Mine workers say controversial plans mean jobs

Mine workers say controversial plans mean jobs

MINE FUTURE: Coal workers who face losing their jobs when Tow Law mine closes ask council to overturn decision to refuse permission for a mine at Marley Hill pictured Dennis Nichol, David Innes and Steven Thompson

MINE FUTURE: Coal workers who face losing their jobs when Tow Law mine closes ask council to overturn decision to refuse permission for a mine at Marley Hill pictured Dennis Nichol, David Innes and Steven Thompson

MINE FUTURE: Coal workers who face losing their jobs when Tow Law mine closes ask council to overturn decision to refuse permission for a mine at Marley Hill pictured Dennis Nichol, David Innes and Steven Thompson

First published in News
Last updated
The Northern Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Reporter (Derwentside & Tyneside)

SURFACE mine workers facing unemployment have accused councillors of ignoring the economic benefits of opencast developments in the North-East.

Staff at UK Coal spoke out as the energy giant revealed it is considering appealing the decision to reject controversial plans to excavate land in the region.

Durham County Council refused an application, which already had the backing from the neighbouring Gateshead authority and was recommended for approval by planning officers, citing fears about the impact it would have on tourism.

The 123-hectare opencast at Marley Hill, near Stanley, would have safeguarded jobs for over 60 staff for the next four years.

But UK Coal workers currently employed at Park Wall North, near Tow Law, County Durham, are facing a future on the dole when work at that site ends in early October.

Driver David Innes, 63, from Annfield Plain, said: “The reason they gave for rejecting it was tourism. I don’t know whether they have been to Stanley Front Street, but I don’t see many people going there for their holidays.

“I live in the area and I have never seen a tourist, except for at Tanfield Railway and they are behind the scheme.

“They are high paid good jobs affecting over 60 families. No-one at County Hall was listening.”

Mr Innes said the supply of British coal to UK power station makes up 40 per cent of the electricity used and makes the country less reliant on imported fuel from Russia.

Senior supervisor Dennis Nichol, 63, from Crook, said: “This has occurred because the councillors in Durham are anti-opencast. Their mind was made up before the meeting started. They did not look at the application as a whole.”

Driver Steven Thompson, 37, from Tow Law, said he, his wife and three daughters rely on his wages and may have to move if he does not find more work.

He said: “It is devastating. Our region is built on coal and by rejecting this application they are putting families on the dole.”

The company wanted to extract more than one million tonnes of coal and 175,000 tonnes of fireclay from the former pit site at Marley Hill.

Alison Reid, of UK Coal said: “We have got six months to appeal and it is likely we will.”

The company is taking plans to develop the nearby Bradley site at Leadgate to a second public inquiry in October and is considering re-lodging an application to work the Hoodsclose site at Whittonstall, which was withdrawn from Northumberland County Council earlier this year.

Comments (62)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:24am Wed 13 Aug 14

seftonchase says...

This item of news does not come as a suprise. With regard to the justification for jobs being dependent on gaining planning permission for the two sites, in the case of the Hoodsclose application stress was put on the potential loss of local jobs by those opposing the application were the application to succeed. In the case of the Marley Hill application, the locally elected representatives are, I would of thought, in a better position to judge what the economic impact of granting permission would be and they deemed it to have a negative impact.
As for the claim that coal fired power stations provide for 40% of our electricity, that is historically true for 2012, but it just that, history. Since then, six coal fired power stations have closed and coal use for power generation purposes is in long term decline, down to 36% last year. Recent figures from the National Grid show that electricity produce from wind power has exceeded that produced from coal fired power stations for the first time. Earlier this week wind energy supplied 13% of our electicity over a 24hr period where as coal provided only 11% (‘Wind power surge sees renewables outstrip coal’ (Business Green, 11/8/14) @ http://www.businessg
reen.com/bg/news/235
9626/wind-power-surg
e-sees-renewables-ou
tstrip-coal?

This is an indication of how rapidly things are changing in the energy supply industry. Past certainties that we will always need opencast coal to guarantee our energy supplies, are also just becoming historical statements.

Steve Leary for the Loose Anti Opencast Network
This item of news does not come as a suprise. With regard to the justification for jobs being dependent on gaining planning permission for the two sites, in the case of the Hoodsclose application stress was put on the potential loss of local jobs by those opposing the application were the application to succeed. In the case of the Marley Hill application, the locally elected representatives are, I would of thought, in a better position to judge what the economic impact of granting permission would be and they deemed it to have a negative impact. As for the claim that coal fired power stations provide for 40% of our electricity, that is historically true for 2012, but it just that, history. Since then, six coal fired power stations have closed and coal use for power generation purposes is in long term decline, down to 36% last year. Recent figures from the National Grid show that electricity produce from wind power has exceeded that produced from coal fired power stations for the first time. Earlier this week wind energy supplied 13% of our electicity over a 24hr period where as coal provided only 11% (‘Wind power surge sees renewables outstrip coal’ (Business Green, 11/8/14) @ http://www.businessg reen.com/bg/news/235 9626/wind-power-surg e-sees-renewables-ou tstrip-coal? This is an indication of how rapidly things are changing in the energy supply industry. Past certainties that we will always need opencast coal to guarantee our energy supplies, are also just becoming historical statements. Steve Leary for the Loose Anti Opencast Network seftonchase
  • Score: -13

12:02pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Arthur Brown says...

Worker David Innes states "They are high paid good jobs...", doubtless he knew this and this is why he took the job. What he also knew but fails to mention is that opencast jobs are only temporary and always have been. Perhaps whilst creating the inevitable misery for those who live next to opencast sites, the workers should have set aside more of this high pay for the inevitable day when the site finished?

There is no justification for further opencast mining of coal in the UK at this time as the international price is much lower than the production costs here. Due to shrinking reserves, especially in England, it is also executed far too close to human habitation and on increasingly sensitive sites.

Further opencasting also creates significant long-term risks: it is killing the remaining deep-mine industry, it will exhaust all easily accessible coal which might be needed in a future crisis, it is highly destructive to the established environment, it is damaging to local communities, and the lamentable economics mean there is an increasing risk of bankruptcy (as in Scotland) with no cash to properly restore these sites.
Worker David Innes states "They are high paid good jobs...", doubtless he knew this and this is why he took the job. What he also knew but fails to mention is that opencast jobs are only temporary and always have been. Perhaps whilst creating the inevitable misery for those who live next to opencast sites, the workers should have set aside more of this high pay for the inevitable day when the site finished? There is no justification for further opencast mining of coal in the UK at this time as the international price is much lower than the production costs here. Due to shrinking reserves, especially in England, it is also executed far too close to human habitation and on increasingly sensitive sites. Further opencasting also creates significant long-term risks: it is killing the remaining deep-mine industry, it will exhaust all easily accessible coal which might be needed in a future crisis, it is highly destructive to the established environment, it is damaging to local communities, and the lamentable economics mean there is an increasing risk of bankruptcy (as in Scotland) with no cash to properly restore these sites. Arthur Brown
  • Score: -9

12:05pm Wed 13 Aug 14

David Lacey says...

I'm sorry - but picking a day in summer when electricity demand is at its lowest as a way to justify highly subsidised wind power is ridiculous. For the sake of common sense why didn't you also select a day in January when we had high pressure - no wind - and the temperature was below freezing?
.
In summer base load stations are shut down for maintenance.
I'm sorry - but picking a day in summer when electricity demand is at its lowest as a way to justify highly subsidised wind power is ridiculous. For the sake of common sense why didn't you also select a day in January when we had high pressure - no wind - and the temperature was below freezing? . In summer base load stations are shut down for maintenance. David Lacey
  • Score: 17

12:12pm Wed 13 Aug 14

The Grim North says...

David Lacey wrote:
I'm sorry - but picking a day in summer when electricity demand is at its lowest as a way to justify highly subsidised wind power is ridiculous. For the sake of common sense why didn't you also select a day in January when we had high pressure - no wind - and the temperature was below freezing? . In summer base load stations are shut down for maintenance.
Yes David, and most of the shortfall in January will have to be provided by open cycle gas turbines and diesel generators.
[quote][p][bold]David Lacey[/bold] wrote: I'm sorry - but picking a day in summer when electricity demand is at its lowest as a way to justify highly subsidised wind power is ridiculous. For the sake of common sense why didn't you also select a day in January when we had high pressure - no wind - and the temperature was below freezing? . In summer base load stations are shut down for maintenance.[/p][/quote]Yes David, and most of the shortfall in January will have to be provided by open cycle gas turbines and diesel generators. The Grim North
  • Score: -6

2:16pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Voice-of-reality says...

Interesting that it is the local labour councillors opposing mining - and I thought they always blamed lack of coal jobs on the Conservatives. Labour hypocriscy once more. David is of course right - and we should be building nuclear.
Interesting that it is the local labour councillors opposing mining - and I thought they always blamed lack of coal jobs on the Conservatives. Labour hypocriscy once more. David is of course right - and we should be building nuclear. Voice-of-reality
  • Score: 11

2:18pm Wed 13 Aug 14

seftonchase says...

David,

You are partly correct to criticise me for choosing such a day. However it was a historically significant event, when wind generated electrical power for the fist time exceeded that produced by coal. As I said, its a sign of the times, as renewables continue to increase their capacity to generate electricity.

I'm equally aware of major strides being made in energy storage technology, which can be linked to solar or wing generators. increasing amounts of intermittent energy could then be stored and used later if the wind drops or its nighttime. If David wants more information on this developing technology I'd be happy to oblige.

David, the other point in my post was the fact that six power stations have closed over the last two years and now the remaining power stations, all bar one, need upgrading to reduce levels of sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide pollution to a safer level, that reduces the risk that anyone of us could die prematurely. This means less coal is actually needed in the future.
David, You are partly correct to criticise me for choosing such a day. However it was a historically significant event, when wind generated electrical power for the fist time exceeded that produced by coal. As I said, its a sign of the times, as renewables continue to increase their capacity to generate electricity. I'm equally aware of major strides being made in energy storage technology, which can be linked to solar or wing generators. increasing amounts of intermittent energy could then be stored and used later if the wind drops or its nighttime. If David wants more information on this developing technology I'd be happy to oblige. David, the other point in my post was the fact that six power stations have closed over the last two years and now the remaining power stations, all bar one, need upgrading to reduce levels of sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide pollution to a safer level, that reduces the risk that anyone of us could die prematurely. This means less coal is actually needed in the future. seftonchase
  • Score: -8

2:45pm Wed 13 Aug 14

seftonchase says...

David,

Here is an example of what I mean about solar + energy storage and how its already being used. This example from news today is about how solar panels and a battery storage system is being designed into a new housing development in Vermont in the USA. Here is the article title and the link:

'Green Mountain Power begins solar-plus-battery micro-grid project in Vermont' (PVTech, 13/8/14) @ http://www.pv-tech.o
rg/news/green_mounta
in_power_begins_sola
r_plus_battery_micro
_grid_project_in_ver
mon?utm_source=newsn
ow&utm_medium=web&ut
m_campaign=newsnow-f
eed

If this is an indication of the current state of the technology (and not just in the USA - in Germany as well) then why do we need to rip up the ground to provide coal? Arthur Brown is right when he talks about the risks and the environmental damage caused by such 'developments'.
David, Here is an example of what I mean about solar + energy storage and how its already being used. This example from news today is about how solar panels and a battery storage system is being designed into a new housing development in Vermont in the USA. Here is the article title and the link: 'Green Mountain Power begins solar-plus-battery micro-grid project in Vermont' (PVTech, 13/8/14) @ http://www.pv-tech.o rg/news/green_mounta in_power_begins_sola r_plus_battery_micro _grid_project_in_ver mon?utm_source=newsn ow&utm_medium=web&ut m_campaign=newsnow-f eed If this is an indication of the current state of the technology (and not just in the USA - in Germany as well) then why do we need to rip up the ground to provide coal? Arthur Brown is right when he talks about the risks and the environmental damage caused by such 'developments'. seftonchase
  • Score: -7

2:58pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Tompa09 says...

Arthur Brown wrote:
Worker David Innes states "They are high paid good jobs...", doubtless he knew this and this is why he took the job. What he also knew but fails to mention is that opencast jobs are only temporary and always have been. Perhaps whilst creating the inevitable misery for those who live next to opencast sites, the workers should have set aside more of this high pay for the inevitable day when the site finished?

There is no justification for further opencast mining of coal in the UK at this time as the international price is much lower than the production costs here. Due to shrinking reserves, especially in England, it is also executed far too close to human habitation and on increasingly sensitive sites.

Further opencasting also creates significant long-term risks: it is killing the remaining deep-mine industry, it will exhaust all easily accessible coal which might be needed in a future crisis, it is highly destructive to the established environment, it is damaging to local communities, and the lamentable economics mean there is an increasing risk of bankruptcy (as in Scotland) with no cash to properly restore these sites.
Well Arthur i can tell you Mr David Innes has worked for Uk Coal for 34 year how temporary is that? I think you should check your facts before commenting.
[quote][p][bold]Arthur Brown[/bold] wrote: Worker David Innes states "They are high paid good jobs...", doubtless he knew this and this is why he took the job. What he also knew but fails to mention is that opencast jobs are only temporary and always have been. Perhaps whilst creating the inevitable misery for those who live next to opencast sites, the workers should have set aside more of this high pay for the inevitable day when the site finished? There is no justification for further opencast mining of coal in the UK at this time as the international price is much lower than the production costs here. Due to shrinking reserves, especially in England, it is also executed far too close to human habitation and on increasingly sensitive sites. Further opencasting also creates significant long-term risks: it is killing the remaining deep-mine industry, it will exhaust all easily accessible coal which might be needed in a future crisis, it is highly destructive to the established environment, it is damaging to local communities, and the lamentable economics mean there is an increasing risk of bankruptcy (as in Scotland) with no cash to properly restore these sites.[/p][/quote]Well Arthur i can tell you Mr David Innes has worked for Uk Coal for 34 year how temporary is that? I think you should check your facts before commenting. Tompa09
  • Score: 10

3:27pm Wed 13 Aug 14

David Lacey says...

May I point out that both on-shore and off-shore wind are massively subsidised by the taxpayer. That they have be backed up by spinning reserves of gas fired plant. Strip out the subsidies and renewables make no sense whatsoever, especially solar PV which produces zero electricity at times of peak demand.
.
I am no supporter of surface mined coal but those people who think that fossil fuel fired base load plant can be replaced by renewables are p1ssing in the wind - literally!
May I point out that both on-shore and off-shore wind are massively subsidised by the taxpayer. That they have be backed up by spinning reserves of gas fired plant. Strip out the subsidies and renewables make no sense whatsoever, especially solar PV which produces zero electricity at times of peak demand. . I am no supporter of surface mined coal but those people who think that fossil fuel fired base load plant can be replaced by renewables are p1ssing in the wind - literally! David Lacey
  • Score: 19

4:25pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Arthur Brown says...

Tompa09 wrote:
Arthur Brown wrote:
Worker David Innes states "They are high paid good jobs...", doubtless he knew this and this is why he took the job. What he also knew but fails to mention is that opencast jobs are only temporary and always have been. Perhaps whilst creating the inevitable misery for those who live next to opencast sites, the workers should have set aside more of this high pay for the inevitable day when the site finished?

There is no justification for further opencast mining of coal in the UK at this time as the international price is much lower than the production costs here. Due to shrinking reserves, especially in England, it is also executed far too close to human habitation and on increasingly sensitive sites.

Further opencasting also creates significant long-term risks: it is killing the remaining deep-mine industry, it will exhaust all easily accessible coal which might be needed in a future crisis, it is highly destructive to the established environment, it is damaging to local communities, and the lamentable economics mean there is an increasing risk of bankruptcy (as in Scotland) with no cash to properly restore these sites.
Well Arthur i can tell you Mr David Innes has worked for Uk Coal for 34 year how temporary is that? I think you should check your facts before commenting.
Interesting, as the small private company UK Coal (in various guises) has only existed since 2001?

I suspect you refer to Mr.Innes having perhaps worked on opencast sites for 34 years?

If he has been an employee of the NCB/BC/RJB/UKC over the 34 years you refer to, then he has been very lucky (unlike most).

And if he has had continuous employment as a "driver" - something I am highly sceptical of (no opencast site operates year round in the UK), there is still no question that opencast work has always been a temporary contract-based activity unless an individual has been one of the very, very few senior management employees of the above bodies.

Irrespective of this, I believe all other points I made stand, and that any benefit for Mr. Innes et al is heavily outweighed on both an local and national level for the reasons stated,,,
[quote][p][bold]Tompa09[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arthur Brown[/bold] wrote: Worker David Innes states "They are high paid good jobs...", doubtless he knew this and this is why he took the job. What he also knew but fails to mention is that opencast jobs are only temporary and always have been. Perhaps whilst creating the inevitable misery for those who live next to opencast sites, the workers should have set aside more of this high pay for the inevitable day when the site finished? There is no justification for further opencast mining of coal in the UK at this time as the international price is much lower than the production costs here. Due to shrinking reserves, especially in England, it is also executed far too close to human habitation and on increasingly sensitive sites. Further opencasting also creates significant long-term risks: it is killing the remaining deep-mine industry, it will exhaust all easily accessible coal which might be needed in a future crisis, it is highly destructive to the established environment, it is damaging to local communities, and the lamentable economics mean there is an increasing risk of bankruptcy (as in Scotland) with no cash to properly restore these sites.[/p][/quote]Well Arthur i can tell you Mr David Innes has worked for Uk Coal for 34 year how temporary is that? I think you should check your facts before commenting.[/p][/quote]Interesting, as the small private company UK Coal (in various guises) has only existed since 2001? I suspect you refer to Mr.Innes having perhaps worked on opencast sites for 34 years? If he has been an employee of the NCB/BC/RJB/UKC over the 34 years you refer to, then he has been very lucky (unlike most). And if he has had continuous employment as a "driver" - something I am highly sceptical of (no opencast site operates year round in the UK), there is still no question that opencast work has always been a temporary contract-based activity unless an individual has been one of the very, very few senior management employees of the above bodies. Irrespective of this, I believe all other points I made stand, and that any benefit for Mr. Innes et al is heavily outweighed on both an local and national level for the reasons stated,,, Arthur Brown
  • Score: -11

5:01pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Tompa09 says...

Arthur Brown wrote:
Tompa09 wrote:
Arthur Brown wrote:
Worker David Innes states "They are high paid good jobs...", doubtless he knew this and this is why he took the job. What he also knew but fails to mention is that opencast jobs are only temporary and always have been. Perhaps whilst creating the inevitable misery for those who live next to opencast sites, the workers should have set aside more of this high pay for the inevitable day when the site finished?

There is no justification for further opencast mining of coal in the UK at this time as the international price is much lower than the production costs here. Due to shrinking reserves, especially in England, it is also executed far too close to human habitation and on increasingly sensitive sites.

Further opencasting also creates significant long-term risks: it is killing the remaining deep-mine industry, it will exhaust all easily accessible coal which might be needed in a future crisis, it is highly destructive to the established environment, it is damaging to local communities, and the lamentable economics mean there is an increasing risk of bankruptcy (as in Scotland) with no cash to properly restore these sites.
Well Arthur i can tell you Mr David Innes has worked for Uk Coal for 34 year how temporary is that? I think you should check your facts before commenting.
Interesting, as the small private company UK Coal (in various guises) has only existed since 2001?

I suspect you refer to Mr.Innes having perhaps worked on opencast sites for 34 years?

If he has been an employee of the NCB/BC/RJB/UKC over the 34 years you refer to, then he has been very lucky (unlike most).

And if he has had continuous employment as a "driver" - something I am highly sceptical of (no opencast site operates year round in the UK), there is still no question that opencast work has always been a temporary contract-based activity unless an individual has been one of the very, very few senior management employees of the above bodies.

Irrespective of this, I believe all other points I made stand, and that any benefit for Mr. Innes et al is heavily outweighed on both an local and national level for the reasons stated,,,
How can you argue when you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Where are these deep mines that you mention? Import coal from the likes of Russia you say. Well that's a great idea isn't it. Let's fund the Russians to bomb the Ukraine. Also to say opencasts don't work all year round how stupid are you?
[quote][p][bold]Arthur Brown[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tompa09[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arthur Brown[/bold] wrote: Worker David Innes states "They are high paid good jobs...", doubtless he knew this and this is why he took the job. What he also knew but fails to mention is that opencast jobs are only temporary and always have been. Perhaps whilst creating the inevitable misery for those who live next to opencast sites, the workers should have set aside more of this high pay for the inevitable day when the site finished? There is no justification for further opencast mining of coal in the UK at this time as the international price is much lower than the production costs here. Due to shrinking reserves, especially in England, it is also executed far too close to human habitation and on increasingly sensitive sites. Further opencasting also creates significant long-term risks: it is killing the remaining deep-mine industry, it will exhaust all easily accessible coal which might be needed in a future crisis, it is highly destructive to the established environment, it is damaging to local communities, and the lamentable economics mean there is an increasing risk of bankruptcy (as in Scotland) with no cash to properly restore these sites.[/p][/quote]Well Arthur i can tell you Mr David Innes has worked for Uk Coal for 34 year how temporary is that? I think you should check your facts before commenting.[/p][/quote]Interesting, as the small private company UK Coal (in various guises) has only existed since 2001? I suspect you refer to Mr.Innes having perhaps worked on opencast sites for 34 years? If he has been an employee of the NCB/BC/RJB/UKC over the 34 years you refer to, then he has been very lucky (unlike most). And if he has had continuous employment as a "driver" - something I am highly sceptical of (no opencast site operates year round in the UK), there is still no question that opencast work has always been a temporary contract-based activity unless an individual has been one of the very, very few senior management employees of the above bodies. Irrespective of this, I believe all other points I made stand, and that any benefit for Mr. Innes et al is heavily outweighed on both an local and national level for the reasons stated,,,[/p][/quote]How can you argue when you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Where are these deep mines that you mention? Import coal from the likes of Russia you say. Well that's a great idea isn't it. Let's fund the Russians to bomb the Ukraine. Also to say opencasts don't work all year round how stupid are you? Tompa09
  • Score: 14

5:09pm Wed 13 Aug 14

honestjohn20 says...

Arthur could I ask you which part of the year opencasts dont work. Just ive been working all year round for the last 4 years on an opencast and cant recall it beimg a seasonal job. Maybe you should at least know some of the facts before you make a fool of yourself
Arthur could I ask you which part of the year opencasts dont work. Just ive been working all year round for the last 4 years on an opencast and cant recall it beimg a seasonal job. Maybe you should at least know some of the facts before you make a fool of yourself honestjohn20
  • Score: 19

5:22pm Wed 13 Aug 14

honestjohn20 says...

Have any of you been to the proposed marley hill site? It was declined because of the effect on tourism, when in reality the place is a mess. Litter thrown all over, grafitti on signs, and to top it off its the local dogging site.
Have any of you been to the proposed marley hill site? It was declined because of the effect on tourism, when in reality the place is a mess. Litter thrown all over, grafitti on signs, and to top it off its the local dogging site. honestjohn20
  • Score: 20

5:37pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Arthur Brown says...

Tompa09 wrote:
Arthur Brown wrote:
Tompa09 wrote:
Arthur Brown wrote:
Worker David Innes states "They are high paid good jobs...", doubtless he knew this and this is why he took the job. What he also knew but fails to mention is that opencast jobs are only temporary and always have been. Perhaps whilst creating the inevitable misery for those who live next to opencast sites, the workers should have set aside more of this high pay for the inevitable day when the site finished?

There is no justification for further opencast mining of coal in the UK at this time as the international price is much lower than the production costs here. Due to shrinking reserves, especially in England, it is also executed far too close to human habitation and on increasingly sensitive sites.

Further opencasting also creates significant long-term risks: it is killing the remaining deep-mine industry, it will exhaust all easily accessible coal which might be needed in a future crisis, it is highly destructive to the established environment, it is damaging to local communities, and the lamentable economics mean there is an increasing risk of bankruptcy (as in Scotland) with no cash to properly restore these sites.
Well Arthur i can tell you Mr David Innes has worked for Uk Coal for 34 year how temporary is that? I think you should check your facts before commenting.
Interesting, as the small private company UK Coal (in various guises) has only existed since 2001?

I suspect you refer to Mr.Innes having perhaps worked on opencast sites for 34 years?

If he has been an employee of the NCB/BC/RJB/UKC over the 34 years you refer to, then he has been very lucky (unlike most).

And if he has had continuous employment as a "driver" - something I am highly sceptical of (no opencast site operates year round in the UK), there is still no question that opencast work has always been a temporary contract-based activity unless an individual has been one of the very, very few senior management employees of the above bodies.

Irrespective of this, I believe all other points I made stand, and that any benefit for Mr. Innes et al is heavily outweighed on both an local and national level for the reasons stated,,,
How can you argue when you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Where are these deep mines that you mention? Import coal from the likes of Russia you say. Well that's a great idea isn't it. Let's fund the Russians to bomb the Ukraine. Also to say opencasts don't work all year round how stupid are you?
OK, so we'll stop importing Russian gas as well then shall we, and everything will be OK for everyone?

The Russians will do what they want irrespective of UK energy policy - we are pretty small and insignificant customers in the Russian global market.

Note also that the vast majority of coal available on the international stage for the foreseeable future is from the USA, Australia, and Colombia - so why focus on Russia?

The point is that if we in the UK ever face a real energy shortfall in terms of fossil fuel availability (which we definitely don't right now), how will we address this if it's all dug-up over the next ten years, and for no good reason? Sink a few deep-mines overnight perhaps? I don't think so.

I think you need to remember that opencast mining at any scale was an emergency WW2 measure; it hangs around today due to the fact it makes a small few very rich at the expense of both environment, local communities, and long-term energy security.

The point is that in a diminishing market, opencast coal competes with the UK's deep-mines. Opencast coal is finite, deep-mine coal less so. Access to deep-mine coal and the energy security it brings relies on pits remaining open. Since privatisation opencast mining has expanded at the expense of almost all deep-mines. Thoresby and Kellingley pits now face closure and opencast coal is a major factor in this. Once gone, they are gone for good. UK Coal and similar/associated outfits are property-related companies, not miners.

I'd be very interested to understand which opencast sites in the UK operate throughout the year with anything like full employment; such an assertion is simply untrue.

If someone has retained well paid (their words) temporary employment for 34 years (your words), and is now approaching retirement - then well done to them, and they've no reason to complain now time's up. As for those with less service to the industry - it was always temporary employment and they knew it. That is why there is no such thing as redundancy in the opencast workforce in the normal sense, Contract ends and that's it. Just like for the rest of us...
[quote][p][bold]Tompa09[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arthur Brown[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tompa09[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arthur Brown[/bold] wrote: Worker David Innes states "They are high paid good jobs...", doubtless he knew this and this is why he took the job. What he also knew but fails to mention is that opencast jobs are only temporary and always have been. Perhaps whilst creating the inevitable misery for those who live next to opencast sites, the workers should have set aside more of this high pay for the inevitable day when the site finished? There is no justification for further opencast mining of coal in the UK at this time as the international price is much lower than the production costs here. Due to shrinking reserves, especially in England, it is also executed far too close to human habitation and on increasingly sensitive sites. Further opencasting also creates significant long-term risks: it is killing the remaining deep-mine industry, it will exhaust all easily accessible coal which might be needed in a future crisis, it is highly destructive to the established environment, it is damaging to local communities, and the lamentable economics mean there is an increasing risk of bankruptcy (as in Scotland) with no cash to properly restore these sites.[/p][/quote]Well Arthur i can tell you Mr David Innes has worked for Uk Coal for 34 year how temporary is that? I think you should check your facts before commenting.[/p][/quote]Interesting, as the small private company UK Coal (in various guises) has only existed since 2001? I suspect you refer to Mr.Innes having perhaps worked on opencast sites for 34 years? If he has been an employee of the NCB/BC/RJB/UKC over the 34 years you refer to, then he has been very lucky (unlike most). And if he has had continuous employment as a "driver" - something I am highly sceptical of (no opencast site operates year round in the UK), there is still no question that opencast work has always been a temporary contract-based activity unless an individual has been one of the very, very few senior management employees of the above bodies. Irrespective of this, I believe all other points I made stand, and that any benefit for Mr. Innes et al is heavily outweighed on both an local and national level for the reasons stated,,,[/p][/quote]How can you argue when you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Where are these deep mines that you mention? Import coal from the likes of Russia you say. Well that's a great idea isn't it. Let's fund the Russians to bomb the Ukraine. Also to say opencasts don't work all year round how stupid are you?[/p][/quote]OK, so we'll stop importing Russian gas as well then shall we, and everything will be OK for everyone? The Russians will do what they want irrespective of UK energy policy - we are pretty small and insignificant customers in the Russian global market. Note also that the vast majority of coal available on the international stage for the foreseeable future is from the USA, Australia, and Colombia - so why focus on Russia? The point is that if we in the UK ever face a real energy shortfall in terms of fossil fuel availability (which we definitely don't right now), how will we address this if it's all dug-up over the next ten years, and for no good reason? Sink a few deep-mines overnight perhaps? I don't think so. I think you need to remember that opencast mining at any scale was an emergency WW2 measure; it hangs around today due to the fact it makes a small few very rich at the expense of both environment, local communities, and long-term energy security. The point is that in a diminishing market, opencast coal competes with the UK's deep-mines. Opencast coal is finite, deep-mine coal less so. Access to deep-mine coal and the energy security it brings relies on pits remaining open. Since privatisation opencast mining has expanded at the expense of almost all deep-mines. Thoresby and Kellingley pits now face closure and opencast coal is a major factor in this. Once gone, they are gone for good. UK Coal and similar/associated outfits are property-related companies, not miners. I'd be very interested to understand which opencast sites in the UK operate throughout the year with anything like full employment; such an assertion is simply untrue. If someone has retained well paid (their words) temporary employment for 34 years (your words), and is now approaching retirement - then well done to them, and they've no reason to complain now time's up. As for those with less service to the industry - it was always temporary employment and they knew it. That is why there is no such thing as redundancy in the opencast workforce in the normal sense, Contract ends and that's it. Just like for the rest of us... Arthur Brown
  • Score: -4

5:46pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Arthur Brown says...

honestjohn20 wrote:
Arthur could I ask you which part of the year opencasts dont work. Just ive been working all year round for the last 4 years on an opencast and cant recall it beimg a seasonal job. Maybe you should at least know some of the facts before you make a fool of yourself
What percentage of claimed employment exists over winter months?

What percentage of claimed employment is retained in the lengthy restoration phase?

What is the percentage of employment from the communities DIRECTLY affected?

Are you on a temporary contract or permanent headcount?

Come on now, shame the devil...
[quote][p][bold]honestjohn20[/bold] wrote: Arthur could I ask you which part of the year opencasts dont work. Just ive been working all year round for the last 4 years on an opencast and cant recall it beimg a seasonal job. Maybe you should at least know some of the facts before you make a fool of yourself[/p][/quote]What percentage of claimed employment exists over winter months? What percentage of claimed employment is retained in the lengthy restoration phase? What is the percentage of employment from the communities DIRECTLY affected? Are you on a temporary contract or permanent headcount? Come on now, shame the devil... Arthur Brown
  • Score: -5

5:55pm Wed 13 Aug 14

honestjohn20 says...

Arthur Brown wrote:
Tompa09 wrote:
Arthur Brown wrote:
Tompa09 wrote:
Arthur Brown wrote:
Worker David Innes states "They are high paid good jobs...", doubtless he knew this and this is why he took the job. What he also knew but fails to mention is that opencast jobs are only temporary and always have been. Perhaps whilst creating the inevitable misery for those who live next to opencast sites, the workers should have set aside more of this high pay for the inevitable day when the site finished?

There is no justification for further opencast mining of coal in the UK at this time as the international price is much lower than the production costs here. Due to shrinking reserves, especially in England, it is also executed far too close to human habitation and on increasingly sensitive sites.

Further opencasting also creates significant long-term risks: it is killing the remaining deep-mine industry, it will exhaust all easily accessible coal which might be needed in a future crisis, it is highly destructive to the established environment, it is damaging to local communities, and the lamentable economics mean there is an increasing risk of bankruptcy (as in Scotland) with no cash to properly restore these sites.
Well Arthur i can tell you Mr David Innes has worked for Uk Coal for 34 year how temporary is that? I think you should check your facts before commenting.
Interesting, as the small private company UK Coal (in various guises) has only existed since 2001?

I suspect you refer to Mr.Innes having perhaps worked on opencast sites for 34 years?

If he has been an employee of the NCB/BC/RJB/UKC over the 34 years you refer to, then he has been very lucky (unlike most).

And if he has had continuous employment as a "driver" - something I am highly sceptical of (no opencast site operates year round in the UK), there is still no question that opencast work has always been a temporary contract-based activity unless an individual has been one of the very, very few senior management employees of the above bodies.

Irrespective of this, I believe all other points I made stand, and that any benefit for Mr. Innes et al is heavily outweighed on both an local and national level for the reasons stated,,,
How can you argue when you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Where are these deep mines that you mention? Import coal from the likes of Russia you say. Well that's a great idea isn't it. Let's fund the Russians to bomb the Ukraine. Also to say opencasts don't work all year round how stupid are you?
OK, so we'll stop importing Russian gas as well then shall we, and everything will be OK for everyone?

The Russians will do what they want irrespective of UK energy policy - we are pretty small and insignificant customers in the Russian global market.

Note also that the vast majority of coal available on the international stage for the foreseeable future is from the USA, Australia, and Colombia - so why focus on Russia?

The point is that if we in the UK ever face a real energy shortfall in terms of fossil fuel availability (which we definitely don't right now), how will we address this if it's all dug-up over the next ten years, and for no good reason? Sink a few deep-mines overnight perhaps? I don't think so.

I think you need to remember that opencast mining at any scale was an emergency WW2 measure; it hangs around today due to the fact it makes a small few very rich at the expense of both environment, local communities, and long-term energy security.

The point is that in a diminishing market, opencast coal competes with the UK's deep-mines. Opencast coal is finite, deep-mine coal less so. Access to deep-mine coal and the energy security it brings relies on pits remaining open. Since privatisation opencast mining has expanded at the expense of almost all deep-mines. Thoresby and Kellingley pits now face closure and opencast coal is a major factor in this. Once gone, they are gone for good. UK Coal and similar/associated outfits are property-related companies, not miners.

I'd be very interested to understand which opencast sites in the UK operate throughout the year with anything like full employment; such an assertion is simply untrue.

If someone has retained well paid (their words) temporary employment for 34 years (your words), and is now approaching retirement - then well done to them, and they've no reason to complain now time's up. As for those with less service to the industry - it was always temporary employment and they knew it. That is why there is no such thing as redundancy in the opencast workforce in the normal sense, Contract ends and that's it. Just like for the rest of us...
Like I said before I work all year round on a opencast site and I asked you which part of the year you think the sites close for. There is men on the site I work at that have been in opencasting there whole lives like mr innes. As four the pits they will be shut in 18 months time and like you said once they are its for good
[quote][p][bold]Arthur Brown[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tompa09[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arthur Brown[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tompa09[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arthur Brown[/bold] wrote: Worker David Innes states "They are high paid good jobs...", doubtless he knew this and this is why he took the job. What he also knew but fails to mention is that opencast jobs are only temporary and always have been. Perhaps whilst creating the inevitable misery for those who live next to opencast sites, the workers should have set aside more of this high pay for the inevitable day when the site finished? There is no justification for further opencast mining of coal in the UK at this time as the international price is much lower than the production costs here. Due to shrinking reserves, especially in England, it is also executed far too close to human habitation and on increasingly sensitive sites. Further opencasting also creates significant long-term risks: it is killing the remaining deep-mine industry, it will exhaust all easily accessible coal which might be needed in a future crisis, it is highly destructive to the established environment, it is damaging to local communities, and the lamentable economics mean there is an increasing risk of bankruptcy (as in Scotland) with no cash to properly restore these sites.[/p][/quote]Well Arthur i can tell you Mr David Innes has worked for Uk Coal for 34 year how temporary is that? I think you should check your facts before commenting.[/p][/quote]Interesting, as the small private company UK Coal (in various guises) has only existed since 2001? I suspect you refer to Mr.Innes having perhaps worked on opencast sites for 34 years? If he has been an employee of the NCB/BC/RJB/UKC over the 34 years you refer to, then he has been very lucky (unlike most). And if he has had continuous employment as a "driver" - something I am highly sceptical of (no opencast site operates year round in the UK), there is still no question that opencast work has always been a temporary contract-based activity unless an individual has been one of the very, very few senior management employees of the above bodies. Irrespective of this, I believe all other points I made stand, and that any benefit for Mr. Innes et al is heavily outweighed on both an local and national level for the reasons stated,,,[/p][/quote]How can you argue when you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Where are these deep mines that you mention? Import coal from the likes of Russia you say. Well that's a great idea isn't it. Let's fund the Russians to bomb the Ukraine. Also to say opencasts don't work all year round how stupid are you?[/p][/quote]OK, so we'll stop importing Russian gas as well then shall we, and everything will be OK for everyone? The Russians will do what they want irrespective of UK energy policy - we are pretty small and insignificant customers in the Russian global market. Note also that the vast majority of coal available on the international stage for the foreseeable future is from the USA, Australia, and Colombia - so why focus on Russia? The point is that if we in the UK ever face a real energy shortfall in terms of fossil fuel availability (which we definitely don't right now), how will we address this if it's all dug-up over the next ten years, and for no good reason? Sink a few deep-mines overnight perhaps? I don't think so. I think you need to remember that opencast mining at any scale was an emergency WW2 measure; it hangs around today due to the fact it makes a small few very rich at the expense of both environment, local communities, and long-term energy security. The point is that in a diminishing market, opencast coal competes with the UK's deep-mines. Opencast coal is finite, deep-mine coal less so. Access to deep-mine coal and the energy security it brings relies on pits remaining open. Since privatisation opencast mining has expanded at the expense of almost all deep-mines. Thoresby and Kellingley pits now face closure and opencast coal is a major factor in this. Once gone, they are gone for good. UK Coal and similar/associated outfits are property-related companies, not miners. I'd be very interested to understand which opencast sites in the UK operate throughout the year with anything like full employment; such an assertion is simply untrue. If someone has retained well paid (their words) temporary employment for 34 years (your words), and is now approaching retirement - then well done to them, and they've no reason to complain now time's up. As for those with less service to the industry - it was always temporary employment and they knew it. That is why there is no such thing as redundancy in the opencast workforce in the normal sense, Contract ends and that's it. Just like for the rest of us...[/p][/quote]Like I said before I work all year round on a opencast site and I asked you which part of the year you think the sites close for. There is men on the site I work at that have been in opencasting there whole lives like mr innes. As four the pits they will be shut in 18 months time and like you said once they are its for good honestjohn20
  • Score: 14

6:12pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Arthur Brown says...

honestjohn20 wrote:
Arthur Brown wrote:
Tompa09 wrote:
Arthur Brown wrote:
Tompa09 wrote:
Arthur Brown wrote:
Worker David Innes states "They are high paid good jobs...", doubtless he knew this and this is why he took the job. What he also knew but fails to mention is that opencast jobs are only temporary and always have been. Perhaps whilst creating the inevitable misery for those who live next to opencast sites, the workers should have set aside more of this high pay for the inevitable day when the site finished?

There is no justification for further opencast mining of coal in the UK at this time as the international price is much lower than the production costs here. Due to shrinking reserves, especially in England, it is also executed far too close to human habitation and on increasingly sensitive sites.

Further opencasting also creates significant long-term risks: it is killing the remaining deep-mine industry, it will exhaust all easily accessible coal which might be needed in a future crisis, it is highly destructive to the established environment, it is damaging to local communities, and the lamentable economics mean there is an increasing risk of bankruptcy (as in Scotland) with no cash to properly restore these sites.
Well Arthur i can tell you Mr David Innes has worked for Uk Coal for 34 year how temporary is that? I think you should check your facts before commenting.
Interesting, as the small private company UK Coal (in various guises) has only existed since 2001?

I suspect you refer to Mr.Innes having perhaps worked on opencast sites for 34 years?

If he has been an employee of the NCB/BC/RJB/UKC over the 34 years you refer to, then he has been very lucky (unlike most).

And if he has had continuous employment as a "driver" - something I am highly sceptical of (no opencast site operates year round in the UK), there is still no question that opencast work has always been a temporary contract-based activity unless an individual has been one of the very, very few senior management employees of the above bodies.

Irrespective of this, I believe all other points I made stand, and that any benefit for Mr. Innes et al is heavily outweighed on both an local and national level for the reasons stated,,,
How can you argue when you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Where are these deep mines that you mention? Import coal from the likes of Russia you say. Well that's a great idea isn't it. Let's fund the Russians to bomb the Ukraine. Also to say opencasts don't work all year round how stupid are you?
OK, so we'll stop importing Russian gas as well then shall we, and everything will be OK for everyone?

The Russians will do what they want irrespective of UK energy policy - we are pretty small and insignificant customers in the Russian global market.

Note also that the vast majority of coal available on the international stage for the foreseeable future is from the USA, Australia, and Colombia - so why focus on Russia?

The point is that if we in the UK ever face a real energy shortfall in terms of fossil fuel availability (which we definitely don't right now), how will we address this if it's all dug-up over the next ten years, and for no good reason? Sink a few deep-mines overnight perhaps? I don't think so.

I think you need to remember that opencast mining at any scale was an emergency WW2 measure; it hangs around today due to the fact it makes a small few very rich at the expense of both environment, local communities, and long-term energy security.

The point is that in a diminishing market, opencast coal competes with the UK's deep-mines. Opencast coal is finite, deep-mine coal less so. Access to deep-mine coal and the energy security it brings relies on pits remaining open. Since privatisation opencast mining has expanded at the expense of almost all deep-mines. Thoresby and Kellingley pits now face closure and opencast coal is a major factor in this. Once gone, they are gone for good. UK Coal and similar/associated outfits are property-related companies, not miners.

I'd be very interested to understand which opencast sites in the UK operate throughout the year with anything like full employment; such an assertion is simply untrue.

If someone has retained well paid (their words) temporary employment for 34 years (your words), and is now approaching retirement - then well done to them, and they've no reason to complain now time's up. As for those with less service to the industry - it was always temporary employment and they knew it. That is why there is no such thing as redundancy in the opencast workforce in the normal sense, Contract ends and that's it. Just like for the rest of us...
Like I said before I work all year round on a opencast site and I asked you which part of the year you think the sites close for. There is men on the site I work at that have been in opencasting there whole lives like mr innes. As four the pits they will be shut in 18 months time and like you said once they are its for good
Please address my previous individual questions rather than relying on spurious and unquantified generalisations, e.g. are you, or are you not on a temporary contract that can be ended without notice?

Please also explain why the majority of local people oppose these plans? They are surely not all NIMBYs and incomers?

Do you consider that it is good for the UK's long-term energy security that deep-mines are replaced by short-lived opencast ventures?

Do you recognise that opencast reserves will soon be exhausted?

Can you suggest where coal supplies might come from in a future national emergency?

Is it not the case that the only supporters of opencast mining are those with significant financial interests (personal or corporate) and the rest of us can go hang?
[quote][p][bold]honestjohn20[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arthur Brown[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tompa09[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arthur Brown[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tompa09[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arthur Brown[/bold] wrote: Worker David Innes states "They are high paid good jobs...", doubtless he knew this and this is why he took the job. What he also knew but fails to mention is that opencast jobs are only temporary and always have been. Perhaps whilst creating the inevitable misery for those who live next to opencast sites, the workers should have set aside more of this high pay for the inevitable day when the site finished? There is no justification for further opencast mining of coal in the UK at this time as the international price is much lower than the production costs here. Due to shrinking reserves, especially in England, it is also executed far too close to human habitation and on increasingly sensitive sites. Further opencasting also creates significant long-term risks: it is killing the remaining deep-mine industry, it will exhaust all easily accessible coal which might be needed in a future crisis, it is highly destructive to the established environment, it is damaging to local communities, and the lamentable economics mean there is an increasing risk of bankruptcy (as in Scotland) with no cash to properly restore these sites.[/p][/quote]Well Arthur i can tell you Mr David Innes has worked for Uk Coal for 34 year how temporary is that? I think you should check your facts before commenting.[/p][/quote]Interesting, as the small private company UK Coal (in various guises) has only existed since 2001? I suspect you refer to Mr.Innes having perhaps worked on opencast sites for 34 years? If he has been an employee of the NCB/BC/RJB/UKC over the 34 years you refer to, then he has been very lucky (unlike most). And if he has had continuous employment as a "driver" - something I am highly sceptical of (no opencast site operates year round in the UK), there is still no question that opencast work has always been a temporary contract-based activity unless an individual has been one of the very, very few senior management employees of the above bodies. Irrespective of this, I believe all other points I made stand, and that any benefit for Mr. Innes et al is heavily outweighed on both an local and national level for the reasons stated,,,[/p][/quote]How can you argue when you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Where are these deep mines that you mention? Import coal from the likes of Russia you say. Well that's a great idea isn't it. Let's fund the Russians to bomb the Ukraine. Also to say opencasts don't work all year round how stupid are you?[/p][/quote]OK, so we'll stop importing Russian gas as well then shall we, and everything will be OK for everyone? The Russians will do what they want irrespective of UK energy policy - we are pretty small and insignificant customers in the Russian global market. Note also that the vast majority of coal available on the international stage for the foreseeable future is from the USA, Australia, and Colombia - so why focus on Russia? The point is that if we in the UK ever face a real energy shortfall in terms of fossil fuel availability (which we definitely don't right now), how will we address this if it's all dug-up over the next ten years, and for no good reason? Sink a few deep-mines overnight perhaps? I don't think so. I think you need to remember that opencast mining at any scale was an emergency WW2 measure; it hangs around today due to the fact it makes a small few very rich at the expense of both environment, local communities, and long-term energy security. The point is that in a diminishing market, opencast coal competes with the UK's deep-mines. Opencast coal is finite, deep-mine coal less so. Access to deep-mine coal and the energy security it brings relies on pits remaining open. Since privatisation opencast mining has expanded at the expense of almost all deep-mines. Thoresby and Kellingley pits now face closure and opencast coal is a major factor in this. Once gone, they are gone for good. UK Coal and similar/associated outfits are property-related companies, not miners. I'd be very interested to understand which opencast sites in the UK operate throughout the year with anything like full employment; such an assertion is simply untrue. If someone has retained well paid (their words) temporary employment for 34 years (your words), and is now approaching retirement - then well done to them, and they've no reason to complain now time's up. As for those with less service to the industry - it was always temporary employment and they knew it. That is why there is no such thing as redundancy in the opencast workforce in the normal sense, Contract ends and that's it. Just like for the rest of us...[/p][/quote]Like I said before I work all year round on a opencast site and I asked you which part of the year you think the sites close for. There is men on the site I work at that have been in opencasting there whole lives like mr innes. As four the pits they will be shut in 18 months time and like you said once they are its for good[/p][/quote]Please address my previous individual questions rather than relying on spurious and unquantified generalisations, e.g. are you, or are you not on a temporary contract that can be ended without notice? Please also explain why the majority of local people oppose these plans? They are surely not all NIMBYs and incomers? Do you consider that it is good for the UK's long-term energy security that deep-mines are replaced by short-lived opencast ventures? Do you recognise that opencast reserves will soon be exhausted? Can you suggest where coal supplies might come from in a future national emergency? Is it not the case that the only supporters of opencast mining are those with significant financial interests (personal or corporate) and the rest of us can go hang? Arthur Brown
  • Score: -13

6:14pm Wed 13 Aug 14

honestjohn20 says...

Arthur Brown wrote:
honestjohn20 wrote:
Arthur could I ask you which part of the year opencasts dont work. Just ive been working all year round for the last 4 years on an opencast and cant recall it beimg a seasonal job. Maybe you should at least know some of the facts before you make a fool of yourself
What percentage of claimed employment exists over winter months?

What percentage of claimed employment is retained in the lengthy restoration phase?

What is the percentage of employment from the communities DIRECTLY affected?

Are you on a temporary contract or permanent headcount?

Come on now, shame the devil...
100% of the worforce work through the winter months. I dont understand why you would think they didnt. Im on a permenant contract like the rest of the workforce and im from the local area within 1 mile of the site and 98% of work force are local. You can talk as much rubbish about opencasts as you want thats because thats all it is rubbish. It sounds to me like you hsve just read it from somewhere well im speaking from first hand experience. In a month's time i will be on the dole like alot of other men all because some small minded people want to keep there local dogging spot in the mess that it is. The company would give to the local community, the workforce would spend money in the local area. And can I say one last thing the site was knocked back do to tourism yet not one person who has commented has mentioned that. its all about the environment and the effects opencasting has. Infact I hope all of you who are happy to let men and there families lose there jobs and go on the dole rot in hell
[quote][p][bold]Arthur Brown[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]honestjohn20[/bold] wrote: Arthur could I ask you which part of the year opencasts dont work. Just ive been working all year round for the last 4 years on an opencast and cant recall it beimg a seasonal job. Maybe you should at least know some of the facts before you make a fool of yourself[/p][/quote]What percentage of claimed employment exists over winter months? What percentage of claimed employment is retained in the lengthy restoration phase? What is the percentage of employment from the communities DIRECTLY affected? Are you on a temporary contract or permanent headcount? Come on now, shame the devil...[/p][/quote]100% of the worforce work through the winter months. I dont understand why you would think they didnt. Im on a permenant contract like the rest of the workforce and im from the local area within 1 mile of the site and 98% of work force are local. You can talk as much rubbish about opencasts as you want thats because thats all it is rubbish. It sounds to me like you hsve just read it from somewhere well im speaking from first hand experience. In a month's time i will be on the dole like alot of other men all because some small minded people want to keep there local dogging spot in the mess that it is. The company would give to the local community, the workforce would spend money in the local area. And can I say one last thing the site was knocked back do to tourism yet not one person who has commented has mentioned that. its all about the environment and the effects opencasting has. Infact I hope all of you who are happy to let men and there families lose there jobs and go on the dole rot in hell honestjohn20
  • Score: 28

6:24pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Tompa09 says...

Why should we be reliant on countries thousands of miles away to supply our energy? We should be investing in clean coal and shale gas so we rely on no one. There are millions of tonnes available. You refer to Kellingley and Thoresby. Well those pits would have been shut along time ago if it wasn't for the surface mines pumping money into them. Once again, get your facts correct before you comment about the surface mining industry. All surface mines work 12 months of the year without fail. It's small minded people like yourself ruining a once great country.
Why should we be reliant on countries thousands of miles away to supply our energy? We should be investing in clean coal and shale gas so we rely on no one. There are millions of tonnes available. You refer to Kellingley and Thoresby. Well those pits would have been shut along time ago if it wasn't for the surface mines pumping money into them. Once again, get your facts correct before you comment about the surface mining industry. All surface mines work 12 months of the year without fail. It's small minded people like yourself ruining a once great country. Tompa09
  • Score: 32

6:42pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Arthur Brown says...

So you are an actual permanent employee of UK Coal then? Thought not...

With all your apparent industry experience, I'd still really like you to answer the previous questions posed.

You must live in a really disturbed community whereby a vast majority enjoy "dogging" (whatever that is)? Is this your code-word for democracy?

98% local eh? Along with the remainder of your outburst, this sounds suspiciously like typical industry propaganda. And who is the 2%/third of a man/woman who isn't local?

Nice that as a local person you want to see the majority of your neighbours "rot in hell".

Can't really understand why you still live in such an apparently awful place - your imagery, not mine.

Have some respect for your neighbours views - they're the majority after all. Or perhaps the money is everything?
So you are an actual permanent employee of UK Coal then? Thought not... With all your apparent industry experience, I'd still really like you to answer the previous questions posed. You must live in a really disturbed community whereby a vast majority enjoy "dogging" (whatever that is)? Is this your code-word for democracy? 98% local eh? Along with the remainder of your outburst, this sounds suspiciously like typical industry propaganda. And who is the 2%/third of a man/woman who isn't local? Nice that as a local person you want to see the majority of your neighbours "rot in hell". Can't really understand why you still live in such an apparently awful place - your imagery, not mine. Have some respect for your neighbours views - they're the majority after all. Or perhaps the money is everything? Arthur Brown
  • Score: -46

6:57pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Arthur Brown says...

Tompa09 wrote:
Why should we be reliant on countries thousands of miles away to supply our energy? We should be investing in clean coal and shale gas so we rely on no one. There are millions of tonnes available. You refer to Kellingley and Thoresby. Well those pits would have been shut along time ago if it wasn't for the surface mines pumping money into them. Once again, get your facts correct before you comment about the surface mining industry. All surface mines work 12 months of the year without fail. It's small minded people like yourself ruining a once great country.
We rely on imported coal because it is a global economy, and power generators will buy the cheapest and most secure/suitable supplies. That is why UK's opencast industry is all but bust. That won't change.

Opencast mines have not subsidised any deep-mines since privatisation in 1994.

The two have been competitors in a shrinking market since then.

The reserves still available to opencast mines are now severely limited, and should be retained for emergency purposes.

"All surface mines work 12 months of the year without fail." - utter nonsense, most revert to care and maintenance over the winter months with skeleton staff dispatching stockpiled coal. I should know, we've had them on the doorstep since 1941 to the present day...
[quote][p][bold]Tompa09[/bold] wrote: Why should we be reliant on countries thousands of miles away to supply our energy? We should be investing in clean coal and shale gas so we rely on no one. There are millions of tonnes available. You refer to Kellingley and Thoresby. Well those pits would have been shut along time ago if it wasn't for the surface mines pumping money into them. Once again, get your facts correct before you comment about the surface mining industry. All surface mines work 12 months of the year without fail. It's small minded people like yourself ruining a once great country.[/p][/quote]We rely on imported coal because it is a global economy, and power generators will buy the cheapest and most secure/suitable supplies. That is why UK's opencast industry is all but bust. That won't change. Opencast mines have not subsidised any deep-mines since privatisation in 1994. The two have been competitors in a shrinking market since then. The reserves still available to opencast mines are now severely limited, and should be retained for emergency purposes. "All surface mines work 12 months of the year without fail." - utter nonsense, most revert to care and maintenance over the winter months with skeleton staff dispatching stockpiled coal. I should know, we've had them on the doorstep since 1941 to the present day... Arthur Brown
  • Score: -20

7:19pm Wed 13 Aug 14

honestjohn20 says...

You really are a thick man arnt you arthur. You dont have a clue how the opencast works you can use all the big words and write hundreds of lines of utter rubbish but the fact is opencasts work 12months a year. Let me guess your a pensioner with nothing betterbto do than talk nonsense that you believe to be true. Why would I lie about the fact that I work 12months a year im proud of the fact. Now im going to spend some time with my family now I am home from work which is something you oboviously to care for if you are to reply to this.
You really are a thick man arnt you arthur. You dont have a clue how the opencast works you can use all the big words and write hundreds of lines of utter rubbish but the fact is opencasts work 12months a year. Let me guess your a pensioner with nothing betterbto do than talk nonsense that you believe to be true. Why would I lie about the fact that I work 12months a year im proud of the fact. Now im going to spend some time with my family now I am home from work which is something you oboviously to care for if you are to reply to this. honestjohn20
  • Score: 32

7:46pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Arthur Brown says...

So you're telling me that Park Wall North engages the same number of people throughout the year? Careful here as I might know more than you think...

I'd love to post a more meaningful reply but unfortunately you've now become almost as unintelligible and incoherent as your previous arguments, and those of the opencast industry in general.

A little advice to help your case: address the questions presented, don't simply repeat your boss's rhetoric, and don't resort to insulting other people, especially your neighbours, simply because they have a different opinion...
So you're telling me that Park Wall North engages the same number of people throughout the year? Careful here as I might know more than you think... I'd love to post a more meaningful reply but unfortunately you've now become almost as unintelligible and incoherent as your previous arguments, and those of the opencast industry in general. A little advice to help your case: address the questions presented, don't simply repeat your boss's rhetoric, and don't resort to insulting other people, especially your neighbours, simply because they have a different opinion... Arthur Brown
  • Score: -23

8:30pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Tompa09 says...

Arthur you really do not know what you are talking about. My guess is you're reading stuff off the internet then rewording it to put on here. Let me tell you, 3 of the last 4 remaining deep mines are owned by uk coal. Which have been heavily subsidised by the surface mines for a very long time. If you look carefully on the internet you will find this out for yourself. I don't know where you are getting your information about the surface mines not working twelve months of the year because that is total rubbish. All surface mine workers i have come across over the years are on permanent contacts.
Arthur you really do not know what you are talking about. My guess is you're reading stuff off the internet then rewording it to put on here. Let me tell you, 3 of the last 4 remaining deep mines are owned by uk coal. Which have been heavily subsidised by the surface mines for a very long time. If you look carefully on the internet you will find this out for yourself. I don't know where you are getting your information about the surface mines not working twelve months of the year because that is total rubbish. All surface mine workers i have come across over the years are on permanent contacts. Tompa09
  • Score: 15

8:31pm Wed 13 Aug 14

heavytelf says...

I work at parkwall have for 3 year on full time contract in a few weeks i will be getting my redundancy and i can tell you now all of the work force are employed all year round
I work at parkwall have for 3 year on full time contract in a few weeks i will be getting my redundancy and i can tell you now all of the work force are employed all year round heavytelf
  • Score: 15

9:05pm Wed 13 Aug 14

The Real Honey Monster says...

Arthur Brown wrote:
Tompa09 wrote:
Arthur Brown wrote:
Worker David Innes states "They are high paid good jobs...", doubtless he knew this and this is why he took the job. What he also knew but fails to mention is that opencast jobs are only temporary and always have been. Perhaps whilst creating the inevitable misery for those who live next to opencast sites, the workers should have set aside more of this high pay for the inevitable day when the site finished?

There is no justification for further opencast mining of coal in the UK at this time as the international price is much lower than the production costs here. Due to shrinking reserves, especially in England, it is also executed far too close to human habitation and on increasingly sensitive sites.

Further opencasting also creates significant long-term risks: it is killing the remaining deep-mine industry, it will exhaust all easily accessible coal which might be needed in a future crisis, it is highly destructive to the established environment, it is damaging to local communities, and the lamentable economics mean there is an increasing risk of bankruptcy (as in Scotland) with no cash to properly restore these sites.
Well Arthur i can tell you Mr David Innes has worked for Uk Coal for 34 year how temporary is that? I think you should check your facts before commenting.
Interesting, as the small private company UK Coal (in various guises) has only existed since 2001?

I suspect you refer to Mr.Innes having perhaps worked on opencast sites for 34 years?

If he has been an employee of the NCB/BC/RJB/UKC over the 34 years you refer to, then he has been very lucky (unlike most).

And if he has had continuous employment as a "driver" - something I am highly sceptical of (no opencast site operates year round in the UK), there is still no question that opencast work has always been a temporary contract-based activity unless an individual has been one of the very, very few senior management employees of the above bodies.

Irrespective of this, I believe all other points I made stand, and that any benefit for Mr. Innes et al is heavily outweighed on both an local and national level for the reasons stated,,,
Dear Arthur Brown, My name is David Innes, I would like to inform you Mr Brown, I have held continuous employment since July 1979. This company is currently UK coal but has been known by many names over the years which is no different to many companies today.

Dear Arthur, I am not Management, in fact I am a driver and have been for 35 years, with no gaps in employment including the winter periods. Please note - Arthur that in those 35 years I have never known an opencast site be closed down during the winter. Many of my colleagues have been employed continuously for at least 20 years and also during winter periods.

Dear Arthur, If you wish to dispute that I have worked continuously for 35 years without a break would you care to have a small wager with you and your doubting colleagues to put your money where your mouth is. I am quite willing to cover all bets and happy for proceeds to go to the Bobby Robson foundation. Failing this I would appreciate an unreserved apology on this blog. If the rest of your "facts" are as reliable as what you have written so far this does prove that basically, you are a fool!

Dear Arthur, If you think a four year contract is a short term contract would you please then help the many people who are employed on zero hour contracts with very few rights.

Your Faithfully

David Innes (The Honey Monster)
[quote][p][bold]Arthur Brown[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tompa09[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arthur Brown[/bold] wrote: Worker David Innes states "They are high paid good jobs...", doubtless he knew this and this is why he took the job. What he also knew but fails to mention is that opencast jobs are only temporary and always have been. Perhaps whilst creating the inevitable misery for those who live next to opencast sites, the workers should have set aside more of this high pay for the inevitable day when the site finished? There is no justification for further opencast mining of coal in the UK at this time as the international price is much lower than the production costs here. Due to shrinking reserves, especially in England, it is also executed far too close to human habitation and on increasingly sensitive sites. Further opencasting also creates significant long-term risks: it is killing the remaining deep-mine industry, it will exhaust all easily accessible coal which might be needed in a future crisis, it is highly destructive to the established environment, it is damaging to local communities, and the lamentable economics mean there is an increasing risk of bankruptcy (as in Scotland) with no cash to properly restore these sites.[/p][/quote]Well Arthur i can tell you Mr David Innes has worked for Uk Coal for 34 year how temporary is that? I think you should check your facts before commenting.[/p][/quote]Interesting, as the small private company UK Coal (in various guises) has only existed since 2001? I suspect you refer to Mr.Innes having perhaps worked on opencast sites for 34 years? If he has been an employee of the NCB/BC/RJB/UKC over the 34 years you refer to, then he has been very lucky (unlike most). And if he has had continuous employment as a "driver" - something I am highly sceptical of (no opencast site operates year round in the UK), there is still no question that opencast work has always been a temporary contract-based activity unless an individual has been one of the very, very few senior management employees of the above bodies. Irrespective of this, I believe all other points I made stand, and that any benefit for Mr. Innes et al is heavily outweighed on both an local and national level for the reasons stated,,,[/p][/quote]Dear Arthur Brown, My name is David Innes, I would like to inform you Mr Brown, I have held continuous employment since July 1979. This company is currently UK coal but has been known by many names over the years which is no different to many companies today. Dear Arthur, I am not Management, in fact I am a driver and have been for 35 years, with no gaps in employment including the winter periods. Please note - Arthur that in those 35 years I have never known an opencast site be closed down during the winter. Many of my colleagues have been employed continuously for at least 20 years and also during winter periods. Dear Arthur, If you wish to dispute that I have worked continuously for 35 years without a break would you care to have a small wager with you and your doubting colleagues to put your money where your mouth is. I am quite willing to cover all bets and happy for proceeds to go to the Bobby Robson foundation. Failing this I would appreciate an unreserved apology on this blog. If the rest of your "facts" are as reliable as what you have written so far this does prove that basically, you are a fool! Dear Arthur, If you think a four year contract is a short term contract would you please then help the many people who are employed on zero hour contracts with very few rights. Your Faithfully David Innes (The Honey Monster) The Real Honey Monster
  • Score: 44

9:44pm Wed 13 Aug 14

seftonchase says...

Hello Honey Monster,

Yes, this company has had many names over the years and at least one of these name changes was caused by the parent company, the original UK Coal plc going bust.

When it went bust back in 2013, you began working for a new employer and you and your colleagues have been paid and contributing to the local economy ever since.

However, when that version of UK Coal went bust, it left a pile of debt which has damaged the local economy, with Northumberland County Council being owed just over £621,000 and Durham County Council owed over £181,000 just for starters.

The cost of this bankruptcy to the local economy has to be weighed in the balance of the proposed benefits of working these new sites . That would be only fair don't you think?

Local people should also bear in mind the risk that history may repeat itself. Back in July 2013 the world price of coal was about £60 a tonne when the original UK Coal plc went bust. Now its under £47 per tonne. Under such circumstances, why should local people risk being left with derelict sites if a 2nd bankruptcy occurs with the price of coal being so low. Who then pays for the site restoration?

I'm sure local people don't want a repeat of the ongoing Scottish Mining Restoration Crisis, where two opencast operators went bust last year, leaving up to 34 un-restored sites which may cost the taxpayer up to £200m to restore
Hello Honey Monster, Yes, this company has had many names over the years and at least one of these name changes was caused by the parent company, the original UK Coal plc going bust. When it went bust back in 2013, you began working for a new employer and you and your colleagues have been paid and contributing to the local economy ever since. However, when that version of UK Coal went bust, it left a pile of debt which has damaged the local economy, with Northumberland County Council being owed just over £621,000 and Durham County Council owed over £181,000 just for starters. The cost of this bankruptcy to the local economy has to be weighed in the balance of the proposed benefits of working these new sites . That would be only fair don't you think? Local people should also bear in mind the risk that history may repeat itself. Back in July 2013 the world price of coal was about £60 a tonne when the original UK Coal plc went bust. Now its under £47 per tonne. Under such circumstances, why should local people risk being left with derelict sites if a 2nd bankruptcy occurs with the price of coal being so low. Who then pays for the site restoration? I'm sure local people don't want a repeat of the ongoing Scottish Mining Restoration Crisis, where two opencast operators went bust last year, leaving up to 34 un-restored sites which may cost the taxpayer up to £200m to restore seftonchase
  • Score: -22

6:17am Thu 14 Aug 14

honestjohn20 says...

There would be no risk of an unrestored site. In the plans theres a bond put aside to ensure it is fully restored. Something else you dont know
There would be no risk of an unrestored site. In the plans theres a bond put aside to ensure it is fully restored. Something else you dont know honestjohn20
  • Score: 24

6:18am Thu 14 Aug 14

honestjohn20 says...

Oh and arthur maybe you should look up what dogging is. Ull fond it on the Internet were your getting all your other information from.
Oh and arthur maybe you should look up what dogging is. Ull fond it on the Internet were your getting all your other information from. honestjohn20
  • Score: 22

8:15am Thu 14 Aug 14

seftonchase says...

honestjohn20 wrote:
There would be no risk of an unrestored site. In the plans theres a bond put aside to ensure it is fully restored. Something else you dont know
Ha Ha a Restoration Bond!

This 'bond' is not what it seems. If it were a proper insurance based restoration bond the premium would be paid for by UK Coal and an insurance company would guarantee a lump sum to pay off the cost of restoration. Guess what? Such are the risks of too many companies going bust that no insurance companies are offering to take the risk at any price.

Instead UK Coal offers to set aside a proportion of the monies generated by the sale of the coal so that, in theory, over time, a sum builds up that is equal to the cost of restoring the site in question, should UK Coal go bust.

However the problem is that this is not a watertight scheme. When UK Coal got into financial difficulties earlier this year, they asked Leicestershire County Council if they could be given a 'Period of Grace' in which to sort out their financial problems. This included not paying the next tranch of money, £400,000 on the restoration bond for the Minorca site. This 'payments holiday' request was granted, mainly to ensure that employment was maintained.

So at the very time of greatest risk that UK will go bankrupt again (and the risk is still there) the Company asks to be excused making payments for the restoration bond which is meant to ensure that the site gets restored. It seems the promise to provide a restoration bond may not be worth the paper it is written on

I think, honestjohn20, you did not know about this issue
[quote][p][bold]honestjohn20[/bold] wrote: There would be no risk of an unrestored site. In the plans theres a bond put aside to ensure it is fully restored. Something else you dont know[/p][/quote]Ha Ha a Restoration Bond! This 'bond' is not what it seems. If it were a proper insurance based restoration bond the premium would be paid for by UK Coal and an insurance company would guarantee a lump sum to pay off the cost of restoration. Guess what? Such are the risks of too many companies going bust that no insurance companies are offering to take the risk at any price. Instead UK Coal offers to set aside a proportion of the monies generated by the sale of the coal so that, in theory, over time, a sum builds up that is equal to the cost of restoring the site in question, should UK Coal go bust. However the problem is that this is not a watertight scheme. When UK Coal got into financial difficulties earlier this year, they asked Leicestershire County Council if they could be given a 'Period of Grace' in which to sort out their financial problems. This included not paying the next tranch of money, £400,000 on the restoration bond for the Minorca site. This 'payments holiday' request was granted, mainly to ensure that employment was maintained. So at the very time of greatest risk that UK will go bankrupt again (and the risk is still there) the Company asks to be excused making payments for the restoration bond which is meant to ensure that the site gets restored. It seems the promise to provide a restoration bond may not be worth the paper it is written on I think, honestjohn20, you did not know about this issue seftonchase
  • Score: -27

8:43am Thu 14 Aug 14

Tompa09 says...

seftonchase wrote:
honestjohn20 wrote:
There would be no risk of an unrestored site. In the plans theres a bond put aside to ensure it is fully restored. Something else you dont know
Ha Ha a Restoration Bond!

This 'bond' is not what it seems. If it were a proper insurance based restoration bond the premium would be paid for by UK Coal and an insurance company would guarantee a lump sum to pay off the cost of restoration. Guess what? Such are the risks of too many companies going bust that no insurance companies are offering to take the risk at any price.

Instead UK Coal offers to set aside a proportion of the monies generated by the sale of the coal so that, in theory, over time, a sum builds up that is equal to the cost of restoring the site in question, should UK Coal go bust.

However the problem is that this is not a watertight scheme. When UK Coal got into financial difficulties earlier this year, they asked Leicestershire County Council if they could be given a 'Period of Grace' in which to sort out their financial problems. This included not paying the next tranch of money, £400,000 on the restoration bond for the Minorca site. This 'payments holiday' request was granted, mainly to ensure that employment was maintained.

So at the very time of greatest risk that UK will go bankrupt again (and the risk is still there) the Company asks to be excused making payments for the restoration bond which is meant to ensure that the site gets restored. It seems the promise to provide a restoration bond may not be worth the paper it is written on

I think, honestjohn20, you did not know about this issue
I think you are getting away from the story. Marley Hill site was rejected due to the effect it would have on tourism yet this has not received one mention in any of the comments. Most of you, especially Arthur Brown are anti opencast. Simple as that.
[quote][p][bold]seftonchase[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]honestjohn20[/bold] wrote: There would be no risk of an unrestored site. In the plans theres a bond put aside to ensure it is fully restored. Something else you dont know[/p][/quote]Ha Ha a Restoration Bond! This 'bond' is not what it seems. If it were a proper insurance based restoration bond the premium would be paid for by UK Coal and an insurance company would guarantee a lump sum to pay off the cost of restoration. Guess what? Such are the risks of too many companies going bust that no insurance companies are offering to take the risk at any price. Instead UK Coal offers to set aside a proportion of the monies generated by the sale of the coal so that, in theory, over time, a sum builds up that is equal to the cost of restoring the site in question, should UK Coal go bust. However the problem is that this is not a watertight scheme. When UK Coal got into financial difficulties earlier this year, they asked Leicestershire County Council if they could be given a 'Period of Grace' in which to sort out their financial problems. This included not paying the next tranch of money, £400,000 on the restoration bond for the Minorca site. This 'payments holiday' request was granted, mainly to ensure that employment was maintained. So at the very time of greatest risk that UK will go bankrupt again (and the risk is still there) the Company asks to be excused making payments for the restoration bond which is meant to ensure that the site gets restored. It seems the promise to provide a restoration bond may not be worth the paper it is written on I think, honestjohn20, you did not know about this issue[/p][/quote]I think you are getting away from the story. Marley Hill site was rejected due to the effect it would have on tourism yet this has not received one mention in any of the comments. Most of you, especially Arthur Brown are anti opencast. Simple as that. Tompa09
  • Score: 30

5:49pm Thu 14 Aug 14

settheworldonfire says...

honestjohn20 wrote:
Arthur Brown wrote:
honestjohn20 wrote:
Arthur could I ask you which part of the year opencasts dont work. Just ive been working all year round for the last 4 years on an opencast and cant recall it beimg a seasonal job. Maybe you should at least know some of the facts before you make a fool of yourself
What percentage of claimed employment exists over winter months?

What percentage of claimed employment is retained in the lengthy restoration phase?

What is the percentage of employment from the communities DIRECTLY affected?

Are you on a temporary contract or permanent headcount?

Come on now, shame the devil...
100% of the worforce work through the winter months. I dont understand why you would think they didnt. Im on a permenant contract like the rest of the workforce and im from the local area within 1 mile of the site and 98% of work force are local. You can talk as much rubbish about opencasts as you want thats because thats all it is rubbish. It sounds to me like you hsve just read it from somewhere well im speaking from first hand experience. In a month's time i will be on the dole like alot of other men all because some small minded people want to keep there local dogging spot in the mess that it is. The company would give to the local community, the workforce would spend money in the local area. And can I say one last thing the site was knocked back do to tourism yet not one person who has commented has mentioned that. its all about the environment and the effects opencasting has. Infact I hope all of you who are happy to let men and there families lose there jobs and go on the dole rot in hell
Well said.....D.C.C. need their **** kicking....Take a look at the opencast which is near completion.....What a difference to what it was.....The people in Sunniside given new gas supplies and other benefits to the community...Please appeal this ridiculous decision...The government will back it.....The people who do not want this must be stupid and narrow minded .....Plus the usual NIMBY residents...I live at Crook and have friends who live very close to the opencast that is closing...It looks amazing now near completion....Plus there was no noise pollution, dust pollution, in FACT NO POLLUTION AT ALL.......Get a grip of reality D.C.C.
[quote][p][bold]honestjohn20[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arthur Brown[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]honestjohn20[/bold] wrote: Arthur could I ask you which part of the year opencasts dont work. Just ive been working all year round for the last 4 years on an opencast and cant recall it beimg a seasonal job. Maybe you should at least know some of the facts before you make a fool of yourself[/p][/quote]What percentage of claimed employment exists over winter months? What percentage of claimed employment is retained in the lengthy restoration phase? What is the percentage of employment from the communities DIRECTLY affected? Are you on a temporary contract or permanent headcount? Come on now, shame the devil...[/p][/quote]100% of the worforce work through the winter months. I dont understand why you would think they didnt. Im on a permenant contract like the rest of the workforce and im from the local area within 1 mile of the site and 98% of work force are local. You can talk as much rubbish about opencasts as you want thats because thats all it is rubbish. It sounds to me like you hsve just read it from somewhere well im speaking from first hand experience. In a month's time i will be on the dole like alot of other men all because some small minded people want to keep there local dogging spot in the mess that it is. The company would give to the local community, the workforce would spend money in the local area. And can I say one last thing the site was knocked back do to tourism yet not one person who has commented has mentioned that. its all about the environment and the effects opencasting has. Infact I hope all of you who are happy to let men and there families lose there jobs and go on the dole rot in hell[/p][/quote]Well said.....D.C.C. need their **** kicking....Take a look at the opencast which is near completion.....What a difference to what it was.....The people in Sunniside given new gas supplies and other benefits to the community...Please appeal this ridiculous decision...The government will back it.....The people who do not want this must be stupid and narrow minded .....Plus the usual NIMBY residents...I live at Crook and have friends who live very close to the opencast that is closing...It looks amazing now near completion....Plus there was no noise pollution, dust pollution, in FACT NO POLLUTION AT ALL.......Get a grip of reality D.C.C. settheworldonfire
  • Score: 31

9:36pm Thu 14 Aug 14

Tompa09 says...

settheworldonfire wrote:
honestjohn20 wrote:
Arthur Brown wrote:
honestjohn20 wrote:
Arthur could I ask you which part of the year opencasts dont work. Just ive been working all year round for the last 4 years on an opencast and cant recall it beimg a seasonal job. Maybe you should at least know some of the facts before you make a fool of yourself
What percentage of claimed employment exists over winter months?

What percentage of claimed employment is retained in the lengthy restoration phase?

What is the percentage of employment from the communities DIRECTLY affected?

Are you on a temporary contract or permanent headcount?

Come on now, shame the devil...
100% of the worforce work through the winter months. I dont understand why you would think they didnt. Im on a permenant contract like the rest of the workforce and im from the local area within 1 mile of the site and 98% of work force are local. You can talk as much rubbish about opencasts as you want thats because thats all it is rubbish. It sounds to me like you hsve just read it from somewhere well im speaking from first hand experience. In a month's time i will be on the dole like alot of other men all because some small minded people want to keep there local dogging spot in the mess that it is. The company would give to the local community, the workforce would spend money in the local area. And can I say one last thing the site was knocked back do to tourism yet not one person who has commented has mentioned that. its all about the environment and the effects opencasting has. Infact I hope all of you who are happy to let men and there families lose there jobs and go on the dole rot in hell
Well said.....D.C.C. need their **** kicking....Take a look at the opencast which is near completion.....What a difference to what it was.....The people in Sunniside given new gas supplies and other benefits to the community...Please appeal this ridiculous decision...The government will back it.....The people who do not want this must be stupid and narrow minded .....Plus the usual NIMBY residents...I live at Crook and have friends who live very close to the opencast that is closing...It looks amazing now near completion....Plus there was no noise pollution, dust pollution, in FACT NO POLLUTION AT ALL.......Get a grip of reality D.C.C.
Thank you. Finally someone with a bit of common sense.
[quote][p][bold]settheworldonfire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]honestjohn20[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arthur Brown[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]honestjohn20[/bold] wrote: Arthur could I ask you which part of the year opencasts dont work. Just ive been working all year round for the last 4 years on an opencast and cant recall it beimg a seasonal job. Maybe you should at least know some of the facts before you make a fool of yourself[/p][/quote]What percentage of claimed employment exists over winter months? What percentage of claimed employment is retained in the lengthy restoration phase? What is the percentage of employment from the communities DIRECTLY affected? Are you on a temporary contract or permanent headcount? Come on now, shame the devil...[/p][/quote]100% of the worforce work through the winter months. I dont understand why you would think they didnt. Im on a permenant contract like the rest of the workforce and im from the local area within 1 mile of the site and 98% of work force are local. You can talk as much rubbish about opencasts as you want thats because thats all it is rubbish. It sounds to me like you hsve just read it from somewhere well im speaking from first hand experience. In a month's time i will be on the dole like alot of other men all because some small minded people want to keep there local dogging spot in the mess that it is. The company would give to the local community, the workforce would spend money in the local area. And can I say one last thing the site was knocked back do to tourism yet not one person who has commented has mentioned that. its all about the environment and the effects opencasting has. Infact I hope all of you who are happy to let men and there families lose there jobs and go on the dole rot in hell[/p][/quote]Well said.....D.C.C. need their **** kicking....Take a look at the opencast which is near completion.....What a difference to what it was.....The people in Sunniside given new gas supplies and other benefits to the community...Please appeal this ridiculous decision...The government will back it.....The people who do not want this must be stupid and narrow minded .....Plus the usual NIMBY residents...I live at Crook and have friends who live very close to the opencast that is closing...It looks amazing now near completion....Plus there was no noise pollution, dust pollution, in FACT NO POLLUTION AT ALL.......Get a grip of reality D.C.C.[/p][/quote]Thank you. Finally someone with a bit of common sense. Tompa09
  • Score: 21

9:50am Fri 15 Aug 14

seftonchase says...

Tompa09 wrote:
seftonchase wrote:
honestjohn20 wrote:
There would be no risk of an unrestored site. In the plans theres a bond put aside to ensure it is fully restored. Something else you dont know
Ha Ha a Restoration Bond!

This 'bond' is not what it seems. If it were a proper insurance based restoration bond the premium would be paid for by UK Coal and an insurance company would guarantee a lump sum to pay off the cost of restoration. Guess what? Such are the risks of too many companies going bust that no insurance companies are offering to take the risk at any price.

Instead UK Coal offers to set aside a proportion of the monies generated by the sale of the coal so that, in theory, over time, a sum builds up that is equal to the cost of restoring the site in question, should UK Coal go bust.

However the problem is that this is not a watertight scheme. When UK Coal got into financial difficulties earlier this year, they asked Leicestershire County Council if they could be given a 'Period of Grace' in which to sort out their financial problems. This included not paying the next tranch of money, £400,000 on the restoration bond for the Minorca site. This 'payments holiday' request was granted, mainly to ensure that employment was maintained.

So at the very time of greatest risk that UK will go bankrupt again (and the risk is still there) the Company asks to be excused making payments for the restoration bond which is meant to ensure that the site gets restored. It seems the promise to provide a restoration bond may not be worth the paper it is written on

I think, honestjohn20, you did not know about this issue
I think you are getting away from the story. Marley Hill site was rejected due to the effect it would have on tourism yet this has not received one mention in any of the comments. Most of you, especially Arthur Brown are anti opencast. Simple as that.
I'm afraid the issue of guaranteeing that the site be restored, if UK Coal go bust for a second time in two years, is an issue that can't be ignored. If UK Coal get into financial trouble again they will ask for a payments holiday and no more contributions will be put into any of the restoration bonds.

The degree of risk that this will happen applies to all three sites mentioned in the news story, Bradley, Hoodsclose and Marley Hill. It can't be shunted on one side and ignored.

As for the issue of 'restoring' Marley Hill, 366 local people signed a petition objecting to the plan - they apparently like it as it is.
[quote][p][bold]Tompa09[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]seftonchase[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]honestjohn20[/bold] wrote: There would be no risk of an unrestored site. In the plans theres a bond put aside to ensure it is fully restored. Something else you dont know[/p][/quote]Ha Ha a Restoration Bond! This 'bond' is not what it seems. If it were a proper insurance based restoration bond the premium would be paid for by UK Coal and an insurance company would guarantee a lump sum to pay off the cost of restoration. Guess what? Such are the risks of too many companies going bust that no insurance companies are offering to take the risk at any price. Instead UK Coal offers to set aside a proportion of the monies generated by the sale of the coal so that, in theory, over time, a sum builds up that is equal to the cost of restoring the site in question, should UK Coal go bust. However the problem is that this is not a watertight scheme. When UK Coal got into financial difficulties earlier this year, they asked Leicestershire County Council if they could be given a 'Period of Grace' in which to sort out their financial problems. This included not paying the next tranch of money, £400,000 on the restoration bond for the Minorca site. This 'payments holiday' request was granted, mainly to ensure that employment was maintained. So at the very time of greatest risk that UK will go bankrupt again (and the risk is still there) the Company asks to be excused making payments for the restoration bond which is meant to ensure that the site gets restored. It seems the promise to provide a restoration bond may not be worth the paper it is written on I think, honestjohn20, you did not know about this issue[/p][/quote]I think you are getting away from the story. Marley Hill site was rejected due to the effect it would have on tourism yet this has not received one mention in any of the comments. Most of you, especially Arthur Brown are anti opencast. Simple as that.[/p][/quote]I'm afraid the issue of guaranteeing that the site be restored, if UK Coal go bust for a second time in two years, is an issue that can't be ignored. If UK Coal get into financial trouble again they will ask for a payments holiday and no more contributions will be put into any of the restoration bonds. The degree of risk that this will happen applies to all three sites mentioned in the news story, Bradley, Hoodsclose and Marley Hill. It can't be shunted on one side and ignored. As for the issue of 'restoring' Marley Hill, 366 local people signed a petition objecting to the plan - they apparently like it as it is. seftonchase
  • Score: -32

10:05am Fri 15 Aug 14

seftonchase says...

One reason why UK Coal employees are facing redundancy is over how UK Coal miss-managed the previous application for the Hoodsclose site. This was due to have been decided on in June this year - but SEVEN DAYS before Nothhumberland County Council were due to make a decision on this application, UK Coal withdrew their application and no reason was given.

I know there are a lot of UK Coal workers who are facing redundancy. Has the company they work had the courtesy to explained to their workforce why, after pursuing this application since c 2009, they withdrew it at the last minute?

I can sense the anger and despair they must be feeling, but surely some of this should be directed at an employer who so mishandles the application process and not solely directed at people, like me who, do work to oppose such applications and don't just rely on 'common sense' but voice good solid reasons why opencast mining, in an age when the coal industry is is decline, is too risky a business to be allowed to continue.
One reason why UK Coal employees are facing redundancy is over how UK Coal miss-managed the previous application for the Hoodsclose site. This was due to have been decided on in June this year - but SEVEN DAYS before Nothhumberland County Council were due to make a decision on this application, UK Coal withdrew their application and no reason was given. I know there are a lot of UK Coal workers who are facing redundancy. Has the company they work had the courtesy to explained to their workforce why, after pursuing this application since c 2009, they withdrew it at the last minute? I can sense the anger and despair they must be feeling, but surely some of this should be directed at an employer who so mishandles the application process and not solely directed at people, like me who, do work to oppose such applications and don't just rely on 'common sense' but voice good solid reasons why opencast mining, in an age when the coal industry is is decline, is too risky a business to be allowed to continue. seftonchase
  • Score: -37

11:01am Fri 15 Aug 14

Tompa09 says...

Seftonchase how ignorant are you? You can bang on about Uk Coal and they're financial position as much as you like but the Marley Hill job was not rejected because of that. It was rejected because of the effect the site would have on TOURISM. I repeat TOURISM. I doubt the fact you have even been to the area. All you want to do in your sad little life is sit behind your computer screen and repeat stuff that you read off the internet in the hope of getting opencasts stopped and hard working families in the dole.
Seftonchase how ignorant are you? You can bang on about Uk Coal and they're financial position as much as you like but the Marley Hill job was not rejected because of that. It was rejected because of the effect the site would have on TOURISM. I repeat TOURISM. I doubt the fact you have even been to the area. All you want to do in your sad little life is sit behind your computer screen and repeat stuff that you read off the internet in the hope of getting opencasts stopped and hard working families in the dole. Tompa09
  • Score: 31

1:18pm Fri 15 Aug 14

Yorkers says...

seftonchase wrote:
One reason why UK Coal employees are facing redundancy is over how UK Coal miss-managed the previous application for the Hoodsclose site. This was due to have been decided on in June this year - but SEVEN DAYS before Nothhumberland County Council were due to make a decision on this application, UK Coal withdrew their application and no reason was given.

I know there are a lot of UK Coal workers who are facing redundancy. Has the company they work had the courtesy to explained to their workforce why, after pursuing this application since c 2009, they withdrew it at the last minute?

I can sense the anger and despair they must be feeling, but surely some of this should be directed at an employer who so mishandles the application process and not solely directed at people, like me who, do work to oppose such applications and don't just rely on 'common sense' but voice good solid reasons why opencast mining, in an age when the coal industry is is decline, is too risky a business to be allowed to continue.
Sefton,

The problem with your position is that it amounts to an in principle opposition to any proposal for opencast mining, under any circumstances.

Marley Hill was a massive decontamination and clean up operation of a contaminated, derelict and partly brownfield site. It had huge restoration benefits and was supported by Gateshead Council and Tanfield Railway.

Coal is still essential to the electricity supply and will be for some time yet - you will be using it for years to come, just like the rest of us. What is wrong with mining it in the UK when and where it can be done so in an environmentally acceptable fashion?

For you this planning application was an academic exercise, a matter of interest, but for an awful lot of men this was their jobs, their livelihoods were at stake.

What do you do for a living? How would you feel if people from the other end of the country suddenly deemed it "no longer needed" and actively campaigned to put an end to it?
[quote][p][bold]seftonchase[/bold] wrote: One reason why UK Coal employees are facing redundancy is over how UK Coal miss-managed the previous application for the Hoodsclose site. This was due to have been decided on in June this year - but SEVEN DAYS before Nothhumberland County Council were due to make a decision on this application, UK Coal withdrew their application and no reason was given. I know there are a lot of UK Coal workers who are facing redundancy. Has the company they work had the courtesy to explained to their workforce why, after pursuing this application since c 2009, they withdrew it at the last minute? I can sense the anger and despair they must be feeling, but surely some of this should be directed at an employer who so mishandles the application process and not solely directed at people, like me who, do work to oppose such applications and don't just rely on 'common sense' but voice good solid reasons why opencast mining, in an age when the coal industry is is decline, is too risky a business to be allowed to continue.[/p][/quote]Sefton, The problem with your position is that it amounts to an in principle opposition to any proposal for opencast mining, under any circumstances. Marley Hill was a massive decontamination and clean up operation of a contaminated, derelict and partly brownfield site. It had huge restoration benefits and was supported by Gateshead Council and Tanfield Railway. Coal is still essential to the electricity supply and will be for some time yet - you will be using it for years to come, just like the rest of us. What is wrong with mining it in the UK when and where it can be done so in an environmentally acceptable fashion? For you this planning application was an academic exercise, a matter of interest, but for an awful lot of men this was their jobs, their livelihoods were at stake. What do you do for a living? How would you feel if people from the other end of the country suddenly deemed it "no longer needed" and actively campaigned to put an end to it? Yorkers
  • Score: 10

1:28pm Fri 15 Aug 14

seftonchase says...

Yorkers wrote:
seftonchase wrote:
One reason why UK Coal employees are facing redundancy is over how UK Coal miss-managed the previous application for the Hoodsclose site. This was due to have been decided on in June this year - but SEVEN DAYS before Nothhumberland County Council were due to make a decision on this application, UK Coal withdrew their application and no reason was given.

I know there are a lot of UK Coal workers who are facing redundancy. Has the company they work had the courtesy to explained to their workforce why, after pursuing this application since c 2009, they withdrew it at the last minute?

I can sense the anger and despair they must be feeling, but surely some of this should be directed at an employer who so mishandles the application process and not solely directed at people, like me who, do work to oppose such applications and don't just rely on 'common sense' but voice good solid reasons why opencast mining, in an age when the coal industry is is decline, is too risky a business to be allowed to continue.
Sefton,

The problem with your position is that it amounts to an in principle opposition to any proposal for opencast mining, under any circumstances.

Marley Hill was a massive decontamination and clean up operation of a contaminated, derelict and partly brownfield site. It had huge restoration benefits and was supported by Gateshead Council and Tanfield Railway.

Coal is still essential to the electricity supply and will be for some time yet - you will be using it for years to come, just like the rest of us. What is wrong with mining it in the UK when and where it can be done so in an environmentally acceptable fashion?

For you this planning application was an academic exercise, a matter of interest, but for an awful lot of men this was their jobs, their livelihoods were at stake.

What do you do for a living? How would you feel if people from the other end of the country suddenly deemed it "no longer needed" and actively campaigned to put an end to it?
What about the restoration bond issue then?
[quote][p][bold]Yorkers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]seftonchase[/bold] wrote: One reason why UK Coal employees are facing redundancy is over how UK Coal miss-managed the previous application for the Hoodsclose site. This was due to have been decided on in June this year - but SEVEN DAYS before Nothhumberland County Council were due to make a decision on this application, UK Coal withdrew their application and no reason was given. I know there are a lot of UK Coal workers who are facing redundancy. Has the company they work had the courtesy to explained to their workforce why, after pursuing this application since c 2009, they withdrew it at the last minute? I can sense the anger and despair they must be feeling, but surely some of this should be directed at an employer who so mishandles the application process and not solely directed at people, like me who, do work to oppose such applications and don't just rely on 'common sense' but voice good solid reasons why opencast mining, in an age when the coal industry is is decline, is too risky a business to be allowed to continue.[/p][/quote]Sefton, The problem with your position is that it amounts to an in principle opposition to any proposal for opencast mining, under any circumstances. Marley Hill was a massive decontamination and clean up operation of a contaminated, derelict and partly brownfield site. It had huge restoration benefits and was supported by Gateshead Council and Tanfield Railway. Coal is still essential to the electricity supply and will be for some time yet - you will be using it for years to come, just like the rest of us. What is wrong with mining it in the UK when and where it can be done so in an environmentally acceptable fashion? For you this planning application was an academic exercise, a matter of interest, but for an awful lot of men this was their jobs, their livelihoods were at stake. What do you do for a living? How would you feel if people from the other end of the country suddenly deemed it "no longer needed" and actively campaigned to put an end to it?[/p][/quote]What about the restoration bond issue then? seftonchase
  • Score: -3

1:51pm Fri 15 Aug 14

Yorkers says...

I agree that there need to be proper guarantees in place to make sure that the site gets restored.

In this case not one but two Councils were happy with what was proposed to ensure this - and you can be certain that after what happened in Scotland they will have had a very close look indeed at this issue.

Unless you know more, this seems good enough to me?

Come on fair's fair - you should answer the points that I have made.
I agree that there need to be proper guarantees in place to make sure that the site gets restored. In this case not one but two Councils were happy with what was proposed to ensure this - and you can be certain that after what happened in Scotland they will have had a very close look indeed at this issue. Unless you know more, this seems good enough to me? Come on fair's fair - you should answer the points that I have made. Yorkers
  • Score: 6

3:52pm Fri 15 Aug 14

seftonchase says...

Yorkers wrote:
I agree that there need to be proper guarantees in place to make sure that the site gets restored.

In this case not one but two Councils were happy with what was proposed to ensure this - and you can be certain that after what happened in Scotland they will have had a very close look indeed at this issue.

Unless you know more, this seems good enough to me?

Come on fair's fair - you should answer the points that I have made.
OK Yorkers, you say fairs fair - whats 'fair' about the current planning system then in England when compared to Scotland and Wales which operate a 500m buffer zone, whereas in England no minimum distance is laid down in planning policy and Durham County Council seems to be the only one operating a 200m buffer zone. Whats 'fair' about that?

In any of these countries the applicant has more rights than any objector? Whats fair about that?

Back to more specific issues

How much of the proposed Marley Hill site was actually classified as greenfield land? You are keen to empahise the area to be 'clean up' but don't mention whether greenfield land is goining to be used

Just because two Councils were happy with the restoration bond proposals, the experience reported here by me on what happened in Leicestershire still stands. It proves that were permission to be granted that Councils would lean over backwards to maintain employment, even at the risk of not having the site restored, unless of course the actual landowner would pick up the tab without question.

As to your other points:

Yes I don't think that opencasting for coal in this country is necessary. Firstly this does not mean that the arguments put forwards by myself and other should be dismissed out of hand. We do have reasons, some of which have been addressed in these posting but not adequately answered

So if you are so confident about coal's future for power generation purpose, how many coal fired power stations do you expect to be operating by 2022? any more than 2?

Is it true that we do need to import coal anyway because of imported coals lower sulphur content than UK Coal to enable power stations to meet new pollution limits?

Who says that for me this is just a planning exercise just for academic interest. I do tak that as some kind of compliment - but my interest in this issue is more deeply rooted than that.

How would you feel if out of the blue one day you disciver that a company wants to have a working opencast mine (which I've now got) withing 500m of where I live, which I hear almost every day, has disfigured the landscape. In addition the operator needs to be monitored closely, or else they get away with not paying their contributions to a restoration bond.

Answers please
[quote][p][bold]Yorkers[/bold] wrote: I agree that there need to be proper guarantees in place to make sure that the site gets restored. In this case not one but two Councils were happy with what was proposed to ensure this - and you can be certain that after what happened in Scotland they will have had a very close look indeed at this issue. Unless you know more, this seems good enough to me? Come on fair's fair - you should answer the points that I have made.[/p][/quote]OK Yorkers, you say fairs fair - whats 'fair' about the current planning system then in England when compared to Scotland and Wales which operate a 500m buffer zone, whereas in England no minimum distance is laid down in planning policy and Durham County Council seems to be the only one operating a 200m buffer zone. Whats 'fair' about that? In any of these countries the applicant has more rights than any objector? Whats fair about that? Back to more specific issues How much of the proposed Marley Hill site was actually classified as greenfield land? You are keen to empahise the area to be 'clean up' but don't mention whether greenfield land is goining to be used Just because two Councils were happy with the restoration bond proposals, the experience reported here by me on what happened in Leicestershire still stands. It proves that were permission to be granted that Councils would lean over backwards to maintain employment, even at the risk of not having the site restored, unless of course the actual landowner would pick up the tab without question. As to your other points: Yes I don't think that opencasting for coal in this country is necessary. Firstly this does not mean that the arguments put forwards by myself and other should be dismissed out of hand. We do have reasons, some of which have been addressed in these posting but not adequately answered So if you are so confident about coal's future for power generation purpose, how many coal fired power stations do you expect to be operating by 2022? any more than 2? Is it true that we do need to import coal anyway because of imported coals lower sulphur content than UK Coal to enable power stations to meet new pollution limits? Who says that for me this is just a planning exercise just for academic interest. I do tak that as some kind of compliment - but my interest in this issue is more deeply rooted than that. How would you feel if out of the blue one day you disciver that a company wants to have a working opencast mine (which I've now got) withing 500m of where I live, which I hear almost every day, has disfigured the landscape. In addition the operator needs to be monitored closely, or else they get away with not paying their contributions to a restoration bond. Answers please seftonchase
  • Score: -2

5:13pm Fri 15 Aug 14

seftonchase says...

seftonchase wrote:
Yorkers wrote:
I agree that there need to be proper guarantees in place to make sure that the site gets restored.

In this case not one but two Councils were happy with what was proposed to ensure this - and you can be certain that after what happened in Scotland they will have had a very close look indeed at this issue.

Unless you know more, this seems good enough to me?

Come on fair's fair - you should answer the points that I have made.
OK Yorkers, you say fairs fair - whats 'fair' about the current planning system then in England when compared to Scotland and Wales which operate a 500m buffer zone, whereas in England no minimum distance is laid down in planning policy and Durham County Council seems to be the only one operating a 200m buffer zone. Whats 'fair' about that?

In any of these countries the applicant has more rights than any objector? Whats fair about that?

Back to more specific issues

How much of the proposed Marley Hill site was actually classified as greenfield land? You are keen to empahise the area to be 'clean up' but don't mention whether greenfield land is goining to be used

Just because two Councils were happy with the restoration bond proposals, the experience reported here by me on what happened in Leicestershire still stands. It proves that were permission to be granted that Councils would lean over backwards to maintain employment, even at the risk of not having the site restored, unless of course the actual landowner would pick up the tab without question.

As to your other points:

Yes I don't think that opencasting for coal in this country is necessary. Firstly this does not mean that the arguments put forwards by myself and other should be dismissed out of hand. We do have reasons, some of which have been addressed in these posting but not adequately answered

So if you are so confident about coal's future for power generation purpose, how many coal fired power stations do you expect to be operating by 2022? any more than 2?

Is it true that we do need to import coal anyway because of imported coals lower sulphur content than UK Coal to enable power stations to meet new pollution limits?

Who says that for me this is just a planning exercise just for academic interest. I do tak that as some kind of compliment - but my interest in this issue is more deeply rooted than that.

How would you feel if out of the blue one day you disciver that a company wants to have a working opencast mine (which I've now got) withing 500m of where I live, which I hear almost every day, has disfigured the landscape. In addition the operator needs to be monitored closely, or else they get away with not paying their contributions to a restoration bond.

Answers please
Sorry for the spelling error - it should be discover not disciver in the 2nd to last sentence!
[quote][p][bold]seftonchase[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Yorkers[/bold] wrote: I agree that there need to be proper guarantees in place to make sure that the site gets restored. In this case not one but two Councils were happy with what was proposed to ensure this - and you can be certain that after what happened in Scotland they will have had a very close look indeed at this issue. Unless you know more, this seems good enough to me? Come on fair's fair - you should answer the points that I have made.[/p][/quote]OK Yorkers, you say fairs fair - whats 'fair' about the current planning system then in England when compared to Scotland and Wales which operate a 500m buffer zone, whereas in England no minimum distance is laid down in planning policy and Durham County Council seems to be the only one operating a 200m buffer zone. Whats 'fair' about that? In any of these countries the applicant has more rights than any objector? Whats fair about that? Back to more specific issues How much of the proposed Marley Hill site was actually classified as greenfield land? You are keen to empahise the area to be 'clean up' but don't mention whether greenfield land is goining to be used Just because two Councils were happy with the restoration bond proposals, the experience reported here by me on what happened in Leicestershire still stands. It proves that were permission to be granted that Councils would lean over backwards to maintain employment, even at the risk of not having the site restored, unless of course the actual landowner would pick up the tab without question. As to your other points: Yes I don't think that opencasting for coal in this country is necessary. Firstly this does not mean that the arguments put forwards by myself and other should be dismissed out of hand. We do have reasons, some of which have been addressed in these posting but not adequately answered So if you are so confident about coal's future for power generation purpose, how many coal fired power stations do you expect to be operating by 2022? any more than 2? Is it true that we do need to import coal anyway because of imported coals lower sulphur content than UK Coal to enable power stations to meet new pollution limits? Who says that for me this is just a planning exercise just for academic interest. I do tak that as some kind of compliment - but my interest in this issue is more deeply rooted than that. How would you feel if out of the blue one day you disciver that a company wants to have a working opencast mine (which I've now got) withing 500m of where I live, which I hear almost every day, has disfigured the landscape. In addition the operator needs to be monitored closely, or else they get away with not paying their contributions to a restoration bond. Answers please[/p][/quote]Sorry for the spelling error - it should be discover not disciver in the 2nd to last sentence! seftonchase
  • Score: -1

5:30pm Fri 15 Aug 14

Tompa09 says...

Stephen you're off the point again. It has nothing to do with UK Coal or any other mining company the laws on planning. You take that up with David Cameron. Just because you're bitter about having a mine on your door step we should never have another opencast in the uk? I also take it once the mine is finished and restored you won't be using the land or admiring it in anyway? Why don't you just stop your campaigning and use your retirement to enjoy your family and friends. You'll be much more happier and less bitter.
Stephen you're off the point again. It has nothing to do with UK Coal or any other mining company the laws on planning. You take that up with David Cameron. Just because you're bitter about having a mine on your door step we should never have another opencast in the uk? I also take it once the mine is finished and restored you won't be using the land or admiring it in anyway? Why don't you just stop your campaigning and use your retirement to enjoy your family and friends. You'll be much more happier and less bitter. Tompa09
  • Score: 3

5:48pm Fri 15 Aug 14

honestjohn20 says...

Sounds to me like your just a twisty old man. You have an opencast near you wow big deal. People like you make me sick and can you answer yorkers question of where do you work and how would you feel if you were a worker losing your livelihood. I may lose my house when im made redundant. You will still have one even though its next to a opencast. And to be honest it isnt going to be there forever and will properly be alot nicer when its finished tgan it was before. Its just silly old pensioners like you with nothing better to do with your time.
Sounds to me like your just a twisty old man. You have an opencast near you wow big deal. People like you make me sick and can you answer yorkers question of where do you work and how would you feel if you were a worker losing your livelihood. I may lose my house when im made redundant. You will still have one even though its next to a opencast. And to be honest it isnt going to be there forever and will properly be alot nicer when its finished tgan it was before. Its just silly old pensioners like you with nothing better to do with your time. honestjohn20
  • Score: 3

5:53pm Fri 15 Aug 14

seftonchase says...

Tompa09 wrote:
Stephen you're off the point again. It has nothing to do with UK Coal or any other mining company the laws on planning. You take that up with David Cameron. Just because you're bitter about having a mine on your door step we should never have another opencast in the uk? I also take it once the mine is finished and restored you won't be using the land or admiring it in anyway? Why don't you just stop your campaigning and use your retirement to enjoy your family and friends. You'll be much more happier and less bitter.
Tompa

I see you do not answer a point yet again. No one has yet given a clear answer about the restoration bond issue.

If you think that UK Coal through the trade body it is a member of, CoalPro has nothing to do with influencing the planning rules and energy policies operating in England then you need a bit of an education. Just look up CoalPro's website to see what it gets up too.

In addition you can also look up The Coal Forum, which UK Coal regularly attends, a body set up by Government to listen to the concerns of the Coal Industry which regularly tries to influence government planning and energy policy.

Me - off the point, I don't think so
[quote][p][bold]Tompa09[/bold] wrote: Stephen you're off the point again. It has nothing to do with UK Coal or any other mining company the laws on planning. You take that up with David Cameron. Just because you're bitter about having a mine on your door step we should never have another opencast in the uk? I also take it once the mine is finished and restored you won't be using the land or admiring it in anyway? Why don't you just stop your campaigning and use your retirement to enjoy your family and friends. You'll be much more happier and less bitter.[/p][/quote]Tompa I see you do not answer a point yet again. No one has yet given a clear answer about the restoration bond issue. If you think that UK Coal through the trade body it is a member of, CoalPro has nothing to do with influencing the planning rules and energy policies operating in England then you need a bit of an education. Just look up CoalPro's website to see what it gets up too. In addition you can also look up The Coal Forum, which UK Coal regularly attends, a body set up by Government to listen to the concerns of the Coal Industry which regularly tries to influence government planning and energy policy. Me - off the point, I don't think so seftonchase
  • Score: 0

6:05pm Fri 15 Aug 14

seftonchase says...

honestjohn20 wrote:
Sounds to me like your just a twisty old man. You have an opencast near you wow big deal. People like you make me sick and can you answer yorkers question of where do you work and how would you feel if you were a worker losing your livelihood. I may lose my house when im made redundant. You will still have one even though its next to a opencast. And to be honest it isnt going to be there forever and will properly be alot nicer when its finished tgan it was before. Its just silly old pensioners like you with nothing better to do with your time.
honestjohn20,

I was made redundant once - I know how it feels. But if coal is a declining industry and our need for coal for power generation purposes is in rapid decline that what redundancy pay is for - to pay a compensation for the loss of a job no longer required by the economy.

I had children. I got over it and survived.

I hoped to retire to a quiet rural village - now I've got an opencast mine on my doorstep. Am I not entitled to some peace and quiet?
[quote][p][bold]honestjohn20[/bold] wrote: Sounds to me like your just a twisty old man. You have an opencast near you wow big deal. People like you make me sick and can you answer yorkers question of where do you work and how would you feel if you were a worker losing your livelihood. I may lose my house when im made redundant. You will still have one even though its next to a opencast. And to be honest it isnt going to be there forever and will properly be alot nicer when its finished tgan it was before. Its just silly old pensioners like you with nothing better to do with your time.[/p][/quote]honestjohn20, I was made redundant once - I know how it feels. But if coal is a declining industry and our need for coal for power generation purposes is in rapid decline that what redundancy pay is for - to pay a compensation for the loss of a job no longer required by the economy. I had children. I got over it and survived. I hoped to retire to a quiet rural village - now I've got an opencast mine on my doorstep. Am I not entitled to some peace and quiet? seftonchase
  • Score: -3

6:08pm Fri 15 Aug 14

Tompa09 says...

Stephen how many of the points you mention are actually in the story we are commenting on? None. As I've said time n time again the site was rejected due to tourism. That Stephen is the whole point of this story. Not because a pensioner is bitter because he lives within 500 m of an opencast. Can you tell me what you do/did for a living? Or will you dodge that question as well.
Stephen how many of the points you mention are actually in the story we are commenting on? None. As I've said time n time again the site was rejected due to tourism. That Stephen is the whole point of this story. Not because a pensioner is bitter because he lives within 500 m of an opencast. Can you tell me what you do/did for a living? Or will you dodge that question as well. Tompa09
  • Score: 2

6:10pm Fri 15 Aug 14

honestjohn20 says...

Are we not entitled to a job? All you keep doing is spouting on about facts and figures when marley hill was rejected because of tourism. can you comment on that please as it wasnt rejected because you have a site next to your house and it wasnt because of the bond so why talk about those issues when they arnt relevant
Are we not entitled to a job? All you keep doing is spouting on about facts and figures when marley hill was rejected because of tourism. can you comment on that please as it wasnt rejected because you have a site next to your house and it wasnt because of the bond so why talk about those issues when they arnt relevant honestjohn20
  • Score: 3

6:46pm Fri 15 Aug 14

Yorkers says...

seftonchase wrote:
Tompa09 wrote:
Stephen you're off the point again. It has nothing to do with UK Coal or any other mining company the laws on planning. You take that up with David Cameron. Just because you're bitter about having a mine on your door step we should never have another opencast in the uk? I also take it once the mine is finished and restored you won't be using the land or admiring it in anyway? Why don't you just stop your campaigning and use your retirement to enjoy your family and friends. You'll be much more happier and less bitter.
Tompa

I see you do not answer a point yet again. No one has yet given a clear answer about the restoration bond issue.

If you think that UK Coal through the trade body it is a member of, CoalPro has nothing to do with influencing the planning rules and energy policies operating in England then you need a bit of an education. Just look up CoalPro's website to see what it gets up too.

In addition you can also look up The Coal Forum, which UK Coal regularly attends, a body set up by Government to listen to the concerns of the Coal Industry which regularly tries to influence government planning and energy policy.

Me - off the point, I don't think so
Sefton,

Actually the point has already been answered - you just haven't read the planning application properly.

I read the Durham County Council Planning Committee Report this afternoon and a restoration bond has been proposed, which has to be put in place prior to the start of soil stripping (ie before any restoration liabilities are incurred).

You say that no one has answered the question, but on the contrary - two Heads of Planning at two major planning authorities have put their names to the restoration bond, knowing full well that in Scotland a Head of Planning has just lost their job over this exact same issue.

Now as an objective person would you do that if you were not satisfied that the proposed bond was adequate?

As we stand today can you please tell us what is wrong with the bond that has been proposed?
[quote][p][bold]seftonchase[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tompa09[/bold] wrote: Stephen you're off the point again. It has nothing to do with UK Coal or any other mining company the laws on planning. You take that up with David Cameron. Just because you're bitter about having a mine on your door step we should never have another opencast in the uk? I also take it once the mine is finished and restored you won't be using the land or admiring it in anyway? Why don't you just stop your campaigning and use your retirement to enjoy your family and friends. You'll be much more happier and less bitter.[/p][/quote]Tompa I see you do not answer a point yet again. No one has yet given a clear answer about the restoration bond issue. If you think that UK Coal through the trade body it is a member of, CoalPro has nothing to do with influencing the planning rules and energy policies operating in England then you need a bit of an education. Just look up CoalPro's website to see what it gets up too. In addition you can also look up The Coal Forum, which UK Coal regularly attends, a body set up by Government to listen to the concerns of the Coal Industry which regularly tries to influence government planning and energy policy. Me - off the point, I don't think so[/p][/quote]Sefton, Actually the point has already been answered - you just haven't read the planning application properly. I read the Durham County Council Planning Committee Report this afternoon and a restoration bond has been proposed, which has to be put in place prior to the start of soil stripping (ie before any restoration liabilities are incurred). You say that no one has answered the question, but on the contrary - two Heads of Planning at two major planning authorities have put their names to the restoration bond, knowing full well that in Scotland a Head of Planning has just lost their job over this exact same issue. Now as an objective person would you do that if you were not satisfied that the proposed bond was adequate? As we stand today can you please tell us what is wrong with the bond that has been proposed? Yorkers
  • Score: 4

7:12pm Fri 15 Aug 14

seftonchase says...

Yorkers wrote:
seftonchase wrote:
Tompa09 wrote:
Stephen you're off the point again. It has nothing to do with UK Coal or any other mining company the laws on planning. You take that up with David Cameron. Just because you're bitter about having a mine on your door step we should never have another opencast in the uk? I also take it once the mine is finished and restored you won't be using the land or admiring it in anyway? Why don't you just stop your campaigning and use your retirement to enjoy your family and friends. You'll be much more happier and less bitter.
Tompa

I see you do not answer a point yet again. No one has yet given a clear answer about the restoration bond issue.

If you think that UK Coal through the trade body it is a member of, CoalPro has nothing to do with influencing the planning rules and energy policies operating in England then you need a bit of an education. Just look up CoalPro's website to see what it gets up too.

In addition you can also look up The Coal Forum, which UK Coal regularly attends, a body set up by Government to listen to the concerns of the Coal Industry which regularly tries to influence government planning and energy policy.

Me - off the point, I don't think so
Sefton,

Actually the point has already been answered - you just haven't read the planning application properly.

I read the Durham County Council Planning Committee Report this afternoon and a restoration bond has been proposed, which has to be put in place prior to the start of soil stripping (ie before any restoration liabilities are incurred).

You say that no one has answered the question, but on the contrary - two Heads of Planning at two major planning authorities have put their names to the restoration bond, knowing full well that in Scotland a Head of Planning has just lost their job over this exact same issue.

Now as an objective person would you do that if you were not satisfied that the proposed bond was adequate?

As we stand today can you please tell us what is wrong with the bond that has been proposed?
As I've already explained, its not watertight if the Leicestershire experience this year is anything to go by. If the Company got into financial difficulties again, it could ask for a 'period of grace' during which payments for the bond could be deferred. As I've indicated a Council in this position is not going to say no.

It does not want to be seen to be the cause of bankruptcy and the resulting unemployment. However, the longer the payment is deferred the more likely the bankruptcy.

We are in this position because there is no market for a proper insurance based restoration bond because its too risky. I am right on that point I believe.

If UK Coal can agree to a planning condition that under no circumstance they would not ask for any deferment of monies due to be paid when the installments are due, it might deal with this particular problem.

Then Yorkers we can discuss 'fairs fair' issues. No reply on these as yet I see
[quote][p][bold]Yorkers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]seftonchase[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tompa09[/bold] wrote: Stephen you're off the point again. It has nothing to do with UK Coal or any other mining company the laws on planning. You take that up with David Cameron. Just because you're bitter about having a mine on your door step we should never have another opencast in the uk? I also take it once the mine is finished and restored you won't be using the land or admiring it in anyway? Why don't you just stop your campaigning and use your retirement to enjoy your family and friends. You'll be much more happier and less bitter.[/p][/quote]Tompa I see you do not answer a point yet again. No one has yet given a clear answer about the restoration bond issue. If you think that UK Coal through the trade body it is a member of, CoalPro has nothing to do with influencing the planning rules and energy policies operating in England then you need a bit of an education. Just look up CoalPro's website to see what it gets up too. In addition you can also look up The Coal Forum, which UK Coal regularly attends, a body set up by Government to listen to the concerns of the Coal Industry which regularly tries to influence government planning and energy policy. Me - off the point, I don't think so[/p][/quote]Sefton, Actually the point has already been answered - you just haven't read the planning application properly. I read the Durham County Council Planning Committee Report this afternoon and a restoration bond has been proposed, which has to be put in place prior to the start of soil stripping (ie before any restoration liabilities are incurred). You say that no one has answered the question, but on the contrary - two Heads of Planning at two major planning authorities have put their names to the restoration bond, knowing full well that in Scotland a Head of Planning has just lost their job over this exact same issue. Now as an objective person would you do that if you were not satisfied that the proposed bond was adequate? As we stand today can you please tell us what is wrong with the bond that has been proposed?[/p][/quote]As I've already explained, its not watertight if the Leicestershire experience this year is anything to go by. If the Company got into financial difficulties again, it could ask for a 'period of grace' during which payments for the bond could be deferred. As I've indicated a Council in this position is not going to say no. It does not want to be seen to be the cause of bankruptcy and the resulting unemployment. However, the longer the payment is deferred the more likely the bankruptcy. We are in this position because there is no market for a proper insurance based restoration bond because its too risky. I am right on that point I believe. If UK Coal can agree to a planning condition that under no circumstance they would not ask for any deferment of monies due to be paid when the installments are due, it might deal with this particular problem. Then Yorkers we can discuss 'fairs fair' issues. No reply on these as yet I see seftonchase
  • Score: -3

7:24pm Fri 15 Aug 14

seftonchase says...

I said right at the start of these postings that coal is a declining industry and I see that the international investment bank, Morgan Stanley agrees.

They are now advising their clients to get their money out of power generating utility companies (ie Coal fired power stations) as developments in Solar Power + Battery Storage systems threaten the traditional picture of having a national grid supplied by large corporations. You can read a news item on this 'Rise in Solar Power will hit Utilities' @ http://smartestenerg
y.com/News-Hub/Artic
le.aspx?ArticleID=39
06&ArticleTitle=Rise
%20in%20solar%20powe
r%20will%20hit%20uti
lities%20says%20Morg
an%20Stanley

or you can read the investors note 'Solar Power and Energy Storage' @ http://forms.greente
chmedia.com/Extranet
/95679/Morgan%20Stan
ley%20Solar%20Power%
20&%20Energy%20Stora
ge%20Blue%20Paper%20
July%2029%202014.pdf


You may not like this news or the future it heralds as they are recommending disinvestment from European Utility Companies as well. I'm just giving you the message - its up to you if you still want ton ignore the inevitable.

Tompa: the story is not just about Marley Hill. it is quoting a UK Coal spokesperson as saying they are looking towards resubmitting an application for Hoodsclose.

Has the company told any of you why this application was withdrawn at the last minute (ie before I posted a comment about it here - I thought not.
I said right at the start of these postings that coal is a declining industry and I see that the international investment bank, Morgan Stanley agrees. They are now advising their clients to get their money out of power generating utility companies (ie Coal fired power stations) as developments in Solar Power + Battery Storage systems threaten the traditional picture of having a national grid supplied by large corporations. You can read a news item on this 'Rise in Solar Power will hit Utilities' @ http://smartestenerg y.com/News-Hub/Artic le.aspx?ArticleID=39 06&ArticleTitle=Rise %20in%20solar%20powe r%20will%20hit%20uti lities%20says%20Morg an%20Stanley or you can read the investors note 'Solar Power and Energy Storage' @ http://forms.greente chmedia.com/Extranet /95679/Morgan%20Stan ley%20Solar%20Power% 20&%20Energy%20Stora ge%20Blue%20Paper%20 July%2029%202014.pdf You may not like this news or the future it heralds as they are recommending disinvestment from European Utility Companies as well. I'm just giving you the message - its up to you if you still want ton ignore the inevitable. Tompa: the story is not just about Marley Hill. it is quoting a UK Coal spokesperson as saying they are looking towards resubmitting an application for Hoodsclose. Has the company told any of you why this application was withdrawn at the last minute (ie before I posted a comment about it here - I thought not. seftonchase
  • Score: -2

7:27pm Fri 15 Aug 14

seftonchase says...

honestjohn20 wrote:
Are we not entitled to a job? All you keep doing is spouting on about facts and figures when marley hill was rejected because of tourism. can you comment on that please as it wasnt rejected because you have a site next to your house and it wasnt because of the bond so why talk about those issues when they arnt relevant
Not at any price - no
[quote][p][bold]honestjohn20[/bold] wrote: Are we not entitled to a job? All you keep doing is spouting on about facts and figures when marley hill was rejected because of tourism. can you comment on that please as it wasnt rejected because you have a site next to your house and it wasnt because of the bond so why talk about those issues when they arnt relevant[/p][/quote]Not at any price - no seftonchase
  • Score: 0

8:01pm Fri 15 Aug 14

Tompa09 says...

seftonchase wrote:
I said right at the start of these postings that coal is a declining industry and I see that the international investment bank, Morgan Stanley agrees.

They are now advising their clients to get their money out of power generating utility companies (ie Coal fired power stations) as developments in Solar Power + Battery Storage systems threaten the traditional picture of having a national grid supplied by large corporations. You can read a news item on this 'Rise in Solar Power will hit Utilities' @ http://smartestenerg

y.com/News-Hub/Artic

le.aspx?ArticleID=39

06&ArticleTitle=
Rise
%20in%20solar%20powe

r%20will%20hit%20uti

lities%20says%20Morg

an%20Stanley

or you can read the investors note 'Solar Power and Energy Storage' @ http://forms.greente

chmedia.com/Extranet

/95679/Morgan%20Stan

ley%20Solar%20Power%

20&%20Energy%20S
tora
ge%20Blue%20Paper%20

July%2029%202014.pdf



You may not like this news or the future it heralds as they are recommending disinvestment from European Utility Companies as well. I'm just giving you the message - its up to you if you still want ton ignore the inevitable.

Tompa: the story is not just about Marley Hill. it is quoting a UK Coal spokesperson as saying they are looking towards resubmitting an application for Hoodsclose.

Has the company told any of you why this application was withdrawn at the last minute (ie before I posted a comment about it here - I thought not.
Sefton i know exactly why the hoods close application was withdrawn but i don't think it's my place to say why on social media. But once again you keep reflecting from the main story. Like Yorkers said, how would you feel if people started campaigning about your line of work with the outcome to put you on the dole and take away vital money from our local economy when at a time every job and bit of money is really needed. It's not very nice i tell you now.
[quote][p][bold]seftonchase[/bold] wrote: I said right at the start of these postings that coal is a declining industry and I see that the international investment bank, Morgan Stanley agrees. They are now advising their clients to get their money out of power generating utility companies (ie Coal fired power stations) as developments in Solar Power + Battery Storage systems threaten the traditional picture of having a national grid supplied by large corporations. You can read a news item on this 'Rise in Solar Power will hit Utilities' @ http://smartestenerg y.com/News-Hub/Artic le.aspx?ArticleID=39 06&ArticleTitle= Rise %20in%20solar%20powe r%20will%20hit%20uti lities%20says%20Morg an%20Stanley or you can read the investors note 'Solar Power and Energy Storage' @ http://forms.greente chmedia.com/Extranet /95679/Morgan%20Stan ley%20Solar%20Power% 20&%20Energy%20S tora ge%20Blue%20Paper%20 July%2029%202014.pdf You may not like this news or the future it heralds as they are recommending disinvestment from European Utility Companies as well. I'm just giving you the message - its up to you if you still want ton ignore the inevitable. Tompa: the story is not just about Marley Hill. it is quoting a UK Coal spokesperson as saying they are looking towards resubmitting an application for Hoodsclose. Has the company told any of you why this application was withdrawn at the last minute (ie before I posted a comment about it here - I thought not.[/p][/quote]Sefton i know exactly why the hoods close application was withdrawn but i don't think it's my place to say why on social media. But once again you keep reflecting from the main story. Like Yorkers said, how would you feel if people started campaigning about your line of work with the outcome to put you on the dole and take away vital money from our local economy when at a time every job and bit of money is really needed. It's not very nice i tell you now. Tompa09
  • Score: -1

9:14pm Fri 15 Aug 14

Yorkers says...

seftonchase wrote:
Yorkers wrote:
seftonchase wrote:
Tompa09 wrote:
Stephen you're off the point again. It has nothing to do with UK Coal or any other mining company the laws on planning. You take that up with David Cameron. Just because you're bitter about having a mine on your door step we should never have another opencast in the uk? I also take it once the mine is finished and restored you won't be using the land or admiring it in anyway? Why don't you just stop your campaigning and use your retirement to enjoy your family and friends. You'll be much more happier and less bitter.
Tompa

I see you do not answer a point yet again. No one has yet given a clear answer about the restoration bond issue.

If you think that UK Coal through the trade body it is a member of, CoalPro has nothing to do with influencing the planning rules and energy policies operating in England then you need a bit of an education. Just look up CoalPro's website to see what it gets up too.

In addition you can also look up The Coal Forum, which UK Coal regularly attends, a body set up by Government to listen to the concerns of the Coal Industry which regularly tries to influence government planning and energy policy.

Me - off the point, I don't think so
Sefton,

Actually the point has already been answered - you just haven't read the planning application properly.

I read the Durham County Council Planning Committee Report this afternoon and a restoration bond has been proposed, which has to be put in place prior to the start of soil stripping (ie before any restoration liabilities are incurred).

You say that no one has answered the question, but on the contrary - two Heads of Planning at two major planning authorities have put their names to the restoration bond, knowing full well that in Scotland a Head of Planning has just lost their job over this exact same issue.

Now as an objective person would you do that if you were not satisfied that the proposed bond was adequate?

As we stand today can you please tell us what is wrong with the bond that has been proposed?
As I've already explained, its not watertight if the Leicestershire experience this year is anything to go by. If the Company got into financial difficulties again, it could ask for a 'period of grace' during which payments for the bond could be deferred. As I've indicated a Council in this position is not going to say no.

It does not want to be seen to be the cause of bankruptcy and the resulting unemployment. However, the longer the payment is deferred the more likely the bankruptcy.

We are in this position because there is no market for a proper insurance based restoration bond because its too risky. I am right on that point I believe.

If UK Coal can agree to a planning condition that under no circumstance they would not ask for any deferment of monies due to be paid when the installments are due, it might deal with this particular problem.

Then Yorkers we can discuss 'fairs fair' issues. No reply on these as yet I see
Sefton,

I do not know the details of Scotland but I suspect that the Council up there will have been lax in making sure that the restoration bond was sufficient to cover the restoration liability in the worst case scenario once most or all of the coal had been mined but before restoration was completed. I'd be very surprised if this is allowed to happen again anywhere in the UK and having read the Committee Report I think that the Marley Hill planners were aware of this scenario.

I think that you are now accepting that the bonding issue is something that can be potentially be resolved, which is fair minded of you. You are right, I do owe you a response, if you are on here tomorrow then I will be more than happy to reply to your comment in detail when I have a little more time to do so.
[quote][p][bold]seftonchase[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Yorkers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]seftonchase[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tompa09[/bold] wrote: Stephen you're off the point again. It has nothing to do with UK Coal or any other mining company the laws on planning. You take that up with David Cameron. Just because you're bitter about having a mine on your door step we should never have another opencast in the uk? I also take it once the mine is finished and restored you won't be using the land or admiring it in anyway? Why don't you just stop your campaigning and use your retirement to enjoy your family and friends. You'll be much more happier and less bitter.[/p][/quote]Tompa I see you do not answer a point yet again. No one has yet given a clear answer about the restoration bond issue. If you think that UK Coal through the trade body it is a member of, CoalPro has nothing to do with influencing the planning rules and energy policies operating in England then you need a bit of an education. Just look up CoalPro's website to see what it gets up too. In addition you can also look up The Coal Forum, which UK Coal regularly attends, a body set up by Government to listen to the concerns of the Coal Industry which regularly tries to influence government planning and energy policy. Me - off the point, I don't think so[/p][/quote]Sefton, Actually the point has already been answered - you just haven't read the planning application properly. I read the Durham County Council Planning Committee Report this afternoon and a restoration bond has been proposed, which has to be put in place prior to the start of soil stripping (ie before any restoration liabilities are incurred). You say that no one has answered the question, but on the contrary - two Heads of Planning at two major planning authorities have put their names to the restoration bond, knowing full well that in Scotland a Head of Planning has just lost their job over this exact same issue. Now as an objective person would you do that if you were not satisfied that the proposed bond was adequate? As we stand today can you please tell us what is wrong with the bond that has been proposed?[/p][/quote]As I've already explained, its not watertight if the Leicestershire experience this year is anything to go by. If the Company got into financial difficulties again, it could ask for a 'period of grace' during which payments for the bond could be deferred. As I've indicated a Council in this position is not going to say no. It does not want to be seen to be the cause of bankruptcy and the resulting unemployment. However, the longer the payment is deferred the more likely the bankruptcy. We are in this position because there is no market for a proper insurance based restoration bond because its too risky. I am right on that point I believe. If UK Coal can agree to a planning condition that under no circumstance they would not ask for any deferment of monies due to be paid when the installments are due, it might deal with this particular problem. Then Yorkers we can discuss 'fairs fair' issues. No reply on these as yet I see[/p][/quote]Sefton, I do not know the details of Scotland but I suspect that the Council up there will have been lax in making sure that the restoration bond was sufficient to cover the restoration liability in the worst case scenario once most or all of the coal had been mined but before restoration was completed. I'd be very surprised if this is allowed to happen again anywhere in the UK and having read the Committee Report I think that the Marley Hill planners were aware of this scenario. I think that you are now accepting that the bonding issue is something that can be potentially be resolved, which is fair minded of you. You are right, I do owe you a response, if you are on here tomorrow then I will be more than happy to reply to your comment in detail when I have a little more time to do so. Yorkers
  • Score: 2

7:17am Sat 16 Aug 14

seftonchase says...

Tompa09 wrote:
seftonchase wrote:
I said right at the start of these postings that coal is a declining industry and I see that the international investment bank, Morgan Stanley agrees.

They are now advising their clients to get their money out of power generating utility companies (ie Coal fired power stations) as developments in Solar Power + Battery Storage systems threaten the traditional picture of having a national grid supplied by large corporations. You can read a news item on this 'Rise in Solar Power will hit Utilities' @ http://smartestenerg


y.com/News-Hub/Artic


le.aspx?ArticleID=39


06&ArticleTitle=

Rise
%20in%20solar%20powe


r%20will%20hit%20uti


lities%20says%20Morg


an%20Stanley

or you can read the investors note 'Solar Power and Energy Storage' @ http://forms.greente


chmedia.com/Extranet


/95679/Morgan%20Stan


ley%20Solar%20Power%


20&%20Energy%20S

tora
ge%20Blue%20Paper%20


July%2029%202014.pdf




You may not like this news or the future it heralds as they are recommending disinvestment from European Utility Companies as well. I'm just giving you the message - its up to you if you still want ton ignore the inevitable.

Tompa: the story is not just about Marley Hill. it is quoting a UK Coal spokesperson as saying they are looking towards resubmitting an application for Hoodsclose.

Has the company told any of you why this application was withdrawn at the last minute (ie before I posted a comment about it here - I thought not.
Sefton i know exactly why the hoods close application was withdrawn but i don't think it's my place to say why on social media. But once again you keep reflecting from the main story. Like Yorkers said, how would you feel if people started campaigning about your line of work with the outcome to put you on the dole and take away vital money from our local economy when at a time every job and bit of money is really needed. It's not very nice i tell you now.
Tompa, if you know why the Hoodsclose application was withdrawn, why not share the information, or don't you believe in free speech?

Do you agree with me that UK Coal miss-managed the application and falsely raised peoples hopes of further employment?
[quote][p][bold]Tompa09[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]seftonchase[/bold] wrote: I said right at the start of these postings that coal is a declining industry and I see that the international investment bank, Morgan Stanley agrees. They are now advising their clients to get their money out of power generating utility companies (ie Coal fired power stations) as developments in Solar Power + Battery Storage systems threaten the traditional picture of having a national grid supplied by large corporations. You can read a news item on this 'Rise in Solar Power will hit Utilities' @ http://smartestenerg y.com/News-Hub/Artic le.aspx?ArticleID=39 06&ArticleTitle= Rise %20in%20solar%20powe r%20will%20hit%20uti lities%20says%20Morg an%20Stanley or you can read the investors note 'Solar Power and Energy Storage' @ http://forms.greente chmedia.com/Extranet /95679/Morgan%20Stan ley%20Solar%20Power% 20&%20Energy%20S tora ge%20Blue%20Paper%20 July%2029%202014.pdf You may not like this news or the future it heralds as they are recommending disinvestment from European Utility Companies as well. I'm just giving you the message - its up to you if you still want ton ignore the inevitable. Tompa: the story is not just about Marley Hill. it is quoting a UK Coal spokesperson as saying they are looking towards resubmitting an application for Hoodsclose. Has the company told any of you why this application was withdrawn at the last minute (ie before I posted a comment about it here - I thought not.[/p][/quote]Sefton i know exactly why the hoods close application was withdrawn but i don't think it's my place to say why on social media. But once again you keep reflecting from the main story. Like Yorkers said, how would you feel if people started campaigning about your line of work with the outcome to put you on the dole and take away vital money from our local economy when at a time every job and bit of money is really needed. It's not very nice i tell you now.[/p][/quote]Tompa, if you know why the Hoodsclose application was withdrawn, why not share the information, or don't you believe in free speech? Do you agree with me that UK Coal miss-managed the application and falsely raised peoples hopes of further employment? seftonchase
  • Score: -2

7:22am Sat 16 Aug 14

seftonchase says...

Tompa09 wrote:
seftonchase wrote:
I said right at the start of these postings that coal is a declining industry and I see that the international investment bank, Morgan Stanley agrees.

They are now advising their clients to get their money out of power generating utility companies (ie Coal fired power stations) as developments in Solar Power + Battery Storage systems threaten the traditional picture of having a national grid supplied by large corporations. You can read a news item on this 'Rise in Solar Power will hit Utilities' @ http://smartestenerg


y.com/News-Hub/Artic


le.aspx?ArticleID=39


06&ArticleTitle=

Rise
%20in%20solar%20powe


r%20will%20hit%20uti


lities%20says%20Morg


an%20Stanley

or you can read the investors note 'Solar Power and Energy Storage' @ http://forms.greente


chmedia.com/Extranet


/95679/Morgan%20Stan


ley%20Solar%20Power%


20&%20Energy%20S

tora
ge%20Blue%20Paper%20


July%2029%202014.pdf




You may not like this news or the future it heralds as they are recommending disinvestment from European Utility Companies as well. I'm just giving you the message - its up to you if you still want ton ignore the inevitable.

Tompa: the story is not just about Marley Hill. it is quoting a UK Coal spokesperson as saying they are looking towards resubmitting an application for Hoodsclose.

Has the company told any of you why this application was withdrawn at the last minute (ie before I posted a comment about it here - I thought not.
Sefton i know exactly why the hoods close application was withdrawn but i don't think it's my place to say why on social media. But once again you keep reflecting from the main story. Like Yorkers said, how would you feel if people started campaigning about your line of work with the outcome to put you on the dole and take away vital money from our local economy when at a time every job and bit of money is really needed. It's not very nice i tell you now.
Tompa, if know why the Hoodsclose application was withdrawn, why do you not share the reason, or do you not believe in free speech?

Do you agree with me that UK Coal miss-handled the application and falsely raised peoples hopes of gaining further employment by withdrawing the application at the last minute?
[quote][p][bold]Tompa09[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]seftonchase[/bold] wrote: I said right at the start of these postings that coal is a declining industry and I see that the international investment bank, Morgan Stanley agrees. They are now advising their clients to get their money out of power generating utility companies (ie Coal fired power stations) as developments in Solar Power + Battery Storage systems threaten the traditional picture of having a national grid supplied by large corporations. You can read a news item on this 'Rise in Solar Power will hit Utilities' @ http://smartestenerg y.com/News-Hub/Artic le.aspx?ArticleID=39 06&ArticleTitle= Rise %20in%20solar%20powe r%20will%20hit%20uti lities%20says%20Morg an%20Stanley or you can read the investors note 'Solar Power and Energy Storage' @ http://forms.greente chmedia.com/Extranet /95679/Morgan%20Stan ley%20Solar%20Power% 20&%20Energy%20S tora ge%20Blue%20Paper%20 July%2029%202014.pdf You may not like this news or the future it heralds as they are recommending disinvestment from European Utility Companies as well. I'm just giving you the message - its up to you if you still want ton ignore the inevitable. Tompa: the story is not just about Marley Hill. it is quoting a UK Coal spokesperson as saying they are looking towards resubmitting an application for Hoodsclose. Has the company told any of you why this application was withdrawn at the last minute (ie before I posted a comment about it here - I thought not.[/p][/quote]Sefton i know exactly why the hoods close application was withdrawn but i don't think it's my place to say why on social media. But once again you keep reflecting from the main story. Like Yorkers said, how would you feel if people started campaigning about your line of work with the outcome to put you on the dole and take away vital money from our local economy when at a time every job and bit of money is really needed. It's not very nice i tell you now.[/p][/quote]Tompa, if know why the Hoodsclose application was withdrawn, why do you not share the reason, or do you not believe in free speech? Do you agree with me that UK Coal miss-handled the application and falsely raised peoples hopes of gaining further employment by withdrawing the application at the last minute? seftonchase
  • Score: -2

7:28am Sat 16 Aug 14

seftonchase says...

Yorkers wrote:
seftonchase wrote:
One reason why UK Coal employees are facing redundancy is over how UK Coal miss-managed the previous application for the Hoodsclose site. This was due to have been decided on in June this year - but SEVEN DAYS before Nothhumberland County Council were due to make a decision on this application, UK Coal withdrew their application and no reason was given.

I know there are a lot of UK Coal workers who are facing redundancy. Has the company they work had the courtesy to explained to their workforce why, after pursuing this application since c 2009, they withdrew it at the last minute?

I can sense the anger and despair they must be feeling, but surely some of this should be directed at an employer who so mishandles the application process and not solely directed at people, like me who, do work to oppose such applications and don't just rely on 'common sense' but voice good solid reasons why opencast mining, in an age when the coal industry is is decline, is too risky a business to be allowed to continue.
Sefton,

The problem with your position is that it amounts to an in principle opposition to any proposal for opencast mining, under any circumstances.

Marley Hill was a massive decontamination and clean up operation of a contaminated, derelict and partly brownfield site. It had huge restoration benefits and was supported by Gateshead Council and Tanfield Railway.

Coal is still essential to the electricity supply and will be for some time yet - you will be using it for years to come, just like the rest of us. What is wrong with mining it in the UK when and where it can be done so in an environmentally acceptable fashion?

For you this planning application was an academic exercise, a matter of interest, but for an awful lot of men this was their jobs, their livelihoods were at stake.

What do you do for a living? How would you feel if people from the other end of the country suddenly deemed it "no longer needed" and actively campaigned to put an end to it?
Yorkers

You said you believe that this is just an academic exercise for me and later on I've given my answer to this.

Since you have questioned my motives in responding to this news item and the subsequent postings, can I inquire about your motives? Most of those criticising my comments have at least indicated that they are UK Coal employees. Do you have any links with the coal industry may I ask?
[quote][p][bold]Yorkers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]seftonchase[/bold] wrote: One reason why UK Coal employees are facing redundancy is over how UK Coal miss-managed the previous application for the Hoodsclose site. This was due to have been decided on in June this year - but SEVEN DAYS before Nothhumberland County Council were due to make a decision on this application, UK Coal withdrew their application and no reason was given. I know there are a lot of UK Coal workers who are facing redundancy. Has the company they work had the courtesy to explained to their workforce why, after pursuing this application since c 2009, they withdrew it at the last minute? I can sense the anger and despair they must be feeling, but surely some of this should be directed at an employer who so mishandles the application process and not solely directed at people, like me who, do work to oppose such applications and don't just rely on 'common sense' but voice good solid reasons why opencast mining, in an age when the coal industry is is decline, is too risky a business to be allowed to continue.[/p][/quote]Sefton, The problem with your position is that it amounts to an in principle opposition to any proposal for opencast mining, under any circumstances. Marley Hill was a massive decontamination and clean up operation of a contaminated, derelict and partly brownfield site. It had huge restoration benefits and was supported by Gateshead Council and Tanfield Railway. Coal is still essential to the electricity supply and will be for some time yet - you will be using it for years to come, just like the rest of us. What is wrong with mining it in the UK when and where it can be done so in an environmentally acceptable fashion? For you this planning application was an academic exercise, a matter of interest, but for an awful lot of men this was their jobs, their livelihoods were at stake. What do you do for a living? How would you feel if people from the other end of the country suddenly deemed it "no longer needed" and actively campaigned to put an end to it?[/p][/quote]Yorkers You said you believe that this is just an academic exercise for me and later on I've given my answer to this. Since you have questioned my motives in responding to this news item and the subsequent postings, can I inquire about your motives? Most of those criticising my comments have at least indicated that they are UK Coal employees. Do you have any links with the coal industry may I ask? seftonchase
  • Score: -2

7:53am Sat 16 Aug 14

Tompa09 says...

Sefton once again you focus your argument on a total different point. It's not my place to discuss the Hoodsclose application. All i want you to do is explain to me your bitterness towards the opencast industry and why you would take such pleasure in seeing hundreds of families on the dole. Tell me why you hate coal?
Sefton once again you focus your argument on a total different point. It's not my place to discuss the Hoodsclose application. All i want you to do is explain to me your bitterness towards the opencast industry and why you would take such pleasure in seeing hundreds of families on the dole. Tell me why you hate coal? Tompa09
  • Score: 3

11:47am Sat 16 Aug 14

honestjohn20 says...

Mr leary has some serious issues in his life if this is all he has to do. I would love for another opencast to open right outside his door when minorca has finished. To be honest he is just one bitter old man.
Mr leary has some serious issues in his life if this is all he has to do. I would love for another opencast to open right outside his door when minorca has finished. To be honest he is just one bitter old man. honestjohn20
  • Score: 0

11:53am Sat 16 Aug 14

seftonchase says...

Tompa09 wrote:
Sefton once again you focus your argument on a total different point. It's not my place to discuss the Hoodsclose application. All i want you to do is explain to me your bitterness towards the opencast industry and why you would take such pleasure in seeing hundreds of families on the dole. Tell me why you hate coal?
Tompa

It's a valid point based on what the original news item covered. Surely its in the public interest to know why the Hoodsclose application was withdrawn. Are you a strong enough believer in your right to free speech to report it here, or are your degrees of freedom to speak restricted by your employer?

As for your other point I've already given an answer earlier, but I'll repeat it in case you missed it

" How would you feel if out of the blue one day you discover that a company wants to have a working opencast mine (which I've now got) within 500m of where I live, which I hear almost every day and has disfigured the landscape. In addition the operator (UK Coal) needs to be monitored closely, or else they get away with not paying their contributions to a restoration bond "

Good enough?
[quote][p][bold]Tompa09[/bold] wrote: Sefton once again you focus your argument on a total different point. It's not my place to discuss the Hoodsclose application. All i want you to do is explain to me your bitterness towards the opencast industry and why you would take such pleasure in seeing hundreds of families on the dole. Tell me why you hate coal?[/p][/quote]Tompa It's a valid point based on what the original news item covered. Surely its in the public interest to know why the Hoodsclose application was withdrawn. Are you a strong enough believer in your right to free speech to report it here, or are your degrees of freedom to speak restricted by your employer? As for your other point I've already given an answer earlier, but I'll repeat it in case you missed it " How would you feel if out of the blue one day you discover that a company wants to have a working opencast mine (which I've now got) within 500m of where I live, which I hear almost every day and has disfigured the landscape. In addition the operator (UK Coal) needs to be monitored closely, or else they get away with not paying their contributions to a restoration bond " Good enough? seftonchase
  • Score: -1

12:13pm Sat 16 Aug 14

Yorkers says...

Sefton,

I'm not questioning your motives as they are obvious - you oppose all opencast mining in the UK under any circumstances - but I am saying that your position is too dogmatic, and that in some cases opencast mining can be a good thing.

No I don't work for UK Coal, but I did previously have connections to the industry. I have met a lot of site workers like the men quoted in this article, and I can assure you that they are very professional people who do their work to a standard that anyone would be proud of.

With the best will in the world they deserve an awful lot better than to find themselves on the dole based on a decision to refuse the application to protect tourism where the only tourist attraction in the area stood to benefit from the proposal and were actively supporting it.

I understand that you live near a mine, and clearly you know what you put up with on a daily basis better than I do. But what I will say is that in the comments above you will see a resident who live near the Park Wall Site saying what a good job the men have done and that he didn't experience any disruption from it. What would be the issue with allowing the same men who did such a good job there being given the chance to carry on working?

I'm not saying that there should be opencast everywhere, that would be as inflexible as your position that it shouldn't be allowed anywhere, but I am saying that there are some sites where it is acceptable, and that Marley Hill is clearly one of them.
Sefton, I'm not questioning your motives as they are obvious - you oppose all opencast mining in the UK under any circumstances - but I am saying that your position is too dogmatic, and that in some cases opencast mining can be a good thing. No I don't work for UK Coal, but I did previously have connections to the industry. I have met a lot of site workers like the men quoted in this article, and I can assure you that they are very professional people who do their work to a standard that anyone would be proud of. With the best will in the world they deserve an awful lot better than to find themselves on the dole based on a decision to refuse the application to protect tourism where the only tourist attraction in the area stood to benefit from the proposal and were actively supporting it. I understand that you live near a mine, and clearly you know what you put up with on a daily basis better than I do. But what I will say is that in the comments above you will see a resident who live near the Park Wall Site saying what a good job the men have done and that he didn't experience any disruption from it. What would be the issue with allowing the same men who did such a good job there being given the chance to carry on working? I'm not saying that there should be opencast everywhere, that would be as inflexible as your position that it shouldn't be allowed anywhere, but I am saying that there are some sites where it is acceptable, and that Marley Hill is clearly one of them. Yorkers
  • Score: 2

1:46pm Sat 16 Aug 14

seftonchase says...

honestjohn20 wrote:
Mr leary has some serious issues in his life if this is all he has to do. I would love for another opencast to open right outside his door when minorca has finished. To be honest he is just one bitter old man.
honestjohn20, you are a mind reader!! UK Coal have already prospected for an extension or for a completely new site in an area immediately adjacent to the current Minorca site.

So maybe I'm just trying out a few arguments here to block that possibility.

If i am too bitter, which I deny, then it may be too bitter a taste for you to swallow. Is it me whose bitter or you over the poor job prospects for the opencast industry in the future because of the reasons I've outlined re solar + battery storage.

Don't shoot me, I'm only the messenger!!
[quote][p][bold]honestjohn20[/bold] wrote: Mr leary has some serious issues in his life if this is all he has to do. I would love for another opencast to open right outside his door when minorca has finished. To be honest he is just one bitter old man.[/p][/quote]honestjohn20, you are a mind reader!! UK Coal have already prospected for an extension or for a completely new site in an area immediately adjacent to the current Minorca site. So maybe I'm just trying out a few arguments here to block that possibility. If i am too bitter, which I deny, then it may be too bitter a taste for you to swallow. Is it me whose bitter or you over the poor job prospects for the opencast industry in the future because of the reasons I've outlined re solar + battery storage. Don't shoot me, I'm only the messenger!! seftonchase
  • Score: -1

1:46pm Sat 16 Aug 14

Tompa09 says...

seftonchase wrote:
Tompa09 wrote:
Sefton once again you focus your argument on a total different point. It's not my place to discuss the Hoodsclose application. All i want you to do is explain to me your bitterness towards the opencast industry and why you would take such pleasure in seeing hundreds of families on the dole. Tell me why you hate coal?
Tompa

It's a valid point based on what the original news item covered. Surely its in the public interest to know why the Hoodsclose application was withdrawn. Are you a strong enough believer in your right to free speech to report it here, or are your degrees of freedom to speak restricted by your employer?

As for your other point I've already given an answer earlier, but I'll repeat it in case you missed it

" How would you feel if out of the blue one day you discover that a company wants to have a working opencast mine (which I've now got) within 500m of where I live, which I hear almost every day and has disfigured the landscape. In addition the operator (UK Coal) needs to be monitored closely, or else they get away with not paying their contributions to a restoration bond "

Good enough?
No not really. Ok you have a opencast 500m away. For another 3 year you might notice a little disruption. But surely it has some good points? Local jobs. Money into the local economy. And what about when it's finished, because i know from first hand experience it will be restored to the same if not better conditions to what it was. Surely you've seen some of the most beautiful landscapes created after opencasting? Or is all that out wayed by a couple of years disruption? At the end of the day we all have to put up with things we dislke or are you an exception?
[quote][p][bold]seftonchase[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tompa09[/bold] wrote: Sefton once again you focus your argument on a total different point. It's not my place to discuss the Hoodsclose application. All i want you to do is explain to me your bitterness towards the opencast industry and why you would take such pleasure in seeing hundreds of families on the dole. Tell me why you hate coal?[/p][/quote]Tompa It's a valid point based on what the original news item covered. Surely its in the public interest to know why the Hoodsclose application was withdrawn. Are you a strong enough believer in your right to free speech to report it here, or are your degrees of freedom to speak restricted by your employer? As for your other point I've already given an answer earlier, but I'll repeat it in case you missed it " How would you feel if out of the blue one day you discover that a company wants to have a working opencast mine (which I've now got) within 500m of where I live, which I hear almost every day and has disfigured the landscape. In addition the operator (UK Coal) needs to be monitored closely, or else they get away with not paying their contributions to a restoration bond " Good enough?[/p][/quote]No not really. Ok you have a opencast 500m away. For another 3 year you might notice a little disruption. But surely it has some good points? Local jobs. Money into the local economy. And what about when it's finished, because i know from first hand experience it will be restored to the same if not better conditions to what it was. Surely you've seen some of the most beautiful landscapes created after opencasting? Or is all that out wayed by a couple of years disruption? At the end of the day we all have to put up with things we dislke or are you an exception? Tompa09
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree