There is a generation of shipping executives wishing desperately they had concentrated more in chemistry and mathematics. The immediate future of the industry effectively rides on them understanding a complex series of equations that have crucial variables missing, and they are struggling. In the absence of any better ideas, they are guessing.

The good news is that the first test question has been revised down from an essay to a multiple-choice option. Having grappled with several semesters, and studied the vagaries of shipping’s multi-fuel future, it seems that the end of year finals has narrowed the question down to a choice of three distinct molecules: ammonia, methanol, or methane. But turn the page and, inevitably, there are difficult follow-up questions requiring you to show your working on which variant of bio, or E-methane you are basing your answers on.

Examiners are liable to find variable quality in the work that gets submitted. Some papers arguably may do well in a theology exam, but fare less well when it comes to the rigors of immutable numbers. The Höegh team are serious students and have been working hard on their ammonia answer, but like everyone else their answer is conditional. They may not ‘believe in methanol’, but faith in ammonia is equally difficult to rationalize when you factor in the 150%-200% cost differential that will need to be bridged by, yet undefined and unguaranteed, carbon pricing mechanisms.

Maersk did, and presumably still does not ‘believe’ in LNG. But when they are inevitably called on during their results presentation on Wednesday to show their working on the hotly anticipated (and sizable LNG dual-fueled) addition to the orderbook they are expected to unveil, they are going to need to be clear on the detail of how their new dual-fueled strategy stacks up. Examiners will be looking closely at the detail of their answers to understand the subtle difference between market pragmatism and U-turn.