Shell meets Boards.ie - a protest? (naive rant herewithin)

RE*AC*TOR

Earthman wrote:

And You'll note that egan was banned before whippet arrived with his outburst.
I respectively suggest that you use the report the post function.

i realised that someone probably reported him - i wasn't suggesting for someone to take action and ban him - moreso to point out to whippet that he wasn't doing himself any favours.
i would have used the report post function had I desired.

Moriarty

Boggle wrote:

Tell that to anyone who's ever been murdered(not that they'll care anymore), raped, assaulted....

.. and what happens when there is contempt of court in those murder, rape and assault trials which means the guilty go free?

'Oh.'

Contempt of court strikes to the very centre of law and order in society. Without it we may aswell give up the pretence of society, let everyone arm themselves and do as they please, with whatever happens as a result being fine and dandy.

bonkey

Earthman wrote:

Incidently Bonkey do you know if its a compulsary purchase order that they used or a compulsary way-leave? There is a significant difference.

I got it here Earthman, and its a copy of an Irish newspaper article apparently.

It says Compulsary Purchse Order (about the third article or so...I used / to search with Firefox so I'm not sure) so I assumed it to be correct. In hindsight, I wouldn't be entirely confident of the media to make the distinction were it a way-leave now that you point it out.

jc

Blackjack

anyone know exactly how many jobs will this create locally (I've heard 8) once this whole thing is built?.
I do know for a fact that the persons involved in the building of this are all external, not local. I also know from my Uncle who is an Engineer, that the stink from inland refining plants of this kind is horrendous. I don't really buy the notion that this could not have been done offshore.

Is there any independent source of info on all of this?. I don't find indymedia to be a credible source, and I certainly would not trust Shell's propoganda on it either.

seedot

I don't find indymedia to be a credible source, and I certainly would not trust Shell's propoganda on it either.

Indymedia has been following this for a while

http://www.indymedia.ie/index.php?region=mayo

and while it is not unbiased, it shows that this campaign has been involved in court battles since March and have used Dail questions and all the other apparatus suggested here. One of the key issues seems to be that the pipeline wil be built before the issue is settled in the court - and even before the minister Noel Dempsey has an opportunity to rule whether it is safe or not.

Of course, since it's Indymedia that covers the story we also have the conspiracy theorists in full flight - apparently it's all a cover for secret oil finds that were made years ago ;-). But the core story is covered in full there including a fairly good media blog and court reports.

Villain

Earthman wrote:

Incidently Bonkey do you know if its a compulsary purchase order that they used or a compulsary way-leave? There is a significant difference.
The latter has been used by BGE for the Gas pipeline from Cork to Dublin and down to Arklow.The difference being with a way leave once the pipe is put in(which is compulsary) it is buried several feet under the ground and the land is given back to the owner.

I understand it may be compulsary way-leave, but I can't confirm that, however I also understand that the majority of land in question is recalimed bog-land so once Shell start digging their 40 foot (approx) trenches that piece of land won't be much good to these farmers for a long long time.

However I don't believe it's money that has resulted in these men protesting, they are genuinely concerned for the health and safety of their families, even Shell had stated "They have genuine concerns that have to be addressed".

RE*AC*TOR

Picked this up on the radio this morning....
Ray Burke had private meetings with the oil companies against the wishes of the senior staff in the department at the time he negotiated this deal for them.

RE*AC*TOR

From the Irish Times, Friday June 26th 1998

Enterprise Oil and SIPTU in row over rig manning


A row has broken out between the exploration company Enterprise Oil and the trade union SIPTU over who will man the company's rig, which is due to operate on a gas discovery 30 miles off Achill.

SIPTU claims the company is "by-passing Irish-based workers" by not hiring them to work on the rig. However, the company says the rig is coming from Scotland and has all the employees it needs.

Mr John McGolderick, general manager of Enterprise Oil in the Republic, said the rates of pay demanded by SIPTU workers are "too high". SIPTU rejects this and says it is "penny pinching at its worst where foreign crews are being brought in to undermine local workers and conditions".

SIPTU claims there is an agreement in the oil industry that if a rig works in Irish waters Irish workers will be used. But Enterprise Oil says it will have to lay off the workers currently employed on the rig, if forced to employ the SIPTU members.


From the Irish Times, Monday July 13th 1998

Efforts to resolve oil rigs dispute to continue
By LORNA SIGGINS, Marine Correspondent

The Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources, Dr Woods, has expressed "disappointment" at the failure of efforts to resolve the dispute between Enterprise Oil and SIPTU over crewing on offshore oil rigs. However, he has said that these efforts will continue.

Officials from the Minister's Department, and the Department of Enterprise and Employment, will be in contact this week with a view to setting up separate discussions involving both parties, the Minister has said.

The dispute arose after Enterprise Oil's refusal to employ SIPTU workers on its exploration rig located off the Mayo coast. It also said it would have no option but to pull out of a servicing arrangement in Foynes which is said to be worth £2 million.

SIPTU says that the company is breaking a 29-year-old labour agreement between the unions and exploration companies in Ireland.

Last week, Enterprise Oil turned down an invitation from the Minister to attend the Labour Relations Commission.

It said that its rig off Mayo was already fully crewed by EU nationals to whom it had contractual obligations. SIPTU has called for the company's licence to be cancelled. However, the Minister has said that he cannot impose employment conditions under European law on the free movement of labour.

landser

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

Picked this up on the radio this morning....
Ray Burke had private meetings with the oil companies against the wishes of the senior staff in the department at the time he negotiated this deal for them.

when?
what "oil companies"?
what "department"?
what deal?

Obviously you now believe that there must be a conspiracy afoot, involving the courts, the government, shell, mayo county council, 28 of the 34 farmers whose land was compulsarily acquired and the presence of burke in the equation is the icicng on the conspiracy fed paranoid cake.

please elaborate on your banner headline and what the significance of same is, in your opinion

toiletduck

landser wrote:

28 of the 34 farmers whose land was compulsarily acquired

this is what i found puzzling, it was barely mentioned on the news last night that 28 of the landowners seem to have no problems with it. Reading on the net yesterday, you would think everyone was against it.

SparkyLarks

Should the men have been Jailed, yes. The judge asked them togive an undertaking not to break the law. They refused and were jailed.

The other concers are
Shell's profit
Health and safety
Environmental

How much does the state get from marathon for the gas in Kinsale??
But Marahon sells the gas to Bord Gais at a set price. BG a state company then sells this gas at a big margin. There by making money for the state.

Safety.
Is it not better to have the danger on land where the pipeline can be cordoned off which would keep epeopal safe rather than having the pressure reducing station at sea wher if ther was an explosian the workers would surely be killed.
That said does anyone know the risk of explosion??

Environmental.
This is an underground pipe line which will have a small visulal impact.
It being underground will aslo help contain any explosion.
However would the environmental impact of a lower pressure pipline be any less

Villain

toiletduck wrote:

this is what i found puzzling, it was barely mentioned on the news last night that 28 of the landowners seem to have no problems with it. Reading on the net yesterday, you would think everyone was against it.

Just because the other 28 farmers haven't been involved in a court case, doesn't mean they "have no problem" it also doesn't it mean they have a problem, so in fact it means nothing really.

toiletduck

irish1 wrote:

Just because the other 28 farmers haven't been involved in a court case, doesn't mean they "have no problem" it also doesn't it mean they have a problem, so in fact it means nothing really.

well, it said on the news last night that the 28 had received payment for the land, presumeably (sp?) if they had a problem with it, they wouln't have accepted the payment.

RE*AC*TOR

I see you are having difficulty with the word "compulsory". May I recomend dictionary.com

Tuars

toiletduck wrote:

this is what i found puzzling, it was barely mentioned on the news last night that 28 of the landowners seem to have no problems with it. Reading on the net yesterday, you would think everyone was against it.

From what I understand, the 28 who accepted will not have the pipeline running close to their houses. The ones that are protesting will have the pipeline running close to their houses.

There is mixed feeling about the pipeline in the area, there always has been and I think this has been reflected in the reporting. However, I don't think anyone in the area wants to see people going to jail over this. That's why those who support the pipeline are either calling for the men to be released or keeping their heads down.

On the issue of contempt of court, there is no question that the men should be jailed for contempt of court. What is questionable is the circumstances that brought about the conditions whereby they had no option but to be in contempt of court.

toiletduck

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

I see you are having difficulty with the word "compulsory". May I recomend dictionary.com

maybe you should look it up, seeing as how 6 of the landowners refused the "complusory purchase." Also the way it was put on the news was "Shell have come to an agreement with 28 of the landowners"

toiletduck

toiletduck wrote:

maybe you should look it up, seeing as how 6 of the landowners refused the "complusory purchase." Also the way it was put on the news was "Shell have come to an agreement with 28 of the landowners"

Shell have come to an agreement with the other 28 land owners.
However according to their local T.D Michael Ring on East Coast FM this morning, those in jail have houses right beside where the pipe line is.
It's untreated odourless gas pumped at a very high velocity.

Unlike in any other pipeline running near houses in the country , if theres a leak the householders will be dead without smelling anything.
This is the serious health and safety aspect that the house holders are worried about and which is not being addressed.
Given that circumstance, Shell should at least be offering to buy the houses and rehouse the people elsewhere(I've not heard that they have)

Furthermore Ring said this morning that the first report into the health and safety of the pipe line was paid for by Shell and therefore unacceptable.
The government had to commission a new independent one recently which they now have in front of them and they have not published it.
Thats fishy to say the least.

While I'm on the subject,I'm not happy at all that the proven corrupt politician Ray Burke had a hand in arranging the contract with Shell...

From RTE this morning the following has emerged:

Meanwhile, in a new twist in the Corrib gas terminal saga, it has emerged that Mayo County Council have served warning notices on Shell EP Ireland concerning alleged unauthorised development at the company depot in Rossport.

Following complaints from locals in the area, the council investigated the apparent unauthorised development of a septic tank like structure and served the notices on Shell and Roadbridge Limited yesterday.

The Director of Services at Mayo County Council, Joe Loftus, said he is now awaiting a response from the company and that the council is monitoring the Rossport site closely to ensure compliance with planning legislation and conditions.

Tuars

Earthman wrote:

Furthermore Ring said this morning that the first report into the health and safety of the pipe line was paid for by Shell and therefore unacceptable.

My understanding was that the government paid for the report but that the company that carried it out was 50% owned by Shell.

landser

irish1 wrote:

Just because the other 28 farmers haven't been involved in a court case, doesn't mean they "have no problem" it also doesn't it mean they have a problem, so in fact it means nothing really.

i see, so, and correct me if i'm wrong here, the fact that they accepted the CPO, didn;t protest, didn't try to block the sale, haven't come out in support of the "Mayo 5", haven't complained to the government, the council, the press, or sold their story to the National Enquirer, counts, in your opinion, for nought??

Villain

landser wrote:

i see, so, and correct me if i'm wrong here, the fact that they accepted the CPO, didn;t protest, didn't try to block the sale, haven't come out in support of the "Mayo 5", haven't complained to the government, the council, the press, or sold their story to the National Enquirer, counts, in your opinion, for nought??

How do you know

they accepted the CPO, didn;t protest, didn't try to block the sale, haven't come out in support of the "Mayo 5", haven't complained to the government, the council, the press, or sold their story to the National Enquirer

Because someone on the radio said so???

Ajnag

Earthman wrote:

Shell have come to an agreement with the other 28 land owners.
However according to their local T.D Michael Ring on East Coast FM this morning, those in jail have houses right beside where the pipe line is.
It's untreated odourless gas pumped at a very high velocity.

Unlike in any other pipeline running near houses in the country , if theres a leak the householders will be dead without smelling anything.
This is the serious health and safety aspect that the house holders are worried about and which is not being addressed.
Given that circumstance, Shell should at least be offering to buy the houses and rehouse the people elsewhere(I've not heard that they have)

Furthermore Ring said this morning that the first report into the health and safety of the pipe line was paid for by Shell and therefore unacceptable.
The government had to commission a new independent one recently which they now have in front of them and they have not published it.
Thats fishy to say the least.

While I'm on the subject,I'm not happy at all that the proven corrupt politician Ray Burke had a hand in arranging the contract with Shell...

From RTE this morning the following has emerged:

Here, Here.

Tbh, I see one thing here, and thats the Management of shell Ireland staking their career's in Shell international by delivering the pipeline and refinery at a saving.

Nothing wrong with that, only that they've backed themselves in to a corner without room to manouver a better settlement. By chosing the obstinate route to achieving their business aims, They are risking huge cost to Shell co. if the the project has to be abandoned and built offshore.

This is of course speculation on my part, but is indicative of the political effects seen in management.

The 5 men will no doubt have to purge their contempt at some point, however contempt can also be seen as a fair mechanism in law to express misgiving's and as a form of protest. Its been very sucessfull in bringing light to this case.

Now Im not a soliciter, but by curiosity If the grounds for the award of the injunction were shown to be unsafe would this also pardon the men?

bonkey

irish1 wrote:

How do you know

You don't seem to have answered this yourself either, with regards to pretty much any of the issues that you base your stance on.

You're looking at information, drawing inferences, and then suggesting that others are wrong to also do so.

You can't have it both ways.

Either others can validly make the same type of inferential leaps that you do, or by questioning them you're directly implying that your own arguments shouldn't have any credence attached to them either.

jc

MrPudding

landser wrote:

when?
what "oil companies"?
what "department"?
what deal?

Obviously you now believe that there must be a conspiracy afoot, involving the courts, the government, shell, mayo county council, 28 of the 34 farmers whose land was compulsarily acquired and the presence of burke in the equation is the icicng on the conspiracy fed paranoid cake.

please elaborate on your banner headline and what the significance of same is, in your opinion

Newstalk had a couple of people on this morning talking about this. It was very interesting.



Apparently there are memos showing that civil servants in the Ray Burkes department strongly advised him against private meeting with the companies involved. He ignored the advise. Shortly after this the deal was struck. It should be noted that the tax right off is not just for work on this field but any operations in the state. It should seem that the tax payer will actually be paying Shell.



They also had a guy on that was ( not any more) the head of exploration for Statoil (one of the companies involved in this development.) He says that what they are doing is most unusual. He says the plans to place the refinery 7 or 9 KM inland is unheard of and dangerous and is likely only being done for money saving reasons. Normally the refining would be done offshore or at the shore, this would mitigate an enormous amount of the risk as the refined gas is more stable, has an odour and can be transported at safer pressures.



They also said that Shell are carrying out work for which they have no permission.



There are questions that need to be asked here.



MrP

Villain

bonkey wrote:

You don't seem to have answered this yourself either, with regards to pretty much any of the issues that you base your stance on.

You're looking at information, drawing inferences, and then suggesting that others are wrong to also do so.

You can't have it both ways.

Either others can validly make the same type of inferential leaps that you do, or by questioning them you're directly implying that your own arguments shouldn't have any credence attached to them either.

jc

I've only stated my opinion going on what I know.

An attempt to secure the release of the five Co Mayo men jailed earlier this week for contempt of court will come before the High Court next Wednesday.

Solicitor Greg Casey is claiming that the ministerial consents for installation of the Corrib gas pipeline are invalid, and in those circumstances he asked for leave to apply to the court to discharge the court order made last April.

Today, three of the five men, brothers Philip and Vincent McGrath and Willie Corduff, agreed in the High Court not to obstruct a road leading to the gas terminal depot at Rossport.
Advertisement


The court dismissed proceedings against them on that ground; they were facing the prospect of a second jail sentence for contempt of court

They remain in jail for refusing to obey the terms of a separate order restraining obstruction of the construction of the pipeline passing through their own lands.

A crowd of family and supporters protested outside the Four Courts today, chanting 'Free the Rossport Five' as the three men arrived for the proceedings.

In court the three men represented themselves and were told by Mr Justice Finnegan they had three options.

They could submit on affidavit why they believed they were not in contempt, they could apologise to the court and undertake not to continue to breach the court order or they could take the consequences of their actions.

All three men denied they had blocked the road in recent weeks and agreed not to block the road in the future.

But the three men and two others, James P Philbin and Micheál Ó Seighin, remain in jail.

Mr Justice Finnegan allowed Mr Casey to bring the application to discharge the April order and he put the case down for mention next Wednesday.

He added that the bringing of the application to discharge the order could provide the circumstances where the five men could purge their contempt.

Otherwise, the President of the High Court remarked, they could remain in prison for a very long time.

IFA head to discuss row

The IFA President John Dillon is to visit the Rossport/Bellanaboy area this afternoon for discussion on the Corrib gas row with local farmers.

So far the IFA has made no comment on the dispute or the jailing of five local landowners and retired school teachers who are opposing the pipeline.

About 100 people are taking part in a second day of protest at the site.

The demonstrators are demanding that the terminal be located offshore and that preparatory work on the laying of a controversial gas pipeline to the terminal be halted.

They are also calling for the release of the five who are still in prison for contempt of a High Court Order.

Other demonstrations are planned for Castlebar, Bangor Erris and Belmullet this weekend.

(link from RTE)
It's strange that a high court could send people to prison and keep them there untill there is another hearing to discuss the new information and yet openly decide on the fact that this new information not only is suffecient to end new charges but that it is also likely to purge the contempt ie make the whole purpose of actioning the injuction null and void in the first place.

oscarBravo

Earthman wrote:

It's strange that a high court could send people to prison and keep them there untill there is another hearing to discuss the new information and yet openly decide on the fact that this new information not only is suffecient to end new charges but that it is also likely to purge the contempt ie make the whole purpose of actioning the injuction null and void in the first place.

Not really, no.

In a sense, you're making the same mistake of confusing the issue as to why the men are in jail: they're there because they refused to obey a court order. That's it - it's that simple. The reasons behind the court order, the history of why it was issued, the validity of the arguments that led to it - all these are irrelevant to the simple fact that a court issued an order, and some people decided to disobey it.

[edit: you're also misquoting the court: nowhere in the report you quote does it say that it's "likely" that the new information will purge the contempt; only that it "could".]

If a court is to have authority, it must unconditionally punish anyone who disobeys its orders

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote:

In a sense, you're making the same mistake of confusing the issue as to why the men are in jail: they're there because they refused to obey a court order. That's it - it's that simple.

I'm not actually.
I'm just curious as to why a judge would comment that the new information would be enough to purge the contempt(ie he realises that there was no grounds for the contempt ) and yet will wait untill wenesday before he can order a release.

landser

Earthman wrote:

(link from RTE)
It's strange that a high court could send people to prison and keep them there untill there is another hearing to discuss the new information and yet openly decide on the fact that this new information not only is suffecient to end new charges but that it is also likely to purge the contempt ie make the whole purpose of actioning the injuction null and void in the first place.

no, It does raise an issue though: he said if the order is discharged, then, presumably, the men could purge their contempt by apologising tio the court... new undertakings would not be necessary as there would be nothing ti interfere with as the minister's orders would be overturned and the pipelines not able to continue. he has kept them in jail as they are still in contempt and as the permissions for the pipelines still valid, and since they are refusing to give the undertakings, they have to remain there

oscarBravo

Earthman wrote:

I'm just curious as to why a judge would comment that the new information would be enough to purge the contempt(ie he realises that there was no grounds for the contempt ) and yet will wait untill wenesday before he can order a release.

He didn't comment thus, and he doesn't realise anything of the kind, according to the article you've quoted. He said that it might render the previous court order invalid, in which case the men can purge their contempt without changing their behaviour. Until such time, the court order is in place, and they are in contempt of it.

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote:

He didn't comment thus, and he doesn't realise anything of the kind, according to the article you've quoted. He said that it might render the previous court order invalid,

He did comment,he said that it could purge the contempt and that he will hear that case on wenesday.It's a simple enough matter, either the ministerial order was valid or not.I'd imagine he couldnt deliberate on that untill it comes up for mention ergo he had to say could and not would with respect to the related case of those in jail.But the direct implication of what he said was that if the ministerial order is invalid then it follows that the contempt would be purged.

If the judge discovers he had no legal basis for ordering those now jailed to comply with an order because the order was arising out of an invalid ministerial order-then the guys are released.
Why that has to wait untill wenesday leaving the current situation to fester is beyond me.
Judges aren't averse to having hearings in their own living rooms when the need arises to put actual criminals behind bars as opposed to leaving decent people concerned for their own health and safety behind bars when it isnt necessary-thats assuming that the judge agree's that the ministerial order is invalid.

landser wrote:

he said if the order is discharged, then, presumably, the men could purge their contempt by apologising tio the court...

He didnt mention that they would have to apoligise to the court in the instance where the ministerial order was found to be invalid ie in the case where the judge was directing an order that actualy had no proper legal basis in the first place
The apology applies to the current situation, ie the situation as it is now before the judge has ruled on whether the ministerial order is invalid.