ANALYSIS: Understanding the Global Orderbook in Terms of Conventional & Alternative Bunker Fuel Demand - 2025 Update

Anyone tracking the evolving marine fuel mix and the growth of alternatives such as LNG and methanol will be keen to know how many ships are being ordered capable of burning each fuel type.

However, as we've noted previously, what most market watchers ultimately care about is the bunker demand these ships will generate.

Since larger vessels consume significantly more fuel than smaller ones, the breakdown of bunker demand by ship type can differ substantially from the breakdown by number of ships on order.

To understand the bunker demand represented by the current orderbook, Ship & Bunker has once again used fleet data kindly provided by Clarksons Research.

Bunker demand has been calculated using the latest IMO official fuel consumption data taken from "Report of fuel oil consumption data submitted to the IMO Ship Fuel Oil Consumption Database in GISIS (Reporting year: 2023)" that lists actual fuel consumption for a total of 35 different ship types and sizes.

As alternative fuels and oil all have differing energy densities, bunker demand numbers in this report are all expressed in terms of metric tonnes of oil equivalent (MToE).

In line with our analysis last year, this report uses orderbook data correct as at the end of April 2025.

Key Insights

As at the end of April 2025 the global order book comprised 4,921 ships representing a combined 40.5 million MToE of bunker demand.

This is a notable increase from a year earlier, where the orderbook stood at 4,108 ships representing 33.8 million MToE of bunker demand.

Both the number of ships and resulting bunker demand have increased almost 20% from a year earlier.

Vessels powered only by conventional oil bunkers continue to dominate the orderbook, commanding 64% of the individual ships but only 50% of the overall bunker demand.

Notable also is that this is a slight dip on last year where almost 67% of the total ships on order were oil bunker only, representing 54% of the overall demand.

LNG maintains its position as the most popular alternative fuel, with just over 20% of the total ships on order comprising 32% of the overall bunker demand.

Methanol engines account for a little over 6% of the total ships and 10% of overall demand.

Widespread Availability of Alternatives Not Expected Soon

Perhaps the most telling insight comes from the type of ships that have opted for alternative fuels, and those sticking to conventional oil bunkers.

A large uptake of the LNG demand in the orderbook is for 'other' ship types, this being attributable almost entirely to LNG carriers.

However, the largest share of LNG demand and alternatives as a whole are from containerships, while the Orderbook's Bulk Carriers and Tankers are almost entirely conventional fuel only.

The message here seems clear: tramp shippers do not see there being widespread availability of alternative fuels any time soon, with availability of LNG and methanol bunkers likely being focused primarily in a handful of primary bunkering hubs.

"Most orders for ammonia- and methanol-fuelled engines are destined for container vessels plying liner trades, bulk carriers on long charters and gas carriers intended to serve specific routes," Marcel Ott, head of strategic marketing at engine manufacturer WinGD, told Ship & Bunker.

"This makes sense as the availability of these fuels is not widespread; vessels plying spot trades need the flexibility to use whichever fuel is available to hand on the voyages they will be competing for.

"As availability of methanol and ammonia fuel increases—and, crucially, as regulatory incentives and pricing evolve—it can be expected that tramp operators will continue to assess whether coverage is wide enough to begin considering investing in engines that use alternative fuels."

This dynamic is also shaping the global fleet in other ways, such as delaying fleet renewal activity, lifting the average age of existing tonnage.

"The reluctance of owners to commit to a specific type of alternative fuel is what has contributed to the current slow delivery rate in new VLCC deliveries," Mette Frederiksen, head of research and insight at Tankers International, told Ship & Bunker.

"Only one VLCC was delivered last year, and just a handful is scheduled for delivery in 2025. It's important to keep in mind that the lead time between ordering a vessel and taking delivery is typically two to three years.

"But the real impact comes from the 100+ vessels that are still trading beyond the age of 20 years that would historically have been retired from the trading fleet."

Not yet discussed in this analysis are the 'middle ground' of ships ordered with designs that enable them to be more easily converted to run on alternatives, such as those with an 'LNG-Ready' notation.

While potential demand from such ships is not guaranteed, should future retrofits for such tonnage take place then the Orderbook's alternative bunker demand could be higher.

How much higher? Clarksons Research indicate that 9% of the conventionally fuelled ships on order have an alternative fuel 'ready' notation - or 12% in terms of GT.

Interestingly, some alternative fuel capable ships also have 'ready' status for other fuel types, so the total share of the orderbook that has an alternative fuel 'ready' status is 13% in number of ships and 18% in GT.

"VLCC ordering activity has picked up, owners are ordering ships that are "ready" to run on alternative fuels, and the orderbook for delivery in the following years (2026-27) is more in line with long-term averages," Frederiksen added.

"However, for the average age picture to change significantly, we need to see the older vessels exit the fleet.

"This will only happen when these ships can no longer find employment opportunities within the less regulated trades."