i administracyjne studia prawnicze

NR 10 (4) ROK 2014

studia prawnicze i administracyjne

K. J. Gruszczyński: Legal framework of coal production and sales in the EU / Uwarunkowania prawne poszukiwania i wydobycia węgla w UE

A. Minda, J. Nowak: Oszustwo tzw.

„karuzeli podatkowej” w handlu we- wnątrzwspólnotowym / Carousel of Value Added Tax fraud on intra-community trade between Member States of European Union

K. Piasecki: Charakterystyka systemu źródeł prawnych Unii Europejskiej oraz zasady ich funkcjonowania w instytucjach prawnych UE oraz państw członkowskich / Primary sources of law in the European Union and general legal principles of the EU law used by European institution and courts of member states

PUBLIKACJA JU BILEUSZOW

A. 20-LECIE W

YŻSZEJ SZKOŁY M

ED EN SKIE ŻER

W J W

ZAW ARS IE NN / A RSA IVE

PU RY

ICBL

IOAT

RS OEAF YW0 AR. 2SANW MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY / LAT / YEARS

# 10 (4) /2014Studia Prawnicze i Administracyjne

Czasopismo indeksowane na liście czasopism punktowanych MNiSW (3 pkt.) / Journal indexed in Ministry of Science and Higher Education Index (3 pts.)

Wydawca / Publisher: Wyższa Szkoła Menedżerska w Warszawie /

NR 10 (4) ROK 2014

ISSN 2081-8025

studia prawnicze i administracyjne

Wydawca:

Wyższa Szkoła Menedżerska w Warszawie

Adres Redakcji i Wydawcy:

Wyższa Szkoła Menedżerska w Warszawie

ul. Kawęczyńska 36, 03-772 Warszawa,

tel. 22 59 00 868 wsm.warszawa.pl

wydawnictwo@mac.edu.pl

Redaktor Naczelny / Editor-in-Chief:

dr Jarosław Kostrubiec

Sekretarz Redakcji / Managing Editor:

dr Norbert Malec

Redaktorzy tematyczni / Section Editors:

prof. dr hab. Ewa Nowacka prof. dr hab. Kazimierz Piasecki

Redaktor statystyczny / Statistical Editor:

dr hab. Ewa Frątczak

Redaktorzy językowi / Language Editors:

język polski / Polish: Dorota Bruszewska, język angielski / English:

Eric Banks (native speaker), Marta Dawidziuk, język rosyjski / Rus- sian: Jadwiga Piłat, język słowacki / Slovak language: Andrea Gieciová-Èusová (native speaker).

Redaktor techniczny / Technical Editor: Wiesław Marszał Skład i łamanie / DTP:

Wydawnictwo WSM. Grafiki oraz zdjęcia zgodne z / All imag- es in accordance with:

Okładka / Cover: Elżbieta Kąkol

Rada Naukowa / Editorial Board:

Przewodniczący / Chairman:

Prof. zw. dr hab. Alexander J. Belohlavek, Dr h.c. (USA) Członkowie / Members:

prof. PhDr. Viera Bacova, PhD., DrSc. (Słowacja / Slovakia), prof. dr hab. inż. Ján Bajtoš (Słowacja / Slovakia), prof. dr hab. Alexander J.

Belohlavek, dr h.c. (Czechy / Czech Republic), prof. dr hab. Ewgenii Bobosow (Białoruś / Belarus), prof. dr hab. Paweł Czarnecki (Polska / Poland), prof. dr Stanisław Dawidziuk (Polska / Poland), prof. ThDr.

Josef Dolista, CSc. (Czechy / Czech Republic), prof. PhDr. Rudolf Dup- kala, CSc. (Słowacja / Slovakia), prof. dr hab. Piotr Dutkiewicz (Kanada / Canada), prof. Devin Fore, PhD. (USA), prof. dr hab. Iurii Frytskyi (Ukraina / Ukraine), prof. dr Otar Gerzmava (Gruzja / Georgia), PhDr.

Marta Gluchman, PhD. (Słowacja / Slovakia), prof. Wasilij Pietrowicz Griszczenko (Federacja Rosyjska / Russia), prof. Ing. dr Renáta Hótová (Czechy / Czech Republic), prof. dr hab. Lech Jaczynowski (Polska / Poland), prof. dr hab. Bohdan Jałowiecki (Polska / Poland), prof. dr hab. Hassan Jamsheer (Irak / ), doc. PhDr. Nadežda Krajčova PhD.

(Słowacja / Slovakia), prof. MUDr. Vladimir Krčmery, PhD, DrSc., dr h.c. Mult. (Słowacja / Slovakia), dr Izabella Kust (Polska / Poland), prof.

dr Botwin Marenin (USA), JUDr. Maria Marinicova, PhD. (Słowacja / Slovakia), prof. dr hab. John McGraw (Kanada / Canada), prof. dr hab.

Nella Nyczkało (Ukraina / Ukraine), prof. dr hab. dr h.c. Hans Joachim Schneider (Niemcy / Germany), Bp prof. ThDr. PhDr. Stanislav Stolarik PhD. (Słowacja / Slovakia), prof. dr hab. Maria Szyszkowska (Polska / Poland), prof. dr hab. Peter Vojcik (Słowacja / Slovakia), prof. dr hab.

Minoru Yokoyama (Japonia / Japan).

Wszystkie nadsyłane artykuły naukowe są recenzowane. Procedura recenzowania artykułów, zapora ghostwriting oraz zasady przygot- owywania tekstów i instrukcje dla autorów znajdują się na stronie in- ternetowej czasopisma www.wsm.warszawa.pl w zakładce Wydawn- ictwo / All articles are peer reviewed. The procedure for reviewing articles, and the Guide for Authors can be found on the website of the journal

(www.kaweczynska.pl/wydawnictwo/czasopisma) Korekta artykułów zamieszczanych w czasopiśmie wykonywana jest przez Autorów periodyku / Proofreading by authors.

Drukowane w Polsce / Printed in Poland — Nakład / Circulation: 500

© Copyright by Wyższa Szkoła Menedżerska w Warszawie (Warsaw Management University)

Żaden fragment tej publikacji nie może być reprodukowany, umieszczany w systemach przechowywania informacji lub przekazywany w jakiejkolwiek formie − elektronicznej, mechanicznej, fotokopii czy innych reprodukcji – bez zgodny posiadacza praw autorskich. / All rights reserved by Warsaw Management University. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or other-

wise, without the prior written permission of the publisher.

Wersja pierwotna (referencyjna) czasopisma to wersja papierowa. / The original (reference) version of the journal is the paper version

Za publikację w „Studiach Prawniczych i Administracyjnych”

(zgodniez Wykazem czasopism naukowych MNiSW, część B), Autorzy wpisują do dorobku naukowego 3 pkt. / Authors of “Studies in Law and Administration” receive 3 points (according Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education) „Studia Prawniczei adminiStracyjne” to KWARTALNIK zzakresuprawa

i administracji zawierający artykuły, w których pracownicy naukowi przedstawiają i analizują bieżące problemy prawne i administracyjne zachodzącenie tylkow polsce, aletakżena świecie. celemperiodyku jestuczynieniezczasopisma ogniwaspajającegopoglądy ugruntowane

wdoktrynieoraznowetendencjiwzakresienaukprawnychiadministracyjnych.

Czasopismo indeksowane/ Journal indexed by: Index Copernicus International, BazEkon, BazHum

Krzysztof Jerzy

Gruszczyński Legal framework of coal production and sales in the EU /

Uwarunkowania prawne poszukiwania i wydobycia węgla w UE 3

Łukasz Jurek

O możliwości i trybie przesłuchiwania świadków,

ubezpieczonych oraz płatnika składek w trakcie kontroli płatnika składek prowadzonej przez inspektora kontroli Zakładu Ubezpieczeń Społecznych / About the possibility and mode of examination of witnesses, the insured and the payer in the inspection carried out by the Social Insurance Institution

21

Agnieszka Minda, Joanna Nowak

Oszustwo tzw. „karuzeli podatkowej” w handlu

wewnątrzwspólnotowym / Carousel of Value Added Tax fraud on intra-community trade between Member States of European Union

27

Kazimierz Piasecki

Charakterystyka systemu źródeł prawnych Unii Europejskiej oraz zasady ich funkcjonowania w

instytucjach prawnych UE oraz państw członkowskich / Primary sources of law in the European Union and general legal principles of the EU law used by European institution and courts of member states

33

Jarosław Szatkowski

Model wszczęcia postępowania podatkowego w Ordynacji podatkowej – kilka uwag de lege ferenda / Model of tax procedure initiation in Tax Code of 1997 – a few remarks de lege ferenda

45

Piotr Kobylski

Glosa do wyroku NSA z dnia 16 października 2014 roku, II FSK 2455/12 [dot. pozostawienia bez rozpatrzenia wniosku o udzielenie interpretacji indywidualnej] / Gloss to the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 16 October 2014, files no. II FSK 2455/12 [leaving without consideration of the application]

55

Spis treści – cd. / Contents – cont.

Angelika Anna Koman

Glosa do wyroku Wojewódzkiego Sądu Administracyjnego we Wrocławiu z dnia 13 sierpnia 2014r. (sygn. akt I SA/Wr 1189/14 [ dot. zakwalifikowania wielopoziomowego parkingu jako budowli dla celów podatku od nieruchomości] / Gloss to the judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in Wroclaw of 13 August 2014, files no. I SA/Wr 1189/14 [multi- -level parking as structures for property tax purposes]

61

Lista Recenzentów (2014) /

List of Reviewers (2014) 65

Zasady recenzowania artykułów /

The peer-review policies 66

ISSN 2081-8025 str. 3-19

Legal framework of coal production and sales in the EU / Uwarunkowania prawne poszukiwania i wydobycia węgla w UE

a^bStrakt

Artykuł dokonuje analizy porównawczej wydobycia węgla w państwach unijnych oraz jego prawnych uregulowań, z wyłą- czeniem, ze względu na przyjęte przez wydawcę ograniczenia ramowe, zakresu rozważań Polski. W Unii Europejskiej węgiel kamienny stanowi jedno z głównych źródeł energii, a jego udział w strukturze zużycia nośników energetycznych utrzymu- je się na wysokim poziomie. Górnictwo węgla brunatnego posiada w UE ugruntowaną pozycję, głównie jako nośnik energii w produkcji energii elektrycznej. W 2014 r. energia elektryczna w UE, uzyskana z węgla brunatnego stanowiła 18% całości produkcji.W strukturze zużycia węgla kamiennego w UE ważne miejsce zajmują elektrownie/elektrociepłownie – 67%; hutnic- two/koksownie – 22%; ciepłownictwo –11%. Wydobycie węgla brunatnego Unii zwiększyło się natomiast o 28,8 mil ton, przy wzroście jego zużycia o 30,5 mln ton, a import węgla kamiennego państw Unii Europejskiej zwiększył się ze 181,7 mln ton do 197,9 mln ton. W roku 2014 ogólne zużycie energii pierwotnej w krajach UE-27 wyniosło 2,75 mld ton j.p.u. (jednostek paliwa umownego, tj. 7000 kcal/kg), z czego 18% stanowiło zużycie węgla. Warto zauważyć, że światowe wydobycie węgla kamienne- go wzrosło w omawianym okresie o kolejne 238 milionów ton – osiągając wielkość 6,958 miliardów ton, w tym około 0,9 mld ton węgla koksowego. Brak na poziomie UE jednolitych przepisów regulujących poszukiwanie i wydobycie węgla rodzi obok niepewności prawa przeszkody w swobodnym świadczeniu usług energetycznych, a także powoduje zakłócenia w funkcjono- waniu rynku wewnętrznego. W rezultacie małe i średnie przedsiębiorstwa (kopalnie) pozbawieni są praw przysługujących im na rynku wewnętrznym oraz tracą ważne szanse handlowe, natomiast organy publiczne państw członkowskich mogą mieć problem z jak najlepszym wykorzystaniem środków publicznych, pozwalającym konsumentom korzystać z wysokiej jakości usług po najkorzystniejszych cenach. UE nie prowadzi odrębnej polityki węglowej, pomimo że jej decyzje polityczne odbijają się na konsumpcji węgla poprzez system zezwoleń emisyjnych ETS, czy tez dyrektywy o czystości powietrza, pakiety celów energetyczno-klimatycznych. KE zaproponowała zmianę dyrektywy dotyczącej wspólnotowego systemu handlu uprawnie- niami do emisji gazów cieplarnianych (ETS), co doprowadzi do szybszego wzrostu cen, po to, by wymusić ograniczenie stoso- wania węgla w gospodarce. Do 2030 r. UE planuje zredukować emisje o 40%. w porównaniu z 1990 r., do 2040 r. – o 60%., a do 2050 r. – o 80%. Obecnie po likwidacji kopalń w Belgii i Francji, UE węgiel kamienny wydobywany jest w pięciu krajach:, Niem- czech, Wielkiej Brytanii, Hiszpanii i Czechach oraz w Polsce, która jest największym unijnym producentem węgla – wydobycie w polskich kopalniach stanowiła w 2013 r. około 59% produkcji w UE. Zasoby zagospodarowanych złóż węgla kamiennego w Polsce wynoszą 16,9 mld ton, co stanowi 70% złóż zlokalizowanych na terenie państw członkowskich UE. Udział eksportu w sprzedaży polskiego węgla wzrósł w 2012 roku. W 2012 wyeksportowano 7,4 mln ton węgla kamiennego, co oznacza wzrost wobec 5,7 mln ton w 2011. Równocześnie maleje import węgla do Polski – w 2012 roku importowano 10,1 mln ton węgla wobec 14,4 mln ton w 2011. Jeżeli chodzi o wydobycie węgla brunatnego w UE to sięgnęło w 2013 r. 407,5 mln t. Polska (z udziałem 16%) na drugim miejscu za Niemcami – największym światowym producentem węgla brunatnego (45%), a przed Grecją (13%) i Czechami (10%). Współcześnie obowiązująca polska polityka energetyczna, zgodna z polityką europejską, za- kłada, że do 2030 w strukturze nośników energii pierwotnej nastąpi spadek udziału węgla kamiennego w produkcji energii o ok. 16,5% i brunatnego o 23%, a zużycie gazu wzrośnie o ok. 40% Ma zwiększyć się też udział odnawialnych źródeł energii, przy założeniu, że w 2030 r. w Polsce potrzeba będzie 64 mln ton węgla kamiennego i 45,7 mln ton węgla brunatnego. Dlate- go ważnym postulatem jest zabezpieczenie zapotrzebowania energetycznego innymi źródłami niż tradycyjny węgiel, dlatego prawidłowo wskazuje się na rozbudowę elektrowni jądrowych i tak w październiku 2007 r. Parlament Europejski poparł roz- wój energetyki jądrowej jako niezbędnej dla Unii Europejskiej opcji energetycznej, podkreślając że każdy kraj ma prawo sam decydować o wprowadzeniu energetyki jądrowej, ale skutki jego decyzji będą wpływały na ceny elektryczności w całej Unii (Rezolucja Parlamentu Europejskiego (2007/2091 (INI) z 24 października 2007 roku o źródłach energii konwencjonalnej oraz technologiach energetycznych. Ministrowie UE do spraw gospodarczych i finansowych przyjęli w lipcu 2014 r. nowelizację dyrektywy o bezpieczeństwie jądrowym. Przewiduje ona między innymi, że co sześć lat kraje UE będą dokonywały wzajemnych przeglądów bezpieczeństwa reaktorów jądrowych. Nowelizacja dyrektywy o bezpieczeństwie jądrowym przewiduje m.in., że co najmniej raz na sześć lat będzie przeprowadzana wzajemna ocena bezpieczeństwa reaktorów przez kraje UE. Pierwsze ta- kie badanie miałoby się odbyć już w 2017 roku. Ponadto przynajmniej raz na dziesięć lat kraje członkowskie przeprowadzą samoocenę krajowych ram bezpieczeństwa. Warto zauważyć, że w UE nowe elektrownie jądrowe prawie nie powstają, gdzie Wielka Brytania chce dofinansowywać budowę nowej elektrowni, przerzucając te koszty na konsumentów, w podobny spo- sób, w jaki funkcjonuje wspieranie energii odnawialnej w Niemczech. Ponieważ znacznie wzrosły koszty zapewnienia bezpie- czeństwa pracy EJ, nie ma prawie inwestorów, którzy byliby gotowi zmierzyć się z budową nowej elektrowni. Wielka Brytania,

Studia Prawnicze i Administracyjne 10 (4) 2014 • ISSN 2081-8025 • wsm.warszawa.pl

4

introduction

u

China, the United States, India, Russia and Japan. China alone accounted for over 48% of total global coal con- sumption. Coal consumption decreased by 2% on av- erage across the OECD countries, however outside of the OECD, coal consumption increased by 8.6%, driven mainly by growing energy demand in China. ¹

Coal has reached its highest market share of global en- ergy consumption for more than 40 years, figures re- veal, despite fears that its high carbon emissions make it a prime cause of climate change. Carbon capture and storage technology will be a key technology to reduce CO₂ emissions, not only from coal, but also natural gas and industrial sources. Figures in the IEA’s World Ener- gy Outlook 2011 report estimate the potential for CCS to contribute 22% of global CO₂ mitigation through to 2035. Further analysis by the IEA in their Energy Tech- nology Perspectives 2010 report also shows that climate change action will cost an additional USD 4.7 trillion without CCS. Like all new low emission energy tech- nologies however, CCS will cost significantly more than conventional technology and requires extended develop- ment time. While available on a component-by-compo- nent basis, CCS has not yet been commercially proven on an integrated basis or at the scale required to meet global greenhouse gas concentration targets. Global coal

1 Despite projected declines in OECD countries, coal use is forecast to rise over 50% to 2030, with developing countries responsible for 97% of this increase, primarily to meet improved electrification rates.[in]: WER, Coal in the Global energy mix 2013

production grew over 69% between 2000 and 2012, and has now reached the record level of 7.9 billion metric tons1 annually.²

The use of coal for power generation and other purposes grew by 3% in 2013 – faster than any other fossil fuel – while its share of the market breached 30% for the first time since 1970, the BP Statistical Review reports.³ Since the year 2000, global coal production has grown by over 69% and now amounts to a staggering 7.9 billion tons an- nually.9 Since 2005 - the year the Kyoto Protocol came into force – the installed capacity of coal-fired power plants increased worldwide by 35%. Coal has been the fastest growing energy source for every year of the last decade.

Europe is among the regions using more coal, increasing imports from the US, where coal has been displaced in power stations by even cheaper coal gas. But developing countries such as China and India are also huge coal us- ers, although BP pointed out that energy growth overall in China dropped to 4.7% last year from 8.4% in 2012.⁴

2 Heffa Scgucking, Banking on coal, Bank Track November 2013, p. 3; see also Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohs- toffe (BGR) 2012: Reserves, Resources and Availability of Energy Resources 2011 – Annual report, Hanover, Germany, Federal Insti- tute for Geosciences and Natural Resources; Densing M., Turton H., Bäuml G. (2012): Conditions for the successful deployment of electric vehicles – a global energy system perspective, Energy, 47, p.137–149 (2012) [joint work with Volkswagen AG]; Global Energy Assessment (GEA) 2012: Global Energy Assessment – Towards a Sustainable Future. Austria, Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA); International Energy Agency (IEA) 2012a: Extended World Energy Balances – Year 2010, Paris, IEA/OECD Library IEA 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 (historical data);

IEA 2012b: Electricity Information Statistics Database IEA World Energy Statistics and Balances Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2012: International Energy Statistics

3 Latest research indicated the economic risks of unchecked climate change were bigger than previously estimated; see also Turton, H, Panos, V, Densing, M, Volkart, K (2013): Global Multi-regional MAR- KAL (GMM) Model Update: Disaggregation to 15 regions and 2010 recalibration, Switzerland, PSI; UK Government Office for Science 2011: Foresight Project on Global Food and Farming Futures: Syn- thesis Report C2; Global Energy Supply, Germany, Environmental Research of the German Federal Ministry and Nuclear Safety, ISSN 1862-4359; WEC (2010): Survey of Energy Resources, London, ISBN:

978 0 946121 02.

4 This “dramatic slowdown” put a question mark over China’s official economic growth figure for 2013 of 7.7%.

której 70% energii pochodzi z EJ. Zwalcza przepisy unijne przewidujące subwencjonowanie tylko projektów pozyskiwania energii z odnawialnych źródeł Od roku 1977 istnieją możliwości otrzymania z Komisji pożyczek, głównie długoterminowych, dla finan- sowania inwestycji w sektorze energetyki jądrowej. Zgodnie z art. 1 Decyzji Rady 77/270/ Euratom, Komisja jest upoważniona do zawierania umów w sprawie pożyczek służących finansowaniu projektów inwestycyjnych w ramach Wspólnoty, mających związek z wytwarzaniem energii elektrycznej w skali przemysłowej w elektrowniach jądrowych oraz z przemysłowymi instalacjami jądro- wego cyklu paliwowego. Podstawę do tego dają art. 2 i 20316 Traktatu. Istnieje także Decyzja Rady 77/271/Euratom ograniczają- ca do pewnej wysokości pułap kapitału przeznaczonego na takie pożyczki (pułap ten nie przekracza 4 milionów euro). Pomocy w finansowaniu można udzielać jedynie w przypadku projektów, które uzyskały zgodę kompetentnych organów państwowych, w szczególności w zakresie bezpieczeństwa, a także pozytywną opinię Komisji, zwłaszcza w kwestiach odnoszących się do celów polityki energetycznej oraz ochrony środowiska Unii Europejskiej. Pożyczka nie powinna w zasadzie przekraczać 20% całkowitych kosztów projektu (Komisja może jedynie udzielać pożyczek, które uzupełniałyby pożyczki już uzyskane z innych źródeł).

Słowakluczowe: produkcja węgla, ochrona środowiska, bezpieczeństwo energetyczne, Unia Europejska

The accuracy of Chinese economic statistics have long been a subject for debate but few are willing to directly challenge them for fear of upsetting such an important emerging powerhouse. The BP statistics show that the use of windfarms for generating electricity rose by 21%

last year while solar power grew even more rapidly, by 33%, but from a lower base point.

Situation in Poland, which depend mostly (above 90%) on coal and has therefore very high costs associated with stricter emissions targets, does not look promising. Po- land’s coal industry faces a serious crisis. In 2012-2013, market conditions worsened for the largest players as cheap imports applied downward pressure on coal pric- es. Coal production is declining and becoming less prof- itable. The level of industry income is falling extremely fast. In the first quarter of 2013, it dropped to PLN 1.7 billion ($556 million) from PLN 3 billion ($982 million) in the first quarter of 2012. The representatives of the largest state-owned coal companies say future coal ex- ports will improve profitability, but that makes no sense, as Polish coal is losing the competition with foreign companies at home.

Poland consumes 77 million metric tons per year (mtpy) of coal, which makes it the 10th largest coal consumer in the world and the second largest in the European Union, after Germany. In 2012, 92% of elec- tricity and 89% of heat in Poland was generated from coal and, according to the official Polish Government Energy Policy Strategy, coal should remain the key element of the country’s energy security until at least 2030. Despite all attempts by the government to stop it, production levels have been falling steadily since 1989.

Today, Polish coal operators produce 60 million mtpy of brown coal and 70 million mtpy of black coal. The coal industry failed to adapt to capitalism. During so- cialism, the state usually paid for coal at a much higher price than it actually costs to produce. However, those days are gone and today experts agree that Polish coal miners will be unable to escape this cycle.⁵

There are currently 30 black coal mines in Poland, 14 of which are owned by KV. According to government fig- ures, they made a total loss of 821 million Zloty ($230 million). The reasons for the loss were declining energy prices and some of the mines being extremely outdated.

5 The problem is that coal seams in Poland are too deep to mine cost effectively. By 2030, there will be no more than 10 to 15 wor- king mines in Poland, and production of black coal will drop to 33 million mtpy. http://www.coalage.com/features/3321-polish- coal-industry-faces-tough.html#.VL6OY9LF-uE

For every ton of coal produced, KV makes an average loss of €10. KV has built up liabilities to date of €1 bil- lion. The firm employs 50,000 workers, half of the total employed in the coal mining industry. Prior to the tran- sition in 1989, it employed four times as many people.

The government made approximately €530 million avail- able to rescue the indebted company. In exchange, the mines will be “restructured. Presently the alternatives are clear: restructuring or bankruptcy. We cannot allow a negative scenario, which would mean uncontrolled in- solvency and destruction.”

Under the rescue plan, KV’s mines will be divided up.

The four mines considered economically unviable will be shut down. A further nine are to be restructured to operate more profitably. One mine will be sold. Further closures have not been ruled out by the government. The restructuring of the coal industry is a further step in fun- damentally changing the provision of energy in Poland⁶, but met with strong resistance from miners.

For example on April 27 2014 Trade unions in Po- land’s mining sector organized a demonstration in Ka- towice, Silesia Region, Southern Poland . The protest action comes on the heels of the announcement of a 1-week production shutdown in Kompania Weglowa S.A. but the trade unions were also protesting in the face of employment problems in other coal compa- nies. 15,000 miners took part in the protest action, all from industriAll Europe’s affiliated organizations The EU’s biggest coal miner, Kompania Weglowa em- ployed 57,000 miners in 15 mines in 2013. It lost about

$100 million in 2013 with the coal price dropping to below the cost of mining it. This has spurred Kompa- nia Weglowa S.A. to launch a restructuring plan that involves merging mines and reducing employment, a step that drew protests from trade unions at the turn of 2013/2014. The company plan is to cut 7,000 jobs between 2014 and 2015. The last company restructur- ing plan foresaw cutting down employment by over 16,000 employees in 2020. Implementation of a re- structuring programme is planned to produce savings of PLN 1.2 billion up to 2020. Kompania Weglowa S.A. in fact wants to sell the Knurow-Szczyglowice mine and has signed a sales contract with Jastrzemb- ska Spolka Weglowa S.A. Kompania Węglowa S.A. has now closed nine of 15 collieries to cut costs, arguing that there are surplus stocks and that it cannot afford to pay employees in full when demand is low.

6 Source: http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/01/17/poli-j17.

html

Studia Prawnicze i Administracyjne 10 (4) 2014 • ISSN 2081-8025 • wsm.warszawa.pl

6

Trade unions are demanding that it maintain its current level of employment. Unions expect that the government will initiate talks on the bad situation in the coal indus- try and a new national strategy for the coal industry (the current strategy will end in 2015). In January 2015 the Polish government has unveiled wide-ranging plans to restructure the coal mining industry. The economy min- istry announced last week that part of Europe’s largest coal extractor, Kompania Veglova (KV), is to be wound up. According to the plans between four and five coal mines are to be shut down. An equal number are to be integrated into the state’s restructuring company Spolka Restrukturyzacji Kopaln (SRK) in order to be returned to profitability. This will take place above all by the slash- ing of wages and benefits, as well as by work speed-up.

In the deal, some 6000 miners will be moved from mines slated for closure to other assets, 2100 miners with less than four years to retirement will receive four years vaca- tion at 75% pay, some 400 miners with more than 4 years to retirement will receive 24-months’ pay in severance, some 1100 ground level workers will receive 10-months’

pay in severance, other support staff gets a more standard 3.6 months’ payAt least 5,000 workers will lose their jobs in the process. Over 2000 miners of the Silesian coal ba- sin (southern Poland) went in the beginning of January 2015 on strike in response to the governmental decision to close down 4 mines of state-owned company Kompa- nia Weglowa. Kompania Weglowa is the EU’s largest coal mining group with a production capacity of 34 million tones of coal. It consists of 14 mines and 5 plants employ- ing 64 000 workers. The strike started on January 7, with the miners from the Brzeszcze mine refusing to return overground. The protest quickly spread through the coal mining sector of the region. Currently miners working in the pits owned by other big mining groups (Jastrzębska Spółka Węglowa and Katowicki Holding Węglowy) are joining the strike, while Silesian municipalities are peti- tioning the national government in defense of workplaces essential to the social well-being of the region.⁷

The current problems facing Polish coal mining are due to the decline in coal prices on world markets and the problem of large coal imports, mainly from Russia.

The Polish trade unions KADRA, Solidarnosc, and ZZG w Polsce demanded:

7 Right now all 14 sites are on strike, with miners protesting under- ground. Other forms of protests include hunger strikes and railway blockades. Over 10,000 people, both miners and ordinary citizens, protested in Bytom on Tuesday. The city is struggling to save the last of its mines. The unemployement rate in Bytom is reaching 21%, as a result of the 1990s “restructuring” of the coal sector.

• immediate action to rescue Polish coal mining

• the immediate introduction of mechanisms to coun- teract the excessive import of low quality coal from outside the EU, in particular the Russian Federation

• immediate accession negotiations and agreement on a new strategy for the operation of coal mining in the next 15-20 years

• resumption of the project to create capital groups mergers of the coal companies and the power industry

• the temporary suspension of the burden of public taxes for companies affected by the crisis

• the veto of the second EU’s climate-energy package and renegotiation and suspension of the rules relat- ing to the implementation of EU climate policy, as well as introducing its own climate policy that takes into account the Polish socio-economic reality and energy security.

The heavily coal-based electricity generation and the high share of heavy industries mean that about 60 per cent of Poland’s 2005 CO₂ emissions were generated in sectors covered by the EU ETS, compared to about 40 per cent in the EU as a whole. Thus Poland bears a relatively higher economic burden than the average EU country in fulfilling the requirements of the EU’s climate package.⁸ In 2012-2013, market conditions worsened for the larg- est players as cheap imports applied downward pressure on coal prices. Coal production is declining and becom- ing less profitable. The level of industry income is falling extremely fast. In the first quarter of 2013, it dropped to PLN 1.7 billion ($556 million) from PLN 3 billion ($982 million) in the first quarter of 2012. The representatives of the largest state-owned coal companies say future coal exports will improve profitability, but that makes no sense, as Polish coal is losing the competition with foreign companies at home. Poland consumes 77 million metric tons per year (mtpy) of coal, which makes it the 10th largest coal consumer in the world and the second largest in the European Union, after Germany. Smaller companies as Coal Energy S.A. reported on October 15 2014 that coal production levels were adjusted given the current political and economic situation in Ukraine.

Currently the Company ceased production of thermal coal and coal from waste dumps processing due to dan- gerous working conditions for employees caused by ongo- ing military conflict in the region and consequently pro- duction volumes of these types of coal are insignificant.

8 Both the PO and PiS are strongly in favour of using the country’s coal reserves and promote policies incentivising fossil fuel extrac- tion, though the PO portrays itself as pursuing these goals more out of an economic rationale and to ensure energy security

In 2012, 92% of electricity and 89% of heat in Poland was generated from coal and coal should remain the key ele- ment of the country’s energy security until at least 2030.⁹ Coal seams in Poland are too deep to mine cost effective- ly. Much of that power - around one-fifth of the country’s electricity - is produced from just one plant, Elektrownia Belchatow, in central Poland the biggest polluter in EU, emitting the equivalent of close to 39 million tons of CO₂ last year, a rise of 31% from 2010 thanks to the commis- sioning of a new unit in September 2011. Poland signed up to the EU’s target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% from 1990 levels by 2020. However it has blocked a proposal to increase that cut to 25% by the same date, saying it would cost the country about $1.45bn (£900m).

It has also agreed the EU’s longer-term target of reducing emissions by 80-95% by 2050, but in March Poland ve- toed proposals setting out milestones to achieve that goal on the grounds they would harm its economy. The Polish Chamber of Commerce has estimated that implementing the 2050 road map would triple or quadruple energy pric- es after 2020 and cause the country’s GDP to fall between 5-11% per year by 2030.¹⁰

By 2030, there will be no more than 10 to 15 working mines in Poland, and production of black coal will drop to 33 million mtpy. Coal mining costs increased by more than 5% last year, while thermal coal prices in the region dropped by more than 12%. Coal sales have dropped more than 5% during the first half of 2013 compared to the same period of 2012. As of September 2013, the level of stockpiles reached record heights of 9 million mt.

Oil, a major carbon polluter which has an important role in transport and in the manufacture of chemicals and plastics, remained the world’s leading fuel, with 33% of global energy consumption. But it lost market share for the 14th consecutive year and 33% is the lowest share since BP started to compile its data in 1965. ¹¹ BP also predict that living standards could start to decline lat- er this century unless the growth in annual emissions of greenhouse gases is checked.¹²

9 Despite all attempts by the government to stop it, production levels have been falling steadily since 1989. Today, Polish coal operators produce 60 million mtpy of brown coal and 70 million mtpy of black coal. The coal industry failed to adapt to capitalism.

During socialism, the state usually paid for coal at a much higher price than it actually costs to produce. However, those days are gone and today experts agree that Polish coal miners will be una- ble to escape this cycle; see alsohttp://www.coalage.com/featu- res/3321-polish-coal-industry-faces-tough.html#.VBKreLflpy0 10 Data by The Polish Chamber of Commerce

11 Source: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/16/

coals-share-of-energy-market-at-highest-level-since-1970.

12 In a peer-reviewed paper to be published in the Economic Journal, Stern has updated previous models for assessing the economic impact of global warming which have been used by the United

To combat the negative aspect of coal extraction compa- nies around the world are working on new technologies.

Converting coal to a liquid fuel (CTL) – a process re- ferred to as coal liquefaction – allows coal to be utilized as an alternative to oil.¹³ Fuels produced from coal can also be used outside the transportation sector. In many developing countries, health impacts and local air quali- ty concerns have driven calls for the use of clean cooking fuels. Replacing traditional biomass or solid fuels with liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) has been the focus of in- ternational aid programs. LPG however, is an oil deriva- tive – and is thus affected by the expense and price vol- atility of crude oil. Coal-derived dimethyl ether (DME) is receiving particular attention today as it is a product that holds out great promise as a domestic fuel. DME is non-carcinogenic and non-toxic to handle and gener- ates less carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon air pollu- tion than LPG. Underground coal gasification (UCG) is a method of converting unworked coal – coal still in the ground – into a combustible gas which can be used for industrial heating, power generation or the manufacture of hydrogen, synthetic natural gas or diesel fuel.

In the last few years there has been significant renewed interest in UCG as the technology has moved forward considerably. China has about 30 projects using under- ground coal gasification in different phases of prepara- tion. India plans to use underground gasification to ac- cess an estimated 350 billion tons of coal. ¹⁴

aSSeSSmentofcoalreSourceS

andlegiSlationinthe e^uroPean u^nion

In comparison to another parts of world in Europe, coal accounts for over 25% of power generation and, even though DG Energy’s Energy Roadmap 2050 foresees a decreasing use of coal in the future, coal will stay part of the energy mix.

Nations’ key Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

13 South Africa has been producing coal-derived fuels since 1955. Not only are CTL fuels used in cars and other vehicles, but South African energy company Sasol’s CTL fuels also have approval to be used in commercial jets. Currently around 30% of the country’s gasoli- ne and diesel needs are produced from indigenous coal. The total capacity of the South African CTL operations now stands in excess of 160,000bbl/d. CTL is particularly suited to countries that rely he- avily on oil imports and have large domestic reserves of coal.

14 South African companies Sasol and Eskom both have UCG pilot facilities that have been operating for some time, giving valuable information and data. In Australia, Linc Energy has the Chinchilla site, which first started operating in 2000. Demonstration projects and studies are also currently under way in a number of countries, including the USA, Western and East- ern Europe, Japan, Indone- sia, Vietnam, India, Australia and China, with work being carried out by both industry and research establishments.

Studia Prawnicze i Administracyjne 10 (4) 2014 • ISSN 2081-8025 • wsm.warszawa.pl

8

The five decarbonization scenarios all show some level of coal use, even though Europe must adapt to become a low-carbon economy by 2050. For coal and other fossil fuels, this means that CCS (Carbon capture and storage) must become commercially viable and compete with other large scale, low-carbon options¹⁵.

Coal is cheaper than gas in Europe and is likely to remain so, partly because Europe’s domestic shale-gas industry is many years behind America’s (and may never catch up) and partly because it will take time for Europe to build an infrastructure to import liquefied-natural gas in large amounts. The relative price of coal and gas is crucial to the health of European utilities.¹⁶ The availability of low- priced natural gas in the United States has made coal a less competitive fuel for domestic power generation. As a result, favorably priced U.S. exports of coal have been an attractive alternative to natural gas for Europeans.

Following the Fukushima disaster in 2011, Germany re- tired eight nuclear power reactors, which were replaced with a combination of increased output from renewable sources as well as coal for power generation. Since coal produces more carbon per unit of heat than natural gas, coal is more affected by a high carbon price. The price of carbon in Europe is currently very low, partly because of a prolonged economic recession in Europe, so many consumers are opting for coal over natural gas. A signifi- cant increase in the price of carbon would promote more natural gas consumption and less coal consumption.¹⁷ The shock of the Crimean annexation should speed up sluggish European decision-making on storage, inter- connection, diversification, liberalization, coal and ef- ficiency.¹⁸ Compared with the rock-bottom price of gas in America, coal is not all that cheap. But it is a bargain compared with the price of gas in Europe. Although gas can be carted around in liquid form, that is expensive and the infrastructure required is still patchy; for the most part, gas is shifted through pipelines, and tends to be used close to where it originates. So whereas coal has

15 Eight Coal Dialogue, Euracoal Brussels May 2012, p. 6

16 At the beginning of November 2012, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, a research firm, power utilities in Germany were set, on average, to lose €11.70 when they burned gas to make a megawatt of electricity, but to earn €14.22 per MW when they burned coal.

17 Source: http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=13151.

18 After the unrest in the Ukraine, leading politicians from EU coun- tries began to listen to the Polish energy security demands more closely. We are now seeing that dependence on Russian gas could lead to a catastrophe for the energy security of many parts of the EU. EU countries import nearly two-thirds of its energy needs (50 per cent of coal, 80 per cent of its gas, 90 per cent of oil supplies).

For Poland, these indicators also look alarming: we are talking about 14% , 75% and almost 100% respectively.

world-market prices, gas has regional prices, often linked in one way or another to the oil price¹⁹ In response, com- panies are switching from gas to coal as fast as they can, so renewables are in fact displacing gas but not coal. In Germany, RWE, the biggest user of coal in Europe, gen- erated 72% of its electricity from coal and lignite (a dirt- ier, low-grade form of coal) in the first nine months of 2012, compared with 66% over the same period in 2011.

Germany needs new capacity because it is closing down its nuclear plants: RWE is building a new coal-fired plant in Hamm, in North Rhine-Westphalia and another in Emshaven in the Netherlands. E.ON, Germany’s biggest power producer, is also building a new coal-fired plant in North Rhine-Westphalia. It and its partners are consid- ering shutting down a gas-fired plant in Bavaria. Vatten- fall, a Swedish state-owned company, has just completed a lignite-fired plant in eastern Germany and is building a coal plant near Hamburg. EnBW, based in southern Germany, is building a coal-fired plant in Karlsruhe, and another jointly with RWE in Mannheim.²⁰

The EU aims to reduce carbon emissions to 80% of their 1990 levels by 2020. Thanks in part to the recession, by 2009 it was most of the way there – a bit more than 17%

down on the 1990 level. In 2010, though, emissions be- gan rising. Bloomberg calculates that carbon emissions from power plants rose around 3% in 2012, pushing total emissions 1% higher than they were in 2011. In theory, Europe’s carbon price, provided by a cap-and-trade sys- tem, the emissions trading scheme (ETS), should have stopped all this from happening. The ETS carbon price should in principle go up when emissions do, as more emissions mean more demand for the carbon credits that the scheme works with. In August of 2014 there is a new selection of a new European Commission and a new European Parliament, which means Europe-wide decisions about energy risk being put off for a couple more years at least. As Europe’s energy targets (on re- newables use and efficiency) are supposed to be met by 2020, this timetable suggests there will be years of policy delay followed by a last-minute scramble

The European Union actively supports Underground coal gasification UCG-CCS research, and the UK, where UCG was first tested. Underground coal gasification – the con- version of in-seam coal to a useable syngas of medium calo-

19 Source: http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21569039-eu- ropes-energy-policy-delivers-worst-all-possible-worlds-unwelco- me-renaissance

20 In April 2012 coal took over from gas as Britain’s dominant fuel for electricity for the first time since early 2007. The amount of the country’s electricity provided by coal in the third quarter of last year was 50% greater than the year before.

rific value for heat and power generation - has been demon- strated at pilot stage in more than 60 locations throughout the world. Commercial power plants in the Former Soviet Union (FSU) were fired by UCG syngas over 40 years ago, and one in Uzbekistan is still in operation.

The advantages of UCG are the large power (20-40 MWt) produced per borehole, the controllability of output from full to low load, as required, and the use of the gas- eous fuel in highly efficient combined cycle gas turbines.

No underground working is required; coal washing and waste piles are eliminated at the surface, and the process uses only indigenous coal, with no import costs.

UCG is the coal technology with the greatest scope to reduce and eliminate carbon from the fuel gas. The high pressure syngas reaching the surface can be decar- bonised, partially or completely, by shift and acid removal processes (all well proven technologies) in pre-combus- tion process plant, which is smaller, more efficient and less costly than the competing processes for natural gas and conventional coal. The resultant pipeline CO₂ is then available for underground storage or use in enhanced oil recovery, for example, in the North Sea. Combined cycle gas turbines work efficiently (>50%) with medium-calo- rific value UCG syngas (hydrogen, methane and carbon monoxide) and in the future, stationary fuel cells, oper- ating on hydrogen-rich gas offer the possibility of Carnot level efficiencies.²¹

As to Poland it has a national project to test a UCG pilot in the Upper Silesian Basin and to produce an in- dustrial plant design by 2015. Poland also continues to co-ordinate the HUGE2 (Hydrogen Underground Gas- ification Europe 2) project, supported by the EU Re- search Fund for Coal and Steel. This €2 million project includes a gasification test at the Polish experimental Barbara mine (now complete), further investigations into hydrogen production from UCG, safety studies and research on control of ground water contamination by reactive barriers. Linc Energy is also engaged with the Polish government, with an exploration site license in the Silesian Basin.

Coal remains a crucial contributor to energy supply in many countries. Coal is the most wide-spread fossil fuel around the world, and more than 75 countries have coal deposits. The current share of coal in global power generation is over 40%, but it is expected to decrease in the coming years, while the actual coal consumption in

21 Source: http://www.modernpowersystems.com/features/featu- reunderground-coal-gasification-on-the-road-to-commercialisa- tion-4198939/.

absolute terms will grow. Although countries in Europe, and to some extent North America, are trying to shift their consumption to alternative sources of energy, any reductions are more than offset by the large developing economies, primarily in Asia, which are powered by coal and have significant coal reserves. China alone now uses as much coal as the rest of the world. The likelihood of a significant amount of new coal generation coming on- line in European Union, the US and Australia is low. It is assumed a 10% cost of equity for our base hurdle rate, but indications are that the actual hurdle rates demanded by investors in order to induce them to supply capital to a new build coal plant may be on the order of 18% or higher, pushing the LCOEs up even further than below.

In the case of both the EU and Australia any new plant would be subject to an uncertain future carbon price, which is the main reason why investors consider these plant so risky. Despite this – in continental Europe, new coal plants continue to come online in Germany where the nuclear ban and other market-specific factors will likely drive new additions for the next few years.

The shock of the Crimean annexation should speed up sluggish European decision-making on storage, inter- connection, diversification, liberalization, coal and ef- ficiency.²² Compared with the rock-bottom price of gas in America, coal is not all that cheap. But it is a bargain compared with the price of gas in Europe. Although gas can be carted around in liquid form, that is expensive and the infrastructure required is still patchy; for the most part, gas is shifted through pipelines, and tends to be used close to where it originates. So whereas coal has world-market prices, gas has regional prices, often linked in one way or another to the oil price²³ In response, com- panies are switching from gas to coal as fast as they can, so renewables are in fact displacing gas but not coal. In Germany, RWE, the biggest user of coal in Europe, gen- erated 72% of its electricity from coal and lignite (a dirt- ier, low-grade form of coal) in the first nine months of 2012, compared with 66% over the same period in 2011.

Germany needs new capacity because it is closing down its nuclear plants: RWE is building a new coal-fired plant

22 After the unrest in the Ukraine, leading politicians from EU coun- tries began to listen to the Polish energy security demands more closely. We are now seeing that dependence on Russian gas could lead to a catastrophe for the energy security of many parts of the EU. EU countries import nearly two-thirds of its energy needs (50 per cent of coal, 80 per cent of its gas, 90 per cent of oil supplies).

For Poland, these indicators also look alarming: we are talking about 14% , 75% and almost 100% respectively.

23 Source: http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21569039-eu- ropes-energy-policy-delivers-worst-all-possible-worlds-unwelco- me-renaissance.

Studia Prawnicze i Administracyjne 10 (4) 2014 • ISSN 2081-8025 • wsm.warszawa.pl

10

in Hamm, in North Rhine-Westphalia and another in Emshaven in the Netherlands. E.ON, Germany’s biggest power producer, is also building a new coal-fired plant in North Rhine-Westphalia. It and its partners are consid- ering shutting down a gas-fired plant in Bavaria. Vatten- fall, a Swedish state-owned company, has just completed a lignite-fired plant in eastern Germany and is building a coal plant near Hamburg. EnBW, based in southern Germany, is building a coal-fired plant in Karlsruhe, and another jointly with RWE in Mannheim.²⁴

The EU aims to reduce carbon emissions to 80% of their 1990 levels by 2020. Thanks in part to the recession, by 2009 it was most of the way there—a bit more than 17% down on the 1990 level. In 2010, though, emis- sions began rising. Bloomberg calculates that carbon emissions from power plants rose around 3% in 2012, pushing total emissions 1% higher than they were in 2011. In theory, Europe’s carbon price, provided by a cap-and-trade system, the emissions trading scheme (ETS), should have stopped all this from happening.

The ETS carbon price should in principle go up when emissions do, as more emissions mean more demand for the carbon credits that the scheme works with. In August of 2014 there is a new selection of a new Eu- ropean Commission and a new European Parliament, which means Europe-wide decisions about energy risk being put off for a couple more years at least. As Eu- rope’s energy targets (on renewables use and efficien- cy) are supposed to be met by 2020, this timetable sug- gests there will be years of policy delay followed by a last-minute scramble.

The European Union actively supports Underground coal gasification UCG-CCS research, and the UK, where UCG was first tested. Underground coal gasification - the conversion of in-seam coal to a useable syngas of medium calorific value for heat and power generation - has been demonstrated at pilot stage in more than 60 lo- cations throughout the world. Commercial power plants in the Former Soviet Union (FSU) were fired by UCG syngas over 40 years ago, and one in Uzbekistan is still in operation.

The advantages of UCG are the large power (20-40 MWt) produced per borehole, the controllability of output from full to low load, as required, and the use of the gaseous fuel in highly efficient combined cycle

24 In April 2012 coal took over from gas as Britain’s dominant fuel for electricity for the first time since early 2007. The amount of the country’s electricity provided by coal in the third quarter of last year was 50% greater than the year before.

gas turbines. No underground working is required; coal washing and waste piles are eliminated at the surface, and the process uses only indigenous coal, with no im- port costs.

UCG is the coal technology with the greatest scope to reduce and eliminate carbon from the fuel gas. The high pressure syngas reaching the surface can be de- carbonised, partially or completely, by shift and acid removal processes (all well proven technologies) in pre-combustion process plant, which is smaller, more efficient and less costly than the competing process- es for natural gas and conventional coal. The resul- tant pipeline CO₂ is then available for underground storage or use in enhanced oil recovery, for example, in the North Sea. Combined cycle gas turbines work efficiently (>50%) with medium-calorific value UCG syngas (hydrogen, methane and carbon monoxide) and in the future, stationary fuel cells, operating on hydrogen-rich gas offer the possibility of Carnot level efficiencies.²⁵

In Europe, Poland has a national project to test a UCG pilot in the Upper Silesian Basin and to produce an in- dustrial plant design by 2015. Poland also continues to co-ordinate the HUGE2 (Hydrogen Underground Gas- ification Europe 2) project, supported by the EU Re- search Fund for Coal and Steel. This €2 million project includes a gasification test at the Polish experimental Barbara mine (now complete), further investigations into hydrogen production from UCG, safety studies and research on control of ground water contamination by reactive barriers. Linc Energy is also engaged with the Polish government, with an exploration site license in the Silesian Basin.

a^{SSeSSmentofcoalreSourceS}

andlegiSlationin f^ederationof r^uSSia

The proved amount of coal in place reported for end- 1996 comprised 75.8 billion tons of bituminous coal, based on a maximum deposit depth of 1 200 m and a minimum seam thickness of 0.6-0.7 m; 113.3 billion tons of sub-bituminous grades (at depths of up to 600 m and minimum thickness 1.0-2.0 m); and 11.5 billion tons of lignite (at 300 m and 1.5-2.0 m, respectively).

Proved recoverable reserves were reported as just over 49 billion tons of bituminous coal, of which 23% was

25 Source: http://www.modernpowersystems.com/features/featu- reunderground-coal-gasification-on-the-road-to-commercialisa- tion-4198939/.