Navalyze · General cargo · Ship

OSHIMANA

IMO: 9249295
Type: General cargo ship
Flag (estimated): Norway
Port of registry: Bergen
Technical efficiency: EEXI 6.59 g CO₂/t·nm

ISM company (DoC holder) in 2025: Masterbulk AS

Report year

2025 at a glance

From the 2025 THETIS-MRV report.

Fuel kg/nm

103

General cargo median 35.2 kg/nm (+192%)

CO₂ per transport work (dwt)

9.91

g CO₂/dwt·nm · General cargo median 25.5 (−61%)

Average speed

11.4 kn

General cargo median 9.3 kn (+23%)

Fuel per day at sea

28.0 t/day

Fuel consumed

3,239 t

CO₂ emitted

10,111 t

10,270 t CO₂eq incl. CH₄ and N₂O

Distance sailed

31,526 nm

CO₂ ÷ CO₂ per mile

Time at sea

2,774 h

116 days, 32% of the year

Within the general cargo fleet, 2025

Set against all 2,723 general cargo 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 103 kg/nm · median 35.2 (+192%)

17.4Ranks 2,685 of 2,723, lowest first78.8

Average speedThis ship 11.4 kn · median 9.3 (+23%)

6.9Faster than 84% of general cargo ships12.0

CO₂ per transport work (dwt)This ship 9.91 g CO₂/dwt·nm · median 25.5 (−61%)

10.2Ranks 253 of 2,723, lowest first52.7

Middle 80% of shipsMiddle 50%General cargo medianThis ship

Where the emissions happen, 2025

THETIS splits each ship's emissions 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 ports3%
From the EU23%
Into the EU71%
At berth in the EU2%

52% of this ship's CO₂ falls under the EU ETS (5,221 t).

Fuel burned laden

–

Not reported

CO₂ at berth

218 t

2.2% of the ship's CO₂, alongside in EU ports

Methane (CH₄)

0.2 t

Mainly from LNG; small for oil, biofuel and methanol

CO₂eq uplift

+159 t

+1.6% CO₂eq on top of CO₂ alone, from CH₄ and N₂O; counted in full from 2026

Over the years

Full-year reports only. The General cargo median is the middle ship of all general cargo ships reporting that year; it moves with the fleet, so a ship can gain on it without changing itself.

Fuel kg/nm

OSHIMANA
General cargo median

25.050.075.0100.0125.0150.0

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

Average speed, kn

OSHIMANA
General cargo median

9.010.011.012.0

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

CO₂ per transport work (dwt), g CO₂/dwt·nm

OSHIMANA
General cargo median

0.010.020.030.040.0

’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	+0.0 kn	+22%	+22%	+214%	+37%	Same speed, fuel per mile up 22%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2023→2024	+0.5 kn	−15%	−11%	+20%	−76%	0.5 kn faster, fuel per mile down 15%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2022→2023	−0.2 kn	−17%	−18%	−49%	+135%	Same speed, fuel per mile down 17%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2021→2022	−0.9 kn	−12%	−19%	−49%	+5%	0.9 kn slower, fuel per mile down 12%; in line with the speed change.
2020→2021	+0.2 kn	+34%	+36%	+27%	−15%	Same speed, fuel per mile up 34%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2019→2020	+1.5 kn	−10%	+3%	−14%	+40%	1.5 kn faster, fuel per mile down 10%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2018→2019	−0.4 kn	+19%	+14%	+12%	−37%	0.4 kn slower, fuel per mile up 19%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading 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	Masterbulk AS	3,239	10,111	31,526	2,774	11.4	103	–	–
2024	Masterbulk AS	843	2,631	10,052	885	11.4	83.9	–	–
2023	not published	823	2,570	8,378	770	10.9	98.3	–	–
2022	not published	1,947	6,083	16,432	1,486	11.1	119	–	–
2021	not published	4,336	13,526	32,252	2,688	12.0	134	–	–
2020	not published	2,547	7,975	25,383	2,153	11.8	100	–	–
2019	not published	3,293	10,333	29,477	2,853	10.3	112	–	–
2018	not published	2,478	7,736	26,291	2,447	10.7	94.2	–	–

Benchmark and verification

Year	ISM company	CO₂ per TW, g CO₂/dwt·nm	General cargo median	vs General cargo	Rank	Verifier	Methods
2025	Masterbulk AS	9.91	25.5	−61%	253 of 2,723	DNV	B
2024	Masterbulk AS	7.23	19.3	−62%	98 of 1,111	DNV	B
2023	not published	30.3	20.7	+47%	834 of 1,045	DNV	B
2022	not published	12.9	21.6	−40%	206 of 1,034	DNV	B
2021	not published	12.2	22.7	−46%	151 of 1,142	DNV	B
2020	not published	14.5	24.5	−41%	177 of 1,167	DNV	B
2019	not published	10.3	25.0	−59%	98 of 1,154	DNV	B
2018	not published	16.3	24.9	−34%	218 of 1,044	DNV	B

Fuel per mile and CO₂ per tonne-mile are the ship's own reported KPIs. General cargo ships are benchmarked on CO₂ per transport work (dwt) (TW), in g CO₂/dwt·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 general cargo 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.