Navalyze · Gas carrier (LPG) · Ship

KAPRIJKE

IMO: 9687485
Type: Gas carrier
Average cargo carried: 12,003 t
Flag (estimated): Belgium
Port of registry: Antwerpen
Technical efficiency: EEXI 7.16 g CO₂/t·nm

ISM company (DoC holder) in 2025: Exmar Shipping BV · part of Exmar

Report year

2018 at a glance

From the 2018 THETIS-MRV report. Carries about 10,940 t of cargo on average.

Fuel kg/nm

110

Gas carrier (LPG) median 87.4 kg/nm (+25%)

CO₂ per transport work (cargo)

31.3

g CO₂/t·nm · Gas carrier (LPG) median 53.1 (−41%)

Average speed

9.2 kn

Gas carrier (LPG) median 10.5 kn (−12%)

Fuel per day at sea

24.2 t/day

Fuel consumed

2,366 t

CO₂ emitted

7,399 t

Distance sailed

21,602 nm

CO₂ ÷ CO₂ per mile

Time at sea

2,349 h

98 days, 27% of the year

Within the gas carrier (LPG) fleet, 2025

Set against all 355 gas carrier (LPG) 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 89.2 kg/nm · median 81.5 (+9%)

49.8Ranks 221 of 355, lowest first124

Average speedThis ship 12.8 kn · median 12.6 (+2%)

8.8Faster than 53% of gas carrier (LPG) ships14.6

CO₂ per transport work (cargo)This ship 23.2 g CO₂/t·nm · median 35.6 (−35%)

14.4Ranks 123 of 355, lowest first120

Middle 80% of shipsMiddle 50%Gas carrier (LPG) 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 ports0%
From the EU34%
Into the EU66%
At berth in the EU1%

Fuel burned laden

–

Not reported

CO₂ at berth

37 t

0.5% 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 Gas carrier (LPG) median is the middle ship of all gas carrier (LPG) ships reporting that year; it moves with the fleet, so a ship can gain on it without changing itself.

Fuel kg/nm

KAPRIJKE
Gas carrier (LPG) median

80.090.0100.0110.0

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

Average speed, kn

KAPRIJKE
Gas carrier (LPG) median

8.010.012.014.016.0

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

CO₂ per transport work (cargo), g CO₂/t·nm

KAPRIJKE
Gas carrier (LPG) median

10.020.030.040.050.060.0

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

Year on year

Year	Average speed	Fuel kg/nm	Fuel per day at sea	Distance	CO₂ per transport work	Reading
2024→2025	−0.9 kn	−3%	−9%	−2%	+18%	0.9 kn slower, fuel per mile down 3%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2023→2024	−0.8 kn	+0%	−6%	+80%	−12%	0.8 kn slower, fuel per mile flat; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2022→2023	+0.8 kn	−3%	+2%	+103%	−15%	0.8 kn faster, fuel per mile down 3%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2021→2022	+0.7 kn	+3%	+9%	−69%	+6%	0.7 kn faster, fuel per mile up 3%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2020→2021	−0.9 kn	−7%	−13%	+88%	+18%	0.9 kn slower, fuel per mile down 7%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2019→2020	+0.0 kn	+1%	+1%	+99%	−11%	Same speed, fuel per mile flat.
2018→2019	+4.7 kn	−10%	+36%	−62%	−24%	4.7 kn faster, fuel per mile down 10%; 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
2025	Exmar Shipping BV	3,032	9,477	34,003	2,659	12.8	89.2	23.2	–
2024	Exmar Shipping BV	3,190	10,005	34,604	2,532	13.7	92.2	19.8	–
2023	not published	1,774	5,560	19,269	1,327	14.5	92.1	22.4	–
2022	not published	907	2,836	9,504	692	13.7	95.4	26.5	–
2021	not published	2,820	8,822	30,572	2,347	13.0	92.2	25.0	–
2020	not published	1,612	5,104	16,230	1,167	13.9	99.3	21.2	–
2019	not published	806	2,519	8,160	586	13.9	98.8	23.9	–
2018	not published	2,366	7,399	21,602	2,349	9.2	110	31.3	–

Benchmark and verification

Year	ISM company	CO₂ per TW, g CO₂/t·nm	Gas carrier (LPG) median	vs Gas carrier (LPG)	Rank	Verifier	Methods
2025	Exmar Shipping BV	23.2	35.6	−35%	123 of 355	DNV	B+C
2024	Exmar Shipping BV	19.8	35.8	−45%	74 of 306	DNV	B+C
2023	not published	22.4	41.8	−46%	92 of 330	DNV	C
2022	not published	26.5	42.5	−38%	113 of 348	DNV	C
2021	not published	25.0	46.9	−47%	73 of 323	DNV	B
2020	not published	21.2	42.3	−50%	86 of 339	DNV	B
2019	not published	23.9	45.9	−48%	77 of 331	Lloyd's Register	B
2018	not published	31.3	53.1	−41%	89 of 297	Lloyd's Register	–

Fuel per mile and CO₂ per tonne-mile are the ship's own reported KPIs. Gas carrier (LPG) 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 gas carrier (LPG) 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.