Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

forsvaret.dk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 1001 posts

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#181

Post by howmayiannoyyou »

kstenerud wrote: post #131
howmayiannoyyou wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not Poland. Not any country with a pipeline that can be similarly retaliated against. There is disagreement, conflict even, between Putin and his energy sector. Effectively destroying these pipelines is a pure-Putin way of reminding disgruntled Russian elite whose still in-charge. If not Putin, the UK, who desperately wants Germany to confront Russia, free of hopes not doing so will magically open NS1 or NS2.

Damaging the pipeline destroys a major source of Russian leverage against Germany. And now that they're desperate enough to play the nuclear card with a "this is not a bluff" chaser, it's pretty obvious that they need all the leverage they can get.

Russia already supplied Germany via Ukrainian and Belarus pipelines. NS1 & NS2 were supplying nothing prior to this incident. Russia has lost nothing in leverage, but Putin has now gained leverage internally over energy interests who view this war (and Putin) as bad for business. Strategic narcissism is focusing on Putin's threats to the West, over his internal challenge of remaining in power.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#182

Post by _kbh_ »

A plausible theory for why Russia has done this could be to avoid fines. It is likely that Russia has agreements with steep penalties for if they voluntarily don't provide gas like they agreed too (like what they are doing with Nord Stream 1).

Blowing large holes in the pipelines could allow Russia to claim that they cannot provide gas because the pipelines are broken, effectively avoiding the fines.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#183

Post by henearkr »

garaetjjte wrote: post #174
henearkr wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EU and the USA have no interest to provoke methane leaks, as it is a very highly greenhouse effect gas. Putin, on the other hand, does not care.

In current situation greenhouse effect is probably at the bottom of everybody priority list.

Not at all.

EU has been adamant that this was not the good time to go all-coal for example.

They could have done just that but no, the whole population and the politics are against (except in a few illiberal "democracies").

Even in the US there is a lot of work done recently to patch the methane leaks in gas fields, for example, which have been spotted as big emitters (by negligence or lack of enforcement).

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#184

Post by NeverFade »

Kukumber wrote: post #168
henearkr wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EU and the USA have no interest to provoke methane leaks, as it is a very highly greenhouse effect gas. Putin, on the other hand, does not care.

Quoted post unavailable.

This is not "gas production in the EU", these pipelines used to transport gas produced in Russia to the EU.

The termination of their operation has been a done deal for a while. The US has no interest in sabotaging them: it's already a done deal that the US will supply the EU with gas instead of Russia:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-27/europe-is...

These facts won't prevent Russian bots from spreading conspiracy theories, in the service of Putin's murderous regime, of course.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#185

Post by jcranmer »

tpmx wrote: post #54

The Swedish national seismic network picked up two explosions within kilometers of the reported gas leak locations yesterday. The time of the first explosion: Yesterday, Monday morning at 02:03 am, second one Monday evening at 7:04pm (local time, CEST). The reports of the gas leaks came at 1:52pm and 8:41pm, respectively - by means of ships reporting bubbling at the surface level. One of the two events registered at…

Assuming the explosions are relevant, some possible causes, ordered somewhat (but not entirely) by my personal estimation of likelihood:

* Ecoterrorists -- I discount this mostly on the basis that they would have claimed responsibility by now.

* NATO sabotage -- this reduces strategic options for several EU countries (albeit a strategic option that isn't really being exercised and is almost universally disfavored).

* Russia sabotage -- this isn't terribly rational for Russia, but Russia has been unwilling to pursue rational options for a while. I can see someone in Russia thinking this will stoke anger in Germany (and the rest of Europe) that may create European pressure to force Ukraine to end the war (which is the most viable path I see at this point for Russia winning the war).

* Ukrainian sabotage -- pretty much the only actor for whom sabotage makes rational sense. Especially if it is a demonstration of Ukrainian cyberwarfare capabilities.

* Poor maintenance -- this strikes me as unlikely because NS1 is quite new infrastructure (2011), so it would have to be extremely substandard to have failed this quickly, and I believe most of the construction was done by European and not Russian firms, so I don't think that's at all plausible. But there may be some failure modes I'm not thinking of here.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#186

Post by belorn »

eloff wrote: post #113
tpmx wrote: post #54

The Swedish national seismic network picked up two explosions within kilometers of the reported gas leak locations yesterday. The time of the first explosion: Yesterday, Monday morning at 02:03 am, second one Monday evening at 7:04pm (local time, CEST). The reports of the gas leaks came at 1:52pm and 8:41pm, respectively - by means of ships reporting bubbling at the surface level. One of the two events registered at…

So that doesn't look like an accident. I have difficulty imagining accidental ignition in an underwater gas pipeline. Where would the oxygen come from? Plus it's more than one explosion on the same day - can't be a coincidence. The next question is, who did it? It doesn't seem like something in Russia's interest, they've been wanting to get that pipeline approved and operational. They invested huge sums of money to b…

Who has something to loose, something to gain, and the ability to do a covert military operation in Swedish/Danish water.

Russia did built it but they weren't gaining anything from having a non-operational pipeline. Just as much gas is being sold now as it was yesterday, and with all the investment and political effort going into the European energy grid right now, it is very unlikely that those pipelines will ever be operational again. No country in EU will ever want to become dependent on Russia again after this winter.

Who might gain from a perceived attack? Is there a country that is known to spin this kind of thing for political gain?

And last, who has a history of having submarines in this region and a reputation for repeatably ignoring and intruding into Swedish and Danish territorial waters?

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#187

Post by yourself92 »

henearkr wrote: post #179
Kukumber wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Oh please!! ... The US invests trillions in reducing global warming yet you think they'd leak thousands of tons of methane in the air just like that??? .......

Do you think some spook cares about reducing global warming?

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#188

Post by NeverFade »

jcranmer wrote: post #185
tpmx wrote: post #54

The Swedish national seismic network picked up two explosions within kilometers of the reported gas leak locations yesterday. The time of the first explosion: Yesterday, Monday morning at 02:03 am, second one Monday evening at 7:04pm (local time, CEST). The reports of the gas leaks came at 1:52pm and 8:41pm, respectively - by means of ships reporting bubbling at the surface level. One of the two events registered at…

Assuming the explosions are relevant, some possible causes, ordered somewhat (but not entirely) by my personal estimation of likelihood: * Ecoterrorists -- I discount this mostly on the basis that they would have claimed responsibility by now. * NATO sabotage -- this reduces strategic options for several EU countries (albeit a strategic option that isn't really being exercised and is almost universally disfavored). *…

No post body was provided.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#189

Post by ajsnigrutin »

dncornholio wrote: post #143
mmastrac wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Europe didn't need the gas [1] [2]. Russia has nothing to lose by sabotaging it. Don't forget that Russia had already slowed/slopped NS1 by this point. [1] https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/15747542772681031... "Those shipments are enough to cover a complete halt in Russian pipeline flows from Oct. 1." [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-27/europe-is... (paywalled version of the original quot…

Europe needs the gas. Not enough LNG stations to import this amount. Also prices are absurdly high. Saying Europe doesn't need Russian gas sounds almost like propoganda.

This sounds like politicians promising something, that they'll fail to deliver in a few weeks... as a european, i've heard this many, many times before. As someone from the balkans, i look at first signs of politicials lieing (they're moving their lips).
Post reply on HN