![[object Object],[object Object]](https://cdn.sanity.io/images/tsza235h/production/5ad5c0d9d8ddd93811235112ddf77fd46ad7ac46-1600x1062.jpg?rect=0%2C81%2C1600%2C900&w=3840&h=2160&fit=max&auto=format)
A Dark Slick in the White, White Arctic
How shipping on the Northern Sea Route in an era of climate crisis could turn into environmental disaster
As sea ice rapidly melts, the Arctic is seeing a rush of cargo ships, fishing vessels, and tourists. Russia views the Northern Sea Route (NSR) as a key transport corridor to cement its influence in the region. Over the next three years, Moscow is pouring 138 billion rubles into the NSR’s development—roughly equivalent to the country’s annual spending on cancer treatment.
But extreme conditions, aging vessels, and dirty fuel are turning the entire project into a risky gamble.
Arctida and Novaya Gazeta investigated how Russia’s Arctic fleet could be steering straight for an environmental disaster.
This is the first in a series of articles on the impact of major infrastructure projects in the Russian Arctic on nature and the climate. To catch future installments, follow Arctida and Novaya Gazeta on social media.
“Exhilarating voyage”
On October 13, 2025, the Chinese cargo ship Istanbul Bridge docked at Felixstowe, the UK’s largest container port on the North Sea. The vessel had completed the journey from China’s east coast in just 20 days, twice as fast as the usual route through the Suez Canal. To achieve this, the sailors had to traverse the Arctic, through the harsh and still largely uncharted waters of the Northern Sea Route (NSR).
“This has been an exhilarating voyage in my 18 years as a captain,” said Zhong Desheng, the Istanbul Bridge’s captain, to China’s Xinhua News Agency. He added he was “thrilled” to have completed the route, as preparations—including equipment upgrades and crew training—had begun three years earlier.
On board were thousands of containers filled with solar panels, lithium-ion batteries, and electric vehicles—goods China produces in surplus and which European countries need for their energy transition. Besides the UK, the Istanbul Bridge’s itinerary included stops in Germany, Poland, and the Netherlands.
Although the first Chinese merchant vessel reached Europe via the NSR back in 2013, Russia’s Arctic waters have since remained untouched by such transits. Now, over a decade later, the Istanbul Bridge’s voyage is being hailed as “pioneering.” It could signal the start of regular traffic from China to Europe through Russian waters and launch a new era in maritime trade, even amid political disagreements between Russia and the West.
The Northern Sea Route is Russia’s main Arctic transport artery, stretching along the coasts of the Arctic and partly the Pacific Oceans, from the Barents Sea to the Bering Sea. Foreign vessels can transit the NSR after receiving permission from Russian authorities.
The Chinese shipping company Sea Legend, which launched the route, plans to make the voyages regular starting next year. The business advantage is clear: 18–20 days via the NSR compared to 40–50 days through the Suez Canal or around the Cape of Good Hope, or 25 days by rail.
However, the Istanbul Bridge arrived in Felixstowe two days behind schedule due to a storm off the coast of Norway. And bad weather is hardly the only peril the Arctic route holds.
The Perfect Storm
Foreign vessel transit is just one facet of the NSR’s development. In 2024, transit shipping accounted for less than 8% of all cargo by weight. The bulk came from domestic deliveries for the “Northern Supply Haul” (a program to supply remote Arctic territories) and exports of Russian raw materials.
The green energy equipment aboard the Istanbul Bridge is, for now, an exotic cargo on the NSR. Unlike their Chinese counterparts, Russian ships ply the Arctic route carrying the energy of the last century: fossil fuels. In 2024, coal, oil, liquefied natural gas (LNG), gas condensate, and petroleum products made up 86% of all cargo.
Ironically, the burning of fossil fuels is the primary driver of the climate crisis and the reduction of Arctic sea ice.
In the seas of the NSR, September ice cover shrank eightfold between 1996 and 2005, and has remained at roughly that low level ever since.
Ice melt threatens the extinction of polar bears and seals, and accelerates global heating. But Russian authorities see the ice-free Arctic positively, as it allows for expanded shipping on the NSR to transport even more fossil fuels. Burning them will melt more ice, closing a vicious climate loop.
And Russia is indeed ramping up traffic. According to official data, cargo volume on the NSR reached a record 38 million tons in 2024. The number of transit voyages (92) and applications for passage (1,312) also hit new highs. As of October 2025, total voyages are up 20% compared to 2024, and transit cargo is up 8%. The state plans to set new records: 220 million tons of cargo by 2035.
Traffic on the NSR is tied to infrastructure projects. For example, before the launch of Yamal LNG in the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug, gas carriers were almost unseen in the Arctic. Today, tankers actively ship gas from the peninsula abroad.
Navigation is expanding not just in Russian waters. In 2024, 1,781 unique vessels were counted in the entire Arctic—a 37% increase since 2013. The reasons: increased resource development, tourism, and fishing.
But the melting ice, which opens the way for ships, isn’t so simple. The western part of the NSR (White, Kara, and Barents Seas) is ice-bound for five to eight months a year. Moving east toward the Taimyr coast, Chukchi Sea, and Bering Strait, the ice period can last 9-12 months. Even with the climate crisis, for the foreseeable future passage on the NSR most of the year will either remain impossible or present “significant difficulties,” Roshydromet (Russia’s meteorological service) notes. Furthermore, the climate crisis makes ice conditions unpredictable—it’s becoming harder to forecast ice jams.
Add to this the piercing cold, extreme weather, icebergs, more frequent fog, the risk of vessel icing and fuel freezing, equipment failure, and remote locations far from rescue centers. All these Arctic risks create a “perfect storm,” increasing the likelihood of accidents.
And accidents are already happening.
In the first month of summer 2024, ice conditions in the Yenisei Gulf of the Kara Sea were “moderate to severe.” Due to an error in assessing the ice situation, the tugboat Baikal sank there on June 4. Although an icebreaker was escorting it, the Baikal was nonetheless crushed by ice, causing it to capsize. And in December 2020, icing and a storm in the Barents Sea played a role in the wreck of the fishing vessel Onega. Of the 19 crew members, only two were rescued; the rest were never found.
Based on official data, Arctida calculated that 15 vessel accidents occurred in Russia’s Arctic seas and ports in 2024. This represents 17% of all accidents on Russia’s seas and inland waters.
Six shipwrecks happened in the Barents Sea, and three each in the Bering and Kara Seas. Six accidents involved vessel damage, five involved running aground, and one ship lost its ability to move. In two cases, people died; in another, a person sustained grievous bodily harm.
Since 2013, state statistics show a downward trend in the number of Arctic accidents and their share of total cases. However, the push to expand navigation on the NSR casts doubt on whether this trend will continue. For example, on the Sabetta–Kara Gate–Murmansk route serving the Yamal LNG project, even an ice-class vessel faces a 2.3% chance of an accident due to ice compression.
One Old Hull
The situation is worsened by a fleet whose technical condition inspires little confidence.
The main danger comes from old, single-hull tankers. On these ships, the oil or petroleum product tanks are separated from the sea by only a single layer of steel. The environmental threat of this design became obvious after the catastrophic Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska in 1989. Since then, single-hull tankers have been phased out.
According to International Maritime Organization (IMO) rules, all large tankers—those carrying 5,000 tons of cargo or more—must now be double-hulled, and existing single-hull tankers were to be retired upon reaching 30 years of age. Since 2008, medium-sized single-hull vessels (carrying 600 to 5,000 tons) have been banned from transporting heavy grades of fuel oil. An exception is still made only for small tankers that carry under 600 tons.
Although Russia verbally supported the ban on single-hull tankers in 2005, these vessels are still in service in the country, including in the Arctic.
Based on open-source data, Arctida found that in 2025, at least 35 medium- and large-size single-hull tankers received permission to transit the NSR — about 40% of all oil tankers that were granted such permits.
Most of these vessels were originally built as single-hull ships, though some were later upgraded. After Russia introduced new regulations in 2010, Lenaneft-class tankers began to receive double bottoms, and that work was still ongoing in 2025. Yet a double bottom alone is not enough for a tanker to qualify as double-hulled under international standards — it must also have double sides.
Half of the tankers that Russia has cleared to operate in the Arctic are already more than 25 years old — a vessel age widely regarded in international practice as the upper limit for safe operation. Meanwhile, a fifth of the oil fleet is over 45 years old, and three ships have been in service for more than half a century.
These dilapidated, single-hull vessels, especially when carrying heavy grades of oil, pose the highest risk of an accident involving a spill. In about half of all global shipping disasters, the vessel sinks, inevitably polluting the environment with petroleum products. This can happen due to a hull breach, running aground, or an onboard fire.
If a tanker spills oil in the NSR, it will be harder to clean up because of the ice. In cold water, oil becomes more viscous and breaks down more slowly than in warm water. And rescue centers are far away, with responders having to travel through harsh weather, snow, and ice.
The consequences of oil pollution for wildlife are disastrous. Compared to southern latitudes, affected animals in the Arctic have a lower chance of survival. When oil coats their feathers and fur, they lose their insulation and quickly freeze to death. Rescue efforts are complicated by short daylight hours or total darkness in winter, polar cyclones, fog, and the risk of hypothermia for the rescuers themselves.
Oil is toxic to animals. Whales, seals, and polar bears suffer from ingesting oil and inhaling its fumes. Their reproductive systems are harmed, and oil-covered seals can no longer swim and may drown. The effects of the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill were still impacting birds nine years later, and orca populations declined by a third or more.
Furthermore, oil-covered ice melts faster, reducing the Arctic’s reflectivity (albedo) and amplifying global heating.
Although the frequency of major oil spills worldwide is decreasing—now averaging 7.4 per year compared to 78.8 in the 1970s—scientists note the chances of an accident and ecosystem damage in the NSR are significantly higher. A notable accident occurred off Alaska in 2004, when the Malaysian vessel Selendang Ayu broke in half due to engine trouble, spilling about 1.3 million liters (343,000 gallons) of fuel oil. And in the Kerch Strait in December 2024, a storm broke two tankers carrying heavy fuel oil, Volgoneft-212 and Volgoneft-239, in half. Both vessels were over 50 years old. Estimates of the spill range from 2,400 to 4,600 tons of fuel oil.
Given the weather conditions and the state of the Arctic fleet, a catastrophe on this scale could easily be repeated in the NSR.
Black Ice
If you decide to sail in the Arctic, your worst choice is to power your ship with heavy fuel oil (HFO). This black, viscous liquid, a residue from oil refining, is the dirtiest fuel in maritime shipping.
But HFO is also cheap, which is why it’s still widely used, including for passage through fragile northern ecosystems. Independent groups estimate HFO accounts for about 80% of marine fuel in the Arctic. It also plays a key role in the Russian north. In 2018, a representative from Russia’s Ministry of Transport, Vitaly Klyuev, claimed that a ban on HFO would make it impossible for Russia to transport “almost all volumes of oil” on the NSR or carry out the Northern Supply Haul as usual.
But the environmental case for banning this dirty fuel is overwhelming. Burning it emits black carbon (soot) into the atmosphere. The Arctic is the most vulnerable region in the Northern Hemisphere to this. When soot falls on the bright surface of snow and ice, they absorb more solar radiation and melt faster. This is why black carbon is called a climate “super-pollutant”: some estimates suggest it traps heat 1,600 times more effectively than carbon dioxide. Moreover, HFO’s thick, viscous consistency complicates any potential spill cleanup, even before factoring in severe weather and polar nights. Due to expanding shipping, black carbon emissions in the Arctic nearly doubled between 2015 and 2021.
After years of advocacy from environmental groups, there seemed to be cause for celebration: on July 1, 2024, an IMO ban on the use of HFO as shipping fuel in the Arctic took effect. However, the new rules are riddled with loopholes.
First, ships meeting certain technical requirements (regarding the distance between the fuel tank and the hull) can continue burning HFO until July 2029. Second, Arctic states can grant this same waiver to any ship sailing under their national flag in their own waters. As a result, the new rules cover only 16% of HFO burned in the Arctic and 30% of HFO carried as fuel, failing to provide adequate protection for the ecosystem.
Russia has used these loopholes and continues to burn HFO in the NSR. At the same time, discussions have begun in the country about transitioning the fleet to fossil (natural) gas to reduce environmental impact and stimulate domestic demand for the resource. Russia was previously pushed toward this change by the IMO’s creation of special Emission Control Areas (ECAs) in the Baltic and North Seas.
Today, Russia operates 15 vessels that use LNG as marine fuel, with plans to build over a hundred more by 2035. Some are intended for the NSR, including ice-class cargo ships and, tankers, gas carriers, and icebreakers.
Switching ships from HFO to LNG can reduce air pollution, cutting black carbon and sulfur oxide emissions to near zero, which is good news for the Arctic.
However, it won’t help the climate much. Natural gas is still a fossil fuel; its combustion and the methane leaks during its extraction and transport heat the planet.
Studies show that replacing HFO with LNG reduces greenhouse gas emissions by only about 10%.
Therefore, some experts urge a leap directly to more advanced solutions: green ammonia and hydrogen (produced using renewable energy) and electric propulsion. Examples of electric cargo ships are already operating in Europe and China.
What’s on the Horizon?
The more traffic on the NSR grows, the greater its environmental impact will be. Russia has announced large-scale plans: the national project “Effective Transport System” aims to nearly triple cargo transport on the NSR from current levels by 2030.
Expert forecasts are more conservative. According to Nikolay Kulbaka, PhD in Economics, cargo volume on the NSR will grow by 5-10% per year at most in the near future. The Northern Supply Haul flows are not growing, as the population of the territories it serves is not changing—and in some places, it’s even decreasing. As for Russian resource exports, the growth of new industrial infrastructure in the Arctic remains limited.
However, Kulbaka does expect interest in transit, at least from China, but here too, there are pitfalls. The NSR’s waters are shallow, so the large, most cost-effective container ships used today simply cannot pass through. Furthermore, not every ship is suitable for polar expeditions.
“Year-round navigation [on the NSR] is impossible. As soon as you start using icebreakers, it immediately makes the transport more expensive. And if a great warming suddenly happens and the ice there melts, the world will have changed so much that we can’t say how transport flows will develop or what will happen to the world,” the expert told Arctida.
The green energy transition is also hindering new projects in the Russian Arctic. With solar energy and battery storage becoming cheaper by the day, investors are in no hurry to fund new offshore Arctic fields that may never turn a profit, Kulbaka notes.
“Of course, there will be expansion [of navigation in the Arctic]. Shipbuilders are learning to build such vessels, new technologies are emerging, satellite capabilities for monitoring ice are improving, and so on. But to say it will become mainstream—probably not. Let’s not forget this is the Arctic, and any route there will always be a bit more expensive. At least for now,” the expert concludes.
Analysts also believe container companies will not risk their reputations by sending voyages into an environmentally and geopolitically sensitive region. Indeed, some have already signed the Arctic Corporate Shipping Pledge, promising to bypass the Arctic for environmental reasons. Signatories include, for example, the Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC), the world’s largest container shipping line.
Even with moderate growth on the NSR, the Arctic needs protection. Russia’s first priority should be the rapid decommissioning of its aging, single-hull fleet, which carries a high risk of oil spills. It is also necessary to restrict the use of heavy fuel oil as quickly as possible, while simultaneously investing in the development of zero-emission alternatives like green hydrogen, ammonia, and electric engines. And at the international level, it’s time to mandate the retirement of ships once they reach a certain age.
