Rossport protestors get nasty.....

Aidric

mfitzy wrote: »

There was a story on RTE news there on this. Something about Shell moving part of a pipeline. One of the Shell to Sea loopers was going on about how a pipeline could still explode and "give a fair rap" or something to that effect :rolleyes:.

Ha, saw that, He said there would be a fair rap, then he stuttered for a few moments, before adding the word wallop, in case anyone was in any doubt as to the likely noise from a gas explosion.
His clinical analysis almost turned me.

road_high

Sleipnir wrote: »

I'm not defending Shell To Sea, I'm just responding to mFitzy's post about a "fair rap:rolleyes:" i.e.
I was showing that one of these explosions would indeed be a "fair rap"

I wouldn't care if the houses of some of these "protestors" were actually in the pipe.

Don't do your :rolleyes: to my post please. I was just repeating the Shell to Sea guys turn of phrase, that's what he said.

Sleipnir

mfitzy wrote: »

Don't do your :rolleyes: to my post please. I was just repeating the Shell to Sea guys turn of phrase, that's what he said.

I only put it in cos you did!

Ciaran500

Sleipnir wrote: »

I'm not defending Shell To Sea

It was a real question :pac:

Aidric

I've just seen a promo for a Paul Williams special investigation in to the Rossport protestors, to be screened next Tuesday at nine. This could be wrong on so many levels. A despicable bunch of goons being investigated by an even bigger one.

Aidric

Aidric wrote: »

I've just seen a promo for a Paul Williams special investigation in to the Rossport protestors, to be screened next Tuesday at nine. This could be wrong on so many levels. A despicable bunch of goons being investigated by an even bigger one.

Spike Milligan would be proud! :pac:

Riamfada

Aidric wrote: »

I've just seen a promo for a Paul Williams special investigation in to the Rossport protestors, to be screened next Tuesday at nine. This could be wrong on so many levels. A despicable bunch of goons being investigated by an even bigger one.

Lots of epic shots of the landscape and Enya no doubt backed up by unsubstanciated protestor myths and half truths.

General Zod

Grimes wrote: »

Lots of epic shots of Paul williams

Fixed that for you.

MayoForSam

Latest developments: http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0611/mayo.html

On the radio this morning, apparently 4 masked men in balaclavas had boarded the Iona Isle and forced the 2 occupants to make the distress call before forcing them on to the life raft :rolleyes: and then sinking the fishing vessel.

Those pesky men in the black masks are at it again it seems. I reckon Jason Bourne must be involved at this stage. Probably got a ride on that French nuclear sub looking for the Airbus black box in the Atlantic.

mike65

Feels like a cunning S2S stitch up.

AnonoBoy

mike65 wrote: »

Feels like a cunning S2S stitch up.

Not a word I'd use to apply to them but yeah - funny how the Shell 2 Sea lads know exactly what happened on board, no?

I wouldn't trust those f*cks anymore than I'd trust Shell.

Hydrosylator

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Not a word I'd use to apply to them but yeah - funny how the Shell 2 Sea lads know exactly what happened on board, no?

I wouldn't trust those f*cks anymore than I'd trust Shell.

One of the lads on the boat is a local fisherman, and part of Shell to Sea.
Meaning that "Shell to Sea lads" where there when it happened.

How is that hard to understand?

nacho libre

i'm not an apologist for shell, given their track record in developed countries, but given the scrutiny they're under it's hard to believe they'd engage in something like this.

Riamfada

Poor fishing and high fuel costs. Insurance claim FTW

Reason: Sinking due to corporate pesky Ninja Pirate attack

Hydrosylator

nacho libre wrote: »

i'm not an apologist for shell, given their track record in developed countries, but given the scrutiny they're under it's hard to believe they'd engage in something like this.

As a supporter of the Shell to Sea campaign, I agree.

Shell wouldn't do that.
They wouldn't instruct anyone else to do it either.
However, they might tell someone else to take care of the problem, and pay them lots of money, and not ask any questions.

If a company like IRMS orchestrated this to help meet goals defined by Shell, Shell can deny all knowledge. However, laws do exist to circumvent such "plausible deniability" shleevene behavior.

mickydoomsux

Wait, people actually support these Shell 2 Sea idiots?

The economy is in the ****ter and this could provide jobs but a load of jobless hippies, anarchists and mis-informed local idiots are still blocking it. I hope the area gets hit incredibly badly by the recession because of this.

Borneo Fnctn

The whole thing amuses me. I think the protesters are morons and they'd give it a rest if they knew what was good for them. I've no love for Shell either. They've done very bad things in the past. It's like watching two dickheads slugging away at each other. Keep it up I say. I like laughing at youtube videos of the slack jawed numpties.

Hydrosylator

Ronan Wilson wrote: »

Seriously. Don't take my word for it guys. Look at the film yourself on YouTube. Search for Willie Corduff... and witness the strangest beating ever filmed. And if you're against Shell and Corrib... fine. But it should not mean you support these looneys. You'd be mad to, and someone will get killed if they're encouraged.

So at the start of the day, the gardai gave him a baitin' under the truck in the hope that he'd seek medical assistance, and come out from under it to do so. That takes away from your argument surely.

I like the way the (garda?) cameraman gets fascinated by the tires of the truck every time anything important happens.

The way I read it, the gardaí gave him a light baitin during the daytime to see if that would would work and it didn't.

So the IRMS gentlemen waited until nightfall when the gardaí were mysteriously absent, and gave him a heavy baitin.

The question has been raised "Why isn't he bringing a case forward if he was attacked?"
According to the Guardian article

He has photos that show him lying in hospital, swollen and bruised, and says he is preparing evidence with a lawyer before he approaches the police.

PrivateEye

I think its incredible Shell proceeded with construction before being given permission to bring the gas on-shore. That says so much about the relationship between them and our government.

When you consider Ray Burke was actually DONE for corruption, and Bertie has serious question marks around his name now, its insane to allow this all to go ahead under the terms agreed on Burkes watch.

I like the way the (garda?) cameraman gets fascinated by the tires of the truck every time anything important happens.

Filmed by the security company I believe. They uploaded a few videos onto Youtube. Still, better than taking pictures of themselves in their underpants holding assault riffles

The Guardians video-report draws on the Mike Dwyer issue, something I think the Irish media has by and large let slip (in relation to his Shell connections) The guy comes across as a fringe, dangerous right-wing lunatic and the fact they employed people like that as security in my opinion only backs up the claims of local people that the security men are out of order.

He has photos that show him lying in hospital, swollen and bruised, and says he is preparing evidence with a lawyer before he approaches the police.

He shows his bruising in the video.

Hydrosylator

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Wait, people actually support these Shell 2 Sea idiots?
The economy is in the ****ter and this could provide jobs but a load of jobless hippies, anarchists and mis-informed local idiots are still blocking it. I hope the area gets hit incredibly badly by the recession because of this.

You forgot farmers and fishermen, which is what the leaders of the protest actually are. This whole "hippies and anarchists" line I keep hearing is wildly skewed.

Processing the gas at sea, like it's always been done, would provide just as many jobs. Maybe more, as there would be an extra level of logistics.

Though this is a side-topic, with reference to the economy it's worth noting when discussing this project that Shell are paying 0% royalites on the gas they hope to extract. The state has a 0% stake in the gas find (pre Ray Burke this was 50%).

There is 25% corporate tax on the project, but this is cost-deductible up to 100%.

JimmyCrackCorn!

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Wait, people actually support these Shell 2 Sea idiots?

The economy is in the ****ter and this could provide jobs but a load of jobless hippies, anarchists and mis-informed local idiots are still blocking it. I hope the area gets hit incredibly badly by the recession because of this.

Yes
Republican Sinn fein, Echo nutters, Those opposed to everything and live in the past.

Bunch of nutters who have cost the country millions and have nothing better to be doing.

If they had a valid mandate(other than a self appointed one) they would have put someone forward in the local elections and asked the people what they actually wanted.

Quint

JimmyCrackCorn! wrote: »

Yes
If they had a valid mandate(other than a self appointed one) they would have put someone forward in the local elections and asked the people what they actually wanted.

If they did, they wouldn't get in. You need support to get voted in, and as far as I know, a massive percentage of people in that area are against the campaigners. So they continue their "peaceful" protest. Like driving a car down the road into Gardaí because it's their "right" to drive on a public road. Nutbags!

AnonoBoy

Hydrosylator wrote: »

One of the lads on the boat is a local fisherman, and part of Shell to Sea.
Meaning that "Shell to Sea lads" where there when it happened.

How is that hard to understand?

But the guys on the boat are for some strange reason refusing to make a statement to Gardai. And no other boat was seen by law enforcement on their way out to rescue the fishermen.

Odd that don't you think?

brundle

Hydrosylator wrote: »

You forgot farmers and fishermen, which is what the leaders of the protest actually are. This whole "hippies and anarchists" line I keep hearing is wildly skewed.

Processing the gas at sea, like it's always been done, would provide just as many jobs. Maybe more, as there would be an extra level of logistics.

Though this is a side-topic, with reference to the economy it's worth noting when discussing this project that Shell are paying 0% royalites on the gas they hope to extract. The state has a 0% stake in the gas find (pre Ray Burke this was 50%).

There is 25% corporate tax on the project, but this is cost-deductible up to 100%.

It is 95% hippies there at the minute. I live locally. The genuine few locals who reasonably had concerns at the beginning have now accepted this project and many are working on it now.
You have hartnet there (not local) who would die for the cause but cried when the possibility of a week in jail was put to him.
The fishermen have reached agreement also and have accepted compensation apart from Mr O Donnell and his family. He is holding out for the motherload of compo. Its interesting also that he was at sea today in his worst boat which he rarely uses. Take from that what you will. He also had a life raft which would be unusual for the fishermen here. They dont even carry life jackets Farmers who are affected by the works are heavily compensated and now appear happy.
Maura Harrington and her clowns are on there own now and have Zero local backing.
I saw M Harrington arrive at court last wednesday. No parking available, Solicitors, gardai, council staff, general public milling around looking for a space. Didnt bother Ms Harrington. Stick the pile of sh1te up on the council lawn. Job done. Next arrival, Mr Hartnet with his hippie van spouting diesel fumes out the back, drives it up over the kerb and parks behind harrington on the lawn. They own the county now you know.
Who are the farmers leading the protest? Good old willie is it? He doesnt have any land, Oh sorry, he has 6 acres of commonage that he fenced in and claimed as his own. I dont think we can call him a farmer. This also tells us why willie is against this project because not being a landowner, he wont get a penny from shell and so is jealous of his neighbour. Willie did get an award for his bravery though and received 100k which he promised to share/put into the campaign. He didnt get around to handing over a penny yet though.

murfie

Hydrosylator wrote: »

You forgot farmers and fishermen, which is what the leaders of the protest actually are. This whole "hippies and anarchists" line I keep hearing is wildly skewed.

Processing the gas at sea, like it's always been done, would provide just as many jobs. Maybe more, as there would be an extra level of logistics.

Though this is a side-topic, with reference to the economy it's worth noting when discussing this project that Shell are paying 0% royalites on the gas they hope to extract. The state has a 0% stake in the gas find (pre Ray Burke this was 50%).

There is 25% corporate tax on the project, but this is cost-deductible up to 100%.

Processing the gas at sea would be alot more dangerous, just because its the industry standard up till now doesn't mean its the best way of doing it for the location on the corrib gas field. Jobs would in fact go to Galway as they have the port large enough to handle the extra logistics. The area of belmullet would still be the black economic hole it is.

I have not read that this corporate tax will be cost deductible to 100%, do you know this for fact?

Getting back to the topic, this disregard for the law has to stop. The people of Mayo want the gas in their county but these idiots seem determined to hurt or even kill someone before they stop protesting.

nacho libre

Hydrosylator wrote: »

As a supporter of the Shell to Sea campaign, I agree.

Shell wouldn't do that.
They wouldn't instruct anyone else to do it either.
However, they might tell someone else to take care of the problem, and pay them lots of money, and not ask any questions.

If a company like IRMS orchestrated this to help meet goals defined by Shell, Shell can deny all knowledge. However, laws do exist to circumvent such "plausible deniability" shleevene behavior.

well, given the owners of IRMS are former army rangers it's certainly plausible they, and other ex-army people working for their company, would be adept at orchestrating covert operations on behalf of someone else, who didn't want to be implicated. however, if it was uncovered that IRMS were behind this incident it would be obvious, despite Shell's denials to the contrary, on who's behalf IRMS were doing it. i really doubt given the adverse publicity from such dodgy tactics Shell would risk paying anyone to sink a boat for them.

it's most likely a set-up by some Shell to sea people in order to bring about further negative publicity for Shell. bear in mind if 100 people listen to a speech about peaceful protest in pursuance of an aim, while they may respect the orator, not everyone listening will share the same view as him/her on how to advance their goals. another words for some individuals the end justifies the means, therefore they'll do anything to realise it, even if there is not a broad consensus within the group for such action.

prinz

Grimes wrote: »

Poor fishing and high fuel costs. Insurance claim FTW

Reason: Sinking due to corporate pesky Ninja Pirate attack

They refused to make a statement to the Gardaí so unlikely any insurance company will entertain any claim now. Good enough for them.

All smacks too much of the Greenpeace Rainbow Warrior job in New Zealand. The 'commando' style attack, sinking the boat.. etc.
Pretty clear it was a diversionary tactic to draw the Garda Naval Unit away from the Shell barge long enough to allow the S2S kayakers board it.


Forget to mention hearing one of the 'protestors' on the radio the other day, knew him immediately from college days as a constant complainer and protestor, jumping every bandwagon cause going. He has no connection whatsoever to Rossport. By his own admission he's still a student and couldn't think of a better way to spend the summer.

Hydrosylator

brundle wrote: »

It is 95% hippies there at the minute. I live locally. The genuine few locals who reasonably had concerns at the beginning have now accepted this project and many are working on it now.
You have hartnet there (not local) who would die for the cause but cried when the possibility of a week in jail was put to him.
The fishermen have reached agreement also and have accepted compensation apart from Mr O Donnell and his family. He is holding out for the motherload of compo. Its interesting also that he was at sea today in his worst boat which he rarely uses. Take from that what you will. He also had a life raft which would be unusual for the fishermen here. They dont even carry life jackets Farmers who are affected by the works are heavily compensated and now appear happy.
Maura Harrington and her clowns are on there own now and have Zero local backing.
I saw M Harrington arrive at court last wednesday. No parking available, Solicitors, gardai, council staff, general public milling around looking for a space. Didnt bother Ms Harrington. Stick the pile of sh1te up on the council lawn. Job done. Next arrival, Mr Hartnet with his hippie van spouting diesel fumes out the back, drives it up over the kerb and parks behind harrington on the lawn. They own the county now you know.
Who are the farmers leading the protest? Good old willie is it? He doesnt have any land, Oh sorry, he has 6 acres of commonage that he fenced in and claimed as his own. I dont think we can call him a farmer. This also tells us why willie is against this project because not being a landowner, he wont get a penny from shell and so is jealous of his neighbour. Willie did get an award for his bravery though and received 100k which he promised to share/put into the campaign. He didnt get around to handing over a penny yet though.

I haven't been out there myself (though I have no objection to the attendance of others) so all I have to go on is footage I've seen, including garda footage. It looks to me like the majority of those involved are from Mayo, and they don't look a bit like hippies or anarchists. I could pick out a few people who might fit the latter description but they seem to be a minority. It's fair to say that a protest in opposition to something an oil company are doing would attract a few activists, but the reality is that Shell to Sea have been very careful to not allow their campaign become distorted by politics, left, right or indifferent.

I can't take your word for it about O Donnell's boat, or how many fishermen locally are for or against it. Do you have any evidence?

Given the animosity between them, I find it very hard to believe that the Gardaí wouldn't have been down on them like a ton of bricks if they'd parked illegally, so I can't take that parking story seriously.

As for how much land Willie Corduff has, that's the first I've heard of him only having 6 acres. I haven't been on his farm but I looked at the video here and I hate to be the one to tell you, that's a farm, he's a farmer. I know because I live on a farm. You're full of ****.

More than half the land needed for the pipeline, according to the same webpage, is owned by protestors. On that basis, it can be categorically stated that the majority of those whose land is directly affected by the pipeline are against it.
I haven't seen anything anywhere saying what he did with the money, are you his bank manager or Shell to Sea's accountant that you know so much about it? He has solicitor's bills to pay for work related to the campaign. I'd say he's using it to pay bills like that for him and others. If he had kept the money for himself, the other campaigners would surely have disassociated from him.

Hydrosylator

AnonoBoy wrote: »

But the guys on the boat are for some strange reason refusing to make a statement to Gardai. And no other boat was seen by law enforcement on their way out to rescue the fishermen.

Odd that don't you think?

No I don't think it's odd. It's normal for anybody in a protest where they're opposed by the gardaí. You don't go to the station and say "this happened" and expect them to be nice to you, you go away and put a case together.

Willie Corduff still hasn't officially reported the assault on him, as he's putting a case together. There's video and photos online of his bruises, and they were more than just booboos. Guardian article with video . Along with his solicitor they're putting the best case together that they can, as it's probably very difficult to prosecute someone when you can't identify your assailants.

Paul O Donnell would be wise to do the same.

We only have the word of the gardaí that there were no other boats in the area. Their statement about Willie Corduff was notably misinformative, why would it be any different for Paul O Donnell?

Hydrosylator

prinz wrote: »

They refused to make a statement to the Gardaí so unlikely any insurance company will entertain any claim now. Good enough for them.

It's not a vehicle collision on the M50 roundabout. And why is it good enough for them? Do you think it's ok to take away a man's livelihood? I ****ing don't.

prinz

Hydrosylator wrote: »

No I don't think it's odd. It's normal for anybody in a protest where they're opposed by the gardaí. You don't go to the station and say "this happened" and expect them to be nice to you,

It doesn't matter if they are nice to you or not. Make a statement and it is a legal record.

What they are afraid of is being found out and having charges of making a false statement brought against them.

Hydrosylator wrote: »

We only have the word of the gardaí that there were no other boats in the area.

Suppose the lifeboat crew and coastguard helicopter crew are in on the conspiracy too?

They were arrested at around 4am.
Earlier, two men were rescued from a life raft in the sea off Co Mayo after their fishing vessel sank.
When their vessel, 'Iona Isle', began sinking, the two men got into their raft and issued a Mayday call to the Malin Head Coastguard at 4.30am.
Malin Head Coastguard received the call at the same time that 15 kayaks were moving towards the Shell dredger within 1km of the shoreline at Glengaad beach.
Two boats from the Garda Water Unit were dealing with this incident at the time the distress signal was received. The boats diverted and went in search of the sinking vessel.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0611/mayo.html

do they normally go kayaking at 4.30 am? What a huge coincidence.

Deliberate ploy to get the GWU away from the dredger, how thick do they think the rest of us are??

prinz

Hydrosylator wrote: »

It's not a vehicle collision on the M50 roundabout. And why is it good enough for them? Do you think it's ok to take away a man's livelihood? I ****ing don't.

You obviously have no clue how insurance companies work. I do. :pac:

Hydrosylator

murfie wrote: »

Processing the gas at sea would be alot more dangerous, just because its the industry standard up till now doesn't mean its the best way of doing it for the location on the corrib gas field. Jobs would in fact go to Galway as they have the port large enough to handle the extra logistics. The area of belmullet would still be the black economic hole it is.

I have not read that this corporate tax will be cost deductible to 100%, do you know this for fact?

Getting back to the topic, this disregard for the law has to stop. The people of Mayo want the gas in their county but these idiots seem determined to hurt or even kill someone before they stop protesting.

It's more dangerous for employees, less dangerous for the public. Nobody is forced to work on a rig. In fact, they get very well paid, because of the risk.

It'd be good if everybody could respect the law and that was enough to make everything nice, but it's not the reality. Sometimes people have to get their hands dirty. The biggest danger in the protest is the danger presented to the protestors by the private security firm, IRMS. The gardaí don't treat them with kid gloves either, but they're not as bad.

I'm having difficulty finding the government documents relating to the 100% tax write-off for costs. I have discovered that this detail was introudced by Bobby Molloy in 1992.
Here's an oireachtas paper from 2006.
It was an amendment proposed by ten TD's to change back from the up-to-100% write-off . I'm sorry that it's an .rtf, but our government don't really do informational websites. I'll edit in the original document if I can find it.

brundle

Hydrosylator wrote: »

I haven't been out there myself (though I have no objection to the attendance of others) so all I have to go on is footage I've seen, including garda footage. It looks to me like the majority of those involved are from Mayo, and they don't look a bit like hippies or anarchists. I could pick out a few people who might fit the latter description but they seem to be a minority. It's fair to say that a protest in opposition to something an oil company are doing would attract a few activists, but the reality is that Shell to Sea have been very careful to not allow their campaign become distorted by politics, left, right or indifferent.

I can't take your word for it about O Donnell's boat, or how many fishermen locally are for or against it. Do you have any evidence?

Given the animosity between them, I find it very hard to believe that the Gardaí wouldn't have been down on them like a ton of bricks if they'd parked illegally, so I can't take that parking story seriously.

As for how much land Willie Corduff has, that's the first I've heard of him only having 6 acres. I haven't been on his farm but I looked at the video here and I hate to be the one to tell you, that's a farm, he's a farmer. I know because I live on a farm. You're full of ****.

More than half the land needed for the pipeline, according to the same webpage, is owned by protestors. On that basis, it can be categorically stated that the majority of those whose land is directly affected by the pipeline are against it.
I haven't seen anything anywhere saying what he did with the money, are you his bank manager or Shell to Sea's accountant that you know so much about it? He has solicitor's bills to pay for work related to the campaign. I'd say he's using it to pay bills like that for him and others. If he had kept the money for himself, the other campaigners would surely have disassociated from him.

I never said anything about how many fishermen were for or against. They all took the stance as a group (which was the smart thing to do) that they needed compensation for disruption to there work. They then agreed settlement as a group but "chief compo fake surgical collar" O Donnell or his family didnt play ball. The fishermen may be for or against but they have agreed to this now and that is my point. Do some actual research other than indymedia and you will get a true indication of the state of play here.
In relation to my parking story, its 100% true but gardai seem to let her away with murder. Her car even has 2 missing wing mirrors and looks a disgrace.
I watched the video. I saw willie is a shed with about 6 cows? I live on a farm too. I saw willie's bog where they would cut turf. The area where turf is cut would be commonage. Part of that which he claimed no doubt. Didnt see any actual land. I saw some panning shots of the landscape and one clip of some sheep in a field. I will stick by my 6 acres comment. Many farmers here would only have 5 to 20 acres so its not unusual. Its just that it doesnt help the situation for big willie.
As I said earlier, farmers & locals would have been against it early on. there has been much comprimise since with many local farmers now working on the terminal. No doubt more than half would have been against it to start with. Id be surprised if 100% werent seeing as they would be trying to get as good a settlement as possible. Now however settlement has been reached with most if not all concerned farmers so the number of local farmers out there proptesting is minimal.
In relation to what he did with the money, well, did you hear Rossport 5 mentioned anywhere lately? I doubt it. They have more or less completely disb

Hydrosylator

prinz wrote: »

It doesn't matter if they are nice to you or not. Make a statement and it is a legal record.

What they are afraid of is being found out and having charges of making a false statement brought against them.

Suppose the lifeboat crew and coastguard helicopter crew are in on the conspiracy too?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0611/mayo.html

do they normally go kayaking at 4.30 am? What a huge coincidence.

Deliberate ploy to get the GWU away from the dredger, how thick do they think the rest of us are??

You don't have to make a statement the same day as an incident. It looks better if you do though, I know that.

The first vessel to reach them wasn't Coast Guard or Helicopter, it was the Rachel Mary, which is probably a fishing boat itself. If there were captors involved, they would have had plenty of time to get away. According to RTE, they were in the raft when they made the distress call. That was at 0430. On a dark atlantic ocean, there's lots of time to get away unseen.

I'm aware that protest activity was happening at the same time. The Iona Isle may even have been involved in the same activity, but none of that proves that they scuppered the boat themselves. If they had, it would have been incredibly stupid.

If they had reported a fire on the boat, from the same location at the same time, it would have had the exact same effect as reporting a sinking vessel. If they wanted to make a diversion, that is all they would have had to do.

The fact that you think he sank his own fishing boat when a hoaxed distress call would have had the exact same diversionary value makes me wonder about you.

brundle

Hydrosylator wrote: »

The first vessel to reach them wasn't Coast Guard or Helicopter, it was the Rachel Mary, which is probably a fishing boat itself. .

Guess what.... Rachel Mary is a fishing boat. It is owned by "Chief" Pat O Donnell or his brother. (Surprise surprise) I mean he is not quite stupid enough to jump into a little dingy in the wild seas without certain rescue now is he?
As I said earlier, this sunk boat was his worst one which rarely goes to sea and there may well be good economic reasons to make it a total loss.
You are right about 100% capital right off but there will be plenty opportunity to get some better terms with every new development once the gas starts to flow

prinz

Mr O’Donnell claimed four masked men boarded the vessel at about 2am.

Two were armed and held Mr O’Donnell and his crewman Martin McDonnell in the wheelhouse of the boat while another two went below deck for 20 minutes, it is alleged.

He said the men then returned to the deck and the two crew members were held for one and a half hours until the engine went out.

After the alleged captors made their escape, Mr O’Donnell said he went down to the engine room, discovered the vessel was sinking and sent a mayday call.

The Coast Guard station in Malin Head said it received a mayday from the ship at 4.39am and immediately alerted local vessels in the area.

The trawler Rachel Mary – also owned by Mr O’Donnell and operated by his son Jonathan – went to the aid of the stricken ship.

Read more: http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/shell-denies-involvement-in-trawler-sinking-414485.html#ixzz0I4idJwRc&C

So four masked men with broken english, board a trawler, stay on board for 2+ hours, then "make good their escape" - I suppose he has no idea how, just vanished presumably. They didn't do a great job of sinking it really did they? Took an awful long time.

Funny how as has been reported it sank on the proposed route of the pipeline as it comes to shore? That coincidence aswell?

prinz

Hydrosylator wrote: »

If they had reported a fire on the boat, from the same location at the same time, it would have had the exact same effect as reporting a sinking vessel. If they wanted to make a diversion, that is all they would have had to do.

It wouldn't have the same effect would it? A trawler taking on water doesn't quite catch the headlines like an off-shore commando attack by four men in the middle of the night *hint hint shell were behind this hint*

Also the fact that the boat sank has the effect of removing virtually all physical evidence.

Hydrosylator

prinz wrote: »

Read more: http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/shell-denies-involvement-in-trawler-sinking-414485.html#ixzz0I4idJwRc&C

So four masked men with broken english, board a trawler, stay on board for 2+ hours, then "make good their escape" - I suppose he has no idea how, just vanished presumably. They didn't do a great job of sinking it really did they? Took an awful long time.

Funny how as has been reported it sank on the proposed route of the pipeline as it comes to shore? That coincidence aswell?

Just saying, I don't automatically believe whatever Paul O Donnell says, simply because he wants Shell to do the whole gas thing offshore. However this is an internet forum, and it's a rule that everything has to be argued, which is why I'm still here.

It's entirely possible that he sank his own boat, but that doesn't mean I can't attack arguments if I see a hole in them.

They said that they didn't see what kind of vessel they left it in.
They wouldn't have stuck their head out to see exactly what they it was, probably a boat. Boats, in case you're wondering, are the number 1 water-based transport around. If there was armed men on it, you'd not let your curiosity get the better of you. So the fact that they can't identify any vessel isn't proof that there was no vessel.

The boat sank, so whoever did it did a very good job of sinking it. The time taken to do it, if was masked invaders, could have been as much about intimidation as anything else.

The problem with this case, for me, is how unprovable it is, one way or the other. If the boat was taken out of the water tomorrow, all that could be shown is if there was any evidence of sabotage. There would be no way to prove who did it.

Others have referred to the fact that his son was nearby in another boat. That's not suspicious in and of itself. Do fishing boats belonging to the same family not fish near each other when they're out? For safety?

Like you say yourself, the sinking of the boat removes most of the physical evidence.
If it was a hoax by Paul O Donnell, there's probably no way it could be proven that he did it.
If it was an act of sabotage by somebody hired by Shell, there's probably no way it could be proven that they did it either.

Think of how unbeleivable you find it, the masked men story. Wouldn't that make it a fantastic thing to do for someone like IRMS? You hear the story, you think, that's a pile of ****, he's lying. Lots of people will have that reaction.

If it was O Donnell himself, it was lunacy.
If it was lads working for Shell, it was genius. Evil genius, but still genius.

Quint

Hydrosylator wrote: »

It's not a vehicle collision on the M50 roundabout. And why is it good enough for them? Do you think it's ok to take away a man's livelihood? I ****ing don't.

If you mean by compulsory purchase order of a common land that someone has 6 sheep on (rent free I'm guessing) in a completely legal fashion then yes! This is providing hundreds of jobs in a part of the country that needs it badly and is a multi million pound contract and this guy Willy wants a few quid compo to fcuk off.

Quint

Hydrosylator wrote: »

More than half the land needed for the pipeline, according to the same webpage, is owned by protestors. On that basis, it can be categorically stated that the majority of those whose land is directly affected by the pipeline are against it.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/supporters-of-pipeline-were-harassed-and-photographed-90313.html

The proposed route for the 9km pipeline from Rossport to the gas refinery in Bellanaboy would cross over the lands of 34 people. The report said that 28 landowners had already granted permission and had received compensation but that six had refused

Hydrosylator

Quint wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/supporters-of-pipeline-were-harassed-and-photographed-90313.html

It's still true in relation to Rossport, which is where I'm talking about. Rossport is the most populous area the pipeline goes through, which is why it's the source of so much contention.

The same report referred to in the article you linked proposes that an alternative route for the gas should be used. This hasn't been done.

I live near the Bord Gáis transport and storage pipeline, which runs West to East across the country. It's buried deep under the ground, and the route avoids peoples houses. I regard it as a safe pipeline. I regard Shell's pipeline as unnecessarily risky.

Cassell's report also states that the majority of people would support the Corrib project as long as it was done safely. Safely in this context could betaken to mean that risks to the population are minimised. This isn't being done. If it was being done, there would be no protest, and no Shell to Sea campaign.

Quint

Hydrosylator wrote: »

The same report referred to in the article you linked proposes that an alternative route for the gas should be used. This hasn't been done.


Cassell's report also states that the majority of people would support the Corrib project as long as it was done safely. Safely in this context could betaken to mean that risks to the population are minimised. This isn't being done. If it was being done, there would be no protest, and no Shell to Sea campaign.

It says it should be redirect, not because it's dangerous, but just to make the protesters feel safer. And even still, our friend Willie said that's not good enough.

murfie

Hydrosylator wrote: »

I live near the Bord Gáis transport and storage pipeline, which runs West to East across the country. It's buried deep under the ground, and the route avoids peoples houses. I regard it as a safe pipeline. I regard Shell's pipeline as unnecessarily risky.
.

Why would you consider a pipe built possibly over 20 years ago by Bord Gais safer than a modern day pipe thats been built to more recent codes, ie making it safer. Also built by a company that has thousands of miles of pipe all over the world, so they have a little bit of experience in this. The fact is saying the pipe in unsafe is nonsense, I work in the gas and oil industry and stress test pipe, trust me I would be way more worried about that Bord Gais pipe, its running for many years and with who knows what maintenance, leak, corrosion prevention history at the same operating pressures! but hey you seem to know better.

Hydrosylator

murfie wrote: »

Why would you consider a pipe built possibly over 20 years ago by Bord Gais safer than a modern day pipe thats been built to more recent codes, ie making it safer. Also built by a company that has thousands of miles of pipe all over the world, so they have a little bit of experience in this. The fact is saying the pipe in unsafe is nonsense, I work in the gas and oil industry and stress test pipe, trust me I would be way more worried about that Bord Gais pipe, its running for many years and with who knows what maintenance, leak, corrosion prevention history at the same operating pressures! but hey you seem to know better.

You must be thinking of a different pipe. I'm talking about this one . So in this context, yes, I do know better.

I'm aware that Shell have built lots of pipes. Thanks for the scoop.
Tell me this, if you're a pipeline expert. Is it safer to live near a gas pipeline or far away from it? What would your personal preference be?

What, in your experience, would an over-ground gas pipeline do the value of a property through which it runs? Do people like the idea of living near them?

Hydrosylator

Quint wrote: »

It says it should be redirect, not because it's dangerous, but just to make the protesters feel safer. And even still, our friend Willie said that's not good enough.

And since when have Shell been acting at the behest of Willie Corduff? If they are you should tell him, it'd certainly make his life easier.

That aside, it wouldn't just make the locals feel safer, it would make them be safer. I understand that Shell have some of the most sophisticated technology in the world for this stuff. It's the human error that always causes the problems though. True for gas, true for nuclear, true for everything.

Where there's a pipeline, there's a risk of the pipeline exploding. Saying there's no risk of anything going wrong is just "I can see the future" bull****.

murfie

Hydrosylator wrote: »

I'm aware that Shell have built lots of pipes. Thanks for the scoop.
Tell me this, if you're a pipeline expert. Is it safer to live near a gas pipeline or far away from it? What would your personal preference be?

What, in your experience, would an over-ground gas pipeline do the value of a property through which it runs? Do people like the idea of living near them?

That's put me in my place, well done sir!

I see your point, obviously I wouldn't want to live on top of a high pressure gas line, i live in Texas so I actually do live in close proximity to them. But the main point still stands that this pipe will be safe, there is added risk alright but that same argument you make could be used to stop improving roads lets say. Improved roads, cars go at higher speeds, more chance of being killed if in a crash. Is that a legitimate argument to make against the improving of our road network? Should it be listened yes but safety features are put in place to reduce risk.
I say that Shell are going to operate the safest pipeline in their inventory as they know the eyes of the world, well at least ireland/europe are watching this one! That improved safety or focus has to be credited to the protesting in the beginning but these people that are against it now are just full time activists and the corrib line is their cause this week, they will have a different one next week. They don't listen to reason and don't care about the locals that actually live there, they just need a reason to protest against "the capitalist machine" or "Big business".

Quint

There's plenty of dangerous things that people have to live beside. Gas pipelines, oil pipelines, train lines, power stations, power lines, air traffic routes, train lines, esb substations, dumps, motorways, certain factories etc etc etc.
As long as they're built away from homes in the acceptable distances in accordance with the law it's fine.

And since when have Shell been acting at the behest of Willie Corduff?

Who said they were? Willie is completly against the whole Shell contract. Unless they give him a few hundred grand compensation, then all of a sudden the "dangers" of the gas pipeline will dissapear.

Lazare

Shell 2 sea 2 sea imo

brundle

I see the chief is on mat cooper show this evening talking about his experience. I really hope this is investigated and him found out to be a dirty rotten liar because knowing the history here locally, his history, the benefits of this sinking to the s2s cause by introducing the element of doubt about shell among some people, I am certain he did it himself.

Its like this.

benefits to S2S and chief O Donnell:

Insurance pay out for old boat which rarely if ever went to sea and was worthless.
National exposure for the chief and S2S and there heroic crusade
Removal of gardai from normal patrol to rescue O Donnell so that Kayak attack could go ahead unhindered
Plant the seed of doubt in some peoples mind about shell and what they might be capable of.

They have now walked out of bord pleanala hearing requesting that it is put on hold and also removed themselves from forum trying to bring both sides together. This is all classic stalling tactics.
I really hope they are questioned thoroughly and if found out to have sunk it themselves, the book must be thrown at them.

Benefit to Shell: ??

Also he is now refusing to make a statement to gardai or persue this afaik.
Gardai failed to see any trace of the pirates when going to rescue the sinking boat.
His other boat happened to be nearby to rescue him.
He happened to have a lifeboat on board. This is not done on any of the fishing boats here usually.