A Mirror Held Up to the Industry’s Fuel Strategy Dilemma — The Hapag-Lloyd / ZIM Deal

Why Fuel Strategy Matters More Than Ever in 2026?

The EU ETS was extended to maritime transport in phases beginning in 2024. From 1 January 2026, shipping companies must surrender allowances covering 100% of their CO₂e emissions on all EU-related voyages, up from 70% in 2025 and 40% in 2024. But the truly significant change this year is the expansion of covered greenhouse gases: methane (CH₄) and nitrous oxide (N₂O) now fall within the ETS scope for the first time. This matters because:

• •
  Methane has a global warming potential approximately 28 times higher than CO₂ over a 100-year period.
• •
  Nitrous oxide is approximately 265 times more potent than CO₂.
• •
  LNG-powered vessels, while emitting less CO₂ than conventional heavy fuel oil, are exposed to methane slip; which is uncombusted methane passing through the engine into the exhaust. Even a small slip rate can significantly erode LNG’s climate benefit and, from 2026 onwards, directly increase compliance costs under the ETS.

The inclusion of these gases is not merely an accounting exercise. For carriers that have staked their decarbonisation strategy on LNG as a transitional fuel, it raises genuine questions about long-term cost exposure, especially as EU allowance prices are expected to remain elevated and potentially rise further. For a deeper look at how to reduce EU ETS costs through biofuel programmes and carrier solutions, see our dedicated article on the topic.

Carrier by Carrier: Who Bet on What?

Carriers have taken markedly different approaches to the energy transition. Here is where each major player stands today, based on their own public communications and verified news sources. The case for maintaining a mixed-fuel fleet isn’t a weakness, it’s an acknowledgment that regulation, green molecule supply chains, and fuel prices will all evolve in ways that are impossible to predict with confidence across a 20–25 year vessel life. The gap in fuel infrastructure explained below means the right fuel choice depends heavily on the specific routes and port rotations a carrier operates, making a one-size-fits-all fleet strategy genuinely risky.

A Summary Comparison

Carrier fuel strategies at a glance — primary fuel today, forward bet, and net-zero target:

• •
  Maersk — today: biofuels + grey methanol; forward bet: green methanol; net-zero by 2040.
• •
  Hapag-Lloyd — today: LNG; forward bet: methanol (new builds from 2028); net-zero by 2045.
• •
  CMA CGM — today: LNG / biomethane; forward bet: methanol + ammonia; net-zero by 2050.
• •
  ZIM — today: LNG (ammonia-ready); forward bet: ammonia; net-zero by 2050.
• •
  MSC — today: LNG; forward bet: multi-fuel (ammonia, methanol); net-zero by 2050.

What Does This Mean for Shippers?

The EU ETS inclusion of methane and N₂O from 2026 is a direct signal to the market that fuel strategy is no longer just a carrier’s internal ESG concern, it directly affects the surcharges that shippers pay. Carriers running large LNG fleets will face higher EU ETS surcharge exposure unless they can demonstrate low methane slip rates or offset with bio-LNG. Those operating on biofuels or green methanol face lower GHG intensity and potentially lower surcharges. For shippers, this creates both a risk and an opportunity: the risk of opaque or growing ETS surcharges from LNG-heavy carriers, and the opportunity to actively select carriers whose fuel strategy aligns with your own Scope 3 emissions targets. At Searoutes, we provide vessel-specific emissions data, taking into account fuel type, carbon intensity, and EU ETS liability estimation at the planning stage, so that shippers can make informed carrier selections. Learn more about our EU ETS Product by booking a demo with Josie.

The Infrastructure Question: Can Ports Keep Up With Carrier Ambitions?

All of the above strategic choices raise one fundamental operational question: when a vessel needs to refuel, will the port actually be able to serve it? The answer varies dramatically depending on which fuel was chosen and the gap between the most and least mature options is measured not in years, but in decades.

LNG: The clear leader but demand is outpacing supply

LNG has a significant head start. The number of ports with LNG bunkering facilities has grown to over 200 globally, with further upgrades expected by the end of 2026. Yet even LNG is not without gaps. LNG consumption by LNG-fuelled ships has grown over 500% between 2020 and 2024; but LNG bunkering vessels are not keeping pace. And as the EU ETS now accounts for methane, a vessel’s regulatory cost will vary depending on engine technology and whether bio-LNG blends were actually available at the specific port of call.

Green Methanol: technically ready, geographically limited

The contrast with LNG is striking. Only around 48 ports have methanol bunkering available or planned globally, against over 200 for LNG. It is a remarkable asymmetry given the volume of methanol-capable vessels now being ordered. The physical properties of methanol make bunkering less complex than LNG, but the bottleneck is the supply and geographic reach of molecules themselves. Bio-methanol prices average around USD 2,500 per tonne MGOe which is about 3x the cost of marine gas oil. Global production stands at just 2.2 million T, which is far below potential demand of up to 60 million tonnes by 2040. Rotterdam and Singapore are advancing, but the coverage constraint requires careful route planning. Early experiences have shown that methanol-powered vessels need to bunker twice as frequently as conventional ships. This increases the geographic challenge.

Ammonia: a fuel of the future, with infrastructure to match

Commercial ammonia bunkering does not yet exist anywhere in the world for deep-sea shipping. Progress is real: Rotterdam conducted the world’s first ship-to-ship ammonia bunkering pilot in April 2025, validating its safety framework. Commercial-scale readiness at major ports is not expected before 2030 at the earliest. With only a handful of ammonia-fuelled vessels currently on order and no bunkering network to speak of, ammonia remains a 2030s story.

Is Hapag-Lloyd Buying Itself a Problem or a Solution?

ZIM's fleet is largely LNG-powered. It will initially increase Hapag-Lloyd’s LNG exposure. The strategic question for the combined entity will be how quickly it integrates ZIM’s vessels into a coherent fuel roadmap. In the context of methane’s new EU ETS liability from 2026 and infrastructure for bio-LNG, it will require attentive planning. Hapag-Lloyd is investing into methanol vessels, ZIM was also among the first carriers to have ordered ammonia-ready vessels. The question is also how Hapag-Lloyd plans to manage the secondary ports ZIM’s network relies on, since it does not rely on the flagship bunkering hubs alone. These are not abstract questions. They translate directly into decisions that shippers need to factor into their EU ETS exposure. A vessel’s fuel type, engine technology, and actual bunkering ports all determine the emissions intensity of a given shipment. The port and route selection can influence other inland emissions too. This is precisely why vessel-specific data, not fleet averages, not carrier promises, is the only reliable foundation for compliance and sustainability decisions.

Make your own informed choices

Carrier-level averages and fleet-wide estimates are no longer good enough. As regulations tighten and the emissions profile of each vessel increasingly determines your compliance costs, the quality of your emissions data becomes a competitive advantage. Searoutes provides the most accurate, ISO-compliant, and vessel-specific freight emissions calculations available on the market. Our data captures the true GHG intensity of individual ships; accounting for fuel type, engine technology, actual operational profile. Our EU ETS solution covers the full basket of greenhouse gases now covered by the EU ETS. This is the granularity that allows shippers to compare carriers services meaningfully. They can select lower-emission vessels at booking stage, and build a credible, audit-ready emissions record. It is precisely this capability that enabled Groupe Bel to achieve a 30% reduction in ocean freight emissions. And they did that without operational disruption and with minimal training. Get in touch if you wish to know more.