Posts by Nancy Gomez26

Quincy:

Nancy Gomez26 Asks: I concur with the points made. However, we must consider the physics at play here: higher pressure inevitably forces more gas out into the surrounding medium—which, in this instance, is the ocean under lower pressure. Furthermore, the sheer scale of the container matters; given the cross-sectional area of the pipeline multiplied by its length, the volume of gas released into the sea will be substantial. As the internal pressure within the leaking vessel drops, the pressure differential between the pipe and the ocean will narrow, naturally slowing the leak over time. Based on the imagery provided, the initial discharge was incredibly violent; you could see the gas erupting at the surface from a plane flying 100 meters above the site.

Quincy:

Fantasist Asks: So, what’s the move then? The turbines have to keep pumping gas regardless of the loss, just to ensure the ocean doesn't breach the line. It's like trying to keep a leaky dam pressurized just to stop the flood from getting in.

Ultimately, the ball is in the operators' court. From where I stand, this entire situation lacks logic—it’s clearly an act of sabotage. Until we address the issue of the saboteurs themselves, any further action is just spinning wheels. One should also be questioning the facility owner: what exactly are their intentions here? Under US law, owners typically carry specific legal obligations regarding such sites—things like mandatory maintenance protocols, damage remediation requirements, and determining who picks up the tab and from which funds. It's all connected.

addx said:No, that isn't right. You're just drawing conclusions with an unearned sense of certainty.

The pressure in Nord Stream 2 has been there for quite some time, yet not a single cubic meter of gas has actually moved through that pipe.

https://www.offshore-energy.biz/gas-...ring-all-done/

The Germans never issued the operating permit.

So, let’s recap: the fact that the pipe is pressurized simply means it is ready for operation—an operation that was never officially authorized.

Furthermore, the narrative falls apart when you look at the flow rates. Why would everyone be panicking if Nord Stream 2 was functional? The flow from Nord Stream 1 was first throttled down to 20%, then 10%, then cut off entirely. If Nord Stream 2 had been operational, it could have practically supplied all of Germany on its own. There is zero logic in Putin using faulty turbines as a pretext to choke off gas supplies to Germany while simultaneously running massive amounts of gas through Nord Stream 2 on the black market. It makes no sense.

Either that, or a moderator needs to step in and ban someone who is clearly intent on repeating a lie until it eventually becomes "truth."

It seems to me the logic followed this path:
The German side refused to grant permission for Nord Stream 2 purely for political reasons regarding the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The Russians decided to play a game to "prove" they could force the issue. They leveraged the alleged malfunction of the Nord Stream 1 turbines to pressure the Germans into fast-tracking the Nord Stream 2 permit under the guise of ensuring energy security. But the Germans—having already committed to blocking Nord Stream 2 for political reasons—couldn't pivot without looking hypocritical. So, the Russians began slowly choking the flow through Nord Stream 1. Eventually, everything ground to a halt. This whole theater about paying for gas in rubles was merely a secondary distraction.
It is worth noting that the Western firms financing Nord Stream 2 lost staggering amounts of money; write-offs were measured in the billions. Meanwhile, the owner of Nord Stream 2 is Nord Stream 2 AG, based in New York City. And the sole owner of Nord Stream 2 AG is ExxonMobil.

Joshua Bishop3 said:The whole idea of how many bubbles get created and just how much raw power is released when a pressurized container fails isn't actually about the pressure itself—it's all about the volume of the container, which in this case is the capacity of the pipeline.

I mean, think about it: 1 bar is an enormous amount of pressure, right? But if you take a tiny little 4-ounce container under 1 bar of pressure and smash it, nothing crazy happens, just a little "puff." Why? Because the capacity is tiny.

But if you take a massive 25,000-gallon tank of water under that same 1 bar and crack it open, you're going to have a violent explosion because the capacity is massive.

So, the theory that it's all about "crazy" pressure totally falls apart here. The bubble formation and the sheer force resulting from the rupture depend on the capacity of that pipe, not just the pressure reading. Plus, you have to remember gas is compressible under pressure, which basically gives it even more effective capacity.

Think of pressure like voltage. It's potential. Whereas current is like the flow or the capacity. Pressure by itself isn't dangerous if you're dealing with a tiny capacity. And honestly, even a "low" pressure of one bar becomes absolutely terrifying once you give it enough capacity behind it.

I find myself in agreement with those points. That said, higher pressure means more gas will be discharged into the surrounding medium—the ocean, in this instance—which exists at a much lower pressure. Naturally, a larger vessel (calculated by the cross-sectional area of the pipeline multiplied by its length) will release an even greater volume of gas into the water. As the pressure differential narrows—because the pressure within the leaking vessel drops while the ambient ocean pressure remains constant—the rate of leakage will inevitably slow down over time. Based on the imagery we've seen, the initial discharge was incredibly intense; from an aircraft, you could clearly see the gas erupting at the surface, 100 meters directly above the breach.

quietcobra21 said:If the hydrostatic pressure at that depth is roughly 10 bar, they would only need to maintain 11 bar to stop water from leaking through weak joints. But this pipeline was sitting at 100 bar. That gas was screaming toward Germany, and like someone already mentioned, Americans decided enough was enough.
If they had just pressurized it to a certain level and left it, that pressure would have equalized with the sea floor almost immediately. You wouldn't even see gas escaping into the ocean on camera. There was definitely a massive flow...

Yes, the gas is flowing now. It’s moving from a pressurized pipeline into the surrounding ocean and then up into the atmosphere. Once the pressure inside the pipe reaches equilibrium with the water pressure at the breach, the gas will still escape, though at a reduced rate—it's lighter than water, so the water will eventually displace the volume within the pipe, depending on where the rupture sits.
A pipeline essentially has to remain under constant pressure, regardless of whether there's a leak or not. I laid out the reasoning for that in my previous post. At the end of the day, Russia couldn't care less if the gas leaks into the sea or gets burned off at a flare stack. The environmentalists might be losing their minds because gas is a far more potent greenhouse driver, but Russia doesn't give a damn about that; if anything, they likely view it as a bonus, a bit of extra leverage against Western public opinion. And frankly, the West mostly ignores the Russian leaks because we've largely accepted the reality that Russia is a business partner you can no longer reliably depend on. When politics and commerce collide like this, it stops being business and becomes pure politics.

quietcobra21 said:Look, the guy just knows way more than any of us here. Him talking faster than he can think is a separate issue entirely.
And then there’s the statement from the President. Even if a Pole isn't authorized to speak for the US government, Joe Biden certainly is.

The pipeline was under 100 bars of pressure—you can clearly see the sea churning and gas bubbling up to the surface. That means it was full. I highly doubt the Russians were just giving it away for free, so I'm guessing they were selling it.

Obviously. If the Norwegian pipeline stays intact, then we'll know exactly what happened. Right?

A pipeline likely needs to maintain constant pressure regardless of whether it's actively in use or not. If there’s even a minor leak, keeping the internal pressure higher than the surrounding seawater prevents the ocean from forcing its way inside. Furthermore, maintaining steady pressure limits the system to a single stress cycle. If you subject the material to constant fluctuations—pressure rising and falling repeatedly—you run the risk of metal fatigue. Just because a pipeline is pressurized doesn't mean gas is actually flowing through it.

boldotter2 said:Taking out gas pipelines, comms lines, or satellites counts as an attack on the home country. I guess it doesn't even matter if they're in international waters or way up in space. That's probably why the Russians have been hitting "their own" stuff while staying low-key. It's just cowardly psyops, really.

If that's the case—then sure, it’s a psyop, but for now, it mostly seems to be self-inflicted long-term damage. With Nord Stream 1, they crippled their own minority partners (who held 49% ownership), but even that comes at the expense of any future joint ventures. Who would ever sign a contract with partners who have a documented history of destroying shared assets? The people in The Kremlin lack the courage for a direct confrontation, so they resort to these circuitous methods. Their priority is maintaining appearances; you see it clearly with these recent 'referendums,' and these attacks on pipelines—which aren't even in use right now—likely fall into that same category. The crew in The Kremlin is systematically dismantling the future of the Russian Federation (whatever might remain after they are gone), while their soldiers on the other side—when forced to retreat due to poor decisions made by none other than The Kremlin itself—leave behind perfectly functional weaponry for the Ukrainians to use....

boldotter2 said:The most logical take is that this was basically a threat, like... look what we can do to you...

It definitely wasn't a coincidence that this happened on the exact same day as the opening of the Baltic pipeline.
Plus, let's not forget that almost all global communication, the internet, and pretty much everything else relies on those undersea cables.

It shouldn't be too hard to figure out who benefits from showing just how fragile "Western decadence" really is. And generally speaking, who stands to gain from spreading fear?

It’s an overt threat. Yet, if we look at the long-term fallout, the Russians are actually the ones losing out most. In the short term, it's the gas consumers who take the hit because sabotage inevitably drives prices up—especially since the pipelines are either majority-owned (Nord Stream 1) or entirely owned (Nord Stream 2) by Russia. This makes them the least likely suspects in any investigation (unless they suddenly decide to act rationally, which is becoming a rare occurrence given their current MO following the setbacks in Ukraine). But this could easily be nothing more than a prelude to further infrastructure attacks. Alternatively, it might serve purely as domestic propaganda for the Russian Federation: a way to say, "Look how they attack us, so we have no choice but to defend ourselves in Ukraine." Since the pipeline is effectively useless anyway, it can be sacrificed. Perhaps they believe threatening with nuclear weapons adds extra weight to their leverage. We will see how things unfold in the coming days and whether we see more strikes on critical infrastructure. Regardless, this will rattle the markets by increasing supply uncertainty, further spiking already high prices. We all know who loses in that scenario, and who finds themselves on the "winning" side—ideologically speaking.

Timothy Williams5 said:Rather than relying on standard body armor, the latest batch of Russian infantry is being outfitted with more sophisticated protection, thanks to supplies secured by Patriarch Kiril himself.
https://twitter.com/francis_scarr/st...21fVUXzAbrgh6w

Holy water apparently offers better protection than some of the specific armor models the Russians have actually been using in this conflict....

It strikes me that we will never truly identify the saboteur in this instance, simply because nobody is going to claim responsibility for a job like this. Some analysts suggest we should just wait to see which undersea pipeline—or perhaps an LNG terminal—becomes the next target, using those future hits to point back at the likely culprits. In my view, that is a flawed way to assign blame; the folks over at the Kremlin have been making increasingly irrational moves for quite some time now. If the Kremlin is indeed behind this, there might be a slim, tenuous rationalization for it, but it certainly fits their established pattern of behavior.

granitescout32 said:Did nobody notice that they actually dropped the pressure down to 7 bar the day before the explosion happened?

Bonus question for the group, who could have possibly known the pressure was lowered right then, and what was the reason behind it...

If the pressure had truly been dropped that low right before the sabotage—assuming the pipeline sits 330 feet below the ocean floor—we wouldn't be seeing this massive plume of gas bubbles on the surface. At that depth, the ocean exerts more pressure than those alleged 7 bars. Since gas is lighter than water, some would certainly escape to the surface depending on the hole's size and location, but it wouldn't manifest in such a concentrated, massive volume. The reality is that the pipeline was under significant pressure; it’s been leaking for days (which explains the dropping pressure), and the breach itself is substantial—potentially a full-section rupture.

Kate Lewis3 said:Look, in actual engineering, nothing is ever designed to hold up "just barely." That’s not how this works. You need a safety factor of at least 1.5, minimum. And when you're talking about high-stakes stuff like a major gas pipeline? That margin is probably way higher.

The safety factor is almost certainly much higher than 1.5. We are dealing with a pressurized pipeline sitting under the ocean floor; you have to account for inevitable corrosion and the fact that repairs aren't exactly easy down there. My bet is the safety coefficient is at least 3.

Morgan Wright5 said:There isn't any concrete around those pipes, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from.

They appear to be encased in something resembling concrete—likely acting as ballast to ensure they sink and stay put, while perhaps offering some basic protection against physical damage.

hollowdriver13 said:It’s not impossible, but we’re talking more about an autonomous submarine than some tiny little drone at that point. (And here we go again, back to the fact that the US had those submarine hunter helicopters and planes patrolling that area back then, just tearing things up left and right.)

Punching through an underwater pipeline isn't exactly a walk in the park. You've got steel walls that are several inches thick, all encased in a concrete sleeve or sarcophagus that averages about 8 inches deep. Because of that, sections of undersea gas or oil pipelines usually weigh dozens of tons. To actually breach something like that, you'd need a seriously massive amount of explosives.

Yes, the pipes are coated in a type of concrete—which also functions as ballast to ensure the empty pipe sinks and stays anchored to the seabed—along nearly its entire length. However, at the welded joints, there is only some sort of insulation covering the weld rather than concrete; it's thinner there. Concrete likely won't act as much of a barrier against high explosives, so it will be interesting to see the post-blast imagery to determine the size and shape of the resulting crater.

Karen Doyle72 said:Man, I saw this exact same crap happen back home during the Gulf War era. You had guys fleeing the draft who were basically marked for the front lines immediately, and the ones who actually showed up? They got sent right into the meat grinder.

That isn't accurate. It didn't work like that. If you deserted the American People's Army, you just served out your term in the American military instead, mostly within the first wave of conscripts. Some of those early groups eventually saw action on the ground.

hollowdriver13 said:Nord Stream 2 was basically dead on arrival anyway; it never even really got going. And let's be real, NS1 was heading for the exact same fate once Germany started distancing itself from Russian gas.
Then you've got the maintenance costs for dead pipelines sitting on the owner (Russia). Now that the pipeline is trashed, those costs are gone, and hey, maybe you can even squeeze some cash out of insurance.
Plus, it definitely stirs the pot in the West.

What's the actual endgame for the Americans blowing up an inactive, half-dead pipeline? To have it come out that they did it, just so relations with all of Europe sour again, and to prove to the rest of the world once more that they're the bad guys fueling the conflict?

Gazprom holds a 51% stake in NS1, and if I recall correctly, they own 100% of NS2. However, the construction of NS2 was funded by Wintershall Dea (Germany), Engie (France), OMV (Austria), Shell (UK / Netherlands), and Uniper (Finland)—yet in the end, those companies had to write off several billion dollars in losses. They basically lost it all.

Carol Johnson21 said:https://twitter.com/francis_scarr/st...OAkhHvw5l7jfqA
I’m seeing this pattern everywhere in the clips posted here. When Russian commentators criticize the course of the war or the mobilization efforts, they always wrap their complaints in this polite little package: "It’s not your fault, dear Leader, it’s just that your advisors gave you bad intel."
What we might actually be witnessing is the fallout from a power struggle between the military brass and the FBI—one of those two competing factions that Putin is constantly trying to appease while balancing their support against one another, as Baric pointed out.

With all this mystery surrounding the pipeline explosion, I’m starting to find spy movies more believable than reality.🤷

By the way, word on the street is that Lyman will be under Ukrainian control by the end of the day.

Today I learned that you can't trust YouTube 'translations' for anything. You have to listen to the original speakers and watch their mouths—to see if what you're hearing is actually what they are saying. What we saw before was a mild horror show; those subtitles had absolutely nothing to do with what people were actually saying on screen. The Russians lie through propaganda, sure, but this is just as cheap a fabrication regardless of who is behind it or what their motives might be. The Russians don't even need extra help planting lies; they discredit themselves plenty well enough on their own. Instead, they try to play the 'victim' of someone else's planted misinformation. In the end, they'll claim everything was maliciously planted by some outside force, leaving everyone wondering, 'Who's really pulling the strings here?'

bluepuma9 said:The Baltic is pretty shallow, especially in the area where the damage happened. You wouldn't even need a sub; regular divers could handle it easily. It’s actually simpler that way—you could just use any civilian boat to ferry them close to the site.

Do you honestly believe a surface vessel loitering at a site for extended periods wouldn't raise eyebrows? I think it would. Besides, once you have to descend to those depths—maybe 300 feet?—you need both the personnel and the specialized gear to pull it off. It isn't quite that straightforward.

rustywalker82 said:There's no way America or the rest of the West wants to see terrorism used against energy infrastructure. I mean, come on, they are completely dependent on their own grids and pipelines for basically everything.

Another piece of evidence showing they aren't the culprits is that report from about a week ago regarding a foiled terror plot by the Ukrainian intelligence services involving explosives targeting the underwater Turkish Straits pipeline (which currently carries Russian gas to Turkey, Mexico, and Canada, bypassing Ukraine right now):

https://en.vestikavkaza.ru/news/Terr...-thwarted.html

So look, if the Russians are lying, then they’re the ones who hit NS 1 and 2. But if they aren't lying, then the Ukrainians are the ones to blame.
It's either the Russians or the Ukrainians—there isn't a third option here.

As it stands, the Ukrainians likely lack the technical capacity to strike such specific infrastructure—you would need divers, specialized submersibles, or mini-subs designed for sabotage, as a surface vessel would be far too exposed. Even if they could pull it off, they would likely be caught. When targeting infrastructure, it would be much more logical and efficient to hit a pipeline on land—perhaps a critical compressor station deep within Russia that isn't easily repaired. That way, the impact hits major Russian cities directly. Any entity "downstream" from Russia can strike Russia itself without much risk; besides, right now, nobody is truly safe, given how vital this infrastructure was.

coastalbison6 said:Vladimir Solovyov got his mobilization notice and turned it down 🤣 🤣 🤣
https://twitter.com/R82938886/status...65224108220423

The English translation doesn't really align with what people are actually saying in Russian. It’s just enough to mislead anyone who can't speak the language and relies blindly on YouTube.

Linda Collins3 said:Honestly, if all the other pipelines got blown up too, nobody would even look at the U.S., so your theory just doesn't hold water.

If those other pipelines get hit now, someone is definitely going to blame Americans. It's a simple equation. Even blowing up an idle line will send market gas prices climbing, let alone targeting an active one. And when energy costs spike, who actually stands to gain? Follow the money... we all know who's pulling the strings.