The Irish Times plugging for Shell Oil in Mayo again

by Miriam Cotton - MediaBite Tue Jan 30, 2007 13:49 editors at mediabite dot org

"The announcement by the Environmental Protection Agency to the effect that it will, in all probability, grant an Integrated Pollution Prevention Control Licence for the Corrib gas field terminal at Bellanaboy will be welcomed by all those in favour of this long delayed project - as much as it will cause dismay to those who are opposed to it. The Shell Oil company and its partners want to build a refinery and combustion plant on the site to process gas before delivering it to An Bord Gais for sale and distrubtion to businesses and homes around this State. The EPA announcement left little room for doubt but that the agency is minded to give the project the go ahead. "The EPA is satisfied" it stated "that emissions from the refinery, when operated in accordance with the cinditions of the proposed licence, will not adversely affect human health or the environment and will meet all relevant national and EU standards.

Thus the ball is placed firmly in the court of those who wish the project to be stopped in its tracks. The Shell to Sea campaign has brought together a disparate group united by one essential aim: to prevent any further progress of the project as outlined. For some, the aim is to prevent any variation of the project, whether by Shell or anyone else.

It is now up to all these people argue their case in the proper forum. The EPA will almost certainly hold oral hearings into whether they should indeed grant the licence That is as it should be. The laws and procedures are in place, as are the bodies that oversee them, to determine whether a project such as this goes ahead or not. They have been set in place by the Oireachtas and anyone who wishes to challenge their operation may do so in the courts. But the way forward now is clear: up to February 2st, all persons wishing to lodge objecgtions or make observations are free to do so by sending their views to the EPA headquarters in Wexford. These will be considered and, if the agency feels the project is of sufficient import, it will hold an oral hearing in public.

It would be wise for the agency to take this course. It would be wise also for those for and against the project to participate fuly and vigorously in these proceedings. Let all have their say; let each side seek to persuade with expert assistance and throw their arguments open to challenge. And if procedures have been followed correctly, let everyone accept the eventual decision, whatever it may be. In the meantime, it would be better if the confrontations on the roads around Bellanaboy ended and more energy was expended on assembling arguments based on facts and reasonable hypotheses."

It might have been added to that list 'let the media for once make a serious attempt to understand exactly what is happening and report it accurately and fairly'. From the misrepresentations this editorial embodies it seems highly unlikely that the Irish Times is likely to do that, however.

The editorial is worryingly disingenuous. By deciding in advance that the refinery is safe, that discussion will be ruled out of any future oral hearing. This piece is an attempt to legitimise the evasions and omissions that have dogged this project from the start - to lend credence to patently unfair and incomplete deliberations and to obfuscate the highly partisan way the process has gone. But even this editorial gives the game away - the project has been as good as given the green light. Any processes that follow are mere window dressing. This is not democracy.

by erris resident Tue Jan 30, 2007 14:24

the extract below* says in a paragraph what the vast majority of erris people are thinking.
If this project is soo dangerous and the media are pro shell (I dont know how that can be said about the irish times, lorna siggins has been s2s best friend so far).
The objectors can have all the time/experts they wish to show this project will be damaging to health and envoirement!

*
"It is now up to all these people argue their case in the proper forum. The EPA will almost certainly hold oral hearings into whether they should indeed grant the licence That is as it should be.

by Miriam Cotton Tue Jan 30, 2007 16:09 editors at mediabite dot org

From our interview with Mark Garavan - who gives a good explanation of the way the Corrib Gas objectors have been misrepresented in the media:

MG: "...in order to achieve an appearance of balance they have had to construct the idea that there is an alternative voice within the community that supports this project. There actually is not but the media have constructed this voice – there are about four or five people – literally that’s it – who have been there over the six years who have supported Shell’s project. That’s the totality. There are about 900 plus who support the objection to the project but nonetheless, given this media convention of ‘balance’, if you talk to one of ‘us’, you must talk to one of ‘them’ and it sounds to the external ear that there are these two equal voices – which there aren’t. But just to go back to this question of bias, bias works not so much at the level of mass conspiracy as people within the same social class or within the same political world sharing set assumptions and they operate out of those assumptions. They don’t even have to tic tac with each other to come up with an agreed version – it’s just natural to them because they belong to the same type of world – they have been educated together, they think the same way, they are socialising the same way and see the world in similar terms. So it can be quite hard for them to understand why a group like us would object to something that is apparently good for the country - according to their frame of reference. So how do we overcome a kind of antipathy towards people who are anti something that appears to be good for the country? So that has been a huge obstacle. There is also a psychology at work here, which I think is very strong. Media people and politicians ask themselves ‘Why are these people opposing the project?’ And the history of the stereotype of us is very interesting. At the beginning and for a long time it was thought we were ignorant, that we just didn’t know any better. They thought ‘God help them, they’re just from Mayo, they’ve never had industry and of course they’d be fighting battles, the poor things. But they’ll be grand in due course.’ But that didn’t really work, so then it was thought ‘They must be looking for something’. And of course what do people look for but money so it was thought there must be an agenda to get more compensation or to be bought out or whatever. So money is thrown into it. But that didn’t work either because people were clearly willing to undergo terrible privations. So then it had to be political motivations so it had to be ideological and hence we get at different times either the Sinn Fein/IRA version of it, or we get the anarchist/eco-warrior version or the Workers Party/Left-wing Communist Party version of ourselves – or whatever you want as your bogeyman. So this must explain why people are against it. And so what there is in fact is a very inadequate understanding of human psychology based on the assumption of self-interest – and they don’t get it – that people can actually take a stance and pay a price for it because they simply believe in what they are doing."

Garavan exposes all of the manipulation that the Shell to Sea campaign has been subjected to by the media - and also the way the media has been used by Shell Oil and the government.

by erris resident Tue Jan 30, 2007 16:39

"...in order to achieve an appearance of balance they have had to construct the idea that there is an alternative voice within the community that supports this project. There actually is not but the media have constructed this voice – there are about four or five people – literally that’s it – who have been there over the six years who have supported Shell’s project

If anybody really beleived that they are really fooling themself.
dr garavin himself says s2s have over 60% support in the area,so that leaves 40% against or with no oponion!
four or five people is hardly 40% of the erris popolation!

by shell to sea supporter Tue Jan 30, 2007 16:47

The tone was arrogant and repressive and not mindful of what has gone on.
The Erris protestors are no strangers to hearings and all at their own expense and time. For days on end they travelled to the An Bord Pleanala public hearings, suggested as the longest in the history of the state so this IS an important issue. The two inspectors employed by An Bord Pleanala described the project as being in the wrong place and yet they were overruled as inspectors often in such situations. It is expected that inspectors are hired because of expertise so why overrule them. Find out the expertise in the EPA re refineries for raw gas.

So, editor, not all hearings follow rartional lines and come to rational conclusions. Why is the project phase/consent dependent on the Minister? Weird and not rational with the refinery subject to planning permission and the pipeline not. Does it appear rational.

Several protestors took their case to the High Court at their own expense and in their own time. Shell is being pursued on certain issues there.

The protestors secured an independent inquiry of merit and produced it before Government did its own. Goverment closed down its producer, the Centre for Public Inqiury.

Meanwhile protestors compelled Minister to admit Shell had been building a pipe in the Coillte forest without his consent. It had to be smashed up. Government mediator could make no rarional progress and Shell abandoned its pipe route.

Be rartional in editorials!

by M Cotton Tue Jan 30, 2007 17:41

In the immediate area the support is near total. In County Mayo, the majority are against the plan as it is currently proposed.

by confused local Tue Jan 30, 2007 18:44

"Find out the expertise in the EPA re refineries for raw gas"
did they not consult outside experts?

who are the experts on raw gas in s2s?

"For days on end they travelled to the An Bord Pleanala public hearings, suggested as the longest in the history of the state so this IS an important issue."

Exactly and An Bord Pleanala agreed and turned down the planning permission!

"Weird and not rational with the refinery subject to planning permission and the pipeline not. Does it appear rational"

Should "all pipelines" be subject to planning permission ?
are any?,was there ever a pipeline in this country subject to PP?
these are the questions you need to answer before you cry foul!

"The protestors secured an independent inquiry of merit and produced it before Government did its own. Government closed down its producer, the Centre for Public Inquiry. "

how did the Government close it down?

"Meanwhile protestors compelled Minister to admit Shell had been building a pipe in the Coillte forest without his consent. It had to be smashed up. Government mediator could make no rational progress and Shell abandoned its pipe route. "

all true but one fact missing, when shell admitted they had constructed the pipe illegally, they offered 1.5 million euro to belmullet hospital (the cost of dismantling the pipe) and S2S rejected the offer!

and m cotton if "In the immediate area the support is near total. In County Mayo, the majority are against the plan as it is currently proposed"

where were these residents last Friday? definitely not at the protest! maybe inside working?

by erris resident Tue Jan 30, 2007 19:02

If this is true...
"In the immediate area the support is near total. In County Mayo, the majority are against the plan as it is currently proposed"
why dont S2S prove it? run someone in the election (I think they will have to) and the people of erris and mayo can show the country how much support there is!

by old irish Wed Jan 31, 2007 18:01

There is an old saying (m cotton never heard ).
believe nothing of what you hear, and only half of what you see

by David Manning - MediaBite Wed Jan 31, 2007 22:54 editors at mediabite dot org

Thank you for your anonymous comments 'erris resident', 'confused local' and 'old irish', however none of you have even attempted to address the arguments, nor I must assume even read the analysis this introduction refers to:

http://www.mediabite.org/article_Gas--Gaeilge-and-the-M....html

Perhaps you might find it of some interest.

Interestingly:

"BRITAIN: Record annual profits expected to be announced by Shell tomorrow should be used to pay off more than $20 billion (�15.5 billion) in estimated compensation for damage caused to communities and the environment by its activities, according to an alliance of human rights and green groups."

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/2007/0131/116968....html

by Fred Johnston Sat Feb 03, 2007 17:38 sylfredcar at iolfree dot ie

None of the views of the Irish Times' Editorial quoted above should surprise anyone faintly acquainted with that newspaper's gradual but inexorable swing to a PD-friendly Right. This Rightest shift has been manifest not only in its political but in its cultural content. It is now a 'consensus' newspaper, following a Dublinocentric view on all things social, political, economic and cultural.
A quick glance through its Saturday edition will provide a marker; the good and controversial columnists and critics are gone. Some jumped, some were pushed. In order now to write for The Irish Times, one must NOT be controversial in any anti-consensus way - it is held, for instance, that representatives of the Israeli Embassy are not above 'contacting' the Irish Times if the content of reports on the Middle East turns perceivedly anti-Israeli or pro-Palestinian.
A similar Rightest line is taken by The Sunday Independent, where the word 'controversial' has been inverted to mean 'Anti-Left'. In this newspaper's case, one-time Leftists are discerned to make, in very Catholic fashion, ' full confessions' in print of their Lefty pasts. They are then forgiven their past errors and permitted to tread the true path of slagging off everything they previously held dear. Sooner or later an Irish Times columnist will open his offering with the words, 'Foolishly, I once believed . . . . .'