Navalyze · LNG carrier · Ship

VLADIMIR RUSANOV

IMO: 9750701
Type: LNG carrier
Flag (estimated): Hong Kong (China)
Port of registry: Hong Kong
Technical efficiency: EIV 11.88 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

2022 at a glance

From the 2022 THETIS-MRV report.

Fuel kg/nm

339

LNG carrier median 252 kg/nm (+34%)

CO₂ per transport work (volume)

10.7

g CO₂/m³·nm · LNG carrier median 10.4 (+3%)

Average speed

14.7 kn

LNG carrier median 14.1 kn (+4%)

Fuel per day at sea

119.1 t/day

Fuel consumed

24,612 t

CO₂ emitted

68,445 t

Distance sailed

72,701 nm

CO₂ ÷ CO₂ per mile

Time at sea

4,958 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 336 kg/nm · median 190 (+76%)

152Ranks 360 of 386, lowest first319

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

5.06Ranks 319 of 386, lowest first16.1

Middle 80% of shipsMiddle 50%LNG carrier medianThis ship

Where the emissions happen, 2022

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 EU45%
Into the EU52%
At berth in the EU3%

Fuel burned laden

–

Not reported

CO₂ at berth

1,889 t

2.8% 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 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	Average speed	Fuel kg/nm	Fuel per day at sea	Distance	CO₂ per transport work	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	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.	17,060	46,328	50,784	3,503	14.5	336	–	–
2024part-yearLNG	MOL LNG Transport (Europe) Ltd	1,799	4,806	3,403	280	12.1	529	–	–
2024LNG	MOL LNG SHIP MANAGEMENT PTE. LTD.	24,645	65,822	69,129	4,621	15.0	357	–	–
2023LNG / alt.	not published	26,387	72,676	69,110	5,390	12.8	382	–	–
2022LNG / alt.	not published	24,612	68,445	72,701	4,958	14.7	339	–	–
2021LNG / alt.	not published	20,951	58,431	55,383	3,613	15.3	378	–	–
2020LNG / alt.	not published	26,434	73,353	71,700	5,316	13.5	369	–	–
2019LNG / alt.	not published	27,465	75,956	60,877	3,264	18.7	451	–	–
2018LNG / alt.	not published	24,166	66,729	61,940	4,001	15.5	390	–	–

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.	11.3	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.	11.6	7.39	+57%	248 of 312	ClassNK	C
2023LNG / alt.	not published	12.7	9.10	+39%	274 of 355	DNV	A+B+C
2022LNG / alt.	not published	10.7	10.4	+3%	204 of 379	DNV	A+B+C
2021LNG / alt.	not published	13.5	10.5	+29%	210 of 289	DNV	A+B+C
2020LNG / alt.	not published	12.1	10.7	+13%	171 of 267	DNV	A+B+C
2019LNG / alt.	not published	13.5	10.9	+24%	175 of 248	DNV	A+B+C
2018LNG / alt.	not published	11.6	10.9	+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.