‘OCCUPY Wall Street’ protestors on Dame Street

ianuss

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Seems fairly obvious to me -
It took a decade of exploration and drilling for oil to flow in Norway - there was no guarantee of success. The first well was in fact dry. Yet, the exploration continued. That deals with the 'they may not find anything' issue.

Norway issued many licences to small exploration companies rather then allow one big multi-national a monopoly (Hello Shell!) - they also made it clear the natural resources belong to Norway and they will set the licensing conditions.

Because 'foreign' companies dominated - Noway moved swiftly to regain control via Statoil. They could do this as they controlled the terms of the licences.

Well perhaps in 60 years time, if we do ever strike it lucky, the Irish Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources will be able to publish an impressive oil/gas manifesto and frame history in a certain manner too. It's unlikely that Norway's strategy from the start in the 1950's has remained unchanged.

But I can't see us setting up an oil company, not until we hit the mother-load anyway. How could you justify such massive capital expenditure at a time like this? On what would be a total gamble.

And what difference does it make if the licenses are sold to small exploration companies or larger entities? Unless we set up our own oil company, the taxes we receive would be the same from any company.

Those who perpetuate the myth that we're throwing away a golden goose are doing people a great disservice. The last thing stupid people need is more misinformation.

Bannasidhe

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

13 licenses for fields were applied for/issued out of the 996 potentially available in the last round.
They were open to every company from the exploration branches of Shell/BP down to the small operators.

13/996 doesn't exactly imply that 'Ireland are giving it away in a modern day goldrush' does it?

Fair enough -

However - I still do not see why we cannot impose a 50% tax on profits from any successful strikes.

Bannasidhe

ianuss wrote: »

The last thing stupid people need is more misinformation.

Stupid people? :rolleyes:

Am I in AH?

What the people need, be they stupid or oh so clever, is accurate, objective information. That is what successive Irish government have failed to deliver.

From Bertie telling his critics to go commit suicide to the storming performances of Howlin and Shatter last week in failing to address people's genuine concerns about the 30th referendum via Cowen's no IMF coming here - no siree bob we have been kept in the dark and treated as if we are stupid.

At least the Occupy movement is generating debate and discussion -it's a shame our government are incapable to providing answers (apart from it's all FF's fault - such a refreshing change from it's all Lehman Bros fault ).

If there is misinformation - address it. But please do not stoop to insulting people's intelligence and name calling.

ArmaniJeanss

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Fair enough -

However - I still do not see why we cannot impose a 50% tax on profits from any successful strikes.

So give the explorations companies a worse deal at a time when they aren't exactly climbing over each other to come here.
Do you see the flaw?

Bannasidhe

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

So give the explorations companies a worse deal at a time when they aren't exactly climbing over each other to come here.
Do you see the flaw?

I see the flaw in giving away 75% when we are borrowing money just to keep basic services afloat.

Bannasidhe

whatstherush wrote: »

Shell didn't find Corrib, one of your cherished small companies called Enterprise oil did.

My cherished? I couldn't give a flying about any oil company - big or small.
But it does illustrate my point that we should issue licences to small exploration companies to - um - explore and should they be successful then sell 'parcels'. Not give the lot to one big multinational.

So - since ye all are such experts on the economics of Oil exploration, how about helping out a poor old early modernist historian and tell me the details of Shell's monopoly in Corrib (monopoly -not very free market is it? Permabear won't like that!).

Specifically what percentage of tax will they pay?

antoobrien

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I see the flaw in giving away 75% when we are borrowing money just to keep basic services afloat.

75% of 0 = 0

ianuss

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Stupid people? :rolleyes:

Am I in AH?

What the people need, be they stupid or oh so clever, is accurate, objective information. That is what successive Irish government have failed to deliver.

From Bertie telling his critics to go commit suicide to the storming performances of Howlin and Shatter last week in failing to address people's genuine concerns about the 30th referendum via Cowen's no IMF coming here - no siree bob we have been kept in the dark and treated as if we are stupid.

At least the Occupy movement is generating debate and discussion -it's a shame our government are incapable to providing answers (apart from it's all FF's fault - such a refreshing change from it's all Lehman Bros fault ).

If there is misinformation - address it. But please do not stoop to insulting people's intelligence and name calling.

Sorry, and point taken about AH. I wasn't referring to you with the 'stupid people' comment. It was more directed at people who, having seen the 'myoilandgas.ie youtube clip' start moaning about oil companies and corrupt govt officials needlessly throwing resources away. On the strength of one clip they're outraged without even bothering to find anything out for themselves.

ArmaniJeanss

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I see the flaw in giving away 75% when we are borrowing money just to keep basic services afloat.

But by looking for 50% you risk them abandoning exploration totally and we get 50% of nothing. Because 13/996 at the current terms implies a sizeable disinterest on their part.
But if a nice amount of those 13 hit (say 2/3 hits from 13) in the next few years then in the next round of licensing we can look for (and definitely get) terms more akin to Norway.

This is basic business, its akin to the new restaurant giving 50% off vouchers or the new niteclub offering €2 pints.

Honest answer, if you had €150,000,000 to spare, and you were offered a 50/50 profit share deal on a random field off Norway or Ireland where would you invest?

whatstherush

Bannasidhe wrote: »

My cherished? I couldn't give a flying about any oil company - big or small.
But it does illustrate my point that we should issue licences to small exploration companies to - um - explore and should they be successful then sell 'parcels'. Not give the lot to one big multinational.

So - since ye all are such experts on the economics of Oil exploration, how about helping out a poor old early modernist historian and tell me the details of Shell's monopoly in Corrib (monopoly -not very free market is it? Permabear won't like that!).

Specifically what percentage of tax will they pay?

Where are you getting a monopoly from? One field was found and shell bought the rights to that field.

antoobrien

It appears that the brethren in Oakland have kicked off.

The peaceful protest that shut down the port of Oakland ended in violence when police in riot gear arrested dozens of protesters overnight who broke into a vacant building, shattered windows, sprayed graffiti and started fires.

So much for legal peaceful protest.

Scofflaw

Bannasidhe wrote: »

My cherished? I couldn't give a flying about any oil company - big or small.
But it does illustrate my point that we should issue licences to small exploration companies to - um - explore and should they be successful then sell 'parcels'. Not give the lot to one big multinational.

So - since ye all are such experts on the economics of Oil exploration, how about helping out a poor old early modernist historian and tell me the details of Shell's monopoly in Corrib (monopoly -not very free market is it? Permabear won't like that!).

As whatstherush says, they bought an exclusive license to that area off the small exploration company that found the field.

The small exploration company had already bid the price of the licence when the block wasn't known to contain anything. Shell bought the licence from them.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Specifically what percentage of tax will they pay?

Depends on the ultimate profitability of the field. At the most recent review of the petroleum tax rates (Eamon Ryan, 2008), the government was expecting about €1.7bn in tax on a field value of c. €5bn, which would be 34%.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Blowfish

Bannasidhe wrote: »

My cherished? I couldn't give a flying about any oil company - big or small.
But it does illustrate my point that we should issue licences to small exploration companies to - um - explore and should they be successful then sell 'parcels'. Not give the lot to one big multinational.

So - since ye all are such experts on the economics of Oil exploration, how about helping out a poor old early modernist historian and tell me the details of Shell's monopoly in Corrib (monopoly -not very free market is it? Permabear won't like that!).

Specifically what percentage of tax will they pay?

13 licenses out of a potential 996 is a very strange monopoly it must be said.

davoxx

antoobrien wrote: »

It appears that the brethren in Oakland have kicked off.
So much for legal peaceful protest.

it's good to know they were "anti-capitalist protesters" as opposed to the other types of protesters there ...

good to see an objective piece of journalism ...

davoxx

Scofflaw wrote: »

Depends on the ultimate profitability of the field. At the most recent review of the petroleum tax rates (Eamon Ryan, 2008), the government was expecting about €1.7bn in tax on a field value of c. €5bn, which would be 34%.

is that before or after writing of off expenses?
ie is that of net or gross value ...

K-9

Bannasidhe wrote: »

My cherished? I couldn't give a flying about any oil company - big or small.
But it does illustrate my point that we should issue licences to small exploration companies to - um - explore and should they be successful then sell 'parcels'. Not give the lot to one big multinational.

So - since ye all are such experts on the economics of Oil exploration, how about helping out a poor old early modernist historian and tell me the details of Shell's monopoly in Corrib (monopoly -not very free market is it? Permabear won't like that!).

Specifically what percentage of tax will they pay?

But it is mostly small exploration companies getting the licences, this is exactly what happened with Corrib. You seem to be looking for some hole in the Irish approach and you aren't finding it!

Bannasidhe

ianuss wrote: »

Sorry, and point taken about AH. I wasn't referring to you with the 'stupid people' comment. It was more directed at people who, having seen the 'myoilandgas.ie youtube clip' start moaning about oil companies and corrupt govt officials needlessly throwing resources away. On the strength of one clip they're outraged without even bothering to find anything out for themselves.

No worries. My ego is far too big for me to even consider you meant me.

See- I don't understand the economics of it. So I am asking genuine questions. I am looking to get the information. I am asking them here as I want genuine replys. Ya know - considered, intelligent responses rather then the AH 'blast them with p**s' type reply.

I get frustrated by the 'oh - that's just the usual Lefty/Maxist/Crusty/Hippy/Gallfrian/Morkporkian crap so we will sneer at it' type responses I have seen too many times.

I ask - 'why can we not do this?'
So Fred says - 'This is not workable'.
I say - 'why?'
Hopefully Fred will say ' because (insert considered response here)'
Sadly, sometimes Fred says 'It's stupid, left-wing BS and look at what Stalin did! Bloody dole scrounging crusties smelling of patchouli laying about or playing haki sack while I have to drive 5 hours to get to work!!!!'.

Maybe its just me - but response 2 is not actually answering the question....
:(:(

ianuss

davoxx wrote: »

is that before or after writing of off expenses?
ie is that of net or gross value ...

It would have to be after.

Scofflaw

davoxx wrote: »

is that before or after writing of off expenses?
ie is that of net or gross value ...

The tax is on the profits, as usual. The actual worth of the field, and hence the profit, depends on the price of gas over the next 15-20 years, so it's kind of hard to put a definitive figure on it.

What we can say, at current tax levels, is that the State will get 25-40% of the profit without any risk.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Bannasidhe

K-9 wrote: »

But it is mostly small exploration companies getting the licences, this is exactly what happened with Corrib. You seem to be looking for some hole in the Irish approach and you aren't finding it!

No - looking for accurate information. No more. No less.

How can we understand if we don't ask questions and receive considered responses?

I ask the questions as they occur to me - or as follow up to information received to aid my the little grey cells in figuring it out.

ianuss

I think in this case, there is no shadowy conspiracy or dodgy dealings going on. The tax rates and licensing policies are clearly related to the risk/reward ratio. The costs of exploration are honestly astronomical, and the Irish seabed is notoriously difficult to excavate. There has to be an incentive for oil companies to come and try to find oil. The relatively low tax take in comparison to Norway is directly attributable to the risks and costs of exploration. And the low strike rate too.

Bannasidhe

ianuss wrote: »

I think in this case, there is no shadowy conspiracy or dodgy dealings going on. The tax rates and licensing policies are clearly related to the risk/reward ratio. The costs of exploration are honestly astronomical, and the Irish seabed is notoriously difficult to excavate. There has to be an incentive for oil companies to come and try to find oil. The relatively low tax take in comparison to Norway is directly attributable to the risks and costs of exploration. And the low strike rate too.

Thank you

davoxx

ianuss wrote: »

It would have to be after.

so they can technically make a loss ... can they move the profits over to another country?

am i being naive here? i just mention this because of google

Scofflaw

davoxx wrote: »

so they can technically make a loss ... can they move the profits over to another country?

am i being naive here? i just mention this because of google

No, they can't move the profits. Petroleum accounting is pretty tight, and at the end of the day it's very hard to hide millions of cubic metres of gas.

They can include certain costs that took place elsewhere (mostly Aberdeen), but their costs are, again, pretty well known, and from a tax point of view, heavily ring-fenced. They can't include any expenses unrelated to the field - where "unrelated to the field" is defined by the Revenue.

cordially,
Scofflaw

davoxx

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, they can't move the profits. Petroleum accounting is pretty tight, and at the end of the day it's very hard to hide millions of cubic metres of gas.

They can include certain costs that took place elsewhere (mostly Aberdeen), but their costs are, again, pretty well known, and from a tax point of view, heavily ring-fenced. They can't include any expenses unrelated to the field - where "unrelated to the field" is defined by the Revenue.

cordially,
Scofflaw

fair enough if you say petroleum accounting is tight compared to other accounting, but i'll hold off and i'll believe it when i see it ...

davoxx

now can we stop this gas talk?

Bannasidhe

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, they can't move the profits. Petroleum accounting is pretty tight, and at the end of the day it's very hard to hide millions of cubic metres of gas.

They can include certain costs that took place elsewhere (mostly Aberdeen), but their costs are, again, pretty well known, and from a tax point of view, heavily ring-fenced. They can't include any expenses unrelated to the field - where "unrelated to the field" is defined by the Revenue.

cordially,
Scofflaw

So really, if the government was on the ball when it came to defining costs relating to the field and managed to agree a watertight contract we could be looking at at around 35% tax on profits for no outlay?

(My problem now is I don't think the government [this one or last one] could negotiate with an orange to provide juice without it somehow costing us millions - a pith clause perhaps where we can have the juice but must pay a trillion if we inflict damage to the pith...)

Scofflaw

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So really, if the government was on the ball when it came to defining costs relating to the field and managed to agree a watertight contract we could be looking at at around 35% tax on profits for no outlay?

(My problem now is I don't think the government [this one or last one] could negotiate with an orange to provide juice without it somehow costing us millions - a pith clause perhaps where we can have the juice but must pay a trillion if we inflict damage to the pith...)

The "government" doesn't really need to be on the ball - it only requires the Revenue to be on the ball. And my experience of the Revenue suggests that they are indeed on the ball.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Bannasidhe

Scofflaw wrote: »

The "government" doesn't really need to be on the ball - it only requires the Revenue to be on the ball. And my experience of the Revenue suggests that they are indeed on the ball.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well, they did lose my claim for a tax rebate, but I see your point.

Did the Revenue negotiate the licencing contracts? Please, please, please say yes! (It's no, isn't it. It was the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources wasn't it!?!?!. We're DOOMED - DOOMED I TELL YOU!!!)

Bannasidhe

Something to give the Occupy supporters a giggle:

Claims that nine in 10 tents at Occupy London remain empty overnight are based on "rubbish science", a military scientist specialising in camouflaging soldiers against thermal imaging technology has told the Guardian.

Several newspapers have filmed tents outside St Paul's Cathedral using thermal imaging equipment, producing images that seem to suggest many tents are unoccupied. But the military scientist, who asked not to be named, said on Wednesday that the photographers were not using the right camera settings, and consequently the information needed to draw any conclusions from the images had been lost.

He said: "They cannot make the assumption that they have made from those images. The way they are set up, you wouldn't be able to tell if there's anyone in the tent or not, especially if someone is sleeping in an insulated sleeping bag."

A camera of this kind would very rarely be able to see "into" a tent, said the scientist, as tent materials are almost always opaque to thermal imaging. A photographer would only be able to detect internal activity if the tent fabric was itself re-radiating heat produced by a warm object behind it – and this in turn would only be possible if very specific camera settings were used.

But the scientist said: "The first thing I noticed when I saw those images was that the camera was on an auto setting." In order for the images to be of any relevance, the photographer would have needed to manually adjust its settings, until the tents were clearly defined, in almost binary terms, against the background; and the figures of the occupiers walking around outside were completely over-exposed and apparently "white hot", rather than a spectrum of colours.

The scientist also said that the kind of camera used – probably a hand-held FLIR thermal imager – was unlikely to be used by the police for surveillance. "Those sorts of cameras are usually used for inspections at close range," he said, adding that customs officials only use such cameras at close quarters to look for stowaways. If police helicopters had scanned the camp they would have used much more sophisticated technology. "I'm not that interested in the story," the scientist concluded. But he said: "I wanted to set the record straight because that's just rubbish science."

http://apps.facebook.com/theguardian/uk/2011/oct/26/occupy-london-tents-rubbish-science

Excuse me while I titter...:D:D:D