Navalyze · Container · Ship

CMA CGM FORT ST PIERRE

IMO: 9261891
Type: Container ship
Average cargo carried: 13,363 t
Flag (estimated): Malta
Port of registry: Valletta
Technical efficiency: EEXI 17.50 g CO₂/t·nm

ISM company (DoC holder) in 2025: CMA CGM SA · part of CMA CGM

Report year

2018 at a glance

From the 2018 THETIS-MRV report. Carries about 13,641 t of cargo on average.

Fuel kg/nm

192

Container median 182 kg/nm (+6%)

CO₂ per transport work (cargo)

44.1

g CO₂/t·nm · Container median 20.2 (+118%)

Average speed

16.4 kn

Container median 13.8 kn (+19%)

Fuel per day at sea

75.7 t/day

Fuel consumed

16,643 t

CO₂ emitted

52,126 t

Distance sailed

86,594 nm

CO₂ ÷ CO₂ per mile

Time at sea

5,276 h

220 days, 60% 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 140 kg/nm · median 177 (−21%)

78.8Ranks 848 of 2,208, lowest first302

Average speedThis ship 5.9 kn · median 13.3 (−56%)

9.1Faster than 1% of container ships16.0

CO₂ per transport work (cargo)This ship 33.2 g CO₂/t·nm · median 16.3 (+103%)

7.22Ranks 1,749 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 ports61%
From the EU8%
Into the EU28%
At berth in the EU4%

Fuel burned laden

–

Not reported

CO₂ at berth

1,918 t

3.7% 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

CMA CGM FORT ST PIERRE
Container median

120.0140.0160.0180.0200.0

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

Average speed, kn

CMA CGM FORT ST PIERRE
Container median

5.010.015.020.0

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

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

CMA CGM FORT ST PIERRE
Container median

10.020.030.040.050.0

’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	−0.4 kn	−9%	−15%	−12%	+21%	0.4 kn slower, fuel per mile down 9%; in line with the speed change.
2023→2024	−5.4 kn	+4%	−44%	−6%	−25%	5.4 kn slower, fuel per mile up 4%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2022→2023	−2.1 kn	+1%	−14%	−28%	+22%	2.1 kn slower, fuel per mile flat; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2021→2022	+0.3 kn	+7%	+10%	−14%	+7%	0.3 kn faster, fuel per mile up 7%; in line with the speed change.
2020→2021	+1.8 kn	+8%	+24%	−16%	+19%	1.8 kn faster, fuel per mile up 8%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2019→2020	−4.7 kn	−25%	−47%	−8%	−32%	4.7 kn slower, fuel per mile down 25%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2018→2019	+0.0 kn	−12%	−12%	−43%	−22%	Same speed, fuel per mile down 12%; 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
2025	CMA CGM SA	2,743	8,691	19,612	3,352	5.9	140	33.2	90%
2024	CMA CGM SA	3,443	10,776	22,396	3,580	6.3	154	27.4	95%
2023	not published	3,519	11,115	23,721	2,031	11.7	148	36.3	–
2022	not published	4,799	15,144	32,792	2,382	13.8	146	29.8	96%
2021	not published	5,211	16,445	38,215	2,833	13.5	136	27.8	95%
2020	not published	5,744	18,129	45,390	3,870	11.7	127	23.4	–
2019	not published	8,376	26,222	49,544	3,015	16.4	169	34.5	–
2018	not published	16,643	52,126	86,594	5,276	16.4	192	44.1	–

Benchmark and verification

Year	ISM company	CO₂ per TW, g CO₂/t·nm	Container median	vs Container	Rank	Verifier	Methods
2025	CMA CGM SA	33.2	16.3	+103%	1,749 of 2,208	ABS	C
2024	CMA CGM SA	27.4	17.5	+56%	1,394 of 1,974	ABS	C
2023	not published	36.3	19.4	+87%	1,472 of 1,899	EnvService	C
2022	not published	29.8	19.1	+56%	1,290 of 1,825	ABS	C
2021	not published	27.8	17.9	+55%	1,247 of 1,781	ABS	C
2020	not published	23.4	17.6	+33%	1,163 of 1,797	ABS	C
2019	not published	34.5	18.9	+83%	1,341 of 1,788	ABS	C
2018	not published	44.1	20.2	+118%	1,403 of 1,705	ABS	C

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.