"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (4 Viewers)

[drgondog]

And so it begins. Price caps don't work well when zero supply offered?

ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

and further clouding the move away from G7, with combined resources of Russia, China and India to crush the US dollar (even more than recent Fed moves).

Note - sale of NG to China, China offers to EU. Is EU going to try to set a price cap on China shipments?

The Russian Gold Standard

It is becoming increasingly clear that UN Nations are realising that it is very difficult to isolate a country that is already a global power. And not ju...

news.goldcore.com

 

[swampyankee]

The big difference is domestic vs international.

All those groups were forcibly incorporated, but getting international support was a bit harder when it took months for a letter to get from there to here.

 

[swampyankee]

A language professor once told me,
"The difference between a dialect and a language is a national border."

A similar line is "a language is a dialect with an army."

Dialect vs language is fuzzy. The Venetian dialect of Italian is more distinct from the Neapolitan dialect than Danish is from Norwegian

 

[buffnut453]

And so it begins. Price caps don't work well when zero supply offered?

ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

Ok, you need to pick one side of an argument. First you say that the 2-3x increase in fuel costs has offset any reduction in European consumption of Russian fuels, and you criticize the G7 price cap as impractical. Now you're saying that Russia can somehow survive by completely turning off the spigot to Europe? Please explain how? Zero supply means zero payment. At some point, Russia HAS to find external funding to buy its oil and gas. Russia can't just keep covering the costs as that would drive inflation through the roof. You can't make money you don't have without impacting inflation, and the Russian population will quickly feel those effects, just as we are in the west..

Russia will likely be forced into a situation where it accepts some funding from Europe or it must get its fuel products to other markets. The problem is those markets don't exist, plus there are tremendous logistical problems changing the existing infrastructure. Most of Russia's exported fuel supply was directed westwards via pipelines. It's a huge effort to flip that over to eastward distribution via tanker vessel. It will cost a lot, it will take a lot of time, and there's no indication that such a move would offset lost European income. In the meantime, Russia has production with nowhere to go. The options are to drastically reduce production, which will impact some of the most important workers in Russia as they get laid off, or for the Russian government to keep funding production to keep people working (that's a very Soviet thing to do....and we see how well that worked out for them). Even if Russia did fund the commercial energy companies just to keep producing. where would they store it all? Trying to store the 2 million barrels of oil a day that went to Europe is no small task and such facilities simply don't exist...so, again, you have to build new storage facilities and pipes to get the fuels there, but all of that investment isn't generating a single ruble for the Russian economy, nor will it be profit-generating once this crisis is resolved.

Yes, Europe is in an ugly situation and we can all agree that, given hindsight, the European nations were foolish for becoming so dependent on Russian fuels. However, Russia also has limits on what it can do. The collective resources of the west are far better situated to weather a bad winter than is Russia. We've already seen increased shipment of fuels to Europe to build up stockpiles in preparation for winter. Now, that won't be sufficient but it's an indicator of just one workaround that could help offset problems. There may be options for North Sea oil and gas production to increase temporarily. The west has options. They aren't great but then neither are Russia's. This is a game of brinkmanship. It's what world leaders do. At some point, someone will blink...and Russia isn't positioned well to see off all the economic impacts it's currently experiencing. Oil and gas was the BIG economy driver for Russia. Turning it off entirely just makes Russia's situation worse.

I do want to touch on the 'tinfoil hat' comment for a second. I made that comment in the belief you were joking about the current situation being part of some vast scheme by Putin to bring the west to its knees. It now seems I was mistaken, and you really think that's what's going on here. In order for this to be part of such a complicated plan, it would require every world leader to do exactly what Putin expected at every step through this crisis. Let's take America's first offer to Ukraine, which was to evacuate Zelensky. In order for Putin's grand plan to work, he would need to know (a) that America would make such an offer, and (b) that Zelensky would refuse it. Putin would then need to predict that his armed forces would put up such a crappy showing, and that all of NATO would provide weapons to Ukraine to prolong the fight. World leaders are many things but I've yet to meet anyone, anywhere who could predict the outcome of so many decisions with such accuracy. Now, Putin may have evolved his thinking to use the current situation to try and buckle western economies but he's playing poker with just a pair of deuces (at best). The Russian economy is in already in the tank. Yes, the west is suffering from massive fuel cost increases and relatively rampant inflation...but so are Russian people. The west has levers to offset some of the effects of those problems, including increasing government debt - not a great idea, I accept, but it's a lever that's available to the west. Russia doesn't have those levers. Nobody, not even China, would be willing to underwrite Russia in its current condition.

I'll close with one of your earlier comments:

I'm pleased to accept the 'tinfoil hat' monicker and delighted that those that feel that way also think their leaders in US, UK, Australia/New Zealand and Canada have 'got this'.

You're creating an entirely false dichotomy with this statement. Just because I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories about Putin being a puppet-master supreme does NOT mean that I think the west's leaders have "got it right." I've been around the block far too many times to believe that ANY politician of ANY stripe has a single clue about how things work. As noted above, nobody can predict the future. Some very smart people (NOT the politicians, I stress, but the experienced staff who understand these topics in detail) are trying to find ways to pressure Russia to cease its aggression. The options are limited. In all international relationships the ability to act (agency) is hindered by structural issues. For example, NATO can't go schwacking Russia today because it would be counter to the Organization's charter. Equally, Russia can't just print rubles to get out of its economic problems. However, I think the west has done a decent job showing unity in the face of Russia's aggression and finding ways to help Ukraine.

Given the situation, maybe you could share the benefit of your wisdom to tell the west what we SHOULD be doing? Do we just give up and sacrifice Ukraine? If so, that won't stop Putin because he's that kind of aggressive bully who only responds to action. So...if the west must act, what should we do? What CAN we do more than is already being done. Yes, Putin and his cronies have some freedom of maneuver. They can turn off the pipes for a short time just to show intent but, in the end, they NEED the money coming in from the international community. Russia can't survive without it. I'm sure it will cause a lot of suffering for the average Russian citizen, and I'm truly sorry for that. However, it's always been the case that powerful people who make aggressive decisions have impacts on the general masses. Look at the First and Second World Wars as prime examples.

 

[drgondog]

Ok, you need to pick one side of an argument. First you say that the 2-3x increase in fuel costs has offset any reduction in European consumption of Russian fuels, and you criticize the G7 price cap as impractical. Now you're saying that Russia can somehow survive by completely turning off the spigot to Europe? Please explain how? Zero supply means zero payment. At some point, Russia HAS to find external funding to buy its oil and gas. Russia can't just keep covering the costs as that would drive inflation through the roof. You can't make money you don't have without impacting inflation, and the Russian population will quickly feel those effects, just as we are in the west..

Russia will likely be forced into a situation where it accepts some funding from Europe or it must get its fuel products to other markets. The problem is those markets don't exist, plus there are tremendous logistical problems changing the existing infrastructure. Most of Russia's exported fuel supply was directed westwards via pipelines. It's a huge effort to flip that over to eastward distribution via tanker vessel. It will cost a lot, it will take a lot of time, and there's no indication that such a move would offset lost European income. In the meantime, Russia has production with nowhere to go. The options are to drastically reduce production, which will impact some of the most important workers in Russia as they get laid off, or for the Russian government to keep funding production to keep people working (that's a very Soviet thing to do....and we see how well that worked out for them). Even if Russia did fund the commercial energy companies just to keep producing. where would they store it all? Trying to store the 2 million barrels of oil a day that went to Europe is no small task and such facilities simply don't exist...so, again, you have to build new storage facilities and pipes to get the fuels there, but all of that investment isn't generating a single ruble for the Russian economy, nor will it be profit-generating once this crisis is resolved.

Yes, Europe is in an ugly situation and we can all agree that, given hindsight, the European nations were foolish for becoming so dependent on Russian fuels. However, Russia also has limits on what it can do. The collective resources of the west are far better situated to weather a bad winter than is Russia. We've already seen increased shipment of fuels to Europe to build up stockpiles in preparation for winter. Now, that won't be sufficient but it's an indicator of just one workaround that could help offset problems. There may be options for North Sea oil and gas production to increase temporarily. The west has options. They aren't great but then neither are Russia's. This is a game of brinkmanship. It's what world leaders do. At some point, someone will blink...and Russia isn't positioned well to see off all the economic impacts it's currently experiencing. Oil and gas was the BIG economy driver for Russia. Turning it off entirely just makes Russia's situation worse.

I do want to touch on the 'tinfoil hat' comment for a second. I made that comment in the belief you were joking about the current situation being part of some vast scheme by Putin to bring the west to its knees. It now seems I was mistaken, and you really think that's what's going on here. In order for this to be part of such a complicated plan, it would require every world leader to do exactly what Putin expected at every step through this crisis. Let's take America's first offer to Ukraine, which was to evacuate Zelensky. In order for Putin's grand plan to work, he would need to know (a) that America would make such an offer, and (b) that Zelensky would refuse it. Putin would then need to predict that his armed forces would put up such a crappy showing, and that all of NATO would provide weapons to Ukraine to prolong the fight. World leaders are many things but I've yet to meet anyone, anywhere who could predict the outcome of so many decisions with such accuracy. Now, Putin may have evolved his thinking to use the current situation to try and buckle western economies but he's playing poker with just a pair of deuces (at best). The Russian economy is in already in the tank. Yes, the west is suffering from massive fuel cost increases and relatively rampant inflation...but so are Russian people. The west has levers to offset some of the effects of those problems, including increasing government debt - not a great idea, I accept, but it's a lever that's available to the west. Russia doesn't have those levers. Nobody, not even China, would be willing to underwrite Russia in its current condition.

I'll close with one of your earlier comments:



You're creating an entirely false dichotomy with this statement. Just because I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories about Putin being a puppet-master supreme does NOT mean that I think the west's leaders have "got it right." I've been around the block far too many times to believe that ANY politician of ANY stripe has a single clue about how things work. As noted above, nobody can predict the future. Some very smart people (NOT the politicians, I stress, but the experienced staff who understand these topics in detail) are trying to find ways to pressure Russia to cease its aggression. The options are limited. In all international relationships the ability to act (agency) is hindered by structural issues. For example, NATO can't go schwacking Russia today because it would be counter to the Organization's charter. Equally, Russia can't just print rubles to get out of its economic problems. However, I think the west has done a decent job showing unity in the face of Russia's aggression and finding ways to help Ukraine.

Given the situation, maybe you could share the benefit of your wisdom to tell the west what we SHOULD be doing? Do we just give up and sacrifice Ukraine? If so, that won't stop Putin because he's that kind of aggressive bully who only responds to action. So...if the west must act, what should we do? What CAN we do more than is already being done. Yes, Putin and his cronies have some freedom of maneuver. They can turn off the pipes for a short time just to show intent but, in the end, they NEED the money coming in from the international community. Russia can't survive without it. I'm sure it will cause a lot of suffering for the average Russian citizen, and I'm truly sorry for that. However, it's always been the case that powerful people who make aggressive decisions have impacts on the general masses. Look at the First and Second World Wars as prime examples.

Buffnut - one of us will be correct in our assessment. No sense in belaboring the speculation.

You have very firm beliefs that Russia is in worse shape (economically) than the West. Doesn't Russia action to stop the flow of gas to number one customer shake your beliefs just a little bit? Is that consistent with your certainty that Europe can outlast Russia?

As to a new point you bring up - namely the options to increase debt. Despite debt exploding actions from US Congress, as well as soaring inflation, debt service to an increase in rates at this time (IMO) is a sure path to bancruptcy in the US. That train left long ago as a possible easing of the (my belief) crash coming soon to every household in the West. I have no comment on Euro nation debt, but a catastrohic recession makes the point moot if GDP far lower that debt service. Printing money in the US is a bigger inflation pressure than fuel prices here in US.

I must retire to tin foil hat and drool away.

 

[buffnut453]

Buffnut - one of us will be correct in our assessment. No sense in belaboring the speculation.

Actually, we could both be entirely wrong!

 

[WARSPITER]

The average fuel price in the USA went from $2.20 per gallon in November 2020 to $3.49 per gallon in November 2021.
That's around 58% higher. This is before the war on Ukraine even started.

Changes in the amount of fuel used due to lockdowns and the rest of Covid was the main reason as supply chains were
disrupted for over a year. This will even out over time as will inflation etc due to the diverse economies involved. Fuel prices
affect all other prices along the way which also adds to inflation.

Fossil fuels account for over 60% of Russian export income. This gives Russia a real headache as it makes them
exceptionally vulnerable due to a heavy reliance on products which can be competitively sourced elsewhere.

 

[Glider]

This is todays UK MOD summery of the situation

Since 29 August 2022, the Ukrainian Armed Forces have been conducting renewed offensive operations in the south of Ukraine.

One element of this offensive is an ongoing advance on a broad front west of the Dnipro River, focusing on three axes within Russian-occupied Kherson Oblast.

The operation has limited immediate objectives, but Ukraine's forces have likely achieved a degree of tactical surprise; exploiting poor logistics, administration and leadership in the Russian armed forces.

With fighting also continuing in the Donbas and Kharkiv sectors, a key decision for Russian commanders in coming days will be where to commit any operational reserve force they can generate.

My guess is that this is pretty much exactly what the Ukraine would want it to say. Another way of putting it is

a) Despite the warning that Russia had from public statements and no doubt their Satellite intelligence coverage. Ukraine still managed a tactical surprise.

b) The attack is being made in at least three area's each of which has made some progress

c) As a result the Ukraine are to a degree influencing where Russia has to deploy it's precious reserves which have only recently been formed.

I strongly suspect that the Ukraine leadership will be well pleased and Russia seriously concerned with this situation.

Can you imagine what might happen if once the reserves are deployed, Ukraine opens up another front in the Donbas area.

 

[buffnut453]

The average fuel price in the USA went from $2.20 per gallon in November 2020 to $3.49 per gallon in November 2021.
That's around 58% higher. This is before the war on Ukraine even started.

Changes in the amount of fuel used due to lockdowns and the rest of Covid was the main reason as supply chains were
disrupted for over a year. This will even out over time as will inflation etc due to the diverse economies involved. Fuel prices
affect all other prices along the way which also adds to inflation.

Fossil fuels account for over 60% of Russian export income. This gives Russia a real headache as it makes them
exceptionally vulnerable due to a heavy reliance on products which can be competitively sourced elsewhere.

And go back to 2008 when gas prices were about as bad as they are today (once you factor in inflation). We weathered that storm. Yes, things are different now...but humans are remarkably resilient and adaptive to changing situations. Maybe we will see US production of fossil fuels increase....stranger things have happened.

 

[WARSPITER]

And go back to 2008 when gas prices were about as bad as they are today (once you factor in inflation). We weathered that storm. Yes, things are different now...but humans are remarkably resilient and adaptive to changing situations. Maybe we will see US production of fossil fuels increase....stranger things have happened.

Exactly. As the great sage Gump said - "It happens".

The US has 265 billion barrels available and plenty more from Canada. A pipeline from Canada would be handy.

 

[buffnut453]

This is todays UK MOD summery of the situation

Since 29 August 2022, the Ukrainian Armed Forces have been conducting renewed offensive operations in the south of Ukraine.

One element of this offensive is an ongoing advance on a broad front west of the Dnipro River, focusing on three axes within Russian-occupied Kherson Oblast.

The operation has limited immediate objectives, but Ukraine's forces have likely achieved a degree of tactical surprise; exploiting poor logistics, administration and leadership in the Russian armed forces.

With fighting also continuing in the Donbas and Kharkiv sectors, a key decision for Russian commanders in coming days will be where to commit any operational reserve force they can generate.

My guess is that this is pretty much exactly what the Ukraine would want it to say. Another way of putting it is

a) Despite the warning that Russia had from public statements and no doubt their Satellite intelligence coverage. Ukraine still managed a tactical surprise.

b) The attack is being made in at least three area's each of which has made some progress

c) As a result the Ukraine are to a degree influencing where Russia has to deploy it's precious reserves which have only recently been formed.

I strongly suspect that the Ukraine leadership will be well pleased and Russia seriously concerned with this situation.

Can you imagine what might happen if once the reserves are deployed, Ukraine opens up another front in the Donbas area.

The simple act of forcing Russia to commit reserves is significant. There are questions over the combat readiness of those reserves. One can only hope that these Ukrainian advances turn into a rout. I don't think that will happen...but that doesn't stop me hoping.

 

[drgondog]

And go back to 2008 when gas prices were about as bad as they are today (once you factor in inflation). We weathered that storm. Yes, things are different now...but humans are remarkably resilient and adaptive to changing situations. Maybe we will see US production of fossil fuels increase....stranger things have happened.

Increasing domestic US production requires drilling permits - which are witheld. Reserves are the lifeblood of Energy Exploration company valuation of the Balance Sheet. If you're not increasing reserves, you are essentially liquidating. All it would take to change the trajectory is to intall a POTUS that knows fosil fuels are reqired in abundance to sustain (or re-grow) an economy. The Poor and Middle Class can not afford to buy and operate EV.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Increasing domestic US production requires drilling permits - which are witheld. Reserves are the lifeblood of Energy Exploration company valuation of the Balance Sheet. If you're not increasing reserves, you are essentially liquidating. All it would take to change the trajectory is to intall a POTUS that knows fosil fuels are reqired in abundance to sustain (or re-grow) an economy. The Poor and Middle Class can not afford to buy and operate EV.

Or get the current one to pull his head out. But we tread on thin political ice...

 

[buffnut453]

Increasing domestic US production requires drilling permits - which are witheld. Reserves are the lifeblood of Energy Exploration company valuation of the Balance Sheet. If you're not increasing reserves, you are essentially liquidating. All it would take to change the trajectory is to intall a POTUS that knows fosil fuels are reqired in abundance to sustain (or re-grow) an economy. The Poor and Middle Class can not afford to buy and operate EV.

This isn't just a political problem. There are 9,000+ approved drilling permits within the US that are not being exercised by the oil companies. This is not an unusual state of affairs; there are often thousands of approved permits that aren't used for a host of reasons.

The more interesting question is why companies aren't taking up this potential capacity given the obvious greater good that could result? Part of it is pressure from the financial world for higher dividends...which, in turn, is enabled by higher prices for oil. The other challenge is cost of extraction. High prices make it feasible to start drilling at suboptimal sites. However, extra production will likely reduce prices which may result in those suboptimal sites ceasing to be profitable.

Politicians have certain powers but so do other entities in the global market...and money talks loudest of all.

 

[Frog]

Of course not. I'm 1/8 Blackfoot native, and very ignorant of that side of my heritage, precisely because of those "internal issues" which saw that part extirpated. I'm not trying to diminish any suffering, just trying to point out that on a diplomatic level what happens inside borders is very different than what happens across borders.

It's only recently that the UN has started focusing on the plight of the Uighurs, for instance. And who sent troops to Rwanda? That's right, no one. Rohingya? I'm not diminishing anything.

For Rwanda, the French under UN mandate, Operation Turquoise june 24, 1994 to try and stop the massacre ; as a reward we were later accused of trying to oppose the RPF.

 

[SaparotRob]

Increasing domestic US production requires drilling permits - which are witheld. Reserves are the lifeblood of Energy Exploration company valuation of the Balance Sheet. If you're not increasing reserves, you are essentially liquidating. All it would take to change the trajectory is to intall a POTUS that knows fosil fuels are reqired in abundance to sustain (or re-grow) an economy. The Poor and Middle Class can not afford to buy and operate EV.

I believe the bottleneck is not from a lack of drilling but a lack of refineries. I can't remember where I heard this bit of rumor(?) but the U.S. hasn't built a new refinery since the seventies. It may be more profitable for these companies to ship the crude to other nations where it's cheaper to refine. I never paid close action to this detail.

 

[drgondog]

This isn't just a political problem. There are 9,000+ approved drilling permits within the US that are not being exercised by the oil companies. This is not an unusual state of affairs; there are often thousands of approved permits that aren't used for a host of reasons.

The more interesting question is why companies aren't taking up this potential capacity given the obvious greater good that could result? Part of it is pressure from the financial world for higher dividends...which, in turn, is enabled by higher prices for oil. The other challenge is cost of extraction. High prices make it feasible to start drilling at suboptimal sites. However, extra production will likely reduce prices which may result in those suboptimal sites ceasing to be profitable.

Politicians have certain powers but so do other entities in the global market...and money talks loudest of all.

The drilling permits being witheld are key locations such as Anwahr and Cook Inlet and Gulf - Federal lands. Drilling permits 'not exercised' are well sites not deemed productive on a cost basis compared to other plays. Step out drilling (virgin potential) much riskier than In-field drilling for an existing producing play.

The exploration company examines several variables. One - Risk; Two- Cost (exlore/pre-drill, drill, test, go-no go) produce, deliver to pipeline/carriers (time to market to convert asset to cash); Three (US specific) - compare against other projects for risk weighted ROI; Four -legislative protections for the investment in future. The latter is a strong key in today's political environment. The drivers in Congress and Admin wish to shut down hydrocarbon industry. Period. It IS a political problem.

 

[GrauGeist]

The simple act of forcing Russia to commit reserves is significant. There are questions over the combat readiness of those reserves. One can only hope that these Ukrainian advances turn into a rout. I don't think that will happen...but that doesn't stop me hoping.

Another concern for Russia, is that while the quality of their new forces are declining, the quality of Ukraine's new forces are improving.

There will come soon (if not already) a tipping point where Russia is going to have to make a decision on how long this "special operation" can go on.

In regards to their strategic reserves across their country's borders - it seems to me that they simply do not have enough to be effective if there is trouble - including their occupied territories in Moldova and Georgia.
There is (or perhaps was) a built up force in the area of the disputed border between China and Russia, particularly in the Amur River region. If Russia draws down that force, how will China respond?

 

[buffnut453]

The drilling permits being witheld are key locations such as Anwahr and Cook Inlet and Gulf - Federal lands. Drilling permits 'not exercised' are well sites not deemed productive on a cost basis compared to other plays. Step out drilling (virgin potential) much riskier than In-field drilling for an existing producing play.

The exploration company examines several variables. One - Risk; Two- Cost (exlore/pre-drill, drill, test, go-no go) produce, deliver to pipeline/carriers (time to market to convert asset to cash); Three (US specific) - compare against other projects for risk weighted ROI; Four -legislative protections for the investment in future. The latter is a strong key in today's political environment. The drivers in Congress and Admin wish to shut down hydrocarbon industry. Period. It IS a political problem.

Drilling permits on Federal lands are only about 10% of the total number already approved. Are you telling me that the only viable drilling permits are those on Federal lands and that the other 90%, all on privately-owned land, are all impractical? That seems statistically improbable.

It's also worth noting that production continues to (generally) increase over time, regardless of who's in the White House. Check out this interactive graph:

U.S. Crude Oil Production - Historical Chart

Interactive historical chart showing the monthly level of U.S. crude oil production back to 1983 from the US Energy Information Adminstration (EIA). Values shown are in thousands of barrels produced per day.

www.macrotrends.net

The 2020 drop was due to the global market price falling through the floor. Production did increase markedly in Trump's term in office but it also peaked and was reducing well before the 2020 election. Production also increased markedly during the Obama years.

UPDATE: One more stray voltage on this topic and then I'll quit. Take a look at the Bush Presidency years (Senior and W). Oil production actually decreased during both periods....and they were Republican oil men from Texas. Riddle me that conundrum! Of course, production also declined during the intervening Clinton years.

Democrats want to keep getting the tree-hugger vote, so they advocate for green policies...but the data (per the production chart) doesn't tally with the message they're selling to the voters. Equally, the Republicans want to be seen as pro-capitalism, with fossil fuels driving that engine....but, again, the production data doesn't tally with their message either.

The big driver in fossil fuel production is the mighty $. We see this EVERY time there's a hiccup on the world stage. Oil companies immediately start increasing prices...but they're incredibly tardy at winding off those increases once the crisis is resolved. It's money that's driving this train, not who's in the White House.

 

[SaparotRob]

….
There is (or perhaps was) a built up force in the area of the disputed border between China and Russia, particularly in the Amir River region. If Russia draws down that force, how will China respond?

In the spirit of Putler's wanting historical boundaries returned, reclaim Haishenwai?