Posts by Jesse Hughes6

A 5% monthly return. Pure genius.

Once you actually sit down and ask yourself, "Wait, how are they even moving it?", a whole lot of things start making sense.

George Robinson43 said:Winter simply cannot stop ExxonMobil! They are set to pump 100 billion cubic meters toward the East in 2023—purely through the air! 😉

Though, if you ask me, a strong enough wind could blow those torches right toward the West, too.

wearytrucker22 said:I mean, maybe places like Finland or the Czech Republic could have just found a different supplier by now. It's really just Canada and Bulgaria stuck in the mud. What on earth were they waiting for?

If only this three-day special operation would finally wrap up.

William Miller12 said:Well, you've fragmented everything and lost the thread of the argument. Some of your comments aren't even relevant, but since you bolded your own main claim and it's the problem here, let's just go back to basics:

1. The Keystone XL pipeline, with a capacity of 800,000 barrels a day (about 0.8% of global production), was only about 8% complete when Biden banned it a few months later. Sure, Democrats were stalling and undermining it during the Trump administration, and even Obama tried to stop it, but even if everything had gone smoothly, would it really be finished? It might have still been in its early stages.
But there's no doubt that KXL definitely wouldn't be finished today if Biden hadn't blocked it in early 2021—it probably wouldn't have opened until 2026 or 2027. So, that decision doesn't have any real physical impact on today's oil supply; it's mostly just affecting market expectations.

2. Why Putin attacked Ukraine specifically on February 24, 2022, remains a mystery, and as I noted on the forums back then, "the reasons that drove Putin to such a suicidal move will likely be analyzed for decades."
However, regarding US moves that might have nudged Putin toward war, I'm certain the American withdrawal from Afghanistan and the way it was handled was far more significant than walking away from KXL.
By the way, despite my ongoing belief that it was a smart strategic move that made the US stronger—just imagine the political fallout if Americans were still stuck trying to secure exits in Afghanistan today.
We should support and fight alongside those who truly want freedom, and let everyone else face their own fate.

3. Now, regardless of what was said in point 2, most people will agree that one of the pillars of Putin's decision was that $380 billion fund, built up over years through gas and oil sales.

4. First, gas.
The main culprit here is Merkel, obviously, but there wasn't much anyone could actually do about it. She was just following the lead of the entire German establishment. We can argue about why—whether it’s rooted in Brandt's Ostpolitik, some lingering debt for reunification, or whatever else—but it was a done deal. It couldn't be changed.

Trump was right on this one. For years, Germans will be haunted by footage of Trump essentially "calling them out" over Russian gas, all while they laughed him off. I won't say I'm not enjoying watching that unfold. Hopefully, they learn to show a little more humility before they start lecturing everyone else on the supposed superiority of the German political-economic model.
Especially once they start talking about China, because their hands are pretty deep in that jam, too...

If Merkel had been the kind of statesman people were hailing her as just a year ago, she would have quietly steered Germany away from its dependence on Russian gas.
But that requires being a true statesman—someone like Roosevelt, who quietly but stubbornly pushed the US toward WWII despite most Americans being against it, simply because he knew it had to be done eventually.
(Though, a few US administrations used that exact same method regarding Vietnam with completely different results, so it’s hard to be too smart about how much a "statesman X" should ignore the will of their voters.)

Anyway, let's not forget that Putin's "gas pillar" is significantly more important than his "oil pillar."

5. Finally, oil.
Oil—the "oil pillar"—matters, but it isn't the key.
Its primary importance is as a fund filler; Russian costs sit around $37 per barrel, so any price above that goes straight into the fund.
No amount of Keystone XL, fracking, or oil sands would have managed to drive oil prices down to those levels during the 2014-2021 window. Even if they theoretically could have, the Saudis and Russians would have just cut production according to their own targets to keep the average between $80 and $100.

Those speculative spikes in oil prices prior to the Russian military adventures were just tactics—tactics that proved strategically important at times, but only until 2022.
If Europe had folded under energy blackmail and decided to abandon Ukraine immediately after the invasion, then I might agree that killing Keystone XL was a major factor, since it defined future expectations.
But since that didn't happen, the importance of that decision as a trigger for the invasion of Ukraine is realistically minor.

Regarding LNG, keep in mind that it isn't just about having LNG terminals—which aren't actually that expensive—it’s the massive issue of tanker availability and numbers, which *are* expensive.
That’s why gas—neither LNG nor pipelines—is the solution.

And as for "green policies" and their supposed guilt for everything wrong in the world...

Green policies were nothing more than an excuse, a bit of camouflage for Russia's actual goals.
The Russians set their goal clearly: use energy as a weapon. Everything else was just tactics, where green advocates were used as useful idiots. It was all shaped by targeted political lobbying where the goal was obvious: push the gas through, and then just declare gas "green," even though there’s very little "green" logic to it.
The Russians certainly had a bit of luck with Fukushima, too, but that was all just smoke and mirrors—a distraction, like a magician's trick.
Without the "green" cover, they would have had to come up with something else.
Because the goal was clear, and the Germans wanted Russian gas anyway—not because of green policies, but for the money, for easy export competitiveness, for commissions, for Ostpolitik, and a whole bunch of other reasons that have nothing to do with being eco-friendly.

In the US, these green narratives look a bit different, but it's clear to everyone that Americans were also widely influenced by Russian lobbyists—maybe just slightly less so than Germany.

___

The highlighted part—never happened. Not even back then. Nobody is quite as convinced of their own brilliance and ingenuity as a Swabian.

analogbear5 said:We aren't talking about chemicals here—this is about a natural resource, specifically within the context of "sanctions on Russia."

Same here.

analogbear5 said:It’s actually pretty wild when you think about it—a planet with a finite volume can still hold an endless supply of oil.

I don't recall anyone ever actually claiming that oil supplies are infinite.
Then again, what makes you so certain we're dealing with a resource that has a fixed, predictable limit?

hollowdriver13 said:Even Mother Nature isn't a fan of Vladimir Putin or the Russians, since she's keeping Europe nice and warm and dry this fall. 😬

And it’s all being carried on the back of poor little Putko.

Just burn it all down with torches. Same as we always have.

brightheron64 said:I was simply pointing out a fundamental cause and its inevitable fallout, using Pakistan as an example.

What truly caught me off guard—and frankly, left me a bit stunned—was the decision made by OPEC. Despite all this global rhetoric about goodwill and a general consensus regarding the need to pressure Russia... they seem set to ensure that even with a 30 percent "discount," the Russians will still be raking in massive amounts of cash, even with their reduced output.

The fastest way to actually cripple the Russians would be to drive the agreed-upon oil price down to $60, but we aren't likely to see that scenario play out. Without that shift, the Russians will eventually bump their production back up, because let's face it, many players on "the other side" have zero interest in paying premium prices indefinitely for something they could realistically acquire at a 30% discount.

But just how much of the global population does that group actually represent, out of nearly 8 billion people?

Sure, maybe a few folks living in the Arctic might still rely on seal blubber for cooking or warmth, but the vast majority of the world depends on energy and fuel derived primarily from oil and gas...

Do you actually grasp that because this business is cartelized, oil becomes a zero-sum game?
If someone buys from you because you’re offering a discount, they aren't buying from me anymore. What do you think happens at that exact moment?

brightheron64 said:I was simply pointing out a fundamental cause and its inevitable fallout, using Pakistan as an example.

What truly caught me off guard—and frankly, left me a bit stunned—was the decision made by OPEC. Despite all this global rhetoric about goodwill and a general consensus regarding the need to pressure Russia... they seem set to ensure that even with a 30 percent "discount," the Russians will still be raking in massive amounts of cash, even with their reduced output.

The fastest way to actually cripple the Russians would be to drive the agreed-upon oil price down to $60, but we aren't likely to see that scenario play out. Without that shift, the Russians will eventually bump their production back up, because let's face it, many players on "the other side" have zero interest in paying premium prices indefinitely for something they could realistically acquire at a 30% discount.

But just how much of the global population does that group actually represent, out of nearly 8 billion people?

Sure, maybe a few folks living in the Arctic might still rely on seal blubber for cooking or warmth, but the vast majority of the world depends on energy and fuel derived primarily from oil and gas...

Just let the Saudi Arabians be. Americans know exactly where they stand with them; it's just not going to be an easy or fast fix. We'll have to be patient.
"Raking in massive amounts of cash" is a relative term, but like I said before, you're overcomplicating things. The whole point is to squeeze that money down as much as humanly possible. So far, the plan is working. Their budget deficit is already massive. It’s been stated countless times: sanctions take time to bite. Russia doesn't have that luxury, but the West does.

Everything you're bringing up is fair game for debate, and on certain points, you're absolutely spot on.
But you're missing the forest for the trees here—the whole point is to choke out Russian oil and gas production as much as humanly possible, and whatever manages to leak through should be hit with enough pressure that they're forced to sell at a 20-30% discount just to stay afloat. That’s really all there is to it. There isn't some grand philosophy behind it.

Honestly, I’m just looking forward to seeing if Viktor Orbán actually follows through on that threat.

That’s all there is to it. We're watching the total collapse of the European Union economy and the Western values we used to rely on. Instead of just dealing with light layers during a cold snap, people are going to be stuck inside their houses wearing nothing but t-shirts just to survive the winter.

Michael Ortiz68 said:Didn't all those "experts" predict oil would hit $200 a barrel? And that was a whole month after the invasion started. 🐔

It actually hit $300 once.
Which is a pretty subtle nod to the millions of people dying in the streets because of COVID.
The doomsday prophets are back at it again.

Donna Harris11 said:The United Kingdom is basically falling apart at the seams:

https://www.johnogroat-journal.co.uk...ions-a-269836/

I mean, because of all those sanctions, they can't even get their hands on bitumen anymore. It’s just... things are going south.

So here we go, everyone together now:

America and the United Kingdom are going to be nothing but a land of losers.

nimbleviper3 said:The rising costs of groceries, electricity, and gas have very little to do with the war in Ukraine, just saying.☕

You're wasting your breath.

Harold Nelson6 said:Could you please explain what's actually driving inflation in Russia—since it's currently higher than the inflation rate in the European Union?

I think we can all agree that rising energy costs are a massive driver for inflation in the European Union, but what on earth could be fueling it for the Russians?

The sheer strength of the Russian economy. They’ve got enough cash on hand to throw around like it’s nothing.

brightheron64 said:The only metric that truly matters here is how much money they actually spent. Either group could have easily taken up 100% of the overnight stays, but what really counts is how much cash was left in the local piggy bank...

I might be wrong on this, but I firmly believe that those 0.91% of Russian tourists left behind significantly more wealth than the 2.6% coming from Canada. Just speaking from personal observation—knowing people who run properties near the border with Canada—the latter group is often viewed as more of a burden, almost like they're taxing resources without giving back enough...

Every news outlet was buzzing about David Beckham going on vacation, and even if you call it just pure marketing, the bottom line is how much dough he pumped into the US economy. What good is a massive yacht belonging to someone like Bill Gates cruising the Atlantic if he already owns everything on that boat and ends up not spending a single cent on even the smallest local goods? It’s no different from those cruise ship pests, a phenomenon I would personally vote to wipe off our coasts entirely...

I agree, though I assume you realize those statistics only count citizens from Canada who were identified using Canadian documents. Given that a massive chunk of these tourists likely shows up with American IDs instead, the actual numbers are probably higher than what's on paper.

brightheron64 said:The only metric that truly matters here is how much money they actually spent. Either group could have easily taken up 100% of the overnight stays, but what really counts is how much cash was left in the local piggy bank...

I might be wrong on this, but I firmly believe that those 0.91% of Russian tourists left behind significantly more wealth than the 2.6% coming from Canada. Just speaking from personal observation—knowing people who run properties near the border with Canada—the latter group is often viewed as more of a burden, almost like they're taxing resources without giving back enough...

Every news outlet was buzzing about David Beckham going on vacation, and even if you call it just pure marketing, the bottom line is how much dough he pumped into the US economy. What good is a massive yacht belonging to someone like Bill Gates cruising the Atlantic if he already owns everything on that boat and ends up not spending a single cent on even the smallest local goods? It’s no different from those cruise ship pests, a phenomenon I would personally vote to wipe off our coasts entirely...

That’s possible, I suppose, but that’s just your take on it. It’s the same logic applied to the David Beckham story below. Maybe it's true, maybe it isn't.
If you consider that the average Russian's purchasing power that year was roughly double that of an average citizen from Canada, and there were three times as many of them, I’d say my math lands somewhere in that ballpark. Meanwhile, the latter group is apparently viewed by some as a way of "downplaying resources."

What’s my point? We’ll survive just fine without any Russians during those three months of peak tourism.
In fact, I’d go as far as to say their absence won't have any impact at all, which I suspect this year's data will confirm.

brightheron64 said:The only metric that truly matters here is how much money they actually spent. Either group could have easily taken up 100% of the overnight stays, but what really counts is how much cash was left in the local piggy bank...

I might be wrong on this, but I firmly believe that those 0.91% of Russian tourists left behind significantly more wealth than the 2.6% coming from Canada. Just speaking from personal observation—knowing people who run properties near the border with Canada—the latter group is often viewed as more of a burden, almost like they're taxing resources without giving back enough...

Every news outlet was buzzing about David Beckham going on vacation, and even if you call it just pure marketing, the bottom line is how much dough he pumped into the US economy. What good is a massive yacht belonging to someone like Bill Gates cruising the Atlantic if he already owns everything on that boat and ends up not spending a single cent on even the smallest local goods? It’s no different from those cruise ship pests, a phenomenon I would personally vote to wipe off our coasts entirely...

It took me all of thirty seconds to look this up—back in 2019, Russians accounted for a mere 0.91% of overnight stays in the US.
For context, travelers from Canada sat at 2.60%.

How many thousands—maybe even tens of thousands—of Euros did those geniuses playing the Ruble exchange rate actually pocket?
Does anyone out there have a bank statement or an exchange receipt from Moscow to brag about? Honestly, it doesn't even have to be from Moscow, just some other city in Russia...