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

Nordstream: An Accident?

thelawdogfiles.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 176 posts

Re: Nordstream: An Accident?

#131

Post by ravi-delia »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #34
ravi-delia wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Poland benefits but doesn't have the operational capacity. US can't really expect to sell much gas to Europe regardless, so if it was then it would be for anti-Russia reasons, which seems like a stretch. Objectively the funniest possiblity is that some cargo ship dragged it's anchor across miles of ocean and a captain is very very worried right now

> Poland benefits but doesn't have the operational capacity. If they wanted it done bad enough, they could have found a way.

Well obviously "doesn't have the operational capacity" was paired with a large but finite amount of benefit. If God came down and asked Duda if he'd like for the pipeline to blow up, that's one thing. But you also risk international condemnation if you screw it up and get caught. You could blow up a pipeline, but there's no practice round.

Well, the US literally did have a practice round, but I don't think their benefit outweighs the potential backlash either. Russia really doesn't risk backlash, but on the first order seems more harmed than not. Maybe it would force Europe to reckon with a winter without Russian gas before the winter comes? Seems pretty flimsy.

Re: Nordstream: An Accident?

#132

Post by ravi-delia »

namaria wrote: post #76
ravi-delia wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Poland benefits but doesn't have the operational capacity. US can't really expect to sell much gas to Europe regardless, so if it was then it would be for anti-Russia reasons, which seems like a stretch. Objectively the funniest possiblity is that some cargo ship dragged it's anchor across miles of ocean and a captain is very very worried right now

Why do you think Poland doesn't have the operational capacity?

I have no doubt anyone north of Ted Kaczynski in operational capacity could blow up the pipeline, which certainly includes Poland. But you need not just to blow up a pipeline, but definitely not get caught. It was a hostile action primarily against western European nations Poland has good relationships with. The public finding out would not go well.

Re: Nordstream: An Accident?

#133

Post by wil421 »

zasdffaa wrote: post #111
bombcar wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Water pressure at 80 meters would be about 130 psi, so the pipe is 2800 psi over "ambient" which gives it a certain amount of "pop" should it do so. But it's also designed to not pop (and do we have any examples of a catastrophic pipe failure vs a leak?).

I thought pressure of the gas as ~114 bar, which (brain whirring sounds) is much less than 2,800 PSI. MS's calculator makes it ~1,650 PSI I could be wrong.

If you google Nord Stream pressure the first link is to PDF that lists 220 bar as one of the pressures levels in the Nord Stream.[1] I can’t find the pressure level at the time of the explosion.

[1] https://www.nord-stream.com/download/document/10/?language=e...

Re: Nordstream: An Accident?

#134

Post by bombcar »

wil421 wrote: post #133
zasdffaa wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought pressure of the gas as ~114 bar, which (brain whirring sounds) is much less than 2,800 PSI. MS's calculator makes it ~1,650 PSI I could be wrong.

If you google Nord Stream pressure the first link is to PDF that lists 220 bar as one of the pressures levels in the Nord Stream.[1] I can’t find the pressure level at the time of the explosion. [1] https://www.nord-stream.com/download/document/10/?language=e...

>I can’t find the pressure level at the time of the explosion.

Very high and then suddenly very low, I'd assume.

Re: Nordstream: An Accident?

#135

Post by DisjointedHunt »

namaria wrote: post #71
DisjointedHunt wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no argument for "running on the opposite direction". The OP piece doesn't meet any reasonable standard to be considered an intellectual submission and hence the terse response. Highly speculative opinion not grounded in fact and blatantly pushing a conclusion . . . what else can you say? Why is this even submitted to HN? A conversation starter?

I was clearly responding to a comment ironically saying we should trust the mainstream press if we argue we shouldn't trust random blogs

I hope that's not the outtake you got from my comment.

The phrase "Trust me, bro" is not meant to indicate the press or any entity is above fact and evidence based reporting.

If this was a story in the New York Times, it would be in the opinion section. There is an expectation in intellectual reporting to have a factual basis to draw a conclusion upon.

I'm annoyed that the blog linked here simply starts off with such a broad, presumptive take citing nothing but the opinions of some stranger on the internet and starts to make such strong conclusions.

I would say the same thing if this was reported in the "Establishment press" or anywhere else. As should anyone reading this.

Being critical of non factual reporting should be encouraged regardless of where the story is published.

Re: Nordstream: An Accident?

#136

Post by MichaelCollins »

ravi-delia wrote: post #131
MichaelCollins wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Poland benefits but doesn't have the operational capacity. If they wanted it done bad enough, they could have found a way.

Well obviously "doesn't have the operational capacity" was paired with a large but finite amount of benefit. If God came down and asked Duda if he'd like for the pipeline to blow up, that's one thing. But you also risk international condemnation if you screw it up and get caught. You could blow up a pipeline, but there's no practice round. Well, the US literally did have a practice round, but I don't think their bene…

> but there's no practice round.

Sure there is. The Polish Navy could practice finding the pipeline as much as they want. They could also practice blowing things up underwater as much as they want. Doing both at once isn't much more of a problem.

Also I think the backlash issue is overstated, particularly for America. What would Germany do, rage-quit NATO? Not a chance. Get pissy about it but do nothing? Very likely. Bury the evidence so they don't have to explain it to their public? Also very likely. In this regard, America has much more leeway than Poland.

Re: Nordstream: An Accident?

#137

Post by geysersam »

swamp40 wrote: post #126
geysersam wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eco terrorism is a made up concept. It doesn't exist outside of James Bond. Besides, this leak has horrible environmental consequences. If it was a deliberate attack, extremely successful, wouldn't some group have taken responsibility by now?

https://www.amazon.com/How-Blow-Pipeline-Andreas-Malm/dp/183...

So what? How many actual eco terror acts have happened? Sure, civil disobedience, some sabotage / obstruction towards fossile industry / nuclear. But nothing, not remotely, on the scale of those pipelines.

In movies however, eco terrorism is relatively common.

Re: Nordstream: An Accident?

#138

Post by oceanplexian »

RajT88 wrote: post #36
Ekaros wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And who actually gains from this in the long run... Certainly not Germany or Russia... Should make it pretty clear. It could be UK as tradition of breaking down Europe, but they are having enough issues that the timing is entirely wrong... I don't think China cares, so maybe Arabs, but I doubt. Only really leaves USA and we know what they have historically been up to.

I have a hard time with it as well. It harms so many parties, it just doesn't make sense to be state-sponsored. But at the same time, this requires some real resources to execute something like this. I can imagine mid-sized corporations having access to the resources to do it, but not without leaving a significant paper trail. I don't imagine terrorist organizations have that kind of funding. The US is a good candida…

The US and EU have collectively given Ukraine something like ~$100B in military aid. If they wanted someone to sabotage the pipeline (And they are the elephant in the room, with the most to lose if said pipeline is turned back on) they certainly could find the resources to do it.

Re: Nordstream: An Accident?

#139

Post by thehappypm »

RajT88 wrote: post #13
namaria wrote: post #8

Unqualified opinions are cheap. This random internet guy thinks sabotage is unlikely on the Nord Stream incident based on what is published on news websites? This has a weight of exactly zero.

The old adage, "Opinions are like assholes; everyone's got one" comes to mind.

And they all stink.

Re: Nordstream: An Accident?

#140

Post by oceanplexian »

henrikschroder wrote: post #94
stuckinhell wrote: post #51

It's clearly not an accident. It's also hard to believe it was Russia, since now they can't blackmail Europe. Both Biden and Victoria Nuland have both publicly threaded to take out the pipelines on video no less.

The best reasoning I've seen on the matter is this: Countries in Europe have been pretty clear that no-one is going to back down on supporting Ukraine in order to get some cheap Russian gas. So the pipeline is useless to Putin . However, a rival oligarch/military leader/whatever in Russia could try to cut a deal with Europe and say that they promise to kill Putin and get Russian troops out of Ukraine, in exchange for…

> Countries in Europe have been pretty clear that no-one is going to back down on supporting Ukraine in order to get some cheap Russian gas. So the pipeline is useless to Putin.

Actually it’s been the opposite if you watch leaders speak and read between the lines. Only days ago, Macron gave an interview hinting that the Ukrainians may need to reach a negotiated settlement with Russia, and played coy with reporters when they asked if Ukraine might need to give up territory to do so. I’m willing to bet he (And especially the Germans) know something that the public doesn’t when it comes to the reality of the energy situation.

Post reply on HN