Analysis

Congratulations are due to Bamburi Cement this week after the completion of a new production line at its Nairobi grinding plant. The new US$40m line will add 0.9Mt/yr of cement production capacity to the unit, bringing its total to 2.4Mt/yr when it is commissioned towards the end of 2018. Together with the subsidiary of LafargeHolcim’s integrated plant at Mombasa the company will have a production capacity of 3.2Mt/yr.

Graph 1: Cement production and consumption in Kenya 1999 - 2017. Source: Kenya National Bureau of Statistics.

As Graph 1 shows above it is an interesting time to open new production capacity in the country. Both production and consumption fell for the first time since 2000 in 2017. Production fell by 8.2% year-on-year to 6.2Mt in 2017 from 6.7Mt in 2016 and consumption fell by a similar amount. The change was blamed on reduced demand for building materials in the construction sector occurring at the same time as a fall in the value of building plans approved in 2017. The country also suffered political uncertainty as its general election in August 2017 was subsequently annulled and repeated in October 2017.

With Global Cement Directory 2018 data giving Kenya a cement production capacity of 5.2Mt/yr from five producers and at least four grinding plants with a capacity of 4.6Mt/yr it looks like the country is in an overcapacity phase. The question for producers like Bamburi Cement is whether 2017 is just a temporary blip or not. After all, as per usual for many African countries, the demographic pressure for development to happen and per capita cement consumption to grow seems ineveitable.

Bamburi Cement is not alone in betting on growth. Also this week the Kenya Port Authority recevied four hoppers from the UK’s Samson for the Port of Mombasa. The hoppers will be used to import clinker, coal and gypsum at the site. Earlier in February 2018, National Cement opened a 1.2Mt/yr integrated plant in Kajiado County. On the larger scale Nigeria’s Dangote Cement has been preparing to open two cement plants, near Nairobi and Mombasa respetively. However, these project were reported delayed to 2021 in its annual report for 2016 around the time the company faced problems at home due to a local financial recession.

Meanwhile local producers have faced pressure so far in 2018. Bamburi Cement reported a 6% fall in turnover to US$357m in 2017 that it blamed on the weather, the elections and lower construction activity. Other producers have had a harder time of it with the East African Portland Cement (EAPC) reportedly having to rely on a land sale to remain solvent in April 2018. ARM Cement has also been forced to sell assets to remain operational. Its loss for 2017 more than doubled to US$55m. Amid the problems the UK-government investor CDC Group, which holds a 41% stake in the company, replaced board members of the company in a likely bid to shore up the situation.

It’s into this kind of situation that Bamburi Cement has opened its new plant. On the plus side though it is a grinding plant so it should be able to maximise the company’s use of clinker from either within the country or from imports from other LafargeHolcim operations elsewhere. In its press release for the new unit the company pinned its hopes on anticipated growth in domestic housing and infrastructure projects, backed by government schemes for affordable housing and roads. With the rating agency Moody’s having issued a report this week about the relative reslilence of the Kenyan economy despite recent shocks such as last year’s elections, Bamburi Cement may yet have the last laugh.

Hillhead 2018 is on this week and where better to capture a feel of the UK’s quarrying and construction industries? For those that don’t know, Hillhead is a biennial show that takes place in a quarry in Derbyshire. The show bills itself as the largest quarrying, construction and recycling event in the world. A large scale UK show gives us the opportunity to look at the local cement industry and we did exactly that in the June 2018 issue of Global Cement Magazine with Edwin Trout’s feature on the UK cement sector in 2017 and 2018. Following on from that article we’ll pick up a few threads.

Graph 1: Domestic cement production in the UK, 1996 - 2016. Source: Mineral Products Association (MPA).

Cement production in the UK fell by 5Mt/yr during the financial crisis of 2007 - 2008. Since then, as Graph 1 shows, production has been growing almost uniformly. However, it may have reached a plateau in 2017, with the major producers complaining about a weakened market due to Brexit uncertainty.

Main points from a news angle are the rise of the Breedon Group with its acquisition of Ireland’s Lagan Cement in April 2018, investments at Hanson’s Padeswood cement plant and Tarmac’s Dunbar cement plant and a fairly static market reported by the major producers. Alongside this, Ireland’s Ecocem opened a terminal in Sheerness in June 2017 and, more recently, has just inaugurated its slag grinding plant on the other side of the English Channel at Dunkirk.

The decision by Breedon to straddle an impending UK-European Union (EU) border seems wise with Hanson’s parent company HeidelbergCement actively blaming Brexit for market uncertainty in the UK. The rise of Ecocem, a slag cement grinder and distributor, also seems to suit the atmosphere with its smaller, more nimble operation than a clinker producer. It’s into this situation that Hanson is reusing a mill from Spain for its Padeswood project and Tarmac is buying its mill from Cemengal, a manufacturer known for making modular mills that can be moved after installation if so desired.

Banging on about Brexit, and indeed Brexit uncertainty, can’t last forever and once clarity appears then the building industry can focus on various pressing issues. One is the country’s lack of residential housing supply. One possible solution for this is a new national planning policy. The government finished a consultation period in May 2018 for the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and industry bodies like the Mineral Products Association (MPA) have been making their views known. The MPA worries that that the proposed changes will weaken the mineral planning system and threaten the replenishment of aggregate and other mineral reserves. It argues that to secure the essential minerals required to build all those new houses the government needs an, “...efficient and effective mineral planning system with up to date plans, well-resourced planning departments and good data, which are prerequisites, as is appropriate capacity and capability in the ministry to ensure the system is planned, monitored and managed.” Detractors may point out that once the NPPF gets sorted we can all get on with the job of actually, like, building things but, as ever, the MPA has its part to play in the process.

Another indicator for the resumption of ‘business as normal’ might be the number of exhibitors at a trade show like Hillhead. The oranisers say that the exhibitors have grown by 10% in 2018 from 2016. With a heatwave forecast, the group stages of the football World Cup continuing and live demonstrations ongoing there are worse places to be to ponder the state of the industry. Come and find Global Cement at our stand (PC45) in the main pavillion at Hillhead 2018 and tell us what you think.

South African cement producer PPC reported this week that its annual profits rose due to ‘strong’ performance in Rwanda and Zimbabwe. Unfortunately it had no such luck in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) where its new plant near Kimpese in Kongo Central province has suffered from political instability, lower cement demand and subdued selling prices.

As the group went on to describe the local market as ‘challenging’ with production capacity above market demand. Research from the International Finance Corporation (IFC) suggests that the country will only reach a cement supply deficit by 2022. On top of this the country’s elections have been delayed from December 2017 to December 2018, creating uncertainty in the construction market and delaying infrastructure projects. Following an impairment assessment PPC took an impairment cost of US$14m on the unit. Or in other words it concluded that the value it might gain from selling its new 1.2Mt/yr plant was less than the estimated US$280m it cost to build it.

This outcome is depressing given that the plant was only commissioned during the last quarter of 2017 and the fundamental need for development in the DRC. The unit is run by local subsidiary PPC Barnet DRC, a joint venture 69% owned by PPC, 21% owned by Barnet Group, with the remaining 10% owned by the IFC. The plant was 60% debt funded by the IFC and Eastern and Southern African Trade and Development Bank. In January 2018 PPC agreed with its lenders to reschedule debts from the project until 2020. Then in April 2018 it was reported that PPC was in talks with China National Materials (Sinoma) over selling its stake in the plant. PPC chief executive officer (CEO) Johann Claassen said that the deal was dependent on the price and the on going merger between Sinoma and China National Building Material (CNBM).

With the merger between the Chinese cement giants close but yet to be confirmed, PPC remains stuck with a cement plant it’s losing money on. No doubt also the Chinese producers will aim for a bargain on the unit, especially since Sinoma built the plant. This also raises one potential method how the merged Sinoma-CNBM might expand internationally by scooping up plants it builds that have subsequently gotten into financial trouble.

All in all it’s a cautionary tale about how fast cement companies are able to expand in Sub-Saharan Africa. The demographics are enticing to investors but if the market isn’t there or if competitors get there first then building cement plants can go wrong. A 1.8Mt/yr joint-venture plant run by Lucky Cement started up in late 2016 also in the Kongo Central province. On top of this neighbouring countries have targeted DRC for exports. A local ban on imports of cement was implemented in mid-2017 and reportedly renewed in the west of the country for another six months in February 2018. However, Nigeria's Dangote Cement said in its first quarter results for 2018 that its operations in the Republic of Congo were targeting exports at the DRC. As PPC has discovered, investing in Sub-Saharan African has its risks.

Germany’s Knauf announced this week that it is set to buy North American wallboard producer USG. The news is relevant for the cement industry because both companies are prominent gypsum producers. They are leading gypsum wallboard producers, with assets around the world, including gypsum mines. Although their focus is on wallboard a significant proportion of raw gypsum ends up being used in cement production. Hence, the takeover of a major North American producer by a European one deserves attention.

First a little background on the deal between Knauf and USG. The takeover has been a particularly acrimonious one at times, with both parties throwing strong language at each other and, although it has avoided being a hostile takeover, at times it seemed close. The deal became public in March 2018 when USG publicly said that it had rejected a bid of US$5.9bn from Knauf. It described the offer at the time as ‘wholly inadequate.’ Knauf then fought back by sending a letter to USG’s shareholders urging them to vote against director nominees at the next annual general meeting. Knauf owns 10.5% of USG’s shares. Then, in April 2018, Warren Buffett, the chief executive officer of Berkshire Hathaway, USG’s largest shareholder with a 31% stake, swung behind Knauf’s scheme. At this point it was revealed that Buffett had facilitated the initial talks between USG and Knauf. He even described the investment in USG as ‘disappointing.’ Buffett’s public move against USG in April 2018 signalled the death knell to USG’s independence. The US$7bn deal between Knauf and USG was agreed and announced on 11 June 2018. The transaction is expected to complete in early 2019.

USG operates 12 mines or quarries in North America. It also has other assets around the world including three gypsum mines in Oman, Thailand and Australia respectively that it runs in conjunction with its USG Boral joint venture in the Middle East and Asia. By contrast Knauf held over 60 quarries in 2014 with a focus on Europe.

The interesting implications from the merger may arise from what Knauf plans to do in certain regions. North America for example saw a reduction in raw mined gypsum production since the financial crash in 2008 as building markets suffered. Rising levels of synthetic gypsum production from coal power plants partly compensated for this. Buying USG gives Knauf a truly global base of natural gypsum production with which it can supply both itself and any cement customers. Knauf has a real shot of cornering the market in raw gypsum production provided it can keep the price low enough to stop enough rival mines being opened. Knauf might decide, as the construction market continues to recover in the US, to bring in the extra gypsum from elsewhere if it proved cost effective. Hooking up USG-Boral gypsum resources in Asia with Knauf’s might have implications for cement producing countries that lack sufficient gypsum supplies such as India. Oman is building itself up as the major gypsum exporter to Asia and USG-Boral is a part of it, with major gypsum resources in the country.

In terms of the cement industry it seems likely that there will be no immediate shakeup of gypsum supply. Long term supply contracts with either USG or Knauf should remain as they were and will stransfer to the new enlarged company. Knauf’s main market for gypsum is to use it to make wallboard but gypsum use for cement is a significant market as well. The ‘fun’ starts when or if Knauf starts to reorganise its supply chains. As its focus is on the wallboard business there may be implications thereafter for cement users. And since Knauf’s only major competitor at scale is Saint-Gobain, the market has just shrunk.

CRH announced changes to its structure this week. The changes to its divisions follow the rapid growth of the company and may also anticipate the new cement assets it is about to take on-board once its acquisition of Ash Grove Cement completes in the US. Buried in one its regulatory filings covering the news were two graphs of changes in cement demand in the US and Europe through various financial depressions since the 1930s.

Graph 1: Changes in cement demand in US and Europe during financial depressions. Source: CRH with data from US Geological Survey, PCA, United Nations, Morgan Stanley etc.

The graphs serve their purpose for a public company as they show both markets in the current downturn starting to rise again. In other words it looks like the perfect time to invest in a building materials company! However, thinking more broadly the graphs give a timely reminder of how bad the last decade has been for the cement market, particularly in Europe. The period only really compares to the 1930s in decline and duration if the figures are accurate. It must be considered though that while the West has suffered, markets in the East, notably led by China and India, have boomed.

The financial crash in 2008 was precipitated by the US subprime mortgage market. Other potential market killers lie ahead no doubt. One such might be the so-called ‘Carbon Bubble.’ This idea has gained media traction this week with the publication of a paper in the Nature Climate Change journal examining the economic impact of decarbonisation, if or when it happens.

It’s not a new argument but it makes the assertion that as new technologies that replace fossil fuels start to influence the markets, traditional fuel producers like oil companies may face being stuck with ‘stranded’ assets as legislation toughens up and technology mounts. This in turn could cause a financial crash and it’s this aspect that the paper has looked at.

The ace in the hole from the Nature Climate Change paper is that the modelling here suggests a way out of the usual prisoner’s dilemma approach to climate change action. Once sufficiently-low carbon technologies hit a certain level of adoption, then any country holding out and using fossil fuels instead of taking of action may start to suffer economically. Or in other words cheating won’t pay.

The carbon bubble theory is pretty convenient for the climate change lobby as it gives it a financial reason to fight its enemies by targeting investors. One counter argument is realistically how fast and deep would the decarbonisation technologies actually have to be to cause significant financial disruption. Surely the oil producers would get out of risky assets before it was too late. Then again, maybe not.

The cement industry is in exactly the same situation as the oil producers as it too depends on carbon rich assets, in this case limestone, for its business to operate. If limestone assets become ‘stranded’ due to toughened legislation then how can production continue? In addition though, volatility in the fuels and secondary cementitious materials (SCM) markets already being observed from the cement industry may make one wonder about the existence of the carbon bubble. Markets for waste-derived fuels and granulated blast furnace slag are currently changing in the wake of the tightening of Chinese legislation both in and out of the country. In theory this could mean cheaper inputs for cement production but the market is hard to predict. The other classic recent example is how the US natural gas boom from fracking has reduced global oil prices with further effects on the coal and gas that cement producers use. This in turn has placed pressure on various countries that are reliant on their petrodollars and caused pain to their local cement industries, like Saudi Arabia for example. The price of Brent Crude may be rising at the moment but once it hits a certain threshold, the hydraulic fracking of gas wells in the US will resume pumping. Of course both waste inputs and fracking could just be attributable respectively to market distortions by a large country changing policy and a new technology finding its feet.

If the carbon bubble theory carries any weight then CRH’s cement demand graph during recessions may carry a warning to producers about what might happen if decarbonisation leaves the fossil fuel producers behind. With good timing for this theme South Korea’s Ssangyong Cement announced this week that it is close to completing a waste heat recovery (WHR) unit at its Donghae plant, one of the biggest in the world with seven production lines. The interesting detail here is that the WHR unit will work in conjunction with an energy storage system to form a microgrid. This kind of setup is well suited to using energy from renewables as well as from conventional sources like a national electricity grid. In other words, this is exactly the kind of development at a cement plant that might in a small way lessen its reliance on fossil fuels in the face of any potential supply issues.

The 2nd Future Cement Conference and Exhibition looking at how the cement industry can operate in a low- or zero-carbon world will take place in Belgium in May 2019