New ‘coking coal’ mine in Cumbria

[simontaylor484]

Richard Hannay in the 39 steps was a Mining Engineer 

[Welchester]

3 minutes ago, simontaylor484 said:

Richard Hannay in the 39 steps was a Mining Engineer 

 

Not coal, I think. Diamonds, if memory serves.

[simontaylor484]

2 hours ago, Welchester said:

 

Not coal, I think. Diamonds, if memory serves.

Most likely the point I was responding to was films with Mining Engineers as the hero.

[Steamport Southport]

2 hours ago, Welchester said:

 

Not coal, I think. Diamonds, if memory serves.

 

Copper.

 

He becomes a mining engineer, spending three years prospecting for copper in German Damaraland and makes a small fortune in Bulawayo.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Hannay

[simontaylor484]

3 hours ago, simontaylor484 said:

Richard Hannay in the 39 steps was a Mining Engineer 

And the Character played by Roger Moore in Gold 

[Reorte]

Talking of mining engineers there's the classic English translation of De Re Metallica (Elizabethan-era book on mining, detailing most of the knowledge of the day, full of numbered illustrations - a historically immensely valuable work - how many other industries of that time do we have anywhere near that level of detail for?) by mining engineer, Herbert Hoover. I think he might've had another job at some point too.

[teaky]

The Cumbrian mine featured on BBC Newsnight last night.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000s62b/newsnight-08022021

 

Some interesting points raised, especially regarding whether there was a business case at all beyond 2036.

[Andy Hayter]

And all of the environmentalists ignore that need to get a couple % carbon into the iron matrix.   Unless/Until a completely new process for making steel emerges, we will need to add coal/coke/charcoal to iron.

 

I think we will find exemptions being made and other actions taken to remedy that essential use.

[jcm@gwr]

2 minutes ago, Andy Hayter said:

And all of the environmentalists ignore that need to get a couple % carbon into the iron matrix.   Unless/Until a completely new process for making steel emerges, we will need to add coal/coke/charcoal to iron.

 

I think we will find exemptions being made and other actions taken to remedy that essential use.

 

And not forgetting that it's less environmentally damaging to dig up

the coal locally, not transport it half-way round the world!

[Reorte]

The problem in some quarters (and this isn't just confined to environmental issues) is people who take an "anything short of 100% change is useless" attitude. Coal is very much one of these (the imminent domestic coal ban is testimony to that, when the amount used these days is negligible - I've still seen people defend it by pointing at the pre-smokeless zone smogs), but we see it everywhere these days. Everything painted in simple black and white terms, and then those criteria are applied blindly. All going for 100% usually means is that you've made the job orders of magnitude more difficult for no real additional gain.

[Reorte]

Now they're saying it's going to be "re-examined"

 

[dave750t]

8 hours ago, jcm@gwr said:

 

And not forgetting that it's less environmentally damaging to dig up

the coal locally, not transport it half-way round the world!

From https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/09/county-council-to-reconsider-cumbria-coal-mine-application ( my emphasis )

 

The proposed £165m mine would produce 2.7m tonnes a year of coking coal, for use in industrial applications such as steel-making, as opposed to thermal coal for burning in power stations. Kwasi Kwarteng, the business secretary, told MPs last month that this meant the mine should be allowed to go ahead, as it fell outside government pledges to phase out coal for electricity.

But green experts pointed out that steel-makers would be forced to reduce their emissions too under the UK’s net zero targets, by using new technology, such as hydrogen. About 85% of the coking coal from the mine was planned for export, and there is no shortage of such coal globally.

[Reorte]

38 minutes ago, dave750t said:

From https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/09/county-council-to-reconsider-cumbria-coal-mine-application ( my emphasis )

 

The proposed £165m mine would produce 2.7m tonnes a year of coking coal, for use in industrial applications such as steel-making, as opposed to thermal coal for burning in power stations. Kwasi Kwarteng, the business secretary, told MPs last month that this meant the mine should be allowed to go ahead, as it fell outside government pledges to phase out coal for electricity.

But green experts pointed out that steel-makers would be forced to reduce their emissions too under the UK’s net zero targets, by using new technology, such as hydrogen. About 85% of the coking coal from the mine was planned for export, and there is no shortage of such coal globally.

 

So we benefit from supplying some of it (including for domestic use) but aren't changing the overall global net amount used, "forced" is all very well but you've still got to get there, which isn't guaranteed even if plausible and you still need to get to that point, and the whole net zero thing quite frankly smacks of that seeking 100% problem mentioned earlier.

 

Whilst the "green" lobby's motivations are worthwhile I honestly fear the world they want to create as much as the one they say they're trying to prevent.

[tomparryharry]

On 09/02/2021 at 19:21, Reorte said:

Now they're saying it's going to be "re-examined"

 

It doesn't surprise me one little bit. Everything gets re-examined from time to time.  Sometimes it's political posturing, or a shot across the bows to a supplier who thinks the price will rise post Brexit silliness.  We're in the age of post 'peak oil' so coal has to be re-examined from time to time. 

 

The Green lobby won't really get a look-in, sad to say. The National Interest' will come first.  

[Reorte]

1 hour ago, tomparryharry said:

It doesn't surprise me one little bit. Everything gets re-examined from time to time.  Sometimes it's political posturing, or a shot across the bows to a supplier who thinks the price will rise post Brexit silliness.  We're in the age of post 'peak oil' so coal has to be re-examined from time to time. 

 

The Green lobby won't really get a look-in, sad to say. The National Interest' will come first.  

 

The Green lobby's already got a look-in, which is where the re-examining is coming from. Personally I find that sad to say, they're too extreme. Hearts in the right place but to them it's "coal==bad, end of." No consideration of overall amount, practical alternatives, impact of having to import coal (alternatives for making steel on an industrial scale are not yet ready) and so on. We've reached the point where apart from the remaining amount used in power generation, coal consumption in the UK is insignificant so trying to stamp out the rest is entirely ideological (unless they just hate coal for its own sake - can't really see that personally, but I feel that way about a lot of what they like so fair's fair I suppose).

 

Coal's an easy target though, even at small levels. Much easier to attack that, knowing they'll get support from those bought in to the simple message, rather than moving on to other, larger contributions, like population levels and concrete and cement production.

 

They'd have a point if this coal was all going to go into a new power station, but it isn't.

[steve1]

I may have missed it somewhere but is the mine, if it goes ahead, to be rail served?

 

Thanks

 

steve

[Jeremy Cumberland]

Just now, steve1 said:

I may have missed it somewhere but is the mine, if it goes ahead, to be rail served?

 

Thanks

 

steve

Yes, 100%. The railhead will be just south of Corkickle station, on the old Marchon exchange sidings (alas they won't be using the old incline).

 

85% is intended for export, and the owners mention Redcar as the port.

[Reorte]

11 minutes ago, Jeremy C said:

Yes, 100%. The railhead will be just south of Corkickle station, on the old Marchon exchange sidings (alas they won't be using the old incline).

 

85% is intended for export, and the owners mention Redcar as the port.

Would that be via Carlisle then? Can't imagine the Cumbrian Coast to Newcastle line connection sees much traffic these days.

[Jeremy Cumberland]

Yes. A 2019 Cumbrian Coast rail study (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjtmdvlyOLuAhXUQkEAHWBeAjYQFjAHegQICBAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.networkrail.co.uk%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2019%2F11%2FCumbrian-Coast-Study-2019.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2Nlmm_NcQuJ6JP71RBRzYT) shows six return trains a day to/from Carlisle.

[russ p]

What the green lot seem to have missed is collieries don't produce pollution its burning the coal that does and thats still going to happen regardless of where its mined.

If this gets cancelled because of some miss understanding of what coal is actually for by the group that shouts the loudest it will be an absolute tragedy as the mine will create decent much needed jobs not only directly but also in other sectors such as railfreight 

[Jeremy Cumberland]

1 hour ago, russ p said:

What the green lot seem to have missed is collieries don't produce pollution its burning the coal that does and thats still going to happen regardless of where its mined.

If this gets cancelled because of some miss understanding of what coal is actually for by the group that shouts the loudest it will be an absolute tragedy as the mine will create decent much needed jobs not only directly but also in other sectors such as railfreight 

Not quite regardless. Shipping the stuff creates CO2, of course, and the mine owners haven't been particularly forthcoming on where most of the coal is destined.

 

Personally I would like to see far more discussion on alternatives to coal/coke in steelmaking. Technically, it appears to be possible, and a small but significant proportion of the world's steel is apparently made without coal, although it is difficult for a non-specialist to find much in the way of unbiased accounts. Undoubtlebly, using coke is a particularly good way of making steel; it provides the heat, it serves as a reducing agent and it provides the carbon for the steel itself. However, it is also responsible for something like 7% of global CO2 emissions, which is surely not something we should be willing just to put up with, saying "there is no alternative".

 

I live less than 20 miles from the mine, and all the stuff about jobs is quite true, and the mine is generally welcomed round here. But the "green" argument is a valid one. The reason this mine might open in the first place is because the price of metallurgical coal is so high. This mine, and others like it, will benefit from the high prices and meet the ongoing demand. If this mine doesn't open, and if this is repeated in other places, then the price of metallurgical coal will rise, which might encorage further investment in non-coal technologies for making steel.

 

For the time being I am quite happy to sit on the fence, but I think there is a debate to be had, if only we could find some honest broker to conduct it. Pretty much everything I have found is either sponsered by the coal industry or the green lobby.

Edited February 11, 2021 by Jeremy C

[Reorte]

2 hours ago, Jeremy C said:

Not quite regardless. Shipping the stuff creates CO2, of course, and the mine owners haven't been particularly forthcoming on where most of the coal is destined.

If it's less shipping than the existing flows and it takes the business from them then that's an improvement.

[eastglosmog]

Should return to making iron using charcoal, as it was before Abraham Darby put his oar in!  I'm sure you could get enough by setting up a 20 year rotation of coppicing Keilder Forest.  Might even be carbon neutral, though I suspect a lot of other nasties will get into the atmosphere from the charking process.

[rockershovel]

Flooding from old workings is always a hazard in mining areas https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/19/gleision-colliery-tragic-pit-disaster-welsh-mining-community 

 

I’m very much in favour of this development. If it produces 15 years of worthwhile resources and proper jobs, on whatever scale, good. Same goes for the Woodsmith mine development which seems to be well under way, now. 

[The Stationmaster]

On 11/02/2021 at 22:52, Jeremy C said:

Not quite regardless. Shipping the stuff creates CO2, of course, and the mine owners haven't been particularly forthcoming on where most of the coal is destined.

 

Personally I would like to see far more discussion on alternatives to coal/coke in steelmaking. Technically, it appears to be possible, and a small but significant proportion of the world's steel is apparently made without coal, although it is difficult for a non-specialist to find much in the way of unbiased accounts. Undoubtlebly, using coke is a particularly good way of making steel; it provides the heat, it serves as a reducing agent and it provides the carbon for the steel itself. However, it is also responsible for something like 7% of global CO2 emissions, which is surely not something we should be willing just to put up with, saying "there is no alternative".

 

I live less than 20 miles from the mine, and all the stuff about jobs is quite true, and the mine is generally welcomed round here. But the "green" argument is a valid one. The reason this mine might open in the first place is because the price of metallurgical coal is so high. This mine, and others like it, will benefit from the high prices and meet the ongoing demand. If this mine doesn't open, and if this is repeated in other places, then the price of metallurgical coal will rise, which might encorage further investment in non-coal technologies for making steel.

 

For the time being I am quite happy to sit on the fence, but I think there is a debate to be had, if only we could find some honest broker to conduct it. Pretty much everything I have found is either sponsered by the coal industry or the green lobby.

You can make steel without using coal/coke but it requires two things - a plentiful supply of ferrous scrap metal and a good supply of electricity.  The steel is them made using electric arc furnaces although according to one report the system is not popular in Britain because car industry customers don't want steel made by that method.

 

The bit I don't follow from the electric are furnace idea is where the scrap comes from in the first place?  No - not the obvious answer (because there is plenty of scrap exported from Britain) but where the steel came from in order to make what eventually ended up as scrap?  If demand for new steel exactly matches what can be produced from scrap then the blast furnace is no longer needed rovided you can make enough electricity.  But if the market for steel is growing them inevitably it will still be necessary to make some from scratch using iron ore and coal etc - and, as I understand it, that has to use a coal based fuel as part of the chemistry of the process.