8 ms·
Largest natural gas leak from Nord Stream pipeline
- 4gotunameagain 3y ago[flagged]
- misja111 3y agoI thought it became pretty clear last year already that the evidence trail pointed to Ukraine. See e.g https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/07/us/politics/nord-stream-pipeline-sabotage-ukraine.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/07/us/politics/nord-stream-p... https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/11/ukraine-officer-had-key-role-in-nord-stream-sabotage-reports-say https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/11/ukraine-officer-ha... Apart from the evidence, the motive for Ukraine seems to be pretty obvious as well.
- pintxo 3y agoIf you want to believe in divers blowing a pipeline in some 60m of water using a tiny 6-8 person sailing yacht as their home base… Not a very convincing story to me.
- justsomehnguy 3y agoSo a team of 6-8 travels over Europe, rent a yacht and goes to the middle of Baltic Sea for... sightseeing? Not a very convincing story to me.
- pintxo 3y agoBut an apparently convincing distraction.
- aredox 3y agoThose reports based on anonymous sources fail to explain the logistics of lowering several hundred kilograms of explosives in deep water with no visibility. Meanwhile, the SS-750 salvage ship, designed for specialized underwater operations with a mini-submarine, was operating in the area four days before the blast.
- justsomehnguy 3y ago> lowering several hundred kilograms of explosives in deep water with no visibility You mean the 17th century technology pioneered with diving bells? Like using some rope or a cable? Edit: pioneered with. You just need a diver who would drive the pilot cable to the exact place, then you just rope the load to that cable. But sure, ignore the common sense in the presence of angst.
- konschubert 3y agoWhoever did that, did Germany a solid by speeding up its decoupling from a murderous dictatorship. > I wonder when countries on the macro scale stop acting like fifteen year old boys fighting over the same toy. Not in our lifetime for sure. Maybe it would help if we properly sanctioned the countries who are starting the wars. By, I dunno, no longer sending them Billions of dollars for their stuff. And by helping the victims to defend themselves. Incentives matter.
- f6v 3y ago> Maybe it would help if we properly sanctioned the countries who are starting the wars. Come on, I love my “designed in California” stuff.
- rainworld 3y agodid Germany a solid Yeah, Germany is getting decoupled alright. From its industry. https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/germany-likely-recession-bundesbank-says-2024-02-19/ https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/germany-likely-recess...
- konschubert 3y agoGerman gas is cheaper than it was before the war.
- mpweiher 3y agoNot according to BDEW (Bundesverband der Energie- und Wasserwirtschaft) https://www.bdew.de/service/daten-und-grafiken/bdew-gaspreisanalyse/ https://www.bdew.de/service/daten-und-grafiken/bdew-gaspreis... 2021: 6,35 ct / KWh 2024: 10,23 ct / KWh
- cassepipe 3y agoYes but how long your democracy is going to hold russia-backed far-right populists when the prices of everything spikes The explosion on the other hand forces all the previously change-averse industries to quickly find out new sources. And politically, no rival can tell that you should lift sanctions and buy russian gas again for the people
- genman 3y ago[flagged]
- pintxo 3y agoWhile I personally don’t believe in this Ukraine yacht story. It actually sailed from Germany, via Poland, if I am not mistaken. So not sure how the Swedes would have ruled this yacht hypothesis out?
- aredox 3y ago>Not only was the welfare of millions jeopardised, as Europe would've probably plunged into crisis if the winter of 2022 wasn't particularly mild Dude, Russia had already cut Nordstream months before it blew up. No gas was flowing through it (the gas that leaked was the gas remaining in the line).[0] [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Nord_Stream_pipeline_sabotage#/media/File:Nord_Stream_gas_flows.webp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Nord_Stream_pipeline_sabo... >Countries investigating the disaster have been worryingly silent [2] Uh, no, Swedes closed their investigation because they did not have jurisdiction. That's all.
- nbenitezl 3y agoUkraine did not have the capabilities but could be provided with them by USA for example.
- oneshtein 3y agoUkraine will send drone to attack compressor station on shore, like we do now with oil refineries. Why we need to play in a muddy waters at all? We are at war with RF.
- aredox 3y agoThe capabilities to lower several hundred of kilograms of explosives on several points in the deep and muddy waters of the Baltic is not something you can do with some training and a backpack full of kit. You need a specialized boat to do so, if possible with a submarine. Like the SS-750 which was there a few days before the explosion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Nord_Stream_pipeline_sabotage#/media/File:June_2020_Baltic_Fleet_submarine_rescue_exercise_-_Kashtan-class_SS-750_launching_AS-26_DSRV.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Nord_Stream_pipeline_sabo...
- mpweiher 3y agoRussia had nothing to lose and plenty to benefit. 1. Direct monetary benefit Russia was not delivering on its contractual obligations to deliver gas. There were actual monetary penalties attached to not delivering, painful monetary damages, and those were to come into effect soon. With the pipeline gone, they no longer could deliver gas through it, and thus were no longer in breach of contract. 2. Indirect monetary benefit Gas prices spiked heavily afterwards. Even without NS1/2 Russia is still a heavy supplier of natural gas and thus benefitted from those spikes. 3. Political benefit (threat) There are other pipelines in the baltic supplying former Russian gas customers. The message is: we can blow up this pipeline, we can blow up yours as well. Importantly, they could do this without an actual attack on a NATO partner. It's their own pipeline after all. But of course, they had to do this covertly in order to send the message that they could also do this covertly to other pipelines. 4. Nothing to lose economically The pipelines were economically useless. Nobody was going to buy Russian gas again through them after Russia first threatened and then actually cut off supplies. So an economically worthless asset. Sacrificing that to get the benefits 1-3 is easy. 5. Nothing to lose politically The pipelines were politically useful as a threat towards Europe: don't cross us, or we'll cut off your gas. Well, the warning wasn't heeded, gas supplies were cut and ... nothing big happened. So the pipelines were no longer useful politically, as well as economically. Once again, sacrificing them to get benefits 1-3 was well worth it, because the price for Russia was close to zero. 6. Sweden dropping the investigation The reason given was: "we do not have jurisdiction." Well, if Russia blows up its own pipeline, Sweden would not have jurisdiction, would they? 7. Precedent Russia has blown their own pipelines up in the past. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Russia–Georgia_energy_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Russia–Georgia_energy_cri...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- 4gotunameagain 3y ago1. Could be, although I doubt they would pay considering the war and sanctions 2. I thought they were forced to sell to China at a heavy discount because it was their only option ? 3. That could be an argument against anything and any side, so I do not buy it 4. I doubt that Germany would not buy Russian gas. Which would be a reason for the US to blow up the pipeline. So it is a hypothetical which cannot enforce either argument. 5. Nothing big happened because of luck. Let me remind you that the EU gas reserves were pretty low, and only managed to be not depleted because of the mildness of the 2022 winter. 6. They do not have the jurisdiction to prosecute, but why would they not disclose their findings, at a period where western media takes the extra mile to throw shade on Russia ? 7. I am not convinced, the fact that it has happened before could as easily be used as an argument for a false flag operation.
- Moldoteck 3y ago" Blowing up the Nord Stream pipeline was one of the most heinous acts of this century." - I thought uyghur genocide in china is among the most heinous acts of this century, or russian invasion in ukraine where thousands of people are killed and thousands fled their country, or lack of accountability for petrol industry for all pollution and global warming and fairy-tales govts are saying related to being on path to limit warming to 1.5 degrees, I haven't thought that blowing a pipe would be part of the same list for some people...
- 4gotunameagain 3y agoDid I exclude any of the things you mentioned ?
- konschubert 3y agoYou put "Blowing up Northstream" on the same level of heinousness, which is just factually incorrect.
- AndyMcConachie 3y ago[flagged]
- konschubert 3y agoNo gas was reaching Germany through Northstream when the pipeline exploded. He's being downvoted because he is suggesting that whoever blew up Northstream cut off Germany from the Russian gas supply. That's not true - it was Russia itself who cut the supply. > Proving once again that HN is not a good place to discuss these kinds of things. If you wanna say something just say and and don't whine that you're being downvoted. But if you're wrong you might get downvoted, deal with it.
- Cthulhu_ 3y agoFor context, around the same time Russia didn't have much gas running through it because of "extended maintenance".
- Moldoteck 3y agoYou agree that " Blowing up the Nord Stream pipeline was one of the most heinous acts of this century." ? Do you put this on the same level as genocide in china or russian invasion in ukraine that killed thousands of people and thousands more were left without home? You put all these heinous events on the same level with blowing a pipe that didn't even transport much gas at that time because russia itself stopped it? No wonder why you get downvoted
- konschubert 3y agoI don't really care who did it but I'm glad they did it. No gas was flowing to Germany at this point, and by blowing up the pipeline, the "carrot on a stick" was removed.
- cassepipe 3y agoI also think this is a genius move that effectively rallied up flaky european allies such as France and Germany but my mind can't accept that the environmental cost was worth it. However bad is the invasion of Ukraine, climate change remains the worst threat for humanity. If you don't like tyrants and like democracy, what do you think will happen to democracy when energy, hence food is more scarce and you try protect militarily your resources against countries that are eying them ? History knows the answer.
- actionfromafar 3y agoHow is Nordstream good for climate change?
- cassepipe 3y agoIt's not. You either misread what I wrote or I expressed it poorly.
- konschubert 3y agoThe "good" news is that this methane will turn into CO2 + water within about 12 years. In terms of climate, it will be no better or worse than having burnt it.
- jug 3y agoI think it was in Ukraine's interests too in order to urgently block Russian profits. I think USA, Ukraine, or both in a cooperation.
- cassepipe 3y agoAnd it was USA's interest to sell its liquefied gas to Europe, to at least get something out of their support. I mean if you're going to support Ukraine with your billions while your allies are dancing around the issue because they're hooked up on your ennemy's gas... I doubt the US can tolerate that. Now that's just my pet theory, I'd love to hear counter-arguments.
- atombender 3y agoThe pipeline was not in use. The sabotage did not impact Russia's profits. If anything, it helped Russia financially, since they no longer had an obligation to pay for the pipeline.
- eigenket 3y ago"one of the most heinous acts of this century" was blowing up a gas pipeline that was delivering very little gas because of "extended maintenance" on the Russian side? The company operating NordStream 2 went bankrupt 6 months before it was destroyed. I would love to live in a world where that was close to one of the most heinous acts that year, let alone century. The release of natural gas into the environment was very bad but the impact on humans was essentially zero. Edit: Wikipedia has a helpful graph showing NordStream gas flows. You can see that in the month before the sabotage it was already pretty much zero https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Nord_Stream_pipeline_sabotage#/media/File:Nord_Stream_gas_flows.webp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Nord_Stream_pipeline_sabo...
- genman 3y ago[flagged]
- zith 3y agoYou can easily sail from the other countries that have a baltic sea coast line though? It's not far. A small yacht can definitely do it.
- jona-f 3y agoCurrently 30% of the comments in this thread are you claiming that. Why are you so invested in this that you resort to spamming it all over? Someone else pointed out that this yacht traveled through germany and poland too. Nobody knows anything substantial, even if they did, we wouldn't be able to tell truth from fud.
- MaKey 3y agoThis doesn't rule out the small yacht at all. The evidence is handed over to Germany for further investigation: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/sweden-ends-investigation-into-nord-stream-pipeline-blasts-2024-02-07/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/sweden-ends-investigati...
- questinthrow 3y agoI still dont understand why Russia started all of this, why drag Europe into another world war scenario for a few villages? They could have played as kingmaker in the china/USA fight and become as rich as Norway if they had decent leadership. Now everything is ruined for a few villages on the border, nordstream and hundreds of thousands of dead young men and women
- f6v 3y agoI could explain their line of thinking, but the post would be downvoted and labeled as propaganda. It’s not that I agree or approve what’s going on. On the contrary, it has a detrimental impact on me. But even trying to explain the Russian rationale isn’t welcomed. It’s ought to be illogical from the Western perspective, because then you can easily explain why the population has to rally behind Ukraine, e.g. fighting pure evil.
- Etherlord87 3y agomisja111 does something similar above and isn't downvoted. So no, as long as you don't rationalize russians as the good guys, and as long as your arguments aren't (even if neutrally) ridiculous, I don't think you will be downvoted.
- bamboozled 3y ago[flagged]
- playingalong 3y agoTheir loss of Nordstream2 was likely unplanned. But the lives on either side? I don't think it was important to Putin in any sense. Maybe as human resources mgmt for army recruitment.
- cm2187 3y agoI don’t think Putin would have gone ahead if he expected this fierce resistance from Ukraine and the strong reaction of the west. Most wars start by one or multiple parties miscalculating the cost of the war. Starting with the two WW.