Sorry, but no. The inner diameter is 1.153mm, which is 1,15m. The outward diameter is 1.2m.
That’s 2.5cm which is more or less what I said 
A lot bigger diameter though.
they are encased in concrete.
The various rags say so but I wonder how it was done. I somehow doubt it. The concrete will be totally permeable so will offer no corrosion protection. I know underwater cables tend to be laid in a trench which is ploughed as the cable is laid. This says they are concrete coated, so the concrete will be thin.
The pipes were pressurised but had no flow, so not possible to “send something along them”. here
Depth 80-110m here.
The underwater pipes for Nord Stream are made of steel grade DNV grade SAWL 485 (similar to grade X70) for wall thicknesses ranging from 26.8 to 34.4mm and were manufactured by six qualified producers (one in Russia, four in Europe and one in Japan). The pipes are encased in concrete.
No one can answer the question of who sabotaged the Nord Stream pipelines. If anything, though, the apparent sabotage of the pipelines demonstrates Europe’s irresponsibility in accepting gas from a known enemy – the fact that they got away with it for 37 years, in retrospect, is amazing.
Indeed…
It is for sure an interesting play to blow up the pipeline that provides Russia with some of its leverage over Europe. If they did it themselves, which I agree is likely, it’s a very odd strategy.
I had a look today and it looks to be about seven years since I first posted on European energy security being the principal threat to the region. The subject at the time was verboten in polite company, as was the inadequacy of European military forces, and environmental issues were used as a political surrogate.
This makes one wonder how long will it be until overpopulation becomes an acceptable topic for discussion as a political issue? And what mass-marketable issue could be used as a surrogate in the meantime. 
Russia denies any sabotage activity
Well, they would, wouldn’t they.
As the lawyers say “Mandy Rice-Davies applies”.
One could speculate that with both Nordstream pipelines offline for the foreseeable future, the stage is set for those pipelines that run through Ukraine to become unfortunate collateral damage if/when Putin deploys a tactical nuclear weapon.
After all, he needs to deploy such a weapon in the middle of nowhere:
1. He can’t hit Kyiv, it has too much historical significance
2. He can’t hit the Donbas, he’s supposed to be protecting it
3. The Ukrainian military, knowing 1 and 2, will concentrate in Kyiv and on the Donbas front line
4. Might as well pick a middle of nowhere target that wrecks a bunch of pipelines, just as a demonstration of intent which so happens to shut off nearly all gas to Europe
It really is time Germany and other countries heavily dependant on Russian gas grew some balls. This situation, caused by their naivety in assuming Putin would become a good guy, cannot be salvaged. It is going to come to a head, with or without direct conflict, so it’s time to toughen up, switch off the gas, and exert maximum pressure.
LeSving wrote:
We still say hmm
Well, you’re going to need to hmm a lot more with Sweden in NATO.
I don’t understand why we let ourselves become so dependent on Russian gas: for years, Russia has proved an unreliable supplier (there has already been several instances of them turning off the gas to Eastern European nations during the winter). Even the Iranians refused to be dependent on Russia for energy: when the negotiations during the Obama administration over their nuclear enrichment facilities were taking place, apparently it was offered that the Russians supply power reactor fuel to the Iranians. The Iranians responded “Would you really want to be dependent on Russia for fuel?”
I really can’t see the rationale for anyone blowing up the gas pipeline. Russia, being the supplier of gas, controls the flow anyway and when the situation eventually normalises (which it will, even if it takes decades) they want to start selling gas again.
As Silvaire wrote, there would be a rationale for the US (or possibly some other western country) to do it in order to remove Russia’s gas leverage on Europe. But the political repercussions if they were found out would be enormous. It could even break the western alliance.
Airborne_Again wrote:
As Silvaire wrote, there would be a rationale for the US (or possibly some other western country) to do it in order to remove Russia’s gas leverage on Europe. But the political repercussions if they were found out would be enormous. It could even break the western alliance.
Which brings to mind a hypothesis that the US did it, having the tools to do so, but in conjunction with some or all of the western alliance. The current US Federal Executive Branch is prone to unstable and ill considered reactions, it’s true, and perhaps this was viewed as a valid tool by all concerned, given a difficult situation.
The next step, and an obvious and I’d guess effective threat to the Russians if they know they didn’t do it, would be the possibility of eliminating the fleet that moves Russian oil, at sea. That would doubtless raise the price of Italian gasoline above the circa Euro 1.5 per litre level I enjoyed a couple of weeks ago (in comparison with the German price, which was almost 50% higher).
That’s my conspiracy theory machine done for today
I don’t understand why we let ourselves become so dependent on Russian gas
This is easy. On mainland Europe there is a long standing “green at any price” trend. It is practically irreversible and even unquestionable. It is the ultimate moral high ground. Scientists who question climate change get no bread on the table at home. Well, along with extreme political correctness in all its forms. Even the UK got wrapped up in this, although rather more in an effort to not appear to be left behind. I am not saying climate change isn’t real. That’s a different debate.
Close dirty coal power stations. Close nuclear power stations (because 99% of people think they are atomic bombs, just hovering 1mm away from an explosion). Now what do you do to power your industrial economy?
And Russian gas fitted into this perfectly. You are bringing an old enemy into your warm embrace. Of course the old enemy will change, reform, implement human rights, abandon its expansionist policies, dismantle its nuclear weapons (so that only the Great Satan, which provides security for you, but that’s assumed for ever, has them) and will love you for ever. What is not to like?
Mrs Merkel – ex DDR. Putin – ex DDR. They got on like a house on fire. He played her skilfully.
Dumb? Maybe, but these “moral high ground” agendas are easy to hijack. Look at the extreme problems with trans “women” competing in female sports. It’s obviously not gonna work, everybody always knew that, but who has the power to speak up? They will end up with broken windows in their house.
These are major challenges of the modern “must be kind and warm to all” era. They are not bad ideas, but they are dead easy to hijack.
they want to start selling gas again.
The pipeline can be repaired. On the scale of engineering in say North Sea oil exploration, a bit of blown up pipework 100m down is an everyday job. This is some short term “project”, but whose?
Which brings to mind a hypothesis that the US did it, having the tools to do so, but in conjunction with some or all of the western alliance.
Emphasis on “all”
