Navalyze · Chemical tanker · Ship

BRISTOL TRADER

IMO: 9737101
Type: Chemical tanker
Average cargo carried: 18,649 t
Flag (estimated): Philippines
Port of registry: Manila
Technical efficiency: EEDI 5.42 g CO₂/t·nm

ISM company (DoC holder) in 2025: VICTORIA SHIP MANAGEMENT INC. · part of Victoria Ship Management

Report year

2018 at a glance

From the 2018 THETIS-MRV report. Carries about 11,104 t of cargo on average.

Fuel kg/nm

72.9

Chemical tanker median 90.2 kg/nm (−19%)

CO₂ per transport work (cargo)

20.5

g CO₂/t·nm · Chemical tanker median 17.1 (+20%)

Average speed

13.1 kn

Chemical tanker median 10.1 kn (+30%)

Fuel per day at sea

22.9 t/day

Fuel consumed

400 t

CO₂ emitted

1,250 t

Distance sailed

5,491 nm

CO₂ ÷ CO₂ per mile

Time at sea

420 h

18 days, 5% 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 81.6 kg/nm · median 79.7 (+2%)

52.8Ranks 785 of 1,460, lowest first111

Average speedThis ship 10.5 kn · median 11.1 (−5%)

8.8Faster than 33% of chemical tanker ships12.4

CO₂ per transport work (cargo)This ship 13.8 g CO₂/t·nm · median 15.0 (−9%)

7.93Ranks 638 of 1,460, lowest first40.2

Middle 80% of shipsMiddle 50%Chemical tanker 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 ports17%
From the EU63%
Into the EU16%
At berth in the EU3%

Fuel burned laden

387 t

97% of all fuel; 3% in ballast or unladen

CO₂ at berth

42 t

3.4% 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

BRISTOL TRADER
Chemical tanker median

50.075.0100.0125.0150.0175.0

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

Average speed, kn

BRISTOL TRADER
Chemical tanker median

8.010.012.014.0

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

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

BRISTOL TRADER
Chemical tanker median

0.020.040.060.0

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

Year on year

Year	Average speed	Fuel kg/nm	Fuel per day at sea	Distance	CO₂ per transport work	Reading
2024→2025	−1.0 kn	−4%	−12%	−68%	+31%	1.0 kn slower, fuel per mile down 4%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2023→2024	+1.5 kn	−47%	−39%	+119%	−80%	1.5 kn faster, fuel per mile down 47%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2022→2023	+1.8 kn	+91%	+132%	+87%	+471%	1.8 kn faster, fuel per mile up 91%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2021→2022	−1.1 kn	+1%	−11%	−57%	−6%	1.1 kn slower, fuel per mile flat; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2020→2021	−2.1 kn	−9%	−25%	−26%	−34%	2.1 kn slower, fuel per mile down 9%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2018→2020	−1.7 kn	+25%	+8%	+274%	−27%	1.7 kn slower, fuel per mile up 25%; 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	Hours at seah	Average speedknots at sea	Fuel kg/nmthis ship	CO₂ per transport work (cargo)g/t·nm, this ship	Laden fuel
2025	VICTORIA SHIP MANAGEMENT INC.	699	2,195	8,562	818	10.5	81.6	13.8	58%
2024	VICTORIA SHIP MANAGEMENT INC.	2,283	7,130	26,863	2,343	11.5	85.0	10.5	84%
2023	not published	1,959	6,132	12,259	1,229	10.0	160	53.3	31%
2022	not published	548	1,727	6,547	799	8.2	83.8	9.34	79%
2021	not published	1,261	3,946	15,212	1,630	9.3	82.9	9.93	90%
2020	not published	1,867	5,861	20,532	1,804	11.4	90.9	15.0	61%
2018	not published	400	1,250	5,491	420	13.1	72.9	20.5	97%

Benchmark and verification

Year	ISM company	CO₂ per TW, g CO₂/t·nm	Chemical tanker median	vs Chemical tanker	Rank	Verifier	Methods
2025	VICTORIA SHIP MANAGEMENT INC.	13.8	15.0	−9%	638 of 1,460	Bureau Veritas	C
2024	VICTORIA SHIP MANAGEMENT INC.	10.5	16.7	−37%	279 of 1,274	Bureau Veritas	C
2023	not published	53.3	16.2	+228%	1,247 of 1,314	Bureau Veritas	C
2022	not published	9.34	16.1	−42%	163 of 1,409	Bureau Veritas	C
2021	not published	9.93	16.7	−41%	172 of 1,343	Bureau Veritas	C
2020	not published	15.0	16.2	−7%	568 of 1,312	Bureau Veritas	C
2018	not published	20.5	17.1	+20%	820 of 1,294	Bureau Veritas	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.