Known for fearless journalism in the Yeltsin years, Leonid Krutakov resurfaces with an epic history of the oil business, at a time when war over energy has never been more relevant.
"The bulk of America’s oil-producing regions were located in the South, which presented a considerable problem for the Union, which was heavily invested in the nascent new business empire led by Rockefeller."
Huh? At the time of the Civil War Western Pennsylvania was the only significant oil-producing region in the US. And even that only started in 1859. Sloppy language at best!
That apparently was Krutakov, the hero of Matt Taibbi's Substack piece here.
Seems like Hero of Russia™ Krutakov has had his brain infected by the Soviets back in the day and now by, well, who knows. This is a conclusion looking for evidence. Really an embarrassing error. A good editor would have spiked that - and perhaps with that other folly in this tale as well.
Speaking of editors, whatever happened to Emily Kopp? Not that she has editorial talent, but just asking ...
13,500 miles a year is what the average American drives, give or take. So it's even more than he estimated, but maybe he's using data from other countries.
04/02/26: No, actually, the statement is factually correct. Once both sides realized what was happening, in 1863, President Abrahambone Lincoln Nebraska issued his famous “Oil Emancipation Proctologist Enunciation” edict.
This put the American Civil War on hold for a decade so that both sides could pump the oil needed to fight with weapons yet to be invented (and also, to bail out Matt’s statement that “The bulk of America’s oil-producing regions were located in the South…”).
They resumed fighting in 1873. The North was now armed with “Sherman tanks,” presciently named after a Northern general not yet famous (actually, unknown to anyone other than the West Point plebes Eisenhower and Patton).
Little Known Fact: Winner of 163 Purple Hearts was the original “Hellfire Hegseth,” who made his business to fight for both the North and the South and the East and the West. His post-Gettysburg campaign in Greenland created a diplomatic crisis in Denmark, a country that had yet to acquire the country now coveted by the Iranians.
Civil war started in 1861. Standard oil’s precursor started in 1863. Kerosene was introduce in the 1860s. When you get small obvious facts wrong it call into question entire narratives
Haven’t read the book but the first oil well in the south was in Texas in 1866. It was only discovered in Pennsylvania in late 1850’s so if the claim is made that the civil war was related to oil, this is foolish
04/02/26: No, actually, the statement is factually correct. Once both sides realized what was happening, in 1863, President Abrahambone Lincoln Nebraska issued his famous “Oil Emancipation Proctologist Enunciation” edict.
This put the American Civil War on hold for a decade so that both sides could pump the oil needed to fight with weapons yet to be invented (and also, to bail out Matt’s statement that “The bulk of America’s oil-producing regions were located in the South…”).
They resumed fighting in 1873. The North was now armed with “Sherman tanks,” presciently named after a Northern general not yet famous (actually, unknown to anyone other than the West Point plebes Eisenhower and Patton).
Little Known Fact: Winner of 163 Purple Hearts was the original “Hellfire Hegseth,” who made his business to fight for both the North and the South and the East and the West. His post-Gettysburg campaign in Greenland created a diplomatic crisis in Denmark, a country that had yet to acquire the country now coveted by the Iranians.
It’s fascinating how often people like Krutakov with a good handle on social reality and a sophisticated understanding of political economy are ignored in favor of simple-mindedness and wish casting from our “leaders”: Vietnam is like the Alamo (LBJ); we’ll bring democracy to Libya (BHO & HRC); we’ll liberate Iraq (GWB); we’ll take Ukraine to victory over Putin (JR ).And it’s even more fascinating how many highly credentialed pundits and journalists traffic in the same simple-minded “analyses.” Thanks Matt, for introducing a little depth to the national conversation.
Have to love when someone from another country attempts to rewrite the history of the U.S. when it was clear from Lincoln’s own writings why the civil war happened. Matt going to what he loves most and it’s Russia. The worst is he actually believes what that guy was saying. Getting to the point of just dropping Racket News. Matt, you made a choice and you chose wrong. I’d pivot back is you could but you allowed your new editor to publicly slander Walter as you stood by her. You really screwed the pooch on that one. Attempting to promote some Russian hack as a some US history authoritarian is a joke.
"There are parts of the book that will cause an American reader to raise an eyebrow, like the assertion that the American Civil War “wasn’t fought over human rights or a struggle over slavery . . . ."
That war (which wasn't a "civil war" but was simply named such by the victors) was about preserving the union --not about eliminating slavery. Lincoln said so himself, repeatedly. He didn't give a damn about the slaves (and said that repeatedly as well). The author of this piece would do well to learn his history.
One of the laws of the universe is that energy is everything and everything is energy. So, it will always be connected to $$ and hey, who doesn’t buy energy stocks?
Since human nature is self-serving, instinctually, it will always influence government to serve the man, not the “higher good,” so it would make sense to get rid of government since it will become corrupt. The bigger the government the more corrupt it will become.
But, since human nature is self-serving, how do we live in a civilized society without some form of government?
If the solution is to truly limit government, wasn’t that the idea of our original constitution, the Articles of the Confederation?
Maybe we got it right the first time around (first instincts), and after the revolutionary war exposed its problems, it just needed to be amended to address those problems that are basically moot today.
If the decision is to get rid of government there will be a need to allocate work and the products of work. At great sacrifice I offer myself for the role. I promise to be fair in all decisions. I will, however, require a guarded compound to insulate my decisionmaking from any who might take exception. I'll also need a nice plane.
"The bulk of America’s oil-producing regions were located in the South, which presented a considerable problem for the Union, which was heavily invested in the nascent new business empire led by Rockefeller. " I don't understand this comment. Spindletop was only in 1901. Until then virtually all oil production was in Pennsylvania with a small amount in adjacent states and literally zero in the Confederate states.
I'm not that concerned about Russia going big in Europe or aiming for the US mainland. Putin can see on TV how the US military executes while his aging inventory of munitions, likely reduced by thefts and neglect, is a giant question mark in his mind. Didn't Xi just learn that some proportion of his ICBMs might be fueled with water instead of hydrazine? A good playground ass-whipping is excellent advertising for not biting off more than you can chew. Heck, even the belligerent pudgy Mr. Kim seems to be quiet these days.
Russian scientists were the most prominent in advancing the idea that petroleum is abiotic (which now has even more evidence to support it). I'm wondering if this guy has even considered this view instead of the scarcity model he applies here.
I read the piece and come away with scratching my head about a lot of loose ends
Obviously, the Civil War assertion is ridiculous. This sounds to me like someone formed a thesis and then went out looking for facts to support them rather than the other way around
The other part that had me wondering was the reference to Dmitry Simes and the shutdown of Russian TV. Depending on what source you look at, Simes is either a KGB agent who deeply infiltrated the Reagan administration and the republican party in general or visionary. I am still not sure just what "As for cutting off access to Russian television, I can only say that this is how it always happens when you lose in direct information confrontation" refers to.
So, to me it was kind of a circuitous chat with no real conclusion. Anyone else get that impression ?
"The bulk of America’s oil-producing regions were located in the South, which presented a considerable problem for the Union, which was heavily invested in the nascent new business empire led by Rockefeller."
Huh? At the time of the Civil War Western Pennsylvania was the only significant oil-producing region in the US. And even that only started in 1859. Sloppy language at best!
That apparently was Krutakov, the hero of Matt Taibbi's Substack piece here.
Seems like Hero of Russia™ Krutakov has had his brain infected by the Soviets back in the day and now by, well, who knows. This is a conclusion looking for evidence. Really an embarrassing error. A good editor would have spiked that - and perhaps with that other folly in this tale as well.
Speaking of editors, whatever happened to Emily Kopp? Not that she has editorial talent, but just asking ...
Lost me when he stated that average driving for a month is 1000 km and average consumption is 10 liters per kilometer .
13,500 miles a year is what the average American drives, give or take. So it's even more than he estimated, but maybe he's using data from other countries.
I thought he was referring to Russia.
04/02/26: Apparently, she's on a long lunch hour with Judge Crater.
I'm from Pennsylvania, so I also took issue with that. I was once in Oil City.
I was there twice ...
I was there back in 1994 to interview for a reporting job with the Derrick, which I just found out is going to be shut down soon.
Good thing they didn't hire me.
04/02/26: So was Olive Oyl.
His baseline acceptance of the notion of "fossil fuel" is what has me looking askance 😁
04/02/26: This is what happens when you believe what you read on Wikipedia, or just mentally sleep-walk / regurgitate AI slop ("Black Nazis" Google):
"The bulk of America’s oil-producing regions were located in the South,"
Patently absurd. Sublimely stupid. A riot of radical rubbish.
04/02/26: No, actually, the statement is factually correct. Once both sides realized what was happening, in 1863, President Abrahambone Lincoln Nebraska issued his famous “Oil Emancipation Proctologist Enunciation” edict.
This put the American Civil War on hold for a decade so that both sides could pump the oil needed to fight with weapons yet to be invented (and also, to bail out Matt’s statement that “The bulk of America’s oil-producing regions were located in the South…”).
They resumed fighting in 1873. The North was now armed with “Sherman tanks,” presciently named after a Northern general not yet famous (actually, unknown to anyone other than the West Point plebes Eisenhower and Patton).
Little Known Fact: Winner of 163 Purple Hearts was the original “Hellfire Hegseth,” who made his business to fight for both the North and the South and the East and the West. His post-Gettysburg campaign in Greenland created a diplomatic crisis in Denmark, a country that had yet to acquire the country now coveted by the Iranians.
Civil war started in 1861. Standard oil’s precursor started in 1863. Kerosene was introduce in the 1860s. When you get small obvious facts wrong it call into question entire narratives
Haven’t read the book but the first oil well in the south was in Texas in 1866. It was only discovered in Pennsylvania in late 1850’s so if the claim is made that the civil war was related to oil, this is foolish
I'm from Pennsylvania, and I was in Oil City once, so I had a problem with that too.
04/02/26: No, actually, the statement is factually correct. Once both sides realized what was happening, in 1863, President Abrahambone Lincoln Nebraska issued his famous “Oil Emancipation Proctologist Enunciation” edict.
This put the American Civil War on hold for a decade so that both sides could pump the oil needed to fight with weapons yet to be invented (and also, to bail out Matt’s statement that “The bulk of America’s oil-producing regions were located in the South…”).
They resumed fighting in 1873. The North was now armed with “Sherman tanks,” presciently named after a Northern general not yet famous (actually, unknown to anyone other than the West Point plebes Eisenhower and Patton).
Little Known Fact: Winner of 163 Purple Hearts was the original “Hellfire Hegseth,” who made his business to fight for both the North and the South and the East and the West. His post-Gettysburg campaign in Greenland created a diplomatic crisis in Denmark, a country that had yet to acquire the country now coveted by the Iranians.
Probably a hundred readers will point this out but 10 liters per kilometer is 0.2 miles per gallon.
Another howler of an error. He means 10 liters per 100km. Liters per 100km is the standard measure of fuel consumption outside of the U.S.
10 liters per kilometer driven? That is roughly 2 1/2 gallons per mile. Really?
That's actually worse than what my boat gets -- w/ twin 8.1 l engines
Where can one find a copy of the book in English?
I just asked that myself.
In which language?
I want one in English. The only edition I found online is in Russian.
It’s fascinating how often people like Krutakov with a good handle on social reality and a sophisticated understanding of political economy are ignored in favor of simple-mindedness and wish casting from our “leaders”: Vietnam is like the Alamo (LBJ); we’ll bring democracy to Libya (BHO & HRC); we’ll liberate Iraq (GWB); we’ll take Ukraine to victory over Putin (JR ).And it’s even more fascinating how many highly credentialed pundits and journalists traffic in the same simple-minded “analyses.” Thanks Matt, for introducing a little depth to the national conversation.
"Knutson"
You mean "Krutakov,"?
Thx. Corrected it. Curse autocorrect!
"with an average consumption of 10 liters per kilometer." I'm not a metric native but that seems very wrong.
Have to love when someone from another country attempts to rewrite the history of the U.S. when it was clear from Lincoln’s own writings why the civil war happened. Matt going to what he loves most and it’s Russia. The worst is he actually believes what that guy was saying. Getting to the point of just dropping Racket News. Matt, you made a choice and you chose wrong. I’d pivot back is you could but you allowed your new editor to publicly slander Walter as you stood by her. You really screwed the pooch on that one. Attempting to promote some Russian hack as a some US history authoritarian is a joke.
"There are parts of the book that will cause an American reader to raise an eyebrow, like the assertion that the American Civil War “wasn’t fought over human rights or a struggle over slavery . . . ."
That war (which wasn't a "civil war" but was simply named such by the victors) was about preserving the union --not about eliminating slavery. Lincoln said so himself, repeatedly. He didn't give a damn about the slaves (and said that repeatedly as well). The author of this piece would do well to learn his history.
10 liters of gasoline per Kilometer?
Maybe a Soviet tank gets an MPG of a 1/4 mile per gallon, but otherwise the math is way off
One of the laws of the universe is that energy is everything and everything is energy. So, it will always be connected to $$ and hey, who doesn’t buy energy stocks?
Since human nature is self-serving, instinctually, it will always influence government to serve the man, not the “higher good,” so it would make sense to get rid of government since it will become corrupt. The bigger the government the more corrupt it will become.
But, since human nature is self-serving, how do we live in a civilized society without some form of government?
If the solution is to truly limit government, wasn’t that the idea of our original constitution, the Articles of the Confederation?
Maybe we got it right the first time around (first instincts), and after the revolutionary war exposed its problems, it just needed to be amended to address those problems that are basically moot today.
If the decision is to get rid of government there will be a need to allocate work and the products of work. At great sacrifice I offer myself for the role. I promise to be fair in all decisions. I will, however, require a guarded compound to insulate my decisionmaking from any who might take exception. I'll also need a nice plane.
😆😝
Liz, outstanding comment. Question: Why do you subscribe to the same Substacks as me? Are you surveilling me or are we just great minds in sync?
🤣🤣
inquiring minds gotta know...what exactly?
"The bulk of America’s oil-producing regions were located in the South, which presented a considerable problem for the Union, which was heavily invested in the nascent new business empire led by Rockefeller. " I don't understand this comment. Spindletop was only in 1901. Until then virtually all oil production was in Pennsylvania with a small amount in adjacent states and literally zero in the Confederate states.
I'm not that concerned about Russia going big in Europe or aiming for the US mainland. Putin can see on TV how the US military executes while his aging inventory of munitions, likely reduced by thefts and neglect, is a giant question mark in his mind. Didn't Xi just learn that some proportion of his ICBMs might be fueled with water instead of hydrazine? A good playground ass-whipping is excellent advertising for not biting off more than you can chew. Heck, even the belligerent pudgy Mr. Kim seems to be quiet these days.
"fossil fuel"
Russian scientists were the most prominent in advancing the idea that petroleum is abiotic (which now has even more evidence to support it). I'm wondering if this guy has even considered this view instead of the scarcity model he applies here.
Apparently he hasn't "....considered this view..." The peak oil or scarcity theory is hogwash.
The vast preponderance of evidence shows that oil is biotic. Abiotic oil goes exist but not in large quantities.
I read the piece and come away with scratching my head about a lot of loose ends
Obviously, the Civil War assertion is ridiculous. This sounds to me like someone formed a thesis and then went out looking for facts to support them rather than the other way around
The other part that had me wondering was the reference to Dmitry Simes and the shutdown of Russian TV. Depending on what source you look at, Simes is either a KGB agent who deeply infiltrated the Reagan administration and the republican party in general or visionary. I am still not sure just what "As for cutting off access to Russian television, I can only say that this is how it always happens when you lose in direct information confrontation" refers to.
So, to me it was kind of a circuitous chat with no real conclusion. Anyone else get that impression ?