Shell v farmers

[Henny Penny]

Good on ye lads ... let any multinational petrochemical company try to cross my land and I would do the same.

 

[daltonr]

I have to admit, I'd probably be in Mountjoy too if the situation arose.
At least I hope I would have the bottle.

I liked Terry Clancy's quote:

"We're 100 percent behind them, if there was a higher percentage we'd be there"

-Rd

 

[ubiquitous]

On one hand we complain about the cost of living here, the inefficiency of the public sector and our legal system, and the inability of the State to complete or facilitate public infrastructure projects, and on the other we applaud those who consciously opt to ignore or wilfully break the law in an attempt to frustrate the completion of such a project.

I don't understand...

 

[MissRibena]

Ubiquituous, what do you mean "such a project"? How do you equate the inefficiencies in the public sector with this case? If people just complain and don't "do something" they are just whingers, when they act on their principles they are frustrating "such a project - very hard to win. Civil disobedience is part and parcel of democracy. These guys appear to have tried everything else to be heard.

I don't see how a Shell pipeline is going to help the health service. I wonder how good the public services are in Nigeria, where I understand Shell have any amount of pipelines.

Rebecca

 

[ubiquitous]

We have a collective propensity in this country to object to almost all infrastructural developments. I have no problem with people's right to object within the existing legal frameworks that are available for this purpose - however when people consciously ignore or breach their own responsibilities within these frameworks, then the Courts have a right (and imho an obligation) to ensure that the law is upheld.

I don't see how a Shell pipeline is going to help the health service. I wonder how good the public services are in Nigeria, where I understand Shell have any amount of pipelines.

If you don't mind me saying so, this is an unbelievably stupid comment. Are you saying we should have no infrastructural development unless it helps the health services? (I could mention the fact that the Health Boards have found it impossible in several cases to establish new GP clinics or mental health care centres due to locals' objections). Are you saying equally that we should automatically abandon all attempts to harvest our national energy resources as all of these involve the construction or maintenance of pipelines of some sort or other?

 

[MissRibena]

Rudeness never does much to strenghten a case but thank you for your analysis of my intelligence.

You are equating the specifics of this case with some general trend/propensity you see with objections to infrastructure. Your point does nothing to clarify for me the benefit of a multinational fuel company's private pipeline to the public services in Ireland. As far as I know Shell are a private enterprise who couldn't care less about the state of Ireland's public services.

These farmers did what they felt was right and they are taking the consequences, so the law IS upheld. Maybe they will win and maybe they will lose but there's nothing wrong with going down fighting in what you believe in. It's how many a social/civil improvement (black equality in the USA, women's suffrage etc etc) has been achieved, when all legal avenues have been exhausted.

Rebecca

 

[tonka]

The pipeline in this case is an ultra ultra high pressure jobbie which passes near their houses. If it leaks there will be an enormous explosion !!!!! .

I would object too

 

[ubiquitous]

Rudeness never does much to strenghten a case but thank you for your analysis of my intelligence.

In fairness my point was in relation to a specific comment/red herring (the em, rather tenuous, reference to the health services). It was not meant of any indication of anything else.

The pipeline in this case is an ultra ultra high pressure jobbie which passes near their houses. If it leaks there will be an enormous explosion !!!!! .

I would object too

Should we therefore dismantle the national natural gas grid?

 

[zardebt]

shell said they would not change their plans for a small number of objectors ....

hmmm

I found this note on their website !!

Health Safety & Environment
Shell aims to have Health Safety and Environment performance we can be proud of, to earn the confidence of customers, shareholders and society at large, to be a good neighbor and to contribute to sustainable development.

ya right ! this is a joke !


You haven't won my confidence shell I won't be supporting your products !!

 

[Humpback]

Should we therefore dismantle the national natural gas grid?

You're talking about two different types of pipeline here. The national gas grid contains "refined" (whatever the technical term is) gas, under a much smaller pressure than the unrefined gas passing through the pipeline under much higher pressure in Mayo.

IMHO, in this case, the farmers concerned should do whatever the need to do within the bounds of the law to ensure their voices are heard, and to raise awareness of their concerns.

However, going beyond the bounds of legal activities does nothing to strengthen their case, and in my view, does damage to their credibility. It gets them publicity, fair enough, but I'm sure people are split 50/50 when it comes down to support or otherwise of their actions (not their cause!!).

What I was interested in was the comments on Dunphy/Newstalk106 this morning where it was mentioned that the rights to the gas was "given away" to Shell, with no royalties accruing to the State at all.

And the mention of Ray Burkes alleged involvement in the activities at the time as well.

 

[Purple]

The fact that there will be a high pressure pipeline pumping untreated (odourless) gas to a land based processing plant is the main issue here. It is not the industry norm to do this, processing of this kind normally takes place at sea.
(Didn't see RDJ's post before I posted this one.)

 

[MissRibena]

In fairness my point was in relation to a specific comment/red herring (the em, rather tenuous, reference to the health services). It was not meant of any indication of anything else.

It was your post that first linked public services with civil objections which were tenuous and the red herring. Nobody mentioned the public services before you because they are not relevant in this case.

As far as I'm concerned these guys have done us all a huge favour by drawing our attention to this. Maybe on balance the risks will be proved to be worthwhile but at least now more people are aware of what's going on and if someone is prepared to go to to jail for it, people will sit up and give this a bit of thought and add their objections in time, if they agree. I for one don't trust the government to optimise the usages of our natural resources, especially when private enterprise is also involved (mobile phone licences anyone?). I would imagine that the suits in Shell (not shell suits, boom boom! ) would run rings around them in the Dail. Anyway, the bottom line is that on the whole these guys' sacrifice will probably do the Irish people more good than harm.

Rebecca

 

[ubiquitous]

The Dept of Marine & Natural Resources is responsible for the management of the State's energy requirements, including the exploitation of our natural energy resources. This is surely a public service?

 

[daltonr]

Type Shell and Niger Delta into Google to see how much their care about the local environment and being a good neighbour. Nobody is suggesting anything like that here, but you do have to ask why a company that behaved like it did in the Niger Delta could be given this resource without a profit share arrangement with the state.

At least in the Niger Delta case the state made some money out of it. But sure we're Irish, we don't need that money stuff. Root of all evil etc.

However, going beyond the bounds of legal activities does nothing to strengthen their case, and in my view, does damage to their credibility. It gets them publicity, fair enough, but I'm sure people are split 50/50 when it comes down to support or otherwise of their actions (not their cause!!).

Let's be clear. There is no way whatsoever in hell that any course other than the steps they took would have had any result. You get this nonsense on here from people who seem to think that we live in a world and a country where governments and large corporations can be reasoned with.

WHAT else aside from refusing entry to their land do you think these people should have done that would have been more effective?

-Rd

 

[Purple]

Duplicated post

 

[Purple]

Read "In the shadow of a saint" about Ken Saro-Wewa, written by his son Ken Wewa for more details on Shell in Nigeria. See [broken link removed], and here for more detail from the anti Shell camp and this and [broken link removed] for the other side of the debate.

The fact that Shell will own all of the gas that is brought ashore in Mayo and will sell it at market value to the Irish government would lead me to think that the very least they should do is locate their refinery at sea, at their own cost.