Talk:Corrib gas project

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Energy Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Ireland Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Someone added information about a strong bad scent product (such as

This needs updated with the recent (Oct 06) protests and Garda presence at the construction site. I haven't time to do so myself at the moment. zoney ♣ talk 15:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed "This method of development is in line with best industry practice for gas fields of this type" which is POV (and reads like a Shell Press Release), to "This method of development is claimed by Shell to be in line with best industry practice for gas fields of this type, however many people are concerned about the helath, safety and environmental impact of the onshore aspects of the scheme."

http://www.westernpeople.ie/news/story.asp?j=36526, http://www.mayonews.ie/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1511&Itemid=38, http://www.labour.ie/youth/campaigns/index/20050804113248.html, http://www.finegael.ie/news/index.cfm/type/details/nkey/21800/pkey/653, http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76360, http://www.corribsos.com/index.php?id=0.1&type=page

Lapsed Pacifist 13:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you integrate these into the text of the article please? Valenciano 12:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Valenciano, why did you blank the mention of Michael Ring's opposition to the project? I consider it pertinent.

Lapsed Pacifist 09:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"It has been suggested that this section may not be relevant to the subject. Please see the discussion on the talk page."

Long time no hear, DJ. Why do you invite me to a discussion that does not exist?

Lapsed Pacifist 17:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LP, welcome back. Quite simply many of the "Irregularities" are irrelevancies. In particular:

The first section is irrelevant. Why should the state have "involvement in oil and gas exploration", emphasis on the activity of exploration - the state should govern, nothing more. The article is not primarily about favourable economic terms (notwithstanding said section). Simple fact is favourable economic terms are a fundemental cornerstone of the wider economy.

The second section, how is a comment "just a hitch", "an unprecedented subversion of the planning process", subversion implies an act, not a comment.

The third paragraph - the government meet Shell, oka maybe a point their, expansion/referencing. The government appoint An Bord Planala, so what - the government appoint the judiciary as well, for instance. Even in a democracy day-to-day decisions on appointments are not made directly by the people, its how things work. As for the "huge landslide", how is this connected, did works already start and cause this? Connects?

The fourth section seams to be a collection of seemingly unrelated facts, a mention of people and topics from the 1980s and vaguely drawing continity to the present. I cannot see the link to this article.

The fifth section mentions that few high profile parties contradict the gas project so how is this an irregularity? Maybe it is also a regularilty that few of these people in a rural county support the project. Surely some educated, forward looking people would be delighted to work in a high earning, secure employment like this that would be unparalled in the west of Ireland?

Djegan 23:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. "Why should the state have "involvement in oil and gas exploration"...maybe because 80% of oil and gas exploration is carried out by state companies? Anyways, it's a moot point. The state is heavily involved in exploration off Ireland, and is set to become even more involved. The state of Norway, that is.

"The state should govern, nothing more"...while I value your opinions on the proper role of government, DJ, they remain your opinions, and therefore unsuitable for an encyclopedia article.

As for "favourable economic terms", I'm all for them. But no other industry describes Ireland as the most generous in the world. I'm not sure Irish people should take that as a compliment, it doesn't exactly sound like Ireland is being respected for its hard-nosed commercial savvy.

An Bord Pleanála, supposedly independent of government, turn down a planning application. A minister of that government is able to predict with confidence that the refusal will be overturned, which it is. This is from http://www.wordreference.com/definition/subversion. Subversion: "undermining moral integrity". I couldn't have put it better myself, but Michael Ring beat me to it in 2002; see http://www.finegael.ie/news/index.cfm/type/details/nkey/21800.

I can't remember a landslide in Ireland of the same scale as the one that happened in Pullathomas. So the only part of Ireland where it is proposed there should be a pipeline containing raw, highly pressurised gas is here, and you don't consider that relevant? If Limavady was the only part of Ireland that endured large earthquakes, don't you think it would be a strange place to start building skyscrapers?

The fourth section displays perfectly why so many people are angry with the government's rushing through the project. There are so many unanswered questions.

"Educated, forward-looking people"...wow. Your opinions are creeping back in. Have you thought of starting a blog? Ask the people of the Niger Delta about "high-earning, secure employment". Time to educate yourself on the kind of people who have recently begun to enjoy the sublime west coast, DJ. Start here.

Lapsed Pacifist 00:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LP you have not changed a lot, the same tired, borish, pov pusher - and not forward-looking in any respect. Tired. Djegan 01:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd ask you for your definition of forward-looking, DJ, but just guessing is entertainment enough. If I was in a cynical mood I would suspect that this bleating about POV means you're out of your depth. Instead I'll ask you to address the points I made.

Lapsed Pacifist 23:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its not "bleating about POV" - obviously you have not read the template! The discussion is about relevance - read the template! They (pov, relevance) are not one in the same thing, even your pov pushing should know that! No, my focus is on the content of the article, not on the new points you have raised above and how they relate to my politics.

But whilst discussing pov, your comments above are implicitly pov ("it's a moot point", "But no other industry describes Ireland as the most generous in the world.", "while I value your opinions on the proper role of government, DJ, they remain your opinions", "I'm all for them", "I'm not sure", "it doesn't exactly sound", "I can't remember a landslide in Ireland", "There are so many unanswered questions.", "Time to educate yourself".)

Now lets get back to the point, relevance of said section in the article (to this article re: "Corrib gas project"), if you want to make new points, add them to the article and if they stand up they will hopefully increase/improve its relevance. But thats not an excuse to go off on a tangent here. Some of your new points maybe relevant in a "what if" article about Ireland adopting Cuba's economic and social policy, or a "what if" article on earthquakes and tsunamis in Ireland, or a "what if" article if Ireland adopted the wage policies and working conditions of an African country - but that is not what is been discussed in the article. Djegan 00:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not feeding you anymore, DJ.

Lapsed Pacifist 18:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As both articles about the controversy, I would like to merge them. Alternatively, move all controversy information from this article to the Corrib gas controversy and describe here only the technical side of this project.Beagel (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have already moved what was a lengthy section on controversy there. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a merge. The Corrib gas project article to a large degree seems to deal with the conflict, environmental, legislatory, planning, protest, and other controversial issues in itself. So there is probably some duplication with the Corrib gas controversy article that could be rationalised with a merge. Either merge cthe controversy article back here. Or merge the main bulk of the "controversy" coverage from this article over to the controversy article. Either way, there is some overlap/redundancy that could probably be reduced. Guliolopez (talk) 16:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer your last proposal, bringing the rest of the controversy over here. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 08:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Lapsed Pacifist. Bring everything into this article and make Corrib gas controversy a redirect. ww2censor (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to say, "over there", that is, like Gulio's last proposal, to strip this article of the remaining controversy parts and move them. Sorry about that. You may want to amend your entry accordingly, Www2censor.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support the recommendation to merge the two articles into one. Under this article you could include a controversy section. I also suggest somebody makes this article more straightforward. The only reason I even looked at this was because of a video I saw on utube so I have no background in this case. It would be better if you had one article that first gives a general description, followed by history section, followed by technical section, followed by a controversy section. For example the controversy article lists all the controversy in the introduction but then the main article just gives background information???? This article almost immediately gets involved in controversy right away and the introduction section also needs to be cuts down. The introduction section for a gas project does not need to be bigger than the introduction needed for the WWII page. --76.19.222.40 (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth is the explanation for blanking excerpts of the highly critical An Bord Pleanála report, the highly critical Accufacts report, blanking a large chunk of the description of the opposition to the project, and deleting the link to the highly critical More4 documentary?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Pleanála report doesn't need to be fully quoted; the Accufacts report needs an establishment of

™ 15:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

In the six months since I edited this article, the wholesale blanking of links and removal of context often truncated sentences, rendering them meaningless, without relevant punctuation, etc. Grammar and syntax problems abounded, but I reckon I've caught most of them. If anyone really feels the need to remove content, please make sure not to leave a mess behind you. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is truly amazing that if you want to read anything about the elected political opponents to this project you have to go to another article .

As to where anything about the safety reviews is on Wikepedia ? That's a good question . Garda40 (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, Garda. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 10:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there is an entire article that deals with opposition to the project it seems not unreasonable that interested readers might have to go there for details of political opponents. Or do you really think that there should be two articles on opposition to the scheme -- one of which purports to be an article about the project? Before the "blanking" (good use of an nice emotive term there), the article read as an article about opposition to the scheme with nothing of any substance about the project itself. I cannot believe it is better to have it like that. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 02:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of background information that should probably be in this article is covered in the article Corrib gas controversy. Particularly, background, planning and politicians involved in the process. As the two articles are essentially about the same subject, ie. the corrib gas project and subsequent controversy either relating to it or generated by it, I believe it would be much more beneficial to readers if this were all covered in this article GainLine ♠ _♥ 12:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the background that should be in this article was just removed from this article , not rewritten just removed. And while both articles are focusing ultimately on Corrib and it's gas project both are notable in themselves to have separate articles .

• The Corrib gas project by it's nature , a large development in a rural area to exploit natural resources .
• The Corrib gas project controversy , the opposition to that project and it's effect on planing matters ,policing issues etc

By the nature of the issue there is obviously going to be crossover but that can be dealt with by a summary at least in each article and a relevant link to the other article .Garda40 (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I broadly agree with this. The Project article should focus on the project and provide a brief treatment (and link to the other article) on the controversy. I should think that the project article should be reasonably technical re specs of project developments etc. The Controv article should, by the same toke, provide a brief background on the porject (and a link to the porject article) and then detail the various opponents and their claims and Shell's and then the protests etc (with links to the Shell2Sea and the Rossport 5 etc etc). Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 01:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the removal, I know that there was an attempt ot a cleanup of the article and I did mention to the editor in question that it was a step or two too far. The controversy is a product of the project and the two are almost inseparable from one another in media reporting. There is a lot of background to the project, such as the planning process and the government input in the corrib gas controversy article that should probably be in the project article. I believe for the uninitated it would be easier for them to read it through from start to finish rather than having to go through it tangentially through links. I'm not advocating the loss or removal of information, nor do I believe in unnecessary duplication. GainLine ♠ _♥ 14:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy is a product of the project and the two are almost inseparable from one another in media reporting

Whether media reporting intermingles the gas project and it's controversy is not a reason to either add ,merge or delete articles on that basis on Wikipedia .

I believe for the "uninitiated" it would be better to have a comprehensive article at each location with links to more detail if they so desire it at other locations.

And are you saying that you didn't check the histories of the articles and who is editing them before proposing a merge .Your comment to the editor in question at that article didn't apparently stop them simply moving on to another article ( this one ) and deleting large sections of that .Garda40 (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, Garda, good points. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too pushed either way, but it may be a good idea to merge alright, seeing as the controversy is a subset of the project. Again though, not too bothered. Thanks!

Fortunately I am only responsible for my own edits and not those of others. As it stands Its very difficult for somebody who wishes to read up on this topic to do so without having to move between at least these two articles, so someone reading Corrib Gas Project has to to go to Corrib Gas Controversy to read the planning background on it. I'm sure you would agree that this isn't an ideal situation? I want to see an improvement on these articles, for both readability and content. If you think this can be achieved then please help improve the articles in question. GainLine ♠ _♥ 17:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

someone reading Corrib Gas Project has to to go to Corrib Gas Controversy to read the planning background on it

A situation that basically didn't exist before this edit [1]

By the nature of the notably of the project itself and of the controversy there is going to be overlap in the articles.

Are we going to put everything into one giant article and then get people complaining about there being "too much detail" or "the article is above the suggested word count for articles"

Guess what one of the solutions for that is ? You create a separate article .

Yes you are only responsible for your own edits but using as a criteria planning and politicians involved in the process not being in this article as a reason to merge it when those very points had just been removed by another editor doesn't look like you did any research before proposing a merge .That is something I do .Garda40 (talk) 19:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this would be be too large an article once the duplication was removed, if however you don't believe this is possible then please help improve the articles rather than attack the merger GainLine ♠ _♥ 19:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing a merger on grounds that have very shaky credibility doesn't help your proposal and has been the main reason I have opposed it since the start . Article size is a lesser issue to oppose the merger.And as I have said before duplication or overlay can be kept to a minimum ( as they are in many articles ) with appropriate links to more detail .

You can help the articles without merger (as in this case ) as well which ( after doing some research ) I notice you have being doing on other articles that relate to this subject .Garda40 (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to propose the merge after starting to try and cleanup the Controversy article today, I came across things that I believe would have been more at home in the project article such as the background in this section:-

==Beginnings==

In 1987, in a move described by

I am more interested in seeing the information represented in a correct manner than anything. I will happily work through these articles with you , in fact I would welcome the assistance. Confrontation helps no one and is ultimately self defeating for all involved. I've no problem in either sitting down and agreeing what should go in what article or how a larger article should look and be structured (My own personal preference is for one concise chronologically structured article dealing with the planning, tech aspects, political aspects, protests etc.) I know consensus must be reached and its important that we work towards that rather than bickering about stuff. GainLine ♠ _♥ 21:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you actually had looked at the article , saw items that had been removed and then used the fact that they were no longer in the article as justification to propose a merger instead of re editing them wherever and whatever way necessary .That is definitely not helpful to your proposal .

I can't understand why you didn't do what you did on other articles instead of what you actually did .Garda40 (talk) 22:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Garda, you're awful confrontational. Just a friendly reminder to

™ 22:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

The two articles need cleanup, you may have noticed from the edit history in the controversy article that it was after I finished the cleanup there and had a look at the project article that I proposed the merge. Rather than starting to work on the project article, I decided to propose the merger to bring in info from the controversy article. I am not against reinstating info back into the project article, I just didn't have the energy to start that again when it looks like both articles could benefit from a merger. This was merger proposed in the past [2], didn't meet any huge opposition yet never got carried out. This is all that I am proposing, I haven't actually done anything yet GainLine ♠ _♥ 22:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that there appears to be substantially more interest from editors in adding to the controversy than to information on the actual project. Therefore, the project article becomes quickly dominated by controversy and a great deal of detail on the back and forth of Shell, the protesters and the Irish government; to the article's detriment in my view. For this reason I do not support a merge.

Moreover, as noted above, I removed material on the controversy that was redundant to the Corrib Gas Controversy article. I do not feel that to be unreasonable but if editors feel that material re the planning process that is not redundant to the Corrib Gas Controversy article was deleted in error -- then please restore it or let me know and I will do do. I am uninterested in deleting such material from the Wikipedia; merely trying -- to the extent I am able -- to improve the project page and prevent it from becoming a mere coatrack for material on its controversial nature. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 01:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we aren't going to merge then lets work on proposed content and structure of the two articles. GainLine ♠ _♥ 10:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I am glad to get involved. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'kay. Well could interested parties please detail their proposals for content and structure of both articles here please? GainLine ♠ _♥ 08:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my initial thoughts for the Corrib Gas Project page:

1 - Lede (summary of field, proposal and controv.) 2 - Overview of gas field (specs, history etc -- some add. info is needed here) 3 - Proposal

3a - Extraction

3b - Sea Pipeline

3c - Land Pipeline

3d - Drying Plant

4 - Development

4a... to be based on what the relevant milestones are

5 - Controversy Summary (here to link to Controv page)

5a - Environmental/Safety

5b - Poss. violation of process

6 - Purported economic impact

Obviously this is a first effort. Perhaps add. material/headings needs and perhaps some of the orderings are wrong --- wanted to put this up as a start though. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 01:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

looks good to me GainLine ♠ _♥ 08:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait to see if any of the above critics have suggestions -- if not I can start making the changes. The Controversy article, I fear, will be a harder thing to fix. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Structure looks okay .No obvious alterations spring to mind .Garda40 (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Layout looks logicalCathar11 (talk) 23:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great -- I will mock up some content offline and then work it out as I can. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History:The licence was granted on 1 January 1993 for a period of 11 years. It is deepwater exploration licence No. 2/93 covering four blocks in the Slyne Trough. It is held by Enterprise Oil, as operator, and its partners Saga Petroleum Ireland Limited, Statoil Exploration (Ireland) Limited and Marathon International Petroleum Hibernia Limited. It was issued under the licensing terms for offshore oil and gas exploration and development 1992. http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0509/D.0509.199910200077.htmlCathar11 (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article apears to be biased against the gas project. In the lead section, we have:

• A claim that this is a project from 'Royal Dutch Shell', when Shell holds a minority interest in the field.
• A reference to 'exploitation' when 'extraction' would suffice. Exploitation is a word sometimes used without negative connotation, but in this case it reads pejoratively.
• A description of the Corrib field as a 'large natural gas deposit'. This is a 1 trillion cubic foot field, right at the bottom end of the scale for commercially realisable deposits.Hundreds of gas fields are larger and some are up to 1,000 times larger (see List_of_natural_gas_fields)
• The use of the word 'purported' is a construct for adding editorial bias. This use of this word is specifically warned against in
  WP:ALLEGED
  .

I don't want to be the one to do it, so would someone else like to fillet this article? thanks MoyrossLADY (talk) 10:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.

talk) 20:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

The above changes have been made and the article seems fairly unbiased. I have boldly removed the NPOV tag. 213.233.149.14 (talk) 10:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nine, being nearly half of all the references, are to shell web pages that are unavailable or redirect to the same uselss page, and are not to be found through Archive.org. Can someone helps find these references or link to new one as this lack of available citations undermines the credibility of the references and therefore the article? ww2censor (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.offshore-technology.com/projects/corrib/

  Triggered by \boffshore-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071120075511/http://www.village.ie/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=2108 to http://www.village.ie/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=2108

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071220081251/http://www.marinetimes.ie/Assets/_archive_2005/0105_news_06.html to http://www.marinetimes.ie/Assets/_archive_2005/0105_news_06.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—

I have just modified 3 external links on Corrib gas project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607134943/http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0509/D.0509.199910200077.html to http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/0509/D.0509.199910200077.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061229225619/http://www.publicinquiry.ie/pdf/Fiosru_2_HI_RES_Final.pdf to http://www.publicinquiry.ie/pdf/Fiosru_2_HI_RES_Final.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061231193519/http://www.publicinquiry.ie/pdf/Accufacts_Report_Hi_res.pdf to http://www.publicinquiry.ie/pdf/Accufacts_Report_Hi_res.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Corrib gas project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407060901/http://iooa.ie/ireland%C2%92s-offshore-potential/ to http://iooa.ie/ireland%C2%92s-offshore-potential/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.bordgais.ie/corporate/index.jsp?p=353&n=363
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.shell.ie/home/content/irl/aboutshell/shell_businesses/e_and_p/corrib/about/history/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090905005302/http://www.shell.com/home/content/ie-en/about_shell/shell_businesses/ep/corrib/security_supply/security_supply.html to http://www.shell.com/home/content/ie-en/about_shell/shell_businesses/ep/corrib/security_supply/security_supply.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091008185619/http://www.shell.com/home/content/ie-en/about_shell/shell_businesses/ep/corrib/about/overview/overview.html to http://www.shell.com/home/content/ie-en/about_shell/shell_businesses/ep/corrib/about/overview/overview.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.shell.com/home/content/ie-en/about_shell/shell_businesses/ep/corrib
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080914183743/http://www.corribgas.com/ to http://www.corribgas.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090813191604/http://www.shell.com/home/content/ie-en/about_shell/shell_businesses/ep/corrib/about/dir_about_corrib.html to http://www.shell.com/home/content/ie-en/about_shell/shell_businesses/ep/corrib/about/dir_about_corrib.html/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090331201355/http://mayogasinfo.com/ to http://www.mayogasinfo.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Corrib gas project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131013011945/http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/NR/rdonlyres/B9AC68AF-2FF8-4F08-A78A-7A21EB1C3DB3/0/QRAVersionF.pdf to http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/NR/rdonlyres/B9AC68AF-2FF8-4F08-A78A-7A21EB1C3DB3/0/QRAVersionF.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]