Maybe don't throw out the Kimmeridge connection entirely though. Peter King
is right in that the shales of the Kimmeridge Clay formation have been
worked intermittently in the past - I think going back a long way. They are
certainly flammable - the cliff itself has caught fire spontaneously a
number of times. From http://www.jurassiccoastline.com >>>

Some of the rocks at Kimmeridge have a very high oil content and in the
winter of 1973, a section of cliff spontaneously combusted with such
ferocity that it turned the cliff red and burnt for several weeks. Measured
by scientists at a temperature over 500 degrees centigrade, it is not
surprising that this area has since been called, Burning Cliff. Since then
in the summer of 2000 a cliff section fell onto the beach and caught fire.
This too lasted for several weeks before it burning itself out, leaving
behind crystals of Sulphur.

That's one instance, or rather two instances! - but it has actually been a
relatively common occurrence in the past and probably will be in the future
too. Similar situation at Kilve on the Somerset coast...

James

On 20 April 2011 16:05, Robert Waterhouse <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Dear Bernard,
>
> Oho! So that would tend to explain what all the weird bits of burnt
> slaty/shaly stuff we've been finding are! I didn't mention these before as
> I wasn't sure exactly what they were.
>
> So - it now looks as if we have what you have been describing. Whether it
> arrived in that form only, or mixed in with 'real' coal, we cannot tell, as
> we have only found it mixed in with garden soil.
>
> For the record, the date range seems to be c.1680-1760; the soil having
> been
> imported onto the site at the point a new house was built there (between
> 1756 and 1787) when decent soil was required for the front garden. Very
> little domestic rubbish was deposited there afterwards as this garden was
> the 'public face' of the property.
>
> You can see what the National Trust for Jersey have been doing to restore
> the house on:
> http://www.nationaltrustjersey.org.je/newsbyte/readnews.asp?docID=297
>
> Thankyou - that's all most helpful.
>
> Robert
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mining-history [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Bernard Moore
> Sent: 20 April 2011 14:25
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: C18 Oil Shale uses
>
> Dear Robert,
>
> I remember well someone (Telford was his first name but I can't remember
> his last name), opening a shaft (apx. 30 years ago), about a quarter of a
> mile from the Old Middlehope Mine (at Middlehope), to have a look at a
> small
> coal seam he was sure was there. He had tried an obscure level first, but
> this was virtually an impossible task from the outset due to the lye of
> the
>
> land (and what must have been three or four months of very hard single
> handed work), so he opted to re-open this old shaft instead... he used a
> jacked
> up car and a widened wheel rim to wind the shaft! The timber shaft lining
> was 'sufficient' shall we say, but there was no way I would have gone down
> it. I was at Old Middlehope one day when Telford brought over some of this
> 'coal' for Ted Grieve look at and try, it looked more like shale, but it
> was 'coal like', Ted duly tried it, it did burn (slowly), but left 60% of
> the
> original volume as a red clinker, so, it was kindly suggested to poor old
> Telford that this was not one of his best ideas... and not least that he
> might eventually get buried in the shaft! - which was about 60 feet deep
> if
> I
> remember correctly. So, my knowledge of coal not being very good, apart
> the former, and seeing some other obscure shale like coal seams in the
> Weadale area, and knowing that shale does occur sometimes either
> immediately
> above or below coal seams, that this shale can be 'coaliferous' for want
> of a
> better word. It would be easy to imagine in the early days (partic. if a
> cheap coal), that sometimes a small quantity of shale would get mixed in -
> and be thrown out when found by the end user.
>
> Just my thoughts.
>
> Regards, Bernard
>