As Anger Over Russian Syria Veto Mounts, Putin "Briefly" Leaves Europe In The Cold
Yesterday we presented why when it comes to Syria, the UN Security Council can forget any attempt at "overhauling" a regime that is a cornerstone for Russian naval presence in the Mediterranean and the middle east. Today, in the aftermath of the UN reminder that it is the world's biggest collection of post-facto hypocrites, not to mention, the world's most irrelevant and ineffectual organization, anger at the Russian and Chinese veto has already manifested itself, as protesters have attacked the Russian embassy in Tripoli and tore down the Russian flag, Al Jazeera reported on Sunday. As Itar-Tass reports, "According to Al Jazeera, the riots staged by the Syria opposition involved Libyans as well. No further details are available so far. None of the Russian diplomats has been hurt in an rally stage by the Syrian opposition in front of the Russian embassy in Tripoli on Sunday, an officer from the Russian embassy told Itar-Tass over the phone. “No one has managed to break into the territory of the Russian diplomatic mission, no one of the personnel has been hurt. All are safe and sound. Although the protesters have managed to tear down the Russian flag,” the diplomat said." Still, the wily occupiers of the Kremlin preempted what they perceived as potential 'displeasure' with Russian tactics to protect its own national interests. Because as Zero Hedge has been reminding readers on occasion, Russia has something that is far more valuable to Europe than the Goldman-alum controlled printing press: it has the world's largest natural gas reserves. Which for a continent gripped in one the coldest winters on record, whose heating infrastructure is based primarily on natgas, and where Russian imports account for 25% of total nat gas, Russia has the upper hand in, well, everything. Which it gladly reminded the world of yesterday. According to the AP: Russia's state-controlled Gazprom natural gas giant acknowledged for the first time Saturday that it "had briefly reduced gas supplies to Europe amid a spell of extreme cold." Oops... Just a fat finger there, nothing to worry about. Oh, and if anyone forgets that in the Eurasian continent it is Russia who increasingly holds all the cards, Gazprom may "briefly" cut all supplies to Europe, -40 C degree temperatures be damned. Briefly...
More:
Gazprom deputy chief Andrey Kruglov reported to Prime Minister Vladimir Putin that the cuts lasted for several days and reached up to 10 percent, but supplies are currently back to normal. Officials in Austria and France, however, have reported cuts of as much as 30 percent, and Italy said supplies were down by 24 percent Thursday.
Naturally, there is a scapegoat:
Russia previously had blamed Ukraine for the shortages, saying Kiev is siphoning off more than its share. Authorities in Ukraine have denied the accusations.
The mutual rebukes echoed the previous gas crises, when Gazprom supplies to Europe were cut over price arguments between Russia and Ukraine, the conduit for the biggest export pipeline for Russian gas to reach Europe.
The response chain has been activated => committees have been formed and what not.
The European Commission put its gas coordination committee on alert Friday, but insisted the situation had not yet reached an emergency level as nations have pledged to help each other if needed and storage facilities have been upgraded.
Putin on Saturday tried to use the situation to emphasize the need for alternative supply routes bypassing Ukraine, including the Nord Stream pipeline under the Baltic Sea, the first line of which was inaugurated in November.
Unfortunately for Europe, Russia's monopolistic control of its warmth will only increase with time.
Another Russian pipeline, the South Stream, is expected to go online in 2015 to transport Russian gas to Europe under the Black Sea.
Putin said the current high demand for Russian gas underscores the need for the new pipelines. Europe gets about 25 percent of its natural gas from Russia, which has the world's largest reserves.
"It's obvious today that there is a strong demand for these projects, which both we and our partners," Putin said.
He ordered Gazprom to try to meet an increased demand for the Russian gas in Europe, but added that the company's priority should be to satisfy the local demand.
But, but, can't Saudi Arabia supply the missing gas (obviously this is a joke). After all the Saudis are confident they can be the source of all crude supply even if all the members of OPEC and Russia go offline, or so the joke goes. Apparently, the answer is no:
Putin scoffed at the EU's hopes to fill a higher demand for gas
Oh, and before we forget, Russia is also the world's largest oil producer in the world having recently overtaken Saudi Arabia, and second (possibly the) largest exporter. Any questions now who has not only all the trump cards, but all the cards, period?
(15 votes)
»
- Login or register to post comments
- 14335 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
Similar Articles You Might Enjoy:
- Guest Post: Gazprom - Angel Or Demon?
- Guest Post: The Great Geopolitical Battle Over Energy Transit Routes
- Guest Post: The Myth Of Nabucco: Greed, Delusion And Geopolitics
- Guest Post: Is the Nabacco Pipeline Worth the Projected $11.4 Billion?
- Guest Post:A Floating Alternative To Nabucco Undercuts Potential Disruptions To EU Energy Supplies
Delivery is back to normal - the propaganda says so
these charts must be false...PO deniers inc. Douchinger have told me that oil productionj will rise forever. Other morons said if I disagree, then I WORSHIP BALE.
the idiocy of the Germans to think they can shut down nuke plants...LOL
Cold war reaches the freezing point.
-40C or -40F ???
uh, I guess you don't realize that -40 is basically the point where both those two scales intersect? -40C ~= -40F
Aside: seems like temps in France are reaching near -40, but only if you take the windchill factor into effect.
Fuck the UN. The UN should be irrelevant to American values. I agree with China and Russia for their decision.
What we should be promoting is universal gun ownership and put an AR17 in the hands of every Syrian citizen.
other
WO9520816
- LEWAN MATS: 'Cold fusion may provide one megawatt in Athens' INTERNET CITATION, [Online] 02 February 2011, XP003027505 Retrieved from the Internet:
- See also references of WO 2009125444A1
https://register.epo.org/espacenet/application;jsessionid=C0EFC1CB4CE2FFB48F70B8E6F5F79D83.RegisterPlus_prod_1?number=EP08873805&tab=main
http://peswiki.com/index.php/News:Rossi_Cold_Fusion
Successful Test of 1 MegaWatt Cold Fusion E-CAT w Q&A by Sterling Allan - Oct 28 2011 - Part 3 of 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1W3Vm1HUO8&feature=endscreen&NR=1
Have you pre-ordered your own E-cat yet? Looks promising and I hope the company does not get nuked.
Puty drives his E-cat with his shirt off........looks cooler that way.
Thank god for global warming. Imagine what it would be otherwise.
Hot war boils over!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsA4oexD-3I&feature=player_detailpage
Looks more like Schroedinger's paradox to me. Feels more like a boiling point in freezing times.
The UN is a club Plain and simple. A Bully Club and now they have a Billy Club, blue helmeted and all. I think we can shortly expect UN troops becoming parts of "willing coalitions" as democracy is gifted to all parts of th eworld, willing or other-wise.
Be nice to see it crumble under the weight of it's own fakeness. Peace my ass. Peace-keepers my ass. Raping, human-trafficking, merciless-killing. That is peace-keeping operations for you. Gratuitous LIFE photography aside.
ori
/san-onofre-33rd-parallel-4th-7th-feb-
Just imagine if France had colonized India instead of England, you wouldn't know how to speak English, and we wouldn't have to read this useless crap.
Très bon point, monsieur SadAssTroll.
ori
nice.
Touché
/hattip
What happened SAT? Your job got outsourced? Oh, you poor thing.
Anyway, time to educate you - France did colonize India:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_India
Note that the cut off of nat gas flow to Europe was done in accordance with agreements that exist with Europe for that flow -- namely that if there is a spike in Russian domestic demand, it gets supplied first and exports last.
Russia had the same extreme cold snap and so had to supply the rise in their domestic demand.
This is the reality facing the non oil producing world. Oil producers have domestic demand and because they almost always subsidize domestic pricing, that domestic demand grows sharply. A price of 25 cents a gallon of gasoline will generally always make it the selected solution to an energy problem (portable gasoline powered Honda generators rather than some more expensive power source).
This means that (for example in Saudi Arabia -- 7%/yr) domestic oil consumption rises and export of oil declines.
At the present rate of export decline, Saudi Arabia will export ZERO oil by 2030. THe world can't tolerate that, but of course neither can they from an export revenue perspective. Bottom line: They can't grow production to fix this.
but europe has a backup plan: they can put their committee on high alert. haven't had to yet, so that's like an ace in the hole.
Is it really a worse backup plan than "more wars in the middle east"?
No, you worship Ba'al because you refuse to consider even the possibliity of technological advance, or the fact that some things in life are caused by government regulation and NIMBY rather than your god, Peak Oil.
But then, you have always used any and all logical fallacies to try to make your "point" that no one should do anything and jsut sit and wait for death. Fuck logic, fuck history, fuck supply and fuck demand, right? Oh yeah, and before you forget, be sure to accuse everyone ELSE of using the logical fallacies you yourself take so much advantage of so you can deflect all criticism of your use of such as "coming from the KING of $logicalfallacyname".
Set up a structure of excuses and externalize your inadequacies more, faggot.
ROTFL.
You are a moron who doesn't even know Jevon's Paradox.
Most of your post is a strawman. Not my fault you really are the king of it.
BUT THEN I JUST WORSHIP BALE
Good fuckin god, you are stupid.
@trav-- the two of you are worse than the Israelis and Palestinians
While both of them occasionally post excellent thoughts, I don't recall anything valuable being contributed during the pissing contests.
Regards,
Cooter
Those two need to get a room already.
-Chumblez.
mosley vs. trav
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzFWXVVdvoA
I sure hope Trav doesn't get nucs first !
Tmosely,
Your posts don't make any sense. First you lead with ad hom EVERYTIME, which destroys your arguement. Next you tell me that technology will save us because it always has, another fallacy. And on this subject, which technology? The one that will extract oil from the ground? Because if we stick a bigger straw in the sundae we will only drink faster.
And as far as "abiotic oil", there is no evidence of it. None. Find some and post it here if you have it, but since we have been having this roundabout discussion for years now, I don't believe you have it.
I understand that it is scary to think that we are on the verge of running out of our most accessable and cheapest energy source, but we don't live in Never-never Land. The earth is a thing, things are finite.
perhaps if he opened with an Ad Hummin'en attack instead...like this!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SILLltMB048&feature=player_detailpage
Travs posts dont make any sense as well. How can one be a proponent of diminishing energy supplies and take the attitude towards Silver that he does. If oil is abiotic, Silver for solar is overvalued, if oil is not abiotic , Silver is invaluable for future energy production.
We all have our misconceptions.
I'm sure you meant to say "biases".
Or perhaps "religious zealotry", in which case I disagree with you.
The most important item in replying to your post is to try to make something clear that the MSM waves a hand at:
There Is No Energy Crisis. There is an oil crisis. They are not the same thing.
There is always a smooth preference to rephrase talk about oil and instead talk about energy. This is wrong and crushingly wrong.
Oil has no replacement. There is no substitute. Electric cars cannot carry refrigerated meat from Omaha to NYC. Only diesel powered trucks do that. It takes 740 watts to make just 1 horsepower. A 400 horsepower engine in an 18 wheeler is 300,000 watts. The batteries for that kind of power for a few hundred miles could not be portable.
When the talk is about oil, talk only about oil. When it's about energy . . . it's largely a waste of time. Energy doesn't bring food to grocery store shelves. Oil does.
In no way am I suggesting that electric can entirely replace carbon fuels. It can help conserve. Per acre greenhouses can outproduce farmland by a longshot. When I see ski lifts shutting down their diesel electric powerplants, then I will know there is an acute shortage.
Electric trains however can bring refrigerated meat from Omaha to NYC, and electric trucks can deliver it within the city limits.
Your point works much better in rural areas. From city to city, and within cities, electric transport is quite feasible. It would be painfully more expensive, say like $6.00 gasoline, but not catastrophic.
No they can't. You see any railways from Omaha to NYC with electric wires over them?
Trains run on diesel. Not batteries. The purely electric trains (light rail) you see around are purely local and carry 2 or 3 passenger units.
It's a physics problem. Not an engineering problem. 745 watts per horsepower. You just can't build electrics that can do thousands of horsepower from batteries.
Want another crusher? A team of oxen can plow 1 acre of land in 8 hours. A John Deere 400 HP+ tractor can do it in 2.3 minutes. And it can do that as part of hundreds of acres it must do that day to feed 7 billion people. You can NEVER do that with batteries. They will drain in 10 minutes, and sink the tires into mud before that because of their weight.
This is not the sort of problem that can be solved with engineering advances. This is 80 million years of energy concentration in 42 gallons of volume. You can't fix that in less than 80 million years.
it is possible to do electric freight trains. Gonna require a ton of juice and a lotta wires. No way with batteries.
Where has it been done?
Are you guys serious?
All over the world. Electric Trains with hundreds of thousands of miles of overhead electricity. Just google it.
ori
true ORI. The real idiocy of course has been blowing the back end of oil supply on wars and hummers instead of building the new systems. Every year that goes by lying and hiding and wasting only makes the transition more tragic. The new systems will have to be electric in the long run. Even nuclear takes a hell of a lot of resource and energy to build and its resource will not last that long. Much of the solution is localization - in food production, in energy ( to save transportation loss) in manufacturing, and in everything else. This is how the pre-oil world generally ran, this is how the post world will as well.
Everywhere. Technically, all trains are electric ('Cept maybe Zimbabwe and a few others, In Zim, heard they'd taken the steam loco's out of mothballs because they couldn't pay to service the diesels a while back). They have a big diesel engine in them that generates power to run their traction motors. The big fans on the tops of the locomotives are for shedding the heat when they brake by dumping motion generated power into large resistors.
The distances in the US are probably to far to do it without losing an uneconomical amount of power to transmission line losses.
HUH?
The SOURCE of oil is utterly irrelevant.
Buying silver into a price bubble is dumb.
You are guilty of petitio principii.
I shit on silverbugz and the absurd crap they say
Price bubble? Not in real terms. The high was $50 decades ago. The dollar has inflated drastically. Silver will be at its peak price point at $150, and that is when the lemming investors will start buying.
Tesla was working on free energy (as in unlimited, with 0 imput costs) over a hundred years ago. He was shut down by who? John P. Morgan!
oddjob, may you pls explain further yr below lines:
"If oil is abiotic, Silver for solar is overvalued, if oil is NOT abiotic , Silver is INVALUABLE for future energy production."
invaluable=valuable beyond estimation
If oil is valued for energy within, a substance that can produce near endless electricity thru sunlight has to be equally or more valuable. In 200 years there will be solar panels, but Kenworths will be few and far between.
oddjob, thx for explaining
just don't think humanity can wait another 2 centuries for a very effective/cheap solar panels... 20 years may sound more acceptable :)
There are numerous technologies out there. The only question is "how expensive does energy or fuel (these are seperate issues, and are not to be conflated) have to become before they become economical?
The answer is "not much". Energy dense fuel can be made from algae, or produced from natgas if you like. Energy can currently be produced to power this process from nuclear (NIMBY!=peak anything) or wind (which has a positive EROEI, but not nearly as great as nuclear).
Peak theorists love to bring up the abiotic oil strawman, despite the fact that it has been PROVEN to exist (though the rate of replacement is very much in doubt), but that isn't the point, any more than the rise or fall of whale oil production was the point. The real point is that oil is not the end all be all of human existance. There are plenty of other ways. Peak oilers don't care to change. THey'd rather die, and they would rather not hear about anyone thinking that there is a bright future beyond the dark age of government intervention.
You really should try to get a gig on a Fox News science and technology show...
I think you would fit right in....
You watching Fox news is just as contemptable, for shame.
Naw... Jon Stewart provides me with enough clips of Fox to allow me to arrive at the conclusion I reached...
You watching Jon Stewart is just as contemptable, for shame.
In all fairness, it probably is the only show I watch with regularity with the exception of NOVA....
At least with JS I don't feel like my intelligence is being insulted, at least most of the time....
Jon Stewart thinks you're a dumbass
how's that seat on the writing team going?
Ad hominem. You can do better.
You lead with Ad Hom everytime!
lol
Link please.
http://microbewiki.kenyon.edu/index.php/Deep_subsurface_microbes
Microbes exist far from surface inputs. As the mirobes produce lipids, this means oil is produced without surface input. This does NOT mean that all or even any of the oil we have pulled from the ground was produced this way. What it DOES mean is that there are more sources of energy deep within the earth. Whether we can get to them economically or not is another question.
Lets not turn this into a bitch-fest over abiotic oil. Just stop trying to label people because of their "stupid" theories, especially when there is a chance that those "stupid" theories might be right, or might lead to something that is right.
Well I'll have to weigh the deep microbe theory. It would seem plausible, since they would decay, like plant matter does, to form oil.
Deep microbes are by definition not "abiotic"....
Wasn't that my point?
Exactly.
The original source for the energy they live on appears to be nuclear reactions cracking water into oxygen and hydrogen.
Even if these bugs are not producing usable or retrievable oil, they can teach us lessons on how to produce the fuel.
Another interesting article I found while looking for the original article I posted a year and a half ago is here: http://news.discovery.com/earth/bacteria-turn-coal-and-oil-into-renewabl...
Apparently, there are bacteria that can turn uneconomical coal seams into methane in the presence of CO2.
And these are just a couple of possibilities. There are dozens if not hundreds of technologies that can be used to produce fuel and even energy for us. All it takes is the motivation to develop them. The main barrier is governemnt intervention in the markets via taxation, subsidy, and regulation.
It's good to have dreams....
I suggest you check out the following if you are serious:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8851
Pay attention to the comments by Carnot.... he is actually in the energy business, I tend to get insight from people like him as opposed to cornucopian crack pots...
Maybe Carnot has ulterior motives, much like Pickens, who is also in the energy business. Do you really think these billionaires give a shit about you?
Agreed, I don't think they give a shit.... conversely, I don't get all wrapped up in warm fuzzy dreams about the future...
Everybody has alterior motives, some less benign than others, but some are actually talking sense while others are full of shit..
What have you added of substance to any discussion here?
well said. Everyone has their motives, but this subject is too important not to do our homework and figure out who is full of shit and who isn't it. This is literally our survival
nuclear reactions cracking water into H2 and O2?
LOL...ok cliff.
How can bacteria and coal be turned into "renewable" energy? LOL.
If you have a problem, feel free to email the author. I'm sure he'll take your horseshit seriously and won't laugh in your face.
ROTFL..."nuclear" reactions cracking water to H2 and O2, huh?
There isn't a scientifically literate person on here that doesn't see right through your bullshit, cliff.
Yeah, I'd rather die. That is why I came up with Crash JPM, Buy Silver, because I sit on my thumbs all day hoping to get eaten by rabid racoons.
Nuclear could have helped mitigate peak oil but we use it complacently. Solar could help, but we have not developed it fast enough. As far as abiotic, just give me some links to read. Give me a book. Give me anything. I ask because I have been looking for this Grail, and have not found it.
I do hope we can solve our problems, and don't tell me otherwise.
YOU JUST WORSHIP BALE
It's funny, when you write it like that I think of what's her tits from Modern Family pronouncing the city "Vale" with her accent.
I should like to point out the power of technological advance in oil production on the state of Oklahoma.
Oklahoma pumped about 700,000 barrels of oil per day in 1927. They pump about 170,000 barrels of oil per day now, down 75% from that 1927 peak.
A full 85 years of technology advance (and abiotic refilling of those reservoirs) is in play there -- for a 75% decline.
I couldn't even dream that shit up.
While I'm here, a word or two about Russia and its oil fields.
They are more or less Siberian. Eastern Siberia and Western Siberia. The Western Siberian oil fields are old and they are the bulk of production. Eastern Siberia, all the way to the Pacific, are the prospective new fields that will come on line in a few years.
Russian oil production is somewhere just over 10 million bpd. The measuring agencies have started the recently popular lumping in of NGLs to increase the number quote. Reminding ZHers, NGLs are natural gas liquids like propane, ethane and butane and these contain about 55% on overal weighted average of the BTUs of a barrel of crude oil. Meaning, they don't refine barrel per barrel into the same amount of gasoline that brings food to grocery store shelves, but they are lumped in to make "oil production" look better.
One other item in the Russian quote. Their oil companies (Rosneft and Lukoil) are moving international. Lukoil has big holdings in Africa now. There are some whispered indications that Russian production quotes are summing the production of their oil companies, and some of that is not from Russia. It has been suggested that Lukoil's African output is getting added in to polish the number.
The overall issue is this: The bulk of Russian production is from very old fields. When you have old fields, you have to drill more holes to get the same level of flow rate (production) out, so you will see quotes like "We must have $25 billion of investment to maintain output". Each hole drilled gets less oil, so you have to drill more of them to maintain the same rate of extraction.
They don't have much more time. The sinking of the offshore rig off Sakhalin a few months ago has had a devastating effect on future projections, but this is not getting much attention. All sorts of new procedures have to be followed, and these will apply to the drilling in the arctic, not just off Sakhalin. Understand here that they KNOW the western Siberian fields will fail. They are smart people. They know they have to have new sources.
YOU JUST WORSHIP BALE
Technology is great...it allowed us to suck the oil out faster and maintain the rate of growth in production! Without technology allowing us to suck fields dry faster, we'd never have been able to support the grow-or-die system. It would have inflected long ago.
Technology never prolonged a field; it was always used to raise rate of production. It SHORTENED field lifespan.
So there is no other way to produce energy than to pump it out of the ground?
You are begging the question here. More advanced technology could no doubt produce a better buggy whip, or increase the production of whale oil, but those techs are obsolete.
Well, now you're talking about a new physics. Not new engineering.
That's miracle territory. Nice to think about, but not the way to win when you're betting.
I see, so this newfangled nukular teknolergy is "new" physics?
Then I guess I beleive in "miracles", especially since they have already happened.
Last time I checked, the worlds transportation infrastructure wasn't electrified...
Or you could point out that Oklahoma's production has increased by 30,000 bpd since 2007 and will increase further because of recent advances in fracking and horizontal drilling.
Horizontals and fracking have no application in the type of rock under Oklahoma. Those techniques are for shale layers that have essentially zero permeability and are surrounding oil pores. If you didn't fracture the rock between the pores, which are laid out in horizontal layers, the oil could not flow pore to pore and then up the wellbore.
But that's not what's in Oklahoma. They have normal rock with pores far separated from each other. If you want each pore, you have to drill another hole. There may be 1 barrel in each pore. You have to spend $2 million to drill a bore to it.
That will work at $2 million/barrel, but not until.
How much oil does Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Canada produce now compared to 1927? Is it enough to make up for the deficit from Oklahoma?
Why are you so billigerent, I uderstand your points but on other side you have to understand history where any technological developments take long time not comparable with our life span. Forget about pick oil and just think clearly for the moment. Nobody sits and wait for death but we have to consider possibility that at some point we will run out of cheap energy, don't you think? Still you and I understand that all that wind and solar energy is so expensive that we won't be able to use it as it is for now. Give me a break with beautiful, sounding good propaganda language like " Set up a structure of excuses and externalize your inadequacies more" what the fuck it means?
I am only beligerent against those that spread lies and discourage positive action. Trav is the high priest of that particular cult. He has, in fact, externalized all of the negative characteristcs he embodies onto me and onto nayone else who disagrees with him. I can have a civil disagreement with a civil person who is willing to argue. He, however, does nothing but lie and insult, and not just me, but anyone who disagrees.
And no, new technology does NOT take lifetimes to come about Take a look at the speed with which we moved from horses as beasts of burden to mechanical devices. We already have methods online for replacement of fuel sources, we only need a period of higher prices so they can scale up production, which leads to an economy of scale, placing a firm cap on fuel prices. At scale, some of these methods may even provide fuel for less than we pay now.
For energy, we need the government to GTFO and allow the market to work. Get rid of these byzantine taxes and subsidies and let each tech stand on its own. Nuclear will likely win out, but that is my opinion. I am not the market, and unlike many of the doomers here, I'm not going to pretend that I know what will and won't work. But as a student of ECONOMICS, I can say that there is a firm upper bound REAL price for energy.
I would not say that he spreds lies at all, I think he's reallistic but I agree that the form he presents his ideas are out of bounds, personally I got few "idiots" from him too, I got used to it. Probably he is an old person with strong convictions and antagonizing character, he gets pleasure from it. So what?
You have enough weight in this forum so you should ignore few personal attacks and go on.
If we talk about technology I won't agree, it took few hundred years to really start to use electricity or oil to power our "mechanical devices", they're much advanced now than 50 or 70 yrs ago but still they're the same thing. Just look at your mail and certainly you still use it as probably other 50% of population despite the advances of computer technology. The first programmable computer was build in what 1936, 72 years ago, about 3.5 generations ago and you want sudden jump to some new technology in next few years?
As economist (you don't have to be economist to predict it) you expect a firm upper bound price for energy, of course the same about silver and whatever but where is it?
Yes, Trav does lie. A lot. I can't let lies slide, no matter who they come from, and whether or not they are on my "side".
Silver does not currently have more expensive replacements in most applications. I can say for certain that it will be superceded in the realm of antimicrobials, as my own company has a technology that beats the stuffing out of it for between 1/10th and 1/100th the price.
In electronics, graphene and other advanced forms of carbon will replace it eventually, but this takes time.
In reflectivity, there is currently nothing on the horizon so far as I can see.
But those are years out. The industrial panic will happen well before then. Hell, even if industrial demand dropped to ZERO, it would be a decade before stockpiles of silver would EQUAL those of gold. Considering that currently only 7 times the amount of silver is produced as gold, it would be quite logical for silver to hit that level as a long-term stable price. That is with ZERO industrial demand, remember.
you are so fucking myopic and stupid.
There is an upper bound on energy but NONE on silver...right. You goddamned ridiculous idiot.
Keep your mendacious magical thinking bulllshit to yourself. And keep making idiotic predictions that take all of a day to blow up in your face.