Falkland Islands mine clearance to begin.

#1
PORT STANLEY, Falkland Islands , Oct. 13 (UPI) -- More than two decades after the Falklands Islands conflict between Britain and Argentina, clearing mines from the old battlefields is set to start with the award of a new contract to BACTEC International Ltd., officials said.

Clearance of mines from 117 mined areas was to have finished by March this year but Britain secured a 10-year extension for the project, arguing the task was too challenging to be completed within the timeframe.

Battle Area Clearance and Training Equipment Consultants International Ltd., based in Rochester, England, is a global operator with ongoing mine-clearance projects across the world. BACTEC won the bid while in competition with three other companies, the Falkland Islands News Network said.

The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office announced the contract was awarded after a "rigorous" procurement process, taking into account BACTEC's strong track record and work in more than 40 countries.

BACTEC experts have worked in the Falklands before, but the new contract marks the start of a long and expensive process of clearing the mines from large areas that were used by Falklanders or their livestock before the conflict.

The first of BACTEC's teams will arrive in late October and begin clearance of four sites at Surf Bay, Sapper Hill, Goose Green and Fox Bay East.

BACTEC experts include Zimbabwean mine-clearing experts who have worked on other sites across the world, most recently in Lebanon.

The mine-clearing operation is a potential boon to the local economy as BACTEC will tap local human resources for support staff.

Mine-clearing operations are scheduled to be completed by 2019, but official sources said further delays could not be ruled out.

The United Nations estimates about 70 countries face a significant landmine or explosive ordnance contamination problem, while a smaller number experience the threat to life and limb in a lesser degree.

BACTEC says that, in the period since 1991, it has cleared more than 500,000 landmines and thousands of tons of unexploded ordnance, cleared or verified in excess of 8,000,000 square meters of ordnance-contaminated land in 40 countries.
http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Se...go-ahead-with-UK-contract/UPI-33631255473434/

http://en.mercopress.com/2009/10/13/falkland-islands-de-mining-contract-signed
 
#2
There were always guys doing this when I was at 33, so what were they doing down there then apart from shagging the WRAF and drinking the beer. :D
 
#3
re-stilly said:
There were always guys doing this when I was at 33, so what were they doing down there then apart from shagging the WRAF and drinking the beer. :D
There was no mine clearance carried out by 33 apart from post conflict (which was also carried out by non EOD sappers) and some EOC (BAC) tasks of UXO contaminated areas. All minefield clearance ceased in 1983 apart from the lifting of some minefield laid by British forces.

Since 1983, the EOD detachment were (and still are) responsible for the destruction of located/reported UXO, the maintenance of minefield fencing/marking/records and the destruction of mines that were in danger of leaving a minefield through erosion.

Yes I drank a lot of beer but don't recall shagging a WRAF bint :wink:
 
#4
Cheers k13, being 22 I only ended up being crash crew, BD Engineer or BACS on subby.
 
#6
Rather thought that was the job for the sheep, that project would be rather a nightmare and to what end, it would probably result in more names being read from the Dispatch box. Leave the signs up and keep eating the mutton!
 
#7
This will make a great impact on the lives of the Bennies as rather than having areas where they can't go, they soon may have areas where they can go but simply won't go. 'Cause there's bugger all there anyway. :roll:

Except the sheep.
 
#9
seems its political in nature If we don't do it gives states an excuse who actually have a problem with mines not to :(
bennies would much rather the consideralbe amount of cash and effort be expended somewhere. The option of putting a big fence round the minefield and leave well alone for the next 200 years is an option.

finding non metallic mines in a peat bog that makes said mines rise and sink
hell of a job.
big feck off FAE bombs might work but would probably wreck goose green.

pity we can't give the bill to the spics but they have no cash.
 
#10
k13eod said:
EX_STAB said:
What a waste of money.
I assume that you base that argument on years of experience in EOD, humanitarian demining and the political process of the Mine Ban Treaty?
No, I base it on common fcking sense. We're in the middle of a recession and the government thinks that demining marginal grazing and penguin colonies is a useful thing to be spending money on. It's quite patently not.

How many "innocent children" have been maimed by mines in the Falklands in the last 25 years? Oh that would be none then. :roll: Hardly a priority.

The mine ban treaty is another touchy feely fluffy initiative that we should never have signed up to. China, Russia and India didn't sign up to it and they are the ones supplying the low intensity conflicts where indiscriminate mining causes problems so what's been achieved by us doing so? We could have just stopped selling mines to third world countries and kept the option for ourselves.
 
#12
JonnoJonno said:
k13eod said:
EX_STAB said:
What a waste of money.
I assume that you base that argument on years of experience in EOD, humanitarian demining and the political process of the Mine Ban Treaty?
I heard they disbanded the TA to fund this mission.
:lol: Not like you to be provocative JJ.
 
#14
EX_STAB said:
k13eod said:
EX_STAB said:
What a waste of money.
I assume that you base that argument on years of experience in EOD, humanitarian demining and the political process of the Mine Ban Treaty?
No, I base it on common fcking sense. We're in the middle of a recession and the government thinks that demining marginal grazing and penguin colonies is a useful thing to be spending money on. It's quite patently not.

How many "innocent children" have been maimed by mines in the Falklands in the last 25 years? Oh that would be none then. :roll: Hardly a priority.

The mine ban treaty is another touchy feely fluffy initiative that we should never have signed up to. China, Russia and India didn't sign up to it and they are the ones supplying the low intensity conflicts where indiscriminate mining causes problems so what's been achieved by us doing so? We could have just stopped selling mines to third world countries and kept the option for ourselves.
On that basis then we should stop clearing the UK of UXO as the war was 70 years ago and nobody has been hurt since. Shit you know F uck all about long standing UXO do you.
 
#15
Well, look after your other leg while you're down there, K13!

;-)
 
#17
re-stilly said:
EX_STAB said:
k13eod said:
EX_STAB said:
What a waste of money.
I assume that you base that argument on years of experience in EOD, humanitarian demining and the political process of the Mine Ban Treaty?
No, I base it on common fcking sense. We're in the middle of a recession and the government thinks that demining marginal grazing and penguin colonies is a useful thing to be spending money on. It's quite patently not.

How many "innocent children" have been maimed by mines in the Falklands in the last 25 years? Oh that would be none then. :roll: Hardly a priority.

The mine ban treaty is another touchy feely fluffy initiative that we should never have signed up to. China, Russia and India didn't sign up to it and they are the ones supplying the low intensity conflicts where indiscriminate mining causes problems so what's been achieved by us doing so? We could have just stopped selling mines to third world countries and kept the option for ourselves.
On that basis then we should stop clearing the UK of UXO as the war was 70 years ago and nobody has been hurt since. s*** you know F uck all about long standing UXO do you.
There's no correlation at all between the two. The UK is a densely populated area with UXO in unknown locations that is cleared when it presents a problem as opposed to a sparsely populated area where UXO is confined within known areas that aren't needed for any purpose.

Think it through,.
 
#18
EX_STAB said:
k13eod said:
EX_STAB said:
What a waste of money.
I assume that you base that argument on years of experience in EOD, humanitarian demining and the political process of the Mine Ban Treaty?
No, I base it on common fcking sense. We're in the middle of a recession and the government thinks that demining marginal grazing and penguin colonies is a useful thing to be spending money on. It's quite patently not.

How many "innocent children" have been maimed by mines in the Falklands in the last 25 years? Oh that would be none then. :roll: Hardly a priority.

The mine ban treaty is another touchy feely fluffy initiative that we should never have signed up to. China, Russia and India didn't sign up to it and they are the ones supplying the low intensity conflicts where indiscriminate mining causes problems so what's been achieved by us doing so? We could have just stopped selling mines to third world countries and kept the option for ourselves.
But we did sign and ratify the Mine Ban Treaty whether you like it or not. And whether it is a 'touchy feely fluffy' initiative (I'm sure that there were those who felt the same way about the Geneva Convention) or not the MBT has seen a decrease in the use/production of landmines world-wide and a decrease in human suffering (around 85% of landmine related casualties are civilians post conflict). Whether China, Russia or India signed it or not is irrelevant ... at least one of those countries also wont sign an agreement to stop shooting people in the neck. Those countries also do not export mines (officially) as a result of the treaty.

Britain has an obligation to clear mines from terroritories under its control by March 2010. It failed and has now asked for a 10 year extension. The reason for no clearance taking place was never cost (or responsibility) but that there had never been a civilian casualty in the Falklands and that the minefields were known and fenced. Additionally it was always claimed that clearance would not take place until effective technology was available to locate minimum metal mines.

You are right; there is a recession, a world-wide one which has seen a lack of funding for demining projects in some of the worst affected countries in the world. If Britain, one of the most affluent countries on the planet, continues to ignore the issue of clearance in the Falklands it will result in even less funding for those poorer countries; if Britain fails then what hope for Angola, Mozambique, Laos or others?

The money being spent was always there in the budget for demining and that’s what its going to be used for. You will note that there are only 4 areas being cleared out of the 117 (119 if you want to be pedantic) remaining. The areas are diverse in soil/terrain characteristics so you might say this is a trial for any future proposed clearance/treaty extension. The technology does now exist and we will be deploying both traditional mine detectors and dual sensor machines.
 
#19
Bugger you got there before me. (albeit a bit more fluently than I would have)
 
#20
k13eod said:
EX_STAB said:
k13eod said:
EX_STAB said:
What a waste of money.
I assume that you base that argument on years of experience in EOD, humanitarian demining and the political process of the Mine Ban Treaty?
No, I base it on common fcking sense. We're in the middle of a recession and the government thinks that demining marginal grazing and penguin colonies is a useful thing to be spending money on. It's quite patently not.

How many "innocent children" have been maimed by mines in the Falklands in the last 25 years? Oh that would be none then. :roll: Hardly a priority.

The mine ban treaty is another touchy feely fluffy initiative that we should never have signed up to. China, Russia and India didn't sign up to it and they are the ones supplying the low intensity conflicts where indiscriminate mining causes problems so what's been achieved by us doing so? We could have just stopped selling mines to third world countries and kept the option for ourselves.
But we did sign and ratify the Mine Ban Treaty whether you like it or not. And whether it is a 'touchy feely fluffy' initiative (I'm sure that there were those who felt the same way about the Geneva Convention) or not the MBT has seen a decrease in the use/production of landmines world-wide and a decrease in human suffering (around 85% of landmine related casualties are civilians post conflict). Whether China, Russia or India signed it or not is irrelevant ... at least one of those countries also wont sign an agreement to stop shooting people in the neck. Those countries also do not export mines (officially) as a result of the treaty.

Britain has an obligation to clear mines from terroritories under its control by March 2010. It failed and has now asked for a 10 year extension. The reason for no clearance taking place was never cost (or responsibility) but that there had never been a civilian casualty in the Falklands and that the minefields were known and fenced. Additionally it was always claimed that clearance would not take place until effective technology was available to locate minimum metal mines.

You are right; there is a recession, a world-wide one which has seen a lack of funding for demining projects in some of the worst affected countries in the world. If Britain, one of the most affluent countries on the planet, continues to ignore the issue of clearance in the Falklands it will result in even less funding for those poorer countries; if Britain fails then what hope for Angola, Mozambique, Laos or others?
The money being spent was always there in the budget for demining and that’s what its going to be used for. You will note that there are only 4 areas being cleared out of the 117 (119 if you want to be pedantic) remaining. The areas are diverse in soil/terrain characteristics so you might say this is a trial for any future proposed clearance/treaty extension. The technology does now exist and we will be deploying both traditional mine detectors and dual sensor machines.
My bold - well said Kev and I would mention in 'others' areas such as the Sahara. Fcuking Moroccans seeding mines over the Western sector from helios. As always it's the children and animals who suffer most.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top