In a public letter published yesterday in the newspaper Tiempo Argentino , Rio Negro legislator Magdalena Odarda is placing at the center of the debate a complaint about the public actions of the National Government and three provincial administrations, which clearly violate the defense of Argentine sovereignty and the validity of its laws.

His accusation exposes a chain of political collusion between the national government and the administrations of Río Negro, Tierra del Fuego, and Neuquén, which allowed the operation of the British oil company Harbour Energy, a company sanctioned and legally banned from the country.

The complaint is based on an undeniable fact: National Law No. 26,659 , known as the "Pino Solanas Law," prohibits any company that has explored or exploited resources on the continental shelf without proper state authorization from operating in Argentina. Under this law, the oil company Premier Oil was convicted by the Federal Court of Tierra del Fuego for its actions in the Sea Lion oil field, operating with an illegal license granted by the colonial government of the Malvinas. The sanction was clear: a 15-year disqualification and the seizure of its assets .

The crux of the matter is the identity of the company . With official documents from Companies House (the UK company registry) and the Official Gazette of the Argentine Republic , Odarda claims that Harbour Energy is the same entity as its predecessor, Premier Oil. They both share the same registration number, which, like a fingerprint, legally links them . However, despite this judicial precedent and the documentation that she claims proves the continuity of the sanctioned company, the national government opened its doors to it through the Energy Secretariat, headed by María del Carmen Tettamanti . The legislator questions the "suspicious speed" with which permits were granted to a company that, by law, should not operate in the country.

A web of complicity in Patagonia

Odarda's complaint, although it focuses on permits granted for a project in the San Matías Gulf in Río Negro, is only one piece of a larger puzzle involving three Patagonian provinces . The case reveals a modus operandi that appears to have been replicated at different levels of government, creating a flagrant contradiction with the historical claim of sovereignty over the Malvina Islands.

The Tierra del Fuego government , led by Gustavo Melella , was the first to take a false step by authorizing the entry of the British oil company into the Southern Marine Basin 1 (CMA-1) .

The operation was carried out covertly, allowing Harbour Energy to disguise itself as the German company Wintershall Dea , in a crude and gangster-like act of circumventing the law. A criminal maneuver facilitated with the full knowledge, approval, and complicity of the governor and part of his cabinet, and leaving legislators and lawmakers who approved the renewal of the oil contracts with false data, 15 to 0, hanging in the balance.

The authorities' pattern of conduct, however, is not limited to those two provinces. Harbour Energy itself boasts on its website that its production in Argentina is also concentrated in the Aguada Pichana Este and San Roque concessions in the Neuquén basin. This also indicates that the Rolando Figueroa administration should have joined the chain of authorizations that violate the "Pino Solanas Law."

Sovereignty in the spotlight and resources at risk

The situation is of unprecedented gravity . The defense of sovereignty is not mere rhetoric. By allowing a company that has participated in the usurpation of Argentine natural resources in the Malvinas to operate freely in the country, national and provincial authorities are undermining the nation's historic and constitutional claim .

The Sea Lion field, where Premier Oil/Harbour Energy had a key stake, is an undisputed act of usurpation of strategic resources.

This government action sends a dangerous message to the international community, which could be interpreted as a weakness in Argentina's position.

Odarda's complaint seeks to have the Federal Court put a stop to this chain of illegalities by investigating the officials involved and enforcing the laws that protect national sovereignty.

Beyond the legal consequences, this case highlights a fundamental problem: the apparent willingness of some governments to sacrifice the defense of a historic territorial claim in exchange for economic benefits, regardless of whether the beneficiaries are companies that have directly harmed national interests.

 Is the Argentine State capable of defending its laws and sovereignty, or do corporate interests trump the Constitution? The answer to that question will determine the future of the Malvinas claim.