So, is this how it works?
Putin gets the hell out of Crimea, the oil Sheikhs reverse the free flow of oil, oil prices go back up and Russia's economy improves because of its oil exports?
... and if he refuses, his countries economy goes into freefall.
Have I got that right?
|
Was with some mates last night and that sums up our conclusion.
But a Russian economic disaster would surely be unbalancing for the West too in some way?
|
>> Have I got that right?
And you have to add that when the economy really falls through the floor Putin loses power.
Yup and all orchestrated by that indecisive lame duck president Obama.
Tho to be fair, its much more complicated than that, you have to look into why the ruskis invaded crimea if you want a return to lasting peace.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 17 Dec 14 at 14:12
|
|
In the current economic climate, the new spelling of Rouble has a capital "T"!
|
>> Yup and all orchestrated by that indecisive lame duck president Obama.
>>
Over and above the fact I'm convinced you sit there sometimes and argue with yourself...
....Obama has been indecisive in other aspects.
If he's done well here, then I'll give him praise.
|
>>If he's done well here, then I'll give him praise.
I'm not sure he has. I guess he pushed sanctions, but I'm not sure how impactful they've been.
They may also end up being something he wishes he hadn't done. He would probably have been better to be more involved and perhaps a bit more forceful before it all went wrong.
It having gone wrong, its kind of a rock and a hard place though.
|
>> >>If he's done well here, then I'll give him praise.
>>
>> I'm not sure he has. I guess he pushed sanctions, but I'm not sure how
>> impactful they've been.
Given the collapse of the Rouble, I would say they have worked (luckily he had the oil price collapse as well not his doing - perfect storm stuff) - better than hoped for. Its a difficult thing to co-ordinate with your partners, but its happened and he must take a lot of the credit.
>> They may also end up being something he wishes he hadn't done. He would probably
>> have been better to be more involved and perhaps a bit more forceful before it
>> all went wrong.
Ok so lets look at what we have on our arsenal if we are Obama.
We have economic bombs - they have been used and thats a good choice because possible retaliation in kind is minimal. need to see if they work - look promising tho.
We have diplomatic pressure - tried and failed - in the bin with that
We have technological weapons (cutting off internet, electronic sabotage) a possibility, but tit for tat reprisals possible - no likely - The US is not cyber proof and the Ruskis have good skills.
we have conventional warfare threats. build up forces opposing one another again - what does that give us? actually achieves little the west.
Use conventional warfare, take back the crimea Thats a really bad idea.
and of course we have the nuclear threat.
>> It having gone wrong, its kind of a rock and a hard place though.
so given a look through your arsenal, you are obama (read the west) What you going to do?
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 17 Dec 14 at 18:44
|
>>so given a look through your arsenal, you are obama (read the west) What you going to do?
Butt out of affairs where the only problem is you don't like it, would be a start.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 17 Dec 14 at 18:44
|
>>Butt out of affairs where the only problem is you don't like it, would be a start.
Difficult one as I suspect a lack of reaction from the West would lead to further land grabbing under a variety of creative pretexts.
Appeasement generally delays the inevitable and emboldens the aggressor.
The Cold War ended because the Soviets couldn't afford it - Obama and his chums have played the best hand they could have here I think.
|
>>The Cold War ended because the Soviets couldn't afford it - Obama and his chums have played the best hand they could have here I think.
Well, kind of.
It'd be easier to take if they'd done it with the thought of making it too expensive for the Russians, but I don't think that was ever in their minds, They just knew they were in a race.
I wonder if the US ever considers how much technological development they owe to the motivation the Russians provided.
|
>> I wonder if the US ever considers how much technological development they owe to the
>> motivation the Russians provided.
First man on the moon was a direct result of US fear when the Russian launched Sputnik.
|
>> >>The Cold War ended because the Soviets couldn't afford it - Obama and his chums
>> have played the best hand they could have here I think.
>>
>> Well, kind of.
>>
>> It'd be easier to take if they'd done it with the thought of making it
>> too expensive for the Russians, but I don't think that was ever in their minds,
>> They just knew they were in a race.
>>
>> I wonder if the US ever considers how much technological development they owe to the
>> motivation the Russians provided.
>>
The US deliberately developed the TOMAHAWK range of guided missiles to lure the USSR into an arms race they could neither afford nor win - remeber that the USSR deliberatelyrestricted the use of PCs as an act of state control..
The USSR economcy was like it is today without any major oil or gas industry: consequently rather like a THIRD world country.
Add in an expensive war in Afghanistan and revolts in its satellites (Poland, etc) and the model wasfalling apart..
Last edited by: madf on Wed 17 Dec 14 at 19:09
|
>>The US deliberately developed the TOMAHAWK range of guided missiles to lure the USSR into an arms race they could neither afford nor win
At the time the US seemed to be a little startled when the USSR ran out of money.
I agree that the US believed that it was promoting a race that the USSR could not win, but I think that they believed that was a matter of technological rather than economic approach.
|
It was thought that the USSR was spending >25% of GDP on weapons. When the truth came out, it was about 75% (this from my memory/general knowledge so I can't give a citation).
So it's entirely possible that the septics didn't fully appreciate the economic cost to the USSR of the arms race.
|
>> So it's entirely possible that the septics didn't fully appreciate the economic cost to the
>> USSR of the arms race.
The tough part was the USSR didn't have the industry or the economy to support the defence costs (which bang per buck was much higher in the USSR because they were inefficient).
They could however have continued in the race, but the governed people got a bit peed off with the austerity required to support it. Specially when they were now getting information about how the "other side" lived.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 17 Dec 14 at 19:34
|
>> >>The US deliberately developed the TOMAHAWK range of guided missiles to lure the USSR into
>> an arms race they could neither afford nor win
I don't think thats the case, cruise was developed because it was one hell of a damn efficient and painless method of delivery.
Star Wars was the way the yanks hoped to price the USSR out of the race, a price so high the Yanks couldn't afford it (or deliver it) either.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 17 Dec 14 at 19:38
|
>> Butt out of affairs where the only problem is you don't like it, would be
>> a start.
So he should do and say nothing about the current Russian "crisis" Doing nothing can of course be a valid action.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 17 Dec 14 at 18:48
|
>>So he should do and say nothing about the current Russian "crisis"
Nah, now is when he makes a massive show of offering support to our 'struggling Russian brothers' to emasculate Putin in front of his country.
|
>>So he should do and say nothing about the current Russian "crisis"
Perhaps. I basically dislike the US's approach in becoming subjectively involved in international affairs depending on how threatening or advantageous they see each matter.
The UN should look to that.
|
>> >>So he should do and say nothing about the current Russian "crisis"
>>
>> Perhaps. I basically dislike the US's approach in becoming subjectively involved in international affairs depending
>> on how threatening or advantageous they see each matter.
I agree.
>> The UN should look to that.
could do. no point tho it can't do anything.
|
|
Is the UN not a Toothless Tiger?
|
>> Perhaps. I basically dislike the US's approach in becoming subjectively involved in international affairs depending
>> on how threatening or advantageous they see each matter.
>>
>> The UN should look to that.
>>
Should do, is the ideal one to achieve what we want to achieve..but doesn't bother.
So that leaves the US, as flawed as they are.
|
>> Use conventional warfare, take back the crimea Thats a really bad idea.
A bit of a tall order really, trying to 'take back' a region inhabited by ethnic Russians and effectively controlled by Russia/the Soviet Union since the days of the Russian monarchy.
I'm aware that the heavyweight media are all taking the line that Putin has unfairly and brutally occupied the Crimea. What I don't understand is why apparently intelligent, well-informed people swallow this guff like children.
|
IIRC, something like 2/3 of the Ukraine is ethnically Ukrainian, not Russian.
That is a difficult argument since how far does one go back to determine parent ethnicity?
Also, I am not sure how one can be "ethnically" a "nationality".
Basically, people should stop messing around with other people's lives.
|
>>Basically, people should stop messing around with other people's lives
Ah politics.
Don't hold your breath waiting for the UN to do anything - it's got less teeth over any major nation than the EU has over the UK.
Just need to look at how effective the UN has been with Israel to see how the world really operates.
|
>Just need to look at how effective the UN has been with Israel to see how the world really operates.
Damn right.
In fact looking properly at that particular region really helps see.
Mostly though, people prefer the Daily Mail.
|
>> >> Yup and all orchestrated by that indecisive lame duck president Obama.
>> >>
>> Over and above the fact I'm convinced you sit there sometimes and argue with yourself...
Only with you - Probably because I fundamentally disagree with you on most things.
|
>>Putin gets the hell out of Crimea, the oil Sheikhs reverse the free flow of oil, oil prices go back up and Russia's economy improves because of its oil exports?
If that were the only concern, then yes. However, there are so many other factors involved, that a certain amount of it now is inevitable. The rest is dependent on who blinks first; and that may not be Putin or Russia.
Some other factors to consider;
Iraq depends massively on oil revenue.
Some of the other OPEC countries, whilst not as dependent as Iraq, are going to get into cack at some point.
Low oil prices are currently stopping fuel competitors getting into the game, since there isn't the revenue to invest in them. If fuel prices go up, there will be. That may well cost OPEC market share, and thus impact and power.
A destablised or poor Russia impacts on other countries. Other countries are aware of this and wish to avoid it.
If in the future the Russians establish their fuel at a higher price than it is now, but lower than OPEC, they will disrupt the market. And with 15% of the world's supply, they might.
The price of oil has dropped because of excess supply. However, inside that is tapering demand, the arrival of new sources (e.g. shale), previous disruptions impacting supply are lessening (e.g. Libya), alternative power sources etc. etc.
Thus, if OPEC restrict supply, rather than increasing price increases in the long term (although they would in the short term) they are quite likely to increase the presence of alternative sources thus causing a potentially long term drop in their revenue and lessening of their influence.
At times of high inflation Russians historically do not save, they spend. Lessening both the impact of an economic crisis and subsequent recovery (although clearly there is point of catastrophe).
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 17 Dec 14 at 14:29
|
The oil price needed to balance the books
Less than a month ago
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30131386
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29643612
Looks kike all oil producers now have a problem.g
Today with oil near $60
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30492505
|
I think it all shows that once you are big enough to be in a position to influence the price of something, the more restricted is your ability to benefit from that pricing.
|
WTF is wrong with everyone here?
I'd be willing to bet most Ukrainians would be perfectly happy with Putin and Russia. The Ukrainian 'nationalists' paid millions of dollars to overthrow its elected government by American fascists tried to take over the whole country including Crimea, forcing Putin to act in defence of that Russian enclave. Naturally the Russians have gone a bit further upcountry than they had a right to. But who can blame them?
You don't have to 'like' Putin or any other national leader. They're all awful or they wouldn't be leaders. You just have to try to understand what's going on, instead of reading the Daily Mail or the Times or Terrorflag and nodding like one of those birds that dip their beaks in a glass of water.
I'm ashamed of you.
|
. You just have to try to understand what's going on, instead
>> of reading the Daily Mail or the Times or Terrorflag and nodding like one of
>> those birds that dip their beaks in a glass of water.
>>
Maybe they do understand but just think differently. I do, and I managed that without reading any of those newspapers. How good is that?
|
|
Sun over the yard-arm, is it?
|
>> Sun over the yard-arm, is it?
>>
Always is, isn't it?
|
Cheeky sods. Some people make more sense when they're ratted (I'm not though) than others cold stone sober.
What's the term... ah yes, ad hominem. Bunch of nodding bird toys. Two can play at that game.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Wed 17 Dec 14 at 20:24
|
I'm with AC. The reporting of Russia's incursion in to Ukraine has been heavily one-sided. The West helped overthrow the Government in Kiev, and in any case, since when has Russia/Ukraine/USSR whatever you want to call it ever been deemed as part of Europe?
Why does the EU want Ukraine's membership, but spurns Turkey?
|
Let's fast-forward to mid-2015... Russia's economy is finished, all the Western shale oil producers are out of business because the low oil price has bankrupted them. Suddenly there's constraint on the supply side. The oil price will rocket, and we'll all be in the hands of the OPEC oligarchs again.
I predict the $100 barrel will be back again by 1st June 2015.
|
>> I predict the $100 barrel will be back again by 1st June 2015.
Nope - not at the start of summer, no heating oil /power station market
|
>> Why does the EU want Ukraine's membership,
No idea
>>but spurns Turkey?
Because the place is run by a guy who is akin to Sadam Hussein, elected with widespread electoral fraud and bribery and is rapidly installing himself as dictator for life.
Trouble is we need it pro western or at least multi secular as its the middle east / europe buffer/border
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 17 Dec 14 at 22:01
|
>>I'd be willing to bet most Ukrainians would be perfectly happy with Putin and Russia
In the East perhaps but the bulk of Ukraine has seen Poland/Estonia/Lithuania/etc do rather well from closer ties to Europe and wants some of the same.
|
>>Low oil prices are currently stopping fuel competitors getting into the game, since there isn't the revenue to invest in them. If fuel prices go up, there will be.
North Sea boys already complaining.
UK oil industry facing 'crisis' with price under $60
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30525539
|
Bet the SNP are pleased the Scots voted NO..
As it is, largescale layoffs forecast..
Popcorn time for political pundits.
|
>>
>> North Sea boys already complaining.
>>
My SinLaw runs a company in Aberdeen that supports the oil industry, they have had a couple of contracts put on hold by the big oil companies.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 18 Dec 14 at 11:41
|
Without making any particular point, BPs profits for July to Sept, when "the depreciation of the rouble against the dollar dragged down profits" they still made £1.86bn PROFIT in THREE months. Shell managed a more healthy £3.6bn.
So one would imagine they have saved for a rainy day, especially as the storm clouds should have been already visible to them on the horizon.
Or maybe they didn't.
Greedy companies. Not restricted to the oil sector either. I'm far from being a communist but when you look at the profits these companies make, it is obscene.
|
|
Someone cleverer than me should post a link to today's Matt on the front of the DT. Apposite to this thread, and funny.
|
|
Thank you Focusless. Nice isn't it?
|
Well, companies are there to make money. And they are there to make as much money as possible. So I'm not sure about "greedy".
If we don't want it like that, then taxation will cut back on their profits. So will price control and the like. 'Course, they'll then pay smaller salaries, invest less, etc. etc. It won't actually work and it will be worse for everybody, but it can be tried.
In any case, if the Board of Directors run the company in such a way that it makes less money than it could have done, they can go to jail.
All that to one side, the problem is not for BP and Shell and the like, they are in the front of the chain. They will simply spend less money. The problem is for the smaller companies with whom BP et al spend that money - because they probably don't have sufficient savings, and since they do not control their own destiny, they cut back by laying people off.
Equally having huge revenues, large profits and loads of money in the bank doesn't keep you out of trouble - ask Tesco.
|
As No FM2R says, it's not the likes of BP or Shell that will suffer. They will stop spending/investing and others lose out. So in the (well paid) oil industry people are often contractors. And I'm guessing they can earn very good money. But they can be let go easily. But they get paid lots to partly make up for this and you'd assume they have put a little aside themselves.
Another example of a company losing out here might be those providing transport to the rigs with their helicopters. They might not be needed so much. But that's not BP's or Shell's fault.
|
The oil's still down there - what isn't viable just now becomes viable when the price goes up again.
And if the price never goes back up? Then we'd be wasting money and effort trying to support a dead industry.
Similar to the coal industry.
In other news apparently we use 10% less energy per skull than we did 5 years ago.
|
>> As No FM2R says, it's not the likes of BP or Shell that will suffer.
Smokey might change his mind when he knows his pension funds are funded by the profits of the likes of BP.
|
Yeah I know all those arguments, seen 'em before here and mostly agree with them.
I ended up saying more in my orig post than really intended but I do know that there a lots of people raking it in large from the oil industry. And like the energy companies and the banks, when you look at the state of the country and some of the people in it, I wonder whether that's quite such a good thing.
|
For various reasons BP isn't doing so well. It used to get a lot of its profits from Rosneft. A company they used to co-own but are now only a shareholder. And let us not forget the Gulf of Mexico incident.
Rumours keep rising that Shell might buy BP for about £5 a share. Market cap is about £80bn. Nowhere as big as it once was.
|
|
Surprising they reacted so quickly or perhaps I'm not. No doubt when the price goes back up, the NS oil industry will be screaming out for the same people they letting go, along with wailing about lack of skilled people and the need for government tax breaks etc.
|
Another example of a company losing out here might be those providing transport to the rigs with their helicopters. ....... I no longer care, someone else's problem now. :0)
As I am now retired for me it can only be good news that the OPEC cartel has finally been broken , greedy Arab and Russians are losing out and the price of petrol is falling to a more acceptable level. The cost of petrol is more than likely to drop another 20 pence a litre in the New Year.
However , I received a card from an ex colleague ( a self employed contractor -not a pilot ) who was working on new oil and gas production projects who has been laid off since September with no prospect or work on the horizon. He has always been able to move smoothly from project to project in the past but is now seriously concerned.....
It does not help that he is currently banned from driving and £500 poorer after being pinged at 110 mph ......
Last edited by: helicopter on Fri 19 Dec 14 at 13:41
|
The Rouble - smokie
