subsidies?Stevo.
You've got your head in the sand if you think UK finance industry doesn't get what amounts to large subsidies.
If it looks like sh!t, smells like sh!t etc. And it's not just about the bailouts too. It's the regulatory environment that costs the taxpayer.
There is an imbalance.
Also bearing in mind the bank levy paid by that particular sector and the significant amount of irrecoverable VAT borne by the finance sector.
So in essence the bailout was retrospective subsidy - the banks had excessive profits due to excessive risk taking, and the downside of that was paid for by the gov't rather than the firm.
Anything that stops a company going bust because it's lost money is a subsidy.
The only thing that is different is a) it came in one (rather big) lump sum, and b) banks are deemed particularly important to the wider economy.
With regard to b), the regulation should have not been so soft on the industry and should have prevented a 'too big to fail' scenario.
So sure, they have a big tax bill, but they need to because of both a) and b). After all, if the UK wasn't such a top economy, they wouldn't be making all that much. So they need to pay for the privilege.0 -
As has been said elsewhere, when you take into account the cost of making these miners unemployed and the destruction of their community I.E. loss of tax revenue and supporting industries going to the wall and the loss of their taxes;add to that the benefits all these casualties have to be paid and.....................Suddenly the difference between imported coal and our own deep mined coal is not as plain as the nose on your face.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
Specifically what subsidies or effective subsidies?Stevo.
You've got your head in the sand if you think UK finance industry doesn't get what amounts to large subsidies.
If it looks like sh!t, smells like sh!t etc. And it's not just about the bailouts too. It's the regulatory environment that costs the taxpayer.
There is an imbalance.
Also bearing in mind the bank levy paid by that particular sector and the significant amount of irrecoverable VAT borne by the finance sector.
the effective subsidy is obvious Steve0, banks believe they are still too big to fail, so unlike our northern cousins, they cannot fail.
or do you believe the banking industry is in such a safe state of affairs, they d be able to bail each other out?
even now, 8 years on, 2 out of 7 uk banks still do not met the BOE stress test and that in in its self is not a gaurantee they d not fail given an unknown set of global eco circumstances, any other industry is not protected in this way, the 380m pails against our liabilities the banking industry would hold us too.0 -
A subsidy is something they actually receive. You are talking about the possibility of a future bail out if it is needed. Which in the meantime we are extracting significant amou ts from the banks via bank levy, irrecoverably VAT, NI and PAYE etc etc.
Specifically what subsidies or effective subsidies?Stevo.
You've got your head in the sand if you think UK finance industry doesn't get what amounts to large subsidies.
If it looks like sh!t, smells like sh!t etc. And it's not just about the bailouts too. It's the regulatory environment that costs the taxpayer.
There is an imbalance.
Also bearing in mind the bank levy paid by that particular sector and the significant amount of irrecoverable VAT borne by the finance sector.
the effective subsidy is obvious Steve0, banks believe they are still too big to fail, so unlike our northern cousins, they cannot fail.
or do you believe the banking industry is in such a safe state of affairs, they d be able to bail each other out?
even now, 8 years on, 2 out of 7 uk banks still do not met the BOE stress test and that in in its self is not a gaurantee they d not fail given an unknown set of global eco circumstances, any other industry is not protected in this way, the 380m pails against our liabilities the banking industry would hold us too.
Remember, the £380m is only for one mine for a 3 year stay of execution. Whats the point? It makes no economic sense.
So 5/7 banks passed the stress tests. The other two were not required to resubmit a revised capital plan because steps had already been taken and further plans in place to strengthen their capital position. So basically no problems then. I have read the report "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Point is steve0, how many other industries would attract inward investment, IF they were in the situation of a bank and never be able to fail? behave as they like, pay as they like, invest in what they like - big plus isnt it? and one that as you are a markets man, should be against.
as the BOE points out, the stress tests are not really there to prove that a bank could survive only that they might, its no gaurantee and its taken 2 of them 8 years.0 -
If you understood how heavily regulated the banks are, how much capital they need to have and how the reward structures are now structured, I don't think you would claim that banks can do what they want with impunity. I run a treasury department and just getting a new company bank account set up can be onerous enough.Point is steve0, how many other industries would attract inward investment, IF they were in the situation of a bank and never be able to fail? behave as they like, pay as they like, invest in what they like - big plus isnt it? and one that as you are a markets man, should be against.
as the BOE points out, the stress tests are not really there to prove that a bank could survive only that they might, its no gaurantee and its taken 2 of them 8 years."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Frank, see the numbers I put up in the other thread. It didn't make sense economically or anywhere near it. Oh, and there are 34 open cast mines still working that I mentioned on page 1...As has been said elsewhere, when you take into account the cost of making these miners unemployed and the destruction of their community I.E. loss of tax revenue and supporting industries going to the wall and the loss of their taxes;add to that the benefits all these casualties have to be paid and.....................Suddenly the difference between imported coal and our own deep mined coal is not as plain as the nose on your face."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Banks may be regulated, many industries are but they cannot fail, can they and who would pick up that tab? the industry or the tax payer?
i see the commons business select committee says Gov didnt do enough to save and prop up steel industry as other countries did, no doubt another report in new year will say similar about deep mined coal perhaps?
Failed to heed warnings of crisis in steel industry
failed to do anything at eu level re chinese dumping of steel, Osbourne could;nt see as covered in chinese xxxx
failed to keep factories and skills in uk.
no doubt had this industry be based in berkshire, things would have been v different, this gov isnt fit to be called a Government.0 -
I'd love my town to be covered in grime and surrounded by spoil heaps, whilst keeping thousands of people employed in highly paid employment and spending their wages in local shops everything else that well paid people spend their wages upon.
fark the mines off, as has happened, people end up being employed (well some of them) in no skilled low paid jobs, no union representation and can be farked off on a whim.
Yes, unemployment is at it's lowest level for years, but are the jobs any good? High pay,security,pension scheme. I think not.
These are two different things - ie 1 - subsidising an industry because it may be important to the greater national economy; and 2 - enforcing good employment rights such as pensions and a living wage - which has knock on benefits for the local council and national benefits bill.
Personally I think that within a generation, maybe two, we will view deep mining the way we view sending kids up chimneys in the Victorian era - a horrific practice that we only did out of naivety or lack of a healthier/safer option. (There may also come a day in the future when we view the idea of people driving at high speeds in metal cars on tanks of explosive fuel as bizarre. That is the way history works).
The question is, can we protect our ability to self sustain our fuel supply as a country if China and South America fall out with us and take their ball home. The closure of deep mines is the final end of the process that the Thatcher gov't started and all gov't since have continued with.
The second question is how do we manage the communities that are left bereft. Since the closures are the outcome of continued government policy, then the government has a responsibility to regenerate. These people are not lazy, not victims of "market forces", but of decisions made by people we elected.0 -
Still nobody has explained to me why privately owned mines or steel plants that are deeply loss making should benpropped up indefinitely using out tax dollars - over other industries that are in similar situations.Banks may be regulated, many industries are but they cannot fail, can they and who would pick up that tab? the industry or the tax payer?
i see the commons business select committee says Gov didnt do enough to save and prop up steel industry as other countries did, no doubt another report in new year will say similar about deep mined coal perhaps?
Failed to heed warnings of crisis in steel industry
failed to do anything at eu level re chinese dumping of steel, Osbourne could;nt see as covered in chinese xxxx
failed to keep factories and skills in uk.
no doubt had this industry be based in berkshire, things would have been v different, this gov isnt fit to be called a Government.
I explained why action was needed on the banks but you dont seem to understand the nature of the stress tests. Not only have the banks had to materially increase their share capital, they have also had to de-risk substantially so the risk of a repeat is substantially reduced and the cost of doing this has been borne by the banks themselves / their shareholders.
Also there is a big difference between the high street banks and investment banks. In terms of risk and in terms of whether they can fail witjout major knock on effects. Lehmans for example was allowed to go to the wall."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
It's more people are upset that some industries, those where people already have the highest pay in any industry get subsidised and industries on which entire communities rely on don't get the same treatment.
That's a legitimate complaint.
It is also sad that an industry which was the centre of so many lives and towns is on its way out. It was a way of life for a lot of people.0 -
Also that other Countries do subsidise which means our unsubsidised industries cannot compete.It's more people are upset that some industries, those where people already have the highest pay in any industry get subsidised and industries on which entire communities rely on don't get the same treatment.
That's a legitimate complaint.
It is also sad that an industry which was the centre of so many lives and towns is on its way out. It was a way of life for a lot of people.
So we just give up.
What is the future?
You cannot have service industries if no one has any money.
Maybe we should all train to be accountants and move to London. No flaws in that. No, none at all.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0
