Work continues at Corrib gas terminal site

**Lionel Ritchie** · 04/10/2006, 2:33 PM

I don't give a flyin f'ck what is lawfull and what isn't when it comes to defending the lives of working class people.

Whats more important? Adherannce to the law or the safety of a community?

Where's my logic flimsy in concluding that sounds like the brand of tripe that paramilitaries and their apologists have used for decades in the North and elsewhere?

didn't refer to the rosary btw.

I will say though that if I were at a secular protest such as this and someone started up a rosary or any other Shamanistic carry on ...I'd not be impressed ..and I'm guessing I'd let it be known that I'd not be staying or attending future protests if similar carry on was to be expected.

It's just -inapproriate.

**pete** · 04/10/2006, 2:47 PM

Originally Posted by liam88

And what on earth is wrong with praying the rosary?

Moderator: I agree, That has nothing to do with this discussion & I will remove any more posts that include it

Liam - I don't see what the point of bringing Nigerian law into this proves.

Shell will provide hundreds of construction jobs during this project. Will be some permanent jobs aftre this is build too. Shell will pay Corporation tax on profits & PRSI for the employees. The employees will pay PAYE & PRSI into the state coffers. We always hear about too many jobs centred around Dublin & lack of jobs in the West - surely this is adding many well paying jobs to a rural area. I have not even mentioned the jobs provided during the exploration state of this project.

Do fishermen pay the state for the fish the "steal" from the irish nation? Surely we as a Nation own the sea around us collectively?

AFAIK the sea around Ireland is quiet expensive to explore & the oil/gas expensive to extract. If the state taxed this heavily no one would carry out this work.

I see no widespread support for the Corrib protestors. By their definition they are therefore undemocratic as they are resisting the will of the majority. If a law is clearly unjust then surely the majority would want to change it?

**corbyeire** · 04/10/2006, 3:13 PM

my opinion would be once again a clear example of where all the environmental laws of the country and those of the EU have been ignored, unknown, forgotten, reassessed and flouted along with all sound scientific advice

get the wrong eia wrong eis and get your own ecologist to assess the place and give the "right" assessment

since all the basic construction started up there over a year ago - those prestine looking streams are all loaded with aluminium run off due to mobilisation from disturbance of very sensitive peat soils in the area

get the gas for a few decades - wreck the place for millenia

notice how the (bla)guards werent out to enforce all those laws

the sooner people see change in terms of a three legged stool of economy-society-environment and not the double sided coin of economy-society

you are forever going to get linear economic model of ever increasing production

this planet is finite ireland is finite and so is that bloody gas - which in real terms is worthless as we are supposedly according to the latest government green paper on greenhouse gases meant to be using alternatives

hypocracy left right and centre

rant over

**BohsPartisan** · 04/10/2006, 3:14 PM

Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie

Where's my logic flimsy in concluding that sounds like the brand of tripe that paramilitaries and their apologists have used for decades in the North and elsewhere?

.

Your flimsy logic is in linking me and my political stance to paramilitaries in the north.

**BohsPartisan** · 04/10/2006, 3:22 PM

Originally Posted by pete

Shell will provide hundreds of construction jobs during this project. Will be some permanent jobs aftre this is build too. Shell will pay Corporation tax on profits & PRSI for the employees. The employees will pay PAYE & PRSI into the state coffers...

What will come into the coffers is nowhere near the value of the gasfield.

I see no widespread support for the Corrib protestors. By their definition they are therefore undemocratic as they are resisting the will of the majority. If a law is clearly unjust then surely the majority would want to change it?

This is a red herring. The majority does not know how to go about changing laws and even when they try there are all sorts of obstacles thrown in their way. It takes years to change a law such as this by which time the pipeline will be up and running.
As for support, I found from doing work on this issue on the street last year, at that time there was loads of support. Its not been in the media much since the release of the Rossport 5 so the old out of sight out of mind attitude prevails.

**pete** · 04/10/2006, 4:57 PM

Originally Posted by corbyeire

my opinion would be once again a clear example of where all the environmental laws of the country and those of the EU have been ignored, unknown, forgotten, reassessed and flouted along with all sound scientific advice

get the wrong eia wrong eis and get your own ecologist to assess the place and give the "right" assessment.

If there was environmental damage to the country then why don't the Rossport protestors challenge on that basis? I am sure would receive a lot of support it that was true. The terminal would not have got planning approval if it failed an environmental impact study. Gievn how difficult it is to build anything in this country i assume it has passed such an inspection?

All I have seen is protestors bring up spurious arguments about being unsafe to transport gas in pipes. Bord Gas have thouasands of pipes around the country shipping natural gas to their customers.

**BohsPartisan** · 04/10/2006, 5:25 PM

Originally Posted by pete

If there was environmental damage to the country then why don't the Rossport protestors challenge on that basis? I am sure would receive a lot of support it that was true. The terminal would not have got planning approval if it failed an environmental impact study. Gievn how difficult it is to build anything in this country i assume it has passed such an inspection?

All I have seen is protestors bring up spurious arguments about being unsafe to transport gas in pipes. Bord Gas have thouasands of pipes around the country shipping natural gas to their customers.

Eh they have been challenging it on that basis. Corby btw is somewhat of an expert in the field of environmental science so you can bet your bottom dollar that his data is correct. Any of the impact studies carried out were done so by companies with ties to Shell.

The gas that Bord Gas transports in pipes around the country is treated first offshore. When it is deemed safe it is given the "Gas" odour so that if it leaks it will be detected. What Shell want to transport is untreated odorless gas to an onshore refinery. The protesters want it to be treated offshore as is the norm.

At least check what Shell to Sea are actually saying before you pour scorn on what they are protesting about.

Shell To Sea PDF

**Thunderblaster** · 04/10/2006, 11:59 PM

I have no time whatsoever for the protestors as they cannot even see the benefits for a deprived region. Shell must be allowed to do what is in their own best interests. These same protestors would cry about their tough living conditions and complain all day about political neglect. Cromwell was right, "To Hell or to Connacht!!"

**BohsPartisan** · 05/10/2006, 8:06 AM

Originally Posted by Thunderblaster

I have no time whatsoever for the protestors as they cannot even see the benefits for a deprived region. Shell must be allowed to do what is in their own best interests. These same protestors would cry about their tough living conditions and complain all day about political neglect. Cromwell was right, "To Hell or to Connacht!!"

this is quite a stupid post. It brings nothing new to the discussion and contains no facts. If it were an equation the sum of its parts would equal zero. Your moronic comment about Cromwell does not help your case and I'd imagine would be quite insulting to people from Connaught. Again you should have read the text of the pamphlet linked above and some of the posts that outline why this pipeline is a bad idea (see Corbyeire's post for an assesment of the real environmental impact).

What are the benefits?
The profits will not be invested in the region. Only a handful of jobs will be created. The tourist industry in the area will be negatively effected because of the polution caused by the dumping of toxic waste from the refinery in broadhaven bay. Sounds like a wonderful opportunity for the locality.

**Lim till i die** · 05/10/2006, 8:28 AM

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

Again you should have read the text of the pamphlet linked above and some of the posts that outline why this pipeline is a bad idea (see Corbyeire's post for an assesment of the real environmental impact).

That pamphlet is very pretty but it's not exactly fair and balanced now is it??

Who are these experts who say an explosion is "very likely"?? Sounds like nonsense to me

As EVIL as shell are and I'm sure they're very EVIL I genuinely don't see what they have to gain by blowing up part of county Mayo. If nothing else it's in Shells best interests to have this pipeline safe

**BohsPartisan** · 05/10/2006, 8:59 AM

Originally Posted by Lim till i die

That pamphlet is very pretty but it's not exactly fair and balanced now is it??

Who are these experts who say an explosion is "very likely"?? Sounds like nonsense to me

As EVIL as shell are and I'm sure they're very EVIL I genuinely don't see what they have to gain by blowing up part of county Mayo. If nothing else it's in Shells best interests to have this pipeline safe

Why does it sound like nonsense? Why is it OK to break guidelines about the pressure of gas in these pipes now when it wasn't before? Why are these guidelines in place? Why is it ok to break the guidlines about refining the gas offshore now when it wasn't before? Why are these guidelines in place?
Shell want to process the gas on land rather than offshore because our government will let them do it and it costs a hell of a lot less than building an offshore facility. The industry norm is to process gas offshore. Multinational companies have people to calculate risk of an accident and what the cost of compensation in that instance would be and how it relates to their profits. If they think that the cheaper option, even taking into account possible compensation costs in case of accident, they will go for the cheaper option. It means more profit and a bigger share dividend and share price. That is the bottm line for Shell and alll multinationals. Profit always comes first for them. That is why they are doing it.

On it not being "Balanced"? What does that even mean? If you take a position on something in the belief that your position is correct, you don't go giving the arguement for your opponant as well. Shell and the government aren't exactly balanced are they? The company who carried out the environmental impact study that declared the pipeline would be safe is partially owned by Shell. Thats hardly impartial is it?

**Lim till i die** · 05/10/2006, 9:22 AM

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

Shell want to process the gas on land rather than offshore because our government will let them do it and it costs a hell of a lot less than building an offshore facility. The industry norm is to process gas offshore. Multinational companies have people to calculate risk of an accident and what the cost of compensation in that instance would be and how it relates to their profits. If they think that the cheaper option, even taking into account possible compensation costs in case of accident, they will go for the cheaper option. It means more profit and a bigger share dividend and share price. That is the bottm line for Shell and alll multinationals. Profit always comes first for them.

Once again maybe I'm being naive.... I genuinely don't think Shell has any interest in blowing up a large chunk of Mayo. I'd imagine were this to occur it would hit the shares and the profits rather hard.......

On the pamphlet issue you can't expect people to take the piece of propaganda you posted as 100% fact no more than I would expect them to take any propoganda by shell as 100% fact.

**BohsPartisan** · 05/10/2006, 9:30 AM

Originally Posted by Lim till i die

Once again maybe I'm being naive.... I genuinely don't think Shell has any interest in blowing up a large chunk of Mayo. I'd imagine were this to occur it would hit the shares and the profits rather hard.......

On the pamphlet issue you can't expect people to take the piece of propaganda you posted as 100% fact no more than I would expect them to take any propoganda by shell as 100% fact.

The industry standards are what they are for a reason. It is generally recognised in the industry that it is unsafe to do what Shell are doing. An explosion along the pipeline would not "blow up half of Mayo". It could however kill people and damage property. It would only effect the share price temporarily and the risk taken would be worth it for Shell in the long run. This is the same principle that airlines that scrimp on safety measures operate on.

**Lim till i die** · 05/10/2006, 9:35 AM

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

The industry standards are what they are for a reason. It is generally recognised in the industry that it is unsafe to do what Shell are doing. An explosion along the pipeline would not "blow up half of Mayo". It could however kill people and damage property. It would only effect the share price temporarily and the risk taken would be worth it for Shell in the long run.

I never said anything about blowing up half of Mayo............. But it says on your lovely pamphlet that everyone within a quarter of a mile would be killed

I genuinely don't think shell would be up for that. Aswell as compensation and repair costs plus the public outcry it would permanently damage the possibility of any further evil schemes they may be planning with the Irish government

**Lionel Ritchie** · 05/10/2006, 9:39 AM

Quote:
I don't give a flyin f'ck what is lawfull and what isn't when it comes to defending the lives of working class people.

Quote:
Whats more important? Adherannce to the law or the safety of a community?

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

Your flimsy logic is in linking me and my political stance to paramilitaries in the north.

You don't agree that that sounds like, very like in fact, the sort of position put forward by northern paramilitaries of whatever persuasion then?

It's not my intention to "link you and your political stance" to anyone. Nor do I mean to steer off topic ....but you're the one writing recipes for anarchy.

**BohsPartisan** · 05/10/2006, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie

....but you're the one writing recipes for anarchy.

Are you saying I've got an appetite for destruction?

I'll get me coat.

**hoops1** · 05/10/2006, 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by dahamsta

I have to confess, I broke my hole laughing when I heard they were protesting by reciting the rosary.

So did I at the begining but then it was pointed out it was a bit more cynical
than that, sure the guards can drag out the usual disruptive angry mobs.
But obviously there is different implications of forcefully moving little old
ladies praying

I didnt see the ban on mentioning the praying,Please remove this post if need

**pete** · 05/10/2006, 4:51 PM

I cannot take that pamphelt propagansa seriously as the language is far too biased. Where are the facts that "explosion very likely" what experts? Most of the language suggests hearsay. "gas field worth billion" yet the irish state will receive almost no money.

This country would be a basket case if we did not have multi nationals. Sure some people may not be employed directly or even indirectly but if the other people weren't employed by them the rest of ye would be payong high taxes for social welfare.

# 6 out of 10 people in Mayo want Corrib Gas terminal located offshore at sea.

Does this mean 40% of people support the inland terminal? By the actions of the obstructors you would think was 100% opposition in Mayo.

**BohsPartisan** · 05/10/2006, 9:13 PM

Originally Posted by pete

This country would be a basket case if we did not have multi nationals. Sure some people may not be employed directly or even indirectly but if the other people weren't employed by them the rest of ye would be payong high taxes for social welfare.

:

This is nonsense. Wealth exists independantly of multinational corporations. They just exploit existing wealth. Thats like saying tennant farmers could not grow crops if it wasn't for landlords.

**Student Mullet** · 05/10/2006, 9:25 PM

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

This is nonsense. Wealth exists independantly of multinational corporations. They just exploit existing wealth. Thats like saying tennant farmers could not grow crops if it wasn't for landlords.

There's a bit of a difference between growing crops and (for example) manafacturing microchips. No matter how hard they tried, the people of Leixlip could never have built a pentium processor under their own steam. Similarly, the people of Mayo were never going to find that gas, let alone get it up and refine it, through their own initiave. Multinational companies are (at worst) a necessary evil.