The Shell to Sea protests

Grumpypants

Nevermind_ wrote: »

Its amazing how quiet a thread goes when someone posts something like the above last post.

Best explanation I've seen anywhere on this issue.
Where are the shell to sea crowd now?:cool:

My mind has been changed about the whole thing, since this guy who works for a big oil company wrote a long message that has glaring omissions.

Now i can see we have a similar deal to the one the Norwegian government has (expect the Norwegian government through their ownership in Statoil makes a far greater return from their oil...) Wait a minute that's not the same at all! In fact because of Statoils involvement the Norwegian government will make more out of the Irish gas than the Irish. What a brilliant deal we have that is the exact same as the one our Norwegian neighbors have.

I also now see that the oil companies pay royalties on everything they sell, brilliant so the Irish state will make money from the oil..... except that the company can write off the cost of drilling against those royalities.

Dam it and as the drilling is so expensive as outlined above, and they dont have to pay until the gas field is totally empty. The irish state will be in for a windfall in 30 years from all the royalties (minus the cost of drilling). I feel much better about it now.

Thank goodness Bertie and Ray Burke (you know the guy who was convicted of corruption) changed the law so that the Irish state doesn't make its recommended 50% in royalties.

Birdnuts

Nevermind_ wrote: »

got a link or source for that?

Also what do you think of armanijeans repost from the propertypin above?

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=14&ved=0CCAQFjADOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnewspaper%2Fireland%2F2010%2F0802%2F1224276043295.html&ei=aXagTeHVL9S1hAeqwpCOBQ&usg=AFQjCNFT_Dr47PEJHFQE09ms1OQ-Q3YxRQ

At the end of this link - it was a petition by a local community group made up of signitures from each household in the local area affected.

Birdnuts

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

How dare you question Birdnuts. Don't you know that all the current TDs of Mayo are pro-pipeline, and that of the 31 councillors in Mayo, 25 are pro-pipeline with 2 SF councillors and 4 Indepedents who might be pro or against pipeline.

Are you seriously suggesting that Birdnuts may be lying based on the fact that all TDs who were voted in were pro pipeline and that 25 out of 31 councillors who were voted in are propipeline. Are you suggesting he may be ignoring all these "facts" and demonsrations of democracy and be preferring to refer to some survey which may not exist?

How dare you!!! :mad:

Your already demonstrated your ignorance of local politics in Erris in another thread - That facts are that Erris elected its first ever SF councillor in the last local elections, the very area were this project is based!!

The Waltzing Consumer

Birdnuts wrote: »

Your already demonstrated your ignorance of local politics in Erris in another thread - That facts are that Erris elected its first ever SF councillor in the last local elections, the very area were this project is based!!

Please point out the errors in my post regarding election results. Can you also tell me why Rossport has an electorate of 12420 people
Link: http://electionsireland.org/result.cfm?election=2009L&cons=430

yet you claim 70% of locals from Rossport are against it based on your link referenced a petition signed by 300 people.

How is 70% of 12420 = 300

Just to be clear. You claim 70% of locals from Rossport are against the project. You referenced the Irish Times that has this part which is your evidence:
"One of the 17 submissions includes a petition with more than 300 signatures, according to Pobal Chill Chomáin spokesman John Monaghan. An Bord Pleanála is due to reopen its oral hearing on the pipeline on August 24th."

The population, just for electorate not including children, is 12420. Where is your maths coming from?

Birdnuts

mconigol wrote: »

You obviously don't understand how the global oil and gas sector works or even basic economics for that matter.

Also I don't understand this repeated argument about permanent employment. This is not the only type of employment the country needs. What about all the temporary jobs provided by short term projects such as road building, metro, luas and events such as music festivals, tour de france, special olympics etc....

I do contract work and rely on temporary projects to provide MY permanent employment. There is lots of full time employment provided by "temporary" work e.g. plumbers, builders, electricians, engineers...the list is endless....

So you know more about the sector then the Dept of Energy who I quoted earlier in this thread - maybe you do but you certainly haven't demonstrated it in this thread up to now so excuse me if I view any lectures from you on the economics of this with contempt:mad:

PS: Please outline how many contractor jobs this highly automated gas plant will provide or if any of them will be Irish?? - or are you talking about companies that will supply the likes of Toilet rolls etc. to the 30 or so people who will be working there??

Birdnuts

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Please point out the errors in my post regarding election results. Can you also tell me why Rossport has an electorate of 12420 people
Link: http://electionsireland.org/result.cfm?election=2009L&cons=430

?

You think 12000 people live in Rossport:eek:

Dudess

Einhard wrote: »

Thank you.

The only problem with your outline of the facts, is that those who oppose the Corrib gas development will just ignore them.

Yeah, but if they discontinue protesting, where will the no-nonsense crew with a fetish for socking it to the hippies without bothering to find out anything about the protestors get their hard-ons from?

Einhard

Birdnuts wrote: »

You think 12000 people live in Rossport:eek:

Jesus Christ. There's no point even debating with you. Everything that counters your argument is either ignored or summarily dismissed. 300 signatures is evidence that the peope of Rossport are against the project, yet the democratic process which has seen a large majority of pro-pipeline representatives elected is dismissed and ignored. Pathetic.

Einhard

Dudess wrote: »

Yeah, but if they discontinue protesting, where will the no-nonsense crew with a fetish for socking it to the hippies without bothering to find out anything about the protestors get their hard-ons from?

Porn?:D

The Waltzing Consumer

Birdnuts wrote: »

You think 12000 people live in Rossport:eek:

:rolleyes: Do you see the word electorate there? Think a bit more please.

What is population of area then? If 300 is 70%, I am guessing you are saying the total population is 428.

Birdnuts

Einhard wrote: »

Jesus Christ. There's no point even debating with you. Everything that counters your argument is either ignored or summarily dismissed. 300 signatures is evidence that the peope of Rossport are against the project, yet the democratic process which has seen a large majority of pro-pipeline representatives elected is dismissed and ignored. Pathetic.

Flawed logic - you could argue that all the people who voted for FF/FG down through the years also supported their banking, planning, big developer policies.

The Waltzing Consumer

Birdnuts wrote: »

Flawed logic - you could argue that all the people who voted for FF/FG down through the years also supported their banking, planning, big developer policies.

If it is flawed, why did you use the same logic in saying that one SF councillor got elected to back up your point?

So when someone points out that all TDs and the vast majority of councillors are pro-pipeline, it is flawed. But you can point to the one of two SF councillors in proof that people are anti-pipeline?

Laughable really.

Birdnuts

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

If it is flawed, why did you use the same logic in saying that one SF councillor got elected to back up your point?

So when someone points out that all TDs and the vast majority of councillors are pro-pipeline, it is flawed. But you can point to the one of two SF councillors in proof that people are anti-pipeline?

Laughable really.

The SF council representative ran with an anti-SHELL/pro objector message as part of her campaign. The local FF/FG reps avoided the issue like the plague!!

ArmaniJeanss

Grumpypants wrote: »

My mind has been changed about the whole thing, since this guy who works for a big oil company wrote a long message that has glaring omissions.

Now i can see we have a similar deal to the one the Norwegian government has (expect the Norwegian government through their ownership in Statoil makes a far greater return from their oil...) Wait a minute that's not the same at all! In fact because of Statoils involvement the Norwegian government will make more out of the Irish gas than the Irish. What a brilliant deal we have that is the exact same as the one our Norwegian neighbors have.

I don't think there is any inconsistency - the poster was saying that the terms of the first deal are similar in Norway and Ireland, extremely in favour of the oil company.
But as the fossil fuels get found the terms of subsequent licenses change in favour of the country.

And now Norway and the UK are way beyond the first deal, with consistent finds of huge fields, so they can impose strict taxes and tariffs on the oil company.
We suspect there may be large fields off our west coast but until a few of them are found we have to give favourable terms to the exploration companies. Or else we do the exploration ourselves at the risk of burning lots and lots of billions of euros and only finding a few tasty bits of plankton.

The Waltzing Consumer

Birdnuts wrote: »

The SF council representative ran with an anti-SHELL/pro objector message as part of her campaign. The local FF/FG reps avoided the issue like the plague!!

If that's what you want to believe, go ahead.

I notice you again ignore the sizable amount of posts and points which completely refute your argument from other posters and just go off on a tangent and never really deal with anyones point.

Bit of a habit it seems, oh well, says a lot.

mconigol

Birdnuts wrote: »

So you know more about the sector then the Dept of Energy who I quoted earlier in this thread - maybe you do but you certainly haven't demonstrated it in this thread up to now so excuse me if I view any lectures from you on the economics of this with contempt:mad:

PS: Please outline how many contractor jobs this highly automated gas plant will provide or if any of them will be Irish?? - or are you talking about companies that will supply the likes of Toilet rolls etc. to the 30 or so people who will be working there??

Its been explained earlier in this thread how offshore blocks are auctioned for exploration purposes. As has been pointed out there is a very low chance that a company who successfully wins the rights to explore in a certain block will actually find any exploitable resources there. There is significant cost and risk associated with the exploration process and as with the majority of things in life the rewards for high risk are proportionally high as are the potential losses.

The point I was making regarding jobs is that permanent jobs are not the be all and end all. I'm talking about the people who currently work and will work on building the associated works (i.e. pipeline, processing plant etc...). This will probably include builders, engineers, fabricators, catering, electricians etc...in the construction phases as well as the various other businesses and suppliers around the country. You don't seem to understand that not every worker in the county goes into a 9 to 5 job everyday where they are guaranteed permanent employment. Plenty of people rely on seasonal/variable jobs e.g. your local plumber, electrician etc...

Your jibe about toilet roll suppliers is a typically resentful remark that objectors to any major national project make. Yes of course this will provide employment to people who supply toilet rolls. That's bad because?

Also, from what I can tell the plant will be in Mayo which is still part of Ireland. So, Yes, the 30 jobs you claim that will be created in the plant on a permanent basis WILL be Irish. Do you have an issue with immigrant workers? That is the only conclusion I can come to from your argument.

lordgoat

To everyone that voted yes in this pole.

I'd urge you all to go and find out just how much this is going to affect your country.

So far people have been jailed for protesting (for trespassing - this is the actual crime committed) Yet when shell broke the exact same law, nothing happened to them.

How Shell got the rights for this field as probably has been pointed out is steeped in controversy and far from legal.

The over protection given to shell and underprotection given to protestors when they were trying to prevent Shell carrying out act that they were not legally allowed to do is a disgrace.

The fact that Shell never engaged with any of the local population on any of he recommended guidelines is another disgrace. For the record the only time shell have talked to locals is to bribe boat owners into into trying to blockade the laying of the pipe.

If any of you are in north mayo, go and visit the site. Look out at the bay and the beach, imagine what it once looked like and be proud of the people that fought against it.

Not all protestors are of the clueless Maura Harrington variety, a woman that many of us believe has done less for the cause than more. She does not represent my views on the matter and i have nothing but disdain for her. That said she is not a reason to use against this. It makes it no less wrong.

In the end it comes down to this. This will create some short term jobs for the area, fewer long term ones. Shell will then sell us gas back to us. And in the end a truly beautiful part of your country is destroyed. In the 15-20-50 years that field will be in operation it will not pay for itself. And in my opinion will never be worth it.

Birdnuts

lordgoat wrote: »

To everyone that voted yes in this pole.

it.

Its obvious that most voted that way on the basis that they don't like Crusties - not on any actual understanding of the issues involved with the Corrib gas giveaway or the reality on the ground in Rossport


PS: Thats why someone should start a separate "I hate crusties" thread for the benefit of those who beleive they are the source of all evil in the world - things like the banking collapse, our cr%p economy or the Nuclear meltdown @ Fukishima. I may start one myself for the crack:D;)

Birdnuts

mconigol wrote: »

The point I was making regarding jobs is that permanent jobs are not the be all and end all. I'm talking about the people who currently work and will work on building the associated works (i.e. pipeline, processing plant etc...). This will probably include builders, engineers, fabricators, catering, electricians etc...in the construction phases .

Fine - on that basis why don't we throw open the door to industries that build bunkers for nuclear waste etc??. and do tax deals that subsidize the importation of toxic waste from around the world so it can be dumped around the country in plastic-lined holes!!

PS: I don't think our heavy reliance on the construction industry has worked out too well in the past and in any case the contruction phase of this project will be over at the end of next year

Pace2008

Birdnuts wrote: »

Its obvious that most voted that way on the basis that they don't like Crusties - not on any actual understanding of the issues involved with the Corrib gas giveaway or the reality on the ground in Rossport

Sad but true.

Bosco boy

Pace2008 wrote: »

Sad but true.

Speak for yourselves!! I don't need you to tell me why I voted yes!

Einhard

Birdnuts wrote: »

Its obvious that most voted that way on the basis that they don't like Crusties - not on any actual understanding of the issues involved with the Corrib gas giveaway or the reality on the ground in Rossport

It's obvious that all those opposing the development can't put forward a coherent and convincing argument for their opposition.

mconigol

Birdnuts wrote: »

Fine - on that basis why don't we throw open the door to industries that build bunkers for nuclear waste etc??. and do tax deals that subsidize the importation of toxic waste from around the world so it can be dumped around the country in plastic-lined holes!!

PS: I don't think our heavy reliance on the construction industry has worked out too well in the past and in any case the contruction phase of this project will be over at the end of next year

Over reaction much?? Who mentioned nuclear waste?

Typical response from a campaigner loosing an argument. Start blabbing on about over the top, fantastical scenarios nothing related to what is being discussed.

Regardless of our over reliance on construction to support the economy in the past, we still need a construction industry. Projects such as this which are important for a national infrastructure are far more appropriate and sustainable than building thousands of houses.

If the construction phase is not over until the end of next year then that's almost two years of employment for people who would quite possibly otherwise be on the dole right now.

steve9859

lordgoat wrote: »

To everyone that voted yes in this pole.

I'd urge you all to go and find out just how much this is going to affect your country.

Lordgoat, Birdnuts: You assume I vote yes because I dont like crusties, and that I have no grasp of the facts.

Well, all I see when I read your arguments is NIMBYism, and an attempt to disguise and cloud this NIMBYism with scaremongering and ill founded arguments about Ireland getting screwed by Shell and corporations in general.

CommuterIE

The protests seem to have a lot of undesirables in their ranks... a few anarchists here and there, but also Sinn Fein... in fact, if they were building a mere road in the area I would expect the same kind of protests

Pace2008

Bosco boy wrote: »

Speak for yourselves!! I don't need you to tell me why I voted yes!

I didn't tell you anything as the poster said "most" rather than "all."

Bosco boy

Pace2008 wrote: »

I didn't tell you anything as the poster said "most" rather than "all."

Speak for your own vote and no one elses! By the way you agreed with the poster!

lordgoat

steve9859 wrote: »

Lordgoat, Birdnuts: You assume I vote yes because I dont like crusties, and that I have no grasp of the facts.

Well, all I see when I read your arguments is NIMBYism, and an attempt to disguise and cloud this NIMBYism with scaremongering and ill founded arguments about Ireland getting screwed by Shell and corporations in general.

Have another read of my last post. Or better yet tell me why you think it's a good idea?

The thing is some people actually give a **** about the country they are from and regardless of where they live have an awareness of what is right and what is wrong.

Scaremongering/NIMBYism easy to say from someone that doesn't seem to want to get involved in a discussion but rather has their mind set. Write off the protests all you want, but there is cause for genuine concern.

Also Shell have a history of screwing countries over why should this be ignored?

Before you reply to post, either answer the questions within or leave the discussion to those capable of having one.

mconigol

lordgoat wrote: »

Have another read of my last post. Or better yet tell me why you think it's a good idea?

The thing is some people actually give a **** about the country they are from and regardless of where they live have an awareness of what is right and what is wrong.

Scaremongering/NIMBYism easy to say from someone that doesn't seem to want to get involved in a discussion but rather has their mind set. Write off the protests all you want, but there is cause for genuine concern.

Also Shell have a history of screwing countries over why should this be ignored?

Before you reply to post, either answer the questions within or leave the discussion to those capable of having one.

I hope I'm not the only one to see the irony in that post...

steve9859

lordgoat wrote: »

Have another read of my last post. Or better yet tell me why you think it's a good idea?

The thing is some people actually give a **** about the country they are from and regardless of where they live have an awareness of what is right and what is wrong.

Scaremongering/NIMBYism easy to say from someone that doesn't seem to want to get involved in a discussion but rather has their mind set. Write off the protests all you want, but there is cause for genuine concern.

Also Shell have a history of screwing countries over why should this be ignored?

Before you reply to post, either answer the questions within or leave the discussion to those capable of having one.

The well reasoned arguments have already been eloquently put forward on this thread by the likes of ArmarniJeans and mconigol. It is legally above board and in Ireland's benefit. However it is being delayed by a minority of locals supported by blow ins with other general anti-capitalist views who will jump on any issue that gives them a platform, whether they really care or not. That, in my view, is unacceptable. It is not "the whole of Mayo" who are against it.

And who are you to tell me that I dont care about the country I come from?