Nothing will really ever change, prices will stay elevated, and people will learn to live without refined products over the coming years. This is now normal, which means it must be good.
Maybe not good, but definitely a "well what else are we supposed to do about it?" attitude.
Oil prices stay high, and renewables continue to take up the slack. Supply chains for other affected products get moved around and eventually stabilize. Maybe that's not such a bad thing.
Short-term pain, but I'll be happy when we can finally not have to rely on fucking autocracies or bullies like UAE, Saudi Arabia, the USA, Iran, or Venezuela for our energy needs.
Renewables are not perfect, and oil will take a long time to wean off of, but it's really the only choice we have to strengthen our sovereignty. Especially if we boost our local renewable industries.
I think you mean autarky. Economic sovereignty is a choice in the marketbto trade with who ever you want at prices you want to pay. Autaky is being able yo do it all yourself
Yes, I used quotation marks to try to stick to the same language as the comment I was replying to, but you're right that I was only talking about economic sovereignty in its most extreme and isolationist form.
Sure, assuming some added processing infrastructure in the future. Sorry I failed to list every country starting with 'C' that can help supply the renewables market.
Let's avoid invoking "stability" though... I'd hate to jinx it given current political circumstances...
That would be relevant if human societies had a limited appetite for energy. Unfortunately, historical trends imply that they do not, and every additional generator needs additional copper.
The U.S. isnât doing renewables and even if it did a Republican administration will come in and destroy as much of it as it can before leaving office.
The percentage of renewable generation will rise from around 24% in 2025 to 25% âin 2026 and 27% in 2027, while nuclear power's share will hold at â18% in 2026 â and 2027, the same as in 2025, according to the outlook.
Everything grew, power usage is up but renewables actually shrank in the U.S. as a source. Look at the growth rates in the U.S. and compare them to someone like China. I mean I guess you can think thatâs the U.S. doing renewables but trumps affect is coming up as he killed plants just starting out.
Your own source counters your point that renewables shrank. They are in fact growing. Total generation needs means that pre installed bases are used more. Natural gas plants are running closer and closer to capacity same with nuclear, the total needs are increasing and so while 90% of NEW energy is renewable it is not keeping pace in the same way as needs. But for reference coal use has gone down by 2% this year. In fact. If anything your documents points to the fact that the biggest hurdle with new energy is the interconnect queue.
Currently there is roughly 2300 GW of renewables waiting on interconnects.
For reference the current entire grid is 1280GW.
I hate trump as much as the next guy but he isnt all powerful he cant control state and local governments. And most electric generation in america is privatized.
Growing slowly. It doesnât counter it shows slow growth of renewables, Iâm not against renewables, I said that this administration is killing off renewable projects. Trump has stopped a large wind farm from being built offshore, is trying to build a coal railroad in the Bay Area, rescinded solar subsidies, and actively attacks renewables.
We are growing slower than similar nations, adding renewables at a worse rate than China, and it is because federal policy can upend this change. I donât think you are paying attention because Trump has literally interfered with state and local government to stop renewable projects.
Yep. The Iranians could be a democracy, instead of an unelected regime. They could also have not supported the terror groups that initiated the recent war with Israel.
The number of conflicts worldwide is going up, the far right movements are on the rise.Â
There was decades long period of peace and stability, that one ended. We are likely to get more conflicts in next years and attacks on supply of comodities will be part of it.
This is rupture and realignement with no way to return to previous status quo.
That's what this Kpler article is saying. I, on the other hand, generally agree that this 'new normal' isn't likely to remain undisturbed for very long. I expect this particular conflict will get significantly worse before it gets better though.
There's really two directions here, generally hope things simmer down and endure a painful road back to somewhat calm conditions, with the US needing to basically accept defeat and tuck tail. This is more or less what Trump is going for, although as clumsily as Trump does anything.
The other would be the "only way out is through" mentality that results in regime change and a lot of dead people. Thankfully Trump seems to understand that escalating significantly leads him here, and he's at least very aware of how Bush's legacy is a product of that behavior.
Unfortunately, Trump and Hegseth lack the emotional maturity to fully commit to option A as well, so you get these constant hiccups cuz none of them wants to look like a bitch, while still slowly backing down, after realizing that pushing the crazy kid in the corner of the cafeteria who controls the hall passes was in fact a bad idea.
There are more than two possible choices. Weâre currently living through a third option. Namely, the U.S. continues to maintain a total naval embargo on Iran, while assisting the Arab nations in exporting their oil, and selling its own petroleum products into a tight market for record profits. This option could go on for years.
Youâre making a very one-sided analysis. If it can even be called that.
What percentage of Iranâs economy was petroleum exports? How many ships have left or arrived at Iranian ports in the last two months? How far has Iranâs currency crashed this year?
The difference here is that USA has a choice and Americans know it. USA is already on the verge of destroying itself due to intrrnal ressentment.
So yes, those ressentful Americans dont like paying those huge amounts of money to protect oil. America does not need to be broken to walk away.
Iran dont have choice, not really. The protests stopped. Any deal would be broken in few weeks anyway. So they will go on and armed forces will milk the situation to gain power and tighten grip.
If youâre going to be a propagandist, can you at least work on your English grammar? Nobody will believe you on geopolitics if you canât even get a simple sentence right.
Youâre talking about internal resentment?âŚ?? The Iranian regime has killed ordinary Iranians by the tens of thousands this year aloneâŚ
âTightening their gripâ. Yah? Howâs Khamenei doing? Howâs Soleimani?
And then bombing and war started. And per analysts with contacts in Iran, even liberal opposition to regime expressed thankfulness for protecting them from external threat.
That is how these things go, rally around the flag effect is real. Common threat creates aliances and acceptance. They hate leadership, like Iran itself and now also like armed forces.Â
But especially, they dont see any alternative.
There is no organized opposition now. Because bombing and war made it easier to destroy it.
I presumed people reading it would be intelligent enough to realize that outcomes are not literally binary lol.
But no, the current conditions are a slow march towards easing, the embargo quietly loosens regularly as does the closure of the strait, this is how oil continues to flow despite the official stances.
This is one easily accessible tracker of dark passages, thereâs many more that are more robust being used by various analytical groups. You can see the shipâs names there.
Another more broad monitor of aggregate traffic, inclusive of dark passages.
From what Iâm reading, however, it is entirely the other Gulf states which are picking up the slack as oil exports from the region stand at about 85% of prewar levels.
Iranian oil exports are (apparently) at literally zero.
It could well be that a continued blockade of this nature over the next few years essentially starves Iran entirely.
Iran isn't some small little country that can be "starved" by a blockade. It's been around much longer than the oil trade. The country is fully capable of growing its own food, building houses, and producing stuff like cars. Plus, there's always the potential to trade more with Russia via the Caspian Sea, if necessary.
So unless there's a major drought or bombing of public infrastructure, I expect that Iran can endure this indefinitely, as they've been enduring sanctions for decades.
So, then you agree with the original article that "over the coming years" this will be the "new normal"? You merely intended to add the clarification that it won't be "normal" forever? (which obviously nothing stays the same forever)
That's a plausible assessment, and in general I agree, with one caveat: the US is now sending a third carrier strike group and there's no quiet way to back down from that.
But I expect that the conflict will continue to escalate due to foreign actors, not because of anything the US will do. The US knocked over the dominoes, but they're still falling.
Trump letting it fizzle out seems reasonable - his base would call it a win and they get propaganda out of it. Sadly i think the more likely situation is he takes a huge dump over everything before the Dems take control. The US population seems unable to understand that kind of thing so the harder years will be the Dems fault so people will vote GOP again.
It's largely the state owned tankers doing the shuttling of oil thru the strait and then offloading their oil onto the private VLCCs outside the range of Iranian attacks.
The Kpler blog post is definitely the calculation that the oil market seems to be settling in for. This is supported by data that Kpler themselves have carefully compiled showing near pre-war oil transits for over a week now.
It's sort of optimistic on Iran's part though. The current operation still has most US ships staying well outside of the range of a number of Iranian missiles, primarily escorting ships further down in the Omani lane.
Presumably in response to this, just yesterday at 1900 UTC (note: after this blog was written) Iran struck a tanker with "multiple projectiles" and caused crew casualties 50 miles North of Qatar. Much further into the Gulf than most recent strikes. If Iran continues to do this the US will again have to readjust its strategy, necessitating moving ships further into the Gulf themselves and exposing them to heavier fire.
I'm also a little dubious about the long term sustainability. I follow a lot of shipping news and the dual pressure of sky rocketing insurance rates, and staggering increase in pay for those involved in the transit are continuing to mount (Financial Times reporting captains making $100k/month in the gulf, although there are about a million caveats to that number). US ships themselves do not have unlimited ability to maintain a credible defense. I haven't heard any news of the US' Bahrain naval base being rebuilt, so presumably resupply is still being routed out of Diego Garcia. That's a pretty long journey.
What trump apologists fail to say is that ships passing through the strait now have to carry million+ dollar insurance policies, and the crews get triple the pay for the hazard.
Oil flows but with much higher costs, and those increases are here to stay.
Most crews, as mandated by ITF, get double basic pay plus a hazard bonus. Depending on the position and contract, it equates to a 40-100% bump in pay, with ratings on the higher and officers on the lower end. Source: I asked my collegue sitting next to me, whos previous contract was on a ship in the Gulf.
Itâs not just those ships incurring higher costs. Freight costs everywhere have skyrocketed and remained at extremely high levels as a result of the fact that the demand for the oil from other regions has to make up for what isnât flowing out of Hormuz.
And I've heard from multiple sources that even if tge war ends tomorrow it could taje a couple of years for the significant wider disruption to settle:
And like Iran has showed over the last week or so is that all it takes to shut it down again to the point that even that 1M insurance policy and 3x pay isnt enough to get ships in there. The shipping has cratered again over the last week or so
Its also costing US, the U.S literally BILLIONS of dollars a month to facilitate the reduced shipping that is getting out
Oil prices are generally driven by the last barrels. The market value is going to be absorbed by other players and less by Saudi producers. Thatâs not impossible to maintain even if undesirable for the Saudis. US producers make even more oil come out of the ground at higher costs than the Saudi production + shipping cost.
Can't say I'm surprised. Hormuz being shut down is bad for everyone, Iran included. The US might have more economic power to wait Iran out, but there are political factors to consider in this deeply-unpopular war, and Iran has shown how little it cares for the wellbeing of its citizens.
Yet a formal opening and negotiated end to this mess is a struggle. Trump won't want to end it without a achieving at least some of the objectives that started this war, and Iran won't want to give up on its ability to shut down the strait in the face of foreign hostility. So what are we left with? A stalemate that solves nothing but manages to let cargo still transit.
I fail to see how any of this is sustainable, and the author at no point addresses the fact that the Us navy simply cannot sustain the level of operations necessary to maintain even the restricted flow of oil currently getting out. The author also doesnât address the approximately 30 dollar per barrel cost that is being imposed by the situation, nor does the author account for the possibility that Iran can escalate further if they feel that itâs necessary to maintain deterrence.
In short, it appears Kepler is extremely biased
Theyâre basically like âhey, we have somewhat staunched the bleeding, victory is ours!â
These guys have lost their minds, there is literally zero chance the US can wait Iran out.
The SPR is still pumping 700k barrels a week, at some point that runs out and when it does the result is not just bad it is catastrophic.
Weâve ground Irans dollar economy to dust with forty years of sanctions yet they have endured and even managed to grow, another six or even twelve months of sanctions is nothing.
My point is moreso that theyâre not claiming they can break Iran with sanctions, rather that the U.S. has more tolerance now given that theyâve been able to move some oil through the strait.
Iran is blockaded as well so comparing that to previous sanctions doesnât make any sense given that those sanctions arenât as all encompassing.
Thatâs just hopeful thinking, they are moving oil via rail to China and they are clearly closely allied with Russia, China and North Korea.
Comparing the pain being inflicted on Iran to what would be inflicted on the US and any one allied with us when western stock piles run out is like comparing after school detention to Abu ghraib.
You donât think they are? Last I saw it was a relatively small amount but if needed could expand to a couple hundred thousand barrels a day, which is a reasonable volume of oil, especially given its shorter transit time.
When you adjust for transit times (15 days vs 30-45), that puts you at a potential of moving similar volumes to sea borne shipping.
Not sure what you think is funny, I for one like my comfortable western lifestyle and would really appreciate it if a bunch of dumb greedy facists didnât mess it up.
They would be better served taking their massive amounts of unemployed, and forming a bucket line across the Himilayas.
No, shipping by train is not going to come close to replacing sea borne transit. To start, the infrastructure was not designed around shipping mass quantities of oil overland to China. It was designed to get it to refineries on Irans coast and then out through Karg island.
Second, there arent thousands of empty oil carts laying around to meet this new capacity, even if the infrastructure allowed it.
Third, transit times do not calculate into the bpd esitimates like you are portraying. If it is estimated that Iran can ship 100-200 thousand barrels by rail to China, those transit times have already been factored in.
What I do know is that with the exception of sixty days we have been blockading Iran since April and aside from some questionably sourced articles in their GDP falling 10% there has been no material change aside from the US blowing up a lot of stuff including some very regrettable things.
Their demands have been published are clear and have remained static as opposed to our shifting demands and unclear goals.
As to the number of unemployed people, I have trouble believing we have any good measure on that since the only economic activity we are privy to is in dollars a currency they only use for the oil trade, we have so little visibility into the country that I frankly think your comment is essentially a fairy tale.
>What I do know is that with the exception of sixty days we have been blockading Iran since April and aside from some questionably sourced articles in their GDP falling 10% there has been no material change aside from the US blowing up a lot of stuff including some very regrettable things.
A 10 percent reduction to any countries economy over a period of just half a year is already insane. Keep in mind that during the MOU they were able to clear out all their oil inventories at regular market prices because of US sanction waivers on oil. Given that this windfall appears to be already running out is only indicitive of how their economic collapse is likely to accelerate. And no material changes? How about their currency collapsing by 90% over this same time or is that questionably sources as well?
Here, a less questionable source for you, straight from Pezeshkian himself. "Iran's President Masoud Pezeshkian has admitted that US sanctions on his country are hurting its economy, despite just days ago insisting they would achieve nothing.
"Some say sanctions have no effect at all; to those people, I really don't know what to say," Pezeshkian told state TV in an interview late on Friday."
Strangely pragmatic thing to admit during wartime from the civilian government, against the backdrop of Hardline IRGC claims that they are stronger than ever and the blockade has no effect. In a country where going against the military leadership can get you arrested at a minimum, we can infer quite a bit from these statements.
>Their demands have been published are clear and have remained static as opposed to our shifting demands and unclear goals.
First off, who's demands, Aragachi's? Pezeshkian's? Vahedi's? Taeb's? The cardboard cutout of Mojtaba himself? Second, since no one on this site seems to understand the idea of posturing and instead takes everything at face value, it is hard to define those actual stances. When Iran says they will wait until the next administration before they are willing to negotiate, then proceeds to make ever more frequent overtures for dialoge on the strait, sure their original stance was not to be taken literaly, but their attempts to re-engage in negotiations show a softening position. Compare this with the American position, which has consistently only hardened in recent months, and it seems pretty clear in which way the leverage is gradually shifting.
>As to the number of unemployed people, I have trouble believing we have any good measure on that since the only economic activity we are privy to is in dollars a currency they only use for the oil trade, we have so little visibility into the country that I frankly think your comment is essentially a fairy tale.
They don't use dollars for oil trade, they trade in Yuan. And while due to their extenesive black market, the collapsing Rial can not be used as a 1:1 indicator of inflation, it is still a very strong indicator of their economic health, and every single sign points to the fact that yes, losing the majority of their imports and exports including their oil revenues which funded 60% of their Government has infact shockingly had catastrophic effects on their economy.
It's pretty clear from your other comments, your view of this conflict is likely entirely politically motivated. I would suggest taking a step back and looking at this through a more neutral fact based lens. You might realize that the "Iran has all the leverage" discourse you probably fell for months ago has not been updated to fit closer to reality.
The amounts vary; at the end of the day just having a path and an option is the value, if they have to figure out a way to put 2m barrels of oil a day on rail to survive they will do it.
Thatâs just what we humans do, solve problems that seem unsolvable until we need to actually solve them
A rail car holds 700 gallon. It would take 2857 rail cars a day to ship 2 million barrels There is no railway. It would have to transverse Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Himalayan mountains, and cross China. It would be blown up in Afghanistan... They would have to ship this to a port that isn't concerned with US retaliation, be that economic or more with so many rail cars they don't have.
Who said they were shipping 2m barrels via rail? Like you made up a problem to try to say what?
That there are obvious limits to different modes of transportation? Is that just occurring to you now?
My point was they have ways they can solve parts of the problem and it would be nothing short of racist to think they were too stupid to figure out any work arounds.
And also it ignores that Iran and China have a decent working relationship and China stands to benefit from the US immolating it's global position. If China isn't quietly backstopping Iran's losses enough to keep them in the game I would be shocked. But there's no real way to get visibility into those sorts of arrangements.
People need to realize that Russia, China, Iran and North Korea are close allies, they are trading weapons and energy and they all have a common enemy.
Didn't know one needed an economics degree to know that it's far less than what was being released. We were clipping along releasing nearly 10 million per week and now we're acting as if 700k is shielding us from "catastrophe" and enormous price increases.
Well, I'd call an executive order declaring "Emergency Relief" to lower the price of diesel a pretty clear indication that we're already experiencing enormous price increases. The only things really "shielding" us at this point are massive government spending on ship escorts, tax holidays, and blind optimism as oil infrastructure literally catches fire from the strain.
The US can absolutely wait Iran out; it's a question of political will to do so.
Iran is essentially cut off from the world, to a large extent.
Their economy has already been badly damaged.
It has, and will continue, to run out of basic supplies and materials society requires to function. It can't even afford to properly pay it's police, which is a major warning sign for an autocracy.
But the biggest issue of all, is their oil wells.
Oil wells cannot just be turned off and on. Once you tap a well, you need to continue pumping oil from it. If you cannot do that, you need to cap the well to prevent it from bursting. Once you cap a well, it's basically finished; especially older wells like the sort Iran mostly has.
Iran cannot export its oil, right now. It's storage capacity is largely full.
If this situation continues, it means Iran will need to start shutting down wells, which will permanently cripple its oil production.
There's a huge difference between sanctions, and a military blockade.
Iran was still able to fill up tankers and move them out of the country, under sanctions. It cannot do that under a physical blockade of its oil terminals.
Given that oil revenue is one of the primary drivers of the Iranian economy, the permanent loss of its oil wells would be absolutely devastating. There's no good way they can come back from that.
Meanwhile, the US has higher fuel prices... but that's basically it. There's no permanent structural hit, in terms of its resources.
Basically, the US could turn Iran's strategy back on itself.
Iran figured the US would be impatient, and have a low tolerance for any sort of economic pain or military loss.
And historically, that's not a bad bet â the US had indeed been fickle in this regard.
But if the US puts its mind to it, it can absolutely outlast Iran. It's not even a close call.
The US can basically just starve Iran to death, if it's patient enough.
It would be deeply immoral to do that, but it's absolutely possible. It just requires a continuation of the status quo.
None of us ultimately know how this will end. But in a purely economic/material sense, time is on the side of the US. If the US capitulates, it will be because of political choices.
You thought a lot about this I can tell, but your analysis is completely off base.
Oil across the Middle East has very low extraction cost due to the structure of geological formations the oil is in. They can absolutely turn off an on wells, turning things off and on is risky sure, but it is not only possible, but a lot of production capacity across western allied oil producers was literally turned off earlier this year when the us attacked.
There will be be minimal change to the current state of economic affairs as they already had a small and crumbling dollar economy, but that hasnât stopped them from not just surviving but growing for the last four decades
The biggest issue is our own inability to understand our own limits and weaknesses.
We are like a drunk in a bar at 3am ready to fight a coat rack, we donât even have the weapons to fight, and we wonât be able to make them at scale for another four years, IF the Chinese continue shipping rare earths to us.
To compare this current blockade to 40 years of previously on and off sanctions is stupid. Their economy shrinked by 10 percent since the war. A few years of blockade will destroy their economy like never before.
For the US worst come to worst is elevated energy prices and probably demand destruction. Itâs not like America doesnât have resources to diversify energy sources or reduce usage
> Their economy shrinked by 10 percent since the war. A few years of blockade will destroy their economy like never before.
And how many times in history has that led to a county actually collapsing? Didn't work in Iraq. Hasn't worked with North Korea. Iran has spent the past 15 years preparing their military to be able to operate autonomously specifically so they'd be ready when they got Saddam-ed. They can produce and import enough to keep the military going, especially in the face of a moron who has alienated the people who we'd need to assist if we wanted a sanctions regime to actually work. Everyone else will be seen as necessary sacrifices.
> To be fair, there any many Leftists on Reddit who blame the debilitated Cuban economy on American trade sanctions.
But suppose they're right; the sanctions still haven't ended the Cuban government. They've made the Cuban people suffer terribly and caused us to forego several opportunities to push Cuba to make market reforms a la China, but the government remains. They can make people suffer, but they can't win the war.
No offense but itâs not at all stupid, you donât seem to understand how much the west and the US in particular have to lose.
Quite literally we can lose everything we live lavish lifestyles of luxury and abundance and the wealthier you are the more abundance and lavishness there is.
We put ALL of it on the table playing a game of chicken with a country whose capital city is forced to ration clean water as a result of their inability to fix their municipal water system because of US sanctions and the lies of the Bush administration about what constitutes weapons of mass destruction.
You think that those people give a shit about a little more hardship?
Thatâs ludicrous. Most reports I see put the wars impact on inflation to between 0.5 to 1 percent. The war is not going to drastically impact American economy. People will pay a bit more and spend some resource on the war but nothing much further than that. Also bush lied about Iraq. Why is it even relevant to the current war?
If the blockade continues, frankly I donât know what will happen to Iranian society. It honestly will be interesting as a live case study on how modern states react to significant blockade
There is no report in the world that can measure the inflationary impact of the war, especially not in real time. The only way thatâs measured in real time is by gas and diesel prices which if you havenât noticed are not 1% higher, they are more like 30% higher.
The materials the Iranians need to fix their municipal water system were out on the list of restricted dual use items by the Bush administration to justify the war in Iraq. As a result Iran has not been able to source the materials they need because president pretzel choker wanted to avenge his father and steal some oil.
The fact that no one can even fathom for a second that the west, and the is specifically, is going to pay a price for this is not an indication of that being the likely outcome, quite the opposite.
Our collective refusal to acknowledge that the longer we wait the more likely more catastrophic outcomes become.
And finally not for nothing but the US is also violating both international and domestic law by blockading Cuba, taking control of Venezuela and stealing both Venezuelan and Iranian oil.
There WILL be a price to pay, itâs a matter of how much money and pain there is before we acknowledge the reality that we lost this war the second we started it.
Here is the cnbc article citing a .8% inflation impact. https://www.cnbc.com/2026/07/21/inflation-fears-return-as-iran-war-keeps-oil-prices-high-analysts.html
The idea that this war is bringing down us economy is just illiteracy
See my other comment, itâs simply just not reasonable to believe that the inflationary impacts of a 30% rise in the cost of the input to everything is already rolled into inflation and its net impact is less that 1%.
It shows a complete lack of understanding of the monetary, banking, financial and economic systems and how they interact.
> Most reports I see put the wars impact on inflation to between 0.5 to 1 percent. The war is not going to drastically impact American economy.
That's because they're laser-focused on oil. But oil isn't the scary thing. 30% of global fertilizer goes through the Persian Gulf. Or, went though, basically none is moving now. Lose that long-term and it's about a billion people you can't feed. The Arab Spring, and all the refugees that followed that caused chaos in Europe? Triggered by bad harvest and drought that raised food prices by 40%. Hungry people don't stay hungry for long, or stationary. Lots of that fertilizer goes to South America. They're supposed to be planting right now, as we speak.
What do you think happens to them if they give in? The US backed them into a corner, and there's no way they rebuild their infrastructure without regime change or a toll booth. They don't lose an election, they and their families are almost certainly executed. So, I'm guessing they will stick with the blockade, no matter how unpleasant.
Just to be clear, giving in means stop pursuing nuclear weapons, stop funding foreign terrorist groups, and relinquish control over Hormuz which they really never had charged tolls. No one is âbacking them to a cornerâ. They wouldnât lose land or regime change if they just give up.
I imagine they can negotiate financial aid package from international community if they agree to give up nukes. From all of the savings, sanction relief, release of frozen fund, and potential aid, they obviously would have resources to rebuild their society.
They were following nuclear agreement, USA broke them. And then bombed during negations.
Iran has nothing to gain by "stopping to pursue" nuclear. It just learned it needs nuclear.
And they wont give up Hormuz either.
To your last paragraph - they did gave up nuclear once already. Got some stuff for it back. America walked back the agreement, republicans outraged over them getting much less then you propose. And then bombed them multiple times, openly talking about planning to bomb regularly in the future.
There is no long term agreement to be made with people who openly mock long term agreements.
What this tells me is that you don't spend a lot of time on this region's issues. That's fine. Not everybody needs to be an expert on everything. But in short, none of this happened in a vacuum, and there is no status quo to return to.
Hereâs where the delusion begins, we already surrendered
The MOU was a surrender document, now that we have walked away from that Iran has set the terms as the seven points they put forward.
We have no leverage, sure we are blockading oil, but so what, they already took the hit to their GDP, I think it was six points from oil directly and 10 over all.
But thatâs it, they still have as much essentially free energy as they can possibly use as well as over land trade routes for goods and or weapons.
We are the ones who will continue to feel increasing amounts of pain as stockpiles dry up and prices continue to increase driving higher inflation and eventually shortages and eventually economic collapse.
What can we possibly do to them that we havenât already done or been doing for decades?
Kill them all? You think we can just nuke the country and be done with it?
If we surrendered why is there an ongoing blockade? Are you really this ignorant?
Land routes are less efficient than transit via the strait, which is why there are shortages. Shortages that will only get worse as the war and blockade goes on.
And again, four decades of sanctions have not moved this country, how can any one really believe that âshortagesâ are going to now all of the sudden cause them to say oh shit now we get it you are the good guys and we are the bad guys.
Like thatâs gotta be one of the stupidest things people believe today.
That or computers are smarter than humans and ai is going to kill is all.
There is a vast difference between a sanction and a blockade. Iranâs economy is dependent on oil exports. They were freely exporting their oil to China and others uninhibited by US sanctions. Now they can only export a fraction of the oil, because their infrastructure is built to export it by sea.
The regime has survived this long with money and legitimacy via religion. If the IRGC starts to feel the impacts of a collapsing economy those who are less radicalized or politically motivated will seek an exit. Ahmadinejad was a radical who regularly called for the destruction of Israel and yet he was in contact with Mossad to facilitate a regime change.
There is not a âvast differenceâ aside from the physical enforcement.
When we sanction a country we exclude them from the dollar economy, this means they are unable to procure goods and services priced and sold in dollars.
It is an economic blockade, the only difference is that we are now simply increasing the pressure by cutting off the trade with their allies who have ignored the economic blockade and continued to trade with Iran.
Itâs literally an extension of the sanctions.
As to why people seem to think the citizens of every other country are fully incapable of solving any problems is beyond me. sure their infrastructure is what it is, you donât think they can , and have, come up with work arounds?
Do you think the entire country of 80m people is too stupid to be creative?
People solve problems, itâs what we do, have we made things harder, you bet we have, but they are clearly surviving, and they are doing exactly what we would all do in this situation, figure out work arounds.
I don't think anyone expects Iran to agree to those things in a diplomatic agreement, and actually stick to them.
Does anyone expect Iran's regime to honor an agreement (long term) to 1.) not create/support proxies 2.) stay away from nuclear 3.) never again threaten Hormuz.
The goal at the outset of the war, according to the Trump admin, was regime change.
Because no one in their right mind believes Tehran will abide by a "pinkie swear" promise on paper over the coming decades. The same regime in Tehran will do the same thing.
I'm not advocating for anything... I'm pointing out that for what the Trump admin's goals are, the only way to accomplish them long term, is regime change in Iran.
No American is in any position to question whether the regime in Tehran will honor any agreements.
Our own behavior is exactly whatâs described, breaking agreement after agreement, which is a pattern we have a history of (just ask the Native Americans).
But it's more than that. The US destroyed a lot of infrastructure at a time they were already in a bad place. They have more leverage than they've had in decades, that leverage will not last forever, and they are unlikely to be in a similar position again. They have to play this to the end either way, because there is no world where they can just agree to ..really anything, and either have that fix their problems, or rely on the US not to break the agreement.
My understanding is that they originally wanted to put the literal Pahlavis back in control. But as long as the last step is steal oil, I'm guessing they are flexible.
There was also the subplot about wanting to put one of back then leaders in charge, but killing that guy the first day of bombings.
There were multiple mutually exclusive plans going on, I suspect.
I forgot aboutÂ
the shah. It kind of did not made sense to me. Revolution was a lot more about hating on Shah then pro-islam. And he spent whole life abroad, how was that supposed to function?
He was supposed to make US based Iranians happy (big GOP donation bloc), and be the Iranian face holding the whip for a Saudi/Israel directed government backed by US arms. Man that sounds like tin foil hat territory, in less stupid times.
But also, I mostly cant imagine Iranians (or any other nationalist country) accepting leader who grew up abroad is not really "one of us". And him being able navigate culture that was remote whole his life.
Oh, I'm pretty sure it was going to be a disaster. But also, just not reading the room. When people wonder how Iran can hold out with this level of economic hardship, in part it's because the US is not giving anyone a reasonable offer. Their opposition can't trust the US any more than the current regime, and the alternatives are nuts.
During the 40 years of previously on and off sanctions Iran repeatedly saw their economy shrink by over 25% within a year. So this war is nothing to them in comparison. Do some research before spouting nonsense.
US cant win, because it does not have winning condition. It has nothing to gain. The onky thing it can achieve is causing pain to Iranians which seems to be the goal.
Meanwhile, Iran is in existencial war where even Iranians who oppose the regime are thankful to it for protecting them from USA.
That is big difference. Average American is paying this war and gets nothing from it. Only a fuzzy feeling that someone was harmed far away and most Americans dont want to pay that much for it. Average Iranian is paying for Iran not turning to Syria, for their bridges not being bombed randomly every time an American president wakes up cranky.
Thatâs not a rational argument. Those countries do not have dictatorships that are considered a threat to western powers.
If you are a regime itâs objectively imperative that you get nukes to stay in power. Libya, Iraq, no nukes. North Korea, Russia have nukes and it clearly results in people not really being able to mess with them directly.
Do we have a specific reason to bomb North Korea? Is North Korea funding terror cells and paramilitary operations that are destabilizing the entire Asian continent?
They are sending soldiers to Ukraine and threatening the only other western country that makes RAM with annihilation while sponsoring massive drug, counterfeit and hacking operations.
Choosing who to bomb the shit out of is political, thereâs always a good reason to do it when you want to.
That is just not true. First, Iran was actually following agreements it signed. Second, war started after Iran made large concessions.
And third, administration had about 15 openly stated mutually inconsistent goals. Nuclear popping in and out, purely based on domestic messaging.
You are also forgetting "civilization destruction" threats, attackes at water infrastructure and other life necessities. And bombings aimed at state functions - with clear goal to turn Iran into failed state.
That's not 100% true. Iran was stock piling enriched uranium and actively pursued a policy or "breakout time". The strategy works by basically developing everything you need to make a nuclear bomb without actually assembling the pieces. All of your rivals can't necessarily treat you as an existential threat because you don't actually have the bomb but you could have it within 14 days a month whatever. It gives you the bargaining power of a nuclear state while making a preemptive strike politically risky.
What I wrote was 100% true. Iran did followed international agreements. USA scrapped them. USA initiated rounds of bombings after Iran made concessions.Â
The enrichment they did was within their agreed on rights. And there were actual deep audits in those agreements.
Iran followed strategic moderstion doctrine and that failed.Â
Now the nuclear situation got worst, because Iran knows they need that bomb.
Why would anyone made another agreement with country that a.) dont follow them b.) dont value them c.) bombs you despite your cooperation?
The US should straight up bomb roads and bridges. It will shut Iran up quickly and bring them back to the table, where we can discuss why they're enriching uranium to multiples needed for civilian energy production.
Of course, as soon as you do this, Iran will destroy the energy systems in Israel and Saudi Arabia, rendering those countries uninhabitable and destroying the world economy. Which is why Diaper Don hasn't done it yet.
War is a crime against humanity. Iran knows this. Iran has no problems murdering its own people and has no problems funding murder throughout the region. So I advocate putting an end to that sort of thing ASAP.
PS, I'm not a Republican if that helps your arguments. I doubt it will though.
In order to invoke moral high grounds, you have to have it. , "Their leadership killed people, therefore it is OK for us to kill even more of their civilians and cause even more pain to civilians" is not one.
In cooperation with another goverment literally in the middle of the genocide.
So congrats, now the Iranian regime got stronger and validated as a result of your actions.
Written straight out of the propaganda office of some Regime aligned nation. I spend enough time around Muslims here in Michigan to know how the rhetoric comes out.
The U.S. is a net exporter by 75-105 million barrels per month.
The US can keep this up far longer than Iran. Itâs exporting into record high global prices for profit. If it was about endurance/survival, they could simply stop exporting.
Iran is exporting < 5% of their pre-war total. Weakly enforced sanctions arenât remotely comparable to the complete naval blockade theyâre under now.
I honestly canât tell if youâre an ignorant kid, or a biased propagandistâŚ
Lol. No shit. The most important numbers are everything included.
The U.S. imports raw crude to turn it into more expensive refined products that it can sell at a higher price. For posting in an Econ sub, you seem economically illiterate.
The most important numbers are how much you produce and how much you consume, if you canât produce 100% of what you consume, you are dependent on others for your survival.
Given that this an economics subreddit Iâm not surprised by your ignorance and attitude.
So youâre just going to keep making emotional arguments with no numbers to back them up (because they donât support your argument)?
Cool. Keep up the good work. America will collapse annyyyy minute now. Iran is totally winning. đ
Edit: U.S. production does more than cover its consumption. One bomber mission, and Iranâs production rapidly heads to zero. Hell, if they canât start exporting soon, theyâll have to start shutting down wells because they have no place to store it.
Silly redditor! There is no factual discussion of economics that happens on r/Economics. It's all left wing agendaposting with Russian and Chinese state operatives sneaking in here and there.
Oh and youâd have to be really stupid to not realize that Irans numbers donât matter, itâs a part of their economy but not the whole economy and given they can produce all their own energy they can last for another couple of centuries without much impact.
We just authorized a "final" release of 40m barrels from the SPR, after that it risks destruction of ghe holding caverns. So the real timeline is roughly 2 months on paper, but probably a bit longer (weekly draws can fluctuate up and down a lot).
The thing thatâs really incredible is that no one actually knows where the bottom is, we could hit it tomorrow (unlikely), but we will absolutely hit it if we donât stop drawing (absolute certainty).
This dual probability is being interpreted as since we donât know a fixed bottom hitting it seems less probable, and we feel more confident everyday we donât hit it that itâs further away.
Itâs like the life of a turkey chart from nassim talebs book black swan.
Then there are some other caveats, but the actual amount drawable is significantly less, and the next tranch requires the secretary of defense to sign off.
I mean yeah he will most likely sign off but it does get legally complicated as heâs required to certify it under penalty of law, so there is some personal liability after the facists lose power, which they always do because they are always a55holes.
Sure the fascists lose power because they are assholes but sometimes we have to have a world war about it so donât start counting those chickens quite yet.
you are projecting off of two datapoints from the last two weeks which are the tail end of the last SPR release, there is another 40m queued up which they expect to deliver in the next 4-6weeks which means the rate is going to go up to somewhere around a million barrels a day and likely putting it below the current statutory limits
while I donât care for fear mongering, this is not a space where people should feel bold and comfortable. The range of outcomes gets worse by the day for the US, denying that is denying reality.
I think we are likely past statutory limits mattering in the sense that they trigger an immediate reaction , but every line crossed provides a new opportunity for someone to finally step up and rein in what is essentially an out of control government.
Failing that though they still matter because they serve as clear points in time where lines are crossed.
With every line crossed more people realize how out of control the government has gotten which results in the base of support for the administration dissolving.
Once enough people have had enough these statutory limits serve as a basis for criminal charges, the seriousness of those charges is going to depend on what the future holds, what they know now and why they are making the decision to violate the law.
Recent tracking data shows daily crossings dropping to around 7 or 8 commercial vessels (such as oil and gas tankers) as safety risks peak
At least12attacks on tankers occurred around the Strait of Hormuz during the week of September 28 to October 5, 2026, marking the highest weekly total since the start of the conflict
Sure, all we need is for the US Navy to indefinitely be deployed and babysit that waterway, costing billions per week. Problem solved! Trump economics!
Er from what I understand from my favourite macro podcast, there is actually more oil coming out of the Middle East than there was before the war. How? I donât know but thatâs what they say and it tracks with the price steadily declining recently.
Can you link the podcast and episode? Ive legitly never heard any source saying this, though i have heard that supposedly oil traffic actually is moving to pre-war levels
Just look at what the EU is doing, that's not a sign of "things are getting better" that's a sign of desperation. We are just depleting strategic reserves and manipulating futures markets in order to create the perception that things are under control so people don't panic
Itâs a big administration talking point, they started hammering it after JPM blasted the administration saying they no longer could forecast the market and that they had crossed many economic red lines that the bank didnât think the administration would cross.
A week later they released what amounts to an administration press release touting dark flows and invisible transports.
If energy were flowing freely we would not have forced the Europeans to dump a 100m barrels of oil and refined products from stocks nor would we have been talking about things like a diesel export ban.
my pocketbook only pays for gasoline, and then the impact of diesel and jetfuel (and probably other refined products). I don't buy crude oil. And no one is disputing that refined products have risen far faster than crude, though if crude were much higher that would certainly impact the price of gasoline (which has actually been somewhat stable for the past month or so in the US anyway).
Why is it âobviously notâ? We produce more oil here in the US at a much higher production cost. The market bares our production cost. The Saudis have now reduced their margins to accommodate the increased shipping cost. They can continue like this forever if they have to, they will just be less profitable but not unprofitable.
The demand curve is not inelastic, itâs destructive there is a big difference.
If it were flowing regularly we would not continue to drain the global stockpiles that provide supply/demand buffers.
Additionally oil would not be trading close to $100.
I mean there are a lot of other reasons, but frankly you should be incredibly suspicious of someone telling you that they can move 20% of the worldâs oil supply invisibly.
Like thatâs just an absolutely absurd thing to believe.
They arenât moving it invisibly. You can absolutely see the transport data for large ships leaving the gulf of Oman from the transfer loadings and you can see Qatari LNG deliveries starting to show up again. This is not rocket science, these data are verifiable and apparent.
Saudi crude has always been incredibly affordable and Iranian crude moreso. Without those discount barrels they are meeting last demand with far more cost. The price jumps because the demand is insensitive to price. People will buy fuel and demand destruction is super slow even when price doubles. It is textbook inelastic. It is textbook slow responding.
Your answers couldnât be more silly and obviously political.
Clearly you havenât been paying any attention, the transit data is not what you claim it is, in fact your description of it holds little resemblance to the truth, so my guess is that you are just quite gullible.
You have no idea what you are talking about with regards to demand destruction, we have quite literally watched it happen real time multiple times over the last 20 years, your text books sound Ivy League.
Your response couldnât be more perfect, a fool and his money are soon parted, say good buy to your money.
My textbooks are Ivy League. Iâm an oil industry executive. I have more private information than you but am happy to cite public discussions which demonstrate youâre just a political hack spouting against things you donât want. You could look all of this up but itâs easier to just⌠say stuff on the internet. Back to your day job, Iâll have fries and a large coke kid.
Here you can see Crude is almost at prewar and LNG is still behind on recovery.
Who fucking went on air and said they are using government numbers cause they got called in for national security. They told them just trust us. Well we fucking donât
This is not how this works. We can measure tank farms by satellite. We can see floating roofs move up and down. You can buy access to this satellite data, all the majors do so as market intelligence. You can do the same for super carriers. You can measure the draft of the ship. When you fill it, it sits lower in the water, like 50% changes in height above sea level.
We donât need government data. We watch each other in this enormous market constantly. We measure heat signatures from pump stations. We can even count crews in oil fields and for US data we can track permit filings, pad sites, the list goes on. The point is there are millions of corroborative data points.
It is so obviously flowing that Iran is now floating claims that they have secretly been allowing it because of tolls (read ransom/protection money) being paid by gulf states. So even Iran admits it but has found a way to claim victory and control.
We can do a lot of things, but none of what you mention has anything to do with the flow of oil through the straight. We donât even have good data on whatâs moving on the e/w pipeline the only thing we know is they are filling a Chinese order with the sub 50% capacity they were able to bring back online after two weeks.
We can count boats inside and out side the straight but that is no longer whatâs being counted they are adding additional barrels that are supposedly being transited invisibly.
Everyone who has been watching the numbers since the start knows that, JPM blasted the administration, and then every reporting outfit either stopped publishing their own or started publishing the administration talking point numbers.
And again, they are striking boats in transit, shipping costs have increased 700%, diesel and gasoline are near all time highs, oil is still close to $100 and only down after more news outlets started carrying the malarkey you seem to believe as true.
You must have a lot of money to be that delusional.
Itâs like people believing tulip bulbs are worth $10k
Itâs another inflation induced mania, some people have quite literally turned into zombies, they have zero ability to think for themselves.
In some respect itâs a function of the stock market,
weâve become accustomed to using it as the gauge of seriousness of a situation (dot-bomb/9-11, financial crash, covid etc), the fact that it is constantly near new peaks leaves people thinking things canât be that bad.
What people forget is the market is the last thing that crashes at the end of a bubble, itâs the wake up call.
People snap to attention when they are poor again.
This is why the cost for a tanker from the Mideast is now $77M up from $9?
Thatâs a $38/barrel shipping premium, hard to believe thatâs a sign of healthy flows out of the gulf.
And even if they have been restored the production capacity for distillers and by products has been lowered meaning we can make less refined products across the globe, like diesel and gasoline.
Even if the straight opened tomorrow it will take years to get the refining capacity restored which means extended periods of $6 diesel and $5 gas, which is already showing up in every day prices but will only continue to get worse as it percolates along the supply chain increasing the cost to produce and sell everything.
Middle East oil came out of the ground at $10/BBL. Cost of production and shipment increasing by $30 doesnât change that it is still profitable. Certainly it makes Saudi Arabia less wealthy, but it does not make the industry a bad business. Plenty of places are pulling up oil and transporting at far higher costs and happy about it.
You seem to be missing the point that 10 months ago it was $9m.
The risk premium on oil has shifted from futures to shipping, likely because the future market is being manipulated (the Japanese were complaining about this q2 this year).
The Saudis for two months now have had to offer their oil at a discount to the benchmark something they have rarely done in the past.
Saudi crude discounting is my entire point. I missed nothing. They can afford to discount just fine, they still have plenty of margin on their low production cost. It reduces Saudi profits but the last barrels on the market were always much more expensive and priced the inelastic demand curve.
This is a Saudi income problem, not a market supply one.
is it even an income problem for the Saudi's? If their volumes are roughly flat, and they are getting $100 before shipping, but let's say $60 after shipping, that's more or less where crude was before the war.
Maybe all that money can help them fix the pumping stations and theyâre trying to move crude by water to ras and the other refinery so they donât have to shut those in. They sure as fuck ainât shipping 5.8mb a day through that pipeline. Guaranteed
A few pumps is not impossible to replace. Pumps are pumps. You can certainly find something to provide head even if it isnât all the power you want to put to the shaft.
It is moving. Not the record 7-8 anymore. It was never intended to. Itâs almost back at nameplate then lol.
Higher costs associated with security and insurance, including hazard pay. The volume of oil going out is nearly the same as pre-war levels. Cost has gone up.
Thatâs a really neat trick for wealthy people to get paid more from the commoners, for the same good. I wonder which billionaireâs business happens to insure oil tankers.
This..expand on this is an analyst saying the costing of moving oil was previously ~$5 a barrel and now at $25-$30 per barrel and thatâs on top of the barrel price. Itâs that cost of shipping thatâs gone bananas and not going to come back
And the key question is why is there such angst and low reserve of diesel causing problems? Itâs because the bs propaganda does not line up with the facts
The UAE left the oil cartel because they don't like OPECs production limits.
OPEC had a lot of power prior to the 2000s, before the USA its shale oil boom and fracking massively increased natural gas production.
Cartels (like OPEC) help their own members by suppressing production to avoid over-production, to basically engage in price-fixing.
But when the USA is producing far more oil than Saudi Arabia... the cartel doesn't have enough market share anymore to control prices, like they once did.
2/3° just for transportation. The other third° is for energy production. We are moving towards renewable so that is going to be dropping significantly in the next t decade. Only like 10-15% is used for other commodities.
It wont be abandoned but usage will be down at least 50% if not 75% in a decade or two.
The other thing is plastic makes up the majority of its other commodities. Which we are also trying to move away from (albeit very slowly and poorly).
It is very useful for industrial purposes, though. Itll definitely stick around for the robotic age. Roads will probably still use them for several decades before we find something better.
Lol sure people when from houses to seen people on the moon in one lifetime but any further groundbreaking is unlikely and youâre right itâs because of Oligarchyâs killing actual human advancement
Iâm very confused by your comment Iâll address the two parts separately.
There is quite literally physical limits to how much energy you can store in one place, like battery tech has def gotten better but a single gallon of gas has the equivalent of 33kwh of energy, a tesla home battery is 13kwh and their cars range from 50-90kwh. A gallon of gas weighs six pounds while Tesla batteries range from 1,000-1,700 pounds. So the batteries have to get three orders of magnitude lighter while at least maintaining their same energy output. Iâm not a physicist and Iâm pretty bad at math but there are all kinds of physical limits that math has proven to be inviolable in trying to improve the density of energy stored in a battery.
Second part. The oligarchs are a product of our broken system, they are a natural part of it in the sense that they always show up at the end of bubbles/manias, itâs what defines the end as they absolutely crush innovation and any challenge to the status quo of what made them rich and therefor powerful. Their success though is a product of repeated corporate bailouts of failed companies, industries and even entire sectors coupled with massive amounts of inflationary fiscal and monetary policy that over stimulated the economy in ways that these new oligarchs were able to capitalize on. This is ultimately unsustainable as is almost all debt driven growth which is why exactly why the fed is supposed to ensure recessions happen every 4-5 years to shake out the bad companies and bad debt from the good companies that actually invested in value generating activities.
The last time the fed tried this it led to the great financial crisis of 2008, previous the that was Greenspanâs feeble and late attempt to rein in the dot com bubble in 2001 which was prematurely ended by 9/11 which forced him to change course leaving a lot of dot-bombs alive.
Two of those dot-bombs were Amazon and PayPal, neither was gonna make it, Amazons site was too expensive to run and PayPal was just an awful company who stole everyoneâs money.
Now we have Musk, Bezos, Thiel and the rest of these clowns running around raving like lunatics.
They're bribing Iran. Up to 20% the value of the cargo passing goes to them. Those that do not pay get a missile in the engine room. They have control of the strait that have not changed one bit.
The aircraft carriers are being kept at a minimum of 350 miles from Iran at all times because they can't be risked to be moved any closer. Area Denial seems to be good enough to convert a very expensive ship into a white elephant, need I remind you one of those ships is out of the fight in Thailand because it could not be properly rotated and replenished.
81 aircraft actually, between rotary and fixed wing. Worst loses since the Vietnam era. Some countries have air forces of that size. Those 3.5 billion could have been better used improving American lives.
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/81-us-aircraft-lost-or-damaged-during-iran-war-congressional-document-shows/4081109
Depletion of important munitions. Wear and tear on ships. Military bases obliterated costing more billions, including US main naval base in the Middle East, which is the reason American sailors don't have fresh lettuce or soap or toothpaste, (or more importantly Antidepressants so sailors don't end jumping off ship to their deaths) since they get that now from Diego Garcia and Singapore way out of war theater. While the US Navy keeps a WWI style naval blockade for which it's not designed. That certainly sounds like winning to me /s
I think it includes the drones yes, that's 1.5 billion from this bill. Downed with 20k to 50k munitions for a 3 million drone sounds like a good exchange rate for the IRGC. And that doesn't includes how long it will take the US to replenish them, which is something that seems to be increasingly a problem.
Actually Reaper drones (which make up a huge portion of those 81 planes) were considered inadequate before the war, they are just being used as expendable these days.
Armchair general redditors spewing IRGC talking points what a surprise. Iran has closed/controlled the strait now for 6-months except for the fact that more oil than pre-war has exited the region and no one is paying them anything.
The US Navy cleared all the mines from the straights which was slow and tedious work now the Navy is directly escorting ships out. Iran has been unable to stop the traffic so the flow has largely returned to normal.
As for Iran they are unable to get any oil out due to the US Navy embargo. The only reductions in oil out is what Iran used to ship.
total strawman. absolutely no one said "everything is fine". this isn't complicated. oil is flowing at volume (at least as of the end of September), which comes at a significant cost.
They're tracking all this. Essentially different routes are being used. But also attacks are still happening, transportation costs have increased, insurance etc etc. So prices aren't falling.
Is that because the dozens of tankers that were largely stuck in port or harbor have finally left? Because if so that surge will fall off unless those ships resume prewar routes.
Oil has been flowing the past few weeks. Last numbers we have on Saudi production, though, is that they are down by almost 4 million bpd over January/February. I think Kuwait/Iraq/Iran are down a combined 2.5 or 3 mbpd.
If shipments are exceeding production, that kind of suggests those countries + the US are rushing to get as much out of storage as possible now. Would not surprise me if that is because of planned attacks post-midterms that will likely re-shut the strait.
Also the US got France to agree to release oil from their strategic reserves in addition to the amounts the US is still releasing. G7 has also agreed to release 100M barrels.
It's at 90 a barrel for futures prices. Spot is still over 100 last I heard.
90 is high. If it was back to normal, the price would crater. It's declining steadily most likely because refineries are still blowing up all over the world. That means less is needed to maximize output
90 isn't too high. Optimum pricing is about 85 considering the price to pump out of ground. It costs Americans about 65 per barrel, gcc nations about 40, Venezuela about 70 considering the refurbishing costs being invested
> and it tracks with the price steadily declining recently.
Huh?
Prices of oil are still quite high. To the extent there have been any pull-backs in crude prices, most of that is due to lack of refining capacity, not due to excess supply. No one's buying oil they can't refine.
There are two components to oil: Price and volume. The amount of oil coming out of the region has nearly equalled or surpassed pre-war levels. Price has gone up as well because of the higher costs associated with security and insurance.
I fail to see how it doesn't when the United States maintains a blocade of the straight. How are they planning to ignore that? Direct naval war with most powerful navy the world has ever known?
Because the US is a mercantile empire that's dependent on global trade, and Iran isn't. Also, the blockade doesn't apply to the Caspian Sea or their land border with Turkmenistan, for instance.
Certainly. But they can move food. And if China backs them, even quietly, there's a good chance they come out owning the Strait and dictating regional trade, while the US loses its regional dominance, along with the unified economic landscape required for new sanctions.
Iran can reasonably promise China future oil at unbeatable rates in exchange for enough support to outlast the blockade.
the US Navy doesn't have the frigates in numbers to escort the vessels going up and down the Ormuz strait. it will strain heavily the navy resources in both ships and men and from what I read on defense reviews it'isnt sustainable.
I think what he's saying is the cost to keep this running is going to be rough for the US government, I would bet the American people will pay the tab through military budget spending. You can't have an open cost free passage going to a sketchy gamble for super expensive equipment that now needs other super expensive equipment to not hit the markets.... but nothing makes sense anymore so whatever.
The easiest way to find someone who hasn't dealt with their personal insecurities is to let them loudly tell other people how superior they are. Just thought you'd benefit from a little wisdom there, bud.
Chief, the US is dumping 700k gallons from our SPR daily and thanks to demands from trump, European nations are as well. Both are unsustainable artificial suppliers.
The U.S. is a net exporter by 75-105 million barrels per month. Itâs draining SPR to sell into a high market, while keeping volume available to the global market.
NovarKalar | a day ago
TLDR: Welcome to the new normal.
Nothing will really ever change, prices will stay elevated, and people will learn to live without refined products over the coming years. This is now normal, which means it must be good.
Tofudebeast | a day ago
Maybe not good, but definitely a "well what else are we supposed to do about it?" attitude.
Oil prices stay high, and renewables continue to take up the slack. Supply chains for other affected products get moved around and eventually stabilize. Maybe that's not such a bad thing.
The_Dutch_Fox | a day ago
Short-term pain, but I'll be happy when we can finally not have to rely on fucking autocracies or bullies like UAE, Saudi Arabia, the USA, Iran, or Venezuela for our energy needs.
Renewables are not perfect, and oil will take a long time to wean off of, but it's really the only choice we have to strengthen our sovereignty. Especially if we boost our local renewable industries.
NovarKalar | a day ago
We'd then be depending on China, Chile, and the Democratic Republic of Congo to supply the metals needed for renewables, so...
People need to accept that "economic sovereignty" is an outdated concept that's become impractical.
The_Dutch_Fox | a day ago
There are more to renewables than solar panels, and there are more to batteries than Lithium-Ion.
NovarKalar | a day ago
Find me some way to generate and transport renewable electricity that doesn't require any copper or aluminium, and then we can have a discussion.
richard-b-inya | 22 hours ago
Why do you think only China, Congo and Chile has Alum and Copper? Maybe you only hit the countries that start with C đ
NovarKalar | 22 hours ago
That was my intent, yeah, but I also missed Canada. :/
My point was that the majority of countries will be dependent on *some* other countries for energy, regardless of what form that energy takes.
richard-b-inya | 22 hours ago
Cambodia. ;)
NovarKalar | 11 hours ago
Eh, I have to draw the line somewhere, and I draw it at including a country whose ore the rest of the world could drink dry within a year. :P
Alib668 | a day ago
I think you mean autarky. Economic sovereignty is a choice in the marketbto trade with who ever you want at prices you want to pay. Autaky is being able yo do it all yourself
ants_are_everywhere | 20 hours ago
When the Soviets and Nazis did autarky that meant in practice annexing the people who made the stuff you wanted.
Which is the logical conclusion. If you don't believe in trade and you need raw materials you don't have there aren't many ways left to acquire them.
NovarKalar | a day ago
Yes, I used quotation marks to try to stick to the same language as the comment I was replying to, but you're right that I was only talking about economic sovereignty in its most extreme and isolationist form.
Oxeneer666 | 23 hours ago
Canada has a ton of resources to supply the renewables market, with the benefit of stability.
NovarKalar | 23 hours ago
Sure, assuming some added processing infrastructure in the future. Sorry I failed to list every country starting with 'C' that can help supply the renewables market.
Let's avoid invoking "stability" though... I'd hate to jinx it given current political circumstances...
Lucid121 | 11 hours ago
Did you forget about the "Renewable" part of Renewables?
NovarKalar | 11 hours ago
That would be relevant if human societies had a limited appetite for energy. Unfortunately, historical trends imply that they do not, and every additional generator needs additional copper.
Oldcomisgone | 22 hours ago
The U.S. isnât doing renewables and even if it did a Republican administration will come in and destroy as much of it as it can before leaving office.
aliendepict | 10 hours ago
This is just patently false. Renewable energy has accounted for roughly 91% of all new installed grid scale energy in the US in2026.
joe_dro | 9 hours ago
But they got so many upvotes though!
Oldcomisgone | 7 hours ago
The percentage of renewable generation will rise from around 24% in 2025 to 25% âin 2026 and 27% in 2027, while nuclear power's share will hold at â18% in 2026 â and 2027, the same as in 2025, according to the outlook.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-power-use-beat-record-highs-2026-2027-ai-use-surges-eia-says-2026-10-06/
Everything grew, power usage is up but renewables actually shrank in the U.S. as a source. Look at the growth rates in the U.S. and compare them to someone like China. I mean I guess you can think thatâs the U.S. doing renewables but trumps affect is coming up as he killed plants just starting out.
aliendepict | 5 hours ago
Your own source counters your point that renewables shrank. They are in fact growing. Total generation needs means that pre installed bases are used more. Natural gas plants are running closer and closer to capacity same with nuclear, the total needs are increasing and so while 90% of NEW energy is renewable it is not keeping pace in the same way as needs. But for reference coal use has gone down by 2% this year. In fact. If anything your documents points to the fact that the biggest hurdle with new energy is the interconnect queue.
Currently there is roughly 2300 GW of renewables waiting on interconnects.
For reference the current entire grid is 1280GW.
I hate trump as much as the next guy but he isnt all powerful he cant control state and local governments. And most electric generation in america is privatized.
Oldcomisgone | 2 hours ago
Growing slowly. It doesnât counter it shows slow growth of renewables, Iâm not against renewables, I said that this administration is killing off renewable projects. Trump has stopped a large wind farm from being built offshore, is trying to build a coal railroad in the Bay Area, rescinded solar subsidies, and actively attacks renewables.
We are growing slower than similar nations, adding renewables at a worse rate than China, and it is because federal policy can upend this change. I donât think you are paying attention because Trump has literally interfered with state and local government to stop renewable projects.
utahh1ker | a day ago
I kind of love that in a completely unintentional way Trump's bone-headed decisions have advanced the movement for green and renewable energy.
insertwittynamethere | 19 hours ago
One of only a few positives to take away from it (so far).
fighter_pil0t | a day ago
Fast forward to peak oil so future generations can move on with their lives!
finnishinsider | a day ago
Side note..... happy cake day!
Chaoswind2 | a day ago
Twist the arm of the US until they crumble economically. Probably less costly than actually invading Iran.
AlpineDrifter | a day ago
Conflicts that affect oil prices have come and gone many times before.
When I hear people espousing ânew normalâ in the middle of a conflict, I just assume theyâre young, with recency bias.
J0E_SpRaY | a day ago
That doesnât mean this wasnât completely avoidable
AlpineDrifter | a day ago
Yep. The Iranians could be a democracy, instead of an unelected regime. They could also have not supported the terror groups that initiated the recent war with Israel.
J0E_SpRaY | a day ago
Weâre no safer today than we were before we attacked Iran. This is completely self inflected and unnecessary.
AlpineDrifter | a day ago
The embargo will continue until morale improves.
unsafeideas | a day ago
The number of conflicts worldwide is going up, the far right movements are on the rise. There was decades long period of peace and stability, that one ended. We are likely to get more conflicts in next years and attacks on supply of comodities will be part of it.
This is rupture and realignement with no way to return to previous status quo.
saml01 | 20 hours ago
I'm sorry. When was there decades of peace?
We've been at war with the gulf for the last.... 40 ish years.
NovarKalar | a day ago
That's what this Kpler article is saying. I, on the other hand, generally agree that this 'new normal' isn't likely to remain undisturbed for very long. I expect this particular conflict will get significantly worse before it gets better though.
RIP_Soulja_Slim | a day ago
There's really two directions here, generally hope things simmer down and endure a painful road back to somewhat calm conditions, with the US needing to basically accept defeat and tuck tail. This is more or less what Trump is going for, although as clumsily as Trump does anything.
The other would be the "only way out is through" mentality that results in regime change and a lot of dead people. Thankfully Trump seems to understand that escalating significantly leads him here, and he's at least very aware of how Bush's legacy is a product of that behavior.
Unfortunately, Trump and Hegseth lack the emotional maturity to fully commit to option A as well, so you get these constant hiccups cuz none of them wants to look like a bitch, while still slowly backing down, after realizing that pushing the crazy kid in the corner of the cafeteria who controls the hall passes was in fact a bad idea.
AlpineDrifter | a day ago
You just presented a false dichotomy.
There are more than two possible choices. Weâre currently living through a third option. Namely, the U.S. continues to maintain a total naval embargo on Iran, while assisting the Arab nations in exporting their oil, and selling its own petroleum products into a tight market for record profits. This option could go on for years.
unsafeideas | a day ago
That assistance is pretty expensive for US.
AlpineDrifter | a day ago
And?..??
Youâre making a very one-sided analysis. If it can even be called that.
What percentage of Iranâs economy was petroleum exports? How many ships have left or arrived at Iranian ports in the last two months? How far has Iranâs currency crashed this year?
unsafeideas | a day ago
The difference here is that USA has a choice and Americans know it. USA is already on the verge of destroying itself due to intrrnal ressentment.
So yes, those ressentful Americans dont like paying those huge amounts of money to protect oil. America does not need to be broken to walk away.
Iran dont have choice, not really. The protests stopped. Any deal would be broken in few weeks anyway. So they will go on and armed forces will milk the situation to gain power and tighten grip.
AlpineDrifter | a day ago
If youâre going to be a propagandist, can you at least work on your English grammar? Nobody will believe you on geopolitics if you canât even get a simple sentence right.
Youâre talking about internal resentment?âŚ?? The Iranian regime has killed ordinary Iranians by the tens of thousands this year aloneâŚ
âTightening their gripâ. Yah? Howâs Khamenei doing? Howâs Soleimani?
unsafeideas | a day ago
And then bombing and war started. And per analysts with contacts in Iran, even liberal opposition to regime expressed thankfulness for protecting them from external threat.
That is how these things go, rally around the flag effect is real. Common threat creates aliances and acceptance. They hate leadership, like Iran itself and now also like armed forces. But especially, they dont see any alternative.
There is no organized opposition now. Because bombing and war made it easier to destroy it.
RIP_Soulja_Slim | 18 hours ago
I presumed people reading it would be intelligent enough to realize that outcomes are not literally binary lol.
But no, the current conditions are a slow march towards easing, the embargo quietly loosens regularly as does the closure of the strait, this is how oil continues to flow despite the official stances.
AlpineDrifter | 18 hours ago
Nobody forced you to frame it like there were only two options. Especially when the current reality is plainly a third option.
Interesting. Which were the last three large crude carriers that transited Hormuz with Iranian oil? How recent were they?
RIP_Soulja_Slim | 18 hours ago
https://insights.windward.ai/
This is one easily accessible tracker of dark passages, thereâs many more that are more robust being used by various analytical groups. You can see the shipâs names there.
Another more broad monitor of aggregate traffic, inclusive of dark passages.
https://www.lloydslist.com/hot-topics/strait-of-hormuz-crisis/spotlight-data
Prestigious_Load1699 | 14 hours ago
From what Iâm reading, however, it is entirely the other Gulf states which are picking up the slack as oil exports from the region stand at about 85% of prewar levels.
Iranian oil exports are (apparently) at literally zero.
It could well be that a continued blockade of this nature over the next few years essentially starves Iran entirely.
I am curious how that would play out.
NovarKalar | 12 hours ago
Iran isn't some small little country that can be "starved" by a blockade. It's been around much longer than the oil trade. The country is fully capable of growing its own food, building houses, and producing stuff like cars. Plus, there's always the potential to trade more with Russia via the Caspian Sea, if necessary.
So unless there's a major drought or bombing of public infrastructure, I expect that Iran can endure this indefinitely, as they've been enduring sanctions for decades.
NovarKalar | a day ago
Wait, now you're saying that this situation could remain stable for years?
Doesn't this directly undermine your opening comment?
AlpineDrifter | a day ago
No, it doesnât.
Because I was initially replying to a comment that implied this would be the ânew normalâ going forward indefinitely.
Can you see how 2-3 years is different than forever?
NovarKalar | a day ago
So, then you agree with the original article that "over the coming years" this will be the "new normal"? You merely intended to add the clarification that it won't be "normal" forever? (which obviously nothing stays the same forever)
unsafeideas | a day ago
Israel will want the conflict to continue forever.
Trump needs things calm before midterms, all bets are off after. It will be down to whoever talk to hin the last.
Aaaand Iran will want to gain more, because current situation is not long term acceptable for them.
NovarKalar | a day ago
That's a plausible assessment, and in general I agree, with one caveat: the US is now sending a third carrier strike group and there's no quiet way to back down from that.
But I expect that the conflict will continue to escalate due to foreign actors, not because of anything the US will do. The US knocked over the dominoes, but they're still falling.
NoNameMonkey | 16 hours ago
Trump letting it fizzle out seems reasonable - his base would call it a win and they get propaganda out of it. Sadly i think the more likely situation is he takes a huge dump over everything before the Dems take control. The US population seems unable to understand that kind of thing so the harder years will be the Dems fault so people will vote GOP again.
shwaynebrady | a day ago
Top 1% commenter and completely delusional. Man this site has gone downhill in the last decade.
User-NetOfInter | a day ago
Hard to blame the companies insuring the tankers when might be constantly targeted by missiles
No-Space937 | a day ago
It's largely the state owned tankers doing the shuttling of oil thru the strait and then offloading their oil onto the private VLCCs outside the range of Iranian attacks.
MayorMcCheese89 | a day ago
Trump may end up doing more for the electric car market than Biden.
meerkat2018 | 23 hours ago
I mean, the higher the fossil energy costs, the more economically attractive the clean alternatives become.
Snoo_81545 | 9 hours ago
The Kpler blog post is definitely the calculation that the oil market seems to be settling in for. This is supported by data that Kpler themselves have carefully compiled showing near pre-war oil transits for over a week now.
It's sort of optimistic on Iran's part though. The current operation still has most US ships staying well outside of the range of a number of Iranian missiles, primarily escorting ships further down in the Omani lane.
Presumably in response to this, just yesterday at 1900 UTC (note: after this blog was written) Iran struck a tanker with "multiple projectiles" and caused crew casualties 50 miles North of Qatar. Much further into the Gulf than most recent strikes. If Iran continues to do this the US will again have to readjust its strategy, necessitating moving ships further into the Gulf themselves and exposing them to heavier fire.
I'm also a little dubious about the long term sustainability. I follow a lot of shipping news and the dual pressure of sky rocketing insurance rates, and staggering increase in pay for those involved in the transit are continuing to mount (Financial Times reporting captains making $100k/month in the gulf, although there are about a million caveats to that number). US ships themselves do not have unlimited ability to maintain a credible defense. I haven't heard any news of the US' Bahrain naval base being rebuilt, so presumably resupply is still being routed out of Diego Garcia. That's a pretty long journey.
Liquid_Sarcasm | a day ago
What trump apologists fail to say is that ships passing through the strait now have to carry million+ dollar insurance policies, and the crews get triple the pay for the hazard.
Oil flows but with much higher costs, and those increases are here to stay.
CedasL | a day ago
Most crews, as mandated by ITF, get double basic pay plus a hazard bonus. Depending on the position and contract, it equates to a 40-100% bump in pay, with ratings on the higher and officers on the lower end. Source: I asked my collegue sitting next to me, whos previous contract was on a ship in the Gulf.
RIP_Soulja_Slim | a day ago
IIRC the average cost of a shipping insurance through Hormuz is closer to 10MM at the moment.
Rates for this sort of thing can be north of 5% of hull value, your average tanker can often be transporting 200MM of oil at current prices.
I_AmA_Zebra | 13 hours ago
Yup that doesnât even include the cost of the ship itself
juice06870 | a day ago
Itâs not just those ships incurring higher costs. Freight costs everywhere have skyrocketed and remained at extremely high levels as a result of the fact that the demand for the oil from other regions has to make up for what isnât flowing out of Hormuz.
linerva | a day ago
And I've heard from multiple sources that even if tge war ends tomorrow it could taje a couple of years for the significant wider disruption to settle:
https://energynow.com/2026/04/oil-gas-recovery-may-take-two-years-after-war-ieas-birol-says/
Oil isn't bouncing back to what it was before any time soon.
bstone99 | 21 hours ago
How many Trumpers have investments in these exact companies that will benefit? All of them
Jaded_Celery_451 | 20 hours ago
Tens of millions of Trump voters have no investments at all and are just culturally captured.
Prestigious_Load1699 | 14 hours ago
I mean, all the large oil companies are listed on the S&P500 so realistically anyone invested in the stock market is benefiting from higher prices.
bstone99 | 5 hours ago
But not everyone invested in these stocks has the power and ability to directly influence these markets and companies. They do. Thatâs my point.
bonerland11 | 23 hours ago
Which only accelerates the need for green energy, and that's a good thing!
padizzledonk | 8 hours ago
And like Iran has showed over the last week or so is that all it takes to shut it down again to the point that even that 1M insurance policy and 3x pay isnt enough to get ships in there. The shipping has cratered again over the last week or so
Its also costing US, the U.S literally BILLIONS of dollars a month to facilitate the reduced shipping that is getting out
This is totally unsustainable
doubagilga | a day ago
Oil prices are generally driven by the last barrels. The market value is going to be absorbed by other players and less by Saudi producers. Thatâs not impossible to maintain even if undesirable for the Saudis. US producers make even more oil come out of the ground at higher costs than the Saudi production + shipping cost.
Tofudebeast | a day ago
Can't say I'm surprised. Hormuz being shut down is bad for everyone, Iran included. The US might have more economic power to wait Iran out, but there are political factors to consider in this deeply-unpopular war, and Iran has shown how little it cares for the wellbeing of its citizens.
Yet a formal opening and negotiated end to this mess is a struggle. Trump won't want to end it without a achieving at least some of the objectives that started this war, and Iran won't want to give up on its ability to shut down the strait in the face of foreign hostility. So what are we left with? A stalemate that solves nothing but manages to let cargo still transit.
wolfieAFF | 21 hours ago
Objectives that started this war? You mean he needs to negotiate with Israel to not release the blackmail files?
Prestigious_Load1699 | 14 hours ago
Please, adults are talking.
puffinfish420 | a day ago
I fail to see how any of this is sustainable, and the author at no point addresses the fact that the Us navy simply cannot sustain the level of operations necessary to maintain even the restricted flow of oil currently getting out. The author also doesnât address the approximately 30 dollar per barrel cost that is being imposed by the situation, nor does the author account for the possibility that Iran can escalate further if they feel that itâs necessary to maintain deterrence.
In short, it appears Kepler is extremely biased
Theyâre basically like âhey, we have somewhat staunched the bleeding, victory is ours!â
pickle9977 | a day ago
These guys have lost their minds, there is literally zero chance the US can wait Iran out.
The SPR is still pumping 700k barrels a week, at some point that runs out and when it does the result is not just bad it is catastrophic.
Weâve ground Irans dollar economy to dust with forty years of sanctions yet they have endured and even managed to grow, another six or even twelve months of sanctions is nothing.
Snlxdd | a day ago
Theyâre not saying they can wait out Iran.
Theyâre saying that oil is being moved despite hostilities, and theyâre adjusting their assumptions accordingly.
E.g. itâs not all or nothing based on a deal being struck, even without a deal, operations will adjust to move some portion of oil.
pickle9977 | a day ago
Their words not mine: âUS can wait Iran outâ
Snlxdd | a day ago
Yeah, I shouldâve rephrased that.
My point is moreso that theyâre not claiming they can break Iran with sanctions, rather that the U.S. has more tolerance now given that theyâve been able to move some oil through the strait.
Iran is blockaded as well so comparing that to previous sanctions doesnât make any sense given that those sanctions arenât as all encompassing.
pickle9977 | a day ago
Thatâs just hopeful thinking, they are moving oil via rail to China and they are clearly closely allied with Russia, China and North Korea.
Comparing the pain being inflicted on Iran to what would be inflicted on the US and any one allied with us when western stock piles run out is like comparing after school detention to Abu ghraib.
No-Space937 | a day ago
Lmao, please, tell us the figures on how much oil Iran is shipping by train to China.
I especially like how that's directly preceeded by a critique on the other users wishful thinking.
pickle9977 | a day ago
You donât think they are? Last I saw it was a relatively small amount but if needed could expand to a couple hundred thousand barrels a day, which is a reasonable volume of oil, especially given its shorter transit time.
When you adjust for transit times (15 days vs 30-45), that puts you at a potential of moving similar volumes to sea borne shipping.
Not sure what you think is funny, I for one like my comfortable western lifestyle and would really appreciate it if a bunch of dumb greedy facists didnât mess it up.
No-Space937 | a day ago
They would be better served taking their massive amounts of unemployed, and forming a bucket line across the Himilayas.
No, shipping by train is not going to come close to replacing sea borne transit. To start, the infrastructure was not designed around shipping mass quantities of oil overland to China. It was designed to get it to refineries on Irans coast and then out through Karg island.
Second, there arent thousands of empty oil carts laying around to meet this new capacity, even if the infrastructure allowed it.
Third, transit times do not calculate into the bpd esitimates like you are portraying. If it is estimated that Iran can ship 100-200 thousand barrels by rail to China, those transit times have already been factored in.
pickle9977 | a day ago
I donât know whatâs factored in to be frank.
What I do know is that with the exception of sixty days we have been blockading Iran since April and aside from some questionably sourced articles in their GDP falling 10% there has been no material change aside from the US blowing up a lot of stuff including some very regrettable things.
Their demands have been published are clear and have remained static as opposed to our shifting demands and unclear goals.
As to the number of unemployed people, I have trouble believing we have any good measure on that since the only economic activity we are privy to is in dollars a currency they only use for the oil trade, we have so little visibility into the country that I frankly think your comment is essentially a fairy tale.
No-Space937 | 17 hours ago
>What I do know is that with the exception of sixty days we have been blockading Iran since April and aside from some questionably sourced articles in their GDP falling 10% there has been no material change aside from the US blowing up a lot of stuff including some very regrettable things.
A 10 percent reduction to any countries economy over a period of just half a year is already insane. Keep in mind that during the MOU they were able to clear out all their oil inventories at regular market prices because of US sanction waivers on oil. Given that this windfall appears to be already running out is only indicitive of how their economic collapse is likely to accelerate. And no material changes? How about their currency collapsing by 90% over this same time or is that questionably sources as well?
Here, a less questionable source for you, straight from Pezeshkian himself. "Iran's President Masoud Pezeshkian has admitted that US sanctions on his country are hurting its economy, despite just days ago insisting they would achieve nothing.
"Some say sanctions have no effect at all; to those people, I really don't know what to say," Pezeshkian told state TV in an interview late on Friday."
Strangely pragmatic thing to admit during wartime from the civilian government, against the backdrop of Hardline IRGC claims that they are stronger than ever and the blockade has no effect. In a country where going against the military leadership can get you arrested at a minimum, we can infer quite a bit from these statements.
>Their demands have been published are clear and have remained static as opposed to our shifting demands and unclear goals.
First off, who's demands, Aragachi's? Pezeshkian's? Vahedi's? Taeb's? The cardboard cutout of Mojtaba himself? Second, since no one on this site seems to understand the idea of posturing and instead takes everything at face value, it is hard to define those actual stances. When Iran says they will wait until the next administration before they are willing to negotiate, then proceeds to make ever more frequent overtures for dialoge on the strait, sure their original stance was not to be taken literaly, but their attempts to re-engage in negotiations show a softening position. Compare this with the American position, which has consistently only hardened in recent months, and it seems pretty clear in which way the leverage is gradually shifting.
>As to the number of unemployed people, I have trouble believing we have any good measure on that since the only economic activity we are privy to is in dollars a currency they only use for the oil trade, we have so little visibility into the country that I frankly think your comment is essentially a fairy tale.
They don't use dollars for oil trade, they trade in Yuan. And while due to their extenesive black market, the collapsing Rial can not be used as a 1:1 indicator of inflation, it is still a very strong indicator of their economic health, and every single sign points to the fact that yes, losing the majority of their imports and exports including their oil revenues which funded 60% of their Government has infact shockingly had catastrophic effects on their economy.
It's pretty clear from your other comments, your view of this conflict is likely entirely politically motivated. I would suggest taking a step back and looking at this through a more neutral fact based lens. You might realize that the "Iran has all the leverage" discourse you probably fell for months ago has not been updated to fit closer to reality.
This-Manufacturer388 | a day ago
What is the maximum BPD that can be shipped on rail? Curious if you even know
pickle9977 | a day ago
The amounts vary; at the end of the day just having a path and an option is the value, if they have to figure out a way to put 2m barrels of oil a day on rail to survive they will do it.
Thatâs just what we humans do, solve problems that seem unsolvable until we need to actually solve them
thatsbutters | 19 hours ago
A rail car holds 700 gallon. It would take 2857 rail cars a day to ship 2 million barrels There is no railway. It would have to transverse Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Himalayan mountains, and cross China. It would be blown up in Afghanistan... They would have to ship this to a port that isn't concerned with US retaliation, be that economic or more with so many rail cars they don't have.
pickle9977 | 18 hours ago
Who said they were shipping 2m barrels via rail? Like you made up a problem to try to say what?
That there are obvious limits to different modes of transportation? Is that just occurring to you now?
My point was they have ways they can solve parts of the problem and it would be nothing short of racist to think they were too stupid to figure out any work arounds.
thatsbutters | 16 hours ago
>> "if they have to figure out a way to put 2m barrels of oil a day on rail to survive they will do it."
YOU DID doofus.... jfc
MrDerpGently | a day ago
And also it ignores that Iran and China have a decent working relationship and China stands to benefit from the US immolating it's global position. If China isn't quietly backstopping Iran's losses enough to keep them in the game I would be shocked. But there's no real way to get visibility into those sorts of arrangements.
pickle9977 | a day ago
They arenât even quiet about it any more.
People need to realize that Russia, China, Iran and North Korea are close allies, they are trading weapons and energy and they all have a common enemy.
And each of them benefits from just waiting.
PeachScary413 | a day ago
Move how and where?
pickle9977 | a day ago
Invisibly to undisclosed locations.
PeachScary413 | 14 hours ago
I feel like people here unironically believe that you can just load it up on a truck or something and full send it through the desert đ
pickle9977 | 14 hours ago
You mean you canât just like hide it under your shirt?
Whaddduptho | a day ago
Wow a whole 700k barrels a week? That's barely anything.
pickle9977 | a day ago
Such insight, let me guess MBA from UPenn undergrad economics from⌠Yale? U Chicago? Or are you a Harvard/UPenn kind?
Whaddduptho | a day ago
Didn't know one needed an economics degree to know that it's far less than what was being released. We were clipping along releasing nearly 10 million per week and now we're acting as if 700k is shielding us from "catastrophe" and enormous price increases.
NovarKalar | 11 hours ago
Well, I'd call an executive order declaring "Emergency Relief" to lower the price of diesel a pretty clear indication that we're already experiencing enormous price increases. The only things really "shielding" us at this point are massive government spending on ship escorts, tax holidays, and blind optimism as oil infrastructure literally catches fire from the strain.
pickle9977 | a day ago
No but those are the words of someone too smart and arrogant for their own good.
Which usually means Ivy League
TheMagicalLawnGnome | 15 hours ago
The US can absolutely wait Iran out; it's a question of political will to do so.
Iran is essentially cut off from the world, to a large extent.
Their economy has already been badly damaged.
It has, and will continue, to run out of basic supplies and materials society requires to function. It can't even afford to properly pay it's police, which is a major warning sign for an autocracy.
But the biggest issue of all, is their oil wells.
Oil wells cannot just be turned off and on. Once you tap a well, you need to continue pumping oil from it. If you cannot do that, you need to cap the well to prevent it from bursting. Once you cap a well, it's basically finished; especially older wells like the sort Iran mostly has.
Iran cannot export its oil, right now. It's storage capacity is largely full.
If this situation continues, it means Iran will need to start shutting down wells, which will permanently cripple its oil production.
There's a huge difference between sanctions, and a military blockade.
Iran was still able to fill up tankers and move them out of the country, under sanctions. It cannot do that under a physical blockade of its oil terminals.
Given that oil revenue is one of the primary drivers of the Iranian economy, the permanent loss of its oil wells would be absolutely devastating. There's no good way they can come back from that.
Meanwhile, the US has higher fuel prices... but that's basically it. There's no permanent structural hit, in terms of its resources.
Basically, the US could turn Iran's strategy back on itself.
Iran figured the US would be impatient, and have a low tolerance for any sort of economic pain or military loss.
And historically, that's not a bad bet â the US had indeed been fickle in this regard.
But if the US puts its mind to it, it can absolutely outlast Iran. It's not even a close call.
The US can basically just starve Iran to death, if it's patient enough.
It would be deeply immoral to do that, but it's absolutely possible. It just requires a continuation of the status quo.
None of us ultimately know how this will end. But in a purely economic/material sense, time is on the side of the US. If the US capitulates, it will be because of political choices.
pickle9977 | 14 hours ago
You thought a lot about this I can tell, but your analysis is completely off base.
Oil across the Middle East has very low extraction cost due to the structure of geological formations the oil is in. They can absolutely turn off an on wells, turning things off and on is risky sure, but it is not only possible, but a lot of production capacity across western allied oil producers was literally turned off earlier this year when the us attacked.
There will be be minimal change to the current state of economic affairs as they already had a small and crumbling dollar economy, but that hasnât stopped them from not just surviving but growing for the last four decades
The biggest issue is our own inability to understand our own limits and weaknesses.
We are like a drunk in a bar at 3am ready to fight a coat rack, we donât even have the weapons to fight, and we wonât be able to make them at scale for another four years, IF the Chinese continue shipping rare earths to us.
Arrogance kills the arrogant.
pepe_acct | a day ago
To compare this current blockade to 40 years of previously on and off sanctions is stupid. Their economy shrinked by 10 percent since the war. A few years of blockade will destroy their economy like never before.
For the US worst come to worst is elevated energy prices and probably demand destruction. Itâs not like America doesnât have resources to diversify energy sources or reduce usage
Sherm | 22 hours ago
> Their economy shrinked by 10 percent since the war. A few years of blockade will destroy their economy like never before.
And how many times in history has that led to a county actually collapsing? Didn't work in Iraq. Hasn't worked with North Korea. Iran has spent the past 15 years preparing their military to be able to operate autonomously specifically so they'd be ready when they got Saddam-ed. They can produce and import enough to keep the military going, especially in the face of a moron who has alienated the people who we'd need to assist if we wanted a sanctions regime to actually work. Everyone else will be seen as necessary sacrifices.
Prestigious_Load1699 | 14 hours ago
To be fair, there any many Leftists on Reddit who blame the debilitated Cuban economy on American trade sanctions.
I personally find that a copout but it shouldnât be completely discounted what a total blockade of Iranian exports is having on its economy.
Sherm | 8 hours ago
> To be fair, there any many Leftists on Reddit who blame the debilitated Cuban economy on American trade sanctions.
But suppose they're right; the sanctions still haven't ended the Cuban government. They've made the Cuban people suffer terribly and caused us to forego several opportunities to push Cuba to make market reforms a la China, but the government remains. They can make people suffer, but they can't win the war.
Prestigious_Load1699 | 4 hours ago
I mean, the opposite approach was tried with China - that free trade with the CCP would inevitably force it into liberal democratic reforms.
I think that dream was crushed in 1989, and all that has resulted since is propelling an authoritarian surveillance state into global prominence.
pickle9977 | a day ago
No offense but itâs not at all stupid, you donât seem to understand how much the west and the US in particular have to lose.
Quite literally we can lose everything we live lavish lifestyles of luxury and abundance and the wealthier you are the more abundance and lavishness there is.
We put ALL of it on the table playing a game of chicken with a country whose capital city is forced to ration clean water as a result of their inability to fix their municipal water system because of US sanctions and the lies of the Bush administration about what constitutes weapons of mass destruction.
You think that those people give a shit about a little more hardship?
pepe_acct | a day ago
Thatâs ludicrous. Most reports I see put the wars impact on inflation to between 0.5 to 1 percent. The war is not going to drastically impact American economy. People will pay a bit more and spend some resource on the war but nothing much further than that. Also bush lied about Iraq. Why is it even relevant to the current war?
If the blockade continues, frankly I donât know what will happen to Iranian society. It honestly will be interesting as a live case study on how modern states react to significant blockade
pickle9977 | a day ago
Whatâs ludicrous?
There is no report in the world that can measure the inflationary impact of the war, especially not in real time. The only way thatâs measured in real time is by gas and diesel prices which if you havenât noticed are not 1% higher, they are more like 30% higher.
The materials the Iranians need to fix their municipal water system were out on the list of restricted dual use items by the Bush administration to justify the war in Iraq. As a result Iran has not been able to source the materials they need because president pretzel choker wanted to avenge his father and steal some oil.
The fact that no one can even fathom for a second that the west, and the is specifically, is going to pay a price for this is not an indication of that being the likely outcome, quite the opposite.
Our collective refusal to acknowledge that the longer we wait the more likely more catastrophic outcomes become.
And finally not for nothing but the US is also violating both international and domestic law by blockading Cuba, taking control of Venezuela and stealing both Venezuelan and Iranian oil.
There WILL be a price to pay, itâs a matter of how much money and pain there is before we acknowledge the reality that we lost this war the second we started it.
pepe_acct | a day ago
Here is the cnbc article citing a .8% inflation impact. https://www.cnbc.com/2026/07/21/inflation-fears-return-as-iran-war-keeps-oil-prices-high-analysts.html
The idea that this war is bringing down us economy is just illiteracy
pickle9977 | a day ago
See my other comment, itâs simply just not reasonable to believe that the inflationary impacts of a 30% rise in the cost of the input to everything is already rolled into inflation and its net impact is less that 1%.
It shows a complete lack of understanding of the monetary, banking, financial and economic systems and how they interact.
Sherm | 22 hours ago
> Most reports I see put the wars impact on inflation to between 0.5 to 1 percent. The war is not going to drastically impact American economy.
That's because they're laser-focused on oil. But oil isn't the scary thing. 30% of global fertilizer goes through the Persian Gulf. Or, went though, basically none is moving now. Lose that long-term and it's about a billion people you can't feed. The Arab Spring, and all the refugees that followed that caused chaos in Europe? Triggered by bad harvest and drought that raised food prices by 40%. Hungry people don't stay hungry for long, or stationary. Lots of that fertilizer goes to South America. They're supposed to be planting right now, as we speak.
Next year, Easter is going to be rough.
MrDerpGently | a day ago
What do you think happens to them if they give in? The US backed them into a corner, and there's no way they rebuild their infrastructure without regime change or a toll booth. They don't lose an election, they and their families are almost certainly executed. So, I'm guessing they will stick with the blockade, no matter how unpleasant.
pepe_acct | a day ago
Just to be clear, giving in means stop pursuing nuclear weapons, stop funding foreign terrorist groups, and relinquish control over Hormuz which they really never had charged tolls. No one is âbacking them to a cornerâ. They wouldnât lose land or regime change if they just give up.
I imagine they can negotiate financial aid package from international community if they agree to give up nukes. From all of the savings, sanction relief, release of frozen fund, and potential aid, they obviously would have resources to rebuild their society.
unsafeideas | a day ago
They were following nuclear agreement, USA broke them. And then bombed during negations.
Iran has nothing to gain by "stopping to pursue" nuclear. It just learned it needs nuclear.
And they wont give up Hormuz either.
To your last paragraph - they did gave up nuclear once already. Got some stuff for it back. America walked back the agreement, republicans outraged over them getting much less then you propose. And then bombed them multiple times, openly talking about planning to bomb regularly in the future.
There is no long term agreement to be made with people who openly mock long term agreements.
MrDerpGently | a day ago
What this tells me is that you don't spend a lot of time on this region's issues. That's fine. Not everybody needs to be an expert on everything. But in short, none of this happened in a vacuum, and there is no status quo to return to.
pepe_acct | a day ago
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about
MrDerpGently | a day ago
Ok.
pickle9977 | a day ago
Hereâs where the delusion begins, we already surrendered
The MOU was a surrender document, now that we have walked away from that Iran has set the terms as the seven points they put forward.
We have no leverage, sure we are blockading oil, but so what, they already took the hit to their GDP, I think it was six points from oil directly and 10 over all.
But thatâs it, they still have as much essentially free energy as they can possibly use as well as over land trade routes for goods and or weapons.
We are the ones who will continue to feel increasing amounts of pain as stockpiles dry up and prices continue to increase driving higher inflation and eventually shortages and eventually economic collapse.
What can we possibly do to them that we havenât already done or been doing for decades?
Kill them all? You think we can just nuke the country and be done with it?
FedBathroomInspector | a day ago
If we surrendered why is there an ongoing blockade? Are you really this ignorant?
Land routes are less efficient than transit via the strait, which is why there are shortages. Shortages that will only get worse as the war and blockade goes on.
pickle9977 | a day ago
Just because you surrender doesnât mean you quit it means you acknowledge you lost.
Which is exactly what we did when we signed a document saying we would cease our aggression and pay reparations.
pickle9977 | a day ago
And again, four decades of sanctions have not moved this country, how can any one really believe that âshortagesâ are going to now all of the sudden cause them to say oh shit now we get it you are the good guys and we are the bad guys.
Like thatâs gotta be one of the stupidest things people believe today.
That or computers are smarter than humans and ai is going to kill is all.
Itâs a real toss up.
pickle9977 | a day ago
To be clear Iâm not calling you stupid, just that this is a stupid thing to believe.
FedBathroomInspector | a day ago
There is a vast difference between a sanction and a blockade. Iranâs economy is dependent on oil exports. They were freely exporting their oil to China and others uninhibited by US sanctions. Now they can only export a fraction of the oil, because their infrastructure is built to export it by sea.
The regime has survived this long with money and legitimacy via religion. If the IRGC starts to feel the impacts of a collapsing economy those who are less radicalized or politically motivated will seek an exit. Ahmadinejad was a radical who regularly called for the destruction of Israel and yet he was in contact with Mossad to facilitate a regime change.
pickle9977 | a day ago
There is not a âvast differenceâ aside from the physical enforcement.
When we sanction a country we exclude them from the dollar economy, this means they are unable to procure goods and services priced and sold in dollars.
It is an economic blockade, the only difference is that we are now simply increasing the pressure by cutting off the trade with their allies who have ignored the economic blockade and continued to trade with Iran.
Itâs literally an extension of the sanctions.
As to why people seem to think the citizens of every other country are fully incapable of solving any problems is beyond me. sure their infrastructure is what it is, you donât think they can , and have, come up with work arounds?
Do you think the entire country of 80m people is too stupid to be creative?
People solve problems, itâs what we do, have we made things harder, you bet we have, but they are clearly surviving, and they are doing exactly what we would all do in this situation, figure out work arounds.
pepe_acct | a day ago
Bro, the war affected about 0.5 to 1 percent inflation. The blockade and sanctions shrunk their economy by 10 percent so far. You are delusional
pickle9977 | a day ago
Itâs way too early to measure the inflationary impact of the war.
With gas and diesel up 30-40% it is unreasonable to believe that 1% number.
Anyone publishing that is doing so for propaganda purposes only.
greysnowcone | 23 hours ago
Worlds largest producer of oil in the USA
TiredOfDebates | a day ago
I don't think anyone expects Iran to agree to those things in a diplomatic agreement, and actually stick to them.
Does anyone expect Iran's regime to honor an agreement (long term) to 1.) not create/support proxies 2.) stay away from nuclear 3.) never again threaten Hormuz.
The goal at the outset of the war, according to the Trump admin, was regime change.
Because no one in their right mind believes Tehran will abide by a "pinkie swear" promise on paper over the coming decades. The same regime in Tehran will do the same thing.
I'm not advocating for anything... I'm pointing out that for what the Trump admin's goals are, the only way to accomplish them long term, is regime change in Iran.
pickle9977 | a day ago
No American is in any position to question whether the regime in Tehran will honor any agreements.
Our own behavior is exactly whatâs described, breaking agreement after agreement, which is a pattern we have a history of (just ask the Native Americans).
People in glass houses and all.
MrDerpGently | a day ago
But it's more than that. The US destroyed a lot of infrastructure at a time they were already in a bad place. They have more leverage than they've had in decades, that leverage will not last forever, and they are unlikely to be in a similar position again. They have to play this to the end either way, because there is no world where they can just agree to ..really anything, and either have that fix their problems, or rely on the US not to break the agreement.
unsafeideas | a day ago
You mean regime change like "keep regime in place, put puppet on head of it, steal oil"?
MrDerpGently | a day ago
My understanding is that they originally wanted to put the literal Pahlavis back in control. But as long as the last step is steal oil, I'm guessing they are flexible.
unsafeideas | a day ago
There was also the subplot about wanting to put one of back then leaders in charge, but killing that guy the first day of bombings.
There were multiple mutually exclusive plans going on, I suspect.
I forgot about the shah. It kind of did not made sense to me. Revolution was a lot more about hating on Shah then pro-islam. And he spent whole life abroad, how was that supposed to function?
MrDerpGently | a day ago
He was supposed to make US based Iranians happy (big GOP donation bloc), and be the Iranian face holding the whip for a Saudi/Israel directed government backed by US arms. Man that sounds like tin foil hat territory, in less stupid times.
unsafeideas | a day ago
Interesting, are they still donating to GOP?
But also, I mostly cant imagine Iranians (or any other nationalist country) accepting leader who grew up abroad is not really "one of us". And him being able navigate culture that was remote whole his life.
MrDerpGently | a day ago
Oh, I'm pretty sure it was going to be a disaster. But also, just not reading the room. When people wonder how Iran can hold out with this level of economic hardship, in part it's because the US is not giving anyone a reasonable offer. Their opposition can't trust the US any more than the current regime, and the alternatives are nuts.
MrDerpGently | a day ago
As to US Iranians... hard to say. They've gotten real quiet of late.
kismethavok | 20 hours ago
Worst comes to worst is multiple 9/11 style attacks on American soil and MILLIONS of Americans sent to fight in the gulf.
NovarKalar | 11 hours ago
During the 40 years of previously on and off sanctions Iran repeatedly saw their economy shrink by over 25% within a year. So this war is nothing to them in comparison. Do some research before spouting nonsense.
unsafeideas | a day ago
US cant win, because it does not have winning condition. It has nothing to gain. The onky thing it can achieve is causing pain to Iranians which seems to be the goal.
Meanwhile, Iran is in existencial war where even Iranians who oppose the regime are thankful to it for protecting them from USA.
That is big difference. Average American is paying this war and gets nothing from it. Only a fuzzy feeling that someone was harmed far away and most Americans dont want to pay that much for it. Average Iranian is paying for Iran not turning to Syria, for their bridges not being bombed randomly every time an American president wakes up cranky.
pepe_acct | a day ago
Itâs not existential⌠the war target is for them to abandon nuclear weapons
pickle9977 | a day ago
All weâve done is proven they need them, and they likely already have them, North Korea does.
They both also have hypersonic missiles as do China and Russia.
We have 8 beta versions, but we got them in theatre !
BadgersHoneyPot | a day ago
Need them for what?
snailman89 | a day ago
To deter the US and Israel from attacking them. The same reason any other country would want nuclear weapons.
BadgersHoneyPot | 23 hours ago
Why doesn't Canada have nuclear weapons? Australia? Mexico? Should I go on?
Haunting-Worker-2301 | 8 hours ago
Thatâs not a rational argument. Those countries do not have dictatorships that are considered a threat to western powers.
If you are a regime itâs objectively imperative that you get nukes to stay in power. Libya, Iraq, no nukes. North Korea, Russia have nukes and it clearly results in people not really being able to mess with them directly.
pickle9977 | 23 hours ago
To keep crazy Mo fos from attacking them, I mean no one bombed the crap out of North Korea.
I mean why does any one want nukes?
BadgersHoneyPot | 23 hours ago
Do we have a specific reason to bomb North Korea? Is North Korea funding terror cells and paramilitary operations that are destabilizing the entire Asian continent?
pickle9977 | 23 hours ago
They are sending soldiers to Ukraine and threatening the only other western country that makes RAM with annihilation while sponsoring massive drug, counterfeit and hacking operations.
Choosing who to bomb the shit out of is political, thereâs always a good reason to do it when you want to.
BadgersHoneyPot | 23 hours ago
China is helping Iran; should we be bombing China?
Bro are you OK?
unsafeideas | a day ago
That is just not true. First, Iran was actually following agreements it signed. Second, war started after Iran made large concessions.
And third, administration had about 15 openly stated mutually inconsistent goals. Nuclear popping in and out, purely based on domestic messaging.
You are also forgetting "civilization destruction" threats, attackes at water infrastructure and other life necessities. And bombings aimed at state functions - with clear goal to turn Iran into failed state.
ConstantShitting | 23 hours ago
That's not 100% true. Iran was stock piling enriched uranium and actively pursued a policy or "breakout time". The strategy works by basically developing everything you need to make a nuclear bomb without actually assembling the pieces. All of your rivals can't necessarily treat you as an existential threat because you don't actually have the bomb but you could have it within 14 days a month whatever. It gives you the bargaining power of a nuclear state while making a preemptive strike politically risky.
unsafeideas | 16 hours ago
What I wrote was 100% true. Iran did followed international agreements. USA scrapped them. USA initiated rounds of bombings after Iran made concessions. The enrichment they did was within their agreed on rights. And there were actual deep audits in those agreements.
Iran followed strategic moderstion doctrine and that failed. Now the nuclear situation got worst, because Iran knows they need that bomb.
Why would anyone made another agreement with country that a.) dont follow them b.) dont value them c.) bombs you despite your cooperation?
BadgersHoneyPot | a day ago
The US should straight up bomb roads and bridges. It will shut Iran up quickly and bring them back to the table, where we can discuss why they're enriching uranium to multiples needed for civilian energy production.
snailman89 | a day ago
Ahh yes, advocating war crimes. Great plan.
Of course, as soon as you do this, Iran will destroy the energy systems in Israel and Saudi Arabia, rendering those countries uninhabitable and destroying the world economy. Which is why Diaper Don hasn't done it yet.
BadgersHoneyPot | 23 hours ago
War is a crime against humanity. Iran knows this. Iran has no problems murdering its own people and has no problems funding murder throughout the region. So I advocate putting an end to that sort of thing ASAP.
PS, I'm not a Republican if that helps your arguments. I doubt it will though.
unsafeideas | 16 hours ago
In order to invoke moral high grounds, you have to have it. , "Their leadership killed people, therefore it is OK for us to kill even more of their civilians and cause even more pain to civilians" is not one.
In cooperation with another goverment literally in the middle of the genocide.
So congrats, now the Iranian regime got stronger and validated as a result of your actions.
Plus we see Venezuela. Torturers got promoted.
BadgersHoneyPot | 11 hours ago
Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.
BadgersHoneyPot | a day ago
Written straight out of the propaganda office of some Regime aligned nation. I spend enough time around Muslims here in Michigan to know how the rhetoric comes out.
unsafeideas | 16 hours ago
Nope, western analysts say that. Including American ones and European ones. White, non religious or christians.
BadgersHoneyPot | 11 hours ago
Mmmhmm.
AlpineDrifter | a day ago
The U.S. is a net exporter by 75-105 million barrels per month.
The US can keep this up far longer than Iran. Itâs exporting into record high global prices for profit. If it was about endurance/survival, they could simply stop exporting.
Iran is exporting < 5% of their pre-war total. Weakly enforced sanctions arenât remotely comparable to the complete naval blockade theyâre under now.
I honestly canât tell if youâre an ignorant kid, or a biased propagandistâŚ
pickle9977 | a day ago
We consume 20m barrels a day, export 3m a day, import 5m a day and produce 14m barrels a day.
Your net export is only when you include refined products.
AlpineDrifter | a day ago
Lol. No shit. The most important numbers are everything included.
The U.S. imports raw crude to turn it into more expensive refined products that it can sell at a higher price. For posting in an Econ sub, you seem economically illiterate.
How about you list Iranâs current numbers?âŚ??
pickle9977 | a day ago
You seem nice.
The most important numbers are how much you produce and how much you consume, if you canât produce 100% of what you consume, you are dependent on others for your survival.
Given that this an economics subreddit Iâm not surprised by your ignorance and attitude.
AlpineDrifter | a day ago
So youâre just going to keep making emotional arguments with no numbers to back them up (because they donât support your argument)?
Cool. Keep up the good work. America will collapse annyyyy minute now. Iran is totally winning. đ
Edit: U.S. production does more than cover its consumption. One bomber mission, and Iranâs production rapidly heads to zero. Hell, if they canât start exporting soon, theyâll have to start shutting down wells because they have no place to store it.
pickle9977 | a day ago
How do you make 20m barrels of oil out of 14?
You realize 20 is more than 14?
enteirush | 20 hours ago
Silly redditor! There is no factual discussion of economics that happens on r/Economics. It's all left wing agendaposting with Russian and Chinese state operatives sneaking in here and there.
pickle9977 | a day ago
Oh and youâd have to be really stupid to not realize that Irans numbers donât matter, itâs a part of their economy but not the whole economy and given they can produce all their own energy they can last for another couple of centuries without much impact.
AlpineDrifter | a day ago
This is unhinged copium. I hope youâre just a kid.
pickle9977 | a day ago
No sir, not unhinged either.
Just not a moron.
keithcody | a day ago
283.3/.7=404.714 weeks left at a simple linear rate
https://www.oilpriceapi.com/data/inventory/spr
7.7 years.
I'm not supporting this admin but let's put some numbers on this fear
HuMcK | a day ago
We just authorized a "final" release of 40m barrels from the SPR, after that it risks destruction of ghe holding caverns. So the real timeline is roughly 2 months on paper, but probably a bit longer (weekly draws can fluctuate up and down a lot).
pickle9977 | a day ago
The thing thatâs really incredible is that no one actually knows where the bottom is, we could hit it tomorrow (unlikely), but we will absolutely hit it if we donât stop drawing (absolute certainty).
This dual probability is being interpreted as since we donât know a fixed bottom hitting it seems less probable, and we feel more confident everyday we donât hit it that itâs further away.
Itâs like the life of a turkey chart from nassim talebs book black swan.
Whaddduptho | a day ago
> after that it risks destruction of ghe holding caverns.
Who cares? It was supposed to be used 5 times and it has instead been used 50 times. Was supposed to be replaced decades ago.
pickle9977 | a day ago
That just makes the situation higher risk.
The fiscal mismanagement of our country since the 1980s is going to go down in history as one of the most incredible self owns in history.
pickle9977 | a day ago
Well⌠of the 283, about 100m is unrecoverable.
Then there are some other caveats, but the actual amount drawable is significantly less, and the next tranch requires the secretary of defense to sign off.
RespectTheAmish | a day ago
Hegseth with surely tell the president no.
pickle9977 | a day ago
I mean yeah he will most likely sign off but it does get legally complicated as heâs required to certify it under penalty of law, so there is some personal liability after the facists lose power, which they always do because they are always a55holes.
mokunuimoo | a day ago
Sure the fascists lose power because they are assholes but sometimes we have to have a world war about it so donât start counting those chickens quite yet.
keithcody | a day ago
-100m = -142 weeks or -2.7 years. So 7.7 becomes 5 years.
pickle9977 | a day ago
Two things you should consider.
you are projecting off of two datapoints from the last two weeks which are the tail end of the last SPR release, there is another 40m queued up which they expect to deliver in the next 4-6weeks which means the rate is going to go up to somewhere around a million barrels a day and likely putting it below the current statutory limits
while I donât care for fear mongering, this is not a space where people should feel bold and comfortable. The range of outcomes gets worse by the day for the US, denying that is denying reality.
keithcody | a day ago
For sure. Itâs much to simple of an analysis.
Do you think statutory limits even matter any more?
pickle9977 | a day ago
Itâs a good question and a hard one to answer.
I think we are likely past statutory limits mattering in the sense that they trigger an immediate reaction , but every line crossed provides a new opportunity for someone to finally step up and rein in what is essentially an out of control government.
Failing that though they still matter because they serve as clear points in time where lines are crossed.
With every line crossed more people realize how out of control the government has gotten which results in the base of support for the administration dissolving.
Once enough people have had enough these statutory limits serve as a basis for criminal charges, the seriousness of those charges is going to depend on what the future holds, what they know now and why they are making the decision to violate the law.
So I guess the answer is kind of no and yes?
THedman07 | a day ago
Except the rate that it can be drawn tapers off so its actual effectiveness tapers off as well.
Amazingly, the simple math of a child trying to sound smart doesn't reflect anything close to reality.
keithcody | a day ago
As opposed to your zero math
How does it taper off? Logirthmically? Linear and then a shelf?
If you are going to talk shit, back it up.
WildWhisperArdor | a day ago
Sanctions are not the same as a blockade. Under sanctions, they could still previously export oil to countries like China.
JustHugMeAndBeQuiet | a day ago
Unfortunately, all the logic in the world doesn't assuage the ego-in-command.
Sucks.
pickle9977 | a day ago
Truly, he is just a product of the system
This is what happens in a mania driven by asset price inflation
ayenohn | a day ago
He is one of, if not the worst, most rancid and out-of-date products the American system has ever produced.
pickle9977 | a day ago
That is a fair statement.
BadgersHoneyPot | a day ago
Here come the Regime apologists with the "There's no way Iran can't win."
Jedi hand wave follows. That's it. 90% inflation, running out of food, can't export any oil, but Iran is doing "just fine."
I swear half of you want Iran to win, and are kidding yourselves into thinking they'll be your friend if suddenly Donald Trump is gone.
Other-Comfortable-64 | 12 hours ago
Recent tracking data shows daily crossings dropping to around 7 or 8 commercial vessels (such as oil and gas tankers) as safety risks peak
At least 12 attacks on tankers occurred around the Strait of Hormuz during the week of September 28 to October 5, 2026, marking the highest weekly total since the start of the conflict
Gandalftron | a day ago
Sure, all we need is for the US Navy to indefinitely be deployed and babysit that waterway, costing billions per week. Problem solved! Trump economics!
NakedPatrick | a day ago
Er from what I understand from my favourite macro podcast, there is actually more oil coming out of the Middle East than there was before the war. How? I donât know but thatâs what they say and it tracks with the price steadily declining recently.
namafire | a day ago
Can you link the podcast and episode? Ive legitly never heard any source saying this, though i have heard that supposedly oil traffic actually is moving to pre-war levels
Big doubt on both but im not averse to reality
PeachScary413 | a day ago
Just look at what the EU is doing, that's not a sign of "things are getting better" that's a sign of desperation. We are just depleting strategic reserves and manipulating futures markets in order to create the perception that things are under control so people don't panic
namafire | a day ago
Yes. Thats why im asking for evidence to the contrary
pickle9977 | a day ago
Itâs a big administration talking point, they started hammering it after JPM blasted the administration saying they no longer could forecast the market and that they had crossed many economic red lines that the bank didnât think the administration would cross.
A week later they released what amounts to an administration press release touting dark flows and invisible transports.
If energy were flowing freely we would not have forced the Europeans to dump a 100m barrels of oil and refined products from stocks nor would we have been talking about things like a diesel export ban.
doubagilga | a day ago
Itâs from shipping industry analysts, not the administration.
pickle9977 | a day ago
Are you familiar with the WW2 controls put in place by the US government to control and censor the flow of information to the US public?
At a $38/barrel shipping premium oil is obviously not flowing at the same rate it was.
Itâs a question of believing your pocket book or what you read.
oscarnyc | 23 hours ago
my pocketbook only pays for gasoline, and then the impact of diesel and jetfuel (and probably other refined products). I don't buy crude oil. And no one is disputing that refined products have risen far faster than crude, though if crude were much higher that would certainly impact the price of gasoline (which has actually been somewhat stable for the past month or so in the US anyway).
doubagilga | a day ago
Why is it âobviously notâ? We produce more oil here in the US at a much higher production cost. The market bares our production cost. The Saudis have now reduced their margins to accommodate the increased shipping cost. They can continue like this forever if they have to, they will just be less profitable but not unprofitable.
This is an inelastic demand curve.
pickle9977 | 23 hours ago
The demand curve is not inelastic, itâs destructive there is a big difference.
If it were flowing regularly we would not continue to drain the global stockpiles that provide supply/demand buffers.
Additionally oil would not be trading close to $100.
I mean there are a lot of other reasons, but frankly you should be incredibly suspicious of someone telling you that they can move 20% of the worldâs oil supply invisibly.
Like thatâs just an absolutely absurd thing to believe.
doubagilga | 20 hours ago
They arenât moving it invisibly. You can absolutely see the transport data for large ships leaving the gulf of Oman from the transfer loadings and you can see Qatari LNG deliveries starting to show up again. This is not rocket science, these data are verifiable and apparent.
Saudi crude has always been incredibly affordable and Iranian crude moreso. Without those discount barrels they are meeting last demand with far more cost. The price jumps because the demand is insensitive to price. People will buy fuel and demand destruction is super slow even when price doubles. It is textbook inelastic. It is textbook slow responding.
Your answers couldnât be more silly and obviously political.
pickle9977 | 20 hours ago
Clearly you havenât been paying any attention, the transit data is not what you claim it is, in fact your description of it holds little resemblance to the truth, so my guess is that you are just quite gullible.
You have no idea what you are talking about with regards to demand destruction, we have quite literally watched it happen real time multiple times over the last 20 years, your text books sound Ivy League.
Your response couldnât be more perfect, a fool and his money are soon parted, say good buy to your money.
doubagilga | 20 hours ago
My textbooks are Ivy League. Iâm an oil industry executive. I have more private information than you but am happy to cite public discussions which demonstrate youâre just a political hack spouting against things you donât want. You could look all of this up but itâs easier to just⌠say stuff on the internet. Back to your day job, Iâll have fries and a large coke kid.
Here you can see Crude is almost at prewar and LNG is still behind on recovery.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/gulf-oil-flows-rise-average-81-pre-war-rate-september-data-shows-2026-10-06/
https://www.vortexa.com/resources/report/crude-monthly
AnyTower224 | 8 hours ago
Analysts that donât know shit. Sales ones that a housing bubble and insurance bubble were happening and didnât know. Fuck them
Shot-Consequence-613 | 20 hours ago
Who fucking went on air and said they are using government numbers cause they got called in for national security. They told them just trust us. Well we fucking donât
doubagilga | 20 hours ago
This is not how this works. We can measure tank farms by satellite. We can see floating roofs move up and down. You can buy access to this satellite data, all the majors do so as market intelligence. You can do the same for super carriers. You can measure the draft of the ship. When you fill it, it sits lower in the water, like 50% changes in height above sea level.
We donât need government data. We watch each other in this enormous market constantly. We measure heat signatures from pump stations. We can even count crews in oil fields and for US data we can track permit filings, pad sites, the list goes on. The point is there are millions of corroborative data points.
It is so obviously flowing that Iran is now floating claims that they have secretly been allowing it because of tolls (read ransom/protection money) being paid by gulf states. So even Iran admits it but has found a way to claim victory and control.
Shot-Consequence-613 | 19 hours ago
We can even keep draining reserves to cover the lost production from our lies.
AnyTower224 | 8 hours ago
Thank you
pickle9977 | 19 hours ago
We can do a lot of things, but none of what you mention has anything to do with the flow of oil through the straight. We donât even have good data on whatâs moving on the e/w pipeline the only thing we know is they are filling a Chinese order with the sub 50% capacity they were able to bring back online after two weeks.
We can count boats inside and out side the straight but that is no longer whatâs being counted they are adding additional barrels that are supposedly being transited invisibly.
Everyone who has been watching the numbers since the start knows that, JPM blasted the administration, and then every reporting outfit either stopped publishing their own or started publishing the administration talking point numbers.
And again, they are striking boats in transit, shipping costs have increased 700%, diesel and gasoline are near all time highs, oil is still close to $100 and only down after more news outlets started carrying the malarkey you seem to believe as true.
You must have a lot of money to be that delusional.
Shot-Consequence-613 | 20 hours ago
And 15 ships hit since October started. 4 pumping stations on Saudis E/W pipeline down 5 different refineries hit. Europe got 0 crude for October.
People gotta be dumb as fuck to believe that shit.
pickle9977 | 20 hours ago
Itâs like people believing tulip bulbs are worth $10k
Itâs another inflation induced mania, some people have quite literally turned into zombies, they have zero ability to think for themselves.
In some respect itâs a function of the stock market,
weâve become accustomed to using it as the gauge of seriousness of a situation (dot-bomb/9-11, financial crash, covid etc), the fact that it is constantly near new peaks leaves people thinking things canât be that bad.
What people forget is the market is the last thing that crashes at the end of a bubble, itâs the wake up call.
People snap to attention when they are poor again.
AnyTower224 | 8 hours ago
Exactly dumb as rocks. Believing fake Zionist propaganda info. Yuk
Equivalent-Process17 | 21 hours ago
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/middle-east-crude-oil-exports-exceed-pre-war-levels-tanker-attacks-increase-2026-10-05/
Traffic through the strait recovered a lot around August: https://www.reuters.com/commentary/reuters-open-interest/us-says-more-oil-is-leaving-middle-east-is-it-really-2026-08-13/
pickle9977 | a day ago
This is why the cost for a tanker from the Mideast is now $77M up from $9?
Thatâs a $38/barrel shipping premium, hard to believe thatâs a sign of healthy flows out of the gulf.
And even if they have been restored the production capacity for distillers and by products has been lowered meaning we can make less refined products across the globe, like diesel and gasoline.
Even if the straight opened tomorrow it will take years to get the refining capacity restored which means extended periods of $6 diesel and $5 gas, which is already showing up in every day prices but will only continue to get worse as it percolates along the supply chain increasing the cost to produce and sell everything.
doubagilga | a day ago
Middle East oil came out of the ground at $10/BBL. Cost of production and shipment increasing by $30 doesnât change that it is still profitable. Certainly it makes Saudi Arabia less wealthy, but it does not make the industry a bad business. Plenty of places are pulling up oil and transporting at far higher costs and happy about it.
pickle9977 | a day ago
You seem to be missing the point that 10 months ago it was $9m.
The risk premium on oil has shifted from futures to shipping, likely because the future market is being manipulated (the Japanese were complaining about this q2 this year).
The Saudis for two months now have had to offer their oil at a discount to the benchmark something they have rarely done in the past.
doubagilga | a day ago
Saudi crude discounting is my entire point. I missed nothing. They can afford to discount just fine, they still have plenty of margin on their low production cost. It reduces Saudi profits but the last barrels on the market were always much more expensive and priced the inelastic demand curve.
This is a Saudi income problem, not a market supply one.
oscarnyc | 23 hours ago
is it even an income problem for the Saudi's? If their volumes are roughly flat, and they are getting $100 before shipping, but let's say $60 after shipping, that's more or less where crude was before the war.
Shot-Consequence-613 | 20 hours ago
Maybe all that money can help them fix the pumping stations and theyâre trying to move crude by water to ras and the other refinery so they donât have to shut those in. They sure as fuck ainât shipping 5.8mb a day through that pipeline. Guaranteed
doubagilga | 20 hours ago
A few pumps is not impossible to replace. Pumps are pumps. You can certainly find something to provide head even if it isnât all the power you want to put to the shaft.
It is moving. Not the record 7-8 anymore. It was never intended to. Itâs almost back at nameplate then lol.
Shot-Consequence-613 | 19 hours ago
They arenât replacing 4 in two weeks and have it up to 6mb like I said. All while exports are normal. No.
TiredOfDebates | a day ago
There is more crude oil leaving the middle east than before the war.
But the flows of refined oil products coming out of the middle east are much lower.
ImaginaryHospital306 | a day ago
If ME oil production is higher than pre-war and Americas oil production is also higher, then why are crude prices over 30% higher?
Lebowski304 | 20 hours ago
The fuel stocks are still depleted and everyone is trying to get their shit sorted
d88k41t | 14 hours ago
I would say the risk is factored in the price. We don't know if a full-blown war in the ME starts tomorrow.
eurekaanchor | 9 hours ago
Because market speculation is based on feelings
CauliflowerDaffodil | a day ago
Higher costs associated with security and insurance, including hazard pay. The volume of oil going out is nearly the same as pre-war levels. Cost has gone up.
cheekytikiroom | 21 hours ago
Thatâs a really neat trick for wealthy people to get paid more from the commoners, for the same good. I wonder which billionaireâs business happens to insure oil tankers.
RedowlRides | 13 hours ago
The one that pays out when they explode.
cloken85 | 19 hours ago
This..expand on this is an analyst saying the costing of moving oil was previously ~$5 a barrel and now at $25-$30 per barrel and thatâs on top of the barrel price. Itâs that cost of shipping thatâs gone bananas and not going to come back
hokageace | 21 hours ago
đ đ¤Łđ¤Ł
Xollector | 14 hours ago
And the key question is why is there such angst and low reserve of diesel causing problems? Itâs because the bs propaganda does not line up with the facts
War-Hound420 | a day ago
Its almost as if the oil cartels have kept oil production artificially low for decades or something.
The UAE just left OPEC because they see the writing on the wall. The world will transition to EV's. Better pump all the oil you can now.
TiredOfDebates | a day ago
The UAE left the oil cartel because they don't like OPECs production limits.
OPEC had a lot of power prior to the 2000s, before the USA its shale oil boom and fracking massively increased natural gas production.
Cartels (like OPEC) help their own members by suppressing production to avoid over-production, to basically engage in price-fixing.
But when the USA is producing far more oil than Saudi Arabia... the cartel doesn't have enough market share anymore to control prices, like they once did.
pickle9977 | a day ago
Oil is used for so much itâs not going anywhere any time soon.
KookaburraNick | a day ago
The vast majority of oil is used for it's energy.
doubagilga | a day ago
Automotive EV displacement is real but it has been slow going for diesel.
pickle9977 | a day ago
Yeah 2/3rds, thatâs still 30-40m barrels a day of demand and ultimately we will probably find other uses for it.
godspareme | a day ago
2/3° just for transportation. The other third° is for energy production. We are moving towards renewable so that is going to be dropping significantly in the next t decade. Only like 10-15% is used for other commodities.
° slightly less than, obviously
pickle9977 | a day ago
Itâs an incredibly hydro-carbon rich material, itâs intensely valuable for so many things.
You might be right but I have a hard time believing something with so much stored energy and so many uses gets abandoned.
godspareme | a day ago
It wont be abandoned but usage will be down at least 50% if not 75% in a decade or two.
The other thing is plastic makes up the majority of its other commodities. Which we are also trying to move away from (albeit very slowly and poorly).
It is very useful for industrial purposes, though. Itll definitely stick around for the robotic age. Roads will probably still use them for several decades before we find something better.
chronicpenguins | a day ago
Even if there was zero gasoline sold in America, oil consumption would not drop by 50%.
oldutnotdeadinside | a day ago
And Diddy Partyâs
PeachScary413 | a day ago
Yeah.. the people thinking we are going to get EV trucks and heavy machinery anytime soon are delusional.
LostandFound255 | a day ago
I think he means where oil is used in such as plastics.
pickle9977 | a day ago
You can only fit so much energy in a battery.
Techno optimism has made us really really stupid
Twaffles95 | a day ago
Lol sure people when from houses to seen people on the moon in one lifetime but any further groundbreaking is unlikely and youâre right itâs because of Oligarchyâs killing actual human advancement
pickle9977 | a day ago
Iâm very confused by your comment Iâll address the two parts separately.
There is quite literally physical limits to how much energy you can store in one place, like battery tech has def gotten better but a single gallon of gas has the equivalent of 33kwh of energy, a tesla home battery is 13kwh and their cars range from 50-90kwh. A gallon of gas weighs six pounds while Tesla batteries range from 1,000-1,700 pounds. So the batteries have to get three orders of magnitude lighter while at least maintaining their same energy output. Iâm not a physicist and Iâm pretty bad at math but there are all kinds of physical limits that math has proven to be inviolable in trying to improve the density of energy stored in a battery.
Second part. The oligarchs are a product of our broken system, they are a natural part of it in the sense that they always show up at the end of bubbles/manias, itâs what defines the end as they absolutely crush innovation and any challenge to the status quo of what made them rich and therefor powerful. Their success though is a product of repeated corporate bailouts of failed companies, industries and even entire sectors coupled with massive amounts of inflationary fiscal and monetary policy that over stimulated the economy in ways that these new oligarchs were able to capitalize on. This is ultimately unsustainable as is almost all debt driven growth which is why exactly why the fed is supposed to ensure recessions happen every 4-5 years to shake out the bad companies and bad debt from the good companies that actually invested in value generating activities.
The last time the fed tried this it led to the great financial crisis of 2008, previous the that was Greenspanâs feeble and late attempt to rein in the dot com bubble in 2001 which was prematurely ended by 9/11 which forced him to change course leaving a lot of dot-bombs alive.
Two of those dot-bombs were Amazon and PayPal, neither was gonna make it, Amazons site was too expensive to run and PayPal was just an awful company who stole everyoneâs money.
Now we have Musk, Bezos, Thiel and the rest of these clowns running around raving like lunatics.
hmmmmm56 | 16 hours ago
Theres a bunch of things you missed in your ev calculations like electric motors being far more efficient and lighter than ice.
thebigj3wbowski | 23 hours ago
You can only fit so much energy into oil and other petroleum products as well.
Luftritter | a day ago
They're bribing Iran. Up to 20% the value of the cargo passing goes to them. Those that do not pay get a missile in the engine room. They have control of the strait that have not changed one bit.
War-Hound420 | a day ago
Lol yeah man and Iran has downed 10 US aircraft carriers and killed 50k US soldiers right?
a_library_socialist | a day ago
how could they? The US has won the war 10 times now.
Crustington | a day ago
Thatâs almost as many times as the IRGC has sunk aircraft carriers!
Luftritter | a day ago
The aircraft carriers are being kept at a minimum of 350 miles from Iran at all times because they can't be risked to be moved any closer. Area Denial seems to be good enough to convert a very expensive ship into a white elephant, need I remind you one of those ships is out of the fight in Thailand because it could not be properly rotated and replenished.
bave388 | 23 hours ago
Is that the same ship which was on the longest combat deployment running the most sorties in that time in a generation?
That's not a white elephant. Turns out aircraft can fly hundreds and hundred of miles... lol.
Luftritter | a day ago
81 aircraft actually, between rotary and fixed wing. Worst loses since the Vietnam era. Some countries have air forces of that size. Those 3.5 billion could have been better used improving American lives. https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/81-us-aircraft-lost-or-damaged-during-iran-war-congressional-document-shows/4081109
Depletion of important munitions. Wear and tear on ships. Military bases obliterated costing more billions, including US main naval base in the Middle East, which is the reason American sailors don't have fresh lettuce or soap or toothpaste, (or more importantly Antidepressants so sailors don't end jumping off ship to their deaths) since they get that now from Diego Garcia and Singapore way out of war theater. While the US Navy keeps a WWI style naval blockade for which it's not designed. That certainly sounds like winning to me /s
Bronze_Rager | a day ago
45 drones is included in the 81 aircraft counts?
Luftritter | a day ago
I think it includes the drones yes, that's 1.5 billion from this bill. Downed with 20k to 50k munitions for a 3 million drone sounds like a good exchange rate for the IRGC. And that doesn't includes how long it will take the US to replenish them, which is something that seems to be increasingly a problem.
meguminsupremacy | 21 hours ago
Actually Reaper drones (which make up a huge portion of those 81 planes) were considered inadequate before the war, they are just being used as expendable these days.
CloudCobra979 | 20 hours ago
It includes drones and damaged aircraft that were returned to service. Actual losses are:
4 F-15's: 3 due to friendly fire,
Up to 12 damaged or destroyed KC-135's. Unclear of the number.
1 E3 on the ground.
4 AH-6 Little birds in CSAR operations.
1 AH-64
1 MH-60 - This may not have been to enemy action.
45 MQ9 Reapers.
deathsamuri | a day ago
Armchair general redditors spewing IRGC talking points what a surprise. Iran has closed/controlled the strait now for 6-months except for the fact that more oil than pre-war has exited the region and no one is paying them anything.
Luftritter | a day ago
That was a congressional report. No IRGC needed. The administration is utterly incompetent.
InvestIntrest | 18 hours ago
The US Navy cleared all the mines from the straights which was slow and tedious work now the Navy is directly escorting ships out. Iran has been unable to stop the traffic so the flow has largely returned to normal.
As for Iran they are unable to get any oil out due to the US Navy embargo. The only reductions in oil out is what Iran used to ship.
Only time will tell if that holds.
PeachScary413 | a day ago
Look at the crack spread again and tell me with a straight face that everything is fine.
oscarnyc | 23 hours ago
total strawman. absolutely no one said "everything is fine". this isn't complicated. oil is flowing at volume (at least as of the end of September), which comes at a significant cost.
fenderputty | a day ago
y'all should go to /oil.
They're tracking all this. Essentially different routes are being used. But also attacks are still happening, transportation costs have increased, insurance etc etc. So prices aren't falling.
Danne660 | 16 hours ago
Don't go to /oil, the few people giving good info are mostly drowned out by the horde of idiots.
Liquid_Sarcasm | a day ago
Price declines tied to European nations selling their strategic reserves or is the timing just suspect?
Youbettereatthatshit | a day ago
Because the strait of Hormuz isnât the gateway to the Middle East, just a good portion of it. High oil prices means everyone else ramps up
Kvenner001 | a day ago
Is that because the dozens of tankers that were largely stuck in port or harbor have finally left? Because if so that surge will fall off unless those ships resume prewar routes.
barkinginthestreet | a day ago
Oil has been flowing the past few weeks. Last numbers we have on Saudi production, though, is that they are down by almost 4 million bpd over January/February. I think Kuwait/Iraq/Iran are down a combined 2.5 or 3 mbpd.
If shipments are exceeding production, that kind of suggests those countries + the US are rushing to get as much out of storage as possible now. Would not surprise me if that is because of planned attacks post-midterms that will likely re-shut the strait.
Super_Range45 | a day ago
Also the US got France to agree to release oil from their strategic reserves in addition to the amounts the US is still releasing. G7 has also agreed to release 100M barrels.
ImClearlyDeadInside | 22 hours ago
Whatâs the podcast?
TheProfessional9 | 19 hours ago
It's at 90 a barrel for futures prices. Spot is still over 100 last I heard.
90 is high. If it was back to normal, the price would crater. It's declining steadily most likely because refineries are still blowing up all over the world. That means less is needed to maximize output
Jpwatchdawg | 13 minutes ago
90 isn't too high. Optimum pricing is about 85 considering the price to pump out of ground. It costs Americans about 65 per barrel, gcc nations about 40, Venezuela about 70 considering the refurbishing costs being invested
Upbeat-Operation-613 | 14 hours ago
What do you mean declining? I see weâre at 104-105 right now
AnyTower224 | 8 hours ago
Lies
KoldPurchase | 8 hours ago
Smaller vessels under escorts with increased shipping and insurance costs. The oil must flow.
Lumpy-Blackberry-718 | a day ago
> and it tracks with the price steadily declining recently.
Huh?
Prices of oil are still quite high. To the extent there have been any pull-backs in crude prices, most of that is due to lack of refining capacity, not due to excess supply. No one's buying oil they can't refine.
frumpawumpa | a day ago
I dunno breh, spot prices, particularly for Brent, are still quite high! Brent closed over 125 yesterday!
CauliflowerDaffodil | a day ago
There are two components to oil: Price and volume. The amount of oil coming out of the region has nearly equalled or surpassed pre-war levels. Price has gone up as well because of the higher costs associated with security and insurance.
frumpawumpa | 23 hours ago
And you think that insurance premium is what? 40? 50? 60 a barrel?
pluralofjackinthebox | 21 hours ago
More oil is also being rerouted, increasing shipping time
Xiaopeng8877788 | a day ago
Thatâs called âwelcome to fake newsâ
ResolveLeather | a day ago
I fail to see how it doesn't when the United States maintains a blocade of the straight. How are they planning to ignore that? Direct naval war with most powerful navy the world has ever known?
MrDerpGently | a day ago
Because the US is a mercantile empire that's dependent on global trade, and Iran isn't. Also, the blockade doesn't apply to the Caspian Sea or their land border with Turkmenistan, for instance.
ResolveLeather | a day ago
Yeah, but Iran can't transport all of their oil through the Caspian either.
MrDerpGently | a day ago
Certainly. But they can move food. And if China backs them, even quietly, there's a good chance they come out owning the Strait and dictating regional trade, while the US loses its regional dominance, along with the unified economic landscape required for new sanctions.
Iran can reasonably promise China future oil at unbeatable rates in exchange for enough support to outlast the blockade.
Prestigious_Load1699 | 14 hours ago
Iran is entirely dependent on oil exports.
Which currently sit at zero.
Much more so than the United States is dependent on oil imports.
We could wait them out.
But it would come at economic cost and some newfound political will among the American people to put up with elevated gas prices.
shwaynebrady | a day ago
First of all, Read the article, second of all The US Is not blockading the strait, they are blockading the Iranian ports.
pickle9977 | 23 hours ago
Correction you can only extract so much energy from oil and other petroleum products.
You literally inversed it.
And thatâs the correct use of literally, which might be a first on the web.
studude765 | a day ago
Basically outside of the politics Iran is losing its ability to actually hit ships and ships are now less fearful about transiting the strait.
zanzara1968 | a day ago
the US Navy doesn't have the frigates in numbers to escort the vessels going up and down the Ormuz strait. it will strain heavily the navy resources in both ships and men and from what I read on defense reviews it'isnt sustainable.
AlpineDrifter | a day ago
Itâs already happening. Theyâre already passing. The oil is currently getting out as we speak.
Lots of escorting is happening with air assets as well.
PatientBerry1467 | 19 hours ago
I think what he's saying is the cost to keep this running is going to be rough for the US government, I would bet the American people will pay the tab through military budget spending. You can't have an open cost free passage going to a sketchy gamble for super expensive equipment that now needs other super expensive equipment to not hit the markets.... but nothing makes sense anymore so whatever.
IamInternationalBig | a day ago
Iran sees three US aircraft carrier fleets coming towards them pretty soon. Then suddenly change their tune about the Strait being closed.
Little terrorist religious zealot bitches, time to hide in your caves.
ArchyWilson | a day ago
Sure buddy
Particular_Music_270 | a day ago
âTop 1% Commenterâ đ
IamInternationalBig | a day ago
Hey, while the rest of you suck up the Iranian propaganda with your weak and simple minds, I see through it.
Thatâs what makes me superior to you.
sgtbackpain03 | a day ago
> Thatâs what makes me superior to you.
Quiet everyone, a stable and rational genius has entered the chat.
IamInternationalBig | a day ago
You know it.
sgtbackpain03 | a day ago
The easiest way to find someone who hasn't dealt with their personal insecurities is to let them loudly tell other people how superior they are. Just thought you'd benefit from a little wisdom there, bud.
Empty-Interaction796 | a day ago
So it'll be over in..2 weeks?
Liquid_Sarcasm | a day ago
Chief, the US is dumping 700k gallons from our SPR daily and thanks to demands from trump, European nations are as well. Both are unsustainable artificial suppliers.
Lol at you thinking Iran is scared.
AlpineDrifter | a day ago
The U.S. is a net exporter by 75-105 million barrels per month. Itâs draining SPR to sell into a high market, while keeping volume available to the global market.
IamInternationalBig | a day ago
Iâm just spouting the facts.