Let's start with the beginning. We admit that ArcelorMittal bought Sidex with 50 millions $ and that they also undertook updating and environment clauses. As far as the metal's price was high, the things went smooth (a 226 millions $ profit in 2008). And then there were the pending payable bills regarding the contracted investments, and respectively the state aid requirements. We don't acknowledge the purposes, or the arguments, or the logics in this, but the result was sudden and incredible: the iron ore was fetched not to Constanta, but to Burgas port. All clear by now. What comes hard to understand is that, if the iron ore would have been brought to Constanta, the supply costs would be with 50% lower. Is it the lack of professionalism? We doubt about that. It would rather stand for the intention to prove that ArcelorMittal Galati should be closed, as it's obviously working at loss. If we take into account the coke plant closure and the need to transport the coke from Poland to Galati, the result is a loss for every metal tone produced. This fault, intentional or not, should make our representatives more flexible if they want to maintain their industry. Mainly, ArcelorMittal might obtain the cancellations of the updating clause, of the investment in the environment protection technologies and, separately, to obtain state aid (which seem to have already been obtained).
Everything has its logics by now. From now on, we enter the twilight zone. The ore terminal in Constanta is the biggest in the Black Sea (and it even forereaches many of the terminals in the Mediterranean Sea), meaning it can receive over 200,000 tones ships. The Burgas port can receive up to 50,000 tone ships and, heavily - meaning with cranes exposed to operating in the open sea, of 72,000 tones. This means that the imports from Brazil can be made with small ships only, which, obviously, cost more per freight tone than the freight tone transported by the 200,000 tone ships.
From Bulgaria to Galati, sea ships should also be undertaken, but those cannot exceed 5,000 tones, as they have to enter the Danube up to Galati. ArcelorMittal contracts Ukrainian sea ships, that do not cross the Sulina channel on their way from Burgas to Galati, but they use the Bistroe channel, as it also had to find its use, and who could have had the idea of inaugurating it, if not the Romanians?!
Apparently, the decision was made by the owner of the integrated iron and steel work. But, in the current context, they forgot that the ArcelorMittal Galati is a Romanian company, which, if it were to be lucrative, would pay its taxes at the state budget, and would provide its services in the ports and on the Romanian channels. They forget that the Constanta port was expanded, on the state's expenses, until its operating capacity tripled. They also forgot that they also built a terminal, equipped with raw materials discharging facilities, of 4 million tones storage respectively. They are also forgettable about the fact that Romanian state built another titanic work, the Danube-Black Sea channel, so that the raw materials could be transported on barges, i.e. on cheap expenses, from Constanta to Galati. Also, that the Romanian state invested in a river fleet building which is specialized in raw materials transportation, so that it could cross the Danube-Black Sea channel.
ArcelorMittal nonsense policy leads to the following conclusion, considering the stealthy damages:
- Constanta Sea Ports Administration no longer cashes the taxes, as the Burgas administration does that;
-The Ship Channel Administration and the Inferior Danube River Administration no longer cashes the fees, as those go to the Ukrainian authorities, partially for the sea ships, partially for crossing the Bistroe channel;
-The river fleet specially built for this river sector, which cannot function in other locations, remains "pulled on the right side".
All this happens, while, as shown above, the Romanian company ArcelorMittal Galati pays more for the Bulgarian-Ukrainian route, with even 50% more, and the Romanian state loses substantial taxes and fees.
Of course, an explanation is hard to find. Some say that ArcelorMittal bought 36% of the Constanta terminal shares and that they wanted to buy the rest, too. As the current shareholders refused to sell the remaining shares, the logical solution - yet, not legal - was transferring the traffic to Burgas, in order to force the terminal's bankruptcy, so that they could then underpay for it. Moreover, following ArceloMittal's example, the current shareholders would like to also pay the fees in Bulgaria and in Ukraine, according to Viorel Panait, general manager at Convex.
The coke plant history in Poland is equally funny, but the losers, i.e. the Romanian river fleet, won't give any statement. We will be back on the coke issue from Poland. We shall try hard and elucidate how it can be possible that the Romanian ports be stuffed by the Ukrainian fleet that transports Romanian import and exports merchandise, as long as the EU's legislation clearly bans these practices in its third fleet regulations. Maybe then we'll be able to understand why the losers, the Romanian fleet, won't come with a viable statement... or any statement at all.
Imagine all the above mentioned has no speck of reality in it and be your own decision makers.
Anyways, read Eminescu again, who wrote:
'Was it abysm? Or was it a swirl? Was it wide water stretch?
There were no artful people, or brains to understand it'
