Analysis
Search Cement News
Roadblocks remain in the US?
Written by David Perilli, Global Cement
14 March 2018
The latest data from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) shows that cement shipments rose by 2.4% year-on-year to 95.5Mt in 2017. Readers with elephantine memories may remember that the Portland Cement Association (PCA) revised its forecast for 2017 down to 3.1% from 4.2% in a release made in late 2016. Shipments and consumption are different metrics but the PCA was heading in the right direction. Unfortunately, however ebullient the PCA’s chief economist Ed Sullivan was at the IEEE-PCA in 2017 about growth in the US in 2018 and 2019, the necessary rise required seems quite steep. President Donald Trump may have handed the major cement producers a tax break but until his infrastructure spending materializes the US construction industry is on its own.
Graph 1: Clinker production in the US, 2013 – 2017. Source: USGS.
Viewing the US as a whole is a little unfair given its wide regional variation. As can be seen in Graph 1 clinker production jumped up from 2013 to a high of 76.5Mt in 2015 before taking a dip in 2016 and then rising again to 76.9Mt in 2017. Cement shipments of Ordinary Portland and blended cement show a similar trend over the same timescale except without the decrease in 2016. Interestingly, imports of cement and clinker rose by 18% to 13.6Mt in that year. The major exporters to the US were Canada, Greece, China and Turkey, in that order.
Graph 2: Cement and clinker imported for consumption to the US in 2017 by country. Source: USGS.
From a producer perspective LafargeHolcim described 2017 as a ‘disappointing’ year, with overall net sales down slightly on a like-for-like basis. The group remained optimistic for 2018 though, with its hopes pinned on rising employment and housing construction. HeidelbergCement rode high on its acquisition of Italcementi’s local subsidiary Essroc, which enabled it to grow its business in the northeast and midwest. Its cement sales volumes rose by 2.3% to 4.1Mt. CRH noted similar cement sales volume growth of 3% and attributed this to stronger demand. Its business also benefited from the acquisition of Suwannee American Cement with its 1Mt/yr cement plant in Florida. Further growth to its production base is also expected soon as it completes its acquisition of Ash Grove Cement.
By contrast Buzzi Unicem reported a tougher year with its net sales barely increasing from 2016 to 2017. It blamed a tough first half of the year for this as well as weather-related issues due to Hurricane Harvey and then snow in December 2017. Cemex too reported harder conditions in the US, with cement sales volumes down by 6% for the year. Although on a like-for-like basis with plant sales excluded it reported this as a rise of 2%. Again, it blamed the weather but it did note an increase in residential housing construction as the year progressed.
In this kind of mixed environment for cement producers no wonder the PCA backed or, perhaps more accurately, reminded the President of his pledge to spend US$1.5tn to be invested in infrastructure. As per usual the PCA forecasts fair weather ahead for the US industry once the latest roadblock is overcome. At the last assessment it was inflationary pressure. As ever the government opening its cheque book to build things is exactly what the industry needs to build on its promise. Until then expect more of the same. One more thing to consider though is that the Trump administration is also trying to change the ratio of federal-to-state funding for cross-state infrastructure projects. If the states end up having to pay more money for these kinds of projects these may end up running out of funds, delaying or cancelling them. Counting on that infrastructure spend may be unwise until if or when the cement orders come piling in.
2017 for the cement multinationals
Written by David Perilli, Global Cement
07 March 2018
HeidelbergCement’s acquisition of Italcementi really sticks out in a comparison of the major multinational cement producers in 2017. Both its sales revenue and cement sales volumes jumped up by more than 10% year-on-year from 2016 to 2017. It still puts HeidelbergCement behind LafargeHolcim and CRH in revenue terms but the gap is shortening. Although, as we reported at the time of its preliminary results in late February 2018, on a like-for-like basis its sales and volumes only rose by 2.1% and 1.1% respectively.
Graph 1: Sales revenue from multinational cement producers in 2016 and 2017 (Euro billions). Source: Company financial reports.
The European markets may be back on their feet but serious growth came from mergers and acquisitions. Along the same lines, India’s UltraTech Cement is set to reap the reward of its US$2.5bn acquisition of six integrated cement plants and five grinding plants from Jaiprakash Associates in mid-2017. Although as can be seen in graphs 1 and 2 it had been doing fairly well even before this.
Graph 2: Cement sales volumes from multinational cement producers in 2016 and 2017 (Mt). Source: Company financial reports.
We’ve included Ireland’s CRH this year to present the scale of the company. When it says that it is the world’s biggest building materials company, it means it! CRH doesn’t publish its cement sales volumes, which makes it hard to compare it to other cement producers. In part this may be due to the company’s regional-focused structure and its approach to the construction industry. In Global Cement Magazine’s Top 100 Report 2017 – 2018 feature, CRH was placed as the seventh largest cement producer by installed capacity with 50.5Mt/yr. The major story with CRH in recent years has been its steady stream of acquisitions, notably Ash Grove Cement in the US in 2017.
LafargeHolcim may remain the biggest cement producer in the world outside of China but it made an income loss of Euro1.46bn in 2017. At face value its cement sales volumes fell by 10.2% to 210Mt in 2017 from 233Mt in 2016 but this was mainly due to divestments in China, Vietnam and Chile. On a like-for-for-like basis its volumes rose by 3.3%. To this kind of mood music the emphasis on the release of its 2017 results this week was the announcement of a five-year plan to refocus the company. However, reports of overcapacity in Algeria that also emerged this week suggest the group may have its work cut out.
Cemex described 2017 as a ‘challenging year’ as its operating earnings fell due to a lower contribution from the US and South America despite growth in Mexico and Europe. Hurricanes in Florida had a negative impact in the US and the Colombian market suffered from falling production in 2017. UltraTech Cement uses a different financial year to the other companies detailed here, which makes comparisons a little harder. However, its profit after tax fell in the third quarter that ended on 31 December 2017 due to rising costs of petcoke and coal. Undeterred though, its expansion drive continues this week with its continued efforts to try and win the bid for Binani Cement. Vicat, meanwhile, reported falling earnings in part due to the poor market in Egypt. Yet overall its sales and volumes rose in 2017 aided by recovery in France. Finally, Buzzi Unicem rode out the Italian market with its acquisition of Zillo Group delivering a rise in sales and cement volumes.
Wider trends are hard to call given the differing geographical spreads of these cement producers. Europe has been recovering from a decade of stagnation and Asian markets are no longer reliable. South America is mixed with places like Brazil, and now Colombia, underperforming. Yet Argentina is proving one of the fastest growing construction markets at the moment with local plants unable to meet demand. Africa remains profitable and promising as ever but divided between the north and the Sub-Saharan region.
Once the effects from mergers and acquisition activity by the larger cement producers start to fade then the actual situation may become clearer. In the meantime, the effects of the recent cold snap in Europe on the first quarter results for 2018 could be pretty varied. The Financial Times newspaper, for example, quoted one pundit from the Construction Products Association who estimated the industry lost 1% of its annual output to the bad weather in the UK. This may not be great news for any company relying on the European market.
Cement and taxes
Written by David Perilli, Global Cement
28 February 2018
The old saying goes that nothing is certain except for death and taxes. But maybe that should be cement and taxes. Paying your taxes is something most people and companies just get on with, perhaps with some grumbling or perhaps not, but certainly with little press. So two news stories popping up in the same week about cement plants with tax issues is out of the ordinary.
The first concerned Lucky Cement’s battle in Pakistan to keep one of its plants open following accusations of underpaying its taxes. The local tax office tried to shut the Pezu plant down for not paying its property tax. The cement producer hit back with a restraining order from the provincial high court. The second detailed efforts by the Ethiopian authorities efforts to claw back US$10m from a local cement producer accused of deliberately understating its profits. In both cases it’s hard to tell if there is an obvious right or wrong party. Yet if these kinds of stories are hitting the local press headlines then either something has gone wrong or both parties are digging in for a fight.
Looking over a longer time frame two major stories about tax have been doing the rounds over the last year in the industry news. India’s Goods and Services Tax (GST) is a classic example of how cement producers sometimes have to deal with changes to existing regulations. It received another outing this week in the form of the credit agency ICRA’s latest forecast. It explained how the introduction of the new tax, a consolidation of other existing indirect taxes, had slowed production in the second quarter of the Indian financial year in 2017 - 2018.
The other example from a large cement producing country was US President Donald Trump’s cut to federal corporate tax in December 2017. The tax cut was expected to particularly benefit companies that produce materials, like building materials manufacturers. It prompted HeidelbergCement to say in early January 2018 that it expected to see a boost to its profits in 2019. Warren Buffet, the chairman of Berkshire Hathaway and owner of insulation producer Johns Manville amongst other companies, put it bluntly when he said in his 2017 annual report that nearly half the gain of his company’s net worth came from the changes to the US tax system.
Multinational companies, including some cement producers, face issues when dealing with different rules and regulations between the various countries that they operate in. However, sometimes unfairly, sometimes not, large companies also hold a reputation for trying to avoid paying tax.
In this context it’s interesting to look at how LafargeHolcim says it approaches the issue. The company published its tax principles in 2016 where it talks about being responsible and that it, “…accepts tax as a necessary and required contribution to society.” It then talks about the necessity of transparency and good relationships with tax authorities. The same year it declared a total tax bill of Euro726m versus total sales revenue of Euro23bn. By contrast Cemex UK in its tax strategy talks about how it follows the US Sarbanes Oxley Act 2002, which applies a more stringent international accounting and auditing standard. It feels far more honest when it says that it aims to minimise the tax burden upon its shareholders by using methods outlined by the UK government. Taxes may be a certainty but nobody wants to pay a penny more in taxes than they have to.
Nothing says I love you like a white cement plant
Written by David Perilli, Global Cement
21 February 2018
HeidelbergCement made Italy’s Cementir Holding its Valentine last week in the form of a deal for the Italian company to buy up the remaining shares in Lehigh White Cement in the US. Cementir takes control of the former joint venture by upping its share to 63.25% for US$107m and one of the other partners, Cemex, increases its share to 36.75% for US$34m. Despite making the announcement on Valentine’s Day HeidelbergCement then described the sale in fairly unromantic language, “As a niche product with small volumes, the standalone production of white cement does not fit to the strategic focus on efficiency of HeidelbergCement.” Maybe they could just send flowers to each other next year instead!
More seriously, this latest deal by Cementir is yet another intriguing evolution of the Italian multinational building materials producer. The company says it is the largest white cement producer in the world through subsidiaries like Aalborg Portland in Demark, Sinai White Cement in Egypt and Lehigh White Cement in the US. Its plant at El-Arish in Egypt is the largest white cement unit in the world. In 2016 it reported a white cement production capacity of 3.3Mt/yr from six plants in Denmark, Egypt, China, Malaysia and the US. Its volume sales of white cement were 2.2Mt at this time or a capacity utilisation rate of 67%. In the US it operates two white cement plants located in Waco, Texas and York, Pennsylvania with a total capacity of 0.26Mt/yr, as well as a distribution network throughout the country, which is also used to distribute white cement imported from its partners across North America. In 2017 Cementir produced 10.3Mt of Ordinary Portland (grey) Cement and white cement, a rise of 24.6% year-on-year from 8.25Mt in 2016. The boost was delivered by the acquisition of Compagnie des Ciments Belges. Like-for-like sales volumes increased by around 1.7% year-on-year.
Cementir left the Italian market in 2017 when it sold Cementir Italia to HeidelbergCement for Euro315m. As this column commented as the time (GCW320) the deal seemed cheap given that HeidelbergCement paid Euro315m for five integrated cement plants plus extras. However, Cementir appeared to actually make a profit on Sacci which it picked up cheaply in 2016.
Now HeidelbergCement has returned the favour by selling Cementir the controlling stake in Lehigh White Cement. The German cement producer may have grumpily rubbished the sale in its press release but the language makes one wonder whether this was a quiet part of the Cementir Italia deal in 2017. The white cement industry is miniscule compared to the OPC one but HeidelbergCement has just handed even more control of it to Cementir. From Cementir’s perspective this probably seems very efficient.
Innovations in industrial carbon capture
Written by David Perilli, Global Cement
14 February 2018
Lhoist’s Jean Marbehant pretty much summed up the bind the cement and lime industries face from the tightening COP21 climate agreement when he said, “We produce CO2… and our by-product is lime.” He made the comment at a ground breaking event that HeidelbergCement hosted this week for a new carbon capture pilot project at the CBR Lixhe cement plant in Belgium. The project with the Low Emissions Intensity Lime And Cement (LEILAC) Consortium will test Australian company Calix’s direct CO2 separation process at an operational cement plant for two years at a pilot level scale.
Previously the technology has been used by Calix in the magnesite calcining sector in Australia. Now it will be trialled at 10t/hr of raw material for cement production and 8t/hr of ground limestone in a 60m tall direct separation reactor that is about to be built next to the cement plant’s pre-heater tower. The process has a target to capture up to 95% of process CO2 emissions. Construction is scheduled to be completed in 2018 and then followed by two years of operation and testing until the end of 2020. At this point the Euro12m funding ends but the next steps, if agreed, would be to test the process at a commercial scale for lime production and a large scale demonstration at a cement plant by 2025. Full scale commercial application at a cement plant would then happen by 2030.
The Innovation in Industrial Carbon Capture Conference was built around the various carbon capture initiatives that HeidelbergCement is involved with. The other big pilot is the oxyfuel project it is running with LafargeHolcim and the European Cement Research Academy (ECRA). As ECRA’s Volker Hoenig explained, this project is now set to move to the pilot scale at two cement plants in 2020 at a cost of Euro90m. The plants, in Italy and Austria, have been chosen so that the testing can start at a ‘simple’ plant and then move to a more complicated one. The former site, Colleferro, has a spare unused kiln that doesn’t use alternative fuels, making the testing less complicated. The latter, Retznei, does co-process alternative fuels and it also has a kiln bypass system. It’s also worth noting that Calix’s direct separation process is intended to be compatible with an oxyfuel kiln. Other technologies were also previewed at the conference such as the Cleanker calcium looping project, the CO2MIN mineral carbonation project, the Carbon8 process to make aggregates from flue gas and HeidelbergCement’s experiences with growing microalgae.
The event to mark the start of the pilot was an optimistic one but the cement and lime producers like Jean Marbehant have no illusions about the cliff face-steep challenge that meeting the CO2 emissions reduction targets the Paris agreement potentially demands. One slide Marbehant discussed in his presentation placed the CO2 marginal abatement cost for carbon capture at Euro90/t. However, since the European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) currently places the cost of CO2 at Euro9/t the real question about the future of carbon capture is about who is going to pay the bill. Albert Scheuer, a board member of HeidelbergCement, made it clear how his company thinks the cost should be divided when he said that its end product was concrete and he explained just how much cement and concrete everyone uses in their lifespan. He may not have said that we all need to pay but he certainly made it feel that way. The future of carbon capture it seems may be a bit like a group of friends awkwardly deciding how to split the bill after a meal.
One speaker at the LEILAC event used the phrase ‘no silver bullet’ to describe how industrial CO2 emissions could be cut and how Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) might be used. Perhaps more tellingly though has been the emergence of a new acronym that seems to be doing the rounds at the European Parliament, of ‘Carbon Capture and Something.’ That ‘something’ here is of critical importance as it can either put up or decrease the price that CCS will add to cement production. So, whilst moving to Carbon Capture and Something might suggest that legislators are starting to get realistic about what carbon capture might actually be able to do, it might also indicate a naïve lack of understanding of how hard cutting CO2 emissions is from essential industries that produce CO2 from their core process.
The challenge for cement producers in this kind of environment is deciding how far they should go towards exploring CO2 reduction strategies whilst governments are not being precise about how they intend to meet their targets. Going first might bring an innovator advantages if the legislation toughens up, but the early cost is high. HeidelbergCement and others are definitely doing ‘something’ but commercial applications are at least a decade away at current funding levels. And that timescale doesn’t include rolling out the new technologies across the entire industry. Despite this it was reassuring to hear the director of the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Climate Action say that his outfit didn’t want to reduce cement production, only CO2 emissions. This was ‘something’ cement producers want to hear.