Navalyze · LNG carrier · Ship

ARCTIC LADY

IMO: 9284192
Type: LNG carrier
Port of registry: Hammerfest
Technical efficiency: EEXI 7.27 g CO₂/t·nm
Fuel (estimated): Mostly LNG

ISM company (DoC holder) in 2025: Hoegh Evi Fleet Management AS

Report year

2025 at a glance

From the 2025 THETIS-MRV report.

Fuel kg/nm

509.3

LNG carrier median 190.4 kg/nm (+167%)

CO₂ per transport work (volume)

24.18

g CO₂/m³·nm · LNG carrier median 7.12 (+240%)

Average speed

7.6 kn

LNG carrier median 14.4 kn (−47%)

Fuel per day at sea

93.2 t/day

Fuel consumed

18,014 t

CO₂ emitted

51,715 t

52,347 t CO₂eq incl. CH₄ and N₂O

Distance sailed

35,369 nm

CO₂ ÷ CO₂ per mile

Time at sea

4,637 h

193 days, 53% of the year

Within the LNG carrier fleet, 2025

Set against all 386 LNG carrier 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 509.3 kg/nm · median 190.4 (+167%)

152.1Ranks 383 of 386, lowest first319.4

Average speedThis ship 7.6 kn · median 14.4 (−47%)

11.2Faster than 2% of LNG carrier ships15.9

CO₂ per transport work (volume)This ship 24.18 g CO₂/m³·nm · median 7.12 (+240%)

5.06Ranks 360 of 386, lowest first16.14

Middle 80% of shipsMiddle 50%LNG carrier medianThis ship

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 ports81%
From the EU5%
Into the EU8%
At berth in the EU7%

94% of this ship's CO₂ falls under the EU ETS (48,597 t).

Fuel burned laden

–

Not reported

CO₂ at berth

3,646 t

7.0% of the ship's CO₂, alongside in EU ports

Methane (CH₄)

0.3 t

LNG engines slip unburnt methane

CO₂eq uplift

+632 t

+1.2% CO₂eq on top of CO₂ alone, from CH₄ and N₂O; counted in full from 2026

Over the years

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

Fuel kg/nm

ARCTIC LADY
LNG carrier median

0.0200.0400.0600.0

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

Average speed, kn

ARCTIC LADY
LNG carrier median

6.08.010.012.014.016.0

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

CO₂ per transport work (volume), g CO₂/m³·nm

ARCTIC LADY
LNG carrier 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	−2.5 kn	+4%	−22%	−29%	+31%	2.5 kn slower, fuel per mile up 4%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2023→2024	+0.8 kn	−5%	+4%	+17%	−23%	0.8 kn faster, fuel per mile down 5%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2022→2023	−1.2 kn	−13%	−23%	+27%	−14%	1.2 kn slower, fuel per mile down 13%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2021→2022	+1.2 kn	+23%	+39%	+763%	−19%	1.2 kn faster, fuel per mile up 23%; in line with the speed change.
2020→2021	+0.5 kn	+31%	+39%	−92%	+74%	0.5 kn faster, fuel per mile up 31%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2019→2020	−0.9 kn	+16%	+5%	−40%	+32%	0.9 kn slower, fuel per mile up 16%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2018→2019	+0.1 kn	+2%	+4%	−2%	+16%	Same speed, fuel per mile up 2%; in line with the speed change.

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
2025LNG	Hoegh Evi Fleet Management AS	18,014	51,715	35,369	4,637	7.6	509.3	–	–
2024LNG	Hoegh LNG Fleet Management AS	24,537	62,714	49,980	4,944	10.1	490.9	–	–
2023LNG / alt.	not published	22,026	62,342	42,759	4,606	9.3	515.1	–	–
2022LNG / alt.	not published	20,040	58,820	33,666	3,209	10.5	595.2	–	–
2021LNG / alt.	not published	1,881	5,319	3,902	420	9.3	482.0	–	–
2020LNG / alt.	not published	17,080	47,588	46,512	5,299	8.8	367.2	–	–
2019LNG / alt.	not published	24,459	67,977	77,003	7,940	9.7	317.6	–	–
2018LNG / alt.	not published	24,448	67,944	78,572	8,219	9.6	311.2	–	–

Benchmark and verification

Year	ISM company	CO₂ per TW, g CO₂/m³·nm	LNG carrier median	vs LNG carrier	Rank	Verifier	Methods
2025LNG	Hoegh Evi Fleet Management AS	24.18	7.12	+240%	360 of 386	DNV	B+C
2024LNG	Hoegh LNG Fleet Management AS	18.40	7.39	+149%	287 of 312	DNV	B+C
2023LNG / alt.	not published	23.78	9.10	+161%	332 of 355	DNV	B+C
2022LNG / alt.	not published	27.50	10.38	+165%	344 of 379	DNV	A+C
2021LNG / alt.	not published	33.76	10.46	+223%	277 of 289	DNV	A+C
2020LNG / alt.	not published	19.35	10.71	+81%	246 of 267	DNV	A+C
2019LNG / alt.	not published	14.63	10.87	+35%	190 of 248	DNV	A+C
2018LNG / alt.	not published	12.58	10.92	+15%	135 of 197	DNV	A+C

Fuel per mile and CO₂ per tonne-mile are the ship's own reported KPIs. LNG carrier ships are benchmarked on CO₂ per transport work (volume) (TW), in g CO₂/m³·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 LNG carrier 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.