Syria is about natural gas

We're about to see an age where any advanced country that needs natural gas will need to pony up billions for an LNG plant to convert from liquid to gas. Eventually I think we'll export a good portion of the world's LNG for a while from the US by sea.

Russia is getting FUCKED on their gas pipelines, and they'll be fucked hard when we begin exporting large quantities of LNG. The timeline on that all depends on the cost of natural gas in this country. Chemical and production companies will lobby to keep it in-house only without exporting, and gas production companies will lobby to export once the market becomes flooded with natural gas that makes it unprofitable to frack new wells. Once that takes hold we'll be a major energy exporter for the world's advanced nations.
 
Show me, show me......

Head-in-sand.jpg


Because he really wants to see.
 
Did you notice we're not going to war with syria anytime soon

They're handing over their chem weaps to russia/un and signing a treaty

so.. war averted, go home with your conspiracy bullshit

(wouldn't it have been nice if this happened with iraq)
 
I normally ask questions when I don't know something, it's how you learn.

I could assume but given it is "widely known" I find it odd I haven't read about it...whatever it is that's "widely known".

Only one way to clear that up, ask.

btw, I visited the OP's linked... I don't think it helps anyone but conspiracy theorist which is what the site reminds me of the most.
 
Last edited:
ICFire said:
What part is widely known exactly?
Click to expand...

that geopolitics is almost never about the 'right' thing and almost entirely always about national/supra-national interests, and that in this particular case the major 'side-benefit' of a 'regime change' would be a shift in the dynamics of the european energy market

it is known
 
triple said:
Did you notice we're not going to war with syria anytime soon

They're handing over their chem weaps to russia/un and signing a treaty

so.. war averted, go home with your conspiracy bullshit

(wouldn't it have been nice if this happened with iraq)
Click to expand...

yup obama is getting outplayed by putin

putin is going to get his way with georgia and syria, the dude might be a tyrant but he's good at his job
 
CapnPyro said:
yup obama is getting outplayed by putin

putin is going to get his way with georgia and syria, the dude might be a tyrant but he's good at his job
Click to expand...

yes, but I seriously doubt syria would be this willing to hand over its wmds *before* we threatened to wreck their shit and war seemed inevitable

you're probably right but just something to ponder
 
CapnPyro said:
yup obama is getting outplayed by putin

putin is going to get his way with georgia and syria, the dude might be a tyrant but he's good at his job
Click to expand...

Really, I think you're wrong.

Putin blinked, backed off and urged Syria to do what it had to do to avoid the US.

Putin is a pussy.

Manly photo ops don't make you a man.
 
ya he so totally should've threatened retaliatory strikes/sanctions and escalated that shit

what the fuck

edit: sometimes it's really hard to remember you were in the military and have family still serving

opening up even a small bucket of sunshine is fun for exactly nobody
 
CapnPyro said:
yup obama is getting outplayed by putin

putin is going to get his way with georgia and syria, the dude might be a tyrant but he's good at his job
Click to expand...

Gazprom = power.

THE good times for Gazprom once seemed like they would never end. The world’s largest natural-gas producer, founded out of the old Soviet gas ministry, enjoyed sky-high gas prices for years. The gas flowed along pipelines into Europe; the profits flowed back. Gazprom began work on a $1.9 billion headquarters in St Petersburg and acted as a bottomless wallet for Russia’s rulers. Whatever problems it encountered, it could “drown with money”, as Natalia Volchkova of the New Economic School in Moscow puts it.

All this is now under threat. Its ageing gasfields are in decline. Thanks to America’s shale boom, gas is more plentiful on the world market. Gazprom’s European customers are realising that they have other choices. The prices it can charge are falling, and with them the firm’s prospects.
...
As President Vladimir Putin consolidated his power in the early 2000s, he built Gazprom into a main instrument of Russia’s new state capitalism. He appointed allies to top positions. He used Gazprom as a tool of foreign policy, for example by cutting off gas supplies to Georgia, Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova during political rows.

Gazprom’s deep pockets have helped Mr Putin at home, too. It sells gas cheaply in Russia, so that the poor do not freeze in winter. Oddly for an energy company, it has bought television stations and newspapers, all of which are now friendly to the Kremlin. Mikhail Krutikhin of RusEnergy, a consultancy, says, “Gazprom has one manager: Putin.”
...
The Peterson Institute for International Economics, a think-tank, reckons that although Gazprom posted nominal profits of $46 billion in 2011, it lost $40 billion to corruption and inefficiency.

And some projects favoured by Mr Putin are of questionable economic value. For example, he is dead set on building a $21-billion South Stream pipeline between southern Russia and Austria via eastern Europe. This project has political appeal because it would bypass troublesome Ukraine as the main transit route for gas to Europe. But given weak prices and demand, it is “commercial idiocy”, says Mr Krutikhin. The opening in 2011 of Nord Stream, an offshore pipeline to Germany, was a diplomatic coup for Mr Putin, but it is still running far below capacity.

These days, Gazprom is finding itself in an unfamiliar situation: it has more problems and less money with which to drown them. On March 4th its shares hit a four-year low. Investors reckon Gazprom is worth only a third as much as it was in 2008. By one broker’s calculation its market capitalisation of $110 billion is barely half the value of its assets.
The Economist
Click to expand...

Want to make the Russians fail? Fund LNG liquid to gas conversion projects in Europe. Pipe it from the ports inland.
 
Al'Muktar said:
ya he so totally should've threatened retaliatory strikes/sanctions and escalated that shit

what the fuck
Click to expand...

Maybe you missed where how his entire stance changed (he did threaten attacks) as Obama kept going, the EU was simply waiting on the UN report but had already said a strong action would be required if the UN investigation turned up evidence against Assad.

Putin blinked. Fortunately the weeping angels didn't get him...
 
lol Putin didn't blink, he won.

When you get what you want, and the other side doesn't get what they want... You win.

I don't expect you to know what "winning" is, ICFire.
 
I mean he backed the fuck down.

Now, what are you referring to that is "widely known"?

No he didn't win, Obama did and he's smart enough to keep the pressure on.

You've never played chess have you data.
 
Last edited:
ICFire said:
Maybe you missed where how his entire stance changed (he did threaten attacks) as Obama kept going, the EU was simply waiting on the UN report but had already said a strong action would be required if the UN investigation turned up evidence against Assad.

Putin blinked. Fortunately the weeping angels didn't get him...
Click to expand...

Assad's entire stance changed when he admitted to having a chemical weapons program.
 
Al'Muktar said:
geopolitics is pretty simple to some americans, usually the kind who say they want to visit 'europe'

or the people who think that the EU is one big federal country (already)
Click to expand...

to be fair, the people who say they want to visit europe may literally want to do a tour of the major nations in fucking europe.

i seriously doubt that they think it's just one place.
 
Al'Muktar said:
that geopolitics is almost never about the 'right' thing and almost entirely always about national/supra-national interests, and that in this particular case the major 'side-benefit' of a 'regime change' would be a shift in the dynamics of the european energy market

it is known
Click to expand...

supposition doesn't make it fact

regime change, yeah thats worked well for us...

who got the Iraq oil contracts?
 
At the risk of siding with ICFire, he does have a point when you consider that the US produces about 6 times more natural gas than Qatar, and Russia does likewise. Natural gas from Qatar would not replace the Russian supply, and the US doesn't need it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top