5 ms·

Meanwhile, memory holed: >The Nord Stream breach released between 56,000 and 155,000 tonnes of methane into the atmosphere, making it among the largest methane

by alecco 3y ago

Meanwhile, memory holed: >The Nord Stream breach released between 56,000 and 155,000 tonnes of methane into the atmosphere, making it among the largest methane emissions ever recorded from a single point https://www.newscientist.com/article/2342081-nord-stream-leak-may-have-been-largest-methane-emission-ever-recorded/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2342081-nord-stream-lea... https://archive.ph/Yb20f https://archive.ph/Yb20f

CrzyLngPwd 3y ago
[flagged]
- voyteq 3y ago
  Former and current foreign minister
- hartator 3y ago
  [flagged]
- Alifatisk 3y ago
  Was it the US?
  - rib3ye 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - bryanlarsen 3y ago
    No, current consensus is that it was likely the Ukrainians. They are the obvious suspects, but they were initially ruled out because it was thought they didn't have the capabilities.
    - jcranmer 3y ago
      When the attack happened, I first reckoned [1] the suspects as US < Russia < Ukraine, with accident being a possibility I couldn't order with respect to the others. Looking back at the replies to the HN post I did at the time, actually quite a few people agreed that Ukraine was a strong contender. Although very quickly, the narrative focused on the US versus Russia for the most likely suspect, depending on whether you believed more that Russia was an irrational state actor or all world foreign policy is somehow done at the direction of the US. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32996564 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32996564
      - Alifatisk 3y ago
        Why would the Russians sabotage for themselves?
        jcranmer 3y ago
        As I said, the motivation isn't particularly compelling. But it should be noted that were Russia to have done it, it wouldn't have lost very much (the pipelines were no longer in operation at the time of the explosion, with NS2 never coming online, and NS1 having been shut off "indefinitely" a few weeks prior) and risked relatively little blowback, as Russia had already lost all credibility in the West when it invaded Ukraine. The gains aren't much, though. Primarily, it would have been a punitive action ("You want to support Ukraine? Okay then, freeze to death come winter!"), although it was noted at the time that the explosions weren't that far from a new Norway-Poland gas pipeline that had just come into service--a demonstration of capability. Unclear attribution could also be used as a lever to try to weaken NATO, by sending the US and EU into mutual recrimination. All said, it looks like a low-risk, low-reward situation for Russia, which isn't exactly compelling evidence.
    - 4gotunameagain 3y ago
      I highly doubt the Ukrainians were capable of such an act, especially at that time. What about Biden explicitly stating that the US will destroy the pipeline ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS4O8rGRLf8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS4O8rGRLf8
      - bryanlarsen 3y ago
        A Der Spiegel investigation shows pretty convincingly that they had the capability. https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/investigating-the-attack-on-nord-stream-all-the-clues-point-toward-kyiv-a-124838c7-992a-4d0e-9894-942d4a665778 https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/investigating-th...
  - alecco 3y ago
    "Swedish prosecutors have said they will end their investigation into the sabotage of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines in 2022, dodging the question of who destroyed the then new energy link between Russia and Europe shortly after Moscow launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine." https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/feb/07/sweden-drop-inquiry-nord-stream-pipeline-explosions https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/feb/07/sweden-drop... And https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO#Membership_aspirations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO#Membersh...
  - CrzyLngPwd 3y ago
    Of course, it was.
- vdaea 3y ago
  [flagged]
- danbruc 3y ago
  In my opinion the most worrying thing in this story is that nobody is willing to come forward and say who did it. Sure, there is the possibility that nobody knows with certainty and I understand it in that case, you do not want to accuse anyone if you are not pretty sure. But from following the story - admittedly not too closely - I did not get the impression that this is the case, but I may just be wrong.
poszlem 3y ago
Building a gas pipeline with an adversary to disadvantage your eastern neighbors was likely a bad move.
- miroljub 3y ago
  Yes, it's much better when your eastern neighbours and an adversary hold you a hostage. With the help of your oversea "friend".
  - poszlem 3y ago
    When you choose a deal with Russia to screw up you neighbours, who also happen to be in a political union with you, you are not the "innocent" part of the situation.
- hartator 3y ago
  Yes, destroying things is always the right side of history.
  - poszlem 3y ago
    As much, as plotting with Russia over the heads of Eastern Europeans.
- danbruc 3y ago
  Russia was no adversary when Nord Stream was build and given the repeated disputes between Russia and Ukraine with regard to gas [1] it seems completely reasonable that they wanted to bypass them. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_gas_disputes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_gas_dis...
  - justrealist 3y ago
    Nord Stream entered service in 2011, 3 years after Russia invaded Georgia. Everyone except Merkel knew that Russia would eventually be a problem for eastern europe.
76655dd 3y ago
[dead]
ed_balls 3y ago
[flagged]
- timeon 3y ago
  > At least methane will dissipate out out of the atmosphere Methane will not simply dissipate. It will turn into water and CO2. > but extra CO2 emissions from closing down the nuclear plants in Germany will not. Somehow still managed to have smaller CO2 output per capita than US.
matthewdgreen 3y ago
It was a huge methane release, but it isn't continuous. The US oil and gas industry (all by itself) emits 8,000,000 metric tons of methane every year, and global emissions are vastly greater. Ongoing emissions are worthy of our attention because we can do something about them on a forward-looking basis; Nord Stream isn't because we don't have a time machine.
mturmon 3y ago
You don't really need a memory hole to make people forget about these leak events. The Aliso Canyon leak in LA in 2015 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliso_Canyon_gas_leak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliso_Canyon_gas_leak) was comparable size (~100,000 tonnes CH4) and is also dimly recalled.

by alecco 3y ago

CrzyLngPwd 3y ago

[flagged]

voyteq 3y ago
Former and current foreign minister
hartator 3y ago
[flagged]
Alifatisk 3y ago
Was it the US?
- rib3ye 3y ago
  [flagged]
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  No, current consensus is that it was likely the Ukrainians. They are the obvious suspects, but they were initially ruled out because it was thought they didn't have the capabilities.
  - jcranmer 3y ago
    When the attack happened, I first reckoned [1] the suspects as US < Russia < Ukraine, with accident being a possibility I couldn't order with respect to the others. Looking back at the replies to the HN post I did at the time, actually quite a few people agreed that Ukraine was a strong contender. Although very quickly, the narrative focused on the US versus Russia for the most likely suspect, depending on whether you believed more that Russia was an irrational state actor or all world foreign policy is somehow done at the direction of the US. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32996564 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32996564
    - Alifatisk 3y ago
      Why would the Russians sabotage for themselves?
      - jcranmer 3y ago
        As I said, the motivation isn't particularly compelling. But it should be noted that were Russia to have done it, it wouldn't have lost very much (the pipelines were no longer in operation at the time of the explosion, with NS2 never coming online, and NS1 having been shut off "indefinitely" a few weeks prior) and risked relatively little blowback, as Russia had already lost all credibility in the West when it invaded Ukraine. The gains aren't much, though. Primarily, it would have been a punitive action ("You want to support Ukraine? Okay then, freeze to death come winter!"), although it was noted at the time that the explosions weren't that far from a new Norway-Poland gas pipeline that had just come into service--a demonstration of capability. Unclear attribution could also be used as a lever to try to weaken NATO, by sending the US and EU into mutual recrimination. All said, it looks like a low-risk, low-reward situation for Russia, which isn't exactly compelling evidence.
  - 4gotunameagain 3y ago
    I highly doubt the Ukrainians were capable of such an act, especially at that time. What about Biden explicitly stating that the US will destroy the pipeline ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS4O8rGRLf8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS4O8rGRLf8
    - bryanlarsen 3y ago
      A Der Spiegel investigation shows pretty convincingly that they had the capability. https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/investigating-the-attack-on-nord-stream-all-the-clues-point-toward-kyiv-a-124838c7-992a-4d0e-9894-942d4a665778 https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/investigating-th...
- alecco 3y ago
  "Swedish prosecutors have said they will end their investigation into the sabotage of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines in 2022, dodging the question of who destroyed the then new energy link between Russia and Europe shortly after Moscow launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine." https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/feb/07/sweden-drop-inquiry-nord-stream-pipeline-explosions https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/feb/07/sweden-drop... And https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO#Membership_aspirations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO#Membersh...
- CrzyLngPwd 3y ago
  Of course, it was.
vdaea 3y ago
[flagged]
danbruc 3y ago
In my opinion the most worrying thing in this story is that nobody is willing to come forward and say who did it. Sure, there is the possibility that nobody knows with certainty and I understand it in that case, you do not want to accuse anyone if you are not pretty sure. But from following the story - admittedly not too closely - I did not get the impression that this is the case, but I may just be wrong.

poszlem 3y ago

Building a gas pipeline with an adversary to disadvantage your eastern neighbors was likely a bad move.

miroljub 3y ago
Yes, it's much better when your eastern neighbours and an adversary hold you a hostage. With the help of your oversea "friend".
- poszlem 3y ago
  When you choose a deal with Russia to screw up you neighbours, who also happen to be in a political union with you, you are not the "innocent" part of the situation.
hartator 3y ago
Yes, destroying things is always the right side of history.
- poszlem 3y ago
  As much, as plotting with Russia over the heads of Eastern Europeans.
danbruc 3y ago
Russia was no adversary when Nord Stream was build and given the repeated disputes between Russia and Ukraine with regard to gas [1] it seems completely reasonable that they wanted to bypass them. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_gas_disputes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_gas_dis...
- justrealist 3y ago
  Nord Stream entered service in 2011, 3 years after Russia invaded Georgia. Everyone except Merkel knew that Russia would eventually be a problem for eastern europe.

76655dd 3y ago

[dead]

ed_balls 3y ago

[flagged]

timeon 3y ago
> At least methane will dissipate out out of the atmosphere Methane will not simply dissipate. It will turn into water and CO2. > but extra CO2 emissions from closing down the nuclear plants in Germany will not. Somehow still managed to have smaller CO2 output per capita than US.

matthewdgreen 3y ago

It was a huge methane release, but it isn't continuous. The US oil and gas industry (all by itself) emits 8,000,000 metric tons of methane every year, and global emissions are vastly greater. Ongoing emissions are worthy of our attention because we can do something about them on a forward-looking basis; Nord Stream isn't because we don't have a time machine.

mturmon 3y ago

You don't really need a memory hole to make people forget about these leak events. The Aliso Canyon leak in LA in 2015 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliso_Canyon_gas_leak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliso_Canyon_gas_leak) was comparable size (~100,000 tonnes CH4) and is also dimly recalled.