Shell to Sea

[blast05]

I see no the 6 1 news this evening, the girl that was reporting from Glengad (Glengad is where the pipes come ashore, Ballinaboy is where the terminal is) said something along the lines of, "meanwhile, the Shell to Sea protestors continue to protest demanding that the Shell terminal is re-located further west along the cost at Glinsk".

This was proposed over 3 years ago when this seafoid started off and it was completely dismissed by shell. Bullies like shell don't like being told what to do.

Fair enough but i recall reading it in the local press a few months back, being presented as a new proposal. The fact that i can not recall it being highlighted as a proposal from Shell 2 Sea about 3 years ago is either a serious indictment on their whole media campaign or else raises serious questions about my memory 

They urgently need someone to give the campaign some firm direction. Which is it ...
- Shell to Sea
- Shell not allowed to process the gas as it is "our gas, our national interest"
- Or Shell to re-locate 8 to 10 miles further east to Glinsk

In the publics mind, the 2nd option is on top albeit that i strongly think that there are very few people in the area that give a damn about that option, it all being about 1 or 3

[Gnevin]

I see no the 6 1 news this evening, the girl that was reporting from Glengad (Glengad is where the pipes come ashore, Ballinaboy is where the terminal is) said something along the lines of, "meanwhile, the Shell to Sea protestors continue to protest demanding that the Shell terminal is re-located further west along the cost at Glinsk".

This was proposed over 3 years ago when this seafoid started off and it was completely dismissed by shell. Bullies like shell don't like being told what to do.

Fair enough but i recall reading it in the local press a few months back, being presented as a new proposal. The fact that i can not recall it being highlighted as a proposal from Shell 2 Sea about 3 years ago is either a serious indictment on their whole media campaign or else raises serious questions about my memory 

They urgently need someone to give the campaign some firm direction. Which is it ...
- Shell to Sea
- Shell not allowed to process the gas as it is "our gas, our national interest"
- Or Shell to re-locate 8 to 10 miles further east to Glinsk

In the publics mind, the 2nd option is on top albeit that i strongly think that there are very few people in the area that give a damn about that option, it all being about 1 or 2

Did you mean 1 or 3 ?

[blast05]

Yes, corrected.

[Billys Boots]

Shell to re-locate 8 to 10 miles further east to Glinsk

I understood, amidst all the confusion, that all protesting parties were satisfied with this proposal.

[Gnevin]

Shell to re-locate 8 to 10 miles further east to Glinsk

I understood, amidst all the confusion, that all protesting parties were satisfied with this proposal.

Including shell?

[magpie seanie]

What are Shell protesting about?

[Billys Boots]

As Seanie says, Gnevin, I didn't count Shell to be a member of the 'protesting parties'.  Are they protesting about something?  Most organisations, in a spirit of social accountability, should examine the proposals that are presented, especially by a vehement opposition to their own 'controversial' proposal.  The protests are in relation to safety and environmental damage, after all, and while the evidence presented (by both sides) is not compelling, the Precautionary Principle is supposed to apply (by law, actually).

[Lar Naparka]

As Seanie says, Gnevin, I didn't count Shell to be a member of the 'protesting parties'.  Are they protesting about something?  Most organisations, in a spirit of social accountability, should examine the proposals that are presented, especially by a vehement opposition to their own 'controversial' proposal.  The protests are in relation to safety and environmental damage, after all, and while the evidence presented (by both sides) is not compelling, the Precautionary Principle is supposed to apply (by law, actually).

I was unaware that the Precautionary Principle applies by law in this country. But if it does, serious consideration should be given to considering its application in this case.
When conflicting 'expert' reports were published at more or less the same time some years ago, it emerged that Shell's method of pumping gas ashore had never been tried out anywhere to date.
I recall some TV program where the two sides were represented by spokespeople and this matter was brought up. An S2S representative made this claim and it was not contested by the opposing side. Certainly, references were made to studies elsewhere and some sections of the whole extraction and refining processes were mentioned as having passed safety measures - but the system proposed by Shell was, and still is, an untested and untried process.
Most of my safety concerns relate to the fact that there are vast deposits of dobe underlying the soils throughout the area in question. Dobe (or daab, as we call it in Mayo) is an extremely unstable substance and is liable to swell during periods of heavy rainfall. Furthermore, it can move sideways as most pliable substances will, if heavy weights are placed on it.
You may be aware of the conditions of existing roads leading to the Bellenaboy region where heavy lorry traffic has reduced the surfaces in question to a mass of potholes and large scale subsidences.
This is the nature of the ground over which the new pipeline, without substantial foundation work, is supposed to be laid. The fact that the refinery is to be built on a bog, with underlying deposits of dobe, seems crazy to me.
Shell will claim that all aspects of the construction and maintenance of their project will meet the most stringent of safety regulations but they have never carried out this sort of work before and how can anyone foretell what the future will hold?
Supposing that on years to come a political situation could arise where extremists might decide to sabotage the pipeline?
It is no use to say that this is unlikely to happen because we cannot foretell the future. If the same pipeline is to be laid less than 100m in places away from existing dwellings, the locals will always have a very real concern for their safety.
I know the S2S people present a poor case to the public with various activists going on about different aspects of their overall concerns but for me, my reservations are about safety aspects first and foremost.

[muppet]

Shell to Sea was a rapidly formed group formed by a sleepy parish to stand up to a shocking disruption of their world and way of life, without any warning, planning or as has been proven in our courts, any due regard for our right to own our own land.

Critics, invariably in the national media and those who only source info from them, point to flawed strategy and poor PR by Shell to Sea. They also point to the 'rent a riot' crowd who they certainly would have done better to discourage from standing with them. Probably not the best decision ever made.

But what would you expect from a rural Irish backwater against an oil company that can dictate national policiy in any country with a hint of corruption, let alone the most corrupt in Europe. The real issue here is the behaviour of our elected officials, (Government, opposition and local) throughout this whole debacle.

If the mullahs from Mayo took a few wrongs turns during their campaign is it not understandable, given that they have no experience of mass movements or civil disobedience? In fact when you consider they are fighting a multi-national oil company with a record of dealing viciously with locals who get in their way and a clearly corrupt regime who allow them to build away without planning, on the face of it I think they have performed miraculously.

The performance of our elected officials is all the more scandalous when you observe their Norwegian equivalents who use their natural resources to finance a fine Health Service. We use ours to finance the same Norwegian Health Service and Shell profits which will probably exceed our budget deficit this year.

That said I do not believe they have any connection with the device at Shell HQ and could never condone it if a link is made.

[Billys Boots]

As far as I'm concerned the Precautionary Principle is a general principle of law in the EU since 2000.  The EU documentation on it is here.

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consumer/library/pub/pub07_en.pdf

[Bord na Mona man]

But what would you expect from a rural Irish backwater against an oil company that can dictate national policiy in any country with a hint of corruption, let alone the most corrupt in Europe.

Moldova?

[blast05]

Shell to Sea was a rapidly formed group formed by a sleepy parish to stand up to a shocking disruption of their world and way of life, without any warning, planning or as has been proven in our courts, any due regard for our right to own our own land.

Critics, invariably in the national media and those who only source info from them, point to flawed strategy and poor PR by Shell to Sea. They also point to the 'rent a riot' crowd who they certainly would have done better to discourage from standing with them. Probably not the best decision ever made.

But what would you expect from a rural Irish backwater against an oil company that can dictate national policiy in any country with a hint of corruption, let alone the most corrupt in Europe. The real issue here is the behaviour of our elected officials, (Government, opposition and local) throughout this whole debacle.

If the mullahs from Mayo took a few wrongs turns during their campaign is it not understandable, given that they have no experience of mass movements or civil disobedience? In fact when you consider they are fighting a multi-national oil company with a record of dealing viciously with locals who get in their way and a clearly corrupt regime who allow them to build away without planning, on the face of it I think they have performed miraculously.

The performance of our elected officials is all the more scandalous when you observe their Norwegian equivalents who use their natural resources to finance a fine Health Service. We use ours to finance the same Norwegian Health Service and Shell profits which will probably exceed our budget deficit this year.

That said I do not believe they have any connection with the device at Shell HQ and could never condone it if a link is made.

Agreed with all that. Perhaps i have come accross as being overly negative and too critical where in fact its more a case of pointing out what i would love them to now do.
One point though, for the first 1-2 years of the campaign, they had Mark Garavan as the public representative. Seldom has any national campaign in Ireland had as informed and articulate a speaker as him. If anything he was probably too intellectual. They despertately need someone of his ilk to come back on board and represent their views.

[Lecale2]

The truth is that most countries would bite Shell's hand off to allow them to gain access to natural gas/oil off their coast in the current climate.
Years of prosperity have changed our outlook and allowed a couple of self interested farmers, fishermen and Eco warriors to set the agenda. Time to wake up I think.

[blast05]

Self interested farmers and fishermen ??
What would that self interest be ?

[Colonel Cool]

Is that woman that leads the opposition to Gas/Oil pipelines still on her hunger strike?