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

341–350 of 1001 posts

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#341

Post by philliphaydon »

stickfigure wrote: post #272
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). *…

There's also "the Sicilian option". Putin, knowing that the pipelines are no longer practically useful, blew them up deliberately to seed mistrust and discontent among NATO allies. It's a mindbender, but he's also a former KGB officer and may have bombed his own people to justify the 2nd Chechen war[1]. He can only succeed in Ukraine if he divides Ukraine's western allies. What other tools does he have? [1] https://w…

> Putin, knowing that the pipelines are no longer practically useful

Didn't he also sign up to build a new pipeline into China?

Looks like China stands to win from all this, if Russia can't send the gas anywhere China can dictate the price they will pay.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#342

Post by rdtwo »

boringg wrote: post #321

Intense amount of conspiracy chatter is in this thread. Let the dust settle a bit and see what shakes out. To be fair - I do understand how fun it can be to play at conspiracy theories especially given the circumstances here.

Honestly this one will probably always be conspiracy food. Nobody is going to tell the truth here for another 30-50 years. The truth would be too messy for the public to consume, this is state actors taking to each other in serous terms.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#343

Post by joshuajill »

detaro wrote: post #307
joshuajill wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US also has a precedent (from the other thread): > We actually did do this 40 years ago. Reagan covertly blew up a Soviet gas pipeline supplying Europe in 1982, which was publicized in 2004 when the former Secretary of the Air Force boasted about it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2004/02/27/r ... ("Reagan Approved Plan to Sabotage Soviets" (2004)) - "At the time, the United States was attempting to…

Note that these boasts from the Secretaries autobiography are also the only source suggesting that this happened.

Quoting the Washington Post:

> Portions of the operation have been disclosed earlier, including in a 1996 paper in Studies in Intelligence, a CIA journal.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#344

Post by scohesc »

techdragon wrote: post #313
Const-me wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it would have to be extremely substandard to have failed this quickly Yes, but that’s assuming proper maintenance. Russia doesn’t have domestic technology to build or maintain complicated infrastructure like these undersea pipelines. International sanctions against Russia are rather wide. For instance, Halliburton (a US oil field service company) no longer operates in Russia: https://www.halliburton.com/en/about-us…

I’m not really sure how they could have both failed explosively (based on seismic evidence) within 24hrs … this is either the one of the unlikeliest un-exploded ordinance event in history… or someone did this deliberately. Seismologists are pretty good at telling explosions from earthquakes and other things because they are one of the most common noises they have to clean out when studying natural events.

Can one explosion at one place in the pipeline cause vibrations down the pipeline, possibly weakening another joint/seal further on?

Not sure. I know nothing about underwater pipelines :P

Does all the gas leaking to the surface cause boats to sink if they get too close from the change in density?

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#345

Post by Mizza »

henearkr wrote: post #283
Mizza wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's going to be burned into CO2 anyway. If anything, methane is a bit better than CO2 in the long run.

> It's going to be burned into CO2 anyway. No, because if the pipeline is not used, there is an incentive to slow down methane extraction and transport on the Russian side. But if they can send it in the pipe and make it leak to piss the EU countries off, on the other hand... > If anything, methane is a bit better than CO2 in the long run. Hmm... I wonder where you read that because actually it's the contrary: https:…

Dang, you're right. Methane is much more potent as GHG than CO2, lasts longer than I thought, and does degrade into CO2 anyway.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#346

Post by sampo »

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). *…

> Ukrainian sabotage -- pretty much the only actor for whom sabotage makes rational sense.

If you include the risk of getting caught or revealed (and you should), it would absolutely make no sense.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#347

Post by joshuajill »

toss1 wrote: post #304
joshuajill wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair call Russia might have done it for those and other reasons. However 1) Was there any gas flowing at all? Sure anything can cause speculation. 2) This also makes it a convenient timing for the western allies to do it, including Norway. Germany is way too complacent with Russian for US liking. 3) Such more so the US in terms of operatives in Europe and Russia. Who says the US is sensitive to gas prices in Europe?…

>>Who says the US is sensitive to gas prices in Europe? The US was already somewhat sensitive to global NatGas prices even before they recently permitted exports. Since we started permitting exports of NatGas, and are now actively sending all we physically can to support EU, it definitely affects both heating and electrical costs in the US, and the economy and political climate is very sensitive to those inputs.

Wonder if that makes sense given that Europe has just become dependent on US gas, and US being the main proponent of sanctions.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#348

Post by lizardactivist »

yread wrote: post #211
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). *…

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

Sort of like invading your own country, or shooting yourself with a gun would be an effective show of force?

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#349

Post by hokkos »

origin_path wrote: post #278
tgv wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Note that NS2 has also been destroyed, and that's even more recent than NS1. It was definitely sabotage, it can't be anything else given the timing, and it has to be state sponsored given that the pipelines are under the ocean. Berlin apparently thinks it would require submarines or special forces. US / Ukraine are unfortunately the only states for which this makes sense (perhaps US with back-room permission from som…

Russia has an enormous reason to sabotage NordStream 1 and 2, because russia has contractualized massive amount of gas to sell to Germany and other for decades, it explains why Uniper has to be bailed out. If Gazprom fails to meet its expectations it is liable for a reimbursement so it wants to avoid going to international arbitration that would use all the russian money frozen, so it has organized plausible deniability with the turbine, and now with NS1/NS2, and is currently messing up with the one transiting in ukraine as it is menacing to ban Naftogaz.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#350

Post by origin_path »

throwaway4good wrote: post #320
origin_path wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that NS2 has also been destroyed, and that's even more recent than NS1. It was definitely sabotage, it can't be anything else given the timing, and it has to be state sponsored given that the pipelines are under the ocean. Berlin apparently thinks it would require submarines or special forces. US / Ukraine are unfortunately the only states for which this makes sense (perhaps US with back-room permission from som…

(Assuming it would not be beneath the US or proxies to do such a thing.) It would not make sense right now. Germany was nowhere reopening Nordstream 2 and if it came to that the US would have other effective means of blocking its use before reaching to outright sabotage.

What other effective means? The USA already imposed direct sanctions on Germany to try and stop Nord Stream 2 from being built, a very hostile move that supposedly resulted in 'incomprehension' in the German Foreign Office. It didn't work.

Nowhere near (re-)opening: we don't really know this. The Greens are loud and extreme (saying they don't care how much pain Germans suffer) but we don't know what's going on behind the scenes. USA spies on all the European countries all the time and obviously Russia too, so they presumably have better insight into the true state of German decision making than we do here on HN. It's possible they got some intel that was interpreted as meaning that they were getting close to re-opening NS1 or open NS2 and decided to act before that was possible.

There's also some evidence that this may have been planned for a long time, in which case it would again make no sense to be Russia.

Way back in 2015 an underwater robot laden with explosives was found next to the NS pipelines by Swedish special forces:

https://www.pipeline-journal.net/news/explosive-laden-drone-...

Who was opposed to NS in 2015? Only the USA. But it gets worse :( In August the US Navy entered the area right next to where the explosions happened and then switched off their identification transponders:

https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/schleswig-holstein/US-Navy-ze...

(auto translation) "A total of 4,000 US soldiers, helicopter pilots, marines, doctors and strategists are on their way east. At around 6 a.m. on Wednesday morning, the association had already passed the Danish island of Bornholm, when the Americans switched off their automatic ship identification systems (AIS) and could no longer be located without further ado."

It seems to me like this is going to immediately turn into another COVID lab leak problem where the media and governments go into overdrive to bury the most obvious and straightforward explanation. Give it 24 hours and linking to the articles I just showed you will be banned on Twitter/Facebook and anyone saying "the USA is the most obvious suspect" will be banned from YouTube. Then maybe in three years suddenly it'll become acceptable to talk about.

Post reply on HN