BASF–Evonik Approach Raises Questions for Viscosity-Improver Supply

BASF has confirmed exploratory discussions regarding a possible acquisition of Evonik.^[1] Evonik has confirmed receiving a nonbinding approach, although it said when making that disclosure that no talks were taking place.^[2]

Reuters, citing people familiar with the matter, reported on September 28 that Evonik had rejected an approach valued at about €10.3 billion as too low.^[3] Neither company has publicly confirmed that reported rejection. The situation remains open: on September 30, Evonik’s largest shareholder, RAG-Stiftung, said its statutes would permit a sale of its entire stake with the approval of its board of trustees.^[4] That does not mean a sale has been agreed.

For lubricant blenders and marketers, the issue extends beyond the reported value of the approach. Both companies supply viscosity improvers—additives that help lubricants meet performance requirements across a range of operating temperatures. A combination would bring two established suppliers of viscosity-improver technology under common ownership.

Evonik’s polyalkyl methacrylate-based VISCOPLEX portfolio includes viscosity-index improvers used in multigrade engine oils, transmission fluids, hydraulic fluids, gear oils and other industrial lubricants. The portfolio also includes pour-point depressants for low-temperature performance. Evonik’s VISCOBASE line, by contrast, consists of synthetic base fluids, not viscosity improvers.^[5]

BASF participates in the viscosity-improver market through its IRGAFLO portfolio. BASF lists applications in engine oils, hydraulic fluids, transmission and gear lubricants, and e-mobility transmission fluids.^[6]

That overlap does not establish that a transaction would reduce supply or raise prices. No acquisition agreement has been announced, and the extent of any competitive overlap would require closer examination of the companies’ products, customers and geographic markets. Other viscosity-improver suppliers and chemistries also exist.

It does, however, raise a practical question for formulators: how much independent sourcing flexibility would remain for specific chemistries and approved formulations if BASF and Evonik were combined?

Viscosity improvers are not always interchangeable simply because they perform the same broad function. Selection can depend on shear stability, thickening efficiency, low-temperature behavior, base-oil compatibility and the requirements of a finished lubricant. Moving to another product may call for reformulation and performance testing; in some applications, it may also require requalification.

For blenders, the issue is therefore more specific than concentration in “additives” generally. It is the number of viable suppliers for the products and formulation pathways they actually use. That distinction could be especially important where a formulation has limited substitution options or where changing an approved component would be costly and time-consuming. The available public information does not establish how many such pathways would be affected by a BASF–Evonik combination.

There is another possible outcome to consider. A combined supplier might offer customers broader technical resources, manufacturing coverage or support across regions. Whether customers would gain supply resilience or lose meaningful sourcing alternatives would depend on which businesses were retained, how product portfolios were managed and whether regulators required any divestitures or other remedies.

For now, this remains a potential transaction and a sourcing question—not a forecast of an additive shortage. What matters for lubricant blenders is whether any eventual combination would change their independent choices for viscosity improvers and other specialty components that can be difficult to replace in an established formulation.