3 ms·

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 un

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 Nordstream 1 has only been not moving for a little less than a month at the time of the explosion. While I think accidental failure of the Nordstream pipeline is an underrated explanation, such a glaring factual inaccuracy makes me skeptical of the viability of the specific theory espoused in this article.

T-zex 4y ago
And NS2 was not operational at all, therefore the accident hypothesis is less likely there.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  It was pressurized but not flowing (which confounds the pig hypothesis I've seen some commenters put forward.)
- lesuorac 4y ago
  I dunno, I always thought it made it more likely. Funding for NS2 has dried up so whose going to bother leaving their nice warm hut to go do required maintenance?
namaria 4y ago
We have no reason to assume we even know all the possibilities. Neither Russia nor NATO are monoliths. We don't even know potentially how many actors we should take into account.
sivizius 4y ago
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 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.

T-zex 4y ago

And NS2 was not operational at all, therefore the accident hypothesis is less likely there.

MichaelCollins 4y ago
It was pressurized but not flowing (which confounds the pig hypothesis I've seen some commenters put forward.)
lesuorac 4y ago
I dunno, I always thought it made it more likely. Funding for NS2 has dried up so whose going to bother leaving their nice warm hut to go do required maintenance?

namaria 4y ago

We have no reason to assume we even know all the possibilities. Neither Russia nor NATO are monoliths. We don't even know potentially how many actors we should take into account.

sivizius 4y ago

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 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.