
Analysis
Search Cement News
Texan standoff
Written by Global Cement staff
29 August 2012
Texas Industries (TXI) made the surprising move this week of appealing to the US authorities to investigate 'unfair' imports from Greece and the Republic of Korea. Of note was the accusation that imports from these countries had risen by 40% from 2009 to 2011, with a further rise over the first six months of 2012.
Given the distances involved and the rising optimism shown for the North American market in the latest financial results for the cement industry, targeting imports might at first seem odd. However looking at US Geological Survey (USGS) data shows that for January to May 2012 the top cement importers to the US, after Canada, were the Republic of Korea and Greece. Mexico, the USA's other land neighbour, could only manage fourth.
According to USGS data Texas was the leading cement-producing state in the US in 2011. In 2011 total imports of hydraulic cement and clinker from South Korea rose by 64% to 1.40Mt from 0.86Mt in 2009.
By customs districts Texas imported 0.99Mt in 2011 or 15% of the US total. Alarmingly though, Texas has already imported 0.77Mt from January to May 2012. If this rate continues for the rest of 2012 Texas could be facing a total imported figure of 1.84Mt, a rise of 85%!
Given that the Global Cement Directory puts Texan capacity at just under 14Mt/yr this might explain why one of the state's biggest producers has decided to take action. The problem of 'cheap' Greek imports looks likely to get worse as the economic troubles of the Eurozone drag on, especially if Greece exits the zone. If that happens, any Greek producer that can still afford to make cement may well be able to undercut the domestic production of any country willing to import it. TXI's move might be seen as a pre-emptive strike 'shot across the bows' to discourage increasing US demand for sucking in more imports, in order to shore-up demand for domestic production (and to firm up domestic pricing).
However, one place Greece or South Korea will have difficulty exporting their cement to is the moon.
Serious thought on creating cementituous materials on the moon dates back decades but last week NASA awarded US$135,000 to UC San Diego structural engineer Yu Qiao for research on the subject using materials that are readily available on the moon. Given that it currently costs from at least US$4m/t to put mass into low earth orbit, the lunar cement industry can rest easy from the threat of cheap Greek imports for the time being.
European bargain hunt
Written by Global Cement staff
22 August 2012
The news this week that GSO Capital Partners has patched together a group of investors to recapitalise Giant Cement and its owner Cementos Portland Valderrivas (CPV) has been a long time coming.
Giant may be based in the US but CPV is Spanish. Here cement production fell by 28% year-on-year for the first half of 2012. For its 2012 forecast Oficemen, the country's domestic producers association, forecast in July that consumption will fall by 25% compared to 2011, to 15Mt/yr, representing a drop of 73% from a high of 56Mt/yr in 2007. Potentially the Spanish cement industry could regress to a per capita consumption of only 325kg/capita, figures not seen in the country for nearly 50 years! It has already hit a 48-year low.
In other words it is the perfect time for cash-rich foreign firms to pick up a bargain. Yet the question that should be asked, especially by anybody else thinking of investing in highly indebted European cement assets, is how do investors expect to make any return?
Simply waiting for the market to improve is one strategy for those who can afford it. According to the Global Cement Directory 2012, Spain has 38 cement plants with a capacity of 48Mt/yr. Of this the big players – Cemex, Holcim, Lafarge and CPV – comprise 28Mt/yr. Even if the smaller producers stopped producing cement overnight the big producers would still have the capacity to produce twice as much cement as is currently required.
However, the focus on the CPV subsidiary Giant Cement is telling. The owner of CPV, Fomento de Construcciones y Contratas SA (FCC), was originally reported as trying to sell Giant by March 2012. With the US market starting to pick up, Giant would make an attractive acquisition. FCC's last attempt to sell Giant was, however, delayed by CPV's debt.
With a Giant sale delivering some return to the GSO Capital Partners investors, followed up by further on-going debt repayment from CPV, the only loser would be the future development of the Spanish cement industry outside of that done by the multinationals. Heavily indebted European cement producers with profitable overseas assets must be looking very attractive indeed to international investment firms. The bargain hunt has begun.
Lucky strike for imports to South Africa
Written by Global Cement staff
15 August 2012
Pakistan's Lucky Cement received the 'all clear' for its cement imports from the South African regulators last week. The situation exposes the increasingly competitive market in the country after the South African Competition Commission cartel investigations in 2011.
Sales of Lucky Cement were originally shut down in 2011 due to accusations made by its competitors, including Pretoria Portland Cement (PPP) and Natal Portland Cement (NPC). They complained that Lucky was not complying with South African standards. South Africa's National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications (NRCS) then ran its independent investigation and released its results last week.
The regulator's full 28-day test found no evidence that Lucky Cement imports were non-compliant with regards to their quality. A minor infringement concerning underweight bags was found and fixed. However, about a week beforehand, Lafarge South Africa's CEO said that his company was considering approaching another trade body with concerns about 'low-quality cheap cement' imported from Pakistan.
More serious criticism came from the Cement and Concrete Institute when the NRCS admitted that it didn't know how much cement had been imported into South Africa so far in 2012. The NRCS is supposed to inspect and approve the testing bodies each producer and importer uses for every 500t of cement.
Lucky Cement has been a regular importer of cement to South Africa since 2009. It exports around 1.65Mt/yr to over 22 countries in South East Asia, the Middle East and Africa. CCI figures reckon that 140,000t of cement was imported to South Africa in the first quarter of 2012, mostly by Lucky Cement. According to the Global Cement Directory 2012 South Africa's capacity is around 11Mt/yr.
Four domestic producers – Lafarge, PPC, AfriSam and NPC – were accused of cartel activity by the South African Competition Commission, in a case that has been running since 2008. PPC confirmed the existence of the cartel, whilst Lafarge and AfriSam were fined US$19.6m and US$16m respectively.
By letting Lucky Cement resume the sale of its cement in South Africa, the NRCS has arguably done more than the Competition Commission to prevent cartel activity. With reports surfacing that other producers in Pakistan and India are considering exports to South Africa, domestic producers are going to have to become more inventive and more competitive.
How much is an Indian cement plant worth?
Written by Global Cement staff
08 August 2012
Anyone need a spare cement plant? If so then it looks like India is the place to head to this week.
First, Italcementi denied that it was in talks with Jaiprakash Associates to buy one of their Jaypee Cement plants. Then, after much speculation, CRH announced publicly that it had entered negotiations to purchase an equity stake in Jaypee's entire cement business. In addition the Indian government has also revived a plan to sell six Cement Corporation of India (CCI) factories that have been closed for almost 10 years.
All of this raises a question: how much are Indian cement plants actually worth?
According to one source, Italcementi was thought to be offering US$100/t (installed capacity) in the bid it supposedly made but has denied making. Jaypee 'wanted' US$150/t. However analyst commentary with the CRH announcement suggested that Jaypee's asking price was too high! This is hardly surprising. Back in June 2012 when Jaiprakash announced that it was selling its plants it was reported that Holcim was offering up to US$160/t. Alongside the CCI story an analyst was quoted as putting the cost of Indian cement production capacity at US$110/t-US$120/t. Yet these plants have been shut for a decade.
Unlike in Europe, Indian cement industry profits have been rising in double digits in recent years. However, input costs like energy and transport are rising and they are starting to hit margins listed in quarterly reports. Serious additional costs have also arisen from the anti-cartel fines issued by the Competition Commission of India. Throw in questions on infrastructure raised by last week's nationwide power-cuts and Italcementi's (non)decision to stick to US$100/t seems prescient.
Unlike Italcementi however CRH has money to spend. Back in June 2012 it was reported that the company had Euro1.5bn to invest. With Euro250m gone in the first half of 2012 on so-called 'bolt-on' acquisitions that still leaves plenty in the pot to pick up the CCI plants. Now that would be a surprise.
Indian power play
Written by Global Cement staff
01 August 2012
The power cuts in northern and eastern India this week will have presented citizens with a situation very familiar to Indian cement producers. With over half the country reported to be without electrical power after three power grids collapsed, industrial users are likely to have been shut down as the authorities try to bring back domestic supplies.
According to figures from the National Council for Cement and Building Materials, Indian cement producers used 79kWh/t of electrical energy in 2009 as production hit 181Mt. The Cement Manufacturers' Association placed these figures at 68-93kWh/t for a modern plant and 100-120kWh/t for older ones. In June 2012 the Central Electrical Authority reported the country's entire installed electrical capacity was 205GW.
It's difficult to estimate how much damage problems in power supply may have caused the Indian cement industry over the last few decades in either reduced volumes or increased running costs. The Cement Sustainability Initiative and European Cement Research Academy broke down the share of electrical power in a dry process plant as follows: 38% for cement grinding, 24% for raw material grinding, 22% for clinker production including grinding of solid fuels, 6% for raw material homogenisation, 5% for raw material extraction and blending and 5% for conveying, packing and loading. Generally speaking, interruption of power causes production losses and low capacity utilisation, idle running of equipment during stops and restarts of the plant, thermal losses during reheating, damage to refractory and other problems such as slowing down the train network.
Subsequently there has been a drive in India towards captive power generation and waste heat recovery (WHR) mechanisms, especially as input energy costs have risen. For example it has been reported that ACC's average cost of electricity per kWh from its captive plants is US$0.067 versus US$0.087 for grid power. Companies like Shree Cement have since gone into the electricity export market with their surpluses and, as shown by SP Ganeshan at the Global CemPower Conference in June 2012, interest in WHR is booming. Currently, the Indian cement industry has about 4000MW of installed captive generation capacity, including coal-based plants, diesel generating sets and wind turbines. Through various greenfield and brownfield expansion projects it is anticipated that another 2000MW of captive capacity will be added by 2016.
One sign of how well the Indian cement industry is coping with its energy requirements is the 74% rise in fourth quarter profit reported by Shree Cement in May 2012, in part due to savings made from captive power generation. Perhaps they could advise the Indian electricity board.