I saw a news bight on a possible size to the postulated weapon that hit the pipelines. In general it's size limited so as to not be identifiable. This kind of issue places the yield at several tons of tnt. Maybe a top size of 100 tons.

Nukes this size require a close nuclear survey for a conclusive id. Then a study of the data can determine whose nuke it was. This is like abstract finger printing

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 30/09/2022 19:10, Douglas Eagleson wrote:

I saw a news bight on a possible size to the postulated weapon that hit the pipelines. In general it's size limited so as to not be identifiable. This kind of issue places the yield at several tons of tnt. Maybe a top size of 100 tons.

Nukes this size require a close nuclear survey for a conclusive id. Then a study of the data can determine whose nuke it was. This is like abstract finger printing

Why use a nuke????????
The job can be done with a couple of pounds of plastic.

Jeff

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 30/09/2022 19:10, Douglas Eagleson wrote:

I saw a news bight on a possible size to the postulated weapon that hit the pipelines. In general it's size limited so as to not be identifiable. This kind of issue places the yield at several tons of tnt. Maybe a top size of 100 tons.

Nukes this size require a close nuclear survey for a conclusive id. Then a study of the data can determine whose nuke it was. This is like abstract finger printing

Pick up a book and look at limpet mine, they blew holes in the hulls of
heavily armoured warships. A shaped charge in contact with a hull of
pipeline can cause catastrophic damage. We know the Russians have such
devices and submersibles capable of planting them.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 1 Oct 2022 14:06:15 +0100, Keith Willshaw wrote:

On 30/09/2022 19:10, Douglas Eagleson wrote:

I saw a news bight on a possible size to the postulated weapon that hit
the pipelines. In general it's size limited so as to not be
identifiable. This kind of issue places the yield at several tons of
tnt. Maybe a top size of 100 tons.

Nukes this size require a close nuclear survey for a conclusive id.
Then a study of the data can determine whose nuke it was. This is like
abstract finger printing

Pick up a book and look at limpet mine, they blew holes in the hulls of heavily armoured warships. A shaped charge in contact with a hull of
pipeline can cause catastrophic damage. We know the Russians have such devices and submersibles capable of planting them.

When it comes to a pipeline running natural gas under Russian
(non)maintenance, an explosion means that it's Tuesday. Or Friday, or
another day of the week ending in 'y'.

What competent saboteur is going to have 2 separate attacks 17 hours
apart? After the first event, they area's going to be swarming with
military, government, QANGO Environmental and News investigators.

Those pipelines were sitting, under pressure, with no flow (And thus no maintenance) since April. Bottom conditions on that part of the Baltic. Perfect conditions for a hydrate plug. Or lots of bydrate plugs (Methane/ Water ice blockages ' in this case, 5' in diameter. If I remember
correctly, they form naturally on the seabottom in that part of the
Baltic.

To properly deal with that, you need to reduce pressure evenly on both
sides of the pipeline - simultaneously. A pressure differential results
in the plug becoming a mulltiton cannonball roaring down the pipe at
several hundred mph/ kph, until it hits some part of the line that isn't precisely straight. Then it punches through, and the internal pressure
in the line does the rest.

GAZPROM has a habit of blowing up their pipelines in Russia. There's no
need for sabotage.

Or, as one analyst has put it - "If you are a national gas company with institutional paranoia, a Nationalized aversion to looking weak or asking
for help, and a Good Idea Fairy fueled by vodka, these things happen."
It's a good best that they tried depressurizing things from the Russian
end of the line.



--
Peter Stickney
Java Man knew nothing about coffee

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, October 2, 2022 at 3:42:38 AM UTC+8, Peter Stickney wrote:

On Sat, 1 Oct 2022 14:06:15 +0100, Keith Willshaw wrote:

On 30/09/2022 19:10, Douglas Eagleson wrote:

I saw a news bight on a possible size to the postulated weapon that hit
the pipelines. In general it's size limited so as to not be
identifiable. This kind of issue places the yield at several tons of
tnt. Maybe a top size of 100 tons.

Nukes this size require a close nuclear survey for a conclusive id.
Then a study of the data can determine whose nuke it was. This is like
abstract finger printing

Pick up a book and look at limpet mine, they blew holes in the hulls of heavily armoured warships. A shaped charge in contact with a hull of pipeline can cause catastrophic damage. We know the Russians have such devices and submersibles capable of planting them.

When it comes to a pipeline running natural gas under Russian (non)maintenance, an explosion means that it's Tuesday. Or Friday, or
another day of the week ending in 'y'.

What competent saboteur is going to have 2 separate attacks 17 hours
apart? After the first event, they area's going to be swarming with
military, government, QANGO Environmental and News investigators.

Those pipelines were sitting, under pressure, with no flow (And thus no maintenance) since April. Bottom conditions on that part of the Baltic. Perfect conditions for a hydrate plug. Or lots of bydrate plugs (Methane/ Water ice blockages ' in this case, 5' in diameter. If I remember
correctly, they form naturally on the seabottom in that part of the
Baltic.

To properly deal with that, you need to reduce pressure evenly on both
sides of the pipeline - simultaneously. A pressure differential results
in the plug becoming a mulltiton cannonball roaring down the pipe at
several hundred mph/ kph, until it hits some part of the line that isn't precisely straight. Then it punches through, and the internal pressure
in the line does the rest.

GAZPROM has a habit of blowing up their pipelines in Russia. There's no
need for sabotage.

Or, as one analyst has put it - "If you are a national gas company with institutional paranoia, a Nationalized aversion to looking weak or asking
for help, and a Good Idea Fairy fueled by vodka, these things happen."
It's a good best that they tried depressurizing things from the Russian
end of the line.

--
Peter Stickney
Java Man knew nothing about coffee

one of the alternate sources for LNG is Algeria. I remember in my old days
the company president walks in and shows me the RFP for field tagging
part of an Algeria gas field. I was a nuclear safety guy. We spent a lot of work to pack in all the details to charge.

In this case the tag is HTO(OR WAS IT GAS?) into the injector wells. The tag is
in the hundreds of Curies of tritium. The goal is to get a good signal from production wells. This level is the regulatory limit for Tritium release.

We did not get the contract. Two decades latter an upset guy walks into my office
and asks me why does he have Tritium in his Algerian field. I told him somebody like the Russians likely put a field tag in. We were the only company in
the world doing field tags. so a state operator of some kind did the work.

Major US gas fields also have the issue.

Forcing new sources of gas really does have a contaminate issue.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, 1 October 2022 at 15:42:38 UTC-4, Peter Stickney wrote:

On Sat, 1 Oct 2022 14:06:15 +0100, Keith Willshaw wrote:

On 30/09/2022 19:10, Douglas Eagleson wrote:

I saw a news bight on a possible size to the postulated weapon that hit
the pipelines. In general it's size limited so as to not be
identifiable. This kind of issue places the yield at several tons of
tnt. Maybe a top size of 100 tons.

Nukes this size require a close nuclear survey for a conclusive id.
Then a study of the data can determine whose nuke it was. This is like
abstract finger printing

Pick up a book and look at limpet mine, they blew holes in the hulls of heavily armoured warships. A shaped charge in contact with a hull of pipeline can cause catastrophic damage. We know the Russians have such devices and submersibles capable of planting them.

When it comes to a pipeline running natural gas under Russian (non)maintenance, an explosion means that it's Tuesday. Or Friday, or
another day of the week ending in 'y'.

What competent saboteur is going to have 2 separate attacks 17 hours
apart? After the first event, they area's going to be swarming with
military, government, QANGO Environmental and News investigators.

Those pipelines were sitting, under pressure, with no flow (And thus no maintenance) since April. Bottom conditions on that part of the Baltic. Perfect conditions for a hydrate plug. Or lots of bydrate plugs (Methane/ Water ice blockages ' in this case, 5' in diameter. If I remember
correctly, they form naturally on the seabottom in that part of the
Baltic.

To properly deal with that, you need to reduce pressure evenly on both
sides of the pipeline - simultaneously. A pressure differential results
in the plug becoming a mulltiton cannonball roaring down the pipe at
several hundred mph/ kph, until it hits some part of the line that isn't precisely straight. Then it punches through, and the internal pressure
in the line does the rest.

GAZPROM has a habit of blowing up their pipelines in Russia. There's no
need for sabotage.

Or, as one analyst has put it - "If you are a national gas company with institutional paranoia, a Nationalized aversion to looking weak or asking
for help, and a Good Idea Fairy fueled by vodka, these things happen."
It's a good best that they tried depressurizing things from the Russian
end of the line.

--
Peter Stickney
Java Man knew nothing about coffee

At the risk of stating the freaking obvious, there can be two plugs between a pair of places the pressure can be reduced.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

1/10/22 11:37, Jeff wrote:

30/09/2022 19:10, Douglas Eagleson wrote:

I saw a news bight on a possible size to the postulated weapon that
hit the pipelines.  In general it's size limited so as to not be
identifiable. This kind of issue places the yield at several tons of
tnt.  Maybe a top size of 100 tons.

Nukes this size require a close nuclear survey for a conclusive id.
Then a study of the data can determine whose nuke it was. This is like
abstract finger printing

Why use a nuke????????
The job can be done with a couple of pounds of plastic.

Jeff

Sure. The disaster movie of the weapons is that with few nickels you
could a lot of damages. Let's look at some figured numbers:

Costs of sanctions

-20 -> -50

Cost of sabotages

-10 -> -100
or
-100 -> -10

So let's suppose sabotages should be compensated by an imaginary law,
at least in the direct and indirect (lose of gains) costs. That put
the stakes high, so high that the imaginary law includes the provision
that revenge never could be more expensive than costs.

Coming back to numbers, that is

-100 <- 0
or
0 -> -100

So adding up all this game, contendants could lose

-130 -160

Not a very clever game, but in addition... someone figure it could be
better arranging a mayor damage, in the order of -200? No at all,
because you are lowering your participation in the differences, which
are the reasons why the contendants are contendants.

Peace.


--
Beware: nobody will clean that amount of sh

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, October 1, 2022 at 2:10:29 AM UTC+8, Douglas Eagleson wrote:

I saw a news bight on a possible size to the postulated weapon that hit the pipelines. In general it's size limited so as to not be identifiable. This kind of issue places the yield at several tons of tnt. Maybe a top size of 100 tons.

Nukes this size require a close nuclear survey for a conclusive id. Then a study of the data can determine whose nuke it was. This is like abstract finger printing

Well photos are in. An accurate description of the bomb craters is an ongoing issue. Public disclosure
has two craters identified. 3-5 meters deep. About 300 meters apart. I suspect a single large crater
in the middle with shredded pipe between the two pipe segment end craters.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, October 1, 2022 at 2:10:29 AM UTC+8, Douglas Eagleson wrote:

I saw a news bight on a possible size to the postulated weapon that hit the pipelines. In general it's size limited so as to not be identifiable. This kind of issue places the yield at several tons of tnt. Maybe a top size of 100 tons.

Nukes this size require a close nuclear survey for a conclusive id. Then a study of the data can determine whose nuke it was. This is like abstract finger printing

https://www.rt.com/business/565848-craters-discovered-nord-stream-blast/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 7:40:04 AM UTC+8, Douglas Eagleson wrote:

On Saturday, October 1, 2022 at 2:10:29 AM UTC+8, Douglas Eagleson wrote:

I saw a news bight on a possible size to the postulated weapon that hit the pipelines. In general it's size limited so as to not be identifiable. This kind of issue places the yield at several tons of tnt. Maybe a top size of 100 tons.

Nukes this size require a close nuclear survey for a conclusive id. Then a study of the data can determine whose nuke it was. This is like abstract finger printing

https://www.rt.com/business/565848-craters-discovered-nord-stream-blast/

To repair the pipes has been floated in the news.

Factor in the cost and time of de-mining the pipes. A rather standoff search. The best approach is to do a visual search. And prepare for the worst. Make some kind of barge to do the lifting? Expensive and time consuming.

A pressure trigger is assumable? Just hire a UK dive company to
help out.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)