Falklands and oil

As many of you may or may not know, a large quantity of oil (<60bn barrels, compared to 260 billion in Saudi Arabia, 115 billion in Iraq, ) was semi-recently discovered near the Falkland Islands. With moves towards exploiting these resources gearing up, Argentina is being obstructive, to the surprise of absolutely no one:

Quote:

---

Argentina toughens shipping rules in Falklands oil row
Geologists say the seabed around the Falklands has substantial oil reserves


Argentina has announced new controls on ships passing through its waters to the Falkland Islands in a growing dispute over British oil drilling plans.

A permit will now be needed by ships using Argentine waters en route to the Falklands, South Georgia or the South Sandwich Islands - all UK controlled.

Argentina has protested to the UK about oil exploration due to begin next week.

The UK Foreign Office said the Falkland Islands' waters were controlled by its authorities and would not be affected.

'Pathetic and useless'

Buenos Aires claims sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, which it calls Islas Malvinas.

It has previously threatened that any company exploring for oil and gas in the waters around the territory will not be allowed to operate in Argentina.

On Tuesday, Argentine President Cristina Fernandez signed a decree requiring all vessels travelling between Argentina and the islands, or those that want to cross Argentine territorial waters en route to the Falklands, to seek prior permission.

Cabinet Chief Anibal Fernandez said the decree sought to achieve "not only a defence of Argentine sovereignty but also of all the resources" in the area.

But a drilling rig from the Scottish highlands, the Ocean Guardian, is nearing the islands and due to start drilling next week, the UK-based company Desire Petroleum has said.

However, a spokesman for the company declined to comment on the growing dispute between the UK and Argentina over oil and gas exploration.

Chairman of the Parliamentary all-party Falklands group, Sir Nicholas Winterton, said the Argentine decree was "pathetic and useless" and designed simply to try to impede the economic progress of the islands.

He said he would seek a meeting with senior Foreign Office officials to discuss the issue next week.

BBC world affairs correspondent Peter Biles said Argentine anger over the issue had been "brewing for a while".

He said: "The sabre-rattling over oil in the South Atlantic is just the latest episode in a dispute that's remained unresolved since the Falklands War nearly 28 years ago."

Ocean expanse

He told BBC Radio 5 live he did not think events would escalate "at this stage" but uncertainty remained over what the Argentines regarded as their territorial waters.

After Argentina's invasion of the Falklands in 1982, a UK taskforce seized back control in a short war that claimed the lives of 649 Argentine and 255 British soldiers.

But Buenos Aires believes the UK is illegally occupying the Falklands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.

Last year it submitted a claim to the United Nations for a vast expanse of ocean, based on research into the extent of the continental shelf, stretching to the Antarctic and including the island chains governed by Britain.

Jan Cheek, a member of the Falklands' Legislative Assembly, told BBC Radio 5 live the new controls were part of a "continuing irritation for us".

"While, of course, Argentina is free to do what it wants in its territorial waters, I don't think they have any right to interfere in ours," she said.

She added Argentina had in the past "interfered" by refusing charter flights heading to the Falklands through its air space, and stopping fishing and cargo vessels.

"It's more of the same and we come to expect it when Argentina's government are experiencing difficulties at home. We're a very convenient distraction."

A UK Foreign Office statement said: "Regulations governing Argentine territorial waters are a matter for the Argentine authorities.

"This does not affect Falkland Islands territorial waters which are controlled by the island authorities."

It added that the UK and Argentina were "important partners" with a "close and productive relationship".

"We want, and have offered, to co-operate on South Atlantic issues. We will work to develop this relationship further," the statement said.

Geologists think the South Atlantic ocean bed surrounding the Falklands could contain rich energy reserves.

---

As a second war can probably be ruled out for political and military reasons, and oil is a pretty big deal, how do you think this will play out? Argentina cannot stop the drilling of the oil, but they can make it considerably more difficult and expensive by, e.g. forcing the rigs to resupply from Chile or somewhere rather than Argentina, which is closer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

As many of you may or may not know, a large quantity of oil (<60bn barrels, compared to 260 billion in Saudi Arabia, 115 billion in Iraq, ) was semi-recently discovered near the Falkland Islands. With moves towards exploiting these resources gearing up, Argentina is being obstructive, to the surprise of absolutely no one:



As a second war can probably be ruled out for political and military reasons, and oil is a pretty big deal, how do you think this will play out? Argentina cannot stop the drilling of the oil, but they can make it considerably more difficult and expensive by, e.g. forcing the rigs to resupply from Chile or somewhere rather than Argentina, which is closer.

---

I heard about this in the news. Intersting. Too bad war has to be ruled out. Oil is the perfect treasure to fight over.

Interesting situation. I'm very surprised at the candid language used by UK officials. If their indifference to maintain respectful diplomatic relations in public statements is any indication, the UK will be going full steam ahead without offering any concessions.

I agree we can probably rule out armed conflict... Maybe just the Argentine navy picking up a few British vessels from time to time, to make a statement.

To me it looks like a shame.
Argentine and British people are good people.
There is no real gain for normal people in both countries, if there is a second war.

Certainly Argentine suffered hyperinflation in 1989 after funding the war in 1982 and the civil war in the 1970s as government deficit and debt caused by war, was looming this crisis. There is no gain in war for normal people. People starved in a country that produces meat and fruits.

From my view, a second war is unlikely.
Who wants a hyperinflation caused by deficit caused by war?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ar81

Argentine and British people are good people.

---

How many of us have you met? http://www.ataricommunity.com/forums...es/redface.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

As many of you may or may not know, a large quantity of oil (<60bn barrels, compared to 260 billion in Saudi Arabia, 115 billion in Iraq, ) was semi-recently discovered near the Falkland Islands. With moves towards exploiting these resources gearing up, Argentina is being obstructive, to the surprise of absolutely no one:



As a second war can probably be ruled out for political and military reasons, and oil is a pretty big deal, how do you think this will play out? Argentina cannot stop the drilling of the oil, but they can make it considerably more difficult and expensive by, e.g. forcing the rigs to resupply from Chile or somewhere rather than Argentina, which is closer.

---

Ordinarily, I'd say Argentina would extort a substantial cash payment from the UK or a consortium of private companies in exchange for free access or, as they'd phrase it, the exploration and drilling rights Argentina insists that IT holds, as the proper sovereign authority over the area. But they're really steamed about not having control over those islands, and I'm not sure they'd be willing to come to an agreement at all.

I'm amazed Argentina isn't claiming Uruguay and Paraguay, seeing that they were part of Rio de la Plata as well. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Unheard Of

How many of us have you met? http://www.ataricommunity.com/forums...es/redface.gif

---

My first days in the internet, before I knew about AtariCC were spent at an Argentine chat.
I also have met cool british people in english forums.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I'm amazed Argentina isn't claiming Uruguay and Paraguay, seeing that they were part of Rio de la Plata as well. :rolleyes:

---

At school, their kids are being taught that they have historical rights on those islands. However there are also those who lost relatives who oppose war.

Invasion of Falklands was a move of Leopoldo Galtieri, whose only merit was to hunt leftist teens, which made him to lose popularity. He invaded to gain popularity. His teen hunt and the war created deficitary mechanisms and debt that ended up in hyperinflation (annual inflation of 1200%) in 1989.

The UK should send a warship escort.

Simples.

For every commercial ship or boat? That would get expensive fast.

Convoy escorts. But still expensive fast. And inefficient.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

The UK should send a warship escort.

Simples.

---

Will it add deficit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

For every commercial ship or boat? That would get expensive fast.

---

Just the once, show serious intent. If the Argentine's violate our sovereignty again after that, we kick them back down like last time.

You can't use a warship to force passage through Argentinean territorial waters, Randy. That'd be a violation of their sovereignty, not protecting ours.

EDIT: that said, a destroyer, HMS York, is being sent to the Falkland islands, just to make a point.
EDIT AGAIN: scrub the above, Argentina has some kind of ludicrous claim of territorial waters which extends well beyond the Falklands themselves.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/...x392_popup.jpg

This changes things somewhat. I still claim Argentina wouldn't start a shooting war. All Britain has to do is suggest there might be a SSN in the area and that's that for any offensive naval action by Argentina. But I can see some sort of Cod War type scenario happening. That would make things interesting. I don't know if the RN might find it hard to protect all the ships in the area, because of their deficiency in fleet numbers and funding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Just the once, show serious intent. If the Argentine's violate our sovereignty again after that, we kick them back down like last time.

---

The force to kick them out is out of question.
The question would be a budgetary one. Will it add government deficit? How much?

Argetina paid dearly in 1989 with the hyperinflation, not really with the retreat in 1981. Nowadays UK finances may not withstand affording this again. UK may get a budgetary hit with such a war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

You can't use a warship to force passage through Argentinean territorial waters, Randy. That'd be a violation of their sovereignty, not protecting ours.

EDIT: that said, a destroyer, HMS York, is being sent to the Falkland islands, just to make a point.
EDIT AGAIN: scrub the above, Argentina has some kind of ludicrous claim of territorial waters which extends well beyond the Falklands themselves.

---

Yes, Argentina insists that their territorial waters run to the end of the continental shelf. And IIRC, they have a fairly expansive notion of what constitutes part of said shelf.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

You can't use a warship to force passage through Argentinean territorial waters, Randy. That'd be a violation of their sovereignty, not protecting ours.

EDIT: that said, a destroyer, HMS York, is being sent to the Falkland islands, just to make a point.
EDIT AGAIN: scrub the above, Argentina has some kind of ludicrous claim of territorial waters which extends well beyond the Falklands themselves.

Image:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/...x392_popup.jpg

---

Indeed, the waters that are really Argentinian we don't need to pass through. Yes Argentina claims waters that aren't theres - they claim the Falklands too though, so we can ignore that.

AR: The UK finances may take a hit, but we can take on Argentina. If its true that HMS York is being sent to the Falklands like I suggested then well done, someone sane still in government it seems. :eek:

Quote:

---

Yes Argentina claims waters that aren't theres - they claim the Falklands too though, so we can ignore that.

---

What about when/if they start trying to stop and detain ships bound for the Falklands passing through "Argentinean" waters, but only ones without an escort? What do we do then? Start preemptively sinking the entire Argentinean navy? Set up an exclusion zone, like last time, and sink anything with an Argentinean jack that enters the area with an SSN or Typhoon strike from RAF Mount Pleasant? That'd go down real well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

AR: The UK finances may take a hit, but we can take on Argentina. If its true that HMS York is being sent to the Falklands like I suggested then well done, someone sane still in government it seems. :eek:

---

Are you sure?

BBC: UK finances deteriorate further

Quote:

---

The government borrowed another £4.3bn last month to plug the growing hole in the UK's finances, figures show.

Business groups echoed calls for "a credible plan" from the government for curbing the deficit.

---

I do not want to be a bother, but certainly at this point I am not sure if use of force is affordable. The problem of war is that it causes deficit, not growth, and deficit may lead to hyperinflation, just like you may see in Argentina's hyperinflation in 1989. People starved in a country that produces meat and fruits.

The root cause of the crisis was debt, deficit, caused by Falklands war and the 1970s civil war, where Leopoldo Galtieri and his Junta had the cowardice of hunting and killing leftist teenagers. In order to gain popularity he invaded the islands. Unfortunately for Galtieri, Tatcher also was in need of popularity.

One thing is to have a vessel there. Another one is a war scenario.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

What about when/if they start trying to stop and detain ships bound for the Falklands passing through "Argentinean" waters, but only ones without an escort? What do we do then? Start preemptively sinking the entire Argentinean navy? Set up an exclusion zone, like last time, and sink anything with an Argentinean jack that enters the area with an SSN or Typhoon strike from RAF Mount Pleasant? That'd go down real well.

---

If they detain British ships travelling through British waters then that is an act of war.

I don't think the Argentinians are that stupid though. But if they are and we're not going to defend our own citizens in our own waters then why not just pack up and abandon the Falklands altogether? The Argentinians are just testing the waters - seeing if we have the political will to back up our rights. If we send an extra ship over for "training exercises" while still speaking politely that will show we mean serious business. The Falklands War happened because the Argentinians were convinced we didn't have the will to defend our territory, they were wrong. Lets not let them make the same mistake this time and thus avoid war in the first place.

What about outside UK territorial waters, but in waters Argentina claims as its own?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

If they detain British ships travelling through British waters then that is an act of war.

---

Kind of what like the Iranians did to you several times...

I don't think British waters quite stretch to the Persian Gulf.

I'm fairly sure that waters beyond our land can not by definition be their land. The only way they can claim all that water is by claiming the Falklands and other related islands as theirs in the first place.

The Iranians detained British ship in water disputed to be either Iranian waters or international waters, depending upon where exactly the ship was - not claimed by anyone for it to have been British waters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

I don't think British waters quite stretch to the Persian Gulf.

---

The British have a mandate to patrol Iraqi waters. The Iranians claimed it was disputed territory. The situation would be the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I'm fairly sure that waters beyond our land can not by definition be their land. The only way they can claim all that water is by claiming the Falklands and other related islands as theirs in the first place.

---

Which they do...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Which they do...

---

Yes they do. But we dispute that - and we won the Falklands War. Either they respect that, or we need to go back to war if they commit cassus belli - or abandon the Falklands otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Yes they do. But we dispute that - and we won the Falklands War. Either they respect that, or we need to go back to war if they commit cassus belli - or abandon the Falklands otherwise.

---

Like I said, Britain disputed Iranian claims on Iraqi territorial waters, and that didn't stop you from waving your hands and otherwise doing nothing when your sailors were captured.

Which makes it all the more important to make sure we defend our own territorial waters.

The failure to intervene when the Iranian navy detained the sailors & marines was a decision made by the captain of the ship in question, not some kind of policy set by the MoD or government. According to the MoD, HMS Cornwell was too far away from the boat which was being boarded, due to shallow waters, and before they knew what was going on the sailors had already been taken ashore.

So it's hardly the same situation.

Hmm. It seems a trade off between jurisdiction and money. Protecting a jurisdiction and risk a crisis, or potentially lose territory and not impact finances. Interesting no win scenario.

The problem of a war is that it also may affect the Eurozone finances, dragging non UK countries into war. Your analysis is merely military. But history proves that in the end, money prevails.

Ironically the one who taught that money prevails is a british man. The only viable solution would be to raise taxes in UK to afford the whole cost of a possible war without increasing UK deficit. Increasing deficit would cause opposition to another Falkland's war in Europe.

If people want to preserve such territory, they should take the money from their pockets. It will create a trade off between money or nationalism.

I do not know about the finances of Argentina right now. But I suspect that whatever figures I could find may not be reliable.

Please understand that there is just not going to be a repeat of 1982. The situation, military and political, is completely different.

Differences:

- Although the RN has been drastically run down in terms of fleet numbers, man power and funding since the 1980s, it is still completely modernized. The Argentinean military has been neglected even more the British (what does this tell you about Argentinean intentions about trying to take the islands by force?), and is still at 1980s levels. In 1982, only two RN ships had modern anti-air defenses (one of which shot down 3 of 4 attacking skyhawks in about 20 seconds), for example, now they all do.
- The British have an air field there now with a 1000 man garrison and four eurofighters (against Argentina's ~35 50s and 60s era fighters). As long as that airfield remains, the islands can be re-enforced by air.
- The modern Royal Navy has plenty of amphibious units it didn't have in the 80s.
- A major cause of RN difficulties in the 80s was lack of airborne early warning - Argentinean pilots flew in low to avoid detection by ship radar before popping up to release exocets. We have air born early warning now.
- The US stayed out of the conflict in the 80s because it had the Soviet threat to worry about, and the Argentinean Junta was a key regional ally in preventing the spread of communism. In 2010, there's no Soviet threat to worry about and Britain is a key ally in Afghanistan and Iraq. Expect more overt US support.
- The 'attack on one is an attack on all' clause of NATO isn't geographically limited any more. There may be NATO help as well.
- Argentina is a democracy, and has ruled out using force to try and reclaim the islands.
- Even when Argentina was ruled by a brutal Junta it only attacked because it thought Britain would not bother to respond: there can be no illusions on this point now. One such signal which lead Argentina to believe no respond would be made was the withdraw of the warship kept in the area. Today, there's a patrol boat and a RFA tanker (filling in for HMS Endurance, which is broken) and a Type 42 destroyer on the way south. It's exactly the opposite situation.
- Even without all the above, one SSN lurking in the area could stop an invasion dead in its tracks.

So, no. There will be no second Falklands War which will bankrupt GB and Argentina. Assuming (big assumption) that this every amounts to more than sabre rattling by the Argentinean government for the benefit of their voters (also remember that the claim to the Falklands is written into their constitution and a leader who doesn't persue the claim could be charged for violating their constitution, so they have to at least be seen to be making an effort), the most you will ever see on the war front is maybe a few ships firing across each others bows or something.

War always takes place when war is politically cheaper and less costly than starting a war.
Financially it is awful, as well as its effects.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

You can't use a warship to force passage through Argentinean territorial waters, Randy. That'd be a violation of their sovereignty, not protecting ours.

EDIT: that said, a destroyer, HMS York, is being sent to the Falkland islands, just to make a point.
EDIT AGAIN: scrub the above, Argentina has some kind of ludicrous claim of territorial waters which extends well beyond the Falklands themselves.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/...x392_popup.jpg

This changes things somewhat. I still claim Argentina wouldn't start a shooting war. All Britain has to do is suggest there might be a SSN in the area and that's that for any offensive naval action by Argentina. But I can see some sort of Cod War type scenario happening. That would make things interesting. I don't know if the RN might find it hard to protect all the ships in the area, because of their deficiency in fleet numbers and funding.

---

That claim of territory is absolutely absurd. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

That claim of territory is absolutely absurd. :rolleyes:

---

War is ridiculous too. And still it happens.

Except, of course, it won't in this case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

Except, of course, it won't in this case.

---

There's no way they can enforce those territorial waters. I would think the UN would have to get involved, its a precedent that could lead to war all over the place.

Just in case ar81 hasn't quite got it yet:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8524001.stm

Quote:

---

When it comes to the Falkland Islands, there are two things that almost everyone seems to agree on in the alleys and boulevards of this sunny, eccentric cocktail of a city (one part Manila, two parts Paris).

The first home truth - shared by the languid sunbathers adorning the public parks, and the tattooed shopkeepers in the dusty slums - is that the Falklands - or Las Malvinas as they're known here - belong to Argentina and should at some point be incorporated into her sovereign territory

[...]

The second shared conviction here is that Argentina cannot and must not try to resolve the issue by military means.

For some this is simply a realistic assessment of the odds of victory, but for many people it is part of a more general acknowledgement of Argentina's transformation from a military dictatorship to a globally-integrated democracy.

"Let me stress that we are only pursuing this through diplomatic channels and protests," said Ruperto Godoy, a Congressman and now the government's nominated spokesman on the Falkands question.

---

Ok, so it will be a war of banners and hardtalk?
We humans are finally evolving...