Navalyze · Container · Ship

RS LISA

IMO: 9287704
Type: Container ship
Average cargo carried: 3,436 t
Flag (estimated): Portugal
Port of registry: Madeira
Technical efficiency: EEXI 32.10 g CO₂/t·nm
Ice class: IA
Former names: LISA, LISA D

ISM company (DoC holder) in 2025: Myklebusthaug Management AS

Report year

2018 at a glance

From the 2018 THETIS-MRV report. Carries about 4,724 t of cargo on average.

Fuel kg/nm

74.8

Container median 182 kg/nm (−59%)

CO₂ per transport work (cargo)

50.2

g CO₂/t·nm · Container median 20.2 (+148%)

Average speed

10.1 kn

Container median 13.8 kn (−27%)

Fuel per day at sea

18.2 t/day

Fuel consumed

4,136 t

CO₂ emitted

13,094 t

Distance sailed

55,254 nm

CO₂ ÷ CO₂ per mile

Time at sea

5,462 h

228 days, 62% 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 75.3 kg/nm · median 177 (−57%)

78.8Ranks 172 of 2,208, lowest first302

Average speedThis ship 10.2 kn · median 13.3 (−23%)

9.1Faster than 16% of container ships16.0

CO₂ per transport work (cargo)This ship 68.6 g CO₂/t·nm · median 16.3 (+321%)

7.22Ranks 2,162 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 ports93%
From the EU0%
Into the EU0%
At berth in the EU7%

Fuel burned laden

–

Not reported

CO₂ at berth

953 t

7.3% 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

RS LISA
Container median

50.0100.0150.0200.0

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

Average speed, kn

RS LISA
Container median

8.010.012.014.016.0

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

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

RS LISA
Container median

0.020.040.060.080.0100

’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	+0.5 kn	+2%	+8%	+11%	+13%	0.5 kn faster, fuel per mile up 2%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2023→2024	−2.2 kn	−4%	−22%	−50%	−2%	2.2 kn slower, fuel per mile down 4%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2022→2023	−0.1 kn	−0%	−1%	+28%	−18%	Same speed, fuel per mile flat.
2021→2022	−1.2 kn	+7%	−3%	−37%	−21%	1.2 kn slower, fuel per mile up 7%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2020→2021	+0.8 kn	−7%	−1%	+98%	+58%	0.8 kn faster, fuel per mile down 7%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2019→2020	+1.1 kn	+7%	+17%	−35%	+15%	1.1 kn faster, fuel per mile up 7%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2018→2019	+1.2 kn	−3%	+9%	+13%	+4%	1.2 kn faster, fuel per mile down 3%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine 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	Myklebusthaug Management AS	2,721	8,515	36,140	3,529	10.2	75.3	68.6	–
2024	Myklebusthaug Management AS	2,398	7,508	32,513	3,348	9.7	73.8	60.7	–
2023	not published	5,004	15,599	65,063	5,465	11.9	76.9	62.0	–
2022	not published	3,910	12,203	50,738	4,224	12.0	77.1	75.5	–
2021	not published	5,827	18,169	80,814	6,118	13.2	72.1	95.0	–
2020	not published	3,187	10,029	40,906	3,294	12.4	77.9	60.1	–
2019	not published	4,546	14,355	62,488	5,515	11.3	72.7	52.4	–
2018	not published	4,136	13,094	55,254	5,462	10.1	74.8	50.2	–

Benchmark and verification

Year	ISM company	CO₂ per TW, g CO₂/t·nm	Container median	vs Container	Rank	Verifier	Methods
2025	Myklebusthaug Management AS	68.6	16.3	+321%	2,162 of 2,208	DNV	B+C
2024	Myklebusthaug Management AS	60.7	17.5	+246%	1,863 of 1,974	DNV	A
2023	not published	62.0	19.4	+219%	1,800 of 1,899	DNV	A
2022	not published	75.5	19.1	+294%	1,783 of 1,825	DNV	A
2021	not published	95.0	17.9	+430%	1,769 of 1,781	DNV	A
2020	not published	60.1	17.6	+242%	1,689 of 1,797	DNV	A
2019	not published	52.4	18.9	+178%	1,579 of 1,788	DNV	A
2018	not published	50.2	20.2	+148%	1,487 of 1,705	DNV	A

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.