Navalyze · Container · Ship

CMA CGM FORT STE MARIE

IMO: 9261906
Type: Container ship
Average cargo carried: 18,361 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 13,176 t of cargo on average.

Fuel kg/nm

170

Container median 182 kg/nm (−7%)

CO₂ per transport work (cargo)

40.3

g CO₂/t·nm · Container median 20.2 (+99%)

Average speed

16.5 kn

Container median 13.8 kn (+20%)

Fuel per day at sea

67.3 t/day

Fuel consumed

14,438 t

CO₂ emitted

45,157 t

Distance sailed

85,147 nm

CO₂ ÷ CO₂ per mile

Time at sea

5,151 h

215 days, 59% 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 150 kg/nm · median 177 (−15%)

78.8Ranks 927 of 2,208, lowest first302

Average speedThis ship 10.5 kn · median 13.3 (−21%)

9.1Faster than 18% of container ships16.0

CO₂ per transport work (cargo)This ship 25.8 g CO₂/t·nm · median 16.3 (+58%)

7.22Ranks 1,581 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 ports9%
From the EU40%
Into the EU50%
At berth in the EU2%

Fuel burned laden

–

Not reported

CO₂ at berth

831 t

1.8% 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 STE MARIE
Container median

120.0140.0160.0180.0200.0

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

Average speed, kn

CMA CGM FORT STE MARIE
Container median

5.07.510.012.515.017.5

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

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

CMA CGM FORT STE MARIE
Container median

0.020.040.060.0

’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	+2.9 kn	+18%	+64%	+4%	+0%	2.9 kn faster, fuel per mile up 18%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2023→2024	+0.7 kn	−15%	−6%	+68%	−55%	0.7 kn faster, fuel per mile down 15%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2022→2023	−6.8 kn	+0%	−50%	−41%	+62%	6.8 kn slower, fuel per mile flat; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2021→2022	−0.2 kn	+4%	+3%	−31%	+29%	Same speed, fuel per mile up 4%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2020→2021	+2.6 kn	+15%	+41%	−13%	+20%	2.6 kn faster, fuel per mile up 15%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2019→2020	−2.7 kn	−21%	−36%	−45%	−42%	2.7 kn slower, fuel per mile down 21%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2018→2019	−2.5 kn	−7%	−21%	−7%	−3%	2.5 kn slower, fuel per mile down 7%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading 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	4,124	13,015	27,518	2,620	10.5	150	25.8	89%
2024	CMA CGM SA	3,359	10,483	26,554	3,489	7.6	127	25.7	95%
2023	not published	2,352	7,427	15,815	2,290	6.9	149	57.4	–
2022	not published	3,964	12,556	26,672	1,943	13.7	149	35.4	90%
2021	not published	5,491	17,324	38,392	2,759	13.9	143	27.3	95%
2020	not published	5,481	17,307	43,909	3,871	11.3	125	22.9	–
2019	not published	12,476	39,055	79,238	5,650	14.0	157	39.1	–
2018	not published	14,438	45,157	85,147	5,151	16.5	170	40.3	–

Benchmark and verification

Year	ISM company	CO₂ per TW, g CO₂/t·nm	Container median	vs Container	Rank	Verifier	Methods
2025	CMA CGM SA	25.8	16.3	+58%	1,581 of 2,208	ABS	C
2024	CMA CGM SA	25.7	17.5	+46%	1,346 of 1,974	ABS	C
2023	not published	57.4	19.4	+196%	1,764 of 1,899	EnvService	C
2022	not published	35.4	19.1	+85%	1,407 of 1,825	ABS	C
2021	not published	27.3	17.9	+53%	1,238 of 1,781	ABS	C
2020	not published	22.9	17.6	+30%	1,143 of 1,797	ABS	C
2019	not published	39.1	18.9	+107%	1,405 of 1,788	ABS	C
2018	not published	40.3	20.2	+99%	1,354 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.