Navalyze · Container · Ship

MSC MARYLENA II

IMO: 9169031
Type: Container ship
Average cargo carried: 12,108 t
Flag (estimated): Liberia
Port of registry: Monrovia
Technical efficiency: EEXI 18.29 g CO₂/t·nm
Former names: MSC MARYLENA

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

Report year

2018 at a glance

From the 2018 THETIS-MRV report. Carries about 10,136 t of cargo on average.

Fuel kg/nm

146

Container median 182 kg/nm (−20%)

CO₂ per transport work (cargo)

44.9

g CO₂/t·nm · Container median 20.2 (+122%)

Average speed

12.4 kn

Container median 13.8 kn (−10%)

Fuel per day at sea

43.5 t/day

Fuel consumed

8,089 t

CO₂ emitted

25,218 t

Distance sailed

55,476 nm

CO₂ ÷ CO₂ per mile

Time at sea

4,467 h

186 days, 51% 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 138 kg/nm · median 177 (−22%)

78.8Ranks 830 of 2,208, lowest first302

Average speedThis ship 10.0 kn · median 13.3 (−25%)

9.1Faster than 15% of container ships16.0

CO₂ per transport work (cargo)This ship 36.1 g CO₂/t·nm · median 16.3 (+122%)

7.22Ranks 1,806 of 2,208, lowest first46.9

Middle 80% of shipsMiddle 50%Container medianThis ship

Where the emissions happen, 2018

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 ports8%
From the EU44%
Into the EU45%
At berth in the EU3%

Fuel burned laden

–

Not reported

CO₂ at berth

701 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 MARYLENA II
Container median

100.0120.0140.0160.0180.0200.0

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

Average speed, kn

MSC MARYLENA II
Container median

8.010.012.014.016.0

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

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

MSC MARYLENA II
Container median

10.020.030.040.050.0

’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	+1.1 kn	+3%	+16%	+17%	+8%	1.1 kn faster, fuel per mile up 3%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2023→2024	−2.8 kn	−5%	−27%	−33%	−32%	2.8 kn slower, fuel per mile down 5%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2022→2023	+1.0 kn	−6%	+3%	+80%	+29%	1.0 kn faster, fuel per mile down 6%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2021→2022	−2.0 kn	+19%	+0%	−49%	−10%	2.0 kn slower, fuel per mile up 19%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2020→2021	+0.1 kn	+7%	+8%	−4%	+7%	Same speed, fuel per mile up 7%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2019→2020	−0.3 kn	−9%	−10%	−10%	−4%	0.3 kn slower, fuel per mile down 9%; in line with the speed change.
2018→2019	+0.5 kn	−12%	−9%	+43%	−8%	0.5 kn faster, fuel per mile down 12%; 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	6,817	21,655	49,516	4,935	10.0	138	36.1	–
2024	MSC Shipmanagement Ltd	5,634	17,618	42,213	4,732	8.9	134	33.4	–
2023	not published	8,790	27,724	62,611	5,362	11.7	140	49.1	–
2022	not published	5,219	16,463	34,857	3,268	10.7	150	38.0	–
2021	not published	8,614	27,160	68,550	5,398	12.7	126	42.5	–
2020	not published	8,338	26,296	71,106	5,626	12.6	117	39.9	–
2019	not published	10,185	31,758	79,243	6,153	12.9	129	41.4	–
2018	not published	8,089	25,218	55,476	4,467	12.4	146	44.9	–

Benchmark and verification

Year	ISM company	CO₂ per TW, g CO₂/t·nm	Container median	vs Container	Rank	Verifier	Methods
2025	MSC Shipmanagement Ltd	36.1	16.3	+122%	1,806 of 2,208	DNV	C
2024	MSC Shipmanagement Ltd	33.4	17.5	+91%	1,524 of 1,974	DNV	C
2023	not published	49.1	19.4	+153%	1,667 of 1,899	DNV	C
2022	not published	38.0	19.1	+99%	1,451 of 1,825	DNV	C
2021	not published	42.5	17.9	+137%	1,510 of 1,781	DNV	C
2020	not published	39.9	17.6	+127%	1,474 of 1,797	DNV	C
2019	not published	41.4	18.9	+119%	1,443 of 1,788	DNV	C
2018	not published	44.9	20.2	+122%	1,412 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.