Shipowners and crews do not need simplified success stories but realistic presentations of risks. In the current debate around alternative marine fuels, two extremes dominate: on one side, technological optimism presenting every new fuel as a problem-free solution; on the other, blanket rejection. Both are useless for informed decision-making.
Decision-makers -- whether shipowners, technical managers or charterers -- make investment decisions that have effects spanning 20-25 years. A newbuild with the wrong fuel concept becomes a stranded asset. A retrofit based on exaggerated manufacturer promises becomes a financial burden. Honest risk communication is not a nice-to-have but the foundation for economically viable decisions.
This applies not only to communication between consultants and shipowners but also within companies. When the technical department knows the limitations of a fuel but the chartering department assumes unrestricted usability, operational problems arise that would have been avoidable.
Bunkering access, climate impact, conversion effort and residual value risks. The most common embellishments in practice concern four areas:
First, bunker availability. When a fuel is advertised as "globally available," one should look closely. Methanol is increasingly available at major container ports, but on many routes -- particularly in West Africa, South America and parts of Southeast Asia -- availability is neither assured nor economical. Ammonia as a bunker fuel exists in 2026 practically only in pilot projects.
Second, climate impact. The "well-to-wake" perspective is frequently presented in simplified form. Green methanol has a considerably better CO2 balance than fossil HFO, but only if it actually comes from renewable sources. Grey methanol from natural gas has a carbon footprint barely better than conventional fuel. Green ammonia requires enormous amounts of renewable electricity for production -- the question of where this electricity is to come from in sufficient quantity is rarely answered honestly.
Third, conversion effort. "Methanol-ready" sounds like a straightforward retrofit. In reality, a methanol retrofit means: new fuel supply system, modified main engine, inert gas plant, gas detection system, ventilation modifications, revised emergency procedures, new training, class approval. This is not a manageable measure but a major project with yard stay.
Fourth, residual value risk. How will the resale value of a vessel develop that is specialised for a fuel which may not become the dominant solution? This question is ignored in most investment calculations or answered with optimistic assumptions.
Good communication first states the benefit, then the prerequisites and then the limitations. Effective risk communication follows a simple principle: state the benefit, clarify the prerequisites, honestly identify the limitations. Rather than "methanol is the future," better: "methanol offers a CO2 reduction of up to 95% compared to HFO, provided it is green methanol. Bunker availability is increasingly given on main container routes but limited on secondary routes. Conversion costs typically range between 5-15 million USD, depending on vessel size and engine type."
This type of communication contains the same positive core message, but it gives the decision-maker the information needed for an informed assessment. It respects the intelligence of the counterpart rather than serving simplified messages.
In an internal context -- for example in a Technical Committee meeting -- risk communication should be even more direct. Here, no sales framing is needed. What is needed is an honest stocktake: what do we know with certainty? What are assumptions? Where are the greatest uncertainties? What is the worst case?
Transparent communication strengthens collaboration and credibility. In the maritime industry, business relationships are based on trust. A consultant who three years ago recommended a fuel as "future-proof" and whose recommendation turns out to be problematic permanently loses credibility. A consultant who honestly said at the time "this fuel has potential, but you need to plan for these three risks" retains credibility even when one of the risks materialises.
This also applies within shipping companies. When the technical director has assured the board that a methanol retrofit will be straightforward, and cost overruns and delays then occur, trust is damaged. Honest communication protects not only the recipient of the information but also the sender.
Some of the most common claims in the alternative fuel discussion deserve closer examination:
"Methanol-ready" is frequently used for newbuilds designed so that a later methanol retrofit is possible. What this means in practice varies considerably. At some yards, "methanol-ready" encompasses merely additional tank space and prepared piping penetrations. At others, it also includes pre-installed gas detection systems and prepared ventilation ducts. The difference in retrofit costs between minimal and comprehensive preparation can amount to several million USD.
"Drop-in fuel" suggests that a fuel can be filled into existing systems without modifications. For none of the current alternative marine fuels does this hold true. Even HVO/GTL (Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil / Gas-to-Liquids), which are most similar to conventional distillates, require verification of material compatibility and seals.
"Carbon-neutral" is often used for green methanol or green ammonia. In reality, the CO2 balance depends on the entire production pathway. If the "green" methanol comes from a process using carbon from fossil sources with only the hydrogen component being renewable, the CO2 reduction is considerably less than claimed. The EU FuelEU Maritime Regulation defines clear criteria for eligibility, and these criteria are stricter than many marketing claims suggest.
An operator plans a newbuild and decides on a methanol dual-fuel concept based on consultancy advice. The advice emphasises methanol availability and projected cost parity with conventional fuel. What was insufficiently communicated: bunker availability on the planned route (Northern Europe-West Africa) is practically non-existent for methanol. The operator must either change the route, plan additional bunker stops, or predominantly operate in conventional mode.
The result: a dual-fuel vessel that is de facto operated as a conventional vessel, with the additional capital and operating costs of the dual-fuel system. Had the consultancy honestly communicated that methanol bunkering on the West Africa route is not realistic in the medium term, the operator might have chosen a different fuel concept or at least made a more realistic economic calculation.
A simple framework for risk communication in fuel decisions: for each fuel, answer three questions: what are the proven benefits? What are the known limitations? What are the open uncertainties? Clearly separate these three categories without mixing them.
For internal decisions additionally: what is the best case, the base case and the worst case for economic viability? What assumptions underlie the base case, and how sensitive is the result to changes in these assumptions?
Free initial consultation – we analyze your situation and find the best path forward.
Request Consulting