There would be enough money to put all the fish in harrods fishbowls in the Penventon for the duration!

I think you're probably thinking of the wreck of the Hanover Roy
For which Hanover Cove is named.

---

I am torn between wanting this thread to die and not wanting to let you have the last word.

You can have the last word if you want, to be honest I'm not really bothered either way, this thread was started by bringing to our attentions a PR blitz from SAS directed towards MM as a company trying to extract valuable minerals from the sea bed. SAS are clearly against it, MM are clearly for it, everyone can make their own minds up, all I know is that jobs are thin on the ground down here and the economy 'aint to good, I've been banging on for years about proper jobs and industry for down here but the county has a number of moaners, stick up a wind turbine, moan moan moan, stick up some solar panels, moan moan moan, dig a hole in the ground, moan moan moan, stick up a mobile phone mast, moan moan moan, alter the visual aspect of anything anywhere in howsoever or whatsoever way, moan moan moan, all these moaners are all to happy to consume so long as nothing affects their blinkered view of the world, selfish I calls it.

Lawrence.

This thread is a bit more illuminating than the last one, despite the few raised hackles. I think this is part of a debate that we have seen on a global scale and seems to be a 3-cornered fight between the conservationists, the developer (who is seeking a relatively short-term RoI) and the local population who receive the short-term beneifits (work and incoming finance) and potentially, longer-term disbenefits (pollution and the permanent loss of species).

I have discovered a little light reading here, although a lot of this would apply to developing countries (who is to say that the UK isn't one of those nowadays);-

Laplante, Lisa J. and Spears, Suzanne A., Out of the Conflict Zone: The Case for Community Consent Processes in the Extractive Sector (October 22, 2008). Yale Human Rights and Development Law Journal, Vol. 11, p. 69, 2008; Marquette Law School Legal Studies Paper No. 08-24. Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1288105 

Yes, and there it all is in a nutshell.
I bet in China they laugh at us.
The country that pioneered the Industrial Revolution?
What a joke

EDIT
Re the last from Mr Lozz

---

I think that maybe one organisms pollution is another organisms dinner.
I watched a TV program a while back that showed some hitherto unknown creature/plant or whatever that spent it's life hugging around these very deep sea volcanic vents that were spewing out all kinds of stuff, if the vent was the result of mans interference then there would be plenty of moaners calling it an environmental disaster but because it wasn't we all sit and observe it in wonderment. What's the problem.

Lozz.

True, there are creatures that live and thrive in toxic soups, but I'd like to take the kids to the Zoo to see a lion rather than an anaemic white worm...

Zoo's, lets not go there.

Lozz.

the extractors vs surfers debate is is between two groups who are both rooted in a sense of entitlement based on an obsolete world view.

If there were proper investment in the development of sustainable technologies, and the economy was realigned in support of the same, this country could once again be a world leader. This is what happened with the industrial revolution, it happened with the abolition of slavery.

This approach is what made Britain great. Seeing development as the application of technology to outmoded industries is entrenchment which holds real sustainable long term growth back. It is like claiming a big leap forward because we have invented the computer aided horse drawn cart.

The problem with technology is that it still has to be dug out of the ground, even your humble computer and your phone.

---

Roland, the point just made is best illustrated by considering the one metal most closely associated in the public's mind with Cornwall - tin. Tin has a very important role to play in gadgetry, in solder. You can't make green high technology at the moment without a means to connect up circuitry. That requires solder, containing tin. I don't think it is right to expect the technology that facilitates us to have environmentally friendly solutions serviced by someone else's tin reserves. Why should the UK benefit from green gadgetry without paying the price of having to dig up some of the required material to make it? If it isn't us then most likely it will be someone else's environment that takes the pain - better we do it here, take the trade benefit, manage the damage ourselves etc etc. Cheap shirts - collapsed sweatshops in Bangladesh? An extreme example, and perhaps not related that closely, but the principle is the same. We have the resource, we dig it up, limit the damage, even improve things afterwards - after all, where did all this mineral rich sediment come from if it wasn't a less than efficient historical mining operation? I think we are obliged to use the resource that our predecessors wasted, even if they had no choice because their extraction technology wasn't as good as it is now. I am assuming that at least some of this deposit is derived from minerals washed down from mines inland and "lost" in the sea.

Roland, the point just made is best illustrated by considering the one metal most closely associated in the public's mind with Cornwall - tin. Tin has a very important role to play in gadgetry, in solder. You can't make green high technology at the moment without a means to connect up circuitry. That requires solder, containing tin. I don't think it is right to expect the technology that facilitates us to have environmentally friendly solutions serviced by someone else's tin reserves. Why should the UK benefit from green gadgetry without paying the price of having to dig up some of the required material to make it? If it isn't us then most likely it will be someone else's environment that takes the pain - better we do it here, take the trade benefit, manage the damage ourselves etc etc. Cheap shirts - collapsed sweatshops in Bangladesh? An extreme example, and perhaps not related that closely, but the principle is the same. We have the resource, we dig it up, limit the damage, even improve things afterwards - after all, where did all this mineral rich sediment come from if it wasn't a less than efficient historical mining operation? I think we are obliged to use the resource that our predecessors wasted, even if they had no choice because their extraction technology wasn't as good as it is now. I am assuming that at least some of this deposit is derived from minerals washed down from mines inland and "lost" in the sea.

Yes, you are correct in your assumption, one of the main areas of concern is St Ives bay, one of the rivers that discharges into the bay is known as the Red River it's that river that carried the stuff from the South Crofty tin mine, there used to an old saying down down here that went along the lines "and on Friday the river would run red" The red was from the heamatite associated with the tin deposits, particularly from the old Tincroft section of the mine.
One of the men behind MM also was behind a similar project some years ago in the bay but it did not last, however times move on and so do recovery techniques and world markets, hence the current interest. Whatever happens you are correct to point out that the operation can be controlled from an environmental point here in the UK, We can't do that with China yet we all seem happy to let them do our dirty work for us and the surfers dare I say. If they were going to completely destroy the seabed out to international waters all around the coast down here then there would be something to complain about, the fact is they are not.

There is no such thing as sustainable in a practical sense, only an alternative.

Lozz.

I think you're probably thinking of the wreck of the Hanover Roy
For which Hanover Cove is named.

Thanks Sparty, but I know the story of the Hanover and its location. The Hanover was carrying coinage, the ship I read about was carrying gold dust and hit Cligga Head which is a third of a mile up the coast from Hanover Cove.
I'll make a concerted effort to try to remember the book; it's been bugging me for years.

---

Roland, I disagree that the miner's side of things is obsolete. I do argue that the surfer's point of view is ignorant in the context of the current economic reality.

We are living in a world of shrinking jobs, increasing energy costs and rising population. This means that a mechanism for the redistribution of wealth has to exist in the form of a state which facilitates taxes and gives benefits, whether private or commercial. We can argue as much as we like for socialism or capitalism from our own selfish standpoints and wishes.

The fact of the matter is due to these realities (without muddying the waters with other environmental stuff or surpanational bullshit) is that the British government, whether the Socialist Worker's Party or UKIP does not have a hope in hell of sorting out the inevitable crunch....which is that the country can either devalue itself into a whole world of expensive imports (nasty for an overpopulated non-producer) or it can cut hard (nasty for everyone). Neither are vote winners. Getting back to growth is not an option...we've been structurally screwed since WW2.

What is comes down to is a gradual increase in hardship whilst everyone, from Tim Smit with his super sustainable charity, to some bunch of oily men with porno mags wanting to do dirty and horrible primary industry, in their own interests. I suppose when things cut hard, it really is every man for themselves....you only have to look to the political class for an example of how to ignore everything and feather your own nest.

Everyone is making the case for feathering their own nests and the permission sought is that it isn't just for them, it's about trickle down through the community. So, vote for SAS and St Agnes still has low tide tubes, vote for mining and a load of grubby men get to go in a hole and then go in the pub.

The only sensible solution I can see is that we fully embrace sustainable development in it's purest form (NB:- sustainable is a joke in an expanding population, it would require either decreasing living standards, or an expanding planet). It's OK, because from the perspective of having a couple of houses, a job which pays £70k a year, a fully paid up pension scheme, jobs for the kids all sorted, you can potificate over which tittle tattle should win.

I'd rather a load of people worked for their money, rather than gave people a guilt trip, based on a sky-is-falling-in scenario (gather like global-non-warming) in order to gain a go on the cake.

Perhaps proper socialists, (rather than the ones who use it as a ticket to other people's money) should consider what gives the greatest good in terms of habitat and lifestyle for animals and humans alike.

What people forget or perhaps don't realise is that if it can't be grown it has to be mined. We would all do to remember this when we drive around in our cars and use our mobile phones. Some of are trying to restart a primary industrY. Unlike surfing, mines by definition are found where the minerals are. If that means the stuff is in the sea and on the sea bed so be it.

Sometimes I wonder what those who were at the forefront of the Industrial Revolution would think about the state we're in. I can't imagine back in 1870 that any surfers would stop mining from taking place as they would be working too hard just to stay alive.

---

Well said Stuey and Agricola,it just shows how many are so far from reality,living in this mambi pamby country of ours,
their heads are so far up their own backsides,they cannot see daylight.
This thread is so alike to the UK Coal thread,its cheaper to get from abroad,let them have the mess,and our workforce gets handouts instead of doing the job.

As addition to what I say earlier, what do you think would happen if all the mines in the world (those horrible dirty environmentally unsound, dangerous, outof date 19th century poldark blah blah sorry starting to sound like Stuey !) were to close for just a short period of time, just enough for all the metals to run out. And why we're at all all the oil too. How long would it really take before our way of life came to a shuddering stop. I can only imagine who would be whinging first cos it wouldn't be the miners ! when they can't buy cars or phones to call up their mates so that they can take their boards down to the beach !

I'm sorry our world relies on mining as a backbone. Sometimes whether we like it or not, its job that has to be done. In a similar fashion to food production, I like my meat, but I wouldn't like to work in the place between the farm and the butchers !, but someone has too. So get used to it.

You would think (wrongly) that some parts of society would be pleased and would encourage the cleaning up of our seas from all the crap that has been dumped into, especially from the Red River which was until recently classed as an industrial drain, but hey ho.

---

What people forget or perhaps don't realise is that if it can't be grown it has to be mined. We would all do to remember this when we drive around in our cars and use our mobile phones.

Exactly. I cringe when I see threads running down mineralogists on some forums - without those guys in the first place the minerals that were collected and analysed (and more are being discovered every year) would have remained simply 'stones'. Things like gold were fairly straightforward but the sources of modern raw materials are often far more obscure!

All for home development myself. We have become a lazy country: we have plenty of natural resources and good technological ability, yet what do we do? We export all that dirty sourcing to places like China to get it on the cheap. Our pollution footprint (including our carbon one) swept under the carpet. High time we started to a) generate jobs yet b) work cleanly to take responsibility for what we use. We as a population have mostly become disconnected from where our raw materials come from - from worshipping the Supermarket God to denying climate change - these are symptoms of the same underlying problem. We have become lazy and we take the easy option every time regardless of its overall merit. Rant over 🙂

We have become lazy and we take the easy option every time regardless of its overall merit.

Laziness was well entrenched when I started work 1963, nothing new there!

We have become lazy and we take the easy option every time regardless of its overall merit.

Laziness was well entrenched when I started work 1963, nothing new there!

I think it may be a different type of laziness today, though. To be sure of that though you would have to describe what you mean about the laziness back then. What was it like?