It appears the gentlemen after me understood…

BusterAg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Part of your problem is (1) the Strait of Hormuz is clearly a USA problem as evidenced every time you drive by a gas station and (2) you are trying to parse some difference between Iran's ability to commit violence against "Europe/Asia" from Iran's ability to "build 100,000 missiles and "hold the world hostage."

If an actual, real deal is reached, we will see what it says and hope for the best. But the point here is any deal that results in Iran collecting tolls to transit the Strait of Hormuz (which was previously FREE) and therefore pumping money into their coffers in perpetuity is, at best, a huge risk that a clearly ill-intentioned country will use that money to do "stuff" that's not in our best interest.

Quote:

---

1) Threaten to take away their cash cow; and
2) Bomb the crap out of them yet again.

---

1) The Strait of Hormuz was not a cash cow before this.
2) If "bomb the crap out of you" is sufficient deterrence and/or sufficient action, we would not be trying to make some elaborate deal with them after "bombing the crap out of them" and we could just say that and be done.

Point being, we obviously can't dictate Iran's behavior in the way some maybe thought we could...see point above about agreeing to pump billions into their coffers.

---

Lots of spear throwing, very few alternatives provided.

What is/was the better plan?

Let Iran build 100,000 ballistic missiles?

---

we should have had a plan to control the strait from day 1 AND executed the rest of our plans bombing the regime. not just the latter

sts7049 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Part of your problem is (1) the Strait of Hormuz is clearly a USA problem as evidenced every time you drive by a gas station and (2) you are trying to parse some difference between Iran's ability to commit violence against "Europe/Asia" from Iran's ability to "build 100,000 missiles and "hold the world hostage."

If an actual, real deal is reached, we will see what it says and hope for the best. But the point here is any deal that results in Iran collecting tolls to transit the Strait of Hormuz (which was previously FREE) and therefore pumping money into their coffers in perpetuity is, at best, a huge risk that a clearly ill-intentioned country will use that money to do "stuff" that's not in our best interest.

Quote:

---

1) Threaten to take away their cash cow; and
2) Bomb the crap out of them yet again.

---

1) The Strait of Hormuz was not a cash cow before this.
2) If "bomb the crap out of you" is sufficient deterrence and/or sufficient action, we would not be trying to make some elaborate deal with them after "bombing the crap out of them" and we could just say that and be done.

Point being, we obviously can't dictate Iran's behavior in the way some maybe thought we could...see point above about agreeing to pump billions into their coffers.

---

Lots of spear throwing, very few alternatives provided.

What is/was the better plan?

Let Iran build 100,000 ballistic missiles?

---

we should have had a plan to control the strait from day 1 AND executed the rest of our plans bombing the regime. not just the latter

---

The president seemed surprised certain things happened often saying nobody knew! Well it's seems others knew he just either didn't listen or was told by some it would not happen.

LMCane said:

---

Iran did such a great job in the war ....

that the Israeli Chief of Staff of the IDF is WALKING AROUND LEBANON right now!

IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir toured the outskirts of Bint Jbeil in southern Lebanon earlier today, where the military has been battling Hezbollah operatives.

"Our main combat arena is here in Lebanon. The objective defined for you is the removal of the direct threat to… pic.twitter.com/YMy50DlVJQ

— Emanuel (Mannie) Fabian (@manniefabian) April 9, 2026

---

Cool.

Now to see him do the same in Tehran.

There's an old joke in the project management world about a project team that was giving a presentation to a company's Board of Directors and Senior Executive Management of a proposed project plan.

Near the end of the presentation, one of the Board members noticed there were several boxes at multiple critical junctures in the twenty page project plan diagram which were labeled "ATHAFMO".

He asked what the acronym stood for.

The project lead answered: Oh, that? It stands for "And Then Hopefully Another Frikkin Miracle Occurs", sir.

It is starting to feel like the Trump - Vance - Rubio -Hegseth - Kushner - Witkoff Plan for this Iran War gamble contains a whole lot of boxes labeled ATHAFMO in the back half of the plan that followed the U.S. military finishing its 4-week air campaign of successfully destroying all legitimate Iranian military assets.

Sometimes you just gotta go with your gut

GAC06 said:

---

Sometimes you just gotta go with your gut

---

Sometimes you do. Other times, you don't.

Similar to the Bush Administration's war, occupation, and nation-building gamble in Iraq, Trump's conquest of Iran is a very high-risk venture.

However, unlike the Iraq failure, a U.S. failure here will have a negative affect on one-half of the world's economy and 4 billion people. So if we fail to reopen the SoH soon, it won't remain closed for long. China, India, and Europe will be forced to intercede. The U.S. will end up with egg all over our face, and perhaps even a decreased role in the world pecking order.

If it unfolds that way, maybe that would be a good thing. After all, after 80 years of being the world's policeman, we're tired of it. Tired of foreign wars. We're $39T in debt. And we have a mess that needs fixing at home.

DeschutesAg said:

---

If it unfolds that way, maybe that would be a good thing. After all, after 80 years of being the world's policeman, we're tired of it. Tired of foreign wars. We're $39T in debt. And we have a mess that needs fixing at home.

---

I remember the good of days of early 2025 when MAGA used to believe these things as well.

Woods Ag said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

AxelFoley85 said:

---

Don't we need dark and heavy, not the light and sweet we produce?

---

I am under the impression that we have the ability to make product out of both light sweet and sour crude at different capacities for each.

So, I don't understand your point.

---

You're impressions are wrong. And I scan upward at those other posts and your solutions and opinions are elementary.

---

Where do you disagree with this article?

Please help educate me.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2026/04/05/debunking-a-persistent-myth-us-refineries-cant-handle-shale-oil/

Sq 17 said:

---

Drill baby Drill
IMO one of the stupider things ever said in American politics Buster Thinks it's viable policy choice

---

I am interested in why you think that this is not a viable policy choice.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The SoH being closed
Buster sees as a minor inconvenience and most of the pain will be felt by Europe and Asia
America in general will be impacted and the F*** Western Europe attitude some poster like Buster think is appropriate and good for America
Some posters think that NATO and our Allies is a net positive for US interests

---

---

Oh, it's a problem. It's just a much bigger problem for Europe and Asia than it is America. So I don't understand why Europe thinks we should foot the bill.

If oil prices in Europe and Asia go up a lot more than they do in the US, our economy will become more competitive overall in the global economy.

A better world would be one where Iran isn't being an a**hat, but there are some things you just can't control.

What is your suggestion on the best path forward? Something I don't see on F16 is a lot of discussion on better courses of action. Just a lot of spear throwing.

Quote:

---

Iran posted an threat that needed to be dealt with beyond last years bombing campaign People can agree or disagree with that opinion

---

I think that Rubio articulated it best. Iran was stockpiling missiles to overwhelm Iron Dome, and Israel was going to reduce Iran's capability to do so. Israel had good intelligence that once the strikes started, Iran front-line commanders were going to start lashing out at anything they could with whatever they could, which is actually what happened. We significantly degraded their capability of taking out US targets in retaliation. It's all very logical.

Most of the economically viable oil that can be recovered under current market conditions is being drilled

Did you not understand my point that if Drill baby drill worked their would never be an oil bust

Not sure if you watch the discovery channel show Gold Rush all those guys find gold not all of them can cover their costs given the price of gold

TXAggie2011 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Lots of spear throwing, very few alternatives provided.

What is/was the better plan?

Let Iran build 100,000 ballistic missiles?

---

Perhaps it will turn out that the better plan "was" to not get involved or prosecute this war if our best end game was for Iran to earn billions of $$$. You seem to be asserting that's not a bad result or "our problem." My point has been that Iran getting to run a toll booth in the Strait of Hormuz is a pretty inane and highly unpalatable policy result that in the mid- to long-term will almost certainly make it more difficult to constrain Iran compared to the pre-war status quo.

---

1) I don't think Europe will allow Iran to run the toll booth. We will see, but that would surprise me.

2) If they do run that toll booth, the US can close shop on that toll booth at any time. One of the difficult thing about the sanctions thing against Iran is that they just sell their oil on the black market anyways, and it is tough for us to stop them without escalating conflicts with other world powers. If we "allow" them to run a toll booth, we can turn that off at any time.

The Iranian toll booth is a very highly unpalatable policy, but its likely the best option for the USA. I like that more than a ground invasion or a long, drawn-out military campaign.

What is your suggestion on what to do?

Let them continue to stockpile ballistic missiles? Ground invasion? Nukes?

All spears, no answers.

Sq 17 said:

---

Most of the economically viable oil that can be recovered under current market conditions is being drilled

Did you not understand my point that if Drill baby drill worked their would never be an oil bust

---

Market conditions change.

If light sweet grows in price compared to WTI, we will produce and refine more WTI.

I don't think that oil at $100 bbl is sustainable long term, but oil at $55 / bbl is likely gone for a while regardless of what we do.

If the only thing out there to prevent a future oil bust is a ground war with Iran, then I will take the oil bust, please.

DeschutesAg said:

---

However, unlike the Iraq failure, a U.S. failure here will have a negative affect on one-half of the world's economy and 4 billion people. So if we fail to reopen the SoH soon, it won't remain closed for long. China, India, and Europe will be forced to intercede. The U.S. will end up with egg all over our face, and perhaps even a decreased role in the world pecking order.

---

Um, that seems to be exactly the plan.

I like it.

Europe and Asia might like us less for making them take care of their own problems, but I don't really care about that at this point. They can go F-themselves. They are all going to be ruled by Muslims that hate the West within a decade anyways.

DeschutesAg said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Sometimes you just gotta go with your gut

---

However, unlike the Iraq failure, a U.S. failure here will have a negative affect on one-half of the world's economy and 4 billion people. So if we fail to reopen the SoH soon, it won't remain closed for long. China, India, and Europe will be forced to intercede. The U.S. will end up with egg all over our face, and perhaps even a decreased role in the world pecking order.

---

oh no,....oh well

Who TF cares what the world thinks?

samurai_science said:

---

DeschutesAg said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Sometimes you just gotta go with your gut

---

However, unlike the Iraq failure, a U.S. failure here will have a negative affect on one-half of the world's economy and 4 billion people. So if we fail to reopen the SoH soon, it won't remain closed for long. China, India, and Europe will be forced to intercede. The U.S. will end up with egg all over our face, and perhaps even a decreased role in the world pecking order.

---

oh no,....oh well

Who TF cares what the world thinks?

---

Someone you dislike and is telling to you to go "f yourself" has an "oops" moment. Sure, it affects you too and eventually you might hold your nose and help fix the oops. But don't you think you're likely to spend some time rolling your eyes and letting that someone squirm for at least a little while? And aren't you going to do all you can to make sure that someone takes the lead in cleaning up the mess they caused?

That seems to be, in a nutshell, where Europe is at today.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

DeschutesAg said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Sometimes you just gotta go with your gut

---

However, unlike the Iraq failure, a U.S. failure here will have a negative affect on one-half of the world's economy and 4 billion people. So if we fail to reopen the SoH soon, it won't remain closed for long. China, India, and Europe will be forced to intercede. The U.S. will end up with egg all over our face, and perhaps even a decreased role in the world pecking order.

---

oh no,....oh well

Who TF cares what the world thinks?

---

Someone you dislike and is telling to you to go "f yourself" has an "oops" moment. Sure, it affects you too and eventually you might hold your nose and help fix the oops. But don't you think you're likely to spend some time rolling your eyes and letting that someone squirm for at least a little while? And aren't you going to do all you can to make sure that someone takes the lead in cleaning up the mess they caused?

That seems to be, in a nutshell, where Europe is at today.

---

What mess? Who caused it?

We took care of a threat to US assets, the tens of thousands of missiles that Iran was stockpiling.

Then we left.

What's the problem, and what would you have done differently?

TXAggie2011 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Lots of spear throwing, very few alternatives provided.

What is/was the better plan?

Let Iran build 100,000 ballistic missiles?

---

Perhaps it will turn out that the better plan "was" to not get involved or prosecute this war if our best end game was for Iran to earn billions of $$$. You seem to be asserting that's not a bad result or "our problem." My point has been that Iran getting to run a toll booth in the Strait of Hormuz is a pretty inane and highly unpalatable policy result that in the mid- to long-term will almost certainly make it more difficult to constrain Iran compared to the pre-war status quo.

---

What is Iran going to do with all of that money?

Build missiles? Um, nope. Not part of the deal.
Build a nuke? Um, also nope. Not part of the deal.

When they start to become a problem again, we just kick their ass again.

Until then, we are buying off Iran's agreement to be peaceful with Europe's money, right up to the point when they decide they want to start arming up again.

But, the reality is that Europe is not likely to let Iran collect the toll, which is the whole point.

Old McDonald said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Lots of spear throwing, very few alternatives provided.

What is/was the better plan?

Let Iran build 100,000 ballistic missiles?

---

Perhaps it will turn out that the better plan "was" to not get involved or prosecute this war if our best end game was for Iran to earn billions of $$$. You seem to be asserting that's not a bad result or "our problem." My point has been that Iran getting to run a toll booth in the Strait of Hormuz is a pretty inane and highly unpalatable policy result that in the mid- to long-term will almost certainly make it more difficult to constrain Iran compared to the pre-war status quo.

---

1) I don't think Europe will allow Iran to run the toll booth. We will see, but that would surprise me.

2) If they do run that toll booth, the US can close shop on that toll booth at any time. One of the difficult thing about the sanctions thing against Iran is that they just sell their oil on the black market anyways, and it is tough for us to stop them without escalating conflicts with other world powers. If we "allow" them to run a toll booth, we can turn that off at any time.

The Iranian toll booth is a very highly unpalatable policy, but its likely the best option for the USA. I like that more than a ground invasion or a long, drawn-out military campaign.

What is your suggestion on what to do?

Let them continue to stockpile ballistic missiles? Ground invasion? Nukes?

All spears, no answers.

---

how can you believe this when we just saw the US powerless to stop them setting up the toll booth in the first place?

---

We aren't powerless to stop Iran from doing that.

It's just not worth the time or money to do so. We would rather take a cut of the tolls.

Quote:

---

how can you believe this when we just saw the US powerless to stop them setting up the toll booth in the first place?

---

Don't confuse them with logic!

Eta: ops thread title has not aged well.

BusterAg said:

---

DeschutesAg said:

---

However, unlike the Iraq failure, a U.S. failure here will have a negative affect on one-half of the world's economy and 4 billion people. So if we fail to reopen the SoH soon, it won't remain closed for long. China, India, and Europe will be forced to intercede. The U.S. will end up with egg all over our face, and perhaps even a decreased role in the world pecking order.

---

Um, that seems to be exactly the plan.

---

That was never Trump and Hegseth's plan or objective. However, it might end up being one of the results. Nobody knows yet. This thing could go a half-dozen different ways still. We (the USA) are not the only player at this table, and we do not hold all the aces and other face cards. We only hold some of them. Xi, Iran, the EU, India, Pakistan, Putin, the Saudi ruler, and Netanyahu are also sitting at the table and holding some cards.

DeschutesAg said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

DeschutesAg said:

---

However, unlike the Iraq failure, a U.S. failure here will have a negative affect on one-half of the world's economy and 4 billion people. So if we fail to reopen the SoH soon, it won't remain closed for long. China, India, and Europe will be forced to intercede. The U.S. will end up with egg all over our face, and perhaps even a decreased role in the world pecking order.

---

Um, that seems to be exactly the plan.

---

That was never Trump and Hegseth's plan or objective. However, it might end up being one of the results. Nobody knows yet. This thing could go a half-dozen different ways still. We (the USA) are not the only player at this table, and we do not hold all the aces and other face cards. We only hold some of them. Xi, Iran, the EU, India, Pakistan, Putin, the Saudi ruler, and Netanyahu are also sitting at the table and holding some cards.

---

The original plan was to:

1) Destroy all of Iran's missiles that could hit US targets.
2) Continue damaging Iran's nuke program
3) Significantly hamper Iran's military capabilities
4) Go home.

The SoH being held hostage by Iran is unfortunate, and not something we were hoping would happen, but, it's not really our problem as much as it is all those other players you just mentioned.

All those guys would absolutely let the USA expend a ton of resources and lives keeping the straight open. But, we don't really want to. If they ask for our help, I'm sure we will be happy to chip in.

DeschutesAg said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

DeschutesAg said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Sometimes you just gotta go with your gut

---

However, unlike the Iraq failure, a U.S. failure here will have a negative affect on one-half of the world's economy and 4 billion people. So if we fail to reopen the SoH soon, it won't remain closed for long. China, India, and Europe will be forced to intercede. The U.S. will end up with egg all over our face, and perhaps even a decreased role in the world pecking order.

---

oh no,....oh well

Who TF cares what the world thinks?

---

A lot of Americans care. We are the #1 economy in the world, and the dollar is the world currency. Maybe we could return to being partial isolationists again like pre-1896 America and still succeed. But prudence says that is a big decision that we should analyze carefully before taking such a step.

---

Whether or not we keep the straight open:

1) The USA will be the number 1 economy in the world.
2) The USA will be the only military super power in the world.
3) We will have enough oil to run our economy.

We have been paying to keep up world peace without anyone else's help for too long. The SoH is the perfect scenario where the cost of it remaining closed hurts a lot of other countries much more than it hurts us.

Trump ran on a fairly significant step backwards into isolationism, specifically focusing on the Western Hemisphere and reducing foreign aid. I would rather we do that instead of spending ourselves into failure.

Oil busts and Ground war are not linked

Busts happen:
1) prices get high
2) marginal projects are approved
3) economic slow down or OPEC pumps more
4) bust happen domestic oil companies get crushed
5) repeat every 2-3 decades

OPEC can pump/dump oil profitably at a number that US producers can't
Therefore drill baby drill does not work If a company is losing money at $60 a barrel going out and finding more oil to increase supply does not lead to profits

Other interesting facts
A Suez Max tanker carries approximately 1,000,000 bbl
so a $2 million is a $2 per barrel surcharge which given the current situation most countries and companies would pay
That $2 a barrel would be slightly inflationary but not really change the calculus regarding world oil markets

BusterAg said:

---

DeschutesAg said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

DeschutesAg said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Sometimes you just gotta go with your gut

---

However, unlike the Iraq failure, a U.S. failure here will have a negative affect on one-half of the world's economy and 4 billion people. So if we fail to reopen the SoH soon, it won't remain closed for long. China, India, and Europe will be forced to intercede. The U.S. will end up with egg all over our face, and perhaps even a decreased role in the world pecking order.

---

oh no,....oh well

Who TF cares what the world thinks?

---

A lot of Americans care. We are the #1 economy in the world, and the dollar is the world currency. Maybe we could return to being partial isolationists again like pre-1896 America and still succeed. But prudence says that is a big decision that we should analyze carefully before taking such a step.

---

Whether or not we keep the straight open:

1) The USA will be the number 1 economy in the world.
2) The USA will be the only military super power in the world.
3) We will have enough oil to run our economy.

We have been paying to keep up world peace without anyone else's help for too long. The SoH is the perfect scenario where the cost of it remaining closed hurts a lot of other countries much more than it hurts us.

Trump ran on a fairly significant step backwards into isolationism, specifically focusing on the Western Hemisphere and reducing foreign aid. I would rather we do that instead of spending ourselves into failure.

---

this is flat out wrong, sorry.

Sq 17 said:

---

Oil busts and Ground war are not linked

Busts happen:
1) prices get high
2) marginal projects are approved
3) economic slow down or OPEC pumps more
4) bust happen domestic oil companies get crushed
5) repeat every 2-3 decades

OPEC can pump/dump oil profitably at a number that US producers can't
Therefore drill baby drill does not work If a company is losing money at $60 a barrel going out and finding more oil to increase supply does not lead to profits

Other interesting facts
A Suez Max tanker carries approximately 1,000,000 bbl
so a $2 million is a $2 per barrel surcharge which given the current situation most countries and companies would pay
That $2 a barrel would be slightly inflationary but not really change the calculus regarding world oil markets

---

Do we know that the charge is $2 million per tanker? If so, how much money could Iran make in a year on this?

If oil is $70 bbl, SOMEONE is going to take on projects that are marginal at $60 / bbl. It's just too much money to leave on the floor.

sts7049 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

DeschutesAg said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

DeschutesAg said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Sometimes you just gotta go with your gut

---

However, unlike the Iraq failure, a U.S. failure here will have a negative affect on one-half of the world's economy and 4 billion people. So if we fail to reopen the SoH soon, it won't remain closed for long. China, India, and Europe will be forced to intercede. The U.S. will end up with egg all over our face, and perhaps even a decreased role in the world pecking order.

---

oh no,....oh well

Who TF cares what the world thinks?

---

A lot of Americans care. We are the #1 economy in the world, and the dollar is the world currency. Maybe we could return to being partial isolationists again like pre-1896 America and still succeed. But prudence says that is a big decision that we should analyze carefully before taking such a step.

---

Whether or not we keep the straight open:

1) The USA will be the number 1 economy in the world.
2) The USA will be the only military super power in the world.
3) We will have enough oil to run our economy.

We have been paying to keep up world peace without anyone else's help for too long. The SoH is the perfect scenario where the cost of it remaining closed hurts a lot of other countries much more than it hurts us.

Trump ran on a fairly significant step backwards into isolationism, specifically focusing on the Western Hemisphere and reducing foreign aid. I would rather we do that instead of spending ourselves into failure.

---

this is flat out wrong, sorry.

---

Expert analysis. Thanks.

Care to comment on why WTI is gaining on Brent in the short term, but longer term futures market have Brent back at a premium compared to WTI?

Could that have anything at all to do with temporary supply interruptions related to transportation?

BusterAg said:

---

Do we know that the charge is $2 million per tanker? If so, how much money could Iran make in a year on this?

---

a quick google search shows about 30k tankers annually, so every year they stand to earn over 30 times the amount Obama gave them.

Given the oil companies complete lack of interest in Venezuela says the appetite for marginal projects is less than you think

Saying other countries will suffer more ignores that the pain if it continues in America will hurt the Rs in the mid terms more than the Ds

$2 million/tanker x 100 tankers/day x 365 days/year = $73 Billion.

I think high end estimates of Iran's GDP place it at about $400 billion a year. The Obama-era payment made was $1.7 billion, for comparison.

Obviously, even if Iran's take from a future toll is a fraction of that, its a relatively huge influx of money to them.



I don't know what the "best" realistic end to this is at this point. But I will absolutely push back on statements downplaying our national security interest in not allowing Iran to make money off the Strait of Hormuz.

BusterAg said:

---

sts7049 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

DeschutesAg said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

DeschutesAg said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Sometimes you just gotta go with your gut

---

However, unlike the Iraq failure, a U.S. failure here will have a negative affect on one-half of the world's economy and 4 billion people. So if we fail to reopen the SoH soon, it won't remain closed for long. China, India, and Europe will be forced to intercede. The U.S. will end up with egg all over our face, and perhaps even a decreased role in the world pecking order.

---

oh no,....oh well

Who TF cares what the world thinks?

---

A lot of Americans care. We are the #1 economy in the world, and the dollar is the world currency. Maybe we could return to being partial isolationists again like pre-1896 America and still succeed. But prudence says that is a big decision that we should analyze carefully before taking such a step.

---

Whether or not we keep the straight open:

1) The USA will be the number 1 economy in the world.
2) The USA will be the only military super power in the world.
3) We will have enough oil to run our economy.

We have been paying to keep up world peace without anyone else's help for too long. The SoH is the perfect scenario where the cost of it remaining closed hurts a lot of other countries much more than it hurts us.

Trump ran on a fairly significant step backwards into isolationism, specifically focusing on the Western Hemisphere and reducing foreign aid. I would rather we do that instead of spending ourselves into failure.

---

this is flat out wrong, sorry.

---

Expert analysis. Thanks.

Care to comment on why WTI is gaining on Brent in the short term, but longer term futures market have Brent back at a premium compared to WTI?

Could that have anything at all to do with temporary supply interruptions related to transportation?

---

crude is not the only impact of a restricted SOH.

global shipping rates
shipping fuel costs
jet fuel
diesel
other products such as fertilizer, gases, etc

the stuff that left the gulf just prior to the war is largely reaching its destination now. there ain't anything coming behind it for the most part. the impacts are only just beginning.

Not sure how much this affects Brent oil prices but read about it a few days back, Once again the UK is screwing up and suppressing Brent production (not renewing leases, not issuing new ones, etc.) due to loony climate change nonsense. Just like Biden and Obama did with our domestic production while in office.

Again IDK how much affect that has on prices but it sure doesn't help with supply.