quote:

Originally posted by Dakor:
Saigonsmuggler,

The Forbes article is sad and has nothing to do with the erroneous comment you made. I worked in the petroleum industry, not just traded stocks, and you have a lot to learn about refining. I won’t bother revisiting this subject as I don’t want to thread drift.

I had posted on this before and as tatortodd said, US refineries have been converting more and more to process with lighter shale stuff. The article is from Sept 30, 2017 so while not the most up to date, it is a widely known fact for many years that US refineries process more of the imported heavy crude than the lighter stuff from shale.

The author of that article:

quote:

Robert Rapier is a chemical engineer in the energy industry. Robert has 25 years of international engineering experience in the chemicals, oil and gas, and renewable energy industries, and holds several patents related to his work. He has worked in the areas of oil refining, oil production, synthetic fuels, biomass to energy, and alcohol production. He is author of The Energy Strategist at Investing Daily, and of the book Power Plays: Energy Options in the Age of Peak Oil.

Just heard on Shannon Bream's show that planes were in the air and naval missiles were locked and loaded and they were ordered to stand down.

Curious what's going on.

Bolton should be in Jerusalem by now. Could be a long night.

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:

quote:

Originally posted by Jimineer:

quote:

Originally posted by Jimbo54:

quote:

The loss of a single drone, even if it was in international airspace, is nothing to get all jacked up over.

It was a $180,000,000 drone. That ain't chump change. Iran is forcing our hand and like Trump said "they made a very big mistake"

Jim

Where did you get that price from? Me thinks you might be high by a factor of 5 to 10.

That's the current, "drive it off the lot" price. The cost per, with the R&D added is about $225 million a copy.

"Gizmos" cost money. The more "Gizmos" on a platform, the more money, the more airframes, the lower to cost of each. With about 50 built, that makes the per copy cost very high. $10 billion plus in development and continued research, roles and updating technology.

If there were a thousand of these, the costs would be exponentially inverse and your 5-10 times less, would be realistic.

Ok, so taking the total R&D investment amortized over 50 units then sure. But that investment wasn’t destroyed with the aircraft that was shot down. The technology, the IP, the know how still exists. When the AF buys another one from GA they aren’t going to write them a check for $225 million. The R&D has been spent. The amortized cost is still high if you want to look at it that way though. I’ve been developing gizmos for almost 40 years for these types of things and others.
Is the $180M or $225M an estimate or was it published somewhere? I’m just curious.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimineer:

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:

quote:

Originally posted by Jimineer:

quote:

Originally posted by Jimbo54:

quote:

The loss of a single drone, even if it was in international airspace, is nothing to get all jacked up over.

It was a $180,000,000 drone. That ain't chump change. Iran is forcing our hand and like Trump said "they made a very big mistake"

Jim

Where did you get that price from? Me thinks you might be high by a factor of 5 to 10.

That's the current, "drive it off the lot" price. The cost per, with the R&D added is about $225 million a copy.

"Gizmos" cost money. The more "Gizmos" on a platform, the more money, the more airframes, the lower to cost of each. With about 50 built, that makes the per copy cost very high. $10 billion plus in development and continued research, roles and updating technology.

If there were a thousand of these, the costs would be exponentially inverse and your 5-10 times less, would be realistic.

Ok, so taking the total R&D investment amortized over 50 units then sure. But that investment wasn’t destroyed with the aircraft that was shot down. The technology, the IP, the know how still exists. When the AF buys another one from GA they aren’t going to write them a check for $225 million. The R&D has been spent. The amortized cost is still high if you want to look at it that way though. I’ve been developing gizmos for almost 40 years for these types of things and others.
Is the $180M or $225M an estimate or was it published somewhere? I’m just curious.

Y'all are trying to compare lemons to lock washers.

There are two ways to look at it:

1. Take the total cost of the program, including R&D, tooling up, training the manufacturing team, all costs, and divide by the number of missile that have been built.
   
   
2. Given that all costs for start-up have been paid, look at the incremental cost to build the next missile.

Clearly, # 1 will have a higher cost than # 2.

I can’t help but wonder, if the “Intel Community” didn’t set up all this to get Trump to attack Iran.

Sorry, but I don’t believe anything anyone in the IC says. Their credibility leaves a lot to be desired.

I think President Trump still has some economic screws to turn. The damaged ships and splashed drone are a harbinger. The elephant in the room is where Iran is with their nuclear weapons program. Israel cannot tolerate them having a deliverable nuke and the prospect also scares the shit out of everyone in the Middle East. We will be at war with those sonsabitches at some point. In terms of savagery, The Nazis were pussies compared to the IRGC and we should have laid them to waste in 1980.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
Checking my drone wish list I found the following price:

The aircraft, which is used by both the US Air Force and the US Navy, has a price tag higher than the US military's new F-35 stealth fighters. A Global Hawk has a unit cost of roughly $123 million, while an F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter costs only $89 million.

The $123M does not include the amortized R&D project costs. The higher number quoted earlier does. The drone shot down was an MQ-4 Triton, a maritime derivative of the Hawk. 100,000 ft ceiling with a long range stand-off detection package. Also an enhanced airframe to withstand very rapid decent from high altitude to below cloud cover for closer looks. At high altitude it reportedly can photograph 20 sq miles with one click of the camera. That is where the money is spent...

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
lease limit anacronyms or put them in parenthesis following the term. Thanks

Right, I'm probably one of those who should feel addressed.

quote:

Originally posted by BansheeOne:
It seems quite clear to me that with the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action [on the Iranian nuclear program]) agreement all but dead (Iran just announced they would resume enriching uranium to higher levels unless the other parties make it work for them despite US sanctions), they are now testing their freedom of movement against the West under the constrictions of contradictory positions of Trump, his administration, base, and allies; some apparent on this thread:

- Non-interventionism, particularly disengagement from the Middle East;

- being tough on Iran, killing JCPOA, sanctions and military threats;

- maintaining oil price stability - even if the US (and also Europe) are much less dependent on Gulf oil than they used to be, trouble in the Strait of Hormuz up to actual closure will lead to price hikes due to the global nature of the market;

- some regional allies like Israel and the Saudis who would like the US to take down Iran for them;

- tensions with European allies which the US might need for protracted effective operations - for example, the US Navy has increasingly abandoned minesweeping capabilties to that point, which was evident even during the 1987-1991 operations in the Gulf. The LCS (Littoral Combat Ship, which can be fitted with a minehunting module) was supposed to take over from the outgoing Avenger-class MCMs (mine countermeasures vessels) , but well ...

- Domestic and international distrust of the US government and intelligence built up in the last two decades.

I think the Iranians are betting they can suck up anything the US can allow itself to throw at them under these conditions, like the usual cruise missile barrage any POTUS (I think everybody knows this one, though) has resorted to as a token measure for the last quarter century. And they probably think it won't even come to that; after all even Reagan didn't follow through on threats of counterattacks on shore sites if anti-ship missiles should be used from them, fearing the risks associated with such an escalation. Especially in view of lukewarm domestic support, a Congress divided on the whole Kuwaiti tanker reflagging thing to have them escorted by the USN (and this one, too), etc.

The reports of last night's aborted counterattacks would fit right in with those putative Iranian expectations, BTW.

So if Iran made a mistake, not a provocation as Trump said, and they sent their apologies + $123M to the US, and with the Navy recovering the secret hardware from the downed drone, is that good enough?

quote:

Originally posted by Cassandra:

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
Checking my drone wish list I found the following price:

The aircraft, which is used by both the US Air Force and the US Navy, has a price tag higher than the US military's new F-35 stealth fighters. A Global Hawk has a unit cost of roughly $123 million, while an F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter costs only $89 million.

The $123M does not include the amortized R&D project costs. The higher number quoted earlier does. The drone shot down was an MQ-4 Triton, a maritime derivative of the Hawk. 100,000 ft ceiling with a long range stand-off detection package. Also an enhanced airframe to withstand very rapid decent from high altitude to below cloud cover for closer looks. At high altitude it reportedly can photograph 20 sq miles with one click of the camera. That is where the money is spent...

On page 1 someone said it was a Reaper and included a picture of one. Big difference.

This is where "measured response" becomes a problem. 10 or 20 years ago there would have been a loss of life, or real possibility of the loss of life, when the aggressor shot down the US spy plane. Now we have unmaned drones. Now the president has to consider, do we risk the loss of life over the destruction of one of our "toys"?

quote:

Originally posted by Jimineer:
On page 1 someone said it was a Reaper and included a picture of one. Big difference.

Retracted on page 3 and corrected to a Global Hawk with photo.

quote:

Originally posted by Southflorida-law:
This is where "measured response" becomes a problem. 10 or 20 years ago there would have been a loss of life, or real possibility of the loss of life, when the aggressor shot down the US spy plane. Now we have unmaned drones. Now the president has to consider, do we risk the loss of life over the destruction of one of our "toys"?

He tweeted 150 people would have likely been killed as the reason for calling it off. I'm fine with that. That would not be a measured or proportional response to a really expensive RC plane going down.

A guess here, maybe he's giving them an out. In between the someone made a 'big mistake' and 'loose and stupid' comment and calling off the attack it gives Iran the ability to fire a general and say 'oops my bad, we didn't really mean to start a war.'

John Kerry, Barack Obama?:

The other issue at play here is the poorly concealed and treasonous activity of the former administration, particularly John Kerry, who is consorting with a sworn enemy and encouraging them to provoke this President. I personally do not think that the shooting down of the drone or the attack on the two tankers in the Gulf were accidents. Nor do I think the Iranians would have done that without being given some sort of assurance by Kerry and perhaps Obama and others that doing so would hasten Trump's departure and that sanctions will be lifted and the Nuke Deal will be reinstated. This is, to put it mildly, the height of folly.
http://ace.mu.nu/

Trump "turned the other cheek" as it were. Mistakes happen- Like when we shot down Iran Air Flight 655 on 3 July 1988.

But he also set Iran up knowing they won't sit idle.

Victor David Hanson pointed out Trump picks issues 51% of Americans support. Going to war over an unmanned drone probably doesn't have 51% of the American Peoples Support.


Donald Trump on Iran in 1980 - https://youtu.be/nAgJAxkALyc?t=58

President Trump's response was correct. Even though he has weighed the consequences and displayed restraint, you know that in the eyes if the press, everything he does is wrong. Therefore, the narrative will be that he "blinked" and that Iran "called his bluff" and disgusting, false shit like that.

Be that as it may, when these Iranian assholes pul their next stunt (and you know it's only a matter of time), the President will be fully justified in pulling the trigger on them, because they damn well asked for it.

And this is not a matter of the US losing a "toy". We were attacked. We are justified in responding, no matter how anyone tries to downplay this with allusions to "toys".

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:

quote:

Originally posted by Southflorida-law:
This is where "measured response" becomes a problem. 10 or 20 years ago there would have been a loss of life, or real possibility of the loss of life, when the aggressor shot down the US spy plane. Now we have unmaned drones. Now the president has to consider, do we risk the loss of life over the destruction of one of our "toys"?

He tweeted 150 people would have likely been killed as the reason for calling it off. I'm fine with that. That would not be a measured or proportional response to a really expensive RC plane going down.

A guess here, maybe he's giving them an out. In between the someone made a 'big mistake' and 'loose and stupid' comment and calling off the attack it gives Iran the ability to fire a general and say 'oops my bad, we didn't really mean to start a war.'

I agree with you. I think it was a smart move on Trump’s part. He reminded the Iranians that we can ruin their shit at will, and by aborting the strike, he’s showing them that we’re not looking to start a war. He gave them a little room to save face and de-escalate a little bit instead of just dialing up their bluster. We don’t have to appear stronger, because we are. If it takes letting them feel like we blinked to calm things down a little bit, we really lose nothing. If they want to take it as a reason to get bolder, we can come over the top at them and still say “we’ve given you every opportunity to cool your jets.”

Tucker Carlson: Washington Warmongers Want War With Iran, Trump 'Rightfully Skeptical'

Amid a series of dramatic reports about the administration's response to Iran's escalation of tensions with the U.S., Fox News host Tucker Carlson dedicated his monologue Thursday night to criticizing the "warmongers in Washington" and defending President Trump's "rightful skepticism" about war with Iran.

Despite "noble intentions," our attempts to "remake the Middle East in our image" has resulted in "dismal failure," said Carlson, in comments delivered during his primetime Fox show. "Donald Trump was one of the rare Republican politicians honest enough to admit this. He said it out loud three years ago, and promised not to repeat the same mistakes if elected president. And partly because he said that, he was elected president."

And now, said Carlson, the same people who pushed for the Iraq "quagmire" are doing it again, this time calling for war with Iran. "The president, to his great credit, appears to be skeptical of this — very skeptical," said Carlson.

Carlson then highlighted comments Trump made Thursday after Iran downed a U.S. surveillance drone in which he clearly attempted to de-escalate the situation:

Trump: Iran made a big mistake. This drone was in international waters. Clearly we have it all documented. I would imagine it was a general or somebody that made a mistake in shooting that drone down. Unfortunately, that drone was unarmed. It was not — there was no man in it. And there was no — it was just — it was over international waters, clearly over international waters. But we didn't have a man or woman in the drone. We had nobody in the drone. It would have made a big difference, let me tell you. It would have made a big, big difference. I find it hard to believe it was intentional, if you want to know the truth. I think that it could been somebody who was loose and stupid that did it.

Trump's response, said Carlson, is "not nearly bellicose enough for the permanent foreign policy establishment in Washington, many of whom crave a war with Iran, and see every provocation as an opportunity to start one."

One of those "warmongers," suggested Carlson, is Sen. Lindsey Graham, who argued that Trump should "put [Iran's] oil refineries on our target list, and that he should look at sinking the Iranian Navy if they attack shipping again."

The reason the warmongers continue to warmonger, said Carlson, is that "in Washington, there are no real consequences for being wrong." Lawmakers can continue to repeat the same mistake with no fear of being called to the carpet.

And the warmongers are not just in Washington: they're also in the media, including over at The New York Times, where Bret Stephens is urging similar action by the adminstration, the host said. Though they'll never admit it, they "want a war badly, badly enough to lie about it."

https://www.dailywire.com/news...r-iran-james-barrett

This message has been edited. Last edited by: chellim1,

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
President Trump's response was correct.

Agreed. It was also the kind of response I expected.

Trump may run his mouth seemingly carelessly at times, but his actions are all very studied. Very deliberate.

He's given Iran an out. Let us all hope and pray they're smart enough to realize it and take it.

This is when you hope the Sec Defense (if we had one) and the President are fully versed on:

The Weinberger doctrine:

(1) The United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests of the United States or its allies are involved.

(2) U.S. troops should only be committed wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning. Otherwise, troops should not be committed.

(3) U.S. combat troops should be committed only with clearly defined political and military objectives and with the capacity to accomplish those objectives.

(4) The relationship between the objectives and the size and composition of the forces committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.

(5) U.S. troops should not be committed to battle without a "reasonable assurance" of the support of U.S. public opinion and Congress.

(6) The commitment of U.S. troops should be considered only as a last resort.

With the Powell addition:

*Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?

I believe Iran is really looking to put an end to this, one way or another. They want to be the "big dick" in this region and are ready for a shooting war.