Navalyze · LNG carrier · Ship
EXCALIBUR
- IMO
- 9230050
- Type
- LNG carrier
- Flag (estimated)
- Belgium
- Port of registry
- Antwerpen
- Technical efficiency
- EEXI 7.57 g CO₂/t·nm
2020 at a glance
From the 2020 THETIS-MRV report.
Within the LNG carrier fleet, 2023
Set against all 355 LNG carrier ships with a full-year 2023 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.
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 ports0%
- From the EU56%
- Into the EU43%
- At berth in the EU1%
Over the years
Full-year reports only. The LNG carrier median is the middle ship of all LNG carrier ships reporting that year; it moves with the fleet, so a ship can gain on it without changing itself.
Fuel kg/nm
- EXCALIBUR
- LNG carrier median
Average speed, kn
- EXCALIBUR
- LNG carrier median
CO₂ per transport work (volume), g CO₂/m³·nm
- EXCALIBUR
- LNG carrier median
Year on year
| Year | Average speed | Fuel kg/nm | Fuel per day at sea | Distance | CO₂ per transport work | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021→2023 | −6.4 kn | +33% | −20% | +67% | +6,590% | 6.4 kn slower, fuel per mile up 33%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade). |
| 2020→2021 | +7.6 kn | −11% | +67% | −62% | +18% | 7.6 kn faster, fuel per mile down 11%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade). |
| 2019→2020 | −4.6 kn | +48% | −4% | +118% | +185% | 4.6 kn slower, fuel per mile up 48%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade). |
| 2018→2019 | −0.4 kn | −25% | −27% | −74% | −33% | 0.4 kn slower, fuel per mile down 25%; 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | not published | 7,414 | 23,033 | 15,200 | 1,575 | 9.7 | 488 | – | – |
| 2021LNG / alt. | not published | 3,341 | 9,451 | 9,122 | 568 | 16.1 | 366 | – | – |
| 2020LNG / alt. | not published | 9,941 | 27,914 | 24,056 | 2,826 | 8.5 | 413 | – | – |
| 2019LNG / alt. | not published | 3,087 | 8,498 | 11,023 | 841 | 13.1 | 280 | – | – |
| 2018LNG / alt. | not published | 15,734 | 43,270 | 42,084 | 3,121 | 13.5 | 374 | – | – |
Benchmark and verification
| Year | ISM company | CO₂ per TW, g CO₂/m³·nm | LNG carrier median | vs LNG carrier | Rank | Verifier | Methods |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | not published | 1,473 | 9.10 | +16,087% | 355 of 355 | DNV | B+C |
| 2021LNG / alt. | not published | 22.0 | 10.5 | +111% | 265 of 289 | DNV | B+C |
| 2020LNG / alt. | not published | 18.7 | 10.7 | +74% | 241 of 267 | DNV | B+C |
| 2019LNG / alt. | not published | 6.54 | 10.9 | −40% | 29 of 248 | Lloyd's Register | B+C |
| 2018LNG / alt. | not published | 9.69 | 10.9 | −11% | 61 of 197 | Lloyd's Register | – |
Fuel per mile and CO₂ per tonne-mile are the ship's own reported KPIs. LNG carrier ships are benchmarked on CO₂ per transport work (volume) (TW), in g CO₂/m³·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 LNG carrier 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.