2 2
brenthutch

Reality check

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

He's boiling the Russian frog, I think. Little by little we're crossing the line. So far, so good.

This is the escalation that I warned of when it started. It will not end well. Putin is a desperate despot with powerful tools and a view to having his name remembered long after he is gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

This is the escalation that I warned of when it started. It will not end well. Putin is a desperate despot with powerful tools and a view to having his name remembered long after he is gone.

It is, of course, the strategy I proposed at the onset so in addition to your being right, I'll be wrong. Even with the benefit of hindsight how do you think we should be proceeding from here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
57 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Even with the benefit of hindsight how do you think we should be proceeding from here?

Stay the course. Keep providing weapons. The number one reason Russia has done so poorly is that Ukrainians have stood up when they were expected to fold. The number two reason is the west has supported them with material. The number three reason is that Russia was overextended and poorly led. The game is now shifting to areas that are closer to Russia and easier for them to supply. And they will now be fighting on more favourable terrain with a somewhat friendlier population. This will most likely end with Russia taking most of the Donbas and keeping it along with Crimea. This will be the new reality along with a new cold war and Ukraine becoming not a full NATO member, but a de facto protectorate of sorts. This arrangement will be inherently unstable until there is some change in the Russian system.

 

PS, this is the wrong thread for this discussion.

Edited by gowlerk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Stay the course. Keep providing weapons. The number one reason Russia has done so poorly is that Ukrainians have stood up when they were expected to fold. The number two reason is the west has supported them with material. The number three reason is that Russia was overextended and poorly led. The game is now shifting to areas that are closer to Russia and easier for them to supply. And they will now be fighting on more favourable terrain with a somewhat friendlier population. This will most likely end with Russia taking most of the Donbas and keeping it along with Crimea. This will be the new reality along with a new cold war and Ukraine becoming not a full NATO member, but a de facto protectorate of sorts. This arrangement will be inherently unstable until there is some change in the Russian system.

 

PS, this is the wrong thread for this discussion.

Thread drift notwithstanding, I agree with the first half of your analysis.  However, I think the Russian atrocities along with Ukrainian success on the battlefield have changed the dynamic.  The Russian military is well suited to fight WW2, not the conflict it which it finds itself.  As long as Ukraine is finding success on the battlefield, I don’t see a reason for them to settle for anything less that a full reclamation of their pre 2014 territory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, olofscience said:

It was your linked article that refuted you 

The dangers of not reading the stuff you post.  It does cut down on the number of zingers one can post, true, because for some reading is somewhat painful and tedious.  On the plus side, if you read, fewer of those zingers end up biting you back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Thread drift notwithstanding, I agree with the first half of your analysis.  However, I think the Russian atrocities along with Ukrainian success on the battlefield have changed the dynamic.  The Russian military is well suited to fight WW2, not the conflict it which it finds itself.  As long as Ukraine is finding success on the battlefield, I don’t see a reason for them to settle for anything less that a full reclamation of their pre 2014 territory.

The reason will likely be the insistence of America who cleverly led Ukraine to a position where they can give up what was previously lost in exchange for peace. That, I believe, is where Biden is taking this thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Only if one does not understand what it said.

And you clearly didn't :rofl:

To be fair, the way they said it was not the clearest ("The best case scenario for shale gas development in Europe is one in which declining conventional production can be replaced and import dependence maintained at a level of around 60%") but it shouldn't be a problem if you're fluent in English.

Let me guess - complex sentences and whiskey don't mix?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, olofscience said:

And you clearly didn't :rofl:

To be fair, the way they said it was not the clearest ("The best case scenario for shale gas development in Europe is one in which declining conventional production can be replaced and import dependence maintained at a level of around 60%") but it shouldn't be a problem if you're fluent in English.

Let me guess - complex sentences and whiskey don't mix?

Bottom line, the EU has enough shale gas reserves to fully replace RUSSIAN natural gas and do so for quite some time.

You are making the simple mistake of conflating Russian gas and oil with overall imports.  Russian aggression in Ukraine makes that a noteworthy distinction.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Bottom line, the EU has enough shale gas reserves to fully replace RUSSIAN natural gas and do so for quite some time.

You are making the simple mistake of conflating Russian gas and oil with overall imports.  Russian aggression in Ukraine makes that a noteworthy distinction.  

Ok, let's do the math then.

Europe (EU-27) and the United Kingdom (UK) natural gas supply

source: (https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=51258)

In the "best case" scenario, domestic production can meet 40% of EU's needs, according to brent's own link. From this chart, that means about 18 billion cubic feet per day. But since current production is already around 8 billion cubic feet per day, they can potentially add 10 billion cubic feet per day if they drill and frack as much as they can.

Imports from Russia: 13 billion cubic feet per day.

13 billion > 10 billion. If Russian imports go to zero and they've drilled as much as they can, they're still 3 billion cubic feet per day short.

 

You see, you've made the simple mistake of assuming that Europe has ZERO domestic production right now. But given that simple maths is beyond your abilities I'm not surprised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, olofscience said:

Ok, let's do the math then.

Europe (EU-27) and the United Kingdom (UK) natural gas supply

source: (https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=51258)

In the "best case" scenario, domestic production can meet 40% of EU's needs, according to brent's own link. From this chart, that means about 18 billion cubic feet per day. But since current production is already around 8 billion cubic feet per day, they can potentially add 10 billion cubic feet per day if they drill and frack as much as they can.

Imports from Russia: 13 billion cubic feet per day.

13 billion > 10 billion. If Russian imports go to zero and they've drilled as much as they can, they're still 3 billion cubic feet per day short.

 

You see, you've made the simple mistake of assuming that Europe has ZERO domestic production right now. But given that simple maths is beyond your abilities I'm not surprised.

When you go wine shopping do you count what's already in your cellar? Well, of course not! Same thing, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
On 4/16/2022 at 9:26 AM, JoeWeber said:

What more ludicrous situation could exist than Western Europe sending arms to Ukraine to beat back the Russians while continuing to fund the Russian military with fossil fuel purchases? All of our choices now are shitty but that's how it works sometimes.

Sort of like financing Nazis and selling weapons to Allied forces?

 

Or being reliant on Taiwan and China for cheap production and semi-conductors. If China were to move on Taiwan and the US would have to place sanctions on China the US would be in a world of hurt.

Edited by SkyDekker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
On 4/17/2022 at 7:58 AM, olofscience said:

13 billion > 10 billion. If Russian imports go to zero and they've drilled as much as they can, they're still 3 billion cubic feet per day short.

 

 

Coal could easily fill that gap.

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
4 hours ago, olofscience said:

while brent is busy patting himself on the back and claiming victory because no one is "convincing" him on that other thread, crickets on this one.

Cat got his tongue, maybe?

Just in case you forgot there are 41 points.  You feebly attempted to rebut one.  You have some more work to do.

https://sovereignnations.com/2019/08/06/41-inconvenient-truths-new-energy-economy/

 

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Just in case you forgot there are 41 points.  You feebly attempted to rebut one.  You have some more work to do.

https://sovereignnations.com/2019/08/06/41-inconvenient-truths-new-energy-economy/

 

From that list I see where you get your logic from. Just a bunch of statements, but no discussion on why that statement matters or how it correlates to the "problem".

Since this is the Ukraine war threat, let's tie the two issues together. Imagine if you can harvest energy in space and then beam it to earth to be used. "Unlimited" renewable energy without issues like clouds or darkness.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Since this is the Ukraine war threat, let's tie the two issues together. Imagine if you can harvest energy in space and then beam it to earth to be used. "Unlimited" renewable energy without issues like clouds or darkness.

Now that's thinking outside the box! Kudos, sir

Wendy P. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Imagine if you can harvest energy in space and then beam it to earth to be used. "Unlimited" renewable energy without issues like clouds or darkness.

You mean something like converting millions of years of solar energy into a dense stable form and storing it underground until it is needed?  It would be even better if this magical source of energy came in solid, liquid and gaseous states and could be easily transported by ship, rail, truck or pipeline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Just in case you forgot there are 41 points.  You feebly attempted to rebut one.  You have some more work to do.

https://sovereignnations.com/2019/08/06/41-inconvenient-truths-new-energy-economy/

Lol, do you not know what that makes you sound like?

"Why good sir, you have not taken the time to personally reply to all 800 individual points in this list I copied and pasted from someone's blog? Then I declare victory!":rofl:

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

2 2