Frank Fahey sees Shell on the sea shore

[Malbekh]

Soooo, if Fahey had been hit by a bus 4 years ago, you reckon none of this would have happened?

Call me naive, but I suspect that if Fahey had not had the wholehearted support of the government, none of what happened would have taken place. I don't see the sense in blaming this on him alone.

I can't possibly comment on your supposition.

But you are not naive.

[Mic]

OK, tonic. You're were just trying to clarify/correct some details by the OP.
Well forgive me for asking if anybody was able to add any further clarification!
I thought my questioning was reasonably clear. I guess you think otherwise.

Maybe you might re-read my actual question and see if you can add anything?
I'd rephrase it, some of us have to work. Golly this politics.ie is time-consuming!

[Half Nelson]

..The tax take for any new exploration has already been changed to a 40% rate.

When you say it like that it sounds reasonably attractive doesn't it? You have inadvertently omitted the fact that all exploration costs are still tax-deductible, leaving the state with a potential tax take of zero.

Minister Ryan confirmed that any licences granted as a result of the Porcupine Round would be subject to the revised licensing terms which he announced earlier in the year which provide for a tax take of up to 40% in the case of more profitable discoveries.

[tonic]

When you say it like that it sounds reasonably attractive doesn't it? You have inadvertently omitted the fact that all exploration costs are still tax-deductible, leaving the state with a potential tax take of zero.

I haven't inadvertently omitted anything, I would have thought something like that would go without saying. You pay tax on profits, what other way could it be.

A tax take of zero could only happen where no profits were made, a not unreasonable proposition I would suggest.

[Mic]

I haven't inadvertently omitted anything, I would have thought something like that would go without saying. You pay tax on profits, what other way could it be.

A tax take of zero could only happen where no profits were made, a not unreasonable proposition I would suggest.

The proposition is made, but your suggestion that it is not unreasonable is not neccessarily the case. It may in fact be reasonable, but it certainly seems unreasoned.
One might consider, for example, that is is not unreasonable to have a lower tax take and instead take a share of of the oil itself and/or some form of royalty payment?
Taking this into consideration, the reasonable tax proposition seems to miss the point.
The alternative proposition to be assesed for reasonableness is whether the state should be agree to tax take only and reluinquish any actual stake.
Surely a non-zero stake has advantages beyond the purely monetary value connected with security of supply?
If no-one is willing to prospect for oil at this time while they are going to have to share part of it with the state, might simply waiting until such time as they are willing to do so be the better option?
I can imagine that perhaps someone believes that there is lots more oil to be discovered so we need to keep ridiculously attractive licensing arrangements in place until prospectors start to believe this too and then introduce licenses which are more advantageous to the state?

[pjoz]

For anybody interested in some background info on shell operations in Nigeria this is an interesting document. This is the kind of organisation Mr Fahey bent over backwords to help for no apparent reason.Just doesnt make sense does it?http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~csearwe...d-the-mask.pdf