Middle-East And Africa Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) Bunkering Market Trends and Insights
Stricter IMO Sulphur and GHG Mandates Accelerate LNG Adoption
The IMO reduced the global sulphur limit in marine fuels from 3.5% to 0.5% in 2020, forcing operators to choose between costly scrubbers, low-sulphur fuel oil, or LNG. By 2025, more than 600 ships were running on LNG, and the IMO 2023 greenhouse-gas strategy, targeting net-zero shipping by 2050, cemented LNG as the most accessible compliance pathway until ammonia or hydrogen supply chains mature. The finalized life-cycle assessment credits LNG with a 20% lower well-to-wake carbon intensity versus heavy fuel oil, driving CMA CGM, MSC, and others to place large dual-fuel orders. The EU placed maritime emissions under its ETS in 2024, and prices climbed to EUR 85 per t, making high-sulphur fuels uneconomic on long Europe-bound voyages. Consequently, shipowners increasingly lock in LNG bunkering contracts to mitigate their carbon cost exposure.Mega Middle-East Liquefaction Additions Lower Bunker Prices and Boost Supply
Qatar’s North Field East, South, and West phases will collectively add 88 billion m³ per year of liquefaction by 2027, lifting the nation to 142 million tpa and reinforcing its leadership in the LNG bunkering market. Saudi Arabia’s planned Ras Al-Khair terminal and the UAE’s Ruwais project together contribute a further 20 million tpa by 2029. Oversupply has already compressed spot LNG prices; the Platts JKM averaged USD 11.20 per MMBtu in H1 2025 against USD 17.50 in 2024, undercutting VLSFO on a per-voyage basis. Hub operators such as ADNOC and Shell now offer multi-year fixed-price bunker deals, reducing owners’ fuel-cost uncertainty and encouraging dual-fuel fleet expansion.High Capex for Cryogenic Storage and Bunkering Assets
A shore-based LNG bunker terminal typically costs USD 100 million to USD 150 million, covering tanks, vaporization, and safety systems, which deters investment at ports with unclear demand. A dedicated LNG bunkering vessel ranges from USD 50 million to USD 80 million, and financiers often insist on offtake commitments for 70% capacity before funding. Durban’s 2025 feasibility study projected an extra 18 months for land acquisition and permitting, delaying revenue and inflating interest costs. Lagos postponed its bunker project after failing to secure 10-year customer contracts. Smaller East-African ports also lack throughput to justify standalone terminals, reinforcing the chicken-and-egg dilemma that slows the LNG bunkering market rollout.Other drivers and restraints analyzed in the detailed report include:
- Regional LNG Bunkering Hubs Backed by Incentives
- ESG-Driven Preference for Low-Carbon LNG
- LNG Price Volatility Versus VLSFO Undermines Cost Savings
Segment Analysis
Container vessels held 41.1% of demand in 2025, while the tanker and bulk carrier categories lag. Within the container segment, CMA CGM’s 22-ship LNG program and MSC’s retrofit plan underscore long-term confidence in the fuel. This segment commands the highest LNG bunkering market share because liner operators can pass bunker costs through in freight rates and face strict ESG requirements from cargo owners. The container fleet is projected to grow at 23.4% annually to 2031, making it the largest contributor to the LNG bunkering market size through the forecast period.Tankers and bulkers remain cautious. DHT Holdings and Euronav ordered LNG-ready VLCCs in 2024, yet widespread uptake is limited by freight-rate volatility and fragmented ownership. Ferries and OSVs trail even further; regional voyages rarely recoup the capital required for cryogenic tanks, though Norway’s Fjord Line demonstrates technical feasibility with its LNG-powered ferry delivered in 2024. Cruise operators such as Carnival already run 11 LNG-powered ships and could accelerate adoption once more ports add bunker capability. Overall, the LNG bunkering industry remains container-centric, but progressive infrastructure roll-outs and carbon-pricing signals may broaden participation across vessel classes later in the decade.
Complete Report Scope:
- By End User
- Tanker Fleet
- Container Fleet
- Bulk and General Cargo Fleet
- Ferries and OSV
- Other End-Users
- By Geography
- Middle East
- United Arab Emirates
- Saudi Arabia
- Oman
- Qatar
- Bahrain
- Rest of Middle East
- Africa
- South Africa
- Egypt
- Nigeria
- Kenya
- Rest of Africa
- Middle East
List of Companies Covered in this Report:
- QatarEnergy
- Royal Dutch Shell plc
- TotalEnergies SE
- ADNOC Logistics & Services plc
- DNG Energy
- Oman LNG LLC
- BP plc
- Mitsui O.S.K. Lines (MOL)
- Nakilat (Qatar Gas Transport Co.)
- Kanfer Shipping
- JGC Holdings Corporation
- McDermott International Inc.
- Technip Energies N.V.
- BW Group
- SEA-LNG Ltd
- GasLog Ltd
- Wärtsilä Oyj
- MAN Energy Solutions
- Samsung Heavy Industries
- Hudong-Zhonghua Shipbuilding
Additional Benefits:
- The market estimate (ME) sheet in Excel format
- 3 months of analyst support
Table of Contents
Companies Mentioned (Partial List)
A selection of companies mentioned in this report includes, but is not limited to:
- QatarEnergy
- Royal Dutch Shell plc
- TotalEnergies SE
- ADNOC Logistics & Services plc
- DNG Energy
- Oman LNG LLC
- BP plc
- Mitsui O.S.K. Lines (MOL)
- Nakilat (Qatar Gas Transport Co.)
- Kanfer Shipping
- JGC Holdings Corporation
- McDermott International Inc.
- Technip Energies N.V.
- BW Group
- SEA-LNG Ltd
- GasLog Ltd
- Wärtsilä Oyj
- MAN Energy Solutions
- Samsung Heavy Industries
- Hudong-Zhonghua Shipbuilding

