Russian ‘floating bomb’ ship packed with explosives now just 15 miles from two UK towns

a reply to: McGinty

I think you may be getting some things confused here. The contents of the MV Ruby (the Russian bulk carrier with the ammonium nitrate) is the one with a potential explosive value of 7x that of the Beirut blast. That is not part of the process being described above.

At it's maximum value, the explosive contents of the SS Richard Montgomery (the sunken vessel being discussed here) are, at max, about half (50%) that of the Beirut blast, but more than likely much less than that (however the exact value is unknown) because some is likely inert now after decades underwater.

The blast wall being discussed would use mass to direct the blast in a west southwesterly direction away from population centers. There would still be a shock wave to contend with but the blast effects would be significantly mitigated as would any resultant localized tsunami effect.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Hi! I did get the difference in the payloads. The Thames barrier concern was regards the Ruby and the pouring concrete idea a potential solution to the Montgomery as a separate problem, once the Ruby has moved on (hopefully it moves on)

Explosives certainly isn't anything i have any knowledge of, aside from a basic grasp of physics. But ofc a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing

Would the Ruby not trouble the Thames as far up as London?

As of this morning the Ship MV Ruby is still anchored of the British coast...

It's a fertilizer ship full of fertilizer. It needs to be combined with other chemistries to be a bomb.

If they would have allowed it to be unloaded, it probably would not be where it is full of fertilizer.

a reply to: rickymouse

But as it has been floating around North Sea rigs while supposedly being en route to Malta?

Thing is, it might be combined with other stuff.

That’d probably be SBS dude 👍

a reply to: worldstarcountry

a reply to: rickymouse

Ammonium nitrate can indeed explode on its own under certain conditions particularly when it is stored incorrectly or in large quantities.

Mainly due to the fact that its a strong oxidizer.

When its heated or subjected to extreme shock, it decomposes and releases gas and heat.

The decomposition leads to a rapid increase in pressure which can result in an explosion.

As of Monday dinner time the RV Ruby is still sat of the English coast.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

but nukes themselves have not caused tsunamis when detonated underwater, granted it was open ocean.

the second test at bikini atoll generated a tsunami 94 feet tall.

The second test, codenamed BAKER, occurred at 8:35 AM local time on July 25 when an implosion-type bomb, suspended 90 feet underwater, exploded with a yield of 23 kilotons. The BAKER shot was the first underwater test of an atomic device, and the explosion produced so many unusual phenomena that a conference was held two months later to define new terms for use in descriptions and analysis.

The underwater fireball generated by the blast took the form of a rapidly expanding hot gas bubble, which reached the sea floor and the sea surface simultaneously. The result created a shallow crater on the seafloor 30 feet deep and nearly 2,000 feet wide. At the top, water burst through the surface like a geyser, creating a massive “spray dome” containing nearly two million tons of water. The expanding dome stretched into a hollow chimney of spray called the “column,” 6000 feet tall and 2000 feet wide with walls 300 feet thick.

The space vacated by the rising gas bubble caused a tsunami which generated a wave 94 feet high. By the time the wave reached Bikini Island beach 3.5 miles away, a series of nine 15-foot waves tossed landing craft onto the beach and filled them with sand. Ten seconds after the detonation, falling water from the column created a 900-foot “base surge” which rolled over many of the target ships, painting them with radioactivity that could not be removed.
Operation Crossroads

so i guess it depends on size and depth of the bomb.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: rickymouse

Ammonium nitrate can indeed explode on its own under certain conditions particularly when it is stored incorrectly or in large quantities.

Mainly due to the fact that its a strong oxidizer.

When its heated or subjected to extreme shock, it decomposes and releases gas and heat.

The decomposition leads to a rapid increase in pressure which can result in an explosion.

I am sure that Russia and other countries have shipped ammonia nitrate in ships many times over the last hundred years. I am not saying this isn't a weapon, only that it could just be a fertilizer shipment.

a reply to: rickymouse

Maybe, but if it was en route to Malta, why was it floating around those North Sea oil rigs?

a reply to: rickymouse

It is a fertilizer shipment.

Could it be used as a weapon, well a lot of things can.

Especially when there is 20,000 tonnes of the stuff that can explode.

The ship in question is understood to have sustained a cracked hull, and both rudder and propeller damage.

Also worth pointing out that the Maltese transport ministry told the local press that it would not be allowed in Maltese waters unless it emptied its cargo.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: rickymouse

But as it has been floating around North Sea rigs while supposedly being en route to Malta?

Thing is, it might be combined with other stuff.

That's a worry! If those rigs play any substantial role in supplying our energy needs, then this potentially fits with Putin's strategy to exacerbate our energy costs

a reply to: McGinty

Considering the possible dangers the ship presents, never mind the alleged damage to its hull and propeller/rudder.

And the fact that it's sitting in a shipping lane in what appears to be international waters.

They should simply tow it out of the way to a safe distance, board the ship, assess the situation, and scuttle her if need be.

And as far as i can determine according to salvage and admiralty law they would be well within their rights to do so.

I mean even the Maltese have told them they won't be allowed into port with the cargo on board which means it obviously presents danger given the condition of the ship.

Sink it problem solved.

originally posted by: worldstarcountry

you SAS guys will blow it up like Nord Stream and blame Russia again.

It is funny that now after all their trials have been followed the only group to benefit from blowing up the pipeline was the Russian companies that owned their side of it. They were about to take massive losses and blowing it up secured the insurance needed to prevent those losses.

Funny how they were they only ones that REALLY needed it blown up.

a reply to: Xtrozero

It is funny that now after all their trials have been followed the only group to benefit from blowing up the pipeline was the Russian companies that owned their side of it.

Yeah, but you'll be told you're wrong!!!



The ship is still there today, and doesn't seemed to have moved.

BTW that is about 20 million dollars worth of Nitrate.... Maybe we can all chip in and get it cheap.

As of today 7th October ''24, the RV Ruby is still floating of the Kent coast and hasn't moved. It's been over a week now and the RV Ruby is sat in the same position and the latest news articles are claiming it's now becoming unsafe for this ship to pass through the English Channel.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: rickymouse

Maybe, but if it was en route to Malta, why was it floating around those North Sea oil rigs?

There seems to be some confusion about where it was headed. It tried to go to Malta for repairs, but news articles from the NY Post and NY Times say its destination was ports in Africa. Some of the ship tracking websites show its destination as Malta, but they also say it departed from London, which is clearly wrong. The ship came from Russia. The reason it's in the North Sea appears to be that, after it became damaged and was denied entry at a number of mainland European ports, it tried to make it to the UK as the next closest possibility.

As a few posters have noted, ammonium nitrate is only explosive if it's mixed with a fuel. Shipments of ammonium nitrate are common. It should be a simple matter to send a few inspectors on board to make sure there isn't a bunch of fuel stored next to it to make it a trojan horse bomb. If there isn't, it's a completely irrational fear. The ship is no more dangerous than the hundreds of other shipments of AN that go around the world every year. "It came from Russia!" doesn't magically make its cargo explosive without a fuel. Ships of course have fuel on board, but their engine fuel isn't stored in the f'ing cargo hold.

Irrational fearmongering and doom porn is all this appears to be, driven by uninformed statements from officials and "journalists" who were out of their element.

a reply to: YourFaceAgain

I know, but you are forgetting about the wreck of the WW2 munitions ship which was the concern.