a Business Spectator publication

Potash plus

On Friday August 20, BHP Billiton launched one of the largest ever cross-border hostile bids, a $US40 billion proposed takeover of Canada's PotashCorp. It is the largest cross-border bid globally since the end of the GFC, and the largest hostile bid since the $US100 billion acquisition of ABN Amro by RBS and others. 

BHP started with a more friendly approach, with CEO Marius Kloppers meeting William Doyle, CEO of PotashCorp, on August 12. Kloppers discussed BHP's proposal and left Doyle with a formal letter, applying the pressure by giving PotashCorp just six days to respond. Five days later, the PotashCorp Board unanimously rejected the unsolicited proposal, having concluded that the offer "grossly undervalued" PotashCorp. The same day, PotashCorp made public details of the confidential approach and the board's basis for rejecting it. The following Friday – August 20 – BHP formally launched a bid at $US130 per share. By the end of the day the stock price had already reached $US149.67 per share, suggesting that a significantly higher bid was expected.

Hostile bids are rare in the world of M&A. Typically they are only made where the target is of great strategic importance to the bidder, but refuses to negotiate, and where the bidder is confident that there is substantial value upside. Otherwise the risks are perceived as too great. This is particularly true with a large bid such as this, where the target is nearly a quarter the size of BHP. In short, this is a very significant strategic move by BHP. 

So what is the strategic appeal for BHP? At the highest level, the acquisition – if successful – would clearly continue BHP's stated strategy of "adding tier 1 assets and further diversification".  PotashCorp is the world's largest potash company, with some of the lowest cost production, so it is ideally placed to benefit from long-term increases in demand for fertilisers to support primary food production, driven by the forecast increase in the world population by some three billion to nine billion over the next 30 years.

In addition, PotashCorp's operations are based in Saskatchewan, making for a neat fit with BHP's existing substantial greenfield land holdings in that region. The business also fits well with BHP’s track record as a successful operator of long-life, low-cost, high-volume resource deposits.

But could climate change – and, in particular, carbon price risk – also be an issue? BHP is one of the world's largest miners. In the year just ended, around half of its revenue, and 70 per cent of its profits, came from resources like coal, petroleum and iron ore, that are highly carbon intensive. So the company has a significant negative exposure to risks associated with climate change, whether through direct carbon taxes, the impact of an ETS scheme or longer-term reductions in the use of fossil fuels. 

So the acquisition of PotashCorp would materially diversify BHP's overall business away from carbon-intensive businesses. BHP’s negative exposure to climate change risks would, in part, be offset by a positive exposure to growth in demand for fertiliser linked directly to world population growth.

Few major companies in Australia have engaged in public discussion regarding climate change risks and how they are seeking to address them. Nevertheless, leading companies such as IAG, Mirvac, NAB, News Corp, Telstra, Westpac and Woolworths were signatories to Cambridge University's Copenhagen Communiqué on Climate Change. This called for “urgent and significant action” by world leaders, including the introduction of a global emissions cap and an emissions reduction pathway.

Behind the scenes, we know that leading companies are beginning to shape corporate strategy to mitigate climate change risks over time, with a growing number of assignments undertaken for Pottinger’s clients, including a significant element related to climate change. 

So far, BHP has made no mention of climate change as a strategic driver for its proposed acquisitions of PotashCorp, so we watch with interest to see whether it confirms this aspect of its overall strategy.

Meanwhile, as with any hostile takeover attempt, the outcome of BHP’s bid remains far from certain. The initial offer has been firmly rejected by PotashCorp and a range of potential white knights are known to be considering the situation carefully. 

The PotashCorp share price last closed at $US146.64 per share – 12.8 per cent above the BHP offer, implying ongoing anticipation of an increased bid or a counterbidder. Indeed, a recent Reuters poll of PotashCorp investors suggested that a successful bidder may have to offer around $US162, with some suggesting figures as high as $US190 a share. These figures are still some way short of the company's all time closing high of $US239.50 per share on June 17, 2008.

Nigel Lake is Joint CEO of corporate advisory firm Pottinger. Pottinger is a signatory to the Copenhagen Communiqué, along with other leading Australian and global companies.

Comments on this article

PNK fertilizers and water, essentials of life

I find BHP's attempted Potash Corp acquistion to be well thought out. The Potash group mines Potassium (K) and markets Phosphorous (P) both of which are essential elements for growing crops and indirectly human beings. There are already suggestions that world Phosphorous resources are in short supply and future consideration to recycling inorganic P and K from crop, sewage and food wastes may be necessary as world populations expand. Excess use of fertilisers can deteriorate soils but it you try to grow crops without the crop or plantation's minimal P and K needs very little growth will occur. In a future carbon constrained world carbon sequestration through no till cultivation techniques that  lock in soil carbon and improve fertility look to have large potential to reduce global CO2. By being involved somehow in agriculture BHP can not only build future sustainable markets for essential minerals but could also become a part of future cropping or plantation systems that offset carbon emissions that are inevitably involved in mining  .     

 

Potash - just an essential nutriment - sourced where?

This should be a long term good one.  I would suggest that careful examination about the role of K in agriculture is needed.  We seem to be running out of supplies of available nutrients both reserves to be mined / extracted, or in much of our soils.  Sure we could extract it from our sewage at a cost and reduce pollution as well.  However there is less little incentive to push up production costs when the real price of food is so distorted by subsidies in the US, EU, Japan etc.

Just the result of growing crops and exporting them off farm will do this.  Leaching losses in annual crops is quite important on lighter soils.

It is an increasingly limiting nutrient in Aust. agriculture.  Re soil acidification, K sulphate is not as problematic as KCl, nor does it have the problems of increasing chloride levels and is certainly not in the same category as ammonium sulphate.  Sulphur is also limiting on some of our soils.

 

Potash and Fertilisers Could be a Fizzer for BHP

The purported acquisition of PotashCorp by BHP would not materially diversify BHP's overall business away from carbon-intensive businesses. Potassium is the K in the acidic and chemically manufactured NPK fertilisers widely used by agriculture as a short term growth stimulant for crops. NPK fertilisers are now widely recognised as a major cause of soil degradation, lower crop productivity and lower food nutritional value.  BHP’s negative exposure to climate change risks would thus not be offset by a positive exposure to growth in demand for fertiliser linked directly to world population growth if that growth is based on "conventional" fertilisers. Conversely, if BHP invested in converting (brown) coal into humates, it could partly remedy the results of years of soil degradation.