President Trump’s decision to slap a 25% tariff on steel imports might not be all bad news, as alternative trading patterns could lead to an increase in tonne-mile demand.
The Trump Administration has been pondering three ways to support the country’s steel industry, and none of them have been very appealing to shipowners. The three options were:
In the end, Trump plumped for Option 1, possibly because its simplicity made it the most Twitter-friendly. The hostile reaction from its trading partners was entirely predictable, with little credence given to the stated reason of needing domestic steel supply for its tanks and warships.
Such reactions have seldom deterred the present administration, but the horse trading has begun in earnest.
Canada is the largest steel exporter to the US, followed by Russia, Brazil, the EU and Mexico. Canada and Mexico have already secured exemptions on tariffs, but with a warning that their exemptions could be withdrawn if they tranship foreign steel into the US while passing it off as their own. The EU has won an exemption, but only till May, as have Australia, Argentina, Brazil and South Korea. That leaves Russia, Brazil and Turkey among its top trading partners to deal with the tariff issue. Most of them have already threatened to retaliate.
China – whose cheap exports have destabilised steel industries across the globe – can expect few concessions, so its response will be based on retaliation. Beijing is already threatening action against US technology companies operating in China, hoping that they will put pressure on Washington. Cars, agricultural products and ethanol are on Beijing’s hit-list.
The clear motive of the US government is to arrest the slide in domestic steel production. Before the financial crisis of 2009, the US was producing close to 100 million tonnes of crude steel every year. Since then, it has been sliding year after year, and slipped below 80 million tonnes in 2015, before registering a marginal increase in 2017.
Ironically, China’s year-on-year growth in steel production lagged the world average for nine of the 15 months to February, and February was its second weakest month since November 2016.
Source: Drewry Maritime Research, Worldsteel
Washington hopes that the new tariffs will bring down steel imports by some 13 million tonnes so that their domestic mills produce more. The remedy is intended to increase the present operating rate of 73% of its capacity to approximately 80%, which is the minimum utilisation needed for the long-term viability of the industry, according to the Department of Commerce. This might be optimistic, considering that world average utilisation has not been above 75% since September 2014.
Source: Drewry Maritime Research, GTIS
Overhauling trade routes to and from US will have ripple effects on dry bulk shipping. If events go according to Trump’s plan, then dry bulk shipping will lose 32 billion tonne-miles of steel demand. Half of all steel products move in dry bulk carriers, so a decrease of 13 million tonnes of steel imports would mean a loss of 6.5 million tonnes of dry bulk cargo.
Steel volumes from all trade partners apart from Canada and Mexico would suffer. Even without an increase in Canada and Mexico’s share of US imports, more than 100 Supramax shipments a year would be lost. If other countries lose business to the NAFTA pair, the impact will be even heavier.
Then there are the effects of any retaliation. These are more difficult to quantify, as the measures exist only as threats so far and the commodities involved would be varied. In some cases, ship operators could benefit. For example, China is planning to import soybean from Brazil and Argentina instead of the US as a protest against the steel tariff, which would mean a substantial increase in tonne-miles.
A detailed analysis of the possible impact on grain trade and other commodities will be discussed in our next issue of Dry Bulk Forecaster.
© Copyright 2024 | Drewry Shipping Consultants Limited. All Rights Reserved. Website Terms of Use | Privacy Policy