Mineworkers to be balloted over Kellingley Colliery closure plan

Mineworkers to be balloted over Kellingley Colliery closure plan

Mineworkers to be balloted over Kellingley Colliery closure plan

Published in News

UK COAL is to ballot miners at a North Yorkshire coal mine over a £10 million closure programme offered by the Government.

A group of National Union of Mineworkers members at Kellingley Colliery met on Sunday and voted against Government’s proposals to loan £10 million to owners UK Coal to help it manage the closure of Kellingley and also Thoresby pit in Nottinghamshire over eighteen months.

But UK Coal says it does not believe that the meeting’s show of hands was representative of the feelings of all 700 staff and it is now organising the ballot, which will take about a week to complete.

The company has warned that the ballot result will determine the future of both pits, with employees at both sites required to support the plan, and the collieries could shut ‘very soon’ if the staff vote against the deal.

Comments (7)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:40am Wed 16 Apr 14

greenmonkey says...

So the government would rather we rely on imported coal for the next few years to supply coal fired power stations than ask the EU approval for subsidising the last deep mine supply in the UK? Is this all part of the strategy to foist fracking and nuclear onto UK population to get away from imports which will be all we are left with?
So the government would rather we rely on imported coal for the next few years to supply coal fired power stations than ask the EU approval for subsidising the last deep mine supply in the UK? Is this all part of the strategy to foist fracking and nuclear onto UK population to get away from imports which will be all we are left with? greenmonkey
  • Score: 8

11:15am Wed 16 Apr 14

Brighouse Lad says...

greenmonkey wrote:
So the government would rather we rely on imported coal for the next few years to supply coal fired power stations than ask the EU approval for subsidising the last deep mine supply in the UK? Is this all part of the strategy to foist fracking and nuclear onto UK population to get away from imports which will be all we are left with?
We've been relying on imported coal for years. If Kellingley and Thoresby close it wont make a difference. Neither Labour nor the Tories have done anything for the energy sector for years.
[quote][p][bold]greenmonkey[/bold] wrote: So the government would rather we rely on imported coal for the next few years to supply coal fired power stations than ask the EU approval for subsidising the last deep mine supply in the UK? Is this all part of the strategy to foist fracking and nuclear onto UK population to get away from imports which will be all we are left with?[/p][/quote]We've been relying on imported coal for years. If Kellingley and Thoresby close it wont make a difference. Neither Labour nor the Tories have done anything for the energy sector for years. Brighouse Lad
  • Score: 1

12:28pm Wed 16 Apr 14

petethefeet says...

greenmonkey wrote:
So the government would rather we rely on imported coal for the next few years to supply coal fired power stations than ask the EU approval for subsidising the last deep mine supply in the UK? Is this all part of the strategy to foist fracking and nuclear onto UK population to get away from imports which will be all we are left with?
Hi Greenmonkey. The general answer to your questions is probably 'yes'. The truth is that deep-mined coal has been in decline for 50 years (when the French shut most of theirs down). It's a horrible job that has taken a terrible toll on peoples health and the governments purse to support them in incapacity in later life. It ruins land - travel on any railways that route over old workings and you will see why. And coal is the dirtiest of all fuels. I suspect that one day we will retrieve most of this energy without mining and by leaving most of the muck in the ground - by developments in fracking.
As for Nuclear. I challenge you to look-again at this once-abused method. The truth is that most of the pitfalls were a direct result of our need of large amounts of atomic waste to retrieve Plutonium to make the warheads that now sit on top of our Trident missiles (the rest, A-bombs, nuclear depth-charges, etc, has already been fed into our nuclear stations as MOX fuel). Modern nuclear stations are safe and nowadays run almost continuously (as opposed to less than 50% 30 years ago). Nowadays, we don't 'dump' waste, we 'store' it. That's because we will one day further re-process this 'waste' for the 95% unspent uranium, and the plutonium which we will burn in fast-breeder reactors (other countries are already building them).

Go on. I dare you to embrace the atom and realise it's done far, far, less damage to the Earth than Carboniferous and Cretaceous fossilised peat-bog!
[quote][p][bold]greenmonkey[/bold] wrote: So the government would rather we rely on imported coal for the next few years to supply coal fired power stations than ask the EU approval for subsidising the last deep mine supply in the UK? Is this all part of the strategy to foist fracking and nuclear onto UK population to get away from imports which will be all we are left with?[/p][/quote]Hi Greenmonkey. The general answer to your questions is probably 'yes'. The truth is that deep-mined coal has been in decline for 50 years (when the French shut most of theirs down). It's a horrible job that has taken a terrible toll on peoples health and the governments purse to support them in incapacity in later life. It ruins land - travel on any railways that route over old workings and you will see why. And coal is the dirtiest of all fuels. I suspect that one day we will retrieve most of this energy without mining and by leaving most of the muck in the ground - by developments in fracking. As for Nuclear. I challenge you to look-again at this once-abused method. The truth is that most of the pitfalls were a direct result of our need of large amounts of atomic waste to retrieve Plutonium to make the warheads that now sit on top of our Trident missiles (the rest, A-bombs, nuclear depth-charges, etc, has already been fed into our nuclear stations as MOX fuel). Modern nuclear stations are safe and nowadays run almost continuously (as opposed to less than 50% 30 years ago). Nowadays, we don't 'dump' waste, we 'store' it. That's because we will one day further re-process this 'waste' for the 95% unspent uranium, and the plutonium which we will burn in fast-breeder reactors (other countries are already building them). Go on. I dare you to embrace the atom and realise it's done far, far, less damage to the Earth than Carboniferous and Cretaceous fossilised peat-bog! petethefeet
  • Score: -2

12:41pm Wed 16 Apr 14

Brighouse Lad says...

petethefeet wrote:
greenmonkey wrote:
So the government would rather we rely on imported coal for the next few years to supply coal fired power stations than ask the EU approval for subsidising the last deep mine supply in the UK? Is this all part of the strategy to foist fracking and nuclear onto UK population to get away from imports which will be all we are left with?
Hi Greenmonkey. The general answer to your questions is probably 'yes'. The truth is that deep-mined coal has been in decline for 50 years (when the French shut most of theirs down). It's a horrible job that has taken a terrible toll on peoples health and the governments purse to support them in incapacity in later life. It ruins land - travel on any railways that route over old workings and you will see why. And coal is the dirtiest of all fuels. I suspect that one day we will retrieve most of this energy without mining and by leaving most of the muck in the ground - by developments in fracking.
As for Nuclear. I challenge you to look-again at this once-abused method. The truth is that most of the pitfalls were a direct result of our need of large amounts of atomic waste to retrieve Plutonium to make the warheads that now sit on top of our Trident missiles (the rest, A-bombs, nuclear depth-charges, etc, has already been fed into our nuclear stations as MOX fuel). Modern nuclear stations are safe and nowadays run almost continuously (as opposed to less than 50% 30 years ago). Nowadays, we don't 'dump' waste, we 'store' it. That's because we will one day further re-process this 'waste' for the 95% unspent uranium, and the plutonium which we will burn in fast-breeder reactors (other countries are already building them).

Go on. I dare you to embrace the atom and realise it's done far, far, less damage to the Earth than Carboniferous and Cretaceous fossilised peat-bog!
And then look at the likes of Chernobyl and Fukashima when they went wrong!! Coal hasn't been in decline globally for the last 50 years. While other countries are turning to coal for the stability if offers the UK governments have turn their backs on it. Theirs a lot of potential in Carbon Capture and clean coal technologies, shame we are giving grants to China instead of developing such technologies here!
[quote][p][bold]petethefeet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]greenmonkey[/bold] wrote: So the government would rather we rely on imported coal for the next few years to supply coal fired power stations than ask the EU approval for subsidising the last deep mine supply in the UK? Is this all part of the strategy to foist fracking and nuclear onto UK population to get away from imports which will be all we are left with?[/p][/quote]Hi Greenmonkey. The general answer to your questions is probably 'yes'. The truth is that deep-mined coal has been in decline for 50 years (when the French shut most of theirs down). It's a horrible job that has taken a terrible toll on peoples health and the governments purse to support them in incapacity in later life. It ruins land - travel on any railways that route over old workings and you will see why. And coal is the dirtiest of all fuels. I suspect that one day we will retrieve most of this energy without mining and by leaving most of the muck in the ground - by developments in fracking. As for Nuclear. I challenge you to look-again at this once-abused method. The truth is that most of the pitfalls were a direct result of our need of large amounts of atomic waste to retrieve Plutonium to make the warheads that now sit on top of our Trident missiles (the rest, A-bombs, nuclear depth-charges, etc, has already been fed into our nuclear stations as MOX fuel). Modern nuclear stations are safe and nowadays run almost continuously (as opposed to less than 50% 30 years ago). Nowadays, we don't 'dump' waste, we 'store' it. That's because we will one day further re-process this 'waste' for the 95% unspent uranium, and the plutonium which we will burn in fast-breeder reactors (other countries are already building them). Go on. I dare you to embrace the atom and realise it's done far, far, less damage to the Earth than Carboniferous and Cretaceous fossilised peat-bog![/p][/quote]And then look at the likes of Chernobyl and Fukashima when they went wrong!! Coal hasn't been in decline globally for the last 50 years. While other countries are turning to coal for the stability if offers the UK governments have turn their backs on it. Theirs a lot of potential in Carbon Capture and clean coal technologies, shame we are giving grants to China instead of developing such technologies here! Brighouse Lad
  • Score: 0

2:13pm Wed 16 Apr 14

petethefeet says...

@Brighouse Lad
What coal production remains is nearly all open-cast. There is a fair-sized open-cast industry in Durham - I visited one of the pits last year. All-in-all, it's a bit better than deep mining but I too would like to see that go - in line with the recent IPCC's recommendations.

Chernobyl was a cr@p design operating by a useless labour force under a useless regime. Fukashima was the oldest Japanese plant (about 1971) - other plants were hit in Japan but did not suffer. And besides, how many actually dies there? Ah 'yes'......NONE. Unlike the circa 200,000 premature deaths annually that are attributed to fossil-fuel burning. Get use to the idea, nuclear fission is now 'Green'-ish.

On top of this toll, you might like to consider the recent move to rename the current geological 'Holocene' epoch to the 'Anthropocene' highlighting man's changes to climate and the environment? Without these changes, the determination of the solar milankovich precession cycle would be steering us towards the next glacial period (ice-age). Good news? Well that depends upon just how close to the sea (or rivers) that you live? The IPCC report is now suggesting a worse-case sea level rise of 95cm (38 inches) by 2100. The lowered river gradients and wetter climate will also lead to much more inland flooding. Even if we could turn off the post-industrial CO2 engine, it would take about 30,000 years for the CO2 levels to stabilise back to pre-industrial levels.

So, do you still think investment in coal is a good idea?
@Brighouse Lad What coal production remains is nearly all open-cast. There is a fair-sized open-cast industry in Durham - I visited one of the pits last year. All-in-all, it's a bit better than deep mining but I too would like to see that go - in line with the recent IPCC's recommendations. Chernobyl was a cr@p design operating by a useless labour force under a useless regime. Fukashima was the oldest Japanese plant (about 1971) - other plants were hit in Japan but did not suffer. And besides, how many actually dies there? Ah 'yes'......NONE. Unlike the circa 200,000 premature deaths annually that are attributed to fossil-fuel burning. Get use to the idea, nuclear fission is now 'Green'-ish. On top of this toll, you might like to consider the recent move to rename the current geological 'Holocene' epoch to the 'Anthropocene' highlighting man's changes to climate and the environment? Without these changes, the determination of the solar milankovich precession cycle would be steering us towards the next glacial period (ice-age). Good news? Well that depends upon just how close to the sea (or rivers) that you live? The IPCC report is now suggesting a worse-case sea level rise of 95cm (38 inches) by 2100. The lowered river gradients and wetter climate will also lead to much more inland flooding. Even if we could turn off the post-industrial CO2 engine, it would take about 30,000 years for the CO2 levels to stabilise back to pre-industrial levels. So, do you still think investment in coal is a good idea? petethefeet
  • Score: -3

3:07pm Wed 16 Apr 14

Brighouse Lad says...

petethefeet wrote:
@Brighouse Lad
What coal production remains is nearly all open-cast. There is a fair-sized open-cast industry in Durham - I visited one of the pits last year. All-in-all, it's a bit better than deep mining but I too would like to see that go - in line with the recent IPCC's recommendations.

Chernobyl was a cr@p design operating by a useless labour force under a useless regime. Fukashima was the oldest Japanese plant (about 1971) - other plants were hit in Japan but did not suffer. And besides, how many actually dies there? Ah 'yes'......NONE. Unlike the circa 200,000 premature deaths annually that are attributed to fossil-fuel burning. Get use to the idea, nuclear fission is now 'Green'-ish.

On top of this toll, you might like to consider the recent move to rename the current geological 'Holocene' epoch to the 'Anthropocene' highlighting man's changes to climate and the environment? Without these changes, the determination of the solar milankovich precession cycle would be steering us towards the next glacial period (ice-age). Good news? Well that depends upon just how close to the sea (or rivers) that you live? The IPCC report is now suggesting a worse-case sea level rise of 95cm (38 inches) by 2100. The lowered river gradients and wetter climate will also lead to much more inland flooding. Even if we could turn off the post-industrial CO2 engine, it would take about 30,000 years for the CO2 levels to stabilise back to pre-industrial levels.

So, do you still think investment in coal is a good idea?
Try telling that to China and India, or Germany about coal and CO2!! As for nuclear fission being "green-ish", what do you do with the waste?? The waste is still dangerous after 100's of years!!

No fuel is 100% idea, the IPCC is recommending gas over coal with carbon capture as a short term solution until renewables become a reliable source of energy. Untill that time comes it looks like its fossil fuels for a good few years.
[quote][p][bold]petethefeet[/bold] wrote: @Brighouse Lad What coal production remains is nearly all open-cast. There is a fair-sized open-cast industry in Durham - I visited one of the pits last year. All-in-all, it's a bit better than deep mining but I too would like to see that go - in line with the recent IPCC's recommendations. Chernobyl was a cr@p design operating by a useless labour force under a useless regime. Fukashima was the oldest Japanese plant (about 1971) - other plants were hit in Japan but did not suffer. And besides, how many actually dies there? Ah 'yes'......NONE. Unlike the circa 200,000 premature deaths annually that are attributed to fossil-fuel burning. Get use to the idea, nuclear fission is now 'Green'-ish. On top of this toll, you might like to consider the recent move to rename the current geological 'Holocene' epoch to the 'Anthropocene' highlighting man's changes to climate and the environment? Without these changes, the determination of the solar milankovich precession cycle would be steering us towards the next glacial period (ice-age). Good news? Well that depends upon just how close to the sea (or rivers) that you live? The IPCC report is now suggesting a worse-case sea level rise of 95cm (38 inches) by 2100. The lowered river gradients and wetter climate will also lead to much more inland flooding. Even if we could turn off the post-industrial CO2 engine, it would take about 30,000 years for the CO2 levels to stabilise back to pre-industrial levels. So, do you still think investment in coal is a good idea?[/p][/quote]Try telling that to China and India, or Germany about coal and CO2!! As for nuclear fission being "green-ish", what do you do with the waste?? The waste is still dangerous after 100's of years!! No fuel is 100% idea, the IPCC is recommending gas over coal with carbon capture as a short term solution until renewables become a reliable source of energy. Untill that time comes it looks like its fossil fuels for a good few years. Brighouse Lad
  • Score: -2

3:56pm Wed 16 Apr 14

petethefeet says...

Well, you certainly can't 'tell em' whilst you're continuing unabated yourself. The (eventual) radioactive waste doesn't trouble me - after it's been processed a few times. Just dump it in the deep sea trenches where it will eventually get subducted back into the earths interior. When the Greenpeace boats pick up the radioactive signature of Sellafield or (more likely) the equivalent French plant on the Cherbourg peninsula, it's not Uranium they spot. That's because every Cubic kilometre of sea-water already holds 3 tons of the stuff (the Japs have tried 'mining' seawater for Uranium). The geological processes of continental crust creation concentrates Uranium into this crust and the processes of weathering ensures it reaches the sea by weathering and erosion. So, Greenpeace has to look for a couple of Actinide elements that don't normally occur in nature but appear as small amounts of daughter elements in the waste, i.e. Americium and Technetium. It's like all these groups with an agenda. They never tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth!
Well, you certainly can't 'tell em' whilst you're continuing unabated yourself. The (eventual) radioactive waste doesn't trouble me - after it's been processed a few times. Just dump it in the deep sea trenches where it will eventually get subducted back into the earths interior. When the Greenpeace boats pick up the radioactive signature of Sellafield or (more likely) the equivalent French plant on the Cherbourg peninsula, it's not Uranium they spot. That's because every Cubic kilometre of sea-water already holds 3 tons of the stuff (the Japs have tried 'mining' seawater for Uranium). The geological processes of continental crust creation concentrates Uranium into this crust and the processes of weathering ensures it reaches the sea by weathering and erosion. So, Greenpeace has to look for a couple of Actinide elements that don't normally occur in nature but appear as small amounts of daughter elements in the waste, i.e. Americium and Technetium. It's like all these groups with an agenda. They never tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth! petethefeet
  • 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