Disturbing words

Home thoughts from abroad

De Facto
Liamy MacNally

The Irish Government has serious thinking to do on the Corrib gas project. In a US court are the minutes of a meeting, held in London, of a Committee of Royal Dutch Shell Managing Directors on Monday and Tuesday, July 22 and 23, 2002. It is US Case 3:04-cv-00374-JAP-JJH, Document 403-2 Filed 20/11/2007 (Royal Dutch Shell).  The following is an extract: “It was noted that development of the Corrib field may be delayed until 2004 as planning consent has been refused for the terminal. The Committee queried whether the Group has sufficiently well-placed contacts with the Irish government and regulators. Paul Skinner undertook to explore this issue further in consultation with the Country Chairman in Ireland.”
These are disturbing words.
COURT AFFIDAVIT  
The Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Eamon Ryan, has to make decisions about consent for the upstream Corrib gas pipeline. Before he decides to approve the recently-hailed C1 route the Minister must satisfy himself regarding any questions that may arise from the above extract, dated that it is. The Minister must also be satisfied with various developments with this project that have caused concern to some people in Erris. On July 8, 2002 an official from the Petroleum Affairs Division (PAD) of the Department of the Marine swore an affidavit submitted to the High Court stating that ‘contrary to what is suggested by ***, the necessary statutory consents and permissions for the Corrib Gas Field Development have been given by the Minister to the Defendant’.
Compare this to a letter by the then Minister, Noel Dempsey on July 31, 2005, to a Shell executive about the legislative requirements for this project, specifically stating: “Prior written consent is also required for pipeline installation under clause 8.1(17) of the Petroleum Lease, however such consent has also not been given.”
We knew in 2005 that all the consents were not given yet it was claimed in 2002 that they were given. The Department has never addressed this.  
COMPULSORY PURCHASE ACQUISITIONS
Letters regarding the Compulsory Acquisition Orders for the upstream pipeline are already circulating in north Mayo. Trouble struck the last time the CAOs were giving an airing. That was during the tenure of Minister Frank Fahey who introduced Statutory Instrument (SI) 517 in November 2001 for the CAOs. His use of SI 517 in this manner was questionable, so much so that it was revoked six months later. 
Minister Eamon Ryan will have to make decisions that will affect people in north Mayo for life. He has the unenviable task of balancing his position of power with doing what is right because his decisions have a legacy that will affect generations. That battle between good and evil, right and wrong, does not disappear when one has power. The only basis for a decision of such legacy is truth. 
BAR NONE   
The C1 pipeline route will embrace the heart of Rossport (Ros Dumhach) with its high pressure untreated passenger – raw Corrib gas. Recently, many words have been spoken about pipelines across the country as if this was just another one. According to Bord Gáis Éireann the pipelines bringing gas around the country operate at no more than 80 bar. Gas is odourised as a safety precaution. Distribution pipelines operate at a maximum pressure of four bar, however, within town centres the typical pipeline pressure is considerably lower at 75 millibar (three-quarters of one bar). Gas meters in business and residential premises are normally set at operating pressures of 20 millibar. Risking repetition, the Corrib upstream pipeline (from the well head in the sea to the refinery) was originally set at 345 bar design, with a gas that has no smell and cannot be detected if it leaks. Following various reports, studies, complaints, court hearings and associated meetings, when the pipeline touches land at Glengad it will be reduced in pressure to not higher than 144 bar before it tunnels its way along to the refinery site at Bellanaboy. There it will be cleaned, treated and odourised before it is sent on its merry way to link up to the Mayo/Galway Bord Gáis pipeline. 
THE GLINSK OPTION
Three local priests made a submission to Minister Eamon Ryan last November, suggesting Glinsk as an alternative refinery site. Recently, that call was backed up by local people and the Bishop of Killala, John Fleming. It was a brave Episcopal move and welcomed by the locals involved. For too long the priests and many of the local people have been isolated as they waded their way through the path dividing safety from sanity and peace from pain. Brave bishops are a rare breed. So are brave journalists like Lorna Siggins, who reported the matters as they unfolded only to be treated to the vitriol that spews from the pen of Kevin Myers.
Hot on the heels of the bishop’s statement came word from RPS, Shell’s consultants. Their job was to identify a ‘new’ upstream route following the Peter Cassells’ report. They refuted claims that they were first to identify the Glinsk site. They claimed it was first identified by a local priest. However, in 2001, Enterprise Energy, the then owners of the Corrib project, rejected all landfall sites along the Glinsk coast because of constraints on the laying of the umbilical (the ‘brain’ and connection between terminal and wellhead). Were RPS not aware of this? Glinsk was presented as one landfall option by RPS in their examination of alternative routes. Only routes using Glengad as the landfall site were actually an option. Therefore, Glinsk, as a landfall, was never an option for RPS, who rightly claimed that they never examined it ‘as a terminal site’ (the correct term is ‘refinery’). Perhaps RPS should have been asked to examine Glinsk as a refinery site, as suggested by the priests! If chosen, it certainly would end the local division and the ongoing county and nationwide debate about Corrib. 
MIS-READING THE ADVANTICA REPORT
Linking the new C1 pipeline route with the Advantica Report is misleading, incorrect and disingenuous. The Advantica report states, on page 60: “The pipeline safety review addressed only the design and route of the onshore section of the Corrib upstream pipeline as proposed. It does not include detailed examination of the feasibility of alternative project design options, alternative pipeline designs or routes, and assumes that the gas transported through the pipeline is produced from the existing Corrib wells as identified.”
In a reply to Shell in 2005, Minister Noel Dempsey wrote: “I am also concerned that your letter may demonstrate a failure to fully appreciate your legal and regulatory obligations under such consents. Naturally, I believe that it is essential that we have a common understanding in relation to your legal and regulatory obligations in connection with this project.”
We are all tired with the Corrib wranglings. That does not mean that people should sit back and ignore what is happening. The PR machine is in full spin. Statoil, with the Norwegian state as the majority shareholder, has a duty of care with the Corrib project. It cannot hide behind the coat-tails of Shell just because it is not the project operator. Norwegian papers please copy.