Dear Environmental
Protection Agency
Please let me know
what is the meaning of sending all the objections you received to Shell, to all
the other objectors. I dearly hope you noticed that one or two of the objections
were from Shell itself. If you have sent my details to Shell, I will be
extremely angry and take you to court myself. Its hugely abusive to deliver
information to a Company who has a track record of killing off people who
oppose their plans.
They’ve already sunk
one man’s boat in Mayo and further afield:
“Shell was
involved in the development of the strategy that resulted in the unlawful
execution of the Ogoni Nine (the local people who had resisted oppression and
exploitation by Shell) ...One month after the executions of the Ogoni Nine,
Shell
signed an agreement to invest $4 billion in a liquefied natural
gas
project there.”
Shell have already
managed to paint the picture of objector’s being ‘thugs’ and somehow deserving
of jail-sentences in Mayo and further afield:
“Shell and the Nigerian
government coordinated a public relations
campaign to discredit the movement,
falsely attributing airplane hijackings, kidnapping and other acts of violence
to those who objected”
Shell financed the policing and logistics of the
increased security they requested.
Please also confirm
that you did not send the petition of over one 1000 names of people who
objected? You must have spotted that Shell just put in an objection so as to be
included in this cheap information-gathering exercise. I have objected to other
licenses in other authorities and never been sent a huge parcel of papers,
wasting paper and with no cover letter explaining what on earth was the
reasoning behind it. It implies that
there is a second step to objecting but does not explain the process. In the
meantime, you have put people in mortal danger. Our objections were to bring
information to bear on your research and decision. It seems madness to expose
individuals to the company itself.
Vindictive even. Well, if they harm a hair on my head, or anyone else’s,
you will answer for it.
Maybe you thought
we’d club together and provide an Environmental Impact Assessment….oh but hang
on that’s your job. I gather from the other objections that they haven’t been
done even though various organizations are sharing the load of assessing the
company’s works.
“Ten conservation
organizations — Alaska Wilderness League, Center for Biological Diversity,
Greenpeace, National Audubon Society, Natural Resources Defense Council, Ocean
Conservancy, Oceana, Pacific Environment, Resisting Environmental Destruction
on Indigenous Lands, and Sierra Club — filed a lawsuit against the Bureau of
Safety and Environmental Enforcement for allowing Shell to drill for oil
without a prior assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act. This
lack of thorough Environmental Impact Assessments of all the changes Shell have
made through the last decade and, I believe, lack of any full and proper
application even being lodged by Shell, are things that I wish the EPA would
apply themselves to, rather than heaps of photocopying.
Then maybe you
thought, all the objectors might club together and prove that Shell are a
heinous organization and have no right to drill here? Yes, there are plenty of
arguments and plenty of evidence provided in the objections but no one should
have to take Shell to court. The EPA yourselves have a key opportunity to
refuse the license.
While I’m here, I
will just ask the straight question, why was it €126 for an individual to
object and only €63 for a fully funded organization to object? Like a county council.
Coincidentally, I didn’t see an objection from Mayo County Council. Could it be
that being government-funded would have restrained the arm of such
organizations sufficiently?
Today “The
heatwave and floods came as protests against the fossil fuel companies largely
responsible for climate change faced protests across the United States. On
Sunday in Santa Barbara, California, residents protested a major oil spill
which has killed wildlife and soiled beaches. In Bellingham, Washington, two
protesters suspended themselves from the anchor chain of a ship to oppose
Shell’s plans to drill for oil in the Arctic. Chiara D’Angelo hung from the
anchor of the Arctic Challenger from Friday until Monday morning, while fellow
protester Matt Fuller joined her for 22 hours on Saturday and Sunday.
Meanwhile, the University of Hawaii has voted to divest its $66 million
endowment from fossil fuels, becoming the largest university to heed the
growing divestment movement to date.
The University of
Hawaii has DIVESTED endowment from fossil fuel companies as a result. What are
you going to do?
Please sort out
this disgrace and don’t be intimidated into letting the Irish people and land
be exploited and threatened by Shell. They will have to answer to their maker
like everyone else, but by then it will be too late. Intervene now and put protection
measures in place for those who have contributed to the process, like myself,
to support a strong decision to refuse Shell this license.
Love Frances
No comments:
Post a Comment