Oil and gas found in Falkland waters

Last month, renewed and more extensive exploration funded by higher oil prices has resulted in oil and gas deposits equal to that of the ME extending east out from the Falklands islands, some of which are expoitable from the Falklands but the rest needing offshore rigs for exploitation.

What happens?
 

NapoleonXIV

Banned
England gets sort of first go because they will have the only facility in the area that can load the Supertankers. Even the Oil from the High Seas rigs will have to be piped there. Probably some sort of offshore thing at Port Stanley England and US are main beneficiaries.

Greenpeace and other environmentalists will go nuts but such large deposits coming just now in an area far out of sight would pretty much override these concerns.

This assumes these wells to be pumping Sweet crude from less than a mile deep and mostly on seamounts or shallows.
 
oil deposits equal to that of the ME?! Well, you can bet that the US will be first in line to buy it... that's our magical ticket out of the ME morass of politics. The US will happily abandon the area, and let China, India, and Japan have the ME oil, and all the problems that go with it...
 
So all that money the UK spent to take back and thereafter support the Falklands may not have been wasted.

Anyone know what the UK will gain from this?

I guess like the Shetlanders, the Falkland Islanders may find an oil boom is a mixed blessing.
 

WFHermans

Banned
I think even the Yankees under George W.Bush won't dare to grab the Falklands under some pretext from the British.

It could lead to some interesting scheme with Argentina receiving money from an oil company to build up an army, navy and airforce to kick the British out, in exchange for mining rights.
 
mishery said:
So all that money the UK spent to take back and thereafter support the Falklands may not have been wasted.

Anyone know what the UK will gain from this?

I guess like the Shetlanders, the Falkland Islanders may find an oil boom is a mixed blessing.

But the Shetlanders have got no threat of Norway having a military junta bent on conquering them!
 
not just oil and gas but possibly gold and diamonds

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/falklands-oil/onshore/onshoredef.htm



Onshore – minerals exploration (gold and diamonds)

Before the Atlantic Ocean opened, the Falklands were joined to South Africa along the margin of the Gondwana supercontinent.
There are striking geological similarities between Falklands geology and South Africa’s Cape Fold Belt and Karoo Basin, and this has led to speculation that the Falklands might contain mineral deposits of the same style as the well-known, world-class African examples.


The only historical attempt to assess the economic potential of Falklands geology was made in the 1920’s, but with no positive results.


Improvements in exploration techniques and technologies, coupled with recent geological investigations of the Islands, have provided a modern framework on which to base new exploration for economically viable minerals.

Diamonds – geological background
One intriguing possibility is the extension of the southern African diamond-bearing kimberlite province into the Falklands.
The big question here is the relative timing of diamondiferous kimberlite intrusion relative to the break up of Gondwana and the separation of the Falklands from Africa. If separation of the continents occurred before kimberlite intrusion in Africa, then the Falklands would be unlikely to have diamond-bearing kimberlite pipes. However, the reverse might also be true.
There is enough uncertainty in our understanding of the relative timing of kimberlite pipe intrusion and continental separation to allow some hope that the Falklands have the potential to contain diamondiferous kimberlite pipes.


Recent exploration activity has found some possible diamond-indicator minerals such as chromite and garnet, although doubt remains as to whether the precise chemistry of these minerals is indicative of an origin in a kimberlite pipe.

Gold – geological background


Gold occurrence in streams

There are good prospects for gold mineralisation in the Falklands.
The break up of Gondwana involved massive, crustal-scale dislocation and widespread magmatism.


Fault zones and dykes cut across the Islands, and there is clear potential for epithermal and/or shear-zone hosted gold mineralisation.


Gold grains have been panned from a number of Falklands streams.


Fresh, angular gold grains have been discovered to date in streams, suggesting that the grains have not traveled far from their bedrock source.


Over 300 gold grains have been independently analysed by BGS, confirming three potentially different gold sources:
a pyritic Black Shale source; and
two separate epithermal sources in unknown host rocks.


An additional potential source has been identified by the exploration company.

Heavy Mineral Sands

Garnet and rutile grains are concentrated in features such as raised beach deposits. These could potentially form extractable mineral deposits, but are at present considered to be uneconomic due to the geographical isolation of the Falklands.

Minerals exploration – activity Over £600,000 sterling has been expended on minerals exploration since 1999, with some encouraging results.
The activity has been conducted by Falklands Gold and Minerals Ltd. Recent investment enabled a comprehensive aero-magnetic survey of the entire Islands, with a 500m spacing of flight lines over most of the Falklands, and a 250m spacing of lines across possible areas of interest currently identified from ground studies. This aero-magnetic survey should lead to the identification of any zones of intrusion, veining or structure disruption below the extensive peat cover. Coupled with the analysis of a regional geochemical sampling programme, the identification of magnetic anomalies will narrow the search for a gold source that can be drilled and potentially exploited.


The Falkland Islands Government is currently drafting a Minerals Bill to facilitate further exploration and exploitation.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
The Royal Navy's plans for building two new supercarriers would get some much-needed momentum, and the government would likely raise the number of Type 45 destroyers in the defense appropriations back to twelve.
 
this scenario would have staggering implications for both the US and Britain. First, the US would likely bankroll a lot of the development of the oilfields, and be the main buyer. Plus, the US would gradually turn away from the ME as the Falklands' wells came online. There would suddenly be a lot more oil in the world available, so I imagine the price would go down... good news for developing countries like India and China, who would have access to everything the ME could produce. And then there's Britain, which would be recieving the income that the ME does now, all in one nation instead of being split up among a dozen or so unstable emirates and shiekdoms and whatnot. Not sure what you Brits would do with all that wealth, but you'd suddenly be the major financial power in the world. A new oilfield the size of that of the ME being found that belongs to our closest ally? That'd be one of the best things that could happen to both nations...
 
Dave Howery said:
Not sure what you Brits would do with all that wealth

Tony Blair and Gordon Brown would live out their fantasies. Tony Blair for one is keen to leave a "legacy". For example...Money poured in to fix the health service and education. Big rail projects. Tax cuts if there is any money left over.

Right, I'm off to the north of Scotland on the London to Inverness TGV.
 
The history of the effects of hydrocarbon wealth on economies is not a happy one, even in developed economies. The example usually cited is the Dutch economy in the 1970s.

Inevitably the money would be wasted in ill-conceived social programmes whilst pushing sterling sky high, quite a brutal medium term shock.

Mineral resources are also inimical to democracy, giving governments a source of revenue not resting on consent. Whilst the risks posed by this should not be over-exaggerated in the case of Britain it will give the government a source of revenue for which it is not really accountable, granting significant new discretionary powers - all travel in the "wrong" direction.
 
Wozza said:
The history of the effects of hydrocarbon wealth on economies is not a happy one, even in developed economies. The example usually cited is the Dutch economy in the 1970s.

Inevitably the money would be wasted in ill-conceived social programmes whilst pushing sterling sky high, quite a brutal medium term shock.

Mineral resources are also inimical to democracy, giving governments a source of revenue not resting on consent. Whilst the risks posed by this should not be over-exaggerated in the case of Britain it will give the government a source of revenue for which it is not really accountable, granting significant new discretionary powers - all travel in the "wrong" direction.

The counter-example of Norway would be the one to hold up here. As Britain is a developed country the money would still come from taxation of external companies, not be direct state income, so avoiding many of the problems you mention. In addition Britain's economy is diversified enough that the excess capital can productivly be absorbed by the economy, and infrastructure investments will be useful. In addition, a much higher (most?) proportion of the profits will go into the private sector, producing capital for private sector invetments and jobs.
 
Alratan said:
The counter-example of Norway would be the one to hold up here. As Britain is a developed country the money would still come from taxation of external companies, not be direct state income, so avoiding many of the problems you mention. In addition Britain's economy is diversified enough that the excess capital can productivly be absorbed by the economy, and infrastructure investments will be useful. In addition, a much higher (most?) proportion of the profits will go into the private sector, producing capital for private sector invetments and jobs.

True, on the other hand, i cant see gordon and tony (or any leader) being able to resist letting rip on spending - gotdon and tony are desperate to try and have some of the current spending stick and make a visible (and electable) difference as it is.
 
PMN1 said:
True, on the other hand, i cant see gordon and tony (or any leader) being able to resist letting rip on spending - gotdon and tony are desperate to try and have some of the current spending stick and make a visible (and electable) difference as it is.

That's not the most important thing - even if they rip off a vast proportion of the profits on the operation in the form of taxation, the operation is still being managed by the private sector, so the jobs etc will stay there, and it will not be unaccountable income, just tax like everything else.
 
PMN1 said:
True, on the other hand, i cant see gordon and tony (or any leader) being able to resist letting rip on spending - gotdon and tony are desperate to try and have some of the current spending stick and make a visible (and electable) difference as it is.

Indeed. Blair wants a legacy and Gordon wants to be elected at the next elections. I think the temptation would be too strong. Further investment in public services would win back or get out voting many disillusioned traditional labour voters. Investment in more ecologically sound transport such as rail, subway and tram systems would win back some voters from the liberals.

If we were lucky, Gordon Brown would change the focus to more long term goals once he got in power...

The Conservatives would promise investment plus tax cuts in their election manifesto. Probably more money for the police and the immigration services (cos there would be an upsurge in illegal immigration if there was an economic boom).

Not sure what the LibDems would propose. Eco-stuff?
 
It'd probably be something of a mixed blessing. Here's a few thoughts;

1. Immediate reversal of the 'special relationship'. The US is now forced to 'get up the arse' of Whitehall, and stay there. Britain's clout in global politics is increased a hunderedfold.
2. The middle east descends into anarchy, or something approaching it. While the US would still honour its commitments to Israel, there would otherwise be an almost total withdrawal of US forces and money from the area. China and India step in to replace the US as the main customer for middle eastern oil, however they do so without interfering in the domestic politics of the oil producing nations. Anti-Western feeling in the ME is increased as ME governments now find themselves almost totally ignored or shunned in global politics.
3. Argentina, possibly supported by other South American allies, renews its claim to the Falklands. Although this would not lead to military action, the Argentines focus on lifting restrictions placed on Argentineans wishing to settle on the islands. This claim could also be supported by the US, possibly believing that an Argentina controlled oil supply would be easier to manipulate and dominate.
4. Mixed results for Britain. The north-south divide becomes stellar, with a hugely wealthy London and South-East benefitting from the flow of oil revenue into the City's banks and services and the north suffering from the almost total collapse of British exports, caused by Sterling becoming the worlds' leading petro-currency.
 
Anti-Western feeling in the ME is increased as ME governments now find themselves almost totally ignored or shunned in global politics.

well, they're not really big players on the scene now... they tend to be more reactive to outside pressure than applying any pressure of their own. They'd probably be very happy to have the US out of their affairs, although they'd still be pissy about US support of Israel.

This claim could also be supported by the US, possibly believing that an Argentina controlled oil supply would be easier to manipulate and dominate.


Doubtful... Britain is one of our closest allies, and Argentina has always been problematic at best. With Britain in charge of the oilfields, we get to deal with a similar culture and language. WIth Argentina, we'd have to deal with a nation who would have a lot to say about the problems in S./C. America, and a lot of people who aren't really all that fond of us. If Britain suddenly came into possession of vast oil reserves, the US would be delighted...
 
Top