Iran says tanker oil sold at sea, buyer sets destination

[Zhong Lu + 845]

2 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Lu,

When I originally made the comment ‘I thought that this was why they developed torpedoes’, I did so jokingly.

The response has been interesting.

I would never suggest that a ship, not at war, with an international crew, be torpedoed for political reasons. And the US never mentioned an intent to do so. No threat has been made by the US although Iran has often mentioned ‘closing the Straits’. How would they accomplish this without military action against vessels? 

 

It's the internet.  There is no sarcasm on the internet.  Or more specifically: no one will ever realize that anyone is ever sarcastic.  

Toodelidoodelidooo.  

Edited September 12, 2019 by Zhong Lu

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Zhong Lu said:

no one will ever realize that anyone is ever sarcastic.  

No s**t.

I think someone suggesting torpedoing a vessel with 2 million barrels of oil on it is probably not serious, and yet this has now involved Greenpeace and suggestions it may not be a good idea for the surrounding area. Thanks for the wisdom.

 

[abc bcd + 1]

24 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Latest, greatest version or version for export? You don’t know and neither do I - that is sort of the point.

 

More than 90% of US arms are exported leaving few classified weapons or platforms for home use.

So in other words, you are telling us that these 90% of arms are manufactured in 2 version?

Have you read anywhere that Mark 84 torpedo comes with export version and non export version ~ classified?

If yes show me.

Or Google it.

 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

1 hour ago, abc bcd said:

 

More than 90% of US arms are exported leaving few classified weapons or platforms for home use.

So in other words, you are telling us that these 90% of arms are manufactured in 2 version?

Have you read anywhere that Mark 84 torpedo comes with export version and non export version ~ classified?

If yes show me.

Or Google it.

 

How the hell would you know how many weapons systems are classified? How would you know if any systems for export are derived from an upgraded system strictly for the US? How could I possibly prove or disprove that there are two versions of the Mark 84 torpedo?

That is the whole point of “classified”! This information is NOT in the public domain. You and I could debate this until hell freezes over with absolutely no resolution as the critical information is not available on Wikipedia!

Oh, hold on, I forgot that you have access to the backroom deals at international arms shows....my mistake, carry on.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

1 hour ago, abc bcd said:

So in other words, you are telling us that these 90% of arms are manufactured in 2 version?

In the US arms industry, everything is manufactured in two versions.  If you want a full-up version, then go buy it from the French! 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

1 hour ago, Zhong Lu said:

It's the internet.  There is no sarcasm on the internet.  Or more specifically: no one will ever realize that anyone is ever sarcastic.

Actually, that is rather funny!  My congratulations on a brilliant distillation of the realities of the internet!

[abc bcd + 1]

6 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

How the hell would you know how many weapons systems are classified? How would you know if any systems for export are derived from an upgraded system strictly for the US? How could I possibly prove or disprove that there are two versions of the Mark 84 torpedo?

That is the whole point of “classified”! This information is NOT in the public domain. You and I could debate this until hell freezes over with absolutely no resolution as the critical information is not available on Wikipedia!

Oh, hold on, I forgot that you have access to the backroom deals at international arms shows....my mistake, carry on.

I guarantee you that you have no idea of the ‘real’ range of a torpedo

Versus the following:

How could I possibly prove or disprove that there are two versions of the Mark 84 torpedo?

 

Now which side of the fence you are (assuming that you are not straddling)?

You don't even know where you stand upon your own flimsy statements strewn across.

Remember taller claim requires taller evidence.

What I see here in you is a word juggler out to find a respectable escape. Simply simple.

This is something even a toddler will understand if he or she went through your mishmash. 

Enough said man.

 

 

 

 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Applicable to this conversation...

[abc bcd + 1]

3 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

 

 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

4 hours ago, Zhong Lu said:

It's the internet.  There is no sarcasm on the internet.  Or more specifically: no one will ever realize that anyone is ever sarcastic.  

Toodelidoodelidooo.  

John and Michael Bolton are not amused by sarcasm.

 

[James Regan + 1,776]

 

14 hours ago, abc bcd said:

Why would a torpedo's range be a top class secret which is exported to and being in operation in countries like Taiwan, Brazil, Singapore and NATO countries?

Hi ABCBCD, Im not doubting you regarding the info in the thread, but Im struggling to understand why Brasil would require torpedoes which are top class secret weapons. How are these weapons launched? I would assume form top class assets, have you seen the Brazilian Navy, it mainly consists old units purchased from Europe and the flag ship is the Ex British HMS Ocean built 1993.

Brasil fought in WW2 but it was very limited and the BED (Brasilian Expeditionary Forces) nicknamed the Cobra Fumantes (Smoking Snakes) because they said  "It's more likely for a snake to smoke a pipe than for the FEB to go the front and fight.". This attitude still exists today, no-one who joins the army here would ever think they would have to fire a gun let alone a torpedo at an invading force from outside Brasil.

The Brazilian armed forces are used as border control and mainly to control the civil population (lots of bad people here) lots of good also, however I dont see the need to be firing high end expensive torpedoes into built up areas, it goes against all "logic". Especially when the police and army are equipped with pea shooters while fighting criminal factions who are more heavily armed, better spend the funds on supplying existing troops  with up to date weapons.

Yes I cherry picked Brasil from your post as I live here and dont see even Bolsonaro being given funding to spend this kind of money on this kind of technology while the country is unthreatened by sea.

Far too many oil installations and subsea manifolds here to be launching torpedoes.

Respectfully

 

Edited September 12, 2019 by James Regan

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

3 hours ago, abc bcd said:

 

 

Yep, that’s me! Strutting Pigeon is my Indian name. How’d you know?

(I have no Indian blood, Elizabeth Warren gave me the name....isn’t she Indian?🤔)

[abc bcd + 1]

53 minutes ago, James Regan said:

 

Hi ABCBCD, Im not doubting you regarding the info in the thread, but Im struggling to understand why Brasil would require torpedoes which are top class secret weapons. How are these weapons launched? I would assume form top class assets, have you seen the Brazilian Navy, it mainly consists old units purchased from Europe and the flag ship is the Ex British HMS Ocean built 1993.

Brasil fought in WW2 but it was very limited and the BED (Brasilian Expeditionary Forces) nicknamed the Cobra Fumantes (Smoking Snakes) because they said  "It's more likely for a snake to smoke a pipe than for the FEB to go the front and fight.". This attitude still exists today, no-one who joins the army here would ever think they would have to fire a gun let alone a torpedo at an invading force from outside Brasil.

The Brazilian armed forces are used as border control and mainly to control the civil population (lots of bad people here) lots of good also, however I dont see the need to be firing high end expensive torpedoes into built up areas, it goes against all "logic". Especially when the police and army are equipped with pea shooters while fighting criminal factions who are more heavily armed, better spend the funds on supplying existing troops  with up to date weapons.

Yes I cherry picked Brasil from your post as I live here and dont see even Bolsonaro being given funding to spend this kind of money on this kind of technology while the country is unthreatened by sea.

Far too many oil installations and subsea manifolds here to be launching torpedoes.

Respectfully

 

 

 

 

 

 

[abc bcd + 1]

17 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Yep, that’s me! Strutting Pigeon is my Indian name. How’d you know?

(I have no Indian blood, Elizabeth Warren gave me the name....isn’t she Indian?🤔)

 

Stupidity is not a crime so you are free to leave this court without fines.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

3 minutes ago, abc bcd said:

 

Stupidity is not a crime so you are free to leave this court without fines.

Thank you for your permission. I will strive neither to annoy you or disagree with you in the future.

[abc bcd + 1]

5 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Thank you for your permission. I will strive neither to annoy you or disagree with you in the future.

 

It does not pay to post frivolous, flippant and offhand stuff and portray yourself a smart aleck. 

This much is a matter of conventional wisdom. 

And more, you become crunchy - I carry ketchup. 

All right man.

Let the bygones be the bygones.

Lets shake hands. I don't keep grudges and I am not grumpy or grouchy guy.

I even respect my ex who appreciates this quality of mine.

Amen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

11 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

No threat has been made by the US although Iran has often mentioned ‘closing the Straits’. How would they accomplish this without military action against vessels? 

 

Iran would drop a string of mines across the Strait.  These could be either contact or magnetic mines.  Any ship passing over would get blown up.  To understand the effectiveness of mines, peruse the Turkish use of them in the Dardanelles during WWI.  Churchill, then Vice Lord of the Admiralty  (or Maybe Sea Lord, I forget) sent the fleet up the Dardanelles, they all got totally hammered by the mines set there.  Mines are effective weapons, for which the wooden-hulled minesweeper was developed.  Still a risky business to de-activate them.  And the Iranians can lay a fresh batch.  Mines are cheap; ships are expensive; classical asymmetric warfare. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

9 hours ago, abc bcd said:

How did they acquire them without US exporting them?

They bought exact copies from North Korea, which was busy cloning them.......

How else do you think Mr. Kim gets his hard currency?  

[James Regan + 1,776]

3 hours ago, abc bcd said:

 

 

 

 

 

Meanwhile after buying these systems and being able to maintain them, Brasil pension system has failed, Rio is bankrupt, Ex Presidents in Jail, Lava Jato and lets not be so naive to think that Brasil has this technology working and maintained, I'm no weapons expert but I can assure you Torpedoes and the maintenance of the systems are not high on the budget.

• Brazil's annual defence budget was set at USD27.5 billion in 2019, real growth of 2.1 percent year on year.
• However, its defence procurement allocation was just USD1.3 billion, more than USD1 billion less than 2012 in real terms.

As Brasil is famous for a few things including football, the Brazilian location for 2019 was roughly six times the DEFENCE (5 players) budget of Manchester City football club and twice that of the whole team, that may put it into perspective of how much Brasil is spending on Torpedoes.

 

Edited September 12, 2019 by James Regan

[Nuno Ramos + 1]

1 hour ago, James Regan said:

 

 

6 hours ago, James Regan said:

The Brazilian armed forces are used as border control and mainly to control the civil population ( lots of bad people here) lots of good also, however I dont see the need to be firing high end expensive torpedoes into built up areas, it goes against all "logic". Especially when the police and army are equipped with pea shooters while fighting criminal factions who are more heavily armed, better spend the funds on supplying existing troops  with up to date weapons.

Yes I cherry picked Brasil from your post as I live here and dont see even Bolsonaro being given funding to spend this kind of money on this kind of technology while the country is unthreatened by sea.

 

If you think Brasil people are "bad people" why do you live here.  Go back to wherever you came.  

Brasil is a proud nation of 200 million people.

Brasil will become a major oil supplier over the next decade.

Brasil agriculture industry is growing and supplying the world.  

You must be anothet arrogant U.S. citizen .

Go home Yankee

Edited September 12, 2019 by Nuno Ramos

[James Regan + 1,776]

9 minutes ago, Nuno Ramos said:

 

If you think Brasil people are "bad people" why do you live here.  Go back to wherever you came.  

Brasil is a proud nation of 200 million people.

Brasil will become a major oil supplier over the next decade.

Brasil agriculture industry is growing and supplying the world.  

You must be anothet arrogant U.S. citizen .

Go home Yankee

Se vc puder ler o texto corretamente, vc vai entendera minha posição , ta ligado?

Abracos Enoix

Edited September 12, 2019 by James Regan

[Guest]

Saying 'there are lots of bad people here' is not saying 'all of Brazil are bad people'.

He even said 'lots of good also' immediately afterwards! You chose not to highlight that part?

 

Edited September 12, 2019 by Guest

[James Regan + 1,776]

Satellite images appeared to show the vessel, the Adrian Darya-1, off the coast of Syria on Friday, 🤣

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Hyperbole, but still probably worth considering the rising floating storage levels.

Trump Administration Nears Target Of Zero Oil Exports By Iran

Data received by Radio Farda show that the combined onshore Iranian oil inventories and floating storage have spiked to near all-time highs just under 120 million barrels.

The data provided on Wednesday, September 11, by data intelligence firm Kpler show that the volume of unsold Iranian crude oil in the past four months, from May 1 to August 31, has doubled, with 70% of it floating on high seas.

Based on estimates presented by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, during the previous round of sanctions imposed on the Islamic Republic (2012-2016), the total of Iranian crude oil stored on the ground or floating in the hope of finding a buyer was only 55 million barrels.  ...

 

... The data provided by Kpler indicate that Washington has almost succeeded to stop Tehran from exporting crude oil. During the past month, the Islamic Republic only managed to load 180,000 barrels of Iranian crude and present at the markets, Kpler’s data note.

However, almost half of the load, i.e., 69,000 barrels, has been stored in Chinese facilities and does not count as exported crude.

Therefore, last August was a real nightmare for the Islamic Republic to export Iranian crude, Tehran hoped that China might come to rescue.

That expectation never happened, Kpler’s data indicate. Imports of Iranian crude into the worl’s number two economic powerhouse finished the month at just 138,000 barrels per day, easily marking the weakest level this year.

Some 69,000 barrels per day of this total, Kpler says, ended up discharging into the Jinzhou Underground SPR, a popular destination for Iranian crude following the end to sanctions waivers in May of this year.

Syria and Turkey took in all remaining import volumes (89,000 barrels per day). It is notable that in the past three months, Syria has become a regular recipient of Iranian crude with arrivals consistently holding at 33,000 barrels per day.

Before the sanctions, Turkey used to import 200,000 barrels of the Iranian crude, every day.

Iran has been pushing Europe to buy Iranian crude and some of its officials have suggested a deal for 700 bpd but Europe has indicated it will not make any trade or financial deal with Tehran unless Washington agrees.  ...