advertisement


Ukraine V

PsB said:
I know nothing about pipelines, but can you do that when the pipeline is full of pressurized (and presumably liquid) gas?

I was also wondering how come there are such huge gas bubbles above the leaks (as filmed by the Danish air force and navy, hours after the detonations): the surface turbulence is between 0.2 and 1 km wide. We were told that NS1 had been turned off for various reasons (maintenance, then unpaid bills, etc.) so would assume it was well and truly turned off at the source in Russia. We were told NS2 had not been put into service, so it was presumably all charged with gas and ready to go, but there was no flow. How come these 2 PL are still leaking gas into the Baltic, hours or maybe even days after the explosions? Have the Russians resumed pumping without telling anybody?
Click to expand...
According to the Googles, the specific gravity of natural gas ranges from about 0.55 to about 0.87, due to variation in natural gas composition, with richer gases (higher wet gas content) typically having higher specific gravity. Natural gas doesn't get much wetter than when it is pressurized into a liquid.

Another thing to consider is that turning off the flow isn't the same thing as emptying the pipe. Unless the pipe had been purged there will have been exactly the cu. m. of pressurized gas within as there are cu. m. of volume within the pipe itself, (i.e. pi * r^2 * length). Depending upon how big and where the breaches are (pipe slope and distance between breaks, for examples), the ocean water pressure surrounding the pipe/gas will also dictate how long it takes for all gas to dissipate into the atmosphere. I would suspect that the pressurized gas liquid having being chilled to ocean temp will also affect this rate of dissipation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PsB
PsB said:
I know nothing about pipelines, but can you do that when the pipeline is full of pressurized (and presumably liquid) gas?

I was also wondering how come there are such huge gas bubbles above the leaks (as filmed by the Danish air force and navy, hours after the detonations): the surface turbulence is between 0.2 and 1 km wide. We were told that NS1 had been turned off for various reasons (maintenance, then unpaid bills, etc.) so would assume it was well and truly turned off at the source in Russia. We were told NS2 had not been put into service, so it was presumably all charged with gas and ready to go, but there was no flow. How come these 2 PL are still leaking gas into the Baltic, hours or maybe even days after the explosions? Have the Russians resumed pumping without telling anybody?
Click to expand...

I'm not an expert in pipelines but it was stated in the Cullen Report wrt to the Piper Alpha disaster that even had adjacent rigs stopped pumping hydrocarbons to Piper the existing inventory would have been sufficient anyway.

Again I don't think Nordstream 2 had been commissioned so would have been 'empty', certainly of liquids, so sending a robotic vehicle down it wouldn't have been so difficult. If there were no flow of gas in Nordstream 1 then again putting a robot down might be possible.

There must be somebody on the forum what knows this stuff???

As regards gas still 'leaking' then who says Russia isn't pumping some rather than just burning it as previously reported.

I'm intrigued there doesn't' appear to have been any significant response.

Regards

Richard
 
I understand that remote inspection "vehicles" can be sent along pipelines full of gaseous or liquid contents.

In my days in the oil rig construction business they were known as "pigs".

Google "intelligent pigs" for more detail.
 
peterm said:
I understand that remote inspection "vehicles" can be sent along pipelines full of gaseous or liquid contents.

In my days in the oil rig construction business they were known as "pigs".

Google "intelligent pigs" for more detail.
Click to expand...
Do you know if they need flow in the pipeline to move along the pipe, or are they self-propelled or something?
 
PsB said:
I know nothing about pipelines, but can you do that when the pipeline is full of pressurized (and presumably liquid) gas?

I was also wondering how come there are such huge gas bubbles above the leaks (as filmed by the Danish air force and navy, hours after the detonations): the surface turbulence is between 0.2 and 1 km wide. We were told that NS1 had been turned off for various reasons (maintenance, then unpaid bills, etc.) so would assume it was well and truly turned off at the source in Russia. We were told NS2 had not been put into service, so it was presumably all charged with gas and ready to go, but there was no flow. How come these 2 PL are still leaking gas into the Baltic, hours or maybe even days after the explosions? Have the Russians resumed pumping without telling anybody?
Click to expand...

My crude calculations suggest that nordsteam1 contains about 49 million cubic feet of gas pressurised to over 200 bar. As such a leak could take quite a while to depressurise the entire pipeline.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PsB
Getting back on topic.

What to do about Putin?
  1. Accidentally shoots himself, two in the chest, one in the forehead.
  2. Falling out of a window.
  3. Falling down multiple flights of stairs and then out of a window.
  4. Accidental flooding of his subterranean bunker with Natural Gas.
Today I'm liking 4. with "natural causes" being what ends up on the coroner's report/death certificate.
 
Craig B said:
Getting back on topic.

What to do about Putin?
  1. Accidentally shoots himself, two in the chest, one in the forehead.
  2. Falling out of a window.
  3. Falling down multiple flights of stairs and then out of a window.
  4. Accidental flooding of his subterranean bunker with Natural Gas.
Today I'm liking 4. with "natural causes" being what ends up on the coroner's report/death certificate.
Click to expand...

Personally, I'd go for defenestration by shooting whilst falling several fights of stairs (laughing gas optional).

John
 
PsB said:
I know nothing about pipelines, but can you do that when the pipeline is full of pressurized (and presumably liquid) gas?
Click to expand...

May be possible. Indeed it may be SOP to always have them full of gas under some pressure to prevent air entering and making an explosive mix.

Of course, maybe that's exactly what happened. The pressure was dropped and some oxygen got in with the methane.
 
peterm said:
I understand that remote inspection "vehicles" can be sent along pipelines full of gaseous or liquid contents.

In my days in the oil rig construction business they were known as "pigs".

Google "intelligent pigs" for more detail.
Click to expand...

Didn't know that name, but what you say chimes with what I recall being told in the past.
 
PsB said:
Do you know if they need flow in the pipeline to move along the pipe, or are they self-propelled or something?
Click to expand...
I don't know about current techniques (it was 30 or 40 years ago when I was loosely associated with the oil industry) but I seem to recall self propelled "pigs" that could be remotely directed to a specific point for inspection purposes.
 
paulfromcamden said:
I suspect however this is sorted out it will be behind closed doors and we won't know exactly what was agreed for a long time. There's always a deal done at some point and everyone involved needs to be able to save face.
Click to expand...
It’s interesting that despite the apparent lack of back channels reported they do seem to light up when things get serious.
 
I’m also reassured that starting a nuclear war is quite complicated. The idea that Trump had a bright red button to press like in his casinos was always a little disturbing.
 
MUTTY1 said:
I’m also reassured that starting a nuclear war is quite complicated. The idea that Trump had a bright red button to press like in his casinos was always a little disturbing.
Click to expand...
Rumour has it that this was simply a reprogrammed Staples 'Easy Button, International Version', for the child who would be emperor in his own mind.

 
If we take the age of the Earth as 4,500,000,000 years old, and assuming a life span of 80, the chances of the planet being destroyed during our time here is 1 in 56,000,000. How lucky are we!
 
venton said:
If we take the age of the Earth as 4,500,000,000 years old, and assuming a life span of 80, the chances of the planet being destroyed during our time here is 1 in 56,000,000. How lucky are we!
Click to expand...
I don't know about that. The doomsday clock had us continuing at 100 seconds to midnight as of last January, this previously carried over through 2021 from 2020.

What with Russia actually threatening the use of nukes on a daily basis, and old Joe 'Covid is over, can I sniff your hair now?' Biden threatening same via backchannels, not to mention that fat fecktard in North Korea trying desperately to regain attention, and those 100 seconds must have dwindled down to what, T-minus 50 by now?

Looking at the doomsday historic timeline, perhaps the clock has been recalibrated for our soundbite generation attention spans. During the 1962 Cuban missile crisis humanity was supposed to have been at 7min to midnight, seemed pretty scary at the time. Perhaps the good folk at thebulleting.org should consider having the clock serviced, and/or consider seeking group anxiety counselling (share a spliff?) before annually adjusting same.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top