Op-Ed: Arctic Metagaz Explosion Shows That LNG Carriers Have Risks
A recent explosive event involving a liquified natural gas (LNG) carrier laden with Russian Arctic gas should serve as a wake up call.
The Arctic Metagaz, a 23 year old LNG carrier reportedly linked to Russia’s so-called "dark fleet," exploded and caught fire in the Mediterranean Sea in early March while en route to Port Said. Russia's foreign ministry claims that the explosion was caused by a Ukrainian drone strike, but Kyiv has not claimed responsibility. Fortunately, the crew escaped and were rescued without any casualties. As of Saturday, the ship was still afloat and adrift near the coast of Malta.
The leaders of Cyprus, France, Greece, Italy, Malta and Spain, and other EU member states have written to the European Commission, stating that "the precarious condition of the vessel, combined with the nature of its specialized cargo, gives rise to an imminent and serious risk of a major ecological disaster in the heart of the Union's maritime space." On March 17, the Italian government warned that the Arctic Metagaz “could explode in Mediterranean at any time”.
The incident has drawn renewed attention to the supply chain of Russian Arctic fossil gas to world markets. As documented by non-profit organization Bellona, production is projected to reach 91 million tonnes by 2035, up from its current level of 33 million tonnes. Russia is establishing new markets as the EU plans a complete restriction on Russian gas imports starting January 1, 2027.
Such expansion would dramatically increase LNG carrier traffic in the Arctic region. LNG carriers are specially equipped to carry LNG for export and also use LNG as a marine fuel. Today, around 30 LNG carriers transport Russian Arctic gas, and by 2035, that number could rise to around 300, in a sector which (according to the ICCT) has already seen methane emissions from ships fueled by LNG increase by 180% between 2016 and 2023. As global maritime regulators prepare to meet at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in April to discuss the decarbonization of global shipping, the incident offers a stark reminder that the climate, environmental and community consequences associated with shipping LNG extend far beyond geopolitics.
LNG is natural gas cooled for transport and made up of 85-95% methane, a short-lived climate pollutant. Along with black carbon and ozone, methane is responsible for approximately 50% of the rise in global temperatures experienced to date. The IPCC’s 2023 Climate Change Synthesis Report observed that methane concentrations are higher than they have been in at least 800,000 years.
LNG is flammable and explosive, requiring stringent safety protocols across production, transport, and use. Cooled to -162°C, it becomes a cryogenic liquid that boils rapidly when exposed to air, releasing extremely cold methane gas. When spilled—particularly on water—LNG vaporizes instantly, forming colorless clouds capable of flash-freezing exposed skin and causing asphyxiation. These vapors can ignite as "pool fires" that burn hotter than conventional fuels and cannot be extinguished, or as flash fires producing second-degree burns up to 1.6 kilometers away.
These are not merely theoretical concerns. Recent research mapping LNG carrier risks in Southern British Columbia, Canada, shows that the potential consequences of an LNG accident extend far beyond the vessel itself. In coastal regions where LNG carriers transit through narrow waterways and populated shorelines, a single incident could threaten nearby communities, marine ecosystems, and critical infrastructure. The study estimates the impacts of LNG carriers could extend up to 400 kilometers from shipping routes and facilities, highlighting how extensive the danger zone can be.
The Arctic Metagaz incident should not be treated as an isolated maritime incident. It warns us of the growing risks embedded in the global expansion of LNG supply chains. As Arctic gas production accelerates and tanker traffic multiplies across fragile seas and busy shipping corridors, the likelihood of accidents - whether caused by geopolitical conflict, mechanical failure, or human error - will only increase.
As the IMO prepares to debate the future of shipping fuels, liability regimes, and climate regulation this spring, at its legal committee on April 13-17, the Intersessional Working Group from April 20-24 and Marine Environment Protection Committee between April 27-May 1, incidents like that involving the Arctic Metagaz should serve as a reminder that LNG expansion carries risks that extend beyond the ship itself. Regulators deciding the future of maritime fuels cannot afford to overlook the safety, environmental, and climate consequences of an expanding LNG fleet.
Elissama Menezes and Andrew Dumbrille are Co-Directors of Equal Routes and Dr. Sian Prior is Lead Advisor, Clean Arctic Alliance.
The opinions expressed herein are the author's and not necessarily those of The Maritime Executive.
Libya to Secure Drifting Hulk of Russian Gas Carrier and Bring It to Port
Libya’s National Oil Company reports it has retained international experts specialized in incident response to address the drifting hulk of the gas carrier Arctic Metagaz. They expect the burnt-out vessel to be towed to one of the Libyan ports.
The hulk of the vessel has been drifting in the Mediterranean since it was racked by a massive explosion and subsequent fire that consumed most of the 277-meter (909-foot) LNG carrier (77,551 dwt) on March 3. The crew was rescued and taken to Libya, but the vessel remained a problem as it drifted back and forth and crossed international boundaries.
The Libyan authorities initially thought the vessel had sunk, but despite massive holes on both sides of the hull, the ship remained afloat. The belief was that the double hull and interior partitions for the gas containment system had stopped the water ingress. The ship is low in the water and listing but has remained afloat for more than two weeks. At times it approached Malta and, alternately, the Italian islands of Lampedusa and Linosa.
Italian authorities warned the ship was a time bomb ready to explode, and they had joined with other nations calling for the European Union to organize a response while the ship remained in international waters. Late in the week, prevailing southern currents and the winds, however, began pushing the vessel toward Libya, and predictions said the vessel was likely to continue on that path. Italian authorities on Friday said the vessel was in the Libyan zone in the Mediterranean and reported it could reach Libya’s shoreline in four to six days.
The Libyan Ports and Maritime Transport Authority had warned the National Oil Corporation of the danger. It recommended preparing the offshore oil platforms and putting tugs on standby in case the hulk came within 10 nautical miles of the platforms. They also instructed vessels to remain at least 6 nautical miles from the drifting ship and to report any changes in condition that they observed.
The Italian authorities are reporting the ship has approximately 450 metric tons of heavy oil and 250 tons of diesel aboard. They are saying the amount of LNG is “uncertain,” but two of the four tanks are thought to have survived loaded with as much as 60,000 cbm of LNG.
The National Oil Corporation said it had retained international experts through its subsidiary Mellitah Oil & Gas and in cooperation with its strategic partner, Italy’s Eni. They said on March 21 that an emergency contract was issued with the intent to tow the wreck to one of the Libyan ports following coordination with the relevant authorities.
“Managing this environmental threat is fully achievable,” reported NOC in its announcement of the contract. They said they were moving quickly to limit the damage and the risk of pollution.
Russia continues to call for an investigation after accusing Ukrainian forces of attacking the ship with a drone. Ukraine has not claimed responsibility. Malta had been in contact with the Russians and representatives of the vessel’s operator without a clear course of action. Russia had said under international law the wreck was abandoned and the responsibility of the state where it was located.
No comments:
Post a Comment