Navalyze · LNG carrier · Ship

AL SHAMAL

IMO: 9360893
Type: LNG carrier
Port of registry: Nassau
Technical efficiency: EEXI 6.26 g CO₂/t·nm

ISM company (DoC holder) in 2025: Seapeak Maritime Limited · part of Seapeak

Report year

2025 at a glance

From the 2025 THETIS-MRV report.

Fuel per mile

343.3 kg/nm

LNG carrier median 190.4 kg/nm (+80%)

CO₂ per transport work (volume)

8.51

g CO₂/m³·nm · LNG carrier median 7.12 (+20%)

Average speed

14.9 kn

LNG carrier median 14.4 kn (+3%)

Fuel per day at sea

123.1 t/day

Fuel consumed

22,089 t

CO₂ emitted

67,802 t

68,823 t CO₂eq incl. CH₄ and N₂O

Distance sailed

64,338 nm

CO₂ ÷ CO₂ per mile

Time at sea

4,305 h

179 days, 49% 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 per mileThis ship 343.3 kg/nm · median 190.4 (+80%)

152.1Ranks 365 of 386, lowest first319.4

Average speedThis ship 14.9 kn · median 14.4 (+3%)

11.2Faster than 65% of LNG carrier ships15.9

CO₂ per transport work (volume)This ship 8.51 g CO₂/m³·nm · median 7.12 (+20%)

5.06Ranks 243 of 386, lowest first16.14

Middle 80% of shipsMiddle 50%LNG carrier medianThis ship

Where the emissions happen, 2025

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 EU35%
Into the EU65%
At berth in the EU1%

50% of this ship's CO₂ falls under the EU ETS (34,192 t).

Fuel burned laden

–

Not reported

CO₂ at berth

0.9%

Alongside in EU ports

Methane (CH₄)

1.0 t

Mainly from LNG; small for oil

CO₂eq ÷ CO₂

1.015

Uplift from CH₄ and N₂O, counted in full from 2026

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 per mile, kg/nm

AL SHAMAL
LNG carrier median

100.0200.0300.0400.0500.0

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

Average speed, kn

AL SHAMAL
LNG carrier median

11.012.013.014.015.016.0

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

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

AL SHAMAL
LNG carrier median

5.010.015.020.0

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

Year on year

Year	Speed	Fuel per mile	Fuel per day	Distance	CO₂ per TW	Reading
2024→2025	−0.5 kn	+14%	+10%	+32%	−3%	0.5 kn slower, fuel per mile up 14%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2023→2024	+2.2 kn	−11%	+4%	+104%	−11%	2.2 kn faster, fuel per mile down 11%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2022→2023	−2.1 kn	−13%	−25%	−50%	−19%	2.1 kn slower, fuel per mile down 13%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2021→2022	+0.1 kn	−5%	−4%	+118%	−34%	Same speed, fuel per mile down 5%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2020→2021	−0.2 kn	+12%	+10%	−48%	+74%	Same speed, fuel per mile up 12%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2019→2020	+3.9 kn	−7%	+25%	−18%	−8%	3.9 kn faster, fuel per mile down 7%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2018→2019	−2.0 kn	+22%	+4%	+88%	+1%	2.0 kn slower, fuel per mile up 22%; 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	At sea h	Speed kn	Fuel kg/nm	CO₂ g/t·nm	Laden fuel
2025	Seapeak Maritime Limited	22,089	67,802	64,338	4,305	14.9	343.3	–	–
2024	Seapeak Maritime Limited	14,766	45,454	48,870	3,167	15.4	302.1	–	–
2023	not published	8,128	25,169	23,991	1,814	13.2	338.8	–	–
2022	not published	18,774	58,227	48,120	3,140	15.3	390.2	–	–
2021	not published	9,058	28,214	22,085	1,450	15.2	410.1	–	–
2020	not published	15,704	48,911	42,757	2,770	15.4	367.3	–	–
2019	not published	20,657	63,964	52,429	4,562	11.5	394.0	–	–
2018	not published	9,030	28,224	27,956	2,065	13.5	323.0	–	–

Benchmark and verification

Year	ISM company	CO₂ per TW, g CO₂/m³·nm	LNG carrier median	vs LNG carrier	Rank	Verifier	Methods
2025	Seapeak Maritime Limited	8.51	7.12	+20%	243 of 386	DNV	A+C
2024	Seapeak Maritime Limited	8.74	7.39	+18%	192 of 312	DNV	A+C
2023	not published	9.79	9.10	+8%	197 of 355	DNV	A+C
2022	not published	12.11	10.38	+17%	241 of 379	DNV	A+C
2021	not published	18.38	10.46	+76%	252 of 289	DNV	A+C
2020	not published	10.57	10.71	−1%	130 of 267	DNV	A+C
2019	not published	11.51	10.87	+6%	138 of 248	DNV	A+C
2018	not published	11.36	10.92	+4%	112 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.