British oil dispute with Argentina escalates

British oil dispute with Argentina escalates

www.telegraph.co .uk

A row between Britain and Argentina over oil exploration off the Falkland Islands is threatening to escalate into a major diplomatic row after a ship carrying drilling equipment was blocked from leaving an Argentine port.
Geologists estimate there are up to 60 billions of barrels of oil in the seabed near the Falklands and a British company, Desire Petroleum, is due to begin drilling 100 miles north of the islands before the end of the month.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.telegraph.co.uk

so tensions are rising again in the south atlantic, now the argentines know we are going to drill for oil and with an estimated 60 billion barrels down there its looking like the falklands could be a prize worth fighting for, again.

Last week the Argentine foreign minister summoned the charges d'affaires from the British embassy to receive a "most forceful protest." Before that Argentina's senior diplomat in Britain, Javier Pedrazzini, was hauled into the Foreign Office in London for a dressing down after Buenos Aires passed a law claiming sovereignty over the Falklands.

i expect tensions to rise, and if oil is found in such large quantities we could find ourselves in another war.

With the defence budget cuts looming, and the navy not being what it once was, remember the fleet air arm harriers proved decisive in the war over the falklands, but because of labour and military mismanagement the fllet air arm was axed, leaving NO AIR COVER FROM 2006-2012 when we get the new carriers and f-35.

we are weaker now than when we won the 1982 conflict, we run the risk of appearing weak enough for the argentines to contemplate using force.

read link here for more info on axing british naval air power, and how this may affect the falklands
www.telegraph.co .uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 14-2-2010 by hans kammler]

We are not weaker than we were back in the Falklands War.

Fact is if it came to war we would win again, no doubt at all. I can't help but laugh when i think of Argentina and its military.

Annex Argentina. It's the only way to be sure.

err - for the purposes of defending the falkands from an argentine military attack - we are ACTUALLY stronger now than in 1982

the reasons being :

1 - a permanant garrisson force - currently never below 1 infantry battalion [ fighting force ] plus support / other units

2 - RAF presence - including fighter aircrtaft , helicopters and the RAF gefiment detachment [ providing anti aircraft SAM missile defences ]

3 - radar early awarning and intelligence

both these assects can be reinforced quicker now than in 82 - as we now have transport aircraft that can fly to RAF mount pleasant via ascencion

with these forces in place - the argentines would have a much toughter time establishing a beach head - the brittish garrison now has very capable anti armour capabilities - so even if the argentine assault did have armour it woukd come under immediate and effective attack

lastly - the argentinians arfe now weaker than they were in 82 also - they have no aircaft carrier now & they lost the general belgrano

also despite the sabre rattling - argentina has come along way - both politically and socially since the dark days of the junta`s military dictatorship

just my opinion - but an attempted military action would be suicide for any argentine govt - loosing the 1982 conflict brought down the junta

they cannot win [ imho ] and cannot afford to loose - so why risk it

they may talk big - in order to attempt to gain negotiated shares of the oil - but that is another matter

reply to post by jonny2410


read the article, we had a fleet air arm and 4 carriers in the last war, in the new war, we have no fleet air arm and 1 carrier.
the us navy thought it militarily impossible to retake the falklands in 1982.when we WERE stronger.

this is an interesting article.

I remember the 1982 conflict very well since I'm chilean and
the argentinians are still mad at Chile for having aided the
british with info about their movements there.

During the 1982 conflict Chile was under a far-right-wing dictatorship
and they decided to aid the british because "we" feared the argentinians
were gonna continue their campaign on to the west were we are.

the southern half of Argentina was chilean, just to provide some background,
but Chile was experiencing tensions with other neighbours (Peru & Bolivia) and the argentinians took
the oportunity and captured that territory.
Then during the 1982 conflict the chileans knew the argentinians
had the firepower to overrun them so they aided the british with intel.

Chile has now a renewed military force and I fear that the chileans
will aid the british again (thanks to the new right-wing president Piñera)
this will spark tensions and probably lead to a conflict in the "Cono Sur".

This could not only affect Great Britain but also the closest neighbours
in southamerica.

Let's hope Argentina doesn't do anything and stay home.

regardless of military strength.. (look at the Tarus 09 Task fleet for power projection over fearless class) Look at who we have in power.. the question is not military might, but leadership..

Could Gordo actually provide a strong enough leadership? is he a capable enough leader to make not jsut the the right choices but also the ahrd choices?

or would he settle for making a a few £££££ by selling what assets we have??

damm - pressed send too early

even our so called " weaker navy " is in far better shape than you alledge

1 - far better ECM [ ELECTRONIC COUNTERMEASURES ] and anti missile defences - both missile and gun - whereas the argentines have aquired no significant new missile systems or attack aircraft

2 - the argentine navy has made little notable progress in its ASW [ anti submarine warfare ] capability since 82 - in that conflict a single SSN sent thier entire navy running to port

if an attack is launched - then presuming the brittish govt has the intestinal fortitude to stand and fight

if orddered to , brittish military forces will defend the falknands with ease

but saddly - there in lies the rub - the REAL question is not cann the brishish military defend the falkands

the question is - will our spineless govt actually give the order to fight ?

reply to post by Cloro


Lets hope that it all works out with some kind of deal for the oil..

Given that Gordo is in power and no Maggie Thatcher, I would expect him to want to negotiate £££ rather than war even if invaded.

The Fleet Air arm was replaced by Joint Force Harrier

The Royal Navy has HMS Illustrious and HMS Ark Royal still in service, and also claim that HMS Invicible is also able to be activated quickly.

Not only that but HMS Ocean is currently in service, and can deploy Harriers if need be.

So I count 4 carriers. All better off than the Navy had in the Falklands war, and all with AEW craft now - which is something they did not have back then.

RAF Mount Pleasant exists to defend the Island, and is home to the four Typhoons of 1435 Flight who are permanently based there in defence of the Island, and can be relieved within 24 hours by Tornadoes and Typhoons from the British mainland.

Not only that but the runway is capable of receiving the C17, allowing relief of the islands by air after refuelling stops at Ascension.

Not only that but the UK's attack subs now carry the Tomahawk Cruise Missile.

I'd say the islands were far, far from defenceless.

reply to post by neformore


It isn't military might but rather leadship that would be an issue.. Looking at the high volume of practice we currently undertake in these situations, (i.e Taurus 09, Joint Warrior etc) we have the power projection and troop transport in place to react quickly.. But is Gordo and his goons capable of taking the lead?

That much oil will present a lot of drawing power. I think that the U.K. would be hard pressed to defend against a full assault by Argentina on the Falklands in the initial stages. It would be a repeat..... Argentina would take the Islands and you would end up retaking them. The time frame needed to get troops, ships and aircraft there isn't an advantage to the U.K.

If the oil is there, I would beef up the air and Ground troops to prevent Argentina from thinking they could be successful. Deterrence requires you have enough of a force to make the attempt futile. 4 Typhoons and a Brigade don't seem enough to me.

reply to post by ignorant_ape


economic uncertainty, the percieved gain of 60 billion barrels of oil. britiains percived weakness, could prompt a military response.
a shift to the right or another military takeover of the argentine government would tip the balance.
peru and venezuela sent aircraft parts to argentina in the conflict, peru offered combat missions, brazil lent refuellers.
A chile threatened war on argentina at the same time as the falklands, so argentina had to hold back air assets to counter this threat, whilst dealing with the royal navy.
id expect all of these countries to side with argentina again.even chile.all of south america is anti britain and usa.
remember we have 10,000 troops in afghanistan, we would be hard pressed to retake the falklands.
the garrison on the island has 500 troops and 4 typhoons.a force weak enough to invite unwanted intervention.
whilst britain might be able to muster forces to counter attack, the percieved weakness and growing tensions may lead to some incident.
as already reported the argentines are blockading a uk ship ship destined for the falklands.
And with the current budget deficit in u.k antother oil bonanza like the north sea would be very welcome.definetley a prize worth fighting for.

reply to post by Cloro


interesting, i knew the chileans sided with us (britain) against the uk, but was not so sure about their relationship with argentina today.
thank you for clearing that up. is there any party in chile which is anti-britain pro-south american that could concievably take power?
i know evo morales and hugo chavez love bashing the western imperialists, and brazil supported argentina in the last war.

reply to post by neformore

joint force harrier is comprised of the inferior harrier gr7 and gr9, the fleet air arms sea harriers which were the principal air defence fighters used to great effect have been scrapped.
the government has gambled we will not need air cover untill the new f-35 appears.
sea harrier had an improved radar called blue vixen, one of the best in service, whilst the sea harriers shot down around 20 argentine combat aircraft, they turned away over 400 argentine bombing sorties merely by gaining radar lock on incoming enemy aircraft.
we dont have these fighters anymore thats my point, arguably we ARE weaker now, and that PERCIEVED weakness could lead to hostilities and rising tensions.

Especially if 60 BILLION barrells are found tensions will explode.the civilian popualtion of argentina would most likely find the idea of taking back las malvinas a very appealing venture.
we have 3 carriers and one helicopter carrier, 1 carrier is always under refit, one on ops and one in training, but if we take joint force harrier dont expect the same resullts they are not fa 2 sea harriers.

And expect the other south american countries that provided support in 1982 against britain to do the same again.

reply to post by thoughtsfull


gordo knows how popular maggie was after falklands, he would send forces gambling on a victory to increase popularity.

reply to post by hans kammler


He might send the forces, however, considering his track record, I could not see him making the tough choices.

Don't forget in the way of fighting force, Britains troops have been practising in the worlds biggest live fire ranges for quite a time now.. Battle trained/expereinced troops are not easy to come by, but we do have a considerable amount that would be invaluable in this situation.

They'll be an earthquake on the falkland islands now and a US military 'rescue ' will transpire . And neither the UK or Argentina will get the oil .

Why the Hell do we own the Falklands anyway?

It's off the coast of Argentina. give them their own territory back and let them drill for their own oil.

This world is all wrong.