Navalyze · LNG carrier · Ship

LENA RIVER

IMO: 9629598
Type: LNG carrier
Flag (estimated): Marshall Islands
Port of registry: Majuro
Technical efficiency: EEXI 6.33 g CO₂/t·nm
Ice class: IA
Fuel (estimated): Mostly LNG

ISM company (DoC holder) in 2025: Dynagas Ltd

Report year

2020 at a glance

From the 2020 THETIS-MRV report.

Fuel kg/nm

294

LNG carrier median 297 kg/nm (−1%)

CO₂ per transport work (volume)

9.32

g CO₂/m³·nm · LNG carrier median 10.7 (−13%)

Average speed

14.0 kn

LNG carrier median 14.7 kn (−5%)

Fuel per day at sea

98.7 t/day

Fuel consumed

19,359 t

CO₂ emitted

53,436 t

Distance sailed

65,774 nm

CO₂ ÷ CO₂ per mile

Time at sea

4,708 h

196 days, 54% of the year

Within the LNG carrier fleet, 2025

Set against all 386 LNG carrier 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 285 kg/nm · median 190 (+49%)

152Ranks 310 of 386, lowest first319

Average speedThis ship 15.1 kn · median 14.4 (+5%)

11.2Faster than 70% of LNG carrier ships15.9

CO₂ per transport work (volume)This ship 10.0 g CO₂/m³·nm · median 7.12 (+41%)

5.06Ranks 293 of 386, lowest first16.1

Middle 80% of shipsMiddle 50%LNG carrier 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 ports3%
From the EU56%
Into the EU40%
At berth in the EU1%

Fuel burned laden

–

Not reported

CO₂ at berth

411 t

0.8% 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 LNG carrier median is the middle ship of all LNG carrier ships reporting that year; it moves with the fleet, so a ship can gain on it without changing itself.

Fuel kg/nm

LENA RIVER
LNG carrier median

150.0200.0250.0300.0350.0

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

Average speed, kn

LENA RIVER
LNG carrier median

12.013.014.015.016.017.0

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

CO₂ per transport work (volume), g CO₂/m³·nm

LENA RIVER
LNG carrier median

6.08.010.012.014.0

’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	−1.1 kn	+15%	+7%	−92%	+29%	1.1 kn slower, fuel per mile up 15%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2023→2024	+1.5 kn	+7%	+18%	+146%	−44%	1.5 kn faster, fuel per mile up 7%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2022→2023	+0.1 kn	−14%	−13%	−53%	+14%	Same speed, fuel per mile down 14%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2021→2022	+0.6 kn	+4%	+8%	+80%	+55%	0.6 kn faster, fuel per mile up 4%; in line with the speed change.
2020→2021	+0.0 kn	−12%	−12%	−45%	−17%	Same speed, fuel per mile down 12%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2019→2020	+1.8 kn	−16%	−4%	+26%	−29%	1.8 kn faster, fuel per mile down 16%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2018→2019	–	–	–	–	–

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
2025LNG	Dynagas Ltd	1,649	4,541	5,798	385	15.1	285	–	–
2024LNG	Dynagas Ltd	18,479	49,699	74,804	4,612	16.2	247	–	–
2023LNG / alt.	not published	7,021	19,365	30,409	2,073	14.7	231	–	–
2022LNG / alt.	not published	17,444	48,118	65,104	4,468	14.6	268	–	–
2021LNG / alt.	not published	9,335	25,969	36,213	2,581	14.0	258	–	–
2020LNG / alt.	not published	19,359	53,436	65,774	4,708	14.0	294	–	–
2019LNG / alt.	not published	18,212	52,198	52,163	4,271	12.2	349	–	–
2018	not published	0	0	–	0	–	–	–	–

Benchmark and verification

Year	ISM company	CO₂ per TW, g CO₂/m³·nm	LNG carrier median	vs LNG carrier	Rank	Verifier	Methods
2025LNG	Dynagas Ltd	10.0	7.12	+41%	293 of 386	EMICERT	A+C
2024LNG	Dynagas Ltd	7.78	7.39	+5%	164 of 312	EMICERT	A+C
2023LNG / alt.	not published	13.8	9.10	+51%	298 of 355	EMICERT	A+C
2022LNG / alt.	not published	12.1	10.4	+16%	238 of 379	EMICERT	A+C
2021LNG / alt.	not published	7.78	10.5	−26%	86 of 289	EMICERT	A+C
2020LNG / alt.	not published	9.32	10.7	−13%	92 of 267	EMICERT	A+C
2019LNG / alt.	not published	13.2	10.9	+21%	170 of 248	EMICERT	A+C
2018	not published	–	–	–	–	EMICERT	A+C

Fuel per mile and CO₂ per tonne-mile are the ship's own reported KPIs. LNG carrier ships are benchmarked on CO₂ per transport work (volume) (TW), in g CO₂/m³·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 LNG 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.