|
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 4027551)
You're just now realizing this? The very nature of military procurement and warfare attracts frauds and opportunists like flies, been that way since Rome for sure and most likely since static civilization.
Doesn't mean that the system can't or doesn't work, at least in the US where we have a lot more public visibility and discussion of such things. It requires eternal vigilance just to minimize the FW&A, probably can't eliminate it entirely. |
Originally Posted by Turbosina
(Post 4027560)
That's the total debt, not just the "excursion" which according to different estimates has cost $25--$49 billion so far. Assuming however that the run rate remains the same, that's about $300--$500 billion/ year *just* for the war.
Can’t go a year. No chance |
Originally Posted by ThumbsUp
(Post 4027562)
***cough***VA Disability***cough***
VA is a different political (and budgetary) animal. It's one of numerous federal departments, few if any are any more efficient. |
Originally Posted by Trip7
(Post 4027561)
“The oil market has passed the breaking point. The onslaught of oil inventory draws coming will shock the market awake. I suspect that only when financial players see the physical shortages playing out will they wake up to the reality that this supply outage is real. Until then, most people will not be able to accept the reality.
It is what it is.” https://open.substack.com/pub/hfir/p...utm_medium=ios But until US airliners get parked en masse, and nonessential travel is banned , and half of us are out on furlough, the usual cheerleaders will just accuse us of hysteria. I hope they're right. But that article is factual, insightful, and impossible to ignore. |
|
Originally Posted by PineappleXpres
(Post 4027573)
|
Originally Posted by vaxedtothemax
(Post 4027549)
|
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 4027280)
With PRC of all nations, it's a little more complicated than just the global commodity price.
By purchasing oil directly from IR, presumably in violation of sanctions, they actually have a supply that is somewhat independent from both the global commodity price and also potentially from sanctions that might be levied against PRC in the event that *they* do something crazy. I've stated ad nauseam that I don't know what the motive(s) were for this war, but there are a few objective fringe benefits, if not outright motives. With regard to PRC... 1. Shows US is willing to engage (at least some of their plans for ROC/SCS likely rely on US inaction). 2. Demonstrates that we can still execute large scale shock-and-awe in the maritime/air domains. 3. Reminds them that we can (and will) interfere with their interests in other parts of the world... they can't rely on a Taiwan situation being confined to the first island chain. You correctly point out that the US has stunning military capability and is willing to use it. But the lesson this war has revealed is that the political/governing class of this nation is unable to ask any sacrifice of its people. Due to this, we are unable to commit to the level of efforts in both time, and levels of escalation, to actually achieve objectives that involve the commitment of the nation. We have demonstrated, repeatedly, that anything that creates discontent in the stock and bond markets will cause changes in our behavior. We are enthralled with the capabilities of our smart weapons and other hardware. We also get all excited about the seemingly movie-like capabilities of special forces and special ops. And all of that amazing capability is by and large disconnected from society at large. Hence the comparatively small number of people who are actually carrying out the missions tend to be viewed by many leaders as pieces on a game board. Or props for "ain't we sumtin?" speeches and rallys. As soon as it looks like using this military will require any sacrifice of the nation at large, or the wealth of the power class, we back off. Adversaries and former allies alike know that we can do quick and violent actions across many areas of policy. (economic, military, etc), but if we encounter pushback that will cause sacrifice, particularly from the markets, we become silly putty. That is what we have shown the world. It is now over 65 years since JFK's inaugural speech where he said: "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." Such a sentiment is beyond the ken of our leaders. Hence they are unable to grasp the reality of an adversary that is willing to endure great suffering in order to wage battle with what to us seems unsurmountable odds. In any fight we pick, we have demonstrated that we lack the ability to commit to a long struggle that asks anything from the ruling class or the nation at large. |
Originally Posted by Turbosina
(Post 4027565)
That's a horrifying article clearly written by someone with deep expertise in the industry. He projects a shock 4X worse than what covid did to global energy.
But until US airliners get parked en masse, and nonessential travel is banned , and half of us are out on furlough, the usual cheerleaders will just accuse us of hysteria. I hope they're right. But that article is factual, insightful, and impossible to ignore. Buried in the article was an oblique reference to what the US threatened on the Tuesday after Easter. (all part of the 'Great Unraveling') |
Originally Posted by MaxQ
(Post 4027592)
Regarding what lessons other countries have drawn from observing this war, my conclusions are quite different from yours.
You correctly point out that the US has stunning military capability and is willing to use it. But the lesson this war has revealed is that the political/governing class of this nation is unable to ask any sacrifice of its people. Due to this, we are unable to commit to the level of efforts in both time, and levels of escalation, to actually achieve objectives that involve the commitment of the nation. We have demonstrated, repeatedly, that anything that creates discontent in the stock and bond markets will cause changes in our behavior. We are enthralled with the capabilities of our smart weapons and other hardware. We also get all excited about the seemingly movie-like capabilities of special forces and special ops. And all of that amazing capability is by and large disconnected from society at large. Hence the comparatively small number of people who are actually carrying out the missions tend to be viewed by many leaders as pieces on a game board. Or props for "ain't we sumtin?" speeches and rallys. As soon as it looks like using this military will require any sacrifice of the nation at large, or the wealth of the power class, we back off. Adversaries and former allies alike know that we can do quick and violent actions across many areas of policy. (economic, military, etc), but if we encounter pushback that will cause sacrifice, particularly from the markets, we become silly putty. That is what we have shown the world. It is now over 65 years since JFK's inaugural speech where he said: "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." Such a sentiment is beyond the ken of our leaders. Hence they are unable to grasp the reality of an adversary that is willing to endure great suffering in order to wage battle with what to us seems unsurmountable odds. In any fight we pick, we have demonstrated that we lack the ability to commit to a long struggle that asks anything from the ruling class or the nation at large. Americans love watching this stuff on TV, but as soon as Joe Public is asked to make a single material sacrifice, or change his plans and way of life one iota, we will entirely balk as a country. |
Originally Posted by word302
(Post 4027577)
Oil is over $150 unless you actually believe it’s selling for the futures price today.
Hell, it’s at $250 a barrel … man that’s easy.. I like your rationale, easy to win debates that way. |
Originally Posted by vaxedtothemax
(Post 4027597)
Better alert the media they are reporting the wrong prices, they could be alarming people way better…..what you are saying is we only use the standard price metric when you think it’s heading for the moon, but when that narrative doesn’t pan out in your favor we use some phantom metric to judge prices and then can make up any price we decide it’s trading at… got it
Hell, it’s at $250 a barrel … man that’s easy.. I like your rationale, easy to win debates that way. https://www.energyaspects.com/resour...nnect?hl=en-US |
Originally Posted by word302
(Post 4027577)
Oil is over $150 unless you actually believe it’s selling for the futures price today.
The index’s set prices to match demand. Demand has already gone down, no possible way demand is same at $95 at it was at $60 when this started. Everyone keeps quoting demand at $60 then calculating how much demand is being chocked off in the straight. When it went to $90+ demand fell off. Asia and Europe will have supply chain issues and shocking figures will come out to scare everyone. We all survived the great toilet paper shortage, I am sure there is an invoice somewhere of a shocking price on toilet paper for aircraft. There is no point in quoting peak pricing in Asia without quoting what to average it into like Cheveron’s base cost per barrel in Venezuela. The worlds oil is in the ground and on one knows what it’s worth until it gets to market. A few supply chain disruptions don’t elevate the value of all oil in the ground dollar for dollar. |
Originally Posted by OpieTaylor
(Post 4027614)
You’re probably just looking at refineries with supply chain problems paying that much.
The index’s set prices to match demand. Demand has already gone down, no possible way demand is same at $95 at it was at $60 when this started. Everyone keeps quoting demand at $60 then calculating how much demand is being chocked off in the straight. When it went to $90+ demand fell off. Asia and Europe will have supply chain issues and shocking figures will come out to scare everyone. We all survived the great toilet paper shortage, I am sure there is an invoice somewhere of a shocking price on toilet paper for aircraft. If the index’s go to $150 the world won’t need the straight because demand would go down. |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 4027624)
It’s not just demand destruction that attenuates price increases, it’s also that supply has elasticity as well. Older fields that are economically marginal and potential new drilling that are uneconomical to develop at $60 a barrel can be fracked and production expanded at $90 a barrel. The higher the price, the faster the production can be increased.
The other poster article saying shipping capacity will be the thorn, seems less likely considering how much extra payload UPS, FedEX, and Atlas created to sell during high demand periods. He was basically saying the world shipping fleet was already operating at Vmo, so any slow down cannot be “made up”. California container ship log jam all over again except with oil tankers, not sure he proved his position on fleet capacity or took into fact that Saudi was underutilizing their pipe line to the west coast before this started. |
Originally Posted by OpieTaylor
(Post 4027632)
He was basically saying the world shipping fleet was already operating at Vmo, so any slow down cannot be “made up”.
Probably the only surge capacity available might be pulling ships out of overhaul early. Not even sure how practical that would be. |
Originally Posted by Lowslung
(Post 4027202)
Fangs, while I don’t agree with all of your positions, you’re a generally reasonable and intelligent person. Explain this one to me. I understand that China gets far more oil from gulf states than just about anyone else. What I don’t understand is how turning off X amount of global supply hurts them more than us. The fact that it’s a global market has been discussed ad nauseam. Price and supply issues hit us both. Xi has the dictator’s luxury of being able to ignore public opinion (at least for a while), while the American public will very quickly tire of energy shortages, even if there were a strategic benefit to the country. I just don’t see how this play works out in our favor.
Blockade 101: American sea power on display as Trump corners Iran and warns off China China imports about 11M barrels of oil per day, with 90% moving by sea routes the US Navy now controls By Rebecca Grant Published April 15, 2026 5:00am EDT | Updated April 15, 2026 5:40am EDT At this moment in time, President Donald Trump has control of the Strait of Hormuz. His short-term goal, of course, is to pressure Iran’s leaders to give up their nuclear ambitions. Yet Trump’s blockade is also a major geopolitical hammer on China. For now, oil and petrochemical shipments will flow out of that waterway only under the rules of the U.S. Navy. All China can do is watch. "If any of these ships come anywhere close to our BLOCKADE, they will be immediately ELIMINATED, using the same system of kill that we use against the drug dealers on boats at Sea," Trump wrote. "It is quick and brutal." Admiral Brad Cooper, Commander, United States Central Command, has come up with a brilliant plan to pin down Iran while leaving Gulf states free to resume shipping. "The blockade will be enforced impartially against vessels of all nations entering or departing Iranian ports and coastal areas, including all Iranian ports on the Arabian Gulf and Gulf of Oman," U.S. Central Command said. Here’s how it works. Are you a legit VLCC (Very Large Crude Carrier) supertanker coming out of port in the UAE or Saudi Arabia, for example? U.S. Central Command says you are good to go. Remember to contact and monitor naval forces on VHF Channel 16 for bridge-to-bridge communications. On the other hand, if you are a ship that picked up a cargo in Iran, you are in big trouble. Aircraft and ships of U.S. Central Command have vessels under constant surveillance. Yes, it’s the same clear view seen with the drug boat strikes in the Caribbean. Military maritime moving target indicator systems even have the ability to "rewind" and track ships from where they left port. Don’t forget ships violating the rules can be intercepted in deep water, too. There’s a lot of U.S. Navy in the North Arabian Gulf. … At this point, there is little Iran can do to overturn Trump’s blockade. Airstrikes have cratered underground anti-ship cruise missile bunkers. The IRGC fast boats will be on a suicide mission if they attempt hit-and-run attacks. Drone defenses are in place. U.S. aircraft are active during the ceasefire and can respond fast if Iran strikes out. Trump’s blockade of Iranian ports is a testament to American air and maritime dominance. It’s also a vivid reminder to Xi Jinping of China’s vulnerability. China imports about 11 million barrels of oil per day, and 90% of it moves by sea. Trump’s desired end-state is freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, but meanwhile, Trump is showing China that the U.S. Navy can control its single most important oil route at will. That’s a real blow against the China-Russia cabal. I don’t claim expert status, but I recognize the impacts this has on relations with China. There may be a visit next month, and it will be very telling regardless of whether the trip happens or not. |
Originally Posted by FangsF15
(Post 4027696)
Thumbs up and Rick replied with some of what I would argue. Also, I would add this opinion piece, from Dr Rebecca Grant, and well-respected geopolitical/military commentator:
It all comes to a head for China, they are far more affected across their economy than we are (which is not to say we are immune), not just oil. Food too. And it indicates to China we have the will and capability to counter them with Sea and Airpower. I don’t claim expert status, but I recognize the impacts this has on relations with China. There may be a visit next month, and it will be very telling regardless of whether the trip happens or not. How many? |
Originally Posted by vaksedtothemax
(Post 4027597)
Better alert the media they are reporting the wrong prices, they could be alarming people way better…..what you are saying is we only use the standard price metric when you think it’s heading for the moon, but when that narrative doesn’t pan out in your favor we use some phantom metric to judge prices and then can make up any price we decide it’s trading at… got it
Hell, it’s at $250 a barrel … man that’s easy.. I like your rationale, easy to win debates that way. |
Originally Posted by FangsF15
(Post 4027696)
Thumbs up and Rick replied with some of what I would argue. Also, I would add this opinion piece, from Dr Rebecca Grant, and well-respected geopolitical/military commentator:
It all comes to a head for China, they are far more affected across their economy than we are (which is not to say we are immune), not just oil. Food too. And it indicates to China we have the will and capability to counter them with Sea and Airpower. I don’t claim expert status, but I recognize the impacts this has on relations with China. There may be a visit next month, and it will be very telling regardless of whether the trip happens or not. Would we attack and sink Chinese warships engaged in protecting commercial shipping? Would the Chinese do the same to a US Navy warship? Am I missing something regarding this idea? ( many reasons why unlikely. But China doesn't live in an isolated vacuum) |
Originally Posted by vaksedtothemax
(Post 4027597)
Better alert the media they are reporting the wrong prices, they could be alarming people way better…..what you are saying is we only use the standard price metric when you think it’s heading for the moon, but when that narrative doesn’t pan out in your favor we use some phantom metric to judge prices and then can make up any price we decide it’s trading at… got it
Hell, it’s at $250 a barrel … man that’s easy.. I like your rationale, easy to win debates that way. The current disruption in the Strait has completely changed the equation and made the quoted barrel prices much less relevant. This isn't politics; it's just economic and mathematical reality. The implications of the strait remaining closed for any significant period of time, both for the global economy and especially our industry, are pretty dire. |
Originally Posted by Turbosina
(Post 4027698)
We control the Strait? Really? Tell me, how many non-Iranian tankers have successfully transited the strait since we "assumed control"?
How many? control1 of 2verbcon·trol kən-ˈtrōl controlled; controlling Synonyms of control transitive verb 1 a : to exercise restraining or directing influence over : REGULATE control one's anger So how many IRANIAN tankers have successfully transited the strait since we established the blockade? Denial is ALSO control. |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 4027709)
control1 of 2verbcon·trol kən-ˈtrōl controlled; controlling Synonyms of control transitive verb 1 a : to exercise restraining or directing influence over : REGULATE control one's anger So how many IRANIAN tankers have successfully transited the strait since we established the blockade? Denial is ALSO control. However, very few if any have done so, as you well know, because the risk of attack from Iran's mosquito fleet is too high. End result: oil, LNG, and everything else is not flowing through the Strait. And if I had to bet on which side will blink first in this standoff, it's not going to be the IRGC, as much as I'd wish it otherwise. |
Originally Posted by word302
(Post 4027699)
Lol, who's gonna tell him?
WSJ “Diplomatic efforts to end the war set to take place in Pakistan appeared to collapse on Saturday. Tehran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, visited Islamabad, where he met with Pakistan’s senior leadership but he flew out before the U.S. delegation took off. Then, President Donald Trump said he would not send his negotiators Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner to Pakistan at all."I just cancelled the trip of my representatives going is Islamabad, Pakistan, to meet with the Iranians. Too much time wasted on traveling, too much work!" Trump said in a social-media post. "If they want to talk, all they have to do is call!!!"Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the country's military to carry out strikes against Hezbollah targets in Lebanon. Together with overnight strikes on Hezbollah rocket launchers in southern Lebanon, the move calls into question the Israel-Lebanon cease-fire, despite an extension announced Thursday evening by Trump” |
Originally Posted by Turbosina
(Post 4027717)
And if I had to bet on which side will blink first in this standoff, it's not going to be the IRGC, as much as I'd wish it otherwise.
You bet this asymmetric warfare which is correctly labelled economic terrorism........is still going to happen...there are still going to do it.....and a a result will remain in power.......so they kind of won the war. It ****es me off but I don't really see how we can spin it another way. |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 4027709)
control1 of 2verbcon·trol kən-ˈtrōl controlled; controlling Synonyms of control transitive verb 1 a : to exercise restraining or directing influence over : REGULATE control one's anger So how many IRANIAN tankers have successfully transited the strait since we established the blockade? Denial is ALSO control. |
Originally Posted by 11atsomto
(Post 4027721)
Right...and I mean ....and just as critics were calling the US War illegal........the closing of the straight of Hormuz (or through terrorism by threatening ships transiting it) is certainly illegal under The UN Convention of the law of the sea (articles 38 and 44 respectively)
You bet this asymmetric warfare which is correctly labelled economic terrorism........is still going to happen...there are still going to do it.....and a a result will remain in power.......so they kind of won the war. It ****es me off but I don't really see how we can spin it another way. Yup. I agree with all of this. The IRGC has suddenly discovered that they can exert incredible power over the global economy with a few mines, fast boats, and drones. It's indeed economic terrorism. There are only, really, 2 ways that the US could win this conflict: 1) Full-scale invasion (not gonna happen) or 2) inflict so much economic pain on Iran via the blockade that the IRGC calls it quits. Except that's not going to happen, either. Meanwhile Russia is delightedly raking in 2X the monthly oil revenue they had before the conflict. China has banned all oil exports, greatly reducing their reliance on the Gulf. The IRGC won't fold unless the entire country collapses info civil war, which if you know anything about Iran, is a long, long way away from today. All of this was foreseeable and avoidable. All of it. |
“Controlling” the strait means we decide who can go in and who can go out. We can definitely stop any ship from going in and out but we also definitely cannot guarantee the safety of ships that we want to go in and out. Therein lies the rub.
|
Originally Posted by FangsF15
(Post 4027696)
Thumbs up and Rick replied with some of what I would argue. Also, I would add this opinion piece, from Dr Rebecca Grant, and well-respected geopolitical/military commentator:
It all comes to a head for China, they are far more affected across their economy than we are (which is not to say we are immune), not just oil. Food too. And it indicates to China we have the will and capability to counter them with Sea and Airpower. I don’t claim expert status, but I recognize the impacts this has on relations with China. There may be a visit next month, and it will be very telling regardless of whether the trip happens or not. I still think that squeezing China means squeezing the American public past the point that they are willing to tolerate. I hear a lot of talk about playing the long game vis a vis Iran, China, and Russia, but the long game has always been, and will continue to be a weak point for our country. That’s not going to change no matter how much we wish the reality were different. I would also argue that the US and Chinese economies are still intertwined enough that putting economic pressure (goes hand in hand with energy pressure obviously) on China has significant negative follow on effects in the US economy. Again, we may wish it weren’t so, but that’s the reality and will continue to be for at least some time. Finally, the last time we squeezed the energy supply of an Asian adversary, we wound up being pulled into a world war. Not saying that’s likely this time around, but it’s worth noting that we don’t make these decisions in a vacuum and other cultures tend to respond in ways that are hard for us to predict. Again, thanks for the respectful discussion. |
Originally Posted by Hubcapped
(Post 4027722)
soooooo both sides have control i guess. Or put another way……neither does
Leaders behind moves in each of these hot conflicts have one attribute in common. It’s no coincidence either. Values and demands have shifted. A lot. Crime & punishment, trailing just behind. Instead of bs in Islamabad, what’s wrong with Baghdad? Didn’t we pay for that too? |
Originally Posted by Lowslung
(Post 4027756)
Thanks for a measured reply.
I still think that squeezing China means squeezing the American public past the point that they are willing to tolerate. I hear a lot of talk about playing the long game vis a vis Iran, China, and Russia, but the long game has always been, and will continue to be a weak point for our country. That’s not going to change no matter how much we wish the reality were different. I would also argue that the US and Chinese economies are still intertwined enough that putting economic pressure (goes hand in hand with energy pressure obviously) on China has significant negative follow on effects in the US economy. Again, we may wish it weren’t so, but that’s the reality and will continue to be for at least some time. Finally, the last time we squeezed the energy supply of an Asian adversary, we wound up being pulled into a world war. Not saying that’s likely this time around, but it’s worth noting that we don’t make these decisions in a vacuum and other cultures tend to respond in ways that are hard for us to predict. Again, thanks for the respectful discussion. For the moment, FWIW, I am still trusting his gut here. But not without concern. I will say, if history bears out that Iran really did have 60% enriched Uranium (the ONLY purpose for which is to build a nuke, despite the absolute lie of the Iranian fatwa against it - lying to the infidel is permissible in their holy book), then I feel this will all have been worth it. At least for the scenarios that are legitimately foreseeable. IMO, Iran among any nation absolutely cannot be trusted with a Nuke. Hillary Clinton said that. Heck, even Kamala Harris said that, on multiple occasions... Even Chuck Schumer denounced the JPCOA on the senate floor as insufficient. I was shocked when I saw that video (short version here - amazing how he has changed his tune...). I submit history will debate the "how" of we got here most. I appreciate the respectful dialogue too. Far too little rational discussion in the western world, the US, and yes, here on APC too. Far too many people only see things only in the binary, almost exclusively in alignment with their tribe (though not all). |
Well, here we go again… nice try again to the tolerant Left.
oil still not at $150 |
Originally Posted by vaksedtothemax
(Post 4027861)
Well, here we go again… nice try again to the tolerant Left.
oil still not at $150 |
Originally Posted by METO Guido
(Post 4027896)
ummm, jetA 13$ gallon at LAX?
Big picture this crisis will become a reality to Americans when critical shortages and ration starts for jet fuel and diesel in the May to June timeframe. Jet fuel and Diesel are middle distillates. Medium to heavy sour crude is the type of input needed into a refinery that yields higher output of these types of fuel. And this is the exact type of fuel stuck in the Hormuz. The world has adequate amounts of gasoline with jet fuel and diesel critically short. Here in the states the critical shortages of jet fuel will start in May on the West Coast with rationing spreading to local outages. On the East Coast record exports to Europe will drain inventories and also result in rationing and localized outages. Mass flight cancellations and parking of jets likely. The Trump administration, sensing the urgency of the situation, is currently considering export ban of refined products. Then in June comes critical diesel shortages affecting the transport of food and product. Get ready to pay 40-100% higher at the grocery store. Even more dire, it’ll likely take 18+ months to resolve this crisis |
Originally Posted by Trip7
(Post 4027928)
yup too many people staring at WTI/Brent futures and thinking that’s all there is to the oil market.
Big picture this crisis will become a reality to Americans when critical shortages and ration starts for jet fuel and diesel in the May to June timeframe. Jet fuel and Diesel are middle distillates. Medium to heavy sour crude is the type of input needed into a refinery that yields higher output of these types of fuel. And this is the exact type of fuel stuck in the Hormuz. The world has adequate amounts of gasoline with jet fuel and diesel critically short. Here in the states the critical shortages of jet fuel will start in May on the West Coast with rationing spreading to local outages. On the East Coast record exports to Europe will drain inventories and also result in rationing and localized outages. Mass flight cancellations and parking of jets likely. The Trump administration, sensing the urgency of the situation, is currently considering export ban of refined products. Then in June comes critical diesel shortages affecting the transport of food and product. Get ready to pay 40-100% higher at the grocery store. Even more dire, it’ll likely take 18+ months to resolve this crisis Yup. This is what the Robinhood crowd doesn’t understand. They do their daily check of WTI Brent futures and think all is well. The typical arrogant answer is “is it $150 yet?” |
Originally Posted by METO Guido
(Post 4027896)
ummm, jetA 13$ gallon at LAX?
|
Originally Posted by METO Guido
(Post 4027896)
ummm, jetA 13$ gallon at LAX?
|
Originally Posted by AAdvocate
(Post 4027953)
Holy crap, no wonder we tankered so much fuel to LAX. Tanks were filled to the max. Good thing they closed down all their refineries
|
Originally Posted by Trip7
(Post 4027928)
yup too many people staring at WTI/Brent futures and thinking that’s all there is to the oil market.
Big picture this crisis will become a reality to Americans when critical shortages and ration starts for jet fuel and diesel in the May to June timeframe. Jet fuel and Diesel are middle distillates. Medium to heavy sour crude is the type of input needed into a refinery that yields higher output of these types of fuel. And this is the exact type of fuel stuck in the Hormuz. The world has adequate amounts of gasoline with jet fuel and diesel critically short. Here in the states the critical shortages of jet fuel will start in May on the West Coast with rationing spreading to local outages. On the East Coast record exports to Europe will drain inventories and also result in rationing and localized outages. Mass flight cancellations and parking of jets likely. The Trump administration, sensing the urgency of the situation, is currently considering export ban of refined products. Then in June comes critical diesel shortages affecting the transport of food and product. Get ready to pay 40-100% higher at the grocery store. Even more dire, it’ll likely take 18+ months to resolve this crisis |
Sucks that California (annd Hawaii) import a ton of their oil from foreign Countries. Also sucks they have roughly 20 less refineries than they did in decades past. Also sad they tax the sh!t out of their gas.
like I said earlier, you take CA out of the West Coast average price, it drops $0.40. I noticed we started carrying extra fuel to CA long before Iran started. $40-100% more? So worse than [mod edit] years… sure pal. Gas at the pump isn’t at Joes record highs, yet you predict 2-5x the price increases his administration created trying to Build Back Better? |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:52 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands