Navalyze · Chemical tanker · Ship

GRANDE RIVIERE

IMO: 9733686
Type: Chemical tanker
Average cargo carried: 15,629 t
Flag (estimated): Japan (from the 2024 report)
Technical efficiency: EIV 7.74 g CO₂/t·nm

ISM company (DoC holder) in 2025: MOL Tankship Management Pte. Ltd. · part of MOL

Report year

2019 at a glance

From the 2019 THETIS-MRV report. Carries about 13,392 t of cargo on average.

Fuel kg/nm

71.7

Chemical tanker median 88.3 kg/nm (−19%)

CO₂ per transport work (cargo)

16.8

g CO₂/t·nm · Chemical tanker median 17.3 (−3%)

Average speed

11.9 kn

Chemical tanker median 10.1 kn (+18%)

Fuel per day at sea

20.5 t/day

Fuel consumed

4,917 t

CO₂ emitted

15,393 t

Distance sailed

68,581 nm

CO₂ ÷ CO₂ per mile

Time at sea

5,754 h

240 days, 66% of the year

Within the chemical tanker fleet, 2025

Set against all 1,460 chemical tanker 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 68.5 kg/nm · median 79.7 (−14%)

52.8Ranks 453 of 1,460, lowest first111

Average speedThis ship 10.1 kn · median 11.1 (−9%)

8.8Faster than 26% of chemical tanker ships12.4

CO₂ per transport work (cargo)This ship 13.9 g CO₂/t·nm · median 15.0 (−8%)

7.93Ranks 645 of 1,460, lowest first40.2

Middle 80% of shipsMiddle 50%Chemical tanker medianThis ship

Where the emissions happen, 2019

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 ports25%
From the EU35%
Into the EU37%
At berth in the EU4%

Fuel burned laden

–

Not reported

CO₂ at berth

560 t

3.6% 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 Chemical tanker median is the middle ship of all chemical tanker ships reporting that year; it moves with the fleet, so a ship can gain on it without changing itself.

Fuel kg/nm

GRANDE RIVIERE
Chemical tanker median

60.070.080.090.0100.0

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

Average speed, kn

GRANDE RIVIERE
Chemical tanker median

10.011.012.013.0

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

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

GRANDE RIVIERE
Chemical tanker median

10.012.014.016.018.0

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

Year on year

Year	Average speed	Fuel kg/nm	Fuel per day at sea	Distance	CO₂ per transport work	Reading
2024→2025	−0.8 kn	+8%	−1%	−2%	–	0.8 kn slower, fuel per mile up 8%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2023→2024	−1.6 kn	+4%	−9%	−4%	–	1.6 kn slower, fuel per mile up 4%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2022→2023	+0.3 kn	−3%	−1%	+10%	+14%	0.3 kn faster, fuel per mile down 3%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2021→2022	−0.3 kn	−3%	−6%	−26%	−8%	0.3 kn slower, fuel per mile down 3%; in line with the speed change.
2020→2021	+0.6 kn	+0%	+5%	+13%	−19%	0.6 kn faster, fuel per mile flat; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2019→2020	+0.0 kn	−9%	−9%	−5%	−8%	Same speed, fuel per mile down 9%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2018→2019	−0.9 kn	−2%	−9%	−2%	+13%	0.9 kn slower, fuel per mile down 2%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).

Part-year reports are left out of these comparisons. 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
2025part-year	MOL Tankship Management Pte. Ltd.	3,349	10,592	48,650	4,896	9.9	68.8	13.4	–
2025	MOL GLOBAL SHIP MANAGEMENT PTE. LTD.	3,910	12,362	57,109	5,640	10.1	68.5	13.9	–
2024	MOL Tankship Management Pte. Ltd.	3,688	11,666	58,041	5,306	10.9	63.5	–	–
2023	not published	3,692	11,667	60,339	4,835	12.5	61.2	13.2	–
2022	not published	3,467	10,965	54,705	4,497	12.2	63.4	11.6	–
2021	not published	4,821	15,244	73,608	5,905	12.5	65.5	12.6	–
2020	not published	4,285	13,571	65,366	5,487	11.9	65.5	15.5	–
2019	not published	4,917	15,393	68,581	5,754	11.9	71.7	16.8	–
2018	not published	5,150	16,093	70,096	5,487	12.8	73.5	14.9	–

Benchmark and verification

Year	ISM company	CO₂ per TW, g CO₂/t·nm	Chemical tanker median	vs Chemical tanker	Rank	Verifier	Methods
2025part-year	MOL Tankship Management Pte. Ltd.	–	–	–	–	ClassNK	C
2025	MOL GLOBAL SHIP MANAGEMENT PTE. LTD.	13.9	15.0	−8%	645 of 1,460	ClassNK	C
2024	MOL Tankship Management Pte. Ltd.	–	–	–	–	ClassNK	C
2023	not published	13.2	16.2	−19%	457 of 1,314	ClassNK	C
2022	not published	11.6	16.1	−28%	362 of 1,409	ClassNK	C
2021	not published	12.6	16.7	−25%	373 of 1,343	ClassNK	C
2020	not published	15.5	16.2	−4%	606 of 1,312	ClassNK	C
2019	not published	16.8	17.3	−3%	626 of 1,321	ClassNK	C
2018	not published	14.9	17.1	−13%	498 of 1,294	ClassNK	C

Fuel per mile and CO₂ per tonne-mile are the ship's own reported KPIs. Chemical tanker 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 chemical tanker 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.