Report insights / Ports and alternative fuels
Ships need more than the ability to use a new fuel: they need ports that can deliver it consistently. Three cases show how alternative fuels connect with everyday operations.
A dual-fuel ship’s ability to use a new fuel does not guarantee that the fuel will be available on its existing routes. The technical choices made when ordering a ship ultimately depend on networks for production, transport, storage and bunkering.
LR’s Fuel for Thought: Ports reports an alternative-fuel-capable orderbook of 1,942 ships in January 2026, including 385 methanol-capable and 45 ammonia-capable ships. At the same point, 222 ports offered LNG bunkering and 25 actively offered methanol bunkering. These figures show that ships and supply networks are developing at different speeds for different fuels.
Two selected fuels | Unit: ships
Two selected fuels | Unit: ports
For shipowners and technical teams, the practical questions matter more than global totals: which ports will the ship call at, how much fuel will it need, when will it need it, and can supply be sustained? Some gas carriers can use their own cargo as fuel, so not every alternative-fuel-capable order represents demand for port bunkering.
A single “ready” label cannot describe a port’s preparedness. The same port may routinely supply LNG, still be developing its methanol market, and have completed only a risk assessment for ammonia.
Often able to use existing oil storage, transport and bunkering equipment
Consistent quality, storage conditions, blend ratios, feedstocks and sustainability certification
Existing supply chains are an advantage, but compatibility between ship systems and fuel specifications still needs confirmation.
LNG already has a relatively mature bunkering network
Cryogenic storage, boil-off gas management, supply arrangements and methane emissions
Bio-LNG and e-methane can use similar infrastructure; their emissions benefits still depend on production pathways and methane leakage or slip.
Methanol is commercially supplied at some hubs; ethanol has fewer examples
Toxicity, flammability, material compatibility and sources of low-emission fuel
Being liquid at ambient temperature allows some chemical infrastructure to be used, but cargo-handling capability must still be developed into a bunkering service.
Commercial deliveries have emerged; many other ports remain at the trial or preparation stage
Toxicity control, leak dispersion, emergency response, personnel competence and fuel supply
Each berth and operating scenario needs its own assessment; LNG experience cannot simply be transferred.
Mainly short-distance, harbour-service and demonstration applications
Storage volume, cryogenic or high-pressure conditions, leakage and ignition risks
A hydrogen import terminal does not, by itself, mean that a port can bunker hydrogen-fuelled ships.
Based on report pp. 10–17 and 35. This is a snapshot at the time of the research, not a live list of port supply services.
When reading port announcements, ask what the milestone demonstrates: completed research, established procedures, one successful operation, or the ability to accept recurring orders? Each type of evidence answers a different question.
PRL stands for Port Readiness Level. It uses levels 1–9 to describe a port’s progress towards bunkering a particular marine fuel, across three phases: research, development and deployment.
Understand the need: assess the fuel’s relevance to the port, stakeholder interest and the information still missing.
Turn plans into trials: decide the direction, establish an assessment-based operating framework and conduct pilot testing.
Move into operations: start with individual projects, scale up and progress towards routine service. Reaching level 7 does not mean fuel is already available on demand.
The full tool, Port Readiness Level for Marine Fuels (PRL-MF), was developed by WPCAP and IAPH as a self-assessment framework applied fuel by fuel. Its use also requires a clear statement of storage and bunkering methods, scope, assessment date and outstanding work.
PRL provides a common language; it does not replace authority approvals, individual operational assessments or suppliers’ delivery commitments. The colour-coded overview on report p. 34 is the report’s own classification, not a set of official PRL scores for the ports. This article therefore focuses on specific events and their scope rather than turning different achievements into a single ranking.
A delivery, a trial and a licensing system answer different questions. Ulsan, Rotterdam and Singapore help illustrate the conclusions that each kind of progress can support.
Ulsan
23 April 2026
Ammonia deliveryThe report records Lotte Fine Chemical supplying around 600 tonnes of green ammonia to Antwerpen by port-to-ship (PTS) bunkering in Ulsan for sea trials before delivery. The Ulsan maritime authority confirmed the bunkering and safety-management preparations, describing it as a world-first commercial milestone of its kind.
This demonstrates one completed delivery under specific vessel and operational arrangements. It does not establish that any customer can obtain the same service at any time.
Official announcement ↗Rotterdam
April 2025
Ammonia transfer trialFollowing an ammonia ship-to-ship transfer trial, the port announced that it had completed PRL 6 and moved to PRL 7, with safety procedures supporting bunkering on a project basis. The trial used grey ammonia to validate the operating arrangements.
Procedures and operating experience are meaningful progress. Sources of low-emission fuel, routine availability and customer service remain separate conditions to verify.
Official announcement ↗Singapore
From Jan 2026
Methanol suppliersMPA announced licences for three methanol suppliers, covering 1 January 2026 to 31 December 2030. Selection considered supply-chain reliability, operational readiness, safety systems and fuel sustainability certification.
The framework provides a basis for supply and oversight. Each order still requires confirmation of quantity, quality, bunkering time, berth and contract terms.
Official announcement ↗These cases involve different fuels and operating conditions. They are not a ranking of overall port capability.
The physical ability to store and transfer fuel addresses only part of the supply question. Shipowners also need to know whether production has started, whether volumes are available for delivery, and whether quality and emissions evidence meet the intended use.
Grey, blue and green ammonia, for example, share the same principal chemical constituent when bunkered, but differ in production pathways and upstream emissions. Methanol raises a similar issue: being able to bunker conventional methanol does not ensure a continuous supply of suitable bio-methanol or e-methanol. Fuel names and colour labels cannot replace specific production, traceability and emissions data.
Report p. 13 cites June 2026 data showing announced renewable and low-carbon methanol project capacity of 61.8 Mt/year, while renewable methanol capacity expected to be operational by the end of 2031 is estimated at 6–12 Mt/year.
The first figure includes low-carbon methanol; the second covers only renewable methanol. Their scopes differ. These are project-capacity figures and expectations, not actual marine-fuel deliveries, and cannot be used directly to calculate a project completion rate. Mt means million tonnes.
The final delivery leg also needs bunker vessels, berth time, permits and emergency-response arrangements. These capabilities must be maintained even when initial demand is low, potentially increasing delivery costs per unit. Completed port infrastructure does not remove the effects of price, supply frequency and demand commitments on utilisation.
Cost assessments should therefore consider the fuel quotation alongside storage and transport, bunkering services, waiting time, deviations and contingency arrangements. Green shipping corridors can coordinate supply and demand along a route, but joining an agreement does not mean that every service is already available. Voyage requirements, actual contracts and delivery evidence still matter.
Even when onboard systems and shore equipment each meet their respective requirements, their ability to work together at a particular berth and under defined operating conditions still needs confirmation. This interface is central to alternative-fuel bunkering.
Ship-to-ship (STS), truck-to-ship (TTS) and port-to-ship via shore piping (PTS) each have different supply capabilities and operational limits. Fuel type, ship–shore layout, transfer conditions, neighbouring activities and weather can all affect the bunkering arrangements available.
| Area | Questions to resolve | Evidence to retain |
|---|---|---|
| Equipment and transfer | Are connections, hoses, pressure, temperature and flow rates compatible? | Interface data and operating conditions confirmed by both parties |
| Communication and shutdown | Who gives the instruction and who stops pumping in an abnormal situation? How is emergency shutdown (ESD) coordinated? | Communication procedures, assigned responsibilities and applicable test records |
| Areas and people | Who could be affected by a leak? How will isolation, evacuation and rescue be arranged? | Berth risk assessment, emergency plans and drill records |
| Cargo and schedules | Can cargo operations continue during bunkering? When must other activities stop? | SIMOPS assessment, operating windows and restrictions |
SIMOPS (simultaneous operations) allows bunkering and cargo work to overlap, potentially reducing additional time in port. It also increases interactions between activities. Exclusion zones may overlap with lifting, lashing or personnel routes, so a successful arrangement at another port cannot simply be applied to this ship.
A usable fuel plan should connect ship and voyage requirements with evidence for supply, operations and contingencies. The following process offers a sequence for discussion among shipowners, technical teams, procurement and operations.
List planned routes, fuel needs and bunkering windows; identify range and storage limits.
Obtain deliverable volumes, quality specifications, origin documents and delivery conditions.
Confirm the specific berth, bunkering method, supplier qualifications and applicable permits.
Confirm ship–shore interfaces, SIMOPS, weather limits and emergency arrangements.
Plan alternative bunkering locations or confirmed feasible fuel arrangements, assess additional time and cost, and agree responsibilities.
Digital tools can make these arrangements easier to coordinate. Mass flow meters (MFM) support quantity measurement, electronic bunker delivery notes (e-BDN) retain transaction records, and shared schedule information helps coordinate bunker vessels and service windows. Fuel quality, sustainable origin and emissions intensity still require supporting documents and verification; an electronic delivery note cannot establish all of them.
Bringing this question into newbuilding, procurement and operational discussions helps align design conditions with actual use. Equipment, permits, supply and personnel readiness have different owners. Defining deliverable quantities, bunkering windows, restrictions and responsibilities early provides a basis for later adjustments.
Port readiness changes. Plans should keep supply arrangements, operating limits and contingencies up to date, while accounting for time and cost, so that each port call rests on traceable information.
Reay Huang Maritime Notes
One operation can demonstrate delivery capability under specific conditions. Routine supply also needs reliable fuel sources, service windows, people and equipment, permits and continuing commercial arrangements.
Fuel specifications, blend ratios, storage stability, system compatibility and applicable requirements still need checking. Bio-based origin and recognition of emissions reductions also require their own evidence.
No. The report covers selected ports and publicly reported milestones. Omission or a lack of information does not establish a lack of capability. Taiwanese ports were not systematically assessed either; local authority and supplier information needs to be checked separately.
The IGF Code primarily addresses ships and their fuel systems. Shore-side and in-port operations also involve local authority, port and supplier requirements. Both sides of the ship–shore interface, and their interaction, need to be checked.
Information reviewed as of 2 November 2026. This article describes events and readiness reported in public sources, not live port inventories or service guarantees. Differences exist between the report’s port overview and some appendix descriptions. This article uses specific cases and traceable official statements rather than adopting that overview as a port ranking.
The interpretations, process and practical questions in this article are the author’s synthesis for readers. They do not constitute approval of any ship, terminal or operation, nor do they represent the employer’s official position. Actual operations must follow applicable rules, permits and project assessments.