Navalyze · Container · Ship

MAYFIELD

IMO: 9216353
Type: Container ship
Average cargo carried: 4,395 t
Flag (estimated): Marshall Islands
Port of registry: Majuro
Technical efficiency: EEXI 20.09 g CO₂/t·nm
Former names: SARA BORCHARD, LANTAU ACE

ISM company (DoC holder) in 2025: CONBULK SHIPMANAGEMENT CORPORATION · part of Conbulk

Report year

2018 at a glance

From the 2018 THETIS-MRV report. Carries about 7,188 t of cargo on average.

Fuel kg/nm

111

Container median 182 kg/nm (−39%)

CO₂ per transport work (cargo)

47.9

g CO₂/t·nm · Container median 20.2 (+137%)

Average speed

14.5 kn

Container median 13.8 kn (+5%)

Fuel per day at sea

38.5 t/day

Fuel consumed

10,058 t

CO₂ emitted

31,347 t

Distance sailed

91,045 nm

CO₂ ÷ CO₂ per mile

Time at sea

6,273 h

261 days, 72% 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 89.8 kg/nm · median 177 (−49%)

78.8Ranks 400 of 2,208, lowest first302

Average speedThis ship 11.2 kn · median 13.3 (−16%)

9.1Faster than 24% of container ships16.0

CO₂ per transport work (cargo)This ship 65.1 g CO₂/t·nm · median 16.3 (+300%)

7.22Ranks 2,144 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 ports81%
From the EU2%
Into the EU13%
At berth in the EU3%

Fuel burned laden

–

Not reported

CO₂ at berth

909 t

2.9% 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

MAYFIELD
Container median

75.0100.0125.0150.0175.0200.0

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

Average speed, kn

MAYFIELD
Container median

5.010.015.020.025.030.0

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

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

MAYFIELD
Container median

0.020.040.060.080.0

’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	+0.4 kn	−1%	+3%	+20%	+5%	0.4 kn faster, fuel per mile flat; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2023→2024	−8.0 kn	−28%	−58%	+7%	+21%	8.0 kn slower, fuel per mile down 28%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2022→2023	−6.8 kn	+19%	−13%	+114%	+45%	6.8 kn slower, fuel per mile up 19%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2021→2022	+13.5 kn	+22%	+157%	+33%	+36%	13.5 kn faster, fuel per mile up 22%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2020→2021	+0.1 kn	−21%	−21%	−52%	−65%	Same speed, fuel per mile down 21%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2019→2020	+2.2 kn	−8%	+13%	−70%	+23%	2.2 kn faster, fuel per mile down 8%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2018→2019	−4.7 kn	+8%	−27%	−29%	+27%	4.7 kn slower, fuel per mile up 8%; 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	Hours at seah	Average speedknots at sea	Fuel kg/nmthis ship	CO₂ per transport work (cargo)g/t·nm, this ship	Laden fuel
2025	CONBULK SHIPMANAGEMENT CORPORATION	3,029	9,651	33,717	3,001	11.2	89.8	65.1	92%
2024	CONBULK SHIPMANAGEMENT CORPORATION	2,545	7,981	28,122	2,605	10.8	90.5	62.2	–
2023	not published	3,294	10,344	26,296	1,398	18.8	125	51.3	–
2022	not published	1,292	4,049	12,293	480	25.6	105	35.4	–
2021	not published	796	2,497	9,215	760	12.1	86.4	26.0	–
2020	not published	2,108	6,656	19,170	1,591	12.0	110	74.8	–
2019	not published	7,714	24,042	64,767	6,591	9.8	119	60.8	–
2018	not published	10,058	31,347	91,045	6,273	14.5	111	47.9	–

Benchmark and verification

Year	ISM company	CO₂ per TW, g CO₂/t·nm	Container median	vs Container	Rank	Verifier	Methods
2025	CONBULK SHIPMANAGEMENT CORPORATION	65.1	16.3	+300%	2,144 of 2,208	ABS	A
2024	CONBULK SHIPMANAGEMENT CORPORATION	62.2	17.5	+255%	1,871 of 1,974	ABS	A
2023	not published	51.3	19.4	+165%	1,698 of 1,899	Bureau Veritas	A
2022	not published	35.4	19.1	+85%	1,409 of 1,825	Bureau Veritas	A
2021	not published	26.0	17.9	+45%	1,209 of 1,781	Bureau Veritas	A
2020	not published	74.8	17.6	+326%	1,765 of 1,797	EnvService	B
2019	not published	60.8	18.9	+222%	1,665 of 1,788	EnvService	B
2018	not published	47.9	20.2	+137%	1,454 of 1,705	EnvService	B

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.