[AgentR11]

diss, there is a difference, Russia is bombing from Latakia; their sortee rate and the raw kg amount of bombs they can put on target is limited by what they ship in via SyriaExpress. And for now, contrary to the advertising campaign, most of the cargo tonnage brought in has been tanks, trucks, and ammo for SAA; fuel of course, and air and electronic defense for the Tartus and Latakia bases. This will remain the case for some time; they'll want to secure the Damascus air zone soon, and the airport they relieved up near Aleppo; those will require more tanks, trucks, electronic warfare units, generators, fuel, and pantsir & buk units.

No, Russia is definitely demonstrating some serious logistical power, military effectiveness, and most important part of the message, a very deliberate, methodical, well executed plan of attack.

As much fun as it is to razz-da-rus; heckle them for horrible economic decisions over the last twenty years, and wish for a future of returning to the looting of central Russia for payment in chocolate bars... as much fun as all that is; Russia has demonstrated themselves to be a world class power. The unipolar world is dead.

Whats more, on top of that, their deliberate, methodical approach is giving confidence to China. Chinese are still hypersensitive to every slight; but they have become much more patient in their responses, never taking the bait towards a self destructive move. The SCS challenge is a perfect example, we want them to focus on meeting the US challenge, spend resources trying to stop us from driving around their(or whoevers) islands. They response? A bit of radio heckling, a routine escort, and lots more dredgers. The response to US challenge was not less building. It was more building.

India's not ready to play this game, but there's no reason to think she won't join the fun in a couple more decades; and both China and India are learning to operate Aircraft carriers, as well as having substantial submarine fleets.

When we say Russia isn't playing nice, we mean they are less finicky about what gets blown up. To a Russian, if its not heavy infrastructure or a designated religious/red cross type site, its valid, if its valid and an enemy, it gets a bomb. It was funny too, a bit back, folks had an image of a Russian strike on a Raqqa bridge. I couldn't help but notice that it was hit at the easiest spot to repair. maybe an accident, i dunno. When the US hits a bridge, we take out the whole main channel span; a repair that can take a year+ to finish, if the bridge even remains viable.

Otoh, we don't like to blow up trucks that ship oil, even if terrorists are getting most of the money. Only explanation I can come up with is some of our guys were finding a way to skim some of the profits off those stolen barrels of oil.

[dolanbaker]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35107203
MPs have voted to allow fracking for shale gas 1,200m below national parks and other protected sites.

The new regulations - which allow drilling from outside the protected areas - were approved by 298 to 261.

Opposition parties and campaigners criticised the lack of a Commons debate - and accused ministers of a U-turn as they previously pledged an outright ban on fracking in national parks.

The government said its plans would protect "our most precious landscapes".

It said the UK had "one of the best track records in the world for protecting our environment while developing our industries".

It's quite clear that the UK is looking into the long term future and when the question "frack or freeze" is asked, we'll already know the answer.

[ROCKMAN]

GASMON - "It's the (fracking) chemicals most folk are scared of, and their both short and long term effects." And this is the same misdirection that folks in the US have over frac'ng: the frac'ng process itself has very little potential to negatively impact anyone's life. Same true for producing the frac fluids. The real potential danger is improper disposal of the frac fluids. But that danger has always existed in Britain because other industries have produced dangerous chemicals for many decades (often much more dangerous then frac fluids) that had to be safely disposed.

My recommendation for my Brit cousin is to stop focusing on the frac'ng process itself and check into the current status of the disposal of ALL toxic fluids in the country. Who knows: they might discover they been having some serious issues long before the frac'ng conversation began. BTW this is the same advice (often ignored initially) I gave my Yankee cousins in PA et al. Eventually they started paying more attention to the disposal wells then the drill rigs.

[Subjectivist]

This popped up on my FB feed and I was wondering if it is legit, or satire?

The company, nicknamed the "Gatwick gusher" after finding the oil close to Gatwick Airport in West Sussex, claims that it has managed to get "significant" amounts of oil to flow to the surface, under "minimal stimulation."

UKOG says that on Monday it managed to pump the equivalent of around 463 barrels of oil per day for just over seven hours.

That announcement has sent shares in UKOG up by as much as an enormous 77%. That may sound like an awful lot, but in monetary terms isn't all too big. Shares opened Tuesday at £1.40 ($2.03), before popping as high as £2.26 ($3.28) per share. They've settled down a little bit since that peak at around 8:00 a.m. GMT (3:00 a.m. ET) and around an hour after the open are up to £1.97 ($2.86), a gain of 41%. Here's how that spike looks:

http://www.businessinsider.com/uk-oil-a ... oil-2016-2

[ROCKMAN]

Sub – here’s the little I know. The well was completed in the Kimmeridge formation between 2,500’ and 3,000’. The Kimmeridge: Mudstones (calcareous or kerogen-rich or silty or sandy); thin siltstone and cement stone beds; locally sands and silts.

If they are telling the truth about the flow rate it would be a shock. But I’ve seen wells initially flow at hundreds of bopd drop to tens of bopd in a month. They don’t describe what they actually completed in or how the completion was designed. But given the rock type they may have caught a very local porous sand lens in the clay or caught a natural fracture. Both of which could deplete fast.

But the basic reality: an initial flow rate for a few hours will rarely indicate the long term productivity. I’m also suspicious of how little the stock jumped. If that test is truly indicative of what’s there the stock should have increased many multiples. Maybe the market knows something it isn’t sharing.

[Subjectivist]

Sub – here’s the little I know. The well was completed in the Kimmeridge formation between 2,500’ and 3,000’. The Kimmeridge: Mudstones (calcareous or kerogen-rich or silty or sandy); thin siltstone and cement stone beds; locally sands and silts.

If they are telling the truth about the flow rate it would be a shock. But I’ve seen wells initially flow at hundreds of bopd drop to tens of bopd in a month. They don’t describe what they actually completed in or how the completion was designed. But given the rock type they may have caught a very local porous sand lens in the clay or caught a natural fracture. Both of which could deplete fast.

But the basic reality: an initial flow rate for a few hours will rarely indicate the long term productivity. I’m also suspicious of how little the stock jumped. If that test is truly indicative of what’s there the stock should have increased many multiples. Maybe the market knows something it isn’t sharing.

Thanks Rockman, so often news reports leave me with many more questions than answers. The implication made by someone on FB was that this oil was expensive to drill for, like Bakken Shale, but no mention of Fracking was made.

[Tanada]

People still continue with the starry eyed optimism that Governments in the UK or anywhere else, will cut their own emissions in some meaningful way. As keeps being bandied about, despite 20 years of "solid commitments" and "Statutory Requirements" that emissions must be cut ASAP every government on the planet that has fossil fuel resources to exploit is doing so. Commitments and laws don't mean a darn thing unless they are enforced.

Highlights in quote, much much longer piece complete with graphs at link below quote.

The first test is ensuring that emissions during development, production and decommissioning are “strictly limited”.

This means limiting methane emissions, banning production in areas where the land-use change would cause significant emissions, such as areas with deep peat soils, and requiring proper decommissioning of wells at the end of their lives.

“Left entirely unregulated, the emissions footprint of shale gas production could be substantial,” the report warns. And it adds that while technologies and techniques are available, the UK’s regulatory position is not yet assured, although it has potential to be world leading.

The second test is whether gas consumption can remain in line with carbon budget requirements. The CCC has already illustrated how much unabated gas can be consumed in the UK, and any usage beyond this would not be in line with the UK’s carbon budgets.

Therefore, any new sources of UK gas production must be used to displace imports, rather than increase the amount of gas that the UK consumes as a whole, the report says.

How much gas this means is largely dependent on whether carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology is widely deployed in the future.

Without CCS, gas consumption needs to drop by around 80% by 2050 compared to today’s levels, the CCC has said. This would also make it more difficult to accommodate the emissions associated with production of gas, as there would be little scope in the rest of the economy to compensate for this increase.

This relates to the third test, which is whether shale gas production emissions can be accommodated within the carbon budgets.

Domestic production of shale gas will lead to additional UK emissions, even if consumption is not affected and the process is tightly monitored, says the report.

Even if regulations are stringent, UK production could cause around 11 millions tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year in 2030, if the industry grows very quickly — more than 3% of total allowable UK emissions under the proposed fifth carbon budget. If regulations turned out to be lax, emissions would be significantly higher.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/ccc-frackin ... mate-goals

[RepublicanfromEngland]

Hi,

Having recognised it has been five years since the riots that took place after a police officer shot a person that led to looting across several English cities.

Having seen a few clips on the video site youtube, it sure gives an idea of how the city could look with an energy crisis, and food shortage in the future.

[Shaved Monkey]

The capitalist demand was strong, the ability or desire to pay was lacking.
When the lights go out shopping will change from through the front door to through the window.
People will still want things but they just wont want to pay or wont be able to pay.

[JV153]

A clue ? Just as long as you're paying attention.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHMLMKE1tOk'

[Tanada]

Anyone have current data for UK/EU/Russia Natural Gas supply as we start winter heating season around the northern hemisphere?

[Cog]

More of the same from the usual Islamic terrorists. Same MO as usual. Trump is right about them and its time to wake up to the fact that Islam is not and never will be adaptable to Western morals or ideals.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/worl ... olice.html


MANCHESTER, England — At least one explosion, which may have been a suicide bombing, thundered through a Manchester concert arena on Monday night just as a performance by the pop star Ariana Grande ended, in what the police described as a “terrorist incident.” They said at least 19 people had been killed and 50 wounded as panicked spectators, including adolescents, screamed and fled.

There was no immediate word from the police on the precise cause of the blast, but it evoked the terrorist attacks in Paris in November 2015, which included a deadly assault inside a concert arena where the Eagles of Death Metal had been playing.

[Plantagenet]

It (terrorism) gets closer to us all, and seems to be getting more frequent.

This is inevitable as more and more Muslims migrate to the west.

Studies show roughly 50-70% of Muslims want Sharia law. That means they want to overthrow current western governments and replace them with an Islamic government.

Of that number, maybe a few percent are Islamist militants who will engage in violent acts so If you've got a thousand Muslims then there are maybe 20 Islamist militants. If you've got a million Muslims then there will be thousands of Islamic terrorists.

The more Muslims you have, the more Islamist terrorists and the more Islamist terrorist attacks you get.

[Plantagenet]

The estimated number of potential terrorists in the UK today is about 3500.

3-500-potential-terrorists-monitored-

Personally, I don't understand why the UK (and other countries) don't simply make it crime for people to be affiliated with Islamist terrorist organizations, and then arrest the 3500 before they can kill again.

These mass murder terror attacks are heinous----every effort should be made to prevent them, including mass detention of terrorists, IMHO.

Cheers!

[Cog]

I see my original thread title rustled some jimmies. Which goes back to my original point. You invite Muslims to live in your country, provide them with all the freedom and riches your country can provide, and they end up reverting to the savages that they truly are.

Islam is not compatible with Western civilization and we kid ourselves if we believe differently. Denying the reality of what Islam is(a death cult) will not save your neck from getting chopped. Your progressive-liberalism is seen for what it is. Weakness.

[Cog]

I wonder if he she understands the true face of terror a bit better now.

[Outcast_Searcher]

I see my original thread title rustled some jimmies. Which goes back to my original point. You invite Muslims to live in your country, provide them with all the freedom and riches your country can provide, and they end up reverting to the savages that they truly are.

Islam is not compatible with Western civilization and we kid ourselves if we believe differently. Denying the reality of what Islam is(a death cult) will not save your neck from getting chopped. Your progressive-liberalism is seen for what it is. Weakness.

But Cog, saying all Muslims are terrorists is as valid as the liberals/dems (like some on this site) who equate the ENTIRE GOP with racism.

There are some in the GOP who are racist, unfortunately. Does that make the entire GOP racist and deserving of racial hatred and liberal condemnation? I say no.

Well, same story with Muslims. I know a number of Muslims casually, who run restaurants in my small city. Should we say they're terrorists or lock them up or kick them out because SOME Muslims are terrorists? Especially Muslims who have lived here peacefully all their lives and not been more criminal than normal law abiding folk?

I don't think so. (Just like it's idiotic, to me, for people to hate Jewish people for a cultural tendency to be studious, hard working, and often successful in business).

Now, that doesn't mean (IMO) that we leave the borders wide open and invite millions of Muslim refugees to enter with little or no background checking.

But there's got to be some kind of middle ground, or we revert to ancient hate/tribalism borne of "them are bad because dey don' look like us, so let's killum", which is somewhere that no one rational wants to go -- IMO.

[ritter]

@Cog--that pic is offensive and way out of line.

[Plantagenet]

There are some in the GOP who are racist, unfortunately. Does that make the entire GOP racist and deserving of racial hatred and liberal condemnation? I say no.

There are some in the D party who are racist, unfortunately. Does that make the entire D party racist and deserving of racial hatred and conservative condemnation? I say no.

Well, same story with Muslims.

True enough. Some Muslims are also definitely racist.

I know a number of Muslims casually, who run restaurants in my small city. Should we say they're terrorists or lock them up or kick them out because SOME Muslims are terrorists? Especially Muslims who have lived here peacefully all their lives and not been more criminal than normal law abiding folk?

I don't think so.

All Muslims aren't the problem. There is a small minority of Islamist Muslims who are known terrorists,just like the Muslim who blew up the people in Manchester was a known terrrorist.

Doesn't it make more sense to expel known terrorists before they murder people rather then waiting for them to carry out mass murder terror attacks on innocent people and going after them then?

This is getting to be a pattern---some Islamist Muslim carries out a mass murder attack and the security services say, oh yeah, we had that guy on our watch list already. Its happened often enough that perhaps the terrorists on the watch list should be rounded up now BEFORE they blow up innocent people or run down innocent people or knife innocent people or shoot innocent people---the criteria for putting people on the watch list seem to be pretty reliable at identifying terrorists.

Cheers!

[Cog]

@Cog--that pic is offensive and way out of line.

It is an accurate reflection of a instagram she made after the presidential election. What should be offensive to you is the slaughter of teen and pre-teen girls who simply wanted to see a concert. I use words, they use bombs.