Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[blandy]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

the prices are going up or stopping pretty soon aren't they?

The gas bubble could burst, you say?

[NurembergVillan]

25 minutes ago, Xann said:

Fracking Hell

Another step closer to real life being the storyline to "The World Is Not Enough".

Funny how his publications are all extremely pro-fracking and he is on the advisory board of Genie Energy...

[Brumerican]

Keep me topped up with curry and Guinesss, then stick a tube up my bum .

I'll get Britain out of this energy shortage.

[peterms]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

Then as I previously posted, he should have been expressing this very clearly in his responses in parliament and in the media. He should be doing this both because it his job as leader of the opposition and perhaps even more importantly because of the nature of the incident and it’s implications.

Again, how could he have known which information was being withheld from him?  He was given a briefing which included some information but not all - unless there was a whistleblower who told him, how would he know if he'd been given a quarter, half or all the info?

And if he was invited to one meeting but there was another, undisclosed meeting he wasn't invited to which discussed more significant information, again, how would he have known?

To have been given a privy council briefing but then complain publicly that he's been denied vital information without being able to indicate what, or on what basis he was claiming that, would be mocked as a paranoid conspiracy theory, wouldn't it?

[Awol]

18 minutes ago, bickster said:

How does the government look to buy the gas in a privatised market?

Seeing as 43% seems to come from that place the mad bitch wants to leave... the prices are going up or stopping pretty soon aren't they

And then there's everyone's friends Qatar.

Government usually buys direct from the producers. There are some really big commodities brokers who source cargos but that more often applies to liquids like oil and condensate, not LNG which is invariably government controlled or through a producer associated with a state, like Total for example. 

I haven’t kept up with gas prices since leaving the Gulf but they were incredibly low and the latent capacity to increase production meant they were unlikely to rise significantly. 

I don’t think leaving the EU has any bearing on prices though, they are market driven. 

We do have a good relationship with Qatar and could source more LNG there if needed, and even the US is exporting fracked LNG now from the southern states. One of the reasons other Gulf states are trying to keep Iran in the economic closet is their production potential for LNG, with reserves even larger than Qatar’s own - they share the Pars Field with them but Iran has lots, lots more to exploit. 

East Africa is also swimming in gas with new facilities being built from Tanzania down the Mozambique Channel, as is the eastern Med with Turkey, Lebanon, Cyprus, Israel and Egypt all quids in. 

Basically there’s no shortage of the stuff, the issue is prices being high enough to justify the investment / production costs. 

[peterms]

58 minutes ago, Awol said:

The Times is reporting UK intelligence claims that Russia has been producing and stockpiling Novichok agents for a decade. If that is the info shared with our partners it’s easier to see how they did a 180 after being briefed. Also shows how farcical the Russian denials are.

And Hamish de Bretton-Gordon says it is produced only at one plant in central Russia.

If only there were some way to check.  Like for example, an international inspectorate with the necessary technical expertise and resources, able to conduct inspections at the request of one of the signatories.

[Awol]

35 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Just on Corbyn, is this actually a fair summary, that he is 'clinging desperately to a theory of chemicals getting loose from Kremlin control'? His Guardian editorial on Thursday said:

'Theresa May was right on Monday to identify two possibilities for the source of the attack in Salisbury, given that the nerve agent used has been identified as of original Russian manufacture. Either this was a crime authored by the Russian state; or that state has allowed these deadly toxins to slip out of the control it has an obligation to exercise. If the latter, a connection to Russian mafia-like groups that have been allowed to gain a toehold in Britain cannot be excluded.

On Wednesday the prime minister ruled out neither option. Which of these ultimately prove to be the case is a matter for police and security professionals to determine. Hopefully the next step will be the arrest of those responsible.

As I said in parliament, the Russian authorities must be held to account on the basis of the evidence, and our response must be both decisive and proportionate. But let us not manufacture a division over Russia where none exists. Labour is of course no supporter of the Putin regime, its conservative authoritarianism, abuse of human rights or political and economic corruption. And we pay tribute to Russia’s many campaigners for social justice and human rights, including for LGBT rights.'

. . . which seems like openly acknowledging two possibilities, rather than 'clinging to' one. 

Shami “no anti-semitism here guv” Chakrabati was pushing the ‘lost control of’ line very hard on Marr. I say clinging because outside of the conspiracy theory fraternity Russian culpability doesn’t seem to be in question, but even Russia dismissed the line that Corbynites are taking. 

I wouldn’t expect anything else (much like the Tories sleazing for cash is expected) but the optics look pretty odd, imo. 

[Awol]

1 minute ago, peterms said:

And Hamish de Bretton-Gordon says it is produced only at one plant in central Russia.

If only there were some way to check.  Like for example, an international inspectorate with the necessary technical expertise and resources, able to conduct inspections at the request of one of the signatories.

Calling for challenge inspections under the OPCW is absolutely one route, but there is a balance to be struck. Our people believe this stuff has been manufactured and stockpiled by Russia for a decade. It may for example be being produced at an undeclared facility (after all the agent itself was undeclared under the OPCW) and our knowledge of  the ongoing programme is likely to be from a human source who may still be active. Revealing that we know location ‘x’ actually manufactures Novichok not babushka dolls may then burn that source. 

When the other side ignores all the mutually ageeed rules (which they have) and then lies their arses off about it (as they are) it’s not so simple as pitching up to Russia and catching them red-handed, as it were. That’s assuming they even cooperated anyway. To date zero challenge inspections have been carried out under the OPCW, or so I read. 

UK intelligence, the UK government and some otherwise skeptical UK partner countries are all satisfied, based on the evidence they have seen, that Russia is responsible. The Russians have acted like guilty school children since being accused and aren’t even trying to lie effectively, deliberately spreading multiple & incredible ‘alternative facts’. They are laughing at us.

I don’t doubt some folks would rather believe the Russians, Craig Murray or anyone else who wants to weigh in, but on balance I think they’re probably wrong. 

 

[Dr_Pangloss]

59 minutes ago, bickster said:

How does the government look to buy the gas in a privatised market?

Seeing as 43% seems to come from that place the mad bitch wants to leave... the prices are going up or stopping pretty soon aren't they

And then there's everyone's friends Qatar.

Gas prices are generally driven by 'market forces' so you'd buy it at whatever the spot price is, any major supplier would hedge long.

[peterms]

4 minutes ago, Awol said:

It may for example be being produced at an undeclared facility (after all the agent itself was undeclared under the OPCW) and our knowledge of  the ongoing programme is likely to be from a human source who may still be active. Revealing that we know location ‘x’ actually manufactures Novichok not babushka dolls may then burn that source. 

You're seriously suggesting that we and other countries are not prepared to demonstrate publicly that Russia has stockpiles of extremely dangerous material because to do so might compromise a source?

Or that the reason for not asking for a challenge inspection is that the Russians might not co-operate (which would widely be taken as an admission of guilt) when they have previously co-operated in the destruction of chemical weapons stocks (and progressed further in doing so than the US, by the way, or Israel, which won't admit to having any in the first place)?

So, rather than seek independent verification, we should just accept what Mrs May tells us?

[bickster]

1 minute ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

Gas prices are generally driven by 'market forces' so you'd buy it at whatever the spot price is, any major supplier would hedge long.

I was more thinking of import duty under WTO rules. There must be import duty on it surely?

[Awol]

4 minutes ago, peterms said:

You're seriously suggesting that we and other countries are not prepared to demonstrate publicly that Russia has stockpiles of extremely dangerous material because to do so might compromise a source?

Or that the reason for not asking for a challenge inspection is that the Russians might not co-operate (which would widely be taken as an admission of guilt) when they have previously co-operated in the destruction of chemical weapons stocks (and progressed further in doing so than the US, by the way, or Israel, which won't admit to having any in the first place)?

So, rather than seek independent verification, we should just accept what Mrs May tells us?

No, you’re assuming their cooperation in allowing us to catch them in the act of breaking the OPCW treaty. 

Could exposing our knowledge of a facility compromise a source? I’m not saying it does but of course it could.

On the last part the answer is yes, frankly. We don’t know what evidence our government has and what it may be prepared to put into the public domain as this row escalates. Getting Russia to continue its denials before dropping the proverbial mic on them may be exactly their strategy, who knows? 

Either way, given the circumstantial evidence I’d take the word of our country over that of Putin’s Russia. Wouldn’t you? 

 

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

Government usually buys direct from the producers.

I don't think the government is buying gas.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, peterms said:

Again, how could he have known which information was being withheld from him?  He was given a briefing which included some information but not all - unless there was a whistleblower who told him, how would he know if he'd been given a quarter, half or all the info?

And if he was invited to one meeting but there was another, undisclosed meeting he wasn't invited to which discussed more significant information, again, how would he have known?

To have been given a privy council briefing but then complain publicly that he's been denied vital information without being able to indicate what, or on what basis he was claiming that, would be mocked as a paranoid conspiracy theory, wouldn't it?

Well, we're going on the Times report which says that he was given just a document prepared as a briefing paper for him and others. Given a few basic facts - his membership of the privy council, the other information in the Times - e.g. when Ed Miliband was leader, the extent of the briefings given on Syria, Corbyn's membership of the privy council, it's utterly reasonable to expect him as leader of the opposition to maybe use his own scepticism and so on, so you get two alternatives

1. "Ah, here's May's briefing paper. Not sure it answers all my questions, but well, what else can I do, that must be all the information I can get, before fulfilling my role as leader of the official opposition, on an issue where I have an instinctive scepticism in terms of Russia, chemical weapons and so on"

or

2. "Ah, here's May's briefing paper. Not sure it answers all my questions and May's notoriously reluctant to share info. I wonder what my predecessor was shown on Syria, what the extent and scope of the information provided was? what he did if/when he though he needed more? I know, I'll ask him.....oh, he got a lot more, he got access to meetings and all that. I've had an idea! I'll ask and insist for the same courtesy. And if I get it, then that's better, and my response can be better informed, and if I don't get what I want to address my concerns and questions, I'll make this clear when I respond in parliament - that in asking for unity across the house, the pm needs to share the full extent of the information she has, if not with the full privy council, at least with key people within it, including myself."

He doesn't at this precise point need to know what it is he doesn't know, he needs to know that he's not been given the full story. And that what May's (reportedly) done is less than her predecessors and that this is not good enough from May. He needs to be decent at his job. It's not rocket science. I am certain that you'd have done more, for example. And it's not hindsight on my part, is it?

 

[peterms]

33 minutes ago, Awol said:

No, you’re assuming their cooperation in allowing us to catch them in the act of breaking the OPCW treaty. 

The fact of non-co-operation would be taken as an admission of guilt, and would be rather more reasonable than making such a judgement on the basis of Putin "smirking".  Since the former head of our chemical weapons unit has announced definitively where the stuff is produced, what is to be lost by asking for an inspection there?  Except of course if an inspection is carried out and nothing is found.  I gather it's rather harder to conceal than just sticking it down the back of the filing cabinet.

33 minutes ago, Awol said:

Could exposing our knowledge of a facility compromise a source? I’m not saying it does but of course it could.

On the last part the answer is yes, frankly. We don’t know what evidence our government has and what it may be prepared to put into the public domain as this row escalates. Getting Russia to continue its denials before dropping the proverbial mic on them may be exactly their strategy, who knows? 

Russia has made its denials.  I don't think waiting for further denials makes the case stronger.  Either what they have said is false or it's not, and it doesn't become more false by being stated again.

33 minutes ago, Awol said:

Either way, given the circumstantial evidence I’d take the word of our country over that of Putin’s Russia. Wouldn’t you? 

 

The word of our PM (who I would differentiate from "our country") was that there are only two possibilities, that novichok was used by Russia or that they failed to control access to it.  We are told that it has been manufactured elsewhere, and if that is true, then it is not also true that those two possibilities are the only ones.  OPCW has not confirmed that Russia has the stuff, and the former head of the detection lab at Porton Down has said there is scant evidence of that.

I would like to see evidence that is not circumstantial.  There are very good reasons not to take Russia's word on this or other matters, but it doesn't follow that we must therefore accept what May and Johnson tell us, especially when they are shown to have concealed information from Corbyn while giving a confidential briefing in order to give the impression of full disclosure, and when they choose not to take a course of action which might be able to provide actual evidence.

So, I remain sceptical, but open to persuasion on the basis of evidence, rather than assertion.

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

I was more thinking of import duty under WTO rules. There must be import duty on it surely?

According to these energy consultants, the EU impose no import tariffs on gas imported from USA, Algeria, Qatar, Russia, &c.

Quote

Table 1: EU tariffs on non-EU member countries

Would this suggest that there aren't any tariffs that need to be applied under WTO rules?

[peterms]

5 minutes ago, blandy said:

He doesn't at this precise point need to know what it is he doesn't know, he needs to know that he's not been given the full story

Yes.  But if he is to make a fuss about that, the very first question he will be asked is the basis for his belief that there is information which is being kept from him, and he would need to be able to offer more than just suspicion.

The fact of the article appearing at least gives him a reasonable basis for pressing the issue now.  He needs to be careful how he does this, because any sign of dissent is jumped upon as a signal of disloyalty.  Take for example R4's the World at One on Friday, where the presenter put it to a Labour MP that Corbyn had supported the expulsions because he wished to show himself as being "at least tolerably loyal" (29 minutes in, here).  When even flagship programmes on a station with a legal requirement for balance seek to frame doubt and questioning as disloyalty, it's clear he should be very mindful of the likelihood of his actions being twisted and presented in the most negative light.

But yes, I'd like him now to press further, pointing out that May is seeking to use what is an issue of national security for party political advantage in a way which conflicts with what we think of as the usual conventions.

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

Gas prices are generally driven by 'market forces' so you'd buy it at whatever the spot price is, any major supplier would hedge long.

I was about to say that I assumed that the majority of gas was still bought wholesale on long term contracts (with prices kept very much under wraps by the respective firms but largely led by oil indexation) but I've just read the start of a paper which says that the transition to hub-based pricing (even for long term contracts) has been seriously on the increase since the middle of the last decade.

The paper is from 2014 so it may well be somewhat out of date but they reckoned in it that LNG supply contracts were still mainly long term and linked to oil (due to Qatar being the main source).

Edit: Anyway, this is all quite a bit off topic now.

Edited March 18, 2018 by snowychap

[chrisp65]

21 minutes ago, peterms said:

....any sign of dissent is jumped upon as a signal of disloyalty.  Take for example R4's the World at One on Friday, where the presenter put it to a Labour MP that Corbyn had supported the expulsions because he wished to show himself as being "at least tolerably loyal" (29 minutes in, here).  When even flagship programmes on a station with a legal requirement for balance seek to frame doubt and questioning as disloyalty, it's clear he should be very mindful of the likelihood of his actions being twisted and presented in the most negative light.

or indeed BBC 2 Newsnight

 

Credit to them for showing restraint and not putting a little star on his hat.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, peterms said:

Yes.  But if he is to make a fuss about that, the very first question he will be asked is the basis for his belief that there is information which is being kept from him, and he would need to be able to offer more than just suspicion.

No, I completely disagree. Look, something along the lines of

"Theresa May has not provided me with anything other than a paper she has prepared stating that the Russians did it, and this is simply not a sufficient level of information to enable anyone to come to a fully informed position. Previous broadly comparable situations have seen the PM of the day fully share information with the opposition leader and others, and it is not acceptable to withhold such a courtesy at this point. It does not allow parliament to put the Prime Ministers position under informed scrutiny when information is withheld by her"

I know I've exaggerated the (probable) lack of information for brevity, but I think the point stands - he needs only to point out that he has been (if the report is true) denied a level of information and opportunity for private scrutiny of intelligence detail which was not the case for his and her predecessors - it's not about calling him "disloyal", it's about him as opposition leader opposing the Tories, whilst making sure they can do their job to also ensure that the Russians/Israel/Space Aliens* are held to account for their actions by the UK parliament, collectively.

*delete according to etc...