Why is Shell not proud of their profit making?

by S2S Thu Feb 01, 2007 18:24

More Photos from Shell HQ Corrib House Feb 1st 2007

by S2S Thu Feb 01, 2007 18:27

Photos from Shell to Sea protest, Shell HQ Leeson Street Dublin Feb 1st 2007

by William Hederman Thu Feb 01, 2007 18:59

The fourth photo below shows an advert that appeared in Thursday's Guardian (London). It says:

"Shell: Use your profits to clean up your mess...
Today Shell will announce sky-high profits. people from around the world tell Shell to stop destroying the environment and people's lives"

Included in the graphics on the map of the world is:
"Co Mayo, Ireland: refinery and pipeline in vulnerable area"

Among the 16 organisations from around the world listed at the bottom is Shell to Sea, Ireland. The small print covering most of the background lists some of thousands of people who contributed online to the cost of the advert. For more info, see:
www.shelladvert.org

... but if Ireland's gas hadn't been given away, the state could afford to pay him more

Advert in Thursday's Guardian (London)

by Dublin Shell to Sea lad Thu Feb 01, 2007 19:10

Wag - Dos wrote:
> Since when did you lot start calling you social welfare payments a salary ?

A person on social welfare would take just over 2 million years to receive what Shell made in 2006. I don't see that figure anywhere in the photos. (Most of the Dublin Shell to Sea folk at these events come in their lunch breaks from work.)

by Van Der Veer Fri Feb 02, 2007 12:10

Profits up a fifth but Shell emits more CO2 than most countries

Terry Macalister
Friday February 2, 2007
The Guardian

ExxonMobil and Shell, two of the biggest carbon emitters in the world, reported combined annual profits yesterday of nearly £90m a day, earned largely from oil production, refining and petrol stations.

The earnings triggered protests from trade unions and fuel poverty groups as well as environmental campaigners.

Exxon's net income of $39.5bn (£20bn) last year is the largest ever recorded in US corporate history and comes amid mounting fears worldwide about the impact of CO2 output on global warming.

Shell's profits of $25bn were up 21% on a year earlier, over a period when oil prices soared to $80 a barrel, although they have slipped back 30% since last summer.

Jeroen van der Veer, Shell's chief executive, declined to give a figure for the company's carbon emissions for the 12-month period but the company confirmed that the figure for 2005 was 102m tonnes - more than some 150 countries produce each.

Shell insisted it would be "pointless" to say how much of Shell's $23bn of capital expenditure was going into renewable energy schemes. Mr van der Veer indicated that the investment in renewables was small, saying it would be "throwing money away" to invest in alternative energy projects that were uncommercial and people could not afford to buy. "We have to put more into research and get a value proposition," he said.

Friends of the Earth took out full-page newspaper adverts yesterday that demanded of Shell: "Use your profits to clean up your mess." It pointed to gas flaring in Nigeria, leaking pipes in South Africa and endangered whales at Sakhalin as examples of environmental damage.

But Mr van der Veer said the environmental group's claims were ill informed and insulted his staff. "I do not like Shell people being portrayed as people not doing a good job," he said angrily.

The strong financial performance of Shell was helped by a strong fourth quarter but Exxon saw its profits fall slightly to $10.25bn over that period, largely as a result of a drop in natural gas prices and lower oil production volumes.

Shell said its output volumes had fallen partly due to sabotage and unrest, which has halted most production in the Niger Delta. It also said growth in output of only 1% or 2% should be expected up to 2010, partly due to the forced sale of its Sakhalin-2 scheme in Russia as well as problems in Nigeria, although it said production should increase by 3% or 4% after that.

The Anglo-Dutch group admitted that the reduced holding in the Sakhalin gas project would knock 0.4bn barrels of oil equivalents off its reserves base in 2007 when the deal should be consummated.

Shell boasted that its reserves replacement ratio was likely to reach 150% as it added more than 2bn barrels of oil equivalents for the second year in a row. But officials admitted later that much of this came from gas-to-oil plus oil sands projects - reserves that are far more expensive to produce than traditional oil and gas.

The company has been moving into increasingly tough political terrain such as Russia and even Iran, despite US opposition to investment in that country. Mr van der Veer admitted this was a "dilemma" but insisted Shell was some way off making a definite decision on the huge South Pars gas project there, which could put it on a collision course with Washington.

The Shell boss declined to completely bury continuing speculation of a possible merger between his company and the currently troubled BP. "I'm not even going to comment on those kinds of rumours," he said but had earlier stated: "We don't shy away from acquisitions ever."

Green groups were not alone in their concerns about Shell's profits, with union leaders calling on the company to spend more in the North Sea, where there have been several safety scares amid concerns that spending had been cut in the past.

Graham Tran, an Amicus regional officer, said: "It's time for Shell to evaluate its commitment to the North Sea and its staff. Offshore safety statistics are moving in the wrong direction. Shell needs to ensure its workers can operate in the safest possible environment. They will have to revisit their already committed spend on maintenance backlog, with a view to increasing it significantly."

National Energy Action, an energy efficiency charity, called on the government and Shell to use some of the "surging" profits to help fight fuel poverty.

by Erris Exile Tue Feb 06, 2007 05:29

WOW - the supporters of S2S are cetainly becoming Fat Cats themselves - it is interesting to see that one of the ladies photographed (about half way down the page - with a cancer stick in her hand - how ironic to go on about health issues) only needs 100,000 years to make approx 20billion whereas by your estimates it takes a Garda 500,000 years to make the same. So she's on about 200,000 per annum. Not bad for an organisation whose supporters claim to be grass roots!!!

by Etain - Shell To Sea Tue Feb 06, 2007 16:32

In reply to the above comment, not all S2S supporters smoke, and even if they do, so what? ,the emmisions released are trivial and minimal in comparison to the damage caused by the lethal toxic fumes spewed out by gas flaring. If you are so concerned about health issues, why don't you do something yourself?

It is a ridiculous argument, the pollution caused by a refinery causes far more respitatory diseases such as asthma and cancer and toxic pollution is far more widespread, seeing as the air will be polluted with Radon gas, Nitrogen, Sulpher Dioxide and Carbon Dioxide.

Wannabe Grass Roots, I don't think so.

by Euclid Tue Feb 06, 2007 17:39

I think we probably need a new calculator, is the real story...

by Erris Exile Wed Feb 07, 2007 09:04

"the emmisions released are trivial and minimal in comparison to the damage caused by the lethal toxic fumes spewed out by gas flaring." - its interesting to see your spin on an emergency device at a gas processing facility and its operations. Also interesting to see that you and your organistion profess to being more informed on things like this than the regulators that authorised the facility's construction and operation. Surely the EPA, HSA, APB et al have the competencies to review, comment and ultimately license such a project?!?! You may not agree with them, but that's your democratic right. Its only a shame and a public embarrassment that a certain minority that is S2S cannot accept the terminal has the approvals and it is going to go ahead. And regarding lethal toxic fumes (very very dramatic - you should be a film script writer), have you erad the project documentation, do you understand the concentration contours as outputs from the air dispersion modelling report. Obviously not. Get informed, not angry. As an environmental scientistic I challenge the facts by applying scientific techniques - not emotion. Luddite is a word that comes to mind to describe S2S. Its awful when the world seems to be against you. Smile, the peat haulage trucks will be rolling again soon and then you can get back into the newspapers - for all the wrong reasons. Enjoy

by Exile on Main Street Wed Feb 07, 2007 11:03

Calm down Erris exile.

The only consent that matters is the consent of the people who will have to live with the thing, and have to put up with the gas being piped to it through a high pressure pipeline.

That consent is not there, and daily huge gangs of police have to push the local people off the road to make way for Shell's contractors to access the site. Whatever government appointed bodies like the Dick Roche's EPA say is not the same as the people giving their consent.

You seem to take pleasure in the notion of the community having this forced on them. They won't benefit. You won't benefit. Why do you support this scheme?

Wouldn't you rather live in an Ireland where the govt cared about the consent and well being of its people more than the well being of Share holders in a company based in Holland and England.

by belmullet pat Wed Feb 07, 2007 11:20

Exile on Main Street, why do you claim to be a local and call yoursel an exile?
you would never get consent from residents in any area to this project (not in my back yard syndrome) and that is a fact!
same with many projects landfill/incenerators/sewage-treatment/ nightclubs/ect.ect.
But if you were to hire 100 top experts to locate a sparsly populated area on the west coast with a site sutable for building a refinery, they would probably point to bellinaboy!

by Arph Wed Feb 07, 2007 12:46

Shell employs 112000 people... so they make about 17k per employee.

That's pretty low.

by MNFGSH Wed Feb 07, 2007 21:22

The folks in the photos aren't protesters (most oif them aren't anyway), they are whoever happened to be walking by. As for making 1/2 million a year, I think a few maths lessons are needed.

The people in Rossport are not saying "not in my backyard", they are saying
NOT IN ANYBODY'S BACKYARD.

They want the gas refined at sea- why can't it be?

by penguin - save the antarctic Wed Feb 07, 2007 23:44 info at sustainability dot ie

There seems to be a bit of a common delusion among people who support the Shell/Statoil/Marathon Oil project that it will somehow benefit them. Unless they are shareholders in the companies involved or hiring out the trucks etc which will move 500,000 tons of wet turf from the refinery site, this is unlikely. Going by the figures on Shells own site ( 1 trillion cubic feet) the gas would only last Ireland about 6 years. So when Shell talk about the field lasting 20 years they either can't add up, are simply taking the pi** , or more likely are simply going to drip feed the gas out at a rate which allows them to maximise the revenue. If the field really will last 20 years, as Shell claim, and the figures relating to the size of the field are correct, then throughout this 20 year period Ireland will still be importing 75% of its gas from Siberia. So all you Dubs who only view the Corrib field in selfish terms won't even see the Corrib gas as most of it will be used on route. So much for security of supply.
The availability of 1 tcf of gas in the Corrib field won't make the gas any cheaper to buy. Its not a freebe to be handed out like the petrol coupons of old. It'll be sold at the current market value at the time, which given that most of the gas Ireland uses will still be coming from Siberia, will depend on how much the Russians have left and how much actually makes it past all those energy hungry nations on route to lil ole Ireland.

Even if there is more gas out there than Shell claim, how does anyone know for sure? Why would Shell underplay the reserves? The tendency in the industry has always been to over estimate deposits. And if Shell have lied about the size of the field, as some objectors believe, doesn't that make Ireland even more the thick Paddy for giving it all away to a conglomerate of multinationals? We had a chance to own this field. Back in 1979, the State even set up a national oil company with a view to establishing a 50% stake in whatever fossil fuels were out under the Atlantic shelf. But a series of either corrupt or simply breathtakingly inept decisions by successive Ministers gradually reduced any stake or royalty Ireland might receive to sweet f*** all. Nice one guys. We don't know you if you took back handers from the exploration companies but Burke, Fahy and Co were quick enough to take them from everyone else and his dog so we can draw our own conclusions.
As a result, we have to buy our own gas back from the people we gave it to. Hello!

I might disagree with some of the points made by Shell to Sea but they sure as hell have a better grasp of political and economic realities than the numpties who think they are somehow going to benefit from a resource which has already BEEN GIVEN AWAY

Penguin from Mayo

by Erris Exile Thu Feb 08, 2007 07:57

There are a number of reasons that it cannot be refined at sea. Firstly, and most importantly, let's dispense with the notion that it is purely a financial call. It is not purely a financial call. The overiding issues at play with an offshore facility are:
1. an offshore facility will still require an onshore facility (for water treatment to approved standards, chemical storage (e.g. Methanol), pumping facilties, odour injection etc - look at the facility at Inch for Kinsale - production is it is not solely offshore there either).
2. the west Atlantic seaboard is one of the most hostile environments in the world (far worse than the North Sea) and access and egress to and from a platform during a Force 8+ gale would be nigh on impossible. Choppers cannot fly in winds greater than appro 60 knots. Standby vessels are rendered useless, safety craft would have difficulty launching (just look at the conditions the RNLI have to go out in - one bunch of brave and heroic people in my eyes). General service, personnel transfer and supply would be impossible. So what would happen in an emergency situation???
3. The metocean conditions are not favourable here for the construction and operation of a platform - the water depth where it should be located is out near the well heads (location touted by S2S) is approx 300m - the North Sea is on average 100m.
4. Environmentally, you will not meet the same standards offshore as you would onshore due to severe space limitations on the platform for such treatment facilities.
5. Last, but not least, a pipeline coming ashore at high pressure is still required.

And that's only the overview. There are MUCH higher risks associated with both the construction and operation of an offshore facility than there is with an onshore on. Ask anyone who has been offshore - their preference would be to work onshore, whether it be at a depot, refinery or distribution terminal. I can vouch for that! The way Corrib is being handled is the correct technical way although not to the agreement of some. That is their view and as I said before, their democratic right. We are not an anarchic nation and due process must be followed even it be through the judicial system and all the way to the European Courts. My question is - when will S2S accept that democratic consensus (I am talking about due process here - same as with every other project in the country e.g. the M3 and Mr Salafia et al etc, The Glen of the Downs N11, any of the new power stations, the list goes on) has delivered its decision. Surely the whole legal system (National and European) cannot be wrong?!?! S2S might not like the outcome but that's democracy after all. If someone could give me a straight answer on that (no emotion and will of the people and all that) I would then probably begin to understand what S2S is really all about. Cos I surely don't believe them so far.

by Etain - Shell To Sea Thu Feb 08, 2007 17:29

Erris Exile, you strike me as very niave, if you believe everything your told , talk about being gullible.

Shell should never have been let into Bellanaboy in the first place, if you want facts thats a fact. Maybe your lack of concern for the local residents is because you don't live in that area anymore. You yourself won't be inhaling toxic chemicals or watching your farm animals die of unexplained diseases. This is not a fictituos scenario as in ' Films'. This is a REALITY. Maybe you should do a house swap for a week might teach you something or better still, why don't you visit the niger delta, where you can witness the pollution and the corruption first hand and this is not purely sentimentality this is FACT!

Angry, what good is anger, more like annoyed at the rubbish I'm reading, multi national corporations allways take the easy route, whatever saves them dipping in their greedy, grubby pockets. Claiming to be environmentaly friendly, a lot of PR clap trap, maybe Shell should go into the movies, their acting ability is second to none.

I would question on where your coming from, an environmental scientist who can't spell, remarkable!
Are you really who you claim to be? I doubt it.

Unlike yourself, I don't claim to be an expert in environmental matters or any other topic for that matter.

Ever heard of Environmental democracy, that means that everyone, every citizen of this country has a right to participatory democracy.

Yes, in an ideal world we would all love to follow the judicial system to the book, but unfortunately it doesn't work that way. Communities rights are being slowly eroded day by day. Anyone looking at the planning legislation from the outside can see that it is seriously flawed. Abuse of power is rife in the system.

Aquate yourself of the facts and then we might be able to have an intelligent conversation

by confused local Thu Feb 08, 2007 18:16

Etain, If you promise not to run and hide, I will take you up on your challenge (I have loads of time on my hands)

This has to be the first point ......."Aquate(you probably meant Equate) yourself of the facts and then we might be able to have an intelligent conversation"
I say practice what you preach!

"You yourself won't be inhaling toxic chemicals or watching your farm animals die of unexplained diseases."
Sounds scary, pure fiction of course!
Here is a link to data on the emissions from the largest refinery in Europe in the Shetlands and it has been discharging for over 30 yrs with ZERO impact on the local people or animals .......http://www.sepa.org.uk/spri/SPRIPA/Pages/Process.aspx?C...=1453
"Maybe you should do a house swap for a week might teach you something"
A house swap?where, why?

"I don't claim to be an expert in environmental matters or any other topic for that matter"
Nor I but I have internet access!

"every citizen of this country has a right to participatory democracy"
Guess what Etain I totally agree with you on that one, why don't you tell mark garavin?
A mandate (maybe) from an elite bunch of middleclass yuppies is hardly reflective of us poor uneducated culties from erris!
If he had ethics he would run in the general election, if he got elected I would eat my hat on the round-about

by Etain - Shell To Sea sligo Thu Feb 08, 2007 18:28

Face the facts , just look what shell has done round the globe,
just look at their record on enviromental issues,
just look what they have done to us the good people of erris.
is it any wonder why we want to get rid shell and all the co-horts they have divided our community.

They robbed our oil and gas they tried to drive us off the land,
they will never break our spirit
because they will never understand
shell to sea / shell to hell from eriss

by confused local Thu Feb 08, 2007 19:09

Etain why don't we arrange a debate in a chat-room, we could have two S2S participants, and two who don't agree with your predictions/analyse?
we could let some of the un-decided/unsure look on!

by penguin Thu Feb 08, 2007 20:09

Confused local boy are you confused! If as you claim, the Atlantic is unsuitable for off shore processing of gas, strange that even Shell didn't say that. They simply said it would be too expensive, which is quite a different thing. The needs of a multinational are quite different from those of living beings. The former simply require profit. The health of a company is measured by the amount of profit it is making. It has nothing to do with social or environmental considerations. The company leading the charge in this instance, Shell, has a combined wealth of more than the Irish State, with room to spare. Their annual profits are in the twenties of billions.
But they have to make more! So by their own logic, hardly surprising they don't want to to pay more than peanuts, especially when there's monkeys around to do the dirty work.

But lets suppose, mr confused local, that what you say is actually true. Perhaps the Atlantic is not the place for gas refineries. Perhaps its not the place for gas rigs too come to think of it, if conditions are really that bad. But even if, and this is one very big if, an inland refinery is the only option, wouldn't you think that putting it right into the middle of a very unspoilt rural environment, displays something of a retarded approach to natural resources? The thinking must be on the lines of : OK lets exploit this gas resource ( well in reality buy it back from Shell and Co ) but heck lets wreck another natural resource in the process. While we're at it, I wonder can kill off a few rare dolphins? You get extra points for the dolphins. They're real bad for the environment.
If this pipeline is so safe, and this refinery so low in its environmental impact, you'd think the best place to put it would be next to a town. Why not Westport for example, or Killala, or Belmullet? Surely there must be a 400 acre derelict site kicking around somewhere. ( there is in Killala ) I'm sure the inhabitants of these towns would be impressed, Westport especially as the local chamber of Commerce recently offered their backing to the project. But Jaysus lads don't build the feckin' thing here.
But to repeat a well worn phrase, 'its the economy [of it] stupid'. It's cheaper for Shell and co to put the refinery on a bit of ole bog they got from the Irish state for f*** all, situated as near as possible to where the gas is, because they have to keep all those shareholders happy. Keep the costs down. Maximise profits. Maybe make €30 billion next year chaps.
Does confused local think this is some kind of benevolent fund? A charity there for the benefits of the people of Erris perhaps?
Or do you receive a nice little brown envelope from our public spirited transnational brethren every time you put up a post on Indymedia?
( abit like Exxon funding all those organisations dedicated to global warming denial)

Penguin from Mayo

by redjade Thu Feb 08, 2007 20:15

try this
i think you can rig it save the text of the discussion, too.
after the discussion, post the text to indymedia.ie
http://chat.indymedia.org/

by confused local Thu Feb 08, 2007 21:15

"If as you claim, the Atlantic is unsuitable for off shore processing of gas"
You that seem confused now penguin, I never said that!
"wouldn't you think that putting it right into the middle of a very unspoilt rural environment,"
Yes I agree this is probably not the site I would have chosen, I would have preferred it located on the coastline!
But penguin/Etain /maura/tagdh and others like you have been so effective (perhaps rightly) in the past, that this refinery would never have got PP on the shoreline of broadhaven bay!
The reason bellinaboy was chosen was because it was not a "natural unspoilt bog" If it was then EU law would probably never allow this project be built on it!

Moving on you said......."They simply said it would be too expensive" too expensive for who? It wasn't going to cost shell anything, Unless there is less gas out there that the 300 million that shell says a offshore refinery would cost!
Just on a side issue If it was refined offshore and then piped ashore through rossport at high pressure, would you object then? (remember Belgium)

"Or do you receive a nice little brown envelope from our public spirited transnational brethren every time you put up a post on Indymedia?"
I post on Indymedia not for payment (although it would be a nice job if I were paid) but because I don't suffer fools gladly, and I am a local and don't appreciate my neighbours being scared by lies, no more no less....

Show me one instance where I say this pipeline is safe?

P.s redjade I would be delighted to debate this issue in chat, one on one.
Give me a time and I will be there, send your best debater and if I lose the contest, I will post an apology on the newswire!!

by redjade Thu Feb 08, 2007 21:31

'P.s redjade I would be delighted to debate this issue in chat, one on one.
Give me a time and I will be there, send your best debater and if I lose the contest, I will post an apology on the newswire!!'

Dude, you don't need my permission - Indymedia is about creating the tools so people can do it DIY - so, go set it up :-) i look forward to reading it.

by confused local Thu Feb 08, 2007 21:51

Sorry redjade I thought you were a S2S supporter.

I followed the link and it seems like an ideal place to debate this issue in real time.
I am not trying to be arrogant,I just have a view on this issue and cant understand why some posts seem (to me) deliberately misleading.
So I would welcome the opportunity to either be informed on the facts or inform others .

by redjade Thu Feb 08, 2007 21:56

I am an S2S supporter!

Sorry if I sounded too sarcastic or something - I just meant to say that there are tools for this idea available and you dont need nobody's permission to use them. The tools are there for you to use.

by confused local Thu Feb 08, 2007 22:25

That's ok redjade just a mix-up.
I do enjoy a debate, and don't mind being proven wrong (part of the buzz).
I really would enjoy a real-time discussion/debate with someone who is convinced of the merit of their case.
Not witty one-liners but a detailed analyse of the facts we have to hand.......

I will now formally challenge anyone who knows/thinks they have the skill and/or hard facts to disprove my claims/opinions on this project, to a real-time "one on one" debate at.....http://chat.indymedia.org/.
If anyone from the pro S2S camp wants to accept my challenge, I am available from 8pm tomorrow evening.

by D Thu Feb 08, 2007 22:56

I am not a supporter of S2S or Shell, but I must correct the statements made repeatedly on this site (including by Confused Local above) regarding the effect the petroleum tax terms in Ireland will have on the cost to the developer of a field and the amount of tax paid.

Tax will be paid on 25% of profits. As everywhere else in the world, that means 25% of the amount left after costs are deducted from income. The fact that costs are immediately "100% deducteble" has zero effect on the amount of tax payable over the life of the project, the only difference compared to the common alternative of costs being depreciated over a number of years is in the timing of the tax payments.

With a tax rate of 25% the net result is that the government effectively pays 25% of costs (since an increase of €100 in costs reduces tax payments by €25). Therefore the field developer pays the remaining 75% - so he has a strong interest in reducing costs.

by confused local Thu Feb 08, 2007 23:07

see below........
Mike Cunningham is a former director of Statoil Exploration (Ireland) Ltd. Cunningham has wide experience in offshore exploration and production and, in particular, the acreage off the western coast of Ireland. A former chairman of the IOOA's Environmental Committee and former chair of its Labour Relations Committee, Cunningham, now an independent oil and gas consultant, told Magill: No other country in the world has given such favourable terms as Ireland. Following the 1992 concessions when royalties were abolished and oil and gas companies were given a 100 per cent write-off against development and recovery costs

by D Fri Feb 09, 2007 07:59

There is nothing wrong with what Mike Cunningham has said, it is true that the terms in Ireland are among the most favourable to exploration and development companies. But the interpretation placed on his statement here and elsewhere, particularly with regard to "100 per cent write-off", is wrong. The correct interpretation (based on my 30+ years in the industry) is exactly as I have stated above.

by confused local Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:28

I will admit I am not a expert on this (or anything )-: )
And on the face of it , it does seem strange that the government would give such a deal.
But It is possible, I am only stating what I find when I research.
Shell has never come out and said the claim is incorrect!

You say "There is nothing wrong with what Mike Cunningham has said"
If that is correct, then the fact Mike Cunningham said " oil and gas companies were given a 100 per cent write-off against development and recovery costs"
Is correct!
the word "development " in that paragraph is very important!

by D Fri Feb 09, 2007 11:20

As I indicated in my original post above, 100% of development and recovery costs can be written-off against tax liabilities under every tax regime worldwide (although there are cases where more than 100% can be written-off as an incentive to invest, I know of none where less than 100% is allowed). The difference comes in how rapidly the costs can be written off and, since 1992, they can be written off in Ireland 100% in the year of expenditure instead of being spread (depreciated) over a number of years.

At the risk of repeating myself, this means that when the tax rate is 25%, the tax payable over the life of the project is reduced by 25% of all costs, so it could be said that the government pays 25% of costs as a result of that reduction in tax receipts.

I hope this makes it clearer. Shell may not see it as its place to correct miss-interpretations of the government's tax terms and, in any case, has Shell ever made any submissions here?

by Confused local Fri Feb 09, 2007 13:47

If you are sure of your facts D then thank you for clearing that up for me !
If what you say is actully correct then, the deal that shell got isnt as much a giveaway as we thought?
But why hasnt the Gov. or Shell clarified this before? this fact/claim has been used often eneough to show how good a deal shell got, if it is incorrect would you not expect pro-shell parties to point it out?
I am not saying you are wrong, you seem well informed.

by D Fri Feb 09, 2007 14:43

I am very sure of my facts as a result of my experience in the industry, which includes advising oil companies (and sometimes governments) around the world on the application of petroleum exploration and production terms, and I am pleased if I have clarified things for you - it would be nice if everyone that contributes to this site is equally enlightened.

I have no idea why the Irish Government or Shell have not clarified the position (I can only imagine that they dont want to get involved in the rediculous exchanges you so often see here).