Peat Removal Begins at Bellanaboy

by Definition Wed Apr 11, 2007 22:22

For Cl&wal

An invention is an object, process, or technique which displays an element of novelty. ((An invention may sometimes be based on earlier developments, collaborations or ideas, and the process of invention requires at least the awareness that an existing concept or method can be modified or transformed into a new invention.)) However, some inventions also represent a radical breakthrough in science or technology which extends the boundaries of human knowledge. Legal protection can sometimes be granted to an invention by way of a patent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention

by Wal Wed Apr 11, 2007 22:22

Over my head?
And there was me thinking you were sucking up to Shell.
Shows all I know.

Elvis has left the building!

by Cl Wed Apr 11, 2007 22:04

Ok, it seems my lack of competence, in the use of the queens English is my shortcoming.
I admit I am totally confused/bewildered by wal's knowledge/use of grammar and definitions.
I did include a reference to the fact Shell owns the twister in an earlier post ,in a attempt at irony, but it seems to have gone over the heads of some.

by Wal Wed Apr 11, 2007 20:15

"Then you say they don't own the twister"
CL, I don't think you and I are on the same page (maybe we're not even on the same planet)
Please stick to reasonable argument. I can accept mistakes or exaggeration but please don't put words in my mouth.
Words like 'product', 'invent' and 'develop' have definite meanings.

As for moving the goalposts-"And guess who invented the product? Shell! "- you did!

by CL Wed Apr 11, 2007 19:50

Wal, first YOU post "Shell subsequently acquired all intellectual property in 20002"
Then you say they don't own the twister? twister bv says on their website...."We are a Shell-affiliated company"
Please make up your mind.
And speaking of moving goal posts, I simply said the twister is not the answer to the dispute in Erris.
That's all, the fact that shell acquired all intellectual property in 20002, is a side issue.
The twister website claims that it saves gas companies money, and makes the extraction of gas simpler.
If it was useful in this instance, and shell has used elsewhere, why didn't they use it here? (insert conspiracy theory here)
Could it have something to do with the fact the gas in corrib is "sweet gas", as opposed to sour gas (which the twister seems suited for).

To LSFLP your remark "Just remember - you're not fooling anyone"
I have no intention of trying to fool anyone, and attacking me or anybody else that has a different opinion to the S2S campaign is hardly going to win an argument/debate!
I never said I laughed at the old lady that fell into a drain after being struck by the car, I like to think I have more sense than that ,but believe me there are plenty of people who did.

by Wal Wed Apr 11, 2007 15:57

The product was developed by Twister BV not Shell.
Shell is PART-OWNER of Twister (according to Shell)
Even Shell doesn't claim credit for developing the product.

by Local shop for local people Wed Apr 11, 2007 15:55

A word of advice, confused "local" - if you want to con people, you'll have to do a better job. You expose yourself yet again as a pro-shell troll who gets a laugh out of seeing peaceful protesters assaulted by the Gardai. Your unhealthy obsession with attacking the Shell to Sea campaign will impress nobody and merely makes you look foolish. Just remember - you're not fooling anyone

by CL Wed Apr 11, 2007 15:22

the product was invented/created by shell!
the technology used may well have had other uses.
If you researched (my post) you would see I stated the product (twister) was invented by shell.
was I wrong?

by Wal Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:49

"And guess who invented the product? Shell!
All I ask is, why dont people RESEARCH before making statments."

From Shell's own website: "The technology was pioneered initially for the aerospace industry in the 1990's. Shell subsequently acquired all intellectual property in 2000 and formed Twister as an independent company with other investors in 2001"

by oiler Wed Apr 11, 2007 09:46

What cl says is correct.
The twister only removes the hydrates(moisture).
However their is research ongoing into the the possibility of it removing at least some of the heavy metals.
This could theoretically be possible, but not with the present twister.
It could be years (if ever) before such technology is ready for use in gas production.
Also the twister (in its present form) must be installed when the well is drilled, it cant be retrofitted.

http://www.offshore-technology.com/contractors/separati...ster/

We are a Shell-affiliated company with headquarters in the Netherlands. Through contracting arrangements and strategic partnerships with leading design and fabrication companies, we have established a global network offering cost effective, quick delivery gas processing systems.

TWISTER SUPERSONIC GAS PROCESSING
Twister™ is an innovative, safe and environmentally friendly gas conditioning technology that uses condensation and separation at supersonic velocity to achieve some unique benefits. The residence time inside Twister is only milliseconds, allowing hydrates no time to form and avoiding the need for hydrate inhibition chemicals. The elimination of the associated chemical regeneration systems prevent harmful BTX emissions to the environment. The simplicity and reliability of a static device, with no rotating parts, operating without chemicals, ensures a simple facility with high availability. The compact and low weight Twister system can be installed on a minimum facilities platform, and is suitable for unmanned operation in remote and / or offshore environments.

by Cl Tue Apr 10, 2007 18:08

Jack, how do you think the twister would solve everything?
The twister eleminates the need for gycol/Methanol as it removes the hydrates from the gas flow.
It "does not" treat the gas to a level where it is fit for use, it does not remove any of the contaniments which are a cause for concern.
here is their email address office@twisterbv.com ask them .
They will tell you it wont elimanate the need for the refinery and that it only removes the hydrates ,
So once again we have "experts" with answers, without researching the facts.
And guess who invented the product? Shell!
All I ask is, why dont people RESEARCH before making statments.

http://www.twisterbv.com/product/product_hydrate.html
.........
The Hydrate Separator can be used to separate hydrates and liquids from natural gas without using chemicals. Hydrates are melted using heating coils. Cyclonic separation ensures a compact and low weight design with a high separating efficiency. Further benefits include the elimination of chemical logistics, storage, regeneration and environmental emission recovery systems.

by Jack Tue Apr 10, 2007 14:46

Maybe there is a solution to this problem.
The question is does Shell / govt. want to solve it?
See link.

by John Boy Tue Apr 10, 2007 13:08

"What do you think are the chances of this happening? Since it seems extremely unlikely, shouldn't we concentrate on the reality, rather than what MIGHT happen IF there was a change of government.

Some people seem to casting around for reasons NOT to protest. Isn't the actual situation in the real world bad enough for you?

Serious environmental issues.
Destruction of tourist industry
Compelling Health and safety fears
Natural resources stolen- Our money going to line Shell's pockets so that they can do this in Donegal and Kerry next
Political corruption
Worldwide precedent being set for this type of cheap dangerous scheme
Our police acting outside the law, using physical force to stop peaceful protests against a business scheme
No national interest being served

How bad does it have to get before you'll protest?"

You're missing my point. I wasn't talking about a change of government or anything along the lines. I was asking whether or not the pollution tag is being used to tar the building of a refinery because Shell are making all of the money from it.

Pollution would arise whether or not the refinery was built onshore or offshore so it's a bit of a red herring to cite the threat of pollution.

I'm wondering if the suggestion is that the gas should be left alone so that no one benefits, there is no pollution, no police 'brutality' (as some seem to call it), no H&S issues, no loss of tourism etc etc.

by NN Tue Apr 10, 2007 10:57

"If the Irish state were to profit from this as they would have done back in the pre-Burke days, would there as big a hoohah about pollution from a refinery?"

What do you think are the chances of this happening? Since it seems extremely unlikely, shouldn't we concentrate on the reality, rather than what MIGHT happen IF there was a change of government.

Some people seem to casting around for reasons NOT to protest. Isn't the actual situation in the real world bad enough for you?

Serious environmental issues.
Destruction of tourist industry
Compelling Health and safety fears
Natural resources stolen- Our money going to line Shell's pockets so that they can do this in Donegal and Kerry next
Political corruption
Worldwide precedent being set for this type of cheap dangerous scheme
Our police acting outside the law, using physical force to stop peaceful protests against a business scheme
No national interest being served

How bad does it have to get before you'll protest?

by Jack Tue Apr 10, 2007 10:45

Peat storage relates to only a small part of the Inspector's comments.
Please address the rest of the report.
I am well aware that reports have changed. The question is why have they changed
when such factors as location and govt. policy remain intact.
Most elements of the original report cannot be reconciled with the present situation.
I repeat - something stinks!

by to-jack Tue Apr 10, 2007 10:34

This is exactly the type of miss information which has made this protest so divisive.
I am pretty sure Jack is well aware that those comments referred to the original planning application, where the peat was to be stored onsite (giving rise to fears it might not be possible to contain it, and it leeching into carramore lake!)
So jack if you were to research the comments of the inspectors in relation to the revised proposal for PP, you would find they are happy that the site is acceptable

by Jack Tue Apr 10, 2007 09:34

“From a strategic planning perspective, this is the wrong site; from the perspective of Government policy which seeks to foster balanced regional development, this is the wrong site; from the perspective of minimising environmental impact, this is the wrong site; and consequently, from the perspective of sustainable development, this is the wrong site."
- Report of the Senior Planning Inspector
How did we get from this to where we are today?
Something definitely stinks!

by John Boy Tue Apr 10, 2007 09:15

Building a refinery at sea isn't going to be the infinitely more environmentally friendly option either.

by exactly Tue Apr 10, 2007 09:11

I think john boy has expressed what a lot of people feel,
This protest isnt about getting shell to sea, (maybe it is for a handful of local people) but the rest of the protesters would protest even if shell were to go1000 miles out to sea (global warming/whales/naturalresources/jelousy/anarchists/politicians.ect,ect)

by John Boy Tue Apr 10, 2007 08:51

I just picked this quote as an example...not a direct reference, per se:

"Yes, I think the presence of protesters will draw public attention to the appalling situation whereby a huge polluting refinery is going to built in a pristine landscape, against the wishes of the local people and many others in the country, to facilitate Shell the biggest robbery in the state's history. "

If the Irish state were to profit from this as they would have done back in the pre-Burke days, would there as big a hoohah about pollution from a refinery?

Or would we all just be glad that we were getting our fair cut from the gas field?

Or would we have to find some other aspect to protest about?

by Cormac Tue Apr 10, 2007 02:53

As part of the ongoing campaign to defend Ireland's natural resources, éirígí are holding a protest outside Bertie Ahern's constituency office, St. Luke's, in Drumcondra, Dublin.

This protest will take place at 7pm on Thursday, 12th April.

All welcome to participate.

by local Mon Apr 09, 2007 18:48

It's really sad that you have nothing better to do with your life than make snide comments about a campaign which, if you are a local, means you no harm, and seeks to improve your quality of life.

You make yourself seem a bit crazy when you start sniggering at other people being hurt.

You know you are confused (-don't want the pipleine, but do want the refinery- what's that about?) but now you seem a bit disturbed.

First you say "ladies been [sic] knocked into drains is regrettable" then you show just how confused you are when the the incident changes to "falling into drains, for people to have a laugh at their expense!"

Maybe you find it funny that the police who are supposed to protect the people are instead attacking us, but most ordinary people find it sickening. Maybe you should talk to your doctor about what's going in your mind.

You also seem to want to give the impression that you know a lot about what the police and Shell are aware of.

Maybe it makes you feel important- why are they telling you, and why are you publishing it here? Surely you should be sitting back and letting things unfold? You say you believe the campaign has no support and is dying- why not stand back and let it? It couldn't be that this is an attempt to influence things could it?

You keep telling us you don't work for Shell, so how could you know what they and the cops "are aware of"?

By the way- this is an open publishing site- you could, if you want, post what you know about Shell to Sea's "secret plan".

Why don't you?

by confused local Mon Apr 09, 2007 17:28

I think (and hope) this farce is finally coming to an end, the local people just want to get on with it, old ladies been knocked into drains is regrettable, but there will be very little sympathy for them from us locals.
If the little old ladies or the S2S supporters have issues that concerns them, then let them debate them at the oral hearings next week in belmullet, if they have real concerns that is what will effect change, not falling into drains, for people to have a laugh at their expense!
I would not be one bit surprised if S2S were to protest at the oral hearings, with placards and leaflets ect.
Remember it was they who requested the oral hearings, themselves and their right hand the EIFA.
How ironic would it be "if" they were to now protest at the venue?.

Ps on a side issue, it seems that S2S has a (secret) plan to interrupt the peat removal this week.
There is one "slight" problem, Shell and the Gardai are aware of it. (Tuesday night!)(-:

by Jock Mon Apr 09, 2007 16:56 oconnorjack at hotmail dot com

Did the lady that was allegedly hit by the Garda Van make a complaint? If not, why not?

by Pointless Wed Apr 04, 2007 20:57

Hope things are going well in your PR company and you're getting plenty of work from Shell because of this controversy.

by Kerryman Wed Apr 04, 2007 18:22

Yeah, maybe people shouldn't bother protesting, let Shell roll over them.

No woonder the Mayo team never wins the all ireland.

Take the hand outs and seel yourself cheap...

Thank god my kids have a bit more respect for me and oour community.

by a point Wed Apr 04, 2007 18:18

If jacks predictions are correct, we will have employment well into the future.
It is ironic that we have a few "locals" protesting at the removal of peat.
When will the few diehards realise that their campaign is futile?
It dosent matter who is in goverment after the election, the deal with shell Cant be changed, even my kids know that.
So we will have to wait until next week ( when the local protesters arrive from cork,dublin,belfast, uk and beyond.).
The public at large know all to well, the fact that a tiny minority are protesting is the ONLY reason we as taxpayers are funding the massive garda presence!
Does anybody from shell-to-sea think that if they werent there protesting (with no hope of success) that there would be a need for anymore than a handful of gardai?
was Dr Cowley or mark garavin there this morning? (-:

I didnt think so, but it is too late for them, thankfully!

by Jack Wed Apr 04, 2007 14:50

Gas refineries, oil refineries, nuclear power plant - you can expect it all in N. Mayo in the years ahead.

by Shell to Sea'er Wed Apr 04, 2007 14:31

Yes, I think the presence of protesters will draw public attention to the appalling situation whereby a huge polluting refinery is going to built in a pristine landscape, against the wishes of the local people and many others in the country, to facilitate Shell the biggest robbery in the state's history.

Anyone who can should join the protests next week.

by go home Wed Apr 04, 2007 14:05

if you stay out of the way they wont have to touch you.
Do you really think your presence at the site is going to make any difference?

by Tadhg Wed Apr 04, 2007 13:23

"Garda violence increasing steadily. Rough treatment of many protesters this morning, one woman knocked down by police vehicle. It won't be long before they start killing us."

Sent 12.11PM
04 - 04 - 07