The Falkland Islands, a British windswept archipelago in the southern Atlantic off the coast of Argentina, last had its moment in the media spotlight three decades ago, when the two nations fought a brief but vicious conflict after Buenos Aires invaded the islands, providing a PR boost to Argentina's ruling junta.
But, Argentina lost, and the 11-week conflict claimed more than 900 lives, leaving Britain in control of the islands.
UK analytical firm Edison Investment Research is now reporting that the Falklands' oil industry could potentially be worth $180 billion in royalties and taxes, news that has reignited the smoldering diplomatic dispute between London and Buenos Aires.
On December 13th British-based oil and gas exploration company Rockhopper Exploration Plc announced that a new well proved its Sea Lion field 80 miles off the Falklands coast is bigger than expected, and is now projecting that it could recover as much as 430 million barrels of crude from its Sea Lion concession, 80 miles off the Falklands coast. The announcement encouraged other firms prospecting in the Falklands' offshore waters, most notably Borders and Southern Plc and Falkland Oil and Gas Ltd.
Since Rockhopper Exploration Plc's announcement, Britain has moved a number of naval units into the Falklands' waters, prompting on February 16th Argentina's Foreign Ministry to issue a communique commenting on the alleged "militarization of the South Atlantic" after the United Kingdom "sent a destroyer, a nuclear submarine and a prince" to the Falklands, demanding that London "report on the presence of a nuclear submarine in an area that is free of nuclear weapons" before concluding that their presence would constitute a violation of international treaties.
Argentinean policy over the disputed island chain has both a domestic and diplomatic context. On February 16th Argentinean Foreign Minister Hector Timerman officially accepted the UN General Assembly's offer to mediate between Argentina and Britain on the Falklands, stating that, "Argentina accepts the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's offer to provide his good offices and if Britain accepts them too then we are on the right path; the path to a diplomatic solution, which is what Argentina wants."
But, being a democracy, not all Argentineans support their government's current policy on the "Malvinas," as the Falklands are known in Argentina. On 16 February La Nacion, a conservative newspaper frequently critical of governmental policy and Argentina's second highest-circulation daily published a crucial commentary by Vicente Palermo on the "political maze" of the Falklands where he noted first that the chances of a change in stance on the part of the United Kingdom are very low and that successive Argentinean governments have done very little to win the islanders over, preferring to resort to "a policy of harassment and isolation," which in the end will merely serve to empower the Falklanders' lobby in Britain.
Even worse, earlier this month Catholic Bishop Jose Maria Arancedo called for the Argentinean claim to the Falkland Islands not to be used as a political issue.
Further losing the PR campaign at home, the previous day Buenos Aires' Clarin newspaper reported on the police repression of a protest by former Falklands War conscripts in the capital, which the General Workers Union leader Hugo Moyano said marked a new trend in government policy.
The fact that Argentinean military conscripts lost their battle two decades ago against British military forces has made them in the eyes of many Argentineans unworthy of consideration. Commenting on the fact, another Clarin editorial by Eduardo van der Kooy noted the "government's ability to create its own problems, even where they do not exist," citing the Falkland Islands as an example, since President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner's recent actions on the matter had made veterans of the war feel used and betrayed after they were not invited to the Presidential residence Casa Rosada for her speech on the Malvinas and remained dissatisfied by subsequent pronouncements on the subject.
On the plus side for Argentina, it has received backing from fellow Latin American countries, which have announced that they will not allow ships flying the Falklands flag to dock in their ports.
And if push comes to shove and military operations occur again, Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez, speaking last week at a meeting of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA) told journalists, "If it should occur to the British Empire to attack Argentina militarily, Argentina won't be alone this time. Venezuela is no power, but we've got some weapons, and the will to face any imperialist aggression."
More ominously for Britain and the United States, on February 10th, except for Washington, the 34-nation Organization of American States (OAS), the entire hemispheric community minus Cuba, backed Argentina's claim to the Falklands.
Buenos Aires is watching. On February 17th the Argentinean newspaper Ambito Financiero, citing confidential sources, reported that the Bahamian-flagged oil exploration rig The Leiv Eiriksson platform, contracted by Borders and Southern Plc and Falkland Oil and Gas Ltd and prospecting Falklands waters alongside Rockhopper Exploration Plc's Ocean Guardian oil rig, "was found, on 16 February, to be exploring in Argentine waters," according to "irrefutable" satellite images.
In such a context, will Britain and the U.S. be willing to alienate the entire Western Hemisphere south of the Rio Grande on behalf of roughly 3,000 sheep herders?
Given the potential for conflict and Argentina's determination not to let the issue slide, one can only hope that Rockhopper Exploration Plc's along with Borders and Southern Plc and Falkland Oil and Gas Ltd offshore explorations come up dry and, if not, wonder how far Britain is willing to go to retain its control.
Cross posted with Oilprice.com
John C.K Daly is the chief analyst at the energy news site Oilprice.com. Dr. Daly received his Ph.D. in 1986 from the School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University of London.
Follow Oilprice.com on Twitter @OilandEnergy and join us on Facebook.
To stay on top of important articles and research with our free private members service, sign up to the Oilprice.com Intelligence Report here.
Follow John C.K. Daly on Twitter: www.twitter.com/oilandenergy
Argentine intellectuals brand president Cristina Kirchner's Falkland Islands ...
Cristina Kirchner told to leave Falkland Islanders alone, by Argentina's ...
Argentina-Britain Falklands Dispute Could Affect US$1.4 Billion Bilateral Trade
Falklands factor to Summer Youth Olympics bidding as Glasgow prepares to take ...
Falklands' Desire Petroleum participating at North American Prospect Expo in ...
Falkland Islands: What are the competing claims?
I don't recall that the Argentinian attacks on places like Bluff Cove were anything but brutal, so I'm afraid, Matas, that history doesn't support your reassurances, which is why, this time, we're making sure it doesn't happen again.
As for Cristina, maybe all her noise is to distract the Argentine electorate from her dismal performance. Perhaps the solution is for the Argentinians to elect a leader who can get their country functioning better without the need for such distractions.
In the mean time, Argentina has shown itself to be unworthy to govern The Falklands - with Cristina's anti-British rhetoric, would any sane Falkland Islander vote to be governed by her? Argentina has forfeited any rights over the islands that it may have believed it had.
For 160 billion dollars of Tax revenues. Well let met think about that for a second, hell yeah,. An I am pretty sure the US will always choose the UK to pump that oil than some South American country.
An the UK will go far enough that every military installation Argentina will be nothing more than a crater and the Argentinian navy will make lovely new reefs at the bottom of the ocean.
An Oil already been found, about 500 million barrels worth.
All of our other submarines are nuclear powered and heavily armed, and are more than capable of teach Argentinian navy forces a lesson or two, as they did in 1982, if they decide to go on any military adventures near the islands.
An I should state the current type 45 destroyers have yet to be defeated by US military forces in war games (even detecting, targeted and destroy stealth aircraft long before the prose a threat to it), the US as since requested that future war games its radars powered down to a less effective level to make the games fair.
They have more than enough fire power on board to send every fast attack air craft pilot in South America to their graves or a POW camp if they are picked up by Prince William in his search and Rescue helicopter.
The Islands are under the protection of UK and will remain so until the population decide other wise.
The sea around the Falklands should not be drilled anyway, we need to get off fossil fuels, not dig up more!
If they were to drill any profits should go to make life easier for the Falklanders that live there rather than to merely enrich corporate boardrooms 3000 miles away.
PS: one factión of veterans was in the speech of the president, the ones that was repressed are the ones that didnt move out of the patagonia during the conflict, this is still wrong for me; and this frase "The fact that Argentinean military conscripts lost their battle two decades ago against British military forces has made them in the eyes of many Argentineans unworthy of consideration" is just bullsh...
I hope so. As to the British, one does not simply leave one's citizens to their fate when a foreign country seizes your territory. You fight for it.
For the US, the British are, and have been for many years, our greatest ally. And there no possible justification for Argentine action against the British. The Falklands are British. We should support the British in every way possible.
You correctly say that one should not watch other nations to "seize your territory". But this is exactly what the British did when they first invaded Malvinas (hence the Spanish name!) kicking out their Argentine Governor and settlers in 1833.
And now Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner is playing the "Malvinas card" once again, to distract attention from her failed government.
In view of all this, hasn't Argentina rather lost any cedibility as a suitable guardian of the Falklands and its population of British descent?
Maybe Cristina plans to follow Galtieri's example, then use the islands to dump all those Argentinians who oppose her.
Clearly, if there wasn't any oil in the area, Cristina and her cronies wouldn't give two figs for the Falklands.
Although I hope it doesn't come to violence, I say increase the defences and prepare to repel boarders!
As the rest of the article made abundantly clear the question should be “will Britain and the U.S. be willing to alienate the entire Western Hemisphere south of the Rio Grande on behalf of roughly 430 million barrels of crude and $180 billion in royalties and taxes for starters?” And just how ‘alienated’ are these South American countries going to be - they have zero political or financial gain from supporting Britain verbally and zero loss in supporting Argentina verbally.
Falklanders do not want to be part of Argentina. And now they are going to be millionaires from the oil.
This is a greedy overreach by Buenos Aires.
And I would be surprised if most of the money goes to sheepherders, It will mostly go to the oil cos, obviously.
Incidentally, I agree with your slogan. Cap welfare benefits so it's not given to beyond what it takes to support two kids: End corporate welfare!
More "don't blame the victim whining". Please go back to the 1970s. Argentina is a terribly mismanaged state, largely due to the same people (Argentinian politicians) who whine about colonialism.
>And I would be surprised if most of the money goes to sheepherders, It will mostly go to the oil cos, obviously.
Why not buy some stock and find out?
>Incidentally, I agree with your slogan. Cap welfare benefits so it's not given to beyond what it takes to support two kids: End corporate welfare!
I support eliminating corporate welfare and preventing social welfare from promoting the exponential growth of the dependancy class.
What the hell has it got to do with the U.S. and YES as long as they wish to remain British.
The last time the Argentinians invaded there were 57 Marines on the the main island now there is a substantial British force with excellent air and naval support. I doubt the Argentinian military want to be sent on another suicide mission.
Think of it as your inventory, small biz person.
Is this august institution one that anyone would take seriously?