Displaying items by tag: Analysis

Taiwan Cement said this week that it is aiming for cement to account for less than half of its sales by 2025. At the annual shareholders’ meeting chair Nelson Chang defended the cement sector as a core business but said that the company was expanding more into the green energy sector through its energy storage and vehicle charging lines. Chang directly linked the strategy to growing carbon taxes around the world, such as the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme, where the carbon price has been occasionally close to pushing past Euro100/t since early 2022. Taiwan Cement formed a joint venture with Türkiye-based Oyak Group in 2018 that runs Cimpor in Portugal.

Table 1: Cement business share by revenue of selected cement producers. Source: Corporate annual reports.

Taiwan Cement’s plan to decrease its reliance on cement is becoming a familiar one. Holcim notably revealed in 2021 that it was growing its light building materials division. Its cement division represented 60% of sales in 2020 with concrete and aggregates making up most of the rest to 92% and the remaining 8% on other products including light building materials. This started to change with the acquisition of roofing and building envelope producer Firestone Building Products in 2021. Other similar acquisitions have followed. Holcim’s current target is to grow the Solutions & Products division to around 30% by 2025, with cement reduced to somewhere between a third and half of sales. Earlier this year Japan-based Taiheiyo Cement said it was doing a similar thing as part of its medium-term strategy to 2035. In its case cement represented 70% of its sales in 2022 but it is now aiming to reduce this to 65% by 2025 and 50% by 2035.

A common pattern for the business composition of European cement companies is a mixture of heavy building materials made up of cement, concrete and aggregate. However, not every cement company follows the same route. Some cement companies are simply parts of larger conglomerates. UltraTech Cement, for example, is mostly just a cement company. However, it is also part of Aditya Birla Group, which runs a wide range of industries including chemicals, textiles, financial services, telecoms, mining and more. Depending on how one looks at it, UltraTech Cement’s cement business ratio is large or Aditya Birla Group’s ratio is small. Siam Cement Group (SCG) in Thailand is another example of a cement producer operated by a conglomerate with other major businesses.

A different approach that some cement producers take is to mix cement production with complimentary businesses outside of heavy building materials. A good example of this is Votorantim Cement in Brazil, which manufactures cement and steel. Companhia Siderúrgica Nacional (CSN) is another Brazil-based cement producer that is also well known for steel production. Adani Group in India, meanwhile, was well known for logistics, power generation and airports before it purchased Ambuja Cements and ACC from Holcim in 2022.

The driver for cement companies looking to reduce cement as a proportion of their businesses has varied between the three examples presented above. Holcim’s approach has been in response to growing European carbon costs but it also fits with a general desire to broaden its business as the company has sought to reshape itself following the merger between Lafarge and Holcim. Taiheiyo Cement’s plans also have a sustainability angle but the Japanese market has been in slow decline since the 1990s and this has been made worse by the spike in energy prices since 2022. Investing in new businesses makes sense for either of these reasons. Lastly, Taiwan Cement says it is taking action in response to carbon prices around the world. However, its proximity to many other large-scale producers in the Far East may also be a factor. Whether more companies follow suit and also start to reduce the ratio of their cement businesses remains to be seen. Yet, mounting carbon taxes and global production overcapacity look set to make more of the larger cement producers consider their options in certain places.

In Australia and New Zealand, four producers operate a total of six integrated cement plants, with another 13 grinding plants situated in Australia. This relatively small regional cement industry has been on a decades-long trajectory towards ever-greater sustainability – hastened by some notable developments in recent weeks.

Oceania is among the regions most exposed to the impacts of climate change. In Australia, which ranked 16th on the GermanWatch Global Climate Risk Index 2021, destructive changes are already playing out in diverse ways.¹ Boral reported 'significant disruption' to its operations in New South Wales and southeast Queensland due to wet weather earlier in 2022. This time, the operational impact was US$17.1m; in future, such events are expected to come more often and at a higher cost.

Both the Australian cement industry and the sole New Zealand cement producer, Golden Bay Cement, have strategies aimed at restricting climate change to below the 2° scenario. Golden Bay Cement, which reduced its total CO₂ emissions by 12% over the four-year period between its 2018 and 2022 financial years, aims to achieve a 30% reduction by 2030 from the same baseline. The Australian Cement Industry Federation (CIF)'s 2050 net zero cement and concrete production roadmap consists of the following pathways: alternative cements – 7%; green hydrogen and alternative fuels substitution – 6%; carbon capture – 33%; renewable energy, transport and construction innovations – 35% and alternative concretes – 13%, with the remaining 6% accounted for by the recarbonation of set concrete.

Australia produces 5.2Mt/yr of clinker, with specific CO₂ emissions of 791kg/t of clinker, 4% below the global average of 824kg/t.² Calcination generates 55% of cement’s CO₂ emissions in the country, and fuel combustion 26%. Of the remainder, electricity (comprising 21% renewables) accounted for 12%, and distribution 7%. Australian cement production has a clinker factor of 84%, which the industry aims to reduce to 70% by 2030 and 60% by 2050. In New Zealand, Golden Bay Cement's main cement, EverSure general-purpose cement, generates CO₂ at 732kg/t of product.³ It has a clinker factor of 91%, and also contains 4% gypsum and 5% added limestone.

Alternative raw materials

Currently, Australian cement grinding mills process 3.3Mt/yr of fly ash and ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS). In Southern Australia, Hallett Group plans to commission its upcoming US$13.4m Port Augusta slag cement grinding plant in 2023. The plant will use local GGBFS from refineries in nearby Port Pirie and Whyalla, and fly ash from the site of the former Port Augusta power plant, as well as being 100% renewably powered. Upon commissioning, the facility will eliminate regional CO₂ emissions of 300,000t/yr, subsequently rising to 1Mt/yr following planned expansions. Elsewhere, an Australian importer holds an exclusive licencing agreement for UK-based Innovative Ash Solutions' novel air pollution control residue (APCR)-based supplementary cementitious material, an alternative to pulverised fly ash (PFA), while Australian Graphene producer First Graphene is involved in a UK project to develop reduced-CO₂ graphene-enhanced cement.

Golden Bay Cement is investigating the introduction of New Zealand's abundant volcanic ash in its cement production.

Fuels and more

Alternative fuel (AF) substitution in Australian cement production surpassed 18% in 2020, and is set to rise to 30% by 2030 and 50% by 2050, or 60% including 10% green hydrogen. In its recent report on Australian cement industry decarbonisation, the German Cement Works Association (VDZ) noted the difficulty that Australia's cement plants face in competing against landfill sites for waste streams. It described current policy as inadequate to incentivise AF use.

Cement producer Adbri is among eight members of an all-Australian consortium currently building a green hydrogen plant at AGL Energy’s Torrens Island gas-fired power plant in South Australia.

Across the Tasman Sea, Golden Bay Cement expects to attain a 60% AF substitution rate through on-going developments in its use of waste tyres and construction wood waste at its Portland cement plant in Northland. The producer will launch its new EcoSure reduced-CO₂ (699kg/t) general-purpose cement in November 2022. In developing EcoSure cement, it co-processed 80,000t of waste, including 3m waste tyres. The company says that this has helped in its efforts to manage its costs amid high coal prices.

Carbon capture

As the largest single contributor in Australia's cement decarbonisation pathway, carbon capture is now beginning to realise its potential. Boral and carbon capture specialist Calix are due to complete a feasibility study for a commercial-scale carbon capture pilot at the Berrima, New South Wales, cement plant in June 2023.

At Cement Australia's Gladstone, Queensland, cement plant, carbon capture is set to combine with green hydrocarbon production in a US$150m circular carbon methanol production facility supplied by Mitsubishi Gas Chemical Company. From its commissioning in mid-2028, the installation will use the Gladstone plant's captured CO₂ emissions and locally sourced green hydrogen to produce 100,000t/yr of methanol.

More Australian cement plant carbon capture installations may be in the offing. Heidelberg Materials, joint parent company of Cement Australia, obtained an indefinite global licence to Calix's LEILAC technology on 28 October 2022. The Germany-based group said that the method offers effective capture with minimal operational impact.

Cement Australia said “The Gladstone region is the ideal location for growing a diverse green hydrogen sector, with abundant renewable energy sources, existing infrastructure, including port facilities, and a highly skilled workforce." It added "The green hydrogen economy is a priority for the Queensland government under the Queensland Hydrogen Industry Strategy.”

Logistics

Australian and New Zealand cement facilities' remoteness makes logistics an important area of CO₂ emissions reduction. In Australia, cement production uses a 60:40 mix of Australian and imported clinker, while imported cement accounts for 5 – 10% of local cement sales of 11.7Mt/yr.

Fremantle Ports recently broke ground on construction of its US$35.1m Kwinana, Western Australia, clinker terminal. It will supply clinker to grinding plants in the state from its commissioning in 2024. Besides increasing the speed and safety of cement production, the state government said that the facility presents 'very significant environmental benefits.'

Conclusion

Antipodean cement production is undergoing a sustainability transformation, characterised by international collaboration and alliances across industries. The current structure of industrial and energy policy makes it an uphill journey, but for Australia and New Zealand's innovating cement industries, clear goals are in sight and ever nearer within reach.

References

1. Eckstein, Künzel and Schäfer, 'Global Climate Risk Index 2021,' 25 January 2021, https://www.germanwatch.org/en/19777

2. VDZ, 'Decarbonisation Pathways for the Australian Cement and Concrete Sector,' November 2021, https://cement.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Full_Report_Decarbonisation_Pathways_web_single_page.pdf

3. Golden Bay Cement, 'Environmental Product Declaration,' 12 May 2019, https://www.goldenbay.co.nz/assets/Uploads/d310c4f72a/GoldenBayCement_EPD_2019_HighRes.pdf

Holcim Schweiz hit a milestone recently with the aerial drone programme at its Siggenthal cement plant. The project with Voliro, a Switzerland-based technology start-up, has started to use multi-rotor drones to conduct official measurement flights. They used them to take measurements to determine the steel wall thicknesses of the cement kiln and the cyclone preheater. The work has been part of Holcim’s ‘Plants of Tomorrow’ industrial automation plan with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV). Key features of the particular drones being used are that they can be rotated around all axes by a special rotor system and can even fly upside down.

Holcim has been using drones in and around cement plants for a few years now. When it launched the Plants of Tomorrow plan in 2019, Switzerland-based drone supplier Flyability said that the cement company had chosen its Elios 2 model to perform confined space inspection. Earlier in 2017 another supplier, SenseFly, said that LafargeHolcim Tanzania had been using its fixed-wing products. Holcim is also far from alone in its use of drones. A few examples among many include Cemex USA’s work with Kespry earlier in 2021, HeidelbergCement’s work in North America and Germany in 2020 and 2021 and Votorantim’s testing at its Córdoba and Niebla plants in Spain back in late 2015. 

UAV usage by armed forces dates back to examples like unmanned incendiary balloons being deployed in the 19^th century to Azerbaijan’s reported decisive use of drones in its war against Armenia in late 2020. The current era of industrial UAVs began after 2000 when governments starting issuing civilian permits, miniaturisation occurred and improvements in cameras, sensors and computing power followed. For the mineral processing sector the trend started with drones being used for stockpile management and quarry surveying. At present this is the main area that UAVs are used for by the sector, often coupled with photogrammetry techniques. CalPortland’s Adam Chapman’s paper at the 2021 IEEE-IAS/PCA Virtual Cement Conference described one company’s use of UAVs in the cement industry since 2016, looking at licensing, cost, quality of data, drone technology, fleet management and field experiences.

More recently though, tests of drones used to survey cement plant buildings and structures have started being publicised such as Holcim’s work at Siggenthal. A presentation by consultant John Kline and Chris Place of Exelon Clearsight summarised the use of drones for structural inspection at cement plants at the Global CemProducer 3 webinar in January 2021. The key benefits they promoted of using an UAV in this way were: improved safety because workers have reduced risk from climbing, working at height or in confined spaces; less time to conduct a survey; higher resolution photographs and video; better coverage through grid method surveying; and an overall lower cost. However, on that last point, other commentators have noted that market-leading drones for surveying are relatively expensive and easy to damage. Drones have since been used to start going inside structures at cement plants with Kline demonstrating their use to inspect the condition of refractory within the cooler, kiln, pre-heater and cyclone of a production line at the Global CemProducer 2 webinar in July 2020. HeidelbergCement has also been doing similar things, with an inspection trial using a drone of the kiln at the Schelklingen plant in Germany during the 2021 maintenance shutdown period at the site.

So far the use of drones by the cement industry has mostly been in a surveying or inspection capacity. Given the short time that UAVs have been used like this there is likely to be scope for lots more development both within existing fields and new ones as the sector works out how best the technology can be used. One application we couldn’t find in the research for this short article was the use of drones for security and surveillance tasks at cement plants and quarries although this may be happening already. However, there could be a more active role for drones if or when a company finds a way for them to start making basic repairs or carrying out simple maintenance in those hard to reach areas that drones excel at accessing. Research examples exist of UAVs being used to spray concrete or repair materials onto minor defects in concrete structures. Yet considerable challenges face these kinds of applications such as the weight of a loaded multi-rotor drone or damage from rebound. Before we all get too worried about drones replacing our jobs though it is worth considering that Amazon’s plan to deliver packages by UAV was first announced in 2013 and it still hasn’t happened yet. It may yet, but for now in most situations humans remain cheaper and more practical than robots or drones.

Dalmia Bharat managing director Puneet Dalmia characterised India’s cement industry as one of ‘many regions and many players’ in an interview on 10 August 2021. It is equally an industry of many plants – which are seemingly larger and more numerous by the week.

On 9 August 2021, Orient Cement announced an investment of US$215m to increase its Devapur, Telangana, cement plant’s capacity by 53% to 11.5Mt/yr from 7.5Mt/yr. Another Southeast Indian producer, Ramco Cements, plans to invest a total of US$135m in upgrades in the 2022 financial year; it completed US$53.9m (40%) of the planned investments in the first quarter alone. NCL Industries is planning a US$13.5m expansion of its 2.7Mt/yr Mattapalli, Telangana, cement plant by 33% to 3.6Mt/yr and the establishment of a new 0.66Mt/yr grinding plant at nearby Anakapalle for US$26.9m by 2022. Thus, a single state has at least 5.56Mt/yr-worth of new capacity in the pipeline with US$337m-worth of pending investments. If the central government grants the Telangana government’s 6 August 2021 request to reopen Cement Corporation of India’s Adilabad cement plant in the state, this will be joined by a further 4.0Mt/yr of ‘old’ capacity.

Nationally, investments in on-going cement plant projects total US$1.81bn. What is remarkable here is the continued drive to expand despite existing overcapacity. Puneet Dalmia estimates that Indian capacity utilisation will be 70% in 2021. Despite this, his company plans to increase its installed capacity by 17% to 36.0Mt/yr in the (current) 2022 financial year and by 57% to 48.5Mt/yr with the realisation of all on-going projects by the 2024 financial year, from 30.8Mt in August 2021. By 2030, the group aims to more than triple its installed capacity to over 110Mt/yr. Dalmia says that, if it is to achieve this, it will be not as another South and East Indian regional company, but a ‘pan-India, pure play cement producer.’

Dalmia’s confidence is founded on the belief that overcapacity will abate. His assurance is more than just that of an investor: when, in July 2021, the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade established an advisory body, the Cement Industry Development Council (CIDC), to help tackle the oversupply issue, it appointed him as chair. Puneet Dalmia predicts that capacity utilisation will rise to 85% ‘within a few years’. Consolidation is key: over the same hazily defined time period, the top five producers’ 57% share of the cement market will rise to 65%, he believes. Rising fuel costs and restrictive limestone mining licencing will deter would-be cement plant start-ups; anticipated carbon costs should clear away a lot of old wood.

Demand is the other half of the coin in India’s attempt to pitch market forces against overcapacity. In the first quarter of the 2022 financial year, cement demand fell by an estimated 20% amid the Covid-19-led collapse of rural housing’s bagged cement uptake. This type of sales roughly accounts for a third of Indian cement consumption. Other construction segments have proved more resilient. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government, never infrastructure-shy, chose to resume national projects after India’s Covid-19 lockdown ended on 10 May 2020, keeping them running through subsequent waves of the pandemic. The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) continued with 480 projects covering 25,000km of road. In Andhra Pradesh, the state government is building 122,000 new homes. Cement producers have been able to corner pent-up demand to shift their stock at a generous margin.

The Confederation of Real Estate Developers' Associations of India (CREDAI) claimed on 9 August 2021 that the price of cement is hampering the realisation of affordable housing targets, and lobbied the government to reduce the goods and services tax on cement to 18% from 28%. In parts of the country, state governments have taken the matter into their own hands. The Kerala government set out to take over 25% of the Keralan cement industry on 5 July 2021. Its plan: increasing cement production, a policy which it is already implementing via state-owned Malabar Cements and Travancore Cements.

Puneet Dalmia claimed on 10 August 2021 that India’s per-capita cement demand is 200kg/yr, corresponding to a total national demand of 276Mt/yr and 60% below the purported global average of 500kg/yr. Given India’s development trajectory, growth is nearly inevitable. Puneet Dalmia is unequivocal in his medium-term prediction: Indian cement revenues will rise at a rate of 9–10% per annum, outstripping forecast gross domestic product (GDP) growth by 2%.

Indian cement’s tale of rebound and growth is borne out in the latest financial reports. UltraTech Cement’s first-quarter sales in the 2021 financial year were US$1.59bn, up by 54% year-on-year from US$1.03bn in the first quarter of the 2020 financial year. Its cement sales rose by 47% in the period to 21.5Mt from 14.6Mt. In its 2021 first-half report, Ambuja Cements recorded year-on-year sales growth of 41%, to US$930m from US$659m, and cement sales growth of 36% to 13.5Mt from 9.95Mt. This is echoed both in the other Indian producers’ reports and internationally: France-based Vicat named India alongside its home country as an area of particular sales growth in the first half of 2021, especially in the second quarter.

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s demonstration of the impacts of human activity on the climate in a report published on 9 August 2021 might lead an observer to ask “What’s the good?” in all this growth. In the face of the immense benefits cement offers to the lives of Indians, a more pertinent question would be “How best can growth happen?” Ambuja Cement’s aforementioned plan to grind clinker with fly ash is a step in the right direction. Another is Vedanta Aluminium’s proposed fly ash and bauxite residue supply deal, for which it is seeking a cement industry partner. The new Cement Industry Development Council’s remit extends to the coordination of the sector’s efforts towards maximising efficiency and eliminating waste. ACC and Ambuja Cements are participating in parent company Holcim’s Plants of Tomorrow programme, which aims to increase the efficiency of cement production through better plant optimisation, higher plant availability and a safer working environment. Dalmia Bharat has a goal of net zero CO2 cement production by 2040, and a plan for getting there.

Pan-Indian producers are on the rise. Big companies desperate to modernise and implement their models of sustainable growth are blazing a trail. The size gains will be a national marvel - if the promises of sustainability are realised. What will be lost is the Indian cement industry’s festival of local and regional producers. Though still an industry of many regions and many players, its regions are increasingly close together, its players increasingly few.

Denmark: FLSmidth has launched an online condition monitoring kiln service. It says it will give plant managers the live insights they need to optimise performance and be proactive with regards to kiln maintenance. The new ‘Online condition monitoring services for kilns’ enables producers to use existing and additional sensors to gather data from equipment on a continuous basis. This data is sent to FLSmidth’s Global Remote Service Centre where it is analysed for early signs of failure. Recommendations and reports covering maintenance issues that need addressing are sent to the customer. The service agreement is available in two packages, based on the customer’s monitoring requirements.

“Digitalisation enables us to help customers develop a data-led proactive maintenance approach, guided by our network of experts,” said Mireia Fontarnau Vilaró, Head of Service Commercial, FLSmidth. “With this service agreement, we are able to collect and analyse data that would not be normally available, giving our customers the opportunity to really get on top of maintenance, improve the life of kiln components and improve their overall reliability.” The equipment supplier says that its service monitors the kiln crank, kiln shell ovality and axial balance, helping customers avoid unplanned downtime through root cause analysis.

Back on 11 March 2020, this column drew attention to the seemingly intractable overcapacity situation in Vietnam. On that day, incidentally the day that the World Health Organisation (WHO) declared the Covid-19 outbreak to be a full-blown pandemic, Vietnam held firm on its previous estimate that it would produce 103Mt of cement in 2020. 70Mt would be consumed domestically, with 33Mt exported. At the time much of the world was heading down the coronavirus rabbit hole and we were incredulous. South East Asia was worst affected by lockdowns at that point and demand was poor. It was clear that the country would struggle to find buyers, even with its famously reasonable prices.

Fast forward five months and figures from last week show that Vietnam’s cement producers actually exported an incredible 19.5Mt in the first seven months of 2020. The volume was 11% higher than the 17.6Mt exported in the corresponding period of 2019. However, prices suffered, with the value of exports falling by 5.4% to US$732m. That works out at US$37.54/t in 2020 against US$43.98/t in 2019 - a drop of US$6.44/t. Now, just as in March, the Ministry of Construction has maintained again that Vietnam will export 32-33Mt of cement and clinker in 2020. The volumes seem impressive, but it’s ‘sales for show, profit for dough.’ How much longer can the country continue to pour such vast amounts of cement into the global market at these low prices?

Well it seems the answer is ‘not any more.’ Following an announcement in May 2020 that no new cement plant projects would go ahead in 2020 after all, there is now a new cement industry development strategy to help move the sector forward. Under the plans, all plants with a capacity under 0.9Mt/yr will be forced to improve their productivity, product quality, energy efficiency and, crucially, environmental performance, by 2025. While the government says it will help to facilitate the changes, we can be reasonably sure that it wants to reduce its domestic capacity to a fairly meaningful extent. The Global Cement Directory shows that Vietnam has at least 28 plants of less than 0.9Mt/yr capacity, jointly contributing around 16.6Mt/yr. While we should be clear that the government is not calling for the wholesale elimination of capacity, removing these plants would leave the country with around 86Mt/yr of cement production and halve exports to around 16.4Mt/yr, assuming 70Mt/yr of domestic consumption. On the surface the government says it will help plants ‘facilitate’ the changes, but it remains to be seen whether its many older, less efficient plants will actually be able to jump through the hoops the authorities put in their way. Of course, one need look no further than neighbouring China to see how effective such directives from the top of government can be.

For its part the Vietnamese government is clear: Plants that don’t pick up the pace will be closed. It says that the strategy aims to “Develop the cement industry to an advanced and modern level, to produce cement of international standard quality with economical and efficient use of energy, giving high competitiveness in the international market, while meeting the needs of the domestic market, completely eliminating out-dated, natural resource-consuming and polluting technology.” The government stops just short of mentioning profitability, but it is clear that this would be another nice effect of reduced capacity in an economy where the state is effectively selling the cement by itself. China again shows what should happen next. Following major profitability improvements in 2017, 2018 and 2019, China’s producers continue to go from strength-to-strength in 2020, even taking coronavirus closures into account. This week Anhui Conch reported a 5.3% increase in its first half net profit (to a tidy US$2.33bn), with China Resources Cement chiming in with an 11% rise to US$541m. While it is unclear from outside of China just how much capacity has been terminated, the changes are having the desired effect.

So, after looking for perhaps slightly too long at dwindling returns, Vietnam’s government appears to be serious about overcapacity. Its (larger) cement producers look set to gain from supply-side reforms in the same way that many in China have. The industry will shrink over the next few years and, while closures and job losses will be unpopular, the country, its economy and its environment will benefit from this policy in the long run.

Germany: Currax and Siemens have announced their collaboration on a mill operations digitisation pilot project involving the Simotics Connect 400 motor data collector and transmitter. They hope that analysis of data processed via the Simotics 400 will better enable the remote operating of mills ‘to increase efficiency and component life’ and speeding the shift towards automation and production that is resilient to crises such as the coronavirus outbreak.

Netherlands: Malvern Panalytical has launched a next version of Epsilon 1 X-ray fluorescence (XRF) spectrometer. The upgrade has reduced the product’s size to 0.15m². Its precision has been improved by integrating a high-power X-ray tube and a new detector.

“With the new generation of our compact Epsilon 1 benchtop XRF spectrometers, you can take a small yet powerful lab directly to your sample for fast product screening and process control”, said Lieven Kempenaers, Malvern Panalytical Product Manager for benchtop XRF systems.

The Epsilon 1 product is available in a number of versions tailored for difference applications. The Epsilon 1 Lube Oil delivers ASTM 6481-compliant elemental analysis of unused lubricating oils; the Epsilon 1 Sulfur in Fuels quantifies sulphur content in fuels according to ASTM D4294-10 and ISO 20847; the Epsilon 1 Academia enables characterisation of unidentified samples, using Omnian software for standardless analysis; and the integrated camera in the Epsilon 1 for Small Spot Analysis simplifies the investigation of very small objects, inclusions or inhomogeneities.

Nigerian financial analysts Cordros Securities concluded this week that the merger of some of Lafarge’s Sub-Saharan African businesses had reduced earnings at Lafarge Africa. The report is interesting because it explicitly points out a situation where the consolidation of some of Lafarge’s various companies have failed in the wake of the formation of LafargeHolcim.

Cordros Securities’ criticism is that Nigeria’s Lafarge WAPCO performed better in 2013 alone before it became part of Lafarge Africa, with a higher standalone earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) margin. Lafarge Africa formed in 2014, a year before the LafargeHolcim merger was completed, through the consolidation of Lafarge South Africa, United Cement Company of Nigeria, Ashakacem and Atlas Cement into Lafarge WAPCO. Since the formation of Lafarge Africa, Cordros maintains that its earnings per share have consistently fallen, its share price has dropped, its debt has risen, its margins have decreased and its sales volumes of cement have also withered.

Cordros mainly focuses on the Nigerian parts of Lafarge Africa’s business, given its interest in that market and the fact that about three quarters of the company is based in the country. It blames the current situation on growing operating costs since the merger, skyrocketing financing costs for debts and efficiency issues. In Nigeria, Lafarge Africa has had to cope with disruptions to gas supplies. Nigeria’s Dangote Cement had similar problems domestically in 2017 with falling cement sales volumes in a market reeling from an economic recession but Cordros reckoned that Dangote is picking up market share in the South West due to an ‘aggressive retail penetration’ strategy. Finally, Lafarge Africa faced a US$9m impairment in 2017 due to its abandoned pre-heater upgrade project at AshakaCem. The project has been suspended since 2009 due to security concerns in the North-East region. The plant faced an attack by the Boko Haram militant group in 2014 and the group has seemed reluctant to invest further in the site subsequently.

Cordros’ final word on the matter is that with the Nigerian cement market performing slower than it has previously, the local market has become a battleground between the established players of Dangote Cement, BUA Group and Lafarge Africa. What little the report does have on South Africa covers problems with old and inefficient hardware, labour disputes, low prices due to weak demand, high competition and a negative product mix.

Lafarge Africa itself presents a more mixed picture, with market growth picking up in Nigeria following end of the recession but continued market problems in South Africa. Overall, its reported sales grew by 4.8% to US$448m in the first half of 2018 but its EBITDA fell by 25% to US$76.4m. Overall cement sales volumes were reported as up by 5.4% to 2.6Mt in the first half but volumes were still falling in South Africa in the second quarter.

Part of the backdrop to all of this is the intention of Lafarge Africa to cut its debt. In May 2018 its chairman Mobolaji Balogun said that the company wanted to cut its debts by 2020 before continuing with its expansion programme. Part of this process will include a new rights issue later in 2018 to allow shareholders to buy stock at a discount.

It must have made sense, on paper at least, to merge the Lafarge subsidiaries in the two largest economies in Sub-Saharan Africa. Once the merger had settled in, with synergies generating extra revenue, the group could have considered adding extra territories such as Kenya. However, it’s not turned out like that. Two recessions in Nigeria and South Africa respectively, old equipment, debt and serious competition from locally owned producers have piled on the pressure instead. From a stockholder perspective, Cordros is not impressed by the performance of Lafarge Africa. The wider question is: what else did Lafarge and Holcim get wrong when they joined to form LafargeHolcim?

What’s long, thin and has already exported more than 20Mt of cement in 2018? The answer is Vietnam, which reported this week that it exported 20.1Mt of cement between 1 January 2018 and 31 August 2018. That’s 106 - 112% of its annual ‘target’ in just eight months and around the same amount as it claims to have exported during the whole of 2017. Total cement production in Vietnam was 63.9Mt between January and August 2018, meaning that the country has exported 31.3% of the cement it made over this period. Vietnam itself consumed ‘just’ 43.8Mt. The government target for Vietnamese cement consumption during 2018 is around 65 - 66Mt. That’s basically the amount it has already made.

From a market-led mind-set these targets seem fairly large, huge even, especially the export target. Indeed the concept of such national targets is in itself an alien concept. In most of the world, imports and exports are results of market supply and demand trends, not drivers prescribed by the government.

The reasons behind this apparent desire to export these very large volumes of cement are, therefore, probably best understood from within Vietnam, and we won’t speculate too much on them here. However, Vietnam is clearly determined to continue to produce ever more cement than it can use. In what other country could a major government-owned producer export more than 70% of the cement it makes? In the first half of 2018 Vicem did just that, shipping 11.7Mt of cement overseas from the 14.2Mt that it made.

In 2017 Vietnam’s export target was 15Mt. It ended up smashing this to the tune of 5Mt, 33% more than the target. At the current rate the sector looks like it could overshoot even more spectacularly this year, perhaps hitting as much as 30Mt of cement exports in 2018. This is more than a big European country like Germany can produce! It certainly sounds like a lot but… is it really an exceptional number?

Looking at data from World’s Top Exports (WTEx), which we advise delving into, it seems that this would be a very high number indeed. It reports that a total of 166.6Mt of cement were exported internationally in 2017. It reports that the top exporter was not, as you may by this point have been primed to suggest, Vietnam. It wasn’t even China, as the former number one was bumped into second place (12.91Mt) by Thailand (13.03Mt). Turkey was third (12.79Mt), with Japan fourth (11.93Mt) and Vietnam was listed as fifth (9.53Mt).

All of these biggest exporters except Turkey are in the Far East, an area swamped with cheap cement. China’s average export selling price according to WTEx was US$45/t, against a global average of US$55/t. Thailand undercut it by US$3/t at US$42/t, perhaps explaining its rise to the top spot. Turkey’s average export price was also US$42/t, although it is located in a region that has a lot of saturated markets and others that are growing rapidly. Its average export distance was second only to China’s. Vietnam’s average cement export price was US$51/t, higher than the others. This does not tie in with the apparent rise in exports so far in 2018. This price may have since fallen. Surprisingly, Japan had the lowest export price of the top five exporters by volume at just US$30/t in 2017.

So, to re-answer the question posed two paragraphs above, 30Mt is a very high number indeed. But you’ll have spotted the large discrepancy between WTEx’s 9.53Mt figure for Vietnam, which relies on reciprocal import partner data, and the government’s official line of 21Mt for 2017. One is tempted to ask where the other 50% of the exports reported by the Vietnamese actually ended up, especially given that WTEx reports a US$1.5bn difference in the value of exports and imports across the year. Imports were valued at US$8.8bn but exports were valued at US$10.3bn.

The mystery destination of all that cement, real or imagined, could be the topic of an entire separate column. What appears to be the case at present, is that rampant Vietnamese cement overcapacity is here to stay. The country, as well as Japan, Turkey, Thailand et. al., could stand to benefit in the short term, as China acts ever more aggressively to end its own oversupply situation. However, there could come a time when it has to take its foot off the gas. There are no signs of that yet though.