.

[James Regan + 1,776]

3 hours ago, Wastral said:

Letting the Turks, Persians, Arabs tear each other apart sounds nice, but before that happens(during most likely) Russians/China/India/Japan etc will walk in and stomp hard. At which time, Japan and China etc start fighting over oil because there is no way the USA can send enough oil West unless BC/Alberta settle and make a GIGANTIC oil export terminal..... right....  Would still need light condensate from the USA, though it would be doable as getting that quantity through Panama is viable or requires building a large port in Washington State(dredging Gray's harbor required = a decade) and a pipeline to the Bakken region.  All this through envirowacko regions....

Or break every treaty/trade pact made after WWII other than NAFTA...  hrmmm  This honestly sounds more likely. 

Far too much faith in unproven Tight oil, 20MBl/day USA consumes they produce 12/14MBl/Day, it’s a long way off that OPEC loses its power and the USAs thirst for Texas Tea.

Edited July 3, 2019 by James Regan

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

2 hours ago, James Regan said:

Far too much faith in unproven Tight oil, 20MBl/day USA consumes they produce 12/14MBl/Day, it’s a long way off that OPEC loses its power and the USAs thirst for Texas Tea.

Canada fudge with Texas Tea and and an absolutely unbelievable amount of NG which can be turned into anything.  Petro dollar will fall.  Rest of the world, will have to be sovereign nations again instead of vassal states.  Not many enjoy being 2nd fiddle for very long.  Their patience has just about run out and the 1st fiddle is tired of playing and wishes to sit in the audience and watch. 

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

5 hours ago, Wastral said:

Letting the Turks, Persians, Arabs tear each other apart sounds nice, but before that happens(during most likely) Russians/China/India/Japan etc will walk in and stomp hard. At which time, Japan and China etc start fighting over oil because there is no way the USA can send enough oil West unless BC/Alberta settle and make a GIGANTIC oil export terminal..... right....  Would still need light condensate from the USA, though it would be doable as getting that quantity through Panama is viable or requires building a large port in Washington State(dredging Gray's harbor required = a decade) and a pipeline to the Bakken region.  All this through envirowacko regions.... 

 Or break every treaty/trade pact made after WWII other than NAFTA...  hrmmm  This honestly sounds more likely. 

With each passing year, the Western world & its allies become less dependent on Middle Eastern oil.  At the moment, there isn't enough oil to supply them, and chaos in the Middle East would lead to conflict.  In the future... not so much.  It'll be interesting to watch. 

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

On 6/26/2019 at 1:56 PM, Brent Hamrick said:

This attack on the Japanese tanker was a FALSE FLAG attack.   IT was designed to provoke United States into aggression. Which we did by flying the drone. Iranian did exactly what was expected. But someone or Trump himself figured it out and stopped. The President didn't take the bait. 

Good for him.  

 

 

On 6/26/2019 at 4:00 PM, Falcon said:

Brent

When you say false flag . . . Whom do you think is responsible ?

 

On 6/27/2019 at 1:56 AM, James Regan said:

False Flag - So the Japanese ship wasn’t Japanese it was something else? Can you explain @Brent Hamrick I’m not understanding you sir.

False Flag is normally a ship masqueraded as another so if it wasn’t Japanese what do you believe it was?

 

On 6/27/2019 at 2:16 AM, Jan van Eck said:

James:  in the current context, the phrase "false flag" is intended to convey the idea that the apparent perpetrator is actually innocent, it was a covert operation done by yet others in order to induce the third-party target, in this case the USA, to undertake some retaliation against the apparent perpetrator.

Thus, for example, the tankers were actually damaged by Saudi commandos in secret, in an effort to have the US blame the Iranians and go bomb the Iranians for punishment - to the delight of the Saudis, the real actors. 

The classic example of False Flag attacks was at the outset of WWII, where German commandos sabotaged their own border radio stations, in order to blame the Poles and thus provide a pretext to go invade Poland.  In actuality, the Poles had done nothing and were completely innocent of any acts of aggression.  It was all a set-up by Hitler's men. 

Is it possible the US was involved in these incidents?  I don't know why the US would want to start a war today, but supposing it did, I would create an incident, judge the public's reaction, and decide whether to proceed further.  Trump is an expert at reading public opinion; maybe he decided a war wouldn't work in his favor.

For now, anyway.  If there are enough incidents, the public might change their minds. 

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

10 hours ago, John Foote said:

In airframes, manned and drones, the real magic is in the avionics and sensors. Few things more advanced than a spooked up C-130. And that’s a 50s airframe.

I wonder if those avionics & sensors are designed to self-destruct in the event the plane is lost.  It wouldn't  be difficult to wipe the hard drive and then detonate some explosives. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

37 minutes ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

Is it possible the US was involved in these incidents? 

No.   Not credible.

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

3 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

It is beyond me how anyone can write like this. You seem to take joy in wiriting hypothetical (although maybe not unrealistic) scenarios where there will be a lot of human suffering. 

Why? 

I would guess you've led a sheltered life.  You probably attended excellent schools where they taught you all cultures are equal, the world is a wonderful place, etc.  If you actually go see these cultures for yourself, you'll discover that's not the case.  No, not the well-heeled businessmen you probably associate with.  You need to go see the less savory elements. 

That said, how we react to tragedy depends on who is facing it:
1)  When a good person faces tragedy, it's sad.
2)  When an asshole faces tragedy, it's satisfying.
3)  When an asshole faces tragedy due to his own vices, it's satisfying and hilarious. 

For 1400 years, Middle Eastern cultures have been complete assholes to the rest of the world, and the tragedy they currently face is the result of their own political dickery and economic mismanagement.  This is a scenario #3; their suffering will be hilarious and satisfying. 

Will I go out of my way to make them suffer?  No.  I'm not malicious.  Will I feel sympathy when they fall on their faces?  Also no.  Failure to plan on their part does not constitute an emergency on mine - and again, my time/attention/emotional energy are focused on more worthy causes.  I'll chuckle at their stupidity for a moment and then get on with my life.  That's all the emotional investment they deserve. 

More importantly, the inevitable suffering they face might cleanse their cultures of hubris, violent tendencies, and extremism.  At the very least, plunging them into chaos will reduce their exports of violence, oppression, and terrible ideology.  The world has endured their dickery for 1400 years; I'm pleased that that may finally stop. 

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

3 hours ago, James Regan said:

Far too much faith in unproven Tight oil, 20MBl/day USA consumes they produce 12/14MBl/Day, it’s a long way off that OPEC loses its power and the USAs thirst for Texas Tea. 

Instead of viewing production/consumption as constant, look at rates of change.  The Western world & its allies are reducing oil consumption, and that demand destruction will accelerate in the next decade.  Given the number of technologies being thrown at efficiency/alternatives, I'd anticipate the demand destruction outstripping the most optimistic estimates.  We're dealing with technological changes, and forecasters always seem to underestimate technology. 

Meanwhile, "unproven" tight oil production continues to increase and promises to stay elevated for at least a decade.  Tight oil need only last until Western oil consumption decreases - a mere decade or two.  Everything I've read suggests it can do that. 

I'm not sure what you're saying about 20MMbpd consumption and 12-14MMbpd production.  The US will soon be a net exporter of oil products - assuming it isn't already - with the ability to increase production.  The same is true of Canada.

 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

25 minutes ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

I wonder if those avionics & sensors are designed to self-destruct in the event the plane is lost.  It wouldn't  be difficult to wipe the hard drive and then detonate some explosives. 

No. And the reason is that those avionics are on board an aircraft, a place where self-destruct "explosives" are uniquely not suited.  The on-going problem would be accidental detonation in flight, with the loss of the aircraft and crew.  Having anything on board that would cause a spy plane to blow up is a uniquely lousy idea.  Besides, if one crashes, typically the non-hardened electronic equipment does not do that great.  The stuff gets wrecked.

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

3 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Am I rigth to assume that you would take joy in all the human suffering that would result from this?

We all need to deal with reality, but death and destruction is not a game. And honestly if anybody gets off on this type of thing they should seek help. 

You're missing the point.  The Middle East has inflicted 1400 years of conquest, mass murder, slavery, destruction of knowledge, religious extremism, and terror on the world.  The need to mitigate their chronic bad behavior supersedes any concern for their well being.  They brought this on themselves. 

Is it satisfying to watch innocent people suffer?  No.  Is it satisfying to rid the world of a violent culture, thereby reducing the average level of human suffering?  Absolutely.  If the Middle East doesn't want the world to take pleasure in their destruction, they need only change their culture, make amends, and prove they can be good neighbors. 

I must stress that the Middle East had to work hard to earn this level of disdain.  The bar was set extremely low: all they had to do was mind their own business.  Instead, they chose to play violent games.  I repeat: they decided to make it a game.  Now that they've brought this suffering upon themselves, they don't get to whine about it. 

Play stupid games; win stupid prizes. 

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

19 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

No. And the reason is that those avionics are on board an aircraft, a place where self-destruct "explosives" are uniquely not suited.  The on-going problem would be accidental detonation in flight, with the loss of the aircraft and crew.  Having anything on board that would cause a spy plane to blow up is a uniquely lousy idea.  Besides, if one crashes, typically the non-hardened electronic equipment does not do that great.  The stuff gets wrecked.

Every piloted aircraft has explosives in it; that's how they release the ejection seats.  How is that a different technical problem than a self-destruct mechanism? 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

1 hour ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

Every piloted aircraft has explosives in it;

Nope.  You are referring to a combat aircraft.  Surveillance aircraft are typically unarmed, mere lightweight fuselages of minimal construction and not designed to withstand explosives. Set off even a shoe bomb and it is bye-bye. 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Well, from the comments I can see that there are many armchair Generals and Secretary of State wannabees. While this makes for an interesting debate, it is an exercise in futility. We simply do not have access to all of the information and the information we glean from the media is biased one way or the other.

From the comments, it appears that some feel that flying an intelligence gathering drone over a foreign country should be illegal. Perhaps, but in a conflict situation, those with this ability are going to use it. Aside from that, what about 'flying' spy satellites over foreign countries? Is that okay? If so, then it is only the altitude that limits the legality. Many nations routinely overfly other countries with their spy satellites.

Although it is almost a foregone conclusion that IF the US decided to go to war with Iran, they would eventually win simply due to their advanced weapons, training, and practice in recent decades. That said, why does anyone believe that the US would even consider doing so? There is no appetite for war within the American population or the Congress. America is wanting to disengage in Afghanistan and is actively in talks with the Taliban. Iraq (not Kurdistan) is a complete disaster and the US would like to get out of there as well.

As was mentioned earlier, 'boots on the ground' in Iran is not going to happen, and it is not required. The Iranian theocracy fears an uprising from the people after years of sanctions and the declining standard of living. They realize that if their military is busy fighting a ground war with any other country, it opens the door to civil disobedience. Even if they are not actively engaged in a ground war, if a foreign actor stars targeting their military 'Command & Communication' systems, the door also opens (now I sound like an armchair General...). The fact remains that to disrupt the Iranian government there are plenty of 'safer' options than open warfare.

There is also the alternative of simply letting Iran die on the vine. Keep enforcing the sanctions, and initiate new ones. This will probably eventually cause a regime change, but it will be the Iranian people who take the brunt of this method.

China is the 'main attraction' for the US government at the moment. North Korea and Iran have been simmering on the sidelines for decades, there is absolutely no reason to address these countries at the moment UNLESS Iran would try to close the Straits. At this point the international community would be screaming for the US to do 'something'. This is because other nations with significant navies NEVER get involved with international any international crisis which does not benefit them OR until the US takes the lead. This is why you always see the term 'US-led coalition'. Whatever the US would do at this point, once the Straits were opened and secured, would be condemned by the international community as American Imperialism. So again, why should America get involved?

Concerning President Trump and how he acts on the world stage, many people seem to forget that President Trump is not, and has never been, a politician! That is partly what got him elected to office. People are tired of posturing politicians who essentially do nothing - this sentiment is prevalent everywhere, not just the US. That said, President Trump approaches issues in a much different manner than a career politician. Historically politicians were hesitant to utilize the tool of the tariff, resulting in a significant imbalance of trade to some countries. Diplomacy had not worked, inclusion in the WTO made matters worse but gave it some legality and 'playing nice' just let China carry on with its currency manipulation, Intellectual property theft and demand that technology transfer was a pre-requisite to do business in China. Trump simply said, "enough is enough".

The 'trade war' with Mexico is another example of how tariffs, or the threat of tariffs, finally got the Mexican government to address, and take responsibility, for the thousands of illegals entering, and transiting, their country for the sole purpose entering the US illegally. Diplomacy had not been effective at all.

President Trump is the elected head of the American government, his job is to do the right thing by the American people and not to placate the international community. Sure, he should try to keep decent and fair relations with the international community, but his first loyalty is to the American people.

End of rant.......

 

 

[SERWIN + 749]

2 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

Is it satisfying to watch innocent people suffer?  No.  Is it satisfying to rid the world of a violent culture, thereby reducing the average level of human suffering?  Absolutely.  If the Middle East doesn't want the world to take pleasure in their destruction, they need only change their culture, make amends, and prove they can be good neighbors. 

I must stress that the Middle East had to work hard to earn this level of disdain.  The bar was set extremely low: all they had to do was mind their own business.  Instead, they chose to play violent games.  I repeat: they decided to make it a game.  Now that they've brought this suffering upon themselves, they don't get to whine about it. 

Play stupid games; win stupid prizes. 

Just like California and New York, they make their beds with stupidity and ignorance, and don't want to lie in them afterwards.......

[James Regan + 1,776]

3 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

Instead of viewing production/consumption as constant, look at rates of change.  The Western world & its allies are reducing oil consumption, and that demand destruction will accelerate in the next decade.  Given the number of technologies being thrown at efficiency/alternatives, I'd anticipate the demand destruction outstripping the most optimistic estimates.  We're dealing with technological changes, and forecasters always seem to underestimate technology. 

Meanwhile, "unproven" tight oil production continues to increase and promises to stay elevated for at least a decade.  Tight oil need only last until Western oil consumption decreases - a mere decade or two.  Everything I've read suggests it can do that. 

I'm not sure what you're saying about 20MMbpd consumption and 12-14MMbpd production.  The US will soon be a net exporter of oil products - assuming it isn't already - with the ability to increase production.  The same is true of Canada.

 

@BenFranklin'sSpectacles - “'m not sure what you're saying about 20MMbpd consumption and 12-14MMbpd production.  The US will soon be a net exporter of oil products - assuming it isn't already - with the ability to increase production.  The same is true of Canada.”

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=33&t=6

EIA famous for being on point with its numbers.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

40 minutes ago, James Regan said:

@BenFranklin'sSpectacles - “'m not sure what you're saying about 20MMbpd consumption and 12-14MMbpd production.  The US will soon be a net exporter of oil products - assuming it isn't already - with the ability to increase production.  The same is true of Canada.”

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=33&t=6

EIA famous for being on point with its numbers.

The EIA is also famously misleading. About 5 million bbls per day of that number is petrochemical feedstock, which means plastics and pharma. Also there's no accounting for the export of refined products, which has gone on for decades and was not part of the export ban on crude. So, starting at the 15 million bbls per day then subtracting the 2 million or so refined exports, then subtracting the 2 million in crude exports, how close are we really to self sufficiency? Recognize also that the Motiva refinery is fully owned by the Saudis so it is somewhat natural that its 660 thousand bbls per day gets fed as much as possible by Saudi oil. Ultimately it would be nice if, like real estate, oil goes to its best and highest use. For some crudes that might be diesel and jet fuel. For others it might be naphtha and petrochem.

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

6 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

 Nope.  You are referring to a combat aircraft.  Surveillance aircraft are typically unarmed, mere lightweight fuselages of minimal construction and not designed to withstand explosives. Set off even a shoe bomb and it is bye-bye.  

You're correct: combat aircraft.

My point stands though.  There exist explosives that can be safely incorporated into an aircraft.  It would be possible to include said explosives in a classified sensor suite so that, in the event the aircraft would be captured by the enemy, the sensors could be destroyed. 

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

4 hours ago, James Regan said:

@BenFranklin'sSpectacles - “'m not sure what you're saying about 20MMbpd consumption and 12-14MMbpd production.  The US will soon be a net exporter of oil products - assuming it isn't already - with the ability to increase production.  The same is true of Canada.”

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=33&t=6

EIA famous for being on point with its numbers. 

Yes.  You're misunderstanding their definitions.  The quoted 20MMbpd consumption includes all "petroleum" products: biofuels, natural gas liquids, etc.  The quoted 12-14MMbpd production excludes some products.  Hence, crude oil "production" is at 12-14MMbpd, petroleum "consumption" is at 20MMbpd, and the US is set to be a net exporter of crude by year's end. 

Details matter. 

[shadowkin + 584]

8 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

I wonder if those avionics & sensors are designed to self-destruct in the event the plane is lost.  It wouldn't  be difficult to wipe the hard drive and then detonate some explosives. 

Yes. Explosives aren’t necessary. High tech electronics are built with anti-tamper systems so that any attempt to access/remove the hardware results in the wiping of the software which is really the important part nowadays. There may even be malware uploaded to an unauthenticated connection attempting to extract data. This is the case even with US equipment sold to allies.

[James Regan + 1,776]

33 minutes ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

Yes.  You're misunderstanding their definitions.  The quoted 20MMbpd consumption includes all "petroleum" products: biofuels, natural gas liquids, etc.  The quoted 12-14MMbpd production excludes some products.  Hence, crude oil "production" is at 12-14MMbpd, petroleum "consumption" is at 20MMbpd, and the US is set to be a net exporter of crude by year's end. 

Details matter. 

Gents,

i don’t really mind how you decide to break down the data to suit yourselves but the fact is the USA consumes 20MBbl/ day and I’d one third away from being a net producer.

I will bet a dollar to a pinch of dookie 💩 that USA is not a net producer by years end.

 

https://www.indexmundi.com/energy/?country=us&product=oil&graph=consumption

https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_oil_consumption

https://www.statista.com/statistics/282716/oil-consumption-in-the-us-per-day/

 

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

4 hours ago, shadowkin said:

Yes. Explosives aren’t necessary. High tech electronics are built with anti-tamper systems so that any attempt to access/remove the hardware results in the wiping of the software which is really the important part nowadays. There may even be malware uploaded to an unauthenticated connection attempting to extract data. This is the case even with US equipment sold to allies.

Sometimes you can wipe the software.  Other times, the sensors use ASICs and FPGAs.  I'm not sure if those can be evaluated under a microscope and reverse-engineered. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

11 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

'boots on the ground' in Iran is not going to happen

The reason it is not going to happen is that nobody, specifically the USA, has the stomach for it.

If the USA was prepared t go to actual war for the interests of its allies, and for ideological reasons, it would have brought in a flood of tanks into the Ukraine and taken back the Donbas by force. Not one tank has showed up.  If nobody is going to go to battle against the Russian mercenaries for stealing Crimea and the Luhansk/Donesk Oblasts, then nobody is going to go to bat for the Iranian people, either. 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

I would assume that any high tech drone, flying over 'enemy' territory (not saying it was) would be equipped with a self-destruct system to keep the top secret portion, or the vehicle itself, from falling intact into enemy hands. This would only be common sense.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

3 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

The reason it is not going to happen is that nobody, specifically the USA, has the stomach for it.

If the USA was prepared t go to actual war for the interests of its allies, and for ideological reasons, it would have brought in a flood of tanks into the Ukraine and taken back the Donbas by force. Not one tank has showed up.  If nobody is going to go to battle against the Russian mercenaries for stealing Crimea and the Luhansk/Donesk Oblasts, then nobody is going to go to bat for the Iranian people, either. 

But why should the US get involved with the Crimea or the Ukraine if NATO was unwilling to do so?

I agree that the international response to the Russian invasion of the Ukraine was pathetic, but the US alone can not, and should not, be the fallback position when NATO fails to act.

Your comment that, "...nobody, specifically the USA, has the stomach for it.", is understandable as every time the US tries to 'do the right thing', the international community condemns them. They then castigate the US for 'isolationism' when they choose NOT to get involved. It is a Catch-22 scenario.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

As you know, the Arab world believes that Israel should give back the Golan Heights. I guess everyone has conveniently forgotten the shelling of Israel from the Golan Heights prior to 1967 and the fact that Israel took this area during a war in which they were attacked first, by an Arab coalition.

Now if this is what the international community demands, I think that we had better start redrawing the map of Europe and North America as well. It all depends on how far back in history you want to go.