More mis-info "I" think!

national | environment | opinion/analysis

Monday January 22, 2007 21:26

by confused local

Just a few points on S2S new health and safety document!

Who compiled the new health & safety document on the S2S website?
Shall we Take the "facts" one at time!
Firstly........"¨ His colleague, Mr David Ball an expert in the field of hydrogeology who was also employed by an board Plaenaela stated that Shell had utterly failed to consider the potential impact of bog bursts or bog slides in its plans for the terminal."
his comments were in relation to the plan to store the removed peat on site. (the peat is now to be relocated to Bangor and spread on bog previously used by board-na-Mona).

secondly......¨ "The table presented (Above right) has been taken from the Advantica report. The Advantica report is an independent report into the safety of the pipeline. This table indicates that a rupture at 144bar ""WOULD"" burn any house within a 166-metre radius and kill anyone within a 203-metre radius. This is a risk that Shell and our government are willing to accept. Considering that some of the houses in Rossport are just 70 metres away from the pipeline and considering the frequency of landslides in the local area it is a risk that the concerned residents of Rossport take serious issue with."

Have a look at the chart and see for yourself what Advantica stated!

Thirdly.......¨ Cold Venting- is essentially the release of gas that hasn’t been burned into the atmosphere. Pipeline standard gas is usually over 80% methane. The methane is lighter than air and thus floats up into the atmosphere. However the problem arises when heavier than air compounds and chemicals are dispersed into the air along with the methane. The fact that these toxic heavier than air compounds and chemicals come to ground within the proximity of the site poses an unacceptable health and safety risk to the local community."

All I ask is a incidence of this " health and safety risk to the local community" having been proven in similar cold venting anywhere on the planet?

Now have a look at the list of toxic chemicals below!

acetaldehyde (1.4+ mg) arsenic (500+ ng) benzo(a)pyrene (.1+ ng)
cadmium (1,300+ ng) crotonaldehyde (.2+ µg) chromium (1,000+ ng)
ethylcarbamate 310+ ng) formaldehyde (1.6+ µg) hydrazine (14+ ng)
lead (8+ µg) nickel (2,000+ ng) radioactive polonium (.2+ Pci)

No not a list of toxic emissions to air or water from a gas refinery.....
Just a partial list of the toxic chemicals in a cigarette!

And what about our family car?
And this is only the petrol engine (much cleaner than diesel)....

Exhaust chemicals - pathogenic possibilities.

Carbon monoxide
Nitrogen dioxide
Nitrogen monoxide
Sulphur dioxide
Suspended particles including PM-10, particles less than 10 microns
Benzene
Formaldehyde
Polycyclic hydrocarbons

I could go on and on and cover anything from household detergents to vapours from petrol stations but I think you get the picture!

Fourthly ....
"According to World Bank figures gas flaring in just one area (Bayelsa state) in the Niger delta has caused
49 premature deaths
4,960 respiratory illnesses among children, and
120,000 asthma attacks.

This is NOT from the world bank this data is from http://www.climatelaw.org/media/gas.flaring/report/section7
"friends of the earth Nigeria"

And finally ......"On the 30 of July 2004, the explosion of a gas pipeline killed 24 people and left 132 injured in the Belgian town of Ghislenghien 30 miles southwest of Brussels. The explosion melted or burned everything within a 400-metre radius. The Royal Dutch shell Company jointly owned this pipeline. "

Why would shell to sea use an example of an explosion of a "transmission" gas-pipeline carrying odorised natural gas to justify their (legitimate)concerns over the production gas-pipeline to bellinaboy?
This pipe exploded in Belgium it was at 60bar pressure (the transmission pipeline from corrib may be higher )
yet S2S say they want the refinery at sea and don't mind a transmission line passing through north Mayo!

save preference

Comments (4 of 4)

confused "local"

by JM

Mon Jan 22, 2007 22:01

Rossport

Happy new year, confused "local". Nice to see you've been busy over the holidays, what would you do without indymedia!?

By the way, your piece tends to contradict itself in a number of ways, but life is too short to engage in point scoring semantics. Check it out yourself.

please enlighten me

Mon Jan 22, 2007 22:13

jm you state "By the way, your piece tends to contradict itself in a number of ways"
If you get the time (in the next week perhaps) you might educate me on where I contradict myself!
To answer your question of "what would you do without indymedia!?"........... the answer to that is if indymedia didnt exist the campaing of mis-info by S2S would would be more dificult (but not impossible)to discredit!
P.s happy new year to you too, Im looking forward to many a good debate in 2007.

Ta Da

by m

Mon Jan 22, 2007 22:56

30 seconds later.... was this what you meant by
"if you get the time (in the next week perhaps) you might educate me on where I contradict myself!"... ?

re :http://www.climatelaw.org/media/gas.flaring/report/section7

"From this information, it is possible to gauge the extent of human exposure.

According to the World Bank, human exposure to particulate matter causes the following increased rates of adverse health effects:

* 6.72 premature deaths per year for each increase of 1 ug/m3 for each 100,000 persons;
* 1,690 respiratory illnesses per year for each increase of 1 ug/m3 for each 100,000 children; and
* 32,600 asthma attacks per year for each increase of 1 ug/m3 for each 100,000 asthma sufferers.[ 73 ]

Assuming, conservatively, that 40% of the population of Bayelsa State are children[ 74 ] and that 5% of the population are asthma sufferers, particulate matter emissions from gas flaring at the 17 on-shore flow stations in Bayelsa State would likely cause, each year, at least:

* 49 premature deaths
* 4,960 respiratory illnesses among children, and
* 120,000 asthma attacks."

...
...
...
ref

[ 73 ] World Bank (1997) "Vehicular Air Pollution: Experiences from Seven Latin American Urban Centers," World Bank Technical Paper No. 373, p. 34.

[ 74 ] According to the CIA World Factbook, 43.4% of Nigeria's population is aged 0-14 years (male 29,985,427; female 29,637,684). Available here: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ni.ht...Intro.

Thank you

Tue Jan 23, 2007 08:54

Thank you to the last poster (m) for having the courage and brains to admit that the extract did not come from the "world bank" but rather was "assumed" (to take for granted or without proof;) by "friends of the earth" not really what you can call scientific facts?
Also thanks for pointing out that that the data by the world bank was "Vehicular Air Pollution: Experiences from Seven Latin American Urban Centers," I personally have never seen a oil/ gas refinery driving down a street!
The data from the CIA is not relevant to this debate . My point is S2S is using the credibility of the world bank to support their claim that this refinery will cause health effects on the local population.
Even if you or "friends of the earth" can show the emissions from oil/gas refineries are similar to "Vehicular Air Pollution" then at least put the claim in context.
For example "particulate matter emissions from gas flaring at the 17 on-shore flow stations in Bayelsa State would LIKELY cause," that is 17 oil/gas refineries flaring continuously emmiting probably thousands of times what will ever be flared from corrib (I can do the maths later to give you an actual ratio).

SO where is the contradiction in my original post??

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Public Inquiry

Human Rights in Ireland

Lockdown Skeptics

Voltaire Network

More mis-info "I" think!

Comments (4 of 4)