Member Info for Santos1

Rolf- you say ' unless you are Bessents boyfriend I don't see any logic in your words' . If you can't see how dumb that comment is, on multiple levels, there's no point continuing this conversation.

Rolf- you say ' unless you are Bessents boyfriend I don't see any logic in your words' . If you can't see how dumb that comment is, on multiple levels, there's no point continuing this conversation.

Another good find, thanks again Mogger. And a good succinct answer from Baroness Chapman. The likes of Divi who came on here claiming that Ed Milliband had to approve Sea Lion should take a moment to read it before posting more nonsense.

And Rolf- you don't appear to know that know that there isn't a doctrine of collective responsibility in the US Cabinet. Individual members can publicly voice disagreement with presidential directives. Furthermore he wasn't voicing a policy - he was giving a factual account of the situation on the ground in Iran , which will have been informed by intelligence sources and US Central Command. If you think Scott Bessent wouldn't honorably resign over a major difference of policy at the drop of a hat, that confirms you know nothing about him whatever.

You think he says what he is told to say and that what he says is war propaganda- but you don't think that is an attack on his character. Really? What do you think it is then?

I meant 'of' not 'off'

Rolf- you have again attacked the character off Scott Bessent- about whom you know next to nothing- rather than questioned the facts of his simple statement 'Kharg Island is shut down'. You are obviously the sort of person who thinks all politicians are liars, etc. If you don't realise how dumb that makes you look, there's no point arguing with you about it.

' There has been a fair amount of shorting to keep oil prices down' . There's been lots of shorting but not by the government. The US Treasury does not short oil futures nor has legal authority to do so. That would risk huge losses of taxpayers money. The government has other tools to keep prices low eg release strategic petroleum reserves, suspend fuel taxes at the pumps, temporarily lift sanctions on oil exporters , fast track approvals for pipelines etc. On the question whether Trump needs a ceasefire I believe him when he says he doesn't care about the mid term elections. .

As of now, Kharg island is shut down, the troops are not getting paid, the police are not reporting for work, anyone paying tolls will be sanctioned , the iranian economy and currency are in free fall. That's from the horse's mouth today ( yes, Scott Bessent).

Regime change, if it happens, could bring in even more extreme hardliners .

It really doesn't look like Hormuz is going to be 'resolved' for years, never mind days, weeks or months.

Landman - no-one disputes that war risk premiums are very low in normal peace time conditions. The question is whether the perceived risk will allow premiums to return to those low levels when the strait re-opens. That is in doubt because mines can easily be covered by shifting sand/mud and anyone can come out in a boat one night and drop something. On top of that there is a risk of land based drone strikes . Hopefully US forces will remain in the area for ever to deal with land based strikes but who knows. The situation in Hormuz is likely to be the same as the situation in the Red Sea, where war risk premiums have not returned to normal despite all the escorted convoys and area patrols.

Divi- go back to the bedsit and put another short on

Rolf- I left a word out - I meant that sums you up perfectly i.e you bragging that you don't need to address an argument, you just need to 'critique the author'. You describe yourself as ' a real brain'. I think 'really dim' would be more accurate.

Rolf- 'The only sensible way to critique it is to critique the author'. Yes, that sums you perfectly.

Just don't ever put yourself forward as a witness in a court case. Being slippery doesn' t wash there. You would be taken to pieces.

Rolf- really? you don't think it's shifting ground to say that 'insurance will be back to a dollar a tanker sone enough' and then another day to say ' I'm not predicting when insurance will be back to a dollar a tanker' . What planet are you on ? The fact is that your messages are stuffed with textbook examples of fallacies. By 'fallacy' I mean the use of faulty reasoning in the construction of an argument. Examples: 1. ad hominem fallacy- dismissing an argument by attacking the character, motive or personal traits of a person, rather than engaging with the argument 2. red herring fallacy - introducing irrelevant info to divert attention away from the original issue. e,g I was talking about your prediction for Hormuz insurance rates, not about the oil price 3. Equivocation fallacy - using an ambiguous term without specifying which meaning is intended eg using ' soon enough' to mean ' some time in the future' - shall I go on, or are you already bored? I certainly am.

Thanks Marlon for reminding us of the big picture.

Exciting times ahead.

Rolf-just to be clear, behind the smokescreen of bluster and personal attacks, you have shifted your ground and now no longer say you expect insurance rates in Hormuz to normalise soon , but at some point in the future. That is the classic tactic of diverting the discussion in a direction more in your favour by substituting for the original statement one that sounds like it but is easier to defend.

You still haven't addressed the points that 1. insurance rates in the Red Sea remain high even though 12 countries or more operate area patrols and escorted convoys, because perceived risk remains high 2. If the US withdraws from Hormuz then other countries who plan to operate convoys will have to decide whether they want to attack land based launch sites, and risk being dragged further into the war 3. the Chair of Lloyds Insurance market - who might be considered to know more about it than you do- says if Hormuz re-opens, insurance rates will have to reflect perceived risk.

Conclusion- insurance rates in a reopened Hormuz will be high, and remain high , unless there is a regime change.

' if i don't answer your so-called detailed points directly its either because you don't make any or because i've fallen asleep'

....or maybe its because you haven't read them.

As for your insults- it may have worked for you as a way to shut people up when you were on some bond dealing desk in the 1980s but it doesn't wash any more.

Rolf- you made an unreasoned assertion that insurance rates in Hormuz will soon return to ' a dollar a tanker'. When anyone dares challenge you, you insult them. If you disagree that's what you do, then answer the detailed points I made.

Divi- I take it you also think insurance rates in Hormuz will be ' back to a dollar a tanker soon enough' ?

Rolf- Whats bizarre is that you think a personal insult is an acceptable alternative to answering the points made. You need to get professional help.