Potash – some much under-publicised info, at last!



Potash – some much under-publicised info, at last!

  • Anglo-American chemistry graduate Misha Tadman explodes most of the oft-repeated PR myths underlying the highly contentious North York Moors National Park mining proposals.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Recently I was present at a York Potash Public Meeting where a member of the public asked the question “What is ‘polyhalite’?”

The reply was that ‘poly’ meant ‘many’, and ‘halite’ meant ‘salt’.

Now to me (a chemistry graduate), this answer (coming from an engineer specialising in the transportation of polyhalite) seemed needlessly vague. My interest sparked, I Googled polyhalite and came up with a string of suggested links many of which contained information that make the words of York Potash appear a series of half-truths.

1. What is polyhalite?

www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyhalite

Polyhalite is a hydrated sulfate of potassium, calcium and magnesium with formula: K2Ca2Mg(SO4)4·2H2O. It occurs in sedimentary marine evaporites and is a major potassium ore mineral in the Carlsbad Deposits of New Mexico.

Polyhalite is not a mixture of many salts but a particular hydrated compound, the fact that it is hydrated is a complicating factor when it comes to trying to transport it through a pipeline so this a least a pipeline engineer should have known. I also was surprised the entry contained no mention of what Sirus Minerals claims is the worlds major deposit of polyhalite.

2. Why do we need a second mine in the North Yorkshire Moors National Park?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/12/israelchem-polyhalite-idUSLDE73B10T20110412

Tue Apr 12, 2011 7:25am EDT

Fertiliser and specialty chemicals producer Israel Chemicals (ICL) (ICL.TA) said it will begin mining vast reserves of mineral salt polyhalite located at lower levels of its potash mines in the North Sea.

Geological studies conducted by ICL’s British unit Cleveland Potash (CPL) indicate that more than a billion tonnes of polyhalite ore are located in its Boulby mines in northeast England, beneath the potash that it mines, ICL said on Tuesday.

ICL said it expects to be able to mine hundreds of thousands of tonnes of the mineral during the first year at a relatively low cost.

The only answer I had heard from York Potash was that Boulby was reaching the end of its working life as their economically viable Potash was now nearing mining completion.

3. “Thousands of local jobs will be created in the refining process required to produce the fertiliser product”.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/77343274/ICP-Production-of-SOP-From-Polyhalite-White-Paper

Dated March 23, 2010

Gustavson Associates LLC, Chemfelt Engineering, and Mr. James Waters MET MBA PE, were

contracted by IC Potash Corp (“ICP”) to complete an independent evaluation of the methods of producing Sulfate of Potash (SOP) from polyhalites. Based on the work of the United States Bureau of Mines and other potash producers, the conversion of polyhalite to SOP is a relatively straight forward process. The simple brine produced from the polyhalite will be harvested from solar evaporation ponds. We, the independent authors of this report, conclude that this simple, low cost, robust production method can be employed to produce SOP and that premise is the focus of this report.

Since when locally have we had the weather to operate solar evaporation ponds?

4. “Polyhalite is the most valuable mineral discovered and is in demand as a fertiliser worldwide and will provide food security for Britain”.

www.defra.gov.uk/consult/2011/05/12/fertiliser-regs

Summary

This consultation ran for 4 weeks and closed on 09 June 2011.

The purpose of this non-formal consultation was to invite the views of stakeholders on an amending regulation which adds ‘Polyhalite’, a crude salt of potassium, to Schedule 1 of The Fertilisers Regulations 1991.

In practice this makes Polyhalite a product prescribed under Schedule 1 of The Regulations. This technical addition introduces standards for the description, meaning, declared nutrient content and limits of variation for Polyhalite when it is sold as a fertiliser.

Defra sought views of all stakeholders who will be affected by these amending Regulations.

June 2011

Summary of responses to the non-formal consultation on Polyhalite

2.1. Two written consultation responses were received during the consultation period.

2.2.One response was received from Cleveland Potash Ltd who agreed that the inclusion of Polyhalite in Section E the Fertiliser Regulations 1991 was appropriate

2.3.One response was received from the Potash Development Association. They also agreed that the addition of the mineral Polyhalite to Section E was appropriate and necessary. They stated that Polyhalite is likely to become available on the UK market and the current Regulations have no appropriate classification category for this product.

So Polyhalite was, until the end of 2011, not licensed as a fertiliser in Britain and had therefore no commercial value. Having been only available for use through one exceptional poor cropping year, the widespread benefits of its use as a fertiliser remain untested.

5. A new polyhalite mine will bring huge financial benefits to the region”.

www.miningweekly.com/print-version/polyhalite-an-almost-forgotten

www.miningweekly.com/print-version/polyhalite-an-almost-forgotten..

One company that is racing to add to the diminishing supply of SOP is IC Potash, which is currently engrossed in completing a feasibility study and finalising permitting for its Ochoa polyhalite property, in south-east New Mexico.

Following closely on IC Potash’s heels are two other miners who saw the emerging gap in the SOP market, including London-listed Sirius Minerals, which is developing the York potash project, within the county of North Yorkshire, in the UK, and Israel Chemicals, an Israeli fertilizer and speciality chemicals company, which owns the Boulby mine, in north-east England.

However, in the context of the difficult capital markets, another industry analyst Mining Weekly Online spoke to said it was unlikely that any of the junior companies would in the medium term succeed in establishing mines if the projects did not have substantial reserves and if capital costs and operating costs came in below average.

“It is all about capital risk,” he said, noting that although prices are expected to gradually rise over the medium term, investors would think hardbefore digging into their pockets to invest in a new potash play.”

~||~

http://www.sharecast.com/cgi-bin/sharecast/story.cgi?story_id=3975437

Sirius’s house broker, Daniel Stewart, described the acquisition [of York Potash] as a game changer, though it is not without problems.

“The problem is that the onshore part of the properties is located within the North York Moors National Park. Clearly, planning and permitting will be the key issue going forward – indeed the company needs to get planning permission before it can even drill a series of holes to verify the old drilling data,” notes Daniel Stewart analyst Martin Potts.

“Normally, a proposal to make a substantial mineral development in a National Park would be rejected out of hand. However, potash is an internationally scarce and important commodity and so its development could be justified in the National Interest – as indeed was Boulby mine 40 years ago.

~||~

www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/…to…focusing-on-polyhalite-51080.html

Sirius is targeting completion of a definitive feasibility study for both granulated polyhalite and NPK production during the second quarter of 2013.

~||~

http://www.whitbygazette.co.uk/news/business/business-as-usual-at-potash-mine-1-4981361

Published on 01/10/2012 14:45

THE managing director of Cleveland Potash has said that it is “business as usual” after announcing that the company will be conducting further research into the development of Boulby Mine.

As a result of the additional research into the proposed development of a manufacturing plant at the site, Cleveland Potash will lose a £13million grant it had been awarded from the Regional Growth Fund.

However, Phil Baines said that the decision to waive the grant will not affect the mine’s ongoing operations, which continues to extract potash, rock salt and polyhalite.

He added: “As far as Boulby Mine and our workforce are concerned it is business as usual. We are the only company in the world to successfully mine polyhalite and we are intending to invest millions of pounds in additional mining equipment in response to increasing demand from customers in the UK and worldwide for our Polysulphate fertilizer.”

CPL began mining polyhalite in 2010, becoming the first company in the world to mine, process and sell the mineral. The company currently markets the processed polyhalite under the brand name ‘Polysulphate’ worldwide through the network of its parent company, ICL Fertilizers.

In the face of the proposed York Potash project, CPL have sought to reassure residents that Boulby Mine still has a productive future ahead and Mr Baines added: “Our offshore seismic survey and core samples of polyhalite from underground exploration drilling indicate that there are over a billion tonnes of high-grade polyhalite located in CPL’s mining area at Boulby, in a thick seam at a relatively low depth that is readily accessible from our existing mine workings. We look forward to developing this substantial asset in addition to maintaining our position as the UK’s largest mine and sole producer of potash.”

~||~

www.siriusminerals.com.

Sirius Minerals is a globally diversified potash development company. Its primary focus is to bring on stream major potash mining facilities through the acquisition and development of projects overlying recognised potash deposits.  Today it holds properties in the United Kingdom (North Yorkshire), the United States (North Dakota), and Australia (Queensland).   Incorporated in 2003, Sirius Minerals’ shares are traded on the London Stock Exchange’s AIM market.  Its shares are also traded in the United States on the OTCQX through a sponsored ADR facility.

~||~

www.investorschronicle.co.uk/2012/12/05/shares/news-and-analysis/.

But some analysts have started to question existing projections for the expected increase in worldwide potash demand. And near-term caution with regards to potash pricing is probably warranted given that a number of existing producers – most notably, the Mosaic Company – are in the process of expanding capacity

Sirius has opted for a simpler, lower-risk route through to monetisation. Expected operating costs come in at $36.90 per tonne, while the base case for capital development (ex debt costs) gives a net present value of $2.56bn, assuming a long-term polyhalite price of $150 per tonne. The decision to sell granulated polyhalite has substantially reduced the group’s capital requirements at a time when external financing options are no longer quite so straightforward. Sirius has been in discussions with sovereign wealth funds, and has not ruled out an offtake agreement as a means of securing capital. Still a speculative buy at 21.87p.

~||~

http://www.growthcompany.co.uk/news/2125073/sirius-drills-on.thtml

The risk of structural disturbance at SM7A was confirmed by results showing that the polyhalite seam is cut by a minor fault zone, and another minor fault zone features above it.

At SM7B two ‘relatively massive’ beds of polyhalite have been confirmed but it has not been possible to identify faulting nor estimate the true seam thickness. Further studies including chemical analysis and detailed inspection of logs will follow, and interpretations are open to refinement.

This series of articles casts many shadows on the promise of financial prosperity arising from the mine at Doves Nest Farm:

  • a)      Is it under capitalised?
  • b)      Will York Potash be forced to sell out to less ‘local friendly’/environmentally concerned investors?
  • c)      Will employment at Boulby survive local competition?
  • d)      Worse still, will Cleveland Potash and York Potash succeed in taking each other out of the market?
  • e)      Can the local geology withstand the impact of another deep mine?
  • f)       Can a National Park be maintained in the face of increasing industrialisation
  • g)      Will the tourist industry crumble under the burden of ever increasing urbanisation?

I am becoming increasingly cynical about the incomplete nature of the information being fed to the public by all concerned with the York Potash project. I am reminded of the adage:

“If it seems to good to be true, it probably is!”

Are we being scammed?

I believe so!

are_you_being_scammed

 

173 Responses to "Potash – some much under-publicised info, at last!"

  1. J Chapman  April 7, 2013 at 1:38 pm

    Before I inject some sense and accuracy into this confused and confusing stream of consciousness, could it please be confirmed that the author of this entire article is Misha Tadman? I would also like to check his/her claimed qualifications but can find nothing about him/her on Google. I confess to finding it hard to believe that some of the ill-informed commentary above comes from a chemistry graduate.

    And for clarity, which part of this article is considered by the author or the editor to be new (“at last!”) or under-publicised? I have seen all the referenced articles before and the associated commentary seems to be a re-hash of comments posted in various negative articles here or in the online anti-mine petition or in the formal responses to the planning application.

    Reply
    • Colin Doran  April 8, 2013 at 9:59 am

      Big deal about the search. I couldn’t find any information on you either.

      Reply
    • Tim Thorne  April 14, 2013 at 6:38 pm

      “Before I inject some sense and accuracy into this confused and confusing stream of consciousness”

      Let me know when you start. You’ve failed at every single turn so far.

      Reply
      • Jonathon Chapman  April 14, 2013 at 8:58 pm

        Are you “Misha Tadman”?

        Reply
        • Tim Thorne  April 14, 2013 at 9:39 pm

          You have a rather confused stream of consciousness. If you’re going to inject some sense and accuracy could you possibly start?

          Reply
  2. Chris Percival  April 7, 2013 at 1:51 pm

    I have to say, this article both confused and irritated me. It does not reach a conclusion or give me an insight into what is going on with the mining in this area. If it is intended to create an informed opposition to the Potash mining, it has failed spectacularly in my case. Sorry!!

    Reply
  3. SBC Insider  April 7, 2013 at 2:11 pm

    This could be relevant.

    http://youtu.be/0Xpr5rPKPFU

    Reply
    • Anarchy  April 7, 2013 at 4:03 pm

      Qu’est-ce que? Mine Camp? lol

      Reply
  4. JP  April 7, 2013 at 2:31 pm

    No doubt someone with more inclination than me will be along soon to rip your ‘article’ to shreds. Personally I stopped reading, and laughing, at this point:

    “Since when locally have we had the weather to operate solar evaporation ponds?”

    If you had done the most basic of research (hint – read the planning documents) you would know that Sirius are planning in phase 1 to export crushed polyhalite for processing overseas, rather than converting to SOP.

    Furthermore, in phase 2, SOP will be produced by a four-stage process developed and tested by the experts at K-Utec.

    Reply
    • Tim Thorne  April 7, 2013 at 3:52 pm

      “Furthermore, in phase 2″

      There is no financial incentive for York Potash to process the Polyhalite in the UK. Phase 2 is just wishful thinking designed to try and sway the Park Authorities into giving Planning Permission.

      Once it starts to be processed abroad that is where it will stay. This is all about the bottom line. Sirius can’t get away with dumping their rubbish in the UK, so they’re going to dump it on the Arabian peninsula instead, creating salt and gypsum mountains over there.

      Reply
      • JP  April 8, 2013 at 10:02 am

        Hmmm…. tell us, where do CPL at Boulby dump their rubbish, Tim?

        Reply
  5. admin  April 7, 2013 at 3:25 pm

    Could the author of this post please add their name. Vanda ? Nigel ? Tim ?

    Reply
    • vanda  April 7, 2013 at 3:40 pm

      What post Glen? My only argument with the Sirius People now is the use of void space and I am still waiting to see Boulby’s response. Anyone seen it yet?

      Reply
      • Hugo  April 13, 2013 at 12:42 am

        Vanda
        You asked this question directly about the void space at a public meeting, and the representatives of the farmers association said to you that the contract with York Potash doesn’t allow the company to deposit anything other than the spoil from the mine back into the void space. He also said that the contract states that the void space belongs to the land owners.
        Then Chris France dismissed your assertion that the company could at some point put something else into the void space, saying that of course it was always possible, but would require a further planning application, and would be extremely unlikely to be successful.

        Reply
        • Vanda  April 13, 2013 at 8:14 am

          Hello Hugo, Lets just ignore the Farmers Association quote about who owns the void space because I think that has been overdone.

          “Then Chris France dismissed your assertion that the company could at some point put something else into the void space, saying that of course it was always possible, but would require a further planning application, and would be extremely unlikely to be successful.”

          I don’t remember him saying it would be extremely likely to be unsuccessful.

          It would require a further planning application. Yes it would, but as a facility would already be in place, as created by the Pot Ash mine, then yes I think that application would be successful given the dire need for a waste disposal site in the UK.

          When I can drag myself away from earning a living, I will be finalising my article on this specific subject where we can follow this discussion in more depth. All the best Hugo, see you in Brazil, 2016.

          Reply
          • Jonathon Chapman  April 13, 2013 at 2:52 pm

            Vanda, given your concerns -paranoia even – about the risk of York Potash voids being used for waste disposal, have you done the logical thing and asked Cleveland Potash if they intend to store waste in their voids?

            Boulby mine has many large voids now whereas York Potash won’t create any for several years – and when they do, they will have no right to store anything in them because a) they won’t own the voids; b) their lease doesn’t permit them to store anything other than rocks in the voids; and c) they haven’t requested, and wouldn’t get, planning permission to store waste in the voids.

            I don’t know what the situation with Cleveland Potash is in terms of their leases but they seem a much more urgent target since their voids are here and now.

            Could you please tell me what steps you have taken to with regard to the Cleveland Potash voids and whether you have alerted local people to the threat posed by this Israeli-owned mine?

            Reply
            • Hugo  April 13, 2013 at 3:07 pm

              Jonathan
              It is a well known fact that under Boulby all the void spaces are full of nuclear waste already. If you ask Cleveland Potash about it, they deny it, but these nasty capitalists are terrible liars (ask Vanda).

              Reply
            • Vanda  April 13, 2013 at 5:53 pm

              Hello Jonathon, As most locals know, Boulby make special use of their void space, scientific experiments to boot, being a ‘wet’ mine it is not suitable for waste.

              Hope that answers your Q’s too Hugo. Though if you want to start a discussion about whether the good people of North Yorkshire should become embroiled in a political debate about whether our National Park should be exploited for the benefit of China, Germany or Israel then please go ahead.

              Meanwhile, I have all the information I need thank you. I look forward to your ‘shredding’ of my next article. Will try for Tuesday, depending on staff.

              Have a great weekend.

              PS If Sirius don’t get the planning from the NYMNPA and pull out ie “there is no Plan B” then I believe there is a Q of Pot Ash potentials who would step in.

              Stop thinking short term – think outside the box, you never know it might suit you.

              Yours, hysterically and paranoid, as if xx

              Reply
              • Jonathon Chapman  April 14, 2013 at 11:59 am

                “As most locals know, Boulby make special use of their void space, scientific experiments to boot, being a ‘wet’ mine it is not suitable for waste.”
                =====
                Vanda, if you had researched a little deeper, you wouldn’t have posted this misleading statement.

                First, the scientific experiment at Boulby uses only a tiny fraction of their void space.

                Second, a wet mine is still well suited to a wide range of waste and storage.

                Third, Boulby already store hazardous cadmium and mercury in their voids.

                See the full, factual story here: http://goo.gl/ExHLA

                An extract from this British Geological Society Underground Storage factsheet:

                “The waste from processing crude potash at Boulby Mine, amounting to about 130,000t/y comprises insoluble clay minerals, calcium sulphate and sodium chloride. In the past, the waste was formed into a slurry with brine and pumped out to sea from an outfall 1.8km from the cliffs. However, the insoluble clays contain traces of heavy minerals, including CADMIUM and MERCURY, which do not dissolve. Since 2003 the insoluble waste has been put back into the disused mine workings, thereby reducing discharges into the North Sea.”

                Reply
    • Nigel Ward  April 7, 2013 at 3:45 pm

      None of the above, Glenn. I can promise you that none of us has adopted a pseudonym. This is Misha Tadman’s work, emailed to me this morning from an email address I know to be authentic. I found it a very worthwhile contribution, since it looks at precisely those issues that either have been glossed over, or very poorly elucidated, in the local papers.

      That others disagree is unsurprising. Quite why they do not submit articles themselves is unclear to me.

      Perhaps it is that they do not wish to reveal their identities.

      And by the way, the SBC Insider video does not play for me. 404. Has it been taken down?

      Reply
      • Tim Thorne  April 7, 2013 at 3:56 pm

        It works for me.

        Reply
      • admin  April 7, 2013 at 4:09 pm

        Cheers Nigel, that clears it up.

        Reply
      • J Chapman  April 7, 2013 at 5:15 pm

        Utter tosh. Misha Tadman doesn’t exist – not as a chemistry graduate contributor to this site at least.

        The style and views of the real author are already well known here.

        The editor/proprietor is either complicit or is allowing his community organ to become a laughing stock, if it isn’t one already.

        How can anyone believe a word written on this site after this?

        Reply
      • J Chapman  April 7, 2013 at 6:10 pm

        Nigel, are you saying that Misha Tadman is known to you or that the email address this article came from is known to you because it is that of another contributor to this site?

        And would you be willing to identify which parts of this article were written by Misha Tadman and which were added by you or by Tim?

        Just for clarity and transparency…

        Thank you.

        Reply
        • mac1210  April 7, 2013 at 6:23 pm

          Should people be posting others emails as articles anyway? When they have clearly just cobbled together a few random website quotes without going to the trouble of ensuring that it is factually prior to submission… not that that appears to be a requirement of entering something on to this website anyway

          Reply
  6. mac1210  April 7, 2013 at 3:43 pm

    I’m not surprised the author of this article has not put their name to it as it is quite embarisingly inaccurate.

    Have the detractors of this project considered reading some of the most basic of research before committing words to a public information site? Go crazy and read some of the planning application which is in the public domain.

    Reply
    • Tim Thorne  April 7, 2013 at 4:07 pm

      “Have the detractors of this project considered reading some of the most basic of research before committing words to a public information site?”

      Given that York Potash’s plans change weekly, what would be the point? I don’t envy the job of the NYMNPA given the changes.

      Reply
    • admin  April 7, 2013 at 4:36 pm

      Read Nigel Wards Comment above

      This is Misha Tadman’s work,

      Reply
      • J Chapman  April 9, 2013 at 1:48 pm

        “This is Misha Tadman’s work”
        =====
        I will donate £1000 to this site or to any charity the owner cares to name if a) “Misha Tadman” is a real person and b) this article was written exclusively by him/her.

        Hopefully that will incentivise you Glenn into digging slightly deeper – in the interests of honesty, transparency and, now, financial gain.

        Reply
        • admin  April 9, 2013 at 6:29 pm

          To be quite honest, I don’t have one bit of interest in Potash or polyhalite or whatever you call it. I simply provide the platform for you lot to behave like kids arguing in the playground..

          Reply
          • Jonathon Chapman  April 13, 2013 at 3:06 pm

            Clearly, I’m getting nowhere fast in my attempt to out “Misha Tadman” and “Nigel Ward” for what looks more like a con trick with each passing day.

            Glenn, if you aren’t interested in £1,000 for RW or for your chosen charity (surely easy money for Whitby’s needy?) I will extend the offer to both “Misha Tadman” and “Nigel Ward” – who may know some worthy local causes who are crying out for money.

            But neither of them has yet responded to my questions so perhaps they don’t want my cash either (very selfish, if so).

            I will happily deposit the £1,000 in escrow with a solicitor so that “Misha”/”Nigel” need have no worries about me paying up.

            Reply
  7. andyb28m  April 7, 2013 at 5:02 pm

    You cannot honestly expect anyone to believe that Misha Tadman is a real person or indeed has anything like the qualifications claimed. Actually increasingly, you cannot honestly expect anyone to believe ANYTHING that is posted by the introverted clique that make up the majority of content here. You are a strange bunch. Good to see that your thoughts are so vastly in the minority both locally and nationally.

    “Admin” I await confirmation that you are registered with the information commission. I rather think you are not. High time you put your house in order. Your time is running out. Freedom of expression is a right which comes with basic responsbilities.

    Reply
    • Tim Thorne  April 7, 2013 at 5:18 pm

      “You cannot honestly expect anyone to believe that Misha Tadman is a real person”

      Just as a matter of interest, where did you acquire such an unusual surname, Mr b28m?

      Reply
    • AnarchyUK  April 7, 2013 at 7:11 pm

      BTW, I am a member of the ICO, MLR and other agencies too. I do hope your ‘firm’ are acting in your clients best long-term interests.

      Reply
  8. andyb28m  April 7, 2013 at 5:21 pm

    So Nigel, in fact it now appears that it is in fact YOU who have been scammed by “Anglo-American chemistry graduate Misha Tadman”. Yeah right! Either that or you are the scammer. Whichever way the truth lies, the content hardly serves your purpose. Come to think of it – what am I complaining about?

    Keep up the good work. Planning permission here we come.

    Reply
  9. Vanda  April 7, 2013 at 6:56 pm

    J Chapman, I think your being a bit ‘fresh’. perhaps you should contribute your own article or do you have nothing to say of your own violition?

    There are many new comers to this Potash Project and suggesting that they should read the Planning Application in full detail and take on board what Sirius’ say as gospel is ridiculous. There are boxes and boxes of Potash stuff at the Town Hall. Who in there right mind would want to spend hour upon hour trolling through what could be a pile of sophisticated jargonistic bullshit.

    I think people are right to question what appears to be a done deal. And, further I think Misha raises some very valid points. With the over-riding message being: Do we trust Sirius?

    In their own words: “Sirius Minerals is a globally diversified potash development company. Its primary focus is to bring on stream major potash mining facilities through the acquisition and development of projects overlying recognised potash deposits.”

    That statement does not say to me that Sirius intend to hang around much after the Planning Application has been approved, and points more likely that they intend to sell on the ‘development’.

    Then what?

    All those nice friendly guys from Sirius and their promises of being environmentally sensitive and fitting in with the community means diddly squat.

    Thank you Misha for your article, if nothing else it just brings out the very worst of the Potash bullies.

    Reply
    • mac1210  April 7, 2013 at 7:30 pm

      Vanda, we could all mindlessly speculate about what we think is going to happen or what things mean, this is nothing more than your opinion.

      Out of curiosity have you looked at previous projects the key members of the board of directors have worked on? Do they have history of such outrageous speculation?

      It may be better and somewhat more credible if you base you opinion on facts rather than mischief making.

      Reply
    • J Chapman  April 7, 2013 at 9:31 pm

      “you should contribute your own article or do you have nothing to say of your own violition?”
      =====
      Vanda, I am not local so don’t feel that I have any right to be a ‘headline’ contributor to what is supposed to be a community organ. However, everyone has a right to correct disinformation and errors.

      “Who in there right mind would want to spend hour upon hour trolling through what could be a pile of sophisticated jargonistic bullshit”
      =====
      Certainly anyone who wants to contribute a credible article about the proposed mine must read the planning application, otherwise they are just charlatans. If you don’t know your subject, say nowt…or better still ASK QUESTIONS rather than pretend that you know all the answers.

      “I think people are right to question what appears to be a done deal”
      =====
      So do I. But the articles published on this site by you and others, including this one, only pretend to ask questions as an excuse for furnishing readers with all the answers. Today’s author obviously thinks he/she knows all the answers judging by the sign-off line. But they don’t. Nor do they care: they just want yet another opportunity to misrepresent, disinform and undermine because that is what they do best. I think honest questions get honest answers – but I don’t think I’ve ever seen an honest question here from any of the regular ‘headline’ contributors. All they really seem to want to do is trumpet their own ill-informed version of the answers.

      My old father used to say that asking questions was the first sign of intelligence. But pretending to know the answers is the worst act of stupidity.

      As for whether Sirius will still own a potash mine here in 50 years’ time, who knows? Even if this was a state-owned project, there would be no guarantee that it wouldn’t be sold off to private enterprise. But, for what it’s worth, the company has always told its shareholders – privately as well as publicly – that it plans to retain ownership of this project. Why not look up their history with Fortescue Metals Group? That huge iron ore business started in much the same way and is still in the same ownership. Sirius are at least a British company and their Australian CEO, Chris Fraser, has recently relocated his family to North Yorkshire.

      But even if Sirius were to sell out to a foreign company, neither Yorkshire nor the Treasury would lose out. Jobs wouldn’t be affected and nor would tax revenues or the regional economic stimulation. So perhaps you are tilting at windmills.

      Reply
      • Tim Thorne  April 7, 2013 at 9:53 pm

        “I don’t think I’ve ever seen an honest question here from any of the regular ‘headline’ contributors.”

        You seem to like taking pot shots at me for no good reason. I’m guessing we’ve met before and you are posting behind an alias whilst tossing the word ‘honest’ around like it is going out of fashion. Some honesty from yourself wouldn’t go amiss.

        Reply
        • Jonathon Chapman  April 13, 2013 at 3:18 pm

          Tim, just to be clear, I have always posted here behind my real name, using my real email address routed via my real IP. Ask Glenn.

          I understand that people like you choose to shoot the messenger rather than discuss the message in an adult, balanced way.

          Everything I have ever written is honest and, where necessary, thoroughly researched without omitting inconvenient facts. Try it.

          Reply
          • Tim Thorne  April 13, 2013 at 6:46 pm

            “I understand that people like you choose to shoot the messenger rather than discuss the message in an adult, balanced way.”

            I would say exactly the same as you. You’ve wandered onto this website and started accusing me of all manner of things, without reading any of my articles. We went on and discussed some of those points and we’ve come to the conclusion you’re wrong as you didn’t have a clue about the subject. You even admitted as much.

            “Everything I have ever written is honest and, where necessary, thoroughly researched without omitting inconvenient facts.”

            Lets hope your books are better than your comments.

            Reply
            • Jonathon Chapman  April 13, 2013 at 11:05 pm

              “…accusing me of all manner of things, without reading any of my articles.”
              =====
              Typical untruth. You really must learn to distinguish between opinion and fact.

              “we’ve come to the conclusion you’re wrong”
              =====
              To be accurate, YOU came to the conclusion that I was wrong.

              “you didn’t have a clue about the subject”
              =====
              Unfortunately for you, and one or two others, I know a great deal about potash, about Sirius and about their planning application — so I know when you’re talking hogwash. No doubt you have hitherto relied on your readers not knowing enough to be able to challenge your invention.

              “Lets hope your books are better than your comments”
              =====
              What books? Looks like you’ve made up another “fact”. No surprise there.

              Reply
              • Tim Thorne  April 14, 2013 at 2:30 pm

                “Typical untruth. You really must learn to distinguish between opinion and fact.”

                You post neither opinion or fact. Your lack of research on most things is appalling, yet you claim to be a journalist who feverishly researches anything before you write. Well, you’ve written plenty here and there is a distinct lack of research, which shows in your responses.

                “To be accurate, YOU came to the conclusion that I was wrong.”

                You agreed with me that your research was rubbish which resulted in much rubbish being posted by you.

                “No doubt you have hitherto relied on your readers not knowing enough to be able to challenge your invention.”

                I’ve not written an article on the technicalities of the mining operation, your research has slipped up yet again.

                Reply
                • Jonathon Chapman  April 14, 2013 at 3:57 pm

                  “You agreed with me that your research was rubbish which resulted in much rubbish being posted by you.”
                  =====
                  Sarcasm appears to be lost on you.

                  “I’ve not written an article on the technicalities of the mining operation, your research has slipped up yet again.”
                  =====
                  Your deliberately disinformative pronouncements on the proposed new potash mine, including technicalities, are all over this site — and repeated ad nauseam on other sites, including the online petitions. And you keep re-posting the same nonsense even when knowledgeable people point out the error of your ways.

                  Trust me – no-one will ever again believe a word you say if you keep making stuff up to suit your agenda.

                  Reply
                  • Tim Thorne  April 14, 2013 at 6:28 pm

                    “Your deliberately disinformative pronouncements”

                    The information is factual and backed up by the York Potash mineral rights lease.

                    “And you keep re-posting the same nonsense”

                    That ‘nonsense’ is quoted from a York Potash mineral rights lease. I’d trust their lease over your badly researched ramblings.

                    Reply
                    • Jonathon Chapman  April 14, 2013 at 8:55 pm

                      The lease is accurate. Your trumped-up claim that it gives Sirius the right to backfill with hazardous waste is not.

                      But we know by now that you just invent stuff.

                    • Tim Thorne  April 14, 2013 at 9:56 pm

                      “The lease is accurate. Your trumped-up claim that it gives Sirius the right to backfill with hazardous waste is not.”

                      If you’d done the proper research you’d know you don’t backfill void spaces with hazardous waste. Mine waste goes in the void spaces and that is cemented in place. Research, research, research…

                    • Jonathon Chapman  April 15, 2013 at 8:13 am

                      “If you’d done the proper research you’d know you don’t backfill void spaces with hazardous waste. Mine waste goes in the void spaces and that is cemented in place. Research, research, research…”
                      =====
                      You keep changing your tune whenever anyone knocks back your concocted “facts” but it’s just a game for you.

                      You flit from nuclear waste to toxic cement and back again to avoid dealing with inconvenient truths.

                      So, just to cover all bases, Sirius won’t be storing nuclear, toxic or any other kind of waste in the voids they create because they don’t have the right to do so.

                      And if they backfill the voids with mine waste, they haven’t said what, if any, kind of binding they may use. It is your invention that they will use hazardous cement to do so.

                      Cement is used safely for backfill binding in mines all over the world but there are also many mines which backfill their voids without cement.

                      You don’t have a clue what Sirius intend to do so you make it up. Is this the standard modus operandi for the “corruption busters”?

                      The trouble is that one day, you may stumble across a real story but no-one will believe you. You cry wolf all day and all night, causing as much trouble and consternation as you are allowed to get away with. No real newspaper would give you the time of day.

                    • Tim Thorne  April 15, 2013 at 7:00 pm

                      “You keep changing your tune”

                      On the contrary, my arguments are consistent in that York Potash have clauses in their mineral rights lease to enable them to bring in truck loads of hazardous waste to use as a cementing additive in the backfilling process.

                      The only thing consistent in your responses is your obvious lack of research.

                    • Jonathon Chapman  April 16, 2013 at 10:02 am

                      This is the section of the lease you are referring to (posted previously in this thread by you):

                      “any materials or substances arising from the operation of the Project and any additional binding or cementing additive required for the safe and effective commercial disposal and or backfilling of said materials or substances within the Mine”

                      Note the word “SAFE”.

                      Note too that while Sirius do have the option to bring in binding or cementing additives, they may not do so.

                      But rest assured that the company will have to bring in some hazardous materials in order to build/work the mine – with due authorisation and controls.

                      And in case it helps, this will be a dry mine well below the water table. There is no way for water to drain into it or to migrate out thanks to the overlaying rock strata. So in the unlikely event that any hazardous material were sealed into a void, no harm would be done to any water courses.

                  • Tim Thorne  April 16, 2013 at 4:29 pm

                    “Note the word “SAFE”.”

                    Nothing you’ve written in any way contradicts my statement. Nothing you’ve written is in any way new or insightful. You appear to think verbosity is something to be admired.

                    Reply
  10. Noggin  April 7, 2013 at 7:25 pm

    This has to be one of the most inaccurate and transparent articles I have ever read. It is full of falsehoods and twistings and more to the point a complete non-story. If any of the elements were true then the whole project would not be viable and therefore won’t get funding, the point being you wouldn’t need to worry because it won’t happen.

    Instead you needlessly witter on about rubbish from a graduate that never existed and rant about the natural evolution of a dynamic and credible business plan that stands to help everyone in the region for generations to come. Exactly who are you supporting because it certainly isn’t the good folk that live around Whitby?!

    Reply
  11. Noggin  April 7, 2013 at 7:34 pm

    @ Vanda

    In their own words: “Sirius Minerals is a globally diversified potash development company. Its primary focus is to bring on stream major potash mining facilities through the acquisition and development of projects overlying recognised potash deposits.”
    …….

    I think love you need to go back to school. That says exactly what their goal is. Any amount of research will show their record and intent and it is to AVOID take over at all costs. The reason for that is simple. The maximum benefit to both themselves and the project area is to take this to full development without takeover. The careful timing of all the elements and the desire to stick to a tough schedule is testimony to this. Plus all the extensive background work in educating the future workforce. Why do any of that if all you need is to get permits then sell? There is no reason or common sense in your statement nor any understanding of plain English by your own posting.

    Reply
  12. secretsqu  April 7, 2013 at 7:42 pm

    J Chapman, I think your being a bit ‘fresh’. perhaps you should contribute your own article or do you have nothing to say of your own violition?

    There are many new comers to this Potash Project and suggesting that they should read the Planning Application in full detail and take on board what Sirius’ say as gospel is ridiculous. There are boxes and boxes of Potash stuff at the Town Hall. Who in there right mind would want to spend hour upon hour trolling through what could be a pile of sophisticated jargonistic bullshit.
    —————-
    And yet you have SO much to say on the matter. I thought that a debate was based on an underlying preconcept that you had the remotest clue what you are talking about if you are to be so vociferous in your opposition to the project.

    Then again, facts seem thin on the ground in quite a lot of the articles concerning YP.

    It seems to me that “Capture your creative sparkle” overides the need for facts.

    Wouldn’t you agree AnarchyUK?. Lol

    Reply
    • Vanda  April 7, 2013 at 8:08 pm

      “And yet you have SO much to say on the matter….” – I live here!

      “I thought that a debate was based on an underlying preconcept that you had the remotest clue what you are talking about if you are to be so vociferous in your opposition to the project.”

      It seemed to me that the NYMNPA didn’t have an underlying preconcept of what the ‘project’ was about either … and you’ve been working with them for how long?

      So really Squirrel, enjoy your beer.

      Reply
  13. Vanda  April 7, 2013 at 7:53 pm

    Yes, that is what set the alarm bells ringing. Off the top of my head, there is Catlow from Indo Mining, financed by Rockcheck and the Rajawali Group. Fraser is the front man, a Merril Lynch Banker, mainly accountants, and that former Boulby man (IMO a vengeful traitor!), Incatatus I believe. Rather a strange bunch. Then you look at the ‘Lords’ and see whats in it for them. Yes there are some pretty powerful people on the Board, so?

    Are you saying that wealth and status is more important than what is right and what is wrong?

    Reply
  14. secretsqu  April 7, 2013 at 8:05 pm

    “and that former Boulby man (IMO a vengeful traitor!),”

    I rest my case.

    Your ‘Creative Writing’ knows no bounds.

    Reply
    • Vanda  April 7, 2013 at 8:20 pm

      Your miserable attempts to try and ‘out’ me as someone I am not, will, one day, when you finally find out how insignificant, unqualified and modest I am, find you very disappointed in yourself.

      Reply
  15. Vanda  April 7, 2013 at 8:08 pm

    Your right – it doesn’t.

    Reply
  16. secretsqu  April 7, 2013 at 8:18 pm

    ‘Creative’ being the operative word. Much like all of the articles published here regarding YP; you’re very first article on the subject matter being a clasic case in point.

    Anyone up for a quiz? Lol

    Reply
    • Vanda  April 7, 2013 at 8:26 pm

      Squirrel, I do believe you are inebriated. Well done. Now go home.

      Reply
  17. secretsqu  April 7, 2013 at 8:19 pm

    Oops, classic.

    Reply
  18. secretsqu  April 7, 2013 at 8:24 pm

    “Yes, that is what set the alarm bells ringing. Off the top of my head, there is Catlow from Indo Mining, financed by Rockcheck and the Rajawali Group. Fraser is the front man, a Merril Lynch Banker, mainly accountants”

    Clue; please do a little more research on Catlow and Fraser.

    I know that research before posting is quite alien to a number of people on here as it may get in the way of a great story, but it gets a little boring having to pull you up after a while.

    Anarchy rules.

    Reply
  19. secretsqu  April 7, 2013 at 8:30 pm

    “Your miserable attempts to try and ‘out’ me as someone I am not, will, one day, when you finally find out how insignificant, unqualified and modest I am, find you very disappointed in yourself.”

    Here’s the killer…we are all insignificant, but modest you certainly are not!

    Unqualified? Can’t say, but I would say that your protestations on YP certainly are.

    Reply
    • FiFi Binks  April 7, 2013 at 9:10 pm

      If YP start selling t shirts then Vanda might be able to comment with more authority :)

      Reply
      • FiFi Binks  April 7, 2013 at 9:12 pm

        Maybe your business interests could benefit from this project Vanda?

        Reply
        • Vanda  April 7, 2013 at 9:24 pm

          What Potash or Bust? ha! Always on the look out for a new T! I’m Not That Hard to Find.

          Reply
        • Vanda  April 7, 2013 at 9:37 pm

          Price of cottons gone up ! Next time your passing say hello. Namaste

          Reply
  20. secretsqu  April 7, 2013 at 8:30 pm

    I am home.

    Reply
    • Vanda  April 7, 2013 at 8:49 pm

      Good, last time I bought shares was in Leeds United. You got a Box at White Hart Lane?

      Reply
  21. secretsqu  April 7, 2013 at 8:58 pm

    “Could the author of this post please add their name. Vanda ? Nigel ? Tim ?”

    Hi admin, I thought that only certain people had editing/posting rights on this website? On that basis, how has this article got through? Have you been infiltrated, or have you now established the authors true name?

    Serious question as to provenance, even though the authors’ piece is riddled with errors and IMHO hardly worthy of publishing.

    Reply
    • Drivel Buster  April 7, 2013 at 9:55 pm

      Hi, Squirrel

      You are on the button with infiltated IMO. Mossad??
      Seriously,there are ICL/CPL fingerprints all over the original.

      I thought barrack-room lawyer Tim Thorne’s 3.52pm comment was a laugh, too. He has obviously convinced himself that only hazardous waste can be stored in the mining voids and that it is not permissible to store waste derived from the mining operation with his interpretation of the mineral lease document !!

      Reply
      • Tim Thorne  April 8, 2013 at 12:03 am

        “I thought barrack-room lawyer Tim Thorne’s 3.52pm comment was a laugh, too.”

        I see it had no takers too. We both know why. York Potash have been running around the local landowners, polishing their egos and telling them the polyhalite is needed for UK food security.

        York Potash’s intention all along has been to export the polyhalite because the costs of processing abroad are far, far, cheaper and they can get away with building salt and gypsum mountains in countries with much less strict environmental controls than ours.

        As for the voids, we both know that hazardous wastes are used in backfilling as a cementing additive. The lease permits the use of those.

        Please post some more drivel tomorrow, thanks.

        Reply
        • Jonathon Chapman  April 13, 2013 at 3:28 pm

          “York Potash’s intention all along has been to export the polyhalite because the costs of processing abroad”
          =====
          Tim, Sirius has always listed overseas processing of the polyhalite as an option but they have nowhere stated that this is their firm plan so you made that up.

          It’s also possible that they could process in two places – at Teesside and at the base of a major overseas customer via a joint venture.

          Or that they will process 100% at Teesside.

          We will have to wait until the definitive feasibility study to know what their chosen route is.

          But it would be appreciated if you didn’t pretend to know things that you definitely don’t know.

          Reply
          • Tim Thorne  April 13, 2013 at 6:51 pm

            “Or that they will process 100% at Teesside.”

            Sirius were busy brainwashing the local farmers and landowners that the mineral under their was needed for UK food security. The truth is that they are exporting all of the mineral, so UK food security has absolutely nothing to do with it. I can say with confidence that for at least seven years they will process 0% at Teeside. I would imagine that given the lower energy costs abroad this will continue into phase 2.

            Reply
            • Jonathon Chapman  April 13, 2013 at 11:27 pm

              “Sirius were busy brainwashing the local farmers and landowners that the mineral under their was needed for UK food security”
              =====
              Regardless of what some third party may have told you, you don’t actually know what was said. It would have been rather odd if Sirius had told landowners a different story than the one that anyone can read on their website. It has always been stated by Sirius that the majority of the polyhalite they mine will be exported. From memory, they have said that about 1m tons per annum will be sold in the UK, either as a multi-nutrient fertiliser or as a blend of N, P and K.

              Based on CPL’s own figures, they only have 75 million tons of their resource left – and that number includes both proven reserves and a large amount of inferred or unproven resource. At best, given the limitations of Boulby’s infrastructure, this will last for 15 years. By the time that York Potash comes on stream, Boulby may have only 10 years’ of potash mining left. Despite any vague assurances they give to the contrary, they cannot prove that their sylvinite will last any longer. Nor can they prove the quantum of their polyhalite resource or that they will develop it. Given the profit margins in it, I suspect that ICL will choose to close Boulby down rather than keep it going as only as a polyhalite mine. York Potash will be able to produce the polyhalite much more efficiently and more cheaply given what will be their state of the art mine — and although polyhalite demand will grow, Boulby will not be well-placed to exploit it.

              “The truth is that they are exporting all of the mineral, so UK food security has absolutely nothing to do with it”
              =====
              As you well know, that is another of your inventions. Why do you insist on making yourself look so silly?

              Reply
              • Tim Thorne  April 14, 2013 at 2:20 pm

                “Regardless of what some third party may have told you, you don’t actually know what was said.”

                It was in the local press. Much discussion of UK food security between local farmers/landowners and people from York Potash. Again, if you’d done the modicum of research you’d know this. Your lack of research seems to be a familiar pattern. You blunder into things you know nothing about.

                “It would have been rather odd if Sirius had told landowners a different story than the one that anyone can read on their website.”

                That is what piqued my interest in this project. Why on earth would a company tell porkies to all the farmers and landowners in the area? It was rumoured there would be no UK processing in the operation back then and a few months down the line that rumour was confirmed to be true. Curious behaviour on their part.

                Reply
                • Jonathon Chapman  April 14, 2013 at 5:31 pm

                  Of course UK food security is part of the need – it just isn’t the whole story and Sirius have never said that it was.

                  By their own declaration, Cleveland have about 8 years of potash mining life left at Boulby so its days are numbered.

                  Mining our own fertilizers gives us security in the event that foreign imports are over-priced or unavailable for any of a number of possible reasons.

                  And, if it matters, Sirius is a British company whereas Cleveland is foreign-owned.

                  Reply
                  • Tim Thorne  April 14, 2013 at 6:31 pm

                    “Of course UK food security is part of the need”

                    It is all going to be exported. None of the polyhalite will be used for UK food security.

                    Reply
                    • Jonathon Chapman  April 14, 2013 at 11:50 pm

                      Why don’t you read the planning application? It states that 1 million tons of the York Potash polyhalite will be sold in the UK while the balance (4m tons in phase 1) will be exported.

                      You must be relying on some unofficial/unreliable source for your silly assertions.

                      And by the way, here’s the official government line:

                      “Provided the output is sold, it is immaterial what proportion of any company’s potash production is sold at home or abroad; however much is produced or wherever it is sold, the result will be a significant and helpful contribution to the country’s visible trade balance.”

                    • Tim Thorne  April 15, 2013 at 6:57 pm

                      “It states that 1 million tons of the York Potash polyhalite will be sold in the UK”

                      There is no market in the UK for polyhalite.

                    • Jonathon Chapman  April 18, 2013 at 8:47 am

                      “It is all going to be exported. None of the polyhalite will be used for UK food security.”

                      You don’t know what you’re talking about. You’re just a troll. You know you’re wrong but don’t care.

                      You probably think the English libel laws are wrong too for requiring the defendant to prove that his statement is true instead of making the plaintiff prove that they are lies.

                    • Jonathon Chapman  April 18, 2013 at 9:37 am

                      “There is no market in the UK for polyhalite.”
                      =====

                      I know you are an expert on Polyhalite but Sirius have based their forecast of 1m UK tons on market research. The figure includes demand for both low-cost basic Polyhalite fertiliser (ie appreciably cheaper than CPL’s Polysulphate product) and also demand for NPK balanced fertilisers blended with Polyhalite.

                      And in case you didn’t know, Sirius’s senior management team includes one of the country’s foremost experts on fertiliser demand, Luke Jarvis. His appointment announcement last October included this:

                      “Prior to joining Sirius, Luke was Managing Director at Agrium for UK and Ireland for almost 5 years. Agrium is a global producer, marketer and distributor of crop nutrients (nitrogen, phosphate and potash) and a leading retail supplier of agricultural products and services. Luke has specialised in the fertiliser business for almost 20 years having been involved in the sales, marketing and distribution of various fertiliser products. Prior to joining Agrium, he was the UK and Ireland Managing Director at Helm Fertiliser for 7 years, having worked in commercial roles at Cleveland Potash Limited, the UK’s only operating potash mine for 8 years.”
                      http://otp.investis.com/clients/uk/sirius-minerals/rns/regulatory-story.aspx?cid=485&newsid=293991

                      So, notwithstanding your expertise, it is safe to assume that Sirius’s forecast of UK sales is accurate.

                  • Tim Thorne  April 18, 2013 at 6:43 pm

                    “You don’t know what you’re talking about.”

                    You’re just some jumped up PR bloke who doesn’t know the different between landfilling and backfilling.

                    Reply
                  • Tim Thorne  April 18, 2013 at 6:49 pm

                    “So, notwithstanding your expertise, it is safe to assume that Sirius’s forecast of UK sales is accurate.”

                    Market research on a market that doesn’t exist? That’s one of the reasons this stock is a big risk and it needs to be constantly talked up. Just out of interest, are you York Potash’s PR Consultant?

                    Reply
  22. secretsqu  April 7, 2013 at 9:00 pm

    Goodison, but you should have realised that from the clue on iii.

    Tsch!

    Reply
  23. secretsqu  April 7, 2013 at 9:11 pm

    Time for bed as I have to be in Saltburn, bright eyed and bushy tailed (squirrel) by 8am in the morning.

    Nighty night vanda :-)

    Reply
  24. Vanda  April 7, 2013 at 9:15 pm

    Yeah, G’nite Jonboy, hope your head hurts!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cp7_u0kcQRo

    Reply
  25. Chris The Milkman  April 7, 2013 at 10:28 pm

    Just to lighten things up a bit. Enjoy :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Xpr5rPKPFU&feature=youtu.be

    Reply
    • Chris the Milkman  April 8, 2013 at 9:34 am

      You’re not Chris the Milkman! Impostor! Find your own profession.

      Reply
  26. Trip Wire  April 7, 2013 at 11:16 pm

    holey Cow, how old are you lot. You potash people behave like a little kid who has just had their sweets taken away by mummy. Never seen so much silliness in my born days.

    Reply
  27. wendy  April 8, 2013 at 5:21 am

    Having worked my way through all that has been posted on this situation from those who are against and those who clearly have a vested interest in this project opening are the duties of those entrusted to protect the area which have been lost during the pursuit for personal gain.

    These statutory duties include conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the English landscape, not just for the present, but also for future generations. In pursuing National Park purposes, National Park Authorities also have a duty to seek to foster the social and economic wellbeing of local communities and where irreconcilable conflicts exist between conservation and public enjoyment the first purpose takes precedence, commonly known as the ‘Sandford principle’.

    Reply
    • mac1210  April 8, 2013 at 7:04 am

      Wendy,do you know the percentage of the national park that the mine will be spread over, well worth taking a look as this would probably show why the mine is being considered and that local people are being put first.

      20 more apprenticeship, where else in the area are kids going to get an opportunity like this?

      Reply
  28. andyb28m  April 8, 2013 at 6:39 am

    Well said Wendy.

    Admin – my private (for now) “freedom of information” request of you – yet again. You seem to be very reluctant in answering. I wonder why? Are you registered, as you need to be by law, with the information commissioner’s office. A simple yes or no will suffice. Openness and honesty is a two=way street. I will continue to ask.

    Reply
  29. Jane Swales  April 8, 2013 at 8:22 am

    The torrent of snide invective that has been poured over Ms Tadman is really unneccessary and actually rather pitiful. Smarting at having watched their shares plunge by 30% of their market value over recent weeks, these shameless self-seekers lash out at anyone who raises a question, let alone an objection, from behind their silly pseudonyms.

    Their criticism of Ms Tadman’s article is not criticism; it is thinly veiled abuse. The article is nine tenths open source. Ms tadman’s own remarks consisted of a proper description of polyhalite (never explained in the local papers), a report on remarks made by YPL people at a public meeting, and a short list of her own questions.

    Apparently, that is enough to send the whole potash gang into a fuming rage.

    If you must post on a site you claim to despise, why not offer some new information? Why not report on the boxes full of YPL paperwork delivered by courier to the Scarborough Town Hall at the end of last week? What does it mean? Has the Park abandoned the process? Is all that paperwork on its way to the Secretary of State? Has Mrs Mitchell been interviewed under caution?

    Reply
    • Jonathon Chapman  April 13, 2013 at 3:51 pm

      Jane, in case it helps, polyhalite is a potash bearing mineral in exactly the same way that the sylvinite mined by Boulby is a potash bearing mineral.

      polyhalite contains less potassium than Boulby’s muriate of potash but it uniquely contains 4 of the essential 6 nutrients needed by crops and soils whereas muriate of potash contains just potassium and an large amount of chloride which is harmful to many crops and soils.

      The author of this article (whoever it is) states, wrongly and without explanation or reference, that polyhalite cannot be transported in brine via a pipeline. He/she misleadingly leaves this in italics so that it appears to be part of the quote from Wikipedia, which of course it isn’t.

      I assume you don’t know “Misha” (nobody seems to) and that you take on trust the claim that he/she is a chemistry graduate. Please believe me that no chemistry graduate would write any of the tosh in this article.

      You, and others here, have been hoodwinked by this confidence trick – unless you are party to it, which I assume you’re not.

      Reply
      • Tim Thorne  April 13, 2013 at 6:54 pm

        “it uniquely contains 4 of the essential 6 nutrients needed by crops and soils”

        Five months ago this wasn’t the company mantra. It is good to see most of you investors singing from the same hymn sheet now.

        Reply
        • Jonathon Chapman  April 13, 2013 at 11:42 pm

          “Five months ago this wasn’t the company mantra”
          =====
          The company has always understood the nutrient value of polyhalite. All of their exploratory boreholes over the past two years have targeted only the polyhalite seams – as you would know if you bothered to read the assay reports from each drill.

          You may be alluding to the fact that they have decided to focus on raw polyhalite in phase 1 of the mine rather than process it into valuable sulphate of potash (SOP) from the off.

          This was pragmatic as the original plan for SOP production would have required a much bigger budget which might have been difficult to raise from investors given the long pay-back time.

          By focusing initially on raw polyhalite – and possibly processing it into NPK blends – and leaving the SOP production until phase 2 of the mine, Sirius greatly reduced the initial capital expenditure to just over £1bn, so ensuring that the mine would be built and that investors would see payback sooner. A separate round of financing will be needed for phase 2 — but by then Sirius will be generating cash from phase 1 so the financing of the mine expansion and SOP production will be relatively easy.

          But the unique multi-nutrient value of polyhalite has always been the raison d’etre for this project.

          Hope this helps.

          Reply
          • Tim Thorne  April 14, 2013 at 3:50 pm

            “The company has always”

            I think the company has programmed you. Amazing how much all you investors are using that phrase these days. I hope you’re getting paid for this PR job!

            Reply
            • Jonathon Chapman  April 14, 2013 at 5:33 pm

              Who is paying you, Tim? Cleveland Potash?

              Reply
              • Tim Thorne  April 14, 2013 at 6:33 pm

                You’re a very paranoid individual.

                Reply
  30. mac1210  April 8, 2013 at 8:29 am

    Jane, I would hazard a guess that this is the additional information requested by the MoD the environmental agency and another organisation whose name escapes me. This information was requested as a result of the last planning meetings.

    I hope this helps

    Reply
  31. Jon Owen  April 8, 2013 at 9:20 am

    It’ll be copies of the more than 1500 third party letters sent to NYMNPA, of which more than half are local and of those more than 90% are in support of the Dove’s Nest developement.

    As for the poor besmiched and besieged Ms Tadman, I’m supprised (or am I?) she has not come on here to defend her self and her qualifications. Perhaps she’s doing a quick refresher course as she obviously has a poor grasp of the basics of chemistry:

    “Polyhalite is not a mixture of many salts but a particular hydrated compound”

    That statment is true, we can all read a website ( http://webmineral.com/data/Polyhalite.shtml ), nicely c & p-ed from this one it seems. It got named ‘polyhalite’ because those who discovered it some 200 y ago analysed it and found many salts – calcium, potassium and magnesium sulphates – when they heated it and it broke down.

    However this statment has no basis in fact:

    “the fact that it is hydrated is a complicating factor when it comes to trying to transport it through a pipeline”

    On the contary – and yes I did chemistry at university – the 2 H2O molicules of water of crystalisation make the polyhalite molicule LESS soluble in water (and even less so in brine) than if you tried to slurry transport the seperate salts. There will be no difficulty in transporting by pipeline polyhalite ground to approx 0.2mm size and mixed with sea water to make a slurry.

    The rest of this effort are just old rehashings, to little end. Still the last 2 line in the piece are pertinent:

    “Are we being scammed?

    I believe so!”

    Well someone is trying to.

    Jon.

    Reply
  32. wendy  April 8, 2013 at 10:12 am

    mac1210 How are future generations to benefit from the moors if those who only have the objective for profit are allowed to abuse it.

    Reply
    • Serious Investor  April 8, 2013 at 10:40 am

      @wendy.

      The same as you are benefiting now!

      All because of what went on before……now that’s not difficult to conclude is it?

      Reply
    • JP  April 8, 2013 at 10:47 am

      Abuse is such an emotive verb.

      50+ years of payments to the community from the York Potash Foundation, direct and indirect employment opportunities, investment in young people via education and training programmes, infrastructure development, massive contribution to the effectively bankrupt UK economy, security of domestic fertilizer supply….

      How are future generations to benefit from the moors if the positive outcomes outlined above are blocked by those who put their own narrow-minded self interests above those of the wider community?

      Reply
    • mac1210  April 8, 2013 at 11:29 am

      Wendy, we are talking about 0.4% of the national park, on the edge of the national park. This was previously a farm, how many people would have visited doves nest farm prior to this?

      The mine will be completely shielded from view by woodland or bunding with much of the equipment built underground.

      Also could you explain why this project would have any impact of someone’s enjoyment of the moors?

      I do understand concerns,however I feel that information in the public domain does go a long way to appease them.

      I feel there does appear to be a lot if bashing the project for the sake of it rather than people taking the time to research and understand the project.

      Reply
      • Tim Thorne  April 8, 2013 at 6:34 pm

        “Wendy, we are talking about 0.4% of the national park”

        We are talking about the investment of perhaps 20% or higher of your wealth in this stock. Why should anyone in the National Park Authority care that you’ve gambled a large amount of your assets on such a high risk venture?

        Reply
        • mac1210  April 8, 2013 at 6:39 pm

          Tim, what’s that got to do with the price of beans.

          I read a great quote the other day “I don’t believe in this project because I am invested, I have invested in the project because I believe in it”

          Reply
  33. wendy  April 8, 2013 at 11:44 am

    No I’m talking about the lack of knowledge on the far reaching effects the mine will have on an ecologically sensitive area that has far wider implications for future generations which outweighs the short term profit of a company. Or are we as with most money driven schemes to say, stuff them we won’t be around to see the damage?

    Reply
  34. Dave  April 8, 2013 at 1:00 pm

    Wendy I think if you did some research you would find that these issues have been/are being addressed.

    Reply
  35. wendy  April 8, 2013 at 5:23 pm

    Dave i think you will find that they can not be addressed fully.

    Reply
    • mac1210  April 8, 2013 at 5:43 pm

      Wendy, please could you enlighten us as to what the issues are?

      Reply
  36. andy blatchford  April 8, 2013 at 6:31 pm

    Wendy: “No I’m talking about the lack of knowledge on the far reaching effects the mine will have on an ecologically sensitive area that has far wider implications for future generations which outweighs the short term profit of a company”.

    With at least some due respect, you are not actually saying anything substantive. Define your terms and there could be a debate. As it is you’re just waffling.

    Wendy: “Or are we as with most money driven schemes to say, stuff them we won’t be around to see the damage”? Variations on this theme keep on coming up here. As if money is some dirty commodity that should be avoided at all costs. The money that can be potentially generated here will transform the lives of many folks living in the North East, give work for generations to come, and pay through taxation for health and schooling. How else does the essentials of any culture get funded other than by money? It is the glue that keeps us together. Of course local people have the right to be concerned as to environmental considerations. But all I see here is myopic Canute-like negativity. Cut yourselves a good deal. Embrace the future. Your children will thank you for it.

    Reply
    • Tim Thorne  April 8, 2013 at 6:37 pm

      “As if money is some dirty commodity that should be avoided at all costs.”

      You’re an investor. All you are concerned about is your money in this high risk stock. No one is saying it is a dirty word, but please, don’t come here and speak about the benefits of the project when you only have one benefit in mind.

      Reply
      • mac1210  April 8, 2013 at 6:52 pm

        Tim, are you that desperate to stifle debate that you need to suggest people are not entitled to post here if the have a different opinion than yours?

        Is it because you find it hard to argue with them as they base their posts on fact and not speculation.

        If you believe in something why shouldn’t you invest in it?

        At least those who invest research properly opposed to speculative miss information

        Reply
        • Tim Thorne  April 8, 2013 at 8:53 pm

          “If you believe in something why shouldn’t you invest in it?”

          You could at least be honest about your motives for posting here, don’t you think?

          Reply
          • mac1210  April 8, 2013 at 8:58 pm

            Please don’t paint me with the same brush as yourself Tim. Its a shame that you need to resort to mud flinging rather than sensible debate.

            It does your argument no favours only goes to show that you do not know what you are talking about and an inability to respond to any counters to your ill informed posts.

            Reply
            • Tim Thorne  April 10, 2013 at 7:23 pm

              “Please don’t paint me with the same brush as yourself Tim.”

              Stings, does it? Your only motivation for posting here is trying to talk up your investment. You have absolutely no interest but what money you can make out of the stock. Is that unfair?

              Reply
  37. wendy  April 8, 2013 at 7:38 pm

    The thing is you guys it is easy to see who is linked to the mine, who is trying for other reasons to discredit those involved on a regular basis with this site and who has the bigger picture as their main concern. Spouting about jobs and such is classic spin to try and deflect from the fact that this mine will do more harm than good.

    Reply
    • mac1210  April 8, 2013 at 7:47 pm

      All that I am asking are what you think these aspects are that will do more harm than good that the planning process will not cover?

      Is it that you just think there might be issues that you are unaware of?

      Or are there actual concerns that you know of?

      Reply
  38. AnarchyUK  April 8, 2013 at 8:18 pm

    3.89
    Pillars in the polyhalite will be left in -situ to provide local and regional support to the openings
    and overlying strata with the intent that mining activities will not affect surface topography or
    the overlying aquifers, including the important Sherwood Aquifer that is located some 800
    m above the mining horizon. The percentage of the seam extracted will be determined by geotechnical analysis of the rock characteristics to ensure that openings have long term stability. There are no sources of waste material to fill underground openings to provide additional stability and
    ,in general, the pillar dimensions will be proportional to their height.

    “There are no sources of waste material to fill underground openings …” So what does that mean, exactly?

    Reply
  39. AnarchyUK  April 8, 2013 at 8:21 pm

    It then goes on to say that only 55% will be product. So that is a lot of waste material then?

    Reply
  40. secretsqu  April 8, 2013 at 8:42 pm

    ““There are no sources of waste material to fill underground openings …” So what does that mean, exactly?”

    It basically means that you need to read the whole pdf to understand the significance. Unless of course your name is Tim Thorne, who does very little research on YP, yet scorns others for not researching on some of the other SBC articles.

    This website is quite hilarious at times.

    Hazardous waste anyone? Lol.

    Reply
  41. andy blatchford  April 8, 2013 at 9:09 pm

    Hi Wendy/Tim. Yes I am an investor in this project which is why I had the integrity to post under the name that I post with on the iii board. It seems that a few others have taken that option as well. Good for them. It suggests, don’t you think, that we have some level of integrity?

    But being an “investor” does not necessarily mean that I am some kind of low level pond slime. I have good days and bad days just like anyone else. It is an inter-connected World. If you have a bank account, a job, a pension, a mortgage, a credit card – whatever – you too are investors. You may not want to be. You may, or may not, approve. But you most surely are anyway. I chose to empower myself within this context some years ago and moved my truly pathetic self-employed builder’s pension that was worth less money than I had contributed, into a SIPP. I think that putting some of that into Sirius is the best thing I have ever done. If Sirius fails I will lose money that I was prepared (although not wishing) to lose. If it succeeds then I will have helped to enable a World class mine to be opened in the UK during these troubled times. I will also have helped to enrich thousands of people’s lives in the North East through the (by now) thousands of hours research I have spent researching this project and its possibilities. It really is going to happen.

    You could be part of this success too. Sirius shares are at the moment selling in the low 20’s. When planning is granted (not if, obviously) they will be worth significantly more. When the mine is up and running many of us think the price will be quite some way beyond £1 per share. You could buy into a British success story.

    You may wish, on the other hand, to continue to espouse ill-informed Canute like beliefs about the Sirius project. That is, of course, your democratic right. In the fullness of time the mine will be built, as I am sure, in your heart of hearts, you truly now.

    With my very best wishes, Andy.

    Reply
    • Tim Thorne  April 8, 2013 at 11:12 pm

      “It suggests, don’t you think, that we have some level of integrity?”

      It suggests you have put your money into the stock in the hope of gaining a sizable return. No one makes an investment to better the lives of others, they make an investment to make money. Any other effects are secondary to your investment. Your primary motivation is obviously money.

      Some people have a primary reason for not supporting the project. They want to protect the National Park from any development. They don’t want the landscape to be scarred by any development as it is an area of outstanding natural beauty. These reasons are much more noble than your primary motivation of money.

      Reply
    • Tim Thorne  April 8, 2013 at 11:15 pm

      “You may wish, on the other hand, to continue to espouse ill-informed Canute like beliefs about the Sirius project.”

      My beliefs about the project are very well founded. There is the very real possibility of hazardous waste being used in the backfilling process. The only way to get this waste to the mine is along the streets of Whitby and Scarborough. A truly frightening prospect and one which the company (if it has any sense) would not reveal until the last moment.

      Reply
      • Jon Owen  April 9, 2013 at 8:17 am

        Tim:

        “There is the very real possibility of hazardous waste being used in the backfilling process”
        ——–
        No there is not, there is no need for backfilling and none is planned to be done. there will be storing of internaly generated suplus materials only.

        Why no need? Anarchy pointed it out – sec 3.89 of the Planning Supporting Statement:

        “The percentage of the seam extracted will be determined by geotechnical analysis of the rock characteristics to ensure that openings have long term stability. There are no sources of waste material to fill underground openings to provide additional stability…”

        http://planning.northyorkmoors.org.uk/MVM.DMS/Planning%20Application/809000/809564/NYM-2013-0062-MEIA%20Planning%20Supporting%20Statement.pdf

        The purity of the polyhalite allows that all that will be mined will be sold and that will be limited to a maximum of 55% of a given seam so the pillars remaining prevent future subsidense.

        Polyhalite is not soft and deformable like the sylvite mined at Boulby it is hard like the anhydrite that was mined at Billingham, those workings have not subsided in 60 years.

        Jon. (GK for your intrest :-) )

        Reply
        • Tim Thorne  April 10, 2013 at 7:20 pm

          “No there is not, there is no need for backfilling and none is planned to be done.”

          Utter rubbish. The guy from AMEC said different at the Helmsley meeting. Are you saying the guy from AMEC doesn’t know what he was talking about? Are you trying to say you’ve got more mining experience than him? Credentials, please.

          “there will be storing of internaly generated suplus materials only.”

          The lease says they will likely use cementing additives in the backfilling process. As we both know cementing additives are typically hazardous waste.

          Reply
          • Jonathon Chapman  April 15, 2013 at 8:26 am

            “The lease says they will likely use cementing additives in the backfilling process. As we both know cementing additives are typically hazardous waste.”
            =====
            No it doesn’t say that at all. The lease gives Sirius the right to use cement binding, which is a standard term in mining leases. But it doesn’t say they will use cement binding, nor that they are “likely” to.

            Pure invention on your part.

            Reply
            • Tim Thorne  April 15, 2013 at 6:54 pm

              Its all in the mineral rights lease if you cared to do some research. You are not in possession of the facts. Go away, do some research, come back and discuss it like an adult.

              Reply
              • Jonathon Chapman  April 18, 2013 at 8:56 am

                It isn’t in the lease. So far you have managed to quote an extract from the lease which clearly fails to support your assertions.

                Since you seem to have no more ammunition, you are reduced to repetitive, immature squawking.

                Based on your performance in this thread, SBC will have your guts for garters.

                Reply
                • Tim Thorne  April 18, 2013 at 11:10 pm

                  “It isn’t in the lease.”

                  Then you’re not reading the right lease.

                  Reply
                  • Jonathon Chapman  April 23, 2013 at 11:10 am

                    Your constant trolling is tedious. Will you _ever_ quote an extract from the lease which proves your scaremongering claims?

                    Reply
                    • Tim Thorne  April 23, 2013 at 5:56 pm

                      Si, I don’t see what good quoting a lease will do as you don’t know the difference between landfilling and backfilling.

      • Jonathon Chapman  April 9, 2013 at 11:42 pm

        “There is the very real possibility of hazardous waste being used in the backfilling process. The only way to get this waste to the mine is along the streets of Whitby and Scarborough. A truly frightening prospect and one which the company (if it has any sense) would not reveal until the last moment.”
        =====
        OK, these are the FACTS:

        1. Chris France said at the last public meeting that Sirius don’t have permission to store waste

        2. Sirius have stated that they don’t/won’t own the voids they create and their licence gives them no rights to store waste in them or do anything else except remove the potash ore

        3. For reasons best known to yourself, you haven’t publicly asked this question of the one company which MIGHT be in a position to store waste, ie Cleveland Potash at Boulby where they have voids a-plenty.

        Please don’t keep harping on about the new mine and waste storage as it’s a non-starter and you just sound like a petulant trouble-maker who can’t acknowledge the facts like an adult.

        Reply
        • Tim Thorne  April 10, 2013 at 7:13 pm

          “Chris France said at the last public meeting that Sirius don’t have permission to store waste”

          FACT: Chris France is not the best person to consult about York Potash’s future plans, only their current plans. As we saw four months ago, York Potash’s entire direction changed, along with their plans, which probably explains where there is so much missing from the planning application.

          “Sirius have stated that they don’t/won’t own the voids”

          FACT: York Potash can renegotiate the contracts at any time and they can use the void spaces to store waste, landowners permitting.

          “licence gives them no rights to store waste in them or do anything else except remove the potash ore”

          FACT: The lease gives York Potash the right to use hazardous wastes as a cementing additive in the backfilling process.

          “For reasons best known to yourself, you haven’t publicly asked this question of the one company which MIGHT be in a position to store waste, ie Cleveland Potash at Boulby”

          If you lived in the area you’d know the answer to that. You’re just some investor who is only interested in making a few quid.

          Reply
          • Jonathon Chapman  April 13, 2013 at 4:15 pm

            FACT: If Sirius did want to change their plans they would have to do a lot more than convince the landowners to allow waste to be stored under their property – they would have to obtain planning permission in the face of huge public opposition.

            So instead of wasting acres of space on spreading your doomsday scenario where no doom is on the table, why not save your energy for the day, if it ever comes, that they try to do it?

            As you must know, the fact that the mine creates voids which *theoretically* could be filled with waste at some point if the owners, the planners and the public agreed to it won’t waste a moment of the planning committee’s time when they debate this mine application.

            Go and waste Cleveland Potash’s time instead. At least they have voids ready and waiting for waste. But you’re not really bothered are you? You just like making a noise.

            Reply
            • Tim Thorne  April 13, 2013 at 6:57 pm

              “FACT: If Sirius did want to change their plans they would have to do a lot more than convince the landowners to allow waste to be stored under their property”

              FACT: York Potash already have permission to dump thousands of tons of hazardous waste down the mine, using those hazardous waste as a cementing additive in the backfilling process. Check the lease.

              Reply
              • Jonathon Chapman  April 14, 2013 at 1:21 am

                “FACT: York Potash already have permission to dump thousands of tons of hazardous waste down the mine, using those hazardous waste as a cementing additive in the backfilling process. Check the lease.”
                =====
                This is again untrue. If they decide to use cement binding, they will use material which has been approved by the Environment Agency and will be no more “hazardous” than the minerals they removed to create the void.

                The reference to hazardous materials in the lease agreement is to cover any need to store *temporarily* any hazardous materials used to work the mine – of which there are a number, including explosives. This is a standard term in underground mine leases. There is NO reference in the lease to the use of hazardous cement binding materials nor of leaving hazardous materials behind when the mining is finished. However, there are standard clauses about liability for any hazardous materials or emissions which again appear in every mining lease so as to protect the landowner from any imaginable liabilities.

                You should also be aware that this mine will be dry. It will be well below the water table and aquifers and there are no permeable and porous rocks down there which would permit liquids to flow or migrate. And even in places where ground water does penetrate to such depths (I repeat, not here because of the type of rock formations) it will already be non-potable having become mineralised with sodium and chloride and therefore too saline to drink.

                What Sirius intend to store in the voids is the mineral waste from their mining and milling processes – ie putting back some of the stuff they have dug out. Unlike Boulby’s considerable sylvinite waste, there won’t be much left over from Sirius’s operations as the ore is 90% polyhalite. If you want to know what the rest is, go check their assay reports.

                Reply
                • Tim Thorne  April 14, 2013 at 2:10 pm

                  “FACT: York Potash already have permission to dump thousands of tons of hazardous waste down the mine, using those hazardous waste as a cementing additive in the backfilling process. Check the lease.”

                  “This is again untrue.”

                  From said lease:

                  ‘any materials or substances arising from the operation of the Project and any additional binding or cementing additive required for the safe and effective commercial disposal and or backfilling of said materials or substances within the Mine in accordance with the Rights granted to the Tenant under this Lease’

                  My statement proved entirely.

                  Your basic lack of research has caused you to look like a fool, again. Your credibility is in tatters. Didn’t you say you were a mining expert?

                  Reply
                  • Jonathon Chapman  April 14, 2013 at 3:45 pm

                    I know what the lease says and it doesn’t say anything about HAZARDOUS cement binding. That was another of your inventions.

                    You seem to take umbrage when your mischief is pointed out. Just apologise and go back to annoying the people who can’t be bothered to call you to order.

                    Reply
                    • Tim Thorne  April 14, 2013 at 6:37 pm

                      “I know what the lease says and it doesn’t say anything about HAZARDOUS cement binding.”

                      Most cementing additives used in the backfilling process are hazardous wastes. Your more learned investor friends have already conceded as much. Again, you lack basic research skills and you are making a fool of yourself by not knowing the subject you are attempting to discuss.

                    • Jonathon Chapman  April 15, 2013 at 12:38 am

                      “Most cementing additives used in the backfilling process are hazardous wastes.”
                      =====
                      (In reply to your post below which doesn’t have a Reply button)

                      And some are not. But you are tilting at windmills since Sirius, if they use a backfill binding, haven’t declared what type. Only you appear to know that a) Sirius will use cement binding and b) it will be a hazardous substance. Which specific product will they use?

                      And do you know of any real-world hazard caused by the backfill binding cements used in mines throughout the world?

                      And is this alleged binding cement the hazardous waste you talk about being transported through the streets of Whitby?

                      The trouble is, you don’t give direct answers because you know you haven’t got a leg to stand on. Your mission appears to be to discuss your fantasies ad nauseam without ever risking having to substantiate them.

                      No wonder SBC won’t engage with the “corruption busters”. You’re a bunch of egotistical jokers hooked on cheap headlines.

                    • Tim Thorne  April 15, 2013 at 6:53 pm

                      “Only you appear to know that a) Sirius will use cement binding and b) it will be a hazardous substance.”

                      Its all in the mineral rights lease if you cared to do some research. You are not in possession of the facts. Go away, do some research, come back and discuss it like an adult.

  42. andy blatchford  April 8, 2013 at 9:20 pm

    you truly know (not “now” as posted). Apologies.

    Reply
  43. Jamie Schmidt  April 9, 2013 at 7:03 am

    “My beliefs about the project are very well founded. There is the very real possibility of hazardous waste being used in the backfilling process. The only way to get this waste to the mine is along the streets of Whitby and Scarborough. A truly frightening prospect and one which the company (if it has any sense) would not reveal until the last moment.”
    That is quality, you are now officially in my top 5 comedians.
    Is that all you have? A completely made up issue that has been dispelled several times by the company. Have you ever thought that they may back fill with any spoils from the mine.
    Next you will be raising concerns they may wake up a dinosaur sleeping down there.
    Get a grip, do some proper research instead of concocting scenarios in you head.

    Reply
    • Tim Thorne  April 10, 2013 at 7:15 pm

      “A completely made up issue that has been dispelled several times by the company.”

      It has NEVER been dispelled by the company.

      All they’ve have said is that they have no plans of being a waste disposal company. As we saw four months ago their plans changed entirely.

      Reply
  44. wendy  April 9, 2013 at 8:06 am

    It shows a level of, I need this to work at any cost. We are only borrowers and have a duty to protect the delicate nature of the land for future generations.

    Reply
  45. Jo Peacock  April 9, 2013 at 12:40 pm

    WENDY said: We are only borrowers and have a duty to protect the delicate nature of the land for future generations.

    So you live in a hand-woven shelter in the woods and only eat the berries you forage? Let me guess… you enjoyed the privilege of a decent grammar school, free university, steady employment, a decent final salary pension…and now after all you’ve worked so hard for, you don’t want anybody potentially spoiling YOUR view and any filthy workers trampling over YOUR national park thank you very much.

    Reply
  46. Vanda Inman  April 9, 2013 at 6:37 pm

    So after investing £ 2.5 billion they are going to leave 45% of the product behind? Call yourselves Capitalists? Am beginning to think Sirius are the jokers.

    Reply
    • Jonathon Chapman  April 9, 2013 at 11:04 pm

      I assume you’re joking. That’s normal for mines of this kind – you have to leave enough rock in situ to support the roof and prevent a collapse.

      Reply
  47. wendy  April 11, 2013 at 8:15 am

    Hi Wendy, Please use your full name and follow all the rules below otherwise we can not publish your comments

    Reply
  48. admin  April 11, 2013 at 5:01 pm

    Is it true that Ruswarp is to loose all its parking so that potash vehicles can get through easier ?

    http://bit.ly/ZPlCew

    It has been done so the Potash delivery lorries can go along unobstructed. Ruswarp should ask for a bypass before they start delivering the hazaardous waste.

    Reply
    • Jonathon Chapman  April 14, 2013 at 12:17 pm

      “Is it true that Ruswarp is to loose all its parking so that potash vehicles can get through easier ?”
      =====
      Is there a tiny shred of evidence anywhere to indicate that it might be true?

      Thought not.

      Reply
      • Vanda  April 14, 2013 at 1:50 pm

        Glad you’ve found a new interest Jonathon. Please note that is the main route/road to the proposed mine. Doh. A little more research by yourself will go a long way into your reasoning.

        Keep looking at Boulby, they have their own direct railway link.

        Reply
        • Jonathon Chapman  April 14, 2013 at 3:39 pm

          As I said, Vanda – not a shed of evidence.

          It’s all conspiracy theories, paranoia and rabble-rousing.

          It’s no wonder that SBC can’t be bothered to waste their time engaging with you all.

          Reply
  49. Mark Pierce  April 11, 2013 at 5:37 pm

    I have to say admin that I find your post hypocritical at best.

    You expect people here to use their real names rather than pseudonyms, yet you post an unfounded comment on Whitby Gazette from a prior poster here under the name of AnarchyUK.

    Are you to be the mouthpiece for all of these posters who now will not conform to your new rules?

    Reply
    • admin  April 11, 2013 at 5:44 pm

      Sorry Mark, but I cant be responsible for the policies of Johnsons press. This site has new rules because many of your pro potash friends choose to spam and troll this site using fake names, fake email addresses from behind proxy servers used to mask thier identity. If you find that hypocritical, I can live with that, but my policy on this site remains the same, no name = comment, no email = comment, and proxy server = no comment.

      Reply
      • Jonathon Chapman  April 13, 2013 at 4:22 pm

        “my policy on this site remains the same, no name = comment, no email = comment, and proxy server = no comment”
        =====
        Glenn, could you please elaborate? I have always posted here using my real name, real email address and real IP and yet I was denied the ability to comment last week. Based on your policy, as I understand it, I should have been entitled to comment even if I had supplied a false name and false email address.

        Reply
  50. Mark Pierce  April 11, 2013 at 5:54 pm

    You know full well that you had my real name and email address as I have conversed with you before.

    I have also previously explained to you why I use a pseudonym that is consistent with the one that I use on other sites.

    You also agreed with the use of psuedonyms and explained why in a post to Nigel Ward at the end of last month. 10 Days later you changed it.

    Simply removing posts from proxy servers would have sufficed IMHO.

    I am complying with your new rules, but I find it far from playing to your own rules when you post comments on behalf of a prior pseudonym user on this site.

    Reply
  51. Mark Pierce  April 11, 2013 at 7:10 pm

    I would also expect you to enforce your rules for all users, not a select few, who on the surface are pro-Sirius…

    wendyReply

    April 11, 2013 at 6:46 pm

    “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win”

    Mahatma Gandhi

    Reply
    • admin  April 11, 2013 at 8:39 pm

      To be honest Im really fed up to the back teeth of you Sirius lot, I hope your not employees of theirs because you behave like a bunch of children and think if your anything to do with them they should be review who they employ. Ive never seen anything like it, your like children in a playground, and to round it all off you have the arrogance to come on here and tell me how you expect me to run the site that I’m paying the bills for, its laughable really.

      Reply
  52. Vanda Inman  April 11, 2013 at 8:01 pm

    Hello Mark, If you ever meet that jumped up little sh*t Shylock give him a big metaphorical slap from me will you.

    AnarchyUK is moping about and keeps humming …

    “On towers erected to dwarf our frail frames
    On pipelines that flow from our open veins …”

    http://www.fromthedepths.info/black_flag.html

    “Oh woe is woe is woe …. not long now.”

    I guess AnarchyII will have to send final potash article to the ‘guardian’ for publication then?

    Reply
  53. Mark Pierce  April 11, 2013 at 9:16 pm

    You make the rules. (only for some it seems)

    If I’m wrong in anything that I have said then please highlight them to me.

    Your following statement really tells all posters on here your lack of impartiality in applying said rules…

    “To be honest Im really fed up to the back teeth of you Sirius lot”

    I guess I’ll get banned now because I’ve abided by the rules and pulled you up for not applying the same rules to those against the mine. If you can’t be consistent don’t complain when it is highlighted to you.

    Unbelievable response from an administrator of a website that claims to promote free (polite) speech.

    Reply
  54. Mark Pierce  April 11, 2013 at 9:20 pm

    Vanda, if you let me know when it’s published, I’ll make a note to buy The Guardian.

    Reply
  55. nicholas mills  April 11, 2013 at 9:47 pm

    i have recently followed the syrius/potash scenario with a view to possibly speculating on the share price. i have noted that syrius describes itself as a mining company but doesn’t own or operate a mine and never has.its accounts show tangible assets of 300k hardly enough to buy three terraced houses,it’s never even made a profit of 10p and lost 60m last year.it reminds me of de lorean,they sold a dream but no cars
    having read the cleveland potash report a mining company with a real mine operating for 40 years,i think sirius is definately worth speculating on.i think their worth shorting to 18p possibly 16p v.soon

    Reply
    • Jonathon Chapman  April 12, 2013 at 1:54 pm

      Sirius describe themselves as a potash development company. The Sirius team has a huge amount of mining experience of course.

      At the last count they had over £25m of cash and tangible assets, having invested around £50m in this area over the past two years – much of which has benefited this community.

      They have drilled numerous deep and expensive boreholes to ascertain the extent of the mineable potash within their lease area. This has been done without any certainty of obtaining planning permission and recovering their risk capital. If they do manage to get their mine built, they will invest a further £1bn in the mine over the next two years – by the end of which they still won’t have recovered a penny of their investment.

      Indeed, they won’t recover any of their outlay until the mine starts to make a profit, which is 5 years away at best.

      They are however well-funded – not by revenues but by investors. Most of the £1bn to build the mine will be put up by investors and future customers – and the cash for restoring the mine site after 100 years or more when the potash has been extracted will be deposited up front so there can be no risk of Sirius evading their responsibilities.

      As an investment, Sirius is obviously a risk. If it cannot get planning permission, this project at least will be a write-off. That’s the risk that the investors to date have been willing to take – as a result of which, Sirius has a market capitalisation of almost £300m. But they could lose out. That’s why the share price is 20p and not 50p.

      That’s how the system works. No-one gets hurt apart from those who knowingly took the risk to invest.

      Reply
  56. Mark Pierce  April 15, 2013 at 6:32 pm

    “Sirius describe themselves as a potash development company. The Sirius team has a huge amount of mining experience of course.”

    And one of the most experienced (from FMG) has just announced a 3.2m (further) purchase of shares.

    This is an expensive pipe (pun intended) dream for him.

    Reply
  57. Hugo  April 29, 2013 at 12:23 pm

    “Are we being scammed?

    I believe so!”

    Who is being scammed by whom?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

whitby photography by glenn kilpatrick