While my pipe gently rusts

by Damien M - PW Sun Oct 16, 2011 10:39

"If S2S has scientific data to prove the risk of this pollution then lets see it!"

How in the name of hell does scientific data prove real or absolute risk?

Here is some proof of Shell's dirty business.

'Pollution-as-usual' for Shell, new report reveals
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/277560/p....html

UN slams Shell over Nigeria oil pollution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmI3xjZk_y0

Shell to pay $500,000 for pollution in Texas
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmI3xjZk_y0

Environmentalist fury over oil spill at Shell pipeline site
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2004/sep/12/oilandpe...news1
'Shell's £6 billion Sakhalin oil pipeline has not even been built yet, but it has already caused a damaging oil slick that has enraged environmentalists and could force potential lenders to pull funds.'

by Sweet Vengeance Sun Oct 16, 2011 01:33

Well, Sweetie-Pie. Interested to see that you got paid enough to actively work for the developer on this occasion. How much did they pay you?

by JM Wed Aug 13, 2008 14:33

Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:25 PM

Press Release - Shell to Sea - Shell pipes rusting for 6 years

The pipe laying ship, the Solitaire is expected to arrive in Broadhaven Bay during this week, and while a lot has been said and written about the scale and technology of the Solitaire itself, nothing has been said about the state of her cargo, more than 6000 rusting pipes.

These pipes which Shell hope to lay so as to carry gas from Corrib Gas field to Bellanaboy were delivered in 2002 and for the last 6 years have been gradually rusting away in Killybegs.

In 2006 a Killybegs fisherman who says that he was employed to clean the pipes claimed "the cleaning process was a joke and a waste of time" and that Shell had decided that shot-blasting and painting were "too dear".

It is illustrative of Shell's whole attitude that the Solitaire is planning to begin pipe laying in proximity to people's houses when serious question marks exist over the integrity of the pipes.

Shell to Sea campaigner Terence Conway stated "Now you have the situation where Shell will be laying rusted pipes around a landfall area with a history of landslides, which Minister Eamon Ryan recently exempted from the planning process".

Mr Conway continued "While obviously Shell doesn't design these pipelines to fail, the evidence is that their penny-pinching has previously resulted in accidents in which people have been killed"

Previous reports have highlighted serious concerns regarding the effects that internal corrosion will have on the integrity of the proposed pipeline.

More Info

Sunday Times Article 30/05/06: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/art...0.ece

by Jason - S2S Wed Feb 28, 2007 12:00

How dare people speak little of John,
John always speaks the truth and has no intrest in your so called "untruths", he has no reason to do so.
My self and many others look up to john for leadership in these dark days , he is one of the true greats with in this campaign, the mere sight of john reduces shell and its sidekicks ( garda ) in to Trembling wercks.
John is in one of the main reasons why this campaing has grown from strength to strength , he has shown this on many occasions , so stop rubbishing this man and all get behind him .
onwards to victory.

by cowboy Wed Feb 28, 2007 11:25

JM is the guy with the cowboy hat , the leader of a group who entered the site on the friday

by Peter Sweetman Wed Feb 28, 2007 10:05

JM? states;

"None of the main concerns were adequately addressed in the subsequent application, but a small matter of political will intervened."

The facts are.

An Bord Pleanala refused permission in PL 16.126073 because:

Consequently, the Board considers that both of the proposed repositories have a high
probability of failure and that the proposed development would constitute an
unacceptable risk to the health and safety of the local community and of the general
public on the public road in the vicinity of the site.

The only relevent permission is PL 16.207212, which is totally different.

Please use relevent facts.

P.S. I can not find a JM who was an appellant in either appeal.

by confused local Tue Feb 27, 2007 17:37

just to clarify, it is true I was asked to identify myself after I posted the challenge.
you say the reasons I gave were untrue.
You have to believe me when I say, I feel the risk of reprisal is real, and a cause for caution.
I listed a number of examples of "perceived" intimidation
I have been accused of being a shell hack a troll and a stirrer, of those three tags the first two are totally false, maybe I am a stirrer, but is that a bad thing?
The stirring I am involved in is just trying to get to the truth, I know there is spin by both sides.
But in my opinion some of the spin S2S are using is untrue, and causing great worry among uninformed people in the erris area.
the fact that people have been willing to go to prison and "endure extreme intimidation" as you state, that may be so (can you give examples of this extreme intimidation)?
I never said that the pipeline is "inherently unsafe", what I said was that the issiue of the pipeline is a real cause for concern, and that I would not like to live close to it!
And your point "You were asked whether you think it would be wise for those who oppose the pipeline to allow the refinery to be built without comment, and then, after it is installed, to try to stop the pipeline being attached to it? "
No I don't believe they should not comment on the pipeline , on the contrary as I stated before the protesters should concentrate on the pipeline, (because it is a genuine cause for concern)
I don't remember making anonymous snide attacks on people who are making real sacrifices for the good of the community.
If I did then I apologise, I sincerely never intend to offend people with genuine fears, my sarcasm was for the "stirrers" on the S2S side.
I am referring to the stories of pollution to sea and air that are being used by S2S, that is what I wanted to discuss, If S2S has scientific data to prove the risk of this pollution then lets see it!

by Time on my hands... Tue Feb 27, 2007 15:53

You were asked for the reason for your insistence on anonymity and responded with a tirade of abuse about about intimidation, none of which was true.

Given that people have been willing to go to prison and endure extreme intimidation, up to and including severe physical injury, for opposing this scheme, it's perfectly logical for people not to want to debate with you since you insist on supporting the project anonymously.

You were also asked why you insist on attacking the protesters about the refinery, while you admit that the pipeline is inherently unsafe. How are Shell going to get the gas to the refinery without their pipeline?

You were asked whether you think it would be wise for those who oppose the pipeline to allow the refinery to be built without comment, and then, after it is installed, to try to stop the pipeline being attached to it?

Rather than answer these questions in a meaningful way, you made anonymous snide attacks on people who are making real sacrifices for the good of the community.

That's why people don't want to engage with you.

by confused local Tue Feb 27, 2007 13:21

I issued a challenge on indymedia a few weeks ago for a real-time debate (in indymedia chat)with a S2S expert.
Of course I am still waiting, and I don't expect JM to have the courage to take the challenge.
I have no affiliation with Shell or any other vested party involved in this dispute.
Maybe JM with his wealth of knowledge would explain to us the data/facts their claims are based on?
And prove that the information S2S uses in its argument is correct!

by SHell Lack Tue Feb 27, 2007 12:03

I would like to propose this as a new slogan for shell( they could use in Mayo, the Niger Delta, The Russian Far East, wherever:

"Yes, looks very bad now but trust me, perfectly safe."

by Sean Tue Feb 27, 2007 09:01

To the gentleman called d'other who was querying the use of sheetpiles in the bog, who by your own admission doesnt know a lot about them, allow me to explain:

1. You purchase sheetplies of various lengths, depending on the depth of the dig or presence of rock in the ground. So for a pipe like corrib which i think is 2-3m underground, you would most likely use a 9m long pile. This means that its driven to a depth of 9m. So if your pipe invert level is 2m down from EGL, you have 7m of the pile underground and 2m exposed.

2. In a place like that bog, as you rightly pointed out, the piles may be subject to buckling at the top and closing in to form a letter "A" type shape. To prevent this, you would dig approx 0.5-0.75m of the peat and then insert cross bracing. This could be a welded steel section such as RSJ (Rolled Steel Joint) or most likely in these ground conditions, a 300mm x 300mm square timber post, treated to guard against rot. Once this is in place intermittently, you excavate carefully either side of the bracing and below the bracing.

This would be done every 6m or so and in the end, you have a perfectly safe trench....secured by 6-7m of peat at the bottom and a secure cross bracing at the top. You could live in the trench if you felt like it !

I hope this clears up any confusion about that issue. Yes, looks very bad now but trust me, perfectly safe.

by JM Tue Feb 27, 2007 00:53 Rossport

You've just proved that An Bord Pleanala had reversed it's decision and thus disregarded the substantial recommendations in the Inspector's report. None of the main concerns were adequately addressed in the subsequent application, but a small matter of political will intervened.

One thing still puzzles me though. Are you now promoting the project which you had previously opposed through the courts? Please share your newly percieved benefits of Corrib Gas to the good people of Erris, so that we may learn the error of our ways and go back to living our lives.

by Peter Sweetman Mon Feb 26, 2007 08:45

JM's quote is taken from the inspectors report relating to;

Planning Register Reference Number: Mayo County Council 01/900
An Bord Pleanála Reference Number: PL.16.126073 in which the decision was;

"DECISION: Pursuant to the Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts,
1963 to 1999, permission is hereby refused for the said development for the reason set
out in the Schedule hereto."

The decision of the Board to grant permission was for a different apliciation namley,
Planning Register Reference Number: Mayo County Council P03/3343
An Bord Pleanála Reference Number: PL 16.207212

by JM Mon Feb 26, 2007 00:42 Rossport

To TN: please give examples of untruths. $hell would be only too delighted to discredit the campaign with your help, along with that of a few tabloid newspapers and paid-off lackeys.

To Peter Sweetman: the following extract is in the Inspector's summary of a 377 page document, of which I'm sure you are very aware but strangely loath to acknowledge.

****************************
"It is my submission to the Board that:

· From a strategic planning perspective, this is the wrong site;
· From the perspective of Government policy which seeks to foster balanced regional development, this is the wrong site;
· From the perspective of minimising environmental impact, this is the wrong site; and consequently
· From the perspective of sustainable development, this is the wrong site.

I note that Government policies and objectives have no bearing on the development of a gas terminal at the Ballinaboy site. Most importantly, there are serious disbenefits accruing to the community of north-west Mayo by the siting of the development at Ballinaboy. Not alone are there major problems and consequent concerns about the engineering of the peat repositories, but there are real planning problems also with regard to the principle of the development concept, siting, landscape context, infrastructural deficiencies and public safety. These real planning issues, in conjunction with the engineering issues, remain unresolved.

Having regard to my Main Report and to my considerations set out in this Addendum Report, I now recommend that permission be refused for the development"

by Peter Sweetman Sat Feb 24, 2007 16:19

Perhaps TN could give me his name

by Peter Sweetman Sat Feb 24, 2007 13:38

JM stated
"AFTER the project was given the go-ahead by An Bord Pleanala against the advice of it's own senior inspector."

This is not factual.

The recommenedation by the An Bord Pleanala inspector in PL 16.207212 IS AS FOLLOWS.

" I recommend that planning permission be granted."

by JM Fri Feb 23, 2007 00:36 Rossport

Your estimate of 6-8 cm pipe thickness shows one of two things... you either know an awful lot about gas pipes, or not one damn thing about the Corrib Gas debacle (maybe it's both!!)

The proposed pipeline was to be 27.1mm thick, the thinnest allowable under the chosen design code (BS8010) with a maximum corrosion limit of approximately 1mm... already well gone in the case of some of the Donegal pipes.

A thickness of 62mm (closer to your estimate) was required by BS8010 at road crossings, but this was ignored at the design stage because of "difficulty in welding" according to JP Kenny (author of at least one of the versions of the Quantified Risk Assessment). The use of QRA methodology in the first place, for an unprecedented pipeline, was subsequently severely criticised by Accufacts Inc. in the CPI report and acknowledged by the Government's own "Advantica" report..

The Corrib pipeline was to be manually welded (not robotically) and Italian crews were seen in Bellanaboy and Rossport during 2005 doing just that. They subsequently had to return to undo their work because the developers did not have leave to construct the onshore section... and still don't. This also means no stringing out, no shoring work, no stripping of topsoil, or radiographical testing, or all the other bits and pieces that were carried out with two fingers up to the Department and Dempsey.

The latest news is Shell is thinking of applying for planning permission through the Stategic Infrastructure Bill (another first for the project) and the first time the pipeline has/is/would ever been/would be/may be submitted to the scrutiny of any part of the planning process... AFTER the project was given the go-ahead by An Bord Pleanala against the advice of it's own senior inspector.

Next week Shell plan to consult with the local community (over 20 miles away in Belmullet) about possible new pipeline routes... eight years too late!!

Come to think of it, I don't blame you for not knowing enough about the Corrib pipeline, Shell don't even know themselves!

by d'other Wed Feb 21, 2007 23:50

Whatever about the debate on the rusting of the pipes, one of my photos shows what is meant to be sheet piled trench shoring. I am no expert on construction but seeing this I was most definitely struck by the massive problem they face with the nature of the ground in which the pipe is being laid. Pile driven sheet shoring is a system where a trench is held open to facilitate work in the open ground, preventing both the sides falling in and making a space to work.

From my photo you can see that the trench shoring is in place but that ground in between it is pretty much in the exact same state as the ground behind the shoring, that is dangerous and flooded with bog water. So whatever about the rust, my question is how do they intend to carry out this work safely in such a work enviroment where basic shoring can't be pulled off and do the unions representing workers on this site feel satisfied that their members are to work in such conditions? I don't see any cross bars to support the shoring against itself either. But I am open to correction.

Other examples of similar shoring: http://www.kriegerandstewart.com/projects/water/rcsd-s2...b.jpg
The safe construction of such a project: http://www.minesafe.org/upload/trench_sheet_piling.GIF
How an open trench should look: http://www.bergscaffold.com/shoring/images/shor0a.jpg and http://www.ausheet.com.au/images/s_trench.jpg

by Gas man Wed Feb 21, 2007 21:26

But folks,all the pics you are showing are of surface rust.
That is perfectly acceptable on ANY steel What is NOT acceptable would be like in the last pic if huge chunks of that rust was coming away,which would indicate a advanced stage of corrosion.None of those pics show anything like that.
Plus your seam welds,pipes are made either two ways,Drawn Over Mandrel[DOM] in which the steel is drawn along a form[mandrel] to produce your pipe,a very expensive process and used usually on precision piping like gun barrels etc. Seam welded pipe like in the pic is an industry standard for most pipes in which a steel sheet is rolled into a tube and then welded.NOT by hand!! or machine It is done in the foundry when the pipe is being made and red hot,so you get what is called a forge weld.Then when it is cooled it is xrayed for structural soundness,water or gas tightness.
It is only welded when it is being joined together,and that is done mostly by a machine designed for this,and then Xrayed,if it fails there the two whole joined pipes must be re cut and welded properly again.

Pipes dont need very much babying,they are made of steel and that is a pretty tough material.Considering most of our world is built on it.
Yes,they do come with a very simple protection when leaving the mill,a black grease,which is only there to give the customer a nice new piece of shiny steel.It is gone when the customer uses the steel for whatever purposes.Ditto when these pipes are left outside in the rain,the grease washes off and the end caps which are irrevelant anyway as they are plastic and will be discarded.
Throwing primer on them outside might make sense if they are on the line,not when they are a raw supply stage item Rain and saltwater mist like up in Mayo would take at least 200 years to pit or corrode those kind of pipes which look like 6to 8 cm wall thickness.If after a month 6/8cm wall thickness pipe had the major flake corrosion like previously described.THEN there would be a story as somone would be buying inferior materials for the project.
OR if after the plant is built and 12 months later you found these pipes being changed out of the line at a rapid rate with major corrosion,you have a story.But this anyone who is half an expert on metallurgy will see this is surface rust,and no danger.

by Innealtóir - pig ignorance crew Wed Feb 21, 2007 10:38

sarin man: Steel starts rusting the moment it is out of the oven and cooling.Nothing can be done about that,it is a chemical process.Apart from slowing it down by painting or otherwise not allowing air to get at it.
It would be a different story if this rust was flake rust.IE the rust coming away in big scaley chunks and leaving big pits in the pipe,then you would have somthing to worry about.
Sorry ,no story folks.

Yes it wasn’t quite on the Donegal scale – YET

– but this is only from a few months out in the rain

And WHY were they just stacked out in the rain in the first place?

surely that is that’s the story!

As you say any steel rusts so why have none of the elaborate precautions with primer and pig mentioned in the advantica report being taken either for pipeline exterior OR interior (exposed in several cases)
Could they not even have painted on a few layers of primer out of the hard ware shop?
Thrown some tarps over them?
This is the very problem evident from every aspect of the site we entered.

It was a mess

They simply do not give a shit about safety

That’s the story

More news on our next incursion!

Innealtóir

(No story????
Ignored by the mainstream meeja?????
That ain't no surprise
- How ever at some stage in the future when the milion quid inquiries into the failed pipeline are under way some "brave"/"plucky" journo will surely "uncover" and bravely not attribute these pics
- nice one Jm btw!)

by JM Tue Feb 20, 2007 20:19 Rossport

These Donegal sections have apparently been moved since these photos, but no amount of wire-brushing will make many of these sections usable. All welds are logged and x-rayed for integrity, and any deficiencies can be traced back to the individual welder... no welder would put his name to workmanship on these pipes.

severe flaking rust on seam weld

yet more broken end caps

corrosion build-up inside and out

severe pitting and discolouration

by JM Tue Feb 20, 2007 20:11 Rossport

five more pics

concrete coated sections for laying underwater

protective tape falling off

pipe ends

surface rust

hundreds of rusting pipes laid out like cigarettes

by JM Tue Feb 20, 2007 20:06 Rossport

For those who missed this stroy first time round check out the corrosion experienced by corrib pipes stored in Donegal, and reported by the Irish Times

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/75763

These are photographs of the stored sections in Killybegs that had been left to fend for themselves for two or three years.

Well done to the sharp eyes of some of the on-site visitors in spotting the same signs of decay in Bellanaboy, they had very little time to admire the scenery.

stacked pipes

internal corrosion

more rust, including pitting

broken end covers... all of them!

highest quality control procedures

by man in the know Tue Feb 20, 2007 18:03

That pipe is good for 345 bar - no problem, that is what it designed to take and it would do so if given the chance. The fact is, the pressure is now to be reduced to 144 bar and the pipe is now considerably 'over designed'. As gas man says, the picture shows a pipe with mill scale. There is no significant corrosion to be seen, as any corrosion expert would tell you so.

More attempted scaremongering from a position of ignorance.

by Gas man Tue Feb 20, 2007 17:26

And am not alinged with the pro or anti side of Rossport.
But the pic with activist B's hand shows a perfectly good pipe with what is called mill rust.Which is basically light surface rust,which you get in any new steel once it has lost it's steel mill grease cover.Steel starts rusting the moment it is out of the oven and cooling.Nothing can be done about that,it is a chemical process.Apart from slowing it down by painting or otherwise not allowing air to get at it.
It would be a different story if this rust was flake rust.IE the rust coming away in big scaley chunks and leaving big pits in the pipe,then you would have somthing to worry about.
Sorry ,no story folks.

by Innealtóir - pipe inspectorate Mon Feb 19, 2007 16:13

30 years me hole!

Would you trust these to carry gass at up to 340 barr outside your house?

internal corrosion too - thanks to "activist b" for lend of hand

I do like to rust beside the sea side

by d'other Mon Feb 19, 2007 15:42

As it says on the tin

Rusted

Isn't this meant to be shoring on the side of a trench?

Inside