3 ms·

I guess the ARD take is intentionally more on the side of infotainment. There's also this WSJ article from a few days ago which purports to know some very speci

I guess the ARD take is intentionally more on the side of infotainment. There's also this WSJ article from a few days ago which purports to know some very specific facts and even to have quotes from participants of the operation: https://archive.ph/Ka8HB https://archive.ph/Ka8HB

stefan_ 2y ago
It also of course claims > In the wake of the attack, which took out three of the four conduits forming the pipelines, energy prices surged. which is trivially disprovable, not least because the pipelines were not transporting any gas and hadn't for a while. They are too busy writing fiction they don't bother to verify even the most basic things.
- jaynetics 2y ago
  > which is trivially disprovable, not least because the pipelines were not transporting any gas and hadn't for a while. This doesn't disprove anything. Energy prices could still have surged for multiple reasons, e.g. because countries might have worried about similar attacks on other, active pipelines and might have become more eager to boost their reserves. We'd have to look at some actual stats, but even then it might be hard to tell apart any effects from the utter market chaos at the time.
  - stefan_ 2y ago
    I don't understand; I looked at the actual stats. It's clear you didn't. There was no surge.
    - dgrr19 2y ago
      Can you publish the "stats" here?
      - stefan_ 2y ago
        Marked for your convenience: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GVCwMmbXsAAaaZM?format=jpg&name=medium https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GVCwMmbXsAAaaZM?format=jpg&name=... Look, blowing up Nord Stream made natural gas cheaper!
    - jaynetics 2y ago
      This seems to show an (ongoing) increase of some energy prices in Germany after Sep 22: https://media.aroundhome.de/image/upload/f_auto/q_auto/w_800,c_fit/Editorial/CMS/103858-eel_strom_preisindex_energieprodukte_230817 https://media.aroundhome.de/image/upload/f_auto/q_auto/w_800... I mean, the sentence in the article is very vague. "Energy prices surged". Which energy? How soon? For how long? Where? For which buyers (private or public)? It could mean a lot of things, so I'll grant this one line of journalism isn't great. Journalism isn't easy, though. I have no opinion on the WSJ in particular as I don't really know it, but if you dismiss everything that has a few sloppy lines in it, you might not necessarily end up with the best sum of information.
      - stefan_ 2y ago
        This is a few pixels on a consumer price index. Which energy - do you want to make a guess? What is a surge to you?
    - solarkraft 2y ago
      You can be right about the stats but still wrong with your reasoning. Markets are often impacted by all kinds of events.
- dgrr19 2y ago
  > not transporting any gas and hadn't for a while yeah, "a while" = 1 month. https://edition.cnn.com/2022/08/31/business/nord-stream-1-europe-inflation/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2022/08/31/business/nord-stream-1-eu... "the most basic" aka cnn
  - stefan_ 2y ago
    What's the theory here? Traders were expecting the pipeline that had been dead for a month to come back to life, so when it exploded in dramatic fashion, their false hopes were dashed and caused a nonexistent surge?
    - dgrr19 2y ago
      It's not traders who speculate with the prices (which could also be), it's the countries who where buying enough supply for months. Yeah sure, it could trigger a surge in supply in order prevent a shortage.

stefan_ 2y ago

It also of course claims > In the wake of the attack, which took out three of the four conduits forming the pipelines, energy prices surged. which is trivially disprovable, not least because the pipelines were not transporting any gas and hadn't for a while. They are too busy writing fiction they don't bother to verify even the most basic things.

jaynetics 2y ago
> which is trivially disprovable, not least because the pipelines were not transporting any gas and hadn't for a while. This doesn't disprove anything. Energy prices could still have surged for multiple reasons, e.g. because countries might have worried about similar attacks on other, active pipelines and might have become more eager to boost their reserves. We'd have to look at some actual stats, but even then it might be hard to tell apart any effects from the utter market chaos at the time.
- stefan_ 2y ago
  I don't understand; I looked at the actual stats. It's clear you didn't. There was no surge.
  - dgrr19 2y ago
    Can you publish the "stats" here?
    - stefan_ 2y ago
      Marked for your convenience: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GVCwMmbXsAAaaZM?format=jpg&name=medium https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GVCwMmbXsAAaaZM?format=jpg&name=... Look, blowing up Nord Stream made natural gas cheaper!
  - jaynetics 2y ago
    This seems to show an (ongoing) increase of some energy prices in Germany after Sep 22: https://media.aroundhome.de/image/upload/f_auto/q_auto/w_800,c_fit/Editorial/CMS/103858-eel_strom_preisindex_energieprodukte_230817 https://media.aroundhome.de/image/upload/f_auto/q_auto/w_800... I mean, the sentence in the article is very vague. "Energy prices surged". Which energy? How soon? For how long? Where? For which buyers (private or public)? It could mean a lot of things, so I'll grant this one line of journalism isn't great. Journalism isn't easy, though. I have no opinion on the WSJ in particular as I don't really know it, but if you dismiss everything that has a few sloppy lines in it, you might not necessarily end up with the best sum of information.
    - stefan_ 2y ago
      This is a few pixels on a consumer price index. Which energy - do you want to make a guess? What is a surge to you?
  - solarkraft 2y ago
    You can be right about the stats but still wrong with your reasoning. Markets are often impacted by all kinds of events.
dgrr19 2y ago
> not transporting any gas and hadn't for a while yeah, "a while" = 1 month. https://edition.cnn.com/2022/08/31/business/nord-stream-1-europe-inflation/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2022/08/31/business/nord-stream-1-eu... "the most basic" aka cnn
- stefan_ 2y ago
  What's the theory here? Traders were expecting the pipeline that had been dead for a month to come back to life, so when it exploded in dramatic fashion, their false hopes were dashed and caused a nonexistent surge?
  - dgrr19 2y ago
    It's not traders who speculate with the prices (which could also be), it's the countries who where buying enough supply for months. Yeah sure, it could trigger a surge in supply in order prevent a shortage.