MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, December 15th 2017 - 00:21 UTC

Premier Oil expects 2017 production in the range of 75.000/80.000 boepd

Tuesday, August 29th 2017 - 11:36 UTC
Full article 38 comments

Premier Oil has lifted its full-year production guidance as well as estimated resources at a huge oilfield it discovered off the coast of Mexico. Premier Oil, the operations of which stretch from Indonesia to the Falkland Islands, now expects 2017 production in the range of 75,000-80,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day (boepd), up from the previous forecast of 75,000 boepd, thanks to its strongly performing North Sea fields. Read full article

Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules
  • Brit Bob

    Regarding Falklands oil exploration, Argentine Foreign Minister Jorge Taiana stated in February 2010, that his Government would take 'all measures necessary to preserve our rights' and also reiterated that Argentina had a permanent claim' on the islands, saying 'Buenos Aires would complain to the UN over the oil project and might take the case to the International Courts of Justice in the Hague.' (British Drilling For Falklands Oil Threatens Argentine Relations, Pope, F. , 13 Feb 2010 and Potential Drilling off Falkland, Provokes Tension Between Argentina & UK, IRRU News, 17 Feb 2010).

    Question. Why is it taking so long? Only one answer...

    Falklands – Territorial Waters: https://www.academia.edu/10574593/Falklands_Islands_Territorial_Waters

    Aug 29th, 2017 - 12:06 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Malvinense 1833

    The extension of the continental shelf approved by the UN is very important because:
    Argentina extends its territorial sovereignty over the sea.
    It confirms the rigor and accuracy of the work done by the Argentine scientists.
    It confirms the existence of a territorial dispute in the area.

    Aug 29th, 2017 - 12:40 pm - Link - Report abuse -6
  • The Voice

    Rigor and accuracy arent usually mentioned in the same breath as Argentina. However rigor mortis and inaccuracy are... Remember the Beagle Channel Malvinonsense, and 1982? Better not to try that strategy again, it will only need to more weeping and wailing. Still, weeping and wailing is what you are famous for... ;-))))

    Aug 29th, 2017 - 01:02 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Brit Bob

    M1833

    Territorial Waters/EEZ. It is a well-established practice, accepted as
    law that title over the natural resources is to follow that over territory; accordingly the sovereign subject enjoys the exclusive right to dispose of the natural wealth of the area which it exercises sovereignty. ( UN Stockholm Declaration, 1972, Principle 21, and the UN Rio Declaration 1992, Principle 2, Declarations on
    the Human Environment).

    Aug 29th, 2017 - 01:09 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Malvinense 1833

    @ Brit Bob: What is the territorial extension-Water/ EEZ of the islands according to the UN?

    Aug 29th, 2017 - 01:46 pm - Link - Report abuse -4
  • Brit Bob

    M1833

    If there is 'a genuine dispute' the case must go to court. As mentioned, Argentina threatened court action in 2010 - why is it taking so long.

    Again, territorial waters are linked to sovereignty. If Argentina has a genuine sovereignty claim name one piece of international law that supports her claim?

    Aug 29th, 2017 - 03:52 pm - Link - Report abuse +6
  • Stoker

    http://en.mercopress.com/2017/03/28/argentina-defines-continental-shelf-limits-with-the-exception-of-the-falklands-and-antarctica-areas

    Aug 29th, 2017 - 06:45 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Malvinense 1833

    To go to court requires agreement between the two countries and for this must be established negotiations, something that the UK refuses to do because it knows how difficult its position. And the extension of Argentine territorial sovereignty over the sea confirms this.
    The extension of the continental shelf approved by the UN is very important because:
    Argentina extends its territorial sovereignty over the sea.
    It confirms the rigor and accuracy of the work done by the Argentine scientists.
    It confirms the existence of a territorial dispute in the area.

    Aug 29th, 2017 - 10:27 pm - Link - Report abuse -6
  • DemonTree

    Malvinense, the UN already confirmed the existence of the dispute back in 2009 when the Commission refused to even consider either Argentina's submission for the area, or the UK's on behalf of the Falkland Islands. It is definitely not their job to decide who is in the right.

    And there is nothing stopping Argentina from asking the UK to take the case to the ICJ. Personally I don't think the UK is especially likely to agree, but Argentina has never even asked.

    Aug 29th, 2017 - 11:01 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Roger Lorton

    Hi, I'm back.

    Been blocked out since last Friday. Must have been a glitch. Story of my life :-)

    Aug 30th, 2017 - 12:22 am - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Stoker

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-response-to-argentinas-intention-to-extend-its-continental-shelf

    Aug 30th, 2017 - 08:33 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Roger Lorton

    Prof. Willetts of the South Atlantic Council has is covered -

    http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/SAC/OP/OP14UPDT.HTM

    Anthing else I've missed?

    Aug 30th, 2017 - 09:12 am - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Brit Bob

    M 1833

    ''The extension of the continental shelf approved by the UN is very important because:
    Argentina extends its territorial sovereignty over the sea.''

    Dream on...

    Argentina's Continental Shelf Claims and The UN CLCA Commission (1 page):-
    https://www.academia.edu/33898951/Argentinas_Continental_Shelf_Claims_-The_UN_CLCS_Commission

    Aug 30th, 2017 - 10:53 am - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Malvinense 1833

    Thanks boys for giving me the reason once again, the matter is not closed.
    “In April 2010, there were two other cases directly relevant to the Argentine submission. The Commission refused to establish a sub-commission to consider the British partial submission on the Falklands and on South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, due to the dispute with Argentina”.
    It confirms the existence of a territorial dispute in the area.

    “The first runs, from the Rio de la Plata boundary with Uruguay, south to the boundary of the waters around the Falklands. The other is a tiny area south of Tierra del Fuego and Staten Island”
    Argentina extends its territorial sovereignty over the sea.

    “Neither Britain nor Argentina can separately gain any internationally recognised rights to exploit the resources of the continental shelf, in the south-west Atlantic, so long as the dispute continues.”
    So what is Premier Oil doing here?
    Again, thank you

    Aug 30th, 2017 - 11:56 am - Link - Report abuse -6
  • Stoker

    None of the Argie bullshit stops the Falklanders exploiting the fishing rights in their own EEZ and the extraction of oil will be no different. If the Argies want to persue their bullshit “claim” there is only one place they can do it to any effect - the United Nations International Court of Justice (UNICJ) in den Haag, Netherlands. I wonder why they don't do it?*

    http://www.worldcourts.com/icj/eng/decisions/1956.03.16_antarctica1.htm

    *Don't worry.....I know why ;-D

    Aug 30th, 2017 - 02:25 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Roger Lorton

    The issue of Falklands sovereignty is settled Malvinense 1833 - the side issues of what that actually means in terms of coastal control is entirely separate. The situation is, as it is. It will not change.

    Argentine does not gain control over thousands of mile of continental shelf, because the de facto situation is that Britain has its own continental shelf in the South Atlantic. The world will have to become a very different place for that to change.

    Grasp all the straws you wish. The matter is settled - it is, as it is.

    Aug 30th, 2017 - 02:41 pm - Link - Report abuse +6
  • Malvinense 1833

    link Roger Lorton:
    “Neither Britain nor Argentina can separately gain any internationally recognised rights to exploit the resources of the continental shelf, in the south-west Atlantic, so long as the dispute continues.”
    You can resurface in your own fantasies.
    There is no such thing as “our own EEZ.”
    Said by the British themselves, I understand that you can not accept it, but that is the reality.
    don't worry, be happy ;-)))

    Aug 30th, 2017 - 02:50 pm - Link - Report abuse -5
  • Stoker

    The oil will be coming ashore soon enough - just as the finfish comes ashore today.....and there will be nothing the Argies can do to stop it ;-D
    http://www.fig.gov.fk/fisheries/index.php/overview/zones/finfish

    Aug 30th, 2017 - 02:59 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Malvinense 1833

    @ Roger Lorton: Whatever you say Roger does not change the world's pronouncements through laws, like the Sea Conventions. ;-)

    @ Stoker: “Neither Britain nor Argentina can separately gain any internationally recognised rights to exploit the resources of the continental shelf, in the south-west Atlantic, so long as the dispute continues.”
    Now do you understand who the bad guys in the neighborhood are?

    Aug 30th, 2017 - 03:10 pm - Link - Report abuse -6
  • Roger Lorton

    Malvi 1833

    On October 11th, 1946 with Law No. 14,708, Argentina claimed sovereignty over “ the Epicontinental Sea and the Argentine Continental Shelf.”

    71 years ago.

    In that 71 years, Argentina has not gained a further meter of continental shelf rights than it had in 1946.

    We do not need to change the world's pronouncements (although you may need to learn to read) - they don't give you anything.

    It is as it will always be. The matter is settled.

    Aug 30th, 2017 - 03:27 pm - Link - Report abuse +6
  • DemonTree

    Roger, that clearly isn't true. They gained a big strip of continental shelf from Uruguay down to the Falklands, and a bit by Tierra del Fuego. It's right there in the link you pasted, didn't you read it?

    Aug 30th, 2017 - 03:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Malvinense 1833

    @ Roger, the link provided by you contradicts it:
    “Neither Britain nor Argentina can separately gain any internationally recognised rights to exploit the resources of the continental shelf, in the south-west Atlantic, so long as the dispute continues.

    Aug 30th, 2017 - 03:49 pm - Link - Report abuse -4
  • Stoker

    The people who live on the islands have the right, under the UN Charter, to self-determination. The UN also recognises everyone's right to “full and complete sovereignty over all their natural wealth and resources”.
    http://www.ipu.org/splz-e/unga14/rtd.pdf

    Aug 30th, 2017 - 03:55 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Brit Bob

    Malvinense 1833

    “Neither Britain nor Argentina can separately gain any internationally recognised rights to exploit the resources of the continental shelf, in the south-west Atlantic, so long as the dispute continues.” So what is Premier Oil doing here?''

    Territorial Waters/EEZ. It is a well-established practice, accepted as
    law that title over the natural resources is to follow that over territory; accordingly the sovereign subject enjoys the exclusive right to dispose of the natural wealth of the area which it exercises sovereignty. ( UN Stockholm Declaration, 1972, Principle 21, and the UN Rio Declaration 1992, Principle 2, Declarations on the Human Environment).

    If Argentina wants to delimit Falklands waters it must do so through the international courts.

    And Argentina has nothing to take to court that will back up her sovereignty argument.

    Aug 30th, 2017 - 04:09 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • dab14763

    -To go to court requires agreement between the two countries and for this must be established negotiations, something that the UK refuses to do because it knows how difficult its position.

    There’s absolutely nothing stopping Argentina filing a lawsuit. It doesn’t need the UK’s prior agreement to do that

    From ICJ website:

    d) Forum prorogatum

    If a State has not recognized the jurisdiction of the Court at the time when an application instituting proceedings is filed against it, that State has the possibility of accepting such jurisdiction subsequently to enable the Court to entertain the case: the Court thus has jurisdiction as of the date of acceptance by virtue of the rule of forum prorogatum.

    -The extension of the continental shelf approved by the UN is very important because:
    Argentina extends its territorial sovereignty over the sea.

    No, jurisdiction over the sea has not been extended anywhere on Earth. That remains at a maximum possible of 200 nmi. The extension applies to the continental shelf. The waters above that extension remain international waters. In Argentina’s case the extension only covers the shelf corresponding to Argentina, not to any other territory.

    -It confirms the existence of a territorial dispute in the area.

    The Commission’s remit is the continental shelf, nothing else, so at most it has power to recognise disputes over the continental shelf.

    -“Neither Britain nor Argentina can separately gain any internationally recognised rights to exploit the resources of the continental shelf, in the south-west Atlantic, so long as the dispute continues.”
    So what is Premier Oil doing here?
    Again, thank you

    Premier Oil is not a State owned company. It is a shareholder owned company. And it’s licensed by the FI Government, not the UK government. Nothing forbids the FI to exploit its own resources.

    Aug 30th, 2017 - 07:41 pm - Link - Report abuse +8
  • Stoker

    Well said dab14763
    http://www.fig.gov.fk/minerals/
    Nobody can stop the people who live on the Falkland Islands from extracting oil in their own EEZ. Looking forward to all the Argie weeping and whining when the first oil comes ashore but - as usual - they will decline from taking the matter to Court since they know they will lose.

    Aug 30th, 2017 - 10:26 pm - Link - Report abuse +6
  • Roger Lorton

    Demon Tree

    Gained? They claimed that, and more, in 1946. Long before there was any mechanism to have such a claim recognised.

    And yes, I have read it. In fact, I've read all the versions (I think this is the 3rd).

    All Argentina got, if anything, is recognition that a chuck of - uncontested - continental shelf falls under its administration. Nobody was arguing.

    Malvinense 1833

    “Internationally recognised rights” ? Makes not on ounce of difference on the ground (sea). We control our areas anyway, and nobody else is challenging.

    It is, as it is

    Aug 30th, 2017 - 11:05 pm - Link - Report abuse +6
  • DemonTree

    @RL
    So they claimed it in 1946, and now their claim has been recognised? That means they gained something. They also claimed the continental shelf around the Falklands in 1946, and that claim has not been recognised. I'd say there is a difference between claiming something, and actually possessing the rights to it, wouldn't you?

    And there are oil companies looking for oil in the Falklands EEZ. Have they also been prospecting in the extended continental shelf that Britain claimed on their behalf but the commission refused to consider? I'm guessing not.

    Aug 30th, 2017 - 11:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    Demon Tree

    No. they claimed it all in 1946, and they claim it all today. If recognition is a gain, then its one that's not worth a brass farthing. Outside of the areas claimed for the Falklands, nobody was contesting Argentina's claims. All that has changed is that the UN is prepared to recognise it. There was nothing to stop argentina exploiting those areas anyway.

    The FIG have issued licences for its claimed EEZ. The Argentines have issued licences for its claimed EEZ, but no longer for the area claimed by the UK (they tried once I believe, but there were no takers).

    As for the Falklands extended area, I am not aware of any limitations placed upon the licensing process.

    Aug 30th, 2017 - 11:28 pm - Link - Report abuse +7
  • DemonTree

    @Roger Lorton
    If companies were not willing to invest in prospecting for oil, or extracting it, before Argentina's ownership had been confirmed, then they have gained a lot more than a brass farthing. And either way they have gained UN confirmation, which they didn't have before. The fact no one was contesting that part of their claim is immaterial.

    For the Falklands, I have never heard that they are licencing exploration outside their EEZ. The UNCLOS established the International Seabed Authority to regulate mineral-related activities in the parts of the ocean floor not belonging to any country, and both the UK and Argentina are signatories. Until the Commission can rule on the extended continental shelf, I would guess it is officially considered as belonging to no one.

    Aug 30th, 2017 - 11:53 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Roger Lorton

    DT

    You think it's a gain, I think it was worthless as they'd controlled those areas for 70 years anyway. We'll have to disagree.

    As for the FI, the licensing is to do with geology, not geography. I am not aware of any interest outside the areas currently licensed.

    I have doubts that, without a UNCLOS ruling, that the seabed would be considered terra nullius, but then I am guessing also.

    Aug 31st, 2017 - 12:03 am - Link - Report abuse +3
  • DemonTree

    It depends whether you think having the law on your side and international support is important. Apparently you don't.

    I doubt the ISA would be willing to issue a licence for an area that had outstanding claims, and this one has two that are likely to remain outstanding for a long time. Most likely no one will be exploiting that piece of seabed for the foreseeable future. There are already not many oil companies willing to work in the Falklands due to it's contested status, going outside the EEZ into an undefined area would be a step too far.

    Aug 31st, 2017 - 12:18 am - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Roger Lorton

    I'm a cynic, remember? Supposed international support has generally been proven to be worth diddly-squat over the decades and, historically, de facto beats de jure every time.

    If there were proven and valuable resources within areas controlled & claimed by the UK with regard to the Falklands, I have no doubt that the oil companies would be queuing up - contested or otherwise. It always comes down to the money.

    Does big business recognise the concept of “a step too far” ? I have my doubts.

    Aug 31st, 2017 - 12:24 am - Link - Report abuse +4
  • DemonTree

    “de facto beats de jure every time”

    If you just said this, I'd be inclined to agree with you, but you are arguing that de jure is worth nothing at all. That, I don't agree with. And international support was essential during the Falklands war. Without help from the US and Chile, Argentina might well have won.

    I don't know if big business recognises the concept of 'a step too far', but they certainly understand the concept of risk, and of profit vs costs. I think you are not cynical enough. Oil is as often a curse as a blessing for those countries that have it, and there are plenty of oil companies with more money than the Falklands has. It will be hard to extract the oil without logistical support from Argentina, and certainly there is no workforce on the islands capable of building the infrastructure or running it. I think they might be better off if it turns out not to be viable.

    And I don't expect to see any company prospecting in the extended continental shelf until the matter is resolved. Let me know if this ever happens.

    Aug 31st, 2017 - 08:36 am - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Roger Lorton

    I shall.

    All I'll add, is, that the Argentine Government saw this UNCLOS recognition as so valuable that it felt the need to lie to the Argentine people about it.

    Aug 31st, 2017 - 08:48 am - Link - Report abuse +4
  • DemonTree

    That at least is true. It's difficult to believe it was a mistake when they knew long in advance that the areas around the Falklands and Antarctica would not even be considered. The British press believed them with no checking, as well.

    Aug 31st, 2017 - 09:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Cloon

    England will return the Malvinas within 25 years.

    Sep 02nd, 2017 - 05:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Malvinense 1833
    “There is no such thing as “our own EEZ.” Said by the British themselves.” Thus refuted: “International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the North Sea continental shelf cases, in which Denmark and the Netherlands based their claim inter alia on the doctrine of proximity, i.e., that the part of the continental shelf closest to the part of the state in question falls automatically under that state's jurisdiction. In these cases the ICJ rejected any contiguity type of approach. As for continuity, it is argued, the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf and Contiguous Zone, Article 1, now contained in the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, Article 76, does not support the view that coastal states have sovereignty over islands above the continental shelf. On the contrary it laid down doctrine that islands had their own “continental shelves,” p.74
    The Falklands/Malvinas Case Breaking the Deadlock in the Anglo-Argentine...
    By Roberto C. Laver

    Sep 02nd, 2017 - 10:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!