Martin_T Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 ...are estimated to have as much as 60 billion barrells of oil in fields to the north and south of the islands. Suddenly those barren rocks in the South Atlantic ocean don't seem so worthless after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest King Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 I thought Britain had suspected all along that the area had natural resources. Did they just find this out for definite? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin_T Posted December 2, 2009 Author Share Posted December 2, 2009 I thought Britain had suspected all along that the area had natural resources. Did they just find this out for definite? It's been known for some time, but until now it was un-economical to extract the oil. The high oil prices we are currently experiencing now make it viable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
number16 Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 They've known this for years. I remember about two years ago it was the case that oil would have to be over $200 a barrel for extraction to even be worthwhile though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig_ Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 ...are estimated to have as much as 60 billion barrells of oil in fields to the north and south of the islands. Suddenly those barren rocks in the South Atlantic ocean don't seem so worthless after all. Nice. They do a pretty decent line in fishing waters as well! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eggo Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 If theres oil and money to be made,ill be there as soon as my company moves in...yeehaa:2thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peebo Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 ...are estimated to have as much as 60 billion barrells of oil in fields to the north and south of the islands. Suddenly those barren rocks in the South Atlantic ocean don't seem so worthless after all. The thing with oil is, you've actually got to find it first... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Bill Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 If theres oil and money to be made,ill be there as soon as my company moves in...yeehaa:2thumbsup: . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grumpyjambo Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 ...are estimated to have as much as 60 billion barrells of oil in fields to the north and south of the islands. Suddenly those barren rocks in the South Atlantic ocean don't seem so worthless after all. I think that a certain South American country knew that almmost 30 years ago along with a certain UK Prime Minister. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peebo Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 I think that a certain South American country knew that almmost 30 years ago along with a certain UK Prime Minister. ...and yet oddly enough, no commercial reserves have ever been discovered there and no oil company of any real significance has taken advantage of the relative easy system governing exploration acreage. Funny old world, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 I think that a certain South American country knew that almmost 30 years ago along with a certain UK Prime Minister. I don't. If she did then why did she recall the Navy ship that was down there, which then in turn acted as a green light for the Junta to launch their invasion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Dover Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 I think you're maybe getting a bit near the special protection zone of the Antarctic down there though ? It could open a whole can of worms if firms / nations start nibbling at bits here and there ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trotter Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 I assume that although it has been known about for years maybe - there was no point mentioning it (as previously stated) it was uneconomic to recover. The oil price now isn't as high as it was a year or so ago so why is it just being mentioned now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Dover Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 I assume that although it has been known about for years maybe - there was no point mentioning it (as previously stated) it was uneconomic to recover. The oil price now isn't as high as it was a year or so ago so why is it just being mentioned now? I suppose it's because the developed sources will be diminishing and, as exploration technology improves, these resources start to come back on the radar ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peebo Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 I think you're maybe getting a bit near the special protection zone of the Antarctic down there though ?It could open a whole can of worms if firms / nations start nibbling at bits here and there ! Wouldn't be an issue-oil is produced further south. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peebo Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 I assume that although it has been known about for years maybe - there was no point mentioning it (as previously stated) it was uneconomic to recover. The oil price now isn't as high as it was a year or so ago so why is it just being mentioned now? Uneconomic, indeed, but that less to do with the current oil price...and more to do with the fact no oil has been found... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin_T Posted December 2, 2009 Author Share Posted December 2, 2009 Uneconomic, indeed, but that less to do with the current oil price...and more to do with the fact no oil has been found... http://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/MarketsAndSectors/Sectors/article/20090616/a5630054-5996-11de-bbc4-0015171400aa/Falklands-oil-dream-taking-flight.jsp Traces of oil were found in exploratory drilling in 1998. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigwull22 Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 So the 3000 locals are going to become rich, why didn't this happen in Scotland I wonder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grumpyjambo Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 I don't. If she did then why did she recall the Navy ship that was down there, which then in turn acted as a green light for the Junta to launch their invasion? I don't know why the navy was withdrawn but I remember that oil was talked about at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Comedian Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 http://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/MarketsAndSectors/Sectors/article/20090616/a5630054-5996-11de-bbc4-0015171400aa/Falklands-oil-dream-taking-flight.jsp Traces of oil were found in exploratory drilling in 1998. That they did. The North Falkland Basin. A Scottish drill rig should arrive early next year. Game on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swanyl Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 The world used 85,085,664 barrels of oil a day in 2007 it will be more now..... 60 billion or 60,000,000,000 would last just over 705 days or almost 2 years at 2007 rates.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Dover Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 Wouldn't be an issue-oil is produced further south. Fair enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 I don't know why the navy was withdrawn but I remember that oil was talked about at the time. From http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3724/is_199705/ai_n8781734/ BEYOND ENDURANCE: AN EPIC OF WHITEHALL AND THE SOUTH ATLANTIC by Nicholas Barker Leo Cooper, 19.95, pp. 244 Captain Nick Barker RN (who sadly died on 7 April at the age of 63), captain of HMS Endurance during the Falklands War, tells a convincing and enraging story of the wilful stupidity of intellectually arrogant diplomats, civil-service mandarins, admirals and politicians, and of the needless conflict and loss of life that resulted. His starting point is the 1981 Defence Review by John Nott, the then Secretary of State for Defence, which sought drastically to cut defence costs. The aim was reasonable enough, for in 1981 Britain was still carrying a proportionately much heavier defence burden than her commercial rivals, such as Germany and Japan. Nott wished to put greater emphasis on the Nato defence of Europe at the expense of `out of area' commitments. Of the three services, the Royal Navy was the least involved with Continental Europe and the most involved in global reach. It therefore seemed to Nott that it was the Navy that could most readily be shrunk. Hence his proposal to sell one of the Navy's only three carriers to Australia, as well as to cut the numbers of other types of ship. Among these was the Falklands `guardship', the Endurance, an adapted Danish Baltic trader armed with 16 AS 12 air-tosurface missiles and equipped with sophisticated electronic listening gear. Nott announced that she would be withdrawn in 1982 and not replaced. This would leave the Falkland Isles (with its population of British stock) and other British dependencies in the South Atlantic and the Antarctic to be defended by a few lightly armed Royal Marines. A clearer signal of British abdication of interest in this region could not have been sent to the Argentinians, notoriously obsessed with recovering `the Malvinas'. Monetarist economic policies applied to defence, as it was to all aspects of Government spending. As has been proven, there are some things that you simply can't measure in purely monetary terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
269miles Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 I don't. If she did then why did she recall the Navy ship that was down there, which then in turn acted as a green light for the Junta to launch their invasion? And refused the islanders requests for a decent airfield so that they weren't dependant on the Argies Oil wasn't known for sure to be in/around the islands at the times but it was strongly suspected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peebo Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 http://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/MarketsAndSectors/Sectors/article/20090616/a5630054-5996-11de-bbc4-0015171400aa/Falklands-oil-dream-taking-flight.jsp Traces of oil were found in exploratory drilling in 1998. Indeed, both Hess and Shell did drill wells resulting in oil shows in 1998. However, my general point is that the "fields" you refer to in your initial post have not yet been found, and the current prevailing oil price is not really a factor in exploration in the Falklands at the moment. The 60 billion barrel figure is absolutely ridiculous, to be honest, certainly in the way it is interpreted. That said, there is definitely potential there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peebo Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 Oil wasn't known for sure to be in/around the islands at the times but it was strongly suspected. Which is still the situation today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 And refused the islanders requests for a decent airfield so that they weren't dependant on the Argies Oil wasn't known for sure to be in/around the islands at the times but it was strongly suspected. That's as maybe, however oil was not the main driver in kicking the Argentinians off the Falklands. (if a driver at all imo) As I say, if oil was such a factor then the ship would have stayed and as you point out, a proper air facility would have been built. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deesidejambo Posted December 2, 2009 Share Posted December 2, 2009 Indeed, both Hess and Shell did drill wells resulting in oil shows in 1998. However, my general point is that the "fields" you refer to in your initial post have not yet been found, and the current prevailing oil price is not really a factor in exploration in the Falklands at the moment. The 60 billion barrel figure is absolutely ridiculous, to be honest, certainly in the way it is interpreted. That said, there is definitely potential there. Correct. There were exploration wells drilled after the war but both were dusters. The area is no longer of interest to oil companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
269miles Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 That's as maybe, however oil was not the main driver in kicking the Argentinians off the Falklands. (if a driver at all imo) As I say, if oil was such a factor then the ship would have stayed and as you point out, a proper air facility would have been built. That's correct. No one knew for sure .....I've just said that. IIRC the Islands are actually privately owned (or were) by the Coalite company. Again , IIRC , Thatcher had a minister called Edward Du Cann .....whose brother was heavily involved (a director ?) in the Coalite company. In the meantime Maggie is commandeering the QE2 and North Sea ferries to go to war. Funny how she didn't get quite so agitated when our islands in the Caribbean were being invaded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Comedian Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Correct. There were exploration wells drilled after the war but both were dusters. The area is no longer of interest to oil companies. Doesn't look like it. Nearly 400m has been invested in this venture. The wells in 98 established there was oil and gas. At the time the oil price didn't make it viable to extract. The oil price has to be high to cover drilling it, extracting it and if need be setting up a fixed platform and getting it to the shore/market from that region which given it's location will be expensive. Same deal with the Foinhaven field off the Shetlands, very deep water and more expensive to get at than the traditional fields offshore. The oil price is right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peebo Posted December 4, 2009 Share Posted December 4, 2009 Doesn't look like it. Nearly 400m has been invested in this venture. The wells in 98 established there was oil and gas. At the time the oil price didn't make it viable to extract. The oil price has to be high to cover drilling it, extracting it and if need be setting up a fixed platform and getting it to the shore/market from that region which given it's location will be expensive. Same deal with the Foinhaven field off the Shetlands, very deep water and more expensive to get at than the traditional fields offshore. The oil price is right now. Indeed a lot of money has been raised, and the companies that are there are certainly bullish. None of the big guns appear interested now, though, which is often telling and would probably suggest the potential is not quite on the scale suggested (by the Sun...for example..."Baa-rain", indeed...). A couple of decent-sized discoveries, and the explorers and their shareholders could do very nicely out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.