"ملف 10/1 الامتياز النفطي بالبحرين" [و‎‎١‎٥‎٥] (٤٧٦/٣٢٢)

/
//
- 6 -
He replied tnat the matter was one on which it was
desir ^Dle to avoid acrimonious controversy and reach a
working arrangement, it could be considered further later.
9 * Ex pension of Fro spec tin p; Licence . Mr. Ballantyne
said that he felt sore about the refusal to grant an
extension of the prospecting licence. While not a
technician himself he thought that the Company had
proauced sufficient evidence to suggest that an extension
//as dooiraole. He had not finished with this subject and
would have to pursue it further.
I said to ivir. Ballantyne that we were puzzled by
Che piecise meaning of a statement alleged in a recent
telegram from the Persian Gulf to have been made by
kajor Holmes to the effect that he had cancelled the offer
aade in his letter of 15th June and that the Company was not
prepared to make a fresh proposal for the remaining area
(Busnire telegram of 14th August, 681). On the fact of it
this appeared to mean that the Company wished to disinterest
themselves in the remaining area of Bahrein. Was this the
case? Mr. Ballantyne replied that this was not the case;
that the Company had impressed on Mtjor Holmes that in, the
11 i t /V / 1 % t
light of the India Office letter of 1st August, No.P.Z.4649/
the Company must start its negotiations afresh and
cancel previous offers; but that its headquarters in
Sen Francisco had intimated that no offer should now be made
1X1 respect of the remaining area until further information
was available as to prospects, we were not, however, to
think that the Company no longer wished to consider the
remaining area.
^"DIA OFFICE.
2 3rd August 1933. J.G. LAIIHWAITE.