UAE says four vessels subjected to 'sabotage' near Fujairah port

The mysterious "sabotage" of four tankers near the Fujairah port in the Gulf will probably add some more tension in the Gulf...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-emirates-fujairah-port-shipping/uae-says-four-vessels-subjected-to-sabotage-near-fujairah-port-idUSKCN1SI0EG

Do you have some more news on that ? Some sources said explosions damaged the ships.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It be them dam Iranians

Anyone getting a strong whiff of false flag here? Another WMD moment.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mysterious?  LOL!  It's clearly Iran slowing down the Saudi exports and making it impossible for KSA to cover the Iranian oil being taken off the market by the US sanctions.  The US declared war on Iran and is getting the same response that FDR got in 1941 from Japan.  It's an old playbook.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, NickW said:

Anyone getting a strong whiff of false flag here? Another WMD moment.

Yep again.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's false flag at all.  It looks like what the Iranians would do and it makes sense.  It's not big enough to retaliate directly but it's going to whittle down the KSA capacity to fulfill Iranian oil shipments.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

9 hours ago, NickW said:

It be them dam Iranians

Anyone getting a strong whiff of false flag here? Another WMD moment.

Its rather more like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident but i agree with you.

Edited by Tomasz
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it is a provocation (false flag or otherwise) designed to increase the price of oil toward the Saudi-coveted $80+ Brent price then it may work in the short term.

On the other hand, if it is Iran showing their displeasure of getting backed into a corner, then this may escalate fairly quickly.

My suggestion would be to watch how Russia reacts, as I do not think that Russia is directly involved in whatever is going on, but Putin is smart enough to take advantage of any opportunities that may present themself if this indeed escalates into chaos.

Just my opinion this morning, and my opinions will likely get modified as new information unfolds.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tom Kirkman said:

If it is a provocation (false flag or otherwise) designed to increase the price of oil toward the Saudi-coveted $80+ Brent price then it may work in the short term.

On the other hand, if it is Iran showing their displeasure of getting backed into a corner, then this may escalate fairly quickly.

My suggestion would be to watch how Russia reacts, as I do not think that Russia is directly involved in whatever is going on, but Putin is smart enough to take advantage of any opportunities that may present themself if this indeed escalates into chaos.

Just my opinion this morning, and my opinions will likely get modified as new information unfolds. 

Q: Who wins when most of the Middle East gets embroiled in war? 
A: The US and Russia, who will increase their market share - and, thereby, their control over oil markets - while simultaneously bankrupting the headache they call the Middle East. 

This is an organized cockfight.  Who's the bookie - and how do I place my bet?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't speculate who is behind this but it does look suspicious like fcuk.

Stern is not easiest place to place a limpet mine, I'm guessing (unless anchored). Any details on other ships damage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

18 hours ago, NickW said:

It be them dam Iranians

Anyone getting a strong whiff of false flag here? Another WMD moment.

I dont think that is it. There are plenty of Iranian supporters and sympathizers on that side of the AG that could, may and will take some such subversive actions whether they are directly instructed or via proxies to do such things. This may spike the price of crude for a few days and def. increase the premium for risk in the region perhaps elevating it to the next level in the insurance rates, but I dont think it will slow down the desire and capability of KSA and others to replace Iranian barrels.

Or perhaps Iran and their proxies are awaiting a response to these incidents and see what their new and or other subversive /destructive moves could be?

Edited by ceo_energemsier
Correction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DanilKa said:

I wouldn't speculate who is behind this but it does look suspicious like fcuk.

 

3840ffff3b7943d18d8addff64c330eda3f89e967b0db8f64deb9e2345ca135f.jpeg

  • Haha 5
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regard to the ability to export oil one question comes to mind is how tight is the current supply of oil tankers because if there is spare capacity sitting  around this action would mean diddly squat in regard to KSA's ability to increase exports. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, NickW said:

In regard to the ability to export oil one question comes to mind is how tight is the current supply of oil tankers because if there is spare capacity sitting  around this action would mean diddly squat in regard to KSA's ability to increase exports. 

concern is this may be Gulf of Tonkin/Iraq WMD moment with unpredictable outcome. RT terminals and Dhahran are short flight time away; they were shot at during last skirmish. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, DanilKa said:

concern is this may be Gulf of Tonkin/Iraq WMD moment with unpredictable outcome. RT terminals and Dhahran are short flight time away; they were shot at during last skirmish. 

My wife is Iranian and I keep trying to get some perception from her at how barking the Iranian regime is. Surely they realise that in a stand off war (air and missile) with the USA they will be annihilated. 

She says they live in luxury while the rest of the country sinks into poverty which surprises me that they would jeopardise this  by being confrontational with the USA. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep seeing comments regarding WMD.

Let me ask you this. Do you consider poison gas as a WMD?

If you answered 'yes', then you then need to ask if Saddam had poison gas.

The Kurds will tell you unequivocally that not only did Saddam have poison gas, he used it on them.

I suppose it all boils down to what you classify as a WMD.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

I keep seeing comments regarding WMD.

Let me ask you this. Do you consider poison gas as a WMD?

If you answered 'yes', then you then need to ask if Saddam had poison gas.

The Kurds will tell you unequivocally that not only did Saddam have poison gas, he used it on them.

I suppose it all boils down to what you classify as a WMD.

Chlorine Gas is a poison gas. Any country with a basic water sanitation system has large stocks of that too. 

I am fairly certain that's what was used in Syria as part of what I suspect was a false flag attack by the Jihadis to get the west drawn in against Assad. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

I keep seeing comments regarding WMD.

Let me ask you this. Do you consider poison gas as a WMD?

If you answered 'yes', then you then need to ask if Saddam had poison gas.

The Kurds will tell you unequivocally that not only did Saddam have poison gas, he used it on them.

I suppose it all boils down to what you classify as a WMD.

Nerve gas is WMD. "Had" is a right tense - he have had it but give up; attack happened under false pretext after massive PR campaign. I'm not white-washing Saddam at all, just hate unjust unprovoked wars for sake of creating ample weapons demand or destabilize regions

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, NickW said:

Chlorine Gas is a poison gas. Any country with a basic water sanitation system has large stocks of that too. 

I am fairly certain that's what was used in Syria as part of what I suspect was a false flag attack by the Jihadis to get the west drawn in against Assad.  

If we're counting chlorine gas as a poison gas, and poison gas as a WMD, then WMDs were used in Iraq on US service members. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, NickW said:

Eh, that doesn't surprise me.  I'm reminded of stories from some older gentlemen about the US invasion of Europe.  German soldiers were treated with the respect and decency they deserved; SS members were walked into the woods, never to be seen again. 

We need to disabuse ourselves of naive Western ideals and wishful thinking, so I'm going to be perfectly honest with you.

First, let's put the law of war into perspective.  These laws are courtesies.  I don't wish to suffer a chemical attack.  Therefore, I choose not to subject an honorable opponent to chemical attacks.  I do not wish to be abused as a POW.  Therefore, I do not abuse my POWs.  When an enemy denies me those courtesies, I'm under no obligation to waste time, resources, or lives extending courtesy to him.  Protecting myself, my comrades, and civilians is a higher priority.  It's not vengeance.  It's not a blood feud.  There's no drama involved.  It's just business.  I have a job to do, and I'm going to do it.  In short: if you're a psychotic ass, your opponents will extend the bare minimum courtesy to avoid punishment. 

Now let's talk about Saddam's military.  They gassed Kurdish civilians prior to the war, which meets the criteria of "psychotic ass".  No one is going to bend over backwards extending courtesy to them.  That being the case, it sounds to me like some Marines in the 1st Battle of Fallujah laid a smoke screen and there *happened* to be some Iraqi soldiers in the area.  It was just a tragic accident.  These things happen in war. 

Now let's talk about post-invasion Iraq.  Iraq wasn't what you'd call a polite war.  Before I fought in Fallujah, I was trained by the Marines who had already fought in Fallujah.  The last thing they told us was, "If you find yourself in a situation where you'll be captured, fight to the death or save the last bullet for yourself because they're just gonna to cut your head off."  When I arrived in Fallujah, I faced an enemy that would use anything - women, children, mosques, hospitals, ambulances - to their advantage.  Their most egregious offenses were attempts to trick us into shooting children.  Before you moralize on the US military's actions, consider what's necessary to protect civilians from these animals. 

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The UK War Risks Club, which provides specialist insurance for ships, is investigating the incidents of sabotage of vessels in Fujairah port over the weekend and has not decided on additional premiums for the region, a company executive said Monday.

The club, managed by insurance provider Thomas Miller, is one of the providers of marine Protection and Indemnity or P&I insurance, including additional war risks insurance for incidents like civil war, piracy or other disturbances.

Two Saudi oil tankers faced a “sabotage attack” off the coast of Fujairah, UAE, on Sunday, Saudi Press Agency reported Monday, citing the energy ministry. It said the tankers were on their way to cross into the Persian Gulf, and suffered “significant damage.” UAE said separately that four commercial vessels were affected.

The incident raised concerns about the safety of vessels transiting the region and the implementation of additional marine insurance that could increase transportation costs for fleets including oil tankers.

“The Club is investigating what has happened in this incident as there have been a number of incorrect initial reports regarding the number of ships involved,” Nick Whitear, Underwriting Director for Thomas Miller War Risks Services Limited, and Managers of the UK War Risks Association, said.

“If a change to the current designated ‘Additional Premium’ areas is to be made then this would be made with seven days’ notice to shipowners,” he added.

The UK War Risks Club last issued its circular on Indian Ocean regions that attract additional premiums on January 24, which included some waters in the Gulf of Aden and Southern Red Sea Transits, but did not include the port of Fujairah.

A vessel owner is required to give written notice before it proceeds to one of these regions to be eligible for insurance cover.

The coastal waters of Iran, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Yemen are all designated “additional-premium” areas as a variety of conflict and other war risk-related activity potentially threatens shipping in these areas, according to the Club.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

Eh, that doesn't surprise me.  I'm reminded of stories from some older gentlemen about the US invasion of Europe.  German soldiers were treated with the respect and decency they deserved; SS members were walked into the woods, never to be seen again. 

We need to disabuse ourselves of naive Western ideals and wishful thinking, so I'm going to be perfectly honest with you.

First, let's put the law of war into perspective.  These laws are courtesies.  I don't wish to suffer a chemical attack.  Therefore, I choose not to subject an honorable opponent to chemical attacks.  I do not wish to be abused as a POW.  Therefore, I do not abuse my POWs.  When an enemy denies me those courtesies, I'm under no obligation to waste time, resources, or lives extending courtesy to him.  Protecting myself, my comrades, and civilians is a higher priority.  It's not vengeance.  It's not a blood feud.  There's no drama involved.  It's just business.  I have a job to do, and I'm going to do it.  In short: if you're a psychotic ass, your opponents will extend the bare minimum courtesy to avoid punishment. 

Now let's talk about Saddam's military.  They gassed Kurdish civilians prior to the war, which meets the criteria of "psychotic ass".  No one is going to bend over backwards extending courtesy to them.  That being the case, it sounds to me like some Marines in the 1st Battle of Fallujah laid a smoke screen and there *happened* to be some Iraqi soldiers in the area.  It was just a tragic accident.  These things happen in war. 

Now let's talk about post-invasion Iraq.  Iraq wasn't what you'd call a polite war.  Before I fought in Fallujah, I was trained by the Marines who had already fought in Fallujah.  The last thing they told us was, "If you find yourself in a situation where you'll be captured, fight to the death or save the last bullet for yourself because they're just gonna to cut your head off."  When I arrived in Fallujah, I faced an enemy that would use anything - women, children, mosques, hospitals, ambulances - to their advantage.  Their most egregious offenses were attempts to trick us into shooting children.  Before you moralize on the US military's actions, consider what's necessary to protect civilians from these animals. 

The point is western powers should not have been there full stop as we were tricked (by Politicians and perhaps some warhawks in the upper echelons of the military) into believing that Saddam had capability to deliver Chemical weapons across the region possibly even as far as Europe. This was given as the reason to invade. 

We can talk about Saddams brutality but that was hardly unique - why not invade North Korea they are at least as brutal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites