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

151–160 of 176 posts

Re: Nordstream: An Accident?

#151

Post by geysersam »

swamp40 wrote: post #146
geysersam wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'm a lot more concerned about climate change, than about radical eco terrorism.

Re: Nordstream: An Accident?

#152

Post by geysersam »

jofer wrote: post #145
geysersam wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Each of the two nord stream links consist of two pipelines. All four exploded on the same evening, in exactly one place on each. Three of the leaks are very close to each other, the fourth is within 50 kilometers from the others, along a 1000+ km long pipeline. By accident?

All relevant authorities on different sides of the conflict agree that this was sabotage.

It can be fun to stretch the imagination and construct complicated technical causes. But it should be known that this was not an accident.

Re: Nordstream: An Accident?

#153

Post by supergirl »

my money is on US and/or UK. they seized the moment of chaos and destroyed the pipeline permanently. they have a lot to gain from this. it simply weakens EU, makes it more dependent on US/UK, weakens economy, etc. UK is not EU's friend and US is only a friend as long as EU falls in line and you never know in the future.

Russia could have done it too but it makes no sense and most importantly they have a track record of failing and getting caught with even simpler schemes (e.g. novichok attack).

just the fact that US is not jumping to blame Russia this time and Sweden already said they treat it not as an attack on Sweden (so if it turns out US did it, Sweden is just gonna say it's in international waters, not a Swedish asset, etc.). I mean US intelligence knows what Putin has for dinner. Impossible they don't know who did this, in NATO waters. Only EU doesn't know. US/UK surely know and if it was Russia they'd publish video footage 1 min after explosion.

Re: Nordstream: An Accident?

#155

Post by MauranKilom »

regularfry wrote: post #113
MauranKilom wrote: post #35

Can someone explain the chemistry of natural gas exploding by itself? In my understanding, you need oxygen for that to happen. There's a bunch of oxygen in the H2O, but what exactly would the products of an explosive reaction between natural gas and water be? Hydrogen and CO2? Don't think there's much energy to be released there... I can totally buy the "you depressurized only one end, so you had a plug slam into the…

I'm wondering if it's a combination of the two, and a physical effect rather than a chemical one. If you run the hydrate plug into a wall, the hydrate at the impact site will get crushed and release its gas, which has a bigger volume than the original plug. Local pressure goes up so the force of the impact is magnified. That means a smaller impact has potentially an outsized effect. No idea if that works, because oth…

That would make the most sense. Methane hydrate + heat (from sudden compression of gas ahead) = a lot of methane sublimating.

Re: Nordstream: An Accident?

#156

Post by cinntaile »

nix23 wrote: post #40
cinntaile wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we are fairly certain it's not an accident?

I think he writes down a possibility and we should not pointing fingers until we have evidence. The press ATM act's more like "Live of Brian": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_hlMK7tCks See also the hint from the past aka ""russian" submarine's at sweden's coast": https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0B788MB9J/ref=dbs_a_def_r...

Are you pointing fingers? Cause I sure am not?

Re: Nordstream: An Accident?

#157

Post by nix23 »

cinntaile wrote: post #156
nix23 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he writes down a possibility and we should not pointing fingers until we have evidence. The press ATM act's more like "Live of Brian": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_hlMK7tCks See also the hint from the past aka ""russian" submarine's at sweden's coast": https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0B788MB9J/ref=dbs_a_def_r...

Are you pointing fingers? Cause I sure am not?

No, the opposite of pointing, just saying don't trust any site until truth is out in around 20 years.

US/UK had big interests in a dead Olaf Palme (not saying the US/UK did it, that would be ridiculous...the US/UK killing a European PM..pfff) and a Sweden who is against the USSR instead of making bridges between europe and the soviets.

Re: Nordstream: An Accident?

#158

Post by valuearb »

raverbashing wrote: post #72
photochemsyn wrote: post #65

These two pipelines have very different operational histories so the simultaneous formation of a 'methane hydrate plug' in both pipelines seems highly unlikely at best. There's also no apparent reason why such a methane hydrate plug should cause seismic-scale explosions in both pipelines. As far as motivation, the US agenda on Europe's fossil fuel market since at least 2008 has been to lock out Russian suppliers (who…

> Now, would Russia want to blow up its own pipelines when it can simply shut them down for 'maintenance' Because they can break the contracts due to "force-majeure" clauses, which shutting down won't let them do

Since when has Putin cared about contracts?

Re: Nordstream: An Accident?

#159

Post by valuearb »

geysersam wrote: post #152
jofer wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Each of the two nord stream links consist of two pipelines. All four exploded on the same evening, in exactly one place on each. Three of the leaks are very close to each other, the fourth is within 50 kilometers from the others, along a 1000+ km long pipeline. By accident? All relevant authorities on different sides of the conflict agree that this was sabotage. It can be fun to stretch the imagination and construct…

"All relevant authorities on different sides of the conflict agree that this was sabotage"

So your entire argument is appeal to questionable authorities? What are their expertise with pipeline maintenance disasters?

How and why would an underwater demo team plant explosives 50 km apart? Why would they trigger explosions 17 hours apart?

If a hydrate plug is triggered to cause an explosion in one pipeline due to a specific temperature/pressure combination, how long would it take for a similar explosion to occur in another pipeline at the exact same temperature/pressure combination?

Re: Nordstream: An Accident?

#160

Post by valuearb »

fsloth wrote: post #150
luc4 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The idea that Putin or Biden would do this is so ludicrous as to be dismissable out of hand.

Putin needs the revenues from these pipelines once hostilities end. He was likely extremely hopeful Europe would cave this winter and he could use them as leverage.

Biden has finally gotten a coalition in Europe to take Russia's aggressions seriously and their combined efforts have Ukraine making great progress in winning the war.

Post reply on HN