Satellite monitors found 2 vessels with their trackers turned off in area of explosions
The first gas leaks on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline in the Baltic Sea were detected in the early hours of September 26, pouring up to 400,000 tons of methane into the atmosphere. Officials immediately suspected sabotage of the international pipeline. New analysis seen by WIRED shows that two large ships, with their trackers off, appeared around the leak sites in the days immediately before they were detected.
According to the analysis by satellite data monitoring firm SpaceKnow, the two "dark ships," each measuring around 95 to 130 meters long, passed within several miles of the Nord Stream 2 leak sites. "We have detected some dark ships, meaning vessels that were of a significant size, that were passing through that area of interest," says Jerry Javornicky, the CEO and cofounder of SpaceKnow. "They had their beacons off, meaning there was no information about their movement, and they were trying to keep their location information and general information hidden from the world," Javornicky adds.
The discovery, which was made by analyzing images from multiple satellites, is likely to further increase speculation about the cause of the blasts. Multiple countries investigating the incident believe the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines were rocked by a series of explosions, with many suspicions directed at Russia as its full-scale invasion of Ukraine continues. (Russia has denied its involvement.) Once SpaceKnow identified the ships, it reported its findings to officials at NATO, who are investigating the Nord Stream incidents. Javornicky says NATO officials asked the company to provide more information.
NATO spokesperson Oana Lungescu says it does not comment on the "details of our support or the sources used" but confirmed that NATO believes the incident was a "deliberate and irresponsible act of sabotage" and it has increased its presence in the Baltic and North Seas. However, a NATO official, who did not have permission to speak publicly, confirmed to WIRED that NATO had received SpaceKnow's data and said satellite imagery can prove useful for its investigations.
To detect the ships, Javornicky says, the company scoured 90 days of archived satellite images for the area. The company analyzes images from multiple satellite systems—including paid and free services—and uses machine learning to detect objects within them. This includes the ability to monitor roads, buildings, and changes in landscapes. "We have 38 specific algorithms that can detect military equipment," Javornicky says, adding that SpaceKnow's system can detect specific models of aircraft on landing strips.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by MIRV888 on Monday November 14 2022, @04:41AM
The proof will be great and all, but it won't be some big surprise.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by maxwell demon on Monday November 14 2022, @05:19AM (8 children)
I've watched an interview with an expert for defence technology on YouTube, who said the following things based on the information available at that point:
Therefore I'm sceptical if those two spotted vessels are really significant. I guess you can't spot submarines from satellites.
If you understand German and want to see the complete interview, you'll find it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf_IIf2e0Ek [youtube.com]
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Monday November 14 2022, @10:49AM
>I guess you can't spot submarines from satellites.
My understanding is that some submarines can be tracked by some satellites (while deeply submurged) in some circumstances, but what those circumstances are is a rather closely guarded secret, so we have no comment about what submarines we may or may not have tracked through the area at the time.
There are some advantages to not having a burnt out egomaniac spoiled party boy in the oval office.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by zocalo on Monday November 14 2022, @12:07PM (5 children)
That there are two sets of explosions and two ships operating without AIS in area within the same timeframe is certainly not a slam-dunk, but it definitely qualifies as circumstantial evidence worthy of further investigation. If this new data enables a positive ID of the two ships (possibly via correlation with other sightings/video from other vessels in the area), and it just happens they have known association with military / intelligence gathering ops, e.g. two of those "trawlers" with a surprisingly large array of state of the art RF gear aboard that always seem to drop nets near sensitive locations, then that argument becomes a lot more compelling.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Monday November 14 2022, @12:21PM (4 children)
I don't know what all operations have been performed out of military subs, but I do know that the garbage chute has been used for more than kitchen waste, including development of reconnaissance drone launch systems.
Meaning: a military sub wouldn't have to use millions of dollars worth of easily identified torpedoes to blow up a pipeline, they could also eject all manner of IEDs while silently cruising over the pipelines...
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by looorg on Monday November 14 2022, @02:09PM (1 child)
I don't think divers exit modern submarines out of torpedo tubes and garbage chutes etc anymore. There are compartments and hatches that can open and close for that.
https://www.navaltoday.com/2019/01/17/sweden-announces-names-of-new-a26-aip-submarines/ [navaltoday.com]
That said back to the story. Shouldn't those boats that "go dark" be somewhat easy to find? They had to turn it off and on sometime and if boats just go dark and not at port and they didn't sink they should be fairly trivial to locate by just comparing what was in the area and what went missing and what appears just outside the area later. After all getting in and out into the Baltic sea is in that regard a pain since you have to pass a very narrow area between Denmark and Sweden to get in, and they know what comes and goes there for sure (even if you are submerged). If you have satellite images then you know something is there, and if you can backtrack that you should be able to compare those visual images to data for signals. Shouldn't you?
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday November 14 2022, @02:27PM
>Shouldn't those boats that "go dark" be somewhat easy to find?
I would think so, but I don't know what number of similarly sized ships operate "dark" in that region all the time. It wouldn't take too many before you've got some plausible deniability, not sure which of these three ships it was kind of situation.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by zocalo on Monday November 14 2022, @02:15PM (1 child)
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Monday November 14 2022, @02:32PM
>probably wouldn't afford Russia the ability to resume supply and getting the revenue from it.
Judging from Biden's earlier statements while meeting with the German chancellor, re: Nord Stream 2 will be no more... I suspect the nature of these "economic sanctions" are intended to be more medium to long term than easy repair. Not that the US would openly take credit for the act, but the size of the blast is also perhaps a clear message: somebody of significant capabilities really really doesn't like you...
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Rich on Monday November 14 2022, @01:10PM
Also from the interview, the guy made a few detail assumptions: The pipes were pushed underground on the destroyed stretches, which correlates with the noticed explosion intensity and concluded around 500kg of explosives were put on top of the pipes. This is about the size of a torpedo warhead, or something similar that goes through torpedo tubes. He also described how a cutting charge would have worked if someone had gone for precision work instead.
He made it pretty clear that he thought the Russians didn't do it themselves, because to just get out of contractual obligations, they would have blown it up somewhere else (international or own territorial waters, or even just a pump station) in a way that would be easier to repair.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 14 2022, @07:54AM (26 children)
I'm finding it hard to believe the western media narrative on this.
The last I checked if Russia wanted to screw Europe etc all they have to do is to charge more for gas and supply less. This method makes them more money while achieves about the same pain and damage to others as blowing up the pipeline, while allowing Russia to easily restart supply if they want.
My power company does stuff like that - "Here are the new charges. Don't wanna pay? We'll just shut off supply". They don't intentionally blow up their power lines.
In contrast the USA has motive and ability to do so. Biden has already warned: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/if-russia-invades-ukraine-there-will-be-no-nord-stream-2-biden-says-2022-02-07/ [reuters.com]
Video in this link: https://www.reuters.com/world/biden-germanys-scholz-stress-unified-front-against-any-russian-aggression-toward-2022-02-07/ [reuters.com]
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 14 2022, @08:00AM
* White cat stroking optional...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Opportunist on Monday November 14 2022, @08:06AM (9 children)
Because gas ain't something you buy like you buy a bunch of rolls at the supermarket. There are long running contracts stipulating what you need to deliver and at what conditions. Why do you think there were all those shenanigans with faulty turbines that were curiously hard to fix (and Russia suddenly couldn't take it back because it was repaired by the wrong country) and "accidents" that caused a lower flow of gas?
A blown pipe means that, what a pity, so sad, so sad, they can't deliver. Boo-hoo.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday November 14 2022, @10:54AM
There is also such a thing as isolationist politics which trumps monetary profits in some seemingly illogical ways, unless you value isolation.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 14 2022, @10:55AM (4 children)
Long running contracts that either give Vlad a way to get money past the sanctions, or he simply cuts supply when NATO countries refuse to pay due to sanctions.
There is no contract that would require him to deliver gas if they don't pay for it. "Oh, we can't pay you because sanctions, but you still have to give us the gas because contract". Don't be ridiculous. Biden said he would blow it up, and unlike most of his waffle he actually followed through and did it.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Opportunist on Monday November 14 2022, @06:26PM (2 children)
Biden said he would make sure that there is no gas going to Germany anymore. What this meant is that he puts pressure on Germany to stop buying it.
And gas was never part of the sanctions, even the EU isn't stupid enough to shoot its own foot more than it hurts the one they try to hit. All of the EU tries as hard as they can to get gas from Russia (yes, in exchange for money).
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 14 2022, @08:17PM
Bzzzt. Biden didn't say there would be no gas. He said there would be no pipeline. Go and watch the video.
(Score: 2) by quietus on Tuesday November 15 2022, @06:06PM
I take it you have excellent sources for your blatant lies, or is it just the voices in your head again? o
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Friday November 18 2022, @10:03PM
It would. Yes. But he very obviously didn't want to use it as a tool to circumvent sanctions. Even before everything, there were "accidents" and "damages" and "malfunctions" that led to a trickle rather than a stream of gas coming down that pipe. We're talking single-digit percentage of what was possible to pump through.
Russia wanted to use the gas as a blackmailing tool, to get the West to lift the sanctions in exchange for returning to a normal gas delivery. When Putin noticed it doesn't work and that he can't stall delivering any longer...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2022, @02:22AM
Plenty of other better ways for Russia to cut supply. It's not like Russia has never cut gas supply before and given excuses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_gas_disputes [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday November 15 2022, @02:58AM (1 child)
Except Germany killed their long contracts and went for the spot market (cheaper in the short term, much more expensive longer-term).
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by quietus on Tuesday November 15 2022, @06:17PM
Nearly. Most gas contracts within the EU are OTC (over the counter) contracts, where 2 parties negotiate a price in private. German companies decided to drop this private negotiation process in favour over transparent price trading through an official exchange. Presumably this led to lower overall gas prices for German industry in comparison to neighboring countries; until Putin's Russia started acting on ideology, and not on hard-nosed common sense anymore.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 14 2022, @10:48AM (12 children)
I agree - I can't see what Russia would have to gain by blowing up its own pipelines. Russia had already stopped pumping gas, but this gave them a big bargaining position. To the countries of western and central Europe they could say "stop giving Ukraine weapons and we'll start pumping gas again, so your houses will be warm again this winter". With both pipelines out of action, they no longer have this to bargain over.
But perhaps it's not a good idea to assign rational motives to Putin?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Monday November 14 2022, @12:25PM (1 child)
The trick is to figure out what is rational for Putin, his goals may have little to do with monetary gain or the welfare of the Russian people.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 14 2022, @07:13PM
Blowing up the pipeline is less likely to help him than to help his enemies.
Putin ain't like Trump: https://youtu.be/6gJdf7LyGpg [youtu.be]
(Score: 3, Funny) by JoeMerchant on Monday November 14 2022, @12:37PM (8 children)
>Russia had already stopped pumping gas
Seems like an awful lot of bubbles if the pipeline had stopped all delivery of gas.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by shrewdsheep on Monday November 14 2022, @12:47PM (1 child)
The pipelines were filled with gas at considerable pressure. This alone accounts for the amount of gas leakage seen so far.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Monday November 14 2022, @01:46PM
At a depth of 100m, the seawater is around 10 bar. Assuming 80km between pump stations and a diameter of 1.15m (1.04m2 cross section area), that's ~800,000 cubic meters volume at the surface, if it all came out from one pump station to the next.
If the saboteurs were environmentally conscious, they would blow it at a low point so most of the gas remains trapped by seawater.
Estimates I have seen run around 177,000 cubic meters, if you think about a little hose 1cm in diameter and 800m long, you wouldn't expect it to empty completely before water pressure stops the escape.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 14 2022, @01:03PM (5 children)
The pipes are over a meter in diameter and 1200KM long. Just filling and pressurizing that length of pipe takes a lot of methane. The pressure is many times the external water pressure (which is about one bar per 10 meters depth), so nearly all the gas is going to come out. That's why it bubbled for so long.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday November 14 2022, @01:31PM (4 children)
A long distance, yes, but the full 1200km should not be flowing out uncontrolled.
Friction and elevation differences slow the gas and reduce the pressure, so compressor stations are placed typically 40 to 70 miles apart along the pipeline to provide a boost in pressure.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 14 2022, @02:47PM (3 children)
Ding!! Wrong answer. From https://www.nord-stream.com/download/document/10/?language=en [nord-stream.com] [PDF download]
Bold added by your friendly AC.
The variable thickness of the pipe may also explain why the explosions were near the German end of the pipeline? Thinner pipe = easier to damage ???
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 14 2022, @02:49PM
Here's a non-PDF link with the same basic information:
https://www.wermac.org/nordstream/nordstream_part3.html [wermac.org]
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday November 14 2022, @05:36PM (1 child)
Cool: high tech pipeline leaks like a motherfucker when breached, by design.
220 bar is pretty nutso, but then methane is a weird-ass super-critical liquid-gas at high pressures, even down to -70C. Nothing like this is conceivable for propane or other liquefying gases.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 14 2022, @07:58PM
In terms of just pressure, 200 bar (nearly the 220 mentioned) is ~3000 psi, which is, iirc, standard hydraulic system pressure for aircraft flight controls. Also used to be the standard pressure for a full cylinder of welding oxygen. Industrial hydraulics (less safety critical than aircraft) used to be 5000 psi when I did some of this stuff 30+ years ago. I think many are now 10,000 psi to make things more compact and give higher power:weight ratio?
But--all the things mentioned above are tiny compared to the size of Nord Stream 1+ meter diameter pipe. The stored energy at operating pressure is truly huge. I didn't see the time it took for the compressor station in Russia to fill & pressurize but it must have been significant.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Monday November 14 2022, @09:16PM
Possible motive: sanctions are actually working and he wants to blame someone else for not being able to export gas.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by khallow on Tuesday November 15 2022, @02:59AM (1 child)
I don't see in that the assertion that he will blow up Nord Stream 2, much less the whole set of pipelines. Sure, the US too has motive and opportunity. But you'll need some actual evidence beyond that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 16 2022, @07:29AM
Here, I bolded it for you, captain oblivious.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Nobuddy on Tuesday November 15 2022, @03:40PM
Since they are already sneaking around to avoid being seized, dropping a dive team overboard would be trivial. No need to be too elaborate.