The crude-oil tanker previously tracked under the name Boracay (IMO 9332810) has been recorded under a new identity in early 2026, with public reporting and registry data indicating a shift to a Russian flag and the name Feniks. A January 2026 investigation by RFI (15 January 2026) described the vessel as appearing in Russia’s shipping register as “Feniks”, registered in Sochi, following a long pattern of name and flag changes associated with Moscow-linked oil logistics under sanctions pressure.
Separately, the Russian Maritime Register of Shipping lists IMO 9332810 as PHOENIX under the flag of Russia, with Sochi shown as port of registry and the class status marked valid as of late August 2025 on its public database. Russian Maritime Register of Shipping vessel data for IMO 9332810 indicates the tanker is an oil tanker of 115 577 DWT with an official call sign, reinforcing that the ship is now captured within Russian registry documentation even as naming conventions appear inconsistent across datasets. Built in 2007, the tanker is around 18–19 years old in 2026.
Verified status: name and flag changes are visible, but operational details remain opaque
What can be verified from public, cross-referenced records is the identity transition itself: the same IMO number links the vessel’s history of renamed operations to its current Russian-flag documentation. However, many elements often asserted in “shadow fleet” profiles such as the exact ownership chain, financing arrangements, or the vessel’s current insurance position are not consistently disclosed in public records and cannot be confirmed from registries alone.
For maritime authorities and insurers, the practical relevance is that flag, classification and insurance status shape how risk is distributed and how claims are handled after incidents. The International Group of Protection and Indemnity Clubs (IGP&I) notes that its 12 member clubs collectively provide marine liability cover for around 90% of the world’s ocean-going tonnage, a benchmark often used to distinguish mainstream liability coverage from alternative arrangements in higher-risk trades. International Group of P&I Clubs: “About” explains the role of these clubs in pooling major third-party liabilities, including pollution and wreck removal.
Why the “Feniks” case matters: enforcement friction and spill-risk economics
The “Feniks” reappearance comes as European governments and regulators continue to focus on the safety, environmental exposure and sanctions-evasion techniques associated with older tankers operating via frequent identity changes. While flying a national flag does not automatically confer sovereign immunity on a merchant tanker, it can complicate the information environment around a vessel particularly when records diverge between registries, AIS broadcasts and corporate filings. In practice, enforcement still turns on specific jurisdictions: port state control when calling at ports, coastal-state 1powers in territorial waters, and sanctions compliance by service providers (insurers, brokers, classification, bunkering and trading counterparts).
For coastal states, the most immediate concern is often liability and response capacity in the event of a casualty. Where a tanker operates without widely recognised third-party liability coverage, the ability to secure rapid compensation and coordinated spill response can be more difficult raising the potential burden on states and victims while increasing the economic incentives for opaque operating structures.
