HOUSTON (ICIS)–Average spot rates for shipping containers from east Asia and China to the US East Coast are likely to fall faster than rates to the West Coast, and could be within $1,000/FEU (40-foot equivalent unit) by the end of July. According to Peter Sand, chief analyst at ocean and freight rate analytics firm Xeneta, ocean carriers will work to slow the rapid decline in Asia-USWC rates by removing – or at least stop adding – capacity to the transpacific trade lane. “That means average spot rates into the US East Coast will decline at a faster rate and likely fall to within $1,000/FEU of rates into the US West Coast by the end of July – a much more familiar scenario for shippers,” Sand said. Average spot rates from Asia to the West Coast have fallen by more than 50% over the past month, peaking at almost $6,000/FEU during the week ended 20 June. Rates from Asia to the East Coast peaked at around $7,200/FEU in the first half of June. “Geopolitics has upset the natural order of ocean container shipping on transpacific trades in Q2, and shippers are still struggling to make sense of the situation,” Sand said. “Shippers need to act decisively to protect supply chains, but this becomes more difficult when they see abnormal trends such as Asia fronthaul freight rates collapsing into the US West Coast while holding stronger into the US East Coast.” Capacity volatility on the Asia-USWC trade lane has surged amid blank sailings, vessels sailing off schedule, and vessels of varying sizes along the same routes, according to Alan Murphy, CEO, Sea-Intelligence. The following chart shows weekly capacity on the transpacific trade lane dating back to 2013. Source: Sea-Intelligence “For the past three years, capacity volatility has been ranging around 250% higher than in 2012 – with variability often reaching up to 300% higher,” Murphy said. “Compared to 2012, capacity volatility on Asia-USWC has almost quadrupled.” Murphy added that volatility is increasing not only in the weeks with high changes, but also in the more stable and calm weeks. “This shows an increased volatility in the overall supply/demand balance on Asia-USWC trade lane,” Murphy said. “To the degree that spot rates are driven by the actual weekly supply/demand balance, this capacity volatility means that the underlying driver for spot rate formation on Asia-USWC has become progressively more unstable over the past 13 years – creating a much more volatile and unpredictable spot rate in itself.” Market intelligence group Linerlytica said US consumer demand is holding steady, with preliminary import volume data for May and June showing imports from Asia declining by only 5.6% in the last two months despite the severe disruption from the Trump tariffs. Although imports from China dropped by 24% year on year, volumes from all other Asian origins recorded positive gains, led by Vietnam and Indonesia which grew by 34% and 33% respectively, Linerlytica said. Import cargo volume at the nation’s major container ports is expected to rebound in July after a double-digit drop in late spring but is forecast to fall again after previously paused tariffs take effect, according to the Global Port Tracker report from the National Retail Federation (NRF) and Hackett Associates. “The tariff situation remains highly fluid, and retailers are working hard to stock up for the holiday season before the various tariffs that have been announced and paused actually take effect,” NRF Vice President for Supply Chain and Customs Policy Jonathan Gold said. “Retailers have brought in as much merchandise as possible ahead of the reciprocal tariffs taking effect, and the latest extension to 1 August is greatly appreciated.” The following chart from NRF/Hackett Associates shows the forecast for import volumes by month. “Nonetheless, uncertainty over tariffs makes it increasingly difficult for retailers to plan, especially small businesses that have no capacity to absorb tariffs,” Gold said. “Tariffs are paid by US companies, not foreign countries or businesses, and ultimately drive-up prices for American families while impacting the availability of products. It is vital for the administration to finalize negotiations with our trading partners and provide stability and certainty for US retailers.” 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), which are shipped in pellets. They also transport liquid chemicals in isotanks. RED SEA UPDATE Yemen-backed Houthi rebels attacked two commercial vessels in the Red Sea over the past few days, leading Lars Jensen, president of consultant Vespucci Maritime, to suggest there is not much chance of a reversal back to a Suez routing for the major container lines in the short to medium term. The Houthis began attacks on commercial vessels in the Red Sea in November 2023, which led shippers to divert away from the region and stop using the Suez Canal, the shortest route between Asia and Europe. While 30% of all global container trade passes through the Suez, only 12% of US-bound cargo used that route. Focus article by Adam Yanelli Visit the US tariffs, policy – impact on chemicals and energy topic page Visit the Logistics: Impact on chemicals and energy topic page

HOUSTON (ICIS)–The US has proposed tariffs on seven more countries on Wednesday, which will take effect on 1 August. The following table summarizes the seven latest tariffs and shows US imports from each country, exports to each country and the US trade deficit. Figures are in US dollars. Country Rate General Imports ($) Domestic Exports ($) US Deficit ($) Algeria 30% 2,461,611,826 949,221,120 1,512,390,706 Brunei 25% 238,619,776 114,316,225 124,303,551 Iraq 30% 7,540,759,781 1,429,523,113 6,111,236,668 Libya 30% 1,465,240,472 535,932,429 929,308,043 Moldova 25% 136,234,076 48,154,040 88,080,036 Philippines 20% 14,161,845,726 8,293,021,350 5,868,824,376 Sri Lanka 30% 3,013,844,753 345,062,214 2,668,782,539 Source: US International Trade Commission (USITC) The US began proposing tariffs on Monday by sending form letters to countries. The letters say that the US trade deficits are engendered by each country’s “tariff and nontariff policies and trade barriers”. The letters do not specify any such policies and trade barriers. Transshipments would be subject to higher rates that are not specified by the letters. The tariffs proposed in the letters are apparently in lieu of the reciprocal tariffs that were supposed to take effect on 9 July. It is unclear what will happen to the US tariffs on countries that did not receive letters. They could rise to the reciprocal tariff rates proposed on 2 April, or they could remain at the baseline 10% rate. Regardless, US President Donald Trump said the country will not delay the tariffs past the 1 August deadline. The following table shows the countries that have received tariff letters since Monday, 7 July. Figures are in US dollars. Country Rate General Imports ($) Domestic Exports ($) US Deficit ($) Algeria 30% 2,461,611,826 949,221,120 1,512,390,706 Bangladesh 35% 8,358,699,586 2,274,193,133 6,084,506,453 Bosnia and Herzegovina 30% 178,941,279 49,038,963 129,902,316 Brunei 25% 238,619,776 114,316,225 124,303,551 Cambodia 36% 12,645,678,620 295,723,291 12,349,955,329 Indonesia 32% 28,052,104,638 9,719,977,045 18,332,127,593 Iraq 30% 7,540,759,781 1,429,523,113 6,111,236,668 Japan 25% 148,370,517,793 70,317,270,600 78,053,247,193 Kazakhstan 25% 2,348,972,335 942,870,411 1,406,101,924 Laos 40% 802,837,802 35,894,658 766,943,144 Libya 30% 1,465,240,472 535,932,429 929,308,043 Malaysia 25% 52,488,424,825 21,757,221,476 30,731,203,349 Moldova 25% 136,234,076 48,154,040 88,080,036 Myanmar (Burma) 40% 652,374,896 73,078,845 579,296,051 Philippines 20% 14,161,845,726 8,293,021,350 5,868,824,376 Serbia 35% 814,215,370 185,021,881 629,193,489 South Africa 30% 14,688,463,366 5,037,077,824 9,651,385,542 South Korea 25% 131,553,159,443 61,571,006,156 69,982,153,287 Sri Lanka 30% 3,013,844,753 345,062,214 2,668,782,539 Thailand 36% 63,349,646,604 15,143,710,276 48,205,936,328 Tunisia 25% 1,122,719,556 469,035,549 653,684,007 Source: USITC Thumbnail shows a container ship, which is commonly used in international trade Image by Shutterstock.

LONDON (ICIS)–The EU Commission has published proposals to allow mass balance for chemical recycling using a fuel-exempt accounting approach under the Single Use Plastics Directive (SUPD). It added that “the calculation methodology will serve as a model for future recycled content rules in other sectors, such as packaging, automotives and textiles. This approach is designed to give investors confidence in the long-term stability and potential of these technologies.” Mass-balance acceptance is seen as a key enabler for chemical recycling – in particular pyrolysis oil, given that pyrolysis oil is used as a naphtha substitute in crackers. A lack of regulatory clarity has seen buying interest in pyrolysis oil from the chemical sector fall in 2024 and 2025 (albeit from a high base) and made financing for new projects and infrastructure challenging. Differing accounting rules for mass balance can drastically alter potential profitability and a lack of clarity has made it challenging to predict returns on investment, as well as assessing Europe’s competitive position compared with other regions that may adopt differing mass-balance accounting rules. The EU Commission has launched a consultation on the proposals, which also covers the calculation, verification and reporting of recycled content under the SUPD. The consultation will run until 19 August. The Commission will then conduct a review before presenting a final draft to its technical committee to vote on. It aims to adopt the proposals under an implementing decision in Autumn 2025. Previously, the EU Commission had said that it was aiming to adopt the implementing decision in the fourth quarter of 2025. Under the proposal, the EU will adopt “fuel-use excluded” mass-balance accounting,  whereby material that is processed into fuel or process losses cannot contribute to recycled content targets. Free allocation (a method of mass balance that allows for the total allotment of recycled material to be attributed to any output) would be permissible for the remaining tonnage.  This is provided that: It is only attributed to outputs where it is possible to prove there is a feasible chemical process that could transform the input material into the chemical building blocks for each output The attributed amount of a specific output does not exceed the share of those parts of the output that can come from the used input eligible material The inputs, outputs, or both are chemical building blocks but not polymers. This would also apply to dual-use material – material that can be used in both fuel and non-fuel applications – in liquid or gas form. Solid material such as char would be excluded from the calculations. The Commission considers that “mechanical recycling technologies are in general preferable to chemical recycling technologies from an environmental point of view” and states that material that can be mechanically recyclable should not be used by chemical recyclers where it can produce recyclates with similar quality or performance characteristics. As a result, the proposals include allowances for the Commission to review the methodology and allocation rules under the decision. For liquid inputs fed into a steam cracker, the calculation steps to determine the allocation volume of recycled material would involve defining the maximum allowable boiling point at the steam cracker (or where the eligible material is processed by different steam crackers, the weighted average of the maximum acceptable boiling points of all the individual steam crackers), measuring the evaporation between eligible input material and total input material, calculating the ratio between the two and then applying that ratio to the total input weight at the cracker. This would involve using a standard test method for boiling range distribution of petroleum fractions by gas chromatography. For non-liquid material or processes not involving steam cracking, material would be distributed proportionally based on share of total input. For dual-use outputs, evidence would be required to prove that the material is being used in recycled plastics. The new implementing decision and annex does not appear to give any further clarity on the use of imported material counting towards the 25% recycled content required in polyethylene terephthalate (PET) beverage bottles from 1 January 2025. ICIS published an article in June following confirmation from the European Commission that only recycled polyethylene terephthalate (R-PET) produced using plastic waste in the EU can currently count towards the 25% recycled content target set out under the SUPD. However, following publication, market participants challenged this statement from the Commission’s Directorate-General for Environment highlighting the use of the word “imported” in formulas contained  in the Implementing Decision annexes, which those participants understood allowed the use of R-PET flake and food-grade pellet from third countries outside the EU to count towards the target. Imported material is still mentioned in the draft annex and ICIS is currently seeking further clarification from the Directorate-General for Environment over the status of imported material in counting towards the 25% target. Additional reporting by Matt Tudball ICIS is currently researching bio-naphtha pricing in Europe. If you’re interested in learning more and sharing your views on the market, please contact mark.victory@icis.com ICIS assesses more than 100 grades throughout the recycled plastic value chain globally – from waste bales to pellets. This includes recycled polyethylene (R-PE), R-PET, recycled polypropylene (R-PP), mixed plastic waste and pyrolysis oil 

SINGAPORE (ICIS)–Asian methanol prices have experienced significant volatility over recent weeks, on geopolitical concerns in the Middle East. While most production returned to normal in early July, some questions still remain around demand, both in India and the rest of Asia. Production in Iran, southeast Asia returns to normal US tariffs, seasonal factors to affect demand from downstream applications MTO run rates in China may be adjusted in July, margins may narrow In this chemical podcast, ICIS editors Doris He and Damini Dabholkar discuss recent market conditions and the outlook for Asia.

LONDON (ICIS)–The Environment and Internal Market Committees of the EU Parliament have adopted their proposals on the End of Life Vehicle Regulation (ELVR) which will now go to European Parliament plenary vote in September. The legislation has the potential for a similar impact on automotive and recycled plastic markets as that seen from the Single Use Plastics Directive (SUPD) and Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR). Nevertheless, the EU Council and the proposed position for the European Parliament are far apart from each other in crucial aspects of the legislation – most significantly points on mandatory recycled content targets, including:- What those overall targets should be The timeframe to meet those targets The type of plastic waste that can be used The role of chemical recycling and bio-based plastics The role of imports If the adopted proposals pass the European Parliament plenary vote. this will become the Parliament’s adopted position heading into trilogue negotiations with the EU Council. The EU Council adopted its position on 11 June. Both the EU Council adopted position and the European Parliament committees’ adopted proposals on minimum recycled plastic content in cars are more moderate than what was originally proposed in the European Commission’s draft. The Commission originally proposed that a mandatory 25% of plastic in new vehicles would need to be recycled plastic by six years after the regulation enters in to force, and with 25% of that target to have come from end-of-life vehicles. The EU Council’s position is for a graduated target with new vehicles needing to contain 15% recycled plastic six years after the regulation comes into force, 20% recycled plastic content after 8 years, and 25% after 10 years. For each target 25% of the recycled plastic would need to have originated from end-of-life vehicles. The European Parliament committees’ proposal is for a 20% recycled plastic target six years after the regulation comes into force, with 15% of that needing to come from end-of-life vehicles. The Parliament committees’ proposal would allow 50% of those targets to be met using pre-consumer material.  The proposal defines pre-consumer waste as “‘material diverted from the waste stream during a manufacturing process, excluding reutilisation of materials such as rework, regrind or scrap generated in a process and capable of being reclaimed within the same process that generated it.” The EU Council would only allow post-consumer material to count towards the targets. The Parliament committees propose that the target is increased to 25% for new vehicle type approved after 10 years “unless the lack of availability or excessive prices of specific recycled plastics makes compliance with that target excessively difficult.” Both the EU Council’s position and that proposed by the committees of the European Parliament would afford the European Commission wider powers for temporary derogations from all recycled plastic content targets due to “lack of availability or excessive prices of recycled plastics.” Neither gives guidance on what would constitute either situation. The version from the committees of the European Parliament goes further, however, requiring the EU Commission to evaluate whether manufacturers are on track to comply with recycled plastic targets by five years after the regulation enters into force. This would include evaluating: The availability of suitable plastic recycling technologies and the availability of recycled plastic The quality of that plastic compared with safety requirements Technical and economical difficulties to reach the target Based on the EU Commission’s evaluation it would be given the remit to amend the timing, scope and minimum percentages of the recycled plastic content targets. Both would confer powers on the Commission to establish the methodology to calculate and verify the share of recovered plastic in end-of-life vehicles. Nevertheless, the European Parliament Committees’ proposal specifically calls out chemical recycling, stating that the Commission should take into account “the best available recycling technology, including mechanical and chemical recycling.” The EU Council adopted position does not mention Chemical Recycling. In addition, the EU Council’s proposals would require separate treatment of post-consumer waste from end-of-life vehicles and no co-mingling with other materials throughout the recycling process. The proposals from the committees of the European Parliament would allow co-mingling as long as it met certain requirements – particularly that it did no harm to the overall recyclability of the material. The EU Council is proposing that by seven years and 11 months after the entry into force of the bill, the Commission should review the environmental performance and technological development of bio-based plastic in vehicles and propose legislation for bio-based plastic targets, sustainably requirements and whether bio-based plastic might count towards or be separate from recycled content targets. In February the European Parliament committee on the environment, climate and food safety and the committee on the Internal Market and consumer protection recommended allowing bio-based material to count towards recycled content targets from day one, but all mention of bio-based materials has been removed from the current proposals. While allowing for imports, the EU Council’s adopted position places a number of requirements on those imports including that any country plastic waste is sourced from has: equivalent environmental and worker safety standards as the EU A comprehensive waste management framework covering its entire territory which takes into account: operating on a ‘polluter pays’ principle (such as the establishment of an extended producer responsibility system or equivalent) It has measures implemented and planted to increase the proportion of post-consumer plastic recycled plastic from vehicles, and the proportion of post-consumer recycled plastic used in vehicles placed on the national market, and indicators for those measurements The proposals from the European Parliament committees would also allow imports, with the only restrictions relating to pre-consumer waste needing to meet “equivalent conditions with regard to emissions and separate collection and sustainability criteria for recycling technologies.” It does not detail what these equivalent conditions would be. Whichever approach wins out in the final version of the legislation will dramatically alter both its overall impact and which individual markets bear the weight of that impact. Taken together, the EU Council’s position appears considerably more stringent than the proposals from the committees of the European Parliament. The committees of the Parliament proposals’ allowance of pre-consumer waste, less stringent requirements for imports, and the specific mention of chemical recycling technologies would likely make these targets significantly easier to hit. Recycled plastic content targets would also stay limited to 20% for longer.  Coupled with this, the Parliament committees’ version seemingly includes greater scope for the European Commission to walk back on targets. Changes proposed by the parliamentary committees have been welcomed by the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association. “ACEA particularly welcomes the inclusion of pre-consumer plastics in the calculation of recycled content targets, this ensures that targets remain achievable and aligned with manufacturing realities. Nevertheless, a phased-in approach is essential due to the current lack of high-quality, safe, and automotive-grade recycled plastics on the market,” the ACEA said in a press release on 7 July, although it remains concerned over what it considers a disproportionate impact on truck and bus manufacturers. 14.8m vehicles are manufactured in the EU per year, according to ACEA estimates from September 2024 Because of its separate collection and processing requirements, because it only allows post-consumer material, and because of its seeming lack of support for chemical recycling, the EU Council version of the bill would likely concentrate demand on the mechanically recycled polypropylene (R-PP) market. Polypropylene is widely used in vehicles, including in parts of the car such as cabin interiors where technical requirements such as heat resistance are lower compared with, for example, engine parts – making it potentially easier to incorporate recycled material. There is also already well established routes for recycling of end-of-life vehicle parts in the R-PP market. The European Parliament committees’ version could potentially result in higher demand for chemical recycled material depending on the European Commission’s calculation and verification requirements. The Parliament committees’ version specifically requires the Commission to take account of chemical recycling, and the Parliament would allow removed parts to count as waste from end-of-life vehicles under recycling targets – which could strengthen demand for tyre-derived chemical recycling in particular. “As the EU looks towards resource and material circularity as a tool for increased security and independence, ambitious goals for minimum recycled content in the mobility sector are a crucial piece of the puzzle. The automotive industry has a long-standing history of innovation, so despite the goals seeming ambitious to some, both manufacturers and the plastic recycling industry are ready to leverage the decades of technical knowledge to help car makers scale up the use of recyclate,”  Alexandra Tawton-Tomczyk, ICIS senior analyst, plastic sustainability and recycling EMEA said. Insight article by Mark Victory ICIS is currently researching bio-naphtha pricing in Europe. If you’re interested in learning more, and to share your views on the market, please contact mark.victory@icis.com ICIS assesses more than 100 grades throughout the recycled plastic value chain globally – from waste bales through to pellets. This includes recycled polyethylene (R-PE), recycled PET (R-PET), R-PP, mixed plastic waste and pyrolysis oil. 

HOUSTON (ICIS)–US-listed shares of chemical companies rose on Tuesday after the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) withdrew proposed rules under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Chemours shares were up by more than 10% mid-afternoon on Tuesday, while the S&P 500 hovered around unchanged. Almost all of the chemical companies followed by ICIS showed significant increases in share value, as shown in the following table. Symbol $ Current Price $ Change % Change AdvanSix 24.92 0.48 1.96% Avient 33.72 0.57 1.72% Axalta Coating Systems 30.62 0.42 1.39% Braskem 3.39 0.00 0.00% Chemours 13.61 1.19 9.58% Celanese 60.22 2.12 3.65% DuPont 74.46 1.48 2.03% Dow 29.04 1.56 5.68% Eastman 80.38 2.12 2.71% HB Fuller 62.84 2.08 3.42% Huntsman 11.245 0.595 5.59% Kronos Worldwide 6.505 0.175 2.76% LyondellBasell 63.75 3.02 4.97% Methanez 34.62 0.72 2.12% NewMarket 734.12 -3.31 -0.45% Olin 22.205 1.135 5.39% PPG 117.4 1.94 1.68% RPM International 112.51 1.48 1.33% Stepan 59.24 1.67 2.90% Sherwin-Williams 345.93 -0.36 -0.10% Tronox 5.655 0.425 8.13% Trinseo 2.96 0.06 2.07% Westlake 83.15 4.43 5.63% The withdrawn proposed rule, a significant new use rule (SNUR) under the TSCA, would have required businesses that intended to manufacture or import any of 18 specific chemical substances derived from plastic waste to notify the EPA at least 90 days prior to beginning any activity. New uses under the SNUR included manufacturing, processing, use, distribution in commerce, or disposal that do not conform to restrictions imposed from other TSCA requirements. Also, another proposed SNUR targeted manufacturing or processing of chemical substances using feedstocks containing any amount of heavy metals (chromium, cadmium, chromium VI, lead, or mercury), dioxins, phthalates, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), and benzophenone, bisphenol A, ethyl glycol and methyl glycol. During its recent annual meeting in Colorado Springs, Colorado, the America Chemistry Council (ACC), a trade group that represents chemical companies, said it was optimistic that EPA regulatory shifts could emerge under the Trump Administration. The ACC also submitted to the EPA a list of more than 30 regulations it felt the agency could examine. TRUMP COULD ASSESS 50% COPPER TARIFFS Trump, speaking to assembled media at the White House during a cabinet meeting on Tuesday, said that he was planning on announcing a 50% tariff on copper imports later in the day. “Today we are doing copper,” Trump said. “I believe we are going to make it 50%.” The Wall Street Journal, citing Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, said the copper tariffs will take effect on 1 August. US copper futures prices for September delivery jumped by 12% after the announcement and were up about 10% when markets closed. Thumbnail photo by Shutterstock

LONDON (ICIS)–The European Commission has unveiled a plan to save the region’s ailing chemicals industry, while simplifying regulations to save €363 million a year, the institution announced on Tuesday. The Action Plan for the Chemicals Industry will tackle “high energy costs, unfair global competition and weak demand, while promoting investment in innovation and sustainability,” according to the statement. The Commission will form a Critical Chemical Alliance with member states and stakeholders “to address the risks of capacity closures in the sector.” Europe has already seen swathes of shutdowns this year against a backdrop of tough conditions. The Alliance will highlight critical production sites that need support, and will also address trade issues including supply-chain dependencies and distortions. In line with this, the Commission will apply defensive measures to ensure fair competition and expand chemical import monitoring through its existing Import Surveillance Task Force. The Alliance will align investment priorities, coordinate EU and national projects – including Important Projects of Common European Interest (IPCEIs) – and support innovation and growth at critical production sites. The Commission also said it will implement the Affordable Energy Action Plan “at full speed” to help reduce energy and feedstock costs for the chemicals industry. The plan introduces rules for low-carbon hydrogen and will update state aid to lower electricity costs for more chemical producers by the end of the year. The use of clean carbon sources – like carbon capture, biomass, and waste – are also encouraged in the plan, as well as support for renewables. There will be fiscal incentives and tax measures to help spur demand for clean chemicals, and the Industry Decarbonisation Accelerator Act will be introduced to support growth and investment in greener technologies. The upcoming Bioeconomy Strategy and Circular Economy Act will boost EU resource efficiency, chemicals recycling and “strengthen the market for bio-based and recycled alternatives to fossil-based inputs.” A public consultation has been launched on rules for calculating, verifying and reporting recycled content in single-use plastic (SUP) beverage bottles, which will be open until 19 August. Funding from Horizon Europe between 2025-2027 will be mobilized through the EU Innovation and Substitution Hubs to accelerate safer, more sustainable chemical substitutes. The Action Plan will reaffirm the Commission’s stance to minimize per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) emissions while be restricted. Continued use in critical applications where no alternatives are available “will be proposed swiftly after ECHA’s opinion,” the statement continued. “The Commission will also invest in innovation, promote remediation based on the polluter pays principle, and prioritise the development of safer alternatives.” The Commission is adopting its sixth simplification omnibus to reduce compliance and administrative costs for the chemicals industry, while still protecting human health and the environment. Annual savings of €363 million per year are expected through the ECHA Basic Regulation by simplifying hazardous chemical labelling, clarifying EU cosmetics regulations, and easing registration for EU fertilising products by aligning information with standard Reach requirements. The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) is now responsible for classification and labelling, biocidal products, import and export of hazardous chemicals, waste management and water. European chemicals industry body Cefic welcomed the plan saying it “marks an important and timely first step towards boosting the competitiveness and resilience of the EU chemical industry. “This crucial signal to global investors and the announced measures go beyond signalling support…[The plan] is a much-needed signal of support, following Cefic’s calls for action to protect Europe’s most strategic industries,” the statement read. “Now, we must act collectively and quickly to restore competitiveness and resilience. There is no strategic independence, no climate neutrality, no energy transition, and no clean tech transformation without the European chemical industry.”

High capacity-booking interest for gas exports from Romania to Hungary for the next ten years indicate regional companies may be preparing for the start of Black Sea gas production from 2027. In 2024, Romania became the EU’s largest gas producer, a position that is likely to be further consolidated when the Neptun Deep block comes on stream. The project has faced political and regulatory headwinds over the years, and first volumes are set to reach markets at a time of numerous changes including surging global LNG production. In this podcast, Franck Neel, executive board member of project operator OMV Petrom, tells Aura Sabadus about latest developments at Neptun Deep, the company’s regional expansion plans and why Romanian Black Sea gas will have a competitive edge.

LONDON (ICIS)–European politicians must decide if they want to save the region’s chemical industry as the wave of energy-intensive closures continues. Dow to close cracker at Bohlen, Germany, plus two other sites with loss of 800 jobs More than 5 million tonnes/year of ethylene capacity now under threat in Europe Industry still faces high energy costs, regulatory burdens, unfair competition China will continue to add capacity at least to 2030 China chemical plants running at higher-than-expected operating rates Importing ethylene and propylene can be expensive Political support will be vital to save Europe’s chemical industry New US tariffs may see two-tier chemical markets emerge in Asia Uncertainty and chaos likely to persist In this Think Tank podcast, Will Beacham interviews John Richardson from the ICIS market development team. 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.