Project Willow study to propose up to £13bn of investments in Grangemouth

A feasibility study exploring options for overhauling the Grangemouth refinery in Scotland is reportedly set to propose £3.8 billion of investments in low-carbon alternatives for the site over ten years.According to the Financial Times, which said it had seen documents related to the study’s contents, a best-case scenario could see the amount rise to almost £13bn. The feasibility study for the redevelopment of Grangemouth, known as Project Willow, is being carried out by EY and jointly funded by the UK and Scottish governments, at a cost of £1.5 million. A range of proposals for building a new long-term industry at the refinery site has been shortlisted as part of the study. The Project Willow report is expected to be published in the coming days. Scottish acting cabinet secretary for net zero and energy Gillian Martin said this week that it was undergoing final checks. In the meantime, the FT cited the documents it had seen as showing that nine industrial opportunities could be developed at the site over the next 20 years to create a low-carbon hub. According to the FT, the nearer-term projects being proposed as part of Willow will focus on recycling plastics and the production of biomethane from sewage and animal waste from 2028, and on turning paper waste into feedstocks for low-carbon chemicals from 2030. Beyond that, from 2032, proposals will include an £800m sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) and renewable diesel refinery and a £340m plan to process timber into advanced bioethanol. The longer-term proposals would require regulatory overhaul as well as higher levels of capital spending. This follows a separate report by Scottish television channel STV in February, which said the study would suggest around 400 jobs could be created at the Grangemouth site in the next five years, and up to 1,750 could be created by 2040. Global pressures Project Willow comes as Petroineos, a joint venture between Ineos and PetroChina, prepares to shut the Grangemouth refinery in the second quarter of this year amid global market pressures and intensifying competition from refiners elsewhere in the world. The upcoming shutdown is set to result in 400 job losses and has prompted the UK and Scottish governments to explore options for securing a long-term future for the site and supporting the workers that will lose their jobs. The two governments unveiled a joint investment plan for Grangemouth in September 2024. Most recently, in separate announcements made in February, the UK government and the Scottish government pledged to contribute an additional £200m and £25m respectively towards new developments at Grangemouth. The UK government’s portion will be paid via the National Wealth Fund and it is hoped that this contribution will also help to attract private sector investment. Meanwhile, the latest investment announced by the Scottish government will be drawn from ScotWind revenue and used to establish a Grangemouth Just Transition Fund. The Scottish government noted in its announcement that it had committed or already invested £87m in Grangemouth in total to date. If the best-case scenario laid out in the Project Willow study is to be realised, however, significantly more investment will be required. According to the FT, building eight of the projects would require £3.8bn, while the ‘growth case’ set out in the feasibility study will entail a further £3.45bn for additional capacity and the construction of an e-ammonia plant. Development of all nine proposals to their “full potential” would require £12.9bn of investment. “The key point is that all of this potential can only be unlocked by policy and regulatory changes,” the FT quoted a source briefed on the report as saying. “There also needs to be a custodian to manage the due diligence and financing of a broader master plan.” The source went on to say that the projects to be proposed in the study would already be taking place if they were currently commercial. This points to the scale of the challenge at hand. However, the source added that even three or four of the projects going ahead would be “transformational” for the Grangemouth site. Recommended for you Synergia says future government CCS Track funding is ‘in doubt’

According to the Financial Times, which said it had seen documents related to the study’s contents, a best-case scenario could see the amount rise to almost £13bn.

The feasibility study for the redevelopment of Grangemouth, known as Project Willow, is being carried out by EY and jointly funded by the UK and Scottish governments, at a cost of £1.5 million. A range of proposals for building a new long-term industry at the refinery site has been shortlisted as part of the study.

The Project Willow report is expected to be published in the coming days. Scottish acting cabinet secretary for net zero and energy Gillian Martin said this week that it was undergoing final checks. In the meantime, the FT cited the documents it had seen as showing that nine industrial opportunities could be developed at the site over the next 20 years to create a low-carbon hub.

According to the FT, the nearer-term projects being proposed as part of Willow will focus on recycling plastics and the production of biomethane from sewage and animal waste from 2028, and on turning paper waste into feedstocks for low-carbon chemicals from 2030.

Beyond that, from 2032, proposals will include an £800m sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) and renewable diesel refinery and a £340m plan to process timber into advanced bioethanol. The longer-term proposals would require regulatory overhaul as well as higher levels of capital spending.

This follows a separate report by Scottish television channel STV in February, which said the study would suggest around 400 jobs could be created at the Grangemouth site in the next five years, and up to 1,750 could be created by 2040.

Global pressures

Project Willow comes as Petroineos, a joint venture between Ineos and PetroChina, prepares to shut the Grangemouth refinery in the second quarter of this year amid global market pressures and intensifying competition from refiners elsewhere in the world.

The upcoming shutdown is set to result in 400 job losses and has prompted the UK and Scottish governments to explore options for securing a long-term future for the site and supporting the workers that will lose their jobs.

The two governments unveiled a joint investment plan for Grangemouth in September 2024. Most recently, in separate announcements made in February, the UK government and the Scottish government pledged to contribute an additional £200m and £25m respectively towards new developments at Grangemouth.

The UK government’s portion will be paid via the National Wealth Fund and it is hoped that this contribution will also help to attract private sector investment.

Meanwhile, the latest investment announced by the Scottish government will be drawn from ScotWind revenue and used to establish a Grangemouth Just Transition Fund. The Scottish government noted in its announcement that it had committed or already invested £87m in Grangemouth in total to date.

If the best-case scenario laid out in the Project Willow study is to be realised, however, significantly more investment will be required.

According to the FT, building eight of the projects would require £3.8bn, while the ‘growth case’ set out in the feasibility study will entail a further £3.45bn for additional capacity and the construction of an e-ammonia plant. Development of all nine proposals to their “full potential” would require £12.9bn of investment.

“The key point is that all of this potential can only be unlocked by policy and regulatory changes,” the FT quoted a source briefed on the report as saying. “There also needs to be a custodian to manage the due diligence and financing of a broader master plan.”

The source went on to say that the projects to be proposed in the study would already be taking place if they were currently commercial. This points to the scale of the challenge at hand. However, the source added that even three or four of the projects going ahead would be “transformational” for the Grangemouth site.

Recommended for you

Facilities at the UK's Isle of Grain LNG terminal, which will be used by Medway Hub Camelot CCS

Synergia says future government CCS Track funding is ‘in doubt’

Share the Post:

Unicoin CEO: Why Are We Still Under the SEC’s Gun?

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Unicoin CEO Alex Konanykhin said he’s asked the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to pull its investigation against the crypto operation and hasn’t yet received a response.

STORY CONTINUES BELOW

Unicoin represented a final shot against the industry from previous Chair Gary Gensler’s SEC, which informed the firm in an official notice late last year that the regulator intended to accuse it of fraud, deceptive practices and handling unregistered securities. The investigation was announced in the final days of President Joe Biden’s administration in December, before the SEC’s leadership was taken over by those selected by crypto fan President Donald Trump.
The CEO, who has watched a dozen other crypto companies let off the hook of their enforcement actions by the agency’s new management, told CoinDesk he wrote a March 17 letter to the agency’s new Crypto Task Force, asking about the investigation.

“I seek your guidance on the best way to address this abuse of power and bring it to an end,” Konanykhin wrote in the letter, a copy of which has been reviewed by CoinDesk. He requested the matter be terminated and that the conduct of the enforcement official involved with the case at the agency be reviewed, because of his “willingness to weaponize the SEC’s authority for political purposes.”
A spokesperson for the SEC declined to comment on Unicoin’s status on Wednesday. A Unicoin spokesperson told CoinDesk on Tuesday that the company “remains in the final stages of the SEC review process. As of now, we have not received any new updates or formal feedback from the SEC regarding our registration. We are fully committed to compliance and transparency, and we continue to work toward securing the necessary approvals for our planned offerings.”
The CEO believes his company, which suggests investors can see up to 8,000% returns, was targeted by agency harassment last year, he said in an interview with CoinDesk in Washington.
“They demanded from us to promise not to go public in the United States, not to ICO, not to raise funds,” he said. “So I packed my bags and moved to Europe to resume business.”
He said the election of Trump and the president’s promises to make the U.S. the global crypto capital made him come back to New York from Switzerland, with an intent to go public here.
“We thought the war was over, and we said to the SEC, ‘Hey, we’re resuming our activity,” Konanykhin said. At that point, the agency announced it intended to target the company with civil charges.

Konanykhin noted that the regulator had accused them of violating securities laws with an airdrop. Konanykhin argued that it’s a common marketing strategy seen in many crypto assets, and is “what the president of the United States is doing with his memecoin.”
“It’s embarrassing that the war on crypto still continues,” he said. If the agency continues its war on crypto by pursuing Unicoin, “I think so many observers are going to be astonished.”
Unicoin started as an effort to create a “more transparent and reliable alternative” to Bitcoin in the U.S. (which, the Unicoin website said, has returned 9 million percent to investors over the last 10 years). He said some analysts believe bitcoin was “created by Chinese intelligence, but nobody really knows by whom.”
“I’m elated by the opportunity to participate in making American the crypto capital of the planet as the president pledged he wants to do, even though it’s highly annoying to still have the legacy persecution from the SEC,” Konanykhin said.
Meanwhile, he said, “we are preparing actively for going public.”

Trading Giants Say They’ll Return to Russia If Sanctions End

The heads of some of the world’s top energy traders said they would be open to returning to Russia for business if sanctions were fully lifted, although some expressed caution about the prospect happening any time soon.

“If sanctions are eased in a way that we can go back in, why wouldn’t we? It’s our job,” Gunvor Group CEO Torbjörn Törnqvist said in an interview. “We don’t do anything today because we think even though there are some gray zones, we just don’t do it. But if these are removed, why wouldn’t we?”

Big western commodity traders had significant businesses in Russia before the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, through long-term deals with domestic producers and investments in key projects. The companies have spent the past three years pulling back from many of those contracts and partnerships, and largely stepped back from trading Russian oil and metals, as the US, Europe and UK targeted Russian exports, producers, traders, and banks with a growing web of sanctions.

The comments at the FT Commodities Global Summit in Switzerland show how the industry is thinking about the implications of Donald Trump’s efforts to end the war. On Tuesday, the US said Russia and Ukraine agreed to a ceasefire in the Black Sea, even as the Kremlin said its involvement would depend on a series of preconditions including sanctions relief.

“I think if the sanctions are lifted we would go back to Russia and see if we have a role to play in the commodities sector,” Mercuria Energy Group Ltd. CEO Marco Dunand said. “As a company we are bit more shy when it comes to sanctions, but if sanctions were lifted we would absolutely consider if we could bring value and go back.”

In markets from gas to aluminum, investors have been gaming out the possibility of a ramp up of Russian flows to Europe that could cause prices to drop sharply. But the trading house executives warned that both the process of reaching a peace deal, and the return of Russian commodities after that, could take longer than markets are anticipating.

Trafigura Group CEO Richard Holtum said his company’s large cohort of British employees would complicate a return if US sanctions were lifted while other restrictions remained.

“You would need to see a wholesale winding back of all the sanctions before it’s something that could even be considered,” he said.

Russell Hardy of Vitol Group said his firm’s activity was “obviously going to depend on the rules and regulations at the time,” but cautioned that the process of negotiating a ceasefire was “incredibly complex.”

“In reality we do think it’s going to be a year or two, so there isn’t any anxiousness inside of the organization about being ready or preparing for it,” he said. “But clearly I could be wrong and it could be quicker than anticipated.”