INSIGHT: Who Really Benefits From LNG?

Rob Mortimer is CEO of Fuelre4m. Image Credit: Fuelre4m

The shipping industry has been sold a dream before, and we are being sold another one today.

LNG is not a transition fuel, it is a transition business model – a short-term profit play dressed up as climate action.

The question every shipowner, policymaker, and regulator should be asking is not "Can LNG reduce emissions?" but "Who benefits from LNG being called a solution?"

The answer is blunt. Classification societies selling their LNG academies. Shipyards chasing orders. Energy companies desperate to monetise gas reserves before they are stranded.

And an International Maritime Organization happy to paper over cracks in its credibility by waving through a fuel pathway that is already proven incompatible with its own stated decarbonisation goals.

The Methane Elephant in the Room

The numbers do not lie.

Methane slip from LNG ships has risen 180% since 2016. Methane is more than 80 times as potent as CO₂ over 20 years.

No amount of rebranding LNG as "bio" or "e-LNG" changes the physics of that molecule leaking into the atmosphere.

So, while the industry claps itself on the back for ordering dual-fuel engines and calling it "progress," the climate balance sheet is heading further into the red.

This is not a pathway. It is a diversion.

The Cost of False Promises

Let us also be clear about the economics.

LNG newbuilds are not cheaper – they are riskier. Owners face the prospect of costly retrofits or premature scrapping, with estimates of up to $185 billion in losses tied to stranded LNG assets.

Who carries that burden?

Not the classification societies collecting training fees. Not the engine makers pushing LNG-capable designs.

It will be the shipowners, their financiers, and eventually the wider industry – saddled with obsolete ships and wasted capital, all because the IMO could not hold the line on integrity.

Optimisation First, Then Transition

Fuelre4m's position is simple.

We agree the industry must move away from fossil fuels. But until proven, scalable alternatives exist, the responsible course is to optimise every drop of what we use today.

That means real measurement, real accountability, and squeezing every gram of waste and emissions out of existing fuels.

The test for any new fuel is not whether it is marketed as 'green' but whether it is better than what it replaces – well-to-wake, across the full lifecycle, in real-world conditions.

LNG fails that test. Repeatedly.

The IMO's Credibility Crisis

The IMO was founded to regulate in the interest of global society, not to provide a cover story for commercial interests.

By tolerating the LNG myth, the organisation has sold out emissions for profit. It has aligned itself with the beneficiaries of a fuel pathway that is already locking the sector into more pollution, more health impacts, and more stranded assets.

The IMO should be ashamed.

Not because it is slow, not because it is cautious, but because it has been captured by the very interests it is supposed to regulate.

Conclusion: Stop Running from One Mistake Into Another

The industry should not run blindly from fossil fuels to something unproven and unmeasured.

We have not yet fully optimised what we know, and yet we are told to jump into an alternative that fails even the most basic accounting test.

If the new cure is worse than the illness, we have achieved nothing. LNG is the wrong cure.

The responsible path is to measure, optimise, and demand proof – before declaring any new technology a solution.

The world deserves honesty.

The shipping sector deserves better than false promises. And the IMO owes us leadership that cannot be bought.