# Government to ban oil and gas exploration



## joe sod (9 Feb 2018)

I think our tds are spending too much time hanging out in hipster bars when they are coming up with proposals like this. Fair enough some of them genuinely believe in banning it . It would be ok if they were banning fracking but all oil and gas exploration, come on. Most Irish people are driving around now in big petrol guzzling suvs, cars are one and half times bigger and heavier than they were 20 years ago. It's hypocrisy of the highest order and then there is the fact that we have also banned nuclear power, but we still buy it from UK. Are there any grown ups left in charge of the country


----------



## odyssey06 (9 Feb 2018)

If they are going to ban oil and gas exploration, then they should shutdown all fossil fuel energy providers in the country... the last person leaving can turn off the lights.
Pathetic virtue signalling nonsense.


----------



## dereko1969 (9 Feb 2018)

It might be useful to actually read about what happened rather than headlines. The opposition parties passed a vote on it, the Government did not.


----------



## TheBigShort (9 Feb 2018)

In fairness, the concept is to move away from fossil fuel energy sources and to invest in renewable energy sources. To the best of my knowledge the technology has been developed to harness renewable energies. Why wait? All the indicators are that future global trade deals will have significant onus on the use of renewables over fossil fuel sources.

Why not take the lead for a change?


----------



## RETIRED2017 (9 Feb 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> In fairness, the concept is to move away from fossil fuel energy sources and to invest in renewable energy sources. To the best of my knowledge the technology has been developed to harness renewable energies. Why wait? All the indicators are that future global trade deals will have significant onus on the use of renewables over fossil fuel sources.
> 
> Why not take the lead for a change?


Because the very people who think it is a good Idea are the last people who are prepared to put there hand in there pocket to do anything about it in Ireland,


----------



## TheBigShort (9 Feb 2018)

RETIRED2017 said:


> Because the very people who think it is a good Idea are the last people who are prepared to put there hand in there pocket to do anything about it in Ireland,



That actually doesn't mean anything. I think its a good idea, and I have a hand in my pocket right now


----------



## odyssey06 (9 Feb 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> In fairness, the concept is to move away from fossil fuel energy sources and to invest in renewable energy sources. To the best of my knowledge the technology has been developed to harness renewable energies. Why wait? All the indicators are that future global trade deals will have significant onus on the use of renewables over fossil fuel sources.
> Why not take the lead for a change?



Because most of our energy currently comes from fossiel fuels, and a large part of that is imported.
There's no way renewables will be able to meet our needs in the short to medium term, so why turn our backs on a valuable and potentially essential resource?

Every politician who voted for this should be asked which energy company they are with for their domestic supply.


----------



## odyssey06 (9 Feb 2018)

dereko1969 said:


> It might be useful to actually read about what happened rather than headlines. The opposition parties passed a vote on it, the Government did not.



There are more opposition TDs than government ones though... if the Dail passes the vote the government may ultimately have no choice but to pass the legislation in accordance with the vote.


----------



## RETIRED2017 (9 Feb 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> That actually doesn't mean anything. I think its a good idea, and I have a hand in my pocket right now


Judging by some of your post you are afraid you will have to put them in a little deeper from now on,


----------



## TheBigShort (9 Feb 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> Because most of our energy currently comes from fossiel fuels, and a large part of that is imported.
> There's no way renewables will be able to meet our needs in the short to medium term, so why turn our backs on a valuable and potentially essential resource?



Yes, we are all aware of where our fossil fuels come from.

But perhaps we are not all aware of the current global, and internationally agreed accord, to move our economies away from fossil fuel energy sources?

There is no question of, in this proposed bill, to stop using fossil fuels. It is simply going to ban the issuance of new licenses to drill offshore. There is no question of our current energy supplies running out any time soon.
The bill could however, give the impetus to those entrepreneurs who are inclined to do so, to consider investing in renewable technologies for future markets.



odyssey06 said:


> Every politician who voted for this should be asked which energy company they are with for their domestic supply.



That's glib. This is not something that any individual can change or take responsibility just by themselves. It needs intervention at all levels of society, from household waste, to industrial waste to national policy.


----------



## Purple (9 Feb 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> There is no question of, in this proposed bill, to stop using fossil fuels. It is simply going to ban the issuance of new licenses to drill offshore. There is no question of our current energy supplies running out any time soon.


So that is the point of the bill?
No Irish investors are looking for oil off the Irish coast as the water is too deep and the deposits are, so far, too small. 
We need oil for lots of uses from heart valves to condoms. Reducing the amount we burn for electricity and transport is what matters. Banning people from finding more of it is pointless.

If people are genuinely interested in reducing our dependence on fossil fuels for energy generation then they need to embrace modern nuclear power.


----------



## michaelm (9 Feb 2018)

Purple said:


> If people are genuinely interested in reducing our dependence on fossil fuels for energy generation then they need to embrace modern nuclear power.


Yes.  Build 3 nuclear power stations.


----------



## odyssey06 (9 Feb 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> But perhaps we are not all aware of the current global, and internationally agreed accord, to move our economies away from fossil fuel energy sources?There is no question of, in this proposed bill, to stop using fossil fuels. It is simply going to ban the issuance of new licenses to drill offshore. There is no question of our current energy supplies running out any time soon.
> The bill could however, give the impetus to those entrepreneurs who are inclined to do so, to consider investing in renewable technologies for future markets.



How? If there's no question of our current energy supplies running out any time soon... why would this act alone give any impetus to renewable investment?
Your statements are mutually contradictory.

Either we foresee a future need for fossiel fuels, albeit at a lower level than current, or we don't. 

To me it's ivory tower nonsense, like the way we won't dirty our hands with nuclear fuel here, but are happy to take nuclear sourced energy from the UK.


----------



## Purple (9 Feb 2018)

michaelm said:


> Yes.  Build 3 nuclear power stations.


No, keep buying Nuclear generated power from the UK. We are too small to have large scale plants here. When the new small scale plants come on line that will change.


----------



## Purple (9 Feb 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> To me it's ivory tower nonsense, like the way we won't dirty our hands with nuclear fuel here, but are happy to take nuclear sourced energy from the UK.


Maybe we could change Article 8 of the constitution to ban Nuclear Power in Ireland?


----------



## TheBigShort (9 Feb 2018)

So perhaps to elaborate and clarify.

I'm not wholly familiar will the bill itself. A cursory search of details of the bill, shows it does not actually ban offshore drilling. Instead it requires the minister to take into account the level of carbon emissions Ireland is emitting at the time of application of the license.
If it is over our agreed limits, then no license can be issued. If it is not then a license can be granted.

Doesn't sound unreasonable to me.


----------



## Purple (9 Feb 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> So perhaps to elaborate and clarify.
> 
> I'm not wholly familiar will the bill itself. A cursory search of details of the bill, shows it does not actually ban offshore drilling. Instead it requires the minister to take into account the level of carbon emissions Ireland is emitting at the time of application of the license.
> If it is over our agreed limits, then no license can be issued. If it is not then a license can be granted.
> ...


so cow farts should decide whether we drill for oil?
That does sound unreasonable to me.


----------



## TheBigShort (9 Feb 2018)

Purple said:


> so cow farts should decide whether we drill for oil?
> That does sound unreasonable to me.



 That's funny!

Actually there are technologies being developed to help reduce the level of carbon emissions from cow farts. I would assume, that if successful, then similar type legislation could be applied to the agriculture sector.

The key point is, are there alternative energy sources, or oil based products, that could viably reproduce or replace the current source?

I'm no expert on this, but there is tons of material supporting the view that renewable energies and alternative sources for oil based products can be utilized. In turn, reducing carbon emissions.
So if its possible, then why wait? Why not get on with it?


----------



## Purple (9 Feb 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> That's funny!
> 
> Actually there are technologies being developed to help reduce the level of carbon emissions from cow farts. I would assume, that if successful, then similar type legislation could be applied to the agriculture sector.


 True; kangaroos eat grass but don't emit anything like the same level of C02 because of an enzyme in their stomach. There is work being done on trying to introduce the same enzyme into cows. 



TheBigShort said:


> The key point is, are there alternative energy sources, or oil based products, that could viably reproduce or replace the current source?
> 
> I'm no expert on this, but there is tons of material supporting the view that renewable energies and alternative sources for oil based products can be utilized. In turn, reducing carbon emissions.
> So if its possible, then why wait? Why not get on with it?


 I agree. I've linked to Small Modular Reactors above. 
What I don't see is the link between looking for more and better form of energy which don't rely on hydrocarbons and banning drilling for oil and gas.


----------



## TheBigShort (9 Feb 2018)

Purple said:


> What I don't see is the link between looking for more and better form of energy which don't rely on hydrocarbons and banning drilling for oil and gas.



As I understand it. The burning of gas and oil releases carbon emissions into the atmosphere. If its not sourced, it cant be burnt.


----------



## Purple (9 Feb 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> As I understand it. The burning of gas and oil releases carbon emissions into the atmosphere. If its not sourced, it cant be burnt.


The point has been made that if we don't provide our own we'll just buy it from someone else but neither option will impact at all on how much we burn. In fact if we don't produce it locally it will have to be shipped in, thus increasing our overall carbon footprint.


----------



## michaelm (9 Feb 2018)

Purple said:


> No, keep buying Nuclear generated power from the UK. We are too small to have large scale plants here.


I like the idea of energy security and not depending on the UK.  We could also move most vehicles to electric.  Two plants could meet demand with a third for redundancy/export.  The only way is up for population numbers and demand.


----------



## joe sod (9 Feb 2018)

It's the hypocrisy of the government that gets to me, just a few months ago they could have equalized the duties on diesel and petrol but they balked at that, that would have been a hard and unpopular move. They could increase dramatically the excise duty on suvs but again that would be highly unpopular. So they go after an easy target exploration companies that are barely exploring anyway due to the big risks in exploration in the deep Atlantic. Some of the best brains in the world are involved in offshore exploration and these are the guys we have to thank for not being totally dependent on middle east oil. Despite all the renewables etc , oil demand is still rising year on year


----------



## Brendan Burgess (9 Feb 2018)

joe sod said:


> It's the hypocrisy of the government that gets to me,



Joe

It's not a government bill?  It's from the opposition.

Brendan


----------



## TheBigShort (9 Feb 2018)

Purple said:


> The point has been made that if we don't provide our own we'll just buy it from someone else but neither option will impact at all on how much we burn. In fact if we don't produce it locally it will have to be shipped in, thus increasing our overall carbon footprint.



If that what materialises then I agree it would be futile.

But a significant backdrop to all this is climate change and the Paris accord. With the exception of the Trump administration, the whole world is committing to finding alternative sources of energy outside of burning fossil fuels.
So, without all the detail to hand, I can imagine that there will be penalties (tariffs perhaps?) on the future importation of oil and gas, where viable alternative sources are available and where such importations result in increased carbon emissions.

Secondly, in terms in international trade, we are never going to compete in the oil and gas markets. However, we can compete in the food producing markets. So the sooner we reduce our dependency on fossil fuels, the more scope there will be to increase our stock of farting cows! (Until such time as we can wean ourselves of cow farts too of course).


----------



## joe sod (9 Feb 2018)

"We are never going to compete in oil and gas markets", you could have said the same about Scotland until early 70s, we are not competing because we have not found any oil, but we are going to go ahead and hobble a potentially huge indigenous industry. I doubt Saudi Arabia or Russia are going to hobble their oil industries because of global warming. I doubt people are going to swap their suvs for smart cars. So we just allow Saudi Arabia and Russia to get higher prices for their oil, remember oil demand is constantly rising


----------



## TheBigShort (9 Feb 2018)

joe sod said:


> you could have said the same about Scotland until early 70s,



Of course! Scotland in the '70's!! Instead of looking forward 40 yrs I should be looking 40yrs back?



joe sod said:


> we are not competing because we have not found any oil



It tends to be a significant factor alright.



joe sod said:


> but we are going to go ahead and hobble a potentially huge indigenous industry



_"Potentially huge"? _How about starting with potential. Im no expert, but in my lifetime, Kinsale and Corrib gas fields were about as good as it got. Neither has the capacity to supply the whole island long-term.



joe sod said:


> I doubt Saudi Arabia or Russia are going to hobble their oil industries because of global warming.



Well if the environmental forecasts come through, it will be global warming that hobbles the oil industry, regardless of what SA or Russia think.

[broken link removed]




joe sod said:


> doubt people are going to swap their suvs for smart cars.



Not willingly no, but tariffs, taxes are awful effective in changing habits.



joe sod said:


> remember oil demand is constantly rising



Yes, triggering concerns about global warming and international policies that may reverse that trend.


----------



## trasneoir (9 Feb 2018)

I'm assuming that the price of hydrocarbons never drops to 0.
I'm assuming that humanity will consume most big hydrocarbon deposits in the world, sooner or later. 
I'm assuming that extraction technology will continue to become cleaner and more efficient.

In that case, even if we set aside all green factors, drilling later is better than drilling sooner.
Putting a padlock on Ireland's strategic reserve sounds good to me.


----------



## joe sod (10 Feb 2018)

"Putting a padlock on Ireland's strategic reserve", sounds good and its good point. However we don't have a strategic reserve, we would only have one if the Irish government itself was exploring for oil and actually found oil and then decided not to drill it. We are depending on private exploration companies to do that and billions have already been spent, ask providence resources shareholders who have been basically wiped out. So if these guys found oil , you tell them sorry guys you can't drill it that's for Ireland's strategic reserve. Also I think the improving technology probably belongs to the exploration companies, we can't piggyback on that for free, it will still be very difficult to explore for oil in the deep oceans, when all is said and done somebody still has to stick a drill bit several kms down in the most hostile conditions on the planet to find out what's actually there


----------



## dub_nerd (10 Feb 2018)

We should maybe think about banning oil and gas exploration once oil and gas are the dirtiest of our fuels and we have alternatives. Right now a sizable fraction of our emissions come from the Moneypoint coal-burning plant. It provides the kind of baseload power needed to back up our intermittent renewables. It will have to be replaced, probably with a gas powered plant. Make no mistake, in this context natural gas is a "green" fuel. (Nothing's ever totally green, just green*er*). Cutting off a potential indigenous supply is nuts and will only increase emissions as we'll eventually have to import LNG.


----------



## Purple (12 Feb 2018)

dub_nerd said:


> We should maybe think about banning oil and gas exploration once oil and gas are the dirtiest of our fuels and we have alternatives. Right now a sizable fraction of our emissions come from the Moneypoint coal-burning plant. It provides the kind of baseload power needed to back up our intermittent renewables. It will have to be replaced, probably with a gas powered plant. Make no mistake, in this context natural gas is a "green" fuel. (Nothing's ever totally green, just green*er*). Cutting off a potential indigenous supply is nuts and will only increase emissions as we'll eventually have to import LNG.


Indeed, we are still burning peat, a unique and vulnerable ecosystem. Personally I'd rather burn the much cleaner natural gas.


----------

