Ambitious Mining Project planned for Dean Quarry Lizard Peninsula

Pasty said:
The plan is to build a 600m break water with two loading jetties inside to take barges which will indeed be manoeuvred by tugs.
Click to expand...

Good grief! 600m? I had no idea it would be this big, and it would rather dominate my objections were I local (Falmouth doesn't count as local in this context). have you a link to an authoritative source for this - I'd have thought that such a construction would be uneconomic. Natural England make no mention of it in their submission to the enquiry about the MCZ.
 
emandvee44 said:
Being an honest sort of chap I have to say it is not 'my' video if that is what you are implying.
I found it on you tube. (there are others) I was interested to see the other port which I did not know existed, despite having sailed past it many times and being ‘in the trade’ (or at least I was).
If the Dean Quarry revival project is intended to utilise barges and STS (ship to ship – barge to ship transfer of the cargo), then either the barges would need self-discharging equipment, or the ships to have self-loading capability. Whichever, an offshore transfer of cargo would most likely be more weather dependant, and take considerably longer than onshore loading.
The barges, if not self-propelled would require small tugs to manoever them from the loading dock to the ship and back. Lots of movements to load a 50K tonne vessel, and therefore more opportunities for an accident.
Hope the new owners have carried out a risk assessment for their proposed loading methods and submitted it to the appropriate authorities for approval!:rolleyes:

Cheers,

Michael
Click to expand...

What you say is SENSIBLE I forgot to say THANKS
 
Last edited:
I would say the CADS are a bunch of hyppocrits.

They all live in houses built using minerals worked and won from the ground
They drive on roads built of rock worked and won from the ground

Yet they seek to deny oth people the benefits they enjoy from our man made world...

I will listen to any objector who lives in the environment they claim they seek to protect... By in I mean without a roof over their head... exposed to the elements.
 
Dean Quarry Project

I have just spent the last hour or so doing some research on the project (tv is rubbish tonight and SWMBO is crocheting a bikini :excitement:)
If anyone is interested:
http://www.deanquarry.com/Presentations from the Public Meeting 30th January.pdf
Some very interesting details of the mini port which they (might) construct to facilitate the export of the rock.
Breakwater 535m long
Vol. of armour rock for jetties and breakwater 89,000 tonnes
Vol. of aggregrate for jetties 335,000 tonnes

Each barge capacity 9000 tonnes
Loading rate 1000 tonnes/hr
2-3 Barges per week departing.

From what I have read it would appear that the loaded barges would be towed to Swansea, and no 50K tonne vessel involved.

And there are some nice pictures of crabs, seaweed, dolphins etc. in the report:rolleyes:

I think I will open (another) local B&B:)

M
 
http://www.deanquarry.com/Presentations from the Public Meeting 30th January.pdf

gives details - did it get posted earlier? I missed it if it did. EDIT - it just did while I was writing this post!

My initial reaction was that the objections were NIMBY, and certainly the web site of the objectors is just pants - so full of irrelevancies and silliness that it destroys credibility and had the effect of making me anti the antis - however the major and probably only significant feature from a development perspective is the breakwater. This will have a visual impact and, were I fighting the proposal, is where I'd concentrate. It's in an MCZ, and can not be claimed to be essential, just convenient since there has been rock extracted from the site for many years.
 
Last edited:
jdc said:
http://www.deanquarry.com/Presentations from the Public Meeting 30th January.pdf

so full of irrelevancies and silliness that it destroys credibility and had the effect of making me anti the antis -
Click to expand...

Exactly my problem with CADS and why I'm finding it hard to support them.

Its a shame Harry Potter (who is clearly involved with CADS) further reinforces my thoughts about CADS, they didnt get what they were looking for here so resort to insults (and very quickly), I cant support a group run by people like that.

There are a few locals who are approaching this in a reasoned, substantiated and credible fashion however their efforts are being tarnished by others sensationalism, dramatics and crassness.
 
We are concerned about the damage to the Marine Conservation Zone (plants and animals) and the local economy (people). This project could destroy more than 100 jobs. There are alternative sources of stone from established quarries up to modern environmental standards. There is an existing quarry close by, the proposed operation will remove somewhere between 4 and 10 times as much stone annually - developer numbers are highly variable. Richard Martin CADS Chair
 
I thought that, however the developer is unprepared to provide an 'end of life' plan. We have asked for such a plan and a bond to be put up to ensure any plans would be guaranteed, however so far no plan and no bond. Richard Martin CADS Chair
 
* Bird breeding and stop off - The decline of birds is a serious national issue http://www.rspb.org.uk/makeahomeforwildlife/advice/helpingbirds/decline/nationaltrends.aspx. This is a small but increasingly important area.
* Marine mammals - these are very sensitive to acoustic noise. Blasting will affect them. The developer has not produced a study to prove either way.
* Large marine Fauna eg Basking Sharks - dust will be washed into the sea causing pollution - the current water purity is exemplary hance the seasalt factory - 40 plus jobs would go there by the way.
*Noise Pollution - there is nothing to stop them blasting during those hours. Only 30% of the stone will be usable (developer figure).
* Loading around the clock - the Breakwater and Jetties in the MCZ are designed to allow loading at any state of the tide
*Heavy machinery - A 179 cubic metre fuel bunker is proposed to service the machinery - Shire Oaks were very proud of the size of their equipment during the public meeting. Will revert with specification when it is made available.
* Health issues - we have raised the concern. Air borne silica are very different from the sand on the beach. It was a medical researcher who raised this concern to us. The developer admits they have not carried out studies considering 2.5 µm particulate matter.
How many people would be employed by the quarry - excellent question. We have asked the developer to commit. They will not reassure us they will be local, cornish, british or even European jobs. Confirmed answers will be most welcome.

If you really want responses to your other comments. It will have to wait until Monday. Richard Martin CADS Chair.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top