Navalyze · LNG carrier · Ship

VLADIMIR RUSANOV

IMO: 9750701
Type: LNG carrier
Port of registry: Hong Kong
Technical efficiency: EIV 11.88 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

335.9 kg/nm

LNG carrier median 190.4 kg/nm (+76%)

CO₂ per transport work (volume)

11.32

g CO₂/m³·nm · LNG carrier median 7.12 (+59%)

Average speed

14.5 kn

LNG carrier median 14.4 kn (+1%)

Fuel per day at sea

116.9 t/day

Fuel consumed

17,060 t

CO₂ emitted

46,328 t

59,693 t CO₂eq incl. CH₄ and N₂O

Distance sailed

50,784 nm

CO₂ ÷ CO₂ per mile

Time at sea

3,503 h

146 days, 40% 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 335.9 kg/nm · median 190.4 (+76%)

152.1Ranks 360 of 386, lowest first319.4

Average speedThis ship 14.5 kn · median 14.4 (+1%)

11.2Faster than 52% of LNG carrier ships15.9

CO₂ per transport work (volume)This ship 11.32 g CO₂/m³·nm · median 7.12 (+59%)

5.06Ranks 319 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 EU50%
Into the EU48%
At berth in the EU2%

51% of this ship's CO₂ falls under the EU ETS (23,658 t).

Fuel burned laden

–

Not reported

CO₂ at berth

2.1%

Alongside in EU ports

Methane (CH₄)

459.1 t

LNG engines slip unburnt methane

CO₂eq ÷ CO₂

1.288

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 RUSANOV
LNG carrier median

100.0200.0300.0400.0500.0

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

Average speed, kn

VLADIMIR RUSANOV
LNG carrier median

12.014.016.018.020.0

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

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

VLADIMIR RUSANOV
LNG carrier median

6.08.010.012.014.0

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

Year on year

Year	Speed	Fuel per mile	Fuel per day	Distance	CO₂ per TW	Reading
2024→2025	−0.5 kn	−6%	−9%	−27%	−2%	0.5 kn slower, fuel per mile down 6%; in line with the speed change.
2023→2024	+2.2 kn	−7%	+9%	+0%	−9%	2.2 kn faster, fuel per mile down 7%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2022→2023	−1.9 kn	+13%	−1%	−5%	+19%	1.9 kn slower, fuel per mile up 13%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2021→2022	−0.6 kn	−11%	−14%	+31%	−21%	0.6 kn slower, fuel per mile down 11%; in line with the speed change.
2020→2021	+1.8 kn	+3%	+17%	−23%	+12%	1.8 kn faster, fuel per mile up 3%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2019→2020	−5.2 kn	−18%	−41%	+18%	−10%	5.2 kn slower, fuel per mile down 18%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2018→2019	+3.2 kn	+16%	+39%	−2%	+16%	3.2 kn faster, fuel per mile up 16%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).

Part-year reports are left out of these comparisons. 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.	17,060	46,328	50,784	3,503	14.5	335.9	–	–
2024part-yearLNG	MOL LNG Transport (Europe) Ltd	1,799	4,806	3,403	280	12.1	528.5	–	–
2024LNG	MOL LNG SHIP MANAGEMENT PTE. LTD.	24,645	65,822	69,129	4,621	15.0	356.5	–	–
2023LNG	not published	26,387	72,676	69,110	5,390	12.8	381.8	–	–
2022LNG	not published	24,612	68,445	72,701	4,958	14.7	338.5	–	–
2021LNG	not published	20,951	58,431	55,383	3,613	15.3	378.3	–	–
2020LNG	not published	26,434	73,353	71,700	5,316	13.5	368.7	–	–
2019LNG	not published	27,465	75,956	60,877	3,264	18.7	451.2	–	–
2018LNG	not published	24,166	66,729	61,940	4,001	15.5	390.1	–	–

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.	11.32	7.12	+59%	319 of 386	ClassNK	C
2024part-yearLNG	MOL LNG Transport (Europe) Ltd	–	–	–	–	DNV	A+B+C
2024LNG	MOL LNG SHIP MANAGEMENT PTE. LTD.	11.57	7.39	+57%	248 of 312	ClassNK	C
2023LNG	not published	12.68	9.10	+39%	274 of 355	DNV	A+B+C
2022LNG	not published	10.67	10.38	+3%	204 of 379	DNV	A+B+C
2021LNG	not published	13.52	10.46	+29%	210 of 289	DNV	A+B+C
2020LNG	not published	12.07	10.71	+13%	171 of 267	DNV	A+B+C
2019LNG	not published	13.48	10.87	+24%	175 of 248	DNV	A+B+C
2018LNG	not published	11.64	10.92	+7%	118 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.