The Irish Times – Wednesday, August 25, 2010

The Shell gas refinery building site at Ballinaboy in north Co Mayo. A resumed Bord Pleanála hearing is considering Shell’s third proposed route for the final section of the Corrib gas pipeline, linking the offshore pipe landfall at Glengad to the gas terminal at Ballinaboy. Photograph: Mark Stedman/Photocall Ireland

LORNA SIGGINS, Western Correspondent, in Belmullet

A DISPUTE over the legality of a section of Shell’s Corrib gas pipeline which has already been laid dominated a resumed Bord Pleanála oral hearing in north Mayo yesterday.

Bord Pleanála inspector Martin Nolan said he would respond today to this and other issues raised by objectors during heated exchanges at yesterday’s opening of the hearing in Belmullet.

Held under the Strategic Infrastructure Act, the hearing is considering Shell’s third proposed route for the final section of the Corrib gas pipeline, linking the offshore pipe landfall at Glengad to the gas terminal at Ballinaboy.

It is also considering compulsory acquisition orders to land applied for by Shell on behalf of Corrib gas partners Statoil and Vermilion Energy.

A previous route approval sought by the developers was rejected by the board late last year, as half of the 9km route was deemed “unacceptable” on safety grounds due to proximity to housing. The appeals board indicated it could give approval in principle if certain changes were made, and suggested an alternative, third route up Sruwaddacon estuary, which is a special area of conservation.

Almost 40 oral submissions are due to be heard on this revised plan – a number of which either support or oppose the methodology. Two priests with opposing views, Fr Michael Nallen of Kilcommon parish who lives in the affected area, and Fr Kevin Hegarty of Kilmore, will also give submissions, as will the board of Pollathomas National School, which overlooks the estuary. Fr Hegarty is a member of Shell’s third-level scholarship board.

Several of the objectors sought clarification yesterday on the legality of a section of pipeline already laid between the high water mark at Glengad and the cliff-face.

When Bord Pleanála turned down Shell’s plan late last year, it ruled that this section should have been submitted for planning approval. However, Mayo County Council maintains officially that it is exempt from planning permission.

The controversial section, which Eoin Ó Leidhín, an electronic engineer and member of Rossport Solidarity Camp, described yesterday as “probably the most dangerous part” of the high-pressure link, led to a walkout at last year’s hearing and subsequent clashes between protesters, gardaí and Shell security.

Shell E&P Ireland’s senior counsel Esmonde Keane told the hearing that this section was deemed exempt from planning permission, and was laid under consents awarded by the Government in 2002 under the Gas Act.

Fr Nallen, along with Belmullet resident and retired teacher Ed Moran and Mr Ó Leidhín, pointed out that questions relating to this section had been raised when Bord Pleanála first opened its hearing in May 2009.

“In justice, people living locally need this information,” Fr Nallen told the inspector, Mr Nolan.

“At the last oral hearing, you asked us to bear with you,” Fr Nallen continued. “We are still bearing with you . . . and people are suffering in the meantime. We need absolute clarity.” People had been “badly treated by the agents of the State”, Fr Nallen added.

In a presentation on behalf of Shell, Ciarán Butler, technical director of RPS Consulting Engineers, said a major objective in the revised environmental impact statement was “to identify a construction method for Sruwaddacon Bay which would not have a significant impact on this designated conservation site whilst at the same time balancing community and project considerations”.

He said: “The route is at least 234m from existing dwellings. There is a significantly greater separation distance between existing dwellings and the route now proposed than was in the case with the previously approved route (70m) and the pipeline route proposed in 2009 (140m),” he said.

The new route involves boring a tunnel under the estuary, with an external diameter of 4.2m for a 508mm (20 inch) pipe. The new route will avoid lands at Rossport, Mr Butler said.

CORRIB GAS  CONSENT TIMELINE

1996: Corrib gas field discovery 83km off Mayo coast confirmed by Enterprise Energy Ireland.

April and May 2002: Development plan for Corrib gas field approved by minister, including construction of gas export pipeline, then exempted from planning, and signs 34 compulsory orders for access to land on the pipeline route. Shell takes over Enterprise Energy Ireland.

April 2003: An Bord Pleanála turns down application for onshore terminal at Ballinaboy, Co Mayo, due to health and safety concerns.

October 2004: New planning application for Corrib onshore terminal given final approval by planning board.

June 29th, 2005: Residents’ concerns over first proposed onshore pipeline route, exempt from planning, lead to jailing of Rossport Five for 94 days.

July 30th, 2005: Shell directed to dismantle an illegally constructed 3km section of onshore pipeline.

July 2006: Mediation fails to resolve dispute but subsequent report recommends pipeline route be modified to take it away from houses at Rossport.

November 2007: Restoration of special area of conservation ordered at Glengad following unauthorised drilling there during investigative work for revised pipeline route. Environmental Protection Agency issues licence for Ballinaboy terminal.

February 2009: Shell seeks permission for revised pipeline route avoiding houses in Rossport.

May 2009: Bord Pleanála hearing opens.

November 2009: Bord Pleanála deems half of modified route unacceptable due to proximity to housing, but gives approval in principle if alterations made.

May 31st, 2010: Third route under Sruwaddacon estuary applied for by Corrib gas partners.

SOURCE ARTICLE

By Alan Purkiss – Aug 25, 2010 6:36 AM GMT+0100

By a former employee of Shell Oil USA

John,

As you know, I am not fond of the way Shell normally operates, but in some ways I find the arguments over the safety of the proposed Corrib pipeline to be based on uninformed ignorance and border upon silly paranoia.

I can understand the heated arguments about resource development policy, licensing royalties, taxes, the route of the pipeline, etc. Nobody wants one in their back yard. And there are very legitimate concerns about environmental disturbances. All of those debates are worth engaging in.

But I do not understand the arguments about pipeline safety. The engineering world has decades worth of experience designing high and low pressure gas pipelines and knows how to build those things so that they are very safe operationally.

Here in the US there are literally tens of thousands of miles of buried gas pipeline. Some high pressure, some low pressure. Some of it is offshore, but most is onshore. They cross rivers, large and small, and cross mountain ranges, large and small. These pipelines have operated for decades with very few incidents of failure. Most problems come from construction accidents, where people dig up the smaller lines up my mistake.

It simply doesn’t pay the investors, Shell and their partners, to built and operate a pipeline in an unsafe manner. That would be criminally negligent and financially irresponsible. Shell and their partners are in this project for one reason and one reason only. To make money. Keep that in mind.

The protesters should focus on what is important.

MESSAGE FROM BILL CAMPBELL, RETIRED GROUP HSE AUDITOR, SHELL INTERNATIONAL

John

You may be interested in this, things are not getting better offshore and the figs for 2009/10 exclude the helicopter incident.

What should concerns offshore workers is that for example the operators or installations who are having the increase in gas releases are not highlighted in the HSE report.  It appears a fundamental weakness that you can find out how your local hospital is performing but not how the installation your friends or family are employed on is performing.  Despite pressure to provide specific data the HSE still produces general data masking from public scrutiny the worst offenders.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2010/hse-offshorestats.htm

RELATED DAILY TELEGRAPH ARTICLE

North Sea oil and gas companies have been taken to task about their safety record after a sharp increase in accidents to workers and oil and gas leaks from offshore installations.

By Roland Gribben
Published: 6:30AM BST 24 Aug 2010

Steve Walker, head of the Health and Safety Executive’s (HSE) offshore division, has bluntly told companies that their health and safety record covering 27,000 workers is “simply not good enough.”

He said: “The industry has shown it can do better and it must do in future.”

Tuesday, 24 August 2010

treehugger

by Daniel Kessler 08.23.10

While the Gulf Coast is just learning about the horrible impacts from oil drilling, the residents of Niger delta have completed a masterclass. For decades, the region has been beset by environmental devastation at the hands of Royal Dutch Shell, which has been harvesting crude oil in the delta while spilling untold amounts. But now a three-year investigation by the United Nations, funded by Shell, has almost entirely exonerated the oil giant from any wrong doing.

The investigation found that only 10 percent of oil pollution in Ogoniland in the Delta has been caused by company negligence. The rest, the report says, comes from damage done by locals performing sabotage and theft. That’s a bit like blaming a starving man for stealing a loaf of bread.

The damage done from oil drilling in the delta frist came to the world’s attention in 1995 when  Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other Ogoni leaders who were hanged by the Nigerian government after they organized peaceful protests against Shell.

When Americans think of oil importing, most think of Saudi Arabia, but the Niger delta supplies 40% of the crude oil imported here. Yet despite the huge wealth available from its natural resources, life expectancy in the delta is about 40 years old.

About the decision, Ben Amunwa of London-based oil watchdog group Platform said:

“The UNEP study relies on bogus figures from Shell and incomplete government records. Many Ogoni suspect that the report’s focus on sabotage and bunkering will be used to justify military repression notorious in the Niger delta, where non-violent activists, including Ken Saro-Wiwa, were executed.”

SOURCE ARTICLE

By Ogoni Activist Ben Ikari

Ogonis will reject any aspect of the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) report, which may conclude that the nationality is responsible for more than 90% of oil spills it’s assessed. This warning is coming before the planned report due for publication about December is erroneously celebrated.

And it’s a serious warning. Therefore the world should take note before UNEP’s coordinator, Mike Cowing conspires with $hell Oil and the Federal government of Nigeria (who are in joint-venture business and sponsoring this assessment) to dent Ogoni for whatever prize he may be given.

Obviously, who pays the piper dictates the pace. This is very much considering $hell historical fraudulent behavior and bids that corrupted people especially in Nigeria. It’s also true in a situation where the government which should have worked with experts, to bring effective and people-based result as the experience in America, is a partner in crime.

Meanwhile, my communication with Cowing will show a double-speaking. Implying he may have something to hide. Prior to this moment Ogoni had complained about the lack of due process on the part of UNEP-a complaint that was ignored.

According to an account by (AkanimoReport) titled: “Niger delta: Oil Spills Report Pits ERA Against UN, and dated August 12, “The forthcoming UN report will conclude that around 10 percent of the volume of oil spilled in the Niger Delta is attributable to equipment failures and negligence, and therefore the fault of the joint venture by Royal Dutch Shell and the Nigerian government.”

Furthermore, “The vast majority of the oil spilled into the Niger Delta was caused by the local population, through theft and sabotage linked to civil strife in the region,” the above report says.

And “A 2009 assessment by Shell concluded that 98 percent of the oil spilled in the Ogoniland region of the delta was caused by oil bunkering and deliberate attacks,” the report continued.

It’s this talking point that Cowing who claims to be independent is using (with science) for the most part to judge the Ogoni environment. And, he, like his sponsors is wrong. Although I wrote him an email on Jan. 6, asking to know the probability that both $hell and the Nigerian government (the financiers) could influence his decisions and actions. He refused to reply my mail.

When I raised the issues in Akanimo’s report in another mail to him on August 16, he first claim that, “It is not UNEP’s job to apportion responsibility for the numerous spills throughout Ogoniland. Rather, this is the responsibility of the regulators including NOSDRA, MoE and DPR.”

I argued that militancy and bunkering emerged in recent time, say about 2004. Whereas $hell had operated recklessly with impunity for almost 46 years. And that thousands of spills including the one at Ebubu Eleme of 1970, have occurred uncleaned in Ogoni. Also, that militancy and bunkering activities were as a result of corporate and government neglect, economic suicide forced on the people.

He’s asked if he’s distancing himself from Akanimo report, that of UNEP-Ogoni website, National Network News Vol. 7 No 23, June 16th-22nd 2010, and many others scattered online? he retracted somewhat.

On August 18, he said, “Clearly, illegal bunkering is a relatively new phenomenon, over the last ten years or so, and many historical spills are related to equipment failure.I am in no way distancing myself from what I have said, on record, but it is important to note where the figures come from – the Nigerian regulators (NOSDRA, MOE and DPR).” And also says, “What we see in the field does not contradict these official records.”

Ironically, he’s the same “expert” who claimed it isn’t UNEP’s duty to allocate responsibility to companies or communities for how much oil they spilled.

Finally, before $hell and the Nigerian government doctors UNEP under Cowing’s supervision to wrongfully blame Ogoni or Niger delta for most of the spills independent organizations (locally and internationally) have already found them responsible. I want the world to know that I’m (Ogoni) doubting Cowing’s honesty.

Going by his commentaries or press releases, which takes side with $hell and the government, Ogonis home and abroad will reject any portion of his (UNEP) report that force 90 or 98% of all spills which have occurred in more than 50 years on Ogoni.

• Oil giant blamed for 10% of 9m barrels leaked in 40 years
• Report claims rest of leaking oil caused by saboteurs

Sunday 22 August 2010 18.36 BST

John Vidal, environment editor

Oil pipelines in Okrika, near Port Harcourt. The UNEP denies it has been influenced by Shell, which paid for its $10m, three-year study. Photograph: Ed Kashi

A three-year investigation by the United Nations will almost entirely exonerate Royal Dutch Shell for 40 years of oil pollution in the Niger delta, causing outrage among communities who have long campaigned to force the multinational to clean up its spills and pay compensation.

The $10m (£6.5m) investigation by the UN environment programme (UNEP), paid for by Shell, will say that only 10% of oil pollution in Ogoniland has been caused by equipment failures and company negligence, and concludes that the rest has come from local people illegally stealing oil and sabotaging company pipelines.

The shock disclosure was made by Mike Cowing, the head of a UN team of 100 people who have been studying environmental damage in the region.

Cowing said that the 300 known oil spills in the Ogoniland region of the delta caused massive damage, but added that 90% of the spills had been caused by “bunkering” gangs trying to steal oil.

His comments, in a briefing in Geneva last week, have caused deep offence among the families of Ken Saro-Wiwa and the eight other Ogoni leaders who were hanged by the Nigerian government in 1995 after a peaceful uprising against Shell’s pollution.

With 606 oil fields, the Niger delta supplies 40% of the crude oil imported by the US. Life expectancy in its rural communities, half of which have no access to clean water, has fallen to little more than 40 over the past two generations.

Communities accept that bunkering has become rife in some areas of Ogoniland, but say this is a recent development and most of the historical pollution has been caused by Shell operations.

Last year, Amnesty calculated that the equivalent of at least 9m barrels of oil has been spilled in the delta over the past half a century, nearly twice as much as the 5m barrels unleashed in the Gulf of Mexico by the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

Tonight the investigation was accused of bias by Nigerians and environmental groups who said the study – paid for by Shell and commissioned by the Nigerian government, who both have massive oil interests in the region – was unbalanced.

Ben Ikari, an Ogoni activist, said: “Nobody from Ogoniland would be surprised, because the federal government of Nigeria and Shell are the same cabal that killed Ken Saro-Wiwa and others.”

Ben Amunwa of London-based oil watchdog group Platform said: “The UNEP study relies on bogus figures from Shell and incomplete government records. Many Ogoni suspect that the report’s focus on sabotage and bunkering will be used to justify military repression notorious in the Niger delta, where non-violent activists, including Ken Saro-Wiwa, were executed.”

Cowing defended the UN report. In a series of emails seen by the Guardian, he said: “UNEP is not responsible for allocating responsibility for the number of spills being found in Ogoniland. Rather, we are focusing on the science. The figures referred to are those of the ministry of the environment and the department of petroleum resources.

“This is a Nigerian issue, not a UNEP issue. However, I would add that from our extensive field work throughout Ogoniland we have witnessed, on a daily basis, very large scale bunkering operations.

“It’s very controversial. We cannot say whether a particular spill is from one cause or another. Our observation is that there is a serious [bunkering ] problem. I am being seen to be siding with the oil companies, but I am not.

“We were provided with the official spill site list. This is given by the oil companies themselves but is endorsed by the [government] agencies. We are not on the side of the oil companies.”

He denied the UN was being influenced by Shell or the government. “We believe that it is correct that Shell [Nigeria] fund the study, as this is in compliance with the internationally accepted norm of the ‘polluter pays’. No party … will be able to influence the science.”

The full report, due to be published by December, is expected to warn of an environmental catastrophe.

“This is not directly comparable to the spills that occurred in the Gulf [of Mexico],” said Cowing. “But we have a serious and profound problem.”

Tonight, environmental groups expressed shock at the report. Nnimmo Bassey, chair of Friends the Earth International and director of Environmental Rights Action, Nigeria’s leading environment group, said: “It is incredible that the UN says that 90% is caused by communities. The UNEP assessment is being paid for by Shell. Their conclusions may be tailored to satisfy their client. We monitor spills regularly and our observation is the direct opposite of what UNEP is planning to report.”

A June 2009 report by Amnesty International called the damage in the delta a “human rights tragedy”, and blamed the government and oil firms, mainly Shell, for years of pollution. It recognised that oil bunkering had caused spills, but said “the scale of this problem is not clear”.

The UN report saw more than 1,000 soil and water tests and other investigations carried out, and hundreds of communities consulted. The data generated is the first step towards a massive clean-up.

Oil production in the delta started during the 1950s, but was suspended in the 90s due to unrest. The oil fields in Ogoniland have since remained dormant.

SOURCE ARTICLE

RELATED ARTICLE BY OGONI ACTIVIST BEN IKARI:

Ogoni Will Reject UNEP Assessment Report

The plant was built in 1977 by Shell… Dozens of former employees of the plant have been diagnosed with prostate, thyroid and other types of cancer, circulatory, liver and intestinal illnesses, as well as infertility and sexual impotence, the statement added.

Caracas, Saturday August 21,2010

SAO PAULO – A Brazilian court has ordered the local units of Basf SE and Royal Dutch Shell Plc to pay 1.1 billion reais ($628 million) to cover the cost of medical treatment and compensation for former workers made ill by toxic substances.

The sentence, which can be appealed, was handed down by Judge Maria Ines Correa de Cerqueira Cesar of the labor court in Paulinia, Sao Paulo state, where a pesticide plant operated between 1977-2002.

The judge ordered the companies to pay the cost of medical treatment for all of plant’s former workers, as well as for the children of employees or contractors who were born during or after the time their parents worked at the factory.

Each of the beneficiaries of the court’s ruling is to receive 64,500 reais ($36,860) and the companies also must pay 622.2 million reais ($355 million) in collective compensation for “moral damages,” to be deposited in the Worker Protection Fund.

“The companies must assume an approximate total cost of 1.1 billion reais,” the judge said.

The two companies also were given five days beginning Thursday to publish a statement on TV networks inviting former workers and their descendants to present health records showing they were affected by the contamination, while Basf also must do the same in a pair of large-circulation dailies on two Sundays.

The Labor Prosecutor’s Office said in a statement that more than 1,000 workers at the plant and hundreds of their relatives will benefit from the ruling.

The plant was built in 1977 by Shell and sold in 1994 to American Cyanamid. That latter company was acquired in 2002 by Germany’s Basf, which closed the plant two years later.

Following initial complaints, soil studies confirmed that the area’s subsoil water had been contaminated by highly carcinogenic substances and significant quantities of chromium, vanadium and zinc.

Dozens of former employees of the plant have been diagnosed with prostate, thyroid and other types of cancer, circulatory, liver and intestinal illnesses, as well as infertility and sexual impotence, the statement added. EFE

SOURCE ARTICLE

BASF said the ruling was “absurd,” as the contamination was “caused and acknowledged by Shell,” according to the report.

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

AUGUST 21, 2010

A Brazilian court has fined the local units of Royal Dutch Shell PLC (RDSA, RDSA.LN) and BASF SE (BASFY, BAS.XE) a total of BRL1.1 billion ($654 million) in compensation and medical costs to workers who were harmed by contamination at an agricultural chemicals plant in Paulinia, Sao Paulo, the O Estado de Sao Paulo newspaper reported on Saturday.

Studies in the area around the Paulinia unit showed the presence of heavy metals in soil and subterranean water, according to Estado.

The Paulinia unit was built by Shell in the late 1970s and was sold to Cyanamid in 1992, according to the report. BASF later bought Cyanamid and shut the Paulinia plant down in 2002. The ruling covers former employees of all three companies.

BASF and Shell said they will appeal the decision, according to the report. BASF said the ruling was “absurd,” as the contamination was “caused and acknowledged by Shell,” according to the report. Shell said there was no “technical evidence” to suggest that there were any problems that could have harmed people’s health, the report said.

-Dow Jones Newswires; +55 11 3544 7082; brazil@dowjones.com

WSJ SOURCE ARTICLE