Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Meanwhile .. back in the Good 'ol NK ....

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Meanwhile .. back in the Good 'ol NK ....

Old 31st Dec 2017, 15:25
  #2121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 84
2nd ship detained violating sanctions

North Korea: South seizes second ship in oil supply row - BBC News
First ship said to have only 600 tons transferred.
lets do the math.
They make it sound like nothing.
600 tons equals 132,277 pounds.
Divide that by crude oil weight, 7.27 per gallon.
Shocked thats 181849 usg.
Divide by 42 thats 4,329 barrels of illegal oil.
Correct my math if needed
2Bad2Sad is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2017, 17:25
  #2122 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Below Escape Velocity
Posts: 415
It ain't nothin', but it ain't very much, about 20 over-the-road tanker truck loads or 6 rail cars, 12,000 automobiles... that sort of thing. Warren Buffett wouldn't get out of bed to hook up a train for that.

The UK consumes something on the order of 1.6 million barrels of oil per day. While I would imagine that NK consumes less, this amount won't make a dent in the shortfall.

You missed a zero in there. 600T is around 1.2 to 1.3 million pounds, depending upon what kind of ton(ne) we're talking about. A ship I served on displaced 8400T, which ain't particularly big. 600T would keep us going about a week to 10 days, depending.

An over the road tanker carries around 60,000 pounds of petroleum product. A rail tank car is closer to 200,000 pounds. Your basic filling station takes at least 3 trucks.

Last edited by Um... lifting...; 1st Jan 2018 at 00:14.
Um... lifting... is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2017, 18:03
  #2123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Currently within the EU
Posts: 310
May I suggest that the significant factor is not the quantity or value of the oil, but the political factor of ships carrying ostensibly Chinese oil being seized by SK.
How will China react? Will they just deny that they are breaking UN sanctions?
Sallyann1234 is online now  
Old 31st Dec 2017, 18:08
  #2124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Below Escape Velocity
Posts: 415
You certainly may, but I submit that the propaganda value of what are essentially meaningless amounts of oil will serve only to embarrass China (and would embarrass NK, if they were capable of embarrassment, which they appear not to be), whether Beijing is turning a blind eye or not.

This sort of thing is always going on in the oil patch, SE Asia, W. Africa, you name it.
Um... lifting... is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2017, 18:10
  #2125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: apogee
Age: 64
Posts: 57
They have proven to be very good at doing just that in the past.
Farm the activity down to a very low private business echelon and engage plausible deniability.
meadowrun is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2017, 20:44
  #2126 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 63
Posts: 1,969
Correct my math if needed
You moved a decimal point - it's 18184.9 gallons or about 330 barrels.
Wouldn't even fuel up a 747...
tdracer is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2017, 21:04
  #2127 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Below Escape Velocity
Posts: 415
You moved a decimal point - it's 18184.9 gallons or about 330 barrels.
Wouldn't even fuel up a 747...
Yes he did, but then he ended up with the more or less correct number of gallons anyway, so yeah, it actually would fuel up a 747, about 3 times.

600 tons is more or less the max weight of the A380.
Um... lifting... is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2017, 21:52
  #2128 (permalink)  
Resident insomniac
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 74
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted by Pitchpoller View Post
How ever did the hateful Apartheid regime get by without oil for so many decades?

Did they, perhaps, cheat? Say it ain't so.

Surely Shell, they of the now deleted Deterding, didn't connive. Did they?
Marc Rich, Apartheid’s oil man.
G-CPTN is online now  
Old 31st Dec 2017, 22:37
  #2129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Vendee
Posts: 137
Interesting little pas de deux being played out here. Vessels are being stopped/interdicted but is that indicative of a major blockade? What is in fact the term naval forces use? Is it blockade, pickett, quarantine, or something else?

Either way, the question is whether this is an "ok chaps, we are getting serious" diplomatic step or a full-throttle effort to bring the Democratic People's Republic to its knees? Knowing just how much naval power is afloat interdicting shipping would be a good clue.

It would seem that very few countries, if any, can survive a full blockade for long.
Uncle Fred is online now  
Old 31st Dec 2017, 22:53
  #2130 (permalink)  
Resident insomniac
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 74
Posts: 1,858
North Korea celebrates New Year.
G-CPTN is online now  
Old 1st Jan 2018, 15:50
  #2131 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hadlow
Age: 55
Posts: 556
The correct naval term is "blockade".
Super VC-10 is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2018, 16:11
  #2132 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,939
Originally Posted by Super VC-10 View Post
The correct naval term is "blockade".
That's no what we used in the Cuba crisis
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2018, 18:24
  #2133 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Vendee
Posts: 137
Thank you Super VC.

Lomapaseo, did not the U.S. scrupulously, and with knowing intent, avoid the term "blockade" thinking it would be considered an act of war.? I thought this is where they introduced the term picket. (sp?)

Either way, it seems to have been a de facto blockade.

I noticed that Augustus made a remark today that he is willing to chat with SK. Just hot air?
Uncle Fred is online now  
Old 1st Jan 2018, 19:02
  #2134 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: apogee
Age: 64
Posts: 57
With the characters involved... the chat would quickly turn into a fist fight. Donnie would not be able to control himself.
meadowrun is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2018, 20:46
  #2135 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,939
Lomapaseo, did not the U.S. scrupulously, and with knowing intent, avoid the term "blockade" thinking it would be considered an act of war.? I thought this is where they introduced the term picket. (sp?)

Either way, it seems to have been a de facto blockade.
The term and application of the word blockade may be considered an act of war, thus depriving citizens of the blockaded nation of goods to survive. While lessors terms may only target goods (not food and medicine) that may be used to wage war (oil)
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2018, 03:43
  #2136 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Vendee
Posts: 137
Originally Posted by meadowrun View Post
With the characters involved... the chat would quickly turn into a fist fight. Donnie would not be able to control himself.
I was trying to be a bit drole. It seems rather clear that Augustus is trying to peel away SK from the U.S. in the same way Putin is working to split Western Europe away from said same. While the latter might, to a certain extent work, the former seems to be a thin straw at which to grasp.
Uncle Fred is online now  
Old 3rd Jan 2018, 17:48
  #2137 (permalink)  
Resident insomniac
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 74
Posts: 1,858
Trump has a bigger arse nal . . .
G-CPTN is online now  
Old 3rd Jan 2018, 22:11
  #2138 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Kristiansand
Posts: 29
They’re both doing a lot of willy waggling about the size of their respective nuclear knobs.
annakm is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2018, 06:28
  #2139 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Japan
Posts: 511
Catch a fallin' rocket...
https://thediplomat.com/2018/01/when...h-korean-city/



When a North Korean Missile Accidentally Hit a North Korean City.
3 Jan 2018
by Ankit Panda and Dave Schmerler
jolihokistix is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2018, 15:27
  #2140 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 59
Posts: 5,171
Originally Posted by Super VC-10 View Post
The correct naval term is "blockade".
You are incorrect. The correct naval/maritime term is "embargo" and I refer you to the arms embargo against Former Yugoslavia circa 1992-1996, Operations (WEU) Sharp Fence and (NATO) Maritime Guard, later combined into Operation (NATO/WEU) Sharp Guard in 1993.


Similarly, there was a UNSC trade embargo enacted against Iraq in 1991 that lasted into 2003. (And yes, the oil was cheated on in that case as well). Part and parcel to that were MIO (Maritime Intercept Operations) in the Red Sea.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.