INTEL 319

Bloomberg noted, “The Volgograd refinery is capable of processing 14.8 million tons of oil a year and is among Russia’s largest. It was previously struck by drones in February, when it temporarily cut back some of its operations.”

On Thursday, a Ukrainian drone targeted Gazprom PJSC’s Salavat Neftekhim, a top-producing petrochemical and oil-refining facility. On Friday, a drone strike targeted a smaller refinery in the Kaluga region.

In March, FT reported that the Biden admin was freaking out that Ukraine’s drone strikes “risked driving up global oil prices.”

One month later, in April, US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin warned Ukraine that drone and missile attacks should not be focused on energy infrastructure but instead on military targets because of the risk of sending Brent crude prices over $100/bbl.

“Those attacks could have a knock-on effect in terms of the global energy situation,” Austin said, adding, “Quite frankly, I think Ukraine is better served by going after tactical and operational targets that can directly influence the current fight.”

In mid-April, Reuters estimated that Russia’s refining capacity, which was offline due to drone attacks, was around 660,000 barrels per day, compared to 907,000 bpd offline at the end of March. Russia has stated it can repair all damaged units within two months. 

Russia’s Energy Minister Nikolai Shulginov said all damaged refineries would be restarted by the beginning of June.

The main goal of the refinery drone attacks by Ukraine is to crush Moscow’s funding of the war by curtailing crude product (such as diesel) exports. 

Days ago, Foreign Affairs magazine writer Sam Winter-Levy penned a note titled “Why Ukraine Should Keep Striking Russian Oil Refineries,” explaining that “with less domestic refining capacity, Russia will be forced to export more of its crude oil, not less, pushing global prices down rather than up.”