Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Romanian Officials Say Russia Finances European Fracking Protests

Posted by timothy on from the friends-of-friends dept.

HughPickens.com writes Andrew Higgins reports in the NYT that Romanian officials including the prime minister point to a mysteriously well-financed and well-organized campaign of protests over fracking in Europe and are pointing their fingers at Russia's Gazprom, a state-controlled energy giant, that has a clear interest in preventing countries dependent on Russian natural gas from developing their own alternative supplies of energy and preserving a lucrative market for itself — and a potent foreign policy tool for the Kremlin. "Russia, as part of their sophisticated information and disinformation operations, engaged actively with so-called nongovernmental organizations — environmental organizations working against shale gas — to maintain dependence on imported Russian gas," says NATO's former secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen. A wave of protest against fracking began three years ago in Bulgaria, a country highly dependent on Russian energy. Faced with a sudden surge of street protests by activists, many of whom had previously shown little interest in environmental issues, the Bulgarian government in 2012 banned fracking and canceled a shale gas license issued earlier to Chevron. Russia itself has generally shown scant concern for environmental protection and has a long record of harassing and even jailing environmentalists who stage protests. On fracking, however, Russian authorities have turned enthusiastically green, with Putin declaring last year that fracking "poses a huge environmental problem." Places that have allowed it, he said, "no longer have water coming out of their taps but a blackish slime." For their part Green groups have been swift to attack Rasmussen's views, saying that they were not involved in any alleged Russian attempts to discredit the technology, and were instead opposed to it on the grounds of environmental sustainability. "The idea we're puppets of Putin is so preposterous that you have to wonder what they're smoking over at Nato HQ," says Greenpeace, which has a history of antagonism with the Russian government, which arrested several of its activists on a protest in the Arctic last year.

108 of 155 comments (clear)

  1. One should be careful on the logic here by JoshuaZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Keep in mind that just because Russia/Putin doesn't want fracking, it isn't a reason by itself to think tha fracking is a good thing.

    1. Re:One should be careful on the logic here by smittyoneeach · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, anything other than a return to a Noble Savage state will not please the radicals.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    2. Re: One should be careful on the logic here by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Informative

      The problem is that fracking is not a bad thing either.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    3. Re: One should be careful on the logic here by Skarjak · · Score: 1

      It kind of is when the companies are known not to plug the holes properly once they're done with an area. It's a problem in my province, which has caused some uproar, justifiably.

    4. Re: One should be careful on the logic here by drinkypoo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The problem is that fracking is not a bad thing either.

      Uh, what? Increased seismic activity (link shown in two cases) and water contamination (link shown in multiple cases) aren't bad things? Seriously, what? Also, they're injecting refinery wastes into the holes. Seriously, fucking what?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re: One should be careful on the logic here by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I'll believe that the moment an oil multi's board moves into the area where they're doing some fracking.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re: One should be careful on the logic here by khallow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So why is the proposed fix, a banning of fracking rather than enforcement of existing regulation?

    7. Re:One should be careful on the logic here by Karmashock · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Saudis are heavily involved in anti fracking propaganda in the US as well.

      Everyone paying attention knows what is going on. This more about money and less about the environment.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    8. Re: One should be careful on the logic here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Fracking is used to get hold of more hydrocarbons to burn into CO2. For some reason this is a very popular idea among European politicians who keep talking about Climate Change.

      They do so from a hypothesis that natural gas from fracking will replace oil. It won't. Demand and supply will ensure that fracking lowers the price of hydro carbons, giving (especially poor) countries an incentive to keep burning hydro carbons for longer. Currently, the only thing that will cause a serious move to wind/solar/fusion is hydrocarbons becoming too expensive compared to the alternatives (we are talking country level here, so taxes are not going to help). Pumping up more hydrocarbons is only going to delay this.

      And that's without even talking about earth quakes, pollution from the nasty chemicals used and all the other problems with fracking.

    9. Re:One should be careful on the logic here by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Logically, no. But then, one has to understand that every position - no matter how altruistic your motivation - has a consequence. If your local group is protesting anything based on funding from Putin (or the Koch Brothers, or George Soros, etc) understand that as well-intentioned as your protests may be, you are being used as a convenient pawn.

      And then understand that because of that consequence (or some associated one), that position means that you may have repugnant allies, who agree with that position for motivations of their own.

      And then understand that later, people may excoriate you for those allies, utterly disregarding the context or your motivations. (The picture of Don Rumsfeld infamously shaking hands with Saddam Hussein springs to mind.)

      --
      -Styopa
    10. Re: One should be careful on the logic here by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      It kind of is when the companies are known not to plug the holes properly

      That has nothing to do with "fracking". Improperly sealed wellheads can be a problem with any gas well, fracked or conventional.

    11. Re:One should be careful on the logic here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      First:

      Russia/Putin wants fracking but by themselves - not by the other - in article you have exampe that Gazprom frakcing initiative on the other part of Romania had no protests at all.

      Secondly - still fracking is better than giving Russia money for war in Georgia, Ukraina, Moldova.

    12. Re: One should be careful on the logic here by Woldscum · · Score: 1

      Russia does not want more oil on the market. Look at the price of a barrel of oil today. Russia will be bankrupt. They need $100 oil to keep their economy alive. But USA is now putting out more oil than Saudi Arabia due to Fracking.

    13. Re: One should be careful on the logic here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, the seismic activity might be a good thing.

      The link is basically that the fracking is weakening some structures that then drop below the strength needed to keep a quake from happening at current pressure. This causes a small quake. The alternative is to let the pressure build until it exceeds what the current structures down there can handle, this would cause a single large quake.

      I'm not pro-fracking (I think the ground water contamination is bad), plus the cheap gas slows movement away from fossil fuels, but the increase is small quakes shouldn't be thought of as bad IMO.

    14. Re: One should be careful on the logic here by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      [quote]I'll believe that the moment an oil multi's board moves into the area where they're doing some fracking.[/quote]

      That's just silly. Not only is it an absurd thing to ask of them, it would prove absolutely nothing. You know full well that if such a thing DID happen you'd call it a publicity stunt and remain opposed to fracking anway ... so why make such a dishonest claim? Hyperbole?

    15. Re: One should be careful on the logic here by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      The problem is that fracking is not a bad thing either.

      It's amazing to me that this single statement can get modded "troll" on a website dedicated to people who supposedly are tech fans / experts.

    16. Re: One should be careful on the logic here by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I'll probably not be very convinced that it's any safer, but it would at the very least show that oil companies themselves are at least convinced that it's safe. I'm kinda certain that even they KNOW it's unsafe but ... well, there's money to be made.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    17. Re: One should be careful on the logic here by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      I'm kinda certain that even they KNOW it's unsafe but ... well, there's money to be made.

      Certain based on what? The zero scientific evidence which shows any risk of harm greater than existing drilling methods?

      How can you be certain that someone whom you've never met or spoken to actually knows something which cannot even be shown to be true? This would be like me saying "I'm certain that Obama knows that an alien spaceship was recovered in Roswell, but he's covering it up because there's money to be made". Hilarious, maybe, but completely nonsensical.

    18. Re:One should be careful on the logic here by Earthquake+Retrofit · · Score: 2

      ...But then, one has to understand that every position - no matter how altruistic your motivation - has a consequence. If your local group is protesting anything based on funding from Putin (or the Koch Brothers, or George Soros, etc) understand that as well-intentioned as your protests may be, you are being used as a convenient pawn.

      Put you faith in ideas, not persons. Even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while.

      --
      Fifty years of Yippie! 1968-2018
    19. Re: One should be careful on the logic here by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Actually, the seismic activity might be a good thing.

      It isn't, and I already provided this link to a logged-in user earlier, you don't really deserve it: http://www.consrv.ca.gov/index/earthquakes/Pages/qh_earthquakes_myths.aspx And you seriously could have found it with google, in a hot second.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    20. Re: One should be careful on the logic here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Reasoning with lefty nutcase ?
      There is no amount of evidence or reasoned argument you can present to such people that would ever change their minds.

    21. Re: One should be careful on the logic here by Dorianny · · Score: 1

      The problem is that fracking is not a bad thing either.

      Uh, what? Increased seismic activity (link shown in two cases) and water contamination (link shown in multiple cases) aren't bad things? Seriously, what? Also, they're injecting refinery wastes into the holes. Seriously, fucking what?

      Scientists agree that fracking activity is far too deep for it to leech out to ground water. The cases of contamination are mostly due to problems with the well casing. We didn't stop building houses because poorly constructed ones could collapse on people, we tightened codes and toughened inspections, the same is needed to fix the wells issue. As for the seismic activity it causes more rattled nerves then actual damage.

    22. Re: One should be careful on the logic here by GNious · · Score: 1

      just to be that guy ...

      It kind of is when the companies are known not to plug the holes properly once they're done with an area. It's a problem in my province, which has caused some uproar, justifiably.

      So fracking is not bad, if the companies doing it aren't bad, but because the companies in whichever 3rd world country you live in are not subject to regulations and/or control, fracking is bad ...

    23. Re: One should be careful on the logic here by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      In texas, the oil executive sued to prevent fracking. His stated reason was that the water towers would lower his property values and ruin the view.

      What about everyone else's property values and views?

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    24. Re: One should be careful on the logic here by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      If the problem is the regulations aren't being enforced then enforce the regulations instead of drafting even more regulations that won't be enforced either.

      "All playing nice"? "Fool you twice"? I get the sense you're ready to do something truly foolish. Why don't you try living without any petroleum based products for a while before you decide it's OK to cripple the oil industry? You might decide that the result is not to your liking and then you will still be able to recover easily. If you try it the other way you're going to be stuck in misery. Or is your goal to simply prove the validity of this Robert Heinlein quote?

      Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

      This is known as “bad luck.”

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    25. Re: One should be careful on the logic here by khallow · · Score: 2

      You seem to be confused by "existing" - obviously the existing regulations haven't worked.

      One could make the same claim of driving or speech. There are bad actors, hence, the activity isn't regulated well enough and should be banned as a result.

    26. Re: One should be careful on the logic here by Skarjak · · Score: 1

      Yes, the third world country of Canada.

      Got off on the wrong foot today?

    27. Re: One should be careful on the logic here by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Yes it is - it's an argument that all drilling should be done properly and penalties should apply when it is not done properly. There's a bit of a gold rush mentality at the moment and plenty of shortcuts.

    28. Re: One should be careful on the logic here by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Your roads are made out of "refinery wastes". It really depends on exactly what chemical it is, what it does and where it gets to doesn't it?

    29. Re: One should be careful on the logic here by dbIII · · Score: 1

      What about everyone else's property values and views?

      That's Commie talk! The Libertarian view is that they can pay for their own lawyers.

    30. Re: One should be careful on the logic here by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You are in very good company with the Climate change deniers, the anti-vaccine movement and the Intelligent Design community.

      I can't help it if you can't recognize the difference. I bet you're in favor of rBGH, too, even though that's also been proven in court to produce inferior product which has negative health impact.

      I'm also against the flu vaccine being marketed as if it were equally effective every year. If you want to call me an anti-vaxxer, you're welcome to do so, but you're an idiot. However, you probably can't change that.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    31. Re:One should be careful on the logic here by davydagger · · Score: 1

      Noble Savage is a litterary device by utopiasts, hardly the enviromentalists.

    32. Re: One should be careful on the logic here by Dorianny · · Score: 1

      If your goal is to to debate, then lacing comments with insults nullifies any useful input you may have. You effectively ruin an opportunity to give thoughtful feedback.

    33. Re: One should be careful on the logic here by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      'Idiot' doesn't work like that at all. What happens is you just shift stresses in fault line to other locations 'BUILDING UP' to major quakes in those locations. The completely and utterly stupid idea that you can spend eternity chasing your own tail alleviating stresses in fault lines is just plain nuts. You do not remove the stresses, they are constant, you shift the focal point of stresses by failures at particular locations, at particular times, shifting those stresses to a new location, where major stresses could already exist, so quite readily a small quake can trigger a major quake.

      The problem with fracking is the sheer number of wells, the indeterminate nature of the substrate they are attempting to turn into a high pressure soda fountain and the radiation of small, water permeable fractures both vertical and horizontal, with this action not carried out once but thousands of times in the targeted mining zone. Probabilities mean leaking into higher water tables is inevitable.

      Oh yeah, you're pro-fracking alright.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    34. Re: One should be careful on the logic here by GNious · · Score: 1

      Hey, if Canada values oil, gas etc so much that it is willing to poop all over the environment, then, yeah, 3rd world country - sorry if that upsets your view of your homecountry.

    35. Re: One should be careful on the logic here by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If your goal is to to debate, then lacing comments with insults nullifies any useful input you may have. You effectively ruin an opportunity to give thoughtful feedback.

      You, sir, are a hypocrite, because that's precisely what you did when you lumped me in with a bunch of ignorant assholes whose views are not based on any logic. And this is not an insult, it is a fact: You are a hypocrite. But since I live near The Geysers, and I know that even in California minor quakes actually cause significant damage to houses yearly, and further that this problem can be exacerbated by pumping fluids into the ground as has been done here, there's actually a basis for my reasoning.

      You insulted me, but I still managed to provide factual information about your failure. So in fact, insults do not ruin an opportunity to give thoughtful feedback, unless you are the sort of idiot who is looking for an excuse. You insult me, then complain when I insult you, so that you do not have to consider the content of my reply. However, the insult was critical content! It was, perhaps, the most important part of my message: you are an idiot. You really need to understand this. It will help you understand why you are a hypocrite: you don't seem even intelligent enough to recognize when you're insulting someone, for example.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    36. Re: One should be careful on the logic here by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      And the other problem is if they do not properly seal the well prior to injection, which HAS happened.
      BUT, that is an issue with regulations on fracking, not an issue with fracking itself.

      And if oil companies are not sealing their wells, I would be objecting as well if I were you.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    37. Re:One should be careful on the logic here by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      The difference is that fracking does improve the national security of eastern european countries by reducing their energy dependency on Russia.

      That is just a fact. And all things being equal, were I Romanian, Polish, or Ukrainian... I would be very pro fracking if only because it would reduce Putin's leverage on my people.

      That of course isn't enough. Each of these countries needs to be able to hold off a Russian invasion for long enough to get allied assistance. And what is more, each of these countries needs to make sure it has defense treaties that obligate assistance. Absent that, their long term survival as countries does not look good until the next Russian collapse.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    38. Re: One should be careful on the logic here by Skarjak · · Score: 1

      As Canada is aligned with NATO, we are by definition part of the first world. Do they teach these things in your third world country?

  2. Bullshit by YoungManKlaus · · Score: 4, Funny

    I am european, and anti-fracking, and I have yet to receive my fat cheque from dear old Vlado.

    1. Re:Bullshit by SargentDU · · Score: 4, Informative

      He only has to convince the people you would follow in protests, not the minions like you or me.

    2. Re:Bullshit by Xest · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Agreed, I don't think Putin is funding all or maybe even any anti-franking protests because like you I'm anti-fracking but also most definitely anti-Russian imperialism. However he IS funding the far-right in Europe. See here for example:

      http://www.theweek.co.uk/europ...

      al Jazeera has a decent article on the reasoning behind it here also:

      http://www.aljazeera.com/indep...

      There are other far right parties in the UK that Russia likely has a hand in funding but are much harder to prove. One example is UKIP in the UK. Some years back a Lib Dem MP in the UK, Mike Hancock got in trouble for having an affair with a young girl (less than half his age) because the security services warned she was a Russian spy and a Russian whistleblower (a general) outed her as such also. The MP in question was on a number of British security committees. The girl in question, Katia Zatuliveter, was allowed to stay in the UK because the courts ruled there was not enough evidence of her being a spy. Case closed, end of story. Right?

      Fast forward a couple of years, and we get a news story that seems completely unrelated, UKIP announces that it's got a new donor that's defected from the Tories, he donates £100,000 to UKIP. The Tories state that they've no idea who this guy is and investigation into official finances show that the guy was bluffing about having been a major Tory donor, despite claims of having donated over £100,000 to the Tories it seems he'd only ever donated about £20,000. The guy responds by saying he's "offended" by the Tories belittling his donation and ups his UKIP donation to £1million. It seems odd that UKIP and this guy were willing to lie about the scale of relevance he had to the Tories in order to pretend it was a much more major coup than it was, but so what, who cares, what has this got to do with anything?

      Well, this little known small fry Tory donor, Arron Banks, defecting to UKIP to become a major political donor is married to none other than a Katia Zatuliveter, the claimed Russian spy who he was married to before, during, and since she "cheated" on him with strategic defence knowledge filled MP Mike Hancock.

      All a massive coincidence? Maybe. But given that we know Putin is overtly funding France's far-right national front it doesn't seem too much of a stretch to think he might be subversively funding similar far-right parties like UKIP (who have gone out their way to try and pretend they're not far right and are respectable even though their far-right nature shines through when they fuck up almost weekly) in the UK too.

      So funding fracking protests? Maybe, probably not. Funding attempts to rip Europe apart? Well we know for a fact it is in some countries, we just don't know quite how far it reaches.

      I wondered after the European elections why Europes elite didn't opt to listen to the eurosceptics, and opted to continue on a path of integration rather than giving the eurosceptic view the time of day in light of the amount of support the eurosceptic crowd had gained with it's well funded campaigns across Europe. It didn't make sense that they'd just ignore them altogether, but now I wonder if these guys know full well about all the Russian money being poured into far-right and eurosceptic campaigns then they may well recognise that much of the eurosceptic vote is simply Russian stirred dissent.

      All those claims Russia made about the West stirring discontent in the Ukraine rather than it simply being a grass roots campaign for change that's been going on in the Ukraine since at least 2004 with their orange revolution? It seems that whatever Russia is accusing the West of doing, it is most definitely doing itself- even if you're willing to give the benefit of the doubt on some o

    3. Re:Bullshit by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      So, it must not exist. Great chain of denialism you have going there. It's all about what people would prefer not to believe, eh?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    4. Re:Bullshit by YoungManKlaus · · Score: 1

      duuude, keep it a little shorter ;)
      regarding sponsoring the far right -> jeah, I am aware of it, we had a mild scandal because our beloved H.C. visited him recently.

    5. Re:Bullshit by Xest · · Score: 1

      "The Brits seem a bit hamstrung when it comes to dealing with internal security. That's not to imply that the UK is somehow more careful about justice or respectful of privacy and citizens' rights than the US: the UK has an obvious (and at times overbearing) internal security apparatus that is ineffective in dealing with some major internal security problems."

      Without knowing what the security services are doing in the background it's really hard to say whether this is the case. The thing you have to realise is that the UK does have a very strong separation between it's judicial system and politics, but just because someone like Zatuliveter didn't get arrested or deported doesn't mean she isn't being monitored by them.

      It's easy to condemn failure to deport Abu Hamza but look at Abu Qatada - the UK stripped his and his families rights away left and centre but couldn't deport to Jordan for a decade and spent millions in and out of court trying to get rid, and guess what? when they finally did, he went on trial in Jordan and was found not guilty.

      So whilst I agree there are people the state recognises as threats but doesn't have the strength to prove but it can't just make use of politically appointed judges to deal with them because it has that much greater separation of the judiciary and politics than the US has - ultimately it doesn't matter what the state does or doesn't believe, it still has to satisfy an independent judiciary at the end of the day.

      Now this has been changing somewhat in recent years, obviously there have been the countless calls to do away with the human rights act, and pull out of the European Court of Human Rights - things the government cannot control and there has of course been the creation of the UK's supreme court, which is a new top court with politically appointed judges (some argue this is how they got the ruling they wanted against Assange even though it seemed to conflict with UK law).

      So it's ultimately that cleaner separation between politics and justice that causes the UK authorities the headaches we see. It's a double edged sword - good in that we don't end up with rulings that satisfy the politicians rather than the public, but bad in that we can't deal with cases like those you cite where even the public support the government on them but the judiciary still stick vehemently to the letter of the law.

    6. Re:Bullshit by twokay · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the housewives and concerned community members seen here leading protests will be pleased to know they have risen above the rank of "minons".

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      Wannabe nerd.
  3. Thee not me by John+Jorsett · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Already seeing some quasi-defenses of this here. Guess the "get the money out of politics" folks actually mean "get YOUR money out of politics, ours is fine."

  4. it has a name... by Connie_Lingus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...in the US we call it "lobbying and advertising" and corporations of course spend billions trying to influence people to engage in behaviors that increase the profitability and public image of their business.

    so it's in Russia's interest to prevent fracking...ok well they spend money to sway public opinion...sounds like SOP to me.

    --
    never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
    1. Re:it has a name... by Jiro · · Score: 1

      Governments collect money from people forcibly as taxes and use it for things like this. Corporations cannot do this (unless you want to count cases where corporations are in bed with government).

    2. Re:it has a name... by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      You've never heard of the Microsoft tax?

  5. Maybe Putin could help by Required+Snark · · Score: 1, Insightful
    People in southern California need help to stop fracking in earthquake prone areas, which is pretty much the entire southern end of the state. The oil companies have a lot of money to spend on local politicians to get fracking approved, so maybe it's time to get some help from a guy who really cares about the well-being of people around the world, Vlad (The Impaler) Putin.

    Clearly oil companies don't give a rat's ass about the effects of oil extraction (can you say DeepWater Horizon?), so it just makes sense to find allies wherever you can. Given the Supreme Court ruling on non-disclosure of unlimited political contributions, it should be a snap to get Russian money into US politics. It's not like big business in the US has any national affiliation (Apple/Google paying no taxes), so why not get foreign funding? It's not that big a step from what corporations are doing already.

    Cynical much?

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
    1. Re:Maybe Putin could help by ChrisMaple · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Faults build up stress until they break. The longer the stress builds, the bigger the earthquake. If fracking promotes earthquakes, that means they'll be more frequent, less damaging, and less deadly. I'd rather experience a Richter 4 daily than a Richter 7 every 20 years.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    2. Re: Maybe Putin could help by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Nothing in that link was opposed to what he said.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    3. Re: Maybe Putin could help by Erioll · · Score: 1
      From the link:

      Small earthquakes keep big ones from happening. Each magnitude level represents about 31.6 times more energy released. It takes 32 magnitude 3s to equal the energy released in a magnitude 4, 1,000 magnitude 3s to equal a magnitude 5 and a billion magnitude 3s to equal a single magnitude 9. So while a small quake may temporarily ease stress on a fault line, it does not prevent a large temblor.

      This basically says "no effect either way" from my non-expert reading of it. Also, small quakes cause no damage. If fracking causes damaging quakes, then that's an issue. It's like saying "that wind from the desk fan is damaging me, like a hurricane would!" Umm, no it isn't. If it doesn't hit the threshold, you're being an idiot.

    4. Re: Maybe Putin could help by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      This basically says "no effect either way" from my non-expert reading of it

      Um no, not exactly. It basically says ChrisMaple was right, and drinkypoo has once again lived up to his name. The article admits that small quakes DO take some of the energy away from larger ones, and do delay them by "temporarily easing stress on the fault line". It merely points out that the massive disparity in energy levels means that a single small quake (or even a hundred small quakes) cannot permanently avert a much larger one. If, however, you keep repeating this "temporary" fix, you end up with a long-term solution.

      The rest of your comment is bang-on though. Small quakes are of no concern.

  6. Strategic resource by mdsolar · · Score: 1

    Natural gas should be considered a strategic resource in the US. We should have enough export capacity to eliminate Russia's market share but leave it unused so we can benefit from our own low gas prices. This would provide us a great deal of leverage and industrial advantage simultaneously.

    1. Re: Strategic resource by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Wrong. We need our Nat gas to move us off oil. Ideally, we will subsidize new large vehicle to have serial hybrid using Nat gas. At the same time, we need to convert coal into Nat. Gas.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    2. Re: Strategic resource by burni2 · · Score: 1

      If you say he is wrong, please deliver arguments that support your reasoning.

      But i will argument against your points - btw. I might not be windbourne but I do work with wind for profit & because I want to see renewables to succeed ;) - just in case you want to refrain from argueing and want to short cut by just saying that I'm just a disbeliever - I like to work on arguments and logical reasoning.

      1.) nat gas -> oil
      This is basically on it's wide extreme step not a favourable choice, because you are replacing a fossil fuel with a fossil fuel.

      Yes those natural gas plants might have a higher effeciency but only if you generate electricity+heat within a connected process. If you just fire up gas turbines to counter act missing power within the grid, your effeciency plummets.

      Yes natural gas burns better than coal leaving not that many pollutants, however the "modern" (mid. 90s) filter systems for coal powered plants are just good enough.

      2.) convert coal into natural gas
      Yes it does work - meaning you can do this, the feasability is on another page.

      The question remains, that you need to answer, if can you please lay out to me that the process your propose, has a positive energy balance ?

      Because if your chemical reformation process costs that much energy, that your gain through the higher efficiency of burning natural gas is compensated, it is logical to burn coal but use modern filter technology on the exhaust.

      But with the same argument you can continue using oil, because you can reprocess oil also to produce natural gas.

      3.) Natural gas for cars, good only to prevent the pollution - except CO2 - and leaving out all the reprocessing that needs to be done, to use it as a fuel, those "energy costs" are mostly not written on the balance sheet. Compressing, cooling and storing cooled gases are using up huge amounts of energy.

      The recent developments in gas and diesel engines are enormous, filtering systems, catalizers injected into the exhaust, efficient motor control, hybrid.

      From the efficiency POV 10 yrs. ago natural gas was better than gas and diesel, but today it's superseded..

      4.) the best solution is mostly the midway, using fossil fuels as long as we have those at our disposal as carefully as possible , switch more and more over to renewables and use natural gas. as a buffer (quick starting power plants - because yes there is a statistical short term jitter within renewable production, long term can be planned, - spring, summer, autum, winter are known to man kind for quite a time - and weather forecast gets better and better).

    3. Re: Strategic resource by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      I said keep our natural gas. You said keep our natural gas. WTF?

    4. Re: Strategic resource by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      No, you said "strategic resource", which means that you want it all left in the ground.
      Big mistake. Instead, we need to use it to get us off oil, while cleaning up our emissions and moving us to full electrics.
      Right now, nearly all of our commercial vehicles, along with large passenger vehicles (such as suburbans), are incapable of moving to full electric economically.
      BUT, by moving these vehicles to nat gas, and then to serial hybrids with nat gas, it makes it easy for makers to move to full electrics or even fuel cell based serial hybrids.

      Point is, that we NEED to start thinking strategically, rather than tactically to solve issues. Sadly, ppl like you continue to think very short term, and poor tactics at that.
      I see very little difference from the far right extremists that deny climate change, then the far left extremists that does not understand economics, or that there is a unstated cold war going on.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    5. Re: Strategic resource by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Sigh.
      Why do you fools think that you can substitute electricity for oil? The fact is, that you can not. Oil is fungible, but NOT with electricity. The only place that it is true, is in a hybrid vehicles, but right now, that is only in small cars, and is worthless.

      You are DEAD wrong that gas and diesel are cleaner than nat gas. Totally impossible to be the case. Clean nat gas has 2 emissions: CO2 and H2O. Even gasoline and 'clean diesel' do not come that clean. EVER.
      In addition, nat gas or oil turning a variable speed engine is inefficient. However, using multiple small engine/gens turning on-off and ran at single speeds would allow the engine to run at ~ 35% efficiency. Add the 95% efficiency of the motor, and you are still above 30% being delivered from the fuel to the wheel.
      OTOH, you will never see that in a normal ICE based vehicles. They will ALWAYS be below 25%.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    6. Re: Strategic resource by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      What about "so we can benefit from our own low gas prices" don't you understand?

  7. Just some bits of info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm Romanian, and there is some information missing from this "news". First of all, the Russian company Gazprom has been given a lot of exploration/exploitaition licences in Romania, including the rights for prospecting for shale gas. They operate through a Serbian subsidiary called Nis, and they have already started prospections in the Western area of the country. Therefore, I really doubt Russia finances the civic campaigns against fracking. Then, the Romanian officials quoted include a very controversial mayor of the village where Chevron first started to look for shale gas. That mayor happened to buy the field where the prospections were to be started just before Chevron came. He made a nice profit in the meanwhile, and the non-governmental organizations have acused him from the start of being - possibly - "persuaded" financially by Chevron itself. So these officials are far from being unbiased on the matter.

    The other thing the story fails to tell about is that the movement against dangerous mining operations (not only fracking) is very strong in Romania for several years now, we had massive demostrations, with tens of thousands of protesters gathering in major cities each time such a danger was percieved. And they are the same protesters that actively despise Russia and its influence in the region. Because, unlike Hungary, Serbia and other neighbours, Romania has managed to keep the political Russian influence away -- we've had enough of their bright ideas when they imposed communism on us, and we do not forget that easily.

    All in all, this looks like a manipulative story, possibly put forward by those who would have something to gain from fracking in a country where the population density/distribution makes this method dangerous if not criminal -- and this includes Russians. They won't succeed, of course, they keep underestimating our resolve/intelligence.

    1. Re:Just some bits of info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      [quote]unlike Hungary, Serbia and other neighbours, Romania has managed to keep the political Russian influence away[/quote]
      That's not quite correct. Bulgaria's majority is also against Russian influence (I know for I am one).

    2. Re:Just some bits of info by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Good point, it reminds me of this amusing allegation about the CIA being involved in Australian environmental protest.

      http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-20/palmer-says-green-groups-funded-by-cia/3901920

    3. Re:Just some bits of info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My mistake, I didn't specifically meant Bulgaria, I should have probably said 'countries in the region'. I'm glad that you are with us, on the arguably good side :-)

  8. Re:"Turk Stream" by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

    You have to read Vladimir Putins PhD thesis title and synopsis. This is hardly something new. The Soviet Union used to pay for anti-nuclear protestors in Europe and even gave the Jackal weapons that were later used in a terrorist attack against the SuperFenix fast breeder reactor in France.

    Of course Russia is interested in having less competition. Competition would mean a lower oil price and thus less profits for them. Even if the people doing the fracking have less profit than they would have. As for the sales to China once the amount of possible clients is reduced enough the clients start having more leverage over price negotiations. One big reason why they did not bother with China before was that they insisted on paying a low price for the oil and natural gas. Once they stopped having someone else to sell it to the low price ceased to be a problem. Or did it? They have to build a long new pipeline to sell natural gas for less than they sold to Europe where the pipeline has been long paid for. I think you can see what the problem is here.

    The value of the ruble has been sliding down a whole lot. It will be increasingly harder for regular Russians to buy imported stuff.

  9. And just when we had chosen our enemy... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    C'mon, that ain't ok. We've worked long and hard to pinpoint Russia as the new evil with Putin as the new Hitler, and now you push that all down by telling us that there's something GOOD coming from that side of the propaganda war?

    Stop confusing your subjects!

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  10. Re:This isn't new... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2

    When Nixon ended the draft, SDS, the murderous leftist student organization, floundered around for a new issue. They hit on environmentalism...

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  11. Re: "Turk Stream" by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You might want to reread what is happening. Russia had no choice but to sell to china at fraction of the price.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  12. Re:Unprecedented interference with free debate! by Gort65 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I think they're trying to frack with you.

  13. Re: This isn't new... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Links please.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  14. Re: Fracking is evil... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm not a big fan of fracking, but that burning tap water thing is bogus. Those people had methane coming out their faucet before fracking began. I don't like it when people use bad arguments for a good stance, just because it's easier.

  15. Re: Unprecedented interference with free debate! by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Assuming you are american, u are in luck. Aca can now help u restart ur lithium supplies and stop the hallucinations

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  16. Re:"Turk Stream" by benjfowler · · Score: 1

    in future it has committed to selling enormous amounts of gas to China and other Asian countries, which do not slander it or attempt to harm it.

    You must be from the Russian equivalent of the 50 Cent Party.

  17. Re:This isn't new... by Jiro · · Score: 2

    I believe the Ferguson rioters were left-wing. And they were certainly trying to use violence to terrorize people for political purposes. Of course, you could always be loose as to your definition of terrorism on the right and not so loose on the left. And Moscow didn't need to fund them, but they still count as left-wing terrorists by your overly loose definition.

    Furthermore, since you went back to 1995 for the Oklahoma City bombing, I can point out the rise of ecoterrorism, and the Discovery building shooter.

  18. Fracking, not what you think it is. by ajlowe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You do realize that fracking has been done commercially since 1949 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H... ), right? What environmentalist are really concerned with is called horizontal completions, but that just doesn't have the insidious ring to it that "fracking" does. If we called it by it's real name, it would be much harder to scare those of us driven by emotion instead of reason.

    Let's not forget there are some benefits to horizontal completions. Thanks to horizontal completions petroleum products (gasoline, jet fuel, diesel, plastics and on and on and on) prices are plummeting. Thanks to horizontal completions, natural gas is now cheaper the coal in the US and coal power plants are being converted to natural gas which is all around cleaner, safer, and produces half the CO2 of coal. Thanks to horizontal completions, OPEC's 40 year cartel appears to be at an end, and horizontal completions dropping the price of oil has been the most effective "sanction" by far on Russia, putting more pressure on Putin and the ruble then all the heads of state combined.

    1. Re:Fracking, not what you think it is. by uassholes · · Score: 1

      Crap, no mod points.

    2. Re:Fracking, not what you think it is. by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      Shhhh, you're discouraging the knee-jerk activists!

    3. Re:Fracking, not what you think it is. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      Thanks to horizontal completions petroleum products (gasoline, jet fuel, diesel, plastics and on and on and on) prices are plummeting.

      and with bullets on sale it's even cheaper to shoot ourselves in the foot!

      Thanks to horizontal completions, natural gas is now cheaper the coal in the US and coal power plants are being converted to natural gas which is all around cleaner, safer, and produces half the CO2 of coal.

      that's as great as getting half as much cancer than normal.

      Thanks to horizontal completions, OPEC's 40 year cartel appears to be at an end, and horizontal completions dropping the price of oil has been the most effective "sanction" by far on Russia, putting more pressure on Putin and the ruble then all the heads of state combined.

      i'm no fan of bad governments but wouldn't it be better to just do away with OPEC by moving to clean energy like solar?

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  19. Re:This isn't new... by Trepidity · · Score: 2

    The SDS splintered years before Nixon ended the draft, so your chronology seems a bit off. The bulk of them went into anti-prison and anti-racism activism, as far as I can tell, not environmentalism.

    --
    10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
  20. I've always wondered... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    How much oil company/Middle East money there is behind the antinuclear movement.

    1. Re:I've always wondered... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      There doesn't need to be. The US nuclear industry ate it's own children by lobbying against the Thorium R&D, which had a knockon with other R&D being dropped, and has doomed itself to irrelevance. Unless something comes in from the military side (eg. a small reactor idea based on military technology from a Californian startup) or technology is imported from somewhere else it has no future.

  21. NGOs by qpqp · · Score: 1

    Apparently all problems come from NGOs. Let's ban them. Everywhere.

  22. Re:"Turk Stream" by uassholes · · Score: 1

    Is that you, Vlad?

  23. It is not just Russia, and not just "protests" by mi · · Score: 2

    The similarity of goals make for strange bed-fellows. Russia and Saudi Arabia may have little else in common, but they are both major exporters of fossil fuels. Not having the same sort of spy-network as Russia, Saudis finance propaganda movies. Russia would do that too, of course — and take care of translating such movies for audiences in Russia and its Russian-speaking neighbors.

    And when propaganda-campaigns fail to stop other countries from developing their own energy-sources, Russia will invade...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:It is not just Russia, and not just "protests" by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

      You should see the propaganda on Russian television where Ukrainians are raping women, gutting children, burning down houses. None of this got translated by Western journalists of course. Seriously, I speak enough of the language to be able to understand some of it, it was really incredible. Makes the story of the shot in the back with the hands up pretty tame....

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
  24. Re:Not here in France... by mi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I am an ecologist actively campaigning against the idiocy of fracking (especially in a karst landscape like ours). I can categorically state that no-one is financing us, let alone the Russians.

    You can "categorically state" it, but it may still be the truth. Matt Damon didn't know either...

    Russia does not advertise such help, of course. It helps your kind remain sincere and your words — plausible. USSR — through that fun and Earth-friendly agency named KGB — penetrated various churches and "peace" forums, financed terrorists and saboteurs, the works... Most of those did not, of course, realize, where the help they were getting originates...

    Today FBI warns us about Cuban intelligence targeting academics (they don't have to name Russia by name here):

    Another purpose of a foreign intelligence service is to spread the influence and ideology of its regime, or damage the claims and image of another regime.

    Of course, the fools used by such foreigners don't realize, they are exploited — few are bona-fide traitors...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  25. Re: "Turk Stream" by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

    Well, ~70% of the average European price is a fraction, that is true. But not a small one. And justified due to generally lower gas prices on the global market.

    In fact, it might even result in a net profit - leaving the notoriously not paying Ukraine out of the loop might be cheaper in long term.

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  26. In other words .. by lippydude · · Score: 1

    "This belief that Russia is fueling the protests, shared by officials in Lithuania, where Chevron also ran into a wave of unusually fervent protests and then decided to pull out, has not yet been backed up by any clear proof"

    In other words, you're pulling this shit out of your ass ..

  27. Of course Russia's funding it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Fracking enables countries to be independent of Russia's primary tool and revenue source, natural gas. They're not the only ones; the Saudis, the Iranians, all of them are struggling with low oil prices which comes directly from fracking.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2014/10/09/declining-oil-hurting-putins-economy-more-than-u-s-sanctions/

    ""The idea we're puppets of Putin is so preposterous that you have to wonder what they're smoking over at Nato HQ," says Greenpeace, which has a history of antagonism with the Russian government,..."

    Of course not. Greenpeace is full of idiots and Putin is no fool. Why pay you when you're conveniently fighting against a major issue for Russia anyways? He's funding the NGOs in local countries to protest governments, who are the ones that can change government opinion. Greenpeace is pointless, powerless, and vastly overestimates their impact on the world.

  28. When is the book coming out? by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Cool story - but a bit of a plot hole with the "Clean Air Act" and so on which will lose you any older readers or anyone with a loose grasp on recent history.
    It could sell though, people didn't think it was too ridiculous for CERN to create a black hole to kill the Pope, so your ridiculous idea may get some traction as an airport novel.

  29. Re: "Turk Stream" by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Yes the new prices will be interesting.
    Putin Kills "South Stream" Pipeline, Will Build New Massive Pipeline To Turkey Instead (12/01/2014)
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...
    "massive gas pipeline that will travel from Russia, transit through Turkey, and stop at the Greek border – giving Russia access to the Southern European market. In effect, Russia will still have access to the Southern Stream endmarkets"

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  30. Re:Absolutely correct! by d3vi1 · · Score: 1

    Would you please point to a study that states that fracking wells have a higher incidence of water contamination than normal classic oil or gas wells? Traditionally Romanian gas exploration has used hydraulic fracturing. The only difference is that we are now drilling deeper, as well as horizontally and we can exploit more from an existing deposit. To give you an idea: right now, out of all the electricity produced in Romania, only 39% is carbon producing (coal, heating oil, gas), the rest is non carbon producing (hydro, wind, nuclear, photovoltaic, biomass). You can see the real-time information on http://www.transelectrica.ro/w... . You an also see historical values http://www.transelectrica.ro/w... .
    Romania has gone through a complete overhaul of it's energy sources in the past 20 years. We have an installed capacity of 23GW with a power usage between 4GW (low point in summer) and 9GW (max point in winter). In the past 10 years we've added 2,5GW of wind turbines (completely absent until then), and 1GW of photovoltaic. Since we still need gas (for now) and have ample reserves, why should we import from our "old adversary" instead of using our own?

    --
    UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever ones.
  31. Re: "Turk Stream" by Xest · · Score: 1

    ""massive gas pipeline that will travel from Russia, transit through Turkey, and stop at the Greek border â" giving Russia access to the Southern European market. In effect, Russia will still have access to the Southern Stream endmarkets""

    Which ironically means that it's piped into Europe proper by third parties, which is all the European Union was asking for in the first place because the EU doesn't like the same company to control both supplies and pipelines.

    Or in other words, Russia's new project is an embarrassing climb down for Putin dressed up as something completely different. He's basically just doing what the EU asked with a slight diversion to maintain control of the whole thing as far as he can (i.e. through Turkey, a non-EU state).

  32. Re: "Turk Stream" by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

    Except that Gazprom wasn't controlling the pipelines on their own, the distribution network was owned by the South Steam AG, which was a joint venture between Gazprom, Eni and EDF. EU tried to stall the project anyway - without real arguments, just for some political grandstanding - and this is the result.

    It is much more embarrassing for the EU because Bulgaria won't see a cent of the carriage fees now. It is especially painful because Bulgaria is the poorest EU country and desperately needs money.

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  33. [citation needed] by Kirth · · Score: 1

    Some guy at the NATO says that. Without any proof or even evidence. Is this an attempt to discredit anti-fracking movements? Or Russia?

    --
    "The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
  34. Re: "Turk Stream" by Xest · · Score: 1

    Why is it embarassing for the EU at all? it was embarassing that the EU was sending so much money to a country desperate to rip it to pieces in the first place, the fact that Bulgaria loses out and has to find money from elsewhere is small fry compared to the massive benefit of Europe finally starting to ween itself off of Russian gas which gave Putin a stranglehold over vast areas of European politics. Europe gets to be independent again, Gazprom, a de-facto Russian state owned organisation doesn't get to control the gas and pipeline.

    It could've been a problem for the EU if it meant energy prices had gone up, but the massive decline of oil prices, the subsequent decline of gas prices means that that one single major disadvantage has been more than wiped out.

    It's not Europe that's seeing $100bn wiped off of it's economy by falling gas and oil prices. Turning Putin away on this one and getting what they wanted anyway because Russia is so desperate for income was just icing on the cake.

  35. Re: "Turk Stream" by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

    What benefit? Russian gas was very reliable and inexpensive. Even during the height of the cold war the gas was supplied as promised. And now, thanks to the hubris of some stupid politicians we'll probably have to import the way too expensive LNG from USA. That will lead to a recession. In fact, thanks to the sanctions Germany has already only narrowly avoided it, but it still can happen next year. Trade is what keeps peace, but apparently, it is now too long ago since the last war, several EU chickenhawks are eager for a new one so they've started an economic war already.

    Russia may need the income, but their debt is miniscule compared to every single first world country and their people are accustomed to bad times. After the hell of the 90ies nothing would scare Russians, they can wait it out for a while.

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  36. Re: "Turk Stream" by Xest · · Score: 1

    "What benefit? Russian gas was very reliable and inexpensive."

    Reliable compared to what? inexpensive for whom?

    I can only guess you've been paying no attention to world affairs because Russian gas was only reliable if you did what Putin wanted. Did you miss the whole gas cutoffs to Ukraine and parts of Europe the last time Ukraine tried to pave it's own destiny? Did you not see the prices Russia was demanding of Ukraine the second time Ukraine tried to pave it's own destiny?

    Yes Russian gas is inexpensive and reliable if you do what Putin wants and that's exactly what abusers do. Just like the guy who gives some whore cheap drugs to fulfil her addiction whilst she gives him blowjobs and cuts off the supply when she decides she wants to try and get a better life for herself. Europe shouldn't have to be Putin's whore when there are better alternatives available.

    "And now, thanks to the hubris of some stupid politicians we'll probably have to import the way too expensive LNG from USA."

    Have you not been paying attention to prices over the last week or so? Have you missed the news in recent years about an increasing tendency towards renewables? Have you missed the growth of fracking in Europe? All these things mean that whatever happens Europe is going to be paying less for energy over the next decade than it has to Russia over the last decade.

    "That will lead to a recession. In fact, thanks to the sanctions Germany has already only narrowly avoided it, but it still can happen next year."

    Nonsense. The UK is now well out of recession and equally has a sizeable export market to Russia that has now been destroyed. Europe's been in and out of recession for many years since well before this occurred. Europe's economic woes have nothing to do with Russian sanctions - the fact the UK economy is doing so well when it took such a different economic path that it was heavily criticised for is evidence of that. The impact of sanctions is negligible compared to the structural economic flaws of many major European nations like France and Germany. France is too busy propping up a failed economic model with government subsidies rather than modernising and Germany is still intent on competing in manufacturing with China whilst trying to maintain 1st world living and working conditions making it economically uncompetitive to do so. If the sanctions were the cause then given the massive financial focus of the sanctions the UK wouldn't be looking at 3% growth this year when finance is one of the UK's most important industries.

    "Trade is what keeps peace, but apparently, it is now too long ago since the last war, several EU chickenhawks are eager for a new one so they've started an economic war already."

    Wait what? Ukraine and Georgia were major trading partners of Russia. Russia still opted to invade them both. Trade is only a stabilising factor if you're dealing with countries that have grown out of childish imperialist tendencies, something Russia still has a major problem with. You seem to have completely forgotten how this whole thing started, it's like your memory of the situation only goes back about a month. Europe has spent the last 20 years trying the whole trade based approach to improving relations between Europe and Russia. It clearly has not worked.

    "Russia may need the income, but their debt is miniscule compared to every single first world country and their people are accustomed to bad times."

    Countries set a budget, how much they intend to spend based on how much they make. Putin set a budget recently that requires around $150bn more than his country is likely to make in the next year. It doesn't really matter how small his debt is, when he's got a spending plan so utterly out of whack with the amount his country is going to earn through falling fuel prices and sanctions then any advantage they have now will be irrelevant within 12 to 24 months because it will have been more than wiped out - especially as the cost of borrowing for them was high because of the

  37. Re:Not here in France... by mi · · Score: 1

    I just hope you know that the USA are tenfold more guilty of that type of foreign affairs meddling.

    Citations needed. With WikiLeaks and Snoweden out there, you should have no problem coming up with 10 counter-examples for each example listed in Mitrochin Archive. Start with assassins...

    But I was not even that outraged with USSR/Russia themselves — my anger is with the domestic fools ("useful idiots" as the USSR/Russia affectionately refer to them) — who do their utmost to sabotage their own countries, not realizing, the only beneficiaries of their efforts are foreign enemies.

    Everybody wants to influence others to see his point of view — that's natural. But your attempts to equate US with USSR (and today's Russia) fail the second your audience recalls, that our ideology is demonstrably superior to theirs. We may not be the "best" possible, but we are much better. It is therefor Ok to promote our ideology, while anybody promoting Communism — if only by wearing a Che Guevara T-shirt in public — belongs on a lamp-post...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  38. Re: "Turk Stream" by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    profits do not matter what others sell at. Profits are revenue - costs. Russia has some pretty high costs getting oil from Siberia. As such, selling nat gas at 70% is pretty close to selling at COSTS.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  39. Re: "Turk Stream" by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Sorry, but LNG from America will be about the same price as Nat gas from Russia.
    However, the SMART thing is to convert your coal into methane. In America, it costs us less than $7/MMBTU to dig up coal and convert it. It should be less than that if done in eastern europe. And with Russia charging you $10-15/MMBTU, this would be quite the savings. Interestingly, it would also be cleaner.

    BUT, I agree with your last bit there. I am not convinced that sanctions on Russia will work the way that they would be expected. Basically, Russian citizens will blame the west for their hardships for longer than putin is in office.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  40. Re:Not here in France... by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

    The Russians look at the U.S. through their cultural lens and quickly realize that they can manipulate the ideologues easily to their benefit. FSB and Bratva stooges are extremely active on U.S. comment boards, they are very easy to spot, even easier than the OFA trolls who cut and paste the exact same text on every story, with the marching orders changing every 2,3 days.

    The question we should be asking ourselves if how we, as an allegedly educated society, have managed to raise so many extremely gullible individuals (the useless idiots you refer to)? Is it the Internet? The education system? Too much free time? The astounding bold faced lies you see repeated by so many supposedly educated folks is downright alarming. There's a new attitude - "I know it's a lie, but I knowingly tell it over and over" - and a new stubbornness "Yes, I repeated a lie a thousand times over in the past, but I will never, ever admit it. Today's lie is ____________!! And if you don't repeat this lie you are a racist, homophobic, terrorist whatever. I've lost friends over this.

    Maybe the population of useful idiots hasn't changed, it's just that now they have a voice. And it's the useful idiots who love the sound of their own voice. I hope so...

    --
    Murphy was an optimist
  41. Re:Not here in France... by mi · · Score: 1

    Is it the Internet?

    It would be a mistake to assume, the problem is unique to our period in history. USSR was conducting its covert propaganda campaigns decades before, and they weren't the first to invent such methods either.

    For example, compare the world's reaction to American invasion of Korea — to prevent Communists from taking over the country — with the same sort of thing in Vietnam a few years later... The motivation was the same, the methods were the same, the goals were the same — what little differences existed, they were immaterial.

    And yet, the Vietnam war was denounced by so many, it remains a "black" page of American history, wheres Korean war is, generally, acceptable... Characters of "M.A.S.H." maybe skeptical of the events around them, but nobody claims, the US was evil to do, what it did — in stark contrast to anything having to do with Vietnam. What gives? By the time of Vietnam war, USSR had enough influence to begin working-up the outrage...

    The education system?

    It is no secret, that to change public opinion on a matter, it is best to start in schools (if you have time). Leftists have taken to that in spades — having a government job naturally appeals to Illiberals... They certainly are entrenched in the education system now, but that's a consequence of Russia's help for (and guidance of) anti-Americans world-wide — not the reason.

    Today the same contrasts — and the double-standards — continue. When the US invaded Iraq in 2003, the world's streets exploded in outrage. When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, the reaction on the street — both in the US and in Europe — is notable by its absence. Are some invasions better than others? Or is it simply that some invaders have a world-wide network of influence over the loudest mouths most likely to riot, while others do not?

    Maybe the population of useful idiots hasn't changed, it's just that now they have a voice.

    They always had a voice. Internet is just another medium for it...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  42. Re:Not here in France... by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

    We're in agreement. The only thing that's changed is the velocity at which the propaganda spreads, and the transition from Sarnoff's law to Metcalf's. Somewhere between the journolist and the creation of the OFA Facebook Action apps by Chris North we've gone to a lie spreading machine that runs at an astoundingly efficient speed - like nothing the world has ever seen.

    It's funny. You can give people the most liberal education on earth. But the one's that actually make something of themselves, they all turn in to conservatives by the time they turn 30. As a business owner I have yet to meet a far left progressive business owner. Oh yeah, some of them talk the talk to the outside world. But behind closed doors one discovers it's all an act... for money's sake.

    But I have hope. Progressives always box themselves into corners they can't get out of.

    During the Bush years they perfected the art of red meat slathering abuse - and used it very successfully. Bush wasn't just "misguided" or "wrong on policy" he was a satanic, baby eating, not even human! And it worked, it got Obama elected. But then what? Your base is all fired up, and to keep it fired up you have no choice but to pile red meat on top of red meat, emotional rhetoric on top of rhetoric. So pretty soon, if you opposed raising taxes on cigarets by one penny you were a TERRORIST! After a while, people who aren't ideological loons just don't get all upset any more. Yeah, yeah, I'm a racist, xenophobic ignorant hayseed pig, what ever, do you have anything NEW to say? The only thing that's still working is "Hey, tonight there's gonna be a race riot and you might get free stuff" and the usual causes that a small number of people are dedicated to no matter what, because protest is a social club where they all get drunk and stoned and shout rage at "the man". Or they get paid to protest...

    It's the same with social justice. Eventually you run out of money, and the problems don't get better. You attract all kinds of outsiders who come to live in your country to get free stuff. Sooner or later the moneyed class realizes you're on a path to failure and stops contributing, and the wealthy you taxed to pay for the social programs leave and go elsewhere. This is exactly what's happening in quite a few European countries right now, and big surprise they are all trending to the right.

    It's the same with buying blocks of votes. The liberals in America performed a miracle - they went from the party of Jim Crow & KKK to the party of the 100% assured black vote. And it worked, for a while. But they finally got their way - we got a black (well, 1/2 black) president. And, as we all know, the blacks didn't get squat. In fact, they are much worse off! Fanning the flames of racism for all they are worth... and blacks voted for Republicans in the midterms. Not all of them... but a surprising number. And the more they promise to the Hispanics - after years of making promises they couldn't possibly keep - the more they anger the blacks. Who haven't they screwed since Obama got elected? Who haven't they made absurd promises too and failed to deliver?

    Just like you can't call your opposition a terrorist every day for five years and have any believability, you can't promise a group of people the sun, the sky, and the moon and not deliver anything, anything at all. And the current crop of progressives in the U.S. - this is exactly what they have done.

    Same story with Obamacare: "We're going to insure EVERYONE! And it will be FREE! And prices, they are going to go DOWN!" Well, big surprise, that was a fantasy....

    So I have hope that although the die hard left wing "The Narrative" parrots will never stop reciting their mantras mindlessly. But the rest of us who were fooled, are waking up.... BTW I could bitch and complain all day about the right wing too. But they aren't the ones who have been in power the last six years, are they?

    --
    Murphy was an optimist
  43. Re: "Turk Stream" by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    Russia may need the income, but their debt is miniscule compared to every single first world country

    Their public debt is, yes.

    Their private debt is not. This includes several of the major banks, which the govt now has to bail out because they cannot service their outstanding debts in the face of the sanctions.

  44. Re:I was there - we don't need no russians by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but we need the money from anything we can dig up - we can't export bread, we can export gas and fuels, here is to hoping the Black sea clathrates make a big bang in a good way - bread and water a civilization doesn't make. A fellow Bulgarian.

    --
    I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.