Most of Russia’s current power and influence comes from its production and control of energy. According to the DOE, “Russia’s economic growth over the past seven years has been driven primarily by energy exports, given the increase in Russian oil production and relatively high world oil prices during the period.”
“Russia’s economy is heavily dependent on oil and natural gas exports. In order to manage windfall oil receipts, the government established a stabilization fund in 2004. By the end of 2007, the fund was expected to be worth $158 billion, or about 12 percent of the country’s nominal GDP. According to calculations by Alfa Bank, the fuel sector accounts for about 20.5 percent of GDP, down from around 22 percent in 2000. According to IMF and World Bank estimates, the oil and gas sector generated more than 60 percent of Russia’s export revenues (64% in 2007), and accounted for 30 percent of all foreign direct investment (FDI) in the country.”
Russia’s major market for natural gas is Europe. These Department of Energy maps depict the existing and proposed routes of Russian pipelines not only to Europe, but to all points. One key difference between Russia’s pipeline-based natural gas distribution network and a system based on tankers is that Russian gas has to transit sovereign countries. This is contrast to the shipping which enjoys freedom of navigation on the world’s oceans. Pipelines must be protected continuously and persistently along their entire length unlike shipping which occupies a moving dot on the vast ocean and around which defenses can be concentrated. Pipelines moreover, cannot be easily rerouted. Ships, by comparison, can select alternate routes in responses to changes in the weather or obstruction. Russia must resort to a combination of bribery and threat to ensure that its energy exports get safe passage.
Natural gas is used primarily for heating and electrical power generation. Nuclear power, which fills a similar market niche, produced half as much as conventional thermal generating power in Europe in 2005. For North America it was only over a quarter. Nevertheless Europe is a heavy user of Russian natural gas, as is shown in the table below.
But nothing stands still and Russia’s natural gas production will decline unless it can successfully develop new fields and new routes. The DOE writes:
Gazprom’s natural gas production forecast calls for modest growth of 1-2 percent per year by 2010. Russia’s natural gas production growth reflects its aging fields, state regulation, Gazprom’s monopolistic control over the industry, and insufficient export pipelines. … Based on EIA analysis, Gazprom’s production from its largest four fields is expected to decline by around 1,800 Bcf in the next four years. Gazprom’s targeted production for 2011 is an increase of around 1,000 Bcf from 2007 levels. … Domestic gas prices in Russia are only around 15-20 percent of the market rate at which Russia’s gas is sold to Germany, and Gazprom lost around $420 million in 2006 on domestic natural gas sales. Low prices have impacted the gas industry’s ability to finance capital spending and have hurt incentives to increase efficiency.
As old fields decline and production moves to fields in Siberia and the Barent’s Sea, Russia’s logistical calculus will become even more complicated. Selling off a depleting resource in order to fund a transitory condition of prestige among sullen neighboring countries and to keep domestic prices low may prove a difficult strategy to sustain. Recent reports for example that Russia is distributing passports in the Ukraine to people of Russian ethnicity may support Moscow in the short term. But in the long term it bodes ill for relationships in the area. In the medium to long term, the containment of Russia will focus around diplomatic efforts to draw countries around its periphery into arrangements with the West and to do with energy policy. Energy is Russia’s strength and its Achilles’ heel.
Tip Jar.
More domestic oil production in the US, combined with increased support of nuclear power is the key to defeating Russia, the Mullahs in Iran, and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.
If only we could defeat the Democrats and make this happen…
Merkel says Georgia on path to NATO membership:
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSLH574835
Russia’s attempts to push the “near abroad” countries around
are pushing them to join NATO instead.
I wonder if the Ukraine will gain NATO membership before it
ends up in the same situation as Georgia.
Russian President Medeyev was Gazprom President. In his new position he is buying contracts from other countries. Venezuela sells oil to Russia; Libya just signed a contract with Medeyev and Gazprom. I believe that they got the contracts from Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan. Saudi Arabia provides oil to the US as well as Kuwait and they are our client countries.
They have been trying to secure outside sources for oil and gas. They recently this spring went to the artic to lay claim to the sources that may be there. Both Sweden and Finland are contesting those areas. Canada also has interest in the artic. The sea ice in the artic actually has changed and the melt has been prominent in the Russian area. The Canadian ice has been getting thicker. The Russia took advantage of the open sea to explore and lay claim. Russia has been the primary interest in the PARS field in Iran that the French company just pulled out.
So Gazprom has known about the need to get more sources since this is Medeyev’s obsession. The clash for oil sources will be the 21st century issue for some time to come. The fools who decry no oil for blood are clueless about how seriously nations will get to secure their energy. Energy is really the life and blood of a nations economy.
After the Soviet fall the Communist and Marxists groups and agitators went into the Green Movement. The Green Movement and the global warming scare have been targeted at Europe. Now it is curious that Russia has been from the 1990’s trying to become Europe’s energy supplier as the Green movement has insisted that power generation be only from natural gas and not coal that Germany has in abundance. Also they forced Germany under Schroeder to phase out the nuclear power generators. Later Schroeder went and worked for Medeyev’s Gazprom.
There is a true collusion from the promoters of Global Warming and the Green Movement that has been strangling Europe to work against its own national interests.
The vociferous attack against those that speak out about global warming as a product of human produced CO2 has been very strong and picked up by the liberal left and almost accepted doctrine in the West. Now we are just starting to show the cracks in that movement and science with bad methodology and sensors and cook algorithms.
Now what would be a good idea is to look at the funding of these groups and see if they have been funded or a disinformation campaign by Russia. The timing is right and the interests do coincide.
Russia never stopped working against the US and since we are their competitor on the world stage it is not surprising. Russia has fomented terrorism in Libya from the 1970’s and then in Syria and Iraq and Iran. They are also working in South America with Venezuela and Bolivia. So Russia has never stopped the Cold War it just went in different direction and form
The price of oil should be $60 a barrel. OPEC raises price by restricting supply. By that measure, the most important member of OPEC is the Democrat controlled congress. First order of business is to get the Democrat Controlled Congress out of OPEC, and work to drive down the price of Oil.
The Alaskan Oil pipeline was designed to have a second pipeline to bring natural gas to market. Instead of flaring it off, we should build the pipeline and sell it. Additionally, the price of natural gas is heavily influenced by the price of oil.
When Democrats say that marketing ANWR oil will only save “pennies a gallon” they are referring to a study that predicts a world market price for Oil of $50 a barrel once ANWR oil comes to market — less than half what it is today. Why that price? Because the world has mucho oil at that price. The constraints are political, not geological or technical. Of the political constraints, the US Congress being part of OPEC is the most important. The Democrat controlled congress actually makes the cartel profitable by keeping millions of Barrels of oil off the market every day. Thus the US Congress doubles the price oil. Are they in the pay of Big Government Oil autocrats? No, I think they are that stupid for free.
Gas should cost $2.50 a gallon. And if it did then Putin International would be back to making money by selling vodka to demobilized privates.
Save money. Pound Putin. US Congress out of OPEC! We literally cannot afford this Crazy Congress. And I mean literally, literally.
I think it will be 2012 that sees the resurgence of TTBO politics in a big way.
I don’t care how gerrymandered districts are, there’s nothing on the horizon that will allow congress to get out of single digit approval ratings as a body. Old conventional wisdom was that voters railed about the “other” congressmen/senators but always come back to their own incumbent.
Not here in Utah. Rep. Cannon lost his primary (and I voted against him), and the other off- year incumbents of both parties are already looking at challengers appearing on the horizon.
I’m going to vote McCain. And probably throw up in the parking lot afterward.
Interesting post, wretchard. It certainly seems the Russians have significant economic influence in ALL of Europe, made more significant by the fact that it is energy based. So why the heavy handedness? …Habit? Because they could? Or, are things getting grim for them (and if so, how?)
Gorbachev founded the Gorbachev Foundation in 1992, headquartered in San Francisco, California. He later founded Green Cross International, with which he was one of three major sponsors of the Earth Charter. He also became a member of the Club of Rome and the Club of Madrid.
And of course, we have Al Gore, he of five homes, Gulfstream jet, barge size yacht.
No connections between the Greenies and the Commies.
Nope
What is TTBO politics?
Throw The Bums Out?
BTW Merkel of Germany is sponsoring Georgia for NATO.
Perfect timing to transition from outrage (high gasoline prices) to fear (high oil prices funding our enemies) now that Russia has dropped the veil and revealed who they really are. The Russians have done us a favor with their timing and beligerence. Only something like this could kick the American public in the ass and force congress to do something in our own long term best interest for a change. Drill for oil, build nuclear and let the greenies scurry to their holes.
If the people of the west are too timid to stand up to the greens then there is no chance that they will stand up to the powerful oil thugs.
I do think that the left was surprised by the reaction to four dollar gas. They thought we would just take it and blame the oil companies, and of course Bush. Now everyone and their brother is looking for alternatives and yelling for more domestic drilling.
Thank God the left is stupid or there would be no “hope” (another fine word mutated and by the left).
Even Richard Holbrook chastized the Russians this evening on Fox News (Hillary loyalist?).
A ‘holiday from history’ is not thinkable any more. Whoever is the next president, must be able to think clearly and plan strategically for the future.
The typical class-war claptrap about “Big Oil”, etc., if translated into real policy, spells strategic chaos for America.
If gas hits $5/gallon (national average) next summer (which it will, barring unforseen changes) and nothing strategic has been done, whoever the ruling party is in the White House and Congress will rue their slothfulness and lack of vision.
Windmills ain’t gonna cut it, either.
Russia has all kinds of problems in addition to the vulnerability of its energy exports. I’m not very worried about a country where poverty, alcoholism, disease, and depression lower the male life expectancy to only 61.
Additionally:
-the population growth rate is -0.17%
-the birth rate is only 1.39
-there are more abortions than births in Russia
-corruption is as entrenched as any sub-Saharan African country
-the army consists of draftees
Russia is nothing but the Third World with nukes. It might as well be Pakistan we’re discussing.
It’s not necessary to posit a conspiracy theory to conclude that much of international conflict, domestic politics and even terrorism is underpinned by energy. Parties can be driven to cooperate from common interest without necessarily entering into explicit agreements.
The dilemma is how to sustain world economic growth without drawing the cords of gas and oil tighter around our necks, with all the instability they bring. Absent a clear technological breakthrough, the answer is probably to unleash the market or encourage it to find solutions in myriad ways. There may be no single magic bullet, but there may be a cocktail of solutions. It might actually be a good thing if the system did not lurch from dependency on one source to another.
Politics has paralyzed the energy debate by ideologizing it. Where to begin with the divides? Conservationist versus productionist. East versus West. Left versus Right. As long as the debate remains mired in these categories, there probably won’t be a very good answer to the problems which face the world.
More domestic oil production in the US, combined with increased support of nuclear power is the key to defeating Russia, the Mullahs in Iran, and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.
If only we could defeat the Democrats and make this happen…
Same wavelength here. We could start building nuclear plants right now at some of the current sites that were approved for multiple units, and only one or two were built. There are a number of these.
Obama would be a true disaster for this country.
“Conservationist versus productionist. East versus West. Left versus Right. As long as the debate remains mired in these categories, there probably won’t be a very good answer to the problems which face the world.”
You’d be hard pressed to find anyone on the right against solar, wind, or Hybrid cars. It’s the left that has all of the No Trespass signs up regarding to two largest bullets we have-increased domestic drilling and nuclear power.
Greenpeace Founder Now Backs Nuclear Power
Damn it’s nice to see some of these greens finally figure it out and catch up with us old farmers.
RAH,
That was such good speculation I lifted it whole for a blog post at:
Green Speculation.
Of course there is a link to here and I give you full credit.
You can see Arctic exploration first hand on History Channel. Although it is really personality TV, “Ice Road Truckers” gives a glance at how they set up drill sites on frozen ice. FYI: when salt water freezes in deep freeze conditions, salt falls out of same leaving pure H2O.
There is nothing stopping Putin from exploring the Arctic. That is a done deal, although the far shelves have to be exploited in the summer. Ice Road construction involves pumping water onto the path. Its not safe to do that over more than 200 feet of ocean. Its never really safe to drive loaded trucks and trailors over 4 feet of ice.
Platts is reporting that both US presidential candidates are talking to Boone Pickens – and he has formed an influential group – about temporary exploitation of the high Arctic and Wildlife Reserve lands. Neither can shoot down the plan. I forsee positive bi-partisan work in the new year.
http://www.platts.com/HOME/News/6938953.xml?sub=HOME&p=HOME/News&?undefined&undefined
Patrick Moore co-founded Greenpeace with the late Robert Hunter. Moore lost environmentalist credentials when he went into fish farming. He didn’t change his opinions; he changed sides.
Panday,
Actually the Russian population growth rate is -1/2% aprox.
What is going on now is a competition for the bones of the carcass.
RAh,
Also Cross Posted at Classical Values.
Politics has paralyzed the energy debate by ideologizing it. Where to begin with the divides? Conservationist versus productionist. East versus West. Left versus Right. As long as the debate remains mired in these categories, there probably won’t be a very good answer to the problems which face the world.
One key insight that can help is this simple truth – there are huge environmental benefits to cheap, clean energy. If you look at the earth from outer space the single biggest evidence of human pollution is a cloud over south Asia caused by people burning (ineptly) coal, wood, tires, animal dung, etc. If all of that combustion were replaced by combustion of clean burning petroleum products the world would be a better place. If any of it is replaced by alternatives to petroleum like nukes or solar or wind even better.
Here is my favorite for electrical power and process steam:
Fusion Report 13 June 008
Provided of course it can be made to work. A full up 100 MWe test reactor could be built for $200 million or so if current experiments green light the effort.
If Vladimir Putin really wanted to raise the birth rate in Russia, the Russian state could sponsor orphanages and give bonuses to families that adopt children. It would also severely restrict the availability of abortion. It Mr. Putin serious about increasing the population of Russia? I have my doubts.
M. Simon -
Indeed, Throw The Bums Out.
Remember ’92? If it hadn’t been for Perot, the big story would have been turnover in the house and senate. Not by party, but individuals got their walking papers.
All the bills are coming due sooner than anybody thinks. SocSec, Medicare, corporate and municipal pensions… and we’ve got history back in great steaming buckets full.
On topic – sort of: You cannot have environmentally friendly squat without you have an efficient and growing economy. You can’t afford to. The ChiCom bosses have obviously decided that catastrophic rates of respiratory and cancer issues are acceptable in pursuit of near-double digit growth… but even they may have to pay lip service to their citizens before much longer because you can’t operate factories if nobody can breathe.
But nobody gets to vote on who runs China. So there’s no real market adjustment, just a control economy that will roll the dice on whether they catch a fatal system error before it manifests itself.
I think our greens here in America are a bigger objective threat to my freedom than any terrorist in a cave (or palace). They force our government to pander to vocal minorities who are driven by political agendas that use the environment as a means, not an end.
They are not acting in “good faith” up there at the “testify before congress” level. Oh, their foot soldiers might truly be children of gaia… I’ll give them that. But every mass totalitarian movement in human history has depended on braindead fanatics for muscle, so good for them.
We need nukes here at home, and need more and better refineries only slightly less. Opening every acre of ground in the country and off our shores won’t mean a thing if we can’t turn the crude into fuel.
I fully expect the OPEC nations to attempt another 1982, but I don’t think they’ve got the capacity to bust us (as bad) in the chops, again. Our technology is better, and more importantly we have excess in skilled labor and real estate clambering for improvement as infrastructure.
I’d like to see Bush start PNG’ng Russian diplomats tomorrow if the bear drags its feet leaving Georgia.
Feh. Enough from me for now.
Actually I am a conservationist and an environmentalist. I am just not a loony leftist. Unfortunately, the loony left took over the movement.
Markets are the most efficient way to allocate resources. The loons on the left want to destroy markets. How does letting Gazprom produce energy instead of Exxon improve the environment?
Of course you develop alternative energy — if it is anywhere near competitive. But it is about the cost of performing work. If you force the US economy to pay 5 dollars to get the “energy work” that oil can do for $2.50, then you are putting our economy at a huge disadvantage.
That is what Sen Obama’s plan does. He wants to replace a highly taxed energy source with highly subsidized ones — infant energy industries that will never get out of the subsidized play pen. That will make the US poorer. It ain’t high level economics I’m talking here, folks. It is addition and subtraction and politics as usual.
And we cannot afford it.
is the price of oil high due to market forces? or artificially high?
if it is artificially high, then it can fall at the drop of the hat
suppose the easiest oil to find & pump is less abundent than once, the mentality is that it is now finite, and that hoarding, or planning for the end of a country’s good run would seem prudent (ie cut back pumping and jack the price up)
also, suppose that there’s mucho oil that remains; but, it takes more effort to get it out – that is okay; but, if it takes more effort, then the market will need to reflect that in it’s pricing. additionally, prudence would dictate re-investing the necessary portion of proceeds in order to sustain and grow the corporation…
…unfortunately, the recent trend towards nationalization of major oil producer’s oil fields has thrown the market equilibrium off;
these guys aren’t subject to the same market forces and etiquette as a corporation (duh)
instead of working along side the companies that have developed the technology over decades and invested in their countries, these nations have unprofessionally & short-sightedly chosen to confiscate the fish rather than learning to fish, counting on being able to afford/find an accomplices down the road when they need re-investment…so, they’re pocketing the profits, and in the back of their mind, figuring that any that remains in the ground is like money in the bank…
to date, their typical response to their state of ever more dependence on this sugar-tit is to postpone paying the piper and instead ratcheting up the rhetoric and viola!
tit out of the wringer!! (sounds like something congress would do, doesn’t it?)
this has introduced alot of “surprises”, and the oil market does not like surprises…witness the price curve and it’s evident that the market is being spooked
if the traditional western oil companies decide they must transition away from owning reserves in countries where the political climate is too risky (where alot of the cheap oil happens to be), to the business of supplying technology, they too will be spooked as the status quo is shook up
additionally, this has got to introduce inefficiencies; especially, as the fields age, as that is when the technology is most needed in order to avoid having to move on…
…so by evading the traditional companies with the know how / technology, and the corresponding costs that go along with it, there’s a good chance that they’ll be locked into looking to move on at an ever increasing rate, to locate fields where more basic technologies will work…
if the reserves are too hard to get out of the ground, they don’t count for much
it would seem to be more efficient to drain down a given field as much as feasible before moving on
all this to state that the price of oil’s sawtooth curve is not good for the development of alternatives;
the hope that these producers would provide alternatives to mideast oil and provide sanctuary in a more multi-facetted market, have not come to fruition
it is time to set into the idea that the wusski’s are counting on pivoting the EU into their camp, as evidenced by the large amount of infrastructure they’ve put / have planned. they hope the EU will not only provide the market; but, also the technology for the further development of russia’s field…like junkies hanging out with the pusher
it is also time to expect this new partnership to at least equal OPEC in the manipulation of the price of oil
all this to say it (the fluctuations) will only get worse, and sound policy is a must, as the only thing that will dampen this will be alternatives to the current so easily manipulated sources of energy
Europe is in a weak position. There oil and gas is all imported, some electric is produced with nuclear (70%) in France, some hydro up in Scandinavia. Wretchard’s tables shows who are the big consumers. RAH summarized the political situation nicely. The Europeans have to over come the Greens which in many ways are the unwitting “fifth column” for the Russians. For the US, the high price of oil and now the Russian invasion is the motivation to develop our own oil and gas reserves, explore coal gasification and oil shale production (not cost-effective yet). The US has to go with a rapidly expanded nuclear program and move to electric powered land transportation (like we had in the US until GM and Goodyear killed the trolley after WWII) Imagine a bullet Mag-Lev train from LA to NY!. Energy independence is what will truly “make history”. Solar satellite power stations, that were proposed back in the 70′s by Dr. Gerard O’Neill, can be built with today’s technology and launched into L4 and L5 orbital slots(equidistant between earth and moon)and beam down to earth an endless supply of electricity. The current do nothing Congress is disgraceful …fiddling while Rome burns and pursuing politics that’s completely counter to energy independence.We have Al Gore and our own Greeny fifth column to contend with. Our two “oil men” in the White house should be doing way more on this issue too, but they are lame ducks. It up to the private sector (Big Oil) to solve the energy independence problem. The US government needs to get out of the way and let the energy companies go after it before other countries do…which brings us back to the Caspian Sea oil transportation corridor and why Putin’s tanks are siting in Georgia right now.
Thank you for another insightful and interesting post.
I just got back from 2 weeks in Russia in May, and the demographics may be changing. All 3 of our translators have had babies in the last 2 years. The dropping birth rate may be turning around.
It was clear from talking to many Russians (scientists and others) that they would rather see Russia respected abroad and have economic security at home than the illusory benefits of democracy and the rule of law. They lived through the 90′s when times were bad and they don’t want to repeat it.
We are in for a rough ride.
Women probably will change to having children if it is profitable for them to do so. More prestige in society and the normal desire to have a family. A ferility drop can be addressed by women have many childen rather than just one.
With biological sciences the fertilty period will be lengthened allowing women to have both career and children.
With the American regulatory, utility and political structures now in place, drilling for oil is the quickest way out of our immediate hole.
There are many issues rarely addressed in the media.
We have hollowed out our industrial base . We cannot immediately ramp up the nuclear, or wind or coal industries to the point we need.
The national electrical grid is not in good shape. Every major wind farm needs an EIR primarily focused on whether the surge in power will overwhelm the local portion of the grid. If the politicians are anything like my home state of California’s, they will drag their feet improving the grid. Too many dems want no growth period and will hamper any effort to provide growth.
Construction costs have skyrocketed. Current electrical rates reflect past cost of power plants, not those of new ones today. So the economics are often not pretty.
No one has built in the US a nuclear power plant in over thirty years. Disposal of nuclear waste is still a huge problem although the nuclear industry has made great strides in dealing with it. The environmental regulations would be a nightmare. So the real cost of nuclear power can’t be precisely determined.
The public doesn’t understand how the dems have screwed up our regulatory system. The dems have purposely penalized growth. Many regulations sound reasonable to the layman or even the legislator but are really difficult or sometimes even impossible to comply with. Often a project is required to obtain permits from departments of government with conflicting goals and conflicting regulations, which can’t be resolved. Some departments will purposely require so many studies and time, or will reinterpret existing regulations endlessly so as to run out the clock on a project.
Wind Energy actually can be very competitive with other sources of energy. However, there are only a few American manufacturers of wind turbines, most with very long backlogs of work. There are problems with turbines in consistency of wind, but there are also technical solutions to those problems.
Most Solar is just too expensive. The promising solar farms in the deserts of the southwest have been placed on moratorium so the Dept of the Interior can study the environmental impacts.
Selling power to the utilities can be a difficult process, particularly for alternative energy. The utilities want to own their own energy plants, and often hamper competing sources of power. Many states have widely differing electrical rates causing utilities to pay widely differing rates for power.
Frankly, the energy situation is a mess.
Obama will never provide 5 million jobs with alternative energy. His tax policies alone will discourage new investment in energy and well as everything else. He has not as with everything else detailed exactly how he is going to achieve energy independence. He doesn’t have a clue how to do it.
The only rational view of Obama is that he wants to so weaken us that we will easily be taken over internally by the Marxists like himself, or externally by the Russians or the Jihadis.
“they would rather see Russia respected abroad and have economic security at home than the illusory benefits of democracy ”
—
Sounds a lot like Mike Sylwester!
Even the Euros are less than respectful of Unilateral Invasion featuring of a POLICY of Rape, Pillage, and wanton destruction of a small, successful democracy.
Feared, no doubt, respected, I think not.
The US has the technological capacity to change energy production in the US if they have the economic incentive to do so.
Constant roadblocks by regulation, litigation and political and domestic political climate make these efforts difficult.
Oil is probably the most efficient and economic fuel source. Ethanol and Biofuels are not.
Electrical power generation should be nuclear and plastic can use fossil fuels. Transportation networks with maglev trains can be built. Using trains corridors for increased shipping of containers from trucks are being developed like the proposed one up I –81 from the south to the north for the east coast corridor. These are just some of the ideas.
Political pressure and will have to be imposed to stop the green/ environmental groups dominance on legislatures.
Leaving the price to produce the market demand for reform is one of the best aspects of our capitalistic system. As long as our Presidents do not fall for socialistic control like we had in the past under Nixon and Carter. Reagan deregulated the natural gas market, when we just let the gas flare off, since it was not economical to recover it and that helped a lot. The oil price shocks of the 1970’s disappeared by Reagan restoring market control. We had the enjoyment of increased oil from foreign sources since they were cheaper than domestic sources. Many wells were capped in the US since it was not profitable to use them. The increase in oil prices has now made many of these sources economical.
We need oil for many things but we can reduce the need by getting nuclear power for electricity, which is clean, efficient and productive, but the regulatory climate made it impossible in the US because of the No Nukes groups of the 1970’s. These groups have morphed into the Global warming and Green movements in Europe.
Cap and trade of carbon credits is a fraud and should be resisted at all costs. It is just another mechanism for a favorite few to make money and promise nothing for something. This is an additional cost we do not need. McCain needs to be convinced of that.
@wretchard:
Politics has paralyzed the energy debate by ideologizing it. Where to begin with the divides? Conservationist versus productionist. East versus West. Left versus Right. As long as the debate remains mired in these categories, there probably won’t be a very good answer to the problems which face the world.
There is a lot of wisdom in that. Modern American media-centered politics relies a lot on artifice, in particular on attempts to depict the election of the other guy as a catastrophe. Thus, this kind of empty side-taking in lieu of actual action is how things now work.
The simplest solution to many of these problems would be a heavy U.S. tax on imported oil. It would avoid taking sides, privileging ethanol, or wind, or whatever, and would leave such prioritizing to the market. But it would tell consumers that their choices feed the global oil beast – the corruption, the violence, the enabling of the jihad – and would force them to take account of those consequences in their decision-making.
Precisely because it is so clean, because it is so modest in terms of granting additional campaign-finance shakedown opportunities to US politicians, and because it takes away the opportunities to blame the other side for the ongoing inaction, it is unlikely to happen.
The Russians have their own version of the ” hand of allah” in Georgia -
The Russian military deployed several SS-21 missile launchers and supply vehicles to South Ossetia on Friday, according to American officials familiar with intelligence reports. From the new launching positions north of Tskhinvali, the South Ossetian capital, the missiles can reach much of Georgia, including Tbilisi, the capital.
the iskander is the successor
David,
How can Russia expect to be respected and have economic security when they offer no respect and enable no security. The benefits of democracy and the rule of law are not illusory, but they are difficult to obtain and maintain with former KGB pissing in the mix, and transparency avoided by bribes and order maintained by black market rules.
They will have to clear out the cockroaches before receiving a clean bill of health, Perhaps like Iraq, the people of Russia are far too used to their rules to make change without some form of outside intervention impossible.
I wonder if anyone can afford such an intervention, but I doubt if we can afford not to. Michael Ledeen has a good debate going on about that. But you are correct we are in for some rough times ahead.
The Wall Street Journal presents another reason wind and solar are unlikely to generate much usable energy – the Greens/Libs/Dems oppose the transmission lines it takes to get it to customers.
hdgreene: Instead of $60 a barrel, make that $80 to $90 a barrel for:
1) any and all
2) crude oil
3) or similar refineable substance
4) produced in the United States
5) or contiguous states
6) with price guaranteed for 30 to 35 years.
Each of those 6 steps has its own importance.
Put them all together and there is more than enough financial incentive to steamroller
obstruction and for us to produce a sizeable
surplus within 5 years or less. Price at the pump will retreat quite a bit but remain high enough to discourage prolifigate consumption.
Evan: This beats the pants off of an oil tariff.
With Uncle Sam not only being petroleum independent but capable (again) of exporting,
other folks are going to have to clean up their act in order to stay in business at all.
The danger point? Somebody wants to go to war, including nuking the US or threatening to do so, to keep us and others dependent upon statist/religious whims.
The solution? SDI. And I strongly suggest that Star Wars be followed with orbiting
strategic bombardment systems relying primarily on kinetic kill projectiles. That will remind quite a few people of their proper station in the correct order of things.
Bravo to the thoughtful and bright posts on this thread. I saw an interview with Kobe Bryant today where he expressed his pride at representing the USA in the Olympics because it is a great country full of wonderful opportunity. It was very stirring. I doubt some Russian weightlifter can laud Putin and the drunken rabble and perverted camp followers who are pillaging Georgia. We’ll win this fight because we are a great nation full of grit and ingenuity. The knuckle dragging cretins and vodka swillers will be flushed down the sewer of forgetfulness when the sun sets. Mark it down.
Surveying this mess and the expected rapid growth in nuclear power generation, I feel like asking: who will hold the keys to that resource? Who owns the economically exploitable nuclear fuel ore deposits, and especially the ones not held hostage by environmentalists as crazed as our own?
What I like best about Rumsfeld’s famous Unknown Poem — is that it describes accurately the rationale for three funding mechanisms for leading edge R&D.
Here is an example of DOD funding under rationale number 2: known unknowns.
Bell Bio-Energy, Inc. says it has reached an agreement with the U.S. Defense Department to build seven test production plants, mostly on military bases, to quickly turn naturally grown material into fuel.
“What this means is that with the seven pilot plants – the military likes to refer to them as demonstrations – with those being built … it gives us the real-time engineering data that we need to finish the designs for a full-scale production facility,” J.C. Bell, the man behind the project, told WND today.
“In 18 months or so, we will start manufacturing oil directly from waste and we will build up to about 500,000 barrels a day within two years. In another six months, we’ll reach a million barrels a day.”
As the United States now imports about 13 million barrels of oil a day, the only obstacle then to total energy independence from foreign sources will be the money needed to develop the processing plants, he said.
“Working with the USDA we’ve identified enough waste material around the country, we truly believe we can make the United States totally energy independent of foreign countries in about five years,” he said.
RAH –
I think you are too sanguine on the issue of fertility. While fertility drugs and treatments can work on the margins, it is basic biology that women’s fertility peaks in the late teens and starts to decline dramatically by age 26 or so.
Fertility treatments, have their own costs. Among other things, they are associated with greatly increased risk of cancer in the mothers. Having one’s first child after 30 is another increas in breast cancer for women, matched only by not having children at all. Basic biology is not easily changed even by the most skilled genetic engineering — it would take a leap in ability orders of magnitude to make such changes in the complex human organism.
Among all nations where women have increased money and social status, and urbanism (increased anomymity outside the watchful eyes of the village), TFR has dropped drastically. It is only 1.7 in Tunisia, Algeria, and IRAN! Educated, professional women in all cultures DO NOT want children, and this is unlikely to ever change. I understand why this is the choice, and am not unsympathetic.
There will never be a TGV across the nation from NYC to LA, or anything like that. Distances are just too great. Wind energy is a fantasy since you can’t use it for PEAK LOAD and you can’t store it either.
Drilling is the only way out.
NYTimes headline i’d like to see:
“Greens Steal Ten Years for Reds, Blues Angry”
Australia, Canada and Kazakhstan account for more than half the world’s uranium mining.
Beats, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran etc for oil.
Wadeusaf: How can Russia expect to be respected and have economic security when they offer no respect and enable no security.
My use of the term “respect” was in the same sense that a street thug is shown “respect” – no one is interested in messin’ with him. In this context it is interchangeable with feared.
As for economic security, the memory of the 90′s is fresh in the minds of most Russians and it isn’t a fond remembrance. The Director of one of their nuclear weapon labs (Chelyabinsk-70) committed suicide in his office because he couldn’t pay his people for months. Imagine what it was like for the rest of the country.
Fascism and communism seem like attractive options when you see the “capitalism” failing all around you – it wasn’t capitalism in Russia during that time: it was the transition to the KGB/Mafia “thugocracy” that is in power today.
Note for Doug: This isn’t Mike S, in case you are interested.
Whiskey, re ”wind” –the idea TB Pickens is pushing is simply put, natgas is generating some humongous percentage of the electrical power within the area that wind generation could economically replace. Wind is a renewable (ever spent any time in Amarillo? I have!) and natgas, of which we have much, is not.
Compressed “natty” (trade jargon but fun) will cost you half as much per mile as gasoline, and is a proven technology with mild front cost per vehicle conversion. The wind power is only expected to provide 20% max of elec. power, but that 20% taken from natty, with the natty put into CNG (compressed nat gas) transportation, will knock a considerable chunk off the foreign oil imports.
USA has IIRC 150,000 fuel stations, currently only 500 also offer CNG, so there’s a way to go. Boone’s CNG company, CLNE, just got some major municipal contracts, so the ice is breaking. Your home gas feed can fuel your car, too, with a little device that fills slowly but is ideal for overnight. Anyhoo, look into it –it’s not the magic bullet, but it will work to keep substantial dollars at home. Pay Boone, or pay Putin, i’ll take Boone.
Buddy,
I’m from the school of thought that says, with respect to energy, “let’s do it all.” Renewables AND fossil fuels. There are places in the country (I live in one)where solar and wind just are not going to be a large part of the grid, but that does not mean that I disagree with Mr. Pickens. I’m a big fan of nuclear power, which means that I want to use a pickax on all those who protest nuclear power and pile on legal obstructions to stop nuclear power plants. In other words, I want those folks dead, because that’s the sentence they deserve for literally costing humanity lives, because they don’t like the idea of nuclear power plants feeding plutonium into DoD. The only thing I am very skeptical about right now, because it seems the laws of physics are against it (but the Californicate liberals who have big bucks massage their egos with it) is hydrogen power. If it takes 15 units of conventional electrical power to produce one unit of hydrogen power, that’s one helluva carbon footprint. But, hey, if folks want to continue to do research into hydrogen power, then by all means help yourselves. Just not on my dime.
We need to exploit our own fossil fuel resources. Put Pelosi and Reid up against a wall and give them a choice. They’ll back down. (I don’t literally mean a firing squad. Just politically.)
@neolex
I do not see how your questions are relevant to my position which is: Cutting Georgia in halves, is almost the same like not cutting it, or cutting it in quarters, or eights. The work by Russians is done. 2-4 checkpoints make no difference. It is just technicalities, not a kind of a mean strategy. But your questions are interesting, so i am going to try…
1.Why did Russia cross the SO border in the first place?One of the goals of the involvement (may be the main one) was to defeat Georgian military and to humiliate Georgia, and her president M. Saakashvilly personally. (Why,-this is a another question, not on your list). Had they stopped on the border, it would not be a 100% defeat.
>>>Humiliating someone is something you do to a co-worker. Humiliating is not a goal given to military commanders. Why not drop the pretense and avoid using euphemisms. Russia’s goal was to remove Saakashvili. Going across SO border carries with it a high diplomatic cost, so the only sufficiently important for Russia to do it is to remove Saakashvili. This alone indicates that it is not about South Ossetia.
2.Why has it refused to leave, so far? They start moving tomorrow. It has been just 1 week after the beginning of the conflict. The French Foreign Minister Mr. Kushner said yesterday: “If the sides stick to the agreement and have it implemented, this war is going to be one of the shortest in the history, and the seas-fire- the fastest to have been ever achieved”. So, it is not too late yet. Let the Russian to leave with dignity, as I said.
>>>You haven’t answered my question. Russia has refused to leave so far and only promised beginning of a “pull-back” on monday. Why?
3.Why was non-military infrastructure destroyed?
This is something they copy from the NATO actions in Yugoslavia in 2003. They learned NATO’s recipe for this kind of situation. And the situation is pretty much alike. Yet they did not use as many infrastructural strikes, as NATO did.
>>>Yes, this was very reminiscent of NATO in Serbia. The bombing of civilian infrastructure are punitive measures against Georgia. However, in case of NATO they were conducted to force Serbia out of Kosovo. In this case Russia already controlled all of SO territory, so the question as to reason behind those measures remains, as they must justify the high diplomatic and PR cost. Again, they have nothing to do with protecting SO.
4.Why was rampaging by SO thugs allowed?
They are not allowed. It is hard to control the looting thugs. Russians brought just about 11000 troops there. They are combat troops, not MP. They were not going to occupy the city of Gori or to station garrisons in every Georgian village. There are to many villages. The area has ethnically mixed population with a long history of mutual hatred and hostilities. And the population is impoverished. So, they just go to the abandoned villages and grab the things they want. Had the Georgian Army won their war, and had Ossetians fled to Russia, the Georgian thugs would do the same. How many Serbs were killed in Kosovo when it fell under the NATO control? How many Serbian houses were looted? How many Churches were burned down? How much of looting took place in Iraq? Including weapons warehouses and museums? Why Americans allowed that?
>>>Employing hypotheticals is not a way to win an argument. Nor is outright lying. You know, as well as I do, that Russian military was complicit in the looting. This could simply be manifestation of the Russian character, however, it more likely that it was a delibarate attempt, on part of Russians, to undermine Saakashvili’s power indirectly by creating large numbers of Georgians who are angry about the war and their only outlet would be Saakasvhili. I doubt you can provide better reasoning. It is also notable that once photographs and stories began appearing in foreign press, there was an order to begin to control looting and it stopped, so you argument does not hold water.
5.Why has Russia advanced its troops to 30km from Tbilisi during Rice’s visit? Well, I do not think they tried to capture Sweet Condi. Georgia is a “short distances country”. They just could not stop because of the momentum.
>>>Momentum? What kind of BS is that? Is Russian military a giant ball rolling downhill that cannot be stopped? Military does not do delibarate actions like that by “momentum”. The reason was very clear. Winning a better bargaining position and forcing Saakasvhili to sign the agreement, giving Russia 6-10km of Georgian territory for patrols. This, again indicates that the conflict is not about SO.
Why did Medvyedev say “Russia will think twice about using force next time”?
Did he? Never heard about that.
>>>http://www.themoscowtimes.com/article/600/42/369839.htm
The previous post was for Russian bear.
typo: “Russia will NOT think twice about using force next time”?*
Smash n Grab the least of it –what happened in the hills? The world will know soon enough.
You people are not paying enough attention to US politics and I understand why since it takes time and effort and is not what you do for a living (I assume).
A Federal judge has ruled that the Congress can force aids of the President to testify under oath to Congressional committees. The new left is gearing up to try Bush and company for war crimes after O is elected. This left is not the left of old on the major ideological latent space of American politics. They want to change the system and put their leaders in charge. Their shock troops are lawyers, judges, academics, the media and the new wealth from IT and Wall Street speculation. They expect support from the Euro left. It is a type of “soft power” Nazism with pro Islam against the nefarious Jews. It is anti conventional religion with a secular religion of greening and multiculturalism in place of the old religions.
They are not Marxists but they have borrowed some Marxist/Leninist ideas.
I believe that they will succeed in destabilizing the country for a while. But they will not win. Another anti-system coalition will emerge and it will have force and arms behind it. I can not at this time guess as to where their leadership will come from.
Wretchard,
Table 4 appears to display Russia’s strength, but the flip-side is its display of Russia’s weakness.
If Putin doesn’t understand that the US is fully capable of driving the price of natgas down to the point Russia HAS to sell to Europe just to keep its head above water internally, then he hasn’t thought this through thoroughly enough.
Watch the price of natgas in the coming months.
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 08/18/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
Jay:
I believe that they will succeed in destabilizing the country for a while. But they will not win. Another anti-system coalition will emerge and it will have force and arms behind it. I can not at this time guess as to where their leadership will come from.
===============================
Their leaders will come from the same place as those that founded this country.
Washington ambushed the French at Jumonville. Thus started the Seven Years War. When Britain was tired of war came the Revolutionary war, with French support Great Britain lost interest in the American Colonies.
The Islamist is the natural enemy of the left. And now we find them on the same side. Socialism offers freedom without responsibility.
The New Left can’t wait to disarm the military, Legalize drugs (not a bad idea) and use the “drug dividend” to disarm the police. The power to disarm the Executive coming from increased power of the Legislative and Judicial.
Of course the New Left will move to consolidate their power. Would a new branch of military be needed? One that supports the will of the legislative? If the Judicial controls the President, it controls the Commander In Chief.
Would there be two armies or just two chains of command? The President and the Party.
Giving up personal freedom under the UCMJ is hard enough a sacrifice to make for love of country, but would they do it willingly for the party? Draft. Forget volunteer armed forces.
If you want to support the revolution, hire a vet for your next job opening. He might not report your unislamic activities when he sees the bible in your desk drawer.
Despite Pledges, Russia Shows No Signs of Pullout From Georgia
Although Russia claimed it had begun withdrawing its troops from Georgia on Monday, Russian soldiers were digging in positions along the highway approaching Tbilisi.
The Way the Ceasefire Began
Two important articles:
• Caroline Glick, “Column One: Georgia, Israel, and the nature of man”, in The Jerusalem Post, 8/15/08.
Reading it left me sick at heart, for I find I agree with her unflinching analysis of the situation in Georgia, and its ramifications.
• Spengler, “Americans play Monopoly, Russians chess”, in Asia Times, 8/19/08.
I usually find Spengler at least intellectually bracing, and often brilliant in his analysis. This article is Spengler at his smug, arrogant, blood chilling worst. I’ve no idea who he is or from whence he hails, but the article has the stench of the British Foreign Office about it. Dunno. One of its few redeeming features in my eyes, and the reason I note it here at all, is his analysis of the desperate demographic situation Russia faces. From this demographic perspective, Russia’s move against Georgia, and in the larger frame its preparations for probable moves against Ukraine and the other countries in its near-abroad, take on more structure. The seemingly chaotic rampage shows greater purpose.
So, it’s about oil/gas hegemony. It’s about a dying nation desperate to renew itself. It’s either expand or die. And use any means however brutal, military and nuclear to achieve the goal.
Of course, this sounds familiar. Russia is trying to claw its way out of the same pit that Iran is trying to escape. The wild card with Iran is the theocratic hot sauce inherent to their culture. The Russians prefer their paradise as terrestrial as possible, so the 72 virgins in the afterlife hold little appeal.
And here we sit in the US and EU doing what? Most likely, feverishly starting a new list of appeasement goodies for the indefatigable Javier Solona to humbly offer up, this time to Russia. …..pecata mundi…..
‘Putin has given us an order that everyone must leave or be shot …
They said,‘Putin has given us an order that everyone must be either shot or forced to leave’.
They told us we should ask the Americans for help now because they would kill us if we stayed.”
“We didn’t have any guns, so he shot Georgi in front of me without saying a word,” she said.
“A neighbour helped me to bury him in our garden and then I just fled.”
Bart – interesting post. I like Spengler like Peters; I don’t agree with all that they say, but they don’t mince words and they do shake things up.
Since this has become a hot war and a war of economics and deceit by Putin shouldn’t we do the same?
Putin is “preparing to withdraw” by moving tactical missiles in the area and blowing up the railroad bridges.
See: Georgia accused Russian troops of blowing up a railway bridge
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080816/ts_nm/georgia_ossetia_dc_139
Shouldn’t we returning the favor to the Russians in our “draw-down of troops in Iraq” by moving tactical missiles to the boarder of Iran and blowing up those over-sized suicide bass boats use by the Iranians?
And, just to add extra “security” might not we decommission some if Iran’s nuclear facilities and carry off any dangerous equipment that might be used against us upon our planned withdraw from the sand box?
I think it is only fair that we be even handed in this deal.
here’s how i see it:
in many posts I see posters trying to imagine Russian leadership planning for the long term. I don’t think they do. I think it is useful to approach them as an criminal organization, like the North Korean leadership more obviously is.
These guys, strategically, are a one trick pony (most Corleones are, I say) — just like the Chechen war was ignited to bring Putin in as the public’s favorite, so has this campaign (mostly done by Chechen (Russian-loyalist) forces) served to bring Medvedev into the public eye as a tough leader. It seems that the biggest win of this for Putin/Medvedev is internal — the public rallies, their “OneRussia” party gathers strength, commonfolk put up with more hardship since it’s Americans’ fault. On the foreign front I doubt they’ll hurt much — that would be losing hydrocarbons market share.
This info must get out quickly to the world if we are to prevent another attack by the Russians.
Supercargo, are you suggesting that Soviet concepts about nationalism or lack of it thereof are then arbiter in deciding what is or what is not a nation?
And you’re otherwise feeling ok?
Georgia as a nation and for the most part of history as a territory is predating Russians by a millenium.
Amen, 2×4
Steve @ Threatswatch.com said…
“I have a student who was born in Tblisi, has family still there.
Says they called him and said all the killing is being done by Chechens, who ahve been loosed like dogs, first in Ossettia, then into Gori from there.
I said to him that they were used because they don’t care, and fight like animals.
He just nodded.“
all the killing is being done by Chechens
==
The same Chechen Jihadis who were given refuge from the Russians in the Georgian mountains.
@miki
Were they the same Jihadists? Were they granted refuge in Georgian mountains, or was it an excuse used by Russian for military build-up and operations near Kodori gorge? Sources, please. Simply saying something doesn’t make it true. Despite, you ability to “call it as it is.”
Neolex, most of the original Chechen jihadis are either dead or exiled. These Chechen units are composed from leftovers. Russian offered a deal: “You can’t attack and kill Russian infidels, or we’ll eradicate you. But as a part of our agreement, we’ll provide opportuities to kill some other infidels. Deal?”
I am paraphrasing, but that is basically the scope of it.
George Jonas on Robert Kagan
The biggest threat to liberalism Liberalism itself.
Man proposes, God disposes. Man proposed the democratization of autocracies; God disposed the autocratization of democracies. Russia may have moved closer to America materially, but America has moved closer to Russia spiritually.
—
I think the force with the greatest capacity for becoming a threat to liberal democracy is liberalism itself — meaning loony-liberalism, a kind of ideological ménage à trois between Timothy Leary, Karl Marx and Al Gore, at once passionate and arid, that in Western societies has all but captured the educational and judicial machinery of the state. In some, it’s a virtual state religion…
—
It’s rutting season, and the deer are alert. Younger stags have retreated to the rill, licking their wounds. Some foul old stags are fighting it out in the clearing. Watching them from the hillside, a young hind is very excited.
“Which one will win, which one will win?” she presses a mature mamma-deer standing next to her.
“I don’t know,” says the experienced hind,
“but I can tell you this.
Whoever wins, you and I will be screwed.”
If Russia’s leaders insist on murdering Russian culture, there is not much the West can do to stop them. What the West can do is encourage Russia’s best engineering, scientific, and artistic talent to continue its work in the West. There, it can make a contribution to Western civilization, to itself, and to defending against nuclear proliferation and terrorism.
– Westhawk –
Georgian prisoners were held on a Russian armored personnel carrier after being detained by Russian troops in the Black Sea port city of Poti, Georgia.
On a day when Russian troops continued to dig in to positions across Georgia, the detention of the troops was further evidence of continued military activity on Georgian territory by Russia despite assurances that its troops would withdraw.
Since this has become a hot war and a war of economics and deceit by Putin shouldn’t we do the same?
We will have 3 weeks of building up “humanitarian” supplies and reforming the Georgian Army. When “the Comfort” arrives and is established I expect the counter attack to begin.
The “Kossacks” are rampaging in the hopes of bringing the Georgian Army to battle prematurely. That this is not happening shows a supreme discipline. It must be very hard.
Charles,
Here is another energy gambit our military is funding:
Fusion Report 13 June 008