Valentine’s Day - Shell 2 Sea picket outside the Dail

by Eamon Ryan's conscience Wed Feb 20, 2008 00:10

GW Bush's view on incentives for oil companies:

“First of all, the President has made very clear what his view is. Oil companies should not be receiving incentives when the price of oil is where it is. The President has spoken out very clearly about that for some time. When the price of oil is as high as it is, he doesn't think we need to be providing additional incentives to oil companies.”

-Scott McLellan, 2/14/05 Press Briefing

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/02/2006021...tml#h

by Maura Harrington - S2S; Davitt League Mon Feb 18, 2008 23:32

Facts on public record:

In September 1987 Ray Burke, then Minister for Energy, abolished the Irish people's 50% ownership in any future oil/gas finds. This followed private meetings between Burke and oil company execs against the advice of his senior civil servants.

Ray Burke is adjudged corrupt for accepting bribes for planning favours.

Bertie Ahern as Minister for Finance introduced the terms for oil and gas exploration and development which allowed a La Tene information booklet to inform oil companies that Ireland has:

(i) no State equity
(ii) no royalties
(iii) no special taxes

Bertie Ahern is currently under investigation by the Mahon Tribunal.

by Luddite Mon Feb 18, 2008 19:08

Okay, the origianal argument seems to be that the Irish govt needed to give all the gas way to encourage someone to come and take it. Perhaps the poster could explain a few aspects of this for us dimwitted luddites -

1. Why does no one in the government ever come out and say publicly why these terms are necessary? They make statements on many things, from golfing trips to immigration to autism, but they never, ever come out and crow about this particular bit of economic mastery. Why not?

2. If the powers that be thought the oil companies wouldn't be interested now without such a fantastic deal, then why not simply leave the gas and oil where it is? Is it likely to become less valuable in the future?

3. Gas and oil is difficult to get to in many places. Indeed, it'sbecoming a truism that there is "no easy oil left". Why then, does no other government have such a good deal on offer? Even Chad has a better deal in place. Is N'Djamena so much easier to work in than Belmullet?

4. If the terms were needed in the past, why did Eamon Ryan seek to change them as soon as he got into office? Why are the Greens making noises about changing them for the next round of licences? What's changed? Is the gas getting easier to find out there now?

by MacE Mon Feb 18, 2008 18:49

A Luddite can also be one who opposes the introduction of the state-of-the-art twister technology for Mayo's Corrib gas, as many in Shell to Sea have suggested. Would that definition include you, Shellite?

by Shelly Mon Feb 18, 2008 17:11

A luddite can also be one who opposes change from a technical point of view, much like S2S stuck in their "process it offshore" mode. Now do you see? Now lets hear a rebuke to the original argument, that has not already been well and truly destroyed already by myself and other posters.

by MacE Mon Feb 18, 2008 15:07

One would have to be small-minded indeed to believe that Ahern is a clean politician. First it was the IRA, then anarchists, eco-terrorists and communists. Now people who believe machinery is intrinsically evil are apparently in the driving seat at Shell to Sea Centre. Whatever next?

by Shelly Mon Feb 18, 2008 13:42

I asked for a sensible rebuke to my argument and all I got was:

1) From the infamous Mrs. H, a statement of fact. Enterprise would not have countenanced exploring for what was to become Corrib under the old terms, that is evident. Of course they would wait for a better deal, WHO WOULDN'T!

Companies are allowed to lobby governments you know, not against the rules as long as there is no cash in brown paper bags. (Cue plethora of Bertie is Bought by Shell accusations from the small minded)

2)Petrol Head - yeah, its Shell's responsibility to sort out Ireland's welfare system. Lets ask McDonalds to take care of transport and Starbucks to look after agriculture whilst we are at it. More peevish rhetoric from you and absolutely no substance.

3) The patriot - thats how much they expect. So you are basing your entire argument on what they expect? Do you know anything about oil and gas exploration? Expectations are regularly met, exceeded or, is is often the case, unrealised.

So there we have it, 3 S2S luddites and all they can do is open their mouths and let those bellies rumble.

by D Thu Feb 14, 2008 17:33

You are very trusting of press releases!

An announcement of 70 million barrels reserves is typical of small oil companies trying to talk up their share price whenever they can. The stock market could see the truth in this case, as there was no lasting effect on Providence's price.

The fact is that Providence and their partners have spent something like €20 million and have produced a load of mud, a thimble full of oil and a couple of dinosaur farts of gas. They will have to spend tens of millions more before they know if they have anything commercial then if they manage to achieve that they will need to start spending real money to produce it.

by The Patriot Wed Feb 13, 2008 16:46

Thats how much the O'Reilly consortium expect from this initial find. Hardly small change as some people with obvious agendas would have us believe on here.

by Petrol -head Wed Feb 13, 2008 16:41

Were being too hard on Shell - The only made 16 billion euro last year - sure the peasent irish can't be greedy and expect any of that. Better Shell have it then wasting it on sick people dieing on trollies in irish hospitals!!

by Maura Harrington - S2S; Davitt League Tue Feb 12, 2008 18:26

If Shelly, as one would suspect, is an oil person then it should know that oil companies play a 'long game' - in other words oil execs ensure that favourable conditions are created for their shareholders by the age-old method of grooming the people who can deliver such favours. This isn't libel, it's fact.

Enterprise Oil was formed in 1983; from 1984 onwards their 'man in Ireland' was John McGoldrick. During his tenure here the following facts are noteworthy:

in 1987 Ray Burke abolished the State share (50%) in its own natural resources;

the 1992 Finance Bill reduced the only remaining tax take to 25% payable only after ALL expenses, not necessarily well-specific were written off;

on the 1st Jan 1993 - the first day on which the Burke/Bertie terms came into force Enterprise Oil applied for an exploration licence in the offshore block which (surprise, surprise!) yielded Corrib, 'discovered' in 1996;

John McGoldrick was regularly seen in the company of Des Richardson both of whom appeared to enjoy each others company ...

by Erris Exile Tue Feb 12, 2008 17:29

Despite the price of oil hovering around the magical $100 per barrel no-one is rushing to drill offshore Ireland, despite your claim that Ireland is giving away its resources for nothing. The Rockall Trough is still deemed too risky for prospectors - even if something was found technology would be at its limits to bring it ashore (and if something is found I can guarantee you it will not be brought ashore Ireland - an FPSO and tanker offloadings will look after it that's for sure). All exploration wells to date have yielded condensate and not oil. if it wasn't for Enterprise Oil striking Corrib offshore Mayo the only strike to date would have been Marathon's. And to date it remains that way, as Corrib is not yet developed. And what about BP's claims in the Connemara Basin 300 miles offshore Galway in the early 90s - we don't see them rushing back in to have another look at that, do we despite the oil bonanza. Offshore Ireland is, and will remain for some time to come, persona non grata in the oil and gas community. There is no rush to do anything despite various licensing rounds by the DCMNR.

And as for the major finds by the O'Reilly led consortium in the Celtic Sea and elsewhere - get real. That statement is laughable. Those finds are totally insignificant and are basically water producers. Look at what happened to the Seven Heads Development from RAMCO. Those finds are NOT major. And as for the hype of all the hydrocarbons lying offshore SW Ireland waiting to be tapped - you're talking about prospects that are yet unproven. The geological formations discussed are favourable but no exploration activity has been undertaken as yet.

So much hypothetical crap is posted by the S2S campaign. Get the facts correct first.

by Shelly Tue Feb 12, 2008 16:41

And how many companies would "rush" to drill off Irish waters had the old licensing terms still applied? I'd say none of them would.

Any oil and gas exploration carries with it an element of risk, couple that with the track record for successful finds in Irish waters you see a situation developing that requires incentives. Otherwise, NOBODY WOULD DRILL!

The Rockall basin is only viable now due to the inflated oil price and advances in technology. Now that all these companies are prospecting, do you suggest that the Government move the goalposts and renege on the old terms? Introduce levies like the ones from 1975? I tell you what, it would be economic suicide. Ireland is totally reliant on outside investment. Loss of confidence in that sector would cripple the economy. Of course people like you can't see that can you. Narrow minded luddites, living in a communist fantasy land!

by Shell-y indeed Tue Feb 12, 2008 16:26

Maybe you've been living on mars for the last few years so you may have missed the rush of major oil companies trying to get a piece of the action from the government give-away of licences off the West and NW coasts,not to mention the recent majour finds of hydrocarbons in the Celtic sea by a consortium led by Tony O'Reilly. Prospecting around the irish coasts is driven by the international price of oil on the markets hence all the activity in recent years around our coast. Sadly thanx to the shamefull giveaway of these multi-billion euros resources the irish people will get all the disadvanteges of this dirty industry as opposed to the benefits will be exclusivly reaped by the likes of Shell and the Norwegian public.

PS - The new frontier for oil and gas exploaration is the Rockall basin hence the made rush by other countries such as Norway, Iceland and britain to claim it.

by Shelly Tue Feb 12, 2008 15:06

You forgot to mention Irish exploration track record of 1 well in 50 being commercially viable. Given that drilling for a well offshore carries a multi-million euro investment with no returns if the well is a duster, its little wonder the Irish government introduced those licensing terms. It makes perfect sense to anyone that is not hell bent on courting the media at every turn to further their own narrow minded ends!

I would like to hear a retort to my argument that can rebuke the poor exploration track record, not one that is loaded with anti-capitalist dogma. I doubt that is possible here though.