Navalyze · LNG carrier · Ship

GEORGIY USHAKOV

IMO: 9750749
Type: LNG carrier
Port of registry: Nassau
Technical efficiency: EIV 12.30 g CO₂/t·nm
Ice class: PC3
Fuel: Mostly LNG

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

Report year

2025 at a glance

From the 2025 THETIS-MRV report.

Fuel per mile

327.7 kg/nm

LNG carrier median 190.4 kg/nm (+72%)

CO₂ per transport work (volume)

10.68

g CO₂/m³·nm · LNG carrier median 7.12 (+50%)

Average speed

16.1 kn

LNG carrier median 14.4 kn (+12%)

Fuel per day at sea

126.7 t/day

Fuel consumed

25,362 t

CO₂ emitted

67,841 t

88,897 t CO₂eq incl. CH₄ and N₂O

Distance sailed

77,391 nm

CO₂ ÷ CO₂ per mile

Time at sea

4,803 h

200 days, 55% 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 327.7 kg/nm · median 190.4 (+72%)

152.1Ranks 353 of 386, lowest first319.4

Average speedThis ship 16.1 kn · median 14.4 (+12%)

11.2Faster than 92% of LNG carrier ships15.9

CO₂ per transport work (volume)This ship 10.68 g CO₂/m³·nm · median 7.12 (+50%)

5.06Ranks 313 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 EU48%
Into the EU50%
At berth in the EU2%

51% of this ship's CO₂ falls under the EU ETS (34,666 t).

Fuel burned laden

–

Not reported

CO₂ at berth

2.2%

Alongside in EU ports

Methane (CH₄)

726.2 t

LNG engines slip unburnt methane

CO₂eq ÷ CO₂

1.310

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

GEORGIY USHAKOV
LNG carrier median

150.0200.0250.0300.0350.0400.0

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

Average speed, kn

GEORGIY USHAKOV
LNG carrier median

12.013.014.015.016.017.0

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

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

GEORGIY USHAKOV
LNG carrier median

6.08.010.012.0

’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	+3.2 kn	−6%	+18%	−17%	+1%	3.2 kn faster, fuel per mile down 6%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2023→2024	−2.4 kn	+5%	−12%	+38%	+1%	2.4 kn slower, fuel per mile up 5%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2022→2023	+0.4 kn	+2%	+5%	−20%	−3%	0.4 kn faster, fuel per mile up 2%; in line with the speed change.
2021→2022	−0.5 kn	−10%	−13%	+41%	−7%	0.5 kn slower, fuel per mile down 10%; in line with the speed change.
2020→2021	+0.4 kn	+1%	+4%	−14%	−0%	0.4 kn faster, fuel per mile flat.
2019→2020	+0.4 kn	+14%	+18%	+317%	+14%	0.4 kn faster, fuel per mile up 14%; 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	At sea h	Speed kn	Fuel kg/nm	CO₂ g/t·nm	Laden fuel
2025LNG	Seapeak Maritime Limited	25,362	67,841	77,391	4,803	16.1	327.7	–	–
2024LNG	Seapeak Maritime Limited	32,674	83,353	93,725	7,278	12.9	348.6	–	–
2023LNG	not published	22,560	59,112	67,929	4,428	15.3	332.1	–	–
2022LNG	not published	27,612	76,522	84,872	5,689	14.9	325.3	–	–
2021LNG	not published	21,844	60,519	60,150	3,908	15.4	363.2	–	–
2020LNG	not published	24,983	68,828	69,680	4,635	15.0	358.5	–	–
2019LNG	not published	5,260	14,496	16,696	1,147	14.6	315.0	–	–

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	10.68	7.12	+50%	313 of 386	DNV	A+C
2024LNG	Seapeak Maritime Limited	10.54	7.39	+43%	234 of 312	DNV	A+C
2023LNG	not published	10.46	9.10	+15%	220 of 355	DNV	A+C
2022LNG	not published	10.76	10.38	+4%	208 of 379	DNV	A+C
2021LNG	not published	11.51	10.46	+10%	168 of 289	DNV	A+C
2020LNG	not published	11.53	10.71	+8%	160 of 267	DNV	A+C
2019LNG	not published	10.13	10.87	−7%	105 of 248	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.