Navalyze · LNG carrier · Ship

MARAN GAS ALEXANDRIA

IMO: 9650054
Type: LNG carrier
Port of registry: Piraeus
Technical efficiency: EIV 6.64 g CO₂/t·nm
Fuel: Mostly LNG

ISM company (DoC holder) in 2025: MARAN GAS MARITIME INC. · part of Maran

Report year

2025 at a glance

From the 2025 THETIS-MRV report.

Fuel per mile

187.5 kg/nm

LNG carrier median 190.4 kg/nm (−2%)

CO₂ per transport work (volume)

6.08

g CO₂/m³·nm · LNG carrier median 7.12 (−15%)

Average speed

10.3 kn

LNG carrier median 14.4 kn (−28%)

Fuel per day at sea

46.2 t/day

Fuel consumed

3,087 t

CO₂ emitted

8,710 t

10,585 t CO₂eq incl. CH₄ and N₂O

Distance sailed

16,458 nm

CO₂ ÷ CO₂ per mile

Time at sea

1,603 h

67 days, 18% 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 per mileThis ship 187.5 kg/nm · median 190.4 (−2%)

152.1Ranks 187 of 386, lowest first319.4

Average speedThis ship 10.3 kn · median 14.4 (−28%)

11.2Faster than 7% of LNG carrier ships15.9

CO₂ per transport work (volume)This ship 6.08 g CO₂/m³·nm · median 7.12 (−15%)

5.06Ranks 143 of 386, lowest first16.14

Middle 80% of shipsMiddle 50%LNG carrier 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 ports40%
From the EU28%
Into the EU27%
At berth in the EU6%

73% of this ship's CO₂ falls under the EU ETS (6,323 t).

Fuel burned laden

64%

36% in ballast or unladen

CO₂ at berth

5.7%

Alongside in EU ports

Methane (CH₄)

63.2 t

LNG engines slip unburnt methane

CO₂eq ÷ CO₂

1.215

Uplift from CH₄ and N₂O, counted in full from 2026

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 per mile, kg/nm

MARAN GAS ALEXANDRIA
LNG carrier median

100.0200.0300.0400.0

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

Average speed, kn

MARAN GAS ALEXANDRIA
LNG carrier median

5.07.510.012.515.0

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

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

MARAN GAS ALEXANDRIA
LNG carrier median

0.020.040.060.0

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

Year on year

Year	Speed	Fuel per mile	Fuel per day	Distance	CO₂ per TW	Reading
2024→2025	−1.5 kn	+9%	−6%	−21%	+3%	1.5 kn slower, fuel per mile up 9%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2023→2024	+0.0 kn	−20%	−20%	−9%	−45%	Same speed, fuel per mile down 20%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2022→2023	+2.2 kn	+15%	+40%	−41%	+45%	2.2 kn faster, fuel per mile up 15%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2021→2022	−3.5 kn	+5%	−23%	+86%	+10%	3.5 kn slower, fuel per mile up 5%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2020→2021	+1.3 kn	−46%	−40%	+53%	−58%	1.3 kn faster, fuel per mile down 46%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2019→2020	+3.4 kn	−17%	+17%	+120%	−70%	3.4 kn faster, fuel per mile down 17%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2018→2019	+3.2 kn	+36%	+118%	−20%	+327%	3.2 kn faster, fuel per mile up 36%; 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
2025LNG	MARAN GAS MARITIME INC.	3,087	8,710	16,458	1,603	10.3	187.5	–	64%
2024LNG	MARAN GAS MARITIME INC.	3,616	9,739	20,929	1,768	11.8	172.8	–	96%
2023LNG	not published	4,968	13,815	22,938	1,952	11.8	216.6	–	–
2022LNG	not published	7,331	20,515	38,971	4,046	9.6	188.1	–	–
2021LNG	not published	3,748	10,335	20,971	1,600	13.1	178.7	–	–
2020LNG	not published	4,503	12,607	13,682	1,159	11.8	329.1	–	–
2019LNG	not published	2,474	6,824	6,214	743	8.4	398.1	–	–
2018LNG	not published	2,264	6,360	7,739	1,483	5.2	292.6	–	–

Benchmark and verification

Year	ISM company	CO₂ per TW, g CO₂/m³·nm	LNG carrier median	vs LNG carrier	Rank	Verifier	Methods
2025LNG	MARAN GAS MARITIME INC.	6.08	7.12	−15%	143 of 386	ABS	A+B
2024LNG	MARAN GAS MARITIME INC.	5.88	7.39	−20%	98 of 312	ABS	A+B
2023LNG	not published	10.76	9.10	+18%	234 of 355	ABS	A+B
2022LNG	not published	7.40	10.38	−29%	110 of 379	ABS	A
2021LNG	not published	6.73	10.46	−36%	54 of 289	ABS	A
2020LNG	not published	15.88	10.71	+48%	230 of 267	ABS	A
2019LNG	not published	52.90	10.87	+387%	244 of 248	ABS	A
2018LNG	not published	12.39	10.92	+13%	130 of 197	ABS	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.