Navalyze · LNG carrier · Ship

BORIS VILKITSKY

IMO: 9768368
Type: LNG carrier
Flag (estimated): Cyprus
Port of registry: Limassol
Technical efficiency: EIV 9.20 g CO₂/t·nm
Ice class: PC3
Fuel (estimated): Mostly LNG

ISM company (DoC holder) in 2025: Dynagas Ltd

Report year

2018 at a glance

From the 2018 THETIS-MRV report.

Fuel kg/nm

341

LNG carrier median 323 kg/nm (+5%)

CO₂ per transport work (volume)

11.9

g CO₂/m³·nm · LNG carrier median 10.9 (+9%)

Average speed

12.0 kn

LNG carrier median 13.7 kn (−12%)

Fuel per day at sea

97.7 t/day

Fuel consumed

27,941 t

CO₂ emitted

77,543 t

Distance sailed

82,051 nm

CO₂ ÷ CO₂ per mile

Time at sea

6,866 h

286 days, 78% 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 300 kg/nm · median 190 (+58%)

152Ranks 324 of 386, lowest first319

Average speedThis ship 15.1 kn · median 14.4 (+5%)

11.2Faster than 70% of LNG carrier ships15.9

CO₂ per transport work (volume)This ship 9.78 g CO₂/m³·nm · median 7.12 (+37%)

5.06Ranks 284 of 386, lowest first16.1

Middle 80% of shipsMiddle 50%LNG carrier medianThis ship

Where the emissions happen, 2018

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 EU53%
At berth in the EU0%

Fuel burned laden

–

Not reported

CO₂ at berth

47 t

0.1% 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

BORIS VILKITSKY
LNG carrier median

100.0200.0300.0400.0

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

Average speed, kn

BORIS VILKITSKY
LNG carrier median

12.013.014.015.016.0

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

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

BORIS VILKITSKY
LNG carrier median

6.08.010.012.014.0

’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	+0.3 kn	−8%	−6%	+1%	−7%	Same speed, fuel per mile down 8%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2023→2024	+0.2 kn	+2%	+4%	−2%	−2%	Same speed, fuel per mile up 2%; in line with the speed change.
2022→2023	+2.0 kn	−6%	+9%	−1%	−9%	2.0 kn faster, fuel per mile down 6%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2021→2022	−1.6 kn	−14%	−24%	+29%	+6%	1.6 kn slower, fuel per mile down 14%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2020→2021	+0.7 kn	+10%	+17%	−30%	−11%	0.7 kn faster, fuel per mile up 10%; in line with the speed change.
2019→2020	−0.4 kn	−5%	−8%	+63%	+6%	0.4 kn slower, fuel per mile down 5%; in line with the speed change.
2018→2019	+1.9 kn	+10%	+29%	−34%	−1%	1.9 kn faster, fuel per mile up 10%; 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	Hours at seah	Average speedknots at sea	Fuel kg/nmthis ship	CO₂ per transport work (cargo)g/t·nm, this ship	Laden fuel
2025LNG	Dynagas Ltd	23,355	63,091	77,852	5,169	15.1	300	–	–
2024LNG	Dynagas Ltd	25,297	67,703	77,393	5,245	14.8	327	–	–
2023LNG / alt.	not published	25,313	69,774	79,344	5,450	14.6	319	–	–
2022LNG / alt.	not published	27,100	75,137	79,873	6,335	12.6	339	–	–
2021LNG / alt.	not published	24,392	67,994	61,850	4,352	14.2	394	–	–
2020LNG / alt.	not published	31,751	87,972	88,934	6,604	13.5	357	–	–
2019LNG / alt.	not published	20,466	57,029	54,431	3,908	13.9	376	–	–
2018LNG / alt.	not published	27,941	77,543	82,051	6,866	12.0	341	–	–

Benchmark and verification

Year	ISM company	CO₂ per TW, g CO₂/m³·nm	LNG carrier median	vs LNG carrier	Rank	Verifier	Methods
2025LNG	Dynagas Ltd	9.78	7.12	+37%	284 of 386	EMICERT	A+C
2024LNG	Dynagas Ltd	10.5	7.39	+42%	233 of 312	EMICERT	A+C
2023LNG / alt.	not published	10.7	9.10	+17%	229 of 355	EMICERT	A+C
2022LNG / alt.	not published	11.8	10.4	+13%	231 of 379	EMICERT	A+C
2021LNG / alt.	not published	11.1	10.5	+6%	155 of 289	EMICERT	A+C
2020LNG / alt.	not published	12.5	10.7	+17%	183 of 267	EMICERT	A+C
2019LNG / alt.	not published	11.9	10.9	+9%	147 of 248	EMICERT	A+C
2018LNG / alt.	not published	11.9	10.9	+9%	125 of 197	EMICERT	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.