"ملف 10/1 الامتياز النفطي بالبحرين" [و‎‎١‎٦‎١] (٤٧٦/٣٣٤)

f 1/1 J
- 6 -
rsfusea to fuest the Company ovsr the extension ox the
prospecting ilcance. Ihe lorce of this argument was
admitted* On the other hand, Sir Maurice Gwyer 's opinion
made it clear that we could not demand such modifications
as a conaition of an extension of the prospecting licence,
rfe oiiould in any event to a large extent he dependent for
thtjm on tile goodwill of the Company, although as had heen
pointed out at previous conferences, this matter had
already foxmed the subject of correspondence with the
uompany, -md ri.IVi»G. had indicated that in return for
oonceobiono alxaady granueo. go tne Company they had certain
alueiations to suggesu in tne mining lease* It was agreed
that, although there might be some difficulty on this aspect
of the Question, ruk.ti, would not he Justified in advising
one baoiKh uo extena uie prospecting licence merely on the
Ciidncd uxiau as a result one Company might "be oetter disposed
towards accepting certain amendments in the mining lease
^ se^ In ohj-s connection paragraphs 11 and 12 below), It was
agreed that the Political Besident should immediately be
consulted on the position generally by cable (see telegram
from Secretary of State for India to political Resident,
No.2000 of ilth August 1^33).
Positio n of territorial waters under the 1925 Concession
Reference was made to the correspondence which had passed
between the India Office and the Petroleum Department
(Mr. Laithwaite to Mr. Starling, dated'2nd'August, P.Z.4660/
33, paragraphs 4 and 5, and 9th August, P.Z,4857/33). The
Legal Adviser at the India Office, to whom the question had
oeen referred, had expressed the opinion that, although the
matter might not be free from doubt, he would himself hold
that "the whole of the territories under his control"
(Article 1 of Concession of 1925) and "all parts of the
territory/