Asian Chemical Connections

The Bank of Japan has decided to raise interest rates - from 0.25 to 0.5%. This could weaken the yen, thereby damaging the country's export-led recovery. For the petrochemical players, the benefits of a 21-year low yen have been offset by the increased cost of importing naphtha.
The bank is also banking on last summer's consumer spending slump being only temporary, meaning that it can afford a rate rise needed to both strengthen the yen and slow what's also to being also an industrial investment-led recovery (to provide all the products for booming exports).
But what if the consumer spending slump is long term? If so, a rate rise is hardly the right medicine.

I had a feeling in my bones that Reliance was laying the groundwork for a major project announcement with its endlessly bullish forecasts about the Indian market (see my earlier blog 'Is India about to crash?').
And low and behold, last week we saw the Indian major firm up its long-rumoured plans for a new cracker and derivatives complex at Jamnagar. The cracker is due on stream in 2010-11, using off-gas and other refinery by-products from its new refinery as feedstock.
Commentators say feedstock costs will be low. The petrochemical giant is already said to be producing some of the most competitive propylene in Asia. If its growth projections prove too bullish, Reliance will need to focus very hard on costs.

Reliance is building the world's first cracker that will be entirely fed by off-gas from its huge refinery expansion at Jamnagar. This technology has been used before, but never on this scale because nobody has had enough refinery capacity to run a cracker 100% on very cheap off-gas.
The Dow strategy includes looking for cheaper sources of ethylene and for "asset light" investments, ie, where it doesn't have to spend a bundle of cash to get its hands on cheap raw material. This has proved a highly effective strategy in Kuwait through the Equate joint venture.
In addition, Dow would get access to the Indian market where the growth potential is huge.
As for Reliance, it wants technologies - Dow's great strength - and also access to the US chemicals market. The US, despite low growth, is still the world's biggest market.
And so, I think, a Dow-Reliance tie-up makes a lot of sense.
As for a leveraged buyout of Dow, the complexities of which are made so simple even I can understand them in this excellent article from my colleague Joe Chang, what about the politics?
Middle East companies would very probably have to be part of such an historically massive to deal; they have the cash and don't have pressure from nervous shareholders. I am not sure whether Sinopec or PetroChina would be interested as their focus is on securing overseas oil and gas assets.
After the Dubai Ports controversy last year, an LBO involving the Middle East would surely be blocked by Congress.

In the old days all you had to do was propose an ethane cracker with PE and MEG downstream and you were away.
But these days if you want to get feedstock, especially in Saudi, you need to offer something a bit different because of the drive to diversify to create jobs.
This is a big opportunity for medium-sized players such as Lucite with the right technologies, hence their methyl methacrylate project with Sipchem.

As everyone focuses on when the next downturn might arrive, macro issues such as the implications of a likely US withdrawal from Iraq are rarely publicly discussed.
But if I were on the board of any company making investment decisions, I'd be worried.
If the US withdrawal from Iraq is well managed then fears such as those expressed in this article will come to nought. Sadly, "Iraq" "the US" and "well managed" are words and phrases that rarely share the same sentence and so the future looks a little shaky to say the least.

As the Middle East struggles to find labour and raw material supply with contractors' order books bursting at the seams, the Chinese seem to have no difficulty in executing their projects.
See below for detailed analysis of what's happening with the current wave of Chinese crackers. Suffice to say here that nearly all of China's cracker projects will be on time, unlike the Middle East where the delays are mounting.
Contractor markets are forecast to be tight until 2008--09. Could the Chinese be able to leverage their way into joint ventures in the Middle East before the market slackens by offering a one-stop shop of labour, equipment, contractors and financing?
Technology supply, marketing reach and cash have been the traditional means the foreigners have used to get their hands on highly competitive Middle East gas supply. Perhaps the Chinese might also offer lump-sum turnkey contracts plus a dollop of cash from one of China's state-owned banks with highly attractive lending terms, given that they are weaker on technologies and marketing.
The Middle East project builders would be, of course, happy and so would the Chinese government. Its priority is energy security, whether at the oil and gas or basic petrochemical level.

Last night I was feeling a little mellow after consuming far too much ethanol (the French variety - a very reasonable bottle of Cotes du Rhone) when the idiots on CNBC began to rant on about this being 2007, which explained why were in the midst of potentially a global financial meltdown.
There was the global financial disaster of 1987 when the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell by 22.5% in just one day.
And, of course, everyone remembers 1997 - the year of the Asian financial crisis.
It occurred to me, in my ethanol-induced haze, that we should sack all the mathematicians, scrap all the complex computer models, drown all the analysts along with the economists, and my mother-in-law because she is an awful cook, for failing to spot something as obvious as the fact that bad luck always comes in threes and this is a third year with a seven in it - hence, the crisis could have been predicted. I could have not bought that bloody house in Australia and not listened to that financial adviser who told me to park my money in equities.
I am sober this morning, but I still think widespread sackings and drownings are in order.
What about the supposedly smart people at Goldman Sachs who fed numbers through their computers and estimated that the likelihood of this crisis occurring was once in 100 millennia? First off the short plank, I'd say, minus their bonuses.
Oh, and the by the way, as sevens are clearly worth avoiding like The Plague, here are some tips if you are a chemicals or oil trader:
*Do not buy naphtha as it's going to fall in price (ICIS pricing placed second-half October contracts at $664-667.50/tonne CFR this morning).
*Brent crude might be worth a punt as it has fallen below the evil $70.33/bbl to $69.49.
*Benzene - go short as it's $960-970/tonne FOB Korea
*And whatever you do, get out of toluene now as it's double trouble - $775/tonne FOB Korea
Now where's my rabbit's foot gone?

Standing in the queue for Starbucks (not McDonalds - no way, and my son's going nowhere near that place) it's so easy to opt for the half bucket-sized Grande option because, after all, we are all rich these days and anyway it costs hardly anything to "Upsize". Walk around Starbucks and you'll notice numerous Grande Lates have been left only half-drunk.
And why not buy yet another car, an even bigger one, or an even bigger house (maybe one that's been repossessed in the US?).
Also, thanks to the ferocious cost-cutting efforts of the likes of Walmart - made possible by the developing world's hugely competitive textile industry - clothing has become incredibly cheap.
Move upstream from your wrack after wrack of cheap shirts and the feedstocks - crude oil, heavy naphtha. mixed xylenes (MX) and paraxylene (PX) - are becoming tighter and tighter.
Oil is at record highs, new refinery building has been delayed by soaring construction costs and MX is becoming an increasingly attractive blend into gasoline.
The picture for plastics might be slightly different because of all the gas-based capacity being brought on stream over the next few year.
But the polymer still has to be shipped and/or trucked, meaning yet more pressure on crude-oil pricing.
"Governments should try to limit the amount of synthetic fibres and plastics being consumed through taxation because there simply aren't enough raw materials around," said a delegate at the ICIS/International eChem Asian Aromatics Conference which took place in Singapore this summer.
This would be political suicide, of course, and so what seems more likely is that only inflationary pressures can produce the desired moderation in consumption.
But what if inflation gets out of control - perhaps more likely after the recent interest rate cuts in response to the credit crisis?
Back to bell bottoms, Ziggy Stardust And The Spiders From Mars, Ted Heath and the three-day week and football tackles that were really tackles - meaning, greivous bodily harm. God bless you, good Old Norm'.

This was the warning from Bob Bauman of Nexant ChemSystems at last week's 25th Annual Petrochemical Conference in Houston, Texas.

Read below for some rather gloomy predictions of where markets could be heading in 2011-12

Quite possiby says International e-Chem and Wood Mackenzie in a new study which predicts that by 2015, China could have a deficit of as much as 35m tonnes.

When you consider that total global output is around 300m tonne/year, this is quite staggering.

On paper, China should be balanced on naphtha because of a huge refinery construction wave. However, the consultants argue that the refineries will be run primarily to make gasoline. The importance of gasoline supply to China as a means of stimulating economic growth, thereby maintaining social stability, was illustrated yesterday when the government raised fuel prices by 10%. The hope is that the price hike will end shortages through boosting refinery production as a result of improved refinery margins.

And globally, will there be enough naphtha to supply China? Many of the 700 or so refinery projects being built could be delayed or cancelled because of rising construction costs and tight contractor and raw material markets.

Even if there is enough supply on paper, will refiners want to make the naphtha that China and the rest of the world needs? Quite possibly not as naphtha only accounts for around 5% of total refinery output.

Therefore, globally, as in China, refineries exit primarily to maintain supply and make money from the transportation sector.

See below for an extended analysis of why everything is about to go wrong.

Looking forward to picking up some bargain chemical shares over the next two years and some cheap US and UK property!

As the Asian head of M&A and acqusitions for a major bank told me this morning: "Wnen everyone tells me I must buy as the market will definitely keep going up I sell.

"When they tell me to sell, I buy."

Counter-cyclical advice that served the Huntsmans well for a long time, until they became over-leveraged.

Talking about over-leveraging, only interest rate cuts right down to zero will prevent the great unravelling of the paper-bottomed credit-fuelled boom.

What Andrew Liveris didn't address when interviewed over the Dow/PIC deal is what the $19bn olefins and polymers deal could mean for Asia, the Middle East and commodities.

All the talk was of specialities with speculation sure to be rife over the next few months over how the US major will use its now substantial war chest to boost its presence in performance products.

But when it comes to commodites, Kuwait is not blessed with abundant supplies of natural gas.

Although the Equate joint venture (the jv between Dow and PIC) has sufficient gas to build and supply a second complex, which is due on stream next year, talk of a third cracker in Kuwait has gone quiet. There were reports late last year of a significant new gas find in the north of the country, but apparently the new field is not ethane-rich.

And so if Dow/PIC can't further expand in Kuwait, where might they build?

Perhaps in Egypt where discussions have been taking place with the Egyptian government for an ethane cracker.

And PIC, through its parent company Kuwait Petroleum Co, has access to crude oul supplies. This could get Dow/PIC into China, where future foreign participation in future integrated refinery and petrochemical projects might only be possible if the foreign partner brings oil supply into the deal. This is a commodity of which China is in desperate shortage.

Dow has also been pursuing a coal-to-chemicals project in China. Will its interest in coal-to-chemicals persist now that it is better able to build oil-based petrochemicals in the world's most-important market?

Finally, though, it's worth noting that there has been a lot of talk, and hints from those in the know, about further pipeline links across the Middle East.

On of the places with lots of gas in the region (excluding Iran, which has too many other issues to worry about than pursuing regional co-operation) is Qatar. Linking Kuwait into future spurs of the Dolphin pipeline might not be beyond the realms of possiblity - thereby, making Kuwait a place for further expansion.

Or what about moving gas from Iraq, if that country ever becomes politically stable enough? Or maybe even Dow/PIC could co-operate on eventually even building a cracker together in Iraq?

Talk of building petrochemicals in Iraq re-emerged a few months ago.

Worth ringing Mr Liveris and asking him these questions. I will ask my colleagues to help out.

The two big gaps in the US major's Asian presence (and gaping gaps they indeed are) are cracker complexes in India and China.

China could be fixed through the alliance with PIC - meaning, Dow has leverage to get a license to build a naphtha cracker complex by offering crude supply through its new jv.

Atlernatively, it could achieve te same objective by completing its methanol-to-olefins project.

But India remains blocked by Bhopal. One wonders why a company with the wisdom of Down cannot work its way through the ever-in-flux Indian system, but maybe no foreigner can without the support of a strong local partner.

This is not meant to make light of the lingering misery of one of the world's worst chemical disasters, but the motives of some of those petitioning for more money are perhaps a shade dubious.

What's certain is that the issues cannot be as simple as portrayed in this Voice of America article.

With naphtha prices so high, heavy aromatics and pygas feedstock for producing benzene are not only expensive but are also in tight supply due to operating rate cutbacks.

Longer term also, as we've already discussed here, there are major doubts over whether China will produce enough naphtha to operate all the petrochemical projects it is building when the priority is gasoline and diesel production.

The economics of naphtha and pygas-based benzene look seriously challenged, therefore, both in the short and long terms.

And as the extended article below warns, watch out for King Coal as China ramps up exceptionally economic coal-to-benzene production

I sincerely hope not, but all the signs are there because of:

*A financial crisis which nobody again saw coming, this time with global implications

*What could prove to be too much spending on new equipment and capacity. This time high equity prices have paid for these investments rather than US dollar-denominated bank loans, as was the case in 1997.

The fundamentals are still strong, as today's article from ICIS news on share-price collapses points out. Asian demand is at much higher levels now than 11 years ago.

But the power of sentiment should not be underestimated.

It's too early to read the long-term effect on petrochemical pricing. More volatility seems certain with sentiment driving shifts in pricing on every piece of negative or positive economic and stock market news.

Lower feedstock costs on cheaper oil will also play a role, but as the extended article below points out, the impact on the real economy will take time to assess. It is this impact that will set the long-term direction and determine whether we the downturn has, finally, arrived.

Recent comments by An Qiyuan, chairman of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Committee for Shaanxi, warned of the environment and social catastrophe facing the northwestern province of China because of a shortage of water.
He was referring to the diversion of water from Shaanxi to Beijing ahead of the Olympics and hydroelectricity plants which he believes should be closed down.
Water is a particularly scare resource in western China - where most of the country's coal gasification projects are located. The technology is arguably a wasteful, heavy consumer of water.
And this raises an interesting dilemma for Dow Chemical - potentially a joint investor with Shenhua Energy in a coal-to-chemicals project in Shaanxi.How do you balance economics with the environment?
Coal gasification could represent the promised land - provided you can solve the logistics problems and provided the long-running doubts over the viability of methanol-to-olefins technologies are unfounded.

Very interesting speech from Alan Kirkley, Vice President of Strategy and Portfolio for Shell Chemicals, which first of all goes over the predictable ground of where we are in the cycle and the threat from the Middle East.

However, he then makes the valid point - which I made earlier this week - that the end of the world has not necessarily arrived for the US and Europe.

There are some big question marks over how much more capacity the GCC region will be able to add post-2012, and perhaps even further afield as global LNG markets take off. Gas cracking may no longer as consistently benefit from feedstock at virtually give-away prices.

The likes of Shell and ExxonMobil have existing technology and know-how to make more highly competitive basic petrochemicals - and to take maximum advantage of the petrochemicals/refining interface.

Kirkley predicts that there will be an increasing use of hydrocracking to make petrochemicals, tapping into light ends that have a diminishing value in the gasoline pool and more revamping of catalytic cracking capacity towards olefin production.

Given the likely continued high cost of EPC and raw materials, anybody with a fully depreciated refinery requiring only relatively modest investment could be in a strong position.

But, of course, the first task is to survive the current downturn in one piece.

I am beginning to come to the view that something has to give in the medium-term. There is no way that the global economy can support crude prices at current levels, and you can argue, as Lehman Bros does, that speculation is behind a fair slice of the recent rallies.

They also make the case (read more on ICIS news next week) that the supply outlook is not as bad as the bulls on crude pricing - who make up the majority - are making out.

But the problem is that every bit of bad news on crude gets played up by the media, and ends up inflating the crude price, because the majority opinion is that prices have much further to rise.

The Lehman analysis doesn't add the very obvious point that chemical producers and industries all the way down to finished goods will be cutting back production on high oil prices. This will, in itself, serve as a correcting mechanism.

Governments in Asia are also cutting back on fuel subsidies which could moderate consumption growth in emerging markets - the main factor behind the demand surge.

See below for an extended interview with Shell Chemicals vice president, Ben van Beurden, who talks of the search for new feedstock sources. He raises the possiblity of using syngas from the Pearl GTL project in Qatar to make methanol and then olefins. Or perhaps the high paraffinic naphtha and ethane from the same project will be the way to go for Shell in Qatar?

Meanwhile, more investment in China looks likely. Read on......

....that's the case - in the Middle East case because of advantaged feedstock and in China's case because it will be strategic.

In previous downturns, far more capacity was western, or other Asian, and liquids based and so rate cuts brought markets more quickly into balance.

The graphs below from ICIS Plants & Projects data show that while only 14.8% of existing capacites comprises the M-E and China, this will rise to 62.3% of the new capacities being brought onstream in 2008-12.

This will leave M-E and China accounting for around 27% of total gobal ethylene capacity.

ME gas crackers + China.ppt.....

This article from The New Scientist suggests we might have to develop a whole new way of asssesing what drives all commodity markets.

Intuitively, everyone knows that the herd instinct matters. But to measure this mathematically, or statistically, seems a mountainous but fascinating challenge.

At least it will keep the a few academics off the streets for a few years and journalists busy writing articles.

The momentum of opinion might be about to shift in favour of the belief that this year's crude-oil price surge is more to do with speculation than fundamentals.

No less than 15 bills targeting speculators are circulating around Washington at the moment.

This same article details an investigation of allegations that Optiver, the oil trader, manipulated the market. In the public's perception "manipulators" seem to be confused with the legitimate role of speculators and companies who need to hedge their raw-material costs.

The danger is that politicians will latch on to this idea and introduce harmful legislation in order to win votes.

Does the objective external truth - if there ever such a thing and you believe in following what others say rather than making your own internal reality - really matter in such a debate? Or is it all a question of perception. Me pretentious? No, come on....

Referring to my post yesterday, how much does perception shape both short and long term price movements? Should we abandon equilibrium economics for new sentiment-based methods of quantifying how markets behave?

Listen out for the stampede of sheep in Prada shoes as the analysts and journalists jump on the "speculation" bandwagon. Standing out from the crowd can make you feel al little lonely.

Let's assume that supply is hugely challenged as this excellent blog constantly argues.

If prices fall to - or there is a significant fear that they might fall to - $70-80 a barrel, interest in exploiting hard-to-get at reserves such as the Alberta Oil Sands could diminish. Prices need to be at a minimum of these levels to justify costly investment in oil and tar sands and deep-sea reserves. Exploiting marginal reserves is essential for a secure energy future.

The end-result could be that we are storing up an even bigger supply crisis for ourselves in years to come - by believing that the speculators are to blame and thus driving prices down.

Companies might then be forced to draw back from the heavy expenditure and innovation necessary to get at difficult sources of oil and gas.

Baaaaaaaaa.....

Now this is old but not widely publicised - Jurgen Hambrecht's comments during the BASF Segment Day Chemicals event which took place in London on 8 July.

Navigate down, click on the webcast, and listen to the Q&A session after Dr Hambrecht's presentation.

You can listen yourself, of course, but here is a summary:

The first question is about BASF's search for alternative basic chemical production.

"We are not only looking at crackers but also syngas leading to olefins," he says. This would give BASF the flexibility to use oil, gas, coal and natural products - i.e. biomass - as raw materials.

The chairman and CEO talks about how the Engelhard acquisition was partly driven by how an increase in catalyst capabilities would give BASF more options on basic chemicals production.

"Catalysts are crucial for the future of the industry," says Hambrecht, adding that they will reduce energy barriers that have hithertoo blocked alternative routes to making olefins and other upstream chemicals.

And in a remarkably strong statement, he states: "This will be very substantial, it will be decisive."

A lot can happen between R&D and commercialisation, but should we read into this that BASF is set to make a breakthrough that will be challenge the dominance of the Middle East in feedstocks?

What's the timescale? "Certainly five years out," says Hambrecht.

A blink of an eye in the great scheme of this things.

But what will happen if the oil price collapses to this research project and others like it?

....said the joker to the thief..

I much prefer the Hendrix version. As I get older, Dylan's voice just gets more and more grating - although a wonderful song writer.

Ben Bernanke has brought cheer to the world by claiming that inflationary pressures are easing as a result of the fall oil and other commodity prices.

I suppose any good news in the current climate is better than another kick in the teeth, but the big questions are: how far can crude fall and what's the long-term price of oil that can be afforded chemical producers with no access to advantaged feedstock?

Some of the froth has been taken out of the speculation in commodities as a result of the stronger dollar and a fall in demand for the filthy black stuff in the West. For example, Goldman Sachs estimates that developed countries will use 500,000 fewer barrels a day this year than in 2007.

But emerging market demand will grow by 1.3m barrels a day in 2008 with a 5% increase in consumption in China, the same bank adds. This has led Goldman Sachs to conclude that crude prices will rebound to $149/bbl by the end of the year.

Demand destruction in the West might be occurring. For example, the US could have as many as 12 million fewer motorists by 2015 as those earning $25,000 a year or less get by on one rather than two cars per family.

But for every American that is forced to make do with only one set of wheels there will be hundreds of people in developing countries earning enough to buy their first car.

On a global basis it's therefore more accurate to talk about demand relocation rather than demand destruction.

During the heady days of 2006 everybody in the chemicals industry was making money, even those who are seriously feedstock-impaired. Profitability remained strong for the better-integrated liquids-based producers up until Q4 of last year.

The last couple of quarters have been so dismal that it's understandable that the recent fall in crude has raised expectations the worst might be over.

But you will be hard-pressed to find many energy experts willing to take a punt on prices returning to their levels of a couple of years.

The fundamentals of tight supply haven't changed over the last few weeks as oil prices have retreated - just as much of developing world demand growth will more than compensate for less consumptiion in West.

Rising capital costs mean a lack of sufficient investment in new supply.

Whether or not you believe that Peak Oil is upon is almost irrelevant for the next few years because the lack of investment - also the result of increased resource nationalism - means that the reserves that do exist are not being adequately tapped.

And the irony of the slightly lower oil prices of the last few weeks is that exploiting tar sands and other marginal oil reserves, which require very high capital costs and great technical skills, will seem less attractive. Perhaps this is what the Middle East wants.....

If you don't an advantaged feedstock, either through a position in the Middle East and/or being very smart at refinery/petrochemical integration, you've got big problems.

Maybe there is no way out of here....

Great stuff from the big boss of Dow Chemical in this article from USA Today.

Gems from the interview include "corn-based ethanol, one of the dumbest ideas of all time" and "the whole hydrogen (fuel cell) approach is dumb."

He adds: "Frankly, when free markets prevail, we have to shut down factories and replace overseas in places like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Russia, Brazil, Thailand, China and Oman, where governments lock in energy availability, guarantee prices and de-risk our investment."

These are all countries in which Dow has already or plans to invest with the proposed PIC deal the biggest breakthrough for tackling its feedstock disadvantages. Whereas the jury might still be out on whether the US major will win in specialities, it does seem as if it has gone a long way to avoiding being one of the companies I wrote about yesterday.

Liveris makes the much wider point that without an energy policy which makes sense, the US faces a pretty bleak economic future. He quite rightly points out that unless there are some major breakthroughs in renewables, hydrocarbons have to be a major part of a workable policy.

But I don't agree with Liveris when he says "We aren't occupying Iraq for the resources".

I've just started reading David Strahan's The Last Oil Shock, which makes a pretty convincing argument over the real thinking behind the hugely bundled invasion.

Then again, though, perhaps what Liveris means is that the intention of the occupation might have been for resources, but that's not what the occupation is about now because of the hopeless failure of politicans such as Rumsfeld, Cheney etc.

Next stop Iran? At least Bush is on the way out, but the energy stakes are so high perhaps any administration will need to dress up further military action as something else to secure America's economic future.

But surely, this must be less politically acceptable than tackling all the greenies who are blocking offshore drilling and coal gasification and the farmers making a packet out of ethanol?

Maybe not if it's about distribution of votes in those key marginal States - meaning more fat subsidies one of the dumbest ideas of all time.

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

A full list of all those whose deaths were reported prematurely is included here in this A-Z of journalistic blunders from Wikipedia.

The same could be said of the US commodity chemicals industry. Until very recently, just about everyone was predicting that the States would fairly soon shift from a net export to a net import position due to higher gas prices, the build-up of very competitive capacity elsewhere and the constant drift of manufacturing overseas. The country's chemicals industry has lost 120,000 jobs with 3 million jobs lost in manufacturing over the last five years.

But what's changed over the last few months is gas prices which have become relatively cheap compared with crude and the weak dollar. This has created what consultants predict will be the "last hurrah" for the US styrene industry ahead of the big slew of new Middle East capacity due on stream soon.

Further consolidation is expected once the Middle East wipes out the advantage US styrene producers currently enjoy over competitors supplied by naphtha-based C2s.

From a carbon footprint point of view, it does seem ridiculous that oil is shipped from the Middle East to make benzene in South Korea and the C8s are then shipped to the US. The US combines the benzene with its competitive gas-based ethylene to make styrene which is then shipped to Europe - already a net importer of commodity chemicals.

But the carbon footprint argument, along with rising freight costs, could offer a lifeline to the US chemicals industry in general. There has been much talk of "reverse globalisation" recently. This might lead to the economic justification for building new commodity chemicals capacity in the US and elsewhere in the West.

The good news on the radio as I came into work this morning was that Hurricane Gustav had weakened in intensity with forecasts that it might make landfall in the US with wind speeds of less than had been earlier feared.

But this is not the point. The point, as Jeffrey Rubin of CIBC World Capital Markets makes in his report - Supply Crunch - is that just as the US has come to rely more on US Gulf oil and gas production, the frequency of high grade storms (class 3 to 5) in the region has increased.

"With both crude and total oil production inventories running significantly lower than they were when either Katrina or Rital sidelined Gulf oil production, both oil and gasoline prices are more exposed to potential storm-related disruptions than they were three years ago," he writes.

This blog isn't about the short term. But the the short term tension in crude and crude-product markets created by this latest hurricane scare is the result of tightly balanced supply and demand that has long-term implications for the global economy and for our hydrocarbon-dependent way of life.

The Gulf region - now so much more important to US supply because of production problems elsewhere - has itself suffered from delays to new capacity coming on stream. The BP Thunder Horse project, for example, is behind schedule - meaning that new production has grown at a fraction of earlier predictions for the Gulf. This has compounded the crisis caused by depletion of offshore fields as existing oil wells run dry. For example "some one-and-a-quarter million barrels per day from Mexico is likely to vanish (over the next five years) as its giant Cantarell field continues to deplete at a 30% annual rate", Rubin adds in his report.

Without getting into the argument over whether the increased frequency of severe storms in the Gulf is the result of global warming (or whether a long-term pattern of more dangerous weather has established itself - a view dismissed by some in the three years since Katrina and Rita because the region has so far escaped major hurricanes), there seems to me no dispute that supply is very stretched in the Gulf and globally.

Talk of demand destruction in the US benefiting crude pricing over the long term was earlier dismissed by Rubin. He estimated that by 2010 there will be 12 million less motorists on the road in the US. The problem is that ten new motorists in countries such as Brazil and India are buying cars for the first time for every one that leaves the roads in the States, he said.

High oil prices might slow down the pace at which people in emerging markets switch from push bikes to motorcycles and from mortorcycles to cars.

But without a global recession of a severity we have never seen before, it's hard to see how the slowdown will be enough to result in a net reduction in global oil consumption sufficient to end the crude crisis.

Chemical prices have gone through the roof this year on higher feedstock costs, causing greater recycling, greater conservation and a slowdown in the rate of substitution of petroleum-based products for natural materials in emerging markets.

If Gustav causes severe damage to oil and gas production and any further severe hurricanes hit the region this year (Tropical Storm Hana is brewing off the coast of the US as I write this post), the chemicals industry could lose even more ground.

Anybody who has had the misfortune to have to listen to me ranting on about Peak Oil of late might have heard - if they managed to stay awake long enough - that I predicted crude could not fall below $100 a barrel because of the fundamentals.

I must admit my first reaction when I heard on the radio this morning that Brent crude had slipped to $99.30 a barrel was "damn".

A calmer, more measured and sensible reaction came later - that this might be good news for my battered, bruised and badly depleted shares, most of which are on Asian markets.

Weaker crude might also help us all keep our jobs. Falling oil prices are occurring as reports of project delays, or even cancellations, in the Middle East and China keep emerging - meaning that the chemicals industry might get some relief from the twin squeeze of higher feedstock costs and oversupply. I'll be dealing with these reports on this blog in the next few days.

"Here's some news for you - you're often wrong and so get used to the idea," said my wife. She's very direct, being Scottish.

But still - and here goes the rant again - I still feel that the long-term fundamentals are of a tight market as we accelerate towards Peak Oil, possibly by as early as the middle of the next decade.

Maybe a persistent bout of lower oil prices would be bad news as this would make us conserve less and lower investment in renewables (which, admittedly, are only ever likely to provide a small percentage of our total energy needs. Hence, we need to conserve!)

A very interesting report by McKinsey (you can sign up free for their online newsletter which only takes a minute) expands on the theme of reverse globalisation which I talked about last week.

The cost of shipping a standard 40-foot container has tripled since 2000 and labour cost increases have risen by average of 19% per year in China compared with just 3% in the US.

The consultancy makes the point that you have to do very thorough input-by-input calculations for each product and grade of product before making any decisions. And, of course, you need some reliable forecasts of where the economics of offshoring versus onshoring are heading - including predictions on crude-oil prices. Predicting crude, as I discussed earlier on today, is where I fall short.

You also need to take a view on the direction of environmental legislation - i.e. will there by carbon taxes and/or cap and trade systems introduced globally that penalise producers for extended global supply chains?

If history is anything to go by, McKinsey has worked out that manufacturing a "midrange" product in Asia will cost you an extra $16 today compared with the US when all landed costs are included. In 2003, Asia had a $46 advantage.

Add to this the likelihood that more petrochemical feedstock will become available in the US thanks to declining gasoline demand and perhaps, as again I talked about last week, the industry in the states might be set for a revival. It has been comparatively higher feedstock costs and the drift of downstrean customers overseas that has caused so much damage to the US industry.

For anyone who subscribes to ICIS news, you might find this artice of interest. Allen Kirkley of Shell discusses some of the new emerging feedstock options and converging economics between the West and the Middle East.

A drowning man will grab hold of any floating debris - even a plastic bag made from standard-grade Chinese polyethylene (PE).

Hence, last Friday a statement by Wang Tianpu led to a few days of excited speculation about the cancellation of several Chinese cracker projects.

The president of Sinopec Corp, the Hong Kong-listed arm of the Chinese refining and petrochemical giant, was quoted in press reports as saying that projects that had already been postponed would be suspended indefinitely (taken as a face-saving euphemism for cancellations). He also reportedly said that the pace of other projects would be adjusted.

"Fantastic. At last we are seeing some commonsense," said a Singapore-based executive with a Western polylefins producer.

Sadly, though, only a few days later, Tianpu amplified his statement by saying that 2008 petrochemical expenditure would be cut by only $675m - amounting to much less than the cost of one cracker.

The excitement that greeted his first statement was the result of concerns over just how bad conditions could become over the next few years.

The hope was that a much bigger budget cut might take place - affecting the timing, or even the continued existence, of projects slated for commissioning in 2009 and beyond.

ICIS Plants & Projects estimates that 21 per cent of global ethylene capacity additions in 2008-12 will be accounted for by China.

The Middle East will be responsible for a further 36%, resulting in worldwide C2 capacity increasing to 156.3m tonne/year from 135.5m tonne/year.

China has every strategic reason to push ahead with more petrochemical capacity, even if growth looks precarious on the back of the likely frequent boom-and-bust cycles created by tight crude markets.

And we all know about the Middle East advantage, even if it might be eroding a little on tighter feedstock supply and higher capital costs.

"The knowledge society will strike back - eventually. Energy efficiency and renewable energy will be rewarding projects," says Norbert Walker, Chief Economist at Deutsche Bank in his Asia Trip Report 2008.

So if you are not in the Middle East and not in China, are not moving up the innovation curve or don't have good refinery-petrochemical integration (ideally, you will have a combination of all the above) you are in big trouble.

You're only option is to sell your business to some gullible fool during the next up cycle -but you'll have to be quick as the recovery is unlikely to last for long!

For the first time, quite probably, since the Chinese economy opened some producers are predicting that polyolefin demand growth could be flat or even negative this year. In the case of PE, reports are emerging of sales declines above 20% over the last two months.

This compares with 8 per cent growth for PP and 5-6% growth for PE in 2007.

This blog focuses on the long term and there is a long term danger here.

The depth of the economic problems in the West is the main cause of the fall in polyolefin volumes due to the the collapse of the re-export of finished goods.

Let's hope this only a temporary problem and the global recovery arrives fairly quickly. But it seems likely that we haven't even reached the bottom of the current crisis and there is a danger of a deep global recession, or even depression, lasting several years.

The fact that Chinese growth has taken such an historic blow from the collapse of finished-goods exports exposes the corporate flannel about tremendous domestic market growth as being exactly that - corporate flannel of the worst kind designed to hoodwink dumb investors and lazy journalists.

In the short term, as described, the re-export sector remains hugely important for the Chinese economy.

There is also a shift by the government away from an export and fixed asset investment-led growth model. This means a lot less growth from the re-export sector over the long term for anyone shipping basic commmodity chemicals to China.

Volatility in crude is a problem that might last for a while, given the fundamentals of tight supply and the potential for the re-emergence of strong demand growth.

In the case of polyolefins, this is leading to sudden surges in resin buying when converters think crude will continue to rise and running down of inventories when the reverse occurs.

This might, to some extent, have masked the depth of fundamental weaknesses in the market up until mid-June. If you recall, oil was on a bull run until then.

The last few days have, of course, seen crude enter one of its most volatile periods in history - making it even harder to read the direction of oil and therefore naphtha, olefins and polyolefins pricing.

Who'd want to be a purchasing manager for a plastic processing company in this current climate?

The reach of the credit crisis is such that liquidity is even becoming hard to come by in the hugely wealthy Middle East, according to this report.

With so few petrochemical projects officially announced for the region post-2012 (although I am hearing rumours of numerous plans kept from public view, but feedstock is the issue for all of them in the GCC), could we see a big slowdown in the growth of the region's industry?

The irony, of course, is that many of the Middle East and emerging market countries have huge government surpluses and high individual savings rates.

When I was trying to cheer up a downbeat member of staff today, I said that the financial rescue package being proposed by the deadly duo of Paulson and Bernanke might get overseas support from these solvent administrations.

"It's in everyone's interests to keep the US afloat because it is so crucial to the global economy. If this had been 10 or 15 years from now, the Chinese might have done the economic equvalent of flipping the states fhe finger because by then they will be the biggest economy. But the US has got off the hook because of the timing of this crisis."

I sounded so optimistic I almost believed this flannel myself.

More evidence is also emerging of project delay, including the Aramco/Dow Ras Tanura mega-investment. The sheer scale of the thing seems to be the issue here.

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.

I am taking a well-earned break in Perth, Western Australia until early next week so this blog will be quiet until then.

And no, I am unlikely to find out anything interesting on feedstock issues surrounding the Australian cracker as I'll be too busy, hopefully, lying on the beach.

"
Yes, a great story in The Daily Telegraph describes how bankers are being written into Christmas pantomimes in the UK as villains. Their reputation has fallen almost as low as that of marketing executives.

But the few bankers that are still around are still shamelessly peddling their wares, including hedging mechanisms for the poor old chemicals industry. The other route to wealth for monsters of leverage is buying plants from bankrupt companies and leasing them out to operators with sufficient cost control to meet whatever feeble demand remains over the next few years.

On naphtha, the more immediate problem is a seriously weird market. As of Friday last week, naphtha was trading $257.50-258.50/tonne CFR Japan for first-half January delivery, according to ICIS pricing.

West Texas Intermediate crude was meanwhile at $53.50/bbl, meaning a multiple of crude to naphtha of less than five times compared with the usual eight or nine times.

In the normal world you would expect refiners to make big run cuts in response to abysmal petrochemical demand for naphtha and the collapse in gasoline consumption. This would restore multiples close to their historic norm.

But as everyone knows, we are not living in a normal world.

The heating oil season, though, is beginning in the northern hemisphere, creating the risk that naphtha might increase.

Would it be wise to lock in cheap prices now through either hedging or stocking up on physical cargoes, just in case naphtha returns to its usual relationship with crude?

At some point, petrochemical demand has to improve, no matter how anaemic. In such an event, prices might literally double overnight from their historic low levels - meaning good returns for anyone who has locked in their feedstock costs.

Is my colleague in London a cat lover? I am, but did not take offence at the analogy.

If I knew when chemicals prices were going to rebound, I would tell you - but only for some hefty fees.

By Nigel Davis
LONDON (ICIS news)--Beware the 'dead cat bounce'. Global chemical market intelligence service ICIS pricing editors are seeing some spot prices in Asia moving up from recent lows although contract prices remain severely depressed.
Are these the first signs that feedstock-to-product price differentials are recovering?
A dead cat bounce is a "figurative term used by traders in the finance industry to describe a pattern wherein a spectacular decline in the price of a stock is immediately followed by a moderate and temporary rise before resuming its downward movement, with the connotation that the rise was not an indication of improving circumstances in the fundamentals in the stock," according to Wickipedia. It is derived from the notion that "even a dead cat will bounce if it falls from a great height".
As with the world's stock markets, it is too early to call the upturn with anything approaching a degree of certainty. Chemical prices globally are falling because of much weakened feedstock costs.
Oil prices this week have dipped below $50/bbl which is hardly a position from which chemicals prices might be expected to recover.
But looking beyond that, it is the global demand slowdown that is giving the worlds' chemicals markets the jitters.
Industry economists work with real data and they have little visibility. Their forecasts make salutary reading.
The American Chemistry Council's (ACC's) chief economist, Kevin Swift, for instance this week told the New York Society of Security Analysts (NYSSA) that chemicals production in the US could fall by as much as 5.7% next year. This is a forecast for the sector excluding pharmaceuticals.
In the ACC's 2008-year end analysis and outlook Swift notes that forecasting now involves considerable uncertainty.
The general consensus, however, is that recession is spreading across the globe and this is affecting the business of chemistry worldwide.
"Global business of chemistry growth has essentially stalled since earlier in the year, with outright decline in the developed nations and slowing growth in most developing nations," the ACC's report says.
"As a result, global output will moderate significantly in 2008 and will further slow in 2009 before a recovery emerges in 2010. For the business of chemistry in the US the recession will adversely affect demand into 2009, resulting in lower production volumes."
Other sector economists point to slowed growth in the US and a sharp slowdown in Europe, Japan and elsewhere. The outlook is hardly bright, whichever way you look at it.
Analysts have continued to talk about the lack of visibility for the sector which is battling the demand slowdown, or rather consumer disinterest, against the backdrop of lower feedstock and product prices.
Demand has all but ground to a halt in December across great swathes of the sector. The (multi) million dollar question is when will it return.
Producers widely believe that demand will return once price/feedstock cost ratios have stabilised. There will be a new floor from which producer might expect to see greater interest in their products and from which they could hope to drive prices higher.
But we have yet to find the floor in relation to feedstock costs. And the chemical industry's customers themselves are not exactly overwhelmed with new orders.
The situation could change but is unlikely to do so rapidly and certainly not before the start of the New Year.
Swift suggests that the indicators for the US economy will become more negative as consumers retrench, sales fall, inventories rise, and production falls, which is hardly good news for chemicals.
A similar patter of reduced payrolls, mderating incomes and a "viscoious self-reionforcing cycle" is seen across other major global economies.
It pays to look forward, certainly, but it is too early yet to be overly optimistic. "Things will get worse before they get better," Swift says in his latest ACC report, "but eventually they will get better when confidence returns".

At the moment, a shell-shocked chemicals industry is still recovering from the impact of destocking following the huge inventory write downs in Q4.

The next step will be to measure the state of genuine, end-user demand and how this compares with the fantastic growth we saw in 2003 right through until the end of H1 2008.

Comparisons will inevitably look bad, even if, as some hope, recovery arrives in the second half of this year. This is bound to have a pyschologically dampening effect on markets.

Plus, chemicals and plastics markets are about to be roiled by large amounts of new capacity.

Recent price rises in the aromatics and olefins chains might, therefore, be reversed.

And so cost will remain King in the second of 2009, and perhaps for several more years.

The rise of private equity in chemicals, which I examined in a previous post, resulted in claims that the sector's more efficient management techniques would result in money being made "even at the bottom of the cycle".

But key to survival may no be longer innovative financial engineering and cutting costs social and bureaucracy costs incurred by previously much bigger, listed companies.

It might instead be all about chemical engineers getting every last cent of value out of production processes through optimising "every pipe and every valve," says my colleague Nigel Davis - editor of the Insight section of ICIS news.

It will be fascinating to watch how this plays out - and what becomes of chief financial officers.

I only feel slightly smug because it seems obvious that naphtha was a big driver - and that markets were being talked up by producers desperate to recover monumental Q4 losses.

There will be lots more mini bubbles like this before the crisis is over.

China appears to be pumping money into ailing companies for social stability reasons, resulting in a build-up in inventory of unsold finished goods.

Anecdotal evidence from ICIS pricing, and analysis by JP Morgan Asset Management and the China Economic Quarterly supports this view.

Comparatively stronger exports to China, as my fellow blogger Paul Hodges points out on his Chemicals & Economy blog, is also evidence that this is happening.

This is understandable given that by some estimates as many as 30m migrant workers have lost their jobs.

But there is a threat of deflation being exported if all these finished goods end up flooding overseas markets. In such an event, petrochemical pricing can surely only head in one direction.

It is time to think hard about your business, plan for the worst and hope for something slightly better.

There are reports, confirmed by one consultant, of a flood of US polyolefin exports from the US to Asia, China in particular.

Staggering polyolefin import figures for China in January-February show big percentage increases both year-on-year and month-on-month. The March data is due out shortly.

The big worry remains how much of this is going into inventories because of the easy credit in China, which, according to some unconfirmed reports will not last much longer. Others, however, predict that the lending binge will support China's economy for the rest of this year.

Alot of the froth in the China market could also be the result of a big up-tick in activity on the Dalian Commodity Exchange.

But to go back to the main point of this blog entry, there are predictions that US ethane versus naphtha costs could remain very competitive for the next two years because of the fall in natural-gas demand.

And with Brazil also rumoured to be an increasingly important polyolefin exporter to Asia, US/Americas-Asia trade flows may be about to enjoy one last hurrah before the Middle East and growing China self-sufficiency slam the door shut - perhaps for good.

Another thought: Could the recent apparent rise in US-Asia exports be the result of producers making hay while an anaemic sun shines (comparatively higher prices in Asia compared with the West) ahead of a possible General Motors bankruptcy?

That's the beauty of blogging - you can raise the questions and ask others to provide the answers!

Petrochemical markets, as is the case with stock markets, are I believe in the midst of a bear-market rally.

As chemicals consultant Paul Hodges predicted on his blog last year, restocking in Q1 was inevitable after the great inventory run-down of the fourth quarter.

Paul has consistently made the right calls on the economic crisis and on its implications for the chemicals industry. His accuracy in predicting the major events - from crude-oil pricing to the collapse of Bear Stearns - can be demonstrated by visiting his blog.

Read his post today which provides are summary of how we got we are and where the global chemicals industry appears to be heading.

Petrochemicals benefited from the Q1 restocking, of course.

We have also seen an across-the-board price rally sustained by a lot of speculation in China made possible by ample availability of credit. The question now is whether credit will be restricted as China becomes concerned over inflation.

Petrochemicals pricing has also been supported by stronger naphtha due to firmer crude, first of all because of refinery rate cuts when the Q4 crisis occurred and more latterly a huge programme of refinery turnarounds in Asia. According to oil and gas consultancy Purvin & Gertz, this turnaround programme is due to come to an end around June.

Naphtha supply will increase in H2 on more exports from India, higher production from one condensate splitter in the Middle East and the start-up of another splitter. Supply could increase in Asia by 20-30%.

I think crude is likely to trade around the $50/bbl mark for the rest of this year so this will set a floor for liquid-feedstock costs.

However,I don't believe that petrochemical producers will be able to use tight naphtha as a justification for maintaining current price levels because of the increased supply.

Petrochemicals supply will also lengthen when Asias' big cracker turnaround season ends after June.

Middle East project delays are likely to continue, but some further extra supply in polyolefins, MEG, aromatics and propylene oxide (PetroRabigh is in the process of starting up the region's first PO plant) can be expected in H2.

The second half of the year could also see the start-up of lots of capacity in China. But how much volume actually hits the markets will have to be closely tracked.

Demand will be better this year than in 2008, but hey, so what?

Last year was exceptional bad because of the destocking, and all the economic uncertainties will not be compensated for by the boost from government stimulus packages.

So, in short, expect feedstock-price support to weaken and for petrochemical supply to lengthen in a persistently weak demand-growth environment.

The big unanswered question is to what extent the recent price prices were also the result of speculation in China. In methanol, an incredible two-thirds of Q1 imports were for speculation on futures markets.

As Paul again points out on his blog, the volume of contracts being traded on the Dalian Commodity Exchange is nothing short of staggering (an average of 1Om tonnes a day during the first quarter!).

Has this contributed to LLDPE prices trading above LDPE over the last few weeks for the first time in two years?

How much of the chemicals and polymers that have been imported into China recently, or purchased locally, and are being held in inventory for speculation purposes? To what extent has this speculation been made easier by increased credit?

With as many as 30m migrant workers laid off in China and export-focused factories operating at only 50% of capacity, how can all this increased chemicals trade be justified by an improvement in the final demand for finished goods?

China's economic stimulus package is kicking in. Over the last few days I hear of improved sentiment in China that the worst might be over.

But given that 10-30% of China's economy (depending on who you believe) is dependent on exports, it would take a heck of an effective stimulus package to boost domestic growth sufficiently to replace all the lost export trade in the second half of this year.

We've also picked up anecdotal reports that factories are being kept running by soft loans from banks for social stability reasons.
It's unlikely that the total extra production will replace all the volumes lost through factory closures.

But at the end of certain product chains you could see China exporting deflation in H2 to relieve inventory - another reason to believe that chemicals pricing will decline in the second half.

However, it might not be in China's interests to flood oveseas markets with goods at bargain-basement prices if this triggers international tensions and a further rise in protectionism.

Overseas chemicals players seem to have benefited from the relative strength of China's market with volumes of benzene and polystyrene, for exampe, being shipped from Europe.

Large increases in polyolefin shipments from the US to China are also being reported, in the case of PE the result perhaps of comparatively cheaper ethane versus naphtha.

The word on the street, from our price-reporting team, is that nobody can really say for certain whether the recent price rises are the result of improved demand or speculation.

But add all the above factors together and it seems a sharp correction from June onwards remains very likely.

And the more uncertain that price direction remains the closer the correlation might be between oil and naphtha and chemicals pricing on a daily, weekly or perhaps even a longer-term basis.

In the absence of clear direction, crude and equities might end up as the only guides available (or perhaps chemicals might even move in the opposite direction to equities in China as a lot of traders traditionally move their money between the two - and also property - depending on where they think the next gains can be made).

For the traders in China and those who know know how to play the domestic markets extremely well, it's also a question of maximising returns from micro-price movements.

On a weekly basis, one trader estimates that domestic polyolefin prices have fluctuated by $50-100/tonne in 2009 compared with $40-50/tonne in 2007. Last year can be discounted as an exceptional year because of the inventory building and the H2 collapse so, hence the comparison with 2007.

The Dalian exchange must also be adding to this volatility.

Bear-market rallies are better than no rallies at all, of course, and we could several more rises and sudden dips in chemicals pricing before this crisis is over.

......all the right reasons than to be wrong altogether?

Sounds a dumb question, perhaps - unless you take particular pride in being one of those know-it-alls.

The point I am trying to make (and assuming that chemicals pricing doesn't collapse beforehand on a broader retreat in crude and equites on maybe panic over swine flu or the realisation that a global economic recovery is a long way off) is that I have thought for a while that the fundamentals point to a major price correction from June-July onwards because of:

*New supply from the Middle East. Surely, yes surely, there will be more capacity hitting the market in H2 as PetroRabigh ramps up output - even if YanSab, Sharq and perhaps even the new cracker in Qatar - are effectively pushed into next year

*A lot of new supply in China. My colleagues at CBI Research & Consulting are working on an update of the subtantial amount of additional capacity due on stream in H2, including Fujian Petrochemical & Refining (the latest world on the start-up of which is July)

*The end of the May-June petrochemical turnaround season in Asia

*An increase in naphtha supply (as much as 20-30% in Asia, according to Purvin & Gertz) as a result of higher production from two new condensate splittlers in the Middle East and greater naphtha exports from India

*A I said, my belief that everyone will have to wake up to the fact that the global economy, including China, will not enter recovery in 2009 or perhaps even in 2010. I remain worried about the quality of China's growth (is it too production rather consumption-driven?), how much stimulus-package money has been wasted on speculation, including in building chemicals inventory, and the possiblity that China - directly or indirectly - might start exporting deflation

But today I spoke to some goods contacts and friends at a leading petrochemicals trading company who gave the following additional reasons for their long-held view that prices would tank in July:

*US and European producers upping operating rates in response to strong arbitrage opportunities. The Europeans have already raised rates, apparently, and the US more recently. In the case of propylene, though, stronger demand for refinery-based C3s from several derivative producers might, perhaps, make further US PP shipments unworkable

*Strong interest in shipping petrochemicals from the US and Europe to Asia for arrival after May (all May business was concluded around 20 April). Cargoes could be at sea and uncommitted just as the shift in fundamentals listed earlier starts to take effect. Big quantities have already been shipped from the West to East during Q1, including very large amounts of BTX and polyolefins. Around 200,000 tonnes of US and European benzene is heading for Asia for March and April arrival, according to DeWitt & Co. China imported 114,000 tonnes of benzene in March alone, which compares with just 328,000 tonnes for the whole of 2008 - an average of 2,733 tonnes per month. The surge in toluene shipments from the West to China is equally dramatic: China received 66,000 tonnes in January, 77,000 tonnes in February and 94,000 tonnes in March compared with a 2008 total of 273,000 tonnes.

Inventory pressures in the West have been relieved and some of the big losses suffered in Q4 have been recouped (and some of the traders seem to have done very well indeed).

So batten down the hatches once again.

Apologies for letting this blog slip again, but have been busy trying to make a crust presenting ICIS training courses.

And so as a bonus for our army of avid readers, here are my extended thoughts on the above:

In the midst of the economic crisis it would be so easy to bury your head in the proverbial sand and forget that once the recovery does arrive, the same old feedstock-cost problems seem almost certain to re-emerge.

"The profitability of your average Asian naphtha cracker with the right level of investment in derivatives was extremely good throughout 2007. This was particularly the case if you were processing C4s into butadiene," said an industry observer.

"But in the first half of last year margins turned negative because of rising crude and naphtha costs. Every manufacturer down every product chain frantically built inventory because of the fear that oil would reach $200/bbl by the end of the year."

Of course we all know what really happened: Crude prices collapsed in Q4 resulting in the biggest inventory losses in the history of the chemicals industry. Stocks simply had to be liquidated due to the non-availability of working capital.

Governments are lavishing cash on stimulus packages in a desperate effort to return the world to business as usual.

This might on the surface seem the sensible thing to do, but unless that money is spent wisely in boosting energy conservation and renewable technologies, a return to strong growth could hasten the return of $100/bbl plus crude.

There's not much sign of smart investment in China. A surge in bank lending has been used to ramp up steel and aluminium production and provide the finance for manufacturers of finished goods to run their plants hard in order to limit job losses.

China announced a $586bn stimulus package last November and then in March disclosed plans for heavy investment in ten industrial sectors, including refining and petrochemicals.

"While the (investment) proposals may boost the economy, and thus energy demand in the short term, they could also lead to continued growth of energy-intensive industries in the medium to long term," writes the UK-based Cambridge Energy Consultants in an article on its website.

The Obama administration has also come in for some pretty fierce criticism over a cap-and-trade-bill before the House of Representatives. Lots of emissions permits would be given free under the bill, offering benefits to coal-based electricity generators and other energy-intensive industries.

Oil industry experts are queuing up to warn that the economic crisis has cut capital investment by the small independent oil companies in harder-to-get-at conventional crude reserves. The oil majors have slowed down development of unconventional sources of oil, such as the Alberta Tar Sands.

OPEC warned at its recent meeting that the fall in prices was resulting in lower investment, and the Paris-based International Energy Agency estimates that spending on oil and natural gas exploration will fall by 21% this year over 2008. This would represent $100bn less spending on building reserves.

The implications of a return of very expensive crude are obvious for Asia's petrochemical industry, which is largely naphtha-based.

The Middle East gas-based producers would once again stand to benefit due to another surge in margins as, of course, global petrochemical prices are oil-driven.

But what if everyone suffers? Could the return to crude in excess of $100/bbl re-awaken inflation, further stoked by excess liquidity resulting from government stimulus packages?

The danger is that we might repeatedly see nascent economic recoveries nipped in the bud by surging energy costs.

BASF announced last June that it was looking at making petrochemicals from biomass using its catalyst expertise, and said that it had made good progress at the laboratory stage.

Numerous companies were also looking at methanol-to-olefins technologies, including ExxonMobil and LyondellBasell.
China's coal reserves offer an opportunity to make methanol into large amounts of olefins and transportation fuels.

Let's hope that cutbacks forced on companies by the financial crisis have not included freezing research into attempting to break the crude-petrochemicals link.

Another concern is the long-term outlook for naphtha supply.

The US announced new car and truck fuel-efficiency regulations last week, which, in the short term could increase the availability of the feedstock.

By 2016, all new autos will have to meet a 39 miles per gallon standard (mpg) standard, up 42% from the current 27.5 mpg. Trucks will have to do 30 mpg versus 23 mpg today.

"Europe was already heading for an enormous gasoline surplus by 2015 even before this announcement," said Paul Hodges, chemicals consultant with the UK based International eChem.

Diesel demand in Europe has surged at the expensive of gasoline. However, the Europeans have been able to export their way out of gasoline surpluses due to shortages in the States.

But these exports were already under threat from increases in US refining capacity and the mandated steep rise in ethanol blending, added Hodges.

"The new fuel-efficiency standards will increase the pressure for European refinery closures, but in the interim there could be a disposal problem.

"This could create the opportunity for cost-advantaged naphtha supplies into the hard-pressed European and US petrochemical industries."

Eventually, though, refinery capacity will have to close because, as one Asian-based oil and gas consultant put it "there is going to be a worldwide glut of gasoline. Even on a straight-run basis before you look at more advanced processing, there will be a big surplus requiring rationalisation."

It is far too early to say whether refinery closures will lead to a net reduction in available naphtha.

Asia is adding capacity as Europe confronts the need to rationalise. In 2009-10 alone, 2.7m bbl/day of refining capacity is due to be come on stream in Asia Pacific, according to oil and gas consultancy FACTS Global Energy.

But naphtha exports from the Middle East could decline as the region looks to crack more naphtha in order to widen its petrochemical-product slate.

In Abu Dhabi, for example, a naphtha cracker complex is due to start-up by 2013.

Anyone with either access to advantaged ethane, propane and butane or with a proven technology that breaks the refinery/petrochemicals interface might be OK during the next oil shock.

The key for Asian liquids-based producers without either of the above must surely be maximising feedstock flexibility.

This flexibility could include cracking more liquefied petroleum gas (LPG).

LPG should be in abundant supply once liquefied natural gas (LNG) demand is booming again on higher oil costs and rising environmental concerns.

LNG producers either extract the gas during initial processing or leave it in the LNG to be taken out at re-gasification terminals.

Whatever are the solutions, they need to be found and found quickly if surging stock markets are proof of a quicker-than-expected economic recovery.

Source:Amazon.com

I remain perplexed by the direction of chemicals, oil and commodity markets over the last few months - and now I understand the reason why.

It's not about feedstock, it's not about inventory levels or what end-use demand is really like, it's all to do with affairs of the heart.

Thanks again to my fellow blogger Paul Hodge who writes:

The Illicit Encounters website has a major increase in traffic when either the market collapses, or has a sudden rise. Apparently, when markets are up, traders "think they can have an affair because they feel they can get away with anything. When the market hits the bottom, they are looking for a way to relieve the pressure."

The site first came to the blog's attention in December, when the Financial Times reported on its rather lucrative business model - a male membership fee of £119/month ($190). Now it appears to have forecasting potential too.

As with financial markets, surely with c hemicals pricing. All we need to do is to produce an index, on a confidential basis,of course, which tracks this particular form of intra-industry activity.

Source: The Guardian newspaper

Apologies for letting this bog slip again. I am on leave, but still pondering where on earth we are heading. This makes a welcome relief from staring up at the grey skies and thinking "summer? What summer?" Yes, I am on leave in the UK and Wimbledon is about to start. I would recommend moving the tournament to drought-affected areas of the world, maybe on an annual rotation basis, to guarantee rainfall.

Anyway, back to the business of oil prices.

If you succeed in making acrylic acid from enzymes and microbes, as the company Novozymes is attempting to do, then maybe you can worry slightly less about the long-term likelihood of very high crude prices.

But as oil hits $70/bbl again, the old concern about boom and bust cycles driven by energy costs has to be very much in the forefront of everyone's minds - whether or not they are trying to break the direct link between oil and chemicals.

As the excellent Buttonwood column in The Economist points out, we are back in a commodities supercycle.

The 45 cents a gallon rise in gasoline prices over the last month is costing the American consumer an extra $60 billion.

As confidence in the economic recovery increases, might we soon be back to square one?

What are the solutions for the chemicals industry?

Have you ever been away on holiday and have cut yourself off from from work, only to return and find that nothing has changed?

So it seems in polyolefin markets. As this blog has been writing about for several months, the recovery in pricing seems to have been mainly feedstock-driven as this article from ICIS news points out.

Demand from converters in south China is reported to be weak; hardly surprising given the chart below from The Wall Street Journal which indicates that China's economy is 36.5% dependent on exports with south China the heartland of China's export sector.

No matter what the wisdom of the Chinese government's huge fiscal stimulus aimed at boosting local demand, a sustained recovery in Western consumer spending remains crucial for China's economic health over the next few years.

You have to doubt the wisdom of the stimulus packages because China could well be borrowing from the future to pay for growth today. And secondly, as we discussed earlier this week on this blog, the enormous increase in loan growth will put China's banking system under pressure.

Chemical prices have risen in tandem with crude prices and with the broader sense of optimism - reflected in equity markets - that the worst of global economic crisis might be over.

True, the rate of declines in the real economy might have slowed down but as Mohamed El-Erian, chief executive and chief investment office of Pimco, argues in this Financial Times article "it is going to take time to restructure an economy (the US) that became over-dependent on finance and leverage. Meanwhile, companies will use this period to shed less productive workers."

This could mean US unemployment will only peak at 10.5-11% and not until 2010. Yesterday saw the release of jobless figures for June which indicated a 467,000 drop in employment, raising the current jobless rate to 9.5% from 9.4%,.

I am sticking to my belief that a sharp correction in polyolefins pricing is likely very soon with markets set to get a dreal longer when the Asian turnaround peak season ends - and when new capacity comes online in China and the Middle East

Evidence of this is clear from the monthly ICIS Ethylene Worldwide Report, which was relaunched in May.

As this slide shows detailing China alone (and the picture looks equally disturbing for the rest of the world, also of course including the Middle East), available capacity is set to increase sharply as maintenance work tapers off and some of the new plants are commissioned.

View image

But there might be more start-up delays and of course we don't know the maintenance schedules for next year.

Clearly the risks are high, though, for any petrochemicals producer or buyer (I think what I've said for olefins and polyolefins applies to many other products) that has swung from the fear of Q4-Q1 last year to over-optimism.

If production or buying have been ramped up by too much and inventory levels have once again been badly managed, the risk of heavy losses from the bursting of this mini-price bubble remain high.

For the cautious and prudent company - and for the likes of Ineos and Dow Chemical that have taken opportunities to refinance during the current stockmarket boom - though, the prospects might not be that bad.

But for everyone, evidence of a real improvement based on stronger global consumer spending has yet to emerge.

Indeed, if El-Erian's analysis is correct overall consumer spending on the things made from chemicals might get worse in H2 this year and throughout 2010.

And as foor beyond the end of next year, again, since I've been away nothing has really changed.

This comment from the economist Nouriel Roubini - although a bit dated as it's from May - still rings true:

"We cannot rule out a double dip W-shaped recession with the wings of a tentative recovery of growth in 2010 at risk of being clipped towards the end of that year or in 2011 by a perfect storm of rising oil prices, rising taxes and rising nominal and real interest rates on the public debt of many advanced economies as concerns about medium term fiscal sustainability and about the risk that monetization of fiscal deficits will lead to inflationary pressures after two years of deflationary pressures."