[Fultonius]

My ignorance showing, I didn't realise the UK also manages this quite regularly. Clearly reliability is the main issue and though I get the impression it happens more than semi-regularly here there must be times when it doesn't - but I don't know how often that is. Yes, the surplus is exported elsewhere in the EU.

The unreliability of supply is a problem that has to be solved by storage sooner or later.  Take Scotland for an example - they have a rapidly growing renewable capacity, but when it's properly cold in winter there's often a high pressure and no wind for days at a time. Given the SNP & Greens unwillingness to replace any of the nuclear plants I don't know where they expect to turn other than relying on NS and Norwegian gas.

I think the intention is massive oversupply of renewables, with beefing up of interconnectors (similar to the Danish example). In 2020, renewables produced 97% of electricity demand in Scotland. With the planned 26GW of extra wind to come online from Scotwind and all the other projects ongoing, Scotland will be producing vastly more than it consumes....on average.[current installed capacity in Scotland is 12GW].  As you say, it still won't be enough to tide over the longer winter lulls, and this will need to be covered by imports, storage and peaker plants. It's rarely windless across the whole of the EU, and new/bigger interconnectors are being installed and planned all the time. I guess hydrogen is likely to have a big role in smoothing out the intermittency, along with EV "storage" (although, that's better for daily smoothing, rather than longer term supply) - that said, I wonder if we'll get look ahead weather-based costing in future?  Say it's windy in January, prices drop so everyone tops up their car. Next week, it's high pressure, so prices rise and less people charge or they sellback to the grid. Many ways to solve this problem!

I guess the idea will be any gas power that is kept "available" will ultimately need to have carbon capture and storage.

[petejh]

I’m still of the opinion that the fire which shut down the IFA UK-France interconnector last year was Russian sabotage and a warning shot by Russia, pre-Ukraine

This seems a bit tin foil hat territory, any credible sources?

No none at all. It's my theory and we'll see. Many things can be labelled tinfoil hat territory because they fall outside someone's sphere of awareness. 2 years ago you might have labelled the current commodity wars and Europe's response to them as tinfoil hat territory, and I wouldn't have blamed you because the likelihood seemed low of such events playing out as they have.

With the fire, if you look back at the timing and what was going on with EU and UK energy markets around the time of the fire and some of Russia's signposting at the time, it does look very suspicious. Then with what followed this year it looks even more so. It's just probability, definitely not saying there's any strong proof. I think the probability for it to have been nefarious is higher now than it normally would be for the same fire in a different set of surrounding circumstances, that's all.

The cable-cutting in various oceans around the world has plenty of credible sources which are easily found. You can find them yourself from various outlets. It's happened before and will no doubt continue to happen along with cyber attacks.

[teestub]

The cable-cutting in various oceans around the world has plenty of credible sources which are easily found. You can find them yourself from various outlets. It's happened before and will no doubt continue to happen along with cyber attacks.

Yes this is plenty believable without looking up, what happens on the high seas etc. lots of open space.

Do you think that someone gained access to Sellindge or some sort of computer based action?

I think if someone said that if Russia would invade Ukraine a couple of years ago and that would fuck up wheat and steel due to the majority produced there, (being only a couple of years after Crimea) that would not seem anywhere near as far fetched as Russian sabotage of large scale infrastructure of a Western superpower.

[petejh]

Well, it’s not just ‘fucking up wheat and steel’ though is it.

If 2 years ago someone had claimed that Europe would lose, over a short period of 6 months:
40% of its gas imports
70% of its thermal coal imports
~30% of its oil imports
Along with the steel, wheat etc.
And the threat of nickel (not yet stopped by Russia, one of the cards it has remaining), aluminium, a suite of related petrochemicals and other metals involved in manufacturing.

And that it would lead to the shutdown of European and UK fertiliser producers (input cost too high) and steel producers (ditto).

And that virtually all western commerce would cease trading in or with Russia and divest all assets.

Along with lot of other stuff.. such as Russia’s army (and flagship of t he Black Sea fleet) being decimated by British and US weapons.

I think you’d have said then that the above was highly unlikely.

Do you think that someone gained access to Sellindge or some sort of computer based action?

No idea how they could have managed it, if it was sabotage. Just that it doesn’t seem at all unreasonable to consider it.

[teestub]

I guess your long list comes down to whether you thought it was likely that Russia would invade Ukraine. I didn’t really spend much time thinking about that, but I’m sure plenty in the upper echelons of the forces did. I’m sure any analysis of a Russia military action would have included the trade implications.

Last time I checked fertiliser was still being made at Teeside, but that may have changed. They shut during Covid due to the gas cost until they got a bailout so not unexpected.

[petejh]

Not really. It comes down to a lot of connected things all needing to have occurred for our current situation to have come about. One being Russia invading Ukraine but also Europe’s response. None of what’s happened was obvious or even the most likely outcome.

CF shut their plant in Elesmere, they kept their Teeside plant running by importing US LNG. Not sure if they’ve now shut or are keeping going. But if you take two minutes to research the list of European fertiliser producers that have shut or are doing, you’ll find it’s a long list.

[teestub]

What were Europe’s response options really, let Russia run through a European country unopposed? Do you think there would have been a suitably low level of support that wouldn’t have lead to Russia becoming pissed off and turning the various taps off? Could you imagine Germany having said ‘soz Ukraine but we really do love that gas’.

[petejh]

What were Europe’s response options really, let Russia run through a European country unopposed? Do you think there would have been a suitably low level of support that wouldn’t have lead to Russia becoming pissed off and turning the various taps off? Could you imagine Germany having said ‘soz Ukraine but we really do love that gas’.

What are you talking about? Germany pretty much did!

It can’t have escaped you that Germany and Russia have strong ties, both historically and more recently. The ex political leader of Germany has close business interests in both of the nord stream pipelines, he was instrumental in getting them constructed and his business links profit from them!
He was nominated for the Gazprom board… (turned it down as even he saw it might be too toxic this year, there’s always next).
He’s been slated for recently taking holidays and private meetings with Vladimir Putin.

Germany’s response has come a long way from the early days when they were very reticent to go hard on sanctioning Russia, or supplying weapons to Ukraine. Even today there’s not been one unified European response to Russia, it varies by country. There’s no doubt this ‘divide and conquer’ nature of Europe was what Putin was hoping for more of.

[teestub]

here's an article from 2 days after the invasion with Germany commiting to provide arms 'reversing a historic policy of never sending weapons to conflict zones'.
https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-war-russia-germany-still-blocking-arms-supplies/

if Germany were the most intransigent and even they were swayed early on, then there may not be a unified Europe but at least the mjor players are moving in the same direction.

[petejh]

I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here?  Articles of commitment to sending material are one thing, actions as they say speak very much louder than words. And when you look into what Germany actually sent... comparatively. It's not even remotely questionable to point out how seriously conflicted Germany were at the beginning of the Ukraine invasion.

Which leads to the point about likelihoods, nothing being certain, and Russian thinking... Clearly the plan was to take Kyiv quickly. It failed, but that was never a high confidence outcome as we all remember at the time. If Russia had achieved taking Kyiv and toppled Zalenskyy, as planned, then Germany would have had no time - and arguably no incentive - to come to the position it eventually has arrived at now with regard to sanctioning Russian energy. Germany had the most to lose and the least to gain from severe sanctions and no doubt Putin knew that. Along with other European nations, where the motivation and popular outcry against Russian aggression would have been totally different dynamic in the face of seemingly inevitable Russian domination and success in Ukraine. Instead what has actually happened is Ukraine fought hard and well and slowly got better arms, intelligence and training from the west. That changes the political background, because European populations can see it isn't a lost cause unlike Crimea. Now we have attrition against Russia to the point of the recent Ukraine successes. A quick Russian victory (as in Crimea..) would have avoided all of the last 4 months of battles and Russian losses, and presented a very different background to decision-making for European energy policy. (imo)

 

[teestub]

I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here?  Articles of commitment to sending material are one thing, actions as they say speak very much louder than words. And when you look into what Germany actually sent... comparatively. It's not even remotely questionable to point out how seriously conflicted Germany were at the beginning of the Ukraine invasion.

Here’s some data on this bit if anyone is interested (Germany 3rd worldwide in total commitments after US and UK)  https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/

[petejh]

But fourth in supplying ‘military aid’. And quite a large proportion lower than the military aid given by Poland in third.

This being the largest economy in Europe and fourth largest in the world…

And while ‘humanitarian aid’ is also no doubt very important, without the military aid there’d be no Ukraine.

[Oldmanmatt]

I’m still of the opinion that the fire which shut down the IFA UK-France interconnector last year was Russian sabotage and a warning shot by Russia, pre-Ukraine, of the sort of thing it could do to electricity supplies mid-winter to compound the European gas tightness. A disruption to the interconnection system at this time would almost certainly tip the balance into temporary blackouts.

Similar to the suspected Russian sabotage of various undersea internet connections between Svalbard, Greenland, Canada, Iceland in the last few years. If you do some digging around Reuters, Bloomberg etc. it’s considered at least ‘suspicious’.

Interestingly they developed the cable cutting capability as a response to the network of sensors under the Atlantic and pacific which detect Russian subs. I was based for a short time at Brawdy in south wales, where the Atlantic  sensor cables came ashore and the US had a ‘secret’ listening station. Interesting story of them tracking a whale transiting all the way across the Atlantic to provide proof the system works to a disbelieving US Navy.

If you were to, say, look at recent RN purchases, in terms of outside sourced vessels (not built specifically for) and proposed role changes and imminent acquisitions for the RFA (currently under the banner of “research vessels”) and follow the timeline of purchasing decisions. Not to mention the bullshit “hunting Russian submarine too close to North Atlantic cables” rather dramatically stressed in the “Warship” documentary recently… You might find your suspicions reinforced. In truth it’s been a primary doctrine for around five years already and preparation to defend against such was already underway. I suspect the timeline accelerated unexpectedly. I also suspect that the Ukraine timeline was upped by Russia with a view to attending the Samarkand conference in a position of strength, which has backfired, one assumes. I, with only the merest of evidence, wonder how much of both the Ukraine and energy crises have been engineered with this summit in mind. Note Putin’s note post summit, is considerably less strident.

[Oldmanmatt]

Oh! Look! A very fast vessel, perfectly equipped for deploying Clearance divers, Special forces and/or ROVs. That’s handy isn’t it (three similar on order for the RFA, which has slipped under the MSM radar I think).
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2022/july/29/20220729-new-testbed-ship-to-enhance-experimentation-in-royal-navy

[Offwidth]

Latest from Guardian Live feed on the war:

Agence France-Presse reported the foreign minister, Dmytro Kuleba, as saying Germany’s decisions were a “mystery” and that there was a “weapon wall” in Berlin that the chancellor, Olaf Scholz, had to tear down.

Kuleba said in an interview with German newspaper the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, published online:

We ask for Leopard tanks and Marder [armoured vehicles] and Germany supplies armoured vehicles of the Dingo type

We are grateful for them. But that is not what we need most in combat ... What is the problem? Why can’t we get what we need, and what Germany has?

[Oldmanmatt]

I’m still of the opinion that the fire which shut down the IFA UK-France interconnector last year was Russian sabotage and a warning shot by Russia, pre-Ukraine

This seems a bit tin foil hat territory, any credible sources?

I meant to add my tuppence worth to this.
This sort of thing is exactly why we and everyone else have Special Forces units. It is not in the least bit far fetched, nor is a lack of evidence even slightly surprising. I know I have been serving on various vessels that have been suddenly diverted for dark pick ups after “things” have happened. Usually these things are subtle, fishing nets jamming power station cooling intakes or catching on ships shafting etc etc. Sometimes they’re not, like limpet mines on Greenpeace ships or Nerve agents splashed around sleepy English cities. Or car bombs under academics seats. Or terrorists gunned down on Garage forecourts on British territory. Of course you hear about the ones you’re meant to hear about, but there are plenty of others that only a few are aware of. Oh, and then the ones that you weren’t meant to hear about, but something went wrong. Russia used weapons of mass destruction on British soil, very recently; why would sabotage of a power relay be less likely? This is not to say that that’s what happened.

[petejh]

I’m still of the opinion that the fire which shut down the IFA UK-France interconnector last year was Russian sabotage and a warning shot by Russia, pre-Ukraine

This seems a bit tin foil hat territory, any credible sources?

No none at all. It's my theory and we'll see. Many things can be labelled tinfoil hat territory because they fall outside someone's sphere of awareness. 2 years ago you might have labelled the current commodity wars and Europe's response to them as tinfoil hat territory, and I wouldn't have blamed you because the likelihood seemed low of such events playing out as they have.

With the fire, if you look back at the timing and what was going on with EU and UK energy markets around the time of the fire and some of Russia's signposting at the time, it does look very suspicious. Then with what followed this year it looks even more so. It's just probability, definitely not saying there's any strong proof. I think the probability for it to have been nefarious is higher now than it normally would be for the same fire in a different set of surrounding circumstances, that's all.

The cable-cutting in various oceans around the world has plenty of credible sources which are easily found. You can find them yourself from various outlets. It's happened before and will no doubt continue to happen along with cyber attacks.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/sep/27/nord-stream-1-2-pipelines-leak-baltic-sabotage-fears

This isn't anything at all to do with Russia signalling to the EU and UK what it will do to a north sea oil/gas pipeline this winter should they feel they need to use that leverage. Nope, nothing like that going on here.

[teestub]

Obvious false flag ordered by Truss to take people’s attention away from the economy in the only way possible, by starting WW3.

[petejh]

Good shout. No cost of living crisis to worry about when there’s hardly anyone living.

[moose]

Can't Russia just shut down the supply through the pipes whenever it wants (I thought they had already had partial shutdowns and cited maintenance etc?), without having to do something so obvious and permanent as sabotage?  Or am I missing the point, and the brazen will to destroy and intimidate is the message?

[SA Chris]

My thought exactly moose. All a bit suspicious.

[Oldmanmatt]

It is not a secret that Russia has been interfering with, charting and surveying both cables and pipelines for many years now. A considerable amount of RN resources have been tied up with countering that activity and doctrine is heavily weighted in that direction. Much of the current purchasing is aimed in that direction. It was partly why I was recruited for the OPV project when the batch 1 River Class were pulled out of mothballs, then later (when they opted for a different approach) into the RFA, with a view to building up appropriate manpower for they’re new, smaller vessels, tasked exactly with this mission.
On the other hand, right now, it’s hard for Russia to operate in the North Atlantic, because of those recent changes in defence priorities. The Baltic is another matter. It is not covered by the UK/US navies to anything like the same degree. It would be quite the “point”, perhaps, to carry out the sabotage close to NATO territory, even if it is a lightly defended part. Also, out of the Atlantic SOSUS coverage. US Helos operating in that zone, would be highly unlikely to be engaged in sabotage (that’s an underwater activity, Subs, Divers etc), but they are the primary anti-submarine weapon of both US and UK fleets.
The Russian surface fleet has been allowed to degrade significantly, they have concentrated on subsurface warfare for the last two decades, there they’re capabilities are quite formidable.
Russian sabotage and making a point, is an entirely plausible scenario and the Baltic very vulnerable to such actions.

[SA Chris]

It's also been done / happened somewhere where it will be a pain to fix. Someone nearby with buckle spread and a DSV or two could earn a lot of money.


Info on the challenges here

https://www.offshore-mag.com/pipelines/article/16761444/precommissioning-the-nord-stream-pipeline

[petejh]

Some decent analysis here:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/09/27/putins-nord-stream-2-sabotage-sends-warning-will-blow-pipes/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/09/27/how-putin-could-have-carried-nord-stream-attack-may-have-set/


I also wonder if they needn't even use submersibles in this case. They own the pipeline, pipelines get pressure tested and cleared using slug-clearers (pigs) fired along them. (I only know because I once was hanging off a pipeline in an oil-sands refinery in Canada when a maintenance contractor fired a pig through it, scary as hell.)
I wonder if they could have sent a sort of specially engineered slug down the pipelines programmed to exploded at a set point.

[SA Chris]

Highly unlikely, remnants of some sort would come out the other end, or be found when they eventually pig the line. Easier just to use a trained diver and a small vessel. The extent and type of the damage will determine how easy it is to fix.