Chemical and Material Shortage Alert – April 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 April 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 March 2016 Chemical and Material Shortage Alert list.

Section II lists the new chemicals and materials (not on the March 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 April not found on the Previous Month’s List

Steel:  Indonesia, Malaysia; supply 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: none

3.  Government regulations: none

4.  Sources no longer available: none

5.  Insufficient imports:  none

6.  Supply not keeping up with demand:  steel

Comparisons between Commodity, Engineering, High Performance, and Ultra Performance Polymers

Table 1 shows approximate global market values, global consumption levels, and average prices for four broad polymer categories: commodity; engineering; high performance; and ultra performance.

Table 1	2015 global market (US dollars)	2015 global consumption (metric tons)	average price (market/consumption)
commodity	$ 323,000,000,000	225,000,000	$              1,436
engineering	$    77,000,000,000	27,000,000	$              2,852
high performance	$      8,500,000,000	800,000	$            10,625
ultra performance	$          500,000,000	5,000	$         100,000
total	$ 409,000,000,000	252,805,000

The market values and consumption levels are based on data found on the Internet.  The market value and consumption levels reported on the Internet very quite a lot.  The amounts shown in the table are what I consider to be the most likely amounts based on my analysis of what was found on the Internet.

The average prices shown in the table are simply the market values divided by the consumption levels.  The prices shown in each category agree reasonably well with prices found on the Internet for polymers.  This reasonably-well agreement for prices suggests the validity of the market and consumption amounts shown in the table.  Also the total global market value ($409 billion) and the total global consumption amount (252.8 million metric tons) agree reasonably well with amounts found on the Internet for these totals.

Polymers in the commodity category include:  polyethylene; polypropylene; polyvinyl chloride; and polystyrene.  Polymers in the engineering category include:  polycarbonate; acrylonitrile butadiene styrene; polyethylene and polybutylene terephthalate; polyacetal; and polyamide.  Polymers in the high performance category include: polyether imides; polyether sulfone; fluoropolymers; liquid crystal polymers; and specialty nylons. Polymers in the ultra performance category include; polyetheretherketone; polyaryletherketone; and polyamide imides.

Table 2 below shows the percentages for each category of the total market value and the total consumption amount (e.g., $323 billion/$409 billion)..

Table 2	total global market (US dollars)	total market value as percent of total market value	global consumption (metric tons)	consumption amount as percent of total consumption amount
commodity	$ 323,000,000,000	79.0%	225,000,000	89.001%
engineering	$    77,000,000,000	18.8%	27,000,000	10.680%
high performance	$      8,500,000,000	2.1%	800,000	0.316%
ultra performance	$          500,000,000	0.1%	5,000	0.002%
total	$ 409,000,000,000		252,805,000

A principle difference in the polymers from category to category is the degree of strength that the polymer has against chemical, thermal, mechanical, and other attacks on the polymer.  The higher the strength, the lower the damage on the polymer; the higher the strength, the higher the cost to develop the polymer – both factors that influence price.

Gross Profit Margin Percentages for Chemical Distributors

According to the National Association of Chemcial Distributors (NACD), approximately $31.2 billon of recent US chemical sales is through chemical distributors.  (Click here to read about NACD and the chemical distribution industry.)

Also according to NACD, the chemical distribution industry had approximately $14.3 billion in gross profits in 2015, based on data found at their website.  (Click here to go to the NACD page from where this data can be found.)  Using $31.2 billion chemical sales through chemical distributors and the distributors’ $14.3 billion gross profit gives a gross profit margin percentage (gpm%) of 46% ($14.3B/$31.2B).

This gpm% (46%) seems rather high.  For example, two publicly-traded chemical distributors, Brenntag and Univar, only averaged a gpm% of around 20% over the past few years.  Most chemical distributors are private companies with  a lot less in revenues than Brenntag and Univar.  Perhaps smaller, private companies are able to generate larger gpm%s than the larger, publicly-traded companies, at the expense of those buying chemicals from chemical distributors.

Chemical and Material Shortage Alert – March 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 March 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 February 2016 Chemical and Material Shortage Alert list.

Section II lists the new chemicals and materials (not on the February 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.   Monoethylene glycol (MEG): global; production not keeping up with demand

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

Gasoline:  Nigeria; 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: gasoline

3.  Government regulations: none

4.  Sources no longer available: none

5.  Insufficient imports:  none

6.  Supply not keeping up with demand:  none

Public Companies Pursuit of Biological Crop Protection Products

A 2015 article by Jay Ram Lamichhane, and co-workers, indicates that in the European Union a reduced reliance on chemical pesticides is taking place.  (Click here to read this article – PDF file.)  Other integrated pest management approaches need to take the place of chemical pesticides, including biological (the release of natural enemies, such as predators and parasitoids, and the use of bio-pesticides and bio-stimulants) crop protection products.

I conducted an Internet search to find public companies that have programs to develop biological protection products.  Ten companies were found with such programs:  Bayer; BASF; Chr. Hansen; DOW; DuPont; FMC; Narrone Bio Innovations; Monsanto; Novozymes; and Sumitomo.  Based on the information at these companies’ websites and in their annual reports, these companies view the potential for biological crop protection products favorably and are pursuing programs to produce such products.  Based on the websites and annual reports, the companies that seem to have the most activity and have developed the most biological crop protection products are:  Bayer, Narrone Bio Innovations, Monsanto, and Novozymes; then followed by BASF, Chr. Hansen, and FMC, and then followed by DOW, DuPont; and Sumitomo.

Success in replacing chemical crop protection products with biological crop protection products, based on what I have read, would be an important, needed environmental achievement.  It is encouraging that these companies seen to recognize this and also assess the likelihood of doing so to be high enough to be making substantial investments in developing such products.  It seems to me that it is only through the actions of companies, such as those identified above, that any possibility of developing biological crop protection products will be realized.

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.

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