Navalyze · Bulk carrier · Ship
JIN PING
- IMO
- 9691424
- Type
- Bulk carrier
- Flag (estimated)
- Hong Kong (China)
- Port of registry
- Hong Kong
- Technical efficiency
- EEDI 4.92 g CO₂/t·nm
- Former names
- HANTON TRADER II
ISM company (DoC holder) in 2025: Goldbeam International Ltd.
2020 at a glance
From the 2020 THETIS-MRV report. Carries about 27,722 t of cargo on average.
Within the bulk carrier fleet, 2023
Set against all 3,548 bulk carrier ships with a full-year 2023 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.
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 ports4%
- From the EU17%
- Into the EU76%
- At berth in the EU3%
Over the years
Full-year reports only. The Bulk carrier median is the middle ship of all bulk carrier ships reporting that year; it moves with the fleet, so a ship can gain on it without changing itself.
Fuel kg/nm
- JIN PING
- Bulk carrier median
Average speed, kn
- JIN PING
- Bulk carrier median
CO₂ per transport work (cargo), g CO₂/t·nm
- JIN PING
- Bulk carrier median
Year on year
| Year | Average speed | Fuel kg/nm | Fuel per day at sea | Distance | CO₂ per transport work | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023→2025 | – | – | – | – | – | |
| 2021→2023 | −0.3 kn | +19% | +17% | −58% | +341% | 0.3 kn slower, fuel per mile up 19%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade). |
| 2020→2021 | −0.8 kn | +27% | +18% | −31% | −14% | 0.8 kn slower, fuel per mile up 27%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade). |
| 2019→2020 | +7.9 kn | −42% | +51% | +484% | – | 7.9 kn faster, fuel per mile down 42%; 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 | Goldbeam International Ltd. | 0 | 0 | – | 0 | – | – | – | – |
| 2023 | not published | 306 | 967 | 2,397 | 204 | 11.7 | 128 | 36.4 | – |
| 2021 | not published | 619 | 1,927 | 5,765 | 482 | 12.0 | 107 | 8.24 | 68% |
| 2020 | not published | 704 | 2,201 | 8,298 | 648 | 12.8 | 84.8 | 9.57 | 80% |
| 2019 | not published | 209 | 655 | 1,421 | 290 | 4.9 | 147 | 417 | 18% |
Benchmark and verification
| Year | ISM company | CO₂ per TW, g CO₂/t·nm | Bulk carrier median | vs Bulk carrier | Rank | Verifier | Methods |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Goldbeam International Ltd. | – | – | – | – | Verifavia | C |
| 2023 | not published | 36.4 | 8.27 | +340% | 3,495 of 3,548 | Verifavia | C |
| 2021 | not published | 8.24 | 8.57 | −4% | 1,570 of 3,466 | Bureau Veritas | C |
| 2020 | not published | 9.57 | 8.24 | +16% | 2,048 of 3,150 | Bureau Veritas | C |
| 2019 | not published | – | – | – | – | Bureau Veritas | C |
Fuel per mile and CO₂ per tonne-mile are the ship's own reported KPIs. Bulk carrier 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 bulk 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.