Displaying items by tag: UltraTech Cement

Earlier this year South Africa’s PPC commented on the drought facing Cape Town. It said that cement manufacturing was not water intensive, that its operations were ‘totally’ self-sufficient from its own surface water sources with capacity for several months and that it was working with the local government which viewed construction as an important economic sector. Point made!

Water conservation is an established part of the sustainability toolkit for cement producers. Yet recent weather patterns in the Northern Hemisphere may also test how well companies are doing. Above average temperatures have been recorded this summer, in some places accompanied by unusually dry conditions. A news story this week about Cemex Colombia being fined for using water from a river shows one aspect of the problems that can face industrial users. Another story that we’ve covered previously has been the legal action taken against producers using water from a site near to the Katas Raj Temples in Pakistan.

Wet process cement manufacturing uses more water than dry process but even modern plants use water for cooling equipment and exhaust gases, in emission control systems such as wet scrubbers. In addition, quarrying and aggregate production may require water, and concrete production also needs water. Issues also arise with quarry dewatering and discharging water into rivers and the like. Global Cement Directory 2018 data indicates that, where known, about 10% of integrated cement plants still use a wet production method.

Graph 1: Specific water consumption by selected cement producers in 2017. Source: Corporate sustainability reports.

As Graph 1 shows there is some variation between the major cement producers with regards to how much water they use. They all operate with different types of equipment and production methods in different geographical locations so the difference between the companies is to be expected. A cement plant in northern Europe that normally experiences high levels of rainfall will have a different approach to water conservation than one, say, in a water stressed area like the Middle East. Incidentally, the definition used to define a water-stressed or scarce area is one where there is less than 1000m³/yr per person. One other point to note here is that each of the companies has a higher consumption figure than the 100 – 200L/t that the Cement Manufacturers' Association of the Philippines (CeMAP) reckoned that an average dry-process cement plant used when it was promoting water conservation back in 2013.

Looking at specific recent success stories, India’s UltraTech Cement reported a specific water consumption of 54L/t of clinker at its Star Cement plant in Dubai, UAE in 2016 – 2017 following a dedicated initiative at the site. An another milestone that UltraTech Cement was keen to point out in its last sustainability report was that three of 13 integrated plants had achieved water sufficiency though the use of the company’s 360° Water Management Model with its use of rainwater harvesting and recharging groundwater. These plants are not dependent on any groundwater or fresh water sources. The other larger cement producers all have similar water management schemes with reduction targets in place.

Climate change models generally predict hotter and wetter weather but changing weather patterns and growing populations are likely to impact upon water management and consumption. Given the integral nature of water in the cement production process, many cement producers have realised the importance of it and treat it as an input material like fuel or limestone. Hence the highlighting of water conservation in company sustainability reports over the last decade. The test for the success of these initiatives will be how producers cope in drought situations where they may be seen as being in competition with domestic users. Thankfully in PPC’s case, Cape Town avoided having to ration water to the general public, as the rains returned in the spring.

India: The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has dismissed an appeal by cement producers against a US$975m fine for alleged cartel-like behaviour. The Competition Commission of India penalised 11 cement companies in August 2016, according to the Press Trust of India. The companies included UltraTech Cement, ACC, Ambuja, Ramco and JK Cement and the Cement Manufacturers’ Association (CMA). UltraTech Cement has been fined US$171m, the highest amount in the group.

India: UltraTech Cement plans to build five waste heat recovery (WHR) units with an investment of US$72.6m. The new WHR units will have a capacity of 63MW and they will take the company’s total WHR capacity to 121MW, according to the Hindu newspaper. It is anticipated that the cement producer will be able to meet half of its power requirements from its WHR plants. They are also intended to protect the company from changes in the price of coal.

India: UltraTech Cement’s consolidated net sales rose by 27% year-on-year to US$1.3bn in the quarter that ended on 30 June 2018 from US$1.01bn in the same period in 2017. However, its profit after tax dropped by 30% to US$92m from US$131m.

The cement producer also said that it agreed to buy the cement assets of Century Textiles & Industries in the reported quarter and that it commissioned a 1.75Mt/yr grinding unit at its Manawar plant in Dhar District, Madhya Pradesh.

India: Birla White, a subsidiary of UltraTech Cement, plans to launch four new products by 2020. Research and development for the new products is underway at present, according to the Hindu newspaper. The white cement producer is also planning to increase its exports to 10% of its total volume by 2023. At present it exports 3% of its total volume. The company operates one cement plant at Rajashree Nagar in Rajasthan.

India: The Supreme Court has ordered the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) to adjudicate upon all issues relating to the Binani Cement insolvency case, including whether Ultratech Cement’s bid for the company is eligible. The case will be heard by the appeals tribunal from mid-July 2018, according to the Mint newspaper. The NCLAT is the body that processes appeals from the National Company Law Tribunal, a legal body that adjudicates disputes between companies.

UltraTech Cement made a direct bid of US$1.12bn for the bankrupt Binani Cement following an auction in March 2018 that was originally won by Dalmia Bharat. Dalmia Bharat has disputed UltraTech Cement’s offer and the two companies have conducted legal campaigns to reinforce their respective claims.

India: UltraTech Cement has commissioned a 1.75Mt/yr grinding unit at its Manawar plant in Dhar District, Madhya Pradesh. The main part of the 2.5Mt/yr integrated plant was commissioned in April 2018. A 13MW waste heat recovery unit is also being built at the site.

India: UltraTech Cement’s costs are growing over its offer to buy Binani Cement. A legal counsel in the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) told the Business Standard newspaper that the subsidiary of Aditya Birla Group is liable to pay lenders around US$0.22m/day in additional interest until the takeover is completed. Any decision made by the NCLT will still have to go before the Supreme Court further delaying the process.

UltraTech Cement made a direct bid of US$1.12bn for the bankrupt Binani Cement following an auction in March 2018 that was originally won by Dalmia Bharat. However, Dalmia Bharat’s offer did not include paying interest to lenders. Binani Cement’s insolvency resolution process has overrun its 270-day time frame by nearly two months.

India: The Supreme Court has said that the final sale of Binani Cement cannot complete without its approval. It added that no decision on the sale will now be made until at least early July 2018. However, it has allowed the debt resolution process to continue, according to the Press Trust of India. UltraTech Cement and Dalmia Bharat have both made bids for the bankrupt cement producer but they have fought each other legally over the process.

India: UltraTech Cement has won a copyright case against a company selling cement brands similar to its own. The cement producer argued at the Bombay High Court that Everest Industries was selling products that were using marks deceptively similar to its own registered mark ‘UltraTech,’ according to the Mint business newspaper. UltraTech said that Everest was using the mark ‘Ultratruf-The Builders Choice’ with similar fonts and colours to its own mark. The court also observed that Everest was deceptively using another brand name, ‘Ambruja’, similar to that of Ambuja Cements.

The court ordered Everest Industries not to use the mark in any manner in mid-May 2018. It also asked it to pay costs and damages.