Navalyze · LNG carrier · Ship

VLADIMIR VIZE

IMO: 9750658
Type: LNG carrier
Port of registry: Hong Kong
Technical efficiency: EIV 11.87 g CO₂/t·nm
Ice class: PC3
Fuel: Mostly LNG

ISM company (DoC holder) in 2025: MOL GLOBAL SHIP MANAGEMENT PTE. LTD. · part of MOL

Report year

2025 at a glance

From the 2025 THETIS-MRV report.

Fuel per mile

329.6 kg/nm

LNG carrier median 190.4 kg/nm (+73%)

CO₂ per transport work (volume)

10.61

g CO₂/m³·nm · LNG carrier median 7.12 (+49%)

Average speed

14.9 kn

LNG carrier median 14.4 kn (+3%)

Fuel per day at sea

117.9 t/day

Fuel consumed

22,598 t

CO₂ emitted

60,505 t

78,890 t CO₂eq incl. CH₄ and N₂O

Distance sailed

68,570 nm

CO₂ ÷ CO₂ per mile

Time at sea

4,600 h

192 days, 53% 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 329.6 kg/nm · median 190.4 (+73%)

152.1Ranks 357 of 386, lowest first319.4

Average speedThis ship 14.9 kn · median 14.4 (+3%)

11.2Faster than 62% of LNG carrier ships15.9

CO₂ per transport work (volume)This ship 10.61 g CO₂/m³·nm · median 7.12 (+49%)

5.06Ranks 312 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 EU47%
At berth in the EU2%

51% of this ship's CO₂ falls under the EU ETS (30,918 t).

Fuel burned laden

–

Not reported

CO₂ at berth

2.2%

Alongside in EU ports

Methane (CH₄)

633.6 t

LNG engines slip unburnt methane

CO₂eq ÷ CO₂

1.304

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

VLADIMIR VIZE
LNG carrier median

0.0200.0400.0600.0800.0

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

Average speed, kn

VLADIMIR VIZE
LNG carrier median

13.014.015.016.017.0

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

CO₂ per transport work (volume), g CO₂/m³·nm

VLADIMIR VIZE
LNG carrier median

5.010.015.020.025.0

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

Year on year

Year	Speed	Fuel per mile	Fuel per day	Distance	CO₂ per TW	Reading
2024→2025	−0.2 kn	+1%	−0%	−28%	–	Same speed, fuel per mile flat.
2023→2024	+1.2 kn	−5%	+3%	+12%	–	1.2 kn faster, fuel per mile down 5%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2022→2023	−2.1 kn	+2%	−11%	+8%	+1%	2.1 kn slower, fuel per mile up 2%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2021→2022	+0.7 kn	−17%	−14%	+25%	−20%	0.7 kn faster, fuel per mile down 17%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2020→2021	+0.4 kn	+7%	+10%	−21%	+11%	0.4 kn faster, fuel per mile up 7%; in line with the speed change.
2019→2020	−0.4 kn	−35%	−37%	+28%	−29%	0.4 kn slower, fuel per mile down 35%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2018→2019	−1.0 kn	−11%	−16%	+183%	−18%	1.0 kn slower, fuel per mile down 11%; in line with the speed change.

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	MOL GLOBAL SHIP MANAGEMENT PTE. LTD.	22,598	60,505	68,570	4,600	14.9	329.6	–	–
2024LNG	MOL LNG SHIP MANAGEMENT PTE. LTD.	30,895	82,633	94,935	6,280	15.1	325.4	–	–
2023LNG	not published	29,048	80,579	84,590	6,090	13.9	343.4	–	–
2022LNG	not published	26,369	72,641	78,374	4,902	16.0	336.4	–	–
2021LNG	not published	25,503	71,215	62,866	4,096	15.3	405.7	–	–
2020LNG	not published	30,061	82,972	79,418	5,317	14.9	378.5	–	–
2019LNG	not published	36,153	100,207	62,177	4,055	15.3	581.5	–	–
2018LNG	not published	14,289	39,412	21,973	1,351	16.3	650.3	–	–

Benchmark and verification

Year	ISM company	CO₂ per TW, g CO₂/m³·nm	LNG carrier median	vs LNG carrier	Rank	Verifier	Methods
2025LNG	MOL GLOBAL SHIP MANAGEMENT PTE. LTD.	10.61	7.12	+49%	312 of 386	ClassNK	C
2024LNG	MOL LNG SHIP MANAGEMENT PTE. LTD.	–	–	–	–	ClassNK	C
2023LNG	not published	10.86	9.10	+19%	236 of 355	ClassNK	C
2022LNG	not published	10.77	10.38	+4%	210 of 379	DNV	A+B+C
2021LNG	not published	13.46	10.46	+29%	208 of 289	DNV	A+B+C
2020LNG	not published	12.11	10.71	+13%	172 of 267	DNV	A+B+C
2019LNG	not published	17.02	10.87	+57%	211 of 248	DNV	A+B+C
2018LNG	not published	20.69	10.92	+89%	180 of 197	DNV	A+B+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.