Greed and self interest

grey_gym_sock

dryhat wrote: »

It's a pity that these local interest, single issue nimby people don't put more effort into fighting the real enemy.

... the people's front of judea?

the company is going to pursue its own financial interests. given the legal and practical constraints it operates under.

i do think it's a bit pathetic when ppl ignore broader public interest issues (e.g. jobs, environment) and argue for whatever marginally promotes their own financial interests. it's understandable that when something has a huge personal effect on somebody, they're unlikely be be able to take the broader view. but when their financial interest is very marginal?

i try to be careful not to promote companies i hold shares in (e.g. HL). i.e. i try to be factual, i'm happy to say negative things, and if i do say something positive, i mention that i hold the shares.

Glen_Clark

Planning is rigged in favour of the NIMBYS because they already have a vote in the area. Those who want to move into new houses there don't.
More importantly, the latest Westminster Scandal shows how many MPs will support anything for a bribe - even an unelected dictatorship formed by a military coup with an appalling human rights record!!!!
20 years after the Neil Hamilton Cash for Questions Scandal its still going on - but now its far worse !!!!
And the only time we get to find out about it is from the Press they are trying to Censor!!!
Why don't the Police investigate corruption in Westminster!!!
So what chance of impartiality in the planning process

Yorkie1

I live in N Yorks and have been following this story.

It is estimated that up to 5,000 jobs will be created - 1,500 in the construction phase, and 1,000 to operate the mine.

The company has been working closely with local colleges to design courses to train up local workers for the build and ongoing work. They are certainly committed to using / training up local labour where possible.

The MoD has withdrawn its opposition (nearby Fylingdales) but the National Park is concerned that the development will hit the tourist spending in economy by £40m.

Glen_Clark

Yorkie1 wrote: »

the National Park is concerned that the development will hit the tourist spending in economy by £40m.

Typical selfish Nimbys. What they mean is it might hit Tourist spending in the immediate vicinity.
It's hardly likely to hit overall tourist spending in 'the economy' (Britain) when its generating so much wealth.

srcandas

The problem is that once we get down to arguments to and fro many will have a different view for different reasons, and many will have vested (declared or not) interests.

For sure the company is spending vaste sums to get the decision they want (fair enough) but even this is not clear cut. Traditionally in the potash business minnows (exploring as opposed to production companies) such as Sirius get through planning and then sell out to a big fish that has the multi-millions to move into production. If this is true, which Sirius say it isn't, then the investors are looking for short term gain and the big fish will try to amend the planning agreement.

On the otherside there is an argument that the mine could contaminate the water supply - so it is just not a job count argument.

But all I want to see is a fair, transparent planning decision based on facts and declared interests, not he who pays the piper wins. From what I can see it is the latter that is occurring.

And it is of course not a yes/no decision. Conditions can be applied. I still do not understand the company argument that the mine shaft needs to be in the park at all. The other mine already operating near by has the potash faces 12 miles out at sea. Surely this demonstrates that mine shaft position is not critical. Further doubt on this is raised when the company have only surveyed 7% of the land for which they have mining rights

But I expect as others have said a cheque in the right place will swing it

Yorkie1

Glen_Clark wrote: »

Typical selfish Nimbys. What they mean is it might hit Tourist spending in the immediate vicinity.
It's hardly likely to hit overall tourist spending in 'the economy' (Britain) when its generating so much wealth.

Sorry, my paraphrase - yes they are referring to the local National Park economy, not the wider UK economy.

Ark_Welder

srcandas wrote: »

But all I want to see is a fair, transparent planning decision based on facts and declared interests

Your alternative to selling down the complete holding would be to retain a minimal direct holding, e.g. one share. But this would have to be either a certified or Crest holding, i.e. a nominee account would not suffice. Then, you would be able to attend company annual meetings, etc, from where you could harangue the board on the matter. That is another way of being a shareholder activist.


It is rather naive to think that companies won't act in their own best interests. Or that shareholders that passively remain invested aren't also acting in their own interest. Where a shareholder activist might be effective is in focusing on how proceeding would be the negative for a company, i.e. not in its best interests. But always remaining within the law: illegal acts can alienate the majority, and it is the majority opinion that need to be motivated to the cause - whether the opinion is that of individuals or the businesses which supply the company.

Expect more if this kind of thing in the near future, especially in the South East: drilling for shale gas reserves.

bowlhead99

srcandas wrote: »

Now while there are those on Teeside who will have a real desire to see 4000 new jobs added to the economy the majority of those who signed this partition are just small time shareholders taking a punt to gain a few hundred quid.

Seems odd to me that these people should feel the need to give an opinion.

As a fellow shareholder I received a letter from the company back on 12 March letting me know the formal planning application was in and how I might like to make my comments known by letter or by the planning website. However, the formal comment period per the website stated it closed on 8 March, so I didn't bother (I understand from other forums that others had got letters earlier - I hold via broker nominee accounts).

I think I did later sign an online petition but clearly any yes/no petition is only going to show that there's some general show of support on that side of the fence, rather than present any proper arguments or personal views. The planning process won't rule for or against an issue on the basis that there are 30,000 in the 'yes' petition and only 29,000 on the 'no'.

So if you don't 'win' just by having more signatures, and it's simply a general 'depth of feeling' statement, it's reasonable that owners and employees of the company involved do at least get to say they would like it to go ahead, as much as a local can say they would or they wouldn't. Both sides have stakeholders, and if it were down to pure numbers on a single-issue petition, with the company having one vote and the residents of north yorkshire having 600,000 votes to say they didn't want any more traffic, it would be somewhat skewed against the company's chances.

The go-ahead of the mine is not just about local jobs vs traffic, there is some national interest (taxes, employment, strategic natural resource etc), so as someone who is not just a shareholder but a UK taxpayer, I feel I have the right to add my name to a petition that says 'please don't block this mine'. I don't think it 'seems odd that these people should feel the need to give an opinion'.

Through owning a bit of the company, yes I am more likely to want to give an opinion in my own self interest. I might not have even been aware of the issue if I were not a shareholder.

But if one side is saying "tourist spending is going to drop by 40m", I as a UK taxpayer who has been a tourist in the past, have every right to say "hey actually I am not going to reduce my trips to NYM next year as much as you suggest due to the extra traffic; and if I did reduce them temporarily in favour of the Lake District my money is still in the UK so is not a net negative when considered against the national taxes and employment benefits from exploiting the resource; and in a few years when Whitby and Scarborough and surrounding towns have better employment perhaps I would even move there and start spending my money there, which I won't be doing at the moment because they seem a bit naff."

So it's not a local voice, but it's a valid opinion without which we might be worse off.

It is a shame that a petition gets invalidated because someone signed it Mickey Mouse, as for all we know that could have been sabotage by someone with the alternate view, rather than the petitioners trying to boost their numbers with fakes. So it makes sense that the petition organiser would ask you to please write an email to say you were a genuine signatory and it is not all a fake petition worthy of being disregarded.

Not that I would probably bother with a follow-up email, because as mentioned, there will be enough voices at the table talking about all the implications of a project this big, without me saying 'me too'.

srcandas wrote: »

It should be left to due process, the locals who want jobs which they think it will bring, the locals who want jobs and think it will destroy them, the company that wants the business, the land owners, government appointed bodies within who's domain it falls, and the experts who can give considered opinion.

Not a greedy load of gambling small time shareholders.

It is being left to due process, and I think all of the above views will be taken into account, but it's entirely sensible and legitimate that the company spend some money and resources promoting its views, just as in any political process (elections etc).

To a local who doesn't know what is going on, if they see a petition saying 50,000 people don't want the mine, they might well blindly join in and sign it. If they also see one saying 50,000 people do want the mine because it could have a great positive impact, they might at least think twice and realise it's NOT a no-brainer decision. So the number of votes on the petition is not the end game, it is just part of the process of educating locals which would otherwise be more difficult if you entirely removed it as a tool.

srcandas wrote: »

The problem is that once we get down to arguments to and fro many will have a different view for different reasons, and many will have vested (declared or not) interests.

I think this is true, and of course many people would have a view one way or another but not strongly enough to get involved and physically write letters and turn up to the town hall meetings. The planning process has to recognise that vocal minorities are not always right, whether vocal in terms of literal loud voices or being loud with wallets.

But all I want to see is a fair, transparent planning decision based on facts and declared interests, not he who pays the piper wins. From what I can see it is the latter that is occurring.

As mentioned, I don't think people are buying a decision in their favour. Ultimately I think though, economic arguments will come through.

If the government thinks that the 2+ billion tonnes of potash is something that should be exploited for economic gain - only part of which is direct employment, with north yorks having a couple of percentage points extra people unemployed than the national average - at the expense of traffic disruption while they build the underground pipelines and an eyesore that might not be adequately covered by the treelines, I would hope it will veto the NYM planning authority.

We'd also hope the decision will be made based on sound arguments and not because one party could afford to take the ultimate decision maker out to lunch at a marginally better restaurant than the other side, but with politics as it has existed for hundreds of years, there may unfortunately be an element of that.

I don't think that the existence of the petition, or its nullification, is evidence of such corruption however. I would certainly not sell my shares at a loss to 'sit it out' on the basis of wanting to take some moral high ground. Actually I hold from 6.5p and they're currently about 4x that, so I am doing OK (having previously also held a chunk from ~2p exited at 8p).

From an investor perspective it might of course suit you well to sit out and if the planning is rejected to later go through on appeal, you would have a great buying opportunity. Arguably that could be a great result for people interested in the shares, rather than have the planning granted next month, a price spike upwards and then go through a protracted appeal process from the other side and a long boring fundraising /building process during which the price drops or stagnates.

And it is of course not a yes/no decision. Conditions can be applied. I still do not understand the company argument that the mine shaft needs to be in the park at all. The other mine already operating near by has the potash faces 12 miles out at sea. Surely this demonstrates that mine shaft position is not critical. Further doubt on this is raised when the company have only surveyed 7% of the land for which they have mining rights

Some of the resource will be under the sea bed rather than under the land. And processing and loading at port will be done 30 miles away on Teeside. So perhaps they don't absolutely have to have the mine head at that exact spot.

Still, there will be a whole range of geological factors (not sure how much you have read about the size, shape and location of the polyhalite beds?); the land they have picked is an existing private farm and a commercial forestry block, easy to screen in terms of views, with few neighbours to be disrupted - while being not too far away from roads and the housing / facilities of nearby Whitby. It would be bizarre to site the shafts anywhere other than the optimum location for the resource, notwithstanding some deference to the practicalities of transport and what you can get away with in terms of over-ground impact.

The 7% is a red herring, it is just noted that they have a large area of mineral rights and the 2-3bn+ tonnes of polyhalite is in this 7% of it. In mining you generally buy parcels of land rights much bigger than your actual target, but clearly they have decided to focus on the mineral bed in this 7% after doing their scoping, and just because they have rights to an area 15 times the size, it doesn't mean there is 30-40bn tonnes down there and they could easily dig up a different part. The particular bit on which they are focussed is is globally significant in terms of size and concentration, while the bits elsewhere would presumably not be (while noting that there may be more to come at some point in the long long term).

But I expect as others have said a cheque in the right place will swing it

I think a 'cheque in the right place will swing it' is a bit of a fact of life but if the environmental concerns are assuaged then it's all about economic cost/benefit - and clearly one would expect there would be a benefit of digging up 2 billion tonnes of a highly valuable fertilizer with a world market, rather than leaving it in the ground.

grizzly1911

Yorkie1 wrote: »

Sorry, my paraphrase - yes they are referring to the local National Park economy, not the wider UK economy.

Is it underground?

Will it affect the Coast 2 Coast footpath route?

bigadaj

There seems some unjustified faith in the UK planning system, from a fairly close viewpoint the system is terrible, there seem to be more major decisions that are wrong than right, though not one way or the other, for and against development.

The conomics of the scheme seem challenging to me to say the least, underground mining is an expensive process ina developed country, ie where environmental and health and safety laws have to be met to a good standard, so I'm not sure I'd be investing.