Houthi rebels in neighboring Yemen claimed responsibility for a Coordinated Drone Strike Shutting Down About Half of Saudi Arabia’s Oil Output.
A coordinated drone strike hit at the heart of Saudi oil production on Saturday, sparking an enormous blaze and forcing the kingdom to shut down about half of its crude output, according to people familiar with matter.
The Saudi production shutdown amounts to a loss of about five million barrels a day, the people said, roughly 5% of the world’s daily production of crude oil. The kingdom produces 9.8 million barrels a day.
This attack appeared to be the most effective, starting large fires at Hijra Khurais, one of Saudi Arabia’s largest oil fields, and at Abqaiq, the world’s biggest crude stabilization facility. Khurais produces 1.5 million barrels a day while Abqaiq helps produce up to 7 million barrels a day.
A Houthi spokesman said the attack involved 10 drones. Published images of the fire at the Abqaiq facility showed what appeared to be a huge blaze along with plumes of smoke.
“We promise the Saudi regime that our future operations will expand and be more painful as long as its aggression and siege continue,” the spokesman said.
The Houthis took control of Yemen’s capital, San’a, in 2014 during a civil war. Since then, a Saudi-led coalition has fought a war to unseat the Houthis and reinstate a government supported by Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and other regional powers.
Oil Prices
Oil futures will jump as soon as they open trading tomorrow evening.
Roots of the Conflict – Yemen Civil War
The war between Yemen and Saudi Arabia has its roots in a Yemeni Civil War that started in 2015 and is still ongoing.
The conflict is between two factions: the Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi led Yemeni government and the Houthi armed movement, along with their supporters and allies. Both claim to constitute the official government of Yemen.
The Houthi overthrew the Hadi government in 2015 and Hadi fled the country.
The Hadi government is also in conflict with UAE forces as a result of UAE military measures such as the United Arab Emirates takeover of Socotra and UAE-backed STC takeover of Aden.
Yemini Civil War Map
Famine, US Involvement
Saudi Arabia wants to restore the prior government and the US meddles by giving Saudi Arabia bombs, other weapons and logistical support.
According to the UN and other sources, from March 2015 to December 2017, between 8,670–13,600 people were killed in Yemen, including more than 5,200 civilians, as well as estimates of more than 50,000 dead as a result of an ongoing famine due to the war.
The conflict has been widely seen as an extension of the Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict and as a means to combat Iranian influence in the region. In 2018, the United Nations warned that 13 million Yemeni civilians face starvation in what it says could become “the worst famine in the world in 100 years.”
The international community has sharply condemned the Saudi Arabian-led bombing campaign, which has included widespread bombing of civilian areas. The bombing campaign has killed or injured an estimated 17,729 civilians as of March 2019 according to the Yemen Data Project. Despite this, the crisis has only recently begun to gain as much international media attention as the Syrian Civil War.
The US has been providing bombs to aid the Saudi forces and airstrikes in Yemen. In March 2019, this has led the United States Senate to pass a resolution to end US support of Saudi Arabia. It has since been vetoed by President of the United States Donald Trump, and in May, the Senate failed to override the veto.
Yemini Civil War Images
Accusations
The US blames Iran and Iran denies they are a part.
Regardless, this is not our battle.
It’s not even clear which side the US should be on if the US was somehow forced to take sides.
All the US has accomplished is to prolong the war. 13 million Yemeni civilians face starvation.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
As long as wagner keeps making sensible replies, even if they disagree with me, he is welcome.
Thanks Mish. You are welcome to post here as well as long you are posting sensible content! Even, if I may disagree with it.
The alternative media has been reporting covert drone strikes into Yemen since early 2010. These were not military, but CIA operations and most of the casualties have been civilians. US supply of armament and surveillance information to Saudi Arabia is only part of the story.
There is a lot more background to the Yemeni war (North and South Yemen were separate countries, and putting them together was an obvious mistake). There are tribal, historical, ideological, and religious roots to rivalries between regions and various groups. It was a disaster for Saudi and the gulf States to wrangle these countries into their sphere of influence.
US and UK involvement should be highly embarassing, and there is far more reason for us to hear about the terrible war in Yemen everyday than all the propaganda about Assad. Pompeo will not show any proof of his allegations. Attacking Iran would be as crazy as bombing Serbia or England because weapons they made were found in Syria, and they have been therefore been in cahoots with the US and its partner Al-Qaeda.
Saudi Arabia will respond.
They have a fairly robust airforce with modern weapons systems – especially when compared to the Iranians.
So a full Saudi – Iran Air War is a good possibility.
The question to really ask is – Are we OK with these countries bombing each other and their respective oil infrastructures or should we prevent that?
“Regardless, this is not our battle.”
What chance this will tip over into a market sell-off as consumers might get hit by higher prices at the pump or just the realisation there are simple choke points anyone could hit?
EV’s – price needs to fall, range increase. Not viable to make a big dent for quite a few years. Consumer demands don’t yet align with the capability of an exceptably priced EV.
EV prices need to fall and range increase?
Yes, there are a lot of compliance EVs made by legacy automakers that are handicapped in range or totally unaffordable. Kinda like to make EVs appear to masses as inferior choice.
But, have you talked with anyone who owns Tesla Model 3? Starts at $38K and can go 310 miles on a single charge (the $48K configuration).
Try a late night, after donut shop closing, run from LA to Mammoth on a Friday midwinter in your Model 3. With a ski rack on the roof. See how far you get if you drive to maximize sleep available before hitting the slopes in the morning…..
That’s what cars are for. For anything closer and warmer, motorcycles make infinitely more sense. Even in cities, Uber/Bird/Cabs/Bart/Scooters/Bikes(pedal, E, or motor-) are more efficient than any personal car. But you need the car for when you leave the city. Noone half sentient is going to buy a car with “worst case” range of barely over 100 miles (The Model 3 in above scenario: Climb up a mountain, 0 degrees F, 100+mph, strong headwind.)
For guys who have another car, and are not city dwellers, but rather suburbanites commuting into the city, BEVs do make all kinds of sense in many US cities. Not as much as motorcycles, but then again only the most evolved of animals are able to balance on two rather than four…. Not having to stop by gas stations, ever, nor really charging stations, due to having a charger at home and/or work, is a great boon in and of itself. But the BEV is still more of a substitute for poor public transportation alternatives, retarded zoning and land use laws, and poor balance, than for a “real” car.
Already tried that. Last winter season had few trips from San Francisco to Dodge Ski Resort. The skis were in the car’s salon though, because Model 3 at that time did not have official roof rack released. I simply had to lower the 40% of the rear seat and all equipment fitted easily. No range problems whatsoever. And the irony with EVs is that I can easily drive 400 miles on a single charge if I have to drive slow like in city or mountains.
And, besides Model 3 I also own a DIY electric bicycle (1.5KW peak power motor) that I still occasionally use. I like it because I get exercise and can avoid going to gym. However, I don’t feel like using my electric bike on sun scorching days or when it rains. And besides few freaks that ride their bicycles in any weather (I salute to them), I think majority of population still will need transportation with roof. I offered a lot of my friends that I can build an ebike for them but they are very hesitant.
And I am not sure from where you got the “worst case” range of over 100 miles. We are talking about Tesla Model 3 here. Not some BMW i3 or other “compliance vehicle” from legacy manufacturers. The worst I got was 250 miles on single charge when it was freezing and I was going highway speeds in Canada.
“And I am not sure from where you got the “worst case” range of over 100 miles.”
From riding in (perhaps driving….) one. Just as described. Unless Tesla sells much bigger battery versions of the 3 than the one I was in, getting 400 miles from it, anywhere, would require something like all downhill, 35mph the whole way. 250 on a flat Canadian highway at steady speeds, is believable. You use 2 1/2 times the power to go 100, compared to 65. But you sure have to jerryrig your route though the Canadian backwoods, to ensure a charging station is within reach, should you face a nasty headwind.
Are you sure it was Tesla and not Nissan Leaf or some other compliance EV?
There are plenty of youtube videos where Tesla owners have continuously recorded their roadtrips so that “flat earthers” of EV world could not claim that Tesla Model 3 LR can drive only 100 miles on single charge. They have left their videos unedited. Recommend to watch.
And, yes, there is Tesla Model 3 with only 240 miles of rated range. There was one with 220 miles of rated range. But even with those you would get 150miles in harshest conditions.
And agreeably driving 100mph at freezing temperatures while going uphill is the worst case scenario for EV range. But that is also the suicidal scenario.
As long as wagner keeps making sensible replies, even if they disagree with me, he is welcome.
No conspiracy theories? Most of Big Oil needs Oil to be at $80/barrel….perhaps a conspiracy theory to get the price of oil to get over $100 per barrel…just saying
The Venezuelans did it! It was Maduro! They sure do need higher oil prices more than anyone…. 🙂
Ten drones with pedestrian technology just shook the world and media outlets are largely oblivious; They won’t be come Monday morning.
We’re decades away from a viable alternative to oil if we started today, and we won’t.
It’s almost laughable that anyone thinks wind and solar are more than a massively subsidized plaything, and hydrogen is one of the most tightly bound molecules in nature. Breaking it free and into a combustible form is a net energy consuming exercise.
Nuclear is the only viable way forward, but the new Earth worship religion proscribes it’s use. Interesting times, and they just became dramatically more interesting.
Stand by for a frenzy of finger pointing and blame casting as a solution for this new crisis.
“Nuclear is the only viable way forward, but the new Earth worship religion proscribes it’s use. Interesting times, and they just became dramatically more interesting.”
I wouldn’t say “the only one” but it should be in the mix.
Now you can hardly blame no-nuclear to the “Earth worship religion”. I don’t know of any city that wants a nuclear plant next to their city. I don’t blame them either considering the way we have always talk about “nuclear” since well WWIII. Also, nuclear plants as they were design are not cost effective when compared to just about anything. Having said that, I think there is hope with advances in nuclear reactor designs. I particularlly like the work being done by Nuscale with their small reactors since they look less menacing and may start moving public opinion in the right direction
Actually, according to the IEA, there is about B$500 worth of global fossil fuel subsidy, versus about B$120 for renewables. According to the World Bank, total subsidies (including tax facilities and health costs) for fossil fuel amounts to about Tr$5 annually on a global basis. These are not left-wing institutions.
The last PV project to be started in California has levelized costs of less than 50% of the next cheapest (natural gas plants). Wind energy is winning more and more support from utilities because it is cheaper. Solar and wind are technologies. They are getting cheaper at an exponential pace, and adoption has been increasingly exponential, far surpassing analysts’ estimates only a few years ago.
Not an expensive plaything, but the future. The cost argument is bogus.
“Actually, according to the IEA, there is about B$500 worth of global fossil fuel subsidy, versus about B$120 for renewables. According to the World Bank, total subsidies (including tax facilities and health costs) for fossil fuel amounts to about Tr$5 annually on a global basis. These are not left-wing institutions.”
IEA and World Bank are both progressive stooges. And, even if they were not, they would forever be doomed to pulling arbitrary numbers out of their rears.
Noone knows how to calculate “the global fossil fuel subsidy.” As there is no there, there. Just arbitrary definitions, picked to make some harebrained case appear stronger than if another definition was picked.
Like the entirety of progressivism, it’s all just pathetic makework for dumbeffs. Intended to make themselves appear useful for something (which they are not, not at all), as well as to sucker those even dumber and more naive than themselves, into falling for yet another progressive scam, aimed at nothing more than empowering dumb progressives. To the detriment of productive, useful people.
the ONLY problem on this beautiful, yet deteriorating beyond control planet is the fact that we are a insane 8bln and ruthlessly ticking, Sapiens apes…..THAT is the problem, the ONLY one !
Great post.
And why wasn’t the USA offering protection of this important resource?
Because the US needs higher oil prices even more badly than the Saudis do. US frackers are ALL operating at a loss and have been for years. Time is running out, they have junk bonds to re-finance.
If gasoline price goes even higher at pump, then everyone will simply start to buy EVs. Savings are there.
But yes, frackers are screwed either way unless Trump bails them out directly.
They were not????????
What the heck do you reckon the annual billions stolen from Americans for the Sauds’ benefit are for?
Put another way, the poorest nation on Earth defeats the US military…but that’s nothing to brag abt because when’s the last time America won a war? Hey Trump, how’d that war on Iran werkin out fer ya?
It’s sad what is going on in Yemen. The USA mainstream media features very little on this conflict. Whatever foolishness Trump said today or who is leading in the Dem presidential choice race is always far more important. Sheese.
The BBC world news does offer some coverage now and then. This was a good book about the country and the start of this war that I read recently:
The Fox Hunt
A Refugee’s Memoir of Coming to America
by Mohammed Al Samawi
Can we finally talk about electric cars and how they would help with energy independence (i.e. take away money from bullies)?
You still have to make the electricity somehow. Wind and sun can’t meet the full demands of the USA alone.
I still favor hydrogen fuel cells as what we should be using.
FCEV vs BEV battle is already over. FCEVs are subsidized way more than BEVs (check terms for California Vehicle Rebate Program that were lobbied by Toyota and Honda). Yet, no one still wants to buy FCEVs, because you
And, yes, I prefer that my money rather goes to domestic coal miners/power plants than some bullying oil exporting country.
Coal is dead time to get over it. Think nuclear
Yeah ok, AOC. What a great trade off. Idiot.
Sure calling me idiot is going to revive the coal industry as much as trump has done. But heck whatever
Electric cars and trucks are coming. It will take a few more years before they take off with the consumers and the technology needs to improve a bit but it will happen. Patience my friend.
Until tanks, warplanes and drones are more efficiently powered by batteries than petrofuels, all reducing demand for oil by San Francisco drivers accomplish, is to make it cheaper for guerillas to keep on guerillaing.
Oil is a valuable commodity, no matter what a gaggle of naive Pollyannas in the west may “feel” about it. Hence, people will fight over it, and use it to, among other things, fight. You can nuke the entire West back to the stone age, and people will continue to fight over Arabian oil.
The only way to end that, is to literally make sure oil is no longer valuable: By coming up with a cheaper-than-petrofuel replacement for ALL of oil’s uses. Including, most importantly of all, military ones. I’m still waiting for those fighter bombers to replace their massively polluting afterburner engines with batteries charged by photovoltaics on their wings. And I suspect I’ll be waiting for a long, long time. Ditto African guerillas charging their beat up HiLux’ at “high speed chargers” in the middle of Congolese warzones…….
Throw enough subsidies at its production, and H2 “could,” in principle at least, render oil irrelevant. That “enough” is a big, big number, though….
A political, obsessive and mind boggling STUPIDITY that s what EVs are ! A green lobby imposed hype, creating billionaires for a while, to disappear into oblivion when it turns out it is even more planet destructive than the traditional forms of energy…..The nuclear option might be the only way forward for a more sustainable future…
Nuclear loves EVs. Coals love EVs. Renewables love EVs. NatGas loves EVs.
Only oil does not love EVs.
So your caveman conclusion “Nuclear power is good. EVs are stupid” is self-contradictory.
Battery production is awfully polluting to start with and EVs are indeed stupid without NP; wind monsters and ugly solar deserts won t do the job….
The only thing that is awfully polluting is you posting these nonsense comments that keep reviving the old, disproved myth that EVs are polluting more than ICE cars.
Just watch this one if you want canonical answer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RhtiPefVzM
….statistics are great, you can prove ANYTHING with them…I rest my case though…