Category Archives: Economics

Take Control of Hydrocarbon Consumption

The US petrochemical industry has had many challenges post WW-II.  The restructuring of Europe and Japan as well as the US after the war lead to an unprecendented network of markets.  Add to the economic map a whole new spread of advanced technologies resulting from the war effort itself.  Advances in piston and jet engines, rocket propulsion, aeronautical engineering, RADAR, and nuclear energy were a direct result of the war or were highly accelerated therein. 

Postwar, the aforementioned technologies were exploited in the private sector and contributed to an unprecedented economic engine driving the growth of cultures and nations. Generous US spending on cold war military hardware added somewhat to the creation of jobs and spending.  The overall explosion of goods and services not only met the demands of consumers, but raised the expectation that technology would provide an endless parade of new things. 

For the present, the range of frontier for paradigm expansion is dramatically different compared to 50 years ago.  In the context of economics, to a large extent we now live in an age of refinement rather than an age of discovery. Most of what we regard as “new” is actually derivative of more fundamental tools. Transistors, penicillin, and fission can only be introduced to the market once as new technology platforms.  Subsequent innovations are derivative. Excited speculation of the future as a place of flying cars and a cure for cancer gives way to the pragmatic adoption of cars that parallel park themselves  and treatment of cancer as a chronic condition.

Today, hucksters promote ethanol or hydrogen as fuels of the future without a syllables worth of consideration for conservation.  The search for the replacement of fossil fuels is really the search for convenient, high energy density combustible fluids that can be mass produced and shipped in the present distribution system for low unit cost. Instead of finding a new fuel stream, why not try to figure out how to get 2x performance (or 1/2 consumption) out of the hydrocarbons we are already using?

One objection might be that we have already squeezed maximum fuel performance out of the internal combustion engine. Further technological improvements to the Otto Cycle engine going forward are going to be hard to capture.

Another objection is that higher material efficiences are always being sought by the marketplace. A 2x jump in efficiency probably is generally not possible across the board, though isolated exceptions do exist.

But the easy fix, the one that no one mentions is to simply burn less hydrocarbons/ethanol by driving fewer miles. The answer is in the hand that holds the car keys. Consolidate trips. Avoid hopping in your Hummer and driving to 7-11 for cigarettes. Car pool. Demand less cheap-plastic-crap from Big Box Mart.

The main stumbling block is this:  how does a market embrace reduced consumption? I think the answer is that it cannot. But it seems clear that our US consumption trajectory cannot continue indefinitely.

The insatiable demand for hydrocarbons has brought out the worst in us. Our oilman White House has lead us into a thicket of foreign entanglements that may well get much worse before there is any relief.

Petroleum Market Mechanics

Krung Thep, Thailand. The center of mass of the petrochemical industry is slowly on the move.  Middle eastern petroleum states are in the process of building increased capacity in the Middle East (ME). A reported 2.3 million barrels per day (MMBpd) of ME petroleum refinery capacity is due to come on stream in 2011.  A total of 10 MMBpd increase in world capacity is expected by this time.

US refiners have limited their recent upgrades largely to desulfurization and sour grade processing rather than distillation capacity. A relatively minor 500,000 barrels per day of new US capacity over several sites will be available by 2009.

Approximately 3/4 of the total petroleum reserves are controlled by NOC‘s- National Oil Companies. This is a crucial distinction. Only 1/4 of the known reserves are controlled by international corporate entities (the Majors).  The major oil consuming states are increasingly dependent on foreign, nationalized petroleum suppliers.

NOC’s are used for more than just oil production and distribution. They are used as a cash reserve for patronage, political leverage, and even mischief.  These entities are intermeshed in the global market and provide varieties of risk that are hard for the marketplace to understand.

In particular, ethylene cracking capacity is expected to shift significantly towards the ME, providing advantages for regional production and distribution of polyolefins. Despite advantageous feedstock costs, overall manufacturing costs may not be as low as anticipated. The dramatically increasing cost of refinery construction and logistic issues unique to the location appear to provide a leveling effect on cost structure. It is thought that the EU will see the biggest effect of the ME buildup in capacity.

It is unclear how this refinery capacity uptick will effect liquid non-fuel commodity prices (i.e., chemical feedstocks).

A Week in Krung Thep

I startled to wakefulness by the sharp crack of nearby lightning. I had resolved to synch into the local time by remaining awake until evening, but failed shamefully. I stumbled to my feet and walked to the rain spattered window of my 21st floor room.  From this vantage I could study the cityscape of Krung Thep (Bangkok) and marvel at the activity on the muddy Chao Phraya river below. 

BKK

The television blares out that reassuring theme music of the BBC- the one with the swirling red pattern against the beeping time signal in the background. Despite all of my travel, it still boggles my mind how comfortable it is to go to distant places. You sit in an aluminum tube for a while, get out, and hop into a taxi.

The conference is in a 5-star luxury hotel, filled to the brim, it seems, with nattering western 60-somethings on holiday. Prosperous Europeans and North Americans out for a taste of exotic Siam. Nothing too strong mind you, just a taste.  The air-conditioned, hospital-clean hotel offers the one thing that you can’t get otherwise in Krung Thep- solitude.

A step into the streets of the city is, for this North American, a step into the heart of metropolitan Asia. It is monsoon season, so the air envelops you like a hot, wet sweater smelling of diesel and oily 2-stroke motor exhaust. Everyone is busy. Some are just moving from point A to B. Others are eyeing you from their narrow kiosks and calling out for your business.  Like the stationary bivalve that eats only when it can suck in some bystander, the kiosk proprietor has but 15 seconds to get catch your fancy before you leave the field of view. As a westerner, you resemble a big block of cheese and everyone wants a slice.

All of the motion, the incessant bartering and angling for prices is always a shock to Americans who are used to the economic firmament of price tags and the taboo of public bickering over prices.  Americans pride themselves on capitalism, but are reluctant to let it equilibrate to the microscopic level of one-on-one haggling with shopkeepers. Too untidy and confrontational. Americans would rather go to another store than attempt to haggle for a better price.  But this reluctance only serves to dilute the power of the consumer. This is a lesson we can take from Asia.

Chemical Business in Russia- One Experience

Hearing of the passing of Boris Yeltsin, I can’t help but remember my trip to his northern empire in 2000.  We boarded a Lufthansa flight in Frankfurt, seemingly filled to the scuppers with jabbering Russian tourists anxious to return from their trip abroad. We left rainy Germany for the port city of St. Petersburg, near the mouth of the Neva River. Most of the terrain was obscured beneath heavy clouds so there was nothing to see until our descent at 10:30 pm. The sun sets late at 60 degrees north in the spring.  As we were coming down from cruise altitude, the lush green landscape became visible through breaks in the clouds.  We were going to land in Russia.

While the purpose of the trip was business, I was determined to soak in as much of the experience as possible. I had a total of one paltry year of Russian language in college so I could at least sound out the words and recall a tiny bit of vocabulary. 

In the late 1990’s doing business in Russia- that is, buying Russian goods- could be complicated. This was late in Yeltsin’s term and a kind of cynical take on the free market was beginning to set in.  Earlier, the eastern bloc had imploded and the communist hold on Russia was in deconstruction. Under Yeltsin a select few had managed to amass wealth- the so-called Oligarchs.  But as a few like Khodorkovsky were to eventually learn, wealth does not automatically confer political power in Russia.

Doing business in Russia was a highly manual activity. In 2000, the start of the Putin years, Russia lacked much of the business infrastructure that we in the west take for granted. When I say “business infrastructure”, I refer to the whole picture- commercial credit; internationally compatible contract and tort law; credible mechanisms for the flow of currency; GAAP; a multimodal transportation network; a comprehensible market exchange for commodities; and a market place with suppliers and specialists for the many instruments of finance and insurance. 

In the Yeltsin years, many formerly state-owned factories came under control of people who conducted business in facilities through quiet arrangements behind the curtain.  Factories would operate at low intensity or would even be shut down until orders came in.  Workers were furlowed and operated taxi’s or did other odd jobs until an order arrived.  Maybe this still happens today.  I don’t know.

We needed product that was made by a very few specialists in the world and one of those vendors was in central Russia.  Russian manufacturers are as skilled as we are of course, but there are differences in business culture that may be hard to anticipate.  Western standards concerning documentation was a particular problem.  I recall that our vendor was quite carefree about lot traceability and packaging.   They also had the maddening habit of reusing old lot numbers.

Then there was the problem of shipping.  Russia did not then, and still may not, have anything remotely similar to Aldrich.  Now, you probably think of Aldrich as the “chemical supply house” and you’d be right. But I’m thinking of Aldrich as the “master of logistics”.  Logistics in Russia was a problem.  Ground transportation was unreliable. Our solution was to hire a local to bird-dog the whole process.  It was worth every penny.

One of the differences I found was in the attitude of the few manufacturers I was in contact with.  They were usually aware of western prices for their goods and were never afraid to demand Aldrich-type pricing.   In the west, the customer is king.  That is just taken for granted.  Uppity suppliers are soon former suppliers. 

What I ran into in Russia was something that I hadn’t seen anywhere else, including China or Taiwan.  Our Russian supplier wanted to dictate terms and was unwilling to budge- I think they call it “Vlast”.  We absolutely needed better prices for the raw material.  I’m sure that there were urgent arrangements behind the curtains that were part of the need to stand fast. But in the end, it was their absolute inflexibility that caused them to lose the business. 

While in Russia I did try to source other raw materials and “vendors” who could supply spot buys of particular compounds.  At the time, many chemical factories were partially shuttered, so custom chemical processing capacity was very much hit and miss.  Processing equipment sat in dark and idled buildings waiting for a purchase order and prepayment. 

We met with principals in an empty flat to talk about the manufacture of custom compounds. But the same problem always arose. They wanted cash up front, preferably deposited in a European bank.  I was very clear that this was not the transaction model that we were accustomed to and in fact, this requirement was a showstopper. My Russian contacts were mystified that an American would come all this way only to refuse to pony up the cash to get the ball rolling. And that is where my attempts at trying to do business with Russia ended. 

The operators of the factories I was in contact with had the pots and pans, skilled staff, and expertise in the technology- these guys were first rate technocrats. At first glance, what they lacked was the benefit of investment capital to plow into their operations to find and service customers.  But, digging deeper, it wan’t just the hard cash they lacked. There was a system-wide lack of free market history and culture that, elsewhere, would have provided the institutions and mechanisms to exploit opportunity. 

I admire Russia and I believe that they will eventually get their system working well.  But they do need to get away from the fascination with the strongman model of governance. From my travels I have concluded that countries with cultures that date far back are simultaneously blessed and cursed by it.  They are blessed by the warm embrace of cultural richness. But they are also cursed by it because it can be a sort of ball and chain that complicates the adoption of change.

Note: This was written a few months prior to posting.

Copyright 2007

Thorium and Methanol

As we track down the back side of the petroleum curve, we will see a transition from the alkane/alcohol fueled Otto engine to a greater reliance on electric conveyance. Here is some wishful thinking-  Ethanol as a direct petroleum replacement will collapse under the weight of scrutiny as better cost data becomes available. Eventually, ethanol will be prized foremost as an oxygenate additive replacement for MTBE. 

Methanol and Fischer-Tropsch hydrocarbons from coal and biomass will provide high energy density fuels for the carbon-neutral future as petroleum scarcity drives other technologies into play. The Fischer-Tropsch liquified fuels technology from 20th century pariah states (Nazi Germany and South Africa) will assume a greater role in the post-petroleum age.

Fermentation of starch-derived glucose to ethanol and CO2 is too wasteful in the end to be attactive.  Fermentation of cellulosic material to acetate is more mass efficient. Esterification and reduction of ethyl acetate affords ethanol. One company, ZeaChem, (former coworkers, actually) is already working to bring this technology on stream. It remains to be seen how it will go over. I wish them well.

Electric power for the future will come from many sources. Distant, centralized power plants will channel energy across the grid to home-charged automobiles. Electrons travel fast and quietly over the lonely wire. They do not require fleets of ponderous 18-wheelers to move them around in limited quantities.

I see a future heavily reliant on electrons supplied from nuclear plants. Uranium-235 infrastructure will continue to supply fuel to nuclear plants for a long time. But the low abundance of U-235 (o.7 %) and the ever present proliferation potential of Pu-239 from this fuel cycle raises questions as to the wisdom of building U-235 nuke plants in the third or fourth tier states.

A more obscure nuclear fuel that is more abundant than uranium will see a phase-in as demand on the present nuclear fuel infrastructure exceeds supply.  That fuel is Th-232. Thorium-232 is  generally more abundant that uranium and has the additional benefit that it’s major isotope, Th-232 , is the nuclide of interest. Th-232 is not a fissile nuclide, but is a “fertile” isotope instead. Th-232 absorbs a neutron in a reactor seeded with U-235 or Pu-239 to provide an initial neutron flux to become Th-233, which beta decays to Pa-233 which further beta decays to U-233.  It is U-233 which is the fissile nuclide.  U-233 then participates in the fission chain reaction that generates the heat.

You can’t make a nuclear weapon out of Th-232, though in principle you could make one from U-233. The downside of a U-233 bomb is the high specific activity of this isotope.  U-233 is intensely radioactive and poses extra problems in handling.

The economics of thorium energy is advantageous in many ways to that provided by uranium/plutonium infrastructure. Thorium is abundant in monazite formations- reportedly up to 16 % thorium oxide.  The present problem with the thorium cycle is handling the intensely radioactive U-233 that remains in the spent fuel elements. Separate processing infrastructure will have to be put in place to supply reactors that burn thorium before this fuel can go forward.

An HTGR  Brayton cycle reactor with a helium turbine could provide up to 50 % thermodynamic efficiency.  Combine this reactor design with the potential cost savings of the more abundant Th-232, and you have a technology that is well set to provide power to keep the lights, cable TV, and the internet going into the post-petroleum age.

Check out the blog dedicated to Energy from Thorium. I’m writing about thorium because I think it is an important fuel and it needs to find its way to mainstream thinking.  

American Parliament, part II

In a previous posting, I daydreamed about an American system that more resembled a parliamentary system. The motivation for this is that our executive branch has apparently gone astray with the presidents military ambitions in nation building under the guise of the war against terrorism. The ability to dissolve a government off the election cycle and repopulate it with different characters seems like a desirable attribute.

Viet Nam and GW-II are examples of ideological pageantry lead by stubborn presidents. Like the fighter pilot who is so target fixated on his opponent that he follows him into the ground, we cannot allow our presidents to drag the country into self-inflicted disaster.

As suggested by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the noises now coming from the White House concerning Iran resemble the noises made by the same White House about Iraq.  What is strange about this distressing circumstance is this: The checks and balances that are provided by the constitution seem to be inadequate to restrain the executive.  The congress seems to be genuinely flummoxed.

Despite popular sentiment and wise counsel by very well regarded citizens, the president continues to press for ideological conquest in the middle east.  Despite the floundering dollar, no-child-left-behind-except-for-4-million-uninsured-kids, and tera-dollars of debt accumulated in the “War Against ______”, our executive continues to press on within the bounds of the constitution.

The question is this: Does the US Constitution provide adequate checks and balances against the abuse of power?

I suppose it is inevitable that a president would be elected who didn’t have both oars in the water. Who knows if this guy really is disturbed. But the executive retains substantial control of the military.  The president is able to amass a vast force of civilian security contractors who seem to be beyond the audit of the congress.  Does your view change when they pack weapons and answer only to the executive branch? Did the framers miss this possibility?

The US has a president that is hell-bent on performing a script that is neither transparent nor mandated by anything other than the enchanting voices of a few dark characters who are temporarily burrowed in the White House. We’ve had 2 terms of a war president. It’s enough.

Kunstlers Most Excellent Rant

If you don’t read Jim Kunstlers blog, Cluster***k Nation, you’re really missing out on some juicy stuff. Thanks to the all-seeing eye of Uncle Al for this particular post.  Kunstler writes with a manic urgency rather like Hunter S. Thompson (and … Uncle Al).  I’m not calibrated for the negative spin on the mortgage disaster that he makes.  Perhaps others can comment.

Chemical Fear Factor

The chemical business environment is changing in some ways that, I fear, add even more disadvantage to small chemical manufacturers. The regulatory sphere is closing in on our chemical manufacturing industry like shrink wrap around a gutted salmon.  Whereas it was once straightforward to bring a new chemical product to the B2B market, now we have TSCA and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) placing complex obstacles in the road. 

TSCA compliance for non-listed compounds requires that process details be disclosed for screening and hazard modeling by EPA workers.  Unless the EPA finds some compelling environmental or worker exposure issue that requires further consideration, a new compound is allowed.  

Operating unsafely is a poor business model. Civil litigation and insurance pressures are usually enough to motivate a plant operator to conduct safe practices. Regardless, if you’re in the business of breaking trail in developing new chemical entities, waiting for allowance by EPA necessitates starting the development timeline up to a full quarter in advance.  TSCA filing also starts an audit trail that, for the unwary, can lead to a filing cabinet full of discoverable documents that can return to haunt you.  TSCA is powerful code and it is one of the larger hammers that the government wields.

Before the chemical regulatory epoch began in earnest, chemical processing merely delt with the forces of the market and of nature.  Corrosives, flammable liquids, runaway reactions, foreign competition, etc. That was dangerous enough and required the full attention of many experts. 

Today, in addition to chemical hazards we have administrative hazards that require specially trained staff and, naturally, lawyers. Law office charges to document compliance may cost as much per hour as a whole shift of operators for a medium scale process line. 

The federal government is beginning to impose itself more strongly in the operations of chemical plants. Part of this is in response to international terrorism.  Like children sitting in a darkened room telling ghost stories, federal regulators have stirred themselves into a twitter. Apparently, they have developed fault trees that line out the universe of consequences from attack scenario’s on our chemical industrial infrastructure.  Code has been written and passed by the congress, signed by the president, and embraced by the suffocating bosom of the Department of Homeland Security. Woe is he who runs afoul of these people. Their para-military authority and zeal is what makes me uncomfortable.

If only we could be so analytical and systematic about invading and destabilizing prickly iron-age cultures on the other side of the world.

Of course, one cannot entirely fault the government for trying to apply the Precautionary Principle.  It seems so sensible.  But the eternal question is, what are the thresholds for action?  Where safe meets sorry is also where the rubber meets the road.  How much more industry are we going to chase to Asia?

On the non-security side, Europe has adopted REACH. I’m trying not to be a Chicken Little, but before the US adopts this approach to environmental regulation, we should study the suite of unintended consequences that will surely arise from this regulatory framework.  The EU is breaking trail for us and we should pay attention.

Booyah

It is worth reading the latest essay in New York Magazine by Jim “Mad Money” Cramer on the sub-prime lending crisis. No booyah’s or sound effects in this article.  I hear some commentators going on about this circumstance as a normal equilibration of the economy. But after reading Cramer’s editorial it is hard to believe this is just a “correction”.   Sounds like a train wreck.

It is hard to fathom how the massive upset in the mortgage market will play out for those of us engaged in chemical manufacturing. Anything that depresses home construction and mortgage lending is sure to slow down orders for raw materials in some fashion.  The rat is moving through the snake. This disturbance could eventually effect those remote from the mortgage business. 

Cramer is clearly an expert of some sort in the finance field. But it is good to remember that it was finance experts who fabricated the house of cards that got them (us) into this problem in the first place. This supprts my theory that we have too many MBA’s in the world.