Greed and self interest

srcandas

bowlhead a fair enough reply and I appreciate the time put in. I could enter discussion on some of the issues raised but I don't think that would advance the debate. Can't disagree with the majority

My problem is not with Sirius who's job it is to exploit opportunity to the benefit of their shareholders, or those who are for or against based on economic/employment/environmental arguments.

My problem is with those who are NIMBY in the sense they will never visit North Yorks and to gain £500 don't care if NY is turned into an industrial waste.

I still think this project, with conditions relating to water supply, local transport in the build phase, and use of local labour long term should go ahead, based on my limited research. However I want to see a transparent and fair decision process - even if I lose money.

But I guess that is too much to ask in this world focused on greed.

ps: it is interesting that many regulars here seem to be people who care about more than simple profit despite this being a largely investment foro. Perhaps there is hope :beer:

Glen_Clark

bowlhead99 wrote: »

We'd also hope the decision will be made based on sound arguments

Some Hope

bowlhead99 wrote: »

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.

Doesn't usually work like that because one party is local NIMBYs. They exercise their power not through money but through the ballot box electing local Councillors. The developer has no power through the ballot box and can only exercise his influence through money. So you can sometimes get a reasonable balance of power and the right decision - after huge delay and expense. The main reason homes are so expensive.

Ark_Welder

A few FT headlines to google.

• Potash mine planned for North York Moors
• Locals rush to invest in Yorkshire potash
• Sirius Minerals says potash mine deposits greater than expected
• Potash wars hit peace of North York Moors

A bit about the existing mine owned by a competitor, which looks to be about 2km inside the national park boundary:

• http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-22152699
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boulby_Mine

Looking at the OS map it would be difficult to locate the mine head outside the park. The nearest park border is in the river valley towards Whitby. So my layman's guess is that for that reason it would be a non-starter.


No particular axe to grind myself: my involvement is only as an occasional damp tourist plodding across the moors (usually when there's a full moon, for some reason. wake up in the strangest of places too...).


What views would be taken if this mine was being opened in South America or Africa? Everywhere is someone's back yard...

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Is it underground?

Will it affect the Coast 2 Coast footpath route?

The mine head is several km inland south of Whitby. The ore will be transported via buried pipelines to Teesside. Doesn't appear to touch the coast so the footpath should be unaffected.

bigadaj

It would bevery easy to set the mine outside the boundary, however the further away the higher the cost and the less is the profit.

Interestingly your quote about third world countries is becoming far less true. We're currently working on a mine in drc, as part of which were doing noise and visual impact assessements. With the locals living in extremes of poverty then the idea that tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars are being spent on this seems mad to me, but its all about pr and csr, particularly as most of these companies have a partial listing ona. Major stock market. Impacts on contamination, hydrology, wildlife etc seem sensible, but noise and views in Africa is bizarre.