Navalyze · Container · Ship

SKOGAFOSS

IMO: 9375252
Type: Container ship
Average cargo carried: 2,768 t
Flag (estimated): Antigua and Barbuda
Port of registry: Saint John'S
Technical efficiency: EEXI 28.22 g CO₂/t·nm
Ice class: IA

ISM company (DoC holder) in 2025: Feederstar GmbH & Co. KG

Report year

2019 at a glance

From the 2019 THETIS-MRV report. Carries about 3,560 t of cargo on average.

Fuel kg/nm

111

Container median 174 kg/nm (−36%)

CO₂ per transport work (cargo)

98.5

g CO₂/t·nm · Container median 18.9 (+422%)

Average speed

9.4 kn

Container median 13.7 kn (−31%)

Fuel per day at sea

25.1 t/day

Fuel consumed

4,817 t

CO₂ emitted

15,233 t

Distance sailed

43,442 nm

CO₂ ÷ CO₂ per mile

Time at sea

4,600 h

192 days, 53% 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 69.0 kg/nm · median 177 (−61%)

78.8Ranks 104 of 2,208, lowest first302

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

9.1Faster than 59% of container ships16.0

CO₂ per transport work (cargo)This ship 79.0 g CO₂/t·nm · median 16.3 (+385%)

7.22Ranks 2,184 of 2,208, lowest first46.9

Middle 80% of shipsMiddle 50%Container medianThis ship

Where the emissions happen, 2019

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 ports17%
From the EU40%
Into the EU38%
At berth in the EU5%

Fuel burned laden

–

Not reported

CO₂ at berth

719 t

4.7% 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

SKOGAFOSS
Container median

50.0100.0150.0200.0

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

Average speed, kn

SKOGAFOSS
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

SKOGAFOSS
Container median

0.025.050.075.0100

’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	+0.4 kn	+1%	+4%	+9%	−10%	0.4 kn faster, fuel per mile flat.
2023→2024	+0.1 kn	+4%	+5%	+13%	+24%	Same speed, fuel per mile up 4%; in line with the speed change.
2022→2023	+0.4 kn	−7%	−5%	−5%	−13%	0.4 kn faster, fuel per mile down 7%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2021→2022	−1.3 kn	+1%	−8%	−6%	−3%	1.3 kn slower, fuel per mile flat; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2020→2021	+1.5 kn	+7%	+19%	+31%	+39%	1.5 kn faster, fuel per mile up 7%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2019→2020	+3.5 kn	−42%	−20%	+14%	−38%	3.5 kn faster, fuel per mile down 42%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2018→2019	−5.0 kn	+66%	+9%	+7%	+34%	5.0 kn slower, fuel per mile up 66%; 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
2025	Feederstar GmbH & Co. KG	4,902	15,532	71,004	5,084	14.0	69.0	79.0	–
2024	Feederstar GmbH & Co. KG	4,441	14,237	65,304	4,799	13.6	68.0	88.1	–
2023	not published	3,760	12,055	57,780	4,275	13.5	65.1	71.3	–
2022	not published	4,286	13,741	61,122	4,660	13.1	70.1	82.2	–
2021	not published	4,519	14,488	65,283	4,543	14.4	69.2	84.6	–
2020	not published	3,203	10,270	49,715	3,853	12.9	64.4	61.0	–
2019	not published	4,817	15,233	43,442	4,600	9.4	111	98.5	–
2018	not published	2,720	8,542	40,628	2,824	14.4	66.9	73.7	–

Benchmark and verification

Year	ISM company	CO₂ per TW, g CO₂/t·nm	Container median	vs Container	Rank	Verifier	Methods
2025	Feederstar GmbH & Co. KG	79.0	16.3	+385%	2,184 of 2,208	DNV	A
2024	Feederstar GmbH & Co. KG	88.1	17.5	+403%	1,946 of 1,974	DNV	A
2023	not published	71.3	19.4	+267%	1,853 of 1,899	DNV	A
2022	not published	82.2	19.1	+330%	1,799 of 1,825	DNV	A
2021	not published	84.6	17.9	+372%	1,760 of 1,781	DNV	A
2020	not published	61.0	17.6	+247%	1,696 of 1,797	DNV	A
2019	not published	98.5	18.9	+422%	1,781 of 1,788	DNV	A
2018	not published	73.7	20.2	+264%	1,628 of 1,705	Swiss Climate	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.