Chemical Tanker Emissions & Retrofit Radar

Ships ranked by AER (Annual Efficiency Ratio) — grams of CO₂ emitted per tonne of deadweight carried one nautical mile (g CO₂/dwt·nm), the IMO carbon-intensity metric behind the CII rating — from official EU MRV emissions data for reporting year 2024. Lower is greener. Pick a segment and size class to see the greenest vessels first.

Segment rank (2024)

#1,351 of 1,350 chemical tankers

CO₂ intensity

25.8 g CO₂/dwt·nm

vs segment average (9.91)

+161% higher

Bulk Carrier Container Ship Oil Tanker Chemical Tanker Gas Carrier LNG Carrier General Cargo Vehicle Carrier Refrigerated Cargo Ro-Ro Cargo

CII band distribution

415 at D/E

A 388B 447C 448D 293E 122

1,698 rated vessels · 216 of the D/E set dock within 12 months

Docking pipeline — D/E vessels per quarter

'27 Q1

'27 Q2

'27 Q3

'27 Q4

'28 Q1

'28 Q2

'28 Q3

Windows estimated from the class-expiry docking model, not bookings.

Top eligible retrofit measures for this segment

Measure	Eligible	CO₂ reduction	Capex band	Payback	Confidence
Propeller redesign / replacement	1,272	5–10%	€400k–1,200k	—	vendor claim
Turbocharger cut-out	1,236	1–3%	€80k–250k	—	vendor claim
Rotor sails (per unit)	1,079	route-dependent	€1,500k–3,500k	—	vendor claim
Suction wing sails (per unit)	1,079	route-dependent	€1,000k–2,500k	—	vendor claim
Bulbous bow reprofiling	915	2–6%	€300k–900k	—	vendor claim
Methanol dual-fuel conversion	686	5–15%	€8,000k–20,000k	—	vendor claim

Capex bands are indicative vendor/literature priors. Payback appears once price parameters are configured.

Retrofit opportunity in this segment

278

D/E vessels with at least one eligible measure

€647–1,598M

capex range, top measure per vessel (278 of 278 with computable scaling)

0.09–0.19 Mt

annual CO₂ reduction available (vendor-claimed ranges × reported emissions)

Retrofit prospects — worst band first

Vessel	Band	Age	Drop year	Req. reduction 2030	Dock window
MEHTAP · 25-60k	E	18y	2026	96%	Mar 2028
MARIA IMMACULATA · <25k	E	18y	2026	91%	Mar 2027
HARBOUR PROGRESS · <25k	E	16y	2026	73%	Sep 2028
HERCULES SKY · <25k	E	5y	2026	73%	Mar 2029
NAVE ATRIA · 25-60k	E	14y	2026	66%	Apr 2027

See all 1,698 rated chemical tankers with exposure and dock windows. Sign in →

Sort 🌱 Greenest first 🔧 Least efficient first — retrofit candidates

Size (DWT)

All sizes < 25,000 DWT 25k – 60k DWT 60k – 100k DWT 100k – 200k DWT > 200,000 DWT

Year

2025 2024

1,378

vessels ranked

3.64

greenest (g CO₂/dwt·nm)

8.82

segment median

#	Vessel	Size (DWT)	Built	Length	Main Engine	Carbon intensity — AER (g CO₂/dwt·nm)	Grade
No vessels with reported carbon intensity for this segment / size in 2024.

Engine intelligence

Which engines power the greenest fleets?

The main engine is the single largest CO₂ source on board — typically well over 80% of a ship's emissions come from propulsion. We aggregated this ranking the other way around: every engine design is scored by the measured carbon intensity of the vessels carrying it, licensee-built units merged under their design brand. The verdict from the 2024 data — modern dual-fuel designs like MAN B&W's ME-GI and WinGD's X-DF families, together with EGR/SCR-abated and ultra-long-stroke G-type engines, consistently power the most emission-friendly ships in service.

Emission-friendly engine ranking

AER (Annual Efficiency Ratio) = annual CO₂ emissions ÷ (deadweight × distance sailed), the IMO carbon-intensity metric used for CII ratings. It is built only from measured CO₂, distance and deadweight — not the self-reported cargo transport-work figure, which is unreliable. Implausible outliers (top 2% per segment) are excluded. Grade A–E reflects each vessel's rank within its segment. Source: EMSA THETIS-MRV.