US: Dust Control Technology (DCT) has appointed Laura Stiverson as its president. She joined the firm in 2008 and has been the general manager for five years. Stiverson has been cited as instrumental in developing a number of the company’s products, including the OdorBoss family of machines and the Fusion equipment design.

Incorporated in 2004, DCT supplies open-area dust suppression equipment for applications in recycling, demolition, waste and scrap handling, mining, slag and ash management, coal processing, landfills and other industries. Headquartered in Peoria, Illinois, the company supplies its dust and odour control products to customers around the world.

Back in the May 2016 issue of Global Cement Magazine we asked key people at the Portland Cement Association how they thought the US presidential election might affect the local cement industry. Wisely, for an advocacy organisation with offices in Washington DC, no one would be drawn, citing a lack of information. At that point it was still unclear who was going to be on the final ticket. However, we all missed a trick because one candidate, Donald Trump, had been talking about building ‘a border fence like you have never seen before’ since at least mid-2014. And that fence could potentially require a lot of cement.

Researchers at market analysts Bernstein’s sent a note to clients last week ahead of the Republican National Convention looking at the implications of if Donald Trump became president of the US and actually set out to build his 40ft high concrete wall between the US and Mexico. The result would be a 2.4Mt boost in demand for cement from cement producers near to the border. In terms of market demand Bernstein concluded that this would add over 1% to cement demand in both 2018 and 2019, a healthy ‘shot in the arm’ to the already pepped-up US cement industry, which is currently growing at around 5%/yr.

Map 1: Map of cement and ready-mix concrete plants near to the US - Mexico border. Source: Bernstein Materials Blast. Note – Bernstein does not show the Capitol Cement plant in San Antonio.

Needless to say, Bernstein’s calculations pile-drive assumptions into assumptions, atop of Trump’s political rhetoric. It bases its calculations on a border wall similar to the Israeli West Bank barrier built out of precast concrete panels. It also tries to model how much concrete and cement would be required depending on the differing height’s Trump has trumpeted at his rallies.

The kicker to this tongue-in-cheek analysis is that the construction company that stands to benefit the most from this infrastructure project is Mexican!

Cemex has significantly more cement plants and ready-mix concrete plants than any other company within a 200-mile zone either side of the border. Looking at integrated cement plants alone, it has six plants in the regions near to the proposed wall from the east and west coasts. Its nearest competitors, CalPortland with four plants and Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua with three plants, are more regionally based in the western US and Chihuahua state in Mexico. Clearly Cemex didn’t rate the chances of Donald Trump’s wall actually happening when it agreed to sell its Odessa cement plant to Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua in May 2016.

All of this goes to show that, wherever you stand on the Donald Trump presidency bid, if you manufacture cement near the US-Mexican border you might be working overtime if he (a) actually becomes president, (b) actually manages to start building his wall and (c) actually decides to make it using cement. Yet before anybody starts popping champagne corks consider this: there might also be unintended consequences for the cement sector. Restricting current legal and illegal migration trends from Mexico to the US might have a greater negative effect on the US cement industry, and the overall economy, than ordering one large infrastructure project. Working that one out is harder than a guesstimate of how much cement a border wall might consume. Probably best not to ask at this stage who might actually pay for the Great Wall of Donald Trump.

India: Rajesh Kapadia has resigned from Prism Cement as its chairman and non-executive, non-independent director. The resignation takes immediate effect. Kapadia cited poor health for his decision.

Another week and another massive Indian cement industry deal. This week Nirma has won the bidding for the assets of Lafarge India that LafargeHolcim is selling. Before we get too carried away though, the diversified conglomerate entered into a letter agreement with LafargeHolcim on 7 July 2016 to pay US$1.4bn for three cement plants and two grinding plants with a total cement production capacity of 11Mt/yr.

It is worth noting that this is only a letter agreement. LafargeHolcim signed one previously with Birla Corporation for some of the same assets in August 2015. Unfortunately, an ambiguous amendment to the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) (MMDR) Act struck in January 2015 made it unclear how easily mineral rights could be transferred with an industrial plant sale. After much likely internal squabbling Lafarge India said it was selling all of its assets in January 2016 followed by threats of legal action by Birla.

Some commentators in the Indian media have flagged the new deal as expensive for Nirma. It will be paying US$127/t for the new capacity compared to the US$118/t that UltraTech Cement is offering Jaiprakash Associates for its laboured deal. The Nirma deal comprises integrated cement plants at Sonadih in Chattisgarh, Arasmeta in Chattisgarh and Chittorgarh in Rajasthan, and cement grinding plants at Jojobera in Jharkhand and Mejia, West Bengal. Other assets include 63 ready mix concrete plants, two aggregate plants and a blending unit.

However, unlike UltraTech, Nirma is a relatively new entrant in the cement industry. Its main industries are in detergents and soda ash manufacture. It invested US$194m in a 2.28Mt/yr cement plant in Rajasthan that was commissioned in November 2014. It also ran into environmental issues over a proposal to build a new cement plant at Mahuva in Gujarat. One report compiled under request by the Indian Supreme Court in 2011 cited the presence of Asiatic lions as a reason for concern!

Lions aside, Nirma may be paying over the odds for its new cement business but it will gain a bigger presence in the industry quickly and diversify from its other existing industries in which it faces fierce competition. The Lafarge India plants are mostly in eastern Indian states compared to Nirma’s plant in Rajasthan in the west, giving it a reasonable geographic spread.

Nirma reportedly plans to finance the purchase through a leveraged buyout and the Mint business newspaper has described this as the largest transaction of its kind in India to date. The risk here will be how the Indian cement market plays out in the short term. LafargeHolcim reported that its cement volumes fell in 2015, although this has since picked up in the first half of 2016. UltraTech did better in its 2015 – 2016 financial year but it reported a slow construction market. Longer-term demographic trends suggest that the cement industry will grow, especially in the east of the country. With this in mind it may be a while before Nirma’s cement business roars.

Germany: Michael Höllermann and Johan P Cnossen are to join the management board of the Industrial Solutions division of ThyssenKrupp with effect from 1 August 2016. Höllermann, aged 51 years, CEO of the Regional Headquarters South America since 2012, will be the new Chief Human Resources Officer (CHRO). Johan P Cnossen, aged 56 years, who joined Industrial Solutions on 1 May 2016 as head of the transformation office for the implementation of ‘planets’, will hold the new position of Chief Operating Officer. The appointments are part of the ‘planets’ program reorganisation of the group’s Industrial Solutions business area.

With the appointments, Jens Michael Wegmann, CEO of the Industrial Solutions business area since 15 October 2015, has now filled all board positions. The new CFO, already in place since 1 June 2016, is Stefan Gesing. Also on the board is Dr Hans Christoph Atzpodien, who will focus on the management of Marine Systems.

Boy, is the UltraTech Cement and Jaiprakash Associates deal dragging on. The agreement by UltraTech to buy cement plants from Jaiprakash Associates reached its latest revision this week when UltraTech upped its offer to US$2.40bn from the US$2.36bn offered at the end of March 2016. The deal also includes an additional US$70m for a cement grinding plant under construction in Uttar Pradesh.

This time round the haggling took place to the background music of Jaiprakash Associates’ mounting debts. It owes US$4.45bn to a group of lenders led by ICICI Bank. A repayment window was due to close on 30 June 2016. Defaulting this deadline could have switched the account to non-performing asset status. So, according to reports in the Indian media, the lenders forced a strategic debt restructuring scheme on Jaiprakash Associates. Or in other words they took control of the company. Alongside all of this UltraTech was allegedly trying to renegotiate the terms of the deal agreed in March 2016 following amendments to the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) (MMDR) Amendment Act, 2015.

How paying more for the same assets benefits UltraTech remains to be seen. In addition US$1.78bn worth of Jaiprakash Associates’ debts will be transferred to UltraTech, according to Rahul Kumar, Director & CFO of Jaiprakash Associates. At US$118/t for new-ish production capacity it still seems like a good deal. Doubtless the devil lies in the (unseen) detail. Reports in the Indian media speculate that the lenders may have threatened UltraTech with rival bids.

To add to the confusion, the deal covers cement plants with a production capacity of 21.2Mt/yr but this total includes both integrated cement plants (clinker producing) and standalone cement grinding plants. Given the difference in cost to build a clinker production line compared to a grinding mill this makes assessing the value of the deal difficult.

UltraTech have described the purchase as a ‘geographic market expansion,’ which will allow its entry into markets of India including the Satna cluster in
Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand and coastal Andhra Pradesh. It has also stated that its cement production capacity (clinker and grinding) will rise to 91.1Mt/yr following the deal. As ever, the latest revised agreement is dependent on shareholder, creditor, high court and regulatory approval. UltraTech plan to complete the transaction by July 2017. What can possibly go wrong!?

Switzerland: LafargeHolcim has appointed Alessandra Girolami as the group’s new Head of Investor Relations from 1 September 2016. Girolami will report to group chief financial officer Ron Wirahadiraksa. She replaces Michel Gerber, who will leave the group.

Girolami joins LafargeHolcim from the Carrefour Group, where she has been in Investor Relations since 2005 and Head of Financial Communications and Investor Relations since 2014. She began her career at ABN AMRO as a sell-side analyst. Girolami graduated from ESCP Europe with a major in finance and holds a postgraduate degree in Applied Economics from the Institut d’Etudes Politiques in Paris.

Germany: Eric Jaschke has been appointed Chief Financial Officer (CFO) at Schenck Process Group with effect from 1 July 2016. Jaschke will preside over the Schenck Process Group’s global financial organisation, working closely with Andreas Evertz, President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO). Jaschke has already fulfilled the role of CFO on a provisional basis since October 2015.

Jaschke started his career at Schenck Process in 1999 as a specialist for international controlling. In this capacity he focused on building and advancing a management information system. He was CFO of Schenck Process Australia from 2006 to 2007 and became Managing Director of the company in Australia at the start of 2008. Jaschke returned to Germany in 2012 and led the Business Unit Heavy in Darmstadt, one of the four core Business Units of Schenck Process.

Jaschke holds a master’s degree in business administration at the Macquarie Graduate School of Management in Sydney, Australia. He gained his bachelor’s degree at the Baden-Württemberg Cooperative State University in Mannheim, Germany.

Back in 2001 a UK government advisor gained infamy for trying to use the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001 to bury bad news. This week’s column is trying hard NOT to be about the UK vote to leave the European Union (for more on that try our editorial director’s column in the latest issue of Global Cement Magazine). They’ll be plenty of time for that later on when the repercussions for the cement and construction industries sink in. However, it has inadvertently buried some bad news coverage for LafargeHolcim.

The French newspaper Le Monde reported on 21 June 2016 that Lafarge’s Syrian subsidiary paid money to Islamic State (IS) militants in order to keep its Jalabiya cement plant in operation in 2013 and 2014. The paper said that the plant was kept in operation until September 2014 as the result of ‘agreements with local armed groups, including the Islamic State.’ It added, that Lafarge ‘indirectly financed the jihadist organisation.’

LafargeHolcim issued a statement on the story on same day. However, it didn’t deny the accusations. It stated that the company, as Lafarge, was under control of the plant in Jalabiya between 2010 and September 2014 and that the safety of its employees had always been its first priority. Part of the statement read, “Once the conflict reached the area of the plant, the first priority for Lafarge was the safety and security of the employees, while planning for the eventual closure of the plant. In September 2014, Lafarge stopped operating the Jalabiya plant. After that, all employees were evacuated, put on paid leave and were no longer allowed to access the plant. In December 2015, given the evolution of the situation in Syria, the decision was taken to terminate all employee contracts and, where possible, transfer employees to other parts of the group.”

The company may yet face prosecution for the dealings if it is found to have financed any terrorist organisation. Emmanuel Daoud, a specialist in international law quoted by various media sources, speculated that the outcome of any potential investigation might depend on whether the company was protecting its staff or protecting its profits. Additional complications also arise from the subsequent merger of France’s Lafarge and Switzerland Holcim to form LafargeHolcim.

It should be remembered though that cement plants and their staff are often very real targets in regional conflicts. They can also be held under switching jurisdictions. We reported that a Lafarge Syria plant near Aleppo was attacked and set on fire in 2014. Before the site was abandoned to protect the staff the site was first under the auspices of the Syrian army and then the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party. Paying ‘taxes’ to the loosing side in a civil war might well be interpreted as funding terrorists in the aftermath.

A similar story resolved itself this week with the news that seven quarry workers kidnapped in Nigeria were released. Unfortunately there was one death and injuries sustained in the ambush that trapped them. Sy van Dyk, the chief executive of Macmahon, the company involved, refused to comment to local press on whether his company had paid a ransom to release the workers.

This all links to the wider issue of how multinational companies should deal with armed groups and de-facto governments in unstable areas. For example, the UK and US governments discourage paying ransoms to kidnappers because they say it encourages it as a business. Yet, other European nations notably paid to release their nationals during the earlier stages of the Syrian conflict and elsewhere. This in turn offers insight towards why Lafarge, a French multinational company, might have been more likely to negotiate with armed groups in Syria than say a British or American one. If an official investigation into Lafarge’s dealings follows then more details may emerge but there are no easy answers to these kinds of issues.

India: Jagdish Chander Bhutani has resigned as a director of Burnpur Cement. The resignation takes effect from 21 June 2016.