Analysis
Search Cement News
Lessons from the Europe ETS for the Chinese cement industry
Written by Global Cement staff
04 December 2013
In late November 2013 Guangdong province in China announced that it will be launching its carbon emissions trading scheme (ETS) in December 2013. Together with six other pilot projects in China the scheme will be the second largest carbon market in the world after the European Union (EU) when fully operational. Yet with the EU ETS floundering from excess carbon permits, with a resulting low price of permits and large cement producers such as a Lafarge reported as stockpiling permits, what are the Chinese schemes planning to do differently to avoid these pitfalls?
Overall, China has announced that it intends to cut its carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by up to 45% by 2020 compared to 2005. In Guangdong, emissions from 202 companies will be capped at 350Mt for 2013, according to the local Development and Reform Commission. As shown in an article in the December 2013 issue of Global Cement Magazine, Guangdong province has a cement production capacity of 132.7Mt/yr, the second highest in the country after Anhui province.
From the perspective of the cement industry, Chunfang Wang from Huaxin Cement spoke about the importance of monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) at an International Emissions Trading Association (IETA) workshop that took place in Guangzhou, Guangdong in early 2013. From Wang's perspective, emission assessment standards were at a 'developmental' stage in China and 'smooth' carbon trading would depend on consistent standards being adopted everywhere. Although at the time the particulars of the Guangdong scheme were unknown, participants at the IETA event advised cooperation with scheme planners to ensure emission producers and purchasers remained part of the decision process. Sliding carbon prices in the EU ETS may have been beneficial for permit buyers but once the government planners become involved to revive the market they might lose out.
As the Economist pointed out the summer of 2013, an ETS is a cap-and-trade scheme. Since China appears to have no definite cap to carbon emissions, how can the trading work? The Chinese schemes cap carbon per unit of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Yet since GDP is dependent on production, any ETS run in this way would have to include adjustments at the end of trading. This would give central planners of the scheme plenty of wiggle room to rig the scheme. Worse yet, analysts Thomson Reuters Point Carbon have pointed out that the Chinese schemes face over-allocation of permits, the same issue that sank EU carbon prices. Additionally, one of the criticisms of the Guangdong Emissions Trading Scheme (GETS) pilot scheme was that the carbon prices may have been higher than expected due to market collusion.
The Chinese ETS projects face issues over their openness. If traders don't know accurately how much carbon dioxide is being produced by industry, such as cement production, then the scheme may be undermined. Similarly, over-allocating carbon permits may make it easier for producers to meet targets but it will cause problems in the trading price of carbon. However, given that a carbon emissions cap is an artificial mechanism to encourage markets to cut emissions, should any of these concerns really matter? The main question for Chinese citizens is whether or not China can cut its overall emissions and clear the air in its smog filled mega-cities.
Specifically for cement producers, it seems likely that large producers will be able to cope with the scheme best, from having more carbon permits to sell, to rolling out unified emissions assessment protocols, to liaising better with scheme planners. In Europe smaller cement producers, like Ecocem, have criticised the EU ETS for slowing a transition to a low carbon economy by subsidising the larger producers' emissions through over-allocation. In China, with its self-declared intention to consolidate an over-producing cement industry, whatever else happens it seems likely that smaller cement producers may become lost in the haze.
Dangote and PPC about to go head-to-head in South Africa
Written by Global Cement staff
27 November 2013
Both Dangote Cement and PPC have reminded the world about their development plans for sub-Saharan Africa. In the wake of PPC's yearly results on 19 November 2013 came a spotlight on the South Africa-based cement producer's international ambitions. Not to be outdone, Nigeria's Dangote Cement then put out a press release detailing all of its big development projects.
Dangote and PPC are set to go into direct competition when the Dangote subsidiary, Sephakhu Cement, opens its 3Mt/yr integrated cement plant at Aganang, North West province in early 2014. It will be the first time the Nigerian cement giant will be producing cement in the same country as its competitor in sub-Saharan Africa, PPC. The encounter will set the tone for the producers' next clash when they both open cement plants in Ethiopia in 2015.
Both the African cement producers are targeting a swathe of south to east sub-Saharan Africa from South African to Ethiopia. PPC, based in South Africa, has a presence in neighbouring Botswana, Zimbabwe and Mozambique. It has bought stakes in cement producers in Rwanda, Ethiopia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo and has new cement plants on the way in Ethiopia, Rwanda, Zimbabwe and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In contrast to PPC's more 'organic' growth strategy from an established base, Dangote, with its existing presence in west Africa is about to enter this region. It has new projects planned in Kenya, Tanzania and Zambia, as well as in Ethiopia and South Africa.
To compare the financing behind each company's expansion, Dangote reported that it had committed US$884m for acquisitions in 2012. PPC intends to spend US$276m on capital expenditure in its 2014 financial year. If these figures from financial reports are correct, Dangote is spending three times as much as PPC on expansion. Dangote may have more money for expansion but PPC has long-standing presences in the region or has recently acquired them.
Dangote reported an 18% rise year-on-year in turnover to US$1.8bn in 2012. The same year its sales volumes increased to 10.4Mt from 8.66Mt in 2012. The company's installed cement production capacity was reported as 19.25Mt from three plants in Nigeria. In comparison, PPC reported a 13% rise in revenue to US$820m for its financial year to the end of September 2013. No exact cement productions figures were released but PPC said that cement sales increased by 7% in the period.
How Dangote and PPC spar in South Africa remains to be seen but one area where they may agree will be on imports. In its final results for 2013, PPC again highlighted the continuing threat of imports from Pakistan, mainly via Durban. Imports comprised 7.6% of national demand as of June 2013. In Nigeria in 2012 Dangote led successfully a campaign to cut foreign imports. Irrespective of increasing demand for cement, adding Dangote to the anti-cement import lobby in South Africa might well make space for a new producer.
India bowls Holcim-Ambuja merger a googly
Written by Global Cement staff
20 November 2013
Minority shareholders have bowled a googly at Holcim's attempt to simplify its business structure in India.
Or for readers unacquainted with cricket terminology, domestic institutions which hold about 9% in Ambuja Cements have been widely reported in the Indian media as having voted against a move to merge the cement producer with its parent company, Holcim India. The final results of the shareholders vote will be publicly announced on 21 November 2013. The shareholders actions follow Holcim's recent approval by the Indian Foreign Investment Promotion Board for the merger.
That this is bad news for Holcim is not in doubt given that the multinational cement producer has taken a hit in its Asia-Pacific region, particularly in India. Overall for the region its operating profit fell by 32.5% year-on-year to US$333m for the quarter to 30 September 2013.
Specifically, Ambuja Cements managed to maintain its sales volume of cement and clinker year-on-year at 4.89Mt for the third quarter. However, its net profit after tax fell by 45.4% to US$27m. It blamed the decline on subdued demand due to overall economic slowdown combined with higher input costs. Meanwhile, ACC saw its sales revenue from cement fall slightly to US$388m for the third quarter while its profit for cement before costs and tax fell by 57% year-on-year to US$22m.
As mentioned in August 2013 when this column last looked at India, the parallels to cement industry consolidation in China are telling. In China guidelines have been issued to cut overcapacity in the cement industry, with the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology releasing lists of companies that should cut excess production. Alongside this, the country's leading cement producers have reported a return to profit so far in 2013. Who exactly is taking the loss from this production retraction in China, if it is happening, remains unreported and unclear.
In India, much more light has been shone upon an over-producing cement industry. Holcim and its subsidiaries are just some of the companies reporting falling profits at present. Ambuja's minor shareholders look like they have made a decision that is counter to the best interests of the Indian cement industry.
In a recent UK newspaper article, political theorist David Runciman compared the respective merits of democratic and more autocratic modes of government. Unsurprisingly for a British academic Runciman came out in favour of democracies, yet the advantages of more centralised governments were noted, such as the ability to make wide-reaching decisions faster and more comprehensively.
In light of this, comparing the Indian and Chinese cement industries in 2040 will be fascinating. Minor shareholder tussles will likely be forgotten but cement (and hopefully cricket) will be as vital then as they are now.
Third quarter cement producers roundup
Written by Global Cement staff
13 November 2013
The third quarter results are in and signs of a recovery in the construction industry are present. Generally for the European producers, volumes of cement sold in the third quarter of 2013 have improved year-on-year compared to the figures for the first nine months of 2013. Although many of these third quarter sales changes are still negative it seems like the industry has turned a corner.
Lafarge reported that cement sales fell by 4% year-on-year to 102Mt for the first nine months in 2013. In the third quarter of 2013 sales remained stable year–on-year at 36.7Mt. Holcim saw its nine month sales fall by 3% to 104Mt while its third quarter sales remained stable at 36Mt. HeidelbergCement saw its nine month sales rise by 1% to 67.7Mt while its third quarter sales rose by 4% to 25.3Mt. Italcementi saw its nine month sales fall by 6% to 32.6Mt while its third quarter sales fell by 2% to 10.8Mt.
By region some of the differences between the European-based multinational cement producers have been telling. Lafarge, for example, is still down year-on-year on cement volumes sold in North America, denting the perceived wisdom of a strong North American recovery. However, profit indicators such as earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) have risen in that region, increasingly in the third quarter. Cemex and Holcim have done better in this region.
Notably, the unstable political situation in Egypt has also impacted the balance sheets for Lafarge and Italcementi. Lafarge reported that cement sales volumes fell by 27% for the first nine months of 2013, principally due to gas shortages, and 19% for the third quarter as the company started to substitute other fuels. Similarly, Italcementi saw overall cement and clinker sales drop by 11.2% in the nine months and 14% in the third quarter.
Meanwhile in China, Anhui Conch produced 86.2Mt for the nine months, a year-on-year increase of 12.1%. Overall revenues in China seem to have risen after decreases in 2012. Anhui Conch reported that its operating revenue rose by 15% to US$6.08bn for the first nine months and US$2.20bn for the third quarter of 2013. Analysts have pinned the return to profit to building in the country's eastern and southern provinces and the effects of government-led industry consolidation. Bucking this trend though, China National Building Materials (CNBM) saw its revenue rise by 37% to US$13.5bn for the first nine months of 2013 but its profit fell by 8.1% to US$542m.
Anhui Conch, Lafarge, Holcim, CNBM, Italcementi and HeidelbergCement all feature at the top of Global Cement's list of the 'Top 75 global cement companies' to be published in the December 2013 issue of Global Cement Magazine. Ahead of final publication we want to know whether readers agree with the rankings. Download our list (registration required) and let us know your comments by 1 December 2013.
Update on Saudi Arabia
Written by Global Cement staff
06 November 2013
Demand for cement is so intense in Saudi Arabia that certain producers have reported production line shutdowns in dedicated stock market statements. Notably, industry newcomer Hail Cement reported a scheduled shutdown for late October/early November 2013, Al Jouf Cement reported unscheduled shutdowns in October and June 2013 and Najran Cement reported scheduled maintenance in July 2013. Even a short delay to cement production is a newsworthy event for both investors and analysts.
Saudi cement producers have risen to the infrastructure challenges of the country's Ninth Development Plan, increasing cement production by 6% year-on-year to 42.7Mt for the first nine months of 2013. In this febrile environment, the king ordered 10Mt of cement imports in April 2013 followed by government demands for producers to build up a two-month 'strategic' inventory reserve. Unsurprisingly, as we report this week, exports of cement from Saudi Arabia have fallen by 55% for the first nine months of 2013.
At the time of Global Cement's feature on Saudi Arabia in December 2012 only two of the country's cement producers had an inventory of joint clinker and cement stock meeting the government's stockpiling request. For the first nine months of 2013 the situation remains the same although the overall inventory has increased by 18% year-on-year to 10.3Mt. This compares to the end of 2012 where inventories fell year-on-year by 14% to 7Mt.
Unsurprisingly again, the Kingdom's major cement producers have seen balance sheets bulge so far in 2013. Yamama Cement reported a 12% year-on-year rise in net profit to US$145m for the first half of 2013 on the back of local demand. Saudi Cement Company reported a 5% year-on-year rise in its net profits to US$173m and Southern Province Cement saw a 4% year-on-year rise in its net profits to US$150m for the same period. Yanbu Cement saw its net profit rise by 29% year-on-year to US$176m for the first nine months of 2013.
With more large government infrastructure contracts pending, analysts expect the Saudi cement market to remain heated. Although as NCB Capital pointed out in September 2013, uncertainties over fuel supplies for coming cement plant expansions provide uncertainty to the situation. Nobody wants a repeat of the Yanbu - Aramco spat over fuel supplies that occurred in 2011. Irony would barely describe the situation if a Saudi Arabian cement boom was dented by a lack of fuel in one of the countries with the biggest oil reserves in the world.
Global Cement will be at stand T9 at the 18th Arab-International Cement Conference and Exhibition in Jordan from 11 – 13 November 2013