Nord Stream Pipeline Video

[HalcyonDaze]

Transferring a charge via a pig in a pressurized pipeline at 170 to 200 bars over 600 km away seems quite unrealistic.

Why:

1° the time transfer would have taken at least 16 Hours.

2° there are a variety of types of pigs used today, but they have all the same working principle, that to say that they are pushed into the pipeline thanks to the pressure they receive at their back. This means that while they are moving in the pipe the gas in front of the pipe is then progressively compressed, which means that if we don’t want to have an overpressure, the other side (Germany for what concerns this incident) must have a release valve and for sure they would have noticed the overpressure.

3° every type of explosives has a static compressive strength or in other words a critical density, i.e. a density from which it will no longer be possible to detonate the charge.

The critical density can vary from 1.5 to several tens of bars depending on the composition and type of explosive. But I’m not sure (an explosives maker could maybe tell us more) that there are explosives able to resist to a static compression of 170 to 200 bars.

Thanks for the info. One hypothesis that I've seen floated around is that the detonations were accidents as the result of trying to brute-force methane hydrate plugs with pigs. I could maybe buy it if one pipeline blew out but not three in the same day and one in two places (with the southernmost detonation on Nord Stream 2A occuring first, 17 hours before the explosions on Nord Stream 1A, 1B, and 2A). Going by Wikipedia Nord Stream 1's normal operating pressure was 177 bar; Nord Steam 2 was pressurized to 105 bar before the explosions and dropped to 7 bar afterwards.

Hydrate plug removal

petrowiki.spe.org

Placing explosives bulk charges at 80 m deep can give rise to some problems if you have to do it from the surface, but certainly not if you’re diving from a divers lock out vehicle and for info, the Russians have (also) such small divers lock out vehicles since 1974.

A sub-based operation would have to work around a few constraints; all subs do have escape trunks but to minimize weak points in the hull the hatches are typically restricted to about 24 inches/60 cm in diameter (torpedo tubes can be used as ersatz airlocks as well, although those are typically 21 inches or 53 cm in diameter). That would limit the size and amount of equipment deployed; this is why dedicated special mission boats that have bigger lock-out spaces and/or permanent/temporary exterior stowage areas (like a Dry Deck Shelter) are so valuable. Those boats also may have special modifications like maneuvering thrusters or skegs to hover over or land on the bottom. I'm also not sure if standard escape trunks have all the features of a full hyperbaric chamber one would use for commercial diving.

One possible clue could be if we assume the 17-hour delay between the explosions was the time gap between setting the charges at the two sites. It looks to be roughly about 40 nautical miles between the two sets of ruptures; bear in mind operations at each site will take some time especially if divers are involved and either need deco or to settle into a chamber. Might still be possible for a submarine crawling at 3-5 knots to cover that distance, which is what one might expect from a diesel-electric sub trying to be sneaky. Atlernatively, a surface vessel built more for stability than speed might not be going much faster.

 

[CT-Rich]

Thanks for the info. One hypothesis that I've seen floated around is that the detonations were accidents as the result of trying to brute-force methane hydrate plugs with pigs. I could maybe buy it if one pipeline blew out but not three in the same day and one in two places (with the southernmost detonation on Nord Stream 2A occuring first, 17 hours before the explosions on Nord Stream 1A, 1B, and 2A). Going by Wikipedia Nord Stream 1's normal operating pressure was 177 bar; Nord Steam 2 was pressurized to 105 bar before the explosions and dropped to 7 bar afterwards.

Hydrate plug removal

petrowiki.spe.org

A sub-based operation would have to work around a few constraints; all subs do have escape trunks but to minimize weak points in the hull the hatches are typically restricted to about 24 inches/60 cm in diameter (torpedo tubes can be used as ersatz airlocks as well, although those are typically 21 inches or 53 cm in diameter). That would limit the size and amount of equipment deployed; this is why dedicated special mission boats that have bigger lock-out spaces and/or permanent/temporary exterior stowage areas (like a Dry Deck Shelter) are so valuable. Those boats also may have special modifications like maneuvering thrusters or skegs to hover over or land on the bottom. I'm also not sure if standard escape trunks have all the features of a full hyperbaric chamber one would use for commercial diving.

One possible clue could be if we assume the 17-hour delay between the explosions was the time gap between setting the charges at the two sites. It looks to be roughly about 40 nautical miles between the two sets of ruptures; bear in mind operations at each site will take some time especially if divers are involved and either need deco or to settle into a chamber. Might still be possible for a submarine crawling at 3-5 knots to cover that distance, which is what one might expect from a diesel-electric sub trying to be sneaky. Atlernatively, a surface vessel built more for stability than speed might not be going much faster.

The technical ability to set charges on the pipe line is probably the lowest bar of this whole operation. Most Western Navies probably have access to the expertise and equipment to set the charges, since the pipelines were destroyed at depths well within the range of commercial diving equipment. A sub could well have be refitted with a modified commercial bell, also well within the capabilities of many countries,

I bet there were plans to destroy the pipelines covertly worked out years in advance. Just too many possible suspects. The Ukrainians might have even been able to contract the work out. Russia seem to be having a lot of accidental fires on the military bases lately....

Personally, I am leaning towards NATO countries deciding to cut the cord on Russian energy and plausible deniability makes the decision less controversial for the countries most heavily affected. The Russians could have done it, but based on their current track record they would have f-d it up royally and sunk the Admiral kuznetsov in the process.

 

[tarponchik]

The Russians could have done it, but based on their current track record they would have f-d it up royally and sunk the Admiral kuznetsov in the process.

Nobody's perfect, so never brag how good you are. I can remind you of the "Black Hawk Down" episode in Mogadishu or the FUBARed Operation Eagle Claw, or numerous friendly fire episodes during Desert Storm or later, like the April 14th, 1994 case or the shameful killing of Pat Tillman, or about the recent fire on USS Bonhomme Richard. However, Russia had no reason to blow up the Nord Streams in the 1st place.

 

[admikar]

Behind paywall

Intelligence Suggests Pro-Ukrainian Group Sabotaged Pipelines, U.S. Officials Say (Published 2023)

New intelligence reporting amounts to the first significant known lead about who was responsible for the attack on the Nord Stream pipelines that carried natural gas from Russia to Europe.

www.nytimes.com

 

[MidOH]

The technical ability to set charges on the pipe line is probably the lowest bar of this whole operation. Most Western Navies probably have access to the expertise and equipment to set the charges, since the pipelines were destroyed at depths well within the range of commercial diving equipment. A sub could well have be refitted with a modified commercial bell, also well within the capabilities of many countries,

Not retrofitted. Subs already have this ability. And the sub is the dive bell. The pressure of its chamber, isnt known to me. You can set the whole boat down right next to a pipeline if youd like.


But I still mention: Steel bombs sink, you can just drop them on the pipeline. No need for James Bond.

 

[HalcyonDaze]

Behind paywall

Intelligence Suggests Pro-Ukrainian Group Sabotaged Pipelines, U.S. Officials Say (Published 2023)

New intelligence reporting amounts to the first significant known lead about who was responsible for the attack on the Nord Stream pipelines that carried natural gas from Russia to Europe.

www.nytimes.com

Found a non-paywalled link, plus some German media reports:

https://archive.ph/IP6wi

In Nord Stream bombings probe, German investigators see Ukraine link, reports say

Both Kyiv and Moscow dismiss the German media reports.

www.politico.eu

Nord-Stream-Ermittlungen: Spuren führen in die Ukraine

Deutsche Ermittlungsbehörden haben bei der Aufklärung der Anschläge auf die Nord-Stream-Pipeline offenbar einen Durchbruch erzielt. Nach ARD-Informationen gibt es zwar keine Beweise, wer die Zerstörung veranlasst hat - doch es gibt Spuren. Sie führen in die Ukraine.

www.tagesschau.de

Sounds far less inventive than the Hersh story, but I have questions. The German media report identifies a crew of six on the rented yacht - a captain, two divers, two "diving assistants," and a doctor. That seems like a small crew to conduct what seem to have been at least three ~260-ft working dives in a short timeframe. Furthermore, in the NYT article an unidentified "European lawmaker" is quoted as being briefed that more than 1000 pounds of explosives were used. That's a lot of weight for six people to shift, not to mention even large yachts aren't exactly designed for bulk cargo handling (nor do they typically come with diving bells and deco chambers, unless you're talking something like Paul Allen's Octopus). According to the German media reports the equipment for the operation was brought to the port of Rostock in Germany in a delivery truck. If the account is true, that is a heck of a lot of blammo to acquire and then drive through presumably multiple European countries with.

Notably, the reports do include the possiblity of this "lead" being a false flag; curiously the Russians are officially dismissing it and continuing to accuse the US.

 

[CT-Rich]

Nobody's perfect, so never brag how good you are. I can remind you of the "Black Hawk Down" episode in Mogadishu or the FUBARed Operation Eagle Claw, or numerous friendly fire episodes during Desert Storm or later, like the April 14th, 1994 case or the shameful killing of Pat Tillman, or about the recent fire on USS Bonhomme Richard. However, Russia had no reason to blow up the Nord Streams in the 1st place.

Absolutely, certainly the US has had their missteps. We are finally out Afghanistan and Iraq.
Russia may not have had reasons to blow the pipelines, but they also had no need to invade Ukraine. Things happen because of what Putin needs, not what is in the best interest of the Russian People. If there was an expedient need to punish oligarch, the pipeline comes in second.

I don’t think that‘s what happened, I think either western governments did it or the Ukrainians did it. But the jury is still out.

 

[Bob DBF]

A sub-based operation would have to work around a few constraints; all subs do have escape trunks but to minimize weak points in the hull the hatches are typically restricted to about 24 inches/60 cm in diameter (torpedo tubes can be used as ersatz airlocks as well, although those are typically 21 inches or 53 cm in diameter). That would limit the size and amount of equipment deployed; this is why dedicated special mission boats that have bigger lock-out spaces and/or permanent/temporary exterior stowage areas (like a Dry Deck Shelter) are so valuable. Those boats also may have special modifications like maneuvering thrusters or skegs to hover over or land on the bottom. I'm also not sure if standard escape trunks have all the features of a full hyperbaric chamber one would use for commercial diving.

A standard escape trunk can be used as a hyperbaric chamber, if necessary, but it would be clunky. Now that was from back in the '60's on a normal sub. All bets are off for the "spook" subs, and the Ohio conversions to littoral operations, which are in the business of completing special operations. On those boats, I wouldn't be surprised to see the most advanced hyperbaric chamber available. The 24" size limit is a red herring when one has lockouts for minisubs.

USS Parche that the Carter replaced:

Link to other special operations submarines, US and Russian.
H I Sutton - Covert Shores

 

[tarponchik]

Absolutely, certainly the US has had their missteps. We are finally out Afghanistan and Iraq.
Russia may not have had reasons to blow the pipelines, but they also had no need to invade Ukraine. Things happen because of what Putin needs, not what is in the best interest of the Russian People. If there was an expedient need to punish oligarch, the pipeline comes in second.

I don’t think that‘s what happened, I think either western governments did it or the Ukrainians did it. But the jury is still out.

And maybe US had no need to invest $5B into "support of democracy in Ukraine" (translation: to turn Ukraine into an anti-Russian puppet state)? There are different kind of wars, and there is one kind born out of fear of a threat. The Peloponnesian Wars started because Athens feared the growing might of Sparta; the wars of 1863 and 1870 were rooted in the fear of Austria and France of the growing power of Prussia; the reason for the 2nd Anglo-Boer War was the threat the Boers posed for Cape Town, which was of paramount strategic value for the British Empire. Similarly, Israel started the war in 1967 because the possession of Sinai by Egypt, then quickly rearmed by USSR, posed a deadly threat to Israel's existence. These are the rules states and nations live by, and likely not much had changed here since our ape-like ancestors. Putin could not stand Ukraine in NATO (de jure or de facto, whatever) for the same reason JFK could not stand Soviet nukes in Cuba. That is, because this was too much of a threat. Luckily, back then JFK and Khrushchev managed things well, but I am not so sure about today.

 

[lowwall]

Putin could not stand Ukraine in NATO (de jure or de facto, whatever) for the same reason JFK could not stand Soviet nukes in Cuba. That is, because this was too much of a threat.

I'm going to address just this one as an example, but every bit of the above is complete bollocks.

Yes, the US could not stand nukes in Cuba. Just as Russia could not stand nukes in Ukraine. In both cases, the countries gave up the nukes. That was the end of military action by the US towards Cuba. Just in case it's not obvious, no military action is not the same as a full scale invasion.