Trumps attack on Iran - 2026 edition

How will the upcoming attack on Iran go.

  • Total voters
    21
...the war exposes a crucial fact about the structure of the global energy system. Despite decades of discussion about energy transitions, global production and trade remain heavily dependent on oil and gas. A few years ago, Saudi Arabia’s energy minister declared that “every molecule of hydrocarbon will come out”. The implications of an energy system still anchored in fossil fuels are now made stark. The Gulf sits at the centre of that system, not only as a supplier of crude but also as a hub for refining, petrochemical and fertiliser industries that sustain global manufacturing and agriculture. The war highlights the danger of continued dependence on fossil fuels – and why transitioning away from them is now more vital than ever.

Adam Hanieh @ the Guardian

Everyone will feel the effects of unintended consequences from the American/Israeli 'pre-emptive self-defensive military procedures' ongoing throughout the Middle East.
 
fillyboy said:
Seems a strange move but just had a quick check and it seems to be a temporary easing of sanctions on oil 'already in transit', ie, at sea on tankers with nowhere to offload. It's an attempt to try and bring the cost of oil down, although so far, it hasn't.
Click to expand...
It’s a desperate move that will make no difference to prices because Irann controls shipping in the Hormus straits. No difference other than funding Pootin's war and his support for the Ayatolah. More dumb n non strategy from Trumpf.
 
The only winners from this war of choice are China, Russia and Israel.
 
Odds said:
...the war exposes a crucial fact about the structure of the global energy system. Despite decades of discussion about energy transitions, global production and trade remain heavily dependent on oil and gas. A few years ago, Saudi Arabia’s energy minister declared that “every molecule of hydrocarbon will come out”. The implications of an energy system still anchored in fossil fuels are now made stark. The Gulf sits at the centre of that system, not only as a supplier of crude but also as a hub for refining, petrochemical and fertiliser industries that sustain global manufacturing and agriculture. The war highlights the danger of continued dependence on fossil fuels – and why transitioning away from them is now more vital than ever.

Adam Hanieh @ the Guardian

Everyone will feel the effects of unintended consequences from the American/Israeli 'pre-emptive self-defensive military procedures' ongoing throughout the Middle East.
Click to expand...
The entire energy thing is a farce. Was discussed on Debate Night last night (think Scottish QT) and they were discussing how, even if we allowed the opening up of more fields in the North Sea, it wouldn't directly afford us any more energy security or decrease in prices because the product is sold on the global market. Then the good old topic came up of things being tied to the wholesale gas price etc.

Don't worry, I'm confident our politicians will discuss this important subject for the next decade or two, then we might actually get some tangible improvements.

Having said that, don't hold your breath.
 
We had/have the North Sea, why decades ago didn't we just ensure we could produce the end product ourselves.

Too straightforward an approach no doubt. Not good enough an approach to ensure multiple people can make £££ profits. So here's an idea, let's conveniently overcomplicate the whole thing.
 
diy_fun_uk said:
We had/have the North Sea, why decades ago didn't we just ensure we could produce the end product ourselves.

Too straightforward an approach no doubt. Not good enough an approach to ensure multiple people can make £££ profits. So here's an idea, let's conveniently overcomplicate the whole thing.
Click to expand...

Probably because it was (and still is) far cheaper to get the stuff from elsewhere.

Just like it's cheaper to get stuff from China.

Until it eventually isn't, at which point the wailing starts.

Capitalism, Baby (y)
 
Brigadier said:
Probably because it was (and still is) far cheaper to get the stuff from elsewhere.

Just like it's cheaper to get stuff from China.

Until it eventually isn't, at which point the wailing starts.

Capitalism, Baby (y)
Click to expand...
I'm maybe wrong, might there not have been a cost curve that would eventually have been to the consumers benefit though? i.e. if we had ramped up our own extraction and refining processes decades ago, yes there's an upfront capital cost, and recurring to maintain/upgrade, however if we had essentially done it all ourselves, would that not have been better for us, both in terms of energy security and consumer cost? The answer to one or both might be 'no' of course!
 
noseall said:
I'm wishing now that they had just given him The Nobel and be done with it. :(
Click to expand...
Another one schooled and made to realise that Trump isn't so bad. I think giving him the Nobel peace prize might be a little over the top myself tbh but if you think he should have received it well that's your opinion.
 
MNW67 said:
The only winners from this war of choice are China, Russia and Israel.
Click to expand...

China aren't winning by losing their sphere of influence in the middle east, China aren't winning by losing their main and cheapest supplier of oil, they aren't winning by the Humous straits closing and choking their int'l trade and they certainly aren't winning by having it shown to the world that they've been backing the wrong horse for the last 10 years or more.

How do you think they're 'winning'?
 
Brigadier said:
Probably because it was (and still is) far cheaper to get the stuff from elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Apart from the black market (sanctioned oil) the price of oil is set by the global markets or opec or whatever. Oil companies are no longer interested in paying 95% tax for extracting North Sea Oil.
The Norwegians are happy to drill, extract and develope further wells.
 
fillyboy said:
China aren't winning by losing their sphere of influence in the middle east, China aren't winning by losing their main and cheapest supplier of oil, they aren't winning by the Humous straits closing and choking their int'l trade and they certainly aren't winning by having it shown to the world that they've been backing the wrong horse for the last 10 years or more.

How do you think they're 'winning'?
Click to expand...

The bigger picture.

Iran was never an essential part of China's strategy. They always knew it was vulnerable. The cheap oil was nice. But it only saved them about $5 billion a year, which is peanuts to China. USA is blowing that every three days in Iran.

Trump has shown he can't be trusted. It's a massive diplomatic win for China.

The USA has demonstrated that it is a lot weaker than many expected. It is having to strip out massive amounts of equipment from Asia and ask countries from Ukraine to Australia to help, just to take on a weak country like Iran. It is US allies in Asia who are going to be wondering whether they have backed the wrong horse.
 
diy_fun_uk said:
I'm maybe wrong, might there not have been a cost curve that would eventually have been to the consumers benefit though? i.e. if we had ramped up our own extraction and refining processes decades ago, yes there's an upfront capital cost, and recurring to maintain/upgrade, however if we had essentially done it all ourselves, would that not have been better for us, both in terms of energy security and consumer cost? The answer to one or both might be 'no' of course!
Click to expand...

Possibly but, not since Victorian times have we done things with any degree of vision or future proofing.

It's live for this afternoon, not even live for today, it seems.....
 
diy_fun_uk said:
We had/have the North Sea, why decades ago didn't we just ensure we could produce the end product ourselves.

Too straightforward an approach no doubt. Not good enough an approach to ensure multiple people can make £££ profits. So here's an idea, let's conveniently overcomplicate the whole thing.
Click to expand...

The type of oil has changed as the North Sea has run dry. It used to be light and sweet but now it is heavy and sour. In the past we could refine it. But not any more. It is the opposite of the problem the US faces.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top