Posted on 01/18/2015 2:50:54 PM PST by dila813
On January 14, Vladimir Putin ordered Russia’s natural gas monopoly, Gazprom, to cut back by 60% the natural gas delivered to Europe through Ukraine. His ostensible reason: Ukraine was illegally siphoning off gas for its own use—a charge Ukraine denies. Overall Europe depends on Russia for 30% of its gas supplies, and some 80% of Europe’s Russian natural gas comes via Ukraine. Putin’s order would leave six countries in eastern and southeastern Europe totally without gas.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
You got me, didn’t come up in search.
I will try to see what I did wrong.
I only pointed out because the yahoo story is five hours old while the cutoff story is 3-4 days old. I’m not making any claims at all.
Ah, I didn’t search for Russia in my keyword search
The article from Forbes includes links for its claims. Click those links.
From the Forbes article:
Gazprom announced that it will instead ship gas previously transiting Ukraine to the Greek-Turkish border via a Black-Sea underwater pipeline. Gazprom’s CEO brushed off European objections that it has no infrastructure to handle such shipments, stating that “We have informed our European partners, and now it is up to them to put in place the necessary infrastructure starting from the Turkish-Greek border.” In other words, Europe must undertake a massive infrastructure investment to replace a well-functioning transmission system, just for Putin’s convenience.
The word stating is a link for the source of this claim. Click the word stating. It goes to the article:
It is talking about the South Stream pipeline, not yet built, that is not proposed to be routed to Turkey.
No pipelines exist to handle the volumes they are talking about.
- - - - - -
Do you honestly believe that 4 days ago, Russia cut off most of the Natural Gas to Europe and NONE of the mainstream media even mention it in passing? No articles? I’ve seen several blogger types pick it up, but a first I’ve seen from someone like Forbes.
Best way to search is just a very few key words from titles
Gas
Cuts gas
Russia
That way you are searching for “topics” rather than specific titles.
I expect existing (mothballed) plants have the SO2 removed, so nobody really cares, except for global warming greenies. Coal accounts for 40% of the US's power, and we don't have any problems with acid rain. The issue with the EPA's mandates is its insistence that coal power stations reduce CO2 emissions. Those enhancements cost an arm and a leg, and make them uncompetitive with gas-fired power stations. Of course, if gas prices shoot up, then I see coal-fired stations getting built, with the CO2 emissions scrubbers.
So you support that?
My post was opposing it, my position is opposing it.
No, I searched the way you instructing me to,
I just searched combos
Putin Gas, etc.... because one word returns too many results
I didn’t do Russia Gas togeather
It’s not as if he would not be removed from power if he were to back down.
In equally surprising news, water has been discovered to be wet.
Putin doesn’t need dollars.
He needs Yuan, and he’s signed a huge gas contract with the Chinese to get them.
As I understand it Russia doesn’t have enough capacity to supply both Europe and the new Chinese contract anyway. If true, this would mean that Putin *had* to cut back exports to Europe.
It’s not about who supports what. These are simply the facts.
Or honored the treaties they signed in the early 90s.
You are confusing background links as citations to the source of the story.
There are existing pipelines to Turkey that can handle the volumes, none of them link to these affected countries.
So you could say there is zero capacity to get the gas to the destination right now except by LNG ships and rail.
Yes it is about who supports what, I get on to oppose it, and you want to oppose opposing it.
There is no reason for America and our allies to be surrendering to Russia and recreating what so many of us here fought and gave so much to defeat.
I have no idea what your talking about. I mentioned some facts, and all you talk about is who is supporting the American sellout...BTW I never said a word about supporting or not supporting anything...
The comments made were not about me.
Sigh....
No I am not. Read the claims in the article, they match the links. They are not just loosely related links to stories from years before.
There are existing pipelines to Turkey that can handle the volumes
No. They don't come to even half the volume moving through the Ukraine.
Sigh
Okay, I’m done now.
I’m curious how many days will go by, 4 now, when it is not picked up by any major media, before you decide it was a false story.
Cheers!
To: CptnObvious
It is a little premature for the United States and NATO to surrender to the Russians.
17 posted on 1/18/2015, 3:11:39 PM by ansel12
You posted to me “Why not?” and then described why we should.
Gutsy move. Telling the former members of the ‘Pact to get their gas from the West, if that’s where their sympathies lay.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.