Monthly Archives: August 2009

CNOOC announces big profit drop, eyes expansions.

Written by Paul Adkins

SHANGHAI (AP) — CNOOC Ltd., China’s third-largest oil and gas producer, said Wednesday its first-half profit sank 55 percent on sharply lower oil prices but it forecast better results as the economy recovers.

Profit fell to 12.4 billion yuan ($1.8 billion), or 0.28 yuan per share, compared with 27.5 billion yuan in the first half of 2008, the Beijing-based company said. Revenue fell 42 percent from a year earlier to 40.65 billion yuan ($6.95 billion).

CNOOC, the country’s main offshore oil and gas producer, lacks major refining operations and so was directly hurt by the sharp drop in oil prices from a year earlier.

But a recent recovery in business activity, with growth accelerating to 7.9 percent in the second quarter, and rebounding oil prices are expected to help in coming months, CNOOC’s chairman, Fu Chengyu, said in a statement.

”2009 will become the company’s next milestone in its history of stable growth,” Fu said.

Total production is expected to rise 15 percent and 10 new projects are due to come on line, he said.

Like China’s other major oil producers, CNOOC has been actively searching out new assets overseas to supplement domestic production.

CNOOC’s net production rose 15.2 percent in January-June to 105.8 million barrels of oil equivalent, the company said.

Chalco press conference

Written by Paul Adkins

Chalco’s key people held a press conference following the announcement of their quarterly results. Here is how Reuters reported the key points. For what it is worth, we think that the metal inventory estimate is too low.

HONG KONG, Aug 26 - China’s privately held aluminium stocks total 500,000-600,000 tonnes, the country’s top producer of the metal said on Wednesday, lower than analyst estimates but still a substantial overhang.

The estimate, provided by Aluminum Corp of China Ltd <2600.HK> <601600.SS> president Luo Jianchuan at a news conference, would be equivalent to around half the 1.1 million tonnes that China imported in the first seven months of this year.

Analysts and smelter officials have previously estimated China’s privately held aluminium stocks at around 700,000 tonnes.

Chalco chairman Xiong Weiping said China’s aluminium market was oversupplied and the situation would last for 3 years.

“China is having a surplus problem. If demand improves, it would take about 3 years time to get the oversupply easing,’ Xiong told the news conference.

Chalco expects China to produce 13.2 million tonnes of primary aluminium this year, above consumption of 12.85 million tonnes, implying a surplus of around 350,000 tonnes.

That level of annual output would mean an average of 1.3 million tonnes a month for the last five months of the year, according to a Reuters calculation, ahead of the around 1 million tonnes for the past three months.

Aluminium production in China, the world’s top producer of the metal, has been surging in response to prices that have risen by more than a quarter since the start of the year as China’s State Reserves Bureau stepped in to buy metal directly from smelters.

Chalco said the SRB had bought a total of 570,000 tonnes in the first half of the year, 65 percent of which came from the company itself. That would put Chalco’s sales to the state at 370,500 tonnes.

Chalco predicts the future, announces big loss

Written by Paul Adkins

Chalco yesterday announced its quarterly results, and took time out to make predictions on alumina and metal production and prices. Here’s Reuters’ article on the announcement.

SHANGHAI, Aug 25 (Reuters) - Aluminum Corp of China Ltd (Chalco), the world’s No. 3 alumina maker, expects alumina output this year to fall 11 percent from 2008 to 8 million tonnes, a senior executive said on Tuesday.

Chalco, also China’s largest primary aluminium producer, expected to produce 3.4 million tonnes of aluminium, up 5 percent from a year earlier, Luo Jianchuan, the company’s president, told a press conference.

“Since the second quarter, recovering prices have encouraged Chinese companies to partially restart idled capacity,” said Luo, adding that Chalco had restarted 670,000 tonnes of alumina production capacity, and was now running at 67 percent of its total capacity.

The company had also restarted 310,000 tonnes of aluminium production capacity, and was running at 83 percent of total capacity, Luo said.

“Many production lines are getting ready to restart, or have already restarted a little,” said Liu Xiangming, vice president of the company.

“But we need to take a long-term view, and consider the market fluctuations, consider the impact on prices brought about by increasing recovered production capacity.”

Chalco expects China to import 5.5 million tonnes of alumina this year.

Chalco posted a bigger-than-expected loss for the second quarter, its third consecutive quarterly loss due to weak demand and low prices of aluminium, in the aftermath of the financial crisis which unfolded last year.

“We must work hard not to lose money in the second half and from the full year perspective we will try to cut the losses that we saw in the first half,” said Xiong Weiping, chairman and chief executive officer of Chalco.

“China’s aluminium industry has entered a phase with excessive production capacity and fierce competition. But in the long term, the aluminium industry is still a sunrise industry.

He added that demand for the metal would increase as urbanisation and industrialisation grow with economic development.

Chalco expects global aluminium prices to hold in a range of $1,800 to $2,300 a tonne for the rest of the year, Luo said.

LME aluminium price MAL3 is trading around $1,920 a tonne.

Luo expected domestic prices to range from 14,000 yuan ($2,049) to 16,000 yuan per tonne.

Chalco is finalising power fees with suppliers directly, expecting a breakthrough by the end of this year, Vice President Liu said.

Beijing has introduced a pilot scheme to allow big electricity users to buy power directly from generators, offering a chance for some companies in power-intensive industries, such as Chalco, to reduce power fees and cut production costs.

Protected: Weekly Market Review – 25 August 2009

Written by Paul Adkins

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Protected: Weekly market review August 18, 2009

Written by Paul Adkins

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Stern Hu - intelligence is more intelligent than game-playing.

Written by Paul Adkins

The following article appeared in today’s Fairfax newspapers in Australia. Although a little long, it is worth reading, just to understand what we in the raw materials game always knew - fact-based strategy is always better than treating the business of buying and selling raw materials like a poker game. This article illustrates what many of us have been doing for years. The process of gathering information about the market is never-ending, and the biggest threat to that process is to not go deep enough or often enough into the market.

Here is the article.

JOHN GARNAUT

August 17, 2009

THE EAST IS RED

In the second week of last October, after the collapse of Lehman Brothers but before the global financial crisis was confirmed to have become an Australian economic one, Rio Tinto sent a survey team of more than 20 people across China to find out what was going on.

The fast deployment was evidence that Rio was more attuned to the dynamics of the Chinese market than either its competitors or its customers.

Rio’s survey team was hired through a Shanghai consultancy called CBI, which markets itself as providing “a wide range of intelligence products”.

Despite the self-puffery, CBI’s mode of operation was not to give brown paper bags (or red envelopes) in exchange for state secrets or even commercial secrets. The contract and terms of reference made that very clear.

Nor did it set out to discover the internal cost structures and production data of Chinese steel mills. That would not be worth the trouble, as China’s 540-odd steel makers are not known for their business planning and the Chinese Government’s monthly steel production data is fast and reasonably reliable.

Rio only had to glance at its own order books or the iron ore spot market to understand that demand had fallen through the floor. Its challenge was to efficiently collate public data and form a view on leading indicators such as lending growth and floor space under construction.

But a large portion of the supply side of the iron ore equation remained a mystery.

Rio knew how much the rest of the world was producing from sharemarket announcements of Vale and BHP Billiton. But unlike steel data, China’s domestic iron ore production figures are worthless.

Most of China’s 5000 iron ore mines keep a low profile for the sensible reason that they are illegal. They lack some or all of the six government licences required and survive by quietly feathering the nests of officials.

A rough Chinese production number can be implied by working backwards from how much iron ore must have been fed into Chinese blast furnaces, adjusting for stockpile movements and then subtracting the volume of imported iron ore.

But Rio needed better than that, so it sent the CBI team to find and knock on the doors of hundreds of mines until they had a large and reliable sample.

CBI had previously done similar work for Rio, which had allowed the miner to model a cost curve that could predict how much Chinese iron ore mining capacity would be shut down when prices fell below certain thresholds. A version of that cost curve was published by Rio’s chief executive, Tom Albanese, in May last year and has since been borrowed, adjusted and relabelled by leading investment bank analysts to become the industry standard.

Within a fortnight the CBI team had confirmed what Rio’s cost curve model had predicted.

China had been producing about 400 million tonnes of iron ore a year when adjusted for equivalence with Australian imported ore (the raw tonnage is actually much larger because Chinese ore quality is so poor).

About 110 million tonnes was dug from large and generally more efficient mines that were either state-owned or “captured” by a particular steel mill and therefore had muted incentives to shut down. But of the remaining smaller, private, higher cost and often illegal mines, which accounted for 300 million tonnes of Chinese production, CBI discovered half of them (by volume) had shut their doors.

So Rio knew the precipitous decline late last year in Chinese steel production would be offset by global miners being able to displace about 150 million tonnes of Chinese iron ore. Regular iron ore mine surveys continued until Stern Hu was led away from his Shanghai home on the morning of Sunday, July 5.

The China Iron & Steel Association had privileged access to data. Indeed, Rio had formed the view that the association was getting real-time updates from whoever was listening to its phones and watching its email traffic (presumably the Shanghai State Security Bureau). But CISA’s conclusions about the market were always driven by politics and wishful thinking rather than clear-eyed analysis.

CISA continually asserted that Chinese domestic miners would somehow roar back to life so China would not need Rio’s iron ore. And it refused to comprehend the rising steel production trends made plain by official Chinese Government data.

To this day CISA claims China will produce 500 million tonnes of steel this year, even though production rose to a new record above 50 million in July. Through little more than multiplication, Rio predicts a full-year result of about 570 million tonnes.

At each round of iron ore price negotiations - and this year there were surprisingly few - Hu and his negotiating partner would simply point out the window at what was going on in the real world and hold their ground.

The Rio team would say the market was strong; CISA would deny it, and Rio would turn out to be right every time. For CISA it was beyond humiliating.

Rio’s negotiating advantage over its Chinese customers was and continues to be that it collates information systematically and analyses it intelligently. This advantage is compounded because Rio is dealing with a steel association that acts as if it has no idea how far China’s steel and iron ore industry has moved beyond its powers of command.

It would be strange if Rio were ”stealing” state or commercial secrets because there is no Chinese mill, mine or official who has confidential information worth knowing.

Rio Tinto’s intelligence advantage over the Chinese steel industry was more powerful and less sinister. Hu is nevertheless paying the price.

Uneasy neighbours - India and China, two articles

Written by Paul Adkins

Here are two articles that may interest readers. Those of you who saw my presentation at TMS 2007 or at the Metal Bulletin conference in Miami also in 2007, may remember that this was one of the points I made then. Regardless of any political aspect, and regardless what the people of Tibet may or may not want, China will never release Tibet from its grasp. The first article is from Project Syndicate.

The second article comes from my friend Tony in India. Perhaps the most salient point in this one is that it’s a common strategy for China to have two voices on subjects - the official, diplomatic one and the voice of their true feelings.

Here are the articles.

The Sino-Indian Water Divide

Brahma Chellaney

NEW DELHI – As China and India gain economic heft, they are drawing ever more international attention at the time of an ongoing global shift of power to Asia. Their underlying strategic dissonance and rivalry, however, usually attracts less notice.
As its power grows, China seems determined to choke off Asian competitors, a tendency reflected in its hardening stance toward India. This includes aggressive patrolling of the disputed Himalayan frontier by the People’s Liberation Army, many violations of the line of control separating the two giants, new assertiveness concerning India’s northeastern Arunachal Pradesh state – which China claims as its own – and vituperative attacks on India in the state-controlled Chinese media.
The issues that divide India and China, however, extend beyond territorial disputes. Water is becoming a key security issue in Sino-Indian relations and a potential source of enduring discord.
China and India already are water-stressed economies. The spread of irrigated farming and water-intensive industries, together with the demands of a rising middle class, have led to a severe struggle for more water. Indeed, both countries have entered an era of perennial water scarcity, which before long is likely to equal, in terms of per capita availability, the water shortages found in the Middle East.
Rapid economic growth could slow in the face of acute scarcity if demand for water continues to grow at its current frantic pace, turning China and India – both food-exporting countries – into major importers, a development that would accentuate the global food crisis.
Even though India has more arable land than China – 160.5 million hectares compared to 137.1 million hectares – Tibet is the source of most major Indian rivers. The Tibetan plateau’s vast glaciers, huge underground springs and high altitude make Tibet the world’s largest freshwater repository after the polar icecaps. Indeed, all of Asia’s major rivers, except the Ganges, originate in the Tibetan plateau. Even the Ganges’ two main tributaries flow in from Tibet.
But China is now pursuing major inter-basin and inter-river water transfer projects on the Tibetan plateau, which threatens to diminish international-river flows into India and other co-riparian states. Before such hydro-engineering projects sow the seeds of water conflict, China ought to build institutionalized, cooperative river-basin arrangements with downstream states.
Upstream dams, barrages, canals, and irrigation systems can help fashion water into a political weapon that can be wielded overtly in a war, or subtly in peacetime to signal dissatisfaction with a co-riparian state. Even denial of hydrological data in a critically important season can amount to the use of water as a political tool. Flash floods in recent years in two Indian frontier states – Himachal Pradesh and Arunachal Pradesh – served as an ugly reminder of China’s lack of information-sharing on its upstream projects. Such leverage could in turn prompt a downstream state to build up its military capacity to help counterbalance this disadvantage.
In fact, China has been damming most international rivers flowing out of Tibet, whose fragile ecosystem is already threatened by global warming. The only rivers on which no hydro-engineering works have been undertaken so far are the Indus, whose basin falls mostly in India and Pakistan, and the Salween, which flows into Burma and Thailand. Local authorities in Yunnan province, however, are considering damming the Salween in the quake-prone upstream region.
India’s government has been pressing China for transparency, greater hydrological data-sharing, and a commitment not to redirect the natural flow of any river or diminish cross-border water flows. But even a joint expert-level mechanism – set up in 2007 merely for “interaction and cooperation” on hydrological data – has proven of little value.
The most dangerous idea China is contemplating is the northward rerouting of the Brahmaputra river, known as Yarlung Tsangpo to Tibetans, but which China has renamed Yaluzangbu. It is the world’s highest river, and also one of the fastest-flowing. Diversion of the Brahmaputra’s water to the parched Yellow river is an idea that China does not discuss in public, because the project implies environmental devastation of India’s northeastern plains and eastern Bangladesh, and would thus be akin to a declaration of water war on India and Bangladesh.
Nevertheless, an officially blessed book published in 2005, Tibet’s Waters Will Save China , openly championed the northward rerouting of the Brahmaputra. Moreover, the Chinese desire to divert the Brahmaputra by employing “peaceful nuclear explosions” to build an underground tunnel through the Himalayas found expression in the international negotiations in Geneva in the mid-1990s on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). China sought unsuccessfully to exempt PNEs from the CTBT, a pact still not in force.
The issue now is not whether China will reroute the Brahmaputra, but when. Once authorities complete their feasibility studies and the diversion scheme begins, the project will be presented as a fait accompli . China already has identified the bend where the Brahmaputra forms the world’s longest and deepest canyon – just before entering India – as the diversion point.
China’s ambitions to channel Tibetan waters northward have been whetted by two factors: the completion of the Three Gorges Dam, which, despite the project’s glaring environmental pitfalls, China trumpets as the greatest engineering feat since the construction of the Great Wall; and the power of President Hu Jintao, whose background fuses two key elements – water and Tibet. Hu, a hydrologist by training, owes his swift rise in the Communist Party hierarchy to the brutal martial-law crackdown he carried out in Tibet in 1989.
China’s hydro-engineering projects and plans are a reminder that Tibet is at the heart of the India-China divide. Tibet ceased to be a political buffer when China annexed it nearly six decades ago. But Tibet can still become a political bridge between China and India. For that to happen, water has to become a source of cooperation, not conflict.

Chinese essay sparks outcry in India

By James Lamont in New Delhi and Kathrin Hille in Beijing

Published: August 12 2009 18:41 | Last updated: August 12 2009 22:23

Indian academics are up in arms over what they regard as provocative incitement of the country’s demise by a Chinese essayist.

“China can dismember the so-called ‘Indian Union’ with one little move!” claimed the essay posted last week on China International Strategy Net, a patriotic website focused on strategic issues. The writer, under the pseudonym Zhanlue (strategy in Chinese), argued that India’s sense of national unity was weak and Beijing’s best option to remove an emerging rival and security threat would be to support separatist forces, like those in Assam, to bring about a collapse of the Indian federal state.

There cannot be two suns in the sky,” wrote Zhanlue. “China and India cannot really deal with each other harmoniously.” The article suggested that India should be divided into 20 to 30 sovereign states.

Such was the outcry about the article that the Indian government issued a statement reassuring the country that relations with China were calm.

“The article in question appears to be an expression of individual opinion and does not accord with the officially stated position of China on India-China relations conveyed to us on several occasions, including at the highest level, most recently by State Councillor Dai Bingguo during his visit to India last week,” the foreign ministry in New Delhi said in a statement, referring to mutual pledges to respect territorial integrity and sovereignty.

The publication of the article coincided with talks between Beijing and New Delhi over disputed Himalayan border areas. Earlier this year, China held up funding for an Asian Development Bank project in Arunachal Pradesh, an Indian state claimed by China as “south Tibet”. India has also banned some Chinese imports as it tries to protect its economy from the global downturn.

Officials in Beijing and Delhi hew to rival visions of the future, each seeing themselves as pursuing the more durable political and social model of development. The presumption in New Delhi is that China’s unified, one-party state is bound to break down.

DS Rajan, director of the Chennai Centre for China Studies, brought the essay to his countrymen’s attention. “It has generally been seen that China is speaking in two voices,” he said. “Its diplomatic interlocutors have always shown understanding during their dealings with their Indian counterparts, but its selected media is pouring venom on India in their reporting.”

China International Strategy Net is run by Kang Lingyi, who took part in hacking into US government websites in 1999 following US bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. Sites such as his are part of the Communist party’s strategy to allow nationalism to grow to strengthen its political legitimacy.

Rio ‘spy’ case: Stern Hu officially charged

Written by Paul Adkins
The following article is in today’s Fairfax newspapers, reported by John Garnaut, the Fairfax China Correspondent.
August 12, 2009 - 11:06AM

Chinese prosecutors have finally approved the formal arrest of Rio Tinto iron ore chief Stern Hu and three Chinese colleagues, laying charges of bribery and obtaining commercial secrets, news agency Xinhua reported overnight.

The brief report did not say the four had been charged with stealing state secrets, raising the prospect that authorities have significantly downgraded the case.

Xinjing Bao newspaper reported the case was being investigated under Article 219 of the Criminal Law code which is a commercial secrets provision rather than a state secrets provision.

“That puts it in the business context rather than the realm of state seccrets,” said Jerome Cohen, professor of law at New York University. “This would seem to be a lowering of the temperature somewhat.”

Foreign affairs officials and the Ministry of State Security last month claimed Mr Hu and Liu Caikui, Ge Minqiang and Wang Yong had been stealing state secrets to cause huge economic losses to China.

If the state secrets accusations against Rio Tinto’s China iron ore team have been dropped, this would open the way for a far more transparent judicial process, lighter sentenses and perhaps even the possibility of Mr Hu being deported back to Australia.

“Preliminary investigations have showed that the four employees, Stern Hu, Liu Caikui, Ge Minqiang and Wang Yong, had obtained commercial secrets of China’s steel and iron industry through improper means, which had violated the country’s Criminal Law,” reported Xinhua, citing a statement from the China’s Supreme People’s Procuratorate late last night.

“Prosecution authorities also found evidence to prove that they were involved in commercial bribery,” the report said.
“Investigations have also revealed that there were suspects in China’s steel and iron enterprises who were providing commercial secrets for them.”

Protected: Weekly market report 11 August 2009

Written by Paul Adkins

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Stern Hu - China goes from the extreme to the ridiculous

Written by Paul Adkins

The following article appeared in today’s Fairfax newspapers. For China to claim that Rio’s actions cost more than the total value of their sales is to put themselves in a ridiculous light. How can anybody take the Chinese seriously id they persist on arguments such as these?

Interesting that the China Daily did not see fit to publish anything about this.

John Garnaut, Beijing

August 10, 2009

CHINA alleges Rio Tinto stripped $A123 billion from the country through a six-year program of commercial espionage, as it signalled it will broaden its spy blitz beyond the four mining employees detained in Shanghai.

The new allegations published on an official website - by far the most detailed and explosive by an official source - all but end hopes that Australian Stern Hu and his three Chinese colleagues will avoid convictions and long jail terms.

The Australian Government has received scant information about Mr Hu as well as several blunt diplomatic rebuffs.

And senior Rio Tinto managers have been humiliated in their attempts to see the former head of iron ore sales in China, who is being detained in the Shanghai Detention Centre, and to learn the whereabouts of three Chinese staff who were arrested at the same time.

The Age believes senior Rio Tinto executives were shadowed and intimidated in a recent visit to Shanghai. Mr Hu and the three other executives were detained on July 5 for allegedly stealing state secrets and actions that harmed the nation’s economic interests and security. Australia, which has said the detentions might be connected to yearly price talks for iron ore, is seeking more information and has urged China to deal with the case quickly.

The report, published at the weekend on a website administered by the Secrets Office of the Communist Party of China’s Central Committee, alleges that Rio Tinto was involved in a six-year clandestine operation against China’s steel mills. It accused the Anglo-Australian miner of ”winning over and buying off, prying out intelligence, routing one by one, and gaining things by deceit”.

It said Rio’s activities led China to pay $A123 billion (700 billion yuan) more for iron ore than they otherwise would have. ”That means China gave the employer of those economic spies more than $A123 billion for free, which is about 10 per cent of Australia’s GDP,” the article said.

The report does not explain how Rio is accused of stealing a sum that is far in excess of Rio’s total iron ore sales to China during that period.

Rio strongly denies it has been involved in bribery or improper conduct in China, but a spokeswoman yesterday said she could not comment on the new allegations.

For most of the past six years, Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton have sold iron ore to Chinese steel mills at a steep discount to the prices received by domestic Chinese and other international producers.

The report also revived Cold War terms such as ”espionage warfare”, signalling the nation may be embarking on a campaign of suspicion against foreigners. It said outside businesses must come under stricter controls to stop them from spying and obtaining commercial secrets.

”Our country has entered a peak period of commercial espionage warfare, and the threat to important economic intelligence and security of national economic activity increases by the day,” the report said.

It urged strict controls of contact between foreign businesses and local officials, experts and managers, asserting that ”traitors” were enriching themselves at the expense of Chinese businesses. For three weeks the state-controlled media have been warning Chinese citizens how to protect themselves and their country against what they allege is a foreign espionage blitz.

There has also been vitriolic media commentary directed at Rio, including calls for China to boycott all of Rio’s product on the grounds that it will cripple the mining company more than it hurts China.

Mark Goulopoulos, senior investment adviser at Patersons Securities, said Rio’s share price had been largely insulated from the spy claims, until now. ”I think investors will probably feel a little nervous about Rio … if it turns out to be really serious, then I think investor sentiment around Rio will be impacted.”