Tweet
D owe have to read the whole thread ?
-
GM of MAFIA #40 ,#41, #43, #45,#47,#49-#51,#53-#58,#61,#68,#70, #71 -
First person to read the whole thread gets cheap energy...!Comment
-
what does cheap energy have to do with this thread ?
GM of MAFIA #40 ,#41, #43, #45,#47,#49-#51,#53-#58,#61,#68,#70, #71Comment
-
As a soveriegn nation, Belarus has Russia by the balls and can just not allow transport through the pipeline. Just as Canada does not have to allow us construction of lines all the way from Alaska to the lower 48.Comment
-
but would cnaada say no !!!!GM of MAFIA #40 ,#41, #43, #45,#47,#49-#51,#53-#58,#61,#68,#70, #71Comment
-
Are you drunk?Comment
-
The EU produces only about a half of its energy sources itself, so it will always be dependent from somebody. The question is, from whom do we want to be dependent? The Middle East? Africa? Venezuela? Considering these options, Russia doesn't sound too insane, not to talk about cost of delivery (pipelines vs tankers). By the way, the EU is by far not 100% dependent from Russia, a complete stop of delivery would hurt, but not kill us.Originally posted by lord of the mark
a pipeline under the Baltic would be a large cost, only to leave them more dependent on Russia.
Nuclear power is of course a viable option. I do support it, even though my government does not. But it needs to be considered, that for us most nuclear fuel also needs to be imported. Whether you're dependent from oil imports or uranium imports doesn't make that much of a difference. Ironically, a large part of the uranium comes from ... tadaa! ... Russia.
(Of course as well as Canada, IIRC Niger, and perhaps a few other minor sources).
The best option for the EU may be pushing renewable energy sources and developing technologies for energy saving.
India perhaps, but China is certainly an interesting option for the Russians.The best solution for India is probably to source NG via either pipeline or LNG from the Persian Gulf, where IIUC they still flare it off.Comment
-
1. Id suggest diversification of oil sources would be preferable to dependence on any one source. That would have to be weighed against transport costs.Originally posted by Sir Ralph
The EU produces only about a half of its energy sources itself, so it will always be dependent from somebody. The question is, from whom do we want to be dependent? The Middle East? Africa? Venezuela? Considering these options, Russia doesn't sound too insane, not to talk about cost of delivery (pipelines vs tankers). By the way, the EU is by far not 100% dependent from Russia, a complete stop of delivery would hurt, but not kill us.
Nuclear power is of course a viable option. I do support it, even though my government does not. But it needs to be considered, that for us most nuclear fuel also needs to be imported. Whether you're dependent from oil imports or uranium imports doesn't make that much of a difference. Ironically, a large part of the uranium comes from ... tadaa! ... Russia. (Of course as well as Canada, IIRC Niger, and perhaps a few other minor sources).
The best option for the EU may be pushing renewable energy sources and developing technologies for energy saving.
India perhaps, but China is certainly an interesting option for the Russians.
2. Uranium is shipped in relatively small quantities relative to BTUs, so transport costs are less important, and sourcing from farther away is less of an issue than for oil (just as its less of an issue for oil than it is for NG)"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin BuberComment
-
Shrug. That's how it is. As I said, there is by far no 100% dependence from Russia. I think only about a fifth of our oil comes from there. A good part (I think about a half) is own production (like UK North Sea oil and gas) or imported from non-EU Europeans like Norway. The rest comes from other sources (Middle East, Africa - esp. Libya and Nigeria -, etc.). So there you have it, the EU heeds your advice since long. No need to change anything. Besides, literally none of the non-european oil comes from a stable region; theoretically every supplier could cease to deliver overnight.Originally posted by lord of the mark
1. Id suggest diversification of oil sources would be preferable to dependence on any one source. That would have to be weighed against transport costs.
Uranium can't completely replace oil. Even though Oerdin called it a "silly comment", you can't drive with it. Please don't dig out the electric car again, it's impact at present is insignificant. So besides Uranium we still need a large amount of oil. Also: In present time, oil is much more abundant than uranium (in energy equivalents), there is enough of it available. There is worldwide a good balance between supply and demand, so it matters not who sells whom. This may change in the future, but technologies to use other oil sources (like oil sands) or alternative fuel for cars make good progress in development too.2. Uranium is shipped in relatively small quantities relative to BTUs, so transport costs are less important, and sourcing from farther away is less of an issue than for oil (just as its less of an issue for oil than it is for NG)
On a sidenote, it amuses me to no end how many support the Lukashenko regime gets in this thread. If any western country or company would cut the supply of its goods to Belarus, because they're not willing to pay world market prices, it would get overwhelming support. But since it is such a good opportunity to smear Russia... talk about hypocrisy!
Comment
-
yes, we certainly see it in terms of what Russia is doing with trade wrt Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia and Azerbaijan.Originally posted by Sir Ralph
On a sidenote, it amuses me to no end how many support the Lukashenko regime gets in this thread. If any western country or company would cut the supply of its goods to Belarus, because they're not willing to pay world market prices, it would get overwhelming support. But since it is such a good opportunity to smear Russia... talk about hypocrisy!
"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin BuberComment
-
Yea, together with Belarus that makes five copies of the same issue, not five different ones. None of these countries is willing to pay market prices, so duh.Originally posted by lord of the mark
yes, we certainly see it in terms of what Russia is doing with trade wrt Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia and Azerbaijan.
EDIT: To clarify the point, Russia counted these countries for obvious reasons as sphere of influence and granted them some kind of "Imperial rebate" on energy sources. Since they prefer to look for other alliance options now, Russia is cutting this rebate. It is not denying them oil or gas. Imperialist behavior? Yes. Reprehensible? No.Last edited by Harovan; January 10, 2007, 10:46.Comment
-
In the case of Georgia (and IIUC, Moldova), theyre also denying access to Russian markets for exports, on made up grounds. In the case of Azerbaijan, they went after them for supplying oil to Georgia. In the case of Belarus, not other alliance offer was sought - Belarus has been staunchly loyal, and was pursuing a union with Russia. Apparently the terms of the union Lukashenko sought displeased Putin, who is now asserting union on HIS terms. In the case of Ukraine, no application for membership in NATO or the EU has taken place, they merely had the temerity to elect a govt Putin didnt like.Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Yea, together with Belarus that makes five copies of the same issue, not five different ones. None of these countries is willing to pay market prices, so duh.
EDIT: To clarify the point, Russia counted these countries for obvious reasons as sphere of influence and granted them some kind of "Imperial rebate" on energy sources. Since they prefer to look for other alliance options now, Russia is cutting this rebate. It is not denying them oil or gas. Imperialist behavior? Yes. Reprehensible? No.
Second Im not sure it was an imperial rebate, as opposed to rational price discrimination."A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin BuberComment
-
If you want Russia to show WTO conform behavior, why don't you just let them in and then enforce it with legal means?Originally posted by lord of the mark
In the case of Georgia (and IIUC, Moldova), theyre also denying access to Russian markets for exports, on made up grounds. In the case of Azerbaijan, they went after them for supplying oil to Georgia. In the case of Belarus, not other alliance offer was sought - Belarus has been staunchly loyal, and was pursuing a union with Russia. Apparently the terms of the union Lukashenko sought displeased Putin, who is now asserting union on HIS terms. In the case of Ukraine, no application for membership in NATO or the EU has taken place, they merely had the temerity to elect a govt Putin didnt like.
Second Im not sure it was an imperial rebate, as opposed to rational price discrimination.
About Belarus: I heard Lukashenko outright denied the union in fear to lose at least a part of his power.Comment
-
Given the prices they were paying, yes it was.Originally posted by lord of the mark
Second Im not sure it was an imperial rebate, as opposed to rational price discrimination.12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
Stadtluft Macht Frei
Killing it is the new killing it
Ultima Ratio RegumComment
-
Hey, Russia provides stuff again. Look how they caved in after Barroso and Merkel raised their voices.
BlahComment
Comment