Navalyze · Container · Ship

MSC KATYAYNI VI

IMO: 9110389
Type: Container ship
Average cargo carried: 51,762 t
Flag (estimated): Panama
Port of registry: Panama
Technical efficiency: EEXI 12.33 g CO₂/t·nm
Former names: MSC KATYAYNI

ISM company (DoC holder) in 2025: MSC Shipmanagement Ltd · part of MSC Group

Report year

2020 at a glance

From the 2020 THETIS-MRV report. Carries about 38,374 t of cargo on average.

Fuel kg/nm

220

Container median 172 kg/nm (+28%)

CO₂ per transport work (cargo)

18.1

g CO₂/t·nm · Container median 17.6 (+3%)

Average speed

15.9 kn

Container median 14.0 kn (+14%)

Fuel per day at sea

83.9 t/day

Fuel consumed

18,873 t

CO₂ emitted

59,484 t

Distance sailed

85,642 nm

CO₂ ÷ CO₂ per mile

Time at sea

5,399 h

225 days, 62% of the year

Within the container fleet, 2025

Set against all 2,208 container 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 kg/nmThis ship 223 kg/nm · median 177 (+26%)

78.8Ranks 1,422 of 2,208, lowest first302

Average speedThis ship 12.4 kn · median 13.3 (−7%)

9.1Faster than 36% of container ships16.0

CO₂ per transport work (cargo)This ship 13.5 g CO₂/t·nm · median 16.3 (−17%)

7.22Ranks 888 of 2,208, lowest first46.9

Middle 80% of shipsMiddle 50%Container medianThis ship

Where the emissions happen, 2020

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 ports18%
From the EU49%
Into the EU30%
At berth in the EU3%

Fuel burned laden

–

Not reported

CO₂ at berth

1,689 t

2.8% of the ship's CO₂, alongside in EU ports

Methane (CH₄)

–

Mainly from LNG; small for oil, biofuel and methanol

CO₂eq uplift

–

CO₂eq on top of CO₂ alone, from CH₄ and N₂O

Over the years

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

Fuel kg/nm

MSC KATYAYNI VI
Container median

150.0175.0200.0225.0250.0275.0

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

Average speed, kn

MSC KATYAYNI VI
Container median

12.014.016.018.0

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

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

MSC KATYAYNI VI
Container median

10.015.020.025.030.035.0

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

Year on year

Year	Average speed	Fuel kg/nm	Fuel per day at sea	Distance	CO₂ per transport work	Reading
2024→2025	−0.7 kn	−0%	−5%	−54%	−29%	0.7 kn slower, fuel per mile flat; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2023→2024	−1.8 kn	+8%	−5%	+89%	−39%	1.8 kn slower, fuel per mile up 8%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2022→2023	+1.5 kn	−18%	−9%	+158%	+136%	1.5 kn faster, fuel per mile down 18%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2021→2022	−2.7 kn	+8%	−10%	−84%	−22%	2.7 kn slower, fuel per mile up 8%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2020→2021	+0.2 kn	+5%	+7%	−35%	−8%	Same speed, fuel per mile up 5%; in line with the speed change.
2019→2020	+0.3 kn	+5%	+6%	+6%	+8%	0.3 kn faster, fuel per mile up 5%; in line with the speed change.
2018→2019	+3.6 kn	−18%	+7%	+19%	−7%	3.6 kn faster, fuel per mile down 18%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine 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	Hours at seah	Average speedknots at sea	Fuel kg/nmthis ship	CO₂ per transport work (cargo)g/t·nm, this ship	Laden fuel
2025	MSC Shipmanagement Ltd	4,405	13,760	19,764	1,589	12.4	223	13.5	–
2024	MSC Shipmanagement Ltd	9,547	29,948	42,807	3,280	13.1	223	18.9	–
2023	not published	4,658	14,597	22,617	1,516	14.9	206	30.8	–
2022	not published	2,196	6,843	8,769	654	13.4	250	13.0	–
2021	not published	12,952	40,826	55,813	3,470	16.1	232	16.7	–
2020	not published	18,873	59,484	85,642	5,399	15.9	220	18.1	–
2019	not published	16,937	52,926	80,436	5,152	15.6	211	16.8	–
2018	not published	17,329	54,138	67,866	5,647	12.0	255	18.1	–

Benchmark and verification

Year	ISM company	CO₂ per TW, g CO₂/t·nm	Container median	vs Container	Rank	Verifier	Methods
2025	MSC Shipmanagement Ltd	13.5	16.3	−17%	888 of 2,208	DNV	C
2024	MSC Shipmanagement Ltd	18.9	17.5	+8%	1,070 of 1,974	DNV	C
2023	not published	30.8	19.4	+59%	1,360 of 1,899	DNV	C
2022	not published	13.0	19.1	−32%	555 of 1,825	DNV	C
2021	not published	16.7	17.9	−7%	828 of 1,781	DNV	C
2020	not published	18.1	17.6	+3%	931 of 1,797	DNV	C
2019	not published	16.8	18.9	−11%	771 of 1,788	DNV	C
2018	not published	18.1	20.2	−11%	737 of 1,705	DNV	C

Fuel per mile and CO₂ per tonne-mile are the ship's own reported KPIs. Container 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 container 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.