Link to Irish Times 'Head 2 Head' online poll >
Shell advisers had no consent to drill
Lorna Siggins 26th Oct 2007 The Irish Times
The Department of the Environment is considering what action to take with the Corrib gas developers, following an admission by Shell consultants that they drilled in a special area of conservation (SAC) in north Mayo without the appropriate consent. The consultants have also conceded they did not consult the National Parks and Wildlife Service before drilling boreholes in the Glenamoy bog complex special area of conservation. They have said the "oversight" was due to "miscommunication", both within their own company and Shell E&P Ireland.
A Department of Environment spokesman said that an expert had been sent to assess whether the SAC had been damaged. It would decide what action to take. Under the European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1997, the Minister for the Environment must authorise any such work in a special area of conservation by written consent, and contravention of this "without reasonable excuse" is described as an "offence" in the legislation.
The borehole drilling was being carried out by RPS Consultants, which had been hired by Shell E&P Ireland to select a modified route for the Corrib gas onshore pipeline. Six weeks ago, a solidarity camp on the same site at Glengad was directed by court order to be dismantled by January 1st. In a statement to The Irish Times , RPS Consultants said: "We are aware that in order to carry out such activities within a SAC, permission needs to be granted by the Department of the Environment, Heritage & Local Government and we are currently in discussion with them."
ALJAZEERA News Item: People & Power - Green fields and gas
25 Apr 07
Norway's Gain - Ireland's Shame
Statement from Dr Mark Garavan, NUI Seanad Candidate (28/2/07)
Yesterday, the Norwegian Central Bank reported that the country's 'Oil Fund' - the revenues from the oil and gas industry extracted by the Norwegian State for the pensions of its citizens - stood at a whopping NOK 1,784 trillion (about USD 291 billion) by the end of 2006. This is equivalent to 220.6 billion euros. Given Norway's population of 4.7 million this amounts to there being 46,900 euro invested for pension purposes for every citizen.
This wise and efficient State planning stands in sharp contrast to the Irish governments appalling misuse of our indigenous gas reserves. Corrib gas is being given away with minimal benefits to the Irish people. No royalties are being extracted, no equity share taken, no windfall tax levied. All exploration and development costs can be written off against tax at 100% from Year One. This is at a time when we are hearing ongoing horror stories from the country's hospitals.
To criticize this shocking situation is not to adopt an ideological position. It is simply bad business, bad management and takes the term 'rip-off republic' to new heights. What Irish citizens deserve is nothing more radical or subversive than simply the Norwegian model. First, community agreement to oil and gas projects which directly impact on their health and safety. Second, real benefits derived from those projects to benefit all the nation's citizens.
The tragedy of Corrib is that the citizens of Norway will receive more benefits from this resource than the citizens of Ireland. Norway's gain is Ireland's shame.
Senior Planning Inspector Vigorously Opposes Plan
From 'the great corrib gas controversy' by the centre for public enquiry
In his report, Senior Planning Inspector Kevin Moore was adamant that the development was taking place on the wrong site:
“From a strategic planning perspective, this is the wrong site; from the perspective of Government policy which seeks to foster balanced regional development, this is the wrong site; from the perspective of minimising environmental impact, this is the wrong site; and consequently, from the perspective of sustainable development, this is the wrong site.
At a time when the Board is now required, in accordance with the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 2000, to have regard to the proper planning and sustainable development of an area in which a development is proposed to be constructed, it is my submission that the proposed development of a large gas processing terminal at this rural, scenic, and unserviced area on a bogland hill some 8 kilometres inland from the Mayo coastland landfall location, with all its site development works difficulties, public safety concerns, adverse visual, ecological, and traffic impacts, and a range of other significant environmental impacts, defies any rational understanding of the term “sustainability”. It is an irony that this large industrial proposal is linked with a natural gas resource, the exploitation of which adheres to the concept of sustainability.”
Mr Moore noted that several separate agencies had responsibility for the development of the seabed, landfall, overland pipes and terminal:
“If there is to be any merit in permitting the splitting of this overall project into its various component parts and permitting separate independent assessments by various agencies, then the Board should not be constrained by any decisions that may or may not have been made by other agencies to date, in my opinion.”