Global Import Transaction Analysis Silicone Oil July 2025 to June 2026

1. Executive Summary

From July 2025 to June 2026, global silicone oil imports totaled 52.938 million kg, with 114.598 million quantity units and USD 148.204 million in transaction value across 20,663 transactions. What stands out is that these indicators did not move in lockstep. A stronger month by physical volume did not necessarily translate into the highest trade value, and changes in quantity were not always matched by similar movements in weight.

The clearest example is the split between December 2025 and April 2026. December marked the high point for import weight, quantity and transaction count, making it the busiest month in terms of overall trade activity. April, however, generated the highest monthly transaction value, showing that the value side of the market was being driven by more than volume alone.

By the end of the period, momentum had weakened considerably. June 2026 showed the lowest weight, quantity, transaction value and trade count of the entire twelve-month, confirming a broad slowdown rather than a decline in just one indicator. Even so, June was not the lowest month for either unit-value measure, which suggests that the contraction in activity was not simply the result of falling prices.

Table 1. Twelve-month transaction overview

Source: ECHEMI Trade Data

Core conclusion. The period ends with materially smaller physical and transactional activity.

2. Second-Half 2025 Transaction Pattern

From July to December 2025, silicone oil imports maintained a relatively strong trading base, with 30.142 million kg of Weight, 56.033 million quantity units, USD 81.716 million in transaction value, and 11,752 transactions. Activity strengthened into year-end, with December emerging as the busiest month of the period. Imports reached 5.524 million kg, Quantity climbed to 14.027 million units, and the number of transactions rose to 2,083.

December was not only the high point for physical activity and trade frequency; it also generated USD 19.253 million in transaction value, equivalent to 12.99% of the full twelve-month total. That concentration at year-end shows how important December was to the overall 2025 trading pattern, particularly in terms of shipment scale and market participation.

Table 2. Monthly activity, July to December 2025

Source: ECHEMI Trade Data

The second half of 2025 did not follow a straight line. Weight dipped in August, recovered through October, eased again in November and then finished the year on a stronger note in December. Quantity moved differently: the increase became much more pronounced in November and December, even when weight was not rising at the same pace.

That gap is especially clear in November, when quantity increased 36.8% despite a decline in weight. It suggests a change in shipment mix rather than a simple increase in physical volume. December then pushed activity higher across several measures, with transaction value rising 47.1% month on month.

Overall, the July–December period looks broadly active rather than dependent on one exceptional month. December was the strongest point, but the earlier months still were between 1,799 and 2,014 transactions, showing that market participation remained relatively consistent throughout the half-year.

3. First-Half 2026 Transaction Pattern

First-half 2026 there were 22.796 million kg of weight, 58.565 million quantity units, USD 66.487 million of value and 8,911 transactions. Relative to the preceding half, weight fell 24.37%, transaction value fell 18.64%, and trade count fell 24.17%; quantity increased 4.52%. The contrasting quantity result confirms that a single metric cannot fully describe the underlying transaction mix.

Table 3. Monthly activity, January to June 2026

Source: ECHEMI Trade Data

April is the clearest monetary exception in the first half. Its USD 20.074 million value was the high even though its weight ranked sixth and its quantity ranked sixth across the twelve-month period. The subsequent May to June transition was especially weak: weight fell 51.0%, value fell 64.3% and the transaction count fell 73.7%.

Interpretation. The first half is best understood as a lower-weight, lower-value and lower-breadth trading period, with a short value-led spike in April that did not persist into the latest two months.

4. Period Comparison and Value Structure

Period aggregation provides a more stable view. The second half of 2025 represented 56.94% of full-period weight and 55.14% of full-period transaction value. The first half of 2026 contributed less weight and value but marginally more quantity. Calculated from period totals, the weight unit value was USD 2.9166 per kg in the first half of 2026, 7.58% above the preceding half, while the quantity unit value was 22.15% lower.

Table 4. Period aggregates and calculated unit values

Source: ECHEMI Trade Data

The quarterly view shows a steep contraction in activity during Q2 2026. Relative to Q1, Q2 weight declined 34.91%, quantity declined 30.91%, and transactions declined 27.47%. Value decreased only 5.30% because the calculated unit values rose sharply. This numerical relationship indicates a changed value mix, not a conclusion about the causes of price movement.

Value structure. Higher value per kg in Q2 softened the fall in transaction value, but it did not offset the decline in physical scale or the number of transactions.

5. Unit Value and Transaction Intensity

Unit values varied materially across the period. The highest weight unit value was USD 4.1690 per kg in April 2026; the lowest was USD 2.3501 per kg in June. The quantity unit value was highest in April at USD 2.1111 per quantity unit and lowest in May at USD 0.7840. April therefore combined the highest monetary value with the highest unit values, despite being neither the largest weight nor quantity month.

Table 5. First-half 2026 unit values and value per transaction

Source: ECHEMI Trade Data

From April to June, the weight unit value declined 43.63% and the quantity unit value declined 47.14%. By June, the quantity-based measure had recovered from its May low, whereas the weight-based measure remained below May. Value per transaction rose from USD 5,699 in May to USD 7,735 in June while the number of transactions collapsed, so the increase should be read in the context of a much smaller activity base.

Pricing reading. Unit values describe the value density of the showed transactions; they should not be treated as stand-alone evidence of broader market strength when physical activity and transaction breadth are declining.

6. Structural Change in Trade Activity

The rate comparisons below separate broad half-year movement from quarter-level and latest-month changes. At the half-year level, quantity grew modestly while the other core measures declined. At the recent monthly level, all four activity measures contracted substantially. The most recent data point is defined by reduced transaction breadth as well as reduced weight and quantity.

Table 6. Key rate-of-change comparisons

Source: ECHEMI Trade Data

The Q2 result illustrates the difference between absolute activity and calculated unit values: Q2 showed 34.91% less weight than Q1 but a 45.49% higher value per kg. The June result is different. It shows a synchronous contraction in weight, quantity, value, trades and value per kg relative to May, even though the quantity unit value increased. This makes the June comparison the most direct signal of a lower short-run transaction pace.

Trade-activity signal. Transaction count is the most consistent cross-check on the recent downturn because it falls alongside the two physical measures and showed value.

7. Concentration and Dataset Balance

The annual record is moderately concentrated, but no single month dominates all measures. The top three months account for 30.69% of weight, 34.36% of quantity, 35.85% of transaction value and 29.51% of transactions. Value is the most concentrated measure because April, December and July together represent more than one-third of the annual monetary total.

Table 7. Top-three-month contribution to the full-period dataset

Source: ECHEMI Trade Data

April alone represented 13.54% of annual transaction value while contributing 9.09% of weight. Conversely, the three highest-weight months include December, January and July, none of which is the value peak. therefore it shows a meaningful but manageable level of concentration, with different months driving different dimensions.

Analytical caution. Annual averages are informative for scale, but they should be paired with monthly detail because the month that leads in value is not the month that leads in physical volume.

8. Latest Run Rate: April to June 2026

The last three months show the clearest short-run deterioration. Weight and value declined in both May and June. Quantity rose in May before falling sharply in June, but this interim increase did not change the overall three-month direction. From April to June, transaction value declined 83.93% and trade count declined 76.08%.

Table 8. April to June 2026 run-rate comparison

Source: ECHEMI Trade Data

The abrupt June decline takes every core activity measure below the period monthly average. Its 417 transactions were only one-fifth of December's peak count. While June value per transaction exceeded the May figure, the underlying number of transactions was too low to suggest a broad stabilisation from that measure alone.

Table 9. Twelve-month high and low observations

Source: ECHEMI Trade Data

9. Outlook, Monitoring Priorities and Conclusion

June was well below the twelve-month monthly average in weight, quantity, value and transactions; both unit values were below their full-period weighted benchmarks. The first signs of an activity recovery would be a stabilisation in trade count and showed physical volume, rather than a unit-value movement in isolation.

Table 10. June 2026 versus twelve-month benchmark

Source: ECHEMI Trade Data

The next monthly should concentrate on: whether transactions recover from 417; whether weight and quantity move closer to their monthly averages; and whether any change in value is supported by a wider base of transactions.