Statement from Shell to Sea

by Michael Fri Aug 26, 2005 11:22

Well said Mark.

Do you or anyone else have any idea how independant this this new British based company, which specializes in technology risk assessment, is going to be?

by Ian Fri Aug 26, 2005 12:03

I'm surprised mark garavan put his name to that because he normally comes across as having some level of coherence and intelligence. The men should purge their contempt and then engage in some type of dialogue to progress their arguments. they have missed the boat and over played their hand.

by Síog Fri Aug 26, 2005 12:21

Ian, these men can not purge their contempt and start dialogue. Why can you not see this?

The injunction prevents anyone from obstructiog Shell in this project. Who defines obstruction? Does it have to be physical? Or is it obstruction to speak publicly against Shell?

Do you really suggest that these men lie to the courts? While the government can not be trusted to enforce the consents or lack there of, these men can not possibly say they will never obsturct Shell.

I do not see why this is not clear. It has been posted often enough.

by BS watch Fri Aug 26, 2005 12:40

"Ian, these men can not purge their contempt and start dialogue. Why can you not see this?"

Wouldn't have anything to do with an orchestratred blueshirt campaign to undermine the Rossport 5, would it?

by Michael Fri Aug 26, 2005 13:54

Below is an article from the Irish Times website published a while ago. Once again it looks like the (third) review will not be independent. Surprised? Who are the government trying to fool? The mass’s I guess. We gotta make sure they don't succeed. The merits of this campaign and the 100% wholesale giveaway of hugely valuable national resources to mammoth multi-nationals are undeniable.

This campaign is winnable.

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2005/0826/breaking34.htm

Shell campaigners reject new safety review
By Kilian Doyle Last updated: 26-08-05, 12:15

Campaigners against Shell's planned onshore gas pipeline in Co Mayo said today they had no confidence that a safety review will be independent and fair.

Five men were jailed in June for refusing to undertake not to block work on the onshore stretch of the Corrib pipeline across their lands near Rossport.

They argue the pipeline, which will carry gas from the offshore field at high pressure to an onshore refinery, poses a huge safety risk to local residents.

The Government yesterday appointed an international consultancy company, Advantica, to conduct the review.

Minister for Communications, the Marine and Natural Resources Noel Dempsey decided to hold a second review to allay the concerns of local residents after they rejected an initial review by a company that was part-owned by Shell.

Advantica was chosen after a tendering process that was contested by eight companies. The findings of its inspection will be made public when the review is completed in six weeks.

But spokesman for the Shell To Sea campaign, Dr Mark Garavan, told ireland.com today he had no confidence in the new review.

He said the fact the review was being sponsored by the Government, which he said had supported Shell since the Corrib project began five years ago, meant it could not be expected to be independent.

Dr Garavan also claimed Advantica, which has previously worked for Shell, was "integrated within the oil and gas industry".

In addition, the review would only focus on one aspect of the pipeline, namely "its ability to do what it was designed to do", he said. "But our concerns are with the location of the pipeline, its proximity to homes and the risks it poses to local residents," he said.

Finally, he said the review would be rejected by Shell if it found the pipeline was unsatisfactory, as the company has publicly stated that it will "not feel bound" by the findings of any review.

"There is little objective ground for us to believe that this review will be independent," Dr Garavan added.

© 2005 ireland.com

by Ray Fri Aug 26, 2005 14:02

Dissing the Safety review before its out makes you look weak. Most people now know that you feel it is not going to agree with your contention that the pipeline is unsafe - so you attempt to discredit it before it comes out. i dont think its a good tactic - makes you look weak.

by the questionair Fri Aug 26, 2005 14:23

Of course Advantica, are "integrated within the oil and gas industry". There is no point getting a company who know nothing about laying gas mains to do a safety review of a gas pipeline. Who does Dr Garavan want to do the review/ He's not exactly an expert in the field himself.
As for his comment that it won't be independant if the government pay for the review, who else will pay for it? The Shell to Sea campaign? Hardly. He wouldn't want shell to pay for it either. So what does Dr Garavan suggest? Nothing constructive anyway. THis protest is not about safety at all, Dr Garavan should just come out and admit that.

by ciarrog eile Thu Sep 08, 2005 08:30

- you can't be serious!!!

Don't you know that the new stock reply to such old or "old-fashioned" rancours from the bastardized sold-out and self-styled non-ideological 'Collinsesques' is that

"there is no longer any difference between Fianna Fail and Fine Gael other than - wait for it -

THE 'CIVIL WAR' !!!!

- And this from the vulgar
non-thinking neighbors not a hundred miles distant from Rossport, whose own past generations wrought the only active resistance to
De Valera-ism!!!!! And, before that, to Imperial rule!! - "Bailleabhair agus feadogai " !!

Now, the "Law-and-Orderites"

-Agus anois go bhfuil fior faitios ag "laochrai"
na cine Michael Collins (naire orthu go leir!)
aghaidh a thabhairt ar SHELL agus Frank Fahy, Ray Burke, agus a leitheid go leir de CHLADHAIRI SO-DHIOLTA - !!! An faitios ceanna orthu roimh an cheart - roimh daoine Ros Dumhach, roimh an cinealtas, agus roimh smaoineadh thar contuirti Sinn Fein.

- Na Fine Gaelites d'inniu ...dreancaidi nairiuil 'golf-playing' agus 'nouveau riches/ bourgeois' mar ataid ... a thabhairfheas
bua anois do lucht F.F. - cuid Dev agus a "brown envelopes" - Biodh naire go deo orthu agus ar dhaoine as mi-fior-Ghaeltachtai darbh ainm doibh "ian" :

-Smalladh othu!!

Go i leith, cogar!! - Ta an troid seo ina chogadh ar son ar chine Gaelach!!! Teigh ar ais agus cuir ceist ar bhur fior laochrai....


Aire le na Sinsear....

ainmneacha doibh ata caillte:

-Eamonn Carey ( the original honest Erris representative and Irish language and culture advocate...until 1985)

-Pat Lindsay ('Lindsay' Gaeltacht), fierce proponent anf champion of Erris enlightenment..... until 1993

- Joe Leneghan, erstwhile and always Fine Gael and always well onto Dev's lot.

- Henry Kenny (-SENIOR-) , who was of the Carey-Lindsay loyalty, and who surely was intelligent and sensitive enough to the Erris people to have resisted any buyout at the expense of ANY Erris people IN THOSE DAYS.


Bi id' thost feasta, a "ian", a mhic, -
Bain uait an dallog sin a chuireann Shell agus an 'golf" ort, agus druid suas

NA GO SIAR GO ROS DUMHACH INNIU,

agus
bi id' chonai ann tu fein direach os cionn
and deabhail piopa sin glan agus sabhalach cneasta SHELL ata curtha ansin ag bhur rialtas agus ag cladhairi so-dhiolta na tire.

- 'Siad laochrai an cheantair - laochrai Iorrais -na daoine ata ina fhior-chine do'n fhirinne fein - bagairte go leor agat .

Dean neart dod' mhuintir agus dun do chlab no tog
cabhair dod' mhuintir fein.

-- And this caution to all who may fear the bogeyman 'Truth' and decry the truth for it may seem to wear the mask of proper resistance and shdows of times well gone by.

NEWS for Fine Gaelers: That Civil War was never over and it is right and fitting that resistance to skullduggery belongs to the righteous - no matter what strange bedfellows. - Anois, - Teigh amach , tabhair cunamh do lucht an chirt ...Agus na tharraing nios mo naire ar dhaoine mor-inteannacha mar me fein.

- Abair an firinne fior faoi dheire, no
smalladh orraibh go siorai. ...agus le saol na saol.....

by Shipsea Thu Sep 08, 2005 11:33

Many of the posts about this issue on Indymedia have the ring of a concerted campaign to misinform and to deflect people from the truth, in my view.

There has already been a comprehensive review of the safety issue conducted by An Bord Pleanala which rejected this plan. That was not the answer that was wanted by Shell and the Government so now they are fixing up the answer they want to see, it seems. The only people arriving at foregone conclusions here are Shell, who have said they will not be bound by the findings of any review. So what is the point of the review?

by Mick Thu Sep 08, 2005 12:00

Shipsea

An Bord Pleanala approved the project. The ultimate decision making Board took account all submissions and approved it. End of.

by Shipsea Thu Sep 08, 2005 12:26

On the only occasion that a FULL review took place the project was emphatically rejected by an Bord Pleanala. Do your homework, Mick! Subsequent reviews are incomplete and misdirected to exclude vital aspects of the project. There is nothing reliable, therefore, to be concluded from them. The core issues that the Rossport 5 and others are seeking answers for have been expressly excluded from these subsequent, so-called 'reviews'.

by Mick Thu Sep 08, 2005 12:42

fact is ABP approved it albeit at a second attempt. There was not a need to repeat the entire exercise a second time around as the submsissions were not going to differ. This is the state machinery designed to decide on planning issues and it has made a judgment.

the safety review is another opportunity for all concerns to be aired and presented. It beggars belief that objectors are not using this to present their case........or is it merely that they dont want to hear the expert opinion?

by Shipsea Thu Sep 08, 2005 13:28

You cannot casually dismiss the issues which were so critical to the project the first time round that it ended up being comprehensively rejected.
It is blatant sophistry to pretend that by ignoring the issues on which it failed first time round, the plan was somehow legitimised without a single thing being done about the flaws that caused the application to fail.
You do your argument no service at all with this sort of selective interpretation. This is exactly the sort of nauseating prevarication that is incensing and reinforcing the resolve of the plans opponents.
If Shell etc are so confident of their plan what are they so afraid of? Have a full and fair review and go over the issues thoroughly again.
But no, the di are loaded: firstly the review is carefully defined to avoid the known weaknesses in the plan and secondly, Shell have said they will not be bound by it anyway.
No doubt they will, nevertheless, be delighted to require the plans' opponents to hold to its conclusions if it finds in Shell's favour. In other words we are looking at a complete stitch-up.

The only solution to this situation is for Shell to accept they must revise their plans, invest more in safety and relocate to sea. They will still make enormous profits. That is not a bad outcome for them, by any stretch of the imagination. Also, their opponents are not going anywhere.

There should also be a serious and comprehensive inquiry into the basis for the original deal. Heads should roll for this sell out and a new contract should be drawn up. Shell will still make enormous profits, but it would not be the idiotic bargain-basement deal that was first agreed by some of our gob-*****, feckless politicians.

by fact Fri Sep 09, 2005 09:44

The Corrib Gas Project originally proposed by Enterprise Energy was rejected by on Bord Pleanala because of the proposal to move 450,000 tonnes of peat from Bellanaboy to Bangor. No other reason. Shell then took over the project and came up with a system of doing this safely and the project was passed. That is the truth.
THe safety of the pipeline was never an issue with an Bord Pleanala. It was raised in the hearings and the Bord was satisfied by the design and operating procedures for the pipeline.
These are facts, you would know that if you were at the hearings and even now you can check out the transcripts of the hearings.
You should all get your facts right.

by Selective Facts Fri Sep 09, 2005 09:55

Thank you Mr Shell representative, for your contribution. Nice try. The facts have all been set out above already. The review is seriously restricted and will not take account of the legitimate safety concerns raised. This is a deliberate bias and is clearly intended to guarantee the outcome in favour of Shell. Again, if you are so confident of your project why not have a full and fair review so that you can really convince us? Becuase the FACTS dont support you, that's why.

by Ollie Fri Sep 09, 2005 10:52

....all the bluster and get involved in the Review. Why is it that the protesters to this project are so unreasonable? they break court orders, blockade law abiding people doing their work, intimidate local community and expect to gain public support? Time will tell !

by Connacht Fri Sep 09, 2005 10:56

"Facts" is misleading in his comment. The Senior Inspector of an Bord Pleanála who reported to the board on this proposed project, recommended that it be rejected for 3 reasons. The removal of peat was one of those reasons. An Bord Pleanála rejected the planning application on foot of that reason. An Bord Pleanála members, remember, are not experts but are nominated to the board, a board which chose to ignore the findings of its own expert. It is also interesting that the removal of peat from the site has run into such difficulties from when they started to do it, to such an extent that the work had to be abandoned. Their lorries went off the road, the road from Bellaboy to the site outside Bangor where the peat is to be dumped started to crack, despite the county council having spent so much money in upgrading it.

The pipeline did not go through a successful planning application. Fact.

by Real Facts Fri Sep 09, 2005 11:01

There is nothing illegal in any of what you describe. The Rossport 5 are standing by their convictions - convictions shared by most people in this country. It is Shell who were acting illegally. The 5 are defending their families' safety and that of their community. Unless or until the root cause of this dispute is properly resolved this situation will continue. Move the refinery to sea, continue to make a handsome profit even so and everyone is happy - Shell more than anybody.

by Brendan Cafferty - None Fri Sep 23, 2005 16:26 brendancafferty at hotmail dot com Ballina, Maigheo

What about the new safety review Mark. What about the law and the courts. Those men can purge their contempt and free themselves. Physician heal thyself

by John Brennan - Nil Fri Sep 23, 2005 16:35 johnb254 at hotmail dot com Caislean An Bharraigh

What would Dr. Cowley do if the men decided to obey the law of the land and free themselves