Navalyze · Reefer · Ship

COOL MAGNUS

IMO: 9167801
Type: Refrigerated cargo carrier
Average cargo carried: 66 t
Flag (estimated): Bahamas
Port of registry: Nassau
Technical efficiency: EEXI 19.16 g CO₂/t·nm
Former names: COMOROS STREAM, CERES TWO

ISM company (DoC holder) in 2025: Wallem Shipmanagement Ltd. · part of Wallem

Report year

2021 at a glance

From the 2021 THETIS-MRV report. Carries about 6,285 t of cargo on average.

Fuel kg/nm

226

Reefer median 84.1 kg/nm (+168%)

CO₂ per transport work (cargo)

112

g CO₂/t·nm · Reefer median 55.0 (+104%)

Average speed

17.1 kn

Reefer median 15.5 kn (+10%)

Fuel per day at sea

92.5 t/day

Fuel consumed

12,795 t

CO₂ emitted

39,892 t

Distance sailed

56,685 nm

CO₂ ÷ CO₂ per mile

Time at sea

3,318 h

138 days, 38% of the year

Within the reefer fleet, 2024

Set against all 108 reefer ships with a full-year 2024 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 102 kg/nm · median 80.6 (+27%)

54.7Ranks 94 of 108, lowest first106

Average speedThis ship 11.5 kn · median 14.5 (−21%)

7.6Faster than 27% of reefer ships16.8

CO₂ per transport work (cargo)This ship 91.8 g CO₂/t·nm · median 58.7 (+56%)

36.5Ranks 89 of 108, lowest first121

Middle 80% of shipsMiddle 50%Reefer medianThis ship

Where the emissions happen, 2021

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 ports0%
From the EU13%
Into the EU85%
At berth in the EU2%

Fuel burned laden

–

Not reported

CO₂ at berth

670 t

1.7% 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 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 kg/nm

COOL MAGNUS
Reefer median

50.0100.0150.0200.0250.0

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

Average speed, kn

COOL MAGNUS
Reefer median

10.012.014.016.018.020.0

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

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

COOL MAGNUS
Reefer median

20.040.060.080.0100120

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

Year on year

Year	Average speed	Fuel kg/nm	Fuel per day at sea	Distance	CO₂ per transport work	Reading
2024→2025	+3.1 kn	+19%	+51%	−87%	–	3.1 kn faster, fuel per mile up 19%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2023→2024	−4.2 kn	+18%	−13%	−48%	−17%	4.2 kn slower, fuel per mile up 18%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2022→2023	−3.0 kn	+42%	+19%	+83%	+189%	3.0 kn slower, fuel per mile up 42%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2021→2022	+1.6 kn	−73%	−70%	−73%	−66%	1.6 kn faster, fuel per mile down 73%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2020→2021	+0.3 kn	+131%	+135%	−13%	+68%	0.3 kn faster, fuel per mile up 131%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2019→2020	−1.1 kn	−3%	−9%	−39%	−21%	1.1 kn slower, fuel per mile down 3%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2018→2019	+0.2 kn	+1%	+2%	+69%	+44%	Same speed, fuel per mile flat.

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	Wallem Shipmanagement Ltd.	232	743	1,907	131	14.6	122	5,940	–
2024	Wallem Shipmanagement Ltd.	1,485	4,662	14,522	1,264	11.5	102	91.8	56%
2023	not published	2,394	7,467	27,677	1,767	15.7	86.5	110	61%
2022	not published	924	2,880	15,108	808	18.7	61.1	38.2	–
2021	not published	12,795	39,892	56,685	3,318	17.1	226	112	–
2020	not published	6,389	19,910	65,404	3,892	16.8	97.7	66.7	–
2019	not published	10,686	33,289	106,416	5,950	17.9	100	84.7	–
2018	not published	6,282	19,573	62,941	3,564	17.7	99.8	58.6	–

Benchmark and verification

Year	ISM company	CO₂ per TW, g CO₂/t·nm	Reefer median	vs Reefer	Rank	Verifier	Methods
2025	Wallem Shipmanagement Ltd.	–	–	–	–	ABS	A
2024	Wallem Shipmanagement Ltd.	91.8	58.7	+56%	89 of 108	ABS	A
2023	not published	110	55.6	+99%	122 of 135	ABS	–
2022	not published	38.2	55.3	−31%	24 of 143	Verifavia	A
2021	not published	112	55.0	+104%	151 of 158	Verifavia	A
2020	not published	66.7	59.1	+13%	87 of 149	Bureau Veritas	A
2019	not published	84.7	62.6	+35%	107 of 147	Bureau Veritas	A
2018	not published	58.6	72.8	−20%	43 of 136	Bureau Veritas	A

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.