Seeking Alpha

Russia's Crimean bounty

  • When Russia seized Crimea in March, the country obtained rights to underwater energy resources potentially worth trillions of dollars in a maritime zone in the Black Sea that's over three times the size of the province.
  • In turn, Ukraine received a major blow to its hopes for energy independence, a situation highlighted by its dispute with Russia over natural-gas prices.
  • Major oil companies to explore in the area around Crimea include Exxon Mobil (XOM) and Shell (RDS.A).
  • Russia ETFs: RSX, RUSL, RSXJ, ERUS, RUSS, RBL, RUDR
Comments (18)
  • maybenot
    , contributor
    Comments (3347) | Send Message
     
    Oil wins, again. Imagine that. :)
    18 May, 01:11 PM Reply Like
  • JimTech
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    Please explain.
    18 May, 02:47 PM Reply Like
  • john001
    , contributor
    Comments (559) | Send Message
     
    I was surprised that you didn't mention George Bush in you comment. Maybeyes next time
    18 May, 07:47 PM Reply Like
  • Continental Kid
    , contributor
    Comments (197) | Send Message
     
    and they get a warm water navel base......Obama really screwed this up....now China is setting up rigs wherever they want ...our foreign policy is so pathetic....and Clinton says she did a great job?????
    18 May, 06:44 PM Reply Like
  • King Rat
    , contributor
    Comments (564) | Send Message
     
    In case the deal cannot be dealt with at the diplomatic level, the Ukraine should really be pushing alternative energy development. Nothing would be worse for Russia than to pay to develop the resources only to find the resources to be economically unprofitable.
    18 May, 07:49 PM Reply Like
  • john001
    , contributor
    Comments (559) | Send Message
     
    Rat...if by "alternative energy development" you mean wind & solar, fat chance of that happening because (1) way too expensive, and completely unaffordable (2) too unreliable.

     

    If you were thinking nuclear, than perhaps yes.
    18 May, 08:12 PM Reply Like
  • sl100
    , contributor
    Comments (110) | Send Message
     
    Useless article looks like someone's wants positive news on XOM. XOM has a lot of issues and sitting near 52 week high. Recent years investments have all been very expensive and have declining reserves. @455B mkt cap too big to make any money from the stock appreciation. Dead money here.
    18 May, 08:47 PM Reply Like
  • MWinMD
    , contributor
    Comments (1851) | Send Message
     
    At least Putin's naked resource grab (cloaked in chest thumping about Ukrainians identifying with Russia, blah blah blah) was perpetrated with only a few dozen deaths, if I'm not mistaken.

     

    Meanwhile, our media and protectively self-deluded right wing largely still can't get its hypocritical, moral values-free consciousness around the fact that our invasion of Iraq - which killed 650,000 innocent civilians - was a naked resource grab cloaked in a cavalcade of lies, half truths and exaggerations for two years running. Exxon, Chevron, BP and Shell are now happily drilling away where they couldn't before (while Halliburton and other services firms have themselves another cash cow to milk). I guess in the end the plans went off pretty much as they were discussed in private with VP Cheney in the White House in early 2001 (the details of which he fought to the Supreme Court to keep the world from hearing). Give or take a half million deaths and a trillion dollars taken from taxpayers. Ain't murderous crony capitalism great?

     

    At least CNN, belatedly, has recently acknowledged what everyone already knew:

     

    http://cnn.it/18IGVZZ

     

    "Of course it's about oil; we can't really deny that," said Gen. John Abizaid, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq, in 2007. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan agreed, writing in his memoir, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Then-Sen. and now Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the same in 2007: "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are."
    18 May, 10:10 PM Reply Like
  • believer18
    , contributor
    Comments (60) | Send Message
     
    Focus focus focus you are not a windmill, don quixote maybe.
    The article is about the fact that Russia now has control of what they once had before.
    Now is the time to watch China and see what they grab, since we are feckless
    in the Pacific and NATO has no no balls across the Atlantic.
    We live in very interesting times.
    19 May, 12:26 AM Reply Like
  • believer18
    , contributor
    Comments (60) | Send Message
     
    PS; I do agree with you on the ease with which Russia took the Crimea.
    Sorry I forgot to mention that before.
    19 May, 12:27 AM Reply Like
  • James Bjorkman
    , contributor
    Comments (568) | Send Message
     
    Now we see why all those pro-Soviet types were writing articles on here telling everyone it was fine, everything was all right, just let the Soviet/Russians just take what they want because they're so nice and wonderful.

     

    Makes me retch.
    18 May, 11:00 PM Reply Like
  • Sakelaris
    , contributor
    Comments (1224) | Send Message
     
    I assume you are referring to the idea that holding Exxon stock makes an investor pro-Russian in all of this. Maybe so, I do not know. I have never held Exxon stock; I just stumbled onto this thread who trying to follow the Russia-Ukraine story.

     

    Nevertheless, at the risk of appearing to be brainwashed by the Russians, I must remind you that this is not a case of one superpower being upset in the Cold War because the other has taken a position in a far-off, alien place like Hungary, or Vietnam or Afghanistan. No, this is Russia taking a stand over land historically occupied by Russians over the centuries and still occupied by millions of Russians. In those areas of Donetsk and Lugansk, Russia WILL FIGHT, if necessary, over the status of their resident people.

     

    Do you propose that the US go to war with Russia over this? Keep in mind that not even Ronald Reagan dared to take on the Russians in such a home-turf area.

     

    And if you think that sanctions without war will do the trick, be prepared to criticize many more corporations in addition to Exxon--and to criticize many governments as well, for despite whatever corporations or governments might say now, over a prolonged economic struggle, they will largely abandon their stands, leaving us with a crusade that looks more like our boycott of Cuba.

     

    Superpowers stay superpowers by recognizing the limits of their power.
    19 May, 03:23 AM Reply Like
  • James Bjorkman
    , contributor
    Comments (568) | Send Message
     
    This all just shows there are no binding international laws that aren't backed up by brute force. You may find that self-evident. It hasn't been the case for fifty years, except insofar as you feel the US was enforcing international norms to its own advantage through sheer muscle.

     

    If that makes you happy, then good for you.

     

    We're seeing the same thing in Crimea/Ukraine as we're seeing in the China Sea. Identical. There's no longer an enforcer, the US has abdicated that role. That means trouble. History shows that in such situations, events have a tendency eventually to spiral out of control.

     

    The international order is breaking down after having been held in place by American power for the last fifty years.

     

    Again, if being "prudent" means the return to countries acting like crusading barons (as we are seeing right now), that's really not prudent.
    19 May, 09:41 AM Reply Like
  • Sakelaris
    , contributor
    Comments (1224) | Send Message
     
    I noticed that you had plenty of high-sounding words, but no actual plan of action to take against Russia. Please be specific about what you want to see the US do concerning Russia and Ukraine.

     

    And if you have concerns about the status of the China Sea, all the more reason to tread carefully concerning Ukraine. I am not an isolationist, but if America is to fight battles, they must be chosen carefully.
    19 May, 09:59 AM Reply Like
  • James Bjorkman
    , contributor
    Comments (568) | Send Message
     
    This is not the place to explain that this is not an either/or of "either we go to nuclear war or we do nothing." That is the attitude of a pusillanimous coward. And that is exactly how Russia and China are acting. The contempt they show for Washington right now is palpable. They all but laugh at the nothingness there now.

     

    There are all sorts of way to check aggression. Doing absolutely nothing, as Washington is doing, is not one of them. And they are not "high sounding words," they are the common sense that kept the peace between the major powers from 1945 onward.
    19 May, 10:03 AM Reply Like
  • Sakelaris
    , contributor
    Comments (1224) | Send Message
     
    Declaring that "there are all sorts of way to check aggression" is true in itself, but it lacks the details of a real plan.

     

    A plan with details please?
    19 May, 10:10 AM Reply Like
  • James Bjorkman
    , contributor
    Comments (568) | Send Message
     
    You'll have to just go with my high-sounding words, nobody is ever going to convince the likes of you of anything.
    20 Jun, 11:32 AM Reply Like
  • sonik
    , contributor
    Comments (29) | Send Message
     
    Have to admit I don't really know much about Russian and Crimea history. How does this truely differ from UK and the Falklands?
    19 May, 04:05 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|