Public Policy

The imposition of anti-dumping duties by the Indian government should encourage US authorities who have been asked to enforce a similar move. The suit filed by six US companies concerns corrosion-resistant steel, a type of coated steel used in automobile and construction industries. The US has been witnessing an unprecedented flood of imports in the last one year or so.

Free Download: MetalMiner’s Top Service Centers Guide

As reported by MetalMiner last month, the US steel industry is suffering because the imports hit a record 34% of market share, according to the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI).

The US slapped duties on imports of steel used in the energy industry from South Korea and five other countries last year but, evidently, those tariffs did not have the desired effect. The AISI in its press briefing last month, asked the US Government to first enforce existing trade laws which would be an immense help to the steel industry.

In India, steel imports had increased to 0.91 million metric tons this May, an increase of 58% as compared to the same month’s figure last year. As compared to April 2015, the import rate was up by about 20 mt, according to a report by the Ministry of Steel.

Many analysts said the Indian stainless steel industry started resembling a sick industry, as cheap imports were leading to a situation of under-utilization of installed capacities. The local industry hopes the anti-dumping duties will send out a clear signal to those sending in cheap imports, and lead to a resurgence in India’s steel sector.

FREE Download: The June MMI® Report.

The author, Sohrab Darabshaw, contributes an Indian perspective on industrial metals markets to MetalMiner.

{ 0 comments }

A steelworkers’ strike looms in the UK while India expands its lead in the world’s largest big economy title race.

UK Workers Authorize Strike against Tata

Shares of Tata Steel fell over 2% on international exchanges after UK unions notified the company that they planned to strike on June 22 over the firm’s proposal to revise the British Steel Pension Scheme (BSPS).

Free Download: MetalMiner’s Top Service Centers Guide

In a filing on June 10, the firm said: “Tata Steel UK (indirect subsidiary of Tata Steel Ltd.) has now been notified by the four unions (Community, GMB, Ucatt and Unite) of their plans to take industrial action in dispute over the company’s proposal to revise the BSPS’ contribution and benefits framework.”

Tata Steel employs more than 17,000 workers at four sites across Wales in Port Talbot, Newport, Flintshire and Carmarthenshire, as well as sites around England including Corby, Hartlepool, Rotherham, Scunthorpe, Teesside and York.

India Will Keep Fastest Growing Big Economy Title

India will continue to be the world’s fastest growing big economy and expand its lead on China over the next two years, the World Bank said Wednesday.

The bank expects global growth to slow this year, only to rebound next year. However, it expects India’s gross domestic product expansion to accelerate to 7.4% this calendar year, 7.8% next year and 8.0% in 2017.

Over the same three years, the multilateral lender predicts China’s growth to slow from 7.1% this year to 7.0% in 2016 and 6.9% the year after that.

Free Download: Latest Metal Price Trends in the June MMI Report

 

{ 0 comments }

A major aluminum producer challenged a US regulator’s authority to intervene in a foreign warehousing dispute and another nation placed tariffs on Chinese silicon this week.

Alcoa Challenges CFTC’s Authority

Alcoa Inc. on Monday challenged a federal commodities regulator’s authority to intervene in the contentious overhaul of the London Metal Exchange‘s warehouse policy that has caused an unprecedented drop in aluminum prices.

FREE Download: Last Chance for the May MMI® Report.

In March, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission deferred a decision about the LME’s 2012 application to be registered as a “foreign board of trade,” telling the exchange it should do more to address concerns about long waiting queues.

Alcoa has questioned whether the agency even has the legal authority to intervene, and on Monday filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to find out what had caused the CFTC to delay its decision on the LME.

“Our goal is to learn the extent to which the CFTC has engaged in substantive discussions with the London Metal Exchange,” Alcoa said in a statement. “The CFTC should examine any LME aluminum contract performance issues only through an open, inclusive and transparent process where all affected market participants have the opportunity to present their views,” it said.

The CFTC declined to comment.

Australia Puts Tariffs on Chinese Silicon

Australia has issued an anti-dumping notice on silicon metal exported from China after an investigation into dumping and subsidization.

Following the investigation the Australian Government Anti-Dumping Commission set dumping and subsidy margins for Hua’an Linan Silicon Industry Co. Ltd., and Guizhou Liping Linan Silicon Industry Co. Ltd. at 18.3% and 6.3% respectively. Both companies will be subject to an effective rate of combined interim countervailing duty and interim dumping duty of 12%, according to a statement by the MOC trade remedy and investigation bureau.

The commission announced dumping margin and subsidy margin for “uncooperative, and all other exporters” of 27% and 37.6% respectively, with an effective rate of combined interim countervailing duty and interim dumping duty of 58.3%.

Australia began its investigation in February last year after allegations of dumping and subsidization of silicon metal goods that originated from China with a total value of $12.78 million dollars, according to the MOC statement.

Free Download: MetalMiner’s Top Service Centers Guide

{ 0 comments }

A major financial brokerage reiterated its prediction of a US housing recovery, and lawmakers introduced bills to permanently revive the Build America bond program.

Residential Construction Up

In a note last month, Morgan Stanley economists wrote: “Despite a weak first quarter on several fronts of the US economy, the housing sector has been a source of relative strength. In our view, the US housing sector is poised to accelerate into the spring, a traditionally strong period for housing.”

Free Download: MetalMiner’s Top Service Centers Guide

And in a note last Wednesday, the same team wrote, “May was arguably the most positive month for housing data in quite some time, and Monday’s construction spending print was the cherry on top.”

Morgan Stanley was responding to several housing data reports that dropped last month that mostly beat economists’ expectations and confirmed their outlook for 2015.

{ 0 comments }

Michael Whatley of the Clean Energy Alliance explains how the major utilities are looking at EPA’s Clean Power Plan, which aims to regulate existing power plants across the country and what it means for the US manufacturing sector. Such as singling out coal-fired electricity generating capacity, grid parity, and some ‘cap and trade’-like effects., what the “European experiment” has taught us, and, in hindsight, what kind of cost/benefit analysis would be helpful if EPA were to get a “do-over” in proposing this rule.

Check out our primer on EPA’s Clean Power Plan and its potential costs.

In this second half, we touch on how the major utilities are looking at the rule, what the “European experiment” has taught us, and, in hindsight, what kind of cost/benefit analysis would be helpful if EPA were to get a “do-over” in proposing this rule.

Utilities and EPA Clean Power Plan

MetalMiner: Let’s talk about some of the energy producers, such as Exelon, ComEd, or Duke Energy. What’s their point of view on the EPA Clean Power Plan? What types of approaches, if any, are they taking at this point?

Michael Whatley: These proposed rules are going to require a certain percent of carbon reductions or carbon intensity in each individual state. [We haven’t] seen a lot of the utilities come out and say, ‘we really like these or we really don’t like these,’ because I think that at this point in time, the vast majority of the utilities are looking at it and saying what does this mean, and how are we going to apply it, and what are we going to do? At the end of the day, if you think about the utilities, their major role, according to state law and certainly any federal overlay on it, is to be able to provide reliable electricity for the consumers. A lot of states require that the utilities not only be reliable, but also to be the most cost-efficient that they can within the various rules that are out there. At this point, there really is just a lot of data-gathering assessment that’s going on from the utility world that is looking at the proposed rule going forward.

MM: If the rule goes into effect largely as is – which is a big if – how do you think about the cost impact of this new regulation on US manufacturing? What’s the benchmark of how you measure that?

MW: Consumer Energy Alliance released a study that we put together in conjunction with a number of other groups that looked at what are the potential ramifications of the rule as proposed. And the numbers were fairly staggering. You’re talking about, nationally, a 12% to 17% increase in electricity prices, which could be as much as $41 billion dollars annually. And those are costs that are going to have to be borne by energy consumers. In terms of whether EPA wants to implement rules to ensure that there’s no new coal-fired power plants, there’s probably a way that you could do that in a cost-effective way that’s not going to cause these types of price spikes. The same thing applies with rules on existing coal-fired power plants. If you’re going to phase them out, you have to be able to give utilities and states realistic timelines and opportunities to be able to replace that electricity [capacity]. What EPA has done is come in and say, no, we’re going to have to achieve these cuts. And you’re going to have to use these mechanisms. And you’re going to have very, very tight timelines that you’re going to be able to do it. So we were not really surprised but awfully disappointed with the numbers that we saw in that study.

MM: Would the problems be solved if the timelines were all extended?

MW: I think it’s a combination of both timeline and reduction goals, because if what you’re saying is that you have to reduce carbon intensity by 5% in a state, given these timelines, that could probably work. If you’re going to say you have to reduce it by 20%, but you give companies 15 to 20 years instead of five to 10, then that can probably work. But the combination that we see in this rule of the timelines and the reductions is going to be particularly difficult … It puts the onus back on the states.

“War” on Coal?

MM: Another criticism of the plan that we’ve heard is that some feel that this rule is starting with coal. And it’s a slippery slope. Perhaps we’re going to suddenly find that these rules extend to other power sources. What are your thoughts on that?

MW: We completely agree. We work with the natural gas producers and suppliers all day, every day. The simple fact of the matter is you look at a state like Virginia, where we did a back-of-the-envelope analysis that said if you eliminate every coal-fired power plant and replace it with natural gas, you’re still probably not going to be able to hit these targets. So it really is going to be that you have to bring online new nuclear. And again, the timelines that they’ve put in place don’t allow for new nuclear. They also have a problem that in South Carolina and Georgia where you do have new nuclear facilities that are already under construction and going to be online over the next several years, those will not count towards the reduction capacity, even if they phase out coal, because they’ve already broken ground on those facilities. You have to bring online new renewables in order to get that zero generation capacity. Every state’s going to have to do its own analysis. And that certainly cannot be done on the back of the envelope when you’re talking about long-term electricity programs and plans. So we do feel that this is not just an attack on coal. It really is a program that is going to, ultimately, shake up the entire electricity generation capacity in the country. So as electricity users, that’s why we have this particular concern. There’s a lot of things [to suggest] that EPA clearly is trying to get the states to participate in cap and trade programs and to put in place statewide renewable electricity mandates, which would be the only way that they would be able to meet these goals.

{ 0 comments }

We at MetalMiner have long covered the US domestic policy front as pertains to US manufacturing industries, and time and again, we hear industry experts extolling the virtues of “all-of-the-above” strategies, rather than unilateral regulatory decrees.

So is the federal government, in conjunction with individual states, pursuing “all-of-the-above” strategies to their fullest potential when it comes to US energy policy?

As the final rule of the EPA Clean Power Plan gets closer to being finalized (word on the street: it’s happening this summer), we got an insider perspective from Michael Whatley at Consumer Energy Alliance on the issues for US manufacturers surrounding the potential effects of the final rule. Below is a condensed and edited version of our conversation.

{ 0 comments }

One could, and many will, dismiss the International Monetary Fund report “How Large Are Global Energy Subsidies,” as so much drivel, that, while there are undoubtedly costs to burning fossil fuels, due to health and pollution, the energy industry also pays huge amounts of taxes and provides low economic cost energy that allows our economies to function.

Why Manufacturers Need to Ditch Purchase Price Variance

Whatever we may or may not think of the validity of this argument we should remember the IMF rarely deviates from the thinking of the US Treasury. If the IMF have gone public with this approach it will have widespread support among influential circles.

Subsidies and Energy

The basis for the IMF’s case is that fossil fuel companies have been allowed to keep huge profits while dumping the consequences on the rest of society, and that the only way to dissuade this practice is to tax the fuels sufficiently to compensate society, an analytical approach developed by Arthur Pigou, an early 20th century economist according to the London Telegraph newspaper.

{ 0 comments }

We have already written this year on the risk to the fossil fuel industry posed by potential carbon taxes. Consensus that such taxes are coming seems to be building surprisingly quickly, helped, it must be said, by a historic agreement between the USA and China to work together to agree on emission targets and add momentum for an agreement to emerge from the COPS21 conference planned in December in Paris.

Free Download: Latest Metal Price Trends in the May MMI Report

The most noise is, not surprisingly, coming from fear that trillions of investments in fossil fuels, principally coal but also oil and even natural gas, could become uneconomic if some form of carbon tax is agreed upon. Probably more because of this worry than any more altruistic notion major investors are already beginning to turn their backs on coal in particular. The latest is the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund, Norway’s $916 billion fund has decided this week to pull any investments from companies whose business relies more than 30% on coal according to the FT.

Divesting ANY Business

The crucial point here is “any business,” so not just mining companies but power generators will be hit. The fund says it is trying to alter behavior in these firms, but if you are a major European power generator you have billions invested in coal-fired power production. That is some super-tanker to turn around quickly.

{ 0 comments }

US plan to protect sage grouse will limit oil & gas I admit, I love birds and birding probably much more than the next guy, which is why this story is a very intriguing one. Obviously, in US manufacturers’ eyes, it’s a David-vs.-Goliath type of battle, in which the little feathered guy with the sling […]

{ 0 comments }

China has changed its tack on steel exports.

Pool 4 Tool’s Automotive SRM Summit

In previous years it has sought a more conciliatory position to complaints by trade partners, a WSJ article says in the past CISA, China’s steel trade association, has sought to persuade local steel mills to curb exports and show restraint but this year, in the face of an unprecedented surge in volumes, Ministry of Commerce spokesman Shen Danyang is quoted as taking a much more defensive line saying the rise in steel exports is due to higher global demand and is a result of Chinese steel products having strong “export competitiveness.”

Chinese Now Say Exports ‘Justifiable’

Set against a backdrop of the EU’s recent investigation into dumping of cold-rolled coil from China and Russia, Shen is reported to have come out fighting, saying “Under such circumstances (demand and competitive pricing), I feel that it’s quite normal for Chinese steel exports to these countries to be rising, and it’s quite justifiable.”

Meanwhile, the WSJ adds the US, Australia and South Korea have also signaled that they are lining up support for trade action against Chinese steel exports, which rose by 50.5% last year to a record 93.8 million metric tons and have continued at a high level this year.

Chinese steel mills are on a roll according to data reported by the WSJ. Between September last year and January this year, the volume of China’s outbound steel shipments each month shattered the preceding month’s record. While in the first four months of 2015, steel exports were 32.7% higher than a year earlier.

The reason isn’t hard to find, domestic steel prices in China have been on a slide as demand has collapsed. According to a Bloomberg article Infrastructure and construction together account for about two thirds of China’s steel demand, citing HSBC research, and construction is slow as housing prices fall there.

Construction Slump Continues

New home prices slid in 69 of the 70 cities tracked by the government in April from a year earlier, according to National Bureau of Statistics data. As a result construction-related steel prices such as rebar have hit their lowest level since 2003.

What’s worse is the peak buying period for the construction sector is now in the past and demand would fall for seasonal reasons even if construction was strong. According to Reuters, prices have dropped 13% so far this year with the most-traded rebar futures contract for October settlement on the Shanghai Futures Exchange down to 2,355 yuan ($379.71) per ton, while MetalMiner’s own China tracking service has recorded a 16% fall in domestic steel prices this year from 2,810 yuan/mt at the beginning of the year to 2,340 yuan now.

What is Chinese ‘Cost?’

Such a slump in prices has aided steel mills in their drive to dump excess capacity overseas. Is it below cost? What is the cost price in China? what are a mill’s true costs for state enterprises that receive all kinds of support both at the regional and state level?

Steel mills are under pressure to close excess capacity but so far the result has been limited, excess capacity is being offered for export rather than any real attempt made to exercise market discipline and shutter plants. The trend is likely to get worse before it gets better, particularly if Beijing’s hard line continues, we can expect more trade disputes and possibly lower prices in the year ahead.

{ 0 comments }