Argentine judge orders seizure of Falklands drillers' assets

[Little Tich]

Source: Yahoo! News / Reuters

BUENOS AIRES (Reuters) - An Argentine judge has ordered the seizure of assets of oil drilling companies operating in the Falklands Islands, including property held by U.S. firm Noble Energy, as the country takes a firmer line on the disputed territory ahead of October elections.

Lilian Herraez, a federal judge in Tierra del Fuego, ordered the seizure of $156 million in bank accounts, boats and other property, the government said on Saturday.

The companies named in the order were Premier Oil Plc, Falkland Oil and Gas Ltd, Rockhopper Exploration Plc, Noble Energy Inc and Edison International Spa.

A source with knowledge of the situation said the companies in question do not generally hold any assets in Argentina or use Argentine waters.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/argentine-judge-orders-seizure-falklands-drillers-assets-171707122--finance.html

[TexasTowelie]

1. Oh goody!

They can use the seized funds to pay back the billions of dollars of loans that they defaulted on.

[Peace Patriot]

4. Do you have any idea how the Banksters ravaged Argentina?

Or what the new leftist government of Argentina, with Nestor Kirchner as president, did to save the country from complete meltdown and ruin?

Kirchner didn't incur those ruinous loans. Rightwing governments did that--of course with no benefit to the people of Argentina, who, with their country spiraling into utter ruin, elected Kirchner to solve this horrendous, and apparently unsolvable, problem. He re-negotiated most of the loans and PAID THEM OFF on the re-negotiated terms, and put Argentina back on its feet. One vulture capitalist--the notorious Paul Singer--refused to negotiate, and has demanded every "pound of flesh" he can extract from Argentina's POOR. Wants to take food out of poor children's mouths and books out of their hands. That's the sort of shit he is.

You're on his side, is that it? You want multi-billionaire Paul Singer to take more money from the POOR? You want him to have more money to buy presidents and senators, here as well as in other countries? You want this fascist shit to have even more power?

Please get informed about how first world Banksters destroy third world economies and democracies. These. Are. Not. Innocent. Loans. First they buy the buyable leaders; then they lard money on the country's 0.01% in DEBTS TO BE PAID BY THE POOR, and take over the country's resources and government, privatize everything, smash social programs and enslave the workforce. This has happened time and time again. Argentina is neither the first nor the last country to be brought to its knees this way. It has been an especially horrible legacy in Latin America.

This is not something to be making snide remarks about. Also, instead of blaming a leftist government for doing the right thing, in every respect, on Banskter debt, you should do a bit of research on these oil corporations' encroachments on Argentina's coastal waters. That is WHY their assets have been seized.

[TexasTowelie]

5. I'm well aware of what occurred in Argentina

and I am also very knowledgeable about banks, the IMF, political corruption and third world economies. I also have the option of expressing my opinion on a discussion board within the terms of service, despite your rude remark that I "get informed". While you might consider my remarks to be snide they are also undisputably true. Argentina declared bankruptcy in 2001 and is on the brink of declaring bankruptcy again. I regret that the Argentinian people may suffer, but they are also responsible for electing the people that incurred those debts even if there were onerous terms on that debt.

Just because a country elects a leftist leader does not absolve the country of paying the debts that were made by their predecessors. If that were the case, then there would be no international finance system because nobody would be willing to risk their capital knowing that a coup or even a voluntary change in leadership could negate those debts. I didn't like the way the previous U.S. administration incurred debt in the multiple wars initiated by Bush and expressed my opinion in public, in private and in the voter's booth but I'm only one person living in a democracy and the opposition that makes those decisions was in power. However, was the US let off the hook from its debt to China just because Bush left office and President Obama was elected?

I also did not claim that I'm on anyone's side so do not attempt to pigeon-hole me. However, for Argentina to claim that the waters and assets off the Falklands Islands belongs to them will most likely result in another war. That didn't work out very well for Argentina the last time that they made that claim and I doubt that the result would be any different if the UK took action again.

[MJJP21]

6. Almost

I almost walked away from your repsonse until I read"

" However, was the US let off the hook from its debt to China just because Bush left office and President Obama was elected? "

You sound like you watch FAUX NOISE , a lot, because places like this is where you get bogus info like that. Your screen name might also explain the confusion as well. (TEXAS) The US DOES NOT borrow money from CHINA nor RUSSIA nor anyone else. Find out first how money gets into the economy and what the term "monetary sovereign" is. The US cannot go bankrupt no matter what politician or talking head might infer it. States can go bankrupt , counties can go bankrupt , cities and towns can go bankrupt but the US cannot. There is no country or entity that can forclose on the US. None.

"Just because a country elects a leftist leader...."
You make it sound like the people chose this route or can choose whatever political course they want. They can't you should know that. Our own govt has been bought and paid for by the super rich and are doing to the US what they did to Argentina.

[TexasTowelie]

7. You are correct that the US can create as much currency that it wants,

but Treasury Department data released Friday (May 15, 2015) showed that China owned $1.261 trillion worth of U.S. government securities at the end of March, compared to $1.2269 trillion for Japan.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/05/18/news/economy/china-us-debt/ (Not Faux Noise)

So technically, while we don't borrow money from other countries we still incur debts to other nations. We could run the presses and print money to pay that debt immediately. However, that only dilutes the value of the currency, makes foreign goods more expensive and will create inflation for companies that have to purchase raw materials from other countries.

BTW, I don't even have a television and my total amount of Faux Noise consumption over the past 15 years adds up to less than two hours. However, if you want to be rude, insult me and all of the people from Texas on DU then go ahead if it makes you think that you are better than us ignorant Texans.

[metalbot]

9. I could argue the opposite

"Just because a country elects a leftist leader does not absolve the country of paying the debts that were made by their predecessors. If that were the case, then there would be no international finance system because nobody would be willing to risk their capital knowing that a coup or even a voluntary change in leadership could negate those debts."

International finance systems aren't lending money out of the goodness of their hearts. They are loaning money because the interest is profitable. If there is NO risk of default, it encourages lenders to make ridiculously unsound loans (which is part of the problem that we have with US student debt today). The risk of default is built into the price of the loan. There's absolutely no moral obligation to repay a loan. A country is absolutely free to absolve themselves from paying debts made by earlier governments. There are consequences to that (lenders in the future will loan at much, much higher rates), but it's always an option.

[geek tragedy]

15. Very true. There is no moral obligation

on the part of sovereign borrowers to pay back, just as there is no moral obligation for anyone to lend to them under favorable terms, or at all.

[christx30]

18. Yep. And we see the consequences

of bad faith borrowing from governments with Venezuela. No one will lend them anything at all.

[EX500rider]

11. "a bit of research on these oil corporations' encroachments on Argentina's coastal waters."

I think you will find 700 kilometers off Argentina where they are exploring for oil are UK waters.
Argentina has no worthwhile claim on the Falklands. The 3,000 inhabitants have already voted on the matter.

The Falkland Islands are a homogeneous society, with the majority of inhabitants descended from Scottish and Welsh immigrants who settled the territory in 1833.

[Judi Lynn]

20. It's a hideous, wildly destructive, dispresectful pattern which has been forced on Latin America,

and Caribbean countries.

You'd almost think people would be embarrassed to publicly identify with this rapacious predation.

It may take a while longer, but the day is coming the Americas are finally going to free themselves of outside manipulation, abuse of the helplessness of the great, intentionally kept mass of poverty stricken, struggling human beings, and unite for the betterment of mankind, not for the betterment of the traitors, racist fascists who have been selling their countries to US corporate interests all this time, and keeping the indigenous, the African descended, the ocean of poor living in fear, with no future whatsoever.

That way is going to GO. There are so many, many more good people than there are right-wingers.

[cstanleytech]

2. Hold one a minute, how exactly will they enforce this ruling?

After all arent the Falkland Islands considered British territory and didnt the people living there express an interest already remaining a British territory?

[iandhr]

3. Exactly.

[oldironside]

16. Plus...

... they've never belonged to Argentina (apart from the short lived occupation in 1982), and if we apply Argentina's argument that the georgraphical location of the islands makes them Argentinian, then Madagascar belongs to Mozambique, Ireland is British, Great Britain is French, Cuba is American and Japan is Chinese.

This is actually the hilarious situation of we Brits being victims of imperialism. At last, the biter bit!

[geek tragedy]

8. Lol Argentina demagoguing the Falklands

No assets to seize there, this is just posturing.

[Nihil]

23. Yeah, just the usual sh*t from Argentina again ...

It's their usual cycle:
1. Going bankrupt (again).
2. Divert attention by banging the drum about the Falklands (again).
3. Sober person points out that they have no chance (again).
4. Change of government! (again)

[Nye Bevan]

10. I love how the President of Argentina refers to the Falklanders as an "implanted population",

while speaking in Spanish.

[geek tragedy]

14. Whose last name is German. nt

[Judi Lynn]

19. Her last name is Fernandez. n/t

[Adrahil]

21. Actually, that's her maiden name...

She goes by her married name... Kirchner. And her husband was President before her.

[EX500rider]

17. That is amusingly ironic...descendants of Spaniards sputtering about Brits..

[happyslug]

38. Yes they were allies for centuries.

Spain and England were allies during the High Middles Ages. An attack by France, the most powerful country at that time period, on one of them would bring in other against France. Thus King John married two Isabella both from Spain. The "Black Prince" died in Spain fighting the Moors. Henry VIII married Catherine the sister of the King of Spain.

This resumed with Napoleon. Napoleon invaded Spain to install his brother as king and afterward the Duke of Wellington fought in Spain for Spanish independece, feeding his men on Wheat from New England.

In between you did have the,Spanish Amanda but that was to restore the alliance not to conquer England.

During the 100 year war Spain fought on the side of England. The break with England was caused by the Willem mills moving from Flanders to the Netherlands. This move also saw the end of the 100 year war, once the mills were out of France they were no longer any reason to fight.

Even Protestant ism involved those mills. The mills were tied in with the then new Middle Class (that is the top 10% less the top 3% who were the nobility). The middle class wanted control and the Spanish backed the traditional groups. Thus Spain, which remained a source of wool along with England, opposed the middle class of the Netherlands and their embrace of the Reform Church. England backed the Netherlands while Spain supported the people of what is now Belgium. France playing the two sides against each other to a degree that Cardinal Mazar in all ed with Oliver Cromwell against Spanish allied rebels and followers of English king James's Ii in regarda,to the city of Calis. Cromwell received Calis as an English city provided he protected the Catholics in Calis. Cromwell died two years later and James II became King and sold back Calis to France to help pay off Cromwells troops.

I bring up the Battle of the Dunes for it shows a lot of what occurred during the "War of Religions" had more to due with money then religious belief. It was a short time period where Spain the Netherlands and England were NOT allied with each other and the split, while maningfesting itself in terms of religion, was more an economic class division that ended once the business class was in charge of the areas business and trade was paramont, and Catholicism holding it's own elsewhere.

Notice James's II allied himself with both the Netherlands AND Spain. This alliance would survive till King Louis XIV became King of France and managed to obtain the Spanish throne for the House of Bourbon around 1700. That alliance lasted till Napoleon's invasion of Spain in 1808. Then the English Spanish alliance was resumed.

Yes Spain has issues with England namely Gibraltar but it is a problem both countries have lived with.

One last comment on the Amanda. It was an attempt to rerestore an alliance. An alliance both sides wanted for centuries but England was abandoning to secure it's access to Dutch woolen mills. To Spain that was unacceptable thus the Amanda. It was not a plan of conquest just restoring an Alliance. The US tried to do the same with Cuba in the Bay of Pigs debacle. The US support for Sisi in Egypt is another example. Countries have done this since the start of time. Furthermore such breaks in long term alliances are like break up of marriages, there are often violent for both sides sees the other as betraying them. That is why the Spanish Amanda was viewed so bad in English history, the emEnglish wanted to keep the alliance more then they wanted to fight the Spanish.

[candelista]

12. I don't remember anything about oil during the Falklands War.

All they talked about on the news was sheep.

[Nye Bevan]

13. Back then nobody knew there was any oil there (nt)

[happyslug]

22. Has anyone ever looked at a map of the place and its location to its neighbors?

Its four nearest neighbors are:

1. Argentina.1263 miles 946 miles from Buenos Aries, 668 km 415 miles from the nearest Argentina port.
2. Chile, 2032 km 1263 miles, but only through Argentina Air Space or waters. Under Pinochet Chile had supported Britain during the Falkland Crisis. Today Chile officially supports Argentina on the Falklands and has done so with votes in the UN.
3. Uruguay, 2167 km 1347 miles km which supports Argentina as far at the Falklands are concerned.
4. Brazil, 4236 km 2632 miles which supports Argentina as far at the Falklands are concerned.
5. South Africa. Which REFUSED British ships to use its ports during the Falkland Crisis of 1982, and support Argentina as to the Falklands.

Thus all of the Falkland's neighbors support Argentina as to the Falklands.

Now, Britain has a problem. It wants to get the oil and gas around the Falklands, but the nearest country that has the population of oil field workers and the ability to work oil pipe that DOES not support Argentina, is Britain itself (Even Ireland Support Argentina). Nigeria is an option, if you do not mind corruption, but the rest of West African does not have the ability to support operations in the South Atlantic. Spain and France do, but they support Argentina. Britain is closer then is the US to the Falklands. Indian may be an option, but it supports Argentina as to the Falklands.

Thus how do you support a oil exploration in the South Atlantic without some some sort of local support, and the Falklands themselves do not have the population or industry to support such efforts. If the oil and Natural Gas in found, where do you ship it for sale? If the result is Natural Gas, the only real option is Argentina for such gas has to be shipped by pipeline for the cost of building a Liquefied natural Gas plant in the Falklands is possible, a pipeline would be a lot cheaper in the long run (You use 1/3 of the energy to compress natural gas into its liquid form, thus Liquefied natural Gas will always be 1/3 more expensive then natural gas supplied by pipeline).

Now, if oil is found, oil being a natural liquid is less of a problem, tankers are the cheapest way to ship oil but where do you build the oil storage tanks for such oil? The best place is Buenos Aries and from there ship the oil to the rest of the world. The Falklands has a very small harbor and bad weather (Thus is why they grow sheep in the Falklands). Not an idea place to build oil storage tanks.

Thus once you start to look into oil and Natural Gas from the Falklands areas, you quickly see Argentina is the best place where the support elements have to go for such oil and natural gas extraction. Thus Britain has to make a deal with Argentina sooner or later. Argentina knows this and has made its demands clear. The above all point to Britain making a deal, probably giving the Falklands to Argentina on a promise that local customs and laws will be maintained. If the Falklanders complain, all Britain has to do is sign the agreement and if the Falklanders dislike it, they could take it up in the Argentina Court system. This is what Britain basically did with Hong Kong and I do not see them NOT doing it with the Falklands.

The alternative is more disliked in Britain, all of the oil and natural gas around the Falklands will just lay in the sea unable to be exploited. Given Britain in now a net oil importer (but still a Natural Gas Exporter) as oil production in the North Sea continue to drop and Natural Gas also drops in production, the option of NOT exploiting the Falkland's oil and Natural Gas production will slowly become less and less liked in Britain.

Thus this act by Argentina is just Argentina telling Britain you have to deal with us sooner or later, so lets cut a deal and get it over with.

[Nihil]

24. Apples and oranges

> This is what Britain basically did with Hong Kong and I do not see
> them NOT doing it with the Falklands.

The major difference between HK and the Falklands is that the latter has
never been on a 99-year lease and so there is no legal agreement that
will expire. "Your argument is invalid" as they say.


> Thus this act by Argentina is just Argentina telling Britain you have to
> deal with us sooner or later, so lets cut a deal and get it over with.

Or Britain can just tell Argentina to go piss up a rope (again) and wait
for the inevitable collapse (again) and take advantage of said collapse
to get their revenge by screwing over the people responsible - the ones
who are desperately trying to divert attention from their own failures by
banging the same old "Falklands Drum" as every other bunch of failures
in Argentina's epic string of "governments".

[happyslug]

25. You are ignoring my main argument, where are the pipe and oil to be stored....

When it comes to off shore oil wells, you either build a pipeline from the well to a oil shortage tank OR you ship the oil by small tanker to an oil shortage tank. It is from these tanks that the large oil tankers fill up and ship the oil world wide. The Falklands do not have the population OR the facilities to support such a storage area, that leaves the River Plate area as the nearest place for such a support base. A good comparison would be the Alaska Pipeline, supported from California, the nearest large population area with the facilities to support oil (Yes British Columbia is closer, as is the states of Washington and Oregon, but California has been an oil producer for almost 100 years and thus has the facilities to support oil in Alaska).

I brought up Hong Kong for the reason for the 99 year lease was Hong Kong in the late 1800s was expanding and they needed additional land, thus they entered into the 99 year lease for roughly the same reason Britain will have to deal with Argentina, the land Britain NEEDED was held by someone else. A deal for land HAD TO BE MADE and it was and 99 years later China ended up with Hong Kong. In theory, Britain can go elsewhere, even Britain itself, but as you move away from the oil fields, the cost of support increases thus the closer the support is, the less expensive it is (Thus Texas was able to get in on Fracking early, it already had the support facilities for oil).

Argentina has stated that it is looking for a deal, not only including the Falklands itself but the oil and natural gas fields between Argentina AND the Falklands itself. The US had a similar problem with its off shore oil fields when it came to Cuba, the oil field actually extends well into Cuban waters. The US and Cuba has been discussing how to exploit that field for over ten years, with Cuba permitting Chinese Drillers into its territorial waters. Like Britain and Argentina, Cuba AND the US know they have to work out a deal based in international law on how to handle who gets want oil. The main reason for this is oil "Flows" and thus can be drawn from one side on a border to another. Thus a well to close to the border brings with it accusation of thief and efforts to prevent such thief. To avoid such problems, when it comes to off shore oil fields, the countries involve work out a deal as to oil and natural gas that could be recovered from both sides of the border. Failure to do so was the reason Saddam invaded Kuwait in the early 1990s (and as part of the peace settlement, the UN imposed a deal on Iraq as to that border oil).

Argentina and Britain both know that any dispute, if it goes military, will NOT involve an invasion of the Falklands itself. Argentina need not do so, if it just bombs the oil platforms instead. Britain could retaliate but how? Bombing Argentinean Cities will just bring about support for what Argentina would have been doing, Stationing fighters to fight off the Argentina planes and ships would be expensive (and being forced to use the small airport on the island, an easy target for Argentina air attacks, thus the fighters will have to defend their air base while Argentina attack both the Air base AND the off shore oil rigs). Britain would have to send its latest up to date fighters to the Falklands to fight off much cheaper Argentine planes, who can operate off rough air fields anywhere on the Argentina Pampas.

Argentine could buy SU-25s/SU-29s from Russia, to attack those Oil platforms with orders to run away if challenged by British Aircraft. The SU-25/SU-29 is cheap reliable and easy and cheap to operate and repair. It is NOT a fighter but if Argentine buys S-300 AA missiles from Russia, they could be used as bait to get British planes to enter Argentine Air Space.

Britain may have access to better planes, but can they keep enough in the Falklands to keep out Argentinean Air Planes not only from the Falklands but from the various Oil Platforms? Also Britain has to worry about small boats, is it a harmless fishing boat, of a boat armed with missiles, or even Argentine Marines with explosives? Britain may NOT be able to find out till the Marines take an oil platform and destroy it. Just pointing out when it comes to actual military options, Argentina has several, while Britain military options are limited due to the size and makeup of the Falklands.

Now, neither side wants a Military confrontation, but such confrontation can be done. Both sides know this and Argentina has clearly said it does NOT want a Military confrontation. Britain's present government does not want to appear to be turning back on Thatcher's greatest victory but that may be the price they end up paying to get a free hand on the oil and natural gas around the Falklands.

My point is some sort of deal has to be made, Argentina is holding most, but not all of the high cards. Britain hold the Falklands which Argentina wants. Argentina had hinted it it willing to accept the Falklands in name only (i.e. the Falklands stays an English Speaking, English legal system self governing island but under Argentina overlordship in place of British overlordship). I suspect that will be what both sides agree to, for the other options are NOT that good for either side. No one wants war, and a low level war would be enough to prevent oil exploitation which both sides want, but Argentina can live without. Thus a deal will be made, the details have yet to be worked out but Argentina is slowly building up the pressure. Oil is the driving force and Oil is more important their pride, so a deal will be worked out.

[geek tragedy]

26. There are no Argentines living in the Falklands. There have never been Argentines living in the

Falklands. The people there ALL want to remain part of Britain.

That is the end of the debate.

Argentina has zero claim on those islands and the people living in them. Zero. It's all nationalistic bluster.

The Brits could station sufficient assets to thwart any Argentine military mischief. Argentina has nothing for an air force right now.

[happyslug]

30. Don't tell me tell Britain, and it would NOT be the first time Britain sold an ally out...

During the American Revolution, Britain had already decided to accept US independence when the French Intervened and both Britain and France sent troops and ships to the West Indies. With the French Intervention British reconquest, while technically accepted as the goal of the war, became a secondary options to preserving British interests in India, Gibraltar (Spain offered to stay out of the War, if Britain turned over Gibraltar, the offer was turned down, the real significance of the offer was without Spain joining France, France was NOT willing to go to war with Britain even after Saratoga) and the West Indies.

While sending its troops and ships to the West Indies (and supplies to Gibraltar) Britain kept telling American Loyalists that Britain supported them and needed they help to defeat the Americans), 1783 Britain basically abandoned them, many went to Canada and the West Indies, but most ended up staying in the US.

You saw the same act in Ireland in 1921 and Iraq in the 1950s. Britain has done this at other times, but Britain is embarrassed by them and covers them up quite well. Thus Britain will do it again.

The issue is NOT who has them or had them but who WANTS THEM. Argentina claims them and will oppose any oil exploitation without the Falklands being turned over to them. If no oil is found, not a problem, Britain can continue to spend money on that rock. If oil is found, Argentina will be needed to be the base to support that exploitation and if Argentina demands the Falklands, Britain will give the Falklands to Argentina in exchange for the oil.

[geek tragedy]

31. I'm pretty sure the British want them badly enough to kick the crap out of Argentina's

4th-rate military if the occasion arises.

Britain has the islands, and the oil, and everything in between.

And there's not anything Argentina can do about it but pout.

[happyslug]

34. Where do you put the supplies for the Rigs???

The Falklands can NOT provide that service, Argentina can. Furthermore, Argentina's "Fourth Rate Military" is strong enough to prevent any exploitation of any oil. Could Argentina take the Falklands? No, but it is strong enough to prevent any exploitation. Thus a deal has to be cut.

Furthermore, as I started in this discussion, the oil is only PARTIALLY Britain's. Under International law each country has a 200 mile exploitation are around its sea UNLESS it overlaps another country's 200 mile zone. In such situation the border of each is the half way point between the two nations coastlines.

While the early reports indicate oil and natural gas around the Falklands, most people expect the best fields to be between the Argentina's coast line and the Falklands. Argentina coast line is a semi circle around the Falklands, thus it cuts much of the expected oil field in half, the larger half being Argentina's waters.

Now, oil and natural gas are formed from shadow sea algae that hits the bottom of the ocean and over millions of years is converted to oil and Natural Gas. This does NOT occur in deep ocean waters, only shadow seas. Worse, since the Atlantic Ocean opened up, it has split the earth roughly down its center. Thus any remaining oil or natural gas is more likely between the Falklands and the Argentine's coast.

In many ways that is the problem. To fully exploit those fields British needs Argentina cooperation even in drilling and placing the oil rigs. During exploration, Britain does NOT need any cooperation from Argentina, but if oil or natural gas is found that changes rapidly. This is the problem Britain is facing in the Falklands and Argentine knows it. The Military option is just an additional factor for Britain to consider.

Thus given the location of the oil fields and the location of the nearest industrial base to support that exploitation, some sort of deal will have to be worked out. Britain may NOT want to sell out the Falklands, but if that is the price Britain must pay to be able to exploit the Falklands, I see Britain paying that price. That the Argentina military can not take and hold the Falklands becomes a moot point if Britain gives the Falklands to Argentina and that appears to be the price Britain will have to pay to get Argentinean cooperation for any exploitation of any resources around the Falklands.

[geek tragedy]

35. Oil companies have figured out how to supply rigs.

Argentina hasn't upgraded its fighter aircraft since the Falkland Islands war 33 years ago.

The British have a squad of the second-best fighter aircraft in the world there.

Splitting oil royalties is foreseeable. Betraying the UK citizens living on the Falklands most certainly would not be.

[happyslug]

37. You have more faith in the British Government then I do.

But then I deal with Government agencies and none of them think twice of screwing the public if the act advances their own agenda. Britain is no different,

[Adrahil]

27. A couple notes....

1)The population of the Falklands is overwhelmingly British. We're not talking about an Argentine population under British imperial rule here.

2) Although there is some indication of oil and gas reserves, there have been no exploitable deposits found. But it IS interesting that Argentina didn't get interested in the Falklands again until there might be OIL!

3) Argentina has tried once already to seize the islands by force in violation of international law. The motivation then was largely internal politics. Now it's OIL!

4) Argentina essentially wants to become a new imperial master. They want "overlordship" over an existing population of different ethnic and cultural composition than themselves. Why would anyone support that? Because of proximity?

[happyslug]

32. See my comments above

The whole situation is based on OIL, if no oil, no real Conflict. Argentina can NOT take the Falklands and hold them. On the other hand if oil is found, Argentina will be needed to help exploit those fields (and Argentina's help will be needed more if Natural Gas is Found, for that means pipelines to the Argentina's coast line for the price to compress that nature gas on an oil platform will be to high, pipelines are much cheaper.

[LanternWaste]

33. The original conflict had nothing to do with oil. Not all conflicts are predicated on oi

The original conflict had nothing to do with oil. Not all conflicts are predicated on oil, regardless of what the trendy wisdom read off t-shirts may say...

[happyslug]

36. The original conflict had nothing to do with oil, but ego moves by both sides.

Last edited Thu Jul 2, 2015, 08:14 PM - Edit history (1)

The Argentina Junta wanted to stay in power but was losing whatever support it had among the people of the Argentine, thus they took the Falklands to build up their support among the people of Argentina. Thatcher then took the opportunity to make herself the new Winston Churchill pushing out these invaders.

Thus the original fight was NOT over oil and after that war, the Falklands were basically ignored by both sides. Britain moved some planes and troops but that was about all. Argentina forbade flight to the Falklands but that was about all.

Oil is what is driving the present conflict not egos. Thus you will NOT see any stupid moves like Argentine's army invading the Falklands (unless Britain agrees). On the other hand internal politics of both Argentina and Britain are factors. Argentina is NOT going to miss any opportunity to take over the Falklands and the recent oil exploration has even them an edge. The edge is NOT during the exploration part but during any oil or natural gas exploitation part. That is where Argentina will hold most of the cards and dealing from the bottom of the deck.

Britain will have some high cards, but not many and its options are few in regards to industrial support for oil exploitation in the south Atlantic. The best option for industrial support is Argentina and Argentina knows it. Thus my comment that if oil is found a deal will be made.

[oldironside]

28. Just a few more points.

"Argentine could buy SU-25s/SU-29s from Russia, to attack those Oil platforms with orders to run away if challenged by British Aircraft. The SU-25/SU-29 is cheap reliable and easy and cheap to operate and repair. It is NOT a fighter but if Argentine buys S-300 AA missiles from Russia, they could be used as bait to get British planes to enter Argentine Air Space."

This is a Sukhoi Su-25, NATO reporting name Frogfoot.

It is a subsonic ground attack aircraft, roughly equivalent to the Fairchild A-10. It first flew in 1975 and has a maximum speed of Mach 0.8.

This is a Sukhoi Su-29.

It doesn't have a NATO reporting name because it's a sports plane. It has a top speed of around 280 mph.

This is the Eurofighter Typhoon that the RAF has constantly stationed in the Falklands.

It has a top speed of over Mach 2, it's CAPTOR radar can track 20 targets and engage 6 simultaneously.

For the Argentine Air Force to try an infringe on Falklands' air space would be like putting this...

... up against this.

[happyslug]

29. I meant to type SU-39, but the SU-29 would be sufficient for the operations I mentioned.

Last edited Thu Jul 2, 2015, 08:20 PM - Edit history (3)

You just have to fire some small machine guns and bombs on an oil platform and leave. That would make the platform unusable. I am not discussing an full scale attack, but a series of attacks all at the same time. Which one do you defend? If you are using SU-29s, they are dirt cheap, yes easy to shoot down but also cheap to replace. If they fly close to the water line, hard to detect and once they hit their target and head back to Argentina, hard to find.

The Typhoon has radar, but unless Britain is flying an AWAC plane in the Falklands, Radar coverage is limited to the front of the Typhoon or 20 miles of the Falklands (the Curves of the earth because it is a ball, interferes with radar beyond that range if the radar is at ground level and while the Falklands is a rocky island, its height is NOT that high to increase the range of the Radar that much).

On top of that Argentina could fly non armed planes up and down the coast to confuse radar operators, i.e. to many potential targets so that they end up delaying any flights of the Typhoons till one of them turn in the direction of the Falklands or the one of the oil platforms. Once you understand the strengths and weaknesses of the Typhoons you can work around them and Argentina knows this (as does Britain).

Thus you are talking about a dash of 50 or so miles that MAY be detected (and I suspect the distance is closer to 20 miles) which a SU-25 can do within 5 minutes (i.e. in and out). Modern fighters take about five minutes to warm up their electronics, thus unless the Typhoon is already in the Air, it will have little ability to use its strengths against the SU-25/SU39s.

On the other hand if the Typhoon is in the Air (and I suspect at least one is in the air at all times) if they radar indicate a hostile plane or ground control directs the Typhoon to a hostile target, they can attack such hostile plane, but within the five minute period and if the hostile waited till the Typhoon was at its furthest distance, go in, hit its target, and them fly back home. Operation would be 5-10 minutes in length (any more time the Strengths of the Typhoons really comes into play, so any Argentina plane will be in and out quickly, they will not hang around to be shot down by the Typhoons).

On top of this the weather patterns are from the Falklands to Argentina with pushes down from Antarctica. It is possible for the Air Fields of Argentina would be open to fly from, while the Falklands are ice, snow, rain, fog or otherwise unable to fly from (and Argentina could always adopt the old Soviet Tactic of moving planes by truck from one air field to another, from an unusable Air Field to one they can fly from. Given the nature of the SU-25/SU-39 AND the SU-29 that is not that hard to do, it was one of the characteristics built into their design. If the weather pattern is bad over the Falklands, it will be bad over Argentina in less then a day, but Argentina has the option of flying to the Falklands and then anywhere along its coastline, while those Typhoons have only one base to fly to and from.

Thus you could have the Typhoons sent to intercept a group of unmanned SU-29s on a flight to and then away from the Falklands, drawing the Typhoons north of the Falklands, then the SU-25s hitting the platforms South of the Falklands and returning to base. Lots of targets destroyed by the Typhoons, but what Britain wanted to prevent destruction of the oil platforms accomplished. You could also fly SU-25/SU-39s to draw off the Typhoons from SU-29s doing the actual attack.

The Typhoons are in the Falklands more to prevent an Argentinean Invasion of the Falklands then to fight off attacks on the surrounding oil fields. In that role Argentina has nothing to stop the Typhoons from performing that mission. To cover a wider area Britain has to have an AWAC plane in the area and they do not. Thus Argentina has a valid military option, an option that Britain only respond to would be by increasing its spending in the Falklands and sooner or later it becomes clear cutting a deal with Argentina is the cheaper solution.

Some sort of deal is what Argentina is looking for and sooner or later a deal will be made. Sending AWACs planes to the Falklands (and you would need four for 24 hour coverage) would be EXPENSIVE. For you need to include a place for the planes to be repaired, refueled AND a place for Air Refueling planes be kept just to keep the AWACs flying AND Fuel for all of these planes, to be kept on a rock with sheep. Once you look into the logistics, it quickly becomes clear the Falklands are NOT worth it. If the Falklands do not like the idea of Britain selling them out, fine, have them pay the bill to maintain that military presence, if that was the case, even the people of the Falklands will agree to a deal with Argentina.

Yes, the Typhoon are superior then anything Argentina is flying and could obtain and fly, but you play to your strengths and in the case of Argentina is long coast line and that any fight will NOT be near the Falklands islands themselves, but in the surrounding sea, a sea to vast to patrol without a AWAC system or a system of Radar on the Argentina Coast (same restrictions as to distance applies to Argentina as it does to Britain but if Argentina buys Radars with S-300 AA Missiles, Argentina will be able to shoot down any Typhoon that comes near its coast. This would make the Coastline a no fly area for the Typhoons.

Has Argentina purchased any of this equipment NO, can it? Yes. If Argentina does buy the equipment what will Britain do? Send in a AWAC plane? Sending in ships with radar comes with the same problem of the curvature of the earth AND the nearest of the Argentina Coast. Ships would increase the radar surveillance area, but open those ships up to a surprise attack. I can see the British ships off the coast of Argentina, Argentina launches planes and missiles at the ships. The Typhoons in the Flaklands are launched to provide air cover for the ships, and an Argentina fishing boat attacks the oil rigs while outside the area of the Attack on the ships, ships are unharmed, but the oil rig is destroyed.

The problem is NOT the Falklands, but the plans to exploit the oil in the ocean around the Falklands. That increases the area of defense to a degree that Typhoons of the Falklands would be quickly defeated, not in the sense that the Typhoons will control the air space around the Falklands, but that the control will NOT be sufficient to prevent such guerrilla air attacks.

The only way to prevent such attacks would be to occupy the Pampas of Argentina and Britain does NOT have the troops for that, thus a deal will be entered into. Having the latest most powerful weapons does NOT mean you will win a war that such weapons were NOT design to fight (Remember Vietnam?) against an enemy who refuses to enter into a fight where such weapons are at they best. This is the problem Britain is facing and why Argentina thinks it will win.

The cost to exploit the Oil around the Falklands is so much greater without Argentinian support as to make the option of giving the Falklands to Argentina the best economic choice. On top of that Argentina has the ability to increase those costs way above the break even point. Britain to prevent Argentina from interfering with exploration around the Falklands will end up spending what it did to defeat the Soviet Union, and for what? To fly the Union Jack over some rocks? Sooner or later economics will come into play and a deal will be entered. The only real question is how much independence from Argentina will be given to the Falklands and if I was a resident of the Falklands I would be demanding input into whatever deal is being made behind they backs.

As to your two cars, you forgot one point. The top car being full of fuel, running and at your door and you have the keys to it, while the other car is in someone else's showroom, that you can not get to AND NEITHER CAN THEY. That set of facts makes the first car a much more usable car then the second. A car you can DRIVE RIGHT NOW is often "Better" then a car you or anyone else can NOT DRIVE.

I assume you want to say that the first car is Argentina's Air Force and the Second are the Typhoons in the Falklands. Then is the second car worth 10 to 15 of the first car? Think about it, as if you had 10 people you needed to move from one place to another. Is ten of the first better then just one of the second to move those 10 people? In that set of facts, the first is the better option, 10 of those can move up to 40 people and if 3/4 of them break down, you can still move all 10 people all on one trip. Thus if only a quarter of them work, they can move all of the people in one movement (i.e. 2 1/2 is 1/4 of 10 but given we need whole cars the number needed to work would be 3, thus if three of the ten first cars work, you can move those 10 people in one movement).

The second car will have to take 19 trips to move those 10 people. One driver and one passenger to make 10 trips to take the passenger to where you want them be, then 9 trips back to pick up the next person. 19 trips compared to 1 trip done by 3 cars (if the other seven break down).

Defending the Falklands from an attack is not that hard, it is an island and any force needed to take the island has to come from the River Plate. Thus your sports car concept would apply to such a situation. There is no evidence that such a plan is even being considered and is NOT the option I am discussing.

The option I am discussing is NOT to retake the Falklands but make it impossible to exploit any oil or natural gas around the island, the 10 Yugos become a valid option and the sports car because a fancy show piece that the other side avoids and still wins that war and to avoid THAT defeat I can see Britain making a deal.

Please note, if no oil or natural gas is found, what I am discussing is NOT an option, but if oil or Natural Gas is found, then it is Argentina's best option to force Britain to turn over the Falklands to them. Sometimes the best and latest technology is NOT the deciding factor and when it comes to the Falklands the deciding factor is the cheapest way to exploit any oil in the area. If no oil, no changes, if oil, I expect a sell out of the Falklands.

[Stella_Artois]

39. A friendly tip

You may have all the spare time in the world to produce a wall of text, but most people lack the time to read it. Waste of your time. I'd also point out that its pretty telling that a person who seems to support the Argentine position is focusing on the military side of things rather than the diplomatic. Which is Argentinas problem. The people who live there don't want to be Argentine and until they can be convinced otherwise never will be. Right of self determination is a tricky old thing eh ?

[Telcontar]

41. FORCE Britain? A nation with nuclear weapons?

Riiiight

[Telcontar]

40. I dont think you fully grasp the military disparity

Britain already has sufficient air power stationed on the island to take on the entire Argi Air Force. Any military confrontation won't involve bombing if cities, precision weapons will crater every air strip and sink what is left if the Argi Navy. The active military operations will be over within 48 hours, most likely without a single Brit casualty.