Monday June 18, 2018
Jun-20-2010 18:23TweetFollow @OregonNews
Oil and the FalklandsDexter Phoenix Salem-News.com
In the long run, I would seriously doubt BP would do a risky deep sea drilling after the recent disaster that has been swarming all over news.
(SALEM, Ore.) - BP plc is a British-based global energy company which is the third largest energy company and the fourth largest company in the world. As a multinational oil company, BP is Great Britain’s largest corporation.
The company is among the largest private sector energy corporations in the world. It is one of six major vertically integrated private sector oil exploration, natural gas and petroleum product marketing companies. Petroleum merged with Amoco, an “American” Oil company back in December of 1998, which became BP Amoco plc. In 2000, BP Amoco acquired Arco Atlantic Richfield co, as well as Burma Castrol Plc.
Most Amoco stations in the United States were converted to BP's brand and corporate identity. In many states however, BP continued to sell Amoco branded gasoline even in service stations, with the BP identity as Amoco, which was rated the best petroleum brand by consumers for 16 consecutive years It also enjoyed one of the three highest brand loyalty reputations for gasoline in the US, comparable only to Chevron and Shell.
In May 2008, when the Amoco name was mostly phased out in favour of BP , promoting BP's new additive (the highest grade of BP gasoline available in the United States) it was still called Amoco Ultimate.
In April 2004, BP decided to move most of its petrochemical businesses into a separate entity called Innovene within the BP Group. BP sought to sell the new company in the US, and filed IPO plans for Innovene with the New York Stock Exchange on the 12th of September 2005. On 7 October 2005, however, BP announced that it had agreed to sell Innovene to INEOS, a privately held UK chemical company for $9 billion, thereby scrapping its plans for the IPO. In 2005, BP announced that it would be leaving the Colorado market, making many locations re-branded as Conoco.
BP has grown its oil exploration activities in frontier areas such as the former Soviet Union for its future reserves. In Russia, BP owns 50% of TNK-BP with the other half owned by three Russian billionaires.
You will also be surprised about other companies that BP owns, or are involved with like AMPM (a well known American convenience store chain that branches through several U.S. States) which also sells fuel from BP.
Aral, is a German based company that BP also is a part of which entails retail chains under the name of Aral. Then there is Arco. Arco is BP’s retail brand and is mostly located all the long the West Coast of America. The list goes on and on.
I find it all quite amusing when I read all of the negative publicity about pointing the big bad finger over the Atlantic to Great Britain, when in fact BP is actually run, and involved mostly with “American” companies… with American people running it! This just shows you how desperate a country like America is and how hypocritical they really are to turn their backs on us, when it comes to (what it seems) as a desperate need to turn anti British at any given opportunity. This of course is rather immature and childish, something you only expect to see at a high school playground with innuendo rumours flying around like some nasty little uncontrollable air born virus. But it seems this little airborne virus has been working over time south of the equator as well, starting with Argentina.
The Falkland’s War was fought in 1982 between Argentina and Great Britain over the disputed Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. The Falkland Islands consist of two large and many small islands in the South Atlantic Ocean, east of Argentina.
The Falklands War started on Friday, 2 April 1982 with the Argentine invasion and the occupation of the Falkland Islands, as well as South Georgia, and ended with the Argentine surrender on 14 June 1982. The war lasted 74 days, and resulted in the deaths of 257 British and 649 Argentine soldiers, sailors, and airmen, and three civilian Falklanders. It is the most recent conflict to be fought by the UK without any allied states and the only external Argentine war since the 1880s.
The conflict was the result of a protracted “diplomatic confrontation” regarding the sovereignty of the islands. Neither state officially declared war and the fighting was largely limited to the territories under dispute and the South Atlantic.
The initial invasion was characterized by Argentina as the re-occupation of its own territory, and by the UK as an invasion of a British dependent territory.
Britain launched a naval task force to engage the Argentine Navy and the Argentine Air Force, to retake the islands by amphibious assault. The British eventually prevailed and at the end of combat operations on 14 June the islands remained under British control. However, as of 2010 and as it has been since the 19th century, Argentina shows no sign of relinquishing its claim. The claim remained in the Argentine constitution after its reformation in 1994.
The Politics of Argentina at that time
Relations between Argentina and UK were restored in 1989 under the umbrella formula which states that the islands sovereignty dispute would remain aside.
In the period leading up to the war, and especially following the transfer of power between military dictators General Jorge Rafel Videla and General Roberto Eduaro Viola in late-March 1981, Argentina had been in the midst of a devastating economic crises and a large-scale civil unrest against the military junta that had been governing the country since 1976.
In December 1981 there was a further change in the Argentine military regime bringing to office a new junta headed by General Leopoldo Galtieri (acting president), Brigadier Basilio Lami Dozo , and Admiral Jorge Anaya. Anaya would be the main architect and supporter of a military solution for the long-standing claim over the islands, calculating that the United Kingdom would never respond militarily. In doing so the Galtieri government hoped to mobilize Argentines' long-standing patriotic feelings towards the islands and thus divert public attention from the country's chronic economic problems and the regime's ongoing human rights violations. Such action would also bolster its dwindling legitimacy. The newspaper La Prensa speculated in a step-by-step plan beginning with cutting off supplies to the Islands, ending in direct actions late 1982, if the UN talks were fruitless. The retaking of the Falkland Islands was considered extremely difficult:
The main constraint was the disparity in deployable air cover, the British having 34 Harrier aircraft (the only plans the British could take over at such distance, keeping them close and on constant standby without costly long distance refueling, or diplomatic headache trying to leverage a base on South America to refuel on, the Argentina’s had 220 jet fighters at their disposal.
The U.S. Navy considered a successful counter-invasion by the British to be 'a military impossibility'. The United States initially tried to mediate an end to the conflict. However, when Argentina refused the U.S. peace overtures, U.S. Secretary of State Alexander Haig announced that the United States would prohibit arms sales to Argentina and provide material support for British operations. Both Houses of the U.S. Congress passed resolutions supporting the U.S. action siding with the United Kingdom.
The islanders subsequently had full British citizenship restored in 1983, their lifestyle was improved by investments Britain made after the war and the liberalization of economic measures that had been stalled through fear of angering Argentina.
In 1985, a new constitution was enacted promoting self-government, which has continued to dissolve power to the islanders.
The war for Argentina also had an effect in the form of avoiding a possible war with Chile and, more importantly, the return of democracy. It had a major social impact, destroying the military's image as the moral reserve of the nation that they had maintained through most of the 20th century.
The history of the Falkland Islands
The Falkland Islands were originally Spanish. During the Napoleonic Wars, Britain took them from Spain. Later on, Argentina revolted against Spain and declared its independence. The islands had various claimants until the British made their claim stick in the mid 19th century. The islands have been British for about the last century and a half.
Britain's claim to the Falklands is also further bolstered under International Law. The territory was taken from Spain during a recognized State of War, and Britain never agreed to return it. Should Britain decide to return it, they would logically be returning it to Spain, NOT Argentina, as Argentina never controlled the island save for those few months in 1982.
This would explain Spain’s back door intervention in supplying Argentina with weapons, financing, logistics and supplies.
The people of the Falkland Islands also had a choice on what country they would rather be governed under, unanimously they chose to be under British rule. Time and time again they showed, as well as mentioned “explicitly, that they do not want to be under Argentine rule. Thus, the principle that a territory should be governed according to the will of the majority of inhabitants is in favor of having the Falklands remain British.
Also having a more stable political back bone as liberal parliamentary democracy, and has been so (for various values of "liberal parliamentary democracy") for centuries (certainly since the mid-19th century Reform Acts).
Argentina, by contrast, has frequently veered into dictatorship -- in at least two cases, bloodthirsty Fascist dictatorship. (It was under Galtieri's sanguine rule that Argentina screamed and leapt on Britain in 1982: his subsequent defeat was the proximate cause of his fall from power). We should support liberal democracies against dictatorships in general; and although Argentina is now a democracy, the country's history gives us little reason to hope that it shall remain as such.
Argentina tries to impose a shipping block aid towards the Falkland Islands
Chris Bryant, the Minister for the region, said that Britain had "no doubt about our sovereignty over the Falkland Islands".
"It is underpinned by the principle of democratic self-determination. Falkland Islanders want to remain British," he added.
Earlier, Argentina had imposed a new requirement for shipping to get permission to go from there to the islands. This was in response to the start of drilling for oil off the Falklands, within the exclusive economic zone claimed by the Falkland Islands government, with the support of the UK.
Even Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez barked out a warning to Britain that if it came to one, Argentina would not be alone this time.
President Chavez also mentioned rudely but rather amusingly that seems to befit such a President advice for the British monarch: "Queen of England, I'm talking to you. The time for empires is over, haven't you noticed? Return the Malvinas to the Argentine people."
With recent accusations of political bribery, black mail, cohering as well as copious amounts of “golden hand shakes” thrown in there for good measures, Argentina as well as most of south America once again shows its true colours, by showing its proven unstable political behavior on the world wide political scene.
Same again as it were back in 1981 Argentina is yet struggling with another mass dosage of unruly public, angry again that there country is deep in the abyss of economic uncertainty and disorder. Again their new president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner is rousting up patriotism like the previous president did just before the Falklands conflict, to arouse support and to take their minds off their diabolical economic situation. Once again another Argentine President is pointing the finger at Great Britain. The controversy surrounding plans to drill for oil in the waters surrounding the islands has stoked hostility in recent weeks:
Demonstrators will march on the British Embassy in the capital to mark the Argentine’s brief occupation of the Falkland Islands during 1982.
This year's memorial has been given extra impetus due to recent oil exploration off the islands' coastline undertaken by British companies, reigniting Argentina's historic claim to the 'Malvinas'.
The march has been organized by the Asociación Civil Combatientes en Malvinas and has the backing of several trade unions. Marches in previous years have rallied only a few hundred people but organisers are predicting many thousands will take to the streets to show their anger over the British exploration. Organisers are demanding the complete block of the “pirate” oil platform Ocean Guardian, operated by the UK's Desire Petroleum and calling for a boycott of British companies within Argentina. Two separate demonstrations will set off from different areas of Buenos Aires before marching towards the British Embassy in the city centre.
A British Embassy spokesperson wouldn't comment on the specific events organised for Friday but warned British nationals to stay away from all marches.
Argentine President Cristina Kirchner talked of an endless fight to win back sovereignty of the sparsely populated archipelago.
The president, who will be attending a memorial service in Ushuaia, southern Argentina, said: “The battle is going to be eternal but it is not going to be like in the past, “with force”. We're going to put up a cultural, political and diplomatic fight on all fronts and in all forums in defense of our heritage which is not just heritage but also the management of our resources.”
Protests are scheduled despite Desire Petroleum's announcement earlier this week that its initial explorations had revealed poor quality petroleum. Desire is one of four British companies granted a license to drill for oil. The company is expected to give more detailed information on its finding by the end of the week. Tensions between Argentina and Britain have reached new heights in recent months due to the exploration. Argentina secured the backing of other South American countries recently over their Falklands claim and has also asked the UN to call the UK to talks. Britain has insisted it will never discuss the sovereignty of the Falklands but is prepared to hold talks on oil exploration.
Argentina's oil battle with the United Kingdom rages on, the only other obstacle the South American country can throw at oil companies planning to drill near the Falkland Islands is to interdict U.K. ships or equipment - but regional expert Riordan Roett doubts the Argentines are “stupid enough to do that.”
This would be a “very dangerous move” on the part of the Argentine government, said Roett, director of Latin American studies at Johns Hopkins University in Washington. Argentina, which went to war with the U.K. in 1982 over Falklands’ sovereignty, is “very careful” about challenging the British in reaching the islands, Roett noted.
The dispute between the old foes erupted in February when U.K.'s Desire Petroleum towed an oil rig from Scotland to the South Atlantic to drill near the Falklands.
Experts tout the area beneath the islands contains as much as 60 billion barrels of crude oil but there are many doubts about this claim.
Geologists and political-risk specialists say such a vast deposit is possible -- after all, the Atlantic Coast downward from Brazil boasts a great deal of oil – but whether the Falklands is the next place to find such resources will be a question mark for “a couple of years,” Roett said.
Oil and Latin American experts, moreover, have mixed opinions about whether U.K. oil firms actually need the Argentine government's help to siphon out any oil from the contested waters.
U.K. firms can do without Argentine infrastructure but much will depend on current technologies, Roett argued. If companies can retrieve and pour oil into super tankers, it can then be shipped back to the U.K. or wherever their clients are based “without worrying about Argentina -- unless the Argentinians were stupid enough to try to stop the tankers,” he said.
In the midst of this, it’s doubtful any Latin American country will cooperate with the U.K., Kerner said. Argentina’s President Christina Fernández de Kirchner in fact has been rallying support from her continental neighbours, and in recent days began to mend fences with Peru, a country it fell out of favor with 16 years ago.
Kirchner has done everything in her power to make it difficult for companies pursuing the potential oil windfall. Kirchner forced boats using Argentine ports or passing through the country's waters en route to the Falklands to get special permits, and introduced a United Nations resolution reprimanding the U.K. for permitting oil exploration off the islands. The president also tabled a bill that would impose a 30-day deadline on firms to sever ties with the islands or be run out of Argentina.
The U.N. has passed several resolutions urging both sides to negotiate but the British have declined, Kerner said. Except for Latin America, most of the countries in the world recognize the British position on the Falklands, Roett told OilPrice.com. British sovereignty over the Falklands was declared in 1833. The Argentine military “ran into Margaret Thatcher in 1982. I don't think Christina Fernández de Kirchner wants to run into the British fleet here in 2010.”
The U.K., which reportedly dispatched a nuclear submarine to the islands to safeguard oil exploration there, has “reinforced on the Falklands their military capabilities, particularly their air force,” Roett said. And the British are better prepared to dominate the air space over the islands, he added, but doubted the row will lead to actual war again.
Large IOCs so far are “moving very carefully” due to the risks associated with a “very unpredictable Argentine government,” Roett said. But if Desire Petroleum demonstrates there probably is a “reasonably large deposit,” companies will descend, he said.
Real truth comes out of what Obama truly thinks of its closest ally, by a senior State Department protocol official who said “There’s nothing special about Britain. You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn’t expect special treatment”.
According to a story recently published on timesonline.co.uk a State Department spokesman said:
"We are aware not only of the current situation but also of the history, but our position remains one of neutrality. The US recognizes de facto UK administration of the islands but takes no position on the sovereignty claims of either party."
The remarks had echoes of an earlier statement by a senior State Department protocol official who, when asked about the shoddy treatment of the British Prime Minister in March last year, responded:
There’s nothing special about Britain. You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn’t expect special treatment.
Even by the relentlessly poor standards of the Obama administration, whose doctrine unfailingly appears to be “kiss your enemies and kick your allies”, this is a new low. The White House’s neutrality in a major dispute between America’s closest friend and the likes of Venezuelan tyrant Hugo Chavez, Argentina’s biggest backer, represents the appalling appeasement of an alliance of anti-Western Latin American regimes, stretching from Caracas to Havana – combined with a callous indifference towards the Anglo-American alliance.
Over the course of the last year, we’ve seen a staggering array of foreign policy follies by this administration, from the throwing under the bus of the Poles and the Czechs over missile defence to siding with Marxists in Honduras. But this latest pronouncement surely takes the biscuit as the most brazen betrayal so far of a US ally.
As the Obama government is amply aware, the tensions between London and Buenos Aires are escalating dramatically, with British military contingency planning already under way. In effect, Washington declared today that it would remain neutral in the event of another war in the South Atlantic, a stunning declaration to make.
Thousands of British soldiers are laying their lives on the line alongside their American allies on the battlefields of Afghanistan. Yet the president of the United States is either unwilling or too timid to offer a single word of support for the British people, who face a mounting confrontation with a corrupt, populist Argentine government that is threatening a blockade of British territory. To put it bluntly, the Obama administration is killing the Special Relationship, and the prospects of a recovery look extremely bleak as long as Barack Obama remains in the White House.
I am in no doubt though that messages of support for Britain will begin to flow in the coming days from Senators and Congressmen who actually understand the importance of Anglo-American friendship and loyalty, and who recognize the tremendous value of the ancestral, linguistic, economic, cultural, military and intelligence ties that bind the two greatest nations in the world. And I am very sure that the vast majority of Americans will reject the spineless neutrality of the White House and State Department, and wholeheartedly support the British people in the event of another conflict.
The controversy surrounding plans to drill for oil in the waters surrounding the islands has stoked hostility in recent weeks.
Demonstrators will march on the British Embassy on the anniversary of the Argentina's brief occupation of the Falkland Islands during the 1982.
This year's memorial has been given extra impetus due to recent oil exploration off the islands' coastline undertaken by British companies, reigniting Argentina's historic claim to the 'Malvinas'.
The march has been organised by the Asociación Civil Combatientes en Malvinas and has the backing of several trade unions.
Marches in previous years have rallied only a few hundred people but organisers are predicting many thousands will take to the streets today to show their anger over the British exploration.
Organisers are demanding the complete block of the "pirate" oil platform Ocean Guardian, operated by the UK's Desire Petroleum and calling for a boycott of British companies within Argentina.
Desire is one of four British companies granted a license to drill for oil. The company is expected to give more detailed information on its finding by the end of the week. Tensions between Argentina and Britain have reached new heights in recent months due to the exploration.
Argentina secured the backing of other South American countries recently over their Falklands claim and has also asked the UN to call the UK to talks.
Britain has insisted it will never discuss the sovereignty of the Falklands but is prepared to hold talks on oil exploration.
US President Barack Obama has come under fire on both sides of the Atlantic for failing to support Britain in its dispute with Argentina over drilling for oil off the Falkland Islands - and reports suggest that the US is taking revenge on Britain for releasing CIA files on former Guantanamo detainee Binyam Mohamed.
So far the criticism has come mainly from the right, but accusations that Obama has deserted its biggest ally in favour of an Argentinean president backed by such anti-American leaders as Hugo Chavez could well strike a chord with those of a less conservative bent if the row rumbles on.
The news that the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is to meet the Argentinean president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner at a summit in Uruguay on Monday has merely rubbed salt into the wounds - and led British officials to let it be known, via the Times of London, that US support for negotiations would not be welcomed. It is "up to the islanders whether they want mediation or not" an official said.
Despite this, La Nacion, an Argentinean newspaper, perhaps hopefully, claims a US State Department source as saying Clinton is "prepared to mediate" in the row.
Officially, the US has said the Falklands are strictly an issue for Argentina and Britain. The State Department told the Times: "We are aware not only of the current situation but also of the history, but our position remains one of neutrality."
But Alan Mendoza, the director of London-based think-tank the Henry Jackson society, told the Daily Mail he thought this neutrality has a lot to do with a court ruling two weeks ago that forced the British government to release CIA files on Binyam Mohamed, the former Guantanamo Bay detainee. Mendoza sees this as a poor excuse for deserting Britain, however: "The Obama administration's decision to ignore the democratic rights of the Falkland islanders is disgraceful," he says.
A leader in the usually pro-US Daily Mail goes so far as to question the so-called 'special relationship'. "This deeply regrettable response leaves us with the question; what is the purpose of a special relationship that seems to involve British sacrifice on one side and American indifference on the other?"
Across the Atlantic, the heritage foundation a conservative think tank said: "Even by the relentlessly poor standards of the Obama administration, whose doctrine unfailingly appears to be 'kiss your enemies and kick your allies', this is a new low."
Redstate.com, one of the most popular right-wing American blogs, said Obama "chose to side with a corrupt, aggressive Argentine government that is backed by Hugo Chavez and is threatening a blockade of British territory. This is how Obama repays Britain for continuing to support our special relationship and providing thousands of British soldiers in... Iraq and Afghanistan."
The truth is that Clinton's tour of Latin American countries – which voted this week at a summit in Mexico to found a new union excluding the US – was going to be difficult enough without Obama giving a message of support to Britain in the meantime.
Desire Petroleum plc: is a British Aim Listed oil company that has oil prospects in the Falkland Islands It was established in 1996 by Dr. Colin Phipps, a former geologist for Shell, working in Venezuela, the Netherlands and the USA. The company is named after Desire, the ship, captained by John Davis, that discovered (ironically) the Falkland Islands in 1592. In 1998, the company was floated on the Alternative Investment Market.
Company interest in the Falkland Islands
Since the late 1990’s Colin Phipps was interested in the geology of the Falkland Islands, and its potential to be petroliferous. He had visited the islands since the mid-1970s, and from his experience of geology had great optimism for finding petroleum in the area when a seismographic survey in 2004 'came up with the goods'. Desire Petroleum were awarded licenses for drilling in the Falklands in 1997, and test drilling was carried out in 1998.
Oil was not found in commercial quantities, and the price of oil, until 2007-8 was not high enough to make it viable, and exploration companies left the area. A 3D seismic survey was acquired in 2004 which showed great oil potential.
In February 2010 Desire began a programme of exploratory drilling, with costs shared by farming out drilling slots to Rockhopper Exploration (England) , Falkland Oil & Gas Ltd, in the North Falkland Basin. In the northern section of the basin this covers the prospect of Rachel, Kath, Pam, Ann, The second well, drilling for partner company Rockhopper Exploration, was an oil discovery which further confirmed the geological model for the North Falkland Basin for Desire and Rockhopper's remaining prospects.
If The drilling programme goes through it is anticipated to run to ten exploration wells.
Argentina still has not given up its claims that the Falklands is still their’s , and formally objected to the start of oil exploration.
Several British companies are poised to begin offshore exploration using a $35 million offshore rig, the Ocean Guardian. Desire Petroleum Plc has licensed six areas where it predicts 3.5 billion barrels of oil and 9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas can be recovered. Six companies hold license for oil exploration in the region- Desire, Falkland Oil & Gas, Rockhopper, Borders & Southern, Argos Resources and Arcadia
UPDATED QUOTE from FOX News on kaystreet.wordpress.com:
Bill O’Reilly was On the heels of demolishing Sarah earlier in the week:
Our “no spin zone” guy took on Michele last night (6/18/10) over her comments complaining that President Obama had exceeded his jurisdictional limits to “extort” BP to put up $20 billion for an oil-spill-victims fund. Bachmann has since backtracked from her previous comments. She made the unlikely excuse to O’Reilly that what she had really meant was that she was worried about who would administer the fund. And then she blamed the Democrats for making her overly suspicious. Although I would have loved to have seen O’Reilly hold her feet to the fire more about her disingenuous waffling, I can’t say O’Reilly pulled a lot of punches.
The same is not true for Foxnews.com. They helped softpedal her comments by calling the interview, All about 'Extortion' or 'politicizing' the fund? and gave it the subtitle, “Michele Bachmann explains her criticism of Obama ordering BP to set up oil spill compensation fund.”
Bachmann’s original comments were made at a Heritage Foundation lunch where she advised BP not to be “chumps” or get “fleeced” to pay for “perpetual unemployment and all the rest — they’ve got to be legitimate claims. “The other thing we have to remember is that Obama loves to make evil whatever company it is that he wants to get more power from. He makes them evil, and what we’ve got to ask ourselves is: Do we really want to be paying $9 for a gallon of gas? Because that could be the final result of this.”
Bachmann also told CNSNews, “it seems that it’s all about extortion–and that what they want to do is create a pot of money for themselves that they can control and that’s not what the Executive is supposed to do. There is a real misreading of jurisdictional limits, and they continue to stretch those limits beyond all bounds.”
On The Factor, O’Reilly asked, “If the executive branch, the presidency, isn’t going to force BP to pony up the money, who will? Who would?”
“But that’s not how it came across,” O’Reilly said sharply. “How that statement came across to me was that you said, ‘Look, Obama has overstepped his power… by taking a private corporation and forcing that corporation, BP, to put $2 billion in a till.’ Now, I don’t want it to be politicized, you don’t and I don’t think anybody in this country wants that fund to be politicized. What we want is, that the money gets to the people who are suffering as quickly as possible – exactly what happened after 9/11.”
Article from: kaystreet.wordpress.com
In the long run, I would seriously doubt BP would do a risky deep sea drilling after the recent disaster that has been swarming all over news. They might assist under subcontracting endeavors, but to see a BP rig stuck in the middle of a diplomatic nightmare between Britain and Argentina, under watchful eye of the worlds news, would be Suicidal for BP as well as disaster for their PR department.
(see: History of Oil spills and Disasters) Also:
Dexter Phoenix has worked as a staff and freelance photographer since the mid-1990's and has a wealth of professional experiences on his resume. We welcome his presence to our staff and Salem-News.com.
This native of Great Britain moved to Los Angeles in 2007, where he photographed general news, general Interests, sports, freelance model photo work, and also stock images. In his career Dexter has had photos published: World wide, in many magazines and newspapers and online. Throughout the course of his career he has experience with technology of all imaginable types. In his career as a photographer Dexter has covered stories in Norway, Sweden, Italy, Spain, Great Britain, France, Mexico, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Turkey, Somalia, Tunisia, Algeria. Angola, Iran, Dubai, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Colombia, United States. Email inquiries about photo purchase to Dexter at the above address.
You can email Dexter Phoenix, Salem-News.com Photographer/Reporter, at firstname.lastname@example.org
Articles for June 19, 2010 | Articles for June 20, 2010 | Articles for June 21, 2010