Navalyze · Reefer · Ship

BALTIC SPRING

IMO: 8909070
Type: Refrigerated cargo carrier
Average cargo carried: 4,843 t
Port of registry: Nassau
Technical efficiency: EIV 25.61 g CO₂/t·nm
Ice class: IC

ISM company (DoC holder) in 2025: OWH Shipmanagement GmbH

Report year

2025 at a glance

From the 2025 THETIS-MRV report. Carries about 4,843 t of cargo on average.

Fuel per mile

77.9 kg/nm

Reefer median 82.9 kg/nm (−6%)

CO₂ per transport work (cargo)

50.28

g CO₂/t·nm · Reefer median 56.80 (−11%)

Average speed

16.2 kn

Reefer median 14.6 kn (+11%)

Fuel per day at sea

30.3 t/day

Fuel consumed

1,790 t

CO₂ emitted

5,597 t

5,685 t CO₂eq incl. CH₄ and N₂O

Distance sailed

22,983 nm

CO₂ ÷ CO₂ per mile

Time at sea

1,418 h

59 days, 16% of the year

Within the reefer fleet, 2025

Set against all 109 reefer ships with a full-year 2025 report. Bigger ships burn more per mile but less per tonne of cargo, so read fuel per mile with the ship's size in mind.

Fuel per mileThis ship 77.9 kg/nm · median 82.9 (−6%)

55.8Ranks 38 of 109, lowest first117.7

Average speedThis ship 16.2 kn · median 14.6 (+11%)

8.2Faster than 81% of reefer ships16.7

CO₂ per transport work (cargo)This ship 50.28 g CO₂/t·nm · median 56.80 (−11%)

36.74Ranks 40 of 109, lowest first140.03

Middle 80% of shipsMiddle 50%Reefer medianThis ship

Where the emissions happen, 2025

THETIS splits each ship's CO₂ by voyage type. The split sets how much falls under the EU ETS: all of it within the EU and at berth, half of it on voyages into or out of the EU.

Between EU ports1%
From the EU25%
Into the EU70%
At berth in the EU4%

52% of this ship's CO₂ falls under the EU ETS (2,933 t).

Fuel burned laden

–

Not reported

CO₂ at berth

3.5%

Alongside in EU ports

Methane (CH₄)

0.1 t

Mainly from LNG; small for oil

CO₂eq ÷ CO₂

1.016

Uplift from CH₄ and N₂O, counted in full from 2026

Over the years

Full-year reports only. The Reefer median is the middle ship of all reefer ships reporting that year; it moves with the fleet, so a ship can gain on it without changing itself.

Fuel per mile, kg/nm

BALTIC SPRING
Reefer median

70.075.080.085.090.095.0

’182018’192019’202020’212021’222022’232023’242024’252025

Average speed, kn

BALTIC SPRING
Reefer median

14.015.016.017.0

’182018’192019’202020’212021’222022’232023’242024’252025

CO₂ per transport work (cargo), g CO₂/t·nm

BALTIC SPRING
Reefer median

30.040.050.060.070.080.0

’182018’192019’202020’212021’222022’232023’242024’252025

Year on year

Year	Speed	Fuel per mile	Fuel per day	Distance	CO₂ per TW	Reading
2024→2025	−0.1 kn	+2%	+2%	+9%	−7%	Same speed, fuel per mile up 2%; in line with the speed change.
2023→2024	−0.6 kn	−7%	−10%	−34%	+2%	0.6 kn slower, fuel per mile down 7%; in line with the speed change.
2022→2023	+1.1 kn	−4%	+3%	+47%	+30%	1.1 kn faster, fuel per mile down 4%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2021→2022	+0.3 kn	−8%	−7%	+54%	+4%	0.3 kn faster, fuel per mile down 8%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2020→2021	−0.4 kn	+20%	+16%	−61%	−26%	0.4 kn slower, fuel per mile up 20%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2019→2020	+1.4 kn	+6%	+17%	+34%	−10%	1.4 kn faster, fuel per mile up 6%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2018→2019	−2.2 kn	−3%	−15%	+16%	+47%	2.2 kn slower, fuel per mile down 3%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).

Fuel per mile rises roughly with the square of speed for a given ship, so a change in speed explains much of a change in fuel per mile.

Every reporting year

One row per THETIS-MRV report. A ship that changed operator during a year has a part-year report for each.

Operation

Year	ISM company	Fuel t	CO₂ t	Distance nm	At sea h	Speed kn	Fuel kg/nm	CO₂ g/t·nm	Laden fuel
2025	OWH Shipmanagement GmbH	1,790	5,597	22,983	1,418	16.2	77.9	50.28	–
2024	OWH Shipmanagement GmbH	1,610	5,031	21,108	1,295	16.3	76.3	54.22	–
2023	not published	2,614	8,161	31,946	1,893	16.9	81.8	53.06	–
2022	not published	1,849	5,771	21,710	1,374	15.8	85.2	40.91	–
2021	not published	1,308	4,129	14,058	908	15.5	93.1	39.47	–
2020	not published	2,790	8,783	35,871	2,255	15.9	77.8	53.32	–
2019	not published	1,967	6,138	26,867	1,857	14.5	73.2	59.09	–
2018	not published	1,733	5,417	23,075	1,385	16.7	75.1	40.30	–

Benchmark and verification

Year	ISM company	CO₂ per TW, g CO₂/t·nm	Reefer median	vs Reefer	Rank	Verifier	Methods
2025	OWH Shipmanagement GmbH	50.28	56.80	−11%	40 of 109	Verifavia	A+B+C
2024	OWH Shipmanagement GmbH	54.22	58.69	−8%	48 of 108	Verifavia	B+C
2023	not published	53.06	55.59	−5%	59 of 135	Verifavia	B+C
2022	not published	40.91	55.27	−26%	29 of 143	Verifavia	B+C
2021	not published	39.47	54.99	−28%	24 of 158	Verifavia	B+C
2020	not published	53.32	59.07	−10%	57 of 149	Verifavia	B+C
2019	not published	59.09	62.58	−6%	63 of 147	Verifavia	B+C
2018	not published	40.30	72.84	−45%	14 of 136	Verifavia	B+C

Fuel per mile and CO₂ per tonne-mile are the ship's own reported KPIs. Reefer ships are benchmarked on CO₂ per transport work (cargo) (TW), in g CO₂/t·nm. CO₂eq adds methane and nitrous oxide and is in the public files from 2024. Rank counts from the lowest figure among that year's reefer ships. Methods: A delivery notes, B tank monitoring, C flow meters, D direct measurement. FuelEU GHG intensity is not shown: it needs fuel types, which the public file does not carry. Operators are named only from 2024, the first year the public files carry them; earlier years belong to the ship, not to any company.