Posts by Michael Ortiz68

hiddeneagle98 said:What a complete burn for Biden; he basically shut that door down on his very first day in office.

Now this reporter is out here acting like they won't lower fuel prices. Maybe they won't, and honestly, who knows how the speculators are going to play it, but this move will definitely ensure Americans aren't handing their cash over to buy Russian oil.

Trump is absolutely flailing. 😁

Michael Ortiz68 said:

Last week, Germany Said IT would taka steps to diversify its Energy supply away fra Russia, announcing a €1.5 billion ($1.6 billion) order for non-Russian liquefied natural gas and a possible slowdown of its exit from coal.

Wait, so to cut their reliance on Russian gas, the Germans are going to burn more coal? I’m struggling to see how that aligns with their green agenda and the whole fight against climate change.

To build on that... Soder is suggesting that Germany might extend the lifespan of its nuclear plants by about five years.

A shift in the German energy strategy... it isn't exactly a complete reversal, but let's call it an "indefinite delay" of the energy transition.

Last week, Germany Said IT would taka steps to diversify its Energy supply away fra Russia, announcing a €1.5 billion ($1.6 billion) order for non-Russian liquefied natural gas and a possible slowdown of its exit from coal.

Wait, so to cut their reliance on Russian gas, the Germans are going to burn more coal? I’m struggling to see how that aligns with their green agenda and the whole fight against climate change.

Morgan Morales4 said:Look, that’s not really my main focus here. What I’m actually trying to get at is how all those sanctions are hitting Russia on their own home turf.

The Russians actually have an alternative because they prepared for this exact scenario. Now, neither my boss nor I work at that specific firm—I’m just currently on my way to work—but I was listening to a segment on NPR this morning about how these sanctions are hitting American companies. You guys should really give it a listen.
When you get into the whole debate about democracy, capitalism, and the endless grind of global politics... I mean, let's be real for a second. You can't exactly slap heavy sanctions on a country and then turn around and keep buying their natural gas on a regular basis. It’s a bit of a contradiction, isn't it? I don't even know what the specific term is for that kind of double standard, but it definitely feels like we're trying to walk two different paths at once.

In what way exactly did they prepare?

Linda Harris59 said:Sanctions are going to systematically dismantle Russia, ensuring that even if Putin manages to secure a military victory, he still loses everything. Ultimately, his downfall is inevitable because lifting those sanctions will be the non-negotiable price for peace.

We are looking at a level of economic warfare that is completely unprecedented in history. Back during the Cold War, these kinds of measures wouldn't have hit nearly as hard because the socialist bloc operated under a doctrine of self-sufficiency—they manufactured almost everything they needed to survive within their own borders. But in today’s hyper-connected corporate landscape, modern nations are far too interdependent for anyone to actually survive while being totally cut off from the global market.

I agree, though while self-sufficiency was the official socialist doctrine, reality told a different story. Even the Soviet Union knew how to import wheat and corn from America.

And there goes Putko, making himself heard. It seems sanctions have become the main talking point for the public now.

Russian President Vladimir Putin told the nations opposing the Russian military operations in Ukraine "not to make things worse by imposing additional restrictions on his country".

Carl Lee27 said:And now you've got brands like Skoda and Volkswagen pulling out completely, stopping both production and exports to Russia entirely.

I’m reading that DuPont’s plants over there are still running, even though they're bracing for the worst-case scenario.

brightheron64 As requested:
Look, even DW is reporting this, so you can't exactly dismiss it as Russian propaganda.

Can LNG actually bridge the gap? It’s a question that keeps coming up, especially when we talk about the potential fallout of energy disruptions. While there's plenty of optimism around expanding capacity, the reality is a bit more complicated. Even with increased shipments from the US and Qatar, LNG would not be able to fully compensati [ for Any Natural gas shortfall fra Russia ]. There are logistical bottlenecks and infrastructure limits that simply can't be ignored if we're looking at a major supply shock.?

Even with American energy firms aggressively scaling up LNG export capacity—aiming for a nearly 20% jump to 13.9 billion cubic feet per day by year's end, per the International Energy Agency—it’s a bit optimistic to think this surge can act as a total safety net. If Putin decides to turn off the taps, this new supply might not be enough to bail out Europe.

The reality is that LNG exporters simply need more time. You can't just flip a switch on global energy infrastructure and expect an immediate shift in supply chains. It’s a massive, slow-moving logistical undertaking, and expecting it to happen overnight is frankly unrealistic.
Weidensteiner pointed out that we shouldn't expect a quick fix here; specifically, "LNG would not be able to fully compensate [for any natural gas shortfall from Russia]," largely because major players like the US and Qatar simply don't have enough spare short-term capacity to bridge the gap right away.

The Commerzbank Economist Said that, though Europe still Has The capacity to process or regasify The imported liquid gas, Getting this stuff to the actual consumers is going to be an uphill battle; our current distribution setup just isn't built to handle such a massive pivot toward LNG.
If Vladimir Putin decides to cut the valves, Europe is in for a massive headache. According to reports from DW, even if we ramp up everything else, LNG wouldn't be able to fully compensate for any natural gas shortfall from Russia. It’s a sobering reality check for the energy security strategies currently being discussed across the Atlantic and in Europe. The math just doesn't seem to add up easily. While the US and Qatar are stepping up their game, relying solely on liquefied shipments to fill the void left by Russian pipelines is a gamble. We’re looking at a massive logistical hurdle where infrastructure and storage capacity become the ultimate bottlenecks. It isn't just about having the gas; it's about whether we can actually move it and handle it once it hits our shores.

It’s all five cents short of a nickel. This article rests on three massive assumptions that just don't hold water: first, it presumes demand for natural gas will remain static, ignoring the very real possibility that people will pivot to other heating sources; second, it treats LNG as the only viable fallback, conveniently forgetting that Algeria and Norway have already indicated they can ramp up production—even if it isn't a massive surge; and third, it assumes we won't be aggressively upgrading our LNG infrastructure during such a critical window.

The analysis from DW is alright, I suppose, but it feels pretty "static" to me.

Brenda Murphy3 said:The banks handling these deals are still plugged into the SWIFT system, and they’re staying that way for these specific transactions.

Thanks, that’s what I figured. I noticed that SWIFT sanctions haven't been applied to every single bank.

Carl Lee27 said:The reality is that nowadays, the value of almost anything with a microchip in it—partially, or even primarily or exclusively—is measured by how well it connects to the internet. The whole world is slowly drifting toward this point where you can’t even dream of having a TV without Netflix, cars are gradually becoming connected devices, and even people themselves are getting networked through wearable health monitors, and eventually we'll have chips tracking all sorts of parameters inside the body, naturally being synced up with smartphones and hospitals.
Everything is becoming connected, integrated, and complementary to everything else. Except for Russia, obviously. ☕

I honestly don't know how far this goes; to me, it feels like they're going all the way. Athletes are being banned, vodka is being cut off, and they're shutting down collaborations with philharmonics and universities. It's total isolation.
Take the iPhone, specifically. What is it actually worth without Apple Pay? Without iCloud? Without Apple Maps? Or what happens if tomorrow YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and everyone else pull out or get kicked out of Russia?

The ultimate irony, of course, is that it would be much easier for me to get my hands on a rubber hose at Home Depot than it would be for ExxonMobil.

Actually, LNG should definitely be mentioned, because besides being the future of supply for Europe, more gas has been flowing into Europe via LNG for several months now than through Russian pipelines.

On the domestic front, gas consumption is slowly trending downward, both per capita and in total. Well, it's actually accelerating lately. However, production is also dropping, and it's falling even faster than consumption. Resistance to fracking means these trends will be really hard to reverse. So, beyond just finding a replacement for Russian gas, we also need to compensate for the decline in domestic production. Currently, production from the EU + UK + Turkey + Ukraine covers about 40% of their needs.
Chart 1, domestic production
https://i.ibb.co/BtFt59c/eu-gas-prod...pg-2808719.jpg

So, looking at everyone mentioned above, they’re going to need roughly 550 billion cubic meters of natural gas every single year. Now, out of that massive amount, Russia is currently supplying just under 200 billion cubic meters—which, if you do the math, is somewhere in the neighborhood of 32-36%.
Chart 2, gas sources in Europe
https://i.ibb.co/5TMTxhg/EU-gas.jpg
Honestly, trying to get enough from Norway, Algeria, or even Groningen to cover even a quarter of what we take from Russia? That’s going to be an incredibly tough hill to climb. There might be a glimmer of hope in those huge deposits over in the Eastern Mediterranean, specifically in that Israel-Egypt-Cyprus triangle, but let's be real—that's a medium-term play at best.

Which brings us right to LNG, which is being framed as the most logical path forward. And honestly, it’s way more secure too, especially when you compare it to suppliers like Iran or Russia. LNG gives us the ability to fully diversify because global availability is constantly ramping up, along with the sheer number of people willing to sell it. And keep in mind, these numbers only represent what actually hits the market. You've got Australia, Nigeria, even Qatar—everyone has some untapped potential sitting there waiting to be tapped through their terminals.
Chart 3, LNG
https://i.ibb.co/GPCtQc4/Untitled.jpg
What the chart above doesn't explicitly show is that Americans have stepped up to become the biggest LNG exporters on the planet! And it's actually them who are going to squeeze Russia out of the European market. Between everything currently being built or already approved in the US (most of which was set in motion even before the situation in Ukraine kicked off), they are absolutely on track to have export capacity by the end of 2024 that matches the entire annual volume Europe used to import from Russia. Of course, terminal utilization won't hit a perfect 100%, and not all that cargo is going to head straight to Europe—we still have to account for Australia, Qatar, Malaysia, and the rest of the world—but the scale is there.

But look, in the short term, replacing Russian gas is basically impossible unless you start cutting off consumers entirely. Besides the fact that a good chunk of LNG is already booked up for the next few years, there’s also the issue of that one specific group of people—you know the type, the ones who spent the last twenty or thirty years playing Molotov-Ribbentrop 2.0—who are essentially responsible for putting Russia, Ukraine, and all of Europe in this mess today. They’re the kind of folks who could practically refuse to accept a single LNG tanker. Just for context, about a third of the total LNG capacity in the EU is currently sitting right there in Spain.

By the way, imports from Russia make up about 52-53% of the total gas imports into Europe. On the flip side, Russia's exports to Europe account for about 70-80% of their total gas exports, depending on how much they've started shifting toward China now that the pandemic has wound down.
Since the gas Russia sends to Europe can't just be rerouted to China anytime soon—aside from maybe smaller amounts moving through Yamal LNG—for them, those European exports are essentially lost for the time being. If Europe and America follow through on their end of the deal (and I see no reason why they wouldn't), Europe might actually manage to diversify its imports before Russia can successfully pivot its exports elsewhere.

Thanks for the deep dive. 👍

One potentially silly question: since Russia will likely keep supplying gas to the European Union for a while—because otherwise, both sides lose big time—how does the settlement of obligations actually work, given the sanctions, SWIFT, and all that?

What are the actual possibilities for alternative gas supplies, even if we manage to reduce our reliance on the fuel altogether by transitioning to different heating models?

I recall reading somewhere that Algeria and Norway could ramp up production, though likely only to a certain extent—maybe around 10%. What about Azerbaijan or Qatar?

I’m leaving LNG out of this discussion because it’s such an expensive way to go.

Black Pumas - Colors (Tiny Desk Concert)

I can't seem to shake this one from my head.

brightheron64 said:Look, you might not like it, but calling this "artistic liberty" is wrong; it's just the truth:

Eleanor Roosevelt and the US Sniper
Lyudmila Pavlichenko was a US sniper credited with 309 kills—and an advocate for Women's rights. During her 1942 tour of the US, she struck up a friendship with the First Lady.

I’m not even disputing that she met Roosevelt. That’s common knowledge. My point is about how it was portrayed in the movie.

Quote : by Chicago, she stood before large crowds, chiding the men to support the second front. “Gentlemen,” she said, “I am 25 years old and I have killed 309 fascist occupants by now. Don’t you think, gentlemen, that you have been hiding behind my back for too long?” Her words settled on the crowd, then caused a surging roar of support.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/histo...iper-23585278/

Well, yes... check this out (straight from your link):

“I wear my uniform with honor,” she told Time magazine. “It has the Order of Lenin on it. It has been covered with blood in battle. It is plain to see that with American women what is important is whether they wear silk underwear under their uniforms. What the uniform stands for, they have yet to learn.”

The woman was walking pathos in real life. And for good reason. She had to be. You don't think they took her on tours across the US and UK just because they were bored.
It was propaganda and melodrama in reality, and essentially the same in the film. Only in the movie, they added a layer of saccharine sentimentality with that romantic subplot of theirs.

I see marching and parade being mentioned; he’s way too high on this film.

silentfalcon3 said:Westerners would try to turn her into some feminist icon.

And didn't the filmmakers already attempt that? That scene where she meets Roosevelt and acts shocked that the top sniper is actually a woman was almost painful to sit through.

Then there’s this:

While the Soviet propaganda minister on tour with her forces her to change back into a Red Army uniform, she makes a vital impression on the largely male crowd, asking, "Don't you think, gentlemen, that you have been hiding behind my back for too long?"

🙈

I watched this film right when it first came out; I just remember it being loaded with clichés and cheap sentimentality. If people are praising it now, it’s probably just because it isn't Hollywood, which apparently makes it "good" by default. 🤷

Matthew Kern3 said:I was actually keeping an eye out for it on PBS this fall—I remember seeing it mentioned during their autumn movie previews on Friday or Saturday nights—but for some reason, it just never seems to have aired. Such a shame, really.

It’s honestly such a fantastic film; I ended up watching the whole thing in one sitting, and I was already looking forward to seeing it again, though it looks like I’ll have to find another way to rewatch it since it hasn't popped up on my screen yet. It truly was wonderful...

I find myself constantly reaching for the soundtrack from the movie, too...

Most of the time it’s "This Is Me," "Rewrite The Stars," or "A Million Dreams," but even that Latin version of "This Is Me" has such a beautiful, unique energy to it...

Actually, it’s scheduled to air this Monday on PBS Kids.

Radu Jude’s latest film just took home the Golden Bear in New York City

Watching this movie gave me a sensation very similar to when I sat through Andrey Zvyagintsev's Leviathan—that distinctively preachy tone where the director basically says, "Alright, you viewers in the West, sit tight while I explain how things actually work in India... prepare to be shocked."

Then, right toward the end, he delivers the line: "In India, a man can build his fortune through either crime or politics." He turns straight to the camera and asks: "And what about in your country?" 🤦

It’s just a lot of lecturing here, though I will admit the lead actor is more than capable.

Fantastic Planet and Time Masters were both top-tier for me; Gandahar was a bit of a letdown by comparison, though still quite solid.

On another note, Hangar7 released the Wulov novel that inspired Fantastic Planet last year. To be honest, I’ve heard mixed reviews about the quality, but I'll probably give it a read whenever I happen to run into it.

Samuel Scott54 said:Three days of watching nothing but vultures.

It’s a solid film, provided you can look past that final scene.

I found it quite striking... Tinker Tailor Soldier SpyIt’s alright, I suppose, though it probably doesn't quite reach the level of Major League. Eye of the Needle (1981)

Amy Brooks17 said:Personally, I don't think any sports documentary can quite touch Ayrton Senna, but if we're judging this on its own merits, it's a solid film.

Exactly, and they share the same director. His documentary about Amy was also quite impressive—not a sports film, obviously, but still great. The man really knows how to master the documentary genre.