Except for sporadic fluctuations, most urea manufacturers have seen their prices rise and rise again recently, with small but firm attitudes. Due to the gradual receipt of advance orders during the annual leave period, some market participants believe that although the business is about to press the pause button, whether it is paving the way or seeking revenge, urea manufacturers may continue to raise prices.

The hottest topic in the entire fertilizer industry is often urea, and in the professional and non professional circles of fertilizer analysis, the most people talk about urea. However, in the past two years, urea has been somewhat "mysterious". It used to be so popular for some unknown reason, but now it's falling and suddenly reversing. Of course, the answer is definitely in the midst of various opinions, but no one can fully convince anyone.

Is it true that the grassroots are satisfied with the price of urea? Or is it the export essay that exudes divine power again? Actually, I don't think it's that complicated. Maybe it's just oversold and there's a rational correction. As someone in the potassium fertilizer industry, I have a slightly different and immature view on the statement that once prices rise, exports are temporarily unnecessary.

Firstly, the cold winter in terms of fertilizer prices seems to be coming to an end, and the process of winter storage and reserve is relatively slow. Although spring fertilizer supply is not possible, it is likely to be tight. Therefore, the low price at the source still needs to be guaranteed in order to be transmitted to the grassroots level. Otherwise, ensuring supply and stabilizing prices will lose its true meaning. If we completely open up exports at this time, whether it's nitrogen, phosphorus, or potassium, considering the price difference between domestic and international markets and years of experience and lessons learned, this is indeed not something we need to think about or should not think about.

Secondly, not storing is not feasible, so storing can actually result in losses, even if it is entirely due to one's own operational errors. One should consider their interests appropriately, not to mention factories that need to maintain supply and stable prices even if they are losing money. Otherwise, if this continues, it will only make winter storage increasingly difficult, thereby threatening food security. Therefore, policy intervention is sometimes necessary. It is not what many people say "the market economy should completely let the market the final say", but what is more necessary is to plan ahead and think carefully, and adjust flexibly and keep pace with the times.

Therefore, it is still possible to consider exporting. The huge price difference between domestic and international urea, the significant surplus pressure and loss in China, and the moderate export should have been a good medicine. For example, one can learn about the quota system for ammonium phosphate (but with a detailed understanding of the quantity, timeliness, qualifications, etc. that are in line with the urea market), or simply let Sinochem and Zhongnong temporarily serve as export coordination units.

Recently, potassium chloride has increased significantly, but the key is the tight supply of available goods. Even though high priced transactions are not strong, it is difficult to find some low-priced goods. Moreover, many industries currently believe that the price of potassium fertilizer may rise like a frog boiling in warm water in the later stage. If urea exports make money and then subsidize potassium fertilizer imports, or increase import quantities, or subsidize sales prices, then on the one hand, the survival of urea enterprises is guaranteed to a certain extent, and advanced technology sources can be prioritized in the selection of export sources, which helps promote industrial upgrading. On the other hand, it helps to ensure the supply of potassium fertilizer, which relies solely on imports, and even optimize the price mechanism.

Although the impact may be limited and difficult to sustain, it is a win-win situation with little by little subsidies. Why not take action? The author has always been a bit naive and may not have thought it through, but I hope to at least inspire more ideas for relevant departments and industry colleagues to work together to ensure the supply and price stability of the fertilizer industry and national food security.