Safety requirements, incomplete infrastructure and limited operational experience.
Toxicological risk profile, unresolved standards and missing bunkering networks.
The market indicates that technology and safety maturity are not yet broad enough.
Regulations, training, port infrastructure and insurability need to converge.
The low number of ammonia orders can be traced to a chain of specific technical and regulatory barriers that interact.
Regulatory framework: The IMO Interim Guidelines for ammonia as a ship fuel are still under development. Unlike LNG (IGF Code in force since 2017) and methanol (MSC.1/Circ.1621 since 2020), there is no final, internationally binding standard for ammonia yet. Classification societies – DNV, Lloyd’s Register, Bureau Veritas – have developed their own provisional notations, but these are not uniform. For a shipowner trading internationally with vessels at different classification societies, this is a planning risk.
Toxicity and safety technology: Ammonia is detectable by smell at 25 ppm and life-threatening at 300 ppm. This demands a safety level that goes beyond anything required for LNG or methanol: redundant gas detection systems, pressure-monitored double barriers, closed ventilation systems with automatic isolation, and personal protective equipment including self-contained breathing apparatus for all crew members in relevant areas. The costs for this safety infrastructure are estimated at approximately 3–8 million USD per vessel, in addition to the costs of the fuel system itself.
Engine technology: MAN Energy Solutions and WinGD are developing two-stroke ammonia engines, but market readiness is not expected before 2026/2027 at the earliest. Ammonia combustion is technically demanding: low flame speed, high ignition temperature (651 °C vs. 540 °C for diesel), and the risk of N2O emissions require optimised combustion chamber geometries and exhaust aftertreatment. Without proven operating hours in commercial service, shipowners understandably hesitate.
Bunkering infrastructure: As of early 2026, not a single port worldwide offers commercial ammonia bunkering for ships. Pilot projects are running in Rotterdam, Singapore and selected Japanese ports, but the transition to commercial operation requires substantial investments in port infrastructure, safety zones and harbour regulations. The chicken-and-egg problem is obvious: without ships no bunkering infrastructure, without bunkering infrastructure no ships.
The low ordering activity has a direct consequence: there is virtually no operational experience. And without operational experience, the data that shipowners, insurers and classification societies need for robust risk assessments is missing. This is a self-reinforcing cycle.
For operators considering ammonia for the future, this means: plan long-term but invest cautiously in the short term. Ammonia-ready preparations – designated tank space, reinforced structure, prepared cable routes and pipe ducts – typically cost 3–5 % additional CAPEX and keep the option open without committing to the full investment today.
The insurance question remains open. P&I Clubs assess ammonia projects individually, and risk premiums are difficult to calculate given the lack of experience data. In a damage scenario – particularly with toxic leaks near port areas – liability sums can be substantial. Shipowners should open the dialogue with their insurer already during the concept phase.
Crew recruitment will be a bottleneck. Ammonia operations require crews willing to work with a toxic fuel and correspondingly qualified. The training market for ammonia-specific qualifications is still in its infancy. Operators who invest early in qualification will have a competitive advantage.
Despite the low order numbers, there are significant pilot projects. The ShipFC project (EU-funded) is testing a 2 MW ammonia fuel cell on board the Viking Energy – an offshore supply vessel operated by Eidesvik. The project is generating valuable data on operational reliability and safety under real conditions.
In Japan, the Green Innovation Fund is advancing several ammonia projects, including the development of ammonia-fuelled large engines by IHI and Japan Engine Corporation. The Japanese government has identified ammonia as a strategic energy carrier and is supporting the entire value chain from production to ship operations.
South Korean yards and shipowners are working on ammonia-ready designs, particularly for VLCCs. The rationale: when the infrastructure arrives, the vessels should be convertible quickly. The timeline for the first commercial ammonia vessels is estimated by most industry experts at 2027–2029.
The honest assessment: a breakthrough in the orderbook before 2028 is unrealistic. The technology must first be proven in pilot operations, the regulations must be finalised, and at least some ports must offer commercial bunkering before the broader shipping industry invests in ammonia vessels.
Watch: If your fleet primarily has fewer than 15 years of remaining service life and you do not operate on fixed routes with potential ammonia ports, active monitoring of pilot projects and regulation is sufficient.
Prepare: If you are planning newbuilds for delivery 2028+ and operate on routes that could include ammonia bunkering ports (North Sea, Japan, Singapore corridor), ammonia-ready preparations are a sensible investment.
Invest: Only for operators with direct access to ammonia sources (e.g. gas carrier operators, operators with their own port facilities) or with government funding for pilot projects.
Red flags: Be cautious with forecasts promising a rapid ammonia breakthrough. The barriers are structural, not cyclical – they will not be resolved by a single order or a single regulatory change.
Free initial consultation – we analyze your situation and find the best path forward.
Request Consulting