Mayo persons view of shell & shell to sea

brundle

Just thought its time that the real views of mayo people were put out there.

99% of normal everyday people here are totally in favour of the gas terminal here. Yes there were some concerns here originally and at that time it was about 60% in favour but with certain safety changes taking place, pipeline pressures reduced etc, there are now no reasonable people here who are not in favour.

Various landowners have been compensated, fishermen agreed a compensation deal, We currently have the biggest building site in ireland in an area where there is now nothing else happening. There are 800 people employed at the terminal site and hundreds more in local business and indirectly employed by the gas works.

A huge lifetime benefit of the gas coming ashore here is the supply of gas to local towns, the pipes now being installed which will allow much needed industry etc to consider this area. The connection to the bord gais network already is complete.

The biggest problem id have is that the government is getting no benefit from the gas find but this is another issue and we can hardly expect shell to offer them a % at tis stage. Apart from that issue, shell are offering any number of grants to good causes locally, be it the GAA, local sports centres, community improvement schemes, school funding, and also directly funding much road improvement in the area.

THe vast majority of the protesters now at the site are not local and many are not irish nationals.

The most laughable thing I read in the papers is this peaceful protest idea. Since work started, this has never been a peaceful protest, They have blocked local business, fought with gardai, put themselves in dangerous situations in an attempt to stop work, blocked people going the road at 8 am on their way to work. This is all carried out in the name of the mayo/erris people when infact everyone would gladly have them locked up.

I myself do not benefit from the gas works but being related to the building business, it really annoys me that it always turns up in the papers as a peaceful protest being forcefully quashed.

mike65

Are you familair with www.indymedia.ie and thier relentless socialist/anti-capitalist coverage?

Mike

missmatty

I'm from Erris originally as well and I agree with everything Brundle said. Well put.

Bob the Builder

whats pissing the protestors off now more than anything else is the gardaí. In all fairness, their attitude was a disgrace.

as for the protestors, there are numerous problems which have come to light since then - hence the reason negotiations are ongoing. I'll try and dig up the mayo news again, and find it.

good article brundle.

oscarBravo

nevf wrote: »

whats pissing the protestors off now more than anything else is the gardaí.

What's pissing the Gardaí off now more than anything else is the protesters. I think it's fair to say that a substantial percentage of their attitude has been richly earned.

I don't condone every action by every Guard involved, but there's only so much provocation a human being can handle.

PogMoThoin

Fcukin tree huggers. Not one of them are local or have a genuine interest in the area. Its a disgrace.

nuac

As a Mayo resident agree fully wth Brundle. Some of the core protestors are from outside the area. Protestors behave unlawfully by taking "direct action", stopping traffic and people going to work. They try to provoke Gardai

This is a great project for the country and deserves full support.

Avns1s

Well said Brundle. I couldn't have put it better.

Reality is that the West region particularly Mayo has a fantastic piece of infrastructure in the gas pipework serving so many of the towns that would never see gas without the discovery of gas where it was found and the landing of that gas in Erris.

The futures of generations, particularly in an area where successive generations have had to emigrate to send home the pennies in order for those at home to survive in a region which by its nature begrudged them a living, is far more important than the ego's and ideology of a few headbangers.

If safety was compromised I would feel they had a case. Reality is that it's not and Brundle is right, most of those protesting are not indigenous to the area and coming here for the purpose they do, are not welcome in the county. Not even all of the Rossport 5 live in proximity to the pipeline, go figure!

Anyway, I've been in the terminal recently and it's an impressive undertaking and one which those who are involved in it should be proud of it. It is creating huge employment at the moment. It will create about 60 permanent jobs directly when it's up and running. If the IDA were announcing the creation of 60 jobs in Erris, every politician in the region would be having their picture taken with the Foreign National who would be hailed as a hero. Well done Shell!

Not alone do we have this development in Erris, we have the possibility of additional job creation in the towns like Crossmolina, Claremorris, Westport, Castlebar, Ballina, etc because of the gas, gas that they would never have seen but for Shell. It all paints a brighter picture for the regions future than we would otherwise have.

Who cares about whether the protesters are pi$$ed off with the Gardai. The Gardai have a job to do in ensuring that the people of the area can go about their business unintimidated and without the threat of physical assault. What pi$$es me off is that our tax is being spent on having a garda presence in place to keep discipline on a bunch of A$$holes who have nothing better to do than try and deny future generations the right to live work and in some cases, return to their native area, THEIR area, their everything!

Bob the Builder

oscarBravo wrote: »

What's pissing the Gardaí off now more than anything else is the protesters.

Yes, but look on the bright side - the amount of overtime/perks that all the Gardaí are getting. Sure they might have to stay over the odd night away from their family, but they're sure as hell getting paid for it.

I think it's fair to say that a substantial percentage of their attitude has been richly earned.

I don't condone every action by every Guard involved, but there's only so much provocation a human being can handle.

Their general attitude is earned, and I'd sure as hell be getting pissed off as well if I had to do it, but the way they have treated people up there, even onlookers (i.e. people who are there, but not involved), really leaves a lot to be desired.

In terms of publicity now though, Shell are the casualties. In terms of support, people don't give two hoots really, they just want their gas and they want it now. I could be dreaming, and I probably am, but didn't Mayo News have an article outlining the possibilities of an explosion and the potential consequences?

My dad is from up there and his opinion is pretty neutral, but then again, he has a brother-in-law in Dublin who's not from around here at all, who thinks, and I quote "the b@stards should be shot before they do any more damage"

As far as I am concerned though, they have put so many of their resources into stopping the pipeline, and their time, they have also even adopted a criminal record, I think it's about time now that they just take a chance on it, and no matter what the possibilites of an explosion are, just STFU and let everything go ahead.

But then again, if, in twenty years time, Osama Bin Laden bombed it, or if a freak explosion occured, then we would be crowning them as marters. There's so many different angles here, and it's confusing on so many levels because we just dunno who to believe anymore. I feel sorry for the Mayo News though, it must be terribly difficult for them to write an informed, unbiased article that everyone agrees with.

brundle

Somebody moved this to mayo section which is daft as everyone in mayo knows the score. It was an attempt to put the true picture of whats happening here out to people all over the country.

I dont think we will be crowning these people any time soon as they are basically broken down into 3 groups.

tree huggers.... this is just what they do while waiting for the dole
locals looking for big payoff
locals with genuine fears (about 4 people id say)

irishgeo

the whole shell to sea campaign makes me laugh.they still want the terminal moved to sea, despite the fact its half built and the ship is laying the pipeline.

i know its only an excuse to extract more money from shell. i have talked to one protester who been down there and arrested for protesting and all the protesters claim to want is the same deal as they got in Kinsale.

anyway is going to go on ahead and i driven down there and the money going into is huge. top class roads and grants for sports etc. might take a spin down again when the pipe laying boat arrives.

red2

Hi all,
I agree with Brundals view on things. Shell have and still continue to do very good work in the Erris area.They have assisted many community groups with vital funding even though some of the people who have received some of these grants do not wish others to know that they received funding from Shell.Shell is providing alot of employment in the Erris and surrounding areas.
I know some people have geunine concerns in relation to the safety aspect etc...of the gas pipelines etc.. but I cannot for the life of me understand how total ass***** zoom out in kayaks in front of where machinery is working and then they have the gall to comment to a newspaper on how Shell workers nearly killed them??!!!! The Guards have had to put up with alot of s*** from some of the protesters also.What makes my blood boil is how some of these protesters have the cheek of sticking posters of "SHELL OUT" in areas outside the actual Erris area and if I see another car in front of me on the road with the feicing sticker "SHELL TO SEA" "SHELL OUT" I will scream!!!!!! Its past time that the protesters woke up and see that their demonstrations are not going to get them anywhere.:)

Avns1s

nevf wrote: »

My dad is from up there and his opinion is pretty neutral, but then again, he has a brother-in-law in Dublin who's not from around here at all, who thinks, and I quote "the b@stards should be shot before they do any more damage"

I don't know if I'd go quite as far as to shoot the protesters, but close!


On a serious note, I know the point you're making and to be honest, I'd be worried that this is more of the urbanite attitude of keeping rugged rural ireland virgin pure so that city dwellers can come out and have their weekends there, walking or fishing or whatever, and shoot back home on sunday evening. While I have no problems with them visiting, the people whose vision of the area and opinions, count most are those who live in it 365days a year and have to survive there.

This applies to the protesters too. I think if they're not from the area, there opinions count for féck all and they should leave.

Shelflife

agree with brundle 100%, time for the protestors to clear off now, they keep changing what they want.

as regards the guards getting their overtime, its stopping them from looking after the rest of mayo people as they are tied up there. the guards dont want to be there because the protestors are goading them into action which could cost them their jobs.

Bob the Builder

Shelflife wrote: »

as regards the guards getting their overtime, its stopping them from looking after the rest of mayo people as they are tied up there. the guards dont want to be there because the protestors are goading them into action which could cost them their jobs.

sher all they do all night anyway, with the odd exception, is sit around doing nothing in the station.

towns like westport are dead after 3/3.30am every night, and the the riots down there only start at 6.30am, so it's only a matter of transporting resources anyway. Westport Gardaí have there own snooker table, and thats what they'd be doing if they weren't up there. the only thing is the sheer number of resources they put up there to deal with such small crowds of protestors. The ratio is often around 3Gardaí to 1protestor.

Sure the Shell to Sea campaign is plausable, but so is everyone else's campaign...

Culchie

This whole mess is down to poor (bent) Government, that received brown envelopes when agreeing to the exploration 'contract'

The fact that we, Irish citizens, will not receive a red cent from our own natural resources is absolutely disgusting.

The Norwegian people (through their government stake-holding in Statoil) will directly benefit, we Irish don't. Read that sentence again, Irish Oil and Gas will fill the pockets of Norwegians, but not one single cent will go into ours.
Well, er for me, "that's just not cricket"

I don't have a problem with the project itself, but it should be done on a public/private partnership basis.

Whilst the protestors may not be locals, they highlighted some of the sheninigans and corrupt politics that took place....so I thank them for that.

Bob the Builder

Culchie wrote: »

...

Dude, I agree completely.

lugha

Culchie wrote: »

The fact that we, Irish citizens, will not receive a red cent from our own natural resources is absolutely disgusting.

Yes but you have to ask if the gas would ever have been found if Shell had not been given sufficient incentives to look for it. Most of the time these explorations yield nothing but are hughly expensive. We will benefit considerably when the gas comes online.

I must say I have never been convinced about the whole protest on safety grounds and wish the protests would stop. After all, the decision has been taken by a government acting on our behalf and anybody who respects democary should accept it.

Bob the Builder

lugha wrote: »

Yes but you have to ask if the gas would ever have been found if Shell had not been given sufficient incentives to look for it. Most of the time these explorations yield nothing but are hughly expensive. We will benefit considerably when the gas comes online.

I must say I have never been convinced about the whole protest on safety grounds and wish the protests would stop. After all, the decision has been taken by a government acting on our behalf and anybody who respects democary should accept it.

At least in 30 years time when the government found it, and when gas/oil was expensive... at least it would be the government getting it and not a multinational company. The company isn't even irish ffs.

lugha

nevf wrote: »

At least in 30 years time when the government found it

How would the government have found it in 30 years?

Avns1s

lugha wrote: »

How would the government have found it in 30 years?

Eamon Ryan got one of the drills on special offer in Aldi and now he's looking for an extra long bit so he can do the prospecting on behalf of the Govt.:D:D

Bob the Builder

how did they find it in the last few years - by chance, by luck, by giving away all their rights to a multinational company?

At least if some civil servant had sat down with shell and agreed at least a half decent deal, it might have solved a few problems.

Also, might I add, if it wasn't are the Shell to Sea campaign, they're wouldn't even be a pipeline coming through Mayo as it is.

Bob the Builder

Avns1s wrote: »

Eamon Ryan got one of the drills on special offer in Aldi and now he's looking for an extra long bit so he can do the prospecting on behalf of the Govt.:D:D

A hybrid drill of course. :pac:

lugha

nevf wrote: »

how did they find it in the last few years - by chance, by luck, by giving away all their rights to a multinational company?

At least if some civil servant had sat down with shell and agreed at least a half decent deal, it might have solved a few problems.

Also, might I add, if it wasn't are the Shell to Sea campaign, they're wouldn't even be a pipeline coming through Mayo as it is.

Sorry. I don't understand any of your three points.

Bob the Builder

Apologies

Well, my first point was that, even we never found gas within the next 30 years, we'd at least be making more profit from it than we are now. As it is, the government is getting a less-than-ideal share of the profits.

My second point, was that, the license given to shell was basically a hand out. Nobody expected to find anything, and there civil servants within the department never paid any attention to sitting down and making a deal which would see greater deals for the local community and goverment.

In the first plans, created by shell and approved, there wasn't going to be a pipe going through mayo really. It was a simple pipe running from north mayo to galway, that wasn;tsupplying houses in mayo at all. when the shell to sea campaign began, the plans were quickly amended to supply each urban area in mayo(or at least most of them anyway) with gas pipelines. This was primarily an attempt to gain support from the wider mayo community really, but it worked.

lugha

nevf wrote: »

Apologies

Well, my first point was that, even we never found gas within the next 30 years, we'd at least be making more profit from it than we are now. As it is, the government is getting a less-than-ideal share of the profits.

My second point, was that, the license given to shell was basically a hand out. Nobody expected to find anything, and there civil servants within the department never paid any attention to sitting down and making a deal which would see greater deals for the local community and goverment.

In the first plans, created by shell and approved, there wasn't going to be a pipe going through mayo really. It was a simple pipe running from north mayo to galway, that wasn;tsupplying houses in mayo at all. when the shell to sea campaign began, the plans were quickly amended to supply each urban area in mayo(or at least most of them anyway) with gas pipelines. This was primarily an attempt to gain support from the wider mayo community really, but it worked.

Thanks for the clarification.:)

Although I am still not clear how we could be making more profit on the gas if we didn't find it in the next 30 years????

But in any case, I think your substantial point is that the Irish people didn't get a very good deal out of the whole enterprise. A lot of people have made this point and cite as evidence the fact the we do not have a share in the gas itself as such. There are also there are some veiled (and not so veiled!) references to the integrity of some politicians involved in the deal making. However I do not necessarily agree that getting a share of zero is a bad deal. After all, there are agents of the state such as enterprise Ireland and the IDA who in effect pay foreign multinationals by way of grants, advanced factories etc. (I expect some of our EU partners would also see our favorable tax regime as a sort of payment!) to invest in Ireland. So a crude argument might be made that Shell cost us nothing whereas some multinationals required fairly considerable inducements. But of course that is a crude analysis. A more sensible approach would be to look at the sort of deals other similar countries cut at the time and see how our deal matches up with them. And it has to be borne in mind that in the 1980s we did not have the proverbial pot to pee in which would no doubt have strengthened Shell's position.

Also, you say nobody expected to find gas. And I'm sure that this is the case in most places where explorer's look. But surely the civil servants might argue that this casts a better light on the deal that they negotiated. i.e. the persuaded Shell to undertake a very expensive exploratory process when there was little prospect of any gas being found?

It may well be the case that we did not get a good deal. But it doesn't necessarily follow from the fact that we have no direct share in the gas.

In terms of benefits to us, I was thinking of Ireland rather than specifically Mayo (although I am originally from there). And of course it is the nature of effective protest that you extract some concessions. My difficulty with protests is not specific to Corrib as such. People do have a right to protest but if the target of your protest has followed correct procedures and have been sanctioned by the appropriate agents of the state then I don't think it can be justified if protests are impeding them as they go about there business.

Culchie

lugha wrote: »

People do have a right to protest but if the target of your protest has followed correct procedures and have been sanctioned by the appropriate agents of the state then I don't think it can be justified if protests are impeding them as they go about there business.

That's fair enough if the deal has been 'sanctioned' in a proper manner. The deal was done it seems over a few pints on the back of an envelope from what I can see....and I'm quite sure you'll find in years to come there will be another tribunal into this.

Yes, Enterprise Oil/Statoil/Shell went to great expense to explorate the area, but they also received the licences for free, and also avail of significant tax breaks.

As regards the explorers 'didn't expect to find anything', you can be pretty sure they had a pretty good hunch ...these guys don't look for needles in haystacks. There's many an oil and gas field discovered but the oil companies wait for the correct time to bring to market so that they can get top dollar. A swing of $5 a barrell could be worth $50 million a month by the time the oil has moved from upstream (exploration) to downstream (retail at pumps) even in a small country like ours.

Listen, I'm all for bringing the Oil/Gas ashore, but my god, our government was shocking on this issue, absolutely terriible.
We would never be sheiks, but it would surely fill a few potholes and put some hospital beds in place, and give our old people a few quid extra in their pensions.

bogman44

I agree with Culchie completely. It's a ****ing disgrace that Shell will reap all the rewards of this gas field. Of course Shell are ploughing money into the local economy. Their PR machine is second to none and they can afford it.
Our leaders have let us down once again.

mickdw

The current protestors are just trouble makers and are looking for a payoff or are tree huggers.

ArmaniJeanss

Culchie wrote: »

Listen, I'm all for bringing the Oil/Gas ashore, but my god, our government was shocking on this issue, absolutely terriible.
We would never be sheiks, but it would surely fill a few potholes and put some hospital beds in place, and give our old people a few quid extra in their pensions.

If the government had invested our own money in the exploration then they would be entitled to a %.

But if nothing had been found then the same anti-government people would be lamenting how we've invested €3Billion in offshore exploration and only found a few mackerel and a rusty bicycle. And calling for a tribunal.

In theory we should still 'win' as it will reduce our future dependance on Russian gas.

Blackjack

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

In theory we should still 'win' as it will reduce our future dependance on Russian gas.

Not entirely. We're depending on Shell to sell it to us at full market value - that was what was agreed. They get the gas, and we get the right to purchase off them at whatever price the market dictates.

If there is a shortage of Gas in Europe that causes upward pressure on the price of gas, we pay the price that everyone else does. No discount negotiated here, which is where the Government really did us proud. While we may be a little cosier in knowing that it the Russians switch off the tap on their side that we'll have a supply, we'll still pay the same prices as someone elsewhere in the world.

Ray Burke negotiated that deal for the people of Ireland. We'll do well from that one now. I believe he had a drawer in a sideboard/dresser in his house that could well have benefited from this particular negotiation.

Further, Bertie himself negotiated Tax rates downwards in the early nineties for Exploration companies that are amongst the lowest in the World. Let's recall that he supposedly didn't have a bank account himself at the time.

As regards the Govt not knowing about these resources, this article suggests that the Goverment were aware, having commissioned a report, that there are an estimated 10 Billion Barrels of oil lying off our coast. As to when this report was made available, we don't entirely know.

There's no doubting the gas needs to be brought ashore, however the whole episode smacks so completely of corruption it stinks.

My recommendation is that this tax rate be increased in the upcoming budget. We could certainly do with a little extra cash at the minute.
Personally I'd like to see it up to 78% like that of Norway, but that may be a littl high initially. Most of their oil revenues as being paid to their National Pension fund (the second largest in the World after the Japanese) to benefit their population in the future. Shame the plebs we have here aren't far sighted enough to come up with an idea to benefit the people that elected them.

One Cold Hand

Surely a deal could have been negotiated whereby the government said 'Yep, fire away and explore all you want. However if you find any gas, then we have X% share of it, or we are entitled to gas X price.'

Could that not have been done?

jmayo

One Cold Hand wrote: »

Surely a deal could have been negotiated whereby the government said 'Yep, fire away and explore all you want. However if you find any gas, then we have X% share of it, or we are entitled to gas X price.'

Could that not have been done?

Of course any sane government would do something like that, but we are talking about some people here who have spent the last few years in and out of courts and tribunals trying to explain or rather not explain how come they had wads of cash floating around safes and dubious banks accounts :rolleyes:
Get the drift ?

The oil companies come the poor mouth and claim that it costs a huge amount to explore deep water etc but there is nothing to state that if they do get oil/gas that they have to sell at preferential rates to Irish industry/consumers.

Again look at all the other planning fiascos like the West Link toll bridge, where private companies were allowed screw the Irish consumer and taxpayers for millions. Nobody ever foresees anything in this country and puts stipulations in contracts to safeguard the interests of the people.

Norway handled their resources much better and the Norwegian people and state benefitted, not just a lucky connected few.
Another option would have been to pay or partially pay for the exploration and then sell the rites to the fields if any found.
Yes it is a gamble but if it pays off the return can be phenominal.

Some posters have stated that Shell took the risk and they would not have bothered if they did not get incentives is cr**.
Oil companies are continously looking for new supplies, as if anybody hasn't noticed the existing ones are running dry, and thus they are turning their attention to areas where there has been some research showing possible deposits and deep sea drilling techniques are also improving allowing access to areas further offshore in deep water.
I know some people who have worked in the area of exploration and they believe that the Rockhall has huge deposits that are as yet untapped.
Also if I remember correctly the gas was not initailly earmarked for Mayo towns but was meant to go East to places in Offaly etc.
Maybve some can correct meon this ?
That is still where the bulk of it will go.
Anybody that thinks this gas will end up creating loads of jobs in Mayo and nobody will ever have to leave again is living in cloud cuckoo land. Using that analogy Alaska must have millions of jobs but it doesn't.
If the government were interested in doing something with the gas in the west, why not refurish or build a small new gas burning plant at Bellacorrick, there is already the connection network there?
Again someone may be able to tell us what the network infrastructure could handle ?

Anyway the gas will first and foremost head East, that's where more people will need their ar*** warmed during our 12 month winters.

Blackjack

One Cold Hand wrote: »

Surely a deal could have been negotiated whereby the government said 'Yep, fire away and explore all you want. However if you find any gas, then we have X% share of it, or we are entitled to gas X price.'

Could that not have been done?

It gets better. Apparently, any exploration costs could be written off against tax, so the cost of exploration was effectively free to these companies in the long run.

Culchie

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

If the government had invested our own money in the exploration then they would be entitled to a %.

But if nothing had been found then the same anti-government people would be lamenting how we've invested €3Billion in offshore exploration and only found a few mackerel and a rusty bicycle. And calling for a tribunal.

In theory we should still 'win' as it will reduce our future dependance on Russian gas.

You see this is where our media has let us down, this perception is wrong AJ. The oil will feed into the euro pipeline network, and we'll pay the same price as the germans, english, french etc... not one cent discount.

Look at it this way..... developers buy land, from landowners, build and develop properties to purchasers, who then sell onto others again.....the government receives income at every step of the way through stamp duty, vat, land registry fees etc etc....we give one of the biggest natural resources this state has, and then we have to pay to grt it back.

It is incredible that the Rossport five and protesters are being portrayed by all the media, radio shows as some shower of delirious Culchies/crusties/tree huggers ..... when in fact it is the general population, every man, woman and child in this country that is being hoodwinked, and robbed under their eyes, and they're too busy laughing at the 'treehuggers' to see it.

I'll tell you another thing, the 'find' off Belmullet has been played down by Shell. The government have swalled it hook, line and sinker.

Fact of the mattter is (and I will enjoy reading this post on boards.ie in the year 2050 (hopefully) is the oil and gas find off Mayo is one of the largest in Europe, it's not a short 10-15 year well..... it's as big as they get, and mark my words, we're a bloody laughing stock in the boardrooms of Shell (so are our Government) ..... the day of 'The Thick Paddy; has returned.

We're being laughed at, robbed blind, and rode like a donkey, and we're just sitting there as a nation doing nothing, grinning, looking like a drunk on a bar stool, awestruck by the buxom barmaid, while she's shortchanging us.

PureBred

The issue that was supposed to be raised in this thread was to discuss Shell and Shell to Sea. Basically, are Shell to Sea right to be protesting in this way?

Think people are getting carried away here by what shell have supposedly got for free in blaming the government for failing to get us a good deal etc.
This is not the first time our government has let us down.
But on a side point should we not be getting Gas cheaper from the Corrib field as there would little or no transport costs in selling to the Irish market?

Anyways, the protesting in Erris has nothing to do with Shell getting oil for free 'supposedly', but the fact that it could cause an environmental catastrophe.

So can we please get back to the point?

Culchie

ricfeen wrote: »

The issue that was supposed to be raised in this thread was to discuss Shell and Shell to Sea. Basically, are Shell to Sea right to be protesting in this way?

Think people are getting carried away here by what shell have supposedly got for free in blaming the government for failing to get us a good deal etc.
This is not the first time our government has let us down.
But on a side point should we not be getting Gas cheaper from the Corrib field as there would little or no transport costs in selling to the Irish market?

Anyways, the protesting in Erris has nothing to do with Shell getting oil for free 'supposedly', but the fact that it could cause an environmental catastrophe.

So can we please get back to the point?

Feck it, I'm off to Rossport for the weekend, this thread is rustling my feathers.

FWIW, Shell will be 'environmentally' above board, give them their dues.

I think if the Rossport campaign had concentrated on the Governement/Shell deal (or lack of) instead of sounding like NIMBY's on the pipeline issue .... they would have got the Irish people/media on board.

Bob the Builder

Culchie wrote: »

Feck it, I'm off to Rossport for the weekend, this thread is rustling my feathers.

FWIW, Shell will be 'environmentally' above board, give them their dues.

I think if the Rossport campaign had concentrated on the Governement/Shell deal (or lack of) instead of sounding like NIMBY's on the pipeline issue .... they would have got the Irish people/media on board.

haha, good man the culchie... off to join the treehugger parade's...

yep, their passion was brilliant, but if it was aimed a little differently, the effect would have echoed greater. the government are always great to have a nail at, but in this case, they were just dying to get themselves in trouble.

oscarBravo

Culchie wrote: »

I think if the Rossport campaign had concentrated on the Governement/Shell deal (or lack of) instead of sounding like NIMBY's on the pipeline issue .... they would have got the Irish people/media on board.

Nail on head. What's more, they almost certainly would have achieved something worthwhile: sure, the Irish government have a deal with Shell, but deals can be re-negotiated.

jmayo

oscarBravo wrote: »

Nail on head. What's more, they almost certainly would have achieved something worthwhile: sure, the Irish government have a deal with Shell, but deals can be re-negotiated.

Yeah just like the West Link toll bridge contract was renegotiated :rolleyes:

On the actual Shell to Sea campaign I think but for the protestors standing up intiailly, Shell would have tried to get away with putting a pipeline in that would be carrying raw gas at huge pressures.

It is easy for those not in the direct vicinity to come on here or on the news and say that the protestors are holding back progress and they should shut up and go away, but how many of those people would be happy if Shell was next door to them.
What I am sayng is maybe we are all nimbies when push comes to shove.
We all want dumps, traveller housing, incinerators, etc but just not beside us.

Call me cynical, but whenever I then see a local so in favour of a development I wonder what are they getting out of it. Have they sold land for it, have they won a contract, are they working on it ?

Also I think anyone that comes out talking about how it will turn back the tide of emmigration or migration from Mayo have fallen hook line and sinker for the dribble being fed to them by the government and Shell.

Ireland needs this gas and it does need to come ashore, but after the way Shell initially went about doing it (and their track record elsewhere) and the way the government have bent over backwards to accomodate them, I don't trust either in this matter anymore.
If it wasn't for Statoil would the Rossport 5 still be in Mountjoy, while drugdealers, murders and rapists are left out on bail or given early release?

nacho libre

oscarBravo wrote: »

Nail on head. What's more, they almost certainly would have achieved something worthwhile: sure, the Irish government have a deal with Shell, but deals can be re-negotiated.

even the Lisbon Treaty?

oscarBravo

nacho libre wrote: »

even the Lisbon Treaty?

Sure, if there's an advantage to all parties in doing so. Generally, things get re-negotiated if a party who's in a position of strength demands that they get re-negotiated.

Waay off-topic, though.

nacho libre

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sure, if there's an advantage to all parties in doing so. Generally, things get re-negotiated if a party who's in a position of strength demands that they get re-negotiated.

Waay off-topic, though.

well, i brought it up because you seemed to be of the view before the vote on the Lisbon treaty that it could not be renegotiated.
As regards Shell, we will be negotiating from a position of weakness. Thanks to the those who claim to be representing us cuting a lousy deal at our expense. The Norwegians must be laughing.
With this in mind I feel the protestors our aiming there ire in the wrong direction. If they were unified in their reason for protesting from the start we might have been in a position to renegotiate a fairer deal as they would have gotten public opinion behind them. Now they are just regarded as hippies and tree- huggers standing in the way of progress by the majority of Irish people.
They should be protesting outside the house of a certain ex politician and in front of the dail highlighting the giveaway of a resource by the state. I don't really blame Shell.
Shell, afterall, are only doing what any multinational would do in the circumstances.

oscarBravo

nacho libre wrote: »

well, i brought it up because you seemed to be of the view before the vote on the Lisbon treaty that it could not be renegotiated.

I'm not sure I ever said it couldn't be renegotiated. I don't think it will be re-negotiated, and I most certainly don't think it should be re-negotiated. But there's a forum for that discussion.

As regards Shell, we will be negotiating from a position of weakness.

I'm not so sure. If an Irish government said to Shell "we've changed our minds - here's the new deal, take it or bugger off" - do you think Shell would bugger off?

They should be protesting outside the house of a certain ex politician and in front of the dail highlighting the giveaway of a resource by the state. I don't really blame Shell.
Shell, afterall, are only doing what any multinational would do in the circumstances.

No argument.

casey jones

The notion that the gas was 'given away' has been stated with absolute certainty by some of the posters. The comparison is then made with Norway and how they take a hefty percentage of the revenues from the oil companies. However this assertion is not put into any context nor are the alternatives explored.

For example Norway is the third largest exporter of crude oil in the world and currently has 49 producing oil and gas fields with a further five fields under development. Another 13 fields have ceased production. The UK has over 300 producing oil and gas fields with 18 fields under development.

By contrast Ireland has 3 quite small commercial fields beside each other in Kinsale and one Corrib under development, the latter estimated to be about two thirds the size of Kinsale. Oil companies have been drilling off Ireland since the early seventies, 121 drills in total, a one in thirty success. Clearly Ireland had to come up with huge financial incentives to get the exploration companies to come here when the decision to abolish royalties was taken in 1987 . In 1982, the UK removed royalties; in 1986 Norway did for new fields (they got rid of the royalties on the remaining pre 86 fields last year) . Denmark and Holland also abolished royalties. The attractiveness of Norway and the United Kingdom is emphasised by the number of applications for exploration licences. For instance, the 24th Licensing Round (2006) in the UK attracted 147 applications from 121 companies. A comparable round in Ireland resulted in the award of 4 licences. If we're giving the stuff away why is there no one coming along ?

Let us assume the state that took 20 years to build the M50 could have started up an oil exploration company, gathered all the necessary expertise and equipment, kept the oil companies out and began drilling to "keep this resource for the Irish people". It is about €20 million to drill a test hole so are people really suggesting the Irish govt should have gambled €20 million a time 121 times to make 4 relatively small finds ? The oft quoted schools and hospitals told to take a back seat, we are gambling the taxpayers money on a 30/1 shot, …..doh, lets try again, doh, once more, …and so on for thirty odd years ? And this is before the cost of getting it ashore and excluding the costs of starting up and maintaining the proposed state owned oil exploration company with all the pensions/jobs for life, restrictive work practices etc associated with state owned companies.

The figures don't lie and facts are always preferable to emotive hot air.

The following are both worth a read.

http://www.iooa.ie/securing-our-energy-future-page41390.html
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2006/05/07/story14010.asp

jmayo

casey jones wrote: »

The notion that the gas was 'given away' has been stated with absolute certainty by some of the posters. The comparison is then made with Norway and how they take a hefty percentage of the revenues from the oil companies. However this assertion is not put into any context nor are the alternatives explored.

For example Norway is the third largest exporter of crude oil in the world and currently has 49 producing oil and gas fields with a further five fields under development. Another 13 fields have ceased production. The UK has over 300 producing oil and gas fields with 18 fields under development.

When did they start exploration in the North Sea, back in the 60s ?
They were beginning to bring the oil/gas ashore in early to mid 1970s, rather than just starting to drill test wells.

Are the drilling depths in the North Sea smaller than some of the depths in the Irish waters ?
The North Sea has depths ranging from 100m t0 700m at it's deepest.
Most of the original wells were in depths upto 200m.
AFAIK it is only recently there has been exploration in waters around Shetland with depths around 400m.

The Corrib Gas Field is at water depth of approx. 355m and the gas reservoir is located 11,500ft to 13,000ft below the seabed.

Hasn't it only become technically possible and finanically viable over the last number of years to drill at deeper depths ?

Could the answers to some of the above questions provide a reason why the UK and Norway have so many exisiting wells and applications for more licenses than Ireland ?

I can't believe that the other countries build in no constraints or stipulations regarding the sale of oil or gas to issuing country ?

I am not an expert, as you seem to be, but it appears to me that the Irish taxpayer, and definetly the Irish consumer, have gained shag all out of this deal.

I will agree with you that whenever our government and state sector set about something it does take an inordinate amount of time to get anything actually in place, and even then it is usually half ar**ed.

Blackjack

casey jones wrote: »

The notion that the gas was 'given away' has been stated with absolute certainty by some of the posters. The comparison is then made with Norway and how they take a hefty percentage of the revenues from the oil companies. However this assertion is not put into any context nor are the alternatives explored.

Sorry - what exactly do you not consider to be a part of a "give away", when the drilling costs can be written off against tax, and further the Tax rate against profit is one of the lowest in the world, with any finds then sold back to us at Market rate?. Are you telling me this does not stink?.

casey jones wrote: »

The figures don't lie and facts are always preferable to emotive hot air.

The following are both worth a read.

http://www.iooa.ie/securing-our-energy-future-page41390.html
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2006/05/07/story14010.asp

While dismissing opinion based on fact as emotive hot air may be a useful tool in winning an argument, I did take a look at your websites. Interesting to note the following Member companies from the IOOA website you provided:

Eni UK Ltd
Island Oil and Gas plc
Lansdowne
Marathon Oil Ireland Ltd
Providence Resources Plc
Serica Energy
Shell E&P Ireland Ltd
StatoilHydro
Valhalla Oil and Gas Limited

And I'm sure their opinion isn't a little biased.

Further many representatives of this were quoted in the post article you provided.

Personally I'm of the opionion that we should'nt effectively give away our Natural resources, which, unless you can point out differently, seems to be what happening here. This is what I object to. We can't afford to do this, particularly in the current situation the Economy is in.

casey jones

The point you fail to address is what was the alternative to the govt approach ? Assuming you accept that the Irish oil exploration company idea is a complete red herring the argument can be made that heavier taxation could have been applied to the oil companies. I think it's fair to assume that would have resulted in less exploration off the coast of Ireland (only 4 licences in 2006). The facts are clear in relation to the poor take up of drilling licences even with the generous tax conditions. Again if this is such a giveaway why are the numbers of wells being drilled so low ?

The IOOA website is indeed sponsored by the oil companies, if you can dispute the figures quoted please do so. Maybe Norway isn't the third largest exporter of crude oil in the world ? Or do you dispute the figures quoted for
the 24th Licensing Round (2006) in the UK, 147 applications from 121 companies while a comparable round in Ireland resulted in the award of 4 licences.

I'm not claiming to be an expert and I am an Irish taxpayer so I have a vested interest in the govt getting maximum return. However as has been argued elsewhere, a small percentage of something is better than a large percentage of nothing. Also I recall Eamon Ryan changed the tax situation about a year ago. This approach is logical once you start to find something, you then have a more attractive proposition and can tax accordingly. However this is countered by the problems Shell have had here which could in theory deter exploration companies resulting in tax incentives having to be maintained. How ironic that would be !

Blackjack

casey jones wrote: »

The point you fail to address is what was the alternative to the govt approach ? Assuming you accept that the Irish oil exploration company idea is a complete red herring the argument can be made that heavier taxation could have been applied to the oil companies. I think it's fair to assume that would have resulted in less exploration off the coast of Ireland (only 4 licences in 2006). The facts are clear in relation to the poor take up of drilling licences even with the generous tax conditions. Again if this is such a giveaway why are the numbers of wells being drilled so low ?

The IOOA website is indeed sponsored by the oil companies, if you can dispute the figures quoted please do so. Maybe Norway isn't the third largest exporter of crude oil in the world ? Or do you dispute the figures quoted for
the 24th Licensing Round (2006) in the UK, 147 applications from 121 companies while a comparable round in Ireland resulted in the award of 4 licences.

I'm not claiming to be an expert and I am an Irish taxpayer so I have a vested interest in the govt getting maximum return. However as has been argued elsewhere, a small percentage of something is better than a large percentage of nothing. Also I recall Eamon Ryan changed the tax situation about a year ago. This approach is logical once you start to find something, you then have a more attractive proposition and can tax accordingly. However this is countered by the problems Shell have had here which could in theory deter exploration companies resulting in tax incentives having to be maintained. How ironic that would be !

And yet you fail to answer my questions regarding the writing off of exploration costs against Tax- can you respond on that before you accuse me of not addressing points please.
And really, please don't resort to childishness - I've not made any reference to whether Norway is or isn't the worlds 3rd largest exporter or not, so please don't try to suggest that I have.

You can hardly claim that your source of the "worthwhile reading" is unbiased. As regards the limited number of licences, who cares?. Whether it's a case that it's not there or if its not being drilled, shouldn't mean that we continue to give this resource away for bugger all?. This is my concern, as a taxpayer, and we are clearly not maximising return. As regards the changes that Eamon Ryan made, these were specifically to any finds from a specific round of exploration licences, and only raises the rate to 40% on the most profitable sites (from 25). Source here. Even that still makes it one of the cheapest tax rates in the world for exploration companies. It's hardly going to make help the budget deficit now is it?.

casey jones

I don't dispute the fact that the licencing terms to the oil companies are attractive and that they can write off some costs against tax. (Don't know all the detail on this but perhaps you can enlighten me). On the contrary my point is that they are attractive and they have to be to attract some exploration activity which is still clearly tiny compared to exploration off Norway and UK even with their higher taxes.

Apologies if I came across as childish but you state that the web sites I referred to are biased, no doubt they are, but what information in the web sites do you dispute ? Norway and UK are attractive for exploration Ireland isn't. That’s the point I was trying to make. We are all open to correction and willing to listen to alternative information if it exists.

I think what is beyond argument is that exploration in Irish waters is still hugely expensive even with tax incentives, the risk of failure is huge as nothing was found apart from the small gas fields off Kinsale until the Corrib discovery which is still not brought ashore. No oil has ever been found. All this is reflected in the low level of drilling activity. You say "who cares" and then go on to mention maximising return for the taxpayer and the budget deficit. How does a tiny amount of exploration with even less chance of success help the Irish economy ? I want to maximise return also, I just don't see how increasing taxes with the likelihood of even less drilling is going to increase the chance of us ever getting a return. At least with Corrib gas we will get a 25% corporate tax return and security of supply which in the context of Ireland's situation at the end of a long pipeline form Russia is significant for the Irish economy.

You appear to suggest Eamon Ryan's changes are still too generous. What rates do you think are appropriate ? Presumably not the same as Norway and UK ?

Blackjack

casey jones wrote: »

I don't dispute the fact that the licencing terms to the oil companies are attractive and that they can write off some costs against tax. (Don't know all the detail on this but perhaps you can enlighten me). On the contrary my point is that they are attractive and they have to be to attract some exploration activity which is still clearly tiny compared to exploration off Norway and UK even with their higher taxes.

Apologies if I came across as childish but you state that the web sites I referred to are biased, no doubt they are, but what information in the web sites do you dispute ? Norway and UK are attractive for exploration Ireland isn't. That’s the point I was trying to make. We are all open to correction and willing to listen to alternative information if it exists.

I think what is beyond argument is that exploration in Irish waters is still hugely expensive even with tax incentives, the risk of failure is huge as nothing was found apart from the small gas fields off Kinsale until the Corrib discovery which is still not brought ashore. No oil has ever been found. All this is reflected in the low level of drilling activity. You say "who cares" and then go on to mention maximising return for the taxpayer and the budget deficit. How does a tiny amount of exploration with even less chance of success help the Irish economy ? I want to maximise return also, I just don't see how increasing taxes with the likelihood of even less drilling is going to increase the chance of us ever getting a return. At least with Corrib gas we will get a 25% corporate tax return and security of supply which in the context of Ireland's situation at the end of a long pipeline form Russia is significant for the Irish economy.

You appear to suggest Eamon Ryan's changes are still too generous. What rates do you think are appropriate ? Presumably not the same as Norway and UK ?

The rate in Ireland is compared unfavourably to a number of others here:

"In the Faroe Islands and Canada, taxation in this area consists of three elements, a general corporate tax, an output charge and a special
carbon tax. The output charge is progressive in concert with increased
output and is replaced by the carbon tax when output revenue
exceeds production costs. The advantage of such taxation is that government revenue is incurred already at the outset of oil extraction and remains stable. In addition, no refunds need be made if no oil is found. This is offset by the fact that the carbon tax rate is lower than in Norway, since the taxation is distributed over a longer period.

In Ireland, this activity is only subject to the general corporate income
tax, albeit at a double the general rate, 25 per cent. Such taxation
is simple and is unlikely to attain the goal of ensuring a satisfactory
share in a limited natural resource."

A return to what we had in 1975 would, in my opinion, be a lot more suitable.
A Straight Tax of 50% on profits with perhaps some royalties (used to be between 6-7%).

Let me give you an analogy. You have an Apple tree. You don't have a ladder but I do. I take your apples, and you tax me 25% of the profits from the sale of the apples. I write off my cost (Ladder maintenance, transport, anything else I can get away with) which reduces your take.
Given I'm taking your apples and selling them at the market rate, would you think that 25% of the profits (which are going to be considerably reduced given I'll be taking my costs) is appropriate?.