Photo Report of Shell Station Blockade in Donnybrook

by Tadhg Sat Oct 14, 2006 23:07

How will the project benefit the country? The only people who will benefit under the current deal with be shareholders in the consortium.

by ROSCOMMON NATIVE Sat Oct 14, 2006 19:17

I find myself cringing at my Mayo neighbours giving their behaviour....by this I mean utilising the Catholic rosary for political propaganda. What on earth??Shame on you all. Working within the HSE I find myself surrounded by a majority that wish for the project to go ahead for the good of the country. At no point in history, as far as I am aware, did the irish republic comprise merely of Mayo. And thank God I would say. mayo has demonstrated yet again a people of poor judgement, bigotry and sheer arrogance. Irish people have never strived to cause injury or death to those around them...therefore we should not be sending our men to an offshore environment more dangerous by far than the north sea. It is up to the IRISH PEOPLE to unite and prevent Mayo from embarrassing our country any further. The Irish Rebublic consists of 26 counties NOT ONE.

I find myself agreeing with tired too when its pointed out that Shell to Sea has lost its national support. Take your heads out of the clouds and realise your place.

by Gaz Wed Oct 11, 2006 17:48

"There was an independent poll suggesting otherwise as well so whom would you believe?"
Would that independent one be the Millward Brown IMS research were people who were against the project were hung up on? Was it in the first review commissioned by the Minister was carried out by BPA, a company half-owned by Shell?Or was it contained as part of the 'independent 'advantica report? Please enlighten me as i'm doing an article and need sources.

"the project needs to go ahead for the common good"
ah yes the comon good...also know as profit for shareholders

"please cast your eye over a previous post of mine detailing Irelands woeful track record in oil and gas exploration success"
sure aren't all irish governments woeful. Look at the history of planning issue around the corrib project. April 2003 - Bord Pleanála overturns Mayo County Council’s decision to grant planning permission and cites grounds of instability of peat on site. September 2003 - Taoiseach meets delegation from Shell. December 2003 - Shell re-submits planning application to Mayo County Council. April 2004 - Mayo County Council approves project.

"Once again we see the anti British sentiment that is at the core of this campaign. It is evident that for many it is Shell's British roots that are causing so much angst."
I don't know if its Financial Dynamics, shells PR company spouting this line or if its being picked up on following a two page hearsay special in the sunday world (which carried a full page add from the corrib partners in the same edition) but its rubbish.

by R. Isible Wed Oct 11, 2006 17:40

That being said, the project needs to go ahead for the common good so rational dialogue must be the way ahead.

As has been pointed out by "John - Dunaree2000" holding on to natural resources like petroleum deposits makes a lot of sense in terms of national security. Ireland obtains no tangible benefit from this development scenario and instead faces the depletion of a national resource and danger to its citizens.

It has already been reported that diving tours to Bellanaboy have seen a drop-off because well-heeled, educated people don't fancy hanging out and spending their precious vacation time in places where there are large industrial projects.

The handling of this situation by the government (and Shell, but I can't blame them as it's their job to pillage resources at the expense of human lives and the environment), has been a massive cock-up that's resulted in negative publicity for the entire country and looks like it's only getting worse.

At this stage it's reasonably certain that you are not in the least bit serious if you don't understand that a large petroleum processing facility diminshes the attractiveness of any area to tourists.

What we see here is an incompetent government (aided by its silent opposition of Fianna Gael and its PD juniour partners) recklessly throwing away the tourist economy because of a mixture of personal commitments (which they had no right to make and no ability to keep) and a backward looking 1960's-era belief in "modernisation" (which involves the long-term wrecking of intangible assets in order to satisfy external profit seekers).

Completely asinine.

by Joe Wed Oct 11, 2006 17:34

Shell are a Dutch company rather than a British one aren't they?

by Tired Too Wed Oct 11, 2006 17:27

An independent poll of the people of Mayo. There was an independent poll suggesting otherwise as well so whom would you believe?

The links to the articles show a lot of banner waving and publicity stunts, but very few people! That is the key here, there are fewer than a dozen people at most of them!

Re-routing the pipeline is a process that will involve consultation with landowners concerned. I admit this should have been done at the start and was handled badly. The area is pretty sparsely populated so I should imagine a deal will be brokered eventually. It's all about dialogue at this stage, that is what is needed. Before you come back saying "But Shell were the ones who did this in the first place" I know. Now, because of an upsurge in national support for the R5, they have had to think again. That being said, the project needs to go ahead for the common good so rational dialogue must be the way ahead.

To all those still bleating on about the deal the Government gave to Enterprise during the projects infancy please cast your eye over a previous post of mine detailing Irelands woeful track record in oil and gas exploration success - 1 in 50. That is among the worst in the world. Furthermore, no Government in their right mind would renege on such a deal. That would be the death knoll for any future investment in oil and gas and other sectors.

Once again we see the anti British sentiment that is at the core of this campaign. It is evident that for many it is Shell's British roots that are causing so much angst.

I really don't think tourism will be affected too badly now will it? You are kind of simplifying the matter somewhat here. What, all tourism will diminish because of the project?

by Gaz B -(A)- Wed Oct 11, 2006 16:52

"Still not indicatvie of popular support" - hmm yes an independent poll showing the majority of people support the rossport 5, are against the bellinaboy site and favour an offshore terminal...not indicative of support. I suppose you'd have us use the stats shell quote from their Millward Brown IMS research were they hung on people who responded negatively to the project.

"Now that it is to be re-routed people are left wondering what the problem is? "
Re-routed were? Near somebody elses house? There are a number of issues including the pipeline, terminal, safety, planning application, enviromental impact and the deal done so that tax wo't have to be paid.

"Again I ask, where is the support across Ireland?"
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/78975 - todays occupation
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/78972 - cork
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/78958 - bellanaboy
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/78914 - limerick
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/78901 - another cork action
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/78872 - tallaght
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/78869 - derry
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/78871 - belfast
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/78861 - donnybrok

and thats only in the last week. Were are the pro-corrib project people in mayo staging their protests to allow workers back on site? oh thats right the IRA are after them..right?

by R. Isible Wed Oct 11, 2006 16:46

That's possibly because most people you know are a small minority that either hate ordinary people like the Rossport 5 or else work for Shell or the government and are disturbed at the prospect of decent ordinary citizens standing up for their right not to have a dangerous high-pressure pipeline put within blast range of their houses. The sight of people with a bit of spine and dignity refusing to be trampled over by an incompetent and venal government must be very disturbing to people that have been tugging their mental forelocks for so long that it's now reflexive. If Ireland were still occupied I have little doubt you'd expressing mock perplexity at the refusal of the natives to accept the dictats of their benevolent British masters.

The whole insult to injury is that Shell gets the money for next to nothing because of a Fianna Fail negotiation (I wonder what pathetic payout the minister got, or maybe it was ideological? Progresssss an' developmenth an' a modhern Ireland etc).

And, (and this is the final stupidity) tourism which is one of the most important sectors to the Irish economy and will continue to be so long after the exported gas has been burnt, will suffer negatively from the development and end up in a net reduction in the local and national economy.

Absolutely insane.

by Joe Wed Oct 11, 2006 16:46

The name of the campaign is 'Shell to Sea' gettit?

Personally I also think that Shell is taking money that is needed to fund hospitals and education and that they probably got such a good deal in the same way property developers did. So personally I'd like to see the gas extracted in a way that meant the profits go to the needs of the people who live in Ireland rather than the pockets of Shell investors.

by confused Wed Oct 11, 2006 16:32

if ur happy with it going offshore why all the rhetoric about shell stealing gas etc etc?

so if shell said they are putting it offshore youd have nothing to protest about?

by Tired Too Wed Oct 11, 2006 16:27

Most people I know including myself were happy to see the release of the R5 and a period of dialouge entered into, with the result that the proposed pipeline route is to be changed, as per recommendations. Where that point fits in here I am not sure? Still not indicatvie of popular support and does not exlpain the woeful turn out at protests. Why else would the Shell to Sea website be begging for people to come over to blockade the construction workers?

You seem to be getting confused about the points I am making. Firstly, the pipeline issue was a separate thing altogether. The R5 were justfied in their stance. Now that it is to be re-routed people are left wondering what the problem is? The reports you cited were pertinent to the pipeline and not the project as a whole as you seem to be implying.

Again I ask, where is the support across Ireland? Thin on the ground is where it is because people are getting fed up with you.

by Gaz B -(A)- Wed Oct 11, 2006 16:25

Its pretty self evident, less than a quarter agree wit the Bellanaboy site,with 6 out of 10 wanting it offshore (one of shell2seas main aims)

by supp Wed Oct 11, 2006 16:24

nobody responded to that point because it hard to figure when you don't copy over the questions, which you never do for SOME reason. and the rosspporters do not have a problem with the gas been developed.

by youre sinking Wed Oct 11, 2006 16:19

A a tns/mrbi poll carried out by Nuacht RTÉ showed that that six out of ten people in Mayo think that the Corrib Gas Terminal should be located offshore at sea. Less that a quarter think that it should be built at the planned Bellanaboy site in the north west of the county

is that not then 84% that think shell should build something be it at sea or inland?

by Gaz B -(A)- Wed Oct 11, 2006 16:11

Unfortunately shell2sea can't afford a fullpage add in the sunday world to get their view on things across.

Myth 1 - The majority of people in rossport support the corrib gas project
The antics of shells research techniques has already been outlind in the Irish times andVillage magazine. ( http://www.villagemagazine.ie/article.asp?sid=1&sud=10&...=3087 ). A a tns/mrbi poll carried out by Nuacht RTÉ showed that that six out of ten people in Mayo think that the Corrib Gas Terminal should be located offshore at sea. Less that a quarter think that it should be built at the planned Bellanaboy site in the north west of the county. Two thirds of the people questioned supported the stand taken by the five Rossport men, who were jailed last year, following their defiance of a court order in relation to the pipeline.

Myth 2 - The project is totally safe. The 'independent' report from advantica states that an experimental gas pipeline is as safe as as daisies.
Advantica (the comapny who carries it out) is a wholly owned subsidiary of National Grid Transco Plc. It traded at one time under the name of BG Technology Limited. Shell has been a partner and a client of Advantica and its various associated companies on an international basis. The interconnected companies have over the years been populated with former senior Shell managers/Directors. 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. the Centre for Public Inquiry commissioned a detailed independent analysis from Richard Kuprewicz, president of US based consultants, Accufacts Inc. Mr Kuprewicz's analysis addresses the health and safety implications of the proposed pipeline and processing plant. Among its key findings, the report concludes that:

The pipeline has a uniquely large rupture impact zone, with potential for high fatalities;
There are too many unknowns regarding the future operation of this pipeline especially in the areas of gas pressure and gas composition that can lead to failure;
The thick-walled pipe specified for use is not invincible to leak or rupture the proposed pipeline will transport gas at high pressure in a raw state, containing metals and radioactive gases. There is compelling evidence to suggest that internal corrosion of the pipeline is likely;
The maximum pipeline pressure has not been clearly demonstrated or documented, and that this is a grave deficiency;
Difficulties with locating the gas processing plant offshore have been overstated, and routing analyses for the onshore system are seriously deficient.

The Quantified Risk Assessment used by the government to asses the safety of the project "is inappropriate for this highly unique, first of its kind, pipeline as there is no historical data that can be used to evaluate this proposed system".

The full report can be fund at http://www.publicinquiry.ie/reports.php which goes deeper into the sfety aspects and the granting of planning permission.

by onepercent Wed Oct 11, 2006 15:58

based on the number of protesters and the population of mayo you represent less than 1% of the population, and thats being genourous to the protesters ffs

by Tired Too Wed Oct 11, 2006 15:38

For god's sake you really don't have a clue! Shell will just build one, it's as easy as that. Don't be so obtuse Andy, you obviously have no conception of what this would entail, for absoultely no benefit whatsoever. Furthermore, it's Bord Gais that control the interconnector, so if anyone wanted to build a compression station it would be them. You really need to do your homework on this one Andy.

What you read about the pipeline is aboslutely true in the definitions I used. Try having a look for yourself on Bord Gais' website instead of taking my word for it.

Off course there is scope for expansion, there could be a lot of gas out there in different fields that may come through the terminal, who knows. In the oil and gas game nothing is certain. Furterhmore, as things change offshore process conditions will change meaning amendments to facilities. Off course you wouldn't know that because you would never have bothered to find out. All you want to do is make come up with a media-friendly soundbyte for your cause based upon sparse facts.

Again I am completely bamboozled by your lack of understanding regarding the matter of transporting gas. To liquify natural gas is an exteremly costly endeavour in terms of equipment, operating costs and transport costs, which is why it is only used when pipelines are not feasible. The pipeline is there, ready to be used at a far, far cheaper rate. What is so difficult to understand here? It is not an option.

And finally, I will ask again. Your cause has lost popular support, admit it.

by Andy Wed Oct 11, 2006 15:06

Calm down, Shell goon, calm down. Don't get so exasperated. No wonder you lot have itchy trigger fingers and all, and applaud State violence when wielded in your favour. Ireland has no compression station, but Shell will build one as and when it sees fit. Is that too complicated for you? The Irish Government will write off any expenses Shell is subject to, so your contention has no basis there either. Shell has a very sweet deal here, and has gone to a lot of trouble to confuse the situation. Your semantic nonsense about the differences between a download and an upload pipeline simply proves my contention.

And no, it does not make sense that Shell would want to make room for future expansion, unless there were scope for it. So there clearly is scope for it. SO, Shell have lied about the quantities of gas available. Your cost-benefit arguments are a nonsense, because Shell's operations here are entirely State-subsidized.

by Tired Too Wed Oct 11, 2006 14:11

If you had read my post properly you would be under no allusions what the difference is between an import and export pipeline. I will break it down further for you as you seem to be having trouble grasping the basics. The interconnectors between Scotland and Ireland are essentially both an export and import pipeline, it just depends on how you look at it. From Scotland's perspective it is an export pipeline, from Irelands the opposite. As gas requires energy to move it must be compressed to a pressure adequate to move the gas through the pipeline. There is a compression station in Scotland that provides such energy. Once the gas reaches Ireland at a lower pressure than the comprssing stations output as would be expected given the direction of flow, it is then depressurised into the the Irish national network. Ireland has no capacity to export BECAUSE IT HAS NO COMPRESSION STATION!

As per LNG didn't you read my post? COST OF TRANSIT! COST OF TRANSIT! COST OF TRANSIT! Why would Shell choose an expensive mode of transit when they have a custom built pipeline? Do you not see that Andy? For god's sake do I have to spell it out to you! Off course they would want to acquire enough land for future expansion, what company wouldn't!!!!!!!

Again Andy, I think you are deluding yourself with how much support your cause has. You still have not made any comment about the pitiful numbers that your protests generate. And 100 people in Mayo is supposed to be representative of the popular opinion? I think not Andy. I would be interested to hear your take on why the protest is losing support among the masses? No doubt it is someone elses fault!

by Andy Wed Oct 11, 2006 13:39

Thanks for the rundown, TT/PM. I would have though "indigenous" also meant belonging to an area, not having originated in it and then being handed over to other ownership.
Oh, I beg your pardon for my failure in comprehension. The only reason Shell would want a 400-acre site would be to build a limited-capability processing plant, with no prospect for future expansion. I have amended my thought processes accordingly.

Ditto with the old export-import pipeline thing: I forgot pipes only allowed gas through one way. Better also forget that Shell's Corrib operation will be run entirely from Scotland. I did after all forget that Ireland is a "net gas importer" because it has "limited natural resources". You mean of course Ireland will be an importer of "indigenous" gas. Of course, Ireland has limited natural resources, until the oil companies who have control over all information regarding such resources decide to say otherwise. They did tell the Irish government back in 1998 that the fields relating to Corrib has a potential of up to 11 TCF, which doesn't seem all that limited when you think about it.

But I'll remember your sound advice. A gas "import" pipeline is qualitatively different from a gas "export" pipeline. Just as a 400-acre site doesn't have bigger plans in store for it. The things you learn here from the Friends of Shell Society! Not a huge group, but loud-voiced to compensate.

by Tired Too Wed Oct 11, 2006 12:59

I cited Nigeria as an example only because Shell to Sea has done already. You want information on gas terminals in the UK, Holland etc. go do it yourself you have access to the internet, the information is there if you want it, I can only point you in the right direction.

What process would be required to liquify natural gas Andy? One that is very expensive and requires a vast amount of processing capacity, not to mention the expensive cyrogenic road tankers and sea vessels required for transit. So we see that the cost of liquifying the gas to transport it is just not viable given that there is a custom made Bord Gais pipeline begging to be filled (LNG is only viable where the cost of laying a pipeline outstrips the cost of aforementioned transit and process costs). Would you agree here that a company such as Shell would opt for the cheapest transit route to maximise its profits? Furthermore as far as I am aware there is no capacity to carry out said processes in the terminal. Therefore, in summation, it's only source of transit is the pipeline running from Mayo to Galway and the rest of the gas pipeline network. This network covers most of Ireland and Northern Ireland and is supplied in the main via two interconnectors from Scotland. These are one way pipelines. gas is compressed in Scotland and depressurised in Ireland. There is no compression terminal in Ireland to facilitate sending the gas in the opposite direction, what would be the point? Ireland is a net importer of gas. Still with me? Lets recap - liquifying natural gas for tanker transport is not and option. Ireland cannot export gas to the UK (there are no other pipelines connecting Ireland with any other country) therefore it is a closed loop. As such, the gas from Corrib can go nowhere else but to Irish homes and businesses.

PS The word indigenous means - "having originated in and being produced, growing, living, or occurring naturally in a particular region or environment" Kind of explains Corrib pretty well I would have thought.

by Andy Wed Oct 11, 2006 12:52

For the education of all Shell PR agents, you can't do better than read the Planning Inspector's report on the Ballinaboy Terminal. I can provide a link for those of you who can't operate search engines.

by Andy Wed Oct 11, 2006 12:19

Where are the terminals that are similar? Please cite the examples.

Again, you want me to quantify the toxins. Quantify the toxins? Shell themselves are required to provide figures for this, and they have yet to produce an adequate EIA justifying the siting of a huge industrial processing plant in the middle of 7 SPC's, all of which are protected under EU law. You cite the example of Nigeria as though it were some kind of fluke, or exception. It is how Shell operates, so it's not very interesting to be told how appalled you are. I asked you to look at Shell's record worldwide, and you cited the most publicized instance. Their contempt for the inhabitants of any area in which they operate is already shown in every example, and we are seeing it again in Rossport, with the help of the usual hired mouths.

Well of course the nature of our elected and very responsible government will protect us all from harm. Which is why they are bulldozing national monuments and putting a high pressure raw gas pipeline close to houses. Sure 'twill never explode, plastic paddy. Sure, those pipeline explosions in New Mexico, Toledo Washington, and Belgium didn't happen at all, and if they did, well it could never happen here could it? I mean look at our great government.

By the way, the terminal design was not changed in any respect after it was refused permission. What did happen was that Dempsey gave Shell an undertaking that the project would proceed, and Shell began work on the project even before they had planning permission. (Propaganda 101 Part 15: On developing a short-term memory).

You say that this supply of gas is "indigenous". Hmm, let's try to "quantify" that, shall we? Indigenous as in close by? I guess it is near-ish, isn't it? Thing is though, it's all in the possession of Shell. The only meaningful use of "indigenous" would be to suggest that the resource is somehow "ours", right? Or have you redefined that word too? The gas was handed to Shell. Got it yet? Good. So it's not "ours", not "indigenous", and from a supply point of view, it makes no difference whether it comes from Corrib or from the other side of the world. Giving over a gas resource to a multinational and then expecting them to honour their assurances that they will supply said gas in good faith is no way to do business.

Oh, you hadn't heard anything about Shell's liquid natural gas (LNG) fleet, had you? They wouldn't break their promises and not supply the gas they have been handed, would they now, no of course not, they're Shell, for God's sake. They would never do that. It's "indigenous".

The absence of an actual agreement that Shell will sell gas to Ireland is a bit of an omission.

by Tired Too Wed Oct 11, 2006 10:04

As I have already said before Shell and other oil and gas companies own and operate hundreds of terminals like that proposed at Bellanaboy without any need for recourse IN COUNTRIES SIMILAIR IN NATURE TO IRELAND. I capitalised the last bit so that you can understand the point I am trying to make. Obviously your campaign latched onto the atrocities in Nigeria and I am in no way defending what happened there, I was as appalled as you. However, I have enough savvy to realise that such could not happen in this country due to the nature of Government and the free media. Of course your campaign would never distinguish that important difference would it? No, eight crosses outside the terminal and an entourage from Nigeria makes for a cracking photshoot.

Ultimately, you have lost popular support and know it. However you cannot bring yourselves to acknowledge it here. You speak of solidarity across the country - a handful of people outside some service stations. Wow. And how long do you think the media coverage will last? Give it another week or so and they will get bored too. Then you will have to think of another PR stunt to try and capture the imagination of the masses.

Again I wait on specifics about what toxins you think Bellanaboy will produce into the local environment, you have been steadfastly avoiding that request. I have asked for a greater understanding of what you know about the terminal, another request avoided. I am trying to pin you down to specifics here because you are only trying to bog down the argument with rhetoric, a classic porpoganda tool!

THe terminal was refused planning permission at first, changes were made to the design, then it was accepted. Much like what happens in most planning processes. Where was the report in your post? Can a paper from Mayo not be a socialiast rag? Are there no socialists in Mayo?

The benefits of this terminal are - an indigenous supply of gas. Gas prices follow the demand. A lot of people say here that should there be a problem then Irish homes would be cut off in favour of selling at a higher price in the UK. AS far as I can see the consumers will buy the gas here at as much as in the UK so why would the UK be favoured? Furthermore, how on earth would the gas get over there? There is no ifnfrastructure in place to send it back to Scotland. 50% of Ireland's electricity is generated by gas burning generators. Corrib will keep these running regardless of events elsewhere. To quote a Bord Gais report - "Gas is vital to the energy needs of the growing Irish economy and shortages could lead to serious economic dislocation. It also makes a major contribution to enabling Ireland meet its obligations under a number of international environmental treaties and air pollution protocols." Infrastructure is another key point here. The pipeline that is currently being built by Bord Gais will in the long term provide gas to most of the west of Ireland. Gas is now piped to Galway as a result of infrastructure investments, kick started by Corrib.

by Andy Wed Oct 11, 2006 02:06

Since we have outed them as Shell shills, the above person or persons decided to change tack: "I used to support the R5 but now nobody seems to know what they're protesting against and blah blah". If you had followed the issue as closely as you claim, you would be aware of the issues. Instead, you seek to confuse those who may not be aware of the campaign's concerns, which have remained unchanged since day one.

BTW, how is the pipeline issue "resolved"? Found you out there, Shell shills. Another propaganda trope you're trying to spin, but it just won't run. Sorry.

Propaganda 101 Part 14: invent a falsehood and, by dint of repetition, it becomes lodged in the popular mind without the requirement for rational reflection. You just reach for the PR phrase, and that substitutes for argument or evidence.

In this spirit, I would like to ask the Shell/Dept. of Environment sock puppets and shills one simple question which they have pointedly avoided, even though they keep repeating the statement like a mantra:

State, in very simple and precise terms, the enormous benefits you claim this project will bring to this country.

by Andy Wed Oct 11, 2006 01:54

As the above responses suggest, the shills can't even get their own PR line straight. If you had read the post with the slightest attention, you would have observed (and face it, it really doesn't need much discernment) that the extracts quoted were not from "socialist rags" but, respectively, the Planning Inspector's report recommending refusal of planning permission for the refinery, which dealt in considerable detail with every issue the shills keep bringing back up as if they were still open to question. The other extract was from a Mayo paper. Clear now?

I am confused by your request that I name companies whose toxic emissions *do not* cause problems. It's your job, as Shell shill and defender of all things Shell, to do so, not mine. Again, I ask you: do I need to remind you of Shell's environmental and human rights records? If not, why do you feel so assured in defending Shell on these very points with regard to this project? Such a defence stands not a moment's scrutiny, as you should know.

Another question: when I direct your attention to the *specific points* at issue, why do you try to change the subject?

by supp Tue Oct 10, 2006 18:29

Perhaps if the contractors were able to get on site they could have prevented the lake pollution but unfortunately you lot stopped them from getting anywhere near it. The only people to blame here is yourselves for that incident.

As you well know tired, the council and shell contractors denied the degree of the problem with the water it was the shell to sea group who had to force them to deal with it. Its all documented at corribsos.com

by PM Tue Oct 10, 2006 16:10

excellent contribution too tired. You hit the nail on the head. many people, including me, admired the R5 for their stand last year but believed that their stand was about health and safety issues. Now - nobody understands what its about. It appears that its not now about the pipeline but about the terminal. No wonder people have lost interest. Its just a group, and a small one at that, intent on stopping Shell. it doesnt have any popular support nationwide anymore.

by Tired Too Tue Oct 10, 2006 16:06

I think what we see in CGs response is the crux of the matter for many people involved in the protest - anit British sentiment. I suspect that if this were an American company building and operating this would be a very different story.

Now again we see a descent into pleurile ramblings from people here. I mean, how on earth are you going to avail of punching me in the face you idiot? My point was that people were physically removed from the site, anyone watching the news could see that. Anyone could also see that it was just Guards picking them up and moving them out of the way.

The photos on this very website show how little support you have, the turn out for protests across the rest of the country has been quite frankly laughable! Show me some evidence of popular support then CG. You won' tbecause you can't. Like all the previous people on this page, you are all rhetoric. Where is the proof?

by CG Tue Oct 10, 2006 15:35

- "disgruntled students, anarchaists and foreigners" Because you're not seeking to play on biases and stereotypes for your own purpose, you're seeking to argue. Reasonably, as opposed to those emotional, inadequate types respectable society finds itself plagued with from time to time, never satisfied with the bounty of a thriving economy, yadda yadda. Hmm, just what Shell P.R. would say, that the protesters aren't the locals. - "man handling" It didn't really happen, you imply, it's invented/imagined. But you wouldn't actually say that. Good, does that mean if I punch you in the face, you won't mind, because you only imagined it? Excellent. I'll be sure to avail of that opportunity, since violence doesn't *really* exist. It's a coincidence that, like you, Shell would very much like the irish people to believe that the campaign has no support. It's been a p.r. tool since Basil Clarke started his campaign of lies in Dublin Castle. The British were very good at psywar - isolate the enemy psychologically, pretend the public at large is disgusted at them. It didn't work in 1920, it won't work now. You've obviously been watching this closely. I know Shell HQ have been watching the internet campaign closely, too. Good luck to you. Your campaign is doomed to failure. The truth and the people will prevail.

by Tired Too Tue Oct 10, 2006 12:48

Andy, you have obviously followed the debate but missed out one key point I was trying to make, namely - where are your specifics on what the Bellanaboy terminal will produce in terms of toxins? You can cut and paste from as many socialist rags as you want the issue remains the same. I want to come to a greater understanding of what you know about the terminal, regardless of what has happened with other businesses.

Which leads me on to my next point. You fail to mention companies that operate and produce toxic products and by-products that do NOT cause problems for local communities, only benefits. What about all of the terminals in the UK that operate safely and produce no harmful products into the surrounding environment, many of which are located in rural areas like Mayo? And before you even think of mentioning it, Bunsfield was an aging oil refinery storing vast quantities of liquid hydrocarbons with a poor safety and maintenance record. No, you don't mention them because you don't want this project to go ahead at any cost. You and your group will never try and see things from the other side of the coin and that is why you are making complete spectacles of yourselves over in Mayo. Most people want this terminal to go ahead and can appreciate the benefits that it will bring to the community and Ireland at large. Why should a minority of people with left wing agendas stop it from going ahead, when it is something so obviously for the greater good?

The people of Ireland thought that routing the pipleline so close to peoples homes and sending 5 men to jail was wrong, and there was a massive upsurge in support and rightly so - I agree. Now that the pipeline is no longer an issue, the people of Ireland see you on TV and think: "What is the problem now? Let them get on with it." This is evident in the poor turn out across the country for any protests, most of which are made up from disgruntled students, anarchaists and foreigners. It is also evident in the way that protestors at the terminal gate are now having a go at RTE for not showing the Guards "man handling" people or how Shell to Sea are begging people to come over to Erris and swell their paltry number of 100. Face it Andy you have lost the popular support.

by cool j Tue Oct 10, 2006 12:15

Propaganda 101, Part 13 of an ongoing series.

Key to subduing upstarts: ignore context, history, and above all actual facts on the ground. Invent where you can get away with it, and attribute the best possible motives to those who exhibit not the slightest evidence of possessing them.

Dear sock puppets and Shell shills: the blockade so far has prevented further damage to the environment than has already occurred. Blaming the protestors for the damage is frankly incredible, but true to form. If this terminal were not being built there would be no damage. But since you types seem to regard Shell's orders as constituting a fait accompli, I suggest you take the blinkers off and examine Shell's record. Yes, lads, their global record, which none of you in your paeans to them have cared to mention.

From CorpWatch, for those of you with in-built memory editing suites and weak typing skills:

UK: Shell Oil Accused of Harming Communities

by Sanjay Suri, Inter Press Service
April 22nd, 2003

The oil giant Shell is failing to protect communities near its installations in several countries, says a new report from Friends of the Earth.

The report 'Failing the Challenge: The Other Shell Report' was unveiled in London Wednesday at a hall across from the Queen Elizabeth II centre where the company held its annual general meeting.

Activists from several countries said the fallout from Shell oil refineries and depots is causing a high incidence of cancer, asthma and skin conditions, they said.

Shell sent its representatives to the Friends of the Earth meeting, but declined to comment on the accusations. Friends of the Earth sent their own representatives to the meeting on the strength of shares the group has bought in Shell.

Shell managers had held a meeting with members of Friends of the Earth Tuesday, a day before the report was due to be released. "We are withholding the contents of that meeting," Judith Robinson from the Environmental Health Fund in the U.S. told media representatives at the launch of the report Wednesday.

Shell managers declined to comment on the report despite several requests from IPS.

Friends of the Earth made an agreement not to go public over its meeting with Shell managers, contrary to the stand taken by some of the activists it had assembled.

"We have refused to talk to Shell because they set a condition that we should not talk to the press," Desmond D'Sa, chairman of the South Durban Community Environmental Alliance, told media representatives at the launch of the report.

"They want to meet us, but they want to gag us," he said. "We want unconditional access to information. Shell is in effect doing what the apartheid regime did in South Africa earlier."

Desmond D'Sa said Shell is using "dirty technology" at the refinery it runs in south Durban along with British Petroleum. "That is not the technology they use in Denmark," he said. "Why the double standards?" Local people have high levels of asthma because of the high levels of chemicals emission, D'Sa said.

"We have a high concentration of cases of asthma and cancer in our area," said Hilton Kelly who lives near Shell's Port Arthur refinery in Port Arthur, Texas. "One in five families has someone who has asthma or cancer."

Kelly said many people have developed rashes from chemicals deposited on the skin. "There is a direct correlation between chemicals and illnesses," he said. "We want those emissions reduced."

The activists spoke of several kinds of danger to health from Shell installations. Leaks and fires at the Shell oil depot in Pandacan, a suburb of Manila in the Philippines. "have resulted in hundreds of residents being hospitalized over the years," said Hope Esquillo Tura from the United Front to Oust Oil Depots in the Philippines.

"Scaling down will not address issues around public safety and security," she said. "Arrangements are made between Shell and the local authorities, but this process needs to be more inclusive."

"They are like a colonial force running the communities," said Oronto Douglas from Friends of the Earth in Nigeria. "But we want access to our resources."

Douglas said that the Tuesday meeting had been held with relatively junior Shell managers. "There seemed to be a willingness to do something, but we have been listening to their rhetoric for years," he said. "They should get back to us within a specific time frame."

The Friends of the Earth report says that Shell had committed itself to sustainable development eight years ago, and promoted its so-called "green" image to the world. But "the reality is a far cry from the green promises in glossy brochures and advertising campaigns," the report says. "Shell is failing the sustainability challenge."

This kind of "greenwash" is misleading the public and investors, and must be stopped, the activists demanded.

(Ends)

I refer you in addition to the report by An Bord Pleanála's inspector, on foot of which the terminal was refused permission. It confirms the above point of view.

The EPA has been remarkably lax in its duties regarding what harms the environment and what does not. Here's a piece from the Western People about the EPA's staunch defence of Ireland's environment.

Wednesday, February 09, 2005 :

Ed Note: see below link

by Tired Too Mon Oct 09, 2006 11:25

Again another personal response, is it not possible to have a debate without it? You don't hear me calling you tree hugging swampies do you?

Without a licence from EPA Shell cannot start up the terminal, so what is the problem here? These things are complicated given the vast amount of different systems and variables involved so it takes time to draw up and finalise contracts. Again, no contract = no production.

Perhaps if the contractors were able to get on site they could have prevented the lake pollution but unfortunately you lot stopped them from getting anywhere near it. The only people to blame here is yourselves for that incident.

You say nonsense on the topic but where are your counterpoints? There are no specifics to your arguments at all which leads me to believe that all the nonsense you spout herein is nothing more than misinformation and hearsay

by cool j Mon Oct 09, 2006 10:22

You obviously haven't a clue about the way big business operates in Ireland. Companies like Schwartz pharma, masonite , auguish aluminia, standish sawmills ec are always in out of court for dangeriously exceeding limits of air and water pollution. All they get is paltry fines which allow them to continue on their merry way unhindered. Shell doesn't even have a licence from the EPA to operate this terminal over 2 years after first applying for one - which says it all really, indeed their officials have complained that Shell have yet to come clean on a large number of issues concerning the scale of pollution this terminal threatens to unleash on the Erris community.

Your comments to the effect that Shell would never do untoward things in this country is laughable in light of events at Bellanaboy over the last week, indeed the last year where the state agancies have covered up the pollution of Loch Carrowmore (Erris main water supply) from aluminium run-off eminating from Shell's proposed terminal site.

PS - The overall nonsense you continue to come out with on this topic would suggest you are yet another SHell troll on here

by Tired Too Mon Oct 09, 2006 10:06

No not Shell speak, just an interest in current affairs. Why would you call someone a drone and get personal? Can't you keep the debate on a more mature level?

Shell ran a massive advertisement campaign for operators and maintenance personnel prior to the jailing of the Rossport 5 and subsequent cessation of work. Off course the people are going to get the appropriate training to run a gas terminal! (not oil refinery as per your comment and certainly not giant in terms of processing facilities). How else would it be possible? They may not all be from Mayo, but I'll bet the majority are from Ireland. I probably expect that even the latter is not good enough for you though.

I think you will find that there are plenty of communities in the world that enjoy having Shell operate in the community and plenty that won't. IN developed countries like Ireland Shell can only behave in a manner alike to how it does in similair countries like the Netherlands and UK. There their governments impose stringent codes of practice on HSE. It will be the same here.

Can you break down for me here what sort of pollution this terminal will spew forth? Shell to Sea would have you believe that they will be flaring tonnes of gas every day producing untold amounts of greenhouse gases. Bulls**t, there are strict flaring consents and these things are for emergency use only.

(Most of them are Irish builders working for road bridge and a lot of local people probably would work on site if it weren't for the intimidation of driving through a "phalanx" of cops and demented protestors not to mention getting ostracised by the latter outside of work for doing it. Don't think I would some how.)

by @ Fri Oct 06, 2006 14:19

I hope we see a lot of UCD students at tonights demo.

by Tadhg Fri Oct 06, 2006 13:55

"I happen to know" kind of gives you away as a Shell Drone doesn't it?

What do you happen to know? Are local people going to be sent on training courses in how to run a giant refinery?

Is the Irish government going to suddenly change the way it works in therms of polltion and environmental damage?

Does any community in the world think Shell is a good neighbour?

Can you give me a quote from anyone in Bord Gáis where they say that the Corrib field will make any difference to Ireland's security of supply? Is there any contract that says that your bosses have to sell this gas to Bord Gáis? If there is, can you reproduce it here?

Until then, I'd rather be with the local people from Erris, sitting on the ground praying, among the idealistic seventy year-olds, rather than with the people who take Shell's money to spread lies.

(These jobs for local building workers you're talking about- how many of the people working on the site now, being bussed in by the phalanx of cops every morning- how many are from Erris? )

by krossie - wsm personal capacity Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:09

"Unfortunately most of the people that visit this website are like yourself Cool J, naive and idealistic."

Long may it continue!
- Tiredness, detachment, irony and cynicism are THE OPPERATING System of 2006 capitalism in Ireland
- beir bua
- step up the fight!

Krossie

ps STOP being "tired"

http://www.egs.edu/faculty/zizek/zizek-cynicism-as-a-fo....html

"cynical reason, with all its ironic detachment, leaves untouched the fundamental level of ideological fantasy, the level on which ideology structures the social reality itself."

by TIred Too Fri Oct 06, 2006 10:28

In response to cool j, the Kinsale field only came into production after the exploration licensing and taxing strategy was overhauled by the irish government. It says a lot that those fields have been the only commercially viable ones up until technology caught up with Corrib, despite regular fluctuations in oil price and the heady heights of the 80s. Furthermore between 1973 and 2003 oil and gas operators have spent over 2 billion drilling 143 wells with a success rate of 1 in 50. Now it doesn't take a genius to work out that the risks imposed on any company are too great to bear in terms of losses. Any company would baulk at the prospect of exploring for oil given those statistics not to mention the old form of levy and tazxation that the Irish government imposed. The trouble here is cool j, you have a very simplistic view of the way things work, much like other people with socialist agendas. I would agree that the levy is low but this was only done to kick start the industry. Until then you can't expect the Government to go back on their agreements with oil companies. It just doesn't make business sense and the only reason that Ireland is enjoying such prosperity just now is because of business investment coupled with prudent fiscal incentives for them to operate.

Unfortunately most of the people that visit this website are like yourself Cool J, naive and idealistic. I can see why there would be concerns about the pipeline and I fully support the re-routing of it. However, the terminal is more environmentally freindly than an offshore rig! Or is it OK to pollute the environment as long as it is out of sight? Furthermore, do you honestly think that Shell would be allowed to just dump heavy metals and toxic waste in the sea? No, there are strict environmental guidlines here in Ireland that must be met and are continually audited. A "toxic wasteland" as the Shell to Sea lot call it is a complete fallacy.

To Tadhg, other countries get a better deal as per info above regarding Irelands poor track record of exploration, which is quoted as one of the worst in the world. The Corrib gas may not make a difference but it will only stop gas coming from the UK. It is security of supply that is important here. Ireland is at the end of a long daisy chain from Russia through Europe and across the UK. Any problems upstream and the first place to lose out is here.

How can you say that the project will have zero benefit? 700 jobs during construction and 50 full time jobs (27 car parking spaces = shift workers!)? A terminal that could be used to tie back further finds? I happen to know that the majority of people that will be employed at the terminal will be local workers. the only reason there are guys from the UK on the project now is because of the limited skill pool Ireland has in the oil and gas industry.

There has been consultation, but people like you just don't want to come to the table and rationally work things out. You'd rather make complete spectacles of yourselves in front of the entire nation, sitting on the ground reciting the rosary.

by Tadhg Fri Oct 06, 2006 02:27

Nigeria gets better deal from Shell than we do.

The Faroe Islands get a better deal on the oil and gas reserves than we do.

Bord Gáis are on record as saying that the Corrib field won't make any difference to the domestic price of gas in Ireland.

It won't make any difference to security of supply, since Shell MUST sell to the highest bidder. If the UK can outbid us, that's where the gas will go.

It is no longer "Irish" gas, it's Shell's gas, to do with what they consider most profitable.

The project will have zero benefit for the Irish nation. We may as well be getting the gas from Russia.

There are no real long term jobs for locals. The few jobs at the refinery will go to experienced Oil and Gas Industry men from Shell's operations in the North Sea, not locals. Even these jobs won't be as well paid as they might be if they were based on a rig.

People who talk about hundreds of jobs in the area might ask why there are only 27 car spaces at the planned refinery.

Any gain in jobs of course, will be offset by the job losses in the tourist industry. For an example of what's to come, I was told by a local that there was beginning to be some interest in diving holidays in Erris a few years ago, but that's already been finished by Shell. When they started working, the divers stopped coming.

The refinery will degrade the environment through pollution. Ask anyone, anywhere in the world, who has to live near a Shell installation like this if Shell is a good neighbour.

The people of the area plainly don't want this. Shell and the government said they were interested in a consultation process with the local community, and then they send in hundreds of guards. They say they will build confidence and consult about the best way forward for the project, then they insist they are going to build the fucking thing anyway.

Perhaps you think this is a good way of going about things, many of us don't. We think the people of Erris are being bullied, and that's why we're protesting.

We're all tired, but some of think this very important.

by R. Isible Fri Oct 06, 2006 02:24

$9/barrel sounds cheap. Does 1life/40,000 barrels sound cheap? How about 1localtouristeconomy/50,000 barrels? Is that cheap?

And who's paying? You?

by Wednesday Thu Oct 05, 2006 23:16

There may only be 25 years worth of gas in Corrib (correct me on this if I am wrong). It is not really worth. People keep talk ing about the long term benefits. There aren't really any long term benefits but plenty of long term drawbacks and neagatives. Do the maths....

by tired Thu Oct 05, 2006 21:35

Cool J - most of the Corrib wells were drilled when the oil price was $9/barrel or thereabouts. The deal with the government was made long before the oil price shot up to above $70/barrel. Shell bought Enterprise because the poor oil price meant the smaller company could not sustain itself. Now, Shell are trying to make the most of their investment, which they would still be doing at a much lower oil price because the technology allows it.
Yes the garda presence might have been extreme, but so is sitting on the ground and saying the rosary.

by Croltobopper Thu Oct 05, 2006 19:41

Loved the for hire plackard

Love and rage from Manchester

by jm - . Thu Oct 05, 2006 18:29

300 Guards at the protest ...
I'll send you an anorak and a flask in the post .

by cool j Thu Oct 05, 2006 17:59

Levels of Exploration in irish waters are governed by international oil/gas prices - When prices are high(extra revenue for companies involved more than cover exploiration costs) exploration is more intense. Nonsence about empty well's doen't wash given the long proven and exploited gas fields in the Celtic Sea/Georges channel and the Kinsale field which has been operation now for more than 30 years - long before the FF mafia sold us all out!!

PS - Why do you think Ireland and Britain have been is disagreement over the Rockall basin for so many years. Insiders in the industry know there are vast untapped reserves there. I know this for a fact as many ex- Stateoil people and rig workers have attended ShelltoSea rallies and made speech's highlighting these realities. Shell made 30 billion euros pure profit last year - exploration can't be that much of a drag on their resources!!

by Tired Too Thu Oct 05, 2006 17:01

Its simple, if the Government hadn't offered such a generous package NO oil company would countenance developing Irish potentials. It is no use comparing this country's situation with Norway's as, put purely and simply, the Irish Waters have a history of turning up empty wells resulting in large losses for any develepors and the Norwegian reservoirs have proven track records. In short the naive ones are those that take the simplistic view here, such as those with a socialist agenda. If it was not for the favourable incentives to explore there would be no oil and gas industry here, including Kinsale Head.

by schoolgoer - pers caps - AY Thu Oct 05, 2006 16:55

See you friday!

by cool j Thu Oct 05, 2006 15:21

I'd say providing nearly 300 gardai for the exclusive use of Shell at a cost of nealy 500,000 Euros payed for by the tax-payer more than a little extreme.

by tired Thu Oct 05, 2006 15:07

Actually, I missed that particular article ;o) Honestly, I'm not trying to be antagonistic but I just can't seem to understand the extreme ends of the arguement.

by cool j Thu Oct 05, 2006 14:49

I can't beleive there are still people out there that are so niave on the issue - You need to get your information on the realities of the Corrib Gas field from somewhere other than Kevin Myers thrashy rant in last Fridays Indo!!.

by tired Thu Oct 05, 2006 14:06

the Government for agreeing to such a deal in the first place? Shell wouldn't be doing their business very well if they exploited the field for free now would they?

by Shane - Shell to Sea Thu Oct 05, 2006 13:51

We can purchase 27% of the gas at market rates, we get no royalties and the tax terms are so generous shell will probably never have to pay any. We might as well be importing it because this certainly isn't self-sufficency.

by tired Thu Oct 05, 2006 13:45

Is there ever going to be an end to this bickering? I can't see the arguement anymore. Pipeline rerouting fine, raised awareness fine but technology has moved on so much to make a subsea development, not only the most financially viable, but also the SAFEST! Isn't that the point? The benefits to the west are unquestionable, not just in the short term but the long term too. The Corrib field will provide 60% of Irish gas demand. With 90% of the demand currently being imported - what is the problem with having and exploiting our own energy source? If nothing else, it is self sufficient. Am I wrong?

by Arise Thu Oct 05, 2006 13:20

A great success all round. The energy behind the action was great. Hope everyone turns out again on Friday.

by Paul O'Donnell Thu Oct 05, 2006 13:08

Good actions in Dublin, Cork and Galway. Come on Limerick, Waterford, etc. (Belfast ?) don't let us down!

by cool j Thu Oct 05, 2006 12:14

Best wishes from Erris to our Dublin friends, we are increadibly gratefull for your support - The photos were a sight for sore eyes!!

by Terry - Shell to Sea Thu Oct 05, 2006 12:08

More photos...

Irate Manager

The Garda

Removing Bollards

Garda for hire...

....cheap rates for multinational oil companies