Do what the Vikings did and carry the ships over land!
171
CreeanoCree1 day ago
+34
Or like Xerxes and dig yourself a literal canal to avoid the Mouth Athos peninsula 😂
34
FlyingRaccoon_4201 day ago
+11
Big a is that you?
11
Ckenty891 day ago
+4
Not the crossover I expected to see in here
4
omgArsenal1 day ago
+10
Glizzy hands confirmed?
10
PleasantWay71 day ago
+4
Or what Alexander did and invade Persia. Oh wait…
4
notnotbrowsing1 day ago
+2
It's only like 25 miles through Omar. That's only half the length of the panama canal.
2
jackleggjr1 day ago
+7
Vikings? Werner Herzog and Klaus Kinski carried a ship through the jungle and over a mountain!
7
descendingangel871 day ago
+3
Portage!
3
FilmFan1001 day ago
+1
USS Fitzcarroldo!
1
TinyRedGuy1 day ago
+104
The most ceased fire of all time
104
iamstephen11281 day ago
+19
No leader has ever ceased this much fire in all of history! This is truly unprecedented! Quick, give Trump the Nobel Peace Prize!
19
hoppertn23 hr ago
+2
Don’t worry, I just heard Trump say each of those ships carries 5 billion barrels of oil so crisis over.
2
foomachoo1 day ago
+59
It’s almost like opening and closing it every few hours (to make profits off of insider info on markets and polymarket) doesn’t work well.
Shipping companies need long term stability. They get an order to ship 1,000,000 tons of products from point A to B and may plan 1-4 weeks in advance.
How could any company make plans now? Let’s ship critical goods 2 weeks from now through that area? Just because it’s “open” now?
59
Amoral_Abe1 day ago
+11
It's more because both sides have a blockade in place and meeting the qualifications to pass both is very difficult.
11
milespoints21 hr ago
+2
I mean not many ships were passing before the US blockade so i am gonna blame this one mostly on Iranians
2
Unfair-Suggestion-3720 hr ago
+3
Blaming the side that didn't start the war?
3
milespoints19 hr ago
-4
In this case yes.
I don’t think it is controversial to say that Iranians closed the strait. Indeed, they admit they closed the strait. It was the main way in which they retaliated when attacked, and it was very successful
-4
[deleted]19 hr ago
-2
[deleted]
-2
foomachoo19 hr ago
+5
Wtf? Nope. Iran’s leaders were awful.
But our leaders have no real plans other than bomb and hope all the next steps go well?
The bad guys in Iran did even worse stuff due to our bad actions.
5
Bluefellow1 day ago
It's really just one side's qualifications that are difficult.
0
thefunkybassist1 day ago
+14
Can we already start digging that Kuwait - Red Sea channel and be done with it!
14
HarEr891 day ago
+6
The markets don't care.
6
Tdb71319 hr ago
+2
How is that possible, Trump said it was open? Oh wait, now he said it’s closed. Hold on, no it’s open. Wait, it’s closed? What a shit show.
2
Helpful-Aioli-788215 hr ago
+1
There was 6 tracked on IranWarRoom.
1
[deleted]1 day ago
-23
[deleted]
-23
Kind_Newspaper78711 day ago
+32
still far from the pre-war average of around 100 ships a day.
32
eknutilla1 day ago
+24
It's also less than 6
24
TerriblePair52391 day ago
+7
We’ve given insurers $40B to subsidize risk for international freight traffic through the strait.
That’s right, US taxpayers are subsidizing maritime insurance for foreign freighters. [source](https://www.dfc.gov/media/press-releases/dfc-chubb-announce-additional-american-reinsurance-partners-and-40b-coverage)
That $40B gets the world 5 freighters per day? Traffic in the strait before the war was roughly 130-140 per day.
7
ItsDarkAndHeckIsHot1 day ago
+22
*5 is less than 140, the amount that passed freely prior to the war
This is a bad take. The current administration banks on incredibly short-term perspectives like this. The basis of comparison is not zero ships— that only became the baseline after we started an unnecessary conflict.
22
fec22451 day ago
-13
That’s overstating it, a VLCC carries 2 million barrels, if we’re facing a 10 million bpd shortfall one VLCC does matter. On the other hand a small container ship isn’t going to have a meaningful impact so ship numbers don’t tell the whole story.
-13
idancenakedwithcrows1 day ago
+2
Well 10 million going through the strait also doesn’t solve a 10 million shortfall, no? Cuz the oil markets are all connected.
2
fec22451 day ago
-3
Huh, I didn’t say 10 million barrels went through the strait but if you were getting maybe 6 VLCCs out through the strait each day that would address the shortfall.
-3
DahDollar1 day ago
Correct, if we were back to the pre-war gulf daily crude oil shipments, it would make things much better. We would still have a 490m barrel shortfall and a 2-6 week air gap in oil arrivals. But you are right, if the material conditions of this conflict were different, the outcomes would be different.
0
fec224523 hr ago
+1
Bad analysis and not responsive to my point that ship count alone doesn't tell a whole story. Oil flow isn't x/140 × nominal flow where x is the number of ships.
1
DahDollar22 hr ago
+1
Weird valley shaped hill to die on
1
fec224522 hr ago
+1
I'm not dying, I made a simple point and every decided to get mad rather than read.
1
DahDollar22 hr ago
+1
Oh it's simple for sure.
Here's an example: Say that you have a benefactor that delivers you a cardboard box with a specified number of dollar bills of unknown varied denominations for you to use for expenses. Prior to March, it was labeled as having around 140 bills a month on average. Now, it is being labeled around 5. Your point is that the number of bills doesnt tell the full story because you can make your $500 rent if every bill is $100. Guess you won't be eating or paying utilities. Or paying rent because turns out all the bills weren't $100s
1
DahDollar1 day ago
That barrel per day (bpd) shortfall would need to be mitigated on the daily for it to have a big impact. If the strait had 2-3 VLCC transiting per day, it would make a big difference in mitigating the supply shock.
We have essentially 7 weeks of that 10 million bpd shortfall, which is around a 490 million barrels deficit. Not only will a few VLCC not make a significant impact on that deficit, but everyday we are under that 10M bpd figure means we are accruing more of a deficit. It's a bit like paying the minimum balance on your credit card. You made a payment but you are still in debt.
This is further undercut by the fact that of the 3 named vessels, the Niki is transporting chem/oil **products**, with roughly a 5th the capacity of a VLCC, another was a container ship, and the Helga, which is a VLCC, but is **entering** the strait to fill up in Basra, after which it will need to transit the strait again filled with 10 Exxon Valdez worth of oil. One of the biggest ecological disasters of our lifetime if it gets rocketed during transit through the strait.
After the standstill in the strait, the shipping air gap has already manifested and even if the strait opened today, it will take 2-6 weeks of no deliveries for new inventory to begin arriving at destinations. Likewise, even if some oil leaves the gulf, anything less than the pre-war average bdp through the strait only slows the rate at which the supply shock worsens, it cannot materially improve conditions until we start to chip away at the incurred deficit.
Further, shuttered crude production in the Gulf will take 2-3 months to restart and will only be restarted after the strait is open and storage has been significantly drained.
0
fec22451 day ago
+1
>If the strait had 2-3 VLCC transiting per day, it would make a big difference in mitigating the supply shock.
Did you write an essay to agree with me? My point was that ship count doesn't tell you that much, you don't need 140 ships/day to have a meaningful impact. I didn't say Problem Solved!
1
DahDollar23 hr ago
+1
Lmao no, not an essay and I'm pretty clearly not agreeing with you.
1
fec224523 hr ago
So you believe that ship count tells the entire story? Indefensible claim but ok
0
DahDollar22 hr ago
+1
Look at this discourse™. No, I just think it's dumb to be like "ship count doesn't tell the entire story" then invent a hypothetical where we could meet the pre-war bpd with 6 ships. It's just not a relevant point because it isn't happening, and you didn't even put in the work to see if it was relevant to this event.
It's 10M bpd of crude, and **everything else**. Just because you can *in theory* satisfy **one day** of pre-war shipping with 5-6 VLCC does not mean you can do it every day. Not only are there more than 5-6 ports that need oil, there is all of the other critical commodities that aren't moving through the strait. That's where that 140 ships per day comes from.
In fact, for the entire war, ship count has been a very good proxy for summarizing the conditions in the strait. You know why? Because, on average, you need 140 ships transiting the strait per day to satisfy the needs of the myriad industries that rely on shipping through the strait.
1
fec224522 hr ago
+1
I never claimed it was 6 VLCC. Maybe you should read before you write.
>Because, on average, you need 140 ships transiting the strait per day to satisfy the needs of the myriad industries that rely on shipping through the strait.
You're back to overstating your case. Obviously a good amount of marginal traffic has no real impact, some goods can be moved over land, some oil can bypass the strait in pipes etc.
1
DahDollar22 hr ago
+1
>Obviously a good amount of marginal traffic has no real impact
LMAO
1
_KryptonytE_1 day ago
-1
Lies. The VLC cones help control land traffic not the sea!!! Not to mention the actual VLC app is open-source and free.
[VLC](https://www.videolan.org/vlc/)
-1
Takis121 day ago
+1
Oh boy…I see you have studied math…well done
1
SquareAdvent1 day ago
-1
That's inf% increase in total Hormuz traffic since March
-1
MySubterraneanSelf1 day ago
-12
If Brooklyn was a recalcitrant country, I suppose you could easily close off Long Island Sound and New York Harbor too. There's not a lot of strategic diversions here. Geography is dictative.
-12
madogvelkor1 day ago
+2
Connecticut demands $1 million per yacht.
2
intelligent_redesign1 day ago
-19
Why don't they just pull the old "Trojan Horse?!" Make it look like a vulnerable tanker and each time a speed boat pulls up, military pops up from below deck and takes them out. After a couple of times, will make the IRGC pirates scared to do it anymore.
-19
Jewnadian1 day ago
+20
Mines don't care about your military dudes standing on deck. There is no easy solution to this problem. Which is why the US and the rest of the world has been staying the f*** out of it for the last 50+ years. Sometimes the answer is actually "Everyone else really is smarter than you and you're just sticking your d*** in crazy like an idiot.". Or to be more accurate, that's always the answer with Trump and sometimes the answer with most people.
20
intelligent_redesign1 day ago
-9
Got it, Trojan Horse with a minesweeper out in front!
54 Comments