Navalyze · Container · Ship

MSC NORDEROOG F

IMO: 9256315
Type: Container ship
Average cargo carried: 7,540 t
Flag (estimated): Liberia
Port of registry: Monrovia
Technical efficiency: EEXI 19.67 g CO₂/t·nm
Ice class: IA
Former names: NORDEROOG

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

Report year

2020 at a glance

From the 2020 THETIS-MRV report. Carries about 6,475 t of cargo on average.

Fuel kg/nm

91.3

Container median 172 kg/nm (−47%)

CO₂ per transport work (cargo)

44.5

g CO₂/t·nm · Container median 17.6 (+153%)

Average speed

10.0 kn

Container median 14.0 kn (−29%)

Fuel per day at sea

22.0 t/day

Fuel consumed

1,848 t

CO₂ emitted

5,835 t

Distance sailed

20,234 nm

CO₂ ÷ CO₂ per mile

Time at sea

2,014 h

84 days, 23% 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 85.6 kg/nm · median 177 (−52%)

78.8Ranks 344 of 2,208, lowest first302

Average speedThis ship 9.6 kn · median 13.3 (−28%)

9.1Faster than 13% of container ships16.0

CO₂ per transport work (cargo)This ship 35.5 g CO₂/t·nm · median 16.3 (+118%)

7.22Ranks 1,797 of 2,208, lowest first46.9

Middle 80% of shipsMiddle 50%Container 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 ports14%
From the EU47%
Into the EU35%
At berth in the EU5%

Fuel burned laden

–

Not reported

CO₂ at berth

290 t

5.0% 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 NORDEROOG F
Container median

50.0100.0150.0200.0

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

Average speed, kn

MSC NORDEROOG F
Container median

6.08.010.012.014.016.0

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

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

MSC NORDEROOG F
Container median

10.020.030.040.050.060.0

’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	+2.4 kn	−8%	+22%	−44%	−30%	2.4 kn faster, fuel per mile down 8%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2023→2024	−1.9 kn	+8%	−15%	+0%	+21%	1.9 kn slower, fuel per mile up 8%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2022→2023	−2.0 kn	−10%	−26%	−41%	+17%	2.0 kn slower, fuel per mile down 10%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2021→2022	−0.2 kn	−10%	−11%	+39%	−10%	Same speed, fuel per mile down 10%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2020→2021	+1.3 kn	+16%	+31%	+59%	−11%	1.3 kn faster, fuel per mile up 16%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2019→2020	+0.2 kn	+3%	+5%	−60%	+36%	Same speed, fuel per mile up 3%; in line with the speed change.
2018→2019	−0.1 kn	−1%	−1%	+4%	−16%	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	MSC Shipmanagement Ltd	1,264	3,952	14,763	1,537	9.6	85.6	35.5	–
2024	MSC Shipmanagement Ltd	2,455	7,687	26,363	3,652	7.2	93.1	50.6	–
2023	not published	2,277	7,189	26,282	2,890	9.1	86.6	42.0	–
2022	not published	4,289	13,551	44,641	4,017	11.1	96.1	35.7	–
2021	not published	3,422	10,806	32,199	2,848	11.3	106	39.6	–
2020	not published	1,848	5,835	20,234	2,014	10.0	91.3	44.5	–
2019	not published	4,456	14,079	50,296	5,114	9.8	88.6	32.8	–
2018	not published	4,320	13,680	48,295	4,892	9.9	89.4	39.3	–

Benchmark and verification

Year	ISM company	CO₂ per TW, g CO₂/t·nm	Container median	vs Container	Rank	Verifier	Methods
2025	MSC Shipmanagement Ltd	35.5	16.3	+118%	1,797 of 2,208	DNV	C
2024	MSC Shipmanagement Ltd	50.6	17.5	+189%	1,765 of 1,974	DNV	C
2023	not published	42.0	19.4	+116%	1,567 of 1,899	DNV	C
2022	not published	35.7	19.1	+87%	1,413 of 1,825	DNV	C
2021	not published	39.6	17.9	+121%	1,482 of 1,781	DNV	B
2020	not published	44.5	17.6	+153%	1,538 of 1,797	DNV	B
2019	not published	32.8	18.9	+74%	1,318 of 1,788	DNV	B
2018	not published	39.3	20.2	+94%	1,333 of 1,705	Korean Register	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.