How China drives the Australian iron ore boom (and bust)

With several major mining projects being put on ice this week, talk has quickly turned to whether the Australian mining boom is about to go bust. Jumping on comments by the Resources Minister that “the resource boom is over”, the federal opposition has blamed the government’s mining and carbon taxes…

Jjy2fr8g-1346027878
Chinese investment in smaller iron-ore suppliers in Western Australia not only presents challenges for the market power of the Big 3 mining companies, but also for the viability of iron ore projects in Australia. AAP

With several major mining projects being put on ice this week, talk has quickly turned to whether the Australian mining boom is about to go bust.

Jumping on comments by the Resources Minister that “the resource boom is over”, the federal opposition has blamed the government’s mining and carbon taxes for BHP’s recent decision to shelve its $30 billion Olympic Dam extension project.

However, developments in the all-important iron ore industry suggest the drivers of the boom – and possible impending bust – lie not in Australia, but China.

A China-driven iron ore boom

Recent growth in the Australian iron ore sector has been driven by the rapid industrialisation of the Chinese economy.

China has, is recent years, begun the transition from “light” to “heavy” stages of industrialisation, with a focus on manufacturing industries such as machinery, ships and automobiles. To supply the raw materials required to accommodate these steel-consuming industries, the predominantly state-owned Chinese steel sector has almost quadrupled in size over the last decade.

Due to China’s lack of access to self-produced, high quality iron ore, its steel firms have had to look abroad in order to source their principal mineral inputs. Iron ore imports soared from 70 million tonnes in 2000, to 685 million tonnes in 2011. As a result, Chinese investment now accounts for close to 80% of the Asia-Pacific steel market market.

However, investments in the mining industry traditionally have very long lead times. Consequently, global supply failed to keep pace with Chinese demand

By mid-2011, the value of iron ore had increased nine-fold in comparison with prices in the year 2000.

China’s resource security strategy

Heightened iron ore prices caused major anxiety in China over resource security – would the steel industry be able to survive this “iron ore crisis”?

Given the high levels state-ownership in the Chinese steel sector, it was the government who led the response to the shortage. In 2005, it issued a new policy which laid out a national strategy for iron ore resource security.

This strategy had two distinct elements. Firstly, it proposed the development of a Chinese import cartel to challenge the dominant market power of the Big 3 iron ore firms (BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and Vale) during annual price negotiations. Secondly, it aimed to promote Chinese investment into new entrants in the Asia-Pacific iron ore market, thus increasing available supply.

The cartelisation strategy ultimately proved disastrous. After several years of arduous talks, annual price negotiations between firms broke down following the Stern Hu Affair of 2009-10. Their replacement with a quarterly index pricing system has done little to soften China’s pain, with iron ore prices still well above their level five years ago.

Investing to break the Big 3

The Chinese investment strategy, however, may prove successful where the cartelisation strategy failed. With government support, Chinese firms have invested $29 billion in sponsor of thirty-five new entrants to the regional market, the majority of which are based in Western Australia. These investments were expressly designed to “break the monopoly” of the Big 3 and lower world iron ore prices.

While most of these projects are still in the “development” stage, they collectively plan to produce some 425 million tonnes of iron ore annually. When added with expansions planned by the Big 3, almost 900 million tonnes of new capacity is currently on the drawing board.

This will go a long way in levelling out the imbalance between regional supply and demand and in response, iron ore prices are certain to fall in the coming years.

The magnitude of the effect of this strategy remains debated, with some predicting only moderate falls while others have forecast a halving of prices. But in either scenario, the federal Resources Minister is correct in claiming the boom times for iron ore investment are now over.

Lean times ahead?

What does this mean for the Australian iron ore sector? Will the boom turn to bust?

Probably not – but the boom is unlikely to be as big as many have predicted.

Price falls will prove a difficult obstacle for the new iron ore players. Nearly all of the China-sponsored projects are modest in size, planning for production of between five and fifteen million tonnes of iron ore annually.

In comparison to the Big 3 – who produce between 155 and 323 million tonnes per year – these companies are perilously small. In the scale-dependent iron ore industry, many will prove uncompetitive in the wake of reduced prices and are likely to be abandoned. Sinosteel Midwest’s shelving of its Weld Range project last year may prove to be just the tip of the iceberg in terms of project cancellations and roll-backs.

However, some new entrants – such as Fortescue Metals Group – have managed to make the transition from small development project to large-scale export operation. So there is still space for new players, even if it is unlikely that all those planning new mines will ultimately succeed.

In the meantime, Australia’s iron ore juniors are now “racing to market” in the hope of avoiding the fate of Olympic Dam and Weld Range. While the China-driven iron ore boom is far from over, it will likely prove more modest than prior expectations.

Join the conversation

13 Comments sorted by

  1. Dale Bloom

    Analyst

    My understanding of the situation is that it is easier for a Chinese company to export a manufactured item to another country, than it is to sell it in China.

    So it is easier to sell furniture made in China to say people in the US or Australia, than it is to sell it to Chinese residents, who have much less money to spend.

    If China is to focus on “manufacturing industries such as machinery, ships and automobiles”, most of that may be exported also, which means the mining boom in Australia will depend on whether or not other countries will be able to afford Chinese exports.

    report
    1. Bruce Moon

      Bystander!

      In reply to Dale Bloom

      Dale

      I suggest you may be a tad late on this.

      It is true that there were significant barriers to domestic trade. Each of the nations' provinces acted like independent countries with all sorts of barriers. Laughably, a cargo bound from one province to another had to be unloaded at the border and loaded onto trucks from the (new) province before they were allowed through. But these barriers have largely been removed.

      Domestic consumption is reputed to be the driver for the next growth phase…

      Read more
    2. Dale Bloom

      Analyst

      In reply to Bruce Moon

      "Domestic consumption is reputed to be the driver for the next growth phase of the Chinese economy."

      I would hope so, (as even Team USA olympic uniforms were made in China).

      It would be interesting to know if China's export driven economy has actually increased world wide wealth, or if it has basicaly taken wealth from other countries, and spread it amongst many people in China, without increasing world wide wealth.

      report
    3. David Elson

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Dale Bloom

      Surely if I can buy goods at cheaper amount (for basically the same item) due to Chinese exports, I am better off in the end, as are many others?

      Especially as I have more $$ left over to purchase other vital items (health care/education/housing).

      report
    1. Wei Ling Chua

      Freelance Journalist (night passion) at Self-Employed: Picture Framing/Wholesales

      In reply to Shane Granger

      Is a good article. Only one important point being left out. China invested heavily in mine across the world including Africa. Most of these mines will be operational in 2014/15. China government announced few months ago that they will give preference to suppliers who accepted their investment as partner. Australia has to be more open to Asian investment. The current mentality of wanting people money and not treating people as equal need to change. Seating on mines does not ensure prosperity.

      report
    2. Jeffrey Wilson

      Fellow of the Asia Research Centre at Murdoch University

      In reply to Wei Ling Chua

      W,
      I would encourage you (and other readers) to have a look at the research article on which this is based ( http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2012.03.002). It lists all of China's iron ore investments, and as you can see the overwhelming majority - by number, size and value - are in Australia, not Africa. The reason for this is the advantages offered by the fact Australia is an established supplier (with lower amounts of new infrastructure required), its closer proximity (and lower transport costs) to China, and its open foreign investment regime.

      Indeed, Australia is considerably open and welcoming of Chinese foreign investment in the mining sector. An article at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10357718.2011.563779#tabModule documents how almost all Chinese mining investment has been approved by the Foreign Investment Review Board.

      I am not sure to what you are referring with the statement "not treating people as equal need to change" though.

      report
    3. Shane Granger

      Masters Student at University of New England

      In reply to Wei Ling Chua

      Jeffrey,

      I think W does make a good point when it comes to commodity investment, especially in other metals like copper (Zambia) or metallurgical coal (Mozambique). It will be interesting to see as commodities return to more normalised settings how the Chinese investment strategy will continue to flow (or not flow as global capacity outstrips demand requierments). Saying that and as put forward in your argument the overwhelming investment in Australia has been toward iron as a diversification strategy from Rio/BHP/Vale.

      report
    4. Wei Ling Chua

      Freelance Journalist (night passion) at Self-Employed: Picture Framing/Wholesales

      In reply to Jeffrey Wilson

      Jeffrey, please read this:

      (FIRB) has introduced new investment guidelines to deal with the rush of Chinese SOE investment- occurred on a largely ad hoc basis: http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2012/06/10/china-and-australias-foreign-investment-regime-2/

      China raises ownership hurdle in FTA talks: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/foreign-affairs/china-raises-ownership-hurdle-in-fta-talks/story-fn59nm2j-1226439876661

      Australia's dumb luck and Chinese investment: http://www.eastasiaforum

      Read more
    5. Jeffrey Wilson

      Fellow of the Asia Research Centre at Murdoch University

      In reply to Wei Ling Chua

      Shane: Outside of iron ore, quite rightly so. This was specifically focused on the iron ore story, because this mineral is especially important to Australia: 47% of mineral exports and 28% of all national exports alone in 2011.

      W: I am familiar with the first three articles. To put it briefly, the arguments that the FIRB rules are either (a) ad hoc or (b) restrictive are incorrect. The FIRB policy has clearly enumerated guidelines, and nearly all Chinese investment has been allowed since 2008. The article at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10357718.2011.563779#tabModule documents these arguments in detail.

      As for the third, Tony Abbott is currently the Opposition Leader, so his Party's views are not Government policy. That may well change next year, but at present Liberal/National Party policy is not Australian government policy.

      report
  2. Garry Baker

    resarcher

    Sounds like yet another Magic Pudding story to me. Indeed, something fairly reflective of the government stance. The plain fact is, this so-called abundance of iron ore will be gone within just a few decades - say three at the most, and maybe a lot sooner if the massive increase in extraction rates kicks in("production", they call it) ...Oh no, that cannot be, well any thinking researcher can easily check the above. ie: Take stock of our assets

    Added to this, we will be getting far less money…

    Read more
  3. Luke Weston

    Physicist / electronic engineer

    Obviously the iron market has got nothing to do with Olympic Dam, but I suppose exactly the same reasoning applies to copper as well.

    report