In response to this looming catastrophe, we can expect to hear more about the alleged promise of “small modular reactors,” another energy panacea born to disappoint, as any U.S. nuclear navy veteran who remembers the failed experiments of the 1950s could tell you.
You're quite right. Anyway, the industrial base and mineral supplies do not exist, and could not be created before the gas blackmail has done its work.
I wonder about the following in relation to this piece:
-The way it is written you would imagine that Russia supplied all, or at least the majority, of Europe's gas (but it does not).
-It would seem to overestimate the appetite for appeasement. Views are pretty storngly held on this, and (as recent episodes in both Germany and France reveal) are, if anything, hardening.
-Part of the reason for these firm views relate to what would happen after Europe (including the UK, presumably) obediently rolled over (as prognosticated). There is a pretty strong belief that this would not be the end of the problem, but would merely prolong and deepen it.
-German rearmament plans, and associated approved spending, would seem to be ignored.
-It is asserted that the US would reduce military assistance if Republicans took power. Is it not just as likely - or more likely - that the US would project power in a more forceful way under Republicans? Indeed, they may pay less heed to Russian government sensitivities and supply weapons which help Ukraine win the war more quickly.
-Little is said of the economic and human price being borne by Russia, which is likely to rise over time.
-Finally Ukranian agency is strangely ignored. This, conincidentally, has been a typical problem associated with Putin's publicly stated approach. There are over 40 million people who are going to have their say one way or another. They have exacted a terrible price from Russia already for its invasion, and this is likely just the beginning of what they will achieve should Putin fail to withdraw his troops from their country.
Can't be sure but believe Mr. Dizard's article is suggesting that whatever unity and determination exist today will be quickly undermined by blackouts and/or hunger. And Russia does not need to be the biggest supplier - only a necessary one which they most certainly are. The marginal unit of supply sets the price and that marginal unit has become an economic calamity and the West seems unwilling to make the changes necessary to incentivize capex. Read the below article from the WSJ on how the lack of Russian energy may shut-in BASF's massive chemicals hub. We have all taken far too much for granted. Unless the West unifies and gets spending in motion, Sri Lanka is simply the start of a long line of problems.....
I think you might underestimate what is being done: https://www.ft.com/content/d0c5815f-f0a2-49ad-8772-f4b0fbbd2c94 Also, you perhaps forget that it is those with fat can afford to cut. It's those who just get by (like the poorer people in places like Russia and Sri Lanka - to which you rightly draw attention) who are going to be hurt far more. Europe wil be ok as long as it does not try to appease Putin (and I don't see any evidence that it will), as this will just lead to more problems later. Getting Russian hydrocarbons out of supply chains a little quicker than would have happened otherwise is manageable. As for BASF - yes, of course some industries will be hurt. Chemicals is cyclical and exposed to the gas price. Anyone who does not know that has no business investing.
Can you point to any data about the amount of energy Europe imports from Russia? Also how much readily available alternative supplies are there? I understand what you are saying but I would like to quantify the situation.
A fair analysis but events have moved on. We are going to have a nasty recession globally, which will substantially reduce demand for energy, and once the price of Bitcoin falls below circa $15,000 it will become uneconomic to 'mine' it so energy consumption equivalent to that of a medium-sized developed economy will be eliminated for the foreseeable future.
What (among many things) I do not understand about this catastrophe is how Russians can afford to forgo income from sales of gas to the West. Especially in light of what we are being told: that this war will be a grinding and protracted conflict.
Russian have the unfortunate history of suffering deprivation. The Western Democracies have less tolerance for standard of living declines and their citizens can react . Russians can't .
Despite this being a very interesting article, it sorely lacks any data to corroborate it.
Statements such as "Europe was saved from energy disaster this year thanks to China’s lockdowns (which released some LNG supplies) and unusually warm weather." must be justified by offering some hard data: how much supply was released by China’s lockdowns? How much less consumption than average was saved by the warmer weather?
The whole article is full such statements and platitudes but not a SINGLE piece of data has been offered.
This is especially troubling given the very harsh conclusions that the article offers.
While more data would be nice, particularly on the consumption side, the statements are not controversial. I completely disagree on your grade of an F. It's hard to avoid Dizard's conclusion. Europe is pursuing policies largely pushed by Washington that are profoundly counter to their interests. $5 gas my be a problem for Americans, but it is noting compared to natural gas increasing multiples, which drove German and Italian producer prices up 30% y/y.
The energy catastrophe Dizard speaks of is becoming an economic one as the viability of manufacturers withers.
The real question no one has asked is: Why have so many European politicians been so eager to embrace policies that have such detrimental effects on their countries?
The Germans and others have two choices: either go on a war footing and ration energy to everybody, including domestic users, or cave in to Putin. It’s quite simple.
The mass murdering gangster in the Kremlin is confirming a view that I have held most of my professional life which is that humanity must understand that its that its fossil fuel reserves, which have delivered so much of modern humanity's wealth and frighteningly boosted humanity's population, really are finite and fast diminishing. We Europeans knew that he is a murderous gangster yet "we" trusted him! I smell looming catastrophe for my children and grandchildren which has little or nothing to do with any pending climate change!
I really hope that you are overstating the case but fear you may be correct in that European governments will choose to allow Putin to get away with aggression again. I hate to admit it but Trump was absolutely correct to oppose Nord stream 2.
Excellent article. Excellent comments debating the harsh realities posed by Putin’s invasion. The conclusion that the world is in for years of unaccustomed hardship seems unavoidable as supply lines for energy AND food fracture. Political consequences for such failures are historically horrible. Our political systems on both side of the Atlantic are stressed as never before in post WWII era.
John’s points are sobering . And very troubling. The exogenous shocks of the last decade concatenate. The interlinked international financial system of the last few decades is in peril and its liquidity shock absorbers face rupture too.
Agree completely with this thoughtful and sobering assessment by an author who has always been a very close observer of global energy markets He deserves an A for highlighting in five minutes the likely fate awaiting us for the next several years.
This is a good analysis as far as the energy situation goes. However, the Europeans must realize that if they sacrifice Ukraine on the altar of energy they will inevitably be required to make additional sacrifices. It was always a bad idea to be dependent on Russia for energy and now the bill is due. The Ukrainian armed forces are are not faltering and their capabilities will improve in the near future. The game is not over yet.
In response to this looming catastrophe, we can expect to hear more about the alleged promise of “small modular reactors,” another energy panacea born to disappoint, as any U.S. nuclear navy veteran who remembers the failed experiments of the 1950s could tell you.
You're quite right. Anyway, the industrial base and mineral supplies do not exist, and could not be created before the gas blackmail has done its work.
What failed experiments? The Navy's been running over 700 reactors for decades.
Read and learn. The SMR most commonly discussed are liquid sodium cooled, tried and discarded by the USN in the 1950s
Well, say that in your post...
I wonder about the following in relation to this piece:
-The way it is written you would imagine that Russia supplied all, or at least the majority, of Europe's gas (but it does not).
-It would seem to overestimate the appetite for appeasement. Views are pretty storngly held on this, and (as recent episodes in both Germany and France reveal) are, if anything, hardening.
-Part of the reason for these firm views relate to what would happen after Europe (including the UK, presumably) obediently rolled over (as prognosticated). There is a pretty strong belief that this would not be the end of the problem, but would merely prolong and deepen it.
-German rearmament plans, and associated approved spending, would seem to be ignored.
-It is asserted that the US would reduce military assistance if Republicans took power. Is it not just as likely - or more likely - that the US would project power in a more forceful way under Republicans? Indeed, they may pay less heed to Russian government sensitivities and supply weapons which help Ukraine win the war more quickly.
-Little is said of the economic and human price being borne by Russia, which is likely to rise over time.
-Finally Ukranian agency is strangely ignored. This, conincidentally, has been a typical problem associated with Putin's publicly stated approach. There are over 40 million people who are going to have their say one way or another. They have exacted a terrible price from Russia already for its invasion, and this is likely just the beginning of what they will achieve should Putin fail to withdraw his troops from their country.
Can't be sure but believe Mr. Dizard's article is suggesting that whatever unity and determination exist today will be quickly undermined by blackouts and/or hunger. And Russia does not need to be the biggest supplier - only a necessary one which they most certainly are. The marginal unit of supply sets the price and that marginal unit has become an economic calamity and the West seems unwilling to make the changes necessary to incentivize capex. Read the below article from the WSJ on how the lack of Russian energy may shut-in BASF's massive chemicals hub. We have all taken far too much for granted. Unless the West unifies and gets spending in motion, Sri Lanka is simply the start of a long line of problems.....
https://www.wsj.com/articles/russian-gas-cuts-threaten-worlds-largest-chemicals-hub-11656316625
I think you might underestimate what is being done: https://www.ft.com/content/d0c5815f-f0a2-49ad-8772-f4b0fbbd2c94 Also, you perhaps forget that it is those with fat can afford to cut. It's those who just get by (like the poorer people in places like Russia and Sri Lanka - to which you rightly draw attention) who are going to be hurt far more. Europe wil be ok as long as it does not try to appease Putin (and I don't see any evidence that it will), as this will just lead to more problems later. Getting Russian hydrocarbons out of supply chains a little quicker than would have happened otherwise is manageable. As for BASF - yes, of course some industries will be hurt. Chemicals is cyclical and exposed to the gas price. Anyone who does not know that has no business investing.
Just fyi Sholz and the Greens are slow-walking re-armament as well as Ukranian aid.
Hello John,
Can you point to any data about the amount of energy Europe imports from Russia? Also how much readily available alternative supplies are there? I understand what you are saying but I would like to quantify the situation.
A fair analysis but events have moved on. We are going to have a nasty recession globally, which will substantially reduce demand for energy, and once the price of Bitcoin falls below circa $15,000 it will become uneconomic to 'mine' it so energy consumption equivalent to that of a medium-sized developed economy will be eliminated for the foreseeable future.
What (among many things) I do not understand about this catastrophe is how Russians can afford to forgo income from sales of gas to the West. Especially in light of what we are being told: that this war will be a grinding and protracted conflict.
Russian have the unfortunate history of suffering deprivation. The Western Democracies have less tolerance for standard of living declines and their citizens can react . Russians can't .
Despite this being a very interesting article, it sorely lacks any data to corroborate it.
Statements such as "Europe was saved from energy disaster this year thanks to China’s lockdowns (which released some LNG supplies) and unusually warm weather." must be justified by offering some hard data: how much supply was released by China’s lockdowns? How much less consumption than average was saved by the warmer weather?
The whole article is full such statements and platitudes but not a SINGLE piece of data has been offered.
This is especially troubling given the very harsh conclusions that the article offers.
As such, it gets an F.
While more data would be nice, particularly on the consumption side, the statements are not controversial. I completely disagree on your grade of an F. It's hard to avoid Dizard's conclusion. Europe is pursuing policies largely pushed by Washington that are profoundly counter to their interests. $5 gas my be a problem for Americans, but it is noting compared to natural gas increasing multiples, which drove German and Italian producer prices up 30% y/y.
The energy catastrophe Dizard speaks of is becoming an economic one as the viability of manufacturers withers.
The real question no one has asked is: Why have so many European politicians been so eager to embrace policies that have such detrimental effects on their countries?
Superb and spot on.
The Germans and others have two choices: either go on a war footing and ration energy to everybody, including domestic users, or cave in to Putin. It’s quite simple.
The mass murdering gangster in the Kremlin is confirming a view that I have held most of my professional life which is that humanity must understand that its that its fossil fuel reserves, which have delivered so much of modern humanity's wealth and frighteningly boosted humanity's population, really are finite and fast diminishing. We Europeans knew that he is a murderous gangster yet "we" trusted him! I smell looming catastrophe for my children and grandchildren which has little or nothing to do with any pending climate change!
Appears that Europe has 2 dozen oil-fired electrical facilities. Should be easier to supply oil, and will this have an immaterial impact?
Secondly, i rarely see any mention of Canada's massive LNG Canada project. No help this winter, but must think they have contracted out supply.
I really hope that you are overstating the case but fear you may be correct in that European governments will choose to allow Putin to get away with aggression again. I hate to admit it but Trump was absolutely correct to oppose Nord stream 2.
Excellent article. Excellent comments debating the harsh realities posed by Putin’s invasion. The conclusion that the world is in for years of unaccustomed hardship seems unavoidable as supply lines for energy AND food fracture. Political consequences for such failures are historically horrible. Our political systems on both side of the Atlantic are stressed as never before in post WWII era.
John’s points are sobering . And very troubling. The exogenous shocks of the last decade concatenate. The interlinked international financial system of the last few decades is in peril and its liquidity shock absorbers face rupture too.
Alarming conclusions but hard to argue against. Well worth the read.
Great Article as usual, very enlightening and to the point. Thanks.
Agree completely with this thoughtful and sobering assessment by an author who has always been a very close observer of global energy markets He deserves an A for highlighting in five minutes the likely fate awaiting us for the next several years.
This is a good analysis as far as the energy situation goes. However, the Europeans must realize that if they sacrifice Ukraine on the altar of energy they will inevitably be required to make additional sacrifices. It was always a bad idea to be dependent on Russia for energy and now the bill is due. The Ukrainian armed forces are are not faltering and their capabilities will improve in the near future. The game is not over yet.