United against Shell, the struggle for justice continues...

by sean mallory Tue Apr 29, 2008 15:06

What are we arguing for.

by s2s supporter Tue Apr 29, 2008 15:42

Shell to sea supporters and activists around the country have the right to know how much support there is in the erris locality for this proposal, being portrayed in the nedia as an official s2s offer.

Has this issue been discussed in Erris? what are the opinions of the locals?

by Chrissie Tue Apr 29, 2008 16:21

Best to consult Shell to Sea website.

by cheeba Tue Apr 29, 2008 16:43

I agree its odd that there has been no 'official' Shell to Sea statement regarding the proposal. The S2S website makes absolutely no mention of the last few day's events.
Just because the media represent the position as something dosn't make it so and actually if you read all coverage carefully it is clear that this is an initiative of senior members and supporters of the Campaign, rather than the Campaign proper.

by erris Tue Apr 29, 2008 17:26

It is an interesting proposal. It was interesting when the priests put it forward in the autumn, and when others have suggested shoreline developments in the past (as far i as know going back to 2005).

However, Shell and Statoil have no intention of changing their plan, and until they are interested in it then it does not amount to much.

by billy idle Tue Apr 29, 2008 17:43

Shell have just announced record profits (5 billion euros) for the 3 months up to the end of march on the back of record oil prices. Puts the spend in Erris so far in perspective( which of course will be returned to the company anyway via tax write -offs).

by D Tue Apr 29, 2008 19:41

"Puts the spend in Erris so far in perspective( which of course will be returned to the company anyway via tax write -offs)"

It seems that the truth about tax write-offs has to be pointed out yet again. A 100% write of costs against tax does NOT mean that 100% of costs are returned to the company. Costs are ALWAYS deductible against tax (tax everywhere is paid on profits - income less costs) and the 100% in this context only refers to the fact that costs can all be deducted in the year of expenditure instead of being depreciated over a number of years.

In this case, where the tax rate is 25%, the tax paid will be reduced by 25% of the costs which can be deducted, so it could be said that the tax payer eventually pays 25% of the costs.

by Billy idle Tue Apr 29, 2008 19:52

Shell will only pay a very reduced rate of tax once all its cost in ireland have been written off against tax. Which ever way you slice and dice it, it amounts to a criminally poor deal for Erris and the country at large as we enter some of the most challenging and uncertain economic times since the eighties while Shells astronomical profits continue to shoot upwards.

by D Tue Apr 29, 2008 20:01

For every euro of profit that Shell makes it WILL pay 25% of it in tax. Spinning anything else as many times as you like does not alter the facts!

by E Tue Apr 29, 2008 20:12

Isn't it weird that D comes on to indymedia whenever this subject is mentioned, to muddy the waters relating to Shell's tax bill? Are Shell to Sea related stories monitored in some way to alert D to do this? Or is just luck?

Anyway Tax 1.01:

Tax is payable on profits- that is, the remainder of gross income after all costs are deducted.

Shell can claim back ALL expenses relating to exploration and production going back twenty years, and include any expenses incurred by Enterprise Oil (the company they took over).

These costs can be related to Corrib, or any other project.

Once these are deducted, Shell Exploration and Production Ireland Ltd (SEPIL) have to pay tax on the remainder.

Perhaps D could tell us, since he such an expert, exactly how much tax SEPIL have paid so far?

by billy idle Tue Apr 29, 2008 20:21

Under the terms of the deal Shell will be paying little if any tax in ireland since the company will aslo be claiming their unverifiable ongoing drilling expenses against tax in the vast corrib and rockall blocks handed over free to them against any meagre tax exposure in this state.

by D Tue Apr 29, 2008 20:25

I am glad you agree with me that tax is paid on profit, but let's make it absolutely clear that I am not the one who is "muddying the waters" in that regard.

In answer to your question, Shell will of course have paid no tax to date on its exploration and production activities in Ireland (which will be ring-fenced from any other activity it has in the country), because it has had no sales and therefore made no profit.

by E Tue Apr 29, 2008 20:33

So since they can claim back expenses going back years and years they will be very unlikely to show a profit in Ireland for a few years won't they?

While you're being so good about answering questions- can you tell us if any other countries have similar deals with the big energy companies?

by billy idle Tue Apr 29, 2008 20:43

Your attempt to misrepresent the real situation is sad but characteristic of Shell trolls on here. Ordinary Irish owned businesses in this country would be laughed
out of it if they went looking for a similar deal - even though they would alot more deserving then your lot

PS - Also written off is the cost of the state land on which the refinery is to be built sits plus the option of a further 500 acres of coillte land which Shell have been offered. Assuming Shell paid anything for it in the first place given that both they and the relevant authorities refuse to make public the price. Another natural resource handed to Shell for free perhaps???

by D Tue Apr 29, 2008 20:56

"So since they can claim back expenses going back years and years they will be very unlikely to show a profit in Ireland for a few years won't they?" You can be absolutely certain that Shell would not be going ahead with the Corrib project if they did not expect to make a profit; once the gas starts flowing it will not take many years before taxes will be paid.

"While you're being so good about answering questions- can you tell us if any other countries have similar deals with the big energy companies?" There are NO countries where less than 100% of costs can be deducted against costs, but there are a few where more than 100% of costs can be deducted!

"Ordinary Irish owned businesses in this country would be laughed out of it if they went looking for a similar deal" Ordinary Irish companies would certainly not be laughing if they got the same deal as the Corrib group, because instead of 25% tax, every other company pays just 12.5% tax in Ireland.

As you point out, Shell has never said what was paid for the land - I do not know the figure and neither do you, so what is the point in discussing it?

by billy idle Tue Apr 29, 2008 21:30

The companies on that tax rate still have to pay local service charges, PRSI and income tax for their workers, VAT etc. which amounts to alot more than Shell will ever be exposed to.

Maybe you could list the countries that have signed away their entire oil and gas wealth??

PS - I've noted the classic Shell arrogance with the assertion that we shouldn't discuss their shady land deals in Erris.Why don't you stick to reading the indo if want to hear nothing but the company line??

by D Tue Apr 29, 2008 22:06

"The companies on that tax rate still have to be local service charges, PRSI and income tax for their workers, VAT etc. which amounts to alot more than Shell will ever be exposed to."

The fact is that Shell and the other Corrib partners will pay 25% tax and all other companies in Ireland pay 12.5% tax on their profits. Both will have to pay all the other charges you mention (although no company pays workers' income tax). So there is no doubt that Shell and the others will pay a much higher percentage of their profits to the state than other companies.

"Maybe you could list the countries that have signed away their entire oil and gas wealth??"

Virtually all countries exchange rights to oil and gas production for investment in exploration and development - as in Ireland.

by billy idle Tue Apr 29, 2008 22:30

Your making a fool of yourself now. None of the other companies have been handed over Billions of euros worth of this countries natural resources for free and none have secured the kind of total tax write off deal Shell have . By the way Shells tax deal also includes the cost of employing anyone in this state so your wrong there too.Therefore Shell's tax exposure is very much smaller than these other companies and always will be. Indeed the tax rate you quote is largly irrelevant since very little if any of Shells profits will be exposed to it

Your desperation is evident when you claim other countries have signed away all rights to their oil and gas reserves. That is a lie and even Shells other goons wouldn't claim that.

by D Tue Apr 29, 2008 23:03

Stick to the facts and stop trying to attack the messenger.

You clearly have no understanding of the facts so here they are again:

1. To earn their rights to produce gas, the Corrib partners had to spend hundreds of millions of euros in high risk exploration. That is not giving them away and it is also the way it works in other countries - would you like to name a country where it works differently?

2. In ALL countries 100% of costs (at least) can be deducted against tax as in Ireland and ALL companies in Ireland can also deduct 100% of costs, INCLUDING the costs in employing people.

3. As for ALL other companies in Ireland, ALL of Shell's profits will be exposed to tax; the only difference is that Shell and the other Corrib partners will pay tax at 25% and all other companies pay tax at 12.5%.

I will say again, you cannot alter the facts by endlessly spinning lies (as is continuously seen here on this topic), that may not suit your misguided aims but it is time to face up to it.

by billy idle Tue Apr 29, 2008 23:35

Your a particulry sad little troll aren't you. I've already debunked all the lies and nonsense you spouted on here including you last post which is simply a rehash of the rubbish you spouted earlier. I would suggest you stop wasting peoples time on here and try and read up on some junior cert economics so you won't keep coming on here making a fool of yourself - Good night

by E Wed Apr 30, 2008 00:58

D, you must admit that it is very unusual for a company to be able to deduct costs going back so far?

It must be strange to have this weird compulsion to tell lies about something like this, but be big now, take a deep breath, and admit that Shell are getting a fantastic deal here- costs deducted going back well into the last century, no royalties and they can refine the gas in the cheapest (and most dangerous way) possible with full Irish government backing. They can even cut back on security costs because they have a little private army of cops protecting their interest.

Pretty good no? Even Nigeria doesn't give them deals like this anymore.

by Eamonn O'Coilea'in - Republic of Ireland Wed Apr 30, 2008 03:06

The storry is about uniting the people of this contry against what is being done to the people of Ireland, whose NATURAL RESOURCES were giving away by the present Governments retired TDs ( NO WONDER THEY RETIRED). D is shell PR man John Egan.Thats his way of comunicating with the people, hiding behind fake names an letters, What a fool ! he is to argue with people by hidding his real puppose of deflecting the real topic. $H£LL have stated ( John Eagan) that they are not moving, so what are we all going to do about it, is it finally time for plan B or lets just jump to plan C. Anyway we must all unite against this extremly fuck up situation. AH; still no permision for the pipeline, so it's back to the courts and then what ? Jail everyone that objects, so what back to square one. $hell don't care about the people of Erris, they say mistakes were made, putting 5 men in prison was a big fucking error on $hells part. $HELL how manny more mistakes are you going to make ?By putting people in prison so you can make more profit. AP Business WriterJANE WARDELL has stated that $hells earnings from production rose 52 percent to $5.14 billion so far this year and that $hell has invested heavily to improve after a string of set backs, including, an account scandal in 2004, ( that was when $HELL CAME TO IRELAND). More recently, it has faced attacks on its pipelines (LEAKS) in Nigeria and a FORCED SALE of part or its stake in a major project on Russia's Sakhalin Islands to a STATE-RUN enterprise. No where does she mention IRELAND and how they are robbing IRELAND of their RESOURCES by jailing anyone that gets in their way, Well I will write to her and tell the real story of what the H£LL is going on over here SO Unite everyone
against $HELL!!. BRIAN, why don't you UNITE and do what the Russians did and show you can help your COUNTRY instead of cutting back on HEALTH, EDUCATION and put IRELAND@S FUTURE ahead of foreion business. Tell them to move and get a share of £hells
3.4 million barrels per day x $115 a barrel that $HELL are making = $391,00,000 a day, UNITE: UNITE: UNITE,=

by Anto Wed Apr 30, 2008 11:24

Its only a pity the Rossport locals didn't break the association with the trots and anarcists years ago.
They have harmed the image of the locals who have been perceived as raving looneys too. I think the current direction the locals are taking will make them more amenable to public opinion. The motives of those seeking to help the cause of the people up in Erris are honourable and they were most welcome at a time of reaction to bullying, but now the campaign has moved to a new phase where truth and knowledge are important.

with regard to the tax paid by shell, can exploration costs be written off against retail profits? facts please. Shell isn't a charity, its' a business, its there to make profit. The real enemy is Fianna Fail and Mayo County council.

by billy idle Wed Apr 30, 2008 11:38

"Shells a business not a charity" - Why is it treated like one by the estaiblishment?? Free gas, free land, free services, free security, all at the expense of the irish taxpayer - you can't have it both ways!! This gas will be sold at market prices and thats were Shells tax deal kicks in.

by lulu Wed Apr 30, 2008 11:52

The safest SHell refinery-place for people & environment of Erris is at sea.

by Erris Exile Wed Apr 30, 2008 17:23

What a load of balony (I'm being polite) written here today. So much of it is so far off the mark it is laughable. The whole tax thing is irrelevant. Irrespective of what the tax breaks are, they are what they are and you can hardly fault Shell for coming here under an attractive regime. As it was put, blame the government of the time if you have a gribe. Shell are doing what makes good business sense, and be honest, who wouldn't?! And the reason Russia is on Shell's back is not because of 'environmental' damage etc it is because Gazprom want a larger share of the pie. Gazprom are now acting the same way with BP and Exxon (and anyone else who shows promise). The Russian government signed the deals, let the developers do their job and then moved in using illegal tactics by revoking licences or changing legislation. Nothing else at all, and thats common knowledge.

By the way, if you knew you facts Eamon you'd know that Shell entered the fray with Corrib when they acquired Enterprise Oil in 2002!! The famous 'digger on the beach' incident with Mrs Harrington was in Summer 2002 - Shell's first encounter with the protests.

Good to see Billy is still Troll'ing everyone whose discussion he doesn't like. At least there is some semblance of continuity with S2S.

by Erris resident Wed Apr 30, 2008 18:12

It's nice that the Shell apologists are now agreeing about the tax deal, but have moved on to claiming that it is "irrelevant".

by Erris Exile Wed Apr 30, 2008 18:33

I am certainly not a Shell apologist. Just my opinion on the situation, If it was such a big deal why didn't the anti Shell vote count in the last election. If you had won enough seat s(did they win any, let alone retain any support they might have had?!? Nope) then S2S might have had a voice to try and change the deal structure. But alas the deal sticks and you have to live with it whether you like it or not. And I know you don't. You know as well as everyone else that this project will be completed at some stage and yes, it might involve more imprisonments, etc. So in my view, and its only the way I see where things are at and the way they are going forward, the whole tax deal is irrelevant. Its a smoke screen to your real objective and cause. No apologies for making that statement.

So if everyone is no longer Shell to Sea (beyond the horizon at the well heads) then where are you for? Nowhere? Somewhere? or anywhere but here?

by Erris resident Wed Apr 30, 2008 23:31

So you're happy enough about people going to jail? You think the project is worth it? Even though (and this is where the deal comes in) the only people who benefit from the gas will be Shell shareholders, who aren't short of a few bob (first quarter profit this year 9.8 billion dollars).

People like you, are a mystery to me.

You can see that the project is wrong, that the community is against it and that it could be done safely offshore. You don't try to justify it on safety grounds, or tell us that "we need the gas" or all that nonsense because you know we might as well be buying it from Ukraine as from Shell. You just say it's inevitable. It will happen because it will happen. The strong will prevail over the weak.

I'm glad I am not your neighbour.

by Eamonn O'Coilea'in - Republic of Ireland Thu May 01, 2008 10:56

First off erris exlie is just picking at pieces that are writern here by people who care about their envioment. He would rather sea people go to jail, but the coward hides behind the the name erris exlie, figure this out 3.4 barrels x $115 x 365 =$68,515,000,000 a year. we here in the real world see hospitals closing done and costs rising everyday, while the Gov. get huge pay raises and tell the people to cut back on getting sick. Its beyond believing, Don't you think the wealth from Russians resouces should go to its people, when it's that much money, why should a school class be taught in a toilet room when there is billions an billions out there Irish resouces, it sounds like you erris exlie must have been educated the same way in the toilet room. The real facts are, there is not enough jails to hold all the people who object to the way this gas an oil project is trying to be done. Are you saying now erris exlie that people don't have any rights to protect their homes and enviroment, Thats why we must all UNITE; for the good of all Irish men, woman and children, how is there peace in Ireland when The Irish Government sends armed police to beat its cittizens off the streets ?

by Erris resident Thu May 01, 2008 14:00

I have a "gribe" Erris Exile. Learn how to spell and use grammar in a proper way. Following on from this, people may begin to take you seriously as a contributor of comments. It's "gripes" by the way. Are you Bertie Ahern? Another illiterate moron who has spouted nonsense to willing morons who lap it up with verve.
Here's the thing, Exile. Shell have been given a monstrous deal by the government. I do agree with previous statements blaming the government rather than Shell, however. Shell will murder, rape and pillage wherever they get the chance. Just so happens that that chance was afforded to them by Bertie et al. They have been assisted by every state run agency along the way and that is a damning indictment of our society as much as it is a reflection of Shell's business practices.
Anyway, read through this for grammatical errors. You won't find any but what the hell?

by Erris Exile Thu May 01, 2008 19:35

Erris Resident - I'm sorry if the syntgax isn't perfect - this is a blog site and not a website fot literary geniuses. I'm obviously not going to win the Pulitizer Prize am I? Grab a bit of reality here will you please?! If your arguement degardes to trying to find fault with sentence structure then you obviosuly don't have a very formidable position in relation to the democratic opposition to this project. Something has struck a chord, as evident by your attempt to resort to grammatical correction. The issue is the construction of a gas receiving and treating terminal that can handle in the region of over 350mmsfd. What is illegal about that? I don't hear the High or Supreme Courts over ruling anything or stopping the development, let alone the European Courts. The fact that you came back to my blog a day later obviously meant you were trying to elicit a response (good job, you succeeded because I had to laugh at your position) or something in my posting resonated with you and you found it hard to swallow because maybe there is an element of truth in what I say.

All I am looking for is an educated engineering reason from S2S explaining why this project is wong. Shell is not perfect, we all know that, but fight fire with fire and not emotion and heresay. I have never seen any facts countering the engineering design and/or operation of THIS terminal. The fact that you think it is unsafe is simply because of a lack of understanding of the process and how it works. I was there in Erris for a few years and I know what went on. I heard both sides and I am not saying one side is right over the other -all I am saying is one side has provided the FACTS and have the permissions to construct. The other side has not.

Eamon - I was once an Erris resident and not a coward hiding behind a name. Lived in Corclough and used to be a member of Carne GC. I know what I am talking about as I have studied the facts about THIS project. I am simply not living there any more. But believe me I know the area and the people very well.

by Eamonn O'Coilea'in - Republic of Ireland Thu May 01, 2008 22:58

You say you lived here for a few years and you know the facts and the local people, but the fact remains that your a coward hidding behind a name Erris exile. If you don't live here why do you badger the locals with your cheap shit, what do you care about the local people fears , that are very real, that there is very much a danger of pollution, an upset, an incident and oh ya, the fact that the raw gas pipeline may cut them off in an acident or an explosion. John Moore who said it is the wrong place and shell went ahead any way. Why do shell need a integrated pollution prevention control licence for their toxic pollution or for that matter discharge their toxic waste into the bay where fishermen fish, which we the people who actually live here eat, never mind all the children who use the bay for swimming an sports. The children eat fish an chips too...................................
You tell us EE why some one that doesn't live in the area would study all the facts why ? WHY do you always want a debate. Debate this shell makes 68,515,000,000. ayear on oil alone never mind all the other production shell do; They want to suck the gas an oil dry and then what? Will they clean their mess up after them !! I think not; they don't clean up any where else unless they are taken to court and even then they don't. sea ya latter, but I won't be wasting my time answering someone that doesn't care about basic human rights......................... Oh you play golf big deal; that makes you an expert on the way the local people are feeling about their future::::::::

by billy idle Thu May 01, 2008 23:51

Only a moron would want to live anywhere near an installation run by Shell.

by Fearbolg - S2S Fri May 02, 2008 00:32

Dear Exile,

You're constantly asking us to come up with compelling engineering reasons why we oppose this project. In a strange way, we're both

in the same boat. You see, what I want is compelling evidence to show that this project will be safe. I have personally asked R.P.S on

five separate occasions to explain to me how the reduction of pressure from 345 bar to 144 bar at Glengad is going to be achieved.

Their most recent answer was: 'er.....I think we're getting another consultants to advise us on that'. Now, don't forget, these are the

people who we're being asked to trust with their proposed new route. So in the absence of any meaningful answer from them, I'm

handing it over to you. You profess to have an amount of knowledge in this area, so I expect you'll be able to give me chapter and verse

on how exactly to cut down gas pressure from 345 to 144 at the foot of a mountain that has recently suffered a catastrophic landslide.

What is the exact type of process that will be involved? How large a structure will it be? What will be the emergency plan if the mountain

comes down again? If that happens, what type and number of casualties can we expect? What sort of emissions will emerge(if any)

from such an installation? Who has the technical knowledge to design and build it safely, and what type of crystal ball will they use to

ensure us that there'll never be another landslide? Forget the last remark, just my little joke. But I'm dead serious about every other

question I've asked. If you do posess this knowledge you claim to have, maybe you'll be able to ensure me a good night's sleep by

imparting some of it.

By the way, the word is 'hearsay', not 'heresay'. I thought Shell could afford a spellchecker.

by D Fri May 02, 2008 08:10

It is easy to answer your questions about the pipeline pressure.

First, there is no need to reduce pressure from 345 to 144 bar; read the Advantica report and you will see that the maximum working pressure always was 144 bar. The pipeline was designed to take 345 bar in case of the unlikely event that it proves impossible to shut in the wells and pipeline offshore sometime early in the field's life and the pipeline pressure eventually rises to the initial shut-in pressure of 345 bar.

To give absolute certainty that even this cannot happen, Advantica recommended the inclusion of an additional automatic valve station at the landfall, I would expect this will be done by using 2 or 3 valves in series and a high-integrity control system to ensure that at least one of those valves is certain to close when needed. The result is of course a pipleine designed to safely withstand 345 bar, but will never see more than 144 bar under any circumstances - it would be very dificult to find a better safety margin than that in any other pipeline.

As for the landfall being "at the foot of a mountain that has recently suffered a catastrophic landslide", it looks to me like the landfall is at least 250m from the road, which itself is at least 250m from the base of the steep slopes at that point. It would be some landslide to extend over 500m from the base of the mountain!

by billy idle Fri May 02, 2008 08:48

Check out Shells safety and maintainance record around the world. Furthermore experiance tells us that there will be little or no scrutiny of Shells ongoing activities in Erris by the relevant authorities. This was highlighted at the EPA oral hearing last year which revealed the extent to which Shell will monitor their own activities and produce inhouse reports without any independent oversight or verification. Not a very comforting state of affairs for local people.

by Fearbolg - S2S Fri May 02, 2008 08:59

So you 'expect' this will be done by '2 or3 valves', do you? As I expected, an extremely weak and vague answer. I reckom I was wrong

about you being a Shell man. That answer was pure R.P.S non-specific technobabble. Give us real technical detail, which I very much

doubt you can, and I'll stop causing you to make an eejit of yourself.

by Information for Fearblog Fri May 02, 2008 10:02

I have no connection with Shell, RPS or any other company involved in Corrib, but I have many years experience in the industry and was trying to be helpful by pointing out the real position regarding pipeline pressure and indicating how I would expect the landfall valve system to be designed.

I do not know the exact design but Shell has said it is going to publish the EIS on 7 May, so you can check for yourself then. I think readers of this site can very well see who is making an eejit of himself, but perhaps you can recover from that by answering Erris Exile's question about the engineering reasons why the project is wrong?

by len Fri May 02, 2008 17:00

Fearblog is a regular contributer here, shame his energy couldnt be made from an educated stand point instead of opinioneering!

by JC - / Fri May 02, 2008 17:58

What’s your technical background?
Or are you one of the masses form the shell to sea group who are experts in everything but masters in none.

by billy idle Fri May 02, 2008 23:55

Including the union rep for offshore oil workers in ireland who has been supporting S2S from day one, not to mention a Mr Campbell who actually worked for Statoil in the past. Somehow I think the opinion of these people hold alot more water then the Shell PR quacks that come on here spouting self serving nonsense.

by Fearbolg - S2S Sat May 03, 2008 00:19

Miaaooww!

I touched a few raw nerves here, didn't I?

You poor wee things, I'm sorry I stood on your scrawny tails.

I'm now asking, yet again, for hard and fast technical data specifying just how the landfall of the gas at Glengad is going to be safely

handled. The silence this question has generated has been deafening. I don't profess to have the technical knowledge to envisage this

feat of engineering, which is why I'm asking the hard questions. If anyone here can point me towards a link or publication of any kind that

can shed light on this issue, I'd be delighted to read it, and, if I can't make sense of it, have it interpreted to me here by our 'panel of

experts'.

If you can't do that, feel free to mess about some more with my name. Maybe you'd be safer at an exercise like that, because you sure as

hell ain't cuttin' the mustard when it comes to the Glengad question.

by JM Sat May 03, 2008 01:07 Rossport

Consultants should be appointed to re-examine the location of the controversial Corrib gas terminal, argue Leo Corcoran and Brian Coyle.

... Sometime before October 2000, Enterpise Energy Ireland (EEI) and the minister for the Marine and Natural Resources agreed to locate the gas processing terminal for the Corrib gas project in Bellanaboy. It is on a site surrounded by blanket bog, within the catchment of the primary water supply for the entire Erris region, located directly across from an established community. This resulted in a production pipeline carrying unprocessed gas running 9km (5.6 miles) inland parallel to another established community, and traversing the Broadhaven Bay Special Area of Conservation, all in breach of the code of practice.

... Leo Corcoran was engineering manager of Bord Gáis and Brian Coyle is a partner with consulting engineers Coyle Kennedy.

by Erris Exile Sat May 03, 2008 14:07

Well I thought I had it sussed. I thought I had my spell check on but obviously 'heresay' slipped through the net. Damn. But have a look at some of the S2S postings and you will see they are not up to your high literary expectations either. Yet somehow I am not surpised that you seemed to overlook others and their postings. But that has always been the S2S way - blinkered. I have nothing to do with Shell - how many times to I have to post that. Just because normal Irish citizens have taken the time to review the facts and educate themselves on what is happening, but more importantly why it is happening, doesn't mean they are employed by Shell or any of their consultants. S2S always seem to take that viewpoint that if something posted it contrary to what they believe then the poster must be associated with the developer. Another case of being blinkered.

Regarding this ludicrous argument about record profits etc, that is hardly Shell's fault. They are in the business of making money from oil and have shareholders to keep satisfied. They don't dictate the oil prices - the likes of OPEC do!!! Have a look at the likes of BP, Exxon, Sinopec, ENI, Chevron, CoP and you will see they are all making a mint out of the current price of the barrel. If the cartels around the world dictate the amount of oil to be released on a daily basis then that's either going to be to Shell's (or any other floated company) advantage or not. You can't blame them for making money. You mightn't like it, but you can't blame them. But then again, you could have the likes of Chavez here in Ireland, and God forbid if that happened. Just as a matter of interest - which way would you want Corrib (or any other offshore Ireland play) developed? How many of you drive cars and where do you get your petrol from? Are you on a gas mains, if so where does your gas come from? You're part of it, you support it and you live with it. Idealogical thinking is purely aspirational and upotic in this day and age. Things get exploited (developed) because that is the culture we live in. But things get exploited in safe manner. I have read references to oil companies' operations elsewhere in the world and also about their shortcomings, but you are not comparing like with like. Ireland is not Nigeria, even though some of S2S would think it is!!!

Fearbolg - I have seen a lot of your postings and I think I now know your views. You obviously have questions you want answered and rightly so. However, the documentation is out there and is publically available. If I can get it then anyone can. The detailed engineering information is out there justifying the design of the pipe, the safety factors involved (the pipe was over designed for the operation pressure (345bar Vs 144bar and 27mm thick), but that is something S2S have always tried to use against Shell), the operational factors and the contingency measures if there were any upsets (and an upset doesn't mean a loss of containment or an explosion!!!). The contingency measures include ESVs at the well heads, at the beach and at the terminal. The terminal cannot operate above 144bar and therefore the ESVs kick in shutting off the supply of gas. The wellhead ESVs also kick in containing the pressure within the well and the casing. This is standard practice but in this case there are 3 sets of ESVs - most other installations only have two (one at the wellhead and one at the reception facility). As I said if I was able to review the documentation and educate myself then surely you can do the same.

As for the Dooncarton reference, well I think you are now sliding down the slope into the Mrs Harrington school of thought. She believed that the causeway work at Glengad back in 2002 destabilised the peat on the hill slopes - hmm, maybe one of the most localised rainfall events in living memory had something to do with it? No, of course not. It was as a result of trucks rumbling along the narrow roads that caused the instability.What nonsense. Do you honestly believe that the pipeline construction work is going cause the blanket bog to come down?

I like your approach as it is based on a decent discussion point of view, unlike a few others who just rant and rave. Keep it up. Genuine.

Apologies to all if you find typos or any grammatical errors in the above - my spell checking device was deactivated. It must of been those Shell IT guys who I supposedly work with who forgot to load it onto my pc.

by Erris Exile Sat May 03, 2008 14:17

Billy - I think you'd better educate yourself on the ex-oil workers and their trade unions here in Ireland. You'll have to go back a few years when Enterprise Oil were drilling, the way they (the Irish workers) acted down in Foynes and how they treated our fellow Europeans by saying that they shouldn't be working on the rigs. To say they were a little bit biased is a bit of an understatement (bordered on racism actually) and they have held serious grieveances ever since because EO decided to retain the European workers as a result of freedom to work in Europe over the Irish oil workers. The drill ship came with its own crew and the Irish workers' expectation was to offload them and replace the crew with them. Sorry, it actually doesn't work like that. Even if it did, you need to replace crews with competent and capable people who have been trained and experienced in the techniques, etc. Therefore, they are vehemently against the project. As for one of them, he is Maura's brother in law. Of course he is going to have a different view.

I think you need to do a little more reading about who is who in this situation and why they think the way they do. Not everyone has a halo over their head.

by Ijaw Sat May 03, 2008 17:10

"I have read references to oil companies' operations elsewhere in the world and also about their shortcomings, but you are not comparing like with like. Ireland is not Nigeria, even though some of S2S would think it is!!!"

No Ireland is not Nigeria.

Where would this be?:

Government uses physical force to bully indigenous people into accepting pipeline and refinery scheme which they are convinced will devastate farming, fishing, tourism, quality of life.

Biased media, judicial system, and intimidation are used to portray protesters as criminals and/or deluded backward peasants.

Stench of corruption in the air. Giant multinational company seems to be able to do as it likes without any real consultation.

Protests are met with imprisonment, physical attack, vilification.

the developing world

by Chrissie Sat May 03, 2008 18:27

Absolutely correct ljaw.

by Fearbolg - S2S Sat May 03, 2008 18:57

I note your comments, E.E. Maybe we can be bosom friends yet.

Two quick remarks, and I'm off:

This is my third attempt on this thread alone to get someone on to explain the technical approach to Bellinaboy. It hasn't happened, but I

live in hope:

Earlier today, the Council, carrying out works for Shell between Bellinaboy and Glengad found themselves in the middle of a landslide

which cut off power to a large part of Kilcommon (Mid-West news, 5:00).

I don't know. Maybe I'm just paranoid about a mountain that slid disastrously a few years ago, and is still obviously unstable, but I'm not

hearing anything that's telling me that Shell have this one under control. The problem is, you can't buy a Guard who can put a landslide

in hospital.

by LP Thu May 08, 2008 12:10

Well said, FB.