Buy a rusty vessel and carry whatever you want.
The Kerch Strait disaster is not the first in recent years. Something similar happened in 2007. Why do such accidents occur—and likely continue to do so?
NeMoscow asked an environmental crime expert to talk about this. Dmitry Shevchenko.
"The main reason for what happened is the practice of offshore oil transshipment in the Kerch Strait, which environmental activists have repeatedly opposed. This practice emerged in the 90s, when, following Ukraine's declaration of independence, Ukrainian ports became inaccessible, and Russia faced problems exporting petroleum products. Offshore transshipment of not only petroleum products, but also fertilizers, coal, and other commodities was regularly carried out in the Kerch Strait. All of this was transported by flat-bottomed vessels like the Volgoneft and then transferred directly to seagoing vessels. This practice should have been banned long ago—at least after the 2007 disaster, when a tanker and a bulk carrier carrying sulfur sank in the same Kerch Strait.", says Shevchenko.
— Why wasn’t it banned?
"Because it's very profitable. An oil terminal is a major expense: you need to build infrastructure and maintain personnel. But it's safer: if operations there are conducted in compliance with industrial safety measures, then even if a spill occurs, it usually occurs in a protected harbor, and it's possible to quickly contain the oil slick.
On November 11, 2007, during a severe storm in the Kerch Strait and the Black Sea, 13 river-sea vessels were wrecked or damaged. Four vessels sank, including the bulk carrier Kovel, which was carrying sulfur. The oil tanker Volgoneft-139 broke in two, with its bow submerged. As a result, approximately 2000 tons of fuel oil spilled into the Sea of Azov, and approximately 6800 tons of industrial sulfur ended up on the seabed of the Kerch Strait. The entire shore was covered in fuel oil, birds smeared with oil were washed out of the sea, and fish died.
According to Shevchenko, no one drew any conclusions from the 2007 disaster, no serious punishment was meted out to those responsible, and offshore transshipment continued. To be fair, this was not only the Russian side but also the Ukrainian, even though Feodosia, for example, had and still has an oil terminal. Apparently, this option proved too attractive: no investment required, just buy a rusty vessel and transport whatever you want, including any hazardous cargo. And no oversight—what inspector from Rosprirodnadzor or Rostekhnadzor would sail out to sea to see what kind of oil slick had appeared there?
— What is the situation today?
— The information is very contradictory. The tanker Volgoneft-212 sank, and its fate is still unclear. Divers are working there, and it's reported that they've recovered about 80-100 tons of oil, but that's literally a drop in the bucket. The tanker Volgoneft-239 broke in half, and one half, the bow, washed up on Cape Panagia. Cape Panagia is a natural monument in the Krasnodar Territory. It's already been suffering for a long time due to its proximity to the Port of Taman, home to a huge coal handling terminal—coal dust is burying the entire sea around it. There have been estimates that up to 8 tons of oil could spill. That might be an exaggeration, but it's a fact that it will be many times greater than the 2007 spill.
Judging by satellite images, there's no leak from the ruptured Volgoneft-239 tanker—it must have emptied somewhere along the way, says Dmitry. However, the plume from the sunken Volgoneft-212 tanker is clearly visible. The oil slick is currently located three to five kilometers from the shore, abeam of Cape Panagia. The fuel oil is separating into lighter and heavier fractions, spreading in streamers—one of these streamers has already reached Anapa. Where the others will reach will depend on the weather. The best-case scenario is for the slick to drift farther from the shore into the open sea: not a good thing, but better than polluting coastal waters.
Sentinel-1A satellite image from December 18
The good news is that the north wind has been blowing for the last few days:
"In 2007, the wind was southerly, quickly carrying all this fuel oil into the Kerch Strait, and the Chushka Spit bore the brunt. Its southern part is a marshy area overgrown with reeds. The fuel oil was immediately absorbed, making it impossible to collect. This time, things are different: the sea is spewing fuel oil in relatively small amounts onto the sandy shores, and it's easier to remove from the sand—you can simply shovel it out and take it to a landfill. But if the pollution moves closer to Utrish, where the pebble beaches are, it will be quite difficult to remove, because the fuel oil is absorbed by the pebbles and sinks deeper.
According to Dmitry Shevchenko, the 2007 disaster occurred a little earlier—in November, when the autumn migration of birds was still underway. Therefore, there were many more birds injured then:
"In 2007, thousands of birds, covered in oil, wandered along the shore. They tried to clean them, but back then, there were no social media platforms to call for volunteers, so conservation organizations took over. They primarily focused on endangered species—they simply couldn't get around to the common ducks. If the same situation were to happen again today, I think even today's volunteer efforts wouldn't be enough."
As Dmitry notes, while the disaster was the federal government's focus in 2007, Moscow has now simply withdrawn, declaring that the Kuban authorities are handling the situation themselves:
"True, there's hope that at least now a campaign to inspect tankers will begin. These 50-55-year-old vessels are not only covered in corrosion—they're completely not calculated For waves greater than two meters, it's recorded in their register. But I'm afraid that once again it will all come down to blaming the captain—the scapegoat—and nothing will change.