Navalyze · LNG carrier · Ship

HOEGH GIANT

IMO: 9762962
Type: LNG carrier
Flag (estimated): Singapore
Port of registry: Singapore
Technical efficiency: EEXI 6.00 g CO₂/t·nm
Fuel (estimated): LNG or an alternative fuel (no methane data to tell them apart)

Report year

2019 at a glance

From the 2019 THETIS-MRV report.

Fuel kg/nm

223

LNG carrier median 308 kg/nm (−28%)

CO₂ per transport work (volume)

7.47

g CO₂/m³·nm · LNG carrier median 10.9 (−31%)

Average speed

13.1 kn

LNG carrier median 13.5 kn (−3%)

Fuel per day at sea

70.0 t/day

Fuel consumed

14,407 t

CO₂ emitted

39,915 t

Distance sailed

64,551 nm

CO₂ ÷ CO₂ per mile

Time at sea

4,937 h

206 days, 56% of the year

Within the LNG carrier fleet, 2023

Set against all 355 LNG carrier ships with a full-year 2023 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 265 kg/nm · median 231 (+15%)

167Ranks 224 of 355, lowest first359

Average speedThis ship 11.1 kn · median 14.2 (−22%)

10.7Faster than 11% of LNG carrier ships16.0

CO₂ per transport work (volume)This ship 15.1 g CO₂/m³·nm · median 9.10 (+66%)

5.47Ranks 309 of 355, lowest first17.9

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 EU47%
Into the EU43%
At berth in the EU10%

Fuel burned laden

–

Not reported

CO₂ at berth

3,960 t

9.9% 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

HOEGH GIANT
LNG carrier median

200.0250.0300.0350.0400.0

’182018’192019’202020’212021’222022’232023

Average speed, kn

HOEGH GIANT
LNG carrier median

8.010.012.014.016.0

’182018’192019’202020’212021’222022’232023

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

HOEGH GIANT
LNG carrier median

6.08.010.012.014.016.0

’182018’192019’202020’212021’222022’232023

Year on year

Year	Average speed	Fuel kg/nm	Fuel per day at sea	Distance	CO₂ per transport work	Reading
2022→2023	+2.2 kn	−31%	−14%	+52%	+14%	2.2 kn faster, fuel per mile down 31%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2021→2022	−3.7 kn	+23%	−13%	−49%	−10%	3.7 kn slower, fuel per mile up 23%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2020→2021	−2.9 kn	+12%	−9%	+55%	+59%	2.9 kn slower, fuel per mile up 12%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2019→2020	+2.4 kn	+25%	+48%	−85%	+23%	2.4 kn faster, fuel per mile up 25%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2018→2019	−2.2 kn	−12%	−25%	+532%	−33%	2.2 kn slower, fuel per mile down 12%; 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
2023LNG / alt.	not published	3,146	8,785	11,866	1,074	11.1	265	–	–
2022LNG / alt.	not published	2,983	8,314	7,788	872	8.9	383	–	–
2021LNG / alt.	not published	4,780	13,211	15,318	1,216	12.6	312	–	–
2020LNG / alt.	not published	2,762	7,606	9,903	638	15.5	279	–	–
2019LNG / alt.	not published	14,407	39,915	64,551	4,937	13.1	223	–	–
2018LNG / alt.	not published	2,599	7,152	10,219	669	15.3	254	–	–

Benchmark and verification

Year	ISM company	CO₂ per TW, g CO₂/m³·nm	LNG carrier median	vs LNG carrier	Rank	Verifier	Methods
2023LNG / alt.	not published	15.1	9.10	+66%	309 of 355	DNV	A+C
2022LNG / alt.	not published	13.2	10.4	+27%	266 of 379	DNV	A+C
2021LNG / alt.	not published	14.7	10.5	+40%	225 of 289	DNV	A+C
2020LNG / alt.	not published	9.22	10.7	−14%	89 of 267	DNV	A+C
2019LNG / alt.	not published	7.47	10.9	−31%	43 of 248	DNV	A+C
2018LNG / alt.	not published	11.2	10.9	+3%	106 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.