Enough Already About Rossport

by Joe Wed Nov 02, 2005 21:45

The problem with piping the gas to an onshore refinery is that it is coming straight out of the ground at high pressue. Such high pressure pipes are untested so although the engineers reckon it would be OK no one knows for sure.

A standard offshore refinery would refine the gas and pump it onshore at a much lower pressure - the sort that is used in the Kinsale pipes. These have been in operation for some years and so are tested.

Basically people in Rossport feel they are the guniepigs in a rather dangerous experiment - and could be incinerated if it goes wrong.

The other problem is the corrupt deal Shell were given in the first place which is taking revenue out of our hospitals and schools. And the fact that the government rewrote the law to allow Sheel CPA's for the pipeline.

by Niall Wed Nov 02, 2005 22:41

First of all Henry, you won't get much of an understanding from the mainstream media who's coverage of this issue, apart from local media, has been shallow to say the least. Neither could following the 'debate' on this website have led you to the understanding that 'they want NO gaspipe line or refinery to be constructed'.

The Shell to Sea campaign and especially the Rossport Five have always said that they would welcome a clean gas pipeline through Rossport and if a refinery is built at sea, which is the demand of the campaign also Henry, they "will help bring the clean gas in".

Pipeline safety.
There are no assurances that the proposed pipeline will be safe. It's a timebomb in their front gardens. See Dave Aldridges report at www.shelltosea.com, talk to Mike Cunningham ex-Statoil, Padraig Campbell SIPTU, Brian Coyle Engineer, Warner Blau physicist etc etc.

Capping the gas for the future has been discussed but not to the extent that you claim and no decisions have been made. That, in the context which I think you're referring to, namely the 'renegotiation of the original deal'.

Your hypothesis is bullshit and untrue, dunno where you get your info. Inform yourself, search Indymedia and read, study shelltosea.com and then present an argument and be bold about it then, not now with a weak argument.

Go to Rossport and see for yourself.

by Geoff Thu Nov 03, 2005 11:19

The groups name itself implies that they want an off shore gas pipe line built as oppossed to one running through their back garden. These people are not middle class bourgeouis anarchists, they are ordinary farmer types with genuine concerns. :0)

by Henry Thu Nov 03, 2005 11:22

From what i have read about the subject don't engineers design pipelines to withstand certain tolerances - for example if there is high pressure gas passing through it a pipeline is not only designed to withstand that particular pressure but several times multiples of the minimum tolerance it will actually be used for.

What seems to be happening in Rossport is locals who have no clue about engineering are second guessing the designers of the pipeline. When it is pointed out that they do not have the engineering knowledge to make such a judgement the locals smelt persecution.

by moylan Thu Nov 03, 2005 12:15

Why don't you inform yourself about what is really happening, because the ignorance your statements reflect is shocking, given the fact that this issue has been in the public domain for some months.

by IF Thu Nov 03, 2005 13:22

Well said Henry...I agree. Unqualified people making completely spurious arguments and generalisations can only lead to ignorance. unfortunately that is whats happened here.

by moylan Thu Nov 03, 2005 14:06

You are referring to your own?

by BANANAMAN Thu Nov 03, 2005 17:07

Most of it is either being put in the public domain by Shell and its associates (boo, biased) or by the ShellTo Sea Campaign and their supporters (Boo, biased). So where the bejaysus do folk get this unbiased info?? I reckon you take some from the ShellToSea campaign i.e. the locals concerns for their safety, and the technical stuff from the Shell sources. They must tell the truth in relation to the technical aspects, as this is what would be put in place in the event of a pipeline being built, yes? Many people are making comparisons to the way in which Shell operated in Nigeria which was and is completely reprehensible, but aren't we as a country a little more advanced in relation to planning and safety? Some will doubtless argue otherwise. I reckon the folk who are a whoopin and a hollerin so much about the Rossport situation, but who aren't directly affected by the issue, should focus more on issues like Corrupt Catholic Church, War in Iraq, POWs in Shannon Warport etc. The lads who went to prison seem well able to handle themselves, but the whole situation is gone a bit haywire if you ask me, not that you would cos I'm no expert like.
But lastly, cos I may as well be beating me mickey off the butt of an auld whitethorn bush for all the thanks I'll get, but this reeks of no, not nimbyism, but yes, you guessed it, of BANANAism. Some people just seem to love protesting against anything and its impossible to stop them, especially those with too much time on their hands.
But leaving everything else aside, fair play to the five for sticking to their guns, they truely rock,
(BTW, why haven't Shell just bought everyone out?)

by S Lavelle Thu Nov 03, 2005 17:55

from afar is that members of the public shut down a 900 million euro project that had clearly being through the numerous planning processes, public hearings etc., was given the green light by the relevant statutory authorities, Mayo Co. Co. and so on

This is completely unacceptable and sets a very dangerous precedent for the government, the public cannot be allowed to empower themselves to take action of this nature,

because i dont agree with someone or something does not give me license to form blockades and put people out of work,

by Gyro Fri Nov 04, 2005 00:55

Henry! you are right to be critical of the reasons given by the objectors to the pipeline, especially if the objections do not make sense to you.

In a small way, may I explain the way that I see it. The main anxiety that objectors have, myself included, is that our government seems to ahve abdicated their role as protectors of peoples safety and of the environment. The multi national companies appear to be calling the shots.

The Western People had a very interesting piece last week under the column called the Editor's Chair. Mr Andy Pyle stated in a previous letter to the paper that a similar pipeline to the Rossport one existed in Karsto in Norway. The Western People investigated this claim. Quote: 'The Karsto pipeline is 55mm thick; the Corrib pipeline is 27mm thick. The Karsto pipeline has a miximum operating pressure of 170 bar; the Corrib pipeline is 340 bar. In other words, the Corrib pipeline has twice the operating pressure of Karsto but only half the thickness. Meanwhile, sections of the Karsto pipeline are buried 200m below the ground while sections of the Corrib pipeline are only 1.2m below the ground. And here is the icing on the cake. No new houses are permitted within 200 meters of the Karsto pipeline yet the Corrib pipeline will pass within 70 meters of existing residences and 30 meters from a public road.' Unquote.

Is it any wonder that the resicences of Erris are skeptical of asurances given by Shell etc? The Norwegian Government through their company Statoil etc guarantee A1 Environmental and Safety policies for the Norwegian people. Interestingly, the people of Rossport are behaving in exactly the same manner that the Norwegian Government behaved after been approached by Philips Petroleum (looking for exporation licenses) soon after Gas was found in Groningen(similar rock formation as in the North Sea) in Holland in 1958. They admitted that they knew nothing about oil exploration and asked Philips to wait until they were sure of what they were doing. The Rossport Five in the absense of Irish Government control also just want to be sure that what is being done is in the interest of the safety of their families, neighbours and protects their rich environment.

Ths Irish Government has got to take the lead to protect it's citizens, otherwise they will have to put alot of people in jail again. There are billions of Irish wealth buying up property abroad. Why in God's name can they not do a Maritime Renewal Scheme (similar to the very successful Rural Renewal Schem) and direct some of this wealth towards taking control of Oil/Gas exploration around their coastline?

by moylan Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:03

"[T]he public cannot be allowed to empower themselves or take action of this nature..."

You would for example support oppressive laws to prevent people "empowering themselves"? Of course they can't be allowed to question actions taken by the State. Good God, the heavens would fall down!

What right do these people have to think for themselves, rather than accept the word of Government officials? It ought to be outlawed!

Except that every word the Government has said on this issue has been exposed as a lie. Deal with that.

We have adequate precent for corrupt planning decisions. This is no different; the scale is larger, that's all. The Rossport protests are a positive development, a sign that maybe there is a hope for the resurgence of politics among Irish people.

by Síog Fri Nov 04, 2005 17:45

In response to the BTW above, the reason Shell havent' "just bought everyone out" is because not everyone is for sale. Surprise you?

by gylangirl Sat Nov 05, 2005 04:15

We in America are struggling to preserve what is left of our own democracy after the plutocrats are done hijacking it for corporate profit. I am saddened to see that even in Ireland/E.U. countries, the public interest is not valued by the government supposedly representing the people who elected it. Corporations should not have the power to jail private property owners with legitimate concern for the safety of their community. The comparison to the pipeline procedures in Norway is eye-opening. What laws limiting corporate power have they got that we don't?

by Iwik Mon Nov 07, 2005 03:20

Just to give you an idea of what 340 bar pressure actually means:
it is roughly equivalent to the pressure at the bottom of a column of water 3400m high (or 3.4km underwater).
That's serious pressure. Typical pipelines for pumped liquids are suitable for up to about 20 bar. Beyond that you're getting into special pipes.

by cool j Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:15

Mr Lavelle attempts to trot out the usual guff about planning. The pipeline has no planning, neithier does many of the installations on the Bellanaboy site and in Rossport. Shell ploughed a road through protected sand -dunes at Glengad without planning, this and other illegal developments are now the subject of investigation by the Co. Co. and Bord Pleanala. The devlopment consents are also the subject of an ongoing high court action presided over by Ms Justice Laffoy.

by cool j Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:31

Which part of the phrase "ShelltoSea" do you not understand!!!!!!!!! - The only independent expert report done on the project was done by the CPI(Centre for Public Investigation). Using international experts in the field it highlighted the recklessness and danger of Shell's current plans for extracting the gas and recommended the off-shore option as the optimum development concept!

by Paul O'Donnell Tue Nov 14, 2006 15:23

Who uses inane terms like "Enough Already" which is a gramatical convulsion? It might sound right coming from Brad Pitt on some US blockbuster film but "Enough Already" is a ridiculous term. What does it mean? Sounds like something the upper-class snobs said on the Titanic lifeboats when someone pointed out there was plenty of space for extra passengers. "That's enough already, just get rowin'".