Navalyze · Chemical tanker · Ship

BOW SPRING

IMO: 9215256
Type: Chemical tanker
Average cargo carried: 25,043 t
Flag (estimated): Norway
Port of registry: Bergen
Technical efficiency: EEXI 4.99 g CO₂/t·nm

ISM company (DoC holder) in 2025: Odfjell Management AS

Report year

2020 at a glance

From the 2020 THETIS-MRV report. Carries about 28,802 t of cargo on average.

Fuel kg/nm

108

Chemical tanker median 85.7 kg/nm (+26%)

CO₂ per transport work (cargo)

11.9

g CO₂/t·nm · Chemical tanker median 16.2 (−27%)

Average speed

13.1 kn

Chemical tanker median 11.4 kn (+15%)

Fuel per day at sea

33.9 t/day

Fuel consumed

5,854 t

CO₂ emitted

18,497 t

Distance sailed

54,105 nm

CO₂ ÷ CO₂ per mile

Time at sea

4,143 h

173 days, 47% of the year

Within the chemical tanker fleet, 2025

Set against all 1,460 chemical tanker 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 99.9 kg/nm · median 79.7 (+25%)

52.8Ranks 1,169 of 1,460, lowest first111

Average speedThis ship 12.7 kn · median 11.1 (+14%)

8.8Faster than 94% of chemical tanker ships12.4

CO₂ per transport work (cargo)This ship 12.5 g CO₂/t·nm · median 15.0 (−17%)

7.93Ranks 542 of 1,460, lowest first40.2

Middle 80% of shipsMiddle 50%Chemical tanker 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 EU42%
Into the EU34%
At berth in the EU7%

Fuel burned laden

–

Not reported

CO₂ at berth

1,225 t

6.6% 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 Chemical tanker median is the middle ship of all chemical tanker ships reporting that year; it moves with the fleet, so a ship can gain on it without changing itself.

Fuel kg/nm

BOW SPRING
Chemical tanker median

70.080.090.0100.0110.0120.0

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

Average speed, kn

BOW SPRING
Chemical tanker median

10.011.012.013.014.0

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

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

BOW SPRING
Chemical tanker median

8.010.012.014.016.018.0

’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	−0.2 kn	+4%	+3%	−8%	+6%	Same speed, fuel per mile up 4%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2023→2024	+0.0 kn	−6%	−6%	−14%	+7%	Same speed, fuel per mile down 6%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2022→2023	+0.9 kn	−8%	−1%	+77%	−1%	0.9 kn faster, fuel per mile down 8%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2021→2022	−0.8 kn	−3%	−9%	+70%	−22%	0.8 kn slower, fuel per mile down 3%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2020→2021	−0.3 kn	+6%	+4%	−64%	+19%	Same speed, fuel per mile up 6%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2019→2020	+0.8 kn	−8%	−2%	+123%	+6%	0.8 kn faster, fuel per mile down 8%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2018→2019	+0.1 kn	−2%	−1%	+18%	+14%	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	Odfjell Management AS	4,683	14,631	46,889	3,692	12.7	99.9	12.5	–
2024	Odfjell Management AS	4,876	15,290	50,850	3,952	12.9	95.9	11.8	–
2023	not published	5,983	18,905	58,879	4,574	12.9	102	11.0	–
2022	not published	3,691	11,682	33,344	2,790	12.0	111	11.1	–
2021	not published	2,248	7,110	19,634	1,538	12.8	115	14.1	–
2020	not published	5,854	18,497	54,105	4,143	13.1	108	11.9	–
2019	not published	2,841	8,885	24,275	1,975	12.3	117	11.2	–
2018	not published	2,444	7,642	20,538	1,686	12.2	119	9.88	–

Benchmark and verification

Year	ISM company	CO₂ per TW, g CO₂/t·nm	Chemical tanker median	vs Chemical tanker	Rank	Verifier	Methods
2025	Odfjell Management AS	12.5	15.0	−17%	542 of 1,460	DNV	B+C
2024	Odfjell Management AS	11.8	16.7	−30%	383 of 1,274	DNV	B+C
2023	not published	11.0	16.2	−32%	283 of 1,314	DNV	B+C
2022	not published	11.1	16.1	−31%	313 of 1,409	DNV	B
2021	not published	14.1	16.7	−15%	498 of 1,343	DNV	B
2020	not published	11.9	16.2	−27%	321 of 1,312	DNV	B
2019	not published	11.2	17.3	−35%	266 of 1,321	DNV	B
2018	not published	9.88	17.1	−42%	167 of 1,294	DNV	B

Fuel per mile and CO₂ per tonne-mile are the ship's own reported KPIs. Chemical tanker 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 chemical tanker 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.