I heard recently that a book (about US/UK relations) entitled in the UK “The Special Relationship” had to be retitled in the US because “nobody in the US would know what that means”.
Our petty dispute doesn’t indeed matter, but our country is very guilty of being that famous poodle, and when it comes to shit like this, I wish to fuck we were a bit more French about relations with the US. (Also, that The Facts used the name “English” indicates that s/he doesn’t even have an idea even as to the name of said close ally.)
I liked it better when it was us and Portugal against the world. 
Who actually owns the oil and gas?
I assume that the royally-chartered “Falkland Islands Company” would-is this correct?
Assuming the optimists are right (and there is a monster, 60-billion barrel oilfield under the islands)-do the residents get anything?
Its a lot of money for 3000 people, and 6 million sheep!
Unfortunately, the political climate in Argentina is such that the public would never allow the government to give up the claim on the Falklands. It just can’t happen. Give it another fifty years, maybe. Of course, by that time, all the islanders may have abandoned it and no one will care anymore.
And going right along with this, Britain would be insane to let a drop of Falkland oil be processed in Argentina. There would be just too many opportunities for mischief–strikes, sit-ins, blockades. Protesters shut down a major route into Uruguay a few years ago because of a paper plant on the border with Uruguay that they felt was polluting Argentine waters. A refinery processing Falkland oil wouldn’t last a day before it was surrounded with a human chain of 30 million people.
So sadly, there really is no compromise possible here. Argentina will continue to complain and Britain will continue to sell oil concessions. Continue ad infinitum.
They’ll receive 20% of profits and a 9% royalty per barrel according to FO&G’s filings.
Light sweet crude (the type believed to be in the Falklands deposits) is trading at about $80 per barrel at the moment. Now, it will be more expensive to drill in the Falklands deposits thanks to the distance from shore- Shell abandoned exploration in the 80s after the oil crisis was over- but presumably worthwhile with today’s oil prices (else there’d be no controversy).
The largest North Sea offshore field (which is a fraction of the size of the supposed Falklands fields) produces 200,000 barrels a day.
200,000 x 365 = 73 million bbl. per annum.
At $80 a barrel that’s $58,400,000,000 per year, of which 9% goes back to the Falklanders- so $5,256,000,000 (5.3 billion) in annual revenue from the royalties alone. From a single field - there could be dozens. That’s $167,000 per inhabitant.
I have no idea how to calculate the profits, since I have no idea how profitable exploration and drilling in such a remote place will be.
Presumably the operation will also require a great deal of infrastructure, which of course will employ at least a few locals, not to mention generate massive economic activity in other ways.
Wikipedia says Falklands exports currently total about $125 million per year. In other words, a single field’s worth of oil revenues could be worth 4600 times the entire export economy- and that’s just their cut. The total revenues would be worth 46,000 times the entire export economy.
Danegeld never works.
Soon we’ll be ship building.
This reminds me a tad of Rockall (granted Rockall doesn’t have anybody on it)
Moved from The BBQ Pit to Great Debates.
Gfactor
Pit Moderator
Apart from the geographic restriction, this still wouldn’t be invoked, because the UK considers the Falklands to be its own territory; the Royal Marines aren’t occupying it. That provision was intended to address the possibility of a Soviet attack on West Germany.
Shhhhh, Hand Of God.
I’ve said too much.
This wouldn’t be tribute, just collaboration to resolve a dispute where both sides have some reason.
It would be seen as legitimising Argentina’s claim. Which in British eyes - and those of the Falkland Islanders - is baseless. And Argentina would want more later.
Obama is wrong yet again. The Falkland Islands are rightful British territory much as Hawaii or Puerto Rico is to America. It should be the official policy of America to recognize the soverign territory of the Britain.
Kiss my red, white and blue
And in Argentinian eyes is not, so, we can resolve it with a compromise or we can resolve it with trade sanctions, blocked harbors, angry rhetoric, threats, escalation, surface to surface missiles, speed boats, exocets, etc.
Which would be more reasonable, adult and cheap?.
You’re crazy if you think Argentina is going to use any of those things you mentioned. I mean, missiles? Seriously? Argentina isn’t going to become the new international pariah, no matter how many suitcases with money Chavez sends them. Argentina simply doesn’t have the military capacity to do any of the things you’re talking about.
Similarly, it’s a bit outrageous to call any settlement (not that any agreement is feasible, but still) Danegeld. Britain currently is one of the richest and most militarily advanced countries in the world and has been since the 17th century. Argentina has pervasive poverty and would have trouble conquering the British embassy, let alone the Falklands. Danegeld indeed.
It should also be pointed out that while the Argentine population is overwhelmingly, vociferously, and insanely in favor of reclaiming the Falklands, they are even more fond of eating. An attack would immediately crater international development, investment, tourism, and aid. The economy is precarious as it is. Any overt hostilities might be somewhat popular in the very short-term, but would be ultimately disastrous to any politician in the long-term. That’s why these sorts of events are so rare in democracies.
No mate, that’s childish analysis. The US would be idiotic to needlessly complicate its Argentine relations.
US policy (as UK policy, although lap dog Blair forgot that) should be to look out for its permanent interests.
As at the present Argentina is mostly posturing for domestic hype, there’s not reason for the US to piss away diplomatic cards on adolescent posturing.
Quite, and nothing in the past 50 years of Argentine economic governance incompetence suggests that even without protests some other idiotic adolescent policy madness would not create issues (such as payments to the processor being seized, etc).
Agreed.
Because Argentine threats are a ridiculous joke and were it necessary, the UK would clean Argentina’s clock, again. Never mind such actions by Argentina would blow back massively on Argentina (in case you missed it, your last several governments have not made massive friends in the adult nations circles, what with defaults, personal profiteering of your “leadership” etc).