# Proposed potash mine in North York Moors National Park



## Fuchs66 (Nov 5, 2011)

Anyone seen this?

Heard about it because there are test drillings going on in my home village Robin Hood's Bay and I am currently having lots of interesting discussions/arguments with folk up there. On the one side are those who are dead set against the plan as it will most probably have a detrimental effect on the environment and with that the tourist industry on the other side are those who believe that well paid jobs will be on offer to locals. I tend strongly towards the former opinion.

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news...ears_over_timing_of_potash_drilling_1_3672778

The National Park have of course been bought off

http://www.whitbygazette.co.uk/news...g_expert_joins_mining_company_board_1_3303328


----------



## BlueSquareThing (Nov 5, 2011)

Fuchs66 said:


> Anyone seen this?



No, but thanks - v interesting.

Now, Ugglebarnby? Really?! I want to go there, now...


----------



## Roadkill (Nov 6, 2011)

Provided it's done with as little visual impact and environmental damage as possible I'd be strongly in favour. Northern England badly needs permanent, long-term jobs, and this seems to offer them.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 6, 2011)

I know deep down that "potash" isn't a portmanteau of "potato" and "mash", and presumably is some sort of unrelated mineral, but I can't help thinking of it positively and hoping that it is studded with sausages.


----------



## bi0boy (Nov 6, 2011)

Here's Boulby potash mine in Cleveland if anyone want's to envisage Whitby with this in the background


----------



## Fuchs66 (Nov 6, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> Provided it's done with as little visual impact and environmental damage as possible I'd be strongly in favour. Northern England badly needs permanent, long-term jobs, and this seems to offer them.


Oh I understand the jobs argument and agree with it, I just dont think the benefits will outweigh the costs. I also have a nasty feeling that most of the workforce will be coming from outside the area.


----------



## Roadkill (Nov 6, 2011)

Fuchs66 said:


> Oh I understand the jobs argument and agree with it, I just dont think the benefits will outweigh the costs. I also have a nasty feeling that most of the workforce will be coming from outside the area.



That may well be so initially, but as the industry beds in the local skills base should adapt to it and more locals should be employed.  Besides, even those coming from outside the area would inject money into the local economy.


----------



## bi0boy (Nov 6, 2011)

Why do you think we have National Parks?


----------



## Fuchs66 (Nov 6, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> That may well be so initially, but as the industry beds in the local skills base should adapt to it and more locals should be employed. Besides, even those coming from outside the area would inject money into the local economy.


Thing is though there is already a thriving tourist industry pumping money into the area from outside. I dont think a project like this is exactly compatible, never mind the fact as stated above that we are talking about a National Park here. Normal residents are not even allowed to fit double glazing in some areas and all of a sudden there's talk of the largest potash mine in the world!


----------



## Roadkill (Nov 6, 2011)

We're in an economic black hole, large parts of the north have sky-high unemployment and a complete dearth of growth industries, in an economy that's grotesquely skewed towards the south-east and the financial services sector.  If this offers some prospect of jobs in an industry less seasonal and more secure than tourism then I'd argue that it's worth the disbenefits in conservation terms.  BUT I did say it should be done as cleanly and with as little visual impact as possible.


----------



## Fuchs66 (Nov 6, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> We're in an economic black hole, large parts of the north have sky-high unemployment and a complete dearth of growth industries, in an economy that's grotesquely skewed towards the south-east and the financial services sector. If this offers some prospect of jobs in an industry less seasonal and more secure than tourism then I'd argue that it's worth the disbenefits in conservation terms. BUT I did say it should be done as cleanly and with as little visual impact as possible.


To a large degree I agree with you but it's the last point that worries me, PLUS how are they going to transport what could be as much as (according to the figures I've seen) 3Mt/a of potash? The transport infrastructure around the area wont be able to handle it. Also where is the waste, which will be a similar amount, going to go? All points that dont seem to be mentioned much by the supporters of this.


----------



## Roadkill (Nov 6, 2011)

Fuchs66 said:


> To a large degree I agree with you but it's the last point that worries me, PLUS how are they going to transport what could be as much as (according to the figures I've seen) 3Mt/a of potash? The transport infrastructure around the area wont be able to handle it. Also where is the waste, which will be a similar amount, going to go? All points that dont seem to be mentioned much by the supporters of this.



There does seem to be a certain lack of detail, and Sirius Minerals' own site is a bit vague. At a google there's talk of a pipeline to Teesport, although that doesn't seem to be confirmed.  On the other hand, this isn't in the heart of the Yorkshire Dales - it's in the area between Scarborough and Whitby, which already has several major roads and a rail link.  The problem may not be as serious as all that.  Tbh though, even if it does require an upgrade to the roads in the area then so be it - so long as the company contributes to the cost.


----------



## Fuchs66 (Nov 7, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> There does seem to be a certain lack of detail, and Sirius Minerals' own site is a bit vague. At a google there's talk of a pipeline to Teesport, although that doesn't seem to be confirmed. On the other hand, this isn't in the heart of the Yorkshire Dales - it's in the area between Scarborough and Whitby, which already has several major roads and a rail link. The problem may not be as serious as all that. Tbh though, even if it does require an upgrade to the roads in the area then so be it - so long as the company contributes to the cost.


Eh? There hasnt been a rail link to that area since the 60s, (the nearest stations are Whitby and Scarborough and both aren't exactly large) the roads aren't good enough for large scale heavy goods traffic. I grew up in Robin Hood's Bay and my parents still live there, I do know the area quite well.


----------



## Roadkill (Nov 7, 2011)

Fuchs66 said:


> Eh? There hasnt been a rail link to that area since the 60s, (the nearest stations are Whitby and Scarborough and both aren't exactly large) the roads aren't good enough for large scale heavy goods traffic. I grew up in Robin Hood's Bay and my parents still live there, I do know the area quite well.



The A165 and other major roads in the area are hardly single-track Dales lanes though, are they?  IIRC from googling yesterday the company reckon that they can handle the construction traffic, although they implied that they couldn't handle all of the potash traffic, which is where the pipeline comes in.  Also IIRC the rail link they were thinking about wasn't direct to site - although I did see speculation/wishful thinking about partial reopening of the old Whitby-Scarborough line on some enthusiast forum or other - but rather a matter of trucking it to a railhead.  Tbh that probably wouldn't happen.

FWIW I don't disagree with you about the lack of detail, but the whole process is in its pretty early stages as yet, and one hopes that adequate transport arrangements would have to be planned before planning permission was granted for the development.  It's premature to write the whole thing off at this stage, though, if the potential economic benefits are as significant as they seem...


----------



## bi0boy (Nov 7, 2011)

Are there any circumstances under which you think we _shouldn't_ let big industry into our national parks


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Nov 7, 2011)

Potash is Potassium Chloride. It is useful as a fertilizer. Put it on your tomatoes; on the soil that is. However do you want hundreds of heavy lorries carrying white powder to rumble through your villages day and night, leaving a trail on the road? If the stuff gets on the road it will be soapy and a bit slippery. On the other hand people need work.


----------



## Roadkill (Nov 7, 2011)

bi0boy said:


> Are there any circumstances under which you think we _shouldn't_ let big industry into our national parks



Yes. Lots. On the other hand, I'd rather sacrifice a small part of the edge of a national park than watch the north's economy spiral further down the tube for lack of productive jobs.

*edit* Remember, I've not for a minute argued there should be no conditions attached...


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> Yes. Lots. On the other hand, I'd rather sacrifice a small part of the edge of a national park than watch the north's economy spiral further down the tube for lack of productive jobs.


so, fuck whitby then.


----------



## Roadkill (Nov 7, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> so, fuck whitby then.



Indeed.  Because, of course, the biggest issue facing Whitby is a potash mine several mines inland...


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> Indeed. Because, of course, the biggest issue facing Whitby is a potash mine several mines inland...


now the cat's out of the bag. so you think it nothing to fuss about for whitby to be surrounded by new mines?


----------



## Roadkill (Nov 7, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> now the cat's out of the bag. so you think it nothing to fuss about for whitby to be surrounded by new mines?



Now, indeed, the cat is out of the bag.  You're happy for the Yorkshire Coast to be an impoverished theme park for people like you to witter on about how pretty it is?

One straw man deserves another, and all that...


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> Now, indeed, the cat is out of the bag. You're happy for the Yorkshire Coast to be an impoverished theme park for people like you to witter on about how pretty it is?
> 
> One straw man deserves another, and all that...


yes because a potash mine assures a safe, long-term future with jobs for all in yorkshire 

a bit like those coal mines.


----------



## Roadkill (Nov 7, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> at least you mentioned mines, i never mentioned theme parks.



You didn't.  But then, you've always been very good at sneery remarks and very bad at saying what you actually think.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> You didn't. But then, you've always been very good at sneery remarks and very bad at saying what you actually think.


1 out of 2 is rather better than your 0 out of 2


----------



## bi0boy (Nov 7, 2011)

Why not just abolish national parks outwith the Southern England? We can bring heavy industry into the North and all the nice jobs, wealthy tourists and pleasant countryside can stay in the South?


----------



## Roadkill (Nov 7, 2011)

bi0boy said:


> Why not just abolish national parks outwith the Southern England? We can bring heavy industry into the North and all the nice jobs, wealthy tourists and pleasant countryside can stay in the South?



*edit*  Sorry, wrong target.  You're way off the mark, though - I've argued nothing of the kind.


----------



## Roadkill (Nov 7, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> 1 out of 2 is rather better than your 0 out of 2



Yet more pointless sniping - fuck off.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 7, 2011)

And I was only last night wondering where oh where will the future potash supplies come from?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2011)

...


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 7, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> Yet more pointless sniping - fuck off.


0/2


----------



## Roadkill (Nov 7, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> 0/2



I take it you actually have a point to make?  Or are you just trying to be awkward, as per usual...?


----------



## bi0boy (Nov 7, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> *edit* Sorry, wrong target. You're way off the mark, though - I've argued nothing of the kind.



But you're arguing that National Parks should be disregarded when it comes to siting heavy industry in the North, because of a lack of jobs there.This kind of approach is only going to accentuate the differences that contributed to the North/South divide in the first place.


----------



## Roadkill (Nov 8, 2011)

bi0boy said:


> But you're arguing that National Parks should be disregarded when it comes to siting heavy industry in the North, because of a lack of jobs there.This kind of approach is only going to accentuate the differences that contributed to the North/South divide in the first place.



I'm arguing that there's a case - not more than that - for relaxing conservation rules in one small area if there's some hope of generating long-term, stable industry in a part of the country that needs it.  I'd far rather see the Isle of Dogs torn up for a potash mine than the Yorkshire coast, but that's not where the opportunities are, is it?


----------



## free spirit (Nov 8, 2011)

bi0boy said:


> But you're arguing that National Parks should be disregarded when it comes to siting heavy industry in the North, because of a lack of jobs there.This kind of approach is only going to accentuate the differences that contributed to the North/South divide in the first place.


not really. We've got far more national park type land than the south, and far less jobs than most of it.

what really accentuated the differences was thatcher destroying the miners, then following it up with lots of other industries based in the north while London swallowed the vast bulk of the north sea oil revenues via city bonuses etc, not the odd mine in a national park area.

one of the most famous areas of national park is the 3 peaks area, and that's got a fucking huge operating quarry slap bang in the middle of it.

potash has to be mined somewhere, if not here then it will be mined somewhere else in the world, so we're merely exporting the environmental degradation, probably to somewhere with far less strict planning and environmental regulations.


----------



## Roadkill (Nov 8, 2011)

^ That.  Well said.


----------



## Fuchs66 (Nov 8, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> so, fuck whitby then.


It wouldn't be such a problem if the mine was to be placed closer to Whitby as Whitby is an enclave that does not form part of the National Park and the planning permission restrictions are not so severe. However from what I've seen so far the mine is most likely to be located around Hawsker or Robin Hood's Bay to the south of Whitby.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> I'm arguing that there's a case - not more than that - for relaxing conservation rules in one small area if there's some hope of generating long-term, stable industry in a part of the country that needs it. I'd far rather see the Isle of Dogs torn up for a potash mine than the Yorkshire coast, but that's not where the opportunities are, is it?


there's a case for chopping the right arm off everyone in aberdeen but it would be a fucking daft thing to seriously suggest.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2011)

free spirit said:


> not really. We've got far more national park type land than the south, and far less jobs than most of it.
> 
> what really accentuated the differences was thatcher destroying the miners, then following it up with lots of other industries based in the north while London swallowed the vast bulk of the north sea oil revenues via city bonuses etc, not the odd mine in a national park area.
> 
> ...


torture equipment has to be made somewhere, if not here then it will be made somewhere else in the world, so we're merely exporting the moral degradation, probably to somewhere with a far more oppressive regime and even laxer export controls.


----------



## Roadkill (Nov 8, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> there's a case for chopping the right arm off everyone in aberdeen but it would be a fucking daft thing to seriously suggest.



So, as I thought, you don't actually have a point to make and are just being a twat for the sake of it.

Same old, same old.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> So, as I thought, you don't actually have a point to make and are just being a twat for the sake of it.
> 
> Same old, same old.


you're suggesting that a mine is a good idea. mines are famously of only limited lifespan, and economic and political events well away from the mining business can severely impact on them. a better idea, though doubtless one you would not countenance as involves some thought, would be to explore more sustainable ways - both environmentally and in terms of duration - of regenerating employment in the region. i suppose though that there would be some knock-on job creation from the scheme you favour - road cleaners for example. but you're talking about the creation of jobs which have few transferable skills - digging is, after all, simply digging and there are a decreasing number of jobs in that field. what's desired i would expect are jobs which will raise the skills of the workforce, not ones which will essentially deskill it. but if that's the end you wish for then fucking have it your way you daft twat.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2011)

that's shut you up


----------



## weltweit (Nov 8, 2011)

Personally I am for industry. Mining is not permanent and there can be clauses in the contract that the area be returned to a natural state post mining activity.

What we need is industry, manufacturing and jobs, lots of them!


----------



## Roadkill (Nov 8, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> you're suggesting that a mine is a good idea. mines are famously of only limited lifespan, and economic and political events well away from the mining business can severely impact on them. a better idea, though doubtless one you would not countenance as involves some thought, would be to explore more sustainable ways - both environmentally and in terms of duration - of regenerating employment in the region. i suppose though that there would be some knock-on job creation from the scheme you favour - road cleaners for example. but you're talking about the creation of jobs which have few transferable skills - digging is, after all, simply digging and there are a decreasing number of jobs in that field. what's desired i would expect are jobs which will raise the skills of the workforce, not ones which will essentially deskill it. but if that's the end you wish for then fucking have it your way you daft twat.



Shut me up?  Hardly - unlike some I do actually have to work for my living.

You really are clueless, aren't you?

Firstly, if Sirius are to be believed (and they should, of course, be treated with scepticism) there are deposits enough to supply all the UK's potash needs for at least half a century. Yes, mines mines have a limited lifespan, but you can hardly portray a concern that might last for fifty years as here-today-gone-tomorrow.

As for your claims that few jobs will be created and they will be unskilled, read this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-15535869

As for the airy-fairy crap about 'more sustainable ways' of creating jobs in the area, if you've any bright ideas then let's hear them. If not, then off you fuck.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2011)

Roadkill said:


> Shut me up? Hardly - unlike some I do actually have to work for my living.


i pity anyone unfortunate enough to employ you. must have been a poor day at the applications.

you'll note that that link says the highly skilled jobs will be created to PLAN, BUILD and OPERATE the plant, not to fucking dig stuff out the ground. back to comprehension school for you i think.


----------



## Roadkill (Nov 8, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> i pity anyone unfortunate enough to employ you. must have been a poor day at the applications.
> 
> you'll note that that link says the highly skilled jobs will be created to PLAN, BUILD and OPERATE the plant, not to fucking dig stuff out the ground. back to comprehension school for you i think.



Yes, to plan, build and OPERATE. Then there are the jobs created in transporting the stuff, the effect of workers possibly moving into the area and almost certainly spending money at local businesses ... all the knock-on effects.

Don't bother coming back on this - or trying to answer the other points you've ignored. I've had enough of you. Quite why you weren't given the heave-ho along with Ern, who you fawned all over for years, I don't understand. Certainly, you've contributed nothing beyond sneering to these forums for as long as I can remember. Ignore list beckons...


----------



## free spirit (Nov 8, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> torture equipment has to be made somewhere, if not here then it will be made somewhere else in the world, so we're merely exporting the moral degradation, probably to somewhere with a far more oppressive regime and even laxer export controls.


no it doesn't.

it doesn't have to be made anywhere. It doesn't have to exist.

Potash on the other hand is vital for feeding the 7 billion people on the planet / 70 odd million in this country, so you're talking bollocks.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2011)

free spirit said:


> no it doesn't.
> 
> it doesn't have to be made anywhere. It doesn't have to exist.


you're quite right, there's an awful lot you can do with just a simple rope and pulley - there's no need for the new-fangled technology at all.



> Potash on the other hand is vital for feeding the 7 billion people on the planet / 70 odd million in this country, so you're talking bollocks.


i was simply showing that a similar argument can be made for a range of things. could be torture equipment, could be toy cars, could be rubber bullets, could be foie gras.

as for potash being vital to feed people here, i'd be interested to know how you propose to ensure anything produced from this mine remains in this country given the high demand for potash from eg india.


----------



## free spirit (Nov 8, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> i pity anyone unfortunate enough to employ you. must have been a poor day at the applications.
> 
> you'll note that that link says the highly skilled jobs will be created to PLAN, BUILD and OPERATE the plant, not to fucking dig stuff out the ground. back to comprehension school for you i think.


they'll not be digging the stuff out with a spade and a wheelbarrow, and I'd personally class operating the heavy plant required for something like this to be a highly skilled job, but then I've actually worked on sites around heavy plant, not entirely convinced you have.


----------



## Addy (Nov 8, 2011)

When I lived at my mums they opened up an open cast coal mine close by to a potash mine.
The result was a huge reported increase in asthma cases at the surrounding GP's surgeries, and filthy windows all the time due to the wind carrying the dust.

Something to consider.


----------



## musker (Nov 12, 2011)

> When I lived at my mums they opened up an open cast coal mine close by to a potash mine.
> The result was a huge reported increase in asthma cases at the surrounding GP's surgeries, and filthy windows all the time due to the wind carrying the dust.
> 
> Something to consider.



The potash is over 2000 metres deep. There ain't going to be any opencast mining. Look at what Boulby is doing and any problems around there. That is more relevant than your post


----------



## Addy (Nov 14, 2011)

musker said:


> The potash is over 2000 metres deep. There ain't going to be any opencast mining. Look at what Boulby is doing and any problems around there. That is more relevant than your post


 
Ahh never mind anyones health as long as there are a few jobs out of it


----------



## musker (Nov 14, 2011)

Addy said:


> Ahh never mind anyones health as long as there are a few jobs out of it


Not quite sure what point you are trying to make but if health were the only issue (and I don't see health as the major issue for the local population or any workers on any proposal that might materialise here, why would it be ) then society would never move forward at all in anything. There are always arguments for not doing something, sometimes very good arguments but on this one at the moment it is all very much speculation.


----------



## Addy (Nov 14, 2011)

crack on then and enjoy your potash

welcome to the boards btw


----------



## musker (Nov 14, 2011)

Thanks for the welcome Addy, appreciate that.


----------

