Floating Storage or Production🇻🇨 Saint Vincent and the GrenadinesActive

FSU LNG CAP LOPEZ

Compare

IMO: 9241267
MMSI: 376812000
Call Sign: J8B6647

Technical Specifications

Key Figures

Gross Tonnage

114,354GT

Deadweight

79,822DWT

Length Overall

288.73m

Beam

48.09m

Draught

11.3m

Year Built

2003

Intelligence

Risk & Sustainability

Estimated market value

$16.8Mrange $13.4M – $21.7M

$210/dwt · 79,822 dwt · built 2003

high confidence · 37 comps

Comparable sales

HAFNIA SHINANO 2008 · $15MHAFNIA THAMES 2008 · $9.3MHAFNIA YANGTZE 2009 · $20MDANSHIP TOPE 2008 · $19MPELAGIC TOPE 2008 · $13.8MNAVE ARIADNE 2007 · $22.5M

Second opinion±27% typical error

$14.5Mrange $12.7M – $20.5M

An independent cross-check of the estimate above for Tanker (segment · size · age · market).

Estimate from $/dwt of similar-size, similar-age ships sold in the last 24 months. Indicative, not a certified valuation.

Risk scoreMedium

71/ 100

Safety58

Compliance94

Environment58

Carbon intensity · 2024D

54,983t CO₂

AER (CO₂/capacity·nm): 9.7
Fuel burned: 19,845 t
Technical: EIV (9.11 gCO₂/t·nm)

Verified reported figure. Band is peer-relative, not official IMO CII.

Composite Risk

Risk Score

82/100

High risk60% component coverage

Strong, corroborated adverse evidence — a detention, sanctions exposure or a dark-fleet signal.

PSC detentionsno data

Sanctions exposureno data

Dark-fleet signal80

Hull age72

Flag register100

A coverage-weighted blend of the 3 components we could read for this hull — the weights renormalise over only the components present, so a thin read is never inflated and a hull is never credited a “safe 0” for a signal it has no row for. Higher means riskier. Derived in-house from government-open port-State-control, flag, sanctions and our own vessel data; weight it by the coverage above.

Estimated

Capacity & Classification

Cargo capacity at draughtHigh confidence

~79,822t at summer draught

Tanker · summer draught 11.3 m · 96.1 t per cm immersion

Estimated intake by draught

7.91 m~47,257 t

8.48 m~52,684 t

9.04 m~58,112 t

9.61 m~63,539 t

10.17 m~68,967 t

10.74 m~74,394 t

11.3 m~79,822 t

Estimate only — modelled from deadweight (hull geometry) using a first-principles hydrostatic model, not measured hydrostatic tables. The design draught it is anchored to is unreliable across the fleet.

Type classificationConflict

Declared

Tanker

→

Inferred from size

Gas

declared tanker but density DWT/GT=0.70 is below the light-cargo cut 1.05 — under even a small bulker/tanker (typical >= 1.2); reads like a gas carrier or storage/FSO unit

DWT/GT 0.7Beam/LOA 0.167Declared type: Floating Storage or Production

The declared type conflicts with the class implied by the vessel’s size signals — a possible mis-declaration. Inferred via our shared size-based classifier.

Transparency

Risk signals

Behavioural flags raised against this vessel — each shown with the raw evidence behind it. Derived in-house from data we are entitled to publish; informational, not a determination of wrongdoing.

Type vs. size mismatchhighstrength 0.88

Declared type contradicts the size-implied class

Jun 23, 2026

Audit Confidence: 0.88
Beam Loa Ratio: 0.167
Deadweight: 79,822
Declared Class: TANKER
Declared Type: Floating Storage or Production
Dwt Gt Ratio: 0.698
Gross Tonnage: 114,354
Reason: declared tanker but density DWT/GT=0.70 is below the light-cargo cut 1.05 — under even a small bulker/tanker (typical >= 1.2); reads like a gas carrier or storage/FSO unit
Size Implied Class: GAS

Method: declared type vs size-implied class (DWT/GT density + beam/LOA fullness). Source: vessel_type_audit (sibling P3#3 job; shared coarse_class classifier).

Signals are a current-state view: a flag clears once the vessel stops tripping its detector. These are screening indicators, not a substitute for your own due diligence.

Commercial