Argus spoke to Torben Norgaard, chief technology and analytics officer at the Maersk Mc-Kinney Moller Center for Zero Carbon Shipping, on the sidelines of the Asia Pacific Maritime (APM) conference and exhibition in Singapore from 25-27 March. Norgaard spoke about the impact of the current geopolitical turmoil on energy transition and what it means for the maritime decarbonisation.
With current geopolitical disruptions, how is the industry balancing energy security and decarbonisation?
The climate agenda has moved slightly down the global agenda, and instead we are seeing terms like energy resilience, energy diversity and energy security becoming more prominent in shaping energy policy.
At first glance, one might expect this shift to slow down the energy transition. But when we look at investment flows into transition technologies and new energy systems, they are increasing year on year — quite aggressively.
Countries that are not self-sufficient in fossil fuels are looking to secure energy through domestic resources, such as biomass or renewable electricity. So, while multilateral climate action may be weakening, a more regional and security-driven approach is emerging. Paradoxically, this is sustaining — and in some cases accelerating — investment in the energy transition.
Are alternative fuels reliable enough today to support shipping at scale, from both a supply and investment perspective?
From a technical standpoint, we have high confidence in the fuels being considered — bio-based fuels, methane, ammonia, methanol and other alcohols. The challenge now is not technology, but mobilisation. The maritime sector needs to be able to compete for these fuels in broader energy markets, and that depends heavily on maritime regulation.
Investments in low-emission fuels are not made for shipping alone. These are part of broader energy systems that serve multiple industries. What we are tracking is where these energy systems are developing, and how shipping can position itself to participate in those markets.
The first wave of fuels entering maritime will be those that use existing infrastructure and technology. These include bio-oils for conventional vessels and biomethane for LNG-fuelled vessels. These upstream investments are relatively robust because they serve multiple sectors and make use of existing infrastructure.
The second wave — such as methanol, ammonia and other synthetic fuels — is more complex and higher cost. These pathways still lack clear market structures and demand signals, which is why they are progressing more slowly.
Given current uncertainty, how are shipowners making investment decisions?
Shipowners recognise that the industry is becoming more complex. We see two main pathways emerging — a liquid fuel pathway and a gaseous fuel pathway. The choice between them depends on factors such as geography, trading routes and vessel type.
The next decision is how "future-ready" to make a vessel. We know the transition is coming, but the exact timing is uncertain. Shipowners, therefore, need to balance investing now versus preparing for future retrofits.
The key focus is building optionality — ensuring vessels can operate under multiple future scenarios.
Will the energy transition slow down or accelerate in the next three to five years?
The transition is continuing to accelerate. If you look at total emissions from maritime activity, they have remained relatively stable, even as trade has grown. This means emissions per unit of cargo have decreased significantly by around 30pc over the past decade.
In the next 3-5 years, we will see increased uptake of fuels that are already viable and compatible with existing infrastructure — primarily biofuels and biomethane.
Has the deferment in IMO's NZF (International Maritime Organization's net zero framework) set back the transition?
The status on IMO's NZF, I would not call it a setback, but the IMO session in October 2025 was a missed opportunity for taking a step forward. Not adopting the framework delayed progress, but it did not reverse it. The industry would benefit from global regulation rather than a patchwork of regional rules.
Is Asia well-positioned to support this transition?
Asia is very well positioned from a technology and readiness perspective. Most vessels are built here, and much of the innovation, testing and pilot activity for new fuels is taking place in Asia.
However, what Asia lacks is a strong regulatory framework that enables shipping to compete for low-emission fuels. In this respect, Europe is currently ahead, with more developed regulation that creates demand and supports fuel uptake.
What role can Singapore play in the transition?
Singapore already plays an important role, particularly in de-risking the operational aspects of new fuels through pilots and testing. There is an opportunity for Singapore to go further — not just as a maritime fuel hub, but as a broader energy hub. That means taking a systemic view, integrating multiple industries and creating demand across sectors.
However, there is also a structural challenge. Future energy systems may shift towards producing energy closer to where it is consumed, rather than transporting it globally.
