Analysis
Search Cement News
Cement highlights from the Global Slag Conference 2018
Written by David Perilli, Global Cement
02 May 2018
There is lots to mull over for the cement industry from last week’s Global Slag Conference that took place in Prague.
One striking map from Michael Connolly, TMS International, showed the status of slag and steel products in the US. It was a multi-coloured patchwork of different regulatory statuses from approval to be used as a product to regulatory exclusion. This won’t come as a surprise to many readers but even within one country the way slag can be used legally varies.
As this column reported last year after the Euroslag Conference, the European Union can be presented in a similar way. The irony here is that increased use of slag and other secondary cementitious materials (SCM) is exactly the kind of change the cement and concrete industries need to make to decrease their carbon emissions. Constant quibbles over whether slag is a product or a waste undermine this. Happily then that Connolly was able to report progress in the US as lobbying by industry and the US National Slag Association have led to more states legally accepting slag as a product.
However, cement producers have other concerns in addition to environmental ones when it comes to slag usage as Doug Haynes from Smithers Apex explained. Haynes, a former UK steel industry worker turned consultant, spoke around a market report on the future of ferrous slag. His take on Basic Oxygen Furnace (BOF) slag was that despite fuel savings, decreased CO2 emissions and the benefits of embodied iron when it is used as a raw material for clinker production, it is in the interests of cement producers for slag to be a waste because they then get it for free or at a reduced rate. It’s a similar story to the use of waste-derived fuels powering cement plant kilns where producers want lower fuel costs but waste collectors want value for their product. Unsurprisingly, Haynes wanted cement producers to accept the value embodied in BOF slag.
Charles Zeynel of ZAG International, an SCM trader, then laid out the situation where global SCM supplies are remaining static but cement demand is growing. Coal-fired power station closures are reducing supplies of fly ash, another SCM, placing pressure on existing granulated blast furnace slag (GBS) slag supplies. The message was very much in a slag trader’s favour but instructive nethertheless. If slag is in demand then the price will rise. Anecdotally, the increased number of cement producers at the conference seemed to indicate increased interest of the cement industry in the product.
Lots more speakers followed on topics such as slag beneficiation, grinding advances and new innovations. On grinding, one surprise that popped up was that Spain’s Cemengal has sold a Plug & Grind Vertical mill to CRH Tarmac’s cement plant at Dunbar in Scotland. It is the first such sale of this product in Europe. The last speaker, Jürgen Haunstetter of the German Aerospace Centre, stuck out particularly with his presentation on using slag as a thermal energy storage medium in a concentrated solar power (CSP) plant. This may not seem connected to the cement industry but it is along similar lines to Italcementi’s project at the Aït Baha cement plant in Morocco, which uses a CSP process that can be used with the plant’s waste heat recovery unit.
The Global Slag Conference will return in April 2019 in Aachen, Germany.
Read the full review of the 13th Global Slag Conference 2018
Update on Saudi Arabia
Written by David Perilli, Global Cement
25 April 2018
No consolidation has happened yet in the Saudi Arabian cement industry but exports have started to be announced. Yanbu Cement signed an export deal in March 2018 to despatch 1Mt of clinker and 0.5Mt of cement from one year from 1 April 2018. Prior to that, Al Jouf Cement Company started a contract to export 72.000t/yr to Jordan from late February 2018. Earlier still, Bahrain was expected to benefit from a lifting of cement export tariffs at the end of January 2018.
Its early days yet but some of sort of action is starting to happen about the country’s falling cement sales. If export deals are in the early stages of being set following the lifting of the ban, then local movements of cement have intensified. As Al Rajhi Capital reports in its latest market update, that producers have been forced by low sales and high inventory levels to take action. It says that cement companies have started to sell products in different parts of the country than they do normally leading to a ‘price war’. The financial services and analytical company has pinpointed the central region as the key battleground as company market shares have fallen over the last six months as northern producers have moved in.
Graph 1: Cement sales (Mt) by quarter in Saudi Arabia, 2015 to March 2018. Source: Yamama Cement.
Cement sales fell by 15% year-on-year to 11.8Mt in the first quarter of 2018 from 13.7Mt in the same period in 2017. This is the first time in recent years that sales did not rise from the fourth quarter to the following first quarter. Not a good sign. Despite the bad news, a few producers did mange to increases their deliveries in the first quarter, including Saudi Cement, Hail Cement, Umm Al Qura Cement and United Cement.
Bizarrely, into this sales environment, plans for the long delayed Al Baha Cement cement plant project have re-emerged. The project previously has received coverage at various stages over the years. This time it has reportedly gained a licence to set up the company and it hopes to start tendering for the build in the second half of 2018. The investors may want to leave it a little longer given the current state of the Saudi cement industry.
Breedon goes international
Written by David Perilli, Global Cement
18 April 2018
The rumours were confirmed yesterday when the UK’s Breedon Group announced its acquisition of Ireland’s Lagan Cement. The price was Euro527m, which Breedon will finance with a combination of a new loan, extended credit and an equity placing. The assets it will gain include a cement plant in Kinnegad, nine active quarries, 13 asphalt plants and nine ready-mixed concrete plants.
Breedon said that its strategy is to continue buying businesses in the heavyside construction materials market. At a stroke, once the deal completes on 20 April 2018, it becomes an international company. From the cement perspective it gains a new 0.7Mt/yr plant in central Ireland and a terminal in Belfast, UK. The UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) wasn’t mentioned in Breedon’s press release on the purchase but it seems unlikely that the competition body would have much to say on the transaction. Lagan Cement does hold ready-mix concrete (RMX) plants, aggregate and asphalt assets in Northern Ireland but these are far away from Breedon’s operations in mainland Britain. That said, the CMA did force Breedon to sell 14 RMX sites when it bought Hope Construction Materials in 2016. Generally speaking, Breedon’s enlargement reduces the diversity of the UK cement industry on the smaller end leaving only Quinn Cement, with operations on both sides of the border, as the country’s sole remaining single site clinker producer.
Aside from geographical expansion, becoming an international building materials company may offer Breedon Group some security from the UK’s exit from the European Union (EU) (so called Brexit). Breedon will join CRH as the only two cement producers with production facilities in both the UK and Ireland. The strategic significance of the position Breedon and CRH are in geographically may arise from whatever deal is reached between the EU and the UK and the significance of the UK’s only land border with the EU. LafargeHolcim is nearly in this club with its plants in England and Northern Ireland and plenty of the other local producers straddle the UK-EU border with terminals or production facilities elsewhere. Yet, in an uncertain Brexit negotiation, having kilns on both sides of the line might come in handy once (or if) the politicians make a decision.
Although, if Liam McCaffrey, the chief executive officer of Quinn Industrial Holding, is to be believed, then Brexit will have little impact at all other than (low) tariffs in a worst case scenario. He said to local press that although damage to the construction industry might arise in the UK from a prolonged recession, the UK’s housing shortage and reliance on imported building materials would probably see it through. That point about a possible financial downturn is important to Breedon Group, given the new debt it will be taking on to pay for acquisition. This is something that will be familiar to Breedon’s competitor Cemex. It is still paying off the debts from its acquisition of Rinker in 2007.
Breedon has decided to delay the release of its interim results from mid-July to September 2018 to allow time for the integration of Lagan into the group. Its sales and earnings may dwarf those from 2017 that it described as ‘one of the most productive years’ in its history. In the meantime congratulations are in order for Breedon Group for ensuring that the UK cement sector is never dull.
Cutting cement’s carbon footprint
Written by David Perilli, Global Cement
11 April 2018
Two reports out this week have looked at the carbon footprint of the cement industry. The first, a technology roadmap by the Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI) and the International Energy Agency (IEA), laid out a technology pathway for the sector to reduce its direct CO2 by 24% from current levels by 2050 to meet the IEA’s 2°C scenario (2DS). The second, a report by the CDP (formerly the Carbon Disclosure Project) on the progress of 13 major cement producers to reduce their emissions, was a progress report on the business readiness for a low carbon economy transition.
Graph 1: European Union industry emissions by sector, 2013 - 2017. Source: Sandbag, European Commission.
The scene was set last week when the environmental campaign group Sandbag picked up on the latest emission data from the European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). Industrial emissions as a whole rose by 2% year-on-year to 743Mt in 2017. The cement and lime industry reported a rise of 3% to 148Mt in 2017 from 144Mt in 2016. As Sandbag reported, industrial emissions have remained ‘stubbornly high’ for the duration of the ETS. It then went on to say that, “the EU urgently needs a new industrial strategy to bring about radical industrial process changes and/or carbon capture and storage, especially for the high-emitting steel and cement sectors.”
The CDP’s report provided a global scorecard on the readiness of the cement industry to adapt to a low-carbon future. Unfortunately, the report used data from self-reporting questionnaires and it lacked data from the two largest Chinese cement producers, Anhui Conch and China National Building Materials (CNBM), although it did try to compensate for this. The CDP assessed companies across four key areas aligned with the recommendations from the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD).
Graph 2: Opportunity vs. risk for low-carbon transition. Source: Building Pressure report, CDP.
Surprisingly, the study, even with its limitations, found regional variation. As can be seen in Graph 2, the Indian cement producers came out on top from the criteria used: transition risks, physical risks, transition opportunities and climate governance and strategy. CDP pinned this on better access to alternative materials such as fly ash and slag coming from other carbon intensive sectors, such as thermal power generation and steel production. Reported process emissions measured by the clinker ratio for the Indian companies was 69% versus 78% for the other companies. They also benefited from newer cement plants driven by high market growth in the region compared to older plants in Europe.
The technology roadmap from the CSI and the IEA set out key actions for the industry to take by 2030 to have at least a 50% chance of achieving the 2°C 2DS scenario followed by a possible transition pathway that could be achieved through technology, legislation and investment. The key actions are protecting carbon pricing mechanisms from carbon leakage, putting new technology into action and supporting it by legislation, and greater government support for products with a lower clinker factor.
The CSI’s and IEA’s targets for 2030 included reaching a clinker to cement ratio of 0.64 in 2030 from 0.65 in 2014, a thermal energy intensity of clinker of 3.3GJ/t from 3.5GJ/t, an electricity intensity of cement of 87kWh/t from 91kWh/t and a alternative fuel co-processing rate of 17.5% from 5.6%. Perhaps the most optimistic is a CO2 capture and storage amount of 14MtCO2/yr in 2030 from nothing at the moment. This last target seems unlikely to be achieved given the lack of projects outside of the pilot stage, but it’s not impossible.
This column barely touches on the detail within either report or even the latest data from the EU ETS. Both reports offer ways forward to meet the 2°C global warming target outlined in the Paris Agreement. It’s easy to be pessimistic given the on-going clash between environmental optimism and business logic but both reports offer a way forward. The CDP report sets out a baseline with a look to the future, whilst the CSI/IEA roadmap offers what it says is a realistic route to reach that 2DS target. Lastly, if the CDP’s assessment is correct about the Indian producers then it’s possible that other developing cement industries may inherently be cleaner due to their use of newer plants and equipment. If worldwide government support can be provided for use of alternative fuels and materials on a much larger scale, as well as all the other recommendations, then meeting the Paris agreement may be easier than expected as new markets build new production capacity.
Two examples of carbon capture utilisation and sequestration projects will be covered in the May 2018 issue of Global Cement Magazine
The battle for Binani Cement
Written by David Perilli, Global Cement
04 April 2018
Persistence has paid off for UltraTech Cement this week. Although the deal is not complete, all the signs are pointing towards India’s largest cement producer buying Binani Cement despite losing an auction for it last month. Here’s a recap of what has happened so far.
In July 2017 the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in Kolkata, a semi-judicial body that rules on issues relating to companies, started insolvency proceedings for Binani Cement. It followed a plea by one of the cement company’s creditors, the Bank of Baroda, that had an outstanding claim of around US$15m. The Kolkata bench of the NCLT rejected Binani Cement’s argument that the debt was tiny compared to the assets of its parent company Binani Industries of US$2.15bn. It then appointed an administrator, or resolution professional, called Vijaykumar Iyer, a partner at Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India. More on him later on.
The subsequent auction of Binani Cement raised lots of interest both internationally and locally due to its production base. The company operates a 4.9Mt/yr plant at Binanigram in Rajasthan with two kilns and four mills. It also runs a 1.4Mt/yr cement grinding plant at Sirohi in the same state. Unusually though for an Indian producer it also runs a 2Mt/yr grinding plant at Jebel Ali, Dubai in the UAE and a 0.5Mt/yr integrated plant, Shandong Cement, in China.
Its products domestically in India include 43 and 53 grades Ordinary Portland Cement and Portland Pozzolana Cement, with the Bollywood film star Amitabh Bachchan as its brand ambassador. On that last point the Indian Supreme Court chastised Binani Cement in 2014 for not paying sales tax in Rajasthan whilst being able to hire Bachchan! However, given the ferocity of the struggle to buy Binani Cement maybe all that marketing of the brand paid off, giving the producer a much higher profile than it might otherwise have had.
Anyway, lots of companies showed interest in Binani Cement in the first round of bidding in late 2017. CRH, LafargeHolcim, HeidelbergCement, India Cement, Orient Cement, Ramco Cement, Shree Cement, UltraTech Cement and Piramal Group were all linked to the auction. Eventually UltraTech Cement, JSW Cement, Ramco Cement, HeidelbergCement India, Dalmia Bharat and a pair of Indian investors all submitted bids and JSW Cement emerged as the winner with a bid of US$919m. However the emergence of an additional liability of around US$250m scuppered that auction when it turned out that Binani Cement had offered a corporate guarantee for the acquisition of a fibreglass asset in Europe known as 3B in 2012 by Binani Industries. By February 2018 the next auction was in progress and this time Dalmia Bharat Cement and UltraTech Cement led the race. Dalmia Bharat won the second auction with a bid of around US$1.03bn made in a consortium with Bain Capital’s India Resurgent Fund and Piramal Enterprises.
At this point the situation might have conceivably slowed down. Instead, UltraTech Cement kept on fighting and queried the entire bidding process. It then made a direct offer of US$1.11bn to Binani Cement in the form of a so-called ‘comfort letter’ that Binani Industries used to stop the insolvency process. At the same time it received approval from the Competition Commission of India in its bid for Binani Cement, the previous absence of which was one of the reasons its bid against Dalmia Bharat was rejected.
Indian company law now faced a dilemma over how a bankruptcy works given that the NCLT was meant to be in charge. A way out was found though when the NCLT in Kolkata and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal both allowed the bidders to settle the dispute ‘amicably.’ To add further confusion the administrator Vijaykumar Iyer also alleged right in the middle of the final tussle between Dalmia Bharat and UltraTech Cement that fraudulent transactions had been made by Binani Cement! Whether this has any further implications remains to be seen.
At this stage nobody is likely to declare UltraTech Cement the winner of Binani Cement until it actually picks up the keys to the cement plants. Perhaps not even then in case of any lingering legal issues! UltraTech Cement clearly views Rajasthan as a growth area given the tenacity with which it has gone after Binani Cement. It operates two integrated plants in the state and is building two more of its own. After its long journey in buying plants from Jaiprakash Associates in 2017, UltraTech Cement is starting to look like the cement producer that simply won’t take no for an answer.