Quantum Rays and the Customs Declaration

Мой аутентичный перевод статьи:Квантовые лучи и таможенная декларация (http://proza.ru/2026/09/30/142)


Quantum Rays and the Customs Declaration
An essay by a methamonk and retired international lawyer

“The public looks for quantum rays, but one should look at diesel customs declarations.” — Methamonk Vladimir Angelblazer, retired international lawyer, Buyan Island, in the realm of the glorious Tsar Saltan. September 29, 2026

There are questions that are posed correctly, but answered in the wrong jurisdiction. In his monologue of September 24, 2026, Tucker Carlson, as always, hit a nerve: who is systematically destroying the planet's oil refineries, and why? Are we being scared with a “quantum leap”? Are we being prepared for “cold fusion”? Or is there a single invisible director?

The question is right. But what looks on social media like a single planetary process is actually a collage of three different phenomena. Confusing them breeds conspiratorial chimeras. I am not claiming there is no conspiracy. I am merely saying there is no evidence of a single control center. And where there is no evidence, a lawyer must not invent — he must distinguish.

So, who is actually burning refineries, and why?

I. War. 90% of all refinery news in the last two years

This is not a conspiracy theory. It is military strategy.

In Russia: since January 2025, 21 of 38 large refineries have been hit — 48% more than in all of 2024. The Carnegie Endowment estimates up to 38% of refining capacity has been damaged. Novoshakhtinsk, Kirishi, Ryazan, Kuibyshev in Samara, Gazprom Neft’s Moscow Refinery — all burned after drone strikes. Ukraine and its backers openly state the goal: to deprive the army of fuel and bleed the economy.

In the Middle East: Houthis hit the Yanbu refinery in Saudi Arabia with missiles; in Iraq, the Taji gas plant was blown up; in Libya, the largest refinery shut down due to fighting and tank fires.

This is not “someone behind the scenes.” These are direct participants in armed conflicts.

II. Accidents. There have always been many

A refinery is objectively the most dangerous type of industrial facility on earth: high pressure, 500°C temperatures, hydrogen, hydrogen sulfide. In the US, 1–2 major refinery fires a month is the normal average for the last twenty years. Before TikTok and Telegram, only local papers covered them. Now any fire in Texas instantly becomes global: “Look, they’re burning again!”

This is not politics. It is physics and wear-and-tear.

III. The “Quantum Leap” and Cold Fusion

There is no evidence that anyone is physically destroying refineries to force a new energy transition. However, the logic Carlson hints at has a real basis. It is just inside-out.

The oil industry is not being blown up. It is simply not allowed to build anything new.

Since 2020, virtually no permits for a new large refinery have been issued in the US, Canada, or the EU. The last giant refinery in the US was built in 1977. Investors and banks, under ESG pressure, have refused to finance refining. Old plants are closing due to unprofitability and green regulations.

They are not destroyed with dynamite. They are strangled economically. This is official policy — the energy transition.

Are we being prepared for a leap?

For cold fusion (LENR) — no. In 35 years since Pons and Fleischmann, science has produced no reproducible reactor with net energy gain. The Pentagon and NASA fund it sporadically, but industrial power is decades away, if ever.

For real thermonuclear fusion — yes. ITER, Helion, Commonwealth Fusion: in the 2020s, stable reactions with scientific Q > 1 were achieved for the first time. Dear reader, this is no longer science fiction.

For a “quantum leap” — yes, but without magic. We are talking about solid-state and sodium batteries, hydrogen, and SMRs — small modular reactors. The West’s goal is to move away from huge, vulnerable refineries toward distributed generation that cannot be knocked out by a single strike.

The logic is transparent: If you want to control a world built on oil, you control refineries. If you want to build a world where oil is not needed, you don’t need to blow up refineries. You just stop repairing and building them.

Explosions are war. Closures are policy. And the “leap” is a bet by governments and funds like BlackRock on an electric future.

IV. Verifiable inventory: facts only

1. Russian refineries hit by drones (2024–2025)
Per BBC/ Reuters, 21 of 38 attacked since Jan 2025: Novokuibyshevsk, Ryazan, Volgograd (Lukoil), Slavyansk & YANOS, Kuibyshev & Afipsky, Novoshakhtinsk (1.5M tons destroyed Aug 2025), Saratov, Salavat, Kirishi, TAIF-NK, Perm, Omsk, NORSI, TANECO. Confirmed by NASA FIRMS and regional governors.

2. US: closed for economic reasons (2020–2023)
Official EIA delistings, not sabotage: Martinez CA 161k b/d (to renewable diesel), Gallup NM 27k, PES Philadelphia 335k, Cheyenne WY 48k (to biofuel), Lake Charles LA, Houston TX LyondellBasell 263k (closed Mar 2025). Result: -4.5% capacity in 2020.

3. Europe: closed for decarbonization (2020–2025)
Per Argus, 9 plants, >1M b/d lost since 2020: Grangemouth Scotland ;150k (to terminal, spring 2025), Wesseling Germany 147k, Livorno Italy 88.4k, Porto/Matosinhos Portugal, Lindsey UK (Aug 2025, 4 refineries left in UK). ;30 closed in Europe since 2009.

V. How many refineries are there in the world?

;700 sites. 492 largest = 94% of refining. ;103M b/d total.
US: 130 operating (254 in 1982) — 18.43M b/d
China: ;180 — 18.48M b/d — overtook US in 2023
Russia: 38 large — 6.8M
India: ;24 — 5.8M — Jamnagar 1.4M, world’s largest[4]

VI. Primary sources

EIA: Refinery closures 2020 — https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=48636
EIA Refinery Capacity Report — https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/refinerycapacity/
OGJ Worldwide Survey — List of refineries / Energy Institute 2024 — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_refineries

VII. So where’s the trick?

It may seem China and the Gulf are stuck with the past while Europe leaps into the 21st century. That would make sense if Russia sold crude. But Russia is a diesel pump. Until 2022, half of Europe’s diesel was Russian. Crude is hard to sell under a price cap; diesel is easy.

A refinery strike is not a strike on the past, but on the wallet of war. One refinery = $20–30M/day in export revenue. A $20k drone wipes out a billion.

For 15 years, Russia has been destroying its own old refining too — via the Finance Ministry’s tax maneuver. Refining depth 82–84% vs 96% in the US. The plants made unsellable mazut. 8 small refineries quietly closed 2014–2022.

Asia is not stuck in the past. Jamnagar 1.4M, Al Zour 615k, Dangote 650k — future refineries, 98% depth, built for chemicals.

The truth is on a platter most analysts refuse to look at:

* US & Europe: “We’ll remove dirty production and buy diesel from India while declaring ourselves green.”
* China, India, Gulf: “We are becoming the world’s factory and setting the price.”
* Russia: left with old diesel refineries — the most vulnerable target.

Refining is not destroyed for cold fusion. It is moved from countries that want to look green to countries that want margin. In Russia, it is knocked out because it’s the cheapest way to undermine the war economy.

This is verifiable. It’s in the numbers. The public misses it because it looks for quantum rays in the sky, when it should look at diesel customs declarations.

I asked myself a banal question on behalf of Tucker Carlson to my own argument: “Before whom do they want to look green? The people don’t care! They need cheap gasoline and diesel.”

The answer is the most cynical a methamonk can give.

People don’t care. In Victoria, Texas, or Bavaria, they look at the diesel price tag, not a CO2 report. No one pays “green dollars” for an idea at checkout.

They want to look green not before the people, but before three other authorities:

1. Those who give money: BlackRock, Vanguard, global banks. Since 2020, the rule is: want cheap credit? Be green. That’s ESG. Grangemouth didn’t close because Scots stopped driving. It closed because Petroineos (Ineos + PetroChina) couldn’t refinance a ;1B loan. Banks said: carbon footprint. We’ll fund an import terminal, not a refinery. People need cheap diesel. Boards need cheap credit. They choose credit.

2. Those who give permission: Brussels and Washington. Since 2023, CBAM — carbon border tax. Produce diesel in Europe: pay €80–90 per ton of CO2. Produce it in Jamnagar, India: pay nothing on import, then import it as a “green finished product.” A European official says: “We closed a dirty plant, our air is cleaner!” But he now buys diesel from India, where the same plant pollutes three times more. Emissions didn’t disappear. They moved to another country’s statistics. Hocus-pocus!

This is called carbon leakage — acknowledged in the EU Commission’s own reports.

3. Those who vote not with wallets but with ballots: 15% of the active urban electorate. They don’t need cheap gas. They have Teslas and grocery delivery. They need a story: “We are saving the planet.” All green PR is for them.

And the other 85% who need cheap fuel on Vancouver Island pay for that story. When Grangemouth became a terminal, diesel in Scotland rose 12 pence per liter because it now arrives by tanker from India.

So the formula must be finished:

Refining is not moved out of countries that want to look green before their people, but out of countries where the authorities want to look green before banks and Brussels, at the expense of the people who need cheap gasoline. The people are not the audience. The people are the ones who pay for the tickets. The play is over. The lights are on. And it turns out the green curtain is sewn from the same petrodollars, just with a delivery surcharge.

And that is why I, a methamonk on Buyan Island, look not at the sky, but at the declaration. In the sky are promises. In the declaration is the price of promises.