Thoughts and Comments on Current Russian,Ukrainian Conflict/War

boatgeek

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
5,281
Reaction score
4,545
Also the Deepwater Horizon spill wasn’t originally treated as a crime scene.
More importantly, there was a clear need to be doing something Right Now to stem the flow of oil. Since the pipeline isn’t continuing to leak, it’s less of an emergency.

One thing that I wasn’t really clear on was how mobile the bubble field was. If it was moving around semi-randomly, then you definitely wouldn’t want to be near it. It was reasonably steady, it might be safer.

You would also need to consider how big the gas plume on the surface is. NG is buoyant in air, but it still takes some time to rise. You would not want 500-degree engine exhaust getting into an explosive mixture of NG and air.
 

SecondRow

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2019
Messages
1,227
Reaction score
1,128
Wasn’t there a James Bond movie where someone crossed the border through a pipeline?
According to the Wikipedia page George linked, there are 3(!) Bond movies that use pigs:

Diamonds Are Forever, where Bond disabled a pig to escape from a pipeline; The Living Daylights, where a pig was modified to secretly transport a person through the Iron Curtain; and The World Is Not Enough, where a pig was used to carry and detonate a nuclear weapon in a pipeline.
Sounds like The Living Daylights is the one you remember.
 

Reinhard

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
1,308
Reaction score
600
Location
Austria
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.
To use a rocketry analogy to illustrate my reasoning: The safety distance for a G is not the same as the safety distance for an O. And at least in my less than qualified opinion those two don't look like they are the same magnitude of problem - particularly in terms of buoyancy reduction.

1665046653980.png

1665046683712.png


This doesn't look too inviting for a conventional vessel (i.e. no not a hover craft).

Admittedly, they don't show the same thing (localized source vs. spread out effect on the surface).

There are other differences. Deepwater urgently needed an intervention wheres the Nordstream leak would stop by itself, so no rush to get immediate pictures.

Reinhard
 

Steve Shannon

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jul 23, 2011
Messages
8,180
Reaction score
6,285
Location
Butte, Montana
To use a rocketry analogy to illustrate my reasoning: The safety distance for a G is not the same as the safety distance for an O. And at least in my less than qualified opinion those two don't look like they are the same magnitude of problem - particularly in terms of buoyancy reduction.

View attachment 540641

View attachment 540642


This doesn't look too inviting for a conventional vessel (i.e. no not a hover craft).

Admittedly, they don't show the same thing (localized source vs. spread out effect on the surface).

There are other differences. Deepwater urgently needed an intervention wheres the Nordstream leak would stop by itself, so no rush to get immediate pictures.

Reinhard
Not only was there no rush to get immediate pictures, but whoever planted the explosives, may have left other explosives to cause problems for whoever tries to take pictures.
 

jderimig

Sponsor
TRF Sponsor
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
4,622
Reaction score
2,389
Not only was there no rush to get immediate pictures, but whoever planted the explosives, may have left other explosives to cause problems for whoever tries to take pictures.
Plus we have to sanitize the site of evidence before the 'official' pictures are released.

Edit: We're not talking about James Cameron getting the pictures here. The US military has means to get those pics quickly and safely.
 

jderimig

Sponsor
TRF Sponsor
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
4,622
Reaction score
2,389
To use a rocketry analogy to illustrate my reasoning: The safety distance for a G is not the same as the safety distance for an O. And at least in my less than qualified opinion those two don't look like they are the same magnitude of problem - particularly in terms of buoyancy reduction.

View attachment 540641

View attachment 540642


This doesn't look too inviting for a conventional vessel (i.e. no not a hover craft).

Admittedly, they don't show the same thing (localized source vs. spread out effect on the surface).

There are other differences. Deepwater urgently needed an intervention wheres the Nordstream leak would stop by itself, so no rush to get immediate pictures.

Reinhard
Reinhard, Doth protest too much, now I suspect the Austrians might be behind this....
 

boatgeek

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
5,281
Reaction score
4,545
For reference, the "retreat distance" for fighting NG fires is 100 meters, plus stay upwind. Source: 2008 DOT Emergency Response Guidebook. As long as the bubble plume was reasonably steady, a ship could launch an ROV from a quarter mile or so upwind and get down to the site relatively easily. Of course, there's issues of time to mobilize a ship with an appropriate ROV. That can take a surprising amoun tof time. Another issue that I just thought of is that some pipelines are buried in the seabed to protect them from incidental damage (fishing nets, small anchors, etc.). If these pipelines are buried, it may be hard to see the leak site. It also significantly reduces the number of potential saboteurs.
 

Greg Furtman

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Nov 10, 2018
Messages
2,150
Reaction score
1,510
Location
Webster, Wisconsin
An update on the Nord Stream pipeline. Sweden has retrieved some material from the explosions sites and is analyzing it.

 

boatgeek

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
5,281
Reaction score
4,545
One of the things I've noticed in photos and videos is how rusted the Russian tanks & other vehicles are. I can't imagine that they would get this rusty in only a couple of days.

View attachment 540673
I'm guessing that the really rusty ones burned from the inside, burning off the paint and accelerating the rust on the outside. See, for example, the one right in the foreground that isn't rusty on the very forward end, but is at the back.

[And Pat beat me to it]
 

Cnorm

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2017
Messages
462
Reaction score
728
I think it was Portugal who attacked the pipe. No particular reason. Its just that no-one seems to have blamed them yet and I don’t want them to feel left out.

I was thinking Luxembourg because they're tiny and nobody would ever suspect them.
 

cvanc

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
1,521
Reaction score
283
Please verify these pipes capable of carrying gas for entire nations are only five inches in diameter? That really caught my attention.
 

rharshberger

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2014
Messages
11,702
Reaction score
3,541
Location
Pasco, WA
Please verify these pipes capable of carrying gas for entire nations are only five inches in diameter? That really caught my attention.
I believe that was a wall thickness, possibly including concrete covering. Friction loss on a 5" ID pipe alone would be a deal killer after a couple of thousand feet.

Edit: according to wikipedia Nordtsream 1 has a diameter of 48" and a wall thickness between 26.8mm and 41mm with a working pressure of 22bar (3200psi)
 
Last edited:

boatgeek

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
5,281
Reaction score
4,545
Please verify these pipes capable of carrying gas for entire nations are only five inches in diameter? That really caught my attention.
The articles I saw said that the pipes had 5" thick steel walls. Concrete would likely have been on top of that, though one can never underestimate a reporter's ability to get things wrong in an industry they're unfamiliar with.
 
Top