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

981–990 of 1001 posts

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#981

Post by everforward »

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…

> 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.

There may not be a need for ignition; the news articles are saying pressures in Nordstream 1 dropped from 105 bar (1,522.9 PSI) to 7 bar (101.5 PSI). The water pressure at 100m where the pipe is is ~10 bar, so about a 1377.9 PSI difference in pressure.

A pipe with 1,377.9 PSI difference pipe that's 1.1m in diameter rupturing seems like it would cause a blast even without igniting.

I could also be way off-base. My physics and chemistry classes were a long time ago, and had nothing to do with explosions.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#982

Post by shswkna »

labster wrote: post #847
csomar wrote: post #831

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting you wrote a very long response and yet you presented no concrete arguments that the US could be behind this. We can agree that most EU countries will not support such an incident. The only two countries who have the technical capability and the political reasons are the USA and Russia. Both are evil and ready to blow the world for their own gains. > why would they take the risk to destroy the pipelin…

That’s because there are no reasons for the US to do it. Europe is staying aligned just fine right now. Germans think Russia is an unreliable business partner, and don’t want to deal with them again. Germany is already expanding LNG port capacity to buy more North American gas. It would be a tremendous risk to be discovered; Denmark could trigger Article 5 against the United States. The US needs to show strength in A…

Your argumentation is missing a crucial event, which threatens USA’s position: The win of a right wing party in Italy. If this trend continues in Europe, then a friendly disposition of Europe towards Russia becomes probable. If this happens, it would threaten the core geopolitical interests of USA. It would also become lonely around the USA.

Its not what I want but an attempt at an unbiased assessment.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#983

Post by Slava_Propanei »

WinstonSmith84 wrote: post #666
thiagoharry wrote: post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is Putin direct interest destroy a source of income and leverage to the country!?!? Now Germany can buy gas from 2 sources: Ukraine and USA. This explanation makes no sense to me.

Like on any crime scene, who profits from the crime? Well, a few things first: 1- NS1 along NS2 are (were) shutdown and clearly these were not going to re-open, not before the end of the war - not politically acceptable for Putin, even less for Germany 2- The war is going to last for many more months (best case scenario) or a year or two or ... No matter how long it will really last, Europe, after having survived Win…

No post body was provided.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#984

Post by SanjayMehta »

kibwen wrote: post #937
shswkna wrote: post #843

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I beg to differ. To at least consider that the sabotage is in US interest, is sound logic. Of course there are many factors at play and a lot we don’t know. The arguments in your post carry a hint of denial in them. Read other posts that outline the benefits to the US position after the sabotage, and consider them without bias. Not saying its the only explanation- but the case is worth considering.

I have no particular love for the US government or its foreign policy. At the same time, it is neither "a hint of denial" nor "bias" to reject the above claims as nonsense. There is simply no motive. NATO solidarity is at an all-time high, none of the imaginary economic benefits to the US would be worth jeopardizing that solidarity, especially since the US isn't remotely at any point of desperation. In practice it wi…

No motive?

Let's see who benefits from this sabotage.

1. Russia doesn't benefit as it disabled their property and removed an important negotiating tool from their portfolio.

2. Germany doesn't benefit for obvious reasons. Now even if they wanted to, they can't try to get gas from Russia.

3. The US on the other hand benefits both by wrecking Germany's industry and opening up a market for their LNG.

4. Ukraine gets to demand more freebies and weapons from NATO. Benefit.

5. NATO gets to dump their own inventory on Ukraine. Benefit.

6. The US weapons manufacturers get new orders. Lots of benefits.

Take a step back and apply some common sense.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#985

Post by nix23 »

scraptor wrote: post #564
nix23 wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>the only politicians saying it needs to be opened are from the AfD. Ah yeah Wagenknecht is part of the AfD now?

Just the opposite, she's a far left communist of the variety with strong bonds to russia. Which doesn't make her any more politically relevant.

I think she is extremely relevant and with Gysi some of the few reasonable voices.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#986

Post by piva00 »

miguelazo wrote: post #795
mort96 wrote: post #615

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should be extremely clear that the health of Russia as a country isn't Putin's primary goal. If (and it's a big "if") destroying a source of income or leverage to the country can make Putin safer against assassination and coup attempts, I don't see why he wouldn't do it.

Wow, you really took the Putin Bad Guy theme way out on a limb! Completely devoid of any logic or historical context.

And you didn't add logic and the historical context you feel it's missing, what exactly is the point of your comment then?

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#987

Post by pbak »

dagw wrote: post #950
davrosthedalek wrote: post #806

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is also China and maybe India. With the pipeline gone for good, Russia has to sell to them. No other market. But all this speculation depends on how damaged the pipeline is. I haven't seen any info on how long a repair would take.

With the pipeline gone for good The physical pipeline is still there and mostly fine. Fixing the holes is expensive and requires the right expertise and equipment, but most experts I've seen quoted in the media seem to agree that it could definitely be done within a year, and probably faster, if everybody involved really wanted to. Edit: Other experts are now claiming that the damage is more substantial and that repa…

Well, yeah, but the CEOs of one company in Germany with the hardware and people to do that, and who was also charged with monitoring the pipelines, just died in an unexplained private jet crash two weeks ago.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#988

Post by krzyk »

Sebb767 wrote: post #945
krzyk wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can gain much - gas reserves in Europe during winter to small -> no chance for sanctions on Russian gas. This is the same they did with the "repairs" for NS1 which stopped gas to Germany for few weeks (or months I don't remember exactly).

Well, if the gas can't be delivered, of what use is the lack of gas sanctions to Russia? In this case it even affected NS2, which Russia was actually fighting to get up and running.

Maybe they have a fast way to fix it? Or they can prolong fixing into deep winter - and again make the gas price even higher like they did previously.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/28/nord-stream-pipelin...

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#989

Post by krzyk »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #580
krzyk wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia can close valve pretending they didn't close it but at the same time sending a warning. It is a 101 of economical warfare.

What warning? They literally said they'll close the valve. With the closed valve, they have an upper hand at negotiations about gas, especially if the german people get cold and start sharpening the pitchforks for their own (german) politicians... now, even if the germans want to negotiate, there will be no gas until the pipelines are fixed, and it doesn't seem that will happen soon

It is Russia, they have their ways.

Nobody believes in their 'repairs' and temporary issues with the pipeline. I really hope it is destroyed.

If they wanted they could reuse the old pipeline that is on land on Polish territory.

BTW. It is not only my suspicion: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/28/nord-stream-pipelin...

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#990

Post by prvit »

foverzar wrote: post #892
ajross wrote: post #851

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is Putin direct interest destroy a source of income and leverage to the country!?!? The logic isn't unreasonable. Nordstream is very clearly NOT a source of income, currently. But it could be, if Putin were deposed. Now the Russian gas interests are stuck with Putin, they don't win anything (in the near term) via a coup. Add to that that clandestine adventurism like this is very much Putin's MO and not the USA'…

> Add to that that clandestine adventurism like this is very much Putin's MO and not the USA's Clandestine adventurism is not the USA's, really??? > we Oh, that explains it. Cuz "we" are always the good guys!

>Clandestine adventurism is not the USA's, really???

Not this ambitious, no.

Post reply on HN