Pirates seize Saudi oil carrier
posted at 9:55 am on November 18, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Piracy in the Indian Ocean just took a significant turn for the worse. A Saudi tanker holding the equivalent of 25% of the nation’s daily output got seized by pirates, presumably from Somalia, far out of the normal zone of risk. The seizure raises questions about safety, ecology, and the security of energy transport:
Pirates operating off the coast of east Africa have hijacked a Saudi supertanker fully laden with an estimated 2m barrels of oil in an attack that marks a significant escalation in the scope of banditry in the region.
The pirates, believed to be from lawless Somalia, seized control of the Sirius Star, which is owned by Saudi Aramco, the world’s largest oil company, on Saturday, 450 nautical miles south-east of the Kenyan Indian Ocean port of Mombasa.
It is estimated that the tanker was holding more than a quarter of the daily exports from Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil exporter. The oil would have been worth about $100m (€79m, £66.5m) at Monday’s market price but is probably of little interest to the pirates.
The Financial Times speculates that the pirates will demand a ransom, the usual end result of piracy in the region. They may have a difficult time getting to the cash, however. The pirates usually seize cargo ships and not tankers, which are more difficult to captain and cannot use the normal docks frequented by the pirates. The tankers ride low in the water, and the danger of grounding is very real, especially for inexperienced pilots. The ecological destruction could surpass that of the Exxon Valdez, which had about half of the capacity of the Sirius Star.
That assumes, of course, that these pirates want this tanker for ransom. It seems strange that the same pirates that target food aid closer to shore would go this far out of their way for an oil tanker. The value is much higher, of course — one expert says they “hit the jackpot” — but crew safety rather than cargo value is the main driver for ransoms. They’d probably get the same amount of money, while taking a much higher risk with a ship they can’t maneuver as well. Does that make any sense?
So for what other purpose could pirates use a massive oil tanker? They could have seized it as a terror weapon. Sailed into a harbor and detonated, a tanker this size could do massive damage, especially to an oil-exporting port — and it could send shock waves throughout the energy industry for months, if not years. Just sinking it could block exports for weeks while salvage crews cleared the wreckage.
Hopefully, the US Navy or other forces can intercept the Sirius Star before the pirates attempt to navigate it anywhere close to a port and negotiate for the release of the crew and the ship. With rumblings of al-Qaeda plots coming from Yemen, this particular act of piracy bears close watch.
Update: I should have made this more clear in the initial post. The crude on board won’t explode — it has to be refined to make it flammable enough for that kind of power. However, the pirates/terrorists could load it up with enough explosives to create havoc when it sails into a port, blocking access and damaging the facilities badly enough to make them unusable. If they had that kind of operation planned, they would have brought enough explosives on board during the seizure of the ship to make it work. Plus, the tanker itself would have fuel to use in that capacity as well.
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »
So, do you suppose this is a ploy to drive up the price of oil?
Tommy_G on November 18, 2008 at 9:58 AM
Wow…I know these Somali pirates are a real threat in the area, but this one takes the cake. I don’t know why those guys aren’t treated like terrorists, and denied any negotiations at all.
JetBoy on November 18, 2008 at 10:00 AM
shiver me timbers
bluejacket on November 18, 2008 at 10:01 AM
I’m blaming this Obama. Actually, I’m blaming everything bad that happens from now on, on Obama.
This is part of his “redistribution” plan.
theRealMcCoy on November 18, 2008 at 10:01 AM
Get used to it. You are going to see a lot more of this for a while.
Vashta.Nerada on November 18, 2008 at 10:02 AM
Can someone explain why it’s our job to deal with these idiots? The Saudis are loaded with cash, can’t they buy a few boats to protect their own ****ing tankers?
lodge on November 18, 2008 at 10:02 AM
That’s funny.Finally the Saudi’s will know what it feels like to be robbed and extorted like they have been doing to us.
They have my sympathies.
NeoKong on November 18, 2008 at 10:04 AM
Leave it to the stupid pirates to hijack a tanker, after the price has fallen by 50%…hey dummies, should have done that 6 months ago.
Time to put a few “Q” boats on the water and take these suckers out…
right2bright on November 18, 2008 at 10:04 AM
Because they have been known to intimidate passenger ships, and other cargo also.
The pirates are getting brazen.
right2bright on November 18, 2008 at 10:05 AM
Obama says let them keep the tanker……….
.
.
Then tax them on their capital gains when they sell it back to the Saudi’s.
.
.
See how simple the world is when we think like Obama.
.
.
subbottomfeeder on November 18, 2008 at 10:05 AM
Sounds like a great excuse to get our Navy directly involved in the WoT.
nukemhill on November 18, 2008 at 10:06 AM
Another form of energy terrorism, perhaps? Having the power to manipulate futures trading would probably be profitable.
I fail to understand why these merchant ships don’t carry adequate defensive ordnance and trained security teams.
a capella on November 18, 2008 at 10:06 AM
Obama’s first appeal to the International community.
Let’s see how WELL the rest of the world LOVE us now.
Sir Napsalot on November 18, 2008 at 10:06 AM
You can’t detonate a tanker full of crude – it won’t explode. You can run it aground and cause a spill, or sink it at the entrance to a port or the Suez Canal, which would impede commerce. This all assumes they don’t just want ransom and publicity, which I think is the true purpose. In that case, they can just steer it into open water and wait.
Vashta.Nerada on November 18, 2008 at 10:07 AM
screw ‘em. let the saudi’s deal with this mess
gatorboy on November 18, 2008 at 10:08 AM
Ah, where are those brave souls from Greenpeace in their Zodiac boats when you really need them.
Brat on November 18, 2008 at 10:09 AM
So? It’s freakin Africa.
lodge on November 18, 2008 at 10:11 AM
Somalis are nasty.
drjohn on November 18, 2008 at 10:12 AM
our enemies are emoldened, simple as that. Imagine what would happen in Persian Gulf at the strait of Hormuz if not for the US Forces there.
jp on November 18, 2008 at 10:12 AM
If ransom is paid, how would they “get away”? Answer: they don’t… unless they they somehow sink the ship and go down with it. There is something deeper going on here…
beththebaker on November 18, 2008 at 10:12 AM
Can we bill them later, please?
Sir Napsalot on November 18, 2008 at 10:12 AM
Thomas Jefferson is looking down saying “did you learn nothing from the Barbary Wars I fought”
jp on November 18, 2008 at 10:12 AM
Sounds like a good job for Obama’s civilian national security force. They could survey the pirates until they give up the ship.
Limerick on November 18, 2008 at 10:13 AM
Imagine what will happen once they are pulled out in a couple of years.
Vashta.Nerada on November 18, 2008 at 10:13 AM
I’m sure the world-famous Saudi Navy is already on the case. Their crack commandos (the envy of the US Navy Seals and the Israeli hostage rescue teams) are practicing rapid insertion and extraction scenarios as we speak.
:-)
factoid on November 18, 2008 at 10:13 AM
I’m with ya brother. I can sh*t-sling too. Two wrongs apparently make a right with the majority nowadays, so screw it.
johnnyU on November 18, 2008 at 10:15 AM
All they need to do is throw one attack heli on each tanker…one little heli will take out most any “fleet” of pirates. And we are not talking about a high tech heli.
This outta do it.
right2bright on November 18, 2008 at 10:15 AM
Hopefully, the US Navy or other forces can intercept the Sirius Star before the pirates attempt to navigate it anywhere close to a port and negotiate for the release of the crew and the ship.
“Other forces” being code word for the U.S. Air Force. Bomb the ship, show the bastards that it won’t work.
RWLA on November 18, 2008 at 10:16 AM
Why is it so hard to deal with pirates? The first declared war the US fought was against the Barbery Pirates. A few subs with torpedos, a few PT-109 type fast attack boats. Send in a few cargo ships loaded with US Marines as “bait.”
What’s left after that, hang from the closest yardarm. Done in about 2 weeks. ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!
Real question: Why can’t we do this?
dentalque on November 18, 2008 at 10:17 AM
Next up: Pirate/Drone warfare.
vinman on November 18, 2008 at 10:18 AM
Victor Davis Hanson has wrote alot about why its America’s role to secure our shipping routes:
http://townhall.com/columnists/VictorDavisHanson/2008/08/14/brave_old_world?page=full
jp on November 18, 2008 at 10:18 AM
right2bright has the right idea (no pun intended). You can’t outrun a minigun with wings.
Limerick on November 18, 2008 at 10:19 AM
What is the difference between a Somali pirate and a Somali terrorist?
albill on November 18, 2008 at 10:20 AM
Because we are a merchantile nation, and because this route is one that also heads to America. Here’s the current toll:
We may not have many US-flagged ships, but ships under other flags bearing goods to our shores deserve our protection, no matter where they are on the ocean. We cannot allow pirates to shut down any shipping lane leading to America.
unclesmrgol on November 18, 2008 at 10:21 AM
Number of teeth?
Limerick on November 18, 2008 at 10:21 AM
I blame
BushObama.Mr_Magoo on November 18, 2008 at 10:21 AM
I believe this horse has already left the barn. Another site states that the tanker is anchored about 3 miles offshore of Somalia.
Great idea banning weapons from all commercial vessels on the high seas so only the pirates are armed. How’s that workin’ out? Sort of like Obama’s plan for gun ownership in the U.S.
BadDogMN on November 18, 2008 at 10:22 AM
I think it’s something much shallower. I think they figured it was big and valuable, so it’s a good thing to grab. Now they’ve got it and have no idea what to do with it.
Farmer_Joe on November 18, 2008 at 10:22 AM
I blame
Bush ObamaBiden. Is this part of the “test”?Brat on November 18, 2008 at 10:22 AM
I say – send Hillary in and let her talk them to death.
izoneguy on November 18, 2008 at 10:23 AM
heh heh, about six months ago oil prices would go up 50 cents over something like this. Not going up so much now is it? Now, if these bluebeards have any balls they’ll threaten to run the thing aground if this is in fact a real event and not some stunt by the oil companies who are sitting on 100’s of billions in PROFITS mind you. Those poor oil companies. Gee why don’t they pick up the phone and work a deal with the car companies? I’d advise a quick response before they do something wacky and deploy a massive oil slick though.
Oh by the way, what the differance between a pirate and a terrorist? Is there one?
johnnyU on November 18, 2008 at 10:23 AM
This piracy business is getting way out of hand.Time to start hanging em.
jellybelly on November 18, 2008 at 10:24 AM
heh heh. Number of teeth….
johnnyU on November 18, 2008 at 10:25 AM
No, then WH attorney Craig will have to resign to take on their defense.
Limerick on November 18, 2008 at 10:25 AM
I think this might be an inside job , it’s a new large tanker they have surveillance and protection equipment .
the_nile on November 18, 2008 at 10:27 AM
we needed to give the Democrats all this power right now, like we need a bullet in the head.
the irony is, had bush governed more as a fascist and controlled the Media and news like Wilson and FDR did, we wouldn’t be in this situation, he’d be more popular and the nation would be less retarded.
jp on November 18, 2008 at 10:28 AM
Seems like something straight out of a Tom Clancy novel.
MadisonConservative on November 18, 2008 at 10:29 AM
They’re suspiciously unaccounted for..
the_nile on November 18, 2008 at 10:29 AM
Why aren’t the crew of these big ships armed – or at least have armed security.
Seems like a no brainer.
You-Eh-Vee on November 18, 2008 at 10:30 AM
I would think the threat of ecological damage is one of their biggest levers. Once they have control of the tankers, it’s too late to attack them. They need to be stopped prior to taking over. Turn any survivors who aren’t in pieces over to the sweet Saudi justice system and televise the punishment.
a capella on November 18, 2008 at 10:30 AM
Vashta.Nerada on November 18, 2008 at 10:31 AM
I just read that in the news. And so we are going to help the Saudi’s? Why can’t they do it themselves? Something odd on this. Doesn’t add up. I don’t trust the Saudi’s, never have.
sheebe on November 18, 2008 at 10:32 AM
Two points.
In the Saudi culture its OK to buy off an enemy. Its NOT OK to ask for help and seem weak… they won’t ask for US help which will tie our hands interationaly.
As to the military ability to retake this ship? It will depend on who these guys really are.
If they are Qud’s force type guys, they will have wired the ship with explosives, and be willing to suicide… collateral damage could be very high… no matter who you send in…
Somali Pirates? Heck… no sweat… an oil tanker can take a LOT of small arms (ie 30mm or less) damage before it starts to leak or have problems… 2 Destroyers, cover the Helo Fast Line insertion (Seal Team) from close abeam… Take the top deck, put in the Destoyers boarding teams for support and prisoner/crew control… then clear the ship…
Key here is who they are, and why did they take it…
Romeo13 on November 18, 2008 at 10:32 AM
I don’t trust the Russians at all, wouldn’t suprise me if they arent pulling some terrorist strings. Putin is smart.
for an idea of just how stupid ROn Paul is, he wanted to eliminate the Income Tax and fund the Govt. only from all other sources of taxes it received. To do this, he proposed reducing the military signficantly and “bring the all home to only defend our borders”, and stop funding our “empire”, elminate CIA, FBI, Dept of Education(Yay), etc…..and even then it didn’t make up for the amount of spending that would need to be elminated.
but whats telling is the naive idea that if we simply trade with these nations, that all will go well. Its an enlightenment fantasy
jp on November 18, 2008 at 10:33 AM
Our Special Forces diffuse the situation. We get to keep the oil on board, Saudi’s get their tanker back after it’s emptied at a US port.
Deal or No Deal?
fogw on November 18, 2008 at 10:33 AM
Because there is an international convention (U.N. I believe) that bans all weapons from commercial vessels on the high seas.
BadDogMN on November 18, 2008 at 10:33 AM
alot of things that have happened recently seem like this, scary
jp on November 18, 2008 at 10:34 AM
We need to treat these pirates civily. We need to open our court system to them so that they know that they will be treated fairly. We need to give them a media outlet to express their anger and hatred at the US. We need to make sure that any US military personnel who express such blatant hatred toward the pirates by acts like engaging them in armed conflict are pressed to the full extent of the law. We need to make sure that the pirates know of our willingness to lay down our arms for the sake of upholding decades old ‘fair fight’ doctrines. We need to better understand why the US’s waste of materials has forced the pirates into starvation and survivalist living. We need to allow for the fact that pirates have a hard life and it is all our fault.
That’s all we need to do, and the pirate problem will simply go away.
gatorboy on November 18, 2008 at 10:35 AM
I suggest that all large ships’ security forces be outfitted with RPGs, which will dramatically change the odds when faced with pirate vessels.
Vashta.Nerada on November 18, 2008 at 10:35 AM
It seems that 65 million Americans might just agree with that.
Limerick on November 18, 2008 at 10:38 AM
Did anyone ever get that other Vessel back… the one where it was possibly radio active?
No? Hmmm… ok someone tell me how they are going to get the tanker back.
I have been waiting for this to happen…. and so it did.
upinak on November 18, 2008 at 10:39 AM
How about the fact that their reduction in supply hasn’t caused the price to increase and the Saudis staged the hijack to cause unease in the markets?
broker1 on November 18, 2008 at 10:40 AM
Tanker was headed to the United States when the pirates took it. It already was our oil. Charging an ally, who is engaged in peaceful trade with us, a ransom for their ship carrying our cargo seems sort of in-your-face, don’t you think?
unclesmrgol on November 18, 2008 at 10:41 AM
Good grief. Huckabee lost, and your next best choice won the general. Please leave your conspiracy theories by the door.
Vashta.Nerada on November 18, 2008 at 10:46 AM
During WWII, Germans and the Allies would use decoy ships, apparently unarmed cargo vessels which would suddenly sprout heavy armament from concealed positions once enemy submarines or ships tried to capture them.
It seems like a good time to recreate that strategy, give the pirates some angst about which ships might be real and which might be decoys.
Bishop on November 18, 2008 at 10:47 AM
Vashta.Nerada on November 18, 2008 at 10:46 AM
Easy trigger, if you cant see that dripping with sarcasm you have been hanging out at DU way too long.
broker1 on November 18, 2008 at 10:47 AM
Yep. The Saudi’s could use a heavy dose of in-your-face. Our soldiers die to protect their precious oil and to protect them from their power hungry neighbors, while they send not a single soul to fight and die for their own country,
Eff em.
fogw on November 18, 2008 at 10:48 AM
With as many troll posting crap in here… let me let you in on a little hint for using a sarcastic line.
/sarc
EASY!
upinak on November 18, 2008 at 10:49 AM
ROFL! Yeah, I don’t think smarts was a big factor here… can’t outrun anyone, can’t hide it in a port… now what?
dominigan on November 18, 2008 at 10:51 AM
Can a cargo ship explosion do a lot of damage?
Halifax, Nova Scotia, 1917.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Explosion
jeff_from_mpls on November 18, 2008 at 10:51 AM
Your sarc button must be broke. It happens.
Vashta.Nerada on November 18, 2008 at 10:51 AM
That’s insane. Why? What is the argument?
If the idea is to prevent piracy by disarming everyone, then you only make every target more tempting for pirates (who are unlikely to obey the rule, anyway).
Count to 10 on November 18, 2008 at 10:52 AM
jeff they add a fire retardant when refined for shipment out, just in case something happen. It is oil, and yes still able to light up… but not like halifax.
upinak on November 18, 2008 at 10:53 AM
Yes, but that was munitions, not crude. Crude is flammable to an extent, but not explosive.
Vashta.Nerada on November 18, 2008 at 10:55 AM
I fought against these guys on two seperate deployments. They are organized and pretty ruthless.
They also are not stupid.
Squid Shark on November 18, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Good to know. I guess I’m a little more worried about the hostages and the possibility that the pirates might engineer a spill.
(Small consolation: if there is a spill off the coast of Somalia, it would probably go a long way to discourage the locals from supporting this kind of thing.)
Count to 10 on November 18, 2008 at 10:57 AM
Isn’t this a mission made for the Predator and Hellfire missiles? You could probably sell tickets to the general public to fire Hellfires at pirates. And the MOAB is meant for pirate bases. Game over.
Tantor on November 18, 2008 at 10:57 AM
Gun control. Works every time. Like Chicago.
a capella on November 18, 2008 at 10:58 AM
Relatively easy to take the ship, if you disregard the crew. Much harder, but doable, if the well-being of said crew is considered
The LAST thing you want is to hole the tanker badly enough to breach the hull, though,for obvious reasons.
irongrampa on November 18, 2008 at 11:02 AM
Count well there is a tricky issue there. The United States has ordered that no tanker to come into U.S. water without being double hulled. I have a feeling that this tanker probably is. BUT, lets say it wasn’t and someone shot a weapon and hit the side with a few bullet holes.
Now this is tough steel… BUT it can start fracturing… which can lead to a possible leak… and if there was a storm. Exxon would look like a a puddle compared to that area… where the oil would make a nice sheen since the water is 20 degree warmer. So it won’t clump up like when it happened up here.
upinak on November 18, 2008 at 11:02 AM
How about some specifics? Arms, vessels, communications, training, vulnerabilities?
a capella on November 18, 2008 at 11:02 AM
I wonder how the seizure would have turned out with a few Gatling guns at strategic locations on the ship’s rail? If you are going to cower every time someone points a weapon at you, you are going to live a very sheltered existence.
But the reweal issue is …
Has anybody figured out how you board a VLCC at speed? Why would they stop? And RPG isn’t going to sink a ship of this size, much less do anything more than minor damage. The cargo isn’t going to explode.
In the end, it’s all duh-Bamba’s fault.
tarpon on November 18, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Huh?
And oil will burn if things get hot enough.
If the USN can take her back, the Saudis ought to remember such a thing next time oil prices spike.
toliver on November 18, 2008 at 11:09 AM
You know, it is going to be a real crappy world for a few years.
Vashta.Nerada on November 18, 2008 at 11:09 AM
Absolutely. Worst president evah, and he isn’t even sworn in!
a capella on November 18, 2008 at 11:09 AM
The UN has been silence on this for years, so why should we care about the piracy now? Heck money funding many of these terrorist comes from Saudi, so why should we or any other country do anything to help them?
JeffinSac on November 18, 2008 at 11:09 AM
Timing is everything isn’t it? Blow the f’n thing up and the prices will still stay down. Our prices are being meddled with. No doubt some game is going on when gas is headed to $1.50 and diesel is still over $3.00.
johnnyU on November 18, 2008 at 11:10 AM
The green bandana’s on thier heads makes me think it’s Hamas, the arm of the iranian regime!! It’s a win win for Iran, it either drives up the price of oil or they make a quick 50 million.
Bfunky292 on November 18, 2008 at 11:10 AM
Actually it’s my understand that there is a way to detonate it. Basically the first step is to dump most of the crude, creating a large “air space” above the remaining crude. Then wait for some time as the more volitile compounds evaporate from the crude into the “air space” creating an explosive gas. Step 3 is to light the gas which would explode and that would also ignite the slick they made in the first step. (No idea how much would have to be dumped or how long they’d have to wait to do this scenario.)
Dave_d on November 18, 2008 at 11:11 AM
Predictably.
Count to 10 on November 18, 2008 at 11:12 AM
Actualy…. interesting Legal Case here.
We are not at war with these Pirates, and they are no longer in International Waters, nor have they taken a US Flagged Ship.
With the recent Supreme Court ruling that US Civil Rights are given to anyone to people taken by the US Military (Gitmo case), trials would have to be in US Courts…
Can we even storm this ship without a Subpoena? We are not, nor have been, in “hot pursuit”. Its not in International waters (Anti Piracy laws don’t apply).
Wow, what a tangled web they weaved, when first the Supremes did intercede….
Romeo13 on November 18, 2008 at 11:13 AM
Actually there’s a good article about that HERE
JetBoy on November 18, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Al Qaeda’s been planning a “seaborne jihad” for years, now, and they’re close to Salafist groups in both Yemen and East Africa — plus they hate the Saudi monarchy. (The show good taste for that.) I wouldn’t be surprised if this was an act of jihad, rather than a simple piracy for ransom.
Until we get back to hanging pirates on the spot, it will probably be necessary to arrange guarded convoys through the area.
irishspy on November 18, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Which is why judicial restraint is important to fiscal, social, and national security conservatives.
Count to 10 on November 18, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Somali Pirate joke:
After the Somali Pirates seized the Saudi oil tanker the leader of the Somali Pirates, who has a speech impediment, loudly pounds on the door of the Captain of the oil tanker and tells him to open the door.
The Captain of the Oil Tanker opens the door and says, “Oh, I see you’re a pirate.” the Captain says, “but where are your buccaneers?”
The Somali pirate gets really mad and says “on the sides of my buckin’ head!”
albill on November 18, 2008 at 11:16 AM
It is relatively difficult. There are commercial wicking agents that can be dumped on a slick to try and increase volatility and insulate the oil from the water and get it to burn. These agents are designed to burn off spills before they get to beaches. Crude is pretty viscous, and not very volatile, and the air/vapor mixture is what will burn. Unfortunately (or in this case, fortunately) the water below the slick is a heat sink that minimizes the vaporization, and steals the heat necessary to keep the slick burning.
Vashta.Nerada on November 18, 2008 at 11:17 AM
They just seized a Hong Kong grain shipment
lodge on November 18, 2008 at 11:17 AM
The words “Mark my words”, “within 6 months”, and “going to test us” keep coming to mind for some reason.
AubieJon on November 18, 2008 at 11:18 AM
25% of the United States’ daily consumption of oil?
No, Allah.
We consume around 20 million barrels of oil a day. That would mean a tanker carrying 2 million barrels of oil would represent 10% of our daily intake, not 25%!
A little fact thrown your way, Allah. Will you correct the 25% statement or not?
Kokonut on November 18, 2008 at 11:18 AM
yep. I need a hug.
yeah there is… it is called adding about 100 barrels of pure rubbing alcohol and over 1000 lbs of fertilizer and wait 3 weeks. The light a fuse.
upinak on November 18, 2008 at 11:20 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »