Vessels that cannot be ranked
5,705 vessels fail the efficiency ranking for 5 distinct reasons.
Efficiency ranking needs a denominator. EEOI divides emissions by transport work, and where the reported transport work is missing, near zero or implausible, the ratio stops meaning anything. Rather than rank those vessels anyway and produce a league table with nonsense at both ends, they are excluded and the reason is recorded.
This page exists because the exclusions are themselves a finding. A fifth of the register cannot be ranked, and the reasons say something real about the quality of mandatory emissions reporting.
| Reason | Vessels | Returns | Years |
|---|---|---|---|
| Transport work below the floor | 4,744 | 7,570 | 2018–2025 |
| Distance below the floor | 435 | 463 | 2018–2025 |
| Implied speed outside 3 to 30 knots | 298 | 313 | 2018–2025 |
| Cargo above the plausible ceiling | 225 | 320 | 2018–2025 |
| No distance could be derived | 3 | 3 | 2022–2025 |
Transport work below the floor: The vessel reported so little cargo work that dividing emissions by it produces an extreme ratio rather than a meaningful one. Distance below the floor: Too little distance was covered for a per-mile figure to describe the year. Implied speed outside 3 to 30 knots: Distance divided by time at sea gives a speed no merchant ship sustains, so one of the two figures is wrong. Cargo above the plausible ceiling: Reported cargo exceeds what a vessel of this size can carry, which usually means a unit error in the return. No distance could be derived: MRV does not publish distance, and it could not be reconstructed for this vessel and year.