Flow tests begin to probe commerciality of Falklands’ oil discovery
The North Falkland oil and gas exploration company Rockhopper Exploration plc (AIM: RKH) announced Monday that the Ocean Guardian drilling rig is on location at the Sea Lion prospect where oil was discovered in a drilling last April/May. Operations now are concentrated on the flow test of the Sea Lion main and lower fans.
The test of Sea Lion will be a key step on the road to proving commerciality of the discovery.
Rockhopper cautions that while testing can be more sensitive to weather conditions than standard drilling operations, the company anticipates that operations will be completed in approximately 30 days when a further announcement will be made on completion of operations.
Rockhopper was established in February 2004 to carry out an offshore oil exploration program to the north of the Falkland Islands.
The Company floated on AIM in August 2005 and holds a 100% interest in four offshore production licences: PL023, PL024, PL032 and PL033 which cover approximately 3,800 sq. km. Rockhopper has also farmed in (7.5% working interest) to licences PL003 and PL004, which are operated by Desire Petroleum.
These licences have been granted by the Falkland Islands government.
In February 2010, the Ocean Guardian drilling rig arrived in Falkland waters to carry out a multi-well drilling campaign. Rockhopper drilled an exploration well on its Sea Lion prospect during April and May 2010, the result of which is the first oil discovery and Contingent Oil Resource in the North Falkland Basin.
The well was drilled to a depth of 2,744 metres penetrating what the Company believes is a regional seal between 2,250 metres and 2,374 metres subsea. Based on log analysis, well site evaluation of shows and samples, sidewall cores and wire-line formation testing, it appears that all sands encountered beneath this regional seal at the Sea Lion location are charged with oil and no oil water contacts were encountered.
The top oil sand in the Sea Lion well was encountered at 2,374 metres subsea, and the base of the lowest oil sand (“oil down to”) level was encountered at 2,591 metres subsea. The total vertical oil column is 217 metres (712 feet), with total net pay of 53 metres in seven identified pay zones, the thickest of which is approximately 30 metres.
At the time Managing Director Sam Moody said that “Rockhopper has now confirmed the first Contingent Oil Resource in the Falklands. Our analysis of the data from the Sea Lion well suggests that there is significant potential upside on our acreage and our technical effort will now focus on integrating all of our new knowledge of the basin so we can understand and identify the best prospects for future drilling”.
“The test of Sea Lion will be a key step on the road to proving commerciality. We believe that, with modern horizontal completions and water injection in sands of the quality encountered, recovery factors significantly above the 15% assumed in the P90 case could be achieved. Furthermore, our recently updated economic model indicates that a stand alone field of 60mmbbls recoverable could be commercial at oil prices down to US$50 per barrel”, concluded Moody back in May.
Suggested Stories
-
Feb 07th 2012
Oil rig operating in the Falklands signs three year contract off Norway
-
Feb 08th 2012
Repsol-YPF CEO holds “positive and constructive” meeting with Argentine officials
-
Feb 06th 2012
Argentina puts pressure on YPF: wants oil companies with long term investments
-
Feb 03rd 2012
Shell announces major investment drive to boost falling production
122 comments Feed
Note: Comments do not reflect MercoPress’ opinions. They are the personal view of our users. We wish to keep this as open and unregulated as possible. However, rude or foul language, discriminative comments (based on ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or the sort), spamming or any other offensive or inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated. Please report any inadequate posts to the editor. Comments must be in English. Thank you.
real-agenda.com/2010/06/13/british-petroleum-disaster-an-insiders-account/
Hmmm I think a new 4x4 is on the cards & possibly a small motor boat so the wife & I can visit our Chilean friends & do some shopping.
Oh the future is bright in our free democratic Islands, shame you will never be able to visit.
What a great ambassador for Argentina.
Continue the good work OG crew, best of British to you all!
Ignore the likes of Marco; he is an insignificant!
The oil business confuses me more and more…………….
sartma.com/art_8016.html
Sea Lion well (14/10-B) was drilled in April/May 2010 where ”hydrocarbons were encountered”.
The well was suspended for re-entry and testing in September/October 2010.
Now they have to anchor up again, re-enter the well, drill through cement cores, test and plug the well again.
After testing, Sea Lion (14/10-B) will be permanently “plugged and abandoned”.
Isn’t this procedure a little bit awkward?
They find hydrocarbons….
They cement the well….
They return six months later…
They have to drill a new hole to test the well….
After testing, they “permanently plug and abandon the well again….
What’s wrong with?:
They find oil…They test the oil…They extract the oil…
But as they will not be reentering this hole they will P&A it. The plan will be to make the other finds and flow test these before performing multiple appraisal programmes. Rkh may do this but may get bought out before that stage??????
But.....
Are the “ big boyz ” in the business a bit wiser than that?
If RKH found nothing then their sp would be 0! The data de-risks the licence and ultimately the basin. RKH then has these as confirmed assets that have a certain value. As RKH owns 100% of it's licences then these assets are potentially huge, hence the sp rockets with the find and will do again if the next set of data is encouraging!
30 Beef (#)
Sep 04th, 2010 - 10:50 am
Nico. Firstly it is Dr Beef to you. I didn't gain a PhD to be called Mr from the likes of you.
PhD ...in garbage collection.
What a dream............
I'm still “baffled” by the 6 months “gap” between the finding of hydrocarbons at Sea Lion and todays testing.
Why so long.................... if not to keep the circus going?
For example if you are playing battleship you do not focus on one area at a time but narrow down your options. The gap also gives them time to analyse the data in depth.
Like my builder dad says. Measure twice and cut once.
Ther are no capitalist ploys in this one Think. It is a methodical and logical exploration.
But
If Sea Lion really was such a good fund in April, an immediate positive testing would have send the share price 10 times higher than it is today, allowing Rockhopper all the freedom to “build a broad picture”, sell to one of the big guys or whatever they choose.
Am I so wrong?
Also FOGL were already contact bound for the third slot.
In addition the well testing kit needed to be ordered, delivered, preped etc. This kind of kit does not fit into a briefcase and it is not economically good practice to pay for use of this kit only for it to sit in Stanley in case they find oil. It does not come cheap!
In a nutshell it would have been impossible to test after the exploratory drill as the infrastucture and capital were not in place and the cotractual obligatons would not have allowed it.
It is not about plausibility, it is about due dilegence, logictics and the time taken to analyse data in full.
You cross yours clockwise as you do in the North; I cross mine counter clockwise as we do down here.....
What we can both agree on is that (whatever the result - as we want opposing outcomes) the crew of the OG stay safe at all times and that nothing untoward happens that results in injury or worse.
Unlike Marco you appear to have a set of morals.
Now I have to get back to writing this chapter. I got my conference presentation e-mailed off to South Korea this morning and now have to focus on this bugger.
or do the gentlemanly thing and remain in dock,
Malvinas is our land; our claim is solid as a rock and everybody who knows the real facts is totally aware of it (including UK Foreing Office). You can say whatever nonsenses you want; I will not explain here to you all the strong supporting documentation about the reality of Argentina´s rights and ownership over Malvinas.
About “falklenders”, they can remain british; we do not care... All we want is OUR LAND. And please stop talking crap about “self-determination”; that´s a right of “colonized” peoples, not “colonizers” ones (as international law clearly points). It would be funny (and pathetic) to see chinese people claiming “self-determination” within Tibet, after been settled there by an invasion and military occupation... This is the same thing; UK government is fully aware of this too.
That argeutment has been working for thousands of years, I still stand by “if you want peace prepare for war”.
Your documentation does not overule the rights of PEOPLE. They aren't cattle, they are living humans with thoughts and emotions. Yes, they can stay british, they will stay british as long as they wish. Self determination is a human right which every person in the world is entitled to, it's a shame that not all people do get this right, but as long as we are involved, the islanders shall be allowed to live on there islands. They are not going anywhere, Argentina can cry stamp it's feet and spit your dummy out all you like, the best way to deal with a spoilt child is to just ignore it, which is what our government is doing.
“Chapter 1, Article 1, part 2 states that purpose of the UN Charter is: ”To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.”
Article 1 in both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Both read: “All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”
No mention of colonised/indigenous people there. But if Margo is right, “colonisers” do not have the right of self-determination. Unfortunately, the whole of South America is chock full of “colonisers”. Italians, Portuguese, Spaniards. It follows that Argentina, for example, has no right to self-determination. We should let the world know that there is a whole continent up for grabs as none of the population, except for Amerindians, has any rights!
“But what about the Falklanders? One would not wish them to suffer a similar fate to that of the Chagossians; and the fact that Britain upholds the 'principle of democratic self-determination' for the inhabitants of its small remaining colonies only when that accords with the UK's economic and strategic interests does not by itself prove that the claim of the people living on the Falklands / Malvinas islands should be given no moral or political credence”
“Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you”
Matthew
Malvinas Argentinas
Marco
Do unto others what they would do to you, but do it first!
No dirty Argentine immigrant dagos on the Falklands!
Falkland Islands for the Falklanders FOREVER!!
Ignore him.
Why does the UK have more rights than Argentina to claim land on the Argentine continental shelf. The continental shelf is ATTACHED to Argentina, you do understand this, right?
Countries with ocean coasts have sovereign rights over the sea bed and subsoil to 200 nautical miles from land, which is known as the exclusive economic zone, or to where its continental platform ends, including the slope, up to a maximum of 350 miles.
“or to where its continental platform ends” / “up to a maximum of 350 miles” The reason for this exception, is that not all countries with ocean coasts have a continental shelf that extends as far as the one in Argentina, such as Chile for example.
The people on Malvinas, or Falklands, or THE WONDERFUL KINGDOM WHERE ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE, are ON, ARGENTINA'S, SHELF. According to the Law Of The Sea, you're standing on Argentine soil.
So my question is. On what grounds does the UK feel entitled to void the Law Of The Sea? Explain this to me. If you want to write garbage then knock yourselves out but you won't be making a point.
This is an image of the Argentine continental shelf, OR if you like, the continental shelf that is attached to Argentina.
1.bp.blogspot.com/_cyXaHWpmJXI/RrgFJGQiUSI/AAAAAAAABl4/zgXopF4tQdk/s400/AGVL02_FV_SouthAmerica.jpg
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Argentina_Exclusive_Economic_Zones.PNG
If it was as simple as what you're describing the UN would've settled this case ages ago.
By the way, the UN does not “settle” cases like this so it's not exactly surprising that the UN has done nothing. Only the ICJ can “settle” the case, and it's very interesting that for decades Argentina has been free to take this matter there but has chosen not to do so.
Regarding the UN, as I understand it the UK will reject Argentina's claim and will submit data of its own, which will most likely cause the whole issue to freeze even more. Regardless, the UK will be forced to produce reasons for its intention to extend its own EEZ around Malvinas. I will find that VERY interesting as well.
I don't think the entire continental shelf belongs to Argentina, but I do believe we are perfectly entitled to extend our EEZ to 350 miles. I also believe you are not entitled to anything on Malvinas, due to the fact that Argentina inherited the Spanish crown's possessory title to the Islands. Following its independence from Spain in 1816, Argentina succeeded to the Spanish settlement on Malvinas, which were stolen by the UK in 1833 and later inhabited by a colony of British nationals we lovingly call: The Kelpers.
You're welcome to believe what you wish.
This is nothing to do with UNCLOS, it is because they have lived there for 200 years.
UNCLOS does not magically allow Argentina to claim someone elses home simply because you happen to share a continental shelf.
I would also point out that original 1958 Convention on the Law of the Continental Shelf was never ratified by Argentina, yet Argentina still felt it could ignore the rights of the islanders to claim their home.
Now as someone else has already pointed out the usual convention with UNCLOS is to place the dividing line betwen overlapping EEZ at the median point. Currently Argentina is squatting in about 50 nm of Falklands Waters.
How come if you inherited the Falklands from Spain, did you not also inherit Uruguay, Paraguay and a whole chunk of Bolivia?
Argentina inherited nothing from Spain, it took its independence through armed insurrection. Just for information in the recent ICJ case, Argentina asserted that Kosovo could not declare independence from Serbia, without Serbian permission. Were it to apply that principle to its own declaration of independence Argentina would not be a legitimate state.
In point of fact there is no principle in International Law that would back Argentina's assertion of any inheritance from Spain. You may claim Utis Possidetis Juris but as a legal principle that was evolved at the Conference of Lima in 1848 and has never been accepted as a general point of International Law seeing as you cannot bind other countries to a convention they have never signed up to.
And any claim under Utis Possidetis Juris would in fact confer rights upon Uruguay, since at the time Spain abandoned the Falklands settlement of Puerto Soledad, the islands were administered from Montevideo.
Also the claim that the islands were seized by force is not entirely true. HMS Clio presented a note stating that the islands were British territory and requested that the ARA Sarandi left with the garrison. Pinedo chose to comply with that request albeit under protest. One could argue there was the implied threat of the use of force but that did not in fact happen.
You of course welcome to believe what you like but an open mind would question what they've been taught and question what they hear. A closed mind simply parrots data they've been indoctrinated with.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viceroyalty_of_the_Rio_de_la_Plata
Paraguay declared its independence from Spain in 1811, Argentina in 1816, Uruguay in 1825 supported by Argentina, and Bolivia in 1825. The independence of all these states was not disputed by Argentina, we supported them fully. Furthermore, the territories this countries claimed never included Malvinas, only Argentina claimed Malvinas.
This was before 1833, by then Argentina was a well establish independent state, as were most countries in South America, especially Uruguay, Paraguay and Bolivia, and there was no question regarding borders or territorial claims.
I would hardly consider Argentina a “well established independent state” in 1833. Half the world did not recognise you as such, least of all the country you apparently “inherited” the Falklands from. Spain did not recognise you until 1859!
-end of story-
Britain added no reservation to the 1825 agreement because there was no need to. The Falklands did not belong to Argentina then, before or since.
Don't forget, you took your independence and any territory you could by force, not by agreement with Spain. You inherited NOTHING from Spain and you never gained control of the Falkland Islands, so they were never yours.
From (52) “Uruguay in 1825 supported by Argentina”. Ummm, no. Uruguay (as it is now known) was a disputed territory being fought over by the United Provinces of South America and Brazil. Britain brokered a treaty that led to the formation of Uruguay.
AND “This was before 1833, by then Argentina was a well establish independent state”. Also no. Argentina did not exist until 1853.
From (54) “Britain recognized Argentina's independence in 1825”. Also no. The local consul recognised the United Provinces of South America. At that time, the UPSA was nowhere near the size of Argentina today and it would therefore be ludicrous to suggest that any recognition could include territory 900-1000 miles away.
Were we to apply Utis Possidetis Juris, though it does not apply, any claim based on “inheritance” would be that of Uruguay. Let us of course not forget that the Spanish control of the Falklands was limited to the penal settelement at Puerto Soledad.
Also another fly in the ointment is that Spain unilaterally abandoned its settlement in 1810, relying on a plaque to continue with their sovereignty claim.
Further Argentina, more properly it was done in the name of the Republic of Buenos Aires, made no attempt to control the Falklands till October 1832 when Mestivier was installed as Governor. That appointment was subject to British protest and immediate action to remove what from the British perspective was an attempt to install a garrison on British territory.
You make a great deal out of Jewett's actions, hoever he was a privateer in the employ of one Patrick Lynch. Equally Vernet's efforts were private enterprise and were also sanctioned by the British. Offset against this are the large numbers of British ships routinely using the islands for periods of up to 2 years.
As Mr Roberts points out, what we now know as Argentina was a mere rump of a state nothing like what it is today, the current claim is a manufactured one dating from the 1930s.
Sorry but the Falklands were never Argentine, you've been lied to.
Page 82 is interesting reading:
books.google.com/books?id=PcKqApt5gSIC&pg=PA82&dq=Argentine+textbooks+Painful+choices:+a+theory+of+foreign+policy+change&hl=en&ei=0v2ITMjMEc6tOO_XuNMO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
We use the Self Determination arguement because in this day and age, it is the only one that matters, all other claims and such are hundreds of years old. That does not mean that if it was not for the people living there, we would not own the islands, as the people avove have pointed out.
The simple answer would be a collaboration with another regional partner. Brazil would jump to mind as they have already provided logistical support for the OG. However in the event that all of South America decided to move beyond verbal support and refuse to collaborate with the FIG and it right to establish a HC industry then it looks liks FPSO technology will be the logical course of action.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_Production_Storage_and_Offloading
Considering that significant production would be about 10 yrs away then there is plently of time for this technology to develop as well as the continued increase in oil prices. The oil could then be shipped straight to any market.
If potential partners want to play hardball then just cut them out of the deal.
Few more stages in there of course but already I'm place off Nigeria with costa going down as the technology develops!
Re inheritance
Spain did not begin to relinquish any of its American territories until December 1836. When it recognised Argentina in 1859 no explicit cession or transfer of the Falklands took place. Uti possidetis juris was not international law in 1810, 1816, 1833, or in any part of the 19th century and well into the 20th. The first time a group of South American countries reached a formal agreement on borders was at the Congress of Lima 1847/1848 (Argentina was not one of those countries) From this Congress it has taken a long time to convince the international community to accept UPJ, to the second half of the 20th century in fact.
Re EEZ/Continental shelf
It is sovereignty over the territory which gives jurisdiction over the EEZ/Continental shelf that surrounds that territory and not jurisdiction over that EEZ/Continental shelf that gives sovereignty over the territory.
Not the best perspectives in Brazil for South Atlantic British Oil Adventures if Dilma Rouseff wins the next elections (56% lead today) and Lula returns in 2014.
en.mercopress.com/2010/02/24/brazil-s-lula-da-silva-blasts-us-security-council-and-britain
en.mercopress.com/2010/06/16/brazil-denies-and-will-not-accept-contacts-with-falklands-oil-industry
Storage is only one of the challenges ….. Many other factors in the equation of making Malvinas oil ”Well to Tank price” commercially unviable.
But….. It is nice to sense your embryonic beginning of a cognitive conscientization about the remote possibility of the likehood of a minor setback in respect of the political positioning of our regional policies concerning the exploitation of our natural resources by some sore rests of a long forgotten Empire :-)
“Latin America and the Caribbean the most unequal region in the world”
The first thing that struck me as strange was the title of this article. Why would you expect such a large region to be equal? It's a necessity, a priority even but acting like it's a shock it's a bit ridiculous. Up until a few years ago this region was very divided, there was no such thing as Rio Group or Mercosur or UNASUR, it took a very long time for South America to realize that unification was the only way to grow.
I think what North America and Europe resent the most is that for all their achievements and so-called “superiority”, they are depleted regions of the world in terms of natural resources. Their priority, is to make sure we DO NOT unify and prosper, so that we're permanently dependent on their supply of technology/science or whatever we lack. So, to watch us prosper, to watch our industries become fully independent in every area must be a pretty bitter reality. It shows in their attitudes, they hate us but they have to act nice, at least at diplomatic levels. They know they need us more than we need them and soon we will need absolutely nothing.
Take the UK for instance, a tiny little region with a population of 60 million and natural resources that were exhausted centuries ago. Of course you have to resort to fraudulent means of acquisition. Be it for oil or food or water or whatever else. What else would they do? They knew they were in trouble hundreds of years ago, they sure as hell know it now.
Japan? 127 million, of course they're depleting the oceans of fish, even driving certain species to extinction such as the Blue-fin Tuna deliberately, to markup the price later on. Mitsubishi has built freezing units at very large scales for this very purpose, it is a completely premeditated, illicit act. (and don't get me started on whaling)
Argentina? Population 40 million in an extremely vast area, rich
...in natural resources. Is it a mystery why the British hate us so much? Is it a mystery why they desperately cling to what they've managed to steal over the years? “Self-determination” my ass.
No empire lasts forever, their time has come and gone, it's our time now and we need to keep a close eye on them, because they're watching us with envious eyes at the same time.
If you really believe the British hate Argentina that is classic transferrance of your own failings. No we simply don't.
From (64) “a long forgotten Empire”. But it seems that Twinky remembers it. And keeps reminding us of it.
Over a number of posts F_A has had it explained to him why his ideas about Argentina's claim to the Falkland Islands and his idea of history is false. Does he respond in a true spirit of debate? Does he attempt to rebut any of the information given to him? No to both. Instead he makes comments on an separate article with its own thread.
Fairly obvious who is incapable of a mature, intelligent discussion!
I suspect though that if(again it is if) it did prove commercial - well there are ceveral contries in S America that have no - or not enough oil - and they would have to do their sums and balance economic needs against Argentine rhetoric - and decide which mattered most to them.
It always been like that - on OAS - Committee 24 etc etc - it always will be -“what is worth it for me”.
No Fernando neither Britain nor us Islanders hate you - we just are totally puzzled by your failure to grasp a simple fact - the oil(if any) belongs to the Falkland Islands NOT Britain!
No.
“North America and Europe resent the most is that for all their achievements and so-called “superiority””
We don't resent you, we don't particually care.
“their priority, is to make sure we DO NOT unify and prosper”
And yet, it was us who started the UN, the worlds largest unifying power in history.
We don't hate you, we don't need you, we don't even dislike you. Your entire post really shows your mindset.
Self-determination wasn't “your ass” when you claimed independance from a government you didn't want ruling you.
It's really amusing that you even think of this crap. We envy you? yet it's argentina who wants something from us.
..chau Ingleses del orto me voy a tomar unos mates
Las Islas Malvinas Son Argentinas ツ
If we need more we can always buy some from the companies that will eventually set up production licences in the Falkland Islands.
Think - you are bright enough to realize that what is said in public and then said in private rarely correlate. If I were Argentina I wouldn't bank on the “gesture of support” becoming morentgat just that; especially when a wad of $ is involved!
Yeah...Im hurt.
And you are intelligent enough to realize that this “rare correlation between what is said in public and in private ” is beginning to be more plausible than you would like tho think in the Malvinas issue.
But then we all know what F_A stands for, don't we?
Islander, you must be so f***ing optimist if you think southamerican countries will kneel down for your oil. While you take your time to exploit it, countries move forward to another types of energies. Besides, do not forget we, Chile, Uruguay and Paraguay can buy oil to Brazil, Bolivia, Peru or Venezuela. Why these countries would buy you knowing that could upset Argentina when they can buy oil in other countries? Southamerican countries analizes what is more convenient, worsen the relationship with Argentina just for your oil is not an option today, we are economically dependent of each other. This is business!!!
Enjoy your status of Kelperkistanianwhile you can, future is uncertain for you and I think you know it!
But it is important to ensure that, in future, any country that hopes to benefit from Falkland Islands resources will have to publicly and legally acknowledge British and Falkland Islands sovereignty over all territory in the archipelago in perpetuity.
Note that this does not stop any country benefiting provided that the Islanders' rights are properly recognised. As countries could acknowledge and recognise British and Falkland Islands sovereignty over all territory in the archipelago in perpetuity for as long as it suited their purpose and then renege, adequate sanctions will have to be determined and implemented.
Nope- our future not uncertain at all! Uncertain if or not oil yes - but our economy would carry on without it, like all countries you have to watch what you spend and how you spend and invest. We have reasonable fisheries income - even without the Ilex squid(that,s just a bonus), we have good tourism and other smaller income spinners. We have our own government and we have strong defence guaranties.
And I've told you already, I don't need your agreement or your respect. I don't give a damn what you think, you're nothing.
Zethee, we want nothing from you, if you're referring to MALVINAS it does not belong to you in the first place.
One could easily say that about some of the stuff you and your friends write Fernando. Personally I think it's best to stick to the facts.
Like the fact that the last Spanish Viceroy was based in Montevideo, not BsAs, which renders the claim that Argentina inherited the Falklands from Spain meaningless.
I'd stick to drinking mate if I were you...
Before the British STOLE the islands the Spanish Viceroy was in control, then Buenos Aires. The British didn't declare war in 1833, so what? We didn't surrender the islands you took them by force, from US.
You think if I don't come back to this article that means your right? Is that it? You people are sick, seriously.
Then there's posting links. Posting dubious links to the guardian (always a strange paper), to youtube (nonsensical), to Spanish-language sites (bit daft as this board is in ENGLISH) and to other sites where, for example, the site owner has already agreed that the British/Falkland interpretation is correct, are all non-starters.
I'm glad you don't need the agreement or respect of sensible, intelligent people, because you don't have either. What would be the point as you are clearly a rabid, psychotic, lunatic fanatic mouthing the words of government propaganda.
By the way, malvinas doesn't exist except in the drug-induced psychedelic dreams of Argentines. The archipelago in the South Atlantic is the Falkland Islands.
Fernando,
Read what I posted above. Spain was never in control of the Falklands. It had a garrison and prison at Puerto Soledad, that's about it. Buenos Aires was never in control of the Falklands. It never even managed to control Port Louis, much less the whole of the Falklands. Full effective control of the whole archipelago was not established by any country until after 1833, by the UK.
Carlos Escude. Eduaction, political culture and foreign policy: THE CASE OF ARGENTINA
Interesting reading very interesting.
Do you live in the Falklands?
Thanks I'll look that up but to be honest I don't really do YouTube.
As a result, I never say where I may be at any particular moment in time.
I live in The Falklands and proud of it.
Yea that tends to happen when you break the rules yourself you hypocrite.
The UK violated a UN resolution forbidding unilateral development in disputed waters, UN resolution 39/40. UNCLOS and customary international law calls upon the two parties to refrain from taking decisions that would imply introducing unilateral modifications in the situation while the parties negotiate a solution. This prohibits unilateral exploratory activity which might cause permanent physical change to the seabed or subsoil.
You think the islanders are better off under British control? Or is it that you want the Islands themselves to be British? Zethee is right, this will never go away. The islanders will always be 8,000 miles from the UK and 300 miles from Argentina. If the UK wasn't so f---ing selfish they would see that the best thing for the islanders is to be part of the community in which they live, Argentina and Chile.
Conqueror, now I KNOW you're insane [if I ever had a doubt] I can't believe the garbage you just wrote. You are seriously disturbed, without exaggeration.
The islands are not under British control, they are under the control of the islanders themselves, the British merely provide a gurantee of their defence against a belligerent and irrational neighbour.
We didn't break any agreement, Argentina did. But typically you blame everyone else for your own failings.
If anyone is disturbed dear boy it isn't Conqueror.
How can you say that, the people who live there have an oppinion, and they don't want to be a part of your community, you can't force them.
You can't say whats best for them, thats for the islanders to decide.
That old chestnut that the Falklands is only 300 miles from argentina,does this count for Uruguay
Isla Martín García is an Argentine island off the Río de la Plata coast of Uruguay.
Or are you f---ing selfish
Fernando, why can't the Islanders be part of the region the live in? Just as they are? Why do the Islands HAVE to be Argentine before that can happen? Why can't they choose what they want for themselves and their homeland? It's obviously you Argies who're the f**cking selfish ones...
@113 Ale. “The islanders claim that the cost of sustaining their splendid isolation can be met from the potential revenue from oil. But that oil no more belongs to them than the revenue of North Sea oil belongs to the Orkneys.”
I need to get this question right. The wells that are being bored are WITHIN Falklands territorial waters. The Falklands are in full control of their own INTERNAL or DOMESTIC affairs. Leaving aside Argentina, who is just trying to steal something to which they have no claim or right, who does any oil belong to?
I don't recall the Govenor of TDF or the Federal Government in BA granting any oil licenses, or even the British government?
“F_A. Last time I looked, you were wishing for A British vessel to be at the bottom of the sea with every Brit it could carry.”
Excuse me?? Was I talking about a British military vessel?
Quote exactly what I said, if it was the last time you looked it shouldn't be that hard. And tell me which article I posted this in.
But I do owe you an apology for suggesting that you had wished for a British vessel carrying all the Brits it could to be at the bottom of the sea. It was, in fact, your pal, gassy.
So let's substitute
en.mercopress.com/2010/09/08/argentina-wants-to-stall-montevideo-port-as-the-efficient-regional-hub#comments
where you hope for my death.
I don't retract myself from anything I say, I just point out when someone fabricates.
The editor has removed both british and Argentine remarks, i've had a couple of mine removed without having anything insulting in them.
Argentine posters do get theres removed more than ours, but when you see jorge! and other rabid people posting it's no wonder why.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!