Navalyze · Chemical tanker · Ship

SILVER RAY

IMO: 9493133
Type: Chemical tanker
Average cargo carried: 9,379,500 t
Port of registry: Monrovia
Technical efficiency: EEXI 7.83 g CO₂/t·nm

ISM company (DoC holder) in 2025: MTM Ship Management Pte Ltd · part of MTM Ship Management

Report year

2025 at a glance

From the 2025 THETIS-MRV report. Carries about 9,379,500 t of cargo on average.

Fuel per mile

59.6 kg/nm

CO₂ per transport work (cargo)

0.02

g CO₂/t·nm

Average speed

10.7 kn

Fuel per day at sea

15.3 t/day

Fuel consumed

2,017 t

CO₂ emitted

6,344 t

6,443 t CO₂eq incl. CH₄ and N₂O

Distance sailed

33,818 nm

CO₂ ÷ CO₂ per mile

Time at sea

3,165 h

132 days, 36% of the year

Within the chemical tanker fleet, 2024

Set against all 1,274 chemical tanker ships with a full-year 2024 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 70.4 kg/nm · median 80.8 (−13%)

53.8Ranks 418 of 1,274, lowest first110.8

Average speedThis ship 9.6 kn · median 11.0 (−13%)

8.7Faster than 19% of chemical tanker ships12.5

CO₂ per transport work (cargo)This ship 17.21 g CO₂/t·nm · median 16.73 (+3%)

8.47Ranks 660 of 1,274, lowest first41.97

Middle 80% of shipsMiddle 50%Chemical 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 ports11%
From the EU40%
Into the EU44%
At berth in the EU6%

57% of this ship's CO₂ falls under the EU ETS (3,610 t).

Fuel burned laden

94%

6% in ballast or unladen

CO₂ at berth

5.6%

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 Chemical tanker median is the middle ship of all chemical 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

SILVER RAY
Chemical tanker median

50.060.070.080.090.0100.0

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

Average speed, kn

SILVER RAY
Chemical 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

SILVER RAY
Chemical tanker median

12.014.016.018.020.0

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

Year on year

Year	Speed	Fuel per mile	Fuel per day	Distance	CO₂ per TW	Reading
2024→2025	+1.1 kn	−15%	−5%	−18%	–	1.1 kn faster, fuel per mile down 15%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2023→2024	−2.0 kn	+9%	−11%	+18%	+25%	2.0 kn slower, fuel per mile up 9%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2022→2023	+0.5 kn	−13%	−10%	−32%	−11%	0.5 kn faster, fuel per mile down 13%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2021→2022	−1.4 kn	+16%	+3%	+12%	−22%	1.4 kn slower, fuel per mile up 16%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2020→2021	−0.2 kn	−11%	−12%	+13%	+11%	Same speed, fuel per mile down 11%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2019→2020	+2.9 kn	−3%	+26%	+13%	+6%	2.9 kn faster, fuel per mile down 3%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2018→2019	−1.2 kn	−8%	−17%	−7%	−6%	1.2 kn slower, fuel per mile down 8%; 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	MTM Ship Management Pte Ltd	2,017	6,344	33,818	3,165	10.7	59.6	0.02	94%
2024	MTM Ship Management Pte Ltd	2,894	9,077	41,089	4,301	9.6	70.4	17.21	88%
2023	not published	2,258	7,095	34,854	3,003	11.6	64.8	13.79	94%
2022	not published	3,827	12,138	51,207	4,595	11.1	74.7	15.47	87%
2021	not published	2,968	9,405	45,923	3,669	12.5	64.6	19.91	75%
2020	not published	2,943	9,323	40,698	3,210	12.7	72.3	18.00	–
2019	not published	2,665	8,367	35,937	3,664	9.8	74.2	17.00	–
2018	not published	3,108	9,755	38,613	3,523	11.0	80.5	18.16	–

Benchmark and verification

Year	ISM company	CO₂ per TW, g CO₂/t·nm	Chemical tanker median	vs Chemical tanker	Rank	Verifier	Methods
2025	MTM Ship Management Pte Ltd	–	–	–	–	Lloyd's Register	A+C
2024	MTM Ship Management Pte Ltd	17.21	16.73	+3%	660 of 1,274	Lloyd's Register	A+C
2023	not published	13.79	16.23	−15%	503 of 1,314	Lloyd's Register	A
2022	not published	15.47	16.06	−4%	657 of 1,409	ABS	A
2021	not published	19.91	16.69	+19%	838 of 1,343	ABS	A
2020	not published	18.00	16.16	+11%	768 of 1,312	ABS	A
2019	not published	17.00	17.32	−2%	639 of 1,321	Lloyd's Register	A
2018	not published	18.16	17.14	+6%	712 of 1,294	Lloyd's Register	A

Fuel per mile and CO₂ per tonne-mile are the ship's own reported KPIs. Chemical 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 chemical 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.