Navalyze · LNG carrier · Ship

VLADIMIR VIZE

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

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

Report year

2020 at a glance

From the 2020 THETIS-MRV report.

Fuel kg/nm

379

LNG carrier median 297 kg/nm (+28%)

CO₂ per transport work (volume)

12.1

g CO₂/m³·nm · LNG carrier median 10.7 (+13%)

Average speed

14.9 kn

LNG carrier median 14.7 kn (+1%)

Fuel per day at sea

135.7 t/day

Fuel consumed

30,061 t

CO₂ emitted

82,972 t

Distance sailed

79,418 nm

CO₂ ÷ CO₂ per mile

Time at sea

5,317 h

222 days, 61% 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 kg/nmThis ship 330 kg/nm · median 190 (+73%)

152Ranks 357 of 386, lowest first319

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

5.06Ranks 312 of 386, lowest first16.1

Middle 80% of shipsMiddle 50%LNG carrier medianThis ship

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 ports0%
From the EU48%
Into the EU51%
At berth in the EU1%

Fuel burned laden

–

Not reported

CO₂ at berth

929 t

1.1% 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 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 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	Average speed	Fuel kg/nm	Fuel per day at sea	Distance	CO₂ per transport work	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	Hours at seah	Average speedknots at sea	Fuel kg/nmthis ship	CO₂ per transport work (cargo)g/t·nm, this ship	Laden fuel
2025LNG	MOL GLOBAL SHIP MANAGEMENT PTE. LTD.	22,598	60,505	68,570	4,600	14.9	330	–	–
2024LNG	MOL LNG SHIP MANAGEMENT PTE. LTD.	30,895	82,633	94,935	6,280	15.1	325	–	–
2023LNG / alt.	not published	29,048	80,579	84,590	6,090	13.9	343	–	–
2022LNG / alt.	not published	26,369	72,641	78,374	4,902	16.0	336	–	–
2021LNG / alt.	not published	25,503	71,215	62,866	4,096	15.3	406	–	–
2020LNG / alt.	not published	30,061	82,972	79,418	5,317	14.9	379	–	–
2019LNG / alt.	not published	36,153	100,207	62,177	4,055	15.3	582	–	–
2018LNG / alt.	not published	14,289	39,412	21,973	1,351	16.3	650	–	–

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.	10.6	7.12	+49%	312 of 386	ClassNK	C
2024LNG	MOL LNG SHIP MANAGEMENT PTE. LTD.	–	–	–	–	ClassNK	C
2023LNG / alt.	not published	10.9	9.10	+19%	236 of 355	ClassNK	C
2022LNG / alt.	not published	10.8	10.4	+4%	210 of 379	DNV	A+B+C
2021LNG / alt.	not published	13.5	10.5	+29%	208 of 289	DNV	A+B+C
2020LNG / alt.	not published	12.1	10.7	+13%	172 of 267	DNV	A+B+C
2019LNG / alt.	not published	17.0	10.9	+57%	211 of 248	DNV	A+B+C
2018LNG / alt.	not published	20.7	10.9	+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.