Industry News

The jury is still out on whether Tata’s Nano has failed, but sales of just 509 cars in November hardly sound like a rip-roaring success when compared to the frenzy reported around its launch. Just a year ago, Tata felt forced to hold a lottery to prioritize initial sales — so heavy was the demand. Against an overall car sales rise of 38 percent on a year ago and Nano sales of 3,065 in October, down from 5,520 in September according to an FT article, Tata managed just 509 in November. In total, the Nano has managed sales of just 70,000 sold since it entered the market in July 2009, according to


The 0.6-liter two-cylinder-equipped Nano is assembled in the western Indian state of Gujarat, where the plant is capable of churning out 250,000 models per year at full capacity. At just 123,360 to 172,360 Indian rupees in India, which is around $2700 to $3800, the Nano was aimed firmly at the motorcycling family looking to move up to the comfort and convenience of four wheels. The Nano’s low-cost innovations include using three lug nuts to secure the wheels instead of four, reduced use of steel, a single wiper blade and side-view mirror, and a trunk that’s only accessible from the inside.

The poor sales are blamed on two factors.


As we reported back in March of this year, the Nano suffered isolated reports of catching fire, forcing Tata to offer a safety recall (in all but name) to users. This bad press put off buyers and from the late summer onwards, sales dwindled. Possibly more of an issue according to company executives is the disconnect between product and market. As we have said, the Nano is aimed at the poor. Ratan Tata’s vision was to provide safe and comfortable transport for India’s scootering public. Anyone familiar with the country so often sees those families with father, mother and two children all perched precariously on a scooter in sweltering heat or monsoon rains or just dodging through India’s crowded city roads, risking death or injury to two generations. The Nano is aimed squarely at the poor, but this group also finds it nearly impossible to raise finances at affordable levels. Once the initial wave of novelty-seeking or more wealthy poor had placed their orders, new buyers dried up, so Tata is developing in-house financing and may be looking at the success over the years of GM’s GMAC model, to provide finance in support of sales.

How successful they will be remains to be seen. The Nano has its problems, but it is a brave attempt at low-price car manufacturing and Tata deserves credit for going where others feared to tread. At the other end of the range, Tata is making a success of Britain’s luxury mark Jaguar — let’s hope they can pull the same rabbit out the hat with the Nano.

–Stuart Burns

Source: Reuters Insider

RUSAL is sitting pretty these days.

As the world’s largest aluminum maker by output — responsible for about 4 percent of the global aluminum production — the Russian company has a rosy outlook on where prices are going in 2011, mainly due to China’s import needs. (The company already purchased a 33 percent stake in Chinese aluminum trader Shenzen North Investments.) The implications of Russia’s metal industry relations with emerging economies, China and India in particular, are huge.

See what Maxim Sokov, RUSAL’s head of strategy and deputy CEO had to say about it in a recent Reuters Insider interview.

Check out the video here, or click on the image above.

–Taras Berezowsky

Source: National Geographic magazine; Photo by Michael Melford

As I unwrapped the plastic mailer from my December issue of National Geographic magazine, the second-from-last headline on the cover caught my eye. It read: “Alaska’s Choice: Gold or Salmon?

The words “Alaska, “gold and “salmon intrigued me. Alaska, because I consider myself a camping/hiking/all-around outdoors enthusiast and would cherish the chance to explore the state someday. Gold, because we cover it for MetalMiner. Salmon, because, well, it’s delicious. I love to eat it. But it wasn’t until I read the story that I understood the relationship between the three.

Pebble Partnership, a team effort between British Columbia-based Northern Dynasty Minerals and Anglo American, is evaluating the potential for constructing a two-mile-wide open pit mine and a 1,700-foot-deep underground mine just 120 miles north of Bristol Bay in southwest Alaska. The ore body that lies underneath their exploration grounds, just north of Iliamna Lake, “could hold the world’s largest deposit of gold and one of the largest of copper.


The problem: The massive watershed, made up of countless rivers and tributaries that funnel into Bristol Bay, is home to the largest spawning run of sockeye salmon in the world, not to mention one of the biggest king salmon runs. (Incidentally, the west end of the bay is home to Sarah and Todd Palin’s family fishing operation, and the namesake of their eldest daughter; Ina Bouker, one of the Palins’ “family members, according to a recent episode of “Sarah Palin’s Alaska, is pictured kissing a salmon in the NatGeo article.)

So, what we have in the NatGeo story is a classic iteration of the “environment vs. industry narrative. Locals don’t want one of the richest salmon fisheries to be tainted with acid mine drainage, among other potential threats; Pebble’s prospectors want to assure them this won’t happen, while making sure such a rich deposit doesn’t go uncovered. But, for MetalMiner purposes (I’ll save my personal treehugger response for another time and place!), let’s focus on exactly what Pebble Partnership is sitting on.

According to data available on Pebble’s Web site, the prospected mine is home to 80.6 billion pounds of copper and 107.4  million ounces of gold. There are also 5.6 billion pounds of molybdenum. In addition, the company detected significant amounts of silver, rhenium and palladium. These deposits lie underneath 180 or so square miles of land, on which Pebble holds the leases.

The company estimated the mines’ total value, at today’s prices, to be between $100-500 billion. By comparison, the estimated annual value of the Bristol Bay salmon fishery is $120 million, according to the article. If the mine were to produce metals for 25 years, and assuming the annual value of the fisheries remained the same, salmon fishing would rake in only $3 billion in the same time span.

That’s not to say Pebble discounts the economic and environmental impact of the salmon fisheries. John Shively, Pebble’s CEO, arrived in Alaska 40 years ago as a VISTA volunteer and used to be commissioner of Alaska’s Department of Natural Resources. He says the mine would provide 2,000 construction jobs and 800 to 1,000 operating jobs, and wants more than half of the operating positions to be filled by locals, according to the article. Shively also says that Pebble is taking steps in its proposals to ensure no net loss, and create a permanent power source for the residents of the Bristol Bay region.

The partnership has already thrust itself into community involvement and infrastructure building. They created the $5 million Pebble Fund to create “a sustainable future for the Bristol Bay fisheries and the native Alaskans who live and work in the area.

Pebble doesn’t expect to finalize a preliminary development plan and application for permits until 2011; construction likely wouldn’t even happen until 2017. But when it does, Pebble’s find should help US gold and copper production grow considerably.

–Taras Berezowsky

Ariba, a major spend management firm, made a move today to broaden its reach in the mining industry by acquiring Quadrem, a leader in supply-chain management that focuses on the minerals and mining business.


Our sister publication, Spend Matters, explores how the scale of Ariba’s reach will change after the deal is closed.

Now the largest global business commerce network, Ariba-Quadrem will be able to overcome Ariba’s past challenges to penetrate the mining market (“Quadrem brings immediate access and up-sell potential into: Alcoa, Anglo American, BHP Billiton, Nestlé, Vale and Rio Tinto and others,” writes Jason Busch.)

Specific deal considerations and details are outlined here.

Ariba will also now have greater leverage in emerging markets, where mineral and metal mining are increasingly important. Quadrem’s business reaches into Latin America, EMEA and Asia Pacific, whereas Ariba has had “weaker penetration in these markets from a volume perspective.”

Ultimately, Spend Matters offers an exclusive, big-picture analysis on deal that could will make waves in the procurement world. How do we think it relates to metals and mining?

Lisa Reisman, editor of MetalMiner, weighs in. “Indirect procurement network connectivity in the mining, minerals and metals world is not the primary focus of procurement and supply chain operations,” she said. “What gave rise to the use of Quadrem’s network business was the need for a shared service for something procurement heads did not want to waste a minute thinking about. More strategic procurement issues for mining, minerals and metals customers include: services procurement (including contingent workers in mines), labor management, capital equipment procurement, service parts and spares procurement (remember the tire issue and shortage from 2008?), MRO strategies and fulfillment for mining facilities (for example, safety supplies, mining supplies, etc.). BPO is also a rising area of interest here.”

–Taras Berezowsky

You may well have seen some press on Google’s robot cars, but it wasn’t until I came across a perceptive analysis by Aaron Saenz on the Singularityhub that I took the trouble to read what all the fuss was about. No, this isn’t a metal post. Still reading? OK then, like me, maybe you like the slightly geeky idea of robot cars, not that I (or Aaron Saenz, for that matter) think we are going to see them anytime soon. Google has been running a covert operation with a team of 15 world-class engineers and seven Priuses that have clocked up the 140,000 miles of driverless miles. Well, not completely driverless: California state highway laws require a driver in control and indeed that’s what they did, monitored the robotic automation software ready to grab back the controls if it proved necessary. How often did it prove necessary, you will ask? How many accidents did the robots cause? Well, none is the answer, apart from being rear ended by a human driver. The robots performed fault free, but — and this is a big but — they did have a lead car mapping the route for them, so arguably one could say they had human input of a type.

According to WHO data quoted in the article, 1.2 million lives are lost every year in car traffic accidents, and what the project has proved is that robotic cars could contribute to reducing that appalling loss of life. Not in all seriousness by taking over completely, but by small incremental improvements in vehicle safety as the technologies are gradually introduced into mainstream vehicles. Technologies like sensing systems that automatically apply the brakes when they detect a slowing or stopped vehicle ahead, and systems to warn us when children are playing in an area we are driving through or that speed limits have changed. As Aaron rightly points out, when robots are ready to drive for us, there will still be accidents.  Who will answer for the loss of life or cost of damage in those situations? The company that designs the robot’s software, the car manufacturer who installed it, or the driver who believed that they didn’t need to pay attention because their car was driving itself? Just think of the millions Toyota’s sticky throttle has cost the company.

So 100% automated robotic cars are a product for the far future, minimum ten years down the line. The changes needed are as much social and legal as technological. But the technologies will still be perfected, long before we are ready to rely on them in totality; as the author perceptively (and optimistically) points out, we should all benefit in terms of improved safety in the interim by the gradual adoption of robotic cars in the name of driver safety measures. Now where’s that old DVD of “i, Robot” got to¦.?

–Stuart Burns

The simultaneous development by three separate companies of commercially viable domestic stirling heat engines appears on the face of it to be just commercial competition spurring technological development; capitalism at its best, one might say. But the fact from an environmental point of view, that these are all potentially game changing domestic appliances, makes them that much more interesting. The stirling engine first patented in 1816 by Reverend Robert Stirling (in the style of the day) who was both a clergyman and an inventor. Born in 1790 and after studying to be an engineer at Glasgow University, he became a clergyman in Kilmarnock, Scotland. 200 years later and the world is still trying to bring his invention of using expanding and cooling gases to drive a rotating coil and hence generate electricity to some form of widespread commercial application.

This sounds like a green or environmental technology story, and would in itself make interesting reading as such, but our interest is more in the way the three competing companies went about developing their manufacturing philosophy. As a Financial Times article explains, the rival production methods are test cases for the differing approaches towards global manufacturing networks being tried out in fields as diverse as cars and computers.

One company is owned by a New Zealand firm, but manufactures close to its European market from a single factory in Spain. Another is a British engineering firm that carries out R&D in the UK, but off-shores a crucial production element to low-cost China. Meanwhile the third, based in the Netherlands, also outsources manufacturing, but this time to high-tech Japan.

Whisper Tech of New Zealand has partnered with a manufacturing group in Spain because they feel manufacturing a new technology product close to the market in which it is being used will reduce risk and increase early acceptance. They don’t mention labor rates in Spain or the possibility of EU funding for underdeveloped regions, but these may also have been a factor. Their product has reached commercial launch and is being promoted for both the more obvious off-grid applications but also for on-grid, no doubt exploiting European feed-in tariffs that allow users to claim back electricity returned to the grid at highly favorable rates.

Microgen, the British-based firm, has produced a solely domestic heating and power generation appliance but with certain key components they don’t say which, or how large a percentage of the finished product made in China. Recognizing that cost could be a significant hurdle to widespread adoption, Baxi, Microgen’s parent, said “We think that our use of the lower costs that China promises should give us the ability to bring down prices and make the products more affordable.

The third contender Enatec micro-cogen also makes a single piston stirling engine, but instead of looking to produce close to its European customer base or access low-cost Chinese manufacturing sources, the firm has sought to overcome the technological and development hurdles by partnering with a US firm Infinia, the engine designer, and a high tech Japanese firm Rinnai for manufacturing, believing technical excellence will give them the edge in what is still an evolving technology.

It is too early to tell which of these firms’ approach will prove in the long run to be the most savvy. Figures are not available for like-for-like comparisons of sales as all firms produce a number of products of which the stirling engines are but one. Nevertheless, as manufacturers in the post-crisis world re-assess the viability of the pre-crisis “move all manufacturing to China model struggle with lower volumes, or ponder the effect of a gradually strengthening Chinese currency, the different approaches of these three firms may strike a cord. If anything good has come out of the financial crisis, it is the return of some manufacturing activities back closer to the markets in which the products are being used. As these firms’ decisions show, cost is not always the sole arbiter.

–Stuart Burns

A recent article in WalesOnline is one of many that have covered research being done at the UK’s Swansea University in cooperation with Corus (now Tata) Steel, photovoltaic (PV) specialists Dyesol and others into the possibility of coating steel sheets at the point of manufacture with materials that will generate electricity essentially making the steel panel or better still the whole roof structure one huge photovoltaic cell.

Source: Tata Steel

The   photo shows Prof. David Worsley from Swansea University studying a sample of functionally coated strip steel using an illuminated magnifying lens.

The article explains the process as spraying a solar cell onto the steel surface and of course holds open the possibility of powering the building itself and the sale of surplus power into the national grid. Government is backing the idea in the form of a £9.5m ($15m) grant from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council for further research and Corus (Tata Steel Europe) is the lead industrial partner working with the University in developing the concept.

The technology sounds almost too good to be true so we caught up with Robert Dangerfield, Communications Manager at Tata Steel in Wales to find out a little more detail. Robert confirmed the project is ongoing but research into PV surfaces is only part of a wider program called SPECIFIC that is looking at various coating technologies with a view to bringing them to commercial reality. The project is looking at various ways in which PV coatings can be applied, used and interact with both the sheet and the wall or roof insulation. SPECIFIC as a project is likely to run for at least 5 possibly 10 years but as the original article pointed out the PV roll coating technology is going into site trials at Tata’s R&D facility at Shotton where the firm intends to cover several hundred square feet of roof space to trial the technology. As Dangerfield explained, the PV sheets are not expected to be a direct replacement for conventional silicon based PV panels, rather they have a more modest in the region of 10% efficiency compared to 30+% efficiency for modern PV panels but because of their much lower cost can cover a far greater roof area generating electricity at lower cost and without the need to use unsightly panels attached to the roof surface.

Patents have been applied for so the partners are serious about bringing this to commercial reality. As to when industrial and agricultural buildings will be re-roofed with the new panels remains uncertain at this time but a comment by Dr David Wormsley, of Swansea University succinctly underlines the potential, “Corus Colours (Tata Steels Coating Division) produces around 100 million square meters of steel building cladding a year. If this was treated with the photovoltaic material, and assuming a conservative 5% energy conversion rate, then we could be looking at generating 4,500 gigawatts of electricity through the solar cells annually. That’s the equivalent output of roughly 50 wind farms.” and not a windmill in sight!

–Stuart Burns

In the 80-90’s it was Japan that was synonymous with shipbuilding. In the 90-00’s it was South Korea. This decade marks the coming of China as the world’s shipbuilder. True as single entities go Hyundai Heavy Industries and Samsung Heavy hold the number one and two positions in the world according to a FT article last week, but snapping at their heals a report on the Chinese Shipbuilding Industry says is China State Shipbuilding Corporation (CSSC). CSSC may be number one in China but that is number one among hundreds. The China Daily says in 2009, Chinese shipbuilders contracted new orders totaling 26 million dead-weight tons, a 61.6% share of global new vessel orders. While the People’s Daily reported that in just the first half of 2010 China’s shipyards completed and exported 24.3 million dead-weight tons, exports accounted for 82% of the total shipbuilding capacity, and the volume of new overseas orders reached about 16.4 million dead-weight tons, accounting for 69% of the total volume of new orders. The China Daily is still ranking China’s shipbuilding industry as second to South Korea but the FT says the Chinese shipbuilding industry became the world’s biggest in the first half of 2010 by all three key measures: new build contracting, delivery, and the size of the overall order book. In terms of global share, the first half of 2010 saw China’s shipbuilding capacity, the number of new orders and the volume of backlog orders account for about 41%, 46% and 38% of the world market, respectively. China has the same advantages Japan and Korea enjoyed in the past: low labor costs, steel supply and an abundance of coastal land. The difference is that Beijing is willing to bear almost unlimited losses in pursuit of dominance in what it sees as a strategic value add business.

This drive for dominance comes just as new orders among the world’s shipbuilders drops as the chart shows. Orders placed prior to the crisis will keep yards busy for a couple of years yet but for the industry as a whole, 2009 was the best for aggregate completions, some 390, but the worst for new orders, just 49. As business becomes more and more competitive, China will ensure it remains the most competitive supplier, as it has in so many other industries. Shipbuilding is the epitome of China’s drive to take a polluting energy intensive product like steel and add value before export, shipbuilding will get all the helps it needs to stay in front.

What this has already meant is that South Korea and Japan have moved up the value chain already dominant in more specialized vessels like LNG they may well start to impinge on Europe’s dominance of ocean liners, the last bastion of western commercial shipbuilding.

In spite of China’s success so far, Zhang Changtao, chief researcher of the Economic Research Center of China Shipbuilding admits the country still faces challenges, such as weak independent research and development capacity, high dependency on imports of shipboard equipment, low production efficiency and what he terms defective industrial structure, by which we understand a fragmented industry over ripe for consolidation and optimization. China will likely be dependent for some time on imported shipboard equipment as ship-owners specify tried and trusted systems such as navigation and engines but the Chinese have found ways around this in industries like high speed trains. To gain access to a growing domestic market, the country will require foreign manufacturers to establish manufacturing operations within China sharing technology and building a domestic supply chain. Gradually this will develop into domestic supply of more and more complex shipboard systems western branded as but made in China. Moveover Asia, China Shipbuilding is on the rise.

–Stuart Burns

A big story in the rare earth metals world hit the press yesterday as US Rare Earth announced a contract with Boeing to employ some of their technology which, when fully implemented, could scan wide areas from airplanes or satellites and identify rare earth elements or other substances based upon their spectral fingerprints, according to TechNewsDaily. The story highlights the level of importance companies like Boeing have placed on rare earth metals and the lack of operating US rare earth metal supply chains.

Boeing has specifically examined the samples from deposits of US Rare Earth’s (USRE) Lemhi Pass in their laboratory and has   identified high concentrations of individual rare earth elements. The laboratory tests are now being taken to the next step in the process as Boeing has been contracted by USRE to complete the “ground truthing of the claims in the field.

MetalMiner caught up with US Rare Earths CEO Ed Cowle yesterday and asked him to comment on the significance of Boeing’s findings on his properties. “We are very anxious to have Boeing scan our new (not previously announced) North Fork property,” Cowle said. “Our geologists believe that we have large quantities of neodymium which are used in a variety of key applications including hybrid cars, wind turbines and aircraft.

We wanted to better understand Boeing’s motivations and had a chance to put a few questions in front of Patrick Kennedy, public relations coordinator for US Rare Earths:

MM: Does Boeing intend to commercialize their technology or have they deployed it for their own internal use? Will they license it to others?

US Rare Earths: Our understanding is that Boeing does intend to commercialize this (formerly, military/government) technology.  We have no knowledge of internal use in our space. However, they have indicated that they have no interest in entering the rare earth mining or exploration business.

We do not have any sort of exclusive license and it is conceivable that once we have walked through the entire process that others could follow in our footsteps.

MM: How dependent is Boeing on the specific rare earth metals owned by  US Rare Earths?

US Rare Earths: They would have this information, however they have not discussed specifics of their usage with us except to say that it was significant  and that 15-plus years of forward planning is not unusual for them.

MM: Was their intention to do some sort of lock-up or off take  agreement or make an investment in US Rare Earths?

US Rare Earths: This was not a topic of discussion.  Boeing has capabilities that would include purchasing or negotiating directly from nearly any country. They are concerned, as most citizens are, that a domestic supply base is available and that the US  manufactures stay healthy and in business.

MM: What are the next steps for US Rare Earths?

US Rare Earths: USRE is going to continue to stake and file claims in our area of interest and are currently talking to potential strategic partners, interested financial entities and possible buyers. We do not have any immediate plans to go public.

We will continue to keep MetalMiner readers updated on the latest happenings within the rare earth metal field.

–Lisa Reisman

Besides confirming a stainless steel and nickel market outlook recently reported by my colleague Stuart, panelists at the ISRI Commodity Round Table conference last week in Chicago covered several additional trends that we have not previously reported nor have we seen in various metals publications. One observation made by panelist Michael Wright, ELG Haniel GMBH and also President of the British Metals Recycling Association, which we have now heard twice at two separate events, involves the notion of “exchangeability of metal units. In other words, according to Wright, “consumers no longer want to buy stainless steel, they want to buy Ëœmetal units’ with specified levels of various alloying elements such as nickel, molybdenum and iron. We heard a similar comment regarding buying “iron making units, which we will return to in a follow-up post. The purchase of these Ëœmetal units’ places additional responsibility onto the supplier according to Wright, because consumers dictate the actual chemical composition of the particular stainless they intend to purchase. For example, a customer may dictate chrome at 16-17% max. Producers often find it challenging to hit the customer’s targets.

A second trend impacting stainless steel supply chains involves residual levels within the scrap supply chain. An inherent conflict exists between what scrap dealers and suppliers want to deliver to producers (smelters) and what those producers want to receive. Essentially the producers want residual levels held as low as possible (as stated by Missy Bilz of North American Stainless) whereas scrap suppliers would like to see residual levels raised. Also related to residuals, another question examined which types of stainless applications could best tolerate higher residuals. Wright pointed out that kitchenware and cutlery could withstand higher coppers (though he added that makes it a nightmare for recycling) but some industry specifications for say oil and gas would take too long to change and therefore would not be a good candidate for evaluating residual levels.

Another big point of discussion involved the addition of a new flat roll mill coming on stream later this year (ThyssenKrupp). Currently, the US has three major flat roll mills. An audience member wanted to know how the addition of ThyssenKrupp would impact the availability of scrap.  The panelists agreed that a fourth mill would change all of the dynamics of buying scrap in the US. The US will need to consume that material here (vs. export it). That discussion evolved into questions about stainless steel over-capacity within the US market. Another audience member wanted to know whether M&A consolidation would take some of the over-capacity offline or would existing producers need to shut down capacity. Panelists suggested that Thyssen had already started to undercut the market, though their pricing appears less severe on the steel side (vs. the stainless side). Speaker Chris Olin of Cleveland Research Company, a firm that provides sell side research for carbon, stainless and high performance materials, said, “There is a pretty big need to rationalize supply. When asked whether or not the market could expect further consolidation in the stainless sector, panelist Michael Wright answered, “No, the greatest growth rate for stainless production will occur in China. The growth rate is there. In China, there is little opportunity to join up with a Chinese company or a scrap operation. It is proving very difficult. I don’t see any consolidations in recycling perhaps some activity around merging grades.

Panelists also shared a few statistics that we thought MetalMiner readers might find of interest:

  1. The number of times a ton of nickel turns on the LME for stainless production (25x)!
  2. Stainless has the highest recycle rate of any metal (over 80%)
  3. Between 2008 and 2013 As a percentage of total world stainless production, Asia’s share will grow from 55% to 68%. However, scrap generation will run well behind demand. China will generate only 25-30% of its requirement. It’s too expensive for China and that’s why they are going into nickel pig iron.

–Lisa Reisman

1 799 800 801 802