VAASABORG

Built by Volharding Shipyards in 2000

Compare

IMO: 9196242
MMSI: 246441000
Call Sign: PDAI

Technical Specifications

Key Figures

Gross Tonnage

6,130GT

Deadweight

9,567DWT

Length Overall

132.2m

Beam

15.87m

Draught

5.2m

Year Built

2000

Live Tracking

Current Position

Live AIS · 3 h ago

Track · last 14 d

Position

54.171°N · 9.437°E

Speed

7.2 kn

Course

241°

Status

Under way using engine

Destination ITRANETA Sep 15, 10:00 AMLaden · 7.7 m

Where it waited most

Most time stopped at Dunkirk — 7 d across 8 stays.

1
Dunkirk7 d · 8×
2
Le Quesne5 d
3
Röyttä3 d · 4×
4
Montoir45 h
5
Rieme20 h

Derived from the AIS track — runs of near-zero speed (anchored, moored or drifting) snapped to the nearest port. Builds up as we observe the vessel.

Intelligence

Risk & Sustainability

Risk scoreMedium

64/ 100

Safety48

Compliance95

Environment48

Carbon intensity · 2025C

4,981t CO₂

AER (CO₂/capacity·nm): 13.5
Fuel burned: 1,568 t
Technical: EEDI (10.87 gCO₂/t·nm)

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

Recent port calls

Audorf
Sep 1, 2026
0.0 d
Achterwehr
Sep 1, 2026
0.0 d
Ellerbek
Sep 1, 2026
0.0 d
Röyttä
Aug 26, 2026
1.8 d
Röyttä
Aug 25, 2026
0.5 d

AIS-derived from our live feed.

Compliance

Safety Record

Marine casualties1

GroundingSerious
May 22, 2002WESTERN END OF ILE LAPIERRE, QUE., QUEBEC (QC)
In clear weather on 22 May 2002, the Vaasaborg was proceeding upbound in the St. Lawrence River, bound for Menominee, Michigan, United States. The pilot had just reported that the vessel was at the calling-in point of Île des Barques when he noticed that the course remained unchanged after a course-set adjustment of one degree on the autopilot. When a second attempt was made by the pilot to alter the course, the bow was observed to sheer abruptly to starboard. Attempts to turn the helm to port were delayed. Full astern was ordered and the officer of the watch was tasked to let go the anchor. At 1005, the vessel ran aground on the north side of the channel off Île de Grâce. Attempts to refloat the vessel were not successful until the vessel had been lightened, and on 29 May 2002, the Vaasaborg was refloated. No pollution, injury, or major damage resulted from this occurrence.

Recorded marine occurrences naming this vessel.

Build Series

Sister Vessels

5 sisters

Volharding Shipyards · OTHER · 2000–2001 · 6-hull series

VIRGINIABORG

Built 20019,846 DWTIMO 9234290

VANCOUVERBORG

Built 20019,829 DWTIMO 9213741

ARISTO

Built 20009,682 DWTIMO 9229116

MONTSERRAT

Built 20009,567 DWTIMO 9213739

VICTORIABORG

Built 20019,826 DWTIMO 9234276

Sister hulls share a yard, segment, build year (±1) and deadweight (±3%) — the cleanest comparables for valuation. Derived in-house from our fleet register; coverage is limited to hulls carrying a recorded builder, so a series may be incomplete.

Operational Status

Activity

Under wayFix within the last day

Making way at sea speed on its latest broadcast.

Speed

7.2 kn

Nav status

Under way using engine

Last broadcast

within the last day

Hull age

26 yr

Read from the single most-recent AIS broadcast we hold for this hull — we keep no position history, so this is a point-in-time posture, not a dwell inference. Derived in-house from our own AIS feed; weight it by the broadcast age above.

Port calls

11 recent · AIS-detected

Arrivals, time in port and the load/discharge inferred from the draught change — detected from AIS track history. An open call means the vessel is still in port (no departure observed yet).

Röyttä
Loaded
→ · 3.5 days in port· draught 6.8→7.7 m
Röyttä
op. unknown
In port since
Rieme
no cargo change
→ · 20 h in port· draught 7.6→7.6 m
Montoir
Discharged
→ · 46 h in port· draught 6.3→5.0 m
Muuga-Port of Tallin
Loaded
→ · 24 h in port· draught 5.0→6.2 m
Inkoo
op. unknown
In port since
Humber
no cargo change
→ · 18 h in port· draught 7.9→7.9 m
Humber
no cargo change
→ · 24 h in port· draught 7.9→7.9 m
Humber
no cargo change
→ · 36 h in port· draught 7.9→7.9 m
Humber
no cargo change
→ · 2.0 days in port· draught 7.9→7.9 m
Humber
no cargo change
→ · 2.9 days in port· draught 7.9→7.9 m

Method: each call is a run of fixes inside a port’s geofence confirmed by a stop (or an AIS gap); load/discharge is the sign of the draught delta over the call. Indicative — arrivals before our AIS history began read from the first observation.

Where it waits

5 ports · 15.4 days total

Time-in-port summed by port from the AIS-detected port-call history — the ports this vessel has spent the most time at, longest first.

Humber· United Kingdom
8.2 days
5 calls · 39 h avg
Röyttä· Finland
3.5 days
1 call · 3.5 days avg 1 load
Montoir· France
46 h
1 call · 46 h avg 1 discharge
Muuga-Port of Tallin· Estonia
24 h
1 call · 24 h avg 1 load
Rieme· Belgium
20 h
1 call · 20 h avg

Based on 9 completed calls observed since — open calls (no departure yet) are excluded. The distribution sharpens as AIS history accrues.

Composite Risk

Risk Score

74/100

Elevated riskLow confidence40% component coverage

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

PSC detentionsno data

Sanctions exposureno data

AIS-gap & behaviourno data

Hull age84

Flag register100

A coverage-weighted blend of the 2 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. This headline is flagged low-confidence (a thin or structural-only read) and should not be treated as a verdict. 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

~9,567t at summer draught

Other · summer draught 5.2 m · 21.5 t per cm immersion

Estimated intake by draught

3.64 m~6,207 t

3.9 m~6,767 t

4.16 m~7,327 t

4.42 m~7,887 t

4.68 m~8,447 t

4.94 m~9,007 t

5.2 m~9,567 t

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

Full compliance dossier

Commercial