Question about the mining industry

It was a dirty and dangerous job, and has left many ex-miners with severe health problems. In the age of cheap and clean natural gas, coal was becoming redundant. The union leaders were more motivated by politics than the interests of their members, and did much to bring about their own downfall.

Does anyone actually think the mining industry would have survived even if Thatcher had never existed?

 

yes me.

some pits had to close,fair enough,but in areas of the industry,particularly Barnsley,many pits had been given some serious investment after the creation of the plan for coal in the seventies.
the middle east oil crisis in the seventies showed our country to be far too reliant on imported fuel,usually from some of the most unstable parts of the world,so the plan for coal was implemented to put a stop to this,and like I say huge investment was made,then what thatcher did was to load each of these pits individually with that cost turning them into loss makers to suit her own agenda,the investment had been huge and it was designed to be carried by the industry as a whole.
three of the pits I worked at,barnburgh main,frickley and silverwood all had received huge investment,the latter two were actually in profit when they closed,silverwood clearing a million pound every single week.
we are still burning enough coal in this country to keep about 70 pits going,but instead we import it,mainly from Russia,but other areas include Columbia where they still have child labour.we used to import from china but they burn that much coal they keep their own and also import,it is this what has shoved the world coal prices up.
every excuse has been made to keep our pits closed and the latest is the green manmade global warming scenario,whether this is real or not remains to be proved for me,but the point is while ever we burn coal we should still be burning our own.
taxpayers money was used to invest in the industry and even more taxpayers money was used to close it.

 

Yes.

 

The closing of the pits was definitely political rather than economic, the pits were seen in Whitehall as a breeding ground for opposition to the Tory right to govern. The unions had become too politicised, that can't be denied, but perhaps a more consensus driven approach would have been better for the country as a whole. In Germany unions still invest in their industry and have places on the board, they are involved in the decisions. Both sides stand guilty of missing the opportunity to work together. The rhetoric of the time was to "smash" the unions, or to "bring down" the government, at the end of that you are left with having to pick up the pieces. When one part of the population seeks to rule without consideration for the other half, you'll always get strife.
I hope the funeral is soon, so that I can go back to trying to forget about the whole thing.

 

By the way dekparker, that was a great answer.

 

The comparison with Germany is appropriate. I spent much of the 1990's watching the UK gradually divesting itself of its stainless steel industry and spent a lot of time in Germany and Sweden working for/with the new owners. One of the things that struck me most forcibly was the difference in the quality of management. Whilst our senior guys were so much up their own a*ses it was untrue, their Swedish/German equivalents were the total opposite and believed in not only knowing your stuff (which was highly questionable in our case) but also treating people with respect and taking the time to consult/explain decisions. When I eventually reached a senior level (in a different industry) I did my best to apply far more of their example than that I'd gleaned from my UK equivalents.

 

Clean coal technology

If I recall correctly there was an experimental plant at Grimethorpe. We gave the technology to the Scandinavians. We now have to buy that technology back.

The pit closure programme was all about moving energy production away from an industry that was unionised, rather than any economic argument. It was dead easy to make a pit look uneconomic. Managers were brought in to do just that and close them.

There are millions of tons of coal still under Grimey and the Sharlston seam. One day we'll have to go back and get it.

 

Yes

I think there would have been enough productive and efficient collieries left to continue as a major industry and employer without the deliberate hooliganism of the Tories. Probably around 30-40 deep mines (~40Mt of coal). It would need support from time to time (look at Germany's coal industry) but it keeps money in the UK. Now we are letting money bleed out of the country buying foreign coal (money that we are probably borrowing at the moment). People who think coal is finished in Britain should note that the wind turbines and solar stuff couldn't pull a **** off a chocolate mouse when it comes to power generation. This leaves King Coal as the major source of power generation in the UK.

 

Re: Clean coal technology

Yes, I was working at the Mining Research & Development Establishment (Bretby) back in the 80's and the NCB/British Coal was at the forefront of clean coal technology, it was called "fluidised bed" I think. Yet another example of British inventiveness being thrown away. One other that comes to mind is the "lean-burn" technology being developed by British Leyland in the 80's which was cleaner and more efficient than catalytic converters but was rejected by California, so that now the whole world has catalysts which are expensive, polluting and inefficient. Madness.

 

Re: Clean coal technology

That's the one, remember it being talked about. If we can't make a quick profit then we aren't interested in this country.

 

Re: Yes absolutely- Coal Gasification

Without a doubt..great answer Dekparker.. there are still millions of pounds worth of new machinary underground.. which gave us in the coal industry the belief that coal was king and would be for a long time... it was inconcievable that the government would be stupid enough to close these pits after all the investment... we didnt recon on the evil ness of the bitch...

She certainly did it her way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1jY5fYjV-U

 

Re: Clean coal technology

I worked on hat plant at Grimey. It was Clean Coal technology in the sense of Nitrous Oxides and other noxious emissions but not Carbon Dioxide. Having said that I don't think CO2 emissions were such an issue back then.

 

Re: Clean coal technology

True, I don't think many could argue knowing what we do now about global warming, that we should be burning coal to produce electricity. Or burning gas, or petrol/diesel in our cars for that matter.

Somebody needs to tell the Chinese.

 

Re: Clean coal technology

Great points above.^ I think it is also important to remember the massive catastrophe was the wholesale closing of an industry with nothing even planned to replace it. No thought for the subsidiary industries that exist around mining or the local economies and businesses around where the miner's money was earned and spent.

Whether coal had to go or not, you do not do it overnight. Private firms may have no choice but to shut shop immediately, but a nationalised industry supported by that much manpower has to be taken down over one or possibly two generations with a systematic redeployment of that labour into other industries. The Tories didn't think or care about any of that.

It was an opportunity to go after the unions afforded by the unexpected election win on the back of the Falklands. Any arguments about the productivity and vitality of the industry was purely match fixing on the part of Thatcher's government. They were gleeful and surprised to finds themselves in tenure and were not going to miss their chance, even if it meant starting a micro civil war buoyed up by the jingo-istic fervour prevalent in middle England at that time.

 

Of course it could and should.

What the country needs is a balanced energy policy so that we are never in the situation of being held to ransom by sky high gas/oil prices - having a balanced energy policy would give some stability to one of the main constituents of inflation having stocks of coal at power stations should have been used to negate any price hikes in gas/oil.

 

good point you make about senior management there mate,

from my experience its them that should have been held to account more in all our industries,not the faceworker/shopfloor bloke.The senior management I ever had the pleasure to work under were all out for their own ends and didn't give a toss about the workforce,especially in the nationalised industries,once some of them got their qualifications and positions sorted they thought they owned the place.
but in truth their positions left a legacy of bad management,poor decision making and utter contempt for blokes under them with whom they once worked.

 

Coal powered power stations are currently being shut down to meet EU emissions targets so I don't think coal had much of a future anyway really, maybe one day when all the gas and oil has gone but we will probably have discovered an alternative fuel source by then.

 

Only if you choose to adhere to the targets.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...oal-fired-plants-in-two-decades-iwr-says.html

 

Aye. Its amazing that Europe can be used when it suits!