Twelve buying signals defined by GT Wings, run across five of its strongest opportunities using free public data. Two accounts are bound4blue customers, a third sits in a group that is. The two nobody has sold wind to chose a different technology on purpose.
| Account | Wind status | Supplier | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| Odfjell | 2 installed, 2 committed — and sails specified on all 4 Kitanihon newbuildings | bound4blue (Kitanihon supplier unannounced) | Competitor held |
| Eastern Pacific | 2 installed — the second was the extension | bound4blue | Competitor held |
| Seatrans / Sea-Cargo | None on Seatrans' own fleet — 3 on affiliate Sea-Cargo. WINTEGRATE demo vessel pending (01.09.2026) | Norsepower; bound4blue and Norsepower both inside WINTEGRATE | Group-adjacent |
| TORM | None found — but owns a scrubber maker | — | Greenfield |
| Gearbulk | None found — deck committed to fuel tanks; parent MOL (72%) runs its own Wind Challenger hard-sail programme | — | Greenfield |
bound4blue — a direct suction-sail competitor — holds two of GT Wings' five strongest opportunities outright, and on Odfjell sits alongside them in a Horizon Europe consortium. Norsepower holds a third by association.
The rotor-sail vessels — Trans Hav, Trans Sol and SC Connector — are Sea-Cargo's, confirmed by Norsepower's own releases and sea-cargo.no. Seatrans and Sea-Cargo are the same Bergen group: Seatrans publishes the results on its own news page, its CTO is the one quoted on them, and the WINTEGRATE consortium names Seatrans directly.
Seatrans Chemical Tankers' own ten hulls carry nothing. Which cuts the right way: an unfitted fleet, the highest EU compliance cost per tonne in this set, and a CTO already on record that the technology works.
And neither greenfield account is naive. TORM owns a scrubber manufacturer and specified scrubbers on its newbuildings; Gearbulk has earmarked its spare deck space for alternative-fuel tanks. All five have made a deliberate decarbonisation technology choice. Three chose wind — from competitors. Two chose something else. None of them is waiting to be educated.
That is not a reason to walk away from any of them. A shipowner who has installed, measured and reordered is a qualified buyer with an unfitted fleet. But it changes the motion from selling a category to displacing an incumbent — and it means the two greenfield accounts deserve the attention they aren't getting.
Select an account, then click any signal square to read the evidence behind it.
By what GT Wings can actually win, weighted by fleet size and timing — not by how good a wind-propulsion account each is.
Compare this against your own ranking. Where the two disagree is the most useful conversation in the room — and it will be about winnability, not about who has the best sustainability report.
Signal 9 run end to end on Bow Olympus (IMO 9818527), from its own filed EU MRV record. RP2025 total CO₂ 11,882 t. EU-scope emissions have grown 3.5× since 2020 — exposure rising independently of the regulation, and the two compound.
| Year | Baseline: fuel + ETS + FuelEU | With AirWing @16% | Annual saving |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | €2,005,787 | €1,573,051 | €432,736 |
| 2030 | €2,220,245 | €1,734,076 | €486,169 |
| 2035 | €2,675,970 | €2,128,724 | €547,246 |
At f_wind = 0.97 the vessel's effective GHG intensity falls to 88.85 gCO₂e/MJ against a 2025 FuelEU target of 89.34 — it flips from non-compliant to compliant, and stays compliant until the 2030 step-down.
Wind is the only technical measure in the regulation that moves the intensity figure. A flat percentage fuel saving cannot produce that result, which is why a shipowner's own spreadsheet understates the benefit.
Signal 9 now computed on one vessel from each of three accounts. This is the single most useful output of the trial:
| Vessel | Owner | DWT | EU CO₂ | ETS | FuelEU | Total / yr | € per dwt |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trans Emerald | Seatrans | 12,430 | 8,644 t | €605,080 | €161,390 | €766,470 | €61.66 |
| Bow Olympus | Odfjell | 49,120 | 11,882 t | €499,042 | €133,107 | €632,150 | €12.87 |
| Pacific Sentinel | Eastern Pacific | 50,332 | 2,075 t | €145,250 | €38,742 | €183,992 | €3.66 |
Pacific Sentinel is the largest vessel here and carries one seventeenth of Trans Emerald's compliance cost per deadweight tonne. Trans Emerald never leaves EU scope; Bow Olympus's transatlantic legs are half-counted; Pacific Sentinel spent most of 2025 outside Europe entirely.
The trajectories diverge just as hard: Trans Emerald −30% since 2018, Bow Olympus +249% since 2020, Pacific Sentinel −78% in a single year.
None of this is visible in fleet size, vessel size, ship type, revenue, or any news story. It is the discriminator no firmographic can reproduce — and it costs nothing.
Savings rate: the table uses 16% (Odfjell's R&D Manager, one 2,000nm leg). Odfjell's own annualised projection is 10% per ship — at 10% the 2025 saving falls to roughly €270k. Plan against 10%; 16% is the upside case. Prices are flagged assumptions — €70/EUA, $600/t bunker, 91.6 gCO₂e/MJ, 60% EU scope. Public-record inputs are hard; parameters are wired as variables so a live pull re-runs it in seconds.
Free public sources only. No Clarksons, no Lloyd's List, no Kpler, no Equasis. Fleet lists came from the companies' own websites; emissions from EU MRV; the installed base from the IWSA vessel list; everything else from company newsrooms, regulatory filings, trade press and the suppliers' own announcements.
Every claim on every card carries its source and a confidence grade. Where the answer is “nothing found”, the sources checked are named — so an empty cell is a result, not a gap.
| Account | Evidence | None found | Blocked | Answered |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Odfjell | 10 | 1 | 1 | 12 / 12 |
| TORM | 9 | 3 | 0 | 12 / 12 |
| Seatrans / Sea-Cargo | 11 | 1 | 0 | 12 / 12 |
| Eastern Pacific | 10 | 2 | 0 | 12 / 12 |
| Gearbulk | 7 | 5 | 0 | 12 / 12 |
60 of 60 cells answered — every signal, every account, with evidence or a named absence.
Odfjell's Bow Olympus is quoted at 85% (biofuel, well-to-wake, one voyage), 40% (sails, best legs), 20% (sails, whole voyage), 15–20% (VP Technology, “energy-saving effect”), 16% (R&D Manager, one 2,000nm leg) and 10% — the company's own annualised projection per ship. All six traced to source. Plan against 10%; expect to be benchmarked at 16%. The number most likely to be quoted in a meeting is the wrong one, and the number that belongs in a payback model is the smallest.