The Rossport 5 in the Bigger Picture

international | miscellaneous | opinion/analysis

Sunday August 21, 2005 16:13

by Paul

The continued imprisonment of the Rossport 5 has as much to do with the global scramble for carbon fuels as it does with the gas reserves in the Corrib field.

The intransigence of the Shell Corporation with regard to the ‘Rossport 5’, and the people of Rossport in general, appears incomprehensible to many. The continued incarceration of the five men is a direct result of Shell’s unwillingness to relent on its injunction restraining opponents of the onshore processing plant from opposing the construction work through direct action.

Notwithstanding Shell’s many calls for considered dialogue, it refuses to countenance rescinding the injunction, which would see the men set free and would allow the community in Rossport to move forward with their campaign for an offshore processing plant.

It is clear that Shell’s continued obstinacy is not advancing their cause at all, and so one naturally looks for a reason that could justify their chosen course of action. Some have opined that Shell, quite reasonably, will not relent on the issue of the injunction as it would weaken their legal position, this is nonsense. The real reason for Shell’s unwillingness to relent on the injunction is that it would weaken their strategic position and their semi-feudal claim to the natural gas reserves of the West coast of Ireland.

An exacerbating factor in the perennial local conflict that the dispute between the people of Rossport and Shell represents is the increased global scramble for carbon fuels. Michael Klare has pointed out that in the coming ten to twenty years the global demand for carbon fuels will progressively exceed the world’s capacity to supply such fuels.

In this climate the battle for untapped and traditional carbon fuel reserves is driving much of the agenda of global power politics – hence the war in Iraq, sabre-rattling at Iran on the pretext concerns about their nuclear programme, increased tensions between China and Japan and so on.

Industry experts are aware that the global oil supply is close to peaking, they are also aware that natural gas reserves are likely to last longer than oil supplies. Hence the obstinacy of Shell in Rossport is driven more by the contingencies of global geo-politics than it is by the desire to retain a strong legal position, or even out of malice.

Thus, while the conflict in Rossport is driven in part by a large multinationals rapacious pursuit of profit, it also has a far more strategic element underlying it. Appreciating the ‘bigger picture’, as it were, should benefit those opposed to Shell’s bullying in Rossport and assist in the development of a broader struggle against the tyranny and short-sightedness of the social system which spawned this parochial conflict.

See Michael Klare, “The Intensifying Global Struggle for Energy” at:
http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/21969/

save preference

Comments (4 of 4)

by Simple Simon

Mon Aug 22, 2005 23:58

How would the release of the Rossport Five on their own terms, and the possible sending Shell refinery to sea "weaken their strategic position and their semi-feudal claim to the natural gas reserves of the West coast of Ireland"?

I don't really get the semi-feudal bit, but that doesn't matter too much i suppose.

a question and a theory

by even simpler than simon

Tue Aug 23, 2005 01:19

I thought the rossposr five went to jail becase they were concerned about the safety of a gas pipeline. Are they really their to combat globalisation and the overuse of fossil fuels throughout the world?
Funny how they don't mention that in their statements.
As for the theory, Shell have a cpo for the wayleave through various farmers lands. CPO's are obtained for all major infrastructure projects in this country.
If Shell cave in and collapse their injunction, will any other CPO obtained for any other project (M3 motorway for example) be worth anything if this particular CPO (Corrib) doesn't work?
Do you think the government would like that senario?
Me thinks thats the reason their keeping quiet on this one.
Just a theory

CPO v CAO

by krossie

Wed Aug 24, 2005 15:51

Actually what they have is a Compulsory Aquisition Order.

In Public projects eg roads, etc councils can obtain a Compulsary purchase Order. Now you can have your views on roads but even with PPP they are usually been built by the state to meet a need or a percieved or a supposed need or (NRA STYLE) a completely made up need.

This COA is a new beast and it's been used by 3 PRIVATE companies directly in pursuit of their own interests . As far as we know this is the first time a corporation has EVER been allowed to do this.
As has been pointed out REPEATEDLY.

The Irish State gets no royalties.

They are due 25% corporation tax within 30 years - all of which could, in theory, be written off if they incur sufficient capital costs.

Board Gas will compete on the open market for the gas at full price.

Krossie

Think about this...

by Darragh

Wed Aug 24, 2005 18:07

darragh25 at hotmail dot com

Isn't the law that deals with Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPO's) and Compulsory Acquisition Orders (ACO's), grounded in article 43(2)(2) of the constitution, and doesn't it attach a qualification to the granting of orders that in delimiting the right of a citizen to have full authority over their property, such a reduction in the right of the citizen (which is what a CPO or a CAO is), must be for the common good???

Have a look at what it says below:

Private Property

Article 43

1. 1° The State acknowledges that man, in virtue of his rational being, has the natural right, antecedent to positive law, to the private ownership of external goods.

2° The State accordingly guarantees to pass no law attempting to abolish the right of private ownership or the general right to transfer, bequeath, and inherit property.

2. 1° The State recognises, however, that the exercise of the rights mentioned in the foregoing provisions of this Article ought, in civil society, to be regulated by the principles of social justice.

2° The State, accordingly, may as occasion requires delimit by law the exercise of the said rights with a view to reconciling their exercise with the exigencies of the common good.

Where I'm going with this is, if the deal that Shell has struck with the government, could be considered and proven in court to be more beneficial to Shell than to the Irish people, (it is hard to see how it can't be given the terms that Shell has agreed with the Irish government), then the common good has not been served as required by the constitution for the granting of the CPO or the CAO, and it must therefore be repugnant to the constitution, or unconstitutional.

In agreeing such generous terms with the Irish government, Shell may well have dug itself a very deep hole in terms of where it now finds itself serving itself rather the common good, with regard to the qualifiaction set out in article 43(2)(2) of the constitution.

Does anyone else have any thoughts on this???

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

The Saker

Public Inquiry

The Rossport 5 in the Bigger Picture

Comments (4 of 4)