Floating Storage or Production🇱🇷 LiberiaActive

FPU LIKOUF

Compare

IMO: 9702467
MMSI: 636017131
Call Sign: D5JL4

Technical Specifications

Key Figures

Gross Tonnage

69,421GT

Deadweight

9,381DWT

Length Overall

250m

Beam

44m

Year Built

2016

Intelligence

Risk & Sustainability

Estimated market value

$8.8Mrange $5.9M – $8.8M

$939/dwt · 9,381 dwt · built 2016

low confidence · 2 comps

Comparable sales

ALMA MARINE 2010 · $8.5MJM SUTERA 6 2010 · $7M

Second opinion±27% typical error

$12.7Mrange $7.6M – $14.5M

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 scoreLow

90/ 100

Safety88

Compliance95

Environment88

Carbon intensity · estimatedE

This ship has no verified emissions report. We estimate a band E from its segment, size and age (98% confidence).

Estimate, not a reported figure. Within one band 95% of the time on reported peers.

Composite Risk

Risk Score

59/100

Elevated risk60% component coverage

Multiple adverse factors, or a hard ship-specific signal, lift this hull above the fleet norm.

PSC detentionsno data

Sanctions exposureno data

Dark-fleet signal80

Hull age20

Flag register75

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 draughtMedium confidence

~9,381t at summer draught

Tanker · summer draught 6.83 m · 18 t per cm immersion

Estimated intake by draught

4.78 m~5,688 t

5.12 m~6,303 t

5.46 m~6,919 t

5.81 m~7,534 t

6.15 m~8,150 t

6.49 m~8,765 t

6.83 m~9,381 t

Design draught looks implausible for this class and size — the figures above are anchored to it, so treat them with extra caution.

Estimate only — modelled from deadweight (deadweight only) 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

Tanker

density DWT/GT=0.14 is physically implausible for any cargo ship (declared tanker) — likely a tonnage data error

DWT/GT 0.14Beam/LOA 0.176Declared 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 0.95

Declared type contradicts the size-implied class

Jun 23, 2026

Audit Confidence: 0.95
Beam Loa Ratio: 0.176
Deadweight: 9,381
Declared Class: TANKER
Declared Type: Floating Storage or Production
Dwt Gt Ratio: 0.135
Gross Tonnage: 69,421
Reason: density DWT/GT=0.14 is physically implausible for any cargo ship (declared tanker) — likely a tonnage data error
Size Implied Class: TANKER

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