Analysis
Search Cement News
European Q1 cement round-up
Written by Global Cement staff
08 May 2013
Once again the winter weather was bad in Europe. Once again the major European cement producers reported a fall in sales. So what has changed between the first quarters of 2012 and 2013?
Lafarge's cement sales volumes in Western Europe for the first quarter of 2013 fell by 24% year-on-year, compared to an 11% drop in 2012. Holcim's decline in volumes stabilised, compared to a 13.2% drop in 2012. HeidelbergCement's volume decline increased slightly, from a drop of 8% in 2012 to one of 10% in 2013. Cemex didn't release sales volumes figures for cement but overall net sales in its Northern Europe region fell by 13% in 2013 compared to 11% in 2012. Italcementi's cement sales volumes maintained a steady decline in both the first quarters of 2012 and 2013 at about 19%.
Even with the reduced number of working days for the quarter in 2013 taken into account, things are not looking good. Generally the results fit the prediction made by the UK Mineral Products Association (in the UK at least) that construction activity remains subdued in 2013 so far.
Profitability measures for the European divisions of the big producers, such as earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA), reinforce the gloomy outlook, suggesting that most of the cost cutting exercises aren't having much effect on investor balance sheets quite yet. Lafarge's EBITDA in Western Europe fell by 94% to Euro5m. HeidelbergCement's loss before interest and taxes (EBIT) increased to Euro91m. Cemex's operating EBITDA fell from US$55m in 2012 to a loss of US$17m in 2013. Italcementi's EBITDA decreased to Euro12.8m.
Only Holcim reversed this trend, growing its EBITDA by 43% to Euro23.5m. The Holcim Leadership Journey appears to be working. Although the sale of a 25% stake in Cement Australia certainly helped.
Elsewhere, we have an additional story at add to last week's focus on Iraq, with the announcement that Mondi has opened an industrial bags plant in Iraq. It's based in Sulaimaniyah in northern Iraq near to the new Sinoma-Lafarge project that we reported on.
Finally, the news that the Competition Commission of India has been asked to investigate a complaint against a Chinese waste heat recovery vendor raises tensions between the world's largest two cement producers. The story echoes similar trends in the gypsum wallboard business in April 2013 where a selective anti-dumping duty was imposed on imports from China, Indonesia, Thailand and the UAE. Watch this space.
Iraq: right time, right place?
Written by Global Cement staff
01 May 2013
Chinese and Iranian companies have released information on two new projects in Iraq. Chinese cement equipment provider Sinoma has signed a contract with the Faruk Investment Group to build a cement clinker production line and the Islamic Republic News Agency has reported Iran's intention to build a 2Mt/yr plant.
Sinoma's project seems targeted at the domestic market. It is based at Sulaymaniyah, at one of Faruk Group's two plants that it runs with Lafarge near the northern Kurdish city. Lafarge also runs a third plant in Kerbala that announced the arrangement of a US$70m loan for renovations in January 2013. Lafarge holds a cement production capacity of 6.5Mt/yr, 20% of Iraq's total installed capacity of 32.5Mt/yr. Although, following years of neglect installed capacity and actual cement produced can vary significantly. Faruk Group's decision to choose Sinoma marks a move away from the German firm ThyssenKruppPolysius whom they have used previously. The new line will be Sinoma's seventh in Iraq through its Nanjing subsidiary.
Meanwhile, the Iranian project carries more international motives because the clinker for the plant will come exclusively from Iran. The build is based in the southern Muthanna province and is being overseen by the Iranian Azar-Abadegan Khoy cement plant. As reported in late January 2013, clinker stocks rose in Iran due to a decline in cement demand in the country. Iraq is one of the countries Iran has been able to export cement to during the 2012 – 2013 Persian year. In this context expanding into Iraq makes a lot of sense to combat potential Iranian overcapacity.
In addition all the products made at this plant will carry Iranian branding. Given that this plant is in southern Iraq relatively near to the Saudi border this will complicate any plans to sell stock across the border. As we report this week in Global Cement Weekly, Saudi cement producers have been asked to build reserves of cement to manage the shortage better.
Both projects reveal some of the issues facing Iraq's cement industry, specifically Iraq's redevelopment and the pressures it faces lying between massive demand for cement in Saudi Arabia and overcapacity in Iran. After years of low capacity utilisation rates, Iraq is predicted to hit a production capacity of 22Mt/yr by the end of 2014 with demand expected to reach 35Mt/yr.
For more information on the Iraqi cement industry read Global Cement Magazine's article.
The (particulate) matter of cement industry emissions in the US
Written by Global Cement staff
24 April 2013
It's been an expensive week for the US cement industry in terms of environmental infringements. First, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that Cemex has agreed to pay a US$1m fine for nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions at its Lyons cement plant in Colorado. Then Lehigh's Glen Falls plant was fined US$50,000 by the state of New York for polluting the Hudson River.
With new NESHAP and MACT environmental regulations from the EPA in place for 2013, one thought that occurs is how long it will take for the new standards to sink in. For example, the lead-time for both of the cases we have reported upon this week was several years at least. The complaint against Cemex referred to a period from 1997 to 2000, when the plant was operated by Southdown. Lehigh's fine arose from an inspection carried out in April 2010.
The EPA hopes that its latest changes will cut US cement industry emissions of mercury by 93%, hydrochloric acid by 96%, particulate matter by 91% and total hydrocarbons by 82%. After years of haggling between the Portland Cement Association and the EPA, even the latest round of regulations received a reprieve until September 2015, with the option to ask for a year's extension. So, if the lead times from the Cemex and Lehigh fines are indicative, contravening cement plants might not be facing fines relating to the current NESHAP or MACT regulations until around 2023 - 2026. Of course by this time, the regulations governing emissions will probably have changed again.
Given the shifting backdrop of US environmental regulations, many of the pertinent environmental presentations at last week's IEEE-IAS/PCA Cement Conference in Orlando, Florida, were of great help to US cement producers. Among these were two presentations by John Kline, who firstly gave an overview on the hot-topic of mercury emissions from cement kilns. He singled out the difficulties in comparing cement kilns to power plants in terms of mercury as cement plants are far more complicated, with more input materials. Kline also delivered a second presentation comparing selective catalytic reduction (SCR) for removal of NOx to selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) in cement plants. Those at the conference who attended Carrie Yonley's presentations were given a helpful and concise review of the often-conflicting regulations for cement plants, which she bravely attempted to give in just 16 minutes.
Despite the challenges of adhering to new environmental regulations, the mood at the 55th IEEE-IAS/PCA Cement Conference was one of general optimism for the future of the US cement industry. A full review of the conference can be found here.
The Kingdom needs cement
Written by Global Cement staff
17 April 2013
King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia has issued an urgent edict ordering the import of 10Mt of cement. As one of Global Cement's many followers on Twitter playfully reacted, "that's a bloody big patio."
Humour aside, the Kingdom desperately needs cement for several infrastructure projects. It committed US$373bn for development and infrastructure projects from 2010 to 2014 in its Ninth Development Plan, including building six 'economic cities.' Following this investment, an export ban on cement was introduced in February 2012 and then an import ban was repealed in March 2012. The three Saudi cement firms on whose first quarter financial results we report upon in this week's Global Cement Weekly - Yamama Cement, Arabian Cement Company and Yanbu Cement - all logged increased profits attributed to increased demand and sales.
Back in February 2013, Arab News reported that an estimated 500 trucks had been queuing outside the Yanbu plant near Jeddah. Some of whom said they had been waiting for up to five days in an attempt to receive deliveries! Abdullah Radwan, chairman of the contractors' committee at the Jeddah Chamber of Commerce and Industry, was quoted at the time as saying that the high price of cement in the country was due to a lack of cement plants in the country. The following month in March 2013 the Northern Region Cement Company was forced to halt production due to a road closure.
At the close of 2012, Saudi Arabia's cement product capacity was just over 50Mt/yr. Analysts predict that by the close of 2017 the country's demand will be over 80Mt/yr, with only 25Mt/yr of additional capacity commissioned by the same date. What happens to all that production capacity once the building is done may be giving producers across the Gulf region sleepless nights. On a separate note, Iran also reported this week that it hopes to increase its cement exports by 6Mt in the 2013 – 2014 year. The timing may be right - if regional rivalries can be put aside.
The battle for Brazil: Camargo Corrêa versus Votarantim
Written by Global Cement staff
10 April 2013
Camargo Corrêa came out fighting this week when it announced plans to invest US$1.5bn into the Brazilian market. The move represents the serious readjustment to the Brazilian cement industry that's been shadowed ever since the government approved the Cimpor takeover in 2012.
To show how high the stakes are, in October 2012 Votarantim, the Brazilian cement market leader, released early plans to invest US$160m for a 0.75Mt/yr plant in the Treinta y Tres region of Uruguay to meet demand for the 2016 Rio de Janeiro Olympic Games. At these prices the Camargo Corrêa spend could represent projects creating up to 7Mt of cement production capacity in Brazil. This is close to the current capacity gap between Camargo Corrêa (15Mt/yr) and market-leader Votarantim (23Mt/yr)! It's no killer blow for Camargo Corrêa but it does put the two producers in the same 'weight' category.
Although SNIC, the Brazilian cement industry association, recently downgraded estimates for growth in the market to 5.5% in 2013, this still represents very strong demand growth. A previous estimate by Research & Markets put the figure at 9%/yr until 2016. Either way that puts Brazilian capacity at between 87Mt/yr and 100Mt/yr in 2016 with Camargo Corrêa poised to snare a hefty chunk all for itself.
Yet before onlookers count Votorantim out, the company filed for an Initial Public Offering on 9 April 2013. No amounts were revealed but Dow Jones reported a figure of US$2.95bn in mid-January 2013 for expansion both inside and outside of Brazil. Also, the sale of shares must be approved by the Brazilian Securities and Exchange Commission. The industry heavyweight isn't going down without a fight! International companies have also shown interest with Lafarge's announcement in January 2013 that it would invest US$500m in the country, just one of many such moves on the way. Whatever happens, the Brazilian cement market is shaping up for one hell of a scrap.
For more information see our article on the Brazilian cement industry in the February 2013 issue of Global Cement Magazine. In early 2014 Global Cement will hold the first Global Cement CemBrazil Conference and Exhibition. Dates are to be confirmed.