We also heard on the grapevine that EMR Capital PTY were attending in the desperate hope of raising the £230 million still needed to start the Whitehaven coal mine. So local campaigners from Cumbria came all the way to London to deliver a message to investors—steer clear of it. To further ruin EMR Capital PTY’s plans, they also handed investors a risk assessment provided by Bank Track outlining risks specific to the Whitehaven coal mine proposal. We even had time to fit in a visit to Talbot insurance company's HQ in the City of London - security saw us coming and put the whole building on "lock down"! But that didn't stop but engaging with employees and making out presence seen (and heard!). We demand that Talbot insurance company rules out the possibility of insuring the Whitehaven coal mine. No insurance = no coal mine!

There’s many options that we must make better use of before clawing the ground up to reach the mineral beneath, and that is where investment is needed. For example, we need:

1. better closed-loop recycling and reuse
2. new technologies and the efficiencies they can bring
3. the eradication of planned obsolescence
4. a reduction and prioritisation in what we consume

This would truly be ‘resourcing tomorrow’ - the strapline for this year’s Money & Mining conference. Instead, the conference encourages investment in the rush for remaining minerals, fuelling human rights abuses, land grabs, destruction of local eco-systems, and climate change.

We call out the host of this disastrous conference, the Business Design Centre, which boasts its ethical ‘B-Corp’ status. You might want to raise your concerns with the certifying body about giving these hosts any kind of ethical certification (certification@bcorporation.uk), pointing out that at least three fossil fuel companies advertising coal mines and oil production were touting for investment at the conference (BHP, ADX Energy, and Teck).

West Cumbria Mining Ltd want to mine 2.78 million tonnes of coal a year until 2049. The company aims to produce around 64 million tonnes of coal in total, from a predominantly undersea mine.

This would result in 0.34 million tonnes of methane being released during the process of mining, and a further 200 million tonnes of CO2 when the coal is burned. The methane would account for almost 40% to the UK’s fossil production methane emissions by 2030, putting critical methane targets at risk. The CO2 is equivalent to the United Arab Emirates' total 2021 emissions.

"We need the coal for power stations"

The coal is destined for foreign steelworks, it’s not the type normally used in power stations. The UK got less than 2% of its energy from coal last year, we don’t need more coal to keep lights on.

"We need the coal for UK steel making"

Almost all the coal would be exported. Both the UK’s major steelworks – at Port Talbot and Scunthorpe – have confirmed they will close their coal-based blast furnaces and install electric arc furnaces which recycle scrap steel without coal. At present this scrap steel is exported to be recycled abroad and then recycled steel is reimported. There is plenty of scope to increase UK-based recycling.

"The coal would be high quality"

Coal from Whitehaven is high in sulphur and causes acid rain when burnt. So its use is restricted by the UK and European Union. This means the coal is most likely to be sold to Turkey, outside the EU – a major steelmaker with lower pollution standards.

In order to reduce the sulphur content of the coal, it would need to be either blended with low sulphur coal, like that mined in Australia, or it would need to be ‘ barrel washed’. There’s no information from West Cumbria Mining Ltd on how washing would be done, or where the polluted waste from washing would go.

"You can’t make steel without coal"

The main way that new steel is made currently uses coal, but already 9% of steel is made by Direct Reduction which doesn’t need to use coal. Direct Reduction can use hydrogen (or fossil fuels, inc. coal). Only hydrogen made from renewables can be considered green.

In the UK there are already 4 steelworks that recycle scrap steel in electric arc furnaces and 2 major steelworks with blast furnaces which use large amounts of coal. The latter are the UK’s 2^nd and 3^rd biggest single site emitters of CO2. The blast furnace operators have agreed to convert to electric arc furnaces and stop using coal within the next few years, with one expected to convert in March 2024.

The UK government has been investing in carbon capture and storage projects, which have been unsuccessful in capturing significant quantities of greenhouse gasses. The UK is behind other European countries on investment in new green steel technology. There are new primary steel manufacturing methods that use green hydrogen with direct reduction iron that can be utilised in the UK if there was political will.

"You still need coal in electric arc furnaces (EAF)"

Although the lobby group UK Steel says 9kg of coking coal may be used in EAF to produce a tonne of steel (versus 780kg for a tonne of blast furnace steel), other sources of carbon are possible to completely exclude coal use, using the same infrastructure.

"You can’t always use recycled steel"

In the construction industry, steel is often over-supplied by as much as 50%. We can use far less to build the same amount of things. We need to employ engineers to more accurately calculate what is needed, and reduce the amount of raw materials produced.

Steel must be part of the circular economy, alongside reducing use and reusing it before recycling, rather than extracting more materials to make ever more goods.

Companies like Volvo, and top-end manufacturers like Porche, are demanding green steel for their cars. Advances in technology mean ever more metal is able to be recycled and progress in design can reduce contaminants in scrap metal.

"It would be a carbon-neutral mine"

Coal mines are not carbon-neutral. They release methane, a powerful greenhouse gas whilst coal is being mined and release CO2 when the coal is later burned.

Once coal is brought above ground it will be burnt, as companies can make a profit. So coal mined in West Cumbria would worsen climate change through increased coal use. Mining coal in Cumbria doesn't mean it will be left underground somewhere else, as companies with planning permission will sell everything they can having already invested in mines.

The International Panel on Climate Change says that we cannot be net-zero by 2050 if we open any more fossil fuel extraction sites and that we have to close some of the existing ones.

Gold Standard is the carbon offsetting company that West Cumbria Mining Ltd intended to pay to offset emissions from its proposed coal mine by planting trees or supporting renewable schemes. However, Gold Standard responded to this intention by saying “Our claims guidelines make it clear that to make an offset claim organisations should prioritise the avoidance and reduction of emissions – something that is clearly impossible for a coalmine”. Even if an offsetting company wanted this business, the coal mine’s methane emissions would not be offset.

"The methane will be captured"

West Cumbria Mining Ltd doesn’t intend to begin collecting methane released from the proposed coal mine until 5 years after the project starts. The majority of this highly potent greenhouse gas is released when the mine is first created, so even if methane capture equipment caught and burnt 100% of methane released (which it won’t) it will be too little, too late.

"We need the jobs"

Whitehaven may need more jobs but the jobs in this mine, were it to go ahead, would be very different to those in previous local mines. The project would be technologically advanced and employ far fewer people that mines traditionally. Most likely the company would bring in foreign workers, such as Australian miners experienced with ultra-modern mines.

Unionised green jobs can be created in Whitehaven with the right government support, such as for trades people insulating the poor quality housing stock, or improving public transport and doing good for the area as well as creating work. A Just Transition for Cumbria is crucial and means that the community is put at the heart of decisions and workers are leading their industries.

"People from out of the area can’t tell us what to do"

People living in Whitehaven are also concerned about the ecological and climate impacts that this mine would have. If the mine goes ahead, the coal will worsen climate change which affects us all. No-one in Cumbria wants to be flooded by increasingly heavy rains washing away soil in fields and devastating homes, nor to experience droughts brought on by extreme temperatures. Climate change will bring both.

"It’s a local mining company"

West Cumbria Mining Ltd is 81% owned by EMR Capital, a private equity investment fund that manages various mines, with offices in Australia, the Cayman Islands tax haven, and Singapore. The head of EMR Capital used to work for the infamous Rio Tinto. The investors in the project are predominantly from Australia and the USA. There are no local offices or employees of WCM Ltd.

"Mining is our heritage"

We can be proud of our mining heritage and still want a different future.

Our world has changed since coal mining brought stable work and the community of the pits. We no longer need to risk people’s lives in mining coal seems that we know to be gassy and dangerous—we have other ways to make steel and to heat homes.

"Contamination in proposed area"

The Marchon Bank Chemical works was closed in 2005. It had been a detergent factory, as well as the largest single-site producer of sulphuric acid in Europe and the largest single-site producer of Sodium Tripolyphospate in the world. There were also phosphoric acid plants.

The land was registered as contaminated. Although nothing changed at the site, the status was removed in 2013 when the site was approved for a biomass plantation and public access.

If mining were to go ahead, it would involve removing large concrete pads locking in the contamination at the site, this presents a risk of airbourne toxins. This is a risk, especially to the people living in the hundreds of new houses built around the northern and eastern perimeters of the site.

"They only want to dump nuclear waste"

The company that is behind West Cumbria Mining Ltd, EMR Capital, is a holdings company which buys global mining projects (not just for coal) and extracts minerals. If all the permissions and contracts are in place and the project is financially viable then coal mining will happen here.

It may be possible that once the site stops being economically viable or is sold to another company, that nuclear waste from Sellafield or further afield could be dumped in the dug out areas. We can’t assume that the only reason they want permission to mine is to dump nuclear waste, the opportunity to extract coal and turn a profit is too big to be ignored for nuclear waste dumping alone.

"There’s nothing that can be done to stop it"

There is not a coal mine on this site. There is still everything to play for.

To operate the project likely needs a license for the undersea section from the Marine Management Organisation – which could take a year to get from the time of application. There are other permissions and there has to be companies – including investors and insurance companies - prepared to aid a new coal mine in the 2020s. A new government could stop the application or the current legal challenge against its permission may force a new decision.

There’s lots we can still do. The last underground coal mine to be permitted in the UK, New Crofton Co-operative Colliery, never started.

"A coal mine needs insurance"

Coal mines have to obtain insurance to operate. If there is no insurance then there is no coal mine.

Financial firms and big investors won’t put money into a project which doesn’t have insurance to ensure that their investments are protected.

Campaigning to stop the insurance of fossil fuels keeps them in the ground

More details

www.coalaction.org.uk/west-cumbria-mine/

https://slacc.org.uk

https://www.cacctu.org.uk/climatejobs

Sarah McGowan who was born in Whitehaven and took part in the action says, "We can all see the impacts of climate change. In Cumbria the summer has been a washout since June, while on the Hawaiian island of Maui people escaped firestorms by jumping into the sea. Meanwhile the IPCC has said we simply cannot afford to permit any new coal mines, the UK government is flying in the face of reason. Our banners show the strength of feeling against the coal mine and our determination to keep the coal in the ground. The mine must be stopped.”

West Cumbria Mining Ltd is looking to extract a total of 67 million tonnes of coking coal from under the seabed off Whitehaven right up to 2049. The vast majority of this coal would be exported to foreign steelworks, as it is too high in sulphur to comply with UK and European air pollution regulations.[1]

Continues...

On Friday 27^th October, visitors and residents travelling in Cumbria were met by a powerful message of opposition to the proposed new coal mine at Whitehaven. Large banners were hung at major roads across the county, declaring this is “No Time for a Coal Mine”. The banners were hung at the M6 junction at Penrith, on the A66 at Keswick and Cockermouth, on bridges over the Staveley by-pass and the A591 at Kendal, at Garsdale Head and at Whitehaven itself.

Meanwhile, posters emblazoned with “No Time for a Coal Mine” appeared all around Kendal and Penrith. On Saturday 28^th October, the Cumbrian Canaries made an outing at the Winter Droving festival in Penrith, raising the alarm about the proposed coal mine and handing out around 800 leaflets to the revellers.

October's Speakers' Corner hosted Prof. Julia Steinberger, an IPCC 6th Assessment Report author who said that demand reduction is needed to reduce the worst impacts of climate change, and that we already have the technology to ensure this can happen while ensuring a comfortable life. There were 5 other brilliant speakers.

The event was planned to mark the first day of the legal challenge against the Government's approval of the mine proposal, but the hearing has been postponed until after a linked case, which will decide whether the end use emissions need to be considered when giving planning consent. This would mean that the emissions from consuming coal from this site in steelworks would need to be counted, not just those released from mining. 

On the 18th October, hundreds of protesters occupied the plush City of London offices of ten Lloyd’s of London insurers demanding they rule out insuring the proposed West Cumbria coal mine and the East Africa Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP). Earlier that day the protesters marched waving banners saying “Don’t Insure EACOP” and “Don’t Insure West Cumbria Mine” to three high profile buildings including the “Walkie Talkie” where in a coordinated swoop, activists are causing disruption in the office foyers of Ascot, Talbot, Chaucer, Markel, Allied World, CNA Hardy, Tokio Marine Kiln, Sirius International and Lancashire Syndicates. The activists staged a sit-in. More details here.

On the 15th September, the Global day of action against fossil fuel finance, kicked off demonstrations at the offices of Lloyd of London Insurance companies kicking off the campaign to ensure West Cumbria Mining Ltd don't get insurance for the proposed coal mine. Demonstrations took place in places including London, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Birmingham, York, Wrexham, Croydon and Cardiff.

At September's Speakers' Corner event the demonstrators heard from Sarah Finch, Weald Action Group, about the proposal to extract oil in Surrey - which she is challenging in the Supreme Court.

Michael Gove referenced the High Court decision on the case of Horse Hill in Surrey, and used that case to justify excluding the greenhouse gas emissions that would arise from burning the coal from the mine. Sarah's court case questions how end use emissions can be ignored in projects like oil or coal extraction. The Horse Hill decision is awaited and will likely influence the outcome of the legal challenges against the Whitehaven proposal and therefore whether the mine goes ahead.

At the end of August 2023 Earth First! squatted the site of the proposed Whitehaven coal mine and held a week long gathering packed with inspiring discussions, delicious food, wonderful workshops, lots of sock wrestling and some spectacular sunsets! It was a week of radical ecological existence, bursting with love and burning with revolutionary spirit. Their message was

As thousands of visitors travelled into Cumbria for the busy August bank holiday they were met with a powerful statement: 25 large banners opposing the proposed new coal mine near Whitehaven with the words ‘NO TIME for a COAL MINE’ on all the roads into Cumbria.

Leafleting also happened in Carlisle, Keswick, Kirkby Lonsdale and Penrith with a good reception.

South Lakes Action on Climate Change legal challenge

Ground 1 – error of law and/ or failure to give understandable reasons concerning substitution.

The Inspector’s report assumes there will be “some degree of substitution” between coal mined abroad, likely from the USA, and coal from Whitehaven. Unless the substitution would be 100%, as in exactly the same amount of coal extracted from Cumbria would be left underground in a permitted mine elsewhere, the mine would still result in increased global emissions. Substitution won't be anywhere near 100%, as the owners of mines elsewhere will simply sell the coal to different steelworks. The Secretary of State decided on an “overall neutral effect on climate change”, despite the increase in emissions.

Ground 2 – error of law in discounting the international impacts of allowing this mine.

Sir Robert Watson, former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, gave evidence that many other countries will follow suit and approve fossil fuel projects as a result of this decision. A rare letter from Lord Deben from the Climate Change Committee concurred, the decision “gives a negative impression of the UK’s climate priorities in the year of COP26.”

The UK’s international climate reputation was a key reason that the government called in the decision, rather than allowing Cumbria County Council to make it. The Inspector’s report completely fails to deal with both sets of evidence related to this central controversial issue.

Ground 3 – errors of law concerning whether ‘downstream emissions’ caused by the coking coal were indirect significant environment effects of the proposal.

The Inspector concluded that downstream emissions - those resulting in the use of the coking coal, rather than its extraction - “cannot reasonably be regarded as indirect significant effects of the proposed development.” This is incorrect understanding of the law because of the above substitution error – as other coal will not be 100% substituted for mining reduction elsewhere, but also a misunderstanding of the implications of a cited court case (Finch). Without this coal being mined, it wouldn’t be burnt and so there would be significantly fewer downstream emissions.

Ground 4 – unlawful disparity of treatment of the parties and error concerning the approach to the burden of proof.

The Inspector applied different standards to the parties throughout the inquiry. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 217, imposes a high threshold of evidence as to the benefits of a coal mine on the applicant rather than those opposing it. The Inspector seemed to do the opposite, imposing a higher threshold upon testimonies against the coal mine development. This might have influenced how the Government later interpreted the testimonies through the Inspector's report.

Friends of the Earth’s legal challenge

Ground 1: Approach to considering the effect of the development on the UK’s Sixth Carbon Budget.

The impact of the mine on the UK’s Sixth Carbon Budget, which covers the years 2033 to 2037, was a key issue in the Public Inquiry.

The mining company had entered a legal agreement requiring it to buy international carbon offset credits to offset residual emissions from the mine. In the decision letter the Secretary of State concluded that this requirement meant the mine would be net-zero for the purposes of the Sixth Carbon Budget. That conclusion was wrong and unlawful. Such offset credits do not count towards the UK’s carbon budgets.

Ground 2: Approach to considering the international impacts of the decision.

Similar to SLACC’s Ground 2 reasoning.

Ground 3: Approach to ‘substitution’ of WCM coal and the global coal market.

Similar to SLACC’s Ground 1 reasoning.

Ground 4: Earlier court case (Finch) and downstream emissions.

The Secretary of State’s reasoning closely follows the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case of R (Finch) v Surrey County Council, both in terms of whether downstream emissions should have been the subject of environmental assessment, and in terms of the case-by-case assessment of their materiality. It is argued that this is a misinterpretation of the judgement, similar to SLACC’s Ground 3.