Analysis
Search Cement News
Q3 multinational cement producer roundup
Written by David Perilli, Global Cement
08 November 2017
The third quarter financial results for HeidelbergCement are out today. They aren’t perfect but the company is hanging in there following its acquisition of Italcementi in late 2016. As one would expect both cement sales volumes and sales revenue are up on a double-digit basis. After all, HeidelbergCement has absorbed a major competitor, including assets, staff, cement plants and all. Its volumes and revenue have improved, more importantly though, on a like-for-like basis, even if it is modest. With the US and Europe driving sales the cement producer has time to make its promised synergies following the Italian acquisition and hopefully wait out recovery in places like Indonesia and Egypt.
Graph 1: Cement sales volumes for selected multinational cement producers during the first nine months of 2017. Source: Company financial reports.
That growth on a like-for-like basis is crucial compared to HeidelbergCement’s big rival, the world’s biggest cement producer, LafargeHolcim. As Graph 1 shows sales volumes data for the major multinational cement producers shows quite a varied picture. LafargeHolcim’s sales volumes have fallen by 12% year-on-year to 156Mt but the company has also been reducing its production capacity. Despite this, a rough calculation of its production utilisation rate suggests that it is selling less cement proportionally, although the company’s like-for-like figures disagree, positing a rise of 1.8%. Cemex’s sales volumes declined slightly to 51.3Mt. The larger regional companies show interesting trends. UltraTech Cement has managed to increase its sales volumes by 5% to 40.4Mt overcoming a poor third quarter in 2016. What to watch here will be whether this will be enough to overcome the effects of demonetisation that rocked India’s economy in late 2016.
Graph 2: Sales revenue for selected multinational cement producers during the first nine months of 2017. Source: Company financial reports.
The stronger regional positions of those last two companies really hits home when sales revenue is examined. As can be seen in Graph 2 both UltraTech Cement and Dangote Cement are growing their sales revenue, the latter despite dropping sales volumes. UltraTech Cement is suffering from falling profits due to rising fuel costs and it may yet suffer from ‘corporate indigestion’ as it digests its acquisition of 21.2Mt/yr cement production capacity from Jaiprakash Associates that took place in June 2017. Dangote Cement seems to have increased its earnings and profits despite problems at home in Nigeria by improving its fuel mix. Yet, flirtations with South Africa’s PPC aside, its expansion plans remain in a holding position. Dangote Cement presents another fascinating situation. Its overall sales volumes have fallen but this reflects a failing market at home in Nigeria and doesn’t show the company’s booming sales in the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa.
Results from CRH and the Brazilian companies Votorantim and InterCement will further flesh out the situation when they are released. Yet, the difference between worldwide producers and regional producers seems to be clear. The likes of LafargeHolcim and Cemex with a global presence are generally battling stagnation in the cement markets overall with a couple of key markets holding them back. Meanwhile, larger regional producers in the right locations are growing. However, the absence of the Brazilian producers is critical here as their experience of the floundering market in Brazil is very different to that of, say, UltraTech Cement’s in India. Looking ahead, the next quarter will be particularly interesting to see how demonetisation skewed UltraTech Cement’s performance, to start to see the first results from HeidelbergCement a year after its purchase of Italcementi and how well LafargeHolcim’s new chief is doing.
Jenisch hits the reboot button at LafargeHolcim
Written by David Perilli, Global Cement
01 November 2017
Lots to mull over in LafargeHolcim’s third quarter results this week. Not least that the new guy is now in charge. Former Sika boss Jan Jenisch took over officially in September 2017. In his first financial statement, he said that the results did not represent the company’s ‘full potential.’ He then said that he had hit the reboot button to reset the group’s expectations to reflect the current market.
The group’s forecast for cement demand globally remains at an increase by 1 – 3% on average for 2017. This is no change from LafargeHolcim’s forecast in mid-2017. What has changed though is the anticipated growth in operating earnings in 2017 revised down to 5 – 7% year-on-year from 10% or higher. Expected measures of earnings per share and leverage have also been reduced. Underpinning this is a change to some of the volume and pricing assumptions for 2018. The group also said it was conducting a business review, including country strategies and a focus on simplification, cost discipline and performance management.
As any IT manager will tell you, when you have a problem with a computer you reboot the machine in the first instance as an easy fix. Jenisch’s version of this strategy will hopefully buy him some time to try and take charge of the company.
Previous chief executive officer (CEO) Eric Olsen was doing similar things since the formation of LafargeHolcim in 2015 to downsize the company into profitability whilst coping with too much cement production capacity worldwide. However, the on going Syria legal investigation forced the company to publicly accept some level of wrongdoing and it cost Olsen his job despite him having zero involvement or even knowledge of the affair. Meanwhile, rumours of continued boardroom clashes between major shareholders that have existed since even before the formation of the company resurfaced with the announcement in mid-October 2017 that chief financial officer (CFO) Ron Wirahadiraksa was leaving after less than two years in the role. As this column noted in May 2017 Jenisch might be exactly the right man for this particular job given his battles at Sika with that company’s controlling family’s wish to sell its stake and majority voting rights to Saint-Gobain.
Moving on, the group’s cement market outlook makes for sobering reading with growth above 2% only expected for Latin America and Asia Pacific regions in 2017. Even North America, the great white hope of cement industry growth in recent years, only has a forecast of 0 - 2%. Actual cement sales volumes in this region fell by 1.6% to 5.9Mt on a like-for-like basis so far in 2017 due to hurricanes and other bad weather events, with ‘cautious’ private and public investment giving an effect too. Incidentally, the Portland Cement Association (PCA) downgraded its assessment of US growth this week too in its latest forecast. Worse still the Middle East Africa region is expected to drop by 2 – 4% due to poor economies in various local markets, notably in Algeria and Egypt. All of this pretty much fits the like-for-like growth of cement sales of 1.8% to 156Mt in the first nine months of 2017 that LafargeHolcim has reported. The surprise though is that Latin America is growing despite on-going problems in Brazil.
This then leaves the surprise message on the same day as the third quarter results release that LafargeHolcim is in talks with the board of South Africa’s PPC. Buying a major African cement producer like PPC doesn’t quite sit with the image of a company whittling itself down into profitability. Instead, it gives the impression that LafargeHolcim wants to dominate the African market ahead of the anticipated demographic cement consumption wave. PPC for its part, after flirtations with other bidders such as Dangote Cement, may simply be trying to raise its price in a bidding war.
Boardroom battles, sluggish global cement consumption, the Syrian legal probe, potential expansion plans in Sub-Saharan Africa and efficiency drives. And these are just the issues we know about! Jan Jenisch has a lot on his plate whatever happens next. Let’s just hope that when the reboot process finishes he doesn’t find himself looking at the construction company version of the ‘blue screen of death.’
Update on Saudi Arabia
Written by David Perilli, Global Cement
25 October 2017
Arabian Cement Company had some choice words for a contractor this week when it blamed it in a bourse statement for a delay for a new mill at its Rabigh plant. The project has been pushed back to the third quarter of 2018 from the fourth quarter of 2017. The second phase of the plan, to build a new clinker production line, has also been placed under review.
The contractor may have given Arabian Cement an excuse to put a question mark over its new line, but the market reality has been stark. Also this week, Saudi Cement Company reported that its net profit had fallen by 51.5% year-on-year, to US$92.3m in the first nine months of 2017 compared to US$190.4m in the previous period. It blamed falling sales.
Graph 1: Cement sales (Mt) by quarter in Saudi Arabia, 2015 to September 2017. Source: Yamama Cement.
As Graph 1 shows, cement sales volumes in Saudi Arabia have been dropping since 2015. Sales fell by 5.3% year-on-year to 10.5Mt in the third quarter of 2017 from 10.9Mt in the same period in 2016. Year to date figures show a worse trend with a drop of 17.4% to 35.2Mt in the first nine months of 2017 compared to 42.7Mt in the same period in 2016. This decline has accelerated compared to a decrease of 5.4% from 45.1Mt in 2015 for the first three quarters.
Analyst Al Rajhi Capital provided some context to this situation in its September 2017 report on the August 2017 sales figures. It reported particularly steep declines in cement sales volumes of over 35% for Northern Cement, Najran cement and Hail Cement for the first eight months of the year. However, some producers - including City, Qassim, Yanbu and Al Safwa - did manage modest gains. Overall though the financial services company did not expect any pickup for the second half of 2017.
Last time this column covered the kingdom’s cement industry in early 2016 it asked when the government was going to relieve the export ban. Cement production was high, inventory was pilling up and infrastructure spending was falling. The ban was subsequently lifted but commentators worried that it would be too restrictive to have much effect due to tariffs and volume restrictions. A steady stream of cement producers has applied for export licences since then, but exports have not alleviated the situation. With inventory remaining high for the producers, current export policy failing to help and the local construction market subdued, it is unlikely that anything is going to change soon for the local cement industry. In fact it may even get worse if the government decides to revise its energy price policy later in 2017 or in early 2018, adding to the input cost burden of the producers.
Talk of market consolidation in this kind of market environment seems inevitable. This is exactly what happened earlier in the month when Jihad Al Rashid, the head of the Saudi National Committee for Cement Companies, said to local press that the local market only needed four large cement producers rather than the 17 companies it has at present. The question at this stage seems to be when, rather than if, will this process start.
Finding a place for slag – review of EuroSlag 2017
Written by David Perilli, Global Cement
18 October 2017
Putting two speakers from the European Commission front and centre at the start of this year’s European Slag Association Conference (EuroSlag) in Metz, France was always going to cause a ruck. Once Coal and Steel Research Unit head Hervé Martin and steel sector policy officer Gabriele Morgante said their pieces and the panel opened up then the verbal punches started flying. Okay, this may be slightly exaggerated, but after a bunch of policy-heavy presentations, suddenly the situation became crystal clear. Was the agricultural use of ferrous slag going to be allowed to continue? What would be the classification of the slag? And so on. One Russian delegate commented afterwards, “I thought we had environmental problems in Russia.”
Jérémie Domas, Centre Technique et de Promotion des Laitiers Sidérurgiques (CTPL) explained in a later presentation that the heart of the current debate goes back to the European Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC). This legislation created an ambiguity over the status of slag between classifying it, as a waste or as a by-product, that the European industry has been battling over ever since. A multi-coloured map in Aurelio Braconi of the European Steel Association’s (Eurofer) presentation depicted the disarray this has caused with the varied legal statuses of slag across Europe. To add to this, Braconi’s home country of Italy, for example, is split into designating slag as both a product and a waste. His response was to say that the ‘human factor’ was important back home for utilising slag. The European Union (EU) is now working on its Circular Economy Package, which includes revised legislative proposals on waste, and it has been consulting on various issues throughout the year. It is this process is that been making slag producers twitchy.
Other delegates on the first session’s panel provided a bit more context, with Thomas Reiche of the German Technical Association for Ferrous Slag (FEHS) saying that the waste legislation didn’t need to be changed but that public procurement laws did. Eric Seitz of the French Association of the Users of industrial By-products (AFOCO) added that slag products had been sold for decades without any problems. However, he definitely wanted ‘strong’ support from the EU on the issue.
Moving on, Craig Heidrich of the Australasian (Iron & Steel) Slag Association (ASA) provided some interesting figures in his presentation on worldwide slag production that differ from the data often reported by trading companies. Heidrich reckoned that 567Mt of slag was produced in 2015 with a breakdown of 347Mt blast furnace (BF) slag and 220Mt steel slag.
Andreas Ehrenberg of the FEHS presented research on converting electric arc furnace (EAF) slag into a hydraulic material that could be used in cement or concrete production. Given that, using Heidrich’s figures for example, about a third of ferrous slag production is steel slag often created in an EAF, the potential implications of this line of inquiry are important. Unfortunately, the main disadvantages of the original EAF slag analysed in Ehrenberg’s work compared to BF slag are the lower CaO and SiO2 contents and the higher MgO and Fe oxide contents. Laboratory-scale tests confirmed in principle the feasibility of forming clinker or ground blast furnace slag-like materials based on EAF slag. But the reduction and treatment steps in the process require a lot of effort and the economical value of the recovered metal is low. Taking the research further will require much more work on the semi-technical scale.
The other paper with particular relevance to the cement industry was Chris Poling of SCB International unveiling his company’s ground blast furnace slag (GBFS) micro-grinding mill, the Nutek Mill 2. The new mill is intended to allow slag grinding to take place in a much wider range of locations, along similar lines to the modular clinker grinding mills made by Cemengal or Gebr. Pfeiffer’s Ready2Grind line. The pilot project is being installed now in New York State, US. The mill has a GBFS capacity of 10 - 12t/hr with a target of 40 – 45kWh/t when fully optimised. Further units at the same location are planned for early 2018 with approval sought from the New York State Department of Transportation.
The 10th European Slag Conference is expected to take place in 2019. With more clarity expected from the EU on its Circular Economy Package there will be much to discuss.
Hold that cement empire!
Written by David Perilli
11 October 2017
Well it doesn’t normally happen like this. In late September 2017 Ash Grove Cement announced that it was set to be bought by Ireland’s CRH. The words it used were a ‘definitive merger agreement.’ Then suddenly this week on 5 October 2017 Ash Grove said that it had received a higher offer from an unnamed third party and that it was extending its so-called ‘window shop period.’ So much for definitive! The following day Reuters revealed that the new bid was from Summit Materials.
The on-going board machinations at LafargeHolcim and the PPC-AfriSam merger saga in South Africa show that the cement industry has its moments of boardroom high drama. Indeed, both of these long-rumbling stories have had murmurs this week with the early departure of LafargeHolcim’s finance director Ron Wirahadiraksa after less than two years and Dangote Cement’s decision to exit the ring from the PPC bidding. However, it’s rare that cement companies are publicly announced as sold and then get gazumped instead.
The Ash Grove debacle also carries a personal dimension. Ash Grove chairman Charlie Sunderland initially described CRH as his company’s biggest customer and one with a close relationship to the firm. Yet a US$300m higher bid suggests how much those ‘kind’ words were actually worth. To add insult to injury the chief executive officer (CEO) of Summit Materials, Tom Hill, used to work for CRH. This no doubt gave him an idea of how the management of CRH thinks. CRH’s public response so far has been that it has noted the extended shareholder approval period at Ash Grove.
At first glimpse Summit Materials and CRH have a similar cement production base in the US. Both companies operate two integrated plants in the country. Summit Materials runs plants at Hannibal, Missouri and Davenport, Iowa. CRH runs plants at Sumterville, Florida and Trident, Montana. Summit then has 10 cement terminals along the Mississippi River from Minnesota to Louisiana compared to CRH US’ five cement terminals in Detroit, Michigan, Cleveland, Ohio, Dundee, Michigan, Buffalo, New York and Duluth, Minnesota.
Yet, CRH also has two plants in Canada. Then the sheer scale of CRH’s other operations in North America simply dwarfs Summit’s. CRH Americas reported sales of US$16.7bn in 2016, more than 10 times higher than the US$1.6bn that Summit Materials declared. Both companies cover aggregates, asphalt, readymix concrete and cement but CRH is by far the larger of the two. So much so in fact that Summit Materials might potentially be taking on a serious amount of debt to finance the Ash Grove sale. As such any blip to the US cement market over the next few years could have serious repercussions to an overleveraged Summit Materials.
On face value the possible engagement with Summit Materials might appear to show that there is a lack of trust between CRH and Ash Grove. However, this cannot be inferred. As its shares are traded over the counter, Ash Grove’s shareholders have allowed a two-week shop window to enable other companies to counter-offer. This is to ensure that they get the best possible value. Talking to Summit is part of this process and may, or may not, mean that the last remaining US-owned cement producer stays based in the US after all.