Sanctions on Russia

Melissa Rivera5 said:Sorry, but what do you mean "swallowing crap" regarding NS1/2? The West probably detonated it themselves, honestly. It feels like a move to send a message to Russia that they're dead serious about ending all future trade. It's a clean break from Russia, not some half-hearted attempt. Plus, it serves as a perfect excuse to ramp up security for similar infrastructure. 🙂

What possible motive would the West have to destroy infrastructure sitting on its own turf—infrastructure that only benefits Western Europe? ExxonMobil holds the majority stake, but I highly doubt they’re going to dismantle the pipes and relocate them elsewhere. Furthermore, that very same pipeline could be invaluable once the leadership in the White House changes. If nothing else, it remains a potential mechanism for paying out reparations for the chaos caused by previous administrations through their "chess player" tactics.
The West needs resources, certainly, but at the lowest possible price point. Basic economics: more suppliers mean lower prices. The mere existence of a pipeline like this puts downward pressure on gas prices. When the sabotage occurred, market prices spiked, even though no gas was actually flowing through those pipes. Hmm... one has to wonder whose strategic interest it serves to see gas prices climb right now.

Jason Roberts2 said:I’d still argue the point though, because technology has come such a long way lately that you can pinpoint exactly who was there and who carried out this "sabotage"—every single submarine is tracked constantly, so we know where they are and which direction they're heading.
Another thing is that, say, the Russians have the footage or some kind of proof, but Brussels has basically banned the EU from releasing it, so we're left in the dark; if it really was the Russians, they would have flashed that evidence in our faces by now.

If tracking submarines underwater were truly as effortless as people claim, I doubt they would even exist in the quantities and configurations we see today.

Jamie Watson4 said:It’s pretty clear that the pipelines sitting idle have been sabotaged, whereas the operational ones—like the TurkStream line—remain untouched.
😉

This could be a crucial distinction. From my perspective, this data suggests that whoever carried out the sabotage isn't actually looking to shut down existing supply lines. It feels less like a tactical strike and more like a twisted bluff or a psychological threat. And we all know whose playbook that follows.

Jamie Watson4 said:If the USA truly intended to shut down Russian gas exports, they would have gone after the pipelines actually in use—or at least the main ones—rather than sabotaging the ones that aren't even being utilized... ☕

Then Ukrainians wouldn't be staying warm through the winter.
The short-term play is probably just hoping Russia doesn't bomb the Ukrainian lines and instead pumps more through NS1—letting them rake in the cash while Americans freeze.

It's funny how the Turk Stream hasn't met the same fate yet. Probably because the Turks would push back harder against those condescending Swabians—which is likely why everyone stays quiet about expanding NATO.

Interestingly, the Netherlands is trying some legal gymnastics by pulling a company's license for managing TS, but the gas is going to flow regardless:
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2022-09-3...zYA/index.html

Nancy Gomez26 said:What possible motive would the West have to destroy infrastructure sitting on its own turf—infrastructure that only benefits Western Europe? ExxonMobil holds the majority stake, but I highly doubt they’re going to dismantle the pipes and relocate them elsewhere. Furthermore, that very same pipeline could be invaluable once the leadership in the White House changes. If nothing else, it remains a potential mechanism for paying out reparations for the chaos caused by previous administrations through their "chess player" tactics.
The West needs resources, certainly, but at the lowest possible price point. Basic economics: more suppliers mean lower prices. The mere existence of a pipeline like this puts downward pressure on gas prices. When the sabotage occurred, market prices spiked, even though no gas was actually flowing through those pipes. Hmm... one has to wonder whose strategic interest it serves to see gas prices climb right now.

I guess it's just basically everyone selling gas, anywhere. Period. No two ways about it.

Melissa Rivera5 said:I guess it's just basically everyone selling gas, anywhere. Period. No two ways about it.

Hardly. When gas prices spike violently and suddenly, consumers eventually pivot to alternative energy sources in the long run. That shift triggers a drop in demand, which eventually forces prices down—creating a volatile cycle for producers who still have to maintain wells and recoup their massive capital investments. Currently, the only party benefiting from maximum price hikes, regardless of the long-term fallout, is Russia. Their market presence is already marginal, so they use high costs as a lever to drive a wedge between EU nations and undermine support for Ukraine. Putin has gone all-in on this conflict; he’s put every single chip on the table to occupy that territory.

Nancy Gomez26 said:Hardly. When gas prices spike violently and suddenly, consumers eventually pivot to alternative energy sources in the long run. That shift triggers a drop in demand, which eventually forces prices down—creating a volatile cycle for producers who still have to maintain wells and recoup their massive capital investments. Currently, the only party benefiting from maximum price hikes, regardless of the long-term fallout, is Russia. Their market presence is already marginal, so they use high costs as a lever to drive a wedge between EU nations and undermine support for Ukraine. Putin has gone all-in on this conflict; he’s put every single chip on the table to occupy that territory.

As for the gas situation, more or less...

The big winners here will be whoever holds the keys to the alternatives—things like solar power or wind farms... if we can even figure out who that actually is...

brightheron64 said:As for the gas situation, more or less...

The big winners here will be whoever holds the keys to the alternatives—things like solar power or wind farms... if we can even figure out who that actually is...

Man, the Norwegians were basically pushing those pipelines just so they’d have someone to sell electricity to.

Do you think Russians actually feel the impact of the sanctions being put in place? I mean, how are they still backing the government at this stage?

analogmarlin4 said:Do you think Russians actually feel the impact of the sanctions being put in place? I mean, how are they still backing the government at this stage?

Well, Putin just tells them the sanctions aren't doing anything, so they keep showing up for him.

Nancy Gomez26 said:If tracking submarines underwater were truly as effortless as people claim, I doubt they would even exist in the quantities and configurations we see today.

Look, us regular folks don't have a prayer, but the military-industrial complex has its own dedicated satellites and they basically see everything happening in real time.

Jason Roberts2 said:Look, us regular folks don't have a prayer, but the military-industrial complex has its own dedicated satellites and they basically see everything happening in real time.

How exactly would satellites track that? As far as I know, satellites aren't really built to detect things deep underwater—unless there’s some classified tech out there we haven't heard about yet. Usually, they just monitor surface activity, ports, and stuff like that, then make educated guesses from there.

In the ocean, you're still most likely looking at some kind of acoustic detection.🤔

Plus, most detection methods seem to rely on a submarine actually moving. If a nuclear sub positions itself strategically and just sits silent at depth, what exactly is going to pick it up?🤔

bluemason3 said:How exactly would satellites track that? As far as I know, satellites aren't really built to detect things deep underwater—unless there’s some classified tech out there we haven't heard about yet. Usually, they just monitor surface activity, ports, and stuff like that, then make educated guesses from there.

In the ocean, you're still most likely looking at some kind of acoustic detection.🤔

Plus, most detection methods seem to rely on a submarine actually moving. If a nuclear sub positions itself strategically and just sits silent at depth, what exactly is going to pick it up?🤔

Beyond just radar and sonar, they also use sensors like this:

a Magnetic Anomaly Detector (MAD). Basically, a big chunk of ferromagnetic material, like a submarine, causes a noticeable disturbance in the Earth’s magnetic field. MAD is designed to catch that specific hiccup, making it super effective at hunting down submerged subs.

These are most commonly mounted on anti-submarine helicopters, planes, and nowadays, even drones.

https://navalpost.com/p-8-poseidon-t...marine-hunter/

The Boeing P-8 Poseidon is honestly a pretty sweet piece of kit. Aside from a massive array of sensors meant for hunting subs and surface vessels, it comes fully loaded with weapons—meaning it can carry torpedoes, Harpoon missiles, depth charges, and mines.

hollowdriver13 said:Beyond just radar and sonar, they also use sensors like this:

a Magnetic Anomaly Detector (MAD). Basically, a big chunk of ferromagnetic material, like a submarine, causes a noticeable disturbance in the Earth’s magnetic field. MAD is designed to catch that specific hiccup, making it super effective at hunting down submerged subs.

These are most commonly mounted on anti-submarine helicopters, planes, and nowadays, even drones.

https://navalpost.com/p-8-poseidon-t...marine-hunter/

The Boeing P-8 Poseidon is honestly a pretty sweet piece of kit. Aside from a massive array of sensors meant for hunting subs and surface vessels, it comes fully loaded with weapons—meaning it can carry torpedoes, Harpoon missiles, depth charges, and mines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet...ctor#Operation

If Wikipedia is actually right, all of that seems pretty limited in practice.

https://www.alvinalexa.com/2022/10/b...eam-1.html?m=1

So, the Danes are saying the leaks from NS1 have finally stopped and the pressure levels are looking pretty steady now..

Gregory Ramos3 said:https://www.alvinalexa.com/2022/10/b...eam-1.html?m=1

So, the Danes are saying the leaks from NS1 have finally stopped and the pressure levels are looking pretty steady now..

But how on earth can the pressure be considered stable if there's a massive hole in the line?...🤔

brightheron64 said:But how on earth can the pressure be considered stable if there's a massive hole in the line?...🤔

Once the gas pressure throughout the entire pipeline reaches equilibrium with the water pressure at the site of the breach... that's when the pressure stabilizes. It stays steady as long as the external water pressure at that puncture point remains constant.

Nancy Gomez26 said:Once the gas pressure throughout the entire pipeline reaches equilibrium with the water pressure at the site of the breach... that's when the pressure stabilizes. It stays steady as long as the external water pressure at that puncture point remains constant.

Well, if we're looking at a depth of about 330 feet, the water pressure is roughly 145 psi (since every 33 feet of depth adds about 15 psi). How on earth are you supposed to push gas through a line spanning 746 miles when you're dealing with only about 145 psi of pressure?

According to the specs for NS2, the inlet pressure can reach up to nearly 4,000 psi, with an outlet minimum of around 1,450 psi. It might not be much of an issue if the hole is just the size of a button, but if it's actually larger—like that massive geyser effect we witnessed—how could the system possibly function at all?...🤔

Melissa Rivera5 said:Man, the Norwegians were basically pushing those pipelines just so they’d have someone to sell electricity to.

Up to this point, that doesn't even come close to a Western MO. It feels more like a backroom deal from a developing nation—like that old story where you ask Steve what he wants, but only on the condition that his neighbor gets twice as much as he does.
If I had to pin down the most likely suspects from this side of the pond, I’d say Ukrainians, followed perhaps by Poles. Or maybe it was some "private" initiative aimed at securing long-term LNG supplies and permanently kicking Russia out of the equation. Still, Russians remain my top suspects—it’s their MO, it carries Putin's signature. If it was the Poles, for instance, then it's a safe bet that the newly minted pipeline from Norway won't be spared either. I don't buy that any state actor would touch this, because quite literally everyone has infrastructure that is impossible to protect from sabotage—everyone is vulnerable here. Perhaps they're just waiting for the winter chill to set in before sabotaging something else. Time will tell.

brightheron64 said:Well, if we're looking at a depth of about 330 feet, the water pressure is roughly 145 psi (since every 33 feet of depth adds about 15 psi). How on earth are you supposed to push gas through a line spanning 746 miles when you're dealing with only about 145 psi of pressure?

According to the specs for NS2, the inlet pressure can reach up to nearly 4,000 psi, with an outlet minimum of around 1,450 psi. It might not be much of an issue if the hole is just the size of a button, but if it's actually larger—like that massive geyser effect we witnessed—how could the system possibly function at all?...🤔

The report stated that the pressure had stabilized. It failed to mention at what specific level it stabilized, and you asked how stabilization is even possible if there is a breach—which is what I was addressing. As for the reality of the situation—the actual size of the hole, whether it truly exists, or what the actual internal pipe pressure is—I have no idea.
One can certainly move gas through that pipeline (assuming it hasn't been breached) from 746 miles using a pressure lower than 10 bars—say, during the initial stages—but the flow capacity would be significantly diminished.