As I understand it, the economics of building an offshore platform would make the entire endeavor uneconomic. Plus I don't think many would fancy working on an offshore platform on the bloody Atlantic seaboard.

The safety inspections have been done and signed off by the professionals and that's good enough for me. This is NIMBY-ism, hijacked by the usual leftie hippie loons pure and simple. We're not the first country in the world to build an on-shore gas pipeline.

We're the first to refine it onshore and pump it at such a high pressure so close to a civilian population as far as I understand it.

Apparently, offshore platforms are the norm for this type of operation, indeed the only way it has ever been done.

Not all gas discoveries are off-shore

Yes but that's not what we're talking about is it...

Go to corribsos.com for all the relevant, loony lefty background...

A few points on the matter

Why was that particular deal struck at that time (1994) by the government
- to secure a source of fuel
- to encourage other companies to follow suit
- to build some tax revenue
- to build local jobs near the find

The times have changed
- shell needs us more than we need shell (peak oil)
-- fewer new finds in the face of higher demand (growing demand from China)
-- friendly political environment (think BP's CEO in Russia, Nigerian oil rig pirates, Sharia law in Arab states and Chavez)
- we can keep the local employment as now that there is a secured find and some other company will move in with a lower initial investment cost.
- the replacement will still extract the gas into the Irish grid.
- Ireland will get far more in taxes and rent in a time when it needs it.
- local jobs will be a necessity and condition of future licences. (the replacement will not get Shell's licence but will have to get a new one).

The lynch pin
- the corrib licence is not valid as clause 13.2.a from Act No. 7/1960 * is not satisfied, this is the act under which the licence was awarded to Enterprise Oil (since bought by Shell) . The "such ways" in the act refers to the such ways as stated earlier in that same clause not anything that enters the Minister's mind. And "petroleum" includes natural gas.

And don't go thinking that Act No. 9/1992: 251.55 ** gets them out of it. It just allows the Minister to give them short fall money and has nothing to do with avoiding their obligations under Act No. 7/1960.

We currently only gain directly from Shell in corporation and capital gains tax, which their expert accountants are reducing to nil as we speak. These taxes (CT/CGT) are not fines, preliminary payment(s) or rent (royalty rent) as stated in the act. This is why the licence cannot be disclosed to the public as all involved know that it is illegal, a bit of old school governmental secrecy. I wonder how quickly they will write in a £1 rent clause into the old licence contract, of course they will have to show that that money was paid at the time of issuance of the licence by Enterprise Oil. I doubt if any bank in this climate is willing to throw their neck on the block to 'find' such a payment in the face of their mortgage holders who will benefit from the voiding of the licence.

The situation is a face off between Shell and Ireland. Shell says that if they go then no OPEC supporting company will replace them. Call their bluff. They will loose the licence as it is invalid in a court of law and their buddies will stab them in the back in a heart beat. Once the replacement company gets one well going, then getting investment into researching other close-by possibilities, in a peak oil era, will be a piece of piss. And then we are in the money.

So it is time to grow a pair and harness that dragon for our benefit (and its too).



*Act No. 7/1960: 13.2.a
13. —
(2) The following provisions shall apply in relation to every petroleum lease—
( a ) such lease shall be made subject to the payment to the Minister of such moneys, whether by way of fine or preliminary payment or by way of rent (including a royalty rent) or by any or all of such ways as the Minister, with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance, shall think proper and shall agree upon with the lessee
http://acts.oireachtas.ie/zza7y1960.5.html
http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/Natural/Petrole ... lications/


**Act No. 9/1992: 251.55
If the total amount paid by the lessee under a petroleum lease as such lessee in respect of rent, royalties, income-tax, sur-tax, corporation profits tax and rates for any period exceeds such amount as the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, may determine, a payment, equal to the excess, may be paid by the Minister for Finance out of the Central Fund or the growing produce thereof for the purpose of payment to the lessee.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1992/en/ ... 9y1992s251


P.S.


How can we nationalise our tiny offshore reserves when they are already ours?

Its really late so I'm just going to attempt to answer some of the points.

Shell needs us more than we need them due to peak oil. Am, I think you have this the other way around. Ireland besides Corrib has little to no proven oil reserves. Shell have plenty around the world. We need to get our energy from someone place. Currently we are at the end of a very long line of gas supply from either Norway via the UK or Russia again via the UK. Peak oil means that Ireland as a nation are the ones in a tight spot. How do you see this as an advantage.

"Friendly political environment".
Surely you are joking here. Are you not the one stating that we renege on our license agreement with Shell. How do you consider this friendly or stable??? What your proposing has not happened anywhere in Europe that I know of. If you can find an example of this in Norway, the UK, Denmark or Holland I will be AMAZED.
You are proposing we renege on a binding contract with an oil company who have paid us Licensing fee's since 1994 but as soon as they find something we should take it off them. Do you realise the damage internationally this will do to our credibility within the oil community. NOONE will EVER come to drill here again, EVER!!! Mark my words. Yes we may have 15 to 20 years of gas supplies for 70% of our economy but what then. This would be short term gain at a huge expense.
Also, does the IDA not travel the world canvassing to every major international company that Ireland is the place to do business. Low taxes, free market. Mimimum regulation, low taxes. What kind of a sign would this send out to how we do business.





As I have stated numerous times, we only realised we had these reservers when someone else found it for us. If you really think there is more just waiting to be found, let me know where it is and we can set up a company to go and drill for it. It must be that easy right!!!
If it wasn't for Shell and other companies willing to sink massive sums of money into prospecting for oil and gas it would stay in the ground FOREVER!!!!

If this is the way people expect Ireland to behave, why not nationise the Gold found up in Co Monaghan a few months back. Hey it must be ours right. Why let some greedy company come in and take our natural resouces like that. Think of all the hospitals, roads and schools we could build......
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0701/monaghan.html

Just let me know where this would stop in your new USSROI

What's wrong with NIMBYism?

There were no NIMBYs in the old communist regimes, the state just did what it liked.

Is that what you prefer?

Am I the only cynic who thinks that if Shell had originally planned a terminal out to sea that there would have been a "Shell To Land" campaign, opposing pollution of the sea etc - probably featuring the same cast as the present "Shell to Sea" campaign?

db (who's in favour of lot of the "tree-hugging hippy crap", strangely enough)

lets protect Shell interests at all costs but f#$k the fisherman seems to be the motto of the govt response.

It appears that the Irish navy were called into action last week during the protests. A naval gunship is on patrol in the bay to protect Shell interests from all the tree huggers and Mayo grandmothers.
Which is a mystery to alot of Irish fisherman as a few years back when they were being harassed and sometimes rammed at sea by much larger Spanish and French super-trawlers and called for the Irish navy to be posted in the area of their fishing beds to protect them their request was rejected. Guess it wasnt in the national interest .

I think I know your response oilking.. we should be grateful Shell are here at all.

Do you think the average Nigerian should be grateful that Shell are in their country too. As far as im aware the standard of living of the average Nigerian has decreased in the last 15 years year on year. Its inversely proportional to the income that country has recieved from its oil boom. Where has all the money gone. I guess they should be grateful Shell even took notice they exist.

I think you are the Country Tom of the oil industry, evidently a VI for that industry.

I think you owe an apology to all those in the naval service who often risk their lives to serve this country. And I also think you know f**k all about fishermen other than what you read on Indymedia.

It's their job. Nobody is forced into the Army, Navy ( ), cops, etc,. If they don't want the risks then they should choose another career.

And they get bloody well paid for it too.

My job doesn't ask me to potentially lay down my life for the greater good. Maybe Bostonorberlin could join if he is so interested in defending this country and the integrity our national resources. Unfurl the red banner from the top of the LE Eithne, that sort of thing.

Corruption in Nigeria isnt shells fault same applies here.

Any of the Corrib boosters out there tell us what is the upside of Shells refinery? The downsides have been fairly well annunciated by Shell to Sea etc but the booster arguments seem to be mostly of the law and order variety spiced up with reactionary anti 'protester' ideology. The 'damage' to our reputation by breaking a contract with one of the worlds preeminent polluters and purveyors of corrupt payments is not significant if the original deal was corrupt. Messrs Burke and Ahearn probably ensured that it was.