The Corrib gas project should be suspended

FlutterinBantam

sceptre wrote: »

I think if you read what the guy said, you'll find that he was aiming his comment squarely at the protesters. Not at you. The trouble with being on a high horse sometimes is that it's hard to see the ground at one's feet. Now, you may or may not agree with his views on the protesters. Difference of opinion is one of the main reasons this forum exists. But taking comments personally when they're not directed at you isn't - save it for the ones that are.

Personally I find this "pal, friend, buddy" stuff to be plain idiotic and probably an attempt to inflame. I give it no credence, I offer it no sympathy, it makes me think less of the people who use it here as it's never meant as a conciliatory gesture. However, limit your outrage to the comments directed at you please, you'll have a better day and a longer life if you do.

Now, if you have comments on this post, send them to me via PM please. Reporting comments you find offensive is enough without acting as your own vigilante and replying in kind to what you think you see as well.

/mod

I hear you big dog,fair point, not meant to offend, but point taken.

I know who I am.

Apologies to all concerned.

NewVision

lugha wrote: »

Or here’s a pickle for you. If I disapprove of S2S, which I do, could I organise a peaceful protest preventing them obstructing the public roads and hence the Shell project?

Question: Who disapproves Shell To Sea? You? The 'democratic elected government'? Can I assume you are not one of the 75% who wanted General Elections this year?

sceptre wrote: »

I think if you read what the guy said, you'll find that he was aiming his comment squarely at the protesters. Not at you.

FlutterinBantam
My advice to these people wold be:
Listen pal, get a job and when you are a taxpayer and contributer to the state, rather than someone who is dependent, maybe I might , I say again, might, listen to you.

The trouble with being on a high horse sometimes is that it's hard to see the ground at one's feet. Now, you may or may not agree with his views on the protesters. Difference of opinion is one of the main reasons this forum exists. But taking comments personally when they're not directed at you isn't - save it for the ones that are.

What if demonspawn is one of the protesters (at least he has been protesting in this forum)? Would he then not have the right to take that comment personally?

lugha wrote: »

Yes, potentially. Great word. I have a gas pipe coming in to my house servicing various appliances, which is potentially lethal. You remind me of the perpetually studies reported in newspapers that your health might be enhanced / diminished if you do / don’t do X or Y :rolleyes:.

In this case you would have an easy choice NOT to have that pipe coming into your house.

lugha wrote: »

One of the dafter aspects of this whole saga was the number of times you hear people bleating on about the size of pipes and the pressure in them and how it was 10 times the pressure in some other pipe, etc. etc. all the while cheerfully ignoring the obvious truth that most of us, myself firmly included, are in way qualified to make a direct assessment of how dangerous a pipe is or is not.

It is up to 20 times (!) the pressure than in ordinary pipelines where raw ('unscented') gas will be pumped through. Do you really think most of the people here are qualified to assess this very new (afaik first-time practised) technique as safe, particularly when installed in unstable boglands? Any source of proof (apart from Shell propaganda)? I provided several links to evidence that these pipelines are anything else but safe.

lugha wrote: »

But if there was a pipe somewhere near my house (it won’t be in anyone’s back garden) and ascertained that it poses an unacceptable risk (by canvassing the views of an impartial expert ) and I failed to persuade the authorities of this, then I would, with reluctance and resentment move me and my family away from the area. That few, if any, have taken this course of action suggests to me that they don’t take their family’s safety as seriously as I do, or more likely, they do see the risk much as I do, as being negligible.

Ok, "risk negligible"... is your own opinion. But would you really leave your beloved family home (where you and your family were growing up) and just give way? Hard to believe to be honest. I can only try to imagine how serious you would take your family's safety. :rolleyes:

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

They're wasting taxpayers money by their hostile and intimidating tactics, which require the Gardai to protect Shells workers. Irish people, trying to make a living, paying taxes, unlike alot of the protesters. They also attack Shells private property. They're a disgrace.

First of all, it is pure speculation that a lot of the protesters would not be paying taxes. Apart from the fact that far more than every second Euro the state is spending on dole et al comes back due to high consumer taxes in this country (but that's not the point here and might be discussed in other threads).

Secondly, if the gas exploring companies would pay a more fair share to our country the taxpayer had to expect much more relief from the burden this government is putting on us than the (estimated) €2,000 per day for the Gards 'serving' Shell et al.

More than before our country needs a fair share of our resources.

Ireland is not charging a Penny of loyalties for this gas excavating. Ireland is the second last country in the whole world when it comes to loyalties from oil / gas drilling companies! => “Oil and Gas Royalties – A Comparison of the Share of Revenue Received from Oil and Gas Production by the Federal Government and Other Resource Owners”. Only Cameroon beats us there. Really no need to be proud of.

Considering all that, people shouting these protesters would be "wasting taxpayers money" and using "hostile and intimidating tactics" sound quite unrealistic and poor to me. Contrariwise we have been able to see how hostile and intimidating Shell's tactics are. => Pipe Down, the best Feature Documentary at the Waterford Film Festival 2009.

We should be proud that there are still some people who care about our country, our environment, and the health and safety of our people. These people are investing a lot of their time and money for an orgulous Ireland, not for the profits of some multinationals.

Ireland's role as an international tax haven ('Double Irish') could soon become our next blasting bubble. Relying on the 'good will' of multinationals (employing not even 5% of our workforce) is at least as short-sighted as our property boom. That 'reputation' is anything but sustainable. We are not only selling out our gas, we're selling out our rights and our dignity.

Yitzhak Rabin

NewVision, would you be happy to allow the extraction of the gas by shell if


The pipeline was proved safe

and

Shell paid the same royalties etc. as a comparable nation like Britain

Or are these arguments, simply because you don't want the gas extracted by Shell full stop. Because as far as I can see S2S, is against any form of private enterprise from taking the gas, and are just trying to use these arguments to rabble rouse, because they realise most people, have no problem with private enterprise being used to sell the gas.

lugha

NewVision wrote: »

Question: Who disapproves Shell To Sea? You? The 'democratic elected government'? Can I assume you are not one of the 75% who wanted General Elections this year?

Not sure what point you are making here. The decision to allow Shell to proceed as they do was properly taken in a democratic state. It was not an election issue in 2007, indeed S2S closest ally in the Dail was rejected by the people of Mayo

NewVision wrote: »

In this case you would have an easy choice NOT to have that pipe coming into your house.

My point was there is “potential” danger everywhere we look. If we prohibit all things which are potentially dangerous, we would still be living in caves.

NewVision wrote: »

It is up to 20 times (!) the pressure than in ordinary pipelines where raw ('unscented') gas will be pumped through. Do you really think most of the people here are qualified to assess this very new (afaik first-time practised) technique as safe, particularly when installed in unstable boglands? Any source of proof (apart from Shell propaganda)? I provided several links to evidence that these pipelines are anything else but safe.

Yes Shell are going to attempt to play down any safety issues just as S2S will do the opposite. You cited IPEC site (parades ???) and therein I saw one reference to a safety issue with the pipe (perhaps there are other references that I missed?). This was an Irish Times report stating that An Bord Pleanála had safety concerns about the pipe. Fine, I am happy to put my faith in An Bord Pleanála rather than either Shell or S2S. If they eventually rule that a proposed route is safe, will you accept this?

NewVision wrote: »

Ok, "risk negligible"... is your own opinion. But would you really leave your beloved family home (where you and your family were growing up) and just give way? Hard to believe to be honest. I can only try to imagine how serious you would take your family's safety. :rolleyes:

I think you are getting confused here. Surely someone who insisted on keeping their family in harms way are the ones who are not serious about their safety, or more likely, do not seriously believe that there is a real danger?

LordSutch

Only in Ireland . . . .

despair

Jeboa Safari

Question: Who disapproves Shell To Sea? You? The 'democratic elected government'? Can I assume you are not one of the 75% who wanted General Elections this year?

First of all, the government does disapprove of shell to sea. Second the people of Mayo had the chance to elect a TD who supported shell to sea, but he wasn't, how come that?

First of all, it is pure speculation that a lot of the protesters would not be paying taxes. Apart from the fact that far more than every second Euro the state is spending on dole et al comes back due to high consumer taxes in this country (but that's not the point here and might be discussed in other threads).

If these protesters have time to go protesting I think its fair to assume they're not working. So they cost the state in welfare payments, then tie up more resources by making sure we need Gardai to police the area.

Ireland's role as an international tax haven ('Double Irish') could soon become our next blasting bubble. Relying on the 'good will' of multinationals (employing not even 5% of our workforce) is at least as short-sighted as our property boom. That 'reputation' is anything but sustainable. We are not only selling out our gas, we're selling out our rights and our dignity.

It's not just the employment that the Multinationals bring to the country. They pay their own taxes, and are responsible for alot of our exports.

Considering all that, people shouting these protesters would be "wasting taxpayers money" and using "hostile and intimidating tactics" sound quite unrealistic and poor to me. Contrariwise we have been able to see how hostile and intimidating Shell's tactics are. => Pipe Down, the best Feature Documentary at the Waterford Film Festival 2009.

Here's some quotes from the November 2006 Garda review

“They picked their place on the road where it is narrowest – at the old Bellanaboy Bridge. One of the central figures in the protest – not one of the Rossport Five – bonded scrum-like withhis son and his son’s friend and propelledthe two lads forward into a sergeant who was distracted – he was looking at something else and was caught totally unawares – and he was rammed into a ditch; into a deep drain. The sergeant has suffered a broken thumb with someligament damage; there was a lot ofwater in there too. “The men marched up to the gate,there was a scuffle and another Garda was assaulted. When trying to extract the culprit another Garda was hit frombehind into the eye; which became severely swollen.

The protesters have been videorecording everything since day one, and then you have the outside influences, the eco-warriors, and it is always part of their operation to have a camera in yourface – trying to agitate and get a reaction.“They will use it to their advantage; and Indymedia have been down there from day one.” Many members who have policed the protest have reported that they have been filmed and had cameras pointed close to their faces during the operation. Several have had this type of intimidation whenthey have been out socialising with family or friends.

One member said, “People around herewill talk to Gardaí, but are reluctant to put it onto paper. They don’t want to becalled to give evidence.“There has been a co-ordinated campaign of intimidation.

Superintendent Joe Gannon said, “Thereis a lot of intimidation, a lot of it unreported through fear.“You will have read in the national media about phone calls in the night; all of that is true. It is even happening to Gardaí. Installing fear into the local community has worked for them for the last two years but it is not going to workagainst the national police force.“The week before last, we had anumber of complaints from people over intimidation, there was one particular case where a man from Castlebar, totally innocent, unconnected with Shell, was going down there to visit his grandmother; he had his four-year-old son with him in the car.“Down below in Rossport, (as he was)driving a jeep they suspected he must have something to do with Shell so they surrounded him with the cars and interrogated him for 45 minutes. His four-year-old son was severely traumatised and distressed over it. He was shrewd enough to record some of iton his mobile phone. We have had four people in over that and we will have a file sent to the DPP

There was a documentry on tv3 last year which took account of both sides, and said the workers were intimidated. It also showed some of the abuse Gardai received, with one person saying that the IRA didn't kill enough of them.

NewVision

yekahs wrote: »

NewVision, would you be happy to allow the extraction of the gas by shell if

The pipeline was proved safe

and

Shell paid the same royalties etc. as a comparable nation like Britain

Or are these arguments, simply because you don't want the gas extracted by Shell full stop. Because as far as I can see S2S, is against any form of private enterprise from taking the gas, and are just trying to use these arguments to rabble rouse, because they realise most people, have no problem with private enterprise being used to sell the gas.

If Shell were paying such royalties I would call it a major success for this country.

There are several arguments which speak for nationalising Corrib.

Energy security. Shell et al are not automatically forced to sell our gas back to us.

All profits made would go into the public purse and not to some private shareholders. Highly beneficial for our people and our stone broke country.

Health and safety. Royal Dutch Shell Plc is a good website to explain how Shell is actually treating that issue.

Take a look at Norway. When it comes to GDP per capita*, Norway is worldwide at rank 3 (after Qatar and Luxembourg). Norway charges 76% loyalties from oil and gas exploring corporations. Their state owned oil company, Statoil has a 36% stake in Corrib. That means that Norway is getting more money from the Corrib Gas Fields than our own country.

...

Proving that high pressure pipeline as safe:
Well, at the moment Ireland is playing guinea pig for that new 'technology', pumping raw unrefined gas on land and treating it there. Hard to really prove any safety therefore.
The results of that are not only the polution of the heritage, environment and the drinking water supplies, it turns the whole landscape into an industrial zone which is also bad for tourism. The construction of that onshore refinery causes major disruption to the local fishery.
Core demand of Shell To Sea is refining the gas offshore as it has been usual worldwide. That's where the campaign's name comes from.

Guess why Shell et al have picked Ireland to test their 'new technology'.

lugha wrote: »

Not sure what point you are making here. The decision to allow Shell to proceed as they do was properly taken in a democratic state. It was not an election issue in 2007, indeed S2S closest ally in the Dail was rejected by the people of Mayo

The point was, are the same people (75% of the Irish), calling for earlier General Elections, telling us that the declaration of such pipelines as 'safe' are made by this 'democratically elected government'?

lugha wrote: »

My point was there is “potential” danger everywhere we look. If we prohibit all things which are potentially dangerous, we would still be living in caves.

In the opposite direction the human race wouldn't even exist.

lugha wrote: »

Yes Shell are going to attempt to play down any safety issues just as S2S will do the opposite. You cited IPEC site (parades ???) and therein I saw one reference to a safety issue with the pipe (perhaps there are other references that I missed?). This was an Irish Times report stating that An Bord Pleanála had safety concerns about the pipe. Fine, I am happy to put my faith in An Bord Pleanála rather than either Shell or S2S. If they eventually rule that a proposed route is safe, will you accept this?

As I said, it would be hard to prove a brand 'new technology' as safe. New technologies should normally make our lives safer and not more unsecure.

Other question: Do you believe the state and within its authorities are no way corrupt? Shell is well known for its bribery.

lugha wrote: »

I think you are getting confused here. Surely someone who insisted on keeping their family in harms way are the ones who are not serious about their safety, or more likely, do not seriously believe that there is a real danger?

So you're talking about believe here. Neverending story talking just about believe. One should be able to become convinced by facts and change her/his mind where appropriate.

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

First of all, the government does disapprove of shell to sea. Second the people of Mayo had the chance to elect a TD who supported shell to sea, but he wasn't, how come that?

1) And Shell To Sea are opposing that. It's their legal right. What's the point?

2) You better ask the people of Mayo, and where they're getting their information from. There were actually 3 (SF, Lab, Ind) of the 11 candidates supporting Shell To Sea. We'll see what next elections will show us, and whether the people have learned from the recent history how our politicians actually care about the good of the Irish people.

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

If these protesters have time to go protesting I think its fair to assume they're not working. So they cost the state in welfare payments, then tie up more resources by making sure we need Gardai to police the area.

Many protesters are locals, pensioners and students. People are even sacrificing their holidays to help the campaign. Considering your 'assumption' was right, do jobless people have less rights than employed people?

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

It's not just the employment that the Multinationals bring to the country. They pay their own taxes, and are responsible for alot of our exports.

Where are those taxes and royalties from Shell et al? :rolleyes:

You didn't bother to read the article from Bloomberg about the 'Double Irish', did you? See what kind of 'exports' these are. Unsustainable and very bad for Ireland's 'reputation' worldwide.

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Here's some quotes from the November 2006 Garda review

Any source for that? I'm spotting a lot of typos there.

Other question: Do you expect all protesters to stay absolutely peaceful if witnessing Gardai beating elderly people and pregnant women?
These are single cases. You find a minority of trouble makers in any part of our society. However, the appearance of Garda 'force' was widely collective.

Jeboa Safari

The point was, are the same people (75% of the Irish), calling for earlier General Elections, telling us that the declaration of such pipelines as 'safe' are made by this 'democratically elected government'?

Why do you insist on putting quotation marks around 'demrcratically elected government'. Are you trying to imply they weren't?

1) And Shell To Sea are opposing that. It's their legal right. What's the point?

You asked the question

2) You better ask the people of Mayo, and where they're getting their information from. There were actually 3 (SF, Lab, Ind) of the 11 candidates supporting Shell To Sea. We'll see what next elections will show us, and whether the people have learned from the recent history how our politicians actually care about the good of the Irish people.

Well they had the choice to vote in pro shell to sea campaigners, they didn't. So I don't know how you can claim its the will of the people.

Any source for that? I'm spotting a lot of typos there.

Like I said, The Garda Review for November 2006.
http://www.gardareview.ie/media/garda_review_november_2006.pdf

Other question: Do you expect all protesters to stay absolutely peaceful if witnessing Gardai beating elderly people and pregnant women?
These are single cases. You find a minority of trouble makers in any part of our society. However, the appearance of Garda 'force' was widely collective.

The Gardai obviously had reason to draw their batons. These people weren't cooperating with the Gardai. And I would seriously question the suitability of a pregnant woman to be a mother, if she puts her baby in harms way like that. Thats assuming that story is true, because it's the first I've heard of it.

oscarBravo

NewVision wrote: »

There were actually 3 (SF, Lab, Ind) of the 11 candidates supporting Shell To Sea.

I remember after the election when the votes were counted, and the SF candidate who had loudly supported the S2S campaign turned out to have received four votes in Rossport - the comment at the time was that he couldn't even get the Rossport Five to vote for him...

unit 1

Ahah I just knew they can tell how people vote in an election.

demonspawn

oscarBravo wrote: »

I remember after the election when the votes were counted, and the SF candidate who had loudly supported the S2S campaign turned out to have received four votes in Rossport - the comment at the time was that he couldn't even get the Rossport Five to vote for him...

Are you speaking about Jerry Cowley? He was an independent wasn't he? And I wouldn't put too much emphasis on who was or was not elected. I'm sure there a number of reasons why they voted the way they did. To suggest they voted someone out merely because of the candidate's stance on the Shell debate is somewhat insulting, don't you think?

FlutterinBantam

demonspawn wrote: »

Are you speaking about Jerry Cowley? He was an independent wasn't he? And I wouldn't put too much emphasis on who was or was not elected. I'm sure there a number of reasons why they voted the way they did. To suggest they voted someone out merely because of the candidate's stance on the Shell debate is somewhat insulting, don't you think?

No I don't .

Give some people credit for an informed view, not some left wing bulldust which is only attractive to the unemployed and liggers who will leech onto the solid side of the cash cow for as long as they can.

They are many and varied and don't fool most people.

NewVision

oscarBravo wrote: »

I remember after the election when the votes were counted, and the SF candidate who had loudly supported the S2S campaign turned out to have received four votes in Rossport - the comment at the time was that he couldn't even get the Rossport Five to vote for him...

It doesn't really speak for his party, does it?

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

So I don't know how you can claim its the will of the people.

Where did I claim that? Where did I write it is "the will of the people"?

What you're doing here is clear libel. That's no more funny, Jeboa Safari.
You impute an assertion I didn't write to me.

Scofflaw

We're now into the "more heat than light" end of the spectrum.

NewVision wrote: »

It doesn't really speak for his party, does it?

Where did I claim that? Where did I write it is "the will of the people"?

What you're doing here is clear libel. That's no more funny, Jeboa Safari.
You impute an assertion I didn't write to me.

NewVision, such a claim is certainly not libel - and please don't use quasi-legal threats against other posters. If someone is misrepresenting what you said, correct the misinterpretation.

FlutterinBantam wrote:

No I don't .

Give some people credit for an informed view, not some left wing bulldust which is only attractive to the unemployed and liggers who will leech onto the solid side of the cash cow for as long as they can.

They are many and varied and don't fool most people.

FlutterinBantam, perhaps you could be slightly less antagonistic? I appreciate you feel strongly about the subject, but can't help but feel your epithets might be taken up as applying to the posters here, which wouldn't be acceptable.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Oafley Jones

NewVision wrote: »

So, how much are we prepared for getting compromised by those multinationals?
Why do other European countries successfully charge royalties?
Norway charges 76% royalties. And still there are multinationals drilling. Their state owned company Statoil has a 36% stake in Corrib. That means that Norway is getting more money from the Corrib Gas Fields than our country.

I've posted this before and I think it's worth putting up again. It's taken from the poster oilking on thepropertypin.com
http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=13259&start=0


The deal the Irish State did with Shell is no different than what both ourselves and our neighbours in Holland, Norway and the UK have been doing for years. The only difference is that since the 1970s (Kinsale gas field) this is the first commercial gas discovery on the Irish Continental shelf.
The continental shelf of each country is divided up into blocks which are each given numbers. Oil companies then bid on the rights to drill in a block. The block will be leased to the oil company for a stated number of years and yes they will earn revenue for bringing any hydrocarbons found to market. The state will then tax the revenue in a number of ways but usually this is done by royalties of a fixed percentage of revenue for each BOE (barrel of oil equivalent) produced. The tax rate of the royalties is stated in the terms of conditions set by the government prior to any oil company taking out a lease on a block.

In Ireland we've one of the worst strike rates for finding hydrocarbons of anywhere in the planet. (3% but I need to find the link for this) Here is some useful comparisons with our neighbours in Norway and the UK

Quote:
The Irish offshore industry is repeatedly compared to its Norwegian and UK counterparts. More often than not, this comparison focuses on the fiscal terms offered to companies carrying out exploration and development in these countries. This comparison is wholly inappropriate.

Exploration in Norway commenced at about the same time as in Ireland. Since then the Norwegian industry has drilled 1,200 exploration and appraisal wells. The UK industry has drilled 4,211 exploration and appraisal wells and currently has 350 producing oil and gas fields.

At the same time, Ireland has drilled only 155 exploration and appraisal wells and only has three producing gas fields with the fourth, Corrib, under development.

Norway is also seen as particularly attractive for exploration given the large average size of the fields discovered, approximately three times the size of the average in Ireland. Norway’s production to date plus proven reserves is 114 times greater than Ireland’s. UK production to date and proven reserves is 99 times greater than Ireland’s.

These enormous natural advantages enable Norway and the United Kingdom to impose tough fiscal terms on offshore explorers and make any comparison between terms offered in Ireland and the other two countries entirely inappropriate. The attractiveness of Norway and the United Kingdom, despite their relatively onerous fiscal terms, is emphasised by the number of applicationsfor exploration licences. For instance, the 24th Licensing Round (2006) in the UK attracted 147 applications from 121 companies. A comparable round in Ireland resulted in the award of 4 licences.

The appropriate comparison would be with other countries of relatively low prospectivity, such as France, Spain and Portugal, which have similarly low levels of activity to Ireland.
Norway is the third largest exporter of crude oil in the world and currently has 49 producing oil and gas fields with a further five fields under development. Another 13 fields have ceased production. The UK has over 300 producing oil and gas fields with 18 fields under development. Ireland has only three producing gas fields, one gas field under development and no commercial oil discoveries to date. These stark differences make comparisons between Ireland and the other two countries, and the fiscal terms they impose on exploration companies, entirely inappropriate.
Source: UKOOA, the Petroleum Affairs Division and the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (Faktaheftet om norsk petroleum verksemd for 2005).


http://www.iooa.ie/securing-the-future-page41390.html


So, if you have lots of oil and gas already discovered on your continental shelf you can impose higher taxes/tariffs on the Oil companies producing oil and gas.
Because of the low success rate on the Irish continental shelf we must be very generous on the low taxes that we would charge so as to attract oil companies to drill in our waters.

It would seem that just as Shell is about to make a return on their massive investment on the Corrib project we have people in this country deciding that they should not have it, almost that we always knew that it was there and our government still decided to "give it away". This is nonsense. Do these people realise the massive cost today for exploring for oil and gas. An average exploration well in deep water such as off the coast of Mayo and Donegal where Shell is drilling is now costing at least $100 million.

I'm all for our government setting up an Irish National oil company to explore for oil and gas off of Ireland but I do not think that the Irish tax payer is willing to stump up the cost of maybe $1 Billion to go on a 10 well drilling programme with a success rate of perhaps 5%. And that cost would only be for drilling the wells. Not for building the offshore platforms, pipelines, onshore refineries. So perhaps double that price again.
How many hospitals, schools and roads are the Irish people willing to forfeit so that we can explore for oil and gas.
It seems we want to go down the path of just confiscating it from the companies who are willing to take the chance of finding it. This is outrageous.

I have no beef with people campaigning on whether Shell are doing a safe and environmentally friendly job of bringing the Corrib gas to shore but nationalising our tiny offshore reserves is economic suicide. Welcome to Communist Ireland.

For the record I work for a major Oil and Gas company but not Shell. The company I work for has no commercial interest in Corrib or any other project on the Irish Continental shelf.

demonspawn

I remember after the election when the votes were counted, and the SF candidate who had loudly supported the S2S campaign turned out to have received four votes in Rossport - the comment at the time was that he couldn't even get the Rossport Five to vote for him...

NewVision wrote: »

It doesn't really speak for his party, does it?

I was actually really curious to find out who this mystery SF candidate was so I started searching the web. It turns out that the last SFer to win a seat in Mayo was back in the 1920s.

The most recent SFer to run for office was a chap by the name of Gerry Murray, who ran for County Council in Swinford as a FFer back in '99 and won a seat. He defected over to SF two years into his term. He was re-elected in Swinford on a SF ticket in 2004. He ran for TD in 2006 so I can only assume this is the guy people here are referring to.

I'd say the fact that he switched parties in the middle of his term and that he switched to SF had more to do with him not being elected. But that's just speculation, not very different than the speculation that he wasn't elected because of his stance on Shell.

So let's all just drop that argument. It just doesn't hold water at all.

demonspawn

Oafley Jones wrote: »

I'm all for our government setting up an Irish National oil company to explore for oil and gas off of Ireland but I do not think that the Irish tax payer is willing to stump up the cost of maybe $1 Billion to go on a 10 well drilling programme with a success rate of perhaps 5%. And that cost would only be for drilling the wells. Not for building the offshore platforms, pipelines, onshore refineries. So perhaps double that price again.
How many hospitals, schools and roads are the Irish people willing to forfeit so that we can explore for oil and gas.
It seems we want to go down the path of just confiscating it from the companies who are willing to take the chance of finding it. This is outrageous.

Sorry for cutting most of your post but it was HUGE! 2 billion euros investment for a return of well over 2 billion plus the security of having our own source of energy, coupled with the fact that the EU would have footed part of the bill under whatever national development schemes they run and you're argument isn't as strong.

This deal was fubar from the get go and turning back on it now is pretty bad, but the Irish people should not have to suffer because of the idiotic decisions made years ago by a few crooked politicians. That seems to be the main theme of Irish government for the past 40 years or so.

Jeboa Safari

NewVision wrote: »

It doesn't really speak for his party, does it?



Where did I claim that? Where did I write it is "the will of the people"?

What you're doing here is clear libel. That's no more funny, Jeboa Safari.
You impute an assertion I didn't write to me.

Well apologies if you didn't say that then. Although you said the locals were glad of the support.

2 billion euros investment for a return of well over 2 billion plus the security of having our own source of energy, coupled with the fact that the EU would have footed part of the bill under whatever national development schemes they run and you're argument isn't as strong.

And what if no oil or gas was found, a very real possability considering our low strikerate. I'm sure there'd be uproar.

Scofflaw

It would seem that just as Shell is about to make a return on their massive investment on the Corrib project we have people in this country deciding that they should not have it, almost that we always knew that it was there and our government still decided to "give it away". This is nonsense. Do these people realise the massive cost today for exploring for oil and gas. An average exploration well in deep water such as off the coast of Mayo and Donegal where Shell is drilling is now costing at least $100 million.

I'm all for our government setting up an Irish National oil company to explore for oil and gas off of Ireland but I do not think that the Irish tax payer is willing to stump up the cost of maybe $1 Billion to go on a 10 well drilling programme with a success rate of perhaps 5%. And that cost would only be for drilling the wells. Not for building the offshore platforms, pipelines, onshore refineries. So perhaps double that price again.

The strike rate as far as I recall was about 1 in 30 wells. Looking at recent discussions of the matter, that seems to be the case:

Irish Atlantic waters have traditionally been inhospitable areas for petroleum exploration. Circa 150 wells have been drilled in the last 30 years with a less than 1 in 30 success ratio (discovery of commercial fields).

Source

Here in Ireland, the average success rate since the 1970’s has been 1 in 30 and all drilling costs - upwards of $70 million for a single deep water well - are borne by the oil company.

Source

A 30-to-1 rate is not really attractive - you're effectively talking about splashing out €3bn for a single discovery. And that's assuming a level of expertise that doesn't actually exist in the Irish market. Developing the field would then be a cost on top of that - as Oafley says, you can double the figure. And what might you be getting? Maybe the Helvick field - worth all of $700m. If you're lucky, Corrib, worth somewhere between $2.5bn and $5bn. Really lucky, maybe Kinsale - worth $3.6bn to $7bn. At least with the last you might actually make your money back.

Frankly, the banks are a less risky investment. A lot less risky.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Jeboa Safari

Here's a faq from shells website aswell. Not sure how accurate or uptodate it is, and probably has some bias, but no more so than the likes of indymedia. Good questions too I think in fairness, not afraid to answer them

Q: Why won’t the Corrib Gas Partners accept the compromise solution proposed by some local community groups and move the onshore terminal to Glinsk?

In 1999 ARUP Consulting Engineers were commissioned by Enterprise Oil plc to undertake a feasibility study to identify suitable landfall locations, reception terminal sites and onshore pipeline routes in connection with the proposed development of the Corrib gas field. The feasibility study identified six potential landfalls and four potential reception terminal sites close to Sruwaddacon Bay.
The site at Bellanaboy Bridge emerged as the preferred location for the onshore terminal and, following a lengthy statutory and public consultation process, this location was granted full planning permission in late 2004. Construction of the terminal is currently 75% complete.
Glinsk in northwest County Mayo was never considered as a potentially suitable landfall location or terminal site for various reasons. The coastline in the Glinsk area is characterised by 100m to 200m rock cliffs. The coast in this area is north facing and is therefore very exposed to adverse weather conditions.
The proposed site at Glinsk is 2.5km from the nearest 3rd class paved road and from other infrastructure requirements such as power, making it significantly more difficult to develop as a landfall/reception terminal.
Also because of the very broad range of relationships we have with members of the local community, we do not agree with the assertion that those calling for the terminal to be relocated to Glinsk speak for or have the support of the majority of people in the local area.
ARUP Consulting Engineers Report (PDF, 1387 KB) - opens in new window

Q: Why won’t you process the gas offshore as the Shell to Sea campaign demands?
From a safety, environmental and economic point of view, onshore processing of Corrib gas is the best option for a field of this type and size. In addition, onshore processing maximises the benefits to the local area.
The harsh Atlantic location and deep water make Corrib unsuitable for offshore processing. Industry data from around the world show there are greater risks associated with working on and traveling to an offshore platform, even one close to shore. Onshore processing minimises hazards such as helicopter transportation and marine cargo movements, none of which occur with an onshore plant.
Furthermore, an offshore platform would still require an onshore terminal, albeit a smaller one, and a high-pressure onshore pipeline.
In addition, an offshore platform would have to be serviced from a large commercial port and therefore would not be serviced from Mayo. Consequently, there would be far fewer benefits for the local community.

Q: Has the Irish Government given away its natural resources cheaply to international explorations companies?
Arguments about Ireland's “great gas giveaway” often ignore the facts. Irish and international exploration companies, have invested in excess of €2 billion drilling unsuccessfully in Irish waters over the past 30 years.
Approximately 140 unsuccessful wells have been drilled. The average cost of drilling a single deep water exploration well off the Irish coast of Ireland exceeds €50 million. The chances of achieving exploration success are less than 40 to 1.
Despite all this drilling, Ireland currently has only one gas field in production: the Kinsale field which is nearly depleted. The Corrib field, which was discovered in 1996, will not be in production until 2010/2011.
Successive Irish governments, like many others in Europe, have chosen to invite private companies, to bear the significant financial risks associated with exploration rather than expose taxpayers to it.
Once in production, the Corrib Gas Partners will pay 25% tax on profits. This is twice the rate of Corporation Tax levied on all other companies in Ireland – and reflects the fact that natural resources are being harvested.
The Corrib gas project is something that benefits us all - it will bring security of energy supply to Ireland, jobs to the local area and opportunities for talented people to develop their skills working on one of Ireland's most exciting engineering projects.

Q: Why are Irish taxpayers paying for the policing of protest against the Corrib project in Mayo?
Policing of protestors of the Corrib project is a matter for An Garda Síochána.
While we fully recognise the right to peaceful protest, we are working within the democratic process and the law and our staff and local contractors also have a right to carry out their day-to-day work without disruption. It is regrettable that the Gardaí are required to intervene during protests relating to the project. However it is their duty to uphold the law.

Q: As a result of concerns expressed by members of the local community, you have agreed to limit the pressure in the onshore pipeline to a maximum of 144 bar, but it still has a design pressure of more than twice that (345 bar) - can you guarantee that it will never operate at the design capacity?
The onshore pipeline now has a design pressure of 144 bar. The pipeline was originally designed to withstand 345 bar in the highly unlikely event of pressure increasing above the normal operating pressure. Advantica were commissioned by the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, to carry out an independent safety review of the Corrib gas pipeline. Advantica recommended a system be put in place to ensure that the onshore pipeline pressure could not exceed 144 bar, suggesting this to be a practical and effective measure to reduce risk in light of societal concerns that had been expressed. In response to this, a Landfall Valve Installation has been incorporated into the design, which automatically shuts off the pressure from offshore in the event that the pressure in the onshore pipeline should rise towards 144 bar.
Corrib Onshore Pipeline: Enhancing Safety brochure (PDF, 4848 KB) - opens in new window

Padraig Mor

demonspawn wrote: »

Sorry for cutting most of your post but it was HUGE! 2 billion euros investment for a return of well over 2 billion plus the security of having our own source of energy, coupled with the fact that the EU would have footed part of the bill under whatever national development schemes they run and you're argument isn't as strong.

This deal was fubar from the get go and turning back on it now is pretty bad, but the Irish people should not have to suffer because of the idiotic decisions made years ago by a few crooked politicians. That seems to be the main theme of Irish government for the past 40 years or so.

If it costs oil companies approx €100m to drill a well, you can be sure the Irish govt would end up paying €300, it would go years behind schedule, and would never actually work properly anyway. There's nothing crooked about the deal - it's a good deal for ireland.

NewVision

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Well apologies if you didn't say that then. Although you said the locals were glad of the support.

Maybe 'libel' was a bit harsh. Nevertheless, I think you better quote me next time when you allege that I claim or say something.

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

And what if no oil or gas was found, a very real possability considering our low strikerate. I'm sure there'd be uproar.

:rolleyes:

Then you think that a piece of Shell's "Q & A" would do the trick.

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Here's a faq from shells website aswell. Not sure how accurate or uptodate it is, and probably has some bias, but no more so than the likes of indymedia. Good questions too I think in fairness, not afraid to answer them

Ok. Here some answers from me (just for the craic ).

Shell:

Q: Why won’t you process the gas offshore as the Shell to Sea campaign demands?

From a safety, environmental and economic point of view, onshore processing of Corrib gas is the best option for a field of this type and size.

The best 'economic' option for whom?

Operating pressure of onshore pipelines is about 80 to 90 bars.
They apply for "design pressure of 144 bar" pipelines which transport unrefined gas. What would be the maximal pressure for those pipes in unstable boglands? We Irish should know about leaking pipes
Natural gas is mostly methane, an odorless gas, which you can't smell. It is also (one of) the most volatile of the compounding. So leaks will therfore be later detected. The overall impact of leaks or even accidents with natural gas pipelines are more disastrous because of the other compounds.
Shell can't produce any reliable statistics or substantial proof that we could call this new practise of onshore refining equally or even more safe.

So 'safety' and 'environmental' don't apply here.

Again: Ireland is playing 'guinea pig' for Shell's profits.

In addition, onshore processing maximises the benefits to the local area.

What do they mean with maximising the benefits? To whom? To the local area? Would Shell no more employ local workers and engineers when the gas would be refined offshore?

The harsh Atlantic location and deep water make Corrib unsuitable for offshore processing. Industry data from around the world show there are greater risks associated with working on and traveling to an offshore platform, even one close to shore. Onshore processing minimises hazards such as helicopter transportation and marine cargo movements, none of which occur with an onshore plant.

Cargo movements are more reasonable per ship, anyhow. Not to worry, there are many Irish ports big enough for their cargo... and small enough to send locals to work.
If an accident will happen it's 'not only' the workers out on the refinery, it will happen on land which doesn't really 'maximise the benefits to the local area'.

Furthermore, an offshore platform would still require an onshore terminal, albeit a smaller one, and a high-pressure onshore pipeline.
In addition, an offshore platform would have to be serviced from a large commercial port and therefore would not be serviced from Mayo. Consequently, there would be far fewer benefits for the local community.

Locals and the people of Mayo you are warned by Shell.
Shell threatens to pull out of your business because they wouldn't use Irish roads anymore?
Out of Irish ecomy???

I believe that the local economy would have more benefited from sustaining the value of an unspoiled landscape. I bet, if the Shell would move back to Sea, Rossport could even become a famous attraction for touristm after all. More sustainable anyhow.

Scofflaw wrote: »

The strike rate as far as I recall was about 1 in 30 wells. Looking at recent discussions of the matter, that seems to be the case:
Source

What is that graph showing in that brochure? Can you see it?

Your brochure also says:

Scofflaw wrote: »

Source

Ireland urgently needs new energy
supplies for its growing population and
thriving, energy-hungry economy. It now
imports 85% of its gas requirements, in
comparison to 1996, when about 95% of
the country’s needs came from the Kinsale
Head complex.
Ireland’s aim is to achieve selfsufficiency in
hydrocarbon production by
2020, and it will be interesting to followthe
success, or otherwise, of the Irish
authorities in encouraging exploration.

Wonder how the government want to achieve 'selfsufficiency in
hydrocarbon production by 2020' when the demand is rising and the Corrib Gas Fields reportedly can supply maximal 60% of Ireland's gas demand.

So there is much more gas out there than Shell is officially admitting.
Does the Petroleum Affairs Directorate know more than published?

Scofflaw wrote: »

A 30-to-1 rate is not really attractive - you're effectively talking about splashing out €3bn for a single discovery. And that's assuming a level of expertise that doesn't actually exist in the Irish market. Developing the field would then be a cost on top of that - as Oafley says, you can double the figure. And what might you be getting? Maybe the Helvick field - worth all of $700m. If you're lucky, Corrib, worth somewhere between $2.5bn and $5bn. Really lucky, maybe Kinsale - worth $3.6bn to $7bn. At least with the last you might actually make your money back.

Obviously Shell is not hesitating to invest money in Irish gas resources.
If we believe the published 1Tcf of reserves in Corrib the lowest estimate would be closer to $7 bn at current European market price, a price which is steeply rising again.
I couldn't find any real current wholesaleprice of natural gas in Ireland. Maybe someone else could contribute to that matter.

So Corrib alone will return a multiple of the money invested.

Shell doesn't do all that hassle to 'secure Irish gas independence'.

Compare to the estimated €35 bn expected that are just going to the collapsing Anglo Irish which will never be recovered again, Ireland taking the gas business in her own hand would be a much better deal, wouldn't it?

Then reading ...

Scofflaw wrote: »

Frankly, the banks are a less risky investment. A lot less risky.

... is - politely said - just not quite understandable for me. Maybe you tell us your special definition for 'risky' in this matter. What risk do you mean? The risk for the better? :rolleyes: :eek:

Oafley Jones

Newvision, your last post hurt my head. Literally. Honestly, I must have read it ten times now in order to try and create a response, but your post is so off the wall that I don't know where to start. The logic could only be more incomprehensible to me if you had randomly inserted the word rhubarb throughout. Ultimately, I don't think there's any real point in debating with you because I believe that you are immune to logic and facts and that you'll create whatever reality you want to justify your position.

Padraig Mor

Oafley Jones wrote: »

Newvision, your last post hurt my head. Literally. Honestly, I must have read it ten times now in order to try and create a response, but your post is so off the wall that I don't know where to start. The logic could only be more incomprehensible to me if you had randomly inserted the word rhubarb throughout. Ultimately, I don't think there's any real point in debating with you because I believe that you are immune to logic and facts and that you'll create whatever reality you want to justify your position.

Welcome to the crazy world of S2S!

Nodin

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Welcome to the crazy world of S2S!

Its ok to have a look, but you wouldn't want to stay.

johnnyskeleton

Just out of curiosity, what sort of deal do shell have with other countries to do gas/oil exploration?

If our cut is proportionate to what other countries get then there's no problem.

FlutterinBantam

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Welcome to the crazy world of S2S!

heh eh heh, probably posting from some bogwater infested laptop on the side of a mountain called "Hooogivesafook"

Only problem is how to get back to base to collect the dole and spread the lefty agenda at the expense of JQ Taxpayer.


Most people have cottoned onto this tactic by now surely







































:eek:Surely!!!.

NewVision

Oafley Jones wrote: »

Newvision, your last post hurt my head. Literally. Honestly, I must have read it ten times now in order to try and create a response, but your post is so off the wall that I don't know where to start. The logic could only be more incomprehensible to me if you had randomly inserted the word rhubarb throughout. Ultimately, I don't think there's any real point in debating with you because I believe that you are immune to logic and facts and that you'll create whatever reality you want to justify your position.

So you seemingly have lost your arguments...

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, what sort of deal do shell have with other countries to do gas/oil exploration?

If our cut is proportionate to what other countries get then there's no problem.

Then you must see it as a problem. Irelend is not getting a 'proportonate cut to what other countries are getting'.

Ireland is not charging a Penny of loyalties for this gas excavating. Ireland is the second last country in the whole world when it comes to loyalties from oil / gas drilling companies! => “Oil and Gas Royalties – A Comparison of the Share of Revenue Received from Oil and Gas Production by the Federal Government and Other Resource Owners”. Only Cameroon beats us there. Really no need to be proud of.

Jeboa Safari

NewVision wrote: »

Then you must see it as a problem. Irelend is not getting a 'proportonate cut to what other countries are getting'.

So you've just ignored the posts that says Ireland has one of the worst strike rates when it comes to hitting oil or gas, and wouldn't be developed otherwise? Do you expect companies to drill and make a loss for us? Surely even you realise profit is necessary...

NewVision

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

So you've just ignored the posts that says Ireland has one of the worst strike rates when it comes to hitting oil or gas, and wouldn't be developed otherwise? Do you expect companies to drill and make a loss for us? Surely even you realise profit is necessary...

How developed?
Developed like Cameroon?
Developed like Nigeria?

I have previously pointed out that we can no more afford to give our resources, the country's last comodity, into the hands of multinationals.

You were asking for a fairer share for our country. Not even that is given to us.

The multinationals don't care about the people. They don't care about safety, about the social climate they're causing.

The two main aims of a multinational company are

maximising profits in the shortest period of time.

financial growth and influence.

The conditions for drilling in this country are set by a gremium of several multinationals and one Irish minister. Doesn't that look insane?

The times 'we need to attrack' those companies are well over considering worldwide growing demand and price. Canada is dealing with peak gas already.

On the one hand we're shoveling 35 billion euro into a bank to shut it down literally.

On the other hand we read that Ireland hasn't the money to (invest some 2 to 3 billion to) put up its own petroleum industry to manage and control its own resources, a business profitable tens if not even hundreds of billions of euros.

:eek:

Is it the odd believe that dumb Irish, ourselves, wouldn't find some gas?
We have to be greatful to those companies 'creating wealth for the country'. Because we, ourselves, are not capable of creating wealth with our comodities? Not in the existing way I'm afraid. Getting 25% share of the country's own 'weath' back some day is a very bad option, ladies and gentlemen. It is the worst deal of it's kind currently I would know in Europe.