Consultation question: Considering the information presented in this call for evidence paper, and your own knowledge and experience, what are your views on the extraction of coal in Scotland?
Our response: The Welsh Government's most recent policy statement on coal should provide a starting point for the Scottish Government to build upon (https://gov.wales/coal-policy-statement-html) in developing its own policy, as there are clear and relevant parallels between both Governments.
Both Wales and Scotland has a long legacy of suffering the localised impacts of environmental blight and hazardous conditions of coal mining, with nearby communities rarely seeing a significant share of the economic benefits. Wales is still littered with unrestored or poorly restored coal mines. It was reported that only this year are the final abandoned coal mines in Scotland being restored - again, often to revised, lower standards that what was promised nearby communities due to insufficient restoration bonds.
Now more is known about climate change, both Wales and Scotland have led the way in developing progressive policies and practice to realise their ambitious targets. This cannot include viably include coal, which is worse in CO2 emissions than natural gas and oil in its conversion factor to energy. The EIA Pathways to Net-Zero report make this very clear, underscoring that no new coal mining for any purpose can be part of a pathway to Net-Zero by 2050.
A critical part of that report is no new coal mining for any purpose. The report goes further to explicitly include coking coal for steel in this prohibition. Port Talbot Steelworks in South Wales and British Steel in England are the 2nd and 3rd largest single-site sources of CO2 in the UK - because they burn coal. Any policy that differentiates between the extraction of coal for energy production and coal for steel production, ignores this growing threat to meeting climate targets across the world. It would also ignore the rapidly escalating developments around the world in decarbonising the steel industry. Green steel is on its way, with the first delivery of commercial quantities made from Sweden in 2021. Unfortunately, once investors have opened a coal mine, they will seek return on that investment and find alternative markets for the coal, or laggard steelworks that still rely on coal in the future. So permitting new coal mining for steel will prop up the biggest polluters and discourage transition to new technology and practices.
There is no viable future for any of us that relies on coal to get us there. Scotland should be using its just transition fund to skill its inhabitants in the industries of the future, not ploughing people into the industries that destroy that future.
West Cumbria Mining Ltd want to extract 2.78 million tonnes of coking coal annually, right up to 2049.
Cumbria County Council approved the application; but campaigning, including a 114,000+ signature Coal Action Network petition, led government to make the decision itself and call a public inquiry. Subsequently the government approved the mine in December 2022, but the decision is subject to legal challenges. Work has not started and financing is not in place.
Coal & refuse to be excavated: 67 million tonnes in total - almost 3 million tonnes per annum (at full production) - WCM Planning Statement, Sep 2021
Coal to be sold: 64 million tonnes of coal in total - 2.78 million tonnes of coal per annum (at full production) - WCM Planning Statement, Sep 2021
CO2: Approximately 200 million tonnes of CO2 in total - 8.8 million tonnes of CO2 per annum at full production (2022 BEIS Conversion Factors)
Methane: 340,000 tonnes of methane which is 34 million tonnes CO2 equivalent (not included in the figures above) - 15,000 tonnes of methane per annum at full production (mid-range estimate, measured over 20 years, Global Energy Monitor's Global Coal Mine Tracker)
Coal operator: West Cumbria Mining (Holdings) Limited, which is 82% owned by EMR Capital Investment Limited (No. 3B PTE Ltd) registered in Singapore.
Type: Coking (metallurgical) coal
Claimed destination: primarily burned in steelworks in the UK and Europe
Local Planning Authority: Cumbria County Council
Address: from the former Marchon site, Pow Beck Valley, to St. Bees Coast, Whitehaven, West Cumbria
Physical size: principal seams to be worked would be the Bannock Band and Main Band, which are at a depth of approximately 350 metres over 23ha
Time: applying for planning permission from 2022-2049
Published: 03/08/2022
Update - Sat 15th October 2022 the Scottish Government De Facto banned coal mining. As such this article is for historic interest only, this is not a live campaign.
New Age Exploration Ltd (NAE Ltd) proposes to extract up to 33.7 million tonnes of coking coal for steelworks in the UK and beyond between 2025 and 2051 from a mine under Gretna and Canonbie, near Carlisle, in South West Scotland. This may worsen local air quality, reduce the value of nearby residential properties, make local roads more dangerous with HGV traffic, and will emit around 73 million tonnes of CO2 and around 750 thousand tonnes of methane, a powerful climate change accelerant.
NAE Ltd has a conditional licence from The Coal Authority and aims to secure full planning permission by 2023-4.
Local impacts
Global impacts
(Company-supplied in the application for a conditional licence to The Coal Authority in 2020. Redacted by The Coal Authority)
Eyes and ears on the ground: ‘Lochinvar Coal Limited’ employs someone in the role of ‘community-liaison’ based in the town of Canonbie.
Dirty coal: NAE Ltd’s target sulphur content is 1.2-1.4% whereas current imports from USA are less than 1.2%, with some as low as 0.9%. The higher sulphur content of coking coal from the proposed coal mine in West Cumbria recently led an industry leader to rule out its use in UK and European steelworks.
Rolling the dice: based on a Wood Mackenzie forecast of European demand for imported coking coal to grow over 50% from 2017 to 2035. Recently, serious flaws in Wood Mackenzie forecasts were revealed in a public inquiry into the proposed Whitehaven coal mine—as it fails to properly consider rapidly increasing momentum behind green steel.
Best corporate quote: “Investor confidence is then expected to slowly return, making it possible to again raise larger amounts of funding required to progress quality coking coal projects, notwithstanding growing climate change related general anti-coal sentiment globally.” (Licence application to the Coal Authority, 2020)
Shaking the money tin: NAE Ltd claims it is currently progressing discussions for direct investment from potential investors, but its existing relationships have been redacted from the licence application.
2012: New Age Exploration Limited (NAE Ltd) acquired the Lochinvar licence. NAE Ltd set up Lochinvar Coal Limited (formerly Canonbie Coal Limited) in 2012 to operate the Lochinvar Coking Coal Project. However, NAE Ltd remains its parent company, and holds the exploration and conditional licences directly.
2013: NAE Ltd drilled 10 deep boreholes to a total of 3,752 metres underground, through its subsidiary, Lochinvar Coal Limited, on the Scottish/English border near the town of Canonbie, to estimate coking coal quantities and access . This follows drilling by The National Coal Board, British Geological Survey, and Greenpark Energy between 1979 and 2009.
2014: NAE Ltd conducted a scoping study, subsequently updated in 2017.
2014-2016: Coal prices fall to historic lows of USD$70/tonne and NAE Ltd put the project on hold as it was unable to raise funding. Prices remained volatile up to 2019, reducing investor confidence.
2019: NAE Ltd conducted a “Project optimisation study” and touted for partners or investors to finance the development of a coal mine—then the UK and many countries went into lockdown as the pandemic was responded to.
2020: NAE Ltd paid a £13,800 application fee to the coal authority for a coal mining and exploration conditional licence.
2021: JHD Exploration Ltd Dumfries and Galloway Council (within which the Lochinvar test-drilling took place received) for the first time since 2013 to notify them of test drilling.
2022: NAE Ltd had its conditional underground licence renewed by the Coal Authority on 21 January 2022—just 4 days before issuing the Aberpergwm coal mine expansion, in Wales, a full licence. This occurred in a changed context of increases in the price of coal through 2021-22, sanctions on Russian coal has driven demand for alternative sources, production has ramped up post-lockdowns, and the UK Government is broadcasting a more favourable approach towards new coal projects again.
Going forward...
2023-2024: Between 2023 and early 2024 NAE Ltd aim to secure planning permission.
2025: Towards the end of 2025, NAE Ltd aim to begin extracting coal.
NAE Ltd is the named coal mine operator for the Coal Authority's Lochinvar conditional licence. NAE Ltd is a reasonably small company Australian-based mining company, listed on the Australian Stock Exchange.
Dealings in the UK and elsewhere: NAE are a NAE Ltd previously operated the Redmoor Tin-Tungsten mine in Cornwall under Cornwall Resources Limited, in a joint-venture with Strategic Mineral PLC. NAE Ltd is also advancing gold exploration projects in Australia and New Zealand, and previously (dates) advanced thermal and coking coal exploration projects in Colombia.
Financial turmoil? NAE Ltd's shares have tumbled by over 46% on the Australian Stock Exchange over the past year, and have been erratic over the past 3 years - decline is clear though over the past 6 months.
Is NAE Ltd actually a mining company? From its size, current portfolio, and the sale of its share in the Redmoor Tin-Tungsten mine in the development stage, it appears NAE Ltd is focused on exploration and development rather than long-term mine-operation. Two of the 3 Directors of NAE Ltd have backgrounds in raising capital and equity capital, further signalling the company’s business model.
This means NAE Ltd may look to sell the Lochinvar coal mine to another operator early or at some point during its development. The company that buys the coal mine licence will not be subject to the same financial and competence tests that NAE Ltd has been, raising concerns about how the coal mine will actually be operated.
While NAE Ltd has yet to apply for full planning permission, the preparation for an application is underway.
Coal Action Network is concerned by the content of the proposals:
The independent verification of applicants’ fossil fuel emissions was to be introduced to improve the reliability of this important information, and give confidence to the data reported by companies given access to the UK energy generation market. The postponement of this introduction therefore lengthens the doubts cast over the claims made by applicants to the capacity market. The Government claims the reason for the postponement is that there may not be enough independent verifiers in time for applicants to meet this condition. This is a failure in preparation on the part of the UK Government, to rigorously implement the climate policy it created and meet its own targets. We would expect this to be resolved well before the next capacity market auction as non-independent accounting for carbon emissions cannot become normalised or it will risk under-representation of the emissions of the CMUs and the UK overall.
The amendment to allow mothballed plants to bid in the upcoming capacity market auction is concerning where it may increase the potential for recently mothballed coal power plants to come back online and result in a higher proportion of coal within the UK energy mix 2023-24, until the 2024 coal phase-out date begins to have effect. We categorically oppose any move that slows down or reverses the declining use of coal for power in the UK—including the recent announcement by BEIS to delay the scheduled closure of West Burton coal fired power station. The UK Government states that it is necessary to allow mothballed power stations to participate in the upcoming capacity market auction to increase competition, which it hopes will reduce the cost of electricity generation—particularly when there are greater demands on the grid, such as during the winter months.
If the UK Government invested in renewable technology development and deployment to the same extent that it historically subsidised the fossil fuel industry, competition might realistically be fulfilled by renewable power generators instead. The current challenges are due, to an extent, the policy failure of this government and successive governments to put glib speeches on climate change into action. Moving forward, we urge the UK Government to avert this energy generation challenge recurring with a package of climate-friendly measures, including:
We are concerned that the 2024 coal phase-out date is being used by the UK Government to deflect criticism for its support of using coal up until that date, when what we need is the most rapid phase-out of coal that is possible as the UK careers further from its climate targets. This attitude has been captured in comments made this year by two leading cabinet Ministers, “Net zero is by 2050. We are not at 2050 yet.” – Jacob Rees-Mog, and “Give over. We’re still committed to phase out by Sept 2024.” – Kwasi Kwarteng (in relation to extending the coal powered operations at West Burton).
Finally, as we have commented before in previous consultations, the 2024 phase-out date should be legislated on, to ensure that it happens. As this consultation and other recent moves by this government show, this or any future administration is not currently prevented from taking steps which cast doubt on or undermine that commitment.
Reposted from original press release by Insure our Future
Utilities are struggling to find insurance to build new coal power outside China, finds a report released today by the Insure Our Future campaign and Korean non-profit Solutions for Our Climate, which have obtained documents providing a rare snapshot of the state of the industry.
The insurance contracts for KEPCO, Korea’s national power utility, also reveal that it is having to turn to smaller, inexperienced companies to secure cover for coal power plants that are already in operation as growing numbers of mainstream insurers withdraw from the sector.
“Major international insurers have withdrawn from coal projects and been replaced by a haphazard coalition of the willing, consisting of a few global climate laggards, small speciality insurers and assorted companies from the Global South. Our report exposes Starr, Liberty Mutual, Berkshire Hathaway, Allied World and Lloyd's of London as the coal industry’s last lifeline."
- Peter Bosshard Global Coordinator of the Insure Our Future Campaign and report author
Since the Insure Our Future campaign launched in 2017 at least 39 insurers have ended or limited their cover for new coal projects. However, the report confirms that even prominent international brands like Hannover Re (Germany), SCOR (France), QBE (Australia) and Helvetia (Switzerland) continue to underwrite existing coal plants, supporting companies like KEPCO that have no plans to phase out coal in line with climate targets.
Coal is the biggest single source of carbon emissions. To stay on track for the 1.5°C Paris Agreement climate target, consumption of coal must fall by 9.5% per year.1 No investment in new fossil fuel production is consistent with that target, according to the International Energy Agency, yet it warns that coal demand could reach all-time highs in 2022 and stay at that level until 2024.2
The insurance industry is under growing pressure to align its policies with 1.5°C. UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres told the Insurance Development Forum last year: “We need net zero commitments to cover your underwriting portfolios, and this should include the underwriting of coal – and all fossil fuels!”3
Asia is at the centre of global coal power generation and development, accounting for 91% of all plants planned or in construction worldwide (414GW out of 457GW) and 73% of operating coal plants (1,518GW out of 2075GW).4 KEPCO is a major player, developing and operating coal power projects in several Asian countries and arranging insurance on the global market.
In March 2018, KEPCO signed contracts with 19 insurers to underwrite the construction of the 1.3GW Nghi Son 2 plant in Vietnam for a total $7.2 billion. Four years on, 72% of the insurance capacity which underwrote that project has been withdrawn from the market.
“It is now unlikely that large new coal power plants outside China can be insured. The withdrawal of so many insurers has made it much more cumbersome and expensive to obtain cover. The few insurers who remain will find it challenging to provide the vast expertise and capacity required to insure a complex new coal power plant.”
- Peter Bosshard
The Insure Our Future report, EXPOSED: The Coal Insurers of Last Resort, analyses documents provided by the Office of Korean National Assembly Member Soyoung Lee, which give details of insurance contracts for five KEPCO coal power projects. Governments, insurers and insurance brokers do not normally disclose information about which companies insure which projects, so it presents a unique insight into the withdrawal of insurers from the world’s leading coal market.
When KEPCO insured the construction of Nghi Son 2 in March 2018, most international insurers had yet to adopt coal exit policies. The project was underwritten by numerous large multiline and speciality insurers and reinsurers, led by Germany’s Allianz with $1.1 billion.
By October 2021, when KEPCO insured the construction of the 1.2GW Vung Ang 2 plant in Vietnam for a total $4.4 billion, most large international insurers had withdrawn from the coal market. Asian insurers provided 55% of total capacity, led by Japan’s MS&AD with $1.2 billion of cover, North American insurers provided 38% and European insurers 7%.
Half (53%) of the insurance capacity provided to Vung Ang in October 2021 has now been withdrawn from the market with MS&AD, Sompo and Tokio Marine in Japan, Hiscox in the UK and AIG in the US announcing that they will no longer insure new coal projects. China also announced in September 2021 that it will no longer build coal power projects overseas and Chinese insurers are expected to exit the international market.
Five “insurers of last resort” now provide 72% of the capacity for Vung Ang 2 which is still available for new coal projects: US companies Starr, Berkshire Hathaway and Liberty Mutual (the only insurer with a coal exit policy that allows it to continue covering new projects); Allied World in Bermuda; and eight other insurers operating in the Lloyd’s market. 5
Lloyd’s of London insurers, which include Allied World and two Liberty Mutual subsidiaries, now provide 37% of the capacity still available to the market. In December 2020, Lloyd’s ruled out insuring new coal projects from 2022 but has since made clear that it will not require insurers in its market to follow the policy.
"These findings make clear that the Lloyd's market, Starr, Liberty Mutual, Berkshire Hathaway and Allied World are the world’s coal insurers of last resort. At a time when we urgently need to accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels, their reckless support for new coal projects drives us ever closer to unmanageable climate breakdown."
The replacement of large, experienced international insurers with a wide variety of smaller actors also affects the operation of existing coal power plants. In June 2021, KEPCO had to find 24 different insurers to provide $556 million of cover for the operation of its small 206MW Cebu Naga power plant in the Philippines. Eleven were not insuring any other KEPCO projects and one, New India Insurance, lacks the A-credit rating that project financiers typically expect insurers to provide.
Global insurance broker Willis Towers Watson warned as early as January 2019 that “the exodus of many international insurers from the market for coal risks complicates securing property coverage” and “this reduction in available capacity will invariably see upward pressure on rates and coverages.” 6
However, the report also shows that many insurers with coal exit policies are continuing to provide cover for companies such as KEPCO that have no credible plans to phase out coal production. They include leading brands Hannover Re, which only plans to phase out insurance for the biggest coal companies by 2025, SCOR and QBE, which have a 2030 target, and Helvetia, which has no phase-out target.
“KEPCO and other power utilities need to rapidly phase out their coal power fleets in line with global climate targets, and insurance companies should stop insuring power utilities which have no credible phase-out plans. Power utilities and their insurers need to urgently move beyond a pathway which is projected to take the planet to a catastrophic 2.7°C of global warming by the end of the century.”
Only 37% of OECD coal power capacity (100GW) is scheduled to close by 2030 and 6% of non-OECD capacity (100GW) by 2050. 7
The report says that for insurers to align with the Paris target they must:
1 One Earth Climate Model, Sectoral Pathways to Net-Zero Emissions, 18-5-22
2 IEA, Coal power’s sharp rebound is taking it to a new record in 2021, threatening net zero goals, 17-12-21
3 UN, Secretary-General’s closing remarks to Insurance Development Forum, 18-6-21
4 Global Energy Monitor, Global Coal Plant Tracker: Coal-fired Power Capacity By Region, January 2022
5 Beazley, Chaucer, Canopius, Markel, Antares, Cincinnati, AEGIS and W.R. Berkley.
6 Willis Towers Watson, Ready and Waiting? Power and Renewable Energy Market Review 2019
7 Global Energy Monitor, Boom and Bust Coal, April 2022
Read the full report here
Reposted from Insure our Future
Lloyd’s of London published its 2021 Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Report two days ahead of its Annual General Meeting on May 19.
Lloyd’s second ESG report is a document almost completely lacking in substance which does more to obscure the climate destroying actions of its members than to shed light on how it intends to reach its often stated net-zero by 2050 ambition. It has almost no information on concrete climate action and raises many serious questions about Lloyd’s.
Most notably, Lloyd’s second ESG report says nothing about the outcomes of the climate commitments it made in its first ESG report released at the end of 2020. Previously, Lloyd’s stated it was asking its managing agents to not provide any new cover for coal-fired plants, coal mines, oil sands and Arctic energy exploration from 1st January 2022. Yet, its current report fails to report on whether or not its members are fulfilling this commitment.
Whilst Lloyd’s ESG report doesn’t tell us, we already know from other sources that not all members of Lloyd’s market have stopped providing new insurance cover for new coal projects.
For example, a recent public report by London based insurance broker Alesco, noted that while many Lloyd’s members have adopted the policy, others continue to accept new coal business.
Why has Lloyd’s, which knows these facts, not been open or honest about them in this report? Which Lloyd’s members are ignoring Lloyd’s stated ambitions? What action is Lloyd’s taking to bring those members into line? What value do Lloyd’s stated climate ambitions and targets have when they are so plainly ignored by some of its members with no consequence?
Instead of addressing these obvious questions Lloyd’s is trying to cover up its failure to deliver on its climate commitments. In other words, Lloyd’s 2021 ESG report is greenwash.
Whilst avoiding mention of its failure to have all members exclude the very worst fossil fuel projects, this report goes much further in the wrong direction. Lloyd’s doubles-down on requiring its members to continue to insure what it terms the “harder-to-abate sectors”, by which it presumably means it plans to adopt no restrictions on new oil and gas exploration. Lloyd’s completely ignores the IPCC, the IEA and others which make clear that no new oil and gas projects are compatible with staying within 1.5C global warming, and that existing production needs to be phased down.
One example of concrete climate action Lloyd’s trumpets is appointing its first Sustainability Director. The ESG report fails to mention that Lloyd’s management gave the role to one of its Senior Public Relations Officers, who had no previous sustainability-related experience. Is that an example of bringing in a great communicator to an important new priority role? Or a classic example of treating ESG as more of a public relations exercise than a substantive issue? What is clear is that the quantity and quality of largely substance free public relations materials from Lloyd’s about sustainability has increased significantly in the last 12 months.
Lloyd’s Council Chair Bruce Carnegie-Brown and its CEO John Neal sign off the report saying:
“We hope this report equips you with a helpful and comprehensive summary of our ESG activity – and we look forward to working with you to build the braver world it imagines.”
In a climate crisis that presents an existential threat to life on earth, Lloyd’s is stuck in its PR bubble talking about sharing risks to create a braver world, when in reality its members provide the insurance cover for, and invest in, climate and human-rights destroying fossil fuel projects and companies.
Lloyd’s new ESG report exemplifies many of the worst aspects of corporate greenwashing. Saying it is committed to net-zero by 2050, but not having detailed targets and not enforcing the targets it does express is not a climate science aligned policy, it is greenwash. Lloyd’s Council, led by its Chairman Bruce Carnegie-Brown, needs to start taking genuine climate action by ensuring Lloyd’s members stop insuring and investing in new fossil fuels and phase out existing investments and insurance in-line with climate science. Nothing less will do.
Finally, there are a few words in the report that I do agree with:
Rebekah Clement Lloyd’s new Sustainability Director: “The work is nowhere near done…”
David Sansom Lloyd’s Chief Risk officer: “We have much more to do…”
Alesco Energy Update 2022. Page 21: “1 January 2022 saw the introduction of the new Lloyd’s directive as regards to coal; with the initially proposed stance being that no new coal business was to be underwritten from that date. However, in light of subsequent discussions between various parties, there has been a subtle change of emphasis with each syndicate now having a more individual responsibility towards their attitude to the new coal business. Many have chosen to remain with the existing policy of not putting any new coal accounts onto their books; but others have adopted a policy of accepting new business where the client can demonstrate a clear approach to working towards an orderly transition to renewable energy”.
There are a range of organisations fighting against this disastrous proposal, each with different tactics and strategy, but working together to stop the mine. We encourage you to look at their information and get in touch direct if you'd like to work with them.
South Lakes Action on Climate Change (SLACC) is a community-based charity which brings together people who want to do something about climate change and promote a more sustainable lifestyle. SLACC is currently running a legal challenge against the Government's approval of the proposed mine.
Friends of the Earth is a grassroots environmental campaigning community. From campaigners and lawyers to local action groups and supporters across the country, it pushes for change for people and planet. Friends of the Earth is currently running a legal challenge against the Government's approval of the proposed mine.
Extinction Rebellion North Lakes and Extinction Rebellion South Lakes are active on this issue across Cumbria and bring together people in opposition to the mine at a local and national level.
Campaign Against Climate Change believes in the power of street protests, big and small, in working in coalitions as part of a wider movement and in making the links between climate change and other social justice issues. They have a trade union group and produced the report Climate Jobs: Building a workforce for the climate emergency
Left Unity is active in movements and campaigns across the left, working to create an alternative to the main political parties. The Cumbria and North Lancaster group is involved in protests against the proposal.
BankTrack is the international tracking, campaigning and civil society support organisation targeting private sector commercial banks (‘banks') and the activities they finance. Bank Track has written this brilliant profile on the proposal
Reclaim Finance is a research and campaigning organization that is looking at the funding of the proposal.
Cumbria Action for Sustainability undertakes practical projects with communities and organisations of all kinds to encourage the transition from high to low carbon lives and livelihoods. It has produced research on the potential in Cumbria for jobs which would contribute to decarbonisation as an alternative to the coal mine.
And of course there are local people against the proposal, non-affiliated individuals and local representatives of organisation such as the Green Party, trade unions etc.
At the end of November 2021, we noticed the licence application for an extension to 'Aberpergwm Colliery' in South Wales on the little-publicised webpage of the Coal Authority (regulator for all coal mining across the UK). This webpage contains a listing of all coal mine licences and licence applications and is a good one to bookmark and check back regularly.
We noticed the application was made in 16/09/2020, so we knew it could be awarded a licence tomorrow or in a year's time. But after checking no other group was campaigning on this already, we sprung into action to ensure licencing wasn't just waved through. In early December we started raising awareness of the licence application over social media, and shared key facts about the coal mine.
We spoke with Minister Lee Waters of the Welsh Government who insisted the his Government cannot use their powers under the Wales Act 2017 to stop the Aberpergwm coal mine expansion - since the licence's origins dates back before the Wales Act 2017 came into force. Therefore, it was for the UK Government to stop this licence. But the UK Government publicly disagreed in a BBC article on November 4th, arguing that the Welsh Government can apply the Wales Act 2017, and for that reason it would not be appropriate for the UK Government to step in.
In short, both the Welsh and UK Governments pointed the finger of blame at each other and neither would take responsibility nor resolve the issue between them, which actually had the power to intervene.
Coal Action Network launched a mass email campaign on 20/12/2021, encouraging our supporters and the public to contact Ministers Lee Waters of the Welsh Government, and Michael Gove of the UK Government. By the end of December, over 4000 emails had been sent to both Ministers, asking them to agree which government has the power to stop the Aberpergwm coal mine expansion - and to step in to stop the licence.
Both Minister failed to respond to any of the 4000 emails, ignoring the thousands of concerns expressed to them.
After both Ministers Lee Waters and Michael Gove failed to respond to any of the 4000 emails, and ignore the thousands of concerns expressed to them, Coal Action Network followed with an open letter to them. This letter summarised the main concerns that our supporters and the public wrote to them with, and asked for a response to these concerns.
Again, both Ministers failed to respond and we were getting increasingly concerned their inaction and refusal to communicate would let this licence application slip through and commit us all to continued coal mining at Aberpergwm until 2039.
On 25th January 2022, the Coal Authority awarded Aberpergwm its coal mine expansion licence, quietly updating its listing of coal mining applications and licences. In response to an email from Coal Action Network, the Coal Authority claimed it could not refuse the licence on any grounds apart from a narrow criteria set by the 1994 Coal Industry Act. If an applicant meets this criteria, the Coal Authority claims it must grant it the licence.
Coal Action Network contacted Richard Buxton Solicitors to find out if there is still any hope of stopping this coal mine, and whether the Welsh Government can still intervene - as the UK Government claims it can.
In February 2022, CAN staff visited the site of the Aberpergwm coal mine and met with local people in Glynneath to deepen our understanding of local views and awareness of the looming coal mine expansion. We learned that people living in towns near to the coal mine felt reliant on the coal mine because it brought some business into an area struggling economically and with underfunded services such as public transport links between nearby towns. We have heard similar stories of other towns, forced by a lack of Government investment, to choose between a coal mine with HGV traffic, noise, and disruption, or further job losses and closures.
We also found only low levels of awareness that the coal mine was recently licenced for a massive expansion, indicating that coal mine operator, EnergyBuild Mining Ltd, had not communicated this with local people.
Coal Action Network reached out to Wales-based environmental groups and engaged them on the issue of the impending Aberpergwm coal mine expansion licence. After speaking of 100 million tonnes of CO2 and up to 1.17 million tonnes of methane expected to be generated from this expansion, they took action.
Actions have included blockading the site office at the coal mine location on 11th March, and a theatrical noise demonstration outside the Senedd on 17th March 2022 which was attended by Wales Green Party leader Anthony Slaughter and Liberal Democrat party leader, Jane Dodds, who both delivered speeches on the need to prevent this coal mine expansion.
Richard Buxton Solicitors and Barrister Estelle Dehon (QC) represented Coal Action Network, believing there to be a case to argue:
After 'pre-action letters' to the Welsh Government and UK Coal Authority, Coal Action Network's legal team submitted an application in early April for a judicial review on these grounds.
Coal Action Network is a small grassroots organisation, so we need to fundraise £65,000 to challenge the Welsh Government and Coal Authority in a judicial review. These funds are needed to pay for our legal costs, potentially a portion of the other side's if we lose, as well as court fees.
But, if we win, we would set a legal precedent that could make it significantly harder for future coal mining across the UK, potentially laying a 475 year industry to rest and helping to safeguard future generations.
Please share and donate to our CrowdJustice crowd funder.
Our legal team has been informed that our legal challenge will be heard by a senior High Court judge on 15th-16th March 2023. Permission to proceed to a full Judicial Review in the High Court indicates we have a solid case and puts us an important step closer to reversing January's decision to licence a 42 million tonne expansion of the Aberpergwm coal mine. Our crack legal team, Richard Buxton Solicitors and Barrister Estelle Dehon QC, will challenge the parts that The UK Coal Authority and the Welsh Government played in this disastrous licence slipping through.
Coal Action Network held an informal briefing in the Senedd (Welsh Parliament) sponsored by Jane Dodds, Member of the Senedd (MS).
The event was attended by MSs and their staff who heard why the proposal to extend Aberpergwm coal mine should be stopped and how Universal Basic Income could answer some of the issues for workers during the transition to a low carbon economy.
On 15 March 2023, we arrived outside the Cardiff courts for the Judicial Review hearing, to press teams and a strong demonstration in support of our case for a more sustainable future in Wales and the UK. We feel confident that our legal team made convincing and consistent arguments rooted in the law. A decision should be made by the judge in 2 weeks to 3 month from today. Read more...
On 19th May 2023, the Judicial Review decision upheld the mine to continuing to operate until 2039 to the tune of over 100 million tonnes of CO2. This judgement comes fewer than two months after the IPCC released a report sounding the ‘final warning’ of irreversible and catastrophic climate change. Although ultimately the judge’s decision upholds the Aberpergwm coal mine in the midst of our climate crisis, the judgment agrees with our legal team on a number of crucial points, creating some optimism around a possible appeal. We'll need to weigh up time and funding with the chance of a successful outcome. Read more...
On the 19th of May, The Hon. Mrs Justice Steyn DBE decided in favour of the Welsh Government and Coal Authority, but granted us permission to appeal the decision about the Welsh Government less than 2 weeks later, on 31st May.
The grounds for this appeal are:
The High Court decided against Coal Action Network and found against our appeal in February 2024. The grounds were different to those given by the lower court.
Consequently Coal Action Network appealed to the Supreme Court. Sadly, in July 2024 the application to the Supreme Court was rejected.
This is the end of the road for the legal challenges against the coal mine extension, but we are working on other strategies to keep coal under the ground at Aberpergwm and elsewhere. Thanks for all your support in this campaign.
Coal & refuse to be excavated: 72 million tonnes in total - 30 million tonnes of which will be "middling" coal to be dumped or put back into the coal mine.
Coal to be sold: 42 million tonnes during the life of the extension
CO2: 100-120 million tonnes of CO2, according to uses listed below (2022 BEIS Conversion Factors)
Methane: up to 1.17 million tonnes of methane, a powerful climate accelerant
Coal operator (mining company): Energybuild Ltd/Energybuild Mining Ltd.
Type: Anthracite
Claimed uses:
The planning application said power stations and steel works. With Aberthaw power station closed, Energybuild now talks of Pulverised injection for steelmaking, household heating, cement, and water filtration.
County Council Local Planning Authority: Neath Port Talbot
Address: Glynneath, Neath, SA11 5AJ
Physical size: Because this is an underground mine, much of the excavation would be invisible but very real, as communities victim to flooding mine shafts have experienced. The underground tunnelling has permission to extend to 2.3km squared, taking you roughly half an hour to walk from one side of the tunnels to the other. And this doesn’t factor in the vertical shafts, sending offshoots that go beneath the River Dulais.
Time: Planning permission to mine coal until 2039 (this is often subsequently extended).
Published: 22/04/2022
... So we thought we would!
Volunteers from Neath Port Talbot Friends of the Earth have given out flyers in Glynneath to start conversations and direct people towards this information about the mine expansion, and about how you can take action as people living near Aberpergwm.
Aberpergwm has permission to extract over 40 million tonnes of coal over 18 years: 2.33 million per year. The mine is set to expand under Seven Sisters , Treforgan and Crynant and up to Varteg Hill to the West.
According to legal advice received by the Coal Action Network, the Welsh Government should have intervened to stop the mine AND the Coal Authority could have taken the mine's climate change impacts into account before granting it permission. As a result the mine is up for debate in court.
Allowing the mine contradicts both the UK and Wales' climate commitments, the Wales Future Generations Act and the Welsh Planning Policy Framework
This increase would mean:
There are no plans to increase the number of jobs.
Jobs that are promised are precarious because...
No.
The company paint a picture of an expanding global market for their coal for water filtration, securing jobs into the future.
But the quality of the coal in this seam makes it unsuitable for water filtration as the company claim [8]. The nine foot coal seam in this area has a lower carbon content than that needed for water filtration [9]. So only a tiny percentage of the coal, if anything, can be used for this.
Instead Aberpergwm is predicated on the future of coal in steel production, which is not at all secure [10]
Steelworks using coal are some of the UK's biggest polluters; Tata Neath Port Talbot is by far the biggest single site source of greenhouse gas emissions in Wales [11] and Aberpergwm proposes to continue contributing to that for another 20 years
Meanwhile, scientists agree that no new coal can be extracted anywhere in the world if we are to stay below 1.5 degrees of warming [13] which is considered the safe limit for life on the planet.[14].
Furthermore, the coal in the mine is anthracite, which results in a high-methane producing operation. The 1.17 million tonnes of methane that would be released if this coal is to be mined would act quickly on the atmosphere, as methane is 80 times more powerful than CO2.[12]
Flooding events like those seen in the Neath Valley, and other catastrophic climate events globally are set to become more frequent if current levels of methane and greenhouse gas emissions are maintained
Local residents told The Guardian that the mine is "Not the future we should be going for".
Couldn't there be a long-term and green source of jobs for Glynneath, Cwmgwrach, Blaengwrach and the Neath Valley?
Blaengwrach resident Emma Eynons told CAN:
The communities in my local area have been suffering for many years with a lack of investment by the Welsh Government.
We live in an area of outstanding beauty, and of scientific interest, with so much wildlife and natural resource all around us. We would love to share our beautiful home with the rest of the world and establish a thriving community.
We want tourism, small business growth, regeneration plans which will mean real jobs with futures as we move forward. A community transport scheme would alleviate the social problems faced by our isolated residents
As a traditional mining community, of course we should celebrate our proud history of mining achievements. However, I would ask the Welsh Government to consider what the future of our communities should be.
It's really easy to write to Lee Waters MP: Wales' Deputy Minister for Climate Change. The Welsh Government needs to hear personal letters from local residents and people in South Wales.
You don't have to say very much, you just need to show you care, and pick one or two facts or themes from this page in your own words. Three sentences are enough!
Steps to write to Lee Waters MP:
Please send any replies you recieve to info@coalaction.org.uk
For the case against the mine to succeed we have to fund it! Please share our crowdfunder page
1Planning Application P2014/0729 Mining Zones Map (Neath Port Talbot Council planning portal)
[2]Coal Authority production statistics: 25666 (2019) 16957 (2020) 19690 (2021) tonnes was produced. Average 20,771 tonnes of coal.
[5]Planning Permission document P2014/0729 (7)
[6] Channel 4 News: https://www.channel4.com/news/are-cop26-promises-on-coal-being-broken (04.02.22)
[7] Wales carbon budgets/targets March 2021: https://gov.wales/climate-change-targets-and-carbon-budgets
[8] Core samples show 88.3% fixed carbon content https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/115771/1/Zagorscak%20and%20Thomas%20(2018).pdf (126)
[9] In excess of 95% fixed carbon content: https://mineralmilling.com/anthracite-filter-media/
[10] Coal in Steel : Problems & Solutions (Coal Action Network)
[11] Wales carbon budgets/targets March 2021: https://gov.wales/climate-change-targets-and-carbon-budgets
[12]Channel 4 News report, research provided by Global Energy Monitor https://www.channel4.com/news/are-cop26-promises-on-coal-being-broken (04.02.22)
