On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 22:03:23 -0400, J. Clarke
<jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 00:05:27 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
><jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>>On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 12:02:53 PM UTC-6, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>
>>> I continue to be annoyed at those who would claim that despite all the
>>> atrocities Putin & Co. have done on Ukrainian territory it's a
>>> monstrous crime for any Ukrainian counter-attack to land on Russia.
>>>
>>> "I can hit you all I like but you can't fight back" - oh really?
>>>
>>> At this point it wouldn't bother me at all if they did to Moscow what
>>> has been done to Kharkiv.
>>
>>Oh, it wouldn't bother me in a _moral_ sense. After committing aggression,
>>Russia should be made to surrender unconditionally, and if that means it
>>has to be as devastated as Germany after World War II, that in itself is no
>>problem.
>>
>>However, what Hitler didn't have that Putin does have is *nukes*.
>>
>>Which means that if a Ukrainian attack hits Russia *while we are giving
>>aid to Ukraine* bad things could happen to US. So Ukraine needs to
>>only defend itself within its own territory to keep us giving aid to it; if
>>they attacked Russian territory, we would have to disconnect from
>>Ukraine - and doing so immediately might not be enough.
>>
>>There is a vast difference between "this is wicked" and "this is not
>>wise in a practical sense"; it's not fair to assume that other people
>>have those things confused when you criticize them for recommending
>>against certain actions.
>>
>>If you can figure out how to take Putin's dangerous toys away, I'll
>>be fine with Russia being devastated.
>
>Sooner or later somebody is going to have to take the hit to disarm a
>loon who has nuclear weapons. If the mighty unconquerable Russia is
>the first to go, that might just serve as a useful object lesson to
>the lesser tinpot dictators.

Those lesser tinpot dictators don't have, between them, the
intelligence to even notice that it happened.

"Crisis actors" and all that.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 22:37:25 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 09:11:33 -0700, Paul S Person
><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>I continue to be annoyed at those who would claim that despite all the
>>>atrocities Putin & Co. have done on Ukrainian territory it's a
>>>monstrous crime for any Ukrainian counter-attack to land on Russia.
>>>
>>>"I can hit you all I like but you can't fight back" - oh really?
>>>
>>>At this point it wouldn't bother me at all if they did to Moscow what
>>>has been done to Kharkiv.
>>
>>No boots on the ground -- invading Holy Mother Russia will produce
>>endless support for the war.
>>
>>No deep attacks on cities -- a war crime is a war crime no matter who
>>does it.
>>
>>But non-ground attacks on logistics infrastructure and/or massing
>>troops should be allowed.
>>
>Our local newspaper had a picture of a high school girl who purchased
>her grad dress (which she was wearing in the cover photo) two days
>before the invasion. In the picture of her in her dress in front of
>the school it was clear the school was burnt out rubble.
>
>From the form of the rubble it looked pretty much like a North
>American high school so one wonders how the heck the Russians could
>have confused it with something other than it was. To me it was clear
>they DID know and didn't give a damn.
>
>While I understand what you mean about likely Russian response to
>ground attacks on Russian soil, I would certainly shed no tears over
>damage equal to what they've inflicted so far. Even if the shooting
>stopped tomorrow it would have set Ukraine back 20 years and I for one
>am convinced that material damage to their infrastructure matters more
>in Moscow than actual gain of territory.

Every round the Ukrainians used to inflict harm on the Russian
civilian population would be /one round less/ they could use on the
Russian troops or installations. It would be a waste of ammunition
that could be put to better use.

The sanctions are intended to put pressure on the Russian civilian
population. And the withdrawal of American companies is also doing so.
McDonald's (IIRC) is physically removing its arches and other emblems,
while retaining its copyright/trademark rights (so nobody else can use
them).

OK, McDonald's isn't that vital, but the /approach/ is first cousin to
"scorched earth".

And, IIRC, NYC had anti-draft riots in about 1963, when conscription
went into effect in the North. Not demonstrations -- riots.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 09:12:43 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>OK, McDonald's isn't that vital, but the /approach/ is first cousin to
>"scorched earth".
>
>And, IIRC, NYC had anti-draft riots in about 1963, when conscription
>went into effect in the North. Not demonstrations -- riots.

Two points:
(1) if losing McDonalds is your idea of 'scorched earth' we understand
the term differently :)

(2) Do you mean 1863 rather than 1963? 1963 is a bit early for Vietnam
related protests while 100 years earlier would have been the peak of
the Civil War where there were definitely draft riots (not to mention
some rather costly battles)

On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 09:00:23 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 09:58:43 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"
><michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 12/06/2022 00.41, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 22:00:14 -0400, J. Clarke
>>> <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> So you're saying that Canadians can't fight was well as Afghanis?
>>>
>>> I dunno - our guys seemed to manage in Afghanistan just fine for 14
>>> years until Biden decided to cut and run
>>
>>Is this the latest line from The Ministry of Truth?
>>
>>The surrender was negotiated in 2020, before Biden was elected:
>><https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-51692546>
>
>He can't admit /that/.
>
>It would be blaming Trump.

Why would a Canadian have a problem dumping on Trump? (Though in
fairness I prefer to dump on Justin Trudeau who is far far worse than
Trump ever was - and that's saying something! Biden's got his issues
but has a long way to go to overtake Trudeau) And yes you can
reasonably assume I meant the Canadian forces when I said "our guys"
above.

(Admittedly the overseas deployment was rather bigger in 1939-45 than
2001-2014)

On 6/12/2022 9:13 AM, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 12:11:03 AM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> On 6/11/2022 8:59 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 23:43:01 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>>> <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/10/2022 9:44 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 21:29:02 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 12:27:37 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 15:40:55 -0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
>>>>>>> Nicoll) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For reasons that escape me, our national
>>>>>>>> policy seems to be hopeful optimism about US intentions, rather than
>>>>>>>> the more prudent option of acquiring enough nuclear weapons to resurface
>>>>>>>> the planet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What, you expect the US to invade Canada?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, I suppose that's _possible_ if much of the U.S. becomes uninhabitable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At least, we're likely to have a refugee problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, I think that James Nicoll's "prudent option" is a good idea for
>>>>>> Canada even if the United States would never think about doing such
>>>>>> a terrible thing as invading Canada. Because given the chance of a new
>>>>>> Republican President, and other world events, the possibility of the United
>>>>>> States not lifting a finger when, say, Russia invades Canada does not seem
>>>>>> to me to be _completely_ far-fetched.
>>>>>
>>>>> What does Canada have that Russia _wants_?
>>>>
>>>> The Alberta oil patch.
>>>
>>> Right now Russia is having trouble finding customers for the oil it
>>> already produces. Why would it want more?
>> Russia is selling everything they produce. The Indians are buying the
>> spare barrels for 65 cents on the dollar. The Indians are using
>> lightering from Russian tankers to Indian tankers at the international
>> water line. Then the Indians refine the crude into gasoline, diesel,
>> kerosene, and jp4/8. Then they sell it to the USA and Europe as refined
>> products.
>
> Do you have a link for that? Russia can't use its Black Sea ports, the Baltic
> ports can't handle large tankers, and there's insufficient pipeline connectivity
> to Murmansk and Vladivostok.
>
> Where is this lightering talking place?
>
> Pt

Here is the article that I read originally.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/06/08/india-is-buying-up-cheap-sanctioned-russian-oil-and-selling-it-to-the-u-s-and-e-u-at-huge-profits/

Here is another article.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/05/11/russia-oil-gas-china-india-ukraine/

Lynn

On 6/12/2022 9:13 AM, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 12:11:03 AM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> On 6/11/2022 8:59 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 23:43:01 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>>> <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/10/2022 9:44 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 21:29:02 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 12:27:37 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 15:40:55 -0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
>>>>>>> Nicoll) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For reasons that escape me, our national
>>>>>>>> policy seems to be hopeful optimism about US intentions, rather than
>>>>>>>> the more prudent option of acquiring enough nuclear weapons to resurface
>>>>>>>> the planet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What, you expect the US to invade Canada?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, I suppose that's _possible_ if much of the U.S. becomes uninhabitable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At least, we're likely to have a refugee problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, I think that James Nicoll's "prudent option" is a good idea for
>>>>>> Canada even if the United States would never think about doing such
>>>>>> a terrible thing as invading Canada. Because given the chance of a new
>>>>>> Republican President, and other world events, the possibility of the United
>>>>>> States not lifting a finger when, say, Russia invades Canada does not seem
>>>>>> to me to be _completely_ far-fetched.
>>>>>
>>>>> What does Canada have that Russia _wants_?
>>>>
>>>> The Alberta oil patch.
>>>
>>> Right now Russia is having trouble finding customers for the oil it
>>> already produces. Why would it want more?
>> Russia is selling everything they produce. The Indians are buying the
>> spare barrels for 65 cents on the dollar. The Indians are using
>> lightering from Russian tankers to Indian tankers at the international
>> water line. Then the Indians refine the crude into gasoline, diesel,
>> kerosene, and jp4/8. Then they sell it to the USA and Europe as refined
>> products.
>
> Do you have a link for that? Russia can't use its Black Sea ports, the Baltic
> ports can't handle large tankers, and there's insufficient pipeline connectivity
> to Murmansk and Vladivostok.
>
> Where is this lightering talking place?
>
> Pt

Plus, you would be surprised how quickly Russia could add another
liquids pipeline or two if they want to.

Selling crude oil is an important part of their foreign money sales and
comes under chaos theory. Especially when they don't care about the
environment.

BTW, lightering happens everywhere. The Panamax crude oil tankers
require 65 feet of depth. Not many ports can handle that depth so they
will anchor the large tanker 20 miles offshore and send 3 or 4 small
tankers out to pump their oil into it. Happens off the Texas gulf coast
3 or 4 times a day right now.

Lynn

On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 5:43:34 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 6/12/2022 9:13 AM, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 12:11:03 AM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> >> On 6/11/2022 8:59 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 23:43:01 -0500, Lynn McGuire
> >>> <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 6/10/2022 9:44 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 21:29:02 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 12:27:37 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 15:40:55 -0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
> >>>>>>> Nicoll) wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> For reasons that escape me, our national
> >>>>>>>> policy seems to be hopeful optimism about US intentions, rather than
> >>>>>>>> the more prudent option of acquiring enough nuclear weapons to resurface
> >>>>>>>> the planet.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> What, you expect the US to invade Canada?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Well, I suppose that's _possible_ if much of the U.S. becomes uninhabitable.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> At least, we're likely to have a refugee problem.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> However, I think that James Nicoll's "prudent option" is a good idea for
> >>>>>> Canada even if the United States would never think about doing such
> >>>>>> a terrible thing as invading Canada. Because given the chance of a new
> >>>>>> Republican President, and other world events, the possibility of the United
> >>>>>> States not lifting a finger when, say, Russia invades Canada does not seem
> >>>>>> to me to be _completely_ far-fetched.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What does Canada have that Russia _wants_?
> >>>>
> >>>> The Alberta oil patch.
> >>>
> >>> Right now Russia is having trouble finding customers for the oil it
> >>> already produces. Why would it want more?
> >> Russia is selling everything they produce. The Indians are buying the
> >> spare barrels for 65 cents on the dollar. The Indians are using
> >> lightering from Russian tankers to Indian tankers at the international
> >> water line. Then the Indians refine the crude into gasoline, diesel,
> >> kerosene, and jp4/8. Then they sell it to the USA and Europe as refined
> >> products.
> >
> > Do you have a link for that? Russia can't use its Black Sea ports, the Baltic
> > ports can't handle large tankers, and there's insufficient pipeline connectivity
> > to Murmansk and Vladivostok.
> >
> > Where is this lightering talking place?
> >
> > Pt
> Here is the article that I read originally.
>
> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/06/08/india-is-buying-up-cheap-sanctioned-russian-oil-and-selling-it-to-the-u-s-and-e-u-at-huge-profits/
>
> Here is another article.
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/05/11/russia-oil-gas-china-india-ukraine/

Interesting.

The EU and UK have just introduced bans on insuring Russian ships, and Russian cargos. This is
expected to severely impact Russian exports.

https://www.reedsmith.com/en/perspectives/2022/06/impact-of-eu-and-uk-ban-on-russian-oil-and-insurance

In the longer run, the Russian oil industry is looking at disaster, for two reasons.

First, The west no longer supplies oil field services, and as things break, spare parts and
expertise aren't available.

Second, as exports fall, storage and pipelines fill up. I'm sure that Lynn is aware that a shut down
well is difficult or impossible to restore.

Pt

On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 09:00:23 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 09:58:43 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"
><michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 12/06/2022 00.41, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 22:00:14 -0400, J. Clarke
>>> <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> So you're saying that Canadians can't fight was well as Afghanis?
>>>
>>> I dunno - our guys seemed to manage in Afghanistan just fine for 14
>>> years until Biden decided to cut and run
>>
>>Is this the latest line from The Ministry of Truth?
>>
>>The surrender was negotiated in 2020, before Biden was elected:
>><https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-51692546>
>
>He can't admit /that/.
>
>It would be blaming Trump.

"Surrender" implies a declaration of war. Trump agreed to a
withdrawal. Biden could have easily said "nope, sorry, that was with
the other guy". But he didn't.

On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 09:01:24 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 22:00:14 -0400, J. Clarke
><jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 00:09:10 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>><jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 8:44:19 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>>> What does Canada have that Russia _wants_?
>>>
>>>Well, we have the capacity to grow a significant amount
>>>of food. Also, we have a lot of nickel, which is a strategically
>>>useful metal.
>>>
>>>But I think that's really the wrong question. Canada has
>>>people in it, and Putin won't be happy until he has enslaved
>>>every last human being on Earth. Although he may have
>>>to settle for enslaving those that Xi Jinping hasn't taken.
>>
>>So you're saying that Canadians can't fight was well as Afghanis?
>
>The Afghanis had Western support.
>
>By the time Putin gets to Canada, there won't be a West any more.

So why would he start in Canada?

On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 09:02:51 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 22:01:50 -0400, J. Clarke
><jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 09:02:12 -0700, Paul S Person
>><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 22:46:33 -0400, J. Clarke
>>><jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 09:21:18 -0700, Paul S Person
>>>><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 18:41:50 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
>>>>><petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 6:18:09 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 14:41:44 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>>>>>>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >On Tuesday, 7 June 2022 at 19:59:57 UTC+1, Kevrob wrote:
>>>>>>> >> On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 12:52:24 PM UTC-4, Robert Woodward wrote:
>>>>>>> >> > In article <b7vu9hl01tjoftga0...@4ax.com>,
>>>>>>> >> > Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>> >> > > On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 08:42:16 -0700, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> >> > >
>>>>>>> >> > > >On 2022-06-06 1:04 a.m., Charles Packer wrote:
>>>>>>> >> > > >> On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 03:09:24 -0700, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>>>> >> > > >>
>>>>>>> >> > > >>> This news article
>>>>>>> >> > > >>>
>>>>>>> >> > > >>> https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article262129007.html
>>>>>>> >> > > >>>
>>>>>>> >> > > >>> shows why it was indeed extremely serious, and yet it was possible for
>>>>>>> >> > > >>> some people not to perceive this fact.
>>>>>>> >> > > >>>
>>>>>>> >> > > >>> John Savard
>>>>>>> >> > > >>
>>>>>>> >> > > >> It was quite possible to perceive that the pandemic was less
>>>>>>> >> > > >> serious than the news media made it out to be. People were dying
>>>>>>> >> > > >> of other stuff too, as they usually do. The key factor in
>>>>>>> >> > > >> perception is the excess death rate of one's own social circle.
>>>>>>> >> > > >
>>>>>>> >> > > >
>>>>>>> >> > > >"People were dying of other stuff too, as they usually do."
>>>>>>> >> > > >
>>>>>>> >> > > >Seriously?
>>>>>>> >> > >
>>>>>>> >> > > If I understand what I have been reading, some poll found that 40% (of
>>>>>>> >> > > Republicans or Texans or whatever) believe that /kids being shot in
>>>>>>> >> > > school/ is something we will just have to get used to to protect their
>>>>>>> >> > > gun rights.
>>>>>>> >> > >
>>>>>>> >> > > So some people are willing to tolerate all sorts of "other stuff" as
>>>>>>> >> > > perfectly normal.
>>>>>>> >> > After all, they are willing to tolerate much greater numbers of
>>>>>>> >> > African-American males being shot.
>>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>>> >> In the US:
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> Most white victims are shot by whites.
>>>>>>> >> Most black victims are shot by blacks.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> [quote]
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> Between 1980-2008, the U.S. Department of Justice found that 84% of white victims were
>>>>>>> >> killed by white offenders and 93% of Black victims were killed by Black offenders.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> In 2018, the Federal Bureau of Investigation reported that 81% of white victims were killed
>>>>>>> >> by white offenders, and 89% of Black victims were killed by Black offenders.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> In 2017, the FBI reported almost identical figures — 80% of white victims were killed by
>>>>>>> >> white offenders, and 88% of Black victims were killed by Black offenders.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> [/quote]
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/29/fact-check-meme-shows-incorrect-homicide-stats-race/5739522002/
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >But most shootings by cops* aren't considered to
>>>>>>> >be homicides. *And the FBI.
>>>>>>> What _are_ the considered to be then?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hint--in US law, "homicide" != "unlawful killing".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Mostly "legitimate self defense".
>>>>>
>>>>>Because they were "in fear for their lives" for no good reason in far
>>>>>too many cases.
>>>>>
>>>>>Note: I have long held that anyone stupid enough to actual /fire a
>>>>>gun/ at a policeman deserves whatever they get. Some self-defense
>>>>>claims are legitimate.
>>>>
>>>>OTOH, there have been cases where it would have done my heart good to
>>>>have the police find that their victim was barricaded with a Vulcan.
>>>
>>>A 3" mortar round, aimed properly, would take care of /that/ problem
>>>right quickly.
>>>
>>>Or maybe a LAW rocket ... depending on what the sucker is barricaded
>>>with.
>>
>>Fat lot of good either of those do the cops who first come through the
>>door.
>
>But they /do/ solve the problem for all the others.
>
>Well, provided they have enough sense to pull back and fight a
>military weapon with another military weapon instead of pop-guns.

They're going to have to evacuate the neighborhood out to a distance
of more than half a mile, being shot to pieces the whole time.

He's going to take a lot of cops with him.

On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 09:04:01 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 22:03:23 -0400, J. Clarke
><jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 00:05:27 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>><jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 12:02:53 PM UTC-6, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>>
>>>> I continue to be annoyed at those who would claim that despite all the
>>>> atrocities Putin & Co. have done on Ukrainian territory it's a
>>>> monstrous crime for any Ukrainian counter-attack to land on Russia.
>>>>
>>>> "I can hit you all I like but you can't fight back" - oh really?
>>>>
>>>> At this point it wouldn't bother me at all if they did to Moscow what
>>>> has been done to Kharkiv.
>>>
>>>Oh, it wouldn't bother me in a _moral_ sense. After committing aggression,
>>>Russia should be made to surrender unconditionally, and if that means it
>>>has to be as devastated as Germany after World War II, that in itself is no
>>>problem.
>>>
>>>However, what Hitler didn't have that Putin does have is *nukes*.
>>>
>>>Which means that if a Ukrainian attack hits Russia *while we are giving
>>>aid to Ukraine* bad things could happen to US. So Ukraine needs to
>>>only defend itself within its own territory to keep us giving aid to it; if
>>>they attacked Russian territory, we would have to disconnect from
>>>Ukraine - and doing so immediately might not be enough.
>>>
>>>There is a vast difference between "this is wicked" and "this is not
>>>wise in a practical sense"; it's not fair to assume that other people
>>>have those things confused when you criticize them for recommending
>>>against certain actions.
>>>
>>>If you can figure out how to take Putin's dangerous toys away, I'll
>>>be fine with Russia being devastated.
>>
>>Sooner or later somebody is going to have to take the hit to disarm a
>>loon who has nuclear weapons. If the mighty unconquerable Russia is
>>the first to go, that might just serve as a useful object lesson to
>>the lesser tinpot dictators.
>
>Those lesser tinpot dictators don't have, between them, the
>intelligence to even notice that it happened.
>
>"Crisis actors" and all that.

If they're that stupid then why didn't some other slightly-less-stupid
tinpot dictator wannabee beat them to it?

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 22:37:25 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 09:11:33 -0700, Paul S Person
><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>I continue to be annoyed at those who would claim that despite all the
>>>atrocities Putin & Co. have done on Ukrainian territory it's a
>>>monstrous crime for any Ukrainian counter-attack to land on Russia.
>>>
>>>"I can hit you all I like but you can't fight back" - oh really?
>>>
>>>At this point it wouldn't bother me at all if they did to Moscow what
>>>has been done to Kharkiv.
>>
>>No boots on the ground -- invading Holy Mother Russia will produce
>>endless support for the war.
>>
>>No deep attacks on cities -- a war crime is a war crime no matter who
>>does it.
>>
>>But non-ground attacks on logistics infrastructure and/or massing
>>troops should be allowed.
>>
>Our local newspaper had a picture of a high school girl who purchased
>her grad dress (which she was wearing in the cover photo) two days
>before the invasion. In the picture of her in her dress in front of
>the school it was clear the school was burnt out rubble.
>
>From the form of the rubble it looked pretty much like a North
>American high school so one wonders how the heck the Russians could
>have confused it with something other than it was. To me it was clear
>they DID know and didn't give a damn.
>
>While I understand what you mean about likely Russian response to
>ground attacks on Russian soil, I would certainly shed no tears over
>damage equal to what they've inflicted so far. Even if the shooting
>stopped tomorrow it would have set Ukraine back 20 years and I for one
>am convinced that material damage to their infrastructure matters more
>in Moscow than actual gain of territory.

You're assuming that the Russians (a) could actually see it from
wherever they were shooting, which is not a valid assumption for
artillery, and (b) were actually hitting whatever they were aiming at,
which is not a valid assumption for storm trooper wannabees of any
stripe.

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 22:45:03 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 22:51:49 -0400, J. Clarke
><jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>You are trolling - it is well known that the vast majority of black
>>>victims of gun violence in the US are shot by other blacks.
>>>
>>>But then one is too many right?
>>
>>Doesn't matter who is shooting them, the rate at which they are dying
>>is much higher than for white people.
>
>(>> = me)
>
>My point is simply that BLM and their fanbois seem to not give a damn
>(or if they do only a little one) when the shooter is a black person -
>which it is a LOT of the time. (In fact a large majority of the time)
>
>I say one dead shooting victim is too many(of any color but especially
>black / brown which is what we're discussing right now) and ask what
>they are willing to do about it?

There are few if any black cops in the US. The color of nearly all
cops in the US is "blue" no matter how much or how little light they
might reflect.

On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 8:57:26 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 22:37:25 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca>
> wrote:
> >On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 09:11:33 -0700, Paul S Person
> ><pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >>>I continue to be annoyed at those who would claim that despite all the
> >>>atrocities Putin & Co. have done on Ukrainian territory it's a
> >>>monstrous crime for any Ukrainian counter-attack to land on Russia.
> >>>
> >>>"I can hit you all I like but you can't fight back" - oh really?
> >>>
> >>>At this point it wouldn't bother me at all if they did to Moscow what
> >>>has been done to Kharkiv.
> >>
> >>No boots on the ground -- invading Holy Mother Russia will produce
> >>endless support for the war.
> >>
> >>No deep attacks on cities -- a war crime is a war crime no matter who
> >>does it.
> >>
> >>But non-ground attacks on logistics infrastructure and/or massing
> >>troops should be allowed.
> >>
> >Our local newspaper had a picture of a high school girl who purchased
> >her grad dress (which she was wearing in the cover photo) two days
> >before the invasion. In the picture of her in her dress in front of
> >the school it was clear the school was burnt out rubble.
> >
> >From the form of the rubble it looked pretty much like a North
> >American high school so one wonders how the heck the Russians could
> >have confused it with something other than it was. To me it was clear
> >they DID know and didn't give a damn.
> >
> >While I understand what you mean about likely Russian response to
> >ground attacks on Russian soil, I would certainly shed no tears over
> >damage equal to what they've inflicted so far. Even if the shooting
> >stopped tomorrow it would have set Ukraine back 20 years and I for one
> >am convinced that material damage to their infrastructure matters more
> >in Moscow than actual gain of territory.
> You're assuming that the Russians (a) could actually see it from
> wherever they were shooting, which is not a valid assumption for
> artillery, and (b) were actually hitting whatever they were aiming at,
> which is not a valid assumption for storm trooper wannabees of any
> stripe.

Counter-battery fire is a well established technique.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-battery_fire

So are precision guided shells.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannon-launched_guided_projectile

Pt

On 6/12/2022 6:50 PM, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 5:43:34 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> On 6/12/2022 9:13 AM, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 12:11:03 AM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>> On 6/11/2022 8:59 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 23:43:01 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>>>>> <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/10/2022 9:44 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 21:29:02 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 12:27:37 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 15:40:55 -0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
>>>>>>>>> Nicoll) wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For reasons that escape me, our national
>>>>>>>>>> policy seems to be hopeful optimism about US intentions, rather than
>>>>>>>>>> the more prudent option of acquiring enough nuclear weapons to resurface
>>>>>>>>>> the planet.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What, you expect the US to invade Canada?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, I suppose that's _possible_ if much of the U.S. becomes uninhabitable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At least, we're likely to have a refugee problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However, I think that James Nicoll's "prudent option" is a good idea for
>>>>>>>> Canada even if the United States would never think about doing such
>>>>>>>> a terrible thing as invading Canada. Because given the chance of a new
>>>>>>>> Republican President, and other world events, the possibility of the United
>>>>>>>> States not lifting a finger when, say, Russia invades Canada does not seem
>>>>>>>> to me to be _completely_ far-fetched.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What does Canada have that Russia _wants_?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Alberta oil patch.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right now Russia is having trouble finding customers for the oil it
>>>>> already produces. Why would it want more?
>>>> Russia is selling everything they produce. The Indians are buying the
>>>> spare barrels for 65 cents on the dollar. The Indians are using
>>>> lightering from Russian tankers to Indian tankers at the international
>>>> water line. Then the Indians refine the crude into gasoline, diesel,
>>>> kerosene, and jp4/8. Then they sell it to the USA and Europe as refined
>>>> products.
>>>
>>> Do you have a link for that? Russia can't use its Black Sea ports, the Baltic
>>> ports can't handle large tankers, and there's insufficient pipeline connectivity
>>> to Murmansk and Vladivostok.
>>>
>>> Where is this lightering talking place?
>>>
>>> Pt
>> Here is the article that I read originally.
>>
>> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/06/08/india-is-buying-up-cheap-sanctioned-russian-oil-and-selling-it-to-the-u-s-and-e-u-at-huge-profits/
>>
>> Here is another article.
>>
>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/05/11/russia-oil-gas-china-india-ukraine/
>
> Interesting.
>
> The EU and UK have just introduced bans on insuring Russian ships, and Russian cargos. This is
> expected to severely impact Russian exports.
>
> https://www.reedsmith.com/en/perspectives/2022/06/impact-of-eu-and-uk-ban-on-russian-oil-and-insurance
>
> In the longer run, the Russian oil industry is looking at disaster, for two reasons.
>
> First, The west no longer supplies oil field services, and as things break, spare parts and
> expertise aren't available.
>
> Second, as exports fall, storage and pipelines fill up. I'm sure that Lynn is aware that a shut down
> well is difficult or impossible to restore.
>
> Pt

BP and Exxon gone are the worst. They brought first rate technology to
the game and did not put iron pipe in Siberian wells that would shatter
in the extreme cold.

You can close a light oil well for years. But, Siberian oil is heavy
and sour. Still three to six months closure is not a well killer.

Lynn

On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 8:57:26 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 22:37:25 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca>
> wrote:
> >On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 09:11:33 -0700, Paul S Person
> ><pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >>>I continue to be annoyed at those who would claim that despite all the
> >>>atrocities Putin & Co. have done on Ukrainian territory it's a
> >>>monstrous crime for any Ukrainian counter-attack to land on Russia.
> >>>
> >>>"I can hit you all I like but you can't fight back" - oh really?
> >>>
> >>>At this point it wouldn't bother me at all if they did to Moscow what
> >>>has been done to Kharkiv.
> >>
> >>No boots on the ground -- invading Holy Mother Russia will produce
> >>endless support for the war.
> >>
> >>No deep attacks on cities -- a war crime is a war crime no matter who
> >>does it.
> >>
> >>But non-ground attacks on logistics infrastructure and/or massing
> >>troops should be allowed.
> >>
> >Our local newspaper had a picture of a high school girl who purchased
> >her grad dress (which she was wearing in the cover photo) two days
> >before the invasion. In the picture of her in her dress in front of
> >the school it was clear the school was burnt out rubble.
> >
> >From the form of the rubble it looked pretty much like a North
> >American high school so one wonders how the heck the Russians could
> >have confused it with something other than it was. To me it was clear
> >they DID know and didn't give a damn.
> >
> >While I understand what you mean about likely Russian response to
> >ground attacks on Russian soil, I would certainly shed no tears over
> >damage equal to what they've inflicted so far. Even if the shooting
> >stopped tomorrow it would have set Ukraine back 20 years and I for one
> >am convinced that material damage to their infrastructure matters more
> >in Moscow than actual gain of territory.
> You're assuming that the Russians (a) could actually see it from
> wherever they were shooting, which is not a valid assumption for
> artillery, and (b) were actually hitting whatever they were aiming at,
> which is not a valid assumption for storm trooper wannabees of any
> stripe.

All of the shells fired by the Ukraine landed in the Ukraine. You would have to be pretty gullible to assume none of them hit any buildings.

On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 11:25:52 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 6/12/2022 6:50 PM, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 5:43:34 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> >> On 6/12/2022 9:13 AM, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 12:11:03 AM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> >>>> On 6/11/2022 8:59 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 23:43:01 -0500, Lynn McGuire
> >>>>> <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 6/10/2022 9:44 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 21:29:02 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 12:27:37 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 15:40:55 -0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
> >>>>>>>>> Nicoll) wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> For reasons that escape me, our national
> >>>>>>>>>> policy seems to be hopeful optimism about US intentions, rather than
> >>>>>>>>>> the more prudent option of acquiring enough nuclear weapons to resurface
> >>>>>>>>>> the planet.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> What, you expect the US to invade Canada?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Well, I suppose that's _possible_ if much of the U.S. becomes uninhabitable.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> At least, we're likely to have a refugee problem.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> However, I think that James Nicoll's "prudent option" is a good idea for
> >>>>>>>> Canada even if the United States would never think about doing such
> >>>>>>>> a terrible thing as invading Canada. Because given the chance of a new
> >>>>>>>> Republican President, and other world events, the possibility of the United
> >>>>>>>> States not lifting a finger when, say, Russia invades Canada does not seem
> >>>>>>>> to me to be _completely_ far-fetched.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> What does Canada have that Russia _wants_?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The Alberta oil patch.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Right now Russia is having trouble finding customers for the oil it
> >>>>> already produces. Why would it want more?
> >>>> Russia is selling everything they produce. The Indians are buying the
> >>>> spare barrels for 65 cents on the dollar. The Indians are using
> >>>> lightering from Russian tankers to Indian tankers at the international
> >>>> water line. Then the Indians refine the crude into gasoline, diesel,
> >>>> kerosene, and jp4/8. Then they sell it to the USA and Europe as refined
> >>>> products.
> >>>
> >>> Do you have a link for that? Russia can't use its Black Sea ports, the Baltic
> >>> ports can't handle large tankers, and there's insufficient pipeline connectivity
> >>> to Murmansk and Vladivostok.
> >>>
> >>> Where is this lightering talking place?
> >>>
> >>> Pt
> >> Here is the article that I read originally.
> >>
> >> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/06/08/india-is-buying-up-cheap-sanctioned-russian-oil-and-selling-it-to-the-u-s-and-e-u-at-huge-profits/
> >>
> >> Here is another article.
> >>
> >> https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/05/11/russia-oil-gas-china-india-ukraine/
> >
> > Interesting.
> >
> > The EU and UK have just introduced bans on insuring Russian ships, and Russian cargos. This is
> > expected to severely impact Russian exports.
> >
> > https://www.reedsmith.com/en/perspectives/2022/06/impact-of-eu-and-uk-ban-on-russian-oil-and-insurance
> >
> > In the longer run, the Russian oil industry is looking at disaster, for two reasons.
> >
> > First, The west no longer supplies oil field services, and as things break, spare parts and
> > expertise aren't available.
> >
> > Second, as exports fall, storage and pipelines fill up. I'm sure that Lynn is aware that a shut down
> > well is difficult or impossible to restore.
> >
> > Pt
> BP and Exxon gone are the worst. They brought first rate technology to
> the game and did not put iron pipe in Siberian wells that would shatter
> in the extreme cold.
>
> You can close a light oil well for years. But, Siberian oil is heavy
> and sour. Still three to six months closure is not a well killer.

I'm way out of my areas of expertise here, but a well drilled
through permafrost seems subject to the oil becoming solid.
This ain't Texas.

pt

On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 18:15:56 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 8:57:26 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 22:37:25 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca>
>> wrote:
>> >On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 09:11:33 -0700, Paul S Person
>> ><pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> >>>I continue to be annoyed at those who would claim that despite all the
>> >>>atrocities Putin & Co. have done on Ukrainian territory it's a
>> >>>monstrous crime for any Ukrainian counter-attack to land on Russia.
>> >>>
>> >>>"I can hit you all I like but you can't fight back" - oh really?
>> >>>
>> >>>At this point it wouldn't bother me at all if they did to Moscow what
>> >>>has been done to Kharkiv.
>> >>
>> >>No boots on the ground -- invading Holy Mother Russia will produce
>> >>endless support for the war.
>> >>
>> >>No deep attacks on cities -- a war crime is a war crime no matter who
>> >>does it.
>> >>
>> >>But non-ground attacks on logistics infrastructure and/or massing
>> >>troops should be allowed.
>> >>
>> >Our local newspaper had a picture of a high school girl who purchased
>> >her grad dress (which she was wearing in the cover photo) two days
>> >before the invasion. In the picture of her in her dress in front of
>> >the school it was clear the school was burnt out rubble.
>> >
>> >From the form of the rubble it looked pretty much like a North
>> >American high school so one wonders how the heck the Russians could
>> >have confused it with something other than it was. To me it was clear
>> >they DID know and didn't give a damn.
>> >
>> >While I understand what you mean about likely Russian response to
>> >ground attacks on Russian soil, I would certainly shed no tears over
>> >damage equal to what they've inflicted so far. Even if the shooting
>> >stopped tomorrow it would have set Ukraine back 20 years and I for one
>> >am convinced that material damage to their infrastructure matters more
>> >in Moscow than actual gain of territory.
>> You're assuming that the Russians (a) could actually see it from
>> wherever they were shooting, which is not a valid assumption for
>> artillery, and (b) were actually hitting whatever they were aiming at,
>> which is not a valid assumption for storm trooper wannabees of any
>> stripe.
>
>Counter-battery fire is a well established technique.
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-battery_fire

So you're saying there was artillery firing from the school?

>So are precision guided shells.
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannon-launched_guided_projectile

Contrary to popular belief, "precision guided munitions" are expensive
and used only for targets where extraordinary precision is actually
required. Most artillery shells and bombs are not precision guided.

On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 20:44:14 -0700 (PDT), John Halpenny
<j.halpenny@rogers.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 8:57:26 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 22:37:25 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca>
>> wrote:
>> >On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 09:11:33 -0700, Paul S Person
>> ><pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> >>>I continue to be annoyed at those who would claim that despite all the
>> >>>atrocities Putin & Co. have done on Ukrainian territory it's a
>> >>>monstrous crime for any Ukrainian counter-attack to land on Russia.
>> >>>
>> >>>"I can hit you all I like but you can't fight back" - oh really?
>> >>>
>> >>>At this point it wouldn't bother me at all if they did to Moscow what
>> >>>has been done to Kharkiv.
>> >>
>> >>No boots on the ground -- invading Holy Mother Russia will produce
>> >>endless support for the war.
>> >>
>> >>No deep attacks on cities -- a war crime is a war crime no matter who
>> >>does it.
>> >>
>> >>But non-ground attacks on logistics infrastructure and/or massing
>> >>troops should be allowed.
>> >>
>> >Our local newspaper had a picture of a high school girl who purchased
>> >her grad dress (which she was wearing in the cover photo) two days
>> >before the invasion. In the picture of her in her dress in front of
>> >the school it was clear the school was burnt out rubble.
>> >
>> >From the form of the rubble it looked pretty much like a North
>> >American high school so one wonders how the heck the Russians could
>> >have confused it with something other than it was. To me it was clear
>> >they DID know and didn't give a damn.
>> >
>> >While I understand what you mean about likely Russian response to
>> >ground attacks on Russian soil, I would certainly shed no tears over
>> >damage equal to what they've inflicted so far. Even if the shooting
>> >stopped tomorrow it would have set Ukraine back 20 years and I for one
>> >am convinced that material damage to their infrastructure matters more
>> >in Moscow than actual gain of territory.
>> You're assuming that the Russians (a) could actually see it from
>> wherever they were shooting, which is not a valid assumption for
>> artillery, and (b) were actually hitting whatever they were aiming at,
>> which is not a valid assumption for storm trooper wannabees of any
>> stripe.
>
>All of the shells fired by the Ukraine landed in the Ukraine. You would have to be pretty gullible to assume none of them hit any buildings.

So you're saying that Ukraine fired at their own school?

So how _does_ Putin's butt smell?

On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 22:25:45 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 6/12/2022 6:50 PM, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 5:43:34 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> On 6/12/2022 9:13 AM, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 12:11:03 AM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>>> On 6/11/2022 8:59 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 23:43:01 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>>>>>> <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/10/2022 9:44 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 21:29:02 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 12:27:37 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 15:40:55 -0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
>>>>>>>>>> Nicoll) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For reasons that escape me, our national
>>>>>>>>>>> policy seems to be hopeful optimism about US intentions, rather than
>>>>>>>>>>> the more prudent option of acquiring enough nuclear weapons to resurface
>>>>>>>>>>> the planet.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What, you expect the US to invade Canada?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, I suppose that's _possible_ if much of the U.S. becomes uninhabitable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> At least, we're likely to have a refugee problem.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> However, I think that James Nicoll's "prudent option" is a good idea for
>>>>>>>>> Canada even if the United States would never think about doing such
>>>>>>>>> a terrible thing as invading Canada. Because given the chance of a new
>>>>>>>>> Republican President, and other world events, the possibility of the United
>>>>>>>>> States not lifting a finger when, say, Russia invades Canada does not seem
>>>>>>>>> to me to be _completely_ far-fetched.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What does Canada have that Russia _wants_?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Alberta oil patch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right now Russia is having trouble finding customers for the oil it
>>>>>> already produces. Why would it want more?
>>>>> Russia is selling everything they produce. The Indians are buying the
>>>>> spare barrels for 65 cents on the dollar. The Indians are using
>>>>> lightering from Russian tankers to Indian tankers at the international
>>>>> water line. Then the Indians refine the crude into gasoline, diesel,
>>>>> kerosene, and jp4/8. Then they sell it to the USA and Europe as refined
>>>>> products.
>>>>
>>>> Do you have a link for that? Russia can't use its Black Sea ports, the Baltic
>>>> ports can't handle large tankers, and there's insufficient pipeline connectivity
>>>> to Murmansk and Vladivostok.
>>>>
>>>> Where is this lightering talking place?
>>>>
>>>> Pt
>>> Here is the article that I read originally.
>>>
>>> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/06/08/india-is-buying-up-cheap-sanctioned-russian-oil-and-selling-it-to-the-u-s-and-e-u-at-huge-profits/
>>>
>>> Here is another article.
>>>
>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/05/11/russia-oil-gas-china-india-ukraine/
>>
>> Interesting.
>>
>> The EU and UK have just introduced bans on insuring Russian ships, and Russian cargos. This is
>> expected to severely impact Russian exports.
>>
>> https://www.reedsmith.com/en/perspectives/2022/06/impact-of-eu-and-uk-ban-on-russian-oil-and-insurance
>>
>> In the longer run, the Russian oil industry is looking at disaster, for two reasons.
>>
>> First, The west no longer supplies oil field services, and as things break, spare parts and
>> expertise aren't available.
>>
>> Second, as exports fall, storage and pipelines fill up. I'm sure that Lynn is aware that a shut down
>> well is difficult or impossible to restore.
>>
>> Pt
>
>BP and Exxon gone are the worst. They brought first rate technology to
>the game and did not put iron pipe in Siberian wells that would shatter
>in the extreme cold.
>
>You can close a light oil well for years. But, Siberian oil is heavy
>and sour. Still three to six months closure is not a well killer.

So, we're more than half-way to any closed Siberian wells becoming ...
well, not easily reopened, apparently.

The sanctions are likely to last longer than the war, particularly if
Putin "wins" in the sense of forcing Ukrain to yield territory. Not
that I think he will.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 16:57:39 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 6/12/2022 9:13 AM, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 12:11:03 AM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> On 6/11/2022 8:59 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 23:43:01 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>>>> <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/10/2022 9:44 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 21:29:02 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 12:27:37 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 15:40:55 -0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
>>>>>>>> Nicoll) wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For reasons that escape me, our national
>>>>>>>>> policy seems to be hopeful optimism about US intentions, rather than
>>>>>>>>> the more prudent option of acquiring enough nuclear weapons to resurface
>>>>>>>>> the planet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What, you expect the US to invade Canada?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, I suppose that's _possible_ if much of the U.S. becomes uninhabitable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At least, we're likely to have a refugee problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, I think that James Nicoll's "prudent option" is a good idea for
>>>>>>> Canada even if the United States would never think about doing such
>>>>>>> a terrible thing as invading Canada. Because given the chance of a new
>>>>>>> Republican President, and other world events, the possibility of the United
>>>>>>> States not lifting a finger when, say, Russia invades Canada does not seem
>>>>>>> to me to be _completely_ far-fetched.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What does Canada have that Russia _wants_?
>>>>>
>>>>> The Alberta oil patch.
>>>>
>>>> Right now Russia is having trouble finding customers for the oil it
>>>> already produces. Why would it want more?
>>> Russia is selling everything they produce. The Indians are buying the
>>> spare barrels for 65 cents on the dollar. The Indians are using
>>> lightering from Russian tankers to Indian tankers at the international
>>> water line. Then the Indians refine the crude into gasoline, diesel,
>>> kerosene, and jp4/8. Then they sell it to the USA and Europe as refined
>>> products.
>>
>> Do you have a link for that? Russia can't use its Black Sea ports, the Baltic
>> ports can't handle large tankers, and there's insufficient pipeline connectivity
>> to Murmansk and Vladivostok.
>>
>> Where is this lightering talking place?
>>
>> Pt
>
>Plus, you would be surprised how quickly Russia could add another
>liquids pipeline or two if they want to.
>
>Selling crude oil is an important part of their foreign money sales and
>comes under chaos theory. Especially when they don't care about the
>environment.

The British once suppressed the slave trade by using their domination
of the seas.

And sanctions can be enforced. Eliminating their "foreign money
sales".

>BTW, lightering happens everywhere. The Panamax crude oil tankers
>require 65 feet of depth. Not many ports can handle that depth so they
>will anchor the large tanker 20 miles offshore and send 3 or 4 small
>tankers out to pump their oil into it. Happens off the Texas gulf coast
>3 or 4 times a day right now.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 20:55:37 -0400, J. Clarke
<jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 09:04:01 -0700, Paul S Person
><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 22:03:23 -0400, J. Clarke
>><jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 00:05:27 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>><jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 12:02:53 PM UTC-6, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I continue to be annoyed at those who would claim that despite all the
>>>>> atrocities Putin & Co. have done on Ukrainian territory it's a
>>>>> monstrous crime for any Ukrainian counter-attack to land on Russia.
>>>>>
>>>>> "I can hit you all I like but you can't fight back" - oh really?
>>>>>
>>>>> At this point it wouldn't bother me at all if they did to Moscow what
>>>>> has been done to Kharkiv.
>>>>
>>>>Oh, it wouldn't bother me in a _moral_ sense. After committing aggression,
>>>>Russia should be made to surrender unconditionally, and if that means it
>>>>has to be as devastated as Germany after World War II, that in itself is no
>>>>problem.
>>>>
>>>>However, what Hitler didn't have that Putin does have is *nukes*.
>>>>
>>>>Which means that if a Ukrainian attack hits Russia *while we are giving
>>>>aid to Ukraine* bad things could happen to US. So Ukraine needs to
>>>>only defend itself within its own territory to keep us giving aid to it; if
>>>>they attacked Russian territory, we would have to disconnect from
>>>>Ukraine - and doing so immediately might not be enough.
>>>>
>>>>There is a vast difference between "this is wicked" and "this is not
>>>>wise in a practical sense"; it's not fair to assume that other people
>>>>have those things confused when you criticize them for recommending
>>>>against certain actions.
>>>>
>>>>If you can figure out how to take Putin's dangerous toys away, I'll
>>>>be fine with Russia being devastated.
>>>
>>>Sooner or later somebody is going to have to take the hit to disarm a
>>>loon who has nuclear weapons. If the mighty unconquerable Russia is
>>>the first to go, that might just serve as a useful object lesson to
>>>the lesser tinpot dictators.
>>
>>Those lesser tinpot dictators don't have, between them, the
>>intelligence to even notice that it happened.
>>
>>"Crisis actors" and all that.
>
>If they're that stupid then why didn't some other slightly-less-stupid
>tinpot dictator wannabee beat them to it?

I said they were unintelligent.

I didn't say they weren't /vicious/.

The wannabees are removed as soon as they stick their heads out of
whatever hole they are hiding in.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 11:01:23 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 09:12:43 -0700, Paul S Person
><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>>OK, McDonald's isn't that vital, but the /approach/ is first cousin to
>>"scorched earth".
>>
>>And, IIRC, NYC had anti-draft riots in about 1963, when conscription
>>went into effect in the North. Not demonstrations -- riots.
>
>Two points:
>(1) if losing McDonalds is your idea of 'scorched earth' we understand
>the term differently :)

If /all/ American businesses do this, it will have a similar effect.

And I said "first cousin to", not that is was the same thing.

>(2) Do you mean 1863 rather than 1963? 1963 is a bit early for Vietnam
>related protests while 100 years earlier would have been the peak of
>the Civil War where there were definitely draft riots (not to mention
>some rather costly battles)

Yes, my bad. 1863 was definitely intended.

Note that I have seen claims (the safest word, I think) that Putin is
turning to mandatory conscription. As if there were any other kind.
Whether this leads to riots in Russia, of course, remains to be seen.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 10:12:49 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:

> And, IIRC, NYC had anti-draft riots in about 1963, when conscription
> went into effect in the North. Not demonstrations -- riots.

Since there is no reason for the North to be treated differently from
the South in connection with the draft for the Vietnam War, I suspect
you had a typo, and meant to type 1863.

John Savard

On Monday, June 13, 2022 at 7:34:26 AM UTC-6, pete...@gmail.com wrote:

> I'm way out of my areas of expertise here, but a well drilled
> through permafrost seems subject to the oil becoming solid.
> This ain't Texas.

I'm no expert either, but from what I've heard about permafrost is that
you would turn it into muskeg first before trying to put a drill bit through
it.

Just saves wear and tear.

Even if Martian rovers can manage.

But if the oil becomes solid, then restart the well by pumping down boiling water.
Then pump out the oil that thaws, and pump in some more boiling water.
Repeat. The well isn't lost forever.

John Savard