Analysis

A stark reminder came this week of the thankfully rare but potential risks of working in the cement industry. Five deaths were reported at Ambuja Cement's Bhatapara cement plant in India on 31 January 2013.

According to a press release Ambuja issued, the steel construction supporting a fly ash hopper located on top of a building, and connected to the cement mill, collapsed at the Bhatapara plant. Further details in local press reports added that about 200t of fly ash fell from a height of 15m. Five labourers and plant employees working at the site were buried under the debris and subsequently died. Four officials from the company have since been arrested and the plant closed while investigations are conducted.

Previously in January 2013 burn injuries were reported as another Ambuja cement plant, this time at Darlaghat. Eight workers received burns after a blast from a boiler unit.

However, despite these incidents the safety figures for Ambuja Cement and the other major Indian producers are high. In Ambuja Cement's 2011 sustainability report it recorded that its lost time injury frequency rate (LTIFR) was 1.04 for total employees and supervised workers. Its LTIFR has been dropping steadily since 2008, when it was 3.18.

This compares to other major Indian cement producers as follows. UltraTech Cement reported that its LTIFR for permanent employees was 0.82 in 2011-2012, a consistent drop year by year since 2008-2009. ACC reported that its LTIFR for its own and subcontracted employees was 0.31 in 2011. Shree Cement reported a LTIFR of 0.91 in 2010-2011 for employees and contractors. For international comparison the Mineral Products Association set a LTIFR target of 1.79 or lower for 2014 in the UK. Lafarge's global LTIFR in 2011 was 0.63 and Holcim's was 1.6.

An Ambuja's plant in Rajasthan picked up two national awards from the Government of India for Safety Performance in mid 2012. One was for first place for outstanding performance in Industrial Safety based on 'Lowest Average Frequent Rate'. The second was a runners-up prize for the category 'Accident Free Year'. Lafarge India, UltraTech, ACC and the other major producers all hold similar accolades. Sadly, any safety record is only as good as the shift that has just finished.

The Iranian authorities may have taken glee in recent months in reporting that their country is on course to become the third biggest cement producer in the world. It's the position normally taken by the US in recent years (after China and India). For a country reeling from US-led sanctions it must provide some comfort. Yet what is the cost of this industrial 'victory'?

In December 2012 Iran's production for the first eight months of the Iranian calendar year beat the previous period by 6% to 49Mt. Current projections see the country hitting 75Mt by the end of the 2012-2013 year and then 85Mt by the close of the 2013-2014 year. Claims that Iran is now becoming the world's third biggest producer fit with estimated cement production figures for 2011 from the US Geological Survey (USGS) putting Iran behind China and India. The US produced 68Mt in 2011. A rough estimate for Portland cement shipped in the US in 2012 from USGS data is 79Mt.

Two stories this week build up a complex picture of the cement industry in Iran. Iranian news agencies have been reporting frequently how well the domestic industry has done in recent months. The latest concerns how Iran's Bank of Industry & Mine has allocated around Euro400m to complete 15 cement projects since 2010. However, also this week, we can report that Iran is facing a seasonal decline of cement demand leading to large stores of clinker in some plants. One can't quite imagine the state run news agencies reporting that they have larger stores of clinker than the US.

Despite the increasingly complicated international trade sanctions in force against Iran, exports are booming. In the current Iranian calendar year they have jumped by 30% to 9Mt, going principally to Iraq, Central Asia, United Arab Emirates and Afghanistan, where it has displaced a significant proportion of Pakistani exports. As our columnist Yves De Moor commented in the November 2012 issue of Global Cement Magazine, Iranian cement is cheap due to overcapacity but hard to import due to the sanctions.

In the absence of recent consumption figures for Iran, comparing the US and Iran on a graph of cement consumption per capita against GDP per capita helps. The US remains at the upper end of the distribution curve at 250kg/capita and US$48,000/capita. Iran is flying off above the other end of the curve at 1000kg/capita and US$13,000/capita. This suggests either overcapacity or a production boom.

Further overcapacity can only push the price of exported cement down further making neighbouring markets more willing to brave the sanctions. This may support Iran's economy as President Mahmud Ahmadinezhad has stated that non-oil exports are one way his country can overcome the sanctions. Additionally, overcapacity offers some political capital on the world stage. The cost for the Iranian cement industry if and when the sanctions end may be devastating though.

Forget Europe! The US cement industry is back in the game and could be looking forward to growth of 8.1% in cement consumption, according to a new forecast from the Portland Cement Association (PCA). This compares to a growth of 6% in consumption the PCA predicted in the autumn of 2012 in the shadow of the US 'fiscal cliff'.

The new forecast is based upon PCA research that estimates that total residential housing starts will reach 954,000 units in 2013. To give an idea of how badly the 2007 financial crisis hit the US residential housing market, according to US Census Bureau data in 2005 a total of 2,068,300 total housing start units were recorded. In 2007 this fell to 1,355,000 units. By 2009 this levelled out at 554,000, the lowest figure since at least 1960. A loose comparison with Spanish cement consumption in 2012 is worth noting here, when it too hit levels not seen since the 1960s.

The PCA's report predicts US cement consumption of 78.5Mt in 2013. As we pointed out in our overview of the US Cement Industry in the May 2012 issue of Global Cement Magazine, in 2006 the cement consumption of the United States was 122Mt. When the financial crisis hit, consumption nearly halved to 67Mt in 2009. The prediction for 2013 is a great improvement but the levels of 2005 are still a long way off. Currently, the Global Cement Directory 2013 places US cement production capacity at 114Mt/yr.

Other encouraging signs for the US cement industry include the sale of two Lafarge plants to Eagle Materials in September 2012 and less industry anxiety over US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) emissions legislation. Lafarge choosing to sell plants in Missouri and Oklahoma with the US market starting to recover suggests that the French producer may have had its doubts. Yet Eagle Materials certainly thought the plants were worth the price tag of US$446m.

In summary the signs are broadly positive for the US cement industry at the start of 2013 although the dizzy heights of consumption of the early 2000s seem a long way off. US cement producers may take comfort from recent news stories from Beijing about efforts to contain air pollution from a cement plant. Hopefully for them it will be a case of 'been there, done that'.

This week Donal O'Riain, the Irish chief executive of Ecocem, cried out for an 80% tax on cement producers in Ireland. His reason? In his words, Irish producers are making profits from an over-allocation in the European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) despite demand dropping in the Irish industry. The tax was his suggestion to address this 'anomaly' and give the Irish Exchequer a boost.

The timing of his comments are interesting given that the EU ETS entered its third phase at the start of 2013. Towards the end of 2012 environmental campaign group Sandbag questioned in a report whether the scheme was actually helping the environment or not. As Sandbag pointed out generally, not just for the cement industry, carbon prices in the scheme had remained low due to an excess supply in the market. Due to the oversupply, prices were so low that the EU ETS has ceased to function.

The European Commission conceded this failing of the EU ETS in November 2012 by announcing that it was taking steps to address the supply-demand imbalance of emission allowances in the scheme. Firstly 'back-loading' action volumes, revising the auction time profile and delay of the auctioning of 900 million allowances, came into effect from 1 January 2013. Secondly the Commission launched a debate on broad structural measures with a report on the carbon market.

Any emissions trading scheme can distort the market in unexpected ways. With regards to the cement industry, if O'Riain is correct, then parts of the Irish cement industry are making profit on carbon credits despite demand falling. Or, to put it as O'Riain did, the EU ETS may be subsidising environmentally-unfriendly plants at the expensive of more environmentally sensitive ones. Such as Ecocem we must presume. What would be really interesting here is to find out whether other European cement producing countries are also benefitting from over-allocation as demand falls, specifically in Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece.

Another distortion is that in the EU ETS, offsets generated from developing countries can be surrendered by companies in competing sectors in the EU, giving, in effect, a subsidy to competitors outside the EU. For example, as ETS schemes spread then staying outside of such regulation could prove profitable for cement exporters.

Koen Coppenholle the chief executive of CEMBUREAU, the European Cement Association, tackled this in his response to the European Commission's report, "It is essential that any further reduction of CO₂ emissions above the targets agreed should remain conditional upon the conclusion of an international agreement between all major greenhouse gas emitting countries. This should be undertaken with a view to establish a global crediting scheme, characterised by a comparable methodology to measure greenhouse gas emission reductions and equivalent monitoring and reduction efforts." Hence the interest in regional Chinese ETS schemes such as the emissions trading schemes that were launched in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangdong in 2012. China currently plans to introduce its own national scheme in 2015.

Despite the bureaucrats' efforts to improve emissions trading schemes, Petroleum Review summed up their effect in June 2012, "Carbon trading appears to have pulled off the noteworthy achievement of uniting oil and gas producers and environmentalists in their appraisal of its shortcomings." We could add cement producers to that list.

Nigeria's Minister of Trade and Investment, Olusegun Aganga brought together warring parties from Dangote and Ibeto Cement this week to discuss their very public spat about the state of the country's cement industry.

Claims that Nigeria is facing a 'glut' of cement have been building since the Cement Manufacturing Association of Nigeria (CMAN) declared that Nigeria was 'self-sufficient' in cement in late 2012. So when leading cement importer Ibeto Cement questioned this narrative, leading cement producers Dangote and Lafarge hit back. Aganga then announced a review of the country's industry.

Despite Nigeria's potential to consume cement, something is stopping it. Yet, as Ibeto Cement rightly asked, if Nigeria is producing too much cement why isn't the price falling?

Hard facts about the Nigerian cement industry are elusive. This is what we know. Nigeria's population is apparently 170m. Its cement industry has the capacity to produce 28Mt/yr (Global Cement Directory 2013). Its production level was 18.5Mt/yr in 2012 according to CMAN. However figures compiled by the United States Geological Survey placed production much lower at 11.6Mt in 2011. Consumption is believed to be 17-20Mt/yr. In 2011 it was 17Mt. Ibete Cement, the sole importer into the country, is allowed to import up to 1.5Mt/yr.

Nigeria's main producers include Dangote (19Mt/yr capacity, 70% of the market), Lafarge WAPCO (4.6Mt/yr, 17%), Unicem (2.5Mt/yr, 9%) and Ashaka Cement (2Mt/yr, 7%).

Hype about Nigeria's potential as a cement-producing nation hinges upon its low per capita consumption (110kg) compared to some of its African neighbours and indicators of expected growth such as a housing deficit of 16 million homes.

CMAN boss Joseph Makoju addressed this head-on, blaming the high cost of haulage and energy. He said that the energy cost accounts for over 35% of the production cost and that the price of low pour fuel oil (LPFO) had risen by over 300% from US$0.16/l in 2009 to US$0.69/l in November 2012. It should be pointed out that Makoju is also the special adviser to the president of Dangote Group, Aliko Dangote. Unsurprisingly he has advised the Federal Government to impose higher taxes on imported cement to discourage imports.

The production boom of recent years has been threatened by a weakening increase in demand. The gap between production and lower consumption estimates is around 1.5Mt. Dangote and Lafarge WAPCO's combined unsold stock at the end of 2012 was also just below 1.5Mt. Both figures are suspiciously close to the amount Ibeto is allowed to import annually. As usual, the easiest target is the cement importer. Dangote's political clout as a key Nigerian company, large-scale employer and all round African success-story will doubtless help its argument.

Yet if imports are really more competitive than Nigeria's domestic product how can the country possibly hope to export cement? Also this week Liberia announced it has relaxed its tariffs on cement. As luck would have it Dangote is building a new cement plant in the country. Sounds ideal for tricky import negotiations.