BS: North York Moors V Potash Mine

Subject: BS: North York Moors V Potash Mine
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Jun 15 - 07:46 AM

Tuesday will see the North York Moors Planning Authority deliver it's verdict on whether to grant planning permission for a potash mine within it's boundaries. It will pose problems if planning assent is given in terms of the affect on the tourism of the area. However it will also provide secure jobs in an area of high unemployment. Those jobs that do exist are predominantly seasonal and low paid. I have my own opinion but wonder how the rest of Mudcatters view the potential development.

Sirius Minerals

Subject: RE: BS: North York Moors V Potash Mine
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 27 Jun 15 - 08:06 AM

Big business will win, the gutless council will let them have their way.

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: North York Moors V Potash Mine
From: Rapparee
Date: 27 Jun 15 - 10:25 AM

I live in "The Phosphate Patch." The hills are ripped open, but now "remediation" is required. However, there is a large open-pit catch pond which in the past has "burned" when the elemental phosphorus dried...it's now covered and lined and we're told it's "good" for a few centuries. Other problems have been selenium getting into the creeks, killing cattle and/or causing birth defects in livestock.

The jobs ARE good, but there are downsides to be taken into consideration as well.

Subject: RE: BS: North York Moors V Potash Mine
From: Rapparee
Date: 27 Jun 15 - 10:27 AM

Of course, YMMV.

Subject: RE: BS: North York Moors V Potash Mine
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Jun 15 - 10:35 AM

Rapparee, the potash will be mined and sent underground to a port. The only surface buildings will be offices, canteen, showers etc. No big hole in the ground.

Subject: RE: BS: North York Moors V Potash Mine
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Jun 15 - 10:44 AM

Wasn't potash mined around there many years ago? I suppose as long as people have learned from past mistakes and make sure there is little or no environmental impact it may be OK. Trouble is, it is a very big if and, as we know, business will try to maximise profits over and above anything :-( Can the company concerned actually guarantee the environment will not be spoiled?

Subject: RE: BS: North York Moors V Potash Mine
From: Raggytash
Date: 27 Jun 15 - 11:27 AM

The mine head and associated building will occupy a few acres. Sirius Minerals have seemingly made great efforts to minimise the impact, both visually, and environmentally.

Subject: RE: BS: North York Moors V Potash Mine
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 27 Jun 15 - 03:24 PM

Sounds like you are all for it Raggytash, well doing a good PR job anyway.

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: North York Moors V Potash Mine
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 27 Jun 15 - 03:38 PM

Not too sure Dave, I can see the benefits to the local population looking for decent wages, not something easily available in the region. For instance in my last employ before I retired I probably earned above the local average by some distance. The same job in a city would have seen me earning 35-40% more. I was lucky I could afford to earn less but then my mortgage was very low and my wife had a decent salary. Not an option available to many local people especially the younger ones trying to have families.

Yes I know people can move to different places to gain better wages but if those opportunities could be available locally ..........

Subject: RE: BS: North York Moors V Potash Mine
From: GUEST,JHW
Date: 27 Jun 15 - 04:03 PM

'Wasn't potash mined around there many years ago?'

There's Boulby Mine

Subject: RE: BS: North York Moors V Potash Mine
From: GUEST,Musket sans Jaffa cake
Date: 27 Jun 15 - 05:06 PM

I find the same socialist worker party types who were full of keeping the coal mines I worked down are now all of a sudden environmentalists.

Raging against the machine. It's rather popular. Write a song about it.

As raggytash mentions, surface buildings are minimal. Subsidence isn't an issue in hilly areas. Basalt is a bugger to shift even if you want to.

Jobs, needed potash, local infrastructure.

Not all proposals are good of course. But not all are bad either.

There again, I don't wear sandals.

Subject: RE: BS: North York Moors V Potash Mine
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jun 15 - 05:09 AM

Solution Mining was considered at Boulby (says Wikipaedia)
A bit like fracking, so fine I guess.

Subject: RE: BS: North York Moors V Potash Mine
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 28 Jun 15 - 02:10 PM

I have to say I'm a tad surprise that this issue hasn't raised more comments. I can see arguments both for and against the proposed development. Locally there are two quite distinct groups neither of which seem to acknowledge the view of the other. Me .... at the moment I'm sitting firmly, ok wobbley, on the fence.

Subject: RE: BS: North York Moors V Potash Mine
From: GUEST,giovanni
Date: 29 Jun 15 - 12:19 AM

I'm sure there will be enough opposition from the comfortably off who want to resist any change as well as leftie nutters who oppose everything to do with "big business". Regardless of the obvious benefits to the local jobs market.

The fact that this is high-grade fertilizer which will help to "Feed the World" will be the divisive issue, especially to those who have come out against the scheme before finding out any facts.

Environmentally I can't see too much problem except during the construction phase. It's on already private land in an area which is not the true moorland that the park was created to protect. Monster cranes are a part of our lives these days, but I can see construction traffic being a pain.

g

Subject: RE: BS: North York Moors V Potash Mine
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 29 Jun 15 - 08:18 AM

Construction traffic has been estimate to be one large wagon every 12 minutes night and day for 5 years. Why anyone would want to transport 2,184,000 millions tonnes of waste is beyond me. (Based on a ten tonne wagon at 5 per hour x 24 hours x 7 days x 52 weeks x 5years)

A bit of scaremongering I believe.

Yes there will be disruption but that said the National Park is 554 square miles this development will use about 1 square mile.

Subject: RE: BS: North York Moors V Potash Mine
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 30 Jun 15 - 04:17 AM

The planning application will be decided in a meeting starting at 10am this morning. I anticipate the development will not be allowed and the company will appeal to the Secretary of State.

Subject: RE: BS: North York Moors V Potash Mine
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 30 Jun 15 - 02:10 PM

Planning consent has been approved for the development of the Potash Mine just outside Whitby by a margin of 8 votes to 7. Hopefully this will create about 1800 jobs during the construction phase, 1000 full time jobs at the mine with a spin off locally in infrastructure. A huge boost for an economy dependant to a great extent on tourism. lets hope all goes well for both the locality and the mine.

Subject: RE: BS: North York Moors V Potash Mine
From: BanjoRay
Date: 30 Jun 15 - 06:45 PM

I would have insisted the mess of Boulby mine be cleared up before work starts on this one.....

Subject: RE: BS: North York Moors V Potash Mine
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 30 Jun 15 - 07:10 PM

BanjoRay

Firstly the two companies are entirely separate, Boulby Mine is on one edge of the National Park. It provides much needed jobs for people in the surrounding area, an area of limited opportunity.

Yes Boulby is ugly, it was developed in the late 60's early 70's when perhaps the constraints were not as rigid as they might have been.

It cannot be sensibly suggested that the two mines, separated by 45 years, will be allowed to be developed in the same manner.

Both the National Park Authority and companies perception of what is permissible has altered radically.

Subject: RE: BS: North York Moors V Potash Mine
From: GUEST,giovanni
Date: 01 Jul 15 - 01:57 AM

Looks like common sense prevailed, though by a very narrow margin.

They'll need the jobs during the construction period as tourism will be adversely affected due to traffic problems - unless they manage construction traffic properly. The peak holiday season is a nightmare traffic-wise as it is.

g