MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
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. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesDrill, drill, drill. Flow, flow, flow. Oil, oil, oil. Money, money, money.
Sep 07th, 2010 - 11:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, drill, drill, flow. flow, oil, oil, fire, fire, fire, explosion, explosion, flood, flood, flood....
Sep 07th, 2010 - 03:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://real-agenda.com/2010/06/13/british-petroleum-disaster-an-insiders-account/
envy, envy,sour grapes, sour grapes,sulk ,sulk sulk lol lol
Sep 07th, 2010 - 04:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Malvinas Argentinas,british go back to your island in Europe, not welcome anymore down here in Malvinas Argentinas and South America.
Sep 07th, 2010 - 04:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We are in our Islands Marco, the Falkland Islands, and we don't need your welcome we are quite happy as we are, infact we'll be happier soon when all that filthy, dirty oil starts to flow.
Sep 07th, 2010 - 05:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hmmm 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.
Denrich, ”I think a new 4x4 is on the cards & possibly a small motor boat so the wife & I can visit... ', You don't have one yet?, You can borrow my large boat to take you back to England if you wish.
Sep 07th, 2010 - 05:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You have a large boat? Oh good. Go out and sink!! Or do we have to do everything for you?
Sep 07th, 2010 - 05:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Marco's mature and intelligent comment shows what kind of an individual he is. A brainless idiot that wants people to die because he has a deluded nationalistic ideology.
Sep 07th, 2010 - 05:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What 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!
Mr. Beef:
Sep 07th, 2010 - 05:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The oil business confuses me more and more…………….
http://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…
No think not quite pike that. They are drilling in the Sam hole that was not P&A but suspended. After this flow test they have to P&A the hole to leave no trace of drilling, as per EIS. They will have to return to sea-lion again to do an appraisal programme which involves multiple drills at different sites of the prospect.
Sep 07th, 2010 - 05:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But 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??????
So..... we seem to agree that it all well could be a “strategy” to inflate the value of the companybefore a sale.
Sep 07th, 2010 - 06:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But.....
Are the “ big boyz ” in the business a bit wiser than that?
It is not a strategy to inflate the sp. These procedures provide the objective evidence of recoverable oil reserves that the big boys would want to see of they decided to make an offer.
Sep 07th, 2010 - 06:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If 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!
Think, Mr beef doen't like to be killed Mr.
Sep 07th, 2010 - 07:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 030 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.
If RKH found nothing then their sp would be 0....................
Sep 07th, 2010 - 07:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What 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?
Because FOGL had the third slot and RKH wanted to drill the southern part of the NFB. They are building a broad picture.
Sep 07th, 2010 - 07:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0For 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.
Jep.....The official story is plausible too....
Sep 07th, 2010 - 07:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But
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?
Yes think I am afriad you are wrong. They needed to analyse the data and there would have been a lot of it to anyalyse in addition to the api of the oil taken from the different fans.
Sep 07th, 2010 - 07:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Also 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.
We wait with crossed fingers then....
Sep 07th, 2010 - 07:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You cross yours clockwise as you do in the North; I cross mine counter clockwise as we do down here.....
Now that depends of whether you are looking at your hand from the palmer or dorsal aspect.
Sep 07th, 2010 - 07:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What 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.
the royal navy ship Ocean is in brazil on exercises with them, later she may head to the Falklands to test your BLOCKADE, will you stop them,
Sep 07th, 2010 - 09:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0or do the gentlemanly thing and remain in dock,
Mother nature, do your work!!! You always equilibrate this world.
Sep 07th, 2010 - 10:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh how desperate. gorge is now calling on Nature. Best thing would be for an Argentine tidal wave. Give 'em something to do.
Sep 07th, 2010 - 10:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Come on, guys... the only argument Brits have that´s true in this subject is “For now, my gun is bigger than yours... so if you want me to give you back the land I have stolen, come and get it...”, and that is not an argument at all.
Sep 08th, 2010 - 12:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0Malvinas 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.
“my gun is bigger than yours”
Sep 08th, 2010 - 06:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0That 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.
No Marco, it's not your land and it never has been. Oh, I and I would avoid giving interpretations of international law Marco, because it's obvious that you would not know international law if it smacked you in the face!
Sep 08th, 2010 - 07:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0Quote;
Sep 08th, 2010 - 11:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0“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!
Written by one of your own:
Sep 08th, 2010 - 03:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“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”
I've just reported Marco's spamming, I suggest others do the same.
Sep 08th, 2010 - 03:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Is “Marco” a native American name I wonder?
Sep 08th, 2010 - 03:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I love freedom of speech of some islanders, they only want to hear what they like.
Sep 08th, 2010 - 03:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You got to love Marco. We dont only hear what we like, because we have to listen/read your non-sensical ramblings and your poor grasp on the rights of humans, the UN, international law, colonisation and Britain every single day. And I like hearing it. Because it comforts me. I like to see you as a typical Argentina, which therefore means, that the majority of the population of Argentina have such a poor grasp of the key issues when it comes to the Falklands, meaning that my islands will remain British forever. And until you understand the basics of Falklands (human rights, international law, the history and the current governance of the Falklands) you and your country will continue to fail it is persuit of the Falklands.
Sep 08th, 2010 - 04:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0M_of_FI
Sep 08th, 2010 - 04:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you”
Matthew
Malvinas Argentinas
Marco
I have a better one for Margo.
Sep 08th, 2010 - 05:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Do 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!!
Sorry, Marco, perhaps I didn't make it clear that my question in comment #29 was directed at you. Is “Marco” a native American name?
Sep 08th, 2010 - 05:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Is Obama a native American name?
Sep 08th, 2010 - 06:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Margo never answers questions. He just prattles in his cute psychotic psychopathic way.
Sep 08th, 2010 - 06:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ignore him.
No, Obama is not a native American name. But is “Marco” a native American name?
Sep 08th, 2010 - 07:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0is not marco [italian] t soundsit, either way its NOT south american, so i guess this makes marco an immigrant, and no say on the falklands, oh but i forgot, the argies only know there way or the highway.
Sep 08th, 2010 - 10:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think we're all asking the wrong questions and stating the wrong facts. Let me help you visualize the big picture here, in case you've been inside all day in front of your PC drinking Early Gray arguing about nothing, which sure as hells seems to be the case.
Sep 09th, 2010 - 05:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0Why 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.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_cyXaHWpmJXI/RrgFJGQiUSI/AAAAAAAABl4/zgXopF4tQdk/s400/AGVL02_FV_SouthAmerica.jpg
Erm, Fernando, you need to take another look at the UCLOS because you obviously have a flawed understanding of the convention. Under UNCLOS Falklands have a right to an EEZ and according to UCLOS where the EEZ of one territory or state overlaps that of another the median line is taken to divide the two. Sorry , but it's not “Argentina's continental shelf” any more than that around Japan belongs to Korea or that around the UK belongs to France/Belgium/Netherlands or Germany!
Sep 09th, 2010 - 08:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0”Generally, a state's EEZ extends to a distance of 200 nautical miles (370 km) out from its coastal baseline. The exception to this rule occurs when EEZs would overlap; that is, state coastal baselines are less than 400 nautical miles (740 km) apart. When an overlap occurs, it is up to the states to delineate the actual boundary.”
Sep 09th, 2010 - 09:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Argentina_Exclusive_Economic_Zones.PNG
If that was the case the UK 's defense would be based around it, instead it's always based on the inhabitants “self-determination”, nothing else. I don't think what you just described applies to this particular case.
Sep 09th, 2010 - 09:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0No Fernando, there is no case to answer regarding the continental shelf. It's just another Argentine government red herring. Geographical “proximity” is utterly irrelevant, and I'll repeat, the entire continental shelf does not “belong” to Argentina. Read UNCLOS again.
Sep 09th, 2010 - 09:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0“No Fernando”, that's all I'm getting from you J.A.
Sep 09th, 2010 - 10:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0If it was as simple as what you're describing the UN would've settled this case ages ago.
Read on after the “No Fernando”, there is more, it's not “all you are getting” from me.
Sep 09th, 2010 - 10:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0By 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.
ICJ, there must be a reason, I don't know what it is.
Sep 09th, 2010 - 10:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0Regarding 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.
First of all Fernando, the islands belong to the islanders. The people who've made the islands their home for the last 200 years. They are there, they exist, they decide their own future. The UK finally did the decent thing after the Falklands War and have them the devolved Government they should have had in the '60s but never got because the FCO was afraid of upsetting Argentina.
Sep 09th, 2010 - 10:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0This 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.
Yes, the islanders have been there for a long time, that does not negate the fact that Argentina inherited the islands from Spain, or the fact that the UK took the islands by force in 1833.
Sep 09th, 2010 - 11:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0You can also believe what you want Fernando.
Sep 09th, 2010 - 11:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0How come if you inherited the Falklands from Spain, did you not also inherit Uruguay, Paraguay and a whole chunk of Bolivia?
Fernando,
Sep 09th, 2010 - 11:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina 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.
Oh, and there's the other little complication that the last Spanish Viceroy was based in Montevideo and not BsAs, so if anyone inherited the Falklands it was Uruguay...
Sep 09th, 2010 - 12:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0From 1776 to 1814 the area you're referring to was known as Viceroyalty Of The Rio De La Plata, this was the last territory to be controlled by Spain in the Americas.
Sep 09th, 2010 - 12:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://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.
You might have claimed the Falklands Fernando, but you never inherited them. And anyway, you dropped that claim after signing the Convention of Settlement in 1849. The current claim is something completely different, and based on ultimately unsustainable fiction.
Sep 09th, 2010 - 12:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I 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!
Independence from colonial rule in Argentina ended in 1816, Argentina then took control of all its territories including Malvinas. Britain recognized Argentina's independence in 1825 without making reserves about the islands, therefore making any and all subsequent claims without merit.
Sep 09th, 2010 - 01:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0-end of story-
Buenos Aires did not control anything beyond the Salado river in 1816 (Argentina did not exist), nor did it control the Chaco, so the vast majority of what is now Argentina was not part of the country in 1816, or 1833 or even up till the 1870s. What do you think you needed the “rifle patria” for, target practice? Please stop peddling lies Fernando and educate yourself about the true history of your country.
Sep 09th, 2010 - 02:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Britain 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.
Couple of small points:
Sep 09th, 2010 - 02:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0From (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.
There is one thing wrong with your self-serving version of history Fernando, which is of course that the administration of the Falklands penal settlement of Puerto Soledad was conducted from Montevideo.
Sep 09th, 2010 - 03:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Were 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:
http://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
”If that was the case the UK 's defense would be based around it, instead it's always based on the inhabitants “self-determination”
Sep 09th, 2010 - 03:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We 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.
I am not a historian so am not going to engage in the above debate but I have considered how the oil can be extracted and processed without Argentina. (This is an articel about oil after all!)
Sep 09th, 2010 - 03:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The 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.
http://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.
Couldn't the islanders just store it in massive oil barges and transport it to an african nation or even the UK to be processed?
Sep 09th, 2010 - 04:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No need to with FPSO. Rig to FPSO. FPSO to tanker. Tanker to refinery. Refinery to my new Jag!
Sep 09th, 2010 - 04:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Few more stages in there of course but already I'm place off Nigeria with costa going down as the technology develops!
Fernando,
Sep 09th, 2010 - 05:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Re 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.
Well it looks like we already have experence with this stuff anyway, as we have 13 of these things around our coast anyway, the highest number of all i believe.
Sep 09th, 2010 - 05:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(59) Beef
Sep 09th, 2010 - 06:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not 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.
http://en.mercopress.com/2010/02/24/brazil-s-lula-da-silva-blasts-us-security-council-and-britain
http://en.mercopress.com/2010/02/24/brazil-s-lula-da-silva-blasts-us-security-council-and-britain
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 :-)
One of many challenges which can be overcome, Companies wouldn't have poured millions into the prospect if it wasn't possible to get the oil while still making money, it would have been one of the first subjects addressed when deciding to start the operation.
Sep 09th, 2010 - 07:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Chevrolet Volt, will get fuel economy of 230 miles per gallon. I hope they can send some of these babies down here before gas prices goes up again.
Sep 09th, 2010 - 07:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0More perspective, you'll definitely need some Earl Grey after this one.
Sep 09th, 2010 - 07:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“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
The oil can stay safe under British rule till the Technology allows us to harvest it with out outside aid
Sep 09th, 2010 - 07:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Continued from 67
Sep 09th, 2010 - 07:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0...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.
Fernando,
Sep 09th, 2010 - 08:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you really believe the British hate Argentina that is classic transferrance of your own failings. No we simply don't.
A couple more little points:
Sep 09th, 2010 - 08:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0From (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!
The Oil Idustry basically said 12 years ago that there would be no essential need for SAmerican infrastructure backup if it got to production as logicval thing is to take it direct by tanker from floating wellhead system already developed(probably even more developed by now) to wherever the refinery was - S America- Europe or far East - or anywhere. So IF S America wants to spite itself and loose out - there is no real problem our side.
Sep 09th, 2010 - 08:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I 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!
“natural resources that were exhausted centuries ago”
Sep 09th, 2010 - 08:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No.
“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.
Looks like I really poured some salt in your wounds
Sep 09th, 2010 - 09:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0..chau Ingleses del orto me voy a tomar unos mates
Las Islas Malvinas Son Argentinas ツ
Ah yes the classic Argentine ploy, all arguments debunked then chant an empty slogan. Stick a fork in it, this one's done.
Sep 09th, 2010 - 09:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Fernando - there is plenty of oil left in the UK North Sea so haven't a clue what you are on about regarding the lack of mineral resources! New technology and finds put the UK north sea with still 30 billion barrels recoverable.
Sep 09th, 2010 - 09:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If 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!
“Looks like I really poured some salt in your wounds ”
Sep 09th, 2010 - 09:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yeah...Im hurt.
(76) Beef
Sep 09th, 2010 - 11:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And 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.
Can anybody explain to me why in the world PM Gordon Brown sold 60 % of Britain gold for rock botton prices?. What in the world was he thinking, I don't get it. May be he had a good reason.
Sep 09th, 2010 - 11:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You'd better ask Gordon yourself Alvaro, because none of use know why...
Sep 10th, 2010 - 12:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0I guess he could not predict the future rise in the price of gold, I wonder who was the lucky buyer or buyers.
Sep 10th, 2010 - 12:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0Alvaro - to deliver on the improvements to public services e.g the NHS (which was a mess until 1997 - I worked in it so I know) required capital. The gold provided easy access and was a flat investment at the time.
Sep 10th, 2010 - 05:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0Ahh, yes. And still F_A doesn't respond, rebut or debate.
Sep 10th, 2010 - 07:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0But then we all know what F_A stands for, don't we?
Uruguay recognizes argentine sovereignty over Malvinas, so don't say Uruguay would claim the islands!!!
Sep 10th, 2010 - 12:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Islander, 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!
I do hope gorge enjoys it every time his “country” has to turn the gas off!
Sep 10th, 2010 - 01:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But 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.
85: I agree with you here, recently Argentina has drawn a “line in the sand” in south america, and it remains to be seen if this will work or not, fortunately to us it doesnt matter either way because if they decide to not get involved in the oil we can do it outselves.
Sep 10th, 2010 - 04:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0jorge- no optimist, if we have it I couldnt care less who buys it. Just stating the obvious -if a S American Country decides it wants “in” - to work with the production side and/or take the crude - then they will of course weigh up the balances and decide which is best for them.
Sep 10th, 2010 - 11:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nope- 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.
“Conqueror” ..Rebut? For what? You guys don't debunk anything, all you ever do is take things out of context and if that doesn't work you fabricate or twist things to your own interpretation, whatever works. That's why we post so many links, to support to some extent what we write. You don't support anything, you team-up with your other rabid-dog friends and think somehow that validates what you're saying.
Sep 11th, 2010 - 03:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0And 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.
“all you ever do is take things out of context and if that doesn't work you fabricate or twist things to your own interpretation”
Sep 11th, 2010 - 08:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0One 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...
What does it matter where the last Spanish Viceroy was? Malvinas was controlled from Buenos Aires. You're not even thinking.
Sep 11th, 2010 - 10:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0Before 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.
and so F_A continues on his twisted way. Let's see, I suggested three options. Respond, rebut or debate. Well he has responded. Innumerable points have been made, none of which he has rebutted. Which would lead to the conclusion that he CAN'T! Debate? No, he doesn't do that. It isn't a debate when the attitude is,“I'm right. You're wrong. That's all.”
Sep 11th, 2010 - 11:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0Then 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.
Talk about twisting “things to your own interpretation”. Fernando, you claim inheritance from the Spanish, so where the seat of Spanish power was is absolutely crucial. The Malvinas were last controlled by the Spanish from MONTEVIDEO and NOT BsAs. Your case falls at the first hurdle.
Sep 11th, 2010 - 12:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0My point of view is that the best hope for a stable and prosperous Falklands will be to reach some agreement with the argentines.
Sep 11th, 2010 - 04:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hmm, Kate, several agreements have been reached with the Argentines in the past which they have then promptly broken. They don't exactly have a stellar record in that regard. The best hope for the Falklands is for Argentina to drop their unsustainable claim.
Sep 11th, 2010 - 04:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“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.”
Sep 11th, 2010 - 05:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Fernando,
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.
”Indeed, if we restrain ourselves to Hispanic America, it could well be said that what the countries that compose it have in common would define a nationality in Europe. In Hispanic America, the distinction between citizens of neighboring states are often almost exclusively the product of the efforts of the state, which to a very considerable extent is previous to the nationality (this being, of course, always a question of degree). Uruguayans and the inhabitants of the Province of Buenos Aires not only speak the same language and share a common, largely southern European stock; they also have practically the same accent. Yet there are great differences between the two, in terms of a political culture which was to a great extent generated by the state. And indeed, there is a concomitant great difference between the political evolution of the two countries, Argentina being more prone to authoritarianism, and Uruguay more democratic. Moreover, while Argentina made the Falkland/Malvinas war in 1982, Uruguay never even made a feeble attempt to claim the islands, despite the fact that the historical title of Montevideo to them can compete with that of Buenos Aires. If we do not study the mechanisms used for the making of citizens and their specific ideological contents, we will be excluding a variable which (together with a number of other factors) may be crucial to the understanding of the political and policy-making process.”
Sep 11th, 2010 - 07:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Carlos Escude. Eduaction, political culture and foreign policy: THE CASE OF ARGENTINA
Interesting reading very interesting.
Hi Justin, very interesting article!
Sep 11th, 2010 - 07:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Do you live in the Falklands?
Me no, I live in Glasgow. The history of Antarctic exploration is a hobby of mine.
Sep 11th, 2010 - 08:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Kate. With all due respect to Mr Roberts, there IS an agreement that could be reached with the argentines in addition to them dropping their ridiculous claim. They could agree to stop interfering with the development of the Falkland Islands.
Sep 11th, 2010 - 08:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Conqueror. Don't get me wrong I agree with you but I am so tired of this conflict. Do you live on the islands?
Sep 11th, 2010 - 08:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Kate, it's something that wont ever go away.
Sep 11th, 2010 - 09:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Justin, I know another well informed person in this matter from your city. He goes under “tootiredtobeoriginal” in YouTube. He has some very interesting videos about The Falklands.
Sep 11th, 2010 - 09:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think it can go away. The Northern Irish conflict has practically disappeared. It's just up to the Argies to accept their international obligations.
Sep 11th, 2010 - 09:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Alvaro,
Sep 11th, 2010 - 10:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks I'll look that up but to be honest I don't really do YouTube.
Kate. There are some very nasty things on here who have ideas like planting a nuclear device on the Islands, wanting British surface vessels to go to the bottom of the sea taking as many Brits as possible with them and promoting the idea of violence to British nationals in Argentina.
Sep 11th, 2010 - 10:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As a result, I never say where I may be at any particular moment in time.
Conqueror. Fair enough but don't be afraid of the argies.
Sep 11th, 2010 - 10:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I live in The Falklands and proud of it.
“Hmm, Kate, several agreements have been reached with the Argentines in the past which they have then promptly broken.”
Sep 11th, 2010 - 10:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yea 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.
Conqueror. I understand your point .
Sep 11th, 2010 - 10:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Err no, there were agreements on the joint exploration of oil resources which Argentina broke unilaterally.
Sep 11th, 2010 - 11:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The 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.
“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.”
Sep 12th, 2010 - 12:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0How 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.
Suit yourselves, you're all crazy
Sep 12th, 2010 - 12:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0I guess its easy to dismiss someones oppinion as crazy when it doesnt agree with your own oppinion.
Sep 12th, 2010 - 01:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0The 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.
Sep 12th, 2010 - 03:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0Ale, even if there is no oil at all, we don't care, they'd still be staying there.
Sep 12th, 2010 - 04:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0@ fernando
Sep 12th, 2010 - 07:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0That 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
Ale, apart from defence the Islanders are already self sufficient and have been for a long time. The oil might help them pay the UK back for the defence cost.
Sep 12th, 2010 - 07:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0Fernando, 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...
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. Me? I'm crazy like a fox!
Sep 12th, 2010 - 12:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@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?
Ale if the oil doesn't belong to them, why are they the ones granting the licenses? Why have they set a corporation tax of 23%
Sep 12th, 2010 - 02:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don't recall the Govenor of TDF or the Federal Government in BA granting any oil licenses, or even the British government?
Yea Conqueror, you got the question right, right where you wanted it to be. That must've been difficult, seeing things your way I mean.
Sep 13th, 2010 - 07:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0“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.
F_A. Not difficult. I just wanted to be sure that the question was exactly right. I wasn't asking the question of you. I know better than to think you would give an answer.
Sep 13th, 2010 - 10:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0But 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
http://en.mercopress.com/2010/09/08/argentina-wants-to-stall-montevideo-port-as-the-efficient-regional-hub#comments
where you hope for my death.
That's fine, except you had it removed by the editor so I'll have to type it again and it'll likely be removed again. I said “I hope your own anger kills you eventually”.
Sep 14th, 2010 - 12:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0I don't retract myself from anything I say, I just point out when someone fabricates.
“That's fine, except you had it removed by the editor”
Sep 14th, 2010 - 03:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The 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!