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, CO2 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 CO2?
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.
