RightShip GHG Rating

What the RightShip GHG Rating is

The RightShip GHG Rating is a single letter, A through G, attached to a named ship. It says how carbon-efficient that ship’s design is relative to a peer group of similar ships, and it’s recalculated whenever the underlying data changes. The letter is not a government grade & it carries no legal force. It’s a private benchmark sold on subscription, and its weight comes entirely from the fact that the firms moving the world’s iron ore, coal, grain and crude have agreed to act on it.

The engine under the letter is the Existing Vessel Design Index, the EVDI. It’s a theoretical carbon-intensity number, in grams of CO2 per tonne-nautical-mile, worked out from a ship’s design particulars rather than from what the ship actually burned last year. Deadweight, installed main-engine power, the design reference speed at 75% of maximum continuous rating, and the certified specific fuel consumption all feed in. That set of inputs is the same family of data the IMO uses for the EEDI, which is the point: RightShip wanted one number that could rank a 1998-built Panamax against a 2019-built one even though only the younger ship ever had a regulatory EEDI calculated.

A design index measures potential, not behaviour. The EVDI tells you how efficient the hull-and-engine combination should be at a defined speed & loading. It says nothing about whether the ship spent the year at anchor, ran fouled, or steamed at 14 knots when it was designed for 12. That gap between design potential and operational reality is the single most important thing to understand about the rating, and it’s why RightShip’s letter is best read next to the operational CII rather than as a substitute for it.

Who uses the rating, and why

Three groups drive the rating’s commercial weight. Charterers and cargo owners screen candidate ships before fixing a voyage: a steel mill buying iron ore on a Capesize, a grain trader on a Panamax, an oil major on a VLCC. Each typically sets a floor letter below which a ship needs sign-off or won’t be taken at all. Terminals and ports use the rating to decide berth access & priority. Ship-finance banks & insurers use it in due diligence, partly to feed their own portfolio-level climate reporting.

The reason a private letter moves money is concentration. A small number of cargo buyers control an outsized share of long-haul dry bulk & tanker demand, and when they coordinate around one benchmark, the benchmark becomes a de facto gate. An owner whose ship slips a band can find the same vessel quoted a softer rate or struck off a list, with no physical change to the ship. That sensitivity is the rating’s commercial power & also the root of most owner complaints about it, covered in the Limitations section.

The framework that surrounds the rating is mostly voluntary climate-alignment reporting. The Poseidon Principles commit ship-finance lenders to measure & disclose how their loan books track an IMO decarbonization trajectory. The Sea Cargo Charter does the same for cargo charterers. Both report at portfolio level, once a year. RightShip is the vessel-level instrument those signatories reach for when they actually have to pick a ship next Tuesday. The two layers fit together: the framework sets the destination, the rating screens the individual fixture.

Background and history

2001 founding

RightShip (originally RightShip Pty Ltd) was established in 2001 as a joint venture between three of the world’s largest dry bulk cargo buyers: BHP Billiton (now BHP), Rio Tinto and Cargill. The founding rationale:

• Each of the three founders had its own internal vessel-vetting team conducting pre-fixture safety and environmental due diligence on chartered vessels.
• The three teams duplicated approximately 70% of their inspection effort.
• A joint venture would centralise the vetting infrastructure, reduce duplication and provide a common standard.

The original RightShip service focused on:

• Vessel safety screening (PSC inspection records, casualty history, Safety Management System maturity).
• Vessel quality benchmarking (the Vessel Quality Index, qi, a scored ranking of operational quality).
• Charter party clause recommendations based on the vessel’s risk profile.

The founders made RightShip available to the broader market on a subscription basis from 2003. Subscription growth was rapid: by 2010, approximately 600 cargo buyers, traders, brokers and terminals were RightShip subscribers.

2013: GHG rating addition

In 2013 RightShip added the GHG Rating as a new dimension of its vessel-vetting service. The 2013 launch coincided with:

• The IMO EEDI entry into force on 1 January 2013, which established the design-phase carbon intensity index for new vessels.
• The Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) Maritime Working Group’s call for a public per-vessel GHG benchmarking service.
• BHP, Rio Tinto and Cargill’s parallel internal commitments to incorporate GHG criteria into chartering decisions.

The 2013 RightShip GHG Rating used the Existing Vessel Design Index (EVDI) methodology, developed by RightShip’s technical team in collaboration with Det Norske Veritas (DNV) and the University of Strathclyde. The EVDI:

• Approximates the EEDI for vessels built before 1 January 2013 (when EEDI was not formally calculated).
• Uses standardised inputs (deadweight, design speed, installed engine power, fuel consumption per the IMO Tier I to Tier III certification).
• Produces a g CO₂ per dwt-nautical-mile metric directly comparable to EEDI.

Versions and updates 2017 to 2024

The RightShip GHG Rating methodology has been updated through four major versions:

A further v5 update is in development (expected 2026) to integrate the IMO Net-Zero Framework GFI standard from its 2027 entry into force.

Corporate history and ownership

The corporate history of RightShip:

• 2001 to 2014: BHP-Rio Tinto-Cargill joint venture.
• 2014: BHP, Rio Tinto and Cargill restructured to bring in additional minority shareholders (Olam, Glencore).
• 2018: Acquired by Greek-based ION Group in a leveraged buyout estimated at USD ~150 million; renamed RightShip Pty Ltd under the Australian-Greek corporate structure.
• 2022: Restructured ownership to include private equity (Permira); BHP and Rio Tinto retained minority stakes.
• 2024: Approximately 80 staff worldwide (Melbourne HQ, Athens, Singapore, London regional offices); revenue estimated at USD ~80 million annually.

Methodology

How the EVDI is built from design data

The EVDI is the operative metric behind the letter. It takes the design particulars that exist for any merchant ship and presses them into one carbon-intensity figure with the same structure as the IMO design index.

Read the formula as a ratio: the numerator is the rate at which the ship emits CO2 at its design working point, the denominator is the useful transport work it does in the same conditions. Main-engine power $P_{ME}$ is taken at 75% of maximum continuous rating, the same load point the EEDI uses, because that’s a representative service load rather than the engine’s flat-out ceiling. The carbon factor $C_F$ converts tonnes of fuel into tonnes of CO2: 3.114 t CO2 per tonne for heavy fuel oil & marine diesel, lower for LNG on a tank-to-wake basis, per the IMO conversion factors a charterer can reproduce with the MARPOL Annex VI NOx and emission-factor calculator. Specific fuel consumption $SFC$ comes from the engine’s certification, the EIAPP test-bed figure, or an IMO default where no certificate is on file. Capacity is deadweight for cargo ships & gross tonnage for passenger types. The reference speed $V_{ref}$ is the design speed at that 75% load.

Because every term maps onto an EEDI input, the EVDI lands in the same units, grams of CO2 per tonne-nautical-mile, and a 2010-built ship rated by EVDI can be set beside a 2016-built ship rated by its actual attained EEDI on one axis. The RightShip GHG calculator builds the EVDI from these inputs; the EEDI attained calculator runs the parallel IMO design index for ships that have one.

The EVDI predates and extends the EEDI in a specific sense. The IMO design index applies only to ships contracted on or after 1 January 2013, the date set by the 2011 MARPOL Annex VI amendments in MEPC.203(62). Everything older, which in 2013 was almost the entire trading fleet, had no EEDI at all. RightShip’s technical team built the EVDI to fill that hole, drawing on naval-architecture work with classification-society & academic partners, so the rating could cover the existing fleet rather than only newbuildings. The formula deliberately tracks the EEDI’s shape so the two indices are commensurable rather than two unrelated numbers.

The A-to-G letter banding

A raw EVDI in grams per tonne-nautical-mile means nothing on its own; a Capesize & a handysize have wildly different absolute figures yet either can be efficient for its class. The letter comes from comparing a ship’s EVDI against a reference line for ships of the same type & size, then placing the result in one of seven bands. The reference line is a regression curve through the fleet, conceptually the same device the IMO uses for the EEDI: efficiency falls as ships get larger, so the line slopes with deadweight rather than holding one flat threshold. A ship well below the line for its size lands in A or B; a ship well above it lands in F or G.

Two design choices matter here. First, the scale runs to seven letters where the operational CII rating runs to five, A through E. The extra bands give a charterer more discrimination at the top & bottom of the distribution, which is exactly where fixture decisions get made: an A and a borderline-C are treated very differently even though both sit on the efficient side. Second, the banding is relative to a peer group, so the letter is a ranking, not an absolute emissions cap. A ship can hold its letter while the whole fleet improves, or lose it because newer, cleaner tonnage shifted the reference line beneath it. That peer-relative basis is the same logic the IMO uses to set required indices, and it’s worth keeping in view when an owner sees a letter drop without having touched the ship.

Where charterers want the operational counterpart, the IMO’s own carbon-intensity grade is the natural pair. The CII required value sets the regulatory benchmark each ship is measured against, and the gap between a ship’s attained and required intensity drives its A-to-E letter.

Annual update cycle

The RightShip GHG Rating is updated continuously rather than annually:

• New IMO DCS / EU MRV data submissions trigger a re-calculation of the operational component.
• Vessel modifications (engine retrofit, EPL/ShaPoLi implementation, fuel switching to LNG dual-fuel) trigger a re-calculation of the design component.
• Trajectory boundaries are updated annually (typically in July) to reflect the tightening IMO trajectory.

The continuous update cycle distinguishes RightShip from the Poseidon Principles (annual disclosure) and Sea Cargo Charter (annual disclosure).

Verification and audit

RightShip operates an internal verification team that:

• Audits source data submitted by ship operators.
• Cross-checks against the IMO DCS, EU MRV, Class society records, and PSC databases.
• Issues correction notices for inaccurate submissions.
• Maintains a dispute resolution process for ship operators contesting their rating.

The independent verification gives the RightShip rating commercial credibility as a basis for fixture decisions. It also feeds the charter-party clauses owners & charterers now write to allocate emissions risk: the BIMCO CII clauses for time charters are the standard reference text, and a RightShip letter often sits beside a CII undertaking in the negotiated terms.

Data sources and how a rating gets refreshed

The EVDI side draws on fixed design data: the deadweight & gross tonnage on the ship’s certificates, the engine maker’s rated power & SFC, the design speed. Those change only when the ship changes, so the design letter is stable unless an owner retrofits. The operational side, where RightShip overlays the IMO CII and the EU MRV record, moves with each annual reporting cycle. When a ship submits a new year of fuel-consumption data under the IMO Data Collection System or the EU MRV regime, the operational layer updates.

A design-side recalculation is triggered by a physical change to the ship. The common ones are an engine power limitation fitted to meet the EEXI, an energy-saving device such as a Mewis duct or a wind rotor, a hull-coating change, or a switch to an LNG or methanol dual-fuel arrangement. Each of those alters the EVDI inputs, so the design letter is recomputed against the same reference line, & a ship that de-rates its main engine can move up a band without burning a different fuel.

Design index versus operational performance

The rating’s biggest conceptual point is that the EVDI is a design index, in the same family as the IMO EEDI & EEXI, and a design index is not measured performance. The 2021 amendments in MEPC.328(76) drew this distinction explicitly when they put the design-stage EEXI & the operational CII into MARPOL Annex VI side by side: one grades the ship as built, the other grades how it’s run.

The EEDI applies to ships contracted on or after 1 January 2013 and is calculated once, at the design stage, against a required value that tightens in phases. The EEXI extends a comparable design check to the existing fleet, forcing older ships to demonstrate an as-built efficiency at least as good as a reference, usually met by limiting engine power. Both are one-off design statements. The RightShip EVDI sits next to them as a private, fleet-wide design index that predates the EEDI’s coverage cut-off & so reaches ships neither IMO index touches.

The operational CII is the opposite kind of metric. It’s computed from a ship’s actual annual fuel burn & distance sailed, expressed as an attained carbon intensity that’s compared against a required value to yield an A-to-E letter. A ship with a strong design index can still earn a poor CII if it idles at anchor, runs a fouled hull, or steams faster than its design point. The two answer different questions: the EVDI asks how clean the ship could be, the CII asks how clean it actually was.

This is why a serious charterer reads the RightShip letter & the CII together. A ship rated A on EVDI but D on CII is efficient by design & inefficient in service, often a trading-pattern or maintenance problem rather than a hull problem. A ship rated C on EVDI but A on CII is an average design run very well, frequently through slow steaming. RightShip’s value to a vetting desk is partly that it presents the design benchmark in a directly usable letter; its limit is that the letter can flatter a badly run ship or penalize a well-run older one, which only the operational data reveals.

How a vetting desk reads the letter in practice

Take a charterer screening three Panamax bulk carriers for a coal cargo. The first is a 2008-built ship rated D on EVDI, the second a 2015-built ship rated B, the third a 2021-built ship rated A. On design alone the order is obvious. But the desk pulls the operational record next. The D-rated 2008 ship has steamed slow on long-haul Pacific runs & posts a C on its CII, better than its design suggests. The B-rated 2015 ship has been on short-sea trades with heavy port time & posts a D on CII, worse than its design suggests. The A-rated 2021 ship posts an A on both.

The fixture decision isn’t the design ranking. It’s the design letter, the operational letter, the safety score, the freight idea, & the trade fit, weighed together against the charterer’s policy floors. If the policy demands at least a C on RightShip GHG, the 2008 ship clears it & the cheaper rate may win; if the policy also demands a CII of C or better, the 2015 ship’s D operational letter becomes the problem despite its strong design grade. The point of the worked reading is that the letter is a gate & a tiebreaker, not the whole decision, & that the design grade & the operational grade can point in opposite directions for the same ship.

A second practical wrinkle is timing. The design letter is stable across a charter, so an owner who de-rates an engine or fits an energy-saving device can lock in a better band before a tender & carry it through the fixture. The operational letter lags by a reporting cycle, so a ship that cleaned its hull last month won’t show the recovered efficiency in its CII until the next annual submission. A desk that understands the lag won’t punish a recent improvement it can’t yet see in the data, which is one reason verified operational evidence, rather than the headline letter, decides borderline cases.

Adoption and commercial usage

Cargo buyers and traders

The principal commercial users of RightShip are:

• Mining houses: BHP, Rio Tinto, Vale, Glencore, Anglo American, Fortescue Metals; collectively chartering approximately 600 million tonnes of dry bulk per year.
• Trading houses: Cargill, Trafigura, Vitol, Gunvor, Mercuria, Bunge, ADM, COFCO, Olam; collectively chartering approximately 800 million tonnes of dry bulk plus 600 million tonnes of crude oil and products per year.
• Energy companies: Shell, BP, ExxonMobil, TotalEnergies, Equinor, Phillips 66, Chevron; collectively chartering approximately 1,000 million tonnes of crude oil and products per year.
• Steel mills and refineries: Direct chartering of Capesize / VLOC bulk carriers and VLCC tankers.

By total cargo value, approximately 80% of global dry bulk and tanker fixtures incorporate the RightShip rating in vessel selection.

Vessel screening thresholds

Most major commercial users apply specific RightShip rating thresholds:

• BHP, Rio Tinto, Cargill (the founders): minimum C rating required for any chartered vessel; typically prefer A or B.
• Trafigura, Vitol (energy traders): minimum C for crude oil and products tankers.
• Shell, BP, ExxonMobil: minimum B for fleet vessels and contracted vessels; minimum C for spot fixtures.
• Major terminals (Rotterdam, Singapore, Houston): minimum C or D for terminal access in some cases.

The threshold varies by trade route, season and commercial circumstance. Vessels below the threshold may still be chartered but at a freight discount and with additional contractual obligations (typically a hull cleaning, propeller polishing or operational improvement plan).

Insurance and ESG screening

The RightShip rating is also used by:

• P&I clubs (protection and indemnity insurance providers): rating influences the insurance premium.
• Hull and machinery insurers (e.g. Lloyd’s syndicates, marine reinsurers): similar.
• ESG fund managers: rating used to assess shipping investments and shipping-exposed companies.
• Banks (the Poseidon Principles signatories): rating used to validate the loan-portfolio CAS calculation.

Combining the GHG rating with the safety score

The GHG letter is rarely read in isolation on a vetting desk. RightShip began as a safety & quality vetting service, & the GHG rating was added on top of an existing inspection and risk score that grades a ship on its detention history, casualty record, age & operator quality. A charterer’s vetting policy usually sets both a safety floor & a GHG floor, & a ship has to clear both to be acceptable. A clean A on GHG won’t rescue a ship with a poor inspection record, & a strong safety profile won’t override a GHG letter below the charterer’s threshold.

The commercial consequence runs through three channels. The first is charter preference: when two ships quote the same rate, the better-rated one wins, & a worse-rated ship often has to discount to compete. The second is exclusion: a cargo owner whose policy demands a minimum letter simply won’t fix a ship below it, which removes that ship from a slice of the market. The third is finance & insurance: lenders bound by the Poseidon Principles fold per-vessel efficiency into the climate-alignment score they report against an IMO trajectory, so a fleet of poorly rated ships drags a bank’s disclosure & can shape lending terms over time. None of this is a fine. It’s market pressure, & it’s why owners treat a band change as a balance-sheet event even though no regulator is involved.

Why a private design index existed before the regulatory one

The sequencing is the part worth pinning down. The IMO adopted the EEDI through the 2011 MARPOL Annex VI amendments in MEPC.203(62), & it bit only from 1 January 2013, applying to ships contracted on or after that date. The world’s trading fleet on that date was overwhelmingly older tonnage with no EEDI value at all. A cargo buyer that wanted to compare a 2004 Capesize against a 2014 one had a regulatory index for the younger ship & nothing for the older one. The EVDI was built to close that gap with one commensurable number for the whole fleet, which is why its formula deliberately mirrors the EEDI’s structure rather than inventing a different basis.

The IMO’s design-stage approach itself rests on the emissions accounting set out in the Fourth IMO Greenhouse Gas Study 2020, which quantified international shipping’s CO2 at roughly 1 billion tonnes a year & framed the case for both design & operational measures. RightShip’s rating sits inside that policy logic: the design index screens the stock of ships, the operational CII grades their running, & the private letter packages the design side into a form a chartering desk can act on the same day. The rating doesn’t replace the regulation; it commercializes the design half of it & extends the coverage to ships the regulation never reached.

Methodology evolution and recalibration

The rating isn’t a fixed yardstick. RightShip has revised the methodology several times, & each revision can move a ship’s letter without any change to the ship. The early versions were a straight EVDI-versus-reference-line ranking. Later versions pulled in the operational CII & EEXI data that the 2021 MEPC.328(76) amendments brought into MARPOL Annex VI, & tied the reference line to the IMO decarbonization trajectory so the bar tightens over time in step with the IMO GHG Strategy.

Recalibration is the part owners watch most closely. When RightShip redraws the reference line, a ship that was a comfortable C can become a D even though its EVDI is unchanged, simply because the peer group shifted or the trajectory tightened. This is the same effect that happens under the IMO’s own CII, where the required line falls each year, but RightShip’s commercial version adds the further variable of a privately set methodology. An owner can do everything right & still see a letter slip on a recalibration, which is the core of the transparency complaint addressed below.

How owners improve a rating

Because the EVDI is a design index, the most direct way to lift the design letter is to change the design. The common levers are an engine power limitation, which is also the usual route to EEXI compliance via an engine power limitation or shaft power limitation; an energy-saving device on the hull or propeller; a hull-coating upgrade that cuts frictional resistance; or a conversion to a lower-carbon fuel that lowers the carbon factor in the EVDI. Each alters an input the rating reads, so the recalculated EVDI moves the ship against the reference line.

Where the operational layer matters, the levers are different. A ship penalized on the CII side improves by changing how it’s run: slow steaming, better voyage & trim optimization, hull & propeller cleaning to recover lost speed, & a properly executed CII corrective action plan for D-and-E-rated ships under the SEEMP. Submitting verified operational data is itself a lever: a ship that genuinely ran efficiently but reported poorly can correct the record through RightShip’s data-verification & dispute process, & recover a band it lost to a data gap rather than a real shortfall.

Comparison with related frameworks

Poseidon Principles (lender-side)

The Poseidon Principles and RightShip GHG Rating are complementary:

Banks signatory to the Poseidon Principles often use the RightShip rating in their portfolio-level CAS calculation, since RightShip’s per-vessel EVDI is methodologically aligned with the AER. The two frameworks are therefore functionally integrated rather than competing.

Sea Cargo Charter (cargo-buyer-side)

Similarly, Sea Cargo Charter signatories typically use the RightShip rating in their pre-fixture vessel selection, then report the chartering pattern at the portfolio level under Sea Cargo Charter. This sequential workflow is widely cited:

• Pre-fixture stage: RightShip rating screens candidate vessels.
• Fixture decision: vessel selected based on rating + freight cost + commercial fit.
• Voyage execution: actual emissions tracked.
• Annual disclosure: Sea Cargo Charter portfolio CAS.

Other ratings

Several alternative vessel-rating services exist but with smaller adoption:

• Inspectorate / Bureau Veritas Vessel Quality: traditional safety-quality vetting; less GHG focus.
• Q88.com: tanker-specific vessel-information platform; integrates RightShip rating.
• EquASS (Equity Aspects Standardised Scoring): ESG-focused rating, mostly for fleet operators.
• MaritimeData: alternative GHG benchmarking service launched 2022; smaller market share.

RightShip remains the dominant per-vessel rating service by approximately a 5:1 margin over its closest competitor.

Limitations

The rating is a private commercial product, not a regulation. That’s the first thing to keep straight. It carries no statutory force, no IMO mandate, & no right of appeal to a regulator. Its weight is entirely market-made, & it could in principle be revised, repriced, or restructured by the company that owns it. A charterer is free to ignore it; the reason most don’t is concentration of cargo demand, not legal obligation. Compare that with the CII, which sits in MARPOL Annex VI through MEPC.328(76) & binds every flag & port state party to the convention.

The EVDI is a theoretical design index, like the EEDI, not measured operational performance. It tells you how clean a ship should be at a defined load & speed, not how clean it was last year. A ship can earn an A on design & then run a fouled hull, idle at anchor for months, or steam well above its design point, & none of that shows in the design letter. The honest read is that the EVDI ranks potential, & potential & performance diverge often enough that any vetting decision based on the design letter alone is incomplete. This is why the operational CII rating is the necessary companion, not an alternative.

Methodology changes & A-G recalibration shift a ship’s letter without any physical change. When RightShip redraws the reference line or tightens the trajectory, a ship that was a C can become a D with the same hull, the same engine, & the same EVDI. Owners experience this as churn: the goalposts move on a private schedule they don’t control, & a band drop they didn’t cause can cost them on the next fixture. The peer-comparison basis amplifies the effect, because the letter is a ranking against other ships, so a ship can fall simply because cleaner tonnage entered the fleet beneath it.

The peer-group comparison basis itself is a limitation. The reference line groups ships by type & size, but two ships in the same band can have different real-world efficiency depending on trade, draft & loading patterns the design index doesn’t capture. A relative ranking is useful for screening; it’s a poor absolute measure of a single ship’s emissions, & it shouldn’t be read as one.

Transparency & appeal are recurring owner complaints. The broad EVDI structure is published, but the exact calibration, the reference-line regression, & the trajectory boundaries are proprietary, so an owner can’t fully reproduce the number that gates their commercial access. RightShip runs a data-verification & dispute process, but it’s the rating-owner adjudicating challenges to its own rating, which isn’t the same as an independent regulatory appeal. Coverage is uneven too: the rating is strongest in dry bulk & tanker trades where the founding cargo buyers operate, thinner in container & specialized segments, & less embedded in trades outside the Western charterer base. A small or geographically concentrated owner gets less of the rating’s benefit & still bears its cost, the subscription to see one’s own data being a standing grievance.

Where the rating is heading

The next methodology revision is expected to track the IMO Net-Zero Framework, the global fuel-intensity & pricing mechanism the IMO is bringing in, so the reference trajectory will likely re-anchor to that standard rather than to the earlier strategy targets. Tighter integration with the operational data behind EU MRV & the EU ETS for shipping would let the rating lean harder on verified performance instead of design potential, which is the direction owners pressing the design-versus-operational complaint actually want. None of that removes the core caveat: a private letter on a design index is a screening signal, & it works best as one input beside the regulated operational measures, not as a stand-in for them.

Related Calculators

• RightShip GHG Rating Calculator
• EEDI Attained Calculator
• EEXI Attained Calculator
• CII Attained Calculator
• MARPOL Annex VI/13, NOx emissions Calculator
• CII Rating (A–E) Calculator
• Poseidon Principles Alignment Calculator
• CII Required Calculator
• CII Corrective Trajectory Calculator
• CII, SFOC & Fuel Mix Quick Check Calculator
• EEDI Required Calculator
• EEDI Reference Line Calculator
• EEDI Phase Factor Calculator
• EEXI Required Calculator
• EPL Required MCR Reduction Calculator
• GFI Attained - WtW Intensity from Fuel Mix Calculator
• GFI Compliance - IMO Net-Zero Framework Calculator
• SEEMP Combined Operational Measures Calculator
• MARPOL Annex VI/22, SEEMP Calculator
• MARPOL Annex VI/26, SEEMP revised Calculator
• EU MRV Emissions Report Calculator
• EU MRV to EU ETS Allowance Crosswalk Calculator
• EU ETS, Annual Allowance Cost Calculator
• FuelEU Maritime, GHG Penalty Cost Calculator
• CARB At-Berth Compliance Calculator
• Cold Ironing / OPS Offset Calculator
• CH₄ Methane Slip Calculator
• LNG Methane Slip, GWP20 / GWP100 GHG Calculator
• LNG, Otto MS / Otto SS / Diesel WtW Calculator
• MARPOL Annex VI, NOx Tier II Limit Calculator
• MARPOL Annex VI, NOx Tier III Limit Calculator
• NOx Tier Compliance Check Calculator
• Norway NOx Fund Levy Calculator
• ECA Fuel-Cost Premium Calculator
• ESI, Environmental Ship Index Calculator
• SOₓ from Fuel Sulphur Calculator
• PM10 / PM2.5 Calculator
• Black Carbon Calculator
• MARPOL Annex VI/5, Survey and certification Calculator
• MARPOL Annex VI/6, IAPP certificate Calculator
• IMO DCS, Annual Fuel Report Calculator
• MARPOL Annex VI/28, CII Calculator
• Cube Law Fuel Ratio Calculator
• Engine, Thermal Efficiency Calculator
• Engine, CO₂ per kWh Calculator
• Ship Recycling GHG Calculator
• Alternative-Fuel TCO Calculator

See also

• Poseidon Principles - the lender-side framework that uses RightShip data
• Sea Cargo Charter - the cargo-buyer-side framework that uses RightShip pre-fixture
• IMO GHG Strategy - the policy framework underpinning the trajectory
• IMO Net-Zero Framework - global GHG pricing from 2027
• MARPOL Annex VI - the global air-pollution and GHG framework
• What is CII - operational carbon intensity indicator
• What is EEDI - design-phase index that EVDI approximates
• What is EEXI - existing-ship index integrated with RightShip from v3
• SEEMP I, II and III - energy-efficiency management plan
• EEXI EPL and ShaPoLi - EEXI compliance levers
• CII Corrective Action Plan - corrective measures for D/E-rated ships
• Slow steaming and CII - operational lever
• EU ETS for shipping - EU cap-and-trade
• FuelEU Maritime explained - EU intensity regime
• FuelEU penalties, pooling and multipliers - FuelEU mechanics
• UK ETS for shipping - UK cap-and-trade from 2027
• EU MRV Regulation 2015/757 - EU MRV data infrastructure
• IMO DCS vs EU MRV - reporting comparison
• CARB At-Berth Regulation - California regional regime
• China DCS - China’s national reporting regime
• Cold ironing and shore power - in-port emission reduction
• Emission Control Areas - regional sulphur and NOx framework
• NOx Tier I, II and III - engine certification regime
• IMO 2020 sulphur cap - global sulphur cap
• Biofuels in shipping - low-carbon fuel pathway
• LNG as marine fuel - dual-fuel pathway
• Methanol as marine fuel - alternative pathway
• Ammonia as marine fuel - zero-carbon pathway
• Heavy fuel oil - residual fuel
• Marine gas oil - distillate fuel
• Specific fuel oil consumption - engine efficiency metric
• Marine diesel engine - engine technology
• LNG fuel system - dual-fuel ship handling
• Exhaust gas cleaning system - scrubber technology
• Selective catalytic reduction - SCR for Tier III NOx
• MARPOL Convention - parent IMO treaty
• SOLAS Convention - principal IMO safety treaty
• STCW Convention - training and watchkeeping standards
• COLREGs Convention - parallel IMO instrument
• Voyage charter party - typical contract type using RightShip pre-screening
• Time charter party - alternative contract type
• Bulk carrier - principal vessel type covered by RightShip
• Oil tanker - secondary vessel type
• Container ship - growing RightShip coverage
• Chemical tanker - covered by RightShip
• LNG carrier - covered by RightShip
• Port state control - parallel safety enforcement
• Classification society - data partnership with RightShip
• Flag state and flag of convenience - factor in RightShip risk score
• RightShip GHG calculator - per-vessel EVDI-based GHG rating
• Poseidon Principles alignment calculator - parallel AER-based portfolio CAS
• CII attained calculator - operational AER calculation
• CII required calculator - regulation-driven Required CII
• CII rating calculator - A-to-E rating mapping
• CII corrective trajectory calculator - corrective plan forecast
• SFOC-to-CII converter - engine SFOC to ship CII rating
• EEDI attained calculator - design-phase index
• EEDI required calculator - Required EEDI
• EEDI reference line calculator - 2008 baseline
• EEDI phase factor calculator - reduction factors
• EEXI attained calculator - EEXI as-built calculation
• EEXI required calculator - Required EEXI
• EPL required MCR reduction calculator - EEXI compliance limited MCR
• GFI attained calculator - WtW intensity from fuel mix
• GFI compliance calculator - Net-Zero Framework compliance position
• SEEMP combined operational measures calculator - non-overlapping savings stack
• SEEMP Part I calculator - Part I structure
• SEEMP Part III calculator - Part III CII operational plan
• EU MRV emissions calculator - per-voyage emissions
• EU MRV to EU ETS allowance crosswalk calculator - bridges MRV data to ETS surrender
• MARPOL EU ETS cost calculator - EU ETS surrender cost
• MARPOL FuelEU penalty calculator - FuelEU non-compliance penalty
• CARB at-berth compliance calculator - California compliance check
• Cold ironing OPS offset calculator - per-visit emissions reduction
• Methane slip calculator - LNG dual-fuel methane slip
• Methane slip CO2-equivalent calculator - GWP100 conversion
• LNG well-to-wake calculator - LNG WtW intensity
• Tier II NOx calculator - rated-speed-dependent Tier II
• Tier III NOx calculator - rated-speed-dependent Tier III
• NOx Tier compliance check calculator - integrated tier compliance check
• Norway NOx Fund calculator - national NOx levy
• ECA fuel-cost premium calculator - trade-route ECA economics
• ESI score calculator - Environmental Ship Index voluntary recognition
• SOx from fuel sulphur calculator - SOx mass-emission rate
• PM10 / PM2.5 calculator - particulate matter emission estimate
• Black carbon calculator - IMO Black Carbon Reference Method
• Survey calculator - Annex VI survey cycle
• IAPP certificate calculator - IAPP issue and endorsement
• IMO DCS report calculator - annual fuel-consumption report
• Reg 28 CII calculator - CII rating
• Engine cube-law fuel calculator - speed-fuel relationship
• Brake thermal efficiency calculator - engine thermal efficiency
• Engine CO2 emission per kWh calculator - engine CO2 rate
• Lifecycle recycling GHG calculator - end-of-life recycling GHG accounting
• Alternative fuel TCO calculator - total cost of ownership for alternative fuels
• ShipCalculators.com calculator catalogue - full listing

Additional calculators:

• Age Premium - Old Ship Rate Discount
• Sea Cargo Charter Alignment Calculator

Additional formula references:

• Index Sea Cargo Charter
• Index Poseidon Principles
• Index Rightship Ghg
• Terminal Dampier Rio Tinto

Additional related wiki articles:

• BIMCO CII and Emissions Clauses

References

1. RightShip Pty Ltd. RightShip GHG Rating Methodology v.4. Melbourne / Athens, 2023.
2. RightShip Pty Ltd. Annual Vessel Quality Report 2024. Melbourne / Athens, 2024.
3. RightShip Pty Ltd. Existing Vessel Design Index (EVDI) Technical Specification. Melbourne / Athens, 2013, updated 2017, 2021, 2023.
4. DNV. EVDI Methodology Validation Report. DNV Maritime, Oslo, 2014.
5. University of Strathclyde. Naval Architecture Department Review of EVDI. Glasgow, 2013.
6. IMO MEPC. Resolution MEPC.245(66) - 2014 Guidelines on the Method of Calculation of the Attained EEDI for New Ships. IMO, 4 April 2014.
7. IMO MEPC. Resolution MEPC.328(76) - Amendments to MARPOL Annex VI (introducing EEXI under Regulation 25). IMO, 17 June 2021.
8. IMO MEPC. Resolution MEPC.336(76) - 2021 Guidelines on the Operational Carbon Intensity Indicators. IMO, 17 June 2021.
9. IMO MEPC. Resolution MEPC.377(80) - 2023 IMO Strategy on Reduction of GHG Emissions from Ships. IMO, 7 July 2023.
10. Poseidon Principles. Methodology Document and Annual Disclosure Reports. June 2019 to 2024.
11. Sea Cargo Charter. Methodology Document and Annual Disclosure Reports. October 2020 to 2024.
12. ION Group. Annual Report 2024 - Maritime Subsidiaries. ION Group, Athens, 2024.

Further reading

• RightShip. GHG Rating methodology and EVDI documentation. https://www.rightship.com
• IMO. Fourth IMO Greenhouse Gas Study 2020. International Maritime Organization, London, 2020.
• IMO MEPC. Resolution MEPC.328(76): 2021 amendments to MARPOL Annex VI introducing EEXI and CII. IMO, 17 June 2021.

Related formulas

• End-of-Life Recycling GHG