Navalyze · Chemical tanker · Ship

LIPARI M

IMO: 9587817
Type: Chemical tanker
Average cargo carried: 15,170 t
Flag (estimated): Italy
Port of registry: Catania
Technical efficiency: EEXI 7.71 g CO₂/t·nm
Former names: ACAMAR

ISM company (DoC holder) in 2025: Navalmed Ship Management Srl

Report year

2020 at a glance

From the 2020 THETIS-MRV report. Carries about 20,931 t of cargo on average.

Fuel kg/nm

116

Chemical tanker median 85.7 kg/nm (+36%)

CO₂ per transport work (cargo)

17.6

g CO₂/t·nm · Chemical tanker median 16.2 (+9%)

Average speed

9.1 kn

Chemical tanker median 11.4 kn (−20%)

Fuel per day at sea

25.4 t/day

Fuel consumed

4,836 t

CO₂ emitted

15,302 t

Distance sailed

41,540 nm

CO₂ ÷ CO₂ per mile

Time at sea

4,569 h

190 days, 52% of the year

Within the chemical tanker fleet, 2025

Set against all 1,460 chemical 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 kg/nmThis ship 108 kg/nm · median 79.7 (+35%)

52.8Ranks 1,283 of 1,460, lowest first111

Average speedThis ship 10.6 kn · median 11.1 (−5%)

8.8Faster than 36% of chemical tanker ships12.4

CO₂ per transport work (cargo)This ship 22.6 g CO₂/t·nm · median 15.0 (+51%)

7.93Ranks 1,026 of 1,460, lowest first40.2

Middle 80% of shipsMiddle 50%Chemical tanker 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 ports28%
From the EU28%
Into the EU37%
At berth in the EU8%

Fuel burned laden

3,298 t

68% of all fuel; 32% in ballast or unladen

CO₂ at berth

1,220 t

8.0% 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 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 kg/nm

LIPARI M
Chemical tanker median

70.080.090.0100.0110.0120.0

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

Average speed, kn

LIPARI M
Chemical tanker median

6.08.010.012.0

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

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

LIPARI M
Chemical tanker median

15.017.520.022.525.0

’192019’202020’222022’232023’242024’252025

Year on year

Year	Average speed	Fuel kg/nm	Fuel per day at sea	Distance	CO₂ per transport work	Reading
2024→2025	−0.6 kn	+2%	−4%	−16%	−3%	0.6 kn slower, fuel per mile flat; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2023→2024	+1.2 kn	−1%	+11%	+83%	+11%	1.2 kn faster, fuel per mile flat; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2022→2023	+1.3 kn	+2%	+18%	−46%	+24%	1.3 kn faster, fuel per mile up 2%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2021→2022	−0.8 kn	+9%	−0%	+51%	–	0.8 kn slower, fuel per mile up 9%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2020→2021	+0.4 kn	−18%	−14%	−32%	–	0.4 kn faster, fuel per mile down 18%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2019→2020	+2.7 kn	+7%	+51%	−6%	−20%	2.7 kn faster, fuel per mile up 7%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2018→2019	−0.9 kn	+13%	−1%	−14%	–	0.9 kn slower, fuel per mile up 13%; 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	Navalmed Ship Management Srl	3,836	12,216	35,566	3,360	10.6	108	22.6	–
2024	Navalmed Ship Management Srl	4,497	14,123	42,381	3,772	11.2	106	23.5	–
2023	not published	2,468	7,788	23,113	2,309	10.0	107	21.2	29%
2022	not published	4,443	14,085	42,665	4,918	8.7	104	17.2	74%
2021	not published	2,715	8,618	28,344	2,994	9.5	95.8	165	68%
2020	not published	4,836	15,302	41,540	4,569	9.1	116	17.6	68%
2019	not published	4,809	15,093	44,195	6,857	6.4	109	22.0	69%
2018	not published	4,958	15,638	51,447	7,015	7.3	96.4	0.46	–

Benchmark and verification

Year	ISM company	CO₂ per TW, g CO₂/t·nm	Chemical tanker median	vs Chemical tanker	Rank	Verifier	Methods
2025	Navalmed Ship Management Srl	22.6	15.0	+51%	1,026 of 1,460	RINA	B
2024	Navalmed Ship Management Srl	23.5	16.7	+40%	862 of 1,274	RINA	B
2023	not published	21.2	16.2	+31%	841 of 1,314	RINA	B
2022	not published	17.2	16.1	+7%	761 of 1,409	Bureau Veritas	C
2021	not published	–	–	–	–	Bureau Veritas	C
2020	not published	17.6	16.2	+9%	743 of 1,312	Bureau Veritas	C
2019	not published	22.0	17.3	+27%	871 of 1,321	Bureau Veritas	C
2018	not published	–	–	–	–	Bureau Veritas	–

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.