National Security
Government confirms fuel oil is leaking off Tobago
The Government now says the substance leaking from the Gulfstream is fuel oil, not crude. That supports the cargo assessment tested with TankerTrackers on 18 February. It settles nothing about the route, the owner or the purpose of the voyage.
Investigation file · February 2024
Follow the evidence, not the name painted on the hull
This visual reconstruction follows Robinson's reporting: the contradiction he identified, the satellite evidence he published, the questions he put directly to TankerTrackers, the claims he withheld and the findings later confirmed.
~35,000
barrels
Quantity discussed with TankerTrackers
~5,000
metric tonnes
Equivalent estimate in the correspondence
Fuel oil
confirmed 23 Feb
Narrow confirmation; route and ownership remained separate
Reporting sequence
Updated 2 October 2026 with interactive graphics and linked documentation. Original publication date retained.
The Government confirmed on Friday that the substance leaking from the capsized barge off Cove is fuel oil, Reuters reported. Officials had previously said only that the slick was a petroleum product.1
The distinction is not cosmetic. Crude oil is an unrefined feedstock. Fuel oil is a refined or intermediate product moved for uses that can include marine bunkering and power generation. Identifying the product narrows the commercial questions; it does not identify the transaction.
What the confirmation supports
On 18 February I put a specific question to TankerTrackers.com: was a cargo of roughly 35,000 barrels, loaded at Pozuelo Bay, more likely crude or heavy fuel oil? Their answer was that heavy fuel oil was the more plausible reading in context. A barge-load of that size would make little sense as refinery feedstock, and fuel oil fits a cargo used to bunker ships or feed power plants.[2]
Friday's statement is consistent with that assessment. It is the first part of the cargo question to be answered on the official record.
It also shows why the sequence of questioning matters. The assessment was recorded before the Government named the product. The later statement can therefore be compared with a dated proposition rather than treated as hindsight.[2]
What it does not settle
The confirmation says what was in the barge. It does not say where the barge was going, who owned it, who chartered the tow, or what the fuel was for. Those remain open, and the fuel type does not answer them by implication. A refined fuel cargo is compatible with several destinations and several buyers.
The tug Solo Creed has still not been located. No owner has come forward. The State has not said whether it has asked Venezuela for loading records from Pozuelo Bay.
Nor does the product identify where it was loaded. A satellite observation can place a vessel in or near a terminal; only terminal records, a bill of lading, tank measurements, transfer records or evidence from people involved can establish loading. The same is true of destination: a heading on a chart is not a charter instruction.
The evidentiary threshold
There are now three separate layers in the record. Satellite and tracking material describe movement. TankerTrackers supplied an attributed specialist assessment of the probable cargo. The Government supplied the first official confirmation of product type. They reinforce one another on the narrow fuel question, but they are not interchangeable and none proves ownership or purpose.
Questions that remain
Was the cargo sampled from the wreck, and by which laboratory? Will the analysis be published? Has the Government written to the flag state of the tug, and what did it say? Who will pay for the clean-up if no owner is found?
The answers matter to liability. Product analysis can help connect oil in the sea to oil in the wreck. Registration and charter records can identify the parties behind the tow. Without those records, the State may know what polluted Tobago while still lacking the evidence needed to recover the cost from whoever was responsible.
Later documentary confirmation
Trinidad and Tobago later told the International Oil Pollution Compensation Funds that Institute of Marine Affairs analysis identified the cargo as persistent Bunker Fuel C and recorded 4,652 metric tonnes aboard. That later filing supplied laboratory and quantity detail that was not available on 24 February.3
Citations & source document
- [1]Reuters — Trinidad government confirms fuel oil is leaking off Tobago's coast, 23 February 2024Fuel type confirmedOfficial confirmation of fuel oil.
- [2]Direct correspondence with TankerTrackers.com, 18 February 2024Fuel assessmentFuel-type assessment; screenshots retained by the publisher.
- [3]IOPC Funds — Gulfstream incident and claims recordCargo quantity, Bunker Fuel C and claimsLater official record of 4,652 tonnes of persistent Bunker Fuel C and the compensation process.
Every document cited above is held on this site, with the key clauses, extracts and findings set out in full and a link to the document of record.
Independent reporting by Pearce Robinson. Corrections and responses may be submitted here.
