Navalyze · Oil tanker · Ship

LYSIAS

IMO: 9397511
Type: Oil tanker
Average cargo carried: 29,373 t
Port of registry: Valletta
Technical efficiency: EEXI 4.96 g CO₂/t·nm

ISM company (DoC holder) in 2025: Grace Management S.A.

Report year

2025 at a glance

From the 2025 THETIS-MRV report. Carries about 29,373 t of cargo on average.

Fuel per mile

98.3 kg/nm

Oil tanker median 128.5 kg/nm (−24%)

CO₂ per transport work (cargo)

10.50

g CO₂/t·nm · Oil tanker median 7.95 (+32%)

Average speed

11.3 kn

Oil tanker median 10.7 kn (+6%)

Fuel per day at sea

26.6 t/day

Fuel consumed

1,451 t

CO₂ emitted

4,554 t

4,626 t CO₂eq incl. CH₄ and N₂O

Distance sailed

14,767 nm

CO₂ ÷ CO₂ per mile

Time at sea

1,307 h

54 days, 15% of the year

Within the oil tanker fleet, 2025

Set against all 1,665 oil tanker 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 98.3 kg/nm · median 128.5 (−24%)

76.1Ranks 405 of 1,665, lowest first190.8

Average speedThis ship 11.3 kn · median 10.7 (+6%)

8.0Faster than 68% of oil tanker ships12.1

CO₂ per transport work (cargo)This ship 10.50 g CO₂/t·nm · median 7.95 (+32%)

4.51Ranks 1,109 of 1,665, lowest first27.66

Middle 80% of shipsMiddle 50%Oil tanker 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 ports12%
From the EU4%
Into the EU77%
At berth in the EU7%

60% of this ship's CO₂ falls under the EU ETS (2,714 t).

Fuel burned laden

–

Not reported

CO₂ at berth

7.4%

Alongside in EU ports

Methane (CH₄)

0.1 t

Mainly from LNG; small for oil

CO₂eq ÷ CO₂

1.016

Uplift from CH₄ and N₂O, counted in full from 2026

Over the years

Full-year reports only. The Oil tanker median is the middle ship of all oil tanker ships reporting that year; it moves with the fleet, so a ship can gain on it without changing itself.

Fuel per mile, kg/nm

LYSIAS
Oil tanker median

60.080.0100.0120.0140.0

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

Average speed, kn

LYSIAS
Oil tanker median

9.010.011.012.013.0

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

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

LYSIAS
Oil tanker 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	−1.0 kn	+10%	+1%	+178%	+33%	1.0 kn slower, fuel per mile up 10%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2023→2024	+1.0 kn	+47%	+60%	−57%	+57%	1.0 kn faster, fuel per mile up 47%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2022→2023	+0.0 kn	−45%	−45%	+34%	−72%	Same speed, fuel per mile down 45%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2021→2022	−0.7 kn	+8%	+2%	+28%	+46%	0.7 kn slower, fuel per mile up 8%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2020→2021	+0.5 kn	−1%	+3%	−61%	−17%	0.5 kn faster, fuel per mile flat; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2019→2020	+2.3 kn	−2%	+23%	−25%	+55%	2.3 kn faster, fuel per mile flat; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2018→2019	−2.3 kn	+6%	−15%	−24%	+5%	2.3 kn slower, fuel per mile up 6%; 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	Grace Management S.A.	1,451	4,554	14,767	1,307	11.3	98.3	10.50	–
2024	Grace Management S.A.	474	1,496	5,321	433	12.3	89.1	7.89	–
2023	not published	745	2,359	12,298	1,091	11.3	60.6	5.02	–
2022	not published	1,003	3,175	9,186	809	11.3	109.2	17.99	–
2021	not published	726	2,293	7,182	597	12.0	101.0	12.32	–
2020	not published	1,902	5,992	18,555	1,610	11.5	102.5	14.81	–
2019	not published	2,563	8,042	24,609	2,668	9.2	104.1	9.58	–
2018	not published	3,176	9,989	32,274	2,799	11.5	98.4	9.16	–

Benchmark and verification

Year	ISM company	CO₂ per TW, g CO₂/t·nm	Oil tanker median	vs Oil tanker	Rank	Verifier	Methods
2025	Grace Management S.A.	10.50	7.95	+32%	1,109 of 1,665	Bureau Veritas	A
2024	Grace Management S.A.	7.89	8.06	−2%	863 of 1,787	Bureau Veritas	A
2023	not published	5.02	8.44	−41%	228 of 1,797	Bureau Veritas	A
2022	not published	17.99	8.51	+111%	1,637 of 1,961	Bureau Veritas	A
2021	not published	12.32	8.86	+39%	1,240 of 1,789	Bureau Veritas	A
2020	not published	14.81	9.03	+64%	1,416 of 1,870	Bureau Veritas	A
2019	not published	9.58	8.83	+8%	1,080 of 1,919	Bureau Veritas	A
2018	not published	9.16	8.86	+3%	929 of 1,779	Bureau Veritas	A+B

Fuel per mile and CO₂ per tonne-mile are the ship's own reported KPIs. Oil tanker 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 oil tanker 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.