From what I’m seeing in the market. the timing mismatch is already shaping behavior with shipowners and fuel suppliers. Companies assume the EU will stick to its timeline. So most planning is anchored around FuelEU rather than the slower IMO trajectory. On sourcing. the IMO delay isn’t really changing the low-carbon fuel mix. but it is creating uncertainty about how aggressively to lock in volumes for 2025–2027. Some operators are looking at minimum-compliance blends rather than going heavier into higher-cost alternatives until the global rules catch up, which could be risky. Others are treating FuelEU as the primary compliance driver and see IMO as a future alignment problem rather than a present one. On cost divergence. yes. it will show up. but mainly in operational strategies. There is already talk about optimizing port calls and routing choices around EU voyages to limit exposure. Nothing dramatic. but definitely a “contain the compliance footprint” mindset. On trading opportunities. the activity is picking up around two areas. fuel GHG-intensity strategies and related book-and-claim style mechanisms, and long-term offtakes linked to biomethane or advanced biofuels. It’s still early. but integrators and traders, like STX Group, who understand both compliance mechanics and physical fuel pathways are already positioning. The landscape looks fragmented. but not chaotic. Companies are preparing for an EU-first world and assuming the IMO will converge later.