Whitby Potash project thrown into chaos!



Potash project thrown into chaos!

  • an update by Vanda Inman on new information that casts a long shadow over the prospects for York Potash Ltd and their bid to establish a polyhalite mine in the North York National Park.

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

  • “That’s not just a miscalculation, it’s a massive error”

Chris France (Chief Planning Officer at the NYMNPA) is showing  serious doubts over York Potash’s  Mine Project, according to the front page of the Whitby Gazette; http://www.whitbygazette.co.uk/

It is a shame that most of the shareholders only get their information via the internet, with a front page screaming – “New Mine would be threat to Tourism”.

Chris France, again . . .

“People might say ‘There’s two mines in that area, its just not a place I want to go anymore’” as visitors avoid congested roads and a spoil heap the size of Wembley Stadium”.

‘Miscalculations have put the future of the York Potash project at risk says planning chief . . . the impact on the National Park is much bigger than what we imagined (imagination lacking here then CF?) …  if we hadn’t asked for more information we would be making a decision on things that are completely wrong now”.

Chris France goes on to say “That’s not just a miscalculation, it’s a massive error”.

On another report on the viability on the economics of marketing the Potash product, Chris France says;

  • “ That throws into doubt the whole economic outlook of the project”.

. . . ouch!

And all that despite the editor of the Whitby Gazette, Ed Asquith being a personal beneficiary if the Potash project goes ahead; he is listed as one of the circa 400 Landowners and Mineral Rights holders, within the planning application documents.

“The trick is William Potter, not minding that it hurts.” T.E.Lawrence – ‘Lawrence of Arabia’.

Chaos_Theory_by_Hakapeci

 

Help Real Whitby – Use Our Skimlinks To Shop

76 Responses to "Whitby Potash project thrown into chaos!"

  1. Richard Ineson  May 17, 2013 at 11:20 am

    Sell,sell,sell!

    Reply
  2. Vanda  May 17, 2013 at 12:13 pm

    Non, non, non. I am so glad Chris France works for the Park Authority, wonder who his ‘General’ is :
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE0DBpw09SU&NR=1&feature=fvwp

    Reply
  3. Richard Ineson  May 17, 2013 at 1:43 pm

    “Tourism would be hit by a whopping £41m loss every year as visitors avoid congested roads and a spoil heap the size of Wembley Stadium, caused by a new potash mine, it is claimed.

    Following a new independent study, Chris France, the head of planning at the North York Moors National Park Authority, said: “People might say ‘there’s two big mines in that area, it’s just not a place I want to go to anymore’.”

    Significant alterations and ‘miscalculations’ have put the future of the York Potash project at risk according to the planning chief.

    The study commissioned by the authority states that during the four-year construction period of the mine, there would be a 15 per cent reduction in the number of visitors to the National Park, leading to a loss to the economy of £40.78 million.

    And these figures only take into account losses within National Park, the impact upon Whitby itself is not included”.

    Well,well, well, this is a turn up indeed. We mustn’t do anything to affect the tourism industry, so it looks like ‘Goodnight Vienna’ to the proposed potash mine.Let’s hope that some local people made a few quid out of the shares whilst this ‘South Sea Bubble’ was still floating in the air. Pity about the thousands of long term jobs which we were promised but we have seen quite few false dawns in recent years – Legoland, the Dogger Bank Wind Farm,etc. Back to the drawing board.

    Reply
  4. Nigel Ward  May 17, 2013 at 7:18 pm

    We have known for some time that the NYMNPA was unenthusiastic about drinking from this poison chalice – the more so since the resignation of former Chair of the Planning Committee Tim lAWN and his subsequent referral to the Major Fraud Investigation Team of the North Yorkshire Police.

    First the MOD holding objection, and now this belated admission regarding the scale of the spoil disposal and the concomitant HGV traffic, has almost guaranteed that the NYMNPA will get its wish and the buck will pass to the Sec of State, who will take plenty of time to review the whole library of data (much of it imaginary), before concluding that a market surplus of a product in weak demand is unlikely to serve the national interest.

    But there is more to tell of the way that greed and chicanery has manifested itself amongst those who are entrusted to eschew personal interest in order to serve the public interest. But I mustn’t steal anyone’s thunder . . .

    Reply
  5. rod mathers  May 17, 2013 at 8:13 pm

    As in life, so in art.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Xpr5rPKPFU

    Reply
  6. David Perry  May 17, 2013 at 8:23 pm

    What a surprise! Exaggerated claims from the word go and plenty of suckers fell for it unfortunately.

    (Any one want to buy some soil – very cheap, discounted for large orders & shareholders. Please ring York Potash!!)

    Reply
    • Tim Thorne  May 18, 2013 at 11:38 am

      It will all have an effect in the local economy. People have apparently gambled far more than they should on this high risk AIM-listed share on the whispers that this mine is a ‘done deal’. Those people will make significant losses and will have to work longer because of it. This will mean less people retiring early and less work for those entering the labour market.

      Reply
    • Mat  June 1, 2013 at 6:51 pm

      This mine might actually lead to cheaper food maybe it will save lives?

      Reply
  7. Glenn Kilpatrick  May 17, 2013 at 9:23 pm

    So is this mine likely to go ahead ? Oh and will Tim Lawn Need This ??

    tim lawn going to jail ???

    Reply
  8. Derek Robinson  May 17, 2013 at 10:43 pm

    They will be selling shares in the new Scarborough Mini Monsters next.

    Reply
    • James Miller  May 18, 2013 at 5:27 am

      Ooooooh. Can I buy some Del-boy?

      Reply
  9. Richard Ineson  May 18, 2013 at 7:56 am

    Is Mini Monsters another fertiliser company?

    Reply
  10. Vanda  May 18, 2013 at 7:59 am

    Inside the paper version of the Gazette is a letter from the Editor, “Dear Reader; The arguments for and against the development of a Potash Mine in the National Park have reached a deep divide with the latest statements by the NYMPA and the points made in two independent surveys. The PA as clarified its concerns to the extent that only a national directive in the country’s wider interests might be able to put the mine plan back on track. It is raising sharp questions which is at the core of the issue. In doing so, the authority has moved the debate on from what might have been seen as maverick and fringe protest to more informed scepticism. The issues now being raised about whether we actually need the minerals and whether or not that need can actually be met, plus the growing concern about the environmental and tourism impacts, threaten to undermine full permission. The potash company might perhaps be forced to look outside the National Park for its mine head. Ultimately the govt. might step in on the basis that the country needs to benefit from the potential export value which would help redress our woeful balance of payments, and to boost the Gross Domestic Payments. In the meantime, all the new shareholders and landowners hoping to benefit, all the staff given jobs by the potash company, and its student support beneficiaries will be aghast at the idea that the members of the PA could at least delay the scheme which has significant backing from a number of quarters. Regards, The Editor.”

    I do apologise for posting this letter in full but the Editor, Ed Asquith as Landowner and Mineral Rights Holder has IMO now played his bit part of the Potash Story.

    Real Whitby has for over a year pointed out many concerns about the potash mine, in fact the first Potash article was about the impacts the mine would have on Tourism. Many other articles have been rubbished as misinformed and scaremongering. Since then the Whitby Gazette has published press releases from Sirius verbatim, reporting them as fact. and only now does The Editor of the Whitby Gazette voice his opinion. And IMO a shoddy opinion it is too.

    Yesterdays headline story quoting Chris France, The Chair of the North Yorkshire Planning Committee, was IMHO not a slur on the Project but a very snide attack on the Planning Authority and Chris France’s position. This is made very clear by The Editors letter as above, when read alongside the front page.

    As a Landlord, Mineral Rights Owner and no doubt a shareholder, and newspaper editor Mr Ed Asquith is in an enviable position, with the advantage of perhaps swaying public opinion and releasing information that may be to his personal advantage.

    This ‘casting of doubt’ over the project I believe is a false message, more like a casting of doubt and public undermining of Chris France’s position.

    It seems Ed Asquiths judgement, as editor, of late has been very biased, unfair and indeed scaremongering at its worst. The headline story in this weeks SEN “Revealed the Fake Protests – names of dead people used in anti store campaign” – totally dishonest and misleading. I do find it outrageous that the Editor of both Scarborough and Whitby’s only newspaper is behaving in such an underhanded and self interested way.

    I do feel that the headlines of both papers do not reflect the reality of what is actually happening, and hopefully readers will look beyond the headlines.

    This project does not need to go to the Secretary of State, Chris France and his team are far more qualified and sensitised. IMO, they are the best placed authority within the community, to identify how our community feels about this project.

    Reply
  11. Vanda  May 18, 2013 at 8:08 am

    Inside the paper version of the Gazette is a letter from the Editor, “Dear Reader; The arguments for and against the development of a Potash Mine in the National Park have reached a deep divide with the latest statements by the NYMPA and the points made in two independent surveys. The PA as clarified its concerns to the extent that only a national directive in the country’s wider interests might be able to put the mine plan back on track. It is raising sharp questions which is at the core of the issue. In doing so, the authority has moved the debate on from what might have been seen as maverick and fringe protest to more informed scepticism. The issues now being raised about whether we actually need the minerals and whether or not that need can actually be met, plus the growing concern about the environmental and tourism impacts, threaten to undermine full permission. The potash company might perhaps be forced to look outside the National Park for its mine head. Ultimately the govt. might step in on the basis that the country needs to benefit from the potential export value which would help redress our woeful balance of payments, and to boost the Gross Domestic Payments. In the meantime, all the new shareholders and landowners hoping to benefit, all the staff given jobs by the potash company, and its student support beneficiaries will be aghast at the idea that the members of the PA could at least delay the scheme which has significant backing from a number of quarters. Regards, The Editor.”

    I do apologise for posting this letter in full but the Editor, Ed Asquith as Landowner and Mineral Rights Holder has IMO now played his bit part of the Potash Story.

    Real Whitby has for over a year pointed out many concerns about the potash mine, in fact the first Potash article was about the impacts the mine would have on Tourism. Many other articles have been rubbished as misinformed and scaremongering. Since then the Whitby Gazette has published press releases from Sirius verbatim, reporting them as fact. and only now does The Editor of the Whitby Gazette voice his opinion. And IMO a shoddy opinion it is too.

    Yesterdays headline story quoting Chris France, The Chair of the North Yorkshire Planning Committee, was IMHO not a slur on the Project but a very snide attack on the Planning Authority and Chris France’s position. This is made very clear by The Editors letter as above, when read alongside the front page.

    As a Landlord, Mineral Rights Owner and no doubt a shareholder, and newspaper editor Mr Ed Asquith is in an enviable position, with the advantage of perhaps swaying public opinion and releasing information that may be to his personal advantage.

    This ‘casting of doubt’ over the project I believe is a false message, more like a casting of doubt and public undermining of Chris France’s position.

    It seems Ed Asquiths judgement, as editor, of late has been very biased, unfair and indeed scaremongering at its worst. The headline story in this weeks SEN “Revealed the Fake Protests – names of dead people used in anti store campaign” – totally dishonest and misleading. I do find it outrageous that the Editor of both Scarborough and Whitby’s only newspaper is behaving in such an underhanded and self interested way.

    I do feel that the headlines of both papers do not reflect the reality of what is actually happening, and hopefully readers will look beyond the headlines.

    This project does not need to go to the Secretary of State, Chris France and his team are far more qualified and sensitised. IMO, they are the best placed authority within the community, to identify how our community feels about this project.

    Time to put the kettle on.

    Reply
  12. Derek Robinson  May 18, 2013 at 9:04 am

    Some would say they have the right credentials

    Reply
  13. james kilpatrick  May 18, 2013 at 10:39 am

    Nothing changed , the young of Whitby still need good quality engineering jobs not part time stuff making beds at b&b’s and frying chips unable to buy a house , only to leave the town and the gap being filled by retired2nd home owners.

    Reply
    • Stakesby Legs  May 18, 2013 at 6:48 pm

      You dont have a problem with the idea that the population of the Park (Im guessing, maybe 25K) should sell out the basic reason for having a national park in the first place so a couple of hundred or so kids can stay in the town instead of going off somewhere and seeing a bit of the world? Best thing I ever did! Theres more to life than any town can offer … even Whitby!

      Reply
  14. secretsqu  May 18, 2013 at 4:20 pm

    Be careful James, you’ll have your posts moderated for having views like that.

    Reply
    • Real Whitby Webmaster  May 18, 2013 at 11:08 pm

      The only comments ever removed from these kind of debates are ones like the one you just made, off topic, designed to cause argument and moving discussion away from the actual topic. Its called trolling and your being watched. Were more than happy to allow people to have their say, If James is who he says he is then he is a relative, Whitby born and bread and qualified to comment on our town and countryside. On the other hand, those who live the other end of the country, or even abroad, and whose sole objective is to make cash from buying and selling shares, you have no right to a say on what happens here, greed is your motivator, not love of the town and its people, you ain’t welcome.

      Reply
      • Hila  July 17, 2013 at 9:32 pm

        So, those who live outside of the Whitby or the park have no rights to an opinion on the mine? This is just simply illogical – this is a project with national implications, and more important than a bunch of parochial NIMBYs.

        Reply
  15. Chris Pickering  May 18, 2013 at 5:00 pm

    As a young person doing engineering this is a fantastic project, these left wing liberals vanda, Chadwick etc have there own agenda, what the hell is wrong with the uk it’s creating long term jobs for decades, it’s well paid and highly skilled.

    As for tourists it will have no impact might upset some walkers but get over it, when u have so many young people without jobs I reckon they can put up with the inconvience, they have created jobs already taking on 20 young people and indirectly, they also have a fund which will be used to invest in local projects, as for the market for there product a large company key trade already has an agreement in place.

    No wonder the uk is a laughing stock, look at the amount of projects rejected recently the one in Carlisle again a liberal council, it’s clearly a liberal posh elite not wanting it to effect the property values, well I say vanda stick your silver spoon were the sun don’t shine and back this for the next generation.

    Reply
  16. Vanda  May 18, 2013 at 5:40 pm

    Anyone got an update on the closure of Whitby’s A & E department? Richard?

    Reply
  17. Vanda  May 18, 2013 at 5:59 pm

    I heard they had closed the A & E department, is this true?

    http://www.whitbygazette.co.uk/news/whitby-council-backs-whags-1-3673186

    I suppose if the mine got planning approval then Sirius have a helicoptor to transport to Middlesborough hospital, given that the roads will be congested … not that I am advocating residents of Whitby wanting a free helicoptor ride try faking needing emergency treatment but it could be a negotiation point, especially if the road is congested during construction period.

    Just thinking outside the box – been a long day.

    ATB Cupcake!

    Reply
  18. james kilpatrick  May 18, 2013 at 6:58 pm

    So go away to work then come back to live here when you can afford too. Is that that what the Whitby school leavers have to do .
    Or stay earn minimum wages , and be stuck just surving renting forever .

    Reply
    • Real Whitby Webmaster  May 18, 2013 at 11:02 pm

      Thats the story nationwide James, not just in Whitby. People are struggling to make ends meet right across the country, even people in proffesional positions, nurses, police officers etc. The idea that everyone unemployed in Whitby is going to become an engineer and earn £30 – 40,000 a year at the potash mine is nonsensical. Those types of jobs will be limited to single figures, and how many unemployed people are there in town with a masters degree in engineering ? Not that many I would say, most are earning ,megabucks elsewehere. Is the full town going to register with UCAS and head off to Uni for the next 6 years so they cane take up these positions. It aint happeneing.

      Reply
      • Chris Pickering  May 19, 2013 at 7:02 am

        This site is terribly bias against this mine, most people that live in whitby support this project just listen to the recent yorkshire radio phone in, as for shares peeps not exactly the next Wall Street most people only invested a few thousand and why the hell not, I live in whitby and study at newcastle it would be great to work in my local area, it’s not about people going off to uni it’s about the local apprenticeships, and the indirect jobs it will create, u will have people working at the mine visiting the surrounding areas spending money, just look at the coal mining towns when they closed down.

        This country has a long history of mining, yeah there will be trucks and soil being moved but then after a few years the area will bend in, has anyone actually visited the site it’s not exactly beautiful, it’s a tiny part of the park no one will notice there underground, and it will look like a barn.

        As for the jobs not all coal miners went to university a lot of the jobs will need training but not all will need degrees, so please yes we need to protect the park but think about my generation, I love the park. Cycling, walking etc but I have taken a lot of time looking at the application and spoken to chris Fraser who also lives in the area, he wants to protect the park which is why he wants to make the mine bend in with the surroundings.

        Reply
        • Glenn Kilpatrick  May 19, 2013 at 8:00 am

          I think it is rather unfair to say the site is biased against the mine, but I do understand where you get that perspective from. I refuse to publish York potash press releases, I dont trust them one bit. If you want them go to the Gazette site.

          To date Vanda is the main author on articles about the mine, her stance is clear. However the comments system is here to allow people like you to have a voice, also I have always made it clear we are open to well written articles by other people (yourself included).

          The main thing I would want to make sure of is that an article I published (pro or anti mine) came from someone with a real local interest, again that includes yourself. What has upset me greatly about these mining articles is the sheer amount of people who have been coming to the site with one agenda and that is to drive discussion way of topic. My analytics system on the site allows me to track where people arrive at this site from. A very large percentage come from share dealing sites such as

          http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail?display=discussion&code=cotn:SXX.L

          A great many of those people have no local interest. Many dont even know where Whitby is, they have never been here, they dont know the area or the people. They have pound signs in their eyes. This site is not for those people. If they think Ive censored them, tough luck, good bye your not welcome.

          On the other hand, if your local like yourself, you have a personal interest in the area and the mine beyond making money from shares, that.s great lets here your opinion.

          Now on the subject of your opinion. To claim most local people are in favour of the mine sounds quite biased to me. I have seen no study I would trust that clearly comes to this conclusion, nor have I seen one that clearly shows a majority are against the mine. If you can point me to any research I will happily take a look.

          Reply
  19. Vanda  May 19, 2013 at 6:02 am

    @ Webmaster – I’d like to hear a lot more from the younger generation about their views on this project, maybe its about time we started listening to the generation that this project will effect the most, we’ll probably be pushing up the daisies when this project peaks! If the local youngsters want to comment freely and express their opinion then I’m more than happy to sit back and shut up.

    Reply
  20. james kilpatrick  May 19, 2013 at 8:21 am

    Its a chance for all the lads working away on the land rigs , oil rigs , wind farms , traveling away scaffolding ect ect ,to have a good job local and spending time with their family’s being home every night rather than miles away. Decent money being home every night is better than megbucks being away.

    Reply
  21. Real Whitby Webmaster  May 19, 2013 at 8:27 am

    I get your point James but I would have a couple of things to say about that. One I dont believe there will be enough jobs to cover that amount of people and secondly if your giving all the jobs to people who already have a job then that does nothing decrease unemployment on a local basis.

    Reply
    • Chris Pickering  May 19, 2013 at 1:09 pm

      http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/lifestyle/health-and-family/an-underground-revolt-1-5685352, I’m a big supporter of this project, it’s always great to look at another view point, I can see the views of vanda she clearly wants to protect the environment which I give her full credit for and it’s great that we have people like her to protect the park.

      The other view is we need jobs in the local area which has a high level of unemployment, as a local lad there is no argument that the job situation is dire, I know first hand of finding dead end jobs before going to university,

      There is a lot of scare mongering which on reflection based on assumptions and wild claims, I would advise people to visit the sirius website, the board have held positions in the national park, been involved in the construction of the Olympic Games, been part of government, and turned a junior miner into one of the biggest in Australia.

      The point I’m making is this is not a Mickey Mouse outfit they clearly know there is a market for it, also don’t forget the directors have invested heavily themselves in this project.

      From the website
      The Company will contribute an annual royalty of 0.5% of revenue from the project to the Foundation. Based on current estimates the annual payment could be £3 million at Phase 1 production and up to £9 million at full production. An initial start-up fund of £2 million will be contributed by the company on the formal commencement of construction.

      How many companies even invest in the local area, before anyone says this is not blood money it’s an investment in the community.

      I really hope people take a balanced view I’m eager to engage in debate but please no insults a sensible view.

      I beg people to consider this project yeah I can work for a big firm after uni but I love my area what’s wrong with giving something back,

      Reply
  22. Derek Robinson  May 19, 2013 at 5:06 pm

    I have read all the opinions being expressed on this very emotive subject (a) I agree with Vanda that we must maintain the integrity of the park once you open the floodgates then there will be no stopping it so it is important to be cautious (b)I agree with Chris and James , as one who has had to work away from this pearl named Whitby and I do feel for the younger generation.
    The thing that amazes me is that nobody is prepared to negotiate on this issue, in my view if according to Sirius and the exploration teams there is as much product as they say and it is of the quality they say then it seems to me that the only argument is how to access the material so there needs to be a little bit of give somewhere as has been proved in countless explorations and mining adventures you do not have to access by going straight down you can go in at angles, so it is possible to drill to access this material from outside the park.
    OK it will cost more but hey life is full of give and take ,so instead of saying it has to be this or this lets get everyone around a table and thrash it out what could be wrong with that unless of course not enough people are making money out of it (sorry to end on that note ,but that is the skeptic in me).

    Reply
  23. Real Whitby Webmaster  May 19, 2013 at 5:54 pm

    Well said Derek. Why does it have to be Littlebeck where the minehead goes? I do wonder if that’s anything to do with deals already done with ex members of the planning committee ? Why not build it somewhere Ugly and outside the park, like Cloughton. With regards to Jobs I still dont think this mine is going to be the great provider of jobs people think it is. Also people need to remember that the jobs will be shared out across the North Yorks Area, its just a needle in a haystack in terms of reducing unemployment numbers, further to that it may increase unemployment longterm if the documented and researched effect on tourism is to be believed. I just start think to myself – “If a mine is the answer to unemployment, then why are there so many unemployed already given that we already have a mine 12 miles to our north” Jobs will be limited in our area, I guess thats part of being born and brought up in a national park, sort of a trade off for living in one of the very most beautiful places in all the world.

    Reply
    • Chris Pickering  May 19, 2013 at 6:32 pm

      Jobs will be limited in our area, I guess thats part of being born and brought up in a national park, sort of a trade off for living in one of the very most beautiful places in all the world.

      What an incredible and pompous statement to make, so what this site is really about is I’m ok jack the hell with the local economy, it makes my blood boil, the mine head has to be in the national park, otherwise the environmental impact would be even greater,

      If I’m honest even if the mine head was outside u still have people protesting any country in the world would bite your arm of for this.

      You only have to look at Bloomberg to see the amount of potash takeovers in the news, it will enable the uk to have an endless supply of this important mineral, I suppose Texas, and Durham university who have tested the mineral and agree its of the highest grade, that there is no market for the product.

      It will create job, they already plan to fill a number of apprenticeships by June, then u have the indirect jobs that will be created, u have nothing to back up your points it’s all hyperbole, I’m clearly not going to change your mind, so all I can say I know this mine will enhance the park, create jobs and maybe I might work there, I wish u all the best of luck but I can how see how groups like theses affect the uk economy, thank god we didn’t have such narrow minded people when they invented the wheel !

      Reply
      • Vanda  May 19, 2013 at 10:40 pm

        It was a woman that invented the wheel, just saying

        Reply
  24. Derek Robinson  May 19, 2013 at 6:46 pm

    Please explain to me why the mine head HAS to go in the park and why will the impact on the area outside the park be more affected if it was put there than that in the park. (thats what industrial estates and sites are for) and the impact on the area surrounding these areas is accepted.
    I agree with a lot you say but by being so adamant that the park is the only option is diminishing your argument.If you are of the opinion that things should just be put up anywhere and no discussion take place then it is you who misguided.
    Life is all about compromise and it is never easy non of what I say is intended pompous but I am a realist.
    I believe that this mine will go ahead maybe not where you are advocating but if there is as much as they say and its as good as they say it will come out of the ground.

    Reply
  25. james kilpatrick  May 19, 2013 at 6:54 pm

    It has to be built there due to faulting at other locations .
    With the job situation , no fishing , no Burberry,no winster hose , all the lads have left the town , it would be great if money can be earned local and spent local .
    You might get lads finishing work and going out mid week with decent money , joining darts teams , the golf club , watching Whitby town mid week , joining the rowing clubs . Keeping the community going .
    Earn local spend local . Kinda like full time tourist ,the knock on effect with money round the town will be great , I have family members desperate to return back to Whitby to work but the quality of jobs dont exsist.

    Reply
  26. Derek Robinson  May 19, 2013 at 7:24 pm

    I agree with a lot you say but historicaly Whitby has never paid good money why do you think the big national chains dont come here (the majority of the residents of the town do their shopping out of town its a fact) You have relatives who can tell you that, this mine will not alter that.
    The thing I cannot agree with you on is your statement “It has to be built there due to faulting at other locations” I just do not believe that there is problems covering the whole 360 degrees around the mine The plan that is being put forward is the cheapest option and the one that will reap the biggest reward it has to be or else Sirius is not doing the job its share holders want it to do and it is required to do (I dont care who they are to me it is not a concern)as I said previously something that valuable is not going to be left in the ground.
    I have said enough on the subject now it is time for someone else to voice their opinions and it is fantastic to see the younger generation taking a serious interest in these local issues (that is not intended to sound pompous but is a genuine comment) its a shame more active young people like those commenting here are not councillors or such the old brigade needs outing..
    Good night.

    Reply
  27. Vanda  May 20, 2013 at 7:03 am

    From what I gather the reasons why the minehead cannot be built at Cloughton are because of geological ‘faults’ and the nature of the ‘lying’ of the resource. If you imagine a shallow bowl that covers the area of interest, that is slightly dipped towards the southern end, ie down towards Cloughton. The current shaft site, leans towards the NW edge of the ‘bowl’ (within the permitted licenced area) has easier access to the resource, in terms of depth, directness and accessibility. To build the shaft at Cloughton would mean a much deeper shaft of perhaps about 500 m. As well as costing wads more money, there is a SAFETY factor in having men working at greater depths in a more complex ‘fault’ lined area. Not foregoing there has to be ventilation shafts and possibly an emergency access shaft. Anyhow, the location of the site has been analyised and approved by the Mining Inspectorate who have agreed this is the BEST location in terms of viability and health and safety. From memory, I think The Mining Inspectorate would not accept another site other than the best and or most suitable. I guess that is why there is no Plan B. In terms of HSE second best will not do, can’t argue with that. (its all in with the planning docs).

    Reply
  28. Chris Pickering  May 20, 2013 at 7:14 am

    Very true vandal, I’m thankful that u have read the planning documents, I’m hoping the company can now attempt to remove fears relating to objections from the mod and the environmental agencies this week, the company has also updated the market on the market for there mineral has several parties already signed up, major question marks over the survey done by the national park was bais and people asked didn’t even know about the park,

    It’s starting to come together I’m sure we get planning which will keep generations to come in unemployment and people won’t leave the town, I use a quote from the last meeting at ravensdale beamish is a museum, if we don’t have people wanting to stay in the town we won’t get any tourists or visitors full stop,

    The national park is an area to be enjoyed by the nation, it should benefit the local community if that means economy so why not as long as the environment is protected and has limited impact I cannot see the problem, sirius has provided lots of reports and very detailed studies to show that this will not impact the area.

    As I said before I know I won’t change your objection, all I ask is u take into account my points and support this project for the younger people like myself that want jobs, not share holders, people that live in the area and want to protect it for future generations.

    Reply
  29. Vanda  May 20, 2013 at 7:16 am

    PS; the bowl shaped nature of the resource probably explains why Boulby is where it is too. Of course in those good old days the technology, design and environmental commitment wasn’t as predominant as it is now. I guess that is why the mine has to be sited with the National Park area and hence all this fuss and much ado….

    Reply
  30. Vanda  May 20, 2013 at 7:43 am

    As Chris France previously expressed, this is probably the most exciting project this area has ever seen. I totally agree with that. I just wish more local people, would WAKE UP! and get involved. Sirius have certainly injected some alternative remedy to our tiresome economic situation which is more than our self interested council and MP have ever done, I will give them credit for that, am waffling now, time to work …

    Reply
  31. Martin Rudd  May 23, 2013 at 7:01 pm

    Looks like Fylingdales have removed their objection.

    Reply
  32. Vanda  May 23, 2013 at 7:30 pm

    yes it “looks” that way. only.

    Reply
  33. Vanda  May 23, 2013 at 8:13 pm

    Martin Rudd, If the hat fits: it is chrystal clear to me that this is no longer a Potash Project but now a secondary MoD facility. And probably always was. Spin on that.

    Reply
  34. Martin Rudd  May 23, 2013 at 8:41 pm

    Ah – ok I saw a communication from York Potash today that said the MoD were ‘minded’ to remove their objection but was looking to see if this had been corroborated elsewhere – like via an official response from Fylingdales.

    Not sure about the second MoD facility to be honest. Sounds a bit far fetched to me! Each to their own!

    Reply
    • Vanda  May 24, 2013 at 5:58 am

      If your looking for secondary confirmation, before you invest, then bang an email off to Chris France, he usually responds pretty sharpish. I’m sure he needs that kind of pressure right now. ATB

      Reply
      • Martin Rudd  May 25, 2013 at 9:04 am

        Hi Vanda. I just to clear up your comment on my position – I am not looking at whether or not to invest.

        Reply
  35. Vanda  May 24, 2013 at 5:50 am

    Martin that communication is on the latest bulletin, if you care to read it again, I tend to use my older articles to bounce off.

    Yes it is far fetched and possibly a few years on from today it might not seem so stretched.

    It was the first impression I got after looking over the site last week, construction already underway, bunds so you cant see whats going on. Raikes Lane as long as a runway, RAF Fylingdales was originally meant to be closer to the coast, as posted in a previous link, the project needs financing to an end and usuable stage, the void space would be most useful to the MoD, etc etc, just common sense to me. But yes I understand why you feel it is far stretched… it is … just looking at all outcomes, vision, projection, the MoD may and always would benefit from the mine, end of. Dont know why they put in the holding objection in the first place.

    Reply
    • mike north  May 25, 2013 at 6:40 am

      Exactly what do you think the MoD are going to use the mine for?

      Reply
      • Vanda  May 25, 2013 at 7:07 am

        Negotiation! My Mod piece (that thankfully got shelved) went all around the houses with it. In short it looked at the global environment and weighed up the costs/benefits over a USA funded MoD facility versus a Potash Mine and concluded they would be of mutual benefit, at least to our small community. Don’t think the editors got the gist of it, admittedly it did cover too much ground. so it got binned. Maybe I couldn’t put into words so well what I was trying to say. No change there then. They still have it but whether they put it up is beyond my control, there were two versions, one rather wild and one tame. Which would you prefer?

        Reply
        • Vanda  May 25, 2013 at 7:15 am

          Its about two weeks out of date now, this project is moving so fast its hard to keep up. I guess it was more interesting to me than anyone else so, it is binned, and I don’t want it published now. Have a great weekend.

          Reply
          • Martin Rudd  May 25, 2013 at 9:29 am

            Hi Vanda. I’d be interested in reading it – will you be posting it in the future after reworking it? I’m not saying I agree with what you’re suggesting, just that my ears are open to different points of view on the subject of the mine.

            I just feel like the decision to approve/decline the planning application has to be made for the right reasons. The more I read, the less absolute the positions on each side hold appear to be on each side – it is not a binary situation – much more complex than that.

            As far as I see it, there are questions to which there are numerous answers for the following:

            - Ecological impact

            - Economic impact (local and national)

            - International market

            - Local social impact (including jobs, the number and their duration)

            - Political impact (local and national)

            Alongside all of these topics (all able to be answered to some extent subjectively) there is also the timing issue. This decision has to be made in a timely manner, otherwise the local opportunity is lost – either in terms of the project going ahead or in terms of planning approval/refusal and the influence on associated the terms/conditions.

            Personally I am for the mine to go ahead. Albeit with the appropriate conditions placed on the project (both planning and during operation). But these conditions MUST be made and overseen locally, and by decision makers without an exceptional beneficial interest.

            Just my personal view.

            Reply
  36. Chris Pickering  May 24, 2013 at 6:06 am

    Great news, long term jobs and a great project, some of the comments made me laugh a secondary installation for the mod that really sounds desperate, the tin pot leftie brigade well be so annoyed by this lol, well this is one project they won’t destroy, it’s clearly the mod know the project is world class, lead by a great team and they care about the local area and long term jobs, bravo I say drinks all round

    Reply
    • Frank Chalmers  May 24, 2013 at 10:39 am

      Afternoon son…

      I really don’t feel you are a young engineer on a course hoping to get a job. Sounds like a calumny to me. I do know a young engineer on a course hoping to get a job in a relevant field, and he’s not as in support of this mine as you are. In fact, like me he’s also quite a capitalist – quite removed from the “lefties” you keep bashing.

      He recently informed me of a few facts and figures (obtained without mentioning the potash mine proposals for the area) from his engineering tutors.

      It turns out that potash demand has fallen year-on-year for the last four years. Facts that are easily verifiable if you have a look through a search engine.Even the Wall Street Journal covered a lengthy piece about the falling demand because of cheaper alternatives. A quick search yields a number of predictions that supply will outpace demand before 2020, and some suggest much sooner than that.

      So, please explain how is this mine supposed to make a buck when global demand is reportedly falling? How are they going to pay their employees? Who will be funding this project?

      I’d be all for the mine if it weren’t so steeped in corruption with politicians and public servants. That and if there weren’t so many people out there indicating demand for potash if falling. Also, if it were truly going to do something for the local economy.

      But that’s just my two cents.

      Reply
  37. Vanda  May 24, 2013 at 8:27 am

    Yeah, keep smiling bright eyes, judging by the weather forecast I’ll keep on the red stuff. Have a great weekend, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jNlIGDRkvQ

    Reply
  38. Vanda  May 24, 2013 at 9:45 am

    UPDATE from York Potash

    Hello, York Potash,

    Further to our previous correspondence regarding waste disposal please would you consider the following document entitled Minerals & Waste:

    : http://www.northyorks.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=23841&p=0

    Would you please confirm the extent of your interest in the above.

    Your comments would be appreciated, thank you. When are the away team back from the US?

    Kind Regards,

    Vanda Inman

    REPLY;

    Dear Vanda,

    We may make representations to this planning relating to potash mining (although our current focus is clearly on the current application). We will not be making any contribution on the waste element of this plan.

    Kind regards,

    York Potash communications team

    Take it the Away Team are back then. Should see some more Potash action soon.

    Reply
  39. james kilpatrick  May 24, 2013 at 4:18 pm

    Its polyhalite Frank , read up on it .
    Slightly different , with a new way of approaching the fertilizer markets.

    Reply
    • rod mathers  May 25, 2013 at 7:51 am

      Polyhalite is a salesman’s name for very low-grade and impure potash (around 20% K) for which there is no appreciable world market, James. Read up on it.

      Reply
      • Martin Rudd  May 25, 2013 at 9:02 am

        Hi Rod, I think you might be mixing up polyhalite and Polysulphate. Polyhalite is a mineral whereas Polysulphate (Boulby’s competing product) is a trademarked name.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyhalite

        Reply
  40. james kilpatrick  May 25, 2013 at 11:57 am

    LOL Rod ……
    I’ve done all the reading I need to do at the moment ….

    Reply
  41. Vanda  May 26, 2013 at 7:27 am

    Hi Martin, had a quick glance at the article and it is so out of time and tune, even for amusement purposes. The forward arrow is more important… I think this project needs to be looked at as a whole rather than a sum of its parts. I have read the detail and research and reports and objections. If it was binary question then that equation has to be put inside the context of the Community, the whole ‘triangular’ not just Whitby. Then looking at the internal v external forces to that triangle. That equation has to be balanced. My question now is that if the NYMPA refuse this application are they saying this Community cannot withstand change? Are we not up for a challenge? Are we totally risk averse? Do we have no strength? Are the external forces too great for our small community to bear. This ‘Project’ is about change. There can be no change without challenge. (morning Nigel)

    It will change us, do we want or are we able to change? Will Whitby and Scarborough become more divided and grow further apart, will this project bring us closer together? If I was on that decision table I would be asking one question only. Will Sirius fit in with our community or do they expect us to fit in with them? Can we work together. If yes then approve, if not then no.

    Reply
  42. Vanda  May 26, 2013 at 7:45 am

    PS. and I wouldn’t make that decision until I was sat in that very same room, on the 2nd July staring them right in the eye. But I guess that’s why I wasn’t invited to the party, aw schucks.

    Its at Sneaton Castle btw, not Raven Hall.

    Reply
  43. Vanda  May 26, 2013 at 10:16 pm

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLBdDP1HDl4

    Reply
  44. james kilpatrick  May 28, 2013 at 3:52 pm

    One step further , proving up the world market .
    As doubted by a few in previous posts .

    Reply
  45. Vanda  May 28, 2013 at 6:28 pm

    Blimey, now look what I’ve been given; whats in a name? Think I’ve found a role model! lol, no seriously this woman is great!

    https://twitter.com/drvandanashiva

    Reply
  46. Real Whitby Webmaster  June 7, 2013 at 3:55 pm

    A few points I would fully agree with :

    “York Potash Ltd is arguing the mine will bring economic benefits yet has completely failed to account for the damage to local tourism.”

    The campaigners claim Sirius Minerals have not sufficiently explained why the mine can not be located outside the park’s boundaries.

    Additional concerns that the mine will damage the landscape, biodiversity and recreational activities suggest York Potash Ltd have not properly understood the purposes of a National Park, say the campaigners.

    Not only do I fully endorse the last quote, I also believe that a great many Whitby people have no understanding of the concept of a National park.

    All From The Whitby Gazette Potash Article Here

    Reply
    • James Irvine  June 11, 2013 at 12:26 pm

      Yet your sea fishing benefits from the spoils of the Boulby mine, also within the National Park.

      For a webmaster just “running the site”, you have a very biased view on this project.

      Reply
      • Real Whitby Webmaster  June 19, 2013 at 2:01 pm

        If I never caught another single fish there for the rest of my life I wouldnt loose a single wink of sleep. The fact a handfull of people would catch a dozen less fish each year isnt really an argument for ploughing up the national park. What a rediculous comment to even contemplate making.

        Reply
  47. Jon Owen  June 10, 2013 at 9:43 am

    Morning

    So what chance is there that CNP’s request will result in the YP app being called in at this late stage?

    Well, historically about 5% of requests result in a call in:

    Sec 3:

    “3.45 Although only about 70 planning applications were called-in by the Secretary of State in 2004-05, a far greater number, over 1,300, were referred to Government Offices acting on behalf of the Secretary of State for consideration.”

    http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN00930.pdfý

    And what are the criteria the SoS will use to decide?:

    “Such cases may include, for example, those
    which, in his opinion:

    *may conflict with national policies on important matters;

    *could have significant effects beyond their immediate locality;

    *give rise to substantial regional or national controversy;

    *raise significant architectural and urban design issues; or

    *may involve the interests of national security or of foreign Governments.

    However, each case will continue to be considered on its individual merits.”

    http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/pins/procedural_guidance_planning_appeals.pdf

    I must admit some surprise that local campaigners against the mine are, with the help of CNP, proposing that an issue that has such a potentially significant effect on the community would want the decision on it taken away from their own local decision makers.

    CNP request here:

    http://www.cnp.org.uk/sites/default/files/130530%20Final%20letter%20to%20National%20Planning%20Casework%20Unit%20requesting%20a%20call-in.pdf

    Jon.

    Reply
  48. Vanda  June 10, 2013 at 10:39 am

    Jon, it makes no difference to the actual determination of the decision that has to be taken by NYMNPA, even if it is referred to the SoS they send it straight back to the NYMPA. All it will do is delay. That said Pickles can overturn any decision the PA make. I have this in writing from CF somewhere I will seek permission to publish.

    Reply
  49. markey  July 31, 2013 at 6:13 am

    First off – I was open to the proposed mine; I don’t mind Boulby, I like the mine. The job claims were total BS – the mine would have employed a lot less than claimed and very few would be from the local area.

    Well, I was right about the mine design being a bit vague. The mine plan was farcically naive which does lead me to think that YP was never going to dig ground and they were just looking to flip the mining rights and design to someone else. I’m not knocking that – its a plan.

    What I did not forsee was yesterdays collapse of the Russian potash cartel. Hvae a look at the fall in potash price!

    I doubt the Sneaton is going ahead now. Less than 5%.

    I feel for the locals who’ve been convinved/suckered that they are on the inside of a ‘sure thing’ and have bought lots of shares.
    That’s going to hurt.

    Reply
  50. vanda  July 31, 2013 at 6:33 pm

    hello Mark, how are you doing? Your views on the Potash Project seem rather obfusically dim, no one wants to talk about it anymore, its all very sad really. Too many barriers yet not enough boundaries.

    Reply
  51. Vanda  August 1, 2013 at 5:17 am

    There was a time when Sirius were interested in developing Carbon Sequestration, but then they started looking at geo thermal technologies. I guess Catlow et al were too far ahead in their vision of the future for our stuck in the mud mentalities, oh well, never mind, don’t bother with the future, lets stay as we are …

    http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/politics/clean-coal-power-station-set-for-300m-windfall-1-5905197

    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