Navalyze · LNG carrier · Ship

EDUARD TOLL

IMO: 9750696
Type: LNG carrier
Flag (estimated): Bahamas
Port of registry: Nassau
Technical efficiency: EIV 11.66 g CO₂/t·nm
Ice class: PC3
Fuel (estimated): Mostly LNG

ISM company (DoC holder) in 2025: Seapeak Maritime Limited · part of Seapeak

Report year

2018 at a glance

From the 2018 THETIS-MRV report.

Fuel kg/nm

338

LNG carrier median 323 kg/nm (+5%)

CO₂ per transport work (volume)

11.1

g CO₂/m³·nm · LNG carrier median 10.9 (+2%)

Average speed

13.6 kn

LNG carrier median 13.7 kn (−1%)

Fuel per day at sea

110.7 t/day

Fuel consumed

26,293 t

CO₂ emitted

72,573 t

Distance sailed

77,809 nm

CO₂ ÷ CO₂ per mile

Time at sea

5,701 h

238 days, 65% 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 317 kg/nm · median 190 (+66%)

152Ranks 345 of 386, lowest first319

Average speedThis ship 13.8 kn · median 14.4 (−4%)

11.2Faster than 36% of LNG carrier ships15.9

CO₂ per transport work (volume)This ship 9.99 g CO₂/m³·nm · median 7.12 (+40%)

5.06Ranks 291 of 386, lowest first16.1

Middle 80% of shipsMiddle 50%LNG carrier 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 ports0%
From the EU50%
Into the EU48%
At berth in the EU1%

Fuel burned laden

–

Not reported

CO₂ at berth

1,016 t

1.4% 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

EDUARD TOLL
LNG carrier median

150.0200.0250.0300.0350.0400.0

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

Average speed, kn

EDUARD TOLL
LNG carrier median

13.014.015.016.0

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

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

EDUARD TOLL
LNG carrier median

6.08.010.012.014.0

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

Year on year

Year	Average speed	Fuel kg/nm	Fuel per day at sea	Distance	CO₂ per transport work	Reading
2024→2025	+0.6 kn	−6%	−2%	+29%	−1%	0.6 kn faster, fuel per mile down 6%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2023→2024	−2.2 kn	+0%	−14%	+8%	−4%	2.2 kn slower, fuel per mile flat; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2022→2023	+1.1 kn	−1%	+6%	−7%	−3%	1.1 kn faster, fuel per mile flat; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2021→2022	−0.7 kn	−7%	−11%	+7%	−12%	0.7 kn slower, fuel per mile down 7%; in line with the speed change.
2020→2021	+0.6 kn	+7%	+11%	−17%	+9%	0.6 kn faster, fuel per mile up 7%; in line with the speed change.
2019→2020	+0.0 kn	+7%	+7%	+69%	+18%	Same speed, fuel per mile up 7%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2018→2019	+0.8 kn	−6%	−1%	−34%	−13%	0.8 kn faster, fuel per mile down 6%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine 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	Seapeak Maritime Limited	31,695	85,852	100,115	7,255	13.8	317	–	–
2024LNG	Seapeak Maritime Limited	26,139	66,197	77,715	5,873	13.2	336	–	–
2023LNG / alt.	not published	24,055	62,746	71,697	4,666	15.4	336	–	–
2022LNG / alt.	not published	26,002	72,819	76,857	5,360	14.3	338	–	–
2021LNG / alt.	not published	26,305	72,487	72,117	4,813	15.0	365	–	–
2020LNG / alt.	not published	29,799	82,748	87,368	6,067	14.4	341	–	–
2019LNG / alt.	not published	16,446	45,851	51,664	3,591	14.4	318	–	–
2018LNG / alt.	not published	26,293	72,573	77,809	5,701	13.6	338	–	–

Benchmark and verification

Year	ISM company	CO₂ per TW, g CO₂/m³·nm	LNG carrier median	vs LNG carrier	Rank	Verifier	Methods
2025LNG	Seapeak Maritime Limited	9.99	7.12	+40%	291 of 386	DNV	A+C
2024LNG	Seapeak Maritime Limited	10.1	7.39	+37%	220 of 312	DNV	A+C
2023LNG / alt.	not published	10.6	9.10	+16%	225 of 355	DNV	A+C
2022LNG / alt.	not published	10.9	10.4	+5%	213 of 379	DNV	A+C
2021LNG / alt.	not published	12.4	10.5	+19%	188 of 289	DNV	A+C
2020LNG / alt.	not published	11.4	10.7	+6%	156 of 267	DNV	A+C
2019LNG / alt.	not published	9.67	10.9	−11%	86 of 248	DNV	A+C
2018LNG / alt.	not published	11.1	10.9	+2%	103 of 197	DNV	A+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.