The Cassells Report and the Corrib Gas Conflict

mayo | environment | opinion/analysis Wednesday August 09, 2006 15:29 by Terry - Rossport Solidarity Camp

With a press release in one hand and a baton in the other, will they take power in Mayo?
An analysis of recent developments in the Corrib gas conflict, particularly the Cassells report, as we can see public relations overdrive and preparations for repression going hand in hand.

Shell’s apparent dropping of the injunction against non-consenting landowners:

After Andy Pyle’s ‘apology’ for ‘Shell’s part’ in the imprisonment of the Rossport Five, Shell continued to seek a permanent injunction. The injunction the five were imprisoned under was a temporary injunction while Shell were awaiting the permanent one. This case for a permanent injunction is to come up in October, and defendants include three of the Rossport Five, and a number of other non-consenting landowners such as Brid McGarry. It has been suggested in the media of late that Shell mean to drop proceedings, in fact they have said no such thing in their releases to the press. Rather this has been put out by Enda Kenny, Fine Gael leader, and a strong supporter of Shell, we can then see that this is a pr move, aimed at again making it seem like it is all over.

Shell’s planned resumption of work at the Ballinaboy refinery site in September:

The Irish Times article headed “Shell set to resume work on gas terminal” has in the small print down the bottom: “resume work at the Bellanaboy terminal site next month with expansion of a water treatment unit.”
At the moment there is one water treatment unit, aka Axionics, installed, and maintained with Shell to Sea permission. Previously Shell to Sea monitors observed this work on site and found that this was insufficient to deal with the amount of polluted water.
This is not the same as announcing a restart of construction of the refinery, nonetheless we regard it most likely that they will start building that before commencing work on the pipeline. We need to be ready for such a resumption at all times and there is a daily picket of Ballinaboy.

The Riot Squad:

According to a report in this week’s Mayo Echo “Gardai in Mayo have been secretly training a ‘riot squad’ to deal with expected protests at the entrance to the refinery.”

The Peter Cassells Report:

Peter Cassells, appointed by the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, as a ‘mediator’ in the Corrib gas conflict, pulled out of this some weeks ago, and last week offered an explanation in the report he published
He wrote: “no agreement is likely in the foreseeable future”.
Nonetheless he published a series of recommendations in his report “as a possible way forward for the project”.
Something which shows what the role of mediation was, that is facilitation, to manufacture some minor compromise, some small modification, and let the main body of Shell and the state’s assault on north-west Mayo pass unchallenged.

If a company was in dispute with its’ workforce the role of making such a stitch up would be made by the trade union bureaucracy, one of Shell’s main problems in Erris is there is no such layer between them and their opponents to mediate, hence the importation of a former Trade Union bureaucrat, Peter Cassells.

Cassells’ report clearly frames the issues in a dishonest, and pro-Shell, fashion
For example Section Five of the report ‘Different Positions of Local People’, in which the first line reads: “From my discussions with local people it is clear a majority of people in Rossport, the wider Erris area and Co.Mayo are in favour of the project”.
There is no elaboration as to what ‘the project’ is. If he means the Corrib Gas project as it presently stands and he really thinks a majority are in favour he cannot have been talking to too many people. Reports from door to door canvassing by Shell to Sea and an opinion poll by the Mayo Echo, with over 80% of respondents in county Mayo backing Shell to Sea, would suggest something different. Furthermore he doesn’t name one single solitary public event organised by residents in northwest Mayo in support of Shell, while there has been a daily picket against them for over a year.
If he means any project to develop the Corrib gas field I think he would find that it is the stated policy of Shell to Sea that the development of the Corrib gas field in a safe, environmentally friendly, and social beneficial fashion is our objective. Hence this is just muddying the waters.

Deliberately as can be seen from further points in that section.

Apparently the views of local people can be divided into three categories:
Those in favour of the project from day one, those in favour but with ‘genuine concerns’ and those opposed to “any development in the area”.
How does Cassells decide what concern is ‘genuine’? He doesn’t elaborate.
It is clear he is following the spin of Shell, e.g. divided community, and people opposed to any development (what activists on the ground in north west Mayo have been accused of since day one). Those in favour of the project are grouped in a number of very small business lobbies (which it transpires are the bulk of local ‘representative organisations’ the man consulted).

As for those “opposed to any development in the area”, which is the old old spin of those who propose to destroy the area, I would suggest given the underdevelopment of the region and the fact that so many people still have to migrate out of it you would have to search very hard to find such people. Did he? In fact despite Cassells’ claim of “consultation with the local community” he spent a sum total of one hour of what one activist described as “irrelevant chit chat” at the Shell to Sea trailer (open Monday to Friday and on Sundays). That being all his interaction with Shell to Sea, there were no public meetings or public consultation involving Peter Cassells. Had he done so he would have found that rather than being “those who are opposed to any development in the area” those at the Shell to Sea picket include community minded people who, when wearing other hats, have been lobbying for development for the area. That is petitioning for improvements in the dire road between Erris and Castlebar (the county town and location of nearest major hospital), or producing an alternative development for the area (including eco-tourism and renewable energies).

Cassells’ role is revealed by the fact he is trotting out the old insult of ‘anti-development’ against those who would dare to stand against the new landlords and the state that supports them. The truth is there is no development with Shell, rather there is the devastation of tourism, fishing and farming and most importantly the devastation of peoples’ hopes to see their children and grandchildren grow up safe and secure in the home they love.

Cassells’ Recommendations:

All of Cassells’ recommendations are as Minister Dempsey made clear up to Shell to decide to implement. That is Dempsey washes his hands, the future lies in the hands of Shell

His first recommendation is that Shell “modify the route of the pipeline in the vicinity of Rossport”. That is not that the pipeline be moved from Rossport, but that it remains within the same corridor within Rossport, but with a few minor changes.
This was put about big style in the corporate and state media as representing something of a victory for Shell’s opponents and as a major compromise.
This is part of the public relations effort to make it seem that this struggle is all over (in fact it might be said to have barely begun), just as publication of the Advantica report months ago was the “green light” that meant work was to commence. Not only does reading the small print give it a very different meaning, but in fact a significant move of the pipeline would not make much of a difference.
It would drop the problem on some other communitiy’s doorstep, not acceptable, not address the refinery at all, which is in fact the number one threat to the people and ecology of Erris, and leave unmentioned the fact that the ordinary people of Ireland benefit nothing from the natural resources off our coasts.
In regard to the refinery Cassells’ writes “it is not a matter for me to revisit the decisions on the location of the Terminal”. In other words the refinery, the main threat to the local environment, and main focus of protests over the last year, is beyond the remit of Cassells. How then can he genuinely make mediation between the different sides, as opposed to making facilitation for the oil corporations.

On the issue of water pollution continuing to be caused by the couple of months of construction at the refinery site in the spring of 2005 Cassells is dismissive: “Mayo County Council, the Environmental Protection Agency and the North Western Regional Fisheries Board have studied the water run-off and stated that they are satisfied that this is not causing a threat to aquatic life in the catchment area of the Bellanboy river or Carrowmore lake or to the standard of drinking water in Erris.”
He might explain why Shell say differently. After they had been blocked from entering the site from July 2005 onwards Shell claimed that if they didn’t get in to install water treatment facilities then the lake, the river, and the drinking water supply, would be imperilled. When they were allowed in under Shell to Sea supervision it was found their water treatment was wholly inadequate, their refusal to admit publically they had caused this problem, resulted in pickets refusing to co-operate with further installation of water treatment equipment, until such a time as Shell admit what they are doing. They then claimed again that protesters were causing a pollution problem.

Considerable research has been carried out by Shell to Sea activists to show both that the problem exists and that Shell have been negligent in their minuscule efforts to deal with it. See: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/74919
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/75743
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/74344

Most of the rest of his recommendations concern bribery. Dangling a few carrots before the donkeys, an insult of a similar order as ‘genuine concerns’ and ‘opposing all development’. That is an investment fund, regularising financial compensation of landowners on the pipeline route, more regional infrastructure, including gas for major towns in Mayo, and broadband!

Finally Cassells’ calls for “ongoing consultations with the local community on key aspects of the project.” This ignores the huge imbalance of power between residents of a small rural community and massive energy corporations, with the backing of the state, who own and control the project, and make the decisions, and can hence make any decision they like irrespective of what comes out in ‘consultation’. Ultimately it makes a mockery of the term ‘consultation’, essentially it is saying we are going to come here, force this mis-development on you, but “consult” you about this and that while we do it. What Cassells’ means by ‘consultation’ is shown by his list of ‘local representative organisations’ he consulted for his report, the bulk of them were The Council for the West, the Pro-Erris Gas Group, Belmullet Chamber of Commerce, and the Irish Farmers Association (IFA) Western Region. These are the same vested interests and pillars of the local establishment to have supported and facilitated and collaborated with Enterprise oil, and later Shell, since the very beginning of this battle six years ago. Indeed the IFA in general has been a tool for developers to force their way into rural communities, see: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/73450

Cassells’ other recommendation relates to the implementation of the Advantica report into pipeline safety, which will be addressed in a later indymedia article.