VOLCAN DE TAMASITE
- IMO
- 9281322
- Type
- Ro-pax ship
- Flag (estimated)
- Spain
- Port of registry
- Las Palmas De Gran Canaria
- Technical efficiency
- EIV 21.63 g CO₂/t·nm
- Fuel (estimated)
- Oil blended with biofuel or another alternative fuel
ISM company (DoC holder) in 2025: NAVIERA ARMAS, S.A.
2023 at a glance
From the 2023 THETIS-MRV report.
Within the ro-pax fleet, 2025
Set against all 408 ro-pax 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.
Where the emissions happen, 2023
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 EU41%
- Into the EU40%
- At berth in the EU19%
Over the years
Full-year reports only. The Ro-pax median is the middle ship of all ro-pax ships reporting that year; it moves with the fleet, so a ship can gain on it without changing itself.
Fuel kg/nm
- VOLCAN DE TAMASITE
- Ro-pax median
Average speed, kn
- VOLCAN DE TAMASITE
- Ro-pax median
CO₂ per transport work (freight), g CO₂/t·nm
- VOLCAN DE TAMASITE
- Ro-pax median
CO₂ per transport work (pax), g CO₂/pax·nm
- VOLCAN DE TAMASITE
- Ro-pax median
Year on year
| Year | Average speed | Fuel kg/nm | Fuel per day at sea | Distance | CO₂ per transport work | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024→2025 | +1.6 kn | +7% | +23% | +20% | −39% | 1.6 kn faster, fuel per mile up 7%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade). |
| 2023→2024 | −2.1 kn | +2% | −16% | −23% | −33% | 2.1 kn slower, fuel per mile flat; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade). |
| 2022→2023 | −2.7 kn | −9% | −26% | +10% | −19% | 2.7 kn slower, fuel per mile down 9%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade). |
| 2021→2022 | −3.2 kn | −9% | −26% | +6% | −26% | 3.2 kn slower, fuel per mile down 9%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade). |
| 2020→2021 | −0.3 kn | +5% | +4% | −9% | −4% | 0.3 kn slower, fuel per mile up 5%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade). |
| 2019→2020 | +0.1 kn | +2% | +2% | −22% | +59% | Same speed, fuel per mile flat. |
| 2018→2019 | +0.3 kn | +11% | +14% | −8% | −72% | Same speed, fuel per mile up 11%; 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025Bio blend | NAVIERA ARMAS, S.A. | 6,631 | 20,511 | 42,670 | 3,782 | 11.3 | 155 | – | – |
| 2024 | NAVIERA ARMAS, S.A. | 5,208 | 16,284 | 35,688 | 3,665 | 9.7 | 146 | – | – |
| 2023 | not published | 6,619 | 20,679 | 46,196 | 3,915 | 11.8 | 143 | – | – |
| 2022 | not published | 6,609 | 20,629 | 42,112 | 2,911 | 14.5 | 157 | – | – |
| 2021 | not published | 6,869 | 21,414 | 39,772 | 2,242 | 17.7 | 173 | – | – |
| 2020 | not published | 7,143 | 22,279 | 43,591 | 2,421 | 18.0 | 164 | – | – |
| 2019 | not published | 9,040 | 28,196 | 56,144 | 3,132 | 17.9 | 161 | – | – |
| 2018 | not published | 8,826 | 27,542 | 60,987 | 3,471 | 17.6 | 145 | – | – |
Benchmark and verification
| Year | ISM company | CO₂ per TW, g CO₂/pax·nm | Ro-pax median | vs Ro-pax | Rank | Freight, g CO₂/t·nm | Ro-pax median | vs Ro-pax | Verifier | Methods |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025Bio blend | NAVIERA ARMAS, S.A. | 345 | 567 | −39% | 157 of 408 | 785 | 253 | +210% | Bureau Veritas | B |
| 2024 | NAVIERA ARMAS, S.A. | 570 | 547 | +4% | 209 of 404 | 691 | 233 | +197% | Bureau Veritas | B |
| 2023 | not published | 852 | 680 | +25% | 231 of 386 | 638 | 234 | +173% | Bureau Veritas | A+B |
| 2022 | not published | 1,052 | 626 | +68% | 279 of 394 | 918 | 253 | +263% | Bureau Veritas | A+B |
| 2021 | not published | 1,412 | 815 | +73% | 298 of 377 | 824 | 226 | +265% | Bureau Veritas | A+B |
| 2020 | not published | 1,465 | 751 | +95% | 285 of 387 | 834 | 217 | +283% | Bureau Veritas | A+B |
| 2019 | not published | 921 | 569 | +62% | 269 of 394 | 921 | 223 | +314% | Bureau Veritas | A+B |
| 2018 | not published | 3,284 | 729 | +351% | 330 of 361 | 2,574 | 184 | +1,299% | Bureau Veritas | A+B |
Fuel per mile and CO₂ per tonne-mile are the ship's own reported KPIs. Ro-pax ships are benchmarked on CO₂ per transport work (pax) (TW), in g CO₂/pax·nm, and also per tonne of freight (g CO₂/t·nm freight). CO₂eq adds methane and nitrous oxide and is in the public files from 2024. Rank counts from the lowest figure among that year's ro-pax 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.