Talk:Corrib gas project
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Someone added information about a strong bad scent product (such as ethanethiol)being added to the otherwise colorless and odorless gas (so that leaks can be detected by smell before an explosion occurs). It is rarely added to gas when it is in this type of transport pipeline (I couldn't find an example on google). There is also an extensive rebuttal to this over at the Royal Dutch Shell talk page. I feel that the statement that it is not being added is POV because infact it is almost never added to this type of pipeline. --24.137.104.16 02:17, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Add more info
This needs updated with the recent (Oct 06) protests and Garda presence at the construction site. I haven't time to do so myself at the moment. zoney ♣ talk 15:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I changed "This method of development is in line with best industry practice for gas fields of this type" which is POV (and reads like a Shell Press Release), to "This method of development is claimed by Shell to be in line with best industry practice for gas fields of this type, however many people are concerned about the helath, safety and environmental impact of the onshore aspects of the scheme."
[edit] Citations
http://www.westernpeople.ie/news/story.asp?j=36526, http://www.mayonews.ie/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1511&Itemid=38, http://www.labour.ie/youth/campaigns/index/20050804113248.html, http://www.finegael.ie/news/index.cfm/type/details/nkey/21800/pkey/653, http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76360, http://www.corribsos.com/index.php?id=0.1&type=page
Lapsed Pacifist 13:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Can you integrate these into the text of the article please? Valenciano 12:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Done. Valenciano, why did you blank the mention of Michael Ring's opposition to the project? I consider it pertinent.
Lapsed Pacifist 09:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Non-existent discussion
"It has been suggested that this section may not be relevant to the subject. Please see the discussion on the talk page."
Long time no hear, DJ. Why do you invite me to a discussion that does not exist?
Lapsed Pacifist 17:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- LP, welcome back. Quite simply many of the "Irregularities" are irrelevancies. In particular:
- The first section is irrelevant. Why should the state have "involvement in oil and gas exploration", emphasis on the activity of exploration - the state should govern, nothing more. The article is not primarily about favourable economic terms (notwithstanding said section). Simple fact is favourable economic terms are a fundemental cornerstone of the wider economy.
- The second section, how is a comment "just a hitch", "an unprecedented subversion of the planning process", subversion implies an act, not a comment.
- The third paragraph - the government meet Shell, oka maybe a point their, expansion/referencing. The government appoint An Bord Planala, so what - the government appoint the judiciary as well, for instance. Even in a democracy day-to-day decisions on appointments are not made directly by the people, its how things work. As for the "huge landslide", how is this connected, did works already start and cause this? Connects?
- The fourth section seams to be a collection of seemingly unrelated facts, a mention of people and topics from the 1980s and vaguely drawing continity to the present. I cannot see the link to this article.
- The fifth section mentions that few high profile parties contradict the gas project so how is this an irregularity? Maybe it is also a regularilty that few of these people in a rural county support the project. Surely some educated, forward looking people would be delighted to work in a high earning, secure employment like this that would be unparalled in the west of Ireland?
- Djegan 23:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
OK. "Why should the state have "involvement in oil and gas exploration"...maybe because 80% of oil and gas exploration is carried out by state companies? Anyways, it's a moot point. The state is heavily involved in exploration off Ireland, and is set to become even more involved. The state of Norway, that is.
"The state should govern, nothing more"...while I value your opinions on the proper role of government, DJ, they remain your opinions, and therefore unsuitable for an encyclopedia article.
As for "favourable economic terms", I'm all for them. But no other industry describes Ireland as the most generous in the world. I'm not sure Irish people should take that as a compliment, it doesn't exactly sound like Ireland is being respected for its hard-nosed commercial savvy.
An Bord Pleanála, supposedly independent of government, turn down a planning application. A minister of that government is able to predict with confidence that the refusal will be overturned, which it is. This is from http://www.wordreference.com/definition/subversion. Subversion: "undermining moral integrity". I couldn't have put it better myself, but Michael Ring beat me to it in 2002; see http://www.finegael.ie/news/index.cfm/type/details/nkey/21800.
I can't remember a landslide in Ireland of the same scale as the one that happened in Pullathomas. So the only part of Ireland where it is proposed there should be a pipeline containing raw, highly pressurised gas is here, and you don't consider that relevant? If Limavady was the only part of Ireland that endured large earthquakes, don't you think it would be a strange place to start building skyscrapers?
The fourth section displays perfectly why so many people are angry with the government's rushing through the project. There are so many unanswered questions.
"Educated, forward-looking people"...wow. Your opinions are creeping back in. Have you thought of starting a blog? Ask the people of the Niger Delta about "high-earning, secure employment". Time to educate yourself on the kind of people who have recently begun to enjoy the sublime west coast, DJ. Start here.
Lapsed Pacifist 00:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- LP you have not changed a lot, the same tired, borish, pov pusher - and not forward-looking in any respect. Tired. Djegan 01:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd ask you for your definition of forward-looking, DJ, but just guessing is entertainment enough. If I was in a cynical mood I would suspect that this bleating about POV means you're out of your depth. Instead I'll ask you to address the points I made.
Lapsed Pacifist 23:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Its not "bleating about POV" - obviously you have not read the template! The discussion is about relevance - read the template! They (pov, relevance) are not one in the same thing, even your pov pushing should know that! No, my focus is on the content of the article, not on the new points you have raised above and how they relate to my politics.
- But whilst discussing pov, your comments above are implicitly pov ("it's a moot point", "But no other industry describes Ireland as the most generous in the world.", "while I value your opinions on the proper role of government, DJ, they remain your opinions", "I'm all for them", "I'm not sure", "it doesn't exactly sound", "I can't remember a landslide in Ireland", "There are so many unanswered questions.", "Time to educate yourself".)
- Now lets get back to the point, relevance of said section in the article (to this article re: "Corrib gas project"), if you want to make new points, add them to the article and if they stand up they will hopefully increase/improve its relevance. But thats not an excuse to go off on a tangent here. Some of your new points maybe relevant in a "what if" article about Ireland adopting Cuba's economic and social policy, or a "what if" article on earthquakes and tsunamis in Ireland, or a "what if" article if Ireland adopted the wage policies and working conditions of an African country - but that is not what is been discussed in the article. Djegan 00:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not feeding you anymore, DJ.
Lapsed Pacifist 18:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

