Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea • Hacker News Board

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#211

Post by yread » Tue, Sep 27, 2022, 3:33 PM UTC

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). *…

One reason for Russia to sabotage it is as a show of force. "If we can hit our pipeline we can hit your pipeline, too".

In unrelated news a brand new pipeline going from Norway to Poland through the Baltic sea opened just yesterday

https://www.euronews.com/2022/09/27/baltic-pipe-norway-polan...

Talking about poor maintenance in a thread about registered underwater explosions sounds like FUD

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#212

Post by zie » Tue, Sep 27, 2022, 3:33 PM UTC

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.

Sure the US companies would love to sell more LNG, but my understanding is they don't have enough ships to sell them, i.e. they are selling every lb they can already and they just can't get capacity to sell more to the EU, which makes it a much less rational decision to do this.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#213

Post by tgv » Tue, Sep 27, 2022, 3:33 PM UTC

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). *…

None of these make much sense. It's pretty idle to speculate, and the list is most likely incomplete and inaccurate. It only feeds the trolls. Then again, this whole thread is full of fingerpointing without evidence. If HN can't contain itself, what won't the twitter and facebook, and –may God forget– Truth Social do?

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#214

Post by tpmx » Tue, Sep 27, 2022, 3:34 PM UTC

henearkr wrote: post #199

jcranmer wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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). *…

The "ecoterrorist" option is just ridiculous, the methane leak is disaster for the climate.

It's also somewhat outside of their capabilities, I think. While they're quite good at supergluing themselves to roads, blocking ambulances etc - locating a pipeline ~70-90 meters below the surface and then successfully detonating explosives down there, twice in a day, is quite a few levels up from that.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#215

Post by formerly_proven » Tue, Sep 27, 2022, 3:34 PM UTC

pphysch wrote: post #195

NeverFade wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The next question is, who did it? The Russians. > It doesn't seem like something in Russia's interest, they've been wanting to get that pipeline approved and operational. Once their invasion faltered, and with the recent escalation, they had no hope of that happening. The current Russian regime will never be able to repair relations with the west to the extent that will allow the Nordstream pipelines to resume oper…

The Russians blew up their own brand-new pipeline, which they spend billions creating (jointly with the Germans) and is one of the few major "hopes" to salvage that relationship, especially as winter dawns. That's frankly absurd. Russia almost certainly sabotaged a LNG terminal in Texas a few months ago (industrial cyberattack). This act was almost certainly done by Washington or their proxies. It drives the wedge fu…

> That's frankly absurd.

The notion that NS2 would enter operation is absurd. NS2 has been dead in the water for months, and the prospect of entering service have been dubious for some time before the Russians invaded Ukraine.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#216

Post by Tade0 » Tue, Sep 27, 2022, 3:34 PM UTC

kstenerud wrote: post #125

jupp0r wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Russia wants the taps ON, not off. Russia unilaterally turned the taps OFF repeatedly in the last months to keep Germany from meaningfully supporting Ukraine.

Russia turned the taps off in order to raise pressure for European concessions in order to turn them back on again. Germany has been tepid in its Ukrainian support because they want to have their cake and eat it, too. Now they can't no matter what. With the pipes permanently broken (at least for this winter), Russia has lost that leverage.

> Russia turned the taps off in order to raise pressure for European concessions in order to turn them back on again.

I don't want to sound dismissive, but that's a characteristically western take on things.

Nord Stream 2 was largely redundant and Russia missed the window to use those pipelines against Germany by allowing it to fill it's storage.

Russia is no stranger to causing damage to itself just to ensure that their enemies also suffer.

Case in point: back in 2015, as retaliation to sanctions they banned some imports of food from the EU deeming it "unsafe for consumption"(a particularly funny reason for someone familiar with the respective food standards). Contraband was publicly destroyed, upsetting a considerable chunk of the Russian public.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#217

Post by Roark66 » Tue, Sep 27, 2022, 3:34 PM UTC

kstenerud wrote: post #90

If I were a betting man, I'd put my money on Poland. The Polish prime minister immediately called "sabotage" and fingered Russia, while everyone else is still saying "it could be sabotage but we need to investigate first". Russia wants the taps capable of being turned ON at their discretion, not permanently broken. This hurts their bargaining position in a big way because they've just lost their biggest source of lev…

No post body was provided.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#218

Post by ajsnigrutin » Tue, Sep 27, 2022, 3:35 PM UTC

jupp0r wrote: post #141

krisoft wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I read talks of sabotage but I struggle to understand the point Pure speculation: A very hard winter is predicted with sky-high energy prices. If people, the economy and industry is suffering one can easily imagine that Germany wavers and opens up the taps. If the pipes are damaged and it will cost a lot to repair and restart the flow that supports those who want to keep the gas flow off and hinders those who wante…

> A very hard winter is predicted If you are implying that weather forecast is accurate months ahead - nobody knows what the temperatures will be this winter. Everything further ahead than 7 days is pretty much rolling the dice. https://scijinks.gov/forecast-reliability/

You don't need a weather forecast to know that winters are cold in northern part of europe, but that doesn't matter, because with cheap energy we can heat or houses, workplaces, the industry continiues running, and then comes the spring.

With energy prices rising, people won't have money to heat their houses, industry won't be able to produce stuff, people will be left jobless, etc... meaning, a hard winter for europe.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#219

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Sep 27, 2022, 3:35 PM UTC

NeverFade wrote: post #188

jcranmer wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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). *…

Quoted post unavailable.

[deleted]

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#220

Post by jcranmer » Tue, Sep 27, 2022, 3:35 PM UTC

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.

Yes and no.

Since the Russian invasion in February, Europe has been working out how to get by without Russian gas. For this winter, stocks are high enough that Europe can probably get by without gas rationing or a major hit to GDP (although this also depends on what the weather's like). There's also a variety of short-term (increasing gas flows from North Africa) and longer-term (increased renewables energy production, more LNG terminals) efforts to eliminate the need for any Russian gas. That goal is, the last I've seen, ready to be hit in 2024.

So the real question isn't what happens over the next 6 months, which I suspect will be rather anticlimactic for most observers, but what happens in the 12 following months, especially if Russian seems determined to deliver 0 gas to Europe in 2023.