Home
AMP
Gorilla-Croquet

All Energy Matters

Peace and prosperity through art, science and creativity.

News,

Read below an overview of the situation to date, which is filled with irregularities
and lack of 'due process' and absence of 'the common good'.

It is a pity for the last six years those who are paid to care, the ESB,
Co Council's, and politicians aren't interested in examining the facts or hearing
the facts even when literally begged to.

Transparency? Sorry not available in this case.

Semi-State is great; the people pay while we make hay.

How can any citizen respect such treacherous and arrogant negligence?

The people of Roscommon, Sligo and Leitrim deserve a hearing and answers
to basic important questions.
~~~~~~~~~~~>

Update.....

Some details about the proposed ESB Flagford to Shrananagh powerline as at 1st Oct 2006.

The planning proposal is for 76 Pylons in County Roscommon from Flagford (near Carrick on Shannon) to the border with Sligo. Right now there are only one third of the bases in place in Roscommon. Taking the section from above Croghan to the Sligo border there should be 46 pylon bases. There are only about 6 bases in position and these are Coillte (Forestry) lands where there is no opposition and a cosy coalition exists between the 2 parties. Therefore, over two thirds of the Roscommon line is not completed.

In the total line there are approx 185 Pylons. Just over 100 bases are in place, mostly in Sligo. If one subtracts the bases in Coillte lands from this number it means that only about half the bases scheduled for farmlands are actually complete. Landowners are refusing entry to ESB in the greater Boyle area .It is important to say that the people in the Boyle area have no affiliation with IFA or any of their “ deals”. It is worth remembering that the IFA Code of Practice is NOT a legal binding document despite what the IFA might say. As far as the Boyle Landowners are concerned the IFA has NO role to play in this process, statutory or otherwise. It is also worth noting that compensation is NOT AN ISSUE in Boyle area. “Bury the Powerline, not the people” is the unified message going out from the people of the area. Powerlines were put underground in Cork, Dublin, Wexford and will be soon in Bantry(Cork). The same can be done in Roscommon, Sligo, Leitrim, Donegal or any other area that is faced with this anachronistic approach to power transmission.

The Deed of Easement (Wayleave).

If the ESB don’t get the landowners signature of a Deed of Easement or a formal deed, they will not have title to the ground on which they intend to build. There is no Law to compel anyone to sign their name to such a document despite any threats made by the ESB or the IFA. The law for such an action does not exist. If the power-line were built without the landowner’s signature, then ESB would find it very hard, if not impossible to find a buyer for the line when privatisation comes. The powers that the ESB have under the 1927 Act would not apply to anyone else. The 1927 Act only relates to the ESB.

In 1985, ESB lost a case in the Supreme court (Gormley v ESB ). The Supreme court ruling was that “…. the 1927 Act was unconstitutional”. In the same year, 1985, an Amendment Act was brought in to tighten up certain areas. (Isn’t it a coincidence that the IFA /ESB Code of Practice came out in the same year?) This Code of Practice was agreed without any mandate from Landowners/Farmers. The 1985 Amendment Act includes compensation. This “compensation” comes under various headings or “heads of claim” as they are known in legal terms.

Questions:

Everything that we and others have found out in the course of our research into this whole issue of overhead power-lines over the past 6 years has raised a number of questions that the various Agencies, Government Bodies and vested interests have refused to answer or indeed callously ignored. We would ask some of those questions again. We would specifically ask these questions of the IFA, Local Government, National Government and the ESB. You may wish to add your own questions that need to be answered. One major is the nature of the IFA relationship with the ESB.

1. Under what ‘Heads of Claim’ do IFA organise compensation for Landowners when they act on their behalf? The IFA purports to represent Landowners and yet they refuse to represent those landowners who are against such a way forward. They constantly refer to the ‘Code of Practice’. This is not a legal document.
We have heard mention of a heading called “flexibility of access”. Strange that none of the Lawyers or Barristers that we have spoken to have ever come across this heading before.?

2.Why have the IFA never published these “heads of claim” in the print media or anywhere else? If Landowners are legally entitled to compensation then surely there is nothing wrong in publishing that information. It has a long time since 1985 and an awful lot of claims must have been dealt with by the IFA, on behalf of Landowners, and ESB in the last 20 years. Even more if one goes back 50 years to the beginning of rural electrification.

3.Why do the IFA ask Landowners to look for planning permission many months later in the sterile corridor created by a power-line when they know that planning permission has already been given for a power-line? (This is confirmed in a letter by and IFA Official sent to Landowners in Roscommon on 15th Sept. 2004).
This letter, and others with a similar content, are to be investigated further. The implication is that it is alright to put in for permission as the ESB will pay anyway. After all, they can always put recoup the monies from the consumer. Another question arising from this letter. Were Local Government and the ESB complicit in the circulation of such a letter?

4. How do the IFA know that Landowners “ will get nothing from arbitration”? The IFA consistently advises against Landowners going to arbitration. Why don’t they advise ,say, one person to go forward for a test case? After all, they purport to represent ALL Landowners in these matters.

5.Why do the IFA insist on “confidentiality deals” with ESB who are a Semi State body? Why is all this information not open and transparent, as it should be? The IFA have been quick to tell us that they have negotiated increases in the amount of compensation from €3,000 to €7,500 (a final offer by the way!!!!) to €14,000. Yet they neglect to tell us of the sweetheart deals being done under the table to get signatures on a Deed of Easement. Whatever happened to the Code of Practice that they are always quoting? The above figures are a long way from the €200, and similar figures, off an electricity bill each year and used in the Code of Practice..

 6. Why do the IFA not know the exact dimensions of the sterile corridor? 

This has a direct bearing on the lands to be signed over to the ESB in perpetuity. The IFA have stated that the sterile corridor is 46 metres wide (cf IFA letter to Landowners of 6 Sept 2004 ) when in fact the sterile corridor is 60 meters or almost 200 feet wide. This has been confirmed to us in writing by Mr Mc Carthy?, legally representing the ESB. Is this is just another example of more “ false and misleading information” being thrown out by IFA to Landowners.

7. Why have FBD Insurance, a Group actively sponsored by the IFA, withdrawn cover for Landowners where power-lines are going across their lands on the basis of EMF emissions? See enclosed copy of FBD renewal form.Under a heading “electric magnetic fields exclusions” it now states that
“ The indemnity expressed in the policy shall not apply to, or include, any loss or liability which arises out of, or is contributed to, directly or indirectly, by the exposure to magnetic electric or electro magnetic fields or radiation however caused or generated” Despite repeated attempts, we have failed to get a definitive answer to this from FBD Insurance, the IFA or the ESB. Each one passes it back to the other.

8. Who is responsible for a power-line? Why do ESB put nothing in writing? Never a name, always a "spokesperson"?

It has been said by some that “if you don’t let them (ESB) in to your lands, they will take you to the High Court etc etc”

 If ESB have all the “power” they purport to have under the 1927 Act to build 

this line then why hasn’t the line been built? And why would they need to take anyone to court? For what/why? Nobody was brought to court in Cork where it went on for 14 years and then put underground (Great Island Line in Cobh). In Bantry, Co Cork in the summer of 2006, High Court injunctions were taken out against Landowners who refused entry to ESB contractors. Even with the injunctions, the ESB did not enter lands. This line is now going to be placed underground, some along roadway and some through private land.

From the outset we have sought to sit down with ESB and work as part of the Consultation process that they hold so dear. From the outset we all agreed that the delivery of energy was a priority and that electricity was a driving force in our economy. Yet when it came to the crunch ESB refused to even consider any of the viable and economic alternatives that we were prepared to put forward. Much time has been wasted. Costs are mounting but of course ESB will look to the Consumer to pay these. Is this a question of pig- headed intransigence? We have always done it this way so we will continue to do so? Will we lose face? Surely any sane individual will see what a waste this needless Neanderthal approach to the delivery of energy is. Communities are fractured, the environment is despoiled, costs increase, resources are wasted and everyone, including ESB, suffers. Why?

110kv power-lines on wooden poles.

With regard to 110Kv power-lines, i.e. those lines on wood poles, it is worth noting the following
Under an EU Directive ( 2001/90/EC ) amature creosote is banned and a restriction is placed on all timber treated with creosote. The international Agency for Research on Cancer has determined that Creosote is carcinogenic to humans. New information has led the EU to believe that creosote has .. “far greater potential to cause Cancer than previously thought” See enclosed compensation claim/cases brought against ESB.**
ESB will say this ban only applies to amature creosote but the point is amature creosote is a watered down version of the industrial type used by ESB and all the more reason it should not be used. The constituent parts are the same with water being added.
Therefore it is banned because it is a pollutant, Carcinogenic and toxic. When wood poles treated with creosote are placed in the ground, in the case of 110Kv lines double poles which are 50 ft over ground and 10 (ten) feet underground, it does not require much brainpower to figure where the creosote will end up. If you can smell it (and of that there is no doubt )it means its in the air (causing air polution ) and damage to health. It will also be seeping into the groundwater,. This in turn will pollute the ground water. There is a solution to all of this and it would keep everybody happy and our environment healthy;
Bury all power-lines.

Undergrounding Power-lines.

ESB will say underground costs too much, yet they don’t publish the actual price of underground cable. Neither do they tell us the actual cost of overhead power-lines. An Bord Pleanala even rapped them for not publishing these figures. Take for example the length of time they have already wasted at this line and several other similar projects Nationwide. How much money have ESB wasted (tax payers money and bill payers money). The ESB do not seem to care. When they want more cash they just put up the price of electricity by 20% or more with few questions from the Energy Regulator. In our own case in the West of Ireland, The actual cost of underground cables versus overhead power-lines is 2.2 (two point two ) times. When distance is halved and compensation removed its would be actually cheaper to put lines underground.

Underground versus Overhead.
Paras 2.2.2 and 3.1.3.4 of the EIS

The case for underground cabling has been opposed by ESB many times in the past, so it is no surprise that the ESB advance arguments to counteract this case. On the face of it, their points appear to make business sense. On closer inspection they do not stand up. The cheapest option is often the most costly in terms of damage to existing valuable resources. There has been no realistic appraisal in the EIS of the cost to the most important industries in the region at present namely tourism and agriculture. The cost to existing industry and the devaluation of property are effectively ignored by ESB as they promote the cheapest option for themselves that will prove to be the most costly option for the people of Sligo, Roscommon and Leitrim. It should be remembered that one cannot always put old solutions on new problems. One should use the past from which to learn and come up with imaginative and positive new solutions. These have been ably demonstrated by Bord Gais and the Tele-communications industry.

ESB tell us that there are 6 reasons why lines should go overhead and not underground. In fact these boil down to 3 reasons

REASONS

“An overhead line can provide a more secure electricity supply that an underground cable, as an overhead line is faster and easier to maintain and repair and is not subject to damage from digging activities.”

“An underground cable fault can take weeks to repair as it can be very difficult to locate the position of the fault and the repair process itself is slow”.

 These are linked points in the same argument. The ESB say that digging and construction 

work accounted for about 1000 breaks in underground cabling in the Dublin area in 2002. There have been few examples of massive power disruptions in the Dublin area. They also quoted the example of Auckland in New Zealand where an underground cable was broken in the 1990’s and the central business area was without power for 10 days. How many kilometres of cable have been used around the world and this distant example is quoted. Using this logic it would suggest that Dublin Contractors are 1000 times more careless than their New Zealand counterparts.

In any case, this is a rural area and will not be subjected to the amount of intense development that takes place in an urban area. Consequently the chances of such breakdowns are considerably less. Developers and Contractors are obliged to check the existence of services before engaging on contracting work. An underground line can be clearly marked at regular intervals and can be more easily marked in a rural area.

It is claimed by ESB that it can take 3 to 5 days to detect a fault and a further 5 days to repair it. Technology has advanced to such an extent that with the proper positioning of sensors and other detectors the fault-finding time can be reduced to half a day. ESB engineers have confirmed this. This is no different to the present situation. The repair time, should it be necessary, will be no different to the present time if the line is positioned underground correctly. In 2001, the ESB identified and repaired a fault in Dublin on an underground cable within 50 minutes. Current and recent excavation on an underground line should be clearly visible even without specialist technology.

An underground line is less prone to damage from the elements and this removes one key factor from overhead line faults. Many in the West of Ireland will remember the St Stephen’s Day storm damage of 1998 when ESB engineers on the ground risked their lives to bring power back to the West. The damage would have been less destructive had there been underground cabling. The bill for that came in at over IR£70 million pounds and this was passed on to the Consumer.

 “ If cables are laid under agricultural land or across country, the trench would 

have considerable environmental and agricultural impact - it would also be necessary to maintain permanent access for the heavy machinery needed to facilitate emergency fault repair. Access can be difficult when cables are under water logged fields in wintertime”.

“If cables are laid along existing roadways instead of cross-country, extensive road closures are necessary during the trenching process and afterwards for repairs. After installation, high voltage cables cannot be disturbed and this could make it difficult for road widening or other works.”

This is based on the erroneous assumption that this line should follow the same path as that requested for the overhead line. This need not be the case. If the underground line were to be laid along an existing roadway, for example the N4, there would be no need for permanent access across farmland and all its attendant problems. It is suggested that such an undertaking would mean 18 months disruption to road traffic. This is a guesstimate and in any case it might be a small price to pay for future environmental security and the continuing visual aspect of the County. It need not necessarily be the case that an underground cable be laid along an actual road and the cable could be placed under the road or alongside and parallel to the road as required. Consideration might be given to coupling an underground line with an underwater line and there would be even less concern about future disruption. This would be the most direct route from Flagford to Ballysumaghan.

A further consideration might be to work in partnership with Iarnrod Eireann or another public utility and use an existing way-leave. It might also be of benefit financially to both parties and logistically may not present the same problems as the road solution.

These reasons do highlight one concern that we have. If this line is necessary as part of infrastructure development - Why is there no integrated approach to infrastructural development? For example, why can the NRA not do trenching work as part of their road
The costings used by the ESB for underground lines were “city” prices. All of 220KV lines in Dublin ( over 75km ) are underground ,for example, Inchycore to Irishtown. ,or the Carrickmines to Shellbank line, both 220 KV were completed “on time, within budget”( see www.esb.ie/infrstructure ). When ESB put the Inchycore to Irishtown 220Kv line underground in Dublin, they placed a series of ducting in the trench as well as the Electric cables. These ducts can hold fibre optic cables and are leased out to companies for communications purposes. These, in time, will pay for the line. Why do the ESB not repeat this process nationwide? There can be no comparison to these lines and say a line along the N4. or the railway track, for which a wayleave already exists, using modern cable such as XLPE. ( Cross Linked Polyethylene ).

One of the main advantages of XLPE underground cable is the low level of Joule losses compared with equivalent overhead lines. It also means operational costs are greatly reduced. The maintenance cost on underground lines is almost nil whereas similar costs on overhead lines are up to 1000 Euro /KM /Year. The ESB never mention that. The EMF emissions from underground lines is nil compared to overhead lines. The cost of replacing underground is also less compared to overhead lines as the XLPE type cable lasts about three times longer than the overhead line. The XLPE cable is becoming cheaper to produce nowadays and is being produced in greater quantities. When it comes to replacing XLPE, all of its components can be recycled .

“Underground high voltage cables are typically 6 to 10 times more expensive than the equivalent overhead line and electrically they present many technical difficulties.”

‘There are many technical and operational difficulties that apply to cables which do not apply to overhead lines”.

Alleged excessive cost appears to be a critical factor to ESB and seems to have resulted in summary dismissal of the underground alternative. 14 years ago in relation to the present project in Sligo, it was claimed by ESB that underground cabling would be 16 to 20 times more expensive. Now they claim it is 6 to 10 times more expensive. The Board has never been asked and have never bothered to plan and cost out this line as part of a business case that can be independently examined. The actual cost of underground cables is not presented anywhere in the EIS. While the cost to the ESB may be higher for underground cable, the cost to the landowners and the public generally is higher for the overhead line. People in rural areas already pay more for their electricity than those in urban areas.

The ESB have given unsubstantiated figures on cost. At the outset of this project, they alleged that an overhead line costs about IR£160,000 per kilometre to erect while an underground cable would cost about IR£1,000,000 to lay. However there is no detailed breakdown of either cost. The Board confirmed to us that the IR£160,000 includes the cost of excavation, foundation installation, construction of towers and erection of conductors. This seems to be a lightweight figure and we contend that the information is not accurate and does not include compensation to landowners.

The overland option is more expensive than implied when allowance is made for creating a 100 metre wide pylon easement corridor which is sterilised for planning purposes. No attempt is made to quantify losses to tourism, farming and the local economy over the 80 year lifespan of the unsightly overland development. The cost of special pylon design and manufacture and the use of shield cables to reduce the magnetic field at the edge of the corridor to normal levels also inflates the cost of an overhead line. ESB said that it would cost an extra IR£37 million to put the line underground. It was assumed that it will follow the existing route. That need not be the case. The current estimate for this project when one takes into account the amount spent on PR, compensation to Landowners, actual costs of construction and devaluation is around €2000 million. For that money 2 lines could be put underground from Flagford to Shrananagh!!!!

In any case, ESB have confirmed us that, as part of the Broadband Roll-out, they intend to put a Fibre Optic Telecommunications Cable on all existing and new lines. This is confirmed by the Minister and in Press announcements. These they will rent out. The reference in the EIS to OPGW covers the optic fibre cable. The shieldwires have a dual use and will contain within their cores the optic fibres. The first reference to this is on p.53, fourth paragraph of the EIS and is repeated in the paragraphs on the 110kv lines.

The Planning Authorities seemed to be unaware of this in their decision statement.

All this information, and more, is available in the “ Background Paper on Under grounding of Electricity Lines In Europe”; completed for the Commission of the European Community ,Brussels, December 2003.

See also www.europa.eu/energy/electricity/ infrastructure.

Planning Permisson; The role of the County Manager, Politicians and County Councilors;

The County Manager granted Permission for this project. He is the person who has final say in each county regarding such matters. Politicians and Councillors will say when talking about overhead lines, poles, pylons etc ..."if there is anything I can do to help etc"... Ignore this. IF they wanted to help, they could, under section 29 of the Local Government Act, overturn the County Managers decision. The Flagford /Shrananagh line was changed / diverted at Rathallen. Is it just a coincidence that it was moved AWAY from where a former politician who actively supported what we are trying to do, lived?

President Kennedy said" forgive your enemies BUT never forget the b***ds names"

Any development project that requires an EIS comes under an EU Directive,: 97 / 11 / EU otherwise called the "Environmental Impact Assesment directive". A petition has been sent to Europe regarding the EIS for this project (No. 1149 / 2003 ) We were in Brussells in July 2006 and the petition was brought up for hearing. More information is to be sent to Europe as the investigation of a breach of said directive is continuing. At home the ESB are being investigated for breach of planning regulations (section 2,subsection H )

Articles 5 to 10 of the "law" section of the EIA DIRECTIVE clearly states that " certain requirements are to be respected with regard to the conduct of an EIA- these requirements include an obligation to consult the public concerned ( Article 6) and to take information (including information derived from public consultation ) into account in the decision making process ( Article 8)

The fundamental purpose of an EIA is to ensure that decisions on environmentally significant projects are adequately informed in terms of information eminating from relevant information sources (information from the public concerned,represents one of theese information sources ) as is expressly recognised by Article 6 (2) of the Impact Assesment Directive.

The granting of planning permission for this project raises some fundamental questions and the role of Local and National Government.
Why has the Arrhus Convention NEVER been ratified in Ireland?

Why did Roscommon Co Council sign up to and agree to abide by Agenda 21 on the one hand (public participation)
and refuse to reply to letters from the public concerned for their health and safety?

The Council have a lot of questions to answer. Presentations have been made in council chambers. This information was ignored. It would appear that projects such as this are beyond the expertise of Local Officials. If this is the case, why do Councils not bring in expertise to help their understanding so that they can make a balanced decision where all of the information is available? It would put an end to more waste of public monies.

An Bord Pleanala;

Or case was appealed to An Bord Pleanala (ABP). Their Inspector said that the EIS was flawed etc. That over 70% of the document was wrong. The "board" of ABP went against against the recommendations of its very own inspector. What does this say for "independent body"?
A proper ground survey for the Flagford to Shrananagh overhead power-line was a requirement of planning and should have been submitted at the planning stage. This survey was carried out 3 years after planning was granted!!!!

Lock Your Gate; put up signs ......"Pylons out JUSTICE IN"....

The ESB have certain "powers" to build power-lines given them by 1927 Act. They can go in and build a line. However ,if they do so without the landowners signature of a " Deed of Easement" i.e. a formal deed, they would NOT have title to the ground and if / when the line is privatised and sold who would buy it without proper title? The 1927 Act applies to ESB and nobody else. That is the biggest problem facing ESB right now. In passing, it is worth noting that the 1927 Act is for the ‘supply’ of electricity. It does not mention transmission. It may be semantics. However if drunk drivers can get off because of a typographical error in a number, then it should be worth challenging the legality of an Act that was not designed to cover the transmission of power from wind farms with no accruing benefits to local communities.

If the landowners are going to provide the means for ESB to carry on a business on their property, then the landowner must have a say in how that is done. If a landowner or a group of landowners agree to let ESB put a line (underground ) on their property then the ESB will have to listen to what the people are telling them. Bullying tactics and threatening people will get ESB no place. In fact it only gets more people up against them (see www.indymedia.ie for similar stories).
Also www.iscaireland.com and www.all-energy-matters-amp.com

Conclusion;
We are against this powerline,IN ITS PRESENT form only; Bury the powerline,NOT the people.

We have rights.

We believe that the opportunity now exists to put forward the BMW Region as the ‘area of best practice’. This can only be done if there is a considered and analytical approach where all the options are identified. The tendency appears to be to look at the past for solutions to present day problems and ignoring the modern technologies that will give a better future. If Tourism and Agriculture are our base industries, then we should be protecting the value of our Land, our Health and our Environment. We do not want to offer prospective businesses more of the same that they can get anywhere else in Ireland.

Some unanswered questions arising from the Flagford to Srananagh ESB 220/110kv Project.

• The EIS states that this project is needed to bring power to Sligo. What are the actual and forecast figures of generation, demand, supply, transmission loads and capacities to justify this statement?

• What are the proposals to bring power into Sligo from existing and proposed wind generating systems or the Corrib Gas Line?

• What are the detailed costs of all aspects of overhead and underground lines including manufacturing, construction, compensation etc.?

• If it is now ESB policy to minimise the length of overhead lines, why is it now necessary to go the longest way round?

• By what authority does ESB have the right to string fibre optic cables on existing networks? What is it not necessary to have separate planning permission for all new undertakings? These fibre optic telecommunications cables will be leased out. Can the income not be offset against undergrounding cables?

• Have ESB discussed the possibility of undergrounding this or any other lines with any other Agency? If not, why not? Iarnrod Eireann already has an existing wayleave that would serve the purpose. Each company would benefit financially.

• Why is there no compensation for non-landowners adjacent to the lines who are affected by them?

• Why were there no proposals to recommission Bellacorraig as a Gas Fired Power Station? It is being left to a Private Consortium to do this. Why is there no generating capacity West of the Shannon?

• All infra-structural development is piecemeal and fragmentary. Why is there no Integrated Planning Approach?

• If money and funding were available, would ESB consider putting these lines underground?

Europe Petition AMP

On 11th July 2006, the European Commission heard Roy Henry's Petition, regarding environment impacts of the inappropriate granting of Planning permission by the Irish authorities to the ESB's, 56 kilometres of steel pylons carrying 220,000 kV lines, through Co.'s Sligo and Roscommon...

The communities along the proposed line have been repeatedly failed by the 'due process', which has failed to provide any kind of transparent open forum. The communities paid An Bord Pleanala, for an oral hearing but despite the ESB's Environmental Impact Study, having been shown to be clearly inaccurate in over 65% of it's categories, and the line desecrating arguably one of the world's most pristine Sacred Ritual Landscapes, and causing over a Billion Euros of devaluation, the Bord denied this most basic right of a fair hearing to the communities, not only letting the people down, but undermining the fabric of a democratic state.

AMP and the communities have from the outset taken a positive and balanced approach to this project, their voice has not been heard in what amounts to nothing short of 'lobby driven' saga of misinformation and deception leading to the present 'sorry state of (mis)affairs'.

When AMP hired Professor Michael O' Carroll to examine the ESB's published EIS calculations on the need for the line based on known and projected energy requirements for the region, and found them to be completely false, the ESB glibly replied to An Bord Planala, that auctully the
line will be needed to take the power from the region!! Grounds for a open hearing? No say An Bord Pleanal. These facts are only the tip of this iceberg.

Participant's at the recent EU hearing in Brussels regarding some of the ESB’s environmental violations, say a Pandora's box has been opened, out of which will be coming the astonishing ESB, violations, human, environmental, financial, social and plain unbusinesslike actions perpetuated on the people of Sligo and Roscommon.

The group of Co Roscommon, victims of ESB’s misinformation and heavy handedness who travelled to Brussels have taken heart that the EU is wanting further information and believe that when the full fact’s of the ESB’s conduct in this project come to light that this line will not be allowed to proceed.

Simply from a balanced perspective it does not represent an appropriate solution to energy needs of the region. It is the wrong ‘solution’ in the wrong place at the wrong time. AMP have
from day one persued an 'integrated planning' balanced approach that looks at all the factors
relevent to the project.

Coming to light are the sorrid process’s the ESB have used to bully and manipulate this entirely inappropriate project through. Slowly but surely the people are prying back lid of deceit and light of truth will shine into this case.

It has been suggested that Eirgrid has recklessly persued this outdated project with an eye
to the possible personal financial benefits that could be made from the line, when the company is privitised. Whilst this suggestion is a 'grey area', it would seem in light of tactics by the company to date to be a possible one,

One day the co-council’s, politicians, Duchas and other bodies financed by the people will come to see how they have failed in their paid duties to ensure that the appropriate checks and balances are put in place, to ensure appropriate planning is implemented.

The ESB started out as they surely carried on, lodging their deeply flawed EIS just before the Christmas holiday’s so as minimise the people’s already short time required to analise their deceitful document.

Alas although the ESB seem to be able to wield unlimited funds to manipulate the democratic process, the people of Roscommon and Sligo are determined the truth will out.

The proposed Flagford to Srannagh 220,000 kV line is a travesty of planning and folly of monumental proportions.

Repeated failure by the political 'powers that be', who glibly refuse to hear the facts while saying ‘due process’ has passed in this case, have failed in their duty to the people. In their hearts they ‘smell a rat’ but will they be big enough to find the tiny amount of democratic integrity necessary to grant the people the simple oral hearing they have requested for six years!

Not to date. Shame on them. Enough harm has been done already. This is no small matter,
a government denieing it's citizens an open hearing on something as obiviously erronous as
this saga is an unsustainable burden on the community and Nation. We need deserve and
ought to be granted an open forum in Ireland, to bring to light the facts in a socially responsible way.

AMP challenge the Political Establishment to collect and make public all the payment’s made by the ESB to date in relation to this project.

Bookmark this site and return periodically and see for yourself the unravelling of Corporate arrogance, despite their success to date in averting an oral hearing to deal with the facts,
the facts need to discussed in an open, and balanced hearing.

Coming soon,

Roscommon County Council, put ESB on notice over environmental violations.
Sligo County Council, accept 'non answere's' to clear and important questions.
Duchas's, complete failure to get to grips with the impact on the Cultural Heritage/

The full text of the Petition is available here.