The Nord Stream II was full of liquified natural gas stored at 1,570 psi pressure. The liquified gas would turn to vapor immediately at -160 deg.F on discharging from the pipe breach into 250 feet depth water at 105 psi pressure and roughly 50 deg.F temperature.
The gas would expand almost immediately to 424 times its original liquid volume and would rush to the surface in a column of expanding roiling bubbles. I did calculations and the diameter of the bubble (gas release) area at the water surface should only be 800 feet, and that is for a full 48 inch diameter pipe breach at that depth. m
It doesn't make sense that the news kept reporting a bubble diameter of 1 kilometer or more. No way. Also, the rising gas vapor would warm as it is in contact with water, but due to the volume and velocity, it would still warm from -160 deg.F at pipe breach to only about -40 deg.F at the surface. There would be an incredible dense fog at the surface as ultra cold gas vapor meets warmer humid air. Zero fog in any of the photos, no sign of ice crystals forming at water surface.m
Also, when the liquid gas expands to 424 times volume at pipeline breach on sea floor, then rises that quickly in the water column, it would create a huge upwelling and vacuum suction behind itself. There would be a very strong current of water at sea floor flowing towards that vacuum where the gas is expanding from the pipe breach. That would carry silt and debris into the rising column and we should be seeing silt trails flowing away from the bubble area at the surface. m
None of those things are happening. Also, you would think by now that air monitoring would have shown satellite images of the natural gas plume in the atmosphere. They can monitor CO2, and other emission sources and show the colorized atmospheric concentrations of pollutants... but somehow nobody is monitoring the atmosphere over the largest natural gas leak on the planet?l
None of what the we are seeing makes physical sense. I'm wondering if the pipeline breach isn't faked. No underwater photos? This could be an arranged false flag. All we have really seen so far are bubbles at water surface as "evidence"... but there should be a much more volatile, roiling surface over a smaller diameter and surrounded by a dense fog maybe 30 feet thick above the water surface. Any thoughts?
I have some problems with this analysis. The critical pressure for Methane is 637.85 psi, at a temperature of -82.6 C. I have never heard of gas pipelines being constructed to convey liquid cryogens, so I doubt that the pipeline was at a cryogenic temperature. The temperature of the Baltic sea is about 15 C (warm surface), so it would be physically impossible for the methane to be in a liquid state in the pipeline. It would be a gas, conveyed by pressure differential between source and recipient. So, an expulsion of masses of cryogenic fluid would not have happened. And therefore, the estimated mass of gas would not have been so great as supposed under that assumption.
If the depth of the pipeline was 250 feet, and the ambient pressure was 105 psi, at constant temperature, the gas expansion would then have been a factor of 15 at the pipeline depth, increasing to a factor of 100 at the surface. (In reality, it would be smaller, because the gas expansion would also chill the gas and increase its density relative to isothermal expansion).
There would be a gas stream, not a single bubble, until the gas in the pipeline had all run out. If the stream produces bubbles of varying sizes they would migrate to the surface in competition with one another, so the gas leak would constitute a "plume" reaching the surface and the size would likely be much larger than the size of the pipe diameter. (The volumetric flow of the gas would have to equal the outflow from the pipeline. When the gas density drops, the cross-sectional area of the bubbles passing through the water would have to increase in order for the outflow to match the leak.) The development of froth could be as much as a kilometer in extent. And if the methane is being conveyed as a gas, the bubble temperature would be only moderately cold.
I also doubt there would be a "vacuum suction" drawing anything upward with the bubble. For one thing, the bubble is buoyant by virtue of the water wanting to rush beneath it, not because it is forcing itself through the water. Also, things get drawn along because there is a boundary layer associated with the moving object. In this case, the boundary layer would be of the surrounding water pushing down around the bubble.
Where is all the methane? It is known that, under pressure, methane combines with water to become a "clathrate," a solid substance that will remain so at the temperature and pressure conditions where it is formed. Some, or most, of the methane may have formed clathrates at the seafloor.
You don't know much about natural gas pipelines. Also, authorities had reported that the pipeline static pressure was 1,570 psi and that was the standard blocked in pressure before the breach. At that pressure, natural gas is a liquid at ambient temperature.
You also seem to have the delusion that natural gas consists of 100% methane, which would e convenient if true. It's not true. There is a reason why most gas transport pipelines operate at generally between 1500 to 1800 psi pressures.
The instant that gas is released from the pressurized liquid state, it reverts to a gas at -160 deg.F at atmospheric pressure.
Good things to think about, but much of what you wrote is wrong.
The critical temperature for methane is -82.59 C (above which it can never be liquid). The critical pressure is 45.391 atmospheres (667.25 psi). The pipeline flow is above both critical levels and is not a liquid but a supercritical fluid (e.g., an extremely dense gas).
Next up is ethane, with a critical temperature of 32.17 C and a critical pressure of 706.54 psi. This would probably make it a compressible liquid at pipeline conditions. I understand there may be higher alkanes, hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, and water as trace constituents. Pray tell, what is the reason that transport pipelines operate between 1500 to 1800 psi? I would surmise it is a tradeoff between flow rate and pipeline construction expense.
I spoke of methane as the key component. We have established that the pipeline was not carrying cryogenic liquid. It sounds like a mixture of that and (e.g.) ethane, in which case there are critical conditions for mixtures.
You seem to think that the gas volume would be a single gigantic bubble, unmixed with water, undergoing adiabatic expansion. It would be a profusion of bubbles, extensively mixed with water, with lots of contact area, and water having high conductivity and a high specific heat. This would be a good prospect to obtain heat from the environment while under the process of expansion.
There is still no argument against the leak as observed. I take it you have no objection to my other points.