These questions have become more relevant. Although the first methanol/ethanol-capable dry bulk vessels entered the orderbook in 2023, they gained popularity from May 2026, and the number increased to 19 vessels by September. The wider trend is equally interesting. LNG accounted for most of the alternative-fuel vessels in the dry bulk orderbook four years ago. Subsequently, methanol gained ground in 2023, and ammonia came into the picture in 2024.

This distinction matters because shipowners still face uncertainty over which alternative fuel will offer the best combination of price, availability and regulatory benefits. Some owners and charterers are addressing this unpredictability through fuel-flexible newbuildings. The 19 methanol/ethanol-capable vessels currently in the dry bulk orderbook are linked to Vale’s move towards fuel-flexible ore carriers, with multiple shipowners ordering these vessels against long-term employment with the miner. Vale’s wider programme involves up to 30 large ore carriers capable of using methanol or ethanol.

Others shipowners continue to favour efficient conventional vessels. Pacific Basin replaced four planned methanol dual-fuel Ultramax newbuildings with conventionally fuelled vessels. The change reduced the reported programme cost from $186 million to $156.8 million, although the company retained options for two dual-fuel vessels. The company partly attributed the decision to uncertainty surrounding the IMO Net-Zero Framework. The decision highlights the trade-off between paying more for future fuel flexibility and investing in efficient conventional tonnage today.

Owners could also use retrofits to delay that decision. Jayendu Krishna, Head of Maritime Advisory at Drewry and also part of Drewry’s Energy Transition Advisory team, recently highlighted that shipowners have increased methanol retrofit activity as engine manufacturers have developed conversion packages. However, high fuel prices and limited availability continue to constrain actual methanol consumption.

The gap between vessel capability and fuel use remains wide. Drewry’s analysis of IMO data shows that alternative fuels met 9.5% of shipping’s energy demand in 2025, but methanol contributed only 0.3% of alternative-fuel consumption. Therefore, building more capable vessels will not drive the transition. Fuel prices, infrastructure, regulation and charterer requirements will determine how owners actually operate these vessels. Recent developments show that ethanol use is moving beyond trials. In October 2026, the methanol dual-fuel containership Maersk Halifax bunkered around 5,000 tonnes of certified bioethanol in Singapore.

These factors could impact dry bulk shipping. Unlike containerships, bulk carriers frequently move between regions, which makes widespread fuel availability vital. Owners will have less incentive to use alternative fuels if doing so limits trading flexibility or increases voyage costs.

However, the equation could change. If prices of alternative fuels soften, bunkering networks expand, and carbon costs increase the cost of conventional fuels, fuel-flexible vessels could gain an advantage. Major cargo owners could also influence this shift if they increasingly include fuel capability and emissions in chartering decisions as they seek to reduce their Scope 3 emissions.

This would affect more than newbuilding choices. It could alter vessels that can compete effectively on a particular route, even if total fleet capacity remains unchanged, thereby changing effective supply. Two vessels may offer similar carrying capacity, but they may not compete equally for the same cargo if their fuel costs, emissions and regulatory exposure differ. Fuel-flexible and more efficient ships could gain access to a wider range of employment, while older conventional vessels may increasingly compete on trades where fuel capability and carbon costs have less influence.

Conclusion Nineteen methanol/ethanol-capable vessels on the orderbook do not signal a rapid shift towards ethanol. Instead, it shows that some owners have started paying for flexibility while the industry still lacks clarity on future fuel economics and regulations.

The next few years will be crucial and determine whether that flexibility translates into a commercial advantage. Lower alternative-fuel prices, wider bunkering availability, stronger carbon pricing, greater regulatory certainty and greater charterer preference for lower-emission vessels could increase the competitiveness of fuel-flexible ships. If these factors strengthen, fuel capability could increasingly influence chartering, asset values and newbuilding decisions.

For dry bulk shipping, this could ultimately create greater differentiation within the fleet. The transition may not immediately change the number of ships available, but it could change which ships compete most effectively for cargo and therefore the effective supply available to different trades. Source: Drewry