ESIQ
Back to Insights
Low Carbon & New EnergiesOctober 202615 min readESIQ Research

From Bunkering Cost to Carbon Cost

How Should Shipping Fuels Be Benchmarked in a Net-Zero World?

Authored by Parvez Momin
Marine fuel bunkering and the carbon cost of shipping fuels

Marine fuel has long been benchmarked in US dollars per tonne. In 2026, with the EU ETS at full surrender and FuelEU Maritime in its second compliance year, that habit is becoming expensive. This article sets out a dimensionally consistent effective-cost framework, applies it to a defined Shanghai–Rotterdam container voyage under three scenarios, and separates the conclusions that are robust from those that depend on assumptions.

Key Takeaways
01

USD per tonne misleads: grey ammonia looks 40% cheaper than VLSFO per tonne, yet the voyage fuel bill is about 40% higher.

02

At 2026 prices, fossil LNG (USD 230–238/nm) and VLSFO (USD 301/nm) remain cheapest; every pathway below about 40 gCO₂e/MJ costs 1.4–3.9 times VLSFO.

03

The EU ETS and FuelEU price emissions on different bases; for low-carbon fuels, FuelEU is the larger regulatory lever.

04

e-methanol adds about USD 595 per TEU on this voyage; a simple percentage method understates the increment about 2.5 times.

05

Fuel and carbon costs reach cargo through contracts and market balance – a fuel-price rise does not imply an equal freight-rate rise.

01Introduction

Why bunker price alone no longer tells the full story

Marine fuel has long been bought, budgeted and benchmarked in US dollars per tonne. In 2026 that habit is becoming expensive. Singapore VLSFO moved between roughly USD 793/t and USD 900/t in the first nine days of October [10][11], following a year in which the Hormuz disruption transmitted rapidly into bunker prices, insurance costs and freight [14]. At the same time, ships trading with Europe must now surrender EU allowances for 100% of in-scope 2026 emissions, with methane and nitrous oxide included for the first time [5], while FuelEU Maritime is in its second compliance year [7].

A per-tonne comparison misses three things that now drive the economics. First, fuels deliver very different amounts of energy per tonne: a tonne of methanol carries less than half the energy of a tonne of VLSFO. Second, regulation prices emissions on different bases (tank-to-wake tonnes under the EU ETS, well-to-wake intensity under FuelEU), so two fuels with similar prices can carry very different compliance bills. Third, alternative fuels need different engines, tanks, bunkering networks and safety systems. This article sets out a dimensionally consistent effective-cost framework, applies it to a defined voyage under three scenarios, and identifies which conclusions are robust and which depend on assumptions.

02The Effective Fuel Cost Framework

Three layers, one consistent unit

The intuitive expression ‘effective cost = bunker cost + energy requirement + carbon cost + infrastructure + availability premium’ adds quantities with different units. We restate it for a defined transport task with useful energy requirement Eu (GJ at engine output, identical for every fuel). For each fuel f with lower heating value LHVf, engine efficiency ηf and pilot-fuel energy share pf, the fuel energy input is Ef = Eu/ηf, the main-fuel mass is mf = Ef(1−pf)/LHVf and the pilot mass is mp = Ef·pf/LHVp. All terms are then in USD per voyage:

Ceff = [mf(Pf+df) + mpPp]Layer 1: energy-adjusted fuel cost
+ EETS·PEUA·FX + CFuelEULayer 2: carbon-adjusted; two separate mechanisms
+ [K·CRF(r,n) + Ofs]/Nv + Dav·cdayLayer 3: fully delivered transport cost

Here EETS is covered TtW CO₂e (fossil CO₂ plus CH₄ and N₂O) × geographic scope × surrender share; CFuelEU is the compliance balance (limit minus actual WtW intensity, times in-scope energy) priced at a pooling price or the penalty, negative when a surplus can be sold; K is the newbuild premium annualised by CRF = r/(1−(1+r)−n) over Nv voyages per year; Ofs is incremental fuel-system opex; Dav is deviation or waiting days at daily vessel cost cday. Results are normalised per nautical mile, per TEU (capacity × utilisation × (1 − tank-driven slot loss)) and per tonne-nm.

Avoiding double counting

The delivered price already recovers producer cost, supplier terminal investment and margin, so supplier-side infrastructure is not added again; a delivery fee is added only where a quote is ex-terminal. No generic carbon charge is layered over the regulatory terms. ETS and FuelEU are both applied because they are distinct legal obligations on different metrics. Lost cargo slots change only the per-TEU denominator. Two views are reported: an operational view (Layer 2 + opex + availability) for a vessel that can already burn the fuel, and an investment view (Layer 3) for a newbuild decision. Ammonia, methanol and LNG cannot be used in an existing VLSFO vessel without a new engine or major conversion; B30 is a drop-in subject to engine-maker approval.

Benchmark case

A 15,000 TEU container ship sails laden from Shanghai to Rotterdam via Suez (10,500 nm at 16 knots; 25 MW average propulsion, 2 MW auxiliary, 36 h at each berth), requiring 64,306 GJ of useful energy, equivalent to about 114 t/day of VLSFO at sea. The voyage is extra-EU, so ETS and FuelEU cover 50% of voyage energy plus 100% of the EU berth stay [5][7]. Compliance year 2026; eight headhaul voyages a year; all inputs are listed in the workbook.

Figure 1: From bunker price to effective voyage cost
Figure 1. From bunker price to effective voyage cost. Source: EnviroSusIQ framework. Note: Data are sample and illustrative unless otherwise stated. Scenario values are modelled assumptions, not market quotations.
03Conventional and Alternative Marine Fuels

Why USD per tonne misleads

Figure 2 shows why USD per tonne misleads. At Base prices grey ammonia (USD 500/t) looks 40% cheaper than VLSFO (USD 850/t), yet the voyage needs 6,747 t of ammonia and pilot fuel against 3,137 t of VLSFO, so the fuel bill is about 40% higher. e-methanol costs 2.1 times VLSFO per tonne but 4.3 times per voyage. LNG is the opposite case: its high LHV means fewer tonnes, but its climate result depends on methane slip. Using the FuelEU default slip coefficients [7], a low-pressure Otto-cycle two-stroke (1.7% slip) has a WtW intensity of about 84 gCO₂e/MJ versus 76 for a high-pressure Diesel-cycle engine (0.2%), against 91 for VLSFO. The same slip penalty follows e-methane into an Otto engine.

Figure 2: Why USD per tonne is misleading, Base scenario
Figure 2. Why USD per tonne is misleading (Base scenario, identical voyage). Source: EnviroSusIQ model; VLSFO price anchored to [10][11]; methanol [18]; e-methanol [15]. Note: Data are sample and illustrative unless otherwise stated. Scenario values are modelled assumptions, not market quotations.

Pathway matters as much as molecule. Grey methanol (natural-gas based, ~100 gCO₂e/MJ WtW) and grey ammonia (~124) are worse than VLSFO on a well-to-wake basis; blue ammonia depends on capture rates; bio- and e-fuels reach 10–17 gCO₂e/MJ only if certified under the relevant sustainability and RFNBO rules [7][17]. The B30 blend modelled (30% used-cooking-oil FAME) cuts WtW intensity by roughly a quarter, not to zero. Table 1 summarises the pathways; Figure 7 rates practical readiness.

Fuel / pathwayLHV MJ/kgTank vol. vs VLSFOWtW gCO₂e/MJKey cost driversVessel suitabilityInfrastructure need
VLSFO 0.5%S (fossil)41.01.0×91.4Crude and crack spreads; ETS exposureAll conventional shipsMature global network
B30 UCO-FAME blend39.91.05×69.9Waste-oil feedstock scarcity; certificationDrop-in (OEM approval)Major hubs; blending capacity
LNG fossil, LP 2-stroke Otto49.12.3×83.8Gas hub price; liquefaction; slipDF engine + cryogenic tanksAvailable at major hubs
LNG fossil, HP 2-stroke Diesel49.12.3×76.2As above; HP gas supply capexDF engine + cryogenic tanksAs above
Methanol: grey / bio / e-19.92.7×100 / 15 / 10Gas price; biomass supply; renewable H₂ and CO₂Methanol DF; newbuild or conversionEarly; limited e-supply
Ammonia: grey / blue / e-18.64.0×124 / 48 / 11Gas, CCS, renewable H₂; N₂O controlAmmonia DF; first engines 2026Emerging; toxicity rules
e-methane (RFNBO), LP Otto49.12.3×17.3Renewable H₂, CO₂ source, liquefactionLNG-capable shipsUses LNG network
Table 1. Fuel pathway comparison (fuel-level factors; LHV basis). Source: FuelEU Annex II defaults [7]; RED II [17]; IRENA [15][16]; bio/e-fuel and ammonia factors are EnviroSusIQ assumptions. Tank volume includes a containment factor (1.0–1.3). Note: Data are sample and illustrative unless otherwise stated. Scenario values are modelled assumptions, not market quotations.
04IMO and EU Regulation

The cost of carbon compliance

IMO

The 2023 GHG Strategy is an adopted but non-binding policy targeting net-zero emissions by or around 2050, with checkpoints of at least 20% (striving for 30%) by 2030 and 70% (striving for 80%) by 2040 versus 2008 [4]. EEXI and CII under MARPOL Annex VI are in force and constrain design and operations, but carry no direct carbon price. The LCA Guidelines define WtT, TtW and WtW boundaries but are guidelines, not obligations. The Net-Zero Framework, a fuel-intensity standard with Tier 1 and Tier 2 remedial units priced in the draft at USD 100 and USD 380 per tCO₂e for 2028–2030 [2][3], was approved at MEPC 83 but its adoption was adjourned in October 2025; MEPC 84 scheduled the resumed session for 4 December 2026, subject to confirmation at MEPC 85 [1]. At the cut-off it is therefore a proposal, not an enforceable obligation, and it is excluded from regulated costs here and used only as a shadow-price sensitivity.

European Union

The EU ETS covers ships of 5,000 GT and above: 100% of emissions between EU/EEA ports and at berth, 50% of voyages to or from non-EU ports, with 100% surrender from 2026 emissions and CH₄ and N₂O added in 2026 [5][6]. As a public, auction-based reference for the EUA level we use the Q3 2026 CBAM certificate price of EUR 82.32/t [8], converted at 1.154 USD/EUR [9]. FuelEU Maritime instead caps the WtW intensity of energy used on board, at 2% below the 91.16 gCO₂e/MJ reference to 2029, then 6% (2030), 14.5% (2035), 31% (2040), 62% (2045) and 80% (2050), with a penalty of EUR 2,400 per tonne of VLSFO-equivalent deficit, pooling, banking and borrowing, and a double reward for RFNBOs to 2033 [7]. The illustrative identity ‘compliance cost = covered emissions × price × coverage factor’ holds only for the ETS; FuelEU must be computed as an intensity balance. That is why grey ammonia carries almost no ETS cost (it emits no fossil CO₂ at the stack) yet a large FuelEU deficit, and why e-fuels can earn a saleable surplus. Both EU acts contain review clauses tied to any IMO global measure [6].

InstrumentStatus and scopeMetric and boundaryCompliance mechanismBase-case cost, VLSFO voyage / fuel-selection signal
IMO Net-Zero FrameworkApproved, not adopted; ES.2 resumes 4 Dec 2026 [1]; ≥5,000 GT internationalAnnual GHG fuel intensity (GFI), WtWTier 1/Tier 2 remedial units (draft USD 100/380), surplus tradingNot costed (proposal). Signals a global WtW basis
EU ETS (maritime)In force; 100% surrender for 2026; ≥5,000 GT [5]TtW CO₂ + CH₄ + N₂O tonnes; 100%/50% geographic scopeBuy and surrender EUAs by 30 Sep of following year≈USD 464k/voyage. Rewards zero-fossil-carbon stack emissions; penalises slip
FuelEU MaritimeIn force since 2025 [7]; same scope, energy basisWtW gCO₂e/MJ vs limit (89.34 to 2029)Pooling, banking, borrowing; EUR 2,400/t VLSFOe penalty; RFNBO ×2≈USD 31k/voyage deficit. Rewards certified bio and e-fuels; penalises grey NH₃/MeOH
Table 2. Regulatory comparison (status at 13 Oct 2026). Source: [1][2][3][5][7]; costs from EnviroSusIQ model (Base). Note: Data are sample and illustrative unless otherwise stated. Scenario values are modelled assumptions, not market quotations.
Figure 3: Comparative effective fuel cost, Layer 3
Figure 3. Comparative effective fuel cost (Layer 3). Source: EnviroSusIQ model. Note: Data are sample and illustrative unless otherwise stated. Scenario values are modelled assumptions, not market quotations.
Figure 4: Carbon-cost sensitivity, EU ETS term
Figure 4. Carbon-cost sensitivity (EU ETS term). Source: EnviroSusIQ model; reference line [8]. Note: Data are sample and illustrative unless otherwise stated. Scenario values are modelled assumptions, not market quotations.
05Freight-Rate Transmission

Freight-rate transmission and commercial implications

For pass-through we use: incremental freight cost per cargo unit = allocated incremental voyage cost ÷ cargo quantity carried. In the Base case VLSFO costs USD 248 per TEU on this voyage (all three layers); e-methanol costs USD 843, an increment of about USD 595 per TEU (USD 1,190 per FEU) at 100% allocation, or roughly a quarter of the Far East–North Europe spot rate of USD 2,313/TEU in the Shanghai Containerized Freight Index (SCFI) on 24 September 2026 [12][24]. A simple percentage method that scales the fuel bill by the price ratio would suggest only USD 234 per TEU, understating the increment about 2.5 times because it ignores the extra tonnage. For grey ammonia the naive method signals a saving while the framework shows a cost increase of USD 136 per TEU.

These are cost allocations, not freight forecasts. The SCFI composite, published weekly by the Shanghai Shipping Exchange, rose from 1,489 points in early March 2026 [23] to 2,985 by mid-June [21] and about 3,687 by late September [12]. Yet the Far East–North Europe lane climbed from USD 1,618/TEU in March [19] to USD 3,418 in early July [22], then fell to USD 2,313 by 24 September [13][12] while US-bound rates stayed near their highs. Every lane faced broadly the same fuel-cost shock, so the divergence reflects capacity and demand rather than fuel. Capacity cycles, blank sailings, canal routing, congestion and geopolitics dominate short-run rates; fuel and carbon costs reach cargo through bunker adjustment factors, ETS surcharges and charter clauses whose effect depends on market balance and bargaining power. Under time charters the charterer normally buys fuel, ETS allowances are allocated by contract, and FuelEU liability rests with the Document of Compliance holder [20]. A given fuel-price rise therefore does not imply an equal freight-rate rise.

Figure 5: Freight-rate pass-through, modelled cost bridge versus observed freight index
Figure 5. Freight-rate pass-through: modelled cost bridge versus observed freight index. Source: (a) EnviroSusIQ model, Base; (b) observed SCFI, Shanghai Shipping Exchange data via public reports [12][13][19][21][22][23]; observed data (b) are distinguished from modelled values (a). Note: Data are sample and illustrative unless otherwise stated. Scenario values are modelled assumptions, not market quotations.
06What the Scenarios Reveal

Sensitivity, uncertainty and trade-offs

Figure 3 and Table 3 summarise the results. In the Base case effective cost is about USD 301/nm for VLSFO, USD 230–238/nm for fossil LNG, 335 for B30, 454–494 for grey and blue ammonia and grey methanol, 511 for e-methane, 698 for e-ammonia, 738 for bio-methanol and 1,018 for e-methanol. Five conclusions hold across all three scenarios.

  1. At 2026 oil-linked prices, fossil LNG and VLSFO remain the cheapest per mile, while LNG’s advantage depends on low slip.

  2. Every pathway with WtW intensity below about 40 gCO₂e/MJ of useful energy costs 1.4–3.9 times VLSFO; implied Base-case abatement costs versus VLSFO range from about USD 130/tCO₂e (B30) and 230 (e-methane) to 440 (e-ammonia) and 760 (e-methanol).

  3. Fuel price dominates: a ±20% e-methanol price swing moves cost by about USD 350/TEU, while ±50% on the EUA price moves it by under USD 2.

  4. For low-carbon fuels FuelEU is the larger regulatory lever: a sellable surplus worth roughly USD 0.8–0.9 million per voyage in the Base case, but only if a pool counterparty exists.

  5. For fuels that need new engines, capex, fuel-system opex and availability add 2–13% of voyage cost; they rarely change rankings but strongly affect financing and route flexibility.

Rankings within the low-carbon group are not robust: e-ammonia and bio-methanol swap places between scenarios, and ammonia’s N₂O factor and availability remain the least certain inputs.

InputUnitLow / Base / HighConf.Basis / source
EUA priceEUR/t60 / 80 / 120MediumCBAM Q3-2026 ref. [8]
VLSFO deliveredUSD/t650 / 850 / 1,050MediumSingapore Oct 2026 [10][11]
B30 deliveredUSD/t850 / 1,050 / 1,300MediumSingapore Oct 2026 [10][11]
LNG deliveredUSD/t465 / 650 / 930Low≈USD 10/14/20 per MMBtu (assumed)
Grey / e-methanolUSD/t450–800 / 1,200–2,600Low[18]; IRENA [15] + premium
Grey / e-ammoniaUSD/t350–700 / 750–1,600LowAssumed; IRENA [16]
e-methaneUSD/t1,500 / 2,200 / 3,000LowAssumed
FuelEU pool priceEUR/t150 / 200 / penaltyLowAssumed; penalty [7]
WACC; life%; yrs6 / 8 / 10; 25MediumAssumed
Slot utilisation%90 / 85 / 80MediumAssumed
Deviation days (NH₃)days0.5 / 1.0 / 2.0LowAssumed
Table 3. Low / Base / High scenario assumptions.
Figure 6: Effective cost versus lifecycle emissions
Figure 6. Effective cost vs lifecycle emissions. Source: EnviroSusIQ model; bars show Low–High cost range. Note: Data are sample and illustrative unless otherwise stated. Scenario values are modelled assumptions, not market quotations.
Fuel readiness and infrastructure matrix
ReadyConstrainedNot yet scalable
FuelAvailability at major hubsVessel readinessStorage penaltySafety / toxicityBunkering maturityCost certainty
VLSFOGlobalAll shipsBaselineLow hazardMatureVolatile
B30 bioMajor hubsDrop-in (OEM)≈1.05×Stability mgmtCommercialFeedstock-limited
LNGMajor hubsDF fleet growing≈2.3×Cryogenic; slipCommercialGas-linked
MethanolSelected hubsDF newbuilds≈2.7×Toxic; low flashpointEarly commercialGreen supply scarce
AmmoniaPilot onlyFirst engines≈4×Acutely toxic; N₂OPilotVery wide
e-fuels (all)Very limitedPer carrierAs carrierAs carrierOfftake-basedVery wide
Figure 7. Fuel readiness and infrastructure matrix (qualitative EnviroSusIQ assessment, Oct 2026). Source: Qualitative assessment informed by [7][10][14]; verify against port-authority bunkering data. Note: Data are sample and illustrative unless otherwise stated. Scenario values are modelled assumptions, not market quotations.
07

Future Outlook / Road Ahead

Three developments will shape the next benchmarking cycle. The 4 December 2026 IMO session will determine whether a global WtW price signal joins the EU instruments [1]; FuelEU’s step to a 6% reduction in 2030 will turn today’s small VLSFO deficit into a material cost [7]; and announced e-fuel capacity must become contracted, certified supply before availability premiums fall. Until then, the rational benchmark is not the cheapest tonne but the lowest risk-adjusted cost of a defined transport service, tested across scenarios and refreshed as prices, allowances and rules move.

Fuel decisions now require integrated cost, carbon, supply-chain and regulatory analysis rather than a single bunker-price indicator.

08

References

Publicly accessible; all accessed 13 October 2026. Research cut-off: 13 October 2026. Base year 2026, nominal USD, LHV basis. Companion files: editable Excel model and PowerPoint exhibits.

  1. [1]

    IMO (2026). MEPC 84th session meeting summary, 27 Apr–1 May 2026. https://www.imo.org/en/mediacentre/meetingsummaries/pages/temporary-mepc-84th-session.aspx

  2. [2]

    IMO (2025). IMO approves net-zero regulations for global shipping (MEPC 83). https://www.imo.org/en/mediacentre/pressbriefings/pages/imo-approves-netzero-regulations.aspx

  3. [3]

    Vinson & Elkins (2025). IMO approves carbon credit scheme for shipping (remedial unit prices). https://www.velaw.com/insights/international-maritime-organization-approves-carbon-credit-scheme-for-shipping/

  4. [4]

    IMO (2023). 2023 IMO Strategy on Reduction of GHG Emissions from Ships. https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/Pages/2023-IMO-Strategy-on-Reduction-of-GHG-Emissions-from-Ships.aspx

  5. [5]

    European Commission (2026). FAQ – Maritime transport in the EU ETS. https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/transport-decarbonisation/reducing-emissions-shipping-sector/faq-maritime-transport-eu-emissions-trading-system-ets_en

  6. [6]

    EMSA (2026). ETS extension to maritime. https://www.emsa.europa.eu/reducing-emissions/extension-ets.html

  7. [7]

    EUR-Lex. Regulation (EU) 2023/1805 (FuelEU Maritime). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1805/oj

  8. [8]

    European Commission DG TAXUD (5 Oct 2026). Price of CBAM certificates. https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/carbon-border-adjustment-mechanism/price-cbam-certificates_en

  9. [9]

    Banca d’Italia (16 Sep 2026). ECB euro reference rates. https://www.bancaditalia.it/compiti/operazioni-cambi/cambio/cambi_rif_20260916

  10. [10]

    ENGINE (1 Oct 2026). Singapore prices decline across all bunker fuel grades. https://www.engine.online/news/singapore-prices-decline-across-all-bunker-fuel-grades-8216

  11. [11]

    ENGINE (9 Oct 2026). Singapore’s B30-VLSFO and HSFO prices increase. https://www.engine.online/news/singapores-b30-vlsfo-and-hsfo-prices-increase-vlsfo-and-lsmgo-fall-827e

  12. [12]

    Sourcing Center (24 Sep 2026), citing Liberty Times Finance: SCFI 3,686.62; Far East–North Europe USD 2,313/TEU (Shanghai Shipping Exchange data). https://sourcing.center/news/2026-09-24-scfi-ends-eight-week-streak-europe-soft-se-asia-up

  13. [13]

    Rynda (11 Sep 2026). SCFI rises for the seventh week; Asia–Europe softens (Shanghai Shipping Exchange data). https://rynda.io/news/c5fbfc34-6d56-4a73-9c04-238f353b1efe

  14. [14]

    UNCTAD (10 Mar 2026). Strait of Hormuz: rapid assessment. https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/osgttinf2026d1_en.pdf

  15. [15]

    IRENA (2021). Innovation Outlook: Renewable Methanol. https://www.irena.org/publications/2021/Jan/Innovation-Outlook-Renewable-Methanol

  16. [16]

    IRENA (2022). Innovation Outlook: Renewable Ammonia. https://www.irena.org/publications/2022/May/Innovation-Outlook-Renewable-Ammonia

  17. [17]

    EUR-Lex. Directive (EU) 2018/2001 (RED II), Annex V. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2018/2001/oj

  18. [18]

    Ship & Bunker. World bunker prices (public page; grey methanol, early 2026). https://shipandbunker.com/prices

  19. [19]

    SunSirs (17 Mar 2026). SCFI 13 Mar 2026: 1,710.35; Far East–Europe USD 1,618/TEU (Shanghai Shipping Exchange data). https://www.sunsirs.com/commodity-news/petail-31324.html

  20. [20]

    Thommessen. FuelEU Maritime regulation database (pooling, BIMCO clause, DoC-holder responsibility). https://www.thommessen.no/en/sustainability/database/regulation/fueleu-maritime

  21. [21]

    Xinde Marine News (14 Jun 2026). SCFI nears 3,000 points (24 Apr and 12 Jun 2026 readings). https://www.xindemarinenews.com/news/2066186264513871873

  22. [22]

    BigGo Finance (Jul 2026). SCFI rises for tenth straight week to 3,326.87; Far East–Europe USD 3,418/TEU. https://finance.biggo.com/news/7b394248-5668-4832-81c4-76aa829c5bd6

  23. [23]

    Cello Square / Samsung SDS (Mar and May 2026). Logistics market intelligence reports: SCFI week 10 (1,489) and week 19 (1,954). https://www.cello-square.com/en/marketupdates/view-2183.do

  24. [24]

    Container News. SCFI description: Shanghai Shipping Exchange, launched Oct 2009; units USD/TEU (USD/FEU for US coasts). https://container-news.com/scfi/

Methodology note:proprietary and subscription sources (Argus, S&P Global Platts, CRISIL, ICIS, Drewry, Xeneta, Lloyd's List) were not used; freight observations use the SCFI, an exchange index published by the Shanghai Shipping Exchange. Prices for LNG, methanol, ammonia and e-fuels are modelled scenario values, not quotations. Full assumptions, formulas and quality checks are in the companion Excel workbook.

09How ESIQ Can Help

Decarbonisation analytics and carbon-aware commodity economics

EnviroSusIQ supports this shift with decarbonisation analytics and carbon-aware commodity economics. The transparent, source-traceable model behind this article can be adapted to a client’s own vessels, routes, contracts and price data.

01

Comparative fuel and commodity cost modelling

02

Cost benchmarking across alternative production and supply pathways

03

Scenario-based forecasting and sensitivity analysis

04

Carbon-intensity and emissions-adjusted economic assessment

05

Supply-demand and procurement intelligence

06

Decision-support analytics for companies moving to lower-carbon fuels and materials

To discuss a tailored benchmark, visit EnviroSusIQ – https://www.envirosusiq.com/.

Benchmarking your fleet’s fuel choice?

ESIQ adapts this effective-cost model to your vessels, routes, contracts and price data.

Start a ConversationOur Research Services
Related Insights

Continue the research

What Does Green Ammonia Really Cost?
Low Carbon & New Energies

What Does Green Ammonia Really Cost?

A bottom-up analysis of green ammonia production costs, carbon intensity and the economics of competing low-carbon ammonia pathways.

Read More →
The Ageing Tanker Fleet: Why Decarbonisation Could Tighten Global Freight Markets
Low Carbon & New Energies

The Ageing Tanker Fleet: Why Decarbonisation Could Tighten Global Freight Markets

How fleet renewal, shipyard constraints, alternative fuels and decarbonisation rules could tighten tanker supply and reshape global freight markets.

Read More →
Marine Shipping Decarbonisation
Low Carbon & New Energies

Marine Shipping Decarbonisation

Navigating the transition to low-carbon shipping - the regulations, fuels, infrastructure and freight economics reshaping global trade.

Read More →