Displaying items by tag: China

The US government proposed placing tariffs on cement this week as part of its slowly-escalating trade war against China. The latest list will face a 10% tariff from the end of August 2018 following a consultation period. Of relevance to the cement industry, it will include limestone flux, quicklime, slaked lime, gypsum, anhydrite, clinkers of Portland, aluminous, slag, supersulfate and similar hydraulic cements, white Portland cement, Portland cement, aluminous cement, slag cement, refractory cements, additives for cement, cement based building materials and more.

Graph 1: Imports of hydraulic cement and clinker to the US from China, 2012 – 2017. Source: United States Geologic Survey (USGS).

Graph 2: Major exporters of hydraulic cement and clinker (Mt) to the US in 2017. Source: United States Geologic Survey (USGS).

At face value it seems unlikely that the tariffs will do much direct damage to the cement sectors in either China or the US. United States Geological Survey (USGS) data reports that the US imported 2Mt of cement and clinker from China in 2017 out of a total of 13.6Mt of imports. China was the third-largest exporter of cement to the US after Canada and Greece. Given the mammoth size of the Chinese cement industry - it sold 2.3Bnt in 2017 according to National Bureau of Statistics of China - it is unlikely that losing this export stream will cause the sector to lose much sleep. If the exports are coming from smaller producers though it might well impact upon them disproportionally. Any potential shortfall in the US is likely to be met by any number of the world’s overproducing cement nations. Vietnam, Iran (!) and Indonesia are the first few candidates that spring to mind.

The other point to consider from the USGS data is that the value of the cement imported from China in 2017 was on the cheaper side. Altogether the value of Chinese imported cement came to US$132m in 2017. Yet it was the fifth cheapest for cost, insurance and freight per tonne out of 32 importing countries. Add a 10% tariff to that and it is still only the eighth cheapest. If these figures represent reality then it seems unlikely that tariffs will cause the Chinese imports to slow down much.

All of this pretty much fits the general impression of China as a country that produces the most cement in the world but it actually exports very little of it. Consultancies like Ad and Marcia Ligthart’s Cement Distribution Consultants have made a point of downplaying China’s export market in recent years due to a lack of deep water terminals for plants and a general inward focus. Yet the sheer amount of production capacity could have big implications if it ever does get properly connected to the sea.

Other products facing the new tariffs that have relevance for the cement industry include input materials like gypsum or secondary cementitious materials (SCM) like slag and fly ash. Gypsum isn’t likely to be a concern given the presence of established exporters in Canada, Spain, Thailand, Oman and the like. SCMs are more mercurial but don’t appear to be too intrinsic to the US market. Ferrous slag imports grew to 2Mt in 2015 according to USGS data but the main sources were Japan, Canada, Spain and Germany. Charles Zeynel of ZAG International at the Global Slag Conference 2018 posited that Chinese exports comprised up to 6Mt or 25% of the world market of traded international slag.

All of this suggests a symbolic nature to the US tariffs on Chinese cement and related products. Perhaps the real news story to have noted this week was the framework agreement signed between Denmark’s FLSmidth and China’s China National Building Material (CNBM), the world’s largest cement producer and one of its larger cement equipment manufacturers.

Typically many of the new cement plant projects Global Cement has reported upon recently involve a Chinese contractor that may or may not be using European engineering from companies like FLSmidth who previously would have been managing the build themselves. The point here is that new plants, production lines and upgrades at US cement plants might well be built by a Chinese company through its European partners. The new upgrade to Lehigh Hanson’s Mitchell plant in Indiana has been budgeted at US$600m. This is far more than the value of Chinese cement imported into the US in 2017.

China: Peng Shou has been appointed as the president of China National Building Materials (CNBM). Other new appointments announced in the wake of the company’s annual general meeting include the assignment of Chang Zhangli as a non-executive director and Yu Kaijun as secretary to the board.

Peng Shou, aged 57 years, holds has over 30 years of experience in business and management in the building material industry with various senior roles at both CNBM and Triumph International Engineering. Peng holds a bachelor’s degree in engineering from Wuhan Institute of Building material industry (now Wuhan University of Technology) and a master’s degree in management from Wuhan Polytechnic University (now Wuhan University of Technology).

Chang Zhangli, age 47 years, has held a variety of senior management roles at companies including CNBM, Jushi Group, Southwest Cement, China Triumph International Engineering, China United Cement, China Composites Group, North Cement and Beijing New Building Materials.

Yu Kaijun, aged 55 years, is a vice president of CNBM. He holds over 35 years of experience in financial management and corporate governance with positions at Sinoma, BBMG, Xinjiang Tianshan Cement, Ningxia Building Materials Group. Notably he was the chief financial officer of Sinoma from 2010 to 2018 and Sinoma International Engineering from 2001 to 2011. He holds a masters degree in accounting from the Hong Kong Polytechnic University.

China: Yang Yongzheng has resigned as a non-executive director of China Tianrui Group Cement Company due to a prison sentence. Yang has also resigned as a member of the group’s nomination committee. He has been replaced on the nomination committee by Li Liufa, the chairman of the company.

China: Song Zhiping will step down as the director and the chairman of the board of directors of China National Building Material (CNBM). He will leave the posts at the company’s annual general meeting (AGM) in mid-June 2018. He will remain as chairman, and secretary of the Party Committee, of China National Building Material Group, the major shareholder of CNBM. Song Zhiping was appointed as chairman of the board of directors in 2005. Since then the company has become one of the largest building materials manufacturers in the world.

Other personnel changes include the departure of Guo Chaomin as director of the company and Xu Weibing will leave as supervisor and the chairman of the supervisory committee. Guo Chaomin has originally appointed as a non-executive director in 2011.

Proposed staff to be elected at the AGM include Peng Jianxin as executive director of the company, Xu Weibing, Shen Yungang and Fan Xiaoyan as non-executive directors and Li Xinhua and Guo Yanming as supervisors of the company.

UK: The UK Quality Ash Association (UKQAA) has appointed Tarmac’s Allan Everett as the association’s new chair, taking over from Power Minerals’ Ivan Skidmore. Everett will be joined by Richard Boult, who has also been announced as the UKQAA’s new Technical Committee Chair. Boult is Commercial Technical Manager at Cemex UK. He will work with UKQAA’s Technical Committee members to develop and assess technical projects exploring new sources and uses for quality ash.

The UKQAA is an industry association for the use of quality ash in construction and engineering applications and represents a range of members from across the construction supply chain.

Two reports out this week have looked at the carbon footprint of the cement industry. The first, a technology roadmap by the Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI) and the International Energy Agency (IEA), laid out a technology pathway for the sector to reduce its direct CO₂ by 24% from current levels by 2050 to meet the IEA’s 2°C scenario (2DS). The second, a report by the CDP (formerly the Carbon Disclosure Project) on the progress of 13 major cement producers to reduce their emissions, was a progress report on the business readiness for a low carbon economy transition.

Graph 1: European Union industry emissions by sector, 2013 - 2017. Source: Sandbag, European Commission.

The scene was set last week when the environmental campaign group Sandbag picked up on the latest emission data from the European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). Industrial emissions as a whole rose by 2% year-on-year to 743Mt in 2017. The cement and lime industry reported a rise of 3% to 148Mt in 2017 from 144Mt in 2016. As Sandbag reported, industrial emissions have remained ‘stubbornly high’ for the duration of the ETS. It then went on to say that, “the EU urgently needs a new industrial strategy to bring about radical industrial process changes and/or carbon capture and storage, especially for the high-emitting steel and cement sectors.”

The CDP’s report provided a global scorecard on the readiness of the cement industry to adapt to a low-carbon future. Unfortunately, the report used data from self-reporting questionnaires and it lacked data from the two largest Chinese cement producers, Anhui Conch and China National Building Materials (CNBM), although it did try to compensate for this. The CDP assessed companies across four key areas aligned with the recommendations from the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD).

Graph 2: Opportunity vs. risk for low-carbon transition. Source: Building Pressure report, CDP.

Surprisingly, the study, even with its limitations, found regional variation. As can be seen in Graph 2, the Indian cement producers came out on top from the criteria used: transition risks, physical risks, transition opportunities and climate governance and strategy. CDP pinned this on better access to alternative materials such as fly ash and slag coming from other carbon intensive sectors, such as thermal power generation and steel production. Reported process emissions measured by the clinker ratio for the Indian companies was 69% versus 78% for the other companies. They also benefited from newer cement plants driven by high market growth in the region compared to older plants in Europe.

The technology roadmap from the CSI and the IEA set out key actions for the industry to take by 2030 to have at least a 50% chance of achieving the 2°C 2DS scenario followed by a possible transition pathway that could be achieved through technology, legislation and investment. The key actions are protecting carbon pricing mechanisms from carbon leakage, putting new technology into action and supporting it by legislation, and greater government support for products with a lower clinker factor.

The CSI’s and IEA’s targets for 2030 included reaching a clinker to cement ratio of 0.64 in 2030 from 0.65 in 2014, a thermal energy intensity of clinker of 3.3GJ/t from 3.5GJ/t, an electricity intensity of cement of 87kWh/t from 91kWh/t and a alternative fuel co-processing rate of 17.5% from 5.6%. Perhaps the most optimistic is a CO₂ capture and storage amount of 14MtCO₂/yr in 2030 from nothing at the moment. This last target seems unlikely to be achieved given the lack of projects outside of the pilot stage, but it’s not impossible.

This column barely touches on the detail within either report or even the latest data from the EU ETS. Both reports offer ways forward to meet the 2°C global warming target outlined in the Paris Agreement. It’s easy to be pessimistic given the on-going clash between environmental optimism and business logic but both reports offer a way forward. The CDP report sets out a baseline with a look to the future, whilst the CSI/IEA roadmap offers what it says is a realistic route to reach that 2DS target. Lastly, if the CDP’s assessment is correct about the Indian producers then it’s possible that other developing cement industries may inherently be cleaner due to their use of newer plants and equipment. If worldwide government support can be provided for use of alternative fuels and materials on a much larger scale, as well as all the other recommendations, then meeting the Paris agreement may be easier than expected as new markets build new production capacity.

Two examples of carbon capture utilisation and sequestration projects will be covered in the May 2018 issue of Global Cement Magazine

Persistence has paid off for UltraTech Cement this week. Although the deal is not complete, all the signs are pointing towards India’s largest cement producer buying Binani Cement despite losing an auction for it last month. Here’s a recap of what has happened so far.

In July 2017 the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in Kolkata, a semi-judicial body that rules on issues relating to companies, started insolvency proceedings for Binani Cement. It followed a plea by one of the cement company’s creditors, the Bank of Baroda, that had an outstanding claim of around US$15m. The Kolkata bench of the NCLT rejected Binani Cement’s argument that the debt was tiny compared to the assets of its parent company Binani Industries of US$2.15bn. It then appointed an administrator, or resolution professional, called Vijaykumar Iyer, a partner at Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India. More on him later on.

The subsequent auction of Binani Cement raised lots of interest both internationally and locally due to its production base. The company operates a 4.9Mt/yr plant at Binanigram in Rajasthan with two kilns and four mills. It also runs a 1.4Mt/yr cement grinding plant at Sirohi in the same state. Unusually though for an Indian producer it also runs a 2Mt/yr grinding plant at Jebel Ali, Dubai in the UAE and a 0.5Mt/yr integrated plant, Shandong Cement, in China.

Its products domestically in India include 43 and 53 grades Ordinary Portland Cement and Portland Pozzolana Cement, with the Bollywood film star Amitabh Bachchan as its brand ambassador. On that last point the Indian Supreme Court chastised Binani Cement in 2014 for not paying sales tax in Rajasthan whilst being able to hire Bachchan! However, given the ferocity of the struggle to buy Binani Cement maybe all that marketing of the brand paid off, giving the producer a much higher profile than it might otherwise have had.

Anyway, lots of companies showed interest in Binani Cement in the first round of bidding in late 2017. CRH, LafargeHolcim, HeidelbergCement, India Cement, Orient Cement, Ramco Cement, Shree Cement, UltraTech Cement and Piramal Group were all linked to the auction. Eventually UltraTech Cement, JSW Cement, Ramco Cement, HeidelbergCement India, Dalmia Bharat and a pair of Indian investors all submitted bids and JSW Cement emerged as the winner with a bid of US$919m. However the emergence of an additional liability of around US$250m scuppered that auction when it turned out that Binani Cement had offered a corporate guarantee for the acquisition of a fibreglass asset in Europe known as 3B in 2012 by Binani Industries. By February 2018 the next auction was in progress and this time Dalmia Bharat Cement and UltraTech Cement led the race. Dalmia Bharat won the second auction with a bid of around US$1.03bn made in a consortium with Bain Capital’s India Resurgent Fund and Piramal Enterprises.

At this point the situation might have conceivably slowed down. Instead, UltraTech Cement kept on fighting and queried the entire bidding process. It then made a direct offer of US$1.11bn to Binani Cement in the form of a so-called ‘comfort letter’ that Binani Industries used to stop the insolvency process. At the same time it received approval from the Competition Commission of India in its bid for Binani Cement, the previous absence of which was one of the reasons its bid against Dalmia Bharat was rejected.

Indian company law now faced a dilemma over how a bankruptcy works given that the NCLT was meant to be in charge. A way out was found though when the NCLT in Kolkata and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal both allowed the bidders to settle the dispute ‘amicably.’ To add further confusion the administrator Vijaykumar Iyer also alleged right in the middle of the final tussle between Dalmia Bharat and UltraTech Cement that fraudulent transactions had been made by Binani Cement! Whether this has any further implications remains to be seen.

At this stage nobody is likely to declare UltraTech Cement the winner of Binani Cement until it actually picks up the keys to the cement plants. Perhaps not even then in case of any lingering legal issues! UltraTech Cement clearly views Rajasthan as a growth area given the tenacity with which it has gone after Binani Cement. It operates two integrated plants in the state and is building two more of its own. After its long journey in buying plants from Jaiprakash Associates in 2017, UltraTech Cement is starting to look like the cement producer that simply won’t take no for an answer.

Many of the Chinese cement producers have released their annual results for 2017 over the last week, giving us plenty to consider. The first takeaway is the stabilisation of cement sales since 2014. As can be seen in Graph 1, National Bureau of Statistics data shows that cement sales grew year-on-year from 2008 to 2014. This trend stopped in 2015 and then government mandated measures to control production overcapacity kicked-in such as a industry consolidation, shutting ‘obsolete’ plants and seasonal closures. Although it’s not shown here, that last measure, also known as peak shifting, cans be seen in quarterly sales data, with an 8% year-on-year fall in cement sales to 578Mt in the fourth quarter of 2017.

Graph 1: Cement sales in China, 2007 – 2017. Source: National Bureau of Statistics.

Looking at the sales revenue from the larger producers in 2017 doesn’t show a great deal except for the massive lead the two largest producers – CNBM and Anhui Conch – hold over their rivals. CNBM reported sales roughly twice as large as Anhui Conch, which in turn reported sales twice as large as China Resources Cement (CRC). With everything set for the merger between CNBM and Sinoma to complete at some point in the second quarter of 2018, that leader’s advantage can only get bigger.

Graph 2: Sales revenue of selected Chinese cement producers. Source: Company reports.

What’s more interesting here is how all of these companies are growing their sales at over 15% in a market where cement sales volumes appear to have fallen by 1.67% to 2.31Bnt in 2017. CNBM explained that its sale growth arose from improving cement prices in the wake of the government’s supply side changes. It added that national cement production fell by 3.1% to 2.34Bnt. CNBM’s annual results also suggested that the cement production capacity utilisation rate was 63% in 2017.

Anhui Conch’s results were notable for its large number of overseas projects as it followed the state’s ‘One Belt, One Road’ overseas industrial expansion strategy. Projects in Indonesia and Cambodia were finished in 2017 with production set for 2018. Further plants are in various states of development in Laos, Russia and Myanmar. The other point of interest was that Anhui Conch is developing a 50,000t CO₂ capture and purification pilot project at its Baimashan cement plant. Given the way the Chinese government has been able to direct the local industry, should it decide to promote CO₂ capture at cement plants in the way it has pushed for waste heat recovery units or co-processing, then the results could be enormous.

CRC reported its continued focus on alternative fuels. Municipal waste co-processing projects in Tianyang County, Guangxi and Midu County, Yunnan are under construction and are expected to be completed in the first half of 2018. Construction of its hazardous waste co-processing project in Changjiang, Hainan was completed in February 2018.

As ever with the Chinese cement industry, the worry is what happens once the production overcapacity kicks in. The state–published figures and state-owned cement companies suggest that the industry is in the early stages of coping with this. In February 2018 Reuters reported that the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) had banned new cement production capacity in 2018. The detail here is that new capacity is allowed but that it has to follow specific rules designed to decrease capacity overall. This followed an announcement by the China Cement Association that it would eliminate 393Mt of capacity and shut down 540 cement grinding companies by 2020. The aim here is to hold capacity utilisation rates at 80% and 70% for clinker and cement respectively and to consolidate clinker and cement production within the top ten producers by 70% and 60%. If the utilisation rate from CNBM is accurate then the industry has a way to go yet.

China: Stephen Liu Yiu-keung has resigned as the chairman of Shanshui Cement. He will be succeeded by Li Liufa, according to the Hong Kong Standard newspaper. Other personnel changes include the resignations of Li Heping as an executive director and chief executive, of Han Yike as the chairman and legal representative of Shandong Shanshui Li Heping as vice chairman.

HeidelbergCement made Italy’s Cementir Holding its Valentine last week in the form of a deal for the Italian company to buy up the remaining shares in Lehigh White Cement in the US. Cementir takes control of the former joint venture by upping its share to 63.25% for US$107m and one of the other partners, Cemex, increases its share to 36.75% for US$34m. Despite making the announcement on Valentine’s Day HeidelbergCement then described the sale in fairly unromantic language, “As a niche product with small volumes, the standalone production of white cement does not fit to the strategic focus on efficiency of HeidelbergCement.” Maybe they could just send flowers to each other next year instead!

More seriously, this latest deal by Cementir is yet another intriguing evolution of the Italian multinational building materials producer. The company says it is the largest white cement producer in the world through subsidiaries like Aalborg Portland in Demark, Sinai White Cement in Egypt and Lehigh White Cement in the US. Its plant at El-Arish in Egypt is the largest white cement unit in the world. In 2016 it reported a white cement production capacity of 3.3Mt/yr from six plants in Denmark, Egypt, China, Malaysia and the US. Its volume sales of white cement were 2.2Mt at this time or a capacity utilisation rate of 67%. In the US it operates two white cement plants located in Waco, Texas and York, Pennsylvania with a total capacity of 0.26Mt/yr, as well as a distribution network throughout the country, which is also used to distribute white cement imported from its partners across North America. In 2017 Cementir produced 10.3Mt of Ordinary Portland (grey) Cement and white cement, a rise of 24.6% year-on-year from 8.25Mt in 2016. The boost was delivered by the acquisition of Compagnie des Ciments Belges. Like-for-like sales volumes increased by around 1.7% year-on-year.

Cementir left the Italian market in 2017 when it sold Cementir Italia to HeidelbergCement for Euro315m. As this column commented as the time (GCW320) the deal seemed cheap given that HeidelbergCement paid Euro315m for five integrated cement plants plus extras. However, Cementir appeared to actually make a profit on Sacci which it picked up cheaply in 2016.

Now HeidelbergCement has returned the favour by selling Cementir the controlling stake in Lehigh White Cement. The German cement producer may have grumpily rubbished the sale in its press release but the language makes one wonder whether this was a quiet part of the Cementir Italia deal in 2017. The white cement industry is miniscule compared to the OPC one but HeidelbergCement has just handed even more control of it to Cementir. From Cementir’s perspective this probably seems very efficient.