Displaying items by tag: Plant

The UAE is having a moment. Over the last week Fujairah Natural Resources, a new entrant to cement, said it is going to build a clinker plant at Habbab in Fujairah. It’s also looking likely that Raysut Cement might buy UAE-based Fujairah Cement Company’s shares in Sohar Cement in Oman. Then, Ras Al Khaimah (RAK) Cement announced that it had purchased the Newtech cement plant. What’s happening here?

The last couple of years have been tough ones for Emirati cement producers, which have been fighting falling sales and beleaguered profits. The largest producer, Arkan Building Materials - a group majority controlled by the Abu Dhabi government, reported flat sales growth for the first nine months of 2018. It blamed this on falling sales of clinker due to imports from Iran and a tough pricing environment. Its profits were hit by rising clinker production costs due to its reliance on imported limestone from Oman whilst it resolves problems with its own local quarry. Arkan had closed its Emirates Cement plant in Al Ain following revenue and profit falls in 2016. This story thread reached its end earlier in February 2019 when Arkan sold the closed plant for around US$14m. National Cement reported a similar experience in its nine months results, with growing revenue but sales sapped by mounting costs.

Data from Riyad Capital in early-2018 suggested that the UAE only consumes about half of its own cement production. The rest is exported to the Middle East and North African region, particularly Oman and Egypt, and African countries. The country has 14 integrated cement plants with a production capacity of 31.4Mt/yr and eight grinding plants with a capacity of 10.4Mt/yr. These are owned by a mixture of local companies and multinationals.

The European producers still have a presence through LafargeHolcim’s Lafarge Emirates plant in Fujairah and a grinding plant run by Cemex. Although how long LafargeHolcim will remain seems uncertain given a report by Bloomberg earlier in February 2019 suggesting that the group is seriously looking at exiting the Middle East and Africa. Oman’s Raysut Cement holds a plant too via its Pioneer Cement subsidiary but the majority of the foreign-owned plants are Indian. Their presence has been steadily growing.

Aditya Birla/UltraTech Cement, JK Cement and Shree Cement all run plants in the UAE and JSW Cement said in mid-2018 that it was going to build a 1Mt/yr integrated plant in Fujairah. UltraTech Cement renamed its grinding plant UltraTech Nathdwara Cement in December 2018. This plant was formerly a Binani Cement plant and part of the rancorous bidding war between UltraTech Cement and Dalmia Bharat.

The background to all of this has been a country that is very willing to spend big on infrastructure projects when the need arises. Forbes reckoned, for example, that the UAE had awarded US$20.7bn on infrastructure projects in 2018 in the first nine months of 2018. Impending projects like the Expo 2020 are still generating construction activity and longer ones like Dubai Metro are in progress. However, the country is in a dynamic place geographically between the two-major economic and cement-producing powerhouses of Saudi Arabia and Iran. For the cement industry this explains the prominence of the grinding sector and the growing interest from Indian companies looking to expand overseas. For the new project and acquisition this week it’s looking more like local variation in the market at this stage. In this context though the fourth quarter results from local producers will make interesting reading to see if anything bigger is going on.

Peru’s been the place over the last week with news reports of new production capacity and its targeting as a key export market by Vietnam.

Local press reported this week that three new cement grinding plants are planned to start production in 2019. Cemento Inka plans to build a 0.6Mt/yr grinding plant at Ica near Pisco. It also plans to upgrade the kilns at its plant at Cajamarquilla near Lima. Then Mixercon, a ready-mix concrete firm, wants to spend US$20m towards building two new plants in northern Lima, also in 2019. It also has plans to open distribution centres around the capital too.

For a local industry generally dominated by local often family-controlled producers this is quite a change. The larger companies – Pacasmayo, UNACEM and Yura – normally dominate the headlines and the market here. Unsurprisingly then that Pacasmayo and Yura also have upgrades planned for their plants in 2019 too.

Changes to capacity started in late May 2018 when Salaverry-based importer Invecem was said to be buying equipment for a 0.25Mt/yr grinding plant. Then things really started moving when Unacem bought Cementos Portland (Cempor), a joint venture between Chile's Cementos Bío Bío and Brazil’s Votorantim Cimentos. The foreign companies were planning to build a plant near Lima but the project was delayed by a legal battle over environmental issues intitiated by Unacem. This was followed by Cal & Cemento Sur (Calcesur), a subsidiary of Grupo Gloria, announcing that it was going to add a new production line to its cement and lime plant in Puno.

With this level of interest in grinding plants going on it’s unsurprising that Vietnam, a major exporter of cement, has taken an interest. Imports of cement to Peru rose by 65% year-on-year to 0.94Mt in the 12 months from December 2017 to November 2018 from 0.57Mt in the same period previously. Imports of clinker rose by 37% to 0.78Mt from 0.57Mt. This compares to a rise of 21% to 0.61Mt in cement imports in 2017 and a fall of 1.2% to 0.51Mt in 2016. In the 12 months to the end of November 2018 most of that imported cement (81%) came from Vietnam followed by 14% from China and 3% from Mexico. Clinker imports have been more varied with 39% from South Korea, 31% from Vietnam, 19% from Ecuador and 11% from Japan. The general situation for the clinker producers has been a slight increase in cement production to 10Mt for the 12 months to the end of November 2018 and slightly higher increases in despatches.

So, it looks like an apparent cement demand is up in Peru and the importers are rushing to meeting demand. The question, then, is why haven’t the clinker producers announced projects to squeeze out the grinders? As mentioned above Pacasmayo and Yura have upgrades planned but nothing really large seems to be coming yet. Also, given the tough time Cempor was given by the local companies what kind of opposition are the new projects by Cemento Inka, Mixercon and Invecem likely to face? The country’s gross domestic product (GDP) growth rate is below the glory days of the 2000s when it topped 6% but it is still one of the strongest in South America with 3.8% forecast for 2019 by the World Bank. This is the country in the region to watch in 2019.

UK: Tarmac has appointed Graeme Bride as the plant manager of its Aberthaw cement plant. He takes over the role from Chris Bradbury, who has been appointed Cement Plant Manager of Tarmac’s Tunstead operations.

Bride, aged 46 years, graduated as a mechanical engineer from the University of Birmingham and has an MBA from Manchester Business School. He has over 24 years of operational experience gained in the cement, sugar and power generation industries across Europe, Asia and Africa. His most recent role was Health and Safety Director in Lafarge Africa. He holds 19 years cement plant management experience from his time spent working in Nigeria and the Philippines.

Russia: Eurocement has appointed Sergey Lobov as the manager of its Voronezh subsidiary and Vadim Shablitsky as the general director of its Neviansky cement plant. Yaroslav Stoupa, Vice-President of Eurocement Group for production and technical development, introduced the new appointments at a visit to each plant.

Lobov graduated from the Belgorod State Technological Academy of Building Materials with a degree in mechanical engineering. He has been working in the cement industry for 17 years, of which 14 have has been based at the Oskolcement enterprise, where he has advanced from being an equipment repairman to a deputy general director and technical director. From 2015, he worked as the general director of Neviansky Cementnik.

Shablitsky graduated from Belgorod State University of Technology with a degree in chemical engineering and an engineering qualification. He has been working in the cement industry for over 14 years. At the Belgorodsky Cement he worked in various positions from assistant cement mill driver to plant general director, and then he was deputy general director for production at Mordovcement.

Well, it turns out that the European cement industry wasn’t kidding when it raised the risks of the climate mitigation on the sector. This week three (!) integrated plants have been earmarked for closure.

Cementa in Sweden said that it was considering closing its Degerhamn plant due to increased environmental regulations. Today, local press in Spain is reporting that Cemex España is planning to shut down two of its plants. These are plants in different parts of Europe with different local market dynamics but both are within the European Union (EU). That’s three plants closing out of 219 in the EU, or a loss of around 1% of production capacity.

Last week’s column on the United Nations’ (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on Global Warming raised the way the cement sector is tackling climate change and the existing and impending legislation. President of the German Cement Works Association (VDZ) Christian Knell’s opening words at the VDZ Congress in September 2018 seem prescient. He said, “To be able to realise our efforts in terms of climate protection and at the same time not to lose competitiveness, we need research policy-related support for our investment in breakthrough technologies and the corresponding demonstration projects.” The add-on was that the industry needed to focus on how the development of carbon abatement technologies can meet the 2050 climate goals and, specifically, that suitable boundary conditions would have to be created. The press releases accompanying his speech emphasised that, “on-going trends in European emissions trading and the ‘rapidly increasing’ price of CO₂ were already today leading to considerable costs for cement manufacturers.”

These words are similar to the comments Albert Scheuer, a board member of HeidelbergCement, made at the Innovation in Industrial Carbon Capture Conference early in 2018 about dividing the mounting environmental costs of cement and concrete between producers and society in general. Considering how much cementitious building materials most people use throughout their lives compared to the relative low price of cement, this argument carries some weight. In addition, the sustainability credentials of concrete buildings through longer lifespan and durability through extreme weather events is another argument that industry advocates such as the Portland Cement Association (PCA) in the US have been hawking in recent years.

Cementa, a subsidiary of HeidelbergCement, blamed anticipated tightening of environmental regulations for its decision. Although it said that the plant had made improvements over the years, the expected difficulty (read: cost) to make further improvements was becoming too hard. Shifting production to the company’s other two plants in the region, Slite on Gotland and Brevik in Norway, will reduce CO₂ emissions by 260,000t/yr.

In Spain, the news from Cemex follows a half-year report from Oficemen, the local cement association, that predicted growth for the year but not as fast as previously expected. The problem was that continued declines in the export market, the 13th decline month-by-month in a row, offset the domestic growth. Oficement president Jesús Ortiz also took time to blame rising electricity costs, expected to rise by 20% year-on-year by the end of 2018.

Market issues in Spain aren’t in doubt, but the real question for both Sweden and Spain is whether EU CO₂ legislation right now is causing cement producers to shut plants. The CO₂ emissions allowance price hit a high of Euro22/t in September 2018, the highest price in a decade. Allowances have stayed below Euro10/t since 2011 and the price has more than doubled in 2018. Throw in the mood music of the IPCC and the trend seems irresistible. How many more plants in Europe are at risk to shut next? No doubt the European cement producers have charts marking the viability of their plants against the CO₂ price. This would be a very interesting graph to get our hands on.

The 2nd FutureCem Conference on CO₂ reduction strategies for the cement industry will take place in May 2019 in London, UK

More positive news emerged from the UK cement industry this week with the news that Cemex is planning to restart the second kiln at its South Ferriby plant later in 2018. This marks the full recovery of the plant after a disastrous flood in late 2013 and it is an all round good news story. Around the same time the local government in Scotland approved the planning application for an upgrade to Tarmac’s Dunbar cement plant. That project involves installing a new cement grinding mill, a new cement storage silo and a rail loading facility.

Graph 1: Domestic cement, imported cement and other cementitious sales in the UK, 2001 - 2017. Source: Mineral Products Association.

The timing is interesting given the general uncertainty in the UK economy ahead of the UK exit from the European Union (EU). However, data from the Mineral Products Association (MPA) shows that total cementitious material sales (cement plus products made from fly ash and ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS)) reached 15.3Mt in 2017 from a low of 10.3Mt in 2009 following the financial crash. This isn’t as high as the 15.8Mt figures recorded in 2007 but it does mark a recovery. This masks to an extent the change in the market since 2007. Cement sales in 2017 at 10.2Mt were still below a high of 11.9Mt in 2008. The recovery has been driven by higher imports, 1.9Mt in 2017, and higher use of fly ash and GGBS products, which reached 3.2Mt in 2017.

Cemex and Tarmac are not alone in announcing projects. HeidelbergCement’s local subsidiary Hanson is upgrading its Padeswood plant with a new Euro22m mill. Irish slag cement grinding company Ecocem opened its import terminal at Sheerness in mid-2017 and French grinding firm, Cem'In'Eu, has also expressed interest in building a plant, in this case in London.

As discussed earlier in the year, new upgrade projects in the UK appear to carry an element of risk given the unknown status of its departure from the EU. Supply chains may be affected, companies are delaying investment and the value of Pound Sterling is falling. The collapse of construction services company Carillion also had a knock-on effect in the industry and, with major work on the Crossrail infrastructure project finishing, the industry has no major infrastructure projects in support. A quarterly graph of UK construction industry output volume by Arcadis shows almost uniform growth since mid-2012 although this started to flatten in 2017. A badly-handled Brexit (UK exit from the EU) could undo this growth.

All of this presents a picture of risk-adverse capital projects in the UK. The MPA figures help to explain the focus on grinding at Padeswood and Dunbar. The market has changed since 2007, with a growing focus on imports and secondary cementitious materials. Hence spending money on equipment to process these inputs makes sense. The decision to increase production at South Ferriby meanwhile depends on reviving existing equipment. Regional cement sales figures to 2016 from the MPA appear to indicate static demand in counties close to the plant (Yorkshire and Humberside) but sales have increased in the East Midlands and the East of England.

Just compare the current UK approach to the situation in Egypt. This week the head of the cement division of the Chamber of Building Materials described the decision to build the Beni Suef cement plant to local media as “not based on precise information” and that it had harmed local production. In case you had forgotten, that plant is one of the biggest in the world with six lines. The commentator may well have been representing smaller local producers but opening a 12Mt/yr plant in Egypt in these turbulent economic times marks a different approach to risk than the modest plant upgrades in the UK. Let’s wait and see who has the best approach.

The Federación Interamericana del Cemento (FICEM) held its 2018 technical congress in Panama City last week and was attended by Global Cement. We’ll run a full write-up of the event in the October 2018 issue of Global Cement Magazine. The short version is that the conference was technically good but, from our perspective, it could have done with more regional analysis. Given that the event is for the local industry this is not a big issue as most of the delegates will know their own markets inside out and many were happy to discuss just this when asked. Likewise, FICEM’s in-house publication also included plenty of local data.

The nearest the presentations came to this was a global overview of the cement industry by Arnaud Pinatel of On Field Investment Research ahead of a market report the analysts are about to release. Although it covered the global cement industry the key local news was that the Latin American sector’s production capacity had grown by 3% from 2010 to 2018 but that prices had fallen in this time. The forecast suggested that cement sales volumes were expected to grow by 3% in 2019 - supported by Brazil, Peru and Bolivia - but that prices were also expected to fall by 1%, mainly due to issues in Argentina.

That last point is especially interesting over the last week because the Argentine cement body, the Asociación de Fabricantes de Cemento Portland (AFCP), released its figures last week to reveal that cement despatches rose by 4.2% year-on-year for the first eight months of 2018. However, at the same time the general news broke that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) was providing an emergency loan to support the country’s economy. The government was keen to shore up confidence in the economy and attributed the growth in the cement sector to the ‘most ambitious infrastructure plan in history.’

Only last year in 2017 the industry was riding a construction boom with cement shortages, new production capacity announced and the initial public offering of Loma Negra. Bailouts from the IMF don’t fit this picture of the poster boy for the South American construction industry. And, if a financial correction is pending, the new capacity that has been ordered may arrive at a bad time. This is a pretty worrying situation.

Meanwhile, across the Uruguay River into Brazil something long expected and hopefully more encouraging has occurred: the acquisition of cement plants. Italy’s Buzzi Unicem revealed that it had struck a deal to buy a 50% stake in the Brazilian company BCPAR from Grupo Ricardo Brennand for Euro150m. The arrangements cover two integrated plants: one 2.4Mt/yr unit at Sete Lagoas in Minas Gerais and a 1.7Mt/yr unit at Pitimbu in Paraíba. Buzzi has also added an option to buy the other half of the business until 2025.

It’s hard to place a value on the sale, but it looks as if Buzzi has picked up the capacity for just under US$100/t, subject to future variation on how well the company does. At that price though this a low figure and a bargain for Buzzi. Given the pain the Brazilian cement industry had been through in recent years some form of traction is welcome. Unfortunately, Grupo Ricardo Brennand has surely lost money on the deal given that the two plants were commissioned in 2011 and 2015 respectively. The complexity of the financial arrangements suggest that Ricardo Brennand is fighting to stay in the game if and when the recovery comes. If Buzzi has moved in then this suggests that it thinks it will make their money back and that it reckons that the bottom of the construction industry trough has been reached. A Brazilian take on this situation would be fascinating.

With these kinds of events happening the same week as the FICEM technical congress it really shows how vibrant and varied the region’s cement industry is. Next year’s conference will surely be even more interesting as market events in Brazil, Argentina and other countries develop.

US: Mississippi Lime Company has appointed Kenny Adams as the Plant Superintendent of the Vicksburg lime plant in Mississippi. He holds over 20 years of experience in plant production. He joined the company’s Verona plant in 2010 as a Lead Kiln Operator. In 2014, he was promoted to Supervisor. In his new role, he will oversee Vicksburg’s production and support operations.

There have been quite a few new cement plant project announcements in the past week, with expansions announced in Mexico, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Indonesia, India and Uzbekistan. 11.8Mt/yr of new capacity has been announced in just a week, mostly from a whopping 9.0Mt/yr project in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia, the first in that Province. Notable in this project, as well as two of the others, is the involvement, once again, of large Chinese-based cement plant manufacturers and / or finance and associated influence from Chinese parties.

Of course, this trend is nothing new. The rise of Chinese cement plant manufacturers, particularly into Africa and other developing cement markets, has been covered in previous Global Cement Weekly columns. However, it does appear to be stepping up a notch in 2018 compared to previous years. So far this year we have reported on 21 confirmed Chinese cement plants being built in 15 countries other than China, from the planning stage to ‘up-and-running.’ A total of 37.2Mt/yr, more than the capacity of Germany, is being built across Algeria, Cambodia, Cameroon, Indonesia, Kyrgyzstan, Namibia, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkey, Ukraine, Uzbekistan and Zambia. That’s not including a similarly large number of news stories where the supplier is not explicitly stated. This is seen a lot in Indian projects, as well as in Vietnam, where the cement sector appears to still be expanding, despite the government’s pronouncements. In many of these cases, and elsewhere, these unidentified suppliers are likely to be Chinese.

The driver for this increase in Chinese-led cement sector investment is, of course, the severe overcapacity in China’s domestic cement sector. The government is currently undertaking its most drastic capacity reduction measures so far. The ongoing integration of Sinoma and CNBM is one example of the lengths it will go to to reduce the current inefficiencies in the sector. This week the Chinese government reiterated its strict prohibition on new greenfield cement plants. It also warned that any producer that wants to upgrade its plant with a new line must only install the same capacity as the line that will be replaced, amid concerns that some were flouting this rule. This comes as the profits of major producers have been rising. Presumably the government would like them to climb further still.

So where does this leave the more established (read ‘European’) cement plant manufacturers such as Fives, FLSmidth, KHD and thyssenkrupp Industrial Solutions, some of which are fully or partly-owned by Chinese companies? Well, with fewer full-line projects available in developing regions due to the rise of the Chinese, they have become increasingly specialised in specific areas. Those that want European equipment will increasingly specify a pyro-line from Supplier A, a mill or two from Supplier B, conveyors and storage from supplier C, and so on. Arranging this, as it turns out, is something that Chinese plant manufacturers are quite keen to do. Take, for example, FLSmidth working for Sinoma (China) alongside Atlas Copco (Sweden) and Kawasaki Heavy Industries (Japan) on a cement plant in Indonesia. Indeed, FLSmidth signed a framework with CNBM on future collaborations in July 2018. FLSmidth and CNBM already have an extensive ‘back catalogue’ of joint projects. FLSmidth has valuable expertise that Chinese firms need to complete these kinds of projects.

Of course, another European supplier, Germany’s KHD, is mostly owned by China’s AVIC. In a forthcoming interview in the September 2018 issue of Global Cement Magazine, KHD’s CEO Gerold Keune states that the Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) scene is now ‘completely dominated’ by Chinese suppliers. KHD fits in by providing a wide range of equipment but, crucially, great expertise in pyroprocessing and crushing solutions. It itself relies on smaller firms to provide their knowledge to specific parts of a larger project, be it conveyors, feeding systems or silos. Everyone is getting better and better, but in a smaller and smaller area.

Also in the September 2018 issue of Global Cement Magazine will be a report from the VDMA’s Large Industrial Plant Manufacturer’s group (AGAB) in Germany, which highlights another advantage for the Europeans: Digitisation. According to a VDMA survey, the industry anticipates a positive influence from digitisation activities on sales and earnings and expects to see margins improve by up to 10% as a result of the efficiencies it offers over the next three years. In this regard they are ahead of the Chinese mega-suppliers.

The conclusion from this wide-ranging column? The integration of Chinese weight and European know-how is stepping up a notch and will only accelerate from here. Can everyone be ‘winners?’ The next few years may reveal some of the answers.

South African cement producer PPC reported this week that its annual profits rose due to ‘strong’ performance in Rwanda and Zimbabwe. Unfortunately it had no such luck in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) where its new plant near Kimpese in Kongo Central province has suffered from political instability, lower cement demand and subdued selling prices.

As the group went on to describe the local market as ‘challenging’ with production capacity above market demand. Research from the International Finance Corporation (IFC) suggests that the country will only reach a cement supply deficit by 2022. On top of this the country’s elections have been delayed from December 2017 to December 2018, creating uncertainty in the construction market and delaying infrastructure projects. Following an impairment assessment PPC took an impairment cost of US$14m on the unit. Or in other words it concluded that the value it might gain from selling its new 1.2Mt/yr plant was less than the estimated US$280m it cost to build it.

This outcome is depressing given that the plant was only commissioned during the last quarter of 2017 and the fundamental need for development in the DRC. The unit is run by local subsidiary PPC Barnet DRC, a joint venture 69% owned by PPC, 21% owned by Barnet Group, with the remaining 10% owned by the IFC. The plant was 60% debt funded by the IFC and Eastern and Southern African Trade and Development Bank. In January 2018 PPC agreed with its lenders to reschedule debts from the project until 2020. Then in April 2018 it was reported that PPC was in talks with China National Materials (Sinoma) over selling its stake in the plant. PPC chief executive officer (CEO) Johann Claassen said that the deal was dependent on the price and the on going merger between Sinoma and China National Building Material (CNBM).

With the merger between the Chinese cement giants close but yet to be confirmed, PPC remains stuck with a cement plant it’s losing money on. No doubt also the Chinese producers will aim for a bargain on the unit, especially since Sinoma built the plant. This also raises one potential method how the merged Sinoma-CNBM might expand internationally by scooping up plants it builds that have subsequently gotten into financial trouble.

All in all it’s a cautionary tale about how fast cement companies are able to expand in Sub-Saharan Africa. The demographics are enticing to investors but if the market isn’t there or if competitors get there first then building cement plants can go wrong. A 1.8Mt/yr joint-venture plant run by Lucky Cement started up in late 2016 also in the Kongo Central province. On top of this neighbouring countries have targeted DRC for exports. A local ban on imports of cement was implemented in mid-2017 and reportedly renewed in the west of the country for another six months in February 2018. However, Nigeria's Dangote Cement said in its first quarter results for 2018 that its operations in the Republic of Congo were targeting exports at the DRC. As PPC has discovered, investing in Sub-Saharan African has its risks.