Europe Has 'Maybe 6 Weeks of Jet Fuel Left' 364
The head of the International Energy Agency warned that Europe may have only "six weeks or so" of jet fuel left if oil supplies remain blocked by the Iran war and the Strait of Hormuz stays disrupted. The Associated Press reports: IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol painted a sobering picture of the global repercussions of what he called "the largest energy crisis we have ever faced," stemming from the pinch-off of oil, gas and other vital supplies through the Strait of Hormuz. "In the past there was a group called 'Dire Straits.' It's a dire strait now, and it is going to have major implications for the global economy. And the longer it goes, the worse it will be for the economic growth and inflation around the world," he told The Associated Press. The impact will be "higher petrol (gasoline) prices, higher gas prices, high electricity prices," said Birol, speaking in his Paris office looking out over the Eiffel Tower.
Economic pain will be felt unevenly and "the countries who will suffer the most will not be those whose voice are heard a lot. It will be mainly the developing countries. Poorer countries in Asia, in Africa and in Latin America," said the Turkish economist and energy expert who has led the IEA since 2015. But without a settlement of the Iran war that permanently reopens the Strait of Hormuz, "Everybody is going to suffer," he added. "Some countries may be richer than the others. Some countries may have more energy than the others, but no country, no country is immune to this crisis," he said.
Economic pain will be felt unevenly and "the countries who will suffer the most will not be those whose voice are heard a lot. It will be mainly the developing countries. Poorer countries in Asia, in Africa and in Latin America," said the Turkish economist and energy expert who has led the IEA since 2015. But without a settlement of the Iran war that permanently reopens the Strait of Hormuz, "Everybody is going to suffer," he added. "Some countries may be richer than the others. Some countries may have more energy than the others, but no country, no country is immune to this crisis," he said.
Let's see in six weeks... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I bet they're will be jets flying all over the place.
I may have missed a "whoosh" sound over my head, but here goes: I'm not sure why your comment was modded "insightful", unless the jets you're talking about are fighter jets.
Re: (Score:2)
I bet they're will be jets flying all over the place.
I may have missed a "whoosh" sound over my head, but here goes: I'm not sure why your comment was modded "insightful", unless the jets you're talking about are fighter jets.
I'd wager that multiple valid interpretations make it a more appreciated response. And I mean the preceding in multiple interpretations as well. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
I seem to remember the Iraq-area wars that the US was involved in going on far longer and less of an oil crisis happening this fast.
Maybe this would be a good time to limit billionaires taking luxury vacation flights weekly and people just flying for fun... maybe they can only fly if it's necessary or something. Maybe lower the amount of flights in and out to save on fuel.
EV planes aren't really an equivalent replacement... that power has to come from someplace, and the extra weight (and less cargo) from a
Re:Let's see in six weeks... (Score:5, Insightful)
I seem to remember the Iraq-area wars that the US was involved in going on far longer and less of an oil crisis happening this fast.
That would be because even during those wars and conflicts, we didn't have an orange-painted pedophilic retard with delusions of grandeur causing a weekslong blockage of the major shipping lane through which ~35% of the world's crude oil trade flows.
The closest we've seen recently was when the Ever Given got stuck in the Suez during 2021, and even that only lasted for 6 days. Plus, it wasn't as big a deal because less oil was being used worldwide during pandemic countermeasures.
The closest in the past 100 years is when Treasonous Klanbitch Ronny Reagan betrayed the USA and convinced the Iranian Ayatollah to cut off shipping to hurt Carter in the 1980 election, in trade for guns and other military supplies that the Treasonshit Republicans paid out later during Reagan's terms.
International shipping lanes open ... (Score:2)
a weekslong blockage of the major shipping lane through which ~35% of the world's crude oil trade flows.
The shipping lanes are not closed. The Iranian ports and costal waters are closed. The international waters with the shipping lanes are open. Most ships are waiting the for minesweepers to finish checking it out though.
Re:International shipping lanes open ... (Score:4, Informative)
Basically you are saying "We have removed the warning signs. The road is now safe."
Re: (Score:3)
I seem to remember the Iraq-area wars that the US was involved in going on far longer and less of an oil crisis happening this fast.
The Iraq war only affected Iraq.
Closing the straights affects oil from Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Oman, and Saudi Arabia.
Re: (Score:2)
Have a look at the map dude. Iraq is a mostly land locked country on the far end of the persian gulf, far from where the hormuz straight is. They definitely could have fucked with the oil facilities in Kuwait, but last time they tried that the americans dropped the hammer on them very rapidly.
Plus, the Iranian military is around 7-10 times the size of Iraq's, and around twice the population, so theres that.
Re: (Score:2)
Will this be a European Hanukkah?
Re: Let's see in six weeks... (Score:5, Insightful)
Having six weeks of supplies and knowing that no tanker is on its way and it might be weeks before one is even on its way - that's an entirely different situation.
The world has relied on "Just in Time" delivery or maintaining minimal backups to cover brief weather interruptions for many years as globalisation became the norm.
Re: (Score:2)
The world has relied on "Just in Time" delivery or maintaining minimal backups to cover brief weather interruptions for many years as globalisation became the norm.
That's the major problem. Nobody has any stockpiles anymore. In previous times, villages had granaries to store food to hedge them through a tough period. Today, the financial equivalent is futures contracts, but that doesn't help when the physical delivery can't happen. Your average neighborhood grocery store has maybe a couple or three days of supply; they don't have canned foods and such in the back now. That's inefficient, particularly for taxes where you have to pay tax t the end of the year on invent
Re: (Score:2)
Remember, "an army marches on its stomach."
More importantly, civilization runs on its stomach.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, Trump and his little team of insider traders have fucked the futures market, so that it is now completely divorced from delivery prices and idiotically optimistic. So it doesn’t function for price signals
Re: (Score:3)
We do have HUGE stockpiles of food. It's just not at grocery stores anymore, which can be a bit of a problem in times of crisis, for sure. Stockpiles of other shit: not so much. The reason we have huge stockpiles of food is because food is produced in seasonal patterns but consumed year-round. If you harvest apples twice per year, once in the southern hemisphere and once in the northern hemisphere, but you want to have apples available year-round, you'll need to stockpile them. And, with apples, they aren't
Re: (Score:3)
The world has relied on "Just in Time" delivery or maintaining minimal backups to cover brief weather interruptions for many years as globalisation became the norm.
This would not be a problem if it weren't for war.
We should work towards world peace.
Pease requires two side that want peace (Score:2)
This would not be a problem if it weren't for war. We should work towards world peace.
Pease requires two side that are interested in peace.
Re:Pease requires two side that want peace (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, you dumb fucktards voted in the failing "warfighters", who want to "take their oil", so it is you that's the problem.
By all accounts your new jezus is desperately trying to bring back the Obama agreement he himself destroyed.
How dumb is that on a scale from 0 to 10? Well, 11.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Every, EVERY, US President said Iran can not be allowed to have nuclear weapons.
Wait'll you hear about the agreement one of them negotiated.
It was working, until a malignant narcissistic got upset about who was getting credit.
Re:"By all accounts"? Nope. (Score:4, Informative)
followed by an assembly line of nukes over the following years...followed by nukes being handed out like roadside bombs, suicide belts, and explosively formed penetrators, to any Iran-aligned terrorists who want them.
This is dumber than the yellowcake hoax and the anthrax hoax.
The only thing that is dumber was the dismantling of the deal. Here's the numbers:
Deal date: 2015. What happened: Iran had zero HEU (>20%) production.
US reneges on deal: Mid 2018. What happened: Iran still let IAEA monitor production and zero HEU.
Israel escalates: November 2020. Murder of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh. Iran still has zero HEU.
Iran declares enrichment as a response: January 2021. HEU still zero, this viewed mostly as a negotiation tactic.
Israel escalates: April 2021. Attack on Natanz plant. Iran ends all limits and begins HEU production.
Trumpistan established: August 2024. Iran begins massive effort to produce HEU (60%) fearing attacks.
Trumpistan starts a war: March 2026. Shows everyone that having own nukes is the only option.
Tell me now which plan worked better, ignorant dimwit.
Re: much better deal, still no nukes for Iran (Score:4, Insightful)
yes, we see - don was lead into a war without an exit by little marco and the kosher Nazi and is now desperately trying to portray a ceasefire on Iran's terms as a victory.
lol
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The issue isn't how much is in storage, the issue is that the last of the tankers that were on the way when the Strait of Hormuz was shut down are now arriving, and even if it reopens tomorrow, it will be weeks before new tankers will arrive.
(No telling how overblown this is, but there is a serious issue there.)
Re: (Score:2)
Shipping times will be an issue from these destinations.
Re: (Score:2)
Shipping times will be an issue from these destinations.
Only initially. The ships in transit constitute a "pipeline" delivering fuel.
They are likely just waiting for minesweeping (Score:2)
They don't say what is the normal storage amount - probably six weeks worth.
They are likely just waiting for minesweeping to complete. The shipping lanes are open, they are in international waters. It's the Iranian territorial waters that are closed, ie Iranian ports. Tankers are free to transit the international lanes and visiting other countries in the gulf.
Re: They are likely just waiting for minesweeping (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They don't say what is the normal storage amount - probably six weeks worth.
Yeah, thatâ(TM)s not very typical, Iâ(TM)d like to make that point. There's only six weeks left in this case by all means, but itâ(TM)s very unusual
You mean.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Republican faith based fuel? Maybe the EU can fuel their jets with thoughts and prayers.
In reality, unless he stopped, the rest of the world is going to decide that war with the USA is inevitable, Because the Party of trump are not going to stop him. Amnd despite the rhetoric, the USA cannot subdue the entire world.
Re:You mean.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Screwing around with Iran is hardly the entire world.
odds are you are in for a surprise on that.
He'll be gone in 2.5 years anyway.
you might be in for a surprise on that too.
Re:You mean.. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Running Kamala again would only confirm how the DNC is nothing but a corrupt money laundering operation feeding kickbacks to the "losers" who absolutely plan on losing, and laughing all the way to the bank doing it. "
Isn't this literally the RNC and Trump in 2024? A corrupt money laundering loser who absolutely planned on losing? This cannot describe Donald Trump more accurately.
"Have you said thank you once?" (Score:5, Insightful)
This absurd, unnecessary disaster is entirely his.
It'll be easy to remember to keep thanking him, because you'll be paying for his emotional problems [marketwatch.com] up through the 2028 elections and beyond.
Re: "Have you said thank you once?" (Score:2)
The 2026 Iran conflict was also disastrous for Formula 1 fans. Two GPs were already cancelled and this is probably not the end (There are Qatar and Abu Dhabi GPs coming later this year). Can't they make a truce for F1 GP weekends?
Re: (Score:2)
The best piece of election advertising I saw was a picture of Trump on the flap of the gas pump, where you insert the nozzle after filling up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Got a secret to tell you: your vote is only for the "popularity" category... who actually parks butt in chair is decided by the Electoral College. Your Welcome.
Re: "Have you said thank you once?" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That was the Electoral College that did that (putting him there).
The popular vote was because he looked better than Harris (policy-wise, at the time), that's it... or would you rather have another Biden?
Sure, you could vote for "Neighbor Joe" on the Freak Party bill, even though it's obvious the Freak Party isn't going to go anywhere.
It all hinges on what the EC votes for. You can vote for whoever you want, I ain't stopping ya, neither is anyone else.
Re: "Have you said thank you once?" (Score:5, Informative)
There was a treaty in place that was working fine until Trump ripped it up because Obama negotiated it, you stupid ass. And now we're in a situation where Iran has every good reason to get nukes, to defend themselves. If Iran actually had nukes, the US wouldn't have attacked it in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't President Obama and his special peace envoy to North Korea, former President Jimmy Carter, have a negotiated agreement such that they had a pledge from North Korea not to develop nuclear weapons?
No.
However, Kim Jong Un did meet with President Trump [cnn.com] in June 2018 (but did not make any promises to abandon their nuclear program.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: "Have you said thank you once?" (Score:4, Insightful)
I thought that point was made clear when:
- the USA invaded Irak under made up proofs. They did not have any nuclear program.
- Russia invaded Ukrain, the USA did nothing (not enough) to prevent it. Ukrain gave away its nuclear missiles in exchange of a treaty ensuring their territory. I can bet you they wish they had kept their nukes.
Meanwhile North Korea is being left alone, even though their conventional army would probably not last long (underfed, poor health, terrible equipment).
Israel neighbors no longer try to invade it, after it got nukes. Yes Palestinians do try to fight once in a while but it is mostly small toothed overall: they can attack civilians but not do much against the actual army.
Having nukes does help against unstable ennemies.
I do not want Iran do posses nukes, but you have to admit that the regime does get strong incentives from the west to procure them ASAP.
There are not a lot of good exits left here. Iran will certainly attempt to show that trying to stop them is not worth the effort. Even if the majority of the population wants a regime change, there are still many millions that want the regime to stay and win. It is hard to reason with religious motivations.
Re: (Score:2)
A treaty?? With Iran??
You say that like any treaty we've signed is worth more than the paper it's printed on.
Allowing those sons of bitches to have nukes is like giving children to an Epstein foundation.
I have it on unquestionable authority that Iran's nuclear program was utterly and completely obliterated last year.
What could possibly go wrong?
Ask the either Bush how their WMD hunts went.
Re: (Score:2)
You say that like any treaty we've signed is worth more than the paper it's printed on.
A treaty needs to be ratified by the senate to be legally binding.
Note that Ukraine has caught on to this trick, and is now insisting that any defense treaty make it through congress [substack.com]. Earlier we promised to help Ukraine, but the Budepest Memorandum wasn't ratified by congress.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: "Have you said thank you once?" (Score:5, Insightful)
A treaty?? With Iran?? LOL LOL Iran's government is pure evil son. Allowing those sons of bitches to have nukes is like giving children to an Epstein foundation. What could possibly go wrong?
Wait, if negotiating a treaty with Iran is a bad idea that will surely go wrong, then why is Trump trying to negotiate a treaty with Iran?
Re: (Score:3)
Yet Israel and the US both have nukes but it's okay because we would never use them, right? When you see someone as unhinged as Trump running the show, I have more to fear from American nukes than I do from Iranians. If it's really about nuclear weapons then everyone needs to give them up, including and beginning with the USA. If not, why should Iran give them up?
Besides that, we all know that we have to get off of oil, and nuclear energy is the only real solution for baseline power. So at some point we
Re: "Have you said thank you once?" (Score:4, Insightful)
Yet Israel and the US both have nukes but it's okay because we would never use them, right?
The nuclear issue is explicitly hypocritical and unfair. The point is keeping nuclear problem from getting worse not fairness.
When you see someone as unhinged as Trump running the show, I have more to fear from American nukes than I do from Iranians.
This is a false choice. In the real world the options are American nukes and Iranian nukes or just American nukes. There is unfortunately no Trump without a nuclear button option.
If it's really about nuclear weapons then everyone needs to give them up, including and beginning with the USA.
Good luck with that.
If not, why should Iran give them up?
Because we say so and are willing to use violence to backup our demand would be my guess.
Besides that, we all know that we have to get off of oil, and nuclear energy is the only real solution for baseline power. So at some point we have to grant Iran access to nuclear energy.
This was never an issue. Even the Trump administration offered to supply Iran Uranium to run their reactors as long as they don't enrich.
Anyway the situation with Iran remind me of a Star Trek episode where a world joining the federation is beset with terrorist attacks. The Enterprise finds out that the terrorists are a direct result of the world's government's own actions. Likewise Iran has been marginalized and isolated by the rest of the world, particularly the US, pushing them to extremes simply to get any respect (or fear) at all.
Things started to thaw under Obama, but Trump tore up the agreement and pushed Iran back to the only thing that ever worked for them. If the US and the west had invited Iran into the world community, and worked with them for peace it would have weakened the authoritarian, islamist tendencies of the regime. But Israel strongly benefits from Iran being a boogeyman so they are strongly opposed to peace with Iran. A constant state of ware benefits Netanyahu.
The regimes power has always been derived by fundamentalist lunatics whose reason for existence is propagation of dark age twelver fundamentalism. They cannot be reformed or coddled. Iranians have tried and failed repeatedly for over 4 decades. They don't care even about Iran or its people let alone the countries they destabilize via proxies funded by oil profits throughout the region.
And never mind that the US is entirely responsible for this trajectory after overthrowing the democratically-elected government in Iran in the 1950s. The Shaw that the Americans installed was so brutal that it paved the way for the Islamist uprising.
This is a bit nuts how far these provably false statements have spread. It is everywhere, you even hear shit like this from presidents and secretaries of state. Yet nonetheless this narrative is in contravention of known facts.
1. The Americans didn't "install" the king he succeeded his father who abdicated and fled in 1941 during WWII while Iran was occupied by the Soviets and British.
2. Only the king has the power to install prime ministers according to article 46 of their constitution.
"The appointment and dismissal of Ministers is effected by virtue of the Royal Decree of the King."
There was an arrangement whereby the king would rubber stamp the vote of their parliament and that's how Mossadegh got into power the last time. The king always had the power to fire Mossadegh and he exercised it on Aug 15 1953.
As for the why he was fired.. Most likely it happened because Mossadegh was attempting a coup to aggregate all power into his own hands.
"A plebiscite more fantastic and farcical than any ever held under Hitler or Stalin is now being staged in Iran by Premier Mossadegh in an effort to make himself unchallenged dictator of the cou
Re: "Have you said thank you once?" (Score:5, Insightful)
Now talk about North Korea and Pakistan.
Bronze age religious crazies is relative. You have the orange turd telling the Pope he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
Now talk about North Korea and Pakistan.
Bronze age religious crazies is relative. You have the orange turd telling the Pope he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Technically that was one of the orange turd's "advisors," but this administration also employs someone who thinks getting blackout drunk and waking up at Waffle House means he teleported, so, you know, confusing which of them said what is completely understandable.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This is the sorta thought that makes me nervous. Inasmuch is I am afraid that maybe people in the Administration have the same wrong-headed idea. There are multiple, knowledgeable sources, that point out that the US is an order of magnitude away from having the facilities to be able to ship crude (let alone refined products) in any meaningful way to replace that coming out of the Persian Gulf. Keep in mind even Saudi Arabia, with a coast along the Red Sea, doesn't have terminals nor pipelines on the Re
Re: (Score:2)
The US does have substantial domestic oil infrastructure
My Dunning-Kruger level of understanding is that our infrastructure, particularly refinement, doesn't "match" our reserves. Different oil quality/composition. I don't know how fast you can physically stand up refining capacity, but I can guarantee it won't be fast or cheap. "Having the Hormuz remain closed isn't a problem at all" is such a myopically idiotic comment that it barely deserves a reply. I suspect our AC is further to the left on the D-K curve than I am.
Re: (Score:2)
The US tends to import heavy sour crude and export light sweet crude. We have the refining capacity for heavy sour, which is more capital and energy intensive, so that works out economically. We have extra heavy refining capacity now because in January Dos Bocas went on line in Mexico, so Mexico can now refine more heavy and export more lucrative refined products. Fortunately for US refiners, we also got a new source of crude (very heavy and sour) when we "liberated" Venezuela.
In general, the heavier and
The Hormuz is not closed (Score:2)
Having the Hormuz remain closed isn't a problem at all
The Hormuz is not closed, the shipping lanes are in international waters and they are open. What is blockaded is Iranian territorial waters, lie Iranian ports. The world is free to visit other countries in the gulf. They are however waiting for the Navy to finish minesweeping to make sure Iran had not mined the international lanes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes & No. Iran is in no position to close the Straits of Hormuz, since their navy has been scuttled.
Mines can be deployed by small vessels. Including civilian vessels. I'm pretty sure Iran had worked on that as a contingency. Video shown many years ago.
However, they still have the capability to threaten shipping using drones, and that they are doing.
And here too civilian vessels. Speed boats, RPGs. Again, videos many years ago. They seemed to what to portray a guerrilla war style approach to tanker attacks. Again, a contingency. Presumably attempting to make the USA concerned that taking out traditional naval warships was not enough. That Iran was ready to go asymmetric.
Not really (Score:3)
Iran is in no position to close the Straits of Hormuz, since their navy has been scuttled.
While Iran's larger ships - the big grey boats that most people regard as constituting a navy - are out of action, their small fast boats are still operable, and are plenty able to attack shipping.
And, of course, the deep-water lanes are so close to Iran that they can target shipping with direct and indirect fire from land - 20mm recoilless rifles and 120mm mortars will reach shipping with ease, let alone heavy artillery. It's not like a tanker carrying 2 million barrels of oil is going to dodge...
So, yes,
No actual shortage (Score:4, Insightful)
Just like with their former dependency on Russian energy only a few years ago, Europe once again finds itself incapable or unwilling to mitigate risk in the same sector. Shocking.
Re: (Score:3)
Before Trump, the US had been preaching globalism for a long time. Even though Trump destroyed the WTO, it was US which forced through the creation of GATT which became the WTO. Much as the EU in fact.
EU practises what the US preached ... they were indeed dumbfucks. Should have chased autarky from the start, which should have obviously included rejecting NATO from the very start. NATO was the original sin, defence dependence segued into energy dependence.
Re: (Score:2)
>> Should have chased autarky from the start
A country cannot be autark without today without having people starving on a huge scale.
See North Korea.
Re: (Score:3)
Autarky for the extreme necessities (fuel/fertiliser to keep farming and distribution going, steel, concrete, etc), sphere of influence trading for when that's not practical, global trade for luxuries only.
Of course to have a proper sphere of influence, you need to be a proper independent superpower.
Re: (Score:3)
Peanuts. Europe would have rebuild regardless, but they were tired and got suckered into a failed path of dependence ... by the US.
Re: (Score:2)
What's happening right now is all those crude oil tankers normally loading up in the Persian Gulf are now all heading to loading up from American ports, of all things! And some may head towards Venezuela, shiping heavier Venezuelan crude oil to European refineries equipped to process the denser crude.
Isn't this, like, the plan? (Score:2)
The ones who suffer will mainly be . . .poorer countries in Asia, in Africa and in Latin America . . .
Who needs 'em anyway? /s because Poe's Law dammit
Re: (Score:3)
Those poorer countries are where everything we buy is made :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Add that to the list of benefits that come from all this.
So... more U.S. oil sales? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe Trump is just making good on promises to U.S. oil executives/companies -- first killing wind farms and subsidies/credits for renewables and now hampering middle-east oil production and shipments. /cynical
Trump pressed oil executives to give $1 billion for his campaign [politico.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Making the world more dependent on American crude would be a bullet point in their strategy powerpoint, if they actually have one.
I'm sure they don't have a strategy but if they did it would be generated by GrokAI and would be full of stupid, dangerous bullet points. And deepfakes of Jesus H. Trump.
They have less than 30 days of fuel (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately rationing or raising prices is difficult in the short term, tickets are already sold, and price rises are deeply unpopular. EU politicians are already reducing taxes and releasing reserves to keep the price of petrol low. The politicians are effectively removing the price signal that there is a shortage. Probably not the wisest thing to do economically but the voters will reward it. When the fuel runs out they can blame Trump even though the EU will do nothing to mitigate the problem. Trump doesn't have a monopoly on stupidity.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The only thing the EU could do to mitigate it at this point is full military deployment ... to protect Iran.
It's not lack of ships and bombs for the US which makes it hard to finish this fast, so supporting Trump more does little except make Trump happier.
Re:They have less than 30 days of fuel (Score:4)
The only thing the EU could do to mitigate it at this point is full military deployment ... to protect Iran.
Actually, that's kinda brilliant, even in its twistedness. It would have the additional benefit of throwing a kink into the genocide which Israel is conducting. After all, the genocide is VERY unpopular in much of Europe, especially in Spain.
It's not lack of ships and bombs for the US which makes it hard to finish this fast, so supporting Trump more does little except make Trump happier.
That said, from what I've heard the US has put a serious dent in its missile stockpile. Part of me wonders if that was a major factor in Trump's threats to nuke Iran.
Re:They have less than 30 days of fuel (Score:4, Informative)
Trump doesn't have a monopoly on stupidity.
But he sure has a disproportionately large market share.
Could get a lot worse (Score:2)
If Iran's Fajr-5 mine deploying missile system actually works (could just have been propaganda) they could shut down not just the strait, but also the Suez canal on their way down, for long enough to create the biggest clusterfuck since WW2.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fake Issue (Score:3, Insightful)
This is all fake until I see the European elites private jets grounded.
Re:Fake Issue (Score:5, Funny)
This is all fake until I see the European elites private jets grounded.
I just want to make sure I'm following what you're implying.
Your standpoint is that as long as the richest, most influential people in Europe... those with the greatest capacity to trade for any commodity or service that exists... as long as they can leverage their way into a fuel load, then reports of limited supply are false.
That's your position?
Re: Fake Issue (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is all fake until I see the European elites private jets grounded.
Someone missed economics in high school. The elite can afford whatever they want at any price. It's us regular Joes who are going to stop flying.
Reap what you sow (Score:2, Insightful)
Europe's intelligence agencies should have stepped in and prevented Russia from installing Trump but their billionaires are hoping the United States gets knocked down a bit and maybe even they can get the euro and as the world's default currency if th
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I can't give people a hundred IQ points (Score:2)
If we already know a substantial percentage of the population is easily manipulable and that they can be manipulated to do terrible terrible things then those of us who aren't in that boat have a basic moral responsibility to prevent the people who can't see past bullshit for whatever reason from screwing everything up in their lives and ours.
It's like the old quote, for
A Problem Their Own Making (Score:2)
The same IEA has warned repeatedly of the precarious position Europe has put themselves in with regard to fuel dependence. The Russian war on Ukraine and subsequent sanctions should have made that tangible but Europe just switched over to Gulf suppliers, exacerbating the present problem. In fact instead of reacting to increase domestic refining and reserves just last year Europe shut down 4 refineries (~400000 barrels per day) of capacity. It lets politicians pretend they are being green while actually just
Really Quite Remarkable (Score:2, Interesting)
The idea that such a single tiny choke point, such as the Straight of Hormuz could have such a complete an total impact on global oil supply is really quite remarkable.
Frankly, it's unbelievable.
I feel, though I don't know for sure and can't be bothered to verify, that a much much greater percentage of the World's oil supply lies outside of the Straight of Hormuz.
Re:Really Quite Remarkable (Score:4, Insightful)
1. It’s not quite this simple, but to a fairly good approximation, the US-Iran war has frozen or knocked offline around 20 percent of the worlds oil and gas. If the war gets bad, the number could climb to 40 percent.
2. The US-Iran war isn’t ending anytime soon. Ignore the reality show messaging from our political leaders. The people who control Iran are dug in like ticks and the US is gearing up for a land war. This will *not* be over anytime soon, no matter how many made-for-social-media “negotiations” take place.
3. There is literally no way for other parts of the world can quickly replace the lost 20-40 percent oil and gas supply.
Therefore, after exhausting the reserves stashed in various places, the world WILL USE/BURN 20-40 PERCENT LESS OIL AND GAS. One way or another. This is not negotiable. Not optional. No amount of prayer, good thoughts, hard work or social media spin will change this. For every barrel of oil we had last year, this year we will have 0.8 barrels or less. You can’t burn fuel that you physically don’t have.
The smart people have already been prepping for this. The rest of the world is making a surprised-pikachu-face. This situation is gonna last for a solid 6-12 months, no matter what. After that, various forms of adaptation will start to mitigate the problem. But not before then.
Re: (Score:2)
The rest of the world can produce enough oil to make up for the oil lost in the straits, but they can't ramp up quickly. It would take years.
ryanair will just add an fuel fee at the gate and (Score:2)
ryanair will just add an fuel fee at the gate and if you don't pay you don't fly.
Who needs enemies when (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The Batcave's Trump Million-Dollar Coin Exhibit (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Not willing to bet my $ on it, but there does seem to be a pattern where the administration will spout BS on tweets, FoxNews, etc Mon-Thurs saying how everything is getter better, will be all resolved, then on Fri-Sun they do the crazy s--t like attack an oil tanker outside of market hours. The next week they rinse and repeat. And yeah, i don't understand this stock market at all, except that maybe traditional stock trading has migrated to the BTC scenario where there are small number of firms but with l
Re: (Score:2)
... while the USA and Israel re-arm for operation civilization destruction. But I do feel sorry for all the vacationers who will be impacted due to fuel shortages and flight cancellations!
Maybe more sorrow for civilization, and less sorrow for vacationers, would be appropriate - if only from the standpoint of pure self-interest.
Re:So ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Israel and the US, the fascist aggressors who started this war, should obviously surrender, and hand over the architects of the war to Iran to face trial.
Though there are other places, like Lebanon, Palestine, Venezuela which will also have the right to put some of the same people on trial..Those rogue states really do attack a lot of other countries.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Shipping was going great until a certain stable genius got involved.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are we allowing a shit stain government like that controlling Iran right now be any kind of threat to international shipping?
Why are we allowing a shit stain government like that controlling the US right now to put Iran in the position where threatening international shipping was a matter of self-preservation?
As for that "allowing" part, America hasn't allowed it. They've simply failed - miserably, predictably, and even predictedly - to prevent it.
We SHOULD be able to put enough steel down in the area to make any attempt to control traffic by Iran impossible.
You SHOULD have listened to the experienced and knowledgeable American military leaders who told you that attacking Iran was a BAD idea.
Re: (Score:3)
You can flip the topsoil from one end of the country to the other. Nothing left but desert.
You really can't. Not with conventional weapons. Not even with nukes, really, though with nukes you could kill pretty much everyone in the population centers. Is that what you're proposing?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
We've also got tons of bikes. I'll keep biking into work just like I did before. And taking the train/bus/tube to places further afield.
What really surprises me though is the aggressive anger Americans have towards Europeans for having choice of how to travel. It's like you really hate freedom.