Sirius Mining / Minerals And North Yorkshire Moors Potash



First published March 31st 2012

Additional Reading

Article By Vanda Inman First Published 22nd March 2012, Read More From Vanda Here.

north-yorkshire-moors-potashNIMBYism – Guess what, its going on right here, right now and on our door step. Ironically, it is a web of ‘Conservatism’, Borough Council, County Council and Government that both Whitby and Scarborough have been blighted with a new philosophy of “cash it in while we can”. Our Town Hall has a ‘For Sale’ sign, alongside our Futurist Theatre, Manor Road Nursery, SPA Operations, SBC’s Dean Road Depot, Old Registry Office, Hospital site and much more. And, as the spiders weave their web, worse to come is the environmental rape of our North Yorkshire Moors National Park.

Where is Indiana Jones when you need him? There are records of 12,000 archaeological sites and features in the North York Moors National Park, of which 700 are listed ancient monuments. Around the 2,000 BC period, the Germanic Celtics inhabited all areas of the moors, destroyed much of the original forest, exhausted of nutrients, these people moved on, leaving behind land that was incapable of supporting anything but a heathland vegetation and about 3,000 Bronze Age burial mounds. Nowadays, our climate is influenced by the shelter of the worst of the moist westerly winds provided by the Pennines and the proximity of the North Sea. The North York Moors are drained by two main river systems. The northern part being drained by the River Esk its tributaries flowing west to east and emptying its load at Whitby.

2012 is the year that celebrates North Yorkshire Moors having National Park status: The aims and purposes of National Parks are laid out by law. The 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, was enhanced by the Environment Act 1995, setting out two statutory purposes for National Parks in England and Wales:

  • • Conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage
  • • Promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of National Parks by the Public

They also have a responsibility to foster the economic and social well being of local communities within the National Park. But, Whitby and Scarborough lie outside the boundaries of the National Park. The ‘Tourist Gaze’ is drawn to features of landscape and townscape which deviates from everyday experience – our sense of ‘out of the ordinary’.

And so we have it, the land that lies between our two towns was protected and we could sleep easy on the bedrock of inhabiting a place for solitude, peace and earthiness. With nature at its pure best, most beautiful and majestic on our doorstep, whilst enjoying the benefits that Tourism can bring. Indeed, a ‘sense of out of the ordinary’ brings positive tourists too. Indeed the ‘New Lyke Wake Walk Club’ has policies;

  • • reducing moorland erosion.
  • • defining the Lyke Wake Walk as a right-of-way.
  • • marking the Lyke Wake Walk on Ordnance Survey maps.
  • • discouraging excessively large groups on the Lyke Wake Walk.
  • • creating and implementing a programme for path repair and waymarking.

However HISTORY is about to be made, there is an invading, encroaching army with a different set of policies: Sirius Mining, www.siriusminerals.com “… our mission to become the world’s New Potash Powerhouse.”

Oh yes, the Americans are definitely coming: the Sirius Minerals Acquisition of York Potash. The Company acquired the entire share capital of York Potash in January 2011 for the issue of 150 million new ordinary shares, which together with an acquired outstanding loan, valued the company at £25.3 million. York Potash has options over a substantial mineral rights portfolio both onshore in North Yorkshire and in the adjacent offshore area underneath the North Sea. Polyhalite is a complex hydrated sulphate mineral (K2SO4.MgSO4.2CaSO4.2H2O), which can be processed into various potassium based fertilisers as well as being a valuable source of magnesium minerals. Although there are currently no commercial scale operations based on polyhalite, extensive research was done into various process routes in the 1930′s and 1940′s. In addition, recently ICL has made patent applications on further process routes focused on potassium nitrate.

Figure 3: Area of Interest

A second coring rig commissioned by the Company’s retained drilling contractor is now complete and undergoing final maintenance and equipment checks. It is envisaged that the rig will be on site around the end of March 2012. The second rig will help to speed up the completion of the York Potash Project drilling programme.

Now I am not a scientist, I am not a geologist and I’m not an expert on Feeding the World. But I gather that this is all about fertiliser. And I seem to remember from my school days that fertiliser was not always a good thing, with GM crops feeding an ever expanding world population, leading to potential world wide crop failures and a starving population, (perhaps leaving 1 in 100?).

It has been estimated that an army of 5000 (mainly men) will be moving in to Scarborough and Whitby, mainly from the USA.

So let us go back to the basics of Tourism. Doxey (1976) Indexed Tourism as:

  • • The Level of Euphoria – the initial thrill and enthusiasm that comes along with Tourism development – means the tourist is made welcome
  • • The Level of Apathy – once development is under way and expansion has taken place the tourist is taken for granted and is now seen as a source of profit taking
  • • The Level of Irritation – as the industry approaches saturation point, the hosts can no longer cope with the number of tourists without additional facilities
  • • Level of Antagonism – the tourist is now seen as the bringer of all ills, hosts are antagonistic towards tourists, and tourists are regarded as there to be exploited
  • • The Final Level – the hosts have forgotten that all they once regarded as being special was exactly what attracted the tourist.

An Environmental Impact Assessment is a process that enables researchers to predict the environmental consequence associated with any proposed development project including detrimental effects to people, flora and fauna, soil, water, air, peace and quiet, landscape, and cultural sites.

Greens (1990) checklist of environmental impacts for The Natural Environment include changes in floral and fauna species, pollution, erosion, depletion of natural resources and visual impact. And, for the Built Environment: visual impact and the growth of the built up area, infrastructure and overloading, roads, car parking, waste disposal, water supply.

Urban Form – changes in residential use, with an emergence of contrasts between urban areas for tourists and those for the host population. Restoration; re-use of disused buildings, restoration and preservation of historic building and design, restoration of derelict buildings as second homes, and finally, Competition – the decline by change of tourist preferences.

Heritage is that which is inherited from past generations, maintained in the present and bestowed for the benefit of future generations. Of interest here is our Natural Heritage, fauna & flora, geology, landscape and landform. Our Cultural Heritage being physical artefacts with intangible attributes that belong to a group or society and are man made.

Meanwhile, our most scenic 30-minute arteries twixt Whitby and Scarborough, in daytime, forest and moors and a panoramic skyline; at night, a haven for stargazers, mystery seekers and romantics alike, has already gone. And all we can do is stand and watch, are we to be Tourists?

From www.UNESCO.com :

New global agreements now give sovereign national rights over biological resources (not property). The idea of static conservation of biodiversity is disappearing and being replaced by the idea of dynamic conservation, through the notion of resource and innovation. The new agreements commit countries to conserve biodiversity, develop resources for sustainability and share the benefits resulting from their use. Under new rules, it is expected that bioprospecting or collection of natural products has to be allowed by the biodiversity-rich country, in exchange for a share of the benefits.
The 1972 UNESCO World Heritage Convention established that biological resources, such as plants, were the common heritage of mankind or as was expressed in the preamble: “need to be preserved as part of the world heritage of mankind as a whole.”

And so, we think we are ‘top of the food chain’, perhaps not for long.

Further Reading

Help Real Whitby – Use Our Skimlinks To Shop

162 Responses to "Sirius Mining / Minerals And North Yorkshire Moors Potash"

  1. admin  March 20, 2012 at 7:45 pm

    Interesting quote from various places

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-13539281

    Robin Gray, who runs a 215-acre farm at Harwood Dale, said: “I think the majority of people are… concerned as to what is it going to be, where is it going to be, what is it going to look like and what are the impacts going to be environmentally.

    “We do live in one of the most spectacular parts of the world and, with the heritage coast and the national parks, the tourism industry could be devastated.
    Earth’s core

    “The sensible approach to take is for Sirius to make very, very clear what their aims and ambitions are.

    “To divide and conquer and invite small groups of people to exclusive meetings is not in my opinion a very clever and very sound way to make a judgement for the future.”

    http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-potash-mining-project-nd-stalls-200911900.html

    Ted Hawbaker, of Portal, a critic of the Legislature’s efforts to tax and regulate potash mining, said the land where test drilling was done hasn’t yet been restored to its original condition, even though drilling ceased about a year ago.

    The site is “a mess” and the state Industrial Commission, which granted the drilling permit, hasn’t done anything about it, Hawbaker told a North Dakota legislative committee studying potash taxation.

    “There’s plastic, there’s junk all over. It hasn’t been cleaned up,” Hawbaker said. “It sits there just as they left it.”

    Wether people agree or disagree, theres no doubting the fact its a very well thought out and well written article. Excellent stuff yet again Vanda and sure to provoke debate. Thankyou..

    • DanTheMAn  March 21, 2012 at 10:00 am

      I have to disgree with you Admin as Vincent Vega’s comment below reflects, this is in fact quite a poorly thought out badly researched article. With respect to the writers research of the company the following point are so wide of the mark they border on misinformation and propaganda.
      The company is not American it has a project there as it does in Australia but that is where the association ends.
      The jobs related to this project as Vincent Vega states are potentially 1500 during construction 1000 at the mine and a total of 5000 including related industries and will not be Americans, in fact the Potash industry is minimal in the US it is mainly based in Canada so if any skilled workers were coming they’d be Canadian, but don’t let the facts get in the way of a bit of sensationalism.
      Finally Potash is a natural fertiliser not a nitrogen based chemical fertiliser and so will not have devastating long term effects on world food supplier in fact quite the opposite and where GM crops come in to the whole arguement is beyond me.
      I’m fed up to the back teeth of the NIMBYism such as this article spouting rubbish to discredit a company who appear to be going about things in the right way, burying the minehead, processing away from the national park, working with government and local providers to provide the skills needed for this kind of operation and bringing much needed jobs to our area.
      I for one welcome it

      • admin  March 21, 2012 at 5:31 pm

        Well written ? regardless of the actual content I would conclude yes, Vanda writes well, her use of the written word is neither too elaborate or too simple and makes the article accessible to most. The article flows through a start, a middle and an end and keeps the reader engaged.

        Well thought out ? Again, yes. I believe the purpose of the article is to get people thinking, to draw in commentators and provoke debate. The article is the busiest on the site today and has drawn a lot of comment – That’s Ivanda aim accomplished.

        Research, wasn’t a word I mentioned in my comment. If people can add their research below to back up supporting or counter evidence then all well and good, after all that’s exactly what we want to see in the comment area of the site. That’s what were here for.

      • Vanda Inman  April 1, 2012 at 7:24 am

        Dan, my whole article was about local heritage. Not Sirius. Firstly,the ‘Americans’, from Sirius own website – projects in ‘North America’ not Canada. Secondly, the 5000 jobs as per Sirius 1st ‘brochure’, when I asked an SBC Cllr about this last August, even he said we don’t have skilled and experienced ‘miners’ in Whitby and Scarborough. They will probably have to bring in men from North America.

  2. Nigel Ward  March 20, 2012 at 10:31 pm

    Judging by the fierce debate around the Rose Rylands letter on the Whitby Gazette web-site, I expect to see polarized opinion coming in on this one. The thrust of the contention thus far centres around a war between the great god Nature and the great god Profit. Pan versus Mammon. More of which in a week or two . . .

    Meanwhile, check the state of play:

    http://www.whitbygazette.co.uk/news/letters/in-pursuit-of-profit-1-4340906

    • admin  March 20, 2012 at 10:42 pm

      I think the lack of objection is due to the current economic climate. This is timed to perfection, with so many people loosing their jobs who is going to argue against a project that is going to create jobs. For the record I’m totally against any developments within the National Park, after all whats the point in having a National Park if your just going to do what you like within it. But taking an objective view I can see whats at play here. I’m wondering if anyone remembers the last proposal to build a mine in that area ? Probably about the mid 70′s and it was met with uproar, so why the deafening silence now ?

  3. pete budd  March 20, 2012 at 11:02 pm

    If a national park was a local authority it could extract a levy, for its purpose, on any industrial exploitation of it’s resources.

  4. Bob Whitby  March 20, 2012 at 11:08 pm

    The problem is if you object to developments in the National Park then you object to the current works on the Whitby to Scarborough road…anyone noticed that all the trees are disappearing?

    Do you then also object to park petrol stations, caravan parks, holiday parks, park toilets, car parking etc. (anything involving the word park it seems).

    Yes the National Park is wonderful, yes it has wonderful wildlife and important bumble bees and rare species of insect crawling around the undergrowth but the flip side is the boost to local shops/businesses/house building that could see around 5000 new dwellers in this borough with the knock on effect of possibly generating more trade in the borough.

    While I despise house building and tree felling I also see an opportunity for the Borough to offer an alternative to the Tourism Industry. Tourism is struggling with ever increasing petrol prices and parking costs, perhaps supply and demand will force the Council to provide better road surfaces, more parking facilities and permit a few more 24 hour petrol stations in the borough? Perhaps the National Park will benefit from the proceeds of this mine with sponsorhip and financial assistance for park projects?

  5. Dave Heselton  March 20, 2012 at 11:23 pm

    If there were to be a competition for the prettiest village in and around the North York Moors, then my guess is that Thornton le Dale would be amongst the leading contendors.

    Like everywhere else in the area, Thornton le Dale relies primarily on just two industries – agriculture and tourism. A company called “moorland energy limited” has submitted plans to extract gas from the moors and build processing plant on the edge of Thornton le Dale, and of course the many shops, cafes, hotels and businesses in and around the village are up in arms over these proposals.

    For a place of just 2000 people, Thornton le Dale actualy has quite a lot of shops, all of which contribute to the local economy, all of which employ staff, and all of which employ the local joiner, electrician, roofer, plumber and painter.

    Towards the western edge of the National Park is the tiny village of Westerdale, isolated, rugged and totaly unspoilt. Here we have another company who wish to explore the moors for oil and gas, the company “Egdon Resources” are to set up bore holes and test drilling.

    And somewhere close to Whitby we have yet another company who will soon submit plans for a potash mine somewhere inside the National Park, rumour has it that it may be in the vicinity of Robin Hoods Bay.

    At the moment its just three companies, all wanting to exploit the natural minerals and resources under the North York Moors, and if these three are all allowed then who next, how many more prospectors. ?

    I find myself asking the question “why now” and “what is it that has suddenly made these companies and prospectors go for gold now” ? – has it got anything to do with a government which has given signals that big business and profit should come before enviromental concerns, and why planning regulations are to be greatly reduced. ?

    If I had to be honest, I would admit that as a person born and bred in this area, tourism does have its drawbacks, it has its disadvantages and its far from perfect, but on the other hand what is perfect, and are we any worse off than other areas ?.

    The reality is that Whitby is not Southbank, Redcar, Hull or Middlesbrough, we are not an economic blackspot and we do not suffer from either mass unemployment, widescale deprevation or high levels of crime and poverty.

    The truth is that businesses, shops, hotels, pubs are investing in Whitby, hundreds of jobs are coming into the area, we have definately not seen the same levels of economic decay that other areas have seen during the recession.

    Lets be clear about this, for all its problems, tourism is a long term sustainable industry with a real future, the potash project combined with the other projects could do the tourism industry a lot of harm, and after 50 years the potash mine would probably be gone – then what happens ?. Do we become another Redcar with high unemployment and dozens of boarded up shops because tourism has been long abandoned. ?

    I would urge local people to think very long and hard about this, dont sell your soul to the devil.

  6. admin  March 20, 2012 at 11:31 pm

    Excellent point well made Dave.

  7. Terri Groves  March 21, 2012 at 1:43 am

    at least in teh 50 years that the mine is around theres more work than just catering to the tourism industuyr for our grand and great-grand children.

    thats not necessarily a vote for the mine but more that i dont want my great-grand children to live in a town thats just a tourist destination. we need a town and area thats grown on industries that got us here where we are today be it mining potash or jet or the pisspitts near robins hoods bay and anything to do with the sea and being a harbour town .

  8. Just 66 votes  March 21, 2012 at 8:41 am

    Have any of you visited the archeological sites? Many of them former mine workings. The moors have always been exploited both above and below ground. Now we can pickle it all in aspic for the walkers and grouse shoots and forget those without work or working in minimum wage jobs in the tourist indistry or we can join in with the debate to ensure that all these proposals are dealt with senistively and for the benefit of the whole community. We need to ensure that for generations to come our children and grandchildren can continue to enjoy this wonderful place but with a thriving local economy, an education system that supplies the skills needed for this buggeoning industry and homes that complement the beauty of our natural environment.
    And just to ensure that no-one muddles potash and other nitrogen- or heavy metal-based fertilizers, the following:
    To ensure healthy and nutritious plant growth, adequate supplies of potash must be maintained in the soil by judicious use of fertilzers and manures and there are no environmental risks associated with this nutrient. In fact, potash makes a positive contribution to the environment by balancing other nutrients, especially nitrate, to make sure they are taken-up and used by plants efficiently so avoiding losses which might be harmful

  9. Just 66 votes  March 21, 2012 at 9:08 am

    With unemployment rates of Scarborough/Whitby 18-24 year olds currently the highest in North Yorkshire at 10.2% (Jan 2012) what other suggestions are there for our young people? Move away? Join the forces? Work away from home and family? Speak up if there is an alternative that can offer all our children the opportunity to thrive in this community.

  10. Vincent Vega  March 21, 2012 at 9:23 am

    Whilst some may view this as a very well written article, its quality is rather besmirched by a lack of balance and poor research regarding the Company’s plans to extract potash, whilst providing plenty of information regarding the protection of National Parks.

    I am unsure as to the writers level of research given that the person believes that there are 5,000 US men about to descend on the area. Such sensational comments add little to the neutrality of the piece.

    Firstly this is a British Company and secondly, it is envisaged that the construction of the minehead and process plant/pipeline will create 1,500 jobs during the construction process and approx 1,000 jobs to run the minehead and processing plant.(outside of the park)

    The figure of 5,000 jobs was an estimate of indirect jobs only, drawn from industry statistics.

    At this stage, nobody is aware of the impact of this venture to the Park as the Company is yet to establish a site for the minehead and I’m sure that they are aware of the need to present a case that very much encompasses the need to protect the Park as much as possible.

    I am also baffled by the statemnt regarding GM crops.

    Perhaps in this case, a ‘little’ knowledge is a dangerous thing.

  11. Cloggsy  March 21, 2012 at 9:54 am

    I was taught at an early age to never ‘assume,’ as to assume would make an ‘ass’ out of ‘u’ and ‘me!’ Sirius minerals are going into schools and colleges to encourage students to take up courses which would be helpful for getting jobs in the mining industry on their doorsteps. How would it be economically viable to bring in a labour force from the USA (or anywhere else for that matter?) Don’t just rely on one person view; do your own research!

  12. Dave Reeves  March 21, 2012 at 10:46 am

    It is the most important privilege that we on this Island have to be able to express an opinion, and to consider the views of others. I personally do not live locally, but live very close to a big city with all its industry, motorways etc. and this is something that I have lived with and accepted as the way the modern world is evolving. The industry, and the commerce that surrounds me is part of the complex machinery that provides the everyday goods and needs of the rest of the UK and beyond. I accept that the beautiful parks and forests that are close at hand are so valuable and have a permanent place in our world. But there are also places around our wonderful island that are remote, and almost unaffected by time and progress, like the North Yorkshire moors, and for those lucky enough to live in areas like those that is a bonus.
    In the case of the proposed Potash mining project I would ask anyone objecting on purely preservation to consider the views and more importantly the needs of millions of others across the world who are not lucky enough to have the wonder of such freedom and natural beauty that we who can visit at any time have. Consider just why Potash is so important to the world, and that includes all of us who eat food. The population growth globally is escalating at an alarming rate, and consequently fertiliser has become the new ‘gold’. Not, before you leap in and scream…money…not because of its commercial value alone, but for the survival of some areas in our world. Having said that, then unless there is potash available there is simply no fertiliser. That is why we have to look beyond this argument of them and us. Underground there are vast amounts of potash of the highest quality in the world, and if this can be mined and distributed with minimal disruption and no harm to the environment, then we really should at least listen to the proposals by Sirius and then ensure a commitment of supervision should ensure the area only benefits from the advantages of the potential income locally. This company I believe are absolutely committed to protecting the beauty of the area and I welcome the potential massive injection of finance and improvements for the people who live in that area.

  13. Henry Jones  March 21, 2012 at 10:51 am

    I hardly know where to begin with the erroneous assertions in this article. Firstly thecompany is called Sirius Minerals, not Sirius Mining. You even posted the URL with the correct name in it!

    Secondly this is not an american company and there will not be an army of 5000 americans comeing to whitby. Several of the directors are aussies and have valuable experience in setting up and financing this sort of business sensitively and sustainably, hence their presence. Of the 5000 jobs potentially to be created, this estimate includes approx 2000 to be created by direct employment of local people, and the rest as secondary business which will become viable due to the increased affluence and economic potential.

    Sirius has gone out of its way to be open and honest about what its doing, and has involved the moors authority and all local politicians before so much as the simplest of plans was made.

    Everyone with an understanding of the facts is in favour because the project will have almost zero impact on the national park (the processing plant will be outside the park, the minehead will be hidden and the slurry pipeline will be burrierd and undecectable), the local economy will be the prime beneficiary, and in fact this project will be hugely beneficial to UK plc as a whole as it will form an important and taxable export market, something we direly need.

    worries about destruction of the scenery or habitats are utterly unfounded and talk of “environmental rape” is ridiculous as these minerals are very deep, and irrelevant to the local natural environment. Even if this were not so, man has always modified his environment through necessity. The author of this article addmitted himself the park only exists as a result of the environmental “rape” of the orignal settlers deforesting the land.

    a little balance and realism goes a long way in cases such as this.

  14. Serious Investor  March 21, 2012 at 11:57 am

    I’m wondering if anyone remembers the last proposal to build a mine in that area ? Probably about the mid 70′s and it was met with uproar, so why the deafening silence now ?

    Admin.

    I think your memory does not serve you well!

    If I recall correctly two further permissions for mines within the NP (besides Boulby)where passed for two different companies after very stringent tests,time,a public enquirey and at great cost.

    However, the *uproar* you talk about was caused by the said companies that due to the economic climate they could no longer go ahead with the projects based on Capex and extraction costs, thereby losing hundreads of jobs for the local population.

    Lets have some balanced debate with verifiable Facts please.

    • admin  March 21, 2012 at 12:58 pm

      I would like to see copies of the local papers articles from that time period. My recollection was of unhappy locals and a paper headline to the effect of “Whitby By The Potash” as opposed to “Whitby By The Sea”. Time passes and memory perhaps isnt what it should be, but that is my honest recollection of what I remember as a very young child. I think the proposed mine was to be in the Hawsker area. If anyone has the time to dig out those news archives Im sure they would make good reading. Also worthy of note from your comment is your account isnt verifiable either. So if your going to call for verifiable facts, maybe you could provide them too.

  15. Serious Investor  March 21, 2012 at 1:34 pm

    Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop (South Shields…..Labour.

    Extract from speech in house of common 10th Nov 1971

    Proposals for development in the North Yorkshire Moors National Park led to protracted public inquiries which ended with the potash development being approved, subject to strict controls. One development was approved in the northern part of the North Yorkshire Moors, in which I.C.I. was involved, and, unhappily, two other applications were approved further south in the national park area.

    The extraordinary situation has arisen that the companies concerned have said that after reconsideration of the international trade position they consider it unlikely that they will go forward with those projects, at any rate at present. That argument was raised by many objectors at the time of the inquiry and I regret that my right hon. Friend who was then at the Department approved those applications.

    http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1971/nov/10/mineral-exploration-etc-bill#column_1079

    BTW This was also a time leading up to Economic problems….similar to today.

    Local news looking up.

  16. Dave Heselton  March 21, 2012 at 2:44 pm

    I rather suspect that the planning applications to which “Serious Investor” refers to are earlier than the Whitby Potash proposals which were indeed thrown out by a government inquirey in 1978.

    The application to which is refered to was in 1971 and related to Boulby which of course is now an operational mine just inside the National Park between Staithes and Easington.

    The Whitby Potash proposal was thrown out mainly because of the scale, size and impact of a refinery which was to be built at broomfield farm, whereby the related buildings and chimneys would be considerably higher than Whitby Abbey, and would dominate the town.

  17. vanda inman  March 21, 2012 at 3:37 pm

    I cannot disagree with any of the comments made. This covers a lot of specialist areas. It would be reassuring to see a balanced report from all the ‘stakeholders’ involved.

  18. Alan H  March 21, 2012 at 4:04 pm

    Busy Articles For The Site In The Last 7 Days :

    Whitby Donkey Field Survey 14 comment(s) | 2080 view(s)
    Old Pictures Of Whitby 11 comment(s) | 566 view(s)
    “East Side Story” – Nigel Ward In My View 18 comment(s) | 348 view(s)
    Who’s Complaining Now ? – ‘Slanging Match At Whitby Town Council Committee Meeting’ 9 comment(s) | 283 view(s)
    Arachnophobia, Cultural Theft & Environmental Rape By Vanda Inman 20 comment(s) | 263 view(s)
    CANDID CANDIDATE- A PERSONAL ACCOUNT – from Vanda Inman 20 comment(s) | 164 view(s)
    Whitby People Photographs 7 comment(s) | 155 view(s)
    Olympic Flame Coming To The Streets Of Whitby 1 comment(s) | 148 view(s)
    Scarborough Council Ipad’s – The £53k Question 26 comment(s) | 136 view(s)
    Whitby Town Is Falling Down 120 comment(s) | 132 view(s)

  19. Serious Investor  March 21, 2012 at 4:06 pm

    The Whitby Potash proposal was thrown out mainly because of the scale, size and impact of a refinery which was to be built at broomfield farm, whereby the related buildings and chimneys would be considerably higher than Whitby Abbey, and would dominate the town.
    Research::(Questions were asked in the house re building size/plans)

    I refer you to my comment 1.34p.m. re earlier three pp’s.

    However, I believe the Whitby Potash proposal went to Government Planning Appeal Inquiry, late 1970′s held in camera…I can find no confirmation of permissions passed, nor refusal…..maybe you can?

  20. Vanda Inman  March 21, 2012 at 10:20 pm

    Brilliant – 9.30 pm -I’ve just had a face to face with Sirius Minerals Representative Richard Hunt, Head of Planning, York Potash Project – will let you know tomorrow what we discussed!

  21. admin  March 21, 2012 at 10:55 pm

    How did that come about ?

  22. Vanda Inman  March 22, 2012 at 7:21 am

    SBC’s Jim Dillon and Sirius Minerals Richard Hunt were guest speakers at the Labour Party Branch meeting in Scarborough, apparently they had been to Whitby Town Council meeting about 3 weeks ago. Indeed Richard Hunt is keen to talk at all Parishs within the ‘interested area’. (I was a little late to that meeting because of a more urgent cross party non political action group meeting regarding the Sale of our Town Hall to be decided at Full Council Meeting this Friday at 2.00 pm). I did say to Richard that anything he had said within that meeting would not be quoted without his permission as it was a closed meeting to members only. So, yes, just to confirm that Richard Hunt has read the article and I felt he was quite uncomfortable about it. I put it to Richard that this ‘Mining Project’ would have such a massive impact on our area that the article was intended to enable a full picture to be drawn rather than just pieces of a jig saw that didn’t quite fit together. Indeed there was plenty of questions about this project that he was unable to answer, because he simply just didn’t know. So, yes whilst a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, lets get the balance right, lets share our knowledge so that an informed decision can be made. We only have until September to research and study before a full planning application is submitted. I will wait to see if Richard will respond further to this article with a view to having an interesting debate before I comment further.

    Oh and meanwhile from Sirius’s own literature Version 1 Autumn 2011; ” the project could create up to 5,0000 jobs…”.

  23. Jon Owen  March 22, 2012 at 9:50 am

    Vanda says in her comment on talking to RH that “…whilst a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, lets get the balance right, lets share our knowledge so that an informed decision can be made. .”

    Sound advice of course so it’s such a shame that those with ‘little knowlage’ choose to fill their publications with ill judged hypothosis and scaremongering speculation, Such as (quoting from Vanda’s initial polemic):

    “Now I am not a scientist, I am not a geologist and I’m not an expert on Feeding the World. But I gather that this is all about fertiliser. And I seem to remember from my school days that fertiliser was not always a good thing, with GM crops feeding an ever expanding world population, leading to potential world wide crop failures and a starving population, (perhaps leaving 1 in 100?).”

    “…fertiliser was not always a good thing,..” well that ideed can be true, but is missleading, IMO, inapropriate application or exessive use of anything with a lack of understanding can be detrimental. Here’s a stark example:

    http://ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo2.htm

    We all need oxigen every day, but too much…

    .Also this: “…GM crops feeding an ever expanding world population, leading to potential world wide crop failures and a starving population, (perhaps leaving 1 in 100?).”

    “potential” ? Where is any evidence for this scaremongering Vanda? Nothing but agenda driven speculative hypothosis, I suggest.

    One thing is certain; without modern farming technologies (and that includes using fertisers and I believe will have to include GM) at least half this planet’s population will have to go to ‘Recycling’.

    Now some may think that could be a good thing, but who’s going to be the one to send out those “you are the lucky winner/not so luky loser” texts?

    Please keep to fact.

    Jon Owen.

  24. Dave Reeves  March 22, 2012 at 10:00 am

    I am intrigued when I note that Vanda Inman casts a ‘secretive’ net over Richard Hunt’s comments regarding the project proposed by Sirius Minerals. I thought that healthy debate has to be mainly based on genuine facts, and not on amateur insinuations. Anyone could google Sirius Minerals, and download their great prospectus that outlines in full their aims and objectives. But Vanda Inman is changing tack here and her comments are angled to produce a sinister side , as if Richard Hunt felt he was being ‘rumbled’ by Inman. The whole matter is out in the open, it is genuine, it is extremely important to both local people, and Nationally and indeed globally that a find such as this should be found here in the North Yorkshire Moors and is so potentially important to the local community and the future of youth employment.
    Of course it is an industry, of course it will have some negatives, but these are all contained in the proposals of Sirius Minerals. To argue as ‘admin’ does that technical details really do not matter, and the fact that the original statement made by Vanda Inman was incorrect and inaccurate seems not to matter as long as debate happens. It just strikes me that if that is the way the debate is intended to go then that is good business for this paper? And in particular for ‘admin’ and Vanda Inman? If we debate then let’s do it with facts and not political motives?

  25. Dave Heselton  March 22, 2012 at 12:28 pm

    Like the whole of the country, Whitby is going through a bit of a hard time at the moment, and the main reason is due to the governments austerity programme, the plan to sort out the nations defecit is having an effect on tourism, just as it is having an effect on most other areas of economic activity.

    But two vitaly important things worth pointing out, firstly, the economic gloom will not last forever, in around four years from now the nations structural defecit will be mended.

    The other thing worth pointing out is that in spite of the economic gloom, people are still investing in Whitby, houses, hotels, shops, pubs and other developments are all in progress or in the pipeline, the number of new jobs coming to Whitby in 2012 can be measured in hundreds.

    The last potash planning application to be submitted back in 1978 would have consisted of a colossal processing plant on the edge of town, it would have dominated the landscape with structures higher than Whitby Abbey, it would have at the very least done considerable damage to the tourist industry, possibly even killed it off alltogether.

    And here is the crucial point, that the proposed development back in 1978 could not possibly have provided the same level of economic benefits to the area, including employment as tourism did.

    The issues here are more than simply about Sirrius and a potash mine, the issue is also about the other prospectors who also want to exploit the moors for their natuaral resources, gas and oil and the associated refining plants.

    Somewhere in this economic equasion there is a tipping point, the point at which people will say that this area is no longer an area of unspoilt and outstanding natural beauty, not worth visiting, instead people will think of this area as been blighted and spoilt, and as Sirrius Minerals could not possibly take the place of tourism in terms of economic activity, jobs and supporting small businesses, people need to think further than the end of their noses.

    Finaly, it realy does worry me how some people are using facts and figures and are quoting Sirrius Minerals in support of whatever proposal may eventualy come out of all this, would these same people buy a second hand car based solely upon what a second hand car dealer has to say ?. If I wanted to build a slaughter house on carr hill lane in Sleights, there is nothing to stop me from saying it would employ 5000 people and that it would have little or no impact on neighbours, I could not be taken to court if it eventualy only employed 100 people.

  26. Side Snipe  March 22, 2012 at 2:03 pm

    Im loving reading this. Sounds like Sirius have sent out their top brass to keep the peasants quiet. No wonder they feel uncomfortable with this article, it paints a picture quite different from the one they want people to see and believe. A company like Sirius will no doubt be a large multi national organisation. Being allowed to churn up a National Park could be worth Millions if not Billions to them over the next 50 years. I would bet my bottom dollar that they have individuals on their payroll whose job it is to find articles like this and put water on the fire. Funny how all these names spring up on the site with extensive knowledge of an admirable company who are coming to our area to save us all from the dole Que, and a bleak future of bankrupcy if we don’t allow them in. Very transparent what the game his here in my eyes. So well done Vanda and well don Real Whitby for having the balls to buck the trend and go with a whole different angle on the story. For Sirius press releases of a wonderful world read Johnsons press publications, for real stories telling it how it is, well, it has to be Real Whitby

  27. Justin Crabtree  March 22, 2012 at 2:16 pm

    Serious Investor or Sirius Investor ?

  28. Andrew Bowman  March 22, 2012 at 2:17 pm

    Yes Sirious, if your going to comment at least have the decency to say who you are. Very sneaky.

  29. Andrea Smith  March 22, 2012 at 2:22 pm

    Where could you possibly put a mine in the National Park without it being a complete eyesore. North Yorkshire Moors National Park is an area of outstanding natural beauty. There is thousands of years of history, not to mention the spectacular Yorkshire Heritage Coast with places like Hayburn wyke and Cloughton wyke amongst many other beautiful places. You cant stick a mine in the middle of this place its obscene to even suggest it. Sirius keep out of OUR Natioanl Park you money grabbing tyrants.

  30. Dave Reeves  March 22, 2012 at 2:57 pm

    In amongst all this debate about the for’s and against of the Sirius proposal there are comments that are taking away from the main topic. Who cares if anyone on this debating section are shareholders, local businessmen, council members, lawyers, builders, farmers. That point is irrelevant because anyone who registers with this paper can have a say, and it affects every one of us. Now please those who live in this beautiful part of the world, do not take this the wrong way. You live/were born in this location and you are benefiting from some of the most marvelous English scenery there is, but it does not belong to you, you do not own it. I do not own the lovely hills and valleys that surround the area where I live. It belongs to all of us,and for that reason I also would defend any attempt to turn that area into ‘industrial waste’ etc. The way I see it that is not being suggested, in fact far from it. Underground pipe delivery is unseen. Mine head buildings designed to compliment the many farm buildings we see does not ravage the views. If the fact that the argument is against the project for that reason, and that is a condition of planning permission, then what other argument do you have? Take away the threat to the environment, and the benefits are massive. Those benefits would be available to every profession, private business and local communities.

  31. Finger Bob  March 22, 2012 at 3:03 pm

    If you are a shareholder who stands to gain tens of thousands of pounds from an increase in share value how can your input be seen as objective. Of course your going to say that no-one will even notice this mine exists. Were not stupid, we already have an eyesore at Boulby we dont want another one just so you can line your pockets.

  32. Martin Smith  March 22, 2012 at 3:06 pm

    Im 23 years old, I live in Whitby with my parents as I cant afford a flat. My only hope of employment in the area is summer work in restaurants or pubs. The potash mine could give me and many others the chance of well paid work that we would normally have to leave town to find.

  33. Bob Whitby  March 22, 2012 at 4:27 pm

    There are fors and againsts. It is a case of weighing up the way forward and ensuring Sirius Minerals are kept on a tight leash.

    Can we really prevent ANY form of construction/mining on the moors forever???

    Like I’ve said before. Have any of those against the Sirius plans actually taken time to drive to Scarborough and keep a beady eye out on your left hand side for the logging and tree felling currently under way? I’m sure it is sustainable and they have replanted LOTS of new trees which is great but at the moment there are massive bald patches on the moors, for miles, that look flippin awful and are going to take 20 odd years to fill back in.

    There are already drilling rigs set up on the moors, we’ve all seen them, and if they can keep the proportions of the new minehead to not much bigger (4 times max) than those rigs then i don’t think it will have much effect on the scenery anyway.

    What about pylons? or the wind farm plans that are being mooted? They’re permanently grotesque features of the land.

    • Andy Bowman  March 22, 2012 at 10:25 pm

      With all due respect Bob Whitby. Felled trees can in no way be compared to mining buildings.

  34. Serious Investor  March 22, 2012 at 4:50 pm

    If you are a shareholder who stands to gain tens of thousands of pounds from an increase in share value how can your input be seen as objective…end.

    I may or may not be an investor, however, my objectives would be the same as that the Company expresses on their website if I where.

    On the other hand as a non investor would my stance be any different? The answer to that would be no.

    Until any decisions are made as to the site of a mine head how can I at the moment protest?

    What would I have to protest about?

    What will it look like? until planning and artist impressions, how can I object?

    What would I object about?

    This whole debate will collapse if people draw their own conclusions and not use actual facts, Local people have a mine of their own at Boulby, now no longer an eyesore IMO, more a landmark and a big contributor no doubt to the local wealth, If as ‘Finger Bob’ opines, where would all the employees be now if it was not there?

    Will a new modern mine resemble Boulby, I would be very surprised if it did! but the truth is, I do not yet know.

    As for your ‘lining your pockets’ quote, Finger Bob you too can become an investor and line your own pockets, should you choose, however, investing is fraught with risks and you should never invest more than you are prepared to lose, the higher the risk the greater the reward, that is a simple fact of investment life.

    I have no doubt there are plenty of people with lots of opinions whether it be a yea or nay, one thing I am sure about is, if the project goes ahead it will be done with with fullest of consultations with both sides of any divide and under very stringent tests, all to the benefit of the populace in a beautiful part of Yorkshire that I too like to visit.

    As a shareholder, I guess I will no longer have a right to comment in some peoples eyes?

  35. Serious Investor  March 22, 2012 at 6:03 pm

    Admin.

    Re your comments yesterday, it may indeed be the 1978 Headline you recall.

    My reference was to the 3 P/Applications passed in 1971.

    For you perusal…enjoy.

    http://archive.tribunemagazine.co.uk/article/10th-march-1978/8/will-it-be-whitby-by-the-potash-mine

    • admin  March 22, 2012 at 8:17 pm

      Hi Serious investor. Yes it would be the 78 headline as I do remember it. I was only 2 in 71 so that wont be the one. Very interesting though.

  36. Harold Locker  March 22, 2012 at 7:18 pm

    Seriously? Anyone that speaks up in favour of the idea or finds problems with the article is automatically within the employ of the company? God, but I despair of this town at times.

  37. Dave Reeves  March 22, 2012 at 8:41 pm

    Harold Locker: That is probably one of the truest points to be made on this debate section. Debating is about points of fact and points of view. This debate was started by someone who is supposed to be a ‘journalist’, and has been admired for her punctuation and writing expertise, but the fact that she got most of her main points absolutely wrong just do not seem to matter. Several contributors have outlined her inaccuracies but the shame is that the ‘admin’ whoever that is are in the same boat. This debate was started I thought to gain the best information about just what was actually proposed. I will again offer the fact that if you google Sirius Minerals as I have, you will be greeted by a brilliant document full of clarity that outlines exactly what the proposals and objectives are. That way we can all sing from the same hymn sheet and not from the script of some amateur sleuth. This project is of vital importance to the people of North Yorkshire, and all this paper want to do is foster some verbal warfare.
    Can we all just deal in facts? This is a lifetime’s opportunity, I can see it and don’t even live there.

  38. admin  March 22, 2012 at 11:16 pm

    My Concerns are similar to those expressed by the National Park. Its the visual impact that worries me.

    http://www.real-whitby.co.uk/moorland

    We are talking about one of the most beautiful areas of our country, perhaps one of the most stunning in the World (And Ive travelled a bit).

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-16307638

    @Dave Reeves. So far you’ve called out Vanda for supplying falsities, yet you haven’t provided any hard evidence of your perspective yourself other than continually pointing us to a website for a company who could stand to make or loose millions of pounds depending on getting the go ahead for this project. As others have pointed out, this perspective is far from objective.

  39. DanTheMAn  March 23, 2012 at 10:28 am

    In response to the comments above I will hold my hands up and admit that I am now a shareholder. I have done my research on the impact of the project and as a proud Yorkshireman born and bred I have spent many a wonderful time on the moors and have fond memories of completing the Lyke wake walk aged 15 whilst listening to Hull City vs Scarborough on the last day of the season when they were both in the basement division, I would be horrified at anyone paving over the moors willy nilly but that is not what this project will entail
    This project will not be another Boulby the planners won’t allow it and the company dont want that, the company has stated that processing facilities will be located “at port” massively downscaling the footprint in the NP
    What I have against this article and what prompted me to comment in the first place is the HUGELY offensive use of the word rape in the heading followed by basic falsities we are not calling out Vanda over contentious points the following are just WRONG!!
    “Americans are definitely coming” – No they’re not
    “And I seem to remember from my school days that fertiliser was not always a good thing, with GM crops feeding an ever expanding world population, leading to potential world wide crop failures and a starving population, (perhaps leaving 1 in 100?).” Wrong type of fertiliser and unrelated point on GM crops for a bit more emotive weight.
    Yes I and other shareholders have a vested interest in this project going ahead but as a yorkshireman I have an interest in the properity of my region
    Yes the company information will be glossy and in their own interest but where does this type of emotive misinformation rank?
    This company are acutely aware of the challenges this project will present in terms of objections they would be foolish not too and after my extensive research I have chosen to invest beleiving that this company are going about things in the right way and have employed industry experts to design this in the right way and minimise it’s impact had it not be the case I would not have invested.

  40. Finger Bob  March 23, 2012 at 5:12 pm

    @Harold Locker “Seriously? Anyone that speaks up in favour of the idea or finds problems with the article is automatically within the employ of the company? God, but I despair of this town at times.”

    @Dan the man “In response to the comments above I will hold my hands up and admit that I am now a shareholder.”

    Sounds like the good people of the town you despair of, are not as green as you are cabbage looking Harold.

  41. Dave Reeves  March 23, 2012 at 5:48 pm

    Admin: I think you will find that the inaccuracies you want highlighted are already well documented below.

    Vincent Vega
    March 21, 2012 at 9:23 am
    Whilst some may view this as a very well written article, its quality is rather besmirched by a lack of balance and poor research regarding the Company’s plans to extract potash, whilst providing plenty of information regarding the protection of National Parks.
    I am unsure as to the writers level of research given that the person believes that there are 5,000 US men about to descend on the area. Such sensational comments add little to the neutrality of the piece.
    Firstly this is a British Company and secondly, it is envisaged that the construction of the minehead and process plant/pipeline will create 1,500 jobs during the construction process and approx 1,000 jobs to run the minehead and processing plant.(outside of the park)
    The figure of 5,000 jobs was an estimate of indirect jobs only, drawn from industry statistics.

    DanTheMAnReply
    March 23, 2012 at 10:28 am
    What I have against this article and what prompted me to comment in the first place is the HUGELY offensive use of the word rape in the heading followed by basic falsities we are not calling out Vanda over contentious points the following are just WRONG!!
    “Americans are definitely coming” – No they’re not
    “And I seem to remember from my school days that fertiliser was not always a good thing, with GM crops feeding an ever expanding world population, leading to potential world wide crop failures and a starving population, (perhaps leaving 1 in 100?).” Wrong type of fertiliser and unrelated point on GM crops for a bit more emotive weight.

    My own view is exactly along these lines, and I repeat, when you accuse anyone, or any company of such crimes as ‘rape’, then you need to be able to put your money etc. etc. and Vanda has failed to do that. It is obvious to me that the main thrust of her story is aggressively submitted without any real knowledge of either the proposal or the product, but hey, it has caused a lot of interest for your paper hasn’t it?

    So once again let us see genuine, fact based comments and not points designed to shoot down something just for the interest value. This proposal is a serious and highly valuable opportunity for everyone, and the company proposing the mining of potash are acutely aware of the environmental issues, wouldn’t you think they have researched that point right to the last letter? Because if the they had simply leaped into the idea without considering what is the most important point, the whole thing would fail. Furthermore, you male mention of my advice to read the Sirius Minerals presentation? Well to be honest if either you or Vanda or both had actually done your homework, you would have all the answers in front of you. So, have a good read tonight, and the let’s see your adverse comments tomorrow?

  42. Harold Locker  March 23, 2012 at 6:49 pm

    Finger Bob – Being a shareholder does NOT mean you are in the employ of the company. And, of course, you do realise that being a shareholder means that you can vote AGAINST the company moving here if you so wanted?

    And so what if someone is up-front with a vested interested? Surely it’s better to know that than have people hiding behind fake names NOT declaring an interest? You can’t have it both ways or there’s no point having the debate in the first place, is there?

    I’m still on the fence on the issue, but one comment in this thread highlights for me why this is a vital issue. I refer you to Martin Smith’s comment – “Im 23 years old, I live in Whitby with my parents as I cant afford a flat. My only hope of employment in the area is summer work in restaurants or pubs. The potash mine could give me and many others the chance of well paid work that we would normally have to leave town to find.”

    To repeat that last line “The potash mine could give me and many others the chance of well paid work that we would normally have to leave town to find.” – we need to think long and hard about do we have the right to deny Martin’s generation a future thats not just tourist based.

    I don’t think we do.

  43. Vanda Inman  March 23, 2012 at 7:05 pm

    Sorry I’ve as yet been unable to add fact to my ‘fiction’ – but have been active in the non political cross party Focus Group to Save Our Town Hall from being sold off. Have been at todays Full Council Meeting and low and hold on the Agenda – Weaponess Valley Car Park, and I could be going slight of hearing but a company called Sirius (or similar) have been test drilling there and having abondoned the site having left a milky white floating substance that is stinking to hell and the residents worried about poisoning have complained. Complained, so much so that it was discussed at todays Full Council meeting.

    I will of course be substantiating my article with facts and research as and when I am willing and able – I don’t dance to the tune of bullies. Meanwhile I shall be writing about my own view on todays Full Councils meeting, which I feel is more urgent. And will be posting the same to RealWhitby as I believe they are the only current publication that tolerates so called ‘peasants’.

  44. admin  March 23, 2012 at 7:16 pm

    More than happy to run your articles Vanda. This one has been excellent and all the ones you have written have featured in the sites top ten this month in terms of views and comments so you must be getting something right. Full marks to you for taking the time to write for us.

    On a side note, the link below shows what I have done today. Been walking and taking pictures in our beautiful unspoilt national park:

    http://www.real-whitby.co.uk/farndale-daffodil-walk

  45. admin  March 23, 2012 at 8:02 pm

    I found this picture quite significant on my walk today as the area in the picture is in the area of the proposed mine.

    http://www.real-whitby.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Farndale-Daffodil-Walk-102.jpg

    A Landscape to care for indeed, and lets hope it is cared for in the future too. The beauty is plain for all to see. Any development in that area, if it is to be allowed, must be very carefully designed. Personally I hope the national park says no. If people are not allowed to fit skylight windows in their houses in the national park then why can someone build a mine ?

  46. Jane Swales  March 23, 2012 at 8:08 pm

    Reports today on CNBC are quite worrying.

    “A company that has been exploring the potential for potash mining in North Dakota said the test results weren’t as promising as hoped and it will focus instead on a project in England.”

    “We had expectations that we would be able to (find) a thick, high-grade potash deposit similar to what you would see in Saskatchewan,” Dickie told The Associated Press. “Our results were not up to that level.”

    “Meanwhile, Sirius is concentrating its efforts on what Starzecki called a “massive” potash deposit in Yorkshire, in north England. On its website, Sirius describes that project as the company’s “main development asset.”

    Ted Hawbaker, of Portal, a critic of the Legislature’s efforts to tax and regulate potash mining, said the land where test drilling was done hasn’t yet been restored to its original condition, even though drilling ceased about a year ago.

    The site is “a mess” and the state Industrial Commission, which granted the drilling permit, hasn’t done anything about it, Hawbaker told a North Dakota legislative committee studying potash taxation.

    “There’s plastic, there’s junk all over. It hasn’t been cleaned up,” Hawbaker said. “It sits there just as they left it.”

    I hope your national Park is treated with more respect.

    • Serious Investor  March 24, 2012 at 11:06 am

      Jane a little bit of selective cut and paste?

      You ommited the following paragraph.

      Ed Murphy, North Dakota’s state geologist, said Dakota Salts would restore the site this spring. The work will include filling in waste disposal pits and removing a short gravel road that provided access to the site, he said.

      The controls whilst drilling in the USA and the UK are quite VERY different. (A little research required)

      Drilling pits are the norm in the USA….these are lined with a plastic liner, drilling muds are allowed to evaporate over a period and once dried are then buried in situ, as stated this will be done this spring….I would hazard a guess, once this has been done ‘the short gravel road’ will be removed, once again returning the land to its original state.

      Unlike the USA,the UK has very, very strict guidelines and controls for disposal of drilling muds/fluids and therefore it would not happen here.

      The area in question in ND currently has 205 rigs in operation, mostly exploring/extracting shale oils….now THAT is where I would have a bee in my bonnet.

      Just for a little balance.

    • Jake Hogan  March 24, 2012 at 6:25 pm

      Sirius Minerals have a bad record of not clearing up after themselves, dont let them make a mess of your national parks.

  47. Serious Investor  March 24, 2012 at 9:04 am

    Martin
    Im 23 years old, I live in Whitby with my parents as I cant afford a flat. My only hope of employment in the area is summer work in restaurants or pubs. The potash mine could give me and many others the chance of well paid work that we would normally have to leave town to find.

    ———————————————–
    And six people vote this comment down?????

    These people should be ashamed of themselves.

    Who are these anonymous people?

    Come hold your hand up and substantiate your rating
    thought not!!!

    Great place to live….but I am afraid I would not want them as my neighbours.

  48. Dave Reeves  March 24, 2012 at 9:35 am

    @Vanda Inman: ‘Have been at todays Full Council Meeting and low and hold on the Agenda – Weaponess Valley Car Park, and I could be going slight of hearing but a company called Sirius (or similar) have been test drilling there and having abondoned the site having left a milky white floating substance that is stinking to hell and the residents worried about poisoning have complained. Complained, so much so that it was discussed at today’s Full Council meeting.’
    I am very interested to see this report of a white substance, that seems to be linked with the ‘drilling operations’. Could you explain just how close this car park is to the drilling area you mention? I don’t live in the area, but the google map shows the drilling area to be well away from the car park, and the gradients concerned would not give the fall of the liquid past the car park. Put this together with the fact that I know of no milky liquid that has to do with any drilling operations.
    Once again your report is biased and unfinished, and having linked these two together did you contact Sirius MInerals to ask them to explain about the ‘leak’ that you obviously are laying on Sirius’s doorstep? If you did please publish the findings, if you didn’t then would you he explain why your ‘reports’ still continue to be mainly fabrication, because this is a vitally important step that North Yorkshire has to take, and the public have a right to know truth, and not unbalanced insinuation that is geared to give weight to your original accusation of ‘rape of the environment’. People have right to know the truth and at any time if unsure should contact Sirius Minerals direct. The most important aspect in this is to produce the massive quantities of potash, without harming the environment, and most certainly whilst protecting the beautiful countryside. There is no argument about that I presume?

    @ Vanda: You say now that at this council meeting, there were drilling operations going on near you, and when leavin

  49. Vincent Vega  March 24, 2012 at 10:11 am

    Vanda you commented…

    Indeed there was plenty of questions about this project that he was unable to answer, because he simply just didn’t know. So, yes whilst a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, lets get the balance right, lets share our knowledge so that an informed decision can be made. We only have until September to research and study before a full planning application is submitted. I will wait to see if Richard will respond further to this article with a view to having an interesting debate before I comment further.
    Oh and meanwhile from Sirius’s own literature Version 1 Autumn 2011; ” the project could create up to 5,0000 jobs…”.

    Vanda, if you really wish to be seen as a balanced writer to this website, it would help your cause if you published the questions that you put to Richard rather than implying that he had little knowledge of the project. That way we could have the type of informed debate that you appear to desire.

    You might also wish to consider the fact that Richard will be in possession of Market sensitive information that he cannot reveal until it is published to the whole Market rather than to one individual like yoursel. I would suggest that you keep an eye out for the Detailed Scoping Study that should be announced sometime towards the end of April. That’s when factual debate should really begin on here. Something I fear is lacking at present.

    Given your inacurrate and sensational headlines, I suspect that Richard would perhaps be less motivated to have a debate with you. In fact I am also questioning why I am responding to you now.

    You also state…

    “I will of course be substantiating my article with facts and research as and when I am willing and able – I don’t dance to the tune of bullies.”

    If you are going to label anybody that politely disagrees with you and points you to the inacurracies of your musings as “bullies”, then sadly that negates any informed debate on here.

  50. Vincent Vega  March 24, 2012 at 10:44 am

    FAO Vanda,

    Here you go, some facts for you…

    Weaponness Valley ‘chemical leak’ probe

    8:44am Friday 14th October 2011 in Ryedale news

    AN INVESTIGATION has been launched after a suspected chemical leak in a beck in North Yorkshire.

    Residents living near the Weaponness Valley coach park in Scarborough were yesterday advised to close doors and windows because of the smell, with the Environment Agency and Scarborough Borough Council taking water samples to try to identify the cause of the problem.

    The council also advised people to keep children and pets away from the area until the investigation was concluded.

    Work is currently taking place on the former gasworks site at the back of the coach park, which is the prospective site for a new depot for the council.

    http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/ryedale/9306297.Weaponness_Valley____chemical_leak____probe/

  51. Dave Reeves  March 24, 2012 at 10:51 am

    Vincent: Fully agree with your comments, and I wonder just what explanation we will get from Vanda, now the real culprit has been found for that ‘white smelly liquid’. Amateur and inaccurate headlines do nothing to give any credibility to the reporter.

  52. Graham Presley  March 24, 2012 at 11:34 am

    Vanda, may I ask where you obtained the information that persuaded you to state that “5000 Americans are coming”. As far as I can see, and I have studied this proposal over some considerable time, the only two linking factors are the campany’s own information where it is stated that 5000 jobs may be created IN TOTAL including all aspects of the process of extracting, processing and shipping the potash, together with the assumed extra service industry jobs that would ensue, and the fact that the company, a British company, has a currently inactive resource in Dakota. Forgive me for being blunt, but is this not so much investigative journalism, more sheer sensationalism? Such comments would be understandable from an ill informed and under researched amateur participant in this debate, but from the pen of a professional I find them quite objectionable.

  53. Stuart Price  March 24, 2012 at 12:09 pm

    Vanda, you are obviously an Amateur and should stick to Town Hall cake sales not get involved with things that will effect people’s lives. Your ‘options’ hamper any value to your articles and I believe the ‘admin’ must be a husband as the responses from that source is as poor.

    • admin  March 24, 2012 at 6:01 pm

      I don’t get this idea of attacking the author, without giving specific points and evidence of why you are right and she is not. But Im willing to let your comment stay in the hope you will come back with some hard facts of your own.

  54. S J Chapman  March 24, 2012 at 1:06 pm

    The attempts by Vanda Inman to mislead readers with blatant lies are shocking — and it is almost as shocking that the Admin here seems to encourage such disinformation. Whichever side of the debate you are on, you lose if you don’t tell the truth. To win an argument you must deal in the facts, otherwise your agenda is transparent and no-one will give credence to anything factual you may want to impart. If one day Sirius Minerals really do poison the water supply, I would urge Ms Inman in the interest of public safety to leave it to someone credible to blow the whistle.

    And to those who see something wrong with the notion that Sirius might eventually make a profit from a potash mine, I can assure you that the mine will never be built unless there’s a profit to be made. So if you believe that, on balance, a new potash mine would benefit the region then you must also accept that the developer has the right to make a profit.

    And please do spare a thought for the risks to Sirius. There is no proof yet that a mine will be viable, nor that planning permission will be granted. And yet they are already investing vast sums in a project which may never return them a penny. IF there is enough potash; IF the potash can be economically mined; IF planning permission can be obtained; and IF funding of over £2bn can be secured to build the mine, then they may eventually show a profit. Until then, they are already investing over £50m in test drills, feasibility studies and much else — none of which they are guaranteed to get back. And a lot of that cash is finding its way into the local economy.

    • admin  March 24, 2012 at 6:12 pm

      I see no great evidence of “blatant lies”. What I do see is an attempt from Sirius to discredit the author and article, which I hasten to add is very transparent. I should remind you that this article will rank high in Google search on this subject for a diversity of keyphrases for years to come. I urge Sirius employees and Shareholders to provide their own hard evidence before they use this site to start calling genuinely concerned residents of the National Park “Liers”, as your comments will remain here well into the future and thus reflect on your company.

  55. Vincent Vega  March 24, 2012 at 1:29 pm

    Admin, I noticed your following post…

    I found this picture quite significant on my walk today as the area in the picture is in the area of the proposed mine.

    http://www.real-whitby.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Farndale-Daffodil-Walk-102.jpg

    Can you point me to any links or documents that suggest that Sirius Minerals plan to site the minehead in the area of the picture you took?

    Thanks in advance

    • admin  March 24, 2012 at 5:58 pm

      Perhaps you could provide me with links to literature which says they do not intend to put it in that area ? My understanding is the mine is to go in the area between Whitby And Scarborough which is in the area shown on the picture, ok it may eventually not be the exact placement but the whole area is one of significant beauty protected by National Park Status, as someone who walks that area on the moors and along the shoreline as an angler this is an area I love dearly. If I’m wrong then please put me right.

  56. A Lindum  March 24, 2012 at 4:07 pm

    I am commenting on this as I work in the international horticulture business, and am involved in advising farmers and growers on increasing crop yields.

    Vanda you state “Now I am not a scientist, I am not a geologist and I’m not an expert on Feeding the World. But I gather that this is all about fertiliser. And I seem to remember from my school days that fertiliser was not always a good thing, with GM crops feeding an ever expanding world population, leading to potential world wide crop failures and a starving population, (perhaps leaving 1 in 100?).”

    As to you being taught that ” fertiliser is not a good thing”, I am afraid reflects poorly on your teachers. Potash is used in all forms of agriculture and horticulture. It is impossible to grow food without it. Even organic growing applies potash to their crops.

    Conflating GM crops with potash is a total red herring. All crops need potash.

    The world population is expanding at 150,000 per day. This will require more food; to increase productivity the plants will need fertiliser.

    As for the decimation of the world population leaving on 1% of the human population, I am afraid you either made this up to be dramatic, or you spend too much of your time on obscure uninformed websites.

    Finally, you mention the benefit only being in the area for 50 years. The estimate is in fact for over 100 years. However, even 50 years takes us to say 2070. I am surprised that you, as an official of the Labour Party that you are not more concerned about the high levels of unemployment in your area, which forces young people to leave the area for employment. Do you not care for your constuents children? Fertiliser companies bring long term, well paid stable employment to an area. It his must not be to the detriment of the other uses of the area, but neither must the area be preserved in aspic at the expense of its residents.

    A fact that you did not mention, maybe because of your official position in the Labour Party, is that the UK now has massive debts, left to us by Mr Brown. A potash mine will pay billions (literally) in taxes each year. If we are to pay our pensioners and hospitals we need this kind of income.

  57. Dave Heselton  March 24, 2012 at 6:23 pm

    Various people keep bringing the subject of unemployment into the argument, and of course like everywhere else, the unemployment rate has shot up recently in Whitby, and like everywhere else it will come back down again when the economy recovers.

    It would be marvelous to see more jobs coming into the area, particularly for young people, jobs – yes, but not at any cost, some costs are just too high.

    When I argue against the desecration of the National Park by those wishing to dig it up, build mines or gas processing plants, I do so not simply in defence of the tourist industry, not simply in defence of everything the National Park stands for, or to protect the environment and landscape, I do so because this is my area, its where I come from, and I want it to be left alone, I want it to be left as it is for me, and for all the thousands upon thousands of other people who love the area.

    I would love to see better prospects for young people in the area, but do not use the desecration of the North York Moors like a gun to the head, they say everything has a price, but some prices are just too high.

    I too am a Labour Party supporter, so Sirrius Minerals if you would like to ask Lord Hutton to give me a call ( Lord Hutton is a Sirrius Minerals director ), I will tell him where to place the potash mine.

  58. admin  March 24, 2012 at 6:40 pm

    Come on then Sirius, lets have the answers ?

    5000 jobs ? long or short term ? as I cant see this plant employing 5000 people once its up and running. local or traveling employees ? All based in North Yorkshire ? Have you considered the impact on the National Park of having 5000 people traveling about on a daily basis. Have you spoke to people who live in the park ? have you spoke to local businesses and gauged their opinions ? Do people want your plant on their doorstep ?

  59. S J Chapman  March 24, 2012 at 7:26 pm

    admin wrote: “I see no great evidence of “blatant lies””
    =======================
    Lie 1. Oh yes, the Americans are definitely coming
    Lie 2. It has been estimated that an army of 5000 (mainly men) will be moving in to Scarborough and Whitby, mainly from the USA
    Lie 3 (or rank bad memory). I seem to remember from my school days that fertiliser was not always a good thing, with GM crops feeding an ever expanding world population, leading to potential world wide crop failures and a starving population
    Lie 4. A company called Sirius (or similar) have been test drilling there and having abondoned the site having left a milky white floating substance that is stinking to hell.

    I’m afraid it is perfectly clear that Ms Inman is weaving a web of blatant disinformation. The case against the proposed potash mine needs to be argued honourably if it is to be listened to.

    I am nothing to do with Sirius by the way. I just don’t like to see people being misled. And, with respect, nor should you.

  60. S J Chapman  March 24, 2012 at 7:36 pm

    admin wrote: “I cant see this plant employing 5000 people once its up and running”
    ===========================
    Neither can Sirius, since as far as I can see, they have only ever claimed around 1,000 people would be employed at the mine with up to 4,000 more employed in the supply chain, including jobs at the remote processing plant wherever it is sited.

    I have also read that Sirius, with the help of a Government grant, are investing in training for local people so that they will be qualified to work at the mine; and that they have been in discussions with local educational establishments to ensure that the relevant knowledge is covered within the curriculum.

    It seems clear that you too are jumping on your soap box without having carried out the basic research to give your comments any value. We really do need a debate about the proposed mine – but we definitely don’t need a debate about the fairy tales that you and Ms Inman are propagating here.

  61. Dave Reeves  March 24, 2012 at 8:45 pm

    Admin “Come on then Sirius, lets have the answers ?
    5000 jobs ? long or short term ? as I cant see this plant employing 5000 people once its up and running. local or traveling employees ? All based in North Yorkshire ? Have you considered the impact on the National Park of having 5000 people traveling about on a daily basis. Have you spoke to people who live in the park ? have you spoke to local businesses and gauged their opinions ? Do people want your plant on their doorstep ?”

    So, now we need to be fortune tellers? Your debate is falling apart. The debate is supposed to be in reply to Vanda’s inaccurate facts, heavily supported by admin as they are well written etc. You come up with all these fantasy questions which are answered perfectly I believe by S. J. Chapman above. Also I do not see anyone calling the residents ‘liars’? Perhaps you could substantiate that claim? I see many of us pointing out a load of inaccurate facts provided by Vanda as basis for campaigning against the Sirius Minerals proposal….is that calling someone a ‘liar’? Because Vanda reports a milky liquid that she feels seems to be there whilst adjacent drilling is taking place, and then we find the local council are themselves investigating a leak from gas board workers! Is that lying or just twisting the facts to support a non existent argument against the mine?
    I know what I think. Anyone writing in support of the project are quoting facts, and whether you like it or not, these facts are written very clearly in the Sirius Minerals presentation that you dislike being reminded of. I feel we have covered most of the interesting points and you sense the same, so are now attempting to plunge the debate into a playground fiasco. If that happens it will be totally due to the handling of this debate by admin, and the weak case provided by Vanda. Read the facts, get to know what the true proposal is all about then debate properly, I think the people of North Yorkshire deserve better.

  62. Vincent Vega  March 24, 2012 at 10:37 pm

    “Perhaps you could provide me with links to literature which says they do not intend to put it in that area ? My understanding is the mine is to go in the area between Whitby And Scarborough”

    Just more swerving in my opinion. You provided the photograph, not me. I never suggested where Sirius were going to site the minehead. YOU DID. So why are you publishing a picture and then denying that you said that this would be the area that they would place the minehead?

    I am getting confused. Are you the administrator or do you have an agenda?

    • admin  March 25, 2012 at 10:42 am

      You seem to be missing the point. If the potash is in the Scarborough to Whitby area, would it not follow that the minehead would also go in that area ? Im guessing it would be pointless to build the minehead to the north of Whitby when the potash is to the south. If I’m wrong I’m happy for you to tell me why. Where ever the minehead goes within that area it is going to be slap bang in the middle of The National Park. Its an area of outstanding natural beauty so any industrial type building you put in there is going to be an eyesore.

      • Serious Investor  March 25, 2012 at 4:59 pm

        May I suggest Vanda and Admin read a little about what can be achieved here, this with one of Europes LARGEST onshore oilfields.

        A classic case of tourism vs oil exploration/extraction and how the two CAN go hand in hand in harmony.

        If you go to Poole Harbour, the residents at Sandbanks who live on the fourth most expensive plot of land in the world just a mile away will tell you they do not even know it is there.

        A few extracts and a link for full report.

        The Wytch Farm team has enabled drilling and subsequent oil production to take place from a *four acre, onshore site hidden from public view*

        “Such an achievement could not have been made without forming real partnerships with our contractors, external agencies, such as Dorset County Council, English Nature and the Dorset Wildlife Trust, and other statutory, voluntary and community organisations.
        “Such partnerships, which have characterised Wytch Farm’s history over the past ten years, have been a key factor in successfully integrating Europe’s largest onshore oilfield into such a uniquely sensitive environment.

        http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=2001682

        Google Wytch Farm for more info.

        http://www.overseaspropertymall.com/property-type/celebrities-property/the-fourth-most-valuable-property-in-the-world-sandbanks-dorset/

  63. A Lindum  March 24, 2012 at 10:42 pm

    admin, you state ( you)see no great evidence of “blatant lies”.

    I gave a couple of examples:

    1 The introduction of GM crops into the discussion about Potash.

    2. Stage statement by Vanda that there is a chance of worldwide crop failures leading to 99% of the population starving. (There comes a point where hyperbole becomes mendacious).

    3. Reference to Sirius Minerals as being an American Company. There is nothing at all American about the company except they own property in the USA.

    This is not an exhaustive list of inaccuracies in the article.

    Finally Admin yourself, please note that you refer to the location of the mine. I think you will find that Sirius Minerals have said that all the processing will be done outside of the national park, and that the actual location of the mine has not yet been decided.

  64. Serious Investor  March 25, 2012 at 8:01 am

    Admin

    *As someone who walks that area on the moors and along the shoreline as an angler this is an area I love dearly.*
    ——————————-

    Have you ever heard the saying…?

    “Love is Blind”

    Maybe to continue this debate you need to remove this very strong emotion from your thinking, then perhaps your views would have more credence.

    I too can say, I love the area and I do…..but it is not undying love……

    Just a thought.

  65. mhc  March 25, 2012 at 12:17 pm

    As an independent observer, I have been following the posts relating to Sirius with interest.

    The presentation of facts by the informed clearly blows out of the water, the fictious, emotive and malicious stories being put forward by those against the proposed scheme.

    I am amazed that Vanda and Admin continue to argue the case or is it the case that Vanda is seeking some form of personal recognition regardless of what it will take

  66. Dave Reeves  March 25, 2012 at 3:29 pm

    My comment is aimed now at the genuine local residents of North Yorkshire, and not the biased an ill informed duo of vandadmin. The debate for the proposal from everyone who has p[posted in support has been at a very high level of politeness and factual answers that involve the true details about the mining project. Not, as is being farmed out by these two intrepid story writers to create interest and also sales in the paper itself.
    May I pose a serious question and it is this. If this was a discovery of a massive amount of gold instead of its agricultural equivalent would we be having this one side debate? I don’t think so. The company concerned here, Sirius Minerals, has been up front and very honest about its discoveries and the global significance of this desperately needed commodity of potash. Having read the publicly available literature that has been provided by the company, and read accounts of interviews given by Chris Fraser the CEO, I am absolutely certain that the appearance of the mine is as important as the technical ability of the machinery involved.
    So much research has been done since the Boulby mine, and so many huge improvements have been made available through new High Tech, machines, that the mine-head buildings themselves are suggested to be similar to barns and farm buildings already visible as you drive around the moors. I agree 100% that the appearance and the considerate production of these buildings must be carried out under strict supervision, and that also is planned by this company. the find is just as valuable as gold and is irreplaceable and as such a vital ingredient in food production. For that reason I am fully behind the proposal and not just for selfish reasons, because it is in my country, but for the ability to improve production across the world in places where they don’t have the advantage of beautiful green valley’s and magic forests and moors, but where every day is a struggle to survive. As we argue and debate the commercial or eco reasons we should consider that sometimes a sacrifice of perfection has to be made for the sake of others. That is really the basic reason why potash is so valuable. Given that, then so what if investors pour their money into a company that is prepared to carry out this massive engineering feat, to provide the potash first, and yes to make a profit. They are people who are investing in an opportunity for your area, and I will just repeat that they are investing in a project that will help to improve life in your area. When else did anyone invest? But that profit would also be shared amongst the local residents, and the county of North Yorkshire in so many ways from employment, to business creation, to finance into the local councils to improve amenities. look at this positive side and don’t just throw its value aside because of such weak cases put forward by admin and Vanda. Consider for yourselves and by the way, the Planning Authorities themselves will be looking at every point we have covered before any decision is made.

  67. Graham Presley  March 25, 2012 at 3:34 pm

    The debate is sadly tinged by politcal slant, and, with respect, no one should seek to abuse a position in the media to distort the known facts about anything. A reminder of the remarks contained in the opening statement at the Leverson Inquiry. “What the press dont know they try to buy, if they can not buy they steal, and what they can’t steal they simply make up.” This whole debate is centred around the accuracy of the claims made in the main article. That the writer is against the proposal is completely acceptable, providing that the arguments against are expressed accurately and honestly. However, claims that are inaccurate and, on the face of it, a wild exaggeration, should never be put in front of the reading public. The press has a duty of care not to print such factual inexactitudes as those presented here in my honest opinion.

  68. mhc  March 25, 2012 at 4:37 pm

    does anyone know why the publication is titled “the Real Whitby magazine”? has this publication been set up in opposition to an estalished local publication?

  69. James Simpson  March 25, 2012 at 6:29 pm

    “I am amazed that Vanda and Admin continue to argue the case or is it the case that Vanda is seeking some form of personal recognition regardless of what it will take” – Haven’t you heard There’s Your Way, My Way and The Real Whitby Way that only accepts what it believes to be truth. You could point at a blue sky and they’ll claim it’s green all year just to save face with their followers.

    I shall be contacting the Scarborough & Whitby Constituency Labour Party to enquire of the appropriateness of using this website as a platform – especially given its prove record of being very one sided when needs be.

  70. Vincent Vega  March 26, 2012 at 12:42 am

    James, I hear your points. But before you take any further action I suggest that Vanda and admin are given further time to respond (not dictated by me) as Vanda has gone very quiet since most of her claims have been proven horribly incorrect.

    • admin  March 26, 2012 at 4:34 pm

      I understand that Vanda is now working on her next article for the site, which is unrelated to this story. I think she has stated her case within the original article and in her early comments. I believe she has acted professionally and with dignity by not getting drawn into an online argument which some of you seem to want, something, sadly, I cant really say about Sirius Minerals. However we do have another article on the Potash Mine Saga from local transparency campaigner Nigel Ward. The article will be live on the site from Thursday evening. Having already had a sneak preview I think its one you will all enjoy, and one I hope will be every bit as debate provoking as this one.

  71. mhc  March 26, 2012 at 1:15 am

    Surely the next step is to expose Vanda and Admin publicly for their wilful and malicious action. They have had their chance to retract/ apologise for their gross mis representation of the Sirius project. If someone in the whitby / Scarborough area can advise me the best medium to expose these untruths, I will be happy to take the lead.

    Vanda/admin cannot be allowed too get away with their article without being publicly challenged. Naturally if they retract, then this will needs to be made public in the next edition of the “real whitby magazine. They should not be allowed to get away with being so destructive and misleading.

    I apologise to the informed who have been so reasonable in shooting down Vanda/admins comments in but they must be “brought to book” not for their opinion but the lies they have put forward.

    • admin  March 26, 2012 at 10:54 am

      You can publically challenge us right here, No problem. You could try a letter to the editor of the Whitby Gazette and Im sure there are other newspapers etc who would take letters to the editor. Im all for open debate, infact I defend that right for you very strongly against people who think the site should not allow it.

  72. Dave Heselton  March 26, 2012 at 8:03 am

    I see now that some posters are criticising both the administrator and the author of the article, there is in written terms, a heated debate going on, an argument, and both sides of the argument are airing their views freely.

    I dont know of any other local publication where people, the public, can do this.

  73. Dave Reeves  March 26, 2012 at 9:45 am

    @ Dave Heselton
    I see now that some posters are criticising both the administrator and the author of the article, there is in written terms, a heated debate going on, an argument, and both sides of the argument are airing their views freely.

    I dont know of any other local publication where people, the public, can do this.
    Well done for that observation, wouldn’t it be great if we could all have this sort of debate on other issues that affect our lives. I think that this attempt by Vanda Inman and ‘admin’ has simply brought the true facts about the proposal to the surface. The mire of wicked, or evil happenings like the ‘rape’ of the environment are simply a fabrication in Inman’s eyes, supported by ‘admin’ who see a vibrant debate as a financial success, could this possibly be classed as a ‘rape’ of the truth to gain recognition or favour? I wonder. No company on God’s earth, or in Yorkshire’s case in God’s country, would propose to place a mine in such a beautiful piece of countryside that is treasured by the nation, without ensuring that their plans included first and foremost to protect and enhance the countryside, and to extract the potash with the very least affect. It would be suicide to propose to desecrate the fields etc. as is being reported, and with the massive investment expected I see an exciting and very prosperous future for North Yorks., and yes for every single investor who has put their money into the project, and if they have faith in Sirius why worry about the project, just look forward to it.

  74. Dave Heselton  March 26, 2012 at 10:57 am

    @ Dave Reeves

    I agree with some of your points, but I do issue with other points which you raise.

    The bottom line is that there are no detailed proposals because Sirius have not published or announced any, no one knows where this mining operation will be positioned or placed.

    No one knows what the centre of operations will consist of, what it will look like, how big it might be, how tall, how visible, and we have no idea what impact it may have on the environment, on wildlife, on our roads, and so to a large degree there is nothing to argue about.

    What I would say is that I think you are rather naive if you realy believe that mining companies would never harm the landscape or environment, these companies are interested in only one thing, and that is profit.

    Sirius Minerals will try to make their proposals as acceptable as possible, because they have to, they have no choice, because this is going to be an extremely sensetive planning application inside a National Park.

    It is on this basis that I personaly object, we do not have industrial operations, mines or large scale developments inside National Parks, such developments are completely and totaly against everything that National Parks stand for.

    An earlier contributor stated that it would only be a tiny fraction of the moors, but so bloody what ?, and the proposed gas extraction above Thornton le Dale would be another little bit of the moors, and the possible oil or gas wells at Westerdale would be another little bit – open door policy ? – free for all ?

    I repeat what I stated in another post, we either have National Parks or we dont, and if we do then we stick to the principles.

  75. admin  March 26, 2012 at 11:10 am

    Excellent stuff David. It would be hypocritical of the parks authority to let anyone develop in the park given the strict rules they apply to everyone else. A friend of mine bought her home in the National Park. Lived there quite happily for 2 years, then came a knock at the door. A gentleman announced himself as National Parks planning authority and asked how many skylight windows they had in the attic bedroom. “Three” was the answer. “Well you only have permission for 2″. My friend explained that she bought the house 2 years earlier with 3 windows in the attic. To cut a long story short, the outcome was the National Park said tough luck, and she had to take one out at her own expense. Now this was a beautiful little house, in a lovely village where noone could see how many windows she had in the roof except the national park. So if a single window is a problem, why oh why does anyone think a potash mine isnt. Food for thought.

  76. Dave Reeves  March 26, 2012 at 1:35 pm

    @ Dave Heselton: You have made the following points:
    “The bottom line is that there are no detailed proposals because Sirius have not published or announced any, no one knows where this mining operation will be positioned or placed.”

    As this whole venture is in the exploration phase, it is obvious that no site can be proposed. It then follows that the accusations of ‘rape of the Environment’ made by Vanda Inman and supported by ‘admin’are ridiculous. The company are aware of the completely correct concern of residents and those with a special interest, and as such are researching all the possibilities that will protect and maintain the beauty of the moors. To not consider this point as one of the main considerations would be suicide for any such proposal.

    “No one knows what the centre of operations will consist of, what it will look like, how big it might be, how tall, how visible, and we have no idea what impact it may have on the environment, on wildlife, on our roads, and so to a large degree there is nothing to argue about.”

    I agree entirely Dave, and with that statement you have answered the question of why is there such an aggressive anti-argument at this time? On TV. the CEO Chris Fraser stated that the visual impact of the mining buildings was of major concern to Sirius, and further suggested that they would look to designs that would mimic existing farm buildings and so blend in with the countryside as is. That to me is someone who shares your concern, and also mine.

    “What I would say is that I think you are rather naive if you really believe that mining companies would never harm the landscape or environment, these companies are interested in only one thing, and that is profit.”

    That is just a personal view and has no substance. There is a group of people called the ‘Planning Authority’ who have the interest of the area in their trust. I know that and you know that, so don’t you think that someone investing Millions of pounds into a proposal would ensure that every regulation etc. was carried out to the letter? I believe that, and I also believe the massive global potential of the project as do many local businesses I’m sure around the area….and that is not naivety Dave, it’s just good business.

    “Sirius Minerals will try to make their proposals as acceptable as possible, because they have to, they have no choice, because this is going to be an extremely sensetive planning application inside a National Park.”

    There, you said it yourself, so what are you worried about? Of course they will adapt to any objection they believe in the project and its value to everyone.

    “It is on this basis that I personaly object, we do not have industrial operations, mines or large scale developments inside National Parks, such developments are completely and totaly against everything that National Parks stand for.”

    That’s another point Dave, and I make this in all honesty, as you said Sir, It is a National Park and does not just belong to North Yorkshire, but all of us on this wonderful Island. That means that I am as proud of the beauty and heritage as you are, and have been for the past 72 years. So there are things in this modern world that have to change for the benefit of the youth, for progression and in the case of potash..global survival for millions of people.

    “An earlier contributor stated that it would only be a tiny fraction of the moors, but so bloody what ?, and the proposed gas extraction above Thornton le Dale would be another little bit of the moors, and the possible oil or gas wells at Westerdale would be another little bit – open door policy ? – free for all ?”

    So, that’s it, you have just hit the nail on the head. It is not so much the proposal by Sirius you object to, but the fact that now you see loads of other applications coming in from gas extraction etc.? Given that you have just posted there are no definite locations, and there are no definite plans of buildings etc for this project, then how can you include other possible projects as a basis to object to this one? Sounds a bit like chicken-liken to me, running around shouting that the sky is about to fall in.

    I repeat what I stated in another post, we either have National Parks or we dont, and if we do then we stick to the principles.

    • Jane Swales  March 26, 2012 at 4:54 pm

      You sound so desperate Dave, like a man with a lot to lose. Your opinions may be valid but your style sucks. Hang loose. You have made your point. Relax.

  77. Dave Reeves  March 26, 2012 at 1:39 pm

    @ Dave Heselton follow on from above…
    Correction…
    “I repeat what I stated in another post, we either have National Parks or we dont, and if we do then we stick to the principles”

    I rest my case Dave, there really is no substance to state that in any way this proposal would change the fact that the National Park will always be the National Park…with the emphasis on ‘National’

  78. S J Chapman  March 26, 2012 at 1:58 pm

    Dave Heselton wrote: “and the proposed gas extraction above Thornton le Dale would be another little bit of the moors, and the possible oil or gas wells at Westerdale would be another little bit – open door policy ? – free for all ?”
    =====================
    I sympathise very much with this argument and would be horrified if the proposed Sirius mine should turn out to be the thin end of the wedge. However, I think the national minerals/energy policies should safeguard the national park from oil or gas development since these can be extracted in other parts of the country which are not within a national park. Potash is different because it doesn’t occur anywhere else in the country. If the nation needs potash it can only extract it from beneath the North Yorks Moor — or pay a premium to import it.

    The existing Boulby mine has been worked for 40 years now and must be approaching its shelf date. No doubt it could be expanded and new shafts sunk but that would result in similar objections to the ones we have now. In any event, Boulby only supplies around 50% of the UK’s potash needs — and it is focused on mining the more common muriate of potash whereas the Sirius mine would extract the scarcer and more expensive sulphate of potash (which is used to fertilise only certain crops), as well as some important by-products.

    In any event, this discussion will become more focused once Sirius publish their proposal for the minehead. Until then, we are running scared of shadows.

  79. mhc  March 26, 2012 at 2:00 pm

    I can understand the point being made by David Heselton in the final sentence of his post.

    I thought what is being disputed is the inaccuracies, lies, emotive terms and poor research etc by Vanda et al.published in the Real Whitby magazine

    On the real whitby magazine web site I see they have a photogallery including a number of local retail outlets and other businesses.

    I wonder what these retailers would think if they were aware that the Real whitby magazine has been enjoined with Vanda et al with her “piece” in their magazine. I sure they would not be impressed that Vanda et al were telling lies etc which could prejudice their local economy. will be interested to get their reaction when they learn what has happened.

    Surely the Real Whitby magazine must publish a disclaimer relating to Vanda’s article and print an article correcting the lies etc.

    • Glenn Kilpatrick Site Owner And Administrator  March 26, 2012 at 4:52 pm

      A disclaimer and another article ? I don’t think so. I fully support Vanda and what she writes for the site. Please spend time contacting whoever you choose to tell that our site prints lies, its not a problem to me, but I wont be giving you space on here to do it, and one thing you will come to find out about me is that I never respond to threats of any nature and I certainly will not be told how to run the website I own and pay the bill for. End of debate on that one right here.

  80. Dave Heselton  March 26, 2012 at 2:46 pm

    No matter which way you present the argument, and no matter how well you wish to dress up or disguise facts, the bottom line is that when the detailed plans are finaly put to the National Park, they will be for a major development.

    You will not convince me that a mining venture with associated works, ventelation and ancillary / support buildings can be made to look just like a local farm building, who are you kidding. ?

    And you realy believe that a development of this scale and nature employing “up to 1000 people” will be unoticable, and would have little or no impact on the surroundings or the National Park.

    As a defender of what the National Park is supposed to stand for, I have every right to connect the three current applicants for extracting natural resources from within the park because all three are a detraction from the “stautory purpose” of the National Park as defined in 1951.

    We have to have industry,we must have mines and factories and chimneys, and we cannot survive without oil or gas.

    We have to have National Parks and areas that we protect, we must keep these special places free from factories and chimneys, or in this case, mines and gas processing plants.

    And it realy does not matter if the resources under the moors could make people wealthy, we leave them where they are, and instead these companies can go dig and mine somewhere else, after all there are lots and lots of other places where potash can be found.

    The forthcoming argument, debate or battle which will surely ensue once Sirius publish their plans will be interesting, on paper it should be a foregone conclusion, the mine should be automaticly refused with little or no fuss.

    But I am suspicious about certain aspects of this whole project, it seems that the project came from nowhere after the general election; And why spend so much money and time in a project that, on the face of it could simply be refused – rejected.

    Why did Sirius Minerals bring in Lord Hutton ?, someone with many contacts in various ministries of government. ?

    It makes you wonder if anyone from Sirius has been to dinner at 10 downing street.

    • admin  March 26, 2012 at 4:26 pm

      Well given the recent happenings in the national news where people were selling the chance to meet the prime minister, its perfectly possible that they will have been to dinner at 10 Downing Street. Another well written response David, Im really enjoying reading what you have to say.

      • Serious Investor  March 26, 2012 at 4:54 pm

        Ah……….

        Dave H.

        Is this now becoming a political debate?

        A few insinuations in your last post.

        Are the government in on it?

        Is it in the National interests?

        DH states………
        *And it realy does not matter if the resources under the moors could make people wealthy, we leave them where they are, and instead these companies can go dig and mine somewhere else, after all there are lots and lots of other places where potash can be found.*

        End

        Please can you tell me where else one can get 6 billon tonnes and possibly more of Polyhalite?

        As the popular ad goes “This is not just ordinary potash”……………..This is M&S quality Polyhalite.

        Will leave you to research the difference.

  81. Vincent Vega  March 26, 2012 at 3:37 pm

    David, Chris France (Director Of Planning at North Yorks National Park Authority) has already stated that the planning application will most likely be decided by Central Govt.

  82. Dave Reeves  March 26, 2012 at 4:04 pm

    Vincent: Thanks for that that in fact confirms the status as a National Park, which is as it should be with something as precious as this area is.

  83. Graham Presley  March 26, 2012 at 4:46 pm

    Why does this debate have to become political? In Scotland, a company called Scotgold has achieved planning permission to mine gold in the National Park. How did they satisfy the locals and the Park Authority? By careful discussion, design and execution of a sympathetic development. Why should this not happen here? If reasonable people put aside their soap boxes, and engage with the company and the planners and the Park authority, then this vital job creation scheme can be realised to the reasonable sitisfaction of all. The Parks are not museums, they are living breathing facilities for the whole nation to enjoy. No one can pretend that the views they cherish are untouched by the hand of man. What we view as an area of great natural beauty today may well have been sculpted by mankind over the centuries, nature has a fantastic ability to adapt and enhance simply by the passage of time.

  84. admin  March 26, 2012 at 5:22 pm

    Please dont forget to have a click through the links at the bottom of the article, in the area where it says further reading.

  85. mhc  March 26, 2012 at 5:22 pm

    THe probable reason why the discusssion has become political is to divert away from vanda’s lies inaccuracies and fiction of what what started this exchange in the first place – Interesting that they have gone quiet – an obvious admission of creative fabrication.

    • admin  March 26, 2012 at 5:28 pm

      Ah, I think not. Im still here. As already stated several times, Vanda is focusing on her next article for Real Whitby, she has stated her case in her article and in her early comments and I understand she has nothing more to say. She has chosen not to be drawn into an online slanging match with you, which reflects well on her, and quite negatively on you for continually trying to set one off. Again end of debate on that one.

  86. admin  March 26, 2012 at 5:33 pm

    Does anyone know if there is any truth that local landowners have already sold or bartered mining rights to their land in return for cash and/or company stocks and shares ?

  87. S J Chapman  March 26, 2012 at 6:00 pm

    Admin, I hope so — otherwise Sirius have been doing their exploratory drills on land where they have no right to drill.

    Sometimes, we should engage brain before going into print.

    If this proposed potash mine is likely to be the source of ongoing discussion here, I wonder if it would be worth your while doing a modicum of basic research on the Sirius website? This would answer all your questions in 5 minutes and might also prevent anyone making themselves look foolish.

    You might start with the first edition of the Sirius Community Newsletter – which I suspect neither you nor Ms Inman have read:
    http://www.siriusminerals.com/images/stories/yp-news-pdfs/2012-01yp-comm-newsletter.pdf

    And from this prominent section of their website, you would find out exactly what lies beneath your feet – while also learning that Sirius have acquired mineral rights to over 600 square kilometres of land and sea, which they most certainly have paid for:
    http://www.siriusminerals.com/york-potash-project#uk

    I don’t know if you would term yourself a journalist or merely a debate facilitator/stirrer, but either way, research is recommended. Knowledge is power.

    • admin  March 26, 2012 at 7:08 pm

      Well that verifies something I was told today about the local land owners having sold the right to mine, which would explain their support of the project which I was surprised at. But I guess money talks.

      Ive read all the Glossy Sirius literature which was kindly shared with me by Vanda. It does not answer a single question regarding my main concern which is the visual effects of mine buildings in a National Park, the literature dances around the main issues, and can be described at best as “Very Woolly”. At the risk of repeating myself, again, there is no way anyone can place a mine in the middle of a National Park and suggest that it wont have a significant impact on the visual aspect of an area of recognised natural beauty. It cant be done regardless of what Sirius print on Glossy flyers and their website.

    • admin  March 26, 2012 at 7:18 pm

      Quote S J Chapman – “I don’t know if you would term yourself a journalist or merely a debate facilitator/stirrer

      No, none of them, just an average working class lad from Whitby with a love of our town, its stunning coastline and surrounding moors. Nothing more, nothing less.

  88. Dave Reeves  March 26, 2012 at 6:12 pm

    @ Graham Presley.
    Thanks for that article Graham, and for me that is one of the most truthful and informative information to come from this debate. I have always believed that we must accept and move with the times, and that sometimes man has to invade nature for progress and in this case for survival. this park is a National Park, and so far it has been treated by the instigators as a personal treasure. It is available to the whole Nation Scotland, Wales, and Ireland as well as England and we should be proud of the way our National parks are protected.
    @ admin: How sad that you initially support a debate, intending to let everyone air their views, but when you find the initial facts were totally incorrect, and Vanda Inman rightly got a lot of flack, helped along by your constant statements of full supporyt…you now pull ‘rank’ because you own the site? What is this Glen Kilpatrick. On the one hand you deny the political edge and on the other look for an invitation to dinner? If that comment is not political then what is. All in support are Conservative/Liberal and all against are Labour. Come on man get real.

  89. Vincent Vega  March 26, 2012 at 7:12 pm

    “Ah, I think not. Im still here. As already stated several times, Vanda is focusing on her next article for Real Whitby, she has stated her case in her article and in her early comments and I understand she has nothing more to say. She has chosen not to be drawn into an online slanging match with you, which reflects well on her, and quite negatively on you for continually trying to set one off. Again end of debate on that one.”

    I object to being labelled as one that wishes to engage in an online slanging match. I have obviously made the mistake on here of pointing out the erroneous statements made by Vanda that she has dressed up as fact and you label people like myself as drawing her into a slanging match, whilst she pidgeon hole’s anybody that questions her sensationalistic claims as bullies. You claim to want debate on here but from what I can see the quality or accuracy of views is irrelevant provided it is in support of objecting to allowing this project to go forward.

    Not really the ideal conditions for informed debate I fear.

    As for your suggestion of clicking on the links at the foot of the article, all I can say if they are anything like this article then I would rather read my 5 year old niece’s cop of The Cat In The Hat.

    I am still awaiting Vanda’s admission that she got it wrong on many points.

  90. Vincent Vega  March 26, 2012 at 7:13 pm

    “Ah, I think not. Im still here. As already stated several times, Vanda is focusing on her next article for Real Whitby, she has stated her case in her article and in her early comments and I understand she has nothing more to say. She has chosen not to be drawn into an online slanging match with you, which reflects well on her, and quite negatively on you for continually trying to set one off. Again end of debate on that one.”

    I object to being labelled as one that wishes to engage in an online slanging match. I have obviously made the mistake on here of pointing out the erroneous statements made by Vanda that she has dressed up as fact and you label people like myself as drawing her into a slanging match, whilst she pidgeon hole’s anybody that questions her sensationalistic claims as bullies. You claim to want debate on here but from what I can see the quality or accuracy of views is irrelevant provided it is in support of objecting to allowing this project to go forward.

    Not really the ideal conditions for informed debate I fear.

    As for your suggestion of clicking on the links at the foot of the article, all I can say if they are anything like this article then I would rather read my 5 year old niece’s copy of The Cat In The Hat.

    I am still awaiting Vanda’s admission that she got it wrong on many points.

  91. Vincent Vega  March 26, 2012 at 7:15 pm

    Just noticed I have had 3 thumbs down clicks for posting verifiable facts regarding what Chris France has publically stated.

    That says it all about this site.

    • Whitby Warrior  March 26, 2012 at 7:24 pm

      You would have had another 200 if it would let me click it more than once. What an arrogant man you are.

  92. Vincent Vega  March 26, 2012 at 7:19 pm

    admin, can I ask; is your name Tom Chadwick?

  93. Glenn Kilpatrick Site Owner And Administrator  March 26, 2012 at 7:22 pm

    My Name IS Glenn Kilpatrick, Flat 2,18 John Street, Whitby, YO21 3ET. 07879451837

  94. Vincent Vega  March 26, 2012 at 7:34 pm

    Whitby Warrior, so I am arrogant for quouting what The Director of Planning has publicaly stated?

    I fear that your name gives it away. The internet is full of keyboard warriors with little factual information to add to the debate other than abuse.

  95. Terri Groves  March 26, 2012 at 7:42 pm

    If Glenn who claims to own this site is not a journalist then why does the site say it is a magazine?

    • Dont Feed The Moose  March 26, 2012 at 7:47 pm

      Good question Col.

  96. admin  March 26, 2012 at 8:13 pm

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-13539281

    Robin Gray, who runs a 215-acre farm at Harwood Dale, said: “I think the majority of people are… concerned as to what is it going to be, where is it going to be, what is it going to look like and what are the impacts going to be environmentally.

    “We do live in one of the most spectacular parts of the world and, with the heritage coast and the national parks, the tourism industry could be devastated.
    Earth’s core

    “The sensible approach to take is for Sirius to make very, very clear what their aims and ambitions are.

    “To divide and conquer and invite small groups of people to exclusive meetings is not in my opinion a very clever and very sound way to make a judgement for the future.”

  97. Pipkin  March 27, 2012 at 10:38 am

    http://simpletimetables.blogspot.co.uk/

    Found this in the list of links mentioned by admin. Who owns that blog.

  98. Andrea Smith  March 27, 2012 at 10:40 am

    Gee this is getting boring. Same 3 or 4 people repeating themselves non stop. Are any of them even from the area, Sounds like they are all Sirius employees or shareholders. Change the record folks its stuck.

  99. Vincent Vega  March 27, 2012 at 1:02 pm

    Andrea, I think that you will find that most of the debate surrounds the inacurracies in Vanda’s post. Many subsequent requests to her on here to acknowledge these has fallen on deaf ears.

  100. Andrea Smith  March 27, 2012 at 1:20 pm

    Vincent, I appreciate your point. Alas, if Vanda does not wish to reply to you, for what ever reason, asking the same questions over and over again soon gets boring for the rest of us. I spoke to some friends in the singing kettle this morning. They said they had wanted to comment on this story as they disagreed strongly with the mine coming into our National Park, but you and the others had put her off saying anything by dominating the debate with repetitive comments.

    • Serious Investor  March 27, 2012 at 2:10 pm

      They said they had wanted to comment on this story as they disagreed strongly with the mine coming into our National Park, but you and the others had put her off saying anything by dominating the debate with repetitive comments.
      ——————————————-
      Andrea

      I would advise as many people as you can into this debate, it is a free open board, as admin has stated.

      If local people have a reasonable objection/question other than just ‘I do not want it here!’ and can justify their objection in their comments, what is the problem?

      I am interested as an investor and take heed of any viable reasons not to mine in that area, ethical investment is now an important part of the Financial Institutions and the Market in general.

      It would be sad if people have a voice but did not use it, for the reasons you have written.

      p.s. I would never invest in shale oil fracking for instance.

      • Andrea Smith  March 27, 2012 at 4:08 pm

        Have you invested your own money or have you been given shares as a sell out land owner ?

  101. Vincent Vega  March 27, 2012 at 1:48 pm

    Well I hope that your friend does post as debating is supposed to be what this blog is all about.

    It’s when inacurrate opinions are dressed up as facts that the waters get a little muddied.

    The simple matter at hand here is whether or not Sirius Minerals can put forward a plan which satisfy’s all of the concerns of local residents. If they cannot, then it wil simply be rejected and rightly so.

    Have you had a chance to look at the National Planning Policy Framework document issued today?

  102. liveandlet  March 27, 2012 at 2:49 pm

    My guess would be that posters on here are all 55+ trying to cling on to their youth and worth. Leave this to the powers that be on both sides and stop being boring, repetitive saddo’s. Who do you really think you are? Grow old gracefully.

  103. Jane Swales  March 27, 2012 at 3:16 pm

    Hmmm. The order from head office to moderate the hectoring tone may have arrived a couple of days too late. Damage limitation from here on in then, is it?

    • Tony Tyreman  March 27, 2012 at 4:14 pm

      I totally agree. Whoever these people are, employees or investors of Sirius, they have brought shame on the company in the underhand way they have dominated the whole discussion. Constantly repeating the same lines over and over again. I wonder if some of these people are the sell out farmers and landowners who have been given stocks in return for mining rights. I heard that high ranking members of the local labour party have been given shares and wanted it all kept hush hush.

  104. Dave Reeves  March 27, 2012 at 3:53 pm

    Now which head office would that be….Labour HQ or ‘Admin’s Office? If that comment is directed at myself or any other regular posters, then I do not recognise the reason for your term ‘hectoring’. According to the dictionary that mean ‘sintimidate, browbeat, harass, torment, plague; coerce, strong-arm; threaten, menace; informal bulldoze.’ Would you please explain just where we ‘hectors’ have qualified in our posts? I have checked the lot and the only one I can find that may just qualify was:-

    :Andrea Smith
    March 22, 2012 at 2:22 pm
    Where could you possibly put a mine in the National Park without it being a complete eyesore. North Yorkshire Moors National Park is an area of outstanding natural beauty. There is thousands of years of history, not to mention the spectacular Yorkshire Heritage Coast with places like Hayburn wyke and Cloughton wyke amongst many other beautiful places. You cant stick a mine in the middle of this place its obscene to even suggest it. Sirius keep out of OUR Natioanl Park you money grabbing tyrants.

    I rest my case.

  105. Anita Belchamber  March 27, 2012 at 4:18 pm

    Hi Im the friend that Andrea mentions, and yes I was put off from using the site because of people like Serious Investor, Dave Reeves And Vince Venga. It would be almost impossible for me to say what I think because these people would try belittle me as they have done others. Please admin, get a grip and sort out these people who post the same negative stuff over and over and over again.

  106. Anita Belchamber  March 27, 2012 at 4:29 pm

    I have been watching the facebook page of Real Whitby. No sign of a Vincent Venga, Serious Investor Or Dave Reeves. Maybe they are not real people at all but pseudonyms of one person or company with an agenda. Maybe they are the Labour Party people who got the stocks and shares mentioned above.

  107. Dave Reeves  March 27, 2012 at 5:31 pm

    Just for the record, I am in UKIP and would never dream of voting Labour. Very sorry that my comments have been taken this way, This is a very important topic and it is important for both sides to get their point over, so go ahead the floor is yours. I have enjoyed being able to comment and had no intention of becoming intimidating. So, it’s all yours now and good luck.

  108. admin  March 27, 2012 at 6:08 pm

    Just for information purposes, there will be a new article out this Thursday Evening about the Potash Situation. Nigel Ward has already written the article and Ive had a sneak preview. It should be live on site from 6pm Thursday evening and forms part of Nigel’s regular column – In My View

    In My View By Nigel Ward

  109. Serious Investor  March 28, 2012 at 7:31 am

    Well good morning ‘The Real Whitby’

    You will be be pleased to know that I have decided to no longer post comment on this subject’A Potash Dilemma’ due to my poor attempts at encouraging debate.

    I do not consider my comments have insulted anyone, nor have I in anyway been untruthful or misleading, however, some of your readers/posters do and in my opinion have an agenda that is plain for all to see.

    I will leave you now to your…
    © ‘Happy Clappy Glee Club’

    Without my contrarian view….and leave you to argue with yourselves.

    Have a good day one and all.

    p.s. Anita….whats facebook? :o)

  110. Vincent Vega  March 28, 2012 at 9:32 am

    Hi Anita, Good to see that you have taken the plunge here.

    I’m sorry if you feel that by posting facts that I can back up with verifiable public domain links, that I am somehow belittling people when responding to some of their posts on here.

    I’m also unsure how these facts can be viewed as negative, they’re just facts.

    So if I question some of the posts on here I will do my best not to belittle them.(not that I believe that I have previously)

    I do have a question regarding the comments made by Tony Tyreman on the subject of shares being issued to high ranking labour officialswho wanted it kept hush, hush. Can you provide a link to this so that I may read up on it please.

    • Alan H  March 28, 2012 at 9:51 am

      As soon as the article is live on the site we will share a link with you. Alternatively keep an eye on the site homepage.

    • Ian Victa  April 4, 2012 at 3:32 pm

      Still no word on this:

      I do have a question regarding the comments made by Tony Tyreman on the subject of shares being issued to high ranking labour officialswho wanted it kept hush, hush. Can you provide a link to this so that I may read up on it please.

      Is it perhaps libellous to suggest that “shares are being issued to high ranking labour officials” with the implication that they are corruptly trying to keep debate hush hush?
      I think we should be told who these corrupt Labour Party members are.

      • Stakesby Legs  April 6, 2012 at 5:00 pm

        Ah-ha. This is probably tied to the back-stabbers behind the alien story. Champagne socialism has eaten itself.

  111. Vincent Vega  March 28, 2012 at 9:33 am

    I forgot to add, I don’t do facebook.

  112. Vincent Vega  March 29, 2012 at 8:28 am

    No response to my question regarding TTs allegations. (not the first time on here)

    Checked the Sirius website for announcements regarding the above plus lots of googling, both to no avail.

    I’ll try and cobble together an email to Sirius Minerals when I get a spare window to see if they can comment and follow this up with an email to the relevant Labour and Con/Lib Parties.

    I’ll let everyone know if anything comes back.

  113. Jon Owen  March 29, 2012 at 9:38 am

    Morning folks

    Re local mineral rights owners and Sirius.

    Sirius will have to pay those who own the rights above where they hope to mine a royalty (a %age of the value of what they extract, paid anualy, I believe), they won’t be paid in shares.

    Rights usualy reside with the owner of the land above’s title – but they are transferable, the co won’t be able in law to mine where they have not come to an agreement with the rights holder.

    Anyone with title should discover if they also control their rights, see:

    http://www.countrylife.co.uk/news/article/523352/Need-to-Know-Mines-or-minerals-and-owning-land.html

    A quote:-

    “The normal position is that ownership of minerals runs with the surface ownership of the land however, the minerals and rights to work them can be ‘severed’ from the surface land and owned separately”
    ————————————————
    Re conections betweem Sirius and politics, all I know of is that they have employed John Hutton, Baron Hutton of Furness as a Non-Executive Director of the Company on 18 January 2012:-
    http://uk.advfn.com/news/UKREG/2012/article/50784816

    Here’s his Wiki bit:-

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hutton,_Baron_Hutton_of_Furness

    He made a florid comment about the prospects of Gordon Brown becomming PM – allegedly:-

    “In September 2006, while discussing the forthcoming Labour Party leadership election, Hutton gave an anonymous quote to BBC journalist Nick Robinson that Gordon Brown would be a “f*****g disaster” as prime minister”

    This made me laugh.

    ATB.

    Jon

  114. Bob Turner  March 29, 2012 at 11:30 am

    Firstly, I believe that ALL National Parks should be sacrosanct.
    Setting aside the Potash Situation for now there is perhaps another matter that should be of equal/considerable/more concern that is likely to have a much greater impact nationally and that is quarrying.
    Given the anticipated massive increase in house building,construction of HighSpeed2, the likely increase in road building as a consequence of part privatisation and the (improbable/unrealistic) possibility of a pipeline to transfer water from North to South of the UK there will be a tremendous increase in the need for quarried materials to fulfil these projects.
    Many quarries that may currently be closed because they were unviable may have to be reopened and those currently operational will need to expand and massively increase output. I am unclear how current quarrying legislation is implemented but Central Government won’t have any qualms about changing them so that their cronies can ‘follow the money’.
    The environmental impact is likely to be considerable but we can all be reassured that the due process of ‘public consultation’ will be implemented before the results are consigned to the bin like so many others that have gone before.

  115. Jon Owen  March 30, 2012 at 12:05 pm

    From the Gazette:-

    “Mineral group is set up to fight for local landowners

    Published on Friday 30 March 2012 07:56

    AN ASSOCIATION of mineral holders is being set up for the benefit of local landowners as plans for potash mining in the area gather pace.

    It was unanimously agreed as a way forward, following a meeting hastily called last Thursday to discuss the potash situation which could see a planning applicaton for such a mine being submitted by September this year.

    The Yorkshire Coast has some of the best seams of potash in the UK which means farmers and landowners, from small holdings to those with hundreds of acres, could be sitting on land from which the mineral will be extracted.

    They are being urged to become members of the group which will be known as Yorkshire Coast Minerals Association.

    There are four main strands to the group – to be a completely independent organisation, to provide a united front in future negotiations, to be able to call on expert advice for members in issues such as taxation and wealth management and to provide a reliable flow of information between members and potash companies.

    A working group has been set up and is putting together terms of reference which will be reported back at the end of next month.

    It is thought they will include that membership is voluntary and confined to those who have registered, a committee will be formed to represent the group and that administration will be carried out by Richardson and Smith, agents which specialise in agricultural matters.

    Robert Smith said: “We recognise that as a body we will have potentially more clout in issues to do with planning which inevitably will come up at some point.

    “At some point minerals will have a financial value, at the moment it is difficult to assess the value.

    “In the case of a farmer, he may have looked at the farm of being the only asset but he has an extra asset, potentially, in mineral rights.

    “Whatever value these minerals have, it could affect his decision making for his family and generations to come.

    “If this mine is as close as we are led to believe minerals will have a significant value.”

    http://www.whitbygazette.co.uk/news/business/mineral-group-is-set-up-to-fight-for-local-landowners-1-4398772

    Jon

  116. Dave Reeves  March 30, 2012 at 3:35 pm

    Jon Owen:
    “In the case of a farmer, he may have looked at the farm of being the only asset but he has an extra asset, potentially, in mineral rights.

    “Whatever value these minerals have, it could affect his decision making for his family and generations to come.

    “If this mine is as close as we are led to believe minerals will have a significant value.”

    That quote from the solicitors representing the Minerals Association newly formed, demonstrates that local people can also have an interest financially in the North Yorks. National Park. Does that now make them any different to those ‘tyrants as we were called’ who invested in Sirius? I don’t think so. This whole affair can be discussed and negotiated to a great conclusion and will not leave the beauty desecrated as the protesters above have stated.

  117. Vanda Inman  April 1, 2012 at 8:05 am

    In response to all the commentators attacking my perspective and calling me a liar -, no I don’t tell lies. I am not a professional journalist I work in my own shop. Yes I am a member of the Labour Party but whilst the CLP does so far support the Sirius Pot Ash proposal, I do not. The ‘article’ was penned in haste after visiting friends in Whitby and being dismayed at the change in skyline. As for Richard Hunt – I did have lots of nice things to say about him, as he did have lots of good things to say about the Sirius project, including responsibility. As for my aside to GM Crops and fertilisers, I stick by my view but admit that this may have clouded the main issue of interest. My personal passion is in Heritage and Culture not in shares and global economics. I will not comment futher on here, having read Nigel Ward’s more logical, balanced article Wizard of IF, I would like to comment further therein. Thank you.

  118. Vanda Inman  April 26, 2012 at 10:06 am

    It would seem we are not worthy of an Environmental Impact Assessment

  119. Serious Investor  April 27, 2012 at 12:34 pm

    ADMIN

    •Sirius Minerals Leaves A Mess In North Dakota Lignite Minot*

    Just to keep your readers informed and not to be misleading on information, perhaps the latest headline can now be added to your more news above.

    **Ed Murphy, North Dakota’s state geologist, said the test well site had been cleaned up**

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/nd-regulator-says-potash-well-001217524.html

    Many Thanks in advance.

  120. Jane Swales  April 27, 2012 at 12:58 pm

    @Sirius Investor.

    Thank you for that very reassuring update:-

    “ND regulator says Burke County potash test well site cleaned AFTER CRITIC’S COMPLAINTS”.

    That certainly helps to make all the promises ring true. And would they have bothered if the eyes of North Yorkshire had not been watching Sirius so closely?

  121. Dave Reeves  April 27, 2012 at 8:25 pm

    @ Jane Swales…..does that really matter? If the eyes of NYP were not on Sirius then the company themselves have already published their commitment to return the countryside to its previous beauty. So why make that comment? the fact that in Burkes County it was cleared up is all we need to know. I would be the first to complain if this company did not treat the National Park with the respect that any of our National treasures deserves, because it is my National Park as well as anyone else’s, and I will be watching every move that is made to uphold that point. Now, can we move on from sarcasm, and come up with something sensible?

  122. admin  April 27, 2012 at 9:10 pm

    About time someone cleared up the mess they have left near the Flask then. Horrible metal fencees and piles of earth, long after they have left.

  123. Dave Reeves  April 28, 2012 at 12:56 am

    @ Admin:
    Okay so you have a complaint about a certain location? The place is near the Flask? So why just post a comment here when you should be complaining directly to the management at Sirius! There contact details are public knowledge, you obviously feel strongly about the project so do something about it instead of just using this point as a piece of an article. Let us see what happens when you report it to Sirius? That is what I call good journalism, so the ball is in your court now….sort of put your money etc…

  124. DKP  April 28, 2012 at 1:07 am

    You’re all charm, Dave. No wonder the locals find Sirius so appealing. Sirius must cringe every time you log on!

  125. admin  April 28, 2012 at 1:29 am

    David and his ilk, should realise that this page figures high in Google search for a variety of phrases related to the company. This page already receives significant traffic from the search engines and I fully expect that to continue. His comments and all the others will remain here for years to come and I expect this page to continue to be read by a lot of people searching for information on York Potash, Sirius Potash and terms such as North Yorkshire Potash. At present the comments here reflect quite badly on the company and its share holders.

  126. Serious Investor  April 30, 2012 at 5:53 am

    Admin.

    Could you please publish something not in the public domain the next time you write a story.

    It makes far more interesting reading!

    May I suggest more research on depth of mining?

    This is now becoming the Gazette of
    Mis-information.

    I look forward to your next ‘Expose’

    • admin  April 30, 2012 at 12:06 pm

      Sorry to disappoint you. However if you read the article, you will see that the author is Nigel Ward not myself. So please feel free to use the Facebook comments section (Found right at the end of the article) to address the article author, ie Nigel. Im lead to believe he has a large pile of documents that he will discuss in his articles over the coming months. Im sure you will enjoy them.

  127. Serious Investor  April 30, 2012 at 7:52 am

    Admin.

    Has it gone?

    Why?

    http://www.real-whitby.co.uk/york-potash-a-sirius-attempt

  128. Graham Presley  April 30, 2012 at 8:59 am

    I do feel that the attacks from both sides have become a bit extreme. Speaking as a regular user of the chat boards for share trading, I can say that the atmosphere there is frequently heated and confrontational, mainly I think because there are many “invented ” posters there employed by professionals in the industry to create the instability that market makers thrive on. That this argumentative style has been brought here is not helping I feel however, neither does the quite vindictive style of some of the replies. Just my observation.
    Sirius have today issued a detailed Scoping Study, and this has all the detail that folks will need to make a judgement, everything is covered up to full production. They claim to be capable of ebing the largest employer in the area, something I welcome with open arms. They also make clear that the mining access point will be subtle and unobtrusive, with the raw material piped away to be processed and shipped from Teeside. Please everyone log on to their site and study this document before flinging around any more wild accusations. This company can be a great British success story in the future, something we all surely hope for.

  129. admin  April 30, 2012 at 11:58 am

    Due to the quite inflammatory style of posting by some individuals using pseudonyms site comments are now closed on this article. Facebook comments are open. You can comment above using facebook comments section at the end of the article.

Comments are closed.

whitby photography by glenn kilpatrick