An investigation into the damage to the Balticonnector gas pipeline is currently focused on the role of the Chinese NewNew Polar Bear container vessel, Finland's National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) said on Friday.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/7659731

HELSINKI/VILNIUS, Oct 20 (Reuters) - An investigation into the damage to the Balticonnector gas pipeline is currently focused on the role of the Chinese NewNew Polar Bear container vessel, Finland’s National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) said on Friday.

Early on Oct. 8, a gas pipeline and a telecoms cable connecting Finland and Estonia were broken, in what Finnish investigators said may have been sabotage, though they have yet to conclude whether it was an accident or a deliberate act.

On Tuesday, Sweden said a third link, connecting Stockholm to Tallinn, had been damaged at roughly the same time as the other two.

“The police have established in the criminal investigation that the movements of the vessel NewNew Polar Bear flying the flag of Hong Kong coincide with the time and place of the gas pipeline damage,” NBI said in a statement.

“For this reason, the investigation is now focused on the role of the said vessel,” the Finnish investigators added.

Following Finland’s NBI statement, Estonian investigators, who are also looking into the telecoms cable incidents, said they were still looking at two ships, the NewNew Polar Bear and Russia’s Sevmorput.

“We have identified that during the incidents, the vessels NewNew Polar Bear and Sevmorput were in the area. We are still investigating whether or not these vessels had anything to do with the damage,” they said in a statement to Reuters.

Only these two ships were present at all three incident sites around the approximate time when the damage occurred, according to vessel tracking data reviewed by Reuters.

  • OurToothbrushM
    26·
    9 months ago

    I agree that we can’t know for sure but a lot of signs point to accidental.

    • interolivary@beehaw.org
      2·
      9 months ago

      Well, I dunno. If it was just the Balticconnector gas pipeline, but two telecom cables were also damaged – one between Estonia and Finland and which was completely severed, and one between Estonia and Sweden – and they weren’t all that close to the pipeline for it to make sense that the damage was due to eg. a ship dropping its anchor due to the storm.

      Here’s a picture of the cables. The Balticconnector cut happened at approximately its midpoint, while I’ve understood the EST-FIN cable damage happened closer to the Estonian shore, and the EST-SWE cable damage happened 50km west of Hiiumaa (the northernmost island that’s above the “Meremöisa” text in this image).

      So while accidents do happen, the fact that not just one or two but three cables were damaged around the same time and separated by quite a bit of distance, it’s more than a bit suspicious. Completely possible it’s just breathtaking incompetence from the Chinese ship’s crew, but they would have had to drag their anchor for over 100km. There has been a case where an oil tanker’s crew didn’t realize they had their anchor down and it damaged two Estonian cables, but the distance was shorter (I only have a Finnish-language source for all of this, sorry. DeepL is great for translating Finnish but I don’t think they do web pages yet so you’d have to copy’n’paste).

      So while I definitely believe it’s possible this was all accidental, it would have required a fantastically incompetent crew for them to not notice that they were dragging their anchor for 100 – 200km and snagged on a pretty hefty pipeline in addition to two telecom cables. But, we’ll have to see what, if anything, the investigation turns up. It’s also entirely possible that one or both of the telecom cable damages are completely unrelated to the pipeline damage, it’s not like cable damage is an extremely rare occurrence in the Baltic.

      • OurToothbrushM
        15·
        9 months ago

        Yeah, that is strange. I’m still finding it hard to find any possible motivation for a commercial ship from Hong Kong (which still has a high degree of political autonomy) doing this. How would the interests of Hong Kong be served by damaging this infrastructure? Maybe they’re not actually involved in it if it is sabotage.

        • interolivary@beehaw.org
          1·
          9 months ago

          It being registered in Hong Kong doesn’t necessarily tell us much about who’s operating the ship though.

          Other suspicious ships being looked into are a couple of ships registered in Liberia: the Viktor Bakaev which is owned by SCF Novoship in Russia, and the Pskov which is owned by Sovcomflot and likewise in Russia

          • OurToothbrushM
            15·
            9 months ago

            Then why is the article calling it a Chinese ship? Seems awfully xenophobic if that is the case.

            • interolivary@beehaw.org
              1·
              9 months ago

              Good question. Based on a quick search that led me to Lloyd’s Register, it looks like its registered owner is a Chinese company called Hainan Xin Xin Yang Shipping, so that’s probably why?