Shell to Sea

[muppet]

http://www.naturalgas.org/naturalgas/processing_ng.asp

The above site is a US educational site on Natural Gas.

As a vested interest it will downplay any risks associated with the prodcut but it clearly states that US regulations will only allow 'purified' gas through pipelines.

Natural gas processing consists of separating all of the various hydrocarbons and fluids from the pure natural gas, to produce what is known as 'pipeline quality' dry natural gas. Major transportation pipelines usually impose restrictions on the make-up of the natural gas that is allowed into the pipeline. That means that before the natural gas can be transported it must be purified.

Are you suddenly an expert on Natural Gas ?

Let me put it a different way . I would rate the opinion of independents experts over  the opinion of a well meaning discussion board user with no background in Natural Gas.

I accept the thrust of your point but I seriously doubt that there is an expert anywhere who stated that unrefined gas is as safe to pipe as refined gas. Could you find a link to any such expert please?

[ludermor]

The problem with this is that the (normally) credible media report only the official side of the story while to other side tends to be only reported on sites such as Indymedia and Blogs. I won't post links to them as even I accept they are not credible.

My understanding was that Shell acquired land under a CPO. The men prevented work being done on that land and Shell got a court order against the men. When they broke the order they were sent to jail for contempt of court. Then it subsequently emerged that the CPO was illegal.

True. And its a shame that no media outlet will report honestly and impartially for both sides.

True bout the CPO but i didnt realise it was found to be illegal. It was certainly immoral and should never have been granted but i didnt think it was illegal. Was it just for the terminal or along the route?

[Gnevin]

http://www.naturalgas.org/naturalgas/processing_ng.asp

The above site is a US educational site on Natural Gas.

As a vested interest it will downplay any risks associated with the prodcut but it clearly states that US regulations will only allow 'purified' gas through pipelines.

Natural gas processing consists of separating all of the various hydrocarbons and fluids from the pure natural gas, to produce what is known as 'pipeline quality' dry natural gas. Major transportation pipelines usually impose restrictions on the make-up of the natural gas that is allowed into the pipeline. That means that before the natural gas can be transported it must be purified.

Are you suddenly an expert on Natural Gas ?

Let me put it a different way . I would rate the opinion of independents experts over  the opinion of a well meaning discussion board user with no background in Natural Gas.

I accept the thrust of your point but I seriously doubt that there is an expert anywhere who stated that unrefined gas is as safe to pipe as refined gas. Could you find a link to any such expert please?

As I said before I'm not sure if they compared the relative safety of on shore and off shore refining all I know is they said it was safe .

[muppet]

The problem with this is that the (normally) credible media report only the official side of the story while to other side tends to be only reported on sites such as Indymedia and Blogs. I won't post links to them as even I accept they are not credible.

My understanding was that Shell acquired land under a CPO. The men prevented work being done on that land and Shell got a court order against the men. When they broke the order they were sent to jail for contempt of court. Then it subsequently emerged that the CPO was illegal.

True. And its a shame that no media outlet will report honestly and impartially for both sides.

True bout the CPO but i didnt realise it was found to be illegal. It was certainly immoral and should never have been granted but i didnt think it was illegal. Was it just for the terminal or along the route?

I thought it was the route but remember if the gas was refined (offshore or wherever) then the route was less of a problem.

I found an article in the Guardian quoting the judge as follows:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jul/18/oil.ireland

"A high court judge jailed them indefinitely, until they "purge their contempt" and agree to let Shell on to their land after compulsory purchase procedures. But the standoff continues."

[muppet]

http://www.naturalgas.org/naturalgas/processing_ng.asp

The above site is a US educational site on Natural Gas.

As a vested interest it will downplay any risks associated with the prodcut but it clearly states that US regulations will only allow 'purified' gas through pipelines.

Natural gas processing consists of separating all of the various hydrocarbons and fluids from the pure natural gas, to produce what is known as 'pipeline quality' dry natural gas. Major transportation pipelines usually impose restrictions on the make-up of the natural gas that is allowed into the pipeline. That means that before the natural gas can be transported it must be purified.

Are you suddenly an expert on Natural Gas ?

Let me put it a different way . I would rate the opinion of independents experts over  the opinion of a well meaning discussion board user with no background in Natural Gas.

I accept the thrust of your point but I seriously doubt that there is an expert anywhere who stated that unrefined gas is as safe to pipe as refined gas. Could you find a link to any such expert please?

As I said before I'm not sure if they compared the relative safety of on shore and off shore refining all I know is they said it was safe .

Who are they?

[Gnevin]

http://www.naturalgas.org/naturalgas/processing_ng.asp

The above site is a US educational site on Natural Gas.

As a vested interest it will downplay any risks associated with the prodcut but it clearly states that US regulations will only allow 'purified' gas through pipelines.

Natural gas processing consists of separating all of the various hydrocarbons and fluids from the pure natural gas, to produce what is known as 'pipeline quality' dry natural gas. Major transportation pipelines usually impose restrictions on the make-up of the natural gas that is allowed into the pipeline. That means that before the natural gas can be transported it must be purified.

Are you suddenly an expert on Natural Gas ?

Let me put it a different way . I would rate the opinion of independents experts over  the opinion of a well meaning discussion board user with no background in Natural Gas.

I accept the thrust of your point but I seriously doubt that there is an expert anywhere who stated that unrefined gas is as safe to pipe as refined gas. Could you find a link to any such expert please?

As I said before I'm not sure if they compared the relative safety of on shore and off shore refining all I know is they said it was safe .

Who are they?

Independent experts.
http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/NR/rdonlyres/2C9E7E78-C18E-481C-AB76-B58EEA47A071/0/CorribPipelineSafetyReviewR8391FINALHighRes.pdf
http://www.corribgaspipeline.com/uploads/file/further-information/02-TAG-Report-to-Minister-Final.pdf

Not one independent expert has recommended off shore refining as far as I know

[muppet]

GNevin you seem to be arguing two different things here.

You seem to think that a report that supported (at a greatly reduced pressure) Shell's pumping of unrefined gas through a village as meaning that it is equally safe to pump refined gas through the same village.

There is no one on the planet that would claim the risk was equal.

[turk]

Are any of the Shell to Sea protestors running in the local elections for the area this week?

Anyone?

[Farrandeelin]

Are any of the Shell to Sea protestors running in the local elections for the area this week?

Anyone?

Nope, according to the documentary last night anyway. Not from Erris myself but I haven't heard any of them on local radio either.

[Main Street]

http://www.shellguilty.com/shell-settles/

New York– After legal battles lasting nearly fourteen years, oil giant Royal Dutch Shell has been forced to pay a $15.5 million out-of-court settlement. Plaintiffs from the Ogoni region of the Niger Delta have successfully held Shell accountable for complicity in human rights atrocities committed against the Ogoni people in the 1990s, including the execution of writer and activist Ken Saro-Wiwa.

"Let there be no doubt that Shell has emerged guilty. With this settlement, Shell is seeking to keep the overwhelming evidence of its crimes away from the scrutiny of a jury trial,"

The company faces (more) legal action there for repeated oil spills, brought by residents of the Niger Delta,
"Shell will be dragged from the boardroom to the courthouse, time and again, until the company addresses the injustices at the root of the Niger Delta crisis and put an end to its environmental devastation,"

[RMDrive]

www.shellguilty.com/

LOL. Looks like a pretty impartial source to me.

[magpie seanie]

www.shellguilty.com/

LOL. Looks like a pretty impartial source to me.

Impartial or not Shell aren't handing over 15.5M just for the craic.

This whole thing is just another in the litanty of FF disastrous decisions that are haunting our country. How Cowen can say with a straight face that they have a mandate to govern is beyond me. Is he really that thick or is it just his ignorance?

[Main Street]

www.shellguilty.com/

LOL. Looks like a pretty impartial source to me.

I fail to see the humour.
That news has been reported in all major news outlets. Nothing less than a stunning victory for the Ogoni people and those who supported their cause
Let me know your opinion after you have had a read.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article6459634.ece
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/jun/09/saro-wiwa-shell
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/08/nigeria-usa
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/09/ken-saro-wiwa-jr-reaction

[Hound]

www.shellguilty.com/

LOL. Looks like a pretty impartial source to me.

I fail to see the humour.
That news has been reported in all major news outlets. Nothing less than a stunning victory for the Ogoni people and those who supported their cause
Let me know your opinion after you have had a read.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article6459634.ece
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/jun/09/saro-wiwa-shell
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/08/nigeria-usa
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/09/ken-saro-wiwa-jr-reaction

Well I think the funny bit was that despite this story being reported in probably every good newspaper in the world, you chose to quote a source that nobody could possibly take seriously rather than the myriad of impartial sources you could have chosen.

[RMDrive]

www.shellguilty.com/

LOL. Looks like a pretty impartial source to me.

I fail to see the humour.
That news has been reported in all major news outlets. Nothing less than a stunning victory for the Ogoni people and those who supported their cause
Let me know your opinion after you have had a read.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article6459634.ece
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/jun/09/saro-wiwa-shell
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/08/nigeria-usa
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/09/ken-saro-wiwa-jr-reaction

The fact that you fail to see the humour is a reflection on you rather than me. For gods sake the source you quoted was called "shellguilty". Why not quote one of the many references you have included above (none of which I going to read BTW) rather than such an obviously biased one?
And please don't try to associate the fact that I found your post funny with any opinion I may or may not have on the issue in question.