Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

The Corrib gas project should be suspended

  • 23-08-2010 05:58PM
    #1
    NewVision
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 308 ✭✭


    This project is:
    • Approved by an Irish political regime that smacks of corruption - "This wealth will be leaving Ireland, thanks to a deal made between the corrupt Haughey government and multinational oil companies. Minister Ray Burke (later jailed for corruption) changed the law in 1987, reducing the State’s share in our offshore oil and gas from 50% to zero and abolishing royalties. In 1992, Minister Bertie Ahern reduced the tax rate for the profits made from the sale of these resources from 50% to 25%" The Gas & Oil Robbery | Shell to Sea
    • Being delivered by "project splitting", i.e. in piecemeal parts, to circumvent normal planning procedures for an infrastructural project
    • Financially disastrous to the Irish state (see above - NO royalties, NO ownership of the gas, and a mere 25% tax on profits after all costs, including decommissioning of infrastructure (in other words maybe no tax at all for many years))
    • Not likely to contribute to Ireland's energy needs (we have no reason to believe that we will get any of the gas, and if we do we'll have to pay full market value)
    • Environmentally damaging to plant and animal life in the area (where do I even start on this one - go and have a look for yourself at what's being done!)
    • Likely to put human life at risk through unstable, mixed, unrefined gases being pumped at high pressures onshore
    • Being forced through by illegal strongarm tactics by Gardai and private security - check out youtube or the Pipe Down documentary Pipe Down: New Documentary on the Corrib Gas Project | Shell to Sea
    • An experimental pipeline design that has required constant modification due to faults being found with it

    Just leaving it at that (and I could go on), it is questionable whether this project is of any benefit except to those who stand to benefit directly financially from it, i.e. those to whom either Shell or the Government have donated money for their compliance, those few who might gain employment in construction or service industry (which will happen anyway even if the project is improved), or those Gardai who are earning massive overtime money hassling protesters while other areas go understaffed.

    Please consider what I've written, find out more for yourselves, question the motives of those who support the project (and those who oppose it of course - my motive is, if it can be inflicted on one isolated community it can be inflicted on yours or mine), and if you feel that you should,
    Tagged:


«134

Comments

  • #2
    Fighting Irish
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,062 ✭✭✭Fighting Irish


    lol


  • #3
    liammur
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,461 ✭✭✭liammur


    I've long argued could politicians be SO stupid to negotiate such a dreadful deal. Where did we get these donkeys from?


  • #4
    demonspawn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,460 ✭✭✭demonspawn


    /signed

    To be completely honest, I'm not so worried about the environmental impact or any of that. I just want our f**king gas back!! The government had no right to sell off such a massive national asset the way it did. Potential billions lost because some greedy jackasses who don't give a toss about this country.


  • #5
    oppenheimer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,084 ✭✭✭oppenheimer1


    NewVision wrote: »

    [*]An experimental pipeline design that has required constant modification due to faults being found with it

    I won't be signing your petition. Ireland needs the gas and it meeds exploration of the western basins. It isn't feasible for the state to set up a company to find these resources. Imagine the headlines, hundreds of millions wasted on dry wells. Thats exactly what has happened out there before they struck lucky. Hundreds of millions of the exploration companies money was wasted while looking for the gas.

    I also take it you are not educated in the field of pipeline engineering. It is not uncommon for problems to arise on large civil engineering projects, especially if a novel technique is being used.


  • #6
    liammur
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,461 ✭✭✭liammur


    demonspawn wrote: »
    /signed

    To be completely honest, I'm not so worried about the environmental impact or any of that. I just want our f**king gas back!! The government had no right to sell off such a massive national asset the way it did. Potential billions lost because some greedy jackasses who don't give a toss about this country.


    Valued at anywhere up to €180 billion.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    NewVision
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 308 ✭✭NewVision


    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    I won't be signing your petition. Ireland needs the gas and it meeds exploration of the western basins. It isn't feasible for the state to set up a company to find these resources. Imagine the headlines, hundreds of millions wasted on dry wells. Thats exactly what has happened out there before they struck lucky. Hundreds of millions of the exploration companies money was wasted while looking for the gas.

    I also take it you are not educated in the field of pipeline engineering. It is not uncommon for problems to arise on large civil engineering projects, especially if a novel technique is being used.

    So you agree that Irish citizens are playing guinea pigs for Shell getting their lives threatened. Interesting.
    And you also agree that Ireland, and within its people, are getting no loyalties from Shell selling Irish resources on the market. Very interesting.


  • #8
    Pete_Cavan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,338 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    Im with oppenheimer1 on this one. Our government cant even do their primary role, governing the country, right, why would we want them to get involved in gas exploration?

    I think there should be a higher tax placed on these companies who will make a lot of money out of this but I dont see any other reason for stopping them from tapping the gas field. I dont buy any of this it will damage the environment crap, thats all just hysteria NIMBYs always use.

    This is in breach of the form charter so the link to the petition should be removed immediately. If the title of the thread is changed I think it should be kept open as it is an interesting issue and it would be good to discuss it, which board.ie is for, not promoting your own campaign.
    Links to Petitions
    There have been incidents of posts advertising petitions and online campaigns etc etc on recent emotive topics such as politicians' pay rises and provisional licences.

    We have deleted all references to these, and will continue to do so. The rationale for this is simple: this is a discussion board. If you want to talk about a current emotive topic, feel free to do so.

    I see the OP is currently online so maybe you could have the decency to sort this out yourself instead of waiting for a mod.


  • #9
    FlutterinBantam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    I'll sign up if you:

    State your home county
    Occupation(if any)
    Political affiliation
    Employment status


    otherwise stop bothering people with issues which are hijacked by 'rent-a crowd.

    Apologies in advance if that description does not fit you.


  • #10
    demonspawn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,460 ✭✭✭demonspawn


    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    I won't be signing your petition. Ireland needs the gas and it meeds exploration of the western basins. It isn't feasible for the state to set up a company to find these resources. Imagine the headlines, hundreds of millions wasted on dry wells. Thats exactly what has happened out there before they struck lucky. Hundreds of millions of the exploration companies money was wasted while looking for the gas.

    I also take it you are not educated in the field of pipeline engineering. It is not uncommon for problems to arise on large civil engineering projects, especially if a novel technique is being used.

    The State didn't have to set up any exploration companies, they hired one to find the oil in the first place. The problem here is after they found the oil, the State sold the site to Shell. The same thing happened in the south with Marathon oil years ago.

    Marathon Ireland Ltd. is still getting millions out of the budget every year. 11 million in 2009 and 4 million this year(page 8). Oh yeah, and Marathon Ireland Ltd. was sold to Star Energy Group back in 2009. The Asians are making more out of our gas than we are.


  • #11
    NewVision
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 308 ✭✭NewVision


    FlutterinBantam wrote: »
    I'll sign up if you:

    State your home county
    Occupation(if any)
    Political affiliation
    Employment status


    otherwise stop bothering people with issues which are hijacked by 'rent-a crowd.

    Apologies in advance if that description does not fit you.

    You seem to be bothered by what? Reading about the sellout of Irish resources to Shell not paying any royalties?
    I'm prety much bothered by people don't give a shyte about our country and are only interested in spreading their own little hatred. But unfortunately I have to read that too when I'm on fora like this.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    NewVision
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 308 ✭✭NewVision


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    I think there should be a higher tax placed on these companies who will make a lot of money out of this but I dont see any other reason for stopping them from tapping the gas field.

    A main reason to sign the petition.


  • #13
    Pete_Cavan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,338 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    NewVision wrote: »
    A main reason to sign the petition.
    Links to Petitions
    There have been incidents of posts advertising petitions and online campaigns etc etc on recent emotive topics such as politicians' pay rises and provisional licences.

    We have deleted all references to these, and will continue to do so. The rationale for this is simple: this is a discussion board. If you want to talk about a current emotive topic, feel free to do so.

    A main reason for you to remove the link to the petition and never mention it again. Maybe your original post was in good faith but you have obsiously read my first post and are aware that you are in breach of the rules so please stop showing such disregard for what is an excellent discussion site and remove the link. If it was up to me you would be banned from the site by now but thats a decision for the mods.


  • #14
    FlutterinBantam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    NewVision wrote: »
    You seem to be bothered by what? Reading about the sellout of Irish resources to Shell not paying any royalties?
    I'm prety much bothered by people don't give a shyte about our country and are only interested in spreading their own little hatred. But unfortunately I have to read that too when I'm on fora like this.


    I seem to be bothered by people who have no affiliation with either the area, or those involved, and who for reasons best known to themselves,seek to create unrest and waste of taxpayer's money whilst for the most part contributing nothing themselves.

    People who have nothing better to do but move from cause to cause for their own warped ideals all at my expense.


    That's what bothers me.


  • #15
    galwayrush
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,815 ✭✭✭✭galwayrush


    [QUOTE=NewVision;67622244[*]Being forced through by illegal strongarm tactics by Gardai and private security - .[/QUOTE]

    See where you lost a lot of people, :rolleyes:


  • #16
    sceptre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,608 ✭✭✭✭sceptre


    Kindly read the forum charter, conveniently stickied at the top of the Politics forum. It clearly states that petitions aren't facilitated on the forum. We're a discussion forum, not the online equivalent of a free supermarket noticeboard. I've removed the petition part, which isn't permitted by the forum charter (it's specifically mentioned in the forum charter). I've also edited the thread title to reflect a discussion, not a handy way for people to sign as the Duke of Wellington multiple times.

    Feel free to discuss the actual issue in a rational way but do not pimp your petition again.

    /mod


  • #17
    NewVision
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 308 ✭✭NewVision


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    A main reason for you to remove the link to the petition and never mention it again. Maybe your original post was in good faith but you have obsiously read my first post and are aware that you are in breach of the rules so please stop showing such disregard for what is an excellent discussion site and remove the link. If it was up to me you would be banned from the site by now but thats a decision for the mods.

    So excellent that the first answer to my opening post was this?
    So excellent that you can openly shut me up?
    FlutterinBantam wrote: »
    I seem to be bothered by people who have no affiliation with either the area, or those involved, and who for reasons best known to themselves,seek to create unrest and waste of taxpayer's money whilst for the most part contributing nothing themselves.

    People who have nothing better to do but move from cause to cause for their own warped ideals all at my expense.

    That's what bothers me.

    Since when are you paying for the voluntary work people are doing for a better future of our country?


  • #18
    NewVision
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 308 ✭✭NewVision


    sceptre wrote: »
    Kindly read the forum charter, conveniently stickied at the top of the Politics forum. It clearly states that petitions aren't facilitated on the forum. We're a discussion forum, not the online equivalent of a free supermarket noticeboard. I've removed the petition part, which isn't permitted by the forum charter (it's specifically mentioned in the forum charter). I've also edited the thread title to reflect a discussion, not a handy way for people to sign as the Duke of Wellington multiple times.

    Feel free to discuss the actual issue in a rational way but do not pimp your petition again.

    /mod

    First of all I don't 'pimp' my petition. It's not my petition, it's a petition of Contact.ie.
    Secondly, do you want to further disallow me to mention this petition?
    And if yes, how would that conform to the freedom of speech?


  • #19
    Eliot Rosewater
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    Show me where I'm wrong here...

    The government's initially charging 50% in royalties plus 50% in tax. Due to these added costs it's not viable for any oil company to set up. Hence, the government gets 50% of nothing, plus another 50% of the profits of nothing for good measure. €0, in short.

    As a result, they decide to remove the royalties, and reduce the tax to 25%. The oil company, now seeing that it's a profitable enterprise, establishes itself in Ireland. As well as the 25% tax they pay on profits, they provide jobs and investment for the local community.

    The moral would appear to be that 25% of something is better than 50% of nothing.

    So am I erring somewhere?


  • #20
    sceptre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,608 ✭✭✭✭sceptre


    NewVision wrote: »
    First of all I don't 'pimp' my petition. It's not my petition, it's a petition of Contact.ie.
    Secondly, do you want to further disallow me to mention this petition?
    And if yes, how would that conform to the freedom of speech?
    Regardless of who you claim "owns" the petition, the charter no-petition rule applies. So, yeah, you don't get to pimp it here.

    As for freedom of speech, everyone's free to talk about political and current affairs matters in this forum in a rational way, principally restricted only by the forum charter, which you haven't read. It's a community here that discusses politics, it doesn't exist for you to promote a petition.

    When you get around to reading the forum charter, you'll note that queries about moderation are sent to the moderator by PM (convenient link to PM me). If you want to discuss it, that's what you do, it's all clearly explained in the forum charter, which I actively encourage you to read. As this stuff is available in a stickied thread marked "Politics charter", it's easy to find and applies to you as much as it does to every other forum member. If you came here to discuss the topic, that's cool - the thread's still open. If you came here just to pimp a petition, use your own website with your own rules or find a street corner.

    Now, I suggest discussing the actual topic as there are some members interesting in engaging in the discussion, rather than wasting electrons by not reading the charter.

    /mod


  • #21
    BehindTheScenes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 354 ✭✭BehindTheScenes


    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    I won't be signing your petition. Ireland needs the gas and it meeds exploration of the western basins. It isn't feasible for the state to set up a company to find these resources. Imagine the headlines, hundreds of millions wasted on dry wells. Thats exactly what has happened out there before they struck lucky. Hundreds of millions of the exploration companies money was wasted while looking for the gas.

    I also take it you are not educated in the field of pipeline engineering. It is not uncommon for problems to arise on large civil engineering projects, especially if a novel technique is being used.

    Ah yes the word novel, just what people like to hear when you have a high pressured gas pipeline running through your back garden.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    FlutterinBantam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    NewVision wrote: »
    So excellent that the first answer to my opening post was this?
    So excellent that you can openly shut me up?



    Since when are you paying for the voluntary work people are doing for a better future of our country?

    I'm not paying a red cent for any voluntary work pal, however what I am paying for is the wages of the hundred or so gardaí who are stationed there to protect the facility.

    I am also paying the dole for a good majority of the so called patriots who are 'working 'for the future of our country.

    I would suggest you read the posts by the mod who points out the rules and who probably like myself takes issue with someone joining up and setting up petitions ab initio.

    The future of our country will be decided by the taxpayer and the voter, not by some rabble, who like the fit ups of old ,move from area to area where the cause decrees and where opportunity arises.

    Not suggesting that you fall into that category but let me tell you John Q Taxpayer is not quite as big an idiot as some may think.


  • #23
    NewVision
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 308 ✭✭NewVision


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    Show me where I'm wrong here...

    The government's initially charging 50% in royalties plus 50% in tax. Due to these added costs it's not viable for any oil company to set up. Hence, the government gets 50% of nothing, plus another 50% of the profits of nothing for good measure. €0, in short.

    As a result, they decide to remove the royalties, and reduce the tax to 25%. The oil company, now seeing that it's a profitable enterprise, establishes itself in Ireland. As well as the 25% tax they pay on profits, they provide jobs and investment for the local community.

    The moral would appear to be that 25% of something is better than 50% of nothing.

    So am I erring somewhere?

    You are trying to tell us that the government was charging 50% royalties + 50% tax (=100%). Can you provide any source for that allegation? :confused:

    The only country in Europe which charges NO royalties for oil companies is Ireland. The average charge in Europe is about 33%. Norway charges 76% royalties. It is delicate to mention that the Norwegian state company Statoil has a 36% stake in Corrib.

    Ireland is also not getting anything from your mentioned 25% taxes for many years, because Shell can write off any expenditures in- and outside the country, even the anticipated cost of shutting down the operation.

    So you might be well erring.


  • #24
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    FlutterinBantam wrote: »
    I'm not paying a red cent for any voluntary work pal, however what I am paying for is the wages of the hundred or so gardaí who are stationed there to protect the facility.

    I am also paying the dole for a good majority of the so called patriots who are 'working 'for the future of our country.

    I would suggest you read the posts by the mod who points out the rules and who probably like myself takes issue with someone joining up and setting up petitions ab initio.

    The future of our country will be decided by the taxpayer and the voter, not by some rabble, who like the fit ups of old ,move from area to area where the cause decrees and where opportunity arises.

    Not suggesting that you fall into that category but let me tell you John Q Taxpayer is not quite as big an idiot as some may think.

    For someone with such a frugal attitude to the spending of your hard earned tax euro's, you don't seem at all bothered by what amounts to a massive missed opportunity for the government. Funny that.


  • #25
    FlutterinBantam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    karma_ wrote: »
    For someone with such a frugal attitude to the spending of your hard earned tax euro's, you don't seem at all bothered by what amounts to a massive missed opportunity for the government. Funny that.

    Funny..funny in what way?


  • #26
    sesna
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,229 ✭✭✭sesna


    Stop the project when the thing is nearly built with well over a billion invested. Some awful headbangers in this country, I feel sorry for the gardai down there :pac:


  • #27
    NewVision
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 308 ✭✭NewVision


    FlutterinBantam wrote: »
    I'm not paying a red cent for any voluntary work pal, however what I am paying for is the wages of the hundred or so gardaí who are stationed there to protect the facility.

    I am also paying the dole for a good majority of the so called patriots who are 'working 'for the future of our country.

    I would suggest you read the posts by the mod who points out the rules and who probably like myself takes issue with someone joining up and setting up petitions ab initio.

    The future of our country will be decided by the taxpayer and the voter, not by some rabble, who like the fit ups of old ,move from area to area where the cause decrees and where opportunity arises.

    Not suggesting that you fall into that category but let me tell you John Q Taxpayer is not quite as big an idiot as some may think.

    I don't think I'm your pal.
    Maybe you watch that video and judge whether people protesting for their right of inviolacy of their health and live (which is a constitutional right!) are "some rabble, who like the fit ups of old ,move from area to area where the cause decrees and where opportunity arises". These locals are glad getting some support from other people as their governments are leaving them in the rain seemingly for the interest of multinationals.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZ4_TZQTj3Y


  • #28
    FlutterinBantam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    NewVision wrote: »
    I don't think I'm your pal.
    Maybe you watch that video and judge whether people protesting for their right of inviolacy of their health and live (which is a constitutional right!) are "some rabble, who like the fit ups of old ,move from area to area where the cause decrees and where opportunity arises". These locals are glad getting some support from other people as their governments are leaving them in the rain seemingly for the interest of multinationals.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZ4_TZQTj3Y


    I generally don't watch propaganda, especially left wing propaganda.


    Sorry 'bout that


  • #29
    NewVision
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 308 ✭✭NewVision


    sesna wrote: »
    Stop the project when the thing is nearly built with well over a billion invested. Some awful headbangers in this country, I feel sorry for the gardai down there :pac:

    Not shutting down. Renegotiating the deal between the state and the gas consortium. Shell to sea.


  • #30
    sesna
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,229 ✭✭✭sesna


    NewVision wrote: »
    I don't think I'm your pal.
    Maybe you watch that video and judge whether people protesting for their right of inviolacy of their health and live (which is a constitutional right!) are "some rabble, who like the fit ups of old ,move from area to area where the cause decrees and where opportunity arises". These locals are glad getting some support from other people as their governments are leaving them in the rain seemingly for the interest of multinationals.

    Interesting considering the locals didn't endorse the only TD supporting the head bangers, as shown when SF TD Jerry Crowley lost his seat in the 2007 general election.

    I suppose there is a difference when a rent-a-hippy thug knocks on your door asking you to sign yet another phoney petition, compared to when you have the anonymity of a ballot box.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    NewVision
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 308 ✭✭NewVision


    FlutterinBantam wrote: »
    I generally don't watch propaganda, especially left wing propaganda.

    Sorry 'bout that

    Who told you that it is 'left wing propaganda'? :confused:

    Don't think you're really feeling sorry about.


  • #32
    Eliot Rosewater
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    NewVision wrote: »
    You are trying to tell us that the government was charging 50% royalties + 50% tax (=100%). Can you provide any source for that allegation?

    Erm ... your opening post? This is what you said;
    NewVision wrote: »
    Minister Ray Burke (later jailed for corruption) changed the law in 1987, reducing the State’s share in our offshore oil and gas from 50% to zero and abolishing royalties. In 1992, Minister Bertie Ahern reduced the tax rate for the profits made from the sale of these resources from 50% to 25%" The Gas & Oil Robbery | Shell to Sea

    So re-reading this I believe that I was wrong on the exact figures and their effect. But regardless of the detail, the point I was trying to make still stands: 25% of something is better than 50% of nothing. If the large taxes and charges the government had on oil were still in place would the oil be drilled at all?

    There's also the question of employment and investment. By drilling the oil the companies involved are providing services to the economy, including income tax and other taxes paid by their employees.


  • #33
    karma_
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,798 ✭✭✭karma_


    Don't mind him, he sees left-wing conspiracies everywhere he looks.


  • #34
    Burt Russ
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11 ✭Burt Russ


    I never fully understand why people who despise the protesters so much won't also consider if there's a rat here all the same, what with Ray MacSharry and Bertie at it.

    It's pretty clear the "deal" done stinks to high heaven, just by comparing the tax set up against every other country. And the way the planning problems were "got around". It doesn't take a conspiracy theory to admit that.

    Is it that people feel to speak up about the deal would be to align themselves with crusty communists or something? It's disappointing to think many people won't just analyse the issues for themselves, and prefer to simply throw in behind what "their kind" feel about the situation. The best response to someone else's ideological crusade is not to just do the same from the opposite side. I'm actually not aiming that at anyone in particular in this case, or at either side exclusively.


  • #35
    sesna
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,229 ✭✭✭sesna


    NewVision wrote: »
    Not shutting down. Renegotiating the deal between the state and the gas consortium. Shell to sea.

    "Renegotiate" the deal - Chavez/Pution style? That is tear up a contract made by a sovereign government of the EU? Now please pull the other leg.

    If it was done legally and without international damge I would have no problem. But if it exposed the state to billions of damage by Shell I would have a serious problem.

    As regards the so-called favourable deal,there were only two applicants for this project. Enterprise got it and sold to Shell. They will pay 25.5% corporation tax on profits.

    The UK gets about 32 % for the North sea which is far more productive and an easier place to work and explore. Who would go out into the rough Atlantic, spend millions exploring and maybe get very little. Changing terms now is like a bookie changing the odds hes given you after your horse wins the race.

    Once again Enterprise were first in here and sold to Shell. While I abhor Ray Burke, Bertie etc, I do not believe they sold away our resources for a few donations to themselves. Maybe the state could have gotten a bit more in the deal, maybe, but please remember there were only 2 applicants despite terms.

    The Corrib Field will provide 60 - 70% of our gas needs. It is not a major field. If and when someone finds oil, it may be possible to strike a much better deal with the oil companies. However, we have been waiting for that event since the 1970's.


  • #36
    unit 1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 549 ✭✭✭unit 1


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    Show me where I'm wrong here...

    The government's initially charging 50% in royalties plus 50% in tax. Due to these added costs it's not viable for any oil company to set up. Hence, the government gets 50% of nothing, plus another 50% of the profits of nothing for good measure. €0, in short.

    As a result, they decide to remove the royalties, and reduce the tax to 25%. The oil company, now seeing that it's a profitable enterprise, establishes itself in Ireland. As well as the 25% tax they pay on profits, they provide jobs and investment for the local community.

    The moral would appear to be that 25% of something is better than 50% of nothing.

    So am I erring somewhere?

    Yes, because for instance 40% of something is better than 25% of something.
    You assume that a 50% royalty scuppers the deal, but 25% makes it OK.
    It's like saying if you raise corporation tax from 12.5% to say 13% all the multinational would dissappear overnight. Of course not but those who know better, FF of course, will say this, so thats it.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    NewVision
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 308 ✭✭NewVision


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    Erm ... your opening post? This is what you said;

    So re-reading this I believe that I was wrong on the exact figures and their effect. But regardless of the detail, the point I was trying to make still stands: 25% of something is better than 50% of nothing. If the large taxes and charges the government had on oil were still in place would the oil be drilled at all?

    There's also the question of employment and investment. By drilling the oil the companies involved are providing services to the economy, including income tax and other taxes paid by their employees.

    Amazing that people still believe we need the multinationals that much because 'they're creating jobs'. Not even 5% of our jobs come from them. But they dictate the conditions.
    Many of those multinatinal corporations come, get on the gravy train, and leave us with the mess behind. And that happens all over the world, called globalisation of economy. The project itself is not that big job creator as advertised by those companies. The security for example are hired from eastern European states and russia.

    A different design, renegotiating the deal, and that would create even more jobs.


  • #38
    Scarab80
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 802 ✭✭✭Scarab80


    This post might be of help to people here


  • #39
    oppenheimer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,084 ✭✭✭oppenheimer1


    sesna wrote: »
    "Renegotiate" the deal - Chavez/Pution style? That is tear up a contract made by a sovereign government of an EU state. Now please pull the other leg.

    If it was done legally and without international damge I would have no problem. But if it exposed the state to billions of damage by Shell I would have a serious problem.

    As regards the so-called favourable deal,there were only two applicants for this project. Enterprise got it and sold to Shell. They will pay 25.5% corporation tax on profits.

    The UK gets about 32 % for the North sea which is far more productive and an easier place to work and explore. Who would go out into the rough Atlantic, spend millions exploring and maybe get very little. Changing terms now is like a bookie changing the odds hes given you after your horse wins the race.

    Once again please remember Enterprise were first in here and sold to Shell. While I abhor Ray Burke, Bertie etc, I do not believe they sold away our resources for a few donations to themselves. Maybe the state could have got a bit more, maybe, but please remember there were only 2 applicants despite terms.

    Isn't this the key though, despite the lucrative terms only two applicants and then one sold out. And there was no one banging down the door prior to the change in the law.

    Its because of the favourable terms that we are even talking about this because without them the gas would still be under the sea. Furthermore Belmullet and north Mayo would be suffering even more in the downturn in the economy.

    As for the protesters, I'm glad they got a battering, they deserved it.


  • #40
    sesna
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,229 ✭✭✭sesna


    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    Isn't this the key though, despite the lucrative terms only two applicants and then one sold out. And there was no one banging down the door prior to the change in the law.

    Its because of the favourable terms that we are even talking about this because without them the gas would still be under the sea. Furthermore Belmullet and north Mayo would be suffering even more in the downturn in the economy.

    As for the protesters, I'm glad they got a battering, they deserved it.


    Agreed, Shell have employed about 1000 construction workers for past two and a half years, now down to about 700. Most of them from area apart from highly technical experts. And there is not a word about it, only mob rule gets the airways.


  • #41
    Eliot Rosewater
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    unit 1 wrote: »
    Yes, because for instance 40% of something is better than 25% of something.

    The point I was trying to make, that I will now repeat, is that if the tax rate was 40% (or 50% etc) it might have been non-viable for a gas company to set up, hence the Government would have received less tax.

    Scofflaw expands upon this point in the post Scarab80 linked to. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66163445&postcount=31
    NewVision wrote: »
    Amazing that people still believe we need the multinationals that much because 'they're creating jobs'.jobs.

    The fact that Dell pulling out of Limerick caused such havoc is proof enough that, yes, we do benefit from multi-national corporations being here.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    NewVision
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 308 ✭✭NewVision


    sesna wrote: »
    "Renegotiate" the deal - Chavez/Pution style? That is tear up a contract made by a sovereign government of the EU? Now please pull the other leg.

    If it was done legally and without international damge I would have no problem. But if it exposed the state to billions of damage by Shell I would have a serious problem.

    As regards the so-called favourable deal,there were only two applicants for this project. Enterprise got it and sold to Shell. They will pay 25.5% corporation tax on profits.

    The UK gets about 32 % for the North sea which is far more productive and an easier place to work and explore. Who would go out into the rough Atlantic, spend millions exploring and maybe get very little. Changing terms now is like a bookie changing the odds hes given you after your horse wins the race.

    Once again Enterprise were first in here and sold to Shell. While I abhor Ray Burke, Bertie etc, I do not believe they sold away our resources for a few donations to themselves. Maybe the state could have gotten a bit more in the deal, maybe, but please remember there were only 2 applicants despite terms.

    The Corrib Field will provide 60 - 70% of our gas needs. It is not a major field. If and when someone finds oil, it will be possible to strike a much better deal with the oil companies. However, we have been waiting for that event since the 1970's.

    First of all, under the current contract nobody can force Shell to sell the gas to Ireland. They can sell it to whom they want.

    Minister Ray Burke who changed the law in 1987, reducing the State’s share in our offshore oil and gas from 50% to zero and abolishing royalties, is a convicted criminal. So far to your Chavez/Pution style.

    But most important, the state has all the right to renegotiate the contract as the companies have been constantly breaching this treaty themselves.

    Here what the contact says:
    The Minister may, for such period as the Minister deems necessary, require that specified exploration, exploitation, production or processing activities should cease… subject to conditions which the Minister may specify, in any case where the Minister is satisfied that it is desirable to do so in order to reduce the risk of injury to the person, waste of petroleum or damage to property or the environment. No claim for compensation may be made against the Minister on foot of any such requirement.


  • #43
    sesna
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,229 ✭✭✭sesna


    NewVision wrote: »
    First of all, under the current contract nobody can force Shell to sell the gas to Ireland. They can sell it to whom they want.

    Minister Ray Burke who changed the law in 1987, reducing the State’s share in our offshore oil and gas from 50% to zero and abolishing royalties, is a convicted criminal. So far to your Chavez/Pution style.

    But most important, the state has all the right to renegotiate the contract as the companies have been constantly breaching this treaty themselves.

    Here what the contact says:

    As for such simplistic solutions on tearing up the contract, try it out with the lawyers and see how far it goes.

    What you quoted does not say that the terms of the contract could be renegotiated if Shell actually found gas.

    As regards safety mentioned in your quote, Shell should be held to the highest international safety standards, and if any aspect is found to be unsafe work should be stopped until it is fixed. Independent experts Advantica already cleared the project as meeting the highest safety standards.

    The terms can not be changed. No company in the world would have signed it if it did. Once again, like a bookie changing odds after your horse has won the race.

    Currently, Ireland is 90 per cent dependent on imported gas. We are highly dependent on gas supply from Russia and at the end of a very long supply chain, which exposes us to risks of supply interruption and price volatility. If anything were to occur that disrupted this supply, we would have a serious energy crisis in this country.

    Corrib Gas field will supply up to 60 per cent of Ireland’s gas needs at peak production. Also it's critical that we consider our international reputation and ability to attract foreign investment, especially considering unemployement could reach 17%.


  • #44
    Eliot Rosewater
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    I was trawling through the Shell To Sea site when I found this picture:

    welcomeglengad.jpg

    ("In solidarity with communities resisting fossil fuel extraction around the world.")

    So are the campaigners against gas being extracted full stop?


  • #45
    NewVision
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 308 ✭✭NewVision


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    The point I was trying to make, that I will now repeat, is that if the tax rate was 40% (or 50% etc) it might have been non-viable for a gas company to set up, hence the Government would have received less tax.

    The fact that Dell pulling out of Limerick caused such havoc is proof enough that, yes, we do benefit from multi-national corporations being here.

    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.

    Apart from the fact that the gas is refined onshore, that high pressure pipelines going through unstable boglands are threatening live of people there, that the refinery is poisoning local water supplies etc., apart from that, do you still believe that everything is ok with that deal?


  • #46
    sesna
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,229 ✭✭✭sesna


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    I was trawling through the Shell To Sea site when I found this picture:

    ("In solidarity with communities resisting fossil fuel extraction around the world.")

    So are the campaigners against gas being extracted full stop?

    Who knows what their actual focus is given the awful mixture of imported hippies,Bull McCabes,tree huggers and shinners down there.


  • #47
    Eliot Rosewater
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    NewVision wrote: »
    So, how much are we prepared for getting compromised by those multinationals?

    Rather than preparing for "compromisation" our time would be better spent ensuring that such things do not occur. This involves creating and maintaining a competitive economy.
    NewVision wrote: »
    Why do other European countries successfully charge royalties?

    Because they have bigger oil fields and companies will still be interested in drilling even when the royalties are charged.

    As Scofflaw said, when the tax rates were high and the royalties were instituted, no company was interested in exploring. When the economic climate was made more favourable, they became interested. It really isn't that hard to understand. If the tax rates were higher, the tax yield would be lower.
    NewVision wrote: »
    Apart from the fact that the gas is refined onshore, that high pressure pipelines going through unstable boglands are threatening live of people there,

    What proof is there that these pipes pose a danger? People all over the world live near pipelines. Even the pipes coming into ones house are pressurised.
    NewVision wrote: »
    that the refinery is poisoning local water supplies etc.,

    Source?


  • #48
    Jeboa Safari
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭Jeboa Safari


    Those shell to sea campaigners should be thrown into the Atlantic. I seriously hope your petition goes nowhere and fails. Your not helping the country as you and your fellow rent-a-mob hippies like to think in you fantasy land crusade, your ensuring you cost the state money in terms of having to police your mob, and making sure we miss out on money through tax and jobs. We're lucky your type aren't ruling the country or we'd never see any of our natural resources harvested.


  • #49
    NewVision
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 308 ✭✭NewVision


    sesna wrote: »
    As for such simplistic solutions on tearing up the contract, try it out with the lawyers and see how far it goes.

    What you quoted does not say that the terms of the contract could be renegotiated if Shell actually found gas.

    As regards safety mentioned in your quote, Shell should be held to the highest international safety standards, and if any aspect is found to be unsafe work should be stopped until it is fixed. Independent experts Advantica already cleared the project as meeting the highest safety standards.

    The terms can not be changed. No company in the world would have signed it if it did. Once again, like a bookie changing odds after your horse has won the race.

    Currently, Ireland is 90 per cent dependent on imported gas. We are highly dependent on gas supply from Russia and at the end of a very long supply chain, which exposes us to risks of supply interruption and price volatility. If anything were to occur that disrupted this supply, we would have a serious energy crisis in this country.

    Corrib Gas field will supply up to 60 per cent of Ireland’s gas needs at peak production. Also it's critical that we consider our international reputation and ability to attract foreign investment, especially considering unemployement could reach 17%.

    Maybe we should start a collection to hire some lawyers. Don't know how far the Shell To Sea campaign has come in that matters.

    But no matter if Shell finds gas (which is more than likely) or not, the contract says, "The Minister may, for such period as the Minister deems necessary, require that specified exploration, exploitation, production or processing activities should cease… subject to conditions which the Minister may specify, in any case where the Minister is satisfied that it is desirable to do so in order to reduce the risk of injury to the person, waste of petroleum or damage to property or the environment. No claim for compensation may be made against the Minister on foot of any such requirement."

    Again. Nobody can force the companies to sell th gas to Ireland. Shell can sell it to whom they want to the current market price.

    At the moment it seems more likely that Ireland is getting the reputation of being the country with the most corrupt government in Europe and it would be the easiest to break human rights and demands for profits there.
    Is that the reputation you would fancy?


  • #50
    demonspawn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,460 ✭✭✭demonspawn


    Scarab80 wrote: »
    This post might be of help to people here

    So....if we're getting 25% corp tax + 5-15% PRRT, then why did we pay Marathon Petroleum Ireland Ltd. 11 million from the budget last year and 4 million this year (page 8)? God knows how much we've paid them since they started up in the south.

    I really don't understand, could someone please explain?


  • #51
    Jeboa Safari
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭Jeboa Safari


    NewVision wrote: »
    Maybe we should start a collection to hire some lawyers. Don't know how far the Shell To Sea campaign has come in that matters.

    But no matter if Shell finds gas (which is more than likely) or not, the contract says, "The Minister may, for such period as the Minister deems necessary, require that specified exploration, exploitation, production or processing activities should cease… subject to conditions which the Minister may specify, in any case where the Minister is satisfied that it is desirable to do so in order to reduce the risk of injury to the person, waste of petroleum or damage to property or the environment. No claim for compensation may be made against the Minister on foot of any such requirement."

    Again. Nobody can force the companies to sell th gas to Ireland. Shell can sell it to whom they want to the current market price.

    At the moment it seems more likely that Ireland is getting the reputation of being the country with the most corrupt government in Europe and it would be the easiest to break human rights and demands for profits there.
    Is that the reputation you would fancy?

    They wouldn't have to ship it halfway around the world to sell it to Ireland though, so surely it would be easy to come to an agreement that benefits both the state and Shell


  • Advertisement
Advertisement