From: eaglesondouglas@gmail.com   
      
   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: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)