Analysis
Search Cement News
Update on cement industry of Oman
Written by Global Cement staff
07 September 2016
Update on Oman
It’s been an interesting month for the cement industry in Oman with the announcement of various producer projects and a recent market report predicting steady growth in the country.
A late August 2016 sector report from Al Maha Financial Services concluded that government-backed infrastructure projects in the country have pushed cement demand over the production capacity of the two leading local cement producers, Oman Cement and Raysut Cement. The report tempered the good news though with fears that excess production capacity from neighbouring producers in nearby countries would continue to lower prices in Oman. This matches the situation Global Cement found when it visited Oman Cement’s plant in early 2015. Such was the demand-production gap that this producer sometimes imported clinker to keep its supply constant when it shutdown its kiln for maintenance.
Cement production capacity in Oman currently stands at 8.81Mt/yr according to Global Cement Directory 2016 data. The major cement producers hold most of the local market with Oman Cement’s 4.2Mt/yr plant at Rusayl and Raysut Cement’s 3Mt/yr plant at Salalah.
Raysut Cement has announced progress on a number of local projects throughout 2016 including launching a new 20,000t silo at Salalah in May 2016, building a new terminal at the Port of Duqm due to open by the end of the third quarter of 2016, installing a new 150t/hr rotary packing plant with auto truck loader for expected commissioning by the end of October 2016 and it is currently upgrading its gas supply station at Salalah, also to give cement production a boost.
This last project is of particular interest because when Global Cement visited Oman Cement the staff at the Rusayl plant were concerned about the rapidly rising price of natural gas. The plant used gas as its primary fuel and at the time of the interview in January 2015 they were considering diversifying into alternative fuels such as a tyres or using local coal instead. The issue also received a mention in the company’s first quarter report, where it attributed the rise in gas prices to a 26.8% hit in its operational profit taking it down to US$15.6m in the first quarter of 2015.
Meanwhile, both Raysut Cement and Oman Cement are in the process of building a cement plant together at Al Duqm. The latest news on this joint venture emerged in mid-August 2016 when the companies announced that they had registered Al Wusta Cement as the company designated to carry out the project. So far the plant is at the feasibility study stage with further progress to be released at a later date.
Operating in a full-capacity environment will be a dream to many cement producers around the world. However, it is not without its pitfalls from input issues such as gas supply or fighting off external competition who may want a piece of the pie. Oman's construction industry is expected to see growth of 3.4% to US$5.74bn in 2016 backed by government spending. It is there for the taking for the local producers.
Can China’s cement companies merge themselves into profit?
Written by David Perilli, Global Cement
30 August 2016
Check out this graph of Chinese cement prices from September 2015. An author at Business Insider attributes it to Larry Hu, the Chief China Economist for Macquarie. It pretty much sums up the mood analysts have at the moment regarding the Chinese cement industry.
Figure 1: China cement prices, 2012 – 2015. Source: CEIC, Bloomberg, Macquarie Research September 2015.
The recent announcement by the Assets Supervision and Administration Commission regarding the merger of China National Building Materials Group Corporation (CNBM) and China National Materials Group Corporation (Sinoma) comes hot on the heels of a series of poor half-year financial returns from China’s major cement producers. Attempts to tackle overcapacity in its local cement industry have been underway for a few years now. Actions taken include demolishing outmoded capacity, merging companies and expanding overseas. However as the construction markets have cooled in the country the scope of what the cement industry is facing has become clear, as revenues and profits have tumbled.
Now that the first half cement sales volume data has become available from the National Bureau of Statistics of China (NBSC) the response of the cement industry to its predicament has emerged. As can be seen in Figure 2 there has been a rough trend of sales decline throughout 2014 and 2015. The first half of 2016 has started to buck this trend as sales volumes have risen year-on-year for both quarters.
Figure 2 – Chinese cement production by quarter, 2014 – 2016. Source: National Bureau of Statistics of China.
Sales revenues have dropped for most of the major companies that have publicly released their results for the first half of the year. The exception is Taiwan Cement, which makes a large proportion of its sales revenue outside of China (People’s Republic of China). Its sales revenue in China barely rose year-on-year in the first half of 2016. However, the cement sales volumes for all these companies have started to show what is happening. They have risen for most of the producers examined. Essentially, each of these producers is producing more cement but making less money. As Digital Cement puts it, the industry is in a 'low-profit position.' Increased market competition and endemic industry overcapacity are causing this.
Mergers and acquisitions have been the big story for the European multinational producers following the economic crash in 2007. Returns from low growth markets have been substituted for efficiencies of scale, knowledge sharing and greater international reach. Lafarge and Holcim merged in 2015 and HeidelbergCement is due to complete its acquisition of Italcementi later this year. However, as LafargeHolcim's disappointing financial returns and its continued slew of divestments show so far, the merger has not worked as well as may have been hoped… yet.
Whether China's version of this works with its large state owned enterprises is uncertain. Mergers are meant to cut out inefficiencies through economies of scale. Yet the question remains: can even larger Chinese cement producers do this when they are state controlled and harangued by pressures outside the normal market, particularly when local regions try to preserve their industries. The last such big deal, between Anhui Conch and China Resources Cement, fell apart in July 2016. The plans for CNBM and Sinoma may fare better but if the price of cement keeps falling then the market may have other ideas.
For more information see the China country report in the September 2016 issue of Global Cement Magazine
North with Cementos Argos
Written by David Perilli, Global Cement
23 August 2016
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
Should McInnis Cement choose a new name?
Written by David Perilli, Global Cement
17 August 2016
The McInnis Cement plant at Port-Daniel-Gascons in Quebec, Canada must be the most famous cement plant that hasn’t been built yet. Every single step of the project’s list has seemed dogged with infamy. Public money it seems comes with public scrutiny. This week, one of the principal investors took control of the plant following allegations of massive budget overruns and the disappearance of the company’s president.
To start with the money, the plant was originally budgeted at US$1bn for a 2.2Mt/yr facility. This has always seemed like an inflated figure given that the general cost of a new or greenfield cement plant is up to US$200/t. The original price tag for McInnis is double this figure. Throw in the need for infrastructure at the site and the requirement of a marine terminal and the cost starts to become a little more realistic with government backing. The importance of the sea links can’t be under stressed given that the plant is targeted at the US market. No port: no cement plant.
This then leads to the quagmire of criticism the project has found itself stuck within. American cement producers took exception to a foreign government-backed plant trying to eat their lunch so they went legal. When the government-subsidised project bypassed the normal environmental clearances Lafarge Canada backed a challenge in 2013. Then in 2014 the provincial opposition in Quebec attacked the local government’s financial involvement in the project describing it as a ‘sinkhole’ in return for a minority stake.
Once these hurdles were overcome, work on building the plant began until the Globe and Mail newspaper revealed in late June 2016 that the project was ‘massively’ over-budget by up to US$350m and that the Quebec government was not prepared to provide any more money. The budget over-run alone is enough to build a cement plant in a more conventional location! Six weeks later and the project has most likely had its chief executive fired and one of the investors has stepped in to run things.
So, some combination of the legal fees, the wrangling over the plant’s unique environmental clearance, the difficulties of the underdeveloped location and potential mismanagement by the company itself have led to the additional costs. This in turn has led to the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, a pension fund firm, taking charge. It, like the previous management, also has no experience in building cement plants. Although it clearly knows how to calm investors. The first thing it did after announcing the new financing was to reassure everybody on the plant’s potential. Best not to consider at this stage what happens if the US bans Canadian cement.
McInnis Cement could be compared to other provincial industrial follies such as the closed Gaspésia paper mill in Quebec that also received over US$350m of government money. Yet if there is a project one might compare it to it is London’s Millennium Dome. Conceived as a national exhibition space to celebrate the start of the new millennium in 2000 the UK government of the time backed the project to much derision from the press as the costs spiralled and the visitors stayed away. However, today the venue has become a popular music and events venue. Flop or triumph: all those investors of McInnis Cement must be wondering what their fate will be. If nothing else perhaps renaming the plant once the dust settles (in an environmentally approved way) might be a good idea. Today, the Millennium dome is known as the 02.
Half-year roundup for European cement multinationals
Written by David Perilli, Global Cement
10 August 2016
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.