Navalyze · LNG carrier · Ship

RUDOLF SAMOYLOVICH

IMO: 9750713
Type: LNG carrier
Flag (estimated): Bahamas
Port of registry: Nassau
Technical efficiency: EIV 10.26 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

2019 at a glance

From the 2019 THETIS-MRV report.

Fuel kg/nm

395

LNG carrier median 308 kg/nm (+28%)

CO₂ per transport work (volume)

12.2

g CO₂/m³·nm · LNG carrier median 10.9 (+13%)

Average speed

11.1 kn

LNG carrier median 13.5 kn (−18%)

Fuel per day at sea

105.6 t/day

Fuel consumed

16,371 t

CO₂ emitted

45,789 t

Distance sailed

41,447 nm

CO₂ ÷ CO₂ per mile

Time at sea

3,719 h

155 days, 42% 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 344 of 386, lowest first319

Average speedThis ship 15.6 kn · median 14.4 (+8%)

11.2Faster than 84% of LNG carrier ships15.9

CO₂ per transport work (volume)This ship 10.1 g CO₂/m³·nm · median 7.12 (+41%)

5.06Ranks 294 of 386, lowest first16.1

Middle 80% of shipsMiddle 50%LNG carrier medianThis ship

Where the emissions happen, 2019

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 EU39%
Into the EU59%
At berth in the EU2%

Fuel burned laden

–

Not reported

CO₂ at berth

838 t

1.8% 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

RUDOLF SAMOYLOVICH
LNG carrier median

100.0200.0300.0400.0

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

Average speed, kn

RUDOLF SAMOYLOVICH
LNG carrier median

10.012.014.016.0

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

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

RUDOLF SAMOYLOVICH
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	+2.4 kn	−15%	−0%	−1%	−7%	2.4 kn faster, fuel per mile down 15%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2023→2024	−1.4 kn	+11%	−0%	−13%	+6%	1.4 kn slower, fuel per mile up 11%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2022→2023	−0.8 kn	+7%	+2%	+12%	−0%	0.8 kn slower, fuel per mile up 7%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2021→2022	+0.3 kn	−12%	−10%	+18%	−15%	0.3 kn faster, fuel per mile down 12%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2020→2021	+0.4 kn	+3%	+6%	−12%	+3%	0.4 kn faster, fuel per mile up 3%; in line with the speed change.
2019→2020	+3.6 kn	−12%	+16%	+88%	−4%	3.6 kn faster, fuel per mile down 12%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2018→2019	−2.9 kn	+27%	+1%	+257%	+18%	2.9 kn slower, fuel per mile up 27%; 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	Seapeak Maritime Limited	24,501	65,545	77,416	4,969	15.6	317	–	–
2024LNG	Seapeak Maritime Limited	29,303	74,060	78,279	5,933	13.2	374	–	–
2023LNG / alt.	not published	30,568	80,330	90,350	6,173	14.6	338	–	–
2022LNG / alt.	not published	25,373	69,894	80,481	5,220	15.4	315	–	–
2021LNG / alt.	not published	24,570	68,433	68,490	4,548	15.1	359	–	–
2020LNG / alt.	not published	27,172	74,844	77,831	5,309	14.7	349	–	–
2019LNG / alt.	not published	16,371	45,789	41,447	3,719	11.1	395	–	–
2018LNG / alt.	not published	3,613	9,973	11,596	827	14.0	312	–	–

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	10.1	7.12	+41%	294 of 386	DNV	A+C
2024LNG	Seapeak Maritime Limited	10.8	7.39	+47%	240 of 312	DNV	A+C
2023LNG / alt.	not published	10.2	9.10	+12%	207 of 355	DNV	A+C
2022LNG / alt.	not published	10.3	10.4	−1%	188 of 379	DNV	A+C
2021LNG / alt.	not published	12.1	10.5	+16%	181 of 289	DNV	A+C
2020LNG / alt.	not published	11.7	10.7	+9%	163 of 267	DNV	A+C
2019LNG / alt.	not published	12.2	10.9	+13%	160 of 248	DNV	A+C
2018LNG / alt.	not published	10.4	10.9	−5%	82 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.