Fareastdriver, you are spot on. If it was economically viable it would have been exploited many years ago. With the current glut of oil extending into the foreseeable future, I find it difficult to foresee the FI ever being a rich oil based economy.

Nevertheless, why give away a possible asset even if not valuable until the future?

Why did we sell the Harriers? :rolleyes:

For the record, Argentine claim has some grounds. Last time I´ve check the majority of the international community supports Argentine position...even US backed the claim before 1982.

I don´t want to convince anyone here, just I think is appropiate to mention it.

Regards to all,

Forget the oil, the associated islands to the south gives the UK it's historic rights to its territories in Antarctica - which whilst currently unexploited for environmental reasons, are worth untold trillions in the future.


https://www.bas.ac.uk/about/antarcti...ection/mining/

https://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk1...926/892606.PDF

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit...ctic_Territory

https://www.theguardian.com/news/200...ca.sciencenews

Courteously put, as I'd expect from an Argentinian gentleman.
The whole thing was a disaster for our relationship.

Good post by Marcantilan

But the rest of us should be careful about saying the oil price will "never" recover - it has done so many times. It takes about 3-5 years for the projects approved and started at $ 120 a barrel to finally be completed. After that the oil companies start again, and their supply chain readjusts to $ 50 a barrel - less gold plating, less specialisation, wage cuts and job cuts (the UK oil business has lost tens of thousands of jobs in the last 2 years).

Governments adjust the fiscal terms to keep jobs, financiers see "bargains", and the oil fields still pump away 24/7 generating cash flow

Happened in 1986-88, 1999-2001 etc etc

It's slightly different this time. OPEC hasn't got the clout that it used to have especially when the world's largest consumer doesn't need it. The world is awash with oil and even China is using its clout to make itself self sufficient.

<a href='http://www.macrotrends.net/2562/us-crude-oil-production-historical-chart'>U.S. Crude Oil Production - Historical Chart</a>

There's a lot more bad news for OPEC in the attached graphs.

Crude Oil Prices - 70 Year Historical Chart | MacroTrends

OPEC didn't have muchclout on 1999-2000 but the price still came back

US shale oil/gas will undoubtedly have an effect but the oil companies have a very long history of re-inventing themsleves and still making money......

As this is a military forum and not a political one I would be far more interested in a professional assessment of the respective Argentinian and British forces and an analysis of the likely outcome of events should hostilities recommence today with all the unexpected suddeness that they did back in 1982.

It is interesting to me that many of the major weapon systems from 34 years ago are still in use today albeit in upgraded forms. The Type 42 destroyer wasn't new in 1982 and only saw an end to its active service just 3 years ago, the Argentinians are still flying A-4s, Rapier (which didn't work very well in 1982) is still in service, Sea Wolf, Stingray, Chinook, and Lynx to name but a few systems are still in service, amazingly even Sea Skua which must have shelf life issues at this point. Mercifully the appalling Seacat and Blowpipe missile systems are a thing of the past, along with the equally useless Tigerfish torpedo. I could bang on ad nauseam about the individual merits and demerits of specific systems but bigger picture wise I do wonder how things would play out today especially with the UK lacking any carriers and the absence of superb assets like the Sea Harrier FA2.

As for saying it could never happen again with today's more "evolved" Argentina - I don't personally subscribe to that opinion as emotions still run very hot on the subject down south.

The UK is far better off - a very large air base is the main change and a few state of the art fighters (far more effective one hopes than the SHAR) - but without any medium/long range AA missile defence it must be open to a take-out strike

Argentina is certainly less effective - the Armed Forces have been short of cash for maintenance and upgrades for a couple of decades...........

Surely the key is that about 98% of Falkland Islanders want to remain British

I think Fonsini was thinking about another invasion scenario in the future

You've got to imagine that the Brits keep at least one Hunter Killer down there ready to TLAM the Arg air bases should the need arise

They may have an SSN down there some of the time but it's to frighten off any invasion fleet

We didn't attack the mainland in the war and I really doubt we'd do so in another flare up

Fonsini,
The A-4s are scheduled to be retired.

Argentina to retire ageing A-4AR fleet by 2018 | IHS Jane's 360

We certainly had no reservations about doing so and had every intention:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mikado

SAS 'suicide mission' to wipe out Exocets - Telegraph

I appreciate the political implications of striking the mainland. But at the same time it has always struck me as odd to think that if a country is sending military aircraft to attack you, you should feel obliged to refrain from attacking and disabling the military sites (and only those military sites) that are launching the attacks because it's somehow not cricket to do so.

Yes, the A-4ARs are currently grounded with only 5 out of the original 36 remaining airworthy. Janes reported last year that they had been offered a range of alternatives including F-16s (which have long been denied to them) but that a specific request for the F-5E had been refused by the US ?!

Current favourite is the KAI FA-50, but I would say that the Mirage 2000 makes more sense for a variety of reasons.

In other news the argentine navy has also woken up of late, their Espora class corvette the ARA Rosales was out testing Exocets in February:



They still need to be watched.

never sure why S American countries spend $$$ on newish kit - it's been a while since there was any sort of war on (other than the FI of course....)

Maybe they feel it's working. A bit like the argument that there's no point in spending money on nuclear weapons, because no-one's used one for 70 years.