Analysis

A group of news stories from Central Asia and Azerbaijan this week present a good opportunity to look at the cement industry in this part of the world.

Uzbekistan

Eurocement has announced that it plans to build a 2.4Mt/yr cement plant near to Tashkent. Chinese contractors have been signed for the work in line with the Russia-based cement producer's other plant builds in 2014. Eurocement also operate a subsidiary in the country, the 1.6Mt/yr Akhangarancement cement plant, that reported a criminal investigation and financial audit following various misdemeanours in April 2014.

Also in April 2014 the Almalyk Mining-Metallurgical Combine (AMMC) proposed building a 1.5Mt/yr cement plant in the south of the country and then commissioning of a white cement plant in the central Jizzakh Province. Both the Eurocement and AMMC projects show that organisations are investing in the local market of the region's most populous country at around 30m.

Turkmenistan

In neighbouring Turkmenistan the TurkmenCement Production Association has issued a tender this week for the construction of a 1Mt/yr clinker plant in the central-south of the country in the Baharly District of the Akhal Region. If realised, the new plant will raise Turkemistan's cement production capacity to 4Mt/yr. Currently the country has three state-operated plants. The most recent, the 1.4Mt/yr Garlyk plant, was commissioned in February 2013.

Kazakhstan

An investor has stepped forward to finance the completion of the delayed Khantau cement plant in Zhambyl region in southern Kazakhstan. The 0.5Mt/yr plant was originally started in 2007 before being mothballed part-way through construction.

The reignition of this project follows a couple of stories from Kazakhstan including a report on testing at the HeidelbergCement Caspi cement plant in Mangistau region and the start of operation on Line 5 of Steppe Cement's Karaganda Cement. Kazakhstan has more western international cement producers, unlike the generally state-run companies in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. HeidelbergCement will join plants run by Italcementi and Vicat.

Azerbaijan

Finally, on the other side of the Caspian Sea, Azerbaijani local media has reported that cement production for the first half of 2014 has risen by 40% year-on-year to 1.1Mt. Following the opening of the Gazakh cement plant in mid-2013 the country has three cement plants with a combined cement production capacity of nearly 5Mt/yr.

Bad news for both cement workers and local clinker production in Australia and New Zealand this week with the announcement of job cuts and planned closures of clinker plants. Holcim New Zealand has confirmed that around 120 jobs will go when its Westport cement plant closes in 2016 along with the rationalisation of a few management jobs when the company integrates its Australian and New Zealand businesses. Meanwhile, Boral announced that it will cut 28 jobs from its Maldon Cement plant in Australia when it ceases clinker production at the end of 2014.

With these planned closures cement production capacity in the antipodes will shrink by just over 1.5Mt/yr to around 7.5Mt/yr, a reduction of over 15% Alongside the drop in native cement production players are re-focusing on an import market.

The trend is highlighted by the fact that Boral's Maldon site will retain its grinding mill. Earlier in June 2014 it was reported that Vue Australia is planning to convert a brownfield site on Kooragang Island, New South Wales into a cement storage and transfer plant. In February 2014 Cockburn Cement cut 44 jobs at its Munster cement plant as it started to restructure its operation for grinding using imported clinker. Also in February 2014 Cement Australia, the joint-owned company between Holcim and HeidelbergCement, had a US$17m expansion of its cement loading and storage facility for processing at Osborne approved by local authorities.

Following its restructuring in 2013, which has seen clinker production cease at Waurn Ponds and soon to cease at Maldon, Boral reported that its cement revenues grew in its 2012 – 2013 financial year. This is likely to continue when the 2013 – 2014 year is reported in August 2014. Likewise, Adelaide Brighton reported growing revenues in 2013. Cement Australia reported growing cement sales year-on-year in the first quarter of 2014 following reduced sales in 2013.

All in all the local cement industry in Australia and New Zealand has taken quite a knock in recent years. Reasons for this have included a poor recovery for the local building materials market, high-energy costs, the Carbon Tax in Australia, competition concerns and the spectre of cheap clinker imports from East Asia undercutting everything. However the return to revenue and then profit suggest that the worst of the job cuts and clinker production shrinkage is over.

In this business environment, revelations such as a China Resources spending upwards of US$300,000 on golf are unlikely to garner sympathy for any measures that appear to reduce international competiveness for Australian industry. The current Australian government led by Tony Abbott is set to make good on its promise to repeal the Carbon Tax from July 2014. The environmental effects will be unclear given that the tax may have cut emissions from participating companies by 7%, falling from 342Mt in 2011 – 2012 to 321Mt in 2012 – 2013, according to the Investor Group on Climate Change. As is usual with localised carbon taxation or legislation, whether global emissions fell during this period or whether emissions grew in looser jurisdictions to compensate is hard to calculate. The trend towards clinker imports suggests that there may be a significant contribution from the latter.

Industrial energy consumers in Romania have succeeded in extracting concessions from the government's green certificates scheme this week. Cement producers, including Lafarge, Holcim and local HeidelbergCement subsidiary CarpatCement Holding, will benefit now from a 10-year facility to acquire the certificates and they will be allowed to buy up to 85% fewer certificates than at present.

The Romanian government reckons the change will save industry Euro750m. It will be good news for the cement producers and aluminium producer Alro Slatina, one of the chief lobbyists for the change which paid Euro39m for the certificates in 2013, reported losses of Euro17m and threatened production closures.

The debacle strikes a chord with other government-led attempts to nudge society towards lower-carbon emitting energy sources. First a national or international scheme offers economic incentives toward some sort of carbon reduction. Then major industrial users either complain that the system 'unfairly' penalises them or they find a way to play the system. The latest example of the adjustments in Romania is an example of the former, as is the current Australian government's intention to remove its carbon tax. Multinational companies surrendering carbon offsets into the European Union's (EU) emissions trading scheme (ETS) is an example of the latter.

In defence of government-industry negotiation, the EU ETS is now in its third phase of trying to make the scheme work as the EU tries to reach its target of a 20% cut in emissions compared to 1990 levels by 2020. In late 2013 environmental group Sandbag accused the target of containing a loophole that allows for a much smaller cut in emissions due to a slack in carbon budgets, of potentially 2% of 1990 levels. However, the EU confirmed in early June 2014 that it is on track to beat its target and cut down total emissions by 24.5% by 2020.

Alongside all of this arguing, overall energy costs have steadily risen over the last decade, as have the rates of co-processing at European cement plants. As a secondary major fuels consumer, behind energy generation and transportation, the cement industry is particularly susceptible to energy prices being jolted around behind various market trends, such as increases in natural gas supply in the US market. In effect the cement industry hops between different 'next best' options, after the leading energy consumers have taken the premium fuels. The interplay between legislators and heavy industry over carbon taxes prompts the following question: what encourages cement producers more to move to reduce their carbon emissions – legislation or fuel prices?

In other news this week, the chief executive of African producer Bamburi Cement, Hussein Mansi, has announced his plans to move on to Lafarge Egypt. In his memo to staff he mentioned, '...five very interesting years leading the Kenya – Uganda business.' Telling words perhaps given the Kenyan government's attention on Bamburi Cement and the East Africa Portland Cement Company, a producer minority-owned by Lafarge. Of course Mansi may discover that 'interesting' is relative in Egypt, a country on the other side of the energy subsidy spectrum to Europe and its carbon taxes.

The creation of Lafarge Africa, the clearance of the Cemex West acquisition by Holcim in Germany and the sale of Lafarge's assets in Ecuador all hint at the scale of business that LafargeHolcim will command when it comes into existence. Despite the media saturation of coverage on the merger the implications in developing markets are still worthwhile exploring, especially in Latin American and Africa.

In sub-Saharan Africa, Lafarge is merging its cement companies in Nigeria and South Africa to create Lafarge Africa. Analysts Exotix have described the move as, 'the birth of a leading player on a continental scale'. Indeed, if Lafarge wanted to grow Lafarge Africa to encompass its many other African cement producing subsidiaries it could hold at least 17 integrated cement plants (including plants in north Africa) with a cement production capacity of at least 40Mt/yr in 10 countries and infrastructure in others. That puts it head-to-head with Dangote's plans to meet 40Mt/yr by the end of 2014 through its many expansion projects. Following these two market leaders would come South African-based cement producer PPC with its expansion plans around the continent.

Meanwhile across the Atlantic in Latin America the Lafarge-Holcim merger threatens Cemex. Unlike in Africa where Lafarge has a ubiquitous but disparate presence, Lafarge and Holcim's cement assets are more evenly scattered around the Caribbean, Central and South America. In terms of cement production capacity Cemex and Lafarge-Holcim will both have around 30Mt/yr, with Cemex just in front. The next biggest cement producers in Latin America will be Votorantim (present mainly in Brazil) with just over 20Mt/yr and Cementos Argos (Columbia) with about the same. This includes some new acquisitions in the United States for the growing Columbian producer. In Ecuador Lafarge and Holcim held over 50% of the market share, hence the sale by Lafarge of its assets to Union Andina de Cementos for US$553m.

Depending on how well the merger integrates the two companies, corals the various subsidiaries and implements strategic thinking the merger could just create business as usual with little disruption to the existing order. Yet in both continents the merger has the opportunity to shake up and reinvigorate the cement markets as existing players suddenly discover serious new competition and react accordingly.

Africa has a population of 1.1bn and it had a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of US$2320/capita in 2013. South America had a population of 359m in 2010 and a GDP of US$8929/capita. This compares to US$27,250/capita in Europe and US$54,152/capita in the US. The economic development potential for each continent is humongous. Post-merger, LafargeHolcim will be first or second in line for some of this potential in Latin America and Africa.

The Brazilian cement industry took a knock last week when the competition watchdog Cade (Administrative Council for Economic Defence) confirmed its intention to issue the sector with fines worth a combined US$1.4bn.

Under the terms of the ruling, Votorantim will have to pay US$672m, Cimpor will pay US$133m, InterCement Brasil will pay US$108m, Itabira will pay US$184m, Holcim will pay US$227m and Itambé will have to pay US$39.4m. The companies involved will be forced on average to sell 24% of their assets. Votorantim, for example, will be compelled to divest 35% of its cement assets or 11Mt/yr of production capacity. In addition a fine of nearly US$2m is to be imposed on the cement associations ABCP and SNIC.

To give these figures some context, Votorantim reported a net profit of US$105m in 2013 across all its business lines including cement, metals, mining and pulp. The fine Cade wants to impose is over six times greater than this! A fine of this size will be a serious setback for Votorantim if it goes through. Votorantim's net revenue for its cement business in 2013 was about US$5.5bn. This places the fine at just over 10% of company annual turnover, a common upper limit for fines imposed by anti-competition authorities around the world. 10% of turnover, for example, is the maximum percentage fine that European Union competition regulators can impose.

Although hard to compare with the other Brazilian cement producers due to differences in financial reporting, the proposed fines seem equally tough on the other companies. Before the acquisition of Cimpor inflated its financial figures, InterCement reported a net revenue of US$1.2bn in 2011. This places its fine at 9% of annual turnover. Holcim's net sales in its Latin American region as a whole, including operations in Brazil, totalled US$3.73bn in 2013.

Both Holcim and Cimpor have issued corporate rebuttals to Cade insisting that they followed and still follow all the necessary competition laws. Both companies intend to fight the decision. Votorantim went further in its response saying that it considering the fine 'unjust and unprecedented' and it warned that the ruling would cripple any investments in the Brazilian cement sector. The ruling also forbids the company from opening new factories within the next five years, places limits on the company taking out new loans and prevents it from consolidating its market share.

Internationally, the Cade fine surpasses the US$1.1bn Competition Commission of India penalty imposed against 11 producers in India in 2013. Other recent anti-trust fines against the cement industry include a Euro80m fine in Poland that was upheld on appeal in 2013 and the US$19.3m Lafarge was charged in South Africa in 2012.

The prosecutors pointed out that work on public roads had been inflated by nearly US$8m. Overall they reckon that the cartel cost the Brazilian economy US$6.3bn. Examples likes this are unlikely to gain sympathy for the accused cement producers from a Brazilian public already angry about the amount of public money spent on building excessive sports stadiums and the like for the Football World Cup later in June 2014 and the Olympic Games in 2016. In the meantime though – over to the lawyers.