Madam, - The débâcle surrounding the Corrib gas project is a monument to miscommunication, misinformation, and misrepresentation on both sides, whether intentional or not.
Shell has been less than forthright in giving readily understood explanations of the project. Recently a company representative stated that even if the processing were moved offshore the pressure in the pipeline coming ashore would be essentially the same.
This is misleading. An offshore platform could readily incorporate pressure reduction equipment and likely would do so as a step in the gas processing. As a matter of safety there is no requirement for offshore pressure reduction but it would be a consideration in risk mitigation.
The Corrib project pipeline design is code compliant. Pressure containment has been considered and incorporated in the design. However, in certain essentials of the onshore pipeline design should have been enhanced beyond code requirements for the purpose of risk mitigation.
As for the objectors, while much of the data they cite is correct in many cases it has been taken out of context and is not relevant to the specific cases that would arise from the Corrib project.
The objectors imply that gas pipelines erupt for no good cause. If they had been diligent in reviewing the Office of Pipeline Safety data they would have found that the OPS also records the causes of accidents. Was there any attempt to correlate the OPS's incident data to the Corrib project, or to note that 480,000 kilometres of gas transmission pipelines are included in the OPS reports?
The objectors insist that Shell would operate the pipeline at pressures above 120 bar, but there are sound technical reasons why in normal operation the pressure in the onshore section would not exceed that level. Pressure would rise in the system only in the event of shut-in or blockage, in which case there are a number of steps Shell could take to isolate the onshore pipeline.
Apparently Shell has not adequately communicated these points to the objectors in readily intelligible terms.
The need for brevity does not allow further explanation or observations. There may be answers to such issues if only both sides would open up honest and frank communications. - Yours, etc,
HARRY CONTI,
Rush,
Co Dublin.