THE head of Shell in Ireland has admitted the company didn't do a "very good job" addressing local people's safety concerns over plans to put a gas pipeline in Co Mayo.
Announcing a revised route for the controversial pipeline yesterday, managing director Andy Pyle said gas pipelines were "normal practice" in many countries and the company had "probably" failed to explain that to local residents.
The modified route for the onshore section of the Corrib gas pipeline is twice as far away from homes and will operate at half the pressure of the previous line.
The revised route was decided after 11 months of consultation with local people. Stiff local opposition, including the jailing of the so-called Rossport Five in 2005, led to mediator Peter Cassells being appointed in an attempt to break the deadlock between the company and locals.
He recommended that it be moved from the vicinity of Rossport because of concerns about its proximity to housing.
Gas pipelines were "well tested" and "used extensively" throughout the world, Mr Pyle said, adding that people not "implacably opposed" to the pipeline would see it as a compromise.
A planning application seeking permission to build the pipeline would be lodged with An Bord Pleanala within weeks.
"Pipelines are pretty common technology and that [level of opposition] caught us on the hop," he said.
"We would see this as very normal practice. We probably didn't do a very good job explaining that. Pipelines have a very good record, safety wise. The end result, I think, will be acceptable. We definitely feel we have the right balance."
The 9.2km pipeline will carry raw gas from a field 83km off the coast. It will come ashore at Glengad before crossing Sruwaddacon Bay into Rossport.
Refinery
It skirts around the village and along the boundary of the Glenamoy Bog Complex Special Area of Conservation (SAC) before recrossing Sruwaddacon Bay and continuing onto the Bellanaboy gas refinery, currently under construction.
But the Shell to Sea group said a small village at the centre of the controversy would be sliced in half by the new route, with a spokesman saying it would worsen relations between Shell and locals.
"They are literally dividing a community now,'' John Monaghan said.
"They are now actually physically dividing the village of Rossport itself and that is not going to make them any friends.''
"If they were to get an acceptable route the refinery itself still poses a threat. If this is the only way that they see a solution to this problem then it will never go away.''
Paul Melia
Irish Independent
www.buckplanning.ie
Showing posts with label gas pipeline. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gas pipeline. Show all posts
Sunday, 20 April 2008
Shell boss tells of his regret as pipe route is revised
THE head of Shell in Ireland has admitted the company didn't do a "very good job" addressing local people's safety concerns over plans to put a gas pipeline in Co Mayo.
Announcing a revised route for the controversial pipeline yesterday, managing director Andy Pyle said gas pipelines were "normal practice" in many countries and the company had "probably" failed to explain that to local residents.
The modified route for the onshore section of the Corrib gas pipeline is twice as far away from homes and will operate at half the pressure of the previous line.
The revised route was decided after 11 months of consultation with local people. Stiff local opposition, including the jailing of the so-called Rossport Five in 2005, led to mediator Peter Cassells being appointed in an attempt to break the deadlock between the company and locals.
He recommended that it be moved from the vicinity of Rossport because of concerns about its proximity to housing.
Gas pipelines were "well tested" and "used extensively" throughout the world, Mr Pyle said, adding that people not "implacably opposed" to the pipeline would see it as a compromise.
A planning application seeking permission to build the pipeline would be lodged with An Bord Pleanala within weeks.
"Pipelines are pretty common technology and that [level of opposition] caught us on the hop," he said.
"We would see this as very normal practice. We probably didn't do a very good job explaining that. Pipelines have a very good record, safety wise. The end result, I think, will be acceptable. We definitely feel we have the right balance."
The 9.2km pipeline will carry raw gas from a field 83km off the coast. It will come ashore at Glengad before crossing Sruwaddacon Bay into Rossport.
Refinery
It skirts around the village and along the boundary of the Glenamoy Bog Complex Special Area of Conservation (SAC) before recrossing Sruwaddacon Bay and continuing onto the Bellanaboy gas refinery, currently under construction.
But the Shell to Sea group said a small village at the centre of the controversy would be sliced in half by the new route, with a spokesman saying it would worsen relations between Shell and locals.
"They are literally dividing a community now,'' John Monaghan said.
"They are now actually physically dividing the village of Rossport itself and that is not going to make them any friends.''
"If they were to get an acceptable route the refinery itself still poses a threat. If this is the only way that they see a solution to this problem then it will never go away.''
Paul Melia
Irish Independent
www.buckplanning.ie
Announcing a revised route for the controversial pipeline yesterday, managing director Andy Pyle said gas pipelines were "normal practice" in many countries and the company had "probably" failed to explain that to local residents.
The modified route for the onshore section of the Corrib gas pipeline is twice as far away from homes and will operate at half the pressure of the previous line.
The revised route was decided after 11 months of consultation with local people. Stiff local opposition, including the jailing of the so-called Rossport Five in 2005, led to mediator Peter Cassells being appointed in an attempt to break the deadlock between the company and locals.
He recommended that it be moved from the vicinity of Rossport because of concerns about its proximity to housing.
Gas pipelines were "well tested" and "used extensively" throughout the world, Mr Pyle said, adding that people not "implacably opposed" to the pipeline would see it as a compromise.
A planning application seeking permission to build the pipeline would be lodged with An Bord Pleanala within weeks.
"Pipelines are pretty common technology and that [level of opposition] caught us on the hop," he said.
"We would see this as very normal practice. We probably didn't do a very good job explaining that. Pipelines have a very good record, safety wise. The end result, I think, will be acceptable. We definitely feel we have the right balance."
The 9.2km pipeline will carry raw gas from a field 83km off the coast. It will come ashore at Glengad before crossing Sruwaddacon Bay into Rossport.
Refinery
It skirts around the village and along the boundary of the Glenamoy Bog Complex Special Area of Conservation (SAC) before recrossing Sruwaddacon Bay and continuing onto the Bellanaboy gas refinery, currently under construction.
But the Shell to Sea group said a small village at the centre of the controversy would be sliced in half by the new route, with a spokesman saying it would worsen relations between Shell and locals.
"They are literally dividing a community now,'' John Monaghan said.
"They are now actually physically dividing the village of Rossport itself and that is not going to make them any friends.''
"If they were to get an acceptable route the refinery itself still poses a threat. If this is the only way that they see a solution to this problem then it will never go away.''
Paul Melia
Irish Independent
www.buckplanning.ie
Friday, 19 January 2007
Shell denies it let pipeline protesters languish in prison
The Irish Times writes that Shell E&P Ireland has rejected claims that it allowed five Rossport men to languish in prison for several weeks in 2005 after the company had agreed to cease work on its controversial onshore gas pipeline pending the outcome of a safety review by the Minister for the Communications, Marine and Natural Resources.
Counsel for Shell Patrick Hanratty told the High Court yesterday such a suggestion was "grossly unfair". Shell had nothing to do with the amount of time the men spent in prison or the fact they were there at all, he said.
Mr Hanratty said the Minister had said that he was commissioning a safety review in July 2005, but Shell did not not know what form that report would take until the following September, when it applied to have the injunction lifted.
He was responding to submissions by Lord Brennan QC, counsel for two opponents of the pipeline, Brendan James Philbin and Breege McGarry, who told the court on Tuesday that documents had revealed that Shell had agreed with the Minister in early July 2005 to stop work on the pipeline pending compliance issues and the outcome of the safety review.
Lord Brennan said it was only in September 2005 that the company applied to the High Court to have the five men released from prison, citing the suspension of work and the safety review as the basis for its application. The men had spent 94 days in prison before they were freed.
Mr Hanratty also rejected Lord Brennan's argument that Shell should pay on a solicitor-client basis (the highest level of legal costs) those costs to date by four defendants, including three of the men known as the Rossport Five, in relation to proceedings brought against them by Shell. There was "not one shred of evidence" of misconduct on the part of Shell.
Ms Justice Mary Laffoy yesterday reserved judgment on the application.
Counsel for Shell Patrick Hanratty told the High Court yesterday such a suggestion was "grossly unfair". Shell had nothing to do with the amount of time the men spent in prison or the fact they were there at all, he said.
Mr Hanratty said the Minister had said that he was commissioning a safety review in July 2005, but Shell did not not know what form that report would take until the following September, when it applied to have the injunction lifted.
He was responding to submissions by Lord Brennan QC, counsel for two opponents of the pipeline, Brendan James Philbin and Breege McGarry, who told the court on Tuesday that documents had revealed that Shell had agreed with the Minister in early July 2005 to stop work on the pipeline pending compliance issues and the outcome of the safety review.
Lord Brennan said it was only in September 2005 that the company applied to the High Court to have the five men released from prison, citing the suspension of work and the safety review as the basis for its application. The men had spent 94 days in prison before they were freed.
Mr Hanratty also rejected Lord Brennan's argument that Shell should pay on a solicitor-client basis (the highest level of legal costs) those costs to date by four defendants, including three of the men known as the Rossport Five, in relation to proceedings brought against them by Shell. There was "not one shred of evidence" of misconduct on the part of Shell.
Ms Justice Mary Laffoy yesterday reserved judgment on the application.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)