Navalyze · Container · Ship

MSC TOKYO

IMO: 9318046
Type: Container ship
Average cargo carried: 60,070 t
Flag (estimated): Liberia
Port of registry: Monrovia
Technical efficiency: EEXI 7.75 g CO₂/t·nm
Former names: E.R. TOKYO, 0094 E.R. TOKYO

ISM company (DoC holder) in 2025: MSC SHIPMANAGEMENT LIMITED · part of MSC Group

Report year

2020 at a glance

From the 2020 THETIS-MRV report. Carries about 61,375 t of cargo on average.

Fuel kg/nm

273

Container median 172 kg/nm (+58%)

CO₂ per transport work (cargo)

13.9

g CO₂/t·nm · Container median 17.6 (−21%)

Average speed

15.4 kn

Container median 14.0 kn (+10%)

Fuel per day at sea

101.0 t/day

Fuel consumed

15,469 t

CO₂ emitted

48,230 t

Distance sailed

56,739 nm

CO₂ ÷ CO₂ per mile

Time at sea

3,677 h

153 days, 42% 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 292 kg/nm · median 177 (+65%)

78.8Ranks 1,930 of 2,208, lowest first302

Average speedThis ship 14.0 kn · median 13.3 (+5%)

9.1Faster than 60% of container ships16.0

CO₂ per transport work (cargo)This ship 15.2 g CO₂/t·nm · median 16.3 (−7%)

7.22Ranks 1,027 of 2,208, lowest first46.9

Middle 80% of shipsMiddle 50%Container 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 ports60%
From the EU18%
Into the EU18%
At berth in the EU4%

Fuel burned laden

–

Not reported

CO₂ at berth

1,944 t

4.0% 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 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

MSC TOKYO
Container median

150.0200.0250.0300.0

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

Average speed, kn

MSC TOKYO
Container median

10.012.014.016.0

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

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

MSC TOKYO
Container median

5.010.015.020.025.0

’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	+1.6 kn	+29%	+46%	+169%	+10%	1.6 kn faster, fuel per mile up 29%; in line with the speed change.
2023→2024	−2.0 kn	+2%	−13%	−58%	+39%	2.0 kn slower, fuel per mile flat; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2022→2023	+0.7 kn	−18%	−14%	+67%	−19%	0.7 kn faster, fuel per mile down 18%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2021→2022	−1.6 kn	−5%	−15%	−67%	−12%	1.6 kn slower, fuel per mile down 5%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2020→2021	−0.1 kn	+4%	+3%	+2%	+0%	Same speed, fuel per mile up 4%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2019→2020	+0.2 kn	+0%	+2%	−12%	+5%	Same speed, fuel per mile flat.
2018→2019	+5.1 kn	−1%	+48%	+129%	−6%	5.1 kn faster, fuel per mile flat; 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	MSC SHIPMANAGEMENT LIMITED	10,525	32,831	36,052	2,575	14.0	292	15.2	–
2024	MSC Shipmanagement Ltd	3,021	9,416	13,396	1,080	12.4	226	13.8	–
2023	not published	7,033	21,904	31,687	2,196	14.4	222	9.95	–
2022	not published	5,142	16,224	19,006	1,386	13.7	271	12.2	–
2021	not published	16,489	51,974	58,032	3,790	15.3	284	13.9	–
2020	not published	15,469	48,230	56,739	3,677	15.4	273	13.9	–
2019	not published	17,594	54,825	64,682	4,250	15.2	272	13.2	–
2018	not published	7,771	24,243	28,195	2,786	10.1	276	14.1	–

Benchmark and verification

Year	ISM company	CO₂ per TW, g CO₂/t·nm	Container median	vs Container	Rank	Verifier	Methods
2025	MSC SHIPMANAGEMENT LIMITED	15.2	16.3	−7%	1,027 of 2,208	DNV	B+C
2024	MSC Shipmanagement Ltd	13.8	17.5	−21%	748 of 1,974	DNV	B+C
2023	not published	9.95	19.4	−49%	382 of 1,899	DNV	B+C
2022	not published	12.2	19.1	−36%	498 of 1,825	DNV	C
2021	not published	13.9	17.9	−22%	620 of 1,781	DNV	C
2020	not published	13.9	17.6	−21%	651 of 1,797	Verifavia	B
2019	not published	13.2	18.9	−30%	515 of 1,788	Verifavia	B
2018	not published	14.1	20.2	−30%	496 of 1,705	Verifavia	B

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.