• Renewable fuel consumption halved in 2025
• The company cites increased grey methanol use as a key reason
• Methanol consumption appears to have dropped in Q4
• Maersk will not use grey methanol 'beyond test purposes'

Maersk's first methanol-fuelled boxship was delivered in July 2023. Image Credit: Maersk

Container line AP Moller-Maersk, one of the world's largest bunker fuel users and a significant early backer of methanol bunkering, saw its renewable fuel consumption roughly halve last year.

The firm consumed 1,524 GWh of renewable fuels last year, down from 3,034 GWh the previous year and the least since at least 2021.

Renewable fuels covers the firm's use of green methanol and biofuels. Given methanol's conversion factor of about 180.83 mt/GWh, this means the firm consumed no more than 275,585 mt of methanol last year, although the inclusion of biofuels within the renewable total means the actual figure is likely to be considerably less than that.

In its annual report for 2025, the firm said increased use of grey methanol was a key reason for the drop in renewable fuel use.

"Changes in our fuel mix resulted in a significant decrease in consumption of fuels from renewable sources and a corresponding increase in consumption of gas fuels and other fuels, including grey methanol," the company said.

Grey methanol is derived from fossil fuels, typically produced from natural gas or coal, and comes with higher GHG emissions than conventional bunkers. It typically has emissions of 100-110 gCO2e/MJ, compared to about 91 gCO2eMJ for VLSFO.

Why the Rise in Grey Methanol?

Maersk's renewable fuel consumption dropped to the lowest level since at least 2021 last year. Image Credit: Ship & Bunker / Data Credit: Maersk

Given grey methanol's higher emissions, the choice to increase consumption of this fuel appears strange.

Grey methanol is usually significantly more expensive than VLSFO; delivered at Rotterdam it cost $669/mt in fuel oil-equivalent terms on average last year, compared to an average price of $476.50/mt for VLSFO. Additional EU emissions compliance costs to cover the extra GHG emissions would have added to this disadvantage for any ships operating in European waters.

But it remains considerably cheaper than green methanol. Methanex currently quotes a European contract cargo price of EUR 850/mt ($988/mt) for biomethanol, compared to Ship & Bunker's Rotterdam grey methanol outright delivered bunker price of $297/mt as of May 11.

A Maersk spokesperson explained that the use of grey methanol was in part driven by cost, but only on an interim basis as it tests its new methanol-fuelled ships.

"We currently have 21 dual-fuel vessels on the water, and we are gaining important operational experience sailing these vessels," the spokesperson said.

"As for grey methanol, this is seen as an interim consumption to test the engines where affordable bio- or e-methanol has not been available. We have no intention of consuming grey methanol beyond test purposes."

Q4 Methanol Decline

Another dataset from Maersk points to methanol use - both grey and green - dropping in general at the end of last year.

The company has shifted its reporting methodology for bunker data from reporting in outright metric tonnes to metric tonnes of oil equivalent (mtoe), and in its annual report for 2025 the firm reported quarterly figures in both units to allow analysts to adjust to the new system.

The difference between the outright mt and mtoe figures gives a little insight into how big a role lower-density fuels like methanol are playing in Maersk's overall consumption.

Maersk reported bunker consumption of 2.702 million mt for Q1, 2.727 million mt in Q2, 2.73 million mt in Q3 and 2.635 million mt in Q4, compared to respective mtoe figures of 2.652 million mtoe, 2.678 million mtoe, 2.68 million mtoe and 2.608 million mtoe.

While the Q1-Q3 mtoe figures are 1.8-1.85% lower than the mt figures, in Q4 the mtoe figure was just 1% lower.

No precise methanol consumption number can be derived from these data, as they will also be affected by changes in the consumption of fuel grades like MGO that have slightly different energy density, but the change in Q4 is likely to indicate a notable drop in methanol use.

Maersk Remains Significant Methanol Backer

While the increased use of grey methanol highlights how finding cheap green methanol remains harder than hoped for a few years ago, Maersk remains one of the most significant backers of methanol as an alternative bunker fuel.

The firm currently has 21 boxships on the water capable of running on methanol, with its first, the 2,100 TEU feeder vessel Laura Maersk, having only been delivered in July 2023.

The company has been trialling blends of ethanol with methanol on board its ships, which would bring considerable cost savings, and it has previously said it may consume as much as 6 million mt/year of methanol by 2030.

But the firm is also diversifying its alternative fuel strategy.

Maersk had initially expressed skepticism about LNG as a bunker fuel and solely backed methanol as its alternative fuel of choice, but backtracked on that position in August 2024 with the announcement that gas-powered ships would be among its future vessels.

The company now expects its first LNG-fuelled vessels to enter operations in the second quarter of 2027, with a larger contingent joining the fleet from late 2027 to 2028.

"Maersk supports a multi-technology pathway – it will likely take several alternatives such as methanol, ethanol, biomethane, and biofuels to help the industry's energy transition as well as, for example, efficiency measures," the Maersk spokesperson said.

"The pace of the energy transition is influenced by several factors, many beyond our control, including the lack of global regulations to close the price gap, voluntary demand by customers, infrastructure maturity, and the regulatory clarity needed to unlock funding and scale production."