Xylenes

SAO PAULO (ICIS)–Braskem has firmly denied it was preparing polyethylene (PE) price increases for June in anticipation of antidumping duties (ADDs) on US and Canadian imports, with a spokesperson at the Brazilian petrochemicals major calling such claims "absolutely unfounded". In a phone interview with ICIS, the spokesperson also rejected suggestions Braskem had already communicated potential price rises for June on expected ADDs. The spokesperson later confirmed on Friday that Braskem's PE prices would roll over in June from May. The proposal to implement ADDs on PE was brought forward in 2024 by Braskem, who is the sole PE producer in Brazil. The company has had to grapple with higher production costs than peers in North America, where natural gas-based ethane is widely available and has allowed a revival in polymers manufacturing. "The idea that we were putting up prices for May or for June based on a supposed decision regarding ADDs is absolutely unfounded. Braskem is not the one who sets the price: as the market knows, Braskem sets its prices accordingly to competitive market conditions rather than predetermined strategies," said the spokesperson. The company's representative also deemed necessary to distinguish between general import duties, which affect all countries importing into Brazil, and ADDs, which in this case would only target two countries, if Gecex finally deems PE from US and Canada contravened free trade rules. "For this particular case, it would not be the case that all imports would be affected – only the imports that are from the US," concluded the spokesperson. PE imports from the US and Canada represented in 2024 around 75% of all of Brazil's PE imports, according to the ICIS Supply and Demand Database. BUSY WEEK ENDS WITH A ROLLOVERBrazil's policymakers and polymers players leave behind a busy week in which political decisions get mixed with business planning, irremediably affected by the low operating rates at most Brazilian and Latin American chemical plants. Hit by abundant and lower-priced imports, Brazil's chemicals plants operating rates stand at around 60-65%, according to trade group Abiquim, which represents producers. Braskem's statement on Friday sought to clarify several points of the many published this week about Brazil's trade policy, but mostly the claim by market players that Braskem had already decided to increase prices on expectations of ADDs being imposed on US material. It stressed that any future price adjustments would not be related to antidumping measures, "because they are not in place", and argued it was not aware yet of what way June pricing would go. It has been an intense week for trade policymakers, with the foreign trade committee Gecex sharply increasing ADDs on US PVC from 8.2% to 43.7%, despite the US being only the second largest supplier to Brazil, well behind Colombia. Meanwhile, Gecex postponed without explanation a meeting where it was expected to decide on imposing ADDs on PE imports from the US and Canada, planned for 29 May but rescheduled last minute, leaving Brazil's PE market in uncertainty. Latin America has been one of the most vulnerable regions hit by the global petrochemicals oversupply and low prices. As around half of Brazil and the wider region chemicals demand is covered by imports, it is global prices that dictate the domestic pricing policies – a quintessential 'price-taker' status. After a considerable list of protectionist measures have been implemented in Brazil, fears among importers about rising input costs and overall national inflation rates are increasing. Small and large manufacturers up and down the country, which depend on imports for their production, will now face higher bills due to higher import tariffs on several chemicals as well as several ADDs in place for petrochemicals. However, Abiquim has said the measures' influence on inflation would be minimal, adding they are sensible when taking into consideration that they would in part cushion the nation's beleaguered chemicals producers from even lower operating rates or, in the worst-case scenario, plant closures. Additional reporting by Bruno Menini

30-May-2025

HOUSTON (ICIS)–The US can maintain nearly all the plastic and chemical tariffs it imposed this year after an appeals court granted on Thursday the government's request to stay the judgment of a lower court. The stay will remain in place while the case is under consideration by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Earlier, the US lost a judgment over its tariffs in the US Court of International Trade. That lower court ruled that the president exceeded its authority when it imposed tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). These IEEPA tariffs included nearly all of the duties that the US imposed in 2025 on imports of commodity plastics and chemicals. Had the appeals court rejected the government's request for a stay, then the US would have had 10 calendar days to withdraw the tariffs it imposed under IEEPA. The tariffs covered by the ruling include the following: The 10% baseline tariffs against most of the world that the US issued during its so-called Liberation Day event on 2 April. These include the reciprocal tariffs that were later paused. The US issued the tariffs under Executive Order 14257, which intended to address the nation's trade deficit. The tariffs that the US initially imposed on imports from Canada under Executive Order 14193. These were intended to address drug smuggling. The US later limited the scope of these tariffs to cover imported goods that do not comply with the nations' trade agreement, known as the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). The tariffs that the US initially imposed on imports from Mexico under Executive Order 14194. These were intended to address illegal immigration and drug smuggling. Like the Canadian tariffs, these were later limited to cover imported goods that did not comply with the USMCA. The 20% tariffs that the US imposed on imports from China under Executive Order 14195, which was intended to address drug smuggling. Because the appeals court granted the government's request for a stay, the US can maintain the IEEPA tariffs. The ruling did not cover sectoral tariffs imposed on specific products like steel, aluminium and auto parts, and it does not cover the duties that the US imposed on Chinese imports during the first term of US President Donald Trump. IMPLICATIONS OF THE RULINGIf the ruling is upheld by the higher courts, it could bring some imports of plastics and chemicals back to the US while lowering costs of other products. While the US has large surpluses in many plastics and chemicals, it still imports several key commodities. US states that border Canada import large amounts of polyethylene (PE) and other plastics from that country because it is closer than the nation's chemical hubs along the Gulf Coast. Other significant imports include base oils, ammonia, polyethylene terephthalate (PET), methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI), methanol and aromatics such as benzene, toluene and mixed xylenes (MX). RULING COULD REDIRECT CHINESE EXPORTS OF PLASTIC PRODUCTSThe IEEPA tariffs of the US caused countries to redirect exports of plastics and chemicals to other markets, particularly to Europe. The result depressed prices for those plastics and chemicals. If the ruling holds, some of those exports could return to the US and reduce the quantity of exports arriving in Europe. The IEEPA tariffs had a similar effect on the plastic products exports by China. Those exports were redirected to other countries, especially southeast Asia. These redirected shipments flooded those countries with plastic goods, displacing local products and lowering domestic demand for the plastics used to make those products. If the ruling is restored by higher courts, then it could direct many of those shipments back to the US, although they would unlikely affect shipments of auto parts. Those shipments are covered by the sectoral tariffs, and the court ruling did not void those tariffs. RULING REMOVES BASIS FOR RETALIATORY TARIFFS AGAINST US PLASTICS, CHEMSChina had already imposed blanket tariffs in retaliation to the IEEPA tariffs the US imposed on its exports. China unofficially granted waivers for US imports of ethane and PE, but those for liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) were still covered by the duty. China relies on such imports as feedstock for its large fleet of propane dehydrogenation (PDH) units, which produce on-purpose propylene. If upheld, the ruling could restore many of those exports and improve propylene margins for those PDH units. The EU was preparing to impose retaliatory tariffs on exports of nearly every major commodity plastic from the US. Other proposals would cover EU imports of oleochemicals, tall oil, caustic soda and surfactants from the US. Canada also prepared a list of retaliatory tariffs that covered US imports of PE, polypropylene (PP) and other plastics, chemicals and fertilizers. If the ruling holds, it would remove the basis for the proposed tariffs of Canada and the EU as well as the existing ones already imposed by China. RULING WOULD NOT ELIMINATE THREAT OF FUTURE TARIFFSEven if the higher courts uphold the ruling and bars tariffs under IEEPA, the US has other means to impose duties that are outside of the bounds of the ruling. Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. Such tariffs would be limited to 15%, could last for 150 days and address balance of payment deficits. Tariffs imposed under the following statutes would require federal investigations, which could delay them by several months. Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The president can impose tariffs of up to 50% against countries that discriminate against US commerce. Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which addresses unfair trade practices. This was the basis on the tariffs imposed on many Chinese imports during the peak of the trade war between the two countries. Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which addresses imports with implications for national security. Trump used this provision to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum. The US has started Section 232 on the following imports: Pharmaceutical and active pharmaceutical ingredient (APIs) – Section 232 Semiconductors and semiconductor manufacturing equipment – Section 232 Medium and heavy-duty trucks, parts – Section 232 Critical minerals – Section 232 Copper – Section 232 Timber and lumber – Section 232 Commercial aircraft and jet engines – Section 232 Ship-to-shore cranes assembled in China or made with parts from China – Section 301 Shipbuilding – Section 301 The case number for the appeal is 2025-1812. The original lawsuit was filed in the US Court of International Trade by the plaintiffs VOS Selections, Genova Pipe, Microkits, FishUSA and Terry Precision Cycling. The case number is 25-cv-00066. Thumbnail Photo: A container ship, which transports goods overseas. (Image by Costfoto/NurPhoto/Shutterstock) Visit the ICIS Topic Page: US tariffs, policy – impact on chemicals and energy

29-May-2025

HOUSTON (ICIS)–The US delay of its proposed 50% tariffs on EU imports will still leave its polymers vulnerable to retaliatory tariffs. The new deadline is 9 July. For US exports, the EU has already drafted a list of targets for retaliatory tariffs, part of its second round of €95 billion in tariffs on US imports. A full list of all the proposed imports can be found here. This is on top of the first round of €21 billion in tariffs on US imports. A full list of all the proposed imports can be found here. In all, the EU could impose tariffs on nearly every major polymer from the US, including polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polystyrene (PS), polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and polyethylene terephthalate (PET). The EU is also considering tariffs on US imports of surfactants, fatty acids, fatty alcohols, and tall oil, a feedstock used to make renewable diesel, sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) and renewable naphtha. The following table lists some of the many plastics and chemicals proposed on the EU's second round of tariffs. CN CODE DESCRIPTION 28151200 sodium hydroxide "caustic soda" in aqueous solution "soda lye or liquid soda" 29053926 butane-1,4-diol or tetramethylene glycol [1,4-butanediol] having a bio-based carbon content of 100% by mass 29091910 tert-butyl ethyl ether (ethyl-tertio-butyl-ether, etbe) 29152100 acetic acid 29153200 vinyl acetate 29291000 isocyanates 32061100 pigments and preparations based on titanium dioxide of a kind used for colouring any material or produce colorant preparations, containing >= 80% by weight of titanium dioxide calculated on the dry matter (excl. preparations of heading 3207, 3208, 3209, 3210, 3212, 3213 and 3215) 32061900 pigments and preparations based on titanium dioxide of a kind used for colouring any material or produce colorant preparations, containing < 80% by weight of titanium dioxide calculated on the dry matter (excl. preparations of heading 3207, 3208, 3209, 3210, 3212, 3213 and 3215) 34023100 linear alkylbenzene sulphonic acids and their salts 34023990 anionic organic surface-active agents, whether or not put up for retail sale (excl. linear alkylbenzene sulphonic acids and their salts, and aqueous solution containing by weight 30-50% of disodium alkyl [oxydi(benzenesulphonate)]) 34024100 cationic organic surface-active agents, whether or not put up for retail sale 34024200 non-ionic organic surface-active agents, whether or not put up for retail sale (excl. soap) 34024900 organic surface-active agents, whether or not put up for retail sale (excl. soap, anionic, cationic and non-ionic) 34025010 surface-active preparations put up for retail sale (excl. organic surface-active preparations in the form of bars, cakes, moulded pieces or shapes, and organic surface-active products and preparations for washing the skin in the form of liquid or cream) 38030010 crude tall oil 38030090 tall oil, whether or not refined (excl. crude tall oil) 38170050 linear alkylbenzene 38170080 mixed alkylbenzenes and mixed alkylnaphthalenes, produced by the alkylation of benzene and naphthalene (excl. linear alkylbenzene and mixed isomers of cyclic hydrocarbons) 38231100 stearic acid, industrial 38231200 oleic acid, industrial 38231300 tall oil fatty acids, industrial 38231910 fatty acids, distilled 38231930 fatty acid distillate 38231990 fatty acids, industrial, monocarboxylic; acid oils from refining (excl. stearic acid, oleic acid and tall oil fatty acids, distilled fatty acids and fatty acid distillate) 38237000 fatty alcohols, industrial 38260010 fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters, containing by weight => 96,5 % of esters "famae" 38260090 biodiesel and mixtures thereof, not containing or containing < 70 % by weight of petroleum oils or oils obtained from bituminous minerals (excl. fatty-acid mono-alkyl esters containing by weight >= 96,5 % of esters "famae") 39013000 ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymers, in primary forms 39019080 polymers of ethylene, in primary forms (excl. polyethylene, ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymers, ethylene-alpha-olefins copolymers having a specific gravity of < 0,94, ionomer resin consisting of a salt of a terpolymer of ethylene with isobutyl acrylate and methacrylic acid and a-b-a block copolymer of ethylene of polystyrene, ethylene-butylene copolymer and polystyrene, containing by weight <= 35% of styrene, in blocks of irregular shape, lumps, powders, granules, flakes and similar bulk forms) 39021000 polypropylene, in primary forms 39023000 propylene copolymers, in primary forms 39029010 a-b-a block copolymer of propylene or of other olefins, of polystyrene, ethylene-butylene copolymer and polystyrene, containing by weight <= 35% of styrene, in blocks of irregular shape, lumps, powders, granules, flakes and similar bulk forms 39029020 polybut-1-ene, a copolymer of but-1-ene with ethylene containing by weight <= 10% of ethylene, or a blend of polybut-1-ene with polyethylene and/or polypropylene containing by weight <= 10% of polyethylene and/or <= 25% of polypropylene, in blocks of irregular shape, lumps, powders, granules, flakes and similar bulk forms 39031100 expansible polystyrene, in primary forms 39031900 polystyrene, in primary forms (excl. expansible) 39032000 styrene-acrylonitrile copolymers "san", in primary forms 39033000 acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene copolymers "abs", in primary forms 39039090 polymers of styrene, in primary forms (excl. polystyrene, styrene-acrylonitrile copolymers "san", acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene "abs", copolymer solely of styrene with allyl alcohol, of an acetyl value of >= 175 and brominated polystyrene, containing by weight >= 58% but <= 71% of bromine, in blocks of irregular shape, lumps, powders, granules, flakes and similar bulk forms) 39041000 poly"vinyl chloride", in primary forms, not mixed with any other substances 39042100 non-plasticised poly"vinyl chloride", in primary forms, mixed with other substances 39042200 plasticised poly"vinyl chloride", in primary forms, mixed with other substances 39051200 poly"vinyl acetate", in aqueous dispersion 39051900 poly"vinyl acetate", in primary forms (excl. in aqueous dispersion) 39052100 vinyl acetate copolymers, in aqueous dispersion 39052900 vinyl acetate copolymers, in primary forms (excl. in aqueous dispersion) 39053000 poly"vinyl alcohol", in primary forms, whether or not containing unhydrolyzed acetate groups 39061000 poly"methyl methacrylate", in primary forms 39071000 polyacetals, in primary forms 39072911 polyethylene glycols, in primary forms 39072920 polyether alcohols, in primary forms (excl. bis(polyoxyethylene) methylphosphonate and polyethylene glycols) 39072999 polyethers in primary forms (excl. polyether alcohols, polyacetals and copolymer of 1- chloro-2,3-epoxypropane with ethylene oxide) 39073000 epoxide resins, in primary forms 39074000 polycarbonates, in primary forms 39075000 alkyd resins, in primary forms 39076100 poly"ethylene terephthalate", in primary forms, having a viscosity number of >= 78 ml/g 39076900 poly"ethylene terephthalate", in primary forms, having a viscosity number of < 78 ml/g 39079110 unsaturated liquid polyesters, in primary forms (excl. polycarbonates, alkyd resins, poly"ethylene terephthalate" and poly"lactic acid") 39079190 unsaturated polyesters, in primary forms (excl. liquid, and polycarbonates, alkyd resins, poly"ethylene terephthalate" and poly"lactic acid") 39079980 polyesters, saturated, in primary forms (excl. polycarbonates, alkyd resins, poly"ethylene terephthalate", poly"lactic acid", poly"ethylene naphthalene-2,6-dicarboxylate" and thermoplastic liquid crystal aromatic polyester copolymers) 39089000 polyamides, in primary forms (excl. polyamides-6, -11, -12, -6,6, -6,9, -6,10 and -6,12) 39091000 urea resins and thiourea resins, in primary forms 39092000 melamine resins, in primary forms 39093100 poly"methylene phenyl isocyanate" "crude mdi, polymeric mdi", in primary forms 39094000 phenolic resins, in primary forms 39095010 polyurethane of 2,2'-"tert-butylimino"diethanol and 4,4'-methylenedicyclohexyl diisocyanate, in the form of a solution in n,n-dimethylacetamide, containing by weight >= 50% of polymer 39095090 polyurethanes in primary forms (excl. polyurethane of 2,2'-"tert-butylimino"diethanol and 4,4'-methylenedicyclohexyl diisocyanate, in the form of a solution in n,ndimethylacetamide) Source: EU CN CODE DESCRIPTION 39011010 linear polyethylene with a specific gravity of < 0,94, in primary forms 39011090 polyethylene with a specific gravity of < 0,94, in primary forms (excl. linear polyethylene) 39012010 polyethylene in blocks of irregular shape, lumps, powders, granules, flakes and similar bulk forms, of a specific gravity of >= 0,958 at 23°c, containing <= 50 mg/kg of aluminium, <= 2 mg/kg of calcium, of chromium, of iron, of nickel and of titanium each and <= 8 mg/kg of vanadium, for the manufacture of chlorosulphonated polyethylene 39012090 polyethylene with a specific gravity of >= 0,94, in primary forms (excl. polyethylene in blocks of irregular shape, lumps, powders, granules, flakes and similar bulk forms, of a specific gravity of >= 0,958 at 23°c, containing <= 50 mg/kg of aluminium, <= 2 mg/kg of calcium, of chromium, of iron, of nickel and of titanium each and <= 8 mg/kg of vanadium, for the manufacture of chlorosulphonated polyethylene) 39014000 ethylene-alpha-olefin copolymers, having a specific gravity of < 0,94 , in primary forms 39081000 polyamides-6, -11, -12, -6,6, -6,9, -6,10 or -6,12, in primary forms Source: EU

27-May-2025

LONDON (ICIS)–US President Donald Trump has warned of plans to impose a  50% tariff on imports from the EU starting on 1 June. In a post on the Truth Social platform, which is owned by Trump, on Friday, the US President said negotiations with the EU “were going nowhere” and said the bloc “has been very difficult to deal with”. “Their powerful Trade Barriers, Vat Taxes, ridiculous Corporate Penalties, Non-Monetary Trade Barriers, Monetary Manipulations, unfair and unjustified lawsuits against Americans Companies, and more, have led to a Trade Deficit with the US of more than $250,000,000 a year, a number which is totally unacceptable,” the post on social media read. Trump went on to stipulate that no tariff would be applied if the product was built or manufactured in the US, but did not clarify how this would pertain to raw materials higher up the value chain. As a net importer, the repercussions for the European chemicals industry may be cushioned from direct tariffs, although this could have more of an impact for certain products like benzene or paraxylene (PX). The EU has declined to respond to the latest announcement. On 9 May, the EU launched a public consultation to determine which US products should be subject to levies, including many chemicals and plastics. The consultation is scheduled to remain open until 10 June, as the EU Commission also consults on restricting certain EU steel scrap and chemical products worth €4.4bn to the US. A 50% duty is an escalation from the previous 20% tariff announced by President Trump on 2 April, when levies of varying degrees were applied to most international trading partners, including a 10% baseline rate for the majority of countries. Tensions between the US and EU eased after a 90-day pause was agreed in early April to allow time for discussions to pave the way for a deal palatable to both parties. Since the initial announcement, the US secured a deal with the UK, with a 10% tariff for auto parts (down from 27.5%), keeping the previously announced baseline 10% rate in place. In exchange, the US will have increased access to UK chemicals, ethanol, and beef markets. The US also agreed a 90-day pause with China on 12 May, allowing Chinese imports to the US to be subject to a 30% tax instead of the 145% tariff, with US goods to China held at a 10% rate instead of 125%. thumbnail photo source: Shutterstock

23-May-2025

BARCELONA (ICIS)–Participants at the Asia Petrochemical Industry Conference (APIC) expect chronic oversupply conditions hurting the chemical sector will start to rebalance by 2028-2030. China overcapacity, trade war is causing an unprecedented crisis Polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), paraxylene (PX) in structural oversupply Hopes for rebalancing by 2028-2030 as plants shut down, capacity build slows Demand is flat but India is the exception – a beacon of growth for the region Taiwan, Thailand struggle to compete against China, Middle East Trade war will cause “cataclysmic” changes in global trade Sustainability still seen as a growth driver, especially for polymers Growing reliance on US ethane for chemical production in Asia In this Think Tank podcast, Will Beacham interviews John Richardson from the ICIS market development team and ICIS deputy news editor for Asia, Nurluqman Suratman. Editor’s note: This podcast is an opinion piece. The views expressed are those of the presenter and interviewees, and do not necessarily represent those of ICIS. ICIS is organising regular updates to help the industry understand current market trends. Register here . Read the latest issue of ICIS Chemical Business. Read Paul Hodges and John Richardson's ICIS blogs.

22-May-2025

SINGAPORE (ICIS)– ChemOne Group is planning to incorporate bionaphtha as a feedstock for its upcoming $5.3 billion Pengerang Energy Complex (PEC) in Johor, Malaysia, a senior company executive said. The PEC is expected to process 150,000 barrels/day of condensate plus a side feed of naphtha, that will in turn produce 2.5 million tonnes/year of aromatics, 3.8 million tonnes/year of energy products output, and hydrogen output of 26,000 tonnes/year, according to Mobin Rahman, ChemOne Group’s Vice President for Technology. Construction of the PEC project is expected to start by mid-2025 after its operator secured an agreement for $3.5 billion of financing, with the start-up of the complex expected in Q4 2028. The hydrogen produced will be used to support the production of hydrogenated vegetable oil (HVO), which in turn can be processed into sustainable bionaphtha, according to Rahman. “The incorporation of bionaphtha as a feedstock in PEC will then advance ChemOne's work in creating a sustainable, circular petrochemical chain,” he said. Bionaphtha, a byproduct of HVO and sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) production, is increasingly used in Asia's petrochemical industry for sustainable plastics, packaging, and fuel blending. “The petrochemical industry globally is heavily reliant on fossil-based naphtha as a feedstock in steam crackers to produce olefins. Bionaphtha thus presents itself as a renewable alternative to fossil-based naphtha,” Rahman said. “This signals the potential for greater integration of bionaphtha into the petrochemical industry as its technology matures and supply increases,” Rahman noted. However, its relatively higher cost as compared to conventional fossil-based naphtha makes its adoption limited. Moreover, converting bionaphtha to paraxylene (PX) through catalytic reforming is challenging primarily due to the feedstock's composition and the inherent limitations of the process. Bionaphtha, derived from bio-crude oils, often contains a high proportion of normal paraffins and other non-aromatic components, which are difficult for catalytic reforming to convert into aromatics. BIONAPHTHA USE IN ASIA INCREASING   Major petrochemical companies in Asia are incorporating bionaphtha in their steam crackers as a drop-in feedstock in place of fossil-based naphtha, or in a mix with fossil-based material to produce partially renewable chemicals. “As a region that consumes the most plastics globally, the demand for plastics remains constantly high,” Rahman said. “When coupled with the increasing eco-conscious preferences among consumers, we see a resulting heightened demand for bioplastics. This has, as such, been a significant driver in the region's demand for bionaphtha as a feedstock for its production.” In line with the global green transition, multiple countries in Asia have also enacted fuel blending mandates. Singapore, for example, has set a 1% SAF blending mandate from 2026 onwards. Given the current mandate by countries to ensure that SAF is blended with jet fuel, the production of SAF, and consequently the use and production of bionaphtha, is set to rise, Rahman said. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) estimates that SAF could contribute to a 65% reduction in emissions, much needed by the aviation industry to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. Just like fossil-based naphtha, bionaphtha can also be used as a gasoline blending component – offering a more sustainable fuel blend to help countries and companies achieve their decarbonization goals, according to Rahman. While carbon capture & storage (CCS) and green hydrogen also offer valuable decarbonization strategies, bionaphtha provides a relatively easier and expected to be more readily available pathway. “Looking ahead, the global momentum towards sustainability will likely continue to see an increasing demand for bionaphtha in petrochemical production processes.” BIOPLASTICS USE GROWING One of the most promising downstream applications for bionaphtha lies in bioplastics, Rahman noted, including polyethylene furanoate (PEF), bio-polyethylene (bio-PE) and bio-propylene (bio-PP). PEF is a fully bio-based alternative to PET, while bio-PE and bio-PP are drop-in biopolymers with varying levels of bio-content, with bio-PP currently achieving up to 40% through the bio-mass balance process. In South Korea and Japan, leading beauty brands are already incorporating bio-naphtha into packaging and product development, setting a precedent for other industries to follow, Rahman noted. Companies like Japanese producer Nippon Shokubai and Indonesia’s Chandra Asri are exploring the use of bionaphtha in super absorbent polymer production (SAP), utilizing mass balance processes and independent certification bodies to ensure transparency and sustainability. South Korea’s LG Chem has also been manufacturing eco-friendly plastic products using bio-naphtha since 2020. LG Chem since 2021 has been shipping its bio-balanced SAP products – also certified with ISCC Plus – to overseas markets. ISCC PLUS is an international certification system that verifies the sustainability of bio-based and bio-circular raw materials throughout the supply chain. Separately, Mitsubishi Chemical has partnered with Japanese beverage company Suntory and apparel manufacturer Goldwin to use sustainable plastics for their end-products. The conglomerate also locked in partnerships with providers of the key bioplastics ingredient bionaphtha. It announced a strategic partnership with Finnish company Neste for the bioplastics supply chain. SUSTAINABILITY MANDATES TO PLAY KEY ROLE  Regulatory frameworks and sustainability mandates play a significant role in accelerating the adoption of bionaphtha, Rahman said. “Policies surrounding the reduction of plastic waste – like Japan's Plastic Resource Circulation Act for example – can incentivise manufacturers to adopt more sustainable production materials, while also encouraging retailers and consumers to opt for biobased plastics as an alternative to single-use plastics.” “In addition to that six other Asian governments – Philippines, China, South Korea, India, Bangladesh, and Malaysia – are regulating plastic waste, thereby building a potential market for biobased alternatives.” Other regulatory frameworks surrounding the general reduction of carbon emissions also help drive the adoption of bionaphtha in the petrochemical sector, as companies seek to harness potential financial incentives and avoid regulatory penalties, Rahman noted. “Take for example carbon taxes implemented in countries like Singapore, with carbon tax rates that will increase at least thrice within the decade to reach $80 per tonne of GHG [greenhouse gas] by 2030,” he noted. “Companies looking to comply with such regulatory requirements, or to be eligible for carbon credits and offsets, may turn towards bionaphtha to help reduce lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions along the supply chain.” South Korea's emission trading scheme also specifically rewards companies that integrate renewable feedstocks into their petrochemical production, providing a financial incentive for the adoption of bionaphtha in the industry, Rahman added. BIONAPHTHA MARKET SET FOR RAPID GROWTH  The market size for bionaphtha continues to expand at a compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 19% and is projected to reach more than 3 million tonnes by 2032, according to Rahman. The expansion is due to increased environmental awareness, policies that encourage the use of sustainable energy, and improvements in production technology, he said. “Currently, about 15% of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) production results in bio-naphtha as a byproduct. If demand continues to rise, this ratio can be increased to 40%, but the industry must also grapple with the limited availability of bio-based raw materials such as waste cooking oil.” “To ensure long-term viability, diversification of feedstock sources and the development of alternative production methods are imperative.” COST COMPETITIVENESS REMAINS AN ISSUEThe key challenge for bionaphtha revolves around cost competitiveness, and this is especially pertinent for Asian petrochemical producers who operate on thinner margins compared to their Middle East and US counterparts who benefit from cheaper feedstocks, according to Rahman. “Investing in low-carbon technologies is difficult for Asian producers if it further erodes their profit margins,” he said. “Besides, in terms of feedstock, while bio-based alternatives such as bionaphtha are available, many petrochemical complexes still rely on fossil-based naphtha.” “This is due to the comparatively higher prices of its alternatives, limited supplies depending on international supply chains, as well as potentially incompatible infrastructure where retrofitting is too costly.” Steam cracking operates at temperatures above 800°C and consumes large amounts of energy. This is mostly powered by fossil fuels, as its alternative – the electrification of steam crackers, requires high-capacity renewable energy that is not cost-competitive in Asia at the moment. “Even if high-capacity renewable energy becomes more accessible, the electrification of steam crackers requires a complete redesign or a retrofit that would incur very high costs. As such, decarbonizing these steam crackers poses significant technical and economic hurdles for businesses,” Rahman said. TECHNOLOGY TO THE RESCUETechnological advancements – like the introduction of new hydrotreating catalysts, help to improve conversion efficiency and reduce coke formation, according to Rahman. Other innovations like mild hydrocracking configurations that allow for targeted production of bionaphtha fractions can also enhance the overall efficiency of bionaphtha production, he said. More importantly, however, advancements that allow for better hydrogen recovery are particularly crucial in enhancing both the scalability and efficiency of bionaphtha production. “Especially in complexes like ChemOne Group's PEC, where hydrogen is produced as a by-product and used in the downstream production of hydrogenated vegetable oils, embedding strong hydrogen recovery systems can help improve yield efficiency and reduce costs. This in turn better primes its production for scalability,” he said. “In addition, at ChemOne Group's Pengerang Energy Complex, engineering-driven improvements in its LD-PAREX technology have yielded an almost 10% increase in conversion percentage from its Condensate Feedstocks to its higher value aromatics products,” Rahman said. “This also enhances the efficiency of downstream SAF/bionaphtha production and thereby improves production economics, both of which enhance the supply and cost appeal to facilitate further scaling of bionaphtha production.” Interview article by Nurluqman Suratman

22-May-2025

LONDON (ICIS)–Here are some of the top stories from ICIS Europe for the week ended 16 May. INSIGHT: Markets rally as US, China de-escalate tariffs stand-offMarkets and chemicals stocks rallied on Monday in the wake of an agreement by the US and China to dramatically cut reciprocal tariff rates for 90 days, signalling the first step in a de-escalation of trade tensions. INSIGHT: Limited improvements in demand for toluene and downstream sectors in EuropeNo significant growth is expected for toluene consumption in the near future, with long markets for certain isocyanates, a disappointing start to the summer driving season and tepid benzene demand stymying near-term growth hopes. INSIGHT: Sale of SABIC assets in Europe could make strategic senseA sale by SABIC of its European petrochemical assets could make strategic sense as the company has production in the Middle East, US and China, which benefit from much lower production costs. Europe butac sellers voice concerns over cheaper Chinese imports amid weak demandButyl acetate (butac) sellers in Europe have grown increasingly concerned about competitively-priced imports from China. As spot buying appetite in the continent is already subdued, domestic sellers are facing intense competition to offload material. European OX market flatlines as construction demand struggles, tariff uncertainty continuesHopes for a pick-up in European orthoxylene (OX) demand for the rest of 2025 are fading among downstream phthalic anhydride (PA) producers, as orders from the key construction sector remain flat year on year in the early stages of the warm season.

19-May-2025

HOUSTON (ICIS)–Asia-US container rates surged this week as trade between the US and China is expected to surge amid the 90-pause on reciprocal tariffs between the two nations. Rates from online freight shipping marketplace and platform provider Freightos showed minimal increases in the low-single digits, but rates from supply chain advisors Drewry showed significant increases of 19% from Shanghai to New York and 16% from Shanghai to Los Angeles, as shown in the following chart. Following the latest US–China trade developments, Drewry expects an increase in Transpacific spot rates in the coming week due to shortage in capacity. Peter Sand, chief analyst at ocean and freight rate analytics firm Xeneta, said the 90-day pause is expected to lead to a surge of activity, where spot rates will peak and then flatten as carriers redeploy capacity to match demand over the next two to four weeks. “The US-China announcement on the temporary lowering of tariffs fired the starting gun for shippers to rush as many imports as they can during the 90-day window of opportunity,” Sand said. “There is no time to waste for these shippers and the rush of cargo will put upward pressure on spot rates on Transpacific trades.” But Sand said that a deeper dive into data shows shippers paying prices towards the market mid-high for rates agreed post the US-China announcement, while legacy agreements struck before 12 May will continue to keep a lid on the bubbling market averages for a short time. The following chart shows Xeneta’s rates from North China to the US Gulf. Judah Levine, head of research at Freightos, also expects to see a surge in imports. “We are likely to see a significant demand rebound in the near term as shippers replenish inventories that may have started to run down in the past month and as many Chinese manufacturers have high levels of finished goods already ready to ship,” Levine said. With an August deadline for the possible return of higher tariff levels, it is also likely that the near-term ocean demand rebound will mark the start of more frontloading, Levine said. “If so, it would also mark the early start of this year’s peak season, which could end earlier than usual as well for the same reasons,” Levine said. TANKER RATES STABLE TO LOWER US chemical tanker freight rates assessed by ICIS were stable to lower this week with rates for parcels from the US Gulf (USG) to Asia dropping once again. Rates from the USG to Asia ticked lower both for smaller parcels and larger parcels. Overall, market activity is weaker for most destinations to Asian ports, prompting owners to reposition tonnage to bridge the gap between southeast Asia and northern destinations. Overall, along this route there is very little quoted, aside from the usual contract of affreightment (COA) volumes there has not been much activity, besides the usual methanol and monoethylene glycol (MEG) cargoes. From the USG to Brazil, the market COA volumes remain steady as there were some inquiries and much less space is available for May for part cargoes, as COA nominations appear completed for the month. According to one ship broker, “owners are reporting very limited parcel space available”. The usual mix of caustic soda and methanol seems to be most visibly seen quoted in the market. For the USG to Rotterdam, there are some bits of cargo space still available for May. Most of the outsider vessels that were on berth have already sailed, and only the regulars remain at this time as they push tonnage availability which is all but full. However, there were steadier quotes styrene, methanol and caustic seen in the market this week for June loadings. Freight rates are now expected to remain steady for the time being. With additional reporting by Kevin Callahan Visit the US tariffs, policy – impact on chemicals and energy topic page Visit the Logistics: Impact on chemicals and energy topic page

16-May-2025

BANGKOK (ICIS)–The US tariff policies and other economic headwinds present significant challenges for chemical exporters in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) region. Nevertheless, opportunities and avenues for cooperation exist, especially with Asia, according to the secretary general of the Gulf Petrochemicals and Chemicals Association (GPCA). "Navigating the complexities of global trade is a top priority," Abdulwahab Al Sadoun told ICIS on the sidelines of the Asia Petrochemical Industry Conference (APIC) 2025. The GCC region comprises six Middle Eastern countries: Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The GPCA plays a pivotal role in facilitating partnerships between companies in both the GCC region and China, a strategy that has gained momentum in recent years, Al Sadoun said. "We estimate that GCC chemical producers hold equity in joint ventures processing approximately 2.7 million barrels/day of crude and operating over 23 million tonnes per year of downstream petrochemical capacity across China, South Korea, Malaysia and Singapore," said Al Sadoun. While US tariff policies present significant challenges for GCC chemical exporters, Al Sadoun sees opportunities amid the turbulence. “Even a baseline 10% tariff will raise the price of GCC chemical products in the US market,” Al Sadoun said, citing a paper published by GPCA that highlighted the potential effects of US President Donald Trump’s tariffs. Some products that would be particularly affected are high-volume, price-sensitive exports such as urea, paraxylene (PX) and polyethylene terephthalate (PET). However, Asia’s dominance as a trading partner offers a silver lining. “Asia accounted for over half of our total exports in 2023," Al Sadoun said, with China, India and Turkey among key markets. "If China reduces imports from the US, the GCC can step in to fill that gap, provided we act swiftly to capture market share and diversify our trade partners,” said Al Sadoun. Asia also accounts for well over half of global plastics consumption, with more than 50% of all GCC chemical exports already flowing to Asia, Al Sadoun added. “Recent joint ventures, such as Aramco’s partnerships at Panjin and Gulei in China, both designed around crude‑to‑chemicals schemes that convert more than 50% of each barrel directly into petrochemical feedstock, demonstrate how upstream strength can be paired with local finishing capacity,” Al Sadoun said. GCC CHEM PRODUCERS HAVE COMPETITIVE EDGEAmid falling oil prices in 2025, Al Sadoun believes chemical producers in the Gulf still hold an advantage over competitors reliant on naphtha. “While crude oil prices may be falling, the Arabian Gulf’s gas-based model still gives chemical producers a clear cost edge over their naphtha-reliant competitors.” At the same time, he emphasized the importance of continuing to optimize energy use and focus on higher-value projects. Companies are channeling investments into specialty elastomers, crude-to-chemicals complexes and downstream sectors such as mobility, packaging and electric vehicle (EV) materials, Al Sadoun said. “With plant utilization in the Arabian Gulf running in the 90% range – far above most global peers – the region is well placed to ride out softer oil, provided it keeps lowering variable costs and broadening its product slate. “GPCA’s role is to benchmark those cost and efficiency gains across its membership and ensure best practice spreads quickly from one site to the entire Gulf cluster.” SUPPLY CHAIN RESILIENCE A KEY FOCUSSupply chain resilience has emerged as a critical focus for Arabian Gulf chemical producers. “Recent shocks, such as geopolitical flare-ups, pandemic-era port closures, even weather-driven canal disruptions, have confirmed that leading companies cannot simply react; they must anticipate, adapt and seize the openings that turbulence creates,” Al Sadoun said. Al Sadoun pointed out four lessons: the first, route flexibility; the second, the need for end-to-end visibility; third, the need for regional buffer stocks such as joint warehouses in key import markets; and lastly, digital risk forecasting. The use of tools such as artificial intelligence (AI), blockchain and the Internet of Things (IoT) are moving supply chain management from reactive to predictive, while diversified sourcing and strategic inventories reduce single region dependency, Al Sadoun said. FOCUS ON RENEWABLES Even as the GCC region continues to leverage its cost advantage through gas, its member countries are also committed to energy transition. “GCC nations aim to source 25-50% of their energy mix from renewables by 2030,” Al Sadoun said, adding that the region is also investing heavily in carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS), currently capturing 4.4 million tonnes of CO2 annually – 10% of the global CCUS capacity. Hydrogen production is another priority, with Oman, the UAE and Saudi Arabia setting ambitious targets. Oman has committed to producing 1 million tonnes of hydrogen by 2030, the UAE to 1.4 million tonnes of hydrogen by 2031 and Saudi Arabia aims for 4 million tonnes of hydrogen by 2030. "These initiatives are part of our strategy to reduce environmental impact while maintaining our competitive edge," Al Sadoun emphasized. APIC 2025 runs in Bangkok, Thailand, from 15-16 May. Interview article by Jonathan Yee (recasts paragraphs 1 and 7 for clarity)

16-May-2025

By Jennifer Sanin and Tatjana Jovanovic This article reflects the personal views of the authors and is not necessarily an expression of ICIS’s position. LONDON (ICIS)–The EU’s choice to oust dissenters from the decision-making process on a Russian gas ban is an act of political desperation. Recently, the European Commission presented its plan to end Russian fossil fuel imports by 2027 but failed to offer much detail until the release of legislative proposals in June. While decisions on sanctions require a unanimous vote to pass, legislation can pass via “qualified majority”. Restricting trade with a country seems like the definition of a sanction, but the EU’s choice to make it a legislative issue conveniently sidelines the inevitable dissent from less compliant member states. Both Slovakia and Hungary , whose main gas supplier is Russia, have vehemently rejected the proposal and are seeking joint action to counter it. More and more eastern European populations further impoverished by high energy costs are turning against the EU’s stance on Russian energy. The common scare tactic of Russian gas supply weaponization can not be wielded against these states, as they are clearly more concerned about the EU cutting off their access to affordable energy than Russian President Vladimir Putin himself. Intelligence agencies and media outlets can blame the trend on “Russian interference” all they like, but reliance on costly and volatile global LNG is hardly conducive to a stable energy price for consumers. “Not being supplied by Russian gas means getting dependent on the US, which is not really reliable at the moment,” one trader said. “Hard to get the gas over unless you reverse flow from west EU,” another trader added. “And relying on LNG as well… so I get [their concerns].” Indeed, the cost of firm annual transit from Netherlands to Slovakia totals €3.27/MWh compared with just €1.36/MWh to pull on Hungary’s Turkstream volumes, which themselves are contracted at a discount to the TTF. A moral argument? Diversity of supply ought to mean just that: a mix of all possible sources, including the huge fuel-rich land just over the border. Business itself does not necessarily bend to geopolitical shifts. For a long time after Russia’s invasion, Ukraine continued making money off transiting its aggressor’s gas to Europe. Plenty of US and European trading partners either violate human rights outright or hold deeply opposing cultural values – China’s oppression of Uyghurs, Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen, Sharia law in Qatar to give a few examples. Following the logic of doing business exclusively with “morally righteous” partners, Europe would have to limit its trade to only include secular Western states. The outcome of the war can not rationally be linked to eastern Europe’s consumption of Russian gas, and the ban is blatantly an ideological one. Cheap Russian gas? One riposte to the concept of “cheap” Russian gas is to say that Gazprom supplied European companies under legacy oil-linked contracts, which eventually turned out more expensive than hub pricing amid gas market liberalisation. Already in 2015, many of these legacy contracts were re-written to incorporate TTF linkage . Then in 2018, the Russian energy giant adapted by selling excess volumes on an electronic sales platform at TTF-linked prices, which ICIS covered extensively at the time. Anyway, specific contract terms are a distraction from the crucial point that Russian pipeline gas is a flexible and abundant source of supply that would ease volatility across Europe, not just regional hubs. Slovak energy company SPP recently argued that lack of infrastructure capacity makes eastern Europe more vulnerable to supply crunches. This could be addressed with infrastructure expansion but uncertainty around Europe’s fossil fuel phase-out and a possible Russia-Ukraine peace deal makes such projects hard to plan. Speculators’ paradise One could also ask who stands to gain from such a volatile energy price environment while European consumers and industry suffer. The total removal of Europe’s most flexible supply source would almost inevitably expose the markets to price swings, and a volatile environment is most attractive for wealthy speculative traders. TTF front-month at-the-money implied volatility – the option market’s measure of a contract’s future price swings – skyrocketed after the invasion and has hovered over 50% ever since. That is much higher than the benchmark contract for most liquid commodity, Brent crude M+2, and therefore more lucrative for high-risk speculative traders. At-the-money July ’25 Brent implied volatility stood at around 30% on 14 May. The market impact of heightened speculative activity is a hotly debated topic , specifically its impact on inflating prices (in the case of net longs)– but most sources polled by ICIS agree it can exacerbate volatility. This begs the question… who are the winners of the EU’s political grandstanding? While it is no secret that eastern Europe is often used as a playground for West versus East, this latest proposal may have gone a step too far.

15-May-2025