Navalyze · LNG carrier · Ship

BW BRUSSELS

IMO: 9368314
Type: LNG carrier
Flag (estimated): Singapore
Port of registry: Singapore
Technical efficiency: EEXI 6.74 g CO₂/t·nm
Fuel (estimated): Mostly LNG
Former names: BW GDF SUEZ BRUSSELS

ISM company (DoC holder) in 2025: BW Fleet Management AS · part of BW Group

Report year

2020 at a glance

From the 2020 THETIS-MRV report.

Fuel kg/nm

274

LNG carrier median 297 kg/nm (−8%)

CO₂ per transport work (volume)

8.83

g CO₂/m³·nm · LNG carrier median 10.7 (−18%)

Average speed

13.7 kn

LNG carrier median 14.7 kn (−7%)

Fuel per day at sea

90.2 t/day

Fuel consumed

10,536 t

CO₂ emitted

29,091 t

Distance sailed

38,518 nm

CO₂ ÷ CO₂ per mile

Time at sea

2,802 h

117 days, 32% 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 kg/nmThis ship 230 kg/nm · median 190 (+21%)

152Ranks 276 of 386, lowest first319

Average speedThis ship 15.6 kn · median 14.4 (+8%)

11.2Faster than 86% of LNG carrier ships15.9

CO₂ per transport work (volume)This ship 12.5 g CO₂/m³·nm · median 7.12 (+76%)

5.06Ranks 330 of 386, lowest first16.1

Middle 80% of shipsMiddle 50%LNG carrier 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 ports0%
From the EU47%
Into the EU51%
At berth in the EU2%

Fuel burned laden

–

Not reported

CO₂ at berth

529 t

1.8% 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 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 kg/nm

BW BRUSSELS
LNG carrier median

150.0200.0250.0300.0350.0400.0

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

Average speed, kn

BW BRUSSELS
LNG carrier median

10.012.014.016.018.0

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

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

BW BRUSSELS
LNG carrier median

6.08.010.012.014.016.0

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

Year on year

Year	Average speed	Fuel kg/nm	Fuel per day at sea	Distance	CO₂ per transport work	Reading
2024→2025	+1.2 kn	+3%	+12%	+352%	+76%	1.2 kn faster, fuel per mile up 3%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2023→2024	−2.4 kn	−15%	−27%	−69%	−32%	2.4 kn slower, fuel per mile down 15%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2022→2023	+1.2 kn	+5%	+14%	−23%	−17%	1.2 kn faster, fuel per mile up 5%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2020→2022	+1.9 kn	−10%	+3%	+48%	+43%	1.9 kn faster, fuel per mile down 10%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2019→2020	+1.8 kn	−24%	−12%	+7%	−40%	1.8 kn faster, fuel per mile down 24%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2018→2019	−3.7 kn	+26%	−4%	−15%	+73%	3.7 kn slower, fuel per mile up 26%; 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
2025LNG	BW Fleet Management AS	14,297	39,711	62,119	3,975	15.6	230	–	–
2024LNG	BW Fleet Management A/S	3,062	8,748	13,748	956	14.4	223	–	–
2023LNG / alt.	not published	11,522	32,662	44,121	2,627	16.8	261	–	–
2022LNG / alt.	not published	14,117	39,137	57,048	3,656	15.6	248	–	–
2020LNG / alt.	not published	10,536	29,091	38,518	2,802	13.7	274	–	–
2019LNG / alt.	not published	13,013	36,088	36,108	3,032	11.9	360	–	–
2018LNG / alt.	not published	12,135	33,576	42,325	2,707	15.6	287	–	–

Benchmark and verification

Year	ISM company	CO₂ per TW, g CO₂/m³·nm	LNG carrier median	vs LNG carrier	Rank	Verifier	Methods
2025LNG	BW Fleet Management AS	12.5	7.12	+76%	330 of 386	DNV	B+C
2024LNG	BW Fleet Management A/S	7.14	7.39	−3%	150 of 312	DNV	C
2023LNG / alt.	not published	10.5	9.10	+15%	222 of 355	DNV	C
2022LNG / alt.	not published	12.6	10.4	+22%	256 of 379	DNV	C
2020LNG / alt.	not published	8.83	10.7	−18%	70 of 267	DNV	B+C
2019LNG / alt.	not published	14.6	10.9	+35%	190 of 248	DNV	B+C
2018LNG / alt.	not published	8.48	10.9	−22%	42 of 197	DNV	B+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.