webdiplomacy.net

American/EU/Western/NATO-aligned media is claiming that Russia destroyed their own pipeline earlier this week, at the same time a similar Baltic natural gas pipeline is coming online in Poland. Does anyone really believe that Russia destroyed their own pipeline, when simply flipping the switch to OFF was having the same geopolitical effect?

Biden literally claims they'd take out the pipeline
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/KoomA4wSeUE

American senators claim it to
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBUIlHM9WSo

I'm a little confused why the media is reporting Russia did it?

The main reason the media gave is Putin bombed his own pipeline as intimidation to send a message saying he could destroy other pipelines if he wants.

I guess nothing is impossible, but it would have been more intimidating if he bombed a pipeline he wasn't in complete control of. And the fact Putin is denying doing it and calling it stupid to think so, makes me think the intimidation reason falls apart. (Wouldn't he be owning it if that was his goal?)

This is honestly as bad as the time the media claimed Assad was randomly gassing his own civilians in Syria to send a message about "how evil he is".

Well, that rules out the Yanks. If they wanted to do it and didn't care who knows they would have just done it and said it was them, and if they wanted to do it secretly they wouldn't have had their President mention the possibility before hand.

It could be Russia. They have been playing with the European supply all year, and this action is very much in line with with what's happened so far. European industry is dependent on cheap energy, so this could be a warning that cheap energy can be turned off permanently. I imagine that the current damage is fixable, but it is also clear that more extensive and irreversible damage is quite easy to achieve. Europe is currently in the painful position of having to heavily subsidise energy prices to keep its industry competitive, which is racking up eye watering debt. They can keep it up short term, but if its long-term either European industry collapses or their economies shake themselves apart trying to keep it going. A similar thing happened prior to the Great Depression.

Alternatively it's another nation that believes it is benefitting from the war. An energy producer doing well out of high prices, or someone able to buy energy more cheaply than the West and is enjoying a relative economic advantage. Or some rogue element of a military acting under their own initiative.

Or SPECTRE, of course. We've seen this plot in James Bond before

The explanation i have seen for why Russia would want to bomb the pipeline (which i believe is jointly theirs and germany's infrastructure) is so their contracts would be voided.

Can't be blamed for failure to deliver if an 'act of god' prevented it from happening. Apparently they reduced and cut off supply in August and then September but blamed it on various temporary issues beyond their control.

Aside, environmentally this is a disaster, how much natural gas was in the pipes even while off? Possibly the highest peak of methane in history.

Fluminator wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 01, 2022 4:37 am

Biden literally claims they'd take out the pipeline
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/KoomA4wSeUE

American senators claim it to
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBUIlHM9WSo

I'm a little confused why the media is reporting Russia did it?

If you pay close attention you will find that they are talking about NordStream 2 not NordStream. NordStream 2, if I remember correctly, would have made the pipelines through Ukraine obsolete. NordStream 2 was never operational.

Oh wow, that's embarrassing. Thanks for letting me know.
I fully redact my first post lol.

orathaic wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 01, 2022 1:43 pm

Aside, environmentally this is a disaster, how much natural gas was in the pipes even while off? Possibly the highest peak of methane in history.

Possibly the largest single event, but in the grand scheme of things I doubt it's particularly significant. The dirty secret of the gas industry is that the infrastructure is far more leaky than you'd imagine. The emissions figures are based on the whole lot being combusted, which is a long way from the truth. A load of gas is lost during extraction, and a load more is lost in transit, and the end result is that natural gas isn't all that much cleaner than coal.

The way I see it, I don't think the US would risk endangering its diplomatic alliances with countries like Germany that needed Nordstream. My best guess (and just a guess) is that it could be a warning from Russia that they have the capacity and willingness to attack the infrastructure of European countries that oppose it.

Indeed so. The timing of the Nordstream incident coinciding with the opening of the Baltic Pipe is unlikely to be a coincidence.

Octavious wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 01, 2022 7:20 pm

orathaic wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 01, 2022 1:43 pm

Aside, environmentally this is a disaster, how much natural gas was in the pipes even while off? Possibly the highest peak of methane in history.

Possibly the largest single event, but in the grand scheme of things I doubt it's particularly significant. The dirty secret of the gas industry is that the infrastructure is far more leaky than you'd imagine. The emissions figures are based on the whole lot being combusted, which is a long way from the truth. A load of gas is lost during extraction, and a load more is lost in transit, and the end result is that natural gas isn't all that much cleaner than coal.

My full time job is emission regulation in the upstream oil and gas industry and I'm going to have to ask for a source? I'm not saying you're wrong but this is a very big claim so I need a bit more backing this up.

Every component in a pipeline vents a little, but the numbers are very well documented and recorded (at least in Canada where I work) and required to be re-analyzed every year.
By far the worst losses are in the older equipment (which is why so many companies want to build new pipelines, but the environmentalists stop that so the gas is forced to go through the older leakier pipelines still) but it's no where near the emissions of coal still lol.

This was the South West Energy & Environment Group, around 15 years ago. They put in a lot of work into carbon equivalent footprints of various methods of energy production, taking a holistic view including embedded carbon, losses in transport, the actual burning of the stuff etc etc. Hydroelectric dams were particularly grim, with a huge embedded carbon cost and high methane emissions from associated rotting vegetation. But for natural gas there was considerable leakage at extraction, pipeline leakage, and domestic and industrial leakage at or near the point of use. If Canada documents it well that is commendable, but that's not repeated across the globe.

Octavious wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 01, 2022 7:20 pm

orathaic wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 01, 2022 1:43 pm

Aside, environmentally this is a disaster, how much natural gas was in the pipes even while off? Possibly the highest peak of methane in history.

Possibly the largest single event, but in the grand scheme of things I doubt it's particularly significant. The dirty secret of the gas industry is that the infrastructure is far more leaky than you'd imagine. The emissions figures are based on the whole lot being combusted, which is a long way from the truth. A load of gas is lost during extraction, and a load more is lost in transit, and the end result is that natural gas isn't all that much cleaner than coal.

Depends on what you mean by clean. Coal generates a lot of particulate matter which causes respiratory issues. The number of years of life lost as a result are difficult to estimate, but likely greater than all the life lost from every nuclear disaster (even when you factor in the per kWh of energy produced).

But what is harder to measure is the cumulative effect of smokey coal coating surfaces (changing how much energy is absorbed by the earth... Coating ice would make it melt much faster...).

And elements like acid rain, of course, which is the nostalgic environmental issue of my school days along with the ozone layer. Happy times...

orathaic wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 01, 2022 1:43 pm

Aside, environmentally this is a disaster, how much natural gas was in the pipes even while off? Possibly the highest peak of methane in history.

Natural gas is not a disaster for nature, called natural for a reason

I give you a hint: volcanoes send the hell amount of natural gas, sulfur, co2, and and the entire chemical set along. So do geysers, and not only they. Daily.

So it happens for billion years and we are still here, still alive. The thing is called Earth, she's in equilibrium, yunno. Relax, pal

You have been alive for a billion years?

Fascinating.

Gajamada wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 04, 2023 7:42 am

orathaic wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 01, 2022 1:43 pm

Aside, environmentally this is a disaster, how much natural gas was in the pipes even while off? Possibly the highest peak of methane in history.

Natural gas is not a disaster for nature, called natural for a reason

I give you a hint: volcanoes send the hell amount of natural gas, sulfur, co2, and and the entire chemical set along. So do geysers, and not only they. Daily.

So it happens for billion years and we are still here, still alive. The thing is called Earth, she's in equilibrium, yunno. Relax, pal

And what is the range of variation in this equilibrium? How many mass extinction events have happened? What were their causes? How would ~8 billion humans survive if a 'natural' ice age swept across the surface of the earth?

How do current CO2 levels compared with the past billion years (or however much dáta we actually have).

Cyanide is also natural, i suggest you not make the fallicious assumption that all natural things are safe and good.

orathaic wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 04, 2023 3:48 pm

How do current CO2 levels compared with the past billion years (or however much dáta we actually have).

Cyanide is also natural, i suggest you not make the fallicious assumption that all natural things are safe and good.

Reducing CO2 reduces O2, because plants convert it, and we convert it back.

Too much O2 will kill molds. Too much CO2 will make molds flourish. Too much WebDip may affect eyes, set brains tired, disorder the column, consequently ruin internal systems. Too much of a woman may break one's d*ck, literally.

Cyanide is dangerous when concentrated. For example, apricot or almond seeds contain cyanide, just in case, yet sugar is an antidote to cyanide. More important, no "cyanide" is running the streets wishing to kill all humans at once.

Volcanoes throw huge amounts of gasses daily. Significantly more than your car, or a pipeline. However, thinking CO2 is a problem, while humans are CO2 producing plants, er, .... and then you and me are dangerous for you and me, "logically". Listen again: "We are dangerous for us because we breath." Is it so?

P.S. And, I didn't say "fallaciously" diving into volcano was safe, okay?

Oh, s***. I hope this isn't true:

https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how ... m?sort=top

I suspect your hopes will be fulfilled.

But let's imagine that it is true... What would the fallout for Biden be? Would that be considered a resigning issue? And what would the impact be on NATO?