By Capt. Vikas Pandey, Founder & CEO, Shipfinex The numbers on alternative-fuel orders look encouraging. Seventy-two percent of newbuild capacity ordered in the first ten months of 2025 was for alternative-fuel vessels, with LNG dual-fuel accounting for 60% of that figure. More than 1,369 LNG dual-fuel vessels are now in operation or on order globally. By most measures, the transition appears to be happening. Look at who is actually placing those orders. MSC. Hapag-Lloyd. CMA CGM. Carriers with balance sheets large enough to absorb the cost premium of alternative-fuel newbuilds and relationships with Chinese leasing companies that extend leverage ratios unavailable to most of the industry. The Strait of Hormuz disruption this March accelerated that activity further: LNG tanker charter rates spiked above $200,000 per day and carriers with deep pockets moved to lock in fuel flexibility. Meanwhile, for vessels under 6,000 TEU, orders for conventionally fuelled tonnage rose to 28% of capacity ordered in 2025, up from 19% the year before. That is not a story of broad commitment to green fuels. It is a story about who has access to capital. An alternative-fuel newbuild costs materially more than a conventional equivalent. Methanol-ready designs, ammonia-ready structures, LNG dual-fuel systems, each carries a cost premium above the base vessel price. For an independent shipowner financing through a traditional bank, that gap is increasingly difficult to bridge. Top-40 bank lending to shipping fell from $454.9 billion in 2011 to $284.3 billion by end-2023. The Chinese leasing companies that absorbed part of that contraction are structurally oriented toward Chinese-built vessels under long-term contracts with tier-one counterparties. Independent bulk owners, mid-tier tanker operators, feeder container companies: they are working with a materially shrunken pool of willing lenders at precisely the moment they are being asked to upgrade their fleets. This bifurcation deserv