|
|
Blog Feeds
Anti-Empire
The SakerA bird's eye view of the vineyard
Lockdown Skeptics
Voltaire NetworkVoltaire, international edition
|
Legalised Robbery - Multinationals and Ireland's Natural Resources national |
miscellaneous |
feature
 Saturday March 31, 2007 16:58 by Fin Dwyer - (WSM pers cap) findwyer at gmail dot com
 Why Ireland stands to lose €400 billion in natural gas and oil deposits
Everything Must Go!
Concerns about the safety of Shell’s pipeline in Rossport are well known. But that’s not all that’s at stake. Not by 400 billion euro. The oil companies exploiting Ireland’s west coast have got some of the sweetest deals in the world and that doesn’t happen by accident.
Related Links: ICTU head calls ponders nuclear power | Eirigi Natural Resources | SP on climate change | Rossport: a community resisting the multinationals | Peak oil and Energy Resources | The two most well known Irish hydrocarbon deposits, the Corrib field and the Dunquin prospect, are collectively worth at least €400 billion euros. They contain around 33 trillion cubic feet of gas and between 2.5 and 4 billion barrels of oil. The gas in the Corrib belongs to Shell, Statoil and Marathon while the Dunquin prospect is totally controlled by Exxon Mobil and Providence. Ordinary Irish workers will end up buying back our oil and gas while the companies will be charged pitiful tax rates against which they can write off all exploration and construction costs over the past twenty-five years. How did this happen?Kinsale and the original terms Gas and oil exploration began in Ireland In the 1960’s and in 1973 Marathon Oil found the first field off the coast of Cork. This became known as the Kinsale field. The Fianna Fail government of the time gave Marathon a once off deal in which Bord Gais bought the field at a reduced rate. Gas and oil exploration continued throughput the 1970’s but little was found. This exploration was coupled with a change in the political landscape. In 1973 the “National Coalition” government was elected. This compromised Fine Gael and Labour. Fine Gael’s Liam Cosgrave became Taoiseach and Labour got seven ministerial posts. Labour’s Justin Keating, a former lecturer in UCD, became minister for industry and commerce. Keating, ideologically a social democrat, was critical of the terms granted to Marathon Oil. The social democratic model being applied in Norway which was taxing the oil majors up to 90% tax heavily influenced Keating. The initial find occurred in1973 which coincided with the first major oil crisis. This made oil a very valuable commodity and also should have made the Irish fields more lucrative and exploitable. Keating introduced new terms for exploitation based on three principles what became known as the Keating principles: 1.The State, acting for the people as owners of the resource, should be paid for the resources. 2. Companies engaging in offshore development on the Irish continental shelf should be subject to Irish taxation. 3.Since the resources are public property, the State must have the right to participate in their exploitation. The main points of the terms were: (A.) Up to 50% stake find in any commercial field (B.) 8-16% royalties would be taken. (C.) 50% Corporation tax. (D.) The drilling must take place within three years. (E.) The companies give up to 50% of the field to the State in 4 years. They also laboured all costs of exploration on the companies. A Rosy Irish Future? So by 1974 oil had just rocketed to $12 a barrel (cheap it seems but this was a 400% increase than) and it seemed Ireland with its new terms was in for a windfall, but the oil companies were not so easily beaten. In his own words to Primetime in 2001 Keating had brought in the legislation because “I remember being terrified because I thought they [the companies] held all the cards” (CPI report, the great Corrib gas controversy, 55). This was quite understandable as the oil companies had just formed the Irish off shore operators group (later to become association) to lobby in their interests. Fianna Fail take over Before Keating could push forward with his ideas and set up a state oil company the so called national coalition was voted out in 1977 and the boys were back in town, that is Fianna Fail were in government again. Jack Lynch was Taoiseach and Dessie O Malley (later founder of the Progressive Democrats) became minister for Industry and Commerce. Ironically O’Malley’s main act in relation to natural resources was to set up the Irish national petroleum company- a State oil company. The company’s articles of association are interesting as they limit the company from exploring or exploiting oil or gas. (The INPC was later privatised and bought by Conocco-Phillips.) Although this may seem insignificant, O’Malley by preventing the company from exploring or exploiting, severely limited Keating’s original idea; by setting up the INPC it almost made certain the Irish State would never have a National oil company along the lines of Statoil. It seems O’Malley free market ideology was very influential in this move. Indeed the very idea of setting a national oil company didn’t sit well with O’Malley and he later said to the Dail the only he reason he did so was because Iraq would only sell oil to a State oil company (CPI report, the great Corrib gas controversy, 13). Throughout the 1980’s the Irish state had little idea of what was the results of the exploration in Irish waters were as there were no independent tests carried out. The oil companies continued to say that finds were minimal. By the mid 1980’s 96 oil gas wells had been drilled and amazingly knowing what we know now about what lies off the west coast little was found. The oil companies moved into action and started to push that the terms instituted in 1973 be altered so they were more favourable toward the companies. Dick Spring's true colours In 1985 Dick Spring as minister for Energy in Garret Fitzgerald’s coalition government began to cede ground to the oil companies. He granted special terms to fields that were under 75million barrels. This included a reduced royalty rate and a sliding scale for state participation rights. In 1986 Spring removed all state participation rights on what were termed marginal fields. Enter Fianna Fail stage right By 1987 the government had nominally changed. Fianna Fail were back at the helm. Charles Haughey had entered his third term as Taoiseach of a country plunging further and further into crisis. Ray Burke was made Minister for Energy. The oil companies through their Irish Offshore Operators Association were seriously lobbying for change arguing that the Irish terms were too harsh. Burke acquiesced and started to dismantle the basis of Keating’s ideas. He allowed the companies to write 100% of tax off against all exploration and construction costs over the past 25 years. Even Ray Burke felt it would be over generous to reduce the 50% corporation tax (something Bertie Ahern would disagree with 5 years later, see below) so it remained. This was a good start for the oil companies as all costs of exploration were effectively transferred onto the people of Ireland as the companies were paying less tax on something that belonged to the people of the country. The reasons stated by Bertie Ahern (then Finance minister was to improve Ireland’s “competitive position in attracting oil and gas exploration” (CPI report, the great Corrib gas controversy, 13. Ahern went on to express concern for the “intense pressure on oil companies' exploration budgets” on the 22nd of October 1987 in reference to the new terms (www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie) Seamus Brannan articulated the state’s position well: “In the area of oil exploration, it is quite clear that it is too muddled, too complex, too protective, too timid, too cautious and, in effect, useless, because courage is not being taken in one's hands with the idea of getting the oil, the gas, out of the ground, and improving the intensity of the search” Dail Eireann 28th of June 1985 www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie). It is clear that by the mid eighties the government wanted more exploration and hoped success rates would then increase. To do this the costs of exploration were written off against tax. It appears the logic was if we drill more holes something would eventually be found. This is clear from Burke and Ahern’s statements. Effects of the change in terms Amazingly, after 1987 success rates rocketed by 99%. This was really odd as actual exploration rate fell by 41%. The formula worked but in a very illogical way. Something wasn’t right. This rate is obviously unbelievable and wasn’t just co-incidence. After drilling for years and finding nothing suddenly the companies struck gold at a time when they cut back on exploration. The most plausible reason is that the oil companies were sitting on information and waiting for the better terms to come along and from 1987 the government was beginning to answer their prayers. When these new and disimproved terms were brought in to legislation by Burke they then selectively drilled in places they knew they would be successful. Things manage to get worse! In 1992 Bertie Ahern (current Taoiseach) was the Minister for Finance. Ahern totally dismantled the 1975 terms introduced by Keating. There was to be no state involvement and royalties were abolished. In the 1992 terms, gas and oil were to be sold to the highest bidder (whereas at Kinsale they were sold at a reduced rate to Bord Gais). Licensing agreements were extended from three to sixteen years. At this point Ahern disagreed with Burke as he reduced to the corporation tax to 25%. He had widespread support for these measures. His Taoiseach of the time, Albert Reynolds, bemoaned the fact that there was not “a clear recognition by the Government that risks must be rewarded and enterprise encouraged in relation to the oil and gas industry”. (Dail Eireann 30th October 1985, www.oireachtas-debates.gov.ie) This created what are widely felt as the best conditions for oil companies in the world, but that in effect means the worst terms for people of Ireland. This is astounding as the finds had dramatically increased since Burkes 1987 deal. Who is to blame? The point of this article is not to let the politicians off the hook but rather to point out that it wasn’t just one bad egg or corrupt party who got us in this dire situation. It is highly unlikely that Dick Spring or Dessie O Malley were corrupt. Rather they followed the rules of capitalism – they facilitated those trying to accrue capital. Neither is it written to lump all the blame Shell totally. As one Shell to Sea campaigner commented on the Shell/ Corrib scenario“if you put a lion in a cage with a sheep you can’t give out to the lion when it tries to eat the sheep”. What the terms throughout the years seem to indicate is that the much used analysis of blaming corrupt politicians is wrong. To say no corruption was involved may be excessive but it seems unlikely that it wasn’t the prime factor. There are three possibly more influential reasons as to why the people of Ireland now find themselves with their in resources in the hands of multinational corporations. The first is right wing ideology is and has been hegemonic over the Irish political spectrum. Keating seems to have been one of the few in favour of a State oil company. Dessie O’Malley was fervently against it and effectively stopped any future moves by establishing a very limited oil company the INPC. Future moves to maintain the resources oil Ireland for the people of Ireland were absent. The political will to do so didn’t exist in any of the main political parties. It was Labour through the auspices of Dick Spring got the ball rolling on the issue in 1985. The second reason seems to have been a genuine fear of the oil companies. This seems to have been real and if we look at Keating’s comments to primetime (cited above) there was a genuine fear that the companies would leave altogether. Strangely at the time no one seems to have asked the question “what were they contributing”? Courage seems to have been lacking, but also while Keating may have had some progressive ideas he was in a coalition with Fine Gael and the idea of standing up to international capital which is what was needed would obviously be horrifying. Politics for public interest in Ireland is treated like a nice idea but not something politicians are really interested in. The third and possibly most important reason was we had no control over our national resources. We were and are looking from crumbs off our own table. This was fuelled by the fear of the companies and international capital by the few in favour of nationalisation even in a limited whilst there was a willingness to support private capital by the vast majority . They held all the cards and the politicians would not or more accurately did not want to stand up and tell them to pay up or get out. Unfortunately they stayed and now we must fight them for fields about to go into production. The fourth and final reason supplements the first two is that the state was not carrying out any independent test the drilling by the multinationals. This then led the state to be in a position that all its information was coming from oil companies. It was obviously in the oil multinationals’ interest to down play what they found and in fact Dick Spring’s terms (introduced in 1985) must have only encouraged it where the smaller the field, the better terms the companies received . What we can see is that the Irish state allowed itself to be hoodwinked. This situation must have been obvious to successive energy and finance ministers since 1988 at the latest. Since then as free market ideology dominates there was no political will to challenge it. The blame for this situation lies with the entire political establishment and system. All the major parties have been in power (except Sinn Fein and The Socialist Party and the Greens) since 1988. They facilitated this as they allowed it to continue. The past politicians allowed themselves to be hoodwinked in some cases (did they honestly think they could believe be the likes of Shell, Marathon and Exxon?), as it appears they didn’t have the will to rock the boat. They sold our resources in some cases for ideological reasons. The current politicians are possibly more to blame. They are aware of exactly what happened. They can see the unbelievable surge in productivity in exploration in 1987. They are probably muted by the fact that very prominent politicians took bribes at some point or were facilitated or thanked for introducing legislation. Why Bertie Ahern introduced more favourable legislation in 1992 is quite strange. The nominal parties of the left, Labour and the Greens are equally compliant. Pat Rabitte is desperate to prove to big business that Labour can be trusted with the economy of the rich so will never challenge Exxon or Shell even to the extent Justin Keating was willing to. The Greens still have to state their policy which means they’ll blow with the wind and in Ireland it’s blustering right towards continued privatisation. The future However this is changing rapidly. The Corrib Field is between 6-11TCF (trillion cubic feet the equivalent of well 1.4 billion barrels of oil). In the average scenario the field is worth in the region of €50 - €60billion. The Dunquin field is probably worth at least around €400 billion. Opposition has a very limited time to rectify the legalised theft of our resources. Exxon and Providence will attempt to pump the gas and oil in Dunquin in the next ten years, Shell will pump Corrib once they realise an inland refinery is not a runner. In thirty years they will potentially have pumped 500 billion euros out of the country. And there are other potentially valuable fields off Donegal, Wexford and in Cavan/Leitrim. The question for the next twenty years is whether the people of Ireland will act or do our usual moaning when it’s too late to act. by krossie - wsm personal capacity Mon Apr 02, 2007 12:23  D: As stated twice already, there is perhaps only a 5% chance of any success, but that is how the industry works. by EC Mon Apr 02, 2007 12:59 [from the Independent (london), Feb 14th 2006] by Mark - wsm per cap Mon Apr 02, 2007 13:31 For the some of the most up to date, coherent and radical critique of current climate change mitigation, under the guise of Carbon Trading check out Larry Lohmann's by Aidan Mon Apr 02, 2007 14:10 I must admit i was ignorant of the 'Keating Principles' before reading the article. by D Mon Apr 02, 2007 15:04 The 5% I quoted is based on my 30+ years in the industry and is a likely figure for this type of prospect - it may be a bit high given that the nearest well was drilled around 60 km away. by marcus aurelius Mon Apr 02, 2007 15:17 You work for the likes of Shell for thirty years (plus). by D Mon Apr 02, 2007 15:34 1. I have no connection with Shell. by Fin Mon Apr 02, 2007 15:42 Just interested D, you are obviously not enjoying retirement since you always post a reply in the space of an hour if not minutes. You seem to be constantly watchin this thread. Or maybe its your new job? by Marcus Aurelius Mon Apr 02, 2007 15:51 You tell me that you worked thirty years (plus) in the oil and gas business without ever having any connection with Shell. I never said you did. Presumably you worked for one of the company's competitors though. Same difference really. by D Mon Apr 02, 2007 16:10 Say what you like, the fact is that there are NO proven oil or gas reserves at Dunquin. As I started by saying, all the rest is speculation. by Northern Light Mon Apr 02, 2007 17:01
by John Boy Mon Apr 02, 2007 17:56 How is it that when someone doesn't toe the party line laid out by the majority of indymedia contributors, they are subject to snide personal comments, as seems to be the case here with D. by Chekov Mon Apr 02, 2007 18:22 1. An anonymous person claiming x years of experience in some specialist field without any supporting evidence is not worth very much. by Anon Mon Apr 02, 2007 18:43 I distinctly remember during the mid to late 1970s when there was oil and gas exploration going on off the South and West coasts of Ireland, that rumours quickly surfaced that significant finds had been made but the reports coming from the oil & gas companies was that nothing was found. by D Tue Apr 03, 2007 06:13 1. No, as with just about every figure in Fin's report, that is absurd. A reasonable figure for the value of Corrib reserves is 3-4 billion. by John Boy Tue Apr 03, 2007 08:38 What are your credentials for dismissing D's claims....beyond not agreeing with him because he has worked in the oil industry? by Fin Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:15 Essentially what D. is saying is the Irish government, the centre for public enquiry, shell/enterprise oil, providence and independant investigaters are all liars. These are the sources for my figures. by Jim boy Tue Apr 03, 2007 12:25 Nice one John Boy - D is automatically a credible source because he comes onto Indymedia and posts claims anonymously, also claiming to be an expert but supplying no evidence to back up this claim. Chekov posts under his real name and his arguments must be dismissed. by John Boy Tue Apr 03, 2007 12:31 I said nothing of the sort. I said not to dismiss him just because his experience comes from working in the evil industry that is the oil industry. Unless you think that everyone that has worked in the oil industry works for Shell (or it's oil industry partners for the Corrib pipeline) or that they've all been made to toe the industry party line. by Jim Boy Tue Apr 03, 2007 13:02 Nope, you're gonna have to do better than that. We have no evidence that "D" actually worked in the oil industry at all. He is an anonymous poster, making claims that cannot be verified. You are inclined to believe him because of your own prejudices, but that's no basis for the rest of us to trust him. by Mark - WSM Tue Apr 03, 2007 13:06 That readers are asked to give credence to an un-named source giving unproven statistics that we, the readers, should take at face value. by Mark Tue Apr 03, 2007 13:12 The derailment of this well researched thread. by John Boy Tue Apr 03, 2007 13:19 "Nope, you're gonna have to do better than that. We have no evidence that "D" actually worked in the oil industry at all. He is an anonymous poster, making claims that cannot be verified. You are inclined to believe him because of your own prejudices, but that's no basis for the rest of us to trust him. " by Chekov Tue Apr 03, 2007 13:21 D says "Dunquin is VERY high risk". by D Tue Apr 03, 2007 14:34 Seismic imaging of the prospect only directly helps with one of the unknowns - the presence of a structure which could contain oil or gas. Because of the distance from known geology, all the other risks remain high - these are presesence of reservoir, presence of a source rock, presence of a trapping mechanism and presence of a migration path. by Jim boy Tue Apr 03, 2007 14:43 And why should we "assume" these probabilities? Oh I forgot - because you say so. Dunno about anyone else but I'm convinced. by Cormac Tue Apr 03, 2007 15:46 Click on link below for details of Natural Resources protest taking place tomorrow: by matt Tue Apr 03, 2007 16:20 Fail to see what the point is of D's posts.... by Indymedia Watch Tue Apr 03, 2007 17:49 It baffles me to see so called Democrats ( Chekov ) to just refer to D's reasoning as 'pulled out of his ass' and 'bullshit' . by Chekov Tue Apr 03, 2007 18:11 What a simple minded watcher we have here. by End of the day - none Tue Apr 03, 2007 21:11 Probability or no probability of what the reserves contain they have been illegaly given away by the powers that be in this state for many years now. by D Wed Apr 04, 2007 02:19 "To put it again, as simply as I can, oil companies preform exploratory studies, satellite imaging, seismic imaging, test drilling and so on because the data that they gain from these tests gives them a better idea of the probability of there being commercial quantities of hydrocarbons...." by zebedee Wed Apr 04, 2007 13:55 Just like to say thanks to D for joining the debate and giving his opinion. Its very easy to shout from the sidelines, its harder to make an educated argument which D is obviously trying to stimulate. Nonetheless I fully agree that whatever the risk, if the potential is there our country should own our countries resources and not allow these resources to be sold back to us at an extortionate rate. No deal with an oil company is appropriate, set up our own oil company, explore it and realise the potential for the whole country. Where is our Hugo Chavez? by d eile Wed Apr 04, 2007 15:58 D, this debate over predicted yields is irrelevant. The main point of the article is that the government BELIEVES that Dunquinn could be massive and they've given it away. Your points in no way engage with that, in fact they only serve to distract from the issue. by D Wed Apr 04, 2007 23:55 The debate I have engaged in is not about predicted yield, but the probability of there being any yield at all from Dunquin. by Mark Thu Apr 05, 2007 13:19 Id suggest that it will been not just a technical assessment of geological surveys, but also the current political and social climate that shows propective fossil fuels corporation that there is a growing and confident grassroots movements willing to not only actively resisit the explotiation of our natural resources, but to make lasting anymeaningful connections between ourselves and similar struggles both nationally and globally by d eile Thu Apr 05, 2007 15:20 "All the figures cited so far are from the Dail website, the Irish times website based on Providence figures and providences own website." by D Thu Apr 05, 2007 18:45 The Prvoidence website only refers to "potential" reserves - meaning that there is a possibility that the structure may contain those amounts and I do not argue with that. by d eile Thu Apr 05, 2007 19:05 1. The problem that's being discussed here is the giveaway of a potentially massive reserve. by Cormac Thu Apr 05, 2007 20:07 Click on the link below to read about yesterday's lunchtime protest which took place outside the offices of Bord Gáis. This was as part of the ongoing campaign to protect Ireland's natural resources. by D Thu Apr 05, 2007 21:08 The licensing system in Ireland is similar to those used all around the world, particularly in Europe. The fiscal terms are competitive for the prospectivity offshore Ireland and the low number of exploration wells drilled in recent years shows that they are not over generous. by Random Reader Sat Apr 07, 2007 15:49 I think that both sides are making good points - by Random writer Sat Apr 07, 2007 15:55 " If you find something we'll take a big slice " by cool j Sat Apr 07, 2007 17:20 D said "The licensing system in Ireland is similar to those used all around the world" - I take it your having a laugh!! - Instead of spouting nonsense - try visiting countries as diverse as Norway, Venezula and the gulf states and wintness the massive wealth generated by oil and gas revenues for the ordinanary citizens. It highlights the treason of the irish government in giving away billions of euros of these valuable natural resources for next to nothing. The Norwegian government alone receives 70% of the revenues generated by Statoil - no wonder the have a world class health service!! by cool j Sat Apr 07, 2007 17:34 Figures from the Dept of Marine website show that prospecting efforts by muti-national oil companies actually fell in the years after Ray Burke brought in these sell-out terms for oil and gas exploration in irish waters(1987). This was despite the fact that these companies own figures(the ones they allowed into the public arena anyway) show that over 40% of wells drilled showed evidence of oil or gas in Irish waters - this compares very favourably to nearly every other part of the world including many well known oil/gas producing areas. By far the most important factor factor driving oil and gas exploration world-wide is global prices - hence the increasing number of valuable finds in Irish coastal waters in the last few years.!! by D Sat Apr 07, 2007 18:55 The point is that countries like Norway and Venezula are able to impose more arduous tax regimes because their proven hydrocarbon potential is many times better than it is in Ireland and, I say again, the Irish LICENSING system (fees, duration, relinquishments, etc) are similar to most other countries. by confused local Sat Apr 07, 2007 22:02 D, I think you realize that you or anybody else wont convince supporters of S2S of anything. by Local shop for local people Sun Apr 08, 2007 13:18 Unfortunately for our regular troll, D's arguments have been ripped to shreds repeatedly on this thread by supporters of S2S, and his case boils down to this : "No! You're wrong! Because I say so!" by confused local Sun Apr 08, 2007 13:36 You call yourself "Non-confused non-local" and follow with how my and others arguments have been "torn to pieces". by D Sun Apr 08, 2007 16:27 I would also be very interested to know what it is that I have said here you think has been "ripped to shreds"! by Local shop for local people Sun Apr 08, 2007 18:48 I didn't call myself "non-confused non-local", it was my opinion of your actual status - I am quite sure that you are neither a local, nor the least bit confused. You have a very clear aim, to attack the Shell to Sea campaign by making dishonest arguments, hoping to confuse people without a detailed knowledge of the situation. You post disingenous comments then move the goal posts when your arguments are dealt with. When your agenda is pointed out, you respond with self-righteous fury - like here. by D Sun Apr 08, 2007 19:31 "Anyone who has followed this thread can see "D"'s arguments being demolished. I'd refer them in particular to the comments by Mark and Chekov." by confused local Sun Apr 08, 2007 19:42 apologies for mistakenly referring to you as "Non-confused non-local". by Local shop for local people Sun Apr 08, 2007 20:18 You're quite right - not good enough. You haven't supplied any credible evidence to back up your assertions, just kept repeating the same arguments that have been dealt with by people on this thread and ignoring the counter-arguments. Your position could be summed up as this "trust me, I'm an expert, even though I'm posting anonymously and offer no evidence of my expert status, nor any evidence to back up my claims as I dismiss arguments based on statistics provided by the Irish government and other sources". You're refusing to acknowledge that your points have been dealt with but people can scroll back up and see the evidence in plain English. I suggest they do, and I suggest you stop wasting people's time with these diversionary tactics by D Sun Apr 08, 2007 20:50 "kept repeating the same arguments that have been dealt with by people on this thread and ignoring the counter-arguments" by Local shop for local people Sun Apr 08, 2007 22:16 One more time - people can read over the whole thread and see your arguments being dealt with. In particular, they should have a look at comments from Mark and Chekov. You are unwilling to accept that your points have been dealt with, but the evidence is there in black and white. Your only response has been to make unsubstantiated claims without offering any evidence to back them up, and then present those claims as fact. Anyone can see you are just peddling fiction here and it's time for this silly diversion to end. by Amanda Thu Apr 12, 2007 01:29 Direct from the horse's mouth - 'Fiscal Terms Comparison- a study for the Petroleum Affairs Division, Department of Communications, Marine & Natural Resources' by W. Finnerty. Fri Apr 13, 2007 08:09 How, I wonder, does all of the above fit in with Article 10.1 of the Bunreacht na hEireann (the "BASIC LAW of the Republic of Ireland" or "Constitution") which clearly states: by me - We the People Fri Apr 13, 2007 09:40 Why indeed. by redneck boy - big bad awl Sun May 06, 2007 10:53 Hey D, surfin the web while the rig's down and recognised you right away, along with some of the old crew. Can it really be 15 years since I trod on your fingers as you were leaving the Tropicana in Singapore? Did Lucy ever get her G string back? And Jim boy/John boy, the terrible twins, do you remember waking up with the two dwarves that morning in Petrosea bar in Balikpapan? What a laugh! Mark I surely know, wasn't it the Black Hole in Jakarta? Did you finally get cured? And good ole boy Chekov. Nigeria wasn't it? You are definitely going to be rich rich rich, with your expertise in seismic. No need to drill anymore! Anyway, the awlfield wasn't just work was it? We picked up on strange concepts like possible, probable and proven reserves and knew the difference. We helped spend millions of Big Awls money on dry holes. In fact boys, I have this idea to get rich. There's this dumb-ass country, can't tell you where, but a clue, their beer is black!!! They are giving away exploration licences, and I know for a fact the chance of paydirt is 150% Yes, 150% you heard me right!! We only need a few more carefully selected investors, and my old buddies get first bite! All you have to do is send me your credit card details to Box 2134, The Rainbow Rooms, Port Harcourt, Nigeria. If y'all want to visit with me personally and give me cash, I am the one in the far corner on the right. Bless y'all by J - - Tue May 29, 2007 23:21 To get back to the main problem, if the black stuff IS out there then it's OURS. How do we go about getting terms - more favourable ones - re-written to benefit us in case all the speculation and the hints in the Sunday Independent article 20th May (link) mean we could become as wealthy a country as Scotland? by Peter Mackenzie - Bookworm Bookshop Wed Oct 03, 2007 01:00 mackenzie_peter at hotmail dot com Instead of just abusing people it would be helpful if we had some facts. by ohoraherecaptain - ENVY Sun Apr 14, 2013 19:26 Thomas Maier quoting from John Fitzgerald Kennedy in 1950 on who's answerable to who: |
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
|
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (75 of 75)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75On the the Dunquin prospect the figures fluctuate drastically. A Dail debate of 4 may 2006 cites there being 25TCF of gas and only 4 million barrels of oil ( the 4 milion barrels seems highly unlikely as such a small amount would not be at all profitable to extract and must be an error), theIrish times of the Thursday, May 18, 2006 ctied providence as saying that Dunquin has the potential to produce 160 million barrels of oil and 1.4 trillion cubic feet of gas.
On sources:
From the Providence Website today:
DUNQUIN - Frontier Exploration Licence FEL 03/04
Porcupine Basin, Offshore Ireland,
Blocks 44/18, 23, 24, 29, 30
Dunquin North: Potential Recoverable Reserves: 5.5 TSCF; 850 MMBO
Dunquin South: Potential Recoverable Reserves: 20 TSCF, 3280 MMBO
Operator: Providence: (16%) Partner: ExxonMobil: (80%)*, Sosina: (4%)
For the non-hydro-carbon experts that is:
25.5 Trillion Standard Cubic Feet between both north and south Dunquin (For comparison Kinsale supplied almost all Irelands natural gas needs for 20+ years and had between 1.1 TSCF and 1.9TSCF.)
and
4,130 Billion barrells of Oil between north and south Dunquin. Reserves of this size would make Ireland a major exporter of oil for years to come.
These reserves if confirmed will in the words of Tony O Reilly jnr
“transform the energy requirements of Western Europe" .
He should know as he's the CEO of Providence.
For more on the size of the various reserves around Ireland click on
http://www.eirigi.org/campaigns/naturalresources/how_mu...l.htm
All the figures quoted here or anywhere else regarding the Dunquin propsect are pure speculation. It is an undrilled prospect and, until it is drilled (if it ever is), nobody knows if it contains any oil or gas. Furthermore, it is a very high risk prospect and there is probably less than a 5% chance that it contains oil or gas in commercial quantities.
All the figures cited so far are from the Dail website, the Irish times website based on Providence figures and providences own website.
They ARE speculation - it is an UNDRILLED prospect.
The quote above from the Providence website talks of "POTENTIAL recoverable reserves", there is no direct quote from the Dail debate, but if anyone quoted proven figures they are totally wrong - not the first time a politician has been wrong!
It is also worth mentioning that the figures for Dunquin could also be HIGHER than those predicted/hoped for, making the giveaway even more grotesque.
"It is also worth mentioning that the figures for Dunquin could also be HIGHER than those predicted/hoped for".
They could be, but as I stated earlier, there is only something like a 5% probability that there is anything there with any value at all!
D, they won't actually know how much oil or gas is down there until they go into production. Even years after they will constantly be revising their figures. That's the industry practise. You won't get a better picture than Fin has presented until the oil flows. If the information is good enough for Exxon Mobil it's good enough for me. Let's face it they didn't buy the stake for any reason other than that they thought it was significant and thus potentially luctative.
No oil or gas has been discovered at Dunquin - zero, none.
If there is a commercial discovery in future then you are right in saying that the expected recovery will be constantly revised - the first day you know the reserves of oil and gas in any field is the day it finishes production - but that is irrelevant in this case because there has been no drilling and therefore no discovery. ExxonMobil and Providence know this, the petroleum industry is a risk business and, if they decide to drill, they will be risking their money (probably at least €40 million for an exploration well in this location) in the hope that they are successful. As stated twice already, there is perhaps only a 5% chance of any success, but that is how the industry works.
.
As JM is obviously such an expert on the subject perhaps he would like to explain exactly what is meant by "shows" and exactly what the difference is between 'shows' and 'reserves'? If you have 'shows' does this mean you automatically have a oil or gas field worth billions?
"the first day you know the reserves of oil and gas in any field is the day it finishes production". am i the only one to find this a ridiculous statement that still retains the sense of saying something. no offense to the author but it seems to fall under the smokescreen category to me
"And the first time you know how long ya live is the day ya die."
neither of these 'Facts' stop either the fossil fuel industry or the individual getting on with what it is they do. in the example of the fossil fuel industry that is to contuinue to maximise profits at all costs, whilst fighting rearguard actions against all those who suffer from the consquences of the industries actions, both proposed and underway.
the amount of counterfactual stuff that come out the minds of pro fossil fuel industry is always amusing, but given gravitas by its genuine danger. Although one might be a bit confused since it clear Shell have been making up thier own reserve figures for years.
More on the bullshit surrounding pro fossil fuels industry and its attempts to crush the growing radical democracy movements challenging current climate change mitigations can be found at the links below