corrib pipeline news

thepassanger

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0301/1224291080638.html
hi there, this is my first post in this forum but maybe this article can begin another public outcry for sense in the world of today. please p.m me if you are interested in rallying etc... over the coming weeks if this isn's resolved soon.
all the best,
Theo

djpbarry

This is a discussion forum, not a recruitment site for rallies/protests.

Do you have an opinion to offer on the topic in question?

thepassanger

my opinion is that this project should never have been started, because it HAS started doesnt mean we have to let it finish.
my opinion means nothing. my idleness means more than nothing, it means i am nothing.
sincerely without intent to recruit etc...
what do people see as a solution to voicing our views?

Macha

Why don't you think it should have been started?

thepassanger

Macha wrote: »

Why don't you think it should have been started?

as hypocritical as i always sound trying to explain this; the use of 'natural resources' for human benefit is widely accepted by most of the world population.
the thought that;"sure my neighbour is doing it why cant i?"

in an attempt to change ourselves to being more sustainable we need to rely less on fossil fuels, electricity, oil, plastics...
!because its in the ground does not mean it is their for us to use!
with the area in question for this pipeling being a Special Area of Conservation it should go without saying that 'development' of this project should never go ahead.

djpbarry

thepassanger wrote: »

as hypocritical as i always sound trying to explain this; the use of 'natural resources' for human benefit is widely accepted by most of the world population.
the thought that;"sure my neighbour is doing it why cant i?"

in an attempt to change ourselves to being more sustainable we need to rely less on fossil fuels, electricity, oil, plastics...

That’s just not realistic. I’d like to see us reduce our dependency on fossil fuels, but I also accept that this is going to take time and it’s going to be a gradual process. Given that exploiting the Corrib gas field will reduce Ireland’s dependence on imported gas, and the fact that gas is a relatively clean fuel, I see no reason why the field should not be harvested.

thepassanger wrote: »

with the area in question for this pipeling being a Special Area of Conservation it should go without saying that 'development' of this project should never go ahead.

If you have specific objections to certain aspects of the project, then that’s fair enough – I’m not totally familiar with the particulars. However, you don’t have to be opposed to the project in its entirety because you oppose a certain aspect (such as the route of the pipeline for example).

Macha

I'm as pro-renewables as it gets but until we ramp up our ocean energy and get some interconnection laid, we're going to need to rely on fossil fuels as base load.

Gas produces half the carbon emissions of oil and integrates well with renewables as peaking stations.

yosemite_sam

thepassanger wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0301/1224291080638.html
hi there, this is my first post in this forum but maybe this article can begin another public outcry for sense in the world of today. please p.m me if you are interested in rallying etc... over the coming weeks if this isn's resolved soon.
all the best,
Theo

I posted that link in another thread on Tuesday, it got 8 replies. Pat Carey has signed the consent you can't get much more resolved than that, I live in Erris and am fed up of the whole thing. It's a done deal and not worth getting arrested over, move on

DonalK1981

The off shore oil/gas debate is a can of worms if ever there was one. Another area we have been screwed by the Government. Two huge issues, planning is one. The other is the giving away of the actual resource to multinational companies and private investors for very little or nothing in return. The local people have every right to object to the pipeline being laid, especially due to the danger element, and the right they have to enjoy their property. The building of it in Mayo on an unstable bog is foolish to say the least. If it was refined offshore there would be no debate on this issue. The second issue which really annoys me is the people of Ireland get nothing by way of compensation for the gas under our territory. It has, somewhat shadily, been licensed to Shell/Corrib Oil and their shareholders for what? Venezuela and Mexico have shown us the way the multinational companies should be dealt with, by getting them to work for them while retaining ownership to the resources themselves. Now both those countries maintain their industries with very little outside input, why can't we do the same?

Macha

DonalK1981 wrote: »

The off shore oil/gas debate is a can of worms if ever there was one. Another area we have been screwed by the Government. Two huge issues, planning is one. The other is the giving away of the actual resource to multinational companies and private investors for very little or nothing in return. The local people have every right to object to the pipeline being laid, especially due to the danger element, and the right they have to enjoy their property. The building of it in Mayo on an unstable bog is foolish to say the least. If it was refined offshore there would be no debate on this issue. The second issue which really annoys me is the people of Ireland get nothing by way of compensation for the gas under our territory. It has, somewhat shadily, been licensed to Shell/Corrib Oil and their shareholders for what? Venezuela and Mexico have shown us the way the multinational companies should be dealt with, by getting them to work for them while retaining ownership to the resources themselves. Now both those countries maintain their industries with very little outside input, why can't we do the same?

What was shady about the deal? They applied for exploration rights under the tax regime that existed at the time, found some gas, and pay taxes according to that regime. The tax system has since changed but at the time, it was an attractive system because no one knew what was out there and the Irish state didn't have the capacity to find out for itself.

Venezuela and Mexico are not two countries I would be in a rush to emulate in any way.

DonalK1981

Macha wrote: »

What was shady about the deal?

Venezuela and Mexico are not two countries I would be in a rush to emulate in any way.

What wasn't shady? Does it strike you as a bargain that was negotiated in the best interests of the Irish people?

In any way? I for one think they know how to do business far better than our own bumbling morons have done in the past 20 years. What a mess. The way they have not become bankrupt is something to be envious of, wouldn't you say?

Macha

DonalK1981 wrote: »

What wasn't shady? Does it strike you as a bargain that was negotiated in the best interests of the Irish people?

In any way? I for one think they know how to do business far better than our own bumbling morons have done in the past 20 years. What a mess. The way they have not become bankrupt is something to be envious of, wouldn't you say?

Well, I think the onus is on you to demonstrate how the deal was shady, if that's what you want us to accept. The tax regime was published and widely available before Shell was ever on the scene. If you examine it, it was designed to encourage exploration of Ireland's offshore geology because no one knew anything about it.

It's all very well to say it isn't the best deal for the Irish people but that's with the benefit of hindsight. At the time, it was very possible that Shell would come in, spend millions on searching for gas or oil and find nothing. That's what businesses do and that's why the Irish government got a business to do it - so that they would take the risk.

Since then, and given the increased chances of further discoveries off the Irish coast, the tax regime has changed. But the reason the original regime was so generous is because there were plenty of more secure options that an offshore company could have gone for - Ireland was not on the map when it came to offshore oil & gas exploration.

Let's not fool ourselves into thinking we are the Venezuela of the North Atlantic. And even if we were, let's not take Chavez's lead, where by he has nearly bankrupted the state oil agency by raiding it to pay for other government spending. Well managed? Not really.

DonalK1981

Macha wrote: »

Well, I think the onus is on you to demonstrate how the deal was shady, if that's what you want us to accept. The tax regime was published and widely available before Shell was ever on the scene. If you examine it, it was designed to encourage exploration of Ireland's offshore geology because no one knew anything about it.

Since then, and given the increased chances of further discoveries off the Irish coast, the tax regime has changed. But the reason the original regime was so generous is because there were plenty of more secure options that an offshore company could have gone for - Ireland was not on the map when it came to offshore oil & gas exploration.

Let's not fool ourselves into thinking we are the Venezuela of the North Atlantic. And even if we were, let's not take Chavez's lead, where by he has nearly bankrupted the state oil agency by raiding it to pay for other government spending. Well managed? Not really.

If you look into the way Ray Burke dealt with the concerned parties, with very little transparency and changes in policy to suit the said parties then you should have to ask yourself was it done with the Irish people in mind? That is supposed to be the role of our representatives. Norway, and Britian our two closest neighbours regarding gas/oil exploration off the coast, didn't give any one the kind of deal the multinationals got here. Ireland should as you put it have been on the map of the explorers and geologists regarding natural minerals long before a contract was signed or a policy changed. That game is all about probabilities and the people concerned would have those figured out long in advance.

Now to begin with, us being the Venezuela of the North Atlantic wasn't ever the aspiration, close as we were to being a dictatorship but that's another story. I would use Norway as the less controversial example of how a country should deal with the natural resources, and that is not by giving them all away. The ideal situation would be an Irish State Oil (Statoil) to be set up, but with a much more transparent licencing system so as there would never be any question of shady deals or corruption. The fact there is any doubt at all in my mind as to the system equals a failure of the ideal democratic form of government we are supposed to live under.

Macha

DonalK1981 wrote: »

If you look into the way Ray Burke dealt with the concerned parties, with very little transparency and changes in policy to suit the said parties then you should have to ask yourself was it done with the Irish people in mind?

I'm not saying Ray Burke is a paragon of virtue but what way were they dealt with? As far as I can see, a tax regime was put in place to encourage exploration, Shell took the government up on the offer and found Corrib. What is the problem with that?

DonalK1981 wrote: »

That is supposed to be the role of our representatives. Norway, and Britian our two closest neighbours regarding gas/oil exploration off the coast, didn't give any one the kind of deal the multinationals got here. Ireland should as you put it have been on the map of the explorers and geologists regarding natural minerals long before a contract was signed or a policy changed. That game is all about probabilities and the people concerned would have those figured out long in advance.

The oil and gas of the North Sea was found in the 1950s. Norway didn't do any deals because they looked at Britain and knew that given the relatively similar geology in their part of the North Sea, it was worth setting up Statoil and going for it. That is a very, very different situation to what we had - and still have because it's still the case that we don't know what is out there. And given that it costs about €1 million/day to run an offshore exploration rig, I'm not sure it's the sort of risky business I want the Irish government involved in.

You're right that the game is all about probabilities and in light of that, the tax regime has since been changed. But I think you're looking at this with the benefit of hindsight but in the early 1990s, it was entirely possible that nothing might be found off Ireland.

DonalK1981 wrote: »

Now to begin with, us being the Venezuela of the North Atlantic wasn't ever the aspiration, close as we were to being a dictatorship but that's another story. I would use Norway as the less controversial example of how a country should deal with the natural resources, and that is not by giving them all away. The ideal situation would be an Irish State Oil (Statoil) to be set up, but with a much more transparent licencing system so as there would never be any question of shady deals or corruption. The fact there is any doubt at all in my mind as to the system equals a failure of the ideal democratic form of government we are supposed to live under.

But you have yet to explain how the licencing system wasn't transparent with Shell.

Anyway, it's nice to be able to discuss this with someone without it all getting very heated

DonalK1981

Macha wrote: »

I'm not saying Ray Burke is a paragon of virtue but what way were they dealt with? As far as I can see, a tax regime was put in place to encourage exploration, Shell took the government up on the offer and found Corrib. What is the problem with that?

The problem is with Ray Burke, exactly. Whatever sweeteners given/got could have come from any body. The whole system reeks of corruption. The deal given is my problem, the government, guardians of the people messed up. That is my problem, I never blamed Shell/Corrib Oil for taken what was given. My problem is no one had the right to give it to them like they did.

Macha wrote: »

The oil and gas of the North Sea was found in the 1950s. Norway didn't do any deals because they looked at Britain and knew that given the relatively similar geology in their part of the North Sea, it was worth setting up Statoil and going for it. That is a very, very different situation to what we had - and still have because it's still the case that we don't know what is out there. And given that it costs about €1 million/day to run an offshore exploration rig, I'm not sure it's the sort of risky business I want the Irish government involved in. Yet we are up to near €100bn in debt, doesn't make sense to invest in something with a slight chance of a return does it?

You're right that the game is all about probabilities and in light of that, the tax regime has since been changed. But I think you're looking at this with the benefit of hindsight but in the early 1990s, it was entirely possible that nothing might be found off Ireland.

But you have yet to explain how the licencing system wasn't transparent with Shell.

The fact Ray Burke/Fianna Fail were the authors of the deal says it all. When the national interests are involved the issue should be open for all to see, exception of national security, but natural resources are everybody's business.

Macha

Any chance you can put in the quotes? I can't make head nor tail of your post unfortunately.

OK edited.

DonalK1981

Not able work them...

Just left your bits in and made my point or response after...

Macha

DonalK1981 wrote: »

The problem is with Ray Burke, exactly. Whatever sweeteners given/got could have come from any body. The whole system reeks of corruption. The deal given is my problem, the government, guardians of the people messed up. That is my problem, I never blamed Shell/Corrib Oil for taken what was given. My problem is no one had the right to give it to them like they did.

Oh I agree - business will be business and there's no point thinking they will be any other way. But what sweeteners did they get? Given what was known at the time, what was wrong with the deal? No oil companies were interested in exploring Ireland's outer continental shelf because it wasn't worth their while. It was only when the tax regime was changed to make it more attractive that they came. I don't see what's "corrupt" about that.

DonalK1981 wrote: »

The fact Ray Burke/Fianna Fail were the authors of the deal says it all. When the national interests are involved the issue should be open for all to see, exception of national security, but natural resources are everybody's business.

But the tax regime was published and widely available for all to see before Shell even came on the scene. I'm afraid the simple fact that Ray Burke was involved is not enough proof that it was a corrupt deal. That's no sort of decent argument to make. I'm asking for real proof, not some sort of "guilty by association".

edwinkane

Macha wrote: »

Oh I agree - business will be business and there's no point thinking they will be any other way. But what sweeteners did they get? Given what was known at the time, what was wrong with the deal? No oil companies were interested in exploring Ireland's outer continental shelf because it wasn't worth their while. It was only when the tax regime was changed to make it more attractive that they came. I don't see what's "corrupt" about that.


But the tax regime was published and widely available for all to see before Shell even came on the scene. I'm afraid the simple fact that Ray Burke was involved is not enough proof that it was a corrupt deal. That's no sort of decent argument to make. I'm asking for real proof, not some sort of "guilty by association".

The whole point about corruption is that you hope you don't don't leave evidence, or proof.

djpbarry

edwinkane wrote: »

The whole point about corruption is that you hope you don't don't leave evidence, or proof.

So an absence of evidence of corruption indicates corruption? Even though an absence of corruption would leave no evidence of corruption?

edwinkane

djpbarry wrote: »

So an absence of evidence of corruption indicates corruption? Even though an absence of corruption would leave no evidence of corruption?

I assume thats a rhetorical question. While its obvious that someone engaging in corruption would hope to leave no evidence of that corruption, its illogical to extrapolate that a lack of evidence indicates corruption.

You seem like an intelligent man, so you already know that, so assume you are trying to make a point which, if that is the case, seems unclear.

djpbarry

edwinkane wrote: »

While its obvious that someone engaging in corruption would hope to leave no evidence of that corruption, its illogical to extrapolate that a lack of evidence indicates corruption.

Obviously. Now, there is no evidence of corruption in the deal between the state and Shell for the Corrib Gas field, therefore we must assume that nothing untoward has taken place. Right?

thepassanger

Macha wrote: »

I'm as pro-renewables as it gets but until we ramp up our ocean energy and get some interconnection laid, we're going to need to rely on fossil fuels as base load.
.

i suppose this is a sociological question; do you(plural) think that the building of a pipeline through a designated conservation area is required to support our "BASE LOAD"?
or
is there a chance we can drastically reduce our base load?...? as un-realistic as it may seem in many peoples eyes.
and is this chance something we are actually trying or too lazy do anything about?

edwinkane

thepassanger wrote: »

i suppose this is a sociological question; do you(plural) think that the building of a pipeline through a designated conservation area is required to support our "BASE LOAD"?
or
is there a chance we can drastically reduce our base load?...? as un-realistic as it may seem in many peoples eyes.
and is this chance something we are actually trying or too lazy do anything about?

The short answer is that, before we reduce our base load, all those with gas central heating, gas cookers and gas to drive the wheels of industry need to have a supply of gas.

djpbarry

thepassanger wrote: »

is there a chance we can drastically reduce our base load?

Realistically, I don't think Ireland’s base load can be significantly reduced, no (although I'm sure some reduction is possible). I do however believe that there is potential for significant energy savings (per head of population) could be made in the transport sector though.

thepassanger

djpbarry wrote: »

Realistically, .

in my naíve view i see this "realistically" as being sceptically. attracting positive with positive can have drastic and realistic affects on ones life/consumptions...
what are your proposals to implement these potential transport savings per capita?