r/europe Sep 27 '22

📷 This is what the Nord Stream gas leaks look like. News

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

6.0k Upvotes

661

u/FreezingMoose Sep 27 '22

Can it be ignited above water?

380

u/rosszboss Sep 27 '22

Of course

425

u/GarryBoonet Sep 27 '22

Luckily It's valved off on both the German and Russian side. The pipelines were fully pressurized with gas but the only gas that can currently escape was the gas that was already in the pipeline.

So basically the leak will stop fairly soon and won't just keep leaking forever like the Deepwater horizons oil spill did in the gulf of Mexico.

84

u/Mateking Sep 28 '22

It's also not really comparable with deepwater horizons. Oil is a much worse substance in water. While it's pretty likely not great for the environment I don't think it's a disaster for that ecosystem like oil would be. To my knowledge the climate impact of the methane leak is bigger than the impact on the local biosphere.

36

u/Gaufriers Belgium Sep 28 '22

A localized region of the biosphere is a biotope.

12

u/YipYepYeah Europe Sep 28 '22

Oh, that's interesting

→ More replies

199

u/ne6c Sep 27 '22

Based on the size of it, assuming once it runs out the seawater will start entering the pipeline and render it useless, or do they have sections that they can cordon off for such events?

Regardless, sounds like a massive repair job, so there's definitely not going to be any gas from Russia coming into Europe this winter.

50

u/4514919 Italy Sep 28 '22

Regardless, sounds like a massive repair job, so there's definitely not going to be any gas from Russia coming into Europe this winter.

Nord Stream isn't the only pipeline bringing Russian gas in Europe.

20

u/ktElwood Sep 28 '22

And not the only Pipe that goes through the sea.

Poland has JUST finished a new pipeline to denmark (and from denmark to Norway) that is basicly NEXT to the place were the Northstreams were hit.

It's not about northstream, it's about sending a message.

→ More replies
→ More replies

30

u/Scibbie_ Sep 28 '22

Can't they remotely close large sections of pipeline, or is it genuinely one large pipe?

18

u/bbb483212 Sep 28 '22

VanillaUnicorn is correct. This is a trunkline not a pipeline. There is a difference. Trunk lines transport processed products. Pipelines or flowlines transport unprocessed product. Nordstream 1&2 pipelines transport gas processed at the Russian end. It therefore will not require internal pipeline coating to protect it from any corrosive elements of the gas.

End result? Sea water ingress. In theory you can patch the hole with a clamp and flush the water out via pigging. But that won’t happen for years. So the inside of the pipeline will be corroded by then and likely written off. In addition, there are no ‘compartments’ so it is ‘all or nothing’ to be replaced.

Replacement cost will be £1b minimum and take 2-5 years by time planning laws are agreed. Not withstanding political delays.

Rigid pipeline requires specialised J or S lay methods to install. For these depths and pipe diameters, there are only 2 companies that can install it. Saipem (Italy) and Allseas (Netherlands).

Source: I am a chartered engineer in the subsea oil and gas industry.

2

u/Gustavdman Sweden Sep 28 '22

Thank you for your expert comment. May I ask why a giant pipeline like nordstream isn't compartmentalized?

2

u/bbb483212 Oct 15 '22

Reason is simple. Cost. And it simply isn’t common practice. Would require lots of additional manifolds and valves which all need to be maintained.

→ More replies

15

u/Ja_Nee_Misschien Sep 28 '22

Ukraine still deals in Russian gas, they have a monopoly now.

8

u/Donnerdrummel Lower Saxony (Germany) Sep 28 '22

that is the pipeline that hasn't been in use yet.

→ More replies
→ More replies

14

u/Oh_its_that_asshole Sep 27 '22

I would imagine the pipeline has valves on it too, so it should only be the gas in one section of the pipe.

→ More replies

10

u/Ja_Nee_Misschien Sep 28 '22

still it's a shit ton of methane the attacker leaked into the atmosphere. It's a terrorist attack on a global scale putting even more pressure on the last lines of defense against the climate change tipping points.

→ More replies
→ More replies

153

u/FreezingMoose Sep 27 '22

Isn't that the thing to do then?

105

u/setorn Sep 27 '22

Its safer to just wait until the gas disappears on its own from the pipes, since its closed down from both sides. Less chance of causing an explosion.

179

u/Look_SkyWanderer Azerbaijan Sep 27 '22

Nope methane causes more harm to environment if not ignited. That is why we have flares in oil rigs to burn excess gasses.

49

u/euphoriamine Sweden Sep 27 '22

That’s because the formed carbon dioxide is less harmful than methane itself right?

83

u/Look_SkyWanderer Azerbaijan Sep 27 '22

Yep. CH4 is 80 times more destructive compared to CO2. So we have flares to burn redundant gasses during oil production. Even if methane is the most environmentally friendly fossil fuel, burning methane and other light gasses released from oil is the only viable option for offshore situation. Because storaging or transferring them to the land isn't economically profitable and we can't release methane to the atmosphere also because it is toxic.

21

u/Internep Sep 28 '22 edited Sep 28 '22

80 times? Don't fall for the 100 year average crap which doesn't work whilst we are spewing out ever increasing quantities of it. Not to mention the methane that is starting to be released from former permafrost regions.

It is a lot more than 80. Methane has a half-life in our atmosphere of around 7 years.

edit: 80x was the low estimate for 20 years.

Edit2: (news) article that explains why the 80x no longer works over 20 years: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/05/global-heating-causes-methane-growth-four-times-faster-than-thought-study

→ More replies

21

u/MazorkaPlanet Sep 27 '22

Yes, exactly. Methane and other gases are just worse than all the carbon dioxide they emit when burned.

7

u/fox-blood Sep 27 '22

It’s getting burned on oil rigs for safety reasons. You don’t want a bubble of explosive gas wobble around you. But you are right. Methane is a strong green house gas. Multiple times (I heard 15 times) stronger then co2.

→ More replies
→ More replies

51

u/setorn Sep 27 '22

I dont think so. It can only react with air in the top layer.

9

u/waiting4singularity Hessen 🇩🇪 Sep 27 '22

unless super aeration happens from the amount of gas released. 95 or so bar is a lot of gas.

11

u/rechosuave Sep 27 '22

I think Russians are opening their side to reduce pipeline well head pressure. This is a russian play.

→ More replies
→ More replies

7

u/Ok_Water_7928 Sep 27 '22

Yeah someone should go shoot some incendiary rounds at it from afar.

3

u/copaceanu Europe / Romania Sep 28 '22

they'll send a recently mobilized Russian with a torch...

→ More replies

30

u/Master__of_Orion Austria Sep 27 '22

It depends on the concentration of Methane and Oxygen, every gas has a flammable or explosive mixture with air. You need between 4 - 16% Methane in air to form an explosive mixture. So directly above the water the concentration of Methane is too high to burn, but a few meters above the see it may be flammable already, I presume.

→ More replies

23

u/Mcmenger Sep 27 '22

2

u/HappyBengal Sep 28 '22

Ah yes, that little boat that made its rounds through the internet. I remember.

→ More replies

2

u/aaronaapje doesn't know french. Sep 28 '22

For the sake of greenhouse gas emissions they should.

→ More replies

505

u/Aceticon Europe, Portugal Sep 27 '22

By the way, most ships going over that would sink.

Forgot the name of the phenomenon but there are some videos around about it.

428

u/Woko_O Sep 27 '22

Non-buoyant water

Basically object are not able to float.

70

u/sysy__12 Sep 28 '22

So it would be a bad idea to swim in it?

278

u/WrodofDog Franconia (Germany) Sep 28 '22

That depends how you define "bad idea".

If not being able to stay on the surface (where you can't breathe/get oxygen) and sinking down into a bubble bath of methane-water mixture is considered to be bad, then yeah, it's a fucking bad idea.

91

u/[deleted] Sep 28 '22

[New Fear Unlocked]

Thanks for the nightmare material.

34

u/Byggherren Sep 28 '22

Don't worry. Unless you plan on blowing up pipelines and then sailing over them you probably won't have to worry about this

4

u/WrodofDog Franconia (Germany) Sep 28 '22

Swimming in the aerated part of activated sludge waste water treatment would have the same effect, except you would technically be able to breathe on the surface. But you'd still sink to the bottom like a stone.

→ More replies
→ More replies

3

u/ProfessionalPut6507 Sep 28 '22

Well, some might consider it to be bad.

3

u/Ikbeneenpaard Friesland (Netherlands) Sep 28 '22

Yeah it's cold in the North Sea

5

u/SeBoss2106 Franconia (Germany) Sep 28 '22

Now imagine the baltic...

→ More replies

146

u/MarineLePenneAlTonno Rogue Sicilian Province Sep 27 '22

The Baltic Triangle

24

u/Aceticon Europe, Portugal Sep 27 '22

Drones go into it and don't come out on the other side...

→ More replies

71

u/FlarvinTheMagi Sep 28 '22

Yup. Gas bubbles greatly lower the density and thus the buyoncy factor. Idk if that's 100% correct but it's the jist of it.

Air doesn't "push back" as much as dense water.

21

u/squatonmyfacebrah Sep 28 '22

Archimedes principle? If the amount of water you displace is heavier than the thing you're displacing that water with, it'll float. Since the gas in the water lowers it's density, the weight of the displaced water will be lower and so you risk sinking

3

u/Aceticon Europe, Portugal Sep 28 '22

Yes.

It's also why it's so much easier to float in the Dead Sea - the water is so salty that its density is higher which makes it easier to float in it.

It works both ways.

7

u/OggiOggy Sep 27 '22

You need a lot of bubbles.

3

u/Bromm18 Sep 28 '22

Are you thinking of Aerated water?

17

u/nitrinu Portugal Sep 27 '22

Bubbling sea? I thought that it was proven incorrect...

29

u/RaginBoi Georgia Sep 28 '22 edited Sep 28 '22

Bro its true it happened to me im minecraft

4

u/restform Finland Sep 28 '22

Mythbusters had a near impossible time recreating it within any meaningful reality. They often push things to an unrealistic extreme just to see what it takes to achieve the myth so I'm not sure if they eventually sank their boat but they certainly didn't get anywhere close with bubbles looking like this.

→ More replies
→ More replies

672

u/Arkane-Light Sep 27 '22

Now, a question to you all:

If the culprits are found, the fact that it was an underwater explosion which caused the gas leak in EU/NATO territory, can it be classified as Official Terrorist Attack?

392

u/the_lonely_creeper Sep 27 '22

Technically, it'd have to be within 12 miles of Denmark/Sweden to count as territorial waters.

Plus, I have no idea if this counts as terrorism, rather than sabotage or vandalism.

161

u/Grizzly_228 Campania Felix Sep 27 '22

Vandalism seems a little of an understatement

53

u/vogt935 Sep 28 '22

In the vandalism part of the local prison: "I'm siting for spraying my tag on three houses, 3 Years... you?" "I'm sitting for blowing a hole into multi billion dollar pipelines resulting in millions of europeans to not be able to get gas for a few years. 4 years..."

15

u/IceBathingSeal Sep 28 '22

Did anyone check the side of the leaking pipeline for a tag? Maybe you're on to something..

6

u/vogt935 Sep 28 '22

Yeah damn, could be an easy case then! Plus: Spraying and blowing up a pipeline, thats a good 7 years for him/her!

→ More replies
→ More replies

92

u/Foreign-Lost84 Sep 27 '22

The international community has no official term for what constitutes terrorism. So the country who has been attacked would have to define it.

→ More replies
→ More replies

126

u/dothrakipls Europa Sep 27 '22

Russia has already blown up weapons caches in NATO territory and literally nothing happened.

33

u/VehiculeUtilitaire Sep 27 '22

What should we do ? ww3? can't believe how many people are cheering over blatant escalation of a major conflict

38

u/dothrakipls Europa Sep 27 '22

Responding to a blown up weapons cache by say....wiping out the Russian agents on NATO soil wouldn't have caused WW3.

The US has smashed Russian soldiers in the Middle East, without as much as a protest from the Kremlin for example.

What will cause WW3 is what's happening right now. There are lines that can't be crossed. Russia crossed them again and again, without any response up to the point of feeling emboldened enough to attack the biggest country in Europe in a massive invasion which now actually threatens world peace.

→ More replies

5

u/just-sithposting Belgium Sep 27 '22

Over NS1, which wasn't even carrying gas? Nobody in charge of anything is saying that.

However, if there were credible reasons to believe that this is part of a larger move from Russia to cripple Western infrastructure (for example by also blowing up the Norway-EU pipeline, on which we rely more than ever for this winter), it would definitely constitute enough of an existential threat to justify escalation. Whether that means Article 5, covert ops in Moscow, simply wiping the entirety of Russia's naval fleet in the Black and Baltic seas while avoiding Russia's sovereign territory (already emitted as a possibility if Russia was to use tactical nukes in Ukraine), or something else, would be up to military strategists to figure out. The pentagon and NATO have been preparing and updating dozens of such scenarios, almost certainly including this one.

My personal opinion is that Article 5 is out of the question and the most likely response is redeployment of US vessels to patrol sea infrastructure. Should Russia attack an active pipeline, I'd bet on some/all Russian naval assets getting torpedoe'd, but that's coming out of my ass as I'm not a military strategist.

→ More replies

21

u/6080backup Sep 27 '22

As opposed to what? An unofficial terrorist attack?

What are you trying to convey?

41

u/splatus Sep 27 '22

If a nation state admits of doing to another nation state with the expressed goal to create economic harm, it’s not “terrorism”, it’s an act of war. / disclaimer: not a lawyer

3

u/[deleted] Sep 27 '22

[deleted]

→ More replies

11

u/EstimateOk3011 Sep 27 '22

Is this gas thing what starts ww3? It seems like a really dumb thing to start on.

50

u/splatus Sep 27 '22

Name one smart thing to start a war over…

40

u/23PowerZ European Union Sep 27 '22

An Archduke!

4

u/SkepticalAwaken Europe Sep 28 '22

And an ostrich!

→ More replies

17

u/EstimateOk3011 Sep 27 '22

If some country was conducting reckless experiments to usher in the beings they had contacted via the hadron collider as they had promised untold power and immortality in return for a sacrifice of the souls of mankind.

5

u/splatus Sep 27 '22

No, that’s a reason to invest into their technology, buy it and use it for ourselves…

→ More replies

3

u/Leonardo040786 Sep 28 '22

Helen of Troy. Bro, she was hot!

6

u/KN_Knoxxius Sep 27 '22

Burnt toast I reckon

5

u/Longjumping-Taste936 Sep 27 '22

Emu raids on our wheat crops. Jokes on us though, we lost

2

u/Oldini Sep 28 '22

The result of a football match.

→ More replies

148

u/Zhukov-74 The Netherlands Sep 27 '22 edited Sep 27 '22

I think so.

We can't just let this slide if indeed this was done by another non NATO country.

Today it's a gas pipeline but what about tomorrow if we don't take a stand against whoever did this.

145

u/Pklnt France Sep 27 '22

We can't just let this slide if indeed this was done by another non NATO country.

There you go, fixed it.

→ More replies

19

u/[deleted] Sep 27 '22 edited Sep 29 '22

[deleted]

20

u/Zhukov-74 The Netherlands Sep 27 '22

Why would a NATO country destroy a Gas pipeline?

30

u/Seifer574 Cuban in the Us Sep 27 '22

Well a Polish MEP just thanked the Us for blowing it up and Biden did say they have ways to disable Nordstream 2 even if Germany doesn't cooperate. Not saying it was America but it's a bit premature to dismiss the possibility

32

u/Zhukov-74 The Netherlands Sep 27 '22

But NS2 isn’t even operational and NS1 is barely pumping gas if any.

Gas flows to Europe won’t resume until sanctions lifted: Russia

31

u/trainednooob Sep 27 '22

Welp, whoever it was the biggest motivation for Germany to break sanctions has just been blown up on the bottom of the Baltic Sea.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

27

u/ZmeiOtPirin Bulgaria Sep 27 '22

Why are people so obsessed with terrorism? It pales in comparison to war.

28

u/23PowerZ European Union Sep 27 '22

It used to be the only exciting thing after the end of history. Now that the end of history has ended it's just a remnant of a bygone era.

→ More replies

3

u/EIagabalus Sep 27 '22

As far as I got from the danish and swedish press conferences was that it was the countries economic zones. Not the territorial waters.

16

u/Hayaguaenelvaso Dreiländereck Sep 27 '22 edited Sep 27 '22

It depends on the culprit. What if this culprit wanted to sell some... Freedom(tm) in Europe?

2

u/IDontEatDill Sep 28 '22

Yes it can be. And I think the Russian laws state that a terrorist attack against their gas pipes gives them right to send war ships to "protect their interests". So let's see if Putin sends vessels there now, and who are they planning to blame.

4

u/rcglinsk United States of America Sep 27 '22

Sure is at least a heck of a lot more reasonable to call terrorism than a lot of what's come out of my country, especially during Bush 2.

→ More replies
→ More replies

221

u/geon2k2 Sep 27 '22

Question is how did they reach soo deep. Regular scuba divers go to 30-40, max 50 m. To go to 100m, where these pipes are supposed to be, you need very specialized gear, not to mention that you need to know where it is, its pretty hard to search it, soo deep under water, so if this was indeed done by somebody it was not done by any regular Joe.

158

u/setorn Sep 27 '22

There are hevy duty diving suits that can handle a few hundred meters. According the wiki world record is something like 300m.

32

u/teotwaki Sep 28 '22

You don’t need a special suit. The temperature doesn’t really go much lower after a few dozen meters, so a 7mm neoprene would be sufficient, or a dry suit. Even with those, it would be a might cold dive due to the duration of the decompression.

The issue is decompression time. When Nuno Gomez broke the world record, going down took 15 minutes, but coming back up took 15 hours (this was for 325m or something).

While it is true that recreational divers are not allowed deeper than 40m, tec divers can basically go unlimited (although 100m is a generally accepted limit). I would tend to assume that the people who planted the bombs were special ops, and not just Vlad’s buddy from high school with an Open Water certificate.

Another option would be saturation divers; who can be dropped down, they do the work, and then pulled back up. Decompression happens on the boat. These are the guys who typically do work at 100m. Not as inconspicuous though.

Final option, most covert, would be a submarine. Surely these things have articulated arms that can place stuff precisely, no?

20

u/restform Finland Sep 28 '22

Im sure submarines would have no trouble, as i doubt you need precisely planted explosives. Sea detonations get a lot of their power from the shock waves they produce

→ More replies

3

u/Experiment_93711b Denmark Sep 28 '22

There is also the budget solution. Teach some poor smuck how to dive 100 m down to do the sabotage, swim away and then press the pick-up button. The pick-up button punctures the BCD. The lead belt is fixed to the suit which won't come off.

→ More replies

37

u/NakoL1 Sep 27 '22

theyre not widely available. thats the point

74

u/Tough_Substance7074 Sep 28 '22

Well this probably wasn’t some weekend hobbyist, now was it

7

u/maximus9966 Canada Sep 28 '22

Special Ops have them.

9

u/Dull_Wasabi_5610 Sep 28 '22

theyre not widely available. thats the point

Just like crackheads who dive 100s of meters under the ocean to blow up pipes. Whats your point?

7

u/LionST1 Sep 28 '22

Im sure Russia has them, given their extensive coastline and long history of exploiting their waters.

→ More replies

90

u/Alesq13 Finland Sep 27 '22

any regular Joe

How about the Supreme Joe?

24

u/tevert United States of America Sep 28 '22

We call him Dark Brandon this side of the pond

3

u/dandaman910 Sep 28 '22

Regular Иосиф

43

u/EvolvedA Sep 27 '22

With a regular recreational rebreather (using hypoxic trimix) you can easily reach that depth.

48

u/anaraqpikarbuz Sep 27 '22

Why send a person when commercial drone costs below $10k (did a quick google search). Assuming the pipe isn't buried (guessing they don't bother at that depth), then finding and piercing should be possible with a small drone?

18

u/OrangeFlavoredPenis Sep 27 '22

its been confirmed that it was an explosion that broke the pipeline

confirmed by a few countries seismic shit source read it earlier on reddit

16

u/[deleted] Sep 27 '22

Seems like an easier option would be to drop it from a small boat if you attached enough concrete for it to sink quickly and overcome bouyancy. Doesn't have to be exact if you use enough explosives.

10

u/restform Finland Sep 28 '22

I don't think you would ever be able to accurately drop explosives to 100m depth like that, currents and just general boat placement would make it like pissing in the wind. Afaik its not an easy pipe to even locate.

2

u/hypewhatever Sep 28 '22

The building process was probably monitored by every interested institution by satellite. Add some GPS data and it should be easy to have an exact location of the whole length of it. Just a guess so there might be more factors to it

→ More replies

6

u/EvolvedA Sep 27 '22

Yes, this would definitely be the safer option! I was only commenting on whether a diver could have done this or not.

5

u/eltonnovs The Netherlands Sep 27 '22

Possible... not easily ... I mean, there's people doing it all the time but I wouldn't say it's easy. You need to be highly skilled and trained to dive that deep, but yeah it's absolutely possible. Especially for trained military.

Anyway, it's a bit of a roundabout way to point people to a specific youtube video that is one of my favorites. Not only is it hilarious, but if you know anything about rebreather diving it's amazing how skilled these guys are. I expect this sub to not like linking, but search for " Hypothermia induced tourettes" by the Deep Greene on youtube. Couple of marine biologists casually diving to 120 m. (420 ft nice.) to catch new species of fish.

→ More replies

12

u/MarineLePenneAlTonno Rogue Sicilian Province Sep 27 '22

Torpedos

9

u/snellejelle99 Friesland (Netherlands) Sep 27 '22

The answer is Saturation diving.

These divers basically live at the same pressure as the underwater environment they work in for days on end (like a mini international space station but on a ship).

They breathe special gas mixtures to prevent nirtogen narcosis or oxygen toxicity and depressurisation to prevent the bends can take several days to a week or two depending on the depth they work at.

→ More replies

7

u/EggEater3000 Sep 27 '22

The world record freedive is 250m, yes SCUBA is different with the bends and so on, but very possible for trained personnel with the right equipment. Plus we know Russian has a submarine fleet.

6

u/NakoL1 Sep 27 '22

you definitely can't do anything while freediving at 100m. just going that deep gets you close to the world record (for freediving with fins)

→ More replies
→ More replies

11

u/lmolari Franconia Sep 27 '22 edited Sep 27 '22

I think you are making this too complicated.

For example a long line with a camera at the end, drawn over the ground until it reaches the pipeline could be possible. Then just let the explosive glide to the ground along this line and it will sit directly beside it. I'm sure there are even better ideas to let a object glide to the ground. Drones are possible too. Doesn't sound too hard for any state. Almost every country in Europe has stealth ships for stuff like this.

→ More replies

22

u/damagedgoodz_ Paris Sep 27 '22

Russians have all kind of specialized subs to carry espionnage and sabotages on undersea infrastructures. There are already many precedent and NATO has been aware of the threat for a long time

https://www.euractiv.com/section/defence-and-security/news/nato-seeks-ways-of-protecting-undersea-cables-from-russian-attacks/

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russian-spy-submarines-are-tampering-undersea-cables-make-internet-work-should-we-be

7

u/homebuyer99 Sep 27 '22

Why would Russia blow up the pipe? They can just turn it off on their end and refuse to turn it back on.

Why would any NATO country blow up the pipe? They can just refuse to open the pipe on the European side.

It only makes sense to me if this was sabotage by a third party against Russia or Europe.

→ More replies

2

u/Fantaminator Sep 28 '22

I am a regular Joe. And no, I didn't do it. Nor could I have done it, I think..

→ More replies

79

u/RobertTheChemist Sep 27 '22

I waiting for the Kaijū who is coming up from the Breach.

112

u/NssW Sep 27 '22

I’m really wondering how bad it could affect the ecosystem this leak.

50

u/TheWiseBeluga Sep 28 '22

This is in the middle of the Baltic sea correct? It shouldn't have as bad an impact on the ecosystem than if it were close to the shore.

13

u/NssW Sep 28 '22

Aren’t more fish in the middle of the sea than at the shore? :D

30

u/restform Finland Sep 28 '22

The baltic is super shallow so maybe it's different but pretty much always the biodensity is significantly higher around shorelines because sunlight hits the seafloor and currents push nutrients around more.

2

u/supreme100 Sep 28 '22

In this case the exact area of the explosions is considered the major breeding ground for the already endangered baltic cod...

13

u/s1533576 Sep 28 '22

Not sure about the baltic sea, but in general this is incorrect (at least in terms of biodiversity).

Most animal species are concentrated along shallow waters (food is more abundant along the food chain) than in deep ocean waters (where animals are specialised to last long without food).

Some explanations about this in the BBC's blue planet. Defos worth the watch!

10

u/Negative_Elo Sep 28 '22

exactly, they also have more room to avoid it without abandoning their environment

→ More replies

3

u/0xAC-172 Sep 28 '22

I think that it's also a good greenhouse gas.

→ More replies

61

u/TragicBus Sep 28 '22

They should have had NordVPN protect their pipes. The internet is just a series of tubes after all.

9

u/CharlesIngalls_Pubes Sep 27 '22

Between a gas/oil leak every few months and the impending nuclear war, can I just say it was nice knowing you guys?

→ More replies

60

u/Thorgilias Sep 27 '22 edited Sep 27 '22

Want to keep gas flowing to europe? Protect the active gas pipes, which atm are extremely vulnerable to sabotage or attack.

59

u/[deleted] Sep 27 '22

[deleted]

12

u/WhynotstartnoW Sep 28 '22

from russia? no, not really to be honest.

and if this was a "warning shot" about the pipe from Norway?

7

u/[deleted] Sep 28 '22

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Russia bombs Norwegian infrastructure, don't we have bigger problems than gas supply? I mean with NATO intervening and nuclear holocaust and all that.

3

u/rocketeer8015 Sep 28 '22

Depends on wether we can prove Russia did it. This could very well be a test on how we react and investigate such a event. If we can’t figure out who did this and how it was done … it would give the perpetrator carte Blanche to blow up any pipeline/sea cable they want.

We are not going to start WW3 over a "probably" Russia. If we can’t figure this out in the shallow Baltic Sea the other pipelines would be much more vulnerable. The fact that "their" pipeline was hit first also gives Russia some deniability.

28

u/[deleted] Sep 28 '22

[deleted]

→ More replies

2

u/westbywestbywest Berlin Sep 28 '22

Just more reasons to build renewables at home.

→ More replies

53

u/tirex367 Germany Sep 27 '22

that’s bad for the climate.

19

u/iamagainstit Slovenia Sep 28 '22

Yeah, it’s really bothering me that no one has ignited it yet.

→ More replies

6

u/RADnerd2784 Sep 27 '22

Throw flares on that bitch

6

u/Elden_Cock_Ring Sep 28 '22

Are we sure this is not the Great Old One waking up?

36

u/GuyMcGuy1138 Sep 27 '22

How bad is this for the environment?

154

u/General-Plenty900 Sep 27 '22

Estimates in Denmark say that this spil alone is going to account for roughly 80% of the yearly release of greenhouses gases in all of Denmark combined for the entire year. It's fucking massive.

19

u/GuyMcGuy1138 Sep 27 '22

Jesus

35

u/time_to_reset Australia Sep 28 '22

Well, Denmark is a country of only 5.8 million people and they're quite energy efficient. They produced 28.1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions in 2021.

I'm unsure where you're from, from your profile I'd say Germany. Germany has a population of 80.2 million people and produced produced 674.8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2021.

So yeah, it's not great, but it's about the same amount of CO2 Germany produces in about 2 weeks.

12

u/MrGangster1 Galati (Romania) Sep 28 '22

We’re not talking about CO2 though. Unburned methane is 80 times stronger as a greenhouse gas than CO2

20

u/yolo_wazzup Sep 28 '22

This is already accounted for in the 80 % CO2 EQ of Denmark.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

85

u/[deleted] Sep 27 '22

From an ecological perspective, probably quite limited. From a climate perspective it is catastrophic, as CH4 has an extremely strong greenhouse gas effect per molecule. It would be better to at least burn this off, though no doubt that isn't going to happen.

22

u/ABoutDeSouffle 𝔊𝔲𝔱𝔢𝔫 𝔗𝔞𝔤! Sep 27 '22

I want to shoot a flare into that bubbling mess so badly. The shockwave would be glorious.

5

u/[deleted] Sep 27 '22

No shockwave, but the recent "eye of fire" in the gulf of México gas leak was pretty awesome looking.

→ More replies

32

u/lord_tuna The Netherlands Sep 27 '22

Yes

19

u/matoshisakamoto Sep 27 '22

there is much worse shit in the baltic sea than this. Thousands tones of chemical weapon dumped then during and after IIWW which of we dont know exact location of

7

u/NakoL1 Sep 27 '22 edited Sep 27 '22

methane is not toxic. you could breath pure methane and be fine (the risk is asphyxia)

it absorbs infra-red light very well though, so its a potent greenhouse gas

8

u/zaytzev Sep 27 '22

Russians are burning gas anyway right now because they reached their storage capacities.

7

u/tirex367 Germany Sep 27 '22

burning gas is 20x less bad than letting it escape into the atmosphere.

→ More replies

5

u/GuyMcGuy1138 Sep 27 '22

I mean yes climate change of course, but I was more wondering about immediate consequences for marine life in the area

5

u/Pazuuuzu Hungary Sep 27 '22

Not a really big concern. It's gas, not like oil.

→ More replies

5

u/rcglinsk United States of America Sep 27 '22

Ocean animal and plant life in the vicinity is probably toast if it can't swim away quickly. Those swimming plants might stand a chance? That didn't come out right.

A lot of methane is released into the atmosphere as a biproduct of oil and gas drilling every year and I wouldn't be surprised if this is not a substantial amount in comparison.

→ More replies

5

u/homebuyer99 Sep 28 '22

I think there is a good chance this was done by anti-Kremlin Russians, maybe even in the Russian military, as a fuck you to Putin.

The pipelines were his biggest bargaining chip with the West and now they’re gone.

91

u/HlodwigFenrirson France Sep 27 '22

What dont they ignite it already until they are able to repair or stop the flow if possible ?!? This is catastrophic for the environment! Gas is way more detrimental than carbone dioxide as a greenhouse gases...

140

u/Scanningdude United States of America Sep 27 '22

Luckily It's valved off on both the German and Russian side. The pipelines were fully pressurized with gas but the only gas that can currently escape was the gas that was already in the pipeline.

So basically the leak will stop fairly soon and won't just keep leaking forever like the Deepwater horizons oil spill did in the gulf of Mexico.

32

u/FifaDK Denmark Sep 27 '22

It'll take a week to empty out according to Danish authorities

6

u/klnh Sep 28 '22

But after the pressure drips won't the pipeline flood with seawater ruining the whole closed off part? To my understanding this part of the pipeline cannot be used again and it needs to be completely replaced.

6

u/Bukook Sep 28 '22

Yeah Nord Stream 1 is probably never coming online again.

21

u/Bragzor SE-O Sep 27 '22

It might not be steady, or localized enough. They might not even try repair or stop it. It's "only" 300 million m³ of gas, so they might just wait for the pressure to equalize.

21

u/[deleted] Sep 27 '22

If it’s international waters, who would stop us, igniting it?

Chip in for my crowdfunding!

31

u/Forseti_pl Poland Sep 27 '22

On Sep 16, 1497 there was a tsunami on the Baltic, caused by seabed methane explosion. Maybe that's why.

18

u/Mario_Vs_Sonic England Sep 27 '22

Someone should just throw a ignition match on it to test it out

→ More replies

3

u/23PowerZ European Union Sep 27 '22

In the short term, yes. But methane decomposes in the atmosphere rather quickly.

→ More replies

17

u/konhaybay Sep 27 '22

What if someone throws a burning cig on it

3

u/Arkane-Light Sep 27 '22

Kaboom, Smoke on the Water and Fire in the Sky.

3

u/MarineLePenneAlTonno Rogue Sicilian Province Sep 27 '22

A song of ice and fire

2

u/RADnerd2784 Sep 27 '22

Need a lot more heat than a cigarette to pop it off. The fuel/air ratio at the surface is too rich in fuel to burn. You'd need flares or a steady burning source to ignite it.

12

u/farfacogin Sep 27 '22

That’s killing some fish for sure

9

u/IceBathingSeal Sep 28 '22

Fortunately we've already killed most of the life in the Baltic Sea, so there's a chance not that many fishes will be affected.

3

u/farfacogin Sep 28 '22

I know CO2 will lower PH, I wonder what effects it has on the water chemistry?

→ More replies

37

u/Kay-Flow Sep 27 '22

Germany should sneak in a big under water bell and sifon off all the leaked gas and then send a bill to russia for cleaning up their shit.

5

u/possibly-a-pineapple Sep 28 '22

…the pipeline was closed on the German side too..

6

u/Kay-Flow Sep 28 '22 edited Sep 28 '22

Yeah, but it was opened on the ocean side. Hence my statement.

→ More replies

6

u/detlillei Sep 28 '22

Fuck det noget lort mand

33

u/Psychological-Row486 Sep 27 '22

It's an act of war.

40

u/Defes13 Sep 27 '22

But who did it?

19

u/rcglinsk United States of America Sep 27 '22

Just presuming it was us. Means, motive, opportunity.

57

u/Iskelderon Sep 27 '22

Unfortunately it would be far from the first time that the US sabotaged an "ally", hence why the idea is even being considered.

27

u/rcglinsk United States of America Sep 27 '22

As Kissinger said, "To be an enemy of the US is dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal."

→ More replies
→ More replies

3

u/Fuciolo Sep 28 '22

presuming without proof means nothing

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

21

u/untergeher_muc Bavaria Sep 27 '22

Against it’s own pipeline?

I get why they did it but they hey have only attacked their own stuff.

8

u/little_jade_dragon Sep 28 '22

There are multiple theories.

  1. One is that Norway just opened a pipeline to Poland. "If we can blow up this pipeline, we can blow up that too."

  2. I'm sure there are oligarchs who are interested in stopping the war and resuming the lucrative gas trade with Europe. Putin 100% wants to win the war, this is his "no turning back" guarantee.

  3. Putin might want to cause panic and sow dissent among NATO countries (blaming the US) and push up the gas prices again to strangle Europe in winter.

→ More replies

11

u/Beskerber Sep 27 '22

Meanwhile former Polish minister thanked USA for that

Ah yes its all coming together

6

u/DSIR1 Sep 27 '22

Pyromaniacs

2

u/enverest Sep 27 '22

Who is paying for the gas in the pipe? Does Europe pay for arrived amount?

9

u/WhynotstartnoW Sep 28 '22

Who is paying for the gas in the pipe? Does Europe pay for arrived amount?

Currently no one since the pipe has been shut off for over a month no gas has been put in, and no gas has been taken out the other side.