Tom Kirkman

Drone attacks cause fire at two Saudi Aramco facilities, blaze now under control

Recommended Posts

Just now, Ward Smith said:

I'm not convinced @Jan van Eck is right about Congress getting involved. It may be 100% under the purview of the President as CIC.

It is now!  That's for sure.  Nothing like an Executive Order.

  • Great Response! 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Sorry for being late here, I was taking a well-deserved nap.   

OK, so the Protocol is for Congress to meet and do the authorizing.  However, since Congress does nothing these days, Mr. Trump will usurp the Congressional role, do it by Executive Order, which is an abuse of the privileges of Executive Order but he will do it anyway, and the oil will be immediately released.  

Remember that that oil is being held in reserve for the Navy, that was how it came into being, so that there would always be a large oil supply ready to go if the Navy needed fuel to go to war.  the first time the oil was siphoned off for private gain was in the so-called "Teapot Doe Scandal,"  that goes way back in US history, so you can look it up and enjoy that tidbit.  After that, the strategic oil reserve has morphed into some sort of national stabilization scheme, which was not its original intent, and thus is subject to all kinds of abuse.   

Trump will do whatever he wants to do, and protocol be damned.  So if he says "I am releasing X tons oil to the market because I feel like it," then that is the way it is. I don't picture the Congress even bothering to meet to debate the issue. 

But also recall when the GREAT O took us into Libya without Congressional OK?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

I'm not convinced @Jan van Eck is right about Congress getting involved. It may be 100% under the purview of the President as CIC. 

Keep in mind that in the current instance the oil in the Reserve is NOT being released to the Navy; it is being removed from the reserve intended for the Navy and being sold off.  That latter part is what will attract Congressional approval.  Releasing to the Navy ships would fall under the general authority of the Commander in Chief, er, Admiral in Chief.  

As pointed out, all of that has become academic, as Congress does nothing and Trump pays no attention to any protocol, period.  So it is Trump's show.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

The original measurement of oil for the reserve was specified in tons.  That is because the Navy, back in the days when it ran on oil, loaded fuel and calculated remaining fuel on board in tons.  All that pretty much stopped when the battleships were retired.  A battleship has 16-inch armor belt of steel around most of the ship to defeat torpedoes, and all that weight required lots of oil to move, ergo the "tons" measurement unit.  Sorry to be a stiff-assed pedant.  I shall endeavour to use "barrels" in the future!  (Although I would suspect Trump would also say "tons," he is a tonnage kind of guy!)

Fun facts : )

tFCVuIl.jpg.d8560ed938c0a1b3b8c79d8784f836a1.jpg

 

The difference between a buttload, boatload and shitload

 

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, ceo_energemsier said:

But also recall when the GREAT O took us into Libya without Congressional OK?

He  (Obama) technically had the ability to do that because of the emanations from the penumbra of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.  You will recall that, in a confused night, various US ships thought they were being fired on, presumably by gunboats belonging to North Vietnam.  Nobody knows for sure what happened, and the reports all contradict each other.  Nonetheless, Lyndon Johnson went to Congress with the press whipped into a frenzy and demanded a wide-ranging authority to conduct war - and the Congress gave it to him.  The precedent is now used by following Presidents to grant authority to start up wars whenever they feel like it. 

Should Obama have launched into Libya without a Resolution from Congress?  Of course not.  He did it anyway. The expansion of Presidential power is an ongoing phenomenon, with each successive President chipping away ever further from Congressional authority - mostly because seeking that authority is and acts as a restraint. I would point out that Abraham Lincoln had zero authority to go start the Civil War.  He did it anyway. How's that for a breach of the bounds of the Presidency?

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Fun facts : )

tFCVuIl.jpg.d8560ed938c0a1b3b8c79d8784f836a1.jpg

 

 

Feel free to introduce me!

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jan van Eck said:

He  (Obama) technically had the ability to do that because of the emanations from the penumbra of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.  You will recall that, in a confused night, various US ships thought they were being fired on, presumably by gunboats belonging to North Vietnam.  Nobody knows for sure what happened, and the reports all contradict each other.  Nonetheless, Lyndon Johnson went to Congress with the press whipped into a frenzy and demanded a wide-ranging authority to conduct war - and the Congress gave it to him.  The precedent is now used by following Presidents to grant authority to start up wars whenever they feel like it. 

Should Obama have launched into Libya without a Resolution from Congress?  Of course not.  He did it anyway. The expansion of Presidential power is an ongoing phenomenon, with each successive President chipping away ever further from Congressional authority - mostly because seeking that authority is and acts as a restraint. I would point out that Abraham Lincoln had zero authority to go start the Civil War.  He did it anyway. How's that for a breach of the bounds of the Presidency?

So  therefore, in light of that, if the Trumspter orders a few predator hits on some targets, folks shouldnt get their panties up in a bunch!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Oh crap, looks like this is going to escalate.  Bad move by Trump, in my opinion.

Trump Authorizes Release of Oil From US Strategic Petroleum Reserve After Saudi Attacks

President Donald Trump announced on Sunday evening that he has authorized the release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve following attacks on Saudi Arabian oil fields and refineries.

He added that the amount would be “sufficient to keep the markets well-supplied.”

1) Pipeline capacity to coast does not exist if SA really was impacted badly, so the oil will not help, other than as PR. 

2) Not enough oil in the reserve to actually supply the world

3) Get excuse to sell which Trump and others have wanted to do for a long time.  VERY STUPID and short sighted if you asked me, but hey, I am a little bacterium in this game.  I do not even approach minnow status. 

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

3 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Feel free to introduce me!

Those  are the "butts" I love to give my "tanker loads" to LOL

Edited by ceo_energemsier
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Feel free to introduce me!

Blake Lively, meet @Jan van Eck

You and @ceo_energemsier will have to fight Deadpool for her though. 

Fun fact, we were watching a movie starring Blake Lively and I kept saying she looks familiar and where did I see her before. My wife, exasperated says, "She's your old girlfriend". Sure enough, my old girlfriend DID look like that, 40 years ago. ;)

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, ceo_energemsier said:

So  therefore, in light of that, if the Trumspter orders a few predator hits on some targets, folks shouldnt get their panties up in a bunch!!

That assumes that the military actually proceeds to execute the "Order."  Without a Declaration of War issued by the Congress, the military is on shaky ground to actually engage in combat acts outside the borders of the USA  (defined to include the territory occupied by the US Navy in the east end of Puerto Rico, used these days as a bombing range).  A savvy General would stand down and ask for a Declaration from Congress.  But since the Predator is such a sexy toy, I do not anticipate any resistance to actually using it.  

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ward Smith said:

Blake Lively, meet @Jan van Eck

You and @ceo_energemsier will have to fight Deadpool for her though. 

Fun fact, we were watching a movie starring Blake Lively and I kept saying she looks familiar and where did I see her before. My wife, exasperated says, "She's your old girlfriend". Sure enough, my old girlfriend DID look like that, 40 years ago. ;)

I dont fight for women, they fight for me , I am too sexy for my OIL lol

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jan van Eck said:

That assumes that the military actually proceeds to execute the "Order."  Without a Declaration of War issued by the Congress, the military is on shaky ground to actually engage in combat acts outside the borders of the USA  (defined to include the territory occupied by the US Navy in the east end of Puerto Rico, used these days as a bombing range).  A savvy General would stand down and ask for a Declaration from Congress.  But since the Predator is such a sexy toy, I do not anticipate any resistance to actually using it.  

They are gonna get sexily droned

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Petroleum Reserve was getting drained Anyway

Note the comments in that article about the Resolution being "enacted into law."  The only way to do that is by passage by Congress. 

Quote:  The announcement came after a Continuing Resolution that included a provision for DOE to sell up to $375.4 million in crude oil from the SPR was enacted into law earlier this month

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Petroleum Reserve was getting drained Anyway

I think that the one in California is gone but the one in Texas is still around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

1) Pipeline capacity to coast does not exist if SA really was impacted badly, so the oil will not help, other than as PR. 

2) Not enough oil in the reserve to actually supply the world

3) Get excuse to sell which Trump and others have wanted to do for a long time.  VERY STUPID and short sighted if you asked me, but hey, I am a little bacterium in this game.  I do not even approach minnow status. 

The wisest thing is for the U.S. to use it to look after its very own emergency needs only as it was meant for this since there is the possibility of short term supply shortages worldwide and the SPR is not for supplying the world. The first priority is for national military needs for protecting the U.S. and then for other urgent needs.  Its not called "strategic" for nothing even though some politicians might otherwise think "business" of it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the Times of London. 

"The drones that struck in Abqaiq have a reported range of 930 miles and cost only $15,000 to make. Analysts fear that if Iran was indeed the supplier and agitator behind the attack, the formula could be replicated elsewhere."

Methinks this changes everything regarding risk premiums in the Middle East. If such a small cost can take millions of barrels offline, bad actors get an astronomical return on their investment, which incentivizes more attacks.

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

From the Times of London. 

"The drones that struck in Abqaiq have a reported range of 930 miles and cost only $15,000 to make. Analysts fear that if Iran was indeed the supplier and agitator behind the attack, the formula could be replicated elsewhere."

Methinks this changes everything regarding risk premiums in the Middle East. If such a small cost can take millions of barrels offline, bad actors get an astronomical return on their investment, which incentivizes more attacks.

Agreed.

From one of my WhatsApp conversations with Middle East this afternoon (green replies are my comments)

20190916_140136.thumb.jpg.bbadebd2d78cde792a81828921df1559.jpg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

3) Get excuse to sell which Trump and others have wanted to do for a long time.  VERY STUPID and short sighted if you asked me, but hey, I am a little bacterium in this game.  I do not even approach minnow status. 

Buy low sell high - what’s wrong with that? 

(assuming there will be a chance to restock at lower price, which is not given)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jan,

How high of a wall are you talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, DanilKa said:

Buy low sell high - what’s wrong with that? 

(assuming there will be a chance to restock at lower price, which is not given)

Government is not in the business of making money.  If it is, we are so screwed as it means we are effectively a dictatorship/communist/socialist "paradise" 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Jan,

How high of a wall are you talking about?

As if that is going to work.  Even in WWII V1's went to their position, and dove straight down.  Walls are useless against drones.  The ceiling son, the ceiling....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, wrs said:

Check out the pictures of the damage to two different sites.  There are 17 distinct impact points on critical infrastructure.  There are probably five spheroids hit and four or five stabilizer columns out 18 at abquiq.  This damage looks like months to fix but I don't know how much production it would inhibit.

 

SPhereoids18XYAAj9i1.jpg

SPHereoids7WsAEW9uJ.jpg

oilfieldoAA9ojL.jpg

oilfield4AAr8Ub.jpg

In the second photo, I find it interesting that the impacts on all four tanks seem to be on an identical azimuth and height on the tanks.

I am no drone expert, but this seems to be exceptional accuracy/targetting if you are assuming a pre-programmed flight path based on GPS. If it was remotely piloted, perhaps.

I am having a hard time accepting the ‘programmed drone’ theory.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.