Argentina ends Falklands oil deal

#1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6501693.stm

What would the Argies benefit by pulling out of this co-operation?

If the UK are leading the initiative and we have the only suitable islands in the area where the billions of dollars of oil can be refined and stored, the Argies lose potential revenue by pulling out.

If the UK cedes on the issue to sovereignty we lose our right to the oil and to the Islands, bit of a no-brainer. Argie flag waving in advance of the 25th anniversary or another front opening in the oil war?
 
#2
They are playing to the home political audience - if the Argies were any good at economics their Country would not be a basket case. Future Generations will have time to regret this act, utter muppets.

Should be good for the UK exploration Co's share price though!
 
#3
No doubt a series of naval "exercises" will follow to further play up to the home audience. Something akin to the "Cod war" is quite plausible I would have thought.
 
#4
Argentina says co-operation with the UK had to be linked to reopening talks over the sovereignty of the islands.
I thought that these 'talks' were concluded a little under 25 years ago!
 
#5
Can't see Brown spending any money to keep the Falklands secure. I guess the Argentine government feel the same.

On the other hand Brown, thinking of how he would look like a hero, might send an under-manned, ill-equipped force of 'his' Armed Forces to kick the Argentines off!

Hurry, hurry, hurry the next General Election.
 
#6
We could re-direct and despatch our South Atlantic Flotilla from its current task of ensuring the safety of UK trade lanes and shipping operating between the Pacifc and South Atlantic Oceans. SSN assets redeployed along with Marine Commando Carriers to send a strong signal to the Argentin ........................ **** where am I? Oh I must have been dreaming - I thought we still had the ability and political will to project power against mad barstewards who attacked us 25 years ago!
 
#7
Potential revenue is all it is....to my knowledge there b*gger all going on down there at the mo. Was talk of the town in the 90's but has died a death. IIRC a few wells drilled, but not a lot proven.

So this is more a symbolic jesture.
 
#8
They have shot a lot of seismic data in the last couple of years but drilled no prospective wells.

This is a very strange decision by Argentina as if they do ever find anything there (its a big 'if') then they could miss out. However, I suspect that they would suddenly smell the coffee and change their mind, as Oil development in that part of the world without access to mainland infrastructure would be difficult and they know it.
 
#9
Recruiting_Office_reject said:
They have shot a lot of seismic data in the last couple of years but drilled no prospective wells.

This is a very strange decision by Argentina as if they do ever find anything there (its a big 'if') then they could miss out. However, I suspect that they would suddenly smell the coffee and change their mind, as Oil development in that part of the world without access to mainland infrastructure would be difficult and they know it.
I seem to recall that one of the smaller oil companies wants to drill in the area to confirm its data but can't find an oil rig because they are all so busy elsewhere in the world (presumably, on better prospects).

Litotes
 
#11
Litotes said:
Recruiting_Office_reject said:
They have shot a lot of seismic data in the last couple of years but drilled no prospective wells.

This is a very strange decision by Argentina as if they do ever find anything there (its a big 'if') then they could miss out. However, I suspect that they would suddenly smell the coffee and change their mind, as Oil development in that part of the world without access to mainland infrastructure would be difficult and they know it.
I seem to recall that one of the smaller oil companies wants to drill in the area to confirm its data but can't find an oil rig because they are all so busy elsewhere in the world (presumably, on better prospects).

Litotes
Also, it's a lot of money to take a rig to somewhere out of the way with more serious sea conditions than those encountered in the Persain Gulf or Gulf of Mexico.
 
#12
Falkland Oil and Gas own the majority of drilling and exploration rights - they are part owned by Global Petroleum and Hardman Resources.

Global (who own 77% ish), have just drilled a succession of wells in East Africa and the Far East, allof which has come up dry - conseqently their share price has gone from 30p to around 7p on the AIM stock market.

Hardman Resources, which is an Australian company, was recently bought out by Tullow Oil of Ireland, and are concentrating on exploring offshore Australia in the Bass Strait fields.
Australian drilling dictates units that are deep water ops capable (Semi subs, drill barges etc etc) which are chuffing expensive (about USD 250k for an average capability semi with drill pack).

This means that all the available money is being ploughed into Hardmans australia ops, and none is left over to bank roll a drilling operation in FI - also bearing in mind that they only own 22.5% of the FOGL shares, their return on investment is extremely low.

As FOGL have no money available to spend, the only way they will be able to drill even exploration holes in their sectors would be convince another contractor to drill on a PSA (production sharing agreement) basis, whereby the rig contractor gets paid a % per barrel extracted. As there is no real basis to say theres any oil or gas down there aside from the seismic (which usually only shows peaks and troughs in rock type, indicating that there *might* be someoil or gas there), its a bit of a long shot for a rig owner to mobilise a unit to the Falklands, drill some wildcats, and then mobilise the rig back to somewhere like Singapore or Mexico - your talking about 20m USD lost in charter hire, and a further 20m for the heavylift vessel to transport the units to and from the Falklands. Additional to this cost is the provision of an anchor handling tug to reposition the rig from one well location to another, as well as supply the rig itself with men + food + drilling pipe etc etc. Current north sea rates for an anchor handler are around 80,000 GBP a day......

In todays market, rig operators are able to place units in the Gulf of Mexico ( specifically mexican waters) very easily on charter to Pemex (Mexican Govt oil co), Sakhalin (Rosneft, Venineft, Sinopec), West Africa (ENI, Shell, BP et al) or the Far East (Anyone and everyone) with guaranteed charter rates, paid mobilisation and no headaches.
North Sea drilling is sewn up by the Norwegians and larger US operators, as the rigs themselves need to be harsh water capable and of the highest standard.

Annnnd - most low cap oil companies (SOCO, JKX, Global, Venture) will only make money when the price of oil extracted stays above USD55 - thats for North Sea light sweet. Bearing in mind they do not know the quality of the oil and gas that could be produced, there are capital outlay issues that cannot be accounted for, and therefore no one will bother to drill (they cant take advantage of it even if its there).

Sermon over.
 
#13
The penny has probably dropped with the Argies and after ten years of Labour and Bliar they are probably aware of our virtually mothballed Navy,undermanned,underequipped and over extended army and weak political leadership who'd rather negotiate the Falklands away than fight for them.
Its no suprise its happened at this particular time as well!!!!
 
#14
lsquared said:
Can't see Brown spending any money to keep the Falklands secure. I guess the Argentine government feel the same.

On the other hand Brown, thinking of how he would look like a hero, might send an under-manned, ill-equipped force of 'his' Armed Forces to kick the Argentines off!

Hurry, hurry, hurry the next General Election.
I seem to remember the ratio of forces (attacking to defending) in an assault was a minimum of three to one. Why then did Maggie allow our Fallklands heroes to attack a force much greater than ours.

Lsquared, Your posts all seem to be in the same vein, and do not do You justice.

And to answer Adamas post, weren't we in the process of mothballing the fleet then?

Edited for spelling and the last paragraph
 
#15
Sven said:
lsquared said:
Can't see Brown spending any money to keep the Falklands secure. I guess the Argentine government feel the same.

On the other hand Brown, thinking of how he would look like a hero, might send an under-manned, ill-equipped force of 'his' Armed Forces to kick the Argentines off!

Hurry, hurry, hurry the next General Election.
I seem to remember the ratio of forces (attacking to defending) in an assault was a minimum of three to one. Why then did Maggie allow our Fallklands heroes to attack a force much greater than ours.

Lsquared, Your posts all seem to be in the same vein, and do not do You justice.

And to answer Adamas post, weren't we in the process of mothballing the fleet then?

Difference was Sven that the Fleet was twice as big then and the Country was in fianancial s**t.Apparantly now we have the worlds fourth lagrest economy and a Navy that is tied up in Portsmouth starved of money!!!

Edited for spelling and the last paragraph
 
#16
very_old_git said:
Argentina says co-operation with the UK had to be linked to reopening talks over the sovereignty of the islands.
I thought that these 'talks' were concluded a little under 25 years ago!
Sure we can talk: make em pay their own way to the UK sit em at a table, make em wait a couple of hours then go in an tell em to piss off, that's talking.
 
#17
Sven said:
lsquared said:
Can't see Brown spending any money to keep the Falklands secure. I guess the Argentine government feel the same.

On the other hand Brown, thinking of how he would look like a hero, might send an under-manned, ill-equipped force of 'his' Armed Forces to kick the Argentines off!

Hurry, hurry, hurry the next General Election.
I seem to remember the ratio of forces (attacking to defending) in an assault was a minimum of three to one. Why then did Maggie allow our Fallklands heroes to attack a force much greater than ours.

Lsquared, Your posts all seem to be in the same vein, and do not do You justice.

And to answer Adamas post, weren't we in the process of mothballing the fleet then?

Edited for spelling and the last paragraph
Difference was Sven that the fleet was twice as large in 82 than it is today!The country was also in fianancial s**t and a recession whereas today we have apparantly the worlds fourth largest economy and a Navy historically small and the vast majority of it tied up in Portsmouth starved of funds!!
 
#18
easy answer for the original question - this is showboating by the Argies. They know that as long as oil exploration continues at the pace currently, it is easier to exploit resources in the North Sea, Africa etc etc that have th infrastructure in place. It will be years and years and years, and an oil price of around 85USD per barrel before anyone takes the Falklands seriously.
Remember governments only tend to think to the next election, so these guys are saying to their voters 'look, we told the smelly british where to stick their dirty oil.'.
If they do start to produce oil, all argentina will do is licence a load of exploration blocks up and down its coast, put up and LNG and processing plants in the south east, and rip the hell out of any pipeline charges (like the Ukraine gas pipeline).

Its allllll just political point scoring.
 
#19
Talk of not needing Task Force because we have airport at Stanley, and will have warning enough to reinforce to make invasion impractical/costly. Therefore we can save money and bin all the expensive kit, and men.
Am I the only one to envision a special forces op from the mainland by low flying herc or heli, and/or sub-landed to take the airport. Quick reinforcement by hercs and without airport the govt. strategy is up the swannee. Main force to be landed at leisure.

What do we have down there now? an ex-sapper mate is part of the FDF and reckons some of the crabs who have to defend it have never spent a night out in the open in their lives, so another Alamo is not on the cards.

Plus at the time of the invasion SIS had only one man covering a huge region, with all the cuts do we have the intelligence coverage to give us warning? Or do we have to rely on the septics and sigint? A chilling thought.

This time they could do it, especially as they don't have to worry about conflict with Chile this time round.

Hope I am not being pessimistic but.........
 
#20
Sven said:
lsquared said:
Can't see Brown spending any money to keep the Falklands secure. I guess the Argentine government feel the same.

On the other hand Brown, thinking of how he would look like a hero, might send an under-manned, ill-equipped force of 'his' Armed Forces to kick the Argentines off!

Hurry, hurry, hurry the next General Election.

I seem to remember the ratio of forces (attacking to defending) in an assault was a minimum of three to one. Why then did Maggie allow our Fallklands heroes to attack a force much greater than ours.

Lsquared, Your posts all seem to be in the same vein, and do not do You justice.

And to answer Adamas post, weren't we in the process of mothballing the fleet then?

Edited for spelling and the last paragraph
Because Sven we had to - and we would probably have to again. Don't think the boys wouldn't have gone with another couple of thousand troops if they could have. We are currently much more fcuked than we were then as we seem to prefer chucking our hard -earned at other sh1t such as Olympic Stadiums and a big Dome to celebrate the Millenium - oh and other puch-ups as arranged byTony et al.

However the price for failure in the Dome was a Dry Bumming from a Brazilian (Peter, you have been a VERY NAUGHTY BOY) and a plum job (fnarr fnarr) after more fiddling. The price of failure in the punch-ups is troops lives. Force multipliers help our case (BL 755 at Goose Green for example, MLRS in GRANBY) - oh sh1t we can't use them any more - Des Sez :evil:
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top