As readers in colder climes will understand: nobody likes a gas bill. Save some pity for LafargeHolcim Bangladesh then this week, as it faces attempts to hike the price it’s paying.

As reported by local press the government-run Jalalabad Gas Transmission and Distribution Systems (JGTDS) is trying to raise the rate for natural gas to the cement producer. Allegedly, LafargeHolcim Bangladesh is paying a lower unit cost for gas supplied to a power plant at its Chhatak cement plant than the fixed amount set by the country’s energy regulator. LafargeHolcim Bangladesh says the rate was set in a gas sales agreement (GSA) signed between JGTDS and its predecessor, Lafarge Surma Cement, in January 2003. The state body meanwhile has referred the issue up the chain of command to the Energy and Mineral Resources Division under the Ministry of Power, Energy and Mineral Resources.

JGTDS says that the plant is consuming around 450,000m3/day of gas. Of this, about a quarter is used to run the power plant and the remainder is used to power the cement plant’s kiln. The plot thickens though as LafargeHolcim Bangladesh is actually paying above the industry tariff for gas of US$0.09/m3. Commentators reckon the price of gas is set to rise in the future. Naturally the cement producer wants to stick to the pre-agreed price for the economic viability of the country’s main integrated cement plant. The Spanish embassy, representing Cementos Molins one of the owners of the company along with LafargeHolcim, has even gone as far as intervening in the argument.

The pressure is on LafargeHolcim Bangladesh because its sales revenue fell slightly year-on-year in 2016 but its fuel costs rose by 12%. As the country’s sole clinker producer it suffered from falling international clinker prices in a nation full of grinding plants. So far in the first nine months of 2017 its sales revenues have risen a little yet its profit has more than halved. Any change to its fuel costs would seem likely to damage the company at a delicate moment.

Energy costs for cement plants are nothing trivial as the graph above shows. It uses data from the German cement industry but the key takeaways are that the calorific ratios of the different types of energy cement production uses don’t directly correlate to the cost. Hence, in Bangladesh and other countries where the electricity grid might be unreliable or expensives, running one’s own captive power plant makes sense both for cost and supply reasons. As an aside that may not be applicable to Bangladesh right now, the stark disparity between the energy produced by alternative fuels and their cost proportion is a great reason to use them if the necessary supply chains can be organised. LafargeHolcim launched local operations for its waste management wing Geocycle in December 2017 so this point has not been lost the company.

The situation in Bangladesh is reminiscent of the bind Dangote Cement found itself in towards the end of 2016 in Tanzania. A dispute over gas prices for its Mtwara plant led to company boss Aliko Dangote negotiating personally with President John Magufuli to protect his investment. Governments want inward spending in the form of new industrial plants and multinationals want assurances on some of their costs, like fuel supplies, before they reach for the chequebook. However, if one side is seen to be getting too good a deal then the relationship can break down. LafargeHolcim Bangladesh may have bagged itself a scandalously low gas deal and the Bangladesh government may also be breaking an agreement. Bear in mind though, that with sales of nearly US$28bn in 2016, LafargeHolcim took in revenue nearly one tenth of Bangladesh’s gross domestic product. If the two parties don’t reach an accord, the consequences for both parties could be negative.

This week’s Plastics Strategy from the European Commission (EC) presents the cement industry with a narrowing target. If the Plastics Strategy is successful it will prevent plastics waste altogether. This will then eliminate the key calorific content of refuse-derived fuels (RDF) and disrupt co-processing supply chains at cement plants across the continent. If it is too lax then dumping plastics in landfill could become more economically viable, also changing the market dynamic. Neither extreme looks likely at this stage but the European cement industry needs to make its views known.

Cembureau, the European cement association, has done just that today with the publication of a position paper on the subject. It conveniently ignores the top two tiers of the waste hierarchy – prevention and re-use – but it does recognise that ‘high quality recycling’ is the preferred option. This is followed by the target of its lobbying: protecting co-processing. Make no mistake, this is supporting industrial behaviour change with solid environmental benefits. Its areas for policymakers to focus on include protecting co-processing: a ban on landfill; linking energy recovery to recycling; concentrating on the legislation; thinking about material lifespan sustainability benefits; and helping minimise the investment costs for processing facilities.

Providing cool heads prevail, the importance of co-processing plastics as part of any realistic plastics strategy seems unlikely to change any time soon. What’s more likely to be the real target for Cembureau is standardising measures on collection, sorting and material recovery across the European Union (EU). For example, as this column has reported twice in 2017 (GCW288 and GCW324), the issues with waste disposal legislation in Italy have led to various problems in the sector. Waste collectors found it easier to export RDF to Morocco from Italy rather than use it locally in 2016. The slag industry has also reported similar issues with reuse in Italy. The consolidation of the local cement industry following the takeover of Italcementi and Cementir by HeidelbergCement and of Cementizillo by Buzzi Unicem should present a more unified industry approach towards alternative fuels. Backup from the EC could solve the other half of the alternative fuels puzzle in Italy and help to deliver serious change. Ecofys data from 2014 showed the EU co-processing average rate as being 41%, with six countries – Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Bulgaria, Italy and Greece – having rates below 30%.

Vagner Maringolo of Cembureau outlined the market opportunities for waste uptake at cement plants at the 11th Global CemFuels Conference that took place in Barcelona in February 2017. He started by revealing that plastics represented over 40% of the total share of alternative fuels used in the EU in 2014. A ban on landfilling municipal waste was expected to boost the supply of RDF and a Cembureau/Ecofys study on the market potential of alternative fuels concluded that around 10Mt of waste was co-processed in cement kilns in the EU28 in 2015. This represented around 2% of total combustible waste each year but it represented 10% of all of the energy recovery from waste in the EU. In other words co-processing plastics waste offers a very attractive means for the EU to meet its sustainability targets.

However, before Cembureau and the cement industry starts popping the (reusable) champagne corks, consider the wider picture. China has banned imports of foreign waste in 2018 including RDF from the UK, a major exporter. Unless new markets are found this may impact the price of RDF in Europe. Brexit is another example how of European waste markets might be disrupted in the medium-term. Cement producers want a steady supply of cheap fuels but if the providers can’t make enough money from their products then the market will fail. The tightrope for Cembureau to walk with plastics is to promote RDF use and secure its supply. Persuading the EC to support this may involve some wobbling along the way.

The 12th Global CemFuels Conference on alternative fuels for cement and lime takes place in Berlin on 20 – 21 February 2018

Asia Cement has completed its purchase of Halla Cement this week for US$723m. The deal has created the third largest cement producer in South Korea with a cement production capacity. This includes one integrated plant at Okgye, three slag grinding plants and a distribution network.

Graph 1: Cement producers in South Korea by cement production data from 2016. Chart includes mergers in 2017 and 2018 to represent current market share. Source: Korea Cement Association.

The Halla Cement transaction marks an on-going consolidation process in the local industry. 2017 proved a busy year with the purchase of Daehan Cement by Ssang Yong Cement and Hyundai Cement by Hanil Cement. Assuming the dust has settled this now leaves Ssang Yong Cement and its new subsidiary in the lead by cement production data from 2016 with 12.9Mt or a 23% market share, Hanil Cement next with 12.4Mt or a 22% share and Asia Cement with 10.8Mt or a 19% share. Overall the country produced 56.7Mt of cement in 2016, according to Korea Cement Association data. The remainder of production is shared between six producers.

Fears that the construction industry may have been about to slow down might have prompted Glenwood Private Equity and Baring Private Equity Asia to sell Halla Cement a little earlier than expected. However, they don’t appear to have done too badly out of this. The two private equity firms that bought Halla Cement from LafargeHolcim in 2016 seem to have made a cool US$180m on the deal. At the time it was reported in the local press that they paid US$542m for the cement producer. Glenwood Private Equity was the lead investor followed by Baring Private Equity Asia. They bought Lafarge Halla Cement in May 2016 and then were looking for buyers a year later in August 2017.

Cement consumption in South Korea has followed a rollercoaster path since 1992 hitting a high of 61.7Mt in 1997 and a low of 43.7Mt in 2014. It then rose to 55.8Mt in 2016. The consolidation behaviour by the cement producers suggests either a poor performing market or an uncertain one. Since the gap between the peak and the trough is more than Halla Cement’s production capacity no wonder its private equity owners were keen to get shot of it at the first sign of trouble. So let’s end with the words of Han Chul Kim, Managing Director of Baring Asia, from the time of the purchase from LafargeHolcim in 2016: "We couldn’t imagine a more solid platform from which to access the growth opportunities in the Korean market in the coming years.”

Recent data from Cemsuisse, the Swiss Cement Industry Association, shows that cement shipments fell by 2.8% year-on-year to 4.3Mt in 2017. The local industry has fluctuated from a high of just below 4.7Mt in 2011 with various peaks and troughs since then as can be seen in Graph 1. The current drop has been blamed on a poor start and end to 2017 despite some rallying activity in the third quarter.

Graph 1: Cement deliveries in Switzerland, 2010 – 2017. Source: Cemsuisse.

The local industry tends to get overlooked somewhat due to its modest size, its geographically landlocked position and its exclusion from the European Union (EU) despite being surrounded by member states. This is a mistake though because the territory offers lessons on how a developed cement industry can function and co-exist with a large neighbour. In Switzerland’s case it has access to the EU market through a series of bilateral agreements that provide parity with EU legislation. After a potential crisis over immigration following a local referendum in 2014, Switzerland and the EU came to an agreement in 2016 that softened the labour rules for foreigners. Pertinent to the cement industry, the EU and Switzerland signed a deal to link emissions trading systems in 2017. It is currently anticipated to come into force in 2019. Trading in the EU may come at the price of free movement of labour but emissions trading parity will also help to protect Switzerland’s cement plants.

The country has a cement production capacity of 4.3Mt/yr according to Global Cement Directory 2017 data. This divides into three plants operated by LafargeHolcim, two by Ireland’s CRH’s local subsidiary Jura Cement and one by Vigier Cement, a subsidiary of France’s Vicat. Most of these plants are around the 0.8Mt/yr mark, with the exception of Jura’s smaller Cornaux plant.

After a strong performance in 2016 with growing cement sales volumes, LafargeHolcim started 2017 with continued positive cement sales but this failed to compensate for low aggregate sales and falling ready-mix (RMX) concrete sales. CRH reported a similar experience that it blamed on poor weather at the start of the year and a competitive environment. This then led to an 8% fall in cement sales in the first nine months of 2017 with RMX sales and operating profit down too. Vicat’s experience in the country followed that of its competitors, with cement sales rising slightly over the first three quarters but concrete and aggregate sales dropping. Among other reasons it blamed the situation on the completion of road and civil engineering projects.

Cembureau, the European Cement Association of which Cemsuisse is a member, forecast a stable year in 2017 following the wind-down of infrastructure projects with support from the housing sector. However, it then expected the market to soften as demographic trends saw slower growth in population reduce housing demand. This state appears to have arrived early. On the plus side though the industry’s sustainability credentials have grown as the split between truck and train transport of cement hit its highest ratio in favour of rail in 2017 at 53%. The trend switched from truck to train in 2013 and it hasn’t looked back since then.

As a mature economy in the heart of Europe, Switzerland generally pops up in the industry news as the home of the world’s largest non-Chinese cement multinational, LafargeHolcim. That company’s headquarters are in Jona and Holcim had its headquarters in Holderbank. LafargeHolcim’s single largest shareholder, with an 11% share, is the Swiss billionaire Thomas Schmidheiny, who inherited his portion of the family business. He notably called for a better deal for Holcim during the merger negotiations between Lafarge and Holcim in 2015 and boardroom struggles have dogged the combined company ever since. Consideration should also be granted to the country’s other engineering and construction industry related multinationals such as ABB, Sika and the like. By the numbers Switzerland has a case for being one of the world’s most important nations for the cement industry.