Navalyze · LNG carrier · Ship

NIKOLAY URVANTSEV

IMO: 9750660
Type: LNG carrier
Flag (estimated): Hong Kong (China)
Port of registry: Hong Kong
Technical efficiency: EIV 9.01 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

2023 at a glance

From the 2023 THETIS-MRV report.

Fuel kg/nm

383

LNG carrier median 231 kg/nm (+66%)

CO₂ per transport work (volume)

12.3

g CO₂/m³·nm · LNG carrier median 9.10 (+35%)

Average speed

13.7 kn

LNG carrier median 14.2 kn (−4%)

Fuel per day at sea

125.7 t/day

Fuel consumed

26,029 t

CO₂ emitted

71,717 t

Distance sailed

67,989 nm

CO₂ ÷ CO₂ per mile

Time at sea

4,969 h

207 days, 57% 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 331 kg/nm · median 190 (+74%)

152Ranks 358 of 386, lowest first319

Average speedThis ship 14.0 kn · median 14.4 (−3%)

11.2Faster than 39% of LNG carrier ships15.9

CO₂ per transport work (volume)This ship 10.8 g CO₂/m³·nm · median 7.12 (+52%)

5.06Ranks 315 of 386, lowest first16.1

Middle 80% of shipsMiddle 50%LNG carrier medianThis ship

Where the emissions happen, 2023

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 EU46%
Into the EU51%
At berth in the EU2%

Fuel burned laden

–

Not reported

CO₂ at berth

1,721 t

2.4% 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 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

NIKOLAY URVANTSEV
LNG carrier median

150.0200.0250.0300.0350.0400.0

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

Average speed, kn

NIKOLAY URVANTSEV
LNG carrier median

13.014.015.016.0

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

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

NIKOLAY URVANTSEV
LNG carrier median

6.08.010.012.014.0

’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	−0.5 kn	−2%	−6%	−13%	–	0.5 kn slower, fuel per mile down 2%; in line with the speed change.
2023→2024	+0.8 kn	−12%	−7%	+8%	–	0.8 kn faster, fuel per mile down 12%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2022→2023	−2.1 kn	+6%	−8%	−16%	+6%	2.1 kn slower, fuel per mile up 6%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2021→2022	+0.0 kn	−4%	−4%	+43%	−8%	Same speed, fuel per mile down 4%; in line with the speed change.
2020→2021	+0.7 kn	+0%	+5%	−33%	+6%	0.7 kn faster, fuel per mile flat; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2019→2020	+0.9 kn	+22%	+30%	+273%	+22%	0.9 kn faster, fuel per mile up 22%; 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
2025LNG	MOL GLOBAL SHIP MANAGEMENT PTE. LTD.	21,140	57,087	63,803	4,569	14.0	331	–	–
2024LNG	MOL LNG SHIP MANAGEMENT PTE. LTD.	24,939	67,283	73,658	5,093	14.5	339	–	–
2023LNG / alt.	not published	26,029	71,717	67,989	4,969	13.7	383	–	–
2022LNG / alt.	not published	29,057	80,430	80,555	5,109	15.8	361	–	–
2021LNG / alt.	not published	21,001	58,341	56,185	3,546	15.8	374	–	–
2020LNG / alt.	not published	31,156	85,833	83,692	5,528	15.1	372	–	–
2019LNG / alt.	not published	6,827	18,873	22,443	1,576	14.2	304	–	–

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.	10.8	7.12	+52%	315 of 386	ClassNK	C
2024LNG	MOL LNG SHIP MANAGEMENT PTE. LTD.	–	–	–	–	ClassNK	C
2023LNG / alt.	not published	12.3	9.10	+35%	267 of 355	ClassNK	C
2022LNG / alt.	not published	11.6	10.4	+12%	227 of 379	DNV	A+B+C
2021LNG / alt.	not published	12.7	10.5	+22%	195 of 289	DNV	A+B+C
2020LNG / alt.	not published	12.0	10.7	+12%	170 of 267	DNV	A+B+C
2019LNG / alt.	not published	9.82	10.9	−10%	93 of 248	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.