The Late Late Luddites and Shell

by Andy Peters Sat Sep 03, 2005 09:24

No, Pat Kenny is not a Luddite. He's just a helper. Shell are the Luddites wrecking peoples land and lives while our government helps them.

by Shipsea Sat Sep 03, 2005 10:00

Anyone notice the smooth-talking, oily little shit at the end of the programme talking about 'streamling the planning process' to make it 'easier for everyone'? In other words, in future boys and girls, we're going to make damn sure you dont even get a look in. Were just going to take your land/destroy your environment/build whatever we want wherever we want - and there wont be a damn thing you can do about it.. We wont even have what passes for 'consultaion' at the moment. Someone on another thread says they hope the protest has reached its high water mark and that it's fading now. Let's prove that person wrong.

by Alan - SWP Sat Sep 03, 2005 17:37

As far as i'm thinking Kenny is firmly on shells side.
He doesn't earn his salary sticking up for the little people, but by kissing corporate ass.

by guydebordisdead Sat Sep 03, 2005 20:26

wha'ts wrong with being a luddite?

(in a world gone mad..)

by resident Sun Sep 04, 2005 01:55

what a load of bull, is it because the protesters didnt get their own way on friday night that theres such crap in the comments tonight? i would have to say i thought nothing was clear on the late late, the wives didnt make much sense ,they seemed to be very nervous, why i dont know as they should be well use to the cameras by now, and neither did Andy Pyle or Mark Garavan . why does these FEW protesters still state their defending the whole of Rossport when this is a lie, their protecting themselves !

by resident of the earth Sun Sep 04, 2005 03:38

i would have to say i thought nothing was clear on the late late, the wives didnt make much sense ,, and neither did Andy Pyle or Mark Garavan

er that Andy Pyle guy what a luddite

by Martin Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:15

My Dear Resident,You seem to be completely ignorant on the safety concerns of the pipeline,maybe you are mislead,misinformed or just plain stupid.Yes they are quite rightly trying to protect themselves, but the sad thing they will be protecting an nonentity like you [if you are a resident]

by Tom Moore Sun Sep 04, 2005 12:19

We need the truth.
Mark make some good comments on the Late Late show. As he did not get a chance to explain in full we now need the full truth.
Dear Mark,

You spoke about it being time for the truth on the Late Late the other night.


There was not enough time for it to come out there.

Could you please script a history of the conflict with the names of the bodies
that granted planning permission (and where there is no permission) and all
other relevant facts in one article and publish it on Indymedia.

I note the uninformed comments on Indymedia after the Late Late show and they
show a disorganization and lack of clarity that the men in prison, who cannot
speak, do not deserve.

Please publish the truth as it is.

Thanks.

by resident Sun Sep 04, 2005 16:49

yes i am indeed one of the local people! i am neither ignorant nor stupid.who gives you the right to make judgements about someone you dont even know, i see my area split in two, since the first day gas was mentioned, and Shell werent even talked of then.when Shell did buy in, there was great talk about their safety record, and they were welcomed into Rossport! you people not from this area or even Mayo dont know the half of this continuing saga. Locals are afraid to speak out , because they dont want to make enemies; intimidation and verbal abuse is widespread but has cooled off in the latter weeks because the protest has died down. The only people mounting campaigns are a select few. I certainly dont want to see Willie, Phillip or any of the others in prison but the law is the law, they broke it and now the ball is in their court. Let them get out, and let there be a residential meeting with all the people of Rossport, and no others and let the people have their say; years ago when there were meetings, people werent given a chance to air their views because certain individuals,( a select few , I might add!) would'nt let people speak. This is well known in this area; so please dont try putting yourselves in our position because half of you out there only know half the facts.

by Bernard Cantillon Sun Sep 04, 2005 18:35 Berlin, Germany

I was reading the posts above and something struck me. Other countries allow the people to be consulted in an area about what they believe and want to do.

Public meetings don't serve that purpose. I am not a big fan of referenda, but the one thing that makes them preferable to a public meeting is that people can't be bullied when they are in the privacy of the ballot box. It seems that something like that would be welcome here. Of course, the problem is that Mayo CoCo would have to facilitate this happening and they seem unlikely to do that, but nevertheless, it is an idea.

I am always deeply suspicious when I am told that all the people of an area are for or against something. This could be a way of proving it. (Of course, the protestors from elsewhere currently in Mayo shouldn't have a say in this) Maybe if the community could in some way decide what to do, that would be preferable, without the interference of outsiders. Even if a public meeting was held with a secret ballot at the end. Use the locally available electoral register and it could work. Get someone neutral to administer it and allow the people of the area to have their say. Of course, some will win and some will lose, but if, as they say, the Rossport 5 have the support of their community, let them use this to prove it and if they don't, apologise.

Please don't attack me. I am one of the few people that is willing to put my actual name to my comments. I wish some of the others on here would do that more.

by In favour Mon Sep 05, 2005 08:53

Well said resident. I have been saying the same thing for weeks in here and have been abused for it. fact is there is intimdation and fact is these people have over stepped the mark.

I thought the Late late Show was hilarious. All week in here it had been promoted as the big expose of Shell and a cheer practice for teh rossport 5. in fact the "protesters" presentation of their case was very poor. fact is now the campaign is running out of steam. they have over played their hand by staying in prison this long and the media are either tired of the story or see it for what it is.

by Razor Mon Sep 05, 2005 11:44

This "resident" claims he/she/it is afraid to go public due to fear of intimidation - don't smear a totally peaceful protest with a fascist undertones due to your own self admitted cowardice. Try organise your own pro-Shell, pro-jailings protests and you'll see how much support you have.

If everyone in this country had your parish pump mindest we'd still be ruled by the Vikings never mind the Brits.

by SH Mon Sep 05, 2005 12:47

The late late show was excellent for the campaign. Andy Pyle made an ass out of himself and Mark Garavan was brilliant in exposing his lies. The wives were very nervous but it worked as the people who watch the Late Late aren't, by and large, political activists they are the target audience for the message of the campaign. Everyone I have talked to about it were disgusted with Shell. My 90 year old granny was giving out about Shell after seeing it. Andy Pyle is clearly lying, he squirmed in his seat, Garavan came across as honest and fes up with Shell's lies.

These so called "local residents" giving out about the campaign would so differ if the IP addresses were turned on this website, we would soon see that the so called "local residents" are nowhere near local. Support locally for the campaign is huge. In Dublin there are a lot of ex patriats from Mayo who are also overwhelmingly supportive. These so called "local residents" who are supportive of the campaign should try and go out and organise a Pro campaign, they will find out very quickly how little support they have. Also the lies that they are giving here about intimidation is ridiculous and libelous in the extreme. The only intimidation that has ever taken place has been the intimidation of a local community by a Multi National Corporation

by Not Local Mon Sep 05, 2005 15:02

majority of local residents are clearly in favour of this project, how many landowners have signed for shell versus how many havent minus those without land among the imprisoned

with reference to IP's, i would imagine that local residents posting here are probably working in various places around the country, most local residents need to work unlike the protestors who seem to be able to devote themselves to this full time

by SH Mon Sep 05, 2005 15:24

You are talking absolute crap. The overwhelming majority of residents oppose this project. You have absolutely nothing to back up your claims. The protests have had huge attendances and the support for the campaign has been huge.

As for the IP addresses you are talking crap you clearly haven't understood the concept of "local residents". Now you are saying that local residents live and work all around the country. What an idiotic thing to say. All you are trying to do now is backtrack. Either people are local or not. Even a child could see that.

In conclusion, you are a liar and have absolutely nothing to post here that can be backed up by evidence or anything remotely intelligent.

by not local Mon Sep 05, 2005 15:42

so who are the local residents you are referring to? the ones in solidarity camp i suppose, the fact is local people who do not work in the locality are still from the locality and are the only locals that matter not the blow ins who will probably move onto disrupt economic progress in some other part of the country after rossport

Judging by the pictures of protestors posted on this website, i wouldnt go too far down the road of whose local if i were you

again i ask how many landowners ( i assume qualify as locals) have signed up??
and how many havent???

by Razor Mon Sep 05, 2005 16:08

Are you saying that only "locals" are allowed to protest about the rape of Irish natural resources and the attempt to crush any opposition? Should all proestors be cleared by "locals" like you before they're allowed set foot in Rossport? Ireland purports to be a free society and your nasty attempts to stir up a fictitious local/non-local divide are pathetic and contemptible.

Nobody is stopping you from organising pro-Hell, pro-jailing campaign, - you already have the cops, judges, Shell and most of the media on your side. And of course the majority of "residents" you constantly maintain are on your side (NOT). I won't be holding my breath.

by SH Mon Sep 05, 2005 16:12

You clearly don't understand what a local is. A local who moves away from the area and lives some where else is not a local anymore, they would be a local to their new area. A child can understand this why can't you.

The locals I am refering to are those that are long term residents of the area. The protesters have been asked in by the local community, you haven't and neither has Shell.

As for the landowners who have signed up, that took place before the facts were known. If you had bothered to discuss the issue with those landowners instead of talking crap here you would know that they are extremely unhappy with the government and with Shell. But of course don't let the truth get in the way of your bull crap

by RobbieS Mon Sep 05, 2005 16:13 Dublin from Wexford

In the article I've posted after this one, you can hear Vincent McGrath's thoughts on this question. He thought, at the time at least, that some land-ownders won't admit to their mistake because of pride.

Have a listen on broadband or rightclick to save this link:
http://radio.indymedia.org/uploads/2005.5.26.bogoniland.mp3

Division between locals and non-locals is pathetic in such a national issue as this. What did local farmers know about the deal done in 1988? They were obviously highly regarded in the whole consultative process - not.

by Not local Mon Sep 05, 2005 16:23

i'm not the one making the issue of local residents - thats SH

better to backtrack a few postings before you dive in

by Not local Mon Sep 05, 2005 16:36

so its only the long term locals against the project whose voice matters, you're really narrowing it down now SH, then patronise the ones who did sign up, well done SH

i suppose you're an expert in the oil and gas field yourself SH, put in the hours on the net no doubt,

thanks but i'll put my faith in the real experts on this one,

by fyi Mon Sep 05, 2005 16:39

I believe it was 28 landowners with 50% of the pipe on those refusing the payment... although I can't find the source at the mo

and yes listen to radio clip

any word from the other farmers/landowners at all

by RobbieS Mon Sep 05, 2005 16:43

I'm not interested in the intricacies of your bickering. there are more important things. I notice you showed no interest in listening to Vincent before you disparaged what i'd to say.

by SH Mon Sep 05, 2005 16:59

I think someone of your meagre disposition would do well to try and remember what they wrote before continuing on and writing more crap. You refered to local people who lived nowhere near locally not me. I stated that the locals I am refering to are those who are long term residents in the area. I never said anything about other peoples concerns I was pointing out that the locals are overwhelmingly supportive which you lied and denied and now your idiocy continues.

Yes I have spent hours researching, unlike you. I have been in discussion with the experts, unlike you. The only "experts" who are in agreement with Shell are those that work for Shell. Are the "experts" who work for Shell the ones who you agree with or is it other experts?

by lady Mon Sep 05, 2005 17:34

i think SH you've got some of your facts wrong. in a posting on this page a couple of weeks ago the question was asked "who asked the gang in the solidarity camp " down to Rossport? in reply someone from the camp stated " willie,phillip,vincent,brendan and micheal, the night before they went to prison". so that is not the community that is just a small group (and might i add mr.shine is not from Rossport) and Rossport has quite a few other residents. if you lived in the locality you would be well aware of that.

by SH Mon Sep 05, 2005 17:58

I am well aware of Rossport. The camp has actually been going on since before the lads were jailed so you are wrong their. The land being used belongs to one of the jailed farmers. However the first camp gathering down in Rossport was well attended by the locals and activists from outside the area. You would of course know this if you were from the area

by Not local Mon Sep 05, 2005 18:44

You clearly have a problem with anybody who is not of your opinion thats why you raised the issue of IP's, this project is in the national interest and anybody who feels like it can voice an opinion regardless of an IP address,

the sooner you accept that this project will go ahead the better, the likes of you wasting hard earned taxpayers money is the real scandal in all this,

by SH Mon Sep 05, 2005 18:58

I do no tolerate fools which is why I am completely intolerant of you. People are entitled to express their opinions, those who lie and who fail to read should be confronted.

I raised the issue of IP addresses to state that they would show that those who are claiming to be local will be proven to be liars. How after all this time you have failed to read this is beyond apprehension. You are singularly the most idiotic person I have come across on indymedia.

The scandal certainly is about tax and how little Shell would have to pay if this project goes ahead. It is the worst tax deal around gas resources anywhere in Europe. This certainly is a massive scandal but one beyond your meagre comprehension. I work hard and pay a large some in tax and it is a national scandal for some corrupt government ministers to sign away our natural resources for close to nothing. This pipeline in its current form will not go through and the sooner you realise this the better it will be for you.

by in favour Mon Sep 05, 2005 19:15

I think the Late late Show highlighted that the media and ordinary members of the public have moved on. The men are now beginning to look unreasonable. Why does garavan make statements like - the men will not engage with the safety Review? It makes them look unreasonable.

by Connacht Mon Sep 05, 2005 20:13

I can't get over how agressive the postings here are. Why are people so vindictive and bitchy? I think everyone should step back a gear.

Some of the postings seem to imply that one cannot feel strongly about something unless directly affected by it - well, then all of us should stop reading the papers, stop watching telly, and stop posting about anything except what is happening in our own lives (which would be quite boring I'm sure).

I don't think comparing what one farmer agreed to and what another didn't agreed to is relevant here or useful either. People are entitled to object to Compulsory Acquisition Orders being issued on their land - private property is protected in the Bunreacht. Just because X agreed to sell the land, it doesn't make it any less wrong that land is being taken off Y to be handed over to SEPIL. It's also important to note that although landowners in Rossport did sell their land (having been told that to refuse would mean the issuing of CAOs anyway) to SEPIL, or Entreprise Energy as it was at the time, that not all of those people live near the pipeline. They own fields through which the pipeline will be laid, but they don't necessarily live near the pipe. The risk isn't so great to them.

by not local Mon Sep 05, 2005 22:59

certainly could do with cooling down a little bit, as you can see i have never once called him an idiot, he further discredits the no campaign with his agressive rantings

Perhaps the real reason is that he knows himself the campaign has lost its impact on the general public. As for Andy Pyle, in my opinion he comes across at all times as a perfect gentleman, never loses his cool or starts throwing insults unlike the opposition led by Dr. Garavan, would be interested to know what the Doc. has done for the local economy? will he find jobs for the local people that have lost theirs on the project?

by SH Tue Sep 06, 2005 10:51

Poor "not local", comes on this website, lies and is attacked for it, oh the scandal of it why can't he be left to lie in peace. What nonsense.

Andy Pyle came across as a lying heartless director of a multinational corporation. The Late late was excellent for the campaign, Garavan was brilliant in confronting Pyle's lies. Almost everyone I have talked to who saw the show gave out about Pyle. The campaign is growing and local Shell to Sea groups are increasing in numbers. This campaign is strengthening.

by Mick Tue Sep 06, 2005 11:43

I would disagree with you SH but dont start attacking me. Most people i spoke to were not in anyway engaged by the debate on the late late Show. i dont think it was a particlularly strong presentation of the debate and I agree with other posters that say the interest is waning. This is natural. All in all i would classify the late late Show debate in football speak as a boring nil nil draw!!

by SH Tue Sep 06, 2005 12:11

Andy Pyle was squirming in his seat. He looked uncomfortable when his lies were confronted, this came across on TV. Garavan came across as a normal person tired by the continuing lies of Pyle, he came across very well. The wives came across very nervous, however this worked out well as people had a natural empathy with them. I have only come across 1 person who said that he thought the two sides were matched, everyone else gave out about Pyle and said he came across as if he was lying. The campaign is growing, protest numbers are increasing and the numbers getting involved in local Shell to Sea groups are also increasing, hardly the actions of people growing tired of it.

The Dail will be back in session soon and you can expect this to be taken up within the first couple of sittings.

by Connacht Tue Sep 06, 2005 14:32

The piece on the Late Late Show was very short and wasn't very incisive. There wasn't enough time to actually deal with the issues involved, and it ended all of a sudden with no wrapping up or conclusion by Kenny. The women came across as very nervous, because I presume they were very nervous as this has been a very traumatic few months for them - it was traumatic before, but being the focus of so much attention must be frightening for them, particularly when it leaves them open to such agressive criticism as they have received on this and other postings - this is after the shoddy way that they have been treated all along by the developers and by the State. I thought Andy Pyle and Mark Garavan both spoke well. Andy Pyle was less than truthful about the nature of the pipeline and about the so-called rigorous planning process the project has been put through, but he didn't come across as quite as hostile as he usually does. It's about time his PR people taught him how to pronounce the names of placenames and State bodies in Ireland though! It's up to individual viewers to make up their own minds about the show - but the core issues remain the same, whether the campaign is waning or getting stronger. It makes no difference.

by MIck Tue Sep 06, 2005 16:23

Can someone please tell me what lies Pyle told?

by SH Tue Sep 06, 2005 17:32

You can watch the extract at this link
http://www.rte.ie/tv/latelate/

He says a few one of which is that the pipe going through Rossport isn't unique

by Mick Tue Sep 06, 2005 17:59

At the risk of provoking you SH, can you explain why you believe the pipeline is unique? Its an honest question. Please dont give me the rant, i want honest to god facts, not propoganda. Thanks

by SH Tue Sep 06, 2005 18:26

“The design of this pipeline is a totally different design”

MD Shell E&P Ireland Limited, Andy Pyle, denying the “upstream” section is comparable to gas transmission pipelines (RTE Radio1 06/08/05)



Here is some info from the Shell to Sea website http://www.corribsos.com/index.php?id=200
There are links there that give further info from other websites which you wouldn't be able to call campaign propaganda

by Connacht Tue Sep 06, 2005 18:40

To Mick - the pipeline is unique for a number of reasons. Firstly, Minister Dempsey is on record himself as saying in the Dáil that the pipeline is "unique" and "unprecedented". Of course, now that it doesn't suit him politically to do so, he claims that it isn't!

The pipeline is a "production" pipeline. It is not a "transmission" or "distribution" pipeline as SEPIL reps sometimes claim which are the type of pipelines that we might be familiar with that Bord Gáis operate in inhabited areas. It operates at a very high pressure and carries raw gas, that has yet to be refined on shore. The norm in terms of gas refining is that the refining is done on an offshore terminal, that is, the gas is refined at sea, it is odorised, depressurised and then brought ashore from which it is then passed into a transmission or distribution pipeline. In this case in Mayo, the production pipeline is passing by people's homes. This is unique while although there are onshore refineries elsewhere (2 examples in Norway and 1 in Australia oft quoted by SEPIL), the high-pressure production pipelines involved do not go through inhabited areas - they are designed to bypass them. In this aspect alone, this production pipeline is unprecedented.

Furthermore, the safety distance from the pipeline that SEPIL have chosen (70m) is 100m short of the safety distance recommended by the code (BS8010) which they claim to adhere to in the design of the pipeline. Quite incredible.

by Mick Tue Sep 06, 2005 19:11

Thanks Connacht that is helpful. But I have heard Mark Garavan say on a number of occasions that he has no problem with the pipeline design. He said this several times. I also dont understand what people mean by raw gas? and i suspect that this is just a carefully chosen phrase designed to engineer a particular image in people's minds. Maybe not.

What i am most puzzled by is the fact that whether the gas is "processed" offshore or onshore, there will still surely be a pipeline in Rossport?

by Justin Morahan - Peace People Wed Sep 07, 2005 02:47

They were dignified, quiet-spoken (not nervous), displaying a deep strength of character, never flinching in their support for their husbands, pointing out the pain of separation when they were asked, but never accepting the tag of "distressed partner suffering at home while husband is enjoying prison life" that Pat Kenny appeared willing to stick on them..
Their solidarity with the Five was magnificent.
Well done ladies. Brendan, Micheal, Philip, Vincent and Willie must be proud of you.
The Rossport Five campaign is stronger now than ever it was. Never out of the news. See today's UK Independent for another article.
The Late Late show result in my opinion:
Rossport Five: 5
Shell: 0

by Shipsea Wed Sep 07, 2005 05:01

To read the article referred to in the comment above:

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article310805.ece

Detailed but doesnt query the financial basis for the project negotiated by the Irish government.

by Hal Wed Sep 07, 2005 09:07

The Independent on this side of the water contains a piece where ESRI call for immediate development of the Corrib field. Basically says If we dont get it up and running soon, the lights will go out and people will die.

by Not local Wed Sep 07, 2005 09:24

people wake up and smell the coffee on this one before its too late

not alone will our international reputation be in ruins, after all Shell are the only company prepared to spend the millions drilling holes off our coast right now, but the reliability of our internal gas network will be seriously undermined

in my opinion the people of Ireland are soon to make themselves heard on this one

by SH Wed Sep 07, 2005 10:25

Again with a ridiculous post. How long more will you decide to bother us without checking out the full facts. It is extremely ignorant to post infactual nonsense, are you deliberatley lying, have you deliberately not read the facts?

Our International reputation will not be in ruins, I have never heard such ridiculous crap in my life. According to you we should just bow down to Multi National Corporations for the sake of our international reputation. Our international reputation will be in ruins if this goes through in its current form. MNC's will know that they can railroad anything through, exploit our natural resources, intimidate a local community, be in flagrant breach of our law and also have the pleasure of doing this while paying barely any tax. That is an international reputation in ruins.

Shell are not the only company willing to drill for the gas, they are not even the only company who is part of the Corrib project. Statoil are also a major part of this project. Of course you didn't know this or deliberately ignored this.

It's about time that you woke up and smelt the coffee. This is a far more complex issue than you seem to have understood so far. Are you deliberately lying or are you just plain ignorant?.

by Mick Wed Sep 07, 2005 10:34

SH you are the only person posting on this debate that is ranting and unreasonable. Why does anyone who has a different view point to you have to be a liar? I am not a liar. I just happen to believe something different to you. You are guilty of what you accuse others of doing. You are a bully and it is you who is doing the rail-roading. You just rant on without giving a proper rational analysis. Instead you rely on half truths and abuse. I am just trying to engage in an honest debate of the issues. in fact I think most of the others are too. Come on...give it a try!

by Shipsea Wed Sep 07, 2005 10:40

Our international reputation as a country with some self-respect and dignity about how we allow others to come in and use our resoruces can only be enhanced by making it plain to Shell that they have to respect the people of this country first and foremost. They will have to know that backroom deals made on our behalf by the ignorant gargoyles we call our politicians are not enough. They have to get past us first, they need our permission. So, they will have to invest a fraction of their anticipated (huge) profits on safety and environmental protection. We will not have them unless they take their refinery out to sea where it belongs. They will have to revise their estimates. They will still be more than quids in, incidentally. To think of Ahern et al bowing and scraping before these guys makes you sick - no royalties to the state! How can such fools ever be elected? This is the issue that we have to 'wake up and smell the coffee' about. We have to stop electing these arrogant, incompetent, corrupt and vicious politicians who treat us all as if we were dirt. To encourage and defend the imprisoning of people in this country for defeding their legitimate concerns in these circumstances says everything there is to say about this government. It could be any one of us depending on which part of the country they next decide to give away.

Read the facts here:

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=70767&condense_comments=false#comment120606

by Shipsea Wed Sep 07, 2005 11:04

The link given above goes to the wrong part of the thread (The Story Behind the Jailing of the Rossport 5):

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=70767&search_text=The%20Story%20Behind

Will take you to the right place - read the facts everyone. To speak of benefits to the Irish people from this wholesale sell-out is utter rubbish.

by SH Wed Sep 07, 2005 11:22

Mick,

Are you posting also as "not local" as that is who my post was aimed at. People are entitled to their opinions but those that lie and attempt to deliberatley mislead must be confronted. I am being completely rational in my posts and sticking to the facts. The poster "not local" does not and has consistently attempted to either lie or is ignorant of the facts. You can go through his/her previous posts. Nothing I have posted has been shown to be a lie or even a half truth, if you can prove otherwise do so, if not you should withdraw the remark. Spare me the bully nonsense and try and stick to honest debate. This issue has consistently had untruths passed around as truths by proponents of the Corrib gasline and none of them should be tolerated. People should read the posts stick to the truths and spare us the intolerable nonsensese that gets passed around by proponents of the project.

by not local Wed Sep 07, 2005 14:19

Not local is definitely not mick

after all you are the IP address expert so you already know this SH,

where are the lies??of course i know that statoil and marathon are involved

The most recent licenses issued for exporation off the irish coast were awarded to Shell/ENI/OMV conglomerate and to Island Oil and Gas (an irish company nobody has heard of before) these were the only 2 that applied, we cannot afford to lose the few remaining because a few farmers think that an intrinsically safe pipeline which will be tested to highest engineering pipeline standards, and of greater thickness than any other pipeline ever built in this country is going to blow up what absolute and utter nonsense this is, your the one that is ignorant of the facts if anybody is

your problem is that your are so consumed by this rossport farmer debacle that the bigger picture has passed you by

by SH Wed Sep 07, 2005 14:37

The campaign for the release of the men is only 1 part of the campaign as is the safety issues. Their is also the issue of renegotiating the entire deal. The tax that Shell will pay is minute compared to other countries, at the moment we are virtually handing over our national resources for nothing. This has been demanded consistently, again you are either ignorant of the facts or you are deliberatley lying. Why do you consistently do this?

by Worker Wed Sep 07, 2005 14:42

I said it to Terry too. What are you basing this bull on SH? More dodgy internet research? Well done! OK so are you prepared to pay more tax so that the irish state can invest in oil and gas exploration in order to gain a larger slice of the very few commercial discoveries there are? Are you prepared to stand by and watch the state sink millions of euro into dry holes that is the norm when exploring offshore Ireland? that is the reality of your argument. \what do you expect? Politically the public would not support taking money out of education or health so taht we couyld have an active role in the exploration sector. That is what you are arguing.

By the way....I note nobody is discussing the ESRI report out today that called for the immediate development of Corrib. It was put in stark terms and demonstrated quite clearly that this is in the national interest.

by SH Wed Sep 07, 2005 14:52

Terry has his opinions and I have mine. We are two separate people if thats not too dificult for you to understand.

So what if the ESRI demand it, they are also demanding a carbon tax. Do you think the governement will introduce a carbon tax? of course not. Are you being selective about ESRI recommendations? of course you are. Perhaps you would like us to get rid of our government and have the ESRI run the country without interference from the people?

I never said that we would nationalise the gas did I? No, however you produced a little rant based on falsehoods. And don't call them few discoveries, Shell are involved because they stand to make billions out of this deal. The tax that they would pay is less than anywhere else in the world. How come you or "not local" don't comment on this? Because you deliberately ignore the facts and post idiotic nonsense.

by Worker Wed Sep 07, 2005 14:57

SH

John Fitzgerald, ESRI said that Corrib needs to be immediately developed or the lights will go out and people will die. Does this or does this not demonstrate that Corrib is in the national interest? Or is Mr Fitzgerald an idiot?

by not local Wed Sep 07, 2005 14:59

i am not foolish enough to believe that the government is going to renegotiate the deal it has with Shell its just not going to happen no more so than Mayo Co. Co. can revoke pp it has granted for terminal at current location its just not going to happen

It is not in the national interest for this project to falter on a number of fronts including future exploration, energy requirements of the state and international reputation remaining intact

by SH Wed Sep 07, 2005 15:12

I didn't see Fitzgerald say that. I have seen the press release and that isn't in it. However Fitzgerald is exagerating completely if he did say it. Their is no short term danger of "the lights going out" and Fitzgerald would never say that.

However having the project being revamped, renegotiated and then going ahead is not a problem. To try and sensationalise this and say that being ripped off by a MNC is in the national interest is idiotic in the extreme and John Fitzgerald never discussed the intricacies of the Corrib deal.

Our international reputation will not be affected by this. That argument is absolute crap. It is one of the most idiotic arguments I have heard. It shows you have absolutely no understanding of International politics or relations. The governement can renegotiate the deal at any stage, this government is unwilling to and questions need to be asked of the ministers who negotiated the deal. However it is extremely naive of you to think that it will not be done.

by Worker Wed Sep 07, 2005 15:17

SH

I will get the web url soon and post it but John Fitzgerald's point is related by Treacy Hogan in Irish independent on page 11 today. Its in quotes so I think he mosre than likely did say it. Apology accepted!

by Shipsea Wed Sep 07, 2005 15:57

I suspect your are on this thread as a Shell/Government troll. You keep repeating the same mantra regardless of the arguments presented to you - and do not engage with the financial, environmental and safety facts that have been put to you.

Your last post is based on the same two hypotheses as the others:
fistly, that the government isnt going to change its mind about this project. You know well this is not what they are being asked to do. They are being asked to do it DIFERENTLY; In any case there is no law that governments cannot be made to change their minds - especially when the people who elect them tell them that they must. To think otherwise is to agree that our government is trying to act like a dictatorship.

Secondly, you have this notion that the spectacle of our political representatives bending over for a kick in the ass by Shell, Statoil and others, while simultaneously fawning over their assailants with obsequious gratitude , is somehow preserving our 'international reputation'! What a monumentla joke!. They are making unholy twits of themselves and must be the laughing stock of the international corporate world. No wonder every filthy business from pharmaceuticals, gm foods, electronic defence systems and incinerators to bargain-basement exploration deal-makers are flocking to our country. 'Hey boys, over here quick, these guys havent a clue!'

The difficulty the government have now is as much about saving face as it is about anything. We can all see how stupid they have been - and they know it. Continuing to defending their foolishness is only drawing attention to it.

by SH Wed Sep 07, 2005 16:38

First of all, thank you for putting up the details of where the quote was. However you got it completely wrong. What he said was that if the gas supply was interupted people would die. He never said that if the Corrib project wasn't developed people would die. You are mistaken. Since you are so keen on apologies, are you going to make one?

by DV8 Wed Sep 07, 2005 16:57

Call for rapid delivery of Corrib gas to protect supply

THE gas from the Corrib gas field must be brought ashore as soon as possible to protect our vulnerable gas supply, the ESRI economic policy think-tank recommends today.

And it wants the immediate closure of Bord na Mona's peat-burning power stations to protect the environment. The economic agency also warns of the dangers in having Ireland totally dependent on a single pipeline from Scotland for its gas supply.

John Fitzgerald, ESRI economist, said: "If gas supply is interrupted the lights will go out in the country. And people will die because hospitals will have no power. The ESRI report on Irish Energy Policy, published today, warns that the controversial Corrib Gas Field off Co Mayo must be quickly developed.

"The development of the Corrib gas field will provide another very important independent source of supply, further enhancing the physical security of the system," the report says.

By 2010 the vast majority of our electricity will be gas powered, the ESRI reveals in the report.

According to the ESRI the building of a second gas interconnector with Scotland is vital to secure Ireland's supply against the very low probability risk of a breakage in a single undersea pipeline.

The economic body also recommend that gas could be stored in the old Kinsale gas field or salt caverns in Belfast to protect Ireland against a prolonged interruption to gas supplies or a long-term major price increase.

In its report the ESRI says it is essential that businesses and households pay the full economic cost of energy and that there should be no explicit or hidden subsidies. It says that major investment in new electricity generation capacity and transmission networks is needed, particularly in light of increasing levels of wind energy.

"At the same time Ireland is likely to increase its dependence on gas to supply its energy needs over the next decade and the government should consider strengthening the crucial gas transmission network."

According to the report the new all-island electricity market was expected to bring significant benefits to consumers, cutting the long-term cost of a reliable electricity supply.

Together with better interconnection to the UK this will see the ESB's dominant position in the electricity generation sector "substantially eroded in the next decade".

And the energy regulator should insist on the closure of uneconomic plants that are surplus to requirements. The ESRI should gradually replace peat-burning power plants with biomass, using wood products in the three new peat-powered plants.

Treacy Hogan
Environment Correspondent

by Mick Wed Sep 07, 2005 17:29

SH

It can be no clearer than this:

John Fitzgerald, ESRI economist, said: "If gas supply is interrupted the lights will go out in the country. And people will die because hospitals will have no power. The ESRI report on Irish Energy Policy, published today, warns that the controversial Corrib Gas Field off Co Mayo must be quickly developed.

"The development of the Corrib gas field will provide another very important independent source of supply, further enhancing the physical security of the system," the report says.

by Boycotter Wed Sep 07, 2005 17:40

Now take it offshore if it's so imporant.

by not local Wed Sep 07, 2005 17:47

I am not repeating myself at all, in SH post "free the 5" he states that deal must be renegotiated, i am merely stating my opinion that it wont be renegotiated. Also in my opinion Mayo Co. Co. cannot revoke the pp without substantial compensation payment to Shell, this is fact where are the lies?

You might think that the govenment is bending over to Shell, I'd be of the opinion that the governmnet is making responsible decisions based on the future energy and economic needs of the country.

The shell to sea are the ones that are being viewed in a negative manner at this point,

this gas will come ashore the country needs it and the country wants it

by Shipsea Wed Sep 07, 2005 17:49

None of this addresses the safety issues or the basis on which the agreement was negotiated in the first instance. The urgency of our need for gas is not the issue: it is how to proceed safely and equitably. This press release from John Fitzgerald is a scare tactic which ducks the issues. If things are that urgent then Shell should get their fingers out and start amending their plans so that the gas can be refined safely at sea. Had they done so in the first instance there would have been no delay.

Reading between the lines, are we being prepared for the idea that Shell are gearing up to start work regardless sometime soon? We need to get up to Rossport, pronto, if that's the case. In our thousands.

by SH Wed Sep 07, 2005 17:56

It is clear what Fitzgerald says alright and it is nowhere near saying that if the Corrib project doesn't go ahead people will die. That is very clear.

Let me make it very clear. I do want the gas processed, I am not against a similar project. However the gas should be processed off shore and the deal needs to be renegotiated with Shell.

by not local Wed Sep 07, 2005 18:43

is being conducted by a competent body at the moment let them decide whether its safe or not to proceed as it is, and before you say they have worked for shell in the past i know they have, the fact is they are both in the same business and it is inevitable that they will have worked for shell at some point in the past, the government are the appointed representatives of the irish people and they have expressed their satisfaction that they're independent of shell, thats good enough for me and

SH knows very well that processing offshore is not an option Shell will ever consider so there is little point in discussing it

by Connacht Wed Sep 07, 2005 18:45

Mick (to trawl back through a few postings!), I think you may have misinterpreted what Mark Garavan has been saying as there is no doubt that he and his campaign object to the design of this pipeline - that is why those men are in jail. The people of Mayo have no objection to gas coming ashore at all - in fact they would welcome it, particularly if they were to be connected to the national grid and furthermore if the gas were to be processed offshore, thereby creating jobs and development in the area rather than all servicing of the rigs being conducted in Ayr, Scotland. A pipeline would still possibly be going through Rossport, but one would hope that Shell would use Bord Gáis regulations and codes in relation to its design, thus ensuring the safety (as far as is possible) of the local residents. Perhaps asking this company to comply with regulations is wishful thinking, but sin scéal eile...

In regard to "raw gas" this phrase is used to describe gas which has come from the well and has not been refined. It will have anti-corrosives and anti-freeze added to it, but no impurities will have been removed from it, which is why it is termed "raw". Its pressure will not be reduced from its exit from the well until it reaches the refinery in Bellanaboy, which is a further reason why the behaviour of this gas is so unpredictable as the pressure at the wellhead will vary, the pressure being higher (possibly reaching the full 345 bar design capacity of the pipeline) particularly in the first few years of the life of the well.

Hal, Worker, re: ESRI report: I've read the report and it doesn't state anywhere that the Corrib gas should come ashore in a high-pressure pipeline through a village in order to make the gas available to the rest of the country. It states that the Corrib supply is needed but I think it would be irresponsible of you to ascribe words to ESRI representatives that they never uttered. The Rossport people are not objecting to the development of Corrib at all, they object to the project design as currently proposed.

Hal, when reading the Irish Independent in regard to this controversy, it is important to keep in mind that Sir Anthony O'Reilly's son is chair/MD (not sure of exact title) of Providence Resources who are holders of an exploration licence in our waters, and therefore it is in the interest of Independent Newspapers to discredit and insult and smear the jailed men and their families.

Not Local says "an intrinsically safe pipeline which will be tested to highest engineering pipeline standards, and of greater thickness than any other pipeline ever built in this country ". Firstly, how is it an "intrinsically safe pipeline"? - that was a bit of an unqualified throw-away comment on your part. Secondly, yes, the proposed pipeline will be of greater thickness than any other pipeline ever built in this country because it will be delivering gas at a higher-pressure than any other pipeline ever built in this country.

Good to see people still debating this.

by interested Wed Sep 07, 2005 19:00

will you accept the findings of the safety review currently being conducted,

by Shipsea Wed Sep 07, 2005 20:50

Shell are not in a position to dictate what they will or will not consider.

The wishes of the people of this country are what determine what is to be considered. It's our community, not theirs. Any privileges Shell enjoy as a consequence of our permission to be here and the gift we have given them of access to extraordinary profit making - at our expense - needs to be acknowledged and respected by Shell. This has to go beyond planting a few tress or targeting local schools with funds for computers (all tried and tested approaches used by foreign corporations in Ireland in the past). We want safety and we want a dividend for the privileges given.

Our elected representatives are there to respect and act on the views of those who elect them - not the other way around. It is only 'good enough for me' if those representatives do the things which we instruct them to do. They have no superior judgment in matters of community interest and need careful monitoring and guidance in all they are doing. That's what accountability is all about and it's something there is not nearly enough of in Ireland.

This 'not local' is like a rabbit trapped in headlights - such is his/her awed and childlike deference to the wishes and whims of the corporate interests here. Yet again, no engagement with the safety issues raised or with the terms of the original negotiation.

by not local Thu Sep 08, 2005 09:54

Unlike yourself and a number of others posting here I do not consider myself qualified to make a judgement on the technical aspects of constructing high pressure pipelines,

as i've said previously safety issues are being dealt with by those appointed and qualified to make such judgements, let them make their judgement, respect it and put an end to all this nonsense once and for all

by SH Thu Sep 08, 2005 10:39

Not only do you defer safety issues but you also have no objections to the scandalous tax deal that the corrib project currently has. The gas is OUR natural resource not Shells. They should pay a fair tax rate.

The rights of the locla community also take precedence over Shell. Shell have the resources to refine the gas off shore and that is what they will have to do. They stand to make billions from Corrib, they can well afford it.

If Shell refuse to do this, then the project will not go ahead under Shell.

by Shipsea Thu Sep 08, 2005 11:20

If you insist on infantilising yourself to the extent that you are, you can hardly be surprised that others prefer to take a more involved and critical attitude to what is going on around them. What you are saying, really, is that you dont care whether this project is safe or equitable. Neither, obviously do you care about its impact on other people and their communities - which is why you turn a blind eye to all of this. If you dont want to think cirtically , then really you have no business involving yourslef in the discussion. It goes a long way to explaining why your contributions never engage with the issues or make any particular sense: you are unable to do so. You take all you hear from Shell and the government like a good little boy/girl, well reassured by a pat on the head from them. If we are to take you at your own word we can see that you personify the mindset of the of willing dupe that Shell, Statoil and others before them were encouraged to believe this country was populated with. In your way, you and people like you are the reason that so much corruption and incompetence is made possible: you are too afraid to look the truth in they eye. 'Surely not?' is all your response boils down to. Well, sorry to burst your bubble but definitely yes, Shell, Statoil and a selection of our elected representatives have sold us out big time. Time to grow up and face it.

by Connacht Thu Sep 08, 2005 11:49

With all due respect, "not local" says "Unlike yourself and a number of others posting here I do not consider myself qualified to make a judgement on the technical aspects of constructing high pressure pipelines". However in a previous posting on this thread you said "..because a few farmers think that an intrinsically safe pipeline which will be tested to highest engineering pipeline standards, and of greater thickness than any other pipeline ever built in this country is going to blow up what absolute and utter nonsense this is...". You contradict yourself here.

"Interested" asks if I would accept the findings of the safety review currently being conducted. Clearly it is not up to me to accept the findings of any review, as this situation does not impact me personally. However, like yourself, I am very interested in this situation. I also remember that when the men were jailed that Noel Dempsey, Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, in his attempts to gain the trust of the locals when they and the media discovered that Shell were being monitored through the submission by themselves of weekly reports to the dept and that Shell (SEPIL) were carrying out work beyond the consent which they had been given, that the Minister promised that a special monitoring group would be set up, not including members of the Petroleum Affairs Division (PAD) of his dept which had been negligent in monitoring work on the project, and that it would be this new group that would consider the tenders for the 3rd safety review. That monitoring committee has not been set up, and the tendering process is now being run by the same PAD. The company conducting the 3rd safety review has worked not just for Shell but also for the dept in relation to the interconnectors to Scotland. Also, the granting of permission for the offshore section of the pipe (the same pipe in essence, but split under project-splitting which is illegal in the EU) while safety aspects of the onshore section are being reviewed totally compromises the work of those reviewing the onshore section and prejudices the outcome of their research. However, I reiterate, it is not my decision to accept any findings, but I think that the government are certainly not making any effort to gain the trust of those who have concerns. Furthermore the terms of reference of the review do not take into account in a thorough enough manner what the safety of the people around the pipeline would be if there were to be an accident - it deals with the safety of the pipeline itself. Not enough in my mind.

by not local Thu Sep 08, 2005 14:07

how many times do i have to say it, i will, like most ordinary people that dont pretend to be experts on gas pipelines, accept the findings of the safety review whether it approves or condemns it,

i have stated what Shell have stated in relation to the highest engineering standards being applied to the pipeline construction, i see no reason to doubt this, why would shell want to build a pipeline with even the remotest possibility of it being unsafe, in all fairness contirbutors to internet message boards such as this dont build gas pipelines, Shell invest heavily in and employ the expertise to do so,

you can discuss the technical aspects, safety issues environmental etc all you want but to what end?

by SH Thu Sep 08, 2005 14:21

So basically what you are saying is you believe Shell regardless of anything else. You are also happy with the worse tax deal in europe that the government gave Shell. You are also happy to ignore the wishes of the local community.

I wonder would you be so happy if this pipeline was going to be 70 metres from your door or if your wishes were being ignored.

The reality is you are willing for the Rossport communtiy to bend over and take it up the ass from Shell. They take all the risks. The country as a whole gets ripped off. That is what you are saying

by Connacht Thu Sep 08, 2005 14:24

I discuss technical aspects of this project because people like yourself, in all fairness to you, bring up the technical aspects on your postings, and more importantly, because it is these technical aspects that are causing the controversy and that are worrying people. In regard to your blind trust of SEPIL, Shell have built many pipelines which have ruptured and leaked causing death and devastation in the past, and in regard to your comment about the "remotest possibility of it being unsafe" read the QRA and you will see that they themselves have provided the statistics which quantify exactly what your "remotest possibility" of it being unsafe are.

by Shipsea Thu Sep 08, 2005 14:49

By your own admission, 'not local', you do not engage with any critical assessment either of the issues that are of concern to the people of Rossport and Mayo nor of the proven facts about Shell's safety history. If you deliberately keep yourself in a state of ignorance then you have no business contributing to debate. Whatever Shell's reassurances they have been responsilbe for serious lapses of safety - resulting in loss of life in other places. It is no use to stick your head in the sand. The review has been specifcially defined to exclude the very concerns that even An Bord Pleanala had identified as grounds for rejecting the plan, initially. This exercise is not a review - it is a rubber stamping exercise designed to appeal exclusively to willingly gullible people. Anyone with a fully functioning and enquiring brain in their head, however, can only feel insulted and angered by it.

by not local Thu Sep 08, 2005 15:15

not local (at least this not local) will not be contribruting further to discussion, i remain firmly in favour of this project and believe your campaign/protest will prove fruitless,however i wish you well

by local person Thu Sep 08, 2005 15:25

i believe no matter what review is done, shell will come threw.not because we want it through but because the government has sold us out not today but years back,and no amount of protesting or debating etc is gonna do any good! if there was profit and all things nice and wonderful to come from this field we here in Erris would not even have got a 2nd glance .Galway would have taken it or some other place, the shit is always dumped in Mayo.hope the lads in Cloverhill are keeping well!

by Connacht Thu Sep 08, 2005 17:54

Thanks to "Not Local" for all the contributions.

by local person Wed Oct 05, 2005 17:03

something that has yet to surface in the media is the fact that members on the protesters group, one person in particular, has his son working on security at the corrib project and his daughter working in the canteen at ballinaboy, this person is one of the leading protesters and his brothers are often spokesmen for locals. Protesters? what a joke

by Shipsea Wed Oct 05, 2005 17:30

If you are the same 'local' as the 'local person' on another thread who is also making unsubstantiated allegations with a view to discrediting the Rossport 5 and their opposition to Shell , then it's worth pointing out that your tactics are not very convincing. Anyone reading the preceding comment should treat it with the contempt it deserves. No verifying information whatsoever. If this were a court of law, you'd be thrown out as a vexatious litigant for pestering us like this.