Should McInnis Cement choose a new name?

Print this page

The McInnis Cement plant at Port-Daniel-Gascons in Quebec, Canada must be the most famous cement plant that hasn’t been built yet. Every single step of the project’s list has seemed dogged with infamy. Public money it seems comes with public scrutiny. This week, one of the principal investors took control of the plant following allegations of massive budget overruns and the disappearance of the company’s president.

To start with the money, the plant was originally budgeted at US$1bn for a 2.2Mt/yr facility. This has always seemed like an inflated figure given that the general cost of a new or greenfield cement plant is up to US$200/t. The original price tag for McInnis is double this figure. Throw in the need for infrastructure at the site and the requirement of a marine terminal and the cost starts to become a little more realistic with government backing. The importance of the sea links can’t be under stressed given that the plant is targeted at the US market. No port: no cement plant.

This then leads to the quagmire of criticism the project has found itself stuck within. American cement producers took exception to a foreign government-backed plant trying to eat their lunch so they went legal. When the government-subsidised project bypassed the normal environmental clearances Lafarge Canada backed a challenge in 2013. Then in 2014 the provincial opposition in Quebec attacked the local government’s financial involvement in the project describing it as a ‘sinkhole’ in return for a minority stake.

Once these hurdles were overcome, work on building the plant began until the Globe and Mail newspaper revealed in late June 2016 that the project was ‘massively’ over-budget by up to US$350m and that the Quebec government was not prepared to provide any more money. The budget over-run alone is enough to build a cement plant in a more conventional location! Six weeks later and the project has most likely had its chief executive fired and one of the investors has stepped in to run things.

So, some combination of the legal fees, the wrangling over the plant’s unique environmental clearance, the difficulties of the underdeveloped location and potential mismanagement by the company itself have led to the additional costs. This in turn has led to the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, a pension fund firm, taking charge. It, like the previous management, also has no experience in building cement plants. Although it clearly knows how to calm investors. The first thing it did after announcing the new financing was to reassure everybody on the plant’s potential. Best not to consider at this stage what happens if the US bans Canadian cement.

McInnis Cement could be compared to other provincial industrial follies such as the closed Gaspésia paper mill in Quebec that also received over US$350m of government money. Yet if there is a project one might compare it to it is London’s Millennium Dome. Conceived as a national exhibition space to celebrate the start of the new millennium in 2000 the UK government of the time backed the project to much derision from the press as the costs spiralled and the visitors stayed away. However, today the venue has become a popular music and events venue. Flop or triumph: all those investors of McInnis Cement must be wondering what their fate will be. If nothing else perhaps renaming the plant once the dust settles (in an environmentally approved way) might be a good idea. Today, the Millennium dome is known as the 02.

Last modified on 17 August 2016

Register for the Global Cement Weekly email newsletter

Global Cement Weekly is Global Cement’s weekly email newsletter. Keep up to date with cement industry news, analysis, diary dates and news of people in the sector.

Register >

URL: https://globalcement.com/news/item/5206-should-mcinnis-cement-choose-a-new-name

© 2024 Pro Global Media Ltd. All rights reserved.