National Security
The Tobago oil spill story is not adding up
The official account places the tug and barge on a voyage toward Guyana. Open-source tracking material tells a less tidy story. The sequence needs explaining.
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.
Editorial reconstruction from public AIS reporting and satellite analysis. It is not satellite photography and does not claim a complete track.
Colón to the Venezuelan coast
Bellingcat reconstructed the tow from public tracking and satellite material.
Seen in Pozuelo Bay
TankerTrackers told Robinson it had observed the vessel there for about a week or more.
Leak visible south of Tobago
Bellingcat reported satellite evidence of leaking from about 3 February.
The intended destination
A track is not a charter, bill of lading or port instruction.
Reporting sequence
Updated 2 October 2026 with interactive graphics and linked documentation. Original publication date retained.
Eight days after oil reached the shore at Cove, the State's account of how it got there has a gap in the middle.
The Ministry of National Security has said two vessels were involved: a tug, the Solo Creed, and a barge. The tow, it said, was bound for Guyana from Panama.1
I have been comparing that account with open-source vessel-tracking material published by specialist monitors and researchers. On the material available, the sequence does not run in a straight line from Panama to Guyana.2
The question is not whether Guyana was a possible destination. It is whether the public account explains the voyage that actually preceded the wreck. A declared endpoint does not erase intermediate movements, a prolonged signal gap or a stop at an oil-handling location.
What does not add up
If the tow was heading for Guyana, why does the tracking record place it off the coast of Venezuela? Why does the tug's transponder appear to have gone silent for an extended period? Why was the barge found capsized off Tobago, which is not on the obvious course from Panama to Georgetown?
And why has no one come forward to claim either vessel? A tug that loses its tow knows it has lost it.
By 15 February, the public had been given a tug name, an origin and a destination, yet no owner. That asymmetry required explanation. If the authorities had enough information to describe the voyage, what record supplied it? If that record named a tug, why had it not led to a registered interest, operator or person responsible for reporting the casualty?
The evidence available then
Bellingcat's 14 February analysis treated the wreck as an unpowered barge rather than a conventional self-propelled vessel. That explains why divers did not find an IMO number on the Gulfstream hull and why the identity inquiry had to follow the tug that had been paired with it.1
Open-source tracking and satellite material added a second strand. It placed the tow in the southern Caribbean and raised the Venezuela question. It did not disclose a charter, cargo manifest or ownership record. The strength of the evidence was in identifying a gap in the official chronology, not in filling that gap with an allegation.2
What is not being said
None of this establishes what the voyage was for. It establishes that the official version leaves out part of the journey, and that the part left out is the part that would explain the cargo.
It also does not establish that the tug's signal was deliberately disabled, that cargo changed hands in Venezuela, or that any named person committed an offence. Those propositions require evidence not yet in the reporting file.
The records that would resolve it
A complete vessel history would show the tug's stable identifier, flag and registered interests. Port and terminal logs would show calls and transfers. A charter party or bill of lading would show the contracting parties, cargo and destination. Coast Guard and emergency-response logs would show when the State first identified the tow and what it did with that information.
Without those records, public statements can be tested only against the observable track. That track makes the Venezuela leg impossible to ignore.
The questions
When did the authorities first learn the tug's identity, and from whom? Have they obtained the tug's full track, including the period it was dark? What has been asked of the flag state? Who is searching for the tug, and where?
What record supports the Panama-to-Guyana description? Did the tow declare a call in Venezuela? Did any agency receive a distress report when the barge separated? Which authority is preserving the satellite, AIS, port and registration evidence needed for a claim?
These questions go beyond the name on the wreck. They determine whether Tobago can identify the responsible interests, recover clean-up costs and explain how a vessel already leaking oil approached its coast without intervention.
I will publish what I can verify as I verify it.
Citations & source document
- [1]Bellingcat — Identifying the mystery vessel, 14 February 2024Public questions on the voyageIncludes the Ministry of National Security's naming of the Solo Creed and the stated Guyana voyage.
- [2]Pearce Robinson — public reporting, 15 February 2024Public questions on the voyageQuestions on the voyage sequence.
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.
