On Wednesday, Ukrainian security services, in cooperation with the national army, carried out a large-scale drone attack on the oil loading terminal in Ustiluga.
Videos and photos shared on social media showed the port infrastructure ablaze, with at least two oil tankers moored at the terminal ablaze. The attack comes less than 48 hours after another important Russian Baltic export terminal in Primorye was also targeted by drones, causing a massive fire and halting operations. A further drone attack reportedly took place at the same terminal on Thursday morning.
Footage posted on Telegram by local residents showed the facility engulfed in flames. Regional Governor Alexander Drozdenko confirmed that firefighters were battling the blaze.
Additional reports on Thursday said that the Kirishi refinery, also in the Leningrad region, had been attacked by drones. This refinery is one of the largest in Russia.
At least two oil tankers and many onshore tanks are on fire at the port of Ust Luga on the southern coast of the Gulf of Finland, west of St. Petersburg. Photo from Telegram
Before the attack, Ust-Luga had the capacity to process about 700,000 barrels of oil per day. Similar production capacity exists in Novorossiysk on Russia’s Black Sea coast, but exports there have also been partially halted following a Ukrainian drone attack in early March.
With port infrastructure and storage facilities at several export terminals severely damaged, Russia faces significant challenges in getting its oil to market. The Druzhba pipeline to Central Europe had already been suspended before these events.
According to Reuters, at least 40% of Russia’s oil export capacity is currently offline following the drone attack.
As a result, the port of Murmansk quickly emerged as a major hub for Russian crude oil exports.
Arctic Oil and the Shadow Fleet
Kola Bay plays an important role as a high-capacity hub for transferring Russia’s Arctic oil from tankers to storage and to international markets. This includes oil associated with Rosneft’s Vostok oil project, Gazprom Neft’s Novi port in Ob Bay and the Prirazlomnoye field in the Barents Sea, and Lukoil’s Varande project. Oil from Western Siberia and the Komi Republic is also transported to Murmansk by rail.
As with exports from the Baltic Sea, cargo from Murmansk relies heavily on so-called shadow fleet tankers. In the north, operations are spread across multiple terminals along the Kola Bay, with both ship-to-ship transfers and shore loading.
Norway is alarmed by the increasing movement of Arctic oil by shadow fleets.
Ine Eriksen Soreide, a former foreign minister and current member of parliament, highlighted concerns about the aging fleet, pointing to the lack of insurance and generally low technical standards.
Ine Eriksen Soleide. Photo: Thomas Nilsen
“I have long been demanding answers from the government regarding emergency preparedness for acute pollution along the Norwegian coast,” she said in a formal parliamentary request, urging the Minister of Fisheries and Ocean Policy to take steps to reduce the risk of accidents in Norwegian waters.
Old and poorly maintained tankers from Murmansk frequently sail south along the Norwegian coastline. For example, in early March, a 23-year-old tanker pathThe ship was carrying around 150,000 tons of oil and emerged without a clear owner. The Norwegian Coastal Administration confirmed that the vessel had not provided a valid Civil Liability Convention (CLC) certificate proving insurance coverage for oil pollution damage.
In response to a question from the Barents Observer, Minister Marianne Sivertsen-Näss said a traffic separation system was in place to prevent oil tankers from sailing within 40 kilometers of the Norwegian coast.
Marianne Siversen Ness. Photo: Thomas Nilsen
She added that the designated transport corridor is further offshore between the Northern Cape and Varanje. “Such routes provide a clear overview of vessel movements, making it easier to detect deviations from the normal pattern and allowing more response time in the event of an incident,” she said.
The minister said Norway has oil spill response equipment readily available and maintains “strong preparedness” for a variety of scenarios. However, he acknowledged that mobilizing additional resources from European partners will take time.
“In such a situation, it would be natural to request assistance from the offshore industry, which has emergency resources in the oil fields of northern Norway,” she said.
Norway and Russia maintain a bilateral agreement on search and rescue, including oil spill preparedness in the Barents Sea border area. Before the pandemic and Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the two countries conducted annual joint exercises under the agreement.
Norwegian and Russian troops conduct an oil spill cleanup experiment in the Varangerfjord as part of the 2019 bilateral Barents exercise. Photo: Thomas Nilsen
“This agreement remains in force,” Sivertsen-Näss said, adding that both countries are also bound by the International Convention on Cooperation in Maritime Search and Rescue.
Growing international reaction
Although Norway has no plans to prevent Shadow Fleet vessels from passing through its waters, the British government has announced that its military will be allowed to board such ships in British waters.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer said in a statement:
“My first duty as Prime Minister is to keep this country safe and protect Britain’s interests at home and abroad. Putin is exploiting instability in the Middle East, believing that rising oil prices will benefit him. That’s why we are stepping up action against his shadow fleet, not just to protect Britain, but to cut off the funding of the war in Ukraine.”
It’s not just the UK. Last week, the French Navy boarded a shadow tanker. debtwas loading oil into Murmansk. According to ship tracking data, the operation took place north of the Algerian coast.
The giant tanker Belokamenka was previously used as a floating terminal for Russian Arctic oil. Photo: Thomas Nilsen
Barents Observer has recorded at least 85 licensed shadow tankers sailing along the Norwegian coast to Russia’s Kola Peninsula since October 2025.
Limited short-term alternatives
Murmansk is becoming increasingly important for Russia’s oil exports, but volumes are unlikely to increase significantly in the short term.
“It will not be easy to replace exports from Ust-Luga and Primorye with Murmansk because the sources of oil are different,” said Ksenia Vakhrusheva, an Arctic policy adviser at environmental group Verona.
Ksenia Vakhrusheva. Photo: Thomas Nilsen
He explained that Ustiluga and Primorye receive oil via pipelines from inland oil fields, while Murmansk mainly handles oil transported by sea from Arctic projects.
Bakhrusheva also warned of the risk of a major oil spill and suggested increased inspections of tankers in European waters could prompt Russia to change shipping routes.
“It is possible and concerning that Russia may send more aging tankers to the Northern Sea Route during the summer-autumn shipping season to avoid European waters where ship inspections are likely to occur,” he said.
Last fall, Russian authorities approved the use of non-ice-certified ships on the Northern Sea Route north of Siberia.
One of the first ships was a 20-year-old shadow tanker you please looksailed under the flag of Sierra Leone.
