Falklands’ oil offers an exit strategy from the dispute
By Graham Bound - The discovery of a large field of natural gas beneath the seabed south of the Falklands received appropriate coverage in the UK press. Rockhopper Exploration’s agreement with Premier Oil, which is likely to involve an investment by the latter of up to £750m, has also been noticed.
In fact, I am downplaying this. I think a wide band of people in the UK have been simply amazed at the news coming out of the Falklands. I believe most media reading people in this country are now convinced that the Islands will soon become a hugely rich oil producing territory.
The commonly held view here is that the war of 1982 was all about oil, which I am sure most Islanders and Argentines know not to be true. But it would be right to say that oil is changing the dispute. The key to this is a surprising degree of corporate confidence and commitment.
There is no sign at all that Argentine threats have succeeded even slightly in dissuading rich oil investors.
And London is to thank for that. Had Whitehall issued anything less than cast-iron and categorical expressions of support for the corporations which invest there, BA’s threats might have succeeded.
A socio-economic impact study will soon tell us of the likely effect of an oil industry, and my guess is that both good and bad visions will come from it. But I don’t think a study is necessary to confirm that the discoveries of oil and gas are anything other than good for the political future of the Falklands. As long as wealth and strategic importance are promised, then no government will take a weak and compromising position on sovereignty.
Within a few years Argentina will realize that crude aggression and sanctions are a waste of time and only make them look immature. They will then begin talking more pragmatically about cooperation, and secretly request face-saving concessions. My guess is that the Falklands and the British Governments will feel secure enough to welcome this and satisfy Argentina’s need for an honorable exit from its hard-line strategy.
I would not like to guess what form a concession might take, but it is likely to be politically symbolic but economically significant.
In any case, it does seem to me that prosperity from oil and staunch support from Britain may enable us to close the book on tedious dispute that has stymied the Falklands and Argentina for more than six decades.(Penguin News)
By Graham Bound, London
Suggested Stories
-
Jun 19th 2013
India-Argentina pledge to improve trade; Timerman thanks Delhi support on Malvinas dispute
-
Jun 20th 2013
Swiss lawmakers defy Washington reject deal to lift banking secrecy and expose US tax dodgers
-
Jun 19th 2013
Gibraltar invites Spanish treasury inspectors to dispel claims of tax evasion money
-
Jun 19th 2013
Australian red meat exports to China break new record in May: 20.964 tons
47 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.
“Makes me wonder if its a waste of time investing in the Falklands. The Formula works out for shares in the Falklands so far as follows.
Company :- fails to find oil loses 90% of share price
Company :- Finds oil share price increase 100% then drops some 50% over time. finds more oil recovers 30% manages to get a farm in partner, price drops 50% and keeps droping.
This is a good way to lose money at this rate Falklands will be pumping oil at a loss to its share holders. A company with oil in the ground should be like money in a Swiss bank account, yet Rockhopper is losing its value at over 2% a day. It will be taken over for peanuts at this rate. I can see it go down to £1.25p by the end of the year. If FOGL finds oil it may recover a touch, heaven help RKH if it doesn't”
I'm presuming this is meant as comedy well its either that or a complete lack of any understanding of how oil companies and share prices fluctuate.
And meanwhile back on planet earth, this is yet more good news for the Falkland's people whilst Argentina continues to slump from being an insignificant economy to a non-existent economy.
If only Argentinian's could focus on what is important to their welfare rather than the islands they give a make believe name that do not belong to them.
Her only way to save her botox face is to ramp up aggression towards the Falklands.
It will not work. Argentina's chances of benefittig from port duties and refinery charges are now gone as investers are seeking to build facilties to avoid using Argentine mainland.
The moral of the story, be peaceful and act nice to your neighbours and you win. Or you follow the CFK route and lose all round.
All fantasy's about ownership of the islands are a further smokescreen to cover her ineptitude of office and will come to nought.
If she should go for her last gasp action of military action (possibly her last chance) she will find the same response as her Junta predecessors got
Either as a pathetic stunt which would make argentina a world wide laughing stock. Or a sucide mission which would get s lot of people killed.
Maybe once kirchner is gone somebody can reboot relations on a more sane setting.
Perchance, did you actually read the above article? I'm sure if you look again you will find the following:-
“There is no sign at all that Argentine threats have succeeded even slightly in dissuading rich oil investors”.
Somewhere, there is a village who is missing it's idiot.............
Yep... Mike moved to Argentina.....
The current Argentine government is so pathetic as INDEC, the national statistics agency declared that a family of four should be considered above the poverty line if its monthly food bill exceeds 688 pesos, equal to about six pesos per person per day. But six pesos is just enough to buy an Alfajor, a sweet biscuit nibbled over coffee, but this six pesos is more than sufficient to buy an entire day's food according to INDEC.
With Argentina having government agencies like INDEC it is no wonder that their people have been fed lies and propaganda about the history of the Falklands.
Too right, the falklands is a whipping boy for all that is wrong with argentina. If the peso looses value... lets whip the falklands. If power prices rise.... lets whip the falklands. If crops fail, and rivers dry up or silt up... lets whip the falklands.
Bury their bad news under an avalanche of Malvinista twoddle.
Excellent reasoning. They forget the UN resolutions and multilateral organizations like the UN, OAS, CELAC, MERCOSUR.
They still think like colonialists and imperialists. Is colonialism and piracy in the 21st century.
Plunder of natural resources agragado value of preemptive strikes and humanitarian bombing civilians as in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Which UN resolutions are you referring to? Which ones are binding? Which ones were extinguished after the 1982 invasion? Please be specific.
What is colonialist and imperialistic about allowing the islanders self determination (ie THEY choose how and by whom they wish to be governed)?
But you both forget something very important.
The Falkland Islands have got absolutely nothing to do with Argentina.
What ever slim claim the Argentininans had was signed away in 1850 after the 'Convention of Settlement Treaty' was ratified by Argentina Remember - 'a state of perfect harmony had been restored' 'no longer had any outstanding differences.'
The present 'Great Malvinas Lie' was only started in the time of Peron (Hitler's budy).
The Islanders also have the moral ground - the right to self determination.
So there you have it. Argentina has no legal nor moral right to the Falkland Islands. Wind your necks in.
Are you really going down the UN reoslution route again as well as the outdated imperalist argument? The islands are not a colony they are a foreign overseas terriotry and will remain so as long as the people if the islands wish to remain so. This is the entire purpose of the C24 as set out in their misison statement “www.un.org/en/decolonization/questions_answers.shtml”;
There goal is to decolonise people not places. As no Argentine is living under colonisation in the Falands they have no rights under the decolonisation group fo the UN. What Argentine wish to do is subject the people of the islands to rule from a foreign power which is the deffintion of colonisation. I have asked you previously how handing over control to Argentina would be in the intrest of the population which you yourself acknollege is refrenced in the UN resolutions, therefore if it is not in their intrest to be handed over to Argentine rule no handover can be completed that is in line with any of the UN resolution documents and a such I fail to see how agrresive tactics can work.
Can you show me a document anaywhere from the UN or the OAS which states the Islands are Argentine? These two organsiations have only ever called for talks and peaceful solutions which take into account the intrest of the population.
What do military operations conducted by the UK on behalf of NATO have to do with the Islands or is this the usual tactic of trying too show that the Argentine argument must be right because the British are so called “Evil” if so how do you explain the actions of the Argentine government in 1870's under General Roca when he collonised Patagonia? Do you believe that the native population of Patagonia should be decolonised from Argentine rule in the same way you support decolonisation of the islands? If not then pelase explain why, so that I can see why you do not see a contridction in these two opionions?
He warns against it and its use.
(Not true, actually. But wouldn't it be good if it were ;-)
Meanwhile Argentina is still flogging a dead cow!
Says it all really.
,,.
Within a few years Argentina will realize that crude aggression and sanctions are a waste of time and only make them look immature
Enough said…
.
@18 Haven't forgotten the NON-BINDING UN resolutions. They mean as much to us as the BINDING UN Security Council resolution 502 that you wankers IGNORED. I am so looking forward to when our armed forces OBLITERATE you. I really want argieland to turn into a nuclear wasteland. With a total population of 450,000. Do you have any preferences for how you'd like to die, dog turd? I'm in favour of listening to you screaming in agony whilst watching your spouses and offspring being hacked into small pieces. Bite-sized pieces suitable for our dogs. Don't dogs like faggots?
Jaaaaaaaaaaaaaaajaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaajaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
“the Brits”
“most of them”
For someone who is supposedly British. That doesn't sound very British.
keeps making the biggest insults ...for what?
He does not have nothing to do...jaaaaaaaaaaaaajaaaaaaaaaajaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Something I haven't heard anything about for a while is the cemetery vandalism. Smells like an Argentine has been found to have done it. There'd be too much cage rattling from over the water if it was the other way round.
Anyone heard anything?
on the other hand, the british will never talk to them, as their is nothing to talk about .
Such generic gay venting from his arse again!
:-)
Attempted BY Argentina's current goverment, yes.
By anybody else, no.
If confused try google and look up the meaning of the word...it will help you a LOT in understanding why using such phrases as a way to “show up” Britain and British people is an absolute non-starter.
What the current Argentine goverment is attempting, however, fits the definition exceptionally well.
Is losers,
For even if she gets them, she loses,
All she will get is a very poisonous porcupine…
`Meanwhile Argentina is still flogging a dead cow !`
Is Christina dead then ?
Indeed. You said most of THEM, not most of us.
It's a poor act.
“They forget the UN resolutions ”
The non-binding ones that take into account the interests of the islanders?
It is crystal clear that it is not in the interests of the Islanders to be Argentine so there's that one out of the way.
Also in all of those resolutions it mentions that Independence takes precedence in issues of de-colonisation-and the constitution changes in the Falkland Islands are leading to less control from the UK, whereas Argentina does not want the Islanders to have any say over their government; therefore Argentina wants to be a colonialist.
No matter what the UN C24 (formed of corupt undemocratic regimes -against the UN charter's principles), thinks, Argentina is by definition wishing to colonise the Falklands where the UK is assisting the Islands to more autonomy-therefore UK is abiding by UN principlesand Argentina rejects the UN Charter's principles.
And speaking of the UN and negotiation:
“Argentinean Sovereignty over the Malvinas is not negotiable. That is the starting point of negotiation.” (Dante Caputo, Argentine Foreign Minister, 13 November, 1983. Quoted in House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, 1983-4, Report, Vol. 2, p 149)
Hilarious ......
@30 A double negative! Word games! What does an argie and an ignorant, fat slag have in common?
@33 Are you trying to promote yourself as Sussie's pimp?
@35 True. You're a blind, stupid twat.
@42 No surprises. What do argies and Spaniards have in common? Colonialist, piratical, criminal scum.
Wonder if Argentina have actually checked a dictionary to see what negotiation actually means?
Nice name Caputo.
Sums up his country's diplomacy skillls.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!