On 2022-06-11 22:41, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 22:00:14 -0400, J. Clarke
> <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> 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?
>
> I dunno - our guys seemed to manage in Afghanistan just fine for 14
> years until Biden decided to cut and run

You're claiming BIDEN decided?

On Monday, June 13, 2022 at 12:07:30 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> 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.

I haven't matched it against oil field locations, but here are places in Siberia
that the soil or rock is below freezing down to almost 5000 feet.

> 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.

This is in the category of "Things John knows nothing about, but will make a wild guess
and claim its the answer." Do you have a citation for reviving a frozen well this way?

Also, Halliburton and other Western oil services firms have left Russia in the last
3 months. The Russians have much less experience dealing with this sort of thing
themselves, having outsourced it for many years.

pt

On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 10:32:04 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

> 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?

To be fair, it is hard to tell whose artillery fire took out a random
building in a fluid situation like this. Was the school close to a
Russian advance? But regardless of whose shell did the damage it is the
Russians fault for invading in the first place.

"pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> writes:
>On Monday, June 13, 2022 at 12:07:30 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>> 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.
>
>I haven't matched it against oil field locations, but here are places in Siberia
>that the soil or rock is below freezing down to almost 5000 feet.
>
>> 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.
>
>This is in the category of "Things John knows nothing about, but will make a wild guess
>and claim its the answer." Do you have a citation for reviving a frozen well this way?

Not to mention that the energy required to boil the water may be more than the
energy in the subsequently produced Oil (see: EROEI).

When it requires more energy to extract the oil than you get from the extracted
oil, even John should realize that isn't economically viable.

Canadian Oil Sands are already below 5:1 (the good-old-days of the gusher
were in the 100:1 range, for comparision).

On Monday, June 13, 2022 at 1:35:09 PM UTC-6, Scott Lurndal wrote:

> Not to mention that the energy required to boil the water may be more than the
> energy in the subsequently produced Oil (see: EROEI).

The idea was that you do this for a while, until the frozen oil is melted, and then
the well, with lots and lots of oil still in it, goes back to producing normally. Of course
unfreezing the oil isn't a profitable process _in itself_ while you're doing it.

John Savard

On Monday, June 13, 2022 at 12:43:01 PM UTC-6, pete...@gmail.com wrote:

> This is in the category of "Things John knows nothing about, but will make a wild guess
> and claim its the answer." Do you have a citation for reviving a frozen well this way?

I know nothing about the oil patch, and how they actually do things there,
but I *do* know basic physics.

Naturally, to develop a procedure for reviving unused oil wells in permafrost, I
would have to measure things like how much heat is lost to the surroundings
during the operations involved. So you might have to put an insulated tube down,
for example.

John Savard

On Monday, June 13, 2022 at 4:38:14 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Monday, June 13, 2022 at 12:43:01 PM UTC-6, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > This is in the category of "Things John knows nothing about, but will make a wild guess
> > and claim its the answer." Do you have a citation for reviving a frozen well this way?
> I know nothing about the oil patch, and how they actually do things there,
> but I *do* know basic physics.

I'll take Lynn's opinions over yours.

Did you take paraffin crystal formation into account? Solids settling? Bacterial growth
(creating H2S and causing corrosion)? Hydrate formation?

There are people who actually do this. You'd be better off looking at real world experiences,
than trying to guess from first principles. Things are more complex than you imagine.

Example, though its not dealing with permafrost:
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-05-28/shutting-down-oil-wells-a-risky-and-expensive-option/

pt

On 6/13/2022 10:42 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
....
>>>>> 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.

What if Russia sends out a submarine with each oil tanker ? Torpedoes
really suck, ask any destroyer or cruiser captain.

Russia and China are already using a private exchange for Russian oil.
Are you going to tell China that they cannot buy Russian oil anymore ?
Are you going to tell India that they cannot buy Russian oil anymore ?
Please let me know when you do so, I want to watch from a very safe
distance.

Lynn

On 6/13/2022 10:40 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> 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.

BTW, for the wells, you can choke them instead of closing them off.
They can flow 1/2 or 1/4 the full flow amount. That is actually a good
thing for crude oil wells, it allows the reservoir pressure to increase
so the GOR (gas/oil ratio) decreases, more oil.

Lynn

On 6/13/2022 1:42 PM, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, June 13, 2022 at 12:07:30 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I haven't matched it against oil field locations, but here are places in Siberia
> that the soil or rock is below freezing down to almost 5000 feet.
>
>> 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.
>
> This is in the category of "Things John knows nothing about, but will make a wild guess
> and claim its the answer." Do you have a citation for reviving a frozen well this way?
>
> Also, Halliburton and other Western oil services firms have left Russia in the last
> 3 months. The Russians have much less experience dealing with this sort of thing
> themselves, having outsourced it for many years.
>
> pt

5,000 ft would be a very shallow oil well. Most oil wells start at
8,000 ft. I believe that the deepest oil wells are at 32,000 ft.

Most shallow reservoirs (8,000+ ft) produce at 130 F or so. Deep wells
can be 300 F. Ultradeep wells can be 650 F.

If the well solidifies then just redrill it. Getting a plug out using
hot circulating fluid is not going to work well. I doubt that they
would use water as the circulating fluid, diesel would work much better.

Lynn

On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 09:12:50 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>On 2022-06-11 22:41, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 22:00:14 -0400, J. Clarke
>> <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> 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?
>>
>> I dunno - our guys seemed to manage in Afghanistan just fine for 14
>> years until Biden decided to cut and run
>
>You're claiming BIDEN decided?

No - I'm saying he was the one at the controls when the time actually
came and could easily have disavowed his predecessor's decision
(particularly being from the other party) had he wanted to badly
enough. He didn't.

On Monday, June 13, 2022 at 5:55:44 PM UTC-6, Lynn McGuire wrote:

> Russia and China are already using a private exchange for Russian oil.

And, since they share a common border, there are actually pipelines
connecting Russia and China. And more are being built.

John Savard

On Monday, June 13, 2022 at 3:18:14 PM UTC-6, pete...@gmail.com wrote:

> I'll take Lynn's opinions over yours.

I didn't think it was Lynn McGuire I was contradicting. He said it would
take a lot of time, given that they don't have U.S. expertise available
any longer. But it was someone else who claimed the wells would be
gone forever.

Russia still has scientists and engineers within its borders. Although
one admits one would have expected the best ones to be smart enough
to get out, but life is not always so simple.

John Savard

On Saturday, June 11, 2022 at 8:03:28 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:

> 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.

I doubt there are going to be any volunteers for that among the
existing countries with nuclear weapons. People and countries
just don't work that way; each nation of people thinks itself to be
the most important representatives of humanity, the survival of
whom alone gives the world its meaning.

So one must look for a solution among the _available_ alternatives.

One possibility is that the United States resume what science-fiction
author Jerry Pournelle got Ronald Reagan excited about. Although
this is why Putin is showing such an interest in hypersonic cruise
missiles.

Certainly, I *hope* that perhaps an asteroid might oblige us by
dropping on Russia and keeping it too busy to invade anyone, but
that isn't a real solution either, as it's beyond our control.

John Savard

On Monday, June 13, 2022 at 6:35:27 PM UTC-6, The Horny Goat wrote:

> No - I'm saying he was the one at the controls when the time actually
> came and could easily have disavowed his predecessor's decision
> (particularly being from the other party) had he wanted to badly
> enough. He didn't.

And, while I don't want to release Trump from all blame, and I also think
there is a possibility that having the U.S. abide by its word is a consideration,
I do agree with you that this is a fault on the part of Biden, even if Trump
trying to make hay out of it was ridiculous.
Sadly, though, I think he realized the American people were tired of the war,
and didn't want to see any more American casualties, and didn't really care
what happened in Afghanistan any more. So I would have to make it partly
their fault rather than his.

I do find this sort of thing hard to understand. I mean, while this was how
the Vietnam war ended, that was very unusual; it would have ended a *lot*
earlier if this was how the United States normally worked. Instead, during
the Cold War, the government, in a bipartisan fashiion, recognized that
containing Communism was necessary even if the electorate would have
preferred not to make the sacrifices.

However, the contrast between the Cold War and McCarthyism on the one
hand, and the dilatory nature of the U.S. response to Nazism suggests
something that could also explain that: the Communists, with their goal of
world revolution, were seen as an existential threat by the business community,
whence campaign donors come from.

Radical Muslims - and the neo-Fascist Putin - are not.

John Savard

On 6/13/2022 2:32 PM, Magewolf wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 10:32:04 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
> To be fair, it is hard to tell whose artillery fire took out a random
> building in a fluid situation like this. Was the school close to a
> Russian advance? But regardless of whose shell did the damage it is the
> Russians fault for invading in the first place.

The Russian policy has always been to reduce resistance by overwhelming
artillery fire. Estimates are that the Russians are firing 60,000
artillery rounds a day in Ukraine. They tend to target areas, not
specific targets.

On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 08:45:33 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>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.

You don't seem to be able to grasp the notion that your average tinpot
dictator got there by somehow defeating the other wannabees. He
wasn't _born_ tinpot dictator or appointed by God or anything.

On 6/13/2022 8:18 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Monday, June 13, 2022 at 5:55:44 PM UTC-6, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>
>> Russia and China are already using a private exchange for Russian oil.
>
> And, since they share a common border, there are actually pipelines
> connecting Russia and China. And more are being built.
>
> John Savard

Yup. And the lightering from a Russian oil tanker to a Indian oil
tanker (maybe a Panamax) works well too. Especially when the Indians
are paying 65 cents on the dollar for the oil.

India does not have any large crude oil reservoirs. The giant crude oil
reservoir in China is almost empty now. So these two entities have to
import almost all their crude oil, along with Japan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_fields

Lynn

On 2022-06-13 17:35, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 09:12:50 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-06-11 22:41, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 22:00:14 -0400, J. Clarke
>>> <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> I dunno - our guys seemed to manage in Afghanistan just fine for 14
>>> years until Biden decided to cut and run
>>
>> You're claiming BIDEN decided?
>
> No - I'm saying he was the one at the controls when the time actually
> came and could easily have disavowed his predecessor's decision
> (particularly being from the other party) had he wanted to badly
> enough. He didn't.

No, actually.

By the time he was "the one at the controls" US forces had already been
drawn down from 15,000 to 2,500.

Do you really think putting them back would be as simple as just
disavowing a decision?

You think all the bases that would have been abandoned could just have
been reoccupied without cost?

You think that the 5,000 Taliban prisoners that were release while Trump
was still "at the controls" would have all just quietly returned to
their prisons?

On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 18:55:38 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 6/13/2022 10:42 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>...
>>>>>> 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.
>
>What if Russia sends out a submarine with each oil tanker ? Torpedoes
>really suck, ask any destroyer or cruiser captain.

Destroyers have traditionally carried devices called "depth charges",
which are designed specifically to /kill submarines/.

And they have this new thing called "sonar" that allows them to detect
said submarines, even under water.

Not to mention any more /modern/ equipment that might be lying about
on a modern naval warship.

>Russia and China are already using a private exchange for Russian oil.
>Are you going to tell China that they cannot buy Russian oil anymore ?
>Are you going to tell India that they cannot buy Russian oil anymore ?
> Please let me know when you do so, I want to watch from a very safe
>distance.

Have the sanctions already done so? Or are they excepted?

Also, if (as others have reported) China and India have no remaining
internal supplies, won't that "encourage" them to /use/ what the get
rather than sell it elsewhere?
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 17:35:20 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 09:12:50 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2022-06-11 22:41, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 22:00:14 -0400, J. Clarke
>>> <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> I dunno - our guys seemed to manage in Afghanistan just fine for 14
>>> years until Biden decided to cut and run
>>
>>You're claiming BIDEN decided?
>
>No - I'm saying he was the one at the controls when the time actually
>came and could easily have disavowed his predecessor's decision
>(particularly being from the other party) had he wanted to badly
>enough. He didn't.

Well, the /Republicans/ certainly would have liked him to do so.

I'll bet Trump was steamed at the very /thought/ of any Afghan
interpreters' being evacuated. His plan was, of course, to leave them
/all/ behind. After all, they aren't Norwegians.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 19:32:40 -0000 (UTC), Magewolf
<Magewolf@nc.rr.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 10:32:04 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
>To be fair, it is hard to tell whose artillery fire took out a random
>building in a fluid situation like this. Was the school close to a
>Russian advance? But regardless of whose shell did the damage it is the
>Russians fault for invading in the first place.

To be fair, it is /quite/ possible to track it on radar and backtrack
it to find where it came from.

But just keep making excuses for Putin, and see what it gets you.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 09:34:02 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 19:32:40 -0000 (UTC), Magewolf
><Magewolf@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 10:32:04 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> 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?
>>
>>To be fair, it is hard to tell whose artillery fire took out a random
>>building in a fluid situation like this. Was the school close to a
>>Russian advance? But regardless of whose shell did the damage it is the
>>Russians fault for invading in the first place.
>
>To be fair, it is /quite/ possible to track it on radar and backtrack
>it to find where it came from.
>
>But just keep making excuses for Putin, and see what it gets you.

You can only "track it on radar" if the radar is in place and
operating and pointed in the right direction when the shell is fired.

On 6/15/2022 11:28 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 18:55:38 -0500, Lynn McGuire
> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/13/2022 10:42 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> ...
>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> What if Russia sends out a submarine with each oil tanker ? Torpedoes
>> really suck, ask any destroyer or cruiser captain.
>
> Destroyers have traditionally carried devices called "depth charges",
> which are designed specifically to /kill submarines/.
>
> And they have this new thing called "sonar" that allows them to detect
> said submarines, even under water.
>
> Not to mention any more /modern/ equipment that might be lying about
> on a modern naval warship.
>
>> Russia and China are already using a private exchange for Russian oil.
>> Are you going to tell China that they cannot buy Russian oil anymore ?
>> Are you going to tell India that they cannot buy Russian oil anymore ?
>> Please let me know when you do so, I want to watch from a very safe
>> distance.
>
> Have the sanctions already done so? Or are they excepted?
>
> Also, if (as others have reported) China and India have no remaining
> internal supplies, won't that "encourage" them to /use/ what the get
> rather than sell it elsewhere?

Russia has shut down the natural gas pipelines to Europe. The Russians
are hurriedly building natural gas pipeline(s) to China. I expect the
methane content of the atmosphere to rise shortly from new pipeline leaks.

Europe has cut back their purchases of Russian crude oil. India is now
buying Russian crude oil, refining it, and selling the refined products
to Europe.

Lynn

Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>On 6/15/2022 11:28 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 18:55:38 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

>>
>>> Russia and China are already using a private exchange for Russian oil.
>>> Are you going to tell China that they cannot buy Russian oil anymore ?
>>> Are you going to tell India that they cannot buy Russian oil anymore ?
>>> Please let me know when you do so, I want to watch from a very safe
>>> distance.
>>
>> Have the sanctions already done so? Or are they excepted?
>>
>> Also, if (as others have reported) China and India have no remaining
>> internal supplies, won't that "encourage" them to /use/ what the get
>> rather than sell it elsewhere?
>
>Russia has shut down the natural gas pipelines to Europe.

I'm sure that's news to both the Russians and the Europeans;
the Russians reduced the Nordstream 1 to 40% capacity claiming
difficulties with siemens equipment at a pumping station.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/german-minister-accuses-russia-finding-excuse-cut-nord-stream-1-gas-2022-06-15/

_Ukraine_ has shutdown a pipeline that transits Ukraine, but Russian
CH4 is still being sent to Europe.

https://www.voanews.com/a/ukraine-cuts-off-russian-natural-gas-pipeline-supplying-europe-/6567439.html

TFA notes the claim by Ukraine that enemy forces were interfering with the
hub, including siphoning off gas as the reason for the shutdown.