Asian Chemical Connections

Perfect subject if you've got the post-weekend blues....

A very irate and tired and emotional chemicals trader was moaning last week about the imposition of a new knowledge-management system by his company.

"Our bosses never listen to us and they assume that if they come with a new software solution that we have had no role in developing we will just do as we are told and use it. The system just doesn't work - it's totally inappropriate for our business. It makes people less likely to share rather than more likely. It takes time away from our core job roles, is inefficient and is slow but nobody can say anything because it was the top boss's idea who sold it the board. His career is riding on it."

Let me know if your boss listens to you - in confidence, of course, in this world of precarious job security.

And have a listen to this short video from David Gurteen that sums this up beautifully. It's the first one in a series of six (all worth listening to) and entitled "How do you make people share?"

David spent 30 years working high tech industries and is now an independent knowledge educator and coach.

My dear old mother used to often say "what's the world coming to?" as if life was constantly getting worse.

But for South Korean workers - and for workers everywhere in Asia - expectations of employers have long been unreasonable. Tied into this is loyalty, "face", pride and ridiculously long and often unproductive hours that drive workers to breakdown - and sadly suicide.

Click her for a story about an innovative solution from Samsung where employees have signed up in droves (they have overbooked) for courses where they enact their own funerals. The idea is to make stressed workers think through what death means and all the problems they would leave behind if they took their own lives.

Also click here for an extraordinary gallery of pictures from the FT.

All very laudable, but shouldn't employers everywhere kick over the cultural traces, take the pressure off profit growth and reduce the constant pressure on workers to run ever-harder just to stand still? Is it up to ethical shareholders to also take a haircut and demand better working conditions?

Take a leaf from Google where the freedom to relax, to enjoy and to think - the result of a relaxed workplace environment where people are not obliged to sit around in suits terrified to speak out of turn - has led to one of the world's most creative and successful companies.

This could lead to higher rather than lower earnings and not just in the trendy IT sector where relaxed work culture is the norm. As climate challenges multiply, the chemicals industry will need to be just as innovative to prosper - a theme I'll be touching on constantly over the coming months.

But can you magine any Asian CEO using a slide - such as the one in the picture above from the Google offices in Zurich - to descend to a meeting?

Or is there a new guard of younger Asian executives ready to take over who regard employee welfare, creativity and profitability as interconnected?

Great that my entry yesterday Work can be the death of you produced a response.

But I think the commentator missed the point.

Working long hours is not an issue for staff who are properly managed and motivated. The "presenteeism" of some work cultures, though, is surely a major source of concern for the welfare of employees.

Sure the "business furniture" of free workplace food, slides and dressing down needs to be supported by a management approach that goes deeper.

I would suggest that at least in the case of Google creativity is not just a surface PR image.

A conducive workplace environment can also be an indicator of a deeper respect for employees.Otherwise, we mightaswell go back to the "executive canteen".

Back in the 1980s, before Japan's "Lost Decade" of stagnant growth, management gurus lined up to praise the country's collective spirit as the basis of a sustainable economic miracle.

Since then, of course, the West has been consistently espoused as the best.

And even the Japanese wish they could break free of their consensus shackles, according to this week's issue of The Economist -- hence, the huge popularity of management hero Kosaku Shima of conglomerate Hatsubishi Goya Holdings.

He thinks outside the box, acts decisely, is not scared of telling people what he thinks and has been successful even though he has always sat outside political factions within his company.

And in June, Shima (see picture above) truly broke the mould when he was promoted to shacho (president) of his company at the tender age of just 60 - very young by Japanese standards.

There is one slight problem: he is a manga or cartoon character.

"Shima is influential - business people want to be like him but can't," says Yuko Kawamoto, management professor at Waseda Uniiversity in Tokyo.

"Maybe there is hope for Japanese society. We want to change, but do not have the courage."

The grim reality for the average salaryman, according to The Economist, remains a life of drudgery and of stifled opinions because of the dreaded fear of causing a superior to lose face. As a result, bad decisions go unchallenged and become ingrained policy.

Japan's chemical companies have often broken the mould through innovative technologies - and were talkiing about and acting on energy efficiency long before the current oil and environmental crises.

Sumitomo Chemical is also about to start-up a huge petrochemical complex in Saudi Arabia - along with Saudi Aramco - and is talking about a major second wave of investment at the same site. This also involves breaking the mould as it's the first occasion that a Japanese chemicals company has invested on its own in a big overseas cracker project.

But the perception remains, fair or otherwise, that the chemicals industry could and should have undergone more restructuring.

Fair or unfair?

A consultant once told me a wonderful story - so wonderful I don't even care whether it's true or not - about how the monthly European benzene price in the 1950s was calculated based on the US price once the latest issue of Chemical Market Reporter had arrived in Rotterdam by boat.

Are we now wasting time and money on dealing with market volatility that's the result of how we gather and process information?

Nicholas Carr of The Atlantic.com argues that the Google age is making us think and behave differently.

The furious linking between one site and the next, the feeling of never knowing enough, of never being entirely up-to-date, might have turned us into what the playwright Richard Foreman calls "pancake people". In other words we have a broad range of knowledge thanks to all that surfing - but have an inability to read more than a couple of pages of text at any one time and to take a break from information-trawling long enough to consider what we have read. We have, as a result, lost our intellectual depth.

As our attention spans ever-shorten with the volume of information and information-solutions out there, are we making energy and chemical markets more volatile?

Are we no longer able to take a deep breath and stand back and contemplate what is really going on?

The financial players and the physical traders contribute to erratic price movements because they have an interest in volatility, but to what extent?

Could it be that the way we gather and process information plays a bigger role in erratic price movements than the speculators?

Fundamentals still play the biggest role. For example, oil supply is so stretched that the slightest disruption to production - or even only rumours of a disruption - can have a big effect on pricing.

But the speed with which information is flashed around the globe and how we react to that information might be increasing volatility in tight markets such as crude.

Quantifying the impact of the way the Internet is shaping the way pricing markets behave could be a job for the nueroeconomists who I wrote about earlier this month.

Perhaps the good old days were better, when CMR arrived by boat and a few wise old men with leather patches on their jackets puffed on their pipes and came up with a benzene price that was more stable and less damaging to both buyers and sellers. Or is this just rose-tinted and ill-informed nonsense?

James Burke (see picture above) has so far been proved wrong about the information technology revolution giving us the ability to be free, to create our own realities and to not be dictated to by governments, companies or other institutions.

In this clip from his wonderful series, Connections, he envisages such an era because knowledge will be freely available.

This is the great democratisation of knowledge written about by Chris Anderson in The Long Tail.

Sadly, the reverse has happened. We have become a slave to our machines - from our mobile phones, to our Blackberries to our PCs - and a slave to markets that we are nowhere close to predicting or controlling.

But give Mr Burke a break. His programme was broadcast in the 1970s, was way ahead of its time and perhaps so far ahead that one day his prophesies will come true.

For us lesser mortals further down the slippery career pole, it is easy to stare up with envy and contempt at the CEOs of our own companies and other companies.

Many us at times feel (myself included) that we could do a great deal better than our bosses.

I plan to develop a CEO board game with online and "hard copy" versions complete with chance cards such as "You get caught price-fixing at a major industry event. Do not pass Go and do not collect $2,000. Go straight to jail". The reference to Monopoly wasn't meant to be a dreadful pun.

We could then put our supposed superior skills into practice and prove whether we are really cut out for life at the top. And maybe if the game was accurate enough, it could be used to help assess real applicants for the top jobs. Watch this space for a prototype.

In the meantime, management consultants, as you well know, make a fortune from offering all kinds of advice to companies and their CEOs about how to make it big.

This is not always money well spent, according to Victor Newman - former chief learning officer at Pfizer - who is now what he calls an independent Knowledge Activist.

In his excellent video, 4 Faces of CEO, he talks of how one particular consultancy charged several million dollars for 3-4 months work, only to produce findings that he says could have been reached in a couple of hours through internal discussion.

I digress. This is not meant to be a dig at management consultants whose work I admire and whose salaries I envy almost as much as my CEO's.

It must be lonely and tough at the top, although a massive salary and the guarantee of a huge pay-off even if you turn out to be a load of rubbish are considerable compensations.

Newman's video is the opening to a CEO workshop where he tries to tackle the loneliness attached to making big decisions.

He highlights something we can all relate to no matter what our rank: the feeling of powerlessness to achieve what we want to achieve because we lack the necessary skills, resources or simply the time to get to the "ideal world" (in my case, a CEO board game developed within the next six months which becomes a huge commercial success enabling me to retire, save the world and ban caravans from the roads).

He has developed a diagnostic approach where business leaders identify where they want to get to and measure this against how far away they are from their objectives. Results of these evaluations are then shared in what he admits can be a painful exercise, followed with discussion on how each of the CEOs can get closer to their ideals.

Sounds great stuf not only for CEOs but for anybody who cares about progressing in their job.

And what's fascinating is the reason for the 4 Faces of a CEO title of his video.

These four faces are:

*Creators who don't care about money because they are "intrinsically motivated". In other words there is no point in just waving the big salary cheque, the luxury new car and country club membership at these people. The buzz they get is from new ideas and only new ideas. They find implementing ideas boring because they want to move on to the next thing

*Stabilisers who are loathed by the creators. These are the nerdy spreadsheet and process people who love setting up systems and would rather not take risks than risk failure

*Implementers. They can dress in jeans and bizzarely designed T-shirts - just like the creators - and share with these space cases thoughts about the intellectual beauty and complexity of this world. They are just as comfortable mixing with the stabilisers as they can be equally passionate about the latest delivery of paper clips.

*Newton says that only recently he identified a fourth category of business leader - navigators. These are the people who ask all the right questions of the three types of CEO listed above, can pull these types together, are great communicators both internally and externally and can see the big picture.

Other than having no interest in bizarre T-shirts (my sales manager more than compensates for me in this crucial aspect of innovation) I am too much of a creator. I hate loathe, detest and despise process (but begrudgingly now admit it's occassionally useful), which has got me into a lot of trouble over the years.

The ideal CEO might well be the navigator - the person with the great people skills, the zest for entrepeneurship, the huge capacity for detail and the ability to make processes work for people rather than the other way round.

And so - using these above categorie -, let's all indulge in the spectator sport of assessing how chemical CEOS fit in with Newman's categories.

Watch this space!

This article, by David Strahan, author of The Last Oil Shock, says that it would take three million coconuts to power one flight from London to Amsterdam on 100% biofuels.

Some of the comments posted at the end of this excellent article, first published in the New Scientists, agree with Strahan that we have reached "Peak Aviation" - no matter what the developments in second-generation biofuels.

The first generation nonsense of corn-based ethanol (as Andrew Liveris pointed in my post yesterday) and palm-based biodiesel have been thoroughly discredited.

But what the Strahan research also contends is that even the much-touted next wave of technologies will never realistically be able to 100% replace hydrocarbon-based fuels for aviation, transportation and power generation. The argument can also easily be extended to the chemicals industry, which, of course, is so tied into the production of transportation fuels.

Strahan supports this view with another startling calculation: an area bigger than China (10 million kilometres squared) would be needed to provide enough biomass to completely replace the world's current demand for fossil fuels for all forms of transportation.

Then you need to contemplate the likelihood that we have reached, or are very close to reaching, Peak Oil. The huge growth in crude demand from developing countries is pushing us much closer to Peak Oil, if it hasn't already arrived.

In The Last Oil Shock, Strahan quotes Dick Cheney in 2001 as characterising Republican energy policy thus: "Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it cannot be the basis of sound energy policy."

But just a few years later, shortly after hurricanes Rita and Katrina had exposed the fine balance between crude supply, refinery capacity and demand, President Bush said: "We can all pitch in by being better conservers of energy."

Winston Churchill saved Britain, and the world, from the Nazis. He was, though, widely viewed as mad - even by many prominent Americans such as Joseph Kennedy - for sticking it out during the dark days of the Blitz.

The parellel here is that we need politicians and business leaders with the courage not just to react to temporary crises, as Bush did by telling people to conserve after the 2005 hurricanes.

We need the next president of the US to persuade the public to accept one-car ownership, greater use of public transport and recycling. A visionary leader has to emerge who will, in the long term, be willing to dismantle the whole structure of our current consumer economy through persuasion backed up by tough legislation.

The short election cycles in the US - when as soon as you are elected, virtually, you need to start worrying about the mid-terms and then your own re-election bid - might prevent any such leader emerging.

Equally, oil and chemical company CEOs don't last that long. Even the current generation of leaders might be well into comfortable retirement by the time our modern way of life collapses as energy runs out.

There's a marvellous line in Ian McEwan's great novel, Saturday, where the main character enjoys a shower after a game of squash and reflects that his could be last generation to enjoy luxuries such as limitless hot water.

Our supposed betters, the politicians and the business leaders, need to have the courage to tell us, to make us, consume less - and American has to take the lead (as it eventually did, albeit a little belatedly, in the Second World War). Only if America takes the lead on conversion, and on climate change, will the result of the world follow.

We need the CEO of a plastics company to, for example, to come out and say "please use less of our products, for the good of humanity". You can just imagine the reaction of his or her fellow Board members, however,

In this era of short attention spans fed by soundbites, spin, Google and YouTube - leading to erratic voters and equally erratic and fickle investors - visionaries of this nature are unlikely to emerge.

We are living on borrowed time

As delegates gather for this year's European Petrochemical Association meeting in the unreal world of Monaco (unreal for the 99.9 per cent recurring of us who don't own Ferraris), I thought it was worth summarising some of the issues discussed on this blog over the last few months.

We've dealt with:

*Oil-price volatility and the likelihood that high and volatile crude is here to stay. Crude at or around $100 a barrel seems to be a new long-term level with the strong possibility that geopolitical shocks could send costs much higher. Supply and demand balances remain tight and as soon as global economic growth recovers we will see much higher prices - meaning that the recovery could be nipped in the bud. Are we heading for a new economic climate where recoveries are constantly set back by rising energy costs? For every one barrel we are discovering, we are consuming three.

*The new credit environment that might well emerge from tougher banking regulations. No longer will it be possible for a truck driver from Iowa earning $20,000 a year to borrow at ridiculous multiples of his salary and at "teaser" interest rates. How these regulations will effect emerging markets his harder to read as Asian governments and consumers are in far better financial shape than those in the West. Many of the banks in Asia have been more prudent. But the events in the US will surely lower the appetite for risk globally - and there is no guarantee that the financial-rescue package will work. Ask your consultants or inhouse researchers you use whether their demand-growth predictions factor in the possiblility of lower growth because consumers no longer have access to as much credit.

*Innovation will be the key as the environment becomes a bigger and bigger issue for the chemicals industry. You need right technologies and the right kind of staff. As there is a possibility of a global carbon tax or carbon cap-and-trade system, do estimates of what this might cost need to be factored into feasibility studies? How feasible will it therefore be - given both high energy costs and the possibility of a price on emissions - to continue building plants long distances from major consumption markets?

*One of the big areas of innovation will be attempts to break the link between the refinery and petrochemical industries. BASF is claiming it could be as little as five years away from breakthroughs in catalyst technology that could change the industry forever, enabling highly competitive petchems to be produced from biogass, natural gas or coal.

And finally, other theme I haven't blogged on yet but will do are plant and energy efficiency. Some very interesting research projects are taking place at the National University of Singapore chemical engineering department into monitoring the exact output of plants in differennt climate conditions and a model that might enable producers to much more accurately predict changes in yields from switching feedstocks. Much more later...

Meanwhile, have a great meeting - and let's hope the economic conditions improve.

Globalisation is an attitude of mind as what might now be a slightly descredited economic doctrine.

Many companies are international but few - from talking to friends and contacts - are truly global in the sense that they recruit senior managers from all regions (not just the country in which their head office is located) and display a consistent bottom-up sensitivity to cultural differences.

I mean by this a recognition that business practices vary hugely country by country and culture by culture.

At every level of a company from administration support right up to the CEO, there should be an awareness that "one size fits all" approaches don't always work.

As the world economy implodes, addressing such issues for companies that have fallen behind in efforts to become truly global will be of far less immediate importance than survlval.

Survival might only be possible for those companies that already genuinely think and act globally.

I'll give you an example. One European-located trading company launched a major polymer additives sales push in Indonesia the week before Hari Raya Aidilfitri. Pouring money down the drain in this fashion is the last thing anyone can afford to do in the current climate.

Talking the walk is one thing which Lenova clearly does in this article from The Economist where the Chinese computer manufacturer makes all the right noises about being genuinely global.

Any Lenovo employees out there who would like to comment about how genuine these comments are?

And what about other companies?

We need great leaders in the current crisis.

Below is the kind of speech I'd like to hear from my CEO - delivered in person - if I worked for a chemicals company.

Everything that now follows is fiction and any resemblance to an industry leader, either living or dead, might sadly be purely coincidental:


"Things are really bad - there is no disguising it, and they will get a great deal worse. This is at least the worst global economic crisis since 1980-1982. Conditions are a lot worse than during the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98 when markets fairly quickly recovered.

"The financial security of hundreds of families depends on our company. Many of the main breadwinners of these families work for us.

"I have been through this myself - I was made redundant. It's not just the money that counts, it's the loss of self-esteem - because work for many of us goes to the core of how we define ourselves, of who we are, of what we mean to ourselves and others."

"I will do my very upmost to avoid having to tell anyone to leave for economic reasons. The only reason I will willingly let anyone go is if they make a careless mistake.

"We are all in this together, we must watch each others backs, support each other, encourage each other - and try not to make any mistakes.

"I would rather see volumes go down substantially than for us to acquire raw material from suppliers or sell product to customers in difficult financial positions.

"We need excellent market intelligence on the viability of all our suppliers and customers. How strong are their business models and credit positions? This knowledge needs to be constantly revised.

"I am not asking you to take any risks out of anxiety to achieve unrealistic sales targets. I will be revising those targets down, and will revise them and down even further if necessary - regardless of the initial impact on our share price.

"I believe that caution over business conditions will earn us the long-term support of our banks and our shareholders. I really don't care about my share options in the short term - all that matters is that we survive this together. And anyway my share options - and those of the fellow directors - will be worthless if we go bust.

"We cannot afford to make the mistakes of overbuying raw materials or over committing on sales because of our own credit position, the extreme energy-price volatility and the uncertainty over what is 'fundamental' demand'.

"Inventories have been run down because the industry was living in chemicals 'parallel universe', as Paul Hodges of International e-Chem so rightly pointed. Stocks were built-up earlier this year as crude prices soared on anticipation of further price rises up and down the product chains.

"This flew in the face of clear signals that the economic crisis was deepening. These signals included the collapse of Bear Stearns and the US government rescue of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. We were also guilty of this and I take the responsibility for following the herd.

"Once bitten twice shy and so everyone is as a result keeping stocks low. And as I've already mentioned, energy-price volatility and the uncertainty over demand is depressing buying and selling activity. Inventories are also being kept to a minimum due to the financial year-end.

"This means that I do not see our raw-material costs and finished-product prices moving up by anymore $20-30/tonne until at least the New Year and so there are no substantial gains to be made out there. But pricing hasn't necessarily hit the bottom and so declines could be much bigger than any temporary and slight increases - so the danger of taking a risk for the potential of a very small gain is the risk of a huge loss!

"But I am telling my sales team to be prepared for sharp upward price corrections at some point - possibly as early as January 2009. Demand is still out there, if only at very-much reduced levels, and once the end-user demand re-emerges, our prices could literally double overnight from very low levels.

"This creates an even greater risk for us and so the policy will remain the same: be cautious, don't take risks and if you miss targets and there is good justification for doing so, you will not be penalised. I would rather lose the odd upside deal when prices start rising and falling in large amounts than run the risk of a disastrous mistiming of raw-material buying and an increase in our operating rates.

"And finally, let's forget about the crisis for the rest of this evening. DINNER'S ON ME - LET'S GO AND GET DRUNK."