Navalyze · LNG carrier · Ship

CLEAN HORIZON

IMO: 9655444
Type: LNG carrier
Port of registry: Valleta
Technical efficiency: EEXI 6.69 g CO₂/t·nm
Ice class: IA
Fuel: Mostly LNG

ISM company (DoC holder) in 2025: Dynagas Ltd

Report year

2025 at a glance

From the 2025 THETIS-MRV report.

Fuel per mile

266.4 kg/nm

LNG carrier median 190.4 kg/nm (+40%)

CO₂ per transport work (volume)

9.97

g CO₂/m³·nm · LNG carrier median 7.12 (+40%)

Average speed

12.9 kn

LNG carrier median 14.4 kn (−10%)

Fuel per day at sea

82.5 t/day

Fuel consumed

3,096 t

CO₂ emitted

8,429 t

10,658 t CO₂eq incl. CH₄ and N₂O

Distance sailed

11,621 nm

CO₂ ÷ CO₂ per mile

Time at sea

901 h

38 days, 10% 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 266.4 kg/nm · median 190.4 (+40%)

152.1Ranks 298 of 386, lowest first319.4

Average speedThis ship 12.9 kn · median 14.4 (−10%)

11.2Faster than 21% of LNG carrier ships15.9

CO₂ per transport work (volume)This ship 9.97 g CO₂/m³·nm · median 7.12 (+40%)

5.06Ranks 290 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 ports0%
From the EU51%
Into the EU46%
At berth in the EU3%

51% of this ship's CO₂ falls under the EU ETS (4,334 t).

Fuel burned laden

–

Not reported

CO₂ at berth

2.8%

Alongside in EU ports

Methane (CH₄)

76.3 t

LNG engines slip unburnt methane

CO₂eq ÷ CO₂

1.264

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

CLEAN HORIZON
LNG carrier median

150.0200.0250.0300.0350.0

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

Average speed, kn

CLEAN HORIZON
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

CLEAN HORIZON
LNG carrier median

4.06.08.010.012.0

’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	−3.4 kn	+13%	−10%	−72%	+33%	3.4 kn slower, fuel per mile up 13%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2023→2024	+1.2 kn	−11%	−4%	−16%	−7%	1.2 kn faster, fuel per mile down 11%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2022→2023	+2.1 kn	+14%	+33%	−39%	−4%	2.1 kn faster, fuel per mile up 14%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2021→2022	−1.1 kn	+7%	−2%	+39%	+23%	1.1 kn slower, fuel per mile up 7%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2020→2021	−0.1 kn	−7%	−8%	−40%	−9%	Same speed, fuel per mile down 7%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2019→2020	+0.7 kn	−5%	+1%	+2%	−34%	0.7 kn faster, fuel per mile down 5%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2018→2019	+0.7 kn	+23%	+29%	+481%	+117%	0.7 kn faster, fuel per mile up 23%; 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	At sea h	Speed kn	Fuel kg/nm	CO₂ g/t·nm	Laden fuel
2025LNG	Dynagas Ltd	3,096	8,429	11,621	901	12.9	266.4	–	–
2024LNG	Dynagas Ltd	9,631	25,800	40,928	2,517	16.3	235.3	–	–
2023LNG	not published	12,788	35,304	48,632	3,222	15.1	263.0	–	–
2022LNG	not published	18,230	50,680	79,238	6,105	13.0	230.1	–	–
2021LNG	not published	12,320	34,981	57,086	4,044	14.1	215.8	–	–
2020LNG	not published	22,102	61,699	94,937	6,664	14.2	232.8	–	–
2019LNG	not published	22,728	63,598	92,820	6,896	13.5	244.9	–	–
2018LNG	not published	3,193	8,804	15,978	1,248	12.8	199.8	–	–

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	9.97	7.12	+40%	290 of 386	EMICERT	A+C
2024LNG	Dynagas Ltd	7.49	7.39	+1%	159 of 312	EMICERT	A+C
2023LNG	not published	8.05	9.10	−12%	152 of 355	EMICERT	A+C
2022LNG	not published	8.35	10.38	−20%	137 of 379	EMICERT	A+C
2021LNG	not published	6.80	10.46	−35%	58 of 289	EMICERT	A+C
2020LNG	not published	7.49	10.71	−30%	44 of 267	EMICERT	A+C
2019LNG	not published	11.41	10.87	+5%	135 of 248	EMICERT	A+C
2018LNG	not published	5.27	10.92	−52%	16 of 197	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.