MARCO POLO
- IMO
- 9019080
- Type
- Ro-pax ship
- Port of registry
- Limassol
- Technical efficiency
- EEXI 29.27 g CO₂/t·nm
- Former names
- BARBARA KRAHULIK
ISM company (DoC holder) in 2025: TT-Line GmbH & Co KG
2025 at a glance
From the 2025 THETIS-MRV report.
Within the ro-pax fleet, 2025
Set against all 408 ro-pax 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 ports96%
- From the EU0%
- Into the EU0%
- At berth in the EU4%
100% of this ship's CO₂ falls under the EU ETS (22,991 t).
Over the years
Full-year reports only. The Ro-pax median is the middle ship of all ro-pax ships reporting that year; it moves with the fleet, so a ship can gain on it without changing itself.
Fuel per mile, kg/nm
- MARCO POLO
- Ro-pax median
Average speed, kn
- MARCO POLO
- Ro-pax median
CO₂ per transport work (freight), g CO₂/t·nm
- MARCO POLO
- Ro-pax median
CO₂ per transport work (pax), g CO₂/pax·nm
- MARCO POLO
- Ro-pax median
Year on year
| Year | Speed | Fuel per mile | Fuel per day | Distance | CO₂ per TW | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024→2025 | −0.9 kn | −5% | −11% | +85% | +4% | 0.9 kn slower, fuel per mile down 5%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade). |
| 2023→2024 | +5.9 kn | −5% | +50% | −34% | −17% | 5.9 kn faster, fuel per mile down 5%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade). |
| 2022→2023 | −5.5 kn | +10% | −29% | −31% | +29% | 5.5 kn slower, fuel per mile up 10%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade). |
| 2021→2022 | −1.3 kn | −8% | −15% | −14% | −5% | 1.3 kn slower, fuel per mile down 8%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade). |
| 2020→2021 | +0.8 kn | +5% | +10% | +22% | −11% | 0.8 kn faster, fuel per mile up 5%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade). |
| 2019→2020 | +0.7 kn | −2% | +2% | +57% | −83% | 0.7 kn faster, fuel per mile down 2%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade). |
| 2018→2019 | +0.5 kn | −4% | −1% | +0% | +128% | 0.5 kn faster, fuel per mile down 4%; 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | TT-Line GmbH & Co KG | 7,332 | 22,991 | 82,975 | 5,501 | 15.1 | 88.4 | – | – |
| 2024 | TT-Line GmbH & Co KG | 4,185 | 13,128 | 44,945 | 2,807 | 16.0 | 93.1 | – | – |
| 2023 | not published | 6,685 | 20,963 | 68,000 | 6,751 | 10.1 | 98.3 | – | – |
| 2022 | not published | 8,788 | 27,571 | 98,196 | 6,304 | 15.6 | 89.5 | – | – |
| 2021 | not published | 11,046 | 34,643 | 113,600 | 6,709 | 16.9 | 97.2 | – | – |
| 2020 | not published | 8,644 | 27,183 | 93,383 | 5,802 | 16.1 | 92.6 | – | – |
| 2019 | not published | 5,631 | 17,563 | 59,544 | 3,856 | 15.4 | 94.6 | – | – |
| 2018 | not published | 5,848 | 18,269 | 59,407 | 3,987 | 14.9 | 98.4 | – | – |
Benchmark and verification
| Year | ISM company | CO₂ per TW, g CO₂/pax·nm | Ro-pax median | vs Ro-pax | Rank | Freight, g CO₂/t·nm | Ro-pax median | vs Ro-pax | Verifier | Methods |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | TT-Line GmbH & Co KG | 1,344.95 | 566.51 | +137% | 349 of 408 | 84.10 | 253.18 | −67% | Verifavia | A |
| 2024 | TT-Line GmbH & Co KG | 1,288.09 | 546.68 | +136% | 324 of 404 | 91.68 | 232.85 | −61% | Verifavia | A |
| 2023 | not published | 1,553.92 | 680.04 | +129% | 340 of 386 | 119.64 | 233.94 | −49% | Verifavia | A |
| 2022 | not published | 1,200.03 | 626.32 | +92% | 313 of 394 | 110.70 | 252.90 | −56% | Verifavia | A |
| 2021 | not published | 1,261.98 | 815.19 | +55% | 283 of 377 | 113.39 | 226.00 | −50% | Verifavia | A |
| 2020 | not published | 1,424.45 | 750.91 | +90% | 278 of 387 | 141.22 | 217.49 | −35% | Verifavia | A |
| 2019 | not published | 8,632.69 | 569.03 | +1,417% | 390 of 394 | 166.65 | 222.56 | −25% | DNV | A |
| 2018 | not published | 3,784.05 | 728.92 | +419% | 337 of 361 | 201.49 | 184.05 | +9% | RINA | A |
Fuel per mile and CO₂ per tonne-mile are the ship's own reported KPIs. Ro-pax ships are benchmarked on CO₂ per transport work (pax) (TW), in g CO₂/pax·nm, and also per tonne of freight (g CO₂/t·nm freight). CO₂eq adds methane and nitrous oxide and is in the public files from 2024. Rank counts from the lowest figure among that year's ro-pax 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.