Alternative-fuel ship orders are moving faster than port bunkering readiness, Lloyd’s Register reports

Lloyd’s Register (LR) reported on 2 November 2026 that alternative-fuel-capable ship orders are outpacing port readiness, bringing a near-term operational issue into focus for owners, charterers, ports, insurers and cargo interests.

According to LR’s new *Fuel for Thought: Ports* study, 1,942 alternative-fuel-capable vessels were on order in January 2026, representing 47% of global orderbook tonnage, based on Clarksons Research data cited by LR. The report says LNG bunkering was available at 222 ports, while only 25 ports were actively offering methanol bunkering. It also states that the first commercial ammonia bunkering operation took place at Ulsan, Republic of Korea, in April 2026.

The material point is not that every alternative-fuel vessel will face an immediate fuel-supply problem. Fuel choice, trading pattern, tank capacity, charter terms and access to dedicated supply arrangements differ substantially. However, LR’s comparison indicates that vessel capability and shore-side readiness are developing unevenly, particularly for methanol and ammonia.

This finding is consistent with the regulatory direction already affecting operators trading to Europe. The European Commission states that FuelEU Maritime has applied in full from 1 January 2025, apart from earlier monitoring-plan provisions, and is intended to promote renewable and low-carbon fuels and clean-energy technologies. The Commission also notes future onshore-power requirements for specified passenger and container vessels at berth. Separately, the IMO’s 2023 GHG Strategy identifies safe and efficient bunkering of low- and zero-carbon fuels, shore power and optimized port calls as relevant measures for reducing shipping emissions.

**Analysis:** the immediate commercial challenge is increasingly one of execution rather than vessel specification alone. A dual-fuel newbuilding may provide optionality, but that value depends on reliable fuel availability, compatible safety procedures, custody and sustainability documentation, terminal capability, and clear allocation of cost and delay risk in charterparties and supply contracts.

**Why this matters:** For voyage planning and claims prevention, stakeholders should treat alternative-fuel readiness as a route- and port-specific verification task. Owners and operators may need evidence of bunker availability and terminal procedures before fixing or scheduling calls; charterers and cargo interests may need visibility on fuel-related operational constraints; and P&I and insurers may focus on safety management, contractual allocation and incident-response preparedness. The LR data is a strong indication of a readiness gap, but the specific port counts and orderbook figures were not independently recalculated from the underlying commercial databases during this research.

This is an editorial briefing, not operational authorization or legal advice.