Navalyze · LNG carrier · Ship

BW LILAC

IMO: 9758076
Type: LNG carrier
Port of registry: Valletta
Technical efficiency: EEXI 4.42 g CO₂/t·nm
Fuel: Mostly LNG

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

Report year

2025 at a glance

From the 2025 THETIS-MRV report.

Fuel per mile

174.4 kg/nm

LNG carrier median 190.4 kg/nm (−8%)

CO₂ per transport work (volume)

6.06

g CO₂/m³·nm · LNG carrier median 7.12 (−15%)

Average speed

15.2 kn

LNG carrier median 14.4 kn (+6%)

Fuel per day at sea

63.7 t/day

Fuel consumed

13,683 t

CO₂ emitted

38,029 t

41,318 t CO₂eq incl. CH₄ and N₂O

Distance sailed

78,437 nm

CO₂ ÷ CO₂ per mile

Time at sea

5,156 h

215 days, 59% 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 174.4 kg/nm · median 190.4 (−8%)

152.1Ranks 117 of 386, lowest first319.4

Average speedThis ship 15.2 kn · median 14.4 (+6%)

11.2Faster than 76% of LNG carrier ships15.9

CO₂ per transport work (volume)This ship 6.06 g CO₂/m³·nm · median 7.12 (−15%)

5.06Ranks 142 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 (19,417 t).

Fuel burned laden

–

Not reported

CO₂ at berth

2.1%

Alongside in EU ports

Methane (CH₄)

102.2 t

LNG engines slip unburnt methane

CO₂eq ÷ CO₂

1.086

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

BW LILAC
LNG carrier median

100.0150.0200.0250.0300.0350.0

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

Average speed, kn

BW LILAC
LNG carrier median

13.014.015.016.017.0

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

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

BW LILAC
LNG carrier median

2.04.06.08.010.012.0

’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	+0.9 kn	+4%	+11%	+105%	+8%	0.9 kn faster, fuel per mile up 4%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2023→2024	−1.6 kn	−13%	−22%	−36%	−0%	1.6 kn slower, fuel per mile down 13%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2022→2023	+1.2 kn	−12%	−5%	−47%	−29%	1.2 kn faster, fuel per mile down 12%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2021→2022	−2.2 kn	+6%	−8%	+72%	+8%	2.2 kn slower, fuel per mile up 6%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2020→2021	+0.5 kn	−7%	−4%	+45%	+3%	0.5 kn faster, fuel per mile down 7%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2019→2020	+1.0 kn	−16%	−10%	+2%	−11%	1.0 kn faster, fuel per mile down 16%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2018→2019	+1.8 kn	+99%	+124%	+103%	+120%	1.8 kn faster, fuel per mile up 99%; 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	BW Fleet Management AS	13,683	38,029	78,437	5,156	15.2	174.4	–	–
2024LNG	BW Fleet Management A/S	6,409	17,761	38,284	2,684	14.3	167.4	–	–
2023LNG	not published	11,560	32,267	60,040	3,787	15.9	192.6	–	–
2022LNG	not published	24,843	70,843	112,907	7,693	14.7	220.0	–	–
2021LNG	not published	13,632	38,313	65,703	3,882	16.9	207.5	–	–
2020LNG	not published	10,097	28,133	45,160	2,761	16.4	223.6	–	–
2019LNG	not published	11,693	32,617	44,168	2,876	15.4	264.7	–	–
2018LNG	not published	2,908	8,187	21,810	1,600	13.6	133.3	–	–

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	6.06	7.12	−15%	142 of 386	DNV	B+C
2024LNG	BW Fleet Management A/S	5.61	7.39	−24%	85 of 312	DNV	B+C
2023LNG	not published	5.62	9.10	−38%	40 of 355	DNV	B+C
2022LNG	not published	7.95	10.38	−23%	132 of 379	DNV	B+C
2021LNG	not published	7.33	10.46	−30%	71 of 289	DNV	B+C
2020LNG	not published	7.13	10.71	−33%	37 of 267	DNV	B+C
2019LNG	not published	8.03	10.87	−26%	50 of 248	DNV	B+C
2018LNG	not published	3.65	10.92	−67%	12 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.