Ukraine invasion

This forum is for discussions on the noteworthy events, people, places, and circumstances of both the past and the present (note: pop culture etc... is on the back porch).
User avatar
D5CAV
Posts: 2428
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:48 am

Re: Ukraine invasion

Post by D5CAV »

Monday, Poland announced it sent some tanks to Ukraine: https://news.antiwar.com/2022/04/25/pol ... o-ukraine/

No word on how many or what type, my money is that they were a few old Soviet-era tanks, like the Czechs sent.
Morawiecki wouldn’t detail what types of tanks or how many were sent to Ukraine. Earlier this month, the Czech Republic sent over a dozen Soviet-designed T-72 tanks, and other NATO members are planning to get more tanks into Kyiv’s hands.
Part of the incentive was Germany offering to give a "trade-in" of Marders and Foxes for those old T-72s:
In the face of criticism for not sending heavy equipment into Ukraine, Germany announced a plan last week to backfill the stocks of European countries that have Soviet-made equipment that can be used by Ukrainian forces. Slovenia is expected to send a large number of T-72 tanks to Ukraine in exchange for German-made Marder tanks, and Fox wheeled tanks.
Correction: Marders are not tanks and Foxes are certainly not "wheeled tanks". Of course, I would expect this of a website called "anti-war". Clearly a bunch of people who have never handled a weapon. If it was me, I would have held out for a few of those "legacy" L2a4s. Chieftain may call them "legacy tanks" but they are an upgrade on "legacy" T72s.

So Russia says "no gas for you" to Poland: https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/russia ... al-reports
The International Energy Agency (IEA) issued a statement of solidarity with Poland as Russia is poised to suspend all natural gas supplies to the country over Warsaw's refusal to settle payments in Rubles, as President Putin previously demanded of "unfriendly countries" taking anti-Kremlin action amid the Ukraine conflict.
Poland.gov spokes-weasel says "don't worry, spring is coming", while Russia gives one day notice of no gas:
"Poland has the necessary gas reserves and sources of supply that protect our security - we have been effectively independent from Russia for years. Our warehouses are 76% full. There will be no shortage of gas in Polish homes," she stressed. Meanwhile Gazprom has confirmed that by tomorrow the supplies will be halted, after already the Yamal-Europe pipeline reportedly stopped delivering...
I hope the Poles held out for some of those "legacy" L2a4s. I'd be disappointed if I got some broken down old recon vehicles in exchange for a cold spring.
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
User avatar
blackeagle603
Posts: 9770
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:13 am

Re: Ukraine invasion

Post by blackeagle603 »

Neat. Time lapse map of Russian advance (and retreat) too date.

Battleswarm Blog
That takes us to Ukraine’s evolving military strategy. With Russia forced to scale back its goals in the conflict, Ukraine has escalated its offensive operations in what’s known as the “deep battlespace.” This involves targeting of Russian logistics and command and control units deeper behind the front lines. Employing Western-provided drones and highly mobile small units, Ukraine is degrading and demoralizing Russia’s war machine.
"The Guncounter: More fun than a barrel of tattooed knife-fighting chain-smoking monkey butlers with drinking problems and excessive gambling debts!"

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic;" Justice Story
BDK
Posts: 1698
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2014 11:14 pm

Re: Ukraine invasion

Post by BDK »

Best thing for Europe, short-term, is breaking free of Russian gas.

Long term, it’s need engagement and integration with the world economy, but the jackassery of Russia still has the idiotic aristocratic BS It always did. Lots of concern about “glory” machismo, and utter incompetence.
User avatar
D5CAV
Posts: 2428
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:48 am

Re: Ukraine invasion

Post by D5CAV »

BDK wrote: Wed May 04, 2022 8:20 pm Best thing for Europe, short-term, is breaking free of Russian gas.
Before the Ukraine invasion, Russian NG cost $3 per MMBTU. Now it's up to $8.50 per MMBTU

US LNG costs $56 per MMBTU delivered to Europe and it will take billions of USD investment in liquifying facilities in US, gasifying facilities in Europe and LNG tanker capacity to meet Europe's needs for NG. Adding that capacity is a multi-year problem, not something that happens "short term".

Once that capacity is in place in the next decade or so, you are telling the European consumer that it is the "best thing" to pay 10x as much for energy?

To paraphrase Marie Antoinette, "if they can't have bread (Russian NG), let them eat cake (US LNG)."

Oh yeah, former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, the guy who preceded Angela Merkel, and the guy who was lauded by the "Green" party for accelerating the shutdown of German nuclear powerplants over a decade ago, was named the chairman of Gazprom right before the Ukraine invasion. Yeah, you can't make this stuff up! :lol:

The Chancellor who followed Gerhard was Angela Merkel. She was happy to keep shutting down German nuke powerplants and increasing imports of Russian NG. She was Vlad's BFF when she was with STASI in the former DDR when Vlad was a young KGB officer stationed in Berlin. That's why Vlad and Angela didn't need translators. His German is as good as her Russian. You can't make that up either! :lol:

If the Geman's are smart, a better option than US LNG is new nuke plants, but that is also a process measured in decades. It takes as long to build a new nuke plant as it takes to shut down an old one.
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
BDK
Posts: 1698
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2014 11:14 pm

Re: Ukraine invasion

Post by BDK »

Where are you getting your pricing?

Germany already has an LNG port, and I think we have some in TX, unless Biden tanked them somehow.

LNG via maritime was considered cheaper than pipeline, and we did have the cheapest NG in the world - which Biden hurt, but there’s a limit to what he will be able to do.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen ... companies/

And, yes, breaking the back of Putin economically is cheaper than war.

He’s hit bunker level crazy. It’s back to “say the wrong thing, and have to flee the country.”

Years ago, it was only the more prominent Russians that had to deal with the BS, and the KGB stopped stealing anything less than $10MM, but as my one friend out it “Putin used to do something awful once or twice a year, now it’s every week.”

Russia has a large “ghetto rat” population of young males.

Putin has been feeding into that culture, and has made them his core power base.

It’s kleptocrats on top, and thugs at the bottom.
User avatar
Vonz90
Posts: 4731
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 4:05 pm

Re: Ukraine invasion

Post by Vonz90 »

BDK wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 7:48 am Where are you getting your pricing?

Germany already has an LNG port, and I think we have some in TX, unless Biden tanked them somehow.

LNG via maritime was considered cheaper than pipeline, and we did have the cheapest NG in the world - which Biden hurt, but there’s a limit to what he will be able to do.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen ... companies/

And, yes, breaking the back of Putin economically is cheaper than war.

He’s hit bunker level crazy. It’s back to “say the wrong thing, and have to flee the country.”

Years ago, it was only the more prominent Russians that had to deal with the BS, and the KGB stopped stealing anything less than $10MM, but as my one friend out it “Putin used to do something awful once or twice a year, now it’s every week.”

Russia has a large “ghetto rat” population of young males.

Putin has been feeding into that culture, and has made them his core power base.

It’s kleptocrats on top, and thugs at the bottom.
+1
User avatar
D5CAV
Posts: 2428
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:48 am

Re: Ukraine invasion

Post by D5CAV »

BDK wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 7:48 am Where are you getting your pricing?

Germany already has an LNG port, and I think we have some in TX, unless Biden tanked them somehow.

LNG via maritime was considered cheaper than pipeline, and we did have the cheapest NG in the world - which Biden hurt, but there’s a limit to what he will be able to do.
Historical pricing of NG: https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/natural-gas

If you look at the graph, a year ago it was $3 per MMBTU. Current price is $8.81 per MMBTU

Price of LNG to Asia: https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-paci ... 021-10-06/
Asia liquefied natural gas (LNG) spot prices surged by 40% to a record high of over $56 per million British thermal units (mmBtu) on Wednesday, amid a global energy crunch, low gas inventories and mounting supply concerns.
Yeah, it has to travel a little further from US LNG facilities across the Pacific Ocean than the Atlantic Ocean, but I'm sure it's not less than half that price, and that was last year before Vlad's invasion of Ukraine.

Yes, US has LNG liquifaction facilities in the Gulf, on the West Coast and on the East Coast. US has LNG carriers, and there are gasification facilities to turn that LNG into something that can be transported via pipeline around the world.

The article you linked says US has a large share of European LNG imports. This is true.

My point is that LNG capacity is small compared to piped NG.

If you believe that LNG is a large contributor to Europe NG consumption, show me your sources and your numbers.

If you believe LNG is cheaper than piped NG, show me your sources and your numbers.

I've showed you mine.
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
User avatar
Vonz90
Posts: 4731
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 4:05 pm

Re: Ukraine invasion

Post by Vonz90 »

D5CAV wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 2:49 am
BDK wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 7:48 am Where are you getting your pricing?

Germany already has an LNG port, and I think we have some in TX, unless Biden tanked them somehow.

LNG via maritime was considered cheaper than pipeline, and we did have the cheapest NG in the world - which Biden hurt, but there’s a limit to what he will be able to do.
Historical pricing of NG: https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/natural-gas

If you look at the graph, a year ago it was $3 per MMBTU. Current price is $8.81 per MMBTU

Price of LNG to Asia: https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-paci ... 021-10-06/
Asia liquefied natural gas (LNG) spot prices surged by 40% to a record high of over $56 per million British thermal units (mmBtu) on Wednesday, amid a global energy crunch, low gas inventories and mounting supply concerns.
Yeah, it has to travel a little further from US LNG facilities across the Pacific Ocean than the Atlantic Ocean, but I'm sure it's not less than half that price, and that was last year before Vlad's invasion of Ukraine.

Yes, US has LNG liquifaction facilities in the Gulf, on the West Coast and on the East Coast. US has LNG carriers, and there are gasification facilities to turn that LNG into something that can be transported via pipeline around the world.

The article you linked says US has a large share of European LNG imports. This is true.

My point is that LNG capacity is small compared to piped NG.

If you believe that LNG is a large contributor to Europe NG consumption, show me your sources and your numbers.

If you believe LNG is cheaper than piped NG, show me your sources and your numbers.

I've showed you mine.
LNG is an odd market since it is tied to the facilities so much, but US export prices do not show what you are saying.

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9133us3M.htm

https://www.chemanalyst.com/Pricing-dat ... s-lng-1094

Nor does a broader look, except in Europe which is of course in a broader disruption and has limited LNG facilities that are both distorting things.

In the long term though, LNG is a commodity, so if Europe/Germany commit to build the facilities to handle it, the price there will represent the world commodity price just like everywhere else.
User avatar
D5CAV
Posts: 2428
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:48 am

Re: Ukraine invasion

Post by D5CAV »

Vonz90 wrote: Fri May 06, 2022 5:06 pmLNG is an odd market since it is tied to the facilities so much, but US export prices do not show what you are saying.

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9133us3M.htm

https://www.chemanalyst.com/Pricing-dat ... s-lng-1094

Nor does a broader look, except in Europe which is of course in a broader disruption and has limited LNG facilities that are both distorting things.

In the long term though, LNG is a commodity, so if Europe/Germany commit to build the facilities to handle it, the price there will represent the world commodity price just like everywhere else.
The first chart you referenced on LNG prices shows prices in USD per thousand cubic feet. The numbers I quoted were all in USD per MMBTU (million British thermal units). Of course those prices will be different. They are your numbers, so I'll let you do the conversion.

The second report you referenced shows NG prices going from about $3 per MMBTU (million british thermal units) to over $5.5 per MMBTU with the caveat:
Natural Gas prices remained on the higher end with wild price swings, and fear escalated about potential disruption in Russian supplies.
The quoted number I gave you showed spot prices going from about $3 per MMBTU to a current spot price (as of yesterday) of $8.81 per MMBTU. Those would be on the same order of magnitude as your $5.5 per MMBTU with some price swings. I don't see how those are much different.

Yes, in the long-term, Germany has committed billions of USD build LNG receiving terminals. Those terminals are expected to come on-line in 2025 or 2026. As I said in my response to BDK, getting off Russian gas doesn't happen quickly.

It took decades to get addicted to Russian gas. Pipelines were built, nuclear power plants were shut down, and coal fired power plants were shut down. As I said, that was with the blessings of senior leadership in Germany with the "green" party cheering on, including a former German Chancellor who is now Chairman of the Board of Gazprom and a former German Chancellor who speaks fluent Russian and was in the former DDR government.

Maybe that transition can be done in less than one decade, but certainly not tomorrow.

Even in the long-term, LNG will always be more expensive than piped NG. That's a physics problem, not a political problem. Explain to me how you think taking NG, liquifying it (to about liquid Nitrogen temperatures), putting into large refrigerated dewars to keep it liquid, moving that LNG to dewars built into special ships, moving those special ships thousands of km to Europe, offloading that LNG to storage dewars in Germany, then using some of that NG energy to heat up that LNG in a controlled manner to introduce it to the NG pipeline network will be cheaper than piped NG? I'll even let you do that thought experiment in the future when all that infrastructure and specialized ships have been built, so we are just dealing with operating expenses with no capital expenses.

As I said before, a smarter and faster move to lessen German dependence on Russian NG will be to turn back on German nuclear power plants that were shut down last year (before they are not possible to restart), and stop shutting down nuclear power plants that are scheduled for shutdown this year.

The us.gov is doing similar stupid things. The wise and farsighted Governor of California has decided to shut down Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant this year to be part of his "green" agenda. Someone needs to explain to me how Diablo Canyon adds greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, but I'm sure the Great and Powerful Gavin Newsome knows.
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
User avatar
Vonz90
Posts: 4731
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 4:05 pm

Re: Ukraine invasion

Post by Vonz90 »

D5CAV wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 4:16 am

Nor does a broader look, except in Europe which is of course in a broader disruption and has limited LNG facilities that are both distorting things.
Natural Gas prices remained on the higher end with wild price swings, and fear escalated about potential disruption in Russian supplies.
The quoted number I gave you showed spot prices going from about $3 per MMBTU to a current spot price (as of yesterday) of $8.81 per MMBTU. Those would be on the same order of magnitude as your $5.5 per MMBTU with some price swings. I don't see how those are much different.

Yes, in the long-term, Germany has committed billions of USD build LNG receiving terminals. Those terminals are expected to come on-line in 2025 or 2026. As I said in my response to BDK, getting off Russian gas doesn't happen quickly.

It took decades to get addicted to Russian gas. Pipelines were built, nuclear power plants were shut down, and coal fired power plants were shut down. As I said, that was with the blessings of senior leadership in Germany with the "green" party cheering on, including a former German Chancellor who is now Chairman of the Board of Gazprom and a former German Chancellor who speaks fluent Russian and was in the former DDR government.

Maybe that transition can be done in less than one decade, but certainly not tomorrow.

Even in the long-term, LNG will always be more expensive than piped NG. That's a physics problem, not a political problem. Explain to me how you think taking NG, liquifying it (to about liquid Nitrogen temperatures), putting into large refrigerated dewars to keep it liquid, moving that LNG to dewars built into special ships, moving those special ships thousands of km to Europe, offloading that LNG to storage dewars in Germany, then using some of that NG energy to heat up that LNG in a controlled manner to introduce it to the NG pipeline network will be cheaper than piped NG? I'll even let you do that thought experiment in the future when all that infrastructure and specialized ships have been built, so we are just dealing with operating expenses with no capital expenses.

As I said before, a smarter and faster move to lessen German dependence on Russian NG will be to turn back on German nuclear power plants that were shut down last year (before they are not possible to restart), and stop shutting down nuclear power plants that are scheduled for shutdown this year.

The us.gov is doing similar stupid things. The wise and farsighted Governor of California has decided to shut down Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant this year to be part of his "green" agenda. Someone needs to explain to me how Diablo Canyon adds greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, but I'm sure the Great and Powerful Gavin Newsome knows.
Yes, LNG will nominally be more expensive but the normal difference isn't that great, which is why it is done. The problem is you are reacting to a long term issue with a short term view, at least relative to LNG.

Yes, I agree restarting their nukes is Germany's best short term answer.

Their next best answer is to do a bunch of things in the long term, competition drives down prices long term and also gives better security. So they should build LNG infrastructure, look at fracking opportunities, build some coal- synthetic oil and NG plants, etc.

The point with the LNG is that you cannot make long term decisions on costs based on a current spike. By the time Europe builds the LNG infrastructure, the market will have adjusted from where it is now.
Post Reply