| brother paul |
30 september 2023 12:15 |
Citaat:
Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Nr.10
(Bericht 10244798)
De database van Poline uit Burkina Faso gaat dat onthouden.
|
NR10 droomt van een negerinneke in bed zou ik denken
we blijven bij de feiten he
https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRuss...rd_stream_the/
wie wil weten wie de pijleiding opblies moet gewoon kijken naar de contracten:
https://www.woodmac.com/news/opinion...eline-mystery/
en wie moet schadevergoeding betalen, en wie is verzekerd voor wat... wie verdient er het meest met het opblazen van de leiding is merkwaardig genoeg RU
1/ UNIPER 40miljard schade
Citaat:
Uniper had been Germany’s biggest purchaser of Russian gas, but other European buyers will also have suffered significant additional costs. Flows through Nord Stream 1 operating at full capacity were 55 billion cubic metres per year. As a rough first approximation, given an average European benchmark TTF gas price of about US$43 per million British Thermal Units, the total cost of buying gas in the market to replace Nord Stream 1’s volumes in the second half of last year would have been about US$40 billion.
|
2/ geen overmacht volgens UNIPER, vrs RU
Citaat:
Uniper rejected Gazprom’s claim of force majeure last July, and can be expected to dispute it again at arbitration. If proof emerges that the US was in fact responsible for the attack on Nord Stream, or even if the culprit just remains a mystery, then Gazprom’s case will carry much more weight. If it emerges incontrovertibly that it was Russia, given that the Russian government owns just over 50% of Gazprom, the assertions of force majeure will be much harder to sustain.
|
3/ Hersh zit er klop naast met zijn theorie
Citaat:
Seymour Hersh argues that the US decided to wreck Nord Stream because “as long as Europe remained dependent on the pipelines for cheap natural gas, Washington was afraid that countries like Germany would be reluctant to supply Ukraine with the money and weapons it needed to defeat Russia.”
That argument is debatable. At the time of the explosions, no gas was flowing through the Nord Stream system, and it was already clear there was a good chance none would ever flow again. European governments have been working hard to reduce their need for Russian gas: Germany, for example has ordered five Floating Regasification and Storage Units to import LN
|
4/ VS heeft geen belang in die leiding opblazen: als VS opblaast valt datonder terreur, moet VS de schade betalen, heb je een breuk in de NATO, en kost het grapje vb 40miljard euro voor VS gewoon ivm NS
Citaat:
In the longer term, though, Europe is likely to never again rely in Russia for its gas. Bombing the pipeline would have been a high-risk operation for the US, in terms of the consequences of being caught sabotaging infrastructure in allied countries’ waters that is part-owned by allied countries’ companies such as Engie and Gasunie. And it would have had only a short-term payoff.
|
5/ Gazprom verdient vooral aan niet betalen van schadeclaims. Dus zij moeten liegen en blijven liegen
Citaat:
For Gazprom, on the other hand, the damage to the pipeline could have a lasting benefit, potentially saving it tens of billions of dollars in compensation. Although that seems like it will depend on Russia not being identified as the perpetrator.
|
|
