Home › Forums › General › General Board › UK oil exploration firm starts Falklands drilling
- This topic has 42 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 4 months ago by
James McLauchlan.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 23, 2010 at 11:48 am #3327
James McLauchlan
ParticipantJust added to the news on the main page but possibly worthy of discussion.
An extract is quoted below….
LONDON – A British oil exploration company said Monday it began drilling near the Falkland Islands, a development that could worsen tensions between Britain and Argentina, which fought a war over the disputed islands nearly three decades ago.
Desire Petroleum PLC said it started drilling for oil about 60 miles (100 kilometers) north of the disputed Falkland Islands, despite strong opposition from Argentina. The country claims the south Atlantic islands as its own and calls them Las Malvinas.
This photo taken late 2009 and made available by Diamond Offshore
Drilling Monday Feb. 22, 2010 shows the semi-submersible oil drilling rig
the Ocean Guardian under tow in British coastal waters. Oil exploration
company Desire Petroleum PLC began drilling at a spot north of the
disputed Falkland Islands Monday, the company said. The announcement
is sure to infuriate Argentina, which claims the south Atlantic archipelago
as its own and lost a seven-week war over the territory in 1982.
(AP Photo/Diamond Offshore drilling, ho)
"The well is being drilled to an estimated target depth of circa 3,500 meters (11,500 feet)," the company said in a statement. "Drilling operations are expected to take approximately 30 days."
Argentina lost a seven-week war over the islands to Britain in 1982 and the two countries have since pledged to resolve their differences peacefully. But moves to begin exploiting what could be lucrative reserves of oil and gas around the islands have sent tensions soaring.
Who’s supplying ROV services?
February 23, 2010 at 2:03 pm #26588Ray Shields
ParticipantHope they don’t expect 6 week trips of the crew just because its far away!
February 23, 2010 at 2:25 pm #26589James McLauchlan
ParticipantLots of Penguins down there….. and bigger ones that look like nuclear submarines!
Break out the suntan oil boys 😉
http://www.weather-forecast.com/locations/PortStanley1/forecasts/latest
February 23, 2010 at 5:27 pm #26590ROVRatt
ParticipantSome news:
Falklands sparks British anger
2010-02-17 18:09
London – A British lawmaker called on Wednesday for Argentina’s ambassador to be summoned to the Foreign Office to explain his country’s latest order over the disputed Falklands islands.
The secretary of the parliamentary all-party group on the Falklands, Andrew Rosindell, said Argentina should be told not to meddle in the affairs of the islands, the object of a brief war between the two countries in 1982.
"I hope the Foreign Secretary (David Miliband) will call the Argentine ambassador in and tell them this is unacceptable behaviour," said Rosindell.
"It is 28 years since the Falklands War and it has been made clear to Argentina that they have no say over the Falkland Islands or their territorial waters and they should not try to interfere with them."
The comments came after Argentina escalated a row with Britain on Tuesday over oil drilling in the Falklands, by ordering all ships heading to the disputed islands through its waters to seek permission from Buenos Aires first.
Argentine President Cristina Kirchner signed the decree, increasing tensions between Argentina and Britain over Las Malvinas, the Spanish name for the islands they warred over at the cost of almost 1 000 lives.
Mineral reserves
The Foreign Office has sought to play down Argentina’s latest move by issuing a statement pointing out the legal position.
"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," a statement said.
Rosindell is a member of the opposition Conservative Party, whose leader and then premier Margaret Thatcher sent troops in to seize back the Falklands after the Argentinians invaded.
Kirchner’s chief of staff Anibal Fernandez left no doubt the move was intended to clamp down on shipping that might be helping Britain as it launches operations to explore the region’s oil and mineral reserves.
Rosindell said Fernandez’s comments were "a typical political ploy," adding: "Any attempt by Argentina to claim any sort of rights of sovereignty over that region is something we should take very seriously.
"I don’t think we should appease Buenos Aires – we found out what happens last time."
– AFP
February 23, 2010 at 5:28 pm #26591ROVRatt
ParticipantAnd another interesting development:
Star Princess tests Argentine blockade in Falklands
By Harriet Alexander | Feb 21, 2010
Her decks boast sun loungers and golf simulators rather than machine guns and torpedoes, while those on board are more likely to be sipping G&Ts than rehearsing military drills.
But today a British cruise ship is leading the charge in the latest stand-off over the Falklands, as it sails towards the harbour at Port Stanley in the first major test of Argentine resolve.
Last week the Argentine government, in response to a British company’s planned exploration of oilfields off the Falkland coast, decreed that all ships travelling between Argentina and the Falklands must be granted permission from the Argentine government.
Observers noted that the decree could potentially ensnare all boats travelling to and from the Falkland islands – including the cruise ships that bring over 60,000 tourists annually to the remote rocky outcrops in the South Atlantic.
Yet two days after the decree was issued, the Star Princess set sail for the Falklands from the Argentine capital, Buenos Aires, with no demand for a permit from the Argentine authorities. It is due arrive in Port Stanley tomorrow, and then dock again in the Argentine port of Ushuaia, near Cape Horn, on Wednesday – and as of yet, there has still been no request to submit official paperwork.
"Everyone is very calm on board," a spokesman from the Purser’s office of the Star Princess told The Sunday Telegraph. "Unless there is any hidden information that we’ve not been told of, it’s business as usual – and all of our guests seem very happy.
"No one is asking anything about whether we will visit the Falklands or not. It’s part of our itinerary and they expect it to go ahead."
As it marks a course for the Falklands, the Star Princess, with its 2,600 guests on-board, strikes an odd parallel to the British naval task force that called the Argentian bluff in 1982.
A high proportion of the passengers are British, and see the chance to visit the scene of the historic victory over Argentina as one of the highlights on their tour of Latin America.
The presence of a number of Argentinian tourists on board as well, though, will doubtless be adding an edge to the atmosphere in the ship’s bars and restaurants.
"Many Argentinians like to see the islands for themselves, although they aren’t always very happy at getting their passports stamped," said a member in the ship’s purser’s office.
"Once, when the weather was bad and the captain decided we couldn’t land there, the Argentinian passengers got upset because they suspected he was just deliberately preventing them going ashore."
A spokeswoman for the Ushuaia ports authority confirmed that the Star Princess was set to dock in the port on Wednesday.
"We haven’t received any special instructions," she said. "The boats come and they go – we don’t know where they are going. We just reserve the space in the port."
President Cristina Kirschner’s government is now in a tricky position. It could enforce its own edict, banning ships from travelling to the Falklands and losing a lucrative slice of the cruise tourism pie. Or it could let the ships slip in and out of territorial waters unopposed, showing that their grandstanding and posturing is little more than empty rhetoric.
"They really do cut off their nose to spite their faces," said Andy Williams, owner of Falkland Islands Tours and Travel, part of an island industry that now takes in almost 70,000 visitors. "When you think of the amount of financial trouble the Argentine government is in at the moment, and then they jeopardise this. There are massive logistics involved in cruise ships docking anywhere – flights, tourism, transport. It’s not the Argentinian people – it’s just the politicians. Hurting tourism won’t help anyone."
Last week’s decree followed Argentine outrage as a British oil rig, the Ocean Guardian, arrived off the Falklands from Scottish water to begin oil exploration. Buenos Aires, which feels it is being denied a share of potential oil revenues, has also threatened to ban British companies with links to oil ventures from doing business on the Argentine mainland. Last week the authorities stopped a shipment of pipes bound for the island, although Britain’s officials believe it is unlikely they would try to detain cruise passengers in the same fashion.
Argentina’s deputy foreign minister, Victorio Taccetti, played down Argentina’s intentions, saying that the government was merely seeking renewed dialogue over the sovereignty of the Falklands.
"This is just something that we have to do in order to protect our rights," he said. "We consider that this exploration and eventual exploitation of our natural resources is illegal."
The heightened tensions were a subject of much discussion last week in the Victory Bar in Port Stanley, where islanders gather to drink imported Boddingtons, Fosters and Carlsberg (Argentina’s top-selling Cerveza Quilmes is not served here).
Since the early 1980s, the bar’s sea-rusted corrugated iron walls have been replaced by wood cladding, and the in-pub entertainment now includes Premier League Football broadcast as well as darts.
But when it comes to attitudes about Argentina, not that much has changed since the war.
“Whenever I talk about the Argies, I tend to swear a lot,” said landlord Alastair Jacobson. “Ever since ’82, they have always been trying to upset things.”
On topics other than Argentina, though, his customers have relatively little to complain about.
Some 27 years on from the conflict that killed almost 1,000 people, their South Atlantic home has been transformed from an isolated, shrinking community of sheep farmers into a thriving tourist destination that has doubled in size.
And the real boom times may be yet to come.
If the offshore drilling hits paydirt, the islands could become a South Atlantic answer to the Gulf States, making its population of 3,000 islanders among the richest people in the world.
The only kind of Argentine invasion they get these days, meanwhile, is of the tourist kind.
“We had one cruise ship in a while back that had 800 Argentinians on board,” said Mr Jacobson. “We don’t have a problem with the people themselves, just their government, and we were happy to serve them here in the pub.
"Most of them keep fairly quiet, to be honest. Although I did see one guy getting his partner to picture him holding up a little Argentine flag.”
Source: telegraph.co.uk
February 24, 2010 at 10:30 am #26592iROV
ParticipantFebruary 24, 2010 at 10:52 am #26593James McLauchlan
ParticipantFrom the link above – Text below in full
The diplomatic row over the Falkland Islands deepened dramatically after Argentina announced that it would take its protests over British oil exploration to the United Nations today.
At the Rio Group summit in Mexico yesterday, Buenos Aires won unprecedented support from other Latin American states for its demand that the UK stop drilling in waters near the islands.
Argentina’s Foreign Minister is to meet the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki Moon. A resolution is also set to be tabled in the UN General Assembly condemning Britain for allowing Ocean Guardian to begin drilling 60 miles north of the islands after Argentina annouced new shipping controls. Desire Petroleum, which is operating the rig, has said that the drilling will take about a month. Further exploration is likely by other companies.
David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, insisted that the exploration was fully within international law. But ministers admit privately that the UK has been preparing for a diplomatic confrontation with Argentina for months.
Although both sides played down the prospect of renewed military conflict, a government source told The Times that a submarine had been made available to supplement the routine military presence, although it is not yet in waters off the Falklands. The Ministry of Defence said that HMS York, a frigate, was expected to remain there for the foreseeable future. The Falklands air defences were quietly upgraded late last year with the arrival of four Typhoon jets.
At the Rio Group summit, Argentina scored a coup in the war of words when 32 heads of state backed its “legitimate rights . . . in the sovereignty dispute with Great Britain”. Hugo Chávez, the Venezuelan President, used a television address to reiterate his support, bellowing: “Give the Falkland Islands back to Argentina, Queen of England.” But it was the backing of countries such as Chile and Brazil that has concerned British diplomats.
Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, Argentina’s President, said that Britain had broken a UN resolution forbidding unilateral development in disputed waters. She accused Britain of double standards in its pursuit of the islands’ natural resources but ruled out any military engagement or attempt to block shipping.
British officials said that Gordon Brown and Mr Miliband would wait for the outcome of events at the UN before deciding how to respond. Diplomats in Latin America believe that President Kirchner is using the issue for domestic purposes. “This is principally a PR campaign, not a serious legal or diplomatic effort,” said one.
The US offered Britain only tepid support. The State Department said that it took no position on the sovereignty claims of either country.
White House officials contacted by The Times would not be quoted on the dispute — not for fear of being drawn into a diplomatic showdown but because, as one admitted, it had barely registered as a concern for the Administration. A generation ago President Reagan was slow to back publicly Britain’s efforts to recapture the islands, but US intelligence proved critical to British military success.
Quoted from above:
‘Although both sides played down the prospect of renewed military conflict, a government source told The Times that a submarine had been made available to supplement the routine military presence, although it is not yet in waters off the Falklands.The Ministry of Defence said that HMS York, a frigate, was expected to remain there for the foreseeable future.
The Falklands air defences were quietly upgraded late last year with the arrival of four Typhoon jets.’
The UK has clearly planned ahead for this and Argentina will be fully aware of the military upgrades on the island, which I would guess were part of the drilling preparation process which was bound to cause issues with the Argies.. Last time they had a bash there were just a few marines on the islands.. now it’s a different kettle of fish so the UN is all they can sensibly resort to.
I would go as far as suggesting that the owners of the Ocean Guardian are probably indemnified (by the UK government) against financial losses due to military conflict or they would never have put the rig down there.
February 24, 2010 at 5:25 pm #26594liddelljohn
ParticipantThe only problem is that the royal navy has been so castrated ,that it would not be able to effectivly defend the island like in 1982, half the available frigates and destroyers are in reality in mothball condition and the ones that are operational are toothless as the treasury has not funded the weapons , Navy stocks of missiles are so low many ships are on operatrions with half emty magazines and the new Type 45s are sailing as part empty shells missing most of their weapons .
Compare that to the Danes who have recently put 3 new super frigates in their fleet with 3 destroyers coming all fully funded and with twice the weapons capability of the UK ships.
Fortunately the Argies are not in a much better state but if Chavez and the Brazilians join in then it will be nasty.
February 25, 2010 at 1:58 am #26595Craig Thorngren
ParticipantFortunately the Argies are not in a much better state but if Chavez and the Brazilians join in then it will be nasty.
I think the Argentinians are in a much better position for two reasons…
1) They don’t have to travel 7900 miles…
2) The ocean guardian is defenseless.Chief
February 25, 2010 at 3:03 am #26596liddelljohn
ParticipantFortunately the Argies are not in a much better state but if Chavez and the Brazilians join in then it will be nasty.
I think the Argentinians are in a much better position for two reasons…
1) They don’t have to travel 7900 miles…
2) The ocean guardian is defenseless.Chief
True CHIEF they dont have to travel far and the Ocean Guardian is toothless but the argies miltary forces have been starved of funds for years too , so its unlikely that without help they would be able to actually invde or mount much of an attack or real blockade of the islands …however by denying access to SA ports the whole logistics of possible Falkland oil boom would be very expensive .
The island now have squadron of tonados and a battalion of fully armed troops so an actual invasion is not really possible …but blockade is .
February 25, 2010 at 3:11 am #26597Craig Thorngren
ParticipantJohn,
I wasn’t even considering them invading, I was thinking more along the lines of just flat out sinking or destroying the rig. I think the garrison now on the Islands is more than capable of handling whatever they can throw at it, but I don’t think they can project that defense around the rig 24X7X365.
Chief
February 25, 2010 at 6:07 am #26598Andy Shiers
ParticipantOh they can 😀
And have ! 😀February 25, 2010 at 6:07 am #26599Andy Shiers
ParticipantIt’s not what you can see that counts 🙄
February 25, 2010 at 9:30 am #26600James McLauchlan
ParticipantI think the Argentinians are in a much better position for two reasons…
2) The ocean guardian is defenseless.
Chief
So was the RFA vessel I sailed down on, but we got there and back!
Have you ever tried to board a semi sub at sea from a boat? Especially in that part of the world. I would suggest that the legs have been er….. sanitized’ against unwanted boarding by humans. As for simply blatting it… it would be an open act of war which even the Argies wouldn’t want to be involved with again. I’m sure the submarine on location (oops did I say that) might be around somewhere listening. Fire hoses are a pretty good deterrent against unwanted guests.. seems to work well with crowd control and might work equally well repelling an unwanted chopper or two trying to land on a moving deck that may well have a 10ft container strapped to the centre of it as anti-chopper device.
Just playing 😉
February 25, 2010 at 4:12 pm #26601Craig Thorngren
ParticipantHopefully the sub crew that is down there is a little more proficient than the one that just had a collision with a French sub this month in the middle of the Atlantic… 😳
All I’m saying is that it is a target. A none to well defended target. The only thing keeping it afloat is the political will of Argentina. If (and that’s a big if) they get the political will to sink it, it’s a goner, no if’s and’s or but’s about it. It’ll become a reef.
Do I think the Argies will do it? No. They could just not allow flights to depart from the mainland to the islands. I know they’ve banned vessels already, but apparently don’t have the political will to enforce their own edicts.
Chief
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.