Talk:Woodhouse Colliery

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

---

• Comment Whilst this has been proposed by another editor, the discussion was not instigated, so I am putting it in here. Pinging those involved; Leon II, John Cummings, Kind Tennis Fan, Ehrenkater, Horse Eye's Back Dr Greg. The joy of all things (talk) 07:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Merge to this article, although I could be biased as I created the Woodhouse Colliery article in July 2018 (nearly three years ago). However, the article Woodhouse colliery does have more in terms of political reaction, but also has some CN tags applied, so I feel it would be easier to merge into this one. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 07:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Question Why is this merge being proposed? Are these two articles for the same proposed coalmine? John Cummings (talk) 09:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, they cover the same topic. The joy of all things (talk) 10:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Looks like a simple merger, whether we merge to the one with an uppercase or lowercase C is not my area of expertise. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I support the merger proposal and agree with The joy of all things that merging to this article, with the uppercase C, would be better.

A separate point is that in the "Reactions" section to the lowercase C article, Woodhouse colliery, it does seem to be dominated currently by negative reactions and negative quotes regarding the coal mine. For greater balance, WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE, to supplement the negative quotes, I feel it would be beneficial to include one or two quotes by politicians etc supporting the coal mine, such as the colliery providing jobs and supporting the local economy etc, so that the "Reactions" section has more diversity in terms of positive and negative reactions. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I want to make a distinction here between NPOV and equal weight. E.g it is factually accurate to say the coal mine will release a large amount of carbon into the atmosphere which will contribute to climate change. Where as the company's claims around jobs are projections the company is using in their PR campaign to get permission to build the mine, their claims are not fact. The first two point of guidance on NPOV are 'Avoid stating opinions as facts' and 'Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts', I think it is reasonable to classify the claims of number of jobs as opinion. I think that is completely reasonable to include quotes by politicians who support the coalmine, but if we are going to quote the company on things like job numbers we need to make very clear these are PR messages from the company trying to sell the project.

Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 11:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Maths just don't make sense in this article

This article claims that this proposed mine will produce 3 million tonnes of coal per annum - and contrasts this against a figure of 6 million tonnes of coal that the UK currently imports. The article then goes on to say that of the 3 million tonnes projected to be produced by the new mine, over 80% of that production will be transported to Redcar for export. If I understand this gibberish correctly, it's proposed that the majority (2.4 million tonnes) of the production from the proposed mine will be sold to foreign markets even though we're apparently importing 6 million tonnes at the present time. It makes zero sense, right? For every tonne of coal we send abroad we'll buy back two?

I'm also very dubious about the projected production of 3 million tonnes per annum. The UK's peak coal production was roughly 300 million tonnes per annum, from way over 1,000 mines. Are we to be believe this proposed mine will be as productive as ten former mines? It all sounds thoroughly nebulous and thank goodness the new Labour government have blocked it. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 23:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Flusapochterasumesch I'll address each point separately, if I may?

• The mine is slated to produce coking coal, not ordinary coal, but a high-carbon content coal necessary for primary steelmaking. Coal was imported at the rate of 6 million tonnes per year, which was used to generate electricity, but also to convert in a coking plant (part of a steelworks) to coke. This is where the coal is roasted to drive off the impurities, and make it have a very high carbon content, necessary for primary steelmaking. As the requirements for coking coal would be lesser than that of electricity supply coal, the excess mined at Woodhouse, would be exported.
• It makes zero sense, right? Maybe, but that's market economies. For about twenty years, stainless steel production at Sheffield would produce ingots from scrap, which was railed to Immingham, taken by ship to Sweden, then railed to a rolling mill in Scandinavia. After it had been rolled into coil, it was re-railed to a port, taken back across the North Sea to Immingham Dock, then railed back to Sheffield to a plant almost next door to where it had been smelted in the first place, and turned into downstream products. Makes no sense, but presumably, it was cheaper than installing a rolling mill in Sheffield, especially if you have a rolling mill running at less than capacity.
• The projected production rate is 3 million tonnes per annum. This could well change with geological problems, which the area is well known for. However, Kellingley Colliery produced 128 million tonnes in 1981, and 17.9 million tonnes in 2009. Compared to Kellingley, Maltby, Thoresby etc, Woodhouse is small fry. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 18:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I am well open to suggestions on how to make this clearer for readers.....The joy of all things (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello, on reflection (and having read your comments) I can see where I went wrong. So thank you. Also I'd like to make clear that I didn't mean to imply that the Wikipedia article was at fault. I was expressing cynicism about the data that the people proposing the mine were putting out. It's just me (and therefore not relevant), but from the reading I did around this proposal I felt like there was a lot of greenwashing and "pumping up" of the economic benefits going on. I think the fact that the new Labour government looks set to squash this proposal (while the former Conservative government seemed to be rather enamoured with it) does confirm my suspicion that politics and inducements were underlying factors.

My main realisation (thanks to your reply) is that the numbers I found so problematic are very conditional on the different grades of coal. I understand now that much of the coal we import is basic fuel-stock, while the proposed mine is expected to produce high carbon coking coal - therefore the import/export equation makes sense because the two commodities are not comparable.

It appears I jumped the gun - my apologies. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, many thanks for the detail about Sheffield steel ingots being shipped to Sweden for rolling, only to be shipped back to Sheffield. For sure that would have only happened because it was economically beneficial, even though it does seem to be crazy on the face of it. But economics is economics and I love these kinds of apparently bizarre situations that actually make sense. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Flusapochterasumesch Absolutely no need to apologise; you had legitimate concerns and raised them here; this is what the talk page is for. Remember, if it isn't obvious to you as to why, then it probably isn't obvious to lots of other readers as well, and it is on us to make it clear and simple, rather than have people befuddled. I hadn't quite made it clear that the coal imported was not all intended for use as coking coal (I have amended this slightly, but perhaps it needs more work?)

Interestingly, with the news that the two remaining primary steel plants in the UK may close down in favour of EAF plants, the need for home-produced coking coal goes right out of the window. Angela Rayner has instructed government lawyers to stop defending the case stating that "..it should not have received planning permission in the first place." This may be due to their stance on fossil fuels, or that by the coking coal no longer being needed, the difficult decision was taken away from them. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

References