204 posts shown.
Anthony Hill5 said:Automobile sales in Russia have plummeted by a staggering 78% during the fourth month, marking what is quite possibly the most catastrophic decline in automotive sales since record-keeping even began.
To put this collapse into perspective, a mere 32,706 vehicles were sold, whereas during the same period last year, the market saw a substantial 151,964 units move off the lots.
Even more telling is the situation at Ford, which was forced into a collective annual shutdown from April through late December simply because they couldn't get their hands on necessary production parts; consequently, they managed to sell only 8,506 vehicles, also suffering a massive 78% drop in sales.
https://www.vedomosti.ru/auto/news/2...v-rossii-upali
Hmm. I wonder if the rest of the world is just waiting on this. Maybe things haven't been squared away regarding boosting energy production elsewhere, which would let the market naturally correct itself through a recession.
Plus, if a recession hits, people start pinching pennies globally. But if you combine a recession with freezing homes... man, that could really floor consumer spending.
Last time the heaters were running hot, food production was up too (enough to help out developing nations). This current setup feels pretty ominous to me.
The US hasn't made up its mind yet on whether they'll push for an exemption from the oil embargo. Honestly, it’s not surprising one bit.
You really just have to look back at all those debates regarding offshore oil and gas exploration in the Gulf of Mexico. Back then, a bunch of self-proclaimed geniuses spent all their time throwing insults at anyone who actually supported those kinds of investments (and let’s be real, those "experts" ended up being proven right). Even the Russian ambassador weighed in, getting quoted by everyone while he argued that we shouldn't even bother drilling just for a few extra drops of oil and gas. 🤣
Some guy claiming he's not a troll says he's still bingeing that series called "when the cat has licked its paws"🤣
Carl Lee27 said:The terminal on Krk is running overtime. Honestly, would anyone even expect the intelligence agencies to be vetting every single person who was out there protesting so aggressively against it? It’s just not realistic to ask for that level of scrutiny.
https://twitter.com/ASabadus/status/...sMFUzerMA&s=19
rustywalker82 said:Here are two links, mostly for those fake intellectuals hiding out in their little holes, thinking they can stay anonymous. 😁
The energy landscape is shifting again, and honestly, it’s getting pretty wild to follow. There’s a lot of noise right now about the future of gas supply and how we're going to stay powered up without relying on old-school, problematic sources. I was reading up on the latest moves regarding the LNG terminal on Kodiak, and it’s clear that the stakes couldn't be higher. We’re looking at a massive pivot in how the US handles energy security. For years, everyone was worried about being held hostage by foreign pipelines, but now that we've ramped up our own LNG capabilities, the whole dynamic has changed. It's not just about having the fuel; it's about who controls the tap. It reminds me of a few years back when I was working a gig out near Houston. Everyone was talking about "energy independence" like it was some holy grail, but seeing the actual infrastructure—the massive tankers, the specialized terminals—you realize it's a heavy lift. It's not just flipping a switch. You need the tech, the ports, and the political will to keep it moving. Right now, there's this tension between those pushing for more green initiatives and the folks who realize we still need reliable gas to keep the lights on and the factories running. It’s a delicate balance. If we lean too hard into one side without securing the other, we’re asking for trouble. The pushback against certain LNG projects is growing, which adds another layer of complexity to an already messy situation. At the end of the day, whether you're pro-environment or pro-industry, we all want the same thing: stability. No one wants their heating bill to double because of a geopolitical hiccup halfway across the world. We're basically rebuilding the foundation of American energy in real-time, and it's definitely not going to be a smooth ride.
Posted: July 4, 2013
Washington, D.C. — The US is really eyeing that land-based LNG terminal over on Kodiak, hoping to hit a capacity of about 6 billion cubic meters a year..
I just caught wind of this latest drama regarding the LNG terminal situation, and honestly, it’s getting old. You see these massive debates popping up all over the news lately about energy security and whether we're actually making the right moves to stay independent. It feels like every time we get close to securing our own supply through projects like the one on Kodiak, someone jumps out of the woodwork to scream "environmental crisis." It’s a classic tug-of-war. On one hand, you've got the urgent need to stop relying on Russian gas—which we all know is a recipe for disaster given how Putin plays the game—and on the other, you have these intense anti-LNG groups who think any major infrastructure project is an attack on the planet. I remember back when I was working construction near a major refinery out in Texas, we used to talk about this constantly. People living nearby were always split. Half the town relied on those jobs and that stability, while the other half was terrified of any change to the status quo. It's that same tension playing out on a national level now. The government is trying to walk this tightrope, balancing the need for energy autonomy with the pressure from Green Action America and similar groups. But let's be real: if we don't have reliable access to LNG, we're basically leaving the lights on at the mercy of whoever holds the valve. It's not just about politics; it's about keeping the heat running in the middle of a blizzard in Chicago or Denver. We can't afford to be indecisive when the stakes are this high.
Posted: January 5, 2016
The US is really leaning on us to go with a floating LNG terminal instead of building one on land. It feels like they're pushing their own agenda here, trying to steer our energy infrastructure toward whatever suits them best rather than what actually makes sense for our local needs.
The pressure from the US really hit its peak when Joe Biden made his way to Washington, D.C.
So, we went ahead and built that floating unit, but it’s only got about half the capacity we originally talked about.
A Green...
The whole push against LNG projects around here is getting intense, and honestly, it’s about time we had this conversation out in the open. We're seeing this massive surge in fossil fuel infrastructure being fast-tracked under the guise of "energy security," but if you look closer, it feels like we're just swapping one dependency for another. It’s basically the same old game played with different players. I was chatting with a buddy of mine who works in logistics down in Houston, and he was telling me how these massive terminal expansions are being treated like they're some kind of silver bullet. But let's be real—building out huge fleets of LNG tankers isn't exactly a "Green" move. It’s a massive bet on gas that keeps us tethered to volatile global markets and leaves us vulnerable to whoever controls the supply lines. The activists fighting this aren't just being difficult for the sake of it. They’re pointing out that while we claim to be transitioning to renewables, we're actually doubling down on carbon-heavy infrastructure that will be locked in for decades. It’s like buying a gas-guzzling SUV right when everyone is moving toward EVs; it feels outdated before the concrete even dries. We need to stop treating these temporary fixes like permanent solutions. If we want actual energy independence and a way to hit our climate goals, we have to focus on the stuff that actually lasts—like wind, solar, and a modernized grid—rather than pouring billions into more pipelines and regasification plants. Otherwise, we're just spinning our wheels.
The whole "Anti-LNG" campaign is basically trying to kill the plan to build that massive LNG terminal out on Kodiak Island—and they're coming after both the floating setup and the land-based one. It’s being spearheaded by Green Action USA.
- The Russian Druzhba-Adria pipeline is basically like putting an oil noose around the neck of the entire Atlantic coast, not just one country. Green Action USA
rustywalker82 said:So, where’s the plan to ramp up production to make up for it?
Hitting them with oil sanctions without having a backup plan to boost supply means prices are gonna spike. That basically turns into direct funding for the genocide happening over in Yemen.
You can already smell the excuses coming once the atrocities in the Middle East keep rolling. It'll be some nonsense like, "Oh, sorry, we had no idea." 😁
Everyone's acting all tough suddenly. So what? 🙂
Just a quick reality check on how the US reacts whenever oil and gas prices drop and threaten their own economy. They start threatening Riyadh with sanctions... that's exactly how they play it when energy prices get too low...
- April 09, 2020
Trump, who has said U.S. output was already falling due to low prices, warned Riyadh it could face sanctions and tariffs on its oil if it did not cut enough to help the U.S. oil industry, whose higher costs have left it struggling with low prices
If Saudi Arabia failed to rein in output, U.S. senators called on the White House to impose sanctions on Riyadh, pull out U.S. troops from the kingdom and impose import tariffs on Saudi oil.https://www.voanews.com/a/economy-bu...s/6187297.htmlLooks like things aren't quite as bleak for Orban and his crew as most people seem to think.
What about the land routes?
If you look at how much capacity that land terminal was supposed to handle, it pretty much proves my point. When I talk about things being "small scale," I’m not trying to write a massive technical manual here—I'm just keeping it simple...
Look, I've got nothing against some local spy, or even his brother, taking a closer look at the situation to see what's really going on. 🙂
Here are two links, mostly for those fake intellectuals hiding out in their little holes, thinking they can stay anonymous. 😁
The energy landscape is shifting again, and honestly, it’s getting pretty wild to follow. There’s a lot of noise right now about the future of gas supply and how we're going to stay powered up without relying on old-school, problematic sources. I was reading up on the latest moves regarding the LNG terminal on Kodiak, and it’s clear that the stakes couldn't be higher. We’re looking at a massive pivot in how the US handles energy security. For years, everyone was worried about being held hostage by foreign pipelines, but now that we've ramped up our own LNG capabilities, the whole dynamic has changed. It's not just about having the fuel; it's about who controls the tap. It reminds me of a few years back when I was working a gig out near Houston. Everyone was talking about "energy independence" like it was some holy grail, but seeing the actual infrastructure—the massive tankers, the specialized terminals—you realize it's a heavy lift. It's not just flipping a switch. You need the tech, the ports, and the political will to keep it moving. Right now, there's this tension between those pushing for more green initiatives and the folks who realize we still need reliable gas to keep the lights on and the factories running. It’s a delicate balance. If we lean too hard into one side without securing the other, we’re asking for trouble. The pushback against certain LNG projects is growing, which adds another layer of complexity to an already messy situation. At the end of the day, whether you're pro-environment or pro-industry, we all want the same thing: stability. No one wants their heating bill to double because of a geopolitical hiccup halfway across the world. We're basically rebuilding the foundation of American energy in real-time, and it's definitely not going to be a smooth ride.
Posted: July 4, 2013
Washington, D.C. — The US is really eyeing that land-based LNG terminal over on Kodiak, hoping to hit a capacity of about 6 billion cubic meters a year..
I just caught wind of this latest drama regarding the LNG terminal situation, and honestly, it’s getting old. You see these massive debates popping up all over the news lately about energy security and whether we're actually making the right moves to stay independent. It feels like every time we get close to securing our own supply through projects like the one on Kodiak, someone jumps out of the woodwork to scream "environmental crisis." It’s a classic tug-of-war. On one hand, you've got the urgent need to stop relying on Russian gas—which we all know is a recipe for disaster given how Putin plays the game—and on the other, you have these intense anti-LNG groups who think any major infrastructure project is an attack on the planet. I remember back when I was working construction near a major refinery out in Texas, we used to talk about this constantly. People living nearby were always split. Half the town relied on those jobs and that stability, while the other half was terrified of any change to the status quo. It's that same tension playing out on a national level now. The government is trying to walk this tightrope, balancing the need for energy autonomy with the pressure from Green Action America and similar groups. But let's be real: if we don't have reliable access to LNG, we're basically leaving the lights on at the mercy of whoever holds the valve. It's not just about politics; it's about keeping the heat running in the middle of a blizzard in Chicago or Denver. We can't afford to be indecisive when the stakes are this high.
Posted: January 5, 2016
The US is really leaning on us to go with a floating LNG terminal instead of building one on land. It feels like they're pushing their own agenda here, trying to steer our energy infrastructure toward whatever suits them best rather than what actually makes sense for our local needs.
The pressure from the US really hit its peak when Joe Biden made his way to Washington, D.C.
So, we went ahead and built that floating unit, but it’s only got about half the capacity we originally talked about.
A Green...
The whole push against LNG projects around here is getting intense, and honestly, it’s about time we had this conversation out in the open. We're seeing this massive surge in fossil fuel infrastructure being fast-tracked under the guise of "energy security," but if you look closer, it feels like we're just swapping one dependency for another. It’s basically the same old game played with different players. I was chatting with a buddy of mine who works in logistics down in Houston, and he was telling me how these massive terminal expansions are being treated like they're some kind of silver bullet. But let's be real—building out huge fleets of LNG tankers isn't exactly a "Green" move. It’s a massive bet on gas that keeps us tethered to volatile global markets and leaves us vulnerable to whoever controls the supply lines. The activists fighting this aren't just being difficult for the sake of it. They’re pointing out that while we claim to be transitioning to renewables, we're actually doubling down on carbon-heavy infrastructure that will be locked in for decades. It’s like buying a gas-guzzling SUV right when everyone is moving toward EVs; it feels outdated before the concrete even dries. We need to stop treating these temporary fixes like permanent solutions. If we want actual energy independence and a way to hit our climate goals, we have to focus on the stuff that actually lasts—like wind, solar, and a modernized grid—rather than pouring billions into more pipelines and regasification plants. Otherwise, we're just spinning our wheels.
The whole "Anti-LNG" campaign is basically trying to kill the plan to build that massive LNG terminal out on Kodiak Island—and they're coming after both the floating setup and the land-based one. It’s being spearheaded by Green Action USA.
- The Russian Druzhba-Adria pipeline is basically like putting an oil noose around the neck of the entire Atlantic coast, not just one country. Green Action USA
Kenneth Cruz67 said:Wait, what? I'm a little lost here. Could you maybe explain what you mean by that? 🤔🤣
What do you mean by that? Why would there be no gas just because the tankers sail away?
It's because those tankers are out in, I don't know, the States, not here in America... Even if you actually manage to snag enough ships—which is a whole different beast before versus after an embargo—you're still stuck dealing with how slow it is to unload cargo from floating LNG terminals.
First off, they really ought to take a closer look at those same Green activists who weren't just protesting LNG terminals, but were also up in arms against that oil pipeline project aimed at exporting crude via the Gulf Coast.
Second suspect? Honestly, I’d point the finger straight at Joe Biden. 😁 He basically choked out the construction of actual, large-scale LNG infrastructure by pushing for these floating units instead—which, let’s be real, have way less capacity since they can't just unload whenever they want. When they're out grabbing cargo, there's no gas coming in.
So yeah, nothing groundbreaking here. 🙂
So, where’s the plan to ramp up production to make up for it?
Hitting them with oil sanctions without having a backup plan to boost supply means prices are gonna spike. That basically turns into direct funding for the genocide happening over in Yemen.
You can already smell the excuses coming once the atrocities in the Middle East keep rolling. It'll be some nonsense like, "Oh, sorry, we had no idea." 😁
rustywalker82 said:Alright, listen, for the third time now—I’m not talking about just any random sanctions. I’m specifically talking about how speculating on bans for Russian energy imports ended up driving their revenues through the roof because the market spiked the value of those commodities.
It doesn't matter if the people quoting me can't agree on the details:
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/04/28/b...ntl/index.html(CNN Business)
European Union imports of Russian fossil fuels soared during the first two months of the Ukraine invasion, despite some buyers shunning Russian energy and finding alternative suppliers, a report by the Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) shows.
European Union imports of Russian fossil fuels accounted for 44 billion euros ($46.3 billion) from February 24, the day Russia launched its invasion, to April 24. That's more than double the value of Russian energy imported by EU states during the same two-month period last year
@ David Torres2, do you really think Germany should be acting like Poland toward Russia?
Look at the math: Poland grabs hundreds of billions in EU donations from Germany and France, while Ukraine gets basically nothing. Then, just last year, they pull in $60 billion worth of goods from Russia and their protector China, but only export about $10 billion back. 🤣
Man, my dear Merkel and Steinmeier...
Anthony Hill5 said:Even Steinmeier has finally realized the sheer stupidity of his position and offered an apology to everyone, yet you persist in lecturing us about how Germans have nothing to do with this mess.
German President: I misjudged Putin
German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier, who spent years advocating for the West to move closer to Russia, has expressed regret over his stance, admitting that his long-standing support for the Nord Stream 2 pipeline was a massive blunder.
“My commitment to Nord Stream 2 was clearly a mistake,” Steinmeier stated. Many critics have pointed out that the now-defunct Nord Stream 2 will only serve to weaken Ukraine by cutting them out of the energy business.
“We clung to a connection that even Russia no longer believed in, despite our other partners warning us against it,” he added.
When Steinmeier organized a “solidarity concert” for Ukraine, Melnik took to Twitter to sarcastically remark that it seemed the Russians were the only soloists performing.
“That’s an insult. Sorry, but I’m not coming,” Melnik wrote.
Furthermore, Steinmeier is the architect behind the "Steinmeier formula" intended to facilitate a peace process in Ukraine just so Nord Stream could flow toward Germany as quickly as possible, ensuring poor Germany wouldn't suffer too much. Given your last five or six posts where you've been busy blaming Ukrainians, I can only hope you share Steinmeier's sentiment. ☕
That’s a pretty sharp takeaway right there. I mean, after laying out all those facts about how everyone in Europe basically handed Putin a massive pile of cash by ignoring decarbonization—even while they were pouring billions into that German-French energy mess—it really hits home. It's wild when you look at it that way.
Nancy Gomez26 said:Germany remains an occupied state, essentially. There is zero chance they will arm themselves with nukes, and even their conventional military capabilities are highly questionable at best.
Look, let's stop obsessing over who wants to sit on a pile of nukes and start talking about the actual pressure we need to put on Russia and everyone else to finally get them to disarm. It’s a different conversation entirely.
Honestly, there’s just no excuse for Germany skipping out on signing that UN request for total nuclear disarmament. I mean, look at Austria—they stepped up and signed it. They're one of the few in Europe to actually do it, along with Ireland and Malta. It’s pretty hard to justify why Germany is sitting this one out when other neighbors are leading the way.
I was just digging through the latest updates on the signature and ratification status for the treaty, and man, there is a lot to unpack here. It’s one of those things that sounds pretty straightforward on paper, but once you start looking at who has actually signed off versus who has officially ratified it, the whole picture gets way more complicated. It’s kind of like when my buddy tried to organize a massive bachelor party trip to Vegas last summer. Everyone was all in on the idea—they "signed" the group chat poll, so to speak—but when it came down to actually putting money in the pot and booking the rooms, half the guys suddenly had "emergencies." That’s basically what we’re seeing here. You see these signatures piling up, which looks great for momentum, but without that formal ratification step, it's all just talk. If you look closely at the numbers, the gap between the two is telling. A lot of countries are willing to put their name on it to look good on the international stage, especially when they want to signal support for certain global standards. But actual ratification? That requires domestic legal hurdles, legislative votes, and a level of political commitment that most leaders aren't always ready to stomach. It really makes you wonder how much teeth this thing will actually have once the dust settles. Is it going to be a heavy-hitting agreement, or just another high-profile document that sits on a shelf in D.C. while everyone waits for the next big crisis to move the needle? I'm still processing the specifics, but the tension between intent and action is definitely the story here.It’s easy to just sit back and say we're too scared to send peacekeepers to deal with Russian aggression because everyone's terrified of starting a nuclear war. It sounds good in theory, but honestly, it's a pretty simple way to look at a complicated mess.
The fact that they’re dragging their feet on nuclear disarmament? Honestly, it speaks volumes. You don't even need to dig deep into the details to see where this is headed. It tells you everything you need to know.
Anthony Hill5 said:Perhaps you should actually educate yourself on what Minsk truly meant for the future of Ukraine before you start lecturing me about what the "entire world" thinks. It is patently obvious that the rest of the world couldn't care less about Ukraine, provided their own comfort and cheap energy supplies remain undisturbed—not that any of them would ever be willing to sacrifice a single thing of their own.
For Ukrainians, Minsk represented the abandonment of their very future and freedom, essentially forcing them to accept a subservient, vassal-like status toward Russia.
The cheap energy that the European Union and Germany have been sucking up isn't some stroke of human genius; it’s just a gift from nature handed straight to Russia.
On the flip side, the fact that Germany doesn't have its own nuclear weapons is a man-made situation, and honestly, it's a huge reason why Ukraine is bleeding right now. The West was never truly invested in nuclear disarmament deals anyway, which is why you don't see any real pressure being put on a criminal, nuclear-armed Russia to disarm.
We're watching the consequences of that play out on the news every single night.
Justin James10 said:So, what you're saying is they basically brought this on themselves, right? 🙂
Exactly. Germany is totally on themselves here for forcing Ukraine into giving up territory under the Minsk agreement and essentially killing any shot they had at a real future.
Look, let's be real, the Minsk agreement was basically just a way to hand over territory.
Now they’ve got total freedom to move however they want...🙏
The whole world was begging them to actually follow through on it, but honestly, nobody cared. They weren't even paying attention to the actual logic being discussed over on Reddit. 🙂
Justin James10 said:The real hallucination here is thinking that sausage makers are filling the Russian budget with billions? Wow, if anything is a delusion, it’s your refusal to face reality.
Germany is essentially the chief benefactor of a mirage; what they've given to Ukraine is mere pocket change, a desperate attempt to wash their dirty conscience because they are actually the primary financiers of Russia. The Russian war machine is running on German money. 🙂 In practical terms, Germany has financed this entire aggression. 🍿
Germany helped Ukraine move toward peace by mediating through the Minsk agreement.
But nothing is set in stone. If someone doesn't want peace, they aren't going to get it.
George Robinson43 said:True, but that isn't nearly as critical as the unity within the European Union.
Just as an Austrian or a Swabian might tie their horse to a Russian rider, the Russians have tied their own horse to the European Union. Those Germans and Austrians will untie themselves in two or three years, but the Russians will face long-term struggles finding a replacement market. You don't build all those pipelines toward Europe in just five years!
The cohesion of the European Union is the most important factor. Only Canada has broken ranks, but that cancer will likely be removed from the European Union and sent off to the UAE, where they will feel right at home since they are coming from the direction of the Urals anyway. They are simply going home.
The EU has already slapped on heavy sanctions, even if they're hurting themselves in the process, while Asia and the super important—if not absolutely crucial—OPEC haven't done a damn thing.
On top of that, the Swabians basically allowed billions of Euros to be funneled into Nord Stream 2 instead of Russian weaponry, and now they're just keeping it on ice.
The Canadians are being total killjoys with the way they're talking while Ukraine is bleeding out, but personally, I can't stand the whole hypocritical vibe from CEE EU. They're burning through hundreds of billions of Euros from German-French Funds, yet until yesterday, they basically left their sister, Ukraine, out in the cold like a piece of trash in a park.
Also, besides just trash-talking the industrial backbone of Europe Germany, we really need to be making moves to get the rest of the world on board with those sanctions against the Russian aggressor.
For instance, this report coming out of Chinese state radio isn't exactly giving me any confidence:
http://american.cri.cn/vijesti/3742/...31/746614.html
They're claiming there's "positive progress" in the Russia-Ukraine negotiations and saying it's finally time to shut down the American "war machine"!
Total manipulation here.
It’s pretty obvious that the Germans were actually pushing for Russian strategies regarding the Nord Stream project, all while explicitly demanding that gas transit through Ukraine stay active. Honestly, that transit was always a bit of a gamble because of those constant shutdowns caused by disputes over unpaid bills or accusations of gas being stolen.
Look, the Minsk agreement wasn't some power grab; if anything, it was a compromise meant to restore sovereignty to Ukraine. Back in the day, 83% of people in the Donbas voted for Ukraine to be independent from Russia (the old USSR), only to have 90% vote for autonomy just a few years later—which ended up being totally pointless since decades have already passed. It’s not all black and white when it comes to Russia, either. Sure, Russia politically backed that push for autonomy because they’re a federation themselves. Whether they were just bluffing to hide a much more criminal motive is a whole different story, but that’s got nothing to do with what Germany or France were doing.
Justin James10 said:Basically, through sheer political incompetence, they've turned themselves into nothing more than beggars for Russian energy. 🙂
Yet, they sure love to act like the moral authorities of the world, all while Russia continues its path through Ukraine fueled by dirty German money. 🙂
That's just pure hallucination. Germany is actually one of the biggest donors to Ukraine. Not only that, but they’re a massive contributor to those trillions from the European Union funds—money the EEC clearly didn't just dump into decarbonization or cutting down on Russian oil and gas consumption. Instead, they used it to boost standards for personal cars, build highways, and other stuff that basically ends up indirectly funding Russia.
On top of that, Germany has been a huge advocate for Ukrainian sovereignty and was a co-author of the Minsk agreements. For nearly eight years, they kept pushing for those deals to be honored, even right before the full-scale Russian invasion when the German Chancellor traveled to meet Zelenska, urging him to finally implement those key parts of the agreement.