Oil found in the Falkland islands (what a suprise)

[Han]

Hi all I am not sure if this has been discussed on these forums if it has sorry.

Yet again a war has been fought over oil we (the public) just didnt know about it for 28 years.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/06/falklands-oil-discovery-rockhopper

It always seemed strange that we (U.K) fought a war over a place thousands of miles away in the name of "Freedom" ring any bells (Operation Iraqi Freedom).

It would not suprise me if we (the British) and the Americans knew about the oil all along.

For obvious reasons (proximity) it would not make sense fo the U.S to get involved directly but i feel that as Allies (U.K & U.S) the Americans would have assisted us covertly. It also did not suprise me when I read that "Jean Kirkpatrick* was guest of honor at a dinner held by Argentine's ambassador to Washington on the very day that 2,500 Argentine troops stormed Port Stanley on East Falkland Island[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]."[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif] [/FONT] ((source link))http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id319.htm
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]
[/FONT]any thoughts or suggestions welcome
thanks peace and love han

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeane_Kirkpatrick

 

[Paul Kimball]

Hi all I am not sure if this has been discussed on these forums if it has sorry.

Yet again a war has been fought over oil we (the public) just didnt know about it for 28 years.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/06/falklands-oil-discovery-rockhopper

It always seemed strange that we (U.K) fought a war over a place thousands of miles away in the name of "Freedom" ring any bells (Operation Iraqi Freedom).

It would not suprise me if we (the British) and the Americans knew about the oil all along.

For obvious reasons (proximity) it would not make sense fo the U.S to get involved directly but i feel that as Allies (U.K & U.S) the Americans would have assisted us covertly. It also did not suprise me when I read that "Jean Kirkpatrick* was guest of honor at a dinner held by Argentine's ambassador to Washington on the very day that 2,500 Argentine troops stormed Port Stanley on East Falkland Island[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]."[/FONT] ((source link))http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id319.htm

any thoughts or suggestions welcome
thanks peace and love han

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeane_Kirkpatrick

The UK fought the war for a number of reasons, but the primary one was that they were attacked by Argentina - the Falklands was a British territory with a population that overwhelmingly wanted to remain a British territory. Even at that, there were a lot of people within the British government at the time who wanted to negotiate, because they knew that (a) a war would cost a lot of money and lives, and (b) there was no guarantee of success.

If I were you, I would familiarize myself with the basic history before you go jumping off the conspiracy cliff.

 

[Xylo]

I remember the Falkland's war. At the time there was some conjecture as to whether there was oil involved or not. I doubt that the war was for the oil, else we'd have seen more production by now.

 

[Han]

Falkland isles "Population and Economy - Total population at the 1980 census was 1,813 with just over 1,000 living in Stanley on the east coast of East Falkland, the capital and only town in the colony. The reminder lived outside in 'the Camp' where there are no roads, although some of the settlements have an airstrip. Most of the people are of British extraction and mainly engaged in farming the 600,000 sheep which occupy much of the land. In 1980, exports to Britain of wool and hides totalled £2.8 million and imports including food, manufactured goods, timber and machinery, £2 million."((source link))(http://www.naval-history.net/F11falklands.htm)
Personally I am not buying the "population that overwhelmingly wanted to remain a British territory" part, Governments are motivated by money not by the will of the people. Especially so few people. If you throw into the equasion "60bn barrels of oil and gas equivalent" it makes more sense to me.

peace and love han

 

[Kieran]

Falkland isles "Population and Economy - Total population at the 1980 census was 1,813 with just over 1,000 living in Stanley on the east coast of East Falkland, the capital and only town in the colony. The reminder lived outside in 'the Camp' where there are no roads, although some of the settlements have an airstrip. Most of the people are of British extraction and mainly engaged in farming the 600,000 sheep which occupy much of the land. In 1980, exports to Britain of wool and hides totalled £2.8 million and imports including food, manufactured goods, timber and machinery, £2 million."((source link))(http://www.naval-history.net/F11falklands.htm)
Personally I am not buying the "population that overwhelmingly wanted to remain a British territory" part, Governments are motivated by money not by the will of the people. Especially so few people. If you throw into the equasion "60bn barrels of oil and gas equivalent" it makes more sense to me.

peace and love han

I doubt it Han. If they fought for oil. It would have been drilled for a long time ago, the war ended in 1982. That is 29 years ago of sitting back on find, that would have bolstered the British economy during the hard times of the late 1980's. The British would go to war if they can win a war and the fact is. The population were of British extraction and the Falklands was part of the British commonwealth. They had to respond when a region that was part of the British commonwealth was attacked by a foreign power.

 

[Han]

"I doubt it Han. If they fought for oil. It would have been drilled for a long time ago"

the following is from the newspaper report
"Rockhopper stressed that it was very early stages and it was too soon to assess how much oil existed in the reservoir which it had found, which lies about 137 miles off the north coast of the islands at a depth of 2,744 metres *(9,000ft). Next week, tugs will tow the drilling rig to the islands' southern coast to search for more oil."((source))(http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/06/falklands-oil-discovery-rockhopper)

*look at this table showing advance in deep sea drilling *halfway down page (http://sethkaufman.posterous.com/economist-advances-in-deep-sea-oil-drilling)
and read the following:

"In 2005 the company installed its Constitution platform 300km south-west of New Orleans. Moored to the ocean floor 1,500 metres below the surface, the $600m structure comprises a 13,600-tonne cylindrical floating “spar” supporting a 9,800-tonne upper section or “topside”. Constitution, which is now owned and operated by Anadarko Petroleum, an independent oil producer that acquired Kerr-McGee in 2006, has plenty of company. In 2007 BP finished work on Atlantis, a 58,700-tonne semisubmersible platform, which is tethered to the seabed over *2,150 metres below. Upon completion, the platform was the deepest-moored oil-and-gas production facility in the world. But the record did not last long. In 2008 Shell’s 22,000-tonne Perdido spar (pictured) was towed from its construction site in Finland to its new home 320km off the Texas coast. Standing nearly as tall as the Eiffel Tower, the Perdido rig is chained to the seabed 2,400 metres below, and is connected to nearby subsea wells in even deeper water, at a depth of 2,900 metres. The same year, two more huge semisubmersibles—Chevron’s 36,300-tonne Blind Faith and BP’s colossal 130,000-tonne Thunder Horse—also started operations."((source))( http://sethkaufman.posterous.com/economist-advances-in-deep-sea-oil-drilling)


in short they could not drill the oil until 2008 at the earliest as it lies at a depth of 2,744 metres!

 

[Han]

Here is some more evidence:


"The news that the seabed around the Falklands might contain rich oil deposits was first conveyed to a British government in 1969*. Richard Crossman, then a member of the cabinet, recorded in his diary his surprise at the fact that "the Foreign Office said that the only thing to do was to conceal the suggestion and prevent any testing". What the FCO feared was that exploration would aggravate the territorial dispute with Argentinahttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/argentina."((source))(http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2010/feb/27/falklands-oil-dispute-ian-jack)


*"basic history" tells me that we(UK) knew about the oil in 1969! had we forgotten about it in 1982?

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Here is some more evidence:


"The news that the seabed around the Falklands might contain rich oil deposits was first conveyed to a British government in 1969*. Richard Crossman, then a member of the cabinet, recorded in his diary his surprise at the fact that "the Foreign Office said that the only thing to do was to conceal the suggestion and prevent any testing". What the FCO feared was that exploration would aggravate the territorial dispute with Argentina."((source))(http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2010/feb/27/falklands-oil-dispute-ian-jack)


*"basic history" tells me that we(UK) knew about the oil in 1969! had we forgotten about it in 1982?

All I know is many brave men and women died in uniform from both sides and others brought home horrid memories one being a family member who oversaw a number of operations which he lost number of young talented and brave men. Yes Oil i& Gas resources is great for the locals and its there choice if they want to stay within the British envelope not outsiders. Hopefuly their is never another Falklands War but greed runs in all nations

 

[Han]

Dear blowfish I hope I have not offended you, I aslo had members of my family who have served and died in war. infact it is the reason I am interested the history of war.
One of the main things I have learned is that if you just go by the "book", explanations often make little or no sense.
My intention was only to highlight the problems I see with the accepted version of the events and thinking during the Falklands conflict.
best wishes harry

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Dear blowfish I hope I have not offended you, I aslo had members of my family who have served and died in war. infact it is the reason I am interested the history of war.
One of the main things I have learned is that if you just go by the "book", explanations often make little or no sense.
My intention was only to highlight the problems I see with the accepted version of the events and thinking during the Falklands conflict.
best wishes harry

No Issues Harry and I agree there is no straight answer in prevention of conflicts and the Falklands Islands and Argentina are just another example of historical migration among Empires and creation of nation states and conflict caused by nationalism on both sides which in the end real people and families suffer consequences of war.

 

[Hoffmeister]

For starters, they just drilled, and it turns out there isnt any oil there afterall.... at least not where they thought it was
For seconds, the island was/is British land, Argentina ATTACKED the island with troops... what was the government going to do? Sit back and say "sure, attack us and we'll sit back and do nothing". What kind of message would that send out to the rest of the world.
Thirdly, the people on the Island did want to remain British on the whole, do some basic research on it and you'lll see. My uncle fought in the war, they spoke to the locals, and were thanked by them when they whooped the Argies.
The main reason the British hit the argies so hard was because Thatcher wanted to be seen as a hard acting prime minister so she sent a large force there of our best troops

 

[Han]

Dear hoffmeister please read the following where I point out where I beleive you are wrong.

(1) "For starters, they just drilled, and it turns out there isnt any oil there afterall...." ?? where did you get that from?? source please? I know that it has been reported that they didnt find as much oil as first thought but no oil?

(2) "For seconds, the island was/is British land, Argentina ATTACKED the island with troops... what was the government going to do? Sit back and say "sure, attack us and we'll sit back and do nothing". What kind of message would that send out to the rest of the world. " can I just point out these countries that used to be under british rule America, India, Jamacia oh and Hong Kong to name a few!

(3) Show me where I said that the Falkland Islanders didnt want to remain under British protection please?

(4) "and were thanked by them when they whooped the Argies" would you call the loss of the ships HMS SHEFFIELD, HMS COVENTRY, ATLANTIC CONVEYOR, RFA SIR GALAHAD, and HMS Fearless* as well as 255 killed and 777 wounded plus many other damaged ships a "whooping" It is an insult to the men and women killed to put their remarkable victory in such demeaning terms. It is a fact that the British responce was a hurried operation for example the fact that the Argentine AShM (french made exocets) were recognised as friendly by our (uk) radar as we and the french are members of NATO. if proper preperations were made i.e re-programing the radar we would have suffered far fewer losses, including the ATLANTIC CONVEYOR (which meant that no helicopters where available for troop transport)

(5) I suggest you "do some basic research on it and you'lll see." what I mean when I say "Argies" should read Argentinians.

*((source))(http://www.naval-history.net/F62brshipslost.htm)

 

[Hoffmeister]

Dear hoffmeister please read the following where I point out where I beleive you are wrong.

(1) "For starters, they just drilled, and it turns out there isnt any oil there afterall...." ?? where did you get that from?? source please? I know that it has been reported that they didnt find as much oil as first thought but no oil?

I read it in the paper in the last week, can't remember which one as I read different ones but thats what they said.

(2) "For seconds, the island was/is British land, Argentina ATTACKED the island with troops... what was the government going to do? Sit back and say "sure, attack us and we'll sit back and do nothing". What kind of message would that send out to the rest of the world. " can I just point out these countries that used to be under british rule America, India, Jamacia oh and Hong Kong to name a few!

So you're saying we should have sat back and done nothing?

(3) Show me where I said that the Falkland Islanders didnt want to remain under British protection please?

Personally I am not buying the "population that overwhelmingly wanted to remain a British territory" part

(4) "and were thanked by them when they whooped the Argies" would you call the loss of the ships HMS SHEFFIELD, HMS COVENTRY, ATLANTIC CONVEYOR, RFA SIR GALAHAD, and HMS Fearless* as well as 255 killed and 777 wounded plus many other damaged ships a "whooping" It is an insult to the men and women killed to put their remarkable victory in such demeaning terms. It is a fact that the British responce was a hurried operation for example the fact that the Argentine AShM (french made exocets) were recognised as friendly by our (uk) radar as we and the french are members of NATO. if proper preperations were made i.e re-programing the radar we would have suffered far fewer losses, including the ATLANTIC CONVEYOR (which meant that no helicopters where available for troop transport)

I know exactly what losses we had out there, and I have looked into a grown mans eyes (a very tough grown man at that) as he has started to cry when telling me (his nephew) stories about some of the shit that went on out there. I also have a bookshelf full of books on military history. I think that is why I am still slightly bitter at them and that is why I used the word 'whooped' whilst you used 'remarkable victory' (essentially the same meaning). Either way we beat them significantly, and I would suggest you just calm down and stop getting offended over every little thing a random person on the internet says.

(5) I suggest you "do some basic research on it and you'lll see" what I mean when I say "Argies" should read Argentinians.

Does that mean I can't call the British 'Brits' also.... oh sorry
The Soldiers themselves did/do call them 'The argies' so i guess I must have picked it up from them. Why does this require research?

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

I read it in the paper in the last week, can't remember which one as I read different ones but thats what they said.


So you're saying we should have sat back and done nothing?






I know exactly what losses we had out there, and I have looked into a grown mans eyes (a very tough grown man at that) as he has started to cry when telling me (his nephew) stories about some of the shit that went on out there. I also have a bookshelf full of books on military history. I think that is why I am still slightly bitter at them and that is why I used the word 'whooped' whilst you used 'remarkable victory' (essentially the same meaning). Either way we beat them significantly, and I would suggest you just calm down and stop getting offended over every little thing a random person on the internet says.


Does that mean I can't call the British 'Brits' also.... oh sorry
The Soldiers themselves did/do call them 'The argies' so i guess I must have picked it up from them. Why does this require research?

Folks cool heads are needed in this debate and both sides lost when it came to war. Han maybe you might like to read 'Above All Courage' (1985) by author Max Arthur regarding the Falklands war. The conflict was started by Argentina who fired first with the act of invasion and Britain had to retaliate due to its comiment to its sovereignty being invaded in the Falkland Islands British Citizens and political image. Furthermore, only the veteran really know what's it like and their families who support love ones over come PTSD scars and Veterans are the ones who attend remembrance of pal's killed in action. May they Rest in Peace. In addition, lets hope they do find oil & gas and both Argentina and the Falklands can sort out there issues in a peaceful manner

 

[Hoffmeister]

Folks cool heads are needed in this debate and both sides lost when it came to war. Han maybe you might like to read 'Above All Courage' (1985) by author Max Arthur regarding the Falklands war. The conflict was started by Argentina who fired first with the act of invasion and Britain had to retaliate due to its comiment to its sovereignty being invaded in the Falkland Islands British Citizens and political image. Furthermore, only the veteran really know what's it like and their families who support love ones over come PTSD scars and Veterans are the ones who attend remembrance of pal's killed in action. May they Rest in Peace. In addition, lets hope they do find oil & gas and both Argentina and the Falklands can sort out there issues in a peaceful manner

Agreed, well said and apologies if my short manner or language offends anyone, but since i have very little time to write my post I usually just scrap them out without thinking too hard about the language that I use.
To clarify the oil point, I believe it wasnt that they found NO oil, it was that there was no amount worth drilling for, and if memory serves there was something wrong with the hydrocarbons.... i forget what

 

[Han]

Dear Hoffmeister
please Let me just clarify I am British I am proud to be!
the continued misuse of our brave and loyal Armed Forces distresses me more than I could ever put into words.
I am sincerely sorry if you feel that I have insulted your family this was never my intention.
One of the reasons my theory on what motivated the Argentinian and British governments, is hard to talk about, is the fact that there are still veterans and familys who suffer the "scars" of battle. It is my view that no matter how painful the truth, it must be sought, with this in mind please disregard my previous post on this subject and I will attempt to Explain my views more accurately below:


For better or worse I am a person who does not beleive that governments(the current one included) always act with their "subjects" rights first. I feel this is especially the case with the Armed Forces they are treated with contempt by their executives(the government). for example the Gurkhas recent struggle http://www.gurkhajustice.org.uk/

They (the Armed Forces) can only do what they are instructed to do by the government, what I am trying to say is that I lay no blame infact I am proud of the way our Soldiers, Airmen and Seamen conducted themselves in the Falklands conflict. I do however question the motivation of our goverment in sending our brothers and sisters into such danger, without the proper planning and equipment, sadly this is still the reality for our Armed Forces as I write this.

I will try to explain what drew me to the conclusion that the conflict was about oil rather than sovereingnty

(1)
"The news that the seabed around the Falklands might contain rich oil deposits was first conveyed to a British government in 1969*. Richard Crossman, then a member of the cabinet, recorded in his diary his surprise at the fact that "the Foreign Office said that the only thing to do was to conceal the suggestion and prevent any testing". What the FCO feared was that exploration would aggravate the territorial dispute with Argentina."((source))(http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardia...spute-ian-jack)

(2)
Falkland isles "Population and Economy - Total population at the 1980 census was 1,813 with just over 1,000 living in Stanley on the east coast of East Falkland, the capital and only town in the colony. The reminder lived outside in 'the Camp' where there are no roads, although some of the settlements have an airstrip. Most of the people are of British extraction and mainly engaged in farming the 600,000 sheep which occupy much of the land. In 1980, exports to Britain of wool and hides totalled £2.8 million and imports including food, manufactured goods, timber and machinery, £2 million."((source link))(http://www.naval-history.net/F11falklands.htm)

(3)
"Rockhopper stressed that it was very early stages and it was too soon to assess how much oil existed in the reservoir which it had found, which lies about 137 miles off the north coast of the islands at a depth of 2,744 metres *(9,000ft). Next week, tugs will tow the drilling rig to the islands' southern coast to search for more oil."((source))(http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/ma...ery-rockhopper)*look at this table showing advance in deep sea drilling
*halfway down page (http://sethkaufman.posterous.com/eco...a-oil-drilling)
and read the following:

"In 2005 the company installed its Constitution platform 300km south-west of New Orleans. Moored to the ocean floor 1,500 metres below the surface, the $600m structure comprises a 13,600-tonne cylindrical floating “spar” supporting a 9,800-tonne upper section or “topside”. Constitution, which is now owned and operated by Anadarko Petroleum, an independent oil producer that acquired Kerr-McGee in 2006, has plenty of company. In 2007 BP finished work on Atlantis, a 58,700-tonne semisubmersible platform, which is tethered to the seabed over *2,150 metres below. Upon completion, the platform was the deepest-moored oil-and-gas production facility in the world. But the record did not last long. In 2008 Shell’s 22,000-tonne Perdido spar (pictured) was towed from its construction site in Finland to its new home 320km off the Texas coast. Standing nearly as tall as the Eiffel Tower, the Perdido rig is chained to the seabed 2,400 metres below, and is connected to nearby subsea wells in even deeper water, at a depth of 2,900 metres. The same year, two more huge semisubmersibles—Chevron’s 36,300-tonne Blind Faith and BP’s colossal 130,000-tonne Thunder Horse—also started operations."((source))( http://sethkaufman.posterous.com/eco...a-oil-drilling)

in short they could not drill the oil until 2008 at the earliest as it lies at a depth of 2,744 metres!

(4)
The inextricable relationship between oil/money and conflict.

(5)
Our goverments disgraceful treatment of our citizens after the Montserrat disaster.

I have tried as much as possible to state the facts as I see them, I respect every persons right to interpret them as they wish.

Finaly I made the point about the word "argies" because this is an internet forum and available to people around the world Argentina included.

best wishes Harry

 

[Hoffmeister]

No insult taken. I keep stressing on this site how important it is for people (myself included) to try and keep their cool in debates, partly because typing words often portrays the wrong emotions, feelings and intentions rather than actually talking to somebody face to face. I've offended people at my work more than once with my blunt way of typing, but its never meant to be offensive.
War is always a soft spot for a lot of people and in fact me and my brothers have been banned (by my step dad) from asking Uncle John about anything to do with the falklands for years as it was all just too horrific.
The place made a lot of heroes though, and I still get goosebumps when I see Prince Andrews brilliant flying during the rescue operation.... good on the bloody royal for getting stuck in there himself!

You know I was thinking to myself today though.... say that the war was 'partly' or even completely to do with Oil, is that such a bad thing? I mean Oil, along with land, other natural resources and trade routes are basically the essential things a country needs to survive in the current era.
If someone came in and tried to claim the Isle of Wight for their own, we would beat them back for trying to take our land... is it any worse 'morally' for a country trying to take our oil?
You could argue that if the latest war in the gulf was due to oil, then it was immoral because we went barnstorming in there, killing loads of civvies and grabbing the other countries goods. But in the falklands, we protected our land, we protected our oil, and we protected our people.
I'm not saying its right or wrong either way to fight for oil... all I know is that in 20 years or so, there's gonna be a hell of a lot of fighting for the stuff, and we'll be glad we still have that island (if we do, and if there is any oil there).

As for sending our troops in unprepared, its inexcusable... and is still unfortunately going on today as we all know in Britain (with the lack of basic equipment for our troops). The Americans end up calling our troops 'the borrowers' for needing to borrow basic equipment off them, and more than few troops have died due to lack of it.
A buddy of mine is a Royal Marine Sniper (who actually have it better off than much of the armed forces in terms of gear) and he has spent a bloody fortune!