Displaying items by tag: Government

Egypt: Khaled Fahmy, the Minister of Environment, has recognised the work by subsidiaries of Suez Cement to reduce air pollution and so called ‘black cloud’ periods. The minister presented certificates of appreciation to the manager of Helwan cement plant, Ahmad Ragae, the manager of Tourah cement plant, Omar Khorshid, the manager of the Environment Department at Helwan cement plant, Ragheb Hammouda and the manager of Environment Department at the Tourah cement plant, Badry Ibrahim.

Congratulations are due to India’s UltraTech Cement this week for finally completing its US$2.5bn asset purchase from Jaiprakash Associates. The deal has been around in some form or another since at least 2014 when UltraTech arranged to buy two cement plants in Madhya Pradesh for around US$750m. That deal, publicly at least, became a victim of the 2015 amendment to India’s Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) (MMDR) Act. The Bombay High Court eventually rejected it in early 2016 after a period of delays. However, the deal bounced back in a much larger form around the same time and since then everything has gone relatively smoothly.

As chairman Kumar Mangalam Birla put it in his letter to shareholders in the company’s 2016 – 2017 annual report the, “move is essentially for geographic market expansion.” He then went on to mention all the usual keywords like ‘synergy’ and ‘economies of scale’ that you expect from an acquisition. Quite rightly he finished with, “It is with great pride that I record, that UltraTech is the largest cement player in India and the fifth largest on the world stage.” On that last point he meant outside of China but UltraTech does have a small number of assets outside of India, notably in the UAE, Bahrain, Oman and Bangladesh, hinting at an international future for the cement producer.

Map 1: UltraTech Cement’s plants in India. Source: UltraTech Cement Corporate Dossier, January 2017.

To give a scale of the deal, UltraTech has increased its number of integrated cement plants in India to 18 from 12 and its cement grinding plants to 21 from 16. Its overall cement production capacity will increase by nearly 40% to 91.4Mt/yr from 66.3Mt/yr. The new assets are in Himachal Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh. The main regions that will benefit are the North, Central and South zones. In particular the Central Zone will see its capacity jump to 21.1Mt/yr from 6.2Mt/yr. This area also includes a new 3.5Mt/yr plant at Dhar in Madhya Pradesh that is scheduled for commercial production in late 2019.

The completion of the Jaiprakash Associates deal was followed by the introduction at the start of July 2017 of the Goods and Services Tax (GST), a rationalisation of some of the country’s central and state taxes. UltraTech promptly said it had reduced its product prices by 2 – 3% in light of tax reductions under the new regime. Some producers were warning of a rise in cement prices in the run-up to the introduction of the GST and the Cement Manufactures’ Association said that the new tax rate was insufficient. However, UltraTech said that the new tax rate of 28% was better than 30 – 31% previously. Other Indian producers also reduced their prices this week following the introduction of the GST.

UltraTech’s expansion and the start of the new tax scheme auger well for the Indian cement industry in 2017. Demonetisation knocked cement production at the start of the year and it may have lowered UltraTech’s capacity utilisation rate as well as reducing domestic sales by cutting housing demand. However, sector rationalisation and a simpler tax approach should help to remedy this. Not all government interaction has been helpful to the cement industry in recent years as the MMDR amendment and demonetisation show but the signs are promising.
Roll on the next set of financial reports.

2017 has started more uncertainly for the US cement industry than 2016 did according to the latest data from the United States Geological Survey (USGS). Cement shipment data from just two months, January and February 2017, can only present a limited impression of the state of the industry. Yet the key trend to look for in Graph 1 is the growth in Midwestern US states against a decline in the Western ones. Previously in 2016 this region’s shipments sunk below those in the West in December and didn’t overtake them until the spring. This time round they’ve stuck closely and overtaken them already in February 2017.

Graph 1: Portland and blended cement shipments by US Census Bureau region for 2016 to February 2017. Source: USGS.

The Midwest’s cement shipments jumped by 21% year-on-year to 2.2Mt for those first two months. Buzzi Unicem concurred with this picture in the Midwest with its first quarter financial results this week, reporting a boost in deliveries in the region. HeidelbergCement agreed, reporting sales volumes increases in the north of the country and a decrease in the West. In that region the USGS data shows an 8% fall in shipments to 2.2Mt. HeidelbergCement blamed heavy rain and flooding in California and Oregon as the cause of the problems. Another potential reason that the USGS hints at are increasing imports of cement that it says have been rising faster than sales. For example, imports of cement to the US as a whole grew by 23.9% year-on-year to 0.81Mt in February 2017.

Overall though the situation for the larger cement producers has been subdued. Many of them blamed good weather in the first quarter of 2016 giving them a hard quarter to measure against in 2017. For example, LafargeHolcim’s sales volumes of cement fell by 4.5% in North America although it did report sales growth off the back of cement pricing and cost controls. HeidelbergCement may have looked good on paper following its integration of the Italcementi/Essroc assets but its cement volumes only grew by 1% in the period. Cemex too reported a similar scenario with falling sales volumes of 5% but growing sales revenue.

To put this in perspective, as the Portland Cement Association’s (PCA) chief economist Ed Sullivan says in the May 2017 issue of Global Cement Magazine, cement production in the US grew in 2016 and it is expected to continue growing in 2017 and 2018. Just like the start of 2016 (see GCW251) the potential for US construction growth in the year ahead is a quietly confident one but it isn’t assured.

Cemex points out that housing starts rose by 8% in the first quarter of 2017, as did construction spending in the industrial and commercial sector. However, it says that infrastructure spending fell by 9% in February 2017. Indeed this last point is an important one given that one of the major Trump campaign pledges in the 2016 presidential campaign was to build more infrastructure. As commentators in Washington DC including the PCA have asked: where is the Bill? Rightly, the PCA are not letting the lawmakers forget this during ‘Infrastructure week’ as the issue is discussed. The US cement industry needs this.

For further information on the US cement industry take a look at the May 2017 issue of Global Cement Magazine

Check out this great graph that the UK Mineral Products Association (MPA) released in its latest sustainable development report this week. It lays out where the MPA says the various direct and indirect costs come from climate change policies per tonne of cement.

Graph 1: The cumulative burden of direct and indirect cost of climate change policies on the cement sector (per tonne of cement). GBP£1 = Euro0.94 at time of writing. Source: MPA. 

If it’s correct then the two biggest contributors from carbon taxes on the price of cement in the UK arise from the Carbon Price Support (CPS) mechanism and the Renewable Obligation (RO). Between them the two policies account for around two-thirds of the carbon tax burden on the price of cement. Of note to an industry advocacy body like the MPA, both of these derive from local legislation and they could be changed or dispensed with separate to the Brexit negotiations to extricate the UK from the European Union that have just officially started.

The MPA then goes on to warn that these added costs could rise from GBP£3.24/t at present to GBP£4/t in 2020 and then the truly terrifying (to energy intensive manufacturers at least) GBP£17/t. Subsequently the MPA has flagged these potentially mounting costs as the biggest threat to the UK cement industry in the near future. Failure to act could mean more foreign imports, loss of jobs and damage to the security of supply. All very heavy stuff. The MPA’s warning was nicely timed to precede the UK government’s response to a consultation on another decarbonisation scheme, the Contracts for Difference (CfD) scheme. Here, the government is about to exempt high-energy users, including cement producers.

Essentially, the key message from the MPA’s report is that the cement sector is picking up but it is still below sales levels in 2007. At the same time it has made all these environmental improvements and, now, steadily tightening regulations threaten its future. Just compare this with the situation in the US where the Portland Cement Association (PCA) recently applauded President Donald Trump’s executive order to roll back environmental legislation from the Obama administration. Despite this it insisted that its members were committed to manufacturing products with a ‘minimal’ environmental footprint.

Funnily enough the MPA didn’t mention environmental issues when it released its updated Brexit priorities for the UK government. This is understandable given the graph above that suggests that the majority of the carbon costs on cement production come from UK legislation. However, sharing a land border with the EU south of Northern Ireland may give rise to all sorts of market skulduggery once any sort of post-Brexit deal becomes clear. And this doesn’t even take into account moving secondary cementitious materials about, like slag, or the UK’s international market in solid recovered fuels (SRF) and the like. Differences in UK and EU overall carbon costs on cement may start to have acute implications for producers in both jurisdictions as the negotiations build. In this atmosphere moves like Ireland’s Quinn Cement’s last month, to build a terminal on the UK side of the Irish border, make a lot of sense.

Last week’s Global CemFuels Conference in Barcelona raised a considerable amount of information about the state of the alternative fuels market for the cement industry and recent technical advances. One particular facet that stuck out were reports from cement and waste producers, from their perspective, about Morocco’s decision to ban imports of waste from Italy in mid-2016. The debacle raises prickly questions about how decisive attempts to reduce carbon emissions can be.

Public outcry broke out in Morocco in July 2016 over imports of refuse derived fuel (RDF) imported from Italy for use at a cement plant in the country. At the time a ship carrying 2500t of RDF was stopped at the Jorf Lasfar port. Local media and activists presented the shipment in terms of a dangerous waste, ‘too toxic’ for a European country, which was being dumped on a developing one. Public outcry followed and despite attempts to calm the situation the government soon banned imports of ‘waste’.

What wasn’t much reported at the time was that RDF usage rates in Europe have been rising in recent years and that the product is viewed as a commodity. As Michele Graffigna from HeidelbergCement explained at the conference in his presentation, its subsidiary Italcementi runs seven cement plants in Italy but only two of them have the permits to use alternative fuels like RDF. Italy also has amongst the lowest rates of alternative fuels usage in Europe, in part due to issues with legislation. This is changing slowly but the company has an export strategy for waste fuels from the country at the moment. Italy’s largest cement producer wants to use waste fuels in Italy but it can’t fully, so it is exporting them so it (and others) is exporting them to countries where it can.

In the Waste Hierarchy, using waste as energy fits in the ‘other recovery’ section near the bottom of the inverted pyramid, but it is still preferable to disposal. Waste fuels may be smelly, unsightly and have other concerns but they are a better environmental option than burning fossil fuels. HeidelbergCement engaged locally with media and local authorities to try and convey this. It also arranged visits to RDF production sites in Italy and German cement plant that use RDF to present its message. Looking to the future, HeidelbergCement now plans to focus on local waste production in Morocco with projects for a tyre shredder at a cement plant and an RDF production site at a Marrakesh landfill site in the pipeline. Graffigna didn’t say so directly, but the decision to focus on local waste supplies clearly dispenses with historical and cultural baggage of moving ‘dirty’ products between countries.

In another talk, at the conference Andy Hill of Suez then mentioned the Morocco situation from his company’s angle. His point was that moving waste fuels around can carry risks and that a waste management company, like Suez, knows how to handle them. It is worth pointing out here that Suez UK has supplied solid recovered fuel (SRF) to the country so it has a commercial interest here. He also suggested that despatching a bulk vessel of waste to a sensitive market did not help the situation and that it heightened negative publicity.

Morocco’s decision to ban the import of waste fuels in mid-2016 is an unfortunate speed bump along the highway to a more sustainable cement industry. It raises all sorts of issues about public perceptions of environmental efforts to clean up the cement industry and where they clash with commercially minded attempts to do so by the cement producers. A similar battle is playing out in Ireland between locals in Limerick and Irish Cement, as it tries to start burning tyres and RDF. These are not new issues. Meanwhile in the background the amendment to the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme draws close with a vote set for mid-February 2017. It could have implications for all of this depending on what happens. More on this later in the month.

With president-elect Trump due to take office this week we wonder what this means for the cement industry in Mexico. In 2016 this column looked a couple of times at the implications of Trump upon the US cement industry. First, we looked at who might benefit if he builds his wall along the Mexican border and then we wondered what his policies might mean for the US industry. To answer the latter first, the main issues for the US industry are infrastructure, changes to the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) and the repercussions if Trumps serious about a trade war with China. So long as a trade war doesn’t happen then Trump is probably good news for the US cement industry. As for Mexico, the joke has been that Trump will be good for the construction business ever since market analysts Bernstein’s passed a note around in the summer of 2016 about that wall.

Graph 1: Breakdown of Mexican cement industry by production capacity. Source: Global Cement Directory 2017.

The makeup of the domestic Mexican cement industry hasn’t changed too much in the last decade, even with the merger between Lafarge and Holcim, preserving the same market share in production capacity between the companies. Most of the producers have reported growth in 2016. Cemex reported that its cement sales volumes rose by 3% for the first nine months of 2016 and by 10% in the third quarter of that year. Overall though, its net sales fell slightly to US$2.16bn in the first nine months, alongside a fall in ready-mix concrete sales volumes. Cemex, crucially, also seems to have taken charge of its debts in 2016, saying that it was on track to meet its targets and that it had announced nearly US$2bn worth of divestments in that year. Currently the company is trying to buy out Trinidad Cement in the Caribbean, which may be a sign that it has turned a corner.

Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua’s (GCC) cement sales volumes rose in the first three quarters of 2016, in its case by 4%. Its overall net sales in Mexico rose by 4.2% in Mexican Pesos for the same period but fell when calculated in US Dollars due to currency variations. GCC attributed its sales growth to better pricing environment and increased cement volumes, mainly for projects in the commercial and industrial sectors that compensated for a decline in the public sector, following the culmination of two major urban paving and highway construction projects in 2015. At the smaller end of the market, Elementia reported that its cement sales skyrocketed by 30% to US$104m in the first nine months of the year aided by higher prices and volumes.

The major Mexican cement producers all have a presence in the US with the exception of Cruz Azul. Cemex has held assets north of the border for years, Cemento Portland Moctezuma has links to Buzzi Unicem, GCC bought US assets from Cemex in 2016 and Elementia completed its purchase of Giant Cement also in 2016. These companies have clinker in their kilns in plants on US soil manned by US citizens. This represents investment in local industry and it is exactly the kind of thing that appeals to the rhetoric of Trump’s approach so far. If the new president builds his wall then Mexican producers will probably be producing much of the cement that builds it. Even the Mexican Peso’s slow decline since 2014 could help the local cement industry, as it will cut the cost of moving exports and materials north of the border. Indeed, Enrique Escalante, the chief executive officer of GCC said in late 2016 that his company was ‘ready to build’ Trump’s wall.

However, the sheer uncertainty factor of an incoming president with as little experience of public office as Donald Trump must be giving chief executives pause for thought. After all, Trump's tweets before he has assumed office have forced car manufacturers to change policy. If he manages to disrupt the North American Free-Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in order to protect US jobs then the repercussions for the Mexican economy will be profound. It sends nearly three quarters of its exports to the US. Local cement producers would surely suffer in the resulting economic disruption.

So, currency devaluations aside, Mexican producers are making money from their cement operations at home and they are increasingly hedging their bets by operating or buying units in the US. Some, like GCC, are even being ebullient about the benefits that might come their way. It may be a bumpy ride but the Mexican industry is ready. However, it may wish to avoid appearing in any of Donald Trump’s tweets anytime soon.

In June 2016, the polls said that the UK would remain in the European Union (EU), but now we have the prospect of Brexit. Democrat supporters in the US now know how the UK's 'Remainers' feel. The unthinkable has happened: the so-called 'Deplorables' have taken over the asylum. Donald Trump has won the US presidential election and he will be the 45th US president, after confounding all the polls, the media, the analysts and the commentators. He'll be able to appoint a swathe of right-leaning office-holders, including a crucial replacement for the late Antonin Scalia on the US Supreme Court. This will change the direction of US law-making for years, possibly decades, towards a less-liberal and more conservative outlook.

Trump will also be aided by having Republican majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives and will actually be able to get things done. President Obama had to fight hard for eight years to achieve anything, and finally had to fall back on enacting laws by presidential dictat or 'Executive Orders.' 'The Donald' will not have to stoop so low, and once he takes office will effectively be 'sweeping with the wind.'

Trump looks set to change US policy in a number of areas, including being less conciliatory towards America's foes ("I'm going to bomb the s••t out of ISIS"), taxing imports and tearing up trade agreements and rolling back US environmental efforts (he has promised to abolish the US Environmental Protection Agency, to cancel the Paris climate change deal, to sanction more drilling for oil and to approve the Keystone XL oil pipeline the fourth phase of which was recently rejected by President Obama). Who knows what else he has planned?

Well, one thing that we do know is that Trump's election is very probably great news for the US cement industry.

Early on in his victory speech, moments after receiving a telephone call from Hillary Clinton conceding defeat, Trump laid out the first step of his plan to 'Make America Great Again:' building US infrastructure. Trump said: "We are going to fix our inner cities and rebuild our highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, schools, hospitals. We’re going to rebuild our infrastructure, which will become, by the way, second to none. And we will put millions of our people to work as we rebuild it." He didn't actually mention cement (nor did he mention a 'big beautiful wall'), but all of these projects will require plenty of cement and concrete. Whether they voted for him or not (and Trump noted that there are those 'who have chosen not to support me in the past, of which there were a few people'), workers in the cement industry will be celebrating the prospect of fuller order sheets, higher prices, better profitability and more overtime. From a current GDP growth rate of around 1%, some have suggested a surge past 3%/yr and beyond during a Trump presidency. The crucial question, often overlooked, is "How are we going to pay for all this investment?" With the US debt heading towards US$20Tn, perhaps Trump's history as a Democrat - and all the tax-raising territory that comes with that position - might come in handy after all.

Trump has indicated that he's already looking to a second term ("I look very much forward to being your president, and hopefully at the end of two years or three years or four years, or maybe even eight years...") based on what he might achieve in his first term. Well, let's see. Donald Trump's deeds now need to speak louder than Donald Trump's words.

With the UK going to the polls on 7 May 2015 in a general election what does this all mean for the local cement industry? Some of the main issues for a buoyant cement industry are market demand, energy costs and government interference through issues like taxation or restrictions on international trading.

Probably the first big problem facing the UK cement industry would be construction market uncertainty following any prolonged post-electoral negotiations. At the time of writing the polls predict that neither of the main political parties will be able to form a legislative majority without the formation of some sort of coalition with a number of minority parties. This also has relevance for eventual policy, so more on this later. Additional political deadlock might also arise from the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP), potentially the largest minority party, and their demands for further political devolution from the rest of the UK.

Following this, the main two political parties, the Conservatives and Labour, are fairly similar from their manifesto statements advocating deficit reduction, no major new taxes and a continuation of carbon emission targets. If either party gets in, general government should continue as before with major infrastructure projects carrying on as planned and an emphasis on the economy or public spending respectively.

Differences start to emerge with the Conservative Party, a centre-right group with a liberal economic agenda, promising a national referendum on continued membership of the European Union (EU) that could lead to Britain leaving the EU in a so-called Brexit. This could cause complications for businesses with strong European links such as the cement industry. However a 'Brexit' might not be all bad news for heavy energy users as they could potentially renegotiate their carbon emission targets.

Meanwhile, the Labour Party, a centre-left group, immediately takes a negative point since its current leader held a senior economic post in the Labour government in the build-up to the crash in 2008. Since that time three integrated cement plants in the UK have closed. Back to the current election, threats to reform the consumer energy markets might have knock-on effects for business consumers. However, traditionally the Labour Party encourages higher spending that might lead to more large-scale infrastructure projects like the much-maligned High Speed Two railway line from London to the north. These kinds of projects would need lots of cement.

If any of the other minority parties get to carry an influence in a coalition they may be able to influence certain policies as the price for their support. For example, a UKIP right-wing coalition would demand a EU referendum. A Green left-wing coalition would push for decarbonisation energy policies and/or anti-fracking measures. Both of these outcomes could have effects on cement production. The other issue that minority regional players in a coalition might have is concerning changes to cement plants in their part of the world. For example, threats to shut a cement plant in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland might then gain a higher profile to any administration that includes the SNP, the Democratic Unionist Party in Northern Ireland or Plaid Cymru in Wales.

In summary, it is easy to identify what the UK cement industry wants but far harder to determine what will happen after the election. Assuming there is a government that is! The country holds a mature cement industry with limited infrastructure opportunities. Barring real political change such as a Green surge it will be business as usual on 8 May 2015. Cement kilns will keep turning.

Energy costs for cement producers in India are set for volatility following the Supreme Court's decision this week to cancel the vast majority of allocated coal blocks. After ruling that the allocation process by the Indian government was illegal and arbitrary the court stopped 214 out of 218 coal blocks. The affected operators working on the blocks have six months until 31 March 2015 to wind down production. At this point the government intends to auction off the blocks.

The background to this decision lies in the so-called coal allocation scam or 'Coalgate.' Over 80% of coal in India is produced by the state owned company Coal India. Since 1993 though the Indian government has been allocating coal blocks or leases to mine coal for captive use by industries such as cement, steel and power generation.

However, the allocation process was accused of lacking transparency compared to an open bidding process. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India estimated the loss to the government was an incredible US$30bn. The allocation process received further scrutiny as Indian coal imports rose leading to accusations of inefficiency on the Coal India side and corruption on the coal block side. Meanwhile, major power cuts such as those in the summer of 2012 focused both domestic and industrial users' minds on the state of the country's coal industry.

Following the power cuts in 2012, an inter-ministerial panel recommended the de-allocation of two coal blocks held by five companies, including Gujarat Ambuja Cement, Grasim Industries and Lafarge India.

India's coal imports started to increase rapidly around 2009 with an annual growth rate of around 5% and a demand growth of 25% from 2009 – 2014. The majority of its imported coal comes from Indonesia, Australia and South Africa. In 2012 its coal imports were over 150Mt.

With Indian cement producers facing production overcapacity and falling profit margins in recent years, any disruption to input costs such as power is bad news. The growing import rates point to an increasing supply-demand mismatch. A more open process for the allocation of India's vast coal reserves should be good news for industrial users in the medium to long term. However, in the meantime they may face a jolt.

On 31 January 2014, the Québec government announced that it would invest US$350m in a new US$1bn, 2.2Mt/yr cement plant and port facility, to be operated by McInnis Cement at Port-Daniel. To say that this has prompted outrage in the industry is an understatement. Rival cement producers, including Lafarge and Ciments Québec have been unanimous in condemning the funding, which they see as an unjustified affront to fair competition in the province's cement industry. There was an angry response on the Global Cement LinkedIn Group, with dissatisfaction on a number of levels.

Firstly, established manufacturers highlight that the Québec cement market is in a slump, with 100-150 members of Métallos, the United Steelworkers union, currently on rolling temporary furloughs at any one time. There is over-capacity as it is. How will another cement plant help this situation? One contributor to the Global Cement LinkedIn Group said that the funding was like, "Taking the money I pay as taxes to break my legs." Another said, "Imagine our tax dollars heavily subsidising our direct competitor - totally unacceptable!"

Secondly, the government will have a direct interest in the cement industry, diverting public funds to a sector that (in the West) is traditionally left to its own devices. What does the government have to gain from this move? Well, there are suggestions that the awarding of future government cement and concrete contracts can no longer be fair due to the rather obvious conflict of interest. Could the government effectively award contracts to itself? Arguments from the government and McInnis that its distribution will be outside the areas served by the other plants don't seem to wash with the established producers.

Thirdly, there are fingers pointed at the Gaspasia paper mill project, a failed government-funded installation that was not established in the 1990s at a cost to the taxpayer of US$300m. It is unlikely that any of the parties involved would like to see a repeat at Port-Daniel.

Finally, the Canadian government appears to have turned its back on its own 'Wood First' policy, signed in April 2013, which stated that wood should be preferred in construction over cement and steel due to environmental concerns over embodied CO2. At the time Canadian cement manufacturers were at pains to point out that cement and concrete constructions were actually sustainable in comparison to many other building materials, especially with repect to long-term use and minimisation of energy consumed during a building's lifespan. At worst this seems to be a government U-turn but it could yet get more ugly. Now, with funding for new cement capacity, Québec appears to have 'listened' to the cement producers. How long before some cynics point to this change as evidence that the government wanted McInnis Cement to happen all along?

Whether a gross miscalculation or a deliberate ploy by the government, the McInnis Cement saga will not be going away. Ciments Québec and Lafarge will line up to fight the decision and, in litigation-heavy North America, this story could run and run.