Nord Stream Rupture May Mark Biggest Single Methane Release Ever Recorded, UN Says 604
The ruptures on the Nord Stream natural gas pipeline system under the Baltic Sea have led to what is likely the biggest single release of climate-damaging methane ever recorded, the United Nations Environment Programme said on Friday. Reuters reports: A huge plume of highly concentrated methane, a greenhouse gas far more potent but shorter-lived than carbon dioxide, was detected in an analysis this week of satellite imagery by researchers associated with UNEP's International Methane Emissions Observatory, or IMEO, the organization said. "This is really bad, most likely the largest emission event ever detected," Manfredi Caltagirone, head of the IMEO for UNEP, told Reuters. "This is not helpful in a moment when we absolutely need to reduce emissions."
Researchers at GHGSat, which uses satellites to monitor methane emissions, estimated the leak rate from one of four rupture points was 22,920 kilograms per hour. That is equivalent to burning about 630,000 pounds of coal every hour, GHGSat said in a statement. "This rate is very high, especially considering it's four days following the initial breach," the company said. The total amount of methane leaking from the Gazprom-led (GAZP.MM) pipeline system may be higher than from a major leak that occurred in December from offshore oil and gas fields in Mexican waters of the Gulf of Mexico, which spilled around 100 metric tons of methane per hour, Caltagirone said.
The Gulf of Mexico leak, also viewable from space, ultimately released around 40,000 metric tons of methane over 17 days, according to a study conducted by the Polytechnic University of Valencia and published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology Letters. That is the equivalent of burning 1.1 billion pounds of coal, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator.
Researchers at GHGSat, which uses satellites to monitor methane emissions, estimated the leak rate from one of four rupture points was 22,920 kilograms per hour. That is equivalent to burning about 630,000 pounds of coal every hour, GHGSat said in a statement. "This rate is very high, especially considering it's four days following the initial breach," the company said. The total amount of methane leaking from the Gazprom-led (GAZP.MM) pipeline system may be higher than from a major leak that occurred in December from offshore oil and gas fields in Mexican waters of the Gulf of Mexico, which spilled around 100 metric tons of methane per hour, Caltagirone said.
The Gulf of Mexico leak, also viewable from space, ultimately released around 40,000 metric tons of methane over 17 days, according to a study conducted by the Polytechnic University of Valencia and published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology Letters. That is the equivalent of burning 1.1 billion pounds of coal, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator.
Purposeful (Score:4, Interesting)
What is crazy - this is purposeful act. UN has to make moves regarding an influential member, who is refusing to align, spreading all kind of havoc.
Re:Purposeful (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Almost as crazy as flirting with blowing up or melting down a nuclear reactor in the same war a few weeks ago.
Do not forget to single out the same one, who hardly lets any week pass by without him shaking nuclear weaponry.
Re:Purposeful (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It's crazy to think about. If you think there's a 5% chance of Russia taking the chance and using tactical nukes, and if that does occur a subsequent 20% chance of that snowballing into a full-scale exchange, that gives you a 1% chance of the world as we know it ending within the next year. Are those numbers unreasonable?
Those numbers are unreasonable, given generally weak maturity to drag war, melting resources, and poor motivation of their camp. Unfortunately, if main guy is made stay, chance of desperation to turn to nuke is rather 80%, with response following without delay to be expected at 95%. Which makes your result rather likely, would you want to admit it or not. Faking referendums on annexed territories is made some formal excuse to defend "theirs" now. Yes, world is endangered like never. War pig is after it.
Re:Purposeful (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate to be the one to say this, but nobody's going to end the world over Ukraine. As much as we're loving seeing Russia get punked by them here and there, the worst that happens if Russia nukes Ukraine is the western world cuts off trad-
Shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Response will follow, muscovites were warned. Nuclear is nuclear, critically new level of escalation, involving civilization as such. Some things have to remain out of excuses, therefore punishment inevitable to hurt hard.
Do not forget, it is muscovites, who were to warrant integrity to Ukraine, when it gave up its nuclear heritage. One can't go crap all the time, will turn around. We don't know details, likely to unfold, but severe consequences for such toy more than likely. I would kick them out of UN for
Re: (Score:2)
They can't be kicked out of the UN. They're a chartered member of the UNSC.
There aren't a lot of consequence the world can impose on them that it hasn't already.
There isn't going to be military action against them if they decide to go this route. It's a fucked up situation, that's for sure, but you need a dose of realism.
What's the deal with the muscovite shit, anyway?
The Grand Duchy of Moscow hasn't existed for nearly 500 years.
Are you trying to give them a wartime pejorative name? I don't
Re:Purposeful (Score:5, Interesting)
Russia doing a nuclear first strike would be an unprecedented violation of of all norms and conventions (not to mention their own doctrine), basically maximum possible escalation and a threat to world order.
I doubt anyone would go full MAD in retaliation but all russian forces would be destroyed conventionally within weeks. This isn't just about Ukraine, it's about demonstrating that you can't just threaten (or use) nukes to get your way. Otherwise we will always have to back down the moment Putin or some other asshole implies the nukes could be used.
Muscovites is what we call russian imperialists. Yes I'm at war with russia so I get to use it, and you're welcome too. Fuck them.
Buuut. There's not going to be a nuke. Putin is bluffing, and buying into the panic is playing directly into his hand.
Re: (Score:2)
Russia doing a nuclear first strike would be an unprecedented violation of of all norms and conventions (not to mention their own doctrine), basically maximum possible escalation and a threat to world order.
Couldn't agree more.
I doubt anyone would go full MAD in retaliation but all russian forces would be destroyed conventionally within weeks. This isn't just about Ukraine, it's about demonstrating that you can't just threaten (or use) nukes to get your way. Otherwise we will always have to back down the moment Putin or some other asshole implies the nukes could be used.
Nonsense.
Nobody would take a single fucking step into Russia, because they don't want their capital turned into a fucking smoking ruin. And right now, no one is sure Putin isn't crazy enough to pull the fucking trigger. After dropping a low yield nuke on his doorstep? Even less sure.
As you mentioned, this would be an unprecedented "oh fuck" moment for the planet. It's so freaky because it shows that the sane parties aren't wearing any pants.
The only way a single western unit is mobi
Re:Purposeful (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody would take a single fucking step into Russia, because they don't want their capital turned into a fucking smoking ruin. And right now, no one is sure Putin isn't crazy enough to pull the fucking trigger. After dropping a low yield nuke on his doorstep? Even less sure.
Russia has demonstrated to world what a shitty, corrupt, rundown military they are currently trying to wield. I would honestly be surprised at this rate if they had more than a handful of nukes that are even useable let alone ready to be used.
Re:Purposeful (Score:5, Insightful)
They can't be kicked out of the UN. They're a chartered member of the UNSC.
The other four members of the UNSC can do whatever they want if they don't want Russia to have a say. The idea that Russia "can't" be kicked out of the UN is bollocks. It wouldn't actually accomplish anything though.
If Russia nukes Ukraine, the world has three choices. 1) Let Russia do whatever it wants, this is a bad plan. 2) Invade Russia wholesale, this is also a bad plan. 3) Nuke Russia, this is a bad plan. But since all of the plans are bad, why not just save the trouble of invading and having the response be nuclear? It's smarter to just target all of Russia's known nuke sites and hit the button, because anything else just means Russia will probably launch more anyway... and more of them will fly.
And, this, friends, is why total nuclear disarmament is the only rational way to handle the nuclear weapons problem.
Re: (Score:3)
The other four members of the UNSC can do whatever they want if they don't want Russia to have a say. The idea that Russia "can't" be kicked out of the UN is bollocks. It wouldn't actually accomplish anything though.
No, they cannot. The UN is established by treaty, treaty that has the force of law in the countries that compose the UN.
The UN can be re-formed (via new treaties), without Russia.
Russia cannot be kicked out of it. (Or it would have long, long ago)
If Russia nukes Ukraine, the world has three choices. 1) Let Russia do whatever it wants, this is a bad plan. 2) Invade Russia wholesale, this is also a bad plan. 3) Nuke Russia, this is a bad plan. But since all of the plans are bad, why not just save the trouble of invading and having the response be nuclear? It's smarter to just target all of Russia's known nuke sites and hit the button, because anything else just means Russia will probably launch more anyway... and more of them will fly.
Holy fuckballs. You just advocated for a first strike? Know you nothing of nuclear doctrine?
Russia cannot be disarmed in a first strike. Neither can the US. That's the only fucking reason the system works.
There is no way to know all of Russia's nuclear sites, b
re: total nuclear disarmament (Score:3)
The total nuclear disarmament idea is great, but unfortunately just another "pie in the sky" idea that's not practical in our real world. Once any technology has been invented, you can't make it disappear or "un-invent" it.
It's simply impossible to enforce the idea, world-wide, that nobody will ever again build or hold onto a nuke. All such a thing would do is cause the dictators of 2-bit countries to try to get their hands on a few of them, knowing that everyone else disarmed. Then they'd hold a disproport
Re:Purposeful (Score:4, Informative)
They can't be kicked out of the UN. They're a chartered member of the UNSC.
The other four members of the UNSC can do whatever they want if they don't want Russia to have a say. The idea that Russia "can't" be kicked out of the UN is bollocks. It wouldn't actually accomplish anything though.
If Russia nukes Ukraine, the world has three choices. 1) Let Russia do whatever it wants, this is a bad plan. 2) Invade Russia wholesale, this is also a bad plan. 3) Nuke Russia, this is a bad plan. But since all of the plans are bad, why not just save the trouble of invading and having the response be nuclear? It's smarter to just target all of Russia's known nuke sites and hit the button, because anything else just means Russia will probably launch more anyway... and more of them will fly.
And, this, friends, is why total nuclear disarmament is the only rational way to handle the nuclear weapons problem.
4. Use western air power to annihilate Russian forces in Ukraine.
You punish Russia without creating much of a path for escalation.
Re: (Score:3)
Russia cannot be kicked out of it. (Or it would have long, long ago)
Cannot be kicked, can be replaced by another country with rights to the name.
This has already happened to a member of the Security Council, against their will.
"Russia" and its synonym "Red Rus" was until quite recently a name for lands west of Ukraine, after WW2 Stalin expel-shifted the population westwards, replacing Polish people by Ukrainians (Poland was "gifted" a lot of land stolen from Germany, Ukraine land stolen from Poland, Russia land stolen from Ukraine). But the name belongs to the land not mov
Re: (Score:3)
They cannot continue to be unconditional active member of UN SC with the attitude, that world does experience. The rest is work to be done. Removal, suspending or rearrangement, UN work it out.
The permanent membership of the UNSC has survived several unsanctioned wars of aggression. I don't think this is going to change that. I'm sorry, dude.
Now, as to the names - nations, having experienced oppression, did not forget them.
Sure. It's just a lame pejorative. If, however, you are Ukrainian, I'll write you a pass for using the lame ass pejorative given what's going on.
Many do, as crucial importance of defending sovereignty here is widely understood and supported. The World Of Rules is at war, defending itself.
In a pre-nuclear ballistic missile age, ya. You're completely right. All of Europe would have been bending Russia over a table and having their way with it.
But we're not in a pre-nuclear ballistic missile age.
We're
Re:Purposeful (Score:5, Insightful)
You think that China wants to see a mushroom cloud rising over eastern Europe?
I have a feeling that Putin was told in no uncertain terms that China's tepid remaining enthusiasm for doing business with Russia will suddenly disappear if they cross that line. The last thing China wants is an us-or-them argument for doing business in the EU.
Re: (Score:2)
As fucked up as it would be if the Russians nuked Ukraine (a defending, non-nuclear country with a GDP less than all but 13 US states), nobody is going to throw away their civilization over it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not so much about Ukraine: if Russia gets away with it, then everyone else will be stuck kowtowing to them simply because they are insane enough to use nukes, and the choice will be let us invade or get nuked.
Re: (Score:2)
The starting over will be done about 100 million years from now. It won't be us, though.
But maybe the next species that gains sentience has a better run.
Re: (Score:2)
Very worst case, I figure, we're knocked back to tribal societies. More likely though, just a post-apocalyptic fallout hell-hole of mixed technological availability.
Re: Purposeful (Score:5, Informative)
Letting unstable rogue states like Russia conquer their neighbors and grow in power and influence is a very bad thing.
Why are you traitors so hot to carry water for America's enemies anyway? What's in it for you?
Re: (Score:3)
It's cute that you think that appeasement works.
What do you think the next logical step is when you give in to a tough guy and give him everything he wants? That he'll just go away, or perhaps demand more?
I'm pretty sure that history isn't on your side here. Appeasement just means greater demands in the future.
Re: Purposeful (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
But who did it? The Russians? No proof and doesn't really make sense as when they are allowed to provide gas again it's one of the biggest pipes for them.
The US? now there is a big candidate as it's in their best interest, because Europe will have to turn to the US for delivering extra natural gas, also pointing fingers to the russians for the act might provoke even more allies into actually believing their lies.
A third party? Ukrain? it might as it will put extra pressure on the rest of europe.
But until yo
Re: (Score:3)
A purposeful act, or the end result of leaving a bunch of pressurized methane in a pipe on the sea floor for months on end where it builds up methane hydrate plugs which are extremely temperamental when disturbed. Like say... if a pipe corrodes due to zero maintenance and there's a sudden pressure drop.
Re:Purposeful (Score:5, Insightful)
How is the UN going to tell the US to stop blowing up whatever they want to blow up?!?
Well, then you'll be glad to know that just for once it's not the US that's invading another country and blowing shit up blow up, it's the Russian ... lol ... 'Empire'.
Re: Purposeful (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently the European public is dumb enough to listen to that bullshit. North Stream is only one of quite a few pipes that can be used to pump gas into Europe, it is, though, the only one that goes directly to Germany without first passing through a couple countries. Countries that have a ... let's say strained relationship with the rest of the EU at times.
Re: Purposeful (Score:5, Insightful)
They're bombing their own apartment buildings?
Yes they absolutely are.
Blowing up the pipeline servers several
a) It gets them out of paying fines for failing to deliver gas
b) It demonstrates that they can blow up European infrastructure
c) It shows russians that there's no going back
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Only then could you believe Russia would submarine it's own pipeline.
Oh, you mean like they did in 2006? No, surely they wouldn't do that again...
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, conspiracy nuttery is clearly on the same level as Russian aggression.
Re: (Score:2)
I never quite understood how twisted people's minds must be to utilize whataboutery in the blink of an eye that liberally instead of trying to at least pretend to be rational and just asking for evidence.
All that while in many instances that knee-jerk whataboutery turns out to be pretty much an acknowledgement of accusation and accepting it as being true, additionally believing that it makes any difference if point
Re: (Score:3)
It's always a quite reassuring reaction when someone immediately points fingers at the US.
I never quite understood how twisted people's minds must be to utilize whataboutery in the blink of an eye that liberally instead of trying to at least pretend to be rational and just asking for evidence.
That's because the US has done things like that in the past. You never hear, say, Canada being blamed for things like 9/11 or Nord Stream, because despite being the closest thing to there is to America that isn't actually part of the US, Canada isn't known for warmongering, interfering with other countries' governments and general dirty trickery.
Like the French say, you only lend to the rich.
Re: (Score:2)
So? Where's the evidence that they did it here?
Because from what I can see here the basis for the argument is mostly a "cui bono" which allegedly weighs stronger on the side of the US.
While it's completely neglecting that the Kremlin has been pretty much using Europe's natural gas dependence as a political weapon in the recent months. With the result of the EU planning to ditch natural gas dependence. On the face there doesn't seem to be much of a future
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
So? Where's the evidence that they did it here?
Not evidence, but pretty damning [wikiquote.org]:
Joe Biden: "[...] If Germany - if, uh...if Russia invades, uh - that means: tanks or troops crossing the, uh...the, the border of Ukraine, uh, again - then, uh, there will be, uh - we - there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We, we will bring an end to it.
Andrea Shalal: "What did, what - how will you - how will you do that? Exactly? Since the project, and control of the project, is within Germany's control?"
Joe Biden: "We will, uh... I promise you, we'll be able to do it."
Press Conference at the White House East Room, 7 February 2022
Re: (Score:2)
And Nord Stream 2 was never getting born, promise kept, not remotely needing any other bothering about.
Re:Purposeful (Score:4, Insightful)
Have you ever entertained the idea that Biden was talking about diplomatic pressure? Or do you really think he's stupid enough to publicly announce an attack on what is supposedly an ally?
Please. Use some brain. If you don't have one, borrow one from someone who does.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, if he did it, he could threaten it. Who said he did it again?
Could you please not start from a premise that is an assumption? It would make the argument a lot more compelling. I mean, if the earth is made of cheese, why wouldn't I lactate?
Re: (Score:2)
The German government announced the shut down of Nord Stream 2 on February 22nd 2022, quite possibly at least partially on behest of the US as well as other EU nations who never liked the project.
Are you hinting towards the US making sure that Nord Stream 2 is never going to be operational despite it having been shut down officially over half a year ago?
Given the geopolitical strategy the US has been pursuing since the end of WW2 to have Europe as a buffer zone between the US and the Soviet U
Re: Purposeful (Score:2)
So why is this damning? Nord stream 2 was, in fact, scuttled, just as, uh, he said.
Or do you think this is the same pipeline? To my knowledge Biden never referenced this pipeline at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Canada isn't known for warmongering, interfering with other countries' governments and general dirty trickery.
Canada? No. But the British are known for all those things.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I suppose that's believable. Assuming you also believe the US assisted in the planes bringing down the twin towers (and WTC 7 was 'pulled') to justify the Iraq war.
Only then could you believe Russia would submarine it's own pipeline.
Ok, that's just a blatantly obvious case of fake news. This gas leak clearly is just a bunch of liberal crisis actors pulling a false flag operation by swimming around in the Baltic impersonating bubbles in order to victimize Czar Vladimir. The whole thing is of course orchestrated by the deep state, the world LGBTQ cabal, Killary Clinton, the Demoncrats and Satan worshipping Dungeons and Dragons nerds. The whole shebang is of course begin financed by George Soros ... I mean, who else could it be?
Re: (Score:2)
What, no mentioning of reptiloids? Why are you trying to deflect?
You're one of them, aren't you?
Re: (Score:3)
What, no mentioning of reptiloids? Why are you trying to deflect?
You're one of them, aren't you?
Indeed, I am a 30 meter long Jewish Mosasaur, and now that you have found me out, prepare to be zapped by my Jewish space laser.
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite.
There are some other pipes [wikipedia.org] that can be used to transport gas to Europe from Russia. Take a close look on how and where they run, you might notice something. At least if you're not entirely oblivious to European politics.
Re:Purposeful (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
From what I understood, pipes are leaking the content, that was left there in transit, as they are not emptied between transactions.
Re: Purposeful (Score:2)
Re: Purposeful (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Purposeful (Score:2)
Well, the seawater isn't supposed to get into the interiors, much less corrode then. And that's why you don't put valves all over submerged pipes. Anything that disrupts the continuity of the pipe is a potential failure point. On land, the leading cause (by far) of reported incidents is valve and junction joint failures, especially at pump stations.
Re: (Score:2)
So, do we have recognized terrorist state by now? Should we make sure navigation and underwater security catches up accordingly? Pirates should stay at their shores for good.
Re: Purposeful (Score:4, Insightful)
This is also a statement of capability. These are likely to have been simple timed underwater mines but the suggestion is supposed to be that Russia has remote control explosive devices. They want people to think that they could have been laying these all over the world next to other underwater infrastructure.
There is another, more important way of understanding this, which is that, together with mobilization and a policy of annexation Putin is trying to tie the hands of any successor. Russia still has a way out of it's current situation, leaving Ukraine entirely and suing for peace. There are several things that make that more difficult
Obviously, Putin is relying on Russians falling for the sunk cost fallacy but I don't find that totally unlikely.
These problems have to be clearly understood as a consequence of the policies of appeasement and slow supply of weapons into Ukraine that have been followed by some. It is a sad semi-coincidence that this is happening at exactly the moment that it becomes clear that only Ukraine can win the current war. The bigger problem is that, after Ukraine takes Crimea we end up in some kind of stalemate with Ukraine's leadership refusing to cross the Russian border into Belogrod and Russia continuing to bombard Ukraine making the border areas uninhabitable. Even if Putin is replaced, that will leave a frustrated Russia in a frozen conflict and still determinedly trying to militarize.
Appeasement needs to stop. Allowing Russia to continue it's world trade for example, often using American or European technology in their oil fields, meaning they keep getting funding from places like India just keeps this conflict going.
Re: (Score:3)
They benefit the least. Their strategy has been to split the West. That is now less likely since shivering Germans won't defect
That's largely the message that my comment was meant to counter. This is exactly the message that every Russsian troll factory has been pushing since the moment the explosions happened (probably five seconds before, knowing these things). The Russians lose nothing since the pipelines were never likely to work again. They risk little since they can say "it was our pipeline" and as mentioned in my previous benefit from the demonstration and the threat. Putin specifically benefits from shutting down the possi
Re: (Score:3)
Countries - especially ones whose elites want war but must be mindful of public opinion almost always start a war with a nice False Flag. For example if the warhawks draw a red line like: "if Assad uses chlorine gas on his own people we'll attack them" it really is a coded message to insurgents to "please use chlorine gas on their own people and pin it on Assad " so the US can attack, or at least a threat that 'We'll get some crazies to gas themselves and blame it on you so we can attack' directed at Assad.
Not for nothing but Assad did use Russian chemical weapons on his own people many times. This isn't disputed by anyone (except perhaps Russia). And the lack of US response is a part of why Putin felt he could invade Ukraine. So perhaps your focus on what is and isn't propaganda isn't as relevant as you think. Just because an idea appears in propaganda doesn't make it false. The best propaganda contains some truth. For example the environmental movement has some of its roots in Soviet propaganda. That
Re: (Score:3)
That is not how the EU works.
Scholz runs Germany, and thats it.
As a person: he has no influence at all on EU politics.
He can only have a small influence on which of his party members stand up for EU elections.
after freezing their assess off for a few days, would go along.
You are an idiot. Gas storages are nearly full. And household heating has priority in Gas distribution.
No idea why you do not know that.
Re: (Score:3)
the Ukraine
FYI, the Ukraine is Russian propaganda, it is short for the Ukrainian region of the Soviet Union. It is an attempt to belittle Ukraine. When referring the a country, the majority of countries are referred to just by the name of the country, Ukraine. One obvious country this is not true with is The United States of America, which has "the" in the actual country name.
Time article from 2014 about this:
https://time.com/12597/the-ukr... [time.com]
more weapons now! (Score:2)
The only thing that will stop putin's mad house from ruining the planet further is putin's destruction and it should be done ASAP. They are blackmailing the world with nuclear catastrophies and nuclear war all while poisoning the environment everywhere they can reach every day. https://chng.it/S4pLgf4psX [chng.it] sign this, promote it. Ukraine needs a thousand modern howitzers, hundreds of modern tanks, trucks, dozens of airplanes. Anti missile defence.
This self inflicted sabotage of the pipelines is just a po
Re: (Score:2)
This self inflicted sabotage of the pipelines is just a political ploy to threaten the West further (look what we can do), while trying to weasel out of contract payments of billions of dollars.
This. The guy became their number one savior by arranging explosions of the communal houses. Is famous distributor of novichok poison. Keeping consistency in style makes misleading hard.
Re: (Score:2)
Then he will be assassinated, and an even slightly less insane dictator might follow.
Enough iterations of this, and there will be a dictator that can be reasoned with. All without the threat of a nuclear holocaust.
There are already a lot of sanctions against Russia in place. However, China and India, together about 2 billion customers, are all just dandy with Soviet foreign policy, and their patronage
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite so, India and China are not in good company with the new Hitler, even if they can resonate to the ideas of multi-culture world. He is reckless killer, poisoner, outright criminal. They both have started maintaining safe distance, recent summit has shown.
Re:more weapons now! (Score:4, Interesting)
There are already a lot of sanctions against Russia in place. However, China and India, together about 2 billion customers, are all just dandy with Soviet foreign policy, and their patronage negates all the leverage the western world has.
China sold Russia the tires that left them stuck in the mud. China is refusing to sell Russia ammunition. The whole idea that China supports Russian military misadventure is foolish. They support Russia dying in a ditch. They have literally acted to that end.
Re: (Score:3)
I mean, Putin himself said that with his sham referendum, any attack on the 4 hijacked regions is now an attack on Russia. Personally, I'd read this as "Moscow is now a legitimate target".
Putin wants to be Ernst Stavro Blofeld (Score:3)
But in practice he's somewhere between Dr. Evil and Mini-Me.
Re:Putin wants to be Ernst Stavro Blofeld (Score:4, Funny)
Pretty much this. Putin jokes pre-February were more along the lines of Chuck Norris jokes. Now they resemble the ones that we used to tell about Trump.
An example. Pre-February:
Jesus, Putin and the pope sit in a small boat on the Sea of Galilee. Jesus remarks "Folks, I'm thristy", hops out the boat, runs across the water, comes back with a few cans of soda. Putin says "We need some shade, too", hops out the boat, runs across the water, comes back with a huge umbrella. The pope finally says "I'm hungry", hops out the boat and sinks to the ground. Jesus and Putin lean over the edge, Jesus nods, "We should have told him where the stepping stones are". Putin: "What stones?"
Post-February:
Putin, a priest and a boy fly in a plane. The pilot suddenly comes screaming out of the cockpit, grabs one of the parachutes and jumps. Putin grabs one of the remaining two, remarks "Sorry, folks, but I'm the most important man in Russia!" and jumps. The priest tells the boy "Son, take the remaining parachute, I have lived my life, save yours." "No worries", said the boy, "we can both save our lives, the most important man in Russia just jumped with my schoolbag."
Re: (Score:3)
Why do you think people told the Chuck-Norris jokes about him.
Hint: Nobody outside the US thinks Chuck Norris is a tough guy.
Was is just poor maintenance? (Score:2)
I came across a fascinating blog entry that claims the pipeline ruptures may be due to poor maintenance [thelawdogfiles.com]. No explosions, just stupid decisions.
Interesting possibility anyway...
Re: (Score:2)
This negates the poor maintenance hypothesis.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Two pipelines, and exactly those two and none of the rest that are in the area, rupture at pretty much the same time due to poor maintenance.
If you believe that, I have a really cheap bridge for sale with a perfect view of San Francisco.
Return to Glory (Score:2)
Nord Stream Rupture May Mark Biggest Single Methane Release Ever Recorded, UN Says
Finally, Russia is #1!
It's basically a crime against humanity, (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Probably because if they called it a crime against humanity then people may start investigating the amount of methane leaking from unlit flares due to poor oversight by the EPA in the Gulf States.
This may be the biggest single methane release, but it's not much compared to what the oil industry (in the USA where they have a shitton of political power, as well as the rest of the world) pumps into the air.
Tundra (Score:2)
I'll be lazy and let the gentle reader do the math.
Polytechnic University of Valencia (Score:2)
Polytechnic University of Valencia...
Hey, that's where I work! :-)
Viewable from space? Big deal. (Score:3)
The Gulf of Mexico leak, also viewable from space,
My swimming pool is viewable from space. My car probably is too. "Viewable from space" doesn't really tell us much any more.
(Before someone objects, I know Google satellite view isn't necessarily from a satellite. Many of the more detailed views are taken from aircraft. I have no idea whether my swimming pool can be seen from regular commercial satellite imagery.)
Re: (Score:3)
auto-shut-off on loss of segment pressure.
That was not designed in as it would massively increase cost, negatively impact reliability and nobody expected this type of attack. This is not an above-ground installation, after all. Also, almost nobody can do this type of attack. The US, Russia, maybe the UK, maybe China, maybe France, but that is pretty much it.
Re:The pipe needs some kind of (Score:4, Informative)
Uh, any nation with submarines and/or combat or mine clearance diver capability can do it, or anyone with the funds for commercial submersible ROVs. So the list is much longer than you think.
Keep in mind, the pipes are at relatively shallow depth, 70-80 metres, which isn't very hard to do with the training and equipment combat and clearance diver units have access to.
Re: (Score:2)
But no other nation cared. There is too much of dirt delivered by very narrow circle in short time, to not recognize the same ugliness.
Re: (Score:2)
70-80 m is within the realms of commercial and military scuba diving, isn't it? Surely a fishing boat hanging around on the surface here for a few days would go unnoticed, and have plenty of time to mount an operation like this.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
This seems to be the minority opinion here. I used to think that slashdot was a place for intelligent people to discuss news.
Putin did not have many non-military bargaining chips. One of the very few he had was the ability to turn the gas back on, and it appears that he has now lost that option.
If anyone here is downwind from Ukraine, stock up on potassium iodide now. Bulk powder is much cheaper than pre-formed tablets. You can dose it with a milligram scale in a pinch. You can also mix it with filler
Re: (Score:2)
How did Putin lose that option? Even if both North Streams cannot be repaired, there's more [wikipedia.org] pipes going through Europe.
North Stream were the only ones that go directly to Germany without first going to some other EU countries, though. And some other countries that are fairly easy to control by Russia.
One is across Ukraine, which is for obvious reasons easily shut down. One goes across Belarus, where the reining figurehead is pretty much Putin's personal suppository who will do anything Czar Vovochka command
So naive (Score:3)
"Not only does Putin not have a reason to do it"
Ah, so naive. Putin knows the chances of him being able to sell gas to Europe now via those pipes is zero so what better way to demonstrate that all europes undersea pipelines, connectors and internet pipes are vulnerable?
Re: (Score:2)
V=pi*r^2*l
I think l has a lot to do with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Pipelines can be turned off (Score:5, Insightful)
And also seeing as they decided to stop selling gas to Europe, why is the gas even flowing. Pipeline diameters are not that big, if it had been shut down, it would be over by now
One, the release is over. [nytimes.com]
Two, Russia shut the pipe off for "repairs" and during the shutdown the whole indefinite thing happened. [theguardian.com] But, literally the next day they had a sudden change of heart. [reuters.com]
Three, the "repairs" were at the Portovaya station, which is a compressor station. For pretty obvious reason, Russia can state "repair" and they get a few days to not hold up their end of delivery contracts. And no one can really say what was repaired, because "Russia". (And I'll take a moment to just say, none of this contract stuff really matters because Russia is going to do whatever Russia wants, but not fulfilling contracts is kind of justified grievance which really amounts to nothing more than Germany getting to say to the rest of the world, "See? They don't hold up their end of the deal!", but I digress) Anyway, and then a few weeks after "repairs", we get kaboom. And it's not the kind of kaboom that happens with a pipeline busting, it's very clearly sabotage. The semiological data lines up with an explosive charge on the surface of the seabed. [aljazeera.com] I mean hell, even FoxNews [foxnews.com] is saying as much.
Point being Russia sees the writing on the wall so well it's slapping them across the face and being the despotic country they are, blows up their pipe and now contracts are magically null and void due to catastrophic failure that "absolutely the US caused because the US wants to sell their LNG to the EU." And also, since they're moving all the people who would have been putting resources in that pipe to a warzone [upstreamonline.com] it's win-win all around.
A. People no longer going to work for a completely "unexpected" failure of a pipe that was
B. caused by our horrible enemies from hell the United States that
C. are fighting in a horrible proxy war with our freeing Russians from Ukrainian oppression and
D. now all those people who "suddenly" have no work can go die in that effort to liberate our fellow Russians!
Seeing as this is a Russian gas pipeline, they are the ones responsible
Yeah, and perhaps not the actual blowing it up, but western Europe kind of expected Russia to play this game of blackmail by resources. The actual blowing it up allows Russia to bow out without looking completely bad because they can point a finger at the United States and people tangentially friendly to Russia will nod heads in slight agreement. And I mean let no chance to blame the United States go to waste. And the thing is that, Russia can build a case for this whole finger pointing they are doing. A lot of our new LNG ports are set to come fully online at the end of this year. [eia.gov] Now I will say that the new LNG ports aren't exactly because someone in the previous administration wanted to export more LNG. It oddly came at the behest of the coal operators during Rick Perry's term in the DoE. [greentechmedia.com] Long story on that short, fracking has been eating coal's lunch/breakf
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
t actually if Trump had been in office, Ukraine would have already been non-existent at this point, so maybe all of this would have just never happened in the other time line with the Covfefe in Orange.
Excuse fucking me? Putin had enough time in the actual timeline with Trump in office to do his shit. Instead he did Crimea and Donbass with moron Obama in office, then for the rest he waited until Bidet the Senile. Guess why? Oh, because every dictator in the world knows that the best time to step across more lines is with Democrat in office, they can be depended upon to do shit about it.
Recall back a year ago when the only way Putin could be more obvious in telegraphing his intention to invade was if he
Re: (Score:2)
But, literally the next day they had a sudden change of heart. [reuters.com]
This one is wrong, gas nominations were put in place for the date the maintenance work was supposed to finish, but no gas was delivered across the pipeline. It was just more bullshit market disruption. There was no change of heart and no one actually expected gas to restart after Sep 3rd.
Re: (Score:3)
The pipe is about 1.2m diameter and 1222km long, so the internal volume is about 1.4 million m^3. The pipe was pumped full of gas at 220 bar. Also, there are 4 such pipes (2 for NordStream and 2 for NordStream2). So yeah, that's a lot of gas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What you call dispute? Blatant aggression is not that. Vital imports from muscovy are also off question by now, therefore pipes were past their prime time. Accountability for contracts was still lingering, now redefined by "force majeure".
Re: (Score:2)
Question is are they still trying to pump it to minimize the water getting into the pipes. If sea water gets in there it may result in an unrepairable situation.
Re: Pipelines can be turned off (Score:2)
You don't pump 110 bar pressure into an open and damaged pipe. Unless you have invented some pretty radical new tech.
Re: (Score:2)
"Nord Stream 2" was a policy tool all along, dead, without any need to explode it. Sure, things could not improve with the actual aggression of muscovites.
Re: (Score:2)
Nord Stream 2 never delivered a single liter of gas.
Blowing it up makes no sense.
The contingency Biden was speaking of never came to pass- Germany is 100% on board with getting the fuck off Russian gas.
Re: (Score:2)
I like this conspiracy theory for its plausibility. But the reality is the end was brought about during the start of the invasion. Nord Stream 2 was shutdown by the west and the project abandoned before startup. It has been a sore point for Putin for most of the year and Putin has repeatedly said "Oh we have problems on Nord Stream 1, just startup Nord Stream 2" while Europe has said "hahahah go fuck yourself".
The conspiracy falls apart when you consider why the USA would destroy something which was never u
Re: (Score:2)