3 ms·
I'd expect this to be easier to secure than the LNG plant that it replaces. No pipelines to secure, just ocean around, so it's very hard to sneak up on it. Acce
by Xylakant 12y ago
I'd expect this to be easier to secure than the LNG plant that it replaces. No pipelines to secure, just ocean around, so it's very hard to sneak up on it. Access can be controlled much better since there's no fence somebody might throw equipment over. A small dinghy is not going to put a major dent in that beast, even if loaded with explosives. The sides are impossible to scale. It's a floating fortress.
- toomuchtodo 12y agoWill it have sonar? Approaching from below would be trivial.
- chadgeidel 12y agoCynical: only state actors have access to attack submarines. Realistic: if you have reliable underwater access you may just want to siphon the gas.
- toomuchtodo 12y agoDidn't Russia recently have subs in Swedish waters covertly? In the petro field, I would be most concerned about state actors at the moment who have a huge incentive to decrease supply to increase the price on the world market.
- Xylakant 12y agoIt's certainly not trivial to approach from below. The facility will be located 100 miles off the coast - it's not like you'll just jump in the harbor and swim that distance. So you'd need a ship to bring you close and then bring explosives with you. So you need them waterproofed and large enough to actually damage that beast. Puncturing a few holes in the hull will not significantly damage this. If you're trying to attack a LNG plant on land you can at least try and drive a large van through the gate.