Analysis as of 25 May 2026. Market prices have not been updated to reflect later data. A note on what has changed since then appears at the end.

Tensions in the Strait of Hormuz escalated from late February 2026; on 2 March the Strait was declared closed to shipping linked to the United States and Israel. Throughput of around 20 million barrels a day was affected.

The German diesel figure carries an 18 May assessment date. It is a pump price including energy tax and VAT, assessed by a retail source rather than a wholesale benchmark, and we have not restated it as at 25 May.

The path matters as much as the level. Brent rose from 61 USD/bbl at the start of January to a peak of 126.30 USD/bbl on 31 March, then eased to 98 USD/bbl by late May as the market priced in hopes of a diplomatic settlement. Dated Brent is the physical spot benchmark and is assessed separately from ICE Brent futures; the two series need not move together.

A price spike raises costs. A sustained repricing changes the shape of the cost base.

Once fuel accounts for more than half of the cost base, the operator’s margin is a function of a commodity price it does not control. That is the resilience problem, and it does not disappear when prices retreat.

Scrubber installations, engine modernisation and conversion to alternative fuels typically require between one and ten million euros per unit and 12 to 24 months of lead time. Under current price and liquidity conditions, that is a necessary programme — but it cannot answer this year’s problem.

What it is. NanoEFX is a water-based treatment applied to the existing air filter or a suitable intake filter medium. It is not a fuel additive, not an oil additive, not an ECU remap and not a retrofit — nothing is introduced into the fuel or oil systems, and no hardware is changed.

The technology is patented in Japan (2018) and the United States (2021) and is listed on UNIDO ITPO Tokyo’s Sustainable Technology Promotion Platform. A patent records that an invention is novel. It is not evidence that it works, and we do not present it as one. That listing recognises the technology as relevant to sustainable industrial development. It is not a performance test, and UNIDO did not test the product. The EU safety data sheet is prepared under the applicable REACH framework and states that no chemical safety assessment has been carried out.

What the evidence supports. Across 17 results — supervised trials and operator records, which we rank below them — 71% show consumption reductions between 5% and 15%, with a median of 10.7%. That is an observation across a specific set of trials — not a level of performance we promise. Some individual trials were weak, and some were mixed or inconclusive. The weakest is a Nigerian generator fleet, IHS Towers: a small positive median of +1.7%, too small and variable to establish a clear treatment effect for that duty cycle. Results depend on engine type, duty cycle, filter condition and correct application. We do not explain here how a coating on a filter would change combustion: that is the manufacturer’s proposed mechanism, and we have not independently measured it.

The figures below are scenario calculations under a deliberately conservative assumption of a 5.5% consumption reduction — below the observed median. They are not field-validated results, and the confidence attached to each differs.

The vessel figure looks implausible until the denominator is visible. The modelled vessel burns around 17,700 tonnes of bunker a year, which at the cut-off price is roughly USD 13.4 million. A 5.5% reduction is about USD 740,000 — hence the payback. The saving is large because the fuel bill is large, not because the effect is. Investment per unit is approximately USD 120,000, against USD 2–4 million for capital-intensive alternatives. The calculation assumes a product price of USD 500 per litre, ex works and undiluted. The EU ETS component — additional cost of around EUR 2.14 million per vessel per year at the cut-off date — improves the maritime case, but it is a cost avoided through lower fuel consumption, calculated from the fuel figure, not a separately measured emissions result.

We have deliberately not extended these figures to fleet level. A projection built on an unvalidated application does not become more reliable by being multiplied.

This is our own assessment, and we state its limits. NanoEFX does not replace the long-term transition of propulsion systems, and it does not replace capital-intensive decarbonisation. What it offers, in a period of elevated price volatility, is one of the few levers that can take effect within a maintenance cycle, preserve operating liquidity and reduce fuel-related emissions costs as a consequence of lower consumption.

For operators with high fuel-cost exposure, it is worth testing as a short-term resilience measure — one element of a broader efficiency programme, not a substitute for one.