Corrib gas, the truth is out

yosemite_sam

Mark200 wrote: »

Exactly. I'm embarrassed for people who cry that they're our resources. We didn't have the tools or finance to dig holes around the coast looking for these resources. We weren't even sure that they were there. And Shell wouldn't have paid the money to look for the resources if they couldn't have profited from it.

The area was surveyed back in the 1970s, they have sat on the info since then. You are probably right, we would not be smart enough or be capable to engage subcontractors to look for it as Shell do. They are as well to have the hundreds of billions of revenue as we would only squander it

Mark200

Is mise le key wrote: »

So imposing high taxes is stealing, come on now really.

Also it it highly illogical to suggest that if there was say an oil field off our coast worth €100B that a company that would stand to make €10B after all expenses were cleared would say no to it. come on now really.

The point is that it is hugely costly to look for the oil in the first place. There is no guarantee that any will be found. So the risk/reward ratio for the company needs to be very good.

On the imposing high taxes - it is stealing in this case because we never told them we were taking it until they found the gas.

Glorianna Gael

Surely the terms must be favourable to the country the gas belongs too, otherwise you are destroying the environment in that area, alienating sections of your own people, paying massively for security, imprisoning objectors, and looking a total fool in the eyes of others, for minimal return all ..now that's embarrassment

humanji

Glorianna Gael wrote: »

Surely the terms must be favourable to the country the gas belongs too, otherwise you are destroying the environment in that area, alienating sections of your own people, paying massively for security, imprisoning objectors, and looking a total fool in the eyes of others, for minimal return all ..now that's embarrassment

If the country was the one who found the gas and the people negotiating it weren't corrupt, then the terms would be slightly more favourable. But Shell would still be making the biggest profit from it and the amount we'd get wouldn't be the country saving dividend that it's being made out to be.

Chucky the tree

The terms are favourable to us. We're getting money when before the law was changed we were getting nothing.

Glorianna Gael

I agree that who ever is taking the bigger risk should indeed have profit to show for it, also that they be reimbursed for the exploration.
The original agreement made way back in the 70's was more favourable to Ireland but Ray Burke(who can forget him?) actually redrew the contracts in favour of Shell. If the contract could be redrawn in Shell's favour then, why not now in favour of Ireland?
I don't think it is stealing to ask for a fair price for our commodity?

prinz

Glorianna Gael wrote: »

I agree that who ever is taking the bigger risk should indeed have profit to show for it, also that they be reimbursed for the exploration.

Redrawing the contracts after the finds have been properly explored and quantified to some degree is like asking a bookie to up your stake on a horse after the race has been won.

Chucky the tree

Glorianna Gael wrote: »

I agree that who ever is taking the bigger risk should indeed have profit to show for it, also that they be reimbursed for the exploration.
The original agreement made way back in the 70's was more favourable to Ireland but Ray Burke(who can forget him?) actually redrew the contracts in favour of Shell. If the contract could be redrawn in Shell's favour then, why not now in favour of Ireland?
I don't think it is stealing to ask for a fair price for our commodity?

Because it would make us look like dodgy robbing bastards.

yosemite_sam

humanji wrote: »

If the country was the one who found the gas and the people negotiating it weren't corrupt, then the terms would be slightly more favourable. But Shell would still be making the biggest profit from it and the amount we'd get wouldn't be the country saving dividend that it's being made out to be.

We had great terms in place, Ray Bourke and Bertie Ahern changed those terms to favor the oil companies. Shell probably judged us by the people we elected

wildlifeman

so let me get this straight ..haha the tree huggers have been shown to be a bunch of dopey idiots with no agenda and arent even from the area..most of the local people are happy with the project. ah well thats grand then..leave them be so.. hey wait a second how much money do we owe the IMF?? How much of Irish Natural resources are being shipped directly out of our country with no benefit to us except a few jobs for the local boyos are people really this stupid to think that this is a good deal. I have very strong connections to this area and in fact it doesnt really matter what are its in because the main point id that fianna fail yet again sold us down the river for a quick quid.. if i have my way the new government will tell shell to fook off or totally renegotiate the contract.

humanji

wildlifeman wrote: »

so let me get this straight ..haha the tree huggers have been shown to be a bunch of dopey idiots with no agenda and arent even from the area..most of the local people are happy with the project. ah well thats grand then..leave them be so.. hey wait a second how much money do we owe the IMF?? How much of Irish Natural resources are being shipped directly out of our country with no benefit to us except a few jobs for the local boyos are people really this stupid to think that this is a good deal. I have very strong connections to this area and in fact it doesnt really matter what are its in because the main point id that fianna fail yet again sold us down the river for a quick quid.. if i have my way the new government will tell shell to fook off or totally renegotiate the contract.

And when Shell refuse to renegotiate the contract?

wildlifeman

as i said tell them to fook off. we can prove that this contract was negotiated with two corruptable men which adds a certain ammount of weight to quash the original contract. if they want to take it to the highest court in europe ..so be it.

humanji

wildlifeman wrote: »

as i said tell them to fook off. we can prove that this contract was negotiated with two corruptable men which adds a certain ammount of weight to quash the original contract. if they want to take it to the highest court in europe ..so be it.

It's a concrete contract. It doesn't matter about the reputations of the men who signed it. If we renege on it, we'll be held to account by the highest court in Europe. And then other companies will be very wary of dealing with Ireland as they won't be able to trust us not to f*ck them over.

drdeadlift

humanji wrote: »

It's a concrete contract. It doesn't matter about the reputations of the men who signed it. If we renege on it, we'll be held to account by the highest court in Europe. And then other companies will be very wary of dealing with Ireland as they won't be able to trust us not to f*ck them over.

Oil companys wary of us lol

humanji

All companies, not just oil (and gas) companies. They can get cheaper labour and lower taxes in other countries. So if Ireland makes itself known to be hostile to companies, why in the name of god would they bother coming here?

drdeadlift

humanji wrote: »

All companies, not just oil (and gas) companies. They can get cheaper labour and lower taxes in other countries. So if Ireland makes itself known to be hostile to companies, why in the name of god would they bother coming here?

Because there is a very large amount of gas off the coast maybe? there shouldnt even be a debate here

humanji

And why would they when we have a history of f*cking over companies by reneging on contracts and demanding they be rewritten to suit ourselves better? Are you not getting the who concept here? They won't want to deal with Ireland when they can deal with other countries with less hassle and better profits.

Chucky the tree

drdeadlift wrote: »

Because there is a very large amount of gas off the coast maybe? there shouldnt even be a debate here

Oil companies are thick you know. Why would an oil company set up a in a country who have previously broken a contract and stolen from another oil company? If one of your mates borrowed €500 of another mate and told him that he won't pay him back because he doesn't want to and then asked you for a €500 loan would you give the money? Unless you're a dope then there is a very strong chance you'll tell him where to go.

K-9

yosemite_sam wrote: »

We had great terms in place, Ray Bourke and Bertie Ahern changed those terms to favor the oil companies. Shell probably judged us by the people we elected

I understand those terms have been changed as well.

drdeadlift

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Oil companies are thick you know. Why would an oil company set up a in a country who have previously broken a contract and stolen from another oil company? If one of your mates borrowed €500 of another mate and told him that he won't pay him back because he doesn't want to and then asked you for a €500 loan would you give the money? Unless you're a dope then there is a very strong chance you'll tell him where to go.

Yeah i suppose your right,there isnt anything we can do now.Hey lets all vote for ff again

the_syco

Is mise le key wrote: »

Whats wrong with that?

No company will set up shop in Ireland, as they'll fear that they'll make no money. A few companies (HP, IBM, Intel) will see it as a sign to get the f**k out of here.

profitius

They could do a 'sky'. Get Shell out on a technicality.

yosemite_sam

K-9 wrote: »

I understand those terms have been changed as well.

If you have a link it would be helpful, as I live amongst it and would like to find out what the deal is.

ArtSmart

brundle wrote: »

Anyone see the paul williams programme on TV3. Being local myself, I can say that it covered the issues and got it pretty damn spot on. Those three huggers have no support locally and hopefully now the rest of the country can see whats really going on there.

there was more than three surely?

ArtSmart

Dudess wrote: »

Only three of them?

Also, TV documentaries can be framed to suit a particular agenda. I'd prefer to be objective and consider both sides.

ok, snap. so i post before i read. so what?

Birdnuts

Mark200 wrote: »

The point is that it is hugely costly to look for the oil in the first place. There is no guarantee that any will be found. So the risk/reward ratio for the company needs to be very good.

On the imposing high taxes - it is stealing in this case because we never told them we were taking it until they found the gas.

Brilliant - I always wondered why the likes of Shell and BP made such tiny profits:rolleyes:

carwash_2006

If there's a ton of gas off the coast of Ireland, then maybe we'd be better chalking this one up to experience and making sure we don't get shafted in the future?

K-9

yosemite_sam wrote: »

If you have a link it would be helpful, as I live amongst it and would like to find out what the deal is.

Tax rate was increased from 25 to 40%:

Government announces new round of licensing for oil and gas exploration under new licensing terms - Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources

If it turns out as profitable as some make out, we'll get 40% on profits.

Birdnuts

humanji wrote: »

It's a concrete contract. It doesn't matter about the reputations of the men who signed it. If we renege on it, we'll be held to account by the highest court in Europe. And then other companies will be very wary of dealing with Ireland as they won't be able to trust us not to f*ck them over.

BP have just signed a big deal with Russia despite the fact that the same country basically tore up Yeltsin's cronies deal with Shell back in the 90's as regards vast gas deposits in the Russian Far East - your arguement has the same flawed logic as FF's one for prostituting the Irish taxpayer to the bank bond holders:(

th3 s1aught3r

Which government was it that handed over our natural resources to a foreign company in the first place ?

yosemite_sam

Duncan31 wrote: »

So An Bord Pleanala have granted permission for the pipeline. Can we put this to bed now and allow the works to go ahead I wonder. Somehow, I feel the dirty tricks campaign will really get underway now.

Not time for bed just yet http://corribjr.antaisce.org/ They launched an appeal/judicial review last week, it's how long is a piece of string time

bobblepuzzle

yosemite_sam wrote: »

Not time for bed just yet http://corribjr.antaisce.org/ They launched an appeal/judicial review last week, it's how long is a piece of string time

All the legal mumbo jumbo just delays the inevitable

Birdnuts

K-9 wrote: »

Tax rate was increased from 25 to 40%:

Government announces new round of licensing for oil and gas exploration under new licensing terms - Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources

If it turns out as profitable as some make out, we'll get 40% on profits.

The Horse has bolted I'm afraid since far more then the Corrib gas field has been given away under the old deal - the massive right off's against tax still apply in any case. Give this states sycophantic relationship with Shell for the past 20 years I doubt the accountants in SHELL have much to worry about from the Irish authorities asking to see the books.

PS: SHELL have lied to their own shareholders in the past after all :http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3524438.stm

Birdnuts

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

Whats the real issue here... who cares if Shell want a pipe going through... it's not dangerous as has been proven... some farmers want to make a bit more cash ey ey

Wow - I defer to your obvious indepth knowledge of the issue:rolleyes:

bobblepuzzle

Birdnuts wrote: »

PS: SHELL have lied to their own shareholders in the past after all

Aye, so has AIB, Bank of Ireland etc.... there is nothing unsafe with the pipe, it should continue to be built and give us revenue

yosemite_sam

K-9 wrote: »

Tax rate was increased from 25 to 40%:

Government announces new round of licensing for oil and gas exploration under new licensing terms - Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources

If it turns out as profitable as some make out, we'll get 40% on profits.

I may be wrong but this will not apply to the Corrib deal, it is in a specific area.

yosemite_sam

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

Aye, so has AIB, Bank of Ireland etc.... there is nothing unsafe with the pipe, it should continue to be built and give us revenue

What revenue

bobblepuzzle

yosemite_sam wrote: »

What revenue

When its finished, duh

Birdnuts

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

Aye, so has AIB, Bank of Ireland etc.... there is nothing unsafe with the pipe, it should continue to be built and give us revenue

Have you been living under a rock?? - we get FA under this deal!!

bobblepuzzle

Birdnuts wrote: »

Have you been living under a rock?? - we get FA under this deal!!

The Football Association, jeez

Birdnuts

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

The Football Association, jeez

I suppose I have to be impressed at a 4-year old surfing the net:rolleyes:

yosemite_sam

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

When its finished, duh

Royalties 0, past present and future costs for exploration and so on deductible so we'll get what they want to give no more

Birdnuts

carwash_2006 wrote: »

If there's a ton of gas off the coast of Ireland, then maybe we'd be better chalking this one up to experience and making sure we don't get shafted in the future?

According to Wikileaks SHELL say there are at least 15 Corrib fields out there - hence they have options on more Coillte land in the area(we still don't what they paid(if anything) for the 500 acres they got!!)

K-9

Birdnuts wrote: »

The Horse has bolted I'm afraid since far more then the Corrib gas field has been given away under the old deal - the massive right off's against tax still apply in any case. Give this states sycophantic relationship with Shell for the past 20 years I doubt the accountants in SHELL have much to worry about from the Irish authorities asking to see the books.

PS: SHELL have lied to their own shareholders in the past after all :http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3524438.stm

Fair enough.

Will we apply the 90% rate being mentioned here just to natural resources, or other multi nationals?

Is mise le key

humanji wrote: »

And when Shell refuse to renegotiate the contract?

Tax them high.

the_syco wrote: »

No company will set up shop in Ireland, as they'll fear that they'll make no money. A few companies (HP, IBM, Intel) will see it as a sign to get the f**k out of here.

This is total horse sh.ite, if the estimates sre correct of €540B of gas, we tax at 90% for the ebenfit of the state that leaves shell with a profit of.......anybody.........anybody?

€54,000,000,000

Fu.ck it lads, its not worth doing business in ireland now, its only €54B we stand to make in profit:rolleyes:

Please stop trying to discredit the idea of offering shell 54 billion for their trouble, expertise & work on the gas field as being a disincentive.

Mark200

Birdnuts wrote: »

Brilliant - I always wondered why the likes of Shell and BP made such tiny profits:rolleyes:

Because they only go where there's a good risk/reward ratio.

Is mise le key wrote: »

Tax them high.



This is total horse sh.ite, if the estimates sre correct of €540B of gas, we tax at 90% for the ebenfit of the state that leaves shell with a profit of.......anybody.........anybody?

€54,000,000,000

Fu.ck it lads, its not worth doing business in ireland now, its only €54B we stand to make in profit:rolleyes:

Please stop trying to discredit the idea of offering shell 54 billion for their trouble, expertise & work on the gas field as being a disincentive.

You don't even understand what profit is. Please stop lecturing people in this topic.

To calculate profit, you need to take away the costs...

The gas doesn't just teleport from under the sea into peoples homes. And it didn't just find itself either.


Was it you who linked to the United Left Alliance earlier?

Is mise le key

Mark200 wrote: »

You don't even understand what profit is. Please stop lecturing people in this topic.

To calculate profit, you need to take away the costs...

The gas doesn't just teleport from under the sea into peoples homes. And it didn't just find itself either.


Was it you who linked to the United Left Alliance earlier?

Ahh come on now, if you read my posts i think at least twice i have said once you take away operating costs etc whats left is where to begin.

I have to laugh at you saying that i dont understand profit, you have no idea who i am or what i do for a living.

humanji

Birdnuts wrote: »

BP have just signed a big deal with Russia despite the fact that the same country basically tore up Yeltsin's cronies deal with Shell back in the 90's as regards vast gas deposits in the Russian Far East - your arguement has the same flawed logic as FF's one for prostituting the Irish taxpayer to the bank bond holders:(

If you f*cked me over in a business deal, I wouldn't want to deal with you unless I could guarantee that I'd have the better of you. It's common sense and good business practice.

And I wouldn't really use BP as a good example as they're having a bit of trouble securing deals in the West due to some "unpleasantness" in the Gulf of Mexico last year. Russian politicians can be even more corrupt than Irish ones, so it's a hell of a lot easier to deal with them.

Is mise le key wrote: »

Tax them high.

Seriously? And they'll happily pay? And all other companies will see Ireland and not think "hey, they're just going to throw a strop and tax us even higher if we don't bend over and take whatever they decide to throw at us next"?

Is mise le key

humanji wrote: »

Seriously? And they'll happily pay? And all other companies will see Ireland and not think "hey, they're just going to throw a strop and tax us even higher if we don't bend over and take whatever they decide to throw at us next"?

The main flaw in what you are saying is that any other company can relocate & manufacture elsewhere therefore we do have to be careful on how we attract them into & to saty in Ireland.

The gas is in the earth, you cannot relocate & extract it from poland if the stakes are set high in favor of the state. You either accept 54 billlion or not.

Padraig Mor

Birdnuts wrote: »

According to Wikileaks SHELL say there are at least 15 Corrib fields out there - hence they have options on more Coillte land in the area(we still don't what they paid(if anything) for the 500 acres they got!!)

They didn't say any such thing. Not that facts would be of interest to any S2S types.