Environment

Russian LNG tanker adrift in the Mediterranean: the four hypotheses for action

From towing to safe harbour to emptying to sinking in deep water: all scenarios to avoid ecological damage in the Mediterranean

by Editors Online

18 March 2026aggiornato il 19 marzo 2026 ore 09:05

Una veduta aerea del 3 marzo 2026, ripostata su X da OSINTdefender, della petroliera russa "Arctic Metagaz". L'immagine mostra il grande buco nello scafo bruciato della nave, che avrebbe preso fuoco nel Mediterraneo dopo essere stata presa di mira da un drone navale non identificato vicino a Malta. ANSA

3' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

Key points

Drifting without a crew
Mantovano: "it can explode at any moment"
The four options

3' min read

Translated by AI

Versione italiana

The damaged Russian liquefied natural gas tanker Arctic Metagaz, which has been adrift in the Mediterranean for a fortnight, ent into Libyan search and rescue waters on 18 March, the Italian civil protection agency announced. The agency, which is monitoring the ship, said the most significant risk is the potential release of gas, although no leaks have been detected so far. It is estimated to have 700 tonnes of liquid gas fuel on board.

"Gas leakage is a very real possibility," said a spokesperson, adding that it is not yet clear how much gas remained on board the ship, as two tanks were reported intact, but some of the cargo may have already dispersed at sea.

Italy, France, Spain, Malta and Cyprus warned in a letter to the European Commission that the Arctic Metagaz poses a serious ecological threat and urged the EU to take action in an area where sea conditions are currently difficult.

The EU claimed that the ship was part of the Russian "shadow fleet" used to circumvent sanctions imposed after Russia's large-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

Earlier this month, the Russian Ministry of Transport stated that the Arctic Metagaz, carrying LNG from the Arctic port of Murmansk, was attacked by Ukrainian naval drones and that weapons had been launched from the Libyan coast.

Kiev has not claimed responsibility for any such attack.

Drifting without a crew

The Arctic Metagaz continues to wander in international waters, moving from the search and rescue zone in Malta to those in Libya, due to the currents.

The Maltese Prime Minister Robert Abela - when the ship was in Sar ((Search and Rescue) waters, which require direct rescue by the state of reference, Malta - had on 17 March raised the issue in Med9, the group of member states bordering the Mediterranean, which besides Malta includes Italy, France, Spain, Greece, Croatia, Cyprus, Slovenia and Portugal. Abela said he had contacted the President of the European Council, Antonio Costa, and the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen.

Lo squarcio

La nave è stata colpita da un drone

Una veduta aerea del 3 marzo 2026, ripostata su X da OSINTdefender, della metaniera russa, che avrebbe preso fuoco nel Mediterraneo dopo essere stata presa di mira da un drone navale non identificato vicino a Malta.

The Prime Minister had reiterated that Malta was prepared for any eventuality, with a contingency plan already in place. However, he did not give details on the content of the plan or when it would be activated.

However, he had made it clear that the contingency plan includes the use of tugs, revealing that the contacts he had had in recent days with the Russian authorities, as well as with representatives of the tanker's parent company, had not led to the expected 'final solution'.

The Maltese maritime authorities have in recent days issued a warning to fishermen to maintain a safety distance of at least 4 nautical miles from the Russian vessel.

Mantovano: 'it could explode at any moment'

On 16 March on Radio 24 the undersecretary to the Prime Minister's Office, Alfredo Mantovano, explained that 'the ship could explode at any moment.

L’esplosione

Immagine del 3 marzo 2026

The four options

But what could be the options on the table to neutralise the (not only ecological) bomb represented by the LNG carrier?

1) The first could be stabilisation at sea, with teams of engineers coming on board to seal the leaks and secure the wreck: a risky option, however, with no crew and structural damage to the hull.

2) A second option, complementary to the first, is ttowing to a safe port to empty the cargo and secure the tanks, but the danger of sinking the wreck or explosion remains.

3) Then there is the hypothesis of draining the cargo ('lightering') carried out by specialised ships onto which the gas would be transferred: a difficult operation in the open sea, with the danger of explosions or environmental damage.

4) Finally, the last option is that of controlled sinking in deep water, extrema ratio if the risk of explosion is serious: here, however, the risk of environmental damage is greatest.