Posted in climate, Offshore Energy - General, pipelines, tagged Denmark, germany, new charges, Nord Stream, Seymour Hersh, Sweden, Ukraine on August 15, 2024| Leave a Comment »
Skepticism about these charges is running high given the apparent political convenience of the “private Ukrainian citizens” sabotage scenario. The German govt has been under pressure to identify the responsible party following the decisions by Denmark and Sweden to drop their investigations.
Many of us are waiting for responses from the insurers, Seymour Hersh, Erik Andersson, and other private parties who have been actively investigating the Nord Stream sabotage.
Posted in climate, energy policy, natural gas, pipelines, tagged Denmark, Gulf of Mexico methane, livestock emissions, methane tax, Nord Stream on July 8, 2024| Leave a Comment »
Danish Tax Minister Jeppe Bruus boasts that other countries will be inspired by the world’s first tax on livestock emissions. Are you inspired?
Not at all inspiring was Denmark’s weak-kneed response to the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines near the Danish island of Bornholm. After 17 months of investigation, Denmark meekly declined to pursue criminal charges or even to release a report on their findings. How does the “world’s climate leader” simply shrug its shoulders after investigating a massive methane release in their waters?
A recent professional paper concludes that 478,000 tons of methane were released to the atmosphere as a result of the Nord Stream sabotage, making this “the world’s largest natural gas leak.” The Nord Stream sabotage thus released 3.6 times the amount of methane (133,000 tons) contributed by Danish livestock in an entire year. The total amount of methane released by the Nord Stream pipelines is also 2.5 times the entire amount attributed by EPA to all Gulf of Mexico producers in 2020.
Denmark and Sweden have concluded that “there was deliberate sabotage of the gas pipelines.” The Nord Stream insurers claim that “a government did it.” So which government was it? Why are sovereign governments of affected nations afraid or otherwise unwilling to comment on such a consequential attack?
Posted in accidents, pipelines, tagged Erik Andersson, insurance litigation, investigation, Lloyds, Nord Stream, responsible parties 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.
Posted in accidents, climate, pipelines, tagged Arch Insurance, Erik Andersson, insurance dispute, Lloyds, Nord Stream 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:
Posted in accidents, climate, energy policy, Gulf of Mexico, natural gas, pipelines, tagged Arch Insurance, Denmark, English High Court, germany, law suit, Lloyds, methane emissions, Nord Stream, pipeline pig, Sweden on March 14, 2024| Leave a Comment »
Nord Stream AG has sued insurers Lloyds and Arch in the English High Court for failing to pay for pipeline damage incurred during the Sept. 2022 Baltic Sea explosions. The estimated pipeline repair costs range from €1.2 to €1.35 billion, and Nord Stream is seeking €400 million from the insurers.
Could this litigation help us learn more about the findings of the official Nord Stream investigations? After 17 months of investigation, Denmark recently concluded that “there are not sufficient grounds to pursue a criminal case in Denmark.” Only nineteen days before Sweden had announced that “Swedish jurisdiction does not apply and that the investigation therefore should be closed.” These weak announcements at the end of lengthy investigations seem too convenient, and may lend credence to Hersh’s Nord Stream account or a recent variation that implicates the UK. Germany is presumably still investigating, and it remains to be seen whether they will release findings.
Could the parties in the Nord Stream case pursue documents or testimony from the Swedish, Danish, or German investigation teams? Both sides in this case, Nord Stream AG and the insurers, would benefit from details that could help identify the responsible parties.
It’s more than a little hypocritical for Western governments and their NGO partners to rail against offshore oil and gas operations while quietly accepting (without investigation) the economic and environmental consequences of the Nord Stream sabotage. Compare the Nord Stream methane emissions with those associated with Gulf of Mexico operations.
Posted in accidents, climate, pipelines, tagged Denmark, germany, investigations, Nord Stream, sabotage, Sweden on February 26, 2024| Leave a Comment »
Either the investigators were incompetent (unlikely) or the political pressure was too great (likely).
“The investigation has led the authorities to conclude that there was deliberate sabotage of the gas pipelines. However, the assessment is that there are not sufficient grounds to pursue a criminal case in Denmark,” a Copenhagen police statement said.
Reuters
After 17 months of investigation, that’s a pretty lame statement. Will we see their report?
The ball is now in Germany’s court. Should we expect more of the same?
Our June 2023 summary remains unchanged.
Posted in accidents, California, CCS, decommissioning, energy policy, Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Energy - General, oil spill response, pipelines, Regulation, tagged aban pearl, carbon disposal, CCS, helicopter crash, Hogan and Houchin, incident data, IRF performance data, Main Pass Oil Gathering, Nord Stream, pipeline regulation, regulatory fragmentation, Russell Peterson on February 12, 2024| Leave a Comment »
Still waiting for:
Posted in accidents, energy policy, natural gas, pipelines, Russia, Uncategorized, tagged germany, Nord Stream, Putin, Tucker Carlson on February 8, 2024| Leave a Comment »
Here is the entire interview. The Nord Stream sabotage discussion begins just after the 1:11 mark.
Putin suggests that people consider who had an interest in sabotaging the pipelines and who had the capability. He also asks why Germany isn’t allowing gas to flow through the one Nord Stream line that wasn’t damaged.
Posted in accidents, pipelines, tagged investigation, no jurisdiction, Nord Stream, Sweden on February 7, 2024| Leave a Comment »
The conclusion of the investigation is that Swedish jurisdiction does not apply and that the investigation therefore should be closed,” the Swedish Prosecution Authority said in a statement.
Reuters
Weak, very weak. Instant Not My Job Award classic.
Posted in accidents, pipelines, tagged Nord Stream, pending announcement, Swedish prosecutor on February 6, 2024| Leave a Comment »
Little has changed since our last update. Will we finally get a substantive update from an official investigator?
STOCKHOLM, Feb 5 (Reuters) – The prosecutor leading Sweden’s probe into the Nord Stream gas pipeline blasts in the Baltic Sea in 2022 plans to announce a decision this week on whether to drop the case, press charges or request that someone is detained, his office said on Monday.
The statement confirmed an earlier report by Swedish daily Expressen. It was not immediately clear which day an announcement would be made, a spokesperson for the prosecutor’s office said.
Reuters
Update per Disclose TV and others: “The Swedish public prosecutor’s office was apparently unable to identify any specific suspects.”
Bud's Offshore Energy (BOE) 