Navalyze · Container · Ship

MSC SUEDEROOG F

IMO: 9256327
Type: Container ship
Average cargo carried: 7,914 t
Flag (estimated): Liberia
Port of registry: Monrovia
Technical efficiency: EEXI 19.67 g CO₂/t·nm
Ice class: IA
Former names: SUDEROOG

ISM company (DoC holder) in 2025: MSC SHIPMANAGEMENT LIMITED · part of MSC Group

Report year

2018 at a glance

From the 2018 THETIS-MRV report. Carries about 7,118 t of cargo on average.

Fuel kg/nm

91.7

Container median 182 kg/nm (−50%)

CO₂ per transport work (cargo)

40.6

g CO₂/t·nm · Container median 20.2 (+101%)

Average speed

9.8 kn

Container median 13.8 kn (−29%)

Fuel per day at sea

21.5 t/day

Fuel consumed

5,108 t

CO₂ emitted

16,109 t

Distance sailed

55,698 nm

CO₂ ÷ CO₂ per mile

Time at sea

5,707 h

238 days, 65% 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 87.3 kg/nm · median 177 (−51%)

78.8Ranks 367 of 2,208, lowest first302

Average speedThis ship 11.7 kn · median 13.3 (−12%)

9.1Faster than 28% of container ships16.0

CO₂ per transport work (cargo)This ship 34.4 g CO₂/t·nm · median 16.3 (+111%)

7.22Ranks 1,777 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 ports76%
From the EU6%
Into the EU10%
At berth in the EU9%

Fuel burned laden

–

Not reported

CO₂ at berth

1,479 t

9.2% 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 SUEDEROOG F
Container median

50.0100.0150.0200.0

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

Average speed, kn

MSC SUEDEROOG F
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 SUEDEROOG 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	+0.0 kn	+8%	+7%	−18%	+6%	Same speed, fuel per mile up 8%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2023→2024	+0.5 kn	−2%	+3%	−4%	−10%	0.5 kn faster, fuel per mile flat; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2022→2023	+0.7 kn	−17%	−12%	+124%	−4%	0.7 kn faster, fuel per mile down 17%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2021→2022	−1.4 kn	+18%	+5%	−11%	+13%	1.4 kn slower, fuel per mile up 18%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2020→2021	−0.3 kn	+3%	+0%	−56%	−39%	Same speed, fuel per mile up 3%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2019→2020	+2.7 kn	−7%	+20%	+41%	+33%	2.7 kn faster, fuel per mile down 7%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2018→2019	−0.3 kn	−3%	−7%	+1%	+2%	0.3 kn slower, fuel per mile down 3%; in line with the speed change.

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 LIMITED	4,762	14,836	54,545	4,655	11.7	87.3	34.4	–
2024	MSC Shipmanagement Ltd	5,379	16,757	66,294	5,648	11.7	81.1	32.5	–
2023	not published	5,739	18,084	69,383	6,216	11.2	82.7	36.2	–
2022	not published	3,104	9,795	30,983	2,942	10.5	100	37.9	–
2021	not published	2,947	9,302	34,826	2,918	11.9	84.6	33.6	–
2020	not published	6,512	20,530	78,901	6,455	12.2	82.5	55.1	–
2019	not published	4,963	15,542	56,100	5,934	9.5	88.5	41.3	–
2018	not published	5,108	16,109	55,698	5,707	9.8	91.7	40.6	–

Benchmark and verification

Year	ISM company	CO₂ per TW, g CO₂/t·nm	Container median	vs Container	Rank	Verifier	Methods
2025	MSC SHIPMANAGEMENT LIMITED	34.4	16.3	+111%	1,777 of 2,208	DNV	B+C
2024	MSC Shipmanagement Ltd	32.5	17.5	+86%	1,504 of 1,974	DNV	B+C
2023	not published	36.2	19.4	+87%	1,468 of 1,899	DNV	B+C
2022	not published	37.9	19.1	+98%	1,447 of 1,825	DNV	C
2021	not published	33.6	17.9	+88%	1,378 of 1,781	DNV	B
2020	not published	55.1	17.6	+214%	1,641 of 1,797	DNV	B
2019	not published	41.3	18.9	+119%	1,441 of 1,788	DNV	B
2018	not published	40.6	20.2	+101%	1,361 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.