Corrib gas project

The Corrib gas project entails exploiting a natural gas deposit off the northwest coast of Ireland. The field is located about 80 km off Erris Head in County Mayo, in water depths of 355 metres. The natural gas field, discovered in 1996, was the first reported commercial natural gas discovery in Ireland since the Kinsale Head gas field in 1973. The gas is from Triassic strata. The company set up to exploit the field is a conventure of Shell E&P Ireland (operator 45%), Statoil Exploration (Ireland) Limited (36.5%), and Marathon International Petroleum Hibernia Limited (18.5%). Reserves in the field are believed to be about 30 billion cubic metres (1 trillion ft³, 70% the volume of the Kinsale field).

Despite assurances from Shell, the Shell to Sea campaign vehemently opposes the current plans for the project, which it regards as dangerous. The level of opposition to the current configuration of the project has led to the refinery building site at Bellanaboy being the most heavily-guarded in Ireland, with scores of security working around the clock, assisted by sometimes hundreds of Gardaí.

A Garda dissuades Shell to Sea protesters from blocking access to the refinery site at Bellinaboy, November 2006

Shell have proposed to develop the Corrib field as a sub-sea production facility with onshore processing. This method of development is claimed by Shell to be in line with best industry practice for gas fields of this type, but no other refinery in the world is so close to a residential community and regional water supply. Many people, especially those who live near the proposed pipeline and refinery, are deeply concerned about the health, safety and environmental impact of the onshore aspects of the scheme, and, citing Shell's record, do not believe the company's assurances. Others are extremely unhappy with the irregularities and precedents surrounding the project. Sinn Féin called for an inquiry into the Corrib deal as early as 2001. Protests by residents have been ongoing daily at the refinery site since the summer of 2005, when five local men were jailed for contempt of court after refusing Shell access to their lands.

The Shell to Sea campaign, (which is trying to have the gas refined at sea rather than inland) was born during their imprisonment, and commands widespread support in County Mayo. A poll conducted throughout the county by TNS/MRBI on behalf of RTÉ's Nuacht (the state broadcaster's Irish language news programme) in September 2006 [1] showed that "6 in 10 feel the Corrib Gas terminal should be located offshore at sea, with just under one quarter supporting the Bellanaboy option. The offshore alternative has strongest support amongst those aged under 49 years, and those residing in Castlebar/Ballinrobe/ Claremorris and Westport/Belmullet areas."

Project proposal

There are essentially four parts to the proposed Corrib project:

1. the offshore operations including the wells and subsea facilities
2. the offshore section of the pipeline
3. the onshore section of the pipeline
4. the gas processing plant at Bellanaboy, Co. Mayo

The second two have proved extremely contentious, and were objected to by both An Taisce and Dúchas (Dúchas was abolished not long after this objection). Planning permission for the refinery was originally refused unequivocally, and the onshore section of the pipeline was not subject to any planning regulation whatsoever.

Irregularities

See Corrib gas controversy

Safety and Environmental Concerns

Refinery Site

Planning permission for the refinery was refused unequivocally by Senior Planning Inspector Kevin Moore, of An Bord Pleanála (the Irish planning authority). His report stated: "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."

Following this report, senior Shell executives met with Taoiseach Bertie Ahern. Ahern then met with the board of An Bord Pleanála. They agreed to ignore Moore's report, [2] and the refinery was given the green light.

The cleaning terminal, a large combustion plant, is a huge project. It would require in excess of 120 Megawatts of power to operate. The power would come from burning off the uncleaned gas condensate, containing oxides of carbon and nitrogen, sulphur dioxide, methane and ozone. There would be nine chimneys, four of them approximately Template:convert/ft high. These would release carbon dioxide and methane equivalent to the global warming potential of 27,000 dairy cows.

The waste water problem is twofold:

1. There is a pipe to take waste impurities to sea and a perforated perimeter ditch which would surround the drainage from the site.
2. The waste water storage sump is designed to withstand only a few hours of continuous rainfall, though nearby Crossmolina had 106 days of consecutive rainfall during the autumn of 2004. Overflow from the sump will flow into Carrowmore Lake, the drinking water supply of 10,000 Erris residents. [3]

This untreated waste water would contain many toxic substances, including lead, nickel, magnesium, phosphorus, chromium, arsenic, mercury and the radioactive gas radon. Already aluminium levels in the lake (due to runoff from the construction) are far in excess of World Health Organisation limits [4]. While usually a popular destination for fishing, for the first time ever Carrowmore Lake has been declared unsafe, in early summer of 2007.

The refinery would be constructed on blanket bog. Shell’s plan to stabilise this involves mixing in cement to form a hard surface. This process has only ever had small field trials and lab tests and creates a reaction which produces the very toxic hexavalent chromium.

The Environmental Protection Agency awarded a licence to operate the refinery in November 2007, more than two years after construction began.

Pipeline Route

The upstream high pressure gas pipeline that connects the well to the inland refinery site runs through the area of Rossport, through villages and alongside peoples' homes. The pressure inside the pipeline would be up to four times greater than that of the highest pressure Bord Gáis pipelines and will be going through boggy land with a recent history of serious landslides. The gas pipeline would also have adjoining pipelines carrying hydraulic fluid, cleansing acids and a waste pipe, as well as electric cables.

Frequently described as a "high pressure" pipeline, the pipeline will have an operating pressure of 120 Bar and a maximum design pressure of 345 Bar. It is untreated, that is, odourless, without the added smell for detecting leaks. To compare, in Kinsale the gas is refined at sea and piped ashore at a much lower pressure and odorised. The highest pressure Bord Gáis pipelines, in the so-called Transmission network, bringing the gas cross-country or overseas to Scotland, run at 16 – 70 bar pressure.

The large pressure is necessary as the pipeline would be pumping the gas straight out of the field to the onshore refinery, whereas normally the refining takes place out at sea. This development is so unprecedented that the relevant Irish legislation and regulations assumes its non-existence, that is, current legislation applies to off-shore upstream pipelines and to on-land ones with similar levels of pressure to those used by Bord Gáis. The Irish government decreed the pipeline was not to be subject to planning permission as they considered it an offshore development, despite the fact that it runs inland for over 9 km.

Broadhaven Bay

Broadhaven Bay is where Shell want to discharge toxic waste from the refining process. [5] Due to the bay’s circular tidal pattern and semi-enclosed nature this toxic waste is far more likely to stay within the bay rather than be washed out to sea.

A UCC research team found that the bay was an important breeding and rearing area for whales and dolphins [6]. They recorded over 220 sightings of seven whale and dolphin species including sightings of the relatively rare Risso's Dolphin, plus sightings of two seal species and marine mammals such as basking sharks and a sea turtle in Broadhaven Bay and north-west Mayo waters.

Broadhaven Bay is a Special Area of Conservation under European Union regulations. According to state heritage agency Dúchas “Broadhaven Bay supports an internationally important number of Brent Goose” as well as regionally important populations of other birds.

The pipeline would pass through the machair sand dunes/coastal grasslands at one end of Broadhaven Bay. These constitute a habitat unique to northwest Ireland and northwest Scotland.

Shell's reputation

Quite aside from the immediate safety and environmental concerns, many Erris residents have serious qualms about having Shell as a neighbour given their past record, especially in Nigeria [7] (see controversies surrounding Royal Dutch Shell and Ken Saro-Wiwa).

Opposition escalates

On 29 June 2005, five local landowners, the Rossport Five, were jailed after being held in contempt of court for breaking a High Court injunction which put them under a legal obligation to allow Shell workers on their lands [8]. These five men are: James Brendan Philbin, brothers Philip and Vincent McGrath, Willie Corduff and Micheál Ó Seighin. Demonstrations took place around the country in the support of the men and the issue was raised in the national parliament, the Oireachtas [9]. After spending 94 days in Cloverhill Prison, they were released on 30 September 2005, when Shell, having been subjected to prolonged opprobrium, applied to the High Court to have the injunction lifted [10]. The previously disparate and fragmented opposition to the project had united during the men's imprisonment, and became Shell to Sea after their release.

The Shell to Sea campaign continued to call for the route of the pipeline to be changed, as well as the location of the refinery. Rossport Solidarity Camp was deliberately located on the beach at Glengad close to the landfall of the proposed pipeline, at the request of residents of Rossport. In April 2007, in a victory for the campaign, the High Court ruled that Shell cannot use the pipeline route they wanted. Shell continues construction at Bellinaboy, after recently admitting that they will once again have to resort to Compulsory Acquisition Orders for their pipeline.

In the autumn of 2006, Shell resumed work, enabled by An Garda Siochana baton-charging protesters. This violence caused many injuries and some hospitalisations.[11],[12] The threat of Garda violence resulted in a scaling-down of the protests.

Safety reviews

The Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Noel Dempsey, commissioned a company to produce what was called an "Independent Safety Review" of the pipeline. Hours after the company produced its report, it emerged that it was jointly owned by Shell and British Petroleum. Dempsey, who seemed genuinely ignorant of this, denied the report was compromised but agreed to commission another. The second review was strongly criticised by those opposed to the project for failing to consider alternatives to refining the gas onshore. The authors of the review, Advantica, said:

“Proper consideration will be given to safety issues in the selection process for the preferred design option and the locations of the landfall, pipeline route and terminal” and:

“Provided that it will be demonstrated that the pressure in the onshore pipeline will be limited effectively, and that the recommendations made somewhere else in this report are followed, we (Advantica) believe that there will be a massive safety margin in the pipeline design, and the pipeline design and proposed route should be accepted as meeting or exceeding international standards in terms of acceptability of risk and international best practice for high pressure pipelines.”

Another company, Accufacts Inc., also produced a report on the pipeline [13] for the Centre for Public Inquiry, concentrating on the safety aspects and concerns surrounding the issue. It was highly critical of the current plans for the pipeline, and skeptical of the assurances given. The author said:

"It should be fairly obvious by now that past information on this project has been less than complete. Much of this information appears to be of a propaganda nature intended to spin public relations to an ill informed or misinformed public or government. In today’s information age this is a tactic fraught with risks as the deceptions are uncovered. Regarding the proposed onshore pipeline route, serious challenges should be raised as to any risk analysis that fails to adequately address the issues raised by the production pipeline, as the thermal impact zones for this very distinctive high pressure pipeline are quite large with a high probability of mortality..."

"If the Gas Processing Plant site location were to remain as proposed, we advise a reroute of the proposed pipeline incorporating safety buffer zones of 200 metres for dwellings and at least 400 metres for unsheltered individuals."

"Placement of a Gas Process Plant on a shallow offshore platform would substantially reduce production pipeline rupture impact zones associated with specific pipeline design modifications. A transmission pipeline from such an offshore facility could be operated at lower pressures, move much higher quality gas, and permit appropriate cleaning and smart pigging programs that would reduce the potential impact zone associated with a gas transmission pipeline failure."

Other experts have also rubbished Advantica's claims. Some contend that the safety zone around the pipeline should be at least 500 metres (the norm in the United States) from any dwellings [14]. Philip McGrath, jailed for three months for his opposition to the original pipeline route, lives within 70 metres of it. In all other countries with experience of refineries and their attendant risks (such as Scotland), it is unheard of that a refinery should be built within the catchment area of a drinking water supply, as Shell intends for Bellanaboy [15].

External links

• Centre For Public Inquiry's review of events surrounding the Corrib gas project
• Technical details of the Corrib project from Shell's offshore-technology.com
• Technical details of proposed pipeline from Accufacts Inc.
• Shell's page on Corrib project
• Mayo Gas Info
• Advantica's review of onshore pipeline
• Bitter dispute over gas pipeline — BBC news article on controversy
• Buckfastforbreakfast A look at the varied media response to the Corrib controversy.
• Gas Lads, article from Magill on resources giveaway

http://shell.com/static/ie-en/downloads/news_and_library/brochures/shell_safety_brochure_08.pdf