Oil off Ireland, do we still have rights?

Drumpot

My understanding is that we let our friendly oil merchants drill once they employ a few Irish people?!!!

Will be interesting if the strike oil. Wonder what we can or should do!

Watched a really good documentary tonight. Dispatches on channel 4 showed how bp has pretty much bought it's way into the goodwill of governments and has avoided trouble with the help of powerful friends!

Now, call me a cynic but our own friends in office haven't exactly been sheeny white in how they have tendered contracts. I don't taint all politicians with the same brush, but I would love for our existing government to publically announce why the rights to drill were done so for such a small price.

Giving jobs to the area shouldn't of been the only criteria for allowing the drilling .

hmmm

Drumpot wrote: »

but I would love for our existing government to publically announce why the rights to drill were done so for such a small price.

If you think the price is too small, you can bid for the licences yourself. Most oil and gas companies have spent small fortunes exploring in Irlsh waters for zero return.

conor052001

hmmm wrote: »

for zero return.

yet

hmmm

conor052001 wrote: »

yet

If the ULA, SF or the SWP have a better idea as to where the gas and oil is located, they should float on their platform of self righteousness and bring it back for the Irish people.

Oafley Jones

I've posted this before and I think it's worth putting up again. All of the below is taken from the poster oilking on thepropertypin.com
http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewto...=13259&start=0


The deal the Irish State did with Shell is no different than what both ourselves and our neighbours in Holland, Norway and the UK have been doing for years. The only difference is that since the 1970s (Kinsale gas field) this is the first commercial gas discovery on the Irish Continental shelf.
The continental shelf of each country is divided up into blocks which are each given numbers. Oil companies then bid on the rights to drill in a block. The block will be leased to the oil company for a stated number of years and yes they will earn revenue for bringing any hydrocarbons found to market. The state will then tax the revenue in a number of ways but usually this is done by royalties of a fixed percentage of revenue for each BOE (barrel of oil equivalent) produced. The tax rate of the royalties is stated in the terms of conditions set by the government prior to any oil company taking out a lease on a block.

In Ireland we've one of the worst strike rates for finding hydrocarbons of anywhere in the planet. (3% but I need to find the link for this) Here is some useful comparisons with our neighbours in Norway and the UK

Quote:
The Irish offshore industry is repeatedly compared to its Norwegian and UK counterparts. More often than not, this comparison focuses on the fiscal terms offered to companies carrying out exploration and development in these countries. This comparison is wholly inappropriate.

Exploration in Norway commenced at about the same time as in Ireland. Since then the Norwegian industry has drilled 1,200 exploration and appraisal wells. The UK industry has drilled 4,211 exploration and appraisal wells and currently has 350 producing oil and gas fields.

At the same time, Ireland has drilled only 155 exploration and appraisal wells and only has three producing gas fields with the fourth, Corrib, under development.

Norway is also seen as particularly attractive for exploration given the large average size of the fields discovered, approximately three times the size of the average in Ireland. Norway’s production to date plus proven reserves is 114 times greater than Ireland’s. UK production to date and proven reserves is 99 times greater than Ireland’s.

These enormous natural advantages enable Norway and the United Kingdom to impose tough fiscal terms on offshore explorers and make any comparison between terms offered in Ireland and the other two countries entirely inappropriate. The attractiveness of Norway and the United Kingdom, despite their relatively onerous fiscal terms, is emphasised by the number of applicationsfor 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.

The appropriate comparison would be with other countries of relatively low prospectivity, such as France, Spain and Portugal, which have similarly low levels of activity to Ireland.
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. Ireland has only three producing gas fields, one gas field under development and no commercial oil discoveries to date. These stark differences make comparisons between Ireland and the other two countries, and the fiscal terms they impose on exploration companies, entirely inappropriate.
Source: UKOOA, the Petroleum Affairs Division and the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (Faktaheftet om norsk petroleum verksemd for 2005).


http://www.iooa.ie/securing-the-future-page41390.html


So, if you have lots of oil and gas already discovered on your continental shelf you can impose higher taxes/tariffs on the Oil companies producing oil and gas.
Because of the low success rate on the Irish continental shelf we must be very generous on the low taxes that we would charge so as to attract oil companies to drill in our waters.

It would seem that just as Shell is about to make a return on their massive investment on the Corrib project we have people in this country deciding that they should not have it, almost that we always knew that it was there and our government still decided to "give it away". This is nonsense. Do these people realise the massive cost today for exploring for oil and gas. An average exploration well in deep water such as off the coast of Mayo and Donegal where Shell is drilling is now costing at least $100 million.

I'm all for our government setting up an Irish National oil company to explore for oil and gas off of Ireland but I do not think that the Irish tax payer is willing to stump up the cost of maybe $1 Billion to go on a 10 well drilling programme with a success rate of perhaps 5%. And that cost would only be for drilling the wells. Not for building the offshore platforms, pipelines, onshore refineries. So perhaps double that price again.
How many hospitals, schools and roads are the Irish people willing to forfeit so that we can explore for oil and gas.
It seems we want to go down the path of just confiscating it from the companies who are willing to take the chance of finding it. This is outrageous.

I have no beef with people campaigning on whether Shell are doing a safe and environmentally friendly job of bringing the Corrib gas to shore but nationalising our tiny offshore reserves is economic suicide. Welcome to Communist Ireland.

For the record I work for a major Oil and Gas company but not Shell. The company I work for has no commercial interest in Corrib or any other project on the Irish Continental shelf.

shoegirl

Drumpot wrote: »

My understanding is that we let our friendly oil merchants drill once they employ a few Irish people?!!!

No they don't. Extraction is an international business, to such an extent that major oilfield services providers employ engineers on "international mobile" contracts and pay them in US dollars, so they can be located anywhere in the world.

The reason we sold off rights so cheaply was because the likelihood of a major find was slim, but it was a good way of creating pointless corporations to write off and fiddle funds. Basically a form of money laundering. Many of the Irish petroleum concerns established in the 80s were loss making - probably intended to shuffle funds elsewhere.

shoegirl

hmmm wrote: »

If you think the price is too small, you can bid for the licences yourself. Most oil and gas companies have spent small fortunes exploring in Irlsh waters for zero return.

+1

Also most of the finds that have occured have been too difficult under existing technologies to move to extraction.

RAMCO, for example, lost huge sums on Seven Heads, and that was considered to be a viable concern.

Drumpot

shoegirl wrote: »

+1

Also most of the finds that have occured have been too difficult under existing technologies to move to extraction.

RAMCO, for example, lost huge sums on Seven Heads, and that was considered to be a viable concern.

Ah the poor old oil companies. Pumping millions and they might not even get a return! Heard this argument from a friend who still couldn't clarify exactly what we stand to gain if they struck oil!

Don't really care about anything other then what benefits will we get. If we wont gain much by them finding oil, why even let them drill?

I asked for clear reasons why we signed away the potential finding of natural resources for what appears to be very little.

Drumpot

hmmm wrote: »

If you think the price is too small, you can bid for the licences yourself. Most oil and gas companies have spent small fortunes exploring in Irlsh waters for zero return.

If there was potentially oil in my back garden and I couldn't be arsed drilling for it, it doesn't mean I would let you do it for pennies . . of course, most people within government havent a clue on how to negotiate aggresively for irelands best interest !

whippet

Drumpot wrote: »

If there was potentially oil in my back garden and I couldn't be arsed drilling for it, it doesn't mean I would let you do it for pennies . . of course, most people within government havent a clue on how to negotiate aggresively for irelands best interest !

I think you have totally missed the point, have a read of Oafley Jones's post ... you might get an idea of what the reality is.

Drumpot

whippet wrote: »

I think you have totally missed the point, have a read of Oafley Jones's post ... you might get an idea of what the reality is.

No, I think you and others are missing my point . .

I understand that the price you can tax/charge prospectors is usually in comparison to the success ratio of an area.

Oafley Jones just pointed out that its expensive to explore. I am all for letting these people drill off the coast for nothing, but it doesnt make economic sense to sign away cheap future tax rights (if thats what has been done) before anything is found.

Just because it is "the norm" in the industry doesnt mean we should comply. If we stand to gain little if they find oil, I see no reason to let them prospect. I suppose, stripping it down, what good is it to the Irish People if Shell strike oil ? (Im genuinley asking, not ranting!).

And it doesnt matter if Irish people are only beginning to get upset about the thought of losing millions on this deal. They are only beginning to get upset about dodgy TDs and our bank bailout. So we are slow people, doesnt mean we should have to continue to accept poorly constructed deals!

whippet

Drumpot wrote: »

Just because it is "the norm" in the industry doesnt mean we should comply. If we stand to gain little if they find oil, I see no reason to let them prospect.

if you flip that around, the Oil companies will have no interest in drilling in an area with a minimal return unless the rewards are significently high.

They will use their resources elsewhere and the end result will mean it is never explored.

Drumpot

whippet wrote: »

if you flip that around, the Oil companies will have no interest in drilling in an area with a minimal return unless the rewards are significently high.

They will use their resources elsewhere and the end result will mean it is never explored.

I understand that, but if we stand to gain little, we stand to lose little by not letting it get explored. You could find in future decades, with most places drilled, the value of our reserves could increase significantly, however small the chances are of finding reserves..

As I said, I honestly dont know what sort of advantages we would gain if Shell did strike oil, I would just like to hear it. I have seen and heard of the disasters that can happen with these companies when they dont really show to much care for the environment around the pipes! If we dont gain much and stand to lose environmentally, then I dont see why we let anybody drill off the coast simply because they can afford to!

Padraig Mor

"We" get little because we need to incentivise exploration with the current strike rate. If a few companies strike it rich, THEN we can start hitting the companies that follow them to Ireland for a bigger slice of the pie.

It's simple really - but probably beyond the understanding of the S2S crew.

beeftotheheels

Drumpot wrote: »

No, I think you and others are missing my point . .

I understand that the price you can tax/charge prospectors is usually in comparison to the success ratio of an area.

Oafley Jones just pointed out that its expensive to explore. I am all for letting these people drill off the coast for nothing, but it doesnt make economic sense to sign away cheap future tax rights (if thats what has been done) before anything is found.

We have not, and no Dail can, signed away future tax rights. However, if Shell spent €100m exploring/ drilling then they need to make something in the region of €100m before there is any profit to tax and this will take some time - even if they could get the gas to consumers.

Once they make a profit we tax it - currently at 25%. In the UK budget they just increased the tax rate applicable to North Sea Oil - which we could do at some point in the future if we had enough viable wells and weren't concerned about scaring off future investment.

Royalty payments can be agreed up front and the benefit to the government of these is that royalties can be paid before a profit is made to tax.

However, with risky deep water exploration and a weakish track record of success our bargaining position on royalties is not comparable to Norway or the UK.

We can't really change the royalties once agreed, that's the kind of thing best left to Hugo Chavez.

Drumpot

Padraig Mor wrote: »

"We" get little because we need to incentivise exploration with the current strike rate. If a few companies strike it rich, THEN we can start hitting the companies that follow them to Ireland for a bigger slice of the pie.

It's simple really - but probably beyond the understanding of the S2S crew.

Im not with the S2S crew, but I still dont think it makes sense to let them drill for potentially F*k all in return based on a whim that it might get us more if they find more in the future. . . Perhaps this is the norm in the Oil industry, but it just sounds like a completely ridiculous way of "doing business".

Given the ridiculous waste of money that this country has had to absorb, it would make more sense not to let these companies drill and plan a longer term drilling plan for Ireland. It is confusing as to why this wasnt even considered when our government had millions to waste on the likes of the Bertie Bowl and E-Voting machines, but thats another rant.

Of course, it is difficult to envisage an Irish government being able to plan beyond a 4 year stretch (wouldnt want the Irish People to gain from something that another party might take some credit for! :rolleyes:) but if they were, it would make much more sense then letting people wreck the coastline for potentially little gains.

Drumpot

beeftotheheels wrote: »

We have not, and no Dail can, signed away future tax rights. However, if Shell spent €100m exploring/ drilling then they need to make something in the region of €100m before there is any profit to tax and this will take some time - even if they could get the gas to consumers.

Once they make a profit we tax it - currently at 25%. In the UK budget they just increased the tax rate applicable to North Sea Oil - which we could do at some point in the future if we had enough viable wells and weren't concerned about scaring off future investment.

Royalty payments can be agreed up front and the benefit to the government of these is that royalties can be paid before a profit is made to tax.

However, with risky deep water exploration and a weakish track record of success our bargaining position on royalties is not comparable to Norway or the UK.

We can't really change the royalties once agreed, that's the kind of thing best left to Hugo Chavez.

Ok, so we can make something (25% of profits). Thats a good start and better then nothing . .

Thank you. I just wanted to make sure that we could get something, it wasnt clear from some of the other posts. . I can live with that . .

beeftotheheels

You're welcome.

While I understand the outrage being stoked by certain politicians about Shell none of them are making clear that we will get something from Shell, they just have to get the gas to consumers and turn a profit before we see any real returns.

Once Shell have a profitable income stream we can tax it, and if it turns out that the Corrib field is larger and more lucrative than expected we could even create an additional "Corrib tax" of say 5% on top of the 25% tax they pay leaving the 25% rate there for new exploration but taking a little piece more off Shell's pie (but not so much more as to really annoy them, a 30% tax rate is still pretty competitive for hydrocarbon profits).

The UK has all kind of daft tax rules specific to the North Sea which are intended to encourage new drilling while taxing existing producing wells more heavily than manufacturing companies to take into account the fact that Oil is a British (Scottish?) natural resource.

We could easily cog the UK rules on this as we do in so many other areas, but bearing in mind they have many more viable wells than we have and in shallower water too so we're not in a position to play hardball with big oil just yet.

Drumpot

beeftotheheels wrote: »

You're welcome.

While I understand the outrage being stoked by certain politicians about Shell none of them are making clear that we will get something from Shell, they just have to get the gas to consumers and turn a profit before we see any real returns.

Once Shell have a profitable income stream we can tax it, and if it turns out that the Corrib field is larger and more lucrative than expected we could even create an additional "Corrib tax" of say 5% on top of the 25% tax they pay leaving the 25% rate there for new exploration but taking a little piece more off Shell's pie (but not so much more as to really annoy them, a 30% tax rate is still pretty competitive for hydrocarbon profits).

The UK has all kind of daft tax rules specific to the North Sea which are intended to encourage new drilling while taxing existing producing wells more heavily than manufacturing companies to take into account the fact that Oil is a British (Scottish?) natural resource.

We could easily cog the UK rules on this as we do in so many other areas, but bearing in mind they have many more viable wells than we have and in shallower water too so we're not in a position to play hardball with big oil just yet.

I feel so much better. Considering the record of our political elite in negotiating deals I was seriously upset at the thought of us simply giving away any potential natural resources available and it wouldnt be beyond our politicians to Fk up this kind of exploration at the detriment of Ireland!

Seriously, thanks for that . .

beeftotheheels

Drumpot wrote: »

I feel so much better. Considering the record of our political elite in negotiating deals I was seriously upset at the thought of us simply giving away any potential natural resources available and it wouldnt be beyond our politicians to Fk up this kind of exploration at the detriment of Ireland!

What, are you really suggesting that any of our politicians would be capable of interfering in the awarding of lucrative contracts to private businesses to serve their own personal interests???

I'm shocked at the very notion, shocked I tell you! If that were true we'd have to appoint a high court judge to investigate the matter quick smart...

professore

Drumpot wrote: »

No, I think you and others are missing my point . .

I understand that the price you can tax/charge prospectors is usually in comparison to the success ratio of an area.

Oafley Jones just pointed out that its expensive to explore. I am all for letting these people drill off the coast for nothing, but it doesnt make economic sense to sign away cheap future tax rights (if thats what has been done) before anything is found.

Just because it is "the norm" in the industry doesnt mean we should comply. If we stand to gain little if they find oil, I see no reason to let them prospect. I suppose, stripping it down, what good is it to the Irish People if Shell strike oil ? (Im genuinley asking, not ranting!).

And it doesnt matter if Irish people are only beginning to get upset about the thought of losing millions on this deal. They are only beginning to get upset about dodgy TDs and our bank bailout. So we are slow people, doesnt mean we should have to continue to accept poorly constructed deals!

Here is the point: If you came to me and wanted to charge €100 million to drill for oil in your back garden, in an area where there has never been oil discovered, I would tell you where to go. On the other hand, if all your neighbours had oil gushing out of their flowerbeds I might have a different response.

Drumpot

beeftotheheels wrote: »

What, are you really suggesting that any of our politicians would be capable of interfering in the awarding of lucrative contracts to private businesses to serve their own personal interests???

I'm shocked at the very notion, shocked I tell you! If that were true we'd have to appoint a high court judge to investigate the matter quick smart...

:D:D:D

professore

.... and another thing, if we had such proven easily accessible wealth, you can be damn sure that the ECB/IMF would be all over it like a rash. Remember we have to pay back € 67.5 BILLION and close our deficit of € 19 BILLION each year required to run the country if we continue as we are. That's a LOT of oil and gas!!!!

Lets see, that's over the next 5 years: 67.5 + 5 * 19 = 162.5 Billion euro. At €100 a barrel, we need at least 1625,000,000 barrels of oil over the next 5 years, or 325,000,000 per year. From

this Norway produces 900,090,000 barrels a year, so 1/3 of Norway's output would go to pay off our existing economic mess.

Drumpot

professore wrote: »

Here is the point: If you came to me and wanted to charge €100 million to drill for oil in your back garden, in an area where there has never been oil discovered, I would tell you where to go. On the other hand, if all your neighbours had oil gushing out of their flowerbeds I might have a different response.

I understand that , I just didnt think it was worth allowing people to dig up gardens while I stand to gain nothing even if they do find something in just one or two gardens.

My major concern was that we would get nothing if they did strike oil , but beeftotheheels put me at ease . . Crisis over . .

Drumpot

professore wrote: »

Here is the point: If you came to me and wanted to charge €100 million to drill for oil in your back garden, in an area where there has never been oil discovered, I would tell you where to go. On the other hand, if all your neighbours had oil gushing out of their flowerbeds I might have a different response.

If we had loads of oil reserves, we would of already been invaded by an "ally" force looking to save the Irish people from the tyrcannical FF government ! !

professore

beeftotheheels wrote: »

What, are you really suggesting that any of our politicians would be capable of interfering in the awarding of lucrative contracts to private businesses to serve their own personal interests???

I'm shocked at the very notion, shocked I tell you! If that were true we'd have to appoint a high court judge to investigate the matter quick smart...

Sadly I have to agree with you ....

professore

Drumpot wrote: »

I understand that , I just didnt think it was worth allowing people to dig up gardens while I stand to gain nothing even if they do find something in just one or two gardens.

My major concern was that we would get nothing if they did strike oil , but beeftotheheels put me at ease . . Crisis over . .

Yes thats the several hundred billion euro question ... what they will do if there are large significant commercial oil reserves discovered ....

beeftotheheels

professore wrote: »

Yes thats the several hundred billion euro question ... what they will do if there are large significant commercial oil reserves discovered ....

They will tax it just as the UK and Norway and co do.

If the reserves are big enough that there is limited risk to scaring Big Oil away then they could even amend the rules to force the development costs be deducted over 5/10 years rather than being deductible up front thus accelerating the collection of tax revenues. The rate could go up to 30 or 35%.

Royalty agreements would be more lucrative as our bargaining position would change.

The oil companies know that if they strike it rich we will tax them more heavily once we stay within international norms.

But there is no point in talking about this until we find such reserves.

Lockstep

Are we currently seeing any profits from our oil and gas fields (Including Corrib)? If so, is it being taxed at 25%?

Keep hearing the term bandied about that there's €540bn worth of oil and gas in Irish waters. Is there any truth in this?

It's an area I know nothing about so I'm glad to see a thread started so I can learn a bit more about it.

beeftotheheels

Lockstep wrote: »

Are we currently seeing any profits from our oil and gas fields (Including Corrib)? If so, is it being taxed at 25%?

I don't know if anyone is paying tax at the moment, Shell wouldn't be since they can't even get their gas to land grace a S2S!

Old Head is depleted I think and not sure what new fields, if any, have come on line. Maybe an oil or gas person could tell you that if there are any following this thread?

I just looked at the tax legislation and it seems that once a field is profitable it pays tax at 25%, but once the profit ratio exceeds certain thresholds an additional tax of 5%, 10% and 15% is payable. This means if Shell strike it rich we could be getting 40% tax off them at some point in the future (if they ever get the gas to land). Roll on the future...

Scofflaw

beeftotheheels wrote: »

I don't know if anyone is paying tax at the moment, Shell wouldn't be since they can't even get their gas to land grace a S2S!

Old Head is depleted I think and not sure what new fields, if any, have come on line. Maybe an oil or gas person could tell you that if there are any following this thread?

I just looked at the tax legislation and it seems that once a field is profitable it pays tax at 25%, but once the profit ratio exceeds certain thresholds an additional tax of 5%, 10% and 15% is payable. This means if Shell strike it rich we could be getting 40% tax off them at some point in the future (if they ever get the gas to land). Roll on the future...

There are no fields on stream in Ireland other than Kinsale, and the only field with any potential to come on stream in the next few years is Corrib. That's the lot, I'm afraid - one tiny depleted gas field, and another tiny one coming on stream:



cordially,
Scofflaw

Nody

Lockstep wrote: »

Keep hearing the term bandied about that there's €540bn worth of oil and gas in Irish waters. Is there any truth in this?

None but it sure sounds good for the S2S group to claim that Shell gets all that oil/gas for free and makes for excellent Indo style headlines/newsbites.

That number came from a very optimistic, if every star aligns, guess on what MIGHT be down in the waters around Ireland a decade or two back if memory serves. This number did not take into account the issues or costs with getting it up from a level were oil/gas drilling is seen as not practical/possible then (or really today). To date no drilling and no explorations have confirmed that there are even close to such an amount in the ground out there; if anything every hole keeps on pointing out that even a tenth of the amount would be considered hopeful...

Lockstep

Whenabouts would the COrrib field start giving out payloads?

Euroland

Oafley Jones wrote: »

Norway is the third largest exporter of crude oil in the world

The 8th largest

beeftotheheels

This thread has been making me maudlin all day and I've only just figured out why.

While I noted some smug superiority in earlier posts about the fact that we weren't in a position to charge huge exploration licence fees I didn't feel it.

That I should be in a position to respond to this thread setting out the fact that we clearly will tax gas profits at a rate between 25% and 40% without recourse to sarcasm or any feelings of superiority is quite sad. It's the fact that the disinformation campaign by the loony left is so credible in this country without any basis in fact.

It is entirely feasible to us that our government could have sold the family silver for a shilling, we know they did it elsewhere.

We can trust other posters that we don't know from Adam to tell us that the Shell profits will be taxed, but we can't trust the governments we voted into power to have ensured that.

Surely a very sad commentary on the state of the nation.

DonalK1981

whippet wrote: »

if you flip that around, the Oil companies will have no interest in drilling in an area with a minimal return unless the rewards are significently high.

They will use their resources elsewhere and the end result will mean it is never explored.

Long term, if it is left till the reserves dry up, then wouldn't it be worth quite a bit? Just a thought, as if it doesn't benefit us Irish people then leave it there...

Scofflaw

beeftotheheels wrote: »

This thread has been making me maudlin all day and I've only just figured out why.

While I noted some smug superiority in earlier posts about the fact that we weren't in a position to charge huge exploration licence fees I didn't feel it.

That I should be in a position to respond to this thread setting out the fact that we clearly will tax gas profits at a rate between 25% and 40% without recourse to sarcasm or any feelings of superiority is quite sad. It's the fact that the disinformation campaign by the loony left is so credible in this country without any basis in fact.

It is entirely feasible to us that our government could have sold the family silver for a shilling, we know they did it elsewhere.

We can trust other posters that we don't know from Adam to tell us that the Shell profits will be taxed, but we can't trust the governments we voted into power to have ensured that.

Surely a very sad commentary on the state of the nation.

To be fair, it's not simply the case that the government is not trusted, although that's part of it - it's also the fact that many people will only believe what fits their preconceived narrative. Facts are often the last things to sway a debate, let alone decide it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

beeftotheheels

Scofflaw wrote: »

To be fair...it's also the fact that many people will only believe what fits their preconceived narrative. Facts are often the last things to sway a debate, let alone decide it.

No - and that's what is disturbing me about this thread - it wasn't one of those discussions.

Drumpot started it with the assumption we had given away our valuable oil and gas and would never see a red cent which he was understandably cross about. Once I explained we would get 25% of the profits he was happy (and gracious about it), and was similarly happy to be told our oil and gas exploration rights are not "all that" by yourself amongst others

He believed, with no evidence, the line being thrown around by certain politicians that we had given away hugely valuable rights when in fact
1) we haven't given them away and
2) they may not be as valuable as some would have us believe

and he was happy to receive posts telling him that from complete strangers! That's what's depressing, someone being able to believe complete strangers (granted we have no reason to lie to him) but not being able to trust the governments we elected.

Scofflaw

beeftotheheels wrote: »

No - and that's what is disturbing me about this thread - it wasn't one of those discussions.

Drumpot started it with the assumption we had given away our valuable oil and gas and would never see a red cent which he was understandably cross about. Once I explained we would get 25% of the profits he was happy (and gracious about it), and was similarly happy to be told our oil and gas exploration rights are not "all that" by yourself amongst others

He believed, with no evidence, the line being thrown around by certain politicians that we had given away hugely valuable rights when in fact
1) we haven't given them away and
2) they may not be as valuable as some would have us believe

and he was happy to receive posts telling him that from complete strangers! That's what's depressing, someone being able to believe complete strangers (granted we have no reason to lie to him) but not being able to trust the governments we elected.

Ah, I see what you're saying. Yes, good point, and backed up by the Edelman Trust Barometer (here) - we have a very low level of trust in government (20%, down from 28% in 2010).

Is that a bad thing, though? I accept that it's a bad sign, because it's the result of the government lying to us - but is it a bad thing in itself?

cordially,
Scofflaw

beeftotheheels

Scofflaw wrote: »

Ah, I see what you're saying. Yes, good point, and backed up by the Edelman Trust Barometer (here) - we have a very low level of trust in government (20%, down from 28% in 2010).

Is that a bad thing, though? I accept that it's a bad sign, because it's the result of the government lying to us - but is it a bad thing in itself?

cordially,
Scofflaw

I'm going to start a new thread on the trust issue as evidenced from this thread by my cross ref to the thread may be wrong as am a newbie and not very boards proficient so apologies. That is the right thing to do in boards isn't it? The issue I want to discuss has arisen from this thread but no longer has anything to do with natural resources?

Scofflaw

beeftotheheels wrote: »

I'm going to start a new thread on the trust issue as evidenced from this thread by my cross ref to the thread may be wrong as am a newbie and not very boards proficient so apologies. That is the right thing to do in boards isn't it? The issue I want to discuss has arisen from this thread but no longer has anything to do with natural resources?

Yup - worthwhile thread, too, I'd say.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Drumpot

beeftotheheels wrote: »

No - and that's what is disturbing me about this thread - it wasn't one of those discussions.

Drumpot started it with the assumption we had given away our valuable oil and gas and would never see a red cent which he was understandably cross about. Once I explained we would get 25% of the profits he was happy (and gracious about it), and was similarly happy to be told our oil and gas exploration rights are not "all that" by yourself amongst others

He believed, with no evidence, the line being thrown around by certain politicians that we had given away hugely valuable rights when in fact
1) we haven't given them away and
2) they may not be as valuable as some would have us believe

and he was happy to receive posts telling him that from complete strangers! That's what's depressing, someone being able to believe complete strangers (granted we have no reason to lie to him) but not being able to trust the governments we elected.

Actually, you are slightly mistaken . . I didnt believe anything, I just didnt believe I knew everything.

In my first post I said - My understanding is that we let our friendly oil merchants drill once they employ a few Irish people?!!!
. It wasnt a factual statement, it was setting out what little I know. That aside, the title of the thread was a question "do we still have rights" .

The whole point of this thread was a lazy factfinding mission of sorts for me. I believed that I didnt know the full story (hence the reason I started this thread), but wanted others to fill in the blanks.

I had just watched a dispatches programme on the corruption of Oil companies that interested me enough to start a thread for debate.

People presumed that the simple answer was "well this is just the way the industry works" and that this is enough to justify the allowing of a foreign company to drill off our coasts.

You were the first person to actually address my concerns (that we werent just going to have to throw a hail Mary and hope that loads of oilwells would be found before we would make anything).

If the evidence that scoffaw suggested is true (and there isnt much to drill for anyways), then I would of seen no benefit to let anybody drill it until we can afford to give it a go ourselves!

In terms of been greatful , I was greatful that you actually addressed my main concern. Up until your post, nobody had mentioned anything about Ireland getting anything from this exploration. The chance of getting something is better then the chance of getting nothing!

I have learned not to take what the media, politicians or respected speakers say to heart. The best way of getting informed is by the use of several mediums (including these kind of forums) and basing a sound opinion on a collection of information.

While this was a Joe Duffy rant to a degree (I normally put them together better , was just lazy on this one), I was hoping somebody could at least expand on my understanding of why exactly we gave away certain rights so "cheaply".

It is funny because my sister worked in the press office of FF (I know for her sins!) and I used to ask her questions like the ones I posed here. She told me that I represent about 5% of the population (if that) who actually want to know the reasons why certain decisions are taken by the government. The rest of the nation want to be told "ah sure it had to be done" or something lame that means they dont have to concern themselves with it. Its quite shocking and gives an insight into the reasons why so few can control so many in modern civilisation!

Scofflaw

Drumpot wrote:

If the evidence that scoffaw suggested is true (and there isnt much to drill for anyways), then I would of seen no benefit to let anybody drill it until we can afford to give it a go ourselves!

I'd say that's the wrong way round entirely, and also that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. We don't know that there's very little out there, we only know that very little has been found - and if there is very little out there, it makes no sense at all to try to put together the necessary structures and expertise to drill for it ourselves, since we'll wind up pouring a lot of money into dry wells to yield very little in terms of either revenue or work.

Drumpot wrote:

It is funny because my sister worked in the press office of FF (I know for her sins!) and I used to ask her questions like the ones I posed here. She told me that I represent about 5% of the population (if that) who actually want to know the reasons why certain decisions are taken by the government. The rest of the nation want to be told "ah sure it had to be done" or something lame that means they dont have to concern themselves with it. Its quite shocking and gives an insight into the reasons why so few can control so many in modern civilisation!

It's always been the case, though. About 5% of the population are involved and aware in any society, while the 95% just want to get on with their lives. The proportion that do the actual governing is even smaller, but is again pretty much the same in every historical society - about 1% at most. As a result, democratic politics fundamentally consists of different factions in the 5% trying to gain the support of the 95% in order to become the 1%, while non-democratic politics consists of different factions of the 5% trying to gain control of enough resources to become the 1%, without unduly disturbing the 95%.

cordially,
Scofflaw