MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Brazil denies, and will not accept, contacts with Falklands’ oil industry
The Brazilian government denied that the Falkland Islands “have been looking for business options in Brazil” specifically linked to hydrocarbons exploration, according to the head of the South American Desk at the Brazilian Foreign Affairs ministry. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesSeems to be that Glenn can’t get his “old rig” repaired in Brazil.
Jun 16th, 2010 - 05:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0If the Falklands and BP where cars:
In the case of the Islands they fervently explain:
Is a British Wauxhall not an Opel !
In the case of BP they vehemently declare:
It’s an Opel not a British Wauxhall !
Same car under the Bonnet.
Is “ .... ‘business options in Brazil’....”
Jun 16th, 2010 - 05:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0the same as
“ ... ‘business options with Brazil’ ....”
I do not know enough about the political/legal situation in Brazil but in the UK, provided no laws were being broken, the UK Government could not stop a UK company dealing with another country even if they went against the policies of the current government. Is it different in Brazil?
What to do wit those Brazilians?
Jun 16th, 2010 - 05:43 am - Link - Report abuse -1Maybe the comment of agent0060 was not so inadequate after all.
http://story.irishsun.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/3a8a80d6f705f8cc/id/622599/cs/1/
By the way......
Has anybody noticed how quiet agent0060 has been since first posted this link?
Is he gone undercover?
As Postman Pat, perhaps?
Come back agent0060.....
Her Majesty’s Secret Service needs you!
Taiana also warned that the illegal activity of exploring for oil in Malvinas waters entails many risks for the region, not least environmental threats as can be witnessed in the Gulf of Mexico “which could not only affect Argentina but the whole region”.
Jun 16th, 2010 - 06:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0So the Argies wont be drilling for oil off shore then?
Taiana also warned that the illegal activity of exploring for oil in Malvinas waters entails many risks for the region, not least environmental threats as can be witnessed in the Gulf of Mexico “which could not only affect Argentina but the whole region”.
Jun 16th, 2010 - 06:18 am - Link - Report abuse +1while I hope there is never any environmental threat when the oil is extracted around our Islands it should be fairly obvious that due to the location of the oil (north and south east of the Islands) there is only a relatively small chance of an oil spill/leak reaching Falkland shores, far less mainland South America. This is due to prevailing wind directions and currents.
(2) Hoyt
Jun 16th, 2010 - 06:27 am - Link - Report abuse -1Not quite so, Junior....
In Britain nowadays, the Government can present anything as “A Threat to National Security” and “get away with murder”
Just face it ...
Be it Football, Tennis, Polo, Croquet or Politics.........
We play the Masters own games.
We play after the Masters own rules.
We give the Masters a run for their money.
Not the case, as well you know, and you didn't answer the question.
Jun 16th, 2010 - 06:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0And you can call me 'Master' :-)
(4) Sticky
Jun 16th, 2010 - 06:40 am - Link - Report abuse -1Listen very carefully; I shall say this only once!
We will sell “Oil Licenses“ to anybody and take the damage.
We will sell “Fishing Licenses“ to anybody and take the damage.
We are not given another alternative.
Besides from your “Bugger off”.
Don't wear your brain out Think, after all it should be a busy week. The Committee of 24 reconvened yesterday and have already approved “... requests for hearings from officials from the Falkland Islands ... ”.
Jun 16th, 2010 - 06:49 am - Link - Report abuse +1They took an ear bending over Gibraltar yesterday and no doubt will be getting some of the same over the Falkland Islands. Hey ho ... round and round it goes :-)
) Hoyt
Jun 16th, 2010 - 06:51 am - Link - Report abuse -1Can’t answer your question; I’ not a lawyer ☺
Try some A-Z books.
And I hereby pronounce you: Junior Master.
You may call me: Senior Master
Lord Haw Haw
Hey guys. I wouldn't get too het up in what is a small amour of power politics being played out in the regional media. This is an attempt at light touch leveraging on both sides. Ultimatly this is not an issue for governments as the actual drilling is being done by a number of PLCs and they will negotiate contracts with other PLCs. Companies in Brazil have already assisted the drilling and the OG was moored in Brazil when the tow ship was re-fueling etc. This is a game of poker and will all blow over in due course. Does Brazil have any legal framework to not allow businesses that have some business interests in the Falkland Islands? Based on the available evidence it would appear not. You don't need to recognize a state in order to do business with it e.g Taiwan, Northern Cypres, Somaliland etc.
Jun 16th, 2010 - 07:08 am - Link - Report abuse +1Future Argentine leaders may be wise enough to not allow money to run through their fingers and will look at the relationship between Gibraltar and Spain as an example of how to peacefully co-exist.
(11)Beef
Jun 16th, 2010 - 07:14 am - Link - Report abuse -1Would you care to comment the following?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/4513134/Desire-director-fined-for-insider-trading.html
Of course Brazil will deny everything. Meanwhile, they'll be “entertaining” just like they did in this case:
Jun 16th, 2010 - 07:35 am - Link - Report abuse +1http://en.mercopress.com/2010/05/18/hms-portland-on-south-atlantic-patrol-after-successful-visit-in-brazil
(13) J.A.Roberts
Jun 16th, 2010 - 07:47 am - Link - Report abuse -1We, the “new thinkers”, in Argentina are glad for all your military paraphernalia for many reasons.
To mention a few:
1) It makes you look as a “Bully” in front to our neighbours.
2) It costs you a l000.000.000.00t of money
3) Brazilian girls luuuuuv all those young sprouts coming out of the grey ships.
4) Please send the Invincible too ☺
Regards
One type 23 frigate and two fast jets to defend the Falklands is hardly bullying. I remember another bully invading the Falklands when they were defended by fewer than 30 marines. I think we all know who the real bully in the neighbourhood is.
Jun 16th, 2010 - 07:58 am - Link - Report abuse +1It's costs less than 1 percent of the UK defence budget to defend the Falklands and most UK tax payers are more than happy for that to continue.
Think.
Jun 16th, 2010 - 08:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0With regards to insider trading. He got caught (unlike most). Doesn't really affect my investments as I am in long term. In the short term the market is a voting machine; in the long term it is a weighing machine!
This thread has quality!
Jun 16th, 2010 - 08:16 am - Link - Report abuse -1Most of the “usual suspects” are here.
Me like it.
Waiting for Islander1 to wake up.
Agent0060 still undercover. Killing somebody dead, probably :-)
J.A.
Just for the record. I know you like ancient history ;-)
There were more than 60 marines on the Islands.
Old NP8901 hadn't left; new Party had arrived.
Beef
I would keep an watchful eye on FOGL too.
Analysts smell that “something is rotten in the State of Denmark.”
Looks “fishy” to me but..... I’m not an expert.
5,000 invading Argentines against 60 rather than 30 marines. That ups your bravery quotient no end.
Jun 16th, 2010 - 09:01 am - Link - Report abuse +1Weren’t roughly 12,000 Argentines kicked off the islands in the end by about 5,000 British troops?
Yes, I was incorrect, thank you Think for that. 68 marines apparently. My point still stands. We all know who the real bully is.
Jun 16th, 2010 - 09:18 am - Link - Report abuse +1If it was not for Argentine aggression the frigate and two fast jets would not be there, but rather a small contingent of marines or the like...
(15) J.A.Roberts
Jun 16th, 2010 - 09:39 am - Link - Report abuse -1You say:
It's costs less than 1 percent (”more like 2.5% N.A.”) of the UK defence budget to defend the Falklands and most UK tax payers are more than happy for that to
continue.
Sir Humphrey Appleby seems to disagree with you:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2010/03/uk-defence-budget-fundamentally-unaffordable-says-report/
That report is 3 months old, under a different Government and doesn't mention the Falklands ................ relevance please ??
Jun 16th, 2010 - 10:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0So Think - do you believe the UK needs a strong military presence in the Falklands to deter another Argentine attack?
Jun 16th, 2010 - 10:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0JA.Roberts -------- your real name ?
Jun 16th, 2010 - 10:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0Falkland(Malvinas) has lang syne (in the past) name David Murphy.
Would you tell us who is he ..................?
I allow myself to include this real life story in this thread.
Jun 16th, 2010 - 10:28 am - Link - Report abuse -1Not to justify, in any way, the Argentinean invasion.
I denounced it then, cost me dearly; I still condemn it today.
Just to challenge the “Race Card” so often played in here.
Please notice the surnames of the mentioned officers.
Nasty-Argies, Nice-Argies, Anglo-Argies
“The Argentine who caused most fear was the “sinister and dangerous” head of military police intelligence, Major Patricio Dowling, who personified “the Argentine terror machine”.
Dowling was ordered home part way through the occupation by two “decent” senior Argentine officers. Comodoro Carlos Bloomer Reeve, described as “the acceptable face of Argentina”, a man of “humanity and bravery” who did a great deal to protect Islanders from the excesses of their compatriots in what he regarded as a misguided adventure. His 1982 task was to organise an interim military administration, helped by naval Captain Barry Melbourne Hussey, “a man of humane principles” who worked to help Islanders. Orders were that Islanders were to be regarded as Argentine citizens and treated well. In these two officers, Graham Bound writes, “Islanders had gained powerful friends who, though Argentines, proved that fundamental decency could survive when all other strands of civilised behaviour were unravelling.”
Yes good cop bad cop
Jun 16th, 2010 - 11:04 am - Link - Report abuse +1Bad Argie takes to shitting in your property
Good Argie doesn't
(21) Hoyt
Jun 16th, 2010 - 11:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0Dear collegue
You say: ”That report is 3 months old, under a different Government and doesn't mention the Falklands ................ relevance please ??”
Thats why I specifically mention Sir Humphrey Appleby...
I’ll quote him: “Governments come an go but civil servants are forever, and the good old machine runs on as before.”
2.5% of the Defense Budget !
I wouldn’t mention the Falklands either.
You know how many MRAP’S that money could buy.
We don’t want politicians to panic.
Do we?
Actually. It's not a solid ammount. and it would not be 2.5% anyway.
Jun 16th, 2010 - 12:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The reported 100 million would be 1% of 10 billion, the UK currently spends about 60 billion a year. That would make the Falklands cost us about(my maths is not great).. 0.01%?(correct me if im wrong.)
For some years we spent 100 million a year gearing up the place and installing new equipment. Now it's all installed spending has dropped to around 40-60 million a year. But it's never a solid amount. Whatever they need, we provide for it.
26 Think “Thats why I specifically mention Sir Humphrey Appleby...
Jun 16th, 2010 - 12:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I’ll quote him: “Governments come an go but civil servants are forever, and the good old machine runs on as before.””
LOL, with the massive cuts to public secotr spending the new UK government is planning I think you will find Sir Appleby soon regretting his words.
(27) Zethe
Jun 16th, 2010 - 12:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I can barely manage to understand my own un-solid budget so......
I’ll not correct anybody ☺
As long as it cost you a l.000.000.00.000T of money is OK with me.
As a mater of fact I think that you should spend much more.
No price is too high to guard freedom!
Isn’t that the Mantra?
Think ... now #24 was worth the read ... and the officers, were they lauded? I hope so!
Jun 16th, 2010 - 01:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Long time no see.
Jun 16th, 2010 - 01:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hope so too.
As a mater of fact I think that you should spend much more.
Jun 16th, 2010 - 01:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No price is too high to guard freedom!
Isn’t that the Mantra?
Worth every penny if it keeps you bullies cowed
(32) Sticky
Jun 16th, 2010 - 01:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This kind of money will certainly keep our bullies away.
As potential investors.
And regional sympathizers.
“Cry Wolf “ too many times and people starts to Think.
Think,it is less than 1% of UK Defence- the only real cost is that of transport and logistical supply-UK would not actually save much in wages and operating costs as the servicepersonnel have to be paid and housed etc wherever they are, and no planes or ships or regiments would be scrapped if UK withdrew from such a small base. Sorry but those are the official facts from the MOD - not a politician or commentator all of whom(Brit or Arg) can be selective in which figures they use as we all know. Also Min of Defence is aware of the training bonus here - tri-service working together and lots of space and room for live firing etc.
Jun 16th, 2010 - 03:43 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Brasil- it turns out it was all a confusion anyway- Falklands Govt has not at any time been in contact with Brazil, nor is likley to. Commercial business is commercial business by whoever contracts with whoever to do whatever.It is not the concern of Govts- unless what they are doing is illegal or involves money laundering etc I guess.
We dont fear anything from the UK Defence Budget review - maybe a few minor trims and changes here and there as there always are as modern developments mean same result with a few less people etc.
Maybe a few cost savings in civilan support or something but nobody is going to cut what the military call their minimum bayonet strenght - that would be very silly and naive with a bolshy agressive neighbour next door who is determined to steal what is actually ours-our homes - if they can.
(34) Islander
Jun 16th, 2010 - 04:28 pm - Link - Report abuse -1A very Good Morning to you too.
As the Argentinean government has stated “ad nauseam”, the military option is not our headache anymore.
It’s your party. The drinks are on you. It’s your money. Do with it whatever you want. Please, feel free to do.
Buy... Buy.... Buy....
Brazil was a confusion....... You say. Falkland Govt. has never....... You say.
Hmmmmm..........
Sounds a bit like North Korean Football to me... If they lost to Brazil, (as they actually did) the match would not be shown to their People.
Stop Time!
Reverse the Clocks!
We, new-thinkers of the Continent would prefer to be called “ Bolschy Progressive” if you don’t mind.
Salute Brasil!!!
Jun 16th, 2010 - 05:02 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Need help with your rigs now? go to British Petroleum and his British ceo Tony Hayward(the most hated man and company in USA)
“Protesters charge British Petroleum with greed and negligence
By Nisa -Staff Writer- | Last updated: May 21, 2010 - 4:27:08 PM
Protesters against British Petroleum in San Francisco. Photo: Nisa I. Muhammad
SAN FRANCISCO - “Hey, hey, ho, ho, BP's greed has got to go!” “BP did the crime, Now they've gotta do the time!”
Those chants and more were shouted from coast to coast in 20 cities including D.C., New York, Los Angeles, New Haven, Chicago and Philadelphia where demonstrations organized by the Seize BP Campaign were held May 12, outside of BP offices.”
Get a look at this Marco Polio
Jun 16th, 2010 - 06:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8561427.stm
hahaha Hoytred, you didn't believe me yesterday when I put the link of this article. You should reconsider your behaviour toward my sources. :-)
Jun 16th, 2010 - 07:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 034 Islander1:
Jun 16th, 2010 - 09:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0From my understanding it's the army which will receive the bulk of the cuts. Which just means we will have about 10-20,000 less combat troops, this way the navy will still get it's carriers and the RAF will still get their new toys.
I think it's best this way, Troops can be trained easily, Expensive stuff like carriers and jets take years to research build and get on the field.
Think,
Jun 16th, 2010 - 10:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Several countries in S America come into the “progressive” character you mention - sadly Argentina sits very firmly in the “Bolshy” camp. Zethe 39 you are most likley correct. The carriers are already partly built anyway.
The rig - what ever repairs required will certainly be done in situ or in asheltered dep water harbour here - which we have several - done by commercial contractors and no Govts involved. I suspect the original story was an error - Falklands Govt would not have been that daft to try and directly involve itself
Get a look at this Stick up to your rear:
Jun 16th, 2010 - 10:12 pm - Link - Report abuse -1http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/16/gulf.oil.disaster/index.html?hpt=T2
(40) Islander
Jun 16th, 2010 - 10:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes .. Of course, we suspect an error...... Say no more.
Glenn cannot deny it because then the tapes would surface.
I nearly feel sorry for him and the other members of the Assembly.
Campaigning was easy and fun but now, every word they say is weighted by many actors.
You better get some American PR consultants and some chaps from the FO inside Gilbert House. Pronto!
I can only refer back to #2. The LAM appears, according to the reporter, to refer to opportunities IN Brazil, not WITH. This is a huge difference which appears lost on some contributers. From some other comments it would appear that Brazilian business is already working with the oil company that is operating off the Falkland Islands.
Jun 16th, 2010 - 10:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Jorgy boy, if your source is in Spanish then it isn't much use to me. I'm British and speak English .... much like your neighbours.
LEGIONNI, i have an answer for you in the articule of the 9th of june.
Jun 16th, 2010 - 11:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Legion you'll find that Axel has a knack of refering to supposed answers in other threads long after we've moved on from them. An annoying trait.
Jun 17th, 2010 - 01:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0Axel, this is a different thread, if you don't wish to rewrite then try cut & paste?
44 Axel arg “LEGIONNI, i have an answer for you in the articule of the 9th of june”
Jun 17th, 2010 - 10:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0Axel I haven't asked you a question in this thread so I'm not even sure what question you say you answer in article of June 9th? I also have no idea to what article you are referring to or to which post within that article.
If you can give me more info I can try and find the response to which you refer, but I'm going to need more to go on than 9th June.
(46) Hoyy + Legion
Jun 17th, 2010 - 11:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0Are you guys not data-basing this threads?
Islander1: With reference to your comment at 34;
Jun 17th, 2010 - 12:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Falkland Islands are economically self-sufficient in all areas except defence - the cost of which amounts to some 0.5% of the total UK defence budget.
Who goes lower?
Jun 17th, 2010 - 01:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I say 0.2%!
Tops
If the islanders find oil, the defence budget could go into profit!
Jun 17th, 2010 - 03:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well........
Jun 17th, 2010 - 03:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That's the whole idea..... Isn't it?
Axel. Why don't you just provide a link? It's not difficult to cut and past the URL. There are two stories on the 9th of June by the way.
Jun 17th, 2010 - 04:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0See below, my reply is #141
http://en.mercopress.com/2010/06/09/oas-assembly-gives-full-support-to-argentina-s-malvinas-claim
JASON, you are are right, but some times i forget the whole tittle, the anwer for you is in the artcicule of the oas assembly.
Jun 17th, 2010 - 05:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0LEGIONNI AND HOITRED.
I have answer for you in the artcicule of the fourth of june, i mean the same than yesterday, it's the second one.
axel arg. No-one is interested in searching around for your supposed responses. If you can't be bothered, neither is anyone else. Either say what's on your mind or quit.
Jun 17th, 2010 - 05:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I recommend no further responses to axel arg where he refers to his “supposed” comments.
Hoyt / Islander and THIMC
Jun 18th, 2010 - 10:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Have you noticed that MercoPress. /South Atlantic News Agency is “virtually” inexistent ?
I tried to find out Who's behind....
Nothing, nada, rien, niente, nichts !
No director, no publisher, no address, no journalists, no financial info, no references, no critics, no supporters.
I even made some phone calls.☎☎☎
0 - Zip
Don’t believe me?
Try!
....... and your point is?
Jun 18th, 2010 - 11:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Just wondering “Who's behind” this very Professional News Agency we are communicating through.
Jun 19th, 2010 - 05:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0Where does the money come ...
Certainly not from their commercial adds...
Just Thinking
.... you sound like a conspiracy theorist :-)
Jun 19th, 2010 - 06:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0I have my moments.....
Jun 19th, 2010 - 06:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0But you have to admit that it is odd for a “News Agency” to be so .......invisible!
think / 55
Jun 19th, 2010 - 07:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0could it be PRISP ?
(60) ed
Jun 19th, 2010 - 08:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hmmmmmm..........
I “sense” a blunt“market oriented” philosophy at MercoPress.
PRISP would be much more subtle, don' you think?
think/61
Jun 19th, 2010 - 10:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0why not !!! anything is possible.
You mean!...................................
Jun 19th, 2010 - 10:25 am - Link - Report abuse -1The return of the Malvinas too!..................
... Think, you're dreamin' .... :-0
Jun 19th, 2010 - 11:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's a combined operation of the CIA, Mossad and the SIS. I thought EVERYONE knew that.
Jun 19th, 2010 - 11:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Ay’up, lads
Jun 19th, 2010 - 09:33 pm - Link - Report abuse -1BP Spill Blame Obama!
America betrays BP and UK attacking a sound Company!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2010/06/post.html
A documentary maker? You have to be kidding!
Jun 21st, 2010 - 01:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Anyway,
Quote from S&A Research, A USA company.....
”It's a horrible accident, but you don't really have to clean up the entire Gulf of Mexico.The Gulf of Mexico is huge, covering 615,000 square miles and containing 660 quadrillion gallons of water. Compare this to the amount of oil Deepwater Horizon has been leaking. Most estimates are in the 12,000-20,000 barrels per day range, so let's take the high end and also assume that this continues until mid-August, meaning four months since the accident.
Let's also assume that the cap captures no oil (the latest reports are that it may be capturing most of the oil, but let's be conservative). 20,000 barrels/day x 120 days x 42 gallons/barrel = 100.8 million gallons of oil released. 100.8 million divided by 660 quadrillion is one gallon of oil for every 6.6 billion gallons of water in the Gulf. That's the equivalent of roughly one-millionth of an ounce of oil in a typical bathtub full of water.“
It has happened before, and it wasn't the end of the world. ”PeMex's Ixtoc oil well [1979] was far worse than the Deepwater Horizon well: 140 million gallons of oil poured out of the Mexican well… After four months, an oil slick had covered about half of Texas's 370-mile gulf shoreline, devastating tourism.“
It's nothing compared to Kuwait. During the first Gulf War, 10 times as much oil spilled into the Persian Gulf, which is one-sixth the size of the Gulf of Mexico. And what were the long-term consequences? A 1993 UNESCO study reported ”little“ long-term damage was done to the environment. ”Half the oil evaporated, a million barrels were recovered and 2 million to 3 million barrels washed ashore, mainly in Saudi Arabia,” he said.
Besides, a hurricane could solve the whole problem.
Breaking News Lads!
Jun 21st, 2010 - 02:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Reuters UK 20/06/10: Up to 100.000 Barrels a day!
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1416392020100620
Internal BP document: Up to 100.000 Barrels a day!
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1416392020100620
Bye bye, Twinky.
Jun 22nd, 2010 - 11:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0(69)agent0060
Jun 22nd, 2010 - 12:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0See you soon Mr. Riches....
Remember: Yesterday is history - Tomorrow is bla.bla.bla...
Yup, and there's going to be the usual bla, bla tomorrow at the C-24 probably involving a rather inaccurate version of history :-)
Jun 23rd, 2010 - 03:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0And rather invalid
Jun 25th, 2010 - 12:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!