Shadow fleet of tankers keeps Russia's oil money flowing despite Western sanctions

FRANKFURT, Germany (AP) — The Group of Seven democracies has sought to crimp Russia's oil export earnings that help fund the war against Ukraine. But Western governments and sanctions experts say Moscow has resorted to using a so-called shadow fleet of hundreds of aging tankers of uncertain ownership and safety practices that are dodging sanctions and keeping the oil revenue coming.

Here are things to know about the shadow fleet — and why it worries Western governments and environmental groups:

The shadow fleet is made up of aging tankers bought used, often by nontransparent entities with addresses in non-sanctioning countries such as the United Arab Emirates or the Marshall Islands, and flagged in places like Gabon or the Cook Islands. Some of the vessels are owned by the Russian state Sovcomflot shipping company. Their role is to help Russia's oil exporters elude the $60 per barrel price cap imposed by Ukraine's allies.

Estimates vary, but S&P Global and the Kyiv School of Economics Institute have put the number at over 400 ships that can transport oil, or products made from crude such as diesel fuel and gasoline.

The shadow fleet in fact isn't all that shadowy. The ships don't hide their stops at Russian oil terminals. Some have direct connections to Russia, as with the vessels owned by Sovcomflot. In other cases, it's often unclear who exactly is behind the listed owners, and what kind of safety practices and insurance the vessels have. What sets them apart is that they transport Russian oil and operate outside the jurisdictions of the sanctioning G7 countries.

The Kremlin has so far dodged commenting on the shadow fleet.

The cap is aimed at limiting Russia's profits while keeping the oil flowing to global markets and avoiding an energy crunch that would drive up gasoline prices and inflation.

The cap, which went into effect on Dec. 5, 2022, is enforced by barring service providers such as insurers and shipping managers from dealing with oil priced above the threshold. Those companies are mostly based in Western countries and thus within reach of sanctions enforcement.

That leverages the strict requirements from the U.N.'s International Maritime Organization that vessels must have financially solid insurance backed up by reputable audits in order to operate. That insurance has traditionally been provided by a network of Western-based industry insurers known as the International Group, or IG.

When the cap was first imposed, some 70% of Russian oil was transported on vessels with IG insurance, but that share has now fallen to 10%, according to the Kyiv School of Economics.

The vessels are bought used and owned by opaque entities located in places like the United Arab Emirates, the Seychelles, India or Vietnam that aren't taking part in sanctions. The new owners use new insurers in Russia or other non-Western locations.

No. The U.S., UK and EU in combination or individually have imposed sanctions on some 270 vessels they consider to be trading Russian oil in violation of the cap. Once they do that, transactions involving that ship or its cargo can bring trouble for customers, traders and banks.

That's especially true for American sanctions as getting caught violating them can then disrupt any business ties with the U.S. and its dominant financial system and economy. On Friday, the U.S. added 183 individual vessels to the sanctions list, most of them shadow fleet vessels, and blocked deals with two Russian insurance companies.

Some two-thirds of the targeted vessels have gone idle, meaning the money spent on them was wasted. That’s one goal of sanctions: to raise the costs of doing banned business if it can’t be stopped entirely.

The average age of the vessels is around 18 years, meaning they’re near the end of their lifespan and are more vulnerable to accidents, especially if they’re not well-maintained. Meanwhile, it’s questionable if the non-IG insurance could be counted on to pay the enormous cleanup costs in case an oil spill fouls a coastline in the Baltic, the Aegean or the English Channel, all routes used by tankers carrying oil from Russia’s ports in the Baltic or the Black Sea to customers in China, India and Turkey.

In May 2023, an 18-year-old shadow tanker carrying 340,000 barrels of Russian oil products from the port of Vysotsk on the Baltic lost engine power and almost ran aground while passing through the narrow Danish Straits.

In October, the UK said it would start requesting insurance details from suspected shadow vessels, and in December Denmark, Sweden, Poland, Finland and Estonia followed suit. Vessels aren’t stopped, but those that can’t prove adequate insurance can be added to sanctions lists.

Finnish police on Dec. 26 seized the Eagle S, a tanker they said was part of the dark fleet, on suspicion it used its anchor to damage the Estlink 2 power cable that supplies electricity from Finland to Estonia under the Baltic.

The Joint Expeditionary Force, a group of 10 countries including Sweden, Norway, Finland, the three Baltic states and the U.K., has stepped up efforts to track shadow fleet vessels to safeguard undersea infrastructure.

“Specific vessels identified as being part of Russia’s shadow fleet have been registered into the system so they can be closely monitored when approaching key areas of interest,” the U.K. Ministry of Defense said in a statement.

Dodging the cap has increased the price Russia gets for its oil on global markets, sanctions experts say. The discount for Russian oil compared to international benchmark Brent crude has shrunk from as much as $35 per barrel to less than $10 per barrel. Russia has seen oil income hold up steadily and even rise.

Export revenues averaged $16.4 billion per month for the first 11 months of 2024, 5% higher than in the same period in 2023 as Russian oil averaged $64 per barrel, according to the Kyiv School of Economics. Evading the cap earned Russia an extra $9.4 billion.

That's money that the Kremlin can use to pay for the production of weapons and other goods for the military.

Oil income promotes economic stability by helping keep the budget deficit under control, and by supporting the value of the Russian ruble against other currencies. Oil keeps Russia's trade balance in surplus, meaning it sells more than it buys from the rest of the world and has money to pay for imports.

As a result, “Russia faces no significant constraints on its budget or war spending,” Kyiv school experts said in their latest assessment of the Russian economy.

FILE - The Cook Islands-registered oil tanker Eagle S is anchored near the Kilpilahti port in Porvoo on the Gulf of Finland, Dec. 30, 2024. (Jussi Nukari/Lehtikuva via AP, File)

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The packed race for California governor has left many Democrats in the state wrestling with who to vote for in the race's closing days.

Though voting began in early May ahead of the June 2 primary, Democrats have been returning their ballots at a slower pace than normal after a chaotic campaign full of surprises. Unlike recent races for governor, there's been no clear front-runner or political superstar (think Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger or Democrat Jerry Brown).

“I’m kind of pinching my nose and voting this go-around rather than being excited,” said Colin Culver, a 21-year-old San Diego resident who ultimately voted for Tom Steyer, a billionaire former hedge fund manager turned climate activist.

Democrats have been particularly perplexed given the state's top-two primary system, which places all candidates on a single ballot regardless of party. There are roughly 60 candidates vying to succeed termed-out Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom. They include six major Democrats and just two prominent Republicans.

With the large number of Democrats running, party leaders feared months ago that the two leading Republicans, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and conservative commentator Steve Hilton, could advance, locking out Democrats. That scenario has grown less likely after former Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out of the race after being accused of sexual assault, but the scandal further rattled anxious Democrats. President Donald Trump endorsed Hilton in April, which may have coalesced GOP support behind him and decreased the odds of a Republican upset in a state that hasn’t had a Republican governor since 2011.

But the fear among voters remains. Some Democrats are waiting to cast their ballots to see if one candidate breaks away from the pack in the final days, relying on polling to help make their decision. Others have struggled to make up their minds, reluctantly choosing a candidate after being unimpressed with the field.

Even Democrats who typically have a high turnout in primary elections — often older, white voters — have been slow to drop off their ballots, said Paul Mitchell, a Democratic strategist tracking ballot returns.

“My joke is: Call your Democratic parents and tell them to turn in their ballot,” he said. “They are holding onto the ballot because they have seen this kind of topsy-turvy governor’s race. They’re waiting to make sure they’re making the right choice.”

About 10% of the state's roughly 23 million voters had voted as of Wednesday, according to Mitchell's tracker. That includes about 15% of Republicans, 10% of Democrats and 7% of voters registered with no or another party. That breakdown is unusual because Democrats in recent years have tended to vote early while many Republicans wait until Election Day.

Former state attorney general and federal Health Secretary Xavier Becerra and Steyer are among the top Democrats voters are weighing.

A poll conducted in mid-May by the Public Policy Institute of California found that Becerra and Hilton each have the support of about 2 in 10 likely California primary voters. Steyer, Bianco and former U.S. Rep. Katie Porter each drew the support of between 10% and 15% of likely voters in the survey. No other candidates were polling in double digits.

Support for Becerra has increased from only 5% in a PPIC poll conducted in late March and early April, when Swalwell was still in the race.

Some voters aren't relying on the polls to make their choice. That includes San Francisco native Mary O’Neal, who voted for former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa because she liked his record leading the city from 2005 to 2013. Although he's been on the debate stages, he's failed to generate significant support.

Fresno native Alexa Duran, 22, a recent graduate of the University of California, Berkeley, said she’s leaning toward Becerra, despite her concerns about his refusal as attorney general to investigate the killing of a Latino man by an officer in the San Francisco Bay Area in 2020.

“I know he has tons of political experience, but I’m just not sure if he’s the right candidate,” Duran said.

Amber Larson, 41, a judicial analyst for the state living in Chico, likes Ramsey Robinson, a socialist candidate. But casting her ballot for him would be a “waste” because of his slim odds, she said.

She doesn't want to support a longtime politician — Becerra — and she's skeptical of billionaires — Steyer.

“Are we at a point where only a billionaire can beat an establishment, career politician?” Larson said, referencing Steyer spending millions to largely self-fund his campaign.

She planned to go with Steyer anyway because she likes his energy affordability plans and since he's one of the leading candidates.

“I don’t want to throw my vote away,” she said.

Associated Press journalists Jaimie Ding in Los Angeles and Terry Chea in San Francisco contributed to this report.

Katie Porter raises her hand during a California gubernatorial debate hosted by CBS Bay Area and the San Francisco Examiner in San Francisco, Thursday, May 14, 2026. (AP Photo/Godofredo A. Vásquez, Pool)

Tom Steyer speaks during a California gubernatorial debate hosted by CBS Bay Area and the San Francisco Examiner in San Francisco, Thursday, May 14, 2026. (AP Photo/Godofredo A. Vásquez, Pool)