Navalyze · LNG carrier · Ship

SEAPEAK MARS

IMO: 9259276
Type: LNG carrier
Port of registry: Nassau
Technical efficiency: EEXI 7.61 g CO₂/t·nm
Former names: MADRID SPIRIT, SEAPEAK MADRID

ISM company (DoC holder) in 2025: Seapeak Maritime (Glasgow) Ltd · part of Seapeak

Report year

2025 at a glance

From the 2025 THETIS-MRV report.

Fuel per mile

327.2 kg/nm

CO₂ per transport work (volume)

–

g CO₂/m³·nm

Average speed

10.2 kn

Fuel per day at sea

79.9 t/day

Fuel consumed

4,020 t

CO₂ emitted

12,524 t

12,722 t CO₂eq incl. CH₄ and N₂O

Distance sailed

12,288 nm

CO₂ ÷ CO₂ per mile

Time at sea

1,208 h

50 days, 14% of the year

Within the LNG carrier fleet, 2024

Set against all 312 LNG carrier ships with a full-year 2024 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 per mileThis ship 355.6 kg/nm · median 204.5 (+74%)

147.8Ranks 294 of 312, lowest first328.0

Average speedThis ship 14.3 kn · median 14.6 (−2%)

11.0Faster than 44% of LNG carrier ships16.1

CO₂ per transport work (volume)This ship 15.91 g CO₂/m³·nm · median 7.39 (+115%)

4.54Ranks 275 of 312, lowest first17.34

Middle 80% of shipsMiddle 50%LNG carrier medianThis ship

Where the emissions happen, 2025

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 EU100%
Into the EU0%
At berth in the EU0%

0% of this ship's CO₂ falls under the EU ETS (0 t).

Fuel burned laden

–

Not reported

CO₂ at berth

0.0%

Alongside in EU ports

Methane (CH₄)

0.2 t

Mainly from LNG; small for oil

CO₂eq ÷ CO₂

1.016

Uplift from CH₄ and N₂O, counted in full from 2026

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 per mile, kg/nm

SEAPEAK MARS
LNG carrier median

200.0250.0300.0350.0400.0

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

Average speed, kn

SEAPEAK MARS
LNG carrier median

10.012.014.016.018.0

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

CO₂ per transport work (volume), g CO₂/m³·nm

SEAPEAK MARS
LNG carrier median

5.010.015.020.0

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

Year on year

Year	Speed	Fuel per mile	Fuel per day	Distance	CO₂ per TW	Reading
2024→2025	−4.1 kn	−8%	−34%	−69%	–	4.1 kn slower, fuel per mile down 8%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2023→2024	−2.5 kn	+8%	−8%	+266%	+13%	2.5 kn slower, fuel per mile up 8%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2022→2023	+4.7 kn	−6%	+31%	−51%	+46%	4.7 kn faster, fuel per mile down 6%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2021→2022	−3.3 kn	+12%	−12%	−53%	−33%	3.3 kn slower, fuel per mile up 12%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2020→2021	+1.2 kn	−5%	+3%	+33%	−24%	1.2 kn faster, fuel per mile down 5%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2019→2020	+0.2 kn	−5%	−3%	−39%	+32%	Same speed, fuel per mile down 5%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2018→2019	+3.4 kn	+3%	+36%	+6%	+6%	3.4 kn faster, fuel per mile up 3%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).

Part-year reports are left out of these comparisons. 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	At sea h	Speed kn	Fuel kg/nm	CO₂ g/t·nm	Laden fuel
2025part-year	Seapeak Maritime (Glasgow) Ltd	4,020	12,524	12,288	1,208	10.2	327.2	–	–
2025	Seapeak Maritime Limited	4,020	12,524	12,288	1,208	10.2	327.2	–	–
2024LNG	Seapeak Maritime (Glasgow) Ltd	13,918	38,325	39,142	2,739	14.3	355.6	–	–
2023LNG	not published	3,531	10,025	10,705	638	16.8	329.9	–	–
2022LNG	not published	7,609	21,089	21,761	1,796	12.1	349.6	–	–
2021LNG	not published	14,362	39,730	46,142	2,995	15.4	311.2	–	–
2020LNG	not published	11,359	31,354	34,725	2,438	14.2	327.1	–	–
2019LNG	not published	19,431	55,262	56,477	4,047	14.0	344.1	–	–
2018LNG	not published	17,737	49,783	53,249	5,009	10.6	333.1	–	–

Benchmark and verification

Year	ISM company	CO₂ per TW, g CO₂/m³·nm	LNG carrier median	vs LNG carrier	Rank	Verifier	Methods
2025part-year	Seapeak Maritime (Glasgow) Ltd	–	–	–	–	DNV	A+C
2025	Seapeak Maritime Limited	–	–	–	–	DNV	A+C
2024LNG	Seapeak Maritime (Glasgow) Ltd	15.91	7.39	+115%	275 of 312	DNV	A+C
2023LNG	not published	14.08	9.10	+55%	302 of 355	DNV	A+C
2022LNG	not published	9.63	10.38	−7%	172 of 379	DNV	A+C
2021LNG	not published	14.27	10.46	+36%	221 of 289	DNV	A+C
2020LNG	not published	18.75	10.71	+75%	242 of 267	DNV	A+C
2019LNG	not published	14.23	10.87	+31%	183 of 248	DNV	A+C
2018LNG	not published	13.45	10.92	+23%	146 of 197	DNV	A+C

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.