Analysis
Search Cement News
The 2% and the IPCC
Written by Global Cement staff
02 October 2013
Cement production took an unnecessarily harsh rap from the latest assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The cause? Misleading wording.
In its summary for policymakers from Working Group I contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (WGI AR5), every time CO2 emissions were mentioned, cement was also mentioned. Typically this was along the lines of: "annual CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement production". Energy supply or transport industries were not mentioned. Only cement was. Subsequently in some general press reports covering the IPCC report, cement was duly parroted as the major industrial source of CO2 emissions.
Digging into the data revealed that this particular wording derived from one of the data sources that the IPCC used that examined global CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel burning, cement manufacture and gas flaring from 1751 - 2008 from the US Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center. Here cement production was grouped along with different type of fossil fuels, such as gas, liquids and solids, and gas flaring. Deeper into the IPCC draft report it was revealed (using this research) that total cumulative emissions between 1750 and 2011 amounted to 365 ± 30 PgC (1 PgC = 1015 grams of carbon), of which only 8 PgC (2%) came from the production of cement.
Undoubtedly the cement industry's carbon emissions are huge but ambiguous wording in a release targeted for policymakers is not helpful.
Thankfully at about the same time as the IPCC made headlines last week European Cement Association, Cembureau, followed the UK's Mineral Products Association (MPA) in releasing its own lobbying document for the industry. This consisted of five parallel routes to lowering emissions related to cement production. Unfortunately Cembureau's press release didn't receive the global media coverage that the IPCC did.
The bottom line is this: cement is essential for modern industrial societies.
With or without climate change caused by human behaviour, we will all need somewhere to live and work. For the moment such structures will be built from cement and concrete. Organisations like Cembureau offer a way forward. Global policymakers should pay attention.
Cementing the recovery
Written by Global Cement staff
25 September 2013
The timing of the UK Mineral Products Association's (MPA) latest call to arms makes one wonder how well the economic recovery is going in parts of Europe. The MPA has launched a document entitled 'Cementing the Future – Sustaining an Essential British Industry' to promote the UK cement industry. It is the MPA's job to beat the drum for the industries it represents so in this sense it should always be trying to raise the minerals sector's profile.
Yet as the UK economy starts to lumber out of the recession, a publication like this suggests that the challenges ahead of the industry are still large. MPA figures released in July 2013 showed that year-on-year growth in cement volumes hit a low of -10% in the second quarter of 2012 before rising to better (negative) rates to the first quarter of 2013. No data was available for the second quarter of 2013.
One of the MPA's recommendations is that the UK government does more to protect the main internationally-owned players from international trading markets. At least foreign-owned companies provide local jobs. The main thrust is to protect the industry from carbon taxation, ensuring better international competiveness. On the back of Cembureau's latest industry figures, chief executive Koen Coppenholle recommends much the same thing for Europe as a whole in his column in the September 2013 issue of Global Cement Magazine.
One thing the MPA doesn't need is more bad news when the UK Competition Commission publishes its report on an investigation on the aggregates, cement and ready-mix concrete market in December 2013. On that score the investigation hasn't been too troubling so far with its provisional findings concluding that despite poor competition between firms on price there was no explicit collusion.
In terms of competition though things could be worse. For example, take Colombia. In August 2013 the Colombian competition agency, the Superintendency of Industry and Commerce (SIC), announced its investigation in the country's main players for 'sustained and unjustified' increases in the price of cement since 2010. For the first six months of 2013 cement prices rose by 8% compared to an inflation rate of 1.73%.
Whatever is happening in Colombia, its largest cement producer, Cementos Argos, saw its profits rise by 5.9% to US$218m in 2012. At present the MPA can only dream of times like that again and hope that the UK government takes note of its advocacy.
PCA stands by brighter US cement future
Written by Global Cement staff
18 September 2013
US cement consumption may have disappointed some in the first quarter of 2013 but solid growth lies ahead, according to the Portland Cement Association (PCA). Just how solid that growth will be remains open to interpretation.
PCA chief economist Ed Sullivan forecast 8% growth in cement consumption at the start of 2013. Now's its been halved to just 4%. Yet he's standing by the hint of good news ahead, upping the growth from 2014 to 9.7%.
Figures from the major US cement producers present a mixed picture. The major multinational cement producers mostly suffered from the weather in early 2013. Lafarge saw its cement sales in North America drop by 23% year-on-year for the first half of 2013 to 4.4Mt from 5.7Mt in the same period of 2012. Cemex's cement sales in the US rose by 3% but no specific figures were released. Holcim's cement sales in North America fell by 7% to 5Mt from 5.4Mt. HeidelbergCement's cement sales in the North America grew by 5% to 5.7Mt from 5.4Mt.
Of the rest, Texas Industries reported a rise in cement shipments of 29% to 2.23Mt from 1.73Mt for the six months to the 31 May 2013. Titan saw sales in the US rise by 10% to US$258m.
Preliminary United States Geological Survey data for June 2013 suggests that the increase in portland and blended cement shipments in the US slowed in the first half of 2013. In 2011 32.1Mt were shipped, in 2012 37.0Mt were shipped and in 2013 37.2Mt were shipped.
Meanwhile the construction figures US Department of Commerce mostly suggested growth but not without the odd jitter. Construction spending fell slightly in June 2013. Total construction spending adjusted seasonally fell by 0.4% to US$869bn due to a fall in non-residential construction. Since then though the July 2013 figure hit US$901bn, the highest since June 2009.
Accordingly, in his forecast Sullivan pins his hopes on the residential sector in the near term. It has seen consistent growth since October 2012. However other industry commentators, like the American Institue of Architects, have focused on poor growth in non-residential construction.
Let's hope Sullivan's got it right.
Lucky strike? Changes in Pakistan’s cement industry
Written by Global Cement staff
11 September 2013
At the beginning of September 2013 Lucky Cement reportedly resigned from the All Pakistan Cement Manufacturers Association. The implications of this departure raise interesting implications for Pakistan's cement industry and its export markets.
Lucky Cement reacted to a growing row over energy prices for cement producers in Pakistan. The government increased electricity taxes for industrial consumers by 55% but only increased gas prices by 17.5%. This has created an uneven rise in the cost of production between those smaller cement producers powered off the national electricity grid and those larger cement producers using captive power plants. Suddenly smaller cement producers have found it much more expensive to make cement than their larger competitors.
Although Pakistan's cement industry contains over 20 producers, it is dominated by four major players - Lucky Cement, Bestway Cement, DG Khan and Maple Leaf – who hold nearly half of the country's cement production capacity of around 45Mt/yr. According to local media covering the spat, Lucky Cement uses 100% captive power generation, DG Khan Cement uses 40% and Maple Leaf Cement uses 45%.
In 2009 the Competition Commission of Pakistan issued fines to 20 cement producers found guilty of acting as a cartel and co-ordinating rises in cement prices. Following the action cement prices fell by 30%. Since then prices have steadily risen again with the industry publicly denying the existence of a cartel as recently as April 2013.
Regardless of whether any collusion exists today, with new cement production capacity announced this week by DG Khan, the incentives for Pakistan's larger cement producers are growing to keep their prices low with the benefit of seizing greater market share. Meanwhile the smaller cement producers could be squeezed on both energy input costs and price.
In Pakistan, if the larger cement producers act on the new market opportunities, industry consolidation seems possible. Internationally, if the big cement producers in Pakistan concentrate more on the domestic market then this presents opportunities elsewhere. For example, markets in East and South Africa receive significant cement imports from Pakistan. If the volumes of these imports decrease then local African producers and rival exporters will benefit.
Changes in Pakistan's cement industry carry implications both at home and abroad in its export markets. Who exactly these changes will be 'lucky' for remains to be seen.
Czech-mate for Cemex?
Written by Global Cement staff
04 September 2013
Cemex's decision to head deeper into eastern Europe as part of the Cemex-Holcim asset swap announced this week suggests some nerve. Cement production levels started to fall in the region from 2012, according to Cembureau figures, with continued problems reported so far by the multinational cement producers in 2013. Cemex seems likely to lose money from the start with its new assets in the Czech Republic.
In more detail, Cemex will acquire all of Holcim's assets in the Czech Republic, which include a 1.1Mt/yr cement plant, four aggregates quarries and 17 ready-mix plants. In return Holcim will give Cemex Euro70m and Cemex will give Holcim its assets in western Germany including one cement plant and two grinding mills that encompass a total capacity of 2.5Mt/yr, one slag granulator, 22 aggregates quarries and 79 ready-mix plants.
Cemex must believe that it can wait out the recovery of the construction sector in eastern Europe or make savings from having a more easterly spread of assets. Certainly Cemex said in its press release on the asset swap that its earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) would start to rise from US$20m to US$30m from 2014.
The question for the buyers at Cemex who considered this deal is whether the construction market has bottomed out in the Czech Republic yet. According to World Bank figures, following the 2008 financial crisis Czech Gross Domestic Product (GDP) fell to a low of US$197bn in 2009, rose again until 2011 but then fell to US$196bn in 2012. Currently the Czech National Bank is anticipating a further fall in growth in 2013. Meanwhile, data from a third quarter 2013 Czech construction sector analysis by CEEC Research reported that a drop of at least 4.7% was expected in 2013 with a follow-on decline of 2.7% in 2014.
Possibly one deal-maker for Cemex was the prospect of combined operations with Holcim in Spain across cement, aggregates and ready-mix. Similar to the Lafarge-Tarmac joint-venture in the UK, the move offers reduced risk in a declining western European market. How the Spanish competition authorities will respond remains to be seen. Elsewhere on the continent this week the decision by the Belgian Competition Council to fine the Belgian cement sector shows an example of behaviour the Spanish authorities will want to avoid.