- Oil and gas facilities in Russia have caught fire in recent weeks following suspected drone attacks.
- In the latest attack, an oil refinery in the southwestern Volgograd region was ablaze on Saturday.
- Russia’s air-defense systems have proven to be less effective against small drones.
It’s about time someone did. War is just violent economics. Taking away Putin’s income will cost him the war faster than killing Russians.
And much more humanely. Plus every destroyed oil refinery in the world is a boon to humanity and probably a couple months longer survival as a species.
Generally agree, but damaging gas facilities can have undesirable consequences. An extreme methane leak is worse than combusting that gas
In the short run, yes, but not in the long run.
The gas contained in the facility at any one time is nothing compared to the total output had it continued to operate for however many years it would otherwise be functioning.
Only so long as it’s not rebuilt or replaced (e.g. in India to cope with reduced oil from Russia).
Environmentally, this isn’t good. As a state at war, they are an excellent target to up the pressure.
War in general is horrible for the environment, but if a few burning refineries over a short period of time can stop a war, then it may be a net benefit.
They could just as easily build one in India without this one being destroyed and either way, replacing it costs money. You’re talking absolute nonsense.
Supply and demand applies. In the short term, oil usage is fairly inelastic. If supply is squeezed, by Russia not being able to produce, then prices climb. This encourages the building of new plants, or the expansion of old ones due to rising profits. It also encourages affected nations to build plants, to secure their own national requirements.
To fix things, you need to attack both supply and demand. Demand is helped by reduce the friction with moving away from oil, as well as providing cost competitive alternatives. Supply is helped by forcing the externalised costs back into its pricing. This reduces profitability, and increases the pressure to change away from oil.
Supply and demand applies.
Not on the local level with a global commodity like oil.
If supply is squeezed, by Russia not being able to produce, then prices climb
Not necessarily, no. Other oil producing countries might elect to release some of their reserves or increase production to keep prizes down. As I said, global commodity.
Aaaand the rest just keeps on in the same way of assuming that local supply has vital effects on the price of a global commodity, so I’m just gonna stop repeating the point you keep missing in your zeal to make one less oil refinery in the world a bad thing 🤦
demand
Ok… I DEMAND that he stops talking nonsense!
That better? 😛
True… but also there are safety mechanisms that shut off the flow of methane in events such as this. As the last thing you will want is combustible methane on your facility fire that was just bombed.
A drone that hits a storage tank containing billions of litres of flammable fuel is the best way to get a bang for the buck - especially because there are probably billions of litres more in other nearby tanks. Sound strategy.
These have to be some of the best value trades in history.
Defending their country and the environment in one swoop!
Thanks Ukraine!
In the hands of an ally like Ukraine, this is a powerful tool to bring the fight to the enemy.
However, in the bigger picture, this is probably going to be much more effective in asymmetric warfare against a major power like the United States or Russia as tragically shown in Jordan because it’s too easy for small actors to deploy. Big targets are much more vulnerable than small, mobile targets in such warfare.
This hasn’t really been real-world tested against hardened targets like an American carrier battle group either. Against manned aircraft the group’s many layers of defenses are well known and extremely hard. Has it ever been attacked by 1000 cheap drones at once that fly no more than 20ft above sea level? What about multiple waves of them? Aegis destroyers firing missiles that cost $300k a piece are great against MiGs that cost a few million each. Against a drone that costs $500-1000…idk. CIWS systems can down a few drones but they’ll run out of ammo against large waves.
I don’t think a swarm like that could carry enough ordnance to actually sink a carrier even if they made it that far in. But there’s a large difference between sinking it and doing nothing. Even temporarily suspending flight operations is a huge accomplishment if you can get it done for $100k.
I’m sure the Pentagon has run simulations on this but the way the world is going I think we’re going to witness a real world test relatively soon.
All I can do there is dance.
The roof is on fire - Future Prophecies (ft. MC Dynamite)
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/YeGRP0XxH6E?si=eyDRasclkHxbhOzF
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Fires have broken out at several Russian energy infrastructure locations over the past few weeks following suspected drone strikes, including at a major oil refinery operated by Lukoil in the southwestern Volgograd region on Saturday.
But the attack on the Baltic Ust-Luga terminal and bad weather in the region have helped disrupt Russia’s seaborne crude shipments, which fell to their lowest rate in almost two months, Bloomberg reported.
If the attack is confirmed to have been carried out by Ukraine, it would show Kyiv can hit targets deeper inside Russian territory than usual with what are thought to be domestically produced drones, Reuters reported.
To add insult to injury, a military source claimed that Ukraine sent a drone flying over President Vladimir Putin’s palace during an attack on a St. Petersburg oil depot.
En route, one of the drones that flew 775 miles into Russian airspace traveled over one of Putin’s palaces in Valdai, an unnamed special-services source told the Ukrainian news agency RBC.
Hammes, a research fellow at the National Defense University, wrote that small, low-cost drones with a minimal bomb load could wreak havoc if used against flammable targets.
The original article contains 631 words, the summary contains 191 words. Saved 70%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
