Slashdot Mirror


Chinese Rare Earths Producer Suspends Output

concealment writes "State-owned Baotou Steel Rare Earth (Group) Hi-tech Co. said in a statement released through the Shanghai Stock Exchange that it suspended production Tuesday to promote 'healthy development' of rare earths prices. It gave no indication when production would resume and phone calls to the company on Thursday were not answered. Beijing is tightening control over rare earths mining and exports to capture more of the profits that flow to Western makers of lightweight batteries and other products made of rare earths. China has about 30 percent of rare earths deposits but accounts for more than 90 percent of production. Beijing alarmed global manufacturers by imposing export quotas in 2009. It also is trying to force Chinese rare earths miners and processors to consolidate into a handful of government-controlled groups."

27 of 265 comments (clear)

  1. not with a bang, but a little heard whimper. by Roskolnikov · · Score: 4, Interesting

    China is finally flexing its grip on the tech industry, more to come certainly.

    --
    Unix, an obscure operating system developed by bored researchers in an attempt to get a better game playing experience.
    1. Re:not with a bang, but a little heard whimper. by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Sounds short-sighted. Since rare-earths are a commodity, this will just drive prices up and thus other people will mine them. Businesses may even prefer these new sources for stability. Then prices will crash as a glut of supply hits the market, and the unreliable producer will command an even lower price.

      Or the market could do something totally unpredictable :)

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:not with a bang, but a little heard whimper. by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, if you've been paying attention, they are mostly giving these sort of contracts to Chinese companies. They don't exactly love Americans.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    3. Re:not with a bang, but a little heard whimper. by mmontalvo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It is not about mining. That is not their monopoly, their monopoly is on the production of the minerals to usable components. This unfortunately is not easily solved. A full scale production facility takes about a decade to build and about 1 Billion dollars. There was a private investor who was discussing this issue about 5 years ago and was trying to get investors to go in on building a new facility but was unable to get the needed amount of capital.

    4. Re:not with a bang, but a little heard whimper. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It is about mining, too. It takes time to develop mines.

      A huge, truly massive deposit of a large variety of rare earths was found here in the United States a year or two ago. Prices are already at the point that it is very likely this will be put to use. But it's a large enough quantity to call into question the long-held idea that China "has 30%" of the rare earths.

    5. Re:not with a bang, but a little heard whimper. by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If the price goes up, the private investor will have no problem raising the money. That's exactly what happened 2 years ago.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    6. Re:not with a bang, but a little heard whimper. by afidel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It depends on what you consider China "has", if it's just the minerals in the sovereign territory of China then 30% is probably a bit inflated, if you consider it explored proven reserves owned/controlled by China or Chinese companies it's probably understated.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    7. Re:not with a bang, but a little heard whimper. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Exactly right. There were something like three rare earth mines idled by China's effort to flood and capture the market. One of those started back up after China's last screw job to the world. If prices continue to rise, more will simply re-open with a relatively modest investment and in relatively small time frames.

      Having a US supply is a good thing. It mean stability in the market, shorter delivery schedules, cheaper storage for manufacturers, and US jobs. Likely the those outside the US will see the advantage too.

    8. Re:not with a bang, but a little heard whimper. by Dahamma · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is China can turn on production whenever they want and undercut any competition, driving those other producers out of business again and again so that no one wants to invest in such a risky industry.

      I'm not a big fan of excessive tariffs, but the only way to prevent China from manipulating the market like that is for other governments to step in with their own manipulation, putting enough tariffs on Chinese exports that domestic mining of rare earths can survive (and also showing China if they pull this shit, there will be consequences).

      The problem is businesses and consumers are so into short term savings they are more than happy to screw over their long term viability - when that happens it may be up to regulatory bodies/governments to look at the long term.

    9. Re:not with a bang, but a little heard whimper. by torkus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Driving up supply chain costs in a cornerstone of a shakey global economy is a good idea? China is nowhere near mining out all their rare earths. If they were, other countries would have set up mines and production facilities in preparation for that because they'd have guaranteed profit. What exactly indicates other countries would have higher prices though? Plus we won't "run out" of rare earths. Unlike oil most can be recycled and reused more or less indefinitely.

      This is 100% about China trying to streghten their powerbase in the global economy. It's blatant price manipulation in what's supposed to be open markets. China is taking their ball and going home till all the other kids come begging. Unfortunately someone else is going to buy their own ball eventually.

      As for environmental concerns - sorry but that's just laughable. If they cared, they would close the mine or update to more modern and clean processes (which are still quite dirty.) Also they'd so something about the myriad of severe pollution problems they have. The main reason China has a monopoly right now is because they were content to pollute their country and (more or less) everyone else was (more or less) happy to let them. That balance is shifting now.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    10. Re:not with a bang, but a little heard whimper. by CowTipperGore · · Score: 5, Interesting

      A war on coal was when the coal operators murdered miners for trying to organize a union. They put a Gatling gun on a flatbed train car and rolled through a tent camp of miners, spraying bullets. The US military was finally called out to put the miners in their place when they decided to fight back. That was a war. What you're talking about is chicken shit political mudslinging.

      You really consider it a war when the federal government finally makes the corporations that profit from coal bear some percentage of the cost it takes on the rest of us? A hundred years of dead miners, polluted waters, destroyed landscapes, polluted air, lung diseases, cancers, etc, but expecting coal operators to spend money on safety or power plants on technology to remove some of the pollutants and we have a war? My dad is currently laid off from an underground coal mine due to the downturn in the coal industry, just like he was laid off plenty of times 30 years ago during downturns in the coal industry. The current downturn in the coal industry is driven by last year's extremely warm winter and all-time low natural gas prices. Coal mining employment was higher under Obama than Bush until earlier this year.

      War on Coal? What a load of shit.

  2. Trade war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Start putting tariffs on anything made with Chinese rare earths. Since China is a net exporter, they have the most to lose playing these games.

    1. Re:Trade war by Dan+East · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, don't put tariffs on them. Why would the US want to sell or produce rare earths? They are a finite resource. If China wants to burn through their supplies so the rest of the world can enjoy cheaper technology, then that is their prerogative. Once it's out of the ground and used to manufacture products shipped to the US then it can be recycled for reuse in new products. Either way the material is no longer in China. This is a gamble China has made to try and prop up their massive industry and population, is to not only undercut worldwide labor with a very cheap workforce, but also burn through their physical resources as well.

      Nothing about China is sustainable, and there will be great sorrow and suffering in that country when the bottom drops out of various markets over the next decades.

      The USA's production at various rare earth mines simply idled or completely stopped as prices dropped and it was not longer profitable to mine them. The rare earths are still sitting there waiting for us when we need them. No hurry to get to those resources at all.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    2. Re:Trade war by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Informative

      I feel like you're missing a key issue in the discussion.
      China controls ~90% of the rare earth refining capacity.
      That's what's being reduced.

      Why would the US want to sell or produce rare earths?

      So that the USA isn't beholden to China's monopoly on refined rare earths.
      Was that a trick question

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    3. Re:Trade war by Sydin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nothing about China is sustainable, and there will be great sorrow and suffering in that country when the bottom drops out of various markets over the next decades.

      There will be a great sorrow in every country, especially the US. We are all deeply tied into China's market, and whatever affects them, affects us. The next great depression will not also be a result of domestic economic negligence. It will be the result of China sinking, and dragging the world's economy down with it.

    4. Re:Trade war by MaWeiTao · · Score: 4, Interesting

      China needs the West far, far more than the West needs China. If we lose China as a manufacturing base we'll just move elsewhere; South East Asia, India, South America, Africa. And a lot of that capability could always come back home. China understands this, which is why they're expanding into Africa. Furthermore, as their international reach grows their ability to keep out international politics is diminished. Nations are expecting them to get more involved which introduces them to all the problems the US has faced for at least a century. Unfortunately, they have the tendency to align themselves with oppressive governments which has been drawing ire, particularly in Africa.

      A lot of what's been drawing China's success is the expectation amongst Western companies that they have this massive untapped market. It's all based on a potential that has largely failed to materialize. It's not that dissimilar to investors dumping millions into dot coms in the hope that a large userbase will eventually lead to profits. So far it isn't paying off quite like people have hoped.

  3. Communists my ass... by bjdevil66 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They're capitalists, with all the dirty trappings and failings of western businessmen, only without the whole problem of human rights.

    Someone probably needs to remind these people that artificially manipulating prices like this can get burned badly in the end.

    1. Re:Communists my ass... by Kenja · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Try starting a Chinese company that competes with one of the party backed ones and you'll see how capitalist they are not.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
  4. 70% by Githaron · · Score: 3, Insightful

    China has about 30 percent of rare earths deposits but accounts for more than 90 percent of production.

    It sounds like we should consider mining from the other 70 percent.

  5. Re: Winning! by hoboroadie · · Score: 5, Funny

    He's promoting healthy development of his stock's price.

    --
    They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
  6. Re:Back to the stoneage by cavreader · · Score: 5, Informative

    Or just re-open the closed rare earth mines in the US. Rare Earths are really not that "rare". The US closed it's most productive mines for environmental reasons and because it was cheaper to purchase from abroad. Same reason domestic oil production was reduced. Of course the US is now pumping approximately 10 million BPD and is expected to surpass Saudi Arabia in as little as 4 years using newer extraction methods is also something to look forward. China's economic forecasts have always been predicated on best case scenarios as well as their government making the optimum decisions every time but their government is no more immune to stupid decisions than any other government in the world.

  7. so what? by nimbius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    America exports the worlds supply of helium, hasnt produced a millilitre more for over 2 decades, and keeps the price artificially low.

    OPEC sets quotas and prices for global oil supplies, and can suspend or restrict production whenever they feel the need.

    American agricultural conglomerates like ADM and General Mills collude to set the price at which they will accept corn from farmers. too much corn does not drive the price of it down, instead its maintained by dumping cheap corn as an export, or siloing it for next year.

    how has china in any way changed how capitalism has worked for the past 270 years? The only thing thats generated outrage is chinas willingness to take an aggressively competitive position in the global economy, instead of a subservient one. If you dont like it, consider pushing for more organized labor.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  8. Re:Outsourcing by Dan+East · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is simply inevitable. China has been producing rare earths at unsustainable and artificially low prices, which is why the rest of the world no longer needed to bother with mining and consuming their own finite resources.

    Everyone needs to grasp that this is an inevitability - the prices of various products (mainly higher technology) will have to go up, and thus the global markets and product will rebalance themselves. The manipulation was already done in keeping the prices too low, not in making them go up. Your complaints are coming way too late in this game - you should have been complaining at least a decade ago when they flooded the market with cheap resources, not now that the bubble has burst.

    Say a new hot dog stand opens up in town, and for the first month they sell hotdogs for 25 cents at a massive and unsustainable loss. Maybe that's long enough to run the other hot dog stands out of business, or at least make them realize it's just not worth bothering with. Then after the introductory price they go up to where the market belongs. Now at that point the other hot dog stands can re-open, with new owners or with their old owners - doesn't really matter. At the end of the day it's all the same end result - hotdogs cost what they're worth.

    My question is this - was it wrong for the rest of us to enjoy hotdogs for only a quarter apiece while we were able to? My opinion is no, that's not wrong of us, nor is it wrong that the world enjoyed lower priced rare earths (and thus technology) because of China's willing sacrifice of their finite resources.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
  9. Four steps to bankruptcy by gurps_npc · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Step 1. Develop a business model founded on being the cheapest.

    Step 2. Watch as almost everyone else gets out of the business because they can't profit at your price, leaving you with 90% of the market.

    Step 3. Now try to increase profits. When you realize you can't raise prices because the other 10% undercut you and make most of the profit, cut off production entirely.

    Step 4. Watch as the other 10% raise prices (to the level you wished you got) and make a profit at your expense. Then watch as they expand, cutting your original market share from 90% to 70%.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  10. Re:Outsourcing by afidel · · Score: 3, Informative

    The problem with midwest steel wasn't largely dumping (there was some, but it was a fairly small percentage of the market), it was the fact that most of the steel plants were 40+ years old with few updates and they were competing with more modern plants using more efficient techniques and more automation. Steel consumption also was on the decline, from 1982-2008 the US only consumed about 45M metric tons of steel per year, the same amount as we did in 1941 and about half what we did in 1972. Today we produce about as much steel as we did in 1974 but we do it with less than 1/3rd the workforce, modern mills just aren't as labor intensive as the old ones and while that's bad if you're a worker unable to find a replacement job at comparable wages it's good for the economy overall.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  11. Saving for the future by fox171171 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    BTW it was my understanding America used to be the major provider over a decade ago and we simply stopped. Shows this was a bad idea.

    Not if your intention is to let the competition use up their supply while ensuring your own in the the future.

  12. Time for a little US modern history lesson by dbIII · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's funny that you are using US steel as an example, because that one is a textbook example of multiple industries being killed off by thoughtless use of tariffs and outright import bans. To elaborate on this, some decades back tariffs and bans on importation of general purpose steel were put in place to protect the US steel industry, which was functioning well at the time but did not want to be undercut by low quality imports. Without the threat of competition US steelmakers had no need to innovate and had the ability to increase prices. Eventually they got to the point where other countries could undercut US low quality general purpose steel with higher quality specially steels even after paying the tariffs - hence the "dumping" of steels with added nickel to make them stronger than general purpose steel and get around the ban. Making steel does not need many worker hours per ton so China should have had zero advantage, but a protected steel industry had gone to sleep and not only failed to improve, but also increased costs.
    That was the direct effect. The indirect effect was the migration of industries that were heavy users of steel out of the USA so they would not be stung by the markup on steel prices from the cosy little club of US steelmakers (that was the start of the offshore outsourcing of manufacturing the USA is suffering so much from now). Eventually that protected little club found that their greed had backfired and they had very few customers. The only ones that thrived were innovating, making high strength steels, and able to compete effectively on a level playing field in an international market. I was in the steel industry briefly in the early 1990s (not in the USA and we could not sell our stuff to the USA), so got to see the how bad it had become.
    Sugar is the other US textbook case of overprotecting an industry and the industry thinking that it's survival was thus assured and that they could charge whatever they wanted - hence you guys drinking corn syrup in your coke and mucking up your kids livers at twice the rate than if they were drinking sucrose in their coke.
    In short, protecting industries can really suck in the long term and the protected industries can get to the point where they are welfare addicts that have no hope of survival without a government propping them up.