Private Eye and Teesside freeport

BlindBoyGrunt

Well-known member
Notwithstanding Houchens corruption in the form of cronyism and land grabbing, is anybody conflicted on the actual dredging of the port?
On one side of the argument we have the dredging company who insist that they will keep and store any harmful material and only allow the harmless stuff to wash out to sea, and the agency which was called in to investigate the cause of death of the sea life washing up on our beaches stating that in their opinion the culprit is most likely algae.
On the other side we have those who have seen with their own eyes the dead sea creatures and correlate that with the dredging operations and so apportion blame to that operation. Without further evidence it is possible to find both arguments believable.

Then we have the reasons for dredging. Firstly there is the new dock being built to accommodate the new wind farm piling manufacturing plant - reportedly the biggest of its kind in the world. Secondly, the Tees is one of the biggest ports in the UK and has a capacity for greater expansion. This could encourage more manufacturing companies to build a presence on Teesside and increase the number of well paid jobs in the area by thousands, in manufacturing, on the docks and in cutting edge industries like Green Hydrogen production.

So the worst case scenario is that the dredging is unleashing pollutants and that these are causing the deaths in sea life.
However, we know (because they have given us reasurances) that the dredgers will put great effort into storing the harmful materials.
We know also that if the pollutants below the river bed are to blame, that one day they will dissipate and that the coastal waters around Teesside will return to normal along with the numbers of crustaceans .

So the questions are:-

a. Do we halt the dredging and protect a handful of underpaid fishing jobs through a period of temporary hardship and possibly forfeit our chance of maintaining our place at the cutting edge of new industries and increasing the number of jobs in more traditional industries, by losing out to other parts of the country?
b. Do we crack on and try to maintain and increase the industries that the majority of us have earned our living in?

In short, do we want to be an area of modern heavy industry, or a fishing port?
 

ThePrisoner

Well-known member
So the worst case scenario is that the dredging is unleashing pollutants and that these are causing the deaths in sea life.
However, we know (because they have given us reasurances) that the dredgers will put great effort into storing the harmful materials.
Worst case is life in the sea is wiped out permanently or that the pollutants enter the food chain and poison humans. Isn't Teesside already toxic enough? Vast swathes are already so polluted as to be uninhabitable. Do you think that making it worse is a selling point these days?

Who is this 'they' who have given assurances and how would they store harmful materials? 'They' would first have to identify the pollutants and then find somewhere (on land presumably) to safely store the material. This would cost millions, if not tens of millions and delay any project by months if not years. It would not happen and you'd have to be gullible or complicit to say that it would.
 

Redwurzel

Well-known member
Notwithstanding Houchens corruption in the form of cronyism and land grabbing, is anybody conflicted on the actual dredging of the port?
On one side of the argument we have the dredging company who insist that they will keep and store any harmful material and only allow the harmless stuff to wash out to sea, and the agency which was called in to investigate the cause of death of the sea life washing up on our beaches stating that in their opinion the culprit is most likely algae.
On the other side we have those who have seen with their own eyes the dead sea creatures and correlate that with the dredging operations and so apportion blame to that operation. Without further evidence it is possible to find both arguments believable.

Then we have the reasons for dredging. Firstly there is the new dock being built to accommodate the new wind farm piling manufacturing plant - reportedly the biggest of its kind in the world. Secondly, the Tees is one of the biggest ports in the UK and has a capacity for greater expansion. This could encourage more manufacturing companies to build a presence on Teesside and increase the number of well paid jobs in the area by thousands, in manufacturing, on the docks and in cutting edge industries like Green Hydrogen production.

So the worst case scenario is that the dredging is unleashing pollutants and that these are causing the deaths in sea life.
However, we know (because they have given us reasurances) that the dredgers will put great effort into storing the harmful materials.
We know also that if the pollutants below the river bed are to blame, that one day they will dissipate and that the coastal waters around Teesside will return to normal along with the numbers of crustaceans .

So the questions are:-

a. Do we halt the dredging and protect a handful of underpaid fishing jobs through a period of temporary hardship and possibly forfeit our chance of maintaining our place at the cutting edge of new industries and increasing the number of jobs in more traditional industries, by losing out to other parts of the country?
b. Do we crack on and try to maintain and increase the industries that the majority of us have earned our living in?

In short, do we want to be an area of modern heavy industry, or a fishing port?
I tend to agree with BBG that the dredging has to proceed. The dredging is not producing the pollulants (unlike fracking) but as he says possibly releasing them after the were deposited maybe 60 years ago. What I would like to see is more honesty and openness and actions to minimise the negative affects on sea life.
 

Redwurzel

Well-known member
Would devolvement of power to the regions be beneficial and make positive change to the region?
Like the French have "Departments"?
Give tax-raising powers to those Regional departments(y)
The North East, like the North West and the North know their areas, demographics and needs much better than any suit in Whitehall.
Peoples republic(s) to the fore I say! ✊
Roofie

My answer is Yes - Its happened and happening in Scotland.
 

exiledinboro

Well-known member
Notwithstanding Houchens corruption in the form of cronyism and land grabbing, is anybody conflicted on the actual dredging of the port?
On one side of the argument we have the dredging company who insist that they will keep and store any harmful material and only allow the harmless stuff to wash out to sea, and the agency which was called in to investigate the cause of death of the sea life washing up on our beaches stating that in their opinion the culprit is most likely algae.
On the other side we have those who have seen with their own eyes the dead sea creatures and correlate that with the dredging operations and so apportion blame to that operation. Without further evidence it is possible to find both arguments believable.

Then we have the reasons for dredging. Firstly there is the new dock being built to accommodate the new wind farm piling manufacturing plant - reportedly the biggest of its kind in the world. Secondly, the Tees is one of the biggest ports in the UK and has a capacity for greater expansion. This could encourage more manufacturing companies to build a presence on Teesside and increase the number of well paid jobs in the area by thousands, in manufacturing, on the docks and in cutting edge industries like Green Hydrogen production.

So the worst case scenario is that the dredging is unleashing pollutants and that these are causing the deaths in sea life.
However, we know (because they have given us reasurances) that the dredgers will put great effort into storing the harmful materials.
We know also that if the pollutants below the river bed are to blame, that one day they will dissipate and that the coastal waters around Teesside will return to normal along with the numbers of crustaceans .

So the questions are:-

a. Do we halt the dredging and protect a handful of underpaid fishing jobs through a period of temporary hardship and possibly forfeit our chance of maintaining our place at the cutting edge of new industries and increasing the number of jobs in more traditional industries, by losing out to other parts of the country?
b. Do we crack on and try to maintain and increase the industries that the majority of us have earned our living in?

In short, do we want to be an area of modern heavy industry, or a fishing port?

God knows what the right thing to do is 🤷🏻‍♂️

The dredging is almost certainly causing the fish to die but like above the area is desperate for investment and a new plan for regeneration. But there does seem a lack of concern for the safety of pets as well as fish and shellfish and the beaches being open

The longer term carbon capture plans over the wider area and wind farm seems like there is some hope. But then I’ll probably be accused of being naive to trust anything will happen, and maybe I am? 🤷🏻‍♂️
 

Steve Bee

Active member
I've been thinking along those lines too. Freeport or not, we do want the port to expand and we do need to attract more industry to the area. The building of a new quay for the offshore wind farm industry is good news. The jury is still out over whether the dredging has caused the death of the crustaceans but we need some balance here too. The sealife will recover so do we need to protect a few fishing jobs at the expense of the port's future when fishing employes very few people on fairly low wages for what they do?
It's not a few fishermen but rather the tourist industry to Saltburn when people are being warned not to go near the sea
 
Top