Shell to Sea

Started by blast05, August 21, 2008, 11:09:36 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

manfromdelmonte

Quote from: From the Bunker on January 02, 2016, 06:11:31 PM
Ah sure isn't it great to see so many people get employment in an area with no chance of work otherwise?

Just think of all the TAX this will bring in in revenue to the country.

Oh the good days are rolling!
Will nobody think of the garda overtime!

From the Bunker

#451
Quote from: manfromdelmonte on January 02, 2016, 06:16:00 PM
Quote from: From the Bunker on January 02, 2016, 06:11:31 PM
Ah sure isn't it great to see so many people get employment in an area with no chance of work otherwise?

Just think of all the TAX this will bring in in revenue to the country.

Oh the good days are rolling!
Will nobody think of the garda overtime!

Not to mention the improved roads in the locality! I hear the Shell boys throw a great Christmas Party as well! Can't see where all this negativity is coming from? People against progression I suppose?


magpie seanie

#453
EDITED - I had read the article incorrectly last evening and today.

guy crouchback

if anything this decision puts to bed the argument that we were selling the family silver.


manfromdelmonte

they'll get a tax right off or something

I'm sure Shell will be ok

Hardy

Quote from: manfromdelmonte on July 14, 2017, 01:34:08 PM
they'll get a tax right off or something

I'm sure Shell will be ok

That's hardly the point. It's not often we're able to say a government policy (whether nobly conceived or otherwise) has been so clearly vindicated. If, as various shades of opinion across the political spectrum screamed and demanded, Shell had been saddled with a heavy tax burden, this project would never have been undertaken. The field would never have been explored and we wouldn't know whether or not viable deposits exist there.

If, as the more loonie Stalinists demanded, the state had undertaken the exploration, the 1Bn loss (probably more like 10Bn, given the relative efficiences of state vs. private enterprises) would not have been Shell's, but the Irish state's. And we couldn't have written it off against tax.

So thanks, Shell, even though your efforts were not motivated by generosity. Problem is, the terms for the next company that offers to explore off our coast will have to be more attractive than those given to Shell, if we're ever to establish, without bankrupting the state, whether or not we have viable fossil fuel resources.

magpie seanie

All this shows is a poorly managed and planned project will still lose money even if it seems impossible to do so. This project was clearly flawed from the start and that has undoubtedly caused huge losses that were very avoidable. How come Shell only have a 45% stake in the Corrib Field to sell though? I think these backs of an envelope calculations of profit and loss might not be entirely telling the full story.

Sorry Hardy but to say government policy has been vindicated because of this article is simply a ridiculous comment. Statoil are happy enough to remain involved. So are the Canadian buyers of this stake. Someone's making money and it isn't our government (well the Gardaí and the contractors they protected made shit loads of cash as well).

macdanger2

Quote from: magpie seanie on July 14, 2017, 04:19:56 PM
All this shows is a poorly managed and planned project will still lose money even if it seems impossible to do so. This project was clearly flawed from the start and that has undoubtedly caused huge losses that were very avoidable. How come Shell only have a 45% stake in the Corrib Field to sell though? I think these backs of an envelope calculations of profit and loss might not be entirely telling the full story.

Sorry Hardy but to say government policy has been vindicated because of this article is simply a ridiculous comment. Statoil are happy enough to remain involved. So are the Canadian buyers of this stake. Someone's making money and it isn't our government (well the Gardaí and the contractors they protected made shit loads of cash as well).

I agree completely. This in no way vindicates (ongoing)  govt policy

Hardy

#459
Quote from: magpie seanie on July 14, 2017, 04:19:56 PM
All this shows is a poorly managed and planned project will still lose money even if it seems impossible to do so. This project was clearly flawed from the start and that has undoubtedly caused huge losses that were very avoidable. How come Shell only have a 45% stake in the Corrib Field to sell though? I think these backs of an envelope calculations of profit and loss might not be entirely telling the full story.

Sorry Hardy but to say government policy has been vindicated because of this article is simply a ridiculous comment. Statoil are happy enough to remain involved. So are the Canadian buyers of this stake. Someone's making money and it isn't our government (well the Gardaí and the contractors they protected made shit loads of cash as well).

OK, to call this one example a vindication might be a bit strong, but there's absolutely no doubt that it would be lunatic for the state to embark on speculative exploration. And the taxi-driver analysis we hear all the time about taxing the arse out of companies who might be interested in exploring our waters for resources is ludicrous. The proof of that is very simple - if we're giving the oil and gas companies a bonanza with cut price access to our teeming resources, where are they all?

No government can get away with taxing losses. And exploration is loss-making until the oil/gas starts to flow. We tax the arse out of them when there's something to tax. IF there's something to tax. When they've spent THEIR money, not ours to find out if there's anything there.

In the meantime, we give them tax incentives to take the risk of exploring, so that we don't have to bear the cost ourselves. That's exactly the right policy. That's how Norway did it and today I think the Norwegian exchequer gets 70% of every oil dollar.

We could make the taxi drivers happy and never get the chance to exploit whatever wealth might be there. It would be economic nonsense, but we'd be able to say proudly that we never gave tax incentives to fat cat oil companies.

trileacman

I wouldn't bother arguing business or economics with the loony left hardy. Most of these f**kers haven't worked a day in their lives.
Fantasy Rugby World Cup Champion 2011,
Fantasy 6 Nations Champion 2014

magpie seanie

Quote from: trileacman on July 15, 2017, 10:47:31 AM
I wouldn't bother arguing business or economics with the loony left hardy. Most of these f**kers haven't worked a day in their lives.

Who are you referring to?

magpie seanie

Quote from: Hardy on July 15, 2017, 10:32:24 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on July 14, 2017, 04:19:56 PM
All this shows is a poorly managed and planned project will still lose money even if it seems impossible to do so. This project was clearly flawed from the start and that has undoubtedly caused huge losses that were very avoidable. How come Shell only have a 45% stake in the Corrib Field to sell though? I think these backs of an envelope calculations of profit and loss might not be entirely telling the full story.

Sorry Hardy but to say government policy has been vindicated because of this article is simply a ridiculous comment. Statoil are happy enough to remain involved. So are the Canadian buyers of this stake. Someone's making money and it isn't our government (well the Gardaí and the contractors they protected made shit loads of cash as well).

OK, to call this one example a vindication might be a bit strong, but there's absolutely no doubt that it would be lunatic for the state to embark on speculative exploration. And the taxi-driver analysis we hear all the time about taxing the arse out of companies who might be interested in exploring our waters for resources is ludicrous. The proof of that is very simple - if we're giving the oil and gas companies a bonanza with cut price access to our teeming resources, where are they all?

No government can get away with taxing losses. And exploration is loss-making until the oil/gas starts to flow. We tax the arse out of them when there's something to tax. IF there's something to tax. When they've spent THEIR money, not ours to find out if there's anything there.

In the meantime, we give them tax incentives to take the risk of exploring, so that we don't have to bear the cost ourselves. That's exactly the right policy. That's how Norway did it and today I think the Norwegian exchequer gets 70% of every oil dollar.

We could make the taxi drivers happy and never get the chance to exploit whatever wealth might be there. It would be economic nonsense, but we'd be able to say proudly that we never gave tax incentives to fat cat oil companies.

I haven't hear anyone suggesting anything other than a pretty high royalty on oil/gas income with possibly some equity in place of the tax breaks if successful like the Norwegian model. Anything else makes no sense. It's not just Corrib.....I'm sure Kinsale has seen a serious amount of funds leave the State that should have been captured by a sensible royalty regime. As the supply/demand equation continues to tilt and technology improves it will become more pressing......I say we sort it out now. We could put in place a proper rain day fund which would mean we'd be able for the next crash (which is undoubtedly coming as the same mistakes are getting repeated).

armaghniac

Quote from: Hardy on July 15, 2017, 10:32:24 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on July 14, 2017, 04:19:56 PM
All this shows is a poorly managed and planned project will still lose money even if it seems impossible to do so. This project was clearly flawed from the start and that has undoubtedly caused huge losses that were very avoidable. How come Shell only have a 45% stake in the Corrib Field to sell though? I think these backs of an envelope calculations of profit and loss might not be entirely telling the full story.

Sorry Hardy but to say government policy has been vindicated because of this article is simply a ridiculous comment. Statoil are happy enough to remain involved. So are the Canadian buyers of this stake. Someone's making money and it isn't our government (well the Gardaí and the contractors they protected made shit loads of cash as well).

OK, to call this one example a vindication might be a bit strong, but there's absolutely no doubt that it would be lunatic for the state to embark on speculative exploration. And the taxi-driver analysis we hear all the time about taxing the arse out of companies who might be interested in exploring our waters for resources is ludicrous. The proof of that is very simple - if we're giving the oil and gas companies a bonanza with cut price access to our teeming resources, where are they all?

No government can get away with taxing losses. And exploration is loss-making until the oil/gas starts to flow. We tax the arse out of them when there's something to tax. IF there's something to tax. When they've spent THEIR money, not ours to find out if there's anything there.

In the meantime, we give them tax incentives to take the risk of exploring, so that we don't have to bear the cost ourselves. That's exactly the right policy. That's how Norway did it and today I think the Norwegian exchequer gets 70% of every oil dollar.

We could make the taxi drivers happy and never get the chance to exploit whatever wealth might be there. It would be economic nonsense, but we'd be able to say proudly that we never gave tax incentives to fat cat oil companies.

The Canadians bought in when the hard work had been done.
Exploration in Irish waters has not been very successful, we have given away no bonanza so far. Sady. oil does not seem to as readily available as in Norway. If things improve, then the first companies who took the risk may do well and we can impose different terms on later entrants who are taking less risk.
If at first you don't succeed, then goto Plan B

macdanger2

Quote from: Hardy on July 15, 2017, 10:32:24 AM
Quote from: magpie seanie on July 14, 2017, 04:19:56 PM
All this shows is a poorly managed and planned project will still lose money even if it seems impossible to do so. This project was clearly flawed from the start and that has undoubtedly caused huge losses that were very avoidable. How come Shell only have a 45% stake in the Corrib Field to sell though? I think these backs of an envelope calculations of profit and loss might not be entirely telling the full story.

Sorry Hardy but to say government policy has been vindicated because of this article is simply a ridiculous comment. Statoil are happy enough to remain involved. So are the Canadian buyers of this stake. Someone's making money and it isn't our government (well the Gardaí and the contractors they protected made shit loads of cash as well).

OK, to call this one example a vindication might be a bit strong, but there's absolutely no doubt that it would be lunatic for the state to embark on speculative exploration. And the taxi-driver analysis we hear all the time about taxing the arse out of companies who might be interested in exploring our waters for resources is ludicrous. The proof of that is very simple - if we're giving the oil and gas companies a bonanza with cut price access to our teeming resources, where are they all?

No government can get away with taxing losses. And exploration is loss-making until the oil/gas starts to flow. We tax the arse out of them when there's something to tax. IF there's something to tax. When they've spent THEIR money, not ours to find out if there's anything there.

In the meantime, we give them tax incentives to take the risk of exploring, so that we don't have to bear the cost ourselves. That's exactly the right policy. That's how Norway did it and today I think the Norwegian exchequer gets 70% of every oil dollar.

We could make the taxi drivers happy and never get the chance to exploit whatever wealth might be there. It would be economic nonsense, but we'd be able to say proudly that we never gave tax incentives to fat cat oil companies.

Ireland offers the second most generous terms of any nation