Henrik Jensen, CEO of Danica Crewing Specialists. Image Credit: Danica Crewing Specialists

Shipowners are committing serious capital to methanol-capable vessels, while ammonia is also attracting significant interest as a future fuel option.

However, parts of the training market are not yet ready to prepare the engineers who will operate these new systems.

We are seeing courses where simulators do not accurately reproduce onboard processes and instructors lack the technical depth to explain how systems behave outside the expected sequence.

Shipping risks producing people with the right certificates but without the competence the machinery demands.

Not Just a Number

DNV-led work for the Maritime Just Transition Task Force has warned that as many as 800,000 seafarers may require additional training by the mid-2030s.

That sounds like a significant number, but it represents less than half of the global maritime workforce and should not, in itself, be overwhelming.

Most industries will need to upgrade the skills of a substantial proportion of their people over the course of a decade as technology changes.

The real issue is therefore not simply the number requiring training, but whether shipping has the right quality, capacity and planning in place to deliver it effectively.

That challenge will not be met simply by booking more classroom places.

Owners and managers must examine training quality, the theoretical grounding of those selected and the time needed to turn course attendance into confidence onboard.

Leaving the crew plan until six months before delivery will be too late.

Training Quality

Original Engine Makers (OEM)-led training is generally closest to the equipment seafarers will encounter at sea, but OEM capacity is finite and shipping will inevitably rely on other providers.

Standards outside that sphere remain inconsistent.

A simulator that only loosely resembles the installed fuel plant may teach somebody to follow a sequence, but not why each stage matters or what to do when the system behaves differently.

If instructors cannot explain how processes interact and how to respond during a fuel transfer, shutdown or emergency, training becomes little more than a rehearsal of which buttons to press.

A System, Not a Switch

The move to methanol also has significant implications for the engineers who will operate these vessels.

Shipowners are well aware that adopting a new fuel represents a fundamental change, but the impact this has on the skills and technical knowledge required of engineers may not always receive the same attention.

It is not directly comparable with the transition from conventional engines to camshaftless or electronically controlled engines, where engineers adapted to a different control architecture around processes they already broadly understood.

Methanol introduces a complete set of interconnected fuel-handling, operating and safety processes that must be understood as a system.

That requires strong theoretical engineering knowledge, being able to read English technical manuals and the ability to absorb unfamiliar concepts, recognise how systems interact and respond when something does not behave as expected.

Not every engineer will bridge that gap through a short conversion course.

Some will need deeper preparation and practical development, while others may not have the underlying theoretical foundation required for these roles.

This is why workforce development must include early assessment, careful selection and enough time to build competence properly.

Plan From the Order

A credible workforce strategy should begin when the newbuilding decision is made, alongside the financing, technical specification and construction schedule.

It should establish which ranks need to be prepared, how many people will be required across the rotation, where practical exposure will come from and whether the chosen provider reflects the systems being installed.

Onboard mentoring, realistic competence assessment and refresher training should follow, rather than treating one certificate as proof that development is complete.

The shortage is therefore becoming more specific.

It is not only a shortage of seafarers, but a shortage of engineers with the technical foundation, fuel-specific knowledge and practical confidence required for the vessels now being ordered.

Methanol and ammonia bring unfamiliar procedures and emergency responses, with ammonia presenting particularly serious toxicity and handling risks.

Basic familiarisation shortly before joining will not be enough.

Scarcity Costs

The commercial consequences will appear quickly.

As credible alternative-fuel experience becomes scarce, salaries, crewing fees and retention costs will rise.

Cadets and younger engineers must be part of the plan, because competing for the same senior people may fill an immediate vacancy but does nothing to expand the supply of competent crew.

Companies will also need to offer clear progression and working conditions that give trained engineers a reason to stay.

Workforce development therefore needs to sit alongside the technical and commercial considerations that are already shaping shipping's decarbonisation journey.

As new fuels and technologies are introduced, ensuring engineers have the right training, knowledge and practical experience will be an important part of deploying these vessels safely and successfully.

The industry has an opportunity to develop its people alongside its technology, helping to ensure that the future fleet is supported by a workforce with the confidence and competence to operate it.