Navalyze

Navalyze · Market view · Compare

Compare operators, 2025

Pick a company or group, then the competitors to hold it against, or compare verifiers. Every figure comes from the public THETIS-MRV reports for EU and EEA voyages.

Side by side

All 2025 reports of each operator, across every ship type. Change is against 2024 where the operator reported then.

Norbulk Shipping UK Ltd
Ships22
CO₂ emitted82 kt−12.7%
Fuel kg/nm76
Average speed10.6 kn
CO₂ at berth7.6%
Ships burning LNG0
Ships using alternative fuel0
Main segmentChemical tanker

Fuel per mile and speed depend on ship size and type; compare them within a segment below.

Segment by segment

Efficiency only compares within a ship type. Each row gives the CO₂ per transport work of an operator's typical (median) ship, and the bar sets it against the typical ship of the whole segment: to the left of the line it emits less CO₂ for the same transport work, to the right more.

Chemical tanker

CO₂ per transport work (cargo) in g CO₂/t·nm · segment median 15.0

  • Norbulk Shipping UK Ltd36.7 (+144%)
  • ← betterworse →
Shipsin chemical tankerCO₂ per transport work (cargo)g/t·nm, median shipvs chemical tanker medianlower is betterFuel kg/nmfleet avg.Average speedknots at seaHours at seaper ship per yearCO₂ at berthshareLNG / alt. fuelships
Norbulk Shipping UK Ltd1236.7+144%7610.41,8339.3%–
Segment median 15.00%

Bulk carrier

CO₂ per transport work (cargo) in g CO₂/t·nm · segment median 7.9

  • Norbulk Shipping UK Ltd9.0 (+14%)
  • ← betterworse →
Shipsin bulk carrierCO₂ per transport work (cargo)g/t·nm, median shipvs bulk carrier medianlower is betterFuel kg/nmfleet avg.Average speedknots at seaHours at seaper ship per yearCO₂ at berthshareLNG / alt. fuelships
Norbulk Shipping UK Ltd59.0+14%6910.71,4554.1%–
Segment median 7.90%

Gas carrier (LPG)

CO₂ per transport work (cargo) in g CO₂/t·nm · segment median 35.6

  • Norbulk Shipping UK Ltd35.9 (+1%)
  • ← betterworse →
Shipsin gas carrier (LPG)CO₂ per transport work (cargo)g/t·nm, median shipvs gas carrier (LPG) medianlower is betterFuel kg/nmfleet avg.Average speedknots at seaHours at seaper ship per yearCO₂ at berthshareLNG / alt. fuelships
Norbulk Shipping UK Ltd335.9+1%11511.92998.1%–
Segment median 35.60%

Vehicle carrier

CO₂ per transport work (cargo) in g CO₂/t·nm · segment median 55.4

  • Norbulk Shipping UK Ltd123 (+122%)
  • ← betterworse →
Shipsin vehicle carrierCO₂ per transport work (cargo)g/t·nm, median shipvs vehicle carrier medianlower is betterFuel kg/nmfleet avg.Average speedknots at seaHours at seaper ship per yearCO₂ at berthshareLNG / alt. fuelships
Norbulk Shipping UK Ltd1123+122%7414.35602.4%–
Segment median 55.40%

Verification and monitoring

Who verifies each operator's reports, and which MRV methods its ships use to measure fuel (share of reports).

Verifiers (ships)A · delivery notesB · tank monitoringC · flow metersD · direct
Norbulk Shipping UK LtdVerifavia (22)100%0%0%0%

Norbulk Shipping UK Ltd: ships furthest from their peers

Each ship's CO₂ per transport work against the median ship of its segment, as on the ship's own page. +100% means the ship emits twice as much CO₂ for the same transport work as the median ship. The cost of the gap compares each ship with ships of its size, as everywhere on the site. Ro-pax ships show passenger figures, with freight underneath.

ShipIMOSegmentCO₂ per transport workSegment medianvs medianAverage speedCO₂AllowancesCost of gap
DESERT OAK9445667Chemical tanker54.0 g CO₂/t·nm15.0+259%11.1148 t€5k€1k
BRENTHOLMEN9436393Chemical tanker47.5 g CO₂/t·nm15.0+216%11.18,010 t€265k€46k
FURUHOLMEN9553397Chemical tanker41.7 g CO₂/t·nm15.0+177%10.63,698 t€99k€6k
ASKHOLMEN9436381Chemical tanker39.6 g CO₂/t·nm15.0+163%10.07,628 t€273k€2k
KIRKEHOLMEN9553402Chemical tanker37.9 g CO₂/t·nm15.0+152%10.06,987 t€241k€0
VESTHOLMEN9421295Chemical tanker37.1 g CO₂/t·nm15.0+147%9.4289 t€9k€4k
RIVER OAK9438157Chemical tanker36.3 g CO₂/t·nm15.0+142%9.72,464 t€80k€0
GULHOLMEN9435703Chemical tanker35.6 g CO₂/t·nm15.0+137%10.57,863 t€230k€0
SEBRING9434321Vehicle carrier123 g CO₂/t·nm55.4+122%14.31,888 t€70k€0
GOLDEN OAK9445655Chemical tanker32.0 g CO₂/t·nm15.0+113%10.06,395 t€204k€0
ACADIAN9298715Chemical tanker25.6 g CO₂/t·nm15.0+70%11.43,254 t€142k€57k
ALRAR9284013Gas carrier (LPG)53.2 g CO₂/t·nm35.6+50%11.4581 t€16k€5k
EAST COAST9298703Chemical tanker21.9 g CO₂/t·nm15.0+46%11.16,677 t€237k€72k
OCCITAN LISTRAC9549372Bulk carrier10.3 g CO₂/t·nm7.9+30%10.83,760 t€117k€0
SEASTAR VALIANT9462768Bulk carrier9.6 g CO₂/t·nm7.9+21%10.14,286 t€122k€1k
NEW ENGLAND9298727Chemical tanker18.1 g CO₂/t·nm15.0+21%11.32,060 t€56k€9k
SEASTAR VICTORY9612246Bulk carrier9.0 g CO₂/t·nm7.9+14%10.73,203 t€93k€0
SEASTAR AVALON9755921Bulk carrier8.5 g CO₂/t·nm7.9+7%11.03,598 t€112k€0
SEASTAR VIKING9690896Bulk carrier8.3 g CO₂/t·nm7.9+5%11.51,974 t€59k€0
REGGANE9176357Gas carrier (LPG)35.9 g CO₂/t·nm35.6+1%12.51,337 t€38k€16k
RHOURD ENOUSS9284025Gas carrier (LPG)27.2 g CO₂/t·nm35.6−23%11.81,977 t€56k€13k

30 of 22 reports shown. A high ratio can mean an older or faster-sailing ship, short trades with much time manoeuvring, or part-loaded voyages; it marks where to look first.

Notes

  • Companies are ISM companies (Document of Compliance holders) as named in THETIS, usually the ship manager.
  • Groups combine ISM companies trading under the same name, and differently named companies only where a public source shows common ownership (linked in the member list). If a company is in the wrong group, tell us at info@navalyze.com.
  • Efficiency figures use full-year reports with fuel; totals include part-year reports.
  • Euro figures use the EUA price set at the top of the page.
  • Verifier names vary by entity and year (for example DNV AS and DNV Hellas); they are rolled up into one brand. A verifier's figures cover the ships whose 2025 report it verified.