The arrival of a 250-meter vessel named Seferis at a BP terminal in Kwinana, south of Perth, sparked fresh concern. The ship, flying a Greek flag, had departed from India, and activists quickly claimed it was carrying fuel derived from Russian crude oil. Though processed in India, the oil was said to have Russian origins. BP, however, maintains that the shipment met all Australian legal and compliance standards.
Australia currently enforces over 1,500 sanctions against Russia. These were introduced following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and include strict limits on importing, purchasing, and transporting Russian oil. But not all nations have joined this pressure campaign. India, for example, continues to trade energy products with Russia.
Ukrainian activists have expressed concern that billions of dollars worth of Russian crude oil may have reached Australia after being processed in Indian refineries. They believe this backdoor approach allows Russian oil to enter international markets under a different label.
The issue gained attention in Parliament when independent MP Andrew Wilkie raised the matter with Defence Minister Richard Marles. Wilkie questioned why Australia’s sanctions had “loopholes so big you can drive a tanker through them.” He highlighted a shipment of 90,000 tonnes of petrol that docked in Sydney in July. The fuel reportedly came from India’s Jamnagar refinery, which is known to use up to 55% Russian crude oil in its production.
On Thursday, WA Senator Fatima Payman added to the debate. She raised claims that three oil tankers are currently docked in Western Australia, unable to proceed to Europe due to stricter enforcement of sanctions there. These ships are suspected of carrying oil linked to Russia.
In June, the federal government announced a new set of sanctions aimed at what’s being called Russia’s “shadow fleet.” The sanctions include a price cap of $60 per barrel on Russian crude and allow officials to block certain vessels from entering Australian waters.
Foreign Minister Penny Wong responded to the concerns, saying the government is exploring ways to deal with imports from countries that refine Russian oil. However, she admitted that Australia cannot monitor all energy products processed in third countries. “We are not responsible for what happens inside Indian refineries,” she said.
Still, Wong emphasized that Australians expect local businesses to avoid contributing to Russia’s war effort, even indirectly. She signaled that the government may increase pressure on companies to strengthen their supply chain ethics.
Roma Popadynec, an activist with the Ukrainian Association of Western Australia, called for immediate action. Her family has been directly affected by the conflict in Ukraine. She said Australia needs to close the loopholes and stop supporting Russia’s war economy, even unintentionally.
Anton Moiseienko, an academic at the Australian National University and expert on sanctions and financial crimes, described the issue as a political tightrope. Governments, he said, are trying to restrict Russia’s oil profits without pushing up global fuel prices. “If prices rise too much, Russia could sell less and still make more money,” he warned.
Energy expert David Close, from the University of Queensland, echoed the challenge. He said most voters agree with sanctions and embargoes up to a point, but not at the cost of economic stability. “People want to stand for Ukraine,” he explained, “but they also worry about their own living costs.”
As pressure builds on lawmakers and importers, the spotlight is now on how Australia will tighten enforcement and close the gaps in its current sanctions system. The government’s next steps will likely shape the future of energy ethics and foreign policy in the region.
