Thread: Drone strikes knock out half of Saudi oil capacity, 5 million barrels a day

The West has had a long time to develop alternatives or reinvade the oil producers.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

You don't keep up with the news much, do you?

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20...s-worth-400bn/





Clearly you haven't got a fucking clue how these idiots work.

A limited strategic response is by far the best solution. Doing nothing will make the mad mullahs believe they can get away with it and perhaps do more or worse.

If they think they are going to take a commensurate loss every time they do damage, they will stop doing it.

They should be treated like a child having a tantrum, because that's what they are: Mentally underdeveloped hotheads.

And that's also the main reason for keeping them away from nukes. They would use them, they're fucking retarded.

No response is always the best response. That can be done later, leaving options open, time to think more clearly with the added bonus that the Iranians know only that they're on the menu but not as what.

Or, we could follow in the footsteps of previous glorious leaders in volatile situations, that acted not because they knew what they were doing or bothered with trivia like consequences but because they were expected to do something.

Originally Posted by docmartin

The West has had a long time to develop alternatives or reinvade the oil producers.

The latter step has been tried and failed.

The former...well, it's a bit complex and time consuming, wouldn't you agree?

Originally Posted by docmartin

long time to develop alternatives

And, the alternatives have been developed and, in time, the archaic ancient and polluting carbon based fossil fuel energy will be replaced by the cleaner cost effective alternative. It's all about the money. Always has been, always will be.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicd.../#5daeb09ae8ce

May 29, 2019, 07:00am
Renewable Energy Costs Take Another Tumble, Making Fossil Fuels Look More Expensive Than Ever

The cost of renewable energy has tumbled even further over the past year, to the point where almost every source of green energy can now compete on cost with oil, coal and gas-fired power plants, according to new data released today.

Hydroelectric power is the cheapest source of renewable energy, at an average of $0.05 per kilowatt hour (kWh), but the average cost of developing new power plants based on onshore wind, solar photovoltaic (PV), biomass or geothermal energy is now usually below $0.10/kWh. Not far behind that is offshore wind, which costs close to $0.13/kWh.

These figures are global averages and it is worth noting that the cost of individual projects can vary hugely – the cost of producing electricity from a biomass energy plant, for example, can range from as low as $0.05/kWh to a high of almost $0.25/kWh.

However, all these fuel types are now able to compete with the cost of developing new power plants based on fossil fuels such as oil and gas, which typically range from $0.05/kWh to over $0.15/kWh.

These figures are contained in the latest Renewable Power Generation Costs report, released today by the Abu Dhabi-based International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), an inter-governmental body with around 160 members.

The most attractive renewable energy sources, from a cost perspective, are onshore wind and solar PV. IRENA says onshore wind costs of $0.03-0.04/kWh are now possible in places with good natural resources and the right regulatory and institutional frameworks.

It also points out that new solar PV projects in countries such as Chile, Mexico, Peru, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have seen a levelized cost of electricity of as low as $0.03/kWh – helped by the fact that governments have been holding competitive bidding processes when launching contracts to develop new power plants.

All this suggests IRENA was on the right track when it predicted early last year that renewable energy should be consistently cheaper than traditional fossil fuels by 2020.

Even the most expensive renewable energy technology, concentrated solar power (CSP), is competitive against fossil fuels in some circumstances. The cost of developing a CSP plant ranges from around $0.10/kWh to $0.27/kWh, with an average price of around $0.18/kWh.

Originally Posted by jabir

No response is always the best response.

Tell that to Kuwait.

Originally Posted by cyrille

The latter step has been tried and failed.

The former...well, it's a bit complex and time consuming, wouldn't you agree?

Wouldn’t take a great effort to knock over the Saudis and the gulf states but Iran is probably a bit too difficult.
Venezuela is closer to the US and has more oil ....

Originally Posted by docmartin

Wouldn’t take a great effort to knock over the Saudis and the gulf states but Iran is probably a bit too difficult.
Venezuela is closer to the US and has more oil ....

But it's shit oil most of it. Has to be mixed with lighter crude before it can go anywhere near a refinery.

Bugger. Have to invade Russia then ....

Originally Posted by docmartin

Bugger. Have to invade Russia then ....

Of course if everyone moves to renewables, no-one has to give a shit about the Gulf any more. The lot of them.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

f course if everyone moves to renewables, no-one has to give a shit about the Gulf any more. The lot of them.

Sooner the better. But there happens to be a problem with big oil funded propaganda campaigns and think tanks that have the right wing lemmings convinced that science is fake news.

Meanwhile baldy is considering authorising a "cyberstrike".

It hasn't taken more than 3 days and the conclusion was found... (how else? - There is no other explanation,)

Originally Posted by Klondyke

“The Houthis ... announced that they launched this attack. That lacks credibility,” French foreign minister Jean-Yves Le Drian, told C News television, adding that at this stage Paris would not draw conclusions that Iran was behind it.
“There is an international investigation, let’s wait for its results. I don’t have a specific opinion before these results.”
He said the Saudi investigation would be fast.

Germany, France and Britain blame Iran for Saudi oil attack

Angela Merkel, Emmanuel Macron, and Boris Johnson have taken the US line on the attacks on Saudi oil facilities, saying it was "clear" Iran was behind the strikes. However, the three leaders called for diplomacy.

Germany, Britain and France said on Monday Iran was behind the attack on Saudi oil facilities earlier this month and called on Tehran to avoid further "provocation."
"It is clear for us that Iran bears responsibility for this attack. There is no other explanation," French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said in a joint statement after meeting on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly.

But the three European powers — all signatories to the 2015 nuclear deal from which the United States withdrew — stressed that diplomacy was the answer to avoid a potential conflict in the Middle East.

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-france...ack/a-50554985

the US is probably strong arming the weak leaders of Germany, France and the UK of course

what else is new?

Should send another battle group into the area, to defuse the situation.

^ They are called advisers nowadays..

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

the US is probably strong arming the weak leaders of Germany, France and the UK of course

what else is new?

"strong arming"? As ordered by Obama?

The West has bent over backwards to try and keep the nuclear deal in place. This fucking turbaned muppet has basically rewarded that by pissing all over them, so if he thinks they are going to keep supporting him, he's sorely mistaken.

And he can keep up with this silly fairy story of denying the attacks, absolutely no-one is in any doubt except the usual retards on TD.

Iran needs to be put in its place. Like I said, put Kharg at the bottom of the Gulf and they will behave themselves from now on.

Shafaq News/ Iranian President ,Hassan Rouhani criticized during his meeting with his French counterpart, Emmanuel Macron, the British-German statement, which supports Washington blaming Tehran for the attack on Saudi Aramco.
Rouhani said that the accusations in the joint statement were unfounded.


Rouhani told Macron that the remaining countries in the nuclear deal, including France, should maintain the agreement after the US withdrawal.

The Iranian presidency announced after the meeting that Macron stressed the need to cooperate with Iran as an influential country in the region, and to strengthen relations between Tehran and Paris.

The two presidents discussed the sensitive circumstances of the region and the Iranian initiative for peace and security in the Gulf waters and the Strait of Hormuz.

For his part, Iranian Foreign Minister ,Javad Zarif rejected the tripartite statement, which called on Tehran to agree to new talks with world powers on its nuclear , missile programs and regional security issues , Which was signed between Tehran and the G5 + 1 in 2015.

https://www.shafaaq.com/en/world/ira...e-and-germany/

Or they won’t - they are retards after all.
Never trust a man in a silly hat and a dress.
What to do ???

Originally Posted by docmartin

Or they won’t - they are retards after all.
Never trust a man in a silly hat and a dress.
What to do ???

Maybe baldy has his eye on a Trump Tower Tehran.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Care to describe/link/select from the lists below examples of how the "west" have delivered the benefits to Iran, as defined in the UNSC adopted agreement.

Sorry, I assumed even an intellectual pygmy like yourself would realise that I was excluding baldy orange cunto.

Turkey's Erdogan urges caution over blaming Iran for Saudi attack: Fox News

ISTANBUL (Reuters) - Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan urged caution over blaming Iran for a Sept. 14 attack on Saudi Arabia’s oil facilities, adding that it would not be right to place the entire burden on the Islamic Republic.

The United States, European powers and Saudi Arabia have blamed the attack on Iran, instead of the Yemeni Iran-aligned Houthi group that claimed responsibility. Iran distanced itself from the attacks, but said it was ready for “full-fledged” war.

“I don’t think it would be the right thing to blame Iran,” Erdogan said in an interview with Fox News broadcast on Wednesday, adding that the attacks came from several parts of Yemen.

“If we just place the entire burden on Iran, it won’t be the right way to go. Because the evidence available does not necessarily point to that fact,” Erdogan said, according to a translation of his comments broadcast by Fox.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-s...-idUSKBN1WB0F4

While it is always a good political move to portray the Iranian regime as a bunch of nutty ragheads, imo it was wrong to blame Iran for this incident and regardless of the evidence. Sure they did it, but so what!

Western leaders have repeatedly demonstrated unsound judgement and incompetence not just against rogue regimes but through every action they have taken throughout the region; pointing at Iran for a clear act of war while failing to effectively punish and deter future similar incidents, which btw are intended to provoke and welcome escalation, emboldens the Mullahs while further weakening confidence in an impotent west that appears prepared to absorb never mind trivial losses but more importantly face. The only consolation major world leaders have is that other world leaders that matter are in the same flimsy boat.

Instead of attacking those targets, if Iran had fired just a few rubber bullets in the general direction of Russian military personnel, I've no doubt we would be hearing about little else but the response for the next week. Maybe that's why they don't.

Originally Posted by jabir

While it is always a good political move to portray the Iranian regime as a bunch of nutty ragheads, imo it was wrong to blame Iran for this incident and regardless of the evidence.

They weren't blamed for it "regardless of the evidence".

Who else are you going to blame? The fucking tooth fairy?

Who needs nowadays an evidence? Isn't "highly likely" enough?