Glycol ethers

HOUSTON (ICIS)–The threat of additional US tariffs, retaliatory tariffs from trading partners, and their potential impact is fostering a heightened level of uncertainty, dampening consumer, business and investor sentiment, along with clouding the 2025 outlook for chemicals and economies. The US chemical industry, a massive net exporter of chemicals and plastics to the tune of over $30 billion annually, is particularly exposed to retaliatory tariffs. Chemical company earnings guidance for Q1 and all of 2025 is already subdued, with the one common theme from the investor calls being little-to-no help expected from macroeconomic factors this year. Tariffs only cloud the outlook further. Tariffs have long been a feature of US economic and fiscal policy. In the period to the 1940s, tariffs were used as a major revenue source to fund the federal government before the introduction of the income tax and were also used to protect domestic industries. After 1945, a neo-liberal world order arose, which resulted in a lowering of tariffs and other trade barriers and the rise of globalization. With the collapse of the Doha Round of trade negotiations in 2008, this drive stalled and began to reverse. Heading into this year’s International Petrochemical Conference (IPC) hosted by the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), it is clear that the neo-liberal world order has ended. Rising geopolitical tensions and logistics issues from COVID led many firms to diversify supply chains, leading to reshoring benefiting India, Southeast Asia, Mexico and others, and to the rise of a multi-polar world. It is also resulting in the rise of tariffs and other trade barriers around the world, most notably as US trade policy. FLUID US TRADE POLICYThe US administration’s policy stance on tariffs has been very fluid, changing from day to day. It is implementing 25% tariffs on steel and aluminium imports on 12 March and has already placed additional tariffs of 20% on all imports from China as of 4 March (10% on 4 February, plus 10% on 4 March). On 11 March, the US announced steel and aluminium tariffs on Canada would be ramped up to 50% in retaliation for Canadian province Ontario placing 25% tariffs on electricity exports to the US. Later, Ontario suspended the US electricity surcharge, and the US did not impose the 50% steel and aluminium tariff. The US had placed 25% tariffs on imports from Canada (10% on energy) and Mexico on 4 March but then on 5 March exempted automotive and then on 6 March announced a pause until 2 April. China retaliated by implementing 15% tariffs on US imports of meat, fish and various crops, along with liquefied natural gas (LNG) and coal. Canada retaliated with 25% tariffs on C$30 billion worth of goods on 4 March and then with the US pause, is delaying a second round of tariffs on C$125 billion of US imports until 2 April. Mexico planned to retaliate on 9 March but has not following the US pause. US President Trump has also threatened the EU with 25% tariffs. We have a trade war and as 1960s Motown artist Edwin Starr sang, “War, huh, yeah… What is it good for?… Absolutely nothing.” Canada, Mexico and China are the top three trading partners of the US, collectively making up over 40% of US imports and exports. The three North American economies, until recently, had low or non-existent tariffs on almost all of the goods they trade. This dates back to the 1994 NAFTA free trade agreement, which was renegotiated in 2020 as the USMCA (US-Mexico-Canada Agreement). A reasoning behind the tariff threats on Canada and Mexico is to force Canada and Mexico to stop illegal drugs and undocumented migrants from crossing into the US. These tariffs were first postponed in early February after both countries promised measures on border security, but apparently more is desired. But the US also runs big trade deficits with both countries. Here, tariffs are seen by the administration as the best way to force companies that want US market access to invest in US production. IMPACT ON AUTOMOTIVEUS automakers are the most exposed end market to US tariffs and potential retaliatory tariffs, as their supply chains are even more highly integrated with Mexico and Canada following the USMCA free trade deal in 2020. The USMCA established Rules of Origin which require a certain amount of content in a vehicle produced within the North America trading partners to avoid duties. For example, at least 75% of a vehicle’s Regional Value Content must come from within the USMCA partners – up from 62.5% under the previous NAFTA deal. Supply chains are deeply intertwined. In the North American light vehicle industry, materials, parts and components can cross borders – and now potential tariff regimes – more than six times before a finished vehicle is delivered to the dealer’s lot. US prices for those goods will likely rise. The degree to which they rise (extent to which tariffs costs will pass through) depends upon availability of alternatives, structure of the domestic industry and pricing power, and currency movements. In addition, some of the Administration’s polices dealing with deregulation, energy, and tax will have a mitigating effect on the negative impact of tariffs for the US. The 25% steel and aluminium tariffs will add nearly $1,500 to the cost of a light vehicle and will result in lower sales for the automotive industry which has been plagued in recent years by affordability issues. If it had been implemented, the 50% tariff on steel and aluminium imports from Canada would only compound the pricing impact. All things being equal, 25% tariffs on the metals would push down sales by about 525,000 units but some of the favorable factors cited above as well as not all costs being passed through to consumers will partially offset the effects of higher metal prices. Partially is the key word. Since so many parts, components, and finished vehicles are produced in Canada and Mexico, US 25% tariffs on all imports from Canada and Mexico would add further to the price effects. The economic law of demand holds that as prices of a good rise, demand for the good will fall. ECONOMIC IMPACTTariffs will dampen demand across myriad industries and markets, and could add to inflation. By demand, we mean the aggregate demand of economists as measured by GDP. Aggregate demand primarily consists of consumer spending, business fixed investment, housing investment, and government purchases of goods and services. Tariffs would likely add to inflation but the effects would begin to dissipate after a year or so. By themselves, the current round of tariffs on steel and aluminium and on goods from Canada, Mexico and China will dampen demand due to higher prices. Plus, as trading partners retaliate, US exports would be at risk. Preliminary estimates suggest the annual impact from these tariffs – in isolation – on US GDP during the next three years could average 1.4 percentage points from baseline GDP growth. Keep in mind that there are many moving parts to the economy and that the more favorable policies could offset some of this and, as a result, the average drag on GDP could be limited to a 0.5 percentage point reduction from the baseline. POTENTIAL GDP IMPACT OF US TARIFFS – 20% ON CHINA, 25% ON MEXICO AND CANADA Real GDP is a good proxy for what could happen in the various end-use markets for plastic resins and the reduction of US economic growth. In outlying years, however, tariffs could support reshoring and business fixed investment. The hits on Mexico and Canada would be particularly. China’s economic growth would be affected as well. But China can shift exports to other markets. Mexico and Canada have fewer options. Resilience will be key to growing uncertainty and will lead to shifting trade patterns and new market opportunities. This is where scenarios, sound planning and strategies, and leadership come into play. US EXPORTS AT RISK, SUPPLY CHAINS TO SHIFTUS PE exports are particularly vulnerable to retaliatory tariffs. The US is specifically targeting tariffs on countries and regions that absorb around 52% of US PE exports – China, the EU, Mexico and Canada, according to an ICIS analysis. Aside from PE, the US exports major volumes of PP, ethylene glycol (EG), methanol, PVC, styrene and vinyl chloride monomer (VCM), along with base oils to countries and regions targeted with tariffs. The US exports nearly 50% of PE production with China and Mexico being major outlets. China has only a 6.5% duty on imports of US PE, having provided its importers with waivers in February 2020 that took rates to pre-US-China trade war levels. The US-China trade war under the first US Trump administration started in 2018 with escalating tariffs on both sides, before a phase 1 deal was struck in December 2019 that removed some tariffs and reduced others. After the waivers offered by China to importers in February 2020, US exports of PE and other ethylene derivatives surged before falling back in 2021 from the COVID impact. They then rocketed higher through 2023 and remained at high levels in 2024. Since 2017, the year before the first US-China trade war, US ethylene and derivative exports to China are up more than 4 times, leaving them more exposed than ever to China. With tariff escalation, chemical trade flows would shift dramatically. Just one example is in isopropanol (IPA). Shell in Sarnia, Ontario, Canada, produces IPA, of which over 85% is shipped to the US, mainly to the northeast customers, said ICIS senior market analyst Manny Borges. “It is a better supply chain for the customers instead of shipping product from the US Gulf,” said Borges. “With the increase in tariffs, we will see several customers shifting volumes to domestic producers or countries where the tariffs are not applied,” he added. US IPA producers are running their plants at around 67% of capacity on average and have sufficient capacity to supply the entire domestic market, the analyst pointed out. This dynamic, where US producers supply more of the local market versus imports, would likely play out across multiple product chains as well, especially in olefins where the US is more than self-sufficient. Even as the US is more than self-sufficient in, and a big net exporter of PE, ethylene glycols, polypropylene (PP) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC), it imports significant quantities from Canada. In the event of a 25% tariff on imports from Canada, US producers could easily fill the gap, although logistics would have to be reworked. Hosted by the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), the IPC takes place on 23-25 March in San Antonio, Texas. Visit the US tariffs, policy – impact on chemicals and energy topic page Visit the Macroeconomics: Impact on chemicals topic page Insight article by Kevin Swift and Joseph Chang

12-Mar-2025

HOUSTON (ICIS)–Shipping container rates from Asia to both US coasts fell again this week as capacity has grown and as volumes have fallen after frontloading to beat tariffs, and liquid tanker rates rose on the transatlantic eastbound route and fell on the US Gulf to Asia trade lane. CONTAINER RATES Rates from Shanghai to Los Angeles fell by 9% this week, according to supply chain advisors Drewry, while rates from Shanghai to New York fell by 6%, as shown in the following chart. Rates to both US coasts are now at their lowest of the year, according to Drewry data. Global average rates in Drewry’s World Container Index fell by 3% and are also at their lowest over the past year, as shown in the following chart. Drewry expects rates to continue to decrease next week due to increased shipping capacity. Rates from online freight shipping marketplace and platform provider Freightos showed significant decreases this week, although their rates are slightly higher than Drewry’s. Judah Levine, head of research at Freightos, said that tariffs – or the threat of tariffs – led to many importers frontloading volumes to beat the announced levies. “The president’s proposed 60% tariffs on Chinese goods could go into effect as soon as April – as could a wider application of reciprocal tariffs on numerous countries – meaning the window to receive goods before then is about closed,” Levine said. Levine said that the combination of a seasonal slump in demand and the possible end of frontloading likely drove the sharp fall in transpacific ocean rates last week. “If frontloading of the past few months was significant enough, we could also expect to see subdued peak season demand and rates as a result,” Levine said. Container ships and costs for shipping containers are relevant to the chemical industry because while most chemicals are liquids and are shipped in tankers, container ships transport polymers, such as polyethylene (PE) and polypropylene (PP), are shipped in pellets. Titanium dioxide (TiO2) is also shipped in containers. They also transport liquid chemicals in isotanks. LIQUID TANKER RATES MIXED US chemical tanker freight rates assessed by ICIS were mixed week on week. Trade routes from the US remain mixed with several trade lanes slightly higher and others lower. Cargo moving into Asia weakens following the recent tariff announcements and this route has recently seen a decrease of cargoes, as the tariffs have all but halted any spot activity for this trade lane. As a result, rates have dipped from the previous week. On the other hand, the rates from USG to Rotterdam experienced upward pressure. For this trade lane freight rates for March have strengthened, given the amount of space left. A shipowner said it is expecting the trend to continue throughout March, with higher contract of affreightment (COA) utilization leaving very little available space. From the USG to Brazil, this market has remained relatively unchanged but is experiencing some downward pressure. While the market continues to be active it is further influenced by freight availability and a swing in trade lane dynamics. Demand remains soft particularly for larger parcels further pressuring some downward movement. On the USG to India trade lane, the market remains extremely soft with plenty of space available as outsiders have entered the market. As a result, this has placed downward pressure, and rates could fall further on the route if this persists. Several inquiries were seen for monoethylene glycol (MEG), methanol, ethanol, and vinyl acetate monomer (VAM), but few fixtures were seen in the market. With additional reporting by Kevin Callahan

07-Mar-2025

HOUSTON (ICIS)–Navigating the complex maze of US recycling laws is no small feat, especially as state regulations vary significantly. With chemical recycling at the forefront of innovation, understanding how these laws impact the industry's growth is crucial for shaping a sustainable future. INTRODUCTIONThe legislative landscape in the US is highly fragmented, largely due to the wide range of legislative enactments passed across the different states. Three major categories of recycling laws affect chemical recycling: chemical recycling acceptance laws, post-consumer (PCR) content laws and extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws. Each of these legislative frameworks will influence the development of the chemical recycling industry in their unique way, highlighting the complexity of navigating this evolving regulatory environment. Chemical recycling is an umbrella term that encompasses a variety of different processes designed to break down plastic at a molecular level. These processes reverse-engineer plastics, breaking them down into their original building blocks, which can then be reused to create new materials. There are two primary categories of chemical recycling: thermal depolymerization and chemical depolymerization. While both methods target plastics at a molecular level, their approaches differ fundamentally. Thermal depolymerization relies on high heat to break down plastics, whereas chemical depolymerization employs specialized agents to achieve the same outcome. Each category includes specific processes: Thermal Depolymerization (TD): Includes pyrolysis (breaking down plastics into oil and gas through high heat and low oxygen) and gasification (converting plastics into syngas through higher temperatures and oxygen or steam). These processes typically favor polyolefins as feedstock – mainly polyethylene (PE) and polypropylene (PP). Chemical Depolymerization (CD): Includes glycolysis, methanolysis and hydrolysis, which involve chemical reactions with agents like glycol, methanol, or water to depolymerize plastics. These processes typically favor polyethylene terephthalate (PET) as feedstock. CHEMICAL RECYCLING ACCEPTANCE LAWSThe acceptance of chemical recycling in state legislation typically involves defining chemical recycling as a manufacturing process, rather than categorizing it as waste management. This means that chemical recycling plants in the state will not have to adhere to the same strict environmental guidelines as waste management facilities, incentivizing the construction of more facilities. It also potentially opens the door for chemical recyclers to access government resources – eg, grants, tax benefits – allocated for manufacturing in those states. Which states have accepted it?As of late 2024, exactly half of the US states have recognized chemical recycling as a manufacturing process. Source: ICIS This gradual legislative acceptance reflects growing awareness of the potential for chemical recycling to address plastic waste challenges. What are the effects of state-by-state acceptance?The acceptance of chemical recycling on a state-by-state basis, rather than at a federal level, is a double-edged sword. On one hand, when a state legitimizes chemical recycling, it strengthens industry sentiment, while on the other, it further fragments the chemical recycling industry. The incorporation of chemical recycling into legislation began in Florida in 2017, paving the way for other states to follow. The first significant wave of legislative approvals occurred in 2019, leading to a surge in chemical recycling facility start-ups the following year. This pattern repeated with another wave of legislative acceptances in 2021 and 2022, followed by a spike in facility start-ups in 2023. The chart below provides a detailed visualization of this trend. This trend signals that the acceptance of chemical recycling has positive effects on the industry, serving to drive growth and incite innovation. The acceptance of chemical recycling also presents the challenge of varying perspectives across states. Firstly, there is a divide between the states that have accepted chemical recycling as a manufacturing process and those that have not. Secondly, among the states that have accepted chemical recycling, there are a few states that explicitly exclude certain processes. For example, states such as Kentucky and Kansas are among those that exclude processes that turn plastic to fuel. One example of this can be seen in the State of Kentucky’s HB 45, which states, "'Advanced recycling' does not include energy recovery or the conversion of post-use polymers into fuel." Similar language can be found in the State of Kansas’ SB 114, "'Advanced recycling' does not include incineration of plastics or waste-to-energy processes, and products sold as fuel are not recycled products." In effect, wording such as this essentially excludes thermal depolymerization process as being considered a type of recycling while recognizing chemical depolymerization process, creating a further divide even among those states that have chosen to accept chemical recycling. The lack of uniformity in how chemical recycling is addressed adds confusion to the legislative landscape. POST-CONSUMER RECYCLING CONTENT LAWSIn addition to chemical recycling-specific legislation, other laws, such as PCR content mandates, indirectly influence the industry. PCR laws require that a minimum percentage of recycled material be included in certain types of packaging sold within a state. How many states and what are the effects on chemical recycling?Currently, five states – California, Maine, Connecticut, Washington and New Jersey – have enacted PCR laws. However, none of these states are among the 25 mentioned above that have formally accepted chemical recycling into legislation. This fact means that it is often unclear if outputs from chemical recycling are ineligible to count toward PCR requirements, undermining the industry's potential impact and growth. A notable exception exists in Washington, where its PCR law explicitly states: “Both mechanical and chemical recycling methods are acceptable.” This language demonstrates a more inclusive approach, contrasting with states like California and Maine, which remain cautious about embracing chemical recycling. The contrasting viewpoints held by states that have PCR content mandates is another example of lack of uniformity in chemical recycling-related legislation. EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITYEPR is another regulatory framework gaining traction in the US. EPR shifts the responsibility for managing a product's entire lifecycle from consumers to producers, with a particular focus on end-of-life management. Under EPR laws, producers that meet a certain requirement – usually large producers that put considerable amount of plastic onto the market – are obligated to join a producer responsibility organization (PRO) to help finance the collection, recycling, or disposal of their products. How many states and what are the effects on chemical recycling?EPR policies are currently implemented on a state-by-state basis, with Oregon leading the way by releasing a detailed plan. However, the relationship between EPR and chemical recycling remains complex. A key issue lies in how EPR laws define acceptable "end markets" for collected plastics. Oregon’s definition of responsible end markets appears tailored to traditional mechanical recycling, inadvertently excluding many chemical recycling technologies. This exclusion stems from the varied outputs of chemical recycling, which can range from plastics to fuels or chemical precursors, complicating their classification as traditional recycling. Without clearer language recognizing the potential of chemical recycling as an end market, EPR laws add another layer of ambiguity to chemical recycling. CONCLUSIONThe regulatory landscape surrounding chemical recycling remains highly fragmented, with varying degrees of acceptance and restrictions across states. While the recognition of chemical recycling in state legislation correlates with industry growth, inconsistencies in how it is defined and regulated create challenges for accelerated growth. Further complicating the landscape, PCR content mandates and EPR laws introduce additional uncertainties, as their definitions often exclude or fail to clarify the role of chemical recycling. This uncertainty can manifest as a lack of investment, both from chemical recyclers who will be hesitant to commit capital to new plants, and from investors wary of funding projects without clear long-term policy support. As the industry continues to develop, greater legislative uniformity and clearer regulatory frameworks will be necessary to unlock the full potential of chemical recycling as a viable solution to plastic waste management. Insight article by Joshua Dill

03-Mar-2025

HOUSTON (ICIS)–Rates for shipping containers from Asia to the US fell significantly this week on increased capacity, while spot rates for liquid chemical tankers were stable to softer. CONTAINER RATES Global average container rates continue to fall, dropping by 10% this week, according to supply chain advisors Drewry and as shown in the following chart. Average global rates have fallen by almost 30% from 9 January, according to Drewry data, after rising from late October amid frontloading volumes ahead of a possible union labor strike at US Gulf and East Coast ports. Rates from Shanghai to New York plunged by 13% from the previous week, while rates form Shanghai to Los Angeles plummeted by 11% week on week, according to Drewry data and as shown in the following chart. Rates to Los Angeles are down by 29% from early-January, and rates to New York are down by 27.6% over that time. Drewry expects a slight decrease in spot rates next week as capacity increases. Deliveries of new container ships and a slowdown in recycling older vessels have led to an increase of 2.4 million TEUs (20-foot equivalent units) since the beginning of 2024. Judah Levine, head of research at online freight shipping marketplace and platform provider Freightos, said during a webinar that market players are watching two future dates – 4 March, when the reassessment of the Mexico and Canada 25% tariffs takes place, and the 1 April deadline when investigations should be complete on President Donald Trump’s reciprocal tariffs. Container ships and costs for shipping containers are relevant to the chemical industry because while most chemicals are liquids and are shipped in tankers, container ships transport polymers, such as polyethylene (PE) and polypropylene (PP), are shipped in pellets. They also transport liquid chemicals in isotanks. LIQUID TANKER RATES STEADY-TO-SOFTER Rates for liquid chemical tankers ex-US Gulf were stable to softer this week, with slight decreases seen on the US Gulf-Asia trade lane for small parcels and on the US Gulf to Brazil route. Rates for larger parcels on the US Gulf-Asia trade lane were unchanged amid a slowdown in activity. Shipping brokers are seeing inquiries along this route for ethanol, monoethylene glycols (MEG) and ethylene dichloride (EDC) for March shipping dates. Falling rates on the US Gulf-Brazil trade lane are because there is plenty of open space for the rest of February and into March, brokers said, and limited spot activity. A broker said it is seeing an increase in inquiries for this trade lane which could help steady the market. On the transatlantic eastbound route, a broker said there are plenty of inquiries and that most of the regular contract shipowners have been able to secure smaller parcels to help fill out their vessels. Shipments of styrene monomer (SM) were fixed to Europe, as well as methanol and caustic soda.

21-Feb-2025

SINGAPORE (ICIS)–S-Oil plans to spend about South Korean won (W) 3.5 trillion ($2.4 billion) in its Shaheen crude-to-chemical project in Ulsan, which accounts for the bulk of the refiner’s capital expenditure (capex) set for the year. Shaheen project on track for H1 '26 completion S-Oil plants run below full capacity over past three years Full-year net loss caused by heavy refining losses, lower petrochemicals profit The project capex for the year was increased by about a third from W2.61 trillion in 2024, and accounts for 86% of the total for the current year, S-Oil stated in a slide presentation to investors dated 24 January upon announcing its Q4 results. The project, whose name was derived from the Arabic word for falcon, is now 55% complete and is on track for commercial operations in H2 2026, S-Oil said on 17 February. S-Oil is 63%-owned by Saudi Aramco, the world’s biggest exporter of crude oil. Shaheen will have a 1.8 million tonne/year mixed-feed cracking facility; an 880,000 tonne/year linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE) unit; and a 440,000 tonne/year high density PE (HDPE) plant. The site will have a thermal crude-to-chemical (TC2C) facility, which will convert crude directly into petrochemical feedstocks such as liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and naphtha, and the cracker is expected to recycle waste heat for power generation in the refinery. “The project is progressing smoothly as planned,” S-Oil had said in the presentation, noting that completion rate as of end-December stood at 51.8%. Installation is underway for 10 cracking heaters, pipe rack modules at steam cracker and aboveground piping, it added. Construction of the multibillion US dollar project at the Onsan Industrial Complex of Ulsan City started in March 2023, with mechanical completion targeted by the first half of 2026. Over the past two years, S-Oil had poured nearly W5 trillion into the project, about half of the estimated project cost of $7 billion, based on capex. “Shaheen Project is a pivotal expansion into chemical business with industry-leading competitiveness, which will enable another leap forward in future profit generation capacity,” S-Oil said. The project is expected to yield 70% more chemicals, with a capex/operating expenditure savings pegged at 30-40% versus conventional process. At its Onsan site, S-Oil currently produces a range of petrochemicals and fuels including benzene, mixed xylenes, ethylene, methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), paraxylene, polypropylene, propylene, propylene oxide, biodiesel, and potentially bio-based aviation and other bio-derived products. The second-biggest item in S-Oil’s 2025 capex list is upgrade & maintenance at W463 billion, up by more than 75% from 2024, noting that its residual fluid catalytic cracking unit (RFCC) is scheduled for turnaround this year, based on the presentation. For the past three years, the company’s plants have not been running at full capacity, with a marked reduction of run rates at its paraxylene (PX) plants. For the whole of 2024, the company incurred a net loss of W163.4 billion, reversing the profit of nearly W1 trillion in the previous year, on heavy losses from refining and a 29% profit decline in petrochemicals. in billion won (W) Q4 2024 Q4 2023 Yr-on-yr % change FY2024 FY2023 Yr-on-yr % change Revenue 8,917.0 8,830.0 1.0 36,637.0 35,727.0 2.5 Operating income 260.8 (56.4) – 460.6 1,354.6 (66.0) Net income  (102.1) 160.5 – (163.4) 948.8 – Refining operating profit  172.9 (311.3) – (245.4) 353.5 – Petrochemical operating profit  (28.1)  33.9 – 134.8 190.6 (29.3) Lube operating profit 115.9 221.0 (47.6) 571.2 810.5 (29.5) In the first quarter of 2025, S-Oil expects additional demand for PX and upstream benzene as new downstream facilities start up, “offsetting ample supply”, it said, adding that a recovery in gasoline blending demand may further support the markets. Polypropylene (PP) and propylene oxide (PO) will "continue to see capacity expansions in China while demand recovery is anticipated from China's economic stimulus measures,” it said. China, the world’s second-biggest economy is a major market for South Korean exports. Amid an economic slowdown, the Chinese government have been introducing measures to boost consumption and revive its ailing property sector. Focus article by Pearl Bantillo ($1 = W1,441)

19-Feb-2025

SINGAPORE (ICIS)–S-Oil's Shaheen crude-to-chemical project in Ulsan, South Korea is now 55% complete and is expected to start commercial operations in the second half 2026, the producer said on Monday. Construction of the $7bn project at the Onsan Industrial Complex of Ulsan City started in March 2023, with mechanical completion targeted by the first half of 2026. South Korean refiner S-Oil is 63%-owned by Saudi Aramco, the world's largest crude exporter. The Shaheen project – named after the Arabic word for “falcon” – will have a 1.8 million tonne/year mixed-feed cracking facility; an 880,000 tonne/year linear low density polyethylene (LLDPE) unit; and a 440,000 tonne/year high density PE (HDPE) plant. The site will have a thermal crude-to-chemical (TC2C) facility, which will convert crude directly into petrochemical feedstocks such as liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and naphtha, and the cracker is expected to recycle waste heat for power generation in the refinery. The company currently produces a range of petrochemicals and fuels including benzene, mixed xylenes, ethylene, methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), paraxylene, polypropylene, propylene, propylene oxide, biodiesel, and potentially bio-based aviation and other bio-derived products at its Onsan site. S-Oil plans to supply feedstock to domestic petrochemical downstream companies mainly through pipelines. "To this end, the construction of logistics-related infrastructure, such as a new pipeline network, is being carried out at the same time," it said. Long-term agreements for stable supply of raw materials are being signed between S-Oil and petrochemical companies located at the two industrial complexes in Ulsan, which would boost competitiveness of domestic value chain, the company said.

17-Feb-2025

Correction: In the ICIS story headlined “INSIGHT: US tariffs unleash higher costs to nation's chem industry” dated 3 February 2025, the wrong volumes were used for the following imports: Canadian ethylene-alpha-olefin copolymers, having a specific gravity of less than 0.94; Canadian polyethylene having a specific gravity of 0.94 or more, in primary forms; Canadian polyethylene having a specific gravity of less than 0.94, in primary forms; Canadian polypropylene, in primary forms; Canadian mixed xylene isomers; Mexican polypropylene, in primary forms; and Mexican cyclohexane. The US did not import cyclohexane from Mexico in 2023. A corrected story follows. HOUSTON (ICIS)–The tariffs that the US will impose on all imports from Canada, Mexico and China will unleash higher costs for the nation's chemical industry, create supply-chain snarls and open it to retaliation. For Canada, the US will impose 10% tariffs on imports of energy and 25% tariffs on all other imports. For Mexico, the US imposed 25% tariffs on all imports but the countries' presidents said on Monday the tariffs are being paused for a month. For China, the US will impose 10% tariffs on all imports. US IMPORTS LARGE AMOUNTS OF PE FROM CANADAUS petrochemical production is concentrated along its Gulf Coast, which is far from many of its manufacturing hubs in the northeastern and midwestern parts of the country. As a result, individual states import large amounts of polyethylene (PE) from Canada – even though the nation as a whole has a large surplus of the material. Even Texas imports large amounts of PE from Canada – despite its abundance of plants that produce the polymer. In addition, polyester plants in North and South Carolina import large amounts of the feedstocks monoethylene glycol (MEG) and purified terephthalic acid (PTA) from Canada. The US as a whole imports significant amounts of polypropylene (PP) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) from Canada – again, despite its surplus of these plastics. The following table lists some of the main plastics and chemicals that the US imported from Canada in 2023. The products are organized by their harmonized tariff schedule (HTS) code. HTS PRODUCT MEASUREMENT VOLUMES 3901.40.00 Ethylene-alpha-olefin copolymers, having a specific gravity of less than 0.94 kilograms 1,319,817,405 3901.20.50 Polyethylene having a specific gravity of 0.94 or more, in primary forms kilograms 1,088,071,523 3901.10.50 Polyethylene having a specific gravity of less than 0.94, in primary forms kilograms 420,561,390 2917.36.00 Terephthalic acid and its salts kilograms 407,710,439 2905.31.00 Ethylene Glycol kilograms 329,542,378 3902.10.00 Polypropylene, in primary forms kilograms 271,201,880 3904.10.00 Polyvinyl chloride, not mixed with any other substances, in primary forms kilograms 188,800,413 2902.44.00 Mixed xylene isomers liters 746,072 2905.12.00 Propan-1-ol (Propyl alcohol) and Propan-2-ol (isopropyl alcohol) kilograms 87,805,095 3901.30.60 Ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymers kilograms 71,372,396 Source: US International Trade Commission (ITC) IMPORTS FROM MEXICOMexico is not as large of a source of US petrochemical imports as Canada, but shipments from the country are still noteworthy. The following table lists some of the main plastics and chemicals that the US imported from Mexico in 2023. HTS PRODUCT MEASUREMENT VOLUMES 2917.36.00 Terephthalic acid and its salts kilograms 69,230,708 3901.10.50 Polyethylene having a specific gravity of less than 0.94, in primary forms kilograms 34,674,435 2915.24.00 Acetic anhydride kilograms 25,294,318 3904.10.00 Polyvinyl chloride, not mixed with any other substances, in primary forms kilograms 24,005,371 2915.31.00 Ethyl acetate kilograms 18,855,544 3901.20.50 Polyethylene having a specific gravity of 0.94 or more, in primary forms kilograms 14,469,582 3902.10.00 Polypropylene, in primary forms kilograms 8,849,478 Source: US International Trade Commission (ITC) IMPORTS FROM CHINAChina remains a significant source for a couple of noteworthy chemicals despite the effects of the tariffs that US President Donald Trump imposed during his first term in office. The following table shows 2023 US imports from China. HTS PRODUCT MEASUREMENT VOLUMES 29152100 Acetic acid kilograms 21,095,566 39093100 Poly(methylene phenyl isocyanate) (crude MDI, polymeric MDI) kilograms 206,642,886 Source: US International Trade Commission (ITC) China's shipments of plastics goods are more significant. OIL TARIFFS WILL HIT US REFINERSCanada and Mexico are the largest sources of imported crude oil in the US, and the heavier grades from these countries complement the lighter grades that the US produces in abundance. Those imports help fill out refining units that process heavier crude fractions, such as hydrocrackers, cokers, base oil units and fluid catalytic cracking (FCC) units. Refiners cannot swap out heavier Canadian and Mexican grades with lighter US grades. Instead, they will need to pay the tariffs or find another supplier of heavier grades, possibly at a higher cost. The following table shows the largest sources of imported crude in 2023. Figures are listed in thousands of barrels/day. COUNTRY IMPORTS % Canada 3,885 59.9 Mexico 733 11.3 Saudi Arabia 349 5.4 Iraq 213 3.3 Colombia 202 3.1 Total US imports 6,489 Source: Energy Information Administration (EIA) US refiners could take another hit from higher catalyst costs. These are made from rare earth elements, and China remains a key source. TARIFFS TO RAISE COSTS FOR FERTILIZERCanada is the world's largest producer of potash, and it exports massive amounts to the US. It is unclear how the US could find another source. Russia and Belarus are the world's second and third largest potash producers. Together, the three accounted for 65.9% of global potash production in 2023, according to the Canadian government. Canada accounts for significant shares of other US imports of fertilizers. The following table lists some of Canada's fertilizer shipments to the US in 2023 and shows its share of total US imports. Figures are from 2023. HTS PRODUCT MEASUREMENT VOLUME % 31042000 Potassium chloride metric tonne 11850925 88.8 31023000 Ammonium nitrate, whether or not in aqueous solution metric tonne 295438 76.6 31024000 Mixtures of ammonium nitrate with calcium carbonate or other inorganic nonfertilizing substances metric tonne 29203 75.7 31055100 Mineral or chemical fertilizers, containing nitrates and phosphates metric tonne 1580 66.1 31022100 Ammonium sulfate metric tonne 947140 49.6 31052000 Mineral or chemical fertilizers, containing the three fertilizing elements nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium metric tonne 147850 41.4 Source: US ITC SUPPLY CHAIN SNARLSIf US companies choose to avoid the tariffs and seek other suppliers, they could be exposed to delays and supply chain constraints. Other companies outside of the petrochemical, plastic and fertilizer industries will also be seeking new suppliers. The scale of these disruptions could be significant because Canada, Mexico and China are the largest trading partners in the US. The following table lists the top 10 US trading partners in 2023 based on combined imports and exports. Country Total Exports ($) General Imports ($) TOTAL Mexico 322,742,472,406 475,215,965,697 797,958,438,103 Canada 354,355,997,349 418,618,659,183 772,974,656,532 China 147,777,767,493 426,885,009,750 574,662,777,243 Germany 76,697,761,127 159,272,068,221 235,969,829,348 Japan 75,683,130,214 147,238,042,342 222,921,172,556 South Korea 65,056,093,590 116,154,470,335 181,210,563,925 UK 74,315,228,810 64,217,031,774 138,532,260,584 Taiwan 39,956,725,574 87,767,403,487 127,724,129,061 Vietnam 9,842,922,146 114,426,076,081 124,268,998,227 Source: US ITC RETALIATIONUS petrochemical exports would be tempting targets for retaliation because of their magnitude and the global capacity glut. China, in particular, could impose tariffs on US chemical imports and offset the disruptions by increasing rates at under-utilized plants. So far, none announced plans to target chemicals on Sunday. Canada's plans to impose 25% tariffs on $30 billion in US goods does not include oil, refined products, chemicals or plastics. That batch of tariffs will take place on February 4. Canada will impose 25% tariffs on an additional $125 billion worth of US goods following a 21-day comment period, it said. The government did not highlight plastics or chemicals in this second batch of tariffs. Instead, it said the tariffs will cover passenger vehicles and trucks, including electric vehicles, steel and aluminium products, certain fruits and vegetables, aerospace products, beef, pork, dairy, trucks and buses, recreational vehicles and recreational boats. In a statement issued on Sunday, Mexico's president made no mention of retaliatory tariffs. Instead, she said she will provide more details about Mexico's response on Monday. China said it will start legal proceedings through the World Trade Organization (WTO) and take corresponding countermeasures. RATIONALE BEHIND THE TARIFFSThe US imposed the tariffs under the nation's International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which gives the president authority to take actions to address a severe national security threat. In a fact sheet, Trump cited illegal immigration and illicit drugs. Saturday's executive order is the first time that a US president imposed tariffs under IEEPA. Prior IEEPA actions lasted an average of nine years. They can be terminated by a vote in Congress. Insight article by Al Greenwood (Thumbnail shows containers, in which goods are commonly shipped. Image by Shutterstock)

03-Feb-2025

HOUSTON (ICIS)–Rates for shipping containers from east Asia and China to the US ticked slightly lower this week, while global average rates dropped by 2% as the Lunar New Year holiday began in China. This period usually sees a significant reduction in shipping volumes as factories shut down or cut production in anticipation of the holiday, leading to lower demand for shipping services. Rates to both US coasts fell by 1%, according to supply chain advisors Drewry and as shown in the following chart. Drewry expects spot rates to decrease slightly in the coming week due to the increase in capacity created by the LNY slowdown. The following chart from Drewry shows the decrease in global average rates. Judah Levine, head of research at online freight shipping marketplace and platform provider Freightos, said transpacific rates should continue to face downward pressure before likely rebounding in mid-February. Transpacific rates to the West Coast have dipped by 17% since mid-January, according to Freightos data, but are still more than double levels seen in 2019. Continued diversions away from the Red Sea and the Suez Canal continue to absorb capacity across the market. Even as progress is being made with a ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas conflict, shipping companies are still avoiding the shorter route. Global shipping major Maersk said this week that it will continue to avoid the Suez Canal and Red Sea until safe passage through the area is ensured for the longer term to optimize stability and certainty across supply chains. Container ships and costs for shipping containers are relevant to the chemical industry because while most chemicals are liquids and are shipped in tankers, container ships transport polymers, such as polyethylene (PE) and polypropylene (PP), are shipped in pellets. They also transport liquid chemicals in isotanks. TARIFFS Frontloading of volumes to get ahead of proposed tariff hikes is likely over as US President Donald Trump said on Friday that tariffs will begin on 1 February for Canada, Mexico and China. “This will keep ocean volumes and rates to the US higher than they otherwise would be in Q1 and possibly into Q2 depending on the timing of the increases,” Levine said. “This pull-forward could also be felt in lower volumes and rates after tariffs are introduced.” LIQUID TANKER SPOT RATES STEADY Rates for liquid chemical tankers ex-US Gulf held steady this week. The transatlantic eastbound route saw some activity with monoethylene glycol (MEG) and caustic soda fixed to the Mediterranean, and urea ammonium nitrate (UAN) and ammonia to the UK. There are a few smaller parcels moving on the route, brokers said, but nothing significant as it appears some trader volumes are still being affected in the aftermath of the recent winter storm. On the USG-Asia route, part cargo space has tightened across the regular players, a broker said, with Odfjell showing only 1,000-2,000 tonnes of available space for February. The USG to South America trade lane was quiet this week, brokers said, with contract of affreightment (COA) nominations steady.

31-Jan-2025

HOUSTON (ICIS)–Customers in several US states closer to Canada than its Gulf Coast petrochemical hubs import large amounts of plastics and chemicals from the country, including materials that the US produces in abundance, and these shipments could soon become subject to tariffs totalling hundreds of millions of dollars. US President Donald Trump has said he could announce on February 1 tariffs of up to 25% on imports from Canada and Mexico. Even though the US has large surpluses of many plastics and chemicals, domestic companies still import large amounts of these materials from Canada. These customers face the prospects of higher tariffs from Canadian imports or potentially higher shipping costs from suppliers that are farther away. CANADIAN EXPORTS TO NORTHERN STATESUS plastics and chemicals production is concentrated on the Gulf Coast in the south, which is far from the manufacturing and plastic processing hubs in Michigan, Illinois and Ohio in the north. These and other northern US states are much closer to Canada's petrochemical plants in Sarnia, Ontario province, than they are to the Gulf Coast. The following table shows various plastics and chemicals that Canadian exported in 2023 to Michigan, Illinois and Ohio. The bottom row shows how much customers from each state would pay if a 25% tariff was levied on the total value of these 2023 exports. Export figures are in tonnes. HTS Code Description Michigan (tonnes) Illinois (tonnes) Ohio (tonnes) 3901.10.00 PE having a specific gravity of less than 0.94 30,403 41,967 59,908 3901.20.00 PE having a specific gravity of 0.94 or more 125,693 66,493 85,328 3901.40.00 Ethylene-alpha-olefin copolymers 163,543 155,042 88,793 3902.10.00 Polypropylene 6,232 122,970 20,694 3901.30.00 Ethyl vinyl acetate copolymer 55 55,012 2,526 2905.31.00 Ethylene glycol 5 152,746 8,634 Total tariff bill $119,027,186 $243,701,358 $103,054,090 Source: Statistics Canada CANADIAN IMPORTS FROM THE CAROLINASNorth and South Carolina are also large destinations for Canadian exports. These states are home to auto plants as well as facilities that make polyethylene terephthalate (PET), which uses monoethylene glycol (MEG) and purified terephthalic acid (PTA) as feedstocks. The following table shows 2023 shipments made to these states. The bottom row shows how much customers would pay if a 25% tariff was levied on the total value of these exports. Export figures are in tonnes. HTS Code Description South Carolina (tonnes) North Carolina (tonnes) 3904.10.00 PVC, not mixed with any other substances 428 134,433 2905.31.00 Ethylene glycol 66,973 2,731 2917.36.00 Terephthalic acid and its salts 102,162 162,505 3901.10.00 PE having a specific gravity of less than 0.94 25,379 13,076 3901.20.00 PE having a specific gravity of 0.94 or more 79,301 30,278 3901.40.00 Ethylene-alpha-olefin copolymers 98,070 40,879 3902.10.00 Polypropylene 38,763 1,033 Total tariff bill $168,380,231 $166,512,281 Source: Statistics Canada Even though Texas is home to many plastics and chemical plants, it is still a destination for a large amount of plastic exports from Canada. The following table shows 2023 shipments made to Texas. The bottom row shows how much customers would pay if a 25% tariff was levied on the total value of these exports. Export figures are in tonnes. HTS Code Description Texas (tonnes) 3901.10.00 PE having a specific gravity of less than 0.94 62,300 3901.20.00 PE having a specific gravity of 0.94 or more 189,247 3901.40.00 Ethylene-alpha-olefin copolymers 185,610 3902.10.00 Polypropylene 21,315 Total tariff bill $145,297,714 Source: Statistics Canada CONSEQUENCES OF TARIFFSWhether the US proposes the tariffs on February 1 is still up in the air. Trump has used the threat of tariffs as a negotiating tool in the past, as he did against Mexico during his first term and against Colombia earlier this month. In both cases, the US reached agreements with the countries without imposing the tariffs. If the US does impose the tariffs, customers could pay the additional tax, or they could find another supplier. For states closer to Canada, new suppliers could increase shipping times and costs. If the tariffs are broad enough, customers will be competing for cargo space with other companies that are also procuring supplies from new suppliers. The tariffs could make the US plastic and chemical markets more vulnerable to weather disruptions because most of its production is concentrated along the Gulf Coast. This region of the US is vulnerable to hurricanes and, increasingly, to sub-freezing temperatures. Since 2021, the Gulf Coast has had spells of sub-freezing temperature every winter season. The region's plants were not designed to operate in such low temperatures, so they typically suffer from unplanned outages during the winter. Canadian material made US chemical and plastic supply chains more resilient by offering an alternative to Gulf Coast material. HOW CANADIAN TARIFFS COULD UNFOLDIf the US does pursue tariffs against Canada, it will likely do so under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977, said Jacob Jensen, a data analyst for the American Action Forum (AAF), a think tank. The IEEPA allows the president to propose actions to address a severe national security threat. In the case of tariffs, immigration, fentanyl or both would be declared as national emergencies, and that would trigger IEEPA. Once the president notifies Congress through a letter or a speech, the tariffs could be imposed. Imposing tariffs under IEEPA would be a first for the US, Jensen said. It could also be long term. The average duration of an IEEPA order is nine years. They can be terminated by a vote in Congress. The US can impose tariffs under other laws, but the ones that Trump proposed for Canada do not meet the parameters under those regulations. Tariffs under Section 301 address unfair trade practices and require investigations. The US has not started such an investigation on Canadian trade practices. Tariffs under Section 232 cover specific products and are not broad-based like the ones Trump proposed against Canada. Tariffs under Section 201 are intended to provide temporary relief for a group of products or an industry. They are not broad-based. Tariffs under Section 122 have a limit of 15%. Tariffs under Section 338 have no precedence and could face court challenges. OTHER POTENTIAL TARIFFSSince winning the election, Trump also proposed tariffs of 25% on imports from Mexico and 10% on imports from China. During his campaign, Trump proposed the following tariffs: Baseline tariffs of 10-20% on all imports. Tariffs of 60% on imports from China. A reciprocal trade act, under which the US would match tariffs that other countries impose on its exports. Insight by Al Greenwood

30-Jan-2025

LONDON (ICIS)–European oxo-alcohols and derivatives markets have been slow to start up in the new year as familiar factors suppress consumption. Players were hoping for reasonable restocking activity this month, following the destocking period that took place in late Q4 2024, but spot activity has been below expectations for many players down the value chain. Oxo-alcohols and butyl acetate reporter Marion Boakye speaks to acrylate esters reporter Mathew Jolin-Beech and glycol ethers reporter Cameron Birch about conditions down the oxo-alcohols value chain.  

27-Jan-2025