Natural resources being given away??

JimiTime

I'm wondering if you guys could educate me on the question of our Natural Gas supply.

Basically, I was watching questions and answers last night and an audience member start going on about the big supply of gas we signed away. i.e. Off the west coast. There was no denial of his accusations, they kind of just....ignored him. Does anyone know the story of our natural Gas resources? Do we really have alot of it? Did we sign it away in a dodgy agreement, like the M50 toll scenario? Any info would be appreciated.

Boston

I wouldn't say dodgy.

irish_bob

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm wondering if you guys could educate me on the question of our Natural Gas supply.

Basically, I was watching questions and answers last night and an audience member start going on about the big supply of gas we signed away. i.e. Off the west coast. There was no denial of his accusations, they kind of just....ignored him. Does anyone know the story of our natural Gas resources? Do we really have alot of it? Did we sign it away in a dodgy agreement, like the M50 toll scenario? Any info would be appreciated.

surely you know that you never trust a hippy

JimiTime

irish_bob wrote: »

surely you know that you never trust a hippy

Indeed:) But I'd never trust a party politician neither.

ChocolateSauce

We have a small amount of gas off the west cost; enough to make it economically viable, but not enough to really make a huge impact on the coffers. If it were all developed, we'd still have far far less than, say, Norway. I guess the government didn't think it was enough to bother with so they sold the rights to Shell.

Boston

Its like this, we said to shell,
"We have this box, we don't know whats in the box, or where the box is, nor how much it will cost to open assuming you can open the box at all. If you give me 20 euro, the box is yours when you find it".

and now it turns out the difference between what the box cost shell to exploit and what its worth far exceeded 20 euro. Some people are crying fowl play, but we weren't forced to sell it in the first place.

JimiTime

Boston wrote: »

Its like this, we said to shell,
"We have this box, we don't know whats in the box, or where the box is, nor how much it will cost to open assuming you can open the box at all. If you give me 20 euro, the box is yours when you find it".

and now it turns out the difference between what the box cost shell to exploit and what its worth far exceed 20 euro. Some people are crying fowl play, but me weren't forced to sell it in the first place.

I'm not saying Shell are the bad guys. Just like I don't think the M50 crowd were. i detect from what you are saying though, that the government made a quick buck by selling off the rights to Gas they knew was off the coast? Rather than being thrifty and working out a better deal?

Boston

You have to remember that the rights where sold well back in the day 70s or so. The economy back then wasn't anything like it is today. The government of the day probably decided that a little money now would do more good then holding out for potentially nothing down the road. Remember that at the time most people where saying it would never be economically viable to exploit those resources, its only recently that things have changed.

jmayo

Basically we offered "incentives" to oil/exploration companies to go drilling in our waters. The incentives were that they get to keep anything they find, they get to write off some expenses (drillingones I believe) against tax and they get to sell us the gas at market rates, just like if we were buying it form Russia.

So basically we the taxpayer don't get a lot out of it and we as consumers get screwed as usual.
Oh and here is the kicker Ray Burke (yes the one that you know got a house for nothing) around 1987 signed the first deal that allowed exploration companies (who lobby as Irish Offshore Operators Association IOOA) to write off 100% drilling and construciton costs against tax.
All costs of exploration were effectively transferred onto the taxpayers.

There is a theory amongst some people that success rates seem to dramtically increase after 1987, even though drilling or exploration rates actually decreased. Maybe they were just lucky or maybe they had an idea where to look already ?
After drilling for years and finding nothing suddenly the companies struck gold at a time when they cut back on exploration.

In 1992, Minister for Finance Bertie Ahern extended licensing terms for oil and gas companies, abolished royalties from Irish fields, and drastically reduced the tax rate for exploration companies to the lowest in the world.

Isn't it interesting the two people involved in all this.

Of course the oil companies will state it is so costly to go look for oil in some of our deep waters and there is no guarantee of finding anything.
Oh and sure look at all the jobs they will create :rolleyes:
Also they will state that other countries (e.g. Norway and UK) withdrew some of the licensing constraints that they had in place.

Oh Boston all of this did not happen way back in the 70s, it is a lot more recent than that. And the colation government, with labour Energy and trade minister was trying to putmore constraints in place, which were all affectively thrown out by Mr Burke.

Boston

Well whenever, 1987 was prior to the Celtic tiger. Can hardly blame shell because we elected morons.

ChocolateSauce

Boston wrote: »

Well whenever, 1987 was prior to the Celtic tiger. Can hardly blame shell because we elected morons.

Hear hear. People are rallying against Shell, but their just a big oil corp. It's their nature to do what they are doing. Blame the politicians (and by extension, the people who voted for them) for this who ha.

tricky D

jmayo wrote: »

Basically we offered "incentives" to oil/exploration companies to go drilling in our waters.

8<

And the colation government, with labour Energy and trade minister was trying to putmore constraints in place, which were all affectively thrown out by Mr Burke.

Wasn't there also something about some sort of statutory instrument being used for the benefit of a private company in a dodgy way that had never been done before.

jmayo

Boston wrote: »

Well whenever, 1987 was prior to the Celtic tiger. Can hardly blame shell because we elected morons.

Actually 1987 was the year when seeds for the Celtic Tiger began and not some year Bertie the great was Minister of Finance or Taoiseach. Anyway it still does not excuse affectively selling out to exploration/oil companies.
How come there were governments years previously trying to get more constraints and a national oil exploration comapny off the ground ?

You can't blame Shell, if the government, or more speciufically ministers in positions of responsiblity within the government, are offering such generous terms then you can't blame Shell or other oil exploration companies formjumping at them.
IMHO seen as it was Mr Burke that was involved the question has to be asked, did he get anything out of it personally ?

Boston

Don't get me wrong, I don't excuse the government. But I recognise whose fault it was.

Fratton Fred

there is also the small matter of Oil and Gas prices being a hell of a lot higher now than they were in 1987, thereby making those deposits a lot more attractive than they were then.

slimjimmc

Fratton Fred wrote: »

there is also the small matter of Oil and Gas prices being a hell of a lot higher now than they were in 1987, thereby making those deposits a lot more attractive than they were then.

which is why, at the time, a lot of people were concerned the government were selling off the nation's silver. If I remember correctly there was popular opinion that its value could only go up and the government should hold out until market prices made it even more valuable to the state. Obviously Leinster House had other ideas.

MrPudding

jmayo wrote: »

Basically we offered "incentives" to oil/exploration companies to go drilling in our waters. The incentives were that they get to keep anything they find, they get to write off some expenses (drillingones I believe) against tax and they get to sell us the gas at market rates, just like if we were buying it form Russia.

So basically we the taxpayer don't get a lot out of it and we as consumers get screwed as usual.
Oh and here is the kicker Ray Burke (yes the one that you know got a house for nothing) around 1987 signed the first deal that allowed exploration companies (who lobby as Irish Offshore Operators Association IOOA) to write off 100% drilling and construciton costs against tax.
All costs of exploration were effectively transferred onto the taxpayers.

And you forgot the funniest part. He went into the meeting where the deal was made by himself leaving the civil servants outside, even after they strongly advised him not to enter the meeting on his own.

MrP

JimiTime

Thanks for all the info. Politics, the perfect hiding place for the white collar criminals like Rat Burke. Sell out the nation and get fat on the profits. Stalinesque, look after oneself and feck the people. The difference? We elect our criminals.

EDIT:Just noticed my Freudian keyboard slip, calling Ray Burke 'Rat' burke. totally unintentional...but i like it:)

jmayo

MrPudding wrote: »

And you forgot the funniest part. He went into the meeting where the deal was made by himself leaving the civil servants outside, even after they strongly advised him not to enter the meeting on his own.

MrP

Didn't know that but not surprising :rolleyes:
Interesting point, have any of the agreements that he presided over been investigated ?
In some democracies there would be an investiagtion of all the major agreements reached or presided over by someone who was guilty of fraud and corruption while holding public office, but sure in our little banana republic he is seen by some as a cute hoor and even premoted.

paddyman

im in work now nad had a look but cant find it but i taught they rechanged the laws about 6 months back??

They increased the tax again for oil/gasd companies??

I'll look again later but im nearly sure i read it before.

nesf

jmayo wrote: »

In some democracies there would be an investiagtion of all the major agreements reached or presided over by someone who was guilty of fraud and corruption while holding public office, but sure in our little banana republic he is seen by some as a cute hoor and even premoted.

It's one of the serious problems with a very weak upper house. Once the majority in the lower house decides something, that's it. Unicameral systems might process legislation faster but it removes a necessary layer of oversight I think.