James Regan + 1,776 June 25, 2019 (edited) 30 minutes ago, ceo_energemsier said: No one says the US is "walking away" from the Mid-East. Other players need to step up and play their role, spend the $$$, put some serious skin in the game to make things safer and stable and provide for security and safety of the vessels in the region. The USA is not there on their own we have the UK, Australia, French, Canadian & Indians, the gulf states and don’t forget the Iranians. It’s based on percentage of GDP. The USA is an Economic Powehouse and the biggest war machine on the planet so it makes sense they would have the biggest presence. The Gulf states have been patrolling the SOH for decades after buying US hardware, Abu Musa Island has been a bone of contention for decades between the UAE and Iran and why because Cresent Petroleum of Buttes Oil and Gas out of California own the Mubarek Field. Plenty of reasons why the USA should be patrolling and spending money doing so for industry and strategic reasons. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crescent_Petroleum https://www.corporationwiki.com/California/Oakland/buttes-gas-oil-co/39525122.aspx Edited June 25, 2019 by James Regan 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bobby P + 88 PM June 25, 2019 North American has more Oil reserves than OPEC, we don't need OPEC oil. On the other hand - China, India and other South Asian countries need OPEC oil. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129 June 26, 2019 8 hours ago, BigJets said: "2263" Nice down vote: Maybe you and P. Zeihan can do some simple math... USA dear friend still produces about as much steel as during WWII.... ~20% less. China dear friend produces 12X more steel than we do and has a Billion people without meaningful work... China also builds 50% of every ship on the oceans today and this will not change anytime soon due to the fact it has ~1Billion people working at poverty wages. China dear friend produces roughly ~30 million tons of shipping a year. Building roughly 4000 ships over 1000tons a year USA dear friend produced IN TOTAL during WWII ~30Million tons.... and that on WAR footing. Today dear friend, USA produces ~1Million tons shipping and roughly a dozen ships a year.... A good year it is ~2 dozen. Lets see 30 vrs 1.... 4000 vrs 20.... Now when you add oil platforms etc, USA totals "jump" to ~2Mtons, but still, its a joke. Put the crack pipe down man. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Douglas Buckland + 6,308 June 26, 2019 Ceo, can't you just attach links? You are really gumming up the works! 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Douglas Buckland + 6,308 June 26, 2019 This protection of internation shipping is just another example of US allies expecting the US to be the world's policeman. Everyone just knew the US would once again take on the job, and the cost, while they reaped the benefit. Another example would be NATO not honoring their pledges for the funding of the organization. Why should they? Let the Americsn taxpayer fund their defence! 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
James Regan + 1,776 June 26, 2019 (edited) 5 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said: This protection of internation shipping is just another example of US allies expecting the US to be the world's policeman. Everyone just knew the US would once again take on the job, and the cost, while they reaped the benefit. Another example would be NATO not honoring their pledges for the funding of the organization. Why should they? Let the Americsn taxpayer fund their defence! @Douglas Buckland Doug, This plays perfectly into DTs Trade War with the Chinese, one more sanction by strangle-holding some 60% of its oil forcing them to go elsewhere, somewhere like the USA for instance. Me thinks there is logic to DTs madness and a plan is afoot, this wasn’t drawn up on a fag packet (fag being a endearing and colloquial word for a small smoking device for the consumption of tobacco based products, mainly used in the UK) in a pub. Its all very convenient that Kushner is in Bahrain selling ladies underwear, Bolton is in Israel body slamming and high fiving Bibi and Pompeo is Touring the Middle East with Ted Nugent selling weapon systems. Some things are beyond coincidence and a conspiracy is apparently not happening. “I love it when a plan comes together “- Col John “ Hannibal” Smith - A Team Edited June 26, 2019 by James Regan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169 RJ June 26, 2019 52 minutes ago, James Regan said: @Douglas Buckland Doug, This plays perfectly into DTs Trade War with the Chinese, one more sanction by strangle-holding some 60% of its oil forcing them to go elsewhere, somewhere like the USA for instance. Me thinks there is logic to DTs madness and a plan is afoot, this wasn’t drawn up on a fag packet (fag being a endearing and colloquial word for a small smoking device for the consumption of tobacco based products, mainly used in the UK) in a pub. Its all very convenient that Kushner is in Bahrain selling ladies underwear, Bolton is in Israel body slamming and high fiving Bibi and Pompeo is Touring the Middle East with Ted Nugent selling weapon systems. Some things are beyond coincidence and a conspiracy is apparently not happening. “I love it when a plan comes together “- Col John “ Hannibal” Smith - A Team This is a seriously high stakes game if true. I can see the logic, but still seriously high stakes. A lot of things could go wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
James Regan + 1,776 June 26, 2019 (edited) 39 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said: This is a seriously high stakes game if true. I can see the logic, but still seriously high stakes. A lot of things could go wrong. “If True” is the catchphrase, of course we will never know and can only make assumptions based on what we are fed from the media and tweets. But it makes sense for all DTs threats and sanctions which seem to be conveniently linked in some form. Japanese tanker explodes while Japanese Prime Minister is in Tehran talking peace, and the list could go on.... Trade War with China, Chinese oil blocked by sanctions with Iran, so they buy it from Iraq, let’s close the SOH basically putting more sanctions on China, once China buys direct from the USA the trade war will start to improve watch out for G20 results! The USA was always playing catch-up while producing oil internationally, now DT believes the US is a net producing exporting nation and has plans for economic world domination. Why would the US shale oil get massive bailouts all during DTs time as president, very shortsighted as the US shale industry has still to prove itself, that to me are the “seriously high stakes” based on a blind hand. Nuclear bombs and Hauwei cyber theft is all smoke and mirrors. IMHO Edited June 26, 2019 by James Regan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Douglas Buckland + 6,308 June 26, 2019 As my Dad who is 86 commented the other day, if all of the actions taken by DT are part of a well thought out, nefarious plan, the guy is sly like a fox. At this point in the 'game', it does seem like the pieces are starting to come together. What happens at the G20 meeting will be interesting. Another result, depending on the outcome, is that the US will be re-evaluating their 'allies' and defense committments. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169 RJ June 26, 2019 37 minutes ago, James Regan said: “If True” is the catchphrase, of course we will never know and can only make assumptions based on what we are fed from the media and tweets. But it makes sense for all DTs threats and sanctions which seem to be conveniently linked in some form. Japanese tanker explodes while Japanese Prime Minister is in Tehran talking peace, and the list could go on.... Trade War with China, Chinese oil blocked by sanctions with Iran, so they buy it from Iraq, let’s close the SOH basically putting more sanctions on China, once China buys direct from the USA the trade war will start to improve watch out for G20 results! The USA was always playing catch-up while producing oil internationally, now DT believes the US is a net producing exporting nation and has plans for economic world domination. Why would the US shale oil get massive bailouts all during DTs time as president, very shortsighted as the US shale industry has still to prove itself, that to me are the “seriously high stakes” based on a blind hand. Nuclear bombs and Hauwei cyber theft is all smoke and mirrors. IMHO Still a dangerous game to play with so many unpredictable players. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BigJets + 87 JB June 26, 2019 (edited) 9 hours ago, Wastral said: Nice down vote: Maybe you and P. Zeihan can do some simple math... USA dear friend still produces about as much steel as during WWII.... ~20% less. China dear friend produces 12X more steel than we do and has a Billion people without meaningful work... China also builds 50% of every ship on the oceans today and this will not change anytime soon due to the fact it has ~1Billion people working at poverty wages. China dear friend produces roughly ~30 million tons of shipping a year. Building roughly 4000 ships over 1000tons a year USA dear friend produced IN TOTAL during WWII ~30Million tons.... and that on WAR footing. Today dear friend, USA produces ~1Million tons shipping and roughly a dozen ships a year.... A good year it is ~2 dozen. Lets see 30 vrs 1.... 4000 vrs 20.... Now when you add oil platforms etc, USA totals "jump" to ~2Mtons, but still, its a joke. Put the crack pipe down man. lol That's where you are wrong amigo. We've been spending trilions of dollars on our defense for decades for a reason. We are far ahead of our competition. We are so far ahead that we've begun leaking our secrets to the Chinese, Iranians and Russians to foster competition - in order to wake the sleeping American power out of its stupor. We exist for war boy. Our people are always at war - either economic or physical. We've been placing American bases across the world for a reason. We are the strong, and we prey on the weak amigo. Edited June 26, 2019 by BigJets Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RuudinFrance + 25 RH June 28, 2019 On 6/26/2019 at 3:24 PM, BigJets said: We are the strong, and we prey on the weak amigo. Note: Not the messenger, ..... the message. https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=RDMwIymq0iTsw&v=MwIymq0iTsw Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ceo_energemsier + 1,818 cv July 1, 2019 US floats effort to share burden of protecting Strait of Hormuz oil flows New Pentagon chief considers coalition for ship escorts Trump wants end of 'free riders' through oil chokepoint Trade wars, sanctions may hinder cooperation: Navy admiral A US military plan to seek more international support to protect oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz will be challenging, especially with President Donald Trump calling into question the US presence in the region, according to two former Navy admirals and an energy security expert. Mark Esper, the new acting Pentagon chief, said last week he is trying to build a coalition of "like-minded countries" to protect freedom of navigation through the world's busiest oil chokepoint. He suggested broader maritime and air surveillance and stronger naval protections such as a "picket line of ships" or military escorts of oil tankers. Such an operation would likely require a formation of ships at each end of the strait and multiple surveillance aircraft, according to former US Navy Admiral Jonathan Greenert, who served as chief of naval operations from 2011 to 2015. "It would be a big undertaking," Greenert said in an interview with S&P Global Platts. "It can be done, it's just a matter of commitment from the other nations and a commitment to the amount of time that might be necessary." But getting that commitment from allies may be a challenge after the Trump administration has spent the past two years criticizing long-standing alliances, launching trade disputes and reimposing sanctions on Iranian crude exports, said Dennis Blair, former US national intelligence director and a retired US Navy admiral who commanded US forces in the Pacific. "That's sort of the political tone-deafness that this administration seems to specialize in," Blair said in an interview with Platts. "I think it's going to be real hard for them to get those commitments." Blair said an escort campaign in the strait would be a challenge, even with full cooperation from allies and the advancements in tactical surveillance that have been developed since the tanker wars of the 1980s. "It will get to be a very complicated situation very quickly," he said. ASIAN IMPORTERS AS 'FREE RIDERS' In a pair of tweets on June 24, Trump questioned the US military's role in the Strait of Hormuz, singling out China and Japan for benefiting from shipping protections for "zero compensation" while claiming the growth of US oil and gas production has lessened the need for a US presence in the shipping lane. Countries, particularly China and India, have long depended on free passage of oil through the strait, said Richard Kauzlarich, co-director of the Center for Energy Science and Policy at George Mason University and a former US ambassador to Azerbaijan. "They basically have been free riders now for a decade or more, as their demand for oil has gone up," Kauzlarich said. "So it's not unreasonable to say, 'What are you guys going to be prepared to do to protect the flow of energy?'" About 20.7 million b/d of oil, or about 21% of global petroleum liquids demand, flows through the Strait of Hormuz, according to the US Energy Information Administration. Trump's tweets came as administration officials are working to reassure allies that they were working to minimize supply risks to global supply after allowing sanctions waivers, given to some of Iran's top oil buyers, to expire in early May. "We're doing everything we can to ensure you have adequate crude imports," Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said during a speech in India last Wednesday. State's top official on Iran policy met Friday with the secretary general of the International Maritime Organization to discuss "the importance of safeguarding freedom of navigation and promoting maritime security," according to a State Department statement. Esper, the acting US defense secretary, said some countries have come to him and expressed interest in pursuing collaborative security efforts in the Persian Gulf. "And I think over time we will develop that," he said. Greenert said similar international maritime security coalitions have been formed over the past two decades, including counter-terrorism task forces formed following the September 11 attacks, a counter-piracy task force, and an international mine task force formed after Iran last threatened to mine the Strait of Hormuz in late 2011. "We've done this before -- the commitment of nations has been out there before, but each has their particulars on what they're willing to do in this coalition," Greenert said. Amy Myers Jaffe, director of the Council on Foreign Relations' energy security and climate program, said it may be easier to build an international security coalition against Iran now than it was a decade or more ago due to the global oil and gas glut, since Asian and European companies may be less concerned about losing their energy investments in Iran due to current market conditions. "Basically, they can look at their investments now, and say 'Who cares?'" Jaffe said. US imports of crude oil from Persian Gulf countries averaged less than 1.05 million b/d in March, down from a peak of nearly 3.08 million b/d in April 2003, according to the US EIA. US oil output has grown to more than 11.9 million b/d from about 5.73 million b/d over the same time period, according to EIA data. But both Greenert and Blair dismissed Trump's idea that the US could lessen its maritime security role in the Middle East since it is producing record amounts of oil and importing less. "These are countries and, in many cases allies, [moving oil through the strait] that we need to have healthy economies... so those straits are key to that," Greenert said. "We have not tailored our commitment to the Arabian Gulf specifically in proportion to our need for oil, or our import of oil. It's really a matter of keeping that strait open for the benefit of the global economy." And Kauzlarich with George Mason said it would be impossible for a country to only protect the oil it plans to import, as Trump's tweets suggested. "Well, that isn't the way oil gets shipped," he said. "It gets on tankers that have flags of places as far removed as Liberia and Malta that have nothing to do with the country receiving the energy." 1984 Iraq-Iran war enters 'tanker phase' with regular bombings of ships and oil export facilities and mining of Persian Gulf waters 1987 US responds to escalating tanker attacks by deploying fleet of frigates, destroyers and minesweepers March 1987 US agrees to transfer Kuwaiti oil and gas tankers to US flag July 1987 US Navy starts escorting tankers through Persian Gulf in Operation Earnest Will April 2004 Shippers ask for US Navy escorts through Persian Gulf after attacks on Iraq's export terminals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762 SF July 2, 2019 14 hours ago, ceo_energemsier said: "That's sort of the political tone-deafness that this administration seems to specialize in," Blair said in an interview with Platts. "I think it's going to be real hard for them to get those commitments." They say "political tone-deafness" like it matters. They'll form a coalition, or they'll suffer. It doesn't matter to the US either way. 14 hours ago, ceo_energemsier said: "We have not tailored our commitment to the Arabian Gulf specifically in proportion to our need for oil, or our import of oil. It's really a matter of keeping that strait open for the benefit of the global economy." Case in point. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Most Active Members
Recently Online
Popular Members