Bijlage I Interviews

(1)

Category Company Contacts Function

1 Producers Shell Chemicals Arie Hoogenboom Base Chemical Strategy Manager

Rik Onrust Logistic Development Manager

2 Producers DSM Lea Chyla Contract Manager Marine Cargo

John Wijnen Contract Manager and Market Research

3 Producers Akzo Nobel Hans Buurman/ Rob Buitenhuis Transport Coordination

Rob Buitenhuis Base Chemicals

4 Producers Sabic Wessel Swart Manager sourcing and contracting

5 Producers Hexion Krien van Beek Logistics Manager Europe

6 Marine transporters Stolt Nielsen Jens Gruner Hegge

7 Marine transporters Odfjell Robert Hoevens Logistic Manager

Arne Ingebrigtsen Contact Manager

8 Marine transporters SCI Arun Gupta

9 Marine transporters Broereshipping Gert Jan Kaptein Chartering Manager

10 Others.. CDI Martin A. Whittle General Manager, Chemical Distribution Institue

11 Others.. VOPAK Sjoerd Bazen Team Leader Logistics Chemical

(2)

Bijlage II

Begeleidende brief en statements

Provide insight in the cooperation relations within the Chemical industry Background information

The research started with the assumption that when producers and logistic service providers would be able to improve cooperation, they probably can obtain improved results. The general question according to the research is then:

Investigate if there are any other/ improved forms of cooperation possible, between producers and logistic service providers within the chemical industry, which will lead to an extra value creation?

First, I have done market analysis that had to provide some insights in how the market is working at the moment. In this market analysis we have looked at the value chain, different parties,

important players and trends & developments.

As a result I have come to the following question: How can producers and marine transporters create additional value through an expansion in their cooperation? This new form of cooperation has to lead to a value creation for both parties as well to an addition for the whole market.

This interview must provide understanding in the present extent of cooperation and its possible improvements. The interview will consist of the next subjects:

• The present situation and structure

• Influence and the anticipated trends and developments

• Restriction to a cooperation

• Possible improvements

Statements

I want to start with a couple of statements. I would like to see to what extent you agree, on scale from 1 to 5, where “1” marks full disagreement and “5” full agreement and next to that what important level (high, medium, low) you will give to the statement.

1. The present level of cooperation presents optimum results

2. Within the cooperation we have to deal with a prisoners-dilemma (1)

3. The open market of supply and demand will lead to more transport providers resulting in lower transport costs

4. A more intensive and open cooperation can provide better insights in changes for marine transporters, so they can better manage their investments

5. Lease constructions on time-charter basis will lead to lower costs for both producers and marine transporters

6. Trends, like a shift of production and demand to Asia and the Middle East, will increase the cooperation between producers and chemical transporters

(3)

8. Law and regulations are driving an increased level of cooperation

9. Direct cooperation between producers and transporters becomes more difficult through horizontal collaborations between producers like EVO or EPCA

(1) The producers as well as the transporters have got a part of information to take optimal decisions. Furthermore they are not aware which part of the information the other party has. For this reason it is very difficult to make the optimal decisions and choices.

(4)

Bijlage II

Questions producers

Present structure

1. How do you currently organize the transport of your products?

2. What is the market for transport look like in terms of long vs. short and how will it evaluate in de next 10 years?

3. How do producers and marine transporters cooperate nowadays on a local, regionally, global level and which of these is the most important one?

4. On which parts and topics are you working together at the moment?

• Information/ Knowledge sharing (moving of activities, planning)

• Financial (mutual investments, loan / lease agreements)

• Health, safety, environment, regulations (forming a block to the authorities)

• Technology

• Standardization of production/ products

• Other areas

5. Are there joint-ventures set up that are focused on a cooperation between producers and transporters? And if so, what do the joint-ventures look like and how are they operating? Trends and developments

6. Which possible changes are going to have a large influence on the future market and cooperation? (Oil prices, bunker prices, political climate, geographical shifts of the trade, other company-structures (mergers and acquisitions), liquidation of the trade)

7. How do you prepare yourself for those changes and which plans have already been made for these preparations?

8. Are the expectations communicated to the marine transportations for better preparation en cooperation?

9. What kind of influence does it have on the relationship between producers and transporters? Possible restrictions

10. Are there any important restrictions by law or through regulations (environment/ safety restrictions, competition law)

11. Are there any internal reasons to limit an extension of cooperation (Confidentiality, financial)?

Discussion about possible improvements

12. What would be the ideal situation, according to you, and would an expansion of the cooperation be able to improve it?

13. Would this be an improvement in efficiency and effectiveness, and if so how (many)? In which part could this result in a value creation? And who will get the profit?

(5)

Bijlage III Questions marine transporters

Present structure

1. For how many producers are you operating in average and how do you get in contact with them?

2. What is the market for transport look like in terms of long vs. short and how will it evaluate in de next 10 years?

3. How do producers and marine transporters cooperate nowadays on a local, regionally, global level and which of these is the most important one?

4. On which parts and topics are you working together at the moment?

• Information/ Knowledge sharing (moving of activities, planning)

• Financial (mutual investments, loan / lease agreements)

• Health, safety, environment, regulations (forming a block to the authorities)

• Technique/ Technology

• Standardization of production/ products

• Other areas

5. Are there, for instance, some joint-ventures set-up that are focused on a cooperation between producers and navy carriers? And if so, what do the joint-ventures look like and how are they operating?

6. Based on what kind of information are the investment decisions made and on how are these financed?

Trends and developments

7. Which possible changes are going to have a large influence on the future of the market and cooperation? (Oil prices, bunker prices, political climate, geographical shifts of the trade, other company-structures (mergers and acquisitions), liquidation of the trade)

8. How do you prepare yourself for those changes and which plans have already been made for these preparations?

9. What kind of influence could this have on the relationship between producers and transporters?

Possible restrictions

10. Are large investments creating restrictions for the operating activities of the company? 11. What is the extent of dependence with ship building companies?

12. Are there any important restrictions by law or through regulations (environment/ safety restrictions, competition law)?

Discussion about possible improvements

(6)

14. What would be the ideal situation, according to you, and would an expansion of the cooperation be able to improve it?

15. Would this be an improvement in efficiency and effectiveness, and if so how (many)? In which part could this result in a value creation? And who will get the profit?

(7)

Bijlage IV SVA

Shareholder Value Analysis (Final version)

The producers and service providers within the chemical market Amsterdam, October

The three chosen peer groups are producers, distributors and marine transporters. Each peer group exists of a view companies. Because of the view listed distributors, this group only contains two companies. The companies are well picked for a descent comparison.

This SVA will give a financial look at the market which is divided into three peer groups. The three peer groups will be compared, to look for differences and similarities and the way they may influence each other.

Peer group Players

# Employees Turnover/ Annual Sales Market value Homeland

USD (bil) USD (bil)

Producers DOW 42,413 46.3 36.1 USA Lyondell 10,000 18.6 6.2 USA DuPont 60,000 28.5 37.2 USA Sumitomo 24,160 13.8 13.3 Japan Distributors Univar 6,690 6.0 1.0 Netherlands

Nagase & Company 3,504 5.7 1.5 Japan Marine Transporters (MT) Odfjell 3,296 1.0 9.0 Norway

Stolt Nielsen 4,900 1.6 1.7 Norway Broström 925 0.5 0.6 Sweden Shipping Corporation of India (SCI) 6,409 0.8 0.9 India

(8)

Agenda

Theoretical Framework

Total Returns to Shareholders and Future Value Expectations Shareholder Value Drivers

Value Creation Roadmap

Value of the discounted cash flows to shareholders or Economic Value Added (EVA) Spread Growth Cost of Capital ROIC Total Return to Shareholders (TRS) Increasing spread, the difference between ROIC and WACC, creates value M&A Organic

-Value Creation Magnifying positive spread by growing revenue also creates value

Value creation is a function of spread as well as growth. Therefore, companies need to improve on both measures to improve shareholder return.

•All analyses are based on publicly available information

•For all companies the information is extracted from Accenture Analysis or downloaded from S&P

•All currencies are in $ (bln)

•Goodwill is incorporated, unless otherwise stated

•To improve comparability, currencies have been exchanged to USD

(9)

Agenda

Theoretical Framework

Total Returns to Shareholders and Future Value Expectations

Shareholder Value Drivers

Total Return to Shareholders (TRS *)

June 01 – June 06

Over the last three years the marine transporters and the distributors are growing steadily, where producers have a constant small increase. As from June 2005 the growth for marine transporters stagnates, followed by a small declining for all peers.

Notes:

1 Represents the ending value of initial investment of $ 1 in a company (for example: $ 1 invested in a company on June 30, 2005 would be worth $ 1.55 on June 30, 2006) Source: S&P 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 Jun -01 Oct -01 Feb -02 Jun -02 Oct -02 Feb -03 Jun -03 Oct -03 Feb -04 Jun -04 Oct -04 Feb -05 Jun -05 Oct -05 Feb -06 Jun -06 T R S M o n th ly V a lu e ( %) Producers Distributors Marine Transporters

(10)

© 2006 Accenture. All rights reserved. 7 Lyondell Du Pont Sumitomo Producers Nagase & Co Odfjell Brostrom SCI Univar Distributors Stolt-Nielsen Marine Transporters DOW Producers excl. Sumitomo 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 1 Year TRS (CAGR) 3 Y e a r T R S ( C A G R)

Industry 1 and 3 Year Total Returns to Shareholders

The TRS for producers have remained pretty constant, while the TRS for marine transporters have approximately become 15 times smaller.

Notes:

1 Total shareholder return includes stock appreciation (with splits) plus dividends 2 Univar NV is not included because of its IPO in 2003

Lyondell Du Pont Sumitomo Producers Nagase & Co Odfjell Brostrom Stolt-Nielsen SCI DOW Marine Transportation 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Industry 3 and 5 Year Total Returns to Shareholders

The movement of companies are relatively grouped. The producers improve slightly, while the MT have got a good structural performance.

Notes:

1 Total shareholder return includes stock appreciation (with splits) plus dividends 2 Univar NV is not included because of its IPO in 2003

Producers Marine Transportation 5 Y e a r T RS 3 Year TRS

(11)

Investors have been enthusiastic about distributors and Marine Transporters companies during the past year. The producers ensures more certainty. Total Return to Shareholders – Different peer groups over the last 3 years

§ Producers have remained relatively constant in their TRS § The TRS for the service providers is declining for all the years § Distributors are performing extraordinarily better then the other groups, but have a strong deterioration in TRS .

Producers Distributors Marine Transporters

Notes:

1 TRS on basis of Compounded Annual Growth Rate 2 Univar NV just get listed in 2003

Source: S&P -5% 34% 17% 32% 44% 14% 46% 56% 19% - 10 . 0 0 % 0 . 0 0 % 10 . 0 0 % 2 0 . 0 0 % 3 0 . 0 0 % 4 0 . 0 0 % 50 . 0 0 % 6 0 . 0 0 % Y ear - 1 C A G R Y ear - 2 C A G R Y ear - 3 C A G R

Total Return to Shareholder- Different peer groups over the last 3 years

Investors have been enthusiastic about distributors and Marine Transporters companies during the past year. The producers ensures more certainty.

-5% 27% 2% 58% 63% 23% 65% 78% 21% -10% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% Ye ar 1 Ye ar 2 Ye ar 3 Producers Distributors Marine Transporters

§ Producers have remained relatively constant in their TRS § The TRS for the service providers is declining for all the years § Distributors are performing extraordinarily better then the other groups, but have a strong deterioration in TRS.

§Marine Transporters have gat a negative growth of TRS in the last year.

Notes:

1 TRS on basis of Compounded Annual Growth Rate 2 Univar NV just get listed in 2003

(12)

There has been a decrease in the premium that investors are willing to place on producers’ invested capital. Distributors and marine transporters have realized higher enterprise value with the same investments.

E n te rp ri s e V a lu e / I n v es te d C a p it a l R a tio Invested Capital ($ Bln) Producers Distributors Marine Transporters $2 B $1 B $32 B $30 B $28 B $24 B $26 B

Strategic Control Map

2003 -2005

Invested Capital Vs. Enterprise Value/Invested Capital Ratio

77% 23% 125% -25% 85% 15% 51% 49% 46% 54% 95% 5% 104% -4% 86% 14% 73% 27% 83% 17% 81% 19% 75% 25% 53% 47% Du Pont DOW Lyondell Sumitomo Producers Univar Nagase Distributors Bros Stolt Odfjell SCI Marine Transporters

The producers have the best performance over the past 3 years followed closely by the marine transporters. The average of marine transporters is strongly influenced by SCI. Investors have only a very small expectation in the distributors. Future value Current value A v e ra g e 3 Y e ar

(13)

Producers

Current/ Future Value Split 2002 - 2006

From 2003, the market expectations have been declining. In 2004, the Enterprise Value had its top and is sloping down towards 2006.

E n te rp ri s e V a lu e ( $ B ln ) 83.73% 80.92% 54.03% 34.48% 59.48% 16.27% 19.09% 65.53% 40.52% 45.97% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 6/31/2006 12/2005 12/2004 12/2003 12/2002 $15.0 $17.5 $20.0 $22.5 $25.0 $27.5 $30.0 $32.5 $35.0 $37.5 $40.0

Curre nt Value Future V alue M arke t Capitalization in USD Ente rpris e Value in USD

The market is optimistic which has a positive result for the future. Market Cap. and Enterprise Value is rising, resulting in a positive FV.

18.00% -1.53% 82.01% 101.53% 102.50% -2.50% -10% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% 110% 6/31/2006 12/2005 12/2004 12/2003 12/2002 $0.0 $0.5 $1.0 $1.5 $2.0 $2.5

Current Value Future Value Market Capitalization in USD Enterprise Value in USD

E n te rp ri se V a lu e ( $ B ln ) *Note:

1 The years 2002-2003 are not available because Univar was not listed till 2004

Distributors

Current/ Future Value Split 2002 – Current

(14)

Marine Transportation Current/ Future Value Split 2002 – Current

The FV decreases year by year and the Market Cap. & EV are doing it less and less, concerning the last year.

E n te rp ri s e V a lu e ( $ B ) 16.31% 21.60% 30.76% 47.11% 83.69% 78.40% 67.86% 69.25% 52.89% 32.14% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 6/31/2006 12/2005 12/2004 12/2003 12/2002 $0.0 $0.5 $1.0 $1.5 $2.0 $2.5

Current Value Future Value Market Capitalization in USD Enterprise Value in USD

Agenda

Theoretical Framework

Total Returns to Shareholders and Future Value Expectations

(15)

© 2006 Accenture. All rights reserved. 17 D O W D u Po n t P r o d u c e r s U n iv a r N a g a s e D i s t r ib u t o r s O d f je ll B r o s S t o lt S C I M a r i n e T r a n s p o r t e r s S u m it o m o P r o d u c e r s e x c l. L y o n d e ll - 2 0 % - 1 0 % 0 % 1 0 % 2 0 % 3 0 % - 5 % 0 % 5 % 1 0 % 1 5 % 2 0 % 2 5 %

Spread & Growth; 3 Year Average

Over the last three years the producers are outperforming the other peers

3 Year Average Spread w/ NGW

3 Y e a r A ve ra g e R eve n u e G ro w th C A GR Notes: 1 Outlyers:

- Lyondell achieved a record full-year net income of $531 million, a $477 million improvement compared with 2004 net income because of a acquisition (-0.99%, 78, 67%) - SCI, NOPLAT is higher because of the rise of Revenues and the decreasing in COGS

- Stolt Nielsen is lying some heavy pressure on the whole MT group

Spread vs. Growth

'05 '04 '03 '05 '04 '03 '05 '04 '03 -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% -1% 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9%

Spread & Growth (2)

Trend in Spread vs. Growth

Spread w/ Goodwill (End of Year Spread)

R eve nu e G ro w th ( Y ea r o ve r Y ea r) Producers Distributors Marine Transporters

(16)

Data show that marine transportation is outperforming its peer groups. This appears to be caused by an exponential grow in as well capital utilization as operating margin ROIC Breakdown 2003-2005 22% 8% 5% 9% 7% 6% 9% 6% 4% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Year 2005 Year 2004 Year 2003 18% 15% 9% 3% 3% 2% 8% 6% 4% 0% 4% 8% 12% 16% 20% Year 2005 Year 2004 Year 2003 Return on invested capital (ROIC)

Operating margin (EBITA/Revenue) Capital Utilization (Revenue/Invested Capital) Producers Distributors Marine Transporters 116% 82% 76% 464% 450% 451% 151% 126% 125% 0% 100% 200% 300% 400% 500% Year 2005 Year 2004 Year 2003

'05 '04 '03 '05 '05 '04 '03 '04 '03 -0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 - 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20

Drivers of Pre-Tax ROIC 12/2003 –12/2005

Distributors sustain their position over the years, while producers and marine transporters are improving their operating margins and capital efficiency

EBITA/ Revenue R e v e n u e / In v e s te d C a pi ta l Producers Distributors Marine Transporters

(17)

Year 2005 Year 2004 Year 2003

The out performance in operating margin by marine transporters is because of a decreasing in COGS/ Revenue. Despite the fact of the increasing in SG&A/ Revenue in the last year.

18% 15% 9% 3% 3% 2% 8% 6% 4% 0% 4% 8% 12% 16% 20% Yea r 2005 Yea r 2004 Yea r 2003 74% 87% 76% 86% 77% 93% 54% 72% 78% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Year 2005 Year 2004 Year 2003

11% 12% 12% 9% 10% 4% 20% 5% 5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Year 2005 Year 2004 Year 2003

COGS/ Revenue SG&A/ Revenue Depreciation/ Revenue Producers Distributors Marine Transporters 1-sum of Operating margin (EBITA/Revenue)

Operating Margin Breakdown

2003-2005

15% _14% 19% 15% 16% 14% 4% 6% 2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20% Y e a r 2 0 0 5 Y e a r 2 0 0 4 Y e a r 2 0 0 3 35% 48% 4 8% 104% 121% 127% 7% 7% 6% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140%

Year 2005 Year 2004 Year 2003

-3% -6% -8% -2% -3% -1% -3% 0% 0% -9% -8% -7% -6% -5% -4% -3% -2% -1% 0% Ye a r 2 0 0 5 Ye a r 2 0 0 4 Ye a r 2 0 0 3 7% 11% 12% 3% 3% 3% 2% 1% 1% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% Year 2005 Ye ar 2004 Year 2003

Capital utilization still shows some growth possibilities for

producers and marine transporters. Distributors run out of growth space.

116% 82% 76% 464% 450% 451% 151% 126% 125% 0% 100% 200% 300% 400% 500% Year 2005 Year 2004 Year 2003

Net PPE / Revenues

Net Other assets / Revenues

Goodwill / Revenues Capital Utilization

(Revenue/Invested Capital)

Operating Working Capital / Revenues

Producers Distributors Marine Transporters

1/sum of

Capital Utilization Breakdown