Too many open variables for a single pathway.
Parallel orders, fuel-ready concepts, pilot projects and blend trials.
Capital and influence over supply chains are often lacking.
No definitive fuel convergence. Flexibility is becoming more important.
The decision of large carriers not to commit to a single fuel is rooted in the technical and economic reality of the alternative fuel landscape. As of 2026, four principal candidates are available: LNG, methanol, ammonia and biofuels. None simultaneously fulfils all requirements for availability, cost, safety and emissions reduction.
LNG is the most developed alternative fuel with a growing bunker infrastructure. However, the well-to-wake emissions reduction amounts to only 10 to 20 per cent compared with conventional heavy fuel oil — insufficient for long-term net-zero targets. Methane slip in four-stroke engines further deteriorates the balance. LNG is a bridge fuel, not an end state.
Methanol offers, when using green methanol (e-methanol or bio-methanol), an emissions reduction of up to 95 per cent well-to-wake. Bunker logistics are simpler than for LNG, as methanol is liquid at ambient temperature. The challenge: green methanol is thus far available only in minimal quantities and three to five times more expensive than conventional fuel.
Ammonia holds the highest long-term potential, as it burns carbon-free. However, the safety requirements are substantial — ammonia is highly toxic and corrosive. Engine technology for marine operation remains in the pilot phase. The first vessels with ammonia main propulsion will enter service no earlier than 2027/2028.
Biofuels (FAME, HVO, bio-LNG) can be used as drop-in solutions in existing engines, making them attractive for the transition phase. However, availability is limited and competition with road and aviation for the same feedstocks constrains long-term scalability.
Given these uncertainties, the diversification strategy of large carriers is not a sign of indecision but of professional risk management. No fleet can afford to commit entirely to a fuel that may prove unscalable, too expensive or regulatorily insufficient within five years.
Diversification in fuel strategy carries immediate operational consequences. A fleet simultaneously operating LNG, methanol and conventional units must establish parallel bunker logistics, implement different safety procedures and qualify crews for various fuel systems.
Bunker planning becomes more complex. An LNG vessel cannot be supplied at every bunker station that a VLSFO vessel can call at. A methanol vessel requires bunker barges or tanker trucks with specific certification. Route planning must account for fuel availability at each port of call — an operational effort that does not arise with a homogeneous fleet.
At the same time, diversification provides a hedge against price volatility. When LNG prices rise, methanol units may operate more economically and vice versa. This portfolio effect is analogous to diversification in financial investment: individual positions may lose, but the overall portfolio is more stable.
For technical management, diversification means: separate maintenance plans, different spare parts inventories and specialised service contracts with various OEMs. This increases administrative complexity but also offers the possibility of gathering operational experience with different systems in parallel.
The order books of the five largest container carriers display a clear pattern of diversification. MSC, the largest carrier measured by TEU capacity, has ordered vessels with LNG dual-fuel, methanol-ready and conventional specifications. Maersk focuses primarily on methanol but retains conventional units in the fleet. CMA CGM combines LNG newbuildings with methanol options. Hapag-Lloyd has ordered a series of LNG dual-fuel vessels and is evaluating methanol for follow-on series. Evergreen relies predominantly on LNG dual-fuel.
None of the top five carriers has committed entirely to a single fuel. Even Maersk, the most decisive methanol advocate, continues to operate a large conventional fleet and employs LNG vessels chartered from tonnage providers. The message is clear: diversification is not the exception but the standard in the industry.
The appropriate diversification strategy depends on fleet size:
Large fleets (100+ vessels): Full diversification across multiple fuels is feasible and sensible. Parallel bunker logistics and crew training are affordable.
Medium fleets (20–100 vessels): Focus on a maximum of two fuel pathways. Retain readiness concepts for the third pathway as an option.
Small fleets (under 20 vessels): Full diversification is operationally barely manageable. Better: choose one primary pathway and hedge through readiness or flexible charter contracts.
Regardless of size: diversification is not an end in itself. It must fit the overall strategy and be operationally implementable. Poorly managed diversification is more expensive than well-considered focus.
Free initial consultation – we analyze your situation and find the best path forward.
Request Consulting