The anti-Shell campaign proposals on the Corrib controversy contain nothing new. It's time for Mayo to start maximising the tangible benefits from bringing the gas ashore, argues Brendan Cafferty.
The Pro Gas Mayo group was set up to give the ordinary people of Mayo a voice in the debate over the gas. Included in our group are farmers, businessmen, ordinary workers, unemployed and retired people.
We represent the families that have long been separated by those who have had to go to Britain and farther in an effort to find work. We represent the people who see the gas as the first chapter in a new history of Mayo.
We have watched quietly from the sidelines while the Government, big business and various other groups with their own agendas have claimed to represent the people of Erris and Mayo, and we are saying it's high time we spoke for ourselves.
We want Corrib gas to be developed in its current design for one simple reason: we believe that an onshore terminal offers Mayo the best way to maximise the benefits of the gas. Offshore processing will certainly provide benefits, but not to the communities in Erris.
It's a simple fact that Ireland, never mind Mayo, doesn't have the capabilities to build or support an offshore platform. Only by building an onshore terminal will local suppliers and sub-contractors get a chance to participate in the project and thus share the benefit.
I understand there are nearly 170 jobs that can be linked to work at the Bellanaboy Bridge site; this will increase to 700. I accept that this figure is only for the duration of construction, but 700 jobs over a two-year period is of great value in an unemployment black spot.
I believe the gas will act as a catalyst for much-needed further development in the area. Looking longer term, there will be 50 permanent jobs on the terminal - 50 permanent, pensionable jobs is certainly not to be sniffed at and is, in our view, the tip of the iceberg.
Such a facility cannot operate in isolation and must be supported by all manner of services and contractors; again, these satellite jobs would not exist if the gas was processed offshore.
Apart from the obvious benefits of employment, the other primary benefit to Mayo is the gas itself. Understandably, some towns in Mayo will be disappointed that the recent announcement was not more widespread. These towns have long since recognised the potential for development that gas will bring to their communities. The best example of this lies in Cork, where the availability of gas has encouraged world leaders in the pharmaceutical industry to locate their premises in the area. It is unwise to predict a similar boom in Mayo, but you can guarantee that without the gas, Mayo will not be viewed as an attractive proposition for future foreign and domestic investors.
While we welcome very much the recent Red C opinion poll which shows that a large majority of people in the county wish to see people go to work on the project unhindered, it is our opinion that such polls can hardly be the criterion for deciding the desirability or otherwise of developments such as this, phone masts, or whatever.
Of course we don't advocate jobs at any cost and some people will rightly point out that the health and safety of the community of Erris, and protection of the environment, is the number one factor in deciding how to recover the gas. We agree wholeheartedly with this.
The fact of the matter is, however, that neither our group, nor many of the loudest voices in this debate, are experts on the matters of locating or operating a gas-processing terminal, or on pipeline safety. We believe that the experts should be left to do their job and we as a society must trust in their expertise and competency.
Due process has been followed, relevant authorities have been fully engaged, and submissions have been made from various parties, including Mark Garavan of Shell to Sea, who said in a letter to Mayo County Council that there was "no demonstrable need to recover the gas". Yet there is reluctance on behalf of some who have participated to accept the outcomes of these processes.
Pipe safety through Rossport was the issue last year (despite getting a clean bill of health from Advantica consultants); now that it is out of the equation, new agendas arise. Tax yield, peat removal, UK Gas are thrown into the pot.
Shell will pay 26 per cent corporation tax while other companies operating here pay 12.5 per cent; if the tax regime was so good, how come there were so few companies interested in exploring the wells?
The terminal is located in a wooded area in one of the best sites possible. Yes peat is being transported from it to a Bord na Móna cut-away bog at Shramore - hardly a cataclysmic development.
Ireland imports up to 90 per cent of its gas from the UK, itself a net importer of the product, hardly an optimum situation with Kinsale Gas running out. Corrib will supply about 60 per cent of our gas needs, so we see the necessity of the project going ahead.
We say that Shell to Sea's proposal, including Mark Garavan's article on this page on Wednesday, contains nothing that hasn't been gone through before. The time has passed for a rethink of the design concept - let's get on with the practical business of asserting Mayo on the national stage.
And this is really what we are all about. We have watched Mayo's reputation being dragged through the mud, as outlined by Supt Gannon in a recent article, and want to show the country we welcome the gas, we welcome development and we want to play our part in the vibrant Ireland we live in today.
Brendan Cafferty is secretary of the Pro Gas Mayo group