News flash two N.Yorks miners trapped

[dazbt]

no further details yet ...............

"A RESCUE operation is under way to reach two miners trapped underground in North Yorkshire, the National Union of Mineworkers said.

The rescue is taking place at Kellingley Colliery, close to Knottingley.

The Yorkshire Air Ambulance was deployed at about 5pm. The miners are said to be some distance from the entrance shaft.

Managed by UK Coal, it is one of Britain's deepest remaining mines.

Kellingley supplies coal to local power stations and produces some coal for households.

The two main shafts are 800m (2624ft) deep."

www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/9274329.Miners_trapped_at_North_Yorkshire_Colliery/

"A spokesman from the National Union of Mineworkers said the men are trapped up their waist after a roof fall at the pit, near Knottingley."

6.30pm one rescued safely taken to hospital
7.00pm second miner recovered and being brought to surface, no clear statement on his condition.

[shropshirebloke]

Best of luck lads - hope it all turns out OK

[John]

Bad news and good news Daz, hope they recover OK.. Roof bolt failure?

[shropshirebloke]

Sadly I've just seen on Sky News that the second bloke is dead - I just hope it was quick.

[dazbt]

Even worse, just heard one miner dead
I apologise for posting over Shropshirebloke

[shropshirebloke]

We're both coming from the same place Daz.

[nixter]

Tuesday 4 October 2011
Log in Register

Find it
Jobs
Property
Motors
Announcements

You are here
News
>
Regional News

Miner asphyxiated by roof collapse


Published on Tuesday 4 October 2011 18:32

A North Yorkshire miner died from asphyxiation when he was buried in a pit after the roof collapsed, an inquest at Selby Magistrates' Court has heard.

Gerry Gibson, 49, from Sherburn-in-Elmet, died last Tuesday when he and a colleague were trapped by a rock fall in Kellingley Colliery.

Initial investigations have shown there was a failure of the roof support system at the mine, the inquest heard.

Giving evidence at the inquest opening, John Whyatt, a mine inspector, said it would take around six months for inquiries into the incident to be completed.

Mr Whyatt said he began his investigations at the mine on Tuesday after being told that two men had been "buried". He said: "It is clear from my initial overview there had been a failure of the support system."

The inspector said equipment from the mine had now been sent away for analysis. "I would expect it to be maybe six months before we are in a position to give a final report. One of our focuses is not just to understand what's happened in this case, but the really important part is to make sure measures are put in place to stop it ever happening again."

Mr Gibson's wife, Brenda, attended the inquest with her son, Sean, and other members of her husband's family. When asked by North Yorkshire Coroner Rob Turnbull if she had any questions, Mrs Gibson said: "The main thing is just to make sure it doesn't happen again."

Opening and adjourning the inquest until a later date, Mr Turnbull said: "The conclusion from the examination of Mr Gibson's body was the cause of death was given as mechanical asphyxia due to the collapse of the mine roof."

UK Coal, which runs Kellingley Colliery, appeared at Pontefract Magistrates' Court on Friday in relation to the death of Mr Cameron.

UK Coal appeared alongside mining equipment firm Joy Mining Machinery Ltd, which is charged with failing to provide all the necessary information about health and safety risks in relation to using the powered roof supports. The case was adjourned until October 24.

Copyright (c) Press Association Ltd. 2011, All Rights Reserved.

Bookmark and Share
Email to a friend Email to a friend
Print this page Print this p

[nixter]

One of her majesty’s inspectors of mines John Whyatt said it was important to understand the mode of failure of the support system at the mine and had sent roof bolts for analysis to the Mines’ Inspectorate laboratories at Buxton in Derbyshire. He said this could take up to six months.

news reported in selby times above detail of support being checked!!!!

[John]

I thought that accident might be roof bolt failures. Threw me with Joy being involved, I'm resuming the roofbolter was a Joy machine???

One big problem with roofbolting is not installing bolts as soon as possible after a mining operation has been completed.

Having worked with roofbolts for a number of years, it was stressed upon us by both mines rescue and Management the importance of reducing the delay between mineral extraction and bolting the roof.
Once bed separation starts to take place, it's impossible to secure the roof long term, and thus leaving that section of roof liable to failure.

In coal, the crew would set temporary supports as they were taking a lift of around 12 -14 feet, which took around 20 minutes or so, then bolting took place before the next lift off was started, together with props and half round bars as permanent support.

The bolts were used with "W" straps the width of the road.

Usually a roof failure was due to convergence, but there was an the odd time a roof bolt failure took place, usually proven by the Inspectorate down to bed separation.

At Boulby in North Yorks we had several roof failures due to bolts shearing, due to the tremendous pressures associated with the depths we were working. Luckily nobody during my time there was buried or killed through those failures.
I did see a section of roadway with three feet of tops on the floor for many yards the complete width of the road.

[dazbt]

Oct 5, 2011 11:04:52 GMT -5 John said:

I thought that accident might be roof bolt failures. Threw me with Joy being involved, I'm resuming the roofbolter was a Joy machine???

One big problem with roofbolting is not installing bolts as soon as possible after a mining operation has been completed.

Having worked with roofbolts for a number of years, it was stressed upon us by both mines rescue and Management the importance of reducing the delay between mineral extraction and bolting the roof.
Once bed separation starts to take place, it's impossible to secure the roof long term, and thus leaving that section of roof liable to failure.

In coal, the crew would set temporary supports as they were taking a lift of around 12 -14 feet, which took around 20 minutes or so, then bolting took place before the next lift off was started, together with props and half round bars as permanent support.

The bolts were used with "W" straps the width of the road.

Usually a roof failure was due to convergence, but there was an the odd time a roof bolt failure took place, usually proven by the Inspectorate down to bed separation.

At Boulby in North Yorks we had several roof failures due to bolts shearing, due to the tremendous pressures associated with the depths we were working. Luckily nobody during my time there was buried or killed through those failures.
I did see a section of roadway with three feet of tops on the floor for many yards the complete width of the road.

I might be wrong, I usually am ....................... but I think that you are mixing up two seperate incidents at Kellingley, the involvement of Joy(supplied roof supports) is nothing to do with this latest death, they are part of an earlier fatal accident.

[John]

Ahh that explains it then, I thought this was the last accident, I thought things were moving a little quickly...

[nixter]

Home > News
Row over mine roof bolts after three die: 'Forum' on safety in wake of Bilsthorpe tragedy

MARY FAGAN, Industrial Correspondent

Friday, 20 August 1993

Share
Print
Email
Text Size
Normal
Large
Extra Large

Sponsored Links
Ads by Google

Panasonic Viera TV's
With 5 Years Free Warranty
Find Out More Here Today
www.panasonic.co.uk/viera

Why Men Lose Attraction
10 Ugly Mistakes Women Make That
Ruins Any Chances Of A Relationship
CatchHimAndKeepHim.com

Download Google Chrome
A free browser that lets you do
more online. Download instantly!
www.google.com/chrome

First Aid Training
Low Cost Group Bookings
Book Online Or Call 08456 529 907
www.Myosotis.org.uk/FirstAid

A NATIONAL forum for debate on safety in the coal-mining industry will be launched in the wake of the disaster at Bilsthorpe colliery in Nottinghamshire, in which three miners died.

The accident at the mine, where the roof caved in, has sparked a furious row over safety in the industry and whether it is being prejudiced because of the Government's determination to sell off British Coal. Attention focused on the 'roof-bolting' technique used inside the mine, which has replaced the traditional system using steel arches.

The Health and Safety Commission announced a 'forum' to debate safety in the run-up to the planned privatisation of British Coal. A separate Bilsthorpe investigation by the Health and Safety Executive will be led by the Deputy Chief Inspector of Mines, Brian Langdon, and the findings published, the HSE said.

Yesterday the bodies of Bill McCulloch, 26, and Peter Alcock, 50, were found. On Wednesday, David Shelton, 31, the colliery under-manager, was found dead under the fall of rubble.

The three survivors spoke of the moment they heard the roof 'crashing in, all caving in and all the noise'.

Paul Smith, 22, the first to be found, said he would never go down the pit again. Russ Turner, 36, and Orest Kocij, 43, kept up each other's spirits by cracking jokes and chatting about holidays as they waited more than 12 hours to be rescued.

The HSE inquiry will concentrate on the roof bolts. Roof-bolting involves inserting steel rods to bind together the rock strata in the roof of the tunnel that allows access to the coal seam. It is said to be cheaper and more flexible to install than arch supports. It has been adopted in other parts of the world for many years but only since 1988 has it been in widespread use in the UK.

Martin O'Neill, Labour's energy spokesman, said: 'The Government's advisers have consistently encouraged the wider use of American mining methods such as roof-bolting in order to increase productivity.

'However, their safety in British mines is highly questionable given our different geological conditions. The Government must now take urgent action to ensure that safety is not compromised in the dash to privatisation.'

Mr O'Neill said that safety and the profitability needed to attract investors to privatise the industry are totally incompatible and that the Bilsthorpe accident serves to highlight that.

Alan Oakes, a leading consultant on mining engineering, said that roof-bolting has done much to increase the efficiency of deep mines but that it may not be suitable in every instance.

He added: 'If you cannot support a mine with roof-bolting it is unlikely that the mine will compete with mines which are roof-bolted. We have to investigate this incident to see what precisely happened but I would tremble to think that British Coal would abandon the technique.'

Arthur Scargill, the leader of the National Union of Mineworkers, called for roof bolts to be banned. He compared them to 'dinner plates' being used to hold the roof up and instead advocated use of ring girders.

'Anybody who has supported the use of roof bolts as a primary or sole means of support is wrong and will continue to be wrong. I have been saying that for over 30 years, having had the personal experience of working with roof bolts over 30 years ago and seeing at that time a cave-in of similar proportions to that which we have seen at Bilsthorpe.'

Mr Scargill said the bolts were up to 70 per cent cheaper than traditional steel ring girder supports. 'The dash to cut corners in terms of safety in the mining industry is tied up with the drive towards privatisation.'

Both Mr Oakes and Dr John Harrison, of the Royal School of Mines at Imperial College, attacked the union leader for blaming the new technique, saying technology has advanced enormously in recent years.

Dr Harrison said: 'Roof-bolting is tried and tested and well suited to British geology. It is far superior to arches and to say that it is an American techology and will not work here is, I think, disingenuous.'

British Coal said it would launch its own inquiry. The Nottinghamshire area director, John Longden, said yesterday that it was too early to criticise roof-bolting. The roof fall had been so massive it was unlikely that any system of support would have held, he said.

Every miner's nightmare, page 3

Leading article, page 19




pity we all have short memorys / never really felt safe going in an heading that was supported with mesh and bolts after being used to arches / just shows the dangers we put on are modern day miner

[John]

I never felt in danger working under roofbolts, The mines I worked at after leaving the NCB were Bord and Pillar mines. The only support at British Gypsums's mines in the 70's when I went back to mining was just the pillars, no bolts, timber or steel. The roof was self supporting. Mind you, they were fairly shallow mines compared to the two collieries I'd worked down.

My first experience of bolts was at Cleveland Potash's Boulby Mine at 3/4 mile beneath the North Yorks National Park, plenty of weight and convergence.
I was always nervous of gas blowouts down there. The roof bolting appeared to do the job.
We had several ex NCB miners, in fact a couple from "Big K" were on the same shift as myself, Danny and Mick, both highly competent bolters.
Most of the elec and fitting staff were ex NCB too, none of us feared working under them.

I worked under roof that was bolted for ten years down under in the NSW coalfields, both the pits I worked down were over 1000 ft deep.
We did have the beauty of having solid sandstone above the coal seams, which the bolts were anchored into.
Although the sandstone was a "pig" on a newly retreating longwall, tended to hold up for many yards. One face stopped for several hours and management was contemplating using a few shots to start the goaf collapsing. But nature did it for us eventually.Scary!!!
Like I mentioned, props and bars were also used on main roads with the bolts through "W" straps.

I only ever saw bolts in a section of main conveyor road as an experiment at my first NCB pit. No idea how long they had been used though, but they seemed to be doing their job.

TBH, I'd feel extremely nervous walking up a gate road of an advancing face supported by bolts though!!!!!

[dazbt]

I'm fairly sure .............. (although I wouldn't swear to it, my memory is rubbish) that the results of the enquiry into the Bilsthorpe tragedy showed the roof bolts weren't to blame, at least they weren't the main cause of failure of the roof. I believe it was found that the supporting ribs left between adjacent faces were inadequate, the distance between the working gate and a parrallel previously worked roadway was far too short. I'll have a search around and see if I can find confirmation, before I get shot down in flames.

[John]

That would certainly weaken the roof Daz.

The chain pillars and barriers were what they were "lifting off" at the coal mine in Utah about three years back. Only they weren't getting roof falls, they were getting massive weighting..(convergence)

[dazbt]

Oct 6, 2011 6:10:08 GMT -5 John said:

That would certainly weaken the roof Daz.

The chain pillars and barriers were what they were "lifting off" at the coal mine in Utah about three years back. Only they weren't getting roof falls, they were getting massive weighting..(convergence)

I've found some info on the Bilsthorpe incident and seems as if my memory is at least in reasonable nick, the gate that collapsed was in fact so close to the previous gate that in places there was access between them .......... almost 'beggars' belief !!

Here's a few snippets I gleaned from the net;
Inspectors criticised over pit accident: Roof bolts 'unsuited to Bilsthorpe tunnel'
BARRIE CLEMENT, Labour Editor
Thursday, 26 August 1993
PIT inspectors came under fire yesterday for allowing the victims of the Bilsthorpe colliery disaster to work in allegedly dangerous conditions.
Sources close to the inquiry into the roof fall that killed three men at the Nottinghamshire colliery said initial impressions of union officials about the nearness of old workings to the site of the disaster were wrong.
Unions reported that there was a metre of coal separating the new roadway from the old, which they regarded as insufficient. However, sources now say that at least one point there was nothing between the tunnels. It was possible to walk from one to the other. Brian Langdon, deputy chief inspector of mines, who is leading the initial investigation into the accident, has already indicated that the old workings might have been the main cause of the accident.
Peter McNestry, general secretary of the pit supervisors' union Nacods, said that if there was nothing to separate the roadways, colliery inspectors should have refused to sanction the operation. He said the new evidence meant that the roof bolt system used was inappropriate.
Roof bolts, used for many years in the American industry, have been introduced into Britain. Mr McNestry's union and the National Union of Mineworkers have opposed this, although the Union of Democratic Mineworkers, the main union at Bilsthorpe, has been less hostile.
Both the NUM and Nacods are worried that there could be a 'cover-up' of the true causes of the disaster. They believe that unsafe practices are increasingly being used to improve productivity ahead of privatisation and to avoid pit closures. The future of Bilsthorpe itself is uncertain.
Visiting the colliery yesterday, the energy minister Tim Eggar said any lessons learned from the tragedy would be applied to other collieries.
Labour MPs and some union leaders have criticised plans to reform pit safety regulations and Nacods yesterday decided to seek a judicial review. The new regime would do away with Nacods members' right to stop work they think potentially dangerous.
Mr Eggar said the new regulations followed many years of consultations and there had been an elaborate period of re-examination. It was the view of the Health and Safety Commission that the new regulations would improve safety standards, he said.
Mick Stevens, UDM secretary for Nottinghamshire, told Mr Eggar that the three men would have died in vain if Bilsthorpe closed.
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/inspectors-criticised-over-pit-accident-roof-bolts-unsuited-to-bilsthorpe-tunnel-1463390.html


“The drivage of the supply gate of a development panel in the presumed low stress zone adjacent to the loader gate of an excavated panel with a very small width of intervening pillar between the two entries, known as skin-to-skin working, resulted in an extensive fall of the supply gate roof at a UK coal mine, Bilsthorpe colliery in 1993. This fall left a question over the application of skin-to-skin drivage of gate entries supported primarily by rock bolts. To investigate the possible reasons behind this fall, both physical and numerical modelling studies were carried out. Physical and numerical models were successful in demonstrating the potential danger of the working method with the rock bolt support system employed. Development of a shear failure plane from the rib edge into roof strata of the loader gate and development of the second shear failure plane at the abutment side of the supply gate exposed the supply gate to the fall of large rock blocks released by shear failure zones. Models demonstrated that the fall of the supply gate roof was not due to the inability of the rock bolts to prevent bed separation, but it was the method of working that made the bolts ineffective due to the height of the block delineated by the shear failure planes. Further physical and numerical models were undertaken to investigate the influence of 5, 7•5 and 10 m wide intervening pillars between the entries on the stability of the rock bolt supported supply gate roof. These studies showed that a 7•5 m or 10 m wide pillar would have prevented development of failure zones and fall of the roof while a 5 m pillar was found to be an undersized pillar width causing the development of extensive failure zones in the roof.”
www.ingentaconnect.com/content/maney/mint/2004/00000113/00000001/art00006
Quotes from Mr Dobson MP (for Holborn and St Pancras, would you believe?)
Parliamentary records;
“That was before the fatal roof fall at Bilsthorpe colliery which the HSE attributed not to the use of roof bolts, but to the collapse of a pillar of coal which was too narrow to take the weight bearing down on it or, even possibly, the absence of any pillar at all. So what did Boyds recommend in January in its report before that fatal fall? It recommended that the pillars between workings should be reduced to a quarter of the thickness presently required, even by British Coal. So much for the culture that the Government want to import from the United States. Unsafe for any depth : that is their culture.”
“Had the HSE looked carefully enough, if it had looked at all, before issuing the exemption certificate, it would have found that roof bolts were to be used next to an old working, separated only by a pillar of coal just one metre wide, if there was any pillar at all. If the HSE had done its job properly before it issued that exemption certificate, it would have been alerted to the danger of the collapse of a thin pillar. It should have been aware of that danger because when a roof collapsed at Allerton Bywater on 26 July 1989 the self-same HSE issued a report which exonerated roof bolts and attributed the collapse to the thinness of the pillar involved. There is some explaining to be done, and the HSE should not be allowed to issue reports that exonerate it from a failure to carry out its duties.”
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199293/cmhansrd/1993-10-26/Debate-1.html
Note; the above link is worth reading re the mining related debate, Mr Skinner goes on to call some members Bast*rds, wish I’d been there.

[John]

The idea of bolting, is to make the strata a natural "girder" supported by the pillars either side. Looks like someone forgot "physical laws" at Bilsthorpe, and through neglect some men had to die.

Not sure if Bilsthorpe used "chain pillars", sounds like it up to a point, where management greed took over, get that bit of extra coal! Either that, or their surveyors were crap.
But why hadn't the district Deputies stopped work as the tail gate was in a dangerous state???

Under the M&Q Act, the Deputies were liable, as was the Manager and Under Manager, and the men had a perfect right to refuse to walk the tailgate.

So many ignored the rules, then the Inspectorate were totally negligent in not kicking arses...BEFORE anyone got hurt.

[shropshirebloke]

Thanks Daz - especially for the last link.

Frank Dobson and Denis Skinner have always been presented as buffoons by our Tory media (inc. Guardian etc....) - I think they did a pretty good job in that debate.

I'll never be anything but a Socialist - but I may have to form my own party!!

[nixter]

You are here
News
>
Regional News

,
COAL FIRM TO AVOID CRIPPLING FINE
Published on Friday 21 October 2011 17:40

A judge hearing how four miners, including one from Doncaster, died following safety breaches by Britain's biggest mining firm has indicated he will not impose fines at a level which would cripple a company in a "pretty desperate situation".

Mr Justice MacDuff was speaking as he adjourned sentencing of UK Coal, which has admitted offences under health and safety laws in relation to the deaths of Trevor Steeples, Paul Hunt, Anthony Garrigan and Paul Milner.

Mr Steeples, Mr Hunt and Mr Garrigan died following incidents at Daw Mill colliery, near Coventry in 2006 and 2007.

Mr Milner died following an incident at the now-closed Welbeck Colliery, in Nottinghamshire, in 2007.

On Thursday, the judge heard how UK Coal was "under intense economic pressure" following the recession.

Mark Turner QC, for the firm, told the court that shares worth £5 five years ago were recently trading for 34p. Mr Turner said it was in a "very poor way financially" and was implementing a survival plan.

The judge told Sheffield Crown Court he had a very difficult exercise to perform to provide justice for the men's families yet not threaten a company which "provided energy to the nation, employment within the nation and a valuable service all round".

He said he had read moving tributes to those who had died from their families and praised the relatives for their measured comments without "railing or complaining". He said it would be in "nobody's interest" to impose devastating financial penalties on the firm.

The judge said: "Whilst there has been fault here, this is a worthwhile company that provides employment to people like their loved ones."

The court heard how UK Coal already faced huge costs over the case. The judge said that when he finally sentenced the company later this year he would first establish a total figure it should be liable for and then deduct these massive costs before determining the level of fines from what remained.

SHOWS WHAT THE HUMAN COST WE PAY FOR ENERGY TODAY AND
ALTHOUGH WE HAVE STANDARDS FAR SUPERIOR THAN CHINA ETC,
WERE STILL PREPARED TO IGNORE REGS.!!!!!!!


Copyright (c) Press Association Ltd. 2011, All Rights Reserved.

[shropshirebloke]

I can (sort of) see where the judge is coming from on this....but from what I've read about this case there was a serious failure when it came to "duty of care". Individuals were responsible for the failings that killed these lads - the share price of UK Coal might be a 15th of what it was 5 years ago - but what about the earnings of those responsible?

[John]

I've stood my ground many times over safety, not minor issues, but serious ones. Sure, I was backed by bloody good unions, but would I have stood my ground had I not had a good union behind me??? Yep, my life and those who worked around me were far more important than my job.
And lets be right, a company wouldn't look too good in the media, sacking someone who refused to enter a dangerous place of work.

During my apprenticeship during the 60's, we had it drilled into us many times, you are the one who is responsible for your own safety. If in doubt, contact the Deputy in the district you are working in or the Under Manager on the shift.

[dazbt]

If there were failings either by neglect or even worse by intention, that resulted in any of these men’s deaths then obviously there is a need to identify these and by whatever means action should be taken to prevent the same or equivalent occurrences in future ………… goes without saying, but, when it comes down to determining ‘who’ is responsible and ‘who’ should be accountable it seems to be a bit confused. If, as noted many times on this forum, a mine manger has absolute responsibility for all aspects of mine safety and this is part of a legal statute, then perhaps where an example of a mine manager having failed, it could be assumed that some sort of corporate responsibility could be accredited to UK Coal, in so much as they were responsible for employing an incompetent manager and thereby indirectly not ensuring adequate safety …………. So, in the case of at least one of the tragic deaths at Daw Mill, both the manager and under-manager (?)in a court of law, were found not to have been guilty of neglect, my question would be, if they weren’t responsible then how can UK Coal be seen to be responsible?
(hit me gently)

[John]

Oct 22, 2011 4:25:29 GMT -5 dazbt said:

If there were failings either by neglect or even worse by intention, that resulted in any of these men’s deaths then obviously there is a need to identify these and by whatever means action should be taken to prevent the same or equivalent occurrences in future ………… goes without saying, but, when it comes down to determining ‘who’ is responsible and ‘who’ should be accountable it seems to be a bit confused. If, as noted many times on this forum, a mine manger has absolute responsibility for all aspects of mine safety and this is part of a legal statute, then perhaps where an example of a mine manager having failed, it could be assumed that some sort of corporate responsibility could be accredited to UK Coal, in so much as they were responsible for employing an incompetent manager and thereby indirectly not ensuring adequate safety …………. So, in the case of at least one of the tragic deaths at Daw Mill, both the manager and under-manager (?)in a court of law, were found not to have been guilty of neglect, my question would be, if they weren’t responsible then how can UK Coal be seen to be responsible?
(hit me gently)

They were certainly let down by the "chain of responsibility" Daz, but ultimately, they could have taken things into their own hands as the M&Q Act allowed, by refusing to work or travel that road...

You could also ask "Where was the workmens inspectors" why did they not bring up this issue before anyone got hurt or killed??

[nixter]

UK Coal says turnaround on track as it overhauls safety


Published on Friday 18 November 2011 08:57

BRITAIN’S biggest coal miner UK Coal said recent trading has been in line with its expectations and it is making progress with its three-year turnaround plan.

The Doncaster-based group has been overhauling safety standards in recent weeks following the death of miner Gerry Gibson at its Kellingley deep mine near Knottingley in September.

UK Coal said its investigation into the tragedy is nearing completion and a Critical Safety Impact Review is examining all conditions and working behaviour, with findings already being implemented.

“The fatal accident at Kellingley on 27 September 2011 was a stark reminder of the importance of our safety improvement plan,” said the group.

UK Coal, which is burdened by a heavy but shrinking debt load, said it is pushing through changes to pensions and employment terms to cut costs.

In September it agreed significant changes to its final salary pension schemes with trade unions and the schemes’ trustees. This will halve the service cost of the two schemes and future accrual will be reviewed each year in line with affordability.

“Changes to working practices and the restraint of labour costs are critical to the recovery of UK Coal,” said the group.

It added plans to change terms and conditions of employment have been rejected by members of the UDM and NUM.

It has agreed with the NUM to enter a conciliation process “to bring this matter to a close in the over-riding interest of the viability of UK Coal”. It wants the UDM to agree to the same process.

UK Coal said total production in its third quarter was 1.8m tonnes, down on the 2.2m tonnes mined a year earlier, and giving year-to-date production of 5.9m tonnes, in line with its expectations.

Net bank debt continued to fall and stood at £68m on September 24 versus £141m at the end of December.