IOGP Europe’s response to the European Chemical Agency’s (ECHA) Socio-Economic Committee (SEAC) draft Opinion of the proposed ‘Universal-PFAS

Building on IOGP Europe’s PFAS Restriction Position Statement of January 2026, and underpinned by a new independent socio-economic analysis of the potential impacts of a Universal PFAS Restriction on the oil, gas, and carbon capture and storage (CCS) sectors (Ricardo, 2026), IOGP Europe’s response:

• acknowledges that certain PFAS compounds are persistent, bioaccumulative / mobile and toxic, widely distributed in the environment, and justify further control;
• describes how not all PFAS are alike: ranging from liquid/ aqueous fluorosurfactants to F-gases, to solid fluoropolymers and elastomers, the hazard properties vary greatly amongst the PFAS family;
• explains that use of fluoropolymers in industrial components and composite materials are unlikely to generate significant environmental emissions or risks;
• outlines how the oil and gas sector already uses PFAS-free alternatives for certain uses (including some hydrocarbon reservoir tracers, anti-foam agents), but notes that there are no known alternatives for the fluoropolymers and fluoroelastomers that are needed to meet the challenging requirements  (high temperature stability,  chemical corrosion resistant, low-friction and material flexibility) to maintain safe and reliable operations;
• demonstrates that the costs of a restriction on polymeric-PFAS outweigh the environmental and social benefits that would be derived;
• advocates to exclude fluoropolymers and fluoroelastomers from the proposed Restriction, whilst recognising that stronger controls on fluoropolymer production (under the EU Industrial Emissions Directive) and end-of-life materials management may be required;

The Ricardo (2026) SEA report was jointly commissioned by IOGP and Concawe to cover both the Upstream oil and gas and Downstream refined products value chains, as well as the CCS sector.