Tanker

A Russian tanker has delivered enough fuel to meet Cuba’s energy needs for up to 10 days, following a three-month blockade.

A Russia-flagged tanker carrying 730,000 barrels of oil has docked in Cuba, marking the first time in three months that an oil tanker has reached the island nation.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump allowed the Anatoly Kolodkin to proceed despite an ongoing US energy blockade. The Aframax tanker entered the Bay of Matanzas – the country’s largest supertanker and fuel storage port – on Tuesday at daybreak.

The vessel, under US sanctions, entered Cuban territorial waters late on Sunday, not far from the US Navy base at Guantanamo Bay. The United States said it was allowing the tanker to deliver fuel for humanitarian reasons.

The Anatoly Kolodkin entered the Bay of Matanzas under clear skies and light winds at sunrise. Much of the nearby city – and the majority of Cuba – was without power when the tanker arrived at the port area.

Cuba has not received an oil tanker in three months, according to President Miguel Diaz-Canel, exacerbating an energy crisis that has led to seemingly endless blackouts across the country of 10 million people and brought hospitals, public transportation, and farm production to the brink of collapse.

Cubans, including Energy and Mines Minister Vicente de la O Levy, cheered the ship’s arrival. A shortage of petroleum has exacerbated a deep economic crisis, leaving the population mired in long blackouts and facing severe shortages of food and medicine.

“Our gratitude to the Government and People of Russia for all the support we are receiving. A valuable shipment that arrives amidst the complex energy situation we are facing,” de la O Levy wrote on X.

The fuel, if delivered, would give Cuba’s communist-run government breathing room amid growing pressure from the Trump administration, which has promised change in Cuba.

It will take days before the crude on board the Anatoly Kolodkin can be processed domestically and turned into motor fuel and refined products, such as diesel and fuel oil for power generation.

The ship is carrying Russian Urals, a medium sour crude, which is a good fit for Cuba’s ageing refineries.

Cuba produces barely 40 percent of its required fuel and relies on imports to sustain its energy grid. Experts say the anticipated shipment could produce about 180,000 barrels of diesel, enough to feed Cuba’s daily demand for nine or 10 days.

Cuba used to receive most of its oil from Venezuela, but those shipments have been halted ever since the US attacked the South American country and abducted its leader, Nicolas Maduro, in early January.

Leaders of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Jordan meet in Jeddah as US-Israeli attacks on Iran continue, and Iranian counterattacks hit Gulf nations.

March 27 (UPI) — A tanker carrying Russian fuel initially headed to Cuba ended up docking in Venezuela after weeks of deviations, while a second oil-carrying vessel remains without a clear destination in the Caribbean amid the island nation’s energy crisis.

The vessel Sea Horse, sailing under the Hong Kong flag, had been closely tracked by maritime analysts since it departed from the eastern Mediterranean carrying between 190,000 and 200,000 barrels of Russian diesel initially destined for Cuba.

During its voyage, the tanker repeatedly changed its declared destination. It went from being listed as en route to Havana to indicating “Caribbean Sea” and later Trinidad and Tobago in a pattern that reflected growing uncertainty about its final destination.

Ultimately, the Sea Horse arrived at Puerto Cabello, in Venezuela, on Wednesday morning after nearly 50 days in transit.

The diversion occurred in a context of increasing pressure from the United States to restrict fuel supplies to Cuba, which is facing a severe energy crisis with recurring blackouts and oil shortages.

The case of the Sea Horse is not isolated. Maritime tracking data show that other vessels have altered their routes or avoided declaring final destinations in recent weeks, amid sanctions that explicitly exclude Cuba from relaxed sanctions for Russian oil trade.

The second vessel, the Russian tanker Anatoly Kolodkin, maintains its uncertainty.

The ship, which is carrying roughly 730,000 barrels of crude, continues in the Caribbean Atlantic without a publicly confirmed final destination.

The maritime tracking website VesselFinder shows the destination of the Anatoly Kolodkin as “Atlantic for order,” a designation used in the industry to indicate that the vessel is sailing without a publicly confirmed final destination.

On Tuesday, maritime intelligence analyst Michelle Wiese Bockmann told Politico that the vessel could arrive in Cuba in “two or three days,” although its trajectory remains without clear confirmation.

The most recent AIS tracking data indicate that the vessel is about 487 miles from Turks and Caicos, with an estimated arrival Monday. However, its current vectors do not point directly toward Cuba, reinforcing uncertainty about true destination.

The behavior of the Kolodkin raises questions in a highly monitored environment.

“There are details that just don’t add up,” said Evan Ellis, a professor at the U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute.

“Given the U.S. naval and air assets in the area, the Russian tanker has to know it won’t get in undetected. The question is whether this is some kind of cat-and-mouse game, or if shifting expectations, possibly tied to developments in Cuba, have changed whether it believes it can enter unopposed,” he said.

“Maybe the deliberate attempt was meant to apply pressure, and then once it got a reaction, it was backing off,” he added.

For Ellis, the key point remains outside the public radar.

“The biggest story is what’s going on behind the scenes that we don’t know about,” he said.

The eventual arrival of the Kolodkin also could force a decision from Washington. Analysts cited by the Miami Herald say the options range from diplomatic pressure to a possible interception by the U.S. Navy or U.S. Coast Guard.

“At the end of the day, what we really have to watch for is what actually happens,” said Jorge Piñón, a senior research collaborator at the University of Texas Energy Institute.

Cuba imports about 60% of its energy and depends on external supplies to sustain its electrical system, making each shipment a critical factor within a scenario of growing geopolitical tension.

Operation Epic Fury will hit a month old by the weekend. It and the massive military build-up to it were made possible by a global logistics chain that only the Pentagon can supply. At the heart of it is the aerial refueling fleet. These aircraft have flown thousands of sorties to get materiel where it needs to be and fast. These have included stuffing the fuel tanks of C-17s with cargo holds full of Patriot missiles to dragging stealth fighters across the globe. Epic Fury has been one of many operations to heavily tax the tanker fleet in recent years. To get a much better insight into the tanker portion of the war and its impacts, we talked to one man with an extreme level of experience behind the controls of USAF tankers.

For more than 20 years, Troy Pananon, a retired Air Force colonel, served in the aerial refueling community. He flew KC-10 Extender and KC-135 Stratotanker refueling jets and served as deputy commander of the 6th Air Mobility Wing at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida (now 6th Air Refueling Wing), and later as commander of the 100th Air Refueling Wing at RAF Mildenhall in England. Both of these installations and their KC-135s are instrumental in the ongoing war in Iran.

In a two-hour, wide-ranging exclusive interview, Pananon offered insights into the strain of the war on the jets and personnel and the challenges of keeping the aging KC-135s flying as they perform hundreds of sorties gassing up fighters, airlifters and other aircraft. One of those missions resulted in the deaths of six airmen after a suspected midair collision over Iraq. Pananon also addressed a whole host of other issues, including how Epic Fury is affecting readiness for a fight against China, the scourge of drone incursions and much more, which will be addressed in future installments.

Pananon, who began his career as an enlisted Marine, retired from the Air Force in 2023 and is now a 737 first officer with United Airlines. The first installment of our conversation focuses on Epic Fury and the toll on the tankers, crews and maintainers. Some of the questions and answers have been lightly edited for clarity.

Q: The Air Force tanker fleet has come under extremely heavy use in recent years, being widely utilized in the evacuation of Afghanistan, the massive deliveries to Ukraine, the constant crisis in the Middle East and the campaign against the Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro. Now, the war in Iran. Talk about the strain this is putting on it, on the aircrews, the maintainers and the airframes, some of which rolled out during the Eisenhower era.

A: I would categorically say that there’s a huge strain on the entire ecosystem. The KC-135s were rolling off the assembly line in the 50s and 60s. Some of the technology, and we called it technology back then, was graduated from the Wright brothers technology. Parts on that aircraft are still reminiscent of some of the things that were invented by the Wright brothers. So it’s amazing to me that the KC-135 is able to operate, and it’s due in large part to the maintainers and the relentless effort that they follow through to keep those aircraft air worthy. 

If you think about the [airmen], how they’re operating in places you mentioned all over the world, they’re there. We’ve broken their normal routine. They’re away from home, away from their family and friends. So that’s a mental and physical stressor, because they’re in environments that they’re not accustomed to. 

We don’t know how long this conflict could last. We’re approaching a high heat of summer in that region, and so depending on where some of these personnel are based or stationed, they’re certainly out of their normal circadian rhythm, their normal environmental routines. It is a huge strain on those maintainers and the airframes that we’re placing in different parts of the world, exposed to different elements than they may have been exposed to at their normal pace. Maintaining these aging aircraft is a strain on the entire ecosystem, and we are operating them at a high operations tempo, and surely that puts a lot of a significant strain on the KC-135.

We do have the KC-46 that is helping to fill some of that void, but we just retired the KC-10, which was a tremendous workhorse. And so I would say that there’s a significant strain on the ecosystem.

Q: What are the biggest challenges in keeping these Cold War-era jets like the KC-135 flying? How difficult is it to find parts, and what do you do when you can’t?

A: That’s 100% accurate. There have been some breakthroughs in technology. I know that they’ve used 3D printing to help source some parts. They’ve even gone back to the boneyard and pulled parts off of older KC-135s. So resources will always be a great puzzle for our entire team to source. 

There’s no new assembly line. They shut that assembly line down back in the ’50s and ’60s. Some of the parts for those aircraft in general were from the ’60s, ’70s and ’80s. And then, you have to take those back and refurbish those certain parts. There’s not a lot of new technology that’s going on to these core platforms. The avionics, for sure, is newer. But everything that you add to this aircraft, I call it the Frankenstein effort – taking bolt-on technology to try and help modernize the fleet. And by modernizing that means that you’re also helping with the parts availability. But going back to the age of these aircraft, some of these parts were developed back in the ’40s and machined back in the ’50s and ’60s. Our teams have to get creative with the acquisition. And that’s a huge, huge challenge. But they currently have done a great job of putting new engines on the aircraft. And so that means that the parts availability is better in some cases, but it’s not a solution. 

Davis Monthan AMARG Boneyard tour with KC-135s and Boeing 707s

Q: What are some of the old parts you’re talking about that go back to the ’40s, or to the Wright brothers era?

A: Just think about the flight controls. If you, for whatever reason, need to replace certain pulleys or elements within the flight control system, those parts were thought-up and developed way back in the ’40s. Machined maybe back in the ’50s and ’60s. It’s still not a fly-by-wire aircraft like some of the modern aircraft that we have nowadays. And so you have to go back and machine some of these parts if they get wear and tear.

Q: What are the complexities of supporting such a high tempo operation like the war against Iran with aerial refueling? We’ve heard that the airspace over Iraq is chaotic and that the lack of onboard situational awareness is a major issue with tanker crews and receivers. What have you heard about this?

A: Obviously I haven’t operated over there in a number of years, but I do go back to the times when I was operating aircraft in that theater. That puts me back into the Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom timeframe. We have deconfliction procedures. We have airspace procedures that we study and that we follow. We have aircraft in there that help us deconflict the airspace and ensure that we have safe separation. And it goes to training, it goes to situational awareness.

Back then, we didn’t have some of the avionics and software suites that we have available to us today, so our situational awareness wasn’t as high, but yet we had good, solid procedures and processes that ensured clear deconfliction and separation in the airspace that they’re operating in. Now, I would assume that it’s congested and it’s contested, and so having the ability to have higher situational awareness with onboard avionics suites that are connected is probably more and more essential as we go forward.

Q: But have you heard anything about the chaotic nature of the current airspace and lack of onboard situational awareness? Is it a major issue right now with the tanker crews and receivers?

A:  I really can’t comment on it, because I don’t have firsthand knowledge. What I can say is that it’s in a contested environment, and our crews are definitely trained to operate in these kinds of environments. And you know, it’s just like anything there. There are elements that we have little control over, and I call it the fog and friction of warfare. But I have 100% absolute trust in the personnel. They’ve been trained. They are equipped. Could they be equipped better? Could they be resourced better? Sure. But again, it still goes back to the fact that even if we resource them with the newest technology, they then have to go back and be trained to understand how to integrate it and how to use it effectively. 

There is still an opportunity here. You can’t solve it overnight, but it does need to happen so it would help. I’m certain that if we ever get into conflict with a near peer, it’s going to be even more challenging.

Q: When was the last time tanker crews flew in contested airspace against adversaries with more robust air defenses than we have seen in past conflicts?

A: I would like to say that any time that you’re operating within a conflict zone, that’s considered contested airspace, right? The tankers are considered a high-value, low-density. We don’t have an infinite number of tankers, so they’re going to tend to operate outside the reach of the adversary’s missiles, or fighter aircraft that would try to reach and take down one of these tankers. So they’re really going to try and operate within a safe, safe zone. I would frankly say that in a conflict, tankers operate in contested airspace all the time, and it’s really contingent on the ability of our joint force to clear that airspace and to allow our tankers to move closer to the tip of the spear, but generally speaking, it is really sacrosanct to keep tankers an arm’s reach away from an adversary’s ability to take them down.

Q: Do you have any sense of what happened in the fatal March 12 KC-135 crash in Iraq that led to the deaths of Maj. John “Alex” Klinner, 33, of Auburn, Alabama; Capt. Ariana G. Savino, 31, of Covington, Washington; Tech. Sgt. Ashley B. Pruitt, 34, of Bardstown, Kentucky; Capt. Seth R. Koval, 38, of Mooresville, Indiana; Capt. Curtis J. Angst, 30, of Wilmington, Ohio; and Tech. Sgt. Tyler H. Simmons, 28, of Columbus, Ohio?

A: There’s an investigation taking place and it’d be wrong of me to comment on what I think took place. These crews are highly trained. They have a process. They have procedures. I don’t know what was taking place on the flight decks of both of those aircraft. There was probably some confusion as to who and where each aircraft was supposed to be, but I don’t know what led to that. There’s a lot of speculation out there. It’d be hard for me to really say what I think actually did happen.

Q: The cause of the tanker crash is suspected to be a collision with another KC-135. How many close calls have you experienced in your career?

A: Well, I have a deep background in the KC-10, and that also gives gas and takes gas. So I’ve been within 10 feet of another aircraft, operating at close to 350 miles an hour. It’s an inherently dangerous occupation when you’re trying to receive fuel from another aircraft. I don’t think that was the case in this particular incident over Iraq. But at all times, everything we do is inherently dangerous because we operate within safe operating margins, but they’re tight. So, a simple split-second decision or maybe error puts you in a precarious position. But we have procedures that, if we make a mistake and we come close to another aircraft – there is a term that we use, which is ‘breakaway.’ And that tells both aircraft, ‘hey, we’re in a situation where we need to create some space between our aircraft,’ and we follow our procedures. It’s a safe maneuver, but probably makes the hair on the back of your neck stand up a little bit. I’ve been in this, I’ve been in situations where I’ve had to rapidly escape from another aircraft. 

But again, we get trained for this. We are highly trained. And I think because of the training, when a situation like that occurs, your instinct kicks in and you know what to do. And so, I don’t recall instances where two KC-135s had a midair collision, but certainly, we have had air-to-air collisions, just none in my recent memory.

Q: The air refueling tanker community is tight. You served at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida, with Tech. Sgt. Pruitt, one of the airmen who was killed in the crash. Tell me about how the crash affected the community. Tell me a little bit about Pruitt.

A: From my time at MacDill, I do remember her family. In general, losing anyone is just a shock to the system. And especially somebody that you may have worked with in the past, and you know. I just feel for their families. And we have a community. The tanker community – it’s just a system, a brotherhood and sisterhood. We are just one big family. Anytime we have a tragedy that strikes our community, especially like this, it’s tough. 

I know that there are teams of people out there that are remorseful for the loss and that are doing anything in their power to support the families of these airmen. And I know there’s a lot of effort right now within our tanker community and outside of our tanker community with Go-Fund-Me pages. This is critical, because the families that have been affected by this lost a parent, right? A brother or sister or a spouse. I really do feel for these families, and I applaud the efforts of the supporters out there that are contributing to help with some of the things that are going to end up financially costing these families; but emotionally, you know that they will need support, probably for the rest of their lives. And so it’s a huge, huge loss.

Q: What can you tell me about Tech. Sgt. Pruitt?

A: Ashley was full of energy and was extremely bright, tenacious, and had an unmatched work ethic. She was a real, genuine people person. When you walked into a room, you knew she was there. But she was incredibly talented and someone that you could rely upon to help others, and she was absolutely an incredible boom operator and highly skilled and her death is this huge, huge loss. For her legacy, she impacted so many people and so many of these airmen and their families were certainly enriched by her being in their lives. At the time, I was the vice commander of the [then-6th Air Mobility Wing] at MacDill. And on occasion, I would go out and go fly with the KC-135 crews. I didn’t have a daily interaction with her, but everybody knew her, and everybody knew of her. And that’s the important part. There are many other airmen that are in our ranks right now that have benefited from being introduced to her and being taught by her and being mentored by her. So she’s surely missed.

Q: Give me a sense of how RAF Mildenhall and other bases in Europe and elsewhere keep these aircraft flying to generate sorties and deploy to combat zones like the Middle East.

A: The best part about having a forward operating base like Mildenhall is that you have all the resources in place, and in this particular case, they’re closer to where the conflict is. You don’t have as much of a long logistical chain, but you still have a logistics chain that you have to support. And so operating at a place like Mildenhall, a round the clock operation every day of the year, you do have weather to contend with on occasion, and you do have airspace constraints that you do have to contend with. But again, all of these crews are highly trained and so I would say that the operations tempo at a place like Mildenhall is extremely high. 

Just being able to have the support of the government there and the host nation that there is, and the local community is a big deal. I enjoyed my time there. Of course, we were there during COVID, during the global pandemic, and the lengths and support that we received from the host nation to ensure the safety of our community and our airmen was incredible.

Q: The 100th Air Refueling Wing has 15 tankers and more transit through. What are the concerns and checklists of objectives for a Mildenhall commander during a major contingency operation like Epic Fury?

A: It’s just our ability to support, right? You mentioned there are 15 tankers, but the airfield itself was able to surge to support twice as many. I currently don’t know how many aircraft that we’re currently supporting out of Mildenhall, but the ability to support that means that you have to be able to flex to the surge of the operation that you’re encountering. You have personnel that are helping to fuel the aircraft. You need personnel to maintain and sustain the aircraft. And so I would assume that we are getting support from bases in the United States. And they’re deployed there from all parts of our country and major units. The tanker fleet is a total force effort. Nearly half of the force resides in the [Air Reserve Component] ARC, and so personnel from Reserve, Guard, active duty, I’m sure, have been sent to help support operations like that. 

In our next installment, Pananon talks about the KC-46’s lack of a boom pod, how Epic Fury is affecting the ability to potentially fight China and the dangers of flying long distances over the Pacific against an adversary with robust and plentiful modern air defenses.

Contact the author: howard@thewarzone.com

March 16 (Asia Today) — A bold bet by a South Korean shipping heir on ultra-large oil tankers is paying off handsomely as the war involving Iran disrupts global energy markets and drives tanker demand sharply higher.

Bloomberg reported that Sinokor Merchant Marine, a major South Korean shipping company, positioned itself to profit from the crisis after securing a large fleet of very large crude carriers (VLCCs) months before the conflict escalated.

The strategy was led by Jeong Ga-hyun, a director at Sinokor Petrochemical and the son of Sinokor Chairman Jeong Tae-soon, according to the report.

Bloomberg described the move as an unprecedented large-scale bet in the global tanker market, executed well before the outbreak of the Iran conflict.

Tankers deployed to Gulf before war

On Jan. 29, weeks before the war erupted in late February, Sinokor reportedly deployed at least six empty VLCCs to the Persian Gulf, positioning them to wait for cargo.

After disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz pushed tanker demand and charter rates sharply higher, the strategy began generating massive returns.

The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most critical energy chokepoints, handling roughly 20% of global oil shipments.

Tanker rates surge to $500,000 a day

With oil exports disrupted and storage facilities across the Middle East filling rapidly, oil producers have increasingly turned to tankers as floating storage units.

According to Bloomberg, Sinokor is now chartering vessels for about $500,000 per day, roughly ten times last year’s average tanker rates.

Industry estimates suggest that by late February the company controlled around 150 VLCCs, representing roughly 40% of available tankers not already tied up in sanctions or long-term contracts.

Quiet heir behind massive shipping strategy

Jeong is known in the shipping industry as the low-profile heir to one of South Korea’s major maritime families.

Bloomberg reported that he rarely appears publicly and is known internally for a military-style management approach. Industry anecdotes even describe him challenging employees and business partners to arm-wrestling contests.

Oil supply disruptions reshape tanker market

The Iran war has dramatically altered global oil transportation patterns, forcing ships to reroute and increasing the need for offshore storage.

Under those conditions, Sinokor’s aggressive tanker acquisition strategy is now being viewed as one of the biggest winners of the crisis, Bloomberg said.

WSJ: Sinokor among winners of Hormuz crisis

The Wall Street Journal earlier identified Sinokor as one of the companies benefiting from the Strait of Hormuz tensions.

According to the newspaper, the company purchased dozens of oil tankers and deployed some of them to the Gulf region even before the conflict intensified.

Sources told the Journal that Sinokor is leasing several vessels to ADNOC, the United Arab Emirates’ state-owned oil company, to be used as floating storage facilities.

These vessels can earn up to $500,000 per day in charter fees, the report said.

As land-based storage in Gulf oil-producing countries approaches capacity, producers have increasingly stored crude at sea. Drilling firms in Iraq and Kuwait have even slowed production due to storage shortages.

The WSJ also noted that Greek shipping magnate George Prokopiou adopted a similar strategy, sending at least five tankers to the Strait of Hormuz through his company Dynacom, which is reportedly earning up to $440,000 per day – about four times pre-war rates.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260316010004394

A KC-135 Stratotanker that was taking part in Operation Epic Fury has crashed in Iraq, U.S. Central Command announced.

“U.S. Central Command is aware of the loss of a U.S. KC-135 refueling aircraft,” the command stated Thursday afternoon in a media release. “The incident occurred in friendly airspace during Operation Epic Fury, and rescue efforts are ongoing. Two aircraft were involved in the incident. One of the aircraft went down in western Iraq, and the second landed safely.”

“This was not due to hostile fire or friendly fire,” the CENTCOM statement added. “More information will be made available as the situation develops. We ask for continued patience to gather additional details and provide clarity for the families of service members.”

Three American crewed aircraft are known to have been lost during Operation Epic Fury prior to today’s KC-135 loss. These were F-15Es that were shot down in a bizarre friendly fire incident.

This is a developing story. We will update this post with new information as soon as we get it.

UPDATE: 6:15 PM EDT –

The Times of Israel has reported that the second aircraft involved was another KC-135. That outlet also says that the KC-135 in question was one that landed at Israel’s Ben Gurion Airport earlier in the day after declaring an in-flight emergency. Online flight tracking data shows that tanker is a KC-135RT variant, one of a small subset of KC-135Rs that are themselves capable of being refueled in flight. This, in turn, allows them to make use of tanker support themselves to remain on station longer or to conduct longer-distance missions. You can read more about these “receiver-tankers” in this past TWZ feature.

Russian President Vladimir Putin accuses Ukraine of carrying out a ‘terrorist attack.’

A Russian tanker carrying liquefied natural gas (LNG) has sunk in the Mediterranean between Libya and Malta, as Moscow accused Ukraine of attacking the vessel.

The Libyan port authority said the tanker was hit by “sudden explosions followed by a massive fire, which ultimately led to its complete sinking” on Tuesday night north of the port of Sirte, Libya.

Russian President Vladimir Putin accused Ukraine of attacking the gas carrier.

“This is a terrorist attack. This isn’t the first time we’ve seen this kind of thing,” Russia’s Putin told a reporter from Russian state television on Wednesday, accusing Kyiv of responsibility.

There was no immediate comment from Ukraine.

Russia’s Transport Ministry said that the Arctic Metagaz, which had been carrying LNG from the Arctic port of Murmansk, was attacked by Ukrainian naval drones launched from the coast of Libya.

It said the 30 crew members, all Russian nationals, were safe, and thanked Maltese rescue services.

“We qualify what happened as an act of international terrorism and maritime piracy, a gross violation of the fundamental norms of international maritime law,” the ministry said.

According to an advisory from Libya’s maritime rescue agency, the Arctic Metagaz sank in waters between Libya and Malta after catching fire on Tuesday night.

It warned vessels to avoid the site where the carrier sank and asked them to report any pollution in the area.

The Libyan port authority said the ship was carrying an estimated 62,000 metric tons of liquefied natural gas (LNG) on its way to Port Said, Egypt.

Egypt’s Petroleum Ministry has denied any connection with the tanker.

“The tanker is not listed under any contracts to supply or receive LNG cargoes to Egypt,” the ministry said.

The Arctic Metagaz has been sanctioned by the United States and the European Union as part of Russia’s fleet of ageing tankers that carry oil and gas exports around the world, skirting Western restrictions.

Ukraine has frequently targeted Russian oil refineries and other energy infrastructure in an attempt to deprive Russia’s war machine of funding.

In December, Ukraine said it had hit a Russian tanker with aerial drones in the neutral waters of the Mediterranean Sea, in what was the first such strike there in Russia and Ukraine’s more than four-year war.

March 4 (UPI) — A Russian liquefied natural gas tanker sank in the Mediterranean Sea on Wednesday after catching fire from what Russian officials said was an attack by Ukrainian drones.

Libyan port officials said there were explosions on the ship and it ultimately erupted in flames between Libya and Malta. The tanker was carrying about 62,000 metric ton of liquefied natural gas.

Thirty crew members were rescued and no deaths have been reported, TASS Russian News Agency reports.

Ukraine‘s security service has not commented on the incident.

The Russian Transport Ministry said in a statement that the tanker was attacked by unmanned Ukrainian boats.

The tanker was about 130 nautical miles north of the Sirte, Libya, port when it sank. It departed from the port of Murmansk, Russia.

“We qualify what happened as an act of international terrorism and maritime piracy, a gross violation of the fundamental norms of international maritime law,” the Russian Transport Ministry said in a statement.

“Such criminal actions, carried out with the connivance of the authorities of European Union member states, must not remain without assessment by the international community.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin echoed the statement of the transport ministry, calling it a “terrorist attack.”

The ministry adds that the tanker was operating in “full compliance with all international regulations.”