Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Carbon pricing is no longer a distant regulatory threat, as the EU ETS and FuelEU Maritime will add an estimated USD 6.1 billion to industry costs in 2025 alone. The IMO’s Global Fuel Intensity (GFI) measure is set to drive up costs even further—shipowners and charterers could be staring down a combined carbon bill approaching USD 50 billion by 2030.
These are the main takeaways from the article that Siglar contributed to Lloyd's List biannual Outlook. Read the full article below.
Carbon pricing is already impacting shipping and trading. The EU is leading the charge, with the EU ETS and FuelEU Maritime adding an estimated USD 6.1 billion to industry costs in 2025 alone.
The IMO’s Global Fuel Intensity (GFI) measure is set to join the mix from 2028, driving up costs even further. Whether the EU—and other regulators—will treat the GFI as a sufficient global price signal remains an open question. If not, shipowners and charterers could be staring down a combined carbon bill approaching USD 50 billion by 2030 in a business-as-usual scenario.
Crunching the numbers using a typical vessel burning heavy fuel oil (HFO) as a baseline, it's clear these new regulations will carry significant financial consequences—particularly for those unprepared.
Take the Santos-Rotterdam grain route for a Panamax as an example, the projected increase in these costs is stark.
In 2024, carbon costs were relatively small, at around $47,000 for a newly built, and therefore more efficient and lower emitting, ship on a round voyage limited to only EUA costs at the 2024 phase-in of 40%.
By 2028, the inclusion of FuelEU Maritime and GFI costs will push the total carbon cost to almost $380,000, nearly a tenfold increase.
.png)
By 2030, the cumulative cost of EUA ($250,000), FuelEU ($80,000), and GFI ($200,000) tops $530,000, if the expected EUA price is taken into account, posing significant financial pressure on cargo owners and charterers.
Long-haul dirty tanker routes such as Mongstad-Singapore on a VLCC bear some of the highest absolute costs.
Starting from just over $165,000 in 2024, the combined cost balloons to over $1.9 million by 2030, with the GFI component alone adding over half a million dollars. x
This sharp rise could have a chilling effect on certain trade flows or force shifts to more carbon-efficient tonnage.
While the headline figure is substantial, the cost per tonne of cargo highlights the broader challenge. This equates to over $7 per tonne of cargo—enough to erase all but the most resilient arbitrage opportunities and as a result, the economics of long-haul trades could be fundamentally altered.
These surging costs will ripple through supply chains, driving up freight rates, influencing fuel choices, and potentially reshaping global trade patterns.
Older, less efficient vessels may struggle with viability under escalating carbon costs, but owners are turning to commercial decarbonisation strategies – accepting discounted freight contracts in exchange for greater operational flexibility.
Controlled speed, reduced ballast legs, and optimised routing can help keep these ships compliant.
However, this shift highlights a broader trend: in a more regulated market, agility and smart partnerships may allow smaller players to outpace larger, slower-moving competitors.
This has long been the thought in the market and is clearly evidenced by the uptick in dual-fuel newbuilds on order, but the question remains over fuel availability and cost.
While zero and near-zero (ZNZ) fuels offer the promise of compliance with minimal emissions exposure, their higher price may still outweigh the penalties of non-compliance. Shippers and charterers alike will need to adapt quickly—or risk being priced out of the carbon-compliant market.
As regulations tighten and environmental costs climb, carbon pricing is no longer a peripheral concern—it is central to the economics of global shipping.
Despite the scale of these projected costs, the market has yet to surrender EUAs for 2024.
This delay risks masking the true financial impact—amplifying the divide between those with proactive compliance strategies and those without.
Carbon pricing is no longer a distant regulatory threat, as the EU ETS and FuelEU Maritime will add an estimated USD 6.1 billion to industry costs in 2025 alone. The IMO’s Global Fuel Intensity (GFI) measure is set to drive up costs even further—shipowners and charterers could be staring down a combined carbon bill approaching USD 50 billion by 2030.
These are the main takeaways from the article that Siglar contributed to Lloyd's List biannual Outlook. Read the full article below.
Carbon pricing is already impacting shipping and trading. The EU is leading the charge, with the EU ETS and FuelEU Maritime adding an estimated USD 6.1 billion to industry costs in 2025 alone.
The IMO’s Global Fuel Intensity (GFI) measure is set to join the mix from 2028, driving up costs even further. Whether the EU—and other regulators—will treat the GFI as a sufficient global price signal remains an open question. If not, shipowners and charterers could be staring down a combined carbon bill approaching USD 50 billion by 2030 in a business-as-usual scenario.
Crunching the numbers using a typical vessel burning heavy fuel oil (HFO) as a baseline, it's clear these new regulations will carry significant financial consequences—particularly for those unprepared.
Take the Santos-Rotterdam grain route for a Panamax as an example, the projected increase in these costs is stark.
In 2024, carbon costs were relatively small, at around $47,000 for a newly built, and therefore more efficient and lower emitting, ship on a round voyage limited to only EUA costs at the 2024 phase-in of 40%.
By 2028, the inclusion of FuelEU Maritime and GFI costs will push the total carbon cost to almost $380,000, nearly a tenfold increase.
By 2030, the cumulative cost of EUA ($250,000), FuelEU ($80,000), and GFI ($200,000) tops $530,000, if the expected EUA price is taken into account, posing significant financial pressure on cargo owners and charterers.
Long-haul dirty tanker routes such as Mongstad-Singapore on a VLCC bear some of the highest absolute costs.
Starting from just over $165,000 in 2024, the combined cost balloons to over $1.9 million by 2030, with the GFI component alone adding over half a million dollars. x
This sharp rise could have a chilling effect on certain trade flows or force shifts to more carbon-efficient tonnage.
While the headline figure is substantial, the cost per tonne of cargo highlights the broader challenge. This equates to over $7 per tonne of cargo—enough to erase all but the most resilient arbitrage opportunities and as a result, the economics of long-haul trades could be fundamentally altered.
These surging costs will ripple through supply chains, driving up freight rates, influencing fuel choices, and potentially reshaping global trade patterns.
Older, less efficient vessels may struggle with viability under escalating carbon costs, but owners are turning to commercial decarbonisation strategies – accepting discounted freight contracts in exchange for greater operational flexibility.
Controlled speed, reduced ballast legs, and optimised routing can help keep these ships compliant.
However, this shift highlights a broader trend: in a more regulated market, agility and smart partnerships may allow smaller players to outpace larger, slower-moving competitors.
This has long been the thought in the market and is clearly evidenced by the uptick in dual-fuel newbuilds on order, but the question remains over fuel availability and cost.
While zero and near-zero (ZNZ) fuels offer the promise of compliance with minimal emissions exposure, their higher price may still outweigh the penalties of non-compliance. Shippers and charterers alike will need to adapt quickly—or risk being priced out of the carbon-compliant market.
As regulations tighten and environmental costs climb, carbon pricing is no longer a peripheral concern—it is central to the economics of global shipping.
Despite the scale of these projected costs, the market has yet to surrender EUAs for 2024.
This delay risks masking the true financial impact—amplifying the divide between those with proactive compliance strategies and those without.
