《swot分析框架》PPT课件.ppt

Sector Sketch and SWOT Analysis of the Dutch Oil Sector Final Presentation Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs Oil Division,The Hague, 3rd February 1999,A conflict appears to be emerging between the traditional Dutch economic strengths and more recent environmental concerns,Dutch economic prosperity,Oil industry focussed on exports,Founded on trading,Motor of Rotterdam trading strength,Dutch environment,Legitimate environmental concerns,High population density low-lying - vulnerable to Global warming,Global warming Congestion Noise,Export industry must be internationally competitive to survive,Tough environmental stance,Conflict,Contents,Page,A. Extracts from Sector Sketch B. Feedback from oil and chemical company interviews C. SWOT Analysis C.1. Strengths C.2. Weaknesses C.3. Opportunities C.4. Threats D. Recommendations,4 7 11 12 17 23 26 31,A. Extracts from Sector Sketch,The Dutch oil industry has traditionally been strong and internationally orientated,Only 15% of total oil supply destined for home market Accounts for 9% of EU refining capacity Key synergies with and supply to Dutch chemicals industry Benelux chemical cluster is second largest in Europe,Rotterdam worlds leading port for 30 years Road, rail, inland waterway and pipeline connections to many major markets,Major oil trading market in the EU time zone and one of the big 3 globally (Rotterdam, Houston, Singapore),Each sector in the oil industry faces important issues affecting its competitive position,Oil refining,Increasing costs of environmental compliance Mergers/alliances change the competitive scene Overcapacity and low returns,Storage,Supports the international business Fosters independent traders Overcapacity and low returns,Trading,Strong role of refining companies Dependent on critical mass of Rotterdam market,Bunkering,Important fuel oil outlet for refiners Refiners becoming dominant,Pipelines,Pipelines and waterways key to Rotterdam logistical advantage Dominated by private or consortium owned pipelines,Chemicals,Important synergies with oil sector Sector entering downturn Long-term growth potential,B. Feedback from oil and chemical company interviews,Environmental and clean-up regulations were central to views expressed by most interviewees,Role of the Netherlands,Decision making bodies,Land release,Current situation,Industry viewpoint,Alternative approach,Goes ahead of competing countries on environmental issues,This undermines competitive position of oil and chemical industries,Lead by influencing EU consensus rather than by example,Significant regional and national variation on environmental regulations Competition to be greener,Variation prevents the existence of a level playing field,Place environmental decision making and implementation in the hands of one body,Clean-up costs are a formidable exit barrier,Land can be released if economically viable,Costs of clean-up should be balanced against cost of land reclamation,However, the governments willingness to discuss and reach consensus was appreciated,All interviewees recognised the World Class infrastructure of Rotterdam, although there are three major contentious issues,Port fees,Common carrier pipeline,Maasvlakte 2,Current situation,Industry viewpoint,Alternative approach,Harbour dues based on tonnage rather than services used,Rotterdam is more expensive than Antwerp, Le Havre or Hamburg. The oil industry subsidises the container industry,Base charges more on services than on tonnage basis,No common-carrier pipeline exists,May be economically viable,Consider common carrier where extra flexibility needed, but compensate owners of pipelines for investment and risk,Positive discussion likely: new land reclamation at high cost,Extra land will favour chemical sector The oil industry does not require extra land,Ensure proper funding for Maasvlakte 2: No burden on oil industry,Pressure for rationalisation is likely to coincide with timing of investment to meet future fuel specifications,Overcapacity,Future fuel specifications,Current situation,Industry viewpoint,Despite recent closures, there remains up to 15% overcapacity,As many as 13 EU refineries need to close Issue complicated further by recent mergers Clean-up costs remain the biggest barrier to exit; social costs are also significant,Target specifications for 2005 require 40 bn investment across the EU,Of the Dutch refineries, only Esso and Shell are well placed to meet 2005 specs without major investment,C. SWOT Analysis,C.1. Strengths,The Dutch oil sector is large and well concentrated, accounting for 9% of EU refining capacity (compared to 4.5% consumption),Europoort,Pernis,Crude Capacity (b/d),Nerefco,Shell,Esso,Total,KPI,S&H,374,000,400,000,180,000,148,000,70,000,10,000,Botlek,Vlissingen,+,x,Amsterdam,Europoort,79,500,Koch,Europoort,Source: Ministry of Economic Affairs,All elements of the oil sector are closely integrated,Chemical cluster,Refining,International trading port,Open and co-operative government,Storage and Bunkering,Services, utilities and contractors,This integration is supported by world class infrastructure,Harbours and terminals,Deep water harbours, particularly Rotterdam Direct accessibility for the worlds largest tankers High volume capacity and short turn-around time Extensive barge handling,Pipelines,Supply Belgium and Germany with crude and products Connections to major chemical clusters in and beyond the Netherlands More than 1100km network within Rotterdam linking producers and storage companies,Road and Rail,Considerable infrastructure currently in place Major investment programme in progress,The Dutch ports, particularly Rotterdam, benefit from advantageous locations,Close to North Sea oil fields Natural port for ME crudes destined for NW European market,Holland one of the most densely populated European countries Population of 160 million within 500km radius Navigable inland waterways to major markets,C.2. Weaknesses,Overcapacity has led to low profitability in the Dutch oil sector and increasing pressure for rationalisation,Refining,Storage,Overcapacity in Holland reflects the trend in EU as a whole Export refineries with low conversion capacity are vulnerable (although speciality niches help profitability),Long term structural overcapacity,Recent mergers and alliances create an uncertain outcome for Dutch oil,Of the Netherlands refineries, only Shell and Esso have the up-grading flexibility to meet future demands with only limited investment,Source: IEA; Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, RB&P analysis,FCC equivalent conversion capacity (% distillation capacity),Distillation capacity MT/year,12%,25%,99%,3.8,20.0,7.4,9,18.7,37%,KPI Europoort,Total/DOW Vlissingen,Esso Rotterdam,Shell Pernis,Nerefco (BP/Texaco) Europoort,34% EU Refineries average,66%,38% Germany,40% United Kingdom,24% France,23% Belgium,Average Conversion Capacities,54% The Netherlands,In addition, the Netherlands attempts to lead rather than go with European environmental legislation,EU has set new product specifications But No level playing field for refinery emissions at EU level Enforcement of regulations stricter in Netherlands Inconsistencies between National, Regional and Municipal authorities,Dutch Oil Sector,The cost of clean-up regulations in Rotterdam is distorting the incentives for the oil industry to release unused land,but,The Lose-Lose outcome can only change to Win-Win by altering the incentives for land release,Clean-up costs in EU are between NLG 100m - NLG 400m per refinery (NLG 60-120/m2) Even where plants have closed, oil industry has incentive to retain land and pay rent rather than pay immediate clean-up cost Similar economics constrain release of surplus land from storage terminals,Projected shortage of land for expansion is driving Maasvlakte 2 project Cost of land reclamation is expensive and will be borne by taxpayer initially (NLG 500/m2),Government policy is seen to focus solely on Rotterdam, partly as a consequence of Main Port Policy,Vlissingen,Only one jetty terminal (up to 120,000 dwt) Isolated from natural gas pipelines,When chemical companies found Rotterdam unfavourable, Antwerp was chosen above other Dutch ports,Amsterdam,Growth limited by water depth/ship size Lack of refining limits synergies between oil and chemicals,C.3. Opportunities,There are opportunities for new businesses or substantial extensions to existing activities,Energy,Pipelines,Electricity co-generation Low level heat collection and distribution CO2 collection for greenhouses,Common carrier to reduce transport costs and meet environmental aims Ethylene pipeline for chemicals,High value-added production,Storage,Upgrade products for refineries unable to meet environmental specs High quality product strategy for export to premium markets Push for higher share of chemicals growth,Use excess storage to hold strategic stocks for whole EU,Overcapacity is a long-term problem that needs to be addressed by industry but may be helped by Government assistance,Focuses investment on areas of strength There is potential for individual plant closures Recent mergers/cluster approach may lead to new combinations,Opportunity,Action,Aim,Strongest units operate near fuel capacity,Land would be made available for port expansion,Government Introduce incentives for clean-up of former or surplus sites,Best use of unused land,Companies optimise within international networks,Focus on strong competitive units,Government sponsor discussion on optimisation,Alternative for uncompetitive units,C.4. Threats,The greatest threat is that pressure to adopt the highest environmental standards will hit the oil industry too hard, and erode public support,Over-zealous environmentalism could break the Dutch oil industry Netherlands is much tougher on policing common environmental rules than other EU states Pressure groups and Municipalities compete to appear greener Implementation methods are not seen as consistent with the true needs,Oil may no longer be seen as a contributor to society,High costs associated with Rotterdam are currently outweighed by advantages. Shifts in the labour rate - productivity balance could change this,Port dues on tonnage basis has led to highest crude import costs in Europe High construction costs One of the highest labour rates in Europe High social costs,Competitive logistics Proximity to market place High labour productivity Skilled workforce/trading experience Low port land rentals,External competition may increase or become distorted,EU Competition,Global Competition,Cheaper services at competing ports Petropreneurs buy cheap assets EU member states or unions support own weaker refineries,Middle East oil product and base chemical exports Chemical growth attracted to US by lower costs,Substitution and new technology could cause a surprise drop in oil demand, but no significant change likely before 2005,Transport,Common rail technology will make diesel substantially more efficient Hybrid engines Biomass ethanol could substitute mogas and diesel Fuel cell technology no significant impact before 2005 Increase in diesel market share may distort refinery economics LPG/CNG substitution of mogas and diesel,The current very low crude oil prices will delay any substitution effects,Other uses,Gas (from Russia/ North Sea) will substitute heating oil in Belgium and Germany Renewable fuels in export markets FO for electricity GO home/commercial heating LFO for industry,D. Recommendations,Four key issues need to be addressed to ensure long term international competitiveness of the oil industry,Long term competitiveness,Stable industrial policy,Affordable environmental policy,Action on infrastructure costs,Optimisation of oil industry,There is also scope for streamlining procedures and encouraging new value-added activities,A stable, visible government policy for the oil sector needs to be agreed, and external trends regularly monitored,Seek consensus on environment trade-off size of oil industry type of oil activities location and logistics corridors Publicise agreed vision,Own plans Linkages with own international networks Implications of locations Concrete ides,Implications of increase or decrease in oil industry presence,VROM part of consensus Local authorities brought into consensus and location planning,Long term policy development,Evaluate international oil industry trends,Provide own information and benchmarks on competitiveness of Dutch oil industry,Benchmark cost infrastructure and charges,VROM Compare other EU states environment regulations,Regular feedback,Ministry of Economic Affairs,Oil Industry,Ports,Other,Environmental principles for oil should balance the need for competitiveness with Dutch environment needs,Agree approach with VROM Monitor proposals that add extra cost above competitors Ensure only implemented if environment impact high Review existing targets for oil industry Seek changes if undue competitive penalty,Provide credible estimates of compliance costs Provide comparisons with competing areas,Affordable environment policy,Flexible implementation,VROM Only act ahead of competitor nations for clear benefit,VROM Retain flexible mechanisms for implementation Consider use of trading rights,At same time, continue to encourage wider EU progress on environmental standards and level playing field,Ministry of Economic Affairs,Oil Industry,Other,Optimisation, including scope for economically viable rationalisation, must be addressed by the oil industry - but with active encouragement of the Ministry,Explore scope/benefits of optimisation and/or rationalisation Optimise within own international networks,Scope for optimisation,Remove barriers to rationalisation Discuss change of approach to clean-up costs of port land,Reveal full potential for release of port land,Review effect of any throughput reductions Explore cost/benefit of port land released compared to land reclamation,VROM to review land clean-up requirements,Barriers to rationalisation,Secure support of authorities for rationalisation/ optimisation VROM Competition authorities Local authorities,Enabling role,Object of optimisation is to secure long term competitiveness. Some rationalisation may also reduce emissions and congestion,Ministry of Economic Affairs,Oil Industry,Ports,Other,Further actions to maintain strong and competitive infrastructure should be considered,Consider selected existing pipelines as candidates New pipeline investment where viable,Logistics,Ensure fast approval and development of infrastructure projects,Competitive local authority taxes/rates,If benchmarking shows po