Proving Phase

(Article originally published in May/June 2026 edition.)

For years, ammonia has held a strange place in shipping's transition – promising, commercially uncertain, operationally uncomfortable. It carries no carbon atoms, can be made from renewable hydrogen and nitrogen, and may eventually serve deep-sea trade routes that batteries cannot reach.

But it's also toxic, corrosive, and unforgiving. "Ammonia slip," where unburned ammonia escapes through combustion or exhaust, is a real concern when injection timing and combustion pressure are poorly controlled.

The question is no longer whether ammonia can work. It's what evidence would prove it is becoming real.

CONFLICTING SIGNS

That question is sharper because the regulatory backdrop has weakened.

The IMO approved its draft Net-Zero Framework at MEPC 83 in April 2025, pairing a marine fuel standard with greenhouse gas pricing for large ships. But the extraordinary MEPC session in October 2025 adjourned for a year, pushing the earliest likely entry into force from 2027 to 2028. Long-lived assets still need ordering, but the compliance signal has moved backward.

The demand signal has not.

DNV estimates that by 2030 alternative-fueled ships could consume over 50 million tons of oil-equivalent, low-GHG fuels annually. The IEA is starker: Oil products still account for over 99 percent of international shipping energy, and biofuels supplied less than 0.5 percent in 2022. Under its net-zero pathway, low-emission fuels would need to reach almost 15 percent by 2030.

Price tells another part of the story. Very low sulfur fuel oil (VLSFO) remains the baseline, listed in Singapore at $781 per metric ton on May 29, 2026, against a global average of $893.50. Methanol looks cheaper by the ton, but on a VLSFO-equivalent energy basis, Singapore grey methanol translates to $1,345.50 per ton.

Biofuel premiums stay volatile with a recent Singapore B30 assessment carrying a $243 premium over VLSFO. LNG belongs here too with infrastructure and momentum that ammonia lacks: The dual-fuel LNG ships orderbook rises from 781 today to more than 1,400 by 2030.

By contrast, DNV reports 39 ammonia-capable ships, mainly carriers and bulkers, on order, with early deliveries expected around now. Ammonia enters a crowded contest where regulation, energy density, infrastructure, price, lifecycle emissions, safety confidence and willingness to pay all matter.

BUILDING THE VALUE CHAIN

ITOCHU Corporation sees ammonia moving from concept into first proof. Takeo Akamatsu, General Manager of the Green Innovation Business Unit in ITOCHU's Plant Project, Marine & Aerospace Division, says the conversation has changed materially.

"It's shifting from R&D to demonstration, especially after the NH3 (ammonia) engine is completed," he says. "Once the first ship with an NH3 engine is delivered, it may shift from demonstration to commercialization for early movers, but on a small scale."

ITOCHU does not frame the transition as a single vessel, fuel or port. Akamatsu describes an integrated project across the chain: downstream, ammonia-fueled ships; midstream, bunkering and supply; and upstream, clean ammonia production.

"As a first mover, our position is limited to a bunkering developer, but we will develop for both down and up," he explains. "ITOCHU's role is to support first movers who secure NH3-fueled ships as bunker suppliers in Singapore from the 2027 fourth quarter, once our bunkering ship is ready."

That vessel is central, and Akamatsu distinguishes it from a conventional carrier: "It's a purpose-built ship as an NH3 bunkering ship, not an NH3 carrier." The point is to demonstrate bunkering itself – a first-generation solution that will evolve through trials and new technology. It's where progress becomes less about engineering and more about permission to operate.

"We need society acceptance," Akamatsu says, which includes port workers and nearby communities. "We need to provide reassurance to those parties who are against ammonia bunkering in their society, which cannot be achieved through a one-time demonstration only."

Using it as fuel pulls bunkering crews, receiving vessels, regulators and responders into the safety case.

ITOCHU also sees adoption as demand-led. Dual-fuel vessels can still burn conventional fuel, so supply alone will not create the market. "Alternative fuel should be initiated by the demand side first," Akamatsu says. "Once the NH3 engine is ready, we believe a commercial decision by the end-user is key."

Ammonia doesn't scale because there's fuel. It scales when owners, charterers and cargo owners decide to use it.

FROM OPTIONALITY TO EVIDENCE

Jon Løken, Sales Director at CFARER - A DNV Company, formerly known as DNV Maritime Software, has long been cautious on ammonia. His view has shifted, but not into cheerleading.

The industry, he argues, must separate evidence from optionality. The orderbook still matters, but the better metric may be whether fuel is actually being booked. He points to zero-carbon ammonia booked in China for delivery in 2027. "The moment I heard about that, I felt, okay, now we're talking reality here. It's no longer a theory."

Geopolitics may be accelerating that shift. Disruption around the Red Sea and the Strait of Hormuz has reminded operators and governments that the fuel transition is also a question of supply-chain resilience, and Løken sees China moving hard where energy security, industrial policy and shipping economics overlap.

Still, "ammonia-ready" does not mean ammonia will be used. He compares it to old "HD-ready" televisions, where readiness did not always mean capability. The sharper distinction is "ultra-ready."

"Ultra-ready means that you actually install the dual injection system," he explains. "You install all the parts, the pipes and everything, and also test it so that you can technically go straight into using ammonia."

The conversion burden is not trivial. Activating an ammonia-ready vessel may currently require around 50 days in drydock. "There are ships in the yards who were supposed to be ammonia ready that are being taken out early from the yards because they don't have time to stay and finish the ammonia part of the engine," Løken says.

In a strong charter market, owners choose revenue today. "Converting the ammonia-ready ships is going to be a less likely scenario," he adds. "We're probably going to see more actual ammonia ships being ordered for the future."

EARLY USERS

Early use will be selective. "You're probably looking at something like 10 percent of your annual fuel consumption being ammonia," Løken says, assuming access to near-zero-carbon supply.

Ammonia may first appear on specific routes, compliance windows or cargo ecosystems, not as a full replacement. Stricter emission control areas could become a demand trigger near ports and sensitive coasts with China and parts of Africa worth watching.

The segments may surprise the market. "There are a surprising amount of bulk carriers being prepared for ammonia," Løken says. "Bulk is becoming kind of technological forerunner." That aligns with ITOCHU's view that Capesize bulkers, Aframax tankers and car carriers could make Singapore a natural demonstration port.

Geography matters too. Singapore has scale and policy momentum, but clean ammonia may be easier to implement where renewable energy is near major routes. Løken points to Egypt and the Suez Canal. "You have space, you have sun [solar power], and you have ships going through that canal," he says, calling it "a holy trinity of future fuels in maritime."

He raises a more speculative case: If Indonesia develops reliable clean energy and ammonia production, the Sunda Strait could gain strategic importance for Asia-Europe trade, offering an alternative to routing all traffic through Singapore and the Strait of Malacca.

DECISION TIME

The evidence is no longer only in the orderbook. It's in booked fuel, tested injection systems and the slow work of earning a community's permission to bunker a toxic fuel at the quay. That is where ammonia's future will actually be decided.

The opinions expressed herein are the author's and not necessarily those of The Maritime Executive.