Shell to Sea

[Mayo4Sam]

Muppet, they are not getting the gas for nothing. They will pay 25% on their profits.

Hardy I pay 52% on my 'profits' and I don't get €50bn free raw material to start with.

Sorry, Muppet, but you'll have to explain to a simpleton like me how 25% tax on all profits made from the gas amounts to "nothing, nada, not a single cent for the gas".

I know you're suggesting that the gas should be treated as a raw material that they should buy from us, the owners, and that they should then pay corporation tax on the profits they make from processing this raw material into a product. There's no problem with that economic model, but we're not debating the model. We're talking about what's the maximum you can get from Shell  for extracting gas from our fields, before they'll feck off somewhere else.

All you're doing is putting different names on the moneys you charge. If €Z is the maximum amount you can get per cubic metre from Shell, you won't fool them by charging €X for the gas and €Y in tax if X+Y>Z.

I find it interesting how many people here are deeply concerned at the financial risks to the oil industry, and prioritise those risks above their own as taxpayers. Fascinating.

Ah come on. You're better than that.

Charging a tax on profits is what we do to all businesses and individuals. This is not charging them for the raw material, it is a tax on profits.

Norway charged royalties in the beginning and then changed to 78% tax on profits once they were established. Why do you continually ignore this?

It think the biggest difference between is is that I see the 'They will feck off somewhere else' argument as a straw man. I say 'so what?' you and the others here seem to think that is a very bad thing.

Absolutely, oil and gas will not always be the energy overlord it is now, you talk about leaving it in the ground for 20 years, that is huge length of time in an evolving market

[muppet]

Muppet, they are not getting the gas for nothing. They will pay 25% on their profits.

Hardy I pay 52% on my 'profits' and I don't get €50bn free raw material to start with.

Sorry, Muppet, but you'll have to explain to a simpleton like me how 25% tax on all profits made from the gas amounts to "nothing, nada, not a single cent for the gas".

I know you're suggesting that the gas should be treated as a raw material that they should buy from us, the owners, and that they should then pay corporation tax on the profits they make from processing this raw material into a product. There's no problem with that economic model, but we're not debating the model. We're talking about what's the maximum you can get from Shell  for extracting gas from our fields, before they'll feck off somewhere else.

All you're doing is putting different names on the moneys you charge. If €Z is the maximum amount you can get per cubic metre from Shell, you won't fool them by charging €X for the gas and €Y in tax if X+Y>Z.

I find it interesting how many people here are deeply concerned at the financial risks to the oil industry, and prioritise those risks above their own as taxpayers. Fascinating.

Ah come on. You're better than that.

Charging a tax on profits is what we do to all businesses and individuals. This is not charging them for the raw material, it is a tax on profits.

Norway charged royalties in the beginning and then changed to 78% tax on profits once they were established. Why do you continually ignore this?

It think the biggest difference between is is that I see the 'They will feck off somewhere else' argument as a straw man. I say 'so what?' you and the others here seem to think that is a very bad thing.

Absolutely, oil and gas will not always be the energy overlord it is now, you talk about leaving it in the ground for 20 years, that is huge length of time in an evolving market

I am really talking about leaving it until we have leaders with the integrity and ability to derive some proper value for the taxpayer.

Suitcases of sterling won on the horses would be exactly what I am not talking about.

[Hardy]

Muppet, they are not getting the gas for nothing. They will pay 25% on their profits.

Hardy I pay 52% on my 'profits' and I don't get €50bn free raw material to start with.

Sorry, Muppet, but you'll have to explain to a simpleton like me how 25% tax on all profits made from the gas amounts to "nothing, nada, not a single cent for the gas".

I know you're suggesting that the gas should be treated as a raw material that they should buy from us, the owners, and that they should then pay corporation tax on the profits they make from processing this raw material into a product. There's no problem with that economic model, but we're not debating the model. We're talking about what's the maximum you can get from Shell  for extracting gas from our fields, before they'll feck off somewhere else.

All you're doing is putting different names on the moneys you charge. If €Z is the maximum amount you can get per cubic metre from Shell, you won't fool them by charging €X for the gas and €Y in tax if X+Y>Z.

I find it interesting how many people here are deeply concerned at the financial risks to the oil industry, and prioritise those risks above their own as taxpayers. Fascinating.

Ah come on. You're better than that.

Charging a tax on profits is what we do to all businesses and individuals. This is not charging them for the raw material, it is a tax on profits.

Norway charged royalties in the beginning and then changed to 78% tax on profits once they were established. Why do you continually ignore this?

It think the biggest difference between is is that I see the 'They will feck off somewhere else' argument as a straw man. I say 'so what?' you and the others here seem to think that is a very bad thing.

I give up Muppet. You're determined not to see even one of anybody else's points. You're going beyond that to the perverse when you start mis-characterising what I say.

Royalties, 78%, 25% etc., etc. are only meaningless numbers when out of context. Ridiculous over-simplifications to the point of nonsense are no contribution to the debate - as in your 'so what' point.

Don't bother responding to this unless it's to address my substantive argument that (1) Shell or nobody else will develop our resources unless there is a profit incentive for them and that (2) it would be lunacy for us to assume the exploration risk ourselves.

That's the 'what' - we'll succeed only in leaving the gas in the ground and our dog firmly in his manger. But, to paraphrase yourself - that won't be a bad thing. At least we won't have given handouts to oil companies. The taxi drivers of Ireland will approve.

[Mayo4Sam]

Muppet, they are not getting the gas for nothing. They will pay 25% on their profits.

Hardy I pay 52% on my 'profits' and I don't get €50bn free raw material to start with.

Sorry, Muppet, but you'll have to explain to a simpleton like me how 25% tax on all profits made from the gas amounts to "nothing, nada, not a single cent for the gas".

I know you're suggesting that the gas should be treated as a raw material that they should buy from us, the owners, and that they should then pay corporation tax on the profits they make from processing this raw material into a product. There's no problem with that economic model, but we're not debating the model. We're talking about what's the maximum you can get from Shell  for extracting gas from our fields, before they'll feck off somewhere else.

All you're doing is putting different names on the moneys you charge. If €Z is the maximum amount you can get per cubic metre from Shell, you won't fool them by charging €X for the gas and €Y in tax if X+Y>Z.

I find it interesting how many people here are deeply concerned at the financial risks to the oil industry, and prioritise those risks above their own as taxpayers. Fascinating.

Ah come on. You're better than that.

Charging a tax on profits is what we do to all businesses and individuals. This is not charging them for the raw material, it is a tax on profits.

Norway charged royalties in the beginning and then changed to 78% tax on profits once they were established. Why do you continually ignore this?

It think the biggest difference between is is that I see the 'They will feck off somewhere else' argument as a straw man. I say 'so what?' you and the others here seem to think that is a very bad thing.

Absolutely, oil and gas will not always be the energy overlord it is now, you talk about leaving it in the ground for 20 years, that is huge length of time in an evolving market

I am really talking about leaving it until we have leaders with the integrity and ability to derive some proper value for the taxpayer.

Suitcases of sterling won on the horses would be exactly what I am not talking about.

Hah, in the next 20 years, now u really are taking the piss. We've more of a chance of cold fusion or http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Hydrinos_explained.html

[muppet]

Muppet, they are not getting the gas for nothing. They will pay 25% on their profits.

Hardy I pay 52% on my 'profits' and I don't get €50bn free raw material to start with.

Sorry, Muppet, but you'll have to explain to a simpleton like me how 25% tax on all profits made from the gas amounts to "nothing, nada, not a single cent for the gas".

I know you're suggesting that the gas should be treated as a raw material that they should buy from us, the owners, and that they should then pay corporation tax on the profits they make from processing this raw material into a product. There's no problem with that economic model, but we're not debating the model. We're talking about what's the maximum you can get from Shell  for extracting gas from our fields, before they'll feck off somewhere else.

All you're doing is putting different names on the moneys you charge. If €Z is the maximum amount you can get per cubic metre from Shell, you won't fool them by charging €X for the gas and €Y in tax if X+Y>Z.

I find it interesting how many people here are deeply concerned at the financial risks to the oil industry, and prioritise those risks above their own as taxpayers. Fascinating.

Ah come on. You're better than that.

Charging a tax on profits is what we do to all businesses and individuals. This is not charging them for the raw material, it is a tax on profits.

Norway charged royalties in the beginning and then changed to 78% tax on profits once they were established. Why do you continually ignore this?

It think the biggest difference between is is that I see the 'They will feck off somewhere else' argument as a straw man. I say 'so what?' you and the others here seem to think that is a very bad thing.

I give up Muppet. You're determined not to see even one of anybody else's points. You're going beyond that to the perverse when you start mis-characterising what I say.

Royalties, 78%, 25% etc., etc. are only meaningless numbers when out of context. Ridiculous over-simplifications to the point of nonsense are no contribution to the debate - as in your 'so what' point.

Don't bother responding to this unless it's to address my substantive argument that (1) Shell or nobody else will develop our resources unless there is a profit incentive for them and that (2) it would be lunacy for us to assume the exploration risk ourselves.

That's the 'what' - we'll succeed only in leaving the gas in the ground and our dog firmly in his manger. But, to paraphrase yourself - that won't be a bad thing. At least we won't have given handouts to oil companies. The taxi drivers of Ireland will approve.

(1) Shell or nobody else will develop our resources unless there is a profit incentive for them

I am not disputing this. That is why they are here. That is why they have flashed the cash in Mayo after their disastrous entry and also why, I presume, they have even hinted at pulling out considering nearly a decade of non-production. They will make a fortune. And they were not even involved in the exploration.

(2) it would be lunacy for us to assume the exploration risk ourselves.

Probably. But we will pay for all cost of extraction regardless.

Shell were not the exploration company. Shell bought them out once there was a find. Shell didn't take the extreme 1/32 drilling risks that was mentioned above. Your deep concern for Shell's risk taking is imho misguided.


All I am saying is that we should have a bit more regard for ourselves and hold out for better deals. Why must we do anything we can to get a dance? The terms we offer are only matched in Nigeria. Should that not ring a few alarm bells considering who negotiated the terms on our behalves?

[muppet]

Muppet, they are not getting the gas for nothing. They will pay 25% on their profits.

Hardy I pay 52% on my 'profits' and I don't get €50bn free raw material to start with.

Sorry, Muppet, but you'll have to explain to a simpleton like me how 25% tax on all profits made from the gas amounts to "nothing, nada, not a single cent for the gas".

I know you're suggesting that the gas should be treated as a raw material that they should buy from us, the owners, and that they should then pay corporation tax on the profits they make from processing this raw material into a product. There's no problem with that economic model, but we're not debating the model. We're talking about what's the maximum you can get from Shell  for extracting gas from our fields, before they'll feck off somewhere else.

All you're doing is putting different names on the moneys you charge. If €Z is the maximum amount you can get per cubic metre from Shell, you won't fool them by charging €X for the gas and €Y in tax if X+Y>Z.

I find it interesting how many people here are deeply concerned at the financial risks to the oil industry, and prioritise those risks above their own as taxpayers. Fascinating.

Ah come on. You're better than that.

Charging a tax on profits is what we do to all businesses and individuals. This is not charging them for the raw material, it is a tax on profits.

Norway charged royalties in the beginning and then changed to 78% tax on profits once they were established. Why do you continually ignore this?

It think the biggest difference between is is that I see the 'They will feck off somewhere else' argument as a straw man. I say 'so what?' you and the others here seem to think that is a very bad thing.

Absolutely, oil and gas will not always be the energy overlord it is now, you talk about leaving it in the ground for 20 years, that is huge length of time in an evolving market

I am really talking about leaving it until we have leaders with the integrity and ability to derive some proper value for the taxpayer.

Suitcases of sterling won on the horses would be exactly what I am not talking about.

Hah, in the next 20 years, now u really are taking the piss. We've more of a chance of cold fusion or http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Hydrinos_explained.html

Sadly I probably agree with you on that, but it doesn't mean I can't hope.

[Hardy]

Muppet, they are not getting the gas for nothing. They will pay 25% on their profits.

Hardy I pay 52% on my 'profits' and I don't get €50bn free raw material to start with.

Sorry, Muppet, but you'll have to explain to a simpleton like me how 25% tax on all profits made from the gas amounts to "nothing, nada, not a single cent for the gas".

I know you're suggesting that the gas should be treated as a raw material that they should buy from us, the owners, and that they should then pay corporation tax on the profits they make from processing this raw material into a product. There's no problem with that economic model, but we're not debating the model. We're talking about what's the maximum you can get from Shell  for extracting gas from our fields, before they'll feck off somewhere else.

All you're doing is putting different names on the moneys you charge. If €Z is the maximum amount you can get per cubic metre from Shell, you won't fool them by charging €X for the gas and €Y in tax if X+Y>Z.

I find it interesting how many people here are deeply concerned at the financial risks to the oil industry, and prioritise those risks above their own as taxpayers. Fascinating.

Ah come on. You're better than that.

Charging a tax on profits is what we do to all businesses and individuals. This is not charging them for the raw material, it is a tax on profits.

Norway charged royalties in the beginning and then changed to 78% tax on profits once they were established. Why do you continually ignore this?

It think the biggest difference between is is that I see the 'They will feck off somewhere else' argument as a straw man. I say 'so what?' you and the others here seem to think that is a very bad thing.

I give up Muppet. You're determined not to see even one of anybody else's points. You're going beyond that to the perverse when you start mis-characterising what I say.

Royalties, 78%, 25% etc., etc. are only meaningless numbers when out of context. Ridiculous over-simplifications to the point of nonsense are no contribution to the debate - as in your 'so what' point.

Don't bother responding to this unless it's to address my substantive argument that (1) Shell or nobody else will develop our resources unless there is a profit incentive for them and that (2) it would be lunacy for us to assume the exploration risk ourselves.

That's the 'what' - we'll succeed only in leaving the gas in the ground and our dog firmly in his manger. But, to paraphrase yourself - that won't be a bad thing. At least we won't have given handouts to oil companies. The taxi drivers of Ireland will approve.

(1) Shell or nobody else will develop our resources unless there is a profit incentive for them

I am not disputing this. That is why they are here. That is why they have flashed the cash in Mayo after their disastrous entry and also why, I presume, they have even hinted at pulling out considering nearly a decade of non-production. They will make a fortune. And they were not even involved in the exploration.

(2) it would be lunacy for us to assume the exploration risk ourselves.

Probably. But we will pay for all cost of extraction regardless.

Shell were not the exploration company. Shell bought them out once there was a find. Shell didn't take the extreme 1/32 drilling risks that was mentioned above. Your deep concern for Shell's risk taking is imho misguided.


All I am saying is that we should have a bit more regard for ourselves and hold out for better deals. Why must we do anything we can to get a dance? The terms we offer are only matched in Nigeria. Should that not ring a few alarm bells considering who negotiated the terms on our behalves?

There you go again. I'm out.

[muppet]

Muppet, they are not getting the gas for nothing. They will pay 25% on their profits.

Hardy I pay 52% on my 'profits' and I don't get €50bn free raw material to start with.

Sorry, Muppet, but you'll have to explain to a simpleton like me how 25% tax on all profits made from the gas amounts to "nothing, nada, not a single cent for the gas".

I know you're suggesting that the gas should be treated as a raw material that they should buy from us, the owners, and that they should then pay corporation tax on the profits they make from processing this raw material into a product. There's no problem with that economic model, but we're not debating the model. We're talking about what's the maximum you can get from Shell  for extracting gas from our fields, before they'll feck off somewhere else.

All you're doing is putting different names on the moneys you charge. If €Z is the maximum amount you can get per cubic metre from Shell, you won't fool them by charging €X for the gas and €Y in tax if X+Y>Z.

I find it interesting how many people here are deeply concerned at the financial risks to the oil industry, and prioritise those risks above their own as taxpayers. Fascinating.

Ah come on. You're better than that.

Charging a tax on profits is what we do to all businesses and individuals. This is not charging them for the raw material, it is a tax on profits.

Norway charged royalties in the beginning and then changed to 78% tax on profits once they were established. Why do you continually ignore this?

It think the biggest difference between is is that I see the 'They will feck off somewhere else' argument as a straw man. I say 'so what?' you and the others here seem to think that is a very bad thing.

I give up Muppet. You're determined not to see even one of anybody else's points. You're going beyond that to the perverse when you start mis-characterising what I say.

Royalties, 78%, 25% etc., etc. are only meaningless numbers when out of context. Ridiculous over-simplifications to the point of nonsense are no contribution to the debate - as in your 'so what' point.

Don't bother responding to this unless it's to address my substantive argument that (1) Shell or nobody else will develop our resources unless there is a profit incentive for them and that (2) it would be lunacy for us to assume the exploration risk ourselves.

That's the 'what' - we'll succeed only in leaving the gas in the ground and our dog firmly in his manger. But, to paraphrase yourself - that won't be a bad thing. At least we won't have given handouts to oil companies. The taxi drivers of Ireland will approve.

(1) Shell or nobody else will develop our resources unless there is a profit incentive for them

I am not disputing this. That is why they are here. That is why they have flashed the cash in Mayo after their disastrous entry and also why, I presume, they have even hinted at pulling out considering nearly a decade of non-production. They will make a fortune. And they were not even involved in the exploration.

(2) it would be lunacy for us to assume the exploration risk ourselves.

Probably. But we will pay for all cost of extraction regardless.

Shell were not the exploration company. Shell bought them out once there was a find. Shell didn't take the extreme 1/32 drilling risks that was mentioned above. Your deep concern for Shell's risk taking is imho misguided.


All I am saying is that we should have a bit more regard for ourselves and hold out for better deals. Why must we do anything we can to get a dance? The terms we offer are only matched in Nigeria. Should that not ring a few alarm bells considering who negotiated the terms on our behalves?

There you go again. I'm out.

" We're talking about what's the maximum you can get from Shell  for extracting gas from our fields, before they'll feck off somewhere else.

All you're doing is putting different names on the moneys you charge. If €Z is the maximum amount you can get per cubic metre from Shell, you won't fool them by charging €X for the gas and €Y in tax if X+Y>Z."

You have argued this throughout from the point of view of ensuring Shell's comfort: 'before they'll feck off somewhere else.'

Am I misreading this?

As I pointed out, they are not the big risk takers. That happened before Shell got involved.

[Hardy]

Muppet, stop trivialising the discussion by making up arguments to win and characterising them as mine. You don't genuinely think I'm concerned about Shell's comfort. You certainly can't think it after I've explained the substantive point for the fifth time. So please stop stating it.

But, on the off chance you've missed the point, replace Shell (and everyone else by the same argument) "fecking off somewhere else" with our not getting the gas revenues (because, forgive the repetition for clarity, it would be lunacy to try to do it ourselves).

I missed the point that Shell was not the explorer, but it's neither here nor there. By definition, Shell paid the exploration price when they bought out the exploration company.

[Mayo4Sam]

Exactly, it has nothing to do with the agreement.
Yes some other entity took the risk on exploration, they were repaid for this risk when shell bought the rights, therefore Shell paid for that risk being taken.

"We will pay for all the costs of extraction" is just a statement with nothing to back it up.

We sell licences to explore, when there is a find this is extracted, we tax the profit

Mupper you never replied with a viable alternative, this is SF type arguing you're doing, for nothing and against everything. Improve the health service, improve the roads, improve social welfare, dont increase taxes, except on the rich.
There are a group of people that believe this is the most efficient way of maximising our benefits from our natural resources. If there is a viable alternative then lets hear it but i think its safe to say the Norwegian way is not a viable alternative, neither is an Irish state oil exploration company.

[muppet]

Muppet, stop trivialising the discussion by making up arguments to win and characterising them as mine. You don't genuinely think I'm concerned about Shell's comfort. You certainly can't think it after I've explained the substantive point for the fifth time. So please stop stating it.

But, on the off chance you've missed the point, replace Shell (and everyone else by the same argument) "fecking off somewhere else" with our not getting the gas revenues (because, forgive the repetition for clarity, it would be lunacy to try to do it ourselves).

I missed the point that Shell was not the explorer, but it's neither here nor there. By definition, Shell paid the exploration price when they bought out the exploration company.

The original explorer (I accept the name doesn't matter - but it has to be someone) who took on most of the risk was Enterprise Oil. This was a British State company (irony of ironies) set up to explore British Gas fields until Margaret Thatcher privatised it. Enterprise Oil  found the Corrib field. It was bought out in 2002 by Shell.

You argue that Shell paid the exploration price, which is certainly arguable. But at the time Enterprise Oil had 41 fields, and was sold for £3.5bn. Corrib was only one such field. I honestly have no idea how valuable the other fields were but I doubt the only value was in Corrib. Either way Shell knew exactly what they were getting into and were hardly taking a big risk. Again I agree the name Shell is irrelevant, but arguing that we must offer everything we have to incentivise exploration is moot in this case. The blind exploration was over.

Did you know that Shell can write off even the court costs awarded against it in the Rossport 5 case, against tax?

Just now I started Googling Brazil's recent oil finds.

It is embarrassing.

The Brazilian Libra field is in water 16.6 times deeper than Corrib (5000m versus 300m) and the Brazilians are 'auctioning' the rights to part of it. Shell is expected to be among the bidders

[gerrykeegan]

[/quote]


Did you know that Shell can write off even the court costs awarded against it in the Rossport 5 case, against tax?

[/quote]

Muppet any cost which is wholly and exclusively laid out or expended for the purposes of the trade or profession is allowed to be written off against tax in Ireland.

[muppet]

Did you know that Shell can write off even the court costs awarded against it in the Rossport 5 case, against tax?

[/quote]

Muppet any cost which is wholly and exclusively laid out or expended for the purposes of the trade or profession is allowed to be written off against tax in Ireland.
[/quote]

I know it wasn't a great point, but nicely fits the heads they win, tails you lose line.

Am I right in saying that most normal businesses cannot write off all Capital Expenditure against tax later?

[gerrykeegan]

Was your blank quote at the top of your reply a dig at the fact that I cannot for the life of me work the quote feature on this board after 7 years of the current board!

All allowable Capital expenditure is allowed to be written off against tax on profits over agreed periods (the term differs depending on the type of expenditure) they are called capital allowances. Even if you don't make a profit you can carry the "unused" allowances forward and write them off over future profits.

[muppet]

Was your blank quote at the top of your reply a dig at the fact that I cannot for the life of me work the quote feature on this board after 7 years of the current board!

All allowable Capital expenditure is allowed to be written off against tax on profits over agreed periods (the term differs depending on the type of expenditure) they are called capital allowances. Even if you don't make a profit you can carry the "unused" allowances forward and write them off over future profits.

We had this discussion much earlier on the thread.

My understanding is that Shell will not pay the 25% tax until all extraction costs have been deducted. So Ireland's 25% tax rate is along way off yielding any income.