According to a recent analysis by maritime data and compliance company OceanScore, as the FuelEU Maritime regulation enters into force, the shipping industry may be looking at a surprising upside.
Instead of acting solely as a cost driver, the regulation could create a net financial gain, potentially around €250m.
OceanScore MD Albrecht Grell said: “FuelEU isn’t just another penalty. It’s structured in a way that can push money back into parts of the industry — but only if you understand where and how that happens.”
OceanScore’s analysis focuses on the balance of GHG intensity compliance under FuelEU. The initial compliance deficit across vessels exceeding the regulation’s threshold is estimated at around 2.1m tonnes (MT) of CO₂e, while more efficient vessels — mainly LNG and LPG carriers — generate a surplus of about 1.3m MT CO₂e. That leaves a net compliance gap of roughly 0.8m MT, which is likely to be closed using biofuels. These fuels, such as UCOME, have a lower calorific value and higher price point, but offer the advantage of emissions reduction credits and corresponding savings under the EU ETS.
At today’s prices, factoring in the ETS phase-in rate of 70% and current exchange rates, covering this compliance gap via biofuels is expected to cost the industry around €200m, or €230/MT CO₂e. While that’s not insignificant, it’s a relatively modest figure for an industry of this scale.
The other half of the story is about how emissions-related costs are passed on, especially in container, ferry, and cruise segments, which together make up nearly 50% of total emissions. In many cases, emissions surcharges are now included in COAs, and some are linked to FuelEU’s penalty levels.
Grell said: “It’s not a universal practice, but we’ve seen a significant number of surcharges that shadow the penalty rates. And when you run the numbers, even conservatively, the revenue side starts to look pretty interesting.”
OceanScore’s model assumes that just half of operators apply surcharges at two-thirds of the penalty rate, which equates to about €640/MT CO₂e. Under these conditions, total additional revenue could reach €450m.
Subtracting compliance costs leaves a potential net gain of €250m — although how sustainable that is remains uncertain.
Grell added: “Windfalls like this don’t last forever. But in the short term, there’s clearly value on the table. The trick is knowing how to capture it — and who actually does.”
Who benefits from this value shift depends on where they sit in the value chain. Owners, charterers, and ship managers all have different exposure to compliance costs and different leverage in passing them along. Charterers may aim to pass on more cost than they reimburse, owners will negotiate how these costs are handled, and managers – especially third-party ones – often sit at the centre of compliance obligations.
Grell said: “Ship managers are in a uniquely exposed position. They carry the responsibility for compliance but typically operate on tight margins. The additional cost, for tools, processes, and reporting systems could quickly reach €3,000–4,000 per vessel annually. Managers shouldn’t be shy about asking for their share of this upside. They’re doing the heavy lifting, and it’s in everyone’s interest that they’re properly resourced to do it well.”
FuelEU doesn’t just introduce a new rule, it’s setting the stage for a compliance credit market. As operators buy and sell surpluses and deficits, pricing, liquidity, and strategy will become real levers for competitiveness. OceanScore is working with shipping companies to help them navigate this evolving space, offering data-driven compliance tools, emissions strategy support, and access to pooling mechanisms.
Grell concluded: “Whether you’re a charterer, an owner, or a manager, this is a moment to get ahead of the curve. The costs are manageable, and the opportunity is real — but only if you’re prepared.”
Image: OceanScore sees a profits opportunity for the shipping industry with FuelEU Maritime (credit: pexels.com/Blue-C)
