Navalyze · Container · Ship

CMA CGM JULES VERNE

IMO: 9454450
Type: Container ship
Average cargo carried: 115,192 t
Flag (estimated): Malta
Port of registry: Valletta
Technical efficiency: EEXI 8.20 g CO₂/t·nm

ISM company (DoC holder) in 2025: CMA CGM SA · part of CMA CGM

Report year

2020 at a glance

From the 2020 THETIS-MRV report. Carries about 165,338 t of cargo on average.

Fuel kg/nm

334

Container median 172 kg/nm (+94%)

CO₂ per transport work (cargo)

6.30

g CO₂/t·nm · Container median 17.6 (−64%)

Average speed

15.6 kn

Container median 14.0 kn (+11%)

Fuel per day at sea

124.9 t/day

Fuel consumed

19,241 t

CO₂ emitted

60,082 t

Distance sailed

57,681 nm

CO₂ ÷ CO₂ per mile

Time at sea

3,697 h

154 days, 42% 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 309 kg/nm · median 177 (+74%)

78.8Ranks 2,016 of 2,208, lowest first302

Average speedThis ship 14.4 kn · median 13.3 (+8%)

9.1Faster than 68% of container ships16.0

CO₂ per transport work (cargo)This ship 8.38 g CO₂/t·nm · median 16.3 (−49%)

7.22Ranks 393 of 2,208, lowest first46.9

Middle 80% of shipsMiddle 50%Container 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 ports15%
From the EU49%
Into the EU34%
At berth in the EU2%

Fuel burned laden

–

Not reported

CO₂ at berth

1,839 t

3.1% 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

CMA CGM JULES VERNE
Container median

150.0200.0250.0300.0350.0400.0

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

Average speed, kn

CMA CGM JULES VERNE
Container median

12.014.016.018.0

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

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

CMA CGM JULES VERNE
Container median

5.010.015.020.025.0

’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	−0.3 kn	−12%	−14%	+71%	+3%	Same speed, fuel per mile down 12%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2023→2024	−1.5 kn	+2%	−8%	+254%	+5%	1.5 kn slower, fuel per mile up 2%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2022→2023	−0.4 kn	+14%	+11%	−14%	−25%	0.4 kn slower, fuel per mile up 14%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2021→2022	−1.0 kn	−16%	−20%	−61%	−30%	1.0 kn slower, fuel per mile down 16%; in line with the speed change.
2020→2021	+2.0 kn	+8%	+21%	−52%	+134%	2.0 kn faster, fuel per mile up 8%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2019→2020	−1.2 kn	−6%	−12%	−20%	−5%	1.2 kn slower, fuel per mile down 6%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2018→2019	−1.1 kn	−1%	−7%	+14%	−13%	1.1 kn slower, fuel per mile flat; 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	CMA CGM SA	16,991	53,120	55,029	3,817	14.4	309	8.38	96%
2024	CMA CGM SA	11,317	35,417	32,171	2,191	14.7	352	8.10	93%
2023	not published	3,129	9,791	9,081	560	16.2	345	7.75	95%
2022	not published	3,195	9,970	10,577	636	16.6	302	10.4	100%
2021	not published	9,854	30,733	27,471	1,564	17.6	359	14.8	72%
2020	not published	19,241	60,082	57,681	3,697	15.6	334	6.30	–
2019	not published	25,414	79,294	71,864	4,284	16.8	354	6.61	98%
2018	not published	22,475	70,114	63,112	3,532	17.9	356	7.63	–

Benchmark and verification

Year	ISM company	CO₂ per TW, g CO₂/t·nm	Container median	vs Container	Rank	Verifier	Methods
2025	CMA CGM SA	8.38	16.3	−49%	393 of 2,208	ABS	C
2024	CMA CGM SA	8.10	17.5	−54%	282 of 1,974	ABS	C
2023	not published	7.75	19.4	−60%	222 of 1,899	ABS	C
2022	not published	10.4	19.1	−46%	347 of 1,825	ABS	A
2021	not published	14.8	17.9	−18%	698 of 1,781	ABS	C
2020	not published	6.30	17.6	−64%	106 of 1,797	ABS	C
2019	not published	6.61	18.9	−65%	88 of 1,788	ABS	C
2018	not published	7.63	20.2	−62%	109 of 1,705	ABS	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.