Ammonia Shipping Fuel Enters Its Proving Phase in 2026

A Fuel Still Searching for Proof

Ammonia has long occupied an awkward position in shipping’s decarbonization story: carbon-free, potentially renewable, but toxic, corrosive and hard to burn cleanly. According to a feature by Sean M. Holt in Maritime Executive, the industry’s question has moved on from whether ammonia can technically work as a marine fuel to what evidence would show it’s genuinely gaining traction.

That question has become more pressing because the regulatory push behind alternative fuels has softened. The IMO’s draft Net-Zero Framework, agreed at MEPC 83 in April 2025, combined a fuel standard with GHG pricing for large vessels. But an extraordinary MEPC session in October 2025 was adjourned for a year, delaying likely entry into force from 2027 to 2028. Owners still need to place orders for long-lived assets now, even though the compliance timeline has slipped.

Demand Signals Diverge From Supply Reality

Demand-side projections remain bullish even as compliance dates slide. DNV expects alternative-fueled vessels could burn over 50 million tons of oil-equivalent, low-GHG fuel annually by 2030. Yet the IEA notes oil products still supply more than 99 percent of international shipping’s energy, with biofuels contributing under 0.5 percent as of 2022 — far below the roughly 15 percent low-emission share needed under a net-zero pathway by 2030.

Pricing underscores ammonia’s uphill climb. VLSFO was priced at $781 per metric ton in Singapore on May 29, 2026, versus a global average of $893.50. Grey methanol, once cheaper by weight, works out to $1,345.50 per ton on a VLSFO-equivalent energy basis in Singapore. LNG, meanwhile, has built real momentum: the dual-fuel LNG orderbook is set to grow from 781 ships today to over 1,400 by 2030. Ammonia trails well behind, with DNV counting just 39 ammonia-capable ships on order, mostly carriers and bulkers, with early deliveries only now arriving.

Building the Value Chain

ITOCHU Corporation is treating ammonia as entering a demonstration phase rather than remaining purely theoretical. Takeo Akamatsu of ITOCHU’s Green Innovation Business Unit says the conversation has shifted meaningfully since ammonia-burning engines neared completion, and that early commercialization on a small scale could follow the first NH3-engine ship delivery.

Rather than betting on a single vessel or port, ITOCHU is positioning itself across the supply chain — supporting ammonia-fueled ships downstream, developing bunkering and supply midstream, and backing clean production upstream. The company plans to supply NH3-fueled vessels as a bunker supplier in Singapore starting in the fourth quarter of 2027, using a purpose-built bunkering ship distinct from a standard ammonia carrier. Akamatsu stresses that winning public and workforce trust — not just engineering success — is essential, since one-off demonstrations won’t reassure port workers or nearby communities wary of ammonia bunkering. He also frames adoption as demand-led: dual-fuel ships can always default to conventional fuel, so uptake depends on commercial decisions by end-users once engines are ready, not on fuel availability alone.

From Optionality to Evidence

Jon Løken of CFARER, a DNV company, argues the industry must distinguish real bookings from mere readiness. He points to zero-carbon ammonia already booked in China for 2027 delivery as a signal that the market is moving from theory toward practice, a shift he links partly to supply-chain resilience concerns following disruption near the Red Sea and Strait of Hormuz.

Løken separates “ammonia-ready” ships from truly “ultra-ready” ones — vessels with dual-injection systems fully installed, piped and tested. Converting an ammonia-ready ship can require roughly 50 days in drydock, and some owners are pulling vessels out of yards early rather than finishing that work, favoring current charter revenue over conversion. He expects more purpose-built ammonia vessels to be ordered outright rather than retrofitted. Early ammonia use, he suggests, may cover only around 10 percent of a ship’s annual fuel consumption, concentrated on specific routes or emission control areas — with bulk carriers emerging as unexpected early adopters.

What It Means for Owners and Surveyors

For ship owners and technical managers, the practical takeaway is that ammonia readiness is not a single checkbox. The gap between “ready” and “ultra-ready” carries real cost and scheduling consequences, and any vessel claiming ammonia capability should be verified against actual installed systems rather than design intent. As bunkering trials begin in ports like Singapore, condition and safety surveys covering fuel systems, containment, and crew procedures will become critical to building the operational confidence Akamatsu describes — turning ammonia from a promising concept into a fuel that charterers and cargo owners are willing to commit to.

Reviewed by Ibrahim Halil Ceylan, Marine Surveyor at Apeks Marine.