Broughan and Tuffy visit Rossport 5 on 44th day of imprisonment

by mayoman Thu Aug 11, 2005 17:03

Why doen't he pursue his own party leader to get him to come out in support of the men's demand that the pipeline is moved offshore?

by Independent Thu Aug 11, 2005 17:27

The demand for an offshore facility is very flawed and many decent people in mayo are falling for it. If there was an offshore facility, there would still be a pipeline and it would still run along the proposed route to a terminal etc. This does not alter the substantive matter one bit.

by eeekkkk Thu Aug 11, 2005 17:33

If the refinery was offshore the gas when piped ashore would be at far lower pressure, would be clean of impurities and would be treated so it would have a smell to warn of leaks or ruptures.

by Independent Thu Aug 11, 2005 17:37

Eeeeek - this is not so. I have looked into it. The gas would flow at virtually the same pressure.

The gas in fact will be treated offshore in the current plans. Anti Freeze and anti corrosives would be input offshore - the main function of the Bellanaboy terminal is to remove water. The Offshore option is misguided - it doesnt change the substantive issue im afraid. You are misinformed I think.

by eeekkkk Thu Aug 11, 2005 18:04

so your argument boils down to everywhere else in europe gas is refined offshore but they all have it wrong and shell have it right in mayo

give us a break from this idiotic disinfo

by Independent Fri Aug 12, 2005 11:59

Sorry eeekkkk - I know of many places that have onshore pipelines and treatment terminals - Norway and Australia come to mind immediately. Of course - no two projects are ever directly comparable so you can use that to bang the table with - but the principle of onshore processing is now almost the preferred option globally.

Dont just dismiss my view as idiotic - i have not attemted to insult you. I have also extensive knowledge on the subject and know what I am talking about. Have you even approached the issue with an open mind? Have you even considered the fact that I might be right?

by Sherlock Holmes Fri Aug 12, 2005 12:20

Why don't you publish details of these onshore pipelines. Please publish them with links to back up your claims. You are making big claims without any evidence to back them up. Please be so kind to publish your evidence, you must have it since you have "extensive" knowledge.

by eeekkkkk Fri Aug 12, 2005 12:25

"I know of many places that have onshore pipelines and treatment terminals - Norway and Australia come to mind immediately."

Prove to me with a publically available source that anywhere in europe there is any closely similar pipeline with similar pressure running through it on similar (jellylike) bog landscape that is as close to populated areas (houses schools etc) as this one. No fucking around prove it or lose it.


Your comment is nothing but heresay with 'I'm a big Knowledgable Important man' attached.

by Independent Fri Aug 12, 2005 12:36

Ok - i reserve the right to revert in full and i will do with proof points - I am on the case.

I did concede that no two projects are the same so if you keep on adding other variables to it you will find it more difficult. Again i ask you to stop being so aggressive and try and approach this with an open mind - would that be a possibility? or are you just not interested? i wont bother otherwise.

Can i also point out to you that my original argument still stands - irrespective of what you misguidedly think - the basic infrastructure will be the same whether the gas is processed offshore or onshore - there will still be a pipeline at similar pressure along the same route to a terminal.

by eeekkkkk Fri Aug 12, 2005 12:44

"the basic infrastructure will be the same whether the gas is processed offshore or onshore - there will still be a pipeline at similar pressure along the same route to a terminal."

BUT carrying clean treated gas with an odour to give population a chance if it leaks/ruptures before possible explosions occour. On solid ground in normal circumstances. RIGHT?

And I'm not hostile. I am blunt with timewasters and propagandists and reserve my right to be so.

by Hal Fri Aug 12, 2005 12:57

Fair point Independent. Show us the examples though!

I have a friend who lives in North Dublin near where the gas interconnector comes ashore - this is odourless and the pressure is comparable and they have no problems.

by eeekkkk Fri Aug 12, 2005 13:04

Based on this appraisal and many others which I've taken the time to read. Written by honourable people known to me who I have a level of trust in.

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=70546

Note they are not in any case written by anyone a) employed by a shell owned (or partially owned or dependent on shell business) company b) working as a lawyer for the consortiun c) who may be a government official or who may have worked with a government official who may or may not have at any time in recent past accepted corporate hospitality from the consortium.

They are quite exceptional from this point of view in Ireland at present imho.

Care to correct me on that Mr. Crrriiitttiiiccc.

(And no that is not an insut. It is a reference to one of Sam Beckett's best ever jokes)

by confused Fri Aug 12, 2005 15:49

"If there was an offshore facility, there would still be a pipeline and it would still run along the proposed route to a terminal etc. This does not alter the substantive matter one bit."

BUT isn't the whole point of processing off shore that ALL processing is done off shore eg that is the terminal???
Maybe I'm wrong..
I thought thats the way it works with off shore processing in Scotland etc - would create a lot more employment too - seems a hell of a lot better then high and even pressure gass flow direct from under the sea!

confused

by Aidan Fri Aug 12, 2005 16:20

Confused - no wonder you are confused - its because the opponents to this project are attempting to scare everyone and confuse people - and its working.

Did you know the gas will be treated offshore? Yea - it will get injected with anti freeze type agents and anti corrossives also - all that happens at the terminal is that water is removed - its very clean gas. If you want to learn more i suggest you do what i di and go and find out from a more credible source than some of the stuff peddled in here!

by eeekkkkk Fri Aug 12, 2005 16:26

have you sucked on the pipe? can you verify this in any objective fashion?

by Aidan Fri Aug 12, 2005 16:33

eeekkkk - its all there in the plan of development and the EIS. These are publicly available - have a look - educate yourself.

by eeekkkkk Fri Aug 12, 2005 16:34

1. Bring the pressure of the gas in pipe down to an equivalent of a normal common or garden bord gais pipeline used for moving gas around our fair isle at present?

2. Introduce an odour to the gas to give nearby residents a chance if a leak starts that may develop into a rupture or an explosion?

3. If there is a surge of raw gas at any stage which will the consortium allow blow up to protect assets? a) Pipe under sea/equipment at sea b)refinery c) pipe on bogland travelling thru a community schools houses etc.

'shit or get off the pot' me teacher in primary school used to say in debates when one got tongue-tied.

by eeekkkk Fri Aug 12, 2005 16:38

"eeekkkk - its all there in the plan of development and the EIS. These are publicly available - have a look - educate yourself"

link please anywhere newspaper included that substantiates any of what you're saying.

Else audience of our little pow wow might get impression you're used to making any shite that comes into your head up and trying to sound IMPORTANT and KNOWLEDGABLE.

by confused Fri Aug 12, 2005 17:04

Thanks for answering absolutely none of my points.

Either its processed off shore or onshore.
If it's off shore it will be coming in at a much lower pressure and at an even flow (like the North Dublin Gass Inter Connector some one mentioned above by the way that is probably by far the highest pressure on shore one at the moment in Ireland at 85 barrs
(still fairly high see a newspaper from MDM consulting engineers http://www.mdmeng.ie/oil-gas-energy.htm)

According to the News paper known as the original QRA (the one that even Dempsey admitted was biased due to Shell owning 50% of the company) the gass could, "in the initial phase", come out at 345 barrs and then more regularly at 145 barrs - so thats the source for that.
And also that it would be at an uneven, constantly varrying pressure.

345 barrs is off the scale but even 145 is huge.
At that pressure you don't worry about adding odour no one will get time to smell it- if there even a tiny leak it will instantly combust JUST due to massivepressure.
(Thats from a News paper know as Physics)

And if you seriously rely on the "Newpapers" for ALL your sources you might as well believe everything shell feeds you

Confused

by Aidan Fri Aug 12, 2005 17:14

Wow - you really are confused!!

by eeekkkk Fri Aug 12, 2005 17:21

a spectacular fantasist unanchored from such frivilous trivialities as facts and their use in an argument

You could be a flying pig-human from the evidence presented here. Are you?

by watchtheskies Fri Aug 12, 2005 17:29

He could well be.
eeekkkk, make sure you have your brolly with you - just in case.

by Done some research too Sat Aug 13, 2005 01:50

The gas pipe is high pressure because it is coming directly out of the field under sea. There is so much gas out there that this causes the pressure in the pipe

There is all sorts of crap mixed into the gas coming out of the corrib field, oil etc so extra chemicals are added out at sea so as to prevent the pipe clogging.

One of the reasons Shell have bought a such a massive patch of land in Ballenaboy is to have the land for massive future expansion(an the inevitable pollution that is produced).

That terminal and refinery is just going to grow and grow. Plus here is oil under the sea once the gas runs out. Any other company exploring and finding oil or gas will have to plug into Shells infrastructure. But its no problem if shell are on shore in a big site ( that used to belong to the people of Ireland till Coilte sold it to Shell for 2 million euros)

by confused Mon Aug 15, 2005 15:07

Aidan: Wow - you really are confused!!

Fabulous Aidan you have certainly devastated me there with that comprehensive argument addressing all the points that I have raised and showing me what's what!


keep reading the papers or alternatively stuff them into the hollow space between your ears...........


..hmmmm

Confused

by Aidan Mon Aug 15, 2005 19:23

Confused - ehhh - at least I have pointed you in the direction of the facts. Educate yourself and come with an open mind. By hanging around here you are just exposing yourself to fanciful conspiracy theories and guff. Get real.

by eeekkkkk Mon Aug 15, 2005 19:26

flying pig-human overhead spreading unbacked up assertions and hot smelly air mixed in over the land