National Day of Action - Bus to Ballinaboy Blockade

by Tadhg Sat Oct 14, 2006 23:17

Where else would get a trip like that for €20? Are druids allowed on the bus?

by Mastermind Sat Oct 14, 2006 23:23

The protest is a (peaceful) one, in brackets.

by xtic - citizen Sun Oct 15, 2006 00:07 086 8537281

Every protest associated with the Shell to Sea campaign has been undertaken in a peaceful manner. The recent blockades at Bellanaboy have been characterised by the unnecessary garda force present and a particularly insidious campaign of intimidation and provocation. The media have had their say as well and with it an obvious lack of objectivity and some downright distortion. The resolve of the people of Erris under these conditions is inspiring.

It serves the interests of the State/Shell better for us to be portrayed as blow-in tree huggers, up for a ruck with the cops, than for what we actually are and what we represent.

People have been asked to come from around the country to the blockade next Friday morning in solidarity with the people of the locality. The protest will be a peaceful one. Shell to Sea.

More information from the above number.

Now Mastermind, go away and stop trolling.

by Mastermind Sun Oct 15, 2006 00:45

"Now Mastermind, go away and stop trolling"

I feel so sorry for that diluded sentence. Nobody is trying to troll on this issue at all... I am offering my support to the Rossport people and yes, I disagree with the policing tactics used by the Gardai at Rossport. Are you now trying to exclude your own fellow supporters of the Rossport people under siege?!

by xtic Sun Oct 15, 2006 01:35

Apologies, I'm a bit tetchy tonight...

Sorry again.

by roscommon Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:14

any other buses/ carpool from the NWest / castlebar / N17 etc?
also know if it'll be safe to bring kids ? thanks

by anarchaeologist - Shell to Sea Dublin Mon Oct 16, 2006 11:31

but only if they feel like it!

Having said that, it's likely to be cold and possibly wet. The blockade starts at between 5.30 and 6.00 a.m.

However, hot water bottles in buggies, warm blankets and watherproofs should keep them happy.

There's transport from the Donegal/Sligo direction. If you phone the number listed above, there may be further information available. Otherwise make yourself known on the national mailing list.

For more info, contact [email protected]

Kids can come too!

by Joe - Protest Tours Inc Mon Oct 16, 2006 14:51

Considering the amount of abuse you lot pour out to shell ,statoil and other multinationals , you lot should be walking to the protest ???
Sorry i forgot , the wind up cars and the solar powered bus.

by WIND UP Mon Oct 16, 2006 17:27

The protest is against Shell's desire to destroy the environment of NW Mayo and put the safety of its population at risk. Some people are also concerned with the deal that our government did which ensures that the country won't see any benefit from the exploitation of our natural resources.

Most people involved in the protest have no problem with modern technology as long as it is used safey with community consent.

Talk of walking to protests etc is just trolling nonsense.

by Shell to Sea - ditto Tue Oct 17, 2006 10:44

There are several places still available on the bus. If we need to hire another it would be better to know as soon as possible...

If there are any strays, there are some lifts going up later on in the evening, coming back on friday morning. Contact the number at the top of the thread.

by Starstruck Tue Oct 17, 2006 15:06

Ah so easy to criticise,so so hard to contribute anything psoitive to life-pathetic.
Shell to Sea will not give up the campaign until the demands,all of which benefit the Irish people,are met.
Now when your done,pull yourselves out of your keyboards and go back to corporate media sites which appreciate mindless sheep such as yourselves.

Shell to Sea!

by Wednesday Tue Oct 17, 2006 15:43

Has any form of solidarity action been arranged for Dublin this Friday to coincode with the day of action in Bellanaboy? I can't make it this weekend. I am sure many others are in the same situation but would like to take part in some action to show their support and draw attention to the issue.

by Starstruck - Dublin Shell to Sea Tue Oct 17, 2006 16:35

There is no action this Friday in Dublin as far as I am currently aware although individual localised groups that have taken on blockades and pickets in recent weeks may have a b etter idea.
Were these to be happening this Friday,they would be on the events list.
The Dublin Shell to Sea meeting is on at 8pm tonight in Seomra Spraoi on the quays-feel free to pop along,there may be others present who are also not able to go on Friday but would like to show soklidarity in the capital.

by Galway Shell to Sea Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:25

......on Thursday night.

Anyone interested should call 087 7413741

by Tired Too Fri Oct 20, 2006 09:51

If S2S's demands are to be met the gas has to be treated offshore. This will not benefit the Irish people one bit as an offshore platform is not an option and will not be considered. It is less environmentally friendly and infinitely more dangerous than an onshore terminal.

I am alos not one bit surprised there are spare seats - everybody is getting fed up with your cause - and Maura Harrington behaving like a raving lunatic on the radio phone in certainly hasn't helped.

by John E Fri Oct 20, 2006 10:25

"This will not benefit the Irish people one bit as an offshore platform"
neither will an onshore. we'll have to pay full market price so it doesn't matter if it comes from the corrib or russia.

by Tired Too Fri Oct 20, 2006 11:37

That may be true but you can't expect cheaper gas just because it comes from Corrib. You are dealing with a product that is susceptible to market conditions. I suspect that what will happen once Corrib comes online, Bord Gais will trim back the supply from the UK. Or there may be more users lined up to coincide with Corrib coming online, meaning flows from Scotland would remain pretty much constant. Either way, the cost of gas to the consumer is Bord Gais' remit, not Shell's. Ultimately they don't want to see their profits eaten into by a surplus of gas in the grid.

This project could be the start of a real oil and gas industry in Ireland, if successful. Aberdeen was a small, forgotten Scottish city until the oil industry came along, now it is the oil capital of Europe with hundreds of thousands of jobs related to the industry. It comes down to more than how many operate on the front line.

by Don Fri Oct 20, 2006 12:25

Aberdeen became the centre of Europe's petroleum industry, with the port serving oil rigs off-shore. (Bring it on so) Shell2Sea

by Harry Fri Oct 20, 2006 12:30

Well the radio reports today that the National day of action has attracted a crowd of approximately 300 people to the protest today. Is this in line with expectations? Given that there is probably about 100 there on a day to day basis, is it impressive that this has multiplied by 3?

Personally I think its disappointing - and hardly augurs well for the campaign as clearly the "ordinary Joe" has no opinion on this issue any more.

by Joe Fri Oct 20, 2006 14:00

I don't think some commentators are quite getting the nature of the protests being organised. The protests being called are not like (for instance) the Feb 15th 2003 anti-war demonstration in Dublin where weeks of work and thousands of pounds was invested in getting large numbers of people on the street to demonstrate opposition to the war. Indeed that protest in particular led many to question how useful such a demonstration is as even where you suceed (100,000 plus marched on F15 in Dublin) the government simply ignores you and carries on. They still have a role but it is a limited one.

That todays action is not of this type is obvious if you give it five seconds thought. If it was it would
a, Be in Dublin where the greatest number could get to it - it certainly wouldn't be in Rossport which is one of the hardest places in the country to get to.
b. Would be on a Saturday rather than a working day

Arguably it is on a working day and in Rossport for one reason and one reason only - to try and have some impact on Shells ability to carry out construction.

Isn't this obvious.

by Tired Too Fri Oct 20, 2006 14:06

Aberdeen is more than just a port for offshore rigs. There are numerous service industries and headquarters stationed there. Furthermore, there are also gas terminals north of the city.

by William Hederman Fri Oct 20, 2006 14:28

Tired Too says the "offshore platform is not an option and will not be considered".

It is true that Shell say they will not consider the offshore option. This does not mean it is not an option. It simply means that Shell is being stubborn because it doesn't want to spend the extra money on offshore processing. Offshore is an option for the local community: it's the option they've been advocating since November 2000.

Of course, despite being stubborn and intransigent, Shell has, with the help of Noel Dempsey, Peter Cassells and most of the media, managed to create the impression that it is the protestors who are refusing to compromise. The protestors simply want the gas processed in the same way it is at Kinsale. It is Shell that is trying to do it differently. Shell's way of doing it is not an option, because it doesn not have community consent.

In April 2003, Bord Pleanála inspector Kevin Moore's report stated that Bellanaboy was "the wrong site". (That report rejected planning permission for the terminal, but this was eventually overturned. There has been much speculation about the behind-the-scenes manoeuvres on behalf of the consortium between Moore's rejection and the subsequent approval).

by Tired Too Fri Oct 20, 2006 15:14

Kinsale head and Corrib are very different. Kinsale platform lies in waters no higher than 100 m. Corrib is more like 350. The engineering required to build such a structure and the phenomenal cost would not make it a viable option. That is one reason why the offshore oil platform is not an option. Another consideration would be the increased risk to personnel working on or in service of the platform. Adverse weather creates dangerous working, flying and maritime conditons. Is this what you would condone? You only have to look at likelihoods of incidents occuring: a helicopter crash is far, far more likely to happen than a pipeline rupture, a ship losing power and colliding with the platform is more likely than a pipeline rupture. A catastrophic incident therefore is more likely to occur on a platform than in a terminal. Stastically speaking the offshore environment is one the most dangerous places to work in. Why would you needlessly subject your fellow country men to that?

by Gaz B -(A)- Fri Oct 20, 2006 15:26

A shallow offshore processing plant, is 'not an option' for Shell because it would cost more (€360 million) according to Shell. A drop in the ocean of the the potential value of the Corrib and surrounding fields for Shell and its partners in excess of €50.4 billion.

Re-routing the pipe-line was also 'not an option' according to this press release. Apparently now it is an option.
http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=ie-en&FC2=/i....html

by Tired Too Fri Oct 20, 2006 15:35

What about the added risk to personnel Gaz?

by William Hederman Fri Oct 20, 2006 15:46

Dear Tired Too,

Either you do not know much about the issue or else you are pretending not to know what the campaign is calling for (this is a tactic John Egan of Shell has been using a great deal).

Firstly, the protesters' demand is for a terminal on a shallow-water platform close to the shore in a sheltered spot somewhere on the Mayo coast, not at the well out in the ocean. (By the way, protesters have not demanded that it go elsewhere in Mayo -- they have said they are prepared to have a lower-pressure Bord Gais pipeline through their area).

Secondly, are you suggesting that the waters off Kinsale do not experience stormy weather?

Thirdly, if you're implying that ships would have to dock at the terminal during its operation, I suggest that this is unlikely to be the case. The gas would be processed and then piped onshore through a low-pressure pipeline.

And fourthly, regarding worker safety. There is a difference between gas platform workers' safety and the safety of nearby residents. Workers have a choice and are well rewarded financially for their trouble. The tens of thousands of oil and gas workers working on offshore rigs, shallow water terminals etc have chosen to do a job that involves certain risks. Do you feel those workers at Kinsale are put at an unreasonable risk?
On the other hand, the local people who have to drive/walk/cycle along a road 30m from the pipeline and who live 70m from the pipeline did not choose to live beside such a pipeline. Most of them were born there.

by Tired Too Fri Oct 20, 2006 16:20

Firstly William, the ships do not dock, they would be supply vessels and each platform would require on average two visits a week. Secondly, you say low pressure gas piped onshore. What is your definition of low pressure gas? 10, 20 bar maybe? The gas entering the Bord Gais grid is piped at 90 bar. Hardly low pressure and just as likely to cause a catastrophic incident as gas escaping at 120bar.

I am not suggesting that Kinsale does not experience stormy weather and I think you are being fatuous knowing full well the point I was trying to make here. The weather at Corrib is worse.

With regards Kinsale that platform was built prior to subsea technology. Should it have been discovered today then it would definately have been a similair tie back to that proposed for Corrib. It was economically viable to place produce the field through a platform and as it is there the hazards involved must be controlled and reduced as far as is reasonably practicable. Any company when engaging in hazardous activities must, from the outset, reduce them as far as possible as a duty to their employees.

Again I would direct you to my comments on likelihoods of hazardous events occuring ie risk. The likelihood of someone being killed as a result of working offshore is far, far greater than someone being killed from a pipeline rupture. Are you willing to jeopordise peoples lives because you have no notion of risk mitigation? Out of sight out of mind is what you want.

S2S have asked for a platform close to the shore. How close is too close? Have any sites been suggested? Has consideration been given to added risk and increased pollution that this would entail?

by Jock Fri Oct 20, 2006 16:26

Allof the objectors keep on harping on about the consequence of a rupture of the gas pipeline etc without ever looking at the risk. they really are luddites.

The consequence of a building collapsing is quite clear - it would cause certain death for those inside it or standing in its vicinity. However the risk of that happening is very very low and hense we all carry on with our lives and enter large buildings secure in the knowledge that the risk of it collapsing is negligable.

the same logic applies with regard to a gas pipeline. We all know that the consequence of a rupture is likely to cause injury or even worse BUT the risk associated with that is extremely remote.

by Gaz B -(A)- Fri Oct 20, 2006 16:50

Advantica, authors of the 'independent review', were fined £15 million in connection with a 1999 gas pipeline explosion in Scotland in which a family of four were killed. The risks should be minimised as far as possible, lives should always come before profit. Shell To Sea are not Luddites, they want a a shallow offshore processing plant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_%28internet%29
http://buckfastforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2006/10/shells....html
http://buckfastforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2006/10/shells....html

by Tired Too Fri Oct 20, 2006 17:11

An explosion of a pipeline at low pressure carrying sales quality gas? S2S are willing to accept a pipeline carrying sales quality gas at 90 bar?

Its funny Jock isn't it that as soon as these people are cornered by an argument they cannot counter they start to resort to petty name calling - I refer to your link to wikipedia and the sock puppet article Gaz, very peurile.

I refer you to my queries in the comment above regarding specifics on the shallow water platform Gaz B?

by Gaz B -(A)- Fri Oct 20, 2006 17:32

"An explosion of a pipeline at low pressure carrying sales quality gas"
Indeed. Imagine if it was the Corrib pipeline.

Richard Kuprewicz, president of US based consultants, Accufacts Inc sated that ,"Difficulties with locating the gas processing plant offshore have been overstated". As, I am sure, you and your friends are aware, Shell will not look into the option of a shallow offshore terminal as it would cost them more capital. It is unlikely that the government will issue a truly independent report into the issue for various reasons (maybe the 10 grand enterprise Ireland chucked them might keep them quiet).

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/74344 Shells pollution

by gaz Fri Oct 20, 2006 17:34

that should read the 10 grand 'enterprise oil' chucked FF.

by R. Isible Fri Oct 20, 2006 17:42

In September 2006 the RTÉ/Nuacht poll conducted by MRBI/tns showed that 61% favoured the offshore option and that only 23% favoured the onshore option for the gas refinery and the dangerous pipeline.

Now http://www.indymedia.ie/article/79158 in Oct 2006 the support for the dangerous onshore refinery and pipeline has dropped to 15% and 45% of people support the Shell to Sea option of not piping the gas past people's homes at an abnormally high pressure.

That shows pretty clearly that most people make the same risk evaluation as the residents of Rossport who have to live within the blast-radius of the high-pressure pipeline.

When you add into the risk equation the problem of Shell's profit-driven, cavalier approach to the environment (demonstrated in their record of pipe explosions, pollution and other problems exposed not just in Russia/Sakhalin and Nigeria but also in the USA http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=70447 ) the risk becomes significantly higher. It would appear that they are unwilling to comply with basic Irish laws and safety legislation from the very inception of this project when they attempted to illegally (the Minister Noel Dempsey said that Shell had breached ministerial consents in his view http://www.indymedia.ie/article/71090?&condense_comment...15815 ) construct the pipeline over a shifting bog surface which would expose the pipeline to stresses outside of its expected operational design. It was because of the waterlogged nature of the bog (see photos here http://www.indymedia.ie/article/77377?&condense_comment...59812 ) among other factors that An Bord Pleanala initially refused permission for construction at that site.

This: http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=71100 shows how soft the surface is, and

Good background interview on the proposed unsafe site:
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=68857&con...=true

by Miriam Cotton Fri Oct 20, 2006 18:25

It's not just about the Corrib field. There are other lucrative oil and gas fields out there. A major part of the explanation for why the government and Shell are so intent on siting this facility inland is because they want to establish a precedent for refining inland. Right at the moment they have purchased approximately 450 acres in Mayo - an amount of land well in excess of what could possibly be needed for Corrib. In Shetland, the gas element of the refinery is conducted on a mere 12 acres - thats for the whole of the North Sea. The people of Kerry and Clare will need to be vigilant too because when work begins on the Dunquin and Slynne fields...It's not clear either what will happen with the Cong field. The Shell to Sea protest is genuinely a fight for the integrity of the country's body, heart and soul.

by Tired Too Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:57

The point I was making Gaz is that the explosion was from a low pressure source that provides gas for domestic use. S2S are willing to accept a 90 bar pipeline carrying sales gas through their land. Furthermore, it was Transco that were fined, not Advantica. The latter is a consultancy firm that is a subsidiary of the former. Advantica had nothing to do with the explosion you allude to, it is Transoc's remit to maintain pipelines, not Advantica's. In future it may be worth checking out your facts before you commit them here.

Again R. Isible makes the supposition that the terminal is dangerous. Of course it is, almost anything is dangerous. What matters is how the thing is managed and how the inherent risk is mitigated. Off course Shell is profit driven, show me an oil company that isn't? The thing is, they are the ones with the know how so their help in getting the stuff out of the ground is pretty necessary. I notice that all links are to indymedia stories? How convenient. Why do you think so much peat is being removed? To enable a good structural foundation. An bord plenala initially failed to give planning permission due to issues that have since been resolved. The terminal now has planning permission. But hey, you will have some reason or other how Shell managed to coax that out of a Government body.

To Miriam - the Sullom Voe terminal in Shetland is an oil refinery. The gas element from the North Sea is sent to a terminal north of Aberdeen. The gas processed at said refinery is entrained within the oil or removed as part of the refining process, therefore the gas volumes would be signifcantly less than a dedicated gas terminal and gas reservoir. In short, with higher volumes of gas the processing required increases in size. Therefore your point is moot.

by Gaz B -(A)- Mon Oct 23, 2006 11:36

and Steven Lucas, the current Group Finance Director of Advantica's parent company, National Grid Transco Plc, formally held management positions at Shell International Petroleum Company. His final post at Shell was Finance Manager in Shell's UK Downstream business.

Friends Of The Earths reports into Shells negative effects in Durban South Africa, Port Arbur Texas, Nigeria, North West China, Argentina, Sao Paulo Brazil, Curacao Caribbean, Sakhalin island Russia and Manila in the Philipines. Communites Terry Nolan didn't mention in the Irish Times when he said Shell To Sea should talk to people living nxt to Shell operations.

http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/behind_shine.pdf
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/failing_challenge.pdf

by spinner Mon Oct 23, 2006 11:47

Tired Too seems to have extensive, if selected knowledge of various gas projects. The Shill has never posted before 830 or after 5 on a weekday and never on a weekend.Not bad working hours for a shell employee.

by Tired Too Mon Oct 23, 2006 12:41

A rather pointless comment from spinner. Do you have anything meaningful to add, or are you just here to brush up on your detective skills?

by spinner Mon Oct 23, 2006 12:59

heres some info on the treatment of other less welk treated employees who were involved in the project

treatment of employees, from Magill: "Irish rig-workers, in claims made to Magill, said: 'Enterprise Oil refused point-blank to hire any Irish-based rig-workers on drilling rig, The Petrolia, owned by Maersk. They'd hired the rig to drill appraisal wells at this massive gas field. Despite the fact that there had been an agreed involvement of highly skilled and experienced Irish rig-workers on rigs operating in Irish waters since drilling began in 1969, there were no Irish rig-workers initially hired. Eventually, we managed to get about 26 jobs. In the 70s, we had about 80 jobs per rig, so it was down a lot, but we figured that that was as good as we'd get at that time"......"However, Enterprise refused to meet with Siptu and there followed a series of peaceful protests by Irish rig-workers."

CPI report: In 1998, Enterprise hired the larger Sedco 711 ri to appraise the Corrib field. Mr McGoldrick wanted to hire the rig without Irish workers and claimed that Irish workers were demanding wages “way in excess of industry norms”. When Enterprise organised to bring pipes in through the Foynes base, Irish dockers decided to picket the base in sympathy with the oil workers and, in response, Mr McGoldrick approached the minister to move the supply base to Scotland. Fianna Fáil had returned to government, and Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources Michael Woods endorsed Mr McGoldrick’s argument that EU regulations allowed the free movement of labour. For the Irish rig workers, it was a disastrous development and the last time that many of them worked in the industry.

by Tired Too Mon Oct 23, 2006 13:59

Again, another pointless comment. I thought there was going to be something constructive?

by R. Isible Mon Oct 23, 2006 14:23

I don't believe Tired Too is a professional. It's more likely that s/he is some drone goofing off the work that s/he is supposed to be doing. I say this because of the very poor job s/he has done in attempting to make the case that Shell should be allowed to construct a dangerous high-pressure pipeline beside local residents.

For example "Tired Too" appears to lack basic reading skills. Referring to my post
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/79062&comment_limit=0&c...72430
s/he falsely states:
Again R. Isible makes the supposition that the terminal is dangerous.
When I clearly talk only and solely about the pipeline, not the refinery which is a whole other kettle of fish. Seriously, I ask you, who apart from an amateur would be incapable of reading a piece of text and sticking to the point? As an attempt at misdirection and confusion it just makes Shell look either duplicitous or incompetent.

I notice that all links are to indymedia stories? How convenient.
If you're going to go to the trouble of posting scores of replies and specifically replying to some of them then you'd better go and actually read the links and refute the information contained in them. Specifically the posts show reports of waterlogged bogs (which the original An Bord Pleannala report cited as a reason NOT to site the pipeline and which Shell had NO permission to construct the pipeline through), opinion polls conducted by RTE and MRBI which show that the democratic majority oppose this ill-thought-out, poorly executed and deleterious project, and reports of Shell's cavalier incompetence in other countries. These are all important information for anyone discussing this matter. If you can specifically refute with reference to widely accepted, competent expert opinion any of the information presented then you'll be doing everyone a favour (e.g. your statement of opinion is not interesting or valid as no one knows who you are or what your competence is, so cite a publically available work please).

Given your numerous, lengthy contributions which fail to do any of the above it's reasonable to assume that you can't. So, either you do work for Shell and are not worth the money they pay you, or else you're defrauding your real employees of your time by goofing off on the net. Whichever it is, you're abusing the purpose of Indymedia which is to provide information, not BB chat and opinion. Please put a sock in it or come up with something substantive. Thanks.

by spinner - Siptu Mon Oct 23, 2006 14:27

So the record of treatment of irish workers involved with the corrib project is 'pontless'. We are led to believe that the project will provide significant employment opportunities for the local community (several hundred according to Shell). EEI stated that "many of these workers would not be local residents" and that excluding temporary jobs, ongoing employment would be "in the region of 50 to 65 people." The employment situation has not changed with Shells purchase of EEI.

by Tired Too Tue Oct 24, 2006 10:01

R. Isible stated in his last post:

"For example "Tired Too" appears to lack basic reading skills... he falsely states: Again R. Isible makes the supposition that the terminal is dangerous.
When I clearly talk only and solely about the pipeline, not the refinery which is a whole other kettle of fish. Seriously, I ask you, who apart from an amateur would be incapable of reading a piece of text and sticking to the point?"

Now, you would think that before publishing such a vitriolic comment you would double check what you had said, just in case. Otherwise you would only end up looking extremely follish. Not so in R. Isible's case. Here I quote his post previous to that shown above:

"Now http://www.indymedia.ie/article/79158 in Oct 2006 the support for the dangerous onshore refinery and pipeline has dropped to 15% "

Notice his use of the word dangerous to describe BOTH the pipeline and the terminal (refinery in his description). As no reputable media body wanting to undertake an objective survey would use such a volatile adjective, one can only assume that R. Isible himself attached it. It would seem that R. Isible lacks basic memory skills and in summation has made himself look like a complete idiot.

It is convenient that you post links to Indymedia pages as they are all heavily biased towards the S2S group. However, there are a couple of counterpoints I would like to make to your assertions here:
S2S are willing to accept a Bord Gais pipeline through this shifting bog surface. This pipeline would be susceptible to the same stresses and would be operated at 90 bar g, so what is the difference between the two? I can assure you that a pipeline rupture at that pressure would be just as devastating as one at 130 bar g.

I will agree that one of your links shows aerial photographs of the terminal site. Are you saying that the terminal should not be built on this water-logged land? If so, why not? Are you insinuationg that it is beyond the realms of possiblity to make that site fit for construction? It may be a tricky engineering task, but not one that is not insurmountable, given the advances in construction technology and civil engineering in the past 200 or so years.

Most of the links contain suppositions and opinion, but little fact. So what if there is a digger in a peat bog! You leave it there long enough thats going to happen! Expert opinion is pretty much in favour of the project as long as conditions have been met, as stated by the Advantica report. Cue accusations of Accufacts and An Bord Pleanala's INITIAL planning refusal. Thats right, they refused planning permission, then they gave it. Pretty common with planning applications. These people know more about planning than you do R. Isible.

Now, everybody assumes I work for Shell, not so. What I will say is I am an offshore worker, so I know the oil and gas industry. I have knowledge of pipelines, unlike you. I have knowledge of oil and gas processing, unlike you. I have stated on several occasions facts and figures. All we get from you is supposition and ridiculous talk of the local economy being shattered because well-heeled businessmen won't go on diving holidays anymore. Well if the local economy is relying on that then they are in serious trouble already!

by M Cotton Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:46

Regardless of where they are published, facts are facts and Tiresome's evasion of the substantial and damning evidence which he was pointed to by R because it is published on Indymedia is laughable. By the same token, nothing he says here should be taken seriously either. The gas should be refined at sea. The International Labour Organisation, unsurprisingly, rates oil and gas refining as one of the most dangerous occupations there is for workers and people living nearby. Recent information from its website shows a higher rate of death from explosions at onshore refineries.

There are five broad considerations where the Corrib project is concerned : safety, health, cultural, economic and procedural. Under each heading the project has been proven unsuitable and/or to be proceeding under dangerous (yes, dangerous) and/or even illegal grounds. Here is a reminder of some relevant facts on procedural and safety issues and which might help some readers to realise how dishonest and dangerous the pro Shell position is:

"CORRIB PROJECT IS BASED ON FANTASY

Having followed for some time Shell's and the Government's conduct on the proposed Corrib Gas project I feel it is now worth noting a few glaring facts that have recently become clear.

Terry Nolan, second-in-command for SEPIL, is currently announcing to all and sundry' Shell's intention to proceed with the onshore gas refinery at Bellanaboy. This decision has been
based, by the Corrib partners' own admission on the following;

1. The Advantica safety review
2. Cassells mediator report
3. Existing statutory consents
4. Forthcoming public consultation

The stance has been taken that the project has the green light and will proceed as planned and as soon as possible. This is Shell's fantasy.

When the true facts are examined the reality is quite different, and can be broken down as follows:

1. By Advantica's own admission their safety review had very narrow terms of reference, and for this reason most local opposition to the project publicly abstained from involvement. In spite of this Minister Noel Dempsey pushed on regardless, and a raft of extra safety measures were recommended for a 144 bar reduced pressure pipeline (down from 345), even though no technical solution to acheve this reduction has yet been adopted. On top of this Advantica will only stand by their calculations up to 120 bar...and they still say a rupture would kill people over 203 meters away. Minister Dempsey has since repeatedly stated a distance of 3 (three) meters is perfectly safe!

2. Peter Cassells role as mediator was to get two opposing sides to meet and discuss common ground. When he unsurprisingly failed to achieve this he miracuously produced so-called 'ingredietns' for progress, based on his declaration that the vast majority of Erris and Mayo people want the project. Wrong. Last week's TG4/MRBI poll indicated a total of 65% of Mayo people don't want the Bellanaboy refinery, a recent door-to-door canvass reveealed 15 individuals disagreed with Shell to Sea out of around 2,500 Erris homes, and to date well over 500 people living within a 5 mile radius of Bellanaboy have signed a petition stating opposition to the current development.

3. After local opposition at EVERY stage in the process, planning permission for the Bellanaboy refinery was eventually granted by An Bord Peanala against its own technical advice, following direct lobbying from Shell. The pipeline itself has never been through the planning process, and a large section of the onshore pipeline was constructed without the required ministerial consent, which they still do not have. The refinery does not have the necessary licence to pollute from the environmental Protection Agency, and th developers 'have failed to provide all details of planned emissions to the EPA for its application. A pipeline access road through a Special Area of Conservation was built without planning or due regard to the environment, and the European Commission recently ruled that Ireland breached the EU Habitats Directive in allowing the project to proceed through the protected area of Broadhaven Bay. A number of aspects of the Corrib Gas project are currently being investigated by the Irish and European courts, and Corrib has never been dealt with as a whole, consistently being reduced to smaller and more isolated parts. This method, known as 'project-splitting', is entirely illegal under European law.

4. A seven-stage consultation process has been announced on a theoretical new pipeline route almost seven years AFTER the current design concept (including the pipeline route) was first chosen...and the existing route is still on the cards. Clear and continued opposition to the refinery itself has not been acknowledged at all in this process, and loud declarations of listening to local consent ring very hollow given the drive to now force in the refinery ahead of any supposed agreement. This is even more frightening now that the use of state force is becoming ever more likely, with increasing Garda numbers effectively acting as a private security for the developers agains a 15-month long peaceful protest.

In spite of all of the above (and not even getting into the issues of national interst andnatural resources andinjunctions and jailings and pickets and rallies and protests and a very black history of decades of proven human rights abuses and fatal lapses in safety procedures and environmental degradation) Shell, Statoil and Marathon are no doubt going to continue to ignore the facts, and peddle the same lines day-in-day-out until they believe no-one will care any more.

If fantasy is allowed to become reality, we will all be in trouble."

No supposition, just the plain facts from someone who actually knows what he is talking about - John Monaghan.

by R. Isible Tue Oct 24, 2006 15:53

Tired Too attempts to simultaneously ignore the fact that the post referred to deals with the problem of the high-pressure pipe being built on an unstable peat-bog AND to assert without evidence (apart from his anonymous assurances that s/he is an "expert" (Hello Jim!) in gas-pipeline ruptures.

The only reason the word refinery was mentioned in the previous post was because it is logical that with the refinery built offshore (Shell To Sea ... get it?) there will be no need for the dangerous high pressure pipeline. I could have worded the post better, and should have put the word dangerous before pipeline instead of before refinery and apologise for that. I am glad however that you recognise that the pipeline is dangerous. If the refinery is dangerous (and I'll bet there are all sorts of carcinogens released during flaring and whatever else goes on at a refinery) then that's a second reason that it should be out at sea and not near anyone's house. Seeing as you're an expert in these things could you point me to peer-reviewed academic studies on the health effects of oil/gas refineries?

I've seen the US Environmental Protection Agency talking about the problems caused in Los Angeles by oil refineries producing particulate matter in the 5-10 nanometer size ranges which are just being recognised as having a major negative impact on health
Emissions from a Los Angeles oil refinery can form particles that in a few days will effect visibility in the Rocky Mountain National Park. Twenty percent of the problem on dirtiest days in that Park is attributed to Los Angeles-generated smog.
http://www.epa.gov/Region7/programs/artd/air/quality/pm...h.htm
Of course, the EPA is a very politically controlled body, beholden to the government and industry, so the picture may well be worse than that.

Similarly, this interesting site http://www.cbecal.org/alerts/oil/index.shtml points out that oil refineries use huge amounts of water and need to dump it out locally, do you know if the proposed gas refinery would be doing the same thing?

Another interesting paper that relates specifically to the health effects of gas refineries finds that there are definite symptoms among workers exposed to chronic (e.g. longterm) exposure to sulphur dioxide and hydrogen sulphide among workers at a sour-gas refinery in Iran.
In our study, we adjusted for smoking status, after which more respiratory symptoms were reported in the exposed group than in the controls (i.e., 37.7% vs. 23.3%) (Table 2).
Will this be a sour-gas refinery? The paper also references the health of exposed Canadian populations near gas-refineries, so it's not just the workers in them that suffer.

Doesn't sound good. Maybe I inadvertently stumbled on something by describing the refinery as dangerous!

Anyway it is clear to anyone except a dissimulator that my post dealt with the dangers of running a pipeline which may experience unregulated peak pressures of up to 345 bar according to some estimates. The word "refinery" was mentioned once at the start because the opinion poll showed that the majority wanted the refinery at sea (and hence no dangerous gas pipeline beside them).

While I admire your attempt to drag this into personal bickering I'd be much more interested in seeing you publish here some public material describing the effects of explosions in gas pipelines at various pressures. I realise that this will take slightly more effort than writing (anonymously) "I'm an expert, trust me", but seeing as you /are/ an expert you can probably provide the most pertinent references very easily.

You'll forgive me for not taking your word on it, but I can't help feeling that you're not a straightforward person based on your interpretation of my post above. I do thank you however for your acknowlegement that Indymedia.ie contains a substantial amount of information on the subject of this dangerous, high-pressure pipeline.

by R. Isible Tue Oct 24, 2006 16:07

This post http://www.indymedia.ie/article/70783 reports on a gas pipeline explosion in Mexico in 2005 that killed some people (acceptable risk?) and contains a transcript of an article (c) Irish Times, 2005
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/70783#comment114258 ,
which describes the long history of gas-pipeline failures recorded for US pipelines and the failure of the government to obtain independent and thorough analysis (preferring instead to rely on the assurances of Shell in the same way that they relied on corporate assurances that Whiddy in Cork was safe)

The US Office of Pipeline Safety has recorded 1,586 incidents, including 61 fatalities, 235 injuries and over $408 million (€340.9 million) in property damage, for the 19-year period from 1986 to 2004.

He refers to risk-audit literature which states that a pipeline at a pressure of 68 bar will cause burn damage up to 610ft or 186m either side of its corridor. A "bar" or barometric pressure is equivalent to 14.5 pounds of pressure per square inch. The design pressure of the Corrib pipeline is 345 bar, giving a burn radius of at least 900m.


Other interesting issues raised are the transport of large amounts of methanol (presumably by tankers on the roads where people can crash into them) and other volatile chemicals to the refinery.

Thanks for raising this issue Tired Too! I've been erroneously concentrating solely on the dangerous pipeline, when it turns out that the refinery is indeed dangerous too!