Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

Iran Ups the Ante _ Drone Attacks on KSA Refineries

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by G8trGr8t, Sep 14, 2019.

  1. G8trGr8t

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    15,330
    1,419
    838
    Aug 26, 2008
    No but they are set up to take out some key Iranian facilities with a little help from KSA
     
  2. VAg8r1

    VAg8r1 GC Hall of Fame

    9,709
    1,170
    693
    Apr 8, 2007
    And Iran's proxy, Hezbollah is set up to pour Iranian built missiles and rockets into Israel from Lebanon. Not that there is any chance of Hezbollah actually winning in the end but they could do a lot of damage and they probably have enough weapons to overwhelm the Iron Dome system.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. PerSeGator

    PerSeGator GC Legend

    897
    289
    323
    Jun 14, 2014
    Come now, spare the dramatics. Iran is no threat to our way of life. Their aggression threatens their neighbors in the Middle East, most of which are as bad or worse than Iran. I see no reason to pick sides in that fight.

    I mean really, KSA is supposed to be some beacon of freedom? Really? One of the most oppressive theocratic dictatorships on the planet that freely exports terrorism — including Bin Laden and most of the 9/11 hijackers? The country that just murdered a WAPO journalist with impunity, stones their women for disobedience, and literally bans religions other than Islam? Pass. They are no better than Iran.

    Meddling over there has literally never worked. We’re not going to convert the region to a liberal democracy with cruise middles and tanks. It simply will not happen. How many times do we have to waste thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars to learn that lesson? All we accomplish is a region less stable than we started and a whole new generation of extremists that hate us.

    No thanks.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 1
  4. G8trGr8t

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    15,330
    1,419
    838
    Aug 26, 2008
    Does the disruption of oil supply from the ME threaten our way of life? Do you think taking all that oil off of the market would create a worldwide depression much worse than anything in the past 50 years?
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. gatorpa

    gatorpa GC Hall of Fame

    6,787
    222
    133
    Sep 5, 2010
    East Coast of FL
    They cant just have nukes as deterrents, that's all or nothing type of defense.
     
  6. tegator80

    tegator80 GC Hall of Fame

    5,842
    968
    648
    May 29, 2007
    Richmond, VA
    If you read what you are saying and what you all's discussion is about, do you see where a "false flag" is a really plausible scenario? They haven't done anything except know where they were launched. From military bases established in Iran? Or somewhere "out there?"

    This is all VERY dangerous territory and times. And there are religious kooks on ALL sides, including ours.
     
  7. wgbgator

    wgbgator King of the Tuck Tuck Sound Premium Member

    21,933
    1,033
    1,608
    Apr 19, 2007
    A Van Down By the River
    You know what else threatens our way of life even more gravely? Dependence on fossil fuels and blowback from our imperial ambitions.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. wgbgator

    wgbgator King of the Tuck Tuck Sound Premium Member

    21,933
    1,033
    1,608
    Apr 19, 2007
    A Van Down By the River
    Yeah, there's all sorts of weird stuff. Lots of conflicting info on those tanker attacks too, and nothing seems very straightforward.
     
  9. gatorpa

    gatorpa GC Hall of Fame

    6,787
    222
    133
    Sep 5, 2010
    East Coast of FL
    I don't think Solar can generate the amount of HP a cargo ship needs to operate.

    I Don't disagree with the other points.
     
  10. PerSeGator

    PerSeGator GC Legend

    897
    289
    323
    Jun 14, 2014
    No. The US has the ability to ramp up production enormously if the need arises, and the cost of going to war dwarfs the amount saved by marginally cheaper oil.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  11. gatorpa

    gatorpa GC Hall of Fame

    6,787
    222
    133
    Sep 5, 2010
    East Coast of FL
    Squeeze them more with sanctions with UN blessing, and have KSA hit their oil production facilities. Eye for an eye.
     
  12. gatorpa

    gatorpa GC Hall of Fame

    6,787
    222
    133
    Sep 5, 2010
    East Coast of FL
    I agree with the cost of going to war, but I haven't seen anyone here say the US needs to do that.

    However the US really can't ramp up production that fast, from what I've seen and heard we are pretty close to maxing refinery capacity, looked for some details but couldn't find a good source. We can pull more our of the ground sure, but then it sits before it can go to market.

    I think Chemgator is in this field and may have better details.


    Actually found a link, we are at 94% Refinery capacity..
    U.S. Refinery Utilization and Capacity



    [​IMG] U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) - Qb


    C
    ouldn't get the chart to copy... :([​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2019
  13. danmann65

    danmann65 GC Hall of Fame

    1,385
    334
    323
    May 22, 2015
    There is a wind and solar powered container ship either already built or at least designed. It would be slower than current ships but does speed matter when transportation is otherwise free. (I know you have to recoup the money from acquiring the ship)
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
  14. G8trGr8t

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    15,330
    1,419
    838
    Aug 26, 2008
    uuuhhh..that would be a big NO, the US does not have the capacity to ramp up production enormously.

    Can you please source that claim because I follow oil stocks/production pretty closely and that is contrary to everything that I understand. Our only ability to provide additional supply is tapping the strategic oil reserves and that would not be enough to supplement the world market by any means

    We are currently pumping at pretty much max capacity. Our pipeline restrictions make transport costs so high that there are somewhere around 150k barrels per day not being pumped because it is not economical but that is it.
     
  15. gatorpa

    gatorpa GC Hall of Fame

    6,787
    222
    133
    Sep 5, 2010
    East Coast of FL
    What happens if the route is covered in clouds.... Doubt there would be enough capacity, if the ship runs in to a gale, you need raw power to push through the storm.

    Interesting however.
     
  16. PerSeGator

    PerSeGator GC Legend

    897
    289
    323
    Jun 14, 2014
    The middle east exports very little refined petroleum. They mostly export crude and then it's refined in its destination country. The US produces more crude than we use and we also do mostly all of our refining domestically. Our spare capacity gets exported, along with our spare crude. If Saudi Arabia were to shut off its spigots, the price of oil would go up (since it's a global market), but we would not be facing any domestic shortages.
     
  17. PerSeGator

    PerSeGator GC Legend

    897
    289
    323
    Jun 14, 2014
    Short term, sure. You can't flip a switch and bring new wells online. But as the price of oil goes up, more and more wells become economically viable:

    upload_2019-9-18_11-10-32.png

    We don't need Middle Eastern oil. It's cheaper, sure, but we have trillions of barrels in shale and other tight oil reserves. It's sitting in the ground right now because there are cheaper global sources ready for extraction. If the Middle East turns off, production just moves elsewhere.
     
  18. gatorpa

    gatorpa GC Hall of Fame

    6,787
    222
    133
    Sep 5, 2010
    East Coast of FL
    Agree, we have plenty. Worlds top producer.

    Global market prices go up if there is substantial decrease in supply. The attack on KSA would have made the price jump more but for the fact that there has been a bit of an oversupply due to the Euro/Asia slow down.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. G8trGr8t

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    15,330
    1,419
    838
    Aug 26, 2008
    A false flag likely would not have targeted the most critical elements of the facility that are so difficult/expensive to repair. There is no upside to creating more outrage by targeting those particular components, there is an upside to making it much harder to get the production back online by targeting those key parts of the oil processing facility. Absent any satellite imagery of the origin of the attacks or missile components recovered from the attack I guess it is all just speculation though. that works well for both the Iranians and the false flag proponents. Identifying the culprit is becoming more and more difficult and that should scare all of us
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  20. steveGator52

    steveGator52 GC Legend

    506
    137
    283
    May 3, 2016
    DC Metro area
    And this was also the case in WWII, before Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and drug the US into WWII. We tried to isolate Japan to modify their behavior, and never believed they would actually attack Pearl Harbor. But they did, and the US ended up fighting in a global war, and the sailors at Pearl Harbor paid the ultimate price.

    A more recent example would be 9/11, as who thought terrorists would fly planes into buildings. How could a group of people living in caves in Afghanistan pose any danger to the US? If Iran gets nukes and we are still sanctioning them, then what will stop one of those weapons from being used against the US? Mutually Assured Destruction only works if both sides are rational.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1