Navalyze · Container · Ship

DINA TRADER

IMO: 9354442
Type: Container ship
Average cargo carried: 4,716 t
Flag (estimated): Portugal
Port of registry: Madeira
Technical efficiency: EEXI 24.59 g CO₂/t·nm
Ice class: IA

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

Report year

2021 at a glance

From the 2021 THETIS-MRV report. Carries about 5,780 t of cargo on average.

Fuel kg/nm

75.0

Container median 186 kg/nm (−60%)

CO₂ per transport work (cargo)

40.5

g CO₂/t·nm · Container median 17.9 (+126%)

Average speed

14.4 kn

Container median 14.1 kn (+2%)

Fuel per day at sea

25.9 t/day

Fuel consumed

6,012 t

CO₂ emitted

18,739 t

Distance sailed

80,112 nm

CO₂ ÷ CO₂ per mile

Time at sea

5,562 h

232 days, 63% 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 78.3 kg/nm · median 177 (−56%)

78.8Ranks 212 of 2,208, lowest first302

Average speedThis ship 8.2 kn · median 13.3 (−38%)

9.1Faster than 6% of container ships16.0

CO₂ per transport work (cargo)This ship 52.2 g CO₂/t·nm · median 16.3 (+220%)

7.22Ranks 2,051 of 2,208, lowest first46.9

Middle 80% of shipsMiddle 50%Container 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 ports23%
From the EU32%
Into the EU43%
At berth in the EU2%

Fuel burned laden

–

Not reported

CO₂ at berth

350 t

1.9% 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

DINA TRADER
Container median

50.0100.0150.0200.0

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

Average speed, kn

DINA TRADER
Container median

5.07.510.012.515.0

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

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

DINA TRADER
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	−1.5 kn	−6%	−21%	−10%	+4%	1.5 kn slower, fuel per mile down 6%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2023→2024	−3.0 kn	+15%	−13%	−53%	−5%	3.0 kn slower, fuel per mile up 15%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2022→2023	−0.2 kn	+3%	+1%	+9%	+21%	Same speed, fuel per mile up 3%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2021→2022	−1.5 kn	−6%	−15%	−26%	+7%	1.5 kn slower, fuel per mile down 6%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2020→2021	+2.8 kn	−6%	+16%	+209%	−25%	2.8 kn faster, fuel per mile down 6%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2019→2020	+3.8 kn	+2%	+52%	−29%	+11%	3.8 kn faster, fuel per mile up 2%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2018→2019	+2.6 kn	−22%	+16%	−9%	−47%	2.6 kn faster, fuel per mile down 22%; 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	2,131	6,700	27,208	3,317	8.2	78.3	52.2	–
2024	Myklebusthaug Management AS	2,516	7,864	30,128	3,107	9.7	83.5	50.1	–
2023	not published	4,709	14,681	64,609	5,084	12.7	72.9	52.5	–
2022	not published	4,204	13,110	59,380	4,611	12.9	70.8	43.3	–
2021	not published	6,012	18,739	80,112	5,562	14.4	75.0	40.5	–
2020	not published	2,075	6,537	25,890	2,236	11.6	80.2	54.0	–
2019	not published	2,873	9,047	36,703	4,695	7.8	78.3	48.8	–
2018	not published	4,078	12,901	40,468	7,710	5.2	101	92.0	–

Benchmark and verification

Year	ISM company	CO₂ per TW, g CO₂/t·nm	Container median	vs Container	Rank	Verifier	Methods
2025	Myklebusthaug Management AS	52.2	16.3	+220%	2,051 of 2,208	DNV	B+C
2024	Myklebusthaug Management AS	50.1	17.5	+186%	1,753 of 1,974	DNV	A
2023	not published	52.5	19.4	+171%	1,717 of 1,899	DNV	A
2022	not published	43.3	19.1	+126%	1,526 of 1,825	DNV	A
2021	not published	40.5	17.9	+126%	1,489 of 1,781	DNV	A
2020	not published	54.0	17.6	+207%	1,628 of 1,797	DNV	B+C
2019	not published	48.8	18.9	+158%	1,529 of 1,788	DNV	B+C
2018	not published	92.0	20.2	+355%	1,676 of 1,705	DNV	B+C

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.