Wert-Berater, Inc. is an independent petrochemical feasibility study consultant preparing lender-, investor-, and agency-facing studies for chemical production, derivative and intermediate plants, blending and compounding operations, specialty chemicals, and fertilizer and ammonia projects. A chemical plant is a spread business: the credit lives on the difference between delivered feedstock cost and realized product value, and that spread is cyclical, capacity-driven, and frequently compressed by new plants coming online elsewhere. The analysis reconstructs it from the specific feedstock, the yields the configuration produces, and the customers who will actually qualify and buy the product.
Fiduciary duty runs to the lender and the agency, never the borrower. Fixed fee quoted within one business day; standard delivery in ten to fifteen business days from a complete data room. 4,000+ engagements since 1998 covering $41.2 billion in evaluated project value. So far in 2026: 41 engagements and $1.54 billion evaluated — 17 SBA, 11 USDA.
Petrochemical feasibility rests on feedstock advantage and offtake: the spread between feedstock cost and product price through the cycle, the plant's scale position against world-class capacity, offtake agreements and their counterparties, and the environmental permitting path stated as a condition precedent where unresolved. Specialty and downstream-derivative plants are evaluated on niche capture rather than commodity spread.
Methodology uses feedstock and product price series, capacity and trade-flow data, contract review, and engineering capital estimates independently benchmarked against comparable units. Spread sensitivity is the controlling stress case.
Every Wert-Berater financial model is fully linked with no hardcoded values, so any reviewer can stress any input. Deliverables comprise a complete narrative report and the linked Excel model, with ten-year pro forma, sensitivity analysis at ±5, 10, and 15 percent, interest-rate stress from +0.5 to +3.0 percent, and ratio analysis benchmarked against RMA and IBISWorld data.
SBA engagements are prepared to SOP 50 10 8, including its debt-service-coverage minimums of 1.15x operating and 1.00x global. USDA engagements follow RD Staff Instruction 5001 across the Business & Industry, Community Facilities, REAP, and Value-Added Producer Grant programs. Conventional engagements are built to the lender's stated coverage standard, typically 1.20x. Oil, gas, and heavy-industrial projects reach us through conventional and institutional lending most commonly, with USDA B&I applicable to qualifying rural energy and processing assets and SBA programs serving owner-operator support businesses; each study is prepared to the corresponding compliance standard, with environmental and regulatory conditions precedent stated plainly.
Wert-Berater has completed and published a clean ammonia and hydrogen production facility feasibility study in Taft, California — a chemical production engagement whose economics turn on exactly the variables that decide a petrochemical credit: delivered feedstock cost, conversion yield and efficiency, contracted offtake, and coverage tested against construction and startup risk. The firm has also published a pyrolysis and biochar fertilizer manufacturing expansion study in the same analytical family. No olefins cracker or large-scale refinery-integrated derivative engagement has been published, and none is claimed. Across 4,000+ engagements since 1998 the discipline is constant: fully linked models, sourced assumptions, and coverage tested under downside cases. Independence is non-negotiable, and determinations are not revised under pressure.
A petrochemical feasibility study consultant determines whether the product spread, earned at the throughput the plant can sustain and sold to customers who will actually accept the material, services the debt through a chemical cycle. The analysis begins with feedstock security and delivered cost, moves through conversion — yield, efficiency, and the energy and catalyst consumed — and ends at product placement, because a specification chemical without a qualified buyer is inventory rather than revenue.
The engagement is economic and financial. Wert-Berater does not perform process or chemical engineering, does not prepare or verify FEED packages, does not design or rate reactors and unit operations, and does not issue process-safety, emissions, or product-registration opinions. Where a qualified engineering firm has prepared a process design, mass balance, or capital estimate, it is treated as an input whose assumptions are tested for reasonableness and internal consistency against the financing plan and construction schedule.
A petrochemical or industrial chemicals feasibility study is not a generic project-finance template applied to a new asset class. The scope is built around the variables that determine whether a plant can service debt through a full commodity price cycle: feedstock procurement, conversion economics, product slate, offtake structure, and the capital cost of the unit relative to world-scale benchmarks. Every section of the narrative traces back to a documented input in the linked financial model.
Standard deliverables for this asset class include:
The spread is rebuilt rather than assumed. The study establishes the delivered cost of each feedstock — natural gas, natural gas liquids, naphtha, recovered or bio-based inputs, or purchased intermediates — including transport and any quality adjustment, and identifies whether supply is contracted, tolled, or purchased at spot. It then values each product stream at the price actually realizable in the market and grade the plant will serve, and reports the resulting spread per unit of product.
Because chemical spreads are cyclical and capacity-driven, the study does not extend a current spread flat across the loan term. It identifies announced and under-construction capacity in the relevant product market where that information is publicly available, describes the direction of pressure that new supply creates, and tests coverage at compressed spreads. Where the project depends on a feedstock cost advantage, the durability of that advantage is examined rather than assumed permanent, since advantaged positions attract competing capacity built specifically to capture them.
Nameplate capacity is a design figure. The study models achievable output net of planned turnarounds, unplanned downtime, and the commissioning ramp between mechanical completion and stable on-specification production. That ramp receives explicit attention in chemical projects because achieving consistent product specification frequently takes longer than achieving volume, and off-specification material during startup sells at a discount or not at all.
Conversion cost is built line by line rather than as a percentage of revenue: feedstock consumed per unit of product at the actual yield, energy and utilities, catalyst and chemicals with their replacement cycles, labour at the staffing the plant genuinely requires, maintenance, insurance, and waste handling and disposal. Yield is a direct margin driver, so where the yield assumption comes from a vendor guarantee or a pilot result rather than from operating experience at scale, the study states the basis and tests coverage at a lower realized yield.
Chemical buyers qualify suppliers before they purchase, and that process is a real barrier to revenue that sponsor projections frequently omit. The study identifies the target customers, the specification and quality certification the product must meet, and the qualification and trial period each buyer typically requires before commercial volumes begin. Where the pro forma assumes commercial sales in the first year of operation, the study tests that against the qualification timeline the market actually imposes.
Contracted offtake is separated from prospective sales and scheduled individually: volume, term, pricing mechanism and whether it floats with a feedstock or product index, and counterparty credit. Concentration among the largest buyers is quantified and coverage re-tested on the loss of the largest. Logistics are examined as a constraint on realizable volume — rail, tank truck, isotainer, or marine access, and the handling and packaging the product form requires — because a plant that can produce more than it can ship is modeled at the shipping constraint.
Chemical projects carry permitting and compliance obligations that affect both schedule and operating cost. The study identifies the air, water, waste, and operating permits required, their status, and the sequence on which construction and startup depend. An unissued permit is treated as an open condition affecting the schedule and the determination, not as a formality assumed to close on time, because permitting delay is among the most common causes of cost overrun in this sector.
Ongoing compliance cost is quantified in the operating model: emissions monitoring and control, hazardous waste handling and disposal, process-safety management obligations, chemical registration and reporting requirements, and any financial assurance the regulator requires. Where the plant handles regulated or hazardous materials, insurance cost and availability are examined directly, since they can be material and are sometimes unobtainable at the assumed price. These are assessed as economic and regulatory factors; the firm does not provide legal, permitting, or process-safety opinions.
Demand analysis for a petrochemical or industrial chemicals project is not a population-based consumption study. The relevant market is defined by the product slate, the delivery logistics, and the identity of likely buyers — which may be a small number of industrial counterparties rather than a broad consumer base. The analysis is built from the supply side inward and the demand side outward, and the two are reconciled at the regional trade-flow level.
Supply-side data sources that genuinely apply to this asset class include public capacity registries maintained by trade associations and industry publishers, SEC and regulatory filings disclosing plant expansions or curtailments, state environmental permitting databases that reveal projects in the pre-construction pipeline, and utility interconnection queues that identify large industrial loads coming online. Import and export data from federal trade statistics illuminate whether the regional market is structurally long or short the relevant product.
Demand-side analysis draws on end-use industry data — downstream manufacturers, agricultural input buyers, refinery offtakers — identified through commercial databases, public procurement records, and, where accessible, draft offtake correspondence provided by the sponsor. The study does not rely on a single demand projection; it documents the range of credible outcomes and tests each against the plant’s breakeven spread. Where the sponsor’s demand assumptions exceed what the documented evidence supports, that gap is stated plainly in the narrative and reflected in the downside stress case.
Most petrochemical and industrial chemicals projects fail underwriting not because the concept is wrong but because one or two key assumptions are set at the optimistic end of a defensible range and the model has no mechanism to show what happens when they move. The study identifies the controlling assumptions, documents the basis for each, and stress-tests each independently and in combination.
The assumptions that most frequently decide whether a project clears its coverage threshold include:
Each assumption is tested at the sensitivity intervals built into the standard model: ±5, 10, and 15 percent on price and volume, and interest-rate stress from +0.5 to +3.0 percent.
Inputs resolve into a fully linked model with no hardcoded values, producing a ten-year pro forma, annual and period debt-service coverage, and the coverage minimum applicable to the financing program. Construction, commissioning, and customer qualification are funded inside the model, with interest during construction and any required reserve shown explicitly, because a chemical project generates no revenue during a period when costs are at their highest.
Sensitivity is run on feedstock cost, product price and spread compression, plant utilization and availability, realized yield, construction cost overrun and startup delay, customer qualification timing, compliance and insurance cost, and interest rate. Each is stressed independently and in combination, and the study identifies the spread per unit at which coverage falls to the lender's minimum, reported against the range the relevant product market has actually exhibited. Process design, mass balances, and capital estimates from qualified engineering firms are used as inputs; this study does not replace them.
Credit officers reviewing a petrochemical or industrial chemicals project are looking for evidence that the plant can service debt at a mid-cycle commodity price, not at the price that prevailed when the sponsor built the business plan. The feasibility study’s job is to document that evidence or to state plainly where it is absent.
Under SBA SOP 50 10 8, the study must support a debt-service-coverage ratio of at least 1.15x on an operating basis and 1.00x on a global basis. For a capital-intensive petrochemical project, those thresholds are tested against a spread assumption the analyst can defend, not the sponsor’s projection. Environmental permits and regulatory approvals that are material to operations are stated as conditions precedent, not treated as background.
USDA Business & Industry program eligibility for a rural petrochemical or industrial chemicals asset requires documentation of rural location, job-creation or retention metrics, and the economic benefit to the surrounding area. The feasibility study addresses each criterion directly rather than leaving the lender to extract the relevant facts from a general narrative.
Conventional lenders typically require 1.20x coverage and focus heavily on offtake quality: the creditworthiness of the buyer, the term and take-or-pay structure of the contract, and the exposure to spot pricing in the uncontracted portion of the revenue stream. The study documents each of these elements and applies the lender’s stated standard explicitly, so the credit memo can reference the study without re-deriving the analysis.
The engagement begins with a fixed fee quoted within one business day of an inquiry. The fee does not change based on the study’s finding, and no portion of it is contingent on loan approval or a favorable conclusion. That structure is not incidental: it is what makes the study credible to a lender or agency reviewer who understands that a contingent-fee study has an embedded incentive to reach a positive result.
Standard delivery is ten to fifteen business days from the date a complete data room is received. For a petrochemical or industrial chemicals project, a complete data room typically includes the engineering capital estimate, feedstock supply documentation or contracts, any executed or draft offtake agreements, the sponsor’s financial projections and assumptions, environmental permit status documentation, and the proposed debt structure. Incomplete data rooms extend the timeline; the engagement letter states the data requirements explicitly so there is no ambiguity about what triggers the clock.
Rush delivery is available where the lender’s commitment timeline requires it. Once the study is complete, the bound narrative report and the fully linked Excel model are published to a secure client portal. The financial model remains live in the portal: if a lender or agency reviewer wants to test an alternative assumption — a lower feedstock price, a higher capital cost, a slower ramp — the model recalculates without requiring a revised engagement. The conditions-precedent statement travels with the model so that any reviewer sees the unresolved items alongside the financial output.
Chemical plants sit alongside the feedstock, utility, and processing assets that supply them. These engagements cover the neighbouring facilities most often financed in the same structure.
The fee is fixed and quoted within one business day of an inquiry. It does not vary based on project size within a category, and no portion is contingent on the study’s finding or on loan approval. Because the scope for a petrochemical project — feedstock analysis, spread modeling, capital benchmarking, offtake review — is more involved than a retail or service-business study, the fee reflects that complexity. Contact the firm directly for a same-day quote.
Standard delivery is ten to fifteen business days from receipt of a complete data room. For a petrochemical or industrial chemicals project, the data room must include the engineering capital estimate, feedstock and offtake documentation, environmental permit status, and the proposed debt structure. Incomplete submissions extend the timeline. Rush delivery is available where a lender’s commitment deadline requires it; the availability and fee for rush service are confirmed at the time of engagement.
Three factors make this asset class genuinely difficult. First, revenue is a spread between two volatile commodity prices, so a model built at a favorable point in the cycle can show strong coverage that evaporates mid-cycle. Second, capital costs are large and subject to overrun, which can alter the debt-sizing assumption after the study is complete. Third, offtake concentration — often one or two industrial buyers — means counterparty credit quality is a first-order risk, not a secondary consideration.
SBA programs are most commonly used for owner-operator support businesses adjacent to the energy sector rather than for large commodity chemical plants, but eligibility depends on the specific project, borrower structure, and SBA program. Where an SBA engagement is appropriate, the study is prepared to SOP 50 10 8, including its 1.15x operating and 1.00x global debt-service-coverage minimums, with environmental and regulatory conditions precedent stated explicitly. The study does not guarantee approval by any agency.
A complete data room for this asset class includes: the engineering capital estimate with its contingency basis; feedstock supply contracts or documented spot-market pricing assumptions; executed or draft offtake agreements and counterparty information; environmental permit status for each material approval; the sponsor’s financial projections and the assumptions behind them; and the proposed debt structure including term, rate, and amortization. The engagement letter specifies each required item so the timeline is predictable.
Yes. The fully linked Excel model is published to a secure client portal where it remains live after delivery. A lender or agency reviewer can test alternative feedstock prices, product spreads, capital costs, utilization rates, or interest-rate scenarios and the model recalculates immediately. No hardcoded values exist in the model. The conditions-precedent statement is attached so that any reviewer sees unresolved regulatory or permitting items alongside the financial output.
The consultant rebuilds the spread between delivered feedstock cost and realized product value, models achievable throughput and yield net of turnarounds and commissioning ramp, and tests whether qualified buyers exist for the product in the volumes projected. Compliance cost and construction risk are then loaded before coverage is measured. Process and chemical engineering are separate disciplines used as inputs.
The current spread is not extended flat across the loan term. The study identifies announced and under-construction capacity in the relevant product market where public, describes the pressure new supply creates, and tests coverage at compressed spreads. It then reports the spread per unit at which coverage reaches the lender minimum against the range that market has actually exhibited.
Chemical buyers qualify suppliers and run trial volumes before committing to commercial purchases, so first-year commercial sales are often unrealistic. The study identifies the specification and certification the product must meet and the qualification period each target buyer typically requires, then tests the revenue ramp against that timeline rather than against the sponsor's sales plan.
No. Wert-Berater does not perform process or chemical engineering, prepare or verify FEED packages, design or rate reactors and unit operations, or issue process-safety, emissions, or product-registration opinions. Process designs, mass balances, and capital estimates from qualified engineering firms are treated as inputs and tested for internal consistency against the financing plan.
The basis is stated explicitly and coverage is tested at a lower realized yield. Yield is a direct margin driver, and a figure derived from a pilot plant or a vendor guarantee carries different weight than one demonstrated in commercial operation at scale. The study reports which it is rather than carrying the guaranteed figure into the base case unqualified.
Required air, water, waste, and operating permits are identified with their status and the sequence startup depends on, and an unissued permit is treated as an open condition affecting schedule and determination. Ongoing compliance is quantified in the operating model, including emissions control, hazardous waste handling, process-safety obligations, and any required financial assurance.
Yes, directly. Where the plant handles regulated or hazardous materials, insurance can be a material operating cost and is sometimes unobtainable at the price a sponsor assumes. The study examines both cost and availability rather than carrying a percentage-of-revenue placeholder, since an insurance shortfall can prevent operation entirely.
Qualify a project. Tell us about the project and the program. We will tell you the truth about it — scope, timeline, and fee confirmed before work begins.
Schedule a Zoom Call →Legal disclosure. Wert-Berater, Inc. offices are mailing addresses only. Following the COVID-19 pandemic the firm has elected to work remotely; its office locations receive mail and are not staffed for visitors or in-person meetings. Headquarters mailing address: 1968 South Coast Hwy, Ste 2382, Laguna Beach, CA 92651.
Wert-Berater, Inc. is an independent provider of feasibility studies and other related services. The firm does not provide financing or equity investment advice, and does not arrange, broker, or place debt or equity capital of any kind.
All appraisal assignments are performed by Bruce E. Jones, MAI, ASA-GC, BCA, CMEA, a member of the Appraisal Institute since 2006, a staff member of Wert-Berater, Inc. and owner of Special Purpose Realty Valuation.