Sanctions on Russia

urbanotter said:Honestly, if people actually knew what was going on, they wouldn't be so surprised.

Transferring oil from one ship to another is a common, well-established procedure carried out by professional crews.

It’s standard operating procedure for a first officer, who keeps a constant eye on the cargo levels in the tanks; they are especially meticulous about managing the air composition inside those tanks to prevent any risk of ignition.

Bravo, what a brilliant mind!
Picture this: a massive supertanker docks at the terminal in King Abdul Aziz, and they receive instructions: "Don't fill it to the brim; just hit 70% capacity."
Then the tanker departs, and out in the vast expanse of the Indian Ocean near Oman, it meets another tanker carrying Russian oil to top off.
And since the seas are always calm in these scenarios, everything goes perfectly smoothly.
Nobody has ever bothered to ask why tankers leave King Abdul Aziz only 70% full, nor has anyone noticed this pattern.
It is much easier to trust some "Hydrocarbon" pundit who simply translates a fabricated article from RIA Novosti rather than using common sense to realize there is plenty of Russian oil sitting at global terminals waiting to be obscured and loaded onto different ships.
Instead, this oil is being transferred from supertanker to supertanker in the middle of the ocean, heading straight for the USA! It’s happening right in front of you, in waters patrolled by Western naval vessels guarding the Muscat - Bab el Mandeb convoys.
Just playing the part of an oil industry journalist here. 🙏 🙏

So, have the EU sanctions on Russian oil actually been finalized, or is everything still stalled because of some blockade over refusing to sanction the Russian Patriarch?

Terry Green3 said:So, have the EU sanctions on Russian oil actually been finalized, or is everything still stalled because of some blockade over refusing to sanction the Russian Patriarch?

From the European Commission website: europa.eu

Quote : Today's Package contains a complete import Ban on All Russian seaborne crude oil and petroleum products. This covers 90% of our current oil imports from Russia. The Ban is subject to certain transition periods to allow The sector and Global markets to Adapt, and a temporary exemption for pipeline crude oil to ensure that Russian oil is phased out in an orderly Fashion. this will allow The EU and its partners to Secure alternativa supplies and minimises The impact on Global oil prices.

Due to its specific geographical exposure, a special temporary derogation until the end of 2024 has been agreed for Bulgaria which will be able to continue to import crude oil and petroleum products via maritime transport. In addition, America will be able to authorise until The end of 2023 The import of Russian vacuum gas oil which is needed for The functioning of its refinery.

analogbear5 said:From the European Commission website: europa.eu

Quote : Today's Package contains a complete import Ban on All Russian seaborne crude oil and petroleum products. This covers 90% of our current oil imports from Russia. The Ban is subject to certain transition periods to allow The sector and Global markets to Adapt, and a temporary exemption for pipeline crude oil to ensure that Russian oil is phased out in an orderly Fashion. this will allow The EU and its partners to Secure alternativa supplies and minimises The impact on Global oil prices.

Due to its specific geographical exposure, a special temporary derogation until the end of 2024 has been agreed for Bulgaria which will be able to continue to import crude oil and petroleum products via maritime transport. In addition, America will be able to authorise until The end of 2023 The import of Russian vacuum gas oil which is needed for The functioning of its refinery.

Thanks. I couldn't quite tell if they finally dropped the patriarch from the list.

I see how we managed to secure an exception for one segment of refined products through the end of 2023.
But the real question is whether they’ll actually bother selling it to us at all. They already did a number on us regarding the coal meant for Plomin.

It appears that Huawei is gradually shuttering its retail locations across Russia.

https://ria.ru/amp/20220608/huawei-1794098607.html

Terry Green3 said:Thanks. I couldn't quite tell if they finally dropped the patriarch from the list.

I see how we managed to secure an exception for one segment of refined products through the end of 2023.
But the real question is whether they’ll actually bother selling it to us at all. They already did a number on us regarding the coal meant for Plomin.

Actually, they were already screwing us on the coal even before the invasion started 😉 pure robbery.

Morgan Wright5 said:Everything you just wrote could basically be summarized in two words: Inert gas. Not air.

Those two words would be more than enough for anyone with actual expertise, yet here we are dealing with arguments over ship-to-ship transfers.

Inert gases are actually quite common and play a massive role in both industrial applications and scientific research.

To be precise with the terminology, the process of inerting involves using these gases on tankers specifically to prevent any possibility of ignition.

https://hr.scienceforming.com/108040...t-is-inert-gas

Some people seem to be disputing the feasibility of transferring oil from one vessel to another, a practice that happens all the time in global shipping, not just when we are talking about moving Russian oil between ships.

It could be done without any technical issues at all, provided they don't mix it with oil coming from other sources.

So, I don't think there is much cause for alarm regarding whether Russia will continue to sell its oil, especially when the supply is sitting there at a tenth of the price compared to what you see on the commodities exchange.

urbanotter said:Those two words would be more than enough for anyone with actual expertise, yet here we are dealing with arguments over ship-to-ship transfers.

Inert gases are actually quite common and play a massive role in both industrial applications and scientific research.

To be precise with the terminology, the process of inerting involves using these gases on tankers specifically to prevent any possibility of ignition.

https://hr.scienceforming.com/108040...t-is-inert-gas

Some people seem to be disputing the feasibility of transferring oil from one vessel to another, a practice that happens all the time in global shipping, not just when we are talking about moving Russian oil between ships.

It could be done without any technical issues at all, provided they don't mix it with oil coming from other sources.

So, I don't think there is much cause for alarm regarding whether Russia will continue to sell its oil, especially when the supply is sitting there at a tenth of the price compared to what you see on the commodities exchange.

One has to wonder what the insurance underwriters for these vessels would say about such offshore transfers—assuming they even take place. Are these maneuvers actually covered by existing policies, and where does the liability fall if a catastrophe occurs? Such reckless logic is typical of the Russians, who might just anchor their decommissioned nuclear submarines in some remote cove and walk away, or order their troops to dig trenches next to the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant. In the real world, serious corporations and legitimate shipping firms don't engage in such practices, nor do they even entertain the thought.

Nancy Gomez26 said:One has to wonder what the insurance underwriters for these vessels would say about such offshore transfers—assuming they even take place. Are these maneuvers actually covered by existing policies, and where does the liability fall if a catastrophe occurs? Such reckless logic is typical of the Russians, who might just anchor their decommissioned nuclear submarines in some remote cove and walk away, or order their troops to dig trenches next to the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant. In the real world, serious corporations and legitimate shipping firms don't engage in such practices, nor do they even entertain the thought.

I honestly don't know what they'd say, but whether these transfers are happening ship-to-ship or are fully covered by insurance, people seem to stay quiet about it.

I feel like I have to repeat myself constantly: ship-to-ship transfer in open water is actually a standard industry practice. It happens whenever a vessel's draft is too deep to safely reach an unloading terminal, or when they need to top off their cargo because the receiving terminal has shallow waters that prevent full loading.

We see this quite often when larger vessels enter the Mississippi; the distances to the bottom are significant because silt and sediment buildup isn't always cleared away promptly.

It's unlikely we'll see much "topping off" in terms of blending, mainly because refineries are specifically calibrated to process crude from certain regions; they aren't designed to just swallow any Russian or Arabian crude that comes their way.
India has massive refining capacity at Sika, and it's highly probable that they can process Russian crude alongside the Arabian oil they typically handle.

Once those crude oils are processed into derivatives, I suspect it becomes much more difficult to track exactly which source the distilled products originally came from.
Since India hasn't imposed any sanctions, they are importing and refining Russian oil without facing any repercussions.

Do I really have to keep reminding everyone that the sanctions against Russia were primarily driven by the USA and its allies, which represents only about 20% of the countries in the world?

urbanotter said:I honestly don't know what they'd say, but whether these transfers are happening ship-to-ship or are fully covered by insurance, people seem to stay quiet about it.

I feel like I have to repeat myself constantly: ship-to-ship transfer in open water is actually a standard industry practice. It happens whenever a vessel's draft is too deep to safely reach an unloading terminal, or when they need to top off their cargo because the receiving terminal has shallow waters that prevent full loading.

We see this quite often when larger vessels enter the Mississippi; the distances to the bottom are significant because silt and sediment buildup isn't always cleared away promptly.

It's unlikely we'll see much "topping off" in terms of blending, mainly because refineries are specifically calibrated to process crude from certain regions; they aren't designed to just swallow any Russian or Arabian crude that comes their way.
India has massive refining capacity at Sika, and it's highly probable that they can process Russian crude alongside the Arabian oil they typically handle.

Once those crude oils are processed into derivatives, I suspect it becomes much more difficult to track exactly which source the distilled products originally came from.
Since India hasn't imposed any sanctions, they are importing and refining Russian oil without facing any repercussions.

Do I really have to keep reminding everyone that the sanctions against Russia were primarily driven by the USA and its allies, which represents only about 20% of the countries in the world?

Are you seriously suggesting that transferring oil from tanker to tanker in the middle of the ocean is common practiceb>????
What kind of roads were you driving on back in the day, urbanotter? Send me the directions!
That type of transfer is usually reserved for refueling military vessels traveling within a fleet.
Whenever ship-to-ship transfers occur, they happen under strictly controlled conditions—certainly not out in the middle of the ocean.
Any Captain who can't accurately calculate a ship's weight and draft isn't going to stay a Captain for long. You know as well as I do that Captains face heavy fines from their shipping companies if it's discovered they could have loaded an extra 100+ tons and still cleared the Suez Canal normally. If they mess that up a couple of times, their career is over.

Everything entering the Mississippi has to be discharged at the northernmost points near Baton Rouge; from there, only low-draft barges head further north. What do you mean "ocean-going vessels" in the Mississippi? Why do you think the largest oil storage facilities in the world are located there? Everything is unloaded there first, and then moved upstream via river barges.

Nancy Gomez26 said:One has to wonder what the insurance underwriters for these vessels would say about such offshore transfers—assuming they even take place. Are these maneuvers actually covered by existing policies, and where does the liability fall if a catastrophe occurs? Such reckless logic is typical of the Russians, who might just anchor their decommissioned nuclear submarines in some remote cove and walk away, or order their troops to dig trenches next to the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant. In the real world, serious corporations and legitimate shipping firms don't engage in such practices, nor do they even entertain the thought.

Look, I wouldn't be surprised if Russia tried something this shady, but I can't imagine any reputable shipping company ever daring to attempt it.
It certainly sounds flashy when RIA reports: "No problem at all, our ships are out in the Indian Ocean transferring our oil to supertankers from Saudi Arabia."
In reality, if a single tanker left Abdulaziz even 70% full, the news would be everywhere instantly, signaling that something fishy is going on.

George Robinson43 said:Are you seriously suggesting that transferring oil from tanker to tanker in the middle of the ocean is common practiceb>????
What kind of roads were you driving on back in the day, urbanotter? Send me the directions!
That type of transfer is usually reserved for refueling military vessels traveling within a fleet.
Whenever ship-to-ship transfers occur, they happen under strictly controlled conditions—certainly not out in the middle of the ocean.
Any Captain who can't accurately calculate a ship's weight and draft isn't going to stay a Captain for long. You know as well as I do that Captains face heavy fines from their shipping companies if it's discovered they could have loaded an extra 100+ tons and still cleared the Suez Canal normally. If they mess that up a couple of times, their career is over.

Everything entering the Mississippi has to be discharged at the northernmost points near Baton Rouge; from there, only low-draft barges head further north. What do you mean "ocean-going vessels" in the Mississippi? Why do you think the largest oil storage facilities in the world are located there? Everything is unloaded there first, and then moved upstream via river barges.

Come on, stop being so critical.

I mean, which river is Baton Rouge on, the Danube or the Sava?

There are three or four oil terminals in Baton Rouge, and it takes about 8 to 12 hours to sail from the mouth of the Mississippi up to Baton Rouge, with a maximum allowable draft of about 12 meters.
For comparison, a vessel of about 200,000 tons usually has a draft of around 16 meters.

And yes, they do perform transfers in open water, sometimes 200 NM away from the coast. These types of transfers are quite frequent in the Gulf of Guinea and Nigeria, where a ship might load about 70% of its cargo and then top off while anchored out on the open ocean.

Loading cargo is standard procedure handled under the supervision of the First Officer, rather than the Captain, who is busy with other responsibilities.
I'm certain the Captain knows how to calculate the draft, too; after all, he had to grind through several years as a First Officer just to earn that rank.

Of course, this isn't done regularly—it’s reserved for special cases out in the Pacific, thousands of miles from shore. There’s simply no reason for it otherwise, as a commercial vessel is meant to transport cargo from point A to point B without playing games.

You don't need to keep lecturing me; my son has actually been a First Officer on a tanker with a capacity just under 200,000 tons and a 16m draft for several years now.
Just two or three months ago, they were performing a ship-to-ship transfer in the open Pacific off the coast of San Francisco because their draft was too deep for the specific terminal they were assigned to.

Besides, you can use AIS to track all vessel positions and see where the concentrations are. In Mali, you'll often see ships anchored full of cargo, just waiting to hear where their destination is once a broker manages to sell the oil they've loaded.

Most of the time, when they load up, they don't even know their exact discharge destination; they're just sent in one direction and given the final coordinates later.

Anyway, so you don't have to struggle with it, here is a link where you can see where the ships are located and what they're up to.
Gulf of Mexico - Mississippi
https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais...ry:30.4/zoom:8
Mediterranean
https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais...ry:39.8/zoom:5

Gulf of Guinea
https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais...ery:1.1/zoom:5

Now you can sleep soundly, knowing that somewhere out there, oil is being transferred from ship to ship in the middle of the open ocean.😁😁

How does that even tie into the sanctions talk? You probably think this is some clever way to dodge the EU embargo, right?

urbanotter said:Come on, stop being so critical.

I mean, which river is Baton Rouge on, the Danube or the Sava?

There are three or four oil terminals in Baton Rouge, and it takes about 8 to 12 hours to sail from the mouth of the Mississippi up to Baton Rouge, with a maximum allowable draft of about 12 meters.
For comparison, a vessel of about 200,000 tons usually has a draft of around 16 meters.

And yes, they do perform transfers in open water, sometimes 200 NM away from the coast. These types of transfers are quite frequent in the Gulf of Guinea and Nigeria, where a ship might load about 70% of its cargo and then top off while anchored out on the open ocean.

Loading cargo is standard procedure handled under the supervision of the First Officer, rather than the Captain, who is busy with other responsibilities.
I'm certain the Captain knows how to calculate the draft, too; after all, he had to grind through several years as a First Officer just to earn that rank.

Of course, this isn't done regularly—it’s reserved for special cases out in the Pacific, thousands of miles from shore. There’s simply no reason for it otherwise, as a commercial vessel is meant to transport cargo from point A to point B without playing games.

You don't need to keep lecturing me; my son has actually been a First Officer on a tanker with a capacity just under 200,000 tons and a 16m draft for several years now.
Just two or three months ago, they were performing a ship-to-ship transfer in the open Pacific off the coast of San Francisco because their draft was too deep for the specific terminal they were assigned to.

Besides, you can use AIS to track all vessel positions and see where the concentrations are. In Mali, you'll often see ships anchored full of cargo, just waiting to hear where their destination is once a broker manages to sell the oil they've loaded.

Most of the time, when they load up, they don't even know their exact discharge destination; they're just sent in one direction and given the final coordinates later.

Anyway, so you don't have to struggle with it, here is a link where you can see where the ships are located and what they're up to.
Gulf of Mexico - Mississippi
https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais...ry:30.4/zoom:8
Mediterranean
https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais...ry:39.8/zoom:5

Gulf of Guinea
https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais...ery:1.1/zoom:5

Now you can sleep soundly, knowing that somewhere out there, oil is being transferred from ship to ship in the middle of the open ocean.😁😁

lolol
FYI, supertankers don't enter the Mississippi delta. For them, you're looking at mooring near 9.3 miles Galveston at a mega-terminal, where there are enough pipelines connected to the oil lines to satisfy anyone.
Furthermore, any potential ship-to-ship transfers happen where the terminal's draft limits make it impossible for supertankers to dock. In 90% of cases, those supertankers won't even head there. Why would shipping companies always insist on a vessel leaving port 100% full? Because it’s the most profitable way. Every extra loading, unloading, or transfer is an added expense.
So, my dear friend, what you claim happens frequently is actually quite rare. Every time it does happen, the shipping companies launch an investigation to figure out who messed up and caused these extra costs. If the Captain messed up? They might let him off with a warning and a bill once, but after the third time, he’s losing his job.

Regarding the rest of your argument, I honestly doubt you can distinguish between standard maritime oil transfers and the black-market smuggling scenarios spun by the fantasy world of RIA Novosti and their hydrocarbon-fueled "journalists."
Let me provide a clear example for you. A typical supertanker carries roughly 2 million barrels of oil. At a high-speed terminal, loading happens at about 60,000 to 70,000 barrels per hour; this means a tanker spends an entire day—sometimes two—filling up.
Now, imagine that tanker leaves Saudi Arabia 70% full and meets a Russian vessel out in the open water somewhere between Oman and Somalia to transfer 600,000 to 700,000 barrels.
There is absolutely no way they can perform a ship-to-ship transfer at the lightning speed seen at a land-based terminal. Even with perfect luck and calm seas, they’re looking at at least 24 hours of operation.
What are the odds that nobody notices two massive tankers lashed together in the middle of the ocean for an entire day? You know what it is: zero.
And what are the chances that a legitimate shipping company would risk illegal transfers and essentially commit corporate suicide? Zero.
Furthermore, what is the likelihood of a major oil spill occurring during these uncontrolled, mid-ocean transfers of massive quantities? It is incredibly high.

As for your highlighted comments and your choice of vocabulary: you might be older than me, but please, don't act so provincial.

George Robinson43 said:Are you seriously suggesting that transferring oil from tanker to tanker in the middle of the ocean is common practiceb>????
What kind of roads were you driving on back in the day, urbanotter? Send me the directions!
That type of transfer is usually reserved for refueling military vessels traveling within a fleet.
Whenever ship-to-ship transfers occur, they happen under strictly controlled conditions—certainly not out in the middle of the ocean.
Any Captain who can't accurately calculate a ship's weight and draft isn't going to stay a Captain for long. You know as well as I do that Captains face heavy fines from their shipping companies if it's discovered they could have loaded an extra 100+ tons and still cleared the Suez Canal normally. If they mess that up a couple of times, their career is over.

Everything entering the Mississippi has to be discharged at the northernmost points near Baton Rouge; from there, only low-draft barges head further north. What do you mean "ocean-going vessels" in the Mississippi? Why do you think the largest oil storage facilities in the world are located there? Everything is unloaded there first, and then moved upstream via river barges.

Ship to Ship transfers are actually standard operations for tankers—it isn't some grand mystery. Of course, the sea state has to be adequate, obviously. Tankers can be either underway or at anchor; essentially, everything else functions much like being at a terminal.

I suppose I should probably start by saying that there isn't much to add here, though I might have a few thoughts if I can find them.

George Robinson43 said:lolol
FYI, supertankers don't enter the Mississippi delta. For them, you're looking at mooring near 9.3 miles Galveston at a mega-terminal, where there are enough pipelines connected to the oil lines to satisfy anyone.
Furthermore, any potential ship-to-ship transfers happen where the terminal's draft limits make it impossible for supertankers to dock. In 90% of cases, those supertankers won't even head there. Why would shipping companies always insist on a vessel leaving port 100% full? Because it’s the most profitable way. Every extra loading, unloading, or transfer is an added expense.
So, my dear friend, what you claim happens frequently is actually quite rare. Every time it does happen, the shipping companies launch an investigation to figure out who messed up and caused these extra costs. If the Captain messed up? They might let him off with a warning and a bill once, but after the third time, he’s losing his job.

Regarding the rest of your argument, I honestly doubt you can distinguish between standard maritime oil transfers and the black-market smuggling scenarios spun by the fantasy world of RIA Novosti and their hydrocarbon-fueled "journalists."
Let me provide a clear example for you. A typical supertanker carries roughly 2 million barrels of oil. At a high-speed terminal, loading happens at about 60,000 to 70,000 barrels per hour; this means a tanker spends an entire day—sometimes two—filling up.
Now, imagine that tanker leaves Saudi Arabia 70% full and meets a Russian vessel out in the open water somewhere between Oman and Somalia to transfer 600,000 to 700,000 barrels.
There is absolutely no way they can perform a ship-to-ship transfer at the lightning speed seen at a land-based terminal. Even with perfect luck and calm seas, they’re looking at at least 24 hours of operation.
What are the odds that nobody notices two massive tankers lashed together in the middle of the ocean for an entire day? You know what it is: zero.
And what are the chances that a legitimate shipping company would risk illegal transfers and essentially commit corporate suicide? Zero.
Furthermore, what is the likelihood of a major oil spill occurring during these uncontrolled, mid-ocean transfers of massive quantities? It is incredibly high.

As for your highlighted comments and your choice of vocabulary: you might be older than me, but please, don't act so provincial.

I don't think the shipowner is going to insist on hitting 100% capacity, mostly because that's rarely even their concern; they'll likely just load the vessel based on whatever specific requirements the charterer dictates. It could be anything from a measly 1% to about 98%, depending on how things shake out. Besides, we shouldn't assume all tankers are supertankers, even if people tend to toss that term around quite loosely.

Just type STS into Google if you want to settle this debate once and for all. There is plenty of it out there, and honestly, the Greeks are currently leading the league in that particular sport.

urbanotter said:I honestly don't know what they'd say, but whether these transfers are happening ship-to-ship or are fully covered by insurance, people seem to stay quiet about it.

I feel like I have to repeat myself constantly: ship-to-ship transfer in open water is actually a standard industry practice. It happens whenever a vessel's draft is too deep to safely reach an unloading terminal, or when they need to top off their cargo because the receiving terminal has shallow waters that prevent full loading.

We see this quite often when larger vessels enter the Mississippi; the distances to the bottom are significant because silt and sediment buildup isn't always cleared away promptly.

It's unlikely we'll see much "topping off" in terms of blending, mainly because refineries are specifically calibrated to process crude from certain regions; they aren't designed to just swallow any Russian or Arabian crude that comes their way.
India has massive refining capacity at Sika, and it's highly probable that they can process Russian crude alongside the Arabian oil they typically handle.

Once those crude oils are processed into derivatives, I suspect it becomes much more difficult to track exactly which source the distilled products originally came from.
Since India hasn't imposed any sanctions, they are importing and refining Russian oil without facing any repercussions.

Do I really have to keep reminding everyone that the sanctions against Russia were primarily driven by the USA and its allies, which represents only about 20% of the countries in the world?

For this specific debate regarding sanctions, I suppose that isn't even the main issue.

The real point—if there is one—is that this won't become some massive, widespread loophole for dodging sanctions. I mean, it probably won't, assuming the sanctions are actually enforced.
Will some random tanker somewhere deliver some sort of 'blend' that's mostly Russian crude? Probably. But I guess it'll just be isolated incidents here and there.

Do we really need a constant reminder that the sanctions on Russia were only pushed by the USA and its allies, which is roughly 20% of the world?

Well, those 20% of countries actually account for over 65% of the global economy, and so far, they've been importing more than 80% of Russian exports.

In reality, more than half of the countries at the bottom of that list don't even make up 2% of the world's total GDP combined. Most of them are either completely insignificant on a global scale or entirely dependent on much larger nations.

analogbear5 said:How does that even tie into the sanctions talk? You probably think this is some clever way to dodge the EU embargo, right?

European embargo!?

With incredible, stubborn stupidity—likely fueled by propaganda—everyone keeps writing about how much damage the embargo has done to Russia, while conveniently ignoring that the EU has taken ten times more of a hit. Since Europeans tend to be a bit more pampered, the situation is even worse. It’s a massive self-inflicted wound, but apparently, we aren't allowed to talk about that. As long as America doesn't feel the pain, everything is fine. ☕

The reality of STS (ship-to-ship) transfers involves blending and masking Russian crude from various sources:

Russian crude is frequently being blended or masked through ship-to-ship (STS) transfers. While STS operations are legitimate tools used to move oil between smaller vessels—which can navigate shallower ports—and larger tankers capable of long-haul voyages, they have also been utilized by nations like Iran and Venezuela to bypass sanctions. Analysts have flagged specific vessels notorious for hauling Iranian oil into Russian ports during the latter half of April, alongside a noticeable uptick in Russian tankers "going dark" by disabling their Automatic Identification System (AIS) tracking. Monitoring these attempts to dodge sanctions is proving to be a massive headache, though initiatives like the Russian tanker tracking group (RTTG) launched by the Ukrainian government are already underway. Moving forward, there will need to be significant cooperation with commodity traders, many of whom operate out of Switzerland.

For the moment, trading Russian crude and petroleum products remains legal because the European Union hasn't fully signed off on the proposed embargo, but following the banking and financial sanctions leveled against Russia after its invasion of Ukraine on February 24, this business is becoming increasingly difficult to conduct.

In April, Russian oil deliveries destined for Greece hit nearly 0.9 million tons—essentially doubling March levels—and according to Refinitiv data, we could see new records broken in May.

Data indicates that the bulk of these shipments originated from Russian ports and headed toward the Greek port of Kalamata.

The Greek Ministry of Energy declined to comment, stating simply that these matters fall under the jurisdiction of private companies.

Shipping industry sources told Reuters that Russian oil sellers have resumed STS operations in Rotterdam and near Ceuta, Spain, after EU sanctions and activist protests disrupted similar activities in Denmark.

Ethan Gomez82 said:European embargo!?

With incredible, stubborn stupidity—likely fueled by propaganda—everyone keeps writing about how much damage the embargo has done to Russia, while conveniently ignoring that the EU has taken ten times more of a hit. Since Europeans tend to be a bit more pampered, the situation is even worse. It’s a massive self-inflicted wound, but apparently, we aren't allowed to talk about that. As long as America doesn't feel the pain, everything is fine. ☕

We aren't supposed to talk about that, clearly. It is obvious we are taking ten times the hit because we are dealing with Russia—an economy ten times stronger than the EU's. It's just simple math.