Viewing offline content

Limited functionality available

Dismiss
Deloitte South Africa
  • Services

    What's new

    • Deloitte Digital

    • Deloitte Africa Centre for Corporate Governance

      The Deloitte Africa Center for Corporate Governance offers a number of resources for executives, directors, and others who are active in governance.

    • Corporate Reporting Reform

      View our latest events on corporate reporting reform.

    • Audit & Assurance

      • Audit & Assurance Insights
      • Centre for Corporate Governance
    • Consulting

      • Strategy
      • Customer and Marketing
      • Core Business Operations
      • Human Capital
      • Enterprise Technology & Performance
      • Managed Services
      • Growth Platforms
    • Financial Advisory

      • Mergers & Acquisitions
      • Turnaround and Restructuring
      • Forensics
    • Risk Advisory

      • Internal Control & Assurance
      • Regulatory Risk
      • IT & Specialised Assurance
      • Cyber Risk
      • Analytics
    • Tax & Legal

      • Outsourced Tax Compliance
      • Tax Technology Consulting
      • Tax Advisory and Transactions
      • Mobility, Payroll, Immigration
      • Workforce, Analytics
      • Reward, Employment Tax
      • Legal Services
      • South African Budget
      • Tax News and Trends
    • Deloitte Private

  • Industries

    What's new

    • Deloitte perspectives

      Leadership perspectives from across the globe.

    • Future of Mobility

      Learn how this new reality is coming together and what it will mean for you and your industry.

    • Deloitte Africa Insights

      Access the latest thought leadership on industry insights, country reports and economic developments in Africa.

    • Consumer

      • Automotive
      • Consumer Products
      • Retail, Wholesale & Distribution
      • Transportation, Hospitality & Services
    • Energy & Resources

      • Energy & Chemicals
      • Mining & Metals
      • Power, Utilities & Renewables
      • Industrial Products & Construction
    • Financial Services

      • Insurance
      • Banking & Securities
      • Investment Management
      • Actuarial & Insurance Solutions
      • Real Estate
    • Life Sciences & Healthcare

      • Life Sciences
      • Health Care
      • The Africa Deloitte Health Equity Institute
    • Government and Public Services

      • Infrastructure, Transport & Regional Government
      • Central Government
      • Defence, Security & Justice
      • Health & Human Services
    • Technology, Media & Telecom

      • Technology
      • Media & Entertainment
      • Telecom, Media & Entertainment
      • Predictions
  • Insights

    Deloitte Insights

    What's new

    • Deloitte Insights Magazine

      Explore the latest issue now

    • Deloitte Insights app

      Go straight to smart with daily updates on your mobile device

    • Weekly economic update

      See what's happening this week and the impact on your business

    • Strategy

      • Business Strategy & Growth
      • Digital Transformation
      • Governance & Board
      • Innovation
      • Marketing & Sales
      • Private Enterprise
    • Economy & Society

      • Economy
      • Environmental, Social, & Governance
      • Health Equity
      • Trust
      • Mobility
    • Organization

      • Operations
      • Finance & Tax
      • Risk & Regulation
      • Supply Chain
      • Smart Manufacturing
    • People

      • Leadership
      • Talent & Work
      • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Technology

      • Data & Analytics
      • Emerging Technologies
      • Technology Management
    • Industries

      • Consumer
      • Energy, Resources, & Industrials
      • Financial Services
      • Government & Public Services
      • Life Sciences & Health Care
      • Technology, Media, & Telecommunications
    • Spotlight

      • Deloitte Insights Magazine
      • Press Room Podcasts
      • Weekly Economic Update
      • COVID-19
      • Resilience
      • Top 10 reading guide
  • Careers

    What's new

    • Job search

    • Experienced Hires

    • Executives

    • Students

    • Life at Deloitte

    • Alumni

  • ZA-EN Location: South Africa-English  
  • ZA-EN Location: South Africa-English  
    • Dashboard
    • Saved items
    • Content feed
    • Profile/Interests
    • Account settings
    • Subscriptions

Welcome back

Still not a member? Join My Deloitte

Riding the next wave of investments in the US petrochemical industry

by Mark Smith, Mike Whalen, Aijaz Hussain, Duane Dickson, Mark Pighini
  • Save for later
  • Download
  • Share
    • Share on Facebook
    • Share on Twitter
    • Share on Linkedin
    • Share by email
Deloitte Insights
  • Strategy
    Strategy
    Strategy
    • Business Strategy & Growth
    • Digital Transformation
    • Governance & Board
    • Innovation
    • Marketing & Sales
    • Private Enterprise
  • Economy & Society
    Economy & Society
    Economy & Society
    • Economy
    • Environmental, Social, & Governance
    • Health Equity
    • Trust
    • Mobility
  • Organization
    Organization
    Organization
    • Operations
    • Finance & Tax
    • Risk & Regulation
    • Supply Chain
    • Smart Manufacturing
  • People
    People
    People
    • Leadership
    • Talent & Work
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
  • Technology
    Technology
    Technology
    • Data & Analytics
    • Emerging Technologies
    • Technology Management
  • Industries
    Industries
    Industries
    • Consumer
    • Energy, Resources, & Industrials
    • Financial Services
    • Government & Public Services
    • Life Sciences & Health Care
    • Tech, Media, & Telecom
  • Spotlight
    Spotlight
    Spotlight
    • Deloitte Insights Magazine
    • Press Room Podcasts
    • Weekly Economic Update
    • COVID-19
    • Resilience
    • Top 10 reading guide
    • ZA-EN Location: South Africa-English  
      • Dashboard
      • Saved items
      • Content feed
      • Profile/Interests
      • Account settings
      • Subscriptions
    06 September 2018

    Riding the next wave of investments in the US petrochemical industry Learn from evidence to avoid a bumpy ride

    06 September 2018
    • Mark Smith United States
    • Mike Whalen United States
    • Aijaz Hussain United States
    • Duane Dickson United States
    • Mark Pighini United States
    • See more See more See less
      • Duane Dickson United States
      • Mark Pighini United States
    • Save for later
    • Download
    • Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on Linkedin
      • Share by email
    • Barriers to successful project completion and how to overcome them
    • Beyond traditional stage-gate reviews

    As the United States prepares for the next wave of petrochemical investments, companies must take steps to not repeat mistakes of the past, and overcome challenges that may lie ahead.

    The geographical focus of global investments in the petrochemical industry is going through a flux over the past few years. Earlier, the Middle East was the primary recipient of petrochemical investments. But preferable investment destinations have shifted over time, with the United States and China now receiving an increasing share.

    Learn More

    Subscribe to receive Oil & Gas sector updates

    In the initial wave of investments, the US base chemical capital spending increased to US$15.3 billion from US$12.2 billion between 2008 and 2016.1 Between 2010 and 2017, availability of low-cost shale gas resulted in an unprecedented petrochemical capacity creation and expansion, primarily along the US Gulf Coast (figure 1). The region is set to see a similar uptick in the near future.2

    Petrochemical project announcements in the United States (Cumulative, 2013–2017)

    According to a poll conducted by BIS Magazine in mid-2017, petrochemical executives agreed that a second wave of investments in the US petrochemical industry was imminent. At the same time, they agreed that its pace will likely be slower.3 Several uncertainties—including a narrowing oil-to-gas price spread, increasing exposure to key export markets, rising protectionism, and China’s emergence as a key producer and consumer of chemicals—could, however, obstruct these investments. Nonetheless, many executives are optimistic about the growth outlook.

    Having said this, there will still be challenges for many companies trying to execute capital projects based on investments received during this second wave. The challenges could be similar to those faced during the first wave or quite different, perhaps even unique. For instance, during the first wave, not only did companies wrestle with on-time project completion, but projects frequently went overbudget. The economics may seem to have stacked up favorably at the beginning, but many projects were not structured to adapt to rapidly changing market conditions. Challenges such as high labor cost, low labor productivity, overly prescriptive or complicated stage-gate processes, complex governance models, inefficient decision-making, and cultural and team misalignment also led to poor execution.4 As a result, only US$89 billion worth capital projects, less than 50 percent of the announced US$185 billion, were either completed or under construction by end-2017.5

    Outlook for petrochemical investments in other key regions

    Across the globe, future demand and capacity growth look promising, but capacity buildup delays could result in higher capacity utilization. Among base chemicals, ethylene and propylene demand growth is likely to remain high, with global base chemical capacity forecasted to increase by more than 118 million metric tons (MMT) through 2022. This additional capacity growth will likely be led by Asia Pacific (primarily China), North America, and the Middle East.6

    China is aggressively ramping up its base chemical capacity, with most of the additions relying on refinery-cracker complexes, followed by coal-to-olefins/methanol-to-olefins and propane dehydrogenation routes. A total of 6.9 MMT/year of ethylene capacity, along with about 5.0 MMT/ year of para-xylene (PX) capacity, is expected to enter China by 2021.7 Most of these capacity additions are driven by nonstate-owned enterprises (non-SOE), which are key producers of purified terephthalic acid/polyethylene terephthalate, and are short of key feedstocks (PX and monoethylene glycol). These upcoming new refinery-cracker complexes built by non-SOE players are aimed toward reducing fuel output and increasing petrochemical output. In another development, a multinational chemical giant has announced plans to build a wholly owned, integrated chemical complex in China, producing 1 MMT/year of ethylene, by 2026.8 Thus, given China’s increasing openness to foreign investments, both non-SOEs and multinational players are expected to build capacities in China.

    In Europe, capacity additions are limited at best, given the region’s feedstock disadvantage and mature demand end-markets. However, some major chemical companies are considering expanding their base chemical as well as polyolefin capacities in Europe. For instance, a private multinational chemical company is considering site locations for setting up its 750 kt/year propylene plant.9 Another major producer of base chemicals is doing a feasibility study to expand its polypropylene capacity in Europe.10 In a similar vein, Dow Chemical has announced the construction of 450 kt/year polyolefin plant.11

    The Middle East is no longer attracting as much petrochemical investments as before because investors see the United States and China as more favorable destinations.12 Nevertheless, base chemical capacity in the Middle East is still set to expand by 12 MMT during 2018–2022, with increasing reliance on mixed-feed crackers dependent on both natural gas liquids and naphtha.13 The key reason behind switching to mixed-feed crackers is to decrease the reliance on natural gas as a feedstock, to lower exposure to price fluctuations.

    Barriers to successful project completion and how to overcome them

    The first investment wave created a heated market for labor, equipment, and materials. With the second wave likely around the corner, companies and executives need to be prepared to identify the risks and appropriate hedging strategies, such as, using modularization to hedge against labor risk. In some cases, project contingency budgets and appropriate allowances for escalating costs may be in order. Evidently, about 50 percent of projects announced during the first wave failed to take off as planned. For petrochemical executives, there are lessons to be learned from this.

    We have analyzed several projects that were started on the back of investments made during the first wave, and identified six potential roadblocks to successful project completion, why they possibly happened, and what executives can do differently this time around. Recognizing these barriers and their implications will help company executives plan and implement strategies to avoid a similar outcome.

    Culture risk: Create a culture of openness and transparency

    Team alignment and cultural fit are often sidelined during stage-gate reviews. As a result, problems of culture persist, and can affect performance and even project viability during the life cycle of a project. Often, project culture becomes toxic and dysfunctional in the execution phase, and project executives often alert their chain-of-command when only minimal time is left to mitigate the risk and sometimes when it’s too late.

    Managing the cultural risks isn’t always easy because they are difficult to identify in the first place. Executives should focus on adopting a homogenous culture of communication right from the start of a project. A network-based culture focused on accurate alignment, cross-functional cohesion, and responsive people management can help create an ecosystem where individuals feel comfortable communicating project risks and issues. Routine culture assessments can go a long way in formally and informally addressing potential areas of risk in the reporting hierarchy.

    Most capital-intensive projects are inherently prone to unanticipated external pressures over their lifetime. Openness and transparency as the norm mean that as such pressures arise, are proactive in identifying risks and soliciting a broader source of ideas and solutions across teams and experience levels in the organization. Providing regular assurance from all project layers creates a culture where members seek to resolve issues, and management neither punishes those who voice concerns nor rewards those who conceal problems. Instead, this culture rewards those who share potentially bad news, preempt challenges, and work to find ways around them.

    Key considerations

    • Is the project culture conducive to executing a successful project?
    • Do project leaders feel comfortable reporting bad news to company executives?

    Case study

    An international energy company was developing a large-scale chemicals complex. The project was soon a year behind schedule and, in the rush to catch up, the project team went US$1 billion over budget. A quantitative analysis of the project team revealed a culture that managed for compliance, and not for results. Project levers were not balanced and the team was not clearly communicating their impact on the project timeline.14

    The role of leadership in inducing and maintaining a culture of openness and transparent communication cannot be emphasized more. A culture that encouraged such tenets without the fear of repercussion—arising from either raising concerns or going over hierarchical constraints—could have averted the negative outcome.

    Organizational misalignment: Design and define project incentives and responsibilities to drive the right behaviors

    Undefined roles and responsibilities between operations and project functions result in confusion over the authority of managers and create unacceptable risks. For example, as the project progresses from scope development to implementation, project managers are unable to predict the pipeline of available skilled employees across the organization. Meanwhile, leadership is largely unaware of the objectives and goals of leaders in other departments.

    It is important that leaders understand the risk of these blind spots and compensate where needed by referring to expert advice. A simplified reporting structure for operations and projects facilitates collaboration and increases efficiency—well-defined operating models, decision-making protocols, and delivery strategies ensure roles and responsibilities are clear among stakeholders, including the business, technical functions, and third parties. Within a project, investing in a capable owners’ team will position a project better for success. Projects with empowered and alert leaders have a better shot at success, owing to consistency of performance across the project life cycle.

    Static performance management metrics become outdated as the project evolves. Implementation of clear, consistent, and balanced metrics can not only lead to focused attention of project leaders to pertinent issues, but also help in identifying affordable trade-offs and removing incentive bias. Those tracking third-party performance and accountability should consider the difference in the incentives for contractors and the owner organization.

    Key considerations

    • Do you have the most appropriate operating model for each phase of the project to optimize team alignment?
    • Are incentives, priorities, objectives, and work practices designed to drive the desired behaviors?

    Case study

    A publicly traded, integrated oil and gas company sought to mitigate risk on a capital-investment project. It created an execution structure comprising third-party and internal resources. However, it failed to invest adequately in a capable owner’s team. A lack of clarity on the project’s operating model led to shared decision-making, which diluted the company’s ability to hold its third-party contractor accountable. Performance metrics focused on short-term compliance and did not adequately balance project levers, namely cost, schedule, and quality. Moreover, in an attempt to leverage the expertise of its leadership bench, the company rotated leaders. As a result, outcomes were difficult to manage.15This is a classic example of pitfalls of the failure to set up well-defined operating models, decision-making protocols, and delivery strategies.

    Static business case: Constantly revisit the original business case to challenge project assumptions

    During the first wave of investments, project economics was often favorable at the beginning. However, many projects were not designed to adapt to rapidly changing market conditions, and a cascade of unanticipated risks and delivery challenges followed.

    Companies must be prepared to continually revisit the original business case assumptions and economic models. Dynamic and robust models and key assumptions updates help reflect the changing marketplace and projected returns. Risk mitigation strategies should be nimble and implemented quickly and effectively in response to changing conditions. However, executives must also know the walkaway (regret) costs and be ready to discuss this difficult decision.

    Key considerations

    • How do you make capital-allocation decisions?
    • Do you have a robust and dynamic economic model?
    • What is the walkaway (regret) cost?

    Case study

    Two years after launching the construction of a US$1 billion plant, an international chemicals company announced indefinite postponement of the project, citing raw material price volatility, continued market deceleration, and declining profit margins.

    While companies often push past the final investment decision stage by adjusting estimates to make the economics look exciting, problems arise soon thereafter. This company, however, maintained a dynamic economic model with updated actual and forecasted costs, standing firmly on the target for the required rate of return and accurately measuring its walkaway cost. In the end, the company was able to accept the facts and flag the project as unviable, saving future costs. 16

    Unnecessary competition: Strike the right balance between project owner’s and contractor’s responsibilities

    On some petrochemical projects started on the back of investments received in the first wave, some owners recognized that they did not have the capacity or competency to execute a major project, so they extended their in-house team by retaining another engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) firm. While this is a common way for owners to supplement their in-house teams, sometimes the EPC that has been contracted to execute the project views the owner’s extended team as a competitor which can create tension and lack of transparency in sharing of information.

    Companies can allocate appropriate resources and guidance to contractors, but it is in their interest to retain project ownership, particularly when it comes to critical functions, such as project controls, processes, reporting, and risk management. This enables them to exercise appropriate oversight and controls, and have clarity about project performance at any time.

    Key considerations

    • Do you have a contracting strategy that suits your requirements?
    • Is the joint venture partner right for your project?
    • Are contractors’ roles and responsibilities clearly defined?
    • Are you retaining oversight and control of critical project-management functions?
    • Have you tried implementing digital technologies such as blockchain to secure data infrastructure?

    Case study

    A chemical producer recently deferred new-plant construction due to cost overruns of more than US$1 billion. The engineering, procurement, construction, and management contract transferred major program management responsibility to the contractor, including full responsibility for critical areas such as project controls, process ownership, progress reporting, and risk management and mitigation. While a transfer of responsibility to contractors is not unusual, in this case, the company saw it as a way to downsize project management and assurance functions. However, this restricted its ability to monitor the contractor, control project performance, and gain a direct insight into project issues as they developed. Meanwhile, the contractor did not adequately staff up to handle its responsibilities on the project until long after the project had started. A combination of these led to cost and time overruns.17

    Owners should retain an appropriate level of program management resources to monitor and control the project, even if they have transferred many responsibilities to the contractor. An additional layer of assurance provided by an independent third party can also provide valuable perspectives to hold both owner and contractor teams to account.

    Unorganized project governance: Streamline governance and reporting to ease decision-making

    Petrochemical investments and projects are typically expensive and complex, with total capital cost running in billions of dollars. Often, their project delivery structures resemble standalone company structures.

    Unorganized governance and project structures lead to overly complex governance comprising multiple layers and steering committees, thereby causing inefficiencies and slowing decision-making. Streamlining governance and implementing standardized reporting mechanisms, including integrated information and key performance indicators, facilitate fast, efficient, and transparent decision-making, thereby saving significant time and costs.

    Digital and exponential technologies can play a prominent role in this regard (table 1). Predictive analytics can help rationalize governance structure and reduce the reaction time to external shocks. Drones can help collect construction-related data, track project progress, monitor changes in weather, and screen health and safety parameters. By leveraging platform-as-a-service, companies can potentially reduce capital expenditure, improve cost efficiency, and enable rapid scalability to meet the changing demands of a project.18

    Key considerations

    • Do you have a fit-for-purpose governance structure?
    • Do the decision-makers have open and realistic discussions about project progress?
    • Are decisions made quickly, and are they followed up adequately to ensure their effectiveness?
    • Have you adopted digital and exponential technologies to facilitate accurate data capture and analysis?

    Case study

    An international energy and chemical company constructing a petrochemicals complex experienced a budget overrun of US$4 billion due to increased costs and schedule delays. Complex and inefficient governance and a lack of integrated project reporting between the owner and the EPC contractor were found to be contributing causes. Also, restricted information flow and complex reviews and approvals caused ineffective and slow decision-making by governing committees.19

    The company could have streamlined the complex governance structure which would have led to faster and efficient decision-making. This would have also simplified the roles and responsibilities of team members, and ensured efficient flow of information and issues that need to be addressed, between the owner and EPC contractor.

    Digital capital projects: Many leading companies are exploring ways to deliver better, faster, and cheaper projects through digital technology

    Inadequate project reviews: Have independent specialists review stage-gate readiness

    The stage-gate process provides a methodical, comprehensive procedure to review, approve, and drive projects through the major phases. But it can also create a “tunnel vision,” where a short-term view gets adopted. This perpetuates its own optimism, and reviews start to emphasize form over substance, ignoring critical risks (culture and team misalignment), and promoting bias (overly optimistic cost and time-to-delivery estimates).

    Detailed and regular stage-gate readiness reviews by an independent—preferably external— assurance function ensure business-case adherence by challenging original project assumptions and establishing risk treatment and execution plans for the remaining stages. The findings and actions from these assessments should be shared with executive leadership and discussed during steering committee meetings while assessing project performance and making key decisions.

     

    Key considerations

    • Do you have a fit-for-purpose project assurance function independently monitoring the project?
    • Are critical project elements, such as cost estimates, risks management, and stage-gate progression approvals, reviewed by third parties?

    Case study

    A project of a chemical producer had progressed from prefeasibility, through the final investment decision (FID), and into the execution phase when it started to become clear that the project was in trouble. There were multi-billion-dollar overruns and considerable schedule delays. A review revealed significant risk items that were shown as closed in the stage-gate review when in fact many of the risks had not been adequately mitigated. This, in addition to other issues, suggested that the review team was under pressure to close various open risk items prior to the project reaching FID.20

    The company could have potentially avoided this situation by contracting a third-party assurance provider with reporting lines to ensure adequate independence from the project team.

    Beyond traditional stage-gate reviews: What companies can do differently

    A critical step to avoid the costly mistakes of the past is to identify specific problem areas and take appropriate measures to manage them. This goes a step beyond the traditional stage-gate review process, where important problems and their root causes may be missed or overlooked, leaving new projects vulnerable to similar issues. This oversight is partly due to the reluctance of project teams to put failures on the record and as such a complete set of learnings from previous projects is not developed by the time the next project launches.

    An easy solution is a “lessons-learned framework” and process (figure 2). Companies can define terminologies, processes, and key performance indicators to improve the performance of future projects. Given that a lesson is only a possible solution to a problem, companies will do well if they test all such possible solutions through recommendations or corrective actions. The process should be part of formal project management procedures, and issues identified should be presented transparently to create an environment where the project team feels comfortable sharing its observations.

    Deloitte’s capital-project lessons-learned framework can be used to extrapolate lessons from one project to the next

    Abundant and cost advantaged feedstock supply have many US companies considering—if not starting—major investments. As with the first wave, which began in 2010, the temptation to take advantage of these favorable conditions is likely considerable. As the case studies illustrate, many projects planned in the first wave of investments encountered many challenges, some foreseeable, others not. Similar challenges await many companies and project managers alike in the second wave of projects. However, this time the stakeholders will be likely better positioned and prepared in their planning and execution efforts on the back of the learnings from the first wave.

    Authors

    Mark Smith is the US capital projects leader for Energy, Resources, and Industrials, and serves as managing director, Risk and Financial Advisory Practice, Deloitte Transactions and Business Analytics LLP. He is based out of New York.

    Mike Whalen serves as managing director, Risk and Financial Advisory practice, Deloitte Transactions and Business Analytics LLP. He is based out of Houston, Texas.

    Aijaz Hussain leads the Aerospace and Defense as well as the Chemicals and Specialty Materials sector research for Deloitte US, and serves as senior manager and subject matter expert, US Insights, Deloitte Services LP. He is based out of Dallas, Texas.

    Duane Dickson serves as a principal in Deloitte Consulting LLP’s Energy, Resources & Industrials group, as well as the US Oil, Gas & Chemicals sector leader. He is based out of Stamford, Connecticut.

    Mark Pighini serves as the global valuation and modeling service line leader for Financial Advisory, and the Oil, Gas & Chemicals sector leader for US Risk and Financial Advisory. He is based out of Atlanta, Georgia.

    Acknowledgments

    The authors would like to thank Nicholas Gartner of Deloitte LLP, Sandeepan Mondal of Deloitte Support Services India Private Limited, and Laura Szymanski of Deloitte Consulting LLP for their contributions to this article.

     

    Cover image by: Kotryna Zukauskaite

    Endnotes
      1. American Chemistry Council. View in article

      2. Politico, “In petrochemical industry, a second wave of growth brought by shale,” March 2018. View in article

      3. Heather Doyle, “PU: 90% of petrochemical players believe a second wave of investment is imminent,” BIC Magazine, June 30, 2017. View in article

      4. Deloitte analysis. View in article

      5. American Chemistry Council, “Notes on shale gas, manufacturing & the chemical industry,” June 2, 2017. View in article

      6. IHS Markit, Global base chemical markets outlook, presented at the World Petrochemical Conference (Houston, TX), March 2018. View in article

      7. IHS Markit, Renaissance of China's petrochemical industry, presented at the World Petrochemical Conference (Houston, TX), March 2018. View in article

      8. Michael Martina and Chen Aizhu , “U.S.-China trade row helped BASF land $10 billion Guangdong chemicals coup: Sources,” Reuters, July 11, 2018. View in article

      9. Alex Scott, “Ineos poised for major European expansion,” CE&N, June 19, 2017. View in article

      10. Borealis, “Borealis to study feasibility of a PP capacity increase in Europe,” press release, June 11, 2017. View in article

      11. Dow Chemical, “Dow announces next phase of comprehensive investments to deliver long-term competitive advantage and earnings growth,” press release, May 11, 2017. View in article

      12. Katherine Blunt, “Global petrochemicals growth shifts from Middle East to Gulf Coast,” Houston Chronicle, April 12, 2018. View in article

      13. IHS Markit, Global base chemical markets outlook. View in article

      14. Deloitte analysis. View in article

      15. Ibid. View in article

      16. Ibid. View in article

      17. Ibid. View in article

      18. Deloitte, Capital projects in the digital age: The capital project of the future, December 2016. View in article

      19. Deloitte analysis. View in article

      20. Ibid. View in article

    Show moreShow less

    Topics in this article

    Oil & Gas , Energy & Resources , Energy, Resources, & Industrials

    Deloitte Center for Energy Solutions

    Learn More

    Download Subscribe

    Related

    img Trending

    Interactive 3 days ago

    Mark Smith

    Mark Smith

    Advisory Managing Director | Deloitte LLP

    Mark Smith has provided construction and real estate advisory services for over 25 years, serving in a multitude of key management consulting positions around the globe. He is the US capital projects leader for Energy, Resources & Industrials. Smith is based out of New York and serves as managing director, Risk and Financial Advisory Practice, Deloitte Transactions and Business Analytics LLP.

    • markasmith@deloitte.com
    • +1 212 313 1942
    Mike Whalen

    Mike Whalen

    Advisory Managing Director | Deloitte LLP

    Mike Whalen has more than 29 years of experience assisting some of the most prestigious owners and engineering, procurement, and construction contractors improve the delivery of their mission-critical capital construction programs. Whalen has led engagement teams on numerous significant engagements around the globe. He is based out of Dallas, Texas and serves as managing director, Risk and Financial Advisory practice, Deloitte Transactions and Business Analytics LLP.

    • miwhalen@deloitte.com
    • +1 214 840 1461
    Aijaz Hussain

    Aijaz Hussain

    Aijaz Hussain is a research and insights leader with over 20 years of experience in thoughtware and business strategy. During his tenure at Deloitte, he led Deloitte’s chemicals and specialty materials research and major research campaigns (global executive and consumer surveys, etc.). Hussain has also authored several high-impact thought leadership pieces on business strategy, advanced technologies, digital transformation, and the future of mobility and work.

    • aijaz.hussain@gmail.com
    • +1 615 718 5515
    Duane Dickson

    Duane Dickson

    Principal | Deloitte Consulting LLP

    Duane Dickson has more than 38 years of business and consulting experience in senior leadership positions in major industrial and health care products companies. Dickson is based out of Stamford, Connecticut and serves as a principal in Deloitte Consulting LLP’s Energy, Resources & Industrials group, as well as vice chairman, US Oil, Gas & Chemicals sector leader, and the Global Chemicals & Specialty Materials Consulting leader.

    • rdickson@deloitte.com
    • +1 203 979 2300
    Mark Pighini

    Mark Pighini

    Global Valuation & Modeling Leader | Deloitte

    Mark Pighini has worked across many asset-intensive industries including Consumer & Industrial Products and Energy, Resources & Industrials, and has been instrumental in organizational deployment of capital through capex investments, and mergers and acquisitions. Pighini is based out of Atlanta, Georgia and serves as the global valuation and modeling service-line leader for Financial Advisory, and the Oil, Gas & Chemicals sector leader for US Risk and Financial Advisory.

    • mpighini@deloitte.com
    • + 1 404 307 6508

    Share article highlights

    See something interesting? Simply select text and choose how to share it:

    Email a customized link that shows your highlighted text.
    Copy a customized link that shows your highlighted text.
    Copy your highlighted text.

    Riding the next wave of investments in the US petrochemical industry has been saved

    Riding the next wave of investments in the US petrochemical industry has been removed

    An Article Titled Riding the next wave of investments in the US petrochemical industry already exists in Saved items

    Invalid special characters found 
    Forgot password

    To stay logged in, change your functional cookie settings.

    OR

    Social login not available on Microsoft Edge browser at this time.

    Connect Accounts

    Connect your social accounts

    This is the first time you have logged in with a social network.

    You have previously logged in with a different account. To link your accounts, please re-authenticate.

    Log in with an existing social network:

    To connect with your existing account, please enter your password:

    OR

    Log in with an existing site account:

    To connect with your existing account, please enter your password:

    Forgot password

    Subscribe

    to receive more business insights, analysis, and perspectives from Deloitte Insights
    ✓ Link copied to clipboard
    • Contact Us
    • Submit RFP
    • Media enquiries
    Follow Deloitte Insights:
    Global office directory Office locations
    ZA-EN Location: South Africa-English  
    About Deloitte
    • Home
    • Newsroom
    • Code of Conduct
    • Report unethical conduct
    • Office locator
    • Global Office Directory
    • Press releases
    • Submit RFP
    • Contact us
    • Deloitte Insights Blog
    • Social Media
    • About Deloitte in Malawi
    • About Deloitte in Zimbabwe
    • About Deloitte in Mozambique
    • About Deloitte in Botswana
    • About Deloitte in Zambia
    • https://sacoronavirus.co.za
    Services
    • Audit & Assurance
    • Consulting
    • Financial Advisory
    • Risk Advisory
    • Tax & Legal
    • Deloitte Private
    Industries
    • Consumer
    • Energy & Resources
    • Financial Services
    • Life Sciences & Healthcare
    • Government and Public Services
    • Technology, Media & Telecom
    Careers
    • Job search
    • Experienced Hires
    • Executives
    • Students
    • Life at Deloitte
    • Alumni
    • About Deloitte
    • Terms of use
    • Privacy
    • Cookies
    • PAIA Manual
    • About Deloitte Africa
    • Avature Privacy
    • Standard terms for the provision of goods and services to Deloitte & Touche

    © 2023. See Terms of Use for more information.

    Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, a UK private company limited by guarantee (“DTTL”), its network of member firms, and their related entities. DTTL and each of its member firms are legally separate and independent entities.  Please see www.deloitte.com/about for a detailed description of DTTL and its member firms.