Friday, March 4, 2016

Some Data on ASEAN Countries’ Chemical Production

Two databases, the World Bank’s database on countries (click here to go to the data on Malaysia) and the International Trade Center’s database on country exports and imports (click here to go to this database) were used to generate data on ASEAN country chemical production.

Using the World Bank’s database, the value added in the manufacture of chemicals for each ASEAN country could be determined.  (Value added is the sales price of the chemical manufactured less the direct cost to make the chemical sold.)   The total value added for manufactured chemicals, for each country, is shown in Table 1.  (Insufficient data is available for Laos and Myanmar to determine their value added amounts.)  The value added of chemicals manufactured was computed by multiplying the value added for all manufactured products by the percentage of these products that are chemical products (the sets of data that are provided in the database).

The percentage of value added chemical manufactured to a country’s gross domestic product (GDP) (given in Table 1) should be an indicator of the country’s amount of chemical production activity relative to other ASEAN countries.

Table 1 country
value added in manufacturing (in billion usd)
% chemical manufacturing value added
value added chemicals manufacturing (in billion usd)
gross domestic product (GDP) (in billion usd)
value added chemical manufacturing  as % GDP
singapore
$53.5
29%
$15.3
$307.9
5.0%
indonesia
$194.3
14%
$26.2
$888.5
3.0%
malaysia
$77.4
12%
$8.9
$338.0
2.6%
vietnam
$71.7
6%
$3.9
$186.2
2.1%
cambodia
$2.6
13%
$0.3
$16.8
1.9%
thailand
$67.3
7%
$4.4
$404.8
1.1%
phillippines
$39.7
6%
$2.2
$284.8
0.8%

Using the International Trade Center’s country database, the total chemical products exported and imported for each country could be found and from this data the net chemical exports could be determined (shown in Table 2).  (Chemcial products include: inorganic products; organic products; and miscellaneous chemical preducts.)   Presumably, the size of the net chemical exports is an indicator of the sufficiency of a country’s chemical production capacity, e.g., the more the net export amount the greater the sufficiency.   And, computing the net chemical export amounts for each country as a percentage of the GDP should show that sufficiency compared to the other ASEAN countries. 

Table 2 country
total chemical exports (in billion usd)
total chemical imports (in billion usd)
net chemical exports (in billion usd
gross domestic product (GDP) (in billion usd)
net chemical exports as % GDP
singapore
$23.2
$12.7
$10.5
$307.9
3.4%
malaysia
$7.8
$7.5
$0.3
$338.0
0.1%
indonesia
$7.8
$8.9
-$1.1
$888.5
-0.1%
phillippines
$1.4
$2.0
-$0.6
$284.8
-0.2%
laos
$0.2
$0.9
-$0.7
$12.0
-0.5%
myanmar
$0.2
$0.4
-$0.2
$64.3
-0.6%
thailand
$5.4
$8.6
-$3.2
$404.8
-0.8%
cambodia
$0.0
$0.2
-$0.2
$16.8
-1.1%
vietnam
$1.5
$5.8
-$4.3
$186.2
-2.3%

The data in Tables 1 sand 2 suggest that Singapore is the most impressive chemical producer (in terms of value) of the ASEAN countries and Singapore and Malaysia are the only two countries producing and exporting more chemicals than are needed internally.  

Another possible interesting conclusion from the data in Table 2 is that those countries with the highest negative net chemical exports as a percentage of GDP are the countries most in need of chemical purchases from other countries.


Thursday, March 3, 2016

Chemical and Material Shortage Alert – February 2016

The purpose of this blog is to identify chemical and material shortages reported on the Internet.  The sources of the information reported here are primarily news releases issued on the Internet.  The issue period of the news releases is February 2016.

Section I below lists those chemicals and materials that were on the previous month’s Chemical and Material Shortage Alert list and continue to have news releases indicating they are in short supply. Click here to read the January 2016 Chemical and Material Shortage Alert list.

Section II lists the new chemicals and materials (not on the January alert).  Also provided is some explanation for the shortage and geographical information.  This blog attempts to list only actual shortage situations – those shortages that are being experienced during the period covered by the news releases.   Chemicals and materials identified in news releases as only being in danger of being in short supply status are not listed.

Section I.   None

Section II.   Shortages Reported in February not found on the Previous Month’s List

Zinc: global; production not keeping up with demand
Ferrous scrap: Ukraine; supply not keeping up with demand
Monoethylene glycol (MEG): Asia; production not keeping up with demand

Reasons for Section II shortages can be broadly categorized as: 

1.  Mining not keeping up with demand: none
2.  Production not keeping up with demand: zinc; monoethylene glycol (MEG)
3.  Government regulations: none
4.  Sources no longer available: none
5.  Insufficient imports:  none
6.  Supply not keeping up with demand:  ferrous scrap





Tuesday, February 23, 2016

Gross Profit Margin and Net Income Percentages for Some Major Oil Companies

Annual reports were used to obtain sales revenue, cost of sales, and net income after taxes for 17 major international oil companies.  The data obtained are shown in the following table:

Company Name
Sales Revenues (billions of USD)
Cost of Sales (billions of USD)
Gross Profit Margin %
Net Income (billions of USD)
Net Income as a % of Sales
Rosneft
137.2
24.0
82%
8.7
6%
Pemex
123.0
58.8
52%
-13.0
-11%
Conoco Phillips
55.5
31.0
44%
6.9
12%
Petronas
99.2
65.3
34%
14.4
15%
Chevron Corporation
212.1
145.0
32%
19.2
9%
Exxon Mobil
394.1
284.1
28%
32.5
8%
Total SA
212.0
153.0
28%
4.2
2%
YPF
16.8
12.4
26%
1.0
6%
China National Offshore Oil
95.7
70.8
26%
12.4
13%
China National Petroleum Corp.
431.5
326.2
24%
19.4
4%
Royal Dutch Shell
421.0
357.3
24%
14.7
3%
Petrobras
143.7
109.5
24%
-7.5
-5%
Eni
86.1
67.7
21%
1.0
1%
Sinopec
441.8
365.0
17%
10.2
2%
Marathon Petroleum
97.8
83.8
14%
2.5
3%
BP
358.7
309.3
14%
3.8
1%
Pertamina
70.7
66.0
7%
1.5
2%


average
30%

4%

The data indicates to me that the profits of these oil companies are not unreasonable.  Considering the business risk and required technical skills of these companies, a 30% gross profit margin percentage average for the companies does not seem to be out of line in comparison to other industrial sectors.   And, an average 4% net income after taxes as a percentage of sales for all companies is, if anything, a bit on the low side compared to other industrial sectors.

These 17 companies represent most of the largest global oil exploration and production (integrated) oil companies.  Some of the companies are state owned.




Friday, February 5, 2016

Projected Bio-Succinic Acid Markets Greatly Exceed Current Bio-Succinic Acid Production Capacity

An Internet search found commercially available bio-succinic acid production capacities.  The capacities found are shown in the following table:


company
2015 capacity in metric tons
bioamber
30,000
reverdia
10,000
myriant
13,600
succinity
10,000
total
63,600


No other companies that produce commercially-available bio-succinic acid could be found by the search.  The total capacity of these four companies (63,600 metric tons (mt)) is interesting in that the amount is substantially less than what market studies suggest will be needed in coming years.  For example, market study data found on the Internet provide estimates for bio-succinic acid demand in 2020 in the 600,000 mt to 700,000 mt range.  To meet this demand, the current capacity (63,600 mt) would have to increase in the 40% to 50% per year range.  This suggests that the four companies in the table above, and possibly other companies, will have to add significant capacity to meet the market studies' estimated needs.


Important reasons for the huge increased demand for bio-succinic acid apparently are that: first, succinic acid is used in making polybutylene succinate (PBS), a biodegradable plastic that can be used to make shopping and other bags; second, using a bio source, such as sugar, to make succinic acid (bio succinic acid) is easier than using fossil fuel sources; and, third, using a bio source versus a fossil fuel source has a significant carbon footprint reduction.

Monday, February 1, 2016

Chemical and Material Shortage Alert – January 2016

The purpose of this blog is to identify chemical and material shortages reported on the Internet.  The sources of the information reported here are primarily news releases issued on the Internet.  The issue period of the news releases is January 2016.

Section I below lists those chemicals and materials that were on the previous month’s Chemical and Material Shortage Alert list and continue to have news releases indicating they are in short supply. Click here to read the December 2015 Chemical and Material Shortage Alert list.

Section II lists the new chemicals and materials (not on the December alert).  Also provided is some explanation for the shortage and geographical information.  This blog attempts to list only actual shortage situations – those shortages that are being experienced during the period covered by the news releases.   Chemicals and materials identified in news releases as only being in danger of being in short supply status are not listed.

Section I.   None

Section II.   Shortages Reported in January not found on the Previous Month’s List

Steel:  Japan; production not keeping up with demand

Reasons for Section II shortages can be broadly categorized as: 

1.  Mining not keeping up with demand: none
2.  Production not keeping up with demand: steel
3.  Government regulations: none
4.  Sources no longer available: none
5.  Insufficient imports:  none
6.  Supply not keeping up with demand:  none