Navalyze · LNG carrier · Ship

KOOL BALTIC

IMO: 9654878
Type: LNG carrier
Port of registry: Monrovia
Technical efficiency: EEXI 5.95 g CO₂/t·nm
Ice class: IC
Fuel (estimated): Mostly LNG
Former names: SCF MELAMPUS

ISM company (DoC holder) in 2024: Cool Company Management AS

Report year

2024 at a glance

From the 2024 THETIS-MRV report.

Fuel kg/nm

315.8

LNG carrier median 204.5 kg/nm (+54%)

CO₂ per transport work (volume)

8.72

g CO₂/m³·nm · LNG carrier median 7.39 (+18%)

Average speed

15.9 kn

LNG carrier median 14.6 kn (+9%)

Fuel per day at sea

120.7 t/day

Fuel consumed

8,097 t

CO₂ emitted

21,722 t

27,616 t CO₂eq incl. CH₄ and N₂O

Distance sailed

25,645 nm

CO₂ ÷ CO₂ per mile

Time at sea

1,609 h

67 days, 18% of the year

Within the LNG carrier fleet, 2024

Set against all 312 LNG carrier ships with a full-year 2024 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 315.8 kg/nm · median 204.5 (+54%)

147.8Ranks 272 of 312, lowest first328.0

Average speedThis ship 15.9 kn · median 14.6 (+9%)

11.0Faster than 86% of LNG carrier ships16.1

CO₂ per transport work (volume)This ship 8.72 g CO₂/m³·nm · median 7.39 (+18%)

4.54Ranks 190 of 312, lowest first17.34

Middle 80% of shipsMiddle 50%LNG carrier medianThis ship

Where the emissions happen, 2024

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 ports3%
From the EU35%
Into the EU60%
At berth in the EU2%

53% of this ship's CO₂ falls under the EU ETS (11,472 t).

Fuel burned laden

–

Not reported

CO₂ at berth

469 t

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

Methane (CH₄)

202.2 t

LNG engines slip unburnt methane

CO₂eq uplift

+5,894 t

+27.1% 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 BALTIC
LNG carrier median

200.0250.0300.0350.0

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

Average speed, kn

KOOL BALTIC
LNG carrier median

13.014.015.016.017.0

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

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

KOOL BALTIC
LNG carrier median

0.010.020.030.0

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

Year on year

Year	Average speed	Fuel kg/nm	Fuel per day at sea	Distance	CO₂ per transport work	Reading
2023→2024	−0.7 kn	+5%	+1%	−24%	+22%	0.7 kn slower, fuel per mile up 5%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2022→2023	+2.3 kn	+3%	+20%	−11%	−30%	2.3 kn faster, fuel per mile up 3%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2021→2022	−0.3 kn	+11%	+8%	+271%	−56%	Same speed, fuel per mile up 11%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2020→2021	−1.7 kn	+13%	+0%	+32%	+244%	1.7 kn slower, fuel per mile up 13%; worse than speed alone explains (fouling, weather, loading or trade).
2019→2020	+3.1 kn	−30%	−13%	−84%	−75%	3.1 kn faster, fuel per mile down 30%; better than speed alone explains (hull, engine or trade).
2018→2019	−1.2 kn	+4%	−5%	+44%	−5%	1.2 kn slower, fuel per mile up 4%; 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
2024LNG	Cool Company Management AS	8,097	21,722	25,645	1,609	15.9	315.8	–	–
2023LNG / alt.	not published	10,120	27,927	33,636	2,030	16.6	300.9	–	–
2022LNG / alt.	not published	11,112	31,213	38,002	2,663	14.3	292.4	–	–
2021LNG / alt.	not published	2,706	7,559	10,236	702	14.6	264.4	–	–
2020LNG / alt.	not published	1,818	5,017	7,734	474	16.3	235.0	–	–
2019LNG / alt.	not published	16,699	46,398	49,889	3,780	13.2	334.7	–	–
2018LNG / alt.	not published	11,165	31,020	34,576	2,401	14.4	322.9	–	–

Benchmark and verification

Year	ISM company	CO₂ per TW, g CO₂/m³·nm	LNG carrier median	vs LNG carrier	Rank	Verifier	Methods
2024LNG	Cool Company Management AS	8.72	7.39	+18%	190 of 312	DNV	B+C
2023LNG / alt.	not published	7.15	9.10	−21%	116 of 355	DNV	B+C
2022LNG / alt.	not published	10.20	10.38	−2%	186 of 379	DNV	C
2021LNG / alt.	not published	23.02	10.46	+120%	267 of 289	Indian Register of Shipping	B+C
2020LNG / alt.	not published	6.69	10.71	−38%	28 of 267	ABS	B+C
2019LNG / alt.	not published	26.30	10.87	+142%	232 of 248	ABS	B+C
2018LNG / alt.	not published	27.81	10.92	+155%	187 of 197	ABS	B+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.