Potash: E=MC2 …….?

Whitby --> Featured --> Potash: E=MC2 …….?

Potash: E=MC2 …….?

Potash: E=MC2 …….?

  • further insight into the Sirius Minerals plc proposal (York Potash Ltd) to mine Potash beneath the North York Moors National Park, by Vanda Inman.

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

What do York Potash intend to do with the void space?

York Potash Ltd has no stated plans for using the void space.

Time is running out. The York Potash Planning Application is due to be decided in a few weeks. Three significant objections; from the MoD, Natural England and the Environment Agency remain outstanding. Hundreds of letters of support for the Mine have been received by the NYMNPA, many based on self-interest, economic benefits and a desire to bring jobs to the area.

E=Mc² – Einstein’s theory of relativity – indicates that Mass and Energy are equivalent and convert from one to another at a constant speed that is relative to a point in time and space. Personally I see this equation as meaning that what matters is convertible into energy, and that depends on your position.

Going back to my first article, actually entitled “Arachnophobia”, it would seem I touched lightly onto the Sirius Project only to ignite a litmus paper whilst wearing tinted glasses. What was a simple opinion with straight forward concerns eg about  the exchange of our well-established tourist industry for a  “dirty industry”, but with a few quid, led by foreign invaders, followed by comments that included “would leave a ‘dirty great big hole’ in our beautiful National Park”, has sparked some rather speculative debate.

Those original assumptions were based on what little facts were presented, hidden amongst a pile of  proposals and promises glossed over as The York Potash Project (hereinafter the ‘Project’). I really don’t have a fixed view, E=Mc² to me means that whilst life exists nothing is constant, so I don’t do monotheistic or monolithic, there always has to be a balancing act, like say the Tai Ji of Yin and Yang.

Trying to find an equilibrium to the positive and negative elements within this ‘Project’ has been quite hard. I like to assess risks, part of OCD. There is an old saying that if you do certain things, in a certain way, then certain things will happen. Once the risks are known, then it is easier to place a value on that risk and act accordingly, and back to E=Mc².

With this article I intend to make some further massive assumptions and poke a little into the future,  based once again on certain facts that display certain information that may predict some almost certain possible outcomes.

So, after my initial Yin, there has been far too much Yang thrown at this Potash Project. An initial search on the Board of Directors found accountants, bankers and finance wizards and Capitalists galore (Al Gore-ish!). Then came the geologists, ecologists,  investors, shareholders, opportunists,  business leaders, chemists, lawyers, fraudsters, mischief-makers, downright liars, more lawyers, planning applications, diagrams, manuals, reports, consultants, more lawyers, more regulations, Public Authorities, Councillors, Legal Teams and Managing Directors, engineers, PR consultants, Apprentices, trolls, hardliners, regulations, rules, planning applications, manuals, engineers, pharmaceuticals,  more  geologists, investors, brokers, chemical contributors,  more rules, authorities, people of influence, status, power, indeed it has been hard to find where the whole Malleus  Maelificarum to this project begins and where the Spanish Inquisition will end – perhaps with the spectre of the Secretary of State looming on the horizon.

Trying to untangle all of the above, dare I say, ‘stakeholders’ (ouch)  the Sirius Investors (iii SXX) and (LSE SXX) from the Sirius Executives and Management Teams and into other neat little ‘piles’ that have thrown in their lot, objectors, supporters etc, has been blurred by torrents of  muddied exchanges of views,  some  real, some imagined, and some  totally made up, depending on your perspective and at what speed you are travelling.

Frankly, IMO, all that untethered, mainly testosterone-fuelled, speculation has only managed to produce plenty of bullshit flying and flailing through the Ethernet and has failed to cut through to the core elements of what this Project is really all about.

Once or twice, or more, I have tried to inject some Yin into the debate by asking; “Can we trust Sirius?”

Do we trust Sirius?

Sirius Minerals plc, a.k.a.  Sirius (or they, them or their, or York Potash Ltd), IMO, started with some glossy brochures that promised thousands of jobs, then York Potash tried to avoid an EIA assessment, then their terminology in the Mineral Rights Leases was at best confusing and at worst misleading, then they changed their design plans and their product, then their Public Consultation exercise was not easily accessed and very limited, and they poached Boulby ‘management’, who then inconveniently   ‘forgot’ some basic MoD matter about the American Anti-Air Missile Defence & Star Wars System, then there was some consternation about the technology, design and  build-ability factor. So, again I ask; “Do we trust Sirius?”

What do we know about them?

Sirius claim they are using new technologies and design innovations along with promises of  developing a mine that will be world-class and environmentally-friendly. Meanwhile, all we can do is look at other Potash producers and compare their methods and facilities, such as K&S, Potash Corp and Cleveland Potash a.k.a. Boulby, which is quite handily just up the road.

Boulby Response

Boulby has made its response.

Following on from this unsubtle competitive blow, perhaps we are being led to believe that there is no purpose or need for Polyhalite and that there must be some other alternative Sirius hidden agenda for building the deepest Pot Ash mine in Europe.

It has already been confirmed that the York Potash Mine will be a dry mine and house ideal conditions for storage of hazardous and toxic waste. In deed the ‘waste disposal business’ has high value earnings potential, perhaps higher than the product Polyhalite. Indeed other Potash mines do use hazardous materials in their backfilling processes and also for storing undesirable waste products.   Whilst the NYM Planning Authority insists that a further Planning Application would need to be submitted to make use of the York Potash void space, it would seem logical that if an ideal ‘facility’ has already been created, then that future application would be seen more favourably. This Hazardous Waste business use for the Potash Mine has already been pursued by both Nigel Ward and Tim Thorne and been rubbished by Investors and assumed Sirius representatives.

NIA – Power

Should Sirius fail and not receive the planning permission they seem so determined to get, will they be replaced by a long queue of alternative companies and corporations, perhaps Israeli, American, Chinese, all wanting access to our North Yorkshire Moors and the facilities that they can create from the production of  Potash?

Did he really say this:

We can either continue to store this old waste above ground indefinitely and leave the final solution for future generations to resolve, or we can tackle this once and for all with a permanent geological disposal facility.”

I am beginning to be cynical about my own cynicism.

iii sxx

So why all the secrecy about the possible disposal of Waste? After all, if we create it, we should dispose of it safely. I personally do not have any issue with the Nuclear Industry in the UK. The benefits of the NIA , (63,000 jobs) and the potential to independently power the UK along with the science and  expertise that is needed  to manage and control this industry in the UK safely, sits quite comfortably with me. Further, should Nuclear Waste become a ‘localised’ industry then the Community benefits would far outweigh/value those promised by the Potash industry.

The only problem with this ‘assumption’ is that the NIA currently say they have no intention whatsoever of introducing a Nuclear Waste facility on the  North East Coast, and that they intend to only store the radioactive waste as near to possible as where it is created, where the experts and experience are to hand. So you could ask if they would consider building a Nuclear Power Plant here as well – and I did, but no, unfortunately not. (Note to self – I will never get elected now)

MoD holding objection

So I go back to that basic Yin of questions: Should we trust Sirius?

What is their ‘hidden’ Agenda?

Looking further back at the history of Sirius it becomes clear that post-mining operations are very important to Sirius, well at least Chris Catlow, in 2010, was showing some Yin:

 “To this end, Sirius has acquired the Intellectual Property and the issued share capital of three research and development companies focused on innovative new technologies for developing its properties post the mining phase. These technologies cover storing CO² in the salt caverns created through solution mining, approaches for safely sequestering CO²  in underground salt beds, and the development of new CO² based Compressed Air Energy Storage facilities for generating electricity.”

IF it is still the intention of Sirius to conduct research into reducing CO²  emissions, then let them say so – or otherwise.

More reading:

Sirius

Geo

Contact:

Email Vanda

TowerBabelPotash

 

About the Author:

Website Admin for the Real Whitby Website. All authors of the Real Whitby Website have access to publish on the website. Individual authors will usually sign off their articles with their own names.

62 Comments

  1. James Irvine April 18, 2013 at 2:53 pm - Reply

    Interesting to see that you continue to beat the anti-York Potash propaganda drum yet nobody has mentioned the Israeli’s expansion plans for the monstrous Boulby mine, so far.

    • Vanda April 18, 2013 at 4:08 pm - Reply

      And what do you think this is then? Go get yourself a cheap suit. lol

      • James Irvine April 18, 2013 at 4:28 pm - Reply

        You haven’t commented on the fact they are expanding their operations under the beautiful moors with a ghastly new concrete tower.

        p.s. if all you can do is resort to insults (re cheap suit) then that says more about you than this long-winded, sci-fi article.

        • Vanda April 18, 2013 at 5:13 pm - Reply

          No insult to you intended James, I hit the wrong key.

    • Holly Blunt April 18, 2013 at 10:28 pm - Reply

      Bit lively discussion here. I am not too happy that our bootiful countryside will be a dumping ground for toxic waste. I didn’t realise potash was so radioactive and whilst it may provide great heating for my ground source heat pump I doubt my long term veggie patch will be very happy.

      Boulby is as ugly as Prescott’s bidet and should be shut as well.

      Can we not just eat less:)

      • Simon Baker April 19, 2013 at 10:13 am - Reply

        Holly..

        What are you on? WHERE on earth have you read that Polyhalite is radioactive..?? I know it was late when you posted your response but with all due respect you need to get to grips the the BASIC facts first.

  2. Jonathon Chapman April 18, 2013 at 3:14 pm - Reply

    Vanda, you could have saved yourself all the angst by actually reading the Sirius/York Potash planning application. It can’t be said any simpler than in the Minerals Application Form, linked below.
    =================================
    Question A1.30:
    “Does your proposal include landfilling with any imported wastes?”

    Answer:
    “NO”
    =================================
    http://planning.northyorkmoors.org.uk/MVM.DMS/Planning%20Application/809000/809564/NYM-2013-0062-MEIA%20Minerals%20Application%20Forms.pdf

    Of course, you can, and will, speculate to your heart’s content but them’s the facts, as clear as day.

    You also know that the York Potash leases give them NO authority to store waste in the voids.

    And you know that Sirius/York Potash don’t/won’t/will never own the voids they create.

    Try Boulby. They’ve got lots of voids right now and, unlike York Potash, may be able and willing to store imported waste in them.

    I have now reached the conclusion that you RW contributors just make stuff up in order to generate traffic from people who call you to order. Are there advertising deals on this site based on traffic numbers?

    • Tim Thorne April 18, 2013 at 6:30 pm - Reply

      “It can’t be said any simpler than in the Minerals Application Form, linked below.”

      It would have been simpler if you’d done some research. Instead you jumped in with both feet and made a fool of yourself, not for the first time. Landfilling is not the same as backfilling, old boy.

      • Jonathon Chapman April 18, 2013 at 8:34 pm - Reply

        Do try to keep up. Vanda’s article above is mainly about her speculation/conspiracy theory/paranoia that Sirius will import waste to store in the voids, thereby making vast profits.

        I pointed out that this has already been refuted in the planning application had she bothered to read it.

        What shall we speculate about next? There must surely be a risk that Sirius will pollute the atmosphere with carcinogenic dust. Or that they will send children down the mine. Or that they might want to make a profit one day. Or that they might not vote Labour.

        Come on. You’re slacking.

        • Tim Thorne April 18, 2013 at 11:06 pm - Reply

          “Do try to keep up.”

          My back-pedalling skills (or land-pedalling skills as you might call them) are clearly no match for yours, but then, I’m not the one who got hopelessly confused between landfilling and backfilling.

          “What shall we speculate about next?”

          Whether it might be possible for you to post a factually accurate comment sometime in the near future? You should point us towards your journalistic contributions as they would likely be a comedy of errors, judged by your efforts here.

        • Mike North April 19, 2013 at 11:07 am - Reply

          Jonathon

          I notice that this eloquent question only refers to “imported” waste. Would you classify RA and toxic by product produce within this country as “imported”?

          • Jonathon Chapman April 19, 2013 at 2:31 pm - Reply

            Mike, it means imported from outside the mine, not from outside the country. If in doubt, check with the NYMNPA.

  3. Jon Owen April 18, 2013 at 3:28 pm - Reply

    Why Vanda your conspiritorial hypotheses have surpassed all your previous tirades. I’m very impressed, you could win the Man Booker.

    Some facts:

    Sirius plan to mine polyhalite, it is tough and the voids created will not subside so there will be no need for any structural backfilling – the voids will be left empty in perpituity.

    Sirius will not own any voids created by mining, they are owned by the mineral rights owners, if any proposal is made to store waist by anyone they will have to gain legal licence and come to agreement with the rights owners.

    There is no proposal by Sirius either within the planning applications or publicised anywhere to use any void space for anything other than the storing of material that is created internaly during normal mining opperations.

    Vanda have you noticed those trails in the sky that you see appearing behind high flying aircraft? I would love to know your opinion as to what they are.

    ATB.

    Jon.

    • Tim Thorne April 18, 2013 at 4:57 pm - Reply

      “the voids will be left empty in perpituity”

      Is this an official company announcement, Jon?

      • Tim Thorne April 18, 2013 at 11:07 pm - Reply

        It seems the cat has got Jon’s tongue.

  4. Jane Swales April 18, 2013 at 4:05 pm - Reply

    Question A1.30:

    “Does your proposal include landfilling with any imported wastes?”

    Answer:

    “No”
    ===============================================

    And future proposals? I think we all know that back-filling is not mentioned in the present proposal. There are many things not mentioned in initial proposals. I expect readers know that. In the planning game, incremental augmentation is a well-tested technique. Sirius is in the business to make money. The spaces are worth more than the polyhalite. What would you do with them? A share depository? Mark my words, the void spaces will be exploited. Sooner or later.

  5. george conway April 18, 2013 at 4:13 pm - Reply

    I read this article which in my view could have been half the size and would still include too much waffle. This project is obviously one of great significance to this area and clear facts and information are what is required so lets stick to those.

  6. Michael Holland April 18, 2013 at 5:12 pm - Reply

    “Note to self – I will never get elected now”
    —–
    Crikey! You’re not kidding. At last, a sudden self-awareness that hitherto appeared lacking. Certainly if some of your thoughts on this site are anything to go by.

    After ‘creating’ such ill-informed and poorly researched hyperbole however, might I suggest putting yourself up for any sort of election, would be to take the electorate for fools?

    Another ‘note’ for you: We’re not.

  7. pete budd April 18, 2013 at 6:05 pm - Reply

    I would have liked to see an option for a cargo for the port of Whitby in this planning application, say 1000 tons of pit-head product per week would assure the maintenance of Whitby as a Port for the next 50 years; or not, as it stands. Parish council will not make this request of the company and they have not offered it.

  8. Vanda April 18, 2013 at 6:47 pm - Reply
    • Jonathon Chapman April 18, 2013 at 8:46 pm - Reply

      Why not write a column about nuclear waste then? This column is about the proposed new York Potash mine which clearly has nothing to do with nuclear waste because the planning application has been submitted on the unequivocal basis that no imported waste will be placed in the voids.

      Your obsession is sad and it diminishes you.

      • Vanda April 18, 2013 at 8:55 pm - Reply

        Not at all.

  9. Nigel Ward April 18, 2013 at 8:50 pm - Reply

    The very same Lord Hutton? Baron Hutton of Furness?

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

    “By Lord Hutton

    6:00AM GMT 30 Dec 2012

    Comments64 Comments

    But whatever view you take about the future role of nuclear energy, successive governments have rightly tried to establish a permanent solution for the radioactive waste generated by our military and existing civil nuclear programmes.

    These plans are now at a critical stage of development.

    My belief is that we must not continue to pass the buck. We have a choice.

    We can either continue to store this old waste above ground indefinitely and leave the final solution for future generations to resolve, or we can tackle this once and for all with a permanent geological disposal facility.”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/9770921/Voice-of-Business-Time-to-solve-this-toughest-nuclear-problem.html

    If it is indeed the same Lord Hutton, do you know whether he joind Sirius for the polyhalite – or for the void space, Vanda?

    • Vanda April 18, 2013 at 9:11 pm - Reply

      I have already said in my article that the NIA have no interest in the Yorkshire Coast for disposing of Nuclear Waste. That is not what this article is about, it is about sending and receiving messages.

      I have a direct response from York Potash which I will post once I have received permission from them to do so. I think it is a good response.

  10. Vanda April 19, 2013 at 8:52 am - Reply

    Thank you York Potash for your response, it is very much appreciated:

    Dear Vanda,

    Thank you for your email which was addressed to Peter McLennan and Lord Hutton. Peter works in the investor relations team and Lord Hutton is an non-executive director – it would be highly unusual for a non-exec director to involve themselves in day-to-day company correspondence. However, you can be assured that this correspondence has been approved for release by the company.

    In reference to your questions about void spaces in the proposed mine, much of the ‘voids’ you mention are used on an on-going basis for access and ventilation to new production areas and the remaining are left as they are, as is normal practice in mining. We would not be permitted in either our planning permission or our mineral leases to bring in any third party waste to the mine. Clearly as part of the normal operations we would be able to store equipment, mined ore, etc as part of the normal operations. We’re happy to confirm that no director, employee or representative of York Potash or Sirius Minerals has ever had a conversation about the use of void spaces with the Ministry of Defence or any other public or private organisation.

    On a more general note, you may be interested to know that the mining voids remain in the ownership of the mineral rights owner, not the company. In addition, during early discussions with local mineral rights holders their representatives requested a number of specific clauses in the mineral rights agreements. Amongst others this includes a condition not to “contaminate or pollute” any of the minerals, lease area or adjoining land. There is also a specific reference to prohibiting “waste from nuclear power generation” being brought into or stored in the mine. This contract is the same for all the local mineral rights holders and the stipulation, which is consistent with the planning permission that we are seeking, would not allow waste to be imported.

    We hope that answers your queries and apparent concerns.

    Your sincerely,

    The York Potash Consultation Team
    info@yorkpotash.co.uk ;

    • Jonathon Chapman April 19, 2013 at 10:04 am - Reply

      Vanda/Glenn, I doubt many of your readers will scroll down this far for what is surely an important and newsworthy communication direct from the horse’s mouth.

      In view of the numerous articles (and comments) on this site about the perceived threat of waste storage in the voids created by York Potash, I hope you will agree that this reassuring response from York Potash merits its own headline article within the potash section and also in the news section so that your casual readers can see it?

      I think that would provide at least a modicum of balance to the persistent scare stories RW has been running.

      • Chris the Milkman April 19, 2013 at 12:25 pm - Reply

        Timmy has gone very quiet.

        • Jonathon Chapman April 19, 2013 at 2:34 pm - Reply

          So has Glenn. Maybe he’s gone fishing.

          • Jonathon Chapman April 19, 2013 at 2:40 pm - Reply

            So has almost everyone, come to that. Maybe discretion is the better part of valour at the moment.

            • Vanda April 19, 2013 at 4:14 pm - Reply

              We did write to York Potash before but got no reply.

              Still no response on the CO2 reducing.

              Catlow seems like one of the good guys.

              Timing is everything. So much to do so little time. Is there only fifteen day to go?

              I see the target got the message, pity you didn’t.

              ATB

        • Tim Thorne April 19, 2013 at 6:03 pm - Reply

          I don’t see that the statement changes anything.

          • Rick Coteze April 20, 2013 at 4:30 am - Reply

            Tim Thorne Reply

            April 19, 2013 at 6:03 pm

            I don’t see that the statement changes anything.

            ———

            Try taking your blinkers off, Tim.

            You disseminate propaganda regarding the storing of hazardous/toxic/nuclear waste, and then when the facts are presented to you resort to a pathetic response that you don’t see it changes anything!

            Unbelievable.

            • Tim Thorne April 20, 2013 at 10:28 am - Reply

              “You disseminate propaganda regarding the storing of hazardous/toxic/nuclear waste”

              The use of hazardous waste in the backfilling process is recognised by most contributors here, even your peers recognise it. It is a fact of modern mining life and certainly not ‘propaganda’ as you put it. It goes on in lots of others mines, so I don’t understand why pro-Sirius posters are trying to argue it will definitely not go on here. Rather puzzling really.

              • Martin Rudd April 21, 2013 at 10:02 am - Reply

                Tim, you appear to hold an entrenched, inflexible view on this issue. I might add with quite an alarmingly extremist zeal. If York Potash are accurate in their correspondance, they have put themselves in a legal position whereby they cannot use these voids for what you are claiming. Aside from not actually building the mine, what more can they do to change your mind?

                • Tim Thorne April 21, 2013 at 2:53 pm - Reply

                  “If York Potash are accurate in their correspondance, they have put themselves in a legal position whereby they cannot use these voids for what you are claiming.”

                  York Potash haven’t written anything we didn’t already know and it doesn’t contradict the mineral rights lease. It really doesn’t change anything.

                  If York Potash want to use the voids for waste disposal in the future, they’ll need to renegotiate with the land owners, getting permission from the appropriate authorities before they start. Nothing new there.

                  If York Potash want to use the voids to dispose of mine waste as part of the normal backfilling (or landfilling as one of the more learned pro-Sirius posters calls it) process, then they can ship in hazardous waste to use as a cementing additive. This is still in the mineral rights lease. Nothing new there either.

                  Like I said, it changes nothing. Perhaps you could explain the significant changes to all?

                  • Martin Rudd April 21, 2013 at 4:51 pm - Reply

                    Tim Thorne:
                    “they can ship in hazardous waste to use as a cementing additive. This is still in the mineral rights lease”

                    York Potash:
                    “… during early discussions with local mineral rights holders their representatives requested a number of specific clauses in the mineral rights agreements. Amongst others this includes a condition not to “contaminate or pollute” any of the minerals, lease area or adjoining land. There is also a specific reference to prohibiting “waste from nuclear power generation” being brought into or stored in the mine. ”

                    Tim Thorne:
                    “Like I said it changes nothing.”

                    I guess this boils down to if you believe York Potash and the legally binding agreements they have signed, or your opinion backed up with no proof of what you appear to believe they are planning.

                    An entrenched view disregarding the legal, unarguable facts.

                    • Tim Thorne April 21, 2013 at 5:19 pm

                      “An entrenched view disregarding the legal, unarguable facts.”

                      There is nothing in the York Potash statement that indicates they won’t use hazardous waste for backfilling. You’re reading in far too much into a statement that doesn’t say anything new.

      • Vanda April 19, 2013 at 3:37 pm - Reply

        Get on with it then Jonathon! Hope you’ve got a copy of the New Mineral Lease to hand.

        • Tim Thorne April 20, 2013 at 10:32 am - Reply

          The PR dept haven’t got the new lease yet…

    • Jonathon Chapman April 19, 2013 at 6:59 pm - Reply

      I doubt this really interesting topic will get much airtime here but good interview today (19 April) by Adam Tomlinson, BBC Radio York (starts at 1h35m) with Cleveland Potash spokesman, Dave McLuckie (name sound familiar to anyone here?) and York Potash CEO, Chris Fraser. A further report follows later in the programme at 2h04m – including an informative interview with North York Moor National Park Authority Director of Planning, Chris France.

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p016zksw

      It’s good to know that the planning authority has asked Cleveland Potash for independent verification of its remaining resources and reserves and that they are seeking specialist advice on the UK and global market for polyhalite.

      It seems to me that the antiquated Boulby mine restricts the amount of ore they can bring to the surface which has hitherto limited their annual production of Muriate of Potash to around 1m tons. This MOP is the cash cow so they would not want to lose any of it in order to bring large amounts of polyhalite to the surface.

      My guess is that Cleveland want to continue lifting as much MOP as they can fit in their shaft until they have exhausted the reserves. Only then do they want to think about mass marketing the new wonder-fertiliser – and probably at much higher prices than Sirius are planning.

  11. Vanda April 19, 2013 at 8:11 pm - Reply
    • Jonathon Chapman April 19, 2013 at 11:17 pm - Reply

      Vanda, you underestimate me. I knew Mcluckie’s history before I mentioned his name. Colourful chaps, these councillors.

      Since a) I’m not local, b) I don’t represent York Potash in any capacity and c) I don’t approve of this website, I won’t be writing any articles. But you regular writers might want to prove how fair and balanced you are — like Glenn claims in his reply to Anne Czernik.

      And pigs might fly.

      • vanda April 20, 2013 at 6:59 am - Reply

        “you underestimate me.” – I suspect that your ‘fishing’ and that you wouldn’t write unless suitably remunerated.

        Let me make this very clear, I contribute to this site of my own freewill, independently and have no financial benefit or interests of benefit in either CPL or York Potash. I do not get paid by Real Whitby and nor (as far as I am aware) do the ‘corruption busters’ and or other contributors. I am not an investigative journalist and never have been paid for any ‘writing’ or article. Expressing an opinion is my right as a UK and European citizen. I am very grateful that Glen allows me to do so on this Real Whitby site, despite the abuse he has suffered for allowing me to do so.

        • Jonathon Chapman April 20, 2013 at 10:22 am - Reply

          “I suspect that your ‘fishing’ and that you wouldn’t write unless suitably remunerated”
          =====
          Vanda, you are free to imagine all manner of things (and also to publish your loony creative speculation here, obviously) so it comes as no surprise that you – and others in the cult – imagine that those who try to inject a few facts and realities into your misguided and misleading outpourings are being paid by some dark force to do so.

          I am not being paid by anyone to comment here. I consider it my public duty to publish corrections – not just about Sirius where I am a small shareholder but also in unrelated articles where I happen to see misleading statements delivered as facts.

          Nor do I have any political agenda. And while I am happy to believe that you earn no shekels from your Joyceian streams of consciousness (in fact I would be very surprised if you did), I do suspect that RW is a political lobbying group the main aim of which is to bring down SBC and install a labour-controlled Whitby council as the power in the region.

          • Tim Thorne April 20, 2013 at 11:34 am - Reply

            “I consider it my public duty to publish corrections”

            You might start with your name!

          • Vanda April 20, 2013 at 10:58 pm - Reply

            You really should do your homework properly

          • Vanda April 20, 2013 at 11:24 pm - Reply

            Your beginning to sound more bonkers than you claim I am. If you want to hitch a ride then try buckling up, ‘cos your in for a bumpy ride.

  12. Mark Pierce April 19, 2013 at 9:46 pm - Reply

    So Vanda, are the corruption busters going to do an article on the above and the interests involved…if any? Lol

    • vanda April 20, 2013 at 5:58 am - Reply

      I keep trying to do a 180 on the project and be more open minded about it, but it keeps getting blocked by the aggressive and hostile behaviour of the shareholders, I’m not sure I want to endorse that sort of attitude…

      • andy blatchford April 20, 2013 at 6:47 am - Reply

        Vanda: “I keep trying to do a 180 on the project and be more open minded about it, but it keeps getting blocked by the aggressive and hostile behaviour of the shareholders.”

        I know what you mean, Vanda. But try a 180 degree turn in perspective. It isn’t easy reading post after post that is at best misinformed and more than likely simply made up for the sensationalist effect. Even more so on a forum that cries about attacks to their basic democratic rights, and then denies most pro-YP comment from being posted. Do some folks have more democratic rights than others in the Whitby version of Animal Farm? Hardly a consistent policy, would you not agree?

        • vanda April 21, 2013 at 9:48 am - Reply

          Oh Ok, that was mean, but there was a big clue ie The Tower of Babel, it has never been proven whether the mythical tower ever existed outside the mind…. and what with Boulbys new tower etc etc etc .. doh .. think I need my own writespace. lol

  13. Vanda April 20, 2013 at 11:17 pm - Reply

    Andy, “at best misinformed and more than likely simply made up for the sensationalist effect” sounds like you need another RNS feed. Your obviously malnourished.

  14. Martin Rudd April 21, 2013 at 12:02 am - Reply

    Sirius have explicitly answered this article with their response. Are you saying their response is not truthful?

  15. Vanda April 21, 2013 at 2:59 pm - Reply

    “Sirius have explicitly answered this article with their response. Are you saying their response is not truthful?” – No, that is not correct.

    Sirius responded to an email I had sent them prior to this article being completed. Coincidentally, Sirius response came just after this article was published. I fully appreciate their response, despite them being very busy. A response to that response is already ‘under moderation’ and awaiting publication on RW.

  16. AnarchyUK April 22, 2013 at 2:46 pm - Reply
  17. Vanda May 7, 2013 at 8:23 am - Reply

    Just waiting for the MoD …. interesting reading; http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8825701/the-pacific-president/

  18. Vanda May 10, 2013 at 5:31 pm - Reply

    @ Squirrel, ‘on transmit only … fill in the gaps
    …’ A: W – o – g!

    BTW would have thought you’d be at the Spanish Grand Prix, have a great weekend

  19. Vanda May 10, 2013 at 5:36 pm - Reply

    Or why not ask your mate Simon Chapman, aka Shylock, he gets around a bit ..

  20. Vanda May 10, 2013 at 7:10 pm - Reply

    Lol, sussed it – guess thats Shylock getting his own back – v funny. reap wot we sow indeed.

  21. Vanda May 13, 2013 at 12:42 pm - Reply

    “the MoD requests that the Authority does not determine the planning application until it has been demonstrated that the development will not result in an increase in vibration or ground movement
    above the current levels.” ?!?

Leave A Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

This Is A Custom Widget

This Sliding Bar can be switched on or off in theme options, and can take any widget you throw at it or even fill it with your custom HTML Code. Its perfect for grabbing the attention of your viewers. Choose between 1, 2, 3 or 4 columns, set the background color, widget divider color, activate transparency, a top border or fully disable it on desktop and mobile.

This Is A Custom Widget

This Sliding Bar can be switched on or off in theme options, and can take any widget you throw at it or even fill it with your custom HTML Code. Its perfect for grabbing the attention of your viewers. Choose between 1, 2, 3 or 4 columns, set the background color, widget divider color, activate transparency, a top border or fully disable it on desktop and mobile.