New Revelations from Nord Stream Expedition
Underwater drone images and videos and anaglyph 3D images provide insight into the amount of explosives used in the sabotage. The images and videos herein have never been seen by the public before.
Nord Stream 2 Line A in the exclusive economic zone of Sweden filmed by drone from the Baltic Explorer.
Video above by Agnes Andersson
I may be the only reporter to visit all four blast sites of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines in the exclusive economic zones of Sweden and Denmark. Through my expedition to the blast sites with Erik Andersson, his daughter, Agnes, the captain of our boat and his first mate, we obtained sonar images, underwater drone images, videos and anaglyph 3D images which have never been seen by the public.
Through our expedition, we obtained images and videos of the destroyed pipelines which offer unique insights into the amount of explosives used in the attack, the type of charges and their placement.
I will likely report in detail on the type of charges, the kind of explosives and the placement of bombs in forthcoming articles. This present report only reveals findings about the amount of explosives used in the attack and briefly mentions the kind of explosives that may have been used and the placement thereof.
For now, I can reveal that there was general agreement among the experts I interviewed about the placement of the bombs. At the blast site of Nord Stream 2 Line A in the Swedish exclusive economic zone, the bomb exploded from the seabed next to the pipelines, according to the experts I consulted.
I asked four explosives experts to analyze the images obtained from the blast site of Nord Stream 2 Line A in the Swedish exclusive economic zone (NS2SA). Based on the shared data, the experts have provided insight into the amount of explosives used in the sabotage. The conclusions drawn from their evaluations apply to all four blast sites.
Analysts consulted included an ex-Squadron Leader of SEAL Team Six, a former US Navy SEAL and Master Demolition technician, a retired US Army Explosive Ordnance Disposal technician, an elite former Special Forces Operator, and the managing director of an explosives engineering company.
Each of the experts responded that all four attacks were carried out using the same means and method — a “classic maritime sabotage operation,” as one put it — and that NS2SA was almost completely depressurized as a result of the earlier explosion. They indicated that the rapid expansion of the pressure in the Nord Stream 1 lines led to a chain reaction, causing visible damage in both the Swedish and Danish exclusive economic zones, as well as the damage to Nord Stream 2 Line A in the Danish exclusive economic zone (NS2DA).
Notably, the experts agreed that the amount of explosives used to destroy the pipelines was significantly lower than that which was previously estimated by other analysts cited in prior outside reporting.
Video of the Nord Stream 2 Line A in the Swedish exclusive economic zone filmed by drone from the Baltic Explorer.
OUR BALTIC EXPEDITION
Nord Stream 2 Line A in the exclusive economic zone of Sweden filmed by drone from the Baltic Explorer. Graphics, text and anaglyph 3D by Michael Kobs.
On May 24, 2023, I embarked on a small ship called the Baltic Explorer through the exclusive economic zone of Sweden, thirty-one nautical miles from the coast of Denmark. It was there that we reached the blast site at Nord Stream 2. This area contains valuable, never-before-seen clues into how the pipelines were destroyed, and might offer some insight into the identity of the perpetrator.
By analyzing the data from the Baltic expedition, experts have provided their estimates of the amount of explosives used in the sabotage. The conclusions drawn by the experts’ analyses apply to all four blast sites.
“Based on the size of the hole in Nord Stream 2 Line A in the Swedish zone, I have calculated using two different formulae that the charge weight required would be a minimum of 9.68 to 9.92 kg of TNT,” said Peter Shelley, the managing director at OnePoint4, a company specializing in explosives engineering.
Chuck Pfarrer, a former US Navy SEAL who served as a Squadron Leader of SEAL Team Six, suggested a slightly different figure but concurred with Shelley’s general analysis.
“The explosive weight used at each point of attack would be about 11.34 kg of high explosive,” said Mr. Pfarrer. “As SEALs, we are trained in maritime sabotage to slightly ‘overload’ the point of attack. We only get one shot on a target.”
Other experts confirmed that the new images provided to them by me suggest far less explosive material was used in the blasts than recent reports indicated.
“I would estimate from my own experience in demolitions that it wouldn’t be the large amount of explosives that was previously reported,” said Mike Vining, a retired US Army Explosive Ordnance Disposal technician and an elite Special Forces Operator. “I would say that it could be as low as 50 kg of TNT equivalent explosive force.”
Charles O’Connor, a former US Navy SEAL and Master Demolition technician agreed with Vining’s calculation. O’Connor and Vining, like Pfarrer, often “overload” the point of attack.
Although O’Connor and Vining calculated a higher amount of TNT than Pfarrer and Shelley, all four experts’ calculations place the level of explosives at a vastly lower level than the 500 kg of explosive force (approx. 300 kg of HMX) assigned to the blasts by German security officials.
The lead German reporter and his team of reporters reporting on the Nord Stream sabotage have also consulted at least one expert, according to a source. The expert(s) they consulted estimated the amount of explosives used in the sabotage to be between 10 and 40 kg, according to a source.
Therefore, it is likely the German reporters will publish reporting on the amount of explosives used in the attack quite soon.
The German reporters´expert´s estimated amount coincides with estimations provided by my experts.
Nord Stream 2 Line A in the exclusive economic zone of Sweden filmed by drone from the Baltic Explorer. Measurements, graphics and anaglyph 3D by Michael Kobs.
A NOTE ON THE KIND OF EXPLOSIVES
German investigators have “concluded that one explosive used in the operation was HMX, also known as octogen,” reported The Wall Street Journal.
“In the production of making RDX explosives, a by-product is some HMX is also made,” said Vining.
“RDX has a certain percentage of HMX,” added Vining. “So it is not surprising that you see RDX along with some HMX.”
Therefore, it is likely that it will soon be reported — perhaps by the team of German reporters — that investigators have also concluded another explosive used in the operation is RDX.
Experts refer to the demolition power of an explosive in relation to TNT as its “relative effectiveness.” HMX and RDX are highly potent and therefore require fewer kilograms of explosive to produce the same effect as TNT.
THE TIMING OF THE EXPLOSIONS
Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 each have dual lines. The explosions ruptured three of them. Only Line B of Nord Stream 2 remains intact.
The first explosion occurred at three minutes past midnight UTC (Coordinated Universal Time) on Line A of North Stream 2 in the Danish exclusive economic zone (NS2DA). That first explosion took place seventy-eight kilometers away from where explosions would occur seventeen hours later on both Lines A and B of North Stream 1 and on the same line Line A of Nord Stream 2 in the Swedish exclusive economic zone.
When the first explosion took place on NS2DA, this pipeline had been pressurized. As a result, in the Danish zone, this Nord Stream 2 pipeline was displaced more violently by the blasts and therefore demonstrates damage with similar characteristics to that of two lines of Nord Stream 1, which had also been pressurized when they were ruptured. (For an idea of how the pipelines may have appeared following the blasts, imagine the thrashing of a pressurized garden hose when released.)
Nord Stream 2 Line A in the exclusive economic zone of Denmark filmed by drone from the Baltic Explorer.
In October 2022, images of the destruction of the Nord Stream 1 pipeline began to surface in Western media outlets. But it is unlikely that the images and videos show even a single blast site. Instead, they likely show only ruptures and fractures in the pipe due to the rapid pressure release. As a result, going by those photos alone, it’s difficult to surmise how much damage was wrought by the explosions and how much was a result of the rapid loss of pressure that seemingly left the pipelines whipping around like a raging windsock.
Footage acquired during our recent expedition indicates that all but one of the ruptures sustained by Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 in the Danish and Swedish exclusive economic zones were intensified by violent release of pressure — with the exception of the “depressurized” Nord Stream 2 Line A pipeline in the Swedish economic zone (NS2SA). As a result, NS2SA may be the only blast site where experts are able to draw accurate conclusions about how much damage was caused by rapid depressurization and how much was caused by explosives.
Nord Stream 2 Line A in the exclusive economic zone of Sweden filmed by drone from the Baltic Explorer. Graphics and anaglyph 3D by Michael Kobs.
A ROBUST AND UNITED RESPONSE?
The brazen attack on the Nord Stream pipelines was an act of “gross sabotage,” according to Swedish investigators.
Germany’s powerhouse industrial base has suffered partially from the sabotage as manufacturing costs have risen. Nord Stream 1 alone could carry up to 59.2 billion cubic meters of gas per year, supplying 58% of Germany’s annual gas consumption. Last summer, “Germany’s three-decade-long trade surplus flipped into a deficit, driven by the rise in gas prices,” according to the Brookings Institution.
Because Germany halted the certification process of Nord Stream 2, that pipeline was not in operation at the time of the attack.
The European Union warned that “any deliberate disruption of European energy infrastructure is utterly unacceptable and will be met with a robust and united response.” But it is unclear what actions the EU has taken.
For their part, Sweden, Denmark and Germany — the three countries investigating the attack — have yet to publicly release any findings from their investigations.
These governments have therefore deprived the public of the chance to examine the “depressurized” blast site at NS2SA. And according to the experts consulted by me, the images we obtained at this site offer the most insight into how the pipelines were blown up.
NO SPECULATION
I will not speculate who the perpetrator might be, but I am pleased to have made public the accurate amount of explosives used in the attack and shared some of the never-before-seen images and videos that have allowed experts to offer insight into how the pipelines were blown up.
We can now conclude that the amount of explosives used to destroy the pipelines was significantly lower than that which had been previously estimated by other analysts cited in prior outside reporting.
I hope to do a lot more reporting on the Nord Stream sabotage and intend to share many more never-before-seen images and videos of all four blast sites, as well as the conclusions that can be drawn for our expedition´s data. Stay tuned.
Jeffrey Brodsky can be found on Twitter @JeffreyBrodsky5.
Michael Kobs contributed to the reporting for this article. Some of his work can be found here and he tweets here.
All the videos, images and content in this article can not be reproduced or shared in any way, shape or form.
NOTE: I believe I am the only reporter to visit all four blast sites of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines in the exclusive economic zones of Sweden and Denmark on the Baltic Sea.
I had an agreement with a media outlet to write about what the expedition´s findings mean for understanding how the sabotage was carried out and who may have been responsible for it. But because I have not received payment* for my work and have not been reimbursed for travel and other expenses in the correct amount, our agreement was violated.
There may be a bright side to no longer having to write for my former media outlet. For one, they insisted that I politicize my reporting and findings, bending them toward their own worldview and political biases. (I preferred to do pure investigative reporting on the sabotage.)
The organizer of our Baltic expedition, who was kind enough to share the data with me the day we got off the boat, said: “I love analysis and speculation, but I hope the next article will be dry and factual. Free of speculation and insinuations.”
With this first Substack article of mine, I intend to honor his wishes.
Second, who can be expected to work with no pay?
To that end, this first Substack article of mine will be available to readers for a small amount, but my intention is NOT to profit from my Substack writing. Instead, it is to merely recoup the money I´ve lost.
Thank you for reading.
Jeffrey Brodsky (@JeffreyBrodsky5)
*My former media outlet attempted to pay me after this post was published, but I have not and will not accept the money.