Navalyze · Chemical tanker · Ship

EVA BERGEN

IMO: 9800013
Type: Chemical tanker
Average cargo carried: 9,060 t
Flag (estimated): Philippines
Port of registry: Manila
Technical efficiency: EEDI 8.20 g CO₂/t·nm

ISM company (DoC holder) in 2025: VICTORIA SHIP MANAGEMENT INC. · part of Victoria Ship Management

Report year

2018 at a glance

From the 2018 THETIS-MRV report. Carries about 14,290 t of cargo on average.

Fuel kg/nm

91.4

Chemical tanker median 90.2 kg/nm (+1%)

CO₂ per transport work (cargo)

20.2

g CO₂/t·nm · Chemical tanker median 17.1 (+18%)

Average speed

12.8 kn

Chemical tanker median 10.1 kn (+27%)

Fuel per day at sea

28.0 t/day

Fuel consumed

665 t

CO₂ emitted

2,099 t

Distance sailed

7,278 nm

CO₂ ÷ CO₂ per mile

Time at sea

570 h

24 days, 7% of the year

Within the chemical tanker fleet, 2025

Set against all 1,460 chemical tanker 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 105 kg/nm · median 79.7 (+31%)

52.8Ranks 1,247 of 1,460, lowest first111

Average speedThis ship 3.9 kn · median 11.1 (−65%)

8.8Faster than 0% of chemical tanker ships12.4

CO₂ per transport work (cargo)This ship 36.3 g CO₂/t·nm · median 15.0 (+141%)

7.93Ranks 1,256 of 1,460, lowest first40.2

Middle 80% of shipsMiddle 50%Chemical tanker 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 ports37%
From the EU30%
Into the EU13%
At berth in the EU20%

Fuel burned laden

–

Not reported

CO₂ at berth

427 t

20.4% 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 Chemical tanker median is the middle ship of all chemical tanker ships reporting that year; it moves with the fleet, so a ship can gain on it without changing itself.

Fuel kg/nm

EVA BERGEN
Chemical tanker median

60.080.0100.0120.0

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

Average speed, kn

EVA BERGEN
Chemical tanker median

2.55.07.510.012.515.0

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

CO₂ per transport work (cargo), g CO₂/t·nm

EVA BERGEN
Chemical tanker median

0.025.050.075.0100

’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	−2.9 kn	+20%	−30%	+23%	+46%	2.9 kn slower, fuel per mile up 20%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2023→2024	−5.7 kn	+34%	−27%	+61%	+34%	5.7 kn slower, fuel per mile up 34%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2022→2023	+2.8 kn	−3%	+25%	−63%	+2%	2.8 kn faster, fuel per mile down 3%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2021→2022	−1.1 kn	−16%	−25%	+2,909%	−81%	1.1 kn slower, fuel per mile down 16%; in line with the speed change.
2020→2021	−2.8 kn	+27%	+1%	−96%	+293%	2.8 kn slower, fuel per mile up 27%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2019→2020	+0.4 kn	−16%	−14%	−40%	+29%	0.4 kn faster, fuel per mile down 16%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2018→2019	+0.4 kn	−18%	−15%	+307%	−7%	0.4 kn faster, fuel per mile down 18%; 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
2025	VICTORIA SHIP MANAGEMENT INC.	1,494	4,697	14,277	3,616	3.9	105	36.3	60%
2024	VICTORIA SHIP MANAGEMENT INC.	1,014	3,170	11,652	1,713	6.8	87.0	24.8	80%
2023	not published	469	1,477	7,221	578	12.5	65.0	18.5	50%
2022	not published	1,317	4,153	19,676	2,031	9.7	67.0	18.2	77%
2021	not published	52	164	654	61	10.8	80.1	95.2	9%
2020	not published	1,116	3,512	17,736	1,304	13.6	62.9	24.2	60%
2019	not published	2,228	6,999	29,645	2,254	13.2	75.1	18.8	74%
2018	not published	665	2,099	7,278	570	12.8	91.4	20.2	–

Benchmark and verification

Year	ISM company	CO₂ per TW, g CO₂/t·nm	Chemical tanker median	vs Chemical tanker	Rank	Verifier	Methods
2025	VICTORIA SHIP MANAGEMENT INC.	36.3	15.0	+141%	1,256 of 1,460	Bureau Veritas	C
2024	VICTORIA SHIP MANAGEMENT INC.	24.8	16.7	+48%	893 of 1,274	Bureau Veritas	C
2023	not published	18.5	16.2	+14%	738 of 1,314	Bureau Veritas	C
2022	not published	18.2	16.1	+13%	805 of 1,409	Bureau Veritas	C
2021	not published	95.2	16.7	+470%	1,336 of 1,343	Bureau Veritas	C
2020	not published	24.2	16.2	+50%	956 of 1,312	Bureau Veritas	C
2019	not published	18.8	17.3	+9%	748 of 1,321	Bureau Veritas	C
2018	not published	20.2	17.1	+18%	807 of 1,294	Bureau Veritas	–

Fuel per mile and CO₂ per tonne-mile are the ship's own reported KPIs. Chemical tanker ships are benchmarked on CO₂ per transport work (cargo) (TW), in g CO₂/t·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 chemical tanker 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.