When the Ambarnaya River in northern Russia turned a shade of red in late May 2020, it was an unmistakable sign of an environmental disaster. In the industrial city of Norilsk, located above the Arctic Circle, more than 21,000 tonnes of diesel fuel leaked from a storage tank at Power Plant No. 3, operated by a subsidiary of mining giant Norilsk Nickel.
The fuel spread into nearby rivers, wetlands and permafrost. Investigators later linked the spill to a failure to carry out basic maintenance, a result of mismanagement and negligence by Norilsk Nickel. It was one of the worst industrial accidents in Russia’s recent history, and the full extent of the damage remains unclear.
The storage tank had a known history of structural issues. Russian business media reported that the tank was taken out of service in 2015 for repairs, but Norilsk Nickel’s management gave the green light to resume operations four years later without notifying regulators, in breach of safety requirements.
Norilsk Nickel’s management blamed the collapse of the diesel storage tank on thawing permafrost, but Russia’s environmental watchdog later concluded that the company’s decision makers should have ensured the reservoirs’ safety, adding that permafrost thaw risks could not be used to justify the collapse. A state inspection found no signs of thawing beneath the tank’s foundation and instead pointed to long-term technical and organisational failures caused by human error.
Norilsk Nickel’s response drew sharp criticism. The company’s management stayed silent for two days. Local officials said they only learned about the spill after photos began circulating online. Russia’s Ministry for Emergency Situations reportedly found out through satellite images and social media. It wasn’t until five days later that President Vladimir Putin declared a federal emergency.
By that time, the fuel had travelled kilometres downstream. Containment efforts were disorganised and late. Boom barriers were installed on the Ambarnaya River, and clean-up crews from the Ministry, the Arctic fleet and state oil firm Gazprom Neft were deployed. But the damage was already deep.
In 2021, Norilsk Nickel was fined a record 2 billion US dollars for the environmental damage, the largest environmental penalty ever imposed in Russia. The company’s shares fell sharply in the wake of the disaster, hitting both its financial standing and investor confidence. While Norilsk Nickel has claimed that 90 percent of the spilled fuel was collected and that 130,000 tonnes of contaminated soil had been removed, independent experts remain sceptical. The remediation zone covered 800,000 square metres, and included biological treatment, but access to full data remains restricted.
The company, led by billionaire Vladimir Potanin, has promised to improve risk monitoring across its Arctic infrastructure. It now says it uses drones, satellites, real-time sensors and soil testing at key sites including pipelines, tanks and industrial buildings. But these steps have not erased concerns about the company’s long-standing safety culture. After the spill, senior Russian officials publicly accused Norilsk Nickel of neglect and indifference. President Putin directly criticised Potanin for failing to replace the ageing tank, saying the disaster could have been avoided entirely.
Over the past two years, Norilsk Nickel has provided little in the way of public updates on the spill’s aftermath. Foreign researchers have not been granted access to the site, and domestic scientists have warned that only long-term monitoring will show the true scale of the damage. In 2022, the Barents Observer reported that some creeks in the region remained visibly red – a lasting reminder of the spill’s impact.
Ecologists agree that the consequences are likely to last decades. A proper impact assessment requires fieldwork, not remote modelling, and the Arctic’s fragile ecosystems are particularly slow to recover. A collapse in one species can cascade through entire food chains. Russia’s Federal Fisheries Agency has said it could take at least a decade for biodiversity in the region to recover, even with extensive support.
The Norilsk spill has drawn comparisons to the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaska, during which 11 million gallons of oil were leaked. That incident led to sweeping regulatory reforms. Yet five years after Norilsk, there has been no comparable shift in policy, no comprehensive environmental review and no public reckoning.
For Europe, especially its northern regions such as Scandinavia, the message is clear. The Arctic is not just part of Russia – it plays a vital role in stabilising the global climate. Changes in the region affect weather patterns, sea levels and ecosystems far beyond its borders. As temperatures rise and permafrost thaws, ageing infrastructure across northern Russia is becoming increasingly unstable.
