Shell to Sea Day of Action at Ballinaboy

by Galway Shell to Sea Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:20

A large contingent are also heading up from Galway late Thursday night.

Anyone interested in car-pooling should contact 087 7413741

by Tired Too Wed Oct 18, 2006 12:25

I wish you people would get your terminology correct. It is a Gas Terminal not an Oil Refinery. Very different, please amend your articles to suit at the nearest opportunity to avoid further misinformation.

by Alan M. Wed Oct 18, 2006 12:37

What are you on about? The phrase 'oil refinery' or the word 'oil' isn't mentioned in either of the previous 2 posts.

by Bill - S2S Wed Oct 18, 2006 12:46

It is irrelevant what you call it, the fact is that it pollutes the environment and is the destination of a dangerous pipeline.

Don't believe me, go up and see the aluminium yourself.

by Mossie Wed Oct 18, 2006 13:17

Why is it dangerous Bill?

by Balance Wed Oct 18, 2006 13:25

Tired Too.

The Daily Mail referred to the giant structure for the refining of raw gas which Shell wish to construct (with hired contract labour from outside the area and behind a screen of riot police) in Erris county Mayo as a "refinery".

Can you tell us whether you have complained to the Daily Mail about their use of this term? If not, why not?

by Tired Too Wed Oct 18, 2006 16:28

As per title it wouldn't be the first time that a journalist got their terminology wrong. Gas terminals pose less of a threat from an environmental perspective.

by Tired Too Wed Oct 18, 2006 16:30

I would also like to know why this person assumes that the pipeline will be dangerous?

by Tired Too Wed Oct 18, 2006 16:37

To pedantry - would this "hired contract labour from outside the area" happen to be from outside of Mayo only? If that were the case would you agree that these workers are benefiting from the project? If so then wouldn't that be good for the country as a whole? You lot don't care about that though, it;s only Mayo that counts in your eyes.

by Fin - WSM Wed Oct 18, 2006 16:43

Its is niether a gas terminal nor an oil refinery. It is a gas refinery. Shell have adopted the term gas terminal to downplay what they are actually attempting to build. When we think of a gas refinery we think of what would built if shell were to suceed, an enormous industrial site with smoke stacks and a huge flare. However when we think of a terminal we think of something much lesser. Lets call a spade a spade - a refinery is a refinery.

by Joe Wed Oct 18, 2006 17:23

The gas that will be piped through Rossport will have come straight out of the Corrib basin and so will be mixed up with impurities and be at high pressue. The large plant Shell are trying to build will refine the impurities out of the gas and then pump this refined gas onwards at normal gas pipeline pressure. Calling it a refinery sounds like what that Ronseal man in the ads would do.

by Tired Too Wed Oct 18, 2006 17:24

Gas terminal is the standard used, refinery is for oil. Would you call an oil production platform a refinery? By smoke stacks I presume you are referring to the exhausts from the power generation? Shouldn't be a problem given that 50% of Ireland's electricity is produced in this way, not to mention the fact they produce little or no visible "smoke" when operating. The "huge flare" will not be lit 99% of the time. Can't see the problem here either. Get your facts straight before you try and join in an argument.

by Joe Wed Oct 18, 2006 17:30

Look I don't work in the industry so I neither know nor care what the standards for calling things is when you are talking to each other. In terms of the 'man on the street' refinery seems to capture the nature or the problem (unrefined gas at high pressure) much better than terminal does. Note to readers - unrefined gas is corroisive because of the impurities contained in it - this means it corrodes pipelines not from the outside (where at least you could spot the damage) but from the inside. This has led to pipeline explosions and fatilites in the US even in pipes under much lower pressure and under the stricter US regulation.

If it refines gas its a refinery.

by Tired of tired too Wed Oct 18, 2006 17:36

Tired Too

You say you haven't complained to the Daily Mail about calling it a Refinery (it refines the gas doesn't it?) because the article was written by a journalist. However you insist that the terminology that Shell want everyone to use should be included here, because this site includes content wriiten by people who are NOT journalists.

Shell are using a large force of Gardaí to force their scheme for a refinery on the people of the area without their consent.

If you can agree to everything in that sentence except the word "refinery" then it might be worth further discussion with you.

by Bill - S2S Wed Oct 18, 2006 18:57

First of all, take a look at today's Irish Times' cartoon.

Second, the gas is pumped at a very high pressure, I won't bother to speculate at what bar because, without doubt, someone will try and contradict me. Let's just agree that it is a high pressure.

At such levels of pressure, an explosion would be highly dangerous. This has been articulated over and over again. I'm sure you'll find the relevant statistics on previous threads or the Shell to Sea website (see below).

Although, I am no expert on gas and gas refining etc., I can understand that it is much easier, faster and cheaper for Shell and co. to pump the gas at a higher pressure than is safe. Yet another case of profit being put before people.

Every day there are people outside the refinery/terminal (whatever) protesting at its construction and the pipeline. Five men went to jail, in opposition to the pipeline. These people are afraid of what might and could happen. I'm sure you (Mossie and Tired too) woulfd have similar concerns if this pipeline was running through your back-yard.

Don't believe me, go to Rossport this Friday...

by Tired Too Thu Oct 19, 2006 09:53

Again would you call an oil and gas production platform a refinery - it refines oil and gas too? If you can't get the terminology correct how can we expect any of your other wild claims to be true. The gas is not "pumped" at high pressure as it leaves the reservoir with ample energy to make the journey back to land. The pipeline is rated at twice the pressure of the safety systems which, by the way, would meet and exceed any code of practice for pipeline operation. Note to readers - unrefined gas is corrosive which is why corrosion inhibitors and advanced corrosion monitoring systems are used, not to mention regular inspections. I can't speak for the incidents you allude to in America, however I doubt you have any kind of competence to suggest that the US regulations are stricter. There could be many factors relating to those incidences - insufficient chemical injection, poor corrosion management strategy etc. I don't know, but then neither do you. I do know that technologically speaking this "terminal" and pipeline will be well able to cope with corrosive materials.

Shell are not using the Guardai, your government is.

Any gas explosion would be dangerous, even at the pressures required to bring it onshore from an offshore "platform". The gas that will be exiting the terminal into Bord Gais' network will be at a high pressure also, yet nobody is complaining about that. Ultimately there is a risk of an explosion, but in order for things to happen and the world to carry on carrying on we must assess risk and manage it effectively. It's like driving - you know there is a risk of crashing yet you manage it by driving safely. This pipeline is not the first of its kind. In Norway there is a similar tie back of unprocessed gas to an onshore facility.

I reiterate my belief that the jailing of the Rossport 5 was a grevious mistake. I also believe that the pipeline routing should have been handled better. Now the pipeline route is to be altered to one that suits local consent.

I am intersted to see how things go on Friday. I suspect you will not get the support you so desperately need from the rest of the country as recent protests nationwide have attracted paltry numbers. I may be wrong, lets see what happens...

by cool j Thu Oct 19, 2006 10:12

I getting very tired of your bull -**** on this issue!! - You keep repeating the Shell spin that this is an ordinary pipe which is absoulute rubbish and shows you have no credability on the issue. The Norway example does not go through a village close to peoples homes and consists of a tiny virtually unhabited island miles out in the North Sea. You have of course conviently ignored the majour pollution issues associated with this proposed on-shore refinery which will have serious implication for the local enviroment and employment in fisheries and tourism as well as serious land and property depreciation issues in the local area. Your hope that there is no support out there for our cause has and continues to be a forlorn one!!

by cool j Thu Oct 19, 2006 10:30

Just to mention for the benefit of that very tired Shell puppet, that Shell still want to run their dodgy pipe through an area with a long history of bog-bursts and landslides - Still think its a great idea dozy????????

by Tired Too Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:10

Chill out cool J. Where am I saying it is an ordinary pipe? There is no such thing as an ordinary pipe as each is specifically rated for the fluids to be carried within. Have you heard of an incident with the Norway pipeline? The comparison I was making was that the pipeline is not unique as you would suggest it is. You say I am ignoring facts, then please furnish me with information regarding the pollution that will have serious implications? You are basing that on hearsay and conjecture spouted by S2S, not on facts.

I do not hope that there is no support, I know it. There is limited support and you only have to look on this website to see the pathetic number of people turning up at protests, most of which are just anarchaists looking for a some cause to latch onto. Once this has blown over they will go back to protesting outside Starbucks/McDonalds etc. Show me some evidence of large scale support cool j. You can't because there isn't any. The number of protestors at the gates have been dwindling of late, your cause is waning. This publicity stunt on Friday will attract only disgruntled students and anarchaists from across the country. The common man and woman is not going to identify with that. They have enough intelligence to ditinguish between ordinary people and said students and anarchaists.

by Joe Thu Oct 19, 2006 15:23

I guess we are getting somewhere slowly as 'tired too' now agree that the whateveryouwanttocall it will refine the gas and that pre-refining the gas is corrosive. The difference now seems to be that he thinks that it can be done safely and that Shell can be trusted but then he doesn't have the pipeline running 70m from his house. So if he is wrong it's no skin off his nose - i'ts not like we even know what his name is or who he works for.

The arguments about safety seem to break down to the following
1. The allowable risk Shell are constructing the pipeline under would actually allow one explosion big enough to wipe out Rossport in the 30 year life time of the pipeline. This is a product of the way acceptable risk is calculated (1 fatility per million per year) which for the republic would allow just under 120 to be killed ((tot. pop / a million) * lifetime of pipeline). Rossport has a permanent pop of around 90 which is less than 120.
2. This pipeline is experimental - that is it will be carrying gas at conditions that have not been replicated elsewere. Yes Shell has found 'independent' engineers who think it should be safe by drawing lines on graphs from existing projects but this is theoretical and untested. What is more the commissioned report contains disclaimers which seem to have the implication that no sure statement can be made about the safety at the (high) intended pressure.

And then as I've already pointed out 'safe' non experimental pipelines elsewhere have blown up and have killed people. Pipelines that under US legislation should have been inspected etc and should have been 'safe'. Shell pipelines fail, in 1999 they were fined 7 million for the explosion of the Olympic pipeline near Bellingham this killed 3 people and the suit calimed " the rupture was caused by gross negligence in the operation and maintenance of the pipeline."

This July a pipeline exploded in Comalcalco, Mexico , killing two. According to the AP report "Flames had spread across a 600-meter (650-yard) radius, destroying six houses, 19 vehicles and heavy earth-moving equipment, Pemex said in a written statement." The Rossport pipeline is under higher pressure and houses are within 70m.

ps I'm not aware of anarchists in Ireland picketing either a McDonalds or a Starbucks anytime in the last five years. Those repeating these media sterotypes are just demonstrating their lack of ability to critically examine what the media tell them. Your repeating what you have been told - that is just one trival example - give it some thought.

by Tired Too Thu Oct 19, 2006 15:52

At no point did I disagree with the functionality of what the terminal is designed to do, I am correcting the people writing the article from a terminology perspective.

When conducting a risk assessment of any kind you have to base hazard v likelihood of hazard occuring. When the risk is calculated it is not suggestive that the hazard is guaranteed to occur it merely states worst case scenario versus likelihood of occurance. The likelihood is key here as it is often missed out through a lack of understanding what the risk assessment process actually is. This process is condoned for use by Governments across Europe and the US as the best possible way to manage risk. Otherwise, the business of potentially hazardous tasks would become impossible to control and carry out due to the number of restirctions imposed and procedures required for said control.

The pipeline may be experimental but for you to assume that the apporval to proceed in it's proposed state was granted by engineers drawing lines on graphs is slightly naive. These engineers would have competence in every aspect of pipeline design, fabrication and utility. They rate the pipeline at 325 bar and it won't be allowed above less than half that pressure. This is a safety margin that far exceeds the industry standard. From this it is evident that pressure alone is not going to rupture the pipeline.

Your statement about the pipeline in the US contains the crucial component that resulted in a failure: " the rupture was caused by gross negligence in the operation and maintenance of the pipeline." At this point I refer you to my previous post regarding corrosion inhibitors and monitoring instruments.

PS I was merely poking fun at the anarchaists will to attack anything corporate. It was ok to poke fun at the Sehll window incident wasn't it? That was supposed to be tongue in cheek too.

by tired of tired too Thu Oct 19, 2006 16:19

It kind of boils down to this: You think the refinery (call it what you like) and the pipeline are safe, because Shell say they are.

We don't. The local community, who will have to deal with the consequences of them being installed, are against them.

We think the opinions of the community outweigh those of Shell.

You don't.

What do you think of the deal whereby Shell get all the gas and we get nothing? That a good idea too?

by Tired Too Thu Oct 19, 2006 17:09

Pipeline ruptures are very rare considering the vast distances of the stuff that is laid across the earth. Accidents happen that may have been preventable but relative to the latter sentence the likelihood is very low. I again use the car analogy - there are hundreds of deaths on Irish roads each year yet we don't ban driving. This would be seen as a needless knee jerk reaction to something that is potentially hazardous but completely necessary to modern existence, especially rural Mayo. Now imagine if a tiny minority of people in Dublin wanted cars to be banned nationally due to the smog in the city. I think the people of Mayo may disagree as it is a neccessity for their way of life.

I consider the pipeline to be safe because of the points I made before and a knowledge of pipeline operations that you do not have. Look at the facts I gave you before regarding operating pressures. These are facts, the safety margin is enormous - fact. Corrosion monitoring and inhibition will be used on the pipeline - fact. Regular inspection of the pipeline will take place - fact. All of which is instilled to reduce the risk to a manageable level as is necessary with any hazardous operation and sanctioned by the legal risk based analysis requirement.

Your community is a small one, representing a very small proportion of Ithe Irish population. I believe that opinions on the matter are mixed. However, there was a lot of support for S2S when the R5 went to jail in protest of the pipeline route. Again I reiterate, I thought those guys were right to take a stand and that the concerns of an ingorant public should have been allayed rather than swept aside. Now Shell have learnt the hard way and must start again with regards the pipeline route. Now that this is not an issue, I think most people want to see their fellow countrymen reap the benefits that this project will bring given the chance to proceed.

Why shouldn't an operator that is speculating on a oil and gas not reap the benefits from a successful find? If you want the gas for the Irish people why on earth weren't you going out and speculating for it? Thats right, because you don't have the faintest idea what to do. Shell do, it's their business. Lets not forget that Natural Gas as an energy source brings sizeable benefits for any community in terms of cleaner and more efficient heating and inward investment.

by Flynn - [email protected] Mon Oct 23, 2006 16:34

Your auguments are as an Advocate, of Shell , Norway or of The British Government , and dont hold up to scrutiny, you may belittle my grammar, punctuation or spelling, but get this, the Politics is all you have,you have emphasised that it is a Government Problem, then ran away from the Analysis, then you have stated that there is no inherrent danger, without saying where you live?or where you work , or for who you work, your knowledge on the subject dindnt come by divine revelation overnight, and is commendable, then you or the Daily Mail invites the Irish Republicans into the melee, and then in the same breath say wheres the Danger? you are either an agent provocateur or a very ill read person on the Politics of Eire , North or South. the Lesson should be learnt from the Assasination of the BP Engineer in Siberia recently or a few more people around the Mirage of the Middle East, both past present, and in the future what I Flynn can tell you is this, you state that there is little or no support for the Eire OIl and Gas, that its anarchists, lefties, musili crunchers,etc Paisley from the North says the IRA havent disarmed, is that in the North,? South ? Europe ? ask yourself these questions ? and on Eire Neutrality, and on Where does the revenue go from all this, and on the question of saftey, is that for yourself ? your employer? or the Government ? one thing I can give you is this inane comment, When the FOX stops talking, the wise farmer lock his chickens up, if you think that the Multi Nationals can do, what the British couldnt do, then you must live in Norway. Flynn O Flynn . at least have the decency and common courtesy of puting your name up, Tired Too or P2

by re tired of tired too Tue Oct 24, 2006 11:57

In response to the comment made by tired of tired too i wish to point out that the reason that shell get all the gas is because it was the decision made by the democratically elected government plus the fact that shell spent millions in exploration of the irish coast to find it. After all the investigations into safety, the involvement of a mediator and the currently illigal protests and attempted blockades it is time to get real and realise that this project is going ahead. Its time to build a bridge and get over it, But dont ask roadbridge as they are very busy at the moment. Shell to Shore!

by don't feed the troll Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:58

Tired Too: No new arguments - pedantry about whether we're allowed to call it a refinery- specious ramblings- unfunny attempts at humour- reheated Shell PR statements - and now slogans.

Not worth talking to.

I suggest people just copy and paste this in response to future posts by this troll, who obviously has more time than sense to know what to do with it.

by Ellie - People and Planet, Essex Wed Oct 25, 2006 22:25 elz_bellez at hotmail dot com

One critic of these pages mentioned "no support for the protest". I am a member of People and planet, a students group campaigning (amoungst other things) against climate change. I am part of one national group, one group in 54. The group I belong to support the Rossport Solidarity, meaning that each of those remaining 53 groups know about it, and will be taking action too. This is not something unknown going on in the background,and something the international P and P wil be looking at in its Shared Planet meeting in london in a week's time.

I've been researching the Rossport Solidarity Campaign which is how i came to find this page.

People and Planet Essex does not support ANY action by Shell, with their terrible humanitarian and ecological record in Nigeria, Colombia, Chad, Indonisia, South Africa, Burma, Brazil. This happening on our own doorstep only makes us more determined to campaign against Shell.

I suggest you get off the losing side.

$hell = profits above lives

by Carthage Buckley Thu Oct 26, 2006 05:25

As posted on Melbourne Indymedia