Persian Gulf & Middle East Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Tanker engaged by Iranian vessels liable for $300mn in damages to oil rig


Iranian naval ships (Reuters/Jamejamonline/Ebrahim Norouzi)

A Singapore-flagged tanker which, owner claims, came under Iranian navy fire in the international waters off the UAE this week, is wanted over the unsettled $300mn debt in damages it caused to an oil rig in late March, according to Iranian official.
So...now it's $300 million?

Seriously?

The tanker was said last week to have "bumped," the Platform almost two months ago.

For $300 million, they could come close to building an entirely new, very nice platform. And if it did that much extensive damage to the platform, the impact to the tanker itself should have been extreme as well.

Yet the vessel sailed away and no huge fuss was made until last weak when iran attempted to halt the vessel in international waters.

I'd be interested in seeing filings by Iran...posted/published prior to last week...indicating the specifics of the $300 million in damages.

Color me extremely skeptical.
 

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
So...now it's $300 million?

Seriously?

The tanker was said last week to have "bumped," the Platform almost two months ago.

For $300 million, they could come close to building an entirely new, very nice platform. And if it did that much extensive damage to the platform, the impact to the tanker itself should have been extreme as well.

Yet the vessel sailed away and no huge fuss was made until last weak when iran attempted to halt the vessel in international waters.

I'd be interested in seeing filings by Iran...posted/published prior to last week...indicating the specifics of the $300 million in damages.

Color me extremely skeptical.

There are a number of things and devices that are built to withstand an impact, but only once and should not be used again afterwards.
I cannot say I have a problem adding Oil and Gas Drilling Platforms to that list, especially in the wake of the BP Gulf of Mexico debacle.

The engineers report would be helpful, I agree.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
There are a number of things and devices that are built to withstand an impact, but only once and should not be used again afterwards.

I cannot say I have a problem adding Oil and Gas Drilling Platforms to that list, especially in the wake of the BP Gulf of Mexico debacle.
If there were anything even remotely comparable to the BP Platform destruction in the Gulf of Mexico, we would have known about it the instant it happened and in the hours thereafter.

But there wasn't and there isn't.

I believe it is pretty clear that this is a high ball claim after the fact to justify what they tried to do in apprehending the vessel.

As I said, pointing to evidence, prior to this new announcement, that there was ever anything even remotely close to this type of figure is what should have happened.

But it didn't.

As it is...I believe the event is over and done with.

Iran tried to apprehend the vessel and the vessel simply sailed into Bahrain waters. Several nation's military are not on alert and prepped for this type of thing in the future so I expect it will cool down significantly now. At least I hope that is the case,
 

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
If there were anything even remotely comparable to the BP Platform destruction in the Gulf of Mexico, we would have known about it the instant it happened and in the hours thereafter.,

Not quite Jeff, and as a man with an Engineering background, I am sure you understand why.

For those not sure what I am talking about, I will try and explain.
If you want to compare a Marine Oil and Gas platform to another structure, you would have to choose a bell. When a platform is buffeted by weather, it rings.
Fortunately, there are dampening features built into the structure of the platform which reduce the ability of the buffeting to be transmitted to the heart of the structure.

Sadly, the weight, inertia and momentum of a laden Super Tanker means that even a glancing blow will send tremendous force to the heart of the structure and that no dampening is going to give adequate protection.

The heart of the structure is of course
1) The Drill Rig itself, which is already heavily loaded with the forces of drilling
2) The Drill Pipe String and Drill head, which is equally stressed by the drilling and is the "Clapper" of this "Bell"

Most critically, the "Clapper" will ring inside the Drill Hole and at the Well Head.

So a glancing blow can risk damage to the Rig and Pipe and can damage the integrity of the Drill Hole and Head (which is what did for the BP Rig).
At the very least Drilling would have to stop, the Drill String withdrawn and inspected and a lot of work done to the Drill Hole walls and Well Head before recommencing.
Personally I would think it wise to abandon the Well, discard the tubes and replace the Rig, before relocating the platform and starting drilling from fresh.
These measures alone will cost a lot of money and without any obvious major damage to the platform itself.
Does this apply in this instance? No idea, but I cannot criticise them for caution on the issue.
The Engineers report would be very useful and the company that owned the ship should expect to be held liable for losses.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Not quite Jeff, and as a man with an Engineering background,

Sadly, the weight, inertia and momentum of a laden Super Tanker means that even a glancing blow will send tremendous force to the heart of the structure and that no dampening is going to give adequate protection.

So a glancing blow can risk damage to the Rig and Pipe

At the very least Drilling would have to stop, the Drill String withdrawn and inspected

Does this apply in this instance? No idea, but I cannot criticise them for caution on the issue..
By all accounts, the "blow" was a slight bump.

That's how it was described at the time.

Very...extremely...unlikely that they type of damage you are trying to ascribe was caused. These things are designed with all of this in mind and to have tankers around the platform. They have significant margins built into the designs because of this.

And if it something occurred requiring major halt of operations and suspected major damage of any type... we would have heard about it immediately.

They may well have stopped production for a short time for safety purposes to check things out. But nothing in the record (before last week) indicated any type of major damage at all...and certainly not approaching anything like what happened to the BP platform in the Gulf...not even remotely like it.

You are right, I have an engineering background...both from schooling and in my career. It is pretty clear to me that we are dealing at this point with a genn'ed up excuse to justify the event last week. Nothing I have read, seen, or heard indicates that the types of things you are talking about occurred.

if they did...again, I would like to see some documentation of it that was put in place before the events of last week. After all, this event occurred 6-7 weeks prior to that.
 

ShahryarHedayat

Junior Member
Israeli Defense Minister Invokes Hiroshima and Nagasaki In Response to Iran Question


Speaking at a conference in Jerusalem nearly two weeks ago, the Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon invoked the American decision to drop nuclear bombs on Japan in World War II in response to a question about “dealing with a threat like Iran.”



At the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, organized by the right-wing Israeli legal activism group Shurat HaDin, Yaalon defended Israel’s decisions in several of its recent wars that critics have said showed a disregard for civilian life.

Although not addressing Iran specifically, Yaalon suggested that Israel may take extraordinary measures that would endanger civilians if “surgical operations” don’t present a viable alternative for accomplishing military objectives. He then raised U.S. President Harry Truman’s decision to use a nuclear weapon in World War II as an example of such a measure, adding, “We are not there yet.”

The remarks were
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. Shurat HaDin posted a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
of Yaalon’s remarks on-line Tuesday.

Here’s a transcript of the question - which was asked as part of a bundle of questions after Yaalon’s prepared speech - and the full response, beginning with a reference to the specific question and ending just before Yaalon glances at his notepad and starts addressing a subsequent query:

QUESTION: ...[T]o the question of whether democracies are at a strategic disadvantage. Is dealing with a threat like Iran something democracies are not structured well to do?

YAALON: There are those who claim that this battle is not fair because democracy can’t fight back [against a] tyrannical regime - not talking about terror organization. I don’t agree with it. Certain cases, we might take certain steps that we believe that these steps should be taken in order to defend ourselves. I mentioned the discussion about the interception of the rockets positions on civilian houses. We decided to do it.

I can imagine some other steps that should be taken. Of course, we should be sure that we can look at the mirror after the decision or the operation. Of course, we should be sure it is a military necessity. We should consider cost and benefit, of course. But, at the end, we might take certain steps.

I do remember the story of President Truman was asked, How do feel after deciding to launch the nuclear bombs [at] Nagasaki and Hiroshima, causing at the end the fatalities of 200,000 casualties? And he said, When I heard from my officers that the alternative is a long war with Japan, with potential fatalities of a couple of millions, I saw it was a moral decision.

We are not there yet. But that [is] what I’m talking about. Certain steps in cases in which we feel like we don’t have the answer by surgical operations or something like that.

You can watch the video of the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

The response wasn’t quite a threat to use nukes. But perhaps invoking the use of an atomic bomb to end a war isn’t such a wise move for a country with a covert arsenal of nukes seeking to rally the world to its side against Iran’s nuclear program.

... Payvand News - 05/16/15 ...

blah blah blah...
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
That article is not at all about any kind of threat to Iran specifically, and it says so itself.

When you read it, the Israeli DM references something that was very real and happened back at the end of World War II in answer to a specific question..

Truman did have a horrific decision to make...but in the lens of what we already knew about the Japanese soldiers and civilians at places like Okinawa at the time...an invasion of Japan (which was planned and was being prepared to implement) would have cost up to two million civilan lives, and estimated over a million Japanese soldiers lives, and up to 200,000 American soldiers to full occupy and pacify the Islands.

I know. My Dad was the commander of a US Navy Landing Craft Infantry at the time...and he told me of the massive preparations and the expected costs.

So, yes the decision had a horrific outcome itself, but in light of the alternatives, it was the correct decision to make.

So, please do not try and gen up or stir up high emotion over such things.

We can all find articles that we could all post to get people upset and angry...but that is not what we want to do here on SD.
 
Last edited:

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
I was glad to see this. Hopefully it will avert any trouble over this vessel.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



126263.jpg

gCaptain said:
DUBAI, May 20 (Reuters) – Iran will allow the United Nations to inspect a Yemen-bound aid ship at the regional U.N. hub in Djibouti, Tehran’s deputy foreign minister was quoted as saying on Wednesday, offering a chance to avert a showdown with Saudi-led forces.

Earlier in the day, the Iran Shahed’s captain had said the ship was due to enter the Bab al-Mandeb strait linking the Gulf of Aden to the Red Sea, bypassing Djibouti on the Horn of Africa and heading for the Yemeni port of Hodaida.

“We have decided to dock our ship in Djibouti so the United Nations inspection protocol can take place,” Hossein Amir Abdollahian was quoted as saying by the ISNA news agency.

Iran backs the dominant Houthi militia in Yemen’s civil war while Saudi Arabia, Tehran’s regional arch-rival, sees the Houthis as a threat and is leading air strikes on them to try to roll back their advances and reinstate Yemen’s exiled president.

Iran has said the ship is carrying humanitarian aid for Yemeni civilians. Hodaida’s port is under Houthi control. The Saudi-led coalition controls the waters around Yemen and has enforced inspections on all shipments entering the country. It was not clear whether Saudi forces would allow the Iran Shahed to dock in Yemen even after a U.N. inspection.

Abdollahian said Iran would send a flight to Djibouti on Thursday, also containing aid for Yemen, in a further signal that Tehran might begin to channel all aid through the U.N. hub. The Saudi-led coalition blocked Tehran’s previous attempts to fly aid directly into Yemen’s capital Sanaa, on one occasion bombing the runway to prevent an Iranian flight from landing.
 
Top