Hi Rocal, thankyou for your reply, during the last application I was in regular contact with YP's investor relations, the proper place to ask questions as a shareholder in the company rather than getting directly involved in its running and procedures, it's one thing to write a letter of support about this to the NP it's quite another to start directly questioning the judgment of the director of planning over another application however you may feel as an investor about that desision, YP have employed the best consultants available to deal with this application, and I'm sure they are the best people to deal with this application, IMHO when private investors start getting too involved in this planning application they stand a very good chance of doing more harm than good no matter how much they believe otherwise, the criteria for Boulbys application and subsequent approval comes under a different set of planning guidelines and as much as it seems to be an unlevel playing field that's exactly the way it is, that's not the fault of the planning director it's just the rules, it could be argued that the approval of Boulbys application only strengthens YP's application but I feel that investornuts is jumping the gun here, from my discussions with investor relations last time around I found that many of the issues that private investors where writing to the director of planning about we're already being dealt with by the company, sorry to bang on here but the fact is if you are an investor in the company you are purely just that you don't work for them so leave it to the company to sort these things out.
Not too concerned about opposers this time, at least some of the ones who could have particular influence were consulted by AMEC prior to the submission - in docs:"Additional Amec Scoping Responses" - the responses gave me an impression they have effectively capitulated. But maybe that's just my take?
I await ANY formal third party submissions to appear on NPA site. None so far. Quite a few on R&CBC.
Trooper, while I think we all recognise your authority on the subject of SXX, wasn't that just a little bit patronising? OK, investor hasn't been posting as long as you, but I think you've misread his post? I think he was just being ironic about the ease with which Boulby seem to get pp for anything they do and their sudden change of attitude to mining polyhalite. Don't post often, but let's respect each others right to express opinions without being ridiculed. Can't see a single PIs enquiries getting in the way of a PP as well-planned as this.
I can see the point that Sheps8 is making here, but I'm not so sure I'm in TOTAL agreement, but in general, yes, he's right. I think he's worried that a large number of requests about the Park's stance on ventures like this may be seized on as a case of "blitzing" by rampers of the share. This in turn would be used a an example of unfair practice on the part of supporters of the scheme. My worry is that such a practice is, almost certainly being employed by OPPONEMTS of the scheme already: "Write to your MP now stating your concerns about the disappearance of our wild places" and so on. Speaking as a shareholder who lives only a twenty-five minute drive from the site, who walks and runs the Moors on an almost daily basis and who's visited the actual site about four times, I'm only too aware that this fear is tripe. I think that Sheps8 is right when he says that the company might want to let the planning process take its course now. SXX has done its groundwork (planning-wise, I mean_not literally!) and they probably don't want to suddenly find any wild canons getting into the action over which they have, at best, only limited influence.
Well said............... World's future food production. I was reading about Potash Corp., the world's biggest fertilizer company by market value, estimates that a healthy 58 to 60 million tonnes of the nutrient will be shipped this year, which is more than the 56.5-58 million it had estimated earlier. “We continue to see encouraging signs in each of our major potash markets with a renewal of demand translating into higher sales volumes,” Tilk said. And the firm’s Q3 results confirm such a statement — sales rose to $1.64 billion from $1.52 billion, beating the $1.53 billion average estimate.
Here's a potash price I think in time will be far more relevant to what Sirius are trying to do:
"Langbeinite - Trio®
Average net realized sales price per ton for langbeinite, which is marketed as Trio®, in the third quarter was $351 ($387 per metric tonne), relatively flat compared with the second quarter of 2014 and the third quarter of 2013. ..
Demand for granular- and premium-sized Trio® is strong, yielding solid increases in sales volume for the quarter and year to date with relatively stable pricing trends that reflect the value customers place on this specialty fertilizer."
Intrepid Potash third quarter 2014 results, out 29/10
and that price has held at this higher level of above $380/tonne for 2 years despite the MOP rout.
Langbeinite, in respect of its nutrients, is much closer to polyhalite than MOP, as a potash, (and like poly) it has Sulphur and Magnesium but no Chloride. Growers are paying a lot to get it. Langbeinite 21% K2O. poly 14%, the maths comes up with an enticing number for a probable long term poly sale price.
I question just why you are on this board with concerns like that? It has all been discussed and re-discussed and the concern that you bring to the board is just unbelievable at this stage? If you are an investor with worries as minute as that I would sell and buy somewhere else, because you seem to have not the least idea just what this company is all about, nor how massive its potential is, not at all in just tourism, but to the local community, to the benefit of the nation and then to be a mammoth input into the world's future food production. That, in a nutshell is what we are invested in….if that helps in any way? I need another glass nurse after that….ATB
Datafeed and UK data supplied by NBTrader and Digital Look.
While London South East do their best to maintain the high quality of the information displayed on this site,
we cannot be held responsible for any loss due to incorrect information found here. All information is provided free of charge, 'as-is', and you use it at your own risk.
The contents of all 'Chat' messages should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Limited, or its affiliates.
London South East does not authorise or approve this content, and reserves the right to remove items at its discretion.