Analys
Going green? The unexpected investments helping to reduce vehicle emissions

Globally about 15% of the world’s Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions come from the transportation sector. Despite improving fuel efficiency in cars over the past seven decades, the fact that more people in the world use cars means that global emissions from the transport sector continue to rise. However, pollution abatement equipment can help reduce emissions from cars. Autocatalysts are a key technology in this regard.
Platinum and palladium in autocatalysts

An autocatalyst is a device installed in internal combustion engine cars that converts harmful pollutants into safer gases. Platinum group metals (PGM) including platinum, palladium and rhodium are key ingredients in the autocatalysts that generate this chemical conversion. Autocatalysts were first introduced in the mid-1970s and today, are used in almost all internal combustion engine vehicles (including hybrid vehicles). In addition, fuel cell vehicles also use platinum (not palladium or rhodium) as the main catalyst in the reactions to produce electricity and water from hydrogen fuel and water.
How important are autocatalysts for PGM demand?
In 2019, automobiles accounted for 34% of platinum demand and 84% of palladium demand. So, the auto industry is the key driver of demand for both platinum and palladium.
Vehicle sales versus regulation
Tightening emission regulations generally increases the demand for the platinum group metals. Demand for platinum group metals will also vary with the volume of vehicle sales. Historically it has been emission regulation that has had a greater influence on demand. According to World Platinum Investment Council’s calculations, global vehicle sales between 1990 and 2019 rose by 1.6 times whereas the combined demand for platinum, palladium and rhodium in cars rose by 6.2 times. The fact that the rise in automobile platinum group metal demand was more than the increase in car sales indicates that higher loadings have been the chief driver of demand growth. Emission regulations are continuing to tighten globally for both passenger and commercial vehicles.
Gasoline vs. diesel cars
Today, there are higher loadings of palladium in gasoline autocatalysts and higher loadings of platinum in diesel autocatalysts. However, both autocatalysts carry some loadings of each metal. The catalytic efficiency of each metal is influenced by engine temperature, fuel type, all fuel quality and durability of the autocatalyst’s washcoat. Diesel engines operate at lower temperatures than gasoline engines and run with a leaner gas stream containing lots of oxygen. Under these conditions, platinum is a more active catalyst for the conversion of carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrocarbons (HC) to harmless emissions. However, the addition of some palladium to the platinum catalyst can improve its thermal stability. This is an advantage when reducing diesel particulate matter from the exhaust. This process involves trapping the particulate matter in a filter and then raising the temperature of the system to oxidise the matter to CO2. At these higher temperatures, palladium improves the thermal durability of the catalyst, helping it perform optimally for the lifetime of the vehicle.
Diesel cars falling out of favour
Europe is the largest diesel passenger car market in the world. In most of the rest of the world, gasoline cars dominate. However, even in Europe, diesel cars have fallen out of favour following ‘Dieselgate’ and tightening particulate emissions standards across Europe, where diesel cars do not perform as well as their gasoline equivalents (see figure 01 below).

Platinum versus palladium price
In 2010, platinum used to trade close to 3 times the price of palladium. Dieselgate accelerated the trend of rising palladium relative to platinum prices. Today, platinum trades below half the price of palladium. Palladium’s growing demand and tightening supply have been a boon for prices (see figure 02 below).

Economical to substitute?
With such a wide price differential between platinum and palladium, it’s a natural question to ask if platinum can be substituted for palladium? Industry experts including Johnson Matthey, believe there is some limited scope for substitution. Not necessarily in gasoline cars but more in terms of substituting out palladium in diesel cars with higher loadings of platinum. However, auto manufacturers are notoriously secretive about their technologies which makes it difficult to comment on what scale this will occur. In addition, it is rumoured that auto manufacturers are using their scarce engineers to develop electric vehicles and so auto manufacturers are averse to divert them to PGM substitution projects.
Trucking industry
While globally more passenger cars use gasoline than diesel, trucks generally use more diesel. Emission standards for trucks are tightening. Notably in India the government has tightened regulations to broadly match European standards in 20205. China will implement similar standards phased between 2021 and 2023. This is likely to be a strong catalyst for platinum demand.
Car sales in COVID-19 era
Passenger car sales had fallen hard during the COVID-19 pandemic, but as lockdown conditions ease, car sales appear to be rebounding strongly in China, Europe, and US (see figure 03 below). China and US are predominantly gasoline markets so the rebound in sales there mainly helps boost palladium prices. The rebound in European car sales should also help platinum prices.

The concentration in supply
Supply in both platinum and palladium is highly concentrated. South Africa accounts for nearly 70% of platinum’s global supply while South Africa and Russia collectively provide around 70% of palladium supply globally. While platinum is expected to be in a slight supply surplus this year, palladium continues to be in an acute supply deficit with demand continuing to grow and supply relatively stable.
Conclusions
Both platinum and palladium are important materials for pollution abatement technology in cars. Platinum, which has been heavily utilised in diesel passenger cars, has fallen out of favour in recent years. However, with tightening regulations for commercial vehicles globally we are likely to see that demand rise. Palladium, which has seen growing demand and is in a supply deficit is likely to see constructive fundamentals for years to come.
Analys
Selling down on a ”deal”
Selling down on a ”deal”. Brent crude fell 6.2% last week with accelerated weakness towards the end of the week. Close of the week at $87.33/b and low of the week (and on Friday) of $85.8/b. Brent is falling another 4% this morning to $83.7/b on confirmation by Iran that a MoU text has been reached and that it will be signed on Friday this week.

So what is this ”deal” worth? Talk on the desk here this morning is that it is much like ”putting lipstick on a pig” where Trump has to sell this at home as a victory where ”the SoH has reopened”, the nuclear issue will be ironed out over the coming 60 days (or maybe 600 days?) and US consumers are getting a lower gasoline price and maybe US republicans survives the midterm elections.
The importance for Iran is that it emerges as the defacto winner of this war in the eyes of the non-US public world. That Iran now onwards is the ”ruler of the SoH” (combo of geography and new weapons systems like drones) or more softer: ”the guarantor of safe passage through the SoH”.
Iran doesn’t need nuclear weapons any more. Nuclear deterrence doesn’t work any more. Ukraine has made many attacks deep into Russia without being nuked in return. Plenty of Iranian ballistic rockets blasts over Israel but Iran wasn’t nuked in return.
There is no trust between the US and Iran. We don’t know all the details yet of the MoU. But what we do know is that there is no trust between the US and Iran what so ever. This is probably more like a descriptive text on how they can cooperate in a way where both sides keeps tactical leverage. Neither side makes irreversible concessions. Violations can be punished quickly. Cooperation produces immediate benefits.
This is a fragile structure. It can easily break down. There may be details which cannot be overcome. To be seen on Friday. The US has to show that it is willing put enough force behind managing and restraining Israel versus Hezbollah in Lebanon. We have seen that Netanyahu hasn’t listened all that much to Trump’s directives and wishes. This could be a major obstacle.
A gradual reopening is tactically preferable for Iran. A tactical leverage for Iran right now is that global oil stocks have been drawn down towards painful and increasingly dangerous levels with increasing risks for oil price spikes in mid-July to August. This together with US midterm elections on 3 November gives tactical leverage to Iran. Iran probably doesn’t want to fully give up on that leverage. A rapid, full reopening where global stocks are able to refill over the coming 60 days will significantly erode that leverage. If Iran reinstates a closure of the SoH after 60 days (if talks break down again), then the effect won’t be that impactful in terms of prices and the US midterm elections.
So a gradual and partial reopening where global markets gets the oil they need while they are unable to rebuild stocks could be a practical middle way for both parties. Trump can sell it as ”the SoH has reopened” and get affordable gasoline for US consumers. Iran can sell it as ”the SoH has fully reopened, but there is some friction” so flow is only 60-80% of normal.
Not much real demand destruction below $100/b. What we do know is that there is not much real price pain demand destruction for oil globally at an oil price below $100/b. A lot of demand-shock destruction. Fear. But demand should now come roaring back towards normal with fear for exceptionally high prices now is rapidly receding.
Sudden China demand destruction due to EVs? Bullocks. EV share of total Chinese carpool now around 13%. Share of new sales of EVs has reached 50%. This is a very gradual process. It doesn’t make oil demand fall like a rock over night. When EV new sales share reaches 100%, then the gasoline car pool will contract by some 5-10% per year. But that is only gasoline. Sudden reduction in Chinese oil demand is more about shock and risk.
Chinese crude oil imports will come roaring back. At what price? Today’s ”neutral” oil price is $70/b. That is the five year price which has steadily traded around the $70/b mark over the past 3-4 years. With still a risky picture one would think that China and the rest of the world will be big buyers of oil in the range of $70-85/b.
Global demand will likely snap back towards normal, forecasted demand and growth at such prices.
Physical reopening is a gradual process. The physical and practical reopening of the SoH will likely be gradual rather than sudden. And that probably suites Iran tactically as well.
Brent M1 price versus the Brent 5-yr (today’s ”normal” price)

Analys
Oil product price pain is set to rise as the Strait of Hormuz stays closed into summer
Market is starting to take US/Iran headlines with a pinch of salt. Brent crude rose $2.8/b yesterday to an official close of $112.1/b. But after that it traded as low as $108.05/b before ending late night at around $109.7/b. Through the day it traded in a range of $106.87 – 112.72/b amid a flurry of news or rumors from Iran and the US. ”US temporary sanctions during negotiations” (falls alarm). ”We will bomb Iran” (not anyhow),… etc. While the market is still fluctuating to this kind of news flow, it is starting to take such headlines with a pinch of salt.

We’ll see. Maybe, maybe not. The Brent M1 contract is trading at $110.2/b this morning which very close to the average ticks through yesterday of $110.4/b.
Trump with bearish, verbal intervention whenever Brent trades above $110/b it seems. What seems to be a pattern is that Trump states something like ”very good negotiations going on with Iran”, ”New leaders in Iran are great,..”, ”Great progress in negotiations,…”, ”Deal in sight,..” etc whenever the Brent M1 contract trades above $110/b. An effort to cool the market. These hot air verbal interventions from Trump used to have a heavy bearish impact on prices, but they now seems to have less and less effect unless they are backed by reality.
As far as we can see there has been no real progress in the negotiations between the US and Iran with both sides still standing by their previous demands.
Iran is getting stronger while the cease fire lasts making a return to war for Trump yet harder. Iran is naturally in constant preparation for a return to war given Trump’s steady threats of bombing Iran again. Iran is naturally doing what ever is possible to prepare for a return to war. And every day the cease fire lasts it is better prepared. This naturally makes it more and more difficult and dangerous for the US to return to warring activity versus Iran as the consequences for energy infrastructure in the Persian Gulf will be more and more severe the longer the cease fire lasts. Israel seems to see it this way as well. That the war is not won and that current frozen state of a cease fire gives Iran opportunity to rebuild military and politically.
Global inventories are drawing down day by day. How much? In the meantime the Strait of Hormuz stays closed. There is varying measures and estimates of how much global inventories are drawing down. Our rough estimate, back of the envelope, is that global inventories are drawing down by at least some 10 mb/d or about 300 mb/d in a balance between loss of supply versus demand destruction. Other estimates we see are a monthly draw of 250-270 mb/d. The IEA only ’measured’ a draw in global observable stocks of 117 mb in April with oil on water rising 53 mb while on shore stocks fell 170 mb. But global stocks are hard to measure with large invisible, unmeasured stocks. As such a back of the envelope approach may be better.
Oil products is what the world is consuming. Oil product prices likely to rise while product stocks fall. Strategic Petroleum Reserves (SPR) are predominantly crude oil. Discharging oil from OECD SPR stocks, a sharp reduction in Chinese crude imports and a reduction in global refinery throughput of 6-7 mb/d has helped to keep crude oil markets satisfactorily supplied. But global inventories are drawing down none the less. And oil products is really what the world is consuming. So if global refinery throughput stays subdued, then demand will eventually have to match the supply of oil products. The likely path forward this summer is a steady draw down in jet fuel, diesel and gasoline. Higher prices for these. Then, if possible, higher refinery throughput and higher usage of crude in response to very profitable refinery margins. And lastly sharper draw in crude stocks and higher prices for these. But some 6 mb/d of oil products used to be exported through the Strait of Hormuz. And it may not be so easy to ramp up refinery activity across the world to compensate. Especially as Ukraine continues to damage Russian refineries as well as Russian crude production and export facilities.
Watch oil product stocks and prices as well as Brent calendar 2027. What to watch for this summer is thus oil product inventories falling and oil product premiums to crude rising. Another measure to watch is the Brent crude 2027 contract as it rises steadily day by day as the Strait of Hormuz stays closed and global oil inventories decline. The latter is close to the highest level since the start of the war and keeps rising.
The Brent M1 contract and the Brent 2027 prices and current price of jet fuel in Europe (ARA). All in USD/b

Our back of the envelope calculation of the global shortage created by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Note that 3.5 mb/d of discharge from SPR is also a draw. Note also that ’Forced demand loss’ of 2.5 mb/d is probably temporary and will fall back towards zero as logistics are sorted out leaving ’Price demand loss’ to do the job of balancing the market. Thus a shortfall of at least 9 mb/d created by the closure. More if SPR discharge is included and more if Forced demand loss recedes.

Analys
Brent crude up USD 9/bl on the week… ”deal around the corner” narrative fades
Brent is climbing higher. Front-month is at USD 106.3/bl this morning, close to a weekly high and a USD 9/bl jump from Mondays open. This is the move we flagged as a risk earlier in the week: the market shifting from ”a deal is around the corner” to ”this is going to take longer than we thought”.

Analyst Commodities, SEB
During April, rest-of-year Brent remained remarkably stable around USD 90/bl. A stability which rested on one single assumption: the SoH reopens around 1 May. That assumption is now slowly falling apart.
As we highlighted yesterday: every week of delay beyond 1 May adds (theoretically) ish USD 5/bl to the rest-of-year average, as global inventories draw 100 million barrels per week. i.e., a mid-May reopening implies rest-of-year Brent closer to USD 100/bl, and anything pushing into June or July takes us meaningfully higher.
What’s changed in the last 48 hours:
#1: The US military has formally warned that clearing suspected sea mines from SoH could take up to six months. That is a completely different timescale from what the financial market is pricing. Even a political deal tomorrow does not immediately reopen the strait.
#2: Trump has shifted his tone from urgency to ”strategic patience”. In yesterday’s press conference: ”Don’t rush me… I want a great deal.” The market is reading this as a president no longer feeling pressured by timelines, with the naval blockade running in the background.
#3: So far, the military activity is escalating, not de-escalating. Axios reports Iran is laying more mines in SoH. The US 3rd carrier strike group (USS George H.W. Bush) is arriving with two countermine vessels. Trump yesterday ordered the US Navy to destroy any Iranian boats caught laying mines. While CNN reports that the Pentagon is actively drawing up plans to strike Iranian SoH capabilities and individual Iranian military leaders if the ceasefire collapses. i.e., NOT a attitude consistent with an imminent deal!
Spot crude and product prices eased off the early-April highs on a combination of system rerouting and deal optimism. Both now weakening. Goldman estimates April Gulf output is reduced by 14.5 mbl/d, or 57% of pre-war supply, a number that keeps getting worse the longer this drags on.
Demand-side adaptation is ongoing: S. Korea has cut its Middle East crude dependence from 69% to 56% by pulling more from the Americas and Africa, and Japan is kicking off a second round of SPR releases from 1 May. But SPRs are finite.
Ref. to the negotiations, we should not bet on speed. The current Iranian leadership is dominated by genuine hardliners willing to absorb economic pain and run the clock to extract concessions. That is not a setup for a rapid resolution. US/Israeli media briefings keep framing the delay as ”internal Iranian divisions”, the reality is more complicated and points toward weeks and months, not days.
Our point is that the complexity is large, and higher prices have only just started (given a scenario where the negotiations drag out in time). The market spent April leaning on the USD 90/bl rest-of-year assumption; that case is diminishing by the hour. If ”early May reopening” is replaced by ”June, July or later” over the next week or two, both crude and products have meaningful room to reprice higher from here. There is a high risk being short energy and betting on any immediate political resolution(!).
-
Analys4 veckor sedanOil product price pain is set to rise as the Strait of Hormuz stays closed into summer
-
Nyheter2 veckor sedanSommarväder skapar prisrally på elbörsen
-
Nyheter2 dagar sedanVattenfalls och Industrikrafts kärnkraftsbolag Videberg Kraft har valt Rolls-Royce SMR
-
Analys2 dagar sedanSelling down on a ”deal”

