If 10 people living in a neighbourhood of 100,000 decided to build themselves a dodgy nuclear power plant and sell all the electricity to China, don't you think the risk that the 999,990 people living in the area maybe deserved a bit of insurance? Any fallout will fuck the 10 people, sure, but they're not my primary concern. They might be my principal defendants in court though.
I'm the only one that has talked facts here with direct respect to the amount of recoverable oil in the area. Nobody seems interested in the fact that the rosiest dependable "estimates" - provided by of course the very same oil companies that want monopolistic, military-protected concessions - of this particular field's reserves vary wildly between "something" and "up to 400,000,000 barrels" - which can only be extracted after a half decade at the rate of much less than even a half million barrels a day.
The world pisses through 86-88m barrels a day. By the time this operation is up and running, assuming oil prices don't go tits up (never trust a oil company post-2000 to supply you oil at less than $50 a barrel), you might have just enough time to hit the tail end of Peak Oil.
But you pissed of the Argies, and that should be well worth a spill or two 
Are we just taking as fact that there will be an oil spill? and the the safety of the Argentinean population won't be considered in an future oil extraction?
I assume as you only deal in facts you can post up some sources that show 100% of offshore oil drilling results in massive leaks, devastation of the 'neighbouring' area etc, etc.
Why not deal with the facts, as highlighted by Dava about the Argentineans canceling their rights to any oil revenue? Not quite dealing in fact there are you? so I'm sure that Argentina will be afforded the same assurances and insurances as every other country located near offshore oil extraction, what these are I don't know but I look forward to you showing me your sources on that too.
And, if the facts you are dealing with state that the oil resources in the area are so low and will take so long to get out with such a risk (based upon the sources you're going to show me) why aren't you campaigning for no one to extract the oil, rather than, as you are doing, for Argentina to get their cut?
As the oil that will be extracted belongs to and is in the maritime area of the Falkland Islanders and as they consider themselves to be British (well Falkland Islanders first but certainly not Argentinean) don't you think you should be worried about their welfare and safety first? I just find it odd that you're so noble towards the welfare of the Argentineans but don't give a fuck about the 'minorities' should and I repeat should there be any major oil spillage.
Actually I'm pretty sure it was discussed earlier that the British Government would have to bear the cost, along with the oil companies should anything go wrong, I would guess that this would include compensation along the same lines as we are seeing off the coast of America ($1 billion?) but there's a big difference between insurance and getting a cut of any oil revenue isn't there? and unless I totally don't understand how insurance works you only get it paid out once something goes wrong, correct?
Also considering the Falkland Islands are British, is viewed by the UN as such, it's people view themselves as British (in the same way you might consider yourself Scouse, Yorkshire, Lancastrian etc first THEN English or British) and considering the oil reserves, however big or small are in the Falkland Islands territorial waters why, giving all those facts should it piss Argentina off?
You just seem to be grasping a straw a hypothetical straw at that with which to beat the British government and the Falkland Islanders, but I await your sources and facts with interest.
