MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Brazilian Offshore Subsea Lab
The Brazilian government and Navy are considering an ambitious plan for launching an offshore subsea lab to be located at the limit of the country´s territorial waters and beyond the farthest pre-salt play Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesI didn't realise that Brazil was so nervous. I recognise that many of the south cone states show signs of paranoia but I thought they were rather more secure. Apparently not!
Jan 12th, 2011 - 11:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Wonder if the yanks fancy another Diego Garcia in the south Atlantic .... I've got a place in mind :-)))
.
“Insecurity” talk is more fit for Oprah's shows, not political analyses. But for someone who believes friendship plays a major role in forging geopolitical realities, that might be hard to understand.
Jan 13th, 2011 - 12:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0Brazil is not nervous Rotted, you are.
Jan 13th, 2011 - 01:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0Get used to it:-)
The article quite clearly indicates that Brazil is concerned that the US will encroach on its pre-salt layers MoreCrap ... no evidence for it, just paranoia!
Jan 13th, 2011 - 01:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0Quite correct ForgeTIT - once again the article quite clearly reveals Brazil's 'nervousnes' - what term would you prefer? And you still didn't read that article from the ex- Australian premier about 'friendship' ? You should.
You are all a bit nervous in the south cone perhaps - but then again, is it really paranoia if they ARE after you :-)
Ask the people responsible for the plan - the military, the energy ministry - what are the reasons for it. They won't say it has anything to do with foreign nations. Officially it doesn't. That's Mr. Paschoa's interpretation. And perhaps he's right. But then again, can one blame a country, any country, for being worried about oil reserves that are far away from its coastline? Specially when we know a certain country and a band of bootlicking allies - sorry, I meant 'friends!' - have recently invaded an oil rich nation in the Middle East less than a decade ago and for reasons nobody clearly understands? I agree with you that, 4th Navy fleet aside, there's no evidence that any country is interested in acquiring those reserves by force. But then again, geopolitical intentions are not always acted upon in the short term, and they are not always clear for those like you and me - people who don't partake in political decision-making.
Jan 13th, 2011 - 04:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0As for the ex PM speech or whatever, I'm not interested in it. I won't form my worldview on the basis of political speeches. My view on geopolitics is informed by Thucydides and Immanuel Wallerstein, not by some Australian politician.
Rotted won't be able to sleep after that :-)))))
Jan 13th, 2011 - 04:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0perhaps Rotted will sleep better with his Tony blair bear...lol
Jan 13th, 2011 - 06:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0Brazil will need to rely on US Companies and expertise to extract any goodies so perhaps the US feels it will get its cut in any case without the need to take it all.
Jan 13th, 2011 - 08:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yup, that's what I said .... paranoia.
Jan 13th, 2011 - 08:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0But tell me, if the US actually decided to go after Brazil's pre-salt levels, what on earth would an “ ... offshore subsea lab ....” be able to do about it? They're not much inclined to sneak in, and now they know you've got a “ ... offshore subsea lab ...” as your first line of defence! Wow!
Now I'll agree with you ... that “ ... geopolitical intentions ...” are often not acted upon in the short term. I doubt that the US would be inclined to go after Brazil's offshore oil, but one day they'll take a good hard look at the Antartic. And then they'll look around to see what 'friends' they have near there :-)
@Be serious: What you say is also the POV that the international press, which has invested much to promote multinational oil companies' interests in the Brazilian pre-salt oil drilling, has advanced. But you're wrong. Petrobrás is a world leader in deep sea oil drilling. That which happened in the Gulf of Mexico would likely not have occurred had Petrobrás been there instead of the incompetent American BP. Petrobrás, btw, also has some history of provoking oil spills. Most haven't heard of it, however, because Petrobrás has solved its problems much more quickly and efficiently than BP. In 2009 the former US National Security Advisor James L. Jones came to Brazil to discuss the oil drilling. He promised Brazil some weapons sales with full transfer of technology in exchange of access to the reserves. The answer was a big no. The Brazilian central government has already taken steps to guarantee that Petrobrás will be the sole responsible for the pre-salt oil drilling. It wouldn't have done so if we depended on overrated American expertise.
Jan 13th, 2011 - 08:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0@Red: Just to be clear: I don't believe other countries are interested to take the reserves by force, either. Most in the government probably don't too. But it needs to take steps to guarantee that the oil reserves won't in foreign hands. As I've argued many times before, international relations decisions must not be taken in a spirit of good will or trust. Just to give you an example that things don't work like you think they do: Israel's opposition to US arms sales to Saudi Arabia. The Saudis aren't Israel's enemies. They probably worry about Iran as much as Israel does: in the short term Saudis and Israelis are allies. But Israel opposed the sales nonetheless because it knows that, in the medium to long term, the international system is unpredictable. Previous allies or benefactors might become enemies (btw, before the Islamic revolution Iran was Israel's ally). Brazil's correct in being overconcerned. Other countries' intentions - both current and future intentions - are unknown to it, and the future nobody can predict. Some months ago Mercopress reported that Brazil unilaterally extended its maritime borders. It did so without UN authorization, though, if I'm not mistaken, Brazil has sought it later on. Whether the UN's recognized the borders, I don't know. I do know that the US hasn't, for that country has not ratified the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea; it is one of the few countries not to have done so.
Jan 13th, 2011 - 09:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0The lab might mean nothing in defense terms, but it can work to demarcate the area. You've probably heard of the Brazil-France treaty under which France will produce some Scorpène submarines for Brazil. That was in August 2008, if I'm not mistaken, less than a year Brazil discovered the pre-salt oil layers and only 2 to 3 months after the 4th Fleet was activated. It seems Brazil is already acquiring the means with which to defend its maritime borders in a robust way, but that will naturally take more time than demarcating the area by other means.
I perfectly understand that - things change! The Israelies and the Saudies are natural enemies but have the same concerns currently regarding Iran. But that's the point. Natural enemies because of the huge cultural differences. The opposite also applies. I believe that you place too low a regard on culural, lingual and historical ties and similarities.
Jan 13th, 2011 - 12:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You lab offers no defence, but is a statement...... whether or not anyone is impressed is another thing. And if the lab is placed outside accepted borders then there will be consequences. Will Brazil be big enough to deal with them - THAT will be the question.
HMS Protector
Jan 13th, 2011 - 01:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0With the need growing for greater exploration and mapping of unknown Antarctic waters, the navy decided to seek a proper replacement
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/newshome/HMS-Protector-will-be-Endurance.6685123.jp
And if the lab is placed outside accepted borders then there will be consequences.
Jan 13th, 2011 - 08:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It seems the lab will be placed outside the so called accepted borders.
There will be consequences..like what? We all know the answer. Nothing will happen since doing business with Brazil does matter. What might happen is hearing tough talk from a bunch of blowhards on TV or in the blogger sphere. As usual.
One consequence is that it will be ignored! Merely a research post stuck in internatuional waters. Irrelevant as a defensive position. A bit like the Russian flag that they stuck under the Arctic ice a few years ago .... meaningless.
Jan 13th, 2011 - 11:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If it ever gets built of course!
“ I believe that you place too low a regard on culural, lingual and historical ties and similarities.”
Jan 14th, 2011 - 09:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0History is on my side. The Greek city-states all spoke related languages and worshipped the same gods. But they waged war on each other. The stronger cities - Athens, Lacedomonia - didn't mind establishing with the weaker ones a relation that very much resembled that between the European empires of modern age and their overseas domains.
Europe has been, since the middle ages and until after WWII, a continent of frequent conflicts. That they share similarities in religion (all Christian countries) and race (all white) didn't refrain them from so doing. See Britain and Germany: those two Germanic-language speaking countries of Protestant religion placed themselves at the opposite ends of the two fiercest wars the world has had, WWI and WWII. As a matter of fact, the British, at those two occasions, had as allies against Germany the more distantly related Russians/Soviets.
As for the Brazilian maritime borders, Fido is right. It is not the first time Brazil has unilaterally extended its maritime borders. The military president Emílio Médici did that in the early 70s and so did his successor, Ernesto Geisel. In 1975, Geisel extended the Brazilian borders from 50 to 200 nautical miles from the coastline - now the measure accepted by the UN as indicating the sea are of all countries that have borders with the open sea. If history is any guide for the future, the powers that be will accept Brazil's actions for, as Fido said, business with Brazil matters - and more so today than in th 70s.
(16) Forgetit
Jan 14th, 2011 - 12:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You say:
”Britain and Germany: Those two Germanic-language speaking countries of Protestant religion placed themselves at the opposite ends of the two fiercest wars the world has had, WWI and WWII.”
I say:
I really enjoy reading how you, using straightforward argumentation, take apart the one-eyed cynicism of posters like “Hoytred” or the blind ethnocentrism from ones like, for example, “Fredbdc”.
I would perhaps have included the non-insignificant detail about Deutschland and the United Kingdom, both being ruled by the same Germanic Royal Family throughout WWI………….
Curiously, those are facts that most WASP’s (White Anglo SAXON Protestants) find very difficult to swallow, even if their own acronym tells them so :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Anglo-Saxon_Protestant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Anglo-Saxon_Protestant
Regards and keep thinking…………..
El Think; the “enhanced” WASP *
*White Argie Saxon Protestant :-)))
The US appears to be pouring Billions into Petrobas to fund their search and production of deep oil. Perhaps US “interest” is satisfied by the likely huge returns and that any potential oil spill is well away from their shores. The World needs oil and those with the commercial acumen to go and get it deserve to share the rewards.
Jan 14th, 2011 - 01:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And the conversation was mostly to do with the supposed 'special relationship, and I still believe that you place too low a regard on culural, lingual and historical ties and similarities. As for the Germans! Well we've been allies a lot and enemies a couple of times. With much of Europe, it's a family thing.
Jan 14th, 2011 - 02:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The fiercest wars? Well, I suppose it depends on how you look at it.
Think, enjoy ... because for yourself, you don't think!
(19) Hoyt
Jan 14th, 2011 - 04:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Lingual special relationshi............?
You surely meant linguistic special relationship
Or……………., did you meant lingual special relationship ?
Tongue-in-cheek :-)
In 1939 not all Germans were Nazis.
Jan 14th, 2011 - 07:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In 1982 not all Argentinians were Facists.
Germans are actually decent people.
Think ... you can't do anything lingual with your tongue in your cheek :-)
Jan 15th, 2011 - 12:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0(22) Hoyt
Jan 15th, 2011 - 12:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0Ohhhhh …..yes.
You most certainly can……
You Brits have been doing it to the Yanks for generations.
You just keep your tongue between their “lowest” cheeks :-)))
And the Argies bend over and spread their cheeks when going to war
Jan 15th, 2011 - 09:33 am - 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!