12 July 2013 09:36 [Source: ICB]
Europe prices remain above those in China, leading buyers to complain about a rollover. But the gap may not be resolved
On 28 June the European methanol contract price for the third quarter was confirmed at a rollover from the second quarter.
An initial agreement had been made almost two weeks previously and had received immediate backing from several suppliers. However, consumers, for the most past, initially refused to back the price and, even after it was confirmed, many continued to voice their objections.
Methanol price differentials might not be enough to change trade flows
Copyright: Rex Features
After all, the average European spot price in the second quarter so far was €17/tonne ($22/tonne) higher than that of the first quarter, and there is a fairly widespread acceptance, even among consumers, that the European market is tighter than it is long.
Looking at the probable supply and demand balance in the third quarter, there is unlikely to be any significant lengthening of the market.
While demand is typically at it weakest in the third quarter, unreliable feedstock gas supply in Egypt and Trinidad is likely to balance this out, at the very least, and could even tighten the market further, many observers believe.
EUROPE/ASIA PRICE GAP
So why did many consumers refuse to back a contract rollover, when market fundamentals would appear to suggest this represents a good deal for them?
The answer is the wide difference in price between Europe and Asia, in particular China. The net European contract price (assuming an average discount of 15%) is $78/tonne higher than the current average spot price in China. The spot market represents the bulk of methanol trading in China, while in Europe most supplies are contracted.
European methanol consumers who export derivatives complain this higher price puts them at competitive disadvantage to Asian counterparts, who have access to far cheaper feedstock.
This disadvantage has become so pronounced that some producers of methanol derivatives have been forced to significantly reduce their export volumes, or face operating at zero margins.
One European producer of chloromethanes said it has reduced the operating rate of its plant as a direct result of being unable to compete with Asian counterparts.
A formaldehyde producer said it would increasingly shift operations to its plants in Asia and the US to improve margins. But why should methanol suppliers care if consumers are performing badly?
Consumers argue that the reduced exports of European methanol derivatives will lead to reduced European methanol consumption, which is, of course, bad for suppliers. The only problem is suppliers are unanimous that contractual off-take is stable.
Consumers counter that reduced demand from many traditional chemical produces has been offset by increased demand from the fuels sector - for example methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) production - and, furthermore, that the full impact of the demand erosion has not yet been fully felt upstream.
Nevertheless, suppliers point out that European prices have been at a significant premium to Chinese prices since mid-October 2012, and say there has been no discernible impact on European demand.
The suppliers' main argument is that the contract price should be dictated by market fundamentals alone; on the supply and demand balance and the level of spot prices throughout the preceding quarter.
Whether or not they give much credence to consumers' claims of difficult downstream conditions, suppliers say this should only be taken in account if and when demand is affected.
But many consumers feel the damage could be done by then, and that suppliers should exercise caution when maximising their profits.
"In 2009, 2010, methanol prices were half of what they are now. Since then natural gas prices went down, not up. [Methanol producers] have been too eager for profits. I understand why, but they need to be careful," said the formaldehyde producer.
Consumers also question why such a wide gap can exist between two regions of a global commodity market in the first place.
One common explanation is that Iranian methanol imports pull Chinese prices down.
Since international trade sanctions against Iran were broadened to include petrochemicals, Iran's substantial methanol capacity can only realistically be sold into China and India, where most buyers are not affected by the sanctions. Buyers in these countries are therefore able to negotiate lower prices
Other sources have pointed instead to cheaper coal prices in China during 2013, which have made it possible for many of China's numerous coal-based methanol plants to run at a profit, and so domestic Chinese production has increased.
GAPS NOT EASY TO BRIDGE
The conclusion, which European buyers and sellers agree on, is that regional price differences in the global methanol market are simply not as easy to balance out as was once assumed.
Even shipments from China to the US in May totalling 40,000 tonnes did little to bridge the price the gap between those markets.
How the situation will be resolved remains unclear. A European consumer admitted its options were limited. A number of producers have said a much larger price differential would be required to elicit a significant change in global trade flows.
Some players are optimistic that the recent election of Hassan Rohani as Iran's president could lead to a softening of the western-led sanctions, which could eventually eliminate a key source of the global methanol imbalance. However, this is something that is likely to take some time, if it happens at all.
One thing that seems fairly certain - the wide price gap between the Atlantic markets and the Asian markets is going nowhere fast.
Sample issue >>
My Account/Renew >>
Register for online access >>
|ICIS Top 100 Chemical Companies|
|Download the listing here >>|
Asian Chemical Connections