News
12/05/26
HyFive bets on Iberian ports for e-methanol push
London, 12 May (Argus) — Spanish e-fuels developer HyFive Energy is advancing a
pipeline of e-methanol projects anchored at Iberian ports and industrial hubs.
It aims to take a final investment decision (FID) on its flagship Musel GreenMet
project in 2027 and is advancing offtake discussions for this. Argus spoke to
founder and chief executive Alberto Sanchez de Rojas about the company's
development model, offtake strategy, CO 2 sourcing and views on European
regulations. Edited highlights follow: Can you outline HyFive's plans, strategy
and projects? HyFive is developing industrial-scale e fuel projects. Our goal is
to create an Iberian e-fuels platform anchored in strategic ports and industrial
sites, delivering competitive, scalable and reliable molecules produced in
Europe. Unlike other developers in Spain that site projects near renewable
assets, we are positioning plants around ports and major petrochemical or
industrial hubs. E-fuel plants are complex and require careful management — not
just related to construction risk but also the logistics and storage these
locations can provide. Iberia provides access to renewables, port infrastructure
and industrial demand, allowing us to compete on cost with other European hubs
while offering near-shore supply and regulatory alignment. We plan to source
power via virtual power purchase agreements (PPAs) rather than relying on direct
grid connections. Projects are also positioned near future hydrogen backbone and
H2Med routes, providing long-term scalability potential. In the future, we plan
to source additional hydrogen from more competitive regions to scale-up methanol
production, storage and export. Our commercial strategy is to engage
stakeholders early and advance technical and commercial maturity in parallel
through phased commitments and agreed milestones. Initial projects are around
100,000 t/yr of e methanol with built in potential for scale-up. Our Musel
GreenMet project is in front-end loading 2 and has secured its environmental
impact declaration. We have signed advanced offtake agreements covering roughly
60pc of capacity, although they are not yet binding. FID is targeted for 2027. A
second project at a tier-one Mediterranean port follows the same model and is
about a year behind. Which sectors are your offtakers in, and how are talks
progressing? We initially focused on renewable hydrogen, but pivoted to
e-methanol because of its versatility. While early interest came from the
maritime sector, traction is now stronger from methanol-to-jet e-SAF developers.
This reflects regulation rather than technology as ReFuelEU Aviation offers
clearer mandates, quotas and penalties, creating a more predictable willingness
to pay than FuelEU Maritime. We aim to secure 70–80pc of capacity through
long-term anchor offtake agreements, with 20–30pc sold under shorter term or
spot arrangements. This structure underpins project financing, while allowing
for significant upside from marginal volumes that will ultimately drive returns.
With anchor buyers, we use a structured, collaborative process rather than
traditional negotiations. We are agreeing milestones over the next 12 months to
advance project and offtake maturity together, narrowing price ranges, firming
volumes and converging on contract terms. Our preliminary agreements are more
than letters of intent as they include price ranges, volumes and carbon
intensity targets. They typically envisage offtake obligations starting slightly
after our commercial operation date, which we see as positive. If we take an FID
in 2027, start production in 2029 and begin binding deliveries in 2030, the
interim year allows us to ramp up and stabilise the plant while selling volumes
on the spot market. How will your e-methanol be priced? We cannot comment on
pricing, but we have been transparent and realistic with potential offtakers
from the outset — even if that initially limited progress during negotiations.
Some counterparties have since returned with expectations closer to actual
production costs, prioritising reliability and project robustness over headline
prices. E-methanol differs from biomethanol and biofuels, so it cannot compete
on cost alone. Its strengths are long-term scalability and regulatory support,
including renewable fuel of non-biological origin (RFNBO) multipliers that
offset part of the cost gap. Willingness to pay is also shaped by comparing with
competing decarbonisation pathways and perceived costs in other regions. Our
focus is to produce the most competitive e-methanol within Europe. Local
production adds value beyond cost, including supply security, regulatory
alignment and resilience. How will you source CO 2 ? Locating plants in
industrial areas provides access to nearby carbon capture opportunities. The
constraint is not availability, but the timing and alignment of third-party
projects. As we are not vertically integrated into CO2 capture, synchronising
capture FIDs with ours is key. For Musel GreenMet, biogenic CO2 availability
exceeds the needs of the first 100,000 t/yr phase by an order of magnitude. We
prioritise sources that are easier to capture, like existing bioethanol plants,
over more complex sources like biomass power generation. Some emitters already
capture part of their CO2 and only require expansion, aligning with our 2027
timeline. We expect Musel to achieve over 95pc greenhouse gas savings versus the
reference maritime fossil fuel, strengthening its appeal, particularly for
maritime buyers. What is your view on Europe's current regulatory framework? I
broadly agree with the four pillars identified by the European Resilience
Alliance for Clean Hydrogen — demand, simplification, bankability and
infrastructure. Mandates must be fully implemented to create real lead markets,
alongside simpler rules for large industrial projects, long-term certainty
beyond 2030 and predictable carbon pricing. Flexibility is needed, but without
undermining stability. Revisions to the RFNBO delegated act should focus on
pragmatic adjustments, such as extending the additionality transition period,
while avoiding constant rule changes. Investors value stability over perfection,
and binding RFNBO quotas should be maintained despite pressure to delay
obligations under instruments like ReFuelEU Aviation. Implementation is
currently a key weakness. The amended renewable energy directive transposition
is both delayed and inconsistent across member states. Europe needs faster, more
harmonised implementation with binding quotas, clear penalties and supportive
financial incentives. The cost gap will not be closed through subsidies alone.
Electrolysers should be exempt from grid-related costs such as tolls, charges
and balancing services, especially since well designed hydrogen projects
contribute to grid stability. How are you approaching electrolysers and system
design? Even with virtual PPAs and grid connections, electrolysis must remain
flexible. We generally favour proton exchange membrane (PEM) electrolysers over
alkaline due to flexibility. Hybrid alkaline-PEM configurations may suit very
large projects, such as in China, but are not part of our approach. Hydrogen
storage between electrolysis and methanol synthesis involves capital cost
trade-offs. We use internal modelling to optimise design — ensuring sufficient
storage while minimising cost. The same applies to raw methanol storage between
the reactor and distillation. The optimal balance sits somewhere in the middle.
Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright
© 2026. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
