PVDF demand to increase chlor-alkali consumption
The demand growth of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) is dependent on lithium-ion batteries for battery-operated electric vehicle (EV) demand and stationery electrical storage. Argus forecasts global lithium-ion battery demand in EVs to reach 3.8GWh by 2034 from 0.7GWh in 2023. EV sales are expected to rise at an average growth rate of 10pc in the next 10 years reaching more than 46mn units.
Global caustic soda demand into battery materials for leading regions is shown in the figure. Argus’s latest caustic soda analytics forecast explains an exponential rise in caustic soda consumption for battery material processing. Global caustic soda consumption in the processing of lithium hydroxide, lithium carbonate, cathode materials and recycled black mass was at 1.5mn dmt in 2023 and is expected to reach 3mn dmt in 2033 at a CAGR of 10pc in the first five years.
The relationship between chlor-alkali products and battery materials is gaining focus in the market. With increasing Lithium-based battery capacity globally, demand for associated battery materials is expected to rise. Among the other components of the Li-ion battery stack, PVDF plays an important role as a binder and separator coating, optimizing energy storage efficiency and reducing battery weight in EVs.
PVDF utilizes caustic soda and chlorine in its production at different stages. Primary feedstock includes vinylidene chloride or vinylidene fluoride, which are derivatives of caustic soda and chlorine.
Some significant developments in PVDF capacity are taking place in North America and Northeast Asia. Belgian chemical company Solvay entered into a joint venture with Mexico-based PVC producer Orbia to build the largest production facility of battery-grade suspension PVDF in North America with a capacity of 20,000 t/yr. Commercial production is expected to start in 2026 and the expected caustic soda and chlorine demand can be 8,000 t/yr and 12,000 t/yr respectively.
Solvay has doubled its capacity in Changshu, China in the past five years and raised its capacity in France by 35pc reaching 35,000 t/yr making it the largest production site in Europe. Another major producer French chemical company Arkema increased production capacity by 50pc last year at its Changshu site in China.
Japan-based producer Kureha is undergoing expansion at its Iwaki site in Japan, having a production capacity of 6,500 t/yr. The expansion is in two phases, first is a new capacity of 8,000 t/yr and another 2,000 t/yr in the second phase by debottlenecking resulting in a total capacity of 20,000 t/yr by 2026.
This article was created using data and insight from Argus Caustic Soda Analytics and Argus Battery Materials.
Spotlight content
Related news
STS methanol bunkering debuts in Amsterdam
STS methanol bunkering debuts in Amsterdam
Sao Paulo, 20 May (Argus) — The Port of Amsterdam has completed its first ship-to-ship (STS) methanol bunkering operation, marking a key milestone in the port's decarbonisation strategy. The operation involved supplying Van Oord's offshore installation vessel Boreas with 500t of green methanol at the TMA Logistic terminal. The bunkering was carried out by the Chicago, with the fuel supplied by OCI HyFuels, a producer of renewable methanol products such as biomethanol and bio-MTBE. The Boreas is the first newly built offshore installation vessel designed to operate on methanol. Methanol is gaining traction as a viable low-carbon option for ships to use to comply with regulations on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The EU's FuelEU Maritime regulation, which took effect in January this year, mandates a phased reduction in GHG intensity for vessels operating in EU waters — starting with a 2pc cut this year, increasing to 6pc by 2030 and reaching 80pc by 2050, relative to 2020 levels. By Natália Coelho Send comments and request more information at [email protected] Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
Phillips 66 vote could change company's course
Phillips 66 vote could change company's course
Houston, 19 May (Argus) — Just four of Phillips 66's 14 board members are up for election at its annual meeting this week, but the outcome could shape the future direction of the US refiner and midstream operator. Activist hedge fund Elliott Investment Management has named four of its own candidates for the vote which will come to a conclusion on 21 May, part of its multi-year effort to push the company to sell assets and focus on core businesses. Elliott, which has amassed a $2.5bn stake in Phillips 66, contends that the company has consistently trailed its industry peers and needs to streamline operations, including spinning off or selling its midstream business, selling its stake in Chevron Phillips Chemical (CPChem), and possibly other assets. Phillips 66 has told shareholders that Elliot is pushing "an aggressive short-term agenda" that would cause disruption, slow momentum and jeopardize shareholders' investments. It says the Phillips 66 board and management team are implementing a "transformative strategy" that has delivered results, expanded its NGL business, improved its refining cost structure and continues to position CPChem as the lowest cost producer of ethylene. "We don't act out of fear or short-term trends," Phillips 66 chief executive office Mark Lashier said in a first quarter earnings call last month. "We act on what we believe will create the most long-term value for our shareholders each and every time." Turning up the heat Elliott alleges that Phillips 66 suffers from "continuous poor corporate governance" and "disingenuous shareholder engagement." Elliott said its proposals could push Phillips 66 stock to more than $200 per share. The stock was trading near $124 per share Monday morning. Elliott's campaign has grown more aggressive in the months leading up to this week's shareholder meeting. It includes launching a website dubbed "Streamline 66" with slide shows, podcasts, biographies of its dissident board nominees, press releases and information on how shareholders can vote by mail, phone or online. Elliott nominees include Brian Coffman, former chief executive at Motiva; Sigmund Cornelius, former chief financial officer of ConocoPhillips; Michael Heim, former chief operating officer of Targa Resources; and Stacy Nieuwoudt, former energy analyst at Citadel. Three top shareholder advisory firms are backing the Elliott nominees in the proxy fight. Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) and Egan-Jones are recommending all four of Elliot's dissident nominees, while Glass Lewis is backing three of the four — and supporting Phillips 66 nominee Nigel Hearne, a 35-year veteran of Chevron, because his experience "is more critical at this juncture". Phillips 66 pushback Phillips 66 has made some adjustments since Elliot started to agitate for change. In February 2024 it appointed former Motiva and Cenovus downstream executive Robert Pease to the board to address Elliott's concerns about a shift in focus from refining to midstream. And this year it agreed to sell off some of its European retail business , and expects about $1.6bn in pre-tax cash proceeds from the sale that it will use toward debt reduction and shareholder returns. But for the other Elliott recommendations to divest from midstream and sell its 50pc share of CPChem, Phillips 66 said the board has evaluated them and "came to the conclusion that neither action is in the best interest of long-term shareholders at this time". In additon to Hearne, Phillips 66's slate for the open board seats includes putting up Pease and current director John Lowe for re-election and nominating Howard Ungerleider, a former Dow president and chief financial officer. Current board members Gary Adams and Denise Ramos will not stand for re-election. Analysts with US bank TD Cowen said they "suspect Elliott could get some or all of its board members elected" and there could be larger board turnover next year if shareholders approve an Elliott proposal to require each director to submit a resignation to the board every year. The most likely outcome of an Elliott win is that the board "more deeply examines a midstream restructuring", TD Cowen said. By Eunice Bridges Send comments and request more information at [email protected] Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
PETCORE Europe Thermoforms: Collection is key
PETCORE Europe Thermoforms: Collection is key
London, 16 May (Argus) — Ahead of the Petcore Europe Thermoforms Conference in Dijon, France on 27-28 May, the technical manager of Petcore Europe's thermoforming working group, Jose-Antonio Alarcon, spoke to Argus about progress in the European tray-to-tray recycling market. Since we attended the annual event last year in Granada, Spain what has changed for the market? We don't see big changes. Collection is mostly the same, but there have been some developments on recycling projects. The appetite for recycling of tray-to-tray is growing. We have seen more players coming to operate in the tray-to-tray market over the last year, and more capacity is expected to start during this year. Petcore are aiming to make an study of the state of play for the thermoform industry in Europe to have a clear view on the real market size and the final application usage. The distribution between the food contact and non-food contacts, and also between mono and multi-layer, are essential for us and will be discussed in France. Following on from the success of last year's conference, what topics and discussions are you hoping will come up at this year's event? We want to keep energising the market, and building on the momentum. We have five pillars in the thermoforming working group that will be represented at the conference supporting the initiatives in the market. The first one is collection and sorting. If the material is not collected, it is not sorted, it is not recycled, period. We will be visiting a state-of-the-art sorting centre where they separate bottles and trays into mono- and multi-layer streams. The main challenge is how can these best practices be expanded to the rest of Europe. The second is recycling technologies. This is important, because you cannot use the same technologies for recycling bottle and trays because the physical properties of trays are not the same as bottles. Trays are often thinner and more brittle, they generate more dust and need to be treated more gently. Third is food contact, because we need to get the food contact trays back and into the closed loop. The majority of tray packaging placed on the market is in food contact applications, but there is not currently much progress on separate tray collection. There is work to be done in that direction. Then we have design for recycling and standardisation. If you don't design properly for recycling, then it will be very difficult for the market to scale up. And lastly is communication. Consumers need to know that trays can be recycled just like bottles, and we need people engaged. We also have presentations from the European Commission and legislative specialists as this is an important factor in the outlook for the market. Last year there was no specific legislation dedicated to thermoforms. Now we have the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) that passed into legislation and has mandated recycle content targets. So is this a positive? There are some positives and negatives. Yes, in the PPWR there is mandated recycled content targets for contact sensitive and non-contact sensitive packaging that will directly impact the tray market. Of course, this should move more people toward the use of tray flake and towards separate collection for tray. One of the impacts of legislation is that a lot of countries are moving to deposit return scheme (DRS) collection on bottles, which is deducting a lot of bottle from the regular yellow bin collection. So there will be a higher proportion of tray coming from this collection which could be a good opportunity for the circularity of trays if this waste is managed properly. And the recycled content targets should give a demand boost to the tray-to-tray market. We also have recycled content targets into bottles from the Single Use Plastics Directive (SUPD) meaning more and more bottle flakes are going back to bottles so that's a good opportunity for tray flakes. PPWR targets 30pc recycled content for contact sensitive packaging and 35pc for non-contact sensitive packaging by 2030. Will Europe be able to reach these targets in the tray market? It could, and it is possible, but it is ambitious. At this time, we are a long way from that point on tray-to-tray and it is very complicated. If we look to the bottle market, these percentages are achievable. Around 70pc of bottles are collected on average in Europe, but less than 30pc of trays. If we achieve similar collection volumes for trays then around 30pc recycled content should be feasible. But it will be challenging. At the moment bottle flake prices are at a significant premium to the virgin PET, which is impacting demand particularly in thermoforming applications and other cost saving markets like strapping and fibre. What impact could this have for PET tray flakes? People try to minimise their impact on the balance sheet, bottom line so less competitive prices versus virgin for rPET bottle flakes and pellets could spur more interest in tray. And maybe with the additional demand for bottle flake or food grade pellets from legislation and recycled content targets, people are looking for an alternative source so that they're not having to compete with that bottle flake market. But for PETCORE the focus is not on cost, our intention is that every package place on the market is collected, sorted and recycled. Over the last 12 months, we've seen quite a few chemical recycling projects being delayed or deferred. Is the difficult business environment across the whole industry an additional challenge for scaling up tray-to-tray? Of course there are challenges. We need to look at how the bottle recycling market has changed in the past 15 years with collection, technology, volume, quality, capacity etc., and the tray market is much later in the in the evolution, so it will take some time in order to achieve a similar situation as the bottle market. Of course, we expect that the speed of acceleration to reach the point of maturity to be faster for trays because we can take some learnings from previous experiences. Five years ago, trays were considered a contaminant at bottle sorting plants, and what we see today is that trays have the possibility to be a properly recycled stream providing another outlet of waste for sorters and recyclers. We need the material to be collected and it will require investment of course. The current infrastructure may be sufficient if managed properly. To increase the number of streams collected and volumes there may not be the need to invest in new infrastructure but just to boost current infrastructures. Chemical recycling is also part of the picture. There is a place for everyone, and mechanical and chemical are absolutely complementary. At the end of the day, we need to try to recover as much material as possible, then minimise the use of virgin resources so we know streams that can be as effective as possible. Send comments and request more information at [email protected] Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
Q&A: Braskem Idesa Mexico terminal to feed cracker
Q&A: Braskem Idesa Mexico terminal to feed cracker
Mexico City, 14 May (Argus) — The new ethane storage terminal owned 50:50 by Brazilian-Mexican JV Braskem Idesa and the Netherlands-based Advario will be fully operational by mid-July, when the Etileno XXI cracker returns from a full-stop maintenance program, said Cleantho Leite, chief executive of Terminal Quimica Puerto Mexico (TQPM), in an interview with Argus. Edited highlights follow. What does the new terminal represent for Braskem after years of limited ethane supply? TQPM solves a long-standing ethane supply shortage in Mexico, which remains one of the largest ethane consumers in the region. Under the previous supply contract with Pemex, we did not have full supply. It was like having an F1 car with only 70pc of its fuel — eventually, we would run out of supply before even completing the race. Now, thanks to this terminal, Braskem can import the ethane it needs from the US to ensure consistent operations. Of course, we will continue buying from Pemex whenever possible, as its ethane remains the most cost-effective solution. But with this infrastructure in place, we are no longer tied to a single supply source. When will the terminal begin operating at full capacity? We are currently in pre-operational stages, and commercial operations are expected to begin by late May. Then, the Braskem complex will enter its scheduled maintenance shutdown. Once it resumes in mid-July, we will begin transitioning to full utilization of the terminal. The facility is fully capable of covering up to 100pc of Braskem's demand. In fact, it was designed with a 25pc buffer — excess capacity that could support future expansions. The equipment is ready, and whether we go from 75pc to 100pc in 15 days or in a month will depend entirely on Braskem's operating strategy. What is going to happen with the ethane Pemex no longer uses? For now, I do not see Pemex's own complexes significantly increasing their consumption of ethane. It is not like they will double their intake overnight. At least during 2025, Pemex is still in the process of reactivating its own crackers, so that volume will remain available to Braskem. If Pemex eventually requires more supply, it has its own import terminal. Alternatively, it could request capacity from TQPM if needed. Also, Braskem has long-term contracts that allow flexibility in adjusting volumes. If there is unused ethane in a given month, we can resell it to other locations. That has always been part of our strategy. The Braskem group, through Braskem Trading and Shipping, has consistently found alternatives for any surplus. Do you foresee any regulatory or permitting issues under the new legal framework in Mexico? No. We already hold all relevant permits from the now-defunct energy regulator CRE, which are now under the authority of the new CNE. That means no additional permits are required for the terminal under the new framework. Furthermore, the open-access guidelines established by the CRE are still valid and will be used by the CNE to issue and manage permits. The only other authorizations we need are from customs, which have not hindered pre-operations. Historically, the CRE reviewed transportation tariffs every five years, and we expect the CNE will follow the same regulatory schedule. What is the outlook for Braskem's crackers in Brazil regarding a transition to ethane? In Brazil, Braskem currently operates four crackers — three based on naphtha and one, in Rio de Janeiro, on ethane. The company is studying a broader shift toward ethane to reduce dependence on naphtha. Shipments to Brazil would follow a similar model to what we are doing in Mexico, with contracts signed with US suppliers. Our Salvador Bahia plant already receives ethane occasionally, using vessels that take roughly 12 days to arrive. Mexico has a geographical advantage — just two days away from US ethane. What are the long-term plans for TQPM? Our immediate focus is stable operation and efficiency. Long term, the terminal is well located in the Interoceanic Corridor and could serve future industrial projects. We have space and docking infrastructure to add tanks for chemicals, ammonia or propane. Nothing is confirmed yet, but in 3–4 years we expect opportunities to emerge. By Édgar Sígler Send comments and request more information at [email protected] Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
