Shell to sea rossport

by D Fri Mar 16, 2007 07:54

I have no connection with Shell and I am only quoting from my 30+ years experience in the industry and the facts which are available (other than from Shell) to anyone who cares to look.

Do you really think you are helping your case by just spouting abuse at anyone who points out errors in your supporters statements?

by cool j Thu Mar 15, 2007 23:01

i assume D-Head your quoting Andy Pyle/Terry Nolan from last year when you say the gas is "unusually low in impurities". Try doing a little research rather than parroting some meaningless Shell media soundbytes!!

by CL Wed Mar 14, 2007 22:58

ED
did you include this data in your objection to the epa?
if you did can you link to pls.

by D Wed Mar 14, 2007 22:52

"one refinery in texas releases 247,172 lbs. per yr of 1,2,3- trichloroparopane".

This is totally irrelevant - we are not talking about a large oil refinery in Texas we are talking about a gas processing plant and one where the gas being processed is unusually low in impurities! I doubt that the gas would contain 1 gram of trichloroparopane per year and the amount "released" would be measured in micrograms.

by Frdmg - supporter Wed Mar 14, 2007 22:49

fair play to you mr ed , if this country had more of your type this project would never have seen the light of day.

by MR.ED COLLINS - Shelltosea Wed Mar 14, 2007 22:01 -- --

You say you want hard facts that shell will cause enviomental damage to the Erris area, Read the book Riding The Dragon By Jack Doyle, if you can't find one, find me and I'll lend you my copy, then you will know the real truth about Recognized Carcinogens, one refinery in texas releases 247,172 lbs. per yr of 1,2,3- trichloroparopane, also it is a suspected reproductive toxicant, asked the ladies in your area if they would like to breath this posion knowing that it will harm unborn children, I believe you just like to have someone find out information for you so you'll think your smarter. A question find out what is Naphthalene is;;;;;;;;;; then you can walk the talk, then you can have my copy of the book!!!!!

by S2S ann Sun Feb 11, 2007 10:44

Confused local?
If you are local then come to bellinaboy next friday and we can explain to you why we are going to get this refinery moved offshore.
It is very easy for you to post bits of information that suits you and leave out the important bits.

by informed Mon Feb 05, 2007 19:07

It never was about cost!
It is about shell trying new technology on the people of erris.

by confused local Fri Feb 02, 2007 18:25

The person/s who run the S2S website seem convinced that it is money/cost that is preventing shell from going to sea with their refinery!
I think this is not the case, why would shell care how much they spend?
Every cent they spend on set-up they can reclaim against their tax liability, so It is clear that it is not the cost!
S2S might assume if they say (often enough)that it is shells greed that prevents shell from going offshore, some gullible people will believe them.
But I think the only consequence of S2S continuing to claim it is about the cost, is their own (S2S) credibility will be further damaged!

by Marlboro Man Fri Feb 02, 2007 08:51

Will have an objection worded and posted by noon. Forgive the tardiness, have been busy elsewhere.
Thanks for the much needed kick in the backside.
I trust others will respond accordingly.

by objector Fri Feb 02, 2007 08:48

I see on the epa,s website there was 35 objections to granting the ippc licence to sHELL.
The 35 objections were made by approx. 10 persons. me being one of them!
How do we expect to get results with so few activly trying to win this battle?
I urge anyone with a concern over this project to write to the epa as soon as possible to object.

by confused local Wed Jan 31, 2007 09:12

Katie said
" I know several of the frontline protestors, whos own children were well educated, due to the financial resources to do so, and whos children will never have to do menial jobs to survive"
Don't worry Katie we all know that, its strange that the protesters claim they are protesting on behalf of us,the people who live in erris, I live closer to bellinaboy than many of the "local protesters" (that's a fact).
I don't remember myself or any of my family/friends asking S2S or anyone else to protest on our behalf.
I think the fact that after calling last Friday as a day action/solidarity, and calling supporters from around the country to attend.
After all the pleas and advertising of the event, approx 150 "protesters" arrived (some of them just to see what would happen).
If the majority of local residents alone attended the protest last Friday there would be several hundred there!
Of course you are correct in stating, the local community should benefit from this gas find, and they will as most can see this refinery will be built, and people will just wonder what all the fuss was about!
have a look at the Shetland experience, they have the largest refinery in Europe, the island has benefited greatly from it. (look up Shetland counsel).
Also sullom voe where they discharge produced/waste water, was given SAC status 17 years after the refinery started production. http://www.jncc.gov.uk/ProtectedSites/SACSelection/sac....30273

So is it any wonder that most people don't believe all the scaremongering they hear?

by Saddened Wed Jan 31, 2007 00:10

This thing is going to degrade the environment, destroy the tourist industry, and possibly explode causing widespread death and destruction, annd you think it'll all be okay if they give a few grand to the soccer team? Your priorities are very peculiar.

If Shell was a big drug dealer in the inner city trying to buy friends while ruining the community, the locals - I'm glad to say- would have more respect for themselves and their children than to take money for the foootball players, why are you so spineless...

by katiem - none Wed Jan 31, 2007 00:00

Dear Confused Local,
i know what I said may have a touch of tugging the forelock in as far as any jobs would be a bonus, your honour, but thats not what I meant. I know that the way forward is education, and as far as I can see, judging by my own family, that is what is happening, and in the future we will educate our own to be in a position to take up such specialist jobs. But, in the meantime, we have to accept that the local employable workforoce is sadly lacking the skills to man a job such as this (through no fault of their own, as I know well, being 40+, and having had no realistic access to third level education). But, without mentioning any names, I know several of the frontline protestors, whos own children were well educated, due to the financial resources to do so, and whos children will never have to do menial jobs to survive. We are not all so fortunate, so our kids might have to be the ones putting up perimiter fences, or digging ditches etc. and I for one would be happier if they were doing it close to home, instead of having to leave home and pay rent in some god forsaken bedsit in Dublin or Galway or England. When it comes down to it, I suppose some of us are more selfish than others, but some of us dont have the luxury of choice.
From what I have seen lately, there has been too much money pumped into this project for Shell to abandon it, so the only thing we, as a community can do is get as much from them as possible, ie local projects, etc. I know that I personally got them to donate fsubstantial funds to a local soccer club last year, and we will make a similar appeal to them this year.
I think Shell are here to stay, so make them contribute as possible to the local economy.

by confused local Tue Jan 30, 2007 22:30

katiem says
"Leaving aside the very real safety and health concerns for just a moment,"
I am sorry katiem but that sentence is unacceptable, you should never ignore real safety and health concerns (if there is any)
Also "should we not be grateful for any employment?" that question is very easy to answer and that answer is ""NO"".
we are a first world country, we were colonised and subdued for long enough, we only welcome employment if it is employment any nation would seek!

And

"There are quite a few local firms involved in supplying goods and materials to the site, and the outside workers are living and spending in the area.
Not a reason to ignore REAL safety and health concerns or be grateful for any employment in this area!

you also observed

"given that most of the jobs will be in specialist areas, can we really expect locals without the proper the skills to be employed?"
The short answer is no, not without the required qualifications, but this refinery will be in production for decades, so my kids or even your children can(if they get the appropriate education) get a career in this plant in the future, (as shell seems to have a policy of employing locals in favour of non-locals if possible, after the cassels report).

You went on to state "but I think the whole thing has been hijacked to a certain extent by outsiders whose focus seems to be more on defeating Shell than defending local concerns."
On that you are (in my opinion) 100% correct, and the local people "including myself" can see that.

And finally
"given that I do agree the government sold us all down the river, but what's new!)."

My answer to that...........

Probably......but what difference would it make to the ordinary resident of erris if the Irish government got the best terms ever on the gas find?
My philosophy is cut out the middle-man and let the people of erris get the benefits directly from shell, like the people in shetlands.
be that a state of the art hospital for Belmullet or funding for crèches/infrastructure upgrades/ect.ect

by katiem - none Tue Jan 30, 2007 21:52

hi all, I feel a bit inadequate, what with no facts or figures to quote, and I must admit I skipped over most of the technical stuff in previous posts. I am not knowledgeable about all the other protests that may have taken place around the world, and I really dont profess to being an expert on anything to do with gas etc. but we are not a third world country. I honestly cant believe that Shell would be allowed to get away with poisoning our air and water, and endangering everyone in a 5 mile radius by installing a faulty pipeline and defective processing terminal. Maybe Im just an innocent abroad, and feel free to put me in my place, but is there any chance that maybe this terminal could be a good thing for the area? Leaving aside the very real safety and health concerns for just a moment, the other argument has always been that the eventual levels of local employment will be very limited, and I accept this point. However, in an area such as ours, should we not be grateful for any employment? There are quite a few local firms involved in supplying goods and materials to the site, and the outside workers are living and spending in the area. Also, given that most of the jobs will be in specialist areas, can we really expect locals without the proper the skills to be employed?
Regardless of whether or not you are pro- or anti- gas, I think all credit must go to the locals who have stuck to their guns and kept up the campaign through good and bad, but I think the whole thing has been hijacked to a certain extent by outsiders whose focus seems to be more on defeating Shell than defending local concerns. I do not want a hatfull of replies, blinding me with science, I just thought it might be nice to express the thoughts of someone who is not vehemently on one side or the other, but would like to see the project go ahead safely (within the limits of any other major project) and with the best interests of the locals (given that I do agree the the government sold us all down the river, but whats new!).

by local Tue Jan 30, 2007 12:21

confused local would you ever go away.
it is clear you are a shell troll,

by confused local Mon Jan 29, 2007 20:21

Well things are moving at quite a pace.
First the expert report tells the fishermen that the discharge into the sea is harmless!
Now we find out the raw gas has an odour!
mayo Co.Co says the water from the site isn't increasing the aluminium levels in carramore lake!
The EPA says the refinery will not cause any health problems in the area?

SO what are shell to sea concerned about?
anybody know?

by expert Tue Jan 23, 2007 22:32

I hear the experts report says there will be no impact on the bay or the fisheries.
I havent seen the report but I heard it from a reliable source.
That report should be published on indymedia then we could check it out,

by 00 Mon Jan 22, 2007 22:17

what Did the "expert" that confussed local siad had been hired have to say?

by one more try Mon Jan 08, 2007 22:34

"Concern has been expressed to Mayo County Council regarding levels of aluminium in Carramore Lake. The levels of aluminium naturally occurring in this lake have not been significantly affected by water from the terminal site. All water from Carramore Lake is treated at the Council’s Treatment Plant at Barnatra. Samples of treated water are taken daily by Mayo County Council. The aluminium levels conform to the limits set out in the EU Drinking Water Regulations."

now here is an opinion/analysis .
I believe what Mayo C.C and other bodied have released into the public domain.
If S2S or anyone else has data at shows that the lake or/and the drinking water has been contaminated by the siteworks at bellenaboy then I suggest they produce the data!.
IF they don't have the data to suggest/prove the claim then they should not make the accusation (just my opinion/analysis).
If the data shows that prior to shell starting their site-work the levels of aluminium were lower in carramore lake, then there is a real concern that has to be addressed, but if this is more scare-mongering just to get the people of erris to become anti shell.I say shame on S2S for stooping to that level.

by correction no6 Fri Jan 05, 2007 20:31

144 BAR = 2088.543 PSI

84 BAR = 1218.317 PSI

he didnt say smell he said hear

by tnx jm Fri Jan 05, 2007 20:20

HiJM
JM I am considering appling under a FOI to mayo cc / the epa an the nwrfb for data going back several yrs on the water quality data from carramore lake.
They should show a marked increase in the levels of aluminimun since the shell sitework began!
do you have that data to hand?
If you dont, when i get the data from them I will post it here.

by no.6 - lfc. Fri Jan 05, 2007 20:12

The pipeline at Rossport is under a pressure of nearly 5000psi - pounds per square inch.

It is over BOGGY soft unstable terrain.

And........if it leaks , you can't smell it.

How can one attend to a leak if one cannot SMELL it?

by ausie Fri Jan 05, 2007 10:35

A Perth company called Epic operate a pipeline from Karratha to Perth that travels ~1400km over land at about 84bar pressure including going right through the Perth metropolitan area (population ~1.2Million) and there has never been any issues that I know of.
(www.epicenergy.com.au)
With regard to concerns of gas leaking
- pipelines in themselves are generally safe, its the inlets and the outlets where you may get leaks. Any leak under that sort of pressure will make an incredibly loud noise and therefore unlikely to go unnoticed or unattended.

by JM Thu Jan 04, 2007 01:25 Rossport

The figures above are for site discharge into the Bellanaboy River, which runs straight into the lake 3 km away (just under 2 miles).

The last recorded figure for aluminium in Carrowmore Lake is 190 ug/l (04/12/06), just short of the maximum allowable limit [it is recommended that aluminium be removed entirely from drinking water if at all possible because of it's properties as a neuro-toxin].

The lake has recorded levels above the limit 5 times since late October (361, 219, 232, 230, 230) and with only 1 figure (120 ug/l) available for November.

More worryingly, the last available record for the drinking water extracted from Carrowmore Lake is from 5th July 2006 (76 ug/l) even though it is supposed to be tested daily. These figures are up-to-date as of today (03/01/07).

We can only hope this information will be acted upon by higher authorities than Mayo County Council as soon as possible.

by clarity Wed Jan 03, 2007 00:03

Is that data discharge into the lake ?
Do you have data that shows the obvious increase in aluminium contamination in the lake?
Is the level of aluminium contamination in this run-off exceptional, or common to this type of sitework?

by JM Tue Jan 02, 2007 23:33 Rossport

I've just scanned over a hit-and-miss debate where certain "facts" have been bandied about. For clarity I've included some of the collated data from both Mayo County Council and Shell regarding surface water runoff at Bellanaboy.

The figures clearly show a deterioration in TSS (Total Suspended Solids) and a continuation of aluminium contamination since December 2005. These are the figures that have been ignored by the Council since November 2005, despite local calls for action.

The set limits for the pollutants have been agreed by all the relevent statutory bodies (MCC, EPA, NWRFB) but nothing is being done; Shell have free reign to continue the proven pollution of the Bellanaboy River and Carrowmore Lake.

To be continued ...

Suspended solids leaving Bellanaboy site - Dec 2005

Suspended solids leaving Bellanaboy site - Dec 2006

Aluminium content of site runoff 2005

Aluminium content of site runoff 2006

by cool j minder Tue Jan 02, 2007 23:26

especially for cool j.

Concern has been expressed to Mayo County Council regarding levels of aluminium in Carramore Lake. The levels of aluminium naturally occurring in this lake have not been significantly affected by water from the terminal site. All water from Carramore Lake is treated at the Council’s Treatment Plant at Barnatra. Samples of treated water are taken daily by Mayo County Council. The aluminium levels conform to the limits set out in the EU Drinking Water Regulations.

Mayo County Council wishes to assure the public in the Erris region that their water supply is up to the required standard. The daily monitoring will continue and the public will be advised of any changes in the situation.

http://www.castlebar.ie/news/article_2474.shtml

also
A report, prepared by the North West Regional Fisheries Board, summarised the position as follows - ?Recent reports of toxicity and poisoning of Carrowmore Lake and its tributaries, due to aluminium discharges from the Shell Gas Terminal excavation, are completely unfounded from the fisheries perspective.?

..........................................................
In summary, there is, currently, no threat to Carramore Lake or to the public water supply in the Erris area arising from the run-off from the Bellanaboy Gas Terminal Site. It is important, however, that the cloudy water which has accumulated on site, is treated as expeditiously as possible and the developer has confirmed that they will be up-sizing the on-site plant.

http://www.enviro-solutions.com/dailynews/mayo-corrib-p...t.htm

Oh I wish confused local was here to witness this scaremongering.
Im sure they would enjoy making ye blush,

by yet another confused non local Tue Jan 02, 2007 21:54

I also have been watching this thread very closely.
It has really opened my eyes to what has really been happening in relation to this subject.
I don't know why or where "confused local" went, maybe he got scared/bored/more confused/ ect.....
It doesn't matter.
I have a few observations to make.
(1) Tadhg is correct when he says =Politics.ie, Guardian Talk, Slugger O'Toole, and many other sites exist for people to chat and exchange opinions on politics etc.
That is a good idea and if "confused local" was even half smart he would have posted the original post on all of those sites, as well as posting it on indymedia.
Maybe if it is asked in enough places and the objectors to this project still cant come up with valid facts, then that in itself would tell a story.
maybe it should be asked at every site he mentioned, and more?

(2) if cool j has all the facts on a similar refinery causing so much damage in Russia
and the Aluminium levels in their lake rising because of toxic pollutants from this refinery (which hasn't been built yet).
why dosent he post those facts here to shut "confused local" up.?

(3) did cool j request the data from the council/epa on the levels/cause of the Aluminium levels in the lake?
If so please let me know who he requested the data from, and (as a practising barrister) I can assure him I will acquire the data he seeks.

(4) "wikpedia" is
the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
you can basically publish anything you want there it doesn't have to facts.

by Hey Jude Tue Jan 02, 2007 01:12

All water analysis carried out by the council should be available
by FOI more details at

http://www.foi.gov.ie/

confused sure had a lot of time on his / her hands.

Happy new year everyone ...

by cool j Tue Jan 02, 2007 00:37

Our very confused friend and others appear to be unwilling or unable to acquaint themselves with the many sources of reliable info on the risks associated with the onshore refinery. AS of now Shells Bellanaboy site continues to generate massive amounts of contaminated run-off which pours untreated into nearby rivers feeding Lough Carrowmore, the main water supply for Erris. Mayo Co.Co. own figures showed that last winter, run-off from the refinery site was generating ALuminum levels in the lake well in excess of all EU and national safety levels for drinking water. Since this winter so far has been one of the wettest ever according to Belmullet Met figures one can only image whats going into the lake over the last few months. Unfortunatly we don't actually know anymore since Mayo Co.Co now refuse to share such info with the public - how convient for Shell and their friends.

Someone also asked about Shell operated Gas refineries elsewhere in the world. Amazingly our local friend and certain others who come on here all bewildered obviously didn't pick up on the news just before Christmas which was widley covered on the more reliable media outlets such as Channel 4 news and BBC about shells troubles in Russia. Here a similar gas refinary operated by Shell and their partners has already silted up rivers, devasted fishing grounds, contaminated the local populations farmland and homes and is threatening the existance of the endangered Northern Grey Whale. Thankfully the Russian government had the balls to take on Shell and apart from getting back their rights to the Sakhalin gas have told Shell to clean up their act within 6 months or face fines totalling 15billion Euro.

All this and more has been well publised thanx to the efforts of ShelltoSea and others and can be checked and verified by visting relevent websites such as Corribsos.ie etc. Another good source can be found at wikpedia by typing in "ShelltoSea".

by Tadhg Mon Jan 01, 2007 23:54

I don't think indymedia.ie was set up as a discussion site. It's supposed to be for news.

Politics.ie, Guardian Talk, Slugger O'Toole, and many other sites exist for people to chat and exchange opinions on politics etc.

Indymedia seems at its best to me when it is a conduit for news and current affairs, and I think the comments should be for genuinely adding to developing news stories or clarifying disputed points. The Opinion and Analysis section is for people's views, but I don't think posting a vague and impossible to answer question counts as a view, really.

I felt that "confused local" was looking for someone to PROVE that the refinery will damage the environment. He or she certainly didn't seem impressed by things which would SUGGEST it will. You'd only have to look at the Groundworks site to have definite misgivings about having Shell as a neighbour, but (and maybe I'm being unfair) I don't think that was what they wanted to hear.

by netural observer Mon Jan 01, 2007 22:52

I dont know where confused went maybe he/she is gone on holidays (shells expense).
but just to keep things alive I have to point out what tadhg says is not right. this bit....

definite scientific proof that a refinery which hasn't been built, and by its very nature is extremely unusual, will damage the environment of Erris.

I dont see in this tread where that is asked for they did ask in the first post...........Has there ever been an assessment made by an independent consultant,( with credentials and a reputation to protect) on the actual impact on human health and the local environment from this refinery?

on 27/dec confused asked.... On health and safety grounds? if so what data shows the emissions from the refinery will (or MAY) cause health problems?

the word may

then on 29/dec they asked.....show me a valid fact that proves/SUGGESTS that this project will cause a environmental catastrophe,

he used the word suggest.

he didnt demand definete proof like tadhg wrote.

why is politics.ie a more sutable place for this kind of post.

by Tadhg Mon Jan 01, 2007 21:02

It seemed to me that the "confused local" did not want to learn anything, but rather wanted to see what the reaction would be when he or she asked for definite information, of the sort which can't be provided by anyone. That is, definite scientific proof that a refinery which hasn't been built, and by its very nature is extremely unusual, will damage the environment of Erris.

The only way to provide a definite answer to that question is to install the thing and see what happens, otherwise any views are just conjecture.

I don't feel that the poster, given that he or she was obviously out to cause mischief, was treated particularly rudely. However I don't think this is the place for discussions like this.

Perhaps the poster should start a thread on politics.ie or some other discussion forum for opinions?

by cropbeye - none Mon Jan 01, 2007 16:44 Cork City (Northside)

Its funny how the larger part of the media

is always going on about outsiders being "bussed in" to Rossport as if this is some

terrible threatening thing.

In other words they are saying that a local campagain is being "corrupted"

by the fact of people not resident in the area taking an interest.

by bejaysus Mon Jan 01, 2007 13:30

I guess the facts would have nothing to do with it then, as long as "he will be unhelpful to our cause." he will be discredited.

This thread is one I have followed with great interest as a complete neutral in this ongoing saga. For once there was a poster asking (it seemed to me) very relevant questions. Unfortunately I haven't seen very many good answers, mostly just vilification and snottiness.

It seems to me that the shell to sea campaign is doomed to failure, not necessarily because you don't have a case, you may well do, but rather because you fail time and time again to rally the undecided to your cause. Until you manage to do this your "campaign" will remain a local issue without widespread support. I suggest you think on this next time you flame someone asking an intelligent question. Structured debate is the way forward, not bulldozing over anyone with a slightly different take on things. If not, well, enjoy your refinery.

Happy New Year to all

If I have suddenly become a vested interest in the employ of shell I hope they pay well....

by Not Agree Mon Jan 01, 2007 12:12

Yes. It would be a terrible thing if the truth came out.

by Agree Mon Jan 01, 2007 12:07

I agree with the previous post.
I think this tread should be removed from indymedia.
The ;expert: he is talking about should be checked and discredited if it looks like he will be unhelpful to our cause.
Shell to Sea supporters should not add to this tread because that keeps it near the top of "latest comments".

by Other ´confused´locals Sun Dec 31, 2006 23:10

We haven´t been on this before but we would just like to say whoever the other confused local was they werent. We are very worried about what is happening. we may only be from Erris but we know when we are being taken for fools and for granted. this is scary knowing that this might go ahead and knowing that it is destroying our community around us by the likes of the other ´confused local´. we are on the side of shell to sea and our New Years resolution is to do more to help stop this pollution of air, water and lives. we didn´t like the threatening tone of the other ´confused local´it was very aggressive and gives the people of Erris a bad name.

by questioning Sun Dec 31, 2006 15:08

if all that confused lacal says is true,why is S2S lying to us about health problems with the project?
is it true the fishermen has hired an expert.
Does anyone know who the expert is?

by shell? Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:56

who was confused local was he or she from shell?
they semmed to informed tobe confused and local JfH you hinted you might know. is it shell also how do you say you got them?
thay answered all that was trown at them i think they got bored,

by PPII Sat Dec 30, 2006 02:49

Your post is in the thread. It isnt in the latest comments section because it was superceded by the next post.

Nobody deleted it.

by JFH Sat Dec 30, 2006 02:27

Why is my contribution to this thread at "by JFH publication date Fri Dec 29, 2006 19:43" not included in the Latest Comments Section?

by JFH Sat Dec 30, 2006 02:22

Got ye! You bowed out a little too late! Our paths crossed before. Look forward to the next arena where we can continue the duel. Happy New Year to all your friends in Dublin and Mayo.

by confused local Fri Dec 29, 2006 23:13

Ok.
I give up, this was interesting for a while but I don't think I am going to get the facts I asked for.
Just one final request as I depart indymedia.
Please fight this refinery with real facts, because when the dust settles we are going to have to live together in Erris.
And while we might be thought of as backward or gullible, we are not stupid and we do remember.
Goodbye and happy new year..............

by confused local Fri Dec 29, 2006 23:04

hi Tadhg.
We should discuss this over a pint in Barnatra!

"Confused, you're moving the goalposts now. You said you could compile a list of refineries like this one, but now you admit you can't."

I never admitted that!

"You say you can think of examples of other refineries which are similar to this one. Presumably if anyone then brings up a problem with a Shell operated refinery which has impacted on its neighbours' health, you'll say that it's not the same as the one they propose to install in Mayo."

If someone points me to a instance where shell or anyone else has a NG refinery that has caused the environmental and/or health problems s2s are predicting I will believe it!

"What will you gain by having a refinery in your neighbourhood? Will you be helped by the fact that Shell workers won't have to use helicopters to get to the rig (and presumably won't be paid as much for their onshore jobs, thus saving the company even more)."

I never asked to gain from the refinery!, why do people think I am trying to justify the refinery being built onshore? I would have no problem with it being built at sea.
All I asked (if you look at any of my posts) is where is the evidence for the shell to sea theory that this refinery will cause "environmental and/or health problems" .

"How do you expect Shell will get the gas to the refinery without pumping it through a high pressure gas pipeline? How far away from habitation will the pipeline have to be before it is safe?"

Again as I have stated before, the high pressure pipeline is a real and valid concern. How far it should be from habitation I don't know, I am not qualified to determine that.

"Why do you trust Shell to operate a refinery without having any adverse effects? They have an atrocious record around the world. Their treatment of the protests last year was appalling. They have consistently lied and bullied their way through the process, all in the name of greed. Yet you don't trust the protesters, who won't gain anything from the protests. Why?"

I don't trust anyone I don't know(trust has to be earned).
So I don't trust shell in fact if you look at my previous you will see that I stated that (I know shell would/will take advantage of any opportunity to increase their profits,)

I have no problem with the protesters just use facts and don't scare people with stories you know not to be true.

"(And I would still like the list- You say you can name hundreds - I can't wait to see them)."

You know all I have to do is compile a list of onshore gas refineries on the planet and I would have the list, you would say they are different but the only difference is "the high pressure onshore production pipe.

by confused local Fri Dec 29, 2006 22:35

JFH

hello JFH
My goal is not to have s2s in a quandary, it is to get me out of mine!

I will have to admit you are the first to post statistics that are factual, but you were selective with detail!
"The Government or Shell has not asked the EPA to do an assessment or give clearance for the Gas Terminal."

IPPC licence!

"Children breed air at a much faster rate than an adult, and therefore are more prone to harmful effects of gaseous emissions."

True!

"Maybe the following report from the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McGill University, Montreal, "

did you miss this bit (would be compatible with increased awareness of health)

" or a small biologic environmental effect."
look in more detail at the findings then decide if it is "a small biologic environmental effect", then is it the people of rossport or the people of Sligo that should be concerned!

Now some more detail on several much larger studies.....
Department of Health Care and Epidemiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.

Concerns about excesses in a wide array of adverse health outcomes have been expressed for over 25 years by a rural population in southwestern Alberta, living downwind from natural gas refineries. Among these has been the perception that deaths have occurred more frequently than ought to have been expected. As part of a large field epidemiologic study undertaken during the summer of 1985 to investigate possible health effects in this area, a residential cohort study was carried out to study mortality. The cohort was defined as all those individuals who resided in the area in 1970. A total of 30,175 person-years of risk within Alberta were experienced by this cohort during 1970-84. The deaths during this period were enumerated by resident reports and by manual record linkage with the death records of the Alberta Bureau of Vital Statistics. Age- and sex-standardized mortality ratios, based on expected rates from 2 pre-specified demographically similar, non-metropolitan Southern Alberta populations, were 0.88 and 0.84 respectively, neither of which was significantly different from unity. These data cannot address the question of etiology but they can do much to allay the anxieties of a community convinced it had experienced an epidemic of death.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retri...tract

And
Department of Health Care and Epidemiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.

A rural population in southwestern Alberta, Canada, living downwind from natural gas refineries, has expressed concerns about an excess of adverse health outcomes over the last 25 years. This has escalated to the point of causing a prominent sociopolitical controversy within the province. As part of a large field epidemiologic study undertaken during the summer of 1985 to investigate possible health effects, a residential cohort study was carried out to study cancer incidence. The cohort was defined as all those individuals who resided in the area in 1970. A total of 30,175 person-years of risk within Alberta were experienced by this cohort from 1970 to 1984. The incident cancers during this period were enumerated by computerized record linkage with the Alberta Cancer Registry. Age- and sex-standardized incidence ratios, based on expected rates from three prespecified demographically similar, nonmetropolitan Southern Alberta populations, were 1.05, 1.09, and 1.03, respectively, none of which was significantly different from unity. Although they do not address the issue of etiologic association, these data can provide considerable reassurance to a community that was convinced it had experienced an epidemic of cancer.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abs...85032

by Tadhg Fri Dec 29, 2006 22:03

"I can compile a list (probably of hundreds) if you really want me to?
The list would comprise of "onshore" NG refineries been supplied by high pressure production pipe lines."

Confused, you're moving the goalposts now. You said you could compile a list of refineries like this one, but now you admit you can't.

You say you can think of examples of other refineries which are similiar to this one. Presumably if anyone then brings up a problem with a Shell operated refinery which has impacted on its neighbours' health, you'll say that it's not the same as the one they propose to install in Mayo.

What will you gain by having a refinery in your neighbourhood? Will you be helped by the fact that Shell workers won't have to use helicopters to get to the rig (and presumably won't be paid as much for their onshore jobs, thus saving the company even more).

How do you expect Shell will ge the gas to the refinery without pumping it through a high pressure gas pipeline? How far away from habitation will the pipeline have to be before it is safe?

Why do you trust Shell to operate a refinery without having any adverse effects? They have an atrocious record around the world. Their treatment of the protests last year was appalling. They have consistently lied and bullied their way through the process, all in the name of greed. Yet you don't trust the protesters, who won't gain anything from the protests. Why?

(And I would still like the list- You say you can name hundreds - I can't wait to see them).

by JFH Fri Dec 29, 2006 20:43

Hi confused! I am just after wandering into your enlightened discussion. You certainly have us Shell to Sea in a bit of a quandary. I saved the following on my computer many years ago, when I first was moved by the bully boy tactics of County Council and Government (Changing from those who protect the environment from disallowing new houses, uprooting of the bog, protection of the local environment into a full scale somersault and try to ram this change down the throats of locals). The Government or Shell has not asked the EPA to do an assessment or give clearance for the Gas Terminal. The reason is that no self respecting Environmental Protection Agency could give clearance without stating the potential health effects of hazardous fumes. Children breed air at a much faster rate than an adult, and therefore are more prone to harmful effects of gaseous emissions. Maybe the following report from the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada might make you a bit queasy about rearing a child in the area!.

”Since 1958 there has been a perception of excess illness in a rural Canadian population living downwind from two natural gas refineries, the emissions of which contain mostly sulfur dioxide but also hydrogen sulfide. To determine if there was an excess of adverse health outcomes in the population exposed (defined by place of residence), a health survey was undertaken in 1985 in this area and in one unexposed to emissions but demographically similar. Participation was 92% from both the exposed population (n = 2,157) and a representative sample (n = 839) of the main reference population. More respiratory symptoms were reported in the exposed group than in the non-exposed group among those 5 to 13 yrs of age (28% versus 18%) and among never-smokers greater than or equal to 14 yrs of age (35% versus 24%). FEV1, FVC, and FEV1/FVC were similar in both areas. Dichotomizing the level of exposure (high, low) within the exposed area revealed a trend in the high exposure area toward increased respiratory symptoms in the younger age group (39% versus 24%), but decreased symptoms in the older age group (33% versus 36% among never-smokers). FEV1 was similar between the two areas. The excess of respiratory symptoms in the exposed area unassociated with impaired spirometric values would be compatible with increased awareness of health or a small biologic environmental effect.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retri...ation

by confused local Fri Dec 29, 2006 18:21

Hello again Tadhg.

I can compile a list (probably of hundreds) if you really want me to?
The list would comprise of "onshore" NG refineries been supplied by high pressure production pipe lines.
The fact that the production lines don't originate offshore in my opinion is not relevant!
The odourless gas still passes through the high pressure pipeline, the refineries still refine the raw gas, The emissions from the refinery will be similar.
I admit the produced water will not be discharged directly into the sea (more likely into a river, or an underground aquifer or even a disused salt mine.

The refinery is been built "in" a bog not "on" a bog,(remember Kevin Moore, An Bord Plenala ) they are removing the peat and depositing it at Bangor!

"While you're compiling your list, ask yourself whether you want Shell to carry on building this thing while you are being too smart to be worried by these scare-mongering environmentalists."

Why do you state I am being "too smart"?
I did not demean anyone in any of my posts, I simply answered the points expressed by contributors.
I asked for facts to show me why I should object to this refinery on health and environmental grounds in my first post.
Can you quote any?

"Ask yourself whether you really believe that Shell will be good neighbours."

The answer to that is I don't know what kind of neighbour they will be,but again what has that to do with my children's health?

" Ask yourself whether you want to have to join the campaign after the refinery is in place."

Again What has that to do with your predictions of environmental catastrophe? show me a valid fact that proves/suggests that this project will cause a environmental catastrophe, and I will be at the gates in bellanaboy tomorrow morning!

by confused local Fri Dec 29, 2006 17:24

Hello peter.
Thank you for your post it is straight and to the point.
Yes I agree the terms the oil companies got were probably not fair to the Irish people
but that is not why I began this post.
If you or someone else start a post on that subject, then you will probably get both sides of that argument, I might even form an oponion on it.
The reason I started this post because I am confused by all the stories I hear locally about the health and environmental implications of this project. (just that reason no other)
I know shell would/will take advantage of any opportunity to increase their profits,
And If they plan on making profits at the expense of local residents health and well-being then I would be first in line at the gates of the refinery site to try to stop them. (I am not stupid just confused).
All I asked for was some facts that would show me why the children are going to die from illness caused by the emissions (leukaemia/cancer/ blindness/asthma/ect.ect).
AND I AM STILL WAITING!

by Tadhg Fri Dec 29, 2006 15:28

"Just to name one "Orman Lange " I can compile a list if you prefer!'

Yes please, a list.

A list of refineries of raw gas brought from the sea bed. The installations have to be sited on land,on a bog, in a populated area, connected to the gas field by a high pressure pipeline.

While you're compiling your list, ask yourself whether you want Shell to carry on building this thing while you are being too smart to be worried by these scare-mongering environmentalists.

Ask yourself whether you really believe that Shell will be good neighbours.

Ask yourself whether you want to have to join the campaign after the refinery is in place.

by Peter K Fri Dec 29, 2006 13:02

You are nothing of the sort.

Despite any environmental impact this refinery might have, where do you stand on the government effectively giving away our resources?

Please dont cite taxes as ample compensation to the exchequer offsetting the vast sums lost as profit to the likes of Shell.

There are many reasons to oppose 'Shell' (not just the refinery's position or the pipeline)

by confused local Fri Dec 29, 2006 12:29

Hello Tadhg.
"1. You say you agree that the concerns about the pipeline are legitimate. You believe that Shell will move the pipeline."

Yes!

"a. You seem reluctant to engage with facts that don't support the view that Shell will alter the route of the pipeline in any meaningful way."

If shell were to bypass rossport? (think hard).

"b. If a pipeline pumping raw odourless gas at extreme pressure is not safe in one place, it won't be safe somewhere else. If the concerns are legitimate about the pipeline when it crosses the road at Rossport, they'll be equally legitimate wherever it crosses the road."

If it was odorised like most of the pipelines that has exploded and at a much lower pressure like most of the pipelines that has exploded (transmission lines) would it be ok then?

"If the refinery is constructed, then the pipeline will be needed to get the gas from the sea bed to it somehow. It would be safer, it seems to us, to refine the gas offshore."

Did you hear of the six /seven people that lost their lives in a helicopter crash in Morecambe Bay
http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/1228/rescue.html
Do you want to explain to their families how offshore gas refining is safer?

"2. You seem to want to shift the argument away from the pipeline, and ask for facts about the effects from the refinery. "
I do not, It is shell to sea that claims that the emissions to sea and air will be an envoiremtal disaster!
As I have already stated "I believe the concerns over the high pressure odourless gas are real and valid"
Why don't shell to sea concentrate on this and stop predicting (without proof/facts)that local people will contract all types of illness from the emissions?

"Shell to Sea base their argument against the siting of the refinery at Bellanaboy on the fact that is is extremely unusual to refine raw gas onshore like this. In fact it is almost unheard of."

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/congr/index.html

http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/resources.asp

http://www.wilderness.org/Library/Documents/upload/Grap...s.pdf

have a look at the links above!

"Energy companies are hoping to set a precedent for this sort of operation in Ireland, so that they can maximise their profits by replicating this new experimental scheme elsewhere."

Maybe your right but is that a good reason to misinform/scare local people?

" Logically, how could anyone provide scientific and expert proof that would satisfy you on the subject of siting a refinery like this one in a populated area, "

Apart from the production pipeline, what's "different" about this one?

"If you can give an example of a refinery like this in a location like this, I will be very happy to discuss it with you."

Just to name one "Orman Lange " I can compile a list if you prefer!

"South African Petroleum Refinery"

apples and oranges!

"SAPREF’s alkylation unit malfunctioned"

The Alkylation Unit refines less usable oil products into high octane blending material (Alkylate). This high octane material is used primarily in the production of premium gasoline.

Again not natural gas!

"refinery management admitted that they under reported their sulphur dioxide emissions to Government authorities by up to 12 tons a day since 1995.."

Irish Emission to air, Sulphur Dioxide
(Oxides of Sulphur)
52,128,000kg =2004
91,498,000kg = 2001

http://www.epa.ie/OurEnvironment/EPER/EPERDownloads/Fil...n.pdf

sort of puts that in context!

On January 23, 2001 a fire occurred at the Crude Distillation Unit number 2 at SAPREF.

Again not natural gas!

"On March, 22, 2001: A tetra ethyl lead (TEL) tank failure, resulted in 25 tons of TEL leaking out of the tank. It leaked for 4 days."

used as an additive in the aviation fuel (not natural gas!)

"On June 19, 2001 a flare failure resulted in the release of unburnt gases including a substantial amount of hydrogen sulphide on to the surrounding communities."

Leading to what effects on local area?

"On July 7, 2001 a petrol pipeline leak "
Petrol (not natural gas)

"On the 1st of August a second pipeline leak was discovered"

Petrol? or NG?

"On August 15, 2001 SAPREF’s Bitumen plant"
In a natural gas refinery?

"On the 14th October 2001, during a ship refueling,"

(9km inland at bellanaboy? )

"On the 30 December 2001, 15000 litres of fuel oil spilled from a SAPREF pipe into the harbour."

resulting in?

"On the 9 July 2002, during SAPREF excavation activities a diesel pipeline developed a leak resulting in 1000 litres of diesel spilled into a south Durban residential area."

less than your oil heating tank (how many of them leak their contents every year?)

"On the 19th November 2002, 15000 litres of crude oil were released from SAPREF’s off shore facility into the ocean."

Crude oil? NG refinery!

"On the 4th February 2003, during a maintenance test on a fuel oil pipeline, 1000 litres of fuel oil leaked into a concrete tunnel near Island View. The fuel oil was then pumped into Durban harbour."

See above!

That took a while, Now Tadhg or "anyone" some relevant facts PLEASE!

by confused local Fri Dec 29, 2006 10:44

First Kato.
"Refining by its very nature means that the dregs are removed. "
It that just this refinery or all gas refineries?
If "all" then please point me to the data that proves (even suggests) that our waters and beaches will be destroyed by this discharge?

"It will re-enter the local ecosystem via the water supply,"
do you drink salt water?
" it will not make any damn difference if there isn't a healthy, safe and sustainable environment to live in. Will it? "
How can you publish such a statement with even supplying one fact to support it (precedence)
Do you know who I would not want to be when all this settles down in the future?
THAT'S RIGHT the people that are supplying the scare stories that has local people afraid to sleep in their beds at night.
I Suggest that If there is facts out there to show this refinery is likely to be dangerous then by all means make the public aware.
But please don't just make it up as you go along!

by Tadhg Fri Dec 29, 2006 02:35

Dear Friend,

I am having problems following your line of reasoning. Perhaps I can explain why you might be confused.

1. You say you agree that the concerns about the pipeline are legitimate. You believe that Shell will move the pipeline.

a. You seem reluctant to engage with facts that don't support the view that Shell will alter the route of the pipeline in any meaningful way.

b. If a pipeline pumping raw odourless gas at extreme pressure is not safe in one place, it won't be safe somewhere else. If the concerns are legitimate about the pipeline when it crosses the road at Rossport, they'll be equally legitimate wherever it crosses the road.

If the refinery is constructed, then the pipeline will be needed to get the gas from the sea bed to it somehow. It would be safer, it seems to us, to refine the gas offshore.

2. You seem to want to shift the argument away from the pipeline, and ask for facts about the effects from the refinery. However, Shell to Sea base their argument against the siting of the refinery at Bellanaboy on the fact that is is extremely unusual to refine raw gas onshore like this. In fact it is almost unheard of. One of the reasons that the campaign is being followed by environmentalists around the world is the belief that the Energy companies are hoping to set a precedent for this sort of operation in Ireland, so that they can maximise their profits by replicating this new experimental scheme elsewhere.

Logically, how could anyone provide scientific and expert proof that would satisfy you on the subject of siting a refinery like this one in a populated area, since this is never done? Gas is usually refined at sea and then pumped ashore. If you can give an example of a refinery like this in a location like this, I will be very happy to discuss it with you.

Failing that. we'll have to discuss similar refineries in different locations.

3. Since you are a local, you'll remember the visit earlier this year of Siziwe Khanyile and Des D'Sa, and their discussion of issues effecting Fenceline Communities, that is, those people that are forced to live with Shell installations on their doorsteps.

Sizwe's organisation deals primarily with air pollution, but there is lots of interesting information on their website which gives an insight into what Shell will be like as neighbours if they get this ill-fated project through. Here's an excerpt:

Shell owns 50% of the largest oil refinery in Southern Africa called the South African Petroleum Refinery - SAPREF. (British Petroleum owns the other 50%).

The fact that Shell's management and operational record of SAPREF has been poor is born out by the numerous accidents and incidents that have occurred at SAPREF.

On May 19, 1998 SAPREF’s alkylation unit malfunctioned, resulting in the release of 5 tons of hydrogen fluoride into the atmosphere. Exposure to large amounts of hydrogen fluoride can cause death. Inhaling hydrogen fluoride can damage your lungs and heart. Long-term exposure can lead to a condition called skeletal fluorosis.

In February 2000 the refinery management admitted that they under reported their sulphur dioxide emissions to Government authorities by up to 12 tons a day since 1995.

On January 23, 2001 a fire occurred at the Crude Distillation Unit number 2 at SAPREF. On the same day 1000 litre’s of bunker fuel spilled into the Durban Bay.

On March, 22, 2001: A tetra ethyl lead (TEL) tank failure, resulted in 25 tons of TEL leaking out of the tank. It leaked for 4 days.

On June 19, 2001 a flare failure resulted in the release of unburnt gases including a substantial amount of hydrogen sulphide on to the surrounding communities.

On July 7, 2001 a petrol pipeline leak resulted in the release of more than 1 million litres of petrol into the soil under residents houses. The leak was discovered and reported by residents.

On the 1st of August a second pipeline leak was discovered resulting in residents demanding an immediate inspection of the pipeline. The South Durban Community Environmental Alliance, a coalition of community organisations from residential areas in Durban south, has called on SAPREF to replace all its pipelines as a matter of urgency.

On August 15, 2001 SAPREF’s Bitumen plant malfunctioned resulting in the release of soot, smoke and hydrocarbons.

On the 14th October 2001, during a ship refueling, fuel oil spilled into the harbour. SAPREF claimed that only 20 litres of fuel leaked, but the harbour authorities claim that closer to 2000 litres of fuel oil leaked into the harbour.

On the 30 December 2001, 15000 litres of fuel oil spilled from a SAPREF pipe into the harbour.

On the 9 July 2002, during SAPREF excavation activities a diesel pipeline developed a leak resulting in 1000 litres of diesel spilled into a south Durban residential area.

On the 19th November 2002, 15000 litres of crude oil were released from SAPREF’s off shore facility into the ocean.

On the 4th February 2003, during a maintenance test on a fuel oil pipeline, 1000 litres of fuel oil leaked into a concrete tunnel near Island View. The fuel oil was then pumped into Durban harbour.

http://www.groundwork.org.za/

by Kato Fri Dec 29, 2006 00:48

I think i recognise your 'style'from previous comments. You say your child is at the local school, hmm lets give you the benefit of the doubt. Well you should be seriously concerned for the future health and well being of your child if this refinery goes ahead. As you are well aware the pipeline will travel up the estuary for a considerable distance before it reaches the refinery. Refining by its very nature means that the dregs are removed. Rather like removing the wheat from the chaf darling. The dregs, which naturally no one wants will then be piped back out to sea and allowed to drift about ever so beautifully in the very sea which laps our shores. It will re-enter the local ecosystem via the water supply, the land, into the cattle, the sheep etc, etc. So if one day your darling offspring decides he/she will go out for a walk on some of the beautiful shoreline that Erris is blessed with (presuming any is left) they may come back contaminated. Presumably you actually you do care about the well being of your child/children and their future well being ? Because let us face it no matter how many points the children of this area may attain in their Leaving Cert results in the future, it will not make any damn difference if there isn't a healthy, safe and sustainable environment to live in. Will it?

by confused local Thu Dec 28, 2006 16:32

As a local, Maura I know you are a local (you teach my child).
As a teacher you should know the quote you used "'Is there not a refinery in Australia 11km inland?' ".
That is a question not a statement! (this is a statement).
Did you not see the ? at the end of the quote.
Now to move on, this post has been active for a few days and I am still waiting for a fact to support the shell to sea argument that the emissions from this refinery will cause health problems for us (local residents).
I understand it will add to global warming and will have emissions with negative implicatations for the ozone in general, but so has every greenhouse emission including our cars (and van if you drive a Van).
The fact/facts I asked for in the initial post is still missing.
Can someone PLEASE inform me before I lose faith in all environmentalists

by cool j Thu Dec 28, 2006 03:40

Sorry! - he's actually confused -Too right!!

by cool j Thu Dec 28, 2006 03:35

I suspect you won't get one Maura!!

by Maura Harrington - S2S; Davitt League Thu Dec 28, 2006 00:26

As you will note from the author title I, unlike your good self, have no difficulty in putting my name to what I say. For the record that is how I began and how I have continued. If you are local then you know the extent - and the openness - of my involvement in this saga.

In one of your posts you write 'Is there not a refinery in Australia 11km inland?' As a quid pro quo for the honest attempts made by those trying to elucidate matters for youself, would you consider sharing with the readers of this thread the name, location, operating company and website details of this refinery.

I would appreciate your response as an aid to my own research; it might - perhaps, maybe - help alleviate the informed (hitherto??) concerns expressed by myself in this regard.

I await your response.

by confused local Wed Dec 27, 2006 20:20

Thank you Mick Butler.
Finally someone has answered my post with the info I asked for.
Now the task of getting this pipeline and refinery to sea will be simple.
All we need to do is get retired electronic warfare engineer Dave Aldridge to publish the data and methodology he used to come to that conclusion.
And if it stands up to scrutiny (as any "fact" will) then that pipeline will never proceed.
Ok now that the refinery and the pipeline are as good as sorted, why is it that anytime someone asks a question looking for proof of something related to corrib, they are automatically "pro shell".
I suggest that If you don't have a fact to relay/publish then taking up space on this post is useless!

"Are you in a SHELL of confusion ? As the man says "there's always one" .
Is that a cheap/childish attempt at implying I may be naive/stupid?

by confused local Wed Dec 27, 2006 19:08

above should read ...... should we abandon the planet!

by Mick Butler Wed Dec 27, 2006 19:02

And "Confused";an exploding pipeline could burn approx 269 people to death in Nigeria. The injured must be in some condition. You may recall that a US Navy Engineer and explosives expert stated in a report last year that a leak in the projected pipeline in Mayo would destroy everything within a 1 and a half mile radius.

Are you in a SHELL of confusion ? As the man says "there's always one" ( at least ) Dont blame you though, the MSM are doing a fair job of blacking the facts esp AOR.

Take it easy !

by confused local Wed Dec 27, 2006 09:45

There has been 9 comments (some from me).
Still I have not got one detail to show me a reason.
Kevin Moore ...... yes, then shell reapplied and covered his concerns.
"from July 2005 onwards the main body of the protests has been at the refinery site."
On health and safety grounds? if so what data shows the emissions from the refinery will (or may) cause health problems?
"Nope the pipeline begins in Glengad at the foot of Dooncarton mountain - scene of the landslide. 500 metres of the pipeline there is to be still at the higher pressure, before a valve station which will reduce pressure in the other 8.5km of pipeline - that is the pipeline pressure wasn’t always gonna be reduced to the amount they now say it is gonna be at, otherwise there would be no need to put in a valve station, would there? "

You check the onshore EIS!

"Actually Shell have claimed that water run off from the construction site could pollute Carrowmore lake. "

That has hardly anything to do with the toxic emissions from the refinery?

Also an asteroid "could" hit earth today . should we the planet?

by Terry Wed Dec 27, 2006 00:46

“the landslide was the other side of the river on a mountain.”

Nope the pipeline begins in Glengad at the foot of Dooncarton mountain - scene of the landslide. 500 metres of the pipeline there is to be still at the higher pressure, before a valve station which will reduce pressure in the other 8.5km of pipeline - that is the pipeline pressure wasn’t always gonna be reduced to the amount they now say it is gonna be at, otherwise there would be no need to put in a valve station, would there?

“Again something that is very easily proven through precedence (give me an example of an instance where the emissions from a similar refinery or any plant with similar emissions polluted a water reservoir) Or a credible expert that predicts this will happen?”

Actually Shell have claimed that water run off from the construction site could pollute Carrowmore lake.

by Terry Wed Dec 27, 2006 00:37

"Has there ever been an assessment made by an independent consultant,( with credentials and a reputation to protect) on the actual impact on human health and the local environment from this refinery?"
Kevin Moore, An Bord Plenala senior inspectors report is to be read here:
www.pleanala.ie/REP/126/R126073.DOC
(all 170 pages of it) says it is the wrong site for a refinery, and Shell are not putting the refinery off-shore on cost cutting grounds, even though that would be a better situation.
It is from several years ago and in some ways (peat storage and connection of towns in Mayo to gas grid) the situation has changed since then.
The campaign did not focus on the pipeline and then switch to focusing on the refinery.
During the stage when opposition to this project was based around appeals to An Bord Plenala the main focus was the refinery (as the pipeline was outside the planning process), from July 2005 onwards the main body of the protests has been at the refinery site. It is one project. The media has been focusing on the pipeline because the media likes simple stories.

by Michael Brady Tue Dec 26, 2006 23:48

It would seem that the confused local is nothing of the sort.
An informed miscreant rather than credulous.

Anyone who agrees with Shell and advises going the solely political route to address their concerns about government is clearly a vested interest.

Or does he/she advocate running his/herself?

by confused local Tue Dec 26, 2006 23:24

credulous people/person
Are you referring to me? If so look up credulous, then think again! (willing to believe or trust too readily, esp. without proper or adequate evidence; gullible. ).

"A Chara, you seem to be hung up on the fact that Shell intends to alter the route of the experimental pipeline. Why do you believe them? "

If they do?

"When questioned by a journalist the company spokesperson admitted that this might mean simply moving it a few yards to one side; and that the original route has not been ruled out. "
Again dictionary how many yards is a few?

"he said it was clear to him that the company had "no intention" of giving up on the original route."

If Trevor had said he believed shell would move the pipe enough would shell to sea stand down?

"Others say that Shell will make an announcement in the next month or so to say that they have decided on an alternative pipeline route, since this seems to be distracting to credulous people."

That looks like shell to sea moving to plan B.

Get it in a legally binding contract that the"new" route cant be altered! .

"You know the sort, people who think that the building of a giant onshore gas refinery on a bog, to process Irish natural resources and sell them at an enormous profit back to the people of Ireland is just fine, and that if anyone has a problem with the way this is being done they should hire "experts" to prove their case."

And your point??

I have an Idea why don't shell to sea run a candidate in next years election then they may influence the government from within!

by Tadhg Tue Dec 26, 2006 22:44

A Chara, you seem to be hung up on the fact that Shell intends to alter the route of the experimental pipeline. Why do you believe them?

On August 3rd , Shell announced that they would "consider" moving the route "within the vicinity of Rossport". When questioned by a journalist the company spokesperson admitted that this might mean simply moving it a few yards to one side; and that the original route has not been ruled out.

Last October, the leader of the Green Party Trevor Sargent met with Shell executives in Dublin. After speaking with them, he said it was clear to him that the company had "no intention" of giving up on the original route.

It might interest you to know that Shell is insisting on retaining the compulsory acquisition orders relating to the land through which the original pipeline route runs. Many people in Shell to Sea believe that the company intends to build the refinery (breaking the campaign and destroying the community's cohesion in the process) and then, when the dust has settled in a year or so, plough through with the original pipeline.

Others say that Shell will make an announcement in the next month or so to say that they have decided on an alternative pipeline route, since this seems to be distracting to credulous people.

You know the sort, people who think that the building of a giant onshore gas refinery on a bog, to process Irish natural resources and sell them at an enormous profit back to the people of Ireland is just fine, and that if anyone has a problem with the way this is being done they should hire "experts" to prove their case.

by confused local Tue Dec 26, 2006 21:36

I am glad that the comments thus far are reasonable.
however......"and no study, propaganda or otherwise, can come close to explaining the impact this will have, whether it will be in terms of environmental impact or in terms of the danger this pipeline could pose to life."
Can you elaborate a little on how you come to that conclusion?
It should be quite easy for a qualified expert (or experts) to assess these risks (the CPI claimed they did).
secondly "This pipeline will be the first of its kind on the planet" is that a proven fact?
Is there not a refinery in Australia 11km inland?
and "This fact is that: unprocessed gas is odourless"
What If an odour is added at landfall?
I assume that this would not be beyond the capability of modern science.
If this were true would the project then be safe enough? (think hard).
In my opinion the reason shell to sea have lost this battle is that shell has taken their strongest argument off the table (the high pressure pipeline).
Just on a side issiue when shell announced they would limit the pressure to 144 bar, If you do your research you will find that they never intended it to go above 150 bar in the first place (130- !50 bar working pressure is what the refinery can handle).
So a hollow victory (good PR for shell though).
part two

I believe that digging into unstable bogs with a history of landslides is another reason.
There is no history of that bog sliding, the landslide was the other side of the river on a mountain.
But that is irrelevant the bog is been removed, the terminal is not been built on a bog (it is been built on a cleared area in a bog)

"Also the affect on the local water supply with emissions from the refinery.I know this would definitely worry me if I had to drink the water in the area."

Again something that is very easily proven through precedence (give me an example of an instance where the emissions from a similar refinery or any plant with similar emissions polluted a water reservoir) Or a credible expert that predicts this will happen?

"Along with that pollution to the bay .Damaging marine life of many types in the bay is a serious issue and irreversible .Damaging the natural existence of creatures such as whales , dolphins and seals not to mention shellfish and growing marine plants is a huge worry , and potently damaging for , tourism and the fishing industry."

The fishermen are thought to have hired an expert to assess that possibility (shall we wait to get his opinion?) or do you know of a instance where similar discharge has caused what you stated above?

"Another point is the fact that the whole of Ireland still have to pay full market value for the gas even though it belonged to us at one time."
""I don't care""

Take that up with ff / the pd /fg/labour/ect.ect....at the next election.

I don't think that shell to sea pretending their doing this for that reason is plausible!

by Matt Larkin Tue Dec 26, 2006 21:03

That simple statement of fact represents the most powerful, daming and irrefutable evidence against the project. The massive pressure in this projected pipeline is ODOURLESS gas. STOP THE LIGHTS ! and stop the gas. Shell to Sea.

by mise Tue Dec 26, 2006 20:18

I believe that digging into unstable bogs with a history of landslides is another reason.
Also the affect on the local water supply with emessions from the refinery.I know this would definately worry me if I had to drink the water in the aera.

Along with that pollution to the bay .Damaging marine life of many types in the bay is a serious issue and irreversiable .Damaging the natural exsistance of creatures such as whales , dophins and seals not to mention shellfish and growing marine plants is a huge worry , and potiently damaging for , tourisim and the fishing industry.

Another point is the fact that the whole of Ireland still have to pay full market value for the gas even though it belonged to us at one time.This should be an after thought even though an important one .The health and saftey of people and future people should be number one priority.

by Seán Ryan Tue Dec 26, 2006 19:45

I appreciate your concerns. However, I think what you've posted is somewhat confused (no criticism there - sometimes I get so embroiled in expressing what it is that I want to say, that the message itself gets lost). You haven't posted what it is, that it is, that you feel is unsubtantiated. If you were to add this into what you've written, I'm sure your fears would be put to rest very quickly.

I must add the fact that most of what's been written on the S2S argument revolves around the fact, that most Government and Shell inspired, 'factual' information, has been proven to be nothing more than cheap propaganda and to be totally incorrect.

I think also that sometimes, that folks directly associated with the fight with Shell, that sometimes their familiarity with their arguments causes some confusion. Some of the arguments themselves are very complex and it can be tedious to post all the complexities and their explanations every time one posts to Indymedia.

Allow me if I may to put a very simple point across, and for me this why I say NO to Shell and our Government - regardless as to what argument they put forwards - propaganda or otherwise.

Shell want to build an experimental pipeline, that carries unprocessed gas at very high pressure, in close proximity to the people of Rossport. This pipeline will be the first of its kind on the planet, and no study, propaganda or otherwise, can come close to explaining the impact this will have, whether it will be in terms of environmental impact or in terms of the danger this pipeline could pose to life.

But one of the most frightening facts is this - and mostly this fact gets lost due to the complexities I've already spoken about. This fact is that: unprocessed gas is odourless.