So in terms of ability to modify our refineries to process our own oil, how long would that take? I've read and seen some videos saying the processing of our lighter sweet crude into gasoline is simpler than the heavy stuff due to less contaminant. Would this be something existing refineries could, under the right circumstances and with enough money, figure out within a few months or is this a years long project no matter what?

DonHenley said:

---

Trump looks worse every day on Iran. Clueless

---

Excellent observation. Don't keep all the analytics to yourself, please share how you arrive at such an astute observation. Seriously. Worse everyday and clueless are quite determinative. Let us know what supports it.

ErnestEndeavor said:

---

So in terms of ability to modify our refineries to process our own oil, how long would that take? I've read and seen some videos saying the processing of our lighter sweet crude into gasoline is simpler than the heavy stuff due to less contaminant. Would this be something existing refineries could, under the right circumstances and with enough money, figure out within a few months or is this a years long project no matter what?

---

You buy the stuff that makes our refineries work whilst adjusting the system to accommodate.

And some of it still works just not as efficiently.

Some of these guys will tell you it cannot be changed simply because they have never had to do it before.

The guy keeps releasing tidbits of information every few days to keep the oil price down and markets up. Most of the stuff he says make no sense at all. " Hey can you help us move these ships " yeah sure, let me just go fetch them all. The issues that stop them from going through aren't going to go away soon.

Even if he had a 1 to 1 escort for each ship, I doubt they would take the risk. Highly flammable material on them, isn't worth the risk to them.

I remember like 6 weeks ago, he said the " war will be over soon " and keeps repeating it. How long is soon?

The problem is the people making these decisions can't think 5 seconds down the road. They are also insulated from the effects gas prices have on normal people.

GMaster0 said:

---

The guy keeps releasing tidbits of information every few days to keep the oil price down and markets up. Most of the stuff he says make no sense at all. " Hey can you help us move these ships " yeah sure, let me just go fetch them all. The issues that stop them from going through aren't going to go away soon.

Even if he had a 1 to 1 escort for each ship, I doubt they would take the risk. Highly flammable material on them, isn't worth the risk to them.

I remember like 6 weeks ago, he said the " war will be over soon " and keeps repeating it. How long is soon?

The problem is the people making these decisions can't think 5 seconds down the road. They are also insulated from the effects gas prices have on normal people.

---

The more effective analogy would be the decision makers at the helm cannot foresee what's over the horizon, but since the left can't meme I assume they suffer from analogical deficiencies as well.

We can open the strait in minutes by simply stepping in for the insurance companies. The IRGC remnants can AT BEST simply harass the shipping and make the owners and insurers nervous.

The blockade is being extremely effective in hurting the regime remnants and it is much less costly, risky than further kinetic action at this time. And if Europe and China want to open the strait, they can help or STFU.

But man it's myopic to believe Trump and team are incompetent, there's no plan nonsense and *****ing about a conflict barely 60 days old with half of that time being a cease fire.

Hard times take strong men. People out themselves across the nation and world that they are not strong men at all. In fact, quite the opposite.

China's economic model is best demonstrated by inextricably controlling portions of the supply chain and using that as leverage over other countries to further their own plans.

They've done it for years with rare-earths.

Xi and Trump have a meeting coming up to discuss a wide range of issues.

Do you think it increases or decreases the US' negotiating position for Trump to have a stranglehold on a very large portion of China's import oil supply going into that meeting? (Venezuela, Strait of Hormuz, Seaborne interdiction throughout the oceans [indian ocean, south china sea approaches, med]).

Thinking there is not a plan here is dumb. The military has been considering this scenario for decades. The success of the plan may not have been flawless thus far but good grief...no plan?

Quote:

---

But man it's myopic to believe Trump and team are incompetent, there's no plan nonsense and *****ing about a conflict barely 60 days old with half of that time being a cease fire.

---

You say myopic.
I say we were ****ing lied to. Again.

If affordability has been a primary concern of the administration's second term, how does an extended cease fire fit into the narrative that there is a "plan." Affordability and an ongoing blockade of the Strait are at odds with each other.

It's dumber to think Trump does has not have a plan than how dumb it would be for him not to have a plan. It's dumber than dumb, gnomsayin?

Sims said:

---

China's economic model is best demonstrated by inextricably controlling portions of the supply chain and using that as leverage over other countries to further their own plans.

They've done it for years with rare-earths.

Xi and Trump have a meeting coming up to discuss a wide range of issues.

Do you think it increases or decreases the US' negotiating position for Trump to have a stranglehold on a very large portion of China's import oil supply going into that meeting? (Venezuela, Strait of Hormuz, Seaborne interdiction throughout the oceans [indian ocean, south china sea approaches, med]).

Thinking there is not a plan here is dumb. The military has been considering this scenario for decades. The success of the plan may not have been flawless thus far but good grief...no plan?

---

China can obtain oil from sanctioned countries. Our allies (India, Philippines, South Korea) rely heavily on oil from the ME. Additionally, China is moving faster on nuclear power than the US and most western countries.
So how does this help the US again?

Trump is ****ing with the energy needs and economies while also enabling the resiliency and energy diversification of our enemies.

China moving "fast on nuclear" probably radiates most of Asia in 10 years.

They also just build a total ****ton of coal plants. And to show relative size - if they completed all active projects they would roughly equal the current US capacity, for a much larger and more populated country with over 2x the electrical needs of the United States.

So tap the brakes on China being some nuclear power Mecca.

Obtain oil from sanctioned countries: Yes, on much worse terms. China typically gets Iran oil at 15% discount to Brent because sanctions. Now they aren't getting that oil plus tanker insurance is up, shadow fleet vessels are less reliable, discharge ports are dwindling in numbers, payment is in non-dollar channels with worse FX terms. Costs are up, significantly.

Allies rely on middle east oil: Definitely agree and that's a pain point. With that said, Japan, Good Korea and India are all active and invited participants in the IEA emergency response because the US negotiated FOR burden sharing...all agreed because the shared price of constraining China (via Iran, in this case) is worth it to them. None of those countries would be more excited, ultimately, about cheap gas today and China dominated Indo-Pacific tomorrow.

China moving faster on nuclear, yeah, but so what? That's a 10 year buildout. Iran is today. China is still 75% coal/oil/gas input for primary energy. While nuclear does displace electricity sector oil/gas demand, it doesn't impact transportation demand - trucks, ships, planes, industrial refining

It's not enabling resiliency, it's forcing it. The enabling has been the US giving China a free ride for the last 5 decades with respect to maritime security and China not having any skin in the game. China has known about the Malacca Dilemma for decades and they lose sleep over it. The fact that we're now executing a plan on it likely doesn't surprise them at all. The surprise is probably the fact it took us this long. Why do you think they have been so aggressively trying to dominate the Panama Canal?

flown-the-coop said:

---

It's dumber to think Trump does has not have a plan than how dumb it would be for him not to have a plan. It's dumber than dumb, gnomsayin?

---

The most important thing to never forget is that liberals NEED for Trump to fail at something, anything. He's destroying 50 years of liberal ideology and must be stopped. 3 have tried.

Billions of dollars in investment, shut downs to install and modify... its amusing that you claim its so simple, yet every engineer and operator I speak to says 180* the opposite

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

But man it's myopic to believe Trump and team are incompetent, there's no plan nonsense and *****ing about a conflict barely 60 days old with half of that time being a cease fire.

---

You say myopic.
I say we were ****ing lied to. Again.

If affordability has been a primary concern of the administration's second term, how does an extended cease fire fit into the narrative that there is a "plan." Affordability and an ongoing blockade of the Strait are at odds with each other.

---

So surrender to Iran if it means cheap gas? Got it. Solid plan.

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Billions of dollars in investment, shut downs to install and modify... its amusing that you claim its so simple, yet every engineer and operator I speak to says 180* the opposite

---

You didn't read or understand what I posted.

Its amusing to me you think a group of low level engineers and operators know the ins and outs of the entire North American refinery configurations and capabilities.

flown-the-coop said:

---

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

But man it's myopic to believe Trump and team are incompetent, there's no plan nonsense and *****ing about a conflict barely 60 days old with half of that time being a cease fire.

---

You say myopic.
I say we were ****ing lied to. Again.

If affordability has been a primary concern of the administration's second term, how does an extended cease fire fit into the narrative that there is a "plan." Affordability and an ongoing blockade of the Strait are at odds with each other.

---

So surrender to Iran if it means cheap gas? Got it. Solid plan.

---

Better yet, send them hundreds of billions in Euros instead of letting them hate us for free.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Billions of dollars in investment, shut downs to install and modify... its amusing that you claim its so simple, yet every engineer and operator I speak to says 180* the opposite

---

You didn't read or understand what I posted.

Its amusing to me you think a group of low level engineers and operators know the ins and outs of the entire North American refinery configurations and capabilities.

---

It's cute that you think you do too. You wax 'poetically' on every single topic with an unearned sense of authority. All day every day.

There is now a new thread about how much Iran is winning the war. Imagine cheering on the enemy because you hate Trump and gas has gone up for a few weeks.

People lap up the most ******ed talking points then spin themselves in a frenzy over affordability. Now, have they changed their spending behavior? Of course not. If they managed their budgets during a temporary spike in SOME prices (whilst others are going down, holding steady) then they could not ***** and moan, then say "right on Whoopi" when their wives invite them in to watch the view.

If titty babies are not okay when they fill up at the pump, then clutch your pearls and call your boss to tell them you are full-time WFH until gas is back under $2/gallon.

twelve12twelve said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Billions of dollars in investment, shut downs to install and modify... its amusing that you claim its so simple, yet every engineer and operator I speak to says 180* the opposite

---

You didn't read or understand what I posted.

Its amusing to me you think a group of low level engineers and operators know the ins and outs of the entire North American refinery configurations and capabilities.

---

It's cute that you think you do too. You wax 'poetically' on every single topic with an unearned sense of authority. All day every day.

---

Sorry I am very intelligent and knowledgeable on a vast array of topics.

Instead of being mad jelly, how about being appreciative that someone brings that knowledge and is willing to discuss on topics to inform a great many who simply have very limited, poor or incomplete understanding of things.'

However, I do appreciate that you acknowledge my posts and have evidently taken the time to read them.

I do happen to know a few things about the O&G industry and for areas I am not as informed of I seek out actual information not "my buddies in the breakroom" or "guys in my bible study" when trying to understand the ins and outs of the vast and very complex refining environment in these United States.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Billions of dollars in investment, shut downs to install and modify... its amusing that you claim its so simple, yet every engineer and operator I speak to says 180* the opposite

---

You didn't read or understand what I posted.

Its amusing to me you think a group of low level engineers and operators know the ins and outs of the entire North American refinery configurations and capabilities.

---

And what exactly are your credentials to tell us how American refineries operate and change configurations and capabilities? This should be good.

flown-the-coop said:

---

So tap the brakes on China being some nuclear power Mecca.

---

Arrahu Ackhba!?

BigRobSA said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

So tap the brakes on China being some nuclear power Mecca.

---

Arrahu Ackhba!?

---

I have heard they use the Weegahs to mine the ruhranium.

flown-the-coop said:

---

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

But man it's myopic to believe Trump and team are incompetent, there's no plan nonsense and *****ing about a conflict barely 60 days old with half of that time being a cease fire.

---

You say myopic.
I say we were ****ing lied to. Again.

If affordability has been a primary concern of the administration's second term, how does an extended cease fire fit into the narrative that there is a "plan." Affordability and an ongoing blockade of the Strait are at odds with each other.

---

So surrender to Iran if it means cheap gas? Got it. Solid plan.

---

How about not invading a sovereign nation and expecting regime change within two weeks?
If the current state was part of the planning process or decision-making process, then either:
1. We were lied to about the intention of the plan. or
2. We were lied to about the outcome of the plan.

Because you want this, how about you pay higher prices and send your family members into harm's way on behalf of the rest of the world's population, who didn't vote for this. Put your money and life where your mouth is and stop expecting the rest of us to pay for you and Trump's crappy decisions.

tysker said:

---

Ervin Burrell said:

---

Jesus what a cringey post.

---

I'm embarrassed I never picked up that he's a specifically pro-Trump combination of Infection and Barnes

---

Trolls and the adhoms. Never change folks.

When you lost the substance of the argument, its cute to see people slink back to what they know best.

BTW, folks should quit fibbing about what refineries in the United States are capable of vs what bible club experts propagate.

As I said way earlier, its not as preferred or efficient but we process much of our own oil. Full conversion would indeed be very, very expensive, but that is not even remotely an outcome with plenty of the nasty stuff available readily within our (hemi)sphere of influence.

Quote:

---

Yes, US refineries can and do use US-produced crude oil in fact, about 60% of the crude they process is domestic. However, it's not as simple as "all US crude for all US refineries" due to quality mismatches, economics, and refinery design.

Why the Nuance? Crude Types Matter
Crude oil varies by density (light vs. heavy) and sulfur content (sweet vs. sour):

US production (especially from shale like Permian and Bakken) is mostly light, sweet crude low sulfur, lower density, easier/cheaper to refine into gasoline and diesel.
Many US refineries (particularly complex Gulf Coast ones) were built decades ago to process heavy, sour crude from places like Canada, Mexico, Venezuela. These yield more high-value products like diesel, jet fuel, and asphalt when run optimally, and heavy sour crude is often cheaper.

Result: Refineries blend domestic light crude with imported heavy crude for efficiency and profitability. Running only light crude can underutilize expensive equipment (like cokers), reduce yields of certain products, and hurt margins.
Key Facts (Recent Data)

US produces ~13+ million barrels per day (bpd) of crude, mostly light.
Refineries process ~1618 million bpd total, so they need imports to meet volume and quality needs.
~60% of refinery crude input is domestic; imports (mostly heavy from Canada ~60% of imports, plus Mexico) make up the rest.

US exports surplus light crude (often to Europe/Asia) while importing heavy grades. This is economic optimization, not inability.

US refineries have adapted somewhat since the shale boom (e.g., by displacing some light imports and blending), but full conversion to light-only would be extremely expensive (hundreds of millions to billions per refinery) and uneconomic for many.

Bottom Line
Technically: Yes, they can process US crude (and do daily).

Practically/Economically: They prefer a mix for optimal output, lower costs, and higher profits. Pure domestic light crude isn't ideal for the existing fleet.

---

tysker said:

---

Because you want this, how about you pay higher prices and send your family members into harm's way on behalf of the rest of the world's population, who didn't vote for this. Put your money and life where your mouth is and stop expecting the rest of us to pay for you and Trump's crappy decisions.

---

I voted for America First and a POTUS who has the balls, brains and backbones to beat bullies.

I have no idea who or what you voted for.

flown-the-coop said:

---

tysker said:

---

Ervin Burrell said:

---

Jesus what a cringey post.

---

I'm embarrassed I never picked up that he's a specifically pro-Trump combination of Infection and Barnes

---

Trolls and the adhoms. Never change folks.

When you lost the substance of the argument, its cute to see people slink back to what they know best.

BTW, folks should quit fibbing about what refineries in the United States are capable of vs what bible club experts propagate.

As I said way earlier, its not as preferred or efficient but we process much of our own oil. Full conversion would indeed be very, very expensive, but that is not even remotely an outcome with plenty of the nasty stuff available readily within our (hemi)sphere of influence.

Quote:

---

Yes, US refineries can and do use US-produced crude oil in fact, about 60% of the crude they process is domestic. However, it's not as simple as "all US crude for all US refineries" due to quality mismatches, economics, and refinery design.

Why the Nuance? Crude Types Matter
Crude oil varies by density (light vs. heavy) and sulfur content (sweet vs. sour):

US production (especially from shale like Permian and Bakken) is mostly light, sweet crude low sulfur, lower density, easier/cheaper to refine into gasoline and diesel.
Many US refineries (particularly complex Gulf Coast ones) were built decades ago to process heavy, sour crude from places like Canada, Mexico, Venezuela. These yield more high-value products like diesel, jet fuel, and asphalt when run optimally, and heavy sour crude is often cheaper.

Result: Refineries blend domestic light crude with imported heavy crude for efficiency and profitability. Running only light crude can underutilize expensive equipment (like cokers), reduce yields of certain products, and hurt margins.
Key Facts (Recent Data)

US produces ~13+ million barrels per day (bpd) of crude, mostly light.
Refineries process ~1618 million bpd total, so they need imports to meet volume and quality needs.
~60% of refinery crude input is domestic; imports (mostly heavy from Canada ~60% of imports, plus Mexico) make up the rest.

US exports surplus light crude (often to Europe/Asia) while importing heavy grades. This is economic optimization, not inability.

US refineries have adapted somewhat since the shale boom (e.g., by displacing some light imports and blending), but full conversion to light-only would be extremely expensive (hundreds of millions to billions per refinery) and uneconomic for many.

Bottom Line
Technically: Yes, they can process US crude (and do daily).

Practically/Economically: They prefer a mix for optimal output, lower costs, and higher profits. Pure domestic light crude isn't ideal for the existing fleet.

---

---

Seriously? You posted one page back the JPMorgan report I posted was "hogwash" because it was written by a person named Natasha.

Does your chatgpy output appreciate that oil is a global commodity and US-based producers are incentivized to sell their products to the highest bidder? Does it appreciate that worldwide diesel prices are increasing, worldwide fertilizer prices are increasing, and worldwide petrochemical input costs are increasing.

Does it appreciate that these higher prices are antithetical to Trump's affordability agenda and increasing the likelihood of mid-term stagflation?

tysker said:

---

Seriously? You posted one page back the JPMorgan report I posted was "hogwash" because it was written by a person named Natasha.

Does your chatgpy output appreciate that oil is a global commodity and US-based producers are incentivized to sell their products to the highest bidder? Does it appreciate that worldwide diesel prices are increasing, worldwide fertilizer prices are increasing, and worldwide petrochemical input costs are increasing.

Does it appreciate that these higher prices are antithetical to Trump's affordability agenda and increasing the likelihood of mid-term stagflation?

---

I actually understand what is provided back by SuperGrok+ whereas Natash just smacks a JP Morgan on her fiction and calls it a "market insight".

You seem to want me to appreciate several things but I think you mean whether I have considered such things. Of course. Do you understand that markets can be controlled and influenced through regulations, taxes / tariffs, blockades, embargos, fines, sanctions and the like to produce the best outcome for US companies and consumers?

Trump has repeatedly said he understood that prices would go up, markets would be disrupted and that this would cause significant headwinds.

Many folks infected with TDS go to "Trump's a ****ing liar! Not what I voted for! He is controlled by others!".

Reality is Trump understood these consequences and as he has REPEATEDLY said, the threat from Iran was too great to let it go any further and that his hope is that most Americans will understand the ST pain for the LT gain.

Unfortunately, George Carlin appears to be right again on the masses ability to understand simple, but very important, concepts.

"Low level".... you're funny.

Are there any circumstances related to the global energy supply and the impacts it has on the global economy that would make you think the Iran situation is not going well/that Trump made a mistake? I'm curious what those would be. It seems like your position so far is that everything that has happened was accounted for and anything that wasn't accounted for was someone elses fault. Maybe I am misunderstanding though.

flown-the-coop said:

---

tysker said:

---

Seriously? You posted one page back the JPMorgan report I posted was "hogwash" because it was written by a person named Natasha.

Does your chatgpy output appreciate that oil is a global commodity and US-based producers are incentivized to sell their products to the highest bidder? Does it appreciate that worldwide diesel prices are increasing, worldwide fertilizer prices are increasing, and worldwide petrochemical input costs are increasing.

Does it appreciate that these higher prices are antithetical to Trump's affordability agenda and increasing the likelihood of mid-term stagflation?

---

I actually understand what is provided back by SuperGrok+ whereas Natash just smacks a JP Morgan on her fiction and calls it a "market insight".

You seem to want me to appreciate several things but I think you mean whether I have considered such things. Of course. Do you understand that markets can be controlled and influenced through regulations, taxes / tariffs, blockades, embargos, fines, sanctions and the like to produce the best outcome for US companies and consumers?

Trump has repeatedly said he understood that prices would go up, markets would be disrupted and that this would cause significant headwinds.

Many folks infected with TDS go to "Trump's a ****ing liar! Not what I voted for! He is controlled by others!".

Reality is Trump understood these consequences and as he has REPEATEDLY said, the threat from Iran was too great to let it go any further and that his hope is that most Americans will understand the ST pain for the LT gain.

Unfortunately, George Carlin appears to be right again on the masses ability to understand simple, but very important, concepts.

---

The beauty of George Carlin was that what he said cos be about any political party or their supporters. The man was genius while making us all (left and right) laugh at the same time.

Damn, I miss him, he was truly one of the greats.

Less Evil Hank Scorpio said:

---

Are there any circumstances related to the global energy supply and the impacts it has on the global economy that would make you think the Iran situation is not going well/that Trump made a mistake? I'm curious what those would be. It seems like your position so far is that everything that has happened was accounted for and anything that wasn't accounted for was someone elses fault. Maybe I am misunderstanding though.

---

I would have preferred the blockade on day 1 and no cease fire.

One particular "mistake" is in regards to trusting the Kurds. I have said before I think the anticipation of Iran attacking its "allies" was not considered as plausible and surprised Trump that Iran would be so ignorant, but its hard to see that as a mistake at this point as it solidified their support of the US.

But I do not believe the conflict is going poorly at this point.

People pearl clutching because the cycle club friends heard an ol engineer talking about how we will all die because the SoH has been out of commission for a couple months just doesn't move the needle for me.

EFR said:

---

Nobody is claiming the end of the world, but people are feeling it in their wallets, with no end in sight. Contrary to what some folks on here say, most people are not interested in paying more for gas in order to overthrow the Iranians or own the libs or whatever the bs reason is today.

---

Sounds like the uninformed or myopically focused need to grow a pair and make a budget.

Managing geopolitics according to gas pump prices is about as ******ed as it gets and a big reason the forever wars became forever wars.

A constant fear of pushing too hard, too fast, or shaky knees at the first inkling of resistance. Trump has focus and resolve.

I am sure people didn't care for food rations and similar during WWII but its better than speaking Japanese or German.