MSC VIRGINIA
- IMO
- 9908059
- Type
- Container ship
- Average cargo carried
- 110,659 t
- Port of registry
- Monrovia
- Technical efficiency
- EEXI 5.59 g CO₂/t·nm
- Fuel
- Mostly LNG
ISM company (DoC holder) in 2025: MSC SHIPMANAGEMENT LIMITED · part of MSC Group
2025 at a glance
From the 2025 THETIS-MRV report. Carries about 110,659 t of cargo on average.
Within the container fleet, 2025
Set against all 2,208 container 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.
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 ports8%
- From the EU46%
- Into the EU44%
- At berth in the EU2%
49% of this ship's CO₂ falls under the EU ETS (20,255 t).
Over the years
Full-year reports only. The Container median is the middle ship of all container ships reporting that year; it moves with the fleet, so a ship can gain on it without changing itself.
Fuel per mile, kg/nm
- MSC VIRGINIA
- Container median
Average speed, kn
- MSC VIRGINIA
- Container median
CO₂ per transport work (cargo), g CO₂/t·nm
- MSC VIRGINIA
- Container median
Year on year
| Year | Speed | Fuel per mile | Fuel per day | Distance | CO₂ per TW | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024→2025 | −0.4 kn | −1% | −5% | +37% | −15% | 0.4 kn slower, fuel per mile flat. |
| 2023→2024 | +1.2 kn | +13% | +23% | +20% | −22% | 1.2 kn faster, fuel per mile up 13%; 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 | MSC SHIPMANAGEMENT LIMITED | 14,665 | 41,532 | 58,735 | 4,365 | 13.5 | 249.7 | 6.39 | – |
| 2024 | MSC Shipmanagement Ltd | 10,876 | 32,143 | 42,962 | 3,086 | 13.9 | 253.2 | 7.56 | – |
| 2023 | not published | 8,062 | 25,481 | 35,917 | 2,822 | 12.7 | 224.5 | 9.65 | – |
Benchmark and verification
| Year | ISM company | CO₂ per TW, g CO₂/t·nm | Container median | vs Container | Rank | Verifier | Methods |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025LNG | MSC SHIPMANAGEMENT LIMITED | 6.39 | 16.30 | −61% | 104 of 2,208 | DNV | C |
| 2024 | MSC Shipmanagement Ltd | 7.56 | 17.52 | −57% | 225 of 1,974 | DNV | C |
| 2023 | not published | 9.65 | 19.40 | −50% | 363 of 1,899 | DNV | C |
Fuel per mile and CO₂ per tonne-mile are the ship's own reported KPIs. Container 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 container 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.