IF FIVE aircraft had mysteriously suffered explosions since January you would have heard about it.

It would be inconceivable that multiple international investigations would not have by now identified, at the very least, a working theory of what was happening.

The international headlines and speculation would have been incessant and the ubiquitous access to open source intelligence would have pointed fingers and forced progress.

In short, this would be an international effort with a huge amount of attention and pressure to deliver results.

The fact that we are now at least five tanker explosions into this year and we are none the wiser as to who is behind them or why they are happening, speaks volumes about the position of shipping in the international agenda.

But this is not just a visibility issue.

The lack of a cohesive evidential link between these tanker explosions sows unrest and fear in an industry that is unable to properly assess risk in absence of credible intelligence.

Are the security analysts right in assessing the “strong likelihood” that there is a state actor behind these attacks? Probably, yes. But who?

Tankers exploding in the Mediterranean was not on anyone’s agenda amid so many other security hotspots right now, but the geographical locations of the explosions are probably inconsequential.

The perpetrators, probably, were likely targeting shipping for having called Russian ports, with delayed fuses, or limpet mines, or something else, possibly placed inside the vessel. We think. Maybe. Right now, we’re not sure.

Or was this a case of several different players simultaneously taking out tankers in response to more localised trouble, via some useful militia? Again, we don’t know.

We do know that governments are sufficiently concerned to be issuing warnings to state actors to “knock it off”, but given that we don’t yet know which actors should be knocking what off, that’s not helping anyone mitigate the risk.

If the investigations really are this inconclusive this far into a five tanker spree, we need to be told what is fact and what is speculation.

If there is evidence pointing one way or another that would be helpful too.

Leaving shipowners in the dark, unable to defend their assets and crew against the threat of explosive devices is not a viable option.

Richard Meade
Editor-in-chief, Lloyd’s List

Click here to view the latest Lloyd’s List Daily Briefing