It’s very hard to get people interested in merchant shipping. In my experience it takes three things to generate even a short bit of attention: pollution (always catastrophic, and the more catastrophic the better), significant loss of life, preferably passengers or penguins*, and/or a good conspiracy theory.
The recent collision involving SOLONG, a container feeder ship, which ploughed into the side of a tanker carrying aviation spirit had, according to the MSM, all three, but the pollution was mostly made up and only one Filipino seaman died, so a conspiracy theory was given its head, especially as SOLONG’s captain was a Russian.
This article is about a conspiracy but does not involve SOLONG or the ship she hit, STENA IMMACULATE, which was just an accident, regardless of the nationality of the Captain. Nothing about that casualty suggests that it was deliberate. Crew negligence almost certainly, but deliberate sabotage? Forget it.
No. This is about a much greater, much more significant conspiracy, that of the series of mysterious explosions on tankers that many knowledgeable folk (like me) think are almost certainly deliberate and are being perpetrated by a ‘state actor’. Oddly, the MSM has all but ignored these incidents and seems to have no interest in this real conspiracy. Very odd.
In recent months multiple vessels, mostly tankers, have suffered explosion damage that has all the signs of being caused by naval limpet mines. The ships involved all suffered multiple explosions at the aft end, under engine and machinery spaces and were almost certainly attacked with the intention of causing total loss. It is generally assumed within the shipping industry that the attacks were carried out by a ‘state actor’.
So why has the MSM been almost silent? The threat of pollution was high, so was the potential for fatalities (only seamen though) and the possibility of a conspiracy is very high. Could the MSM’s silence be because the attacks have targeted crude oil and oil products tankers calling at Russian ports? Could that explain the indifference?
This ‘state actor’ appears to have deliberately targeted merchant shipping calling at Russian oil export facilities, including the ports of Novorossiysk on the Black Sea and Ust-Luga on the Baltic, since at least December 2024. Targeted merchant ships that called at these ports later experienced underwater damage consistent with exploding naval mines. One of the vessels sank in the Mediterranean, a second was damaged off the coast of Mersin, Turkey and one suffered damage off Libya.
Another vessel suffered an explosion while moored at Ust-Luga, Russia, and partially sank. It is thought that the perpetrators were targeting the ships for having called Russian ports, using delayed fuses.
In all of these events there have been multiple explosions, with 2-4 damage sites. A well-placed naval mine would be sufficient to cause a constructive total loss (CTL) meaning that the cost of repairing the ship would be higher than its insured value. All of the explosions have been underwater, causing holes ranging from 1m x 0.8m to 4m x 2m in size.
As the mines were placed underwater on the bottom of the ship’s hull plating, they were almost certainly placed when the vessels were drifting or anchored. Naval mines can have delayed fuses which can be set to explode days, even weeks, later.
It is reported that hull inspection by divers of the damage provided clear evidence of naval mines, with large breaches in the hull plating, which was deformed upward, into the structure of the ship, with shearing along welded seams and thus indicative of a high-intensity external explosion, such as that caused by a limpet mine placed on the ship’s bottom plating.
My initial thought was that the tankers involved were sanctioned or part of the "shadow fleet" that defies western sanctions and continues to serve Russian ports. But this does not seem to be the case, or not exclusively so, suggesting that the ‘state actor’ does not distinguish between vessels carrying Russian-origin oil and those transporting non-Russian hydrocarbons and that the intention is to damage Russian trade.
It is likely, therefore, that all vessels calling at Russian ports to load hydrocarbon products are potentially at risk of being targeted, irrespective of their ownership, flag, cargo origin, or operational profile.
These attacks do not yet threaten Russian exports, but they will probably dramatically increase War Risk Premiums ship owners have to pay their insurers for covering a ship entering a declared war zone, possibly making it uneconomic to trade a ship to Russian ports.
The West pulled a similar trick a couple of years ago after an agreement between Russia and Ukraine that ships carrying grain cargoes from either country would be left alone. The agreement held for a while, but then Russia resumed attacking ships carrying Ukrainian exports. The MSM portrayed this as evidence of Russian untrustworthiness - but neglected to mention that the Russians had found out that ships going to their ports could not get insurance cover, but could if going to Ukrainian ports.
The Russians are now conducting underwater hull inspections when ships arrive in their ports and has resumed targeting shipping in Ukrainian ports with missiles, again being denounced as savages for doing so.
Ships involved have been Thenamaris-operated 112,200 dwt (deadweight tonnes – a measure of the amount of cargo she can carry) crude oil tanker SEACHARM, damaged off the Turkish Mediterranean port of Ceyhan in late January and then another Thenamaris vessel, the 108,900-dwt LR2 SEAJEWEL large product tanker was targeted the following month off Savona, Italy. I know Greek-owned, Athens-based Thenamaris very well; they are a highly professional owner operator.
The 50,000-dwt Liberia-flagged GRACE FERRUM was damaged off Libya in February, and a Russian-owned tanker, the 164,500-dwt KOALA was hit at Ust-Luga and partially sank, with divers reporting damage consistent with limpet mines, and a Russian-flagged, 9,500-dwt general cargo ship URSA MAJOR sank in the Mediterranean after explosions near its stern.
All these ships were all hit by multiple explosions underneath the engine room and propeller shafting system, and therefore intended to cause a CTL, and were almost certainly triggered by delayed-action fuses.
None of these ships were on US sanctions lists. Two of them had loaded at the CPC terminal in Novorossiysk, which primarily exports Russian crude.
Thenamaris had previously attracted the attention of the Ukrainian government, which put it on a list of “international sponsors of war” for transporting oil from Russia following the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. It was removed from the list in June 2023 to allow a new package of European Union sanctions to be placed on Russia. The listing had no legal or financial implications.
So, it seems that some mysterious ‘state actor’ is carrying out terrorist attacks against international shipping, on ships going about their lawful business and in a manner likely to cause pollution and death or injury to a ship’s crew. But because the ultimate target of these attacks is Russia, there is no outcry, no MSM hysteria, nothing. Just silence.
Now who could be responsible for these acts of state terrorism? Let’s see: Russia, Iran, the Houthis. North Korea? I give up. Go on, you have a guess. Who do you think it is?
*Penguins: I was once involved in a ship (TREASURE) that sank in Saldhana Bay, near Capetown, and began to leak heavy fuel oil. We shipping people were worried about the oil being carried into the cooling water intakes for the nearby nuclear power station, but the worlds press were only worried about the penguins. Let me know if you want the full, sorry tale.
PS: Penguins are digusting.