The recent World Sustainable Marine Fuels Forum 2026 in Amsterdam made one thing clear: the maritime fuel transition is not moving along a single, linear path.
While shipping's decarbonization ambitions remain high, the industry is still wrestling with a familiar problem. The fuels that can help today are not always the fuels that will define the long-term transition. Meanwhile, many of the future-facing pathways, including e-fuels, continue to face challenges around scale, cost, and bankability.
The result is a marine fuels market that looks increasingly multi-pathway, with conventional biofuels, LNG, bio-LNG, biomethane, ammonia, methanol, and e-fuels all competing for attention, investment, and regulatory advantage.
One of the most striking discussion points at the Forum was the continued dominance of conventionally fueled vessels in the global order book.
According to DNV data cited at the event, 85.18% of vessels currently on order are conventional fuel types. The share is even higher for new contracts over the past twelve months at 91%.
These high percentages show a disparity between current renewable fuel adoption and climate targets. In Europe, FuelEU Maritime and EU ETS costs are already reshaping compliance economics. Globally, the IMO's GHG Strategy aims to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping by 2050.
However, the order book suggests many vessel buyers are still prioritizing conventional fuel flexibility today, assuming that these assets can be resold before future mandates make them uneconomic. Forum delegates viewed this as a potential warning sign because conventional vessels that are not dual-fuel capable carry a higher long-term obsolescence risk.
Against that backdrop, established biofuels are well-positioned to remain a major part of the renewable marine fuels mix, lacking any credible near-term alternatives at scale.
Forum participants broadly agreed that biofuels, especially biodiesel, are likely to dominate the sector's renewable fuel pool for the foreseeable future. Attendees framed that dominance as persisting over the next ten to even twenty years.
Current demand is already substantial. Pure biofuel demand in the Ports of Rotterdam and Antwerp-Bruges is estimated at roughly 240,000 metric tons per year. Across European ports, that figure rises to an estimated 400,000 to 500,000 metric tons per year.
Rotterdam remains the clear leader, with bio-bunkers often accounting for more than 6% of the port's total fuel pool in recent quarters. Antwerp-Bruges has been more variable, with its share moving from above 2% to below 1%.
FuelEU Maritime could further increase that demand. The regulation's greenhouse gas reduction obligation rises from 2% in 2025 to 6% in 2030. If biofuel demand scaled in line with that increase, European maritime biofuel consumption could reach 1.5 million metric tons per year by 2030.
That upper-end scenario is far from guaranteed, though. Other pathways, including LNG, can exceed FuelEU's required decarbonization trajectory beyond 2030 and generate surplus compliance certificates.
Nevertheless, strong growth from today's biofuel demand levels remains realistic, particularly as many alternative fuels continue to face scale-up constraints.
The Forum also highlighted growing optimism around methane-based pathways, particularly LNG and bio-LNG derived from biomethane.
Several attendees noted the near- and medium-term cost competitiveness of LNG and bio-LNG relative to e-fuels. Some also noted that LNG pooling under FuelEU may already be reducing biofuel demand in certain cases.
These findings reveal that biofuels are not just competing with future fuels; they are also competing with lower-carbon pathways available today.
Furthermore, bio-LNG's appeal is tied to several factors:
However, competition for biomethane is intense. Other sectors are also targeting the same resource base, which could limit availability or increase the cost of marine fuel.
The Forum discussions also reflected continued uncertainty around the next generation of marine fuels.
One speaker argued that ammonia has stronger properties as a low-carbon marine fuel than low-carbon methanol, particularly because of its compatibility with LNG infrastructure. But this pathway depends on new LNG vessels being built ammonia-ready, adding another layer of investment and planning complexity.
Methanol remains a key part of the transition conversation as well. Yet it faces its own questions around feedstock availability, cost, and lifecycle emissions. Meanwhile, e-fuels continue to attract long-term interest but remain difficult to scale at the pace the sector needs.
This is where the near-term competitiveness of LNG and bio-LNG becomes strategically important. If these fuels continue to offer lower-cost compliance, they could delay investment into e-fuels or crowd out some of the capital needed to scale them.
Another important theme was the weakening willingness to pay for low-carbon options. According to a BCG study referenced at the event, willingness to pay a green premium declined in 2025.
The decline matters because shipping's decarbonization pathway depends not only on fuel availability but also on commercial readiness. If customers, charterers, or cargo owners are less willing to absorb higher costs, the transition becomes more dependent on regulation, incentives, and compliance markets.
This reinforces a broader point from the Forum. Fuel pathways will not win on emissions performance alone. They also need to be scalable, bankable, and cost-competitive.
The strongest takeaway from Amsterdam was that shipping is moving toward a multi-renewable fuel future.
Conventional biofuels are likely to remain the dominant renewable option in the near term. They carry support from their compatibility with existing fleets and the slow pace of alternative fuel scale-up.
LNG and bio-LNG are gaining momentum as practical compliance pathways. Ammonia and e-fuels remain important long-term options, but they still face significant infrastructure, cost, and investment hurdles.
For shipping, the challenge is not simply choosing the "best" fuel. It is managing a transition in which regulation, fleet design, fuel availability, carbon intensity, and customer willingness to pay are all moving at different speeds.
The marine fuels transition is underway, but it will not be defined by one solution. It will be shaped by the fuels that can scale, comply, compete, and earn investor confidence as the sector moves toward 2030, 2040, and ultimately 2050.
The maritime decarbonization landscape is changing rapidly, driven by shifting regulations, geopolitical disruptions, emerging fuel pathways, and evolving global trade dynamics. As the industry moves toward a multi-fuel future, understanding how these forces intersect is becoming increasingly important for shipowners, fuel suppliers, traders, ports, and investors.
ResourceWise's monthly Bio-Bunkering at a Glance report helps market participants stay ahead of these developments with timely analysis, pricing insights, regulatory updates, and coverage of the trends shaping global marine fuel markets.
Subscribe today to track the market signals shaping the future of maritime decarbonization and understand emerging bio-bunkering shifts before your competitors do.