Widgetized Section
Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Cornwall News
That Fearless Ballsy Website From Up North
Real Whitby
The Real Whitby Motto - Dont Feed The Moose.
The Labour Party’s response to York Potash’s mine proposal
Jobs Yes – but not at any cost
Diana Jeuda, secretary of Whitby Labour Party Potash Group writes: I am a local Whitby resident but I am not a regular reader of this website.
Knowing I was going to write this article, I sat down and read the two potash threads. What impressed me was the passion.
But it also felt quite like a family argument! Really passionate debate with each other. Claims and counter claims. Very little agreement about what were the facts.
Lots of cries of people twisting facts and sometimes even making them up! Quite a lot of doubting people’s integrity. People for the mine, playthings of York Potash or Sirius Minerals or both.
Vanda Inman in cahoots with the administrator. Or was it the other way round? The administrator not impartial – and so on!
Nobody could doubt that everyone cared. But I really did wonder whether this passionate debate engaged people who were not part of this group.
I wondered even more whether the debate actually helped people make up their mind if they were puzzled. I felt quite punch drunk myself when I got to the end!
I thought how boring the work that the Whitby Labour Party has just done must seem by contrast! But I also thought that being boring and practical has its place when controversial developments are under consideration.
First a bit about the Whitby Labour Party – necessary I think in view of some of the comments that I have read about us! The Whitby Labour Party is made up of local people living in Whitby and in the surrounding villages.
We love this area passionately. We know it is economically poor, but we value its richness that cannot be measured in money terms.
As members of the Labour Party, we have shared beliefs. We care about people having jobs, security, and enough money to live on. We believe that work should be non-exploitative and safe, and that people should be paid the living wage.
We believe that trade unions and collective bargaining protect people at work, particularly when they work in dangerous environments. We loathe the scourge of unemployment.
We hate the fact that young people have to move from this area if they want anything more than the low paid, low skilled, insecure seasonal work that is the norm. We want more training and apprenticeships for the young.
We are saddened that recession has meant that skilled craftsmen are reduced to shelf filling in Sainsbury. Nothing the matter with shelf filling, but it is sad when that is all the work that is available for a skilled electrician.
It is this experience we have brought to the table when we considered what we thought about the mine.
We realised at the outset, that there was so much information and misinformation doing the rounds that we needed a work programme to establish the facts.
Members of the Labour Party visited Boulby mine to experience underground working. We talked to Boulby’s senior management to gather information.
We also talked to Boulby miners. We met the Chief Executive of York Potash. We read UN and other reports together with stock market intelligence.
We crawled over all the technical documents on York Potash’s website. We learned a great deal in the process.
The choice that faced us was whether the damage to the moors caused by the construction of the pipeline should outweigh the possibility of a significant number of local jobs.
We realised too that we did not have the technical expertise to make an informed judgment about some of York Potash’s assertions about the feasibility and safety of their proposals.
However we could make recommendations about what the experts employed by the two planning bodies should probe. We could also ensure the two planning bodies were aware of their responsibility to probe them.
If they do not, and things go wrong, then the responsibility would be on the planners just as much as on the company.
Our final task was to establish what safeguards might be needed, if planning permission were to be given.
Our 5000 word full report is available at www.labour4scarboroughandwhitby.net with these main conclusions.
Jobs are needed but the Moors are a priceless asset
The mine proposes to bring around 1100 jobs split between here and Teesside another area of high unemployment – around 850 to the Whitby, 250 to Teesside.
These jobs are likely to be well paid and range from professional and technical to unskilled. It is likely that more than 1000 people will be involved in the construction process.
This is a significant employment contribution to our area which is over-dependent on the service sector, where jobs are low paid, and where work is relatively unskilled, seasonal and often temporary, and where more than 1500 people locally are currently out of work and many more are working part time but would like more hours or a full time job – or cannot register for work at all because of lack of affordable childcare.
We know that initially people for the high level technical jobs will not be recruited locally because local people do not have these skills. But these jobs give our young people something to aspire too.
However York Potash claim that they will recruit around 80% of the semiskilled and unskilled workforce from the local area – about 450 to 500 jobs – if they can find local people with either the skills or the capacity to acquire the skills.
We see no reason to disbelieve them. Why spend money on relocation costs if local labour is available?
If the mine goes ahead, there can be no question it will make a real dent in the completely unacceptable level of unemployment in this area and on Teesside. (We in the Labour Party care about unemployment wherever it is)
Against this, the National Park and its unique environment is a priceless asset, and for around six years there will be a significant but temporary scar on the landscape.
In pockets of woodland and hedgerows, the scar will take longer to heal. York Potash assures us that full recovery will eventually take place.
This must be scrutinised by the experts employed by the National Park and the Environmental Planning Inspectorate.
In considering how to balance this choice, the Moors’ own history is instructive.
Ironstone and other mining operations took place within what is now the National Park, with an impact that we can still see.
The ironstone railway embankment that stands above Rosedale is an example of an industrial artefact that has been well absorbed into the landscape.
What is proposed will leave by comparison a much smaller footprint.
It is difficult to see how it is possible to stand in the way of jobs, both immediate and long term, because of concerns about temporary damage to the Moors.
The cuts programme hits the poorest disproportionately hard and many of those worst hit live here in Whitby and Scarborough as well as on Teesside. So while we must value and cherish the Moors, so must we also value and cherish the people who live and work here.
(On a personal note, I would find it very difficult to look in the eye someone who was unemployed and say “We’ve opposed the possibility of a lot of jobs coming to this area, because a small part of the Moors will look unsightly for five or six years”)
For this reason we give general support to the proposal.
This support assumes that the proposals made by York Potash are both practical and safe. We are not in a position to make a judgement about this. Our detailed response asks the National Park and the Planning Inspectorate to probe the proposals with the utmost rigour.
In addition, there are areas where we have further suggestions which we have formally asked York Potash to consider.
• Noise pollution must be minimised
• Light pollution must be better tackled
• Storage of hazardous waste, nuclear or otherwise, must be forbidden
• Even more vigorous Moors restoration is needed
• Unions should be recognised, the living wage paid, and only contractors who do the same used.
Our conclusion is Jobs Yes, but not at any price
The Labour Party has already submitted its report to York Potash and will be using it as the basis for submission to the two planning bodies.
We are also planning to meet and brief Hilary Benn MP, the Shadow Communities Secretary whose job is to shadow Eric Pickles, the cabinet minister who will have the final say in any planning decision.
But The Labour Party’s job doesn’t end when we make our submission to the planning bodies.
If York Potash gets planning permission, we will be watching the construction and the operation of the mine every step of the way. This development is in such a sensitive part of the Moors, that every condition of any planning permission must be followed to the letter.
We are on the case. And we will stay on the case!
17 Responses to The Labour Party’s response to York Potash’s mine proposal
Leave a Reply
Say No To Joe
Suggested Reading
Daryl Smiler
February 3, 2013 at 7:41 pm
Easily the most balanced statement placed on this site to date. I agree broadly with the conclusions, based as they are on what appears to be an unbiased consideration of the available facts (such as they are).
My only concern is that we are all required to take what the company says on trust. My view is that we should believe some of it but not all of it. The big question is which bits are ‘iffy’?
The point to remember is that the company itself has, as do all new entrants into a sphere of business, to make assumptions and projections and their development strategy will be based on these, as will what they say in their planning application.
As anyone who has studied business strategy will know businesses that succeed are not absolutely tied to their original strategy and in the case of many of the most successful businesses their ‘emergent strategy’ differs considerably from their original plans.
Given the complexities of this project and the difficulties that will undoubtedly be encountered I will be more than a little surprised if some major changes to their proposals do not appear.
The big question will be how far will the boundaries be pushed if and after the proposal receives planning permission?
JD
February 4, 2013 at 1:49 pm
This is indeed a well-informed and measured view but as Diana says she and the Labour Party are on the case to ensure they keep their promises for all of us and our much-loved moors.
Richard Ineson
February 4, 2013 at 2:54 pm
We would all like to see ‘real’ jobs created in this area, not just the seasonal minimum wage jobs which predominate at present. This scheme sounds good, on paper, but what is the reality? How many jobs, for how long?
We are all willing to see a bit of disruption (carefully and rigorously controlled) in the National Park, if it facilitates the creation of jobs.
What worries me is that many of these schemes promise much and deliver little, we have seen many false dawns – Legoland,Offshore Windfarms,’Tourism is the Future’ etc. in the recent past.
Let us hope that the jobs materialise and that the National Park does not suffer too much in the process of being the vehicle which will provide those jobs.
I shall be watching the developments with interest.
admin
February 4, 2013 at 6:12 pm
@Daryl Smiler
Quote – “My only concern is that we are all required to take what the company says on trust. My view is that we should believe some of it but not all of it. The big question is which bits are ‘iffy’?”
This is something I would agree with Daryl. My thoughts turn to a situation not entirely related, nor unrelated for that matter. I am pretty certain that a large amount of trust was placed in a multi national company such as BP when permission was granted for them to extract oil in The Gulf Of Mexico. I’m also sure that well meaning groups, much larger than The Whitby Branch Of The Labour Party, such as Freinds Of The Earth, Greenpeace and WWF were also “on the case” in ensuring nothing went wrong.
The following environmental disaster, known as The Deep Water Horizon Oil spill, meant that the marine environment was damaged beyond repair, thousands of people whose livelihoods depended on that marine environment, ranging from fishermen to those employed in the tourist industry, have been lost.
I guess everyone trusted BP not to screw up the environment they claimed respect for. What happened there is now history. My question is, can we trust York Potash not to screw up the North Yorkshire Moors Natural Environment. Can we trust them not to screw up a tourist industry on which tens of thousands of local jobs depend. Whats more can we trust a small but well meaning group such as the Whitby Labour to ensure that Sirius minerals have the interests of The North York Moors National Park at the center of their plans.
Others have laughed off our fears that Hazardous waste could be stored under our moors in years to come. Many would think it ludicrous that we should even mention this. However, its clear the Labour Party have given thought to this, hence their statement above – “Storage of hazardous waste, nuclear or otherwise, must be forbidden”. Further to this, site author Nigel Ward has writen of the Value of Void Space within the mine, and some parties even suggest the spaces created are worth significantly more in monetary terms than the potash extracted from the mine.
Trust, Trust, Trust… Its a tough question to ask. Can we trust a large multi national company not to rape our moors and leave them in a complete mess for the next 1000 years. Can we trust the local Labour party to ensure the jobs of tens of thousands of people whose livlihoods are currently dependent on the moors will be respected and conserved.
The only way I can see for definite that The North York Moors National Park remains unspoilt for future generations is for nothing at all to happen there, Other than this, despite the best of intentions, anything could happen, and where money and huge profits are involved, no doubt anything will.
Hugo
March 6, 2013 at 1:22 am
“some parties even suggest the spaces created are worth significantly more in monetary terms than the potash extracted from the mine.”
Who are these “some parties” and what credibility do they have? In fact do they exist at all, or was it a conversation overheard at a pub?
Daryl Smiler
February 4, 2013 at 8:00 pm
Admin, I fully appreciate your concerns but if the company does what it is saying it will do, and no more, it is entirely possible to accept that the economic benefits could outweigh a carefully controlled level of temporary damage to the NP.
The point I make is that there is considerable risk that this development will turn out very differently from how the public, the planners and perhaps even the management imagine it will. Whatever they set out to do, and however they set about doing it, it is more than likely to change over time in response to problems encountered, prevailing market conditions and opportunities that arise.
One obvious risk comes about because of the potential value of the void spaces. As others have implied, there are, nowadays, few things more valuable than a hole in the ground. The value of void spaces is likely to outpace the value of most other commodities.
This means that whatever the company’s current intentions may be it is almost certain that, at some point in the future, whoever is the owner of the void space will seek to make profit from it.
I am certainly not suggesting that it will become a nuclear waste repository, but simply illustrating that what drives the development of the business will change over time.
This is just one aspect of the risk that will no doubt not arise for many years, but the question of whether profit can be made from the void space will most certainly be asked.
admin
February 5, 2013 at 1:29 pm
Local GP Speaks Out – Read More Here.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/04/mineral-wealth-belongs-to-all
It is unnecessary (there is no world shortage of potash, and there is already a potash mine in the national park which could increase production of potash and polyhalite), speculative (wholly dependent on the market) and designed purely for private profit. The effects can only be destructive: disruption to already inadequate roads, noise and light pollution; radical alteration of soils, landscape and wildlife. The energy used will mean a huge carbon footprint. Of course there will be jobs, but the unemployment rate in the national park is under 2%. If we don’t protect national parks from industrialisation, what is the point of them?
Dr David Cunion
Ugglebarnby, North Yorkshire
Chris the Milkman
February 6, 2013 at 1:15 pm
As Dr Cunion’s letter has been posted on each article, I will post my response accordingly. #democracy
Re Dr Cunion’s response to the Grauniad article.
“Unnecessary”
Since when was having a world shortage of something the only reason to tap into the Earth’s mineral reserves? Potash may not be dwindling in supply, but then Earth’s population isn’t dwindling in growth either.
If York Potash can mine polyhalite (far enriched in potassium compared to Boulby’s product” and process it to fertiliser at a competitive cost, we have a winner. It can only be a good thing for Indo-China-rica to have another supplier of the product their billions of people require, even if it is just to drive down their import costs compared to the cartelesque situation with Saskatchewan and others.
If there really is no need for a polyhalite mine then time will tell. Once the SM11 results are out in the public domain Sirius should be able to move their resource to ‘Indicated’ enabling them to gain the attention of large financiers. Big investors will not invest if they see the project as likely to be surplus to the needs of those in Asia and Africa.
“Speculative”
All business models are speculative to begin with, that is the whole point of the two years+ of research, mineral measurement, and in depth study – to turn that speculation into indication that the mine can help form a strong, competitive, and long lasting business model.
“Designed purely for private profit”
Yes, like any successful business.
Except for the 0.5% revenue donated to the YP Foundation which will be directly invested into surrounding community projects
Except for the 5 (to begin with, more in the future) geology and engineering students each year which will be funded with bursaries, given internships over summer, and graduate jobs after 3 years; preventing a loss of talented students to other areas of the country, nay other countries!
Except for the many *millions* of £ that the mine will contribute to income tax over the following 100 years. Over 1000 staff (not to mention supply chain) at large salaries does a lot of tax make.
Except for the capital gains tax and stamp duty which shareholders will have to pay when many of the locals (who own 9% of the PLC) sell their stake a few years into production.
“Effects can ONLY be destructive”
Ignorance is not becoming of you. Yes there will be temporary disruption whilst constructing the mine head and drilling the shafts. Having worked briefly on a drill rig, I am aware that they make a lot of noise – but only in the immediate vicinity. If you decide to take a picnic within 100m of the mine head during construction then maybe take that into account. As for light pollution, have you ever driven towards Scarborough at night? Scarborough Rugby Club’s floodlit first and second pitches (which are lit most nights of the week to allow for training) will be just as “polluting” as the lamps required on site at Dove’s Nest during construction.
“Radical alteration of soils”
This demonstrates your basic knowledge of geology, which is fine. The only soil to be affected will be that immediately underneath the drill rig platform, the processing buildings and offices, and that which follows the pipeline. Radical is a strong word. Saying that alteration of the soil is an excuse not to build the mine head is like refusing someone a housing extension so they don’t damage the loam beneath it.
The mine will be far too deep, and the stratigraphy likely too impermeable for any groundwater run off to occur and affect other soils in the area.
As to radical alteration of the landscape…. You only need to look at the planning documents to see how sympathetic the deign will be. A small plot of land will be directly affected by the mine head, much akin to a farmer building a second cow shed and out buildings.
“Energy used during construction”
No more than building a wind farm, or several hospitals perhaps. Why should short term production of CO2 stop thousands being employed in the future when it will create little at all?
Who knows, maybe due to the impermeable nature of the surrounding stratigraphy to the seam, it could be used for carbon capture and storage; completely negating your concerns.
The unemployment rate IN THE NATIONAL PARK is under 2% as not many people live IN THE NATIONAL PARK. Those that are unemployed live in the surrounding towns.
J Chapman
February 6, 2013 at 2:51 pm
On the subject of underground voids created by the ore extraction, the planning application says:
“Post-mineral extraction
3.110 The exhausted mine will form a network of tunnels with a vast surface area, all of which will capture geothermal energy. It is too early to state the precise end use for this energy but using present technology, a ground source heat pump is capable of generating five times the energy required to operate it, so when technological advances are made that will capture the geothermal energy either as heat or as electricity, these will be incorporated. Similarly, it is not possible to quantify the amount of energy that will be produced but this will increase as the underground void space, depth and distance increases.
3.111 In the event that this resource cannot be realised or is uneconomic then the shafts can be filled and capped in a manner that is agreed with the Appropriate Authority. Techniques for filling capping former coal mining shafts have been developed over many decades and the abandonment of the mine would use current best practice to achieve this objective.”
In any event, I read somewhere that Sirius/York Potash don’t have any licence or permit to exploit the voids they create so that would be a debate for the future, presumably with the landowners, the communities and perhaps a different developer.
Ian Detute
February 6, 2013 at 10:52 pm
The Labour party, isnt that the party that got us into a war with Iraq based on lies (WMD).Your party lost all credibility when Blair was in charge.New Labour=sold down the river was no better than the bitch Thatcher.And i,m a socialist and would neve vote for Labour again .
admin
February 9, 2013 at 1:13 am
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21379117
AnarchyUK
February 14, 2013 at 8:42 pm
http://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/do-we-want-a-phosphate-mine-in-the-north-yorkshire-national-park?source=facebook-share-button&time=1360590029
Nigel Ward
February 15, 2013 at 12:06 pm
Down to 23.25p after 29.75p earlier in the week.
http://markets.ft.com/Research/Markets/Tearsheets/Summary?s=SXX:LSE
That is a drop of almost 22% . . . and after such promising reports . . . oh, dear.
Who is getting cold feet?
Chris the Milkman
February 22, 2013 at 3:41 pm
A good opportunity to invest, then!
Tim Thorne
February 22, 2013 at 9:46 pm
Or a good opportunity to get out early and avoid bigger losses.
Chris the Milkman
February 23, 2013 at 1:47 pm
We will see Timmy!
Nice new campaign page here: http://you.38degrees.org.uk/p/backthepotashmine
secretsqu
February 25, 2013 at 7:39 pm
The main thrust of those against the minehead led by Tom Chadwick has been about spoiling the views on The National Park.
If you take a daily helicopter flight to and from your daily business, then you may have a point.
In the meantime, this photograph should just about quash those concerns.
http://siriusminerals.com/site/assets/files/1654/mine-head-location.jpg
As far as the pipeline is concerned, google pipeline across the Brecon Beacons to see how the Company that Sirius has engaged handled that project.