Jump to content

Kellingley - are we mad?


Norman Verona

Recommended Posts

As I understand it UK coal are closing Kellingley because they cannot compete with cheaper imported coal.

 

If that isn't the case then what follows is worse than my usual drivel.

 

The actual cost to the government of paying unemployment and other benefits to 2000 men will be substantial. That's not counting the shops that will go out of business and the non financial cost to the community.

 

So, why don't we assist by subsidising the coal produced to keep these men in work. It's probably cheaper on purely financial grounds.

 

I'm aware it's against EU rules to use subsidies but there's many ways to kill a cat. (no cats were harmed in this post)

 

What is the matter with us - Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that the UK is closing all it's coal powered power stations due to EU pollution regulations the demand for coal and therefore price has dropped away. They are being replaced mainly by gas stations (assuming anybody is bothering to replace them) and of course we and the rest of the EU are getting more and more of our gas from Russia.

 

Some really good joined up thinking going on !!!!!!

 

I'm just pleased my brother lives in Aus, I'll have somewhere to go when it all goes pear-shaped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the Germans have just built some coal powered stations / using more coal than ever before  to replace their nuclear ?

 

Subsidies can't be a long term solution either

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that subsidies are not always a long term solution but how long we will close down industry due to cheaper imports but where the overall cost is more - if you see what I mean. 2000 men being paid UB is more than £20, million pa. To me, looking at the whole picture, I'd rather pay half that to keep 2000 men employed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a certain logic in your argument, Norman, and it's hard to argue against. I just worry slightly about whether we're in danger of another Benn/Meriden farce if we were to do that. 

 

My philosophy vis-a-vis government spending is that money spent in UK is money retained in UK, but any money spent overseas is lost. There used to be a chap I worked with who railed against the US spending on NASA saying that the billions could be more usefully employed elsewhere. However he failed to note that most of that money was spend within America and that the technological benefits were immeasurable and would never happen if it hadn't been spent on space exploration. How is Poland allowed to produce coal more cheaply that UK? Are they, Heaven forbid, not paying a decent wage or subsidising their mines? 

 

I am confused........  :cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Logical arguments carry no truck with the EU, need I say more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clive, The wages are less and the mines probably pay less tax than UK mining companies.

 

Bernie, this doesn't concern the EU. They do not allow subsidies for reasons of competitiveness. However France has been subsidising its major industries for years. They just use different methods,

 

We really must stop accepting that the EU rules us completely. Firstly it really doesn't and secondly we must learn, no matter how it goes against the grain, to ignore the EU rules if they don't suit us. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does everything have to make a huge profit?

Can't they be given the oppotunity to just break even and keep everyone working by giving the mine to the community as a charity and giving it tax breaks?

Of course they'd take it back in a second if it seemed like the communities work was making a few quid and claim it as a government success!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should still have a coal industry but history is witness to why we have not. Most of our deep coal is expensive to produce. Poland Australian, American and Canadian is cheaper as it is open cast. It makes a huge scar on the area by stripping away everything to get to the coal. Some of the German coal is produced the same way and if you goggle big earth movers. some of the machines they use are the biggest in the world.

The Germans have got the right idea by using their resource to benefit their country, we never have as we tow the line too well.

As for subsides, interesting that paying millions for car companies and the like to build factories here and allowing tax breaks is good. So is subsidising farmers via the EU, but to offer support to keep people in work is wrong. It is perverse, but more worrying on the other thread about the Ukrain, if Putin turned off the gas to us we would have lights out.

Things that are something that we could need strategically should be protected. You cannot turn a mine back on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Google 'telechiric mining, and see here in 'New Scientist' :- http://tinyurl.com/pvmppl7

 

A way of mining with no significant labour costs... Arthur wouldn't have liked it of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the Germans have just built some coal powered stations / using more coal than ever before  to replace their nuclear ?

 

Subsidies can't be a long term solution either

German economy based on increasing CO2 levels from using "dirty German coal" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26820405

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said, the rest of the EU either ignores what it doesn't like or actually breaks the rules.

 

If we did it we wouldn't have idiots like Farage effectively running the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the farmers have been on subs for years and years thats not fare is it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, UK Coal.  9 months ago, the pensions minister Steve Webb let the Pension Protection Fund, a safety net for pension schemes, effectively buy UK Coal, hoping the bankrupt company would recover enough to cover their pension deficit of in excess of £400m.

 

The PPF had no experience at all in running a coal business, and 9 months on, the inevitable.  The PPF wildly predicted £200m in income, probably by pulling numbers at random out of their backsides, it's made huge losses, and the taxpayers have paid £10m to ensure an orderly closure of the company.

 

The PPF now have a bill that is no smaller than it would have if it had done nothing.  The lawyers have made millions out of it.  And who was at Lehman Brothers until 2009 selling investment banking services to pension funds?  PPF chief executive Alan Rubenstein.  Go figure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peet, not sure what "huge profit" means. I prefer to look at profits as a return on investment and that should be more the higher the risk.

 

Everyone is getting wound up about the profits made by the energy companies but I don't think they make excess profits when you look at the money they have invested in energy production. As for those that don't actually produce it, only buy and sell it, they should have be regulated to keep prices down so a reasonable profit is made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please review our Terms of Use, Guidelines and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.