Shell to Sea disrupt Community Protest

PomBear

Steyr wrote: »

Yup totally Innocent..........:pac:

The European Court of Human Rights would beg to differ from your sarcasm

schween

Steyr wrote: »

:pac::pac::pac:
http://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/17902

Farrell gets a visit from the Fuzz
Galway Advertiser, October 15, 2009.
GAAW accuses Gardaí of ‘harassment’
By Kernan Andrews

Niall Farrell, the spokesperson for the Galway Alliance Against War group has accused the Garda of “harassment” following two plain clothed detectives calling to his home last weekend.

Last Saturday at approximately 5pm two plain clothed garda detectives called at the home of Mr Farrell. He was not at home at the time. It appears the gardaí wanted to speak with him about a phone conversation he had with a member of the Aviation Authority four months ago at the time of the appearance of the RAF’s Red Arrows in Galway.

Responding to the Garda visit to his home Niall Farrell stated: “The irony is stunning: In the same week President Obama gets the Nobel Peace Prize, even though in his first seven days in office he sanctioned two air strikes in Pakistan that killed 22 people including women and children, and I get a visit to my home by two detectives because of my activities as an anti-war activist.”

Mr Farrell alleged that the “unannounced visit” to his home by the gardaí was “nothing other than harassment”.

Less than two weeks ago Mr Farrell was told by a uniformed garda sergeant investigating the death threats made against him that the investigation was at an end.

“The gardaí are in possession of the number that made the three threatening calls, the phone is registered to a bogus name and address,” he said. “The gardaí could not establish where the calls were made from or where the phone, that is still in use, was to be located because the telephone company Vodafone have failed to reply to the sergeant’s requests!”

Mr Farrell has now contacted the Garda Ombudsman regarding the Garda call to his home.

:pac::pac::pac:
Last time i checked AGS dont really need to tell you they are coming Niall...What a tool.

Niall Farrell is a media whore.

Also why does the Advertiser devote so much space to GAAW, Shell to Sea, Margaretta D'Arcy and the likes? Is it because they are sympathetic to their causes or just that they're a crap paper with nothing much else to do? The City Tribune doesn't give them near as much attention.

Robbo

schween wrote: »

Niall Farrell is a media whore.

Also why does the Advertiser devote so much space to GAAW, Shell to Sea, Margaretta D'Arcy and the likes? Is it because they are sympathetic to their causes or just that they're a crap paper with nothing much else to do? The City Tribune doesn't give them near as much attention.

It's easier than being proper journalists. Just reprint press releases verbatim, sometimes even with the original spelling and grammar mistakes intact.

asahi

Bord Pleanala rejected Shell's scheme today and told them to go back to the drawing board.

asahi

Fuinseog wrote: »

you cannot reason with shell to sea. these militant hippies should batoned out of existence. they are against teh government and state, zet are not above taking welfare cheques. do any of them actually work?

And yet today the Shell to Sea protesters were proved to be right, and you are just a sad little man fulminating on the internet. Sad.

Sponge Bob

Apart from the fact that Shell to sea are indisputably a bunch of sociopathic nutters they always had justifiable concerns about the onshore pipeline through Rossport .

Most trunk gas pipelines are pressurised at 50-80 bar of pressure , the Rossport pipeline was supposed to be 340bar and in a concession shell have reduced this to 140bar .

Here is a report on pipeline explosions in the US in the range 50-70 bars

http://www.epa.ie/downloads/shell/thirdpartysubmissions/oral%20hearing%20subm.%20no.%2028d%28ii%29%20ed%20collins%20wikipedia%20entry%20ed.pdf

This was a particular comment made at the ABP hearing by a retired irish Army Bomb Disposal expert , Commandant Boyle.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0528/1224247592713.html

Comdt Boyle said that many recent pipeline accidents had occurred with pressure loads of 70 bar – half that proposed for the Corrib gas onshore pipeline.

He cited as an example the July 2004 explosion in Ghislenghien, Belgium, in which 24 people died and more than 120 people were injured. Most of those killed were police and firefighters responding to reports of a gas leak, operated by Fkuxys, a pipeline operator owned by Royal Dutch Shell.

Explosions caused by released fuel mixed with air had a multiple factor, Comdt Boyle said. The Ghislenghien explosion was equivalent to 41 tonnes of TNT and similar to the impact of smaller tactical nuclear weapons.

He said that a separation distance of at least 500 metres from dwellings would be more appropriate than that currently proposed. The new pipeline route has a 140-metre separation distance from dwellings – twice that proposed for the original pipeline route.

Here is a similar explosion aftermath in the USA from last year, the Appomattox blast

http://www.appomattoxnews.com/2008/photos-from-appomattox-gas-line-explosion.html

a selection here too ,including aerial photos.

http://www2.newsadvance.com/lna/news/appomattox-pipeline-explosion/

and a report from Homeland Security explaining how the blasted scorched area has a diameter of 1100 Feet ( 400m) or a radius of 200m .

then there was one in Germany pressurised at 100 bar , have a look

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW_bWtNBmoU

Frankly they will have to split one offshore pipe into 4 different onshore pipes and maintain 100m of separation from houses, minimum as well as 30m separation from each other, underground .

However I still can't stand listening them and their general screechy ****e

big b

asahi wrote: »

Bord Pleanala rejected Shell's scheme today and told them to go back to the drawing board.

asahi wrote: »

And yet today the Shell to Sea protesters were proved to be right, and you are just a sad little man fulminating on the internet. Sad.

hmmm RTE reports this on their website:

Decision on Corrib pipeline deferred
Tuesday, 3 November 2009 15:15
An Bord Pleanála has deferred making a final decision on the controversial Corrib gas pipeline in Co Mayo - and has asked Shell Ireland to address concerns it has about its safety.

The 9km onshore pipeline is designed to link the offshore gas field with the multi-million euro refinery which is being built at Bellanaboy.

An Bord Pleanála says the documentation provided by Shell does not present a complete, transparent and adequate demonstration that the pipeline does not pose an unacceptable risk to the public.

AdvertisementIt says part of the route - approximately 5.6km - is considered unacceptable because of its proximity to dwelling houses located within its hazard range should a pipeline failure occur.

The board has now written to Shell asking it to consider a series of modification which it considers necessary.

It says that, in principle, having regard to the strategic importance of the Corrib gas field, it was provisionally the view of the board that it would be appropriate to approve the onshore pipeline should the alterations it suggests be made.

It has now invited Shell to submit new proposals on the route of the pipeline; to provide further clarification on the technical design of the pipe and it is also seeking a new statement on Shell's risk assessment analysis on the pipeline.

Reacting to the decision, John Monaghan, Spokesperson for Pobal Chill Chomáin, said they were not surprised by the decision and were disappointed that An Bord Pleanála did not turn down the application altogether.

Shell to Sea campaigner Maura Harrington said: 'If over half the pipeline is unacceptable from a Health and Safety perspective it means that the project it has failed under the criteria for sustainable development and good planning.

'It proves it would be a pipeline to profits for Shell and poverty for the country. So it's time to renegotiate everything,' she added

---

Decision deferred
make modifications & we'll pass it


not exactly "rejected"
and since ABP have not told Shell to build an offshore platform...not exactly "the protestors were proved right" either.

You don't think such obvious misquoting & misinterpretation does your cause more harm than good?

Prolonged planning permissions aren't exactly unusual in the oil business, and they're certainly not exclusive to Shell.
I would expect Shell will play the game by re-siting some of the pipeline, quelling the fears of the people who actually live there.
But keep hating multi-nationals from under the misleading "Shell to Sea" banner. The rest of us can see right through it.

PopeBuckfastXVI

asahi wrote: »

And yet today the Shell to Sea protesters were proved to be right, and you are just a sad little man fulminating on the internet. Sad.

Hi asahi, as you're a new user I'll just give you a friendly heads up that insulting other members of the forum isn't really acceptable. Please play nicely

/moderation

PomBear

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Hi asahi, as you're a new user I'll just give you a friendly heads up that insulting other members of the forum isn't really acceptable. Please play nicely

/moderation

Fuinseog came in with just as nasty a comment imo

PopeBuckfastXVI

PomBear wrote: »

Fuinseog came in with just as nasty a comment imo

Please use the 'Report Post' button located to the left of a problematic post to bring it to the attention of moderators.

/moderation

lmtduffy

big b wrote: »

hmmm RTE reports this on their website:

Decision on Corrib pipeline deferred
Tuesday, 3 November 2009 15:15
An Bord Pleanála has deferred making a final decision on the controversial Corrib gas pipeline in Co Mayo - and has asked Shell Ireland to address concerns it has about its safety.

The 9km onshore pipeline is designed to link the offshore gas field with the multi-million euro refinery which is being built at Bellanaboy.

An Bord Pleanála says the documentation provided by Shell does not present a complete, transparent and adequate demonstration that the pipeline does not pose an unacceptable risk to the public.

AdvertisementIt says part of the route - approximately 5.6km - is considered unacceptable because of its proximity to dwelling houses located within its hazard range should a pipeline failure occur.

The board has now written to Shell asking it to consider a series of modification which it considers necessary.

It says that, in principle, having regard to the strategic importance of the Corrib gas field, it was provisionally the view of the board that it would be appropriate to approve the onshore pipeline should the alterations it suggests be made.

It has now invited Shell to submit new proposals on the route of the pipeline; to provide further clarification on the technical design of the pipe and it is also seeking a new statement on Shell's risk assessment analysis on the pipeline.

Reacting to the decision, John Monaghan, Spokesperson for Pobal Chill Chomáin, said they were not surprised by the decision and were disappointed that An Bord Pleanála did not turn down the application altogether.

Shell to Sea campaigner Maura Harrington said: 'If over half the pipeline is unacceptable from a Health and Safety perspective it means that the project it has failed under the criteria for sustainable development and good planning.

'It proves it would be a pipeline to profits for Shell and poverty for the country. So it's time to renegotiate everything,' she added

---

Decision deferred
make modifications & we'll pass it


not exactly "rejected"
and since ABP have not told Shell to build an offshore platform...not exactly "the protestors were proved right" either.

You don't think such obvious misquoting & misinterpretation does your cause more harm than good?

Prolonged planning permissions aren't exactly unusual in the oil business, and they're certainly not exclusive to Shell.
I would expect Shell will play the game by re-siting some of the pipeline, quelling the fears of the people who actually live there.
But keep hating multi-nationals from under the misleading "Shell to Sea" banner. The rest of us can see right through it.

I think shell not having a problem with building an unusually high pressured gas line, closer than best practice would allow says a lot.

Their original plan was designed with profit not safety in mind.

I disagree with the methods of the shell to sea group, but this proves there general point that shell are more concerned with profit and not the people living beside the pipeline.

Now Id hope that all this would have come to light with out all the drama the shell to sea group has caused.

But what is more worrying is that people have brushed the valid concerns of shell to sea under the rug due to their own prejudice.

MPB

Shell to Sea and the Rossport 5 are about one thing. MONEY! and not getting enough of it. The Rossport area is a community divided and not unlike NI during the troubles. Using that as an example only to capture the split in the community and the hatred and fear that is now in the area amongst neighbours and one time friends. The people in this area who support the project are now in receipt of vigilante type attacks, threatening phone calls and all sorts. RTE did a documentary on it during the year and of course when put to Shell to Sea about these type of incidents they denied everything. Did anyone really expect them to admit to it???

Where this all went wrong was at the very start when Shell first approached people affected by the pipeline and from what I understand didnt approach the people in this area in the correct way so there was hostility there from the start which has been fueled and fueled by the many others that jumped on the bandwagon over time.

High pressure gas pipe lines are not a new invention. They are to be found throughout the world and have been tried and tested for many many years now.

This project should go ahead. Mayo is not a county that boasts many industries and this is the first major investment on any grand scale ever seen in the county. This has great potential for employment and the country needs this project. Not alone for the gas but for a revenue generating industry which might (if Europe don't take over) help get this economy back on track.

PomBear

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Please use the 'Report Post' button located to the left of a problematic post to bring it to the attention of moderators.

/moderation

I apologise, it was more of comment than looking to punish the guy

lmtduffy

MPB wrote: »

Shell to Sea and the Rossport 5 are about one thing. MONEY! and not getting enough of it. The Rossport area is a community divided and not unlike NI during the troubles. Using that as an example only to capture the split in the community and the hatred and fear that is now in the area amongst neighbours and one time friends. The people in this area who support the project are now in receipt of vigilante type attacks, threatening phone calls and all sorts. RTE did a documentary on it during the year and of course when put to Shell to Sea about these type of incidents they denied everything. Did anyone really expect them to admit to it???

So how do you see rossport 5 or shell to sea making money from this?

Where this all went wrong was at the very start when Shell first approached people affected by the pipeline and from what I understand didnt approach the people in this area in the correct way so there was hostility there from the start which has been fueled and fueled by the many others that jumped on the bandwagon over time.

They wanted to build a pipeline that board pleanala has decided is unsafe, its a bit more than bad first impressions.

High pressure gas pipe lines are not a new invention. They are to be found throughout the world and have been tried and tested for many many years now.

This one is not like the many others, and is considered unsafe, which is why shell has been denied permission to build it.

This project should go ahead. Mayo is not a county that boasts many industries and this is the first major investment on any grand scale ever seen in the county. This has great potential for employment and the country needs this project. Not alone for the gas but for a revenue generating industry which might (if Europe don't take over) help get this economy back on track.

It should go ahead safely.
We dont get much of the gas.

And who is Europe and when are they planning on taking over?

Carraig

Apropos the OP - I was there and the Tommy Flaherty version is completely accurate. The Shell to Sea crowd really did attempt to hijack the Communities Against Cuts protest and to provoke the Guards.
Attractive people - the Shell to Sea crowd: militant crusties and semi-retired Shinners looking for a revolution/cause/something to object to/someone to get thick with.
SWP were there too but relatively quiet. Didn't spot Niall Farrell of GAAW but he may have been there or may have been off stopping war in Darfur... or not.

Sponge Bob

MPB wrote: »

High pressure gas pipe lines are not a new invention. They are to be found throughout the world and have been tried and tested for many many years now.

Christ on a bike

The original proposal was for a 340 or 350 bar pipeline through Rossport which is about 4 times higher than most major pipelines that travel across western europe .

This was an ULTRA high pressure pipeline not a high pressure pipeline which typically carries 50-80 bar of pressure .

Shell were forced to drop it to 140 bar which was what the Bomb Squard officer was describing in his evidence . Now ABP have told them to think again . The pipeline from Mayo south to Galway will be 85 bar rated not 145 bar rated and the gas will not be completely odourless as it will be between the processing terminal and the sea.

Shell claim they will only run 100 bar max thru the 140 bar rated pipe

This is what a sub 10 bar explosion looks like ( source)




At the bottom of this page you see what an 80 bar explosion looks like , this is one of those photos and this is the slightly below the scale of explosion described to An Bord Pleanála as shell intend to have a bit more pressure than this pipeline carried , maybe 25% more.





There are two solutions for 140 bar or 100 bar ..whatever .

1. Move it much further away form humans than planned by shell
2. Split it into 4 x 25 bar pipes which can go near enough peoples homes or 3 x 40 which would be the safest solution but that would involve a greater land take as each pipe must also be separated from the other .

This is a simple engineering solution , one that should have been offered years ago by shell .

youtheman

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Christ on a bike

There are two solutions for 140 bar or 100 bar ..whatever .

1. Move it much further away form humans than planned by shell
2. Split it into 4 x 25 bar pipes which can go near enough peoples homes or 3 x 40 which would be the safest solution but that would involve a greater land take as each pipe must also be separated from the other .

This is a simple engineering solution , one that should have been offered years ago by shell .

Holy 5hit, I nearly choked on my Wheatbix when I read this. You can split a 100 bar pipeline into 4 x 25 bars ?. I'm afraid you've a lot to learn before you can spout on about pipelines.

Sponge Bob

Either tell us what you are on about or do carry on with your weetabix

the_syco

PomBear wrote: »

Attack the cause not the people

Then why are those f**king hippies attacking those who are working at Shell? Why are those f**king scumbags who are not from the area nearby the Shell plant attacking the locals who work at Shell?

=-=

I have no problems with someone launching either a legal arguement against the company, or a legal arguement against the safty issue.

S2S did neither. They attacked the people working at the plant. They also caused people to lose any interest in the safety issue, as S2S just jumped around in front of the camera, and attacked the people working at the plant.

=-=

How does splitting the pipes up cause less pressure? Instead of one big pipe with 100 bar, surely splitting them up will mean you now have several pipes with 100 bar?

lmtduffy wrote: »

We dont get much of the gas.

At the moment, all the gas is pumped from Scotland. The pipes under the sea must be maintained. If the gas came from Mayo, I'd say it would be a lot cheaper.

youtheman

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Either tell us what you are on about or do carry on with your weetabix

I don't have to tell you what I'm on about. But you clearly don't have a clue what you're on about. Your assertion that you can split a 100 bar pipeline into 4 x 25 bar pipelines goes against simple simple laws of physics (not my laws, by the way).

Sponge Bob

Is th'oul weetabix still getting in the way of an explanation ??

youtheman

You obviously don't get it. You come on here, and to be fair to you, you were making some valid points. Then you went 'off the rails' when you started talking about splitting a 100 bar pipeline into 4 x 25 bar pipeline. It would be like someone talking about splitting a 220 volt power line into 4 x 55 volt lines just to avoid the risk from the high voltage. It simply doesn't work like that.

RealityCheck

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Is th'oul weetabix still getting in the way of an explanation ??

I think the point he is trying to make is that 4 x 25 bar is not the same as a 100 bar pipeline. The quatities of gas being brought ashore from either will not be the same, as adding pressures in parallel pipelines does not equal the pressure in an equivilant 1 pipeline. Its just basic hydraulic and physics.

Sponge Bob

youtheman wrote: »

It simply doesn't work like that.

Again the ould weetabix is getting between you and explaining anything . Simly saying NO all the time is a shell to sea grade argument .

Either explain pressure reduction principles or let the weetabix finish the job , thx.

youtheman

O.K. Let me give me 'spiel' on pressure.

Pressure is an engineering parameter, admittedly one of the most important parameters when designing a pipeline. But it is catered for in the pipeline design.

Did anyone 'object' when Airbus decided to design and build the A380. Did anyone object when they decided to build the Petronas Twin Towers (I suppose the answer is 'yes'), but the point I'm trying to make is that most reasonable people just let the engineers get on with the design.

Back to pressure. Two great things about pressure are :
1. the pipeline is hydrotested to 1.5 times the design pressure. You can't do this with a new bridge, or tunnel, or sky-scraper. So you are guaranteed that it can take the pressure. I've never heard of a case where a pipeline operator has had to go back and modify a pipeline because it couldn't take the pressure.

2. the actual operating pressure of the pipeline declines the minute you start to deplete the reservoir. So over time the 'safety margin' actually increases.

I know for a fact that the Corrib pipeline has a greater wall thickness than the basis design requires. So there is even more of a safety margin built in.

So my argument is that rabbiting on about 'pressure' is an absolute 'red-herring'.

Sponge Bob

It is not a red herring at all , absent any control valve / pressure control between the wellhead assembly and the teminal in Bellinaboy there is no way to stop 70 linear miles of high pressure gas escaping if there is a rupture .

The Appomattox rupture ( pictures attached earlier in this thread) occured in a pipeline that had been subjected to due engineering design considerations and then **** me if it didn't explode one day anyway .

Even assuming that some clown with a digger does not cause the rupture it is proposed to run some of the onshore pipeline to the terminal through unstable bog terrain which can heave and slip and cause lateral pressures leading to a rupture .

The onshore pipeline basically does not have enough engineering safety built in , they should go off and do it properly , it is only 5 miles long and is insignificant in the overall scheme of things . Then again this company wanted a 340 bar pipeline in the first place and had to be worked on strongly to reduce that pressure in the first place.

Splitting into multiple lower pressure pipelines reduces the safety distance margins from humans and from each other pipe in a wider potential corridor and introduces a control valve mechanism near on on shore that can shut down rapidly in case of rupture .

You are correct in saying the internal pressure will reduce over time and is predicted to noticeably drop within only a few years as the field is depleted ...but that means you assume they will not find any further fields 'out there' to tie back to the Corrib field and thereby increase that pressure again .

I am perplexed as to how they will pig condensate buildup from the pipe given its length and the fact that it is all underwater out there . Absent pigging the diameter will reduce from condensate buildup but will not do so evenly leading to internal strains at unpredictable locations .

Maybe someone can help with this perplexing query because otherwise it means that the diameter of teh pipe will reduce with the reservoir pressure ....but not necessarily the pipeline pressure .

youtheman

You continue on with the 'red herrings'.

You put up some lovely picture of a pipeline failure, and when I googled it I came up with the following 'explanation'.

"Outside corrosion caused the rupture and subsequent explosion in September of a natural gas pipeline just north of the town of Appomattox."

So there was nothing wrong with the pipeline design, it was a maintenence issue. Bit like putting up a picture of a car crash and blaming the car manufacturer.

You also mention "Absent pigging the diameter will reduce from condensate buildup but will not do so evenly leading to internal strains at unpredictable locations ". Again, I don't know where you are getting your information from. But to assert that a build up of condensate WILL LEAD TO INTERNAL STRAINS is (again) simply incorrect.

biko

I can totally understand why people living in the locality protest something that could possibly kill them without warning.
List of gas line incidents

Feel free to debate the hazards of the line or the OP (cutbacks protest which was hijacked by Shell to Sea) but no more calling the protesters hippies, scumbags, sociopaths etcetera. They are people with real concerns and you should address the concerns, not trying to smear them.

Also, keep GAAW out of this mess. No need to try to get a dig in there too.

Sponge Bob

youtheman wrote: »

"Outside corrosion caused the rupture and subsequent explosion in September of a natural gas pipeline just north of the town of Appomattox."

So how do you inspect the OUTSIDE of a pipe buried in a bog then , pray tell ???

You also mention "Absent pigging the diameter will reduce from condensate buildup but will not do so evenly leading to internal strains at unpredictable locations ". Again, I don't know where you are getting your information from. But to assert that a build up of condensate WILL LEAD TO INTERNAL STRAINS is (again) simply incorrect.

If the effective diameter is reduced at a location from internal crud buildup then the pressure will increase at that location ...which is SIMPLY CORRECT . An increase of pressure is an internal strain .

Your arguments are highly circular I fear.

youtheman

Question : So how do you inspect the OUTSIDE of a pipe buried in a bog then , pray tell ???


Answer : It's very simple, you can use an intelligent pig which will give you a 100% inspection, including internal and external corrosion. BGE have being doing this for years.

You also monitor the fluid being produced to confirm that there is no internal corrosion mechanism present. And you also measure the Cathodic Protection on the external wall of the pipeline to make sure that's still working. So you can guarantee that there is no corrosion present in the pipeline.

You'd swear that all these 'scenarios' were never present in a pipeline before. This is all standard, in thousands of miles of pipelines running throughout the world (and, by the way, we've had gas pipelines running throughout Ireland since the late 1970's).