Navalyze · LNG carrier · Ship

LNG RIVER ORASHI

IMO: 9266982
Type: LNG carrier
Flag (estimated): Bermuda
Port of registry: Hamilton
Technical efficiency: EEXI 7.34 g CO₂/t·nm
Fuel (estimated): Mostly LNG

ISM company (DoC holder) in 2025: BW Fleet Management AS · part of BW Group

Report year

2021 at a glance

From the 2021 THETIS-MRV report.

Fuel kg/nm

296

LNG carrier median 257 kg/nm (+15%)

CO₂ per transport work (volume)

13.2

g CO₂/m³·nm · LNG carrier median 10.5 (+26%)

Average speed

9.3 kn

LNG carrier median 14.6 kn (−36%)

Fuel per day at sea

66.3 t/day

Fuel consumed

11,943 t

CO₂ emitted

32,943 t

Distance sailed

40,385 nm

CO₂ ÷ CO₂ per mile

Time at sea

4,326 h

180 days, 49% 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 254 kg/nm · median 205 (+24%)

148Ranks 217 of 312, lowest first328

Average speedThis ship 11.2 kn · median 14.6 (−23%)

11.0Faster than 11% of LNG carrier ships16.1

CO₂ per transport work (volume)This ship 11.7 g CO₂/m³·nm · median 7.39 (+59%)

4.54Ranks 252 of 312, lowest first17.3

Middle 80% of shipsMiddle 50%LNG carrier medianThis ship

Where the emissions happen, 2021

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 EU53%
Into the EU44%
At berth in the EU3%

Fuel burned laden

–

Not reported

CO₂ at berth

929 t

2.8% 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 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

LNG RIVER ORASHI
LNG carrier median

200.0250.0300.0350.0

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

Average speed, kn

LNG RIVER ORASHI
LNG carrier median

8.010.012.014.016.0

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

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

LNG RIVER ORASHI
LNG carrier median

5.07.510.012.515.017.5

’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
2023→2024	+1.3 kn	+12%	+26%	−19%	+4%	1.3 kn faster, fuel per mile up 12%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2022→2023	−1.0 kn	−16%	−24%	−49%	+5%	1.0 kn slower, fuel per mile down 16%; in line with the speed change.
2021→2022	+1.6 kn	−8%	+7%	+17%	−19%	1.6 kn faster, fuel per mile down 8%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2020→2021	−0.6 kn	−4%	−9%	−32%	+4%	0.6 kn slower, fuel per mile down 4%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2019→2020	−0.7 kn	−12%	−18%	+190%	−27%	0.7 kn slower, fuel per mile down 12%; in line with the speed change.
2018→2019	−5.0 kn	+1%	−32%	−24%	+38%	5.0 kn slower, fuel per mile flat; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading 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-yearLNG	BW Fleet Management AS	1,098	3,035	4,564	310	14.7	241	–	–
2024LNG	BW Fleet Management A/S	4,999	13,779	19,711	1,758	11.2	254	–	–
2023LNG / alt.	not published	5,484	15,135	24,218	2,440	9.9	227	–	–
2022LNG / alt.	not published	12,764	35,262	47,134	4,328	10.9	271	–	–
2021LNG / alt.	not published	11,943	32,943	40,385	4,326	9.3	296	–	–
2020LNG / alt.	not published	18,302	50,682	59,669	6,057	9.9	307	–	–
2019LNG / alt.	not published	7,204	20,705	20,584	1,950	10.6	350	–	–
2018LNG / alt.	not published	9,414	27,136	27,132	1,742	15.6	347	–	–

Benchmark and verification

Year	ISM company	CO₂ per TW, g CO₂/m³·nm	LNG carrier median	vs LNG carrier	Rank	Verifier	Methods
2025part-yearLNG	BW Fleet Management AS	–	–	–	–	DNV	B+C
2024LNG	BW Fleet Management A/S	11.7	7.39	+59%	252 of 312	DNV	C
2023LNG / alt.	not published	11.3	9.10	+25%	250 of 355	DNV	C
2022LNG / alt.	not published	10.8	10.4	+4%	210 of 379	DNV	C
2021LNG / alt.	not published	13.2	10.5	+26%	205 of 289	DNV	C
2020LNG / alt.	not published	12.7	10.7	+18%	184 of 267	DNV	C
2019LNG / alt.	not published	17.4	10.9	+60%	214 of 248	DNV	C
2018LNG / alt.	not published	12.6	10.9	+15%	136 of 197	DNV	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.