Enda Kenny in Carrickmacross on Monday

by FG watcher Mon Mar 05, 2007 23:17

FG poster

by FG Tue Mar 06, 2007 08:54

"Is he prepared to let E50 billion worth of gas be given away to Shell with no benefit to the people of Ireland?"

25% tax on €50 billion= €12.5 billion, hardly No benefit!

"Is he willing to let the people of Erris ( HIS OWN COUNTY) be put at huge unprecedented risk by having a high pressure (244 bar-normal pipelines are 80bar) pipeline run right through our community?"

The pressure cannot exceed 144bar!
,
"Is he going to just stand back and ignore the gas refinery that is being constructed on 400 acres of unstable bog....."

It is not being built on bog, the peat is being removed and the refinery is built on solid ground!

"surrounded by 7 special areas of conservation, the first in the world to be built just kms from peoples' homes"

This is a link to a high resolution picture of gossen island you can clearly see the houses in the background http://www.presstogo.com//fileroot/Gallery/Hydro_New/im...1.jpg
the Orman Lange refinery shown in the picture is much larger than the proposed bellinaboy refinery!

by Inda Kinny Tue Mar 06, 2007 09:28

"25% tax on €50 billion..."

All expenses related to production will be written off against tax. Anyone with a brain knows that no tax will ever be paid on this project.

"The pressure cannot exceed 144bar"...

Shell said it was safe at 345bar, it was only protests up to and including being willing to be jailed that got the Advantica written. Of course it did recommend lowering the pressure but if you read the rest of the Advantica report it doesn't make very reassuring reading. But whatever, let's be clear, you're trying to rubbish the protesters case here, and the best you can do is shout that the pressure won't exceed 144bar. This is still a hell of a lot more than the pressure of any pippeline near your your house isn't it?
,

"It is not being built on bog, the peat is being removed"

Apart from the environmental destruction of removing millions of tons of peat, revealing the aluminium-rich sub surface to the elements, it's hardly going to be a stable environment. There have been many landslides, including in places where the peat has been removed.

"the Orman Lange refinery "

Two people who are experts on the Norwegian Oil and Gas industry visited Ireland in November. They both agreed that the Corrib scheme would not be allowed in Norway. They'd know, wouldn't they?

Lastly, before you get into the habit of believing Shell's assurances, have a look at this article from YESTERDAY's paper:

Shell safety record in North Sea takes a hammering

· Oil group given repeated warnings about rigs
· Critics fear neglect as end of commercial life nears

Terry Macalister
Monday March 5, 2007
The Guardian
http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2026499,00.html

Shell has been repeatedly warned by the Health and Safety Executive about the poor state of its North Sea platforms, according to information obtained by the Guardian.

The company's dismal record undermines Shell's public commitment to improve its performance after a fatal explosion on the Brent field in the North Sea in 2003 and raises further concerns about Britain's ageing oil and gas equipment.

by The eskimo - s2s Tue Mar 06, 2007 10:09

it seems to me that enda is lacking a positive direction on the corrib gas issue. on the one hand he has issued rethoric (sic) to te effect that he wanted the rossport five freed. on the other he consistently fails to oppose the government on their policy of suppourt and facilitation of the project as it currently ans shakily stands. So enda will have no choice but to accept a brow beating from those in s2s who wish he was on their side, this will have to be weighed off against his perception of how important and relevant the project is in people minds. me thinks enda would assume it to be not important. boy is he wrong. bertie will bury him on this, ironically by a cross of his own making. when the election boxes are opened in castlebar he will feel the wrath of the scorned mayo man. alway remember that bertie would not cast his fellow dubs adrift, ever. its that simple.

by FG Tue Mar 06, 2007 14:18

Inda you seem to have done your homework (poorly).
(1) "All expenses related to production will be written off against tax. Anyone with a brain knows that no tax will ever be paid on this project."
If in fact you DID your research properly, you will find that is incorrect!
The expenses related to production will be written off against tax in the year they occur, therefore the expense of exploration and construction "wont be allowed" to be written off against tax!
(2) "Shell said it was safe at 345bar,"
correct the pipe was manufactured to be safe at 345bar
(3) "This is still a hell of a lot more than the pressure of any pipeline near your house isn't it?"
Wrong I own a compressor (diving) which will reach 259bar, sitting in my garage right now!

(4)"revealing the aluminium-rich sub surface to the elements, it's hardly going to be a stable environment. There have been many landslides, including in places where the peat has been removed."
So its the aluminium again that has polluted the drinking water, any data to back up that claim? the peat will be removed so you don't need to worry about it sliding.

(4) "Two people who are experts on the Norwegian Oil and Gas industry visited Ireland in November. They both agreed that the Corrib scheme would not be allowed in Norway. They'd know, wouldn't they? "

The people you speak of, what were they experts in, I thought they were union representatives did they say why it would not be allowed in Norway?

(5) "Lastly, before you get into the habit of believing Shell's assurances"

Where did I say I believed Shells assurances?

by Inda Tue Mar 06, 2007 15:00

"Inda you seem to have done your homework (poorly).
'All expenses related to production will be written off against tax. Anyone with a brain knows that no tax will ever be paid on this project.'
If in fact you DID your research properly, you will find that is incorrect!
The expenses related to production will be written off against tax in the year they occur, therefore the expense of exploration and construction "wont be allowed" to be written off against tax!"

Here's a quote from the CPI report, page 62:
"On 30 September 1987, Mr Burke announced new
fiscal terms that included the exemption of all oil
and gas production from royalty payments, a
100% tax write-off against profits on capital
expenditure for exploration, development and
production extending back 25 years"

Can you explain the meaning of the words "25 years" above?

"correct the pipe was manufactured to be safe at 345bar"

So why did Advantica recommend that the pressure should be reduced to 144? Was it safe, or wasn't it? Were Advantiica right, or weren't they?

" 'This is still a hell of a lot more than the pressure of any pipeline near your house isn't it?'
Wrong I own a compressor (diving) which will reach 259bar, sitting in my garage right now!"

I presume you are not going to use your compressor to transport raw unrefined corrosive gas through, are you? Maybe you will, just to prove how clever you are. Can I suggest you warn the neighbours first?

" its the aluminium again that has polluted the drinking water, any data to back up that claim? the peat will be removed so you don't need to worry about it sliding."

You mentioned the drinking water, not me. I'm sure you drink the water from Carrowmore Lake on a regular basis now don't you? You didn't read what I wrote. There have been landslides in places where the peat has been removed.

"I thought they were union representatives"

One is the leader of the biggest union representing oil and gas workers in Norway, the other is a university professor whose special area of expertise is the Norwegian Oil and Gas Industry.

They gave many reasons for saying that the project wouldn't be allowed in Norway, chiefly that is dangerous, too near habitation, and doesn't have community consent.

"Where did I say I believed Shells assurances?"

It seems obvious. You say you to believe them about the pressure for instance. Perhaps you agree that Shell make a very poor neighbour for every community that has had to live with their installations. But I would say you are one of the poor misguided souls who believes that if they say something will be safe then it will be, not realising that they have factored in whether they would save more money by paying compensation for killing people than if they took safety concerns seriously.

Maybe I'm wrong, but your cheerleading for them doesn't give a good impression.

by confused local Tue Mar 06, 2007 20:27

There seems to be some confusion over the deal Shell got in relation to tax, if the extract from the CPI report is correct, then why is it claimed that shell are building onshore to save money?
FG seems to be unsure about some facts, the pressure at the well-head is approx 345 bar, but the refinery is designed to operate at 130-150 bar,
The pressure reduction valve is now to be located close to landfall, (it was to be located on the refinery site)

by so that's okay then Tue Mar 06, 2007 21:29

and valves never fail, and Shell can be trusted to maintain safety standards...