Ireland's natural resources given away while cuts are called for

by psephologist Sat Jan 31, 2009 20:17

It seems that all the political parties who have a chance of being in government - FF, FG, the Green Party and the Labour Party, are in favour of giving away the country's resources.

Only Sinn Féin, of all the parties in Dáil, have come out and explicitly said they would alter the system.

But SF have been ruled out from being in government by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael.

The smaller parties have varying positions on this issue,but little representation or hope of being in government.

So, as far as this issue is concerned, democracy has been abolished. No matter who is the minister after the next election, the oil and gas in Irish territory will still be handed over to the likes of Exxon and Shell.

Meanwhile, teachers, bus drivers, nurses and others will see their jobs cut.

by sam Sun Feb 01, 2009 16:18 samsimpson at utvinternet dot com

This is a scandal of epic proportions , to rival anything since our (partial and so-called) Independence.
The lack of vision, total void of accountability or national sense of ambition or basic sense of responsibility or integrity by our gombeen politicians reaches an apex.
It is no less than criminal what they have done, and they deserve no more than a hefty spell in a national labour camp after a people's Revolution.
Why oh why do we put up with them....?

by rianorr - none Mon Feb 02, 2009 14:16

There should be a referendum on this issue of ownership of these resources.

The abject surrender of this valuable resource by the Fianna Fail 'ure government
has to be challenged and reversed so that the people of Ireland get a just return
for developing the gas field.

Politicians, as usual, cannot be trusted. The interests they represent are the same people
who have bankrupted the country while enriching themselves. The longer they continue in power
the more damage will be done.

by boc Fri Feb 06, 2009 18:52

1. Has the legality of the agreement with the energy companies been tested?
2. If not, could they be?
3. Is it possible to reverse the government’s decision on the give-away of our natural resources?
4. What does it take to do so?

Your comments are appreciated.

by angryman Wed Feb 25, 2009 13:26

3. Is it possible to reverse the government’s decision on the give-away of our natural resources?
4. What does it take to do so?

A different government could do it with the stroke of a pen.
The oil and gas companies might not like, it but half a loaf is better than no bread.
The problem with doing it, is that it does tend to lead towards the CIA/MI5 fomenting the overthrow of whatever fragile democracy you might have had. (take Iran's renegotiation of the deal for their oil, leading to the overthrow of Mossadeq and the return of the Monarchy, backed by powermongers)

by mescalito murphy - mescalito Tue Mar 17, 2009 01:53

is this a big surprise??
Of course bertie and burke sold us out, whie the latter has already served time behind bars for corruption ,the other explains away his ill gotten gains as a dig out from his buddys!!!
Sinn Fein seem to be the only mainstream party with plans to take some revenue back from the money hungry oil companies

by bean counter Tue Mar 17, 2009 17:07

The answer to "boc's" questions are:

1: The legality of the agreement between the State and the oil industry has never been tested.

2. The reason it has never been tested is that there is no reason whatsoever to believe that it would be illegal or unlawful.

3. If the State broke the agreement it would be sued by Shell, because in return for Shell agreeing to drill a specific number of wells within a particular timespan, Shell was to be paid an agreed price per cubic metre for delivery of the gas into the national grid (The agreement didn't give "ownership" of the gas to Shell). Shell spent a very very large sum of money and accepted the risk if no oil or gas were found in carrying out its part of the deal. Under Irish law Shell would be entitled to recover damages in the amount it has spent in exploration and drilling, and an amount equal to its projected future earnings from the well. Probably, several billion euro - no problem in these times of plenty. This contract is also a constitutionally protected property right ,and the State could no more confiscate it without compensation than it could steal your property without compensation. This is aside from the consequences for future inward investment (and existing foreign investment) and our membership of the EU of any attempt to abrogate the State's obligations.

In future, and to avoid the possibility that our abundant and easily recovered oil and gas resources might be "stolen" by Shell or some other beastly multi-national, I suggest that the Irish tax-payer should shoulder the entire risks of future oil exploration using the Pension Reserve Fund as colateral. This, as anyone who has absorbed the Ladybird edition of Das Capital will know, would be brilliant economic sense.

by Fearbolg - s2s Tue Mar 17, 2009 23:57

You're an optimistic man if you think the Pension Reserve Fund is still there

by counter Wed Dec 02, 2009 14:12

I think the fact that Ray Burke who was later found to be corrupt by the tribunal of inquiry negotiated the deal is enough of a reason to have misgivings about the lega;lity of the deal with Shell.

The other points that "bean counter" makes about a deal to sink wells in return for gas being sold at a specified price are not true. There is no such agreement. Shell's deal just says that they have rights to explore in certain areas and keep whatever they find, and that the royalty rate is set at zero. A government minister could change the royalty to say, 25% without any legal ramifications whatever.

They'd have to have the balls to face down the multinationals and the gentlemen who wrote whatever they are told to for the O'Reilly press.