Displaying items by tag: Italcementi

Italy: Colacem has purchased the Maddaloni cement plant from Italcementi. The transaction was part of the measures requried by the Italian Competition Authority when Italcementi acquired Cementir.

Just before the Christmas break one of the Global Cement editorial staff noticed how many solar projects have been popping up in the industry news of late. Looking at stories on the Global Cement website tagged with ‘solar’ five occurred in a six month period of 2017 out of a total of 13 since 2014. It’s not a rigorous study by any means but projects in the US, South Korea, India, Namibia and Jordan all suggest a trend.

All these new projects appear to be providing a supplementary energy source from photovoltaic (PV) solar plants that will be used to supply a portion of a cement plant’s electrical power requirements at a subsidised cost. Typically, these initiatives are preparing to supply 20 - 30% of a plant’s electricity over a couple of decades. These schemes are often supported by government subsidies to encourage decarbonised energy sources and a general trend in societies for so-called ‘greener’ energy sources in the wake of the Paris agreement on climate change.

Global Cement is familiar with this model of solar power in the cement industry from its use at the HeidelbergCement Hanson plant at Ketton in the UK. The project was realised by Armstrong Energy through local supplier Lark Energy and it provides around 13% of the cement plant’s electrical energy needs. Originally the array started off by supplying 10MW but this was later increased to 13MW in 2015. A key feature is that as part of the agreement with Armstrong Energy, Hanson receives 35% of the solar power generated for free and buys the remaining 65% at a fixed rate. Even at this rate the plant expects to save around Euro11m in energy costs over the lifetime of the solar array. In addition it will save 3500t/yr of CO2.

Most of the new solar projects announced in 2017 are of a similar scale and ambition to what Hanson Cement has done at Ketton. However, JSW Group’s plans are a magnitude larger. The Indian cement producer wants to build a 200MW solar plant next to its cement grinding plant at Salboni in West Bengal for US$124m. However, it has hedged its bets somewhat by saying that it might build a 36MW thermal power plant instead if its proposal fails.

LafargeHolcim and Italcementi have also experimented with concentrated solar power (CSP) plants for the cement industry. In 2007 LafargeHolcim and the Solar Technology Laboratory of the Paul Scherrer Institute and the Professorship of Renewable Energy Carriers at ETH Zurich started researching using high-temperature solar heat to upgrade low-grade carbonaceous feedstock to produce synthetic gas. The intention was to use the synthetic gas as a substitute for coal and petcoke in kilns.

Italcementi’s project at the Aït Baha plant in Morocco uses a CSP process that can be used with the plant’s waste heat recovery unit. Its moveable trough-style solar collectors follow the sun throughout the day to warm up a heat-transfer fluid during the day and store the heat in gravel beds overnight. In this way the CSP process allows for continuous operation over 24 hours. Before Italcementi’s acquisition by HeidelbergCement in 2016 the company had long-term ambitions to roll-out its CSP process across plants in the Middle East and North African region.

New battery technology of the kind backing the growing electric car industry may be further pushing the cement industry’s preference to PV over CSP power. The other renewable energy source slowly being built to support cement plants has been wind. Like PV it too suffers from cyclical disruptions to its power. Technological entrepreneur Elon Musk (of Tesla car fame) notably supplied the world's largest lithium-ion battery to Southern Australia to support one of its wind farms in late 2017. Around the same time local cement producer Adelaide Bighton announced in a separate deal that it had struck a deal to use wind power to part-power some of its facilities in the same region. At present it doesn’t look like solar power will be completely powering cement plants in the near future but perhaps a renewable fuels rate along similar lines to an alternative fuels rate might be a growing trend to watch.

The Global Cement CemPower conference on electrical power, including waste heat recovery, captive power, grinding optimisation and electrical energy efficiency, will return in January 2019.

Italy: HeidelbergCement’s subsidiary Italcementi has completed its acquisition of Cementir Italia following approval by the Italian competition authority. The competition body gave clearance to the acquisition in November 2017 subject to certain conditions, including the divestment of some plants. Italcementi will reveal which units it intends to sell by mid-2018. The acquisition cost Euro315m.

“For Italcementi, the acquisition is a unique opportunity to grow and consolidate its position in the Italian market. We see strong recovery potential in Southern Europe and especially in Italy over the coming years. With this acquisition we are very well positioned to create value through synergies, efficient processes, and the offer of high-quality and innovative products,” said Bernd Scheifele, Chairman of the Managing Board of HeidelbergCement.

Italcementi and Cementir Holding entered into an agreement to buy Cementir Italia, and its subsidies Cementir Sacci and Betontir, in mid-September 2017. Cementir Italia’s business includes five integrated cement plants and two cement grinding units with a total cement capacity of 5.5Mt/yr, as well as a network of terminals and concrete plants, all operating in Italy. Minimum annual run-rate cost synergies of Euro25m are expected to be achieved by 2020.

We said to expect more consolidation in Italy. Well, today it happened. Last time Global Cement Weekly covered the country, in June 2017, it reported upon the Buzzi Unicem deal to buy Cementizillo. Today, HeidelbergCement announced that it is going to buy Cementir Italia from Cementir Holding for Euro315m.

Our first reaction is that the deal seems cheap. The agreement covers five integrated cement plants and two cement grinding plants with a total capacity of 5.5Mt/yr, as well as the network of terminals and concrete plants. HeidelbergCement is buying all of this for Euro57/t. This suggests a downward trend given that Buzzi Unicem paid Euro80/t for the Cementizillo units in mid-2017. Although, Cementir only paid Euro38/t when it purchased Sacci in mid-2016.

Cementir’s acquisition of Compagnie des Ciments Belges (CCB) boosted its sales revenue, volume and operating profit in 2016 and in the first half of 2017. However these figures suffered on a like-for-like basis due to falling revenue in Turkey and Malaysia. Overall revenue rose in Italy for the company in 2016 due to a growing ready mix concrete business. However, with this removed, its sales revenue would have fallen by 14% year-on-year due to a 13.5% decrease in the sales volumes of cement.

Cementir Holding chief executive officer (CEO) Francesco Caltagirone has framed the sale of Cementir Italia in terms of improved financial leverage. He’s placed it at close to 0.5x by the end of 2018. This, he says, will allow the group to “…take the opportunities arising in the future, as it has happened during the last twelve months.” By this he likely means the purchase of CCB. Given the low cost for what Cementir picked up the bankrupt Sacci, it makes one wonder whether their plan all along was to leave Italy and they just happened to pick up a bargain along the way.

Meanwhile, HeidelbergCement has framed its acquisition in terms of preparing its presence in the Italian market for the future when the recovery kicks in. The usual talk about synergies is also there and Italian workers for both Italcementi and Cementir Italia will be wondering what this means for their jobs. Given that the group’s overall sales have struggled to grow so far in 2017, the company may be telling the truth when it says it’s banking on the medium to long term in Italy. After all, in its half-year report for 2017, it described the Italian economy as subdued and reported cement sales volumes as ‘stable.’

Once the deal completes, Cementir Holding will be an Italian-based cement company without any production facilities in Italy. Unless the group is planning to re-enter its home market at a later date, it does suggest a certain lack of confidence at home. Let’s see if HeidelbergCement has the nerve to stick it out.

Buzzi Unicem strengthened its position in Italy this week with a deal to buy Cementizillo. The agreement included Zillo Group’s two integrated cement plants at Fanna and Este in the northeast with a combined production capacity of 1.4Mt/yr. The sale price appeared to be low at a maximum of Euro104m plus 450,000 shares in Buzzi. However, the interesting part of this transaction is a variable portion of zero to Euro21m based on the average price of cement achieved by Buzzi in Italy between 2017 and 2020.

Buzzi hammered home the point in its acquisition statement that the local cement sector suffers from, “…significant surplus of production capacity coupled with permanently reduced sales volumes.” No doubt this was a prominent part of the deal negotiations given that, with a rough calculation of Euro10m for the shares, Buzzi has picked up the new cement production capacity at about Euro80/t or US$91/t. In July 2016 this column commented that Cementir’s purchase of Compagnie des Ciments Belges’ assets for Euro125/t seemed fairly low globally. Yet even this seemed high when Cementir picked up Sacci’s cement business, including five cement plants, for Euro125m or Euro38/t. Although it should be noted that Sacci was bankrupt at the time and being run by its liquidators.

As ever all these transactions were complicated by assets other than clinker production lines but the problems facing the Italian cement industry are clear. Following on from last week’s column about changing patterns of cement consumption in southern Europe, the cement intensity of the construction sectors in Italy and Spain has dropped significantly since 2000 suggesting that the mode of construction has moved from new projects to patching up old ones. Throw in the financial crash in 2007 and, strikingly, cement production in Italy fell from 49Mt in 2006 to 21Mt in 2015. Anecdotally, looking through the Global Cement Directory 2017, 13 of the country’s 56 integrated cement plants were listed as idled, mothballed or closed at the start of the year. Cembureau, the European Cement Association, reckons that consumption fell year-on-year by 4.7% in 2016 with a further drop of 3% forecast for 2017. Surprisingly though estimates from the Associazione Italiana Tecnico Economica Cemento (AITEC) suggest that cement exports have not increased dramatically since 2007. Since hitting a low of 1.6Mt in 2011 they rose to 2.5Mt, a similar figure to that of before the crash.

This kind of environment suggests consolidation and that’s exactly what has happened with Buzzi buying Cementizillo this week, Germany’s HeidelbergCement’s purchase of Italcementi in 2016 and Cementir’s purchase of Sacci in the same year. Earlier in 2014 Austria's Wietersdorfer & Peggauer picked up a plant in Cadola from Buzzi.

Financially, the story is in line with what the declining production and consumption figures suggest. Buzzi reported that its net sales in Italy fell by 16% to Euro375m in 2016 and Cementir said that its sales would have fallen by 14% had it not benefitted from the new revenue from Sacci.

HeidelbergCement presented Italy as a territory ripe for ‘substantial’ recovery potential at a shareholders event in the autumn of 2016. It highlighted opportunities in further rationalisation of the industry, recovery in cement consumption from a low base and optimisation of the country’s distribution and depot network. It probably will not be publicly released but if Buzzi Unicem pays out the full amount of its variable payment to Cementizillo then the industry may be picking up again. Until then expect more acquisitions.

Last week’s Global CemFuels Conference in Barcelona raised a considerable amount of information about the state of the alternative fuels market for the cement industry and recent technical advances. One particular facet that stuck out were reports from cement and waste producers, from their perspective, about Morocco’s decision to ban imports of waste from Italy in mid-2016. The debacle raises prickly questions about how decisive attempts to reduce carbon emissions can be.

Public outcry broke out in Morocco in July 2016 over imports of refuse derived fuel (RDF) imported from Italy for use at a cement plant in the country. At the time a ship carrying 2500t of RDF was stopped at the Jorf Lasfar port. Local media and activists presented the shipment in terms of a dangerous waste, ‘too toxic’ for a European country, which was being dumped on a developing one. Public outcry followed and despite attempts to calm the situation the government soon banned imports of ‘waste’.

What wasn’t much reported at the time was that RDF usage rates in Europe have been rising in recent years and that the product is viewed as a commodity. As Michele Graffigna from HeidelbergCement explained at the conference in his presentation, its subsidiary Italcementi runs seven cement plants in Italy but only two of them have the permits to use alternative fuels like RDF. Italy also has amongst the lowest rates of alternative fuels usage in Europe, in part due to issues with legislation. This is changing slowly but the company has an export strategy for waste fuels from the country at the moment. Italy’s largest cement producer wants to use waste fuels in Italy but it can’t fully, so it is exporting them so it (and others) is exporting them to countries where it can.

In the Waste Hierarchy, using waste as energy fits in the ‘other recovery’ section near the bottom of the inverted pyramid, but it is still preferable to disposal. Waste fuels may be smelly, unsightly and have other concerns but they are a better environmental option than burning fossil fuels. HeidelbergCement engaged locally with media and local authorities to try and convey this. It also arranged visits to RDF production sites in Italy and German cement plant that use RDF to present its message. Looking to the future, HeidelbergCement now plans to focus on local waste production in Morocco with projects for a tyre shredder at a cement plant and an RDF production site at a Marrakesh landfill site in the pipeline. Graffigna didn’t say so directly, but the decision to focus on local waste supplies clearly dispenses with historical and cultural baggage of moving ‘dirty’ products between countries.

In another talk, at the conference Andy Hill of Suez then mentioned the Morocco situation from his company’s angle. His point was that moving waste fuels around can carry risks and that a waste management company, like Suez, knows how to handle them. It is worth pointing out here that Suez UK has supplied solid recovered fuel (SRF) to the country so it has a commercial interest here. He also suggested that despatching a bulk vessel of waste to a sensitive market did not help the situation and that it heightened negative publicity.

Morocco’s decision to ban the import of waste fuels in mid-2016 is an unfortunate speed bump along the highway to a more sustainable cement industry. It raises all sorts of issues about public perceptions of environmental efforts to clean up the cement industry and where they clash with commercially minded attempts to do so by the cement producers. A similar battle is playing out in Ireland between locals in Limerick and Irish Cement, as it tries to start burning tyres and RDF. These are not new issues. Meanwhile in the background the amendment to the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme draws close with a vote set for mid-February 2017. It could have implications for all of this depending on what happens. More on this later in the month.

As a companion to the trends based article in the December 2016 issue of Global Cement Magazine, here are some of the major news stories from the industry in 2016. Remember this is just one view of the year's events. If you think we've missed anything important let us know via LinkedIn, Twitter or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

HeidelbergCement buys Italcementi
Undeniably the big story of the year, HeidelbergCement has gradually acquired Italcementi throughout 2016. Notably, unlike the merger of Lafarge and Holcim, the cement producer has not held a party to mark the occasion. Instead each major step of the process has been reported upon incrementally in press releases and other sources throughout the year. The enlarged HeidelbergCement appears to be in a better market position than LafargeHolcim but it will be watched carefully in 2017 for signs of weakness.

LafargeHolcim faces accusations over conduct in Syria
The general theme for LafargeHolcim in 2016 has been one of divestments to shore up its balance sheet. However, one news story could potentially sum up its decline for the wider public. In June 2016 French newspaper Le Monde alleged that Lafarge had struck deals with armed groups in Syria, including so-called Islamic State (IS), to protect its assets in 2013 and 2014. LafargeHolcim didn’t deny the claims directly in June. Then in response to a legal challenge on the issue mounted in November 2016 its language tightened to statements condoning terrorism whilst still allowing some wriggle room. As almost all of the international groups in Syria are opposed to IS, should these allegations prove to be true it will not look good for the world’s largest cement producer.

China and India balance sector restructuring with production growth
Both China and India seem to have turned a corner in 2016 with growing cement production and a generally more upbeat feeling for the industries. Both have also seen some high profile consolidations or mergers underway which will hopefully cut inefficiencies. China’s focus on its ‘One Belt, One Road’ appears to be delivering foreign contracts as CBMI’s recent flurry of orders in Africa attests although Sinoma’s equipment arm was losing money in the first half of 2016. Meanwhile, India may have damaged its own growth in the short term through its demonetisation policy to take high value Indian rupee currency notes out of circulation. In November 2016 cement demand was believed to have dropped by up to half as the real estate sector struggled to adapt. The pain is anticipated to carry on until the end of March 2017.

US industry growth stuck in the slow lane
The US cement industry has failed to take off yet again in 2016 with growth lagging below 5%. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) has reported that clinker production has risen by 1% in the first ten months of 2016 and that it fell in the third quarter of the year. In response, the Portland Cement Association (PCA) lowered its forecasts for both 2016 and 2017. One unknown here has been the election of President-elect Donald Trump and the uncertainty over what his policies might bring. If he ‘goes large,’ as he said he wants to, on infrastructure then the cement industry will benefit. Yet, knock-on effects from other potential policies like restricting migrant labour might have unpredictable consequences upon the general construction industry.

African expansion follows the money
International cement producers have prospered at the expense of local ones in 2016. The big shock this year was when Nigeria’s Dangote announced that it was scaling back its expansion plans in response to problems in Nigeria principally with the devaluation of the Naira. Since then it has also faced local problems in Ghana, Ethiopia and Tanzania. Its sub-Saharan competitor PPC has also had problems too. By contrast, foreign investors from outside the continent, led by China, have scented opportunity and opened their wallets.

Changes in store for the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme
A late entry to this roundup is the proposed amendment to the European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). This may entail the introduction of a Border Adjustment Measure (BAM) with the loss of free allowances for the cement sector in Phase IV. Cembureau, the European Cement Association, has slammed the changes as ‘discriminatory’ and raised concerns over how this would affect competitiveness. In opposition the environmental campaign group Sandbag has defended the changes as ones that could put a stop to the ‘cement sector’s windfall profits from the ETS.’

High growth shifts to Philippines and other territories
Indonesia may be lurching towards production overcapacity, but fear not, the Philippines have arrived on the scene to provide high double-digit growth on the back of the Duterte Infrastructure Plan. The Cement Manufacturers Association of the Philippines (CEMAP) has said that cement sales have risen by 10.1% year-on-year to 20.1Mt in the first three quarters of 2016 and lots of new plants and upgrade projects are underway. The other place drawing attention in the second half of the year has been Pakistan with cement sales jumping in response to projects being built by the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor.

Global Cement Weekly will return on 4 January 2016

Italy: HeidelbergCement, the sole shareholder of Italcementi, has appointed a new board of directors its subsidiary at a shareholder meeting on 19 October 2016. The new members are Luca Sabelli as chairman, Dominik von Achten as executive vice president, Lorenz Näger as executive vice president and Roberto Callieri as chief executive officer.

On 12 October 2016, HeidelbergCement purchased the remaining Italcementi shares that had not been tendered in the mandatory tender offer. From this date HeidelbergCement became the sole shareholder of Italcementi and owns 100% of the share capital. Italcementi shares were delisted from the Italian Stock Exchange on the same day.

Cementos Argos’ deal to buy the Martinsburg cement plant in West Virginia from HeidelbergCement makes a lot of sense. After all, the Colombian-based cement producer has seen its US cement assets perform well so far in 2016 with a cement sales volumes increase of 29% year-on-year to 1.99Mt and an overall sales revenue boost of 19.7% to US$700m. Compare that to the challenges the company has faced so far this year on its home turf in Colombia. There, cement sales volumes fell by 15.5% to 2.47Mt and sales revenue fell slightly to US$465m.

Argos has picked up the Martinsburg cement plant and eight cement terminals in the surrounding states for US$660m. The sale was mandated by the US Federal Trade Commission as one of the conditions of HeidelbergCement’s purchase of Italcementi including its US subsidiary Essroc, the current owner of the plant.

Symbolically, the purchase takes Argos right up to the Mason–Dixon line, the old survey line sometimes used to describe the dividing line between the so-called ‘north’ and ‘south’ in the US. The cement plant is south of the line in West Virginia but some of the cement terminals are firmly in the north-east. Outside of the company’s home turf in Colombia it has a maritime presence around the Gulf of Mexico. Although Martinsburg is inland, the new terminals in Norfolk, Virginia and Baltimore push Argos’ distribution network up the east coast. This could potentially push Argos into conflict with the subject of last week’s column, McInnis Cement, a Canadian cement plant under construction with eventual aspirations to sell its cement to the US.

Back in the US specifically the new plant will bring Argos’ total of integrated cement plants to four, joining Roberta in Alabama, Newberry in Florida and Harleyville in South Carolina. All together the producer will have a production capacity of around 6Mt/yr in the US following the acquisition. Back in 2014 when Global Cement visited Martinsburg the plant was distributing its cement about 60:40 via truck and rail. At that time the plant was shifting cement in an area from central Ohio eastwards to western Pennsylvania and south to southern Virginia, as well as in North Carolina.

Argos has paid US$300/t for Martinsburg’s production capacity of 2.2Mt/yr. As ever determining the cost of the terminals proves difficult. This compares to the US$267t/yr that Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua (GCC) paid to pick up two plants from Cemex in May 2016 or the US$375/t that Summit Materials paid Lafarge for a cement plant and seven terminals in July 2015. Previous Argos purchases in the US were around US$220 – 250/t for deals with Lafarge and Vulcan in 2011 and 2014 respectively. It is also worth considering that Essroc upgraded Martinsburg significantly in 2010 to a dry-process kiln and that the site has a waste-to-solid-fuel plant from Entsorga due to become operational in 2017.

The purchase of Martinsburg by Argos seems like an obvious move. It predicts a compound annual growth rate of 5.4% for cement consumption in the American states it operates within between 2016 and 2020. However, this may be optimistic given that the Portland Cement Association’s chief economist Ed Sullivan has downgraded his consumption forecasts for the US as a whole to 3.4% from 5% as he waits for the recovery to really kick in. The southern US states have also recovered faster since a low in 2009 than the northeastern ones. The purchase marks a new chapter in Cementos Argos’ expansion strategy

LafargeHolcim was the last major European cement producer to release its second quarter financial results last week. The collective picture is confused. Cement sales volumes have risen but sales revenue have fallen.

Most of the producers have blamed negative currency effects for their falls in revenue during the first half of 2016. Holding a mixed geographical portfolio of building materials production assets has kept these companies afloat over the last decade but this has come with a price. The recent appreciation of the Euro versus currencies in various key markets, such as in Egypt, has hit balance sheets, since the majority of these firms are based in Europe and mostly use the Euro for their accounting. Meanwhile, sales volumes of cement have mostly risen for the companies we have examined making currency effects a major contributor.

Graph 1 - Changes in cement sales volumes for major non-Chinese cement producers in the first half of 2016 compared to the first half of 2015 (%). Data labels are the volumes reported in 2016. Source: Company reports.

As can be seen in Graph 1, sales volumes have risen for most of the producers, with the exception of LafargeHolcim. Despite blaming shortages of gas in Nigeria for hitting its operating income, LafargeHolcim actually saw its biggest drop in sales volumes in Latin America by 13.2% year-on-year to 11.8Mt. The other surprise here was that its North American region reported a 2.7% fall to 8.8Mt with Canada the likely cause. Vicat deserves mention here for its giant boost in sales volumes due to recovery in France and good performance in Egypt and the US, amongst other territories.

Graph 2 - Changes in sales revenue for major non-Chinese cement producers in the first half of 2016 compared to the first half of 2015 (%). Data labels are the sales reported in 2016. Source: Company reports.

Overall sales revenue for these companies presents a gloomier scenario with the majority of them losing revenue in the first half of the year, with most of them blaming negative currency effects for this. Titan is included in this graph to show that it’s not all bad news. Its growth in revenue was supported by good performance in the US and Egypt. Likewise, good performance in Eastern Europe and the US helped Buzzi Unicem turn in a positive increase in its sales revenue. They remain, however, the exception.

Looking at sales revenue generated from cement offers one way to disentangle currency effects from performance. Unfortunately, only about half of the companies looked at here actually published this for the reporting period. Of these, LafargeHolcim reported a massive rise that was probably due to the accounting coping with the merger process that finalised in 2015. Of the rest - HeidelbergCement, Italcementi and Vicat – the sales revenue from each company’s cement businesses fell at a faster rate than overall sales. Like-for-like figures here would help clarify this situation.

Meanwhile, a mixed global patchwork of cement demand is focusing multinational attention on key countries with growing economies like Egypt and Nigeria. Both of these countries have undergone currency devaluation versus the Euro and are facing energy shortages for various reasons. The exposure of the multinational cement producers to such places may become clearer in the second half of the year.