Navalyze · LNG carrier · Ship

KOOL ICE

IMO: 9637325
Type: LNG carrier
Port of registry: Majuro
Technical efficiency: EEXI 6.86 g CO₂/t·nm
Fuel (estimated): Mostly LNG
Former names: GOLAR ICE

ISM company (DoC holder) in 2025: Cool Company Management AS

Report year

2025 at a glance

From the 2025 THETIS-MRV report.

Fuel kg/nm

200.7

LNG carrier median 190.4 kg/nm (+5%)

CO₂ per transport work (volume)

15.24

g CO₂/m³·nm · LNG carrier median 7.12 (+114%)

Average speed

12.4 kn

LNG carrier median 14.4 kn (−14%)

Fuel per day at sea

59.7 t/day

Fuel consumed

4,365 t

CO₂ emitted

11,692 t

15,336 t CO₂eq incl. CH₄ and N₂O

Distance sailed

21,752 nm

CO₂ ÷ CO₂ per mile

Time at sea

1,753 h

73 days, 20% 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 200.7 kg/nm · median 190.4 (+5%)

152.1Ranks 230 of 386, lowest first319.4

Average speedThis ship 12.4 kn · median 14.4 (−14%)

11.2Faster than 17% of LNG carrier ships15.9

CO₂ per transport work (volume)This ship 15.24 g CO₂/m³·nm · median 7.12 (+114%)

5.06Ranks 341 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 ports0%
From the EU63%
Into the EU36%
At berth in the EU1%

51% of this ship's CO₂ falls under the EU ETS (5,928 t).

Fuel burned laden

–

Not reported

CO₂ at berth

164 t

1.4% of the ship's CO₂, alongside in EU ports

Methane (CH₄)

125.7 t

LNG engines slip unburnt methane

CO₂eq uplift

+3,644 t

+31.2% 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

KOOL ICE
LNG carrier median

150.0200.0250.0300.0350.0400.0

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

Average speed, kn

KOOL ICE
LNG carrier median

10.012.014.016.018.020.0

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

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

KOOL ICE
LNG carrier median

0.05.010.015.020.0

’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	−3.0 kn	−5%	−23%	+424%	+262%	3.0 kn slower, fuel per mile down 5%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2023→2024	+1.3 kn	−28%	−21%	−65%	−58%	1.3 kn faster, fuel per mile down 28%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2022→2023	+0.4 kn	−23%	−21%	−48%	−14%	0.4 kn faster, fuel per mile down 23%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2021→2022	+2.7 kn	+67%	+109%	−27%	+44%	2.7 kn faster, fuel per mile up 67%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2020→2021	−7.3 kn	−3%	−42%	+187%	−4%	7.3 kn slower, fuel per mile down 3%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2019→2020	+7.4 kn	−23%	+29%	−15%	−32%	7.4 kn faster, fuel per mile down 23%; 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	Hours at seah	Average speedknots at sea	Fuel kg/nmthis ship	CO₂ per transport work (cargo)g/t·nm, this ship	Laden fuel
2025LNG	Cool Company Management AS	4,365	11,692	21,752	1,753	12.4	200.7	–	–
2024LNG	Cool Company Management AS	873	2,334	4,149	269	15.4	210.4	–	–
2023LNG / alt.	not published	3,453	9,519	11,892	842	14.1	290.4	–	–
2022LNG / alt.	not published	8,585	24,129	22,719	1,657	13.7	377.9	–	–
2021LNG / alt.	not published	7,028	20,282	31,123	2,832	11.0	225.8	–	–
2020LNG / alt.	not published	2,528	6,968	10,846	593	18.3	233.1	–	–
2019LNG / alt.	not published	3,879	10,731	12,833	1,174	10.9	302.3	–	–

Benchmark and verification

Year	ISM company	CO₂ per TW, g CO₂/m³·nm	LNG carrier median	vs LNG carrier	Rank	Verifier	Methods
2025LNG	Cool Company Management AS	15.24	7.12	+114%	341 of 386	DNV	B+C
2024LNG	Cool Company Management AS	4.21	7.39	−43%	16 of 312	DNV	B+C
2023LNG / alt.	not published	9.92	9.10	+9%	200 of 355	DNV	B+C
2022LNG / alt.	not published	11.48	10.38	+11%	226 of 379	DNV	C
2021LNG / alt.	not published	8.00	10.46	−24%	95 of 289	DNV	C
2020LNG / alt.	not published	8.32	10.71	−22%	63 of 267	DNV	C
2019LNG / alt.	not published	12.29	10.87	+13%	162 of 248	DNV	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.