Thoughts and Comments on Current Russian,Ukrainian Conflict/War

cls

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
2,645
Reaction score
345
Plus there’s all the lives lost or ruined. Russia’s going to be paying benefits to thousands and thousands of disabled vets for the rest of their lives. That’s going to add up. Or maybe they won’t pay. They probably won’t have any money after this whole thing is over. Bankruptcy and ruin!
... A couple thoughts ...

I look forward to seeing them make reparations to Ukraine for all the damage and innocent (non combatant) lives lost

And I always wondered if this whole misadventure was a ruse for Putin to get a Marshall Plan to save the failed Russian economy... So they can make those reparation payments.

Naaa, he's not smart enough to think of that. But we should be thinking long term about some options...
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2016
Messages
9,213
Reaction score
8,410
Location
Hawaii
An attack on NATO infrastructure. Its both of ours. Did NATO do it?
So other than giving Germany a heads up of a possible attack in their region, what else do you think the US could have done? Send a naval fleet to guard against an attack that MIGHT happen?
I don't think so.
Also NATO's Article 5 is invoked after an attack, not for a possible attack.
And technically it's Russia's pipeline, not Germany's.
 

jderimig

Sponsor
TRF Sponsor
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
4,601
Reaction score
2,372
So other than giving Germany a heads up of a possible attack in their region, what else do you think the US could have done? Send a naval fleet to guard against an attack that MIGHT happen?
I don't think so.
Perhaps they did send some naval resources over there.......
 

Reinhard

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
1,307
Reaction score
600
Location
Austria
Any pics of the hole yet? I find it odd Deepwater Horizon had live video streamed to websites like within 72 hours of accident and a weak later no photos have been made public? What's down there that Western media/government doesn't want us to see?
At least initially, it wasn't possible to approach the site safely. On the surface, the gas created an extreme explosion hazard (BTW: I kinda wonder why it wasn't intentionally set off). In the water, the leak resulted in a loss of buoyancy that probably couldn't be handled by any available vessel. The leak has now subsided, but I imagine it takes longer to be confident enough that the pipeline wont burp anymore before risking any expensive assets and human life. The bubbles would have been in the way of any useful pictures too, I guess.

Another aspect is the security/intelligence side of this. The authorities tend to keep their detailed knowledge of such matter much closer to their chest compared to industrial accidents.

Reinhard
 

jderimig

Sponsor
TRF Sponsor
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
4,601
Reaction score
2,372
At least initially, it wasn't possible to approach the site safely. On the surface, the gas created an extreme explosion hazard (BTW: I kinda wonder why it wasn't intentionally set off). In the water, the leak resulted in a loss of buoyancy that probably couldn't be handled by any available vessel. The leak has now subsided, but I imagine it takes longer to be confident enough that the pipeline wont burp anymore before risking any expensive assets and human life. The bubbles would have been in the way of any useful pictures too, I guess.

Another aspect is the security/intelligence side of this. The authorities tend to keep their detailed knowledge of such matter much closer to their chest compared to industrial accidents.

Reinhard
ROV's, the oil industry uses them by the gross. I will bet a day's pay that those photo's already exist. (CIA probably has them and video of the sabotage operation :) ) I don't think methane is combustable without oxygen. If you remember the Deepwater Horizon had oil and nat gas spewing out of their hole for weeks and they got camera's down there no problem.
 

Reinhard

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
1,307
Reaction score
600
Location
Austria
ROV's, the oil industry uses them by the gross. I will bet a day's pay that those photo's already exist. (CIA probably has them and video of the sabotage operation :) ) I don't think methane is combustable without oxygen. If you remember the Deepwater Horizon had oil and nat gas spewing out of their hole for weeks and they got camera's down there no problem.
As far as I can tell, the leak rate at the Nordstream was bigger by orders of magnitudes, as evidenced by the ~1km patch of frothing water.

I'm pretty sure ROV's can't maintain their buoyancy in that type of water Methane froth and their support ships can't anywhere close either (for those the explosive atmosphere matters). If I were a Navy commander I wouldn't send a multi-billion sub there either, just to be able to say: "Yep, there's a big hole in the pipe" a few days earlier.
I have no doubt pictures will be made as soon it's determined to be safe, but rushing that or showing them to the public and potential adversaries is probably not a priority for the security services.

Reinhard
 

Steve Shannon

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jul 23, 2011
Messages
8,172
Reaction score
6,264
Location
Butte, Montana
ROV's, the oil industry uses them by the gross. I will bet a day's pay that those photo's already exist. (CIA probably has them and video of the sabotage operation :) ) I don't think methane is combustable without oxygen. If you remember the Deepwater Horizon had oil and nat gas spewing out of their hole for weeks and they got camera's down there no problem.
These lines weren’t operating so nothing is spewing out of them, so there’s no real need to patch them quickly. Other than to counter (or bolster) claims made by conspiracy theorists there’s no overriding need to determine whodunnit. It’s low priority.
 

jderimig

Sponsor
TRF Sponsor
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
4,601
Reaction score
2,372
These lines weren’t operating so nothing is spewing out of them, so there’s no real need to patch them quickly. Other than to counter (or bolster) claims made by conspiracy theorists there’s no overriding need to determine whodunnit. It’s low priority.
I guess you're right. An attack on the most important EU country's energy infrastructure and economy, nothing to see here, move along.;)
 
Last edited:

afadeev

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Sep 20, 2017
Messages
2,300
Reaction score
1,648
These lines weren’t operating so nothing is spewing out of them, so there’s no real need to patch them quickly. Other than to counter (or bolster) claims made by conspiracy theorists there’s no overriding need to determine whodunnit. It’s low priority.
Whether anyone needed Russians to do this or not (since no gas was flowing), they patched those pipelines rather quickly and easily.
And, guess what, now Russians are "ready" to pipe more gas to Europe, but only through Nord Stream 2 pipe.
What a fortunate eventuality (for the Russians).
For those so inclined, feel free to spin your own theory from this outcome:

 
Last edited:

jderimig

Sponsor
TRF Sponsor
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
4,601
Reaction score
2,372
Whether anyone needed Russians to do this or not (since no gas was flowing), they patched those pipelines rather quickly and easily.
And, guess what, now Russians are "ready" to pipe more gas to Europe, but only through Nord Stream 2 pipe.
What a fortunate eventuality (for the Russians).
For those so inclined, feel free to spin your own theory from this outcome:

They didn't patch anything. Gas stopped leaking because the hydrostatic water pressure at 200-300 feet is greater than the gas pressure in the pipe. It seems the sabateurs missed a pipe, so that rules out the US Navy as the culprit. I am still going with the French.
 

Reinhard

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
1,307
Reaction score
600
Location
Austria
They didn't patch anything. Gas stopped leaking because the hydrostatic water pressure at 200-300 feet is greater than the gas pressure in the pipe. It seems the sabateurs missed a pipe, so that rules out the US Navy as the culprit. I am still going with the French.
The intact pipe is NS2B. If the Germans want any gas via Nord Stream, they will have to resume the certification process of Nord Stream 2, which they stopped after Russia invaded.

The fact that these explosions put pressure on Germany to certify NS2 and the fact the explosions happened to send a message by occuring on the same day the Baltic Pipe (from Norway to Poland, without Russian involvement) started operations are the main reasons why I think Russia is the most likely culprit. Another aspect is that it kinda absolves Gazprom from it's unfulfilled contractual commitments by being able to invoke force majeure.


Reinhard
 

jderimig

Sponsor
TRF Sponsor
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
4,601
Reaction score
2,372
The intact pipe is NS2B. If the Germans want any gas via Nord Stream, they will have to resume the certification process of Nord Stream 2, which they stopped after Russia invaded.

The fact that these explosions put pressure on Germany to certify NS2 and the fact the explosions happened to send a message by occuring on the same day the Baltic Pipe (from Norway to Poland, without Russian involvement) started operations are the main reasons why I think Russia is the most likely culprit. Another aspect is that it kinda absolves Gazprom from it's unfulfilled contractual commitments by being able to invoke force majeure.


Reinhard
Was the damage in international waters or EU waters? If the attack was in Danish waters then that was an attack on Denmark, a NATO country.
 

boatgeek

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
5,236
Reaction score
4,485
Was the damage in international waters or EU waters? If the attack was in Danish waters then that was an attack on Denmark, a NATO country.
The attacks were in international waters but in the Swedish and Danish EEZs.
 

Reinhard

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
1,307
Reaction score
600
Location
Austria
Was the damage in international waters or EU waters? If the attack was in Danish waters then that was an attack on Denmark, a NATO country.
It happened outside of the territorial waters, but within the exclusive economic zone, of Denmark or Sweden. Also the target belongs (at least mostly) to the Russians. This is not considered an attack on a NATO country. It seems like a carefully crafted warning with a low risk of further military escalation.
As one commenter put it, the Russians might just consider this a "business expense" in their war. Another commenter mentioned that the Russians are typically not organized enough to call for a meeting of the UN Security Council so quickly as they did after these explosions, so they might have had some advance knowledge.

Reinhard
 

georgegassaway

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jan 17, 2009
Messages
5,084
Reaction score
1,196
So other than giving Germany a heads up of a possible attack in their region, what else do you think the US could have done? Send a naval fleet to guard against an attack that MIGHT happen?
I don't think so.
Just imagine the reaction, and claims Russia could have made, if US ships were in that area when the pipelines went boom? Uh-uh.

I'm thinking pigs did it. As in pipeline pigs, with explosives, put in by Russia, at one of the pump stations or pipe maintenance access points on dry land. Easier to do than use a submarine. And US & NATO may have sensors that could have detected submarines in the area.

 

Pat Gordzelik

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2018
Messages
149
Reaction score
371
Just imagine the reaction, and claims Russia could have made, if US ships were in that area when the pipelines went boom? Uh-uh.

I'm thinking pigs did it. As in pipeline pigs, with explosives, put in by Russia, at one of the pump stations or pipe maintenance access points on dry land. Easier to do than use a submarine. And US & NATO may have sensors that could have detected submarines in the area.

George, that makes more sense than any other possibility I have thot of. And it could account for “why no pics”. An internal pig explosion would show outward metallurgical failure instead of an outside detonation.
Nice out of the box thinking!
 

Reinhard

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
1,307
Reaction score
600
Location
Austria
Just imagine the reaction, and claims Russia could have made, if US ships were in that area when the pipelines went boom? Uh-uh.

I'm thinking pigs did it. As in pipeline pigs, with explosives, put in by Russia, at one of the pump stations or pipe maintenance access points on dry land. Easier to do than use a submarine. And US & NATO may have sensors that could have detected submarines in the area.

I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure pigging requires gas flow, which has ceased in NS1 and was never established in NS2. I suspect it also carries the risk of miscalculations that would lead to explosions in territorial waters. Based on the Wikipedia article it seems like the pig doesn't have much an idea where it is, but it can be detected by the outside for later correlation.
At last, a pigging attack needs to be planned well in advance but provides no good abort scenario, because the pig can't be called back. Either they blow up the pipes, or they have to explain to the Germans why an explosive laden pig arrived at their door steps.

Edit: Yet another drawback. A pigging based attack would leave evidence (pig debris) at the explosion site that establishes that the attacker had access to the sending end of the pipe, which makes it hard to blame the attack on someone else.
Edit2: Pigging might leave a signature that's noticeable on the receiving end (for example use of certain flow rates, pressure drop, ...). Pigging multiple pipes at the same time, followed by explosions in those pipes would be at least highly suspicious.

Reinhard
 
Last edited:

Pat Gordzelik

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2018
Messages
149
Reaction score
371
I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure pigging requires gas flow, which has ceased in NS1 and was never established in NS2. I suspect it also carries the risk of miscalculations that would lead to explosions in territorial waters. Based on the Wikipedia article it seems like the pig doesn't have much an idea where it is, but it can be detected by the outside for later correlation.
At last, a pigging attack needs to be planned well in advance but provides no good abort scenario, because the pig can't be called back. Either they blow up the pipes, or they have to explain to the Germans why an explosive laden pig arrived at their door steps.

Edit: Yet another drawback. A pigging based attack would leave evidence (pig debris) at the explosion site that establishes that the attacker had access to the sending end of the pipe, which makes it hard to blame the attack on someone else.
Edit2: Pigging might leave a signature that's noticeable on the receiving end (for example use of certain flow rates, pressure drop, ...). Pigging multiple pipes at the same time, followed by explosions in those pipes would be at least highly suspicious.

Reinhard
I still think George has hit on a plausible theory. Forget the industrial standard term “pigging” and think automated drone capable of pulling on a sled enuff HE to blast thru a 5” pipe.
I have an explosives background, and that would not be insurmountable at all. I’ll have to defer to the drone folks on the delivery vehicle. And the super sleuth spy guys who could access the pipe access ports.
Has anyone seen Tom Cruise lately? 😂
 

jderimig

Sponsor
TRF Sponsor
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
4,601
Reaction score
2,372
George, that makes more sense than any other possibility I have thot of. And it could account for “why no pics”. An internal pig explosion would show outward metallurgical failure instead of an outside detonation.
Nice out of the box thinking!
Pics would be nice to see. Wouldn't an explosive pig cause something 'noticeable' at each end of the pipeline?
 

boatgeek

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
5,236
Reaction score
4,485
Pics would be nice to see. Wouldn't an explosive pig cause something 'noticeable' at each end of the pipeline?
I’m sure the Swedes will share pics eventually, once the site is no longer behind figurative crime scene tape. I’d expect the pics to be shared sooner if they clearly implicate Russia in some manner.

A bomb in the pipeline would probably show a pressure spike at each end. I’m not sure exactly how the gas dynamics work with that, so o can’t say how much of a spike.

Wasn’t there a James Bond movie where someone crossed the border through a pipeline?
 

Pat Gordzelik

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2018
Messages
149
Reaction score
371
I’m with you, pics would be nice to see. And if there was any energetic material gas in that pipeline, and surface photos on the water indicate there were, even Reinhard commented it was too “dangerous” to send in pic subs, that accounts for one hell of an explosion.
As far as “proof who did it” quien sabe? Anyone with resources could have accessed service ports.,
 

jderimig

Sponsor
TRF Sponsor
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
4,601
Reaction score
2,372
I’m with you, pics would be nice to see. And if there was any energetic material gas in that pipeline, and surface photos on the water indicate there were, even Reinhard commented it was too “dangerous” to send in pic subs, that accounts for one hell of an explosion.
Pat, that I don't understand or agree with. Deepwater Horizon had tons of energetic material (gas and petroleum) spewing out of that hole daily and they got ROV's and cameras down there in 72 hours.
 

Pat Gordzelik

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2018
Messages
149
Reaction score
371
Pat, that I don't understand or agree with. Deepwater Horizon had tons of energetic material (gas and petroleum) spewing out of that hole daily and they got ROV's and cameras down there in 72 hours.
Yes, I agree with your ROV comment, I disagree with Reinhards comment of “too dangerous”. His position to,me was saying that is why ROV’s could not be deployed to take pics.

I have experience with ROV’s when I was a contractor for Seadrill btw. Spent some time in the North Sea in winter. The term I remember is “robust”.
 

heada

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
5,470
Reaction score
2,852
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
I'm not a hydrologist but the report was a km wide bubbling area for a few days. That much gas in the water must vastly reduce the buoyancy of the sea. Any vessel would run the risk of sinking if it came too close I imagine. That is reason enough to me to delay the investigation until the water is stable.

Give it another week or so and I think you'll get the pictures. The pipeline isn't going to magically seal itself in that time.
 
Top