Navalyze · LNG carrier · Ship

SEAPEAK MARS

IMO: 9259276
Type: LNG carrier
Flag (estimated): Bahamas
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

2019 at a glance

From the 2019 THETIS-MRV report.

Fuel kg/nm

344

LNG carrier median 308 kg/nm (+12%)

CO₂ per transport work (volume)

14.2

g CO₂/m³·nm · LNG carrier median 10.9 (+31%)

Average speed

14.0 kn

LNG carrier median 13.5 kn (+4%)

Fuel per day at sea

115.2 t/day

Fuel consumed

19,431 t

CO₂ emitted

55,262 t

Distance sailed

56,477 nm

CO₂ ÷ CO₂ per mile

Time at sea

4,047 h

169 days, 46% 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 kg/nmThis ship 356 kg/nm · median 205 (+74%)

148Ranks 294 of 312, lowest first328

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 15.9 g CO₂/m³·nm · median 7.39 (+115%)

4.54Ranks 275 of 312, lowest first17.3

Middle 80% of shipsMiddle 50%LNG carrier medianThis ship

Where the emissions happen, 2019

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 EU46%
Into the EU53%
At berth in the EU1%

Fuel burned laden

–

Not reported

CO₂ at berth

531 t

1.0% 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 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

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	Average speed	Fuel kg/nm	Fuel per day at sea	Distance	CO₂ per transport work	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	Hours at seah	Average speedknots at sea	Fuel kg/nmthis ship	CO₂ per transport work (cargo)g/t·nm, this ship	Laden fuel
2025part-year	Seapeak Maritime (Glasgow) Ltd	4,020	12,524	12,288	1,208	10.2	327	–	–
2025	Seapeak Maritime Limited	4,020	12,524	12,288	1,208	10.2	327	–	–
2024LNG	Seapeak Maritime (Glasgow) Ltd	13,918	38,325	39,142	2,739	14.3	356	–	–
2023LNG / alt.	not published	3,531	10,025	10,705	638	16.8	330	–	–
2022LNG / alt.	not published	7,609	21,089	21,761	1,796	12.1	350	–	–
2021LNG / alt.	not published	14,362	39,730	46,142	2,995	15.4	311	–	–
2020LNG / alt.	not published	11,359	31,354	34,725	2,438	14.2	327	–	–
2019LNG / alt.	not published	19,431	55,262	56,477	4,047	14.0	344	–	–
2018LNG / alt.	not published	17,737	49,783	53,249	5,009	10.6	333	–	–

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	15.9	7.39	+115%	275 of 312	DNV	A+C
2023LNG / alt.	not published	14.1	9.10	+55%	302 of 355	DNV	A+C
2022LNG / alt.	not published	9.63	10.4	−7%	172 of 379	DNV	A+C
2021LNG / alt.	not published	14.3	10.5	+36%	221 of 289	DNV	A+C
2020LNG / alt.	not published	18.8	10.7	+75%	242 of 267	DNV	A+C
2019LNG / alt.	not published	14.2	10.9	+31%	183 of 248	DNV	A+C
2018LNG / alt.	not published	13.5	10.9	+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.