WinGD Keeps Every Fuel Pathway Open for Shipowners

Carmelo Cartalemi, Head of Strategic Marketing at WinGD, on multi-fuel engines, the high-pressure LNG engine for large container ships, retrofits and India as the next growth market

“The first engine is sold by sales, but the second is sold by service. We want a long-term relationship with the owner.”

Q: WinGD offers dual-fuel engines across LNG, methanol, and ammonia. How do you help a shipowner decide which pathway fits their trade route and cargo type?

A: First of all, WinGD does not believe there will be one fuel in the future. We believe the fuel will be selected based on the segment of the ship. Shipping is very fragmented, there’s barges, tankers, gas carriers, container vessels, and every segment has specific needs. Shipowners have very good teams in place; they evaluate according to fuel availability, mission profile, trading pattern, and the price of the fuel versus the price of the vessel. There is no one fuel that wins. But there are different scenarios, and WinGD supports all of them, that’s why we have a portfolio that includes LNG engines, both low-pressure and high-pressure, plus ammonia, methanol, ethanol, and LPG. We’ve seen that different applications point to different fuels.

Q: The IMO’s Net Zero Framework was paused in October. Has that changed how suppliers are approaching fuel-choice conversations?

A: A little bit. The uncertainty actually creates a cost in terms of CO2 emissions, because when regulation isn’t clear, what we’ve seen this year is much more traction for conventional fuel. There’s no real clear business case for the owner, so future fuels get put on pause. On the positive side, though, at least for WinGD, that doesn’t mean the vessel stays like that for its lifetime, because conventional can be converted. WinGD offers retrofits, all our conventional-fuel engines are upgradable to LNG, methanol, or ammonia. If you look at the majority of contracts, most have some form of “ready” built in: LNG-ready, ammonia-ready, methanol-ready. So we support that upgrade path.

Q: Your recent commentary argues LNG’s business case is actually strengthened by the Net Zero Framework pause. Can you unpack that for our readers?

A:. Our paper shows that LNG has a benefit in terms of payback compared to other fuels, this is more linked to the cost of LNG than to decarbonisation. It’s actually a bit of a paradox: what regulation wants is decarbonisation, but what the business case shows is that the lower-cost fossil pathway can still have an economic advantage over fuels that deliver much deeper GHG reductions. What does this mean? To decarbonize, to move from fossil fuel to an alternative fuel with zero or low greenhouse gas impact, we need two levers. One is fuel economics, which is difficult to achieve on its own. The second, and most important, is the regulatory framework, the incentives and penalties on greenhouse gases need to be clear and predictable, and today that clarity is still missing at global level.

Q: What gap in the ultra-large container vessel (ULCV) segment is the high-pressure engine specifically designed to close?

A: In the large container vessel segment, WinGD decided to launch the high-pressure gas engine because our Otto-cycle, low-pressure gas engine is typically less power-dense. For big vessels you need a lot of power, and at the same required power, the low-pressure concept can require additional cylinders, not ideal for container vessels, which need compact engine rooms. The market shows the high-pressure engine is more compact, so it makes more sense for this application. That said, the high-pressure engine isn’t in competition with the low-pressure engine, we still have very valuable applications for low-pressure, like LNG carriers or medium-sized vessels. So high-pressure suits the big vessels; low-pressure suits gas carriers or medium-sized vessels.

Q: First deliveries are slated for 2028. What does the adoption curve look like so far among container lines?

A: The response has been very encouraging. X-DF-HP was developed specifically around the requirements we are seeing from large container operators: very high power density, high efficiency and a compact installation. First deliveries are planned from 2028, and we are already seeing strong engagement around the 82- and 92-bore engines. What is important is that this gives container lines a high-pressure LNG option from WinGD while retaining the broader fuel-flexibility pathway of our engine platform.

Ammonia for containers is still a little way off. It’s not a technology issue, WinGD has demonstrated ammonia is a viable fuel; we have a vessel running on ammonia now, and the safety, efficiency, and emissions questions have been addressed. The real barrier for containers moving to ammonia is fuel availability and uncertainty. If shipowners don’t see the fuel available, they won’t commit, and that goes hand in hand with the regulatory framework.

Q: You’ve described WinGD Global Service as redefining customer expectations. What was missing in the aftersales market that prompted this move?

A: On the service side, WinGD Global Service is very important because when you launch new-generation technology like LNG, methanol, or ammonia engines, we need to follow the customer very closely and help them maintain the vessel properly. That’s why WinGD took the lead in providing a premium service, for all segments, all engines, all customers. It’s launched with good success; we already have many service agreements in place and a lot of customer interest, and we’re now expanding our global service network across all key locations.

Q: Does this aftercare push change WinGD’s relationship with shipowners, from a one-time engine sale to something more continuous?

A: Yes, absolutely, that’s exactly what we want. We want to stay engaged through the lifetime of the vessel and the relationship with the shipowner. As we say, the first engine is sold by sales, but the second is sold by service. We want a long-term relationship with the owner, and that’s what the service business is built to do.

Q: Coming to retrofits, your fuel economics report found that retrofit technology often isn’t the limiting factor anymore. What is?

A: The limiting factor isn’t technology, the engine can be converted; we just need the contract to convert it. Next year we’ll convert five engines from conventional to methanol, and a new ammonia conversion contract is coming soon too. It’s also not really the capex, the initial cost. The limiting factor is the benefit regulation needs to give to the alternative fuel to make the business case viable. If you’re an owner, an investor, an asset player, you want your money returned reasonably quickly. Current regulation gives a payback period that’s too long to be accepted. Incentives need to be higher to bring that payback within five years, because that’s what investors want.

Q: How significant is the Indian and South Asian market to WinGD’s order book right now, across new-builds and retrofits?

A: India at the moment is a developing market. China, meanwhile, is hugely important, around 75% of the global order book is in China; it’s the biggest shipbuilding country by far. Korea is also very important, and Japan too, even though it’s a bit less prominent than ten years ago. Our business is focused on the Far East, and India is the next market. We’ve already appointed an agent and started sales activities. There’s real interest from major Indian shipyards, and intention to build some tonnage there. We see the market very positively.

Q: When it comes to Indian shipowners, do you see them engage differently with fuel choices compared to European owners?

A: No, not really. Indian shipowners, like others, are very interested in new technology, and all owners recognize the necessity to decarbonize shipping. The problem is always the same, the business case. In that respect, they’re no different; their position is very understandable.

Q: What does your engine order book tell you about where the industry’s fuel consensus is actually heading, versus where the conversation is heading?

A: If you read the order book for the year, one word stands out: uncertainty. That uncertainty leads owners to stick with conventional engines. Everyone knows the direction to go, but the targets keep moving, the framework isn’t clear, it’s changing, and fuel availability is changing. So even though owners know they need to decarbonize, the conditions aren’t there yet.For some owners, one rational response to that uncertainty is to select a conventional engine today while retaining a clear retrofit pathway for the future. That avoids paying the alternative-fuel premium before the fuel supply and regulatory picture is sufficiently clear.. They avoid the premium today and save it for when the picture is clearer. It’s fully understandable.