Shell to Sea opinion piece in The Irish Times

mayo | environment | other press

Thursday December 14, 2006 19:45

by Bill - Dublin Shell to Sea

Rethink now needed on Corrib gas project

It is time to pause and take stock of the Corrib gas project, argues Mark Garavan, the main spokesman for the campaign against the project

THE IRISH TIMES
Wed, 13 December 2006
Opinion Section

The last number of months has seen an extraordinary campaign of vilification directed at the Shell to Sea campaign group. Certain elements in the media have seized upon particular individuals, particular categories of supporters or isolated incidents to construct a false and misleading characterisation of the entire campaign.

The truth is that Shell to Sea is not an organisation but a loosely networked campaign comprising many disparate elements. However, it is rooted in a community of decent, law-abiding people, supported by many throughout the country, who have found themselves over six years confronted by the might of three large multi-national corporations fully supported by the Irish Government and the main Opposition party.

After so much deliberate confusing and obscuring of the issues, it is time to address in a calm and sensible manner the causes of the present conflict and to consider how this matter might be resolved.

First, it is important to acknowledge that the Shell to Sea position is not an isolated, marginal one. It is clear from four successive independent opinion polls that an off-shore processing of the Corrib gas is the preferred option of a majority in Co Mayo.

The core problem with the Corrib gas project is the decision to locate the processing plant nine kilometres inland. This unprecedented feature of the project has given rise to the local campaign of opposition. Why? Let me outline a number of reasons.

First, the plant is being constructed on a bog. To build it 500,000 tonnes of wet Atlantic peat must be removed. This is an extraordinarily risky procedure, one never before attempted. The risk of peat run-off, aluminium build-up, increase in peat instability in a wide area and general water contamination is high. This is a serious matter given that Carrowmore Lake, the source of most of the drinking water for Erris, is just two miles away from the site.

Second, gas processing involves a number of hazardous activities. In the event of a fire or explosion, the area is poorly served by necessary support infrastructure such as medical facilities, fire fighting capacity and accessible roads. Yet the plant is being proposed for a populated area with a number of houses some hundreds of yards from it. In addition, the inland location of the plant necessitates the routing of a production pipeline also through populated areas.

Third, the processing gives rise to a number of chemical by-products. Discharges will occur to both air and water. There will be a high-pressure flare stack some 40 metres high, two low-pressure chimneys and the developer will "cold vent" methane to the air. All of this will degrade the environmental quality of the area and give rise to ongoing local anxiety about health.

Fourth, the insertion of this huge plant into an entirely rural and non-industrialised area will change the character of the area irrevocably and transform it from a location of intimacy and familiarity to one that is alien to many of its inhabitants. The physical building itself will cover 22 acres and operate 24/7 with attendant noise and lighting.

Finally, it is clear that Shell's determination to secure the Bellanaboy site is driven by their expectation of developing further gas wells in the future. This was acknowledged by them at the An Bord Pleanála oral hearing. The 400 acres available at Bellanaboy permits them to build additional processing plants in the future.

The question for people outside the area directly affected by this project is this: is the exposure of a small community to health and safety risks and to environmental and cultural loss necessary because of the overall benefits to the country as a whole? Well, what are the benefits? Is it security of supply? No, because Bord Gáis makes it quite clear that most Irish gas comes from the North Sea and that there is no medium-term threat to the continuity of those supplies.

Is it lower cost? No, the price of gas is determined by global market forces and Corrib will be purchased at full market price.

Are there significant financial benefits to the State? Again no. No royalties are being extracted, no equity share taken, no windfall tax levied. All exploration and development costs can be written off against tax at 100 per cent from year one. Thus very little financial benefit will arise.

Might there be jobs from the project? Minimal, other than in the short-term construction of the plant. Once the plant is operational only 50 jobs will be needed. The companies are not obliged to employ Irish workers on their exploration rigs nor do they have to source their supplies from Ireland.

The real beneficiaries are Norway (because of Statoil's involvement), Scotland (where the bulk of the industry's supplies are sourced) and the shareholders of Shell and Marathon.

The question then is straightforward - is this project worth it? Perhaps a more important question arises - what kind of Ireland do you want to live in?

If you think the benefits so obvious that a small community should suffer loss as a result, then fine. But if you believe in the right to live securely, without risk, then ask if the benefits are really so clear that a community of your fellow citizens should be denounced, ridiculed and forced by the deployment of large numbers of gardaí to accept this particular project.

The real issue is to resolve the conflict. It is a shame that neither Minister for Natural Resources Noel Dempsey nor the Taoiseach have visited the area and spoken to the local people. Shell to Sea's proposal for an independent inquiry to determine the optimum development concept for the project, employing clear and reasonable criteria, was rejected within hours by Shell and the Government.

Surely the time has come to pause, take stock and agree a proper development that meets with local consent and delivers real national benefits.

Mark Garavan is spokesman for the Shell to Sea campaign

save preference

Comments (4 of 4)

by Cool Joe - None

Sun Dec 24, 2006 00:41

This latest article written by mark garvin just goes to show that the protest is dead in the water , the final grasps of a campaign that has lost all direction.Raking up old issues and making unsupported claims of why the project should not go ahead.
Where are all the protest heros now !

Reply to cool Joe None

by kato

Mon Dec 25, 2006 01:56

This is not a dead project. Mark Garavan is outlining again for the benefit of people not listening or taking in crucial details, the objections to the project in its current form. These points need to be reiterated again and again, because no matter how many times the campaigners of Shell to Sea try to get them across the government and the multinationals who work hand in glove, try their hardest to portray the campaign and its supporters as a group of nonsensical eccentrics. Which is precisely what you are trying to do. Dr Garavan's artcicle was excellent as usual. May I suggest that you go into the Shell to Sea website and read in full the latest articles featured there. Your darkness will be illuminated and all shall be revealed. Happy Christmas.

shell to sea opinion

by maire

Wed Dec 27, 2006 17:14

Surely time to speak out on the value of our resourses to the people of Ireland. Are they so valueless that we sold them for 50 jobs in the future. Did we actually sell them or did we give them away? Did we keep any options open for the future if they hit pay dirt out there, hold on to some bit of control that we could exercise. ?

Do we value heritage, health, our young, our old, our environment, our clean air, our clean water, our resourses, our people, our future? Taking a pipe line 9 kilometers in shore and extending the risk area makes no sense, particularly when the criteria in site selection was the nearest distance between oil rig and refinery !!!
Nobody can blame Shell for taking off with the family silver if it was handed to them, and our only hope is to recognise our foolishness, and learn from it. The Rossport Five and friends deserve our admiration for whistle blowing on this cucoo like action in the west 's nest.
If anyone really believes that the Rossport Five stand alone they have fallen for corporate spin.

More about media coverage of Shell to Sea

by Manning & Cotton

Tue Jan 23, 2007 15:49

Mark Garavan has given an in depth interview to MediaBite about the S2S experience of the media over the life time of the campaign. He describes the various characteristics of the media which combine to make it so difficult to get the full picture across to the general public. Link here:

http://www.mediabite.org/interviews_archive.html

Since that interview was given, it appears that the Prime Time programme has now decided to join in with the Shell to Sea lynch mob - if their programme last week is anything to by. Garavan's interview makes it clear why the media is unable to respond to anything other than a simple story with subtlety or with concern for the true facts. He shows how Shell, on the other hand, can rely on this media failure and make it work to their advantage. The onus is on Shell to Sea to make the case, while Shell themselves can simply float impressive but superficial soundbites into the argument while leaving the campaign in a permanent stat of seeming confusion about what they are saying. From the interview:

"The first thing is that mainstream media doesn’t do complexity very well. The issues at the heart of our campaign are complex. By which I only mean they require a journalist to think through the issues. In my experience as spokesman for the Shell to Sea Campaign since June or July 2005, who has dealt with the media a lot, I know lots of media people very well and talk to them off the record - dozens of media people phone me constantly. I’ve seen them up close and they don’t usually do complexity. That’s the first thing. They need things translated into relatively simple categories and simple terms. The problem with the Corrib Gas issue is that because it involves a processing facility it involves technical complexity so the validity of the arguments of those who are opposed to it often rests on an interpretation of technical things such as ‘Are the pipelines safe? Is the gas processing facility safe, what are the health implications?’ And so there is a whole lot of science involved in forming a judgment. And the media doesn’t like that. It prefers drama and conflict. Complexity is not easy for the media to capture. "

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

The Saker

Lockdown Skeptics

Voltaire Network

Shell to Sea opinion piece in The Irish Times

Comments (4 of 4)