Photos From Today's Rossport Five Solidarity Protests in Belmullet & Bellinaboy.

by Tommy Donnellan - Shell to Sea Sun Jul 10, 2005 04:01

photo's !.

More competition for you, Maura, I'm afraid !

After the Belmullet protest, cortege style, the cavalcade winds its honest way to the Bellinaboy graveyard of the Shell refinery - no crocodile tears were shed. Fianna Fail/PD's rendezvous with the electoral Grim Reaper will be in two years time. R.I.P.

Loooks like Padraig has taken a shine to Mrs Shine?.

Shell !, a brown envelope or an apple a day won't keep the doctor away, 'year !.

by Tommy Donnellan - Shell to Sea Sun Jul 10, 2005 04:21

three !.

Noted Limerick anti-war activist, the mighty Tim Hourigan 'n dare I mention it, Maura, even more competition for you?.

Noted Clare man, Stevo Olende, doin' his duty !

God bless 'im , Shell's nemesis scoping the scene!.

by John Sun Jul 10, 2005 10:52

Is this for real? As part of a protest against an oil company, the protestors decide to have a cavalcade of motor cars winding across the Mayo countryside. This is like the animal-rights crowd having a burger-feast at McDonald's as part of some protest. Pray tell me, what fuel did the cavalcade run on? Did they think about global warming when organising their little cavalcade? Statistically, of course, there is a far higher chance of someone being killed or injured from a cavalcade of motor cars on country roads than from a gas pipeline. We should also note that, if these protestors succeed in their campaign, large numbers of workers will have to be transported regularly out to sea by helicopter. Helicopters are by far the most dangerous form of transport, measured in fatalities per million miles travelled. Only yesterday 2 people were killed in a helicopter crash in Galway. Nothing is more certain than that, if these protestors succeed, there is a statistically far far higher chance of fatalities among workers being transported to sea than there is of fatalities on land from a pipleline exploding.

by eeekkkk Sun Jul 10, 2005 11:53

Can I say This again:

1. People through freedom of choice end up in cars/cavalcades
2. people take up jobs with an element of risk such as on rigs ships boats helicopters by freedom of choice
3. Those protesting shell and govts antidemocratic imposition of a high pressure gas pipeline unprecedented in europe through the unprecedented granting of COOs to a consortium of private companies on their community have NO CHOICE

Now back to your bunker of spin to make up more willie o'dea style manipulation of the facts.

by John Sun Jul 10, 2005 12:57

Wrong! Cyclists, pedestrians etc unconnected with the protest who happened to be on the road when the cavalcade came along had no choice. Their chances of being injured or killed by the cavalcade were statistically much greater than the chances of someone being injured or killed by the proposed Shell pipeline.

by eeekkkk Sun Jul 10, 2005 13:08

'Cavalcades' describes the ongoing traffic situation on every road in ireland. People travel or cycle by choice. Those getting this high pressure pipeline through their community have NO CHOICE.

This dissembling on your part is so trite that all it illustrates is a lack of any coherent argument on this subject and a lack of respect for the intelligence of readers.

by R. Isible Sun Jul 10, 2005 18:35

John wrote: "Statistically, of course, there is a far higher chance of someone being killed or injured from a cavalcade of motor cars on country roads than from a gas pipeline"

Semantically your sentence is meaningless, especially your use of the word "statistically".

If there were as many people exposed to high-pressure pipelines as there are to cars then we'd be able to draw comparisons about the relative risks posed by the two.

As it is the only people facing the risk are the people that are going to be living beside the high pressure pipeline. Perhaps after they've died in a horrible tragedy we can add their bodies to the statistics for you to mumble with your toothless intellectual gums.

by John Sun Jul 10, 2005 19:41

Sorry for the delay in answering your last post. Spent a most exciting afternoon in Croke Park. Tragic news about Mayo, losing to Galway I mean. You are ignoring the point completely. Lots of activities involve minuscule risk to other people who have no choice in whether or not that activity is carried out. Running a cavalcade of motor cars through a country road clearly involves risk of injury or death to some unfortunate who happens to live alongside that road, perhaps a child who runs out on to the road when he sees the cavalcade approach. The risk is so minuscule, however, that no one suggests they shouldn't have their cavalcade, if that's what they want. Likewise, the Shell pipeline involves minuscule risk to life and limb. As it goes through a very sparsely-populated area, the risk involved with this pipeline is actually far less than with the gas pipelines that run under Dublin's streets. Presumably, if someone living in Dublin objects to a gas pipeline running under their street, you'll support that person and the other residents in the street can freeze to death next winter. Everyone in the modern world is subject to daily risk from things they have no say in. But, the risk is generally so small they don't worry about it. There is nothing special about this pipeline in that respect. I live about half a mile from Dublin airport. I'm at daily risk of a plane exploding shortly after take-off and landing on my house. If I start a campaign to have Dublin airport closed down to eliminate this risk to my life and limb, may I count on your support?

by erris person Sun Jul 10, 2005 22:43

dear God if I see another load of rubbish like I've just read from John I'll have to unplug my computer.the gas pipe outside and under Dubliners doors is treated gas ,the gas which will be pumped through Rossport is pure gas "JOHN".pure meaning unlike residential gas this gas has no smell,and its pumped 150bar through the pipeline.your residential pipeline is 7bar. I didnt agree with the cavalcade through Rossport but there you go, you had to ruin what i agreed with by talking "s***".

by Frank Mon Jul 11, 2005 11:57

Twas great to see it.
Unfortunately, there isn't much chance of getting a bunch of coaches down some of those roads, so people resorted to taking cars, but there was plenty of car pooling and the cars were full.

And winding around the circuitous roads up there it rarely got above 10 mph. and every kid en route saw the cavalcade, as they stood with parents waving, glad of the huge support that had travelled up in solidarity.

The troll above is just trying to distract from the main issue.

Shell, Statoil, and Marathon, in collusion with the gombeens of Fianna Fail and the PDs colluded in a dodgy deal to steal the natural resources which rightly belong to the people of Ireland. Billions of euros of income to our economy were thrown away (for the usual fee at the Galway races corporate tent) -thats thousands of euros stolen from my pocket, your pocket, your neighbour's pocket...
and to make things even more profitable, the consortium wants to save costs by cutting corners on safety.
So, if Shell wants to put the terminal onland at great risk to people, the government will keep quiet, RTE kept fairly quiet too...

that was until the people of Erris in their resiliance refused to budge even when faced with prison.

So today, 5 men are still in prison, and more people are willing to go to stop a massive health hazard and a rip-off that should never have got the go ahead in the first place.

by Barra Ó Gríobhtha Mon Jul 11, 2005 12:48

>> Is this for real? As part of a protest against an oil company, the protestors decide to have a cavalcade of motor cars winding across the Mayo countryside. This is like the animal-rights crowd having a burger-feast at McDonald's as part of some protest. Pray tell me, what fuel did the cavalcade run on? Did they think about global warming when organising their little cavalcade? Statistically, of course, there is a far higher chance of someone being killed or injured from a cavalcade of motor cars on country roads than from a gas pipeline.

The vast majority of Erris people want the gas terminal built at sea. Look again at the photos above. Were not talking about a bunch of hippies with flowers in their hair, were talking about an entire society - farmers, businessmen, teenagers, grannies, students etc. Irish Traditional and Country and Western songs have been written in favour of the men in the same way as a song might be written for the Mayo football team. Most of The Mayo Leader Newspaper was devoted to the issue - taking a "See Shell to Sea" stance. Likewise with the local radio. Environmentalists didn't make the decision to drive in a cavalcade from Belmullet to Rossport; the people of Erris did. I traveled up to Belmullet this weekend not to protest against car fumes, but to protest in favour of localism. If most people in an area don't want something then that must be respected. This is the fundamental issue here, not the amount of population produced by a couple of dozen cars.

by Shell to Sea Mon Jul 11, 2005 13:04

Is there a "Shell to Sea" website? I'd like to put some information about the whole situation on my website and email it on to some of my friends also. If anyone has any “boycott shell” banners/graphics or cartoon images etc. they would be useful also in making the point.

Cheers.

by Barra Ó Gríobhtha Mon Jul 11, 2005 13:10

http://www.freetherossportfive.com/

by DV8 Mon Jul 11, 2005 13:37

Efforts to secure release of Mayo men continue

11 July 2005 12:15
Efforts to secure the release of the five Co Mayo men jailed for contempt of court in relation to the Shell Corrib gas field development will continue in the High Court this afternoon.

Lawyers for the men are asking the court to vary the original High Court order which the men have been found to be in contempt of.

They want the words construction and installation deleted from the order and say that if this was done they would be happy to express their regret at having disobeyed the order.

The men say the order was made on the basis that Shell had the necessary consents to enter their lands for the purpose of installing a gas pipeline and that consent had not been given by the Minister for the Environment.

However, Shell says it is at present engaged in preparatory work and the ministerial consent provides for phased approval at various stages.

Patrick Hanratty SC for Shell said that no work in relation to the digging of the trench or installation of the pipeline has taken place or will take place until the approval is given.

He said Shell had no interest in the five men being in prison and if they would be comforted by an undertaking from the company to that effect they had no problem doing it.

However, Mr Justice Finnegan warned that the men are in contempt of court. He said that if someone has a problem with a court order then they should come back to the court, not breach the order.

by John Mon Jul 11, 2005 15:42

Its irrelevant to the argument whether the gas is treated or untreated or what the pressure is. The point is that in both cases there is some risk to life and limb. But, in both cases a risk so minuscule that people put up with it. Over the years there has been regular loss of life in urban residential areas as a result of explosions in pipelines bringing gas to domestic consumers. Worldwide far more people have been killed in residential urban areas in this way than have been killed in rural areas as a result of explosions in larger pipelines bringing gas to refineries. I live in Dublin, not far from Dublin airport. My life is far more at risk through some sort of industrial accident or a plane exploding above than are the lives of people living in the Mayo countryside. But, I put up with it, as do most Dubliners. I suggest people in Mayo do the same.

by Barra Ó Gríobhtha Mon Jul 11, 2005 19:39

http://www.examiner.ie/pport/web/opinion/Full_Story/did-sgV2Fo-RBq-PosgHuTLc4nqWo2.asp

THE High Court decision to jail the Rossport Five for insisting on their constitutional rights is symptomatic of an utter disregard of the constitution by the State as a whole.

The abominable ‘deal’ the Government has cut with Shell/Statoil means the entire Corrib gas field has been handed over to these private companies with no interest retained by the state, with all expenses accrued by these companies over the past 25 years paid by the State, and with no royalties payable to the State.

This gas refinery, the only land-based refinery in the world, will discharge toxins into air, sea and drinking water in an inhabited and environmentally sensitive region; the high-pressure supply pipeline will pass beside houses, and the entire Corrib operation will be based in Ayr in Scotland.





Shell/Statoil will not be using Irish labour or services, and they are not doing so currently except where these are offered for free by the state.

But by far the worst aspect of this ‘deal’ is that it confirms the denial of our constitution by all state organs, in principle and practice, and thus of Ireland as an independent nation.

Neither the licenses sought by private archaeological firms to excavate along the route of the M3 in Co Meath, nor the compulsory acquisition orders (CAOs) sought by Shell in Erris, Co Mayo, were signed by the ministers responsible, even though under the legislation in both cases a minister’s signature is required.

This is because the ‘Carltona Principle’, or ‘Delegaus Doctrine’, is used.

Under this principle, a civil servant is delegated ministerial powers, so that the respective ministers can avoid legal liability, even though there is no constitutional justification for this activity: the Carltona Principle is based on common law and, as such, directly contravenes article 15.2 of the constitution.

In other words, the reason the Carltona Principle is invoked, whether it be to grant CAOs to the NRA or to Shell, excavation licences to private firms or landing licenses to foreign military aircraft, is to enable a minister to avoid responsibility for a willful breach of the constitution.

An instance of this is former Environment Minister Martin Cullen’s response to the Supreme Court’s decision in 2003 that the Irish State has a constitutional duty to safeguard heritage.

This decision confirmed existing national monuments legislation as being in accord with the constitution, and essentially made it sacrosanct.

Mr Cullen responded by throwing out the national monuments legislation and introducing the 2004 National Monuments (Amendment) Act, which enables the environment minister to order the destruction of any national monument or site for any reason.

Because this act was introduced in contempt of the Supreme Court decision, all actions carried out under its aegis, for example the construction of the M3 motorway, are by definition illegal.

Likewise, CAOs directly contravene the constitution’s guarantee of an absolute right to private property, yet the Government allowed Shell to issue CAOs against farmers in Erris, and the minister for the marine invoked the Carltona Principle to avoid personal responsibility for his breach of the constitution.

Let there be no doubt, the Government has granted state powers to a foreign corporation.

The High Court, by acquiescing in the Government’s gross abuse of power, has become an abetter, pretending, as Government ministers are won’t to do, that Ireland is a “common law country,” and that judges can simply stipulate what is the law.

But the High Court is not entitled to issue injunctions against citizens who refuse to comply with CAOs.

The constitution does not recognise corporations or grant them legal rights which the High Court, by conducting its grotesque parody of due process, sees fit to do. Consequently, Irish citizens who should be defended by the state against such global predators as Shell can be persecuted for defending their rights.

The Government and the courts have disgraced themselves in this matter. The Rossport Five must be freed immediately, with a State apology for what is less a miscarriage than an abortion of justice.

Andrew McGrath

Secretary

The Tara Foundation

16 Glenmore Road

Dublin 7.

by R. Isible Mon Jul 11, 2005 19:57

You claim that it is miniscule, so you must have some means of quantifying it. What risk analysis do you base your cavalier decision to force people to live beside this high-pressure gas pipeline?

Given that you're so confident and repetitious in your claims of safety I look forward to a fully-sourced, comprehensive risk assessment being posted by you.

Otherwise it would appear that you are willing to foolishly assert certainty about matters in which you have no expertise.

by Chekov Mon Jul 11, 2005 20:07

"The point is that in both cases there is some risk to life and limb. But, in both cases a risk so minuscule that people put up with it."

John thinks the risk is acceptable because it's other people that are at risk. He doesn't actually care how risky it is at all to people who live on top of it and is not interested in any scientific assessment of risk. He knows that the risk to himself is zero and that's a risk that he's happy with.

As is clear from everything that he writes, He's alright jack and he doesn't give a flying fish about anybody else.

by John Mon Jul 11, 2005 21:28

If you read my post you'll see that I pointed out that, as a resident of Dublin, I'm more at risk of death or injury from an accident involving gas pipelines than anyone in Mayo. There are gas pipelines running under the street where I live. I live in an appartment block that has gas pipelines serving it. As well as that, I live near Dublin airport and under the flight path of planes flying to Britain and Europe. Other Dubliners live close to industrial plants, chemical factories and so on. All these involve risk. But the risks to any individual are minuscule and Dubliners happily accept them in the interests of economic progress. You want the Shell refinery moved out to sea. That means lots of helicopter flights from Mayo. Correct? You may say that those workers who take jobs with Shell and are on those helicopter flights choose to do so with full knowledge of the risks invloved in helicopter flights. Fine, I'll go along with that. But, what about the risk to the inhabitants of Mayo from a helicopter crashing on one of their houses? I guess you didn't think of that. Its just as big a risk as the risk of a pipeline underground exploding. Your obsession with some risks, while totally ignoring others, is entirely without logic. Finally, I'll agree with you up to a point. If the majority of the people of Mayo don't want this refinery, then I'd be against forcing it on them, provided it is indeed the majority and not just a vocal minority that are against it. Perhaps a local referendum would provide the answer. But, if the majority of people in Mayo do indeed reject it, then let them stop whining because their standard of living is lower and their unemployment rate higher than in areas of the country that do accept the minsucule risks involved in industrial developments of this type.

by IRSP - Irish Republican Socialist Party Wed Jul 13, 2005 00:24 dublinirsp at hotmail dot com PO Box 10081, Dublin 1 0876 320 323

Press Statement:

The Irish Republican Socialist Party demand the 26 county administration immediately release from Cloverhill Prison of the five Mayo men who have become known as the “Rossport five”, Michael O’Seighin, Vincent McGrath, Philip McGrath, Willie Corduff and Brendan Philbin.

Dublin IRSP representative Kevin Morley today said: “These men are prisoners of the State for opposing the installation of the Corrib gas pipeline with much justification. According to Councilor Willie Clarke, MLA, in the Daily Ireland July 12 2005 ‘these men, their families and neighbours, are protesting because they believe that the pipeline is unsafe as the pressure of gas is far too high for its proximity to homes’. This argument is, of course, absolutely correct but in itself too shallow.

“The fact of the matter is that Shell, and companies like them are transactional organisations and use countries like Ireland where the government is too weak to resist in order to maximise profits. The economy of Shell is likely to be larger than that of the 26 county administration in much the same way as that of “Union Carbide” was to the Indian government when the Bhopal disaster occurred back in the early 1980s. The truth of the matter is that these companies couldn’t care less about ‘national governments’ like that of the Free State as their only objective is to maximise profits.

He said: “The 26 county government would have us believe that such companies as Shell create jobs and encourage economic growth. As far as it goes this argument may hold water but economic growth and employment under the capitalist system is dependent on the benevolent transnational making huge profits, and once this is accomplished and a cheaper source of profit can be found elsewhere then the workforce can go to hell. In the meantime if an accident occurs on the Corrib gas pipeline and hundreds of homes are wiped out, to say nothing of the loss of life to working class people, Shell just shut up shop and relocate elsewhere leaving people who live in Ireland to pick up the pieces.

“Councilor Clarke’s arguments are very well founded and his concerns equally so and as he says, ‘the Rossport Five languish in a Dublin jail for carrying out a legitimate protest’. However where the argument falls short, from a socialist/communist point of view, is there is no direct attack on the capitalist system which allows such activities , in fact encourages these same antics of the transactional companies to continue . Until such an imbecile system is brought to its knees such miscarriages of justice, which has occurred to the Rossport Five, will happen again and again. Councilor Clarke is correct to point out that ‘the drive for profit in the name of progress seems to take precedent’ over peoples health and well being but at the end of the day it’s just another symptom of the overall capitalist system where profit is the only word that counts.

In conclusion, Kevin Morley said: “If the 26 county government had an once of respect for their fore bearers it is not the Rossport Five who should be languishing in Cloverhill but the profiteering exploiting directors of Shell who are quite evidently, according to reports, putting peoples lives at risk.”

by Mayo in exile Wed Jul 13, 2005 14:48

I'm sorry but I'm flabbergasted by the comments John is making. If he were making a cold statistical argument that would be one thing, but he isn't producing any statistics to back his argument nor is there any sense of coherence.

A few points are relevant here (some of which have already been mentioned by others):

1-The gas that will be passing through the pipeline in Rossport is raw, untreated, not deodorised gas, which will be at a very high pressure indeed. There will also be electric cables running beside it, and other smaller pipelines which will deliver the byproducts of the refining process (toxins and poisons go leor) out to sea again. The gas that flows over and under and through John's home near dangerous Dublin airport is treated, deodorised (so that people can detect a leak), and is at a very low pressure. The only reason it is intended that this proposed high-risk pipeline pass through this area, as opposed to the gas being refined at sea, is because it will save money for a company that has no shortage of cash. Such a pipeline has never existed before, and it certainly hasn't passed through a bog. Have you ever worked on a bog? One wrong step and you're above your knees in a "poll portaigh". Remember that the landfall and the initial route of the pipeline into Sruth Fada Conn is directly under the path of the landslide which devastated Gleann 'a Ghad and Poll 'a tSomais almost two years ago. Would you not agree that this slightly increases the risks? I haven't heard that the Dublin mountains have been coming down in the rain and moving in polluting cavalcades towards your house near Dublin airport.

2-"But, if the majority of people in Mayo do indeed reject it, then let them stop whining because their standard of living is lower and their unemployment rate higher than in areas of the country that do accept the minsucule risks involved in industrial developments of this type." - if you are trying to put forth a logical argument, then start by being logical yourself, or at least, by qualifying what is meant by the sentence above. The rights of the city mouse supersede the rights of the country mouse? Is that it?

3-In regard to the risk of helicopters coming down in Rossport (I can't even believe I'm replying to a posting like his as it's so ridiculous but I'll keep going anyway), it might be useful to know that all servicing of the rigs will be done from Ayr in Scotland.

Slán leat agus go dtaga ciall le haois.

by Andrew McGrath - The Tara Foundation Thu Jan 26, 2006 20:27

You don't clinch the argument, "John", by reposting your original claims. I suggest you read the Centre for Public Inquiry report, especially the Independent Risk Assessment, for some fact-based refutation of your less-than-factual contentions.

by Seán Ryan Fri Jan 27, 2006 01:06

Statistically speaking there is an infinitely greater chance of an existing gaspipe exploding, than there is of an imaginary gaspipe exploding.

For the mathematicians:

An actual gaspipe exploding / A none existent gaspipe exploding = infinity (give or take the chances of an actual pipeline quantum tunneling into Rossport with all the bits and pieces deemed necessary in order for it to explode.)

Most of the nutball arguments so far have suggested that Shell will statistically reduce accidents and death in Ireland. This is not the case. Whatever their statistics, they add to the problem.

Shell pipelne?

Not a statistical snowball's hope in hell.

Sláinte
Seán