The Shell to Sea protests

Mike 1972

angry_fox wrote: »

cost the tax payer a nice bit of money.

You mean like the government who gave away a publicly owned resourse getting shag all in return.

Birdnuts

passive wrote: »

Yes, I'm talking just about the Corrib element. The thread is just about the Corrib element. The argument is just about the Corrib element and the posts I quoted saying the gas is worth 450,000,000,000,000,000,whatever billion euro was talking just about the Corrib element.

Lets explore the Corrib element then under the current deal - its allows SHELL to right off all costs incurred in this state.

The so-called 25% corpo tax only kicks in after this but i wouldn't get my hopes up that much will come from this based on what other multinationals actually pay in this country as the following link illustrates

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/google-uses-ireland-to-slash-its-tax-bill-2390413.html

Though at least google actually provide a significant number of long term jobs - SHELL in contrast are only offering barely 30 when the project is finished next year:(

Birdnuts

Bosco boy wrote: »

Hey! Try posting an arguement on indymedia against shell to sea and see how long it will stay up, everyone gets their say on boards if they have manners!

I've already referred to S2S people as "evil" in this thread - is that not good enough for ya:pac:

Bosco boy

ScumLord wrote: »

I think you misunderstood, she is on a strike from hunger. She's stuffing her face for the cause, a true Irish hero.

First hunger striker ever to put on weight while on hunger strike!

Birdnuts

Bosco boy wrote: »

First hunger striker ever to put on weight while on hunger strike!

A terrible crature - shure didn't she send money to the striking miners in the UK during the 80's. Does it get any worse then that I ask ya

Mike 1972

Should the pipe be built?

Badly phrased question

Dont think too many people are opposing the construction of the pipe per se.

People may have issues with the route. Or the form currently envisaged (untreated gas at high pressure along a land route and all that) or the corporation involved in its construction or the deal in which Shell acquired the rights to the gas in the first place, or the ancillary issues around policing, the flouting of planning laws and the rather questionable backgrounds and antics of some of the private security contractors.

However few (if any) people are arguing that the gas should be left where it is.....Under the Atlantic seabed..... permanently.....for all time.

Although having said that one could frame some rather strong economic and strategic arguments for leaving the stuff there for say the next forty years.......

mconigol

We've had due process, planning permission has been granted after all the appeals etc...so yes the pipeline should be built.

If people have a problem with the price the last government got for the gas then fair enough. BUT go protest the government instead. I'm sick of the obnoxious screaming minority pissing all over the processes the majority of people have decided are the way we are going to do things.

the keen edge

So, can anybody tell me is this current deal between ourselves and Shell, only related to the Corrib gas field? ; or all our potential offshore hydrocarbon resources?.

Birdnuts

mconigol wrote: »

the majority of people have decided are the way we are going to do things.

Like the bank bailouts - ya, the majority of people appear to be on the ball allright;)

Birdnuts

the keen edge wrote: »

So, can anybody tell me is this current deal between ourselves and Shell, only related to the Corrib gas field? ; or all our potential offshore hydrocarbon resources?.

Some minor tinkering on the corpo tax rate has been done for subsequent finds - but no mention of royalties or anything that would give a significant boost to state coffers:(

Jeboa Safari

Birdnuts wrote: »

Lets explore the Corrib element then under the current deal - its allows SHELL to right off all costs incurred in this state.

The so-called 25% corpo tax only kicks in after this but i wouldn't get my hopes up that much will come from this based on what other multinationals actually pay in this country as the following link illustrates

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/google-uses-ireland-to-slash-its-tax-bill-2390413.html

Though at least google actually provide a significant number of long term jobs - SHELL in contrast are only offering barely 30 when the project is finished next year:(

Well if these shell to sea idiots keep causing trouble, it'll drive Shells costs up higher and the state will get even less of a return.

Birdnuts

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Well if these shell to sea idiots keep causing trouble, it'll drive Shells costs up higher and the state will get even less of a return.

Not sure about your logic there but either way less of very little is not going to make much difference at the end of the day anyways to the states finances or the averge taxpayer:(

PS: In any case it was SHELLs choice to go down this route of project development despite the fact they were well warned about its shortcomings compared to the many less contraversial alternatives such as processing at sea or other shore based alternatives which reps from the local area suggested. The current site is 7 KM inland and next to the areas water supply which is why ABP own expert inspector gave 16 reasons for it to be turned down - sadly his recommendations were ignored which is another contraversial element of this sorry saga

cafecreme

mconigol wrote: »

We've had due process, planning permission has been granted after all the appeals etc...so yes the pipeline should be built.

If people have a problem with the price the last government got for the gas then fair enough. BUT go protest the government instead. I'm sick of the obnoxious screaming minority pissing all over the processes the majority of people have decided are the way we are going to do things.

Not necessarily, the original deal was done with Shell by the notoriously corrupt Ray Burke. They got it for a song, suspiciously cheap. Given the activities of Burke the acquisition rights should be declared null and void while we investigate the circumstances and then renegotiated to pay the people of Ireland the real worth of the rights, God knows we could do with the money.

Then let them build the pipeline in a way that doesn't involve having hired goons manhandling citizens protesting as per their civil rights whilst the Gards look on and support them.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

I'm just confused as to why its called the Corrib gas field when its nowhere near the Corrib.

the keen edge

Birdnuts wrote: »

Some minor tinkering on the corpo tax rate has been done for subsequent finds - but no mention of royalties or anything that would give a significant boost to state coffers:(

Sorry, just for clarity, are you saying that Shell have the exploration rights (the ownership) on all and any Irish Atlantic offshore resources?.

I don't mean to come in to this thread late and all dramatic, but surely the arrangement I've outlined can't be true, can it?.

mconigol

Birdnuts wrote: »

Like the bank bailouts - ya, the majority of people appear to be on the ball allright;)

What the bank bailout got to do with it?

cafecreme wrote: »

Not necessarily, the original deal was done with Shell by the notoriously corrupt Ray Burke. They got it for a song, suspiciously cheap. Given the activities of Burke the acquisition rights should be declared null and void while we investigate the circumstances and then renegotiated to pay the people of Ireland the real worth of the rights, God knows we could do with the money.

Then let them build the pipeline in a way that doesn't involve having hired goons manhandling citizens protesting as per their civil rights whilst the Gards look on and support them.

Look it's gone through the same planning processes that every major project in the country does and has passed all the criteria, appeals etc....if people are unhappy with it then they need to change that system. It's completely unacceptable in my opinion that a small minority of people can hold up a project that is fully and legally approved.

As I've said the government should be lobbied if it is about the money.

There would be no need for "hired goons" as you call them if protesters respected the law of the land and that it is a legal project. We could also do with not having to spend vast amounts of money currently being spent policing these protests.

Mike 1972

cafecreme wrote: »

Not necessarily, the original deal was done with Shell by the notoriously corrupt Ray Burke. They got it for a song, suspiciously cheap. Given the activities of Burke the acquisition rights should be declared null and void while we investigate the circumstances and then renegotiated to pay the people of Ireland the real worth of the rights

Quite frankly I dont see why when at a time many people are contemplating defaulting on the national debt the idea of reneging on this deal and sending shell packing remains so taboo

The standard argument seems to based on the notion that were we to do this no other oil company would come near us for at least the next thirty years but has anyone considered the possibility that this might actually work to our advantage giving that the price of both oil and gas are only going in one direction and the longer the resource is left untapped the more valuable it becomes ?

Birdnuts

mconigol wrote: »

Look it's gone through the same planning processes that every major project in the country does and has passed all the criteria, appeals etc.....

Its currently being appealed in the courts on the basis that the deceison to give planning ignored a number of statutary EU planning and environmental directives - watch this space since other deceisions by ABP have been overturned for less!!

mconigol

Birdnuts wrote: »

Its being appealed in the courts on the basis that the deceison to give planning ignored a number of statutary EU directives - watch this space since other deceisions by ABP have been overturned for less!!

Maybe so but as of now it has planning permission.

If a court appeal is upheld then obviously construction would have to be halted. That still doesn't give anybody the right to illegally try prevent construction now.

This selective use of the law by protesters is what annoys me. Would it be acceptable for shell workers to protest and picket the high court/parliament etc...if permission was not granted? No. They would simply have to accept the decision making processes of the state. This should also be the case for objectors but apparently they don't seem to think these rules should apply to them.

pragmatic1

No good will come of this thread.

Birdnuts

the keen edge wrote: »

Sorry, just for clarity, are you saying that Shell have the exploration rights (the ownership) on all and any Irish Atlantic offshore resources?.

?.

No, there are other multinationals involved - it was also apparent that Irish companies operating in this area got little or no look in:(

Birdnuts

mconigol wrote: »

This selective use of the law by protesters is what annoys me. Would it be acceptable for shell workers to protest and picket the high court/parliament etc...if permission was not granted? No. They would simply have to accept the decision making processes of the state. This should also be the case for objectors but apparently they don't seem to think these rules should apply to them.

SHELL broke a number of laws relating to planning and damage to SAC's over the years in the area - selective use of law is the very reason many people are protesting!!

The Garda ombudsman has also been involved, not that he got much repect from the Gardai eithier as the link below shows:(


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0223/1224265034497.html

mconigol

Birdnuts wrote: »

SHELL broke a number of laws relating to planning and damage to SAC's over the years in the area - selective use of law is the very reason many people are protesting!!

The Garda ombudsman has also been involved, not that he got much repect from the Gardai eithier:(

Source??

It still doesn't take away from the fact that objectors would expect Shell to respect the decision of the planning authorities. Therefore they should do the same.

Edit - sorry didn't see your link. I can't access if for free though :-( From what I can read though it doesn't seem to indicate any breaking of the law. If you have a source about the laws Shell have broke I'd like to see that too if you don't mind.

Birdnuts

mconigol wrote: »

Source??

.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2007/1117/1195251077418.html

mconigol

Birdnuts wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2007/1117/1195251077418.html

unauthorized does not mean illegal...it's a bit difficult to comment any further seeing as I can't access the whole article.

Anyway I've made my point, I'm not here to discuss the rights or wrongs of Shell running the project...

Einhard

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Quite frankly I dont see why when at a time many people are contemplating defaulting on the national debt the idea of reneging on this deal and sending shell packing remains so taboo

Because we'd basically be breaking the law of the land! How on earth can we hope to attract any form of investment, if we just tear up legislation whenever we fell like it?

The standard argument seems to based on the notion that were we to do this no other oil company would come near us for at least the next thirty years but has anyone considered the possibility that this might actually work to our advantage giving that the price of both oil and gas are only going in one direction and the longer the resource is left untapped the more valuable it becomes ?

You might have a point there if Ireland had the hydrocarbon reserves of, say, Libya or Venezuela. But, notwithstanding the ludicrous figure of half a trillion seemingly plucked from the air by those who oppose the project, we have precious little gas or oil resources. The Corrib project is worth an estimated €9-13 billion. That's aobviously a lot of money, but the that doesn't take into account the huge amounts that need to be invested in exploration and research before a viable deposit can be found. It;s incredibly hit and miss, and, at tens of millions of euros per exploratory project, it's a hugely expensive failure if one fails to find anything. Given the estimates of Ireland's reserves, it's always likely to be more miss than hit. We simply couldn't afford a national oil exploration and exploitation company. And before, anyone brings up some waffle about the bank bailout- that has nothing to do with this. With or without the bailout, investing billions in such a an enterprise would be unsustainable and foolhardy in the extreme.

Eric Cartman

Im all for freedom of opinion and speech , I cant prove everything in the world so I cant say if your religion is right or wrong , I dont know if global warming will be a severe problem in my lifetime, but I know the S2S protesters are WRONG, theres no 2 ways about it, theyre just WRONG , Wrong reasons, WRONG approach , WRONG information.

theyre all a bunch of weirdo hippys and ignorant ill informed locals, some of them just protest because they hate police or love protesting, the whole lot of them should be locked up for the torment theyve caused shell staff and the criminal damage caused to Royal dutch shell's equipment. This pipeline is safe, will create jobs and give a boost to our economy , The only people who have a problem with this are hippys who dont want jobs anyway and a bunch of really ignorant people with a chip on their shoulder

when the S2S campaign started it was about sending a pipeline out to sea because some wackos thought it might be dangerous, since then theyve decided that since nobody was listening that theyd have to crock up something about shell robbing our gas or some other BS.

also maura harrington, the rossport 5 and that willie corduff lad should all be banned from the media - theyre all a bunch of whining ignorant retards who have no clue what theyre on about and just like fueling the anti-shell propoganda machine with made up claims of abuse and phoney hunger strikes

mconigol

Eric Cartman wrote: »

theyre all a bunch of weirdo hippys

lol

I hate the weird hippys! Giving the rest a bad name...!

Birdnuts

Einhard wrote: »

But, notwithstanding the ludicrous figure of half a trillion seemingly plucked from the air by those who oppose the project, .

I thought the Dept of Energy supports the project

Birdnuts

Einhard wrote: »

Because we'd basically be breaking the law of the land! How on earth can we hope to attract any form of investment, if we just tear up legislation whenever we fell like it?



.

Laws can be changed - theres plenty of countries around the world that have changed obviously flawed legislation in this area like Russia etc. and the oil companies are still queuing to get a piece of the action

Seeing as were getting little or nothing from this deal anyway we have nothing to loose!!

PS: This is the same flawed logic that says we have to protect bank bond holders to the detriment of Irish citizens despite many imminient economists both home and abroad pointing out the obvious folly of this approach.