Navalyze · LNG carrier · Ship

LNG OYO

IMO: 9267003
Type: LNG carrier
Flag (estimated): Bermuda
Port of registry: Hamilton
Technical efficiency: EEXI 7.33 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

256

LNG carrier median 257 kg/nm (−0%)

CO₂ per transport work (volume)

11.6

g CO₂/m³·nm · LNG carrier median 10.5 (+11%)

Average speed

10.6 kn

LNG carrier median 14.6 kn (−27%)

Fuel per day at sea

65.2 t/day

Fuel consumed

6,662 t

CO₂ emitted

18,373 t

Distance sailed

26,063 nm

CO₂ ÷ CO₂ per mile

Time at sea

2,454 h

102 days, 28% of the year

Within the LNG carrier fleet, 2025

Set against all 386 LNG carrier 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 291 kg/nm · median 190 (+53%)

152Ranks 315 of 386, lowest first319

Average speedThis ship 9.6 kn · median 14.4 (−33%)

11.2Faster than 5% of LNG carrier ships15.9

CO₂ per transport work (volume)This ship 13.6 g CO₂/m³·nm · median 7.12 (+90%)

5.06Ranks 335 of 386, lowest first16.1

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 EU52%
Into the EU45%
At berth in the EU3%

Fuel burned laden

–

Not reported

CO₂ at berth

546 t

3.0% 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

LNG OYO
LNG carrier median

150.0200.0250.0300.0350.0

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

Average speed, kn

LNG OYO
LNG carrier median

5.07.510.012.515.0

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

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

LNG OYO
LNG carrier median

5.010.015.020.0

’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	+3.1 kn	−2%	+43%	−14%	−17%	3.1 kn faster, fuel per mile down 2%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2023→2024	−5.4 kn	+29%	−29%	−19%	+101%	5.4 kn slower, fuel per mile up 29%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2022→2023	−0.5 kn	−12%	−16%	−27%	−26%	0.5 kn slower, fuel per mile down 12%; in line with the speed change.
2021→2022	+1.8 kn	+2%	+19%	+43%	−6%	1.8 kn faster, fuel per mile up 2%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2020→2021	+0.5 kn	−20%	−16%	−5%	−19%	0.5 kn faster, fuel per mile down 20%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2019→2020	−2.0 kn	−2%	−18%	+29%	−25%	2.0 kn slower, fuel per mile down 2%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2018→2019	−1.9 kn	+10%	−5%	+52%	+76%	1.9 kn slower, fuel per mile up 10%; 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
2025LNG	BW Fleet Management AS	5,436	14,973	18,702	1,955	9.6	291	–	–
2024LNG	BW Fleet Management A/S	6,499	17,905	21,861	3,340	6.5	297	–	–
2023LNG / alt.	not published	6,231	17,147	27,067	2,280	11.9	230	–	–
2022LNG / alt.	not published	9,754	26,953	37,306	3,004	12.4	261	–	–
2021LNG / alt.	not published	6,662	18,373	26,063	2,454	10.6	256	–	–
2020LNG / alt.	not published	8,701	23,980	27,329	2,698	10.1	318	–	–
2019LNG / alt.	not published	6,898	19,740	21,155	1,751	12.1	326	–	–
2018LNG / alt.	not published	4,122	11,813	13,933	995	14.0	296	–	–

Benchmark and verification

Year	ISM company	CO₂ per TW, g CO₂/m³·nm	LNG carrier median	vs LNG carrier	Rank	Verifier	Methods
2025LNG	BW Fleet Management AS	13.6	7.12	+90%	335 of 386	DNV	B+C
2024LNG	BW Fleet Management A/S	16.4	7.39	+122%	277 of 312	DNV	C
2023LNG / alt.	not published	8.16	9.10	−10%	156 of 355	DNV	C
2022LNG / alt.	not published	11.0	10.4	+6%	216 of 379	DNV	C
2021LNG / alt.	not published	11.6	10.5	+11%	171 of 289	DNV	C
2020LNG / alt.	not published	14.3	10.7	+34%	211 of 267	DNV	C
2019LNG / alt.	not published	19.2	10.9	+76%	218 of 248	DNV	C
2018LNG / alt.	not published	10.9	10.9	−0%	98 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.