| The Falklands 12:26 - Sep 4 with 5247 views | BelsteadCav |
A lot of sabre rattling by Argentina this morning, especially now as it looks like Trump is getting involved.
Our Armed forces are in a mess at the moment, the government have even cancelled training, trying to save 30m, which is a drop in the ocean. If we can’t spend 30m on training we are in a lot of trouble.
I know Argentina are in a worse state than us, but would Trump give them weapons and planes?
Because after all, he loves oil and it looks like we’ve found a massive oil field out there.
I know we have 4 Euro fighters down there, and over a 1000 soldiers, but it’s still a worry. We definitely couldn’t get a task force ready, every single submarine we have is in fas lane at the moment for repairs. Same for most of the navy.
Worrying times, but hey are new Prime minister likes oasis [Post edited 4 Sep 13:20]
|  |
| |  |
| The Falklands on 17:38 - Sep 4 with 776 views | lurcher |
| The Falklands on 17:34 - Sep 4 by NthQldITFC |
It also insane when you take a wider view, of course, and if anybody thinks that the global situation in 50 years time (or say, 20 years) will be anything like a stablish development from where we are now, I'd suggest that they're absolutely barking. |
Resources are finite. Countries and alliances will fight tooth and nail over them. |  | | |
| The Falklands on 17:48 - Sep 4 with 759 views | lurcher |
| The Falklands on 17:36 - Sep 4 by StokieBlue |
We will see, you're obviously knowledgeable on the subject but I can't see the public going for that level of extraction, you're essentially writing off the Antarctic environment which will be a step too far for many.
If we are still desperate for another source with 500 billion barrels of oil in the 2050's then something has gone horribly wrong.
Many things are made from oil based product but that doesn't mean they have to be, plenty of time to come up with alternatives.
It would be interesting to hear what our poster who lives on the Falklands thinks of this vision.
SB |
I think the world will be a very different place in say 50 years.
I hate to say it but self preservation and selfishness will go through the roof as things run out.
It would be great if he chipped in. Currently they have seriously restricted immigration on the island to put a plan in place for the rapid growth. The Israeli company who have just started drilling are throwing up lots of facilities.
The whole oil thing has bumbled on for years. Many have said its not profitable and the oil is too viscous. But time has moved on and the tech exists to extract it. We look to be on the cusp of a real economic explosion. | | | |
| The Falklands on 17:51 - Sep 4 with 748 views | Benters |
| The Falklands on 12:57 - Sep 4 by Billywitch |
That opening sentence is more concerning than anything. If he wasn't an MP up until a few month ago, what gives him the necessary credentials to be the PM. |
That is a very good point! |  |
| |
| The Falklands on 17:56 - Sep 4 with 731 views | MattinLondon |
| The Falklands on 12:57 - Sep 4 by Billywitch |
That opening sentence is more concerning than anything. If he wasn't an MP up until a few month ago, what gives him the necessary credentials to be the PM. |
He become an MP (and previously has been a MP holding high office) and his fellow Labour MPs elected him PM. [Post edited 4 Sep 17:57]
|  | | |
| The Falklands on 18:14 - Sep 4 with 706 views | armchaircritic59 |
| The Falklands on 12:31 - Sep 4 by nodge_blue |
Argentians are largely Spanish colonialists who should consider moving back to Spain and returning the country to the native South Americans if you follow their own arguments about the islands.
That said, it's not worth another conflict. Id let them have the islands. |
Yep, there's only a few reasons we're there, and non of them are for the undying love of it's inhabitants, all political ones, nothing else. Easiest thing to do would be to share it. They get 50% more than they've got now, and we still keep our presence. Not going to happen of course, because as we know, politicians are largely numbskulls. |  | | |
| The Falklands on 18:29 - Sep 4 with 680 views | The_Romford_Blue |
| The Falklands on 15:15 - Sep 4 by Guthrum |
Cut spending from where, however? What fat is there left to trim?
Not allowing people to legally challenge stuff would save the government a vast sum - but is a slippery slope when it comes to holding them to account.
Reducing vital services has its own knock-on effects (e.g. reduction in mental health provision has increased the burden upon both policing and the NHS).
We could save quite a bit on in-work benefits by forcing employers to pay better wages at the lowest levels, but that might merely result in increasing unemployment.
The only real solution is increasing revenue. Which requires either a massive renaissance in business and trade in the UK, or ways of extracting more money from the economy.
Edit: Or massive devaluation of the currency. Which carries a whole raft of consequences. [Post edited 4 Sep 15:17]
|
Legal appeals. Let’s start with trimming that.
If someone is convicted, I find it staggering they can appeal a million times purely to waste everyone’s time. Let them appeal once. But that’s it. Not years of appealing using taxpayers money. |  |
| |
| The Falklands on 18:34 - Sep 4 with 663 views | redrickstuhaart |
| The Falklands on 18:29 - Sep 4 by The_Romford_Blue |
Legal appeals. Let’s start with trimming that.
If someone is convicted, I find it staggering they can appeal a million times purely to waste everyone’s time. Let them appeal once. But that’s it. Not years of appealing using taxpayers money. |
You can't
Crown Court- Court of Appeal - Supreme Court (if a specific point of law or general public importance- and permission required.) |  |
| |
| The Falklands on 18:36 - Sep 4 with 654 views | GlasgowBlue |
| The Falklands on 18:34 - Sep 4 by redrickstuhaart |
You can't
Crown Court- Court of Appeal - Supreme Court (if a specific point of law or general public importance- and permission required.) |
Evidence!! |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| The Falklands on 19:21 - Sep 4 with 611 views | armchaircritic59 |
| The Falklands on 12:57 - Sep 4 by GlasgowBlue |
Shall we let them have Ipswich as well? The people on the Island, including one of our own posters, is as British as you or I. Why should we just let them have it? They never had it to start with. |
Neither did we. | | | |
| The Falklands on 19:28 - Sep 4 with 606 views | armchaircritic59 |
| The Falklands on 14:48 - Sep 4 by lurcher |
Possession of the islands. Comes with access to huge amounts of oil and gas. Both in the south atlantic and on antartica. The future prosperity of the UK is heavily dependant on retaining the islands. |
So, what right do you think we have to continue to possess it? It was never ours to start with, a few bits of rock 300 miles off the Argentinian coast and 8,000 miles from the UK. It's a hangover from when " Britain ruled the waves " and half the world. Most certainly does neither now. | | | |
| The Falklands on 19:30 - Sep 4 with 604 views | Swansea_Blue |
Uppy for accuracy. The islanders are British now though, so what to do? Maybe we could tow the islands to the UK and send the Argies Kent in exchange? [Post edited 4 Sep 19:31]
|  |
| |
| The Falklands on 19:33 - Sep 4 with 592 views | GlasgowBlue |
British captain John Strong made the first recorded landing on the islands in 1690, finding them completely uninhabited. | |
| |
| The Falklands on 19:35 - Sep 4 with 591 views | Swansea_Blue |
| The Falklands on 19:33 - Sep 4 by GlasgowBlue |
British captain John Strong made the first recorded landing on the islands in 1690, finding them completely uninhabited. |
Recorded. Facters may have been there earlier for all we know. | |
| |
| The Falklands on 19:41 - Sep 4 with 575 views | GlasgowBlue |
| The Falklands on 19:28 - Sep 4 by armchaircritic59 |
So, what right do you think we have to continue to possess it? It was never ours to start with, a few bits of rock 300 miles off the Argentinian coast and 8,000 miles from the UK. It's a hangover from when " Britain ruled the waves " and half the world. Most certainly does neither now. |
You raise an interesting argument. East Jerusalem was never Palestinian to start with. Are you suggesting they hand it back to the original inhabitants? | |
| |
| The Falklands on 00:13 - Sep 5 with 482 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| The Falklands on 19:28 - Sep 4 by armchaircritic59 |
So, what right do you think we have to continue to possess it? It was never ours to start with, a few bits of rock 300 miles off the Argentinian coast and 8,000 miles from the UK. It's a hangover from when " Britain ruled the waves " and half the world. Most certainly does neither now. |
So, what right do you think the Argentinians have to continue to process Argentina. It’s a hangover from when Spain ruled the waves, most certainly doesn’t now.
#ArgentinaForTheIndigenous | | | |
| The Falklands on 00:27 - Sep 5 with 473 views | redrickstuhaart |
| The Falklands on 19:28 - Sep 4 by armchaircritic59 |
So, what right do you think we have to continue to possess it? It was never ours to start with, a few bits of rock 300 miles off the Argentinian coast and 8,000 miles from the UK. It's a hangover from when " Britain ruled the waves " and half the world. Most certainly does neither now. |
The fact that the people who have lived there for a very long time want us to. | |
| |
| The Falklands on 03:47 - Sep 5 with 420 views | Clapham_Junction |
| The Falklands on 15:08 - Sep 4 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
You missed the key word there ‘scale’. The capacity will only be a few thousand barrels a day, even the North Sea which has long peaked for production is producing half a billion barrels a day.
There simply isn’t the infrastructure or investment for it to be a significant exporter in the near future. You need huge ports for offloading, pipelines, refining and storage which is why they need the mainland S America, and is why none of the oil majors are involved or committing significant capital to it. [Post edited 4 Sep 15:09]
|
There will be no significant onshore infrastructure needed for the Falklands oil developments and no pipelines - the crude will be collected in an FPSO and offloaded into tankers at sea and taken directly to refineries all around the world.
Production from the first phase will be around 55,000 barrels per day and the operators have just bought a new FPSO for the next phase that will be an additional 125,000 barrels per day. |  | | |
| The Falklands on 03:49 - Sep 5 with 419 views | Clapham_Junction |
| The Falklands on 16:41 - Sep 4 by lurcher |
Yes.
Navitas Petroleum have just started the first commercial drilling operation in the British administered north Falkland basin. Which is partly why Argentina are getting upset.
Rockhopper owns the exclusivity of the basin and grants licences to drill, rockhopper is British and pays British taxes as does it workers. The islands will only allow British companies to survey their land and water.
Only Falklands residents and local companies pay taxes to the islands. Currently the UK covers defence, the intention is for the islands to pick up all of that defence cost as things get going.
There is quite a bit of oil and gas in the south Atlantic. The islands are granite and contain allot of precious metals. The longer term intention is that the developed islands are perfectly placed exploit the whole of the south Atlantic and the Antarctic. |
Pretty much entirely incorrect.
Drilling has not yet started.
The basin is administered by the Falkland Islands government, not the UK
Rockhopper do not own the basin (they are a minority partner).
The Government grants licences to drill.
Any company operating in the Falklands pays tax here (and this will include the oil licensees once production starts).
Not all the oil licensees here are British.
The islands are not granite. [Post edited 5 Sep 4:09]
| | | |
| The Falklands on 04:43 - Sep 5 with 393 views | NewcyBlue |
| The Falklands on 13:41 - Sep 4 by BelsteadCav |
Well that’s good to hear
In this day and age I think we should be spending more on our troops not less |
This is the problem with social media. You weighed in with an opinion that you hadn't fully verified.
Your assertions were incorrect, Guthers pointed out that the non essential training would be shelved and drone warfare and anti drone tactics, plus other lessons from Ukraine would still be going ahead.
The Falklands by BelsteadCav 4 Sep 12:54I’m guessing it was his idea for the Armed forces to stop training 🤷🏼♂️
We’re constantly told to worry about Russia as well, But stand down lads we can’t afford for you to do your job.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss
It's not just you. It's a whole section of the population that will take what scum like Lowe and Farage say as gospel. They could tell me that the sky was blue and I'd look out the window to check.
I can tell you from my observations around China/Japan/Korea/Taiwan/Philippines is that there is a lot more activity from not only those countries naval forces, but their air forces too.
Compared to 10 years ago, it's a massive increase out there. How much of that is posturing and protection of territorial seas up to their respective EEZs I don't know. Chinese naval vessels have certainly been farther out than expected. |  |
| |
| The Falklands on 06:28 - Sep 5 with 358 views | lurcher |
| The Falklands on 19:28 - Sep 4 by armchaircritic59 |
So, what right do you think we have to continue to possess it? It was never ours to start with, a few bits of rock 300 miles off the Argentinian coast and 8,000 miles from the UK. It's a hangover from when " Britain ruled the waves " and half the world. Most certainly does neither now. |
The islands were claimed by the UK long before Argentina existed. It was an empty uninhabited island. Argentina have fabricated a false history and created a nonsense claim.
There is a phenomenal amount of mineral wealth under the peat of the island. Under the sea around it and under the British Antarctic claim
Why should we give that up? | | | |
| The Falklands on 06:31 - Sep 5 with 355 views | Benters |
| The Falklands on 06:28 - Sep 5 by lurcher |
The islands were claimed by the UK long before Argentina existed. It was an empty uninhabited island. Argentina have fabricated a false history and created a nonsense claim.
There is a phenomenal amount of mineral wealth under the peat of the island. Under the sea around it and under the British Antarctic claim
Why should we give that up? |
Spot on. | |
| |
| The Falklands on 07:18 - Sep 5 with 329 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| The Falklands on 03:47 - Sep 5 by Clapham_Junction |
There will be no significant onshore infrastructure needed for the Falklands oil developments and no pipelines - the crude will be collected in an FPSO and offloaded into tankers at sea and taken directly to refineries all around the world.
Production from the first phase will be around 55,000 barrels per day and the operators have just bought a new FPSO for the next phase that will be an additional 125,000 barrels per day. |
Yes, all small numbers in the E&P industry which was my point. At its peak it will be less than a fifth of the UK sector of the North Sea (which in itself is losing interest from the major operators). As I said before FPSO’s will limit the capacity, to scale up they’d need far more infrastructure and capital investment.
I’m not sure why people keep pushing back on this a peak of 125k barrels a day wouldn’t even put the Falklands in the top 40 oil producers in the world… | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
