Shell shut down at Bellanaboy

by info Fri Apr 13, 2007 23:12

The oral hearings are being held to allow objectors to the granting of a IPPC license to have an airing of their concerns, and for them to engage in debate with shell on the detail of the project.
The oral hearings itself has ne bearing on the construction of the refinery, shell are free to finish the refinery and the pipeline from the gas-well, but without a IPPC license/permit they will be unable to operate the refinery.
unless someone or group (S2S) produces new evidence to show the emissions from the refinery will/might cause environmental damage, the oral hearing will be just a formality, and shell will get a IPPC license.

by katiem - none Fri Apr 13, 2007 22:58

can someone please explain exactly what this hearing is about, and what the result will mean to each side. Does the future of the project depend on the outcome? I know that building work has begun at the terminal site, and that peat is being removed, but how much more work are Shell allowed to do? At what stage will they have to stop until further permissons are granted? Sorry if this all sounds very ignorant, but I would just like to be clear on how far things have gone, and how much further they can go at this moment. Thanks.

by one week Sun Apr 08, 2007 14:51

Only one week until the oral hearings, there all sides can show the proof they have to support their claims,

by ok tell us Sun Apr 08, 2007 14:45

well guess who, if you can explain the results then go ahead.

by guess who Wed Apr 04, 2007 21:59

Ok JM
I have taken the bait, explain the test result to me? (just remember, I listen to news and read newspapers!).
Now explain to us what that paper shows, and try do it without getting carried away!.

And if mayo,Co.Co explanition of the reading was lies, you tell us the truth.

by JM Wed Apr 04, 2007 20:53 Rossport

Copy of certificate on drinking water test on Belmullet supply, January 23rd 2007

Health Service Executive - drinking water test result

by guess who Tue Apr 03, 2007 20:37

"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing"
why not investigate the facts.
Do you honestly believe that if the scare stories were true, and anywhere near as serious as shell to sea are saying, that JM and the rest of the S2S experts would not be delighted to have the opportunity to show the EPA and the government the damage that is being done to the people of erris by aluminium poisoning?.
I am not disputing the fact that there is high aluminium levels in the run-off from the site.
the vast majority is in the suspended solids in the water (dobe) which is easily filtered out.
But it never gets past the treatment plant ( where aluminium is often added to water to aid in the treatment) .
Do you or anybody else honestly believe that our drinking water is dangerous because of this ?
JM knows, and lots of other S2S experts also knows that even if the levels were hundreds of times higher it is very easy to remove it at the treatment plant!
Is there one person with credentials who says that the drinking water in erris may be unsafe to drink? (no).
Now In Galway there is experts in the field shouting from the rooftops saying it is unsafe to drink the contaminated tap-water (and that bug only gives you an upset tummy).
For god sakes people cop on, this is another attempt at gathering support for their faltering campaign.

below are some links to justify my claims, read them and learn.

Here is one exert from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_purification

Coagulation and flocculation
Together, coagulation and flocculation are clarification methods that work by using chemicals which effectively "glue" small suspended particles together, so that they settle out of the water or stick to sand or other granules in a granular media filter. Many of the suspended water particles have a negative electrical charge. The charge keeps particles suspended because they repel similar particles. Coagulation works by eliminating the natural electrical charge of the suspended particles so they attract and stick to each other. The joining of the particles so that they will form larger settleable particles is called flocculation. The larger formed particles are called floc. The coagulation chemicals are added in a tank (often called a rapid mix tank or flash mixer), which typically has rotating paddles. In most treatment plants, the mixture remains in the tank for 10 to 30 seconds to ensure full mixing. The amount of coagulant that is added to the water varies widely due to the different source water quality.
One of the more common coagulants used is (ALUMINUM sulfate), sometimes called filter alum. Aluminum sulfate reacts with water to form flocs of aluminium hydroxide.
Coagulation with aluminum compounds may leave a residue of aluminium in the finished water. This is normally about 0.1 to 0.15 mg/L. It has been theorized that Aluminium can be toxic to humans at high concentrations.
Iron(II) sulfate or iron (III) chloride are other common coagulants. Iron(III) coagulants work over a larger pH range than aluminum sulfate but are not effective with many source waters. Other benefits of iron(III) are lower costs and in some cases slightly better removal of natural organic contaminants from some waters. Coagulation with iron compounds typically leaves a residue of iron in the finished water. This may impart a slight taste to the water, and may cause brownish stains on porcelain fixtures. The trace levels of iron are not harmful to humans, and indeed provide a needed trace mineral. Because the taste and stains may lead to customer complaints, aluminium tends to be favoured over iron for coagulation.
Cationic and other polymers can also be used. They are often called coagulant aids used in conjunction with other inorganic coagulants. The long chains of positively charged polymers can help to strengthen the floc making it larger, faster settling and easier to filter out. The main advantages of polymer coagulants and aids are that they do not need the water to be alkaline to work and that they produce less settled waste than other coagulants, which can reduce operating costs. The drawbacks of polymers are that they are expensive, can blind sand filters and that they often have a very narrow range of effective doses.

another extract from http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/water-eau/drink-potab/a....html
Drinking water
Most surface water treatment plants in Canada use aluminum in the form of alum (aluminum sulphate) to help remove harmful waterborne microorganisms and other particles by causing them to clump together (coagulate) into larger particles that are then easily removed by sedimentation and filtration. This process also removes naturally-occurring organic matter present in water, reducing the formation of disinfection by-products. Disinfection by-products result from the reaction between chemicals used for disinfection (e.g., chlorine) and naturally occurring organic matter, and they may cause cancer.

Since the alum added into the treatment process is largely removed at a later stage, the average aluminum content in treated water is only slightly higher than in untreated water. Thus, the intake of aluminum in drinking water generally amounts to less than 5% of the total daily intake for an adult. Actual intake may vary widely across the country depending on the general quality of the source water (including the natural presence of aluminum in the water), the treatment processes employed and the operating efficiency of the treatment plant.

And if there is any scientists among you, have a lok at the next link!

http://www.oki.com/en/otr/downloads/otr-160-13.pdf

by Etain - . Tue Apr 03, 2007 19:43

Job Title: Electrical Engineer - Mayo
Location: See job description
Remuneration: Negotiable
Duration: Permanent

Purpose of Post:
Mercury Engineering require a Junior Electrical Engineer for a large multi-million euro natural Gas terminal project in the West of Ireland. This role initially will be based out of our offices in Dublin reporting to the Electrical Contracts Manager

by McCabe Tue Apr 03, 2007 16:11

of Carrowmore Lough! This issue is about every1's future health & welfare - & their kids' - come to Bellanaboy & join the action.
Shell shld not be able to act as arrogantly as they do in ANY country - do u want them polluting & poisoning yours?

by guess who Sun Apr 01, 2007 18:52

JM if you admit that the points you have outlined above are of little use in preventing the granting of a IPPC licence by the EPA, why did S2S request an oral hearing?
Do you not admit it will be counterproductive to your campaign?
Would you also admit that the Campaign has lost public support, and that Dr cowley and Gerry Murray have lost electoral support because of their connection with your group!
On a side issiue of phone tapping, Dr cowley and mark garavin are both educated men, yet Dr cowley asked the minister , "if his phone was tapped".
Surely he, and the rest of S2S realises that even if the phones were tapped, and the minister was aware of it, the minister couldn't possibly acknowledge it.
As if he had on this occasion, me, you and everybody on the planet would have the same privilege, now I don't know how you would feel about murders/drug-dealers/organised crime members, ect having the privilege of being informed if phones were being tapped.
I am not implying for a second that the S2S group are involved in anything near as serious as the examples outlined above, but I hope you see where I am coming from!
Cynics among us might think Dr Cowley is using this as a PR exercise to boost his dwindling support.

by JM Sun Apr 01, 2007 17:28 Rossport

The above data is just a snapshot of some of the analyses, including something from Shell, that already exists. I agree that it would be a waste of time and energy nit-picking every point, especially when the list is neither exhaustive or entirely relevent to the EPA proceedings.

A better angle of attack for those brooding on how to beat ShellToSea would be to draw up a list of those supporting the current project, outlining both their expertise and interest in the development.

Until then, see you at Bellanaboy..

by Guess who Sat Mar 31, 2007 20:21

ok "shoot" besides me wasting my valuable time and resources, why don't you pick two points of what you see as a good argument to convince the EPA (or anybody else) why the IPPC license should be refused!
Just remember within what parameters the EPA has influence!
I promise to be gentle while I bust your bubble!

by Guess why Sat Mar 31, 2007 13:25

"I can go through "all"of the points you outline, one by one,and show you how those details are irrelevant to the oral hearing, or incorrect, (but I'm sure you know that"

So why don't you do it then? Asserting that you can deal with the arguments is not the same as dealing with them.

by guess who Sat Mar 31, 2007 10:06

Well JM You certainly told them, it must have taken you quite some time to compile and post that reply.
Now that you have "all" of the damning data before you on the screen, why don't you stand back, and have a good look at it.
Is there one Thing in that entire post that has a hope of convincing the EPA to refuse the IPPC license?
Where is the expert opinion/proof that the proposed emissions to air or sea will be harmful to local environments?
Is that not what S2S is all about, "protecting us from the emissions which will kill our kids, cause all sorts of cancers,ruin our fishing community, make our beaches unsafe to visit, make our fish un-saleable?
This is what you need to emphasize to The EPA, if you want the License to be refused!
I don't think the EPA has any control over the pipeline route, your friends in the EIFA are in the same boat (if you pardon the pun), they are going to insist that the discharge is going to cause untold damage to fish stocks and the marine environment, but even their "own scientist" predicts that even if the discharge was released untreated, it would not cause any serious risk to fish or environment.
You know that Kevin Moore - An Bord Pleanala Senior Inspector, was referring to the first application from shell (where they proposed to store the peat onsite!)
You also know the rest of your data refers to the high pressure pipe, which will be rerouted
I can go through "all"of the points you outline, one by one,and show you how those details are irrelevant to the oral hearing, or incorrect, (but I'm sure you know that already!)

And to really compound things you finish with a photo of a newspaper report, claiming shells reputation offshore "takes a hammering"

OFFSHORE, is that not where S2S wants to put them here?

by JM Sat Mar 31, 2007 00:42 Rossport

Proposed Corrib development - some “expert” analyses

Advantica - third government-appointed report on pipeline safety
* conceded report had very narrow terms of reference
* recommended pipeline pressure be reduced to 144bar, but admitted their figures are only valid up to 120bar; they are based on two experiments at just 60bar (usual land pipeline pressure)
* “Because of the high pressure, the consequences of a failure are potentially very severe, and there is therefore the potential for several people to be harmed in an incident at any location along the pipeline. In order to take this into account, societal risk should also have been evaluated ... before granting consent." Independent Safety Review April 2006

AEA Technologies - 2nd government-appointed report on pipeline safety
* AEAT found to have previously worked for Shell; report scrapped

Dr Dave Aldridge - former US Navy explosives expert
* concluded catastrophic system failure and explosion consequences likely
* “Extreme overpressure of the pipeline… is recognised as a third potential failure mode… this gives a failure rate of once per 12.82 years.” October 2005

An Bord Pleanala - national planning appeals authority
* eventually passed project against it’s own technical advice following lobbying by Shell [see also Kevin Moore]

David M. Ball - hydrogeologist consulted by An Bord Pleanala
* expressed concerns over ground stability at Bellanaboy
* “He [Ball] concludes that the development has been proposed for the wrong site.” Kevin Moore April 2003

Professor Werner Blau - professor of physics, Trinity College, Dublin
* concluded risk analysis allowed for over 120 deaths on Corrib as “acceptable” to developers, showing inadequacies in purely “desktop” studies [see also Richard B. Kuprewicz]

British Pipeline Agency - first government-appointed report on pipeline safety
* BPA found to be half-owned by Shell; report scrapped

Peter Cassells - government appointed mediator
* produced highly questionable report without any mandate to do so
* misrepresented opinions of local population
* recommended a technical proposal without any scientific basis

Leo Corcoran - former Bord Gais engineer
* concluded Corrib project proceeded illegally, i.e. no code of practice was specified
* “The chosen site for the terminal… is totally unsuitable and indicates that the necessary and appropriate planning, design and consultation for a project of this importance was not carried out” 30th June 2006 [see also An Taisce]

CPI - Centre for Public Inquiry - produced a report on “The Great Corrib Gas Controversy”
* highlighted technical flaws on the Corrib project [see also Richard B. Kuprewicz]
* “The conclusions of this study raise serious questions about the manner in which the Corrib gas project has proceeded in relation to its planning and legislative aspects.” November 2005

Environmental Protection Agency - statutory body regulating environmental risks
* currently assessing Shell application for pollution license
* highly questionable track record on environmental enforcement

European Commission - EU watchdog body
* charged Ireland with breaching EU Habitats Directive for allowing the Corrib project to proceed through Broadhaven Bay SAC [see also University College Cork]

Richard B. Kuprewicz - President of US pipeline consulting firm “Accufacts Inc.”
* called into question validity of QRA methodology as relied on by Shell
* concluded Bellanaboy site is unsuitable for current project [see also CPI]
* “The Gas Processing Plant placement greatly influences risks associated with the onshore pipeline.” for CPI Report October 2005

Mayo County Council - local planning authority
* repeatedly passed project without verifiable independent technical advice
* repeatedly failing to effectively monitor water pollution activities
* currently facilitating further Bellanaboy site works and ignoring environmental concerns

Kevin Moore - An Bord Pleanala Senior Inspector
* severely critical of developer’s response to information requests by An Bord
* “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.” April 2003

Dr Alex Rogers - School of Ocean & Earth Science, University of Southampton
* In his report on Corrib concluded that (among other things) “All environmental surveys carried out in the marine habitat were inadequate… The Bellanaboy Terminal will have a dramatic impact on the rural, non-industrialised area of NW Mayo... Production of small amounts of toxic chemicals in air discharges maybe more significant than production of large quantities of greenhouse gases to the local population.”

Peter Rossington B.Sc. (Hons) M.R.S.C. -
* “...Enterprise Oil are promoting the Ballinaboy terminal as a state of the art facility… the proposed terminal is far from being state of the art and does not incorporate technology that will minimise emissions, or maximise energy efficiency.” critique of Corrib methodology 2001

RPS - Rural Planning Services, newly-appointed pipeline consultants for Shell
* have admitted they have no experience in production pipelines (Corrib)
* conceded public consultation should be carried out before planning

Shell Exploration & Production Ireland Ltd (SEPIL) - Corrib gas developers
* 45% majority share of Corrib gas
* “We did not believe an offshore platform was viable before [Advantica]. We do not believe it is viable now.” SEPIL MD Andy Pyle May 2006

An Taisce - The National Trust for Ireland
* raised concerns over absence of code of practice [see also Leo Corcoran]
* highlighted potential impacts on Broadhaven Bay and Carrowmore Lake
“...the Government could be found to be in breach of EU directive 98/30 and its replacement 2003/55, covering authorisations for building and operating natural gas facilities.” Irish Times June 2006

University College Cork - conducted marine mammal survey on Broadhaven Bay
* “Broadhaven Bay SAC and its neighbouring coastal waters undoubtedly represent an important area for marine mammals and other species. There are few, if any, comparable examples of a relatively small, discrete bay in Ireland containing all five Annex II marine mammal species with such frequency.” Final Project Report March 2003 [see also European Commission]

by a very silly idea Fri Mar 30, 2007 20:35

I don't know where you were with the last few years,
but if you were on this planet you would know, Shell to sea and qualified experts don't often agree, (on anything).
If they produced anybody more expert than "jm" or "coolj" it would be a miracle.
they (and the rest of us) are well aware, that the ranting about water/emissions unstable-bog and everything else they decide to invent, is total fiction.

by why not Fri Mar 30, 2007 13:29

I see from the EPA website, the lobster fishermen are bring an expert over from the uk to repersent them at the oral hearing, http://www.epa.ie/licences/lic_eDMS/090151b28016a518.pdf

Would it not be a perfect oppurtunity for s2s to do similar? if they had a reputable expert speak for them at the hearing, and prove to shell/EPA /goverment and the general public, that the water in carramore is being contanimated by shells works.
action would have to be taken!
If the members of s2s, without the credintals or qualifacitions, try to use this issiue at the hearings, they will be silenced by the scientests from shell and the EPA, because of their lack of expertise in the field!

by North Dublin activist - Eirigi Fri Mar 30, 2007 05:18

Why not instead of sitting at your keyboards you all go down to Mayo like the rest of us and do something, you (keyboard revolutionaries) are not helping the cause by blabbing on a website.

We need bodies down there showing all involved (gov, shell, gardaí and coount councils) that this movement has serious back up in the population, above all the people of this small community need to know they have support to continue their fight for their rights against these mncs, corrupt co.cos and govs...

The longer we talk the less we do!!!

by pete bog - tnc corcaí Wed Mar 28, 2007 12:31

yet another reason why shell should feck off -
interesting article from the B.B.C.

by cool j Wed Mar 28, 2007 03:59

i suggest Pat check out the aluminium levels in discharges entering the Bellanoboy river from Shell's site on the MayoCC intranet-site in Belmullet. The latest figures from last month show shocking concentrations of ALuminium, in some cases approaching a horrific 5000 ug/l(target as set out by EPA should be less than 200) being discharged. Indeed a number of reports said levels were so high that they were off the scale showing that last weeks invasion of the site was more than justified as both Shell and their state goons once more demonstrate their utter disregard for the environment and local peoples health.

Interestingly Pat figures also show elevated levels in streams whose catchements have been badly damaged by works associated with the rushed laying of bord gais pipes and roads last year in association with Shell's proposed refinery. A number of complaints were lodged with MCC and the Fisheries board over the failure of Roadbridge to follow agreed procedures to minimise run-off(no suprise there!!) which lead to uncontrolled discharges all over these water-sheds. On a number of occasions Shells contractor - Roadbridge were caught red-handed using slurry tankers to pump polluted effluent directly into streams feeding Carrowmore lake and the Owenmore river.

Yet more uncomfortable facts for Shell's cheerleaders!!

by Evidence?? Tue Mar 27, 2007 19:49

If your friends are getting sediment in their tap water they should contact the water works and if they have only being using a filter in the last while how can they tell it wasnt there before hand?..unless they are taking their tap water from the ditch I dont think they should worry.

You should really look at the report mentioned above.

by Pat Tue Mar 27, 2007 19:42

Let me just post this....

I've looked at the report mentioned above
AVERAGE Aluminium concentration in streams feeding into Carrowmore Lake

128ug/l - Bel2 (downstream from site (includes drainage from site))
162 - Aghoos River
314 - Glenturk Beg
202 - Cloontakilla
92 - Glenkilla

Its true there is elevated aluminium in the drainage from the site, that is to be expected but overall it is only contributing to a tiny fraction to the total input of aluminium into the lake.

MYTH BUSTED!!!

by chrissie Tue Mar 27, 2007 19:25

Friends I met near Bellanaboy have been using a jug water-filter for their tapwater since they moved there. In the last 2 years they have been finding a brown sediment in the filter.
It's time to stop squabbling & get some action. How has the local MEP responded to the environmental concerns?
Supporters, please pledge to do something for the S2S cause every day if possible, failing that, every other day. Spread the word wherever you can.
Victory to the people of Erris!

by amadan watcher Tue Mar 27, 2007 10:02

It makes me smile to read the posts from some people.
They dont need to prove anything, they can claim what they want, and we are expected to beleive it.

"the levels were over twice the maxim allowable in drinking water" do you know anybody that drinks drainwater from a building site?
even if the water reaches the lake the dilution with the lakewater will dilute it millions of times!

A previous poster suggested , why not sample other inputs to the lake (where shell has nothing to do with) then if the data from those drains/streams show little or no aluminum, you have a strong case to suggest shell may be responsible for the levels in the lake, (but of course you are well aware that these tests have already been done and they show aluminum levels are naturally occuring in the catchment area feeding the lake).
I am glad you arent on jury duty in a court of law, you would hang anybody who you didnt like/agree with.
Now please grow up, and dont think everybody are foolish eneough to beleive what you say.

by maire Tue Mar 27, 2007 09:39

Human health and the EPA oral hearing: I would not put much faith in the EPA taking note of your concerns, government policy and industrial protection rules O.K. with the EPA. Human health is way way down on their heirarchy.

by EN Tue Mar 27, 2007 09:23

Or they are making a joke at the expense of the fact that people like you keep asking for proof which is impossible to get, which nobody has or would have, yet you accept Mayo County Council and Shell's assurances that the water is safe quite happily.

by amadan watcher Tue Mar 27, 2007 07:49

"Yes, of course, the fact that the aluminium levels were low BEFORE Shell's removal of the surface peat began and became high AFTER the work proves nothing in itself."

It was cynic, that posted the above claim, if it is true, and he/she isnt just trying to scare people, then they must have or know of proof of that claim.

I think it isnt too much to ask, for them to make this proof available to the EPA at the oral hearing , so as the people of ireland can se the real picture of whats going on!

(on the other hand cynic and amadan might be the same person, trying to convince people that shell are poisining the water supply ,but have no data to prove anything.
and are just trowing mud hoping some will stick!)

by sherlock Tue Mar 27, 2007 02:53

Sarcasm can be hard to spot.

I think it is possible that you're gently being told that it is idiotic to suggest that those arguing in favour of the project are ever going to accept how bad the situation is, and will keep asking and asking for more and more proof, requesting data that no one could possibly have, trying to present the opposition to this scheme as the ones with the problem (and all the while Shell are wrecking the environment like they do everywhere else...).

by amadan watcher Tue Mar 27, 2007 00:05

amadan are you sure of that address.
why dont you just post it here, it would be a pity to have spent years gathering it , and now when its neded you wont post it.

But wait , I just had an idea, why dont you save it and produce it at the oral hearing in belmulllet in april!
it will make quite a story,

by Idiot baiter Mon Mar 26, 2007 22:42

Of course I have data and, my dear fellow, by all means you can see it.

I have been at the important work of collecting readings on Aluminium from the rivers and lakes of the world for many years now, and just waiting for someone to ask me for it.

Of course, there was no reason for me to do this, and no one asked me to. It was purely my own initiative.

Lucky for you that I was carrying out this work though isn't it, since without it you and the other people who have faith in Shell would be unable to accept that the enormously high levels of aluminium in the water are not naturally occurring.

You'd be forced to accept Shell's version, and spend time undermining the genuine concerns of people who are finding it more difficult to come to terms with this company, which has a rather unwholesome record regarding environmental concerns, and a rather creative attitude to the idea of the sanctity of human life.

To get a copy of my findings, send a stamped address envelope to :
Amadán
1 Sráid Aibreann
Baile Atha Cliath

by another cynic Mon Mar 26, 2007 20:10

"Yes, of course, the fact that the aluminium levels were low BEFORE Shell's removal of the surface peat began and became high AFTER the work proves nothing in itself. "

Can you produce that data?
you are the first person to claim to have data to prove the levels were lower before siteworks began!

Can we please,please see it?

by Cynic Mon Mar 26, 2007 18:54

Yes, of course, the fact that the aluminium levels were low BEFORE Shell's removal of the surface peat began and became high AFTER the work proves nothing in itself.

It could have been something else entirely, like witchcraft, or it could have happened naturally by simple coincidence.

Testing the other areas won't prove anything either really, since there is nothing to PROVE that the refinery work is having any effect on the Aluminium levels, it could be happening by itself.

Every river and lake in Ireland should be tested to compare whether Aluminium levels can increase by themselves.

Of course, the fact that this is not happening anywhere else PROVES nothing.

Really, you'd have to be vey gullible to take on trust the fact that it CAN"T spontaneously happen without outside interference.

Therefore every river in thhe world should be tested. Continously. At regular intervals. FOR EVER.

Then we'll know for sure. Won't we?

by Ciaran Callaghan - DCU Mon Mar 26, 2007 18:41

Lee is only being correct.

Whats the point in half measures? These figures wont be taken seriously unless they are fully proven. Unless you do as he says - ie, take measurements from unaffected tributaries, no one can prove that Shell has worsened the Al levels.

by troll Mon Mar 26, 2007 17:07

Lee, it is ovbious you are a shell troll

by Lee Mon Mar 26, 2007 15:30

It’s obvious that the data shows that Aluminium levels are higher than the action and trigger level set points. What I would like to know is what are the aluminium levels in other tributaries in the Carrowmore lake catchment area. I suppose the question is are these levels high as a direct result of Shells construction activities or are they normal for the area? Lets not get too exited until we compare like with like.

by cool j Sat Mar 24, 2007 16:45

"I think the EPA and the NWRFB and MCC would be the first to act if they thought it was a real threat." - Maybe you are one of the very few simpletons left that haven't realised that these government organs are joined at the hip with Shell - Wakey Wakey!!!

MCC in particular have been covering up for Shell form day one ably assisted by the Fisheries board. The County Mangers - Des Mahon - has an obvious interest in the current project since his son's company will be doing the catering for Shell workers at the Bellanaboy site.

by Supporter Sat Mar 24, 2007 15:30

For clarity, could you interpret those graphs in plain language please JM.

Regards.

by JM Sat Mar 24, 2007 13:30 Rossport

Graphical representation of monitoring results for Bellanaboy Aluminium discharge 2007

Mayo County Council's reporting of Shell results can be downloaded here
http://www.mayococo.ie/en/News/GasTerminal/Environmenta...2007/

Project Monitoring Committee's interpretation of results can be downloaded here
http://www.mayococo.ie/en/News/GasTerminal/MinutesofMon...orts/

More to follow...

Monitoring results - January 2007

Monitoring results - February 2007

Monitoring results - March 2007

by Aluminium Concern Sat Mar 24, 2007 11:38

It would be helpful to make public the local readings being obtained and to have a standard included.
This is serious and local verifiable evidence tn the public domain and on posters etc would be very useful.

by Mark C Sat Mar 24, 2007 09:34

Well done, indeed to all involved here. I've added a few links on the Corrib issus to my blog; hopefully some of my students will continue to take note.

Mark.

by Jim Fri Mar 23, 2007 15:14

This is scientfic information about the loads of aluminium into Carrowmore lake from natural sources and the toxicity potential.... Science doesnt change over the course of a year. I suggest you read it again. I think the EPA and the NWRFB and MCC would be the first to act if they thought it was a real threat.

This scare mongering is rediculous....

by Updater Fri Mar 23, 2007 14:49

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/81619

by Maura Harrington - S2S; Davitt League Fri Mar 23, 2007 13:46

Jim - wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy out of date in both similar comments on both threads!!
Shell pollution and Mayo Co Co facilitation moves on apace ...

by Jim Fri Mar 23, 2007 13:22

www.mayococo.ie/en/News/GasTerminal/MinutesofMonitoringCommitteeMeetings/AssociatedReports/PDFFile,1641,en.pdf

you may need to cut and paste this link as it is too large for the 'related links' box

pgs 23 to 26

by Jim Fri Mar 23, 2007 13:15

Anyone concerned about the aluminium issue and does not have any chemical or environmental background should read the following report.

Follow the link to the report and scroll to pgs 23 to 26

by Clare Shell to Sea Fri Mar 23, 2007 10:40 clareshelltosea at gmail dot com

Clare Shell to Sea meeting in Ennis last night was delighted to hear report of this action which had just taken place in the preceeding hours.

We support you.

'Our Story - The Rossport Five' book launch at 6pm, Friday 30 March at Sceal Eile Bookshop, Ennis, Co Clare.

by cool j Thu Mar 22, 2007 22:44

Mayo Co. Co. own figures from last year show the water is way over safety levels for Aluminium concentrations - and that was before the current much more dire situation on the ground at Bellanaboy as anyone you has taken time to visit recently can attest too!!!

by EC Thu Mar 22, 2007 22:34

Aluminium testing kits are not all that easy to come by. One of the Shell to Sea people has one, which he uses to monitor the water discharged from the site. Incidently we did a test on the water in our kitchen sink and aluminium levels were over the WHO allowed levels.

by Thinking Thu Mar 22, 2007 21:48

the kitchen sink in any house in erris fed by carramore lake would be the best place to preform a test on the water!
I am surprised nobody from S2S has thought of travelling around erris doing random tests on tapwater?
Is it because they know the results would prove them wrong?

by cool j Thu Mar 22, 2007 20:21

But just shows how corrupt and rotten the officialdom of Mayo Co. Co. are. While contamination of water supplies in Galway is treated quiet rightly as a county emergency - here in Mayo the county manager and his underlings continue to stand idly by as Carrowmore lake becomes more polluted by the day. Highlights the contempt with which the state views the people in this part of Ireland.

by ciaran c Thu Mar 22, 2007 19:43

Never fail to be impressed by folks down there, brilliant.

by Chrissie Thu Mar 22, 2007 18:49

Good work! It had to be done, as no-one else (Gov't, Shell, Mayo Co Council) will address the environmental concerns arising from the pollution caused to the water supply (& that's only for starters). Trific - congratulations to the spirited activists defending the land & sea there. More power to them!

by p.s. - tír na gcasta Thu Mar 22, 2007 18:37

mo ceol thú! ó gach daoine i gcorcaigh - shell chun sáile corcaí.

by Caoimhe - Dublin S2S Thu Mar 22, 2007 18:33

Great news. Fair play to all involved.

by Tanya and Sarah - tresspassers annonymus Thu Mar 22, 2007 18:28

Fair play to ye, remember twas coilte land they stole so really we own it , actually I own it and you have my full taxpayers permission to stay there as long as you like.

by Cormac - Dublin S2S Thu Mar 22, 2007 18:24

Fair play to all involved...lets turn up the heat and leep this kind of inspiring direct action going!

by Cathal - Cork S2S Thu Mar 22, 2007 18:11

Well done to everybody involved, you've made my day.

This is the way we'll win.

by The Eskimo - s2s Thu Mar 22, 2007 17:59

Fair play to those protestors for highlighting the run-off, if only FG would sit up and take notice we could have a better ireland.