Shell meets Boards.ie - a protest? (naive rant herewithin)

Tuars

oscarBravo wrote:

are you openly accusing the courts of corruption? Because that's what it looks like to me. Feel free to clarify if I'm wrong.

No I'm not. But Shell's use of the legal system in this case is very questionable and could be seen to be an abuse of the system.

The judge is only following the law but we should not underestimate the resources that Shell has to bend the law to it's own ends.

SkepticOne

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

If boards.ie can have one purpose, bigger than itself - this is it. We have a powerful resource if we choose to use it. With our network, I propose we could block every shell garage in Dublin and beyond. I propose in concert we take our cars, motorbikes, bicycles and ourselves to our local garages. We obstruct the pumps and the entrances to the garages. A simple A4 sheet in solidarity with the 5 men will get the message across.

After all - this is our country... for now at least... we can have a say... if we WANT to. It remains to be seen if the public in general (or this niche community) really cares beyond themselves.

So is your problem with Shell or the government that issued the compulsory purchase orders?

The normal course of events would have been that Shell would have to negotiate with land owners. There would be no protest from farmers if this was the case. Naturally Shell are going to take advantage of any state assistance in getting a good price. If the state intervened on my behalf to buy land on the cheap for me outside Dublin for my house, I would most certainly take advantage of it.

Should the state have intervened here is the question. If not, then it is the body that issued orders that is the correct object of protest.

Shell are doing their job looking after their shareholders interest. The courts are doing their job enforcing legal compulsory orders. That is the nature of these orders - they are compulsory and enforcable. The courts have no option but to deal with people who obstruct them.

oscarBravo

Tuars wrote:

No I'm not. But Shell's use of the legal system in this case is very questionable and could be seen to be an abuse of the system.

The court obviously didn't think so. What exactly is questionable about Shell's use of the legal system? What about it is abusive?

Tuars wrote:

The judge is only following the law but we should not underestimate the resources that Shell has to bend the law to it's own ends.

Seriously, come on. If the law was bent, how? If the judge was "only following the law", then the court order was lawful, right? No?

All I'm seeing here is ranting about big powerful corporations abusing the law to beat down poor hardworking peasants, but I've yet to see anyone explain exactly how Shell are legally more in the wrong than the farmers who clearly broke the law.

egan007

oscarBravo wrote:

Interpreting the law is the exclusive domain of the courts - a fact that many arguing here would rather ignore.

Or were you suggesting that I'm misinterpreting the law? If you feel I have, please feel free to correct me. If they "clearly were", why not take a case instead of breaking the law?

Unless, of course, by "rights" you mean "what I feel I'm entitled to" as opposed to "what the law says is right". You don't have a right not to have your land compulsorily purchased - that's why it's called "compulsory". If a court doesn't get to decide what is and isn't legal, who does? Joe Higgins? The Mob?

Not in my democracy, thanks. Another veiled hint that the courts are corrupt. If you're so sure Shell bought this case, why not point out where in law the court went wrong?

There is no point in argueing any further you are clearly michael mc dowell in disguise. Very naieve if you think that money "INDIRECTLY" which is somehting you can't seem to grasp - cannot make legal decisions

RE*AC*TOR

oscarBravo wrote:

Interpreting the law is the exclusive domain of the courts - a fact that many arguing here would rather ignore.

dishing out the judgements based on the law is the exclusive domain of the courts. anyone can interpret the law.

oscarBravo wrote:

Or were you suggesting that I'm misinterpreting the law? If you feel I have, please feel free to correct me. If they "clearly were", why not take a case instead of breaking the law?

Unless, of course, by "rights" you mean "what I feel I'm entitled to" as opposed to "what the law says is right". You don't have a right not to have your land compulsorily purchased - that's why it's called "compulsory". If a court doesn't get to decide what is and isn't legal, who does? Joe Higgins? The Mob?

Courts don't decide what is and isn't legal. That is decided by legislation. eg stealing is illegal. That wasn't decided by the courts. And to answer who should decide - well we (the people) should decide. That is democracy. We vote for politicians - and they make the laws - if we don't like the laws - we should tell them - that is the purpose of what I proposed. However, I'll probably have to wait until the general election to tell them what I think.

If current legislation fails in some way to achieve justice would you not agree that the law, at least should be considered for change?

RE*AC*TOR

SkepticOne wrote:

So is your problem with Shell or the government that issued the compulsory purchase orders?

The normal course of events would have been that Shell would have to negotiate with land owners. There would be no protest from farmers if this was the case. Naturally Shell are going to take advantage of any state assistance in getting a good price. If the state intervened on my behalf to buy land on the cheap for me outside Dublin for my house, I would most certainly take advantage of it.

Should the state have intervened here is the question. If not, then it is the body that issued orders that is the correct object of protest.

Shell are doing their job looking after their shareholders interest. The courts are doing their job enforcing legal compulsory orders. That is the nature of these orders - they are compulsory and enforcable. The courts have no option but to deal with people who obstruct them.

My problem is 100% with the government. Shell are a corporation, I don't like them - but of course they will act in their own interest. However, our government SHOULD be acting in our interests. It is as simple as that.

mucsavage

Tuars wrote:

Why are Shell being allowed to progress with this work when they haven't yet received Ministerial consent? Noel Dempsey must await the Health and Safety report before he gives consent. This report is not yet ready.

As far as I know the hearings relating to this do not take place until September. So why is the work progressing?

It seems to me like there's one law for Shell and another law for the farmers and Shell are using the Irish courts as hired goons to enforce their bully boy tactics.

[Edit: the report has been received by the Minister but is not yet in the public domain. Public consultation is supposed to take place in Autumn. So why are these people in jail now and why is work progressing if the hearings have not yet taken place?]

Shell have been giving rights by the minister for a 14km wide corridoor to lay pipes, event though the minister hasnt given them permission to pump anything through.

whippet

oscarBravo wrote:

Interpreting the law is the exclusive domain of the courts - a fact that many arguing here would rather ignore.

and as stated before .. if you are unhappy with the decision this can be appealed (if you feel you are correct) and taken to a different court .. even to the European Court of Human rights which I understand has a fairly good record in these type of issues. But these farmers choose not to pursue the legal route and paid the penalty, I'm sure they would have looked for an appeal for an injunction if they felt they had a case. Which they obviously didn't and instead willingly choose to defy the law of the land and are now behind bars.

I would imagine that the courts took account of the 'health and safety' aspect of the case in making its ruling, the judge would have known full well the media 'outcry' that would arise when he ruled that the farmers were in comtempt of court and still decided that it was the correct decision.

You cannot discount that the farmers actually recieved payment for their lands, as the media are portraying that it was similar to a cromwellian land grab .. even endorsed by one of the wives who made reference to 'to hell or to connaught'.

Also the creation of Jobs in a facility of this size and the boost that it gives to the local economy can not be described as 'a few quid'. It is more than a few quid and if you are to believe the cries of desperation coming from parts of the west in the last few years for jobs and industry it is a welcome few quid.

In answer to a previous question, if I was the CEO of a large company and I was given the options that were listed I would be delighted as it would meen running a business is simple and every choice is simple. Nothing is black and white, Ireland Inc. do not have the resources or capability of exploiting this natural reserve nor will they ever, have a look around the western world .. where has public ownershop of petrolium, gas or coal reserves been sucessful ? I am thinking of Ms Thatcher and the 80's.

bonkey

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

As you know despite the ridiculously good deal NTR got with the toll roads, the state does collect tax from them and gets a tidy amount of money. This is not the case for this project.

I've never argued that it was. I've never suggested it is in teh national interest. What I said was that the government decided that it was, and took action based on that decision.

If the decision that it is in oru National interest is a good one, then there can be no question that they have acted inappropriately. Therefore, the use of CPOs is in and of itself not problematic.

If there is a national interest in this project I've yet to here a cogent arguement as to why.

Hardly surprising, when the first time this apparently-ultra-important issue got mentioned on this forum was when you were going ballistic at the outrage that it had landed a handful of protestors in prison. I would have said that given where we've come from - no prior discussion and a day-1 assertion by your good self that its not in the national interest - that the onus is on your good self to show that the government acted inappropriately, rather than for anyone (like me, who's saying I don't know enough to decide, and who's hinted that I'd like ppl to supply more information) to prove that it is.

You made your claim. Its a bit disengenuous to say that until someone else proves otherwise, or supplies a good argument to the contrary that your claims hold water when you haven't actually shown why they hold water beyond speculation along the lines of :

Judging on past-performance I don't think cries of corruption are baseless.

I think that cries of corruption with no evidence to support them are baseless. If you can't produce evidence, then you're just pre-judging.

You could argue that past performance gives grounds to suspect that there might be corruption, and that they ptrovide enough weight to merit a further investigation to see if there is merit behind such claims....but thats not what you're suggesting.

In the absence of a reason why they would give shell this deal - you cannot blame us for jumping to such a conclusion.

I most certainly can blaem you. When there is insufficeint information to reach a conclusion, one should look for more information, rather than jump.

The comments regarding the amount of the "few quid", for example, would suggest that you aren't able to provide me with or direct me to a detailed argument showing that this won't be in the national interest, but rather that you have "concluded" that it is so. So, not only have you decided that corruption is at the root, you've apparently done so by dismissing the valid alternatives without proper investigation of them.

Look at the deals that were cut in the decades leading up to the Celtic Tiger. No tax. Government funding on startup-costs. And so on and so forth. The benefits? Well, gee...companies contributing nothing to the economy (except employment), staying here for 30 years till their tax exemption runs out, and then leaving. Sounds like another sure-fire case of corruption that couldn't possible have any benefits. Except it was central to the creation of the entire Celtic Tiger economy.

Regardless of whether Shell or government employees build this pipeline, it will provide employment. We get 25% tax. Sounds like its already a better deal than those crazy non-beneficial schemes that built the Celtic Tiger.

there are overland pipes - most usually in the desert.

So when you said unprecedented, you didn't mean unprecedented in the sense that its never been done.....

Add that to you saying our govt handed it over for nothing, then its next-to-nothing, then its nothing that will amount to more than "a few quid"...

and it becoming clearer and clearer to me that reaching conclusions about who's right and wrong here based on the information you've been supplying would be a really bad move on my part. Maybe you have more information, or you form your decisions differently, but I'm unconvinced.

Note : I am unconvinced. I don't believe I have suggested once in this thread that Shell and the government were in the right....just that no-one seems to be putting strong arguments as to why they're in the wrong.

jc

oscarBravo

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

dishing out the judgements based on the law is the exclusive domain of the courts. anyone can interpret the law.

I feel I'm straying into the path of an upcoming Sceptre bitchslap, but: anyone can interpret the law, but the only interpretation that matters a damn in the real world is that of the courts.

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

Courts don't decide what is and isn't legal. That is decided by legislation. eg stealing is illegal. That wasn't decided by the courts.

It's been a while since Law 101, but my recollection is that law is made in two ways: by legislation, and by adjudication. Politicians make law by passing bills to make acts. In the final analysis, however, the actual meaning of a law is as decided by the courts.

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

And to answer who should decide - well we (the people) should decide. That is democracy. We vote for politicians - and they make the laws - if we don't like the laws - we should tell them - that is the purpose of what I proposed. However, I'll probably have to wait until the general election to tell them what I think.

If current legislation fails in some way to achieve justice would you not agree that the law, at least should be considered for change?

So, what law do you want to change? Do you want to eliminate jail sentences for contempt of court? Abolish compulsory purchase? Ban large corporations from taking civil court cases?

bonkey

whippet wrote:

You cannot discount that the farmers actually recieved payment for their lands,

Does anyone know if they refused to accept payment?
And I mean refused...not made a token objection. I mean either returned the money, or moved it to a seperate bank account which was expressly set up as a "holding pen" for this and nothing more, or did something.

jc

Boggle

The Department of the Marine used CPOs to ensure that the project - which was deemed to be of significant National interest - would go ahead.

it would be little different to (say) the government securing land and then allowing a toll-road to be built on it rather than building a public road there themselves. Whether or not this has happened in the past, I can't see it as being a conceptual problem, but rather a question of whether or not this move (the Shell one) is in the national interest.

What national interest? A few jobs?? I suppose the govt will be using cpo's to buy up land for shopping centre's next as its in the national interest to have a few extra jobs...

To be honest I would agree with the farmers as long as (as previously mentioned) they are not just out for the quick buck. I mean, lets face it, if a pipeline was goin past your house and you were not satisfied of your family's safety, would you just bendover and take it or would you protest and, if necessary, go to jail in order to bring your plight to public attention?? Whatver about courts, ministers do not often get it right and in this case the court is upholding the minister's order so the only way to win is to get the public on your side...

RE*AC*TOR

whippet wrote:

In answer to a previous question, if I was the CEO of a large company and I was given the options that were listed I would be delighted as it would meen running a business is simple and every choice is simple. Nothing is black and white, Ireland Inc. do not have the resources or capability of exploiting this natural reserve nor will they ever, have a look around the western world .. where has public ownershop of petrolium, gas or coal reserves been sucessful ? I am thinking of Ms Thatcher and the 80's.

So you're Ireland Inc (the state plc) can't use the asset themsleves then. I agree that that's at least a possiblity - given the history of public projects.

Ok, so as the chairman do you -

(a) sell the asset at market value.
(b) give the asset away - creating a few jobs in a country with an extremely high employment rate.
(c) keep the asset, which will increase in value as energy concerns grow globaly.

oscarBravo

egan007 wrote:

There is no point in argueing any further you are clearly michael mc dowell in disguise.

I can categorically assure you I'm not.

egan007 wrote:

Very naieve if you think that money "INDIRECTLY" which is somehting you can't seem to grasp - cannot make legal decisions

You'd be astonished what I can grasp once it's explained to me. You can keep hinting all you want that these farmers are in jail "indirectly" because Shell have a big ball of money, but until you demonstrate precisely how they were denied justice, I have no option but to conclude that you're simply speculating - and "indirectly" slandering the courts in the process.

Villain

oscarBravo wrote:

What sanction do you suggest is appropriate for contempt of court? A stern talking-to? An aggressive finger-wagging?

If contempt of court does not result in a prison sentence, then the concept of contempt becomes utterly meaningless, and - by extensions - so do the courts. Unless you want to live in some sort of anarchic wasteland, you have to recognise the importance of severely punishing contempt of court.

My point was that these 5 men have committed a very small crime compared to very many who are walking the streets including my example who was free to committ such a terrible crime despite 36 previous convictions.

egan007

egan007 wrote:

There is no point in argueing any further you are clearly michael mc dowell in disguise. Very naieve if you think that money "INDIRECTLY" which is somehting you can't seem to grasp - cannot make legal decisions

1 week ban-attack the post not the poster

RE*AC*TOR

bonkey wrote:

I've never argued that it was. I've never suggested it is in teh national interest. What I said was that the government decided that it was, and took action based on that decision.

If the decision that it is in oru National interest is a good one, then there can be no question that they have acted inappropriately. Therefore, the use of CPOs is in and of itself not problematic.

fine - ok i'll agree with you - the use of a CPO if in the national interest is theoretically acceptable. In this case - that scenario would involve the state getting market value for the asset and for international norms of safety to be observed.

bonkey wrote:

Hardly surprising, when the first time this apparently-ultra-important issue got mentioned on this forum was when you were going ballistic at the outrage that it had landed a handful of protestors in prison. I would have said that given where we've come from - no prior discussion and a day-1 assertion by your good self that its not in the national interest - that the onus is on your good self to show that the government acted inappropriately, rather than for anyone (like me, who's saying I don't know enough to decide, and who's hinted that I'd like ppl to supply more information) to prove that it is.

I believe I have shown the governement to act inappropriately - how can anyone actually think they are handling our asset in the best manner? That in itself is innapropriate. I have shown far more for my side of the arguement than anyone has put forward for the opposite. That doesn't mean I am right - I may be wrong I don't know - but at the moment this is how this appears. I would imagine if the government had some greater plan they might inform us to dispell our fears...

bonkey wrote:

You made your claim. Its a bit disengenuous to say that until someone else proves otherwise, or supplies a good argument to the contrary that your claims hold water when you haven't actually shown why they hold water beyond speculation along the lines of :

I have offered evidence that Shell are getting "special treatment" for apparently nothing in return.

bonkey wrote:

The comments regarding the amount of the "few quid", for example, would suggest that you aren't able to provide me with or direct me to a detailed argument showing that this won't be in the national interest, but rather that you have "concluded" that it is so. So, not only have you decided that corruption is at the root, you've apparently done so by dismissing the valid alternatives without proper investigation of them.

Look at the deals that were cut in the decades leading up to the Celtic Tiger. No tax. Government funding on startup-costs. And so on and so forth. The benefits? Well, gee...companies contributing nothing to the economy (except employment), staying here for 30 years till their tax exemption runs out, and then leaving. Sounds like another sure-fire case of corruption that couldn't possible have any benefits. Except it was central to the creation of the entire Celtic Tiger economy.

Regardless of whether Shell or government employees build this pipeline, it will provide employment. We get 25% tax. Sounds like its already a better deal than those crazy non-beneficial schemes that built the Celtic Tiger.

25% tax with 100% tax breaks - you DO realise that means 0% tax .... right?

This isn't a case of mushroom farmers in Cavan - we don't need to encourage energy companies to harvest reserves. They are queueing up - they compete with each other for them - supply and demand etc. But I'll give you at least a pat on teh back for trying to think of a reason.

bonkey wrote:

So when you said unprecedented, you didn't mean unprecedented in the sense that its never been done.....

Add that to you saying our govt handed it over for nothing, then its next-to-nothing, then its nothing that will amount to more than "a few quid"...

A CPO for a private firm in Ireland is unprecedented.
This type of pipeline is unprecedented in this state (and in terms of our law is unprecedented).

The only income I see the state receiving is income tax and VAT arising from employment by shell. I don't forsee direct income from the development.

bonkey wrote:

and it becoming clearer and clearer to me that reaching conclusions about who's right and wrong here based on the information you've been supplying would be a really bad move on my part. Maybe you have more information, or you form your decisions differently, but I'm unconvinced.

Note : I am unconvinced. I don't believe I have suggested once in this thread that Shell and the government were in the right....just that no-one seems to be putting strong arguments as to why they're in the wrong.

jc

That's fine - remain unconvinced - if it were a court of law there would be reasonable doubt on the evidence presented - time will tell I guess.

Moriarty

Oil/Gas companies pay ~20% corporation tax in this country, compared to the 12.5%(?) that all other companys pay. The government will get a fairly large slab of any profits made from the corrib gas fields through this.

I couldn't give a toss about the 5 blokes that ended up in jail. They're there due to their own actions and nobody elses. They're in contempt of court so they're getting exactly what they deserve. Fair enough, if you want to be in contempt of court work away, but don't act all surprised and put on the old persecution complex when you're arrested and jailed for it.

irish1 wrote:

My point was that these 5 men have committed a very small crime compared to very many who are walking the streets including my example who was free to committ such a terrible crime despite 36 previous convictions.

Contempt of court is contempt of court. It's a very serious matter. Just because you may agree with something somone did, doesn't make it less of a crime.

whippet

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

So you're Ireland Inc (the state plc) can't use the asset themsleves then. I agree that that's at least a possiblity - given the history of public projects.

Ok, so as the chairman do you -

(a) sell the asset at market value.
(b) give the asset away - creating a few jobs in a country with an extremely high employment rate.
(c) keep the asset, which will increase in value as energy concerns grow globaly.

again this is total hogwash .. what company would have decisions in such black and white. You are asking a question like a tabloid journalist, leading with obvious answers.

Also your own responses are bulls1ht:

a) can you tell me or can any one tell me what the 'market value' of a gas field with no facilities, hostile landowners. If we tax the buying company to the hilt for the purchase of the field will they have any interest in the field etc .. there thousands of vairibles. Even if the government were to exploit the field themselves would they be able to as these farmers will try every thing to stop them anyway.

b) I don't think the people west of the shannon especially south west would agree they have an extermely high employment rate (in other words you are talking rubbish). The government has not 'given' any asset away, they have exploited the asset to create an economy where they didn't have any resources themselves to exploit.

c) so .. your crystal ball tells you that 2005 is not the correct time to sell a gas field. Where did you study economics? What happens if by next year more massive oil fields are dicovered, newer and better forms of energy are discovered, improvements in other forms of renewal energy .. then the government would look worse for not disposing of asset when it was worth something.

Really reactor, I am coming to the conclusion that you live in a world of your own and have very little exposure to reality.

RE*AC*TOR

oscarBravo wrote:

I feel I'm straying into the path of an upcoming Sceptre bitchslap, but: anyone can interpret the law, but the only interpretation that matters a damn in the real world is that of the courts.

I would say the public's interpretation of the law and how they see it used matters. Mostly this takes the form of cases involving rape and other highly emotive issues.

oscarBravo wrote:

It's been a while since Law 101, but my recollection is that law is made in two ways: by legislation, and by adjudication. Politicians make law by passing bills to make acts. In the final analysis, however, the actual meaning of a law is as decided by the courts.

True and not true. While there is freedom in the court to interpret a law - legislation largely decides what is and isn't legal. The judiciary decides if a certain case falls within the remit of the legislation.

oscarBravo wrote:

So, what law do you want to change? Do you want to eliminate jail sentences for contempt of court? Abolish compulsory purchase? Ban large corporations from taking civil court cases?

Obviously health and safety legislation is NOT in place in this circumstance. That would be the first law to look at. This is largely the case because this is unprecedented in the state and there hasn't been a need for a law to specifically cater for this type of development.

We also need to look into the laws governing sale of state assets. Giving away assets cannot be acceptable in the absence of benefit analyses and some accountability.

This is like something from post-communist Russia - its like how Mr Abramovich made all his money.

Villain

Moriarty wrote:

Contempt of court is contempt of court. It's a very serious matter. Just because you may agree with something somone did, doesn't make it less of a crime.

Well it makes me sick to think I live in a country where 5 men who have CPO's served on their land for a private company are put in jail for contempt of court while people with very serious convictions walk the streets, like teh example I gave already, I mean ffs he had 36 previous convinctions and was still walking free where he could lead a gang to rape a woman.

"If thats the law, the laws an ass"

Moriarty

That's nice.

What exactly does it have to do with this beyond some fuzzy 'I couldn't care less what the law says, shure everyone knows it's useless anyway' rant?

Villain

It's my view on the five men been in jail, this thread is about the five men in jail because of their protest against Shell isn't it?? :rolleyes:

whippet

contempt of court is one of the most serious crimes in the world.

Regardless of the court order you cannot show 'comtempt' and get away with it, you would have anarchy and the potential collapse of society.

Tuars

mucsavage wrote:

Shell have been giving rights by the minister for a 14km wide corridoor to lay pipes, event though the minister hasnt given them permission to pump anything through.

The classic Irish solution... :rolleyes: . I suppose if the pipeline doesn't work out at least we'll get our bypass early.

This thing has fait compli written all over it. The public consultation process is just a charade to stop the natives getting restless.

bonkey

bonkey wrote:

They weren't.

The Department of the Marine used CPOs to ensure that the project - which was deemed to be of significant National interest - would go ahead.

Incidently Bonkey do you know if its a compulsary purchase order that they used or a compulsary way-leave? There is a significant difference.
The latter has been used by BGE for the Gas pipeline from Cork to Dublin and down to Arklow.The difference being with a way leave once the pipe is put in(which is compulsary) it is buried several feet under the ground and the land is given back to the owner.

As regards your question on payment.Having had experience of CPO's and wayleaves I'd think it highly unlikely that they have been paid for this CPO/wayleave( from comments later in the thread it appears to be a way leave and not a CPO ).
[ /Digression : The land for the Gorey by pass has been seized by the government via CPO a number of months ago and fenced off and theres no prospect of a red cent being handed over to land owners for another year despite the landowners having no where to go with their stock and no compensation to mitigate their loss. / end of digression]

irish1 wrote:

It's my view on the five men been in jail, this thread is about the five men in jail because of their protest against Shell isn't it?? :rolleyes:

I understand Sinn Féin are mounting protests at Shell garages nation wide right at this moment(4pm iirc) in support of the jailed farmers.

Boggle

contempt of court is one of the most serious crimes in the world.

Tell that to anyone who's ever been murdered(not that they'll care anymore), raped, assaulted....

I would put ministerial corruption mich higher up the scale.

RE*AC*TOR

whippet wrote:

again this is total hogwash .. what company would have decisions in such black and white. You are asking a question like a tabloid journalist, leading with obvious answers.

Also your own responses are bulls1ht:

whippet wrote:

a) can you tell me or can any one tell me what the 'market value' of a gas field with no facilities, hostile landowners. If we tax the buying company to the hilt for the purchase of the field will they have any interest in the field etc .. there thousands of vairibles. Even if the government were to exploit the field themselves would they be able to as these farmers will try every thing to stop them anyway.

market value is can be determined by looking at similar deals abroad where the state takes 55% + of the gas and royalties from the company.

whippet wrote:

b) I don't think the people west of the shannon especially south west would agree they have an extermely high employment rate (in other words you are talking rubbish). The government has not 'given' any asset away, they have exploited the asset to create an economy where they didn't have any resources themselves to exploit.

this is a naive view of how our government works. for the size of the asset very little revenue will ever be seen by the state. It would be like trading a diamond for a stick of gum.

whippet wrote:

c) so .. your crystal ball tells you that 2005 is not the correct time to sell a gas field. Where did you study economics? What happens if by next year more massive oil fields are dicovered, newer and better forms of energy are discovered, improvements in other forms of renewal energy .. then the government would look worse for not disposing of asset when it was worth something.

there is no crystal ball. It is a fact that world energy reserves are depleting. Even neo-conservative admit that. DO you deny thsi trend? Rather it is you that is using a crystal ball with your prophecies of new oil fields and new forms of energy. We have to go with the information we have at the time.

whippet wrote:

Really reactor, I am coming to the conclusion that you live in a world of your own and have very little exposure to reality.

how does this further any arguement - egan007 was banned for less....

RE*AC*TOR

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

how does this further any arguement - egan007 was banned for less....

And You'll note that egan was banned before whippet arrived with his outburst.
I respectively suggest that you use the report the post function.

whippet

whippet wrote:

Really reactor, I am coming to the conclusion that you live in a world of your own and have very little exposure to reality.

One week ban