They reduce complexity, but selection often happens too early or too narrowly. The logic behind fuel shortlists is understandable: an operator facing the question of which fuel to choose for the next generation of vessels must reduce the complexity of seven or eight options to two or three in order to reach an investment decision at all.
The problem lies not in the shortlist itself but in the timing and methodology of its creation. In practice, fuel shortlists are frequently fixed too early in the decision process — sometimes already in the first board presentation, before a technical analysis has taken place. The board wants clarity, the technical manager delivers three options, and the selection is narrowed at a point when the data base is not yet sufficient.
A second problem is the information source. Many shortlists are based on conference presentations, industry reports and OEM briefings — sources originating from suppliers or industry organisations that naturally favour certain options. A shortlist created on the basis of a DNV report and two MAN presentations will systematically prefer different options than one based on operational data from the operator's own fleet.
Crew competence, spare-part ecosystems, port and bunkering chains, and convertibility. Most fuel shortlists evaluate three dimensions: emission reduction, CAPEX and fuel availability. These are important criteria, but they cover only half the relevant decision base.
Crew competence: What training does the crew require? How many qualified seafarers are available on the labour market for this fuel? For ammonia, for example, the number of certified crew members globally is still vanishingly small. A shortlist that includes ammonia without considering personnel availability is incomplete.
Spare-part ecosystems: How mature is the spare-parts chain for the respective fuel system? For LNG, after more than a decade of operational experience, a robust supply chain exists. For methanol, it is developing. For ammonia in the maritime context, it practically does not yet exist. The lead time for a replacement injector determines how long a vessel is out of service following a defect.
Port and bunkering chains: Not every fuel is available in every port. Bunkering availability along the actual trading route — not the global availability cited in industry reports — is the decisive criterion. A feeder vessel shuttling between Rotterdam and Gdansk has different bunkering options than a VLCC on the Middle East route.
Convertibility: How complex is a later switch to a different fuel? This criterion gains importance because regulatory uncertainty remains high. A system that technically permits a later conversion to another alternative fuel holds strategic value that is not captured in conventional shortlists.
Start with the vessel and its operational profile, not with the market trend. A robust fuel shortlist follows a reverse approach: instead of filtering top-down from the industry perspective, it begins with the individual vessel and works upwards.
The starting point is the operational profile: which routes does the vessel trade? Which ports are called? What does the load profile look like? What is the planned service life? What is the crew structure? Which maintenance capacities are available? These questions define the space of technically feasible options.
In the second step, regulatory requirements are incorporated: which emission targets apply to this route? Which CII requirements must the vessel meet in 5, 10 and 15 years? What EU ETS costs will arise? This step further reduces the option space, but on the basis of concrete figures rather than blanket industry trends.
Only in the third step do fuel options come into play — all those that can fundamentally satisfy the operational profile and regulatory requirements. The shortlist thus emerges as the result of a systematic analysis, not as the starting point of a sales presentation.
Under uncertainty, hold several plausible pathways against each other. The regulatory environment of maritime decarbonisation is anything but stable. The IMO tightens its targets, the EU expands the ETS scope, and individual ports and regions introduce additional requirements. In such an environment, premature commitment to a single fuel is a strategic risk.
The better approach is to keep the shortlist deliberately broader than necessary and to take the final decision as late as possible — but not later than needed. This principle of "deferred commitment" is well known from options theory: under uncertainty, flexibility has a value that is not captured in conventional economic analyses.
In concrete terms, this means for an operator ordering a newbuild series today: instead of firmly committing to methanol, they can choose a specification that keeps both methanol and LNG open as later conversion options. The additional cost of this flexibility is manageable, but the strategic value is considerable — especially if it turns out in three years that methanol supply along the target routes is growing more slowly than expected.
A complete fuel evaluation matrix should encompass at least eight dimensions, weighted according to the operator's specific operational profile:
1. Emission reduction (Tank-to-Wake): Not Well-to-Wake, because the operator can only partially influence upstream emissions. Tank-to-Wake is the robust metric for regulatory compliance.
2. CAPEX and OPEX: Including conversion costs, ongoing fuel costs, additional maintenance effort and training costs. Total cost of ownership over the remaining service life is decisive, not the purchase price alone.
3. Bunkering availability: Route-specific, not global. Verification of actual availability at the relevant ports, including planned infrastructure projects.
4. Crew availability: Number of available certified seafarers, training duration, qualification costs.
5. Spare-part maturity: Lead times, number of suppliers, availability of second sources.
6. Regulatory robustness: How likely is it that this fuel will remain compliant even if regulations tighten?
7. Convertibility: Can the system later be converted to a different fuel? At what cost?
8. Insurability and financeability: Do insurers and banks accept the chosen technology without surcharges?
The narrowing from the longlist to the shortlist should proceed in two stages:
Stage 1 — Exclusion criteria: Which options are technically or regulatorily impossible? Example: ammonia for a vessel below 5,000 GT that cannot achieve IGF Code compliance. Or LNG for a route without bunkering infrastructure. Exclusion criteria are binary and non-negotiable.
Stage 2 — Prioritisation: The remaining options are weighted using the evaluation matrix. The weighting must reflect the operator's context. For a charterer serving long-term contracts with emissions-reduced tonnage requirements, emission reduction weighs more heavily. For a tramp owner, flexibility weighs more.
The result is a shortlist of two to three options with a clear justification for why precisely these options remained. And — equally important — with a documented rationale for why the excluded options are not being pursued further.
Free initial consultation – we analyze your situation and find the best path forward.
Request Consulting