Navalyze · LNG carrier · Ship

KOOL BLIZZARD

IMO: 9635315
Type: LNG carrier
Flag (estimated): Marshall Islands
Port of registry: Majuro
Technical efficiency: EEXI 6.88 g CO₂/t·nm
Fuel (estimated): Mostly LNG
Former names: GOLAR SNOW

ISM company (DoC holder) in 2024: Cool Company Management AS

Report year

2018 at a glance

From the 2018 THETIS-MRV report.

Fuel kg/nm

497

LNG carrier median 323 kg/nm (+54%)

CO₂ per transport work (volume)

14.2

g CO₂/m³·nm · LNG carrier median 10.9 (+30%)

Average speed

14.6 kn

LNG carrier median 13.7 kn (+7%)

Fuel per day at sea

174.3 t/day

Fuel consumed

33,085 t

CO₂ emitted

91,597 t

Distance sailed

66,628 nm

CO₂ ÷ CO₂ per mile

Time at sea

4,556 h

190 days, 52% of the year

Within the LNG carrier fleet, 2024

Set against all 312 LNG carrier 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 kg/nmThis ship 226 kg/nm · median 205 (+10%)

148Ranks 195 of 312, lowest first328

Average speedThis ship 13.4 kn · median 14.6 (−8%)

11.0Faster than 28% of LNG carrier ships16.1

CO₂ per transport work (volume)This ship 6.95 g CO₂/m³·nm · median 7.39 (−6%)

4.54Ranks 142 of 312, lowest first17.3

Middle 80% of shipsMiddle 50%LNG carrier medianThis ship

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 ports4%
From the EU58%
Into the EU36%
At berth in the EU3%

Fuel burned laden

–

Not reported

CO₂ at berth

2,427 t

2.7% 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

KOOL BLIZZARD
LNG carrier median

200.0300.0400.0500.0

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

Average speed, kn

KOOL BLIZZARD
LNG carrier median

13.014.015.016.017.0

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

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

KOOL BLIZZARD
LNG carrier median

6.08.010.012.014.016.0

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

Year on year

Year	Average speed	Fuel kg/nm	Fuel per day at sea	Distance	CO₂ per transport work	Reading
2023→2024	−3.5 kn	−13%	−31%	−40%	−19%	3.5 kn slower, fuel per mile down 13%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2022→2023	+2.3 kn	+0%	+17%	+27%	+38%	2.3 kn faster, fuel per mile flat; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2021→2022	+0.1 kn	+25%	+25%	+23%	−52%	Same speed, fuel per mile up 25%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2020→2021	−0.6 kn	−13%	−16%	−30%	+74%	0.6 kn slower, fuel per mile down 13%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2018→2020	+0.5 kn	−52%	−50%	−58%	−48%	0.5 kn faster, fuel per mile down 52%; 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	Hours at seah	Average speedknots at sea	Fuel kg/nmthis ship	CO₂ per transport work (cargo)g/t·nm, this ship	Laden fuel
2024LNG	Cool Company Management AS	4,170	11,159	18,490	1,380	13.4	226	–	–
2023LNG / alt.	not published	8,007	22,077	30,950	1,830	16.9	259	–	–
2022LNG / alt.	not published	6,265	17,588	24,287	1,668	14.6	258	–	–
2021LNG / alt.	not published	4,089	11,456	19,774	1,362	14.5	207	–	–
2020LNG / alt.	not published	6,745	18,639	28,239	1,875	15.1	239	–	–
2018LNG / alt.	not published	33,085	91,597	66,628	4,556	14.6	497	–	–

Benchmark and verification

Year	ISM company	CO₂ per TW, g CO₂/m³·nm	LNG carrier median	vs LNG carrier	Rank	Verifier	Methods
2024LNG	Cool Company Management AS	6.95	7.39	−6%	142 of 312	DNV	B+C
2023LNG / alt.	not published	8.59	9.10	−6%	166 of 355	DNV	B+C
2022LNG / alt.	not published	6.21	10.4	−40%	50 of 379	DNV	C
2021LNG / alt.	not published	12.8	10.5	+22%	198 of 289	DNV	C
2020LNG / alt.	not published	7.38	10.7	−31%	42 of 267	DNV	C
2018LNG / alt.	not published	14.2	10.9	+30%	155 of 197	DNV	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.