Rossport Situation and Shell. Where is it at?

Archeron wrote:

The Shell to Sea speaker came across quite well on the show, whereas the Shell speaker didnt.

I would disagree. The shell spokesman made it quiet clear that the sea option was not viable and that what the protesters were looking for would not happen.

The shell to sea guy just kept repeating that people didn't want it, with no proof as to the numbers in the area who objected. There are obviously people with this view as there were protests, but what are the actual numbers as a percentage of those in the area. What he failed to realise is that the while shell was working within the law their protest was not. Why does shell need to convince the locals? All it needs is to follow the law and the reccomendations of the relevant planning authority.

Archeron wrote:

On another note, a TV show on RTE on Tuesday showed the result of a leak in a high pressure pipeline under the Mexican city of Guadalahara (Sp?) which resulted in numerous explosions in the city and the deaths of over 200 people. Thousands were made homeless and large parts of the city were totally destroyed. :eek: eek. Admittedly, the Mexican one was petrol, not unprocessed oil or gas, but scary nonetheless. I can kind of understand the fears of the people of Rossport a bit better having seen that show.

I also saw that show. And it had nothing to do with the fact that the pipe was under pressure.
The incident was caused by corrosion of the pipe because a water pipe made from another metal was placed on top of it. This caused petrol to leak into the soil and eventually accumulate in the sewer, where the explosion occured. There were several explosions and people had smelled petrol for a long time. That incident was caused by the initially badly lain water pipe and compounded by the fact that poeple didn't followup the loss of 100,000's of litres of petrol, smell of petrol and several explosions over many years.

How that in any way compares to a gas pipeline, (which i beleive is above ground ???) i have no idea.

Archeron wrote:

If pipe work is so safe, why are they objecting so much to this development being close to homes? If modern technology and safety procedures are so concrete, why dont they accept that there is no danger?

That is indeed the question.

They just don't seem to be listening to reason.

themole wrote:

I seem to remember the figure of 75m. Don't have a source though

Yeah as quoted on primetime.. one resident has the pipe 75 meters from thier home.(now is it thier home or thier farm? that wasn't explained)

From the shell site:

* The onshore section of the pipeline (from the shore to the terminal) will be approximately 9 km long. The pipeline will be buried to a depth of at least 1.2 metres along its entire onshore route and is designed to withstand any accidental impact from digging equipment.
* The normal operating pressure in the pipeline will be about 120 “bar” (a unit of pressure). This will reduce as the pressure in the Corrib reservoir naturally falls as gas is extracted and depleted.
* The pipeline had been conservatively designed to withstand 345 bar in order to deal with any highly unlikely event which might cause higher than normal pressures to be experienced in the pipeline.

So the pipe will beburied, not above ground as i had previously thought.

From shell to sea site:

This is a high pressure pipeline, 345 bar pressure for the gas, 610 bar pressure for the acids and hydraulic fluid. It is untreated, that is, odourless, without the added smell for detecting leaks. This is not the normal run of the mill gas pipeline.

There is a discrepency here between the presures. The shell to sea site is only giving the rating of the pipe, not the actual normal operating pressure. These figures are given above from the shell site.

I have a friend who works for shell. He/she was saying that on the whole the majority of residents are supportive of the idea, but are somewhat afraid of being too vocal as the whole campaign (which initially stated out as a request for more money) got hijacked by a political party.

However, it was a PR disaster when those guys were sent to jail.... that was the judge i believe citing contempt of court.

I also believe that if they continued the pressure then shell would have piped it to scotland and then imported it back to ireland at an increased cost.

Givebn that gas prices in the uk have fallen dramatically and yet here they are niot going to for "at least three months" (that was a report on RTE1 radio) it would be crazy to have a situation where gas from an irish field was tranposrted to the UK and then reimported at higher cost.

Response to whiskyman:
Firstly Topaz operate the stations they get their petrol from Shell, ergo legitimate target for protests. Small wonder then that people who spend a lot of time at this campaign and thinking about this issue are protesting at such stations.

Reponse to \m/:
"quite a lot of locals have been paid quite a lot of money for land around the area, and they are looking for more."

No land was purchased from locals for this project. A lot of land was purchased from Coilte (400 acres). Shell lease some land from two locals who may or may not be looking for more money but certainly are not involved in the campaign against Shell. Other land for the pipeline was CAO'ed - this does not involve purchasing. The vast majority of people involved in the campaign own no land on the pipeline route and as such couldn't be looking for more money for it. A number of landowners who accepted the CAOs when they were orginally issued have been offered bribes not to oppose Shell.
The landowners who did not accept the CAOs from Shell, - and who were subsequently injuncted in the High Court, could have been bought out by Shell long ago if this was anything to do with money for them, as opposed to health and safety.

What was the vote for the incinerator in Ringaskiddy – I didn’t realise the population at large got to vote on this, and if so, why shouldn’t there be such a vote in North Mayo?

Response to the mole:
In Mayo as a whole (and it is a big county) of those polled for tg4 65% do not want the refinery in Ballinaboy. Locally in the parish of Kilcommon where all of the development is to be built and where most of the protesters live Shell to Sea have done a petition which is not yet completed but is getting an over 90% response negative to Shell (part of this was covered in the Irish Times - the part for Glengad which is where the pipeline begins).
Around 2,000 people live in the parish of Kilcommon and around 200 have been attending the picket regularly in the last few weeks. That is, the majority of people in the area are against this development, and 10% are willing to get out of bed at 4 a.m. and risk arrest to stop it.

Response to astrofool:
The many miles of piping delivering domestic gas into homes operate at a much much lower pressure – don’t have exact figures to hand but it is something like 7 to 9 bar pressure, the highest operating pressure for gas pipelines are for transmission or interconnector pipelines aka the national gird – highest operating pressure is around 70. (bearing in mind that is refined odorised gas – a different creature from what is for the Rossport pipeline).
Up to 345 bar was Shell’s original plan, it is now down to up to 144 bar (after protests), for most, but not all of the route – half a kilometre is still at 345 bar. According to the state’s own safety study at that pressure in the event of rupture anyone 57 metres way would be dead and anyone 203 metres away could be dead.
No one designs pipelines to fail, but they do fail, and that is the consequence of failure in this case.

Response to Fighting Irish:
The pipeline is, on the current plan, 70 metres away from inhabited houses, and 30 metres away from the public road, and through farms.

General Issues:
In any case the main focus of the protests is the refinery not the pipeline. The refinery directly affects more people. On the ‘security of supply’ issue first of all Bord Gais are tied into contracts as to who they will buy their gas off for the next 15 to 20 years – the same as the life of the Corrib gas field (according to Shell), so any new gas for Bord Gais out of this is not to meet the existing demand, Bord Gais are to be sold a fraction of this (around 20%) – the rest is most likely for export. There is no ‘security of supply’, the gas can be sold at the market rate to any one if it is economic to do so. Under the old system for exploration and production – introduced after this became an election issue in 1973 due to the low rate Des O’Malley sold Kinsale for, there was legislative provision that the state could compel companies to sell their gas or oil in Ireland or for the state to intervene strongly in the event of an energy crisis, this was removed in the new neo-liberal regime Burke and Ahern introduced between ’87 and ’92 – that is the regime Shell to Sea is campaigning against.

There was more exploration before 1992 under the old terms with greater taxation than there has been since so the we need low taxes to attract investment chestnut doesn’t work here – the main variable in determining investment is the international price of oil.

In regards to Shell saying it is ‘uneconomic’ to refine the gas at sea. We only have Shell’s word as to what is economic and uneconomic – as no one else has access to judge what is or isn’t in the Corrib field.
In 1998 Enterprise – the original owners were claiming 6 to 11 billion tcf (trillion cubic feet of gas) while Shell are claiming 1 billion tcf (still worth billions). Ex-industry people involved in Shell to Sea campaign – including the former director of Statoil exploration Ireland claim there is a lot out there and the current deal for exploration is ludicrously weighted in favour of the oil companies. More over the infrastructure they are seeking to develop for the Corrib field will, it has been stated by the government and by Statoil, be used for other fields.
Shell also claimed it would be technically impossible to build a refinery at the wellhead as it would have to be as tall as the Empire State building – except they already have platforms 3 times taller than that, so what Shell claim about this and that cannot be taken to seriously (not to mention the fact Shell to Sea would accept a refinery at sea that would not have to be at the wellhead).

Moreover according to the logic that it is uneconomic the determinant of what should or should not be done is if market conditions allow. Therefore if this health and safety measure or that health and safety measure becomes uneconomic it should go out the window. According to this logic any company could cut corners any time as safety always costs more.
I suggest you familiarise yourself with the history of Union Carbide in Bhopal, it is a perfect example of such cost cutting determined by market forces.

On Planning – the pipeline was exempt from planning the refinery visited An Bord Plenala twice – the senior inspector said it was the wrong site on several grounds, but was overruled. Please do not hold up the Irish planning system as an example of perfect governance – no one cognisant of recent Irish political history will pay any attention.

In general I have got to say it is touching to see such faith in the state bureaucracy and the corporations in these cynical times. Those of us without rose tinted glasses will continue to seek to take our destiny into our own hands and not put our lives at the disposal of the state and big business.