LONDON –
Peter Huntsman has warned he will close Huntsman Corporation’s Wilton aniline plant on Teesside if “today’s economics” persist for the next three months, placing one of Britain’s last major chemicals sites at immediate risk and heightening pressure on UK industrial policy and supply-chain resilience.
The threat, delivered by Peter Huntsman – son of the company founder Jon Huntsman – links the plant’s viability directly to elevated international gas prices and follows a wider retrenchment by the multinational across Europe. Huntsman said the recent jump in gas prices fuelled by the Iran conflict was “another nail in the coffin” for European heavy industry, and described the UK site’s economics as the most expensive in the company’s global footprint this week. The Wilton factory, which makes aniline, employs about 80 people on the Wilton International complex, a hub that once symbolised the UK’s large‑scale petrochemicals capacity.
Huntsman’s comments underscore a fragile operating environment for energy‑intensive manufacturers in the UK and the EU, where exposure to international gas markets and recent price spikes have compressed margins and prompted capacity reductions. They also sharpen questions over how far the UK’s current industrial energy support schemes and net zero transition policies can shield foundational sectors such as chemicals from global volatility.
If today’s economics were to stay in place for the next three months, I would shut down my [UK] facility and I’d be importing product from China or the United States,
The company’s UK position and recent cost dynamics
Huntsman described a rapid reversal in competitiveness: “Four years ago, my lowest cost aniline in the entire world came from the UK. That’s how recently I was competitive,” he said. “Right now, this week, it is the most expensive.”
The Wilton plant produces aniline, a feedstock used in products ranging from automotive seating and insulation foams to coatings and aircraft components. The site is a surviving remnant of Britain’s former chemical‑industrial base; Peter Huntsman led Huntsman’s acquisition of the industrial chemicals arm of a former UK chemical giant for £1.7bn in the late 1990s and became chief executive of the family business in 2000.
Huntsman Corporation, an American multinational that manufactures polyurethanes and other performance products for global brands, operates plants across the US, Europe, south‑east Asia and the Middle East. But, he said, “You’re not seeing this in China, America or the Middle East, surprisingly, where the war is. You’re seeing it in the EU and the UK, and they’re being hit the hardest.”
Key figures and recent corporate actions
- Wilton plant employment: about 80 people.
- Acquisition of the UK industrial chemicals arm: £1.7bn (transaction noted in company history).
- Workforce reductions: nearly 10% of Huntsman’s global workforce last year – about 500 jobs, with the largest share in Europe.
- Plant closures: seven facilities closed by the multinational, cited as due to high energy costs.
- Government intervention elsewhere in the sector: a £120m bailout in December to preserve an ethylene cracker at Grangemouth.
- Industry contraction: production output reportedly down 60% since 2021, with at least 25 site closures in the period cited by industry representatives.
Energy markets, policy fault lines and sector structure
Huntsman and other chemicals executives point to a combination of elevated gas prices and structural policy costs as drivers of closure risk. The company said that successive governments had not done enough to bring down industrial energy bills and described the situation as “self‑inflicted,” adding: “Failed energy policy has made UK industry less resilient. A crisis like this should not impact the chemical industry like this.”
The chemicals sector is energy‑intensive and closely linked to feedstock and utilities markets. In regions where feedstocks and energy are competitively priced, operators can sustain large, continuous processes; where prices spike or where firms face higher carbon or network charges, production economics deteriorate rapidly. The company noted it would consider importing product from lower‑cost regions if UK economics did not improve – a shift that would deepen the UK’s reliance on overseas supply for key intermediates.
Business groups say the UK’s exposure reflects not only wholesale gas prices but also the cumulative impact of carbon pricing, grid levies and environmental charges levied under the country’s climate and energy framework. Ministers have pointed to the Energy Bill Relief Scheme and its successors as evidence of action, but executives argue those measures have been time‑limited and insufficient to offset structural disadvantages against competitors in the US and Middle East.
Government response and regulatory context
A government spokesperson said ministers were meeting with industry and exploring “potential solutions,” and reiterated a policy focus on scaling clean homegrown power to reduce bills. The spokesperson said: “We know this is a tough time for our chemicals industry, who are paying the fossil fuel penalty. The best way to tackle this is getting on to clean homegrown power which we control, to bring down bills for good.”
Officials also stress that the UK’s statutory commitment to net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, set out in the Climate Change Act, is intended to drive long‑term investment in low‑carbon power that should ultimately lower costs for heavy industry. But the pace and sequencing of that transition – and the extent of targeted relief for sectors exposed to international trade – remain central points of tension between Whitehall and manufacturers.
The company’s comments sit alongside other high‑profile interventions: industry figures have already secured targeted support in recent months to keep critical crackers and petrochemical capacity operating. Executives in the sector have also cited rising carbon costs and what they describe as weak trade defence as contributing factors to competitiveness loss, contrasting UK and EU responses with more overt industrial support in the US and Asia.
Implications for supply chains and sovereign capability
Executives pointed to a loss of domestic capacity in several basic chemicals over the last decade, noting that the UK has lost domestic producers of ammonia and sulphuric acid – inputs with roles in fertiliser manufacture and in defence supply chains, respectively. That contraction has prompted concerns about sovereign capability in food production and defence manufacturing, and about the resilience of downstream industries such as automotive, construction and aerospace that depend on secure supplies of intermediates like aniline.
A closure at Wilton would not only affect the 80 direct employees but also contractors and logistics providers linked to the site, and could accelerate a shift towards imports from jurisdictions with different environmental and labour standards. Trade unions and local leaders in Teesside have previously warned that once high‑hazard chemical capacity is wound down, recreating it is slow, capital‑intensive and often commercially unattractive without explicit state backing.
Corporate governance and investment signals
Peter Huntsman said the company’s investment balance has shifted, with greater recent investment in China, the United States and the Middle East, and only one remaining asset in the UK: “We used to have more investment in the UK than we did in North America. It was a vital footprint to our company. And today we’re down to one asset left there,” he said. “I’ve laid off enough people in the UK that it is one of the greatest disappointments of my entire career.”
Huntsman also pointed to prior corporate restructuring: the multinational had cut nearly 10% of its global workforce last year and closed seven facilities, attributing decisions to unsustainable energy and operating costs. For investors, the potential closure at Wilton signals a further geographic reweighting of the group’s asset base away from Europe and towards markets with cheaper energy and, in some cases, more active industrial support.
Sector precedents and comparable actions
The warnings mirror those from other major chemicals groups with large UK operations, which have recently sought government support or made public statements about the economics of maintaining European capacity. One such high‑profile intervention involved a six‑figure government investment to preserve an ethylene cracker at Grangemouth, reflecting the state’s occasional backstop role for strategically significant petrochemical sites when closure would have cascading effects on regional economies and national supply chains.
Industry figures say these ad‑hoc rescues underscore the absence of a stable long‑term settlement for energy‑intensive users: companies must routinely seek bespoke support rather than operating within a predictable framework that allows them to plan multi‑decade investments with confidence.
Preserved newsletter embed
Corporate links and next steps
Huntsman Corporation’s public corporate materials outline its global footprint and product lines; the UK government identifies industrial energy and net‑zero policies as levers to lower bills and improve resilience. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is the lead department in forthcoming discussions over whether additional support or regulatory flexibilities can be deployed to keep Wilton viable in the short term, alongside any longer‑term reforms to energy pricing for heavy industry.
The immediate business status is that the Wilton aniline plant remains operational but faces a defined closure trigger if energy costs “stay in place for the next three months”; ministers say they are engaging with industry to consider options and interventions. For Teesside, and for the UK’s remaining base of high‑hazard chemical plants, the outcome will be read as a signal of whether government intends to defend existing assets or accept a further managed decline of domestic capacity.
Related reading
