Shell to Sea

[muppet]

Those Gardaí should be fired - full stop.

A pair of goons.

There's nothing to prove it was the two guards on the tape, let's face it it's not beyond the realms of possibility that it's a S2S set-up, bad press got and it mite prove to be nothing.

Just putting it out there, if it is the two guards then it's red card time for them. I would have some sympathy for them, we've all made jokes that aren't meant for public consumption but they have to accept their punishment.

But like I say, it mite not be all it seems

They will not and should not be fired.

Any action taken against them probably would be struck out as they hardly gave their consent to have the recording broadcast which is required by law in Ireland.

I have no doubt they'll get away with having a good old joke about raping women while wearing their Garda uniforms. What is he even more worrying is that these 2 gardai sounded like the had the maturity of 10 year olds, how do such clowns qualify to be gardai??

On the radio on the way home a woman from some rape crisis group noted that the biggest fall out could be that women who were raped might now not associate Gardai as being a group they could go to report such an attack.

I'm not defending them, it was very childish at best and they should be sanctioned but it should be kept in perspective. Remember the taunting about Garda McCallion's death?

[RedandGreenSniper]

I see where you are coming from muppet but the recording is very worrying and, actually disturbing. The Gardai are people who are used to dealing with cases of sexual assault, would have seen more than most of us the horrendous effect that has on the victims and three of them still feel they can 'joke' about it. The lady from the Rape Crisis Centre is right, this could have an impact of stopping women from reporting rape to the Gardai. I know they weren't aware of the recording and there are certain issues in that regard but this wasn't just a bit of banter. Banter was referring perhaps to the Crusty Camp - still offensive, mind you. Talking about rape in the way they did - I would say that goes right to the heart of their ability to do their job. But they won't be fired. Gardaí don't get fired.

[armaghniac]

A bit of sexist banter, Gene Hunt style, wouldn't be a major problem in my opinion. Joking about rape is not appropriate for policemen.

[Hound]

I give you my gold mine which has €1,000,000 worth of gold in it.

You build, train etc and extract the gold.

If you declare a profit you give me 25% of the tax on the profit (say €100,000 - I get €25,000). This is the best case scenario.
If you don't I get nothing.

Either way I lose all of my natural resources.

But your natural resource is actually worth feck all, because it costs so much money to extract it.  You get a good deal in your example, you get a share of the profits, but if it had cost more than the gold was worth to extract it, you don't share the losses - whereas if you'd tried to extract it yourself you could've lost a lot.

[Billys Boots]

It looks like we're not the only ones with issues in relation to gas exploration - it looks like a filthy business, in every sense.

Furious MPs round on DECC over shale gas (Source: edie.net)

A perceived 'lack of transparency' on the policing of shale gas exploration was seized upon by angry MPs today (April 5).

Members of the influential Energy and Climate Change Committee, led by chairman Tim Yeo, rounded on Charles Hendry and Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) official Simon Toole.

Mr Hendry, minister for climate change and energy, was told by Mr Yeo a lack of transparency was 'retarding rather than advancing' the cause of shale gas.

The meeting heard shale had the potential to become a 'game-changer' in world energy markets - having already transformed the US from a major importer to an exporter of gas.

However, a lack of regulation and environmental scrutiny of shale, which the committee heard was twice as carbon intensive as coal, was not helped by DECC's approach.

The committee was angered that DECC had carried out a behind closed doors investigation into shale without informing it.

Mr Yeo said: "The suspicion in the United States of the environmental impacts of shale gas has been greatly increased by the reluctance of the companies and, in some cases the regulators, to disclose to the public what's actually happening."

Mr Hendry, who apologised for not telling the committee, said: "I think if people see there are things going on behind closed doors, which they can't understand and don't know about they become suspicious often without warrant."

Mr Yeo also asked why Cuaddrilla, the only business at the time investigating shale gas in the UK, was not consulted by DECC, he said: "It seems a bit strange the one company already started operating in this country was not asked for evidence."

DECC licensing, exploration and development director, Simon Toole, was forced to admit he didn't know who had been contacted for the 'low key' investigation and said it was an 'oversight' not to contact cuaddrilla.

MPs also asked Mr Hendry whether the UK should take the lead on establishing Europe wide regulations on drilling for shale, however the minister felt this would only bring regulation down to the 'lowest common denominator'.

He also dismissed concerns other countries, for instance Poland, would exploit lower levels of regulation to get ahead of the UK on shale, claiming the population there were as concerned as in Britain about environmental impacts.

[muppet]

I give you my gold mine which has €1,000,000 worth of gold in it.

You build, train etc and extract the gold.

If you declare a profit you give me 25% of the tax on the profit (say €100,000 - I get €25,000). This is the best case scenario.
If you don't I get nothing.

Either way I lose all of my natural resources.

But your natural resource is actually worth feck all, because it costs so much money to extract it.  You get a good deal in your example, you get a share of the profits, but if it had cost more than the gold was worth to extract it, you don't share the losses - whereas if you'd tried to extract it yourself you could've lost a lot.

This is where we completely disagree. To my way of thinking is there is no point in extracting it if we can't get the value for it. We should have left it until we could realise at least some of its worth. Giving it away for nothing is idiotic no matter how you look at it.

[ross matt]

I see where you are coming from muppet but the recording is very worrying and, actually disturbing. The Gardai are people who are used to dealing with cases of sexual assault, would have seen more than most of us the horrendous effect that has on the victims and three of them still feel they can 'joke' about it. The lady from the Rape Crisis Centre is right, this could have an impact of stopping women from reporting rape to the Gardai. I know they weren't aware of the recording and there are certain issues in that regard but this wasn't just a bit of banter. Banter was referring perhaps to the Crusty Camp - still offensive, mind you. Talking about rape in the way they did - I would say that goes right to the heart of their ability to do their job. But they won't be fired. Gardaí don't get fired.

I agree. Leaving "banter" and the rights or wrongs of  the gas dispute etc out of it the issue here is the trust factor when it comes to rape victims willingness to complain to Gardai. Those clowns on that recording did massive damage to that level of trust and I'm sure some of their genuine colleagues who've dealt with rape victims must want to wring their necks. They should suffer severe sanctions. Not sure about sacking but Red&Green makes a good point about their maturity levels. Makes you question the recruitement criteria in the force.

[Hardy]

Hardy, let's try this.

I give you my gold mine which has €1,000,000 worth of gold in it.

You build, train etc and extract the gold.

If you declare a profit you give me 25% of the tax on the profit (say €100,000 - I get €25,000). This is the best case scenario.
If you don't I get nothing.

Either way I lose all of my natural resources.

Meanwhile the two agents who orchestrated the deal on my behalf include one known corrupt official and another who has a remarkable gift for picking horses.

IMHO it would be better if we left it there for a non-corrupt industrious generation to come along. But of course if that happens now the gas will be gone.

Muppet, it's not clear to me whether you're against the principle of doing a tax-on-profits deal with an energy company to extract natural resources or you disagree with the terms of this particular deal. Are you opposed to the Shell deal on ideological or pragmatic grounds?

I have no expertise to decide whether the terms of this deal were good or bad, or how they compare with similar deals between energy companies and sovereign states. Do you?

I have no ideology about it (or anything else, for that matter - ideology is the enemy of reason), but it seems reasonable to me for the state to transfer the exploration risk and profit uncertainty to a private company, provided the deal is good. Given the known history of incompetence, indifference and corruption in state enterprises, I would have zero confidence in the ability of any state organisation that was let at it to avoid making a complete wallix of it.

[muppet]

Hardy, let's try this.

I give you my gold mine which has €1,000,000 worth of gold in it.

You build, train etc and extract the gold.

If you declare a profit you give me 25% of the tax on the profit (say €100,000 - I get €25,000). This is the best case scenario.
If you don't I get nothing.

Either way I lose all of my natural resources.

Meanwhile the two agents who orchestrated the deal on my behalf include one known corrupt official and another who has a remarkable gift for picking horses.

IMHO it would be better if we left it there for a non-corrupt industrious generation to come along. But of course if that happens now the gas will be gone.

Muppet, it's not clear to me whether you're against the principle of doing a tax-on-profits deal with an energy company to extract natural resources or you disagree with the terms of this particular deal. Are you opposed to the Shell deal on ideological or pragmatic grounds?

I have no expertise to decide whether the terms of this deal were good or bad, or how they compare with similar deals between energy companies and sovereign states. Do you?

I have no ideology about it (or anything else, for that matter - ideology is the enemy of reason), but it seems reasonable to me for the state to transfer the exploration risk and profit uncertainty to a private company, provided the deal is good. Given the known history of incompetence, indifference and corruption in state enterprises, I would have zero confidence in the ability of any state organisation that was let at it to avoid making a complete wallix of it.

Glad you asked me that. Shell were not involved at that stage so I am not blaming them for any part of the terms of the extraction. Shell bought out the exploration company who were involved.

My argument is simply pragmatic on this issue.

On the routing of the pipeline and refining on land I would be a lot closer to the original S2S position but I can't support that actions of some of their 'supporters' who to my mind have undermined the whole thing. Also the row has dragged on so long that they fight on every single issue now.

[muppet]

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0416/oil_gas.html

Sinn Féin to table oil and gas licences motion
Updated: 18:49, Saturday, 16 April 2011

Sinn Féin is calling for changes to the revenue and licensing terms governing oil and gas exploration.


Aengus Ó Snodaigh - Wants radical change to licencing system

Six One News: SF in oil exploration motion

Sinn Féin is calling for changes to the revenue and licensing terms governing oil and gas exploration.
The party has published the text of a Private Members' Motion it will table in the Dáil on Tuesday.
It will call for the consents and licenses for the Corrib gas field, and exploration license for Lough Allen, to be immediately revoked pending a full review of all license and taxation issues.
The motion also calls for the State to take a 51% share in all gas and oil finds, for the establishment of a state exploration company, and for a 50% tax on profits and a 7.5% royalty to be imposed.
Sinn Féin TD for Dublin South Central Aengus Ó Snodaigh said: 'Oil and gas companies in Ireland are given among the most generous terms in the world, which means only a small proportion of the value of the deposits will come to the Irish people unless there is a radical change.'

A bit draconian for me but still I am glad SF have raised this issue.

[Ulick]

Draconian? We should take the lot.

[muppet]

Draconian? We should take the lot.

I would take the lot, but an achievable result needs to be a bit more realistic. SF will need wider support to succeed and that is why it will need to be watered down a bit imho.

Still it is a good starting point.

[INDIANA]

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0416/oil_gas.html

Sinn Féin to table oil and gas licences motion
Updated: 18:49, Saturday, 16 April 2011

Sinn Féin is calling for changes to the revenue and licensing terms governing oil and gas exploration.


Aengus Ó Snodaigh - Wants radical change to licencing system

Six One News: SF in oil exploration motion

Sinn Féin is calling for changes to the revenue and licensing terms governing oil and gas exploration.
The party has published the text of a Private Members' Motion it will table in the Dáil on Tuesday.
It will call for the consents and licenses for the Corrib gas field, and exploration license for Lough Allen, to be immediately revoked pending a full review of all license and taxation issues.
The motion also calls for the State to take a 51% share in all gas and oil finds, for the establishment of a state exploration company, and for a 50% tax on profits and a 7.5% royalty to be imposed.
Sinn Féin TD for Dublin South Central Aengus Ó Snodaigh said: 'Oil and gas companies in Ireland are given among the most generous terms in the world, which means only a small proportion of the value of the deposits will come to the Irish people unless there is a radical change.'

A bit draconian for me but still I am glad SF have raised this issue.

More socialist pap from SF. With this country in the biggest recession since the Wall Street Crash it makes perfect sense for a foreign company to take all the risks of exploration and the costs that go with it. And now these clowns want us to run the risk of paying for it

I suppose they will be raising the national pension reserve for exploration costs?

[Lar Naparka]

You said: "If Shell make a profit, 25% of any profit will be paid in tax." The €3 Billion will be deducted from this tax, that is what I meant by written off.

The €3 billion will not be deducted from the tax!

Any of the accountants here care to explain the practice of writing off overheads against tax?

"Writing off overheads against tax" is a complete misnomer.

Shell will pay tax on its profits. To calculate the profits, its basically income less expenses.
25% of its profits will be paid in tax. There's no further offset for expenses incurred as they've already been taken into account when calculating the profits.

This is news to me!
Back in the early 70s, Justin Keating imposed terms on Marathon, the company developing the Kinsale field that were based on the Norwegian model. Here, a state-owned company, Statoil, was set up to make maximum use of the state's income from its oil reserves in the North Sea. (The exploration company was Mobil.)
Statoil was to a 50% partner and would bear none of the exploration costs but was to gain full access to mining data.
Norway wanted to become a world leader in deep-sea technology, exploration and production. It's fair to say that Britain settled for a much less favourable deal.
At least, Justin Keating said so.
Keating set up the Irish National Petroleum Corporation, (INPC) based on the Statoil model. This was some achievement given that the '73 oil crisis left the exploration companies with a much stronger hand to play with.
Shortly after this an election was held and Dessie O'Malley took over from Keating. He limited the INPC's remit to sourcing strategic oil supplies. It was no longer involved in drilling, exploration or the development of resources.
He also refused an invitation from Norway to take a block in their North Sea fields as the Norwegians would only deal with a state company and O'Malley was unwilling to use the INPC for this purpose.
His successor, Dick Spring, in 1985 did relax the conditions srt by Keating somewhat when he reduced state royalties and he abolished state participation in marginal fields altogether. This was in the face of pressure from the multinationals because they had drilled a total of 100 wells between 1975 and 1985 and failed to discover a single commercially viable one.
Ray Burke was next and in 1987 he announced in the Dail that he was abolishing royalty payments on all oil and gas production. Also, there would be a 100% tax write-off against capital expenditure on exploration, development and production going back 25 years.
Bertie Ahern relaxed conditions further in his Finance Act in 1991 when he reduced corporation tax to 25%. Furthermore, there was no longer any obligation on developers to drill at any early stage if a discovery was made and any find could be capped and held for optimum market conditions. The World Bank noted in 1995 that Ireland was one of the top seven countries in the world with 'very favourable' terms for exploration.
BTW, much of the above is based on the book by Lorna Siggins; "Once Upon a Time in the West.' The remainder is based on web pages I have been saving since the Corrib field was discovered- or at least announced.
If anything, conditions have been further relaxed since 1995.

Throw in the fact that plans to replace the turf-burning station at Bellacorrick with a modern gas-fired one and to hook Mayo towns up to the  mains pipeline  appear to have been shelved and you'll see why local interests see little benefit in for them  in the latest developments.

[Mayo4Sam]

Ballina and Crossmolina are connected and Ballyhaunis is dependent on Dawn meats signing an anchor agreement. Castlebar and Westport are included on Phase III of Bord Gais Networks New Towns project. As with any project a new town is only connected if there is an anchor load to connect, BGN have to pay for the pipe.

Sorry for bringing facts into this