Strait of Hormuz

[AsleepInYorkshire]

They did. Noting that Iranian backed terrorists attacked a Saudi oil refinery not so long ago.

UAE opens pipeline bypassing Strait of Hormuz oil route
The new 370km (230 mile) pipeline carries oil from fields in the UAE's western desert to Fujairah - a major oil storage hub on the east coast.

AiYn'U

[gryffron]

It is quite hard to pump sticky crude through a pipeline. And therefore expensive. Much cheaper to transport it in a tanker. So generally the pipelines run only as far as the nearest coastal port.

There are some options to avoid the Straits of Hormuz, as mentioned. But not many. And nowhere near enough capacity to use them exclusively.

e.g. There used to be a pipeline from Northern Iraq via Syria to the Med. But I'm pretty sure ISIS shut that down. Pipelines across multiple countries often have even more problems than shipping.

Gryff

[AsleepInYorkshire]

It is quite hard to pump sticky crude through a pipeline. And therefore expensive. Much cheaper to transport it in a tanker. So generally the pipelines run only as far as the nearest coastal port.

There are some options to avoid the Straits of Hormuz, as mentioned. But not many. And nowhere near enough capacity to use them exclusively.

e.g. There used to be a pipeline from Northern Iraq via Syria to the Med. But I'm pretty sure ISIS shut that down. Pipelines across multiple countries often have even more problems than shipping.

Gryff

That's a good point. But do the alternative costs of using pipe over boat take into account the military presence needed to protect the shipping? I'd like to witness two things before my time is up. The first is that the UK divorces itself from the need for oil and other fossil fuels. And I know that means we need more nuclear power stations. The second is homo sapiens walk on Mars.

AiYn'U

[BobbyD]

That's a good point. But do the alternative costs of using pipe over boat take into account the military presence needed to protect the shipping? I'd like to witness two things before my time is up. The first is that the UK divorces itself from the need for oil and other fossil fuels. And I know that means we need more nuclear power stations. The second is homo sapiens walk on Mars.

AiYn'U

Hello Elon!

What about the cost of protecting the pipeline which is far easier to disrupt than shipping?

[AsleepInYorkshire]

That's a good point. But do the alternative costs of using pipe over boat take into account the military presence needed to protect the shipping? I'd like to witness two things before my time is up. The first is that the UK divorces itself from the need for oil and other fossil fuels. And I know that means we need more nuclear power stations. The second is homo sapiens walk on Mars.

AiYn'U

Hello Elon!

What about the cost of protecting the pipeline which is far easier to disrupt than shipping?

We have two Daring Class Destroyers and (iirc) a Type 23 Destroyer in the straits of Hormuz protecting our shipping ... the Daring Class Destroyers cost £1bn/ea to build. I am not sure what the running costs are. The type 23 is an older asset and I'm not sure it was quite as expensive as the Daring Class. I believe we cooperate with the US and escort each others tankers to reduce costs and increase presence.

There are significant assets in the region including recently a US carrier group which sailed through the SoH in an obvious display of power. Depending upon its size a US carrier ranges in cost from $6 to $14bn. That's just the carrier. The carrier will be escorted by high end assets all of which cost significant sums.

I'd be surprised if the cost of protecting a pipeline exceeded the cost of protecting shipping.

AiYn'U

[BobbyD]

That's a good point. But do the alternative costs of using pipe over boat take into account the military presence needed to protect the shipping? I'd like to witness two things before my time is up. The first is that the UK divorces itself from the need for oil and other fossil fuels. And I know that means we need more nuclear power stations. The second is homo sapiens walk on Mars.

AiYn'U

Hello Elon!

What about the cost of protecting the pipeline which is far easier to disrupt than shipping?

We have two Daring Class Destroyers and (iirc) a Type 23 Destroyer in the straits of Hormuz protecting our shipping ... the Daring Class Destroyers cost £1bn/ea to build. I am not sure what the running costs are. The type 23 is an older asset and I'm not sure it was quite as expensive as the Daring Class. I believe we cooperate with the US and escort each others tankers to reduce costs and increase presence.

There are significant assets in the region including recently a US carrier group which sailed through the SoH in an obvious display of power. Depending upon its size a US carrier ranges in cost from $6 to $14bn. That's just the carrier. The carrier will be escorted by high end assets all of which cost significant sums.

I'd be surprised if the cost of protecting a pipeline exceeded the cost of protecting shipping.

AiYn'U

The pipeline doesn't move, it's constantly vulnerable along it's entire route, and you don't need inflatable armbands to reach it...

[gryffron]

We have two Daring Class Destroyers and (iirc) a Type 23 Destroyer in the straits of Hormuz protecting our shipping ... the Daring Class Destroyers cost £1bn/ea to build. I am not sure what the running costs are...

It has been a very long standing argument that the type of ships the Royal navy needs, as opposed to what it wants, are small cheap escort boats for escorting supply convoys across the North Atlantic. And such small cheap escort boats would also be quite adequate for escorting tankers through high risk areas such as SoH or Somali coast. But the Royal navy always likes to think of itself as fighting large scale battles for dominance of the oceans a'la days of superpower/empire. Hence the huge and cripplingly expensive Daring destroyers. Which are useless as convoy escorts as there aren't nearly enough of them.

A pipeline could easily be attacked by artillery from 30 miles away, or dirt cheap dumb rockets as used in Gaza. That gives a VERY large area to protect. Maintaining 24 hour drone and fighter cover for such a vast area would almost certainly cost more than warships. We have the warships anyway, they weren't bought for this job. They are fully crewed all the time. Very little extra cost for deploying them to the gulf. Whereas fighter aircraft there is a substantial cost per hour flying (fuel and spares and airframe life). So maintaining patrols is a substantial extra expense.

Gryff

[flyer61]

Have you ever considered why Iran has never closed the Strait of Hormuz?

The military response from the US would be huge. Having attended Gulf War 1 I learnt all I needed to know about the 'American capability'. That capability would close Iran down fairly quickly. Yes small patrol boats can cause problems but not for long. Mines can be dealt with as well. Shore based artillery would also 'get it'. A few days of disruption is hardly likely to bring the West to it's knees. The Iranian regime of course know's full well what awaits them if they try.

What I see is a lot of scare mongering to suit the individual actors agenda.

[mutantpoodle]

why all the fuss about what ships we have in the area?
by the time our ships have spotted a problem...radioed to the armchairs admirals in london for instructions....who in turn will need to get a politicians instruction

all will be over and history

meanwhile reports of the 'cost' of these activities are nonsense, since we already pay for the ships...the salaries of staff etc etc
so the fact they are actually doing something is not a 'real' cost at all