EPA grants Shell an IPPC licence

by just me Thu Nov 15, 2007 07:42

The emissions are not harmless, just like any other emissions from fossil fuels they contain some level of pollutants

by Fred Thu Nov 15, 2007 09:36

'Shell breached its licence conditions 225 times. So far this year, the tally is about 100 breaches.'

These are the standards we can expect from Shell and EPA. There will be letters, warnings, more warnings and maybe miniscule fines, but the community will suffer.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/07/1068013393...ryrhs

by guess who Thu Nov 15, 2007 13:31

If the EPA are so wrong and this refinery will cause pollution, why hasn't a single scientist or environmental expert stood up and said so.
At Tara there are scientists galore supporting the claims been made by the opponents of the motorway route, but in mayo all we here is stories but no facts or scientific opinion to substantiate them.
This is probably the greatest weakness in the campaign, as the public perception may be that the campaigners are making it all up just to scare people.
If the EPA granted a licence for a project which they say is safe, and the fact is that it is highly dangerous and a serious polluter, then surely a judicial review will clear this up once and for all.
It is the perfect opportunity for the campaigners to prove this refinery is indeed a serious threat to public health and the environment, there will be no spin as the facts are al that is relevant in a court of law.
So all Shell to sea has to do is submit the data which proves how dangerous the emissions will be!

by K. Harris - nmn Thu Nov 15, 2007 14:59

If the EPA granted a licence for a project which they say is safe, and the fact is that it is highly dangerous and a serious polluter, then surely a judicial review will clear this up once and for all.

Sorry - if you truly believe this, you'll believe anything. Those who preside over such very reviews are part of the conglomeration of self-centred idiots.

by the digger Thu Nov 15, 2007 15:10

Thats right folks.

The Police, Shell, journos, the Judiciary, the local authority, An Bord Pleanala, the Government & the EPA are all in a giant conspiracy over refining gas in Mayo.

Make sure those tinfoil hats are firmly on.

Seriously, can you not see how this scattergun finnerty-esque style approach only diminishes in the eyes of the public whatever genuine concerns may have existed initially?

You are your own worst enemy, unfortunately.

by CL Thu Nov 15, 2007 17:15

"Sorry - if you truly believe this, you'll believe anything. Those who preside over such very reviews are part of the conglomeration of self-centred idiots."
I wonder if K. Harris genuinely believes that, it must be very frustrating to distrust everyone and every institution of the state!
I also wonder does K. Harris trust anybody on the planet,maybe they would be kind enough to enlighten us? how about the church,clergy,health professionals,legal profession, anybody?
I suspect the reason K. Harris has posted that opinion is the same reason I am still waiting for an online debate on the risks associated with this project, there is no evidence to show that the emissions from the refinery are a cause for concern by the local population.

by CMcC Thu Nov 15, 2007 19:40

Any1 who believes Shell to be harmless philanthropists who seek to create wealth for the Mayo people can look up their record of pollution, corruption, & murder. Amnesty International, Friends of the Earth & Human Rights Watch have plenty information.

by CL Thu Nov 15, 2007 20:06

"Any1 who believes Shell to be harmless philanthropists"
Did someone say that?
Any chance we can deal with the case in hand, If the refinery is potentially dangerous, then can we have a precedence of a "similar" installation causing pollution or affecting human health anywhere in the world!
answers please! and don't do a Maura Harrington on me.

by Peter Matthiessen Fri Nov 16, 2007 09:24

"The agency has agreed to increase the monitoring of marine waters around the discharge point for the refinery and to enhance the level of noise monitoring at "nearby noise-sensitive locations" and to provide greater control of methanol releases.

The agency said that in addition to imposing "significant controls" on the refinery's operation, a series of monitoring and reporting requirements will "provide the EPA and the general public with detailed insight into the environmental performance of the installation".

The agency says that it will carry out its own independent inspection and monitoring of emissions, as well as a detailed annual audit of the refinery's operations, and the public will have access to all monitoring results and reports.

© 2007 The Irish Times "

by Reality - Green Party Member Fri Nov 16, 2007 14:04

So Shell will go ahead with their mass plan to pollute and desecrate the whole of the west coast of Ireland and when its too late and the irretrevable unique boglands and wetlands have been destroyed and the wildlife has long gone, like the dodo, only to fade into obscurity. Will all of you who so adamantly
supported this ill conceived project, care? so what if the dolphins disapear, the shores become polluted and ingrained with slime, the bleak lifeless landscape resembling the shorelines of so many persecuted and badly maligned countries before. These facts of course are trivial to the benefits of providing gas to Erris.

So all those in favour of this project, think again, what answers will you give if there is a major disaster?

And how will we feel as a nation when we have to dip into our own pockets to provide the necessary financial aid to clean up the mess Shell have made.

by Reality - Green Party Member Fri Nov 16, 2007 14:30

The above web address is incorrect

by Soundmigration Fri Nov 16, 2007 15:22

about the untrustworthness of Shell.
as for other powerful institution's, you seem to be wearing blinkers dear ol

The church: is this not the institution that for years covered up it abusers of kids ( two crimes the abuse and cover up) and relegated single mothers to work camps, enforces patriachy, holds enormous wealth yet excommunicated its radical clergy in latin america. refuses to see that contraception and condoms can massively helps in reducing the spread of aids.... yeah i trust the instution of the church to talk moral high grounds will being knee deep in shit, as for individual clergy many i have no problem with

The health system: cool if your loaded, bit crap if you poor, individual doctors nurses great, as an increasing 'managerial approach' invades the institution of health care, it gets fucked

The judicary: are you having a laff ol bean. the justice system is there to keep us in check. great if you're a Haughey, or Ahern,or a group of Blackrockers murdering folks outside city night clubs, or if your a boss fighting waht shuold be corportate manslaugher, but you can afford the lobby groups and swim in the same pool as thre law makers -----

pretty fucked if your standing up for participative democracy, or are born in the inner city if dublin, maybe trying to get a inquiry into the hows and why of deaths, beating and intimadation within the police cells, fabricating evidence from guarda, or from or supporting a local community resist to corporate take over of our democracy...

Trust my dear freind is earned not given
power is never given from above by those who hold it..it is torn from them by grassroots actions and collective organsing. resistance is fertile

PS CL can you piont to any similar porject thats worked out ok???? me thinks you be pulling yourself a bit

by Soundcheck Fri Nov 16, 2007 16:08

Soundmigration should realise that there is a first time for everything! Time we started hearing a better excuse than the tired old- its never been done before. Thats been tried.It Failed.MOVE ON! Shell to shore!

by soundmigration Fri Nov 16, 2007 16:14

yeah there is a first time for everything.....

the issue here is are you aren't likely to suffer the consequences of this project are ya!!!!!

but since you offering such a powerful convincing argument for why we should stop resisting the rip off of our resources, and its accompanying environmentak degradation, forced through and upon a local community by intimidation the state.

but sure there's a first time for everything....f**king priceless!!!!!

by Seamus Fri Nov 16, 2007 16:32

Is there an issue with actually getting this gas because there seems to be the suggestion that the environment will be desecrated as a result of the pipeline? Or do people think that if the terminal was offshore there would be zero environmental impact?

On the 'inevitable' the destruction of boglands and marine areas....it seems to not have been the case with the North-South gas pipeline recently finished....you know, the one that went through a couple of SACs.

Just so you know.

by Reality - Green Party Member Fri Nov 16, 2007 16:58

The issue is not with getting the gas, its the methods used in order to pertain
it and this is what concerns the residents in Erris. Given Shells history of abuse, can you blame them. Shell are excellent at P.R and can make anything sound reasonable, after all they can afford to abuse the planet

by Seamus Fri Nov 16, 2007 17:07

By the by, I tend not to listen to PR, regardless of where it's coming from. I'm perfectly capable of assessing something on its merits. I'm well aware that Shell will put their spin on everything. But so will opponents of Shell.

If the issue is not with getting the gas, is it more acceptable to pollute another backyard? I understand their concerns but I just wonder if some of the language being used is a little misleading.

Firstly, similar pipelines, like the one I mentioned earlier, hasn't resulted in a rape of the environment.

Also, given the strict pipeline guidelines applicable in Ireland and the EU, the inference that the pipeline is going to explode or cause a loss of life is well off the mark. Other examples may be cited but I don't know about the thickness of the pipes used or what was expected in terms of pipe construction in those cases so it's difficult to assess whether or not the situations are entirely comparable.

i do understand the concerns of the locals but I think people are misrepresenting the situation in some cases.

by Reality - Green Party Member Fri Nov 16, 2007 17:39

I am not a constructural engineer' so I would suggest that you contact Philip Ikurusi of the Niger Delta Awareness Group or Eamon Ryan, if you have any questions on safety aspects. This is not a question of just being anti shell, yes anti all corporations that exploit natural resources and endanger the lives of the innocent. Maybe you yourself should visit the area and talk to the people involved

by CL Fri Nov 16, 2007 17:51

Soundmigration I am buoyed by your enthusiasm and apparent conviction on this issue.
I posed the question on K. Harris because I perceived him/her to untrusting almost to a level of paranoia.
I will agree with you when you state "Trust my is earned not given" that is something I totally agree with.
But I am willing to give people/companies a chance, (sins of the father), would it not be time better spent if we were to insist on the project been developed in a fashion which will protect the environment and benefit the local population, rather than protesting at the "give-away", maybe it was a give-away but how will sitting on a road in North Mayo change that fact?
All the major political parties have rolled in behind this project as it stands, even the Greens with their tweaking of the terms of future licenses have been conservative, for fear of scaring potential exploration off our shores.
In a few years time local people are going to ask "what was all the hype about" when the refinery is up and running and nobody is dropping dead and our environment is still "pristine".
Now to your question "can you point to any similar project that's worked out ok" I can give you names of many projects which have been in operation for years with no detrimental effects on local populations or environment

There are many examples of refineries working safely and without seriously effecting the local environment (remember everything effects the environment even driving to the corner shop).
Sullom Voe in Shetland http://www.soteag.org.uk/conclusions.html Is the largest oil and gas refinery in Europe, It has been closely monitored for 30 years and there hasn't been any environmental damage discovered. http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/STAGI...e.pdf
There are many gas processing plants operating in Norway, which are situated in populated areas and they have been operational for years without causing any impact on the health of the local population,
There are examples like the Niger Delta where things have gone pear-shaped but who is responsible?, If the Nigerian Government was competent and interested in its peoples welfare, the Oil companies would never get away with continuous flaring or other shady activities they may be involved in, its a case of "why does a dog lick his balls" (answer for the girls= because he can).
Here in Ireland, where, I believe our statute is designed to protect "we the people" we should look on this gas-find as a tool to better our lives in a remote area of Europe where jobs are scarce and the powers in Dublin doesn't seem to realise there is life west of the Shannon river.
As I stated at the beginning of this post Soundmigration seems to have enthusiasm and conviction on this issue, so maybe he/she will take me up on the offer of a live real-time discussion (indymedia chat-room) on the potential dangers association with this project?.

For those of you who dont have time to follow the links above here is an extract from SOTEAG
"In the last twenty years, reports to SVA have shown no unacceptable or significant changes in the environment of Sullom Voe, except for the localised effects on dogwhelk populations in the vicinity of the oil terminal due to contamination by tributyltin-based paints used on tankers. Criteria for acceptability are difficult to lay down but SOTEAG's measurements have shown that the early fears expressed about the effects of the terminal in the Sullom Voe area have not materialised. It remains a clean environment and continues to support thriving natural populations. Nevertheless, there is no room for complacency, and surveillance of the effects of terminal operations must continue; and SOTEAG must adhere to standards that maintain its long-established level of rigour and independence. The nature of the operation may still change, and damaging accidents could occur, therefore it is essential that SOTEAG continues its work through to eventual

by CL Fri Nov 16, 2007 18:11

In the last twenty years, reports to SVA have shown no unacceptable or significant changes in the environment of Sullom Voe, except for the localised effects on dogwhelk populations in the vicinity of the oil terminal due to contamination by tributyltin-based paints used on tankers. Criteria for acceptability are difficult to lay down but SOTEAG's measurements have shown that the early fears expressed about the effects of the terminal in the Sullom Voe area have not materialised. It remains a clean environment and continues to support thriving natural populations. Nevertheless, there is no room for complacency, and surveillance of the effects of terminal operations must continue; and SOTEAG must adhere to standards that maintain its long-established level of rigour and independence. The nature of the operation may still change, and damaging accidents could occur, therefore it is essential that SOTEAG continues its work through to eventual decommissioning.

Much has happened since the pioneering days of 1974. The monitoring work has been developed and refined, and some important contributions have been made to applied science. A great deal has been learned of the environment of Shetland although much still remains to be done. The format and the philosophy of the Environmental Advisory Group has, however, stood the test of time and proved that large scale industry need not cause unacceptable changes in the environment. SOTEAG's knowledge and experience has been sought as a model for other industrial developments and as such, it has reached a much wider community than the local interests which, in a far-sighted manner, engendered its composition and terms of reference in the mid-1970s.

http://www.soteag.org.uk/conclusions.html

by soundmigration Fri Nov 16, 2007 19:27

interesting , if selective quotes from a private business entity SOTEAG

The first quote on their website is
"
"Sullom Voe Terminal faces an exciting future. New discoveries and new technology mean that oil will flow from the North Sea and west of Shetland provinces well into the next century. The recent agreement between Shetland Islands Council and the Terminal partners, coupled with changed working practices and increased efficiency, have put the Terminal in a strong position to retain its existing business and to bid for new work."

hardly the disinterested and objective stance you'd expect form a independant organisation. but sure they are funded by the very 'terminal partners" they talk about.

it gets better
"To this end the Sullom Voe Association, the company owned jointly by Shetland Islands Council and the Brent and Ninian pipeline groups, set up SOTEAG. For a period of nearly twenty years, SOTEAG has advised, monitored and reported on the effect Sullom Voe Terminal has had on the Shetland Environment, as well as giving its services when particular incidents have caused concern."

So now we see that the SVA is actually a private company made up of the local council and the pipeline groups, with a nuanced differnence of what one think of normally of as an association. And this company set up SOTEAG.... am i the only one here to sense smoke and mirrors.

--------------------------------------------------
In term,s of tranparency and accessiblity to the in depth research they have conducted...well thats just a little harder to come by. to much effort for SOTEAG to publish online , but if you take a few days or weeks of work you can cgo through them in the library...

"SOTEAG has deliberately not put detailed results of the monitoring activities in this brief document. All the scientific reports produced by the monitoring contractors are available in the Lerwick Public Library, and seven other public libraries, including the National Library of Scotland, the British Lending Library at Boston Spa, Yorkshire, and the Plymouth Marine Laboratory, where they are cited in Marine Pollution Research titles; Estuaries and Coastal Waters of the British Isles; and the international databases on Oceanographic and Marine Resources and Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts."

-------------------------------------

hope this isn't overly cynical but hardly independant this is not.

by CL Fri Nov 16, 2007 20:41

Now that soundmigration has got that rant off its chest, how about he comes up with facts to show SOTEAG is wrong?
lets see any proof that Sullom Voe has suffered from the presence of the refinery! or are you another S2S supporter with no facts to back up your rant?
Oh you can always mimic the now infamous ostrich!

by Ted Sat Nov 17, 2007 00:36

CLs idea of research is to parrot the reports and propaganda of the oil companies and their pr agencies. Gimme a break.

by CL Sat Nov 17, 2007 07:59

One thing is undisputable, we have a massive indigenous population of scared ostriches here.
The fact is that the emissions from the refinery will not cause what S2S predicts, and THAT is why you are afraid to discuss it.
Maybe ted would point us to his research to prove the emissions will be harmful?

by soundmigration Sat Nov 17, 2007 10:50

just piontin out that the 'research' your quoting is funded by the subject of the research.

sure that would be a bit like the cops investigating themselves>>>> oh yeah!!!! thats how things are done no?

hardly an independent voice we can rely on, and if thats the best 'research' you can throw up suggest that this is a rather dull distraction to the thread, mot really a substantive debate

as for ostriches, mealy mouthed metaphors aren't gonna shape this debate....sure a few comments earlier you where buoyed by my passion and drive....such a fickle world this internet love can be!!!

by CL Sat Nov 17, 2007 11:03

And the independent research to prove the emissions will be harmful?
Greenpeace/FOE and others have investigated Sullom Voe and found nothing! contact them and see for yourself.

by soundmigration Sat Nov 17, 2007 11:12

you win,

i can't compete with such a rigourous argument..............

by Maura Harrington - S2S; Davitt League Sat Nov 17, 2007 12:41

CL not so 'confused' about Sullom Voe then!

Did you conduct/accept research on Sullom Voe in the context of the proposed Corrib Project being a 'one-off' medium sized refinery or are you working on the premise/promise that it's to be the first of many - with associated spin-off petrochemical industry in this greenfield site?

Can you have a little word with 'Soundcheck' - it's upsetting your plea for examples of precedent practice by accepting that no such precedent exists!

Your choice of the ostrich as a metaphor is poor; the ostrich is popularly supposed to stick its head in the sand - S2S people put their heads over the parapet.

And will continue ...

by CL Sat Nov 17, 2007 14:17

"CL not so 'confused' about Sullom Voe then!"
No nor am I confused about many other installations around the world, do you want a list?

"Can you have a little word with 'Soundcheck' " who is sound check?

"Your choice of the ostrich as a metaphor is poor; the ostrich is popularly supposed to stick its head in the sand " (-: (-:

by Maura Harrington - S2S; Davitt League Sat Nov 17, 2007 14:40

Let's have the list.

Since you appear to have - belatedly (better late than never of course!) - discovered research skills do PLEASE share your findings with Indy readers (unlike what you would have us believe is the 'cowardly' behaviour of S2S people).

You might, if you've got over your confusion in this regard, also consider using a google-type % relevance rating beside each listing as it applies to Corrib as proposed.

Looking forward with interest to perusing your list CL.

by And Let Them Know... Sat Nov 17, 2007 18:37

I suggest crashing the EPA conference with a few banners or going politely and asking questions
both methods work- however conference security and venue security are two different animals
thus it helps if you have a contact at the centre. This can be managed thus, we shall not be causing
an affray but wish to
a) Give letter of protest on behalf of ' Shell Chun Saile agus an EPA freisin'
b) Address the EPA's guarantees of ECO safety and community safety in the Context of the
Bellanaboy site and environs.
c) Stand outside the door yelling.
in the case of a) and b) bring a camera ,as when banners holders appear without the
recquisite tools of anti- propaganda it can be embarrassing, especially when the conference is
inhabited by soft-shoes......

d) Ask your local TD to attend on behalf of your group and to put the questions on EPA
decisions before them thus ensuring maximum publicity and media coverage which can be
utilised over and again.
As citizens of this country you are entitled to know why an onshore licence was awarded
to a multi-corp above the heads of the community and an act of protest and or questioning
is a guaranteed right.

by CL Sat Nov 17, 2007 18:56

Here is a few of our closest,
BP Coryton
Stanford-le-Hope
Essex

Conoco Ltd
Humber Refinery
South Killingholme
North Lincolnshire

Esso Petroleum Company Ltd
Fawley Refinery
Fawley
Southampton

Ineos Grangemouth
Grangemouth
Stirlingshire

Petroplus
North Tees Works
Seaton Road
Port Clarence
Cleveland

Shell UK Ltd
Stanlow Manufacturing Complex
Ellesmere Port
South Wirral

Texaco Ltd
Pembroke Plant
Pembroke
Pembrokeshire

TotalFinaElf/Murco
Milford Haven Refinery
Milford Haven
Pembrokeshire

TotalFinaElf
Lindsey Oil Refinery
Eastfield Road
North Killingholme
Immingham
North Lincolnshire

Now show me the disastrous pollution they have caused!

by Maura Harrington - S2S; Davitt League Sat Nov 17, 2007 19:26

Tut tut CL!

You omitted - through accident or design - to inform your readers of the relevance of these plants to Corrib as proposed in terms of:

whether beach-head or other refinery design

if so, distance from beach of beach-head refinery

specification whether production or transmission pipeline(s)

if production, details of separation distance from houses and resultant area of future house planning sterilisation

Above sample only in terms of relevance %.

Do try, CL; now that your confusion is clearing I'm sure you'll produce some sterling facts - at or near 100% relevance to this debate.

by Ted Sat Nov 17, 2007 22:04

What is becoming obvious yet again is that CL has little or no in-depth knowledge of the Bellanaboy Project.
His lists and 'info' are just bumpf.
He figures if gas can be refined elsewhere then why not here? -Simple!

Isn't he.

by Maura Harrington - S2S; Davitt League Sun Nov 18, 2007 19:48

Hope you're not feeling 345bar on the request to produce something other than an irrelevant 'list' CL.

Do keep trying - after all, the entire www world is awaiting your relevance % rating for each plant on your 'list'.

by Ted Tue Nov 20, 2007 10:29

Red faces all round for Shell, RPS and the new Super.
They have broken the law and pissed off the Minister by damaging a Special Area of Conservation.
It fell to local S2S activists to police the SAC when the new Super. sided with the lawbreakers and, according to another thread, actually encouraged breaking of the law and threatened those who wanted the law enforced.

RPS claim they were ignorant of the Fact that it was a SAC. But RPS, - you were informed by the locals of its status - are you telling porkies to the Minister?

Shell/RPS must now return and repair their vandalism. They won't be charged with breaking the law because of , among other things, the embarrassment to the enforcers of law and order.
Contrast this with the court appearances and sentencing of the two S2S activists who were locked-on to a car.

by Aragon Tue Nov 20, 2007 16:54

Claims here that governmetn get 25% of the gas royalties and 40% once production levels pass a certain point?

http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?t=28699&start=24&s...d6843

by legolamb Tue Nov 20, 2007 17:24

It's true that the state taxes oil and gas companies like Shell at 25%. However it also allows exploration and production costs dating back twenty years to be written off against this tax. Given the multinationals ability to write their own tickets when it comes to tax liability (Shell Ireland regularly posts losses), it's unlikely that the state will see much, if any, tax from the Corrib field.

New laws giving the state 40% tax on super profitable finds are all very well, and represent a small victory for those of us who have been campaigning on this issue- but they don't apply to Corrib.

Michael O Seighin's response to the new contracts was that they do not amount to very much anyway. In August described them as "more spin than win"- his full statement can be found here:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/08/377494.html

by D Wed Nov 21, 2007 16:39

"It's true that the state taxes oil and gas companies like Shell at 25%. However it also allows exploration and production costs dating back twenty years to be written off against this tax."

It is factual that Shell and the other Corrib partners will pay 25% of their profits in tax. It is also factual that there are a few countries where an "uplift" is allowed, which means that more than 100% of costs can be written off against tax; in every other case all costs can be written off against tax, as in Ireland - the only other thing that varies is the time over which those costs can be written off (ie depreciated). Profit is income less costs.

I think the Revenue Commissioners are very well able to audit the figures presented - they have plenty of experience after all!