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

Hotblack Desiato

Blackjack wrote:

Clutching at straws I see now, deflect the attention away from the issue. Any chance you might comment on Ray Burke's involvement with this?.

IMO it is those who keep playing up the Burke angle who are clutching at straws.

Ray Burke had nothing specifically to do with this pipeline.

What he did do (presumably with Government agreement at the time) some years ago was to implement a more generous tax regime for oil and gas exploration in Irish waters.

It appears the Government at the time was of the view that exploration in Irish waters was completely uneconomic given the chancy returns and the tax regime in place. There's no point looking for a big chunk of tax from oil and gas profits when nobody is drilling in Irish waters because it's uneconomic to do so.

Whether the tax deal done at the time (for all exploration companies, not just Shell by any means) was right or wrong is IMO another debate separate to this issue.

Shell obtained planning permission to construct the pipeline in accordance with the law; whether you agree with that or not, they are acting within the law and those obstructing them are acting outside the law. The planning process was the proper forum to raise health and safety issues. Are those who disagree with the decision now accusing An Bord Pleanala of corruption as well?

Blackjack

Cork wrote:

I think Adams could spend his time better if he could get the criminal IRA to disappear. It was only last week when the same IRA admited killing a 14 schoolgirl 30 years ago. Still he made TV 3 news.

What exactly have Sinn Fein or the IRA to do with this debate?. Stop sidetracking the issue.

Cork wrote:

The state has health and safety agencies and it does not rely on privately carried out reports.

There are both Irish and EU standards with regards to heath and safety.

Of course, but why then was the first report carried out by a consultancy firm owned 50% by Shell?.
There are EU standard with regards to Health and Safety, however there are no precedents with regards this particular construction, and the norm is for the refinement to be done offshore.

Blackjack

ninja900 wrote:

IMO it is those who keep playing up the Burke angle who are clutching at straws.

Ray Burke had nothing specifically to do with this pipeline.

Sinn fein have nothing to do with this at all, but Burke certainly did, in going against the advise of senior civil servants at the time an negotiating on his own. Now given his track record, what springs to mind as regards the type of negotiation that went on?.

ninja900 wrote:

Shell obtained planning permission to construct the pipeline in accordance with the law; whether you agree with that or not, they are acting within the law and those obstructing them are acting outside the law. The planning process was the proper forum to raise health and safety issues. Are those who disagree with the decision now accusing An Bord Pleanala of corruption as well?

Not yet the have not. [source- Today's Irish Times - subscription required for Internet access] They've received permission to outline the Pipeline, however Ministerial permission has yet to be granted for Installation.

Furthermore, (extracted from the above linked artilce) The Health and Safety Authority has no remit in relation to the pipeline, apart from the safety of construction workers employed on its laying. As a judicial review of the project, currently before the High Court, has heard, there has been no overall environmental assessment of the entire €900 million scheme.

As regards Bord Pleanàla's role in this, it would seem that their existence was under threat, and according to the article their hand was a little forced on the issue (see paragraph 11 of the article).

sceptre

Cork wrote:

I think Adams could spend his time better if he could get the criminal IRA to disappear. It was only last week when the same IRA admited killing a 14 schoolgirl 30 years ago. Still he made TV 3 news.

Do not do this again in an unrelated thread. You will not get another warning and the length of the ban will depend on a pair of dice being thrown and the fullness of the moon. I've better things to be doing than adjudicating the crap that potentially results from this. It's not just the raising of the issue, it's the fact that you appear to do it at every available opportunity. And you can discuss that with me by PM if you need to discuss it at all.

As for netwhizkid, if you want to run with the "X are traitors and blah blah" style of post you can do it outside in the kiddie pool. If you continue to attempt to troll like that with irrelevant rubbish, that's where you'll be posting. Discuss that with me in the same way as the poster above should the need arise.

Cork

Blackjack wrote:

There are EU standard with regards to Health and Safety, however there are no precedents with regards this particular construction, and the norm is for the refinement to be done offshore.

But inshore facilities are not uncommon.

Health and safety legalislation covers all aspects of citizens health and safety.


These people have legitimate fears and concerns that need to be addressed.

I think the health and safety authority, shell and others should go down to the area and hold public meetings.

Blackjack

Cork wrote:

But inshore facilities are not uncommon.

There are none in Europe, according the Minister, therefore no direct precedent.

Cork wrote:

Health and safety legalislation covers all aspects of citizens health and safety.

Apparently it has no remit over the pipeline, only over the safety of the workers during it's construction.

Cork wrote:

These people have legitimate fears and concerns that need to be addressed.

I think the health and safety authority, shell and others should go down to the area and hold public meetings.

So you now accept that it's not just NIMBYism?.

MrPudding

Cork wrote:

But inshore facilities are not uncommon.

The ex-head of Statoil's exploration division would beg to differ. When he was talking on the radio he said that, funny enough, for safety reason the refining would normally be carried out off-shore. On the odd occasions when this could not be done the facility would be on the shore, like on the beach. Not 7 KM inland with a pipe operating at up to 350bar running through a bog.

MrP

Cork

Blackjack wrote:

Apparently it has no remit over the pipeline, only over the safety of the workers during it's construction.

Come on, they have powers over all workplaces.

Now getting back to the point. Maybe these protestors have legitimate concerns - these concerns need prompt proper and full investigation.

But a lot of the media coverage has been poor with the concerns not been properly voiced.

I am no expert on pipes. Niether are our politicans. So, a public type enquiry is probably indeed warranted.

Blackjack

Cork wrote:

Come on, they have powers over all workplaces.

Once again, The Health and Safety Authority has no remit in relation to the pipeline, apart from the safety of construction workers employed on its laying.
What these people have issue with is the pipeline itself, not it's laying. They have concerns over leaks etc. The HSA have no remit over this, as the pipeline once laid is not a workplace.

Cork wrote:

Now getting back to the point. Maybe these protestors have legitimate concerns - these concerns need prompt proper and full investigation.

But a lot of the media coverage has been poor with the concerns not been properly voiced.

I am no expert on pipes. Niether are our politicans. So, a public type enquiry is probably indeed warranted.

So are you accepting that this is not NIMBYism?.

DublinWriter

MrPudding wrote:

The ex-head of Statoil's exploration division would beg to differ. When he was talking on the radio he said that, funny enough, for safety reason the refining would normally be carried out off-shore. On the odd occasions when this could not be done the facility would be on the shore, like on the beach. Not 7 KM inland with a pipe operating at up to 350bar running through a bog.

True, he mentioned that the average oil pipeline runs at 70bar. The pipeline Shell want to build runs at five times that pressure and this facility will be almost unique in the world.

Shell *could* build an off-short facility to perform the initial refining stages, but this would cost them many millions more than was is currently being proposed.

I think we should return back to the initial point of this thread - how do we protest effectively against this. The rights and wrongs of this case should be discussed in a seperate thread if required and not be used for cheap political point scoring.

Boycotting Shell is all well and good, but it has to be a visible boycott. I'd suggest that some talented graphic designer here design something we could tape up in the back window of our cars.

Moriarty

Uhm, where are people getting the 350bar figure? The head of shell was on radio 1 last week and he said the max pressure in any part of the pipeline was going to be ~100bar iirc. Board Gais run their main distribution network at ~75bar.

So, links/sources anyone that is repeating the 350bar figure?

Blackjack

Moriarty wrote:

Uhm, where are people getting the 350bar figure? The head of shell was on radio 1 last week and he said the max pressure in any part of the pipeline was going to be ~100bar iirc. Board Gais run their main distribution network at ~75bar.

So, links/sources anyone that is repeating the 350bar figure?

I've left out the Indymedia links:

Green Party comment

Western People Article

and also Shell's own website

bonkey

Yeah...that Shell link shows that the 350 figure is misinterpretation:

The Corrib onshore pipeline - designed for a pressure of 345 Bar - will initially operate at just below 150 Bar and subsequently reduce as the gas reservoir is depleted.

Hotblack Desiato

Blackjack wrote:

Sinn fein have nothing to do with this at all, but Burke certainly did, in going against the advise of senior civil servants at the time an negotiating on his own. Now given his track record, what springs to mind as regards the type of negotiation that went on?.

You tell me - if you wish to make specific allegations against Burke then go ahead.

In the late 1980s Burke changed the tax treatment of oil and gas exploration in Ireland. It's not surprising he was advised against this; the Department of Finance naturally advise against any form of tax cuts. Whether his decision is right or wrong is another debate; it is interesting though that none of the governments since then, including the Rainbow, saw fit to reverse this decision.

There is no proof whatever, as far as I am aware, that Burke had anything specifically to do with this pipeline, or favoured Shell above any other oil or gas company.

They've received permission to outline the Pipeline, however Ministerial permission has yet to be granted for Installation.

They've also yet to receive permission to actually pump gas down the pipeline too. I don't see how that's particularly relevant. They chose not to wait for permission to pump gas before beginning preparations for constructing the pipeline - that's a commercial decision (saves them money but leaves them with the possibility of having a pipeline with no permission to use it.) There are allegations that some works have been carried out for which permission has not yet been granted - we will see in the court case next week whether this has any substance or not.

The Health and Safety Authority has no remit in relation to the pipeline, apart from the safety of construction workers employed on its laying.

Again, not relevant, I was talking about the planning process not the HSA's role on construction sites.

As regards Bord Pleanàla's role in this, it would seem that their existence was under threat, and according to the article their hand was a little forced on the issue (see paragraph 11 of the article).

I can't access your article, but the paper Irish Times is in front of me (Page 4, Sat 2/7) and I can't see any mention of ABP on it. Anyway, allegations of interference are not the same thing as proof of corruption. Anyone can make baseless allegations.

Blackjack

ninja900 wrote:

You tell me - if you wish to make specific allegations against Burke then go ahead.

I'll let Ray Burke's own past record speak for him there is that's OK.

ninja900 wrote:

They've also yet to receive permission to actually pump gas down the pipeline too. I don't see how that's particularly relevant. They chose not to wait for permission to pump gas before beginning preparations for constructing the pipeline - that's a commercial decision (saves them money but leaves them with the possibility of having a pipeline with no permission to use it.) There are allegations that some works have been carried out for which permission has not yet been granted - we will see in the court case next week whether this has any substance or not.

I was responding to your specific quote : Shell obtained planning permission to construct the pipeline in accordance with the law;

ninja900 wrote:

Again, not relevant, I was talking about the planning process not the HSA's role on construction sites.

That was directed at Cork, not yourself.

ninja900 wrote:

I can't access your article, but the paper Irish Times is in front of me (Page 4, Sat 2/7) and I can't see any mention of ABP on it. Anyway, allegations of interference are not the same thing as proof of corruption. Anyone can make baseless allegations.

Article by Lorna Siggins, titled "The battle of the Corrib field" - See Paragraph 11, where it states the following:

"The appeals board eventually approved the terminal plan with conditions in October 2004. Opponents in Mayo weren't surprised - An Bord Pleanála's future was under threat; the Government still had plans for a critical infrastructure body which would fast-track "strategic" national projects. The Corrib gas field was one, given that the State was relying on one indigenous source off Kinsale, Co Cork."

Hotblack Desiato

Blackjack wrote:

I'll let Ray Burke's own past record speak for him there is that's OK.

What has Ray Burke's record got to do with this specific pipeline?
It's a bit of a stretch, to say the least, to allege that Burke is somehow tainting government decisions in relation to oil/gas exploration ~15years after he ceased to have responsibility for this area.

Article by Lorna Siggins, titled "The battle of the Corrib field" - See Paragraph 11, where it states the following:
"The appeals board eventually approved the terminal plan with conditions in October 2004. Opponents in Mayo weren't surprised - An Bord Pleanála's future was under threat; the Government still had plans for a critical infrastructure body which would fast-track "strategic" national projects. The Corrib gas field was one, given that the State was relying on one indigenous source off Kinsale, Co Cork."

So? The Government has been promising a critical infrastructure body for a long time now, and not just as a result of the Shell case. Why would ABP care?
The quote above is really just a sneaky way for her to get a dig in while steering clear of libel laws. She quotes nobody, presents no evidence, and makes no specific allegations - just dark mutterings in the corner. Just because it appears on big pages doesn't mean it's not "throw mud and see if it sticks" tabloid journalism, or opinion presented as fact.

Blackjack

ninja900 wrote:

What has Ray Burke's record got to do with this specific pipeline?
It's a bit of a stretch, to say the least, to allege that Burke is somehow tainting government decisions in relation to oil/gas exploration ~15years after he ceased to have responsibility for this area.

He's been considerably more involved that Sinn Fein, which was what Cork was raving on about.

ninja900 wrote:

So? The Government has been promising a critical infrastructure body for a long time now, and not just as a result of the Shell case. Why would ABP care?
The quote above is really just a sneaky way for her to get a dig in while steering clear of libel laws. She quotes nobody, presents no evidence, and makes no specific allegations - just dark mutterings in the corner. Just because it appears on big pages doesn't mean it's not "throw mud and see if it sticks" tabloid journalism, or opinion presented as fact.

Whatever, I provided a source of information, you can choose to disbelieve it if you wish.

monument

bonkey wrote:

Yeah...that Shell link shows that the 350 figure is misinterpretation:

The Corrib onshore pipeline - designed for a pressure of 345 Bar - will initially operate at just below 150 Bar and subsequently reduce as the gas reservoir is depleted.

The only question is can a company who overstated ‘its proven oil and natural gas reserves by 4.47bn barrels, or about 23%, from 1997 to 2002’ [link ] be trusted when it comes to figures?

Even more so if it was an innocent mistake. But I’ll take it that innocent parties don’t pay $120m to the SEC for accounting fraud.

Villain

Any word on how the 5 got on in court yesterday??

It was only mentioned in court yesterday.
The case will be taken next wenesday.
The men are still in cloverhill and will remain there,one of them is in his mid 70's iirc.

Villain

Jees you'd think they could bring it a bit quicker than that. Fair play to them for sticking to their guns.

Tuars

It looks like we have more government incompetence from Mr Dempsey. Now the second safety report is being called into question.

From the Examiner

A BRITISH company that won a State contract to carry out an independent safety review of Shell’s pipeline plans for North Mayo was not asked whether it had any business dealings with Shell.

As the “Rossport Five” began their second week in jail for opposing the pipeline, it emerged that AEA Technology has regularly worked with Shell, but Minister for Natural Resources Noel Dempsey did not ask the company to disclose this information.

It is the second time a review has been carried out by a company with links to Shell. Mr Dempsey bowed to pressure to commission the second review after it emerged the first was carried out by BPA (British Pipeline Agency), a company part-owned by Shell UK.

The AEA review, like the first, backed Shell’s own safety assessment, finding the risks associated with the high pressure pipeline were “tolerable.”

AEA company reports and promotional material show it has had strong links with Shell over several years. A 1998 document states: “Shell’s safety experts use AEA Technology’s software to help understand potential fire hazards from high pressure gas releases.”

It is Shell’s assessment of potential hazards relating to the North Mayo pipeline that Mr Dempsey asked AEA to review.

Villain

They ask for an "independent safety review" but don't ask if the company to carry it out have any connections with Shell, thats just genius!

Tomohawk

Don't you think, that if it would be cheaper and far less problematic for Shell Oil to build the bloody thing offshore, that they would have done so? Now stay with me on this one all you opposers of the inland pipleline...Maybe Sheel Oil have a valid business reasoning to do otherwise, to spend more time and resources, go through the legal process, and build onshore. I dont know of many businesses that like spending extra money for no reason? Ergo They must have a valid reason!

I sugguest this cos the sea would cost less than the land. It's a no-brainer.

What do these 5 farmers grow in their bogs? (beside turf and lord knows that dont take much growing?)

I reckon its all about compo.

MrPudding

Tomohawk wrote:

Don't you think, that if it would be cheaper and far less problematic for Shell Oil to build the bloody thing offshore, that they would have done so?

No one is suggesting it would be cheaper. It would be considerably more expensive, I though that would be quite obvious.

The point is that a companies bottom line should not take priority over peoples safety.

Tomohawk wrote:

Now stay with me on this one all you opposers of the inland pipleline...Maybe Sheel Oil have a valid business reasoning to do otherwise, to spend more time and resources, go through the legal process, and build onshore. I dont know of many businesses that like spending extra money for no reason? Ergo They must have a valid reason!

Of course they have a valid business reason, it's cheaper. Valid business reasons should not override concerns of safety.

Tomohawk wrote:

What do these 5 farmers grow in their bogs? (beside turf and lord knows that dont take much growing?)

I reckon its all about compo.

I haven't read anything about their concerns for crops. My understanding is that they are concerned for their lives as their houses are within the bast radius should there be one.

MrP

Tomohawk

How do opponents of the Corrib gas pipeline scheme propose the gas resource is refined? Are there alternative solutions available? Lets discuss this...

bonkey

Tomohawk wrote:

How do opponents of the Corrib gas pipeline scheme propose the gas resource is refined?

Using a safer, but presumably less cost-effective measure?

Rightly or wrongly, this entire discussion has reminded me of Ford (or was it GM?) and their attitude about recalls. If the cost of lawsuits from not recalling was estimated to be lower than the cost of the recall....no recall was issued. if it was higher, the problematic whatever was recalled.

It wouldn't surprise me (but I'm not saying that it is the case) to find that Shell have opted for the most cost-effective option which has an acceptably low probability of catastrophic failure etc. and factors in the cost should somethnig go wrong.

Its callous, but if killing those people ni an accident would cost 10 mill (number picked from air) in compensation, but refining elsewhere would cost 20 million more ....I wouldn't be surprised to see 10 million in potential costs taken in preference to a definite 20 million hit. Hell, if this was the US, I wouldn't be surprised to find that Due Diligence laws would require them to do so or face potential action by shareholders.

jc

Ajnag

I gotta ask tho, why insist on refining a few miles inshore, when it probably wouldnt be that much more to refine on the shore or close to?

Not an Ideal solution exactly, but an option no?

MrPudding

I have been wondering that myself. The statoil guy seems to think it is cheaper to do it inland. Perhaps the land is more expensive at the coast? Perhaps planning woul dbe more difficult to get on the coast?

MrP

Boggle

Rightly or wrongly, this entire discussion has reminded me of Ford (or was it GM?) and their attitude about recalls.

Volkswagen also. There used to be a flaw on the old beetle, whereby the glovebox could pop open in a crash this possibly decapitating people. After a cost benefit analysis it was decided that it would cost more to recall than it would cost in lawsuits so they left it out there. Different company but it does reinforce the fact that these companies dont care about lives. Especially when there's a cheaper alternative...