| Submit your comments on this article | |||||
| Caribbean-Latin America | |||||
| Argentina threatens to sue banks helping Falklands oil explorers | |||||
| 2012-04-02 | |||||
The threats were made in a series of letters sent to as many as 15 banks by the Argentine embassy in London over the last ten days. The letter, a copy of which has been seen by The Sunday Telegraph, warns the institutions that even merely writing research notes on exploration companies involved in the Falklands constitutes "a violation of the applicable domestic and international rules".
The two-page letter, to which a schedule of legal declarations about the Falkland's ownership are attached, is intended to warn off the banks from any further involvement in the South Atlantic oil industry. In an element that is likely to heighten diplomatic tensions, the letter - written in Spanish - contains the header "2012 - Ano de Homenaje al doctor D.Manuel Belgrano". This is a direct reference to the Argentine economist after whom the ARA General Belgrano was named. The ship was sunk by British forces during the 1982 conflict. The letter warns the banks to "bear in mind, when offering their opinions, risk ratings and investment recommendations, the existence and characteristics of the above mentioned sovereignty dispute and of the consequences of any unlawful hydrocarbon exploration activities in the Argentine continental shelf in proximity to the Malvinas [Falkland] Islands." "It should also be borne in mind that . . . participation in those activities will cause companies directly or indirectly involved in them to be subject to such administrative, civil and criminal actions as may be provided for in the Argentive laws governing such activities." It goes on to threaten that any oil company involved in "unlawful hydrocarbon exploration activities" will trigger legal proceedings. The letters were sent to the individual banks by the Argentine embassy in London on March 20 and were not signed, but contained the crest of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship. The document appears to be aimed at cutting financial support to the five London-listed exploration companies - together worth a combined £1.6bn - which are active in the Falkland's basin, of which Rockhopper Exploration is the largest by market capitalization. The recipients of the letters fall into two separate categories - those who are advising the five oil companies and those who have written research notes either on the subject of Falklands oil or on specific companies. The banks and stockbrokers which have undertaken advisory and fundraising roles for the five which are believed to have received the letter include RBS, Credit Suisse, Barclays, and Oriel Securities. Those institutions whose research teams have written on the subject and have been targeted by the Argentine government are believed to include Goldman Sachs, Jefferies and Edison Investment Research. It is not thought that the letters have been dispatched to the oil exploration companies themselves at this time. Juliet Blanch, partner and head of the international dispute resolution at law firm Weil, Gotshal & Manges, believes the legal threat could be a ploy by Argentina to try and cut off funding to the oil companies rather than having to resort to a protracted legal battle. Ms Blanch said: "Clearly if Argentina has sent this letter to banks and advisers and not to the independent oil companies themselves, it could be interpreted as a ploy by Argentina to find a way to stop the exploration without having to resort to a legal solution which would be costly, protracted and uncertain. Argentina could be hoping that application of pressure to the financiers might result in a reassessment of the relationship between them and the oil companies." None of the banks named chose to comment. The Argentine embassy in London did not return telephone calls yesterday. | |||||
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #14 That's back when Britain still had a navy. They BARELY have one now. It won't be a one-sided affair this time if they pull the trigger. I think Britain would ask us for help. And BHO would say no, if he's President. |
| Posted by: Charles 2012-04-02 21:27 |
| #13 Brit subs were effective last time. With this much advance notice, the Argies would have a hard time getting an invasion force through them to the islands. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2012-04-02 19:44 |
| #12 she's going "Full Evita" blowing populist bullshit and riling up the rubes to distract from her (and her husband's) terrible policies. Inflation is really running at a pace so much higher than the "official rate" that noting and publishing that will get you harassed and arrested. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2012-04-02 18:16 |
| #11 Besides, the Brazilians supply us with oil, the British don't. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2012-04-02 17:37 |
| #10 If the Brazilians got involved, I can't believe Uncle Sam would stand by while the Brits got hammered. I dunno .... O appears to hate the Brits and recently favored Brazil with a number of subsidies and plane contracts IIRC. |
| Posted by: lotp 2012-04-02 16:53 |
| #9 ZF, maybe after Jan., but now?? Can you really see Zero helping the Brits against Hispanics? (yeah, I know that Argie isn't really Hispanic but does he and would it matter?) |
| Posted by: AlanC 2012-04-02 16:28 |
| #8 If the Brazilians got involved, I can't believe Uncle Sam would stand by while the Brits got hammered. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2012-04-02 16:13 |
| #7 Thing, That's a possibility we shouldn't laugh at. The Brazilians are a 'regional' superpower, and they might be sorely tempted if the Argentines offered them a piece of the action in return for some heavy-duty logistical support or even the 'loan' of a few aircraft and crews. Nobody down there has anything that can take the RAF's Typhoons one on one - but the Brazilian Navy is big enough and well-trained enough (not to mention having a functional aircraft carrier, the Sao Paulo)to land and supply troops for the Argentines - and at that point, attrition starts to rear its ugly head. Can the RN and RAF relieve the islands before the forces there are simply overrun? There won't be any help from the US this time, and it seems likely that The One would offer to 'mediate' a settlement which would leave the Falklands in Argentine hands permanently. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2012-04-02 15:09 |
| #6 Also, they could "borrow" planes from Brazil. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2012-04-02 12:53 |
| #5 Depends on how desperate Fernandez gets. |
| Posted by: lotp 2012-04-02 12:50 |
| #4 Hammond is correct about one thing: the Argie air force is aging. I think they still fly Skyhawks and older Mirages. And their transport ability stinks. So with all the hand-wringing (and it's correct not to be complacent), I don't see the Argies making a move. Right now at least. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2012-04-02 07:48 |
| #3 Forgot to add, "yet Again"! |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2012-04-02 06:19 |
| #2 Oh well, I'm sure Argentinians wont mind being cut off from the worlds' capital markets. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2012-04-02 06:13 |
| #1 Britain would have to hold its air base on the Falklands unaided for at least a week in the event of another Argentine invasion, a defence pressure group warned Sunday. The UK National Defence Association, which campaigns on military matters, claimed the archipelago was more vulnerable than at any time since the 1982 Falklands War. In a report ahead of the 30th anniversary of the invasion on Monday, the body said Britain would find it difficult to "protect, reinforce or retake" the South Atlantic islands, largely due to the lack of aircraft carrier strike capability. "Even in the most favourable circumstances... the deployment of additional fighters and a reasonable war-fighting force would take approximately a week," the report said. "In effect, this means that the British garrison would necessarily have to hold Mount Pleasant airfield and its environs for a week before help arrived. There would be no fighter cover for the landing force and shipping. There is no carrier... There is no question of providing air support using Royal Air Force fighters. There are no bases within range. In-flight re-fuelling, given the number of re-fuels required for a round trip of 8,000 miles from Ascension, would be impossible in the face of the threat posed by the Argentine air force. The UK would be hard put to protect, reinforce or retake the islands... history could well be about to repeat itself -- but this time with a different outcome." Defence Secretary Philip Hammond told The Times last week that Argentina's ageing aircraft do not present a military threat. A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: "Unlike in 1982, we have a well defended airfield in the Falklands with ground-based air defences, and continue to have the ability to reinforce by air and sea. People should be reassured by the contingencies that we now have in place compared to 30 years ago. That said, there is no evidence of any current credible military threat to the Falkland Islands." Britain has held the Falklands since 1833, but Buenos Aires claims the barren islands are occupied Argentine territory. Diplomatic friction between Argentina and Britain has intensified since 2010, when London authorised oil prospecting in the waters around the windswept islands, which are home to less than 3,000 people. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2012-04-02 00:53 |