Navalyze · LNG carrier · Ship
TITAN VISION
- IMO
- 9468449
- Type
- LNG carrier
- Port of registry
- Limassol
- Technical efficiency
- EEXI 17.00 g CO₂/t·nm
- Former names
- VISION SPIRIT, SEAPEAK VISION
ISM company (DoC holder) in 2025: OSM Tanker Management Pte Ltd · part of OSM Thome
2025 at a glance
From the 2025 THETIS-MRV report.
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.
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 ports55%
- From the EU0%
- Into the EU32%
- At berth in the EU13%
83% of this ship's CO₂ falls under the EU ETS (6,587 t).
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 per mile, kg/nm
- TITAN VISION
- LNG carrier median
Average speed, kn
- TITAN VISION
- LNG carrier median
CO₂ per transport work (cargo), g CO₂/t·nm
- TITAN VISION
- LNG carrier median
Year on year
| Year | Speed | Fuel per mile | Fuel per day | Distance | CO₂ per TW | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022→2025 | −1.7 kn | −3% | −16% | +215% | +39% | 1.7 kn slower, fuel per mile down 3%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade). |
| 2020→2022 | −0.5 kn | +11% | +7% | −32% | −59% | 0.5 kn slower, fuel per mile up 11%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade). |
| 2019→2020 | +2.6 kn | +7% | +35% | −40% | +74% | 2.6 kn faster, fuel per mile up 7%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade). |
| 2018→2019 | +3.1 kn | −19% | +17% | +69% | −62% | 3.1 kn faster, fuel per mile down 19%; 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 | OSM Tanker Management Pte Ltd | 2,500 | 7,953 | 28,254 | 2,723 | 10.4 | 88.5 | – | – |
| 2022 | not published | 816 | 2,563 | 8,971 | 744 | 12.1 | 90.9 | 47.26 | – |
| 2020 | not published | 1,084 | 3,392 | 13,264 | 1,056 | 12.6 | 81.8 | 115.88 | – |
| 2019 | not published | 1,686 | 5,268 | 22,138 | 2,218 | 10.0 | 76.1 | 66.59 | – |
| 2018 | not published | 1,235 | 3,874 | 13,117 | 1,901 | 6.9 | 94.2 | 173.90 | – |
Benchmark and verification
| Year | ISM company | CO₂ per TW, g CO₂/m³·nm | LNG carrier median | vs LNG carrier | Rank | Verifier | Methods |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | OSM Tanker Management Pte Ltd | 65.53 | 7.12 | +820% | 381 of 386 | DNV | B+C |
| 2022 | not published | 47.26 | 42.53 | +11% | 190 of 348 | DNV | C |
| 2020 | not published | 115.88 | 42.29 | +174% | 287 of 339 | DNV | B |
| 2019 | not published | 66.59 | 45.85 | +45% | 213 of 331 | DNV | – |
| 2018 | not published | 173.90 | 53.11 | +227% | 287 of 297 | DNV | B |
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.