Three pipeline routes for Corrib Gas- green light for further protests from court judgement

mayo | environment | news report

Wednesday September 19, 2007 17:54

by Corridor Watcher

Shortest route crosses the estaury underwater

Since the arrival during the summer of Garda patrol boats on the Sruwaddacon inlet in Broadhaven Bay, many local people have been convinced that Shell's plan was to force their high -pressure pipeline under water, up the bay and reach the refinery site without having to cross very much privately owned land.

Today, the company has shown three different routes, but the shortest is up the bay and it would be difficult to find anyone in Erris who does not believe that the inlet is Shell's preferred route.

Routes for Shell high pressure pipeline

Shell's contractors, RPS, used a large force of gardaí and a JCB to push through a crowd of protesters, and install a temporary building on the pier at Pollatomish on June 11th. They were later forced to remove this structure, after realising that they needed the landowner's consent to access the pier. This consent was not forthcoming, although after what many people described as intimidation by members of the Garda Siochána , the landowner, who is an elderly man, suffered a serious stress-related illness and had to be hospitalised.It seems unlikely that the company and their friends would go to such trouble if their plan was not to use Sruwaddacon bay for their preferred route, using the new Strategic Infrastructure Bill to bypass the local planning laws.

No doubt Shell will find an alternative route to the edge of the water, and the small parts of the onshore pipeline which are going to be on land will be forced through somehow. The company's protestations of wanting to "hear further views of the community" can be taken with the usual pinch of salt, and when they say that the routes will be "further investigated by a number of experts including archaeologists, ecologists, pipeline engineers, marine specialists, etc" you can guarantee that the experts will all be very "developer friendly" to use an old Fianna Fáil phrase.

However it is important to remember that the pipeline will still be pumping gas at a pressure much much greater than any other pipeline in Ireland, and the consequences of a fault causing an explosion would still be devastating. The pipeline, although under water, would still be close to houses, schools, a tourist hostel, a pub, and public roads.

The local community are still completely against the structure being imposed on them.

Recently, at the District Court in Ballycroy, Judge Mary Devins delivered a judgement relating to the protests against the Shell scheme where she compared the actions of a number of protesters who had hindered Shell's activities to the non-violent protests at Tiananmen Square in 1989, to taxi drivers and farmers blocking streets in the capital city, and to banned parades and demonstrations in Northern Ireland. Pointing out that the protests against Shell seemed to her to fall in to this tradition of non-violent obstruction as a form of civil disobedience, the judge dismissed charges against the protesters, and gave them a comparatively mild sentence of community service for reckless behaviour, even thought he gardaí were obviously hoping for a large fine or a prison sentence.

It's important to bear this judgement in mind when considering the prospects for Shell being able to force though the pipeline. The judge has effectively given the green light to non-violent protests, even where these cause obstruction.

Coupled with the implacable opposition of the majority of the community of Kilcommon Parish (even including the local Parish Priest), and the well organised network of supporters in Ireland and abroad, it's seems that even Shell's proposal to sneak the pipeline under water up the bay may be doomed to failure.

Protesters and supporters gather for the court hearing at Ballycroy on Thursday Sept 13th

Outside Ballycroy Court on September 13th

save preference

Comments (26 of 26)

Jump To Comment:

Why?

by CL

Wed Sep 19, 2007 19:39

"No doubt Shell will find an alternative route to the edge of the water, and the small parts of the onshore pipeline which are going to be on land will be forced through somehow. "
It seems to me that there wont be any need to "force through" any section of the pipeline if route C is the preferred route.
Shell has consent from landowner as far as the pier in Rossport, and the next landfall is on their own property (refinery site).
Why would S2S complain if Shell went with route C, it would alleviate the locals fear of an disastrous gas explosion in close proximity to houses, and in the unlikely event of a pipeline rupture the rupture / fire would be surrounded by water.
I am on record on this site stating that this would be the route chosen by shell, and while I still suspect that it is the most likely route "B" is also a possibility as it would be much less challenging to Shell (being mostly on land).
There is the possibility that Shell has included route C as a bargaining tool to use with the landowners whose land would be used by A or B, those land owners could have asked for a blank cheque to let the pipeline through their land, but with the possibility of a route where the government owns the seabed they will have a tool to stop the landowners being "too" greedy.
I will now suggest that if the EPA grants a IPPC licence to Shell, this saga is over (bar the shouting).
legal challenges can, and probably will be brought to Europe but such cases will be futile as the findings will not be binding, and at worst Ireland will be fined for breach of a directive.

WHY is CL taking S/hells side, do you live in the area

by Eamonn O'Coilea'in - Living in the republic or Ireland

Thu Sep 20, 2007 17:41

I state for the record! What record, surely not s/hells record, because we all know what that destruction has done; every where they go; they leave death and destruction. What do you know CL? Did you know that only a few years ago in Goa Qiao CHongqing China that there was a raw gas explosion on the evening of the 23 rd of December 2003 at 10 pm. The release of raw gas posioned and KILLED 247 people,mostly children and elderly, whats more, it posioned 9000 more people. Now to top that 64, 000 people had to leave their homes as the area 25 SQ. KM was destroyed with all the toxins ( H2S ) in the so called safe gas pipeline. It KILLED just about every living thing from bugs to cattle and all the local people. So where do you get off teling me if I don't like living here to move, This is one of the beautiful places on earth and we will not take s/hells word or yours either that it will come up the bay ABC. I can only say that you are a afraid because you hide behind some initals and you certainly don't know any facts except the twisted ones in your head. There was an other explosion 2 weeks or so ago in Germany the fire ball was a mile high and a mile long. EXPOSIONS, EXPLOSIONS and it safe here, get real and reliaze that it will NEVER happen here like s/hell state's it wil or for you for that matter. A lot of intelligent people studied this project from the area. S/hell has tried to muscle in on peoples land to know avail, NO means NO. S/hells oil refinery in California was shut down a few months ago for major pollution in the area and it contaminated the local drinking water, Califirnia has some of the strictis laws on renfiners, and it happened there, but could never happen here, $$ NO RAW GAS $$

...

by Donal

Thu Sep 20, 2007 18:40

Unless an engineer can tell me otherwise, the pipeline will have to conform to certain rules relating to the proximity of houses and the pressure of gas within the pipeline which will dictate the thickness of the pipe.

Everyone seems to be suggesting that it's only a matter of time before there's an explosion.

Eamonn, would you care to elaborate on the explosion in China? Details such as the thickness of the pipe, the pressure of the gas and any other relevant details.

facts.

Thu Sep 20, 2007 21:44

If Ed had done his research properly he would have known that incident wasn't related to a high-pressure pipeline, it was actually directly from a gas well "hence the reason that it caused so much damage because the escaping gas couldn't be "turned off".
"An explosion in an underground gas well on 23 December, located in Gao Qiao town in Chonqing city's
Kaixian county in the north eastern part of Chongqing province, resulted in the release of hydrogen sulfide,

which is highly toxic when inhaled. The explosion - the worst of its kind in China's history – is thought to be

caused by a puncture to the highly pressurised gas well caused by drilling .

http://www.ifrc.org/docs/appeals/rpts03/cnex0103.pdf

The only facts I can find on a gas explosion in Germany recently (last year) were distribution gas lines with treated gas (like S2S says should be brought through rossport) but I'm sure Ed or another of S2S will provide a link if I'm wrong. http://thesimonchronicles.blogspot.com/2006/09/death-to....html

The refinery in California is an oil refinery http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/08/28/ap4061831.html so hardly relevant to a gas refinery .

Now to the claims made by Ed that I am somehow "working for shell" because I post an opinion on the pipeline route.

and misquoting me like the "I state for the record!" Now look again and see I never said that.

and the claim that "A lot of intelligent people studied this project from the area." , if that is a fact then it seems those "intelligent people" didn't find any facts to show this refinery will be dangerous to the health of us local people.

Because if they did, I'm sure they would have disclosed those "facts" to the EPA during the 3 weeks of oral hearings.

So even at this late stage if S2S has facts to show this refinery will/might be dangerous then publish them, and inform us less intelligent people about the real risks.

H2S!!!!

by Erris EXILE

Thu Sep 20, 2007 22:09

Ah come on now - now someone is introducing H2S into the equation!!! Everyone knows that this is a sweet dry gas that is essentially 95% Methane. There is NO H2S. So comparing Corrib to an incident in China is incorrect.

I am glad the estuary option has been selected as an option. This should have been the original route. I can see this going ahead with strict controls from the NPW and the NWRFB. My guess is that the work will be done seasonally to prevent adverse impacts on the salmon/trout runs. Rightly so. Open cut trenching using coffer dams is standard practice everywhere around the world. Simply. Also no land acquisitons to be squabbled over. The safest route. There is also no possibility of human inference (accidental or otherwise) on the integrity of pipeline once it is laid. Pipelines don't explode of their own accord -something has to interfere with them. Also by putting a pipeline through an anaerobic environment under the estuarine muds you drastically reduce of oxidised corrosion of the pipe and make it even safer. Win win.

Erris Exile please!

by anarchaeologist

Thu Sep 20, 2007 23:39

Open cut trenching using coffer dams may well be standard practice everywhere around the world, but if your local knowledge hasn't completely deserted you in your exile, you might tell us just how open cut trenching might be achieved along the bottom of this particular estuary.

Simply impossible.

Have you ever seen the tide run past Rossport pier? The shifting sands (not muds) further back suggest an instability of sorts, related to both the constant movement of the saline tide and the boggy waters flowing down into the bay from the mountains. Admittedly though, I'm not an engineer.

And where's the evidence that the 'muds' are anaerobic? Shifting sands... errr... shift. The only reason Erris is a 'good' place for a refinery and pipeline such as this is that Shell and their associates reckon that the local population, such as it, isn't worth a shit.

'Win win' you say. Yeah right! Most of the anti-S2S stuff posted here ignores that fact that we, the people of Ireland, are getting so little out of all this.

Why's that then? Do you like being ripped off?

two fingers

by will

Thu Sep 20, 2007 23:58

Isn't Sruwaddacon Bay an SAC?
Are Ministers Ryan and Gormley now prepared to give the Two Fingers to European environmental policy?

To CL and Erris Exile

by Eamonn O'Coilea'in - Republic of Ireland

Fri Sep 21, 2007 01:19

WE did show the facts to the EPA and s/hell's lawyer stated that he could not predict the future about weather there would be H2S in the Corrib gas, are we to beleive s/hell to say their sample contains no H2S. It was stated at the EPA that there is H2S in air,soil, water, even in humans, there is small amounts of H2S. So once again there is H2S all around us except in the Corrib gas project. What would happen to the 83 KM of raw gas should something go wrong , like it does all over the world, if there was rupture or crack, it would posion the bay and all the people living on each side, I stated before and i'll say it again (READ Riden the Dragon ) By Jack Dole and then tell the people of ERRIS that s/hell's record of safety is at the bottom of the PYLE. Billions of fines, Thousand killed and serriously injuried, how will you justify this CL. Also, look back I never said you work for s/hell, you have a right to your opinion, Now let it be stated that it will never go up the BAY. One more time why do you hide CL if your a local, do'nt you worry about S/HELL'S RECORD on HEALTH AND SAFETY or to the damage it will do to the area.

take two !

Fri Sep 21, 2007 19:19

Will Says "Isn't Sruwaddacon Bay an SAC?" yes it is and So is Broadhaven bay, and most of the other bays around our coast. (SAC's are not exempt from development/disturbance ).
And Ed says , "WE did show the facts to the EPA and s/hell's lawyer stated that he could not predict the future about weather there would be H2S in the Corrib gas, are we to believe s/hell to say their sample contains no H2S.".

Well done to S2S, I know exactly what was shown to the EPA, and I might be wrong but I don't think your "intelligent people" convinced anyone there that they knew what they were talking about, (Mr. Aldridge in particular was tongue-tied when questioned by shells barrister).
Why is it that there is lots of scare stories from S2S but no hard facts to show this project is dangerous? there is only one difference between this refinery and other inland refineries around the world, (high pressure raw gas pipeline feeding it from offshore).
Now if shell agrees to keep this pipeline under water and away from homes, I would conclude that is a win win for everyone!

Ironic

Fri Sep 21, 2007 19:36

I see on the S2S website they have a story and pictures of a Gas Explosion involvine a "DISTRIBUTION PIPELINE" 100bar pressure" Lahntal (CountyHessen) Germany .
This pipeline would be similar to what Bord Gáis uses, with treated gas. this is excatly what S2S wants shell to route through north mayo .
One would wonder why S2S puts such incedents on its website as it discredits their claim that a Distribution pipline is safe.

Standards

by JM

Sat Sep 22, 2007 00:05

Rossport

For those posters unfamiliar with the intricacies of the Corrib proposal, it is worth considering that this project is not required to be compliant with the (nearest) relevent code of practice PD8010... one of the many oversights by former Minister Fahey that is not only a unique setup in Ireland but quite possibly illegal.

The Bellanaboy refinery (terminal number 1) would itself be in breach of the same applicable standard because of its proximity to Carrowmore Lake... a Special Area of Conservation and drinking water supply for thousands of people. This would also be a serious breach of the EU Water Framework Directive.

The recent pipeline explosion in Germany occured on a clean gas distribution line, the type that some affected Erris people would tolerate. Many more would not. Such dangers would be similar to the German example, but the current Corrib plan multiplies this risk because it would still be well off the scale even if pressure was reduced as per Advantica.

In short, the experimental Corrib gas project would pose an unquantifiable danger to the wider Erris community, and would set a dangerous precedent that could be recklessly repeated along the entire West coast.

It's still not too late to do it right.

Check this out ; GAS PIPELINE EXPLOSION

Sat Sep 22, 2007 00:59

http://neoncobra.blogspot.com/2007/03gas-explosion.html
It will show a GAS PIPELINE EXPLOSION in Russia which they did not want any one to know about, March 19,2007 just a few months back, CL will say it does not matter, It did not happen here, BLAH,BLAH,BAA. Shit he's knows everything, sounds like LORD LUCAN ! What can you say about ( RIDEN the DRAGON) by Jack DOLE. you seem to hide from the true facts and then run your mouth OFF about the local people concerned with the safety of their family and love ones, maybe you think it's OK to run over the local people with your wise ass coments hidding behind your own shadow.

Gas pipeline Blog EXPLOSION

by Me Again - Republic of Ireland

Sat Sep 22, 2007 01:16

http://bp2.blogger.com_ySCIT3KO9Zc/Rq54SNASFII/AAAAAAAA...3.jpg.

Goalposts

Sat Sep 22, 2007 13:31

We knows since 1990 where the refinery was to be built, it was as close to Carrowmore lake then as it is now.
ABP held "two" oral hearings into the refinery's location, if it was in breach of any EU Water Framework Directive I would have expected the refinery would have been turned down for PP.
You must also ask yourself what consequences it would have for the project if it was proven to be in breach of a EU directive.
Will it mean the refinery will have to be demolished? If you do a little bit of research you will see Ireland is in breach of several EU directives, with little or no sanctions from Brussels.
So if you are considering getting the refinery stopped by Europe, I wouldn't hold my breath.

I was amazed at JM stating "The recent pipeline explosion in Germany occurred on a clean gas distribution line, the type that some affected Erris people would tolerate. Many more would not."
I always thought S2S wanted shell to process the gas offshore and bring the treated gas ashore.
So maybe JM can tell us if shell processes the gas off shore, then what, how do they get it to the Bord Gáis network ?
ED that link doesn't work, so I cant comment, can you give an active link or at least tell us the circumstances of the incident (i.e.. raw or treated gas, pipeline specs, pressure, reason for incident ect,)
So as we can determine similarities with corrib.
I never read (RIDEN the DRAGON) by Jack DOLE. is it a factual scientific publication or an authors musings of a controversy?

Below is an exert from a GP publication .....

"The Commission would like to have the power to make legally

binding decisions on members states in relation to infringements of environmental

legislation, just like can be imposed in relation to Competition law."

Have a look at Irelands history with EU directives, and the results ............... www.greenparty.ie/en/content/download/946/6403/file/compliance_report_pmckenna_sml.pdf

Update

Sat Sep 22, 2007 17:51

Seeing as its Saturday and I have a bit of leisure time to waste, I decided to research "Riding The Dragon: Royal Dutch/Shell & The Fossil Fire".
Now I don't want to accuse anybody of being gullible, but Ed Collins suggesting that I read a book which was funded by The Environmental Health Fund (EHF) to find the facts on the damage Shell will do to Erris is laughable.
The book was commissioned by the EHF see..........
Book Funded by Green Group Rips Shell for Social Negligence http://gcmonitor.org/article.php?id=269

And even that book doesn't have facts relating to adverse impacts from NG refineries.

So please If you want want to convince people of the "dangers" at least use sources which are credible!

Or even proven facts, pseudoscience isn't enough.

good point

by Legal Eagle

Sat Sep 22, 2007 20:31

The point made by JM is a relevant one when he suggests "and would set a dangerous precedent that could be recklessly repeated "
That is precisely why the shell to sea campaign is doomed to failure.
If Shell or the Irish government succumbed to the demands of the campaign ,then a precedent would have been set which showed that a campaign of protest can change the authorised plans of state or big business.
I don't think there is "a snowballs chance in hell" of this happening because it would have untold implications for governments and big business worldwide.
I have no doubt that if shell had the option they would have capped the corrib gas well and left it there for decades, but they are more aware of the importance of precedent than most.
paradoxically the shell to sea group have become a victim of their own success

Precedent

by MacE

Sun Sep 23, 2007 17:10

Like Carnsore Point?

his choice

by Lee

Sun Sep 23, 2007 18:54

So CL refuses to read a book on Shell because it was funded by the The Environmental Health Fund.
Would he read it if it was funded by Shell? Just who would have to fund it - the Irish government?
Talk about willful ignorance!

GAS EXPLOSION in RUSSIA

Mon Sep 24, 2007 19:28

Heres the correct LINK
http://neoncobra.blogspot.com/2007/03/gas-explosion.html

AS we all know in ERRIS if you have a pipeline just below a landslide area, how intelligent do you have to be to figure that the people in the area are at risk, if this high production pipeline gets the go ahead.

Also the fact that all the electrical control wiring is planned to be running right along side the pipeline should send alarm bells ringing. In a place where there's such ground variations (boggy ground, sand dunes, tidal estuary with 2nd strongest current in Ireland, peoples private land and the ever changing ocean bed) surely it's a very risky business to be running safety controls so close to the pipeline.

Gas pipeline fire

head & brick wall

Mon Sep 24, 2007 21:20

Lee, My point is that a book commissioned by a green group would likely be bias against an oil company.
Why don't the people who are listing the predicted dangers of this project on us locals, back the claims up with real facts,then I will be convinced.
A perfect example was the one real opportunity that was available to the objectors of this project, the EPA's oral hearings.
The oral hearings were covered by the nations/worlds media, It was the perfect opportunity for S2S to put forward reputable scientists to argue against the granting of an IPPC licence for the terminal,(without an IPPC licence it is just a useless construction).
But what did they do? they got local "experts" to detail the risks involved with the terminal, while shell had a team of highly paid scientists and legal experts.
now who would you believe, a group of reputable scientists or local NIMBY's?
Could it be that no reputable expert would put their name behind the claims made by S2S, because the claims are scaremongering, and not facts.
Ed claiming "Also the fact that all the electrical control wiring is planned to be running right along side the pipeline should send alarm bells ringing"
Why Ed, why is that so dangerous.
If you had researched this project you would know that the if the umbilical or electrical links were to become severed the valves at the wellhead would shut.
it is the electrical/hydraulic links which keeps the gas flowing.
So again I ask why do you say it is so dangerous to have them running alongside the pipeline?

800

Mon Sep 24, 2007 21:27

Is it true that S2S has presented RPS with over 800 signatures from Kilcommon parish, objecting to the siting of the refinery?
If so, then I think the debate about local support / objection is over.

Shut the valve at the well head ? ! "

Tue Sep 25, 2007 00:08

What about the 83 KMs of raw untreated gas in the pipeline where would that gas go? would it go like the photo I posted earlier, a massive toxic cloud and explosion?
What would the effects be if this happened to the local people NOT ( local NINBYS)?
What happened on the rig in South Essex ? Did 3 people die because of an explosion and fire, WOW You mean to tell us that around the world there is accidents and explosions and because you and shell say so, we are all safe!
I say again, even shells expert leagal team stated that ( they could predict the future of the corrib project. So why should the local people have to take the health and saftey risks, when shell sucks the coast dry of Irish minerals for NON IRISH Naturals, What's Natural about that?
Natural GAS contains 1 part carbon and 4 parts hydrogen. Of course the cleaner methane gas would be at the top as it is lighter than than the toxic H2S.
All raw gas contains some degree of H2S, the differance between sweet and sour raw gas is 5.7 milgrams per litter, 4 parts per million, 10 parts per million send alarm bells ringing and 15 parts per million makes the alarm ring louder.
Most raw gas also contains up to 35 per cent waste, and where will you pollute ; with all this toxic waste. Just one more thing, where did all the water go, (up to 10 million litters) Its been reported and filmed spraying out of a pipe in the field in Bellinaboy, was this treated all 10,000,000 litters! YA SURE !!!

methane molcule

Learn from history or..........

by jd

Tue Sep 25, 2007 11:11

"The rupture of the pipeline was caused by soil sliding down a slope and the enormous pressure put on the pipeline as a result of the weight of this earth."

http://www.corribsos.com/index.php?id=1542

Sound familiar?

Pipe safety

by Pat

Thu Nov 08, 2007 18:05

I reckon this pipeline will probably be the safest pipeline in the world!

..So the pipe is designed to cope with almost 500 bar (350 plus factor of safety) but with the pressure limitation valve on the on-shore section it will only ever experience a max of 120bar (90-100bar normal).. that must be the highest design pressure ever!

There are 3 shut off valves at the well heads, a pressure limitation and shut off valve on shore..and even if all those valves fail the pipe is still designed to cope with alot more...

Engineers Ireland, a totally independent and Irish organisation, reviewed the design last year and concluded it was safe., along with numerous other reports.

If the pipe is being rerouted..I dont see the problem.

A hill of beans and the bean counters

by Seán Ryan

Thu Nov 08, 2007 18:38

I hope Engineers Ireland is not suggesting that this pipeline is foolproof in its design, that human error cannot play a part in safety issues to do with the pipeline, or that their findings are absolute.

I wonder would Engineers Ireland like to point out a singular location that Shell have occupied that has a 100% safety record and a 100% record with regard to not polluting their imediate environment. Or indeed I wonder if Engineers Ireland would like to calculate how many communities around the planet have something good to say about Shell.

Isn't it true to say that Engineer's Ireland received money to certify the safety of this pipeline and that the above points I've made did not figure into any calculations as a result. I wonder would Engineers Ireland be willing to sell us such a certification and how much would it cost.

Etc. Etc...

10 year old pipes

Mon Sep 13, 2010 03:21

Shell has told the ABP oral hearing in Belmullet that by the time the untreated raw gas refinery is up and and running in 2012 ( they still didn't get permission yet ) for their pipeline, that the pipes will be ten years old. They also stated that t can't be rule out that other oil and gs companies will also use the same pipeline. We have given the Inspectors of the hearing a document that states; you have a pipeline and your going to have a reportable accident, even shot pipelines. so we will sea what happens on the next session Thank You, shell to see

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Public Inquiry

Human Rights in Ireland

Lockdown Skeptics

Voltaire Network

Three pipeline routes for Corrib Gas- green light for further protests from court judgement

Comments (26 of 26)