In the report’s foreword, Kamran Ul Haq, senior vice president of LR Ports Advisory, noted that the shipping industry’s fuel transition is already underway, but warned that vessel demand and supply chain readiness are progressing at very different speeds.
“That gap creates both risk and opportunity,” Ul Haq said. “Ports that wait for certainty risk falling behind competitors that are already building safety frameworks, licensing regimes and partnerships. Ports that invest too early risk assets that are never fully used.”
The report notes that readiness is determined long before the first vessel arrives. According to LR, successful alternative-fuel operations are built on risk assessment, regulation, workforce training and collaboration among port authorities, shipowners, fuel suppliers, emergency services and classification societies.
“No port needs to prepare for every fuel at once,” Ul Haq said. “Every port does need a plan.”
The report spoke of a rapidly evolving but highly uneven market. LNG remains the most mature alternative fuel, supported by a near-global bunkering network. Methanol has entered commercial use but remains available at only a limited number of major hubs. Ammonia has crossed an important threshold with a first commercial bunkering operation, although adoption remains embryonic, while hydrogen continues to be largely confined to demonstration projects and short-sea applications. Nuclear propulsion, meanwhile, presents an entirely different challenge centred on port access, licensing and liability rather than fuel supply.
Vessels vs ports One of the report’s conclusions is that vessel ordering is running significantly ahead of port investment. LR’s analysis identified 1,942 alternative-fuel-capable vessels on order as of January 2026, including 1,259 LNG-capable ships and 385 methanol-capable vessels. By comparison, only 25 ports were actively offering methanol bunkering.
“The vessel side of the transition is further advanced than the shore side,” the report noted.
The challenge is particularly acute for ammonia and hydrogen. Owners ordering methanol-fuelled vessels join a growing cohort of operators supported by an expanding supply network. Those investing in ammonia- and hydrogen-capable ships face a far less mature infrastructure landscape.
The report highlights the growing commercial progress of methanol. Singapore began licensing methanol suppliers from January 2026, while Shanghai recorded a single biomethanol transfer of 8,016 tonnes in August 2026. New international standards have also emerged, including ISO 22120:2026, the first international specification covering methanol bunkering.
Yet the report argues that the real challenge is increasingly not bunkering technology but fuel supply. Across the industry, announced low-carbon methanol production capacity stands at 61.8 million tonnes by 2031 but expected operational renewable capacity is only six to 12 million tonnes. As a result, the bottleneck has shifted upstream.
For ports, the report warns, the critical issue is often the “last mile” between fuel production and delivery to ships. Bunker vessels, emergency cover, berth access and licensing frameworks all impose costs long before sufficient vessel traffic exists to generate sustainable returns.
The report’s notes that there is no single global pathway emerging for port readiness. Instead, different regions and individual ports are pursuing distinct strategies based on local priorities, trade patterns and risk tolerance. “The evidence in this report points to a differentiated picture rather than a single verdict,” LR said.
Different choices Within Europe, Rotterdam, Antwerp-Bruges and Hamburg have developed broad multi-fuel programmes, while the Strait of Gibraltar has focused on LNG and bio-LNG. In North Asia, Shanghai has concentrated on LNG, methanol and biofuels, while Ulsan has emerged as the pioneer in ammonia bunkering. According to the report, “individual port authorities’ strategic choices, not simply geography, do most of the explanatory work”.
LR identifies LNG as the clear leader in infrastructure maturity. Existing LNG networks also provide a foundation for future bio-LNG and e-methane deployment. Methanol is progressing rapidly because its ambient-temperature handling characteristics allow ports to reuse much of their existing liquid-fuel infrastructure. The scale-up has been dramatic, with single methanol transfers increasing from 475 tonnes at Antwerp-Bruges in 2023 to 8,016 tonnes in Shanghai in 2026.
“LNG already has the network, and bio-LNG and e-methane can largely inherit it,” the report says.
“Methanol has separated itself from ammonia and hydrogen in commercial maturity.”
Ammonia’s progress, by contrast, remains cautious and heavily dependent on safety governance. Ulsan remains the only port identified in the report as having completed commercial ammonia bunkering. Other leading ports, including Rotterdam and Singapore, remain in pilot or trial phases, while Hamburg’s physical ammonia supply infrastructure is not expected before 2029.
Hydrogen faces even greater challenges. LR concludes that it “remains, realistically, a short-sea and harbour-craft fuel for the foreseeable future”, despite regulatory progress. Biofuel blends, meanwhile, continue to offer the most immediate and practical compliance route for many operators because they can use established supply chains and infrastructure. The report also highlights growing interest in nuclear propulsion. However, LR emphasises that nuclear-powered vessels will require specialised licensing, security and liability frameworks rather than conventional bunkering infrastructure. Projects involving Long Beach, Corpus Christi, Rotterdam, Charleston and Felixstowe are exploring those questions. For shipowners and charterers, the report argues that fuel strategy can no longer be separated from trading patterns: “Fuel choice and trade route are now inseparable… Any newbuild or conversion decision should be stress-tested against the specific ports a vessel will call at, not against the industry’s aggregate progress.”
The report points to green shipping corridors as one of the clearest indicators of where reliable alternative-fuel supply will emerge first. It also identifies biofuel blends as “the lowest-risk, highest-availability compliance option for owners who need to act now”. Source: Baltic Exchange