Energy

BARCELONA (ICIS)–As the 12 June deadline for entries to the ICIS Innovation Awards approaches, a judge and a 2024 winner describe why this topic is so important for the future of the chemical industry and society. Innovation breaks down silos, encourages collaboration Enables industrial value chains to decarbonize Chemical industry provides essential raw materials Awards are a chance to gain external recognition for your innovations Deadline is 12 June, entry is free and quick – click here for full details In this Think Tank podcast, Will Beacham interviews Alessia Ielo, global sustainable solutions manager for Brenntag Essentials and Ian Temperton, CEO of Plastic Energy. 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.

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)–Rates for shipping containers from Asia to the US are already facing upward pressure amid the 90-day tariff pause, but Wednesday’s ruling by a federal court could add fuel to the trend, according to shipping analysts. “The decision of the US Court of International Trade to deem [US President Donald] Trump’s sweeping tariffs as unlawful is good news for shippers – but it could signal the beginning of the next era of confusion in global supply chains,” analysts at ocean and freight rate analytics firm Xeneta said. Emily Stausboll, Xeneta senior shipping analyst, said that even if the appeal fails, Trump will not throw in the towel, and he has other levers to pull to achieve the same outcome as the sweeping tariffs. “We only have to look at the US government proposal to introduce port fees on China-affiliated ships and the SHIPS for America Act to understand the range of options at Trump’s disposal in the ongoing trade wars,” Stausboll said. Judah Levine, head of research at online freight shipping marketplace and platform provider Freightos, said the 90-day pause on 145% tariffs on Chinese goods has already driven a sharp rebound in ocean freight demand. “Shippers have been frontloading to beat the August expiration,” Levine said. “This ruling may add fuel to that trend, especially if tariffs are actually suspended – even temporarily.”’ Levine said that some shippers deterred by the 30% tariffs may now rush to move goods before the appeals process concludes or new tariff mechanisms are activated. “That could increase container demand even further, adding to the strength of the early start to peak season,” Levine said. RULING ADDS UNCERTAINTY Lars Jensen, president of consultant Vespucci Maritime, said the ruling by the court adds a new level of uncertainty for US importers. “Not only do they have to contend with the risks associated with changing tariffs, now it is also cast into doubt whether or not the announced tariffs will even be implementable – and this also raises the question whether tariffs paid in recent weeks can ultimately be reclaimed,” Jensen said in a post on LinkedIn. If, after appeals, the tariffs are ultimately found to be unlawfully implemented, shippers should have a good case for getting the paid tariffs back, Jensen 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. Visit the US tariffs, policy – impact on chemicals and energy topic page Visit the Logistics: Impact on chemicals and energy topic page

29-May-2025

HOUSTON (ICIS)–A US court ruled on Wednesday that the president cannot impose global tariffs under an emergency act, a judgment that would void many of the tariffs that the nation imposed in 2025 against nearly every country in the world. The administration of US President Donald Trump filed a notice that it was appealing the ruling. Under the judgment issued by the US Court of International Trade, the US has 10 calendar days to withdraw the following tariffs: – 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 the flow of illicit drugs. 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 the flow of immigrants and illicit drugs. 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 the flow of illicit drugs. The US imposed these tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which gives the president authority to take actions to address a severe national security threat. To justify the use of the IEEPA, Trump declared that the trade deficit, drug smuggling and illegal immigration constituted national emergencies. If the ruling stands, it would remove the tariffs that the US has imposed on many imports of commodity plastics and chemicals. By extension, the ruling would remove the threat of retaliatory tariffs that other countries could impose on the nation's substantial exports of polyethylene (PE), polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and other ethylene derivatives. The court's order does not cover the sectoral tariffs that the US has imposed on specific products such as steel and aluminium. In addition, it does not cover the Section 301 tariffs that the US imposed against Chinese imports during Trump's first term. These tariffs were intended to address unfair trade practices. RATIONALE BEHIND THE COURT'S JUDGMENTThe US constitution delegates the power to impose tariffs to congress. Although congress has delegated trade authority to the president, it had set clear limitations that allowed the legislature to retain the power to impose tariffs. The IEEPA does not delegate unbounded tariff authority to the president, the court said. "Any interpretation of IEEPA that delegates unlimited tariff authority is unconstitutional." The authority that congress delegated to the president under IEEPA is limited and does not include the power to impose any tariffs, the court said. COURT FINDS NO EMERGENCYEven if the president could impose tariffs under IEEPA, the trade deficit does not constitute an emergency, the court ruled. The US already has a statute to address trade deficits under Section 122. "Section 122 removes the president’s power to impose remedies in response to balance-of-payments deficits, and specifically trade deficits, from the broader powers granted to a president during a national emergency under IEEPA by establishing an explicit non-emergency statute with greater limitations," it said. In addition, the court found that drug trafficking and illegal immigration fail to meet the emergency threshold established under IEEPA. To meet that threshold, the emergency must have a substantial part of its source outside of the US and it must pose a threat to the nation's national security, foreign policy or economy. Also, the emergency must be unusual and extraordinary. The action that the president takes must deal directly with the threat. The court found that the tariffs fail to directly deal with drug trafficking and illegal immigration. While they may provide the US with leverage to negotiate agreements, such leverage does not meet the threshold of addressing the emergency at hand. The 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 shows containers, which are used in international trade. Image by Costfoto/NurPhoto/Shutterstock. Visit the ICIS Topic Page: US tariffs, policy – impact on chemicals and energy

29-May-2025

BARCELONA (ICIS)–ExxonMobil is selling its refinery at Gravenchon, France, to Canadian refining group North Atlantic. The two companies have entered exclusive negotiations for North Atlantic to acquire an 82.89% controlling interest in Esso Société Anonyme Française SA and 100%  of ExxonMobil Chemical France. Filing of a tender offer is expected in the first quarter of 2026 for the deal which includes Exxon’s refinery at the Gravenchon site, the second largest refinery in France. The  transaction will be submitted to local trade unions in accordance with French law. In 2024, ExxonMobil sold its Fos-Sur-Mer refinery near Marseille, France, along with fuel terminals in Toulouse and Villette. The company also closed its cracker and downstream production  at Gravenchon in 2024. At the time, the company said the site had lost more than €500 million since 2018 and despite efforts to improve the site’s economics, it remained uncompetitive. According to the ICIS Supply & Demand Database ExxonMobil still has some small chemicals capacities at Gravenchon and nearby Port Gerome including propylene, polyalphaolefins and oligomers. Local trades union, CSEC, said in a press release that ExxonMobil would market chemicals and specialty products on behalf of the new owners. ExxonMobil did not reply to a request for confirmation of this. It also has large base oils capacities in France including 12,000 barrels/day at Port Jerome and 3,200 barrels/day at Gravenchon. In a statement released on 28 May, North Atlantic said it has the ambition to consolidate Gravenchon as a center of French energy and industry for decades and to grow North Atlantic into a transatlantic energy champion. Located on a 1,500-acre site in the Normandy region of France, the combined facility is one of the largest integrated chemical complexes in western Europe. The refinery includes two distillation trains, several conversion units and associated logistics facilities. The site has the capacity to process 230,000 barrels/day of crude oil and other feedstocks, according to North Atlantic. North Atlantic said it aims to develop Gravenchon into a green energy hub to accelerate the deployment of low-carbon fuels and renewable power. The company said it is committed to maintain employment and existing compensation and benefits. Ted Lomond, president and CEO of North Atlantic and president of North Atlantic France said: “This is a pivotal moment for North Atlantic as we enhance our transatlantic presence and commitment to energy security through innovative energy solutions aligned with global energy needs”. Ajay Parmar, ICIS director of energy and refining said: “My view is that Exxon is choosing to sell assets where profitability has been and likely will continue to be dented going forward. Refinery margins in Europe have returned back to around their pre-COVID levels this year, after a few years of bumper profits post-pandemic.” He added: “These refinery assets are less profitable and so the company is probably looking to divest for this reason. Exxon/Esso also sold off the Fos-Sur-Mer refinery last year – I think the strategy is to steadily exit these lower margin businesses.” Photo: Part of an oil refinery complex (Shutterstock) Focus article by Will Beacham

28-May-2025

SINGAPORE (ICIS)–Click here to see the latest blog post on Asian Chemical Connections by John Richardson. I could present a dozen charts such as the main one in today's post on polypropylene (PP) — for example on polyethylene (PE), ethylene, propylene and styrene—and the patterns would be similar though, of course, the numbers would differ. During the pandemic, while demand dipped in many places, China’s PP consumption rose—from 7% growth in 2019 to 9% in 2020, then stayed strong at 7% in 2021. The same trend played out across other chemicals and polymers. This was the “China in, China out” story: Rising imports of feedstocks to make finished goods that lockdown-affected, cash-rich Westerners were snapping up, backed by stimulus. Margins climbed—not just from demand, but also from refinery feedstock shortages as fuel demand dropped and refinery rates were cut. But 2022 marked a shift. As ICIS Data and Analytics illustrates, multiple headwinds kicked in: The Evergrande Turning Point, China's constantly deteriorating demographics, and a China petrochemicals self-sufficiency drive dating back to 2014. Focusing on China's PP self-sufficiency and exports: China's PP capacity as a percentage of domestic demand is expected to surge from 89% in 2014 to 134% by 2028. In 2020, China’s PP exports were around 500,000 tonnes. In 2023 they reached 1.3m tonnes and climbed to 2.4m tonnes in 2024. ICIS data suggests China’s exports in 2025 could reach 3.1m tonnes. On current trends, China’s exports to ASEAN could exceed 1 million tonnes to ASEAN in 2025 versus less than 900,000 tonnes in 2024. The trade war? Hard to say if it's moved the needle. These structural trends were in motion long before it began—and they’ll likely outlast it too. Sentiment swings (as seen since April’s “Liberation Day”) will keep influencing prices and buying patterns, but the fundamentals remain. The Chemicals Supercycle is over. What comes next? That’s the big question. Editor’s note: This blog post is an opinion piece. The views expressed are those of the author, and do not necessarily represent those of ICIS.

26-May-2025

HOUSTON (ICIS)–Asia-US rates for shipping containers rose this week, leading ocean carriers to rush to ramp up capacity to handle an expected surge in bookings. Rates from online freight shipping marketplace and platform provider Freightos rose by 3% to both US coasts, while rates from supply chain advisors Drewry showed a 2% increase on rates from Shanghai to Los Angeles and a 4% rise in rates from Shanghai to New York, as shown in the following chart. Following the latest US-China trade developments, Drewry expects an increase in spot rates in the coming week as carriers are reorganizing their capacity to accommodate a higher volume of cargo bookings from China. Kyle Beaulieu senior director, head of ocean Americas at Flexport, said during a webinar this week that carriers who initiated blank sailings and discontinued services to the US are now resuming services. Beaulieu said there were 10 China-US services that were halted, and as of today, six are planning to resume from Week 22 to Week 24. Beaulieu said ports in the Pacific Northwest have been the biggest beneficiaries so far as that is the shortest route to the US. Alan Murphy, CEO, Sea-Intelligence, said carriers who were reducing transpacific capacity due to the decrease in bookings from China amid 145% tariffs are now working to ramp up capacity prior to the 14 August deadline. This means that typical peak season volumes now must be shipped no later than mid-July. Judah Levine, head of research at Freightos, said there is still confusion on whether July and August deadlines mean goods need to be loaded at origins by those dates – as was the case with the 9 April tariff deadline – or that goods must arrive in the US by then. “The latter would significantly shorten these lower-tariff windows,” Levine said. “Ocean shipments from Asia would have to move in the next week or two to arrive before 9 July.” Levine noted that carriers have separately come out with mid-month general rate increases (GRIs) from $1,000-3,000/FEU (40-foot equivalent unit) and have similar GRIs planned for 1 June and 15 June with aims to get rates up to $8,000/FEU. “If successful, rate levels would be about on par with the Asia – US West Coast 2024 high reached last July,” Levine said. “Daily transpacific rates as of Monday have already increased about $1,000/FEU to the East Coast and $400/FEU to the West Coast to about $4,400/FEU and $2,800/FEU, respectively.” 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 HOLD STEADY US liquid chemical tanker freight rates as assessed by ICIS held steady this week despite upward pressure for several trade lanes. There is upward pressure on rates along the US Gulf-Asia trade lane as charterers are seeking to send cargos to the region following the pause on tariffs. The announcement caused a significant uptick in spot activity. The increase in interest should be significant but almost certainly short lived as cargoes rush to arrive prior to the 90-day expiration date. Several parcels of monoethylene glycol (MEG) and methanol were seen quoted in the market. Similarly, rates from the USG to Rotterdam were steady this week, even as space among the regular carriers remains limited. Contract tonnage continues to prevail and given the limited available space; spot demand remains relatively good. Several larger sized cargos of styrene, methanol, MTBE and ethanol were seen in the market. Several outsiders have come on berth for both May and June, adding to the available tonnage for completion cargos. Easing demand for clean tankers has attracted those vessels to enter the chemical sector. For the USG to South America trade lane, rates remain steady with a few inquiries for methanol and ethanol widely viewed in the market. Overall, the market was relatively quiet with fewer contract of affreightment (COA) nominations, putting downward pressure on rates as more space has become available. On the bunker side, fuel prices have declined as well, on the back of lower energy prices, as a result week over week were softer. 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

23-May-2025

SAO PAULO (ICIS)–Braskem’s stock rose sharply in Friday trading after reports citing unnamed sources said Brazilian entrepreneur Nelson Tanure would be seeking to acquire Novonor’s controlling stake at the petrochemicals major. At some point, Braskem’s share rose nearly 10% on Friday, taking the whole Ibovespa stock index in Sao Paulo higher. By afternoon trading, however, the stock had moderated the gain although it was still rising nearly 6%, compared with the previous close on 22 May. The offer was first reported by Brazilian daily O Globo, with financial daily Valor Economico and news agency Reuters subsequently also publishing reports confirming the bid, citing also unnamed sources. According to those sources, Tanure would be intending to indirectly assume control previously held by Novonor (called formerly Odebrecht) through one of his investment funds. The proposal includes maintaining Novonor in the shareholding structure with a minority stake of 3%-5%, signaling a gradual transition strategy. Novonor currently holds 50.1% of Braskem's voting shares, while Brazil’s state-owned energy major Petrobras controls 47%. However, the transaction depends on negotiations with Novonor’s creditor banks – Bradesco, Itaú, Banco do Brasil, Santander, and Brazil’s investment bank BNDES – which hold Braskem shares as collateral for debt estimated at Brazilian reais (R) 15 billion ($2.65 billion). These banks currently control 50.1% of Braskem's common shares, representing 38.3% of total capital. Any control change must also consider Petrobras' position as the second-largest shareholder with significant strategic influence. In a written response to ICIS, Braskem said it would not comment. Novonor and Petrobras had not responded to a request for comment at the time of writing. Braskem's financial metrics have been suffering for several quarter due to the global petrochemicals oversupply and low prices, which have hit hard some of the company's key products such polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), or polyvinyl chloride (PVC). Earlier in May, however, it said it had swung to a net profit during Q1 2025, compared to a net loss in the same quarter a year earlier. Its sales and earnings, however, continued shrinking during Q1 in the year-on-year comparison. Braskem(in $ million) Q1 2025 Q1 2024 Change Q4 2024 Q1 2025 vs Q4 2024 Sales 3,331 3,618 -8% 3,285 1% Net profit/loss 113 -273 N/A -967 N/A Recurring EBITDA 224 230 -2% 102 121% WHO IS TANURE While it has been elusive for most media outlets to put a figure on Nelson Tanure’s fortune – even the well-known Forbes magazine has not put a figure on it and has not included him in its Rich List – the entrepreneur is considered one of Brazil’s richest men. His businesses span in a wide range of sectors such energy (mostly electric utilities), civil construction through its firm Gafisa; oil and gas through PetroRio and investments in the exploration of natural resources; telecommunications, with participations in operators Oi and TIM Brasil; and healthcare, with Alliance Health and diagnostic laboratories, among others. UNSUCCESSFUL DISPOSAL SO FARNovonor has attempted to sell its Braskem stake for years without conclusion. Previous interested parties included Abu Dhabi’s energy major Adnoc, Saudi Arabia’s SABIC – now part of oil major Aramco – and Brazilian conglomerate J&F, owned by the Batista brothers. J&F reportedly offered R10 billion for Novonor's stake, but neither this nor the other transactions materialized. Novonor suffers from high leverage since the 2010s, when the company was at the center of the large, Latin America-wide corruption scandal known as Lava Jato in the mid-2010s. The scandal also engulfed personalities from the first administration of the Workers Party (PT), the party of President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, now back in power again and at the time led by him and his successor Dilma Rousseff. ($1 = R5.67)

23-May-2025

UK energy price cap for July-September set at £1,720 for an average household This has risen £152 year on year, but is £129 lower than the Q2 cap Forward prices for Q4 ‘25 at premium to Q3 ‘25 anticipating higher winter demand By Anna Coulson and Ethan Tillcock LONDON (ICIS) –The UK energy price cap for July-September will be higher than the third quarter of 2024, energy regulator Ofgem said on 23 May, but will fall compared to the price cap in the second quarter of 2025. Ofgem stated that the recent fall in wholesale prices is the main driver of the overall price cap reduction, accounting for around 90% of the fall, with the remainder primarily due to changes to operating cost allowances suppliers can recover. If forward prices for delivery in the fourth quarter of 2025 remain at current levels, the wholesale component of the cap for the period October-December is expected to be higher than the third quarter. RISING PRICES ICIS assessed the British NBP gas Q3 ‘25 contract at an average of 94.400p/th from 18 February to 16 May, which was the period used by Ofgem to calculate wholesale energy costs for the upcoming cap. This is 35% higher than the Q3 ’24 contract average over equivalent dates in the previous year. Several factors are likely to have contributed to elevated wholesale gas prices. The end of Russian gas transit via Ukraine cut around 15.5bcm/year of remaining supply to Europe at the start of the 2025. European gas reserves finished the winter withdrawal season down significantly year on year, increasing forecast summer injection demand annually. This supported British hub prices as higher prices on the continent drive exports via the BBL and Interconnector pipelines. Investment funds amassed large net long positions in European gas futures amid speculation of a tight summer injection market. Hub prices declined towards the end of the period, trading lower on US tariffs driving global demand reduction forecasts, and the EU easing storage regulations, reducing expected summer injection demand. Gas is a key price driver for the UK power market due to its role in power generation, with power prices tracking the upward trend in NBP prices. ICIS assessed the UK power baseload Q3 ‘25 contract at an average £80.64/MWh between 18 February and 16 May, 25% higher than the Q3 ‘24 over equivalent dates. The Q3 ’25 UK power contract is at a premium to the European equivalents, indicating that the UK is likely to import power through the front quarter. Q4 CAP OUTLOOK On 22 May, ICIS assessed the NBP Q4 ‘25 contract at 94.525p/th, 7.950p/th above the Q3 ‘25 contract. On the same day, the UK power baseload Q4 ‘25 contract was £87.00/MWh, £6.85/MWh above the corresponding Q3 ’25 contract. European gas markets continue to exhibit sensitivity to multiple regulatory and geopolitical drivers. US tariffs are likely bearish for global demand due to stifling economic growth; however, de-escalation may continue in the coming months. Reduced gas storage targets at the EU level may push increased risk across the region from the injection season into Winter ’25 delivery. Entering the fourth quarter, cold weather and low wind generation present risks as this would increase heating and gas-for-power demand, with several periods of dunkelflaute in the previous winter causing demand surges. French nuclear availability is another key driver for UK power prices through the fourth quarter. ICIS assessed the UK power baseload Q4 ’25 contract at €102.41/MWh on 22 May, €25.61/MWh above the French contract, indicating that the UK is likely to import power from France. Data from EDF on 22 May shows that French nuclear availability is scheduled to average 57.1GW from 1 October to 31 December, 15.1GW above the 2020-24 average amid the recent commissioning of the 1.6GW Flamanville 3 plant. However, downward revisions in French nuclear availability through the fourth quarter of 2025 would be a bullish driver for French and UK power prices BACKGROUND Introduced in January 2019, the price cap sets the maximum price that energy suppliers can charge end-users for each unit of energy. .

23-May-2025

SAO PAULO (ICIS)–Brazil’s state-owned energy major Petrobras and chemicals producer Unigel have finally signed an agreement to end contractual disputes related to the two fertilizers plants in the country’s north which had been leased to Unigel. Late on 22 May, the companies said the two fertilizers plants in the states of Bahia and Sergipe (northeast) would thus return to Petrobras’ portfolio. The agreement must still be ratified by Brazil’s Arbitral Tribunal. “The agreement provides for the reinstatement of Petrobras' possession of the fertilizer plants (FAFENs) in Bahia and Sergipe, and the resumption of operations by Petrobras through a bidding process for the contracting of operation and maintenance services, in compliance with applicable governance practices and internal procedures,” said Petrobras. “Petrobras aims to resume activities in the fertilizer segment to create value through the production and commercialization of nitrogen-based products, while aligning with the oil and natural gas production chain and the energy transition.” Meanwhile, Unigel said the agreement represented the “definitive resolution of the contractual disputes” and litigation existing between the companies due to disagreements about the lease for the two plants. The deal represents the withdrawal of the company from the fertilizers sector altogether. The Camacari plant in Bahia state can produce 475,000 tonnes/year of ammonia and 475,000 tonnes/year of urea. The plant in Laranjeiras, Sergipe, can produce 650,000 tonnes/year of urea, 450,000 tonnes/year of ammonia and 320,000 tonnes/year of ammonium sulphate (AS). FAILED FERTILIZERS ADVENTURE The agreement puts an end to the 10-year lease for the plants signed by Unigel and Petrobras in 2019. While successful at first, as fertilizers prices shot up immediately after the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, prices started to fall in 2022 though while prices for natural gas rose sharply. In 2024, Unigel idled the two plants as high prices for gas and low selling prices made operations unprofitable, it said. Along the way, Petrobras accused Unigel of not fulfilling the terms and conditions of what they had agreed. Moreover, from 2022, woes at Unigel’s petrochemicals divisions – mostly producing styrenics – added to those in fertilizers. By the end of 2023, the company was forced to enter a debt restructuring process from which it only emerged in 2024. Earlier in May, Unigel presented its first comprehensive quarterly financial metrics since 2023, when it entered the restructuring process. Brazil’s financial regulations provide for such a provision for companies in financial distress. While it posted small earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA), the producer continued haemorrhaging money in the first quarter, with sales falling year on year and posting a net loss of Brazilian reais (R) 209 million ($37 million). ($1 = R5.71)

23-May-2025