Agree if it was just one pipeline. But 2 separate pipelines on the same day?
Slightly off topic...or maybe not-
They didn't. Jordan Peterson is a buffoon who somehow managed to make even Piers Morgan seem reasonable
What impact will the leaked gas have on the aquatic life in the area?
3 pipelines - 2 branches of NS1, 1 on NS2.
3 separate explosions - Swedish met and Danish are stating they were explosions too.
Not too much thankfully - methane will dissolve into water and into atmosphere, impact on marine life is not critical. Thankfully it was gas and not oil - that would have been a true environmental disaster
Thanks for the hint, because those same links you suggested also are fingering Russia as the most likely culprit. Two of those suggesting it was Russia are Poland and Ukraine.
Poland have suggested Russia may be behind the leaks, while Denmark and Germany have stopped short - simply saying it is "sabotage".
Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky's adviser Mykhailo Podolyak said the gas leak is "nothing more that a terrorist attack planned by Russia and an act of aggression towards EU".
I'm not so sure:-
Toxic to Fish and Shellfish
Many people think that natural gas would just bubble up to the surface and quickly evaporate off but in fact a significant portion dissolves in the water and is highly toxic to marine life.
The gas can rapidly penetrate the bodies of fish, doing direct damage to gills, skin, chemoreceptors and eyes, and filling up the gas bladder, making the fish unable to control its buoyancy.
And another one:-
How fish react to methane exposure is not well studied, but the research that does exist points to potentially dire impacts. Russian toxicologist Stanislav Patin studied fish and methane in his 1999 book, “Environmental Impact of the Offshore Oil and Gas Industry,” which took an in-depth look at the issue. In one section that has been translated, he cites studies of two gas blowouts in the Sea of Azov in the 1980s, lab experiments in Russia and work in the North Sea, Black Sea and Sea of Okhotsk to show that the impacts can be nearly immediate.
“Gas rapidly penetrates into the organism (especially through the gills) and disturbs the main functional systems (respiration, nervous system, blood formation, enzyme activity, and others),” Patin wrote.
I held a vote in my apartment and 99% agreed that Moscow is part of Ireland.
For marine life in the immediate vicinity theres a risk yes, but the spread is not like oil or other pollutants, methane rises up and into the atmosphere by and large once it reaches the surface. It does not persist in the ocean unless the leak continues indefinitely - it will rise to surface and then into the atmostphere.
Three separate ruptures in two pipes is not a coincidence.
Anyone want to guess how high a flame you would get if The gas taps were fully opened and someone was careless enough to light it?
One assumes that the 1% has been shot and tossed into a mass grave?
We call it "moving window error"
I'm not sure the point your trying to make which has nothing to do with what you stated that no gas was flowing to Europe from Russia and that there was only one leak.
That asides, it seems that Twitter is divided on blaming either Russia or the US.
The pipeline damage is a real puzzler.
Is it detrimental or advantageous to Russia?
Detrimental I think, because it plays against the bargaining chip of "maybe we'll turn the gas back on".
It isn't Russia making a statement either because it's not a statement, it was done clandestinely, not publicly.
So, was it a military submarine operation by some nation other than Russia?
An incentive to forget Russian gas for a long time?
Why would one go from "I can switch this on and off" to "it's now permanently off and I have no control over it"?
Yeah, who knows what the future will bring. A lot of unknowables
Either NATO are incredibly incompetent to not detect any russian activity around the pipelines (which run through Danish and Swedish territory) despite the massive amount of aircraft and boats in the Baltics keeping an eye on the russians, or...
Again it all comes back to the question - who has the most to gain from EU having 2 less gas pipelines to Russia? A competitor in the gas market perhaps?
19 votes from the two voter turnout accounted for a 99% yes vote.
Sounds about right based on Russian sham voting logic anyway
I suppose Gazprom could now argue in court that they can't honour contracts due damage which they have no control over, rather than the fact that it was manually shut down which would be a breach of the contract.
But the fact that the West still used the oil and gas that they bought from Russia means that the carbon emissions are still coming from the West. Therefore, the argument that buying the fuel from Russia absolves the West of responsibility for carbon emissions is ridiculous.
The environmental damage of this whole war must be absolutely horrendous, that often crosses my mind when I see all these tanks lying in water or munitions dumps exploding in all directions. Yet another of very many sad aspects
On the plus side, we might all be dead in a nuclear holocaust by this day week, so keep the chin up.
Peterson said there's a bit of both Stalin and Hitler in all of us. Putin is a mass-murderer but I don't think even he would go as far as exterminating an ethnic or religious group. There are no Treblinka-type gas chambers in Russia.
Indeed. Every cloud.... even mushroom clouds...
The pipe line explosions are obviously Russian. Putin was known to have little/no fear of consequences in his spy days, they thought he was reckless as a result.
From his perspective this was a no brainer - Europe wasn't buying his gas any time soon, well not likely in his remaining lifetime anyhow so how could he use that to his advantage? ..
Blow up the pipes, no loss of revenue to Russia, but it would show he could blow up other stuff too which might weaken the western UKR coalition. He is banking on EU countries to be get fearful of communication and other lines being cut leading to chaos in the mid winter and demanding that UKR bend the knee, glorious victory to Tsar Putin!
Gas is cleaner than coal and oil. Germany wanted to shift to greener energy, so they closed coal plants (replaced with gas), build wind turbines (backed up with gas), and ultimately closed nuclear plants (replaced with gas). Their reliance on cheap gas was chosen due to it being a) cheap and b) cleaner than the rest. They were happy to shelve strategic assets like coal and nuclear plants in favour of imported russian gas, despite the former options being far easier to source and fuel.
The motivation was all climate related (nuclear is a strange green-party thing), basically boiled down to gas being cleaner than other fossil fuels.
Thats one way to save the planet!
Maybe Putin is an environmentalist after all
Just look at the situation over aircraft leasing and you see what terms in contracts mean to Russia.
People who compare Putin to Hitler need to brush up on their history. Putin is a menace but he is certainly no Hitler. That whole comparison just plays into that mind numbing rhetoric with lingo like "orcs" and "Nazis".
.
Subs are not the easiest thing to detect, they often go undetected. Good article here on detecting subs:-
The reality is we don't know the what/who etc, anything otherwise is pure speculation, the only thing I will speculate on is it is no accident because three ruptures on two pipelines on the same day is one massive unlikely coincidence.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e050b53be62f0ae2404c620976170938.svg)
