Dalal.Holdings Posted March 13 Posted March 13 (edited) 13 hours ago, yesman182 said: seems like you were rather bearish earlier in the year. Thanks for posting that you invested. When you turned bullish oil and gas did you turn bearish on something else? I became more-so bearish on anything energy intensive in Europe outside of European defense firms. I think European industry has taken a lot of hits and if energy prices stay elevated, it will be another crushing blow. The responsibility of that will fall on European leaders and the people who elected them to power. I sold out of some German Mittelstand firms that traditionally supplied the auto sector and were cheap but have gone nowhere as German GDP stagnates. I think that EQNR is an interesting way to play the catastrophic errors of European leaders, but I have held off on buying it as I think EU/UK will retaliate against Norway if its sovereign wealth fund gets too big and demand windfall reparations or some other b.s. tactic…I think U.S. O&G (outside California) is probably the safest way to invest in oil Edited March 13 by Dalal.Holdings
Dalal.Holdings Posted March 13 Posted March 13 It is actually quite shocking how brazen Iran has been in attacking the gulf states—oil infrastructure and even civilian buildings. They have defied even their friend China in continuing these indiscriminate attacks. I have also become aware of something I also did not expect: it seems the U.S. Navy is highly hesitant in sending its vessels into the Strait or Persian Gulf. I think they think a ship inside would basically amount to a turkey shoot for Iran. I think it’s laughable now to believe that the French will send their ships in. And the U.S. Navy has denied requests by vessels to escort them. Trump has also for the first time said he care more about something other than oil prices — removing the nuclear threat from Iran. In my mind, that bodes for a prolonged conflict. The Iranian regime knows that the Strait/Gulf is its key leverage point on Trump—their best way of putting pressure on Trump. And it seems they are motivated to use it…
yesman182 Posted March 13 Posted March 13 20 minutes ago, Dalal.Holdings said: It is actually quite shocking how brazen Iran has been in attacking the gulf states—oil infrastructure and even civilian buildings. They have defied even their friend China in continuing these indiscriminate attacks. I have also become aware of something I also did not expect: it seems the U.S. Navy is highly hesitant in sending its vessels into the Strait or Persian Gulf. I think they think a ship inside would basically amount to a turkey shoot for Iran. I think it’s laughable now to believe that the French will send their ships in. And the U.S. Navy has denied requests by vessels to escort them. Trump has also for the first time said he care more about something other than oil prices — removing the nuclear threat from Iran. In my mind, that bodes for a prolonged conflict. The Iranian regime knows that the Strait/Gulf is its key leverage point on Trump—their best way of putting pressure on Trump. And it seems they are motivated to use it… Lets say Iran mines/attacks a VLCC and all the crude goes into the gulf. How does Iran's water desalination plant deal with that? Seems like an attack near Iran's water supply would be not good for them.
Dalal.Holdings Posted March 13 Posted March 13 1 minute ago, yesman182 said: Lets say Iran mines/attacks a VLCC and all the crude goes into the gulf. How does Iran's water desalination plant deal with that? Seems like an attack near Iran's water supply would be not good for them. I’m not sure a bit of oil in the Gulf will contaminate all the water there—it is after all ocean water. I think the attacks on non moving targets are easier and more likely. The Shahed drone has its target preprogrammed so it is not used against moving targets. They do have other weapons to target ships. IMO the scariest thing is that they attack fixed energy infrastructure—and they have already attacked refineries, storage tanks, etc. I think the Saudis have warned them that they will enter the war if attacked, but still a possibility Iran takes aim at the Saudi East-West pipeline (moving 7M barrels/day to the Red Sea to bypass the Strait) and other fixed energy infrastructure. If the East-West pipeline is attacked on top of Strait disruptions, it would be a big hit to global oil supply…
ratiman Posted March 13 Posted March 13 Let's say that the resolution of this conflict is that Iran imposes a $5/barrel SOH transit fee. Wouldn't that make US oil more competitive? This war might actually be good for US oil.
Marco Van Basten Posted March 13 Posted March 13 1 hour ago, Dalal.Holdings said: I’m not sure a bit of oil in the Gulf will contaminate all the water there—it is after all ocean water. I think the attacks on non moving targets are easier and more likely. The Shahed drone has its target preprogrammed so it is not used against moving targets. They do have other weapons to target ships. IMO the scariest thing is that they attack fixed energy infrastructure—and they have already attacked refineries, storage tanks, etc. I think the Saudis have warned them that they will enter the war if attacked, but still a possibility Iran takes aim at the Saudi East-West pipeline (moving 7M barrels/day to the Red Sea to bypass the Strait) and other fixed energy infrastructure. If the East-West pipeline is attacked on top of Strait disruptions, it would be a big hit to global oil supply… That could be suicidal for the Teheran regime, because in retaliation Kharg island gets hit, and Iranian GDP goes down 50%.
Dalal.Holdings Posted March 13 Posted March 13 (edited) 2 hours ago, ratiman said: Let's say that the resolution of this conflict is that Iran imposes a $5/barrel SOH transit fee. Wouldn't that make US oil more competitive? This war might actually be good for US oil. How exactly would that be enforced? They erect a tollbooth across the Strait? Ain't gonna happen. More likely is attacks continue. U.S. oil will gain market share at the expense of middle eastern oil as long as this continues... 42 minutes ago, Marco Van Basten said: That could be suicidal for the Teheran regime, because in retaliation Kharg island gets hit, and Iranian GDP goes down 50%. At this point, Tehran regime is in an existential crisis -- literally fighting for their lives. Many in the regime have lost their lives and are hiding from air strikes. There is already a water crisis, inflation crisis, and general economic crisis due to sanctions that the regime has caused. If push comes to shove, I don't think they care much about Iranian GDP going down further if they can cause pain to Trump and create a situation where Trump rethinks U.S. involvement in this. And more Re: Kharg Island: Iran is shipping more crude now than before the war. The U.S. is allowing Iranian (and Russian) exports because the U.S. wants to contain the rise in oil prices. If Kharg island is taken out, what does that do to oil prices? Will send them even higher. So I think the policy of the U.S. will be to be hands off Kharg Island and Iranian oil production -- they've even asked Israel to stop bombing Iranian oil infrastructure Edited March 13 by Dalal.Holdings
RichardGibbons Posted March 13 Posted March 13 3 hours ago, ratiman said: Let's say that the resolution of this conflict is that Iran imposes a $5/barrel SOH transit fee. Wouldn't that make US oil more competitive? This war might actually be good for US oil. I think there's no doubt that this is good for US oil. Pretty well any time the price of a commodity product you have available to sell skyrockets, it's good for you.
Spekulatius Posted March 14 Posted March 14 (edited) 21 hours ago, Dalal.Holdings said: It is actually quite shocking how brazen Iran has been in attacking the gulf states—oil infrastructure and even civilian buildings. They have defied even their friend China in continuing these indiscriminate attacks. I have also become aware of something I also did not expect: it seems the U.S. Navy is highly hesitant in sending its vessels into the Strait or Persian Gulf. I think they think a ship inside would basically amount to a turkey shoot for Iran. I think it’s laughable now to believe that the French will send their ships in. And the U.S. Navy has denied requests by vessels to escort them. Trump has also for the first time said he care more about something other than oil prices — removing the nuclear threat from Iran. In my mind, that bodes for a prolonged conflict. The Iranian regime knows that the Strait/Gulf is its key leverage point on Trump—their best way of putting pressure on Trump. And it seems they are motivated to use it… Yes, I think this is the correct assessment. Getting ships very close to the Iranian coast which is necessary to protect merchant ships there will make them vulnerable to attacks. On the other hand, the straight of Hormuz needs to be opened or the war will be lost politically. Edited March 14 by Spekulatius
frommi Posted March 14 Posted March 14 11 hours ago, Dalal.Holdings said: And more Re: Kharg Island: Iran is shipping more crude now than before the war. The U.S. is allowing Iranian (and Russian) exports because the U.S. wants to contain the rise in oil prices. If Kharg island is taken out, what does that do to oil prices? Will send them even higher. So I think the policy of the U.S. will be to be hands off Kharg Island and Iranian oil production -- they've even asked Israel to stop bombing Iranian oil infrastructure Since they already bombed it and taken out all military defense, the next logical step is to take over Kharg island with the marines that are on their way. Than the US will probably try to use that as leverage in talks.
Dalal.Holdings Posted March 14 Posted March 14 6 hours ago, frommi said: Since they already bombed it and taken out all military defense, the next logical step is to take over Kharg island with the marines that are on their way. Than the US will probably try to use that as leverage in talks. Any disruption to Iranian oil exports would send oil prices even higher and probably trigger Iran to attack oil infrastructure even harder across the gulf. It would be a spiraling escalation that would send oil prices soaring and would hurt Trump the most…
frommi Posted March 14 Posted March 14 (edited) Yes and its in full action mode already. I dont see the off-ramp for this anymore. Iran's leadership is with the back to the wall and they will do anything now to increase oil prices until Trump surrenders, which he will not do. In fact i think this attack was a huge mistake and played directly into the cards of Iran's leadership. Edited March 14 by frommi
Spekulatius Posted March 14 Posted March 14 1 hour ago, Dalal.Holdings said: Any disruption to Iranian oil exports would send oil prices even higher and probably trigger Iran to attack oil infrastructure even harder across the gulf. It would be a spiraling escalation that would send oil prices soaring and would hurt Trump the most… Iranians oil export are already disrupted , nothing goes out. The Iranians best chance to exert leverage is make sure that anyone else can’t export oil and LNG either through the straight of Hormuz.
Dalal.Holdings Posted March 14 Posted March 14 (edited) 1 hour ago, Spekulatius said: Iranians oil export are already disrupted , nothing goes out. The Iranians best chance to exert leverage is make sure that anyone else can’t export oil and LNG either through the straight of Hormuz. As of a few days ago, Iranian exports were higher than before the war: https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/irans-control-of-hormuz-means-its-exporting-more-oil-today-than-before-the-war-ede3cd91 Quote Iran is exporting more oil through the Strait of Hormuz than before the war, showing it is in control of a strategic waterway that it has closed off to the rest of the region’s oil producers. As Gulf Arab oil producers from Saudi Arabia to Iraq cut production and scramble for new routes that bypass the strait, Iran is conducting business as usual, according to data from tanker-tracking firm Kpler, throwing a financial lifeline to Tehran as it comes under blistering attack from the U.S. and Israel. The U.S. (with its armada in the Arabian Sea) could do something about this, but clearly have chosen not to. They even told Israel to stop bombing Iranian oil facilities. I think the U.S. does not want to disrupt Iranian exports because they know what will happen to oil prices. The fact that they only struck *military targets* on Kharg Island without hitting oil infrastructure and on Friday night after markets closed tells you they are sensitive to hitting Iranian oil exports because they know what it would do to oil prices. Quote President Donald Trump said military facilities on the Persian Gulf island had been “obliterated,” adding that he chose not to hit oil infrastructure “for reasons of decency.” He threatened to do just that should Iran “do anything to interfere with the Free and Safe Passage of Ships through the Strait of Hormuz.” https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-03-14/iran-repeats-retaliation-threat-as-us-hits-kharg-island-military I don't think "decency" had anything to do with Trump not hitting oil facilities on Kharg. It's in his own self interest to keep Iranian crude flowing... Edited March 14 by Dalal.Holdings
SharperDingaan Posted March 14 Posted March 14 All that crude leaving Kharg Island by tanker .... also leaves the Arabian Sea without incident, before passing into the Indian Ocean. No seizures ... yet there are so many US ships there .... it is like flies on sh1te Simple matter to change cargo ownership to Chinese and Russian, and to use the Russian shadow fleet. Drones in, crude out, wave at the pretty sailors as you sail by A draw. SD
Blake Hampton Posted March 15 Posted March 15 I would like to say again that The Economist is the best publication I read. The situation with Hormuz seems really bad: The Economist: Can America clear the Strait of Hormuz of Iran’s drones and mines? The Economist: Donald Trump’s options to cool oil prices are sorely limited
SharperDingaan Posted March 15 Posted March 15 (edited) Most would expect crude to again be > USD 100/bbl this week. https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/oil-market-set-tumultuous-week-100738952.html There is no reason to help the US until they drop tariffs. To date, to mitigate the adverse economic effects; sanctions have been removed from Russian oil, and the largest SPR release in history approved .... yet the US is still imposing tariffs on its friends, and turning away help 'cause 'we've already 'won'. Crude continues to flow out to a China and there is no reason for them to send ships or help 'pay' for the security; it is only different for everyone else, who are allowing US bases on their soil to be used. There are simple solutions ... but zero incentive to engage them, until tariffs are gone Much better, if the SOH remains closed another week There is also no need for an Iran to use western bank rails, or settle in USD. China's banking system is quite capable, and has also handled most Russian trade/settlement for quite some time. Petroyuan recycling can readily parallel/replace Petrodollar recycling. The US is pissed 'cause they've been shown to be incompetent, have no plan, and friends are backing away. All that shock and awe; yet Iranian missiles continue to fly, and it is Iranian efforts that are allowing trickles of crude past the SOH. Bombing isn't doing anything but dig the hole deeper. Have to think there's a new US Secretary Defense within the new few weeks. SD Edited March 15 by SharperDingaan
Spekulatius Posted March 15 Posted March 15 On 3/14/2026 at 10:02 AM, Dalal.Holdings said: As of a few days ago, Iranian exports were higher than before the war: https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/irans-control-of-hormuz-means-its-exporting-more-oil-today-than-before-the-war-ede3cd91 The U.S. (with its armada in the Arabian Sea) could do something about this, but clearly have chosen not to. They even told Israel to stop bombing Iranian oil facilities. I think the U.S. does not want to disrupt Iranian exports because they know what will happen to oil prices. The fact that they only struck *military targets* on Kharg Island without hitting oil infrastructure and on Friday night after markets closed tells you they are sensitive to hitting Iranian oil exports because they know what it would do to oil prices. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-03-14/iran-repeats-retaliation-threat-as-us-hits-kharg-island-military I don't think "decency" had anything to do with Trump not hitting oil facilities on Kharg. It's in his own self interest to keep Iranian crude flowing... You are correct about Iranian oil export still occurring and it’s not because we can’t stop them. i do think they will stop soon, especially with Kharg island being occupied. This will further pressure crude prices upwards.
Dalal.Holdings Posted March 16 Posted March 16 2 hours ago, Spekulatius said: You are correct about Iranian oil export still occurring and it’s not because we can’t stop them. i do think they will stop soon, especially with Kharg island being occupied. This will further pressure crude prices upwards. Kharg is not occupied--I think it was just air strikes. I don't think the U.S. wants to attack or impede Iran's 1M barrels or so a day, not while the rest of the strait is boxed out. It would send oil prices sky high. In fact, it sounds like Trump and Iran are in some kind of Mexican standoff: if he attacks Iran's oil output, the regime has threatened it will go ballistic on oil infrastructure across the Gulf: https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/us-israel-iran-war-news-2026/card/iran-warned-that-attacks-on-kharg-island-would-be-a-red-line-6g09J9AvPJpSB1duorLG Quote Iran has warned Persian Gulf states that an attack on Kharg Island would be a red line, leading to a wave of attacks on the energy infrastructure of its oil-rich Arab neighbors. That is why the U.S. attacks on Kharg on Friday, while potentially striking a blow to Iran’s ability to export oil, could also trigger further escalation of the conflict. As I said before, this would be the ultimate squeeze up in oil price scenario and something I think Trump wants to avoid.
Pelagic Posted March 17 Posted March 17 On 3/15/2026 at 1:20 PM, Blake Hampton said: I would like to say again that The Economist is the best publication I read. The situation with Hormuz seems really bad: The Economist: Can America clear the Strait of Hormuz of Iran’s drones and mines? The Economist article probably understates the difficulty involved. During the Red Sea crisis a lot of the Houthis' success actually sinking ships didn't come from utilizing drones, purpose built USVs, or missiles against shipping, it came from loading ordinary looking fishing boats with explosives and pointing them at passing commercial vessels. They were even putting mannequins in the fishing boats to delay the reaction by security forces aboard those vessels. Given Iran's more conventional options whether it gets to the point of using similar tactics who knows, but they were certainly watching how effective the Houthis were with them and it is a way the Iranian regime can prolong the conflict.
Pelagic Posted March 17 Posted March 17 This adds some color to my post above. The Straits present even more of a challenge than the Red Sea and in the case of the Red Sea it was bypass-able with the main loser being Egypt. Likeliest scenario is Iran implements a toll where nations friendly to it, India and China, get their vessels through for a fee which helps fund the IRGC and keeps oil prices elevated but not astronomical like some are predicting. We saw the Houthis do basically this where they were charging a couple $100k for safe passage at one point.
Xerxes Posted March 17 Posted March 17 (edited) On 3/13/2026 at 10:37 AM, Dalal.Holdings said: The Iranian regime knows that the Strait/Gulf is its key leverage point on Trump—their best way of putting pressure on Trump. And it seems they are motivated to use it… Hormuz is critical. Don’t just look at the map how big it is. There is only 2 miles width of that entire Straight of Hormuz that can be used for large ships in and out. So you cannot really station static warship 24/7. The crew will go nuts keeping an eye on everything. There was that case few years back of that ship in Suez Canal that blocked the Canal. This can happen in the Straight of Hormuz if a cargo ship is lost or damaged that blocks of a big portion of the usable 2-mile of the straight . Edited March 17 by Xerxes
Xerxes Posted March 17 Posted March 17 In the last few interviews John Bolton keeps pointing at complete lack of preparing for this Hormuz scenario. Now i don’t know how much of that is Bolton not liking Trump and much how is a correct assessment. Bolton did also mentioned “military men” not taking that scenario into consideration. Perhaps with Homelander rechristening DoD as DoW; something went out with that name change. i.e. go fast and break things; warriors don’t do contingency; F Around & Find Out
UK Posted March 17 Posted March 17 18 minutes ago, Xerxes said: In the last few interviews John Bolton keeps pointing at complete lack of preparing for this Hormuz scenario. Now i don’t know how much of that is Bolton not liking Trump and much how is a correct assessment. Bolton did also mentioned “military men” not taking that scenario into consideration. Perhaps with Homelander rechristening DoD as DoW; something went out with that name change. i.e. go fast and break things; warriors don’t do contingency; F Around & Find Out If you don't know what you are doing the enemies won't know what you are doing
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now