- •Contents
- •Companies ranked by 12M return
- •Companies ranked by 12M return
- •How to trade steel companies around met coal prices
- •Cautious steel demand outlook
- •Metallurgical coal a key steel input cost
- •Coking coal price sensitivity
- •Coking coal outlook
- •Steel sector margins and capex support near-term cash generation
- •Earnings revisions
- •Commodity and currency assumptions
- •Peer comparison per calendar year
- •ArcelorMittal South Africa
- •Evraz
- •Severstal
- •Anglo American
- •Glencore
- •Vale
- •Appendix
- •Disclosures appendix
vk.com/id446425943
Appendix
Renaissance Capital
3 December 2018
Steel
Drivers of met coal producers’ cost curve position
Coking coal realisations vs benchmark
Russian steel companies receive below-benchmark price for their coking coal sales. We believe this is largely reflective of product quality.
Current steel margins and a Chinese push to increase productivity favour high-quality met coal production.
Figure 72: Met coal price realisations, $/t |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
Coking coal revenue, $/t |
|
2017 HCC benchmark price, $/t |
||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
250 |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
200 |
193 |
|
|
2017 HCC benchmark price, $/t, 188 |
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
200 |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
185 |
181 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
172 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
150 |
|
|
|
|
|
143 |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
131 |
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
$/t |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
97 |
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
50 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 73: Met coal price realisations, $/t |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
20 |
|
|
|
Premium (Discount) to benchmark… |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-3 |
-7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
Average, $/t, -25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
-20 |
|
|
-16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-40 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-45 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
-60 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-57 |
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
-80 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
-100 |
|
|
|
|
-91 |
|
Glencore South32 Anglo |
BHP |
Vale |
Evraz Severstal MMK |
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
Glencore South32 |
Anglo |
BHP |
Vale |
Evraz Severstal MMK |
|||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
Source: Bloomberg, Company data, Renaissance Capital estimates |
|
|
|
Source: Bloomberg, Company data, Renaissance Capital estimates |
Cash unit costs
Evraz’s unit costs are the lowest among the steel producers we cover.
Figure 74: CY17 unit cash costs per tonne, $
|
|
|
|
Coking coal cash costs, $/t |
|
Average, $/t |
|
|
|
|
160 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
142 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
140 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
120 |
|
|
|
|
|
109 |
110 |
|
|
100 |
Average, $/t, 87 |
|
|
81 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
75 |
79 |
|
|
|
|||
$/t |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
80 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
60 |
|
57 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
42 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Evraz |
Glencore |
BHP |
MMK |
Severstal |
South32 |
Anglo |
Vale |
Source: Bloomberg, Company data, Renaissance Capital estimates
46
vk.com/id446425943
Renaissance Capital
3 December 2018
Steel
Maintenance capex
Maintenance capex is the last important component affecting miners’ all-in, qualityadjusted cash costs or required breakeven benchmark prices.
We calculate that during 2017, MMK’s maintenance capex was the lowest in our coverage universe, while South32 spent the most.
Figure 75: CY17 sustaining capex per tonne, $/t
|
|
|
|
Sustaining capex, $/t |
|
Average |
|
|
||
35.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
17.6 |
18.6 |
19.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Average, 14.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15.0 |
|
|
|
|
12.1 |
12.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10.3 |
10.7 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.3 |
5.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.0 |
Mechel |
Glencore |
MMK |
Vale |
Evraz |
BHP |
Teck Resources |
Severstal |
Anglo American |
South32 |
|
Source: Company data, Renaissance Capital estimates
Life and margin
High-margin assets and long reserve life provide strategic advantages. We believe Evraz is best positioned among the Russian steel producers we cover with more than 150 years of reserve life.
Figure 76: Met coal reserve life and CY17 EBITDA margins per tonne
|
145 |
|
|
, $/t |
120 |
|
|
|
Teck Resources |
BHP |
|
margin |
|
||
95 |
Anglo American |
|
|
|
|
||
EBITDA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
coalmet |
70 |
Glencore |
|
|
|
||
CY17 |
|
South32 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
45 |
Severstal |
|
|
|
|
Mechel
Evraz
Vale
20
- |
50 |
100 |
150 |
200 |
250 |
Reserves life (years)
Source: Company data, Renaissance Capital estimates
47