Shell to Sea

[magpie seanie]

I see Maire Harrington is on day 3 of her hunger strike - saying she will continue until such time as the pipe laying vessel the Solitaire leaves Irish territorial waters (in Killybegs at the moment). She may come accross as a bit of a crack pot in some regards but she has to be admired for standing up for what is a real cause,

I heard that this morning on the radio and I do admire her for what she is doing but I was saddened by it. Saddened that someone feels they have to go to these lengths and more saddened because I think it will have zero impact on the decision makers in their ivory towers.

the Shell to Sea campaign is being made more difficult by the influx of the rent a mob hippies and the shockingly biased coverage in the media where not one peice of real investigaive journalism has been carried out on the whole project.

Yes and its a shocking indictment of our so called democracy.

[magickingdom]

A quote from Kevin Myers in the Indo a while back:

"I hate to criticise a multinational, because generally speaking I am a great fan of multinationals (they being the basis of our present prosperity) but I have to say that Shell has been scandalously remiss in not employing someone to bump off a few of these fellows."

Kevin Myers is an evil SOAB!!! He knows to well Shell have a history of executing those who protest against their 'progress'.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_n1_v60/ai_17963624

Myers should be locked up for saying that.

zapa, the nigerian government murdered saro-wiwa for their own perverted reasons and your smart enough to know that. but instead you twist it for your own arguments and do his memory a disservice. k myres is pretty good at that too

[Armaghtothebone]

Those pipes are being laid still without planning permission.

One law for us, one law for a foreign multinational to whom we give away our only natural resourse for apparently nothing.

You dont need planning permission to lay gas pipes. Co's have a statutory right to do so.

[Armaghtothebone]

Hound ,
the main issue i have with the whole operation and the main thing i would object to is the fact that the government gave Shell the right to CPO some land. This had never been done before or since to a private company.

Totally wrong

You dont purchase the land. You simply get a wayleave to go through it as BGE did for their pipe from Gormanstown to Antrim.

[blast05]

You dont need planning permission to lay gas pipes. Co's have a statutory right to do so.

I see, so any company that feels like it can lay high pressure gas pipes through my front garden without even asking me ??

Hound ,
the main issue i have with the whole operation and the main thing i would object to is the fact that the government gave Shell the right to CPO some land. This had never been done before or since to a private company.
......
.....
Totally wrong

You dont purchase the land. You simply get a wayleave to go through it as BGE did for their pipe from Gormanstown to Antrim.

Look, whatever BGE or whoever did their thing is immaterial. The fact is that Shell got a CPO to buy private land .... this is the first time in the history of the state that a private company has been given a CPO.

[Billys Boots]

the Shell to Sea campaign is being made more difficult by the influx of the rent a mob hippies and the shockingly biased coverage in the media where not one peice of real investigaive journalism has been carried out on the whole project.

Well said Blast.

[Gnevin]

Was a point made in a Sunday paper , can't remember which one. That point was  that people living in town's and cities have to put up with far worse driving far closer to their door that these lads are complaining about . Should we all set up a protest when the neighbour wants to top up their oil tank , when the local shop gets in its order of calor gas ,when acids, poisons and toxins drive pass us?

[ludermor]

Hound ,
the main issue i have with the whole operation and the main thing i would object to is the fact that the government gave Shell the right to CPO some land. This had never been done before or since to a private company.

Totally wrong

You don't purchase the land. You simply get a wayleave to go through it as BGE did for their pipe from Gormanstown to Antrim.

Check your facts, you may be right for the rest of the country but Shell were granted CPO for the land and only had to pay agricultural rates even though the most of the land would have been worth more in sites.

[Hound]

Marathon looking to sell their gas fields in Ireland including their interest in the Corrib Field:

NEW YORK, Sept 3 (Reuters) - Marathon Oil Corp (MRO.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) has put its operations in Ireland on the block as part of an asset sale program that the company hopes will raise between $2 billion and $4 billion.

CEO Clarence Cazalot told an investor conference that Marathon is taking bids for its Kinsale Head and Seven Heads gas fields off the southern coast of Ireland as well as its 18.5 stake in the Corrib development off the northwest coast.

He said the company expects to make further announcements about asset sales later this year.

[Lar Naparka]

Was a point made in a Sunday paper , can't remember which one. That point was  that people living in town's and cities have to put up with far worse driving far closer to their door that these lads are complaining about . Should we all set up a protest when the neighbour wants to top up their oil tank , when the local shop gets in its order of calor gas ,when acids, poisons and toxins drive pass us?

Gn, I don't think the reporter who wrote the above had done his research very well, and that's putting it mildly.
For one thing, new gas pipelines cannot be routed closer than 200m to existing houses. It the case of the Rossport residents, the gas coming ashore is to be routed less than 70m from some of the houses there.
Furthermore, the gas being taken ashore is to be piped at several times the pressure that is considered safe by international standards.
Also, you'd need to keep in mind that 'raw' gas is more volatile than refined gas, on which the figures above are based.
What I've written above is based on findings by an independent research company employed by Shell to Sea in response to another 'independent' study funded by Shell and its associates.
The conclusions of both studies were, understandably, poles apart but the figures given by the anti-Shell side were claimed to be in the public domain and have not been refuted to date.
Does anyone remember the 'Bunds' controversy?
Before Shell came on the scene, Marathon was the company that carried out the initial stage of development at the site. Straightway, Marathon ran into problems with the local community due to its inadequate safety standards and its failure to comply with planning regulations.

They excavated in the region of a quarter million tons of surface peat from the refinery site and stored it on an incline overlooking one of the local roads. The problem was that Marathon proposed containing this wet peat by using a barrier of bunds, large concrete slabs, without any sort of foundations whatever. The bunds were being laid directly onto the surface of the surrounding bog and the genuine fear was that a spell of heavy rainfall could send the peat mountain and the bunds slithering down the hillside.
Local concerns were raised and Marathon was taken to court and this development was stopped but the seeds of suspicion were sown and when Shell arrived on the scene with its appalling international record of ruining local environments where they operated, it was always going to be a case of head on confrontation.

[Gnevin]

Was a point made in a Sunday paper , can't remember which one. That point was  that people living in town's and cities have to put up with far worse driving far closer to their door that these lads are complaining about . Should we all set up a protest when the neighbour wants to top up their oil tank , when the local shop gets in its order of calor gas ,when acids, poisons and toxins drive pass us?

Gn, I don't think the reporter who wrote the above had done his research very well, and that's putting it mildly.
For one thing, new gas pipelines cannot be routed closer than 200m to existing houses. It the case of the Rossport residents, the gas coming ashore is to be routed less than 70m from some of the houses there.
Furthermore, the gas being taken ashore is to be piped at several times the pressure that is considered safe by international standards.
Also, you'd need to keep in mind that 'raw' gas is more volatile than refined gas, on which the figures above are based.
What I've written above is based on findings by an independent research company employed by Shell to Sea in response to another 'independent' study funded by Shell and its associates.
The conclusions of both studies were, understandably, poles apart but the figures given by the anti-Shell side were claimed to be in the public domain and have not been refuted to date.
Does anyone remember the 'Bunds' controversy?
Before Shell came on the scene, Marathon was the company that carried out the initial stage of development at the site. Straightway, Marathon ran into problems with the local community due to its inadequate safety standards and its failure to comply with planning regulations.

They excavated in the region of a quarter million tons of surface peat from the refinery site and stored it on an incline overlooking one of the local roads. The problem was that Marathon proposed containing this wet peat by using a barrier of bunds, large concrete slabs, without any sort of foundations whatever. The bunds were being laid directly onto the surface of the surrounding bog and the genuine fear was that a spell of heavy rainfall could send the peat mountain and the bunds slithering down the hillside.
Local concerns were raised and Marathon was taken to court and this development was stopped but the seeds of suspicion were sown and when Shell arrived on the scene with its appalling international record of ruining local environments where they operated, it was always going to be a case of head on confrontation.

Most of the claims you post here come from SOS and have either been dismissed , changes made to address them or a simplely untrue . The point remains should i protest every time a truck drive up my road? 
SOS will only be happy when the project is NIMB'd

[Billys Boots]

SOS will only be happy when the project is NIMB'd

That's not my impression at all - I think they'll be satisfied if the processing is undertaken at sea, rather than the cheaper option taken by Shell.

[ludermor]

I wouldnt be sure Billy, the woman on hunger strike stated on Matt Cooper that if the Gov took over the works and maximised the profits, refined it at sea, undergorund pipes would she be happy and she said no, she didnt want it coming to land in that location.
On another note, knowing the woman personally i would not be surprised to see her go the whole way with the hunger strke. There is rumours that more are ready to join her on strike.

[Zapatista]

Was a point made in a Sunday paper , can't remember which one. That point was  that people living in town's and cities have to put up with far worse driving far closer to their door that these lads are complaining about . Should we all set up a protest when the neighbour wants to top up their oil tank , when the local shop gets in its order of calor gas ,when acids, poisons and toxins drive pass us?

Gn, I don't think the reporter who wrote the above had done his research very well, and that's putting it mildly.
For one thing, new gas pipelines cannot be routed closer than 200m to existing houses. It the case of the Rossport residents, the gas coming ashore is to be routed less than 70m from some of the houses there.
Furthermore, the gas being taken ashore is to be piped at several times the pressure that is considered safe by international standards.
Also, you'd need to keep in mind that 'raw' gas is more volatile than refined gas, on which the figures above are based.
What I've written above is based on findings by an independent research company employed by Shell to Sea in response to another 'independent' study funded by Shell and its associates.
The conclusions of both studies were, understandably, poles apart but the figures given by the anti-Shell side were claimed to be in the public domain and have not been refuted to date.
Does anyone remember the 'Bunds' controversy?
Before Shell came on the scene, Marathon was the company that carried out the initial stage of development at the site. Straightway, Marathon ran into problems with the local community due to its inadequate safety standards and its failure to comply with planning regulations.

They excavated in the region of a quarter million tons of surface peat from the refinery site and stored it on an incline overlooking one of the local roads. The problem was that Marathon proposed containing this wet peat by using a barrier of bunds, large concrete slabs, without any sort of foundations whatever. The bunds were being laid directly onto the surface of the surrounding bog and the genuine fear was that a spell of heavy rainfall could send the peat mountain and the bunds slithering down the hillside.
Local concerns were raised and Marathon was taken to court and this development was stopped but the seeds of suspicion were sown and when Shell arrived on the scene with its appalling international record of ruining local environments where they operated, it was always going to be a case of head on confrontation.

Most of the claims you post here come from SOS and have either been dismissed , changes made to address them or a simplely untrue . The point remains should i protest every time a truck drive up my road? 
SOS will only be happy when the project is NIMB'd

If a truck carrying untreated, unsented (undetectable in the case of a leak) gas canisters under several times the pressure concidered safe past your house then yes, you should protest.

[Gnevin]

SOS will only be happy when the project is NIMB'd

That's not my impression at all - I think they'll be satisfied if the processing is undertaken at sea, rather than the cheaper option taken by Shell.

A process which is carried out inland in many places across the world