The Rossport 5

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote:

I ask again: what qualifies you more than An Bord Pleanála to come to this conclusion? You're still missing my point. Your point seems to be that dialog is more important than conflict, whatever the cost; that government should do whatever it takes to allay any and all concerns, however irrational or inconceived, rather than allow any of its citizens to make the rash and immoderate decision to break the law and face incarceration.

Well yes the government should be there to represent the citizens best interests.They didn't succeed in this case.Shell arent going to sell the gas to us any cheaper than world prices.Ergo any gas we get from abroad will be the same price.It's all win win for shell and lose lose for the people with safety concerns near the pipeline-those people being citizens, Shell being a foreign corporation who wont even employ Irish citizens on their Rig for the gas.Thats a separate issue though but worth pointing out here when talking about the governments obligations perhaps.

Either you're being inconsistent, or you're going back even further: you're suggesting that Shell shouldn't have been allowed to be in a position where they were legally entitled to obtain this injunction. This implies that you don't believe they should have been granted permission to build this pipeline.

not necessarally.I did mention that the houses could have been bought.But yes the Rossport people and their supporters believe that the Gas should be treated offshore and I'm saying the government could change the law to encourage this via taxes.

I don't buy into that. I figure that if a citizen is determined to go against the overwhelming force of science and politics and champion a (relatively) unpopular cause to the point of embracing imprisonment, then the gates of Cloverhill are wide open. In fact, I think I'd be thinking strongly about billing them for the accomodation.

Well I suggest you get onto your local T.D about that preferably an FF one and complain that they allowed this situation to be mismanaged to such an extent that it is costing the prison budget so much in the first place.

bonkey

Earthman wrote:

Shell arent going to sell the gas to us any cheaper than world prices.Ergo any gas we get from abroad will be the same price.

Will it?

Do we not have to pay transport costs on top of the material cost when buying gas from abroad? It doesn't seem sensible to me that any gas producer will sell gas to two people for the same price, and for one of them - who happens not to be in the neighbourhood - they throw in the cost of a supertanker going halfway around the planet and coming back empty for free.

It just seems far too charitable for the people that pretty-much everyone on this thread is knocking as being some form of ueber-capitalist.

jc

bonkey

Sometimes there are principals and genuine fears that people will consider worth fighting for.Sometimes the circumstances around those fears will be suffeciently ignored that the peacefull campaigners will end up in jail

Maybe I've been reading this thread all wrong, but this is just a statement fact (so far). It isn't a declaration of whether or not these people should be in jail.

at the hands of decisions instigated by those who have something to lose out of a compromise.

I'm unsure as to what, exactly, the Irish court systems have to lose in a compromise.

The decision to grant an injunction was made by an Irish court. The men are imprisoned for refusing to obey the court's mandate.

The request for a decision was made by Shell, but thats irrelevant. I can take pretty much anyone to court for anything....but its the court who decides if I have a real and valid grievance under the law, and what the remedy for that grievance should be.

jc

bonkey

bonkey wrote:

Will it?

Do we not have to pay transport costs on top of the material cost when buying gas from abroad? It doesn't seem sensible to me that any gas producer will sell gas to two people for the same price, and for one of them - who happens not to be in the neighbourhood - they throw in the cost of a supertanker going halfway around the planet and coming back empty for free.

I'm talking about gas thats already piped here Bonkey from abroad over long distances and purchased at open market prices.
Have a look at the map on this document and you will see the interconnecter we have between Dublin/Meath and Scotland.

It just seems far too charitable for the people that pretty-much everyone on this thread is knocking as being some form of ueber-capitalist.

jc

See above

bonkey

bonkey wrote:

The request for a decision was made by Shell, but thats irrelevant. I can take pretty much anyone to court for anything....but its the court who decides if I have a real and valid grievance under the law, and what the remedy for that grievance should be.
jc

The court is deciding/has decided on the legal matter and not on the residents grievances.The court has no option but to do that and rightly so,I've not questioned that and I think those in jail were well aware of that and hence presented themselves for jail as the ultimate statement of their disapproval of the pipeline.
The principles end of it comes into their decision to do that.the mismanagement of the situation though in my view arises out of the governments lack of ingenuity or will in preventing them having to go that far in the first place.

Incidently this is a synopsis of some of the residents concerns:

The proposed pipeline will run through a populated area (never done before; “unique” - Dept. of Marine Minister Noel Dempsey) at pressures well off the design scale (BS8010 limit - 100bar) using a code that is out of date (BS8010) and well short of best available safety standards (from 23% to 57 % of C-FER in these examples), using compulsory purchase orders under legislation (slipped through the Dáil on a bank holiday weekend) never before used in the state, is exempted from Planning scrutiny and regulation by any statutory body (Mayo County Council, EPA, Energy Regulator), skirting Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protected Areas (Sruth Fada Conn, blanket bog complex) and the main drinking water supply for Erris (Carrowmore Lake), while proceeding with construction before ministerial consent has been granted, because the required Quantified Risk Assessment (QRA) is currently being independently drawn up (the only available one was drawn up by Shell themselves) and threatening anyone (with prior knowledge of the Order) with a High Court Order that prevents them from interfering with Shell/Statoil/Marathon or Sicim-Roadbridge, carrying out works on the pipeline, the refinery, travelling to and from their construction sites, causing nuisance to the developers, trespassing on a public right of way (through the existing Rossport compound to the shoreline and an ancient spring well) attempting to damage the developers economically (by refusing to Shop at Shell?) and conspiring to do any of the above, under pain of fine, imprisonment and development delay costs starting at €25,000,000.00.

Articles of the Irish Constitution 40 and 43 (among others) demand the state protect the fundamental rights and property rights of every citizen.

Zaph0d

Well it's hard to resolve a problem without identifying that problem first.

So, what is the problem here?

1. Is it that 5 LOCAL people are in prison for disobeying a court order?
2. Is it that a gas pipeline is being built that is unacceptably dangerous?
3. Is it that the appeal process for gas infrastructure is inadequate?
4. Is it that Mayo's repuatation as a place to do business is being damaged?
5. Is it that Fianna Fail's Mayo vote may be in danger?
6. Is it that a national infrastructure project is being held up?
7. Is it that Shell will suffer damage to its reputation?

It depends on where you're standing. I'd go for d & f.

A good negotiated agreement would take all sides' concerns into account.

A bad result could cost all sides dearly. Pipeline built late, overbudget and regularly sabotaged, Rossport campaign to no avail. Mainstream politicians lose votes to nutters. Mayo associated with xenophobia, self-righteous intransigence and self-defeating martyrdom.

oscarBravo

Earthman wrote:

I have.I've said the government could take action varying from a change in tax laws to buying peoples houses.

You've yet to provide a valid reason why the government should do anything of the sort. We're talking about five people here. Five. You're seriously suggesting the government should enact legislation to allay the unsubstantiated fears of five people?

Earthman wrote:

As regards their fears.It's a great unknown as a pipeline such as this is such a rarity but I can see their concerns given the lack of a decent track record of running an odourless higher pressure pipeline this close to houses.

Odourless doesn't mean that leaks can't be detected. Higher pressure, yes - slightly - but contained in a pipeline that's designed to handle more than three times the maximum pressure.

Earthman wrote:

And you can't accept the residents and their supporters concerns either.Fair enough we disagree on that.

I can't accept them because they won't substantiate them. They haven't proven that there's a danger from this pipeline, only that they have fears. Groups like Indymedia (that bastion of factual and unbiased reportage) deliberately distort the facts in order to magnify those unsubstantiated fears, because it furthers their anticapitalist agenda.

I've yet to see any evidence that it's not safe to pump gas at 100-odd bar through a pipeline designed to handle more than 300.

Earthman wrote:

I know that the original people that compiled the safety report and which Bord Pleanala looked at were part owned by Shell.

In other words, no - you have no actual evidence that there's a real danger here.

Earthman wrote:

Oh but it does,just like the residents blocking the speeding cars,they're not willing to take a risk either.

As always, you're distorting the analogy to suit your point. We're not talking about blocking speeding cars, we're talking about illegally preventing a road from being built - just in case a car might speed on it at some future time.

Earthman wrote:

It's odourless untreated gas.Theres no smell if it leaks.

...instead, if there's a leak, alarms go off and valves instantly shut off the gas supply automatically.

I mean, come on. Do you honestly think a gas leak will go unnoticed just because there's no smell?

Earthman wrote:

I've suggested that there was a mis management of circumstances that led the guys going all the way to court with their concern and taking the legal medicine.

Are you suggesting that the government should have done whatever was necessary to prevent any circumstance whereby Shell might have conceivably felt a need to take out an injunction against anyone?

If I'm reading you right, you're suggesting that because these men have safety concerns, the government shouldn't have allowed the project to go ahead. [Before we go any further, I know you didn't say that. I didn't say you said that. I'm trying to determine exactly what you think should have happened in this case, and since you still haven't spelled it out in detail, I'm forced to draw conclusions based on what you have said. Feel free to correct me if I've misinterpreted you. Okay?]

What if four of these men decide, after detailed discussions, that they're happy with the proposed pipeline after all, but one still isn't? Should the whole project be redesigned to suit just one individual?

What if the project is redesigned to suit these men, but the redesign means that someone else has safety concerns as a result - should the whole thing go back to the drawing board yet again?

Earthman wrote:

I'm suggesting that odourless untreated gas shouldn't.The higher pressure of it is an allied concern.

With respect, what's your qualification to determine that this design is unsafe?

Earthman wrote:

Have they,Was the report done by a company shell had a hand in or not?Was the government caught out by that conflict of intererst or not?

I could be wrong, but I thought that the situation was that the company had previously done work for Shell, and the perceived conflict of interest was that they might want to work for them again. Feel free to correct me if this is not the case.

I'd imagine it's going to be impossible to please the critics here. Oil and gas exploration is a niche industry - any company competent to assess the safety of a pipeline is bound to be open to accusations of partiality.

Earthman wrote:

Well thats just laughable.I brought it up as being a similar paralell and now you are trying to tell me that theres speed camera's galore in housing estates...Theres hardly enough in the country to cover a few major roads never mind estates.

:mad: I didn't say that, and it's downright low of you to say I did. It's an analogy, remember?

I'm sorry to have to spell it out, but my point is that this pipeline will have numerous redundant safety systems. Five people are saying, in effect, that those systems aren't good enough because they won't be able to smell the gas, and you're suggesting the government should force Shell to acquiesce to their demands.

Earthman wrote:

I've said over and over again that my primary concern is dialog and that I think the concerns of local residents should be listened to.

They have been listened to. You're confusing listening with capitulation.

There's a planning application in for a house being built close to mine. I could have objected to the planning application. If I had, my objection would have been considered. If the house was built anyway, does that mean nobody listened to my objection?

Earthman wrote:

I'd be protesting myself if someone wanted to put the highest pressure in the country odourless untreated gas pipeline beside my house.I'd also be annoyed that this was being done because it was the corporations cheapest oiption and that they couldn't care less about the fears of the people who oppose them

They don't agree with those fears. That's not the same as not caring about them.

Earthman wrote:

The people from Shell wont have to live beside it.

I think you'll find that a number of Shell personnel will be a hell of a lot closer than 70m to this pipeline for several hours every working day.

Earthman wrote:

I somehow doubt that. Theres a split in the community alright but theres no evidence to suggest that those who are concerned about this pipeline are in the minority in the area.

34 CPOs were issued. Five people are protesting. No evidence?

Earthman wrote:

You'll never choose to understand my viewpoint here will you? even though several pages back I've accepted yours on the law.Sometimes there are principals and genuine fears that people will consider worth fighting for.Sometimes the circumstances around those fears will be suffeciently ignored that the peacefull campaigners will end up in jail at the hands of decisions instigated by those who have something to lose out of a compromise.

Everyone has something to lose out of a compromise: that's pretty much what compromise means.

You talk of principles and genuine fears, but I've yet to see any hard evidence that these fears are genuine. You talk about high pressure, but ignore the fact that the pipeline is designed to operate at three times that pressure - which, from what I understand of engineering practice, means that it's actually capable of handling at least six times the pressure. You talk about odourless gas, but don't explain how gas that smells is less likely to explode than gas that doesn't.

Earthman wrote:

Yeah you've made a call there alright just like you did in the parents that stop speeding cars example.Statistically there might be no deaths in their road either but that doesn't mean they should be maligned when they would be willing to go to jail to make the road safer.Thats your perogative.

Forgive me, but I have a lot more respect for people who are prepared to behave legally in order to further their agenda than for those who choose to resort to criminal behaviour to do so.

The fact is, you're supporting these men's actions because you agree with their concerns. You haven't offered any evidence that their concerns are valid, other than to insinuate that the existing safety reports have been deliberately falsified for commercial reasons. [Again, let's be clear: you didn't actually say this, but it's entirely obvious that you intended to imply it.] You continue to talk about high pressure odourless gas in the same superstitious way that other misguided people talk about being fried by microwaves from mobile phone base stations.

Earthman wrote:

The fact of the matter is that there are workable compromises that are being ignored for the sake of profit.

Workable by whose standards, exactly? Shell have indicated that if they can't refine the gas onshore, then it's not worth their while extracting it at all. They've also indicated that they have real concerns about the safety of offshore refining (and I don't think anyone can argue about the hazards of working on an offshore platform). Why are you so quick to dismiss those genuine concerns, while being so eager to accept the unsubstantiated concerns of the five?

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote:

You've yet to provide a valid reason why the government should do anything of the sort. We're talking about five people here. Five. You're seriously suggesting the government should enact legislation to allay the unsubstantiated fears of five people?

And their supporters yes-It's not just five.
As regards legislation,It's not much ,It's just a clause in a finance bill as simple to include as a tax on credit cards.It's a bit late now though,it should have been investigated months if not years ago.The likelyhood at this stage is that Shell might sue.Again I'd have to contend that that would be the governments fault for not considering the options better sooner,But theres nothing new there.

Odourless doesn't mean that leaks can't be detected. Higher pressure, yes - slightly - but contained in a pipeline that's designed to handle more than three times the maximum pressure. I can't accept them because they won't substantiate them. They haven't proven that there's a danger from this pipeline, only that they have fears. Groups like Indymedia (that bastion of factual and unbiased reportage) deliberately distort the facts in order to magnify those unsubstantiated fears, because it furthers their anticapitalist agenda.

I see it's shoot the messenger time.

I've yet to see any evidence that it's not safe to pump gas at 100-odd bar through a pipeline designed to handle more than 300. In other words, no - you have no actual evidence that there's a real danger here.

I have evidence of peoples fears about this pipeline and the fuss they are willing to make because of the simple fact that its different and they feel that they are being ignored when a decision is made to put for the first time a pipeline like this one so close to houses.Of course if you can find me another case where this has been tried and proven to be safe this near peoples houses before then I'll be less inclined to think these people are being treated like guinea pigs.

As always, you're distorting the analogy to suit your point. We're not talking about blocking speeding cars, we're talking about illegally preventing a road from being built - just in case a car might speed on it at some future time.

Nope I brought up the analogy in the first place.It was I who used it to compare like with like ie a peacefull protest at a concern with another.I introduced it to outline where I thought people deserved respect for going so far peacefully to make a point and take the legal medicine rightly dished out.
It is you that attempted to change the analogy into something that included the speed protesters slashing tyres or as in the above quote protesting at the building of a road. ie I stuck to my one analogy , you tried to change it not me.My analogy involved residents protesting at speeding cars through an estate and nothing else.

I didn't say that, and it's downright low of you to say I did. It's an analogy, remember?

Again,It's not low of me,nor is it intended to be,It's just pointing out the reason for the anaolgy and pointing out that you,not I attempted to embelish the analogy with something irelevant.

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote:

...instead, if there's a leak, alarms go off and valves instantly shut off the gas supply automatically.

To be frank with you(And I do realise that we could go on and on and on forever and ever amen at this like we did in the last thread) I'd imagine the protesters would have no fate in risking their lives on something thats open to mechanical or human error.They could choose to do so, but to their mind in this case they are being told to do so.

I mean, come on. Do you honestly think a gas leak will go unnoticed just because there's no smell? Are you suggesting that the government should have done whatever was necessary to prevent any circumstance whereby Shell might have conceivably felt a need to take out an injunction against anyone?

I'm suggesting that they should talk to the concerned residents and alleviate their concerns.I don't know if they can placate the Rossport fives concerns and others without at least doing that.At present they seem to be hiding behind "sub judice" and not talking enough.

If I'm reading you right, you're suggesting that because these men have safety concerns, the government shouldn't have allowed the project to go ahead. [Before we go any further, I know you didn't say that. I didn't say you said that. I'm trying to determine exactly what you think should have happened in this case, and since you still haven't spelled it out in detail, I'm forced to draw conclusions based on what you have said. Feel free to correct me if I've misinterpreted you. Okay?]

Well turning what you are saying on it's head, we should let the guys stay in their houses worried or get out at their own expense.

What if four of these men decide, after detailed discussions, that they're happy with the proposed pipeline after all, but one still isn't? Should the whole project be redesigned to suit just one individual?

I don't think thats going to happen do you? A likelyhood of zero I'd say given the fervency here.

What if the project is redesigned to suit these men, but the redesign means that someone else has safety concerns as a result - should the whole thing go back to the drawing board yet again?

Again I don't think thats going to happen and if it did, it would totally undermine these peoples position.I'd have to have an equal concern for other peoples safety worries-but really such a hypothetical is as unlikely as Dublin getting to 30c tomorrow as the campaigners aren't that stupid and neither would the government be.

With respect, what's your qualification to determine that this design is unsafe?

no more qualified than those protesting I'd say.That doesnt preclude me from not wanting to be a guinea pig though.

I could be wrong, but I thought that the situation was that the company had previously done work for Shell, and the perceived conflict of interest was that they might want to work for them again. Feel free to correct me if this is not the case.

The company was 50% owned by shell ( BPA ltd a joint venture between Shell and BP )and the actual report had to be dragged out in the open from the minister kicking and screaming...(you'd have to keep it a secret if at all possible you know when its an incestous report)

I'd imagine it's going to be impossible to please the critics here. Oil and gas exploration is a niche industry - any company competent to assess the safety of a pipeline is bound to be open to accusations of partiality.

You can't get much more partial than being owned by the company you're investigating.

I'm sorry to have to spell it out, but my point is that this pipeline will have numerous redundant safety systems. Five people are saying, in effect, that those systems aren't good enough because they won't be able to smell the gas, and you're suggesting the government should force Shell to acquiesce to their demands. They have been listened to. You're confusing listening with capitulation.

It's not just five people,theres thousands of people who are concerned.The five are only the people who are living that close to the pipeline.As for listening versus capitulation-The government could CPO the peoples houses to ultimately end the safety fears in relation to them, that would be the easiest thing to do.It would get more protests maybe but I'd have less time for those.There would be closure at least on the immediate safety issue, a clean closure at least on that.I'd want to put up "Approach at your own risk" signs within several hundred meters of where the pipes buried too , to be safe.

There's a planning application in for a house being built close to mine. I could have objected to the planning application. If I had, my objection would have been considered. If the house was built anyway, does that mean nobody listened to my objection? They don't agree with those fears. That's not the same as not caring about them.

Theres no general comparison in terms of it's safety implications.

I think you'll find that a number of Shell personnel will be a hell of a lot closer than 70m to this pipeline for several hours every working day.

Yes at their own choice and they can go home at night and are safe in the knowledge that their families don't live or work as close to it.

34 CPOs were issued. Five people are protesting.No evidence?

How may of those 34 don't support the five?

Everyone has something to lose out of a compromise: that's pretty much what compromise means.

You talk of principles and genuine fears, but I've yet to see any hard evidence that these fears are genuine.

Well show me a similar situation and convince me that these people aren't guinea pigs-otherwise , being reasonable I haven't much option but to err on the side of caution here and recognise the fears of these people.

You talk about high pressure, but ignore the fact that the pipeline is designed to operate at three times that pressure - which, from what I understand of engineering practice, means that it's actually capable of handling at least six times the pressure.

IS it? Would it operate at or about the same pressure as this one by any chance? It's also an industrial as opposed to a house to house ,town to town pipeline.

You talk about odourless gas, but don't explain how gas that smells is less likely to explode than gas that doesn't.

Probably equally likely to explode.But I'd like to be able to get a waft of the smell first.But then I might hear it too so I suppose I'd have to be thankfull for small mercies.By the way did you know that theres going to be electric cables in that pipeline too supplying the platform?

Forgive me, but I have a lot more respect for people who are prepared to behave legally in order to further their agenda than for those who choose to resort to criminal behaviour to do so.

Thats fine, but don't expect everyone to share that opinion,I know you dont to be honest.I respect yours.
That said I've made the point earlier that sometimes the law can be avoided and there are ways that this could be dilluted.

The fact is, you're supporting these men's actions because you agree with their concerns. You haven't offered any evidence that their concerns are valid, other than to insinuate that the existing safety reports have been deliberately falsified for commercial reasons. [Again, let's be clear: you didn't actually say this, but it's entirely obvious that you intended to imply it.]

Actually All I'd say there is that it should be entirely obvious that the first investigation was entirely inappropriate given it was incestous.

You continue to talk about high pressure odourless gas in the same superstitious way that other misguided people talk about being fried by microwaves from mobile phone base stations.

I'd meet you there if you could show me anywhere in the world where raw untreated gas is piped near someones home.(Dont use the one in mexico...Even if it is untreated)

Workable by whose standards, exactly? Shell have indicated that if they can't refine the gas onshore, then it's not worth their while extracting it at all.

Ah they would say that wouldnt they.I'd imagine with energy costs rising and having doubled in recent years and the trend continuing that excuse is losing its wind.

They've also indicated that they have real concerns about the safety of offshore refining (and I don't think anyone can argue about the hazards of working on an offshore platform). Why are you so quick to dismiss those genuine concerns, while being so eager to accept the unsubstantiated concerns of the five?

I dont dismiss them,I'd just point to them as being par for the course like every other offshore gas or oil operation of its kind in the world.They are also voluntarally entering into that danger unlike the Rossport five.

Tuars

When will the Health and Safety report be released to the public?

When do the public hearings relating to the health and safety issues take place?

Until these things are done we cannot make an educated assessment of the health and safety issues relating to the pipeline. We cannot say if the fears expressed by the residents are well founded. Neither can we say that the assurances given by Shell have merit.

Health and safety concerns were not adequately addressed and in the meantime work continued on the development of the pipeline (contravening the planning permission). The state did very little to address the concerns of its citizens but turned a blind eye and rolled over backwards to facilitate Shell.

Since the process failed to address the legitimate concerns of the residents they were left with little choice but to break the law.

There is no argument that they should be in jail for contempt of court. What is very questionable is the process that put them in that position in the first place.

egan007

KieranusTyranus wrote:

Can anyone give a logical reason why these men are in jail. The fact is the Shell pipeline is unsafe and the terminal needs to built offshore. I mean would any of you like the pipeline 70 metres from your home?

I especially want comments from people who disagree to see what ludricrous arguments you have.

Sorry mate you are wasting your time reasoning with the 'other' people on this site..
I dont think they realise that the law can be wrong.....

I'd like to see their opinion on it if it was one of their relatives.

Indeed long gone are the days when people stand up for each other,
They will soon get the every man for himself society that they long for...
Romantic Ireland is dead and gone it's with Oleary in the grave.

bonkey

egan007 wrote:

I'd like to see their opinion on it if it was one of their relatives.

My opinion of the situation would be unchanged....that being that there isn't enough knowledgeable infiormation on either side of the issue, and that I think it is correct that the protestors should be jailed but applaud the strength of their convictions (ho ho) and hope they don't juet get sidelined and ignored.

I don't know about you, but I do not put family before respect for the law. I wouldn't side with a family member for (say) running someone down while drunk-driving, and in a similar vein I sure as sh1t wouldn't applaud them for acting in contempt of court.

I might disagree with the court order they were found to be in contempt of, in which case I would agree that they did the right thing in forcing the law to incarcerate them, which they can subsequently use as a means of obtaininnig publicity and public support. Alternately, I might agree with the court order, in which case I wouldn't rank their actions much more laudable than (again) running over someone while drunk-driving.

Indeed long gone are the days when people stand up for each other,
They will soon get the every man for himself society that they long for...
Romantic Ireland is dead and gone it's with Oleary in the grave.

I'm sorry, but just because you buy into the "fight the man" mentality that these people have capitalised on doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with not doing so.

All I've asked for time and time again is informed information. I'm not interested in some farmer telling me about the risks of pipelines, but I am interested in the opinion pipeline expert that the farmer originally sought advice from. And if the farmer didn't seek expert advice, then I sure as sh1t amn't going to believe that they know more about the risks than people investing millions in the project.

Maybe asking for evidence rather than blindly trusting my fellow Irishmen (who, coming from a land of saints and scholars should presumably be an impeccable source for anything) isn't romantic enough for you, but, well, I guess we'll both just have to live with that.

jc

egan007

bonkey wrote:

Maybe asking for evidence rather than blindly trusting my fellow Irishmen (who, coming from a land of saints and scholars should presumably be an impeccable source for anything) isn't romantic enough for you, but, well, I guess we'll both just have to live with that.

jc

Indeed i think you have hit the nail on the head here.

However, remember it / like it, or not you will have to agree that this country was founded on romantic ideas and ideals.
There are very few countries left where you can put blind trust in your fellow country man. We are one that is at a point where we can make a decision to go with the factual right and wrong system adaped by all the places where we would not like to live Or we can return to what we were. People who care for each other without needing a pat on the back or pay for it.
Call it romantic / Idealistic whatever you want but it's a place i'm willing to fight for.

Zaph0d

egan007 wrote:

However, remember it / like it, or not you will have to agree that this country was founded on romantic ideas and ideals.
There are very few countries left where you can put blind trust in your fellow country man. We are one that is at a point where we can make a decision to go with the factual right and wrong system adaped by all the places where we would not like to live Or we can return to what we were. People who care for each other without needing a pat on the back or pay for it.
Call it romantic / Idealistic whatever you want but it's a place i'm willing to fight for.

This is a great post. The sentiments are honest and go right to the core of a mindset that I'm sure is common around the country but completely alien to me.

My vision of the old Ireland is mostly negative.

bonkey

egan007 wrote:

However, remember it / like it, or not you will have to agree that this country was founded on romantic ideas and ideals.

Ideals are aspirational. They neither reflected the reality of the time, the reality that preceded it, nor the reality that followed it.

So I'm at a loss as to what you want to return to. The reality that wasn't romantic nor ideal, and the romance and idealism were never real.

Sure, there were aspects of society which may be preferable...but I'd wager that for every one of those, there's also aspects that you'll just choose to forget, downplay, or decide its not important.

There are very few countries left where you can put blind trust in your fellow country man.

Very few? There are none, nor have there ever been any....assuming you expect your trust to not be betrayed.

Call it romantic / Idealistic whatever you want but it's a place i'm willing to fight for.

Its also a place that never existed.

jc

egan007

Maybe my choice of words was probably inaccurate in saying 'returning' but I'm guite sure it's something we can create.

KieranusTyranus

People dont seem to realise the law is wrong and not for the first time.
Please tell me what you what have done in Hitlers Germany? Would you have agreed with the holocaust because it was "the law"?
I say **** THE LAW **** FIANNA FAIL AND **** SHELL. I do whats right not what some wanker wearing a white mop on his head says I should.

oscarBravo

Earthman wrote:

The government could CPO the peoples houses to ultimately end the safety fears in relation to them, that would be the easiest thing to do.It would get more protests maybe but I'd have less time for those.

The mind boggles. You're saying it would be more acceptable to you if the government were to evict these people from their homes??

Earthman wrote:

There would be closure at least on the immediate safety issue, a clean closure at least on that.I'd want to put up "Approach at your own risk" signs within several hundred meters of where the pipes buried too , to be safe.

Again, boggle. You think it's a good idea to create an effective no-go area almost a kilometer wide, on the basis of what amounts to little more than a superstition??

Earthman wrote:

IS it? Would it operate at or about the same pressure as this one by any chance?

I don't know. What caused that explosion? Was it high pressure? Was it untreated gas? Is there any parallel here, other than the fact that it's a gas pipeline?

You're taking the position here that gas pipelines have exploded, therefore any fear that this pipeline could explode is justified. If it turned out that the pipeline in Mexico was carrying treated gas at a relatively low pressure, would you campaign to have all existing Bord Gáis pipelines rerouted to more than 70 metres from existing houses with "enter at your own risk" wastelands surrounding them?

Earthman wrote:

It's also an industrial as opposed to a house to house ,town to town pipeline.

Do you have statistics that show that industrial pipelines explode more often than the other types?

Earthman wrote:

By the way did you know that theres going to be electric cables in that pipeline too supplying the platform?

On the contrary, there are going to be electric cables in a separate duct, several metres away from the pipeline. Hydraulics too, at a much higher pressure than the gas pipeline. I haven't heard any complaints about those.

oscarBravo

Wahey, look who popped back in.

KieranusTyranus wrote:

People dont seem to realise the law is wrong and not for the first time.
Please tell me what you what have done in Hitlers Germany? Would you have agreed with the holocaust because it was "the law"?
I say **** THE LAW **** FIANNA FAIL AND **** SHELL. I do whats right not what some wanker wearing a white mop on his head says I should.

Hey Earthman, we can stop discussing this now. I can't argue with this sort of incisive logic.

Well thats charming Kieranus.

Closing this now advocating the charter guideline regarding thread starters not wanting to discuss what they started the thread on.

Lol

You got there before me Oscar