LONDON (ICIS)–From four-year lows for European polypropylene (PP) prices, Dow announcing the closure of its Bohlen cracker, see-sawing crude oil prices, a key US and EU tariff deal, and some fresh anti-dumping duties in India – June and July have been action packed for PP and polyethylene (PE). ICIS senior editor manager Vicky Ellis and senior editor Ben Lake compare notes with ICIS market specialist Aswin Kondapally on how Europe and Indian markets match up in July, and what to expect in August.

MADRID (ICIS)–Brazilian chemical producers are facing several contract cancellations as US President Donald Trump threatens fresh 50% levies on Latin America’s largest economy from 1 August, trade group Abiquim said. In a written response to ICIS, Abiquim’s director general Andre Passos said the window to reach a trade deal with the US is closing, prompting the orders cancellations. “These decisions are being made because the bet is that Trump will actually apply the tariff,” said Passos. Abiquim, which represents chemical producers in Brazil, said following Trump’s tariffs announcement earlier in July, export orders have been canceled for specific resins and compounds utilized in fertilizers production. While Brazil is a net importer of fertilizers to feed its powerful agricultural sector, the country also exports certain fertilizers to the US’s agricultural sector, said Abiquim. Brazilian chemicals exports to the US stood at $2.4 billion in 2024. According to Passos, one Brazilian company had seen all its US export contracts canceled, while others have reported partial cancellations for certain shipments or products. He added that there have also been cases of sellers that experienced cancellations for previously greenlit export financing and the order linked to that financing. However, he did not mention the affected exporters. On 29 July, US chemicals producer Olin said the possibility that Brazil could impose retaliatory tariffs on US imports has already caused a decline in US caustic soda shipments to Latin America as a whole. “What we’re seeing is less material being exported to Latin America just because of the threat of the tariffs that are there. That’s causing some headwind in the cost at the market in the short term,” said Olin CEO Ken Lane. WIDESPREAD IMPACTAccording to Passos, the damage associated with the US tariffs could extend beyond direct chemicals shipments because virtually every industry employs chemicals in manufacturing processes. “No-one produces coffee, even grains, without some kind of chemical product in the process. Brazilian plywood exporters, for instance, utilize chemicals for bonding, and they are also facing US order cancellations,” said Passos. “Orange juice manufacturers, which dispatched 42% of their exports to the US last year, also employ chemical preservatives.” Abiquim reiterated its stance that US tariffs on Brazilian chemicals “lack justification”, given the sector’s trade deficit with the US, which in 2024 stood at $7.9 billion: the result of Brazil importing $10.4 billion worth of chemicals while exports were valued at $2.4 billion. CONTINGENCY PLANSWhile analysts said in mid-July that a deal between the US and Brazil before 1 August was within reach, hopes are fading less than 48 hours before the tariffs’ effective date. Brazilian Foreign Minister Mauro Viera reportedly attempted to reach the US administration to negotiate a potential deal while attending a summit in New York earlier this week, without success. This week, Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva received a contingency plan from finance minister Fernando Haddad aimed at assisting companies affected by the 50% tariff, according to state-owned news agency Agencia Brasil. Haddad said, however, that Brazil does not intend to abandon negotiations and will continue prioritizing dialogue to reverse the measure. “The possible scenarios are already known to the president. We have not yet made any decision [on potential retaliation], because we do not even know what the US’s decision will be on 1 August,” said Haddad, without giving details about the contingency plan. “The important thing is that the president now holds in his hands all the scenarios that have been defined by four ministries. We agreed to present him [Lula] with the contingency plan, including all the options available to Brazil and to him as president. [But] the focus remains on negotiations,” he added. Front page picture: Brazil’s Santos port in the state of Sao Paulo Source: Port of Santos Authority

LONDON (ICIS)–The rate of economic growth in the eurozone and EU slowed down in Q2 from the previous quarter, official data showed on Wednesday. GDP increased by 0.1% in the eurozone and by 0.2% in the EU, according to a flash estimate by statistics agency Eurostat, which is subject to revision. In the first quarter, GDP had increased by 0.6% in the eurozone and by 0.5% in the EU. 2024 Q3 2024 Q4 2025 Q1 2025 Q2 Eurozone 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.1 EU 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.2 Spain (+0.7%) recorded the highest Q2 GDP increase from the previous quarter, followed by Portugal (+0.6%) and Estonia (+0.5%). Europe’s largest chemicals producer Germany, and Italy, both saw economic contraction, with a GDP decline of 0.1%, Eurostat said. On a year-on-year basis, Q2 GDP increased by 1.4% in the eurozone and by 1.5% in the EU. Europe’s economy this year has been influenced by uncertainty over the impact of US trade tariffs on the EU, although a deal has now been agreed between Donald Trump and European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen.

SINGAPORE (ICIS)–Solvay’s underlying net profit from continuing operations fell by 15% year on year to €99 million in the second quarter (Q2) amid soft demand, the Belgian chemicals firm said on Wednesday. in € million Q2 2025 Q2 2024 % Change H1 2025 H1 2024 % Change Net sales 1,102 1,194 -7.8 2,223 2,396 -7.2 EBITDA 230 272 -15.4 480 538 -10.8 Net profit 99 116 -15.0 201 236 -14.8 Solvay’s underlying earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) margin was down by 1.9 percentage points year on year to 20.9% from 22.8% in the second quarter. Basic Chemicals sales in Q2 2025 were down by 5.8% year on year compared with Q2 2024, the company said. Soda ash volumes, though improved sequentially compared to Q1, were lower year on year from sluggish demand in domestic markets and competition on the seaborne market. Bicarbonate demand continues to be robust, however. “The level of business activity in the first half of 2025 has been impacted by the uncertainty around the tariff discussions and heightened geopolitical tensions,” said Philippe Kehren, Solvay CEO. “Over the past few months, our industry has faced a soft market demand environment, and this is not expected to improve in the coming months.” As of 14 July, Solvay now expects underlying EBITDA for 2025 to be between €880 million and €930 million, revised down from €1.0 billion and €1.1 billion, assuming current foreign exchange levels for the second half of the year.

SINGAPORE (ICIS)–BASF’s net income fell by 81.6% year on year in the second quarter, weighed by lower margins across Chemicals, Industrial Solutions and Materials segments, the German chemicals major said on Wednesday. in € million Q2 2025 Q2 2024 % Change H1 2025 H1 2024 % Change Sales 15,769 16,111 -2.1 33,171 33,664 -1.5 Income from operations before depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) 1,475 1,563 -5.6 3,653 4,218 -13.4 Income from operations (EBIT) 494 516 -4.3 1,690 2,205 -23.4 Net income 79 430 -81.6 887 1,797 -50.6 Negative currency effects and lower prices also contributed to the fall in sales. The Agricultural Solutions, Surface Technologies and Nutrition & Care segments achieved earnings growth, contrasting with “considerable earnings decline” in the Chemicals, Industrial Solutions and Materials segments. BASF’s Q2 2025 income from operations before depreciation, amortization and special items (EBITDA before special items) decreased by €185 million to €1.8 billion. Meanwhile, the Q2 EBITDA margin before special items was 11.2%, down from 12.1% in the prior-year quarter. Sales in the Chemicals segment declined in the first half of 2025, driven by global overcapacity and declining volumes which “positive portfolio effect” could not offset. The decline in the Petrochemicals division was mainly driven by lower margins for cracker products and in the propylene value chain, and in the Intermediates division, by lower volumes and prices, BASF said. OUTLOOK Growth is expected to weaken across all major regions in the second half of 2025 amid ongoing macroeconomic and geopolitical uncertainties, said BASF. It projects an average euro/dollar exchange rate in 2025 of $1.15/euro from $1.05/euro previously in the BASF full-year 2024 report, while the average annual oil price of Brent crude was forecast down to $70/barrel from $75/barrel previously. The company expects EBITDA before special items of between €7.3 billion and €7.7 billion for the full year of 2025, adjusted down from €8.0 billion to €8.4 billion forecast in the BASF full-year 2024 report. While the direct impact of US tariffs on the company remains limited, there are indirect effects on demand for products as well as prices, given “intensified competitive pressure and rising inflation”, said BASF. “It is still not possible to fully assess the resulting effects,” BASF added.

HOUSTON (ICIS)–Executives from Class 1 railroads Union Pacific (UP) and Norfolk Southern (NS) said on Tuesday that their merger enhances competition and creates a more reliable and efficient transcontinental service option, but chem industry trade groups remain concerned and will actively oppose the deal. Under the terms of the agreement, UP will acquire NS in a stock and cash transaction that must be approved by the US Surface Transportation Board (STB) and other applicable regulatory authorities and shareholders of both companies. The companies said it will take up to six months to file the application with STB, which will then begin its 16-month review process. The deal is expected to close in early 2027. Speaking on a conference call to discuss the deal, UP CEO Jim Vena and NS president and CEO Mark George said the combined network will span more than 50,000 miles across 43 states, serving 10 international gateways with Mexico and Canada and will operate from 100 ports, as shown in the following map. Source: UP Railroad executives said the merger will improve single-line service, address underserved areas like the Ohio Valley and the Mississippi River watershed, and enhance competition. Customers of the combined railroad will benefit from faster transit times, increased reliability and improved customer asset utilization, the executives said. Source: UP But chemical industry trade groups shared concerns about the merger even before it became official. In an interview with ICIS last week, Eric Byer, president and CEO of the Alliance for Chemical Distribution (ACD) said rail service issues remain for ACD customers and should UP and NS merge, it would set the table for the other two major railroads to consider doing the same. “The idea of having Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern merge means you’re probably going to have the other two big Class I railroads merging,” Byer said, likely referring to the other two major railroad companies, BNSF Railway and CSX. Byer reaffirmed on Tuesday the ACD’s opposition to the merger. “Following prior rail mergers, freight rail has not served the needs of its customers who inevitably pay increasingly high rates for unreliable and inadequate service,” Byer said. “Despite persistent deteriorating rail service, railroads are rarely held accountable for supply chain disruptions caused by extensive monopolies and an outdated regulatory system. Freight rail is already highly concentrated, and further consolidation will exacerbate existing challenges while expanding the rail industry’s market power and profit margins.” Scott Jensen, director of issue communications at the American Chemistry Council (ACC), said his member companies have serious concerns about the prospect of further consolidation in the freight rail industry. “ACC is closely watching the situation and will actively oppose any merger that would boost railroad monopoly power,” Jensen said. “Our industry is one of the largest users of the US freight rail system, and we need efficient and reliable service to deliver products that make people’s lives better, healthier and safer.” In the US, chemical railcar loadings represent about 20% of chemical transportation by tonnage, with trucks, barges and pipelines carrying the rest. In Canada, producers rely on rail to ship more than 70% of their products, with some exclusively using rail. “The four largest freight railroads already control more than 90% of US rail traffic, with two dominating in the eastern US and two dominating in the west,” Jensen said. “A merger between two of these railroads threatens to leave American manufacturers, farmers and energy producers with even fewer options to ship by rail.” The combined railroads will be called Union Pacific, with headquarters in Omaha, Nebraska, with Atlanta, Georgia, remaining a key location, the companies said. Vena will be CEO, and three NS directors – including George and Richard Anderson – are expected to join the UP board of directors after closing. Jensen said producing and moving more chemistry here at home is key to growing the economy. “From microchips to cars to medicines, if we want to make more things in America and lead in global trade, we must do a better job transporting American-made goods,” Jensen said. “We call on policymakers to help create more competitive transportation options, not less.” Likewise, Byer called on the STB to ensure that freight rail customers have access to competitive, efficient and reliable rail service. “Approving a transcontinental mega-merger will benefit the merging rail companies and Wall Street, at the expense of US chemical distribution companies who are critical contributors to the American economy,” Byer said. “It is hard to see how expanding railroad monopolies would meet the STB’s high burden to ‘enhance competition’ and serve the ‘public interest’.” Additional reporting by Joseph Chang

MADRID (ICIS)–EU chemicals will lose out to US competitors under the tariff regime agreed in the latest US-EU trade deal, which avoids “for the moment” a trade war, Germany’s chemicals trade group VCI said this week. Both EU and US consumers to lose out – VCI ‘Structural imbalance’ to weaken EU chemicals further – France Chimie More robust trade barriers need to be implemented – Spain’s Feique Deeply-integrated transatlantic chemicals trade to suffer – Europe-wide Cefic Other trade groups such as France Chimie were also skeptical about the deal, although it noted “contradictory statements” from the US and the EU, while full details remain unknown. The Europe-wide trade group Cefic said the deal “appears to have averted the worst-case scenario” but will still hurt European producers’ competitiveness compared with their US peers and called for “further details” as soon as possible. Feique, the Spanish trade group, said the deal will negatively impact on Spanish chemical exports to the US and on exports of intermediates to other EU countries that have the US as their final destination – “eroding trade and investment” flows. STORM BETTER THAN HURRICANEGermany’s VCI, representing the EU’s largest chemicals producer and a key, export-intensive sector for Germany’s manufacturing sector, was relieved that a full-blown trade war had been avoided but added that EU chemical competitiveness will be hurt given the “high” tariffs that the industry faces. “Anyone expecting a hurricane is grateful for a storm. Further escalation was avoided. Nevertheless, the price is high for both sides. Europe’s exports are losing competitiveness. US customers are paying the tariffs,” said VCI executive director Wolfgang Grosse Entrup. “From the chemical industry’s perspective, the agreed tariffs are too high. At the same time, however, it is good that even higher tariffs were avoided. Now the German government must act even more consistently to offset this additional burden,” he added. VCI called for more talks where chemical tariffs in the US and the EU are “significantly reduced” and facilitate the “reindustrialization and transformation” of the chemical sectors in both the EU and the US. ‘PRECISE CONTENT’ NEEDEDAll trade groups called for further details of the deal to be published as soon as possible. However, the latest news has been enough for most to be worried. France Chimie said it was observing with “seriousness and concern” details published so far, saying in principle, it would put EU chemicals at a disadvantage. In addition, it said there had been “contradictory statements” from both parties and called for the “precise content” of the agreement to be released as soon as possible. It was very troubled, it added, about the terms and conditions which will determine trade in chemical products and active pharmaceutical ingredients due to the lack of detail. “France Chimie notes with concern that, according to the information provided, the agreement would introduce a difference in treatment between US chemical companies and our European companies, which would be subject to additional costs for exporting to the US,” said France Chimie. “This structural imbalance would seriously penalize an already weakened European chemical industry, unless the ‘zero for zero’ system is extended to all chemical products.” France Chimie said it was essential for the European Commission – the EU’s executive arm – to strengthen measures announced in its action plan earlier in July, and insisted it was “urgent” to implement them. “[The implementation is key] in order to restore operating conditions to the level of competitiveness of other competing areas for European manufacturers. This involves in particular: the guarantee of access to decarbonized energy at a competitive cost, an essential condition for preserving industrial activity in Europe. “Reduction of taxes and charges on industrial sites, to align them with international standards; [and] simplification of the European regulatory framework and the fight against national over-transpositions.” ‘AGILITY’ TO IMPLEMENT TRADE BARRIERSSpain’s trade group Feique said, subject to full details, the deal would “exert significant pressure” on Spanish chemical exports to the US, which in 2024 reached €3.5 billion of total exports of €59.2 billion, including industrial chemicals and pharmaceuticals. It said impact was likely to be higher on exports of commodity chemicals rather than specialized products due to their greater exposure to international competition. However, it said the EU should work hard to lower the tariffs faced by the chemicals industry. “It is extremely important for the sector (as for many other industries) to work on including chemicals in the ‘zero-for-zero’ agreement, and even to develop a comprehensive and balanced sectoral agreement that guarantees favorable trading conditions, increases predictability, and strengthens the competitiveness of our industry,” said Feique. “The Commission must redouble its efforts to develop the EU’s free trade agenda, with the aim of opening new markets. In this context, Europe must also be more agile in implementing trade defense measures, especially by monitoring strategic products and applying anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures when necessary.” Earlier this month, director general Juan Labat told ICIS that the EU must  redouble efforts to protect its domestic industry, lowering taxes and upping public support for energy-intensive sectors such as chemicals, and tackle the high energy cost problem. “Despite increased renewable generation and lower operating costs, electricity prices have doubled compared to pre-pandemic levels, and gas prices have consolidated at the same rate, fundamentally affecting basic industrial activities across the continent and seriously jeopardizing strategic autonomy,” concluded Feique. INVESTMENTS HINDEREDIn Brussels, the EU capital, trade group Cefic said it required more details about the deal before it could make a complete assessment, but it warned that tariffs on chemicals could jeopardize investments on both side of the Atlantic. However, it said the inclusion of some chemicals in the ‘zero-for-zero’ agreement was an “encouraging” sign on which the Commission could continue building upon, adding “beneficial trade terms” were needed for all chemicals. “While the deal appears to have averted the worst-case scenario, the additional US tariffs on EU exports risk further eroding the competitiveness of the EU chemical industry. This is another reminder that the recently published Chemical Industry Action Plan needs to be urgently and fully implemented. There is no time to waste,” said Cefic. “Additional tariffs hinder trade and investment flows across the Atlantic. This is highly problematic for such an integrated transatlantic chemical industry with a significant amount of intra-industry and intra-company trade. Raw and input materials are regularly being shipped back and forth across the Atlantic, adding value at each stage of production.” Front page picture: Chemicals park in Marl, in the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia Source: Hans Blossey/imageBROKER/Shutterstock Focus article by Jonathan Lopez

HOUSTON (ICIS)–The US is approaching a 1 August deadline to conclude tariff negotiations with several countries, after which it will likely proceed with more duties on specific products such as lumber, copper and pharmaceuticals. Earnings for US chemicals have already fallen because of the uncertainty caused by US trade policy. Dow cut its dividend in half and reported a Q2 net loss of $801 million after proposed tariffs caused exports of polyethylene (PE) to evaporate in April. Olin warned that it is vulnerable to retaliatory tariffs that Brazil could impose on US imports of caustic soda. WHERE NATIONAL TARIFFS STANDThe US has already reached frameworks with Japan and the EU, two of its major trading partners. Talks are ongoing with India, South Korea, Canada, Mexico and Brazil as the US approaches a 1 August deadline to conclude talks. The following table shows the tariffs that the US proposed and the subsequent trade agreements that it announced. Country Proposed rate Trade Deal Algeria 30% pending Bangladesh 35% pending Bosnia and Herzegovina 30% pending Brazil 50% pending Brunei 25% pending Cambodia 36% pending Canada 35% pending EU 30% 15% Indonesia 32% 19% Iraq 30% pending Japan 25% 15% Kazakhstan 25% pending Laos 40% pending Libya 30% pending Malaysia 25% pending Mexico 30% pending Moldova 25% pending Myanmar (Burma) 40% pending Philippines 20% 19% Serbia 35% pending South Africa 30% pending South Korea 25% pending Sri Lanka 30% pending Thailand 36% pending Tunisia 25% pending On 12 August, the US will reach another deadline to reach a trade agreement with China to prevent the two countries from reviving triple digit tariff increases. The US proposed these tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). A pending court case could eliminate the legal basis for the IEEPA-based tariffs. If the courts overturn the national tariffs, the US could resort to other provisions to introduce new duties, although this will take time and they may not be as broad as the IEEPA-based tariffs. US PROPOSES POLITICAL TARIFFS ON BRAZILThe US proposed tariffs on Brazilian imports were an exception because they were based on the nation’s politics. The US actually has a trade surplus with Brazil, unlike the other nations that were targets for tariffs. The US use of tariffs to influence other countries’ policies creates the possibility that it could employ similar tactics to other countries – even if it already negotiated trade agreements. WHERE SECTORAL TARIFFS STANDThe US is also considering tariffs on product families under section 232. These tariffs are not covered by the IEEPA lawsuit so they will prove more durable. Under section 232, the government investigates whether imports of specific products threaten national security. The US has 270 days to file a report on the investigation, after which the president can choose to impose tariffs or take other actions in response to the findings of the report. The following table summarizes the pending section 232 investigations and the deadlines to complete them. Product Start of investigation Report Due Copper 10-Mar 5-Dec Timber, lumber 10-Mar 5-Dec Semiconductors 1-Apr 27-Dec Pharmaceuticals 1-Apr 27-Dec Medium duty trucks 22-Apr 17-Jan Heavy duty trucks 22-Apr 17-Jan Critical minerals 22-Apr 17-Jan Commercial aircraft 1-May 26-Jan Jet engines 1-May 26-Jan Polysilicon 1-Jul 28-Mar Unmanned aircraft systems 1-Jul 28-Mar Source: Bureau of Industry and Security The US has also broadened and increased tariffs on previously completed investigations, as shown in the following table. Product Tariff Automobiles 25% Auto parts 25% Steel 50% Aluminium 50% Source: President These tariffs have exceptions based on the country of origin and their portion of domestically produced content. CHINESE TRADE RESTRICTIONS PERSISTThe US and China had opened a new front in their trade war by restricting exports of critical materials. China had since resumed shipments of rare earth minerals, and the US is allowing exports of ethane, a feedstock that some Chinese crackers use to make ethylene. However, China has apparently maintained restrictions on other critical minerals minerals. Among them, antimony is used as a catalyst to make polyethylene terephthalate (PET), and bismuth metal is used as a catalyst for polyurethanes and as a radiopaque additive for plastics used in medical devices. Since 3 December, China has banned the export of the following minerals: Antimony Gallium Germanium This strengthened the restrictions on antimony shipments that China imposed on 15 September 2024. Since 4 February, China has restricted shipments on the following minerals: Bismuth Molybdenum Indium Tellurium Tungsten US TARIFFS SLOW GROWTH, PARALYZE DECISION MAKINGThe on-again, off-again nature of US tariffs and their vague characteristics have injected uncertainty into the economy, causing companies and consumers to delay purchases and investment decisions. When the US does make an announcement about tariff rates, it is done on the president’s social media page with few details. Chemical companies have said that uncertainty has caused more disruptions to their businesses than the actual tariffs. They also do not know if their sizeable exports will be subject to retaliatory tariffs. All of this slows growth, and economists have lowered their forecasts for 2025 GDP following the tariff announcements. Businesses need certainty so they can plan, especially for small companies that bring in a couple of containers each quarter, said Eric Byer, president and CEO of the Alliance for Chemical Distribution (ACD). If the US can reach agreements with China, India, Canada and Mexico by the Labor Day holiday in September, that could go a long way in providing certainty to the economy, Byer said. The US needs to resolve its trade disputes soon because retailers and consumers will start planning for upcoming holidays, such as Halloween at the end of October and Christmas at the end of December, Byer said. Insight article by Al Greenwood Thumbnail shows shipping containers, which feature prominently in international trade. Image by Shutterstock. 

BARCELONA (ICIS)–The permanent closure of SABIC’s cracker and other facilities at Wilton, UK, shows how tough conditions are in Europe with recyclers also feeling the pinch. Closure of UK polymer recycling facilities has been a shock to the industry European recyclers find it hard to compete against imports, more support for local recycling needed Regulations are helping recycling sector, but more action needed Outlook for Europe recycling more positive than for base chemicals Chemical plant closures remove good quality jobs which are tough to replace Wilton, UK site is perfect for development of circular economy EU-US 15% tariff deal removes threat of 30% but many questions remain In this Think Tank podcast, Will Beacham interviews James McLeary, managing director for Biffa Polymers and ICIS Insight Editor Tom Brown. 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 organizing 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.