The maritime industry is in the middle of an energy transition. Regulations are tightening, alternative fuels are gaining traction, and shipowners are scrambling to make sense of the future.
But in the rush to decarbonise, one major issue is often overlooked – the bunker market itself is fundamentally broken.
Even with alternative fuels, the way shipping buys fuel hasn’t evolved. Prices remain opaque, availability is unpredictable, and transaction processes are outdated.
The industry’s biggest fuel challenge isn’t just switching from oil to methanol, ammonia, or LNG – it’s bringing transparency and efficiency to how fuel is sourced, priced, and traded.
A market built on uncertainty
For decades, bunker fuel transactions have operated in a world of uncertainty. Pricing is fragmented across multiple brokers, suppliers, and ports. Buyers rely on private networks, WhatsApp messages, and email chains to secure fuel.
Availability fluctuates based on port conditions, geopolitical risks, and unpredictable demand. The result is a market where shipowners often overpay, miscalculate supply needs, or get caught in disputes over fuel quality.
The transition to alternative fuels won’t fix these inefficiencies – in fact, it could make them worse. New fuels come with even greater pricing volatility, fewer suppliers, and inconsistent availability.
If shipping doesn’t modernise how it buys fuel, it risks making the shift to alternative fuels even more complex and costly.
Regulation is moving faster than infrastructure
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the European Union’s Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) are forcing shipowners to rethink their fuel strategies. The cost of carbon is rising, and compliance deadlines are tightening.
But the infrastructure to support widespread alternative fuel adoption is nowhere near ready.
Take green methanol – while Maersk has committed to it, supply remains scarce, and price fluctuations make it an unpredictable option.
Ammonia and hydrogen face even greater challenges, with safety, storage, and production concerns limiting short-term adoption.
LNG is more established, but the long-term carbon impact is questionable, and pricing remains volatile.
With fuel costs and emissions penalties now directly affecting profitability, shipowners need better ways to track real-time availability, compare fuel types, and optimise supply decisions.
But the bunker market, as it stands, offers little in the way of reliable data or efficient trading mechanisms.
Is digitalisation the missing piece?
Shipping has embraced digitalisation in many areas – fleet management, predictive maintenance, and cargo tracking. But bunker fuel buying has largely stayed the same. If the industry is serious about decarbonisation, it needs to start with fixing the fundamentals.
- What if shipowners had instant access to live bunker prices, supply availability, and emissions costs across global ports?
- What if transactions were automated, reducing time-consuming negotiations and errors?
- What if fuel buying became as seamless as booking cargo space or optimising a shipping route?
This isn’t just a question of convenience – it’s about profitability, compliance, and long-term competitiveness. The bunker market is overdue for disruption, and those who move first will have a serious advantage.
Would love to hear your thoughts – is the industry ready to rethink how it buys fuel, or will traditional practices hold back the transition to alternative fuels?
