Thread: Hugo Chavez

Originally Posted by Margot

Based on what?? North Sea crude production is falling.. and suddenly the Falklands are crawling with British oilmen.

Yes, but has that changed the UK position no, it's changed the position of Argentina.

Originally Posted by antileftwinger

So Venezuela isn't 4,000-5,000 miles away from the Falklands? The UK has the Falklands and South Georgia. Bolivia may look the other way but would Brazil, with the EU backing Britain I down it for economic reason, aswell as political. 5 heavy transport planes, isn't enough to beat the UK, 2 of which they don't even have yet, Argentina has 10. The UK has 56, that's what I mean the UK would win in a long range war. Plus the UK has been doing operations like this for the past 20 years, when was the last time Venezuela did any long range flying.

I never said the UK would blockade Argentina or Venezuela, I said the UK with support from the EU and US would stop them from getting more equipment from Russia, China and others. Could you please stop saying English when you mean British, it's insulting to the rest of the UK. And Argentina and Venezeula have just attack the Falklands going to war with the UK, so the UK would have every right to stop those nations getting more weapons from there allies. Also the EU would and US would help the UK blockade Venezeula. So does Chile, Guyana, Uruguay and Colombia all dispise the UK?

I said the UK would send one heavily armed supply ship in, with protection from other UK subs, type 45 and eurofighters, not a whole fleet, which is what you think the UK would be stupid enough to do.

The UK wouldn't have a fleet of ships for Argentina to attack, that's what I am saying, 2-3 ships that's it, 1 sub, 1 destroyer and 1 supply ship, all defending each other and being defended by the air base, being able to see the incoming aircraft from the radar station in the Falklands. So no I am not fighting the last war, I am making sure Argentina can't use it's main weapon.
You are the one fighting the last war, the UK can see them coming, send up the eurofighters and attack the incoming jets, so Argentina would need to take the runway out, something it will find hard to do, with the UK having 3-4 layers of defence, from jets, forward radar station, missile defence and the type 45.

I agree with you about this having nothing to do with oil. I said it has nothing to do with oil. I also agree Venezeula has a right to patrol where it wants, but so does the UK, it has the right to send as many ship, planes and troops to the Falklands and south Atlantic as it wants. Argentina is saying nations don't have that right.

Instead of assuming its NOT about oil.. Look at falling North Sea production and the fact that the Falklands are swarming with British oilmen????

Originally Posted by Margot

Based on what?? North Sea crude production is falling.. and suddenly the Falklands are crawling with British oilmen.

Oh, please.

The North Sea oil reserves are still ample. Its just cheaper to buy than produce.

The UK's motives with regard to protecting the Falklands are the same as they were 30 years ago.... when we knew very little about oil off its shores.

Originally Posted by unclebob

Oh, please.

The North Sea oil reserves are still ample. Its just cheaper to buy than produce.

The UK's motives with regard to protecting the Falklands are the same as they were 30 years ago.... when we knew very little about oil off its shores.

There has been a new discovery in the North Sea.. but over the past couple of years production has fallen by 45%..

Just look up the facts.. before you lay out your convictions.

Originally Posted by Margot

Instead of assuming its NOT about oil.. Look at falling North Sea production and the fact that the Falklands are swarming with British oilmen????

Rather than assuming everything is about oil, why not consider that its cheaper to buy oil than produce it in the North sea?

Perhaps you should consider looking at the reserves in the North Sea?

Perhaps you should consider the war 30 yrs ago and the UK's motives behind that?

Perhaps you should consider that Argentina was happy to just licks its wounds regarding the islands, until they got a whiff of possible oil off its shores?

Originally Posted by Margot

There has been a new discovery in the North Sea.. but over the past couple of years production has fallen by 45%..

Just look up the facts.. before you lay out your convictions.

I have....

NORTH SEA OIL PRODUCTION IS REDUCING BECAUSE IT IS CHEAPER TO BUY FROM ELSEWHERE THAN TO PRODUCE IN THE UK!!

Originally Posted by Margot

There has been a new discovery in the North Sea.. but over the past couple of years production has fallen by 45%..

Just look up the facts.. before you lay out your convictions.

Show me the facts, and still how has this changed what the UK has done in the Falklands.

Brent (and WTI crude, as seen in the US of A) is more expensive than oil offer by OPEC countries.. significantly more expensive, as it contains less sulfur. Also, development and maintenance of oil fields in the inhospitable sea is not easy or cheap. Its quite simple really!

Heres a little info for you, as requested:-
http://www.energyandcapital.com/resources/brent-vs-wti

The north seas oil reserves are still strong, as reported here. Of course, reserves are just estimates but 20/30/40 billion seems to be the most qouted figures around:-
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011...n_1101059.html

Theres plenty of info out there, if you wish to learn more. try this site:-
www.google.com

Originally Posted by unclebob

I have....

NORTH SEA OIL PRODUCTION IS REDUCING BECAUSE IT IS CHEAPER TO BUY FROM ELSEWHERE THAN TO PRODUCE IN THE UK!!

And you don't think that is MOTIVE.

The North Sea producers were genuinely spooked by the disaster of Deepwater Horizon.

Originally Posted by Margot

And you don't think that is MOTIVE.

The North Sea producers were genuinely spooked by the disaster of Deepwater Horizon.

So, if that is your reasoning, then why would looking for off-shore oil near the Falklands be attractive to North Sea oil producers?

And, why did we protect the islands in the 80's, when there was no oil in the equation?

I really don't think you have thought your argument through, to be honest.