Analysis
Search Cement News
Consolidation in the African cement market
Written by Peter Edwards
05 August 2015
A member of the Global Cement LinkedIn group recently posed a question about the relative sizes of LafargeHolcim and Nigeria's Dangote Cement in the African cement market. The correspondent wanted to get a handle on their relative sizes and how the situation would change as a result of the merger. Would Dangote lose its position as Africa's number one producer? If so, would its aggressive expansion allow it to regain its position at the number one spot?
As both one of the most rapidly-growing markets in the world for cement and the one with the most potential for future gains, Africa has been discussed in this column on many previous occasions. However, we have previously considered Africa's different regional markets, be it Dangote-dominated West Africa, North Africa, rapidly-growing East Africa or the far south, where PPC is looking to counter Dangote's growing strength.
However, the formation of LafargeHolcim and the news that HeidelbergCement will acquire Italcementi (starting with an immediate 45% stake), has massively consolidated the African market. In conjunction with Dangote's rapid development, these deals have transformed the African cement sector from one with a large number of small national and regional markets into a far more homogeneous entity. A number of key players, namely LafargeHolcim, Dangote Cement, HeidelbergCement and PPC, are present in numerous important markets all over the continent.
In answer to the aforementioned LinkedIn group member, the Global Cement Lafarge-Holcim Merger Report, states that LafargeHolcim controls 47.1Mt/yr of capacity in Africa. The new group is present in markets as diverse as Egypt, Morocco, Nigeria, South Africa and Zimbabwe. It is currently Africa's largest cement producer.
The second-largest producer at the moment is Dangote Cement, the only African-based large multinational cement producer. According to its website, it has 31.2Mt/yr of capacity currently active in Africa. The group is rapidly expanding. "We hope to commission four other cement plants in Senegal, South Africa, Cameroon and Tanzania before the end of 2015," said Aiko Dangote, Dangote Group President this week.
The new Dangote capacity that we can identify adds 4Mt/yr. This takes Dangote's total to 35.2Mt/yr. This is close to the 37.1Mt/yr of African capacity that LafargeHolcim actually owns, but Dangote is always planning its next move. Indeed this week it was rumoured to have been looking at purchasing Italcementi itself, hence HeidelbergCement's rapid movement.
In its press-release, HeidelbergCement suggests that the purchase of Italcementi will give it a position as strong as Dangote in the African market at around 30Mt/yr. It will add strong positions in Morocco and Egypt to its existing strengths on the West African coast. For its part, South Africa-based PPC currently has around 8Mt/yr of capacity in South Africa (4Mt/yr), Botswana, Zimbabwe and Ethiopia. It is currently installing capacity in the Democratic Republic of Congo and as far afield as Algeria, where it is involved in a joint venture with a local group.
Between them, these 'Big Four' share approximately 116Mt/yr of capacity in Africa. According to the Global Cement Directory 2015, this is just over half of Africa's 225Mt/yr of cement production capacity. This proportion will only increase as Dangote and PPC enlarge their presences.
The multinational players will likely not expand as rapidly, even in Africa. At the launch of LafargeHolcim, Group CEO Eric Olsen was pretty clear that the company does not plan any 'capital-intensive' expansions in the coming years. HeidelbergCement's future actions are less predictable, especially as we are yet to hear about any divestments that may be required from HeidelbergCement and Italcementi in order to satisfy competition authorities around the world.
Whatever happens in the future, it is clear that the African cement industry has undergone a significant transformation in the past few weeks. With per-capita cement consumption far lower than on other continents, there will be plenty of room for growth as well as for more acquisitions, divestments, mergers and expansion projects from the 'Big Four' and others in the coming years.
CRH buying into India – Whatever next…?
Written by Peter Edwards
29 July 2015
Ireland's CRH this week submitted a binding bid for various Indian assets of LafargeHolcim that will be sold by the newly-formed group as a condition of its formation. CRH will compete for the assets with HeidelbergCement and Barings Private Equity, which sold its stake in the same assets to Lafarge India prior to the merger. According to the Irish Examiner, the scale of the bids is in the region of US$600 - 800m. On the back-burner is another deal that could see CRH snap up a 74% stake in Tongyang Cement and Energy in South Korea.
These moves are consistent with CRH's new-found commitment to rapid expansion into new markets and an apparent desire to become a far bigger player in the global cement industry. It is in line with the sentiment expressed by its CEO Albert Manifold back in February 2015, when he stated in a letter to shareholders that CRH had given 'hell or high water commitments to Lafarge and Holcim' regarding its earlier Euro6.5bn purchase of assets as part of the LafargeHolcim merger. At that point CRH appeared almost 'over committed' to the huge deal, with some analysts asking whether or not CRH had paid too much.
Let's stop a minute to look at where CRH finds itself. Europe, its main cement market, is still under siege from a general lack of investment, both private and public. The UK is likely to perform well, although an ongoing Competition Enquiry at Irish Cement is an unwelcome distraction. CRH's new eastern European ventures are all in fairly small markets. Poland, in which CRH operates Grupa Ozarow, appears to act as the model for these acquisitions, but they remain at risk from the prolonged Eurozone crisis.
In Brazil, another new market, CRH is 'up against it,' with massive competition from Votorantim and InterCement, smaller local players and LafargeHolcim. A decline in cement demand here so far in 2015 year-on-year is not a good omen. Neither is Votorantim's decision this week to turn one of its plants into a distribution centre due to continued low demand.
In Canada CRH will gain 3.1Mt/yr of former Holcim capacity, around 20% of that market's capacity. This, along with its 2.7Mt/yr acquisition in the Philippines, probably represents CRH's best opportunities out of its newly-acquired assets.
However, with the confirmation that it intends to invest in 5Mt/yr of former Lafarge assets in India, a market not exactly enjoying buoyant conditions at present, CRH appears to be further exposing itself to another 'sub-optimal' market. We recently reported on the 100Mt/yr of capacity that is sitting idle in India at present , hardly a situation to instil confidence in a new entrant.
Whether CRH will be forced to leave some of these markets, buy into others or otherwise shuffle its cement assets to better suit the world economy remains to be seen.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the aforementioned mega-deal, LafargeHolcim gave the first indications of how it will go about re-branding in various markets this week. While a new brand will be introduced in markets with 'a balanced overlap' of former Lafarge and Holcim assets, countries without overlap will see existing Lafarge or Holcim 'brands' become 'endorsed' by LafargeHolcim. In countries with unbalanced overlap, either Lafarge or Holcim will be the endorsed brand.
Of course, in every market that it has bought a LafargeHolcim asset, CRH will also have to re-brand. So far it has announced that its operations in France will be branded as 'Orsima' from 1 August 2015. No elaboration on how this name was derived has been provided, but let's hope that there are not too many other new names to remember!
Subsidy or scandal? Looking at the Amma Cement Scheme
Written by David Perilli, Global Cement
22 July 2015
Tamil Nadu's subsidised cement scheme attracted negative attention this week when a prominent Indian politician called for it to be investigated. PMK party founder S Ramadoss alleged in a statement covered by Indian press that cement from the scheme is either being not being procured at the levels the state government are declaring or it is being sold on the black market.
Without investigating Ramadoss' comments too deeply in this article the Amma scheme does deserve looking at along with the pressures that have created it in the Indian cement market. The scheme takes its name from the nickname, Amma or mother, of the current Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu J Jayalalithaa. It follows previous populist subsidy schemes such as Amma Vegetables, Amma Water and Amma Theatres. As such it is exactly the kind of initiative you might expect a rival politician might criticise.
The scheme was created in mid-2014 to cope with fluctuating cement prices in the state. At that time Tamil Nadu consumed 1.7 – 1.8Mt/month of cement and around 400,000 – 450,000t was supplied by Andhra Pradesh. Subsequently prices rose in the neighbouring state, the purchases from Andhra Pradesh fell to 150,000 – 300,000t/month and the price went up in Tamil Nadu. The Amma Cement Scheme was created in response. It was intended to purchase 200,000t/month from private manufacturers. This would then be sold in eligibility bands with limits on the number of cement bags that could be bought dependent on size and type of project.
When the scheme launched in January 2015 the Times of India saw it as a politically canny move that would benefit middle-income rural citizens who could afford to build their own homes. Urban residents are less likely to build their own homes and so they wouldn't use the scheme as much. For example, at the start of the scheme sales in one rural district massively overtook sales in the city of Chennai.
Looking nationally, in July 2015 the Cement Manufacturers' Association (CMA) cried out that 100Mt/yr of India's production capacity was not being used due to supply and demand mismatching. It placed the value of this 'dead investment' at US$8.66bn. At present, the CMA places installed capacity at 380Mt/yr and utilisation at 275Mt/yr (70%). Previously utilisation was 94% in 2007 – 2008. Locally, Global Cement Magazine placed cement production capacity in Tamil Nadu at 33.9Mt/yr at the start of 2015. Demand was recorded at 20Mt in 2014, giving the state a capacity utilisation of 60%.
Cement demand was reported down in the southern states of India in 2014. Producers subsequently cut production to hold prices and stem their losses. With the CMA hoping for national infrastructure and housing projects to whip up demand generally, it seems possible that producers have little incentive to provide cement for the Amma scheme. One economist the Times of India quoted wondered whether the private producers would continue to sell cement to the state government at the necessary volumes. Sure enough, one of Ramadoss' criticisms of the scheme is that it may not be procuring the targeted volumes. If this is the case then the state government will have to pay more for their cement to hit the volumes they want.
Iran’s nuclear deal: Letting the cement industry loose
Written by Peter Edwards
15 July 2015
At today's official launch of LafargeHolcim, CEO Eric Olsen was asked to comment on the group's position in Iran. It doesn't have one, but that won't necessarily always be the case given events in Austria this week.
On Tuesday 14 July 2015, Iran and the P5+1 countries (US, UK, France, China, Russia and Germany) agreed an historic deal to limit Iranian nuclear activity in return for a significant lifting of existing trade sanctions at a meeting in Vienna. The country's cement industry will be delighted by this agreement. The talks, in progress since 2006, could mark what has been termed a 'new chapter' in relations between Iran and the rest of the world by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. For his part, US President Barack Obama stated that the deal would ensure that 'every pathway to a nuclear weapon is cut off' for Iran, but critics from the US, Iran, Israel and elsewhere, suggest that cutting all routes will not be possible. They are alarmed and have warned that the deal could lead to an arms race between Iran and Saudi Arabia, amid increasing animosity in the Middle East.
While the geopolitical implications of the deal are huge, the lifting of trade restrictions will greatly improve Iran's ability to deal internationally. This includes allowing increased oil exports. An article by Reuters anticipates that Iranian oil production could increase drastically from around 1 million barrels per day (mbpd) at present, possibly to its former peak of 3mbpd. (What this might do to the global oil price could be the subject of an entirely separate column). The easing of banking restrictions will make Iranian products more competitive and increase trade in many sectors.
Against this backdrop sits the Iranian cement industry, the world's third or fourth largest by production in 2014, depending on your source. It has an incredible 84.4Mt/yr of cement production capacity in a country of 77.5 million people. Assuming that it could produce and consume all of that cement at home, this would represent consumption of around 1100kg/capita/yr, far above the 600-800kg/capita/yr rate that is typical of a rapidly-developing economy.
Of course, Iran has not been consuming anything like this level of cement recently. According to figures released by its Employers Guild Association this week, Iran made 66.4Mt of cement in its 1393 calendar year, which ended on 21 March 2015. Assuming the above capacity, this gives Iran a cement utilisation capacity of around 78%.
Much of the cement made in Iran was exported in 2014 and so far in 2015. The country exported an incredible 18.4Mt/yr of cement and clinker in the year to 21 March 2015, up from 18.8Mt a year earlier. A large amount of this cement was available at low cost, to the extent that Iran has been accused (along with Pakistan) of dumping cement in the Middle East and East Africa. (Pakistani producers have even pointed out that Iranian cement is making inroads into the Afghan market, more traditionally a target for exports from Pakistan).
So what might happen to the cement trade dynamic in the region? Some suggest that the easing of sanctions can only increase the potential for Iranian cement imports in the region. Trade should become easier, facilitating exports.
Indeed, this is a factor, but it is only part of the equation. Instead, it is likely that, having earned foreign exchange via increased oil sales, Iran will be able to spend more at home. Reuters anticipates that demand for steel and cement will skyrocket as the country undertakes much-needed construction and infrastructure works. This situation would be similar to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states. How Saudi Arabia reacts to this, both politically and in terms of cement trade, will be of high interest in the region and around the world.
Instead of increasing cement exports, the effect of the lifting of sanctions may decrease them. This will surely be welcome news to local producers currently being undercut in East Africa, as well as exporters in Pakistan, India and elsewhere. Could Pakistan even find itself exporting to Iran? If a US-Iran nuclear deal is possible, anything can happen...
Cement signals – import row in Kenya
Written by David Perilli, Global Cement
08 July 2015
Kenyan cement producers kicked off this week about Chinese cement imports for the Standard Gauge Railway Project in Kenya. Local producers, including ARM Cement and Lafarge, have asked the Kenya Railways Corporation to explain why the Chinese-backed project is importing cement. Project builders the China Rail & Bridge Corporation (CRBC) has imported 7000t of cement so far in 2015 according to Kenya Ports Authority data.
Project completion is planned for 2017 with a requirement of 1Mt of cement. If CRBC carried on this rate then, roughly, the project might only use 42,000t of imported cement if the import rate holds. This is less than 5% of the estimated requirement. However, cement imports increases into Kenya have stayed steady since 2012. Imports rose by 2000t from 2013 to 2014. CRBC's imports will stick out significantly in 2015.
Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS) data places Kenyan cement production at 5.8Mt in 2014, an increase of 16.3% from 5.1Mt in 2013. Production growth has been steadily building since the late 1990s with, more recently, a dip in the rate of growth in 2011 that has been 'corrected' as the growth has returned. Consumption has risen by 21.8% year-on-year to 5.2Mt in 2014 with imports also rising and exports dropping.
Imports for the railway project are duty free as ARM Cement Chief Executive Officer Pradeep Paunrana helpfully explained to Bloomberg. Producers have also recently upgraded their plants to specifically supply 52.5 grade cement to the project. Given this, it is unsurprising that local Kenyan producers, including ARM Cement and Lafarge, are complaining about this situation, especially given the increasingly pugnacious African response to foreign imports led by Dangote and companies in South Africa. Both ARM and Lafarge hold integrated plants and grinding plants in Nairobi and Mombasa. This is the route of the new railway line.
The backdrop to this is that the Chinese cement industry is struggling at home as it adjusts to lower construction rates and reduced cement production growth. Profits made by the Chinese cement industry fell by 67.6% year-on-year to US$521m for the first quarter of 2015, according to National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) statistics. At the same time the Shanghai Composite, China's principal stock market, has seen the value of its shares fall by 30% since June.
Although it is unclear where the cement imports in this particular row are coming from, informal or formal business links between large state controlled corporations such as a China's major cement producers will always be questioned by competitors outside of China for both genuine issues of competitiveness and simple attempts to claw more profit. If the Chinese cement producers are sufficiently spooked or they really start to lose money then what is to stop it asking a sister company building a large infrastructure project abroad to offer it some help? Or it might consider asking the Chinese bank providing 90% of the financing towards the US$3.8bn infrastructure project to force the Kenyan government to offer more concessions to foreign firms. Meanwhile one counter argument goes that Kenya has a growing construction market with a giant infrastructure project that may unlock the region's long-simmering low cement consumption per capita boom. The Kenyan government may face some difficult decisions ahead.