Who was it that said "The natives are revolting"? Well this one certainly is!!
This is Nigel's blog for airing concerns about current issues on Alderney, and he invites you to comment too. Add your own thoughts be they humorous, insulting, satirical, critical or even full of praise. This is your chance to join the revolution!
Metal Recycling
This worries me a great deal. The movie Erin Brokovich comes to mind.
And what, precisely, is your evidence for these assertions - both the original Brokovich line and the even more dangerous suggestion of regulatory 'finessing'? Alderney needs investmnent which will contribute towards arresting the spiral of economic decline in which it finds itself. This investor needs to be given a chance to prove his case and for Alderney to show that it is 'open for business'. Of course, he has to prove that his is the right kind of business for the Island, but that requires that he be given a fair hearing and is not dismissed out of hand under the tried and tested 'it's new, it's change, it can't be right for Alderney' principle. Give the guy a break before you condemn him!
I'm not saying we are not open for business, but what really concerns me is just how many poor decisions our States have been making lately. We can't afford to get this one wrong.
there is no evidence either way, but logic tells you that to drive heavy material direct from Holland via road and then load it onto a ship and then unload it in Alderney and then transport it to the smelter to then transfer the finished material from here back to where it came is very costly, as we all know, and if this factory indeed passed EEC laws there is at least a dozen provinces on route that have very high unemployment that would happily subsidise a unique opportunity such as this !! all that we have a right to ask is that PROPER due diligence is done by somebody that knows a lot more than us-is that too much to ask ?
Locic is right. It makes no commercial sense to do this, so there must be some other compeling reason. They are supposed to be having a public meeting to discuss,s o maybe we wil find out there. The other thing is this will bring only 5 jobs. And overall lies the distrust we have in the States to do things properly, based on recent experience.
I am grateful to Alderney Incoming for mentioning the word "evidence". Something lacking in other blogs. The progress so far is that the investor is looking for a site and 'The Powers that be' seeking assistance from specialist advisors as to the environmental aspects. We are informed that before the Netherlands will allow any materials to be exported, the destination must comply with the Dutch environmental laws which are exacting. The problem for Alderney is to ensure whatever environmental legislation is put into place they are site specific. Hope this helps
Once ground and water has been contaminated by arsenic and similar toxic materials, it takes many hundreds of years to get rid of; if ever. Will even tightly mitigated risks be worth the economic benefit of being a centre for handling toxic processes?
Some recent letters in the Press have tried to allay fears about the contamination aspects, but leave many other questions unanswered; 1. How much will it cost Alderney to set up and police the necessary regulations? When i suggested that they took over running RPI from me, they refused as it would need an extra clerk. The actual work on RPI is 3-4 hours every 3 months. 2. Why build this on top of the island and encroaching the green belt? will it have an effect on plans to extend the runway? 3. This will create 5 jobs. Are they all for locals? 4. Has anyone done a cost/benefit analysis on the costs and benefists for Alderney? 5. Why choose Alderney? Why not Guernsey or Jersey which have better ferry links? 6. How can this company afford to pay the enormous transport costs and remain viable? 7. What is the cost of building the factory? 8. How many other companies provide a similar service?
Until those questions are fully answered this should not proceed. We want new businesses but not at any cost.
This has to be the MOST worrying proposal for decades given the potential for long term hassle. I agree with others in querying why the production isn't completed in Holland. It feels like there has been some of the same reasoning that the French used to select the Cotentin peninsula for a stonkingly dangerous Nuclear reprocessing plant & the nearby reactors... as they are as far away as possible from a big population area. Anyway, despite those Nuclear nightmares Alderney still has an exceptional natural environment that Roland and his Wildlife team are brilliantly showcasing, and any additional Waste related problems could threaten that environment - and the general & specifically eco tourism industry. Waste management may be fine when a company is thriving- but all too often grandiose Alderney projects collapse and it's then that the Island could be left with a toxic hangover.
While the above author expresses some shared concerns with most other bloggers the most important matter he raises is that if this project passes due diligence and goes ahead, if for what ever reason the project were to close down in the future who is going to reverse any potential environmental damage and who is going to clean up all of the electrolysis tanks etc and make them environmentally safe -surely there would need to be some amount set aside or ring fenced upfront to allow the Island to decommission the plant safely-if this was a barrier to the project happening in the first place, then the states would be irresponsible to let it proceed.
After reading these commnets I do wonder why anyone would come anywhere near Alderney to open a business. Recently an general insurance company for whom I act asked me about establishing a back office for insurance claims processing. I referred the CEO to this site. The CEO's response was " I see what you mean - huge grass roots negativity expressed on so many matters does not signify a huge welcome but lots of obstacles and pettiness." Heigh-ho!
It's good to see those at the top end of the food chain doing their bit to try and promote the island in a positive light, and not be churlish enough to let the words of a few disgruntled locals not too happy about ineptitude at all levels of states management convince prospective employers to go elsewhere.
I read the above missive with interest if you cant see the difference between a proposed back room office for an insurance firm (i cant think there would be any negativity) and a metal recycling plant with potential environmental threats you are missing the point entirely, i note with interest that the letter published in the last journal expresses all of the same sentiments as expressed on here, all people ask if that if something comes to Alderney that has potential to affect the life of the Island it better be properly considered and signed off. Is that unfair ?
Of course that is perfectly fair. I think the point that is being made is that the overblown outrage and hysteria of certain vociferously outspoken members of our community are seen to be pre-judging outcomes from inside entrenched positions. This creates an impression of negativity and hostility to change amongst potential investors which Alderney, quite frankly, can’t afford to do. As I said in a previous comment, just give the bloke the chance to make his case, have an open mind and recognise that Alderney needs investment to survive, never mind prosper.
I agree with the previous contributor, Continental Metals should be given a chance to make a full and reasoned case. In fact the State’s Building Development Control Committee has just approved an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process which would if applied here require that the developer lay out the information necessary answer almost if not all of the questions raised above and many which aren’t, and would do so in a balanced and public manner. However, in the meantime can I ask why we are granting permissions for major new commercial buildings, in the greenbelt, for what is just a proposals at this stage. To my knowledge all European planning processes, and many used in less developed countries, have a standard process for responding to proposals that require an EIA which involve the screening and subsequent scoping of plans prior to even provisional permission being granted. In fact under the Alderney marine consents legislation this process is already required of any renewable energy development application being made on the island. So why are we simply allowing precedents to be set in for major new commercial sites in what is arguably one of Alderney's greatest asset, its greenbelt? So can I suggest that we do give Mr. Breukers a chance to prove his case properly, he works within the Dutch planning system so this will not be a shock for him. However, to do this Alderney needs to support him and other future developers with clear well laid out planning processes, which do not in turn make us a laughing stock. In the meantime please ask the members of the building Development Control Committee to defer the planning application for the next 1500sq/m plus shed which will be sited in land zoned for agricultural use (letters must be received before the 28th September), until both the Land Use Plan inquiry and EIA processes have been properly undertaken. And yes I know that a provisional planning approval given by the Committee will be subject to limitations and restricted to the Continental Metals as the applicant, but when have you known the local developers in question from using the opportunity to use precedent to argue for new buildings in sensitive areas, remember the Corvee Buildings were all originally agricultural stores!
Is there a case to prove though? Is Alderney the right place for a toxic chemical metal recycling plant? There have already been dishonest claims about how the chemicals are not toxic, but they are. One of the island's strengths is unspoilt natural beauty. Why examine a "case" as you call it that risks ruining that!
If the states want to create five new jobs great. But lets looks at industry that suits the island. Not industry that takes advantage of a black hole where environmental regulation ought to be.
the new factory site is coming up for planing approval its 63 meters by 24 meters by 5 meters high is this correct ? i can not understand how an area that is in the greenbelt is being potentially given yet another planning consent, the access route which i understand crosses a ransom strip owned by jackie main, is a route de Souffrance for agriculture vehicles -this just goes to prove when you give one exception to planning and create a precedent-others drive a juggernaut through it (literally). Six jobs as an upside ! 60 Jobs, just maybe the risk reward/ratio would be worth it. This just shows how disjointed planning is generally IF the Island wants this it should have been built inside Albert or somewhere that is suitable for commercial use not on the edge of some of the most beautiful fields on the Island. Forget rocks strewn about,forget buses at the tower this is the beginning of the end if this is allowed to go ahead.
I read in the press that the company are refusing to answer and questions about how toxic the materials are until they AFTER have been granted planning permission.
Why would the states members be entertaining an industry that risks devastating our pristine environment for the sake of a handful of jobs?
Their motto ought to be "spoiling everything for generations to come"
For anyone who thinks that spills and leaks do not happen here are a few of the bigger ones!
Minamata disease - mercury poisoning in Japan Ontario Minamata disease in Canada Itai-itai disease, due to cadmium poisoning in Japan Love Canal toxic waste site Seveso disaster, chemical plant explosion Bhopal disaster, leak of methyl isocyanate resulted in more than 22,000 deaths (and counting) Sandoz chemical spill into the Rhine river AZF Explosion at a Toulouse chemical factory 2005 Jilin chemical plant explosions The Sydney Tar Ponds and Coke Ovens sites in the city of Sydney, Nova Scotia, Canada, known as the largest toxic waste site in North America. Release of lead dust into Esperance Harbour. Release of cyanide, heavy metals and acid into the Alamosa River, Colorado from the Summitville mine, causing the death of all marine life within a 17 mile radius. Release of 20,000 gallons of lethal chemicals into the Upper Sacramento River, causing the death of all marine life within a 38 mile radius. Release of sulfur dioxide after a fire at the Al-Mishraq The Phillips Disasters Vila Parisi (Brazil) Health issues on the Aamjiwnaang First Nation due to chemical factories Contaminated soils in Mapua, New Zealand due to the operation of an agricultural chemicals factory Basin F, a disposal site in the United States for contaminated liquid wastes from the chemical manufacturing Sandoz chemical spill, severely polluting the Rhine The Jiyeh Power Station oil spill in the Mediterranean region Effects of polluted water in the Berkeley Pit in the United States Ignition and conflagration (13 times in a year) of the Cuyahoga River in Ohio, United States Cheakamus River derailment which polluted a river with caustic soda
It is my understanding that this enterprise will require up to 1 mega watt of power. Considering that the island generates only 2 mega watts daily it might be worth asking just how he expects the electrical infrastructure to cope with the expected increase in demand, unless he plans on saving all the batteries that come through the door.
Hold on a minute Reginald. Perhaps Mr. Brueker has been talking to A.R.E. and has information we the people of Alderney don't? But if Mr. Brueker is banking on tidal power any time soon he may well be in for a great big shock and not of the electrical kind! What is it with the Dutch at the moment, could they be spending far too much time in their own coffee shops?
A quick comment from me after a long absence due to threats against my family as well as me personally.
The Breukers issue was a big theme at the hustings last week, with lots of members-elect saying it is important Alderny is "open for business". What utter flannel! Alderney should ask any incoming business two things...
Is their business in competition or conflict with a local one?
Is their business in keeping with established values, eg ecology, community etc?
Throwing open the doors to Alderney inc. is not the answer. People, workers, businessmen, families, taxpayers and voters are in decline. Why? Plug the leak before pumping out the water.
this is either a VAT export scam or a hole in the EEC treaty law, like the handgun law here, more due diligence needs to happen here.
ReplyDeleteAnd what, precisely, is your evidence for these assertions - both the original Brokovich line and the even more dangerous suggestion of regulatory 'finessing'? Alderney needs investmnent which will contribute towards arresting the spiral of economic decline in which it finds itself. This investor needs to be given a chance to prove his case and for Alderney to show that it is 'open for business'. Of course, he has to prove that his is the right kind of business for the Island, but that requires that he be given a fair hearing and is not dismissed out of hand under the tried and tested 'it's new, it's change, it can't be right for Alderney' principle. Give the guy a break before you condemn him!
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying we are not open for business, but what really concerns me is just how many poor decisions our States have been making lately. We can't afford to get this one wrong.
ReplyDeletethere is no evidence either way, but logic tells you that to drive heavy material direct from Holland via road and then load it onto a ship and then unload it in Alderney and then transport it to the smelter to then transfer the finished material from here back to where it came is very costly, as we all know, and if this factory indeed passed EEC laws there is at least a dozen provinces on route that have very high unemployment that would happily subsidise a unique opportunity such as this !! all that we have a right to ask is that PROPER due diligence is done by somebody that knows a lot more than us-is that too much to ask ?
ReplyDeleteLocic is right. It makes no commercial sense to do this, so there must be some other compeling reason. They are supposed to be having a public meeting to discuss,s o maybe we wil find out there. The other thing is this will bring only 5 jobs. And overall lies the distrust we have in the States to do things properly, based on recent experience.
DeleteI am grateful to Alderney Incoming for mentioning the word "evidence". Something lacking in other blogs. The progress so far is that the investor is looking for a site and 'The Powers that be' seeking assistance from specialist advisors as to the environmental aspects. We are informed that before the Netherlands will allow any materials to be exported, the destination must comply with the Dutch environmental laws which are exacting. The problem for Alderney is to ensure whatever environmental legislation is put into place they are site specific. Hope this helps
ReplyDeleteI posted on this already but it has not shown up.
ReplyDeleteOnce ground and water has been contaminated by arsenic and similar toxic materials, it takes many hundreds of years to get rid of; if ever. Will even tightly mitigated risks be worth the economic benefit of being a centre for handling toxic processes?
It surprises me how much you know about everything
ReplyDeleteSome recent letters in the Press have tried to allay fears about the contamination aspects, but leave many other questions unanswered;
ReplyDelete1. How much will it cost Alderney to set up and police the necessary regulations? When i suggested that they took over running RPI from me, they refused as it would need an extra clerk. The actual work on RPI is 3-4 hours every 3 months.
2. Why build this on top of the island and encroaching the green belt? will it have an effect on plans to extend the runway?
3. This will create 5 jobs. Are they all for locals?
4. Has anyone done a cost/benefit analysis on the costs and benefists for Alderney?
5. Why choose Alderney? Why not Guernsey or Jersey which have better ferry links?
6. How can this company afford to pay the enormous transport costs and remain viable?
7. What is the cost of building the factory?
8. How many other companies provide a similar service?
Until those questions are fully answered this should not proceed. We want new businesses but not at any cost.
This has to be the MOST worrying proposal for decades given the potential for long term hassle. I agree with others in querying why the production isn't completed in Holland. It feels like there has been some of the same reasoning that the French used to select the Cotentin peninsula for a stonkingly dangerous Nuclear reprocessing plant & the nearby reactors... as they are as far away as possible from a big population area. Anyway, despite those Nuclear nightmares Alderney still has an exceptional natural environment that Roland and his Wildlife team are brilliantly showcasing, and any additional Waste related problems could threaten that environment - and the general & specifically eco tourism industry. Waste management may be fine when a company is thriving- but all too often grandiose Alderney projects collapse and it's then that the Island could be left with a toxic hangover.
ReplyDeleteWhile the above author expresses some shared concerns with most other bloggers the most important matter he raises is that if this project passes due diligence and goes ahead, if for what ever reason the project were to close down in the future who is going to reverse any potential environmental damage and who is going to clean up all of the electrolysis tanks etc and make them environmentally safe -surely there would need to be some amount set aside or ring fenced upfront to allow the Island to decommission the plant safely-if this was a barrier to the project happening in the first place, then the states would be irresponsible to let it proceed.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading these commnets I do wonder why anyone would come anywhere near Alderney to open a business. Recently an general insurance company for whom I act asked me about establishing a back office for insurance claims processing. I referred the CEO to this site. The CEO's response was " I see what you mean - huge grass roots negativity expressed on so many matters does not signify a huge welcome but lots of obstacles and pettiness." Heigh-ho!
ReplyDeleteIt's good to see those at the top end of the food chain doing their bit to try and promote the island in a positive light, and not be churlish enough to let the words of a few disgruntled locals not too happy about ineptitude at all levels of states management convince prospective employers to go elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteI read the above missive with interest if you cant see the difference between a proposed back room office for an insurance firm (i cant think there would be any negativity) and a metal recycling plant with potential environmental threats you are missing the point entirely, i note with interest that the letter published in the last journal expresses all of the same sentiments as expressed on here, all people ask if that if something comes to Alderney that has potential to affect the life of the Island it better be properly considered and signed off. Is that unfair ?
ReplyDeleteOf course that is perfectly fair. I think the point that is being made is that the overblown outrage and hysteria of certain vociferously outspoken members of our community are seen to be pre-judging outcomes from inside entrenched positions. This creates an impression of negativity and hostility to change amongst potential investors which Alderney, quite frankly, can’t afford to do. As I said in a previous comment, just give the bloke the chance to make his case, have an open mind and recognise that Alderney needs investment to survive, never mind prosper.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the previous contributor, Continental Metals should be given a chance to make a full and reasoned case. In fact the State’s Building Development Control Committee has just approved an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process which would if applied here require that the developer lay out the information necessary answer almost if not all of the questions raised above and many which aren’t, and would do so in a balanced and public manner.
ReplyDeleteHowever, in the meantime can I ask why we are granting permissions for major new commercial buildings, in the greenbelt, for what is just a proposals at this stage. To my knowledge all European planning processes, and many used in less developed countries, have a standard process for responding to proposals that require an EIA which involve the screening and subsequent scoping of plans prior to even provisional permission being granted.
In fact under the Alderney marine consents legislation this process is already required of any renewable energy development application being made on the island. So why are we simply allowing precedents to be set in for major new commercial sites in what is arguably one of Alderney's greatest asset, its greenbelt?
So can I suggest that we do give Mr. Breukers a chance to prove his case properly, he works within the Dutch planning system so this will not be a shock for him. However, to do this Alderney needs to support him and other future developers with clear well laid out planning processes, which do not in turn make us a laughing stock.
In the meantime please ask the members of the building Development Control Committee to defer the planning application for the next 1500sq/m plus shed which will be sited in land zoned for agricultural use (letters must be received before the 28th September), until both the Land Use Plan inquiry and EIA processes have been properly undertaken. And yes I know that a provisional planning approval given by the Committee will be subject to limitations and restricted to the Continental Metals as the applicant, but when have you known the local developers in question from using the opportunity to use precedent to argue for new buildings in sensitive areas, remember the Corvee Buildings were all originally agricultural stores!
Is there a case to prove though? Is Alderney the right place for a toxic chemical metal recycling plant? There have already been dishonest claims about how the chemicals are not toxic, but they are. One of the island's strengths is unspoilt natural beauty. Why examine a "case" as you call it that risks ruining that!
DeleteIf the states want to create five new jobs great. But lets looks at industry that suits the island. Not industry that takes advantage of a black hole where environmental regulation ought to be.
the new factory site is coming up for planing approval its 63 meters by 24 meters by 5 meters high is this correct ? i can not understand how an area that is in the greenbelt is being potentially given yet another planning consent, the access route which i understand crosses a ransom strip owned by jackie main, is a route de Souffrance for agriculture vehicles -this just goes to prove when you give one exception to planning and create a precedent-others drive a juggernaut through it (literally).
ReplyDeleteSix jobs as an upside ! 60 Jobs, just maybe the risk reward/ratio would be worth it. This just shows how disjointed planning is generally IF the Island wants this it should have been built inside Albert or somewhere that is suitable for commercial use not on the edge of some of the most beautiful fields on the Island. Forget rocks strewn about,forget buses at the tower this is the beginning of the end if this is allowed to go ahead.
I read in the press that the company are refusing to answer and questions about how toxic the materials are until they AFTER have been granted planning permission.
ReplyDeleteWhy would the states members be entertaining an industry that risks devastating our pristine environment for the sake of a handful of jobs?
Their motto ought to be "spoiling everything for generations to come"
For anyone who thinks that spills and leaks do not happen here are a few of the bigger ones!
ReplyDeleteMinamata disease - mercury poisoning in Japan
Ontario Minamata disease in Canada
Itai-itai disease, due to cadmium poisoning in Japan
Love Canal toxic waste site
Seveso disaster, chemical plant explosion
Bhopal disaster, leak of methyl isocyanate resulted in more than 22,000 deaths (and counting)
Sandoz chemical spill into the Rhine river
AZF Explosion at a Toulouse chemical factory
2005 Jilin chemical plant explosions
The Sydney Tar Ponds and Coke Ovens sites in the city of Sydney, Nova Scotia, Canada, known as the largest toxic waste site in North America.
Release of lead dust into Esperance Harbour.
Release of cyanide, heavy metals and acid into the Alamosa River, Colorado from the Summitville mine, causing the death of all marine life within a 17 mile radius.
Release of 20,000 gallons of lethal chemicals into the Upper Sacramento River, causing the death of all marine life within a 38 mile radius.
Release of sulfur dioxide after a fire at the Al-Mishraq
The Phillips Disasters
Vila Parisi (Brazil)
Health issues on the Aamjiwnaang First Nation due to chemical factories
Contaminated soils in Mapua, New Zealand due to the operation of an agricultural chemicals factory
Basin F, a disposal site in the United States for contaminated liquid wastes from the chemical manufacturing
Sandoz chemical spill, severely polluting the Rhine
The Jiyeh Power Station oil spill in the Mediterranean region
Effects of polluted water in the Berkeley Pit in the United States
Ignition and conflagration (13 times in a year) of the Cuyahoga River in Ohio, United States
Cheakamus River derailment which polluted a river with caustic soda
Accidents happen.
It is my understanding that this enterprise will require up to 1 mega watt of power. Considering that the island generates only 2 mega watts daily it might be worth asking just how he expects the electrical infrastructure to cope with the expected increase in demand, unless he plans on saving all the batteries that come through the door.
ReplyDeleteHold on a minute Reginald. Perhaps Mr. Brueker has been talking to A.R.E. and has information we the people of Alderney don't? But if Mr. Brueker is banking on tidal power any time soon he may well be in for a great big shock and not of the electrical kind! What is it with the Dutch at the moment, could they be spending far too much time in their own coffee shops?
DeleteA quick comment from me after a long absence due to threats against my family as well as me personally.
ReplyDeleteThe Breukers issue was a big theme at the hustings last week, with lots of members-elect saying it is important Alderny is "open for business". What utter flannel! Alderney should ask any incoming business two things...
Is their business in competition or conflict with a local one?
Is their business in keeping with established values, eg ecology, community etc?
Throwing open the doors to Alderney inc. is not the answer. People, workers, businessmen, families, taxpayers and voters are in decline. Why? Plug the leak before pumping out the water.