What Do We Know About The Nord Stream Bombs?

New information suggest bombs were expertly designed, but not always well secured to the pipeline.

When I embarked on my expedition to film the Nord Stream explosion sites, my goal was to determine the number of bombs used, their size, type and how they were placed on the pipeline. I went to all four explosion sites which I knew about at the time, but focused in particular on filming the “small leak” on Nord Stream 2A in the Swedish zone. That was because the A-string of Nord Stream 2 had already been ruptured 17 hours earlier on a place 79km further south. The internal gas pressure had declined form 103 bars to about 30 bars, which was 22 bars above the ambient water pressure when the second bomb exploded on NS2AS (Nord Stream 2 line A in the Swedish economic zone). It was because of the lower internal gas pressure that the pipeline didn’t get broken into pieces and scattered over a large area by the thrust of the erupting gas. The film showed the direct impact of a rather small bomb, 10-40kg TNT equivalents, and it seemed to have been placed on the seafloor or a little bit into the mud next to a welded field joint of the pipeline. Experts analyzing the footage didn’t see any sign of a “cutting charge” . The damage seemed to be consistent with a simple slab of explosives.

Fig 1. Early 3D model by Michael Kobs, made from my film of NS2AS. A cloth (dark blue) was hanging down in front of what he suggested could be a hole into the pipeline.

But I didn’t quite understand what I saw in my own film. Michael Kobs’ 3D model, which he created from subsequent frames suggested there could be a rather big hole into the pipeline, and the reason we couldn’t see the red inner walls was that piece of the protective sheet-metal for the joint was blocking the view. But a big hole was hard to reconcile with the modest bubbling of gas from the site. A Danish military helicopter flew over all four sites just five hours after the northern blasts, and observed the small leak for the first time. I estimated that at least 99% of the gas was bypassing the NS2AS site. Another twelve hours later, around noon on September 27, the Swedish coastguard photographed the NS2AS leak and it looked really tiny, but the same airplane made a little detour to NS2AD right after where the sea was still boiling like this. I tried to explain the phenomenon with a powerful venturi effect as the pipe was choked into a nozzle like shape which would have accelerated the flow around NS2AS. I also hypothesized a “suction” effect at the NS2AD opening, created by the powerful bubble plume and fast water currents. But even with venturi effect at NS2AS and zero pressure at NS2AD, I couldn’t explain the tiny gas flow. I ended up concluding that the investigation divers must have cut out the piece of pipe that was closest to the bomb.

It wasn’t until last month, when I received a document produced by Nord Stream 2 AG, that I realized that there hadn’t been any major tampering at the site.

Fig. 2. Cross section of the pipeline at NS2AS at the point of maximum deformation of 57cm . Picture by Nord Stream 2 AG.

Fig 3. NS2AS pictured by Nord Stream 2.

The Nord Stream 2 images were taken by an advanced ROV launched from the offshore survey vessel Glomar Worker. They had strong lighting and could use photometric techniques to create an accurate 3D model of the damage. The 26.8 mm thick steel had been pushed inward along a horizontal (longitudinal) line over the joint. At the point of maximum indentation, the steel had moved 57 cm inwards from its original position to a point close to the center of the cylindrical pipeline, and deformed the cylinder into a butt shape.

Fig 4. A cross section (credit Nord Stream 2) reveals a butt shaped deformation. The methane gas was bubbling out of the crack at the point of greatest indentation.

I felt a bit stupid I didn’t see this in my own film, because once you know what you are looking at, the shape of the indentation is pretty obvious in my footage too.

Fig 5. Screenshot from my film of NS2AS. The blank stainless steel is partly exposed and the weld is clearly visible. The left side of the crack was covered by piece of fabric obstructing the view, and the light reflected on the steel turned down the exposure of my camera so I missed the right side of the crack as well.

I got very excited when I first saw the butt shape, because the longitudinal orientation of the crack was perpendicular to the direction of maximum stress from internal pressure, so it was the perfect way to almost surgically open up the pipeline with a minimum amount of explosives. Had the pipeline been pressurized to 103 bars like it was at NS2AD when the bomb exploded there, a force of about 500 metric tonnes would have pulled the two cheeks apart. And that, I now believe, is exactly what happened when the first bomb exploded, and I’m not the first one to think so.

The First Explosion South East of Bornholm

Danish journalist Niels Lykke Møller wrote an excellent article analyzing a similar butt shape on the southern explosion site. In the sea of nonsense mainstream articles about Nord Stream, Møller’s piece stands out as a marvel of forensic analysis. The southern butt shape was filmed by Trond Larsen of Blue Eye Robotics, in a June 13 expedition with consortium of European media organizations, and just a week later Møller published.

Fig 6. Butt shape at the southern end at NS2AD shows a folded out “door” piece where a part of the right cheek and the right side of the crack is perfectly preserved. This formation proves that the opening of the “door” happened after the formation of the butt shape.

The Danish TV2 piece from June 20, 2023 goes on to interview a whole bunch of explosion experts whereof two, Ditte Bilgrav Bangsgaard and Lars Nøhr-Nielsen, are particularly relevant since they’ve actually done work on blowing up real pressurized pipelines in a safety/testing context.

Fig 7. How to demolish a pressurized pipeline with a linear charge, before and after. Image: University of Tokyo, SINTEF/NTNU

Ditte and Lars explain that the unfolding of the sheet metal is called “avsnøring” in Danish, and it’s simply what happens when you apply a charge like in the picture. Military experts interviewed in the same article points out that it takes great skill to apply a linear charge to a pipeline, but Ditte and Lars solved it elegantly with duct tape. I wonder how the saboteurs of Nord Stream handled this challenge?

We’ll get back to the challenge of fixing the bombs to the flat pipeline, but first I must point out two other observations which support the theory that the NS2AD bomb was placed at the locations suggested by Møller’s investigative team. I have to praise him because he negotiated a deal with the broadcasting consortium where I received all of their raw footage in exchange for the bathymetry and sonar images taken by captain Patrik Juhlin of Baltic explorer in my expedition. I studied the raw footage in cooperation with analyst Michael Kobs , and concluded that 3 meters of pipeline was missing next to the butt shape. The originally 12.2 meter long section next to the butt shape now measured only 9 meters, and right below the missing pipe, Kobs discovered a pattern on the seafloor. It was most probably a footprint of the unfolded metal sheet resulting from the “avsnøring”, which was then removed by the Danish investigation.

Fig 8. The 3 meters of missing pipe at NS2AS probably unfolded to a flat sheet of steel which was recovered by the investigation, but left a mark on the seafloor.

The final peace of evidence which points to a bomb location at the field joint of the southern end at NS2AD, is actually the most convincing one to me. The location of the deep craters at the site reveal that the pipeline must have first ruptured at the southern end. To understand the gravity of this argument, its important to understand how these craters are formed. Watching Michael Kobs’ 3D animation based on films and my bathymetry is a good introduction to the crime scenes. The large deep formations are not bomb craters. They are formed by strong water currents propelled by the chimney effect of light bubble filled water rising in a so called plume. The effect was described by Fanneløp and Bettelini in this report from 2007. I wrote about it last year on my substack. The high vertical water speeds were evident in photographs and films of the high water fountains above the leaks. The first photo taken of NS1BD by Captain Jürgensen only 10 minutes after the blast showed water thrown 60 meters high up in the air.

Fig 9. The water enters the plume at the bottom at high speed, carving out deep hopes in the seabed. Illustration and graph by T.K Fanneløp

Now look at the bathymetry at NS2AD. There are two large craters and none of them are placed in a position such that they could have been carved out by the plume of the short pipe end towards Germany.

Fig 10. Both craters at NS2AD are caused by gas flow from the 1080.59km long pipe towards Russia. The flow the 153.6 km of pipe towards Germany created a much smaller crater. The “flying section” (red) was probably positioned above the southern crater for the first day after the blast. Wobbling caused it to break off and move. Images from Nord Stream 2. Red marking by me.

The only way I can explain the position of the southern crater is that the now flying end of the 9 meter pipe segment was pushed into a the position of the red line in Fig 10 right after the explosion. At that time the Northern crater did not exist. I believe that the violent wobbling of the pipeline eventually broke it so the main outlet moved to the North. Only after the Northern crater had expanded so that the center of gravity of the 9 meter piece had moved North of the support point, it tipped over. Alternatively, the investigators tried to lift it but gave up, leaving it in its current position. In any case, since the southern rupture happened well before the northern rupture, and the open southern end is at a field joint, the bomb was most likely exploding right there.

The Dent

Just a few weeks ago I learned about a small previously unreported bomb in a court filing against insurance companies Lloyds&Arch. There are no pictures of this but the Nord Stream’s claims document describes it:

“Line 2 [line B of NS1] sustained damage in the form of a circumferential indentation at KP998.743 on the south side of the pipeline (the “Dent”). The Dent has a length of about 0.8m, a width of about 0.5m, a depth of about 0.15m and is estimated to penetrate the pipeline’s internal diameter by about 17%”

The circumferential orientation is perpendicular to the longitudinal directions of both cracks at NS2A. Had the linear shaped bomb, originally placed on top. perhaps fallen off, and was leaning vertically against the pipeline when exploding? This is a good time to discuss the saboteurs’ challenge of securing the bombs to the optimal position at the top of the pipeline.

Fig 11. Expert application of linear bomb in pipeline explosion test. How did the saboteurs secure the bombs to the pipeline? Could anything have gone wrong at the places where the bombs failed to penetrate the pipeline?

What did the saboteurs do to attach the bombs to the pipeline? Maybe they had duct tape as the experts, or other adhesives, maybe magnets, or maybe they tried to drive nails through the thin sheet metal around the polyurethane shrouding the welded joints. I don’t know, but whatever they did, I can easily imagine the bombs cutting loose and dropping down to the side of the pipeline. In my expedition we saw tracks of fishing trawlers crossing the pipeline all over. If the bombs rested on the pipes for a long time, it’s not unlikely that some of them were pushed off. I now believe the NS2AS bomb had accidentally rolled off and was lying on the seabed next to the pipeline when exploding. The “Dent” bomb had dropped a bit further away from the pipeline and caused just a smaller indentation. Maybe some wave phenomenon from the enormous gas explosion just 90 meters away threw it off the pipeline.

Until I change my mind again, I will hold onto the theory that the saboteurs packed eight 60 centimeter explosive rods in their dive bags. Their plan was to blow up all four pipelines in four dives, by placing one bomb on each string per dive. They dropped one bomb as reported by WSJ, and two didn’t go off. Five of the bombs exploded.

Alternatively military divers did it in one or two dives supported by scooters, a submarine and a compression chamber. The operation was designed to make the sailboat story plausible, even if it was just a cover. A key piece of evidence which would confirm Seymour Hersh’s account of US responsibility, is if one of those unexploded bombs are found, or bomb fragments are found, which show the gadget which enabled remote triggering of the explosions.

Maybe the bombs were placed on top of the pipelines to make sure the sonar trigger signal was picked up? Maybe the first attempt of remote triggering was only picked up at the southern site, and the famous P8 flight from Iceland dropped the buoy that set off the Northern bombs? Unless the German investigation can provide hard evidence of the Ukrainian sailboat story, common sense points to the USA.