Despite FuelEU Maritime being fully in force, a portion of the shipping industry appears to be banking on a regulatory rollback that experts say is unlikely to materialise.
According to Ship & Bunker, Jesper Sørensen, global head of alternative fuels and carbon markets at KPI OceanConnect, says some shipping companies are not only failing to optimise their compliance strategy — they are actively paying penalties that cost significantly more than available alternatives.
Penalties Over Pooling: A Costly Gamble
FuelEU Maritime entered into force in January 2025, establishing greenhouse gas intensity thresholds for vessels operating on voyages connected to EU ports. The regulation includes a pooling mechanism, allowing overcompliant ships to transfer their surplus reductions to vessels falling short of the thresholds.
As reported by Ship & Bunker, pooling to cover excess emissions can currently be arranged for approximately $17.50 per metric tonne of VLSFO consumed on intra-EU voyages. Paying the regulatory penalty, by contrast, costs around $187 — more than ten times that figure. The deadline for penalty payments falls on June 30.
Yet Sørensen told Ship & Bunker that some operators are choosing the penalty route regardless.
“I’ve had the opportunity to speak to quite a few owners and operators, and the answer is yes, there are people who are paying the penalties,” he was quoted as saying.
Hope, Complexity, and a Lack of Dedicated Resources
Sørensen outlined several reasons why companies are failing to engage effectively with the regulation. One factor, he suggested to Ship & Bunker, is a lingering expectation that the rules might be softened or postponed.
“There has perhaps been a hope that things would be addressed and there would be a delay in this,” he said.
Beyond regulatory optimism, Sørensen also pointed to resource constraints and the complexity of the framework itself. Smaller operators without dedicated compliance teams are particularly exposed. He noted to Ship & Bunker that as recently as March, an oil major still had not fully determined its own compliance obligations under the regulation.
EU-ETS as a Precedent
From KPI OceanConnect’s perspective, any expectation of a meaningful short-term shift in FuelEU Maritime is likely misplaced. Sørensen drew a parallel with the EU Emissions Trading System, telling Ship & Bunker that its successful implementation signals the EU’s intent to follow through fully on FuelEU Maritime as well.
While minor administrative flexibility in the first compliance year cannot be ruled out, he made clear that a blanket reprieve is not on the cards. Offering one, he argued, “would send the wrong signal to those who actually comply.”
Does This Matter to You?
This development is directly relevant to anyone operating vessels on routes touching EU ports. The gap between pooling costs and penalty costs is substantial, and the first compliance year is already drawing to a close. Those who have deferred action — whether due to regulatory optimism, limited internal capacity, or uncertainty about obligations — are now facing the financial consequences.
The broader message from Sørensen’s assessment is that the EU’s regulatory trajectory on maritime decarbonisation shows no signs of reversal. For those still navigating FuelEU Maritime compliance, the window for cost-effective corrective action continues to narrow.
Gulf Bunkering does not provide operational or security guidance. This article is for informational purposes only. Operators should consult flag state authorities, P&I clubs, and relevant advisories for decisions relating to transit planning.
Sources: Ship & Bunker
