Navalyze · LNG carrier · Ship

ARCTIC PRINCESS

IMO: 9271248
Type: LNG carrier
Flag (estimated): Norway
Port of registry: Hammerfest
Technical efficiency: EEXI 7.26 g CO₂/t·nm

ISM company (DoC holder) in 2025: Hoegh Evi Fleet Management AS

Report year

2020 at a glance

From the 2020 THETIS-MRV report.

Fuel kg/nm

337

LNG carrier median 297 kg/nm (+14%)

CO₂ per transport work (volume)

14.3

g CO₂/m³·nm · LNG carrier median 10.7 (+33%)

Average speed

13.4 kn

LNG carrier median 14.7 kn (−9%)

Fuel per day at sea

108.1 t/day

Fuel consumed

27,145 t

CO₂ emitted

76,302 t

Distance sailed

80,509 nm

CO₂ ÷ CO₂ per mile

Time at sea

6,027 h

251 days, 69% 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 574 kg/nm · median 190 (+201%)

152Ranks 385 of 386, lowest first319

Average speedThis ship 8.6 kn · median 14.4 (−40%)

11.2Faster than 4% of LNG carrier ships15.9

CO₂ per transport work (volume)This ship 27.7 g CO₂/m³·nm · median 7.12 (+289%)

5.06Ranks 364 of 386, lowest first16.1

Middle 80% of shipsMiddle 50%LNG carrier medianThis ship

Where the emissions happen, 2020

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 ports62%
From the EU20%
Into the EU14%
At berth in the EU4%

Fuel burned laden

–

Not reported

CO₂ at berth

2,922 t

3.8% 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

ARCTIC PRINCESS
LNG carrier median

100.0200.0300.0400.0500.0600.0

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

Average speed, kn

ARCTIC PRINCESS
LNG carrier median

6.08.010.012.014.016.0

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

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

ARCTIC PRINCESS
LNG carrier median

0.010.020.030.040.0

’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	−3.5 kn	+51%	+8%	−87%	+100%	3.5 kn slower, fuel per mile up 51%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2023→2024	+0.3 kn	−15%	−13%	+49%	−23%	Same speed, fuel per mile down 15%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2022→2023	−0.6 kn	+15%	+10%	−19%	−22%	0.6 kn slower, fuel per mile up 15%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2021→2022	−2.9 kn	+22%	−1%	+113%	−36%	2.9 kn slower, fuel per mile up 22%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2020→2021	+1.9 kn	−6%	+7%	−66%	+152%	1.9 kn faster, fuel per mile down 6%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2019→2020	+6.1 kn	−21%	+46%	+40%	−16%	6.1 kn faster, fuel per mile down 21%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2018→2019	−3.0 kn	+14%	−19%	−25%	+7%	3.0 kn slower, fuel per mile up 14%; 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	Hoegh Evi Fleet Management AS	5,131	15,144	8,942	1,037	8.6	574	–	–
2024LNG	Hoegh LNG Fleet Management AS	26,478	66,416	69,850	5,758	12.1	379	–	–
2023LNG / alt.	not published	20,900	60,042	46,789	3,969	11.8	447	–	–
2022LNG / alt.	not published	22,396	66,001	57,864	4,681	12.4	387	–	–
2021	not published	8,601	25,473	27,190	1,781	15.3	316	–	–
2020LNG / alt.	not published	27,145	76,302	80,509	6,027	13.4	337	–	–
2019LNG / alt.	not published	24,432	68,882	57,526	7,905	7.3	425	–	–
2018LNG / alt.	not published	28,413	82,513	76,303	7,444	10.3	372	–	–

Benchmark and verification

Year	ISM company	CO₂ per TW, g CO₂/m³·nm	LNG carrier median	vs LNG carrier	Rank	Verifier	Methods
2025	Hoegh Evi Fleet Management AS	27.7	7.12	+289%	364 of 386	DNV	B+C
2024LNG	Hoegh LNG Fleet Management AS	13.8	7.39	+87%	267 of 312	DNV	B+C
2023LNG / alt.	not published	18.0	9.10	+97%	320 of 355	DNV	B+C
2022LNG / alt.	not published	23.0	10.4	+121%	331 of 379	DNV	A+C
2021	not published	36.0	10.5	+244%	278 of 289	DNV	A+C
2020LNG / alt.	not published	14.3	10.7	+33%	210 of 267	DNV	A+C
2019LNG / alt.	not published	16.9	10.9	+56%	210 of 248	DNV	A+C
2018LNG / alt.	not published	15.9	10.9	+45%	168 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.