The Corrib Gasline

by conor Wed Nov 09, 2005 18:45

Even if your big assumption about corporate efficiency is correct, more likely safe than not safe is clearly not safe enough.

by t - shelltosea Wed Nov 09, 2005 19:28

why are the protesters worried, all we have to do is look at the mess shell made in nigeria, the pipeline in belgium that exploded. its very naive to think that just cos shell are a huge and experienced company that they are immune from accidents. all you need to do is a little research into their past and see what they are capable of and what little respect they show for the local communities they exploit.

by Michael R. Wed Nov 09, 2005 20:26

I see a big flaw in your logical analysis Henry.

In point 4. you state:- "the supposedly high risk of an explosion". This is a false statement which affects the rest of your argument.

The risk is not high. It is in fact very small. The question for the Rossport 5 and all the people living within the explosion zone, is why should their lives be put at risk for the sake of a Shell pipeline? Though the risk is very small, the risk is still there. And their deaths/injuries from a fireball would be horrific.

The effect it has on your argument is that Shell no doubt have factored in the cost of an explosion plus the damages they would have to pay to local residents (if they killed them etc.). They then weigh this up against the potential of it exploding. And their findings have been that its worth the risk for them. I doubt they have much regard for human lives (the capitalist system does not work that way). Its purely a cost-benefit analysis worked out with formulae.

I have heard of cases car companies where they discovered there was a defect in a certain model of car they had produced. This defect was causing and was going to cause a lot more crashes.

The company weighed up the cost of bringing all the cars back in

vs.

the cost of paying out insurance damages to injured car owners.

They worked out it would be more expensive to bring the cars back in so they just let a certain percentage of people have crashes and get injured.

So I think you need to re-write your argument with the fact that there is only a small chance that the pipe will explode etc.

by Henry Wed Nov 09, 2005 20:41

There is a small risk then.
There is a small risk that locals will be killed by a horrific explosion?
How would that happen?
If a woodpecker going to drill a hole through the pipe or something?Or is some local going to deliberately sabotage it?
You just being silly.

by Henry Wed Nov 09, 2005 20:44

I bet you wouldn't go out go for a trip in a ferry unless you were sure it wouldn't spring a leak?

by eif Wed Nov 09, 2005 23:39

Henry
please have a look at what shell has done in Nigeria, Belgium and Mexico and you might figure out that your own logical equations won't stand up to FACTS (and unfortuantly, lots of them). The people of Rossport were informed that shell could afford to kill two of them a year to make the project financially viable. The population of the area is about 60 people.
There are lots of technical reasons why people have safety fears, and it doesn't take engineering experts to understand them.
See www.shelltosea.com

by Kathy Thu Nov 10, 2005 10:43

free of all risk to mankind is unattainable, common sense is in short supply around this issue

by Henry Thu Nov 10, 2005 11:55

"There are lots of technical reasons why people have safety fears, and it doesn't take engineering experts to understand them."

Lets just get this straight.
The engineers constructing the pipeline have assured locals that the risk of an explosion is very small - If there is such a small chance of an explosion then it is irrational to for locals to be so fearful of an explosion.
If the pipeline was constructed out of tape and brown paper then I would be worried.
If it were constructed with inferior piping then I would be worried.
But the pipeline is being built with material that is many times above the minimum level to withstand the pressure of the gas pumped through it otherwise Shell would simply not be allowed build it.

The only issue in this case is that locals who have no expertise in engineering at all still believe they are in danger and adament they will not be convinced otherwise.

There is potential for accidents of course but modern industry in Ireland must adhere to the highest safety standards - that is they must be able to anticipate accidents before they arise and factor them into their designs- virtually eliminating serious potential for accidents.

There are high pressure gas pipelines crisscrossing this country, there are petrol storage tanks under every service station in practically every town in Ireland, there hundreds of fuel tankers on our contries roads - all of them potentially the cause of a fire and explosion similar to an potential accident at Rossport - but the potential is very small - just as the potential for an accident at Rossport is very small.
Nobody elsewhere in Ireland is blockading oil storage company facilities or demanding that gas pipelines should be closed which presumeably means they are not afraid of fires and explosions.

by Simon Thu Nov 10, 2005 13:52

Henry

I agree with all your comments. Fair play to you for having the courage to make them.

by Reply Thu Nov 10, 2005 15:51

"How would that happen?
If a woodpecker going to drill a hole through the pipe or something?Or is some local going to deliberately sabotage it?
You just being silly."

I don't think that the woodpecker scenario would occur. Andy Pyle himself stated that the two most common reasons for problems would be :
corrosion
physical damage

Building in peat, Andy Pyle admits to be "not that common", as this pipe is being laid in bog, physical damage from movement or settlement of earth would be much more likely. The pipe is to be laid with a minimum cover of just 1.2m (consider that an ordainary water main is required to have 900mm cover). This untreated gas pipeline is proposed to travel under trafficed roads, ditches and streams. Therefore at these locations a concrete coating or cover will be used. Would the pipeline also be required to lower in lever at these locations, the more bends the more weak points. Although concrete cover is the usual method of protecting underground services, the concrete slab would normally be bearing on to clay or earth of a relatively high strength. How would this concreted slab behave set into peat, would it introduce a possible slippage plane or a path for water drainage? This all appears to leave the pipe line in a very susceptible position. Perhaps my fears should be relieved as Andy Pyle tells us that there will be layer of warning tape buried about the pipeline? Any one invovled in the installation of utilities ducts etc would know that this is the absolute minimum safety requirement - hardly a highly reassuring example of prevention of third party damage.

"The only issue in this case is that locals who have no expertise in engineering at all still believe they are in danger and adament they will not be convinced otherwise."

I think this is also a fairly disgraceful statement. I am from Mayo and I am an engineer. The people of Rossport and the surrounding areas have very grave and well-founded concerns. Their motiviation is not for profit, it is not for personal gain, it is not to stifle development, but it is the safety of their families and neighbours. They have educated themselves with regards to this issue, they have read and re-read any documents they can find on the issue (remembering some documents were unlawfully withheld from them). They have consulted with experts and at this stage know an awful lot more about the pipeline and dangers posed than the politicians, businessmen and other fat cats trying to force this scheme on them.

From reports I have heard, it appears that the usual standards and best practice guidelines do not cover pipes that go up to pressures of 345 bar. Therefore it seems ridiculous to say :
"But the pipeline is being built with material that is many times above the minimum level to withstand the pressure of the gas pumped through it "
I know the pipe is to have a thickness of 27.1mm. However, when you say the "minimum level" what do you mean? What is this min level? Is it based on the material used, the thickness or more likely a combination of both? What Irish or international guidelines give minimum levels for gas pipe lines at 345 bar pressure in residential areas? The pipe is proposed to have three coatings - FBE, Copolymer Adhesive and Polypropylene, however these are cited as measures to prevent external corrosion - not to withstand internal pressures.

"Nobody elsewhere in Ireland is blockading oil storage company facilities or demanding that gas pipelines should be closed which presumeably means they are not afraid of fires and explosions."
In recent months, groups all around the country and abroad have picketed and blockaded Shell and Statoil garages, demanding that work on this gas pipeline in Mayo should be halted. They are supporting the demands of the Shell to Sea campaign and they are afraid. Otherwise, the danger posed by garages/other gas pipelines themselves are in no way comparable to the proposed situation in Rossport. As gas moves around Ireland - in every single other case - it has been treated, an odour added and travels at a much lower pressure - 4 bar for distribution to houses and then up to 70/85 bar for the major transmission pipes around the country. Shell to Sea, I think, don't have a problem with the section of pipe after the refinery/treatment plant. It is understood that this run of pipe will be to usual Bord Gais standards and the method has at least been tried and tested.

"Shell has been involved in the gas and oil business for decades " but actually how many gas pipelines for untreated, high pressure gas have they laid onshore, in a residential area, in a bog?

by Henry Thu Nov 10, 2005 17:54

My questions is this:
Are there people picketting fuel storage facilities and petrol stations ONLY because of a fear that these SPECIFIC facilities or service stations will explode and kill people living in the vicinity of those SPECIFIC facilities or service stations?
I am not asking whether there are people picketting Shell facilities ONLY because the threat of an explosion and fire SPECIFIC to Rossport.
If nobody is in fact complaining about other facilities with a similiar unlikelihood as the proposed Rossport pipeline of exploding but actually ignoring the unlikelihood of those facilities exploding while focusing only on the unlikelihood of the Rossport pipeline exploding then why are they actually focusing on the unlikely threat of the Rossport pipeline exploding and not on other facilities which are as unlikely to explode?
Tell me that?

by Reply Thu Nov 10, 2005 18:17

I understood your question the first time and believed that I had in some ways answered it but perhaps felt it was obvious so it didn't need spelling out... but here goes.

Are you stating that petrol stations and shell garages pose the same risk to local communities as the proposed gas pipeline in Rossport? I don't think they actually do but perhaps you have some information otherwise? Also when applying for permission and the various licences etc for the development of a garage I think you will find that the process will be less stringent for a garage? This may be because planners, the evironmental protections agency and the government feel there is a different risk posed.

There are hundreds of garages around the country and no doubt thousands and thousands around the world but this particular pipeline is unprecedented and dangerous. This would explain why people oppose this project and are picketing Shell facilities.

So, as far as I know no is the answer to your question: "Are there people picketting fuel storage facilities and petrol stations ONLY because of a fear that these SPECIFIC facilities or service stations will explode and kill people living in the vicinity of those SPECIFIC facilities or service stations?". Maybe you feel we should be.

Any chance of you answering any of my questions?

by Henry Fri Nov 11, 2005 11:13

What I am trying to illustrate is the absurdity of the Rossport protestors's arguments that no chance of an accident however small justifies the construction of the pipeline.

What I believe is really going on is that these ignorant backwoods locals who feel threatened by modernity (they are still banging on about Cromwell up there!) have allied themselves to the worst types of radical leftists desperate for publicity because they couldn't get elected dogcatcher.

by fgs Fri Nov 11, 2005 11:25

Which "expert" told you there is a comparison between the risks and CPO's of the development of the Corrib gasline and a petrol station?

by Henry Fri Nov 11, 2005 19:09

Next time you get fuel at a petrol station just observe if the pump attendent smokes. Then you'll understand!

by RHS Fri Nov 11, 2005 19:11

Yeah, I suppose smoking does pose a risk to ones health. Just like the Corrib Gas pipe line.

by Henry Sat Nov 12, 2005 12:12

Did I imagine this?
I think I saw one of the Rossport 5 on TV or the newspaper with a cigarette in his hand?
I mean first off all most of these guys are over the hill, second they are overweight heartattacks waiting to happen and thirdly they are smoking, alright?
If they quit smoking I think they will improve their chances of survival by a third should the Corrib gaspipe spring a leak and they might improve it by 50% again by cutting out the fat (the less fat they have the less flameable they are).
Can't help them with their old age but maybe thats why they are so stubborn and stupid.
My other solution - take prozac

by me - personal capacity Sat Nov 12, 2005 19:31

Do you have a family?
Would you like them to have to cross a very high pressure gas pipe full of unrefined ( no smell contains more nasties therefore less safe then your average pipeline) gas every day going into and leaving their home.
The shell to sea people have many experts among them who have well researched this and you come along with no knowledge, no expertese and tell them that they should put their families and themselves in danger because you've worked out a little nonsense statement saying they are safe?
Or because a company who have had people killed in nigeria for daring to protest, say everything is fine. They are obviously vert concerned about local people's wellbeing. A company who have already had to move the plan for the pipe once because they couldn't tell that an area which has been having mudslides for years is not the most stable place to put a pipeline.
Why would you trust a company who are only out for the money with your life and that of your family without questioning them?

by Tadhg McGrath - Shell To Sea Thu Nov 17, 2005 19:16

The high pressure pipeline scheme proposed for Erris is unlike any other scheme ever built in Ireland. Comparisons with ordinary gas pipelines are ludicrously misleading.

My question on this issue would be, why won't Shell build an offshore rig to process the gas before pumping on shore? That's what the normal procedure would be.

Is there some rational reason why they can't?

by soundmigration Thu Nov 17, 2005 19:35

is sometimes a lot worse than none

something you have just proved old bean

by Dicky the - welder Tue Jan 03, 2006 23:19 cant_run_cant_hide at yahoo dot co dot uk

Being a Stove welder working on gaslines and related industrys I may know a thing or two.

The offshore gas field may be closes enought to have a gasline runing straight from it.
Adavantages of this would mean industry in the West of Ireland instead of your farmer and cattle.

If you have a (gas refinery) on the west of Ireland that will mean there will be employment for the local folk who wont have to travel to US for work and ele were.

And if your all worried about a big massive explosion then dont be worring because the last pipeline that did blow up was in the US. This gas line was layed in the 50^s due to the age of the line and the welds it blew up. Gas lines that have been layed in the Uk and indeed everywhere eles (and thats Billions of lines) have not blown up.
If your worried about an eye sore runing threw the country side beside the cattle that the fammer has left out to graze, Dont This is due to the fact that the gas line will be about 15-20meters below the surface. And the bogs of west Ireland will recover in approx 5 years after the gasline construction has been completed.

I hope this puts all the folk on the West side of Ireland at rest.

Now that we are still talking about gaslines and stuff did you all know that theres going to be a gas line layed this year called the South-North Gas line.
And does any body know whos the main contractor?

by rooster Thu Jan 05, 2006 00:25

This is highly unlikely as I'm pretty sure that there are no woodpeckers in Ireland!!

by R. Isible Thu Jan 05, 2006 02:26

Great Spotted Woodpecker _Dendrocopos major_ There is some archaeological evidence to support the existence of this species as a resident in Ireland in the past, however, it is no longer resident here. The woodpecker has been extinct in Ireland for some time, but occurs in regular influxes, notably from Britain and Scandinavia. This bird is found in woodland and areas with scattered trees, but has a requirement for mature woodland with old trees, including those which are dead and dying.

So, Henry's hypothesis doesn't fail on those grounds!

by rooster Thu Jan 05, 2006 16:21

on the grounds that the pipeline is unlikely to be made out of wood!!
Hence the term for this species WOODpecker!

by T Thu Jan 05, 2006 18:27

There are almost 500,000 homes heated by Natural Gas in Ireland. If we assume around 2 to 4 occupants per house that surely comes to 1 to 2 million people or around half the population.

At the moment approximately 43% of electricity in Ireland is generated by Natural Gas and this is likely to rise to about 58% in the next couple of years. Ireland's electrical generating capacity is around 4460 MW or 4.46 GW

The breakdown is roughly: (Peat 5.6%, Hydro ~5%, Coal 20%, Oil ~20%, Wind 7.6% and of course Gas ~43%)

As of around 2003, Ireland was importing via an interconnector pipeline to the UK, about 80% of it's gas supplies, as the Kinsale Gas field is already in rapid decline.

In the next few years, the combination of the Seven Heads field (off Kinsale) and the Corrib Gas field would mean Ireland can supply around about 75% of it's own gas need, thus reducing imports to a relative proportion of 25%.

However regardless of what happens to Corrib, it will not last forever and assuming it were to ramp up to full production by 2008, then it would already start it's rapid decline in 2015 or so. And if demand continues to rise during that period which is unlikely really, then it, along with the Seven Heads is unlikely to be supply the 75% of our needs.

By 2015 and later, gas reserves in Europe will be seriously depleted and for all we know Siberia will have already entered decline too.

The solution of course is to implement an across the board scheme of incentives to encourage all people to insulate their homes and thus to conserve gas and use it wisely. Using it for electricity is a bit of a waste. We should also probably stall the introduction of the Corrib Gas field as it will be much more valuable later when the world is past Peak Gas production. And of course take it back from the Oil companies since it was given to them illegally and it belongs to the Irish people anyhow.

Allowing Corrib to be wasted now, will give a false sense of stability to us and will result in a dramatic shock from 2015 or so onwards, as we will be at the end of the gas pipelines extending all the way from Siberia through Europe and the UK will already be in dire straits and may not be too willing to pass the gas our way. Just look at the recent spat between the Ukraine and Russia for an example.

Irish Gas Supplies (Source Colin Campbell)

by T Thu Jan 05, 2006 18:30

Please note that I would just like to add that some but not all of the facts and figures for the above comment were sourced from the article titled:

How Will We Heat Our Homes When Gas Gets Scarce?
by Richard Douthwaite

found at:

by JM Sun Sep 03, 2006 15:23 Rossport

I've just been reviewing a few articles on Indymedia and came across this one, and feel compelled to make a point.

Henry appears to have zero knowledge of the campaign carried out in Erris over the last six years, and it would take me the rest of the year to address all the points raised individually.

However, I'll limit myself to this. The proposed Corrib upstream pipeline would indeed be made of stuff stronger than tape and brown paper, but it is not designed well and above the standards required, and for two main reasons;

(1) A design factor of 0.3 is technically required for sensitive parts of the pipeline, but is ignored. Instead, a lower design factor of 0.72 has been used, and is the BARE MINIMUM stated in the declared design code (BS 8010). The reason for this is given as "difficulty in welding" the thicker pipe wall required by 0.3 (in other words, Erris gets a 27mm pipe instead of 62mm);

(2) Despite the above, former Minister for Natural Resources Frank Fahey gave the go-ahead for the refinery project (including the pipeline) without ensuring a code of practice was in place, the norm for gas projects of any size. This allows the developer to pick and mix from any number of design codes, without being tied to ANY design code. They are not obliged to adhere to any standards other than PRIVATE FINANCIAL GAIN.

I hope Henry has educated himself since his nonsense of last November, but I doubt it. The ignorant bog-hoppers are informed enough to know when things are just plain wrong... it's just a pity those who pretend to know what they are on about are the same people who never listen to the truth.

by cool j Mon Sep 04, 2006 13:23

Henry's probably feeling a little bit embarassed after all the guff he came out with now appears to be as water-tight as a sieve!!

by Gas Man Mon Sep 04, 2006 14:18

Henry's right.

All the good arguments against him that I have seen in the above discussion are referring to quality metrics such as the thickness of the pipe, composition of pipe, location of pipe etc. These are all good quality metrics. An honest campaign would be referring to them, and comparing world class best practise for these pipes to what is proposed. For example if the world class best practise recommendation is for the pipes to be 40 mm thick, and Shell are proposing pipes that are 20 mm thick, than a campaign could reasonably demand that the pipes be increased in thickness to 40mm.

However the Shell to Sea campaign could not care less about best practise and reports from experts etc. They are trying to stop the pipe - full stop - no discussion, no negotiating, just no pipe. For example they refused to meet with Shell at all to discuss changes that can be made, and even the negotiator, Peter Cassells, had to end meetings because no-one would negotiate from the Rossport side.

Their campaign is reactionary, and anti progress, and illogical. The most likely cause of an explosion, if there was one, would be one of the protesters deliberately sabotaging the pipe.

And then you guys would all have to mount a campaign to free the Rossport blower upper! I am sure you would blame Shell for that as well.