Go Back   AzBilliards.com > Main Category > Non Pool Related
Reload this Page Oil tankers seized, does Iran have a death wish?
Reply
Page 2 of 2 12
 
Share Thread Tools Rate Thread
12/2018 - 1/2019
Old
  (#16)
L I F D 1
L S S T 10
L I F D 1 has a reputation beyond reputeL I F D 1 has a reputation beyond reputeL I F D 1 has a reputation beyond reputeL I F D 1 has a reputation beyond reputeL I F D 1 has a reputation beyond reputeL I F D 1 has a reputation beyond reputeL I F D 1 has a reputation beyond reputeL I F D 1 has a reputation beyond reputeL I F D 1 has a reputation beyond reputeL I F D 1 has a reputation beyond reputeL I F D 1 has a reputation beyond repute
 
L I F D 1's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 1,652
vCash: 500
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Join Date: Aug 2018
   
Arrow 12/2018 - 1/2019 - 07-19-2019, 10:13 PM

All these troubles, media attention, seized tankers are driving the price of crude up.
without the nonsense, we could be looking forward to prices below $50.00 dollars barrel.

Oil is a thing of the past, there are alternatives.
Very much like "Custard's last Stand".
$49.00 dollars barrel gets my attention, then I'll need to be about my witts.
Good Luck.
Attached Images
 



Last edited by L I F D 1; 07-19-2019 at 10:25 PM. Reason: MotleyFool.com graphic
  
Reply With Quote

Old
  (#17)
LWW
DEPLORABLE!
LWW has a reputation beyond reputeLWW has a reputation beyond reputeLWW has a reputation beyond reputeLWW has a reputation beyond reputeLWW has a reputation beyond reputeLWW has a reputation beyond reputeLWW has a reputation beyond reputeLWW has a reputation beyond reputeLWW has a reputation beyond reputeLWW has a reputation beyond reputeLWW has a reputation beyond repute
 
LWW's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 56,026
vCash: 1700
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Blog Entries: 8
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: People's Republic of Amerika
   
07-20-2019, 01:07 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sofla View Post
I was relying on other accounts that said it had been shot down (in the headline and in the text; see below). Shockingly, I guess, I do not see the WSJ or USA Today on any regular basis, and rarely at all.

For example:



That is probably because he said it had been 'immediately destroyed,' indicating a super-quick kinetic attack (bullets or missiles) took it out, not an interference with its guidance letting it stay intact and just fly into the water, which of course would not be exactly immediate, nor necessarily destroyed (as you try to foresee and alibi for). If a drone went into the international waters, where are the larger structural pieces to prove it? Would the US Navy not recover it?

So my comments were made in good faith, if mistakenly. It is your question implying it was out of hatred that is in bad faith. But you already knew that. Good to see you are fully back in mid-season form so early on. Like you never left!
No , your comments were ... admittedly by you ... spoon fed to you by known fake news merchants while the actual quote was readily available.


"I can't stand you (LWW). You're one of the worst people I've ever known...You can rot in hell you pathetic loser."
-Bishop-

"Whether or not its a lie is irrelevant."
-Bishop-

"I have better things to do than worry about fact checking whats being published ..."
-336Robin-

"I support Antifa"
-poolfool1957-

"I have high hopes that you (LWW) and your sympathizers will be led to the gallows."
-9BallPaul-
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#18)
memikey
Never Has Been
memikey has a reputation beyond reputememikey has a reputation beyond reputememikey has a reputation beyond reputememikey has a reputation beyond reputememikey has a reputation beyond reputememikey has a reputation beyond reputememikey has a reputation beyond reputememikey has a reputation beyond reputememikey has a reputation beyond reputememikey has a reputation beyond reputememikey has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 20,148
vCash: 1700
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: I'm lost.
   
07-20-2019, 01:12 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by strmanglr scott View Post
My understanding is they have seized 4 tankers.
Your understanding in the above respect is wrong, though can see why you would have thought that to be the case. These new incidents do not concern four vessels and arguably not even two.

The Liberian flag vessel "Mesdar" (managed by a Scottish company on behalf on non-British owners), no British crew, had already been 'released' even prior to your post. It was very briefly delayed while some minor alleged navigational contraventions were explained to the Master.

Only one vessel has been detained by Iran, the "Stena Impero". It is British flag but Swedish owned and has bo British crew. The Iranians allege it was involved in a collision incident with a small Iranian fishing vessel though obviously any cynic realises that could be a 'manufactured' excuse for what is really just a retaliatory gesture after the British role in detaining an Iranian tanker near Gibraltar.

Just for general background info that the layman would never hear about it and may not realise exists, literally hundreds of merchant vessels are 'detained' or in more legal maritime terms "arrested" in the Middle East every year while in ports and occasionally while under way. This is usually in connection with alleged cargo damage, alleged collisions with other vessels or with fixed installations, alleged pollution offences, alleged debts incurred by the owners/operators for not paying assorted dues and fees or failure of the vessel's documentation or condition to meet the requirements of the country concerned.

Outside the current political situation between the West and Iran, such things are usually routinely resolved by marine surveyors (like me) in conjunction with the vessel's Protection and Indemnity Clubs who usually, after getting an initial preliminary survey/investigation report, put up guarantees (letters of guarantee or actual bank guarantees) for the vessel's release subject to later amicable resolution of whatever claim is being made against the vessel. Can't tell you how many detentions of 'arrested' vessels I've attended and investigated in The Middle East in the last 40 years but it's a very large number. Back in the 80's I once even carried a six figure sum in US Dollars cash to Aden in what was then the Peoples Democratic of Yemen to secure the release of a Greek flag cargo vessel arrested in Aden for damage the vessel's faulty ventilation systems had caused to a large cargo of potatoes it had discharged. I kid you not.

Even our very friendly Western ally ME countries like the UAE have very punitive regulations covering vessels using their ports and waters. The Masters of every tanker entering UAE waters or ports cannot enter without signing an agreement to pay in full for all damage to oil facilities or pollution caused during the vessel's stay in their waters "even if the damage was no fault of the vessel and 100% caused by the UAE". Again, I kid you not. It is that blatant. Iran's regulations are slightly less punitive but grossly unfair as well. It is very easy to manufacture what are technically correct and on the face of it basically legitimate reasons to detain or arrest vessel, especially tankers.

In my opinion, although obviously because of the background international political situation re Iran involve this incident is somewhat different from the routine "arrests" of vessels ....it will nevertheless almost certainly be resolved by on-military commercial or diplomatic means after the usual elaborate waltzes.


Mike

Last edited by memikey; 07-20-2019 at 01:38 AM.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#19)
Alan
AzB Silver Member
Alan has a reputation beyond reputeAlan has a reputation beyond reputeAlan has a reputation beyond reputeAlan has a reputation beyond reputeAlan has a reputation beyond reputeAlan has a reputation beyond reputeAlan has a reputation beyond reputeAlan has a reputation beyond reputeAlan has a reputation beyond reputeAlan has a reputation beyond reputeAlan has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 3,454
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Feb 2005
   
07-20-2019, 03:58 AM

Does it matter if the vessel was "seized" in international waters? I don't know any of the rules - - just wondering if this perhaps not "by the book" sort of action.
Actually, yours is the first I've read about a fishing boat incident. Our biased news tends to leaves details out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by memikey View Post
Your understanding in the above respect is wrong, though can see why you would have thought that to be the case. These new incidents do not concern four vessels and arguably not even two.

The Liberian flag vessel "Mesdar" (managed by a Scottish company on behalf on non-British owners), no British crew, had already been 'released' even prior to your post. It was very briefly delayed while some minor alleged navigational contraventions were explained to the Master.

Only one vessel has been detained by Iran, the "Stena Impero". It is British flag but Swedish owned and has bo British crew. The Iranians allege it was involved in a collision incident with a small Iranian fishing vessel though obviously any cynic realises that could be a 'manufactured' excuse for what is really just a retaliatory gesture after the British role in detaining an Iranian tanker near Gibraltar.

Just for general background info that the layman would never hear about it and may not realise exists, literally hundreds of merchant vessels are 'detained' or in more legal maritime terms "arrested" in the Middle East every year while in ports and occasionally while under way. This is usually in connection with alleged cargo damage, alleged collisions with other vessels or with fixed installations, alleged pollution offences, alleged debts incurred by the owners/operators for not paying assorted dues and fees or failure of the vessel's documentation or condition to meet the requirements of the country concerned.

Outside the current political situation between the West and Iran, such things are usually routinely resolved by marine surveyors (like me) in conjunction with the vessel's Protection and Indemnity Clubs who usually, after getting an initial preliminary survey/investigation report, put up guarantees (letters of guarantee or actual bank guarantees) for the vessel's release subject to later amicable resolution of whatever claim is being made against the vessel. Can't tell you how many detentions of 'arrested' vessels I've attended and investigated in The Middle East in the last 40 years but it's a very large number. Back in the 80's I once even carried a six figure sum in US Dollars cash to Aden in what was then the Peoples Democratic of Yemen to secure the release of a Greek flag cargo vessel arrested in Aden for damage the vessel's faulty ventilation systems had caused to a large cargo of potatoes it had discharged. I kid you not.

Even our very friendly Western ally ME countries like the UAE have very punitive regulations covering vessels using their ports and waters. The Masters of every tanker entering UAE waters or ports cannot enter without signing an agreement to pay in full for all damage to oil facilities or pollution caused during the vessel's stay in their waters "even if the damage was no fault of the vessel and 100% caused by the UAE". Again, I kid you not. It is that blatant. Iran's regulations are slightly less punitive but grossly unfair as well. It is very easy to manufacture what are technically correct and on the face of it basically legitimate reasons to detain or arrest vessel, especially tankers.

In my opinion, although obviously because of the background international political situation re Iran involve this incident is somewhat different from the routine "arrests" of vessels ....it will nevertheless almost certainly be resolved by on-military commercial or diplomatic means after the usual elaborate waltzes.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#20)
memikey
Never Has Been
memikey has a reputation beyond reputememikey has a reputation beyond reputememikey has a reputation beyond reputememikey has a reputation beyond reputememikey has a reputation beyond reputememikey has a reputation beyond reputememikey has a reputation beyond reputememikey has a reputation beyond reputememikey has a reputation beyond reputememikey has a reputation beyond reputememikey has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 20,148
vCash: 1700
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: I'm lost.
   
07-20-2019, 05:03 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan View Post
Does it matter if the vessel was "seized" in international waters? I don't know any of the rules - - just wondering if this perhaps not "by the book" sort of action.
Actually, yours is the first I've read about a fishing boat incident. Our biased news tends to leaves details out.
I wasn't suggesting this was a routine detention, just giving general background information that temporary detentions/arrests are actually commonplace.

There might of course have been no collision incident at all as we only have Iranian allegations of that.....and it is crystal clear they have been looking for any opportunity to grab any vessel with Uk connections ever since the Gibraltar incident. Decades in my kind of investigative marine survey profession has taught me to keep an open mind but my instinct tells me their collision claim is quite likely to be either wholly fabricated (in the sense of the fishing vessel not even existing) or that they engineered circumstances for a fishing vessel to be near the tanker's course and to be 'accidentally' contacted.

Even a relatively small parcel tanker of that nature wouldn't always be aware of contact with a small fishing vessel. That alone pretty much gives the Iranians a blank canvas on which to paint anything they like.

Whether the Iranians are alleging either or both the collision incident or the detention of the vessel took place in Iranian waters is information not yet in the public domain. I'd imagine that if they are going to continue with that story they will say that the collision incident happened in Iranian waters.

Yes, it does matter in a number of potential ways, some of which could be very complicated but I don't really think that in reality that's going to become much of an issue in this instance. This is a retaliatory move by Iran, is seen by the Uk as a retaliatory move by Iran and will be dealt with by the Uk Govt as being a retaliatory mov by Iran.. I don't think they are going to get bogged down in matters appertaining to the legalities of authority over navigation in the area.

Arguably, the Iranian allegation of the vessel having been involved in a navigational incident/collision can actually be seen as them making the first move towards de-escalating the situation. If there was actually such a collision or even just if the Uk Govt is prepared to accept in principle the allegation that there was such a collision, it actually makes negotiations a lot easier for both sides than if Iran were to be openly saying that they have simply seized the vessel in retaliation. Face saving is important to all Govts on the domestic front.

Hope that helps a little.


Mike

Last edited by memikey; 07-20-2019 at 05:09 AM.
  
Reply With Quote
Reply
Page 2 of 2 12

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.