20 ms·

Nord Stream: Tie-ins and hyperbaric welding

138 points by bluehorseray 4y ago

SanjayMehta 4y ago
Cui bono? 1 Russia? 2 Germany? 3 Poland? 4 Ukraine? 5 China? 6 India? 7 USA Who said back in Jan/Feb that they would stop NS 2? 1 Blinken? 2 Biden? 3 Nuland? 4 All of the above Cui bono
owenfi 4y ago
…comprised of dodge gears and bearings, reliance electric motors, and Allen Bradley controls…
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jupp0r 4y ago
What a giant waste of taxpayer money, built when many - especially in east European countries - were already warning something exactly like this year would happen. Cool technology though.
- qaq 4y ago
  For all the talk about how corrupt Eastern European countries are. Russia sure proved western politicians are easy to buy.
  - rocqua 4y ago
    This isn't politicians being bribed. It's countries.
    - qaq 4y ago
      Gerhard Schröder would like a word with you
- Reason077 4y ago
  The Nord Stream pipelines are owned by Gazprom, in partnership with a consortium of privately owned Western European energy companies (Engie, Shell, E.ON, etc)
  - polskibus 4y ago
    State owns a significant share of Engie, moreover because oil is a strategic resource, governments often have a right to intervene in corporate governance when it threatens national security.
- jansan 4y ago
  Why were they warning that this would happen? Who were they thinking would do this?
  - nopenopenopeno 4y ago
    Joe Biden threatened to do it live on air: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UKn8TM47BTc https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UKn8TM47BTc
    - FpUser 4y ago
      So if they actually blew up the pipeline what would happen if Russia tries to return the favor and do the same to Norway-Polish pipeline that was just opened.
      - rocqua 4y ago
        The only believable explanation for the attack on Nordstream I have heard so far is this threat. That is, the supposed idea is to make Europe wonder if any other pipelines could be targets.
        FpUser 4y ago
        That what Russia could have done. But why do it since it is one thing to blow your own pipe and it is likely an act of war to blow ones that belong to other countries. The consequences for Russia are very bad in this case. My question was to the post that implied that it was the US who blew up the pipelines. If that was the case they have just legitimized the potential Russian response.
        rocqua 4y ago
        The timing simultaneously with the new Polish-Norway pipeline makes me suspicious. Besides, the US needs Europe to stay on the Ukrainian side. Most likely thing to push Europe away from support is needing Russian gas. Threatening Europe's gas supply is not likely to help the US maintain European support.
rabanne 4y ago
aetherspawn 4y ago
The fact that someone actually built this, sent it to the bottom of the ocean, and then put people inside it to weld a 1200km pipeline underwater boggles my mind. Meanwhile we inexplicably struggle to figure out clean/cheap energy at scale.
- faeriechangling 4y ago
  This IS cheap energy at scale, they just skipped the clean part.
  - adrianN 4y ago
    You can't really separate clean and cheap because somebody will have to pay for the pollution eventually.
    - euroderf 4y ago
      For all $SOMEBODY elements of the set { Everybody else }
- pstuart 4y ago
  Wind power is advancing at a rapid clip (cost competitive without subsidies). Solar PV too keeps getting cheaper (same re subsidies as far as the panels themselves). I'm hopeful that battery research keeps advancing the game (moving from lithium to sodium could lead to significant price cuts IIRC). It's not enough to wean us but it is headed in the right direction. I think the end of the Russian NG pipelines is going to help accelerate this so it could ultimately be a very good thing (but brutal to start with). Always look on the bright side of life, ta da, ta da da da dee da!
- est31 4y ago
  Yeah fossil fuel extraction has a lot of engineering behind it (as well as transport, handling, processing, etc): there had been easily accessible deposits, but they've been depleted a long time ago, at least in europe. The issue with technological progress and scaling bringing down costs for renewables is that there is a similar effect for fossil fuels too. On the other hand, technologies originally developed for fossil fuel extraction can also be used for renewables deployments.
teraflop 4y ago
I found this section from another page on the same site amusing: > Nord Stream developed a high environmently-conscious logistic concept which guarantees that transport vessels have not to travel more than 100 nautical miles (185 kilometers). [...] This concept of short trips and environmentally friendly transport saves roughly 200,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide when compared against other options and the use of existing concrete coating plants. -- https://www.wermac.org/nordstream/nordstream_part4.html https://www.wermac.org/nordstream/nordstream_part4.html For comparison, each of the two Nord Stream pipelines can (well, could) deliver enough natural gas to create more than 150,000 tons of CO2 emissions per day.
- nmarkerz 4y ago
  Ok, that is about the maintenance logistics. Now let's compare what emissions could be saved by using the pipelines instead of importing U.S. and Russian LNG (via China!) on polluting ships.
- Reason077 4y ago
  Yeah. Oil & gas companies are masters of this sort of greenwashing.
- vasco 4y ago
  Those 150k tons are for heating people's homes. Whereas the spend on the boat fuel is simply for construction of the pipeline so if you can optimize that, that's under your control, as the company laying pipe right now. Though maybe you prefer everyone die of cold until we have a solution to transition out of natural gas without returning to coal or wait 10 years to build more nuclear.
  - beebmam 4y ago
    >Those 150k tons are for heating people's homes. This is a misrepresentation: natural gas is used for a variety of purposes, with industry and home use approximately tied, varying by EU country. Germany for example, uses more natural gas for industrial purposes than heating homes. >Though maybe you prefer everyone die of cold until we have a solution to transition out of natural gas without returning to coal or wait 10 years to build more nuclear. This kind of personal vitriol doesn't belong on Hacker News.
c_o_n_v_e_x 4y ago
I worked in oil and gas in a previous life. The absolute wildest people I've ever met are saturation divers - divers who live in pressurized chambers on ships for months at a time to avoid having to decompress after dives. Fantastic money but you need a few screws loose to handle the work.
- p1esk 4y ago
  How much money is “fantastic money”?
  - pyinstallwoes 4y ago
    I think 500k-1mil year guaranteed.
    - missedthecue 4y ago
      No way. You'll make more like $700-$1500 per day, but it's not long term employment, it's a contract job for a few weeks to a month at a time. You'd have to have 12 months of work lined up with over time to clear $500k or more. I'm not sure how you could ever hit $1 million in one year. A lot of these divers will only have a couple jobs a year limiting annual income. There are even cases where sat divers compete with each other by giving gifts to project managers at O&G companies in order to line up more work. These days, remotely controlled underwater vehicles have taken over most the work, especially at the deeper (and higher paying) depths.
  - tlarkworthy 4y ago
    They get paid while sleeping so a good wage adds up fast
  - eesmith 4y ago
    https://waterwelders.com/swim-salary-how-much-do-underwater-welders-earn/ https://waterwelders.com/swim-salary-how-much-do-underwater-... > Saturation divers make up to $45,000 – $90,000 per month and over $500,000 annually. They receive “depth pay” which typically pays out an additional $1 – $4 per foot. Usually, it’s $1 per foot up to 100 feet, then it raises up to $2 per foot after that. Income is dependent upon the length and depth of their project plus tenure of the diver. As it points out, it takes years of experience to get to this point. > Many go into the commercial diving field with a money mindset, but no one earns a “quick buck.” You have to work your way up the career ladder and take orders from senior divers and maritime business owners.
alexose 4y ago
Hey. Let me walk you through the Donnelly nut spacing and crack system rim-riding rip configuration. Using a field of half-C sprats, and brass-fitted nickel slits, our bracketed caps, and splay-flexed brace columns vent dampers to dampening hatch depths of one half meter from the damper crown to the spurve plinths. How? Well, we bolster twelve husk nuts to each girdle-jerry, while flex tandems press a task apparatus of ten vertically composited patch-hamplers. Then, pin-flam-fastened pan traps at both maiden-apexes of the jim-joist.
- EdwardDiego 4y ago
  I'm only somewhat sure that that's satire.
  - vl 4y ago
    This is a quote from TV show Patriot. Spy embeds into O&G equipment company and has to learn the process.
- ttul 4y ago
  The original machine has a base-plate of prefabulated aluminite, surmounted by a malleable logarithmic casing in such a way that the two main spurving bearings were in a direct line with the pentametric fan. The latter consisted simply of six hydrocoptic marzlevanes, so fitted to the ambifacient lunar waneshaft that side fumbling was effectively prevented. The main winding was of the normal lotus-o-delta type placed in panendermic semi-bovoid slots in the stator, every seventh conductor being connected by a non-reversible tremie pipe to the differential girdlespring on the "up" end of the grammeters.
weinzierl 4y ago
I wonder with what these pipelines are filled during construction? An inert gas like Nitrogen or Argon is probably too expensive, natural gas might be too dangerous when welding is still necessary. Seawater is probably too dirty and aggressive. And as a related question: Should the pipeline fill up with sea water completely (for example because of large scale damage and loss of pressure) is it possible to make the pipeline usable again?
- bluehorseray 4y ago
  That's actually why I looked this up in the first place. I think it's just air from what I could gather. The three sections of the pipe are laid on the seafloor like this (with the open end staying out of the water): https://www.wermac.org/nordstream/html_img66.html https://www.wermac.org/nordstream/html_img66.html. And then those three sections are welded together using an "air-tight habitat" surrounding them. From what I've heard salt water getting into the pipe could make it really difficult to repair, and it might have to be scrapped altogether.
triggercut 4y ago
After working in O&G previously, some of the technology surrounding it still amazes me. Take the submersible hot-welding habitat probably used here, or one like it. We have found a way to (somewhat safely) put humans on the bottom of the ocean, in a box, around a metal pipe full of explosive gasses at pressure, for the purpose of shooting molten metal at, or cutting into that metal pipe. What are we doing?
- labrador 4y ago
  Pre-Civilization: Hunting and foraging to keep the hunger at bay Post-Civilization: Building civilization to keep the hunger at bay
rendall 4y ago
Everyone seems to know it was Russia and is just casting out ideas to find a plausible motivation. I find that completely baffling. For opportunity, consider that while setting up the pipeline needs a weird high-pressure residence and special training, blowing it up takes a fishing boat, scuba gear and underwater explosives. The equipment and training is cheap and available. So, those with opportunity is almost anyone. Practically, anyone with access to the Baltic Sea, boats, scuba equipment, underwater explosives; it doesn't have even to be anyone with military training, just skills in underwater demolition. For motivation, consider who benefits from permanently reducing European dependence on Russian energy? Resist going for "Clearly, Russia!". Just spitballing here, but why not a German opposition group? Norway? Poland? Any activist group opposed to EU dependence on Russia? Shit, why not Danish anarchists, for that matter? It could be Russia who suddenly decided for some reason that sanctions will never end and blowing up the means of selling hundreds of billions of euros of energy to Europe is a better use of the pipeline. But before getting there, you have to explain why it wasn't any of the myriad other groups who did not have hundreds of billions of Euros riding on it.
- hardware2win 4y ago
  >The equipment and training is cheap and available Ive been wondering why attacks on such a infrastructure is not more common - those pipes, internet cables, etc?
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Because for those with the ability other attacks are easier, and it’s also a war declaration if determined. There have been “suspicious” accidental cable breaks, however.
- _kbh_ 4y ago
  Why did these groups miss a pipe on Nord Stream 2 that remains undamaged, and can be used by Russia to try and force certification of NS2 if things get bad?.
  - that_guy_iain 4y ago
WHA8m 4y ago
I like this thread. A bunch of possibly above average intelligent people going all in on discussing why and how such an attack was done. Very entertaining to read. What struck me, was that a few of you seriously think about the US as a contender for this attack. Does anyone has an recent example of the US being that hostile to friend nations?
- diimdeep 4y ago
  https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2004/02/27/reagan-approved-plan-to-sabotage-soviets/a9184eff-47fd-402e-beb2-63970851e130/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2004/02/27/r...
  - WHA8m 4y ago
    > Reagan I don't consider this 'recent'. What came to mind in the meantime is the "spying on friends" that was published by Snowden. But there wasn't some physical damage done which I think marks a different boundary.
- apexalpha 4y ago
  >What struck me, was that a few of you think about the US as a serious contender for this attack. Does anyone has an recent example of the US being that hostile to friend nations? This narative was a little too quick, too widespread and too concise if you ask me. A lot of new-ish accounts quickly posted this version on all different English social media but I've yet to see it on Dutch, Belgian or French social media. It reeks if you ask me.
  - dang 4y ago
    "Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, bots, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=true&page=0&query=by:dang%20astroturf https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
hotz 4y ago
My money's on nato or the usa. Western politicians are stupid enough to go along with the idea and America's got a long history of causing chaos internationally.
- BurningPenguin 4y ago
  That doesn't make sense at all. Why attack allies and risk invoking defense treaties? Especially considering that there is no gas flowing through those pipelines. NS2 was never certified and therefore never in use. NS1 was essentially shut down illegally by Russia. So the USA did get what it wanted long before. By blowing up those pipelines, they would lose all trust from the EU and wouldn't have any leverage left. Russia was pretending to have "technical problems" with those pipelines, and now it conveniently blows up? They are obligated by contract to supply us with gas until 2030. Breaking the contract may lead to financial penalties. Wouldn't it be convenient if those pipelines were to suddenly break for unknown reasons, so you don't have that problem? You know what would release them from their obligations in the contract? An "act of god", that would make the pipelines unusable. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russias-gazprom-declares-force-majeure-gas-supplies-europe-2022-07-18/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russias-gazprom-decl...
  - SanjayMehta 4y ago
    The Wolfowitz Doctrine at work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfowitz_Doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfowitz_Doctrine
throwaway102233 4y ago
we all know it was the Thalmor, they’ve been plotting against the Nords since before Tamriel merged into a single continent.

138 points by bluehorseray 4y ago

Cui bono? 1 Russia? 2 Germany? 3 Poland? 4 Ukraine? 5 China? 6 India? 7 USA Who said back in Jan/Feb that they would stop NS 2? 1 Blinken? 2 Biden? 3 Nuland? 4 All of the above Cui bono

owenfi 4y ago

…comprised of dodge gears and bearings, reliance electric motors, and Allen Bradley controls…

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

jupp0r 4y ago

What a giant waste of taxpayer money, built when many - especially in east European countries - were already warning something exactly like this year would happen. Cool technology though.

qaq 4y ago
For all the talk about how corrupt Eastern European countries are. Russia sure proved western politicians are easy to buy.
- rocqua 4y ago
  This isn't politicians being bribed. It's countries.
  - qaq 4y ago
    Gerhard Schröder would like a word with you
Reason077 4y ago
The Nord Stream pipelines are owned by Gazprom, in partnership with a consortium of privately owned Western European energy companies (Engie, Shell, E.ON, etc)
- polskibus 4y ago
  State owns a significant share of Engie, moreover because oil is a strategic resource, governments often have a right to intervene in corporate governance when it threatens national security.
jansan 4y ago
Why were they warning that this would happen? Who were they thinking would do this?
- nopenopenopeno 4y ago
  Joe Biden threatened to do it live on air: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UKn8TM47BTc https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UKn8TM47BTc
  - FpUser 4y ago
    So if they actually blew up the pipeline what would happen if Russia tries to return the favor and do the same to Norway-Polish pipeline that was just opened.
    - rocqua 4y ago
      The only believable explanation for the attack on Nordstream I have heard so far is this threat. That is, the supposed idea is to make Europe wonder if any other pipelines could be targets.
      - FpUser 4y ago
        That what Russia could have done. But why do it since it is one thing to blow your own pipe and it is likely an act of war to blow ones that belong to other countries. The consequences for Russia are very bad in this case. My question was to the post that implied that it was the US who blew up the pipelines. If that was the case they have just legitimized the potential Russian response.
        rocqua 4y ago
        The timing simultaneously with the new Polish-Norway pipeline makes me suspicious. Besides, the US needs Europe to stay on the Ukrainian side. Most likely thing to push Europe away from support is needing Russian gas. Threatening Europe's gas supply is not likely to help the US maintain European support.

rabanne 4y ago

aetherspawn 4y ago

The fact that someone actually built this, sent it to the bottom of the ocean, and then put people inside it to weld a 1200km pipeline underwater boggles my mind. Meanwhile we inexplicably struggle to figure out clean/cheap energy at scale.

faeriechangling 4y ago
This IS cheap energy at scale, they just skipped the clean part.
- adrianN 4y ago
  You can't really separate clean and cheap because somebody will have to pay for the pollution eventually.
  - euroderf 4y ago
    For all $SOMEBODY elements of the set { Everybody else }
pstuart 4y ago
Wind power is advancing at a rapid clip (cost competitive without subsidies). Solar PV too keeps getting cheaper (same re subsidies as far as the panels themselves). I'm hopeful that battery research keeps advancing the game (moving from lithium to sodium could lead to significant price cuts IIRC). It's not enough to wean us but it is headed in the right direction. I think the end of the Russian NG pipelines is going to help accelerate this so it could ultimately be a very good thing (but brutal to start with). Always look on the bright side of life, ta da, ta da da da dee da!
est31 4y ago
Yeah fossil fuel extraction has a lot of engineering behind it (as well as transport, handling, processing, etc): there had been easily accessible deposits, but they've been depleted a long time ago, at least in europe. The issue with technological progress and scaling bringing down costs for renewables is that there is a similar effect for fossil fuels too. On the other hand, technologies originally developed for fossil fuel extraction can also be used for renewables deployments.

teraflop 4y ago

I found this section from another page on the same site amusing: > Nord Stream developed a high environmently-conscious logistic concept which guarantees that transport vessels have not to travel more than 100 nautical miles (185 kilometers). [...] This concept of short trips and environmentally friendly transport saves roughly 200,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide when compared against other options and the use of existing concrete coating plants. -- https://www.wermac.org/nordstream/nordstream_part4.html https://www.wermac.org/nordstream/nordstream_part4.html For comparison, each of the two Nord Stream pipelines can (well, could) deliver enough natural gas to create more than 150,000 tons of CO2 emissions per day.

nmarkerz 4y ago
Ok, that is about the maintenance logistics. Now let's compare what emissions could be saved by using the pipelines instead of importing U.S. and Russian LNG (via China!) on polluting ships.
Reason077 4y ago
Yeah. Oil & gas companies are masters of this sort of greenwashing.
vasco 4y ago
Those 150k tons are for heating people's homes. Whereas the spend on the boat fuel is simply for construction of the pipeline so if you can optimize that, that's under your control, as the company laying pipe right now. Though maybe you prefer everyone die of cold until we have a solution to transition out of natural gas without returning to coal or wait 10 years to build more nuclear.
- beebmam 4y ago
  >Those 150k tons are for heating people's homes. This is a misrepresentation: natural gas is used for a variety of purposes, with industry and home use approximately tied, varying by EU country. Germany for example, uses more natural gas for industrial purposes than heating homes. >Though maybe you prefer everyone die of cold until we have a solution to transition out of natural gas without returning to coal or wait 10 years to build more nuclear. This kind of personal vitriol doesn't belong on Hacker News.

c_o_n_v_e_x 4y ago

I worked in oil and gas in a previous life. The absolute wildest people I've ever met are saturation divers - divers who live in pressurized chambers on ships for months at a time to avoid having to decompress after dives. Fantastic money but you need a few screws loose to handle the work.

p1esk 4y ago
How much money is “fantastic money”?
- pyinstallwoes 4y ago
  I think 500k-1mil year guaranteed.
  - missedthecue 4y ago
    No way. You'll make more like $700-$1500 per day, but it's not long term employment, it's a contract job for a few weeks to a month at a time. You'd have to have 12 months of work lined up with over time to clear $500k or more. I'm not sure how you could ever hit $1 million in one year. A lot of these divers will only have a couple jobs a year limiting annual income. There are even cases where sat divers compete with each other by giving gifts to project managers at O&G companies in order to line up more work. These days, remotely controlled underwater vehicles have taken over most the work, especially at the deeper (and higher paying) depths.
- tlarkworthy 4y ago
  They get paid while sleeping so a good wage adds up fast
- eesmith 4y ago
  https://waterwelders.com/swim-salary-how-much-do-underwater-welders-earn/ https://waterwelders.com/swim-salary-how-much-do-underwater-... > Saturation divers make up to $45,000 – $90,000 per month and over $500,000 annually. They receive “depth pay” which typically pays out an additional $1 – $4 per foot. Usually, it’s $1 per foot up to 100 feet, then it raises up to $2 per foot after that. Income is dependent upon the length and depth of their project plus tenure of the diver. As it points out, it takes years of experience to get to this point. > Many go into the commercial diving field with a money mindset, but no one earns a “quick buck.” You have to work your way up the career ladder and take orders from senior divers and maritime business owners.

alexose 4y ago

Hey. Let me walk you through the Donnelly nut spacing and crack system rim-riding rip configuration. Using a field of half-C sprats, and brass-fitted nickel slits, our bracketed caps, and splay-flexed brace columns vent dampers to dampening hatch depths of one half meter from the damper crown to the spurve plinths. How? Well, we bolster twelve husk nuts to each girdle-jerry, while flex tandems press a task apparatus of ten vertically composited patch-hamplers. Then, pin-flam-fastened pan traps at both maiden-apexes of the jim-joist.

EdwardDiego 4y ago
I'm only somewhat sure that that's satire.
- vl 4y ago
  This is a quote from TV show Patriot. Spy embeds into O&G equipment company and has to learn the process.
ttul 4y ago
The original machine has a base-plate of prefabulated aluminite, surmounted by a malleable logarithmic casing in such a way that the two main spurving bearings were in a direct line with the pentametric fan. The latter consisted simply of six hydrocoptic marzlevanes, so fitted to the ambifacient lunar waneshaft that side fumbling was effectively prevented. The main winding was of the normal lotus-o-delta type placed in panendermic semi-bovoid slots in the stator, every seventh conductor being connected by a non-reversible tremie pipe to the differential girdlespring on the "up" end of the grammeters.

weinzierl 4y ago

I wonder with what these pipelines are filled during construction? An inert gas like Nitrogen or Argon is probably too expensive, natural gas might be too dangerous when welding is still necessary. Seawater is probably too dirty and aggressive. And as a related question: Should the pipeline fill up with sea water completely (for example because of large scale damage and loss of pressure) is it possible to make the pipeline usable again?

bluehorseray 4y ago
That's actually why I looked this up in the first place. I think it's just air from what I could gather. The three sections of the pipe are laid on the seafloor like this (with the open end staying out of the water): https://www.wermac.org/nordstream/html_img66.html https://www.wermac.org/nordstream/html_img66.html. And then those three sections are welded together using an "air-tight habitat" surrounding them. From what I've heard salt water getting into the pipe could make it really difficult to repair, and it might have to be scrapped altogether.

triggercut 4y ago

After working in O&G previously, some of the technology surrounding it still amazes me. Take the submersible hot-welding habitat probably used here, or one like it. We have found a way to (somewhat safely) put humans on the bottom of the ocean, in a box, around a metal pipe full of explosive gasses at pressure, for the purpose of shooting molten metal at, or cutting into that metal pipe. What are we doing?

labrador 4y ago
Pre-Civilization: Hunting and foraging to keep the hunger at bay Post-Civilization: Building civilization to keep the hunger at bay

rendall 4y ago

Everyone seems to know it was Russia and is just casting out ideas to find a plausible motivation. I find that completely baffling. For opportunity, consider that while setting up the pipeline needs a weird high-pressure residence and special training, blowing it up takes a fishing boat, scuba gear and underwater explosives. The equipment and training is cheap and available. So, those with opportunity is almost anyone. Practically, anyone with access to the Baltic Sea, boats, scuba equipment, underwater explosives; it doesn't have even to be anyone with military training, just skills in underwater demolition. For motivation, consider who benefits from permanently reducing European dependence on Russian energy? Resist going for "Clearly, Russia!". Just spitballing here, but why not a German opposition group? Norway? Poland? Any activist group opposed to EU dependence on Russia? Shit, why not Danish anarchists, for that matter? It could be Russia who suddenly decided for some reason that sanctions will never end and blowing up the means of selling hundreds of billions of euros of energy to Europe is a better use of the pipeline. But before getting there, you have to explain why it wasn't any of the myriad other groups who did not have hundreds of billions of Euros riding on it.

hardware2win 4y ago
>The equipment and training is cheap and available Ive been wondering why attacks on such a infrastructure is not more common - those pipes, internet cables, etc?
- bombcar 4y ago
  Because for those with the ability other attacks are easier, and it’s also a war declaration if determined. There have been “suspicious” accidental cable breaks, however.
_kbh_ 4y ago
Why did these groups miss a pipe on Nord Stream 2 that remains undamaged, and can be used by Russia to try and force certification of NS2 if things get bad?.
- that_guy_iain 4y ago

WHA8m 4y ago

I like this thread. A bunch of possibly above average intelligent people going all in on discussing why and how such an attack was done. Very entertaining to read. What struck me, was that a few of you seriously think about the US as a contender for this attack. Does anyone has an recent example of the US being that hostile to friend nations?

diimdeep 4y ago
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2004/02/27/reagan-approved-plan-to-sabotage-soviets/a9184eff-47fd-402e-beb2-63970851e130/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2004/02/27/r...
- WHA8m 4y ago
  > Reagan I don't consider this 'recent'. What came to mind in the meantime is the "spying on friends" that was published by Snowden. But there wasn't some physical damage done which I think marks a different boundary.
apexalpha 4y ago
>What struck me, was that a few of you think about the US as a serious contender for this attack. Does anyone has an recent example of the US being that hostile to friend nations? This narative was a little too quick, too widespread and too concise if you ask me. A lot of new-ish accounts quickly posted this version on all different English social media but I've yet to see it on Dutch, Belgian or French social media. It reeks if you ask me.
- dang 4y ago
  "Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, bots, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=true&page=0&query=by:dang%20astroturf https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...

hotz 4y ago

My money's on nato or the usa. Western politicians are stupid enough to go along with the idea and America's got a long history of causing chaos internationally.

BurningPenguin 4y ago
That doesn't make sense at all. Why attack allies and risk invoking defense treaties? Especially considering that there is no gas flowing through those pipelines. NS2 was never certified and therefore never in use. NS1 was essentially shut down illegally by Russia. So the USA did get what it wanted long before. By blowing up those pipelines, they would lose all trust from the EU and wouldn't have any leverage left. Russia was pretending to have "technical problems" with those pipelines, and now it conveniently blows up? They are obligated by contract to supply us with gas until 2030. Breaking the contract may lead to financial penalties. Wouldn't it be convenient if those pipelines were to suddenly break for unknown reasons, so you don't have that problem? You know what would release them from their obligations in the contract? An "act of god", that would make the pipelines unusable. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russias-gazprom-declares-force-majeure-gas-supplies-europe-2022-07-18/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russias-gazprom-decl...
- SanjayMehta 4y ago
  The Wolfowitz Doctrine at work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfowitz_Doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfowitz_Doctrine

throwaway102233 4y ago

we all know it was the Thalmor, they’ve been plotting against the Nords since before Tamriel merged into a single continent.