Navalyze · Bulk carrier · Ship
JOO HYE
- IMO
- 9597680
- Type
- Bulk carrier
- Average cargo carried
- 8,851 t
- Port of registry
- Jeju
- Technical efficiency
- EIV 6.44 g CO₂/t·nm
2023 at a glance
From the 2023 THETIS-MRV report. Carries about 8,851 t of cargo on average.
Within the bulk carrier fleet, 2023
Set against all 3,548 bulk carrier 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, 2023
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 ports17%
- From the EU43%
- Into the EU34%
- At berth in the EU6%
Over the years
Full-year reports only. The Bulk carrier median is the middle ship of all bulk carrier ships reporting that year; it moves with the fleet, so a ship can gain on it without changing itself.
Fuel per mile, kg/nm
- JOO HYE
- Bulk carrier median
Average speed, kn
- JOO HYE
- Bulk carrier median
CO₂ per transport work (cargo), g CO₂/t·nm
- JOO HYE
- Bulk carrier median
Year on year
| Year | Speed | Fuel per mile | Fuel per day | Distance | CO₂ per TW | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020→2023 | +1.4 kn | +12% | +28% | −67% | +174% | 1.4 kn faster, fuel per mile up 12%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade). |
| 2018→2020 | −0.7 kn | −34% | −38% | −29% | −10% | 0.7 kn slower, fuel per mile down 34%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | not published | 241 | 759 | 3,136 | 274 | 11.5 | 77.0 | 27.36 | – |
| 2020 | not published | 655 | 2,065 | 9,502 | 945 | 10.1 | 69.0 | 10.00 | – |
| 2018 | not published | 1,396 | 4,352 | 13,430 | 1,243 | 10.8 | 103.9 | 11.14 | – |
Benchmark and verification
| Year | ISM company | CO₂ per TW, g CO₂/t·nm | Bulk carrier median | vs Bulk carrier | Rank | Verifier | Methods |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | not published | 27.36 | 8.27 | +231% | 3,424 of 3,548 | Korean Register | C |
| 2020 | not published | 10.00 | 8.24 | +21% | 2,164 of 3,150 | Korean Register | C |
| 2018 | not published | 11.14 | 8.50 | +31% | 2,521 of 3,384 | Korean Register | C |
Fuel per mile and CO₂ per tonne-mile are the ship's own reported KPIs. Bulk carrier 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 bulk carrier 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.