MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Premier Oil expects 2017 production in the range of 75.000/80.000 boepd
Premier Oil has lifted its full-year production guidance as well as estimated resources at a huge oilfield it discovered off the coast of Mexico. Premier Oil, the operations of which stretch from Indonesia to the Falkland Islands, now expects 2017 production in the range of 75,000-80,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day (boepd), up from the previous forecast of 75,000 boepd, thanks to its strongly performing North Sea fields. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesRegarding Falklands oil exploration, Argentine Foreign Minister Jorge Taiana stated in February 2010, that his Government would take 'all measures necessary to preserve our rights' and also reiterated that Argentina had a permanent claim' on the islands, saying 'Buenos Aires would complain to the UN over the oil project and might take the case to the International Courts of Justice in the Hague.' (British Drilling For Falklands Oil Threatens Argentine Relations, Pope, F. , 13 Feb 2010 and Potential Drilling off Falkland, Provokes Tension Between Argentina & UK, IRRU News, 17 Feb 2010).
Aug 29th, 2017 - 12:06 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Question. Why is it taking so long? Only one answer...
Falklands – Territorial Waters: https://www.academia.edu/10574593/Falklands_Islands_Territorial_Waters
The extension of the continental shelf approved by the UN is very important because:
Aug 29th, 2017 - 12:40 pm - Link - Report abuse -6Argentina extends its territorial sovereignty over the sea.
It confirms the rigor and accuracy of the work done by the Argentine scientists.
It confirms the existence of a territorial dispute in the area.
Rigor and accuracy arent usually mentioned in the same breath as Argentina. However rigor mortis and inaccuracy are... Remember the Beagle Channel Malvinonsense, and 1982? Better not to try that strategy again, it will only need to more weeping and wailing. Still, weeping and wailing is what you are famous for... ;-))))
Aug 29th, 2017 - 01:02 pm - Link - Report abuse +4M1833
Aug 29th, 2017 - 01:09 pm - Link - Report abuse +5Territorial Waters/EEZ. It is a well-established practice, accepted as
law that title over the natural resources is to follow that over territory; accordingly the sovereign subject enjoys the exclusive right to dispose of the natural wealth of the area which it exercises sovereignty. ( UN Stockholm Declaration, 1972, Principle 21, and the UN Rio Declaration 1992, Principle 2, Declarations on
the Human Environment).
@ Brit Bob: What is the territorial extension-Water/ EEZ of the islands according to the UN?
Aug 29th, 2017 - 01:46 pm - Link - Report abuse -4M1833
Aug 29th, 2017 - 03:52 pm - Link - Report abuse +6If there is 'a genuine dispute' the case must go to court. As mentioned, Argentina threatened court action in 2010 - why is it taking so long.
Again, territorial waters are linked to sovereignty. If Argentina has a genuine sovereignty claim name one piece of international law that supports her claim?
http://en.mercopress.com/2017/03/28/argentina-defines-continental-shelf-limits-with-the-exception-of-the-falklands-and-antarctica-areas
Aug 29th, 2017 - 06:45 pm - Link - Report abuse +1To go to court requires agreement between the two countries and for this must be established negotiations, something that the UK refuses to do because it knows how difficult its position. And the extension of Argentine territorial sovereignty over the sea confirms this.
Aug 29th, 2017 - 10:27 pm - Link - Report abuse -6The extension of the continental shelf approved by the UN is very important because:
Argentina extends its territorial sovereignty over the sea.
It confirms the rigor and accuracy of the work done by the Argentine scientists.
It confirms the existence of a territorial dispute in the area.
Malvinense, the UN already confirmed the existence of the dispute back in 2009 when the Commission refused to even consider either Argentina's submission for the area, or the UK's on behalf of the Falkland Islands. It is definitely not their job to decide who is in the right.
Aug 29th, 2017 - 11:01 pm - Link - Report abuse +4And there is nothing stopping Argentina from asking the UK to take the case to the ICJ. Personally I don't think the UK is especially likely to agree, but Argentina has never even asked.
Hi, I'm back.
Aug 30th, 2017 - 12:22 am - Link - Report abuse +3Been blocked out since last Friday. Must have been a glitch. Story of my life :-)
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-response-to-argentinas-intention-to-extend-its-continental-shelf
Aug 30th, 2017 - 08:33 am - Link - Report abuse +1Prof. Willetts of the South Atlantic Council has is covered -
Aug 30th, 2017 - 09:12 am - Link - Report abuse +3http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/SAC/OP/OP14UPDT.HTM
Anthing else I've missed?
M 1833
Aug 30th, 2017 - 10:53 am - Link - Report abuse +3''The extension of the continental shelf approved by the UN is very important because:
Argentina extends its territorial sovereignty over the sea.''
Dream on...
Argentina's Continental Shelf Claims and The UN CLCA Commission (1 page):-
https://www.academia.edu/33898951/Argentinas_Continental_Shelf_Claims_-The_UN_CLCS_Commission
Thanks boys for giving me the reason once again, the matter is not closed.
Aug 30th, 2017 - 11:56 am - Link - Report abuse -6“In April 2010, there were two other cases directly relevant to the Argentine submission. The Commission refused to establish a sub-commission to consider the British partial submission on the Falklands and on South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, due to the dispute with Argentina”.
It confirms the existence of a territorial dispute in the area.
“The first runs, from the Rio de la Plata boundary with Uruguay, south to the boundary of the waters around the Falklands. The other is a tiny area south of Tierra del Fuego and Staten Island”
Argentina extends its territorial sovereignty over the sea.
“Neither Britain nor Argentina can separately gain any internationally recognised rights to exploit the resources of the continental shelf, in the south-west Atlantic, so long as the dispute continues.”
So what is Premier Oil doing here?
Again, thank you
None of the Argie bullshit stops the Falklanders exploiting the fishing rights in their own EEZ and the extraction of oil will be no different. If the Argies want to persue their bullshit “claim” there is only one place they can do it to any effect - the United Nations International Court of Justice (UNICJ) in den Haag, Netherlands. I wonder why they don't do it?*
Aug 30th, 2017 - 02:25 pm - Link - Report abuse +5http://www.worldcourts.com/icj/eng/decisions/1956.03.16_antarctica1.htm
*Don't worry.....I know why ;-D
The issue of Falklands sovereignty is settled Malvinense 1833 - the side issues of what that actually means in terms of coastal control is entirely separate. The situation is, as it is. It will not change.
Aug 30th, 2017 - 02:41 pm - Link - Report abuse +6Argentine does not gain control over thousands of mile of continental shelf, because the de facto situation is that Britain has its own continental shelf in the South Atlantic. The world will have to become a very different place for that to change.
Grasp all the straws you wish. The matter is settled - it is, as it is.
link Roger Lorton:
Aug 30th, 2017 - 02:50 pm - Link - Report abuse -5“Neither Britain nor Argentina can separately gain any internationally recognised rights to exploit the resources of the continental shelf, in the south-west Atlantic, so long as the dispute continues.”
You can resurface in your own fantasies.
There is no such thing as “our own EEZ.”
Said by the British themselves, I understand that you can not accept it, but that is the reality.
don't worry, be happy ;-)))
The oil will be coming ashore soon enough - just as the finfish comes ashore today.....and there will be nothing the Argies can do to stop it ;-D
Aug 30th, 2017 - 02:59 pm - Link - Report abuse +5http://www.fig.gov.fk/fisheries/index.php/overview/zones/finfish
@ Roger Lorton: Whatever you say Roger does not change the world's pronouncements through laws, like the Sea Conventions. ;-)
Aug 30th, 2017 - 03:10 pm - Link - Report abuse -6@ Stoker: “Neither Britain nor Argentina can separately gain any internationally recognised rights to exploit the resources of the continental shelf, in the south-west Atlantic, so long as the dispute continues.”
Now do you understand who the bad guys in the neighborhood are?
Malvi 1833
Aug 30th, 2017 - 03:27 pm - Link - Report abuse +6On October 11th, 1946 with Law No. 14,708, Argentina claimed sovereignty over “ the Epicontinental Sea and the Argentine Continental Shelf.”
71 years ago.
In that 71 years, Argentina has not gained a further meter of continental shelf rights than it had in 1946.
We do not need to change the world's pronouncements (although you may need to learn to read) - they don't give you anything.
It is as it will always be. The matter is settled.
Roger, that clearly isn't true. They gained a big strip of continental shelf from Uruguay down to the Falklands, and a bit by Tierra del Fuego. It's right there in the link you pasted, didn't you read it?
Aug 30th, 2017 - 03:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ Roger, the link provided by you contradicts it:
Aug 30th, 2017 - 03:49 pm - Link - Report abuse -4“Neither Britain nor Argentina can separately gain any internationally recognised rights to exploit the resources of the continental shelf, in the south-west Atlantic, so long as the dispute continues.
The people who live on the islands have the right, under the UN Charter, to self-determination. The UN also recognises everyone's right to “full and complete sovereignty over all their natural wealth and resources”.
Aug 30th, 2017 - 03:55 pm - Link - Report abuse +3http://www.ipu.org/splz-e/unga14/rtd.pdf
Malvinense 1833
Aug 30th, 2017 - 04:09 pm - Link - Report abuse +5“Neither Britain nor Argentina can separately gain any internationally recognised rights to exploit the resources of the continental shelf, in the south-west Atlantic, so long as the dispute continues.” So what is Premier Oil doing here?''
Territorial Waters/EEZ. It is a well-established practice, accepted as
law that title over the natural resources is to follow that over territory; accordingly the sovereign subject enjoys the exclusive right to dispose of the natural wealth of the area which it exercises sovereignty. ( UN Stockholm Declaration, 1972, Principle 21, and the UN Rio Declaration 1992, Principle 2, Declarations on the Human Environment).
If Argentina wants to delimit Falklands waters it must do so through the international courts.
And Argentina has nothing to take to court that will back up her sovereignty argument.
-To go to court requires agreement between the two countries and for this must be established negotiations, something that the UK refuses to do because it knows how difficult its position.
Aug 30th, 2017 - 07:41 pm - Link - Report abuse +8There’s absolutely nothing stopping Argentina filing a lawsuit. It doesn’t need the UK’s prior agreement to do that
From ICJ website:
d) Forum prorogatum
If a State has not recognized the jurisdiction of the Court at the time when an application instituting proceedings is filed against it, that State has the possibility of accepting such jurisdiction subsequently to enable the Court to entertain the case: the Court thus has jurisdiction as of the date of acceptance by virtue of the rule of forum prorogatum.
-The extension of the continental shelf approved by the UN is very important because:
Argentina extends its territorial sovereignty over the sea.
No, jurisdiction over the sea has not been extended anywhere on Earth. That remains at a maximum possible of 200 nmi. The extension applies to the continental shelf. The waters above that extension remain international waters. In Argentina’s case the extension only covers the shelf corresponding to Argentina, not to any other territory.
-It confirms the existence of a territorial dispute in the area.
The Commission’s remit is the continental shelf, nothing else, so at most it has power to recognise disputes over the continental shelf.
-“Neither Britain nor Argentina can separately gain any internationally recognised rights to exploit the resources of the continental shelf, in the south-west Atlantic, so long as the dispute continues.”
So what is Premier Oil doing here?
Again, thank you
Premier Oil is not a State owned company. It is a shareholder owned company. And it’s licensed by the FI Government, not the UK government. Nothing forbids the FI to exploit its own resources.
Well said dab14763
Aug 30th, 2017 - 10:26 pm - Link - Report abuse +6http://www.fig.gov.fk/minerals/
Nobody can stop the people who live on the Falkland Islands from extracting oil in their own EEZ. Looking forward to all the Argie weeping and whining when the first oil comes ashore but - as usual - they will decline from taking the matter to Court since they know they will lose.
Demon Tree
Aug 30th, 2017 - 11:05 pm - Link - Report abuse +6Gained? They claimed that, and more, in 1946. Long before there was any mechanism to have such a claim recognised.
And yes, I have read it. In fact, I've read all the versions (I think this is the 3rd).
All Argentina got, if anything, is recognition that a chuck of - uncontested - continental shelf falls under its administration. Nobody was arguing.
Malvinense 1833
“Internationally recognised rights” ? Makes not on ounce of difference on the ground (sea). We control our areas anyway, and nobody else is challenging.
It is, as it is
@RL
Aug 30th, 2017 - 11:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So they claimed it in 1946, and now their claim has been recognised? That means they gained something. They also claimed the continental shelf around the Falklands in 1946, and that claim has not been recognised. I'd say there is a difference between claiming something, and actually possessing the rights to it, wouldn't you?
And there are oil companies looking for oil in the Falklands EEZ. Have they also been prospecting in the extended continental shelf that Britain claimed on their behalf but the commission refused to consider? I'm guessing not.
Demon Tree
Aug 30th, 2017 - 11:28 pm - Link - Report abuse +7No. they claimed it all in 1946, and they claim it all today. If recognition is a gain, then its one that's not worth a brass farthing. Outside of the areas claimed for the Falklands, nobody was contesting Argentina's claims. All that has changed is that the UN is prepared to recognise it. There was nothing to stop argentina exploiting those areas anyway.
The FIG have issued licences for its claimed EEZ. The Argentines have issued licences for its claimed EEZ, but no longer for the area claimed by the UK (they tried once I believe, but there were no takers).
As for the Falklands extended area, I am not aware of any limitations placed upon the licensing process.
@Roger Lorton
Aug 30th, 2017 - 11:53 pm - Link - Report abuse -1If companies were not willing to invest in prospecting for oil, or extracting it, before Argentina's ownership had been confirmed, then they have gained a lot more than a brass farthing. And either way they have gained UN confirmation, which they didn't have before. The fact no one was contesting that part of their claim is immaterial.
For the Falklands, I have never heard that they are licencing exploration outside their EEZ. The UNCLOS established the International Seabed Authority to regulate mineral-related activities in the parts of the ocean floor not belonging to any country, and both the UK and Argentina are signatories. Until the Commission can rule on the extended continental shelf, I would guess it is officially considered as belonging to no one.
DT
Aug 31st, 2017 - 12:03 am - Link - Report abuse +3You think it's a gain, I think it was worthless as they'd controlled those areas for 70 years anyway. We'll have to disagree.
As for the FI, the licensing is to do with geology, not geography. I am not aware of any interest outside the areas currently licensed.
I have doubts that, without a UNCLOS ruling, that the seabed would be considered terra nullius, but then I am guessing also.
It depends whether you think having the law on your side and international support is important. Apparently you don't.
Aug 31st, 2017 - 12:18 am - Link - Report abuse -2I doubt the ISA would be willing to issue a licence for an area that had outstanding claims, and this one has two that are likely to remain outstanding for a long time. Most likely no one will be exploiting that piece of seabed for the foreseeable future. There are already not many oil companies willing to work in the Falklands due to it's contested status, going outside the EEZ into an undefined area would be a step too far.
I'm a cynic, remember? Supposed international support has generally been proven to be worth diddly-squat over the decades and, historically, de facto beats de jure every time.
Aug 31st, 2017 - 12:24 am - Link - Report abuse +4If there were proven and valuable resources within areas controlled & claimed by the UK with regard to the Falklands, I have no doubt that the oil companies would be queuing up - contested or otherwise. It always comes down to the money.
Does big business recognise the concept of “a step too far” ? I have my doubts.
“de facto beats de jure every time”
Aug 31st, 2017 - 08:36 am - Link - Report abuse -2If you just said this, I'd be inclined to agree with you, but you are arguing that de jure is worth nothing at all. That, I don't agree with. And international support was essential during the Falklands war. Without help from the US and Chile, Argentina might well have won.
I don't know if big business recognises the concept of 'a step too far', but they certainly understand the concept of risk, and of profit vs costs. I think you are not cynical enough. Oil is as often a curse as a blessing for those countries that have it, and there are plenty of oil companies with more money than the Falklands has. It will be hard to extract the oil without logistical support from Argentina, and certainly there is no workforce on the islands capable of building the infrastructure or running it. I think they might be better off if it turns out not to be viable.
And I don't expect to see any company prospecting in the extended continental shelf until the matter is resolved. Let me know if this ever happens.
I shall.
Aug 31st, 2017 - 08:48 am - Link - Report abuse +4All I'll add, is, that the Argentine Government saw this UNCLOS recognition as so valuable that it felt the need to lie to the Argentine people about it.
That at least is true. It's difficult to believe it was a mistake when they knew long in advance that the areas around the Falklands and Antarctica would not even be considered. The British press believed them with no checking, as well.
Aug 31st, 2017 - 09:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0England will return the Malvinas within 25 years.
Sep 02nd, 2017 - 05:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Malvinense 1833
Sep 02nd, 2017 - 10:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“There is no such thing as “our own EEZ.” Said by the British themselves.” Thus refuted: “International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the North Sea continental shelf cases, in which Denmark and the Netherlands based their claim inter alia on the doctrine of proximity, i.e., that the part of the continental shelf closest to the part of the state in question falls automatically under that state's jurisdiction. In these cases the ICJ rejected any contiguity type of approach. As for continuity, it is argued, the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf and Contiguous Zone, Article 1, now contained in the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, Article 76, does not support the view that coastal states have sovereignty over islands above the continental shelf. On the contrary it laid down doctrine that islands had their own “continental shelves,” p.74
The Falklands/Malvinas Case Breaking the Deadlock in the Anglo-Argentine...
By Roberto C. Laver
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!