ScienceBlog franchise Deep Sea News has today made made the staggering claim that the 1982 Falklands War was motivated by the presence of large oil reserves in the area. Peter asserts: "Now, 25 years later, the secret's out. It was all about oil. Plans are underway to start drilling within the Falklands EEZ."
The story he's referring to can be found at PriceOfOil.org, and if you read as far as the first paragraph - which the ScienceBlogger obviously didn't - you'd see that it says the following: "After 10 years of delays since oil was discovered off the Falkland islands, oil companies are planning to start drilling within the next 12 months."
Do you spot the problem here yet? The Telegraph elaborates: "The search for Falklands oil began in 1998 ...the companies concluded that the discovery was not commercially viable at that time, as the price of oil ... was too low to cover the high extraction costs. "
So Peter believes that Britain and Argentina went to war in 1982 over oil reserves that weren't discovered until 1998, when they were believed to be economically non-viable.
Still, why bother with fact-checking (or even reading apparently) when you want to have a good rant!
Edit: Peter has now added the following comment: "I apologize. The point about oil was used too loosely for the internet crowd. My point was that Britain staked a claim for resources long ago, including geostrategery and fisheries, and, now, oil. I am an in-law to Argentina and wanted people to remember the conflict. That's all. Forgive me for speaking to lightly."
http://layscience.net/trackback/155
Well, that's a new one...
I don't remember the falkland war, on account of still learning to sit up straight, but I do remember learning about it.
IIRC it was purely about the strategic position of the islands, that they basically controll the Straits of Magellan. That, and fisheries.
And from the article he linked, I can't see why Argentine lost the war, as they obviously had a time machine:
"After 10 years of delays since oil was discovered off the Falkland islands, oil companies are planning to start drilling within the next 12 months."
Clearly Argentina invaded the islands in 1982 to fight over oil fields that weren't discovered until 1998.
Martin's right! I was ranting and didn't check to see whether Britain knew there was oil before 1982. It used the term "it's all about oil" too glibly. Sorry!
What is your problem? Why are you being such a duschbag? Be a little more civilized next time. Don't just attack someone randomly. That was uncalled for and you know it. You are just trying to drive attention to yourself. It is one thing to leave a trollish comment on someone's website and another to politely point out something wrong. Polite discourse is what makes the exchange of information pleasurable. The way you ranted, it sounds like you have some issue with people on the ScienceBlogs network.
Besides, I would find it extremely unlikely if fishing rights and gas/mineral explorations weren't on the mind of the British when refusing to cede Falklands. That is always a factor in colonialism no matter what section of land we are talking about. Just because exploration wasn't economically viable for several years doesn't mean it wasn't in the plan.
Lol, apology accepted!
Martin is the editor of layscience.net.
Follow Me!
RSS | Twitter
I don't know... maybe I just like the facts to be right?
Regarding the ScienceBloggers, I don't have a problem with them at all. However the fact is that ScienceBlogs is the most high profile collection of science bloggers out there, and as such it is the duty of all other science blogs to subject them to the same level of scrutiny we give to the quacks and woo-merchants. That way we help them maintain their high standards.
Martin is the editor of layscience.net.
Follow Me!
RSS | Twitter
I did read the Price of Oil article, by the way, but didn't buy into the idea of post 1998 discovery. My experience is the exploration and evaluations of potential can take quite a while to develop. The earliest record of drilling I can find quickly in the Falklands is 1995. My "gut instinct" says the knowledge of potential reserves was there in 1982, but again, Martin's right, I can't substantiate that, so its a fair criticism. I spoke too loosely when I said "its all about oil".
Strategic importance I think was a much bigger consideration, and also Thatcher's poll results certainly had a boost from it. Even if some vague knowledge of potential reserves was there in 1982, you have to put it in the context that in the 80s we were swimming in North Sea Oil. I don't think oil would have even factored into the decision... and remember these were our subjects under threat.
Also, I'm not sure on this, but is Britain even going to benefit from this oil? From what I understand the money is going to the Falkland Islands directly, and the rest to Big Oil.
I was a bit heated replying to this - for which I apologize but it's a recent war and it's still quite a personal issue for a lot of people. I've therefore toned this down a bit. I'm all for Britain's atrocious record abroad being highlighted, but I'd rather not be blamed for things we haven't done, especially by someone living in the country that's doing it's best to beat our record!
Anyway, cheers, and keep up the good work.
Martin is the editor of layscience.net.
Follow Me!
RSS | Twitter