MSC NASSAU
- IMO
- 9471226
- Type
- Container ship
- Average cargo carried
- 23,449 t
- Flag (estimated)
- Liberia
- Port of registry
- Monrovia
- Technical efficiency
- EEXI 13.83 g CO₂/t·nm
- Former names
- ZIM ALABAMA
2018 at a glance
From the 2018 THETIS-MRV report. Carries about 31,526 t of cargo on average.
Within the container fleet, 2023
Set against all 1,899 container ships with a full-year 2023 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.
Where the emissions happen, 2018
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 EU47%
- Into the EU39%
- At berth in the EU2%
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
- MSC NASSAU
- Container median
Average speed, kn
- MSC NASSAU
- Container median
CO₂ per transport work (cargo), g CO₂/t·nm
- MSC NASSAU
- Container median
Year on year
| Year | Average speed | Fuel kg/nm | Fuel per day at sea | Distance | CO₂ per transport work | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022→2023 | −3.1 kn | −21% | −38% | −39% | −63% | 3.1 kn slower, fuel per mile down 21%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade). |
| 2018→2022 | −0.9 kn | −5% | −11% | −61% | +175% | 0.9 kn slower, fuel per mile down 5%; 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | not published | 1,880 | 5,905 | 12,572 | 1,090 | 11.5 | 150 | 20.0 | – |
| 2022 | not published | 3,941 | 12,300 | 20,741 | 1,423 | 14.6 | 190 | 54.5 | – |
| 2018 | not published | 10,630 | 33,169 | 53,031 | 3,426 | 15.5 | 200 | 19.8 | – |
Benchmark and verification
| Year | ISM company | CO₂ per TW, g CO₂/t·nm | Container median | vs Container | Rank | Verifier | Methods |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | not published | 20.0 | 19.4 | +3% | 989 of 1,899 | DNV | B+C |
| 2022 | not published | 54.5 | 19.1 | +185% | 1,663 of 1,825 | DNV | C |
| 2018 | not published | 19.8 | 20.2 | −2% | 827 of 1,705 | Verifavia | B |
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.