| The Falklands 12:26 - Sep 4 with 4361 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 15:47 - Sep 4 with 583 views | ALF |
| The Falklands on 15:38 - Sep 4 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Because with FPSO’s you can generally do small fields profitably and offload to vessels offshore. The oil majors tend to like scaled projects which is why BP are selling their North Sea assets (since future large new fields are unlikely to be licensed). The Falkland’s unlike the North Sea is very geographically isolated which means you’d need either access to S American ports, or considerable capital investment for pipelines etc.
Even small scale production is of course beneficial to such a small population, I’m just sceptical that the UK government is interested in the Falklands for that reason, given they are so anti fossil fuel. |
You missed my point, it's not the Falklands oil reserves the UK were/are interested in, it's the bigger Antarctica picture which we hold a stake in because of our Falkland Island sovereignty. |  | | |
| The Falklands on 15:47 - Sep 4 with 583 views | mellowblue |
| The Falklands on 15:25 - Sep 4 by StokieBlue |
I know that was your claim and I provided some near-peer examples to show it's not really the case even if it is your perception. It's absolutely possible for us to pay more tax as other countries do and function well.
The EU average rate for VAT is ~22% so even with regards to VAT we aren't really doing anything strange. I understand you see it as double-taxation but it's at least a taxation on specific individual consumption and not unusual.
You say we pay enough tax for a functioning society and we probably do, however we don't pay enough tax for a functioning society at the level people want and feel they are entitled to. It's not a UK specific issue, the entire western world is the same which is why everyone has such high levels of sovereign debt.
SB |
one of your peer examples is not quite so straightforward. Belgium has a very high tax take on the individual , but it is also the king of tax deducting. Including for children, mortgage payments, property maintenance even social security payments (equivalent to our NI) are also tax deductible (which does not make sense to me), cars (if paid via your company are all tax deductible. It can all add up. I say this anecdotally rather than as any sort of expert on Belgium. |  | | |
| The Falklands on 15:50 - Sep 4 with 563 views | Guthrum |
| The Falklands on 15:35 - Sep 4 by J2BLUE |
If there is no fat left to trim then we are going to have to make some very tough decisions. We cannot keep spending, adding to the debt and then paying even more interest on that debt.
Devaluation of the currency is the way I think this ends. Probably not hyperinflation but a managed decline.
I think we are going to see a massive change in how people retire in the next decade or two. |
That is at the core of the problem. Everything has been allowed to get more expensive, without national revenue increasing at the same rate. Without some sort of reset - or a significant increase in revenue - it becomes very difficult to claw our way out of the hole.
Privatisation has led to services being burdened with the expectation of investor returns, which in turn erodes investment. Higher standards of living has burdened households with increased expenses and thus wage demands. Global circumstances have had an impact. Many things. |  |
| |
| The Falklands on 15:54 - Sep 4 with 529 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| The Falklands on 15:47 - Sep 4 by ALF |
You missed my point, it's not the Falklands oil reserves the UK were/are interested in, it's the bigger Antarctica picture which we hold a stake in because of our Falkland Island sovereignty. |
But there are no legally recognised sovereignty over Antarctica, so what possible use is it? | | | |
| The Falklands on 15:55 - Sep 4 with 525 views | nodge_blue |
| 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. |
Im saying id let them have them rather than another war over them. Our limited resources need to be focused on threats from Russia. |  |
| |
| The Falklands on 15:59 - Sep 4 with 513 views | ALF |
| The Falklands on 15:54 - Sep 4 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
But there are no legally recognised sovereignty over Antarctica, so what possible use is it? |
I've not checked for many years but there used to be an understanding/pact that Antarctica could not be "spoiled" and despite being about 8000 miles away, we still have a say about what happens in Antarctica because of the close proximity of the Falklands which we do have sovereignty over. IF and it is a big if as I'm sure the "agreement" has been extended, exploration etc in Antarctica was up for discussion, we would have a say.
Just checked, and we were one of the 12 original signatories to the Antarctic Treaty Parties [Post edited 4 Sep 16:02]
| | | |
| The Falklands on 15:59 - Sep 4 with 514 views | BelsteadCav |
| The Falklands on 14:23 - Sep 4 by NthQldITFC |
What an absolute car crash of a thread. |
A good car crash like in F1 or a bad one like on the A14? | |
| |
| The Falklands on 15:59 - Sep 4 with 511 views | StokieBlue |
| The Falklands on 15:55 - Sep 4 by nodge_blue |
Im saying id let them have them rather than another war over them. Our limited resources need to be focused on threats from Russia. |
Is there a threat from Russia?
What exactly do you think they are likely to do? They are running out of soldiers against Ukraine, they have neither the resources or the ability to move into somewhere like Poland let alone the rest of Europe.
SB |  |
| Avatar - M101 - Pinwheel Galaxy |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| The Falklands on 16:05 - Sep 4 with 490 views | nodge_blue |
| The Falklands on 15:59 - Sep 4 by StokieBlue |
Is there a threat from Russia?
What exactly do you think they are likely to do? They are running out of soldiers against Ukraine, they have neither the resources or the ability to move into somewhere like Poland let alone the rest of Europe.
SB |
Id say there is. Drone attacks or harrassment like in Germany. Sabotage of cables under the sea. All of this is i would say quite likely in the next few years. Doesnt have to be soldiers. But even then, a partial incursion into the balkan states has been suggested by Western experts could happen under pretence of protecting russian speaking population. | |
| |
| The Falklands on 16:10 - Sep 4 with 464 views | StokieBlue |
| The Falklands on 16:05 - Sep 4 by nodge_blue |
Id say there is. Drone attacks or harrassment like in Germany. Sabotage of cables under the sea. All of this is i would say quite likely in the next few years. Doesnt have to be soldiers. But even then, a partial incursion into the balkan states has been suggested by Western experts could happen under pretence of protecting russian speaking population. |
Direct drone attacks on NATO countries? That would be a massive step and one Russia couldn't control. They could do harassment as you say but that hardly requires a massive military response. Land based laser systems will be deployed in the next few years to make short work of smaller numbers of drones doing that kind of thing.
That has been said about the Balkan states for ages and perhaps it was a valid point pre-Ukraine but they have gone through so much material and manpower it seems highly unlikely now.
There is a lot of noise around Russia at the moment and it doesn't seem to tally with what they seem to actually be capable of with conventional weapons.
I guess we will see what happens.
SB | |
| Avatar - M101 - Pinwheel Galaxy |
| |
| The Falklands on 16:12 - Sep 4 with 449 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| The Falklands on 15:59 - Sep 4 by ALF |
I've not checked for many years but there used to be an understanding/pact that Antarctica could not be "spoiled" and despite being about 8000 miles away, we still have a say about what happens in Antarctica because of the close proximity of the Falklands which we do have sovereignty over. IF and it is a big if as I'm sure the "agreement" has been extended, exploration etc in Antarctica was up for discussion, we would have a say.
Just checked, and we were one of the 12 original signatories to the Antarctic Treaty Parties [Post edited 4 Sep 16:02]
|
Hmm feels a bit rabbit-holey at this point. Maybe some in power might think that way, but the reality is that ‘treaty’ is neither legally binding, nor recognised by the UN or most other countries outside of it. I don’t foresee anybody committing huge amounts of capital to any mineral or oil projects in a disputed territory.
I guess it’s all moot at the end of the day, because Argentina have neither the money nor resources to really threaten the Falklands (likely no intention either). Trump is just blowing out hot air because he has the @rseache we didn’t back him in a conflict he can’t end. | | | |
| The Falklands on 16:12 - Sep 4 with 449 views | giant_stow |
| The Falklands on 15:59 - Sep 4 by StokieBlue |
Is there a threat from Russia?
What exactly do you think they are likely to do? They are running out of soldiers against Ukraine, they have neither the resources or the ability to move into somewhere like Poland let alone the rest of Europe.
SB |
Sorry to but in, but they don't have to invade to attack us, either via cyber attacks, infrastructure (sea cables) or even the odd missile if really in a corner (which they might be). That goes for the rest of Europe too - the recent / maybe ongoing stuff around Kalingrad puts that into focus innit? |  |
| |
| The Falklands on 16:14 - Sep 4 with 446 views | J2BLUE |
| The Falklands on 16:10 - Sep 4 by StokieBlue |
Direct drone attacks on NATO countries? That would be a massive step and one Russia couldn't control. They could do harassment as you say but that hardly requires a massive military response. Land based laser systems will be deployed in the next few years to make short work of smaller numbers of drones doing that kind of thing.
That has been said about the Balkan states for ages and perhaps it was a valid point pre-Ukraine but they have gone through so much material and manpower it seems highly unlikely now.
There is a lot of noise around Russia at the moment and it doesn't seem to tally with what they seem to actually be capable of with conventional weapons.
I guess we will see what happens.
SB |
It does seem very odd that people think they can risk taking on NATO when Ukraine are destroying more of their equipment and taking out more of their soldiers by the day. |  | | |
| The Falklands on 16:16 - Sep 4 with 433 views | ALF |
| The Falklands on 16:12 - Sep 4 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Hmm feels a bit rabbit-holey at this point. Maybe some in power might think that way, but the reality is that ‘treaty’ is neither legally binding, nor recognised by the UN or most other countries outside of it. I don’t foresee anybody committing huge amounts of capital to any mineral or oil projects in a disputed territory.
I guess it’s all moot at the end of the day, because Argentina have neither the money nor resources to really threaten the Falklands (likely no intention either). Trump is just blowing out hot air because he has the @rseache we didn’t back him in a conflict he can’t end. |
Completely agree, Argentina seeing an opportunity and stirring the pot! No way Trump is going to get involved or even "back a side" - just rhetoric cos he can't get his own way. He says the UK didn't help with Iran but strange how a couple of B1s fly over my house (in Swindon) most days this week and over the summer. At times I'm not sure Trump even knows what he's saying or why! There's more chance of Trump going to war over the Falklands than Argentina. | | | |
| The Falklands on 16:20 - Sep 4 with 410 views | Billywitch |
| The Falklands on 16:12 - Sep 4 by giant_stow |
Sorry to but in, but they don't have to invade to attack us, either via cyber attacks, infrastructure (sea cables) or even the odd missile if really in a corner (which they might be). That goes for the rest of Europe too - the recent / maybe ongoing stuff around Kalingrad puts that into focus innit? |
Sea cables would be incredibly easy to go for, considering there is a website that maps them all out across the globe | | | |
| The Falklands on 16:25 - Sep 4 with 384 views | StokieBlue |
| The Falklands on 16:12 - Sep 4 by giant_stow |
Sorry to but in, but they don't have to invade to attack us, either via cyber attacks, infrastructure (sea cables) or even the odd missile if really in a corner (which they might be). That goes for the rest of Europe too - the recent / maybe ongoing stuff around Kalingrad puts that into focus innit? |
So the first 2 don't really require military responses so are outside the scope of what he was discussing. They could certainly happen but it's not something that will have a massive military response.
I struggle to see any scenarios where a Russian missile gets near the UK.
What do you think they are going to do from Kaliningrad? It's performative for their news agencies to promote to the populace. They simply don't have the manpower at the moment to realistically trouble the more advanced European militaries and every country bordering Kaliningrad is a NATO member.
SB | |
| Avatar - M101 - Pinwheel Galaxy |
| |
| The Falklands on 16:41 - Sep 4 with 350 views | lurcher |
| The Falklands on 14:52 - Sep 4 by StokieBlue |
Are you sure?
Firstly no guarantee that the wells will be commercially drilled and secondly the taxation on the resources goes to the Falklands government, not the UK government from my understanding.
SB |
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. |  | | |
| The Falklands on 16:42 - Sep 4 with 346 views | giant_stow |
| The Falklands on 16:25 - Sep 4 by StokieBlue |
So the first 2 don't really require military responses so are outside the scope of what he was discussing. They could certainly happen but it's not something that will have a massive military response.
I struggle to see any scenarios where a Russian missile gets near the UK.
What do you think they are going to do from Kaliningrad? It's performative for their news agencies to promote to the populace. They simply don't have the manpower at the moment to realistically trouble the more advanced European militaries and every country bordering Kaliningrad is a NATO member.
SB |
The first 2 might well require military defense and deterrence. (also while walking to shop just now, I remembered a third in drones, as per whats just happened in Germany).
Agree that missiles are unlikely, but not impossible and I believe that bar a few destroyers, we basically have no missile defense capability? And on this, we don;t just have to worry about Russia - there's Iran and North Korea too.
I hope you're right about Kaliningrad, but if there was that much confidence in NATO about it not being threat, why did they apparently throw so many resources at defense in the last couple of weeks? I could hav been reading the wrong sources (easily!), but I saw that one point 10 days ago or so there were over 50 NATO warplanes in the sky above there. | |
| |
| The Falklands on 16:53 - Sep 4 with 310 views | StokieBlue |
| 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. |
I'm not sure that's correct. Rockhopper may be a British company but it would have to pay royalties to the Falklands government not the UK government (9%) and corporation tax to the Falklands government (26%). The amount of oil they are realistically going to be able to extract isn't going to make the difference you stated:
"The future prosperity of the UK is heavily dependant on retaining the islands."
That would need an incredible amount of infrastructure and as other posters have pointed out, unless that is on the mainland, probably Argentina then it seems unlikely to happen at scale.
Guess we will see over the next few decades but we should also be considering whether "exploiting" the region is what we want to do.
SB | |
| Avatar - M101 - Pinwheel Galaxy |
| |
| The Falklands on 17:11 - Sep 4 with 273 views | lurcher |
| The Falklands on 16:53 - Sep 4 by StokieBlue |
I'm not sure that's correct. Rockhopper may be a British company but it would have to pay royalties to the Falklands government not the UK government (9%) and corporation tax to the Falklands government (26%). The amount of oil they are realistically going to be able to extract isn't going to make the difference you stated:
"The future prosperity of the UK is heavily dependant on retaining the islands."
That would need an incredible amount of infrastructure and as other posters have pointed out, unless that is on the mainland, probably Argentina then it seems unlikely to happen at scale.
Guess we will see over the next few decades but we should also be considering whether "exploiting" the region is what we want to do.
SB |
Rockhopper will pay royalties to the falklands government but its listed on the UK stock exchange and pays tax back in the UK. Like oil workers all of its staff will pay tax in the country in which they are employed.
The infrastructure will develop slowly, then we will see something akin to a gold rush. Argentina claims the islands and huge swathes of the UKs Antarctic claim. Both their claims are completely bogus. The UK will defend its territory in the south Atlantic to ensure that all of the commercial activity flows through the Falklands and British companies.
The sea lion field currently being drilled is shy of about 2 billion barrels.
The British claim in the Antarctic is over 500 billion barrels.
We will see the population of the islands explode in the next 50 years. Generating huge volumes of business for the UK. The UK has been quietly investing in the south Atlantic for some time. RAF mount pleasant on the Falklands was built in the 80s and has been routinely upgraded ever since we have also built a runway on St Helena. | | | |
| The Falklands on 17:15 - Sep 4 with 264 views | GlasgowBlue |
| The Falklands on 16:10 - Sep 4 by StokieBlue |
Direct drone attacks on NATO countries? That would be a massive step and one Russia couldn't control. They could do harassment as you say but that hardly requires a massive military response. Land based laser systems will be deployed in the next few years to make short work of smaller numbers of drones doing that kind of thing.
That has been said about the Balkan states for ages and perhaps it was a valid point pre-Ukraine but they have gone through so much material and manpower it seems highly unlikely now.
There is a lot of noise around Russia at the moment and it doesn't seem to tally with what they seem to actually be capable of with conventional weapons.
I guess we will see what happens.
SB |
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/art |  |
| |
| The Falklands on 17:17 - Sep 4 with 258 views | StokieBlue |
| The Falklands on 17:11 - Sep 4 by lurcher |
Rockhopper will pay royalties to the falklands government but its listed on the UK stock exchange and pays tax back in the UK. Like oil workers all of its staff will pay tax in the country in which they are employed.
The infrastructure will develop slowly, then we will see something akin to a gold rush. Argentina claims the islands and huge swathes of the UKs Antarctic claim. Both their claims are completely bogus. The UK will defend its territory in the south Atlantic to ensure that all of the commercial activity flows through the Falklands and British companies.
The sea lion field currently being drilled is shy of about 2 billion barrels.
The British claim in the Antarctic is over 500 billion barrels.
We will see the population of the islands explode in the next 50 years. Generating huge volumes of business for the UK. The UK has been quietly investing in the south Atlantic for some time. RAF mount pleasant on the Falklands was built in the 80s and has been routinely upgraded ever since we have also built a runway on St Helena. |
I just don't see it.
I can't see any UK government allowing the extraction of 500 billion barrels from the Antarctic. That's approximately twice the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia.
Sounds like wishful thinking than an actual reality. The pushback against something like that would be absolutely huge.
SB | |
| Avatar - M101 - Pinwheel Galaxy |
| |
| The Falklands on 17:29 - Sep 4 with 228 views | lurcher |
| The Falklands on 17:17 - Sep 4 by StokieBlue |
I just don't see it.
I can't see any UK government allowing the extraction of 500 billion barrels from the Antarctic. That's approximately twice the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia.
Sounds like wishful thinking than an actual reality. The pushback against something like that would be absolutely huge.
SB |
Oil is finite, where are we going to get it from when the middle east runs dry? We might not have the same dependency on it for fuel. bBut it's vital for so many other things
The Madrid protocol currently forbids the drilling of oil in Antartica. That is reviewed in 2048.
The US and Russia are already getting going on the Arctic.
Of course it will be drilled from the South Atlantic first.
In the next few years the Falklands will become far less remote and very important the future prosperity of the UK. 500 billion barrels is quite a wealth fund | | | |
| The Falklands on 17:34 - Sep 4 with 209 views | NthQldITFC |
| The Falklands on 17:17 - Sep 4 by StokieBlue |
I just don't see it.
I can't see any UK government allowing the extraction of 500 billion barrels from the Antarctic. That's approximately twice the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia.
Sounds like wishful thinking than an actual reality. The pushback against something like that would be absolutely huge.
SB |
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. |  |
| |
| The Falklands on 17:36 - Sep 4 with 197 views | StokieBlue |
| The Falklands on 17:29 - Sep 4 by lurcher |
Oil is finite, where are we going to get it from when the middle east runs dry? We might not have the same dependency on it for fuel. bBut it's vital for so many other things
The Madrid protocol currently forbids the drilling of oil in Antartica. That is reviewed in 2048.
The US and Russia are already getting going on the Arctic.
Of course it will be drilled from the South Atlantic first.
In the next few years the Falklands will become far less remote and very important the future prosperity of the UK. 500 billion barrels is quite a wealth fund |
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 | |
| Avatar - M101 - Pinwheel Galaxy |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
