Shell to Sea

[Billys Boots]

we only have a (relatively) small amount of land out at sea

What do you mean exactly by this?

[AbbeySider]

Planning permission finally received, about time

The problem with corrib is there are too many people who talk as if they know what's going on, the following are facts:
1. It takes €500 million to drill a trial well, Ireland doesn't have the money for this, so they, like other countries sell the exploration rights to companies like shell, shell drills, hopefully finds oil/gas and we tax that as it comes onshore. This is common practice throughout the world, we didn't give it away for free. The other model is a joint venture between state and an oil company, like statoil in Norway, not an option for us because we only have a (relatively) small amount of land out at sea, with little known about Atlantic reserves.
2. Shell followed our planning permission laws on pipes, to break it down pipes are designed on probability, chance that the pipe will fail multiplied by chance that life will be lost, for any pipe in Ireland you have to be below a certain number when u multiply these two. In shells case the chance of loss of life is way larger than ur standard pipe so the probability it will fail is way lower, it will literally be the safest pipe ever built in Ireland.
3. This gas is great from a security of supply perspective for Ireland, we're at the end of a very long line and if the tap is turned off we're first to go.

Well said Mayo4Sam. All the relevant permissions are now in place, this is a legally operating project , but the protests/ intimidation etc. will still go on. Witing for the backlash 1,2,3,4,5...

A little bird (and a good source) from up that way explained all the protests to me one day.
Apparently a ring leading prominent protester lost out on a personal payoff for pipes going through his land.

When I say his land, he doesnt exactly own it.
His parents own the land that he farms, and as his name is on not the deeds as it was not passed over to him yet as they are still alive.

This guy is apparently a big instigator who is miffed that he didnt receive money directly from shell. Touting things about safety and all that bulls**t argument is only a smokescreen for the truth that this guy wants a payoff.

But of course that all could be lies spun by Shell in a web of deceit. 

[An Gaeilgoir]

Planning permission finally received, about time

The problem with corrib is there are too many people who talk as if they know what's going on, the following are facts:
1. It takes €500 million to drill a trial well, Ireland doesn't have the money for this, so they, like other countries sell the exploration rights to companies like shell, shell drills, hopefully finds oil/gas and we tax that as it comes onshore. This is common practice throughout the world, we didn't give it away for free. The other model is a joint venture between state and an oil company, like statoil in Norway, not an option for us because we only have a (relatively) small amount of land out at sea, with little known about Atlantic reserves.
2. Shell followed our planning permission laws on pipes, to break it down pipes are designed on probability, chance that the pipe will fail multiplied by chance that life will be lost, for any pipe in Ireland you have to be below a certain number when u multiply these two. In shells case the chance of loss of life is way larger than ur standard pipe so the probability it will fail is way lower, it will literally be the safest pipe ever built in Ireland.
3. This gas is great from a security of supply perspective for Ireland, we're at the end of a very long line and if the tap is turned off we're first to go.

Well said Mayo4Sam. All the relevant permissions are now in place, this is a legally operating project , but the protests/ intimidation etc. will still go on. Witing for the backlash 1,2,3,4,5...

A little bird (and a good source) from up that way explained all the protests to me one day.
Apparently a ring leading prominent protester lost out on a personal payoff for pipes going through his land.

When I say his land, he doesnt exactly own it.
His parents own the land that he farms, and as his name is on not the deeds as it was not passed over to him yet as they are still alive.

This guy is apparently a big instigator who is miffed that he didnt receive money directly from shell. Touting things about safety and all that bulls**t argument is only a smokescreen for the truth that this guy wants a payoff.

But of course that all could be lies spun by Shell in a web of deceit. 

These protest, all about money, never . Heard the same thing about someone in the fishing industry down there who tried to claim some sort of compensation, it turned out the he had not fished for the seven previous 7 seasons and had only bought a boat 6 weeks before the claim for compo. went in.

[Mayo4Sam]

we only have a (relatively) small amount of land out at sea

What do you mean exactly by this?

I mean the sea bed that belongs to Ireland stretches out into the Atlantic and is small relative to say GB or Norway.
Also the sea is quiet deep and doesn't lend itself to drilling, it would be considered deep sea and is not financially viable to drill as there is little information and thus no indication of fossil fuels.

As a Mayoman I do feel sympathy for locals that genuinely feel their livelihood is being threatened, but IMHO there are few of these involved in these protests.

[ludermor]

Im not sure the money is that big an issue, anyone who wanted a payoff/compo got it. Shell have been throwing money around the last few years , something they didnt do at the start of the project.

[Mayo4Sam]

I'd tend to agree Luder, Shell made a lot of mistakes at the start by not discussing things with locals and finding a resolution rather than just bulldozing through.
Since they have done everything they can but the trouble had already started.

[muppet]

I'm thinking some of the lads here have seen some of that money.

As for Mayo4Sams 'facts':

1. "shell drills". Shell didn't even do the tests and as for "we didn't give it away for free". Yes we did. Why  would you state otherwise? It is a fact that we did not and will not charge for the gas. The will be a tax on the PROFITS only. If you think this is reasonable I'd like to do business with you.
2. You state that Shell followed the 'planning permission on pipes'. That is just one part of the story and even then Shell had to reduce the capacity dramatically.
3. 'If the tap is turned off we are the first to go". This is complete nonsense as if any producer such as Russia or Norway turns off the tap everyone on the pipeline goes, not just us. This gas is of benefit to Shell only and the 50 odd full time jobs that will remain. It makes no difference to Ireland whether the gas comes from the Corrib field or Siberia. Some return for the billions of euros of gas out there.

As for 'a little bird', well all I can say is that the money Shell has thrown around is obviously bearing fruit. History will be re-written and some local trouble-maker will be remembered as the cause of everything. The local crank seems to me to have been right on an awful lot of issues. He had a lot of victories against the poor unfortunate oil company that is here merely to bestow their charity upon us. 

The oil company wins in the end, as it always does.

'Se na Fianna Fooled'

[Mayo4Sam]

Muppet, like I stated there are two ways to explore for fossils fuels currently being used, the sale of exploration rights or the setting up of a joint venture. GB and Ireland are examples of selling exploration rights and taxing profits, joint ventures are in Norway, Brazil, Ghana. Would model would you have proposed?

Shell had to reduce capacity on the basis of public pressure on Planning, not on any actual fault in their design. You say this is only part of the story, what is the other part?

And as for security of supply, 60% of Ireland gas is used on electricity generation. It does matter where we get our gas from. EU directive 713/2009 sets out laws on security of supply, such as in the case of a gas shortage, where we are obliged to move full capacity from Corrib, service residential customers and then export the remainder to GB/Europe. Without Corrib we would be reliant on overflow from GB and in competition with mainland Europe for it.

If u think there is a different interpretation of this I'm open to hearing it.
Everything I've said is based on facts.

[Mayo4Sam]

And as for the "50 jobs" in my OPINION having gas in the west will attract a lot more jobs to the area due to decreased operating costs...............but thats just in my opinion.

And for the record in live in Knockmore, a good 40-50 miles from the pipeline

[muppet]

Muppet, like I stated there are two ways to explore for fossils fuels currently being used, the sale of exploration rights or the setting up of a joint venture. GB and Ireland are examples of selling exploration rights and taxing profits, joint ventures are in Norway, Brazil, Ghana. Would model would you have proposed?

I would not give away Billions of euros worth of a natural resource for free. 'There are currently two models' means nothing. New business models appear everywhere all the time as there is nothing preventing the creation of a new model. Also surely if Ghana can manage a joint-venture approach we could?

Shell had to reduce capacity on the basis of public pressure on Planning, not on any actual fault in their design. You say this is only part of the story, what is the other part?

What about Shell taking land off locals under a now illegal CPO? What about Shell and the courts jailing the Rossport 5 for protesting against that illegal CPO?

And as for security of supply, 60% of Ireland gas is used on electricity generation. It does matter where we get our gas from. EU directive 713/2009 sets out laws on security of supply, such as in the case of a gas shortage, where we are obliged to move full capacity from Corrib, service residential customers and then export the remainder to GB/Europe. Without Corrib we would be reliant on overflow from GB and in competition with mainland Europe for it.

If u think there is a different interpretation of this I'm open to hearing it.
Everything I've said is based on facts.

You will have to explain to me how that EU directive requires us to give our natural gas away for nothing, required us to give an illegal CPO to Shell and decides our planning laws for us. That EU directive appears to me to be a general policy, the words Shell, Corrib and even Ireland don't appear in the document.

Remember the two ministers chiefly involved in setting the terms for Shell and its predecessor who actually did the drilling? Where are they now?

None of that is to say we shouldn't extract the gas. However I find the stench of corruption overwhelming and I find it nauseating to blame the locals, especially by their own.

[Mayo4Sam]

If u can give me the answer to the first question or an example of how it is done differently anywhere in the world it would help.
Like I said it hasn't been given away for free and the model Ireland is using is one that is used throughout the world. Ghana can set up a JV because they have resource rich seas, something we do not, although more research may provide more details on this. Again it goes back to funding, if te government spent millions on exploration and found nothing there'd be complaints over that too.

How was the CPO illegal for Shell? It was granted by Mayo Co Co, the only authority that could grant it

The EU directive has to do with the security of supply issue, as I've stated, it sets out generalities over this matter to which, though not specifically named Ireland and Corrib are bound.

You have not come up with one reasonable alternative but rather spoken generally about us giving gas away for free, if you can come up with an alternative I'm happy to listen to it.
And for the record saying you would charge a company, such as shell for something which may or may not exist in viable quantities does not count as an alternative, there is a reason that there is no model like this in the world, because it would not be financially viable for Shell/BP etc to work like this n

[muppet]

If u can give me the answer to the first question or an example of how it is done differently anywhere in the world it would help.
Like I said it hasn't been given away for free and the model Ireland is using is one that is used throughout the world. Ghana can set up a JV because they have resource rich seas, something we do not, although more research may provide more details on this. Again it goes back to funding, if te government spent millions on exploration and found nothing there'd be complaints over that too.

How was the CPO illegal for Shell? It was granted by Mayo Co Co, the only authority that could grant it

The EU directive has to do with the security of supply issue, as I've stated, it sets out generalities over this matter to which, though not specifically named Ireland and Corrib are bound.

You have not come up with one reasonable alternative but rather spoken generally about us giving gas away for free, if you can come up with an alternative I'm happy to listen to it.
And for the record saying you would charge a company, such as shell for something which may or may not exist in viable quantities does not count as an alternative, there is a reason that there is no model like this in the world, because it would not be financially viable for Shell/BP etc to work like this n

Step 1. Rule out alternatives.
Step 2: Say 'ah well tell me how you would do it differently'.
Step 3. Reject all criticism and refer everyone back to step 1.

Fianna Fail 101.

You have not come up with one reasonable alternative but rather spoken generally about us giving gas away for free, if you can come up with an alternative I'm happy to listen to it

You denied we gave the gas away for free and now call it a generalism asking for an alternative while ruling out any alternative. Here is an alternative, leave it in the ground until a non-corrupt competent generation arrives instead of giving it away for nothing. Anything is a better alternative than giving it away for nothing.

And you are winding me up on the CPO. Abusing the law to take land off citizens illegally should go down as a very serious crime. Of course it was only the citizens who went to jail.

[ludermor]

Granting a CPO to a private company has only been done once ever in the history of the state and that was to Shell.
Id be surprised if the Co.Co could issue a CPO? Id imagine this would have to be issued by a government dept.

[Mayo4Sam]

So ur alternative is to leave it in the ground?

It'll do a lot of good there. I've stated the model we are using is widely used and is one of two models I know of, without any alternative being shown you don't have a leg to stand on.
Waffle and generalities don't get u far, "I don't know how you'd do it but definitely not like that"

[muppet]

There are two main areas of criticism regarding the Corrib gas field:

1. The terms of the License and the return to the exchequer.

In 1999 the total return to the exchequer (actually it was made 'extra-exchequer') for the rent of all of the roughly 25 exploration sites, 5 exploration options and around 13 petroleum option sites and was £1,400,000.
http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/NR/rdonlyres/9E3C20D4-A51C-47ED-B28A-2CBC4E9182B6/0/FOI102007Report15.pdf
http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/NR/rdonlyres/512086F9-ECB9-4E2D-BD0C-E393D8D3A01D/0/FOI102007Report14.pdf

The terms of the rent were: £66 /sqkm rising to £264/ sqkm.

(In the case of the Corrib field this exploration was not carried out by Shell. Shell later acquired one of the companies involved and took over the operation.)

2. The conduct of Shell on its arrival and the design and implementation of the project.

Mayo4sams three facts are basically straw man arguments defending Shell from irrelevant allegations.

Fact 1. Shell weren't even involved in the exploration. The criticism at this stage is directed at two disgraced former minister for the terms they set on behalf of the State.
Fact 2. Defending the capacity of the pipeline only ignores the CPO issues, the Rossport 5 and the problems with the routing that were upheld by An Bord Pleanala. And it even ignores that the capacity had to be significantly reduced down to the max 110 bars it is today.
Fact 3. This is great for Ireland. Having a gas supply is a good thing. No doubt about it. However this does not justify all that happened, especially with regard to the two main criticisms I mention at the start of this post.