Royal Dutch Shell Plc  .com Rotating Header Image

Award for deadly Corrib Gas Project

screen-shot-2016-11-08-at-10-45-54

Protesters campaigning against the controversial Corrib Gas Project in Ireland: Photo courtesy of Shell to Sea.com

By John Donovan

It does seem odd that The Corrib Onshore Gas Pipeline has been voted Engineering Project of the Year at this years Engineers Ireland Awards.

I say this bearing in mind the news just months ago that two of the construction firms involved in the project face trial over a workplace death that occurred. See the Irish Times report below.

screen-shot-2016-11-07-at-14-41-31

Corrib companies charged over gas tunnel death

Two construction firms face trial over fatal workplace incident at Co Mayo project

Lorna Siggins: Wed, Jun 8, 2016

Two construction companies have had charges brought against them following a fatal workplace incident almost three years ago at the Corrib gas tunnel project in Co Mayo.

German-born hydraulic technician Lars Wagner (26) died during work on the 4.8km tunnel under Sruwaddacon estuary on September 8th, 2013.

The incident was investigated by the Health and Safety Authority (HSA).

Proceedings are being brought against BAM Civil Ltd and Wayss and Freytag, Ingenieurbau AG, both of which were under contract to carry out the tunnel construction project for the Corrib gas partners.

Both companies are charged with several breaches of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005.

Trial

State solicitor for Mayo Vincent Deane told the court that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) had consented to a trial, and he requested that the matter be sent forward to a sitting of Castlebar Circuit Criminal Court.

Judge Alan Mitchell sent the matter forward for trial at Castlebar Circuit Criminal Court on June 21st.

Judge Mitchell issued an alibi warning to both companies under Section 20 of the Criminal Justice Act 1984.

This section allows for a 14-day notification period in the event that the defence intends to call evidence tending to show the accused “was not or was unlikely to have been” at the place where the offence is alleged to have been committed.

SOURCE

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: