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

141–150 of 176 posts

Re: Nordstream: An Accident?

#141

Post by dividedbyzero »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #80
yreg wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russians have kind of the same possible motivation as everyone. To take the option of some future DE/RU agreement regarding restoring the flow of gas off the table. To force everyone to fully commit to their current strategy.

> To force everyone to fully commit to their current strategy. I agree the destruction of the pipeline does have this effect, but Russia seemingly wants NATO support for Ukraine to falter, not persist. Russia seems to want NATO to deviate from their current strategy.

Russia also wants the EU and especially Germany to deviate from their current "no dependency on Russian gas ever again" strategy, at least in the mid- to long term. Those pipelines could have sat there until needed.

Re: Nordstream: An Accident?

#142

Post by sivizius »

jcranmer wrote: post #18

There is at least one factual inaccuracy here--Nordstream 1 was not cut off after Russia's invasion of Ukraine. It was running at more or less usual capacity until early June, when the flow was cut by about 60%. It was then shut off in July for regular yearly maintenance window. It returned at 40% capacity for a while, before being slowed to 20% capacity in late July, and then shut off again at the end of August. So…

And he is talking about the diesel effect. This implies the presence of an oxidiser like oxygen. Yes, CH₄ + 2 H₂O does react to CO₂ and 4 H₂, but not under high pressure and it is endothermic, so nope. And this pipeline has an diameter of more than a metre, so this plug must be quite large. Yes, the pressure was 105 bar which is more than enough for the creating of these clathrates but this must be a lot of water o.o…anyway, I am not an expert, but this articles sounds a lot like he took a lot of knowledge from here: https://petrowiki.spe.org/Hydrate_plug_removal. But I like the idea. An deliberate attack is somewhat unsound for me, I do not see a reason for Russia to destroy both pipelines. NS1: ok, Russia tried to pressure Germany to open NS2 anyway. All 4 of them at different spots? At almost the same time? And if they maintained them all simultaneously (Why so fast? They have time now.), if one broke, they should have stopped anything on the other one, which exploded 17 h later. And this articles assumes a lot of incompetence on the Russian side…I do not buy this.

Re: Nordstream: An Accident?

#143

Post by ravi-delia »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #136
ravi-delia wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Is there any plausible way a navy ship could have blown up the pipeline? Everyone knew about it pretty quickly, no? Like before a ship got more than 30 miles away? I assumed it would have been done by a small team of saboteurs on a plausibly deniable vessel, but I'm not an expert. What's the consensus?

I don't think rage-quitting NATO would be the concern, but a trade war. The US bombing the pipeline is like a tariff applied outside their borders, you can't firmly discount the possibility that someone would take issue with it. Is it likely? Honestly I doubt it, but for the US to benefit western Europe would definitely need to crack come winter (which is by no means guaranteed), and it would be have to be easier to import from America than from Russia even if they did, which isn't obvious. If the US had the capacity to sell enough gas to Europe to profit from this, they wouldn't be worried about energy-hungry nations breaking the embargo!

Re: Nordstream: An Accident?

#144

Post by swamp40 »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #130
swamp40 wrote: post #129

"Recently, some climate activists have begun to openly contemplate the possibility — in their eyes, the necessity — of directly sabotaging the infrastructure of the carbon economy. Foremost among them is the academic Andreas Malm, whose recent book, “How to Blow Up a Pipeline,” [1] calls for smashing the tools of fossil-fuel extraction as a last-ditch means of averting ecological collapse. In interviews with mainstre…

What are the odds they would happen to choose a pipeline that 1) Isn't actually delivering gas in the present, and may never again for political reasons. 2) Is so central to ongoing international disputes as well as a war. Point 1 negates the practical impact. Point 2, and also their failure to take credit for it, negates the symbolic value.

There are similar arguments against all possible perpetrators.

My point was only that it was possible. Not so deep or so complicated that only the US or Russia could have done it.

Re: Nordstream: An Accident?

#145

Post by jofer »

geysersam wrote: post #117
jofer wrote: post #68

This really is a plausible scenario. Hydrate buildup is a very real risk in a pipeline that isn't flowing. Trying to deal with it in a less than ideal way can absolutely lead to loss of containment and would explain the multiple leaks. Of course, hostile action is also a plausible explanation, but it is very fair to point out that we really don't have any clear evidence either way and both are reasonably likely.

Why would it happen in both pipelines the same evening?

As pointed out in the original article, if they were trying to clear hydrate blockages without coordination with folks at the "other end" of the pipeline, it could make sense that they'd try to operate on both in the same timeframe.

The coordination of timing is still one of the biggest arguments in favor of this being sabotage, though.

Re: Nordstream: An Accident?

#146

Post by swamp40 »

geysersam wrote: post #137
swamp40 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Perhaps you'd be more comfortable with the term radical environmentalists? Western leaders are ratcheting up the climate change/ESG rhetoric like never before. A whole generation of kids now think the world will literally end in their lifetimes. What do you expect will happen?

Re: Nordstream: An Accident?

#147

Post by yreg »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #80
yreg wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russians have kind of the same possible motivation as everyone. To take the option of some future DE/RU agreement regarding restoring the flow of gas off the table. To force everyone to fully commit to their current strategy.

> To force everyone to fully commit to their current strategy. I agree the destruction of the pipeline does have this effect, but Russia seemingly wants NATO support for Ukraine to falter, not persist. Russia seems to want NATO to deviate from their current strategy.

The motivation to commit to strategy applies to one's own country / one's allies.

Putin might want to make sure no one pressures him to reopen the pipeline.

German leaders might want to make sure no one pressures them to reopen the pipeline.

Etc.

I'm not claiming that this was the actual motivation for the attack, of course.

Re: Nordstream: An Accident?

#148

Post by jerome-jh »

Despite a few assertions lacking substance, the article still brings to the table interesting insights about pipeline maintenance. Since we are at making guesses, here is mine. A real accident on NS1, which was indeed under maintenance. After a few hours of discussions, russians decide to sabotage NS2 it order to make the event look like an act of war.

Re: Nordstream: An Accident?

#149

Post by roenxi »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #112
roenxi wrote: post #100

I miss the people who were good at realpolitik. What happened barely matters. The situation appears to be escalating, there is a mobilised Russian army to worry about now. People are underestimating how unpredictable and damaging war is. Throwing weapons and sanctions at Russia is not a plausible path to peace and prosperity. This should have been Iraq 2.0. If the situation goes biblical, I'd rather be reading about…

> This should have been Iraq 2.0. You mean 3.0 I assume... Anyway, that seems like an awful idea to me. Russia is still nuclear armed and if you try to attack Russia hard and fast, as America did to Iraq twice, there is a chance they would respond with nuclear force. Better to keep the war at a relatively low intensity and bleed Russia dead slowly, so that at no point does Russian leadership experience existential pa…

You want to purposefully destabilise the government of a country with the largest nuclear arsenal? Are you crazy!? That is the worst strategy I've ever heard, and it is also insane. That is literally a plan to see a new Hitler, but with with nukes.

Iraq 2.0 as in Russia plays the role of the US and Ukraine plays the role of Iraq.

Re: Nordstream: An Accident?

#150

Post by fsloth »

luc4 wrote: post #105
fsloth wrote: post #25

This article is poorly informed opinion piece. Ignore it.

Could you elaborate? The article does.

I don’t think I have anything to add to the other comments here. Maybe the 1st key thing though is to recognize thath RU would absolutely false flag their own infra to create chaos and pressure on EU. Putin started his presidential career with a likely false flag that killed civilians. Blowing up NS1&2 is an obvious threat against Norwegian offshore and pipeline infra which now critical for EU.
Post reply on HN