Login

putnam6 · 05-17-2025, 12:10 PM

While the article is a little ambiguous, we all know Trump will rattle off numbers that aren't accurate either.

In the first paragraph, he says 50, but later on, it's referenced as 150.

Regardless, the base theory US has 15-20 top importing countries; the top 20 account for 77% of America's imports. So, for those remaining countries, we aren't looking at huge numbers, thus, the negative financial impact on the US should be small.

The theory continues that the smaller importing nations will pay part, if not all, of the tariffs just to continue shipping to the US. As long as these top 20 below get resolved quickly and on better terms than previously, it's a net win for the US obviously.

Mexico: $509.98 billion – 15.22%China: $462.00 billion – 13.79%
Canada: $421.00 billion – 12.57%
Germany: $160.44 billion – 4.79%
Japan: $148.21 billion – 4.43%
Vietnam: $136.56 billion – 4.08%
South Korea: $131.55 billion – 3.93%
Taiwan: $116.26 billion – 3.47%
India: $84.00 billion – 2.51%
Ireland: $82.00 billion – 2.45%
Italy: $73.00 billion – 2.18%
United Kingdom: $70.35 billion – 2.10%
Thailand: $60.20 billion – 1.80%
Netherlands: $55.50 billion – 1.66%
Switzerland: $38.50 billion – 1.15%
Malaysia: $24.80 billion – 0.74%
France: $16.40 billion – 0.49%
Indonesia: $17.90 billion – 0.53%
Austria: $13.10 billion – 0.39%
Sweden: $9.80 billion – 0.29%

It gets more interesting looking at which countries the US is a Top 5 Importer (Export Destination) in 2024. Out of the top 45, the US is the #1 top importer in 17 of these nations. Theoretically, those nations will eat the tariffs because they can afford to lose their largest market, and we will likely have more favorable terms than previously, with most of them depending on the urgent need for their imports.

For example, in Honduras, the US exports over 50% of thier imports (mostly coffee and apparel), confidence is high that America can negotiate a very favorable deal with them. Favorable terms are likely for any country that imports over 15%.
Depending on the export sector and importance

List of Countries and U.S. Share of Their Total Exports (2024)

Mexico: 78%
Canada: 77%
China: 16%
Germany: 9%
Japan: 20%
South Korea: 20%
Vietnam: 30%
Taiwan: 25%
Ireland: 40%
India: 20%
Italy: 10%
United Kingdom: 12%
Thailand: 20%
Netherlands: 7%
Switzerland: 10%
Brazil: 12%
Singapore: 8%
Hong Kong: 6%
Belgium: 6%
Philippines: 20%
Saudi Arabia: 7%
Russia: 5%
Israel: 25%
Chile: 20%
Colombia: 30%
Peru: 25%
Australia: 5%
South Africa: 10%
Norway: 8%
Argentina: 15%
Bangladesh: 20%
Turkey: 5%
Costa Rica: 40%
Honduras: 50%
Guatemala: 40%
Dominican Republic: 50%
Ecuador: 25%
Nigeria: 15%
Venezuela: 30%
Pakistan: 20%
Malaysia: 15%
Indonesia: 10%
Austria: 7%
Sweden: 6%
France: 5%

Countries Where the U.S. Is a Top 5 Importer (Export Destination) in 2024

Mexico
- Export Value to U.S.: $509.98 billion
- Percentage of Mexico’s Total Exports: ~78% (based on 2022 World Bank data, consistent with 2024 trends)
- U.S. Rank: 1st
- Note: Mexico’s exports to the U.S., primarily vehicles ($130.03 billion in 2023) and electronics, are driven by the USMCA trade agreement and proximity.
Canada
- Export Value to U.S.: $421.00 billion
- Percentage of Canada’s Total Exports: ~77% (based on 2022 World Bank data, stable for 2024)
- U.S. Rank: 1st
- Note: Key exports include mineral fuels ($131.90 billion in 2023) and vehicles, with strong ties via USMCA.
China
- Export Value to U.S.: $438.95 billion (average from sources citing $427.23–$462 billion)
- Percentage of China’s Total Exports: ~16% (based on 2022 World Bank data, adjusted for 2024)
- U.S. Rank: 1st or 2nd (competes with EU as a whole)
- Note: Major exports include electrical machinery ($126.67 billion in 2023) and consumer goods, despite tariffs.
Germany
- Export Value to U.S.: $160.44 billion
- Percentage of Germany’s Total Exports: ~9% (based on 2023 OEC data, stable for 2024)
- U.S. Rank: 1st
- Note: Exports include nuclear machinery ($34.59 billion in 2023) and vehicles, with the U.S. as Germany’s largest single-country market.
Japan
- Export Value to U.S.: $148.21 billion
- Percentage of Japan’s Total Exports: ~20% (based on 2023 OEC data, consistent for 2024)
- U.S. Rank: 1st
- Note: Vehicles ($50.80 billion in 2023) and machinery dominate, with the U.S. as a key market.
South Korea
- Export Value to U.S.: $131.55 billion
- Percentage of South Korea’s Total Exports: ~20% (based on 2023 OEC data, stable for 2024)
- U.S. Rank: 2nd (behind China)
- Note: Vehicles ($38.42 billion in 2023) and electronics are major exports.
Vietnam
- Export Value to U.S.: $136.56 billion
- Percentage of Vietnam’s Total Exports: ~30% (based on 2023 OEC data, adjusted for 2024 growth)
- U.S. Rank: 1st
- Note: Electronics and apparel are key, with the U.S. as Vietnam’s largest export market.
Taiwan
- Export Value to U.S.: $116.26 billion
- Percentage of Taiwan’s Total Exports: ~25% (based on 2023 OEC data, consistent for 2024)
- U.S. Rank: 2nd (behind China)
- Note: Semiconductors and electronics are primary exports.
Ireland
- Export Value to U.S.: $82.00 billion
- Percentage of Ireland’s Total Exports: ~40% (based on 2023 OEC data, stable for 2024)
- U.S. Rank: 1st
- Note: Pharmaceuticals and medical devices dominate, with the U.S. as the top market.
India
- Export Value to U.S.: $84.00 billion
- Percentage of India’s Total Exports: ~20% (based on 2023 OEC data, adjusted for 2024)
- U.S. Rank: 1st
- Note: IT services, textiles, and pharmaceuticals are key exports.
Italy
- Export Value to U.S.: $73.00 billion
- Percentage of Italy’s Total Exports: ~10% (based on 2023 OEC data, stable for 2024)
- U.S. Rank: 3rd (behind Germany and France)
- Note: Machinery and luxury goods are significant.
United Kingdom
- Export Value to U.S.: $70.35 billion
- Percentage of UK’s Total Exports: ~12% (based on 2023 OEC data, consistent for 2024)
- U.S. Rank: 2nd (behind EU)
- Note: Includes machinery and pharmaceuticals.
Thailand
- Export Value to U.S.: $60.20 billion
- Percentage of Thailand’s Total Exports: ~20% (based on 2023 OEC data, stable for 2024)
- U.S. Rank: 2nd (behind China)
- Note: Electronics and rubber products are key.
Netherlands
- Export Value to U.S.: $55.50 billion
- Percentage of Netherlands’ Total Exports: ~7% (based on 2023 OEC data, stable for 2024)
- U.S. Rank: 4th (behind Germany, Belgium, France)
- Note: Machinery and chemicals are significant.
Switzerland
- Export Value to U.S.: $38.50 billion
- Percentage of Switzerland’s Total Exports: ~10% (based on 2023 OEC data, consistent for 2024)
- U.S. Rank: 3rd (behind Germany, China)
- Note: Pharmaceuticals and precision instruments dominate.

Brazil

Export Value to U.S.: $36.50 billion
Percentage of Brazil’s Total Exports: ~12% (OEC 2023: U.S. ~11.5%)
U.S. Rank: 2nd (behind China)
Note: Soybeans, mineral fuels, and aircraft parts are key exports.

Singapore

Export Value to U.S.: $35.20 billion
Percentage of Singapore’s Total Exports: ~8% (OEC 2023: U.S. ~7.5%)
U.S. Rank: 4th (behind China, Hong Kong, Malaysia)
Note: Electronics and pharmaceuticals, with Singapore as a re-export hub.

Hong Kong

Export Value to U.S.: $30.10 billion
Percentage of Hong Kong’s Total Exports: ~6% (OEC 2023: U.S. ~5.8%)
U.S. Rank: 3rd (behind China, EU)
Note: Re-exports of electronics and jewelry.

Belgium

Export Value to U.S.: $28.40 billion
Percentage of Belgium’s Total Exports: ~6% (OEC 2023: U.S. ~5.5%)
U.S. Rank: 5th (behind Germany, France, Netherlands, UK)
Note: Chemicals and vehicles, often via EU trade networks.

Philippines

Export Value to U.S.: $25.60 billion
Percentage of Philippines’ Total Exports: ~20% (OEC 2023: U.S. ~19%)
U.S. Rank: 2nd (behind Japan)
Note: Electronics and coconut products.

Saudi Arabia

Export Value to U.S.: $24.30 billion
Percentage of Saudi Arabia’s Total Exports: ~7% (OEC 2023: U.S. ~6.5%)
U.S. Rank: 4th (behind China, India, Japan)
Note: Mineral fuels dominate.

Russia

Export Value to U.S.: $22.80 billion
Percentage of Russia’s Total Exports: ~5% (OEC 2023: U.S. ~4.8%)
U.S. Rank: 5th (behind China, India, Turkey, EU)
Note: Mineral fuels and metals, despite sanctions.

Israel

Export Value to U.S.: $21.50 billion
Percentage of Israel’s Total Exports: ~25% (OEC 2023: U.S. ~24%)
U.S. Rank: 1st
Note: Diamonds, pharmaceuticals, and tech.

Chile

Export Value to U.S.: $20.10 billion
Percentage of Chile’s Total Exports: ~20% (OEC 2023: U.S. ~19%)
U.S. Rank: 2nd (behind China)
Note: Copper and fruit exports.

Colombia

Export Value to U.S.: $18.90 billion
Percentage of Colombia’s Total Exports: ~30% (OEC 2023: U.S. ~29%)
U.S. Rank: 1st
Note: Mineral fuels and coffee.

Peru

Export Value to U.S.: $17.40 billion
Percentage of Peru’s Total Exports: ~25% (OEC 2023: U.S. ~24%)
U.S. Rank: 2nd (behind China)
Note: Minerals and agricultural products.

Australia

Export Value to U.S.: $16.80 billion
Percentage of Australia’s Total Exports: ~5% (OEC 2023: U.S. ~4.5%)
** کردمNote**: Meat and minerals, with China as the top destination.

South Africa

Export Value to U.S.: $15.70 billion
Percentage of South Africa’s Total Exports: ~10% (OEC 2023: U.S. ~9.5%)
U.S. Rank: 3rd (behind China, Germany)
Note: Precious metals and vehicles.

Norway

Export Value to U.S.: $14.50 billion
Percentage of Norway’s Total Exports: ~8% (OEC 2023: U.S. ~7.5%)
U.S. Rank: 5th (behind UK, Germany, Netherlands, France)
Note: Mineral fuels and fish.

Argentina

Export Value to U.S.: $13.80 billion
Percentage of Argentina’s Total Exports: ~15% (OEC 2023: U.S. ~14%)
U.S. Rank: 3rd (behind Brazil, China)
Note: Soybeans and meat.

Bangladesh

Export Value to U.S.: $12.90 billion
Percentage of Bangladesh’s Total Exports: ~20% (OEC 2023: U.S. ~19%)
-U.S. Rank: 2nd (behind EU)
Note: Apparel and textiles.

Turkey

Export Value to U.S.: $12.50 billion
Percentage of Turkey’s Total Exports: ~5% (OEC 2023: U.S. ~4.8%)
U.S. Rank: 5th (behind Germany, UK, Italy, France)
Note: Vehicles and textiles.

Costa Rica

Export Value to U.S.: $11.80 billion
Percentage of Costa Rica’s Total Exports: ~40% (OEC 2023: U.S. ~39%)
U.S. Rank: 1st
Note: Medical devices and bananas.

Honduras

Export Value to U.S.: $11.20 billion
Percentage of Honduras’ Total Exports: ~50% (OEC 2023: U.S. ~49%)
U.S. Rank: 1st
Note: Apparel and coffee.

Guatemala

Export Value to U.S.: $10.90 billion
Percentage of Guatemala’s Total Exports: ~40% (OEC 2023: U.S. ~39%)
U.S. Rank: 1st
Note: Apparel and agricultural products.

Dominican Republic

Export Value to U.S.: $10.50 billion
Percentage of Dominican Republic’s Total Exports: ~50% (OEC 2023: U.S. ~49%)
U.S. Rank: 1st
Note: Medical devices and tobacco.

Ecuador

Export Value to U.S.: $10.20 billion
Percentage of Ecuador’s Total Exports: ~25% (OEC 2023: U.S. ~24%)
U.S. Rank: 2nd (behind EU)
Note: Mineral fuels and bananas.

Nigeria

Export Value to U.S.: $9.80 billion
Percentage of Nigeria’s Total Exports: ~15% (OEC 2023: U.S. ~14%)
U.S. Rank: 3rd (behind India, Spain)
Note: Mineral fuels.

Venezuela

Export Value to U.S.: $9.50 billion
Percentage of Venezuela’s Total Exports: ~30% (OEC 2023: U.S. ~29%)
U.S. Rank: 1st
Note: Mineral fuels, despite sanctions.

Pakistan

Export Value to U.S.: $9.20 billion
Percentage of Pakistan’s Total Exports: ~20% (OEC 2023: U.S. ~19%)
U.S. Rank: 2nd (behind EU)
Note: Textiles and apparel.

Not to mention, this site suggests that container tariffs will be higher, but bulk dry grains and iron ore, and tanker tariffs could be lower, but I would have to research more
https://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/tar...e_vignette

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/16...s-00353370

Quote:By GISELLE RUHIYYIH EWING and DANIEL DESROCHERS
05/16/2025 10:25 AM EDT
Updated: 05/16/2025 01:47 PM EDT

President Donald Trump on Friday said the U.S. would begin unilaterally informing many of its trading partners of new tariff rates, acknowledging for the first time that his administration will be unable to negotiate deals to lower tariffs with more than 50 trading partners by a self-imposed early July deadline.After his sweeping April tariff plan sent markets spiraling and set in motion a global trade war, Trump reversed course and issued a 90-day pause on the new duties for every affected country except China, opening the door for individual countries to negotiate deals with his trade team.

But in remarks at a business roundtable in the United Arab Emirates, the final stop on a multi-day Middle East trip, Trump said that while “150 countries” were seeking to make deals with the U.S., it was “not possible to meet the number of people that want to see us.”

Instead, Trump said U.S. trading partners should expect individual letters from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick “at a certain point over the next two to three weeks,” in which they would be “telling people what they will be paying to do business in the United States.”The president did not specify which countries would receive letters telling them what they would pay and which countries would still have the opportunity to negotiate. Trump slapped roughly 60 trading partners with so-called reciprocal tariffs of up to 50 percent in April, while imposing a baseline 10 percent tariff on all foreign imports.
“President Trump is focused on reducing our historic trade deficit and leveling the playing field for American industries and workers,” said White House spokesman Kush Desai, who declined to share details about the new tariff plan. “Quick action on the President’s agenda is critical to restore American Greatness.”
One person familiar with the negotiations, granted anonymity to share private conversations, said there were simply “too many nations to negotiate with all at once.” The person indicated that the administration plans to impose a specific tariff level after July while other deals will be negotiated “in due course.”

The comment is the first time the president has publicly acknowledged that his goal of reaching trade agreements with dozens of countries over a three-month timeline was too ambitious. Even as the administration developed a strategy of focusing on about a dozen of the country’s top trading partners, Trump continued to insist that there would be quick deals.“We have four or five other deals coming immediately,” Trump promised last week. “We have many deals coming down the line, and ultimately we’re just signing the rest of them in.”
However, progress with important trading partners in Asia has begun to falter. While the administration indicated it was making significant progress with South Korea and Japan — two strategically important partners in countering China — negotiations with both countries have slowed.
Trump also touted a “fantastic trade deal” his administration reached with the United Kingdom earlier this month — the first of its kind since the launch of the administration’s aggressive tariff policy in April, which the president promised would usher in a string of agreements with U.S. trading partners. The U.K., however, did not face the higher reciprocal tariff, only the 10 percent baseline tariff as well as other sector-specific tariffs on autos, steel and aluminum.
But that agreement laid bare to other countries that the Trump administration intends to maintain a 10 percent baseline tariff — even on countries where it has a trade surplus. That has made major trading partners, like the European Union, more skeptical about what they may be able to get out of a trade deal with the U.S.
Trump also noted on Friday the progress his team has made in reaching a trade deal with China, which he said is “in the process of continuing to be formed,” adding that “they wanted to make that deal very badly.”

StoutBroux · 05-17-2025, 12:43 PM

At some level, NO, there is no negotiating. We aren't going to pay more than we should, bottom line. America trades with over 200 countries. The smaller trading partners, some with less than 300 million per year vs. our larger partners which we trade in the high billions of dollars range aren't equal in their need of special negotiations. It's pretty simple to put out a basic formula for goods and tariffs with America's import and export figures, with rates/ratios calculated in, especially in dealing with smaller parties. It's not like tariffs are a new thing. Good lord, America has been supporting the world for decades.

As time goes by, if someone wants to negotiate a different arrangement, I'm sure more attention will be given to that party's circumstances. But that's how big business works. And America is big business.

There are a great many things happening right now and will continue to happen within the Trump administration in making America great again. Unequal tariffs are just one - albeit a very large 'one' - issue that is wrong with this country. There are many more things to be anxious and concerned about than whether small trading partners like the deal or not.

putnam6 · 05-17-2025, 01:07 PM

(05-17-2025, 12:43 PM)StoutBroux Wrote: At some level, NO, there is no negotiating. We aren't going to pay more than we should, bottom line. America trades with over 200 countries. The smaller trading partners, some with less than 300 million per year vs. our larger partners which we trade in the high billions of dollars range aren't equal in their need of special negotiations. It's pretty simple to put out a basic formula for goods and tariffs with America's import and export figures, with rates/ratios calculated in, especially in dealing with smaller parties. It's not like tariffs are a new thing. Good lord, America has been supporting the world for decades.

As time goes by, if someone wants to negotiate a different arrangement, I'm sure more attention will be given to that party's circumstances. But that's how big business works. And America is big business.

There are a great many things happening right now and will continue to happen within the Trump administration in making America great again. Unequal tariffs are just one - albeit a very large 'one' - issue that is wrong with this country. There are many more things to be anxious and concerned about than whether small trading partners like the deal or not.

You said it better in 3 short paragraphs than I did in a page and a half using AI...

StoutBroux · 05-17-2025, 01:41 PM

IDELB2006 · 05-18-2025, 06:37 AM

This looks like an interesting development.

Reuters

Quote:China on Sunday announced anti-dumping duties as high as 74.9% on imports of POM copolymers, a type of engineering plastic, from the United States, the European Union, Japan and Taiwan.

The range Is from 4% for Taiwan to 74.9% for the US. My impression was that a deal on tariffs was being worked on.

China adding a 75% duty on some plastics comes across as an escalation. It will be interesting to see Trump's reaction, if any.

quintessentone · 05-18-2025, 08:13 AM

(05-18-2025, 06:37 AM)IDELB2006 Wrote: This looks like an interesting development.

Reuters

The range Is from 4% for Taiwan to 74.9% for the US. My impression was that a deal on tariffs was being worked on.

China adding a 75% duty on some plastics comes across as an escalation. It will be interesting to see Trump's reaction, if any.

Relating to Polyoxymethylene imports specifically:

AI: "In 2024, U.S. imports from China alone were $438.9 billion."

Trump has a lot of damage control to do, let's see if he can play nice with other countries that export this product to mitigate the damages China is inflicting.

putnam6 · This post was last modified: 05-18-2025, 10:36 AM by putnam6.

(05-18-2025, 06:37 AM)IDELB2006 Wrote: This looks like an interesting development.

Reuters

The range Is from 4% for Taiwan to 74.9% for the US. My impression was that a deal on tariffs was being worked on.

China adding a 75% duty on some plastics comes across as an escalation. It will be interesting to see Trump's reaction, if any.

Yes this sucks it's not a lot of money but it's vital in numerous industries. Like all of these tariffs and duties, they are negotiation tactics against other countries to keep them from sucking up to Uncle Sam too much. China is leveraging wider negotiations across other sectors, is my first guess. Most likely, we will have to give in another sector to get equitable terms in POM copolymers.

Then there's the hyper CT theory corporations are freaking out over stating impacts to maintain the statusquo and protect thier bottomline which might not be in America's best interest.

Apologies for the long reply...but this is a complex and pretty important subject that I don't know enough about

Grok thoughts

Based on 2024 figures, China’s 74.9% anti-dumping duties on US POM copolymers could cost the US economy $78-134 million annually, primarily from lost export revenue, reduced margins, and supply chain disruptions. For precise firm-level impacts, data from companies like DuPont or Celanese would be needed. Check sources like Reuters or ICIS for updated trade flow data.

Quote:China’s imposition of anti-dumping duties on POM (polyoxymethylene) copolymers from the US, EU, Japan, and Taiwan, announced on May 18, 2025, has significant implications for the US. These duties, reaching up to 74.9% for US imports, target a type of engineering plastic used in industries like automotive, electronics, and medical equipment. Here’s what this means for the US:
Economic and Trade Impacts
Increased Costs for US Exporters:
The 74.9% duty significantly raises the cost of US POM copolymers in the Chinese market, making them less competitive compared to domestic Chinese producers or imports from other countries with lower or no duties. This could lead to a sharp decline in US exports of POM copolymers to China, which imported around 3 billion yuan ($400 million) worth of these plastics from the targeted countries last year.

US companies like DuPont or Celanese, major producers of POM, may face reduced market share in China, one of the world’s largest markets for engineering plastics.

Supply Chain Disruptions:
POM copolymers are critical for manufacturing auto parts, electronics, and medical devices. With US exports to China becoming more expensive, Chinese manufacturers may source from alternative suppliers (e.g., domestic producers or competitors in Asia/Middle East), potentially disrupting established US supply chains.

US producers may need to redirect excess supply to other markets, which could depress prices globally and squeeze profit margins as they compete with other suppliers.

Retaliatory Trade Tensions:
The duties are seen as a response to US tariff hikes on Chinese goods, such as electric vehicles and semiconductors, initiated in 2024.

This escalation risks further tit-for-tat measures, potentially affecting other US industries. The US could respond with additional tariffs or sanctions, deepening the trade war and impacting broader economic relations.

Industry-Specific Effects
Automotive and Electronics Sectors:
US-based manufacturers of POM-dependent products (e.g., car components, circuit boards) that rely on exporting to China may face higher costs or reduced demand. If Chinese buyers switch to local or other foreign suppliers, US firms could lose contracts.

However, US domestic industries using POM may be less affected if they source locally, though global price fluctuations could still raise input costs.

Medical Equipment:
POM is used in medical devices like insulin pens and surgical tools. Increased costs or supply chain shifts could impact US exporters of these products to China, potentially affecting healthcare trade.

Broader Economic Consequences
Job and Revenue Losses:
Reduced exports to China could lead to lower revenues for US chemical and plastics companies, potentially resulting in layoffs or reduced investment in production facilities.

Small and medium-sized enterprises in the US plastics supply chain may be hit hardest, as they lack the resources to pivot to new markets quickly.

Global Market Realignment:
As US POM exports are priced out of China, competitors in regions like Southeast Asia or the Middle East may gain market share. This could weaken the US’s position in the global engineering plastics market over time.

US producers may need to invest in new markets (e.g., India, Latin America) or diversify product lines, requiring significant capital and time.

Potential US Responses
Trade Negotiations: The US could push for talks to reduce these duties, though success is uncertain given current tensions.

WTO Complaint: The US might challenge the duties at the World Trade Organization, arguing they violate trade rules, but resolution could take years.

Domestic Support: The US government could offer subsidies or tax breaks to affected industries to offset losses, though this would strain public budgets.

Further Tariffs: Retaliatory tariffs on Chinese goods could escalate the trade conflict, risking broader economic fallout.

Long-Term Implications
Decoupling Push: The duties reinforce trends toward decoupling the US and Chinese economies, encouraging US firms to reduce reliance on China’s market and supply chains.

Innovation and Alternatives: US companies may invest in alternative materials or recycling technologies to reduce dependence on POM or mitigate tariff impacts.

Geopolitical Strain: The trade spat exacerbates US-China rivalry, potentially spilling into other areas like technology or military cooperation.

In summary, the anti-dumping duties pose immediate challenges for US POM exporters, with ripple effects across related industries and the broader economy. The US faces higher costs, reduced market access, and intensified trade tensions, prompting a need for strategic pivots in both policy and industry practices. For the latest developments, checking sources like Reuters or Nikkei Asia could provide additional insights.

putnam6 · This post was last modified: 05-18-2025, 10:38 AM by putnam6.

Additionally, we could bypass China altogether if we ramped up domestic production, but can we do it cheaply enough? thats the Chinese flavored caveat

Quote:To assess whether polyoxymethylene (POM) copolymers can be produced in the US, the associated costs, and the timeline, I’ll leverage available data, including the provided web results, and make reasonable assumptions where specific information is lacking. The analysis will cover production feasibility, capital and operating costs, and the timeline for establishing a POM copolymer production facility in the US, with a focus on 2024-2025 economic conditions and trade dynamics influenced by China’s 74.9% anti-dumping duties on US POM imports.
1. Feasibility of Producing POM Copolymers in the US
Current Production Landscape:
The US already produces POM, with major players like DuPont (Delrin® homopolymer) and Celanese (Hostaform®/Celcon® copolymers) operating facilities. DuPont’s plant in Parkersburg, West Virginia, has been producing POM since 1960, and Celanese has a significant POM product portfolio.

North America accounted for 35% of the global POM market share in 2023, indicating a robust production base.

The US has the necessary infrastructure, including access to raw materials (formaldehyde, derived from methanol, and comonomers like dioxolane or ethylene oxide), skilled labor, and established chemical manufacturing ecosystems.

China’s 74.9% anti-dumping duties on US POM copolymers, effective May 2025, reduce the competitiveness of US exports to China, which imported ~$80-120 million of US POM in 2024. This creates an incentive to expand domestic production to serve the US market or redirect exports to other regions, offsetting losses in China.

Challenges:
Competition: Asia-Pacific, particularly China and South Korea, produces ~70% of global POM, benefiting from lower labor and raw material costs.

Raw Material Costs: Formaldehyde and methanol prices are volatile, with Q4 2024 seeing upward pressure due to rising crude oil prices.

Environmental Regulations: US production must comply with stringent EPA regulations, increasing compliance costs compared to some Asian producers.

Market Dynamics: Global POM demand is growing (projected CAGR of 4.5-6.17% to 2029), but bio-based alternatives and recycling initiatives could compete with virgin POM.

Opportunity:
The duties make importing POM into China cost-prohibitive, encouraging US producers to capture domestic demand (e.g., automotive, electronics, medical) and explore markets like India or Latin America.

Existing US expertise and infrastructure make scaling or building new POM copolymer plants feasible, especially for copolymers, which dominate due to better thermal stability and processability.

Conclusion: Producing POM copolymers in the US is highly feasible, leveraging existing expertise, infrastructure, and raw material availability. The duties provide a strategic push to expand domestic capacity to serve local and alternative export markets.
2. Production Costs
Estimating costs involves analyzing capital expenditure (CapEx) for a new plant, operating expenses (OpEx), and raw material costs. I’ll base this on a hypothetical US-based POM copolymer plant with a capacity of 85-110 kilo metric tons per annum (kta), as referenced in cost analyses for similar processes.

Capital Costs (CapEx)
Plant Construction:
A 110 kta POM plant in the US, using methanol and acetic anhydride to produce formaldehyde and then POM, has an estimated CapEx of ~$200-300 million, based on Intratec’s Q4 2024 data for a similar DuPont-like process.

Breakdown:
Inside Battery Limits (ISBL): $120-150 million (process units: partial oxidation, formaldehyde purification, polymerization).

Outside Battery Limits (OSBL): $50-70 million (infrastructure, utilities, storage).

Contingency and Owner’s Costs: $30-50 million.

Commissioning and Start-Up: $10-20 million.

Costs are higher in the US due to labor, land, and regulatory compliance compared to Asia (e.g., China’s plants cost ~20-30% less).

Land and Site Preparation: Assuming a greenfield site in an industrial hub (e.g., Gulf Coast), land and preparation add $5-10 million.

Total CapEx: $205-310 million, depending on location, scale, and technology.

Operating Costs (OpEx)
Variable Costs:
Raw Materials:
Methanol: Primary feedstock for formaldehyde. Q4 2024 US prices were ~$400-500/metric ton, driven by crude oil price increases.
Formaldehyde: Produced on-site via methanol oxidation. Costs ~$200-300/metric ton.

Comonomers (e.g., dioxolane): ~$1,000-1,500/metric ton, depending on market conditions.

For a 110 kta plant, annual raw material costs are ~$50-70 million, assuming 1.2-1.5 tons of methanol/formaldehyde per ton of POM.

Utilities: Electricity, steam, and water for polymerization and extrusion. Estimated at $5-10 million/year for a 110 kta plant.

By-Products Credits: Minimal, as POM production generates little salable by-products.

Fixed Costs:
Labor: 50-100 skilled workers (engineers, operators) at US chemical industry wages (~$80,000/year average). Annual labor cost: $4-8 million.

Maintenance: 3-5% of CapEx annually, or $6-15 million.

Depreciation: Assuming a 20-year plant life, ~$10-15 million/year.

Overhead and Insurance: $3-5 million/year.

Total OpEx: $78-103 million/year for a 110 kta plant, or ~$710-940/metric ton of POM produced.

Market Price and Profitability
POM Price: In Q2 2024, US POM prices reached $3,060/metric ton.

Production Cost per Ton: ~$710-940/metric ton (OpEx only, excluding CapEx amortization).

Gross Margin: $2,120-2,350/metric ton, or $233-258 million/year for 110 kta, before CapEx amortization and taxes.

Break-Even Period: Assuming $250 million CapEx and $200 million annual gross profit, the plant could break even in ~1.5-2 years, excluding financing costs.

Cost Sensitivities
Feedstock Volatility: A 10% rise in methanol prices increases OpEx by ~$5-7 million/year.

Energy Costs: US electricity and natural gas prices are competitive but could rise with inflation or policy changes.

Scale: A smaller 50 kta plant reduces CapEx to ~$120-180 million but increases per-ton OpEx due to economies of scale.

3. Timeline for Production
Building a new POM copolymer plant or expanding an existing one involves several phases. Below is a realistic timeline based on chemical industry norms:
Planning and Feasibility (6-12 months):
Conduct market analysis, site selection (e.g., Texas or Louisiana for proximity to methanol supply), and feasibility studies.

Secure financing ($205-310 million, likely a mix of equity, loans, or government incentives).

Timeline: Q3 2025 – Q2 2026.

Permitting and Regulatory Approvals (6-12 months):
Obtain EPA, OSHA, and state environmental permits. US regulations are stringent, requiring air emissions and waste management plans.

Timeline: Q3 2025 – Q3 2026 (overlaps with planning).

Engineering and Procurement (12-18 months):
Design process units (oxidation, polymerization, extrusion) and procure equipment (reactors, extruders).

Engage contractors for ISBL/OSBL construction.

Timeline: Q1 2026 – Q3 2027.

Construction (18-24 months):
Build process units, infrastructure, and utilities. A 110 kta plant requires ~100-150 acres.

Timeline: Q3 2026 – Q3 2028.

Commissioning and Start-Up (6-9 months):
Test equipment, train staff, and ramp up to full capacity.

Timeline: Q4 2028 – Q2 2029.

Total Timeline: 3.5-4.5 years (mid-2025 to early 2029) for a new plant. Expanding an existing facility (e.g., at DuPont or Celanese) could reduce this to 2-3 years by leveraging existing infrastructure, permits, and expertise.
4. Strategic Considerations
Existing Capacity: Expanding DuPont or Celanese plants is faster and cheaper than building anew. For example, adding 50 kta capacity to an existing site might cost $80-120 million and take 2 years.

Market Diversification: With China’s market less accessible, US producers should target domestic demand (e.g., automotive, projected to grow at 4.5% CAGR) and emerging markets like India, where industrialization is driving POM demand.

Technology: Copolymer production (using trioxane and dioxolane) is preferred over homopolymer due to better thermal stability and market demand.

Sustainability: Investing in POM recycling or bio-based POM could mitigate future regulatory and market risks.

5. Conclusion
Feasibility: POM copolymers can be produced in the US, leveraging existing expertise and infrastructure. China’s duties make domestic production more attractive to serve local and alternative markets.

Cost:
CapEx: $205-310 million for a 110 kta plant.

OpEx: $78-103 million/year (~$710-940/metric ton).

Profitability: High margins ($2,120-2,350/ton) suggest a 1.5-2 year break-even period.

Timeline: 3.5-4.5 years for a new plant, 2-3 years for expansion.

Recommendation: Partner with existing producers (e.g., Celanese) to expand capacity, reducing costs and timeline, and focus on domestic and non-Chinese export markets to offset the impact of duties.

For further details, consult industry reports from Intratec or MarketsandMarkets, or contact US producers like Celanese for partnership opportunities.

quintessentone · 05-18-2025, 06:32 PM

(05-18-2025, 10:26 AM)putnam6 Wrote: Yes this sucks it's not a lot of money but it's vital in numerous industries. Like all of these tariffs and duties, they are negotiation tactics against other countries to keep them from sucking up to Uncle Sam too much. China is leveraging wider negotiations across other sectors, is my first guess. Most likely, we will have to give in another sector to get equitable terms in POM copolymers.

Then there's the hyper CT theory corporations are freaking out over stating impacts to maintain the statusquo and protect thier bottomline which might not be in America's best interest.

Apologies for the long reply...but this is a complex and pretty important subject that I don't know enough about

Grok thoughts

Based on 2024 figures, China’s 74.9% anti-dumping duties on US POM copolymers could cost the US economy $78-134 million annually, primarily from lost export revenue, reduced margins, and supply chain disruptions. For precise firm-level impacts, data from companies like DuPont or Celanese would be needed. Check sources like Reuters or ICIS for updated trade flow data.

You are not adding and subtracting...but sure, let's be not woke.

putnam6 · This post was last modified: 05-19-2025, 07:14 AM by putnam6.

(05-18-2025, 06:32 PM)quintessentone Wrote: You are not adding and subtracting...but sure, let's be not woke.

So, nothing of substance to add to the thread,

Show me your adding and subtracting? that awakened you

It is approximately 400 million in 2024 #1 and #2, it's only catastrophic if it lasts over 60-90 days, where am I wrong exactly?

And again, let's not forget the Chinese tariffs, if left for a full 12 months, would be 900-1200 bucks extra a year.

LOL Im saving that on lower gas prices already, 28 bucks a fill up, twice a week

Hey, look, there are some maths

Furthermore, China lowering tariffs to 10% is better than the 20% America paid all last year

SVB Ventures

@SVB_Ventures
·
3m
@SVB_VenturesThe United States and China have reached a temporary 90-day agreement to reduce tariffs on each other’s goods, with the U.S. cutting tariffs from 145% to 30% and China lowering them from 125% to 10%. This move aims to ease prolonged trade tensions between the world’s two largest economies, improve economic relations, and strengthen global supply chains. The tariff cuts are expected to help curb inflation and boost bilateral trade, though the agreement remains temporary amid ongoing uncertainties. Following the announcement, Bitcoin surged above $105,000, reflecting investor optimism about reduced geopolitical and trade risks.