Navalyze · LNG carrier · Ship

NEW FRONTIER 1

IMO: 9765079
Type: LNG carrier
Port of registry: Panama
Technical efficiency: EEXI 20.10 g CO₂/t·nm
Fuel: Mostly LNG
Former names: CARDISSA

ISM company (DoC holder) in 2025: POS MARITIME DE SA

Report year

2025 at a glance

From the 2025 THETIS-MRV report.

Fuel per mile

49.0 kg/nm

LNG carrier median 190.4 kg/nm (−74%)

CO₂ per transport work (volume)

48.56

g CO₂/m³·nm · LNG carrier median 7.12 (+582%)

Average speed

8.1 kn

LNG carrier median 14.4 kn (−44%)

Fuel per day at sea

9.5 t/day

Fuel consumed

2,365 t

CO₂ emitted

6,386 t

8,319 t CO₂eq incl. CH₄ and N₂O

Distance sailed

48,239 nm

CO₂ ÷ CO₂ per mile

Time at sea

5,968 h

249 days, 68% 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 49.0 kg/nm · median 190.4 (−74%)

152.1Ranks 2 of 386, lowest first319.4

Average speedThis ship 8.1 kn · median 14.4 (−44%)

11.2Faster than 3% of LNG carrier ships15.9

CO₂ per transport work (volume)This ship 48.56 g CO₂/m³·nm · median 7.12 (+582%)

5.06Ranks 374 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 ports38%
From the EU22%
Into the EU32%
At berth in the EU9%

61% of this ship's CO₂ falls under the EU ETS (3,886 t).

Fuel burned laden

–

Not reported

CO₂ at berth

8.7%

Alongside in EU ports

Methane (CH₄)

66.6 t

LNG engines slip unburnt methane

CO₂eq ÷ CO₂

1.303

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

NEW FRONTIER 1
LNG carrier median

0.0100.0200.0300.0400.0

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

Average speed, kn

NEW FRONTIER 1
LNG carrier median

5.07.510.012.515.0

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

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

NEW FRONTIER 1
LNG carrier median

0.025.050.075.0100125

’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	+3.1 kn	−43%	−7%	+60%	−53%	3.1 kn faster, fuel per mile down 43%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2023→2024	−3.5 kn	+41%	−17%	−25%	+133%	3.5 kn slower, fuel per mile up 41%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2022→2023	−0.6 kn	−7%	−13%	+10%	−22%	0.6 kn slower, fuel per mile down 7%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2021→2022	−0.7 kn	+9%	+1%	−33%	−2%	0.7 kn slower, fuel per mile up 9%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2020→2021	−0.4 kn	+17%	+12%	−11%	+15%	0.4 kn slower, fuel per mile up 17%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2019→2020	+0.8 kn	−16%	−8%	+21%	−21%	0.8 kn faster, fuel per mile down 16%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2018→2019	+3.9 kn	−29%	+19%	+89%	−24%	3.9 kn faster, fuel per mile down 29%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine 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	POS MARITIME DE SA	2,365	6,386	48,239	5,968	8.1	49.0	–	–
2024LNG	POS MARITIME DE SA	2,578	6,999	30,220	6,065	5.0	85.3	–	–
2023LNG	not published	2,424	6,814	40,039	4,738	8.5	60.5	–	–
2022LNG	not published	2,363	6,846	36,345	4,012	9.1	65.0	–	–
2021LNG	not published	3,203	9,097	53,925	5,530	9.8	59.4	–	–
2020LNG	not published	3,049	8,450	60,312	5,916	10.2	50.6	–	48%
2019LNG	not published	3,006	8,365	49,932	5,324	9.4	60.2	–	41%
2018LNG	not published	2,241	6,331	26,398	4,762	5.5	84.9	–	42%

Benchmark and verification

Year	ISM company	CO₂ per TW, g CO₂/m³·nm	LNG carrier median	vs LNG carrier	Rank	Verifier	Methods
2025LNG	POS MARITIME DE SA	48.56	7.12	+582%	374 of 386	Korean Register	B+C
2024LNG	POS MARITIME DE SA	104.09	7.39	+1,309%	312 of 312	Korean Register	B+C
2023LNG	not published	44.69	9.10	+391%	342 of 355	DNV	B
2022LNG	not published	57.57	10.38	+455%	362 of 379	DNV	B
2021LNG	not published	58.76	10.46	+462%	281 of 289	DNV	B
2020LNG	not published	51.24	10.71	+378%	265 of 267	Lloyd's Register	B
2019LNG	not published	65.18	10.87	+500%	247 of 248	Lloyd's Register	B
2018LNG	not published	85.70	10.92	+685%	196 of 197	Lloyd's Register	B

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.