Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Network The Internet

Ship's Crew Suspected of Deliberately Dragging Anchor for 100 Miles To Cut Baltic Cables (msn.com) 167

SpzToid writes: A Chinese commercial vessel that has been surrounded by European warships in international waters for a week is central to an investigation of suspected sabotage that threatens to test the limits of maritime law -- and heighten tensions between Beijing and European capitals.

Investigators suspect that the crew of the Yi Peng 3 bulk carrier -- 225 meters long, 32 meters wide and loaded with Russian fertilizer -- deliberately severed two critical data cables last week as its anchor was dragged along the Baltic seabed for over 100 miles.

Their probe now centers on whether the captain of the Chinese-owned ship, which departed the Russian Baltic port of Ust-Luga on Nov. 15, was induced by Russian intelligence to carry out the sabotage. It would be the latest in a series of attacks on Europe's critical infrastructure that law-enforcement and intelligence officials say have been orchestrated by Russia.

Ship's Crew Suspected of Deliberately Dragging Anchor for 100 Miles To Cut Baltic Cables

Comments Filter:
  • by pixelpusher220 ( 529617 ) on Friday November 29, 2024 @11:20PM (#64980521)

    they crossed numerous other cables, some within less than a mile...that magically weren't cut?

    if everything from pt A to pt B was disrupted, the anchor theory is plausible. But if dozens of other cables are crossed and not cut, it gets less plausible.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      this video shows the ship passing over 3 different cables within maybe a mile. And somehow it only cuts the middle one?

      https://youtu.be/a7cS1aVGwUE?t... [youtu.be]

      • They are dragging something across the sea bed. It doesnâ(TM)t guarantee it will snag on something. It could still be accidental. I do think on the technical side itâ(TM)s not impossible for some cables to be buried better time.
        • Sure but the same argument is it's a big heavy anchor...it's entire point is to grab bottom and hold on.

          The odds it happened to 'bounce' a few times just perfectly aren't great.

          • >"Sure but the same argument is it's a big heavy anchor...it's entire point is to grab bottom and hold on."

            But not designed to stop a ship that is intentionally using its engines against it. The ship dropped speed from 11 to 7 knots during the two cuts and stopped and went back to 11 knots after....

            I know little about maritime/ships, but I thought anchors were only to keep ships from drifting and that they won't "dig in" unless deployed strategically and at very slow speed.

            • sure, ships can pull against it and move them - at that point it's more like a plow in a field. My point about 'grab' is it's not likely to 'bounce' over a cable.

              • by Blymie ( 231220 )

                This would be consistent with cameras on the anchor, and reeling it in to not be on the sea floor, but *close* to the sea floor.

                Then when the desired cable appears, dropping to the sea bed.

                • Only if the have underwater speakers playing Mission Impossible theme song.

                  I'm going with "Not how it happened for $200 Alex"

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            Lets say it like this:
            a) we do not know what happened (yet)
            b) no captain is so incompetent to not realize: oh, we only make X knots - in this weather - with this machine power ..... when it should be 3 knots more.
            c) an anchor has no 200m chain.

            So, if they cut it: it was not an accident. If they cut it, they likely had a special tool for it. Like an "undersea cutter" on a "nylon rope" - and not a simple anchor.

            A ship of that size going slower than 10knots, that is extremely unusual. In the video posted above

            • absolutely. Hell, if they're clearly under speed for the known conditions, I'd imagine a phone call being made from the ship mgmt company to the ship asking what's wrong - in a normal situation anyway.

            • by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

              a) we do not know what happened (yet)

              True, a lot of critical info is yet to be revealed.

              b) no captain is so incompetent to not realize: oh, we only make X knots - in this weather - with this machine power ..... when it should be 3 knots more.

              The weather was quite poor, so they could be thinking it's due to a strong headwind or current. 3 knots is about how fast the Gulf Stream flows. It's also possible that the captain wasn't even on the bridge at the time and someone might slack off when crossing huge expanses of water where they have very little to do. Finally, we can surmise that the suspicious stoppage afterwards was them pulling the anchor up. That means someone did eventually notice.

              c) an anchor has no 200m chain.

              Appar

              • The friction of the chain laying against the sea floor is what keeps the ship stationary.

                Actually, that's not correct. The weight of the chain between the motionless anchor and the ship is what keeps the ship from moving far from the anchor. The further the ship drifts, the more the chain pulls up off the sea floor and the more gravity and tension induce a force pulling the ship back towards the anchor.

                Once the ship is under enough power to overcome gravity's impact on the chain, friction from the anchor dragging only slows it a little.

                • Friction is entirely how anchors work. And weight/mass/force is a significant part of frictional equations.

                  If the weight of the chain and anchor are what kept it in position....you could 'anchor' in water deeper than the chain, which is obviously ridiculous.

                  The anchor is a pin point but most ships this big do rely on the chain being laid along the bottom for a good way. The chains weigh more than the anchors...by a good margin I believe.

            • The Swedish coast guard and Danish navy have gotten close enough to take pictures of the ship and publish them. There is obvious damage to the anchor visible.

          • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

            The water there is deeper than you'd normally anchor in. Anchors are designed to hold when they're pulled laterally across the bottom. They do not hold at all well when they're pulled at an angle, which many a boater who thought anchoring was just a matter of chucking the thing overboard learns the hard way.

            • Depends on the anchor and bottom.

          • It's not a case of bouncing a few times perfectly but landing a couple of times perfectly. A ships anchor is shaped in a way that it will only actually grab something when it is completely loose and extended preventing a ship from being pulled *sideways*. When they say here "drag" they don't mean let the anchor all the way down and go full steam ahead, they mean don't extend it all the way and let the anchor sit directly under the ship, at which point it absolutely bounces around the seabed.

          • by leptons ( 891340 )
            If you had ever once dealt with an anchor in your life, you would know they do not always "grab bottom and hold on" no matter how much you want it to.
            • Did I say they *always* do? no. I said that's their entire point. Are you claiming the point of an anchor isn't to, ahem, hold a ship by contact with the bottom?

              And pray tell, how many 30 ton anchors have you dealt with?

          • by torkus ( 1133985 )

            Sure but the same argument is it's a big heavy anchor...it's entire point is to grab bottom and hold on.

            The odds it happened to 'bounce' a few times just perfectly aren't great.

            It's the length of very heavy chain laying on the sea floor that mainly keeps large vessels in place, the anchor is just the initial grab point.

            If I had to guess why it got one cable but not others - they probably had the anchor lowered just enough so it was skimming along the seabed. Unspool the chain until you notice extra drag on the ship, then hold it there. If the seafloor goes up or down a few meters you might lose contact with the seabed, but not for long enough to realize and lower the anchor more

      • Thanks for posting the video. Last time this was up I asked if there were reasons to believe the vessel couldn't have cut the two cables by dropping anchor once and then drifting? The video answers that as they were doing 6ish knots against the wind.

      • Re:Not likely (Score:5, Interesting)

        by markdavis ( 642305 ) on Saturday November 30, 2024 @01:07AM (#64980587)

        >"this video shows the ship passing over 3 different cables within maybe a mile. And somehow it only cuts the middle one?"

        Informative video....

        But the video also shows that the ship mysteriously lowers speed from 11 to 7 knots right before the first cut cable, stays that speed, then stops soon after the second cable is cut and then returns to 11 knots. Very consistent with dragging an anchor. Maybe even dropping something or picking up something afterward.

        There is a *LOT* of suspect behavior shown by that ship, and way too much coincidence.

        • by gweihir ( 88907 )

          There is a *LOT* of suspect behavior shown by that ship, and way too much coincidence.

          Indeed there is. They may also have had very precise coordinated on those cables.

        • Sure. An anchor is not a dainty thing, dragging on a 500+ foot chain...just pretty extreme to think it was controlled enough to only hit one thing when there were multiple cables directly in the path within under a mile.

          • Re:Not likely (Score:5, Interesting)

            by dvice ( 6309704 ) on Saturday November 30, 2024 @08:10AM (#64980961)

            You are assuming that they aimed to cut only the middle cable. What if they just tried to cause random damage (more likely in my opinion), and just happened to have luck only with the middle cable? It could also be that the sea is not exactly flat. There might be bumps in it and the cables that are relatively free to move around could be located near to a bump and the anchor would just jump over them because of the bump.

            • Sure, lots of 'technically possible" scenarios. But dragging over a dozen cables AND pipelines and only hitting 2 makes the odds of it randomly happening pretty low.

              This is the 2nd cable cut, which also has really unlikely probability of happening.

              https://youtu.be/a7cS1aVGwUE?t... [youtu.be] 4 crossings, including pipelines, in quick succession and it manages to only clip the last one.

              Coincidences don't keep happening.

            • by Wizzu ( 30521 )

              According to news articles in Finland, the telecom cable between Finland and Germany was installed and covered at the depth of 1 meter (about 3 feet) under the seabed. It was not just free to move around. Also that means it takes considerable effort to cut it, as something must be disturbing things at that depth.

      • by Calydor ( 739835 )

        So the anchor only caught on one of them? What does that (dis)prove?

        • by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

          The most likely explanation is that some of these cables became more buried than they intended them to be.

        • It says the odds of that happening using a 30 ton anchor on a 500 ft chain made of hundreds of 1 ton links is bordering on winning the lotto.

          Occams razor is this isn't an anchor dragging incident. It's *possible* the sea floor geography just happened to facilitate it but highly unlikely

          • by torkus ( 1133985 )

            If you're going to apply Occams razor, you should also state the 'simplest explanation' for two undersea cable cuts perfectly timed with a specific ship passing over each.

            It's more likely they let out just enough chain to reach the seafloor with the anchor but not leave a long tail to drag ... and variations in depth meant the anchor was not always in contact with the the seafloor. But hey, even if I'm wrong, I'm not misusing Occam's razor.

    • Oh the cables cut themselves and the ship dragging its anchor for 100 miles was a coincidence?

      • by lsllll ( 830002 )

        I think the GP's point is valid. I've been looking for large ship anchor characteristics (weight, shape, etc) for the past 20 minutes and fail to see how an anchor that's dragging at the bottom of the seabed wouldn't grab any cable that came in its path. The only plausible explanation I have come up with is that it wasn't dragging on the seabed, but being dragged in water close to the seabed, and maybe the cable it caught on was at a higher elevation of the seabed than the other ones surrounding it.

    • they crossed numerous other cables, some within less than a mile...that magically weren't cut?

      if everything from pt A to pt B was disrupted, the anchor theory is plausible. But if dozens of other cables are crossed and not cut, it gets less plausible.

      I'm guessing any particular cable being cut is kinda random.

      But, if Russian intelligence was involved, the instructions might have simply been "drag the anchor in this area, and whatever happens happens!" I'm sure some of those other cables were important as well (this also might not have been the first ship they had try this).

      Of course, the more likely explanation is incompetence, but you can't ignore the possibility that Russia was involved.

    • The cut cables were likely deployed by a cheapskate/crook who didnâ(TM)t bury it properly. Burying it uses lots of fuel.
      • ... a cheapskate/crook who didnâ(TM)t bury it properly.

        Undersea cables are not buried except very close to the shore. Why would they be? It is not normal for ships to drag a anchor or grapnel along the bottom in the middle of the sea.

        • False. Undersea cables are buried at depths of less than 2km as standard, and all cables in the Baltic sea including the C-Lion 1 are buried. The issue is burial is a strong word for putting something 1m below the surface of the ocean floor. That's barely deeper than you're required to bury a cable you run to your garden shed. It gives the cable a bit of luck against accidental damage but does nothing to stop a targeted attack.

          • Citation most definitely needed. Utter BS dude.

            • by dknj ( 441802 )

              ciTaTiOn NeEdEd - or in otherwords you cant be bother to conduct a 5 second google search

              Submarine cables have been laid on the seabed since the 1850's. In most cases, recently installed cables are buried beneath the seabed to a target depth of 1 metre, unfortunately there remains a percentage of cable unburied. Cables can be scoured out by tides and currents or moved by anchors and fishing gear.

              https://kis-orca.org/subsea-cables/cable-burial/

              like, you didn't even try bruh

      • No. Burying the cable doesn't solve this issue. Typically buried cables are only burred to a depth of less than 1m to prevent accidental impact. A targeted attack with an anchor will still damage them.

        The cable in this case, C-Lion1, is in fact a buried cable, and wasn't installed by some crook, but rather installed by Alcatel Submarine Networks, the second largest supplier and installer of undersea networks in the world.

        I guarantee you they didn't give a fuck about "using lots of fuel".

  • by pele ( 151312 )

    Interesting to see how reaction times shrink when facebook becomes slower for some finns yet when half the continent has to pay higher gas prices on the orders of biden - nothing!

    • Because the elections are over. Democrats lost. Donald will fix that for you. Just be patient.
  • While the investigation is ongoing and when confirmed.
  • No competent ship captain is going to drag an anchor for 100 miles. If this was not intentional, it was incompetent.

    Denmark should prosecute the ship's officers. Denmark should also seize the ship and it's content, and hold them against payment for the repairs, ancillary costs, and a hefty penalty. Either the company can pay, or China can pay (since the ship is licensed from China). No payment? Then ship and contents get auctioned off.

    • No payment? Then ship and contents get auctioned off.

      That's peanuts for a penalty to China. And no fertilizer hauler can find a sea cable.

      • Dear ignorant person, Denmark is a part of EU. Also, the cutting of the cable affected more than just person.

        Kindly go educate yourself off.

        • Kindly go educate yourself off.

          That's pretty rich for someone who clearly didn't understand my comment.

          I get it, English is not your first language. Good for you. But you're still not equipped to argue in it.

  • by Teun ( 17872 ) on Saturday November 30, 2024 @05:19AM (#64980813)
    Why is the Yi Peng already several days anchored between Danish islands and the Swedish coast?
    It is surrounded by Danish, German and Swedish military and coastguard craft.
    I mean, when a Chinese ship of this size does something unusual, like the anchoring, be sure Beijing knows about it.
    There is also the rumour about a Russian on board, it might mean nothing but typically the Chinese handle everything themself.
    Can it be the captain thought he'd do something for the Russians but at the time did not tell his handlers in the Chinese government who are now considering the options.
  • How many Russian acts of war does it take in a decade full of them to at least covertly defend yourself?
  • Two tails, but no head. Some interesting science to be gathered there at the actual real-life location of the perforated drainage tube, I mean sooper techy cable casing, in shallow water teeming with alien life.
  • Allow no ships to transit the Gulf of Finland to the Baltic Sea from Saint Petersburg for a specific time like 3 months. Russia's access to the Baltic is at the allowance of Finland and Estonia. Russian traffic must go through one of these two country's national waters. Just say No.

To communicate is the beginning of understanding. -- AT&T

Working...