Navalyze · LNG carrier · Ship

BW TULIP

IMO: 9758064
Type: LNG carrier
Flag (estimated): Singapore
Port of registry: Singapore
Technical efficiency: EEXI 4.45 g CO₂/t·nm
Fuel (estimated): Mostly LNG

ISM company (DoC holder) in 2025: BW Fleet Management AS · part of BW Group

Report year

2022 at a glance

From the 2022 THETIS-MRV report.

Fuel kg/nm

210

LNG carrier median 252 kg/nm (−17%)

CO₂ per transport work (volume)

7.05

g CO₂/m³·nm · LNG carrier median 10.4 (−32%)

Average speed

15.9 kn

LNG carrier median 14.1 kn (+13%)

Fuel per day at sea

80.1 t/day

Fuel consumed

19,174 t

CO₂ emitted

54,315 t

Distance sailed

91,398 nm

CO₂ ÷ CO₂ per mile

Time at sea

5,746 h

239 days, 66% 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 184 kg/nm · median 190 (−3%)

152Ranks 171 of 386, lowest first319

Average speedThis ship 17.0 kn · median 14.4 (+18%)

11.2Faster than 98% of LNG carrier ships15.9

CO₂ per transport work (volume)This ship 7.53 g CO₂/m³·nm · median 7.12 (+6%)

5.06Ranks 209 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 EU44%
Into the EU55%
At berth in the EU2%

Fuel burned laden

–

Not reported

CO₂ at berth

918 t

1.7% 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

BW TULIP
LNG carrier median

150.0200.0250.0300.0350.0

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

Average speed, kn

BW TULIP
LNG carrier median

10.012.014.016.018.0

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

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

BW TULIP
LNG carrier median

5.07.510.012.515.017.5

’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	+1.5 kn	−17%	−9%	−21%	+7%	1.5 kn faster, fuel per mile down 17%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2023→2024	−0.8 kn	+4%	−0%	−49%	−30%	0.8 kn slower, fuel per mile up 4%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2022→2023	+0.4 kn	+1%	+3%	−42%	+42%	0.4 kn faster, fuel per mile flat.
2021→2022	+1.1 kn	+1%	+8%	+803%	+1%	1.1 kn faster, fuel per mile flat; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2020→2021	−2.1 kn	+0%	−12%	−61%	+10%	2.1 kn slower, fuel per mile flat; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2019→2020	+4.1 kn	−7%	+24%	−55%	−25%	4.1 kn faster, fuel per mile down 7%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2018→2019	+1.1 kn	+25%	+36%	+156%	−46%	1.1 kn faster, fuel per mile up 25%; 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	BW Fleet Management AS	3,997	11,123	21,720	1,278	17.0	184	–	–
2024LNG	BW Fleet Management A/S	6,048	16,730	27,345	1,761	15.5	221	–	–
2023LNG / alt.	not published	11,315	31,530	53,386	3,283	16.3	212	–	–
2022LNG / alt.	not published	19,174	54,315	91,398	5,746	15.9	210	–	–
2021LNG / alt.	not published	2,108	5,922	10,121	683	14.8	208	–	–
2020LNG / alt.	not published	5,457	15,199	26,251	1,550	16.9	208	–	–
2019LNG / alt.	not published	13,029	36,881	58,551	4,583	12.8	223	–	–
2018LNG / alt.	not published	4,064	11,396	22,891	1,951	11.7	178	–	–

Benchmark and verification

Year	ISM company	CO₂ per TW, g CO₂/m³·nm	LNG carrier median	vs LNG carrier	Rank	Verifier	Methods
2025LNG	BW Fleet Management AS	7.53	7.12	+6%	209 of 386	DNV	B+C
2024LNG	BW Fleet Management A/S	7.02	7.39	−5%	145 of 312	DNV	C
2023LNG / alt.	not published	10.0	9.10	+10%	202 of 355	DNV	C
2022LNG / alt.	not published	7.05	10.4	−32%	89 of 379	DNV	C
2021LNG / alt.	not published	6.99	10.5	−33%	66 of 289	DNV	B+C
2020LNG / alt.	not published	6.38	10.7	−40%	21 of 267	DNV	B+C
2019LNG / alt.	not published	8.55	10.9	−21%	60 of 248	DNV	B+C
2018LNG / alt.	not published	15.9	10.9	+46%	169 of 197	DNV	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.