Saudi Arabia oil facilities ablaze after drone strikes

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  vic-eldred  •  last year  •  77 comments

Saudi Arabia oil facilities ablaze after drone strikes
He said Saturday's attack was one of the biggest operations the Houthi forces had undertaken inside Saudi Arabia and was carried out in "co-operation with the honourable people inside the kingdom". Saudi Arabia is said to be shutting down around half of its oil output, the Wall Street Journal reports.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Drone attacks have set alight two major oil facilities run by the state-owned company Aramco in Saudi Arabia, state media say.

Footage showed a huge blaze at Abqaiq, site of Aramco's largest oil processing plant, while a second drone attack started fires in the Khurais oilfield.

The fires are now under control at both facilities, state media said.

A spokesman for the Iran-aligned Houthi group in Yemen said it had deployed 10 drones in the attacks.

The military spokesman, Yahya Sarea, told al-Masirah TV, which is owned by the Houthi movement and is based in Beirut, that further attacks could be expected in the future.

He said Saturday's attack was one of the biggest operations the Houthi forces had undertaken inside Saudi Arabia and was carried out in "co-operation with the honourable people inside the kingdom".

Saudi Arabia is said to be shutting down around half of its oil output,   the Wall Street Journal reports .

Officials have not yet commented on who they think is behind the attacks.

"At 04:00 (01:00 GMT), the industrial security teams of Aramco started dealing with fires at two of its facilities in Abqaiq and Khurais as a result of... drones," the official Saudi Press Agency reported.
"The two fires have been controlled."
_108807926_saudiabqaiq29760919.png

There have been no details on the damage but Agence France-Presse quoted interior ministry spokesman Mansour al-Turki as saying there were no casualties.

Abqaiq is about 60km (37 miles) south-west of Dhahran in Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province, while Khurais, some 200km further south-west, has the country's second largest oilfield.

Saudi security forces foiled an attempt by al-Qaeda to attack the Abqaiq facility with suicide bombers in 2006.


An attack method open to all


Jonathan Marcus, BBC defence and diplomatic correspondent

This latest attack underlines the strategic threat posed by the Houthis to Saudi Arabia's oil installations.

The growing sophistication of the Houthis' drone operations is bound to renew the debate as to where this capability comes from. Have the Houthis simply weaponised commercial civilian drones or have they had significant assistance from Iran?

The Trump administration is likely to point the finger squarely at Tehran, but experts vary in the extent to which they think Iran is facilitating the drone campaign.

The Saudi Air Force has been pummelling targets in Yemen for years. Now the Houthis have a capable, if much more limited, ability to strike back. It shows that the era of armed drone operations being restricted to a handful of major nations is now over.

Drone technology - albeit of varying degrees of sophistication - is available to all; from the US to China, Israel and Iran... and from the Houthis to Hezbolllah.

Markets await news from key facilities


Analysis by BBC business correspondent Katie Prescott

Aramco ranks as the world's largest oil business and these facilities are significant.

The Khurais oilfield produces about 1% of the world's oil and Abqaiq is the company's largest facility - with the capacity to process 7% of the global supply. Even a brief or partial disruption could affect the company, and the oil supply, given their size.

But whether this will have an impact on the oil price come Monday will depend on just how extensive the damage is. Markets now have the weekend to digest information from Aramco and assess the long-term impact.

According to Richard Mallinson, geopolitical analyst at Energy Aspects, any reaction on Monday morning is likely to be muted, as markets are less worried about supply than demand at the moment, due to slower global economic growth and the ongoing trade war between the US and China.

However, there are concerns that escalating tensions in the region could pose a broader risk, potentially threatening the fifth of the world's oil supply that goes through the critical Strait of Hormuz.


Who are the Houthis?


The Iran-aligned Houthi rebel movement has been fighting the Yemeni government and a Saudi-led coalition.

Yemen has been at war since 2015, when President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi was forced to flee the capital Sanaa by the Houthis. Saudi Arabia backs President Hadi, and has led a coalition of regional countries against the rebels.

The coalition launches air strikes almost every day, while the Houthis often fire missiles into Saudi Arabia.

Mr Sarea, the Houthi group's military spokesman, told al-Masirah that operations against Saudi targets would "only grow wider and will be more painful than before, so long as their aggression and blockade continues".
_108808391_056189078-1.jpg

Houthi fighters were blamed for drone attacks on the Shaybah natural gas liquefaction facility last month and on other oil facilities in May.

There have been other sources of tension in the region, often stemming from the rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Saudi Arabia and the US both blamed Iran for attacks in the Gulf on two oil tankers in June and July, allegations Tehran denied.

In May, four tankers, two of them Saudi-flagged, were damaged by explosions within the UAE's territorial waters in the Gulf of Oman.

Saudi Arabia and then US National Security Adviser John Bolton blamed Iran. Tehran said the accusations were "ridiculous".

Tension in the vital shipping lanes worsened when Iran shot down a US surveillance drone over the Strait of Hormuz in June, leading a month later to   the Pentagon announcing the deployment of US troops to Saudi Arabia .



Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Vic Eldred
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    last year

President Donald Trump said in a tweet on Sunday that America was "locked and loaded" in response to attacks on two of Saudi Arabia's oil facilities.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-us-locked-and-loaded-saudi-aramco-oil-attack-2019-9

5b858ab9e199f327008b56fa-750-375.jpg


"Remember when Iran shot down a drone, saying knowingly that it was in their “airspace” when, in fact, it was nowhere close. They stuck strongly to that story knowing that it was a very big lie. Now they say that they had nothing to do with the attack on Saudi Arabia. We’ll see?".....Donald Trump

 
 
 
katrix
1.1  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    last year

Yep. How irresponsible of him. Managing foreign policy by tweet is NOT a good idea. Now the administration is backing down from what many people consider to have been a direct threat of military force.  Is it a negotiating tactic? Is it a threat? Nobody knows, including everyone who works for Trump.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @1.1    last year

I hear ya, Kat. If John Bolton was still giving advice the President would have some strong options! Strange how this bold action took place right after the "Stache" was fired.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.1.2  Jack_TX  replied to  katrix @1.1    last year
Managing foreign policy by tweet is NOT a good idea.

I'm going with this.

I'm going to upgrade it a bit to say that even though he needs to stop tweeting instantly and permanently, good decisions will eventually be made.

 
 
 
Krishna
1.2  Krishna  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    last year
President Donald Trump said in a tweet on Sunday that America was "locked and loaded"

Let's hope trump doesn't get us into another shooting war (isn't Afghanistan enuf?)

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Krishna @1.2    last year

I'm with you on that - especially between now and election day!

 
 
 
TTGA
1.2.2  TTGA  replied to  Krishna @1.2    last year
Let's hope trump doesn't get us into another shooting war (isn't Afghanistan enuf?)

As I recall, it was President Bush that got us into Afghanistan.  Something about giving sanctuary to some people who did something (flying airliners into buildings is not a friendly act).  But, of course, Trump did it, even though it was almost fifteen years before he became President.  

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
1.2.3  igknorantzrulz  replied to  TTGA @1.2.2    last year

reading (comprehension) is fundamental

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TTGA @1.2.2    last year

I guess any politician who ever got criticized for anything is probably thinking "I'm sure glad Trump came along!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.5  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.2.3    last year

The way it was put is open to interpretation. TTGA is fine with that.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.2.6  MUVA  replied to  Krishna @1.2    last year

He didn’t get us into Afghanistan.

 
 
 
Krishna
1.2.7  Krishna  replied to  TTGA @1.2.2    last year
As I recall, it was President Bush that got us into Afghanistan.

And it was president Trump, amongst  others, who chose not to end it.

The fact is, its ongoing. Every so often an American kid gets killed there-- or maimed for life.

Sure, every previous president since the war started chose not to end it-- but my comment was not aimed at blaming past presidents because currently they don't have the power to end it.

Only the current Commander-in-Chief can make that decision. (And if the next president is a Democrat, then he/she would have that power).

Getting into another typically stupid NT discussion trying to figure out whether more Democrats or more Republicans supported the war is IMO a waste of time-- the point is we should end this ridiculous war ASAP! (The big corporations  can find another source of rare earth metals...)

And in terms of Iran..is going to war with them really the smartest move?

 
 
 
Krishna
1.2.8  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @1.2.7    last year
And in terms of Iran..is going to war with them really the smartest move?

Although Trump, to his credit, did say on more than one occasion that  that he is willing to meet with Iran for discusssions...and without any pre-conditions :-)

(That comment starts at 29:00 into video)

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
1.2.9  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Krishna @1.2.8    last year

He's said it multiple times.

His Administration leaders just said it last week

.

What a FCKN JOKE

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.3  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    last year
President Donald Trump said in a tweet on Sunday that America was "locked and loaded" in response to attacks on two of Saudi Arabia's oil facilities.

Most of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.  Why is Trump willing to go to war, to help one of the countries responsible for 9/11?  Could it be because of all the Saudi money he and Jared have gotten???

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3    last year
Why is Trump willing to go to war, to help one of the countries responsible for 9/11? 

Because so many of our allies depend on Saudi Arabia for their oil needs. You know, the allies the left claims were so dissed by the President. They are also the regional counter balance to Iran. Unless you would rather we handle it?

 
 
 
Kavika
1.3.3  Kavika   replied to    last year

Russia is currently one of the largest suppliers of oil and natural gas to the EU. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.3.5  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3    last year

Perhaps instead of going to war, we can just get all the climate-change folks to deal with those responsible for setting the fires. That would show 'em!

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.3.6  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.1    last year
Because so many of our allies depend on Saudi Arabia for their oil needs.

So you feel Trump puts money (oil) above national security?  He's willing to deal with the devil?

Especially since Trump seems so intent on destroying renewable energy research and options.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
1.3.7  igknorantzrulz  replied to    last year
If you are a complete dumbass that is!

i thought you and Vic were on the same side...

somebody oughta flag that, cause that's what you guys seem to live for

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.3.8  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3.6    last year

Of course puts money above national security.  He puts money above everything.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3.9  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3.6    last year
So you feel Trump puts money (oil) above national security? 

That's a convenient interpretation of what I said. He is thinking of our allies.

He's willing to deal with the devil?

The devil being Iran, which is obviously buckling under Trump's sanctions. Whatever he decides he will be doing something to defeat the evil state of Iran. I'm hoping the Saudi's take on Iran for now. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.3.10  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.9    last year
The devil being Iran, which is obviously buckling under Trump's sanctions. Whatever he decides he will be doing something to defeat the evil state of Iran. I'm hoping the Saudi's take on Iran for now. 

Are you saying Saudi Arabia is less "evil"?  9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, not Iran.  But of course since Saudi Arabia has given millions to Trump and Kushner....

That's a convenient interpretation of what I said. He is thinking of our allies.

Suuuurrreee he is...

 
 
 
katrix
1.3.11  katrix  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3.10    last year
Are you saying Saudi Arabia is less "evil"?  9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, not Iran.  But of course since Saudi Arabia has given millions to Trump and Kushner....

Yep, that's why they weren't on Trump's Muslim ban list. He didn't actually ban the countries whose terrorists have killed Americans.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3.12  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3.10    last year
Are you saying Saudi Arabia is less "evil"?  9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, not Iran.

I am. Although the 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, there is only so much blame the Saudi's get for Al-queda.


But of course since Saudi Arabia has given millions to Trump and Kushner....

Saudi Arabia has been a strategic ally of the US long before Trump.


Suuuurrreee he is...

There are times when our allies need constructive criticism.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3.13  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @1.3.11    last year
Yep, that's why they weren't on Trump's Muslim ban list. He didn't actually ban the countries whose terrorists have killed Americans.

I'm hoping he resurrects the ban. We need to improve vetting!

 
 
 
TTGA
1.3.14  TTGA  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3.10    last year
Are you saying Saudi Arabia is less "evil"? 

Where did you ever get the ridiculous idea that international politics deals in emotional nonsense like the use of terms like "evil"  Those practicing international politics deal in the concepts of power and force (both being measurable and realistic).  Terms like "evil" and justice are indefinable in any terms except that of "my side wins and your side loses".  We're not dealing with choir boys here.  ALL governments, including ours, have blood on their hands.  That results from the fact that government is simply a mechanism for applying force.  Force is neither "good" nor "evil", it is just a means for controlling people.  In international politics, it is used to gain benefits for your side and for no other purpose.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.3.16  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.12    last year
I am. Although the 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, there is only so much blame the Saudi's get for Al-queda.

Okay, what actions has Iran taken, to conflict with America, that gives it a higher threat level than Saudi Arabia?  Has Iran dismembered any American Journalists?

Saudi Arabia has been a strategic ally of the US long before Trump.

You're actually calling Saudi Arabia an ally?  Have you forgotten 9/11 already???  You just mentioned it in the above post.

There are times when our allies need constructive criticism.

What Trump said was neither constructive or criticism, it was equivalent to a 5 year old calling another child a doodoo face.  Which is as close as Trump has ever gotten to diplomacy with our allies. 

He DOES LOVE to praise our enemies though doesn't he?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.3.17  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.13    last year
We need to improve vetting!

Please outline the specifics of our current vetting process and how you would like to see it changed.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.3.18  Ozzwald  replied to  TTGA @1.3.14    last year
Where did you ever get the ridiculous idea that international politics deals in emotional nonsense like the use of terms like "evil"

I was responding directly to a comment that used that term, hence the quotation marks.  If you have an issue with the term, address Vic Eldred since he's the one that used it. 

Otherwise please read the entire string before jumping to conclusions and accusations.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3.19  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3.16    last year
Okay, what actions has Iran taken, to conflict with America, that gives it a higher threat level than Saudi Arabia? 

Iran has been responsible either directly or through it's proxies for many American deaths:

Here is a complete history:

https://www.aipac.org/-/media/publications/policy-and-politics/aipac-analyses/one-pagers/a-history-of-iranian-attacks-on-americans.pdf

But I do like the way you crafted that question. It only matters what Iran did to the US. With that kind of reasoning, we would have only fought the Japanese during WWII since they were the only ones who attacked us. I'm sure you would have been in favor of that.


Has Iran dismembered any American Journalists? 

Not sure I get it? Are you implying that the Journalist who was killed by the Saudi's was American?

You're actually calling Saudi Arabia an ally?  

Yes I am. 

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-saudi-arabia-relations


Have you forgotten 9/11 already???  You just mentioned it in the above post.

Not at all, but you clearly ignored what I said.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3.20  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3.17    last year
Please outline the specifics of our current vetting process

Multiple agencies systems and databases complete checks against various U.S. security databases and conduct interviews.

how you would like to see it changed.



1) The U.S. should remain selective with refugees it accepts, focusing on applicants that the U.S. has an acceptable amount of intelligence on.

2) All citizens from any state sponsor of terror shall be denied entry (A ban)  Exhibit A - Iran

3) Any country which cannot verify the identity & status of it's citizens shall be denied entry (A ban)


 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.3.21  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.19    last year
ran has been responsible either directly or through it's proxies for many American deaths: Here is a complete history: https://www.aipac.org/-/media/publications/policy-and-politics/aipac-analyses/one-pagers/a-history-of-iranian-attacks-on-americans.pdf

Which still puts it well below Saudi Arabia in sheer numbers.

But I do like the way you crafted that question. It only matters what Iran did to the US.

Because we're talking about why Saudi Arabia is a US ally even though they are responsible for more terrorism than Iran.  Is that really such a hard concept to grasp?

Not sure I get it? Are you implying that the Journalist who was killed by the Saudi's was American?

You don't get it, because it does not fit within your narrow ideology.  READ WHAT I SAID!!   He was an AMERICAN JOURNALIST, I NEVER said American Citizen.  ( note to self, use smaller words )

Not at all, but you clearly ignored what I said.

That's because what you said makes no sense.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.3.22  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.20    last year
Multiple agencies systems and databases complete checks against various U.S. security databases and conduct interviews.

Already done.  Next time look it up before replying.

1) The U.S. should remain selective with refugees it accepts, focusing on applicants that the U.S. has an acceptable amount of intelligence on.

That has nothing to do with vetting.  Have you forgotten what we're talking about?  Vetting, not immigration.

2) All citizens from any state sponsor of terror shall be denied entry (A ban)  Exhibit A - Iran

Exhibit B - Saudi Arabia.  But they aren't on Trump's banned list, the number 1 terrorist exporter in the world.

Exhibit C - Russia, they have overtly struck at the heart of American democracy, yet no action against them, shouldn't they also be included???

3) Any country which cannot verify the identity & status of it's citizens shall be denied entry (A ban)

So you want other countries to do the work for us?  Remember, the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi citizens, yet were here legally.  Trump's ban and increased vetting (that he has yet to implement) would not have stopped them.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3.23  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3.21    last year
Which still puts it well below Saudi Arabia in sheer numbers.

Which is a far cry from Saudi Arabia being a bigger threat to the US than radical Iran!

Because we're talking about why Saudi Arabia is a US ally 

And I know you are having a tough time with that. In WWII we were allied to the Soviet Union. Why? Because the entire world needed the Soviet Union in order to defeat the Wehrmacht!

 He was an AMERICAN JOURNALIST,

He wrote anti-Saudi government stories for an American newspaper. We know. (here's another note for yourself - grow up)


That's because what you said makes no sense.

Not to you.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3.24  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3.22    last year
Already done.  Next time look it up before replying.

You asked what we were doing already, right? Maybe you should look up what you asked.

That has nothing to do with vetting. 

It absolutely does. Especially for refugees.

Exhibit B - Saudi Arabia.  But they aren't on Trump's banned list, the number 1 terrorist exporter in the world.

Exhibit C - Russia, they have overtly struck at the heart of American democracy, yet no action against them, shouldn't they also be included???

If they fit my criteria, they are denied.

So you want other countries to do the work for us?  

Only a failed state can't identify it's own people. They have to do at least that - even Obama wanted that!

 Remember, the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi citizens, yet were here legally. 

I recall

Trump's ban and increased vetting (that he has yet to implement) would not have stopped them.

Trump's ban was wrongfully obstructed by liberal judges. Time ran out on the ban as the question of it's legality slowly made it's way to the Supreme Court, where the Court confirmed what most of us already knew - Trump had the right to do it. I happen to think that since the issue is now settled, the President should issue a permanent ban on the original 7 nations plus Saudi Arabia.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
2  1stwarrior    last year

The U. S. does not need to get involved.  This "battle" is between two very strong religious idealistic countries and our dog ain't in this fight.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  1stwarrior @2    last year

I'll bet all our allies who are so dependent on Saudi oil are pleading with us to do something (off the record, of course).

 
 
 
1stwarrior
2.1.1  1stwarrior  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    last year

Well, "supposedly", the U.S. is now producing more oil than the ME - betcha we could do some selling, eh?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  1stwarrior @2.1.1    last year

We could sell all of the surplus

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.1.3  Jack_TX  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    last year
I'll bet all our allies who are so dependent on Saudi oil are pleading with us to do something (off the record, of course).

As we are now the world's largest producer, that "something" could easily be "sell more oil".

 
 
 
katrix
2.1.4  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.2    last year
We could sell all of the surplus

That would be a very bad idea. Then we wouldn't have any of it if we need it.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.5  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @2.1.4    last year
That would be a very bad idea. Then we wouldn't have any of it if we need it.

Kat, with all due respect, surplus would mean (by definition) that which is leftover after we satisfy our own needs. We do hold a certain amount in reserve.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3  seeder  Vic Eldred    last year

US hints at military response to Saudi attacks as oil prices surge

It is the first time the president has hinted at a potential American military response to the drone attacks, which slashed Saudi oil production by half and led both the kingdom and the United States to announce they may tap their strategic reserves.

 
 
 
Kavika
3.1  Kavika   replied to  Vic Eldred @3    last year

At this time I hope it's only a ''hint''....An attack on Iran, IMO, will lead to a much wider war and Iran will turn loose all it's proxy's and there will be a lot of bloodletting and American blood will be part of it. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kavika @3.1    last year

I don't think we need to intervene, but the Saudi's should. As I said before Iran is feeling the sanctions. I believe the President may have a statement any minute

 
 
 
r.t..b...
3.1.2  r.t..b...  replied to  Kavika @3.1    last year
At this time I hope it's only a ''hint'

If it follows the normal course of action, the comment will be walked back with no concrete nor cogent explanation. And I agree, escalation of tensions would not be in our best interest. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4  Sean Treacy    last year

The Sanctions are working, the mullahs are lashing out. Help Saudi Arabia as needed but just let the Iranian economy collapse and hopefully the Islamic republic will be no more. 

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online









40 visitors