|
Post by John on Apr 15, 2011 8:57:17 GMT -5
Although it's not new, as several companies were about to deep mine and solution mine Potash south of Boulby mine way back around 1975. There is "talk" about Whitby Potash, a company formed in the 1970's, sinking a deep mine to exploit the potash reserves between Whitby and Scarborough in North Yorkshire.
Reserves are much deeper than CPL's Boulby Mine, probably several hundred metres!! So it will present a challenge for the new company, should they sink the shafts.
|
|
|
Post by John on Jan 31, 2012 14:21:45 GMT -5
try 1669 metres deep!!!! or over 5000 feet in old money. Thats from the core samples taken to the lowest level.. It's also proving to be the thickest bed of potash in the world.
Looks like CPL sunk Boulby in the wrong place.. ;D
|
|
|
Post by John on Jun 2, 2012 9:58:15 GMT -5
Here's a youtube video of Sirius's proposed operation.
|
|
|
Post by John on Jun 17, 2013 9:33:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by John on Jul 16, 2013 11:48:48 GMT -5
I'm beginning to wonder about Sirius Minerals and their Yorkshire Potash mine scheme, their first idea was to drive a steep drift down about half way, then mine a huge winding hall, then continue vertically as shafts to the seam they were to mine. They were also stated for the record, that they are not interested in the potash seam and would not be in direct competition with CPL up the road.
I did express doubts this project would ever get off the drawing boards, looks like I may well be right.
According to their site now, two shafts from the surface, to mine potash in direct competition with CPL. Having trouble raising capital......
|
|
|
Post by tygwyn on Jul 20, 2013 19:25:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by John on Jul 21, 2013 6:22:23 GMT -5
I don't think it was a smear report Jim, CPL have nothing to lose, they are an established mine of 40 years experience now... Yorkshire Potash are the ones who keep "chopping and changing". If you were the planning authority, would you grant permission to a company wishing to set up business in a National Park if they kept changing their plans, plus giving false information??? The type of potash YP are aiming to mine is low grade with little to low market. First they plan on a drift mine to halfway, then it's deep shaft all the way, then it's process at a new Teeside plant they wish to build, with most of the product sold within the UK, now it's process in the Middle East and sell overseas,,,Their words, not CPL's
TBH, I cannot see YP's mine going ahead, they are having trouble raising the rest of the capital, they are also months behind target, I saw all this years ago with the original Yorkshire Potash, plus the other companies who were going to sink potash mines in the area.... I've even been wondering if YP is a tax dodge...
|
|
|
Post by tygwyn on Jul 21, 2013 6:44:21 GMT -5
I don't think it was a smear report Jim, CPL have nothing to lose, The type of potash YP are aiming to mine is low grade with little to low market.
John,if you have read that link i posted,you will see that the Polyhalite is far from little to low market value,
Also the Grant that CPL have obtained to develop the Polyhalite,Why,if it has not much value.
Why would CPL write that report,if they have nothing to lose,but they do if this mine gets off the ground,so a report like that could possibly put investors off the project.
Remember who they,CPL are,not adverse to a bit of diplomatic doggery.
|
|
|
Post by John on Jul 21, 2013 7:42:23 GMT -5
I don't think it was a smear report Jim, CPL have nothing to lose, The type of potash YP are aiming to mine is low grade with little to low market.
John,if you have read that link i posted,you will see that the Polyhalite is far from little to low market value,
Also the Grant that CPL have obtained to develop the Polyhalite,Why,if it has not much value.
Why would CPL write that report,if they have nothing to lose,but they do if this mine gets off the ground,so a report like that could possibly put investors off the project.
Remember who they,CPL are,not adverse to a bit of diplomatic doggery.
Polyhalite is a low grade of potash, I forget what the percentage is, in the North Yorks seam, but is of low finantial value, I should have bookmarked my sources that I found over the last few months. Remember it costs CPL little to develop their source as they are already down there, NY Potash on the other hand have to sink two shafts, install their five winding engines and develop the mine...Doesn't seem logical Jim. It's akin to sinking a mine in Wales with a rich seam of anthracite and a much lower grade of brown coal that resembles peat and just having plans to exploit the peaty brown coal...
Polyhalite is what is considered "organic" fertilizer, it can be spread on the land straight from the mine, even CPL admits there is little market for the product at the present time. As CPL only produce 50% of the UK's required potash needs, there's plenty of scope for a competitor. I know when I worked for them, some of our product was exported, some was used in the chemical industry, it's used to make soft soaps, special glass, like fluorescent tube glass, and many other products, besides being an additive in fertilizers..
It's the media who have pumped up the finantial value of polyhalite, unfortunately the market place thinks otherwise..
I'm still skeptical this project will go ahead, why spend money sinking a very expensive deep mine "to mine iron ore if you have a rich gold reef"
I still think someone is cooking the books for a tax write off, they have even suspended their plans for a mine stateside which was supposed to have been at the top of their list...Doesn't make sense...
|
|
|
Post by tygwyn on Jul 21, 2013 8:33:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by John on Jul 21, 2013 11:29:14 GMT -5
This is from Sirius Minerals own webpage...I think serious investors would take this as BS and as such "take it with a pinch of salt" LOL
I saw all the initial problems first hand at Boulby, it was still being developed when I started there, sure, a lot of problems were "ironed out" as we went from day to day. It was a new venture working with a new mineral unknown to UK mining, it even caused headaches with our SA partners who had experience working some of the deepest mines in the world.
But YP is another unknown, they will be working far deeper than Boulby, I'm not even sure Sirius has experience working at those depths, fairly obvious they will poach skilled labour, maybe that's what CPL are worrying about.
All staff way back in the 1970's, senior, research, management and foremen had to sign a contract, that they could not work for another Potash company for 5 years after leaving CPL's employ, that kept company "secrets" safe and prevented poaching by the other companies that were looking like sinking mines around Whitby, three if I recall right, plus one that we knew would never get off, a solution mine.
Check these figures out Jim, most are fairy tale figures for such a large supposed venture..I doubt any company could sink a mine for those costs knowing what is known now about the local strata...
Boulby has spent millions on shaft repairs over the last 30 years, the last repair was started and completed after a few million was spent in research by I think Nottingham University..
1) The Project Study and
2) The NPK Concept Study
The Project Study has delivered a lower estimated capital expenditure to first production, faster construction time and lower risk. The Project Study was completed to a level of accuracy of +/- 25%.
The key findings from the Project Study for the initial development were:
Estimated capital cost to first production of US$1.7 billion1 First production targeted to commence in Q4 2016 Simplified processing to produce 5 million tonnes per annum (“mtpa”) of granulated Polyhalite for the initial development phase Positive free cash flow in 2017 Production ramp up to 5mtpa by 2018 Estimated Teesside FOB operating cost of US$37/tonne1 of Polyhalite Initial development (5mtpa of Polyhalite) after-tax net present value of US$2.6 billion1, increasing to US$5.9 billion on first production1
1Figures exclude contingency.
An additional recommendation from the Project Study and subsequent engineering work was that the most appropriate implementation method for the Project is a more conventional combination of Engineering Procurement Construction Management ("EPCM") and Engineering Procurement Construction ("EPC") contracting strategies. The EPCM/EPC implementation approach adds value to the York Potash Project by matching the contracting implementation methodology to the project design. The EPCM and EPC contractors will help ensure the project is completed as efficiently and as cost effectively as possible.
The NPK Concept Study confirmed the viability of producing 5mtpa of NPK fertilizer at Teesside using Polyhalite as the main source of potassium (“K”). This demonstrates that Sirius could produce large scale NPK fertilizer with the added nutrients of sulphur, magnesium and calcium to deliver the benefits of potassium at a lower production cost and energy requirement compared to that of traditional SOP or MOP based NPK’s. The NPK plant was designed as an addition to the granulated Polyhalite processing plant with 1mtpa modules allowing for flexible expansion up to 5mtpa of NPK. The NPK Concept Study order of magnitude cost estimates were prepared to a level of accuracy of +/- 50% and established:
NPK products with varying Polyhalite content up to 70% can be produced using dry granulation; Estimated capital cost for initial 2mtpa NPK capacity at Teesside of US$318m1,2 with trucking of raw materials to the plant; Total estimated capital cost for 5mtpa NPK capacity at Teesside of US$736m1,2 (inclusive of the costs of the initial 2mtpa capacity described above) including the cost of switching to shipping of raw materials to the plant; Estimated Teesside FOB operating costs, excluding raw materials, of US$61/tonne2 reducing by US$23/tonne2 post expansion beyond 2mtpa due to import of raw materials via ship to Teesside; and NPK expansion could deliver incremental annual EBITDA in the range of US$374 - $617m from approximately 2.5mtpa of Polyhalite
Work has commenced on the Definitive Feasibility Study (“DFS”) and the Company is targeting completion of that study for both granulated Polyhalite and NPK during 2013 to a level of accuracy of +/-15%. The team will also focus on a number of engineering optimisations and opportunities to reduce financing requirements as part of the DFS. Expansion capacity and options such as processing to create Sulphate of Potash (“SOP”) to be considered once the project is cashflow positive.
1Excludes any land or acquisition costs. 2Figures exclude contingency.
JORC Compliant Resource Statement
York Potash Project has a JORC compliant Inferred Mineral Resource Estimate of 2.66 billion tonnes of 85.7% Polyhalite within an area representing 7% of the York Potash Area of Interest.
820 million tonnes of polyhalite at an average grade of 87.3% was upgraded to Indicated Category in May 2013. The upgrade to Indicated Resource provides basis for a Reserve estimate expected later in the year.
The JORC compliant Inferred Mineral Resource Estimate was prepared by independent consultants SRK Consulting (UK) Ltd.
INFERRED MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE
Seam
Resource Category
Mean Thickness (m)
Tonnage
(Mt)
Mean Polyhalite Grade (%)
Polyhalite Content (Mt)
Shelf
Indicated
12.8
820
87.3
710
Shelf
Inferred
12.8
840
85.7
720
Basin
Inferred
14.8
1,000
84.7
850
Total
2,660
85.7
2,280
Studies
Sirius is targeting completion of a DFS for both granulated Polyhalite and NPK during 2013. The DFS will be prepared to a level of accuracy of +/-15% and include consideration of a number of optimisation opportunities including:
Mine development – Results from the shaft pilot hole geotechnical work will enable shaft design parameters, sinking methodology and lining to be finalised. Mine planning – Complete work to refine mine start-up and ramp-up strategies once geological results are known from SM11 with a view to maximising grade of extracted ore in early years of operation. Equipment leasing – Discussions with equipment providers to structure financing options for key construction and operational equipment Infrastructure outsourcing – Preliminary discussions are underway to consider outsourcing initial infrastructure including power, port facilities and the pipeline. Storage optimisation – Current estimates for Initial Development of Polyhalite and NPK Concept Study on NPK include US$365 million for product storage facilities, opportunity exists to potentially optimise and better stage operational requirements
The Mine
The proposed mine is at the centre of high quality concentration of the Polyhalite ore deposit as defined by our drilling program, with all infrastructure designed to have minimal environmental impact. In addition, the site has existing main road access for construction and operations. The Company submitted the mine planning application in January 2013.
The mine access and related surface infrastructure will be located approximately four kilometres south from the outskirts of Whitby on the B1416. The site currently comprises a farm and commercial forestry block, and already benefits from extensive woodland screening and access to the main A171 road.
Mine and Shaft Design
Sirius is undertaking a design that offers a low visual impact, reduces time to production and is also cost effective.
Twin vertical shafts to a depth of around 1,500 metres below surface Hoisting system below surface to reduce surface impact Initial hoisting capacity of 12mtpa of ore
Transport System
The UK has an extensive history of buried pipelines due to being an environmentally and economically viable alternative to other transport systems.
The projects pipeline will consist of:
Twin 600-700mm lined and buried (1.2m below surface) pipelines carrying the Polyhalite ore as suspended particles in water Approximately 44.5km’s to Teesside - the preferred processing and port site
Capacity for up to 20mtpa of Polyhalite
This solution will give the project very low operating cost whilst minimising any environmental impact once installed.
Processing
The vast majority of the processing of the Polyhalite will occur at the port at Teesside. When the ore arrives it will be dewatered, dried and then granulated either by addition of a binder or by compaction. Working with GBM, laboratory test work has been conducted to confirm each process step and measure key parameters.
Following processing, the granulated Polyhalite will be transferred by conveyor to a covered portside storage facility. Port infrastructure will include a ship loader and jetty capable of handling vessels ranging from 50,000 to 150,000 Dead Weight Tonnes (DWT).
Local, National and International Benefit
The York Potash Project will set a new benchmark for delivering sustainable economic development in a sensitive environment.
LOCALLY IT WILL:
Provide a major stimulus for the North Yorkshire economy - creating jobs, improving skills and contributing to people's prosperity for generations to come Support community projects with millions of pounds paid into a community fund over 50 years through the York Potash Foundation
NATIONALLY IT WILL:
Deliver a significant amount of capital investment into the UK as well as boosting the national economy through export of a vital commodity
Help to re-install the UK at the forefront of the advanced global mining industry Safeguard UK-sourced supplies of high-value fertilizer products that are essential for the future efficiency of UK farming and food security
INTERNATIONALLY IT WILL:
Provide a solution to the challenge of global food security by becoming the world's most significant large scale supplier of multi-nutrient fertilizers
The Sirius Minerals Acquisition of York Potash
The Company acquired the entire share capital of York Potash Ltd in January 2011.
For more information, please visit the York Potash website.
|
|
|
Post by tygwyn on Jul 21, 2013 13:07:26 GMT -5
As i stated earlier,i agree with you,they are talking monopoly money,and they will have a job to raise capital in this financial climate.
But look at the bigger picture,they say they have contracts to supply China,China has been buying up interests all over the World to secure supply of various products,just maybe,this is where the finance will come,just a thought.
My disagreement has been the CPL report on the Sirus project and stating Polyhalite is of little value,
When they themselves intending exploiting the reserve,maybe them Goldsteins and Goldbergs want it all for themselves,not unknown.
|
|
|
Post by John on Jul 21, 2013 14:08:55 GMT -5
As i stated earlier,i agree with you,they are talking monopoly money,and they will have a job to raise capital in this financial climate. But look at the bigger picture,they say they have contracts to supply China,China has been buying up interests all over the World to secure supply of various products,just maybe,this is where the finance will come,just a thought. My disagreement has been the CPL report on the Sirus project and stating Polyhalite is of little value, When they themselves intending exploiting the reserve,maybe them Goldsteins and Goldbergs want it all for themselves,not unknown. They aren't firm signed contracts Jim, bit like me saying to you, "I'm thinking of building a new type of battery, are you interested in buying job lots when I get going" They have a long way to go before anyone will sign purchasing contracts, like I say, I heard it all in the 1970's from Shell, RTZ and the other company who were going to sink mines.
What puzzles me, is why did the original owners of the leases sell them??? They poured millions into boreholes and environmental impact studies.
Smells fishy to me.
|
|
|
Post by tygwyn on Jul 21, 2013 16:59:00 GMT -5
The point being, This is`nt the 70`s, And neither You nor I know whether there are contracts signed,or not,
And without doubt,China is desperate for any mineral source,and this Could Be,a foot in the door.
Regarding what the other companies spent on boreholes before walking away,is neither here nor there,like i mention,this is`nt the 70`s,the fertilizer prices have gone through the roof,mainly because of China`s buying power,back in the 70`s the prices were peanuts compared to now,
Take the Margam project,the Coalboard,another company i cannot think of at the moment and Tata have sunk boreholes and Siesmic tests on the area,Tata alone have spent 7-10million,and it don`t look like it will start anytime soon,if ever.
But immaterial, if Sirus `s plans and figures have been plucked out of a monkey`s backside,
What was the reason for CPL to write a report on a prospective oppositition company,running down the target mineral ,when they are going for it themselves,
Other than to put off investors,and corner the UK market for themselves,what other reason could there be?
|
|
|
Post by John on Jul 21, 2013 17:26:27 GMT -5
The point being, This is`nt the 70`s, And neither You nor I know whether there are contracts signed,or not, And without doubt,China is desperate for any mineral source,and this Could Be,a foot in the door. Regarding what the other companies spent on boreholes before walking away,is neither here nor there,like i mention,this is`nt the 70`s,the fertilizer prices have gone through the roof,mainly because of China`s buying power,back in the 70`s the prices were peanuts compared to now, Take the Margam project,the Coalboard,another company i cannot think of at the moment and Tata have sunk boreholes and Siesmic tests on the area,Tata alone have spent 7-10million,and it don`t look like it will start anytime soon,if ever. But immaterial, if Sirus `s plans and figures have been plucked out of a monkey`s backside, What was the reason for CPL to write a report on a prospective oppositition company,running down the target mineral ,when they are going for it themselves, Other than to put off investors,and corner the UK market for themselves,what other reason could there be? No idea Jim, but sirius did have cheaper options to mine potash here on their leases stateside...Like I say, I smell a dead fish...Why go to the expense of sinking a very deep mine when they already hold leases on areas they have permits already to sink a mine at less depths in areas that they know the risks on??? Just doesn't make sense to me. Potash is big here in the states, Canada and Mexico. There are even places over here that can be safely longwalled, now that's talking big bucks!!
|
|
|
Post by tygwyn on Jul 21, 2013 18:17:53 GMT -5
Is`nt there a big potash mine in Saskatchewan?
What`s under your land John,is it Montana you are?where them big coal seams in the Powder River area are?,
|
|
|
Post by John on Jul 22, 2013 6:01:47 GMT -5
Is`nt there a big potash mine in Saskatchewan? What`s under your land John,is it Montana you are?where them big coal seams in the Powder River area are?, There's several very large potash mines in Canada, and some very large ones in the US in New Mexico.
No idea whats under my land, wished I'd got a few hundred thousand to spare to carry out a test drilling, I live in south central Missouri in the Ozark mountains, our well was drilled to 550 feet, mostly through limestone.
|
|
|
Post by John on Jul 22, 2013 11:19:27 GMT -5
So they could well be denied planning permission, I see their stock value has plunged due to possible denials of permits to operate in or under the national park. Next Monday the verdict will be in....
Failing this, they will have to go back to North Dakota and renew planning permission there. I also found out, China is a big producer of Potash, as are a few Latin American countries, plus Russia is the worlds biggest producer, and Spain and Germany also produce considerable amounts of potash. Sirius is also involved in a West Australian potash venture..
|
|
|
Post by tygwyn on Jul 22, 2013 19:24:05 GMT -5
It will be a shame it gets turned down, employment is drasticly needed.
Them national parks are a law unto their own,this site is well shielded in a forestry,so impact on the countryside is minimised.
Although,when needed,the LNG pipeline from Pembrokeshire through to Gloucester went through the Brecon Beacons national park.
|
|
|
Post by John on Jul 30, 2013 13:07:29 GMT -5
I've searched all over and can't find any mention of the decision for planning permission for Yorkshire Potash...It was supposed to be released yesterday, but nothing in any paper, so I presume they are still meeting.
|
|
|
Post by John on Aug 13, 2013 15:32:34 GMT -5
I see it's been deferred for a third time, this must be costing Sirius Minerals a lot of money, not knowing if they are going to get the permits.
|
|
|
Post by John on Oct 27, 2013 10:36:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tygwyn on Jan 26, 2014 17:50:07 GMT -5
Polyhalite is so worthless that Boulby intend on mining 600,000 tons of the stuff?
What did i say last year about their report on the new mine,?
Also noticed a post by your mate Boro back in 2012 that the new life of the mine lay in Polyhalite.
|
|
|
Post by John on Jan 26, 2014 18:01:58 GMT -5
Polyhalite is so worthless that Boulby intend on mining 600,000 tons of the stuff? What did i say last year about their report on the new mine,? Also noticed a post by your mate Boro back in 2012 that the new life of the mine lay in Polyhalite. Hard to say Jim, remember there were several "players" in this game in the 70's when I started at Boulby, and CPL were the only ones to stick it out. I think the unknown put the other companies off trying, although I was reading, one actually did a test solution mine and decided it wasn't worth the effort. I was also reading recently, a company applied for a planning permit and license for a solution mine, it was turned down due to the fear of sterilizing so much of the deposits and presenting a danger to other companies wanting to deep mine the potash beds.
|
|
|
Post by tygwyn on Jan 27, 2014 6:27:50 GMT -5
Don`t think its hard to say at all John,
Boulby`s damning report on the profitability of the new mine mining polyhalite ,which they stated was worthless as a fertilizer and no market for the product,now they intend to mine 600,000 tons of it,apparently known about back in 2012 according to Boro.
That is called slamming another company to look after their own order books,which does happen in big business,its called a smear campaign.
|
|
|
Post by John on Jan 27, 2014 8:44:28 GMT -5
Don`t think its hard to say at all John, Boulby`s damning report on the profitability of the new mine mining polyhalite ,which they stated was worthless as a fertilizer and no market for the product,now they intend to mine 600,000 tons of it,apparently known about back in 2012 according to Boro. That is called slamming another company to look after their own order books,which does happen in big business,its called a smear campaign. I'm sure other companies know the price that their products will fetch on the open market, BUT, what will the cost per tonne be for Yorkshire Potash in mining costs??? That's the big unknown Jim, you know like I do, two collieries a mile apart have totally different mining conditions, or at least they can have... Here you have an established mine near Staithes, mining out under the North Sea, they are having different mining conditions they used to have, Yorkshire Potash will be many many yards deeper in totally "unknown" mining conditions, it's a gamble. Whether they will be able to raise the funds is another matter. It could turn out to be one financial disaster... Reading about this company, sounds like they have put all their financial eggs in one basket. When ICI decided to take a risk, and they knew it would be, they went into partnership with an international mining company. ICI could afford the risk. I hope they do go ahead, the area certainly needs the jobs. I think CPL is worried it will lose skilled manpower, something it had a job attracting during the early years. Engineering wise, CPL was understaffed on the electrical and mechanical staffs when I worked for them, we had a job keeping up to date with planned maintenance, and that was with unlimited overtime.
|
|
|
Post by John on Jan 27, 2014 11:51:58 GMT -5
Here's some more thoughts Jim, I wonder if they will follow on from CPL's experience, drive all roads in salt, if so, it could be as long as a year before they will be selling any products other than salt, which won't cover operating costs.
CPL drove straight into potash developing the mine, so were making some money to cover costs. The East/South East district was the mainstay for production in the early years, but even with changing at the face, didn't help us to make a profit.. Not until the first CM was installed, did production figures start to rise and it wasn't until the early 80's was a profit realised. Remember, development from pit bottom started around 1973/4....1975 was when they went into full production but had many problems. Massive gas blow outs, Wets district "pulled" over 1000 tonnes of shale/potash from one firing!! Took a couple of weeks to muck it out, plus almost 24 hours of mining lost due to high methane levels, no one was allowed underground until a methane level below 1% was recorded at the top of the No1 shaft.
The Manager used to hold monthly meetings with all staff regarding development, ways to reduce costs, how we could work together to improve production, and general safety. These were usually on afternoons shifts, we'd attend these before getting changed and going underground, not much was really accomplished by these meetings, the underground mining teams were doing their best anyway. Even when a 2 tier bonus was introduced, it didn't help production levels very much.
|
|
|
Post by tygwyn on Jan 27, 2014 14:10:20 GMT -5
John, I think you have misunderstood my last 2 posts, I`m not talking about the New Mine,i`m talking about Boulby going to mine 600,000 tons of Polyhalite after they stated in the report on the New Mine,that there was no market for polyhalite and it would`nt cover the costs,even though they knew 12mths previously according to Boro they were going after polyhalite as the life of the mine was in that product.
|
|
|
Post by tygwyn on Jan 28, 2014 17:20:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by John on Jan 30, 2014 8:55:59 GMT -5
It pees me off that governments give private enterprise huge grants....There is no logical reason for it. The company makes money hand over fist, why don't they set aside some of the yearly profits for reinvestment??
|
|