gowlerk 1,889 #101 April 16, 2022 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #102 April 16, 2022 1 hour ago, olofscience said: Since you didn't answer any of my points, I'll accept that as an admission that you were wrong. Thanks! Your “points” have a way of refuting themselves, it would be bad form to pile on. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JoeWeber 2,265 #103 April 16, 2022 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? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 1,889 #104 April 16, 2022 (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 April 16, 2022 by gowlerk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #105 April 16, 2022 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
olofscience 419 #106 April 17, 2022 4 hours ago, brenthutch said: Your “points” have a way of refuting themselves, it would be bad form to pile on. It was your linked article that refuted you Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #107 April 17, 2022 (edited) 27 minutes ago, olofscience said: It was your linked article that refuted you Only if one does not understand what it said. Edited April 17, 2022 by brenthutch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,355 #108 April 17, 2022 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JoeWeber 2,265 #109 April 17, 2022 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
olofscience 419 #110 April 17, 2022 10 hours ago, brenthutch said: Only if one does not understand what it said. And you clearly didn't 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? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #111 April 17, 2022 9 minutes ago, olofscience said: And you clearly didn't 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
olofscience 419 #112 April 17, 2022 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. 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,611 #113 April 17, 2022 38 minutes ago, olofscience said: In the "best case" scenario, domestic production can meet 40% of EU's needs, according to brent's own link Brent posted a link that contradicted his claim? Oh the humanity! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 1,889 #114 April 17, 2022 13 minutes ago, kallend said: Brent posted a link that contradicted his claim? Oh the humanity! Who knew it could be so hard? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JoeWeber 2,265 #115 April 17, 2022 3 hours ago, olofscience said: Ok, let's do the math then. 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? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,101 #116 April 18, 2022 (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 April 18, 2022 by SkyDekker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #117 April 18, 2022 (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 April 18, 2022 by brenthutch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
olofscience 419 #118 April 18, 2022 1 hour ago, brenthutch said: Coal could easily fill that gap. So... you're admitting there's a gap? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,355 #119 April 18, 2022 1 minute ago, olofscience said: So... you're admitting there's a gap? Careful - he will accuse you of twisting his words! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
olofscience 419 #120 April 27, 2022 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? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #121 April 27, 2022 (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 April 27, 2022 by brenthutch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,101 #122 April 27, 2022 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. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,089 #123 April 27, 2022 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #124 April 27, 2022 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,241 #125 April 27, 2022 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!" 4 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites