Oil 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 2025. Lower is greener. Pick a segment and size class to see the greenest vessels first.

Segment rank (2025)

#1,651 of 1,651 oil tankers

CO₂ intensity

21.5 g CO₂/dwt·nm

vs segment average (5.18)

+315% 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

551 at D/E

A 411B 557C 556D 354E 197

2,075 rated vessels · 250 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	1,790	5–10%	€400k–1,200k	—	vendor claim
Bulbous bow reprofiling	1,674	2–6%	€300k–900k	—	vendor claim
Turbocharger cut-out	1,267	1–3%	€80k–250k	—	vendor claim
Methanol dual-fuel conversion	1,163	5–15%	€8,000k–20,000k	—	vendor claim
LNG dual-fuel conversion	1,129	15–25%	€15,000k–35,000k	—	vendor claim
Rotor sails (per unit)	1,052	route-dependent	€1,500k–3,500k	—	vendor claim

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

Retrofit opportunity in this segment

392

D/E vessels with at least one eligible measure

€1,483–3,536M

capex range, top measure per vessel (392 of 392 with computable scaling)

0.25–0.46 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
PAULA GLORY · 25-60k	E	3y	2026	100%	Sep 2026
OLYMPIC TROPHY · >200k	E	16y	2026	99%	Jul 2030
SEALING · 25-60k	E	23y	2026	99%	Feb 2028
EOS T · <25k	E	20y	2026	97%	Aug 2026
HERCULES SUN · <25k	E	4y	2026	94%	Aug 2027

See all 2,075 rated oil 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

1,685

vessels ranked

1.32

greenest (g CO₂/dwt·nm)

4.01

segment median

#	Vessel	Size (DWT)	Built	Length	Main Engine	Carbon intensity — AER (g CO₂/dwt·nm)	Grade
1651	IVER BLESSING IMO 9588287	6,189	2011	110 m	Hanshin - LH46L	21.7	E

Page 34 of 34 — 1,651 vessels

← Prev

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 2025 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.