The Chinese earthquake this month has killed many thousands of people and made more homeless.

 It would be interesting to hear from readers if they or their companies have been impacted by this terrible disaster. Does anyone have any photographs or other information they could share? Please post here.

It's easy to forget the human cost of this disaster especially when our trained response as chemical journalists is to find out how the quake affects our markets in terms of disruptions to output etc. For the first time the Chinese government is allowing and even encouraging much fuller access and coverage of what is happening. China has suffered numerous catastrophes easily on a similar scale in the last few years - as with so many other disasters the difference is this time we see it in real time on our computer and TV screens. 

I cover the global fertilizer market and China had already been making headlines through it placing a punitive export tax on phosphates and urea, effectively banning exports of these products in order to avoid a potential shortfall in the domestic market.

On first glance, this might appear a sensible thing to do - look after the domestic population first. But the truth is more complicated. Chinese phosphate producers have been facing very high imported feedstock costs, that they could only cover through exporting to the lucrative export market where prices are much higher (fuelled by food and to a lesser extent biofuel demand). With this option taken away, Chinese producers are already telling me they are reducing output (one major by 50% since the beginning of May) in order to balance supply and demand domestically and lend some support to domestic prices.

As we constantly say to our contacts who ask us what is going to happen to prices of fertilizers in the next few months, we can make assumptions and forecast based on what we know. But events like those in Sichuan on Monday can make these forecasts almost redundant.

The immediate effect of the Chinese quake will not be felt in international markets. True, reports indicate that at least three plants with a combined capacity of 1m tonnes/year of phosphate fertilizers have been seriously damaged. These primarily serve the domestic market. Urea and ammonia plants have also been hit.

But the quake makes it very difficult politically for the Chinese government to relax its export duty in Q4 as it was planning to do. What this does is keep a tight fertilizer market even tighter through to the end of the year.  At a time of high costs of food globally, anything that aids food production is a good thing. Hence China's understandable withdrawal from the global market is a worrying development.

the devastating human element aside, one European trader I spoke to this week who is actively involved in trading Chinese material said "it was not going to be a good year". First the snowstorms of January and February which shut down some plants in order to divert natural gas for domestic use, then the Beijing Olympics which has led to the regulation of  the production and sale of some 257 chemicals in and around the area... and now the Quake.. 

I'd like to put in a word for the Burma/Myanmar cyclone victims, of whom there are many more dead than in China - and many more who will be suffering for a lot longer than those getting help in China. Where is their forum? Ah, but they have no impact on the chemical industry, I hear you say. Fair enough, but neither do the human victims in China - it is only the chemical plants and reconstruction demand and so on that we are really interested in. So why don't we come clean and focus on the chemical part of the deal, and leave the humanity to those better placed to talk about it?

It's tough asking market sources who might be closely associated with a terrible disaster such as this 'so where are you seeing prices this week?' It seems irrelavent. Maybe I'm not a true journalist....

I am outraged by the selfish and xenophobic behavior of the Bejing government and the even greater idiocy of the ruling junta in Myanmar.  In both cases, the so-called leaders of these countries seemingly are content to see thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of their people perish, simply because they are averse to having foreign aid workers and other non-native personnel and assets brought in to help rescue those of their citizens who face imminent death due to their respecitve natural disasters.  In Myanmar's case, the issue is beyond discussion even.  That alleged government is patently guilty of genocide-by-neglect against its own people by disallowing foreign aid personnel and resources in to the country.  Talk about felony stupid!  The Beijing government is nearly as bad, the difference being one of degree not kind.  The US and other developed nations quickly offered Chinese president Hu Jintao all immediate assistance if he would but ask for it.  But, like communist governments of old, the Beijing government is loathe to request and accept foreign assistance for fear it will make them look bad.  So they decline foreign aid that could have made a major difference in reducing the death toll in Sichuan.  For example, the US Navy has assets in the western Pacific that could have been quickly moved into position to launch scores of helicopters into China for use and dispersal at China's direction, quickly hauling relief supplies and equipment and even Chinese Army personnel to the stricken province.  In addition, the US already had a substantial rescue & relief team in Thailand that was trying -- vainly -- to marshal relief supplies into Myanmar.  Those assets in Thailand could have been immediately redirected to Sichuan, had the Beijing government simply put its people's interests ahead of its own tawdry image. The name of the game in post-disaster rescue and recovery efforts is to get as many boots on the ground in the stricken area as possible and as fast as possible to help save those who are trapped and who might survive if they could be pulled from the rubble in time.  In such circumstances even minutes are crucial.  I saw one Chinese news report saying that local citizens were clawing at the rubble of their local school with their bare hands in a desperate and likely fruitless effort to get to those children still alive but trapped.  How handy it would have been to have a chopper -- anyone's helicopter! -- air-lift a backhoe to the scene with 50 or so Chinese Army personnel ASAP to make a serious dent in the rescue effort.  But, no, let's not ask for help because we might look bad; let those kids die.  Actually, come to think of it, perhaps both the Beijing government and the Myanmar junta leaders may see some advantage in a languid rescue effort and rejection of foreign assistance; both countries face problems with over-population, so perhaps this is the leadership's way of letting nature's wrath reduce the head count a bit....  Criminal, just criminal.

It is heartening to see how a humanitarian crisis can break down a political divide. The Taiwanese government has announced an NT2 billion (US$65 million) for earthquake relief in Sichuan. Apparently, it's the first time the Taiwanese government has made a donation of this kind to the mainland.

This is a good cue to the Chinese government to soften its hardline stance and display similar magnanimity when responding to the demands of the Tibetan and Taiwanese people. 

Chemical Dependent:

I'd like to put in a word for the Burma/Myanmar cyclone victims, of whom there are many more dead than in China - and many more who will be suffering for a lot longer than those getting help in China. Where is their forum? Ah, but they have no impact on the chemical industry, I hear you say. Fair enough, but neither do the human victims in China - it is only the chemical plants and reconstruction demand and so on that we are really interested in. So why don't we come clean and focus on the chemical part of the deal, and leave the humanity to those better placed to talk about it?

 

This is not to take away from the human toll that the earthquakes in China have caused or belittle the terrible loss of life, but all of that is backdrop to the content of ICIS. It is context, vital context, to the business of chemistry and the price of chemicals, but it is not the focus of the coverage. This approach may seem cynical, but the world has media sources that are better placed to cover the human angle in great detail. There has been no coverage of the catastrophe in Burma/Myanmar, I think, because there is little trade in chemicals with that country or production of chemicals in that country. Again it is a terrible human tragedy, but ICIS news editors have decided it is not relevant to chemicals/fertilizer markets that ICIS covers.

Those who worry that business journalism is cynical or fails the victims of disasters should think again. By providing first-rate, accurate information that may help companies get back to work quickly we're helping economic regeneration and encouraging aid efforts. It's in the interest of multi-nationals to get roads rebuilt and railways running. They need clean water and electricity to operate. These are all benefits that the local communities are likely to share, especially if the world's media are watching - and reporting - closely.

Business journalism must treat every disaster whether it's the loss of one or 100,000 lives with great respect but that doesn't mean talking about money and comanies should be taboo.  

There are some very valid points about news coverage being made here. It is right to say that we haven't covered Myanmar because there is no chemicals angle, although it has been discussed in the news meeting in the context of the impact on rice production and prices. If there was a story there for ICIS then it would be covered.

With China, it became apparent very quickly that there was a strong industry link as there are many producers in the region. So the decision whether or not to cover it was fairly simple - the difficult part is how do we cover it? I think striking the right balance is the key. Do we want to write a story leading in with "China earthquake causes chemical shutdowns, 50,000 feared dead"? I would argue that that would be at best insensitive. Or should we focus just on chemicals and not give any detail on the human aspect? If that is so, are we assuming that readers of ICIS news are only ever interested in chemicals and nothing else? I'm sure many would want to know the wider story and I think we would be doing them a disservice by not reporting it.

Fair enough, if ICIS had any ability to cover the human interest side of this story as well as mainstream media outlets can. It does not have the expertise nor the resources to do so. Thus it merely piggy-backs better coverage from elsewhere that is also readily available - and more promptly - to its subscribers. Is ICIS embarrassed to be focusing on the chemical angle that its subscribers want to know about? It should not be. Let the general news media do its job, let ICIS do its job. Keeping the chemical industry informed about the quake impact is an indirect, but still real and valuable, service to those affected. A functioning economy is the best relief the people of Sichuan can hope for. As for the people of Myanmar, perhaps they are wondering if their disaster would get more attention if international media outlets pondered the potential for the cyclone triggering a change of regime that would open up huge potential gas reserves to foreign investment that might lead to industrial development...