Analysis
Search Cement News
Half the picture in China?
Written by Global Cement staff
03 April 2013
Last week's news that Sinoma is considering European acquisitions may seem a little odd considering that Sinoma saw its profit halve in 2012. Yet the Chinese cement equipment builder and cement producer's income (US$3.42bn) puts it level with the likes of European producers, like Italcementi (US$5.75bn) and Buzzi Unicem (US$3.58bn), and the company still made a sizeable profit (US$123m).
Now what really seems odd is the amount by which each of the major Chinese cement producers' profits fell in 2012. Each of the top five producers by capacity, including Sinoma, saw their profits decrease by 40% to 50%. CNBM 'forgot' to report its profit drop but in November 2012 it recorded a 40% fall. Anhui Conch Cement's profit fell by 45.6% to US$1.03bn. Jidong Cement hasn't released any figures but was expecting a 50% drop in late October 2012. China Resources' profit fell by 44.4% to US$300m. Compare that with the diversity of profits reported by the top five European cement producers.
As has been clearly signposted by the Chinese government, the country is overproducing cement. Just how much we can't be sure but the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology declared that 220Mt/yr of 'obsolete' capacity was eliminated in 2012. The country's entire output was placed at 2.18Bt in official figures.
Outmoded capacity is being shut down and industry consolidation encouraged for the main players. Given the state-owned nature of Chinese heavy industry some level of coordination between bad results is to be expected. To give readers an idea of the challenge facing Chinese central planners, Anhui Conch added 28.3Mt/yr of additional cement production capacity in 2012. This is equivalent to the entire capacity of Nigeria or Germany!
Of interest here are China's cement export figures that the government's General Administration of Customs recently released. Exports hit a peak of 33Mt in 2007 and then declined by 68% to 11Mt in 2011. In 2012 they increased slightly to 12Mt. That's 20Mt of cement not leaving the country any more. Plus, the 'Shenzhen sea-sand in concrete scandal' can't be helping the industry's reputation abroad either.
Also of note last week, a Kyrgyzstan minister proposed restricting imports of Chinese cement to his country. Cement produced at Chinese-owned plants will be much harder to block. The next prong of the Chinese plan to tackle its cement industry is direct overseas expansion and this is what we're seeing from the likes of Sinoma and Anhui Conch. Sinoma, as mentioned above, appears to have cash to spend and in 2012 Anhui Conch began its first international project in Indonesia.
Double-think? Calling for reduced emissions while welcoming fewer regulations
Written by Global Cement staff
27 March 2013
The Mineral Products Association (MPA), which looks after the interests of the cement industry (and other allied industries) in the UK, has said that it welcomes a temporary tax-freeze relating to climate change announced in the UK Budget of 20 March 2013. The MPA singled out the decision to freeze the indexation of the Aggregates Levy until April 2014 and the decision to introduce the Climate Change Levy mineralogical and metallurgical exemption for energy-intensive industries such as cement and lime. Both of these moves by UK Chancellor George Osborne have been welcomed because they bring some relief to the UK cement industry and wider construction activities. MPA members make money from such activites and any potential cost that can be eliminated or delayed, even for a short time, is welcome amid the current slump that is the UK economy. This is especially true as the UK weathers the one of the longest and most severe winters for 50 years. So far, so much sense.
However, how does this reaction to the Climate Change Levy exemption tie in with the MPA's February 2013 announcement that it thinks that the UK cement industry's total CO2 emissions should be reduced by 81% by 2050? What should UK cement producers make of this? The MPA's cement industry CO2 reduction targets are certainly bold. On the face of it, they look achievable given the progress that has been made to date by the UK cement industry, although much is left to the imagination as to which areas could and should contribute most to the reduction target. The 81% reduction target includes the successful future commercial development of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies. It also relies on an increased proportion of renewable sources for the electricity that the cement industry will receive in 2050, something else that is totally out of the industry's control.
However, much hard work has already been done by cement companies in the UK. As in other EU countries and developed nations, total dust and toxic emissions have fallen dramatically in the UK cement industry since 1990. The country's alternative fuel substitution rate has now hit ~40%. Yet, as the MPA highlights in its document detailing the targets for 2050, much of the low-hanging fruit has already been taken. Further reduction in overall CO2 emissions will be significantly affected by both regulations and cement company progress. Cement companies can increase their consumption of 'wastes' and fit waste-heat recovery systems. Through such measures they can achieve further reductions in emissions. Some kilns have hit alternative fuel substitution rates of 100% for limited periods and examples from the near continent show that 80% alternative fuels can be the norm. However, unlike these 'bottom-up' approaches, which can be introduced at a plant in a period of months, regulations take years to evolve and come into force, often involving slow and lengthly debate by politicians, associations and consumers.
To discourage the government from seeking to impose stricter environmental regulations for the cement industry by welcoming the exemption, is the MPA undercutting its own calls to reduce CO2 emissions in the UK cement industry? From a cement producer's perspective, it looks like the MPA could hold two contradictory opinions on the same subject: that you can welcome reductions in climate regulation while also calling for stricter emissions regulations. This phenomenon was famously termed 'double think' by George Orwell in his classic novel '1984,' but the MPA's situation is far more subtle. Often the regulators and those being regulated can agree on the same target but not on how that target should be reached. The next 37 years will show whether or not this target is even possible.
Bold moves from HeidelbergCement
Written by Bold moves from HeidelbergCement
20 March 2013
Somebody at HeidelbergCement is brave. Making an investment in a cement market characterised in 2012 by job losses and carbon taxation takes some nerve. Yet this is exactly what HeidelbergCement has done with the announcement that it plans to take joint control of Cement Australia with Holcim.
So what's in it for Holcim and HeidelbergCement?
Opportunity and foreign supply chains to minimise the carbon tax seem to be the main reasons. With Holcim's 2012 financial performance dragged down by Europe and Africa, its cost reduction programme, the 'Holcim Leadership Journey,' continues into 2013. Australia, as one of the few disappointing spots in the producer's Asia-Pacific region, is an obvious asset to sell. By contrast, HeidelbergCement reported growth in its operating income in 2012.
With regards to supply chains, both Boral and Adelaide Brighton – Cement Australia's competitors in Australia – acted to seize foreign clinker supplies in 2012. As they are multinationals, Holcim and HeidelbergCement have ready-built supply chains. Figures from the Global Cement Directory 2013 show that Holcim holds a cement production capacity of 9.7Mt in Indonesia, 5.75Mt in the Philippines and 0.55Mt in New Zealand. HeidelbergCement hold 16.5Mt in Indonesia. Despite regular annual high performance and regular capacity growth in the cement industry in Indonesia and the Philippines, having the option to export excess clinker to nearby Australia must be enticing.
For Holcim, minimising risk may be a key factor in their decision to reduce their share in Cement Australia. Holcim dodged mentioning the country's cement performance in its 2013 outlook although it did report an overall volume decrease across all its business lines in 2012. Boral expects its sales volumes to remain flat in the first six months of 2013, with pricing challenged by the high Australian Dollar and low sea freight prices. Adelaide Brighton expects its demand for cement to continue coming from South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory. Adelaide Brighton also took pains to point out the carbon tax will hit its 2013 profits by US$6m, nearly 4% of its 2012 profit. Going 50-50 with HeidelbergCement shares the risks for Holcim as well as the profits.
Holcim faces the same dilemma that Lafarge faced in mid-2012 when it sold two cement plants in the US. It needs to sell assets to cut costs and raise capital but it also needs to pick assets to sell that won't boost its competitors too much. The on-going recovery in the US building industry suggests at present that Lafarge may have made a poor choice in North America. Holcim's decision suggests that they aren't expecting a recovery in Australia anytime soon.
Getting into Africa
Written by Global Cement staff
13 March 2013
If you have any spare cement this week – send it to Ghana!
First, HeidelbergCement announced plans for a new cement mill on the coast at Takoradi. Then, Dangote officially started to export cement to the west African nation.
HeidelbergCement's strategy in the region is telling because it is starting to head inland. The press release on Ghana indicated that the German-based cement producer intends to expand its capacity to 4.4Mt/yr by late 2014. This follows a recent announcement that HeidelbergCement are building their first grinding plant in Burkina Faso, directly north of Ghana. Previously the producer imported cement there. Now it intends to build a US$50m plant with a production capacity of 0.65Mt/yr.
Since most of HeidelbergCement's existing infrastructure in the region is based on the coast, building a plant in a landlocked nation - Burkina Faso - is a huge vote of investor confidence in west Africa. "In particular the countries of sub-Saharan Africa have a very high growth potential due to their early stage of industrialisation and rich natural resources," said Dr Bernd Scheifele, chairman of the managing board of HeidelbergCement in the statement accompanying the Ghana expansion.
The move also provides a clue as to how competitive the cement market is becoming in territories near the coast in Africa. Currently HeidelbergCement holds a mostly coastal presence in western Africa, in Benin, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Ghana, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Togo. It has four cement plants and nine grinding plants. Its cement business made a year-on-year increase in revenue of 12% to Euro612m in 2012.
Roughly calculated, HeidelbergCement is paying US$77/t in Burkina Faso compared to US$38/t in Ghana to build its new production capacity. HeidelbergCement must be paying double for a reason.
Meanwhile, Dangote Cement announced on the same day (11 March 2013) that a fleet of cement trucks were heading to Ghana. Already the Nigerian cement producer holds a cement terminal with a bagging capacity of 1.5Mt/yr in the country. Dangote intends to start exporting 5000t/week of cement. Its eventual target is 5000t/day when the logistics are in place, or up to 1.8Mt/yr. Not a bad start in unloading Dangote's self-declared overcapacity of 20Mt/yr in Nigeria upon the neighbouring nations in the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).
The Egyptian cement irony
Written by Global Cement staff
06 March 2013
One of the ironies of the on-going Eurozone crisis is that several of the affected multinational cement producers hold a presence in Egypt. Egypt, which has a population of over 80m and growing demand for cement, should be hauling these balance sheets out of a hole. Instead it teeters on the edge of one. The country, one of the few well-performing countries in Titan's 2012 results this week, came with a sting in its tail.
According to Titan, cement consumption in Egypt reached 'new highs' in 2012 justifying the group's new capacity. Although Titan declined to publish actual figures, it stated that turnover declined only slightly despite the greater total supply of cement in the market. Overall, Titan's Eastern Mediterranean region, which includes Egypt, saw turnover increase by 7% to Euro296m. Yet Titan's operating margins in Egypt were impacted by increases in energy costs. In addition the country's political and economic instability negatively affected the group's outlook there for 2013.
Italcementi commented too in its annual results about how much cement consumption grew in 2012. The Italian-based multinational stated that it grew by 5% from 2011 supported by the residential sector. Revenue grew in Egypt by 2% to Euro564m despite domestic sales volumes falling as much as 15%. As a whole, operating results were slightly lower than in 2011, partly due to the strong increase in the cost of energy factors, notably gas.
Titan and Italcementi are clearly both trying to play up their achievements in Egypt in otherwise dismal annual reports. Other players have no such compunctions.
Cemex encountered a 10% decline in sales volumes for 2012, half its Mediterranean region average of 19%. Lafarge reported that its sales were down by 5% in 2012 and its domestic volumes were down by 12%. It pointedly mentioned the impact of new cement production capacity on its sales. Cimpor in its third quarter results to September 2012 reported a 2% fall in sales volumes and a rise in turnover of 8% to Euro138m.
Looking back at Egyptian cement industry news stories on GlobalCement.com reveals two regular issues echoed by the annual reports: fuel concerns and labour unrest. This week is no exception, with the Egyptian government reacting to price rises related to energy input issues.
A question occurs. How much better would the Italcementi and Titan balance sheets be without the problems in Egypt? It's almost impossible to tell, but one solution would be to tackle energy supply issues by increasing the use of alternative fuels. This is covered by the Global CemFuels Conference & Exhibition that takes place on 11-14 March 2013 in Istanbul, Turkey. For more information and to register visit: www.cemfuels.com.