Press Release: Shell to Sea Will Not Attend Today's Forum for Development in Northwest Mayo

Too bad

Thanks for reporting this here Hermes. Is there a campaign on to get the locals into that forum in Mayo or to establish an alternative forum where their opinions are heard ?

How important would you say the original economic terms of the deal are ? Are the locals or should I say us as a people, happy with the new terms of the new licences introduced by Eamon Ryan ? Is it just a fact now that Shell's Corrib activities don't fall under that and do the locals there want them to and should they fall under those changes ?

Auditor #9 wrote:

Thanks for reporting this here Hermes. Is there a campaign on to get the locals into that forum in Mayo or to establish an alternative forum where their opinions are heard ?

How important would you say the original economic terms of the deal are ? Are the locals or should I say us as a people, happy with the new terms of the new licences introduced by Eamon Ryan ? Is it just a fact now that Shell's Corrib activities don't fall under that and do the locals there want them to and should they fall under those changes ?

Tis my pleasure to be reporting things of this nature. Tis also my duty, as I see it. As I've said many times, I'm not a neutral player here, I have an agenda. This is one of the forms of activism I engage in. It's the most enjoyable one too. Talking to people is where it's at and is very enjoyable.

There's no intent that I'm aware of (and I haven't asked) to get locals into the forum. There'll be (in my opinion) no negotiations with the State until they convene a body capable of negotiation and taking action based on the negotiation. Anything else is simply an exercise in propaganda and will not receive a favourable or a placid reaction from those who oppose Shell and their puppets.

The importance of the economic deal is a strange one. Many place it in different positions on their list of priorities. Personally, I place it near the top of mine. I don't know of anybody who is happy with Mr. Ryan's licenses, excepting folks like Sir Anthony O'Reilly, who stands to make billions from our inheritance. And who is only too happy to help in the blackening of the names of good people. He's got an agenda too.

I see, and I know many agree with me, investment as being the key to developing our resources - we develop them ourselves, whenever it is economically viable or necessary to do so. We either train or hire the right people for the job and we retain the full sovereignty of our resources. Some will argue that such an investment is risky and that we might end up finding little or no gas. I'd say that's unlikely and that, even if it turned out to be accurate, that there is no price too dear to retain our sovereignty, dignity and natural freedoms. They are not, and never will be for sale.

Hermes wrote:

I don't know of anybody who is happy with Mr. Ryan's licenses, excepting folks like Sir Anthony O'Reilly, who stands to make billions from our inheritance.

The new licences, as I understand, apply to new finds, like the Porcupine Basin, but not Corrib, which falls under Ray Burke's deal. Do you feel the new licences don't go far enough?

Hermes wrote:

They were not allowed to speak about safety issues. Neither were they allowed to discuss the 'deal.'

They should be allowed to discuss safety issues.
As for the deal.. they should be allowed to discuss that too, and dodo birds and dinosaurs and 1916 and whatever other history they like, but only on the understanding that the past can't be changed.
The shell-to-Sea people I've encountered seem very well meaning but unable to grasp this point.

eoinmn wrote:

Hermes wrote:

They were not allowed to speak about safety issues. Neither were they allowed to discuss the 'deal.'

They should be allowed to discuss safety issues.
As for the deal.. they should be allowed to discuss that too, and dodo birds and dinosaurs and 1916 and whatever other history they like, but only on the understanding that the past can't be changed.
The shell-to-Sea people I've encountered seem very well meaning but unable to grasp this point.

If we renege on the deal it will cost us about €500million. To say that we cannot undo what has been done by a criminal, is to believe that we are not a democracy and that we have no sovereignty. Nobody wants to change the past, and I agree, that it would be quite impossible to do so. However, I doubt you'll ever meet a politician who suggests that the future is closed.

It's not a matter of not grasping your point, it's a matter of rejecting it and there's a big difference.

eoinmn wrote:

Hermes wrote:

I don't know of anybody who is happy with Mr. Ryan's licenses, excepting folks like Sir Anthony O'Reilly, who stands to make billions from our inheritance.

The new licences, as I understand, apply to new finds, like the Porcupine Basin, but not Corrib, which falls under Ray Burke's deal. Do you feel the new licences don't go far enough?

Sorry, I didn't see this post first time round.

I don't think it's a matter of going far enough. It's more a matter of going in completely the wrong direction. To me, it's like telling some multinational, "pick a spot in Ireland, whatever cows are in that spot are yours and if you make a profit, we'll tax it minimally, after we've written off your costs of course. We'll use our tax revenue to fund each and every one of your developments. It'll be like we financed the whole operation, but you get to own the product and make the lion's share of the profit." It's a bit more complex than that, that's true, but, essentially it's on the mark. The deal does not take into account that the cows are owned by someone else as indeed is the land. The government are not the owners of our natural resources, they are but the stewards. They have absolutely no right, or more importantly, no authority to give away sovereign property. They may have the right to sell sovereign property (or in respect of land, lease it), but that's a completely different argument. The only thing that's being sold here is sovereignty. And I'd not be the first to suggest that it's an act of treason.

Hermes wrote:

eoinmn wrote:

Hermes wrote:

I don't know of anybody who is happy with Mr. Ryan's licenses, excepting folks like Sir Anthony O'Reilly, who stands to make billions from our inheritance.

The new licences, as I understand, apply to new finds, like the Porcupine Basin, but not Corrib, which falls under Ray Burke's deal. Do you feel the new licences don't go far enough?

Sorry, I didn't see this post first time round.

I don't think it's a matter of going far enough. It's more a matter of going in completely the wrong direction. To me, it's like telling some multinational, "pick a spot in Ireland, whatever cows are in that spot are yours and if you make a profit, we'll tax it minimally, after we've written off your costs of course. We'll use our tax revenue to fund each and every one of your developments. It'll be like we financed the whole operation, but you get to own the product and make the lion's share of the profit." It's a bit more complex than that, that's true, but, essentially it's on the mark. The deal does not take into account that the cows are owned by someone else as indeed is the land. The government are not the owners of our natural resources, they are but the stewards. They have absolutely no right, or more importantly, no authority to give away sovereign property. They may have the right to sell sovereign property (or in respect of land, lease it), but that's a completely different argument. The only thing that's being sold here is sovereignty. And I'd not be the first to suggest that it's an act of treason.

Aye, Eamon Dunphy said it was treason during a Shell to Sea talk he hosted at Trinity College a couple of years ago.

Crap, utter crap. You don't know what you're talking about. Then again, you did announce yourself as a shit-stirrer, pure and simple.

VS and team were invited there, and stayed by TJ, a local - and I'm not surprised you don't know him, as you are obviously clueless about the whole situation - and GOT A RESULT. WE SAVED LIVES

As hunger strikers die next year, the question will be asked about why that suceeded

Hermes wrote:

erigena wrote:

There was a previous successful mediation in the past described below. Admittedly, luck had an enormous part in its success.

Ryan is indeed b@#@ing. Simlarly, some at the camp are up to no good.


The first point is that Ireland's
natural resources were fatally compromised by convicted criminal
Raphael “Rambo” Burke and Debert , with whom the PDs and greena fail went serially into
government. The second is that shell has a long and dishonourable
history of genocide and environmental holocaust. The third is that
these morons have destroyed the Irish economy for a generation; we are
facing meltdown, and the natural resources that might have helped
have been given away.

Report on mediation initiative in Glengad

Toward the end of Maura Harrington's first week on hunger strike, TJ
McIntyre – a local and respected activist in shell to sea (sts) –
contacted Vincent Salafia with the goal of setting up a mediation process.
The process was run past Ms. Harrington, who initially approved it.
Salafia, a respected and prominent environmental activist who acts as
spokesman for Tarawatch, contacted the Woodland League (WL) as back-up.
Brendan Kelly of WL, another respected and prominent environmental
activist, reconnoitered the area, and noted that Ms Harrington's reaction
to the proposal now seemed negative. Nevertheless, he felt that what
Salafia was proposing might have value, particularly if the preconditions
that the Solitaire should leave Irish territorial waters and work should
be suspended were met prior to Maura going off hunger strike.

Vincent contacted Eamon Ryan's office, who neglected to get back.

As an observer, Dr Sean O Nuallain accompanied the duo, and initial local
reaction to Salafia's proposal was positive. O'Nuallain chaired the
initial meeting with about 14 local STS activists plus Niall Harnett on
wed 17th September in McGrath's pub, at which it was emphasised that this
was just the beginning of a consultation process. Two decisions were made;

1.To consult Maura immediately
2.To hold another meeting, hosted by Niall Harnett of the solidarity camp,
at noon the next day.

Maura made it clear that she now vehemently opposed the initiative;
nevertheless, Niall felt the meeting of 18/9/08 should go ahead. That
morning, the police arrested 4 activists; despite this, every effort was
made to invite as many interested parties as possible. Niall asked Sean
again to chair; having introduced himself, Sean asked the group whether
there were any objections to his chairing. If so, he would stand down.
There were none.
It was made clear by the chair, when asked ,that the meeting did not have
Maura's imprimatur; indeed, he felt it was important that this be said ,lest we be seen to be acting ultra vires.


Vincent's narrative was cut short by the intrusion of activists from Pobal
Cill Chomain; in particular, a Mr. John Monaghan repeatedly asked , very
loudly,“Who called this meeting?” and did not allow any reply. When it was
explained to him how it happened, he seemed mollified. Monahan
stated that his group were not notified and Brendan Kelly pointed that
for what we
intended to propose was a dispute resolution mechanism based on Local agenda
21 and for this to work all groups/stakeholders MUST be included and if one
Group/ stakeholder was excluded WLL would not be involved.

In this vein, the chair made clear to Monahan that he was very welcome,
and asked him to join the meeting; he declined, but hovered in the
vicinity. However, he had succeeded in destroying the meeting, which broke
down after an adjournment. Specifically, a Mr. Conor Cregan -who had not
stated an affiliation - objected to the chair and Brendan stated that in
compliance with
Local Agenda 21 the chair should step down. Sean agreed to do so. Brendan
then asked Mr Cregan to
propose an alternative chair which he failed to do. Instead he declared
the meeting over and walked out.




Yet all the goals of our visit were met; the Solitaire left, and Maura
resumed eating. On Friday 19th September, the Irish times carried a story
that Pobal Cill Chomain and Pobal le cheile, who favour landfall at
Glinsk, were themselves calling for dialogue with the govt and shell. It
is known that pobal le cheile have personal interest in the shell project
going ahead. This call was repeated in the Mayo news of Tues 23. In the
meantime, the solidarity camp and shell to sea have formally rejected
Vincent's initiative.

Relations remain good with TJ and the locals he represents and Vincent's
group


Final recommendation

Note that this is simply my impression as an impartial observer who ended
up playing a role as chair/honest broker during the second week of Maura
Harrington's hunger strike. It does not claim any institutional validity.

Shell have behaved abominably in Mayo; the depth of their mischief is
matched only, perhaps, by the Irish government. With the hunger strike,
the stakes became enormous, and at least now we are no longer at the
brink. The intransigence of the government is matched only, perhaps, by
that of the non-local shell to Sea members. All parties except them want
dialogue.

Recommendations;

1.A formal mediation process involving all stakeholders should start
immediately. Its terms of reference should be broad enough to include
looking at the constitutionality of the original Burke/Ahern assignments
to shell.
2.The mediation process should be funded by shell and the Irish state.
3.It should take place in a neutral venue.

That's some first post.

This mediation thing was destined to die a death from the get go. A mediator should at least be appointed by a group not a single person.

The mediation should not begin until the mediator is approved by at least one of the disputing parties.

The Fact that Ryan didn't respond put the non-qualified mediator (by non-qualified I mean that he hadn't received a blessing or a mandate) in the same camp as the rest of the activists. Ie. banging on doors to no avail. However, it would fairly be concluded that Mr. Salafia had not cut his teeth in any fashion regarding anti-Shell activities. This would be a meaningless point in the big scheme of things, but in the short term, and at that particular time, Mr. Salafia issuing a press release, got a lot of backs up, particularly so when no singular group had given its blessing.

It would be akin to myself issuing a press release. I'm not a declared member of S2S or any of the other groups, but I do agree with them and support them. We have a line of communication. I never cross that line. I'm simply a shit-stirrer who recognises exactly what it is that I am and that blowback when it occurs, effects me only.

This airing of a private spat in public is not something of a cohesive nature, it's divisive. It has the potential to turn what was a storm in a teacup into a tornado. A very improbable potential mind you. The various anti-Shell groups are quite close knit despite the odd bit of bickering here and there. We must remember that all groups are composed of individuals.

I'm afraid of all the names you've mentioned, the person I'm least familiar with is TJ. I know all the rest and I know that lots of consultation occurred during the timeframe that you're speaking of. My point here is that actions you are viewing as actions performed by singular actors, were in fact the results of various consultations. Unfortunately, the time period for these consultations was so short that the left hand didn't have time to speak with the right hand and it would appear thus as being disjointed and individualistic. Talk to the various groups now, after full dialogue and consultation has happened and you'll get a pretty uniform opinion on the whole event.

In my opinion, it was not and is not the time for mediation. The State will not publically recognise that it has gone well beyond its mandate. Indeed, as Mr. Salafia found out, they will not even enter into meaningful dialogue. They've shown time and time again that they're hell bent on pushing this monstrosity forwards and bedamned be anyone who has the temerity to get in the way. They'll have their names blackened and will be played against each other at every given opportunity. All the players you mention are well aware of this and have developed themselves some very thick skin. To not do so is to invite destruction.

I digress somewhat. As I said, I don't think the time is right for mediation. Whilst the various anti-Shell groups, by their very nature, have some degree of inbuilt flexibility (this could be ascertained by dialogue with the appropriate party), their opposition are rigid in their resolve. Until the rigid party recognises that it will not have its way, no matter what, there is no room for mediation. They're not there yet. They're still in their sanctimonious "we know best," pig-ignorant state. Their sole aim is a dictatorial one as opposed to a consultative one.

Confucius is my solace. "The twig that does not bend breaks easilly."

You need to have a read of the charter and leave your ad hominem crap at the door before you come in.

You suggest that I'm wrong, yet you fail to point out where.

You suggest that you achieved success, and again, fail to point out where.

What lives have you saved and when?

Seriously, move beyond the insult and into some substance. Your approach thus far does not strike one as being the substance of good mediation. Or even bad mediation.