Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Erik Andersson’

Why would Germany oppose Nord Stream 2 gas flow as part of a Ukraine peace agreement?

Posted in energy policy, pipelines, tagged , , , , , , on March 6, 2025| Leave a Comment »

One of the two Nord Stream 2 pipelines was undamaged during the sabotage attack. Discussions to sell Nord Stream 2 to an American group have been reported.

Is Germany taking energy masochism to a new level?:

MSN: “Germany is exploring levers to prevent the resumption of Nord Stream 2. The pipeline may allegedly be restarted under an agreement between the US and Russia as part of the settlement of the war in Ukraine, Bild reports.“

“According to Bild and the Financial Times, secret talks have been going on between representatives of Russia and the United States for several weeks now about American investors buying the damaged Nord Stream 2 pipeline in the Baltic Sea.“

Good questions by Swedish engineer and independent Nord Stream investigator Erik Andersson:

“Wow! Why on earth would Germany stop gas through Nord Stream 2 if the war ends and USA approves it?“

“Richard Grenel who was involved in sanctioning NSP2 in 2019 is mentioned as a player in the article. After the explosions 2022, Grenel said the first Trump admin was against NS2 but not NS1 which was delivering an acceptable amount of gas without making Germany too dependent on Russia. I wonder if the current Trump admin still think that two out of the four Nord Stream pipelines could be opened without creating a dangerous dependency on Russia?“

The Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party, supports a Nord Stream restart. Despite the AfD’s strong second place finish in the recent national elections, the leading CDU party is trying to keep the AfD out of the governing coalition.

Read Full Post »

Erik Andersson’s informative Nord Stream update

Posted in accidents, pipelines, tagged , , , , , , on October 8, 2024| 4 Comments »

Swedish engineer Erik Andersson has personally investigated the September 2022 sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines. He is perhaps the most informed independent investigator of the incident and the associated legal and political drama.

Andersson provided an updated defense document filed by the pipelines’ insurers (attached) and posted his observations on X. His X comments are consolidated below.

  • Nord Stream insurers Lloyds & Arch just filed an amended defense document (attached) which reveals technical details confirming a fifth Nord Stream bomb, which failed to break the NS1B line, placed just 90 meters from the successful bomb on NS1 line A.
  • Lloyds & Arch intend to prove in court that the government of Ukraine ordered the destruction.
  • The insurers have access to classified information in the criminal investigation which not even the victims have had up to now.
  • The insurers doubled down on their previous claim that the destruction was an act of war (and thus they are not liable). They all but say it was ordered by the Ukrainian government, and will rely on “expert evidence” of this.
  • The locations of the northern Nord Stream bombs are marked on the nautical chart (pasted below). The previously known bombs have orange markers and the new bomb we learned about in the NS vs Lloyds filing is marked red.
  • I (Andersson) have repeatedly said that I dismissed Seymour Hersh claim of 8 bombs after my expedition, and have assumed there were exactly four bombs. This has now been proven false, and I think that we again have to account for the possibility that there were perhaps 8 bombs, and that Sy Hersh is perhaps right in his claim that “the Americans sped back to the crime scene to remove the unexploded bombs.”
  • Andersson’s personal view is that it doesn’t matter much if Team USA trusted and protected the Ukrainian sailboat crew so they could place the bombs, or if they just waited for the sailboat cover operation to finish before detonating the bombs they had placed there by other means (making sure they didn’t do anything that couldn’t have been done from a sailboat).
  • The presence of American, Danish and Swedish warships in the area, with all their surveillance capabilities, including the underwater surveillance, makes it a very hard sell that the Ukrainians did this alone without American participation.
  • American warships were also present at the crime scene when it was closed off (justified by an erroneous interpretation of international law) and cleaned up by the Swedish investigation. If any materials were found which contradicted the sailboat narrative, these materials could have been removed.
  • It’s impossible to trust the investigations when (1) the crime scene was illegally blocked & cleaned with US military protection, (2) international investigation was blocked, and (3) the Swedish and Danish investigations were closed with a bogus justification contradicting the premise of “jurisdiction” which was used to seize control of all information in the first place. (Very interesting point about Sweden and Denmark. After 16+ months of investigation, they both punted. Sweden suddenly didn’t have jurisdiction and Denmark decided they didn’t have sufficient grounds to pursue a criminal case.)
2024-09-30 Nord Stream v (1) LIC and (2) Arch – CL-2024-000094 – Amended DefenceDownload

Read Full Post »

Nord Stream AG to insurers: “not so fast!”

Posted in accidents, pipelines, tagged , , , , , on May 15, 2024| Leave a Comment »

Nord Stream AG has responded to their insurers’ “a goverment did it, so we don’t have to pay” defense. Nord Stream’s full response, courtesy of Swedish engineer Erik Andersson, a leader in seeking the truth about the the pipeline sabotage, is linked.

Key excerpts from the Nord Stream AG filing (p.5):

(a) On their proper construction, in the context of Exclusion 2.i as a whole, the words “destruction of or damage to property by or under the order of any government or public or local authority” relate only to destruction or damage that arises out of or is related to the confiscation, nationalisation or requisition of therelevant property (and/or attempts thereat). In the premises, those words do not apply to the Damage.

(b) Alternatively, in the event that the Defendants establish that the Damage does constitute destruction of or damage to property by or under the order of any government, then it is therefore covered by the Deliberate Damage clause because it would have been “loss, damage, liability, cost or expense caused or inflicted by order of any governmental or regulatory body or agency” and Exclusion 2(i) to Section I does not apply: paragraphs 8 and 9.2 above are repeated.

If the insurers contend that one or more governments were responsible, shouldn’t they have to identify the government(s)? That would be nice. However, Erik doesn’t think the Nord Stream AG response puts the insurers in that politically difficult position. I agree. This case is about getting the insurers to pay for the damages, not identifying the responsible parties, something that the Swedes, Danes, and Germans have shied away from.

Read Full Post »

Nord Stream insurers: a govt did it, so we don’t have to pay!

Posted in accidents, climate, pipelines, tagged , , , , on April 24, 2024| Leave a Comment »

Our last Nord Stream pipeline post discussed the Nord Stream AG suit to recover damage costs from insurers Lloyd’s and Arch.

In a court document (excerpt below) obtained by Swedish engineer Erik Andersson, Lloyd’s and Arch assert that the damage was inflicted by, or under order of, a government , and therefore the insurers are not liable.

Given that the suspect governments have denied responsibility, shouldn’t the insurers have to prove that a government did it, and identify the government? That is what Nord Stream AG is asserting in their filing (except below).

Long, but interesting video with Erik Andersson:

Read Full Post »