Displaying items by tag: India

UltraTech Cement’s deal to buy the cement business of Century Textiles & Industries could see it become the world’s third largest cement producer by production capacity outside of China.

It announced this week that it had entered into an acquisition agreement to buy the cement subsidiary of BK Birla Group for US$1.26bn. If the deal completes then it will gain three integrated plants in Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Maharashtra respectively with a combined production capacity of 11.4Mt/yr and a 1Mt/yr grinding plant in West Bengal. At this point UltraTech Cement will increase its production capacity to 106Mt/yr seeing it become the third largest cement producer in the world in Global Cement’s Top 100 Report.

This latest deal is subject to the usual regulatory approval from competition bodies and the like. Bustling past this step seems far from clear at this stage given that UltraTech Cement owns cement plants already in each of the four states the proposed purchases are in. It has described the purchase as giving it, …”the opportunity for further strengthening its presence in the highly fragmented, competitive and fast growing East and Central markets and extending its footprint in the Western and Southern markets.” Synergy savings from procurement and logistics are expected to follow with further benefits to be gained from the company’s distribution network. Local and national competitors may not see it the same way and the fallout from a price war could be damaging for smaller producers.

As covered previously, UltraTech Cement seems hell bent on winning its on-going fight against Dalmia Bharat to buy Binani Cement. Rightly or wrongly UltraTech Cement tried to muscle its way into buying Binani by making a bid directly to its owners after it lost an auction for it. Legal wrangling has followed as the insolvency process for Binani Cement has clashed against the auction process of the administrator. At the time of writing it is still far from clear which company will win.

Comparing the prices of the two latest acquisition targets by UltraTech Cement may offer some insight of its motivations. The Binani Cement assets roll in at just over US$125/t of production capacity. Although, as noted below, some of this is located outside of India. The Century Textiles & Industries assets are being purchased for a little over US$100/t. This is interesting as it is lower that the Binani cost, although the close links between BK Birla Group and UltraTech Cement’s owner Aditya Birla may help to explain this.

UltraTech Cement’s milestone as it surpasses the 100Mt/yr capacity level will mark a continuing change in the world’s cement industry as it moves away from Europe and North America to developing economies. As ever the classification is a bit of a fudge given that Global Cement’s top producers list excludes Chinese producers. Partly this arises from the difficulty obtaining reliable data on the Chinese industry. Partly this comes from top producer’s list looking at multinational companies over (extremely) large national ones. Due to this UltraTech Cement remains a regional player. Or it will at least until it (or if it) manages to buy Binani Cement. Some of the assets included in that sale include plants in both the UAE and China. At this point UltraTech Cement’s claim to be the third biggest cement producer in the world will be secure.

India: Shree Digvijay Cement has appointed Vikas Kumar as its chief financial officer with effect from 1 May 2018. He succeeds MV Ramaswamy who has resigned from the company.

India: Burnpur Cement has appointed Pawan Pareek as its chief financial officer. Pareek holds 30 years experience in accounts, finance and commerce for the steel and cement industries.

The cement producer has also appointed Uma Agarwal as a non-executive independent director. Agarwal holds qualifications as a company secretary and has practiced company law for the last three years.

Two reports out this week have looked at the carbon footprint of the cement industry. The first, a technology roadmap by the Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI) and the International Energy Agency (IEA), laid out a technology pathway for the sector to reduce its direct CO₂ by 24% from current levels by 2050 to meet the IEA’s 2°C scenario (2DS). The second, a report by the CDP (formerly the Carbon Disclosure Project) on the progress of 13 major cement producers to reduce their emissions, was a progress report on the business readiness for a low carbon economy transition.

Graph 1: European Union industry emissions by sector, 2013 - 2017. Source: Sandbag, European Commission.

The scene was set last week when the environmental campaign group Sandbag picked up on the latest emission data from the European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). Industrial emissions as a whole rose by 2% year-on-year to 743Mt in 2017. The cement and lime industry reported a rise of 3% to 148Mt in 2017 from 144Mt in 2016. As Sandbag reported, industrial emissions have remained ‘stubbornly high’ for the duration of the ETS. It then went on to say that, “the EU urgently needs a new industrial strategy to bring about radical industrial process changes and/or carbon capture and storage, especially for the high-emitting steel and cement sectors.”

The CDP’s report provided a global scorecard on the readiness of the cement industry to adapt to a low-carbon future. Unfortunately, the report used data from self-reporting questionnaires and it lacked data from the two largest Chinese cement producers, Anhui Conch and China National Building Materials (CNBM), although it did try to compensate for this. The CDP assessed companies across four key areas aligned with the recommendations from the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD).

Graph 2: Opportunity vs. risk for low-carbon transition. Source: Building Pressure report, CDP.

Surprisingly, the study, even with its limitations, found regional variation. As can be seen in Graph 2, the Indian cement producers came out on top from the criteria used: transition risks, physical risks, transition opportunities and climate governance and strategy. CDP pinned this on better access to alternative materials such as fly ash and slag coming from other carbon intensive sectors, such as thermal power generation and steel production. Reported process emissions measured by the clinker ratio for the Indian companies was 69% versus 78% for the other companies. They also benefited from newer cement plants driven by high market growth in the region compared to older plants in Europe.

The technology roadmap from the CSI and the IEA set out key actions for the industry to take by 2030 to have at least a 50% chance of achieving the 2°C 2DS scenario followed by a possible transition pathway that could be achieved through technology, legislation and investment. The key actions are protecting carbon pricing mechanisms from carbon leakage, putting new technology into action and supporting it by legislation, and greater government support for products with a lower clinker factor.

The CSI’s and IEA’s targets for 2030 included reaching a clinker to cement ratio of 0.64 in 2030 from 0.65 in 2014, a thermal energy intensity of clinker of 3.3GJ/t from 3.5GJ/t, an electricity intensity of cement of 87kWh/t from 91kWh/t and a alternative fuel co-processing rate of 17.5% from 5.6%. Perhaps the most optimistic is a CO₂ capture and storage amount of 14MtCO₂/yr in 2030 from nothing at the moment. This last target seems unlikely to be achieved given the lack of projects outside of the pilot stage, but it’s not impossible.

This column barely touches on the detail within either report or even the latest data from the EU ETS. Both reports offer ways forward to meet the 2°C global warming target outlined in the Paris Agreement. It’s easy to be pessimistic given the on-going clash between environmental optimism and business logic but both reports offer a way forward. The CDP report sets out a baseline with a look to the future, whilst the CSI/IEA roadmap offers what it says is a realistic route to reach that 2DS target. Lastly, if the CDP’s assessment is correct about the Indian producers then it’s possible that other developing cement industries may inherently be cleaner due to their use of newer plants and equipment. If worldwide government support can be provided for use of alternative fuels and materials on a much larger scale, as well as all the other recommendations, then meeting the Paris agreement may be easier than expected as new markets build new production capacity.

Two examples of carbon capture utilisation and sequestration projects will be covered in the May 2018 issue of Global Cement Magazine

Persistence has paid off for UltraTech Cement this week. Although the deal is not complete, all the signs are pointing towards India’s largest cement producer buying Binani Cement despite losing an auction for it last month. Here’s a recap of what has happened so far.

In July 2017 the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in Kolkata, a semi-judicial body that rules on issues relating to companies, started insolvency proceedings for Binani Cement. It followed a plea by one of the cement company’s creditors, the Bank of Baroda, that had an outstanding claim of around US$15m. The Kolkata bench of the NCLT rejected Binani Cement’s argument that the debt was tiny compared to the assets of its parent company Binani Industries of US$2.15bn. It then appointed an administrator, or resolution professional, called Vijaykumar Iyer, a partner at Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India. More on him later on.

The subsequent auction of Binani Cement raised lots of interest both internationally and locally due to its production base. The company operates a 4.9Mt/yr plant at Binanigram in Rajasthan with two kilns and four mills. It also runs a 1.4Mt/yr cement grinding plant at Sirohi in the same state. Unusually though for an Indian producer it also runs a 2Mt/yr grinding plant at Jebel Ali, Dubai in the UAE and a 0.5Mt/yr integrated plant, Shandong Cement, in China.

Its products domestically in India include 43 and 53 grades Ordinary Portland Cement and Portland Pozzolana Cement, with the Bollywood film star Amitabh Bachchan as its brand ambassador. On that last point the Indian Supreme Court chastised Binani Cement in 2014 for not paying sales tax in Rajasthan whilst being able to hire Bachchan! However, given the ferocity of the struggle to buy Binani Cement maybe all that marketing of the brand paid off, giving the producer a much higher profile than it might otherwise have had.

Anyway, lots of companies showed interest in Binani Cement in the first round of bidding in late 2017. CRH, LafargeHolcim, HeidelbergCement, India Cement, Orient Cement, Ramco Cement, Shree Cement, UltraTech Cement and Piramal Group were all linked to the auction. Eventually UltraTech Cement, JSW Cement, Ramco Cement, HeidelbergCement India, Dalmia Bharat and a pair of Indian investors all submitted bids and JSW Cement emerged as the winner with a bid of US$919m. However the emergence of an additional liability of around US$250m scuppered that auction when it turned out that Binani Cement had offered a corporate guarantee for the acquisition of a fibreglass asset in Europe known as 3B in 2012 by Binani Industries. By February 2018 the next auction was in progress and this time Dalmia Bharat Cement and UltraTech Cement led the race. Dalmia Bharat won the second auction with a bid of around US$1.03bn made in a consortium with Bain Capital’s India Resurgent Fund and Piramal Enterprises.

At this point the situation might have conceivably slowed down. Instead, UltraTech Cement kept on fighting and queried the entire bidding process. It then made a direct offer of US$1.11bn to Binani Cement in the form of a so-called ‘comfort letter’ that Binani Industries used to stop the insolvency process. At the same time it received approval from the Competition Commission of India in its bid for Binani Cement, the previous absence of which was one of the reasons its bid against Dalmia Bharat was rejected.

Indian company law now faced a dilemma over how a bankruptcy works given that the NCLT was meant to be in charge. A way out was found though when the NCLT in Kolkata and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal both allowed the bidders to settle the dispute ‘amicably.’ To add further confusion the administrator Vijaykumar Iyer also alleged right in the middle of the final tussle between Dalmia Bharat and UltraTech Cement that fraudulent transactions had been made by Binani Cement! Whether this has any further implications remains to be seen.

At this stage nobody is likely to declare UltraTech Cement the winner of Binani Cement until it actually picks up the keys to the cement plants. Perhaps not even then in case of any lingering legal issues! UltraTech Cement clearly views Rajasthan as a growth area given the tenacity with which it has gone after Binani Cement. It operates two integrated plants in the state and is building two more of its own. After its long journey in buying plants from Jaiprakash Associates in 2017, UltraTech Cement is starting to look like the cement producer that simply won’t take no for an answer.

The old saying goes that nothing is certain except for death and taxes. But maybe that should be cement and taxes. Paying your taxes is something most people and companies just get on with, perhaps with some grumbling or perhaps not, but certainly with little press. So two news stories popping up in the same week about cement plants with tax issues is out of the ordinary.

The first concerned Lucky Cement’s battle in Pakistan to keep one of its plants open following accusations of underpaying its taxes. The local tax office tried to shut the Pezu plant down for not paying its property tax. The cement producer hit back with a restraining order from the provincial high court. The second detailed efforts by the Ethiopian authorities efforts to claw back US$10m from a local cement producer accused of deliberately understating its profits. In both cases it’s hard to tell if there is an obvious right or wrong party. Yet if these kinds of stories are hitting the local press headlines then either something has gone wrong or both parties are digging in for a fight.

Looking over a longer time frame two major stories about tax have been doing the rounds over the last year in the industry news. India’s Goods and Services Tax (GST) is a classic example of how cement producers sometimes have to deal with changes to existing regulations. It received another outing this week in the form of the credit agency ICRA’s latest forecast. It explained how the introduction of the new tax, a consolidation of other existing indirect taxes, had slowed production in the second quarter of the Indian financial year in 2017 - 2018.

The other example from a large cement producing country was US President Donald Trump’s cut to federal corporate tax in December 2017. The tax cut was expected to particularly benefit companies that produce materials, like building materials manufacturers. It prompted HeidelbergCement to say in early January 2018 that it expected to see a boost to its profits in 2019. Warren Buffet, the chairman of Berkshire Hathaway and owner of insulation producer Johns Manville amongst other companies, put it bluntly when he said in his 2017 annual report that nearly half the gain of his company’s net worth came from the changes to the US tax system.

Multinational companies, including some cement producers, face issues when dealing with different rules and regulations between the various countries that they operate in. However, sometimes unfairly, sometimes not, large companies also hold a reputation for trying to avoid paying tax.

In this context it’s interesting to look at how LafargeHolcim says it approaches the issue. The company published its tax principles in 2016 where it talks about being responsible and that it, “…accepts tax as a necessary and required contribution to society.” It then talks about the necessity of transparency and good relationships with tax authorities. The same year it declared a total tax bill of Euro726m versus total sales revenue of Euro23bn. By contrast Cemex UK in its tax strategy talks about how it follows the US Sarbanes Oxley Act 2002, which applies a more stringent international accounting and auditing standard. It feels far more honest when it says that it aims to minimise the tax burden upon its shareholders by using methods outlined by the UK government. Taxes may be a certainty but nobody wants to pay a penny more in taxes than they have to.

India: Jorge Alejandro Wagner has been appointed as an additional director of Votorantim’s subsidiary Shree Digvijay Cement. Sven Erik Oppelstrupp Madsen has retired as a director following his departure from the role as chief executive officer (CEO) of one of Votorantim’s subsidiaries in Spain

Wagner holds a Master of Sciences in Management (MBA) from Pardue University Indiana in the US and a mechanical engineering degree from the Universidad Nacional de mar del Plata in Argentina. He started working for Votorantim Cimentos in 2002 in Brazil, later becoming the CEO for Spain in 2012. Prior to working for Votorantim he held roles with Esso Sapa, the Argentinean subsidiary of Exxon Mobil, and McKinsey & Company.

Just before the Christmas break one of the Global Cement editorial staff noticed how many solar projects have been popping up in the industry news of late. Looking at stories on the Global Cement website tagged with ‘solar’ five occurred in a six month period of 2017 out of a total of 13 since 2014. It’s not a rigorous study by any means but projects in the US, South Korea, India, Namibia and Jordan all suggest a trend.

All these new projects appear to be providing a supplementary energy source from photovoltaic (PV) solar plants that will be used to supply a portion of a cement plant’s electrical power requirements at a subsidised cost. Typically, these initiatives are preparing to supply 20 - 30% of a plant’s electricity over a couple of decades. These schemes are often supported by government subsidies to encourage decarbonised energy sources and a general trend in societies for so-called ‘greener’ energy sources in the wake of the Paris agreement on climate change.

Global Cement is familiar with this model of solar power in the cement industry from its use at the HeidelbergCement Hanson plant at Ketton in the UK. The project was realised by Armstrong Energy through local supplier Lark Energy and it provides around 13% of the cement plant’s electrical energy needs. Originally the array started off by supplying 10MW but this was later increased to 13MW in 2015. A key feature is that as part of the agreement with Armstrong Energy, Hanson receives 35% of the solar power generated for free and buys the remaining 65% at a fixed rate. Even at this rate the plant expects to save around Euro11m in energy costs over the lifetime of the solar array. In addition it will save 3500t/yr of CO2.

Most of the new solar projects announced in 2017 are of a similar scale and ambition to what Hanson Cement has done at Ketton. However, JSW Group’s plans are a magnitude larger. The Indian cement producer wants to build a 200MW solar plant next to its cement grinding plant at Salboni in West Bengal for US$124m. However, it has hedged its bets somewhat by saying that it might build a 36MW thermal power plant instead if its proposal fails.

LafargeHolcim and Italcementi have also experimented with concentrated solar power (CSP) plants for the cement industry. In 2007 LafargeHolcim and the Solar Technology Laboratory of the Paul Scherrer Institute and the Professorship of Renewable Energy Carriers at ETH Zurich started researching using high-temperature solar heat to upgrade low-grade carbonaceous feedstock to produce synthetic gas. The intention was to use the synthetic gas as a substitute for coal and petcoke in kilns.

Italcementi’s project at the Aït Baha plant in Morocco uses a CSP process that can be used with the plant’s waste heat recovery unit. Its moveable trough-style solar collectors follow the sun throughout the day to warm up a heat-transfer fluid during the day and store the heat in gravel beds overnight. In this way the CSP process allows for continuous operation over 24 hours. Before Italcementi’s acquisition by HeidelbergCement in 2016 the company had long-term ambitions to roll-out its CSP process across plants in the Middle East and North African region.

New battery technology of the kind backing the growing electric car industry may be further pushing the cement industry’s preference to PV over CSP power. The other renewable energy source slowly being built to support cement plants has been wind. Like PV it too suffers from cyclical disruptions to its power. Technological entrepreneur Elon Musk (of Tesla car fame) notably supplied the world's largest lithium-ion battery to Southern Australia to support one of its wind farms in late 2017. Around the same time local cement producer Adelaide Bighton announced in a separate deal that it had struck a deal to use wind power to part-power some of its facilities in the same region. At present it doesn’t look like solar power will be completely powering cement plants in the near future but perhaps a renewable fuels rate along similar lines to an alternative fuels rate might be a growing trend to watch.

The Global Cement CemPower conference on electrical power, including waste heat recovery, captive power, grinding optimisation and electrical energy efficiency, will return in January 2019.

To mark the end of the calendar year we’re going to round up some of the major news stories from the cement industry in 2017. Like last year this piece also complements the corresponding article ‘The global cement industry in 2017’ in the December 2017 issue of Global Cement Magazine. Remember, this is just one view of the year's events. If you think we've missed anything important let us know via LinkedIn, Twitter or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Recovery in Europe
2017 was the year that the European cement industry finally had something to shout about after a lost decade since the financial crash of 2007. The good news was led by a revival in cement consumption in 2016 that looks set to have continued in 2017. Prospects in Germany and Spain feel similar and a series of mergers and acquisitions have taken place in Italy suggesting that investors believe that the market is about to recover there too. Sure, Brexit is looming but as contacts have told Global Cement staff throughout the year, if the British want to damage their economy, that’s their business.

Renewal and recrimination at LafargeHolcim
Lafarge’s conduct in Syria during the civil war has cost its successor company LafargeHolcim dear, with the loss of its chief executive officer (CEO) Eric Olsen and potential reputational damage if the on-going investigation in Paris finds fault. At the time of writing Olsen, former Lafarge CEO Bruno Lafont and the former deputy managing director for operations Christian Herraul are all being questioned by the inquiry into the affair as it attempts to determine who knew what and when. LafargeHolcim has drawn a line under the debacle by appointing outsider Jan Jenisch as its new CEO in mid-2017. He has made changes to the group’s management structure that were announced this week but has he done enough? If anything truly ‘explosive’ emerges from the investigation, the question for anyone across the world buying LafargeHolcim’s products may be whether or not they want to finance extremism through their purchase.

US doesn’t build wall but does okay anyway
The US Portland Cement Association (PCA) may keep downgrading its forecasts of cement consumption growth but the local industry is doing fairly well anyway. All sorts of cement producers with a presence in the US have benefited from the market, despite extreme weather events like Hurricane Irma. President Donald Trump may not have delivered on his infrastructure development promises or built his fabled wall yet but his recently-approved tax reforms are likely to benefit the profits of cement producers. The decision by Ireland’s CRH to buy Ash Grove Cement in September 2017 may remove the largest domestically-owned producer from US hands but it shows confidence in the market and heralds the continued creeping growth of the building materials company into an international empire.

South America shows promise… just don’t mention Brazil
Countries like Brazil, Colombia and Venezuela may not be performing to expectations but other countries south of the Darian Gap, have been growing their respective cement industries. The leader here is Argentina that is riding a full-scale construction boom with capital investment chasing it from the producers. Bolivia is following a decade of growth although this may be starting to slow somewhat. Chile appears to be realigning itself to take in more exports. And finally, Brazil may also be starting to return to growth too. Although cement sales were continuing to fall year-on-year in the first nine months of 2017 the rate has been slowing. Local producer Votorantim also reported improved market conditions at home.

India stares into the demand gap
UltraTech Cement finally managed to buy six cement plants and five grinding plants from Jaiprakash Associates for US$2.5bn in 2017. The acquisition marked the end of the long-running deal between the companies and what may be a new phase in further integration in the Indian industry. In September 2017 the Cement Manufacturers Association (CMA) complained that the sector had 100Mt/yr of excess production capacity out of a total 425Mt/yr. The government’s demonetisation policy sank cement production growth in late 2016 and production has struggled to improve since then. Some estimates expect growth to return in around 2020 as the demand gap shrivels. Further merger and acquisition activity can only help until then, although the current government flip-flopping over a petcoke ban and import duties may get in the way.

China restructures with an eye on overseas market
As discussed last week the mind-bogglingly massive merger between China National Building Material (CNBM) and China National Materials (Sinoma) is proceeding with the press equivalent of radio silence. If one trusts the company figures then the largest cement producer in the world will get even bigger following completion. Once the big Chinese producers start building lots of overseas plants then the implications of combining a major producer with a major plant builder may become clear outside of China. Alongside this the buzzword on the Chinese cement company balance sheets this year have been a major rollout of co-processing at plants and a policy of ‘peak shifting’ or simply shutting off production at selected plants in the winter months. Somehow despite all of this the official figures suggest that cement production is still growing in China.

The African mega deal that wasn’t
The prospective bidding war for South Africa’s PPC has turned out to be a bust. A low offer was made in September 2017 by a Canadian investment firm with the aim of merging PPC with local rival AfriSam. Vague expressions of interest from the usual suspects followed over the following months before everything fizzled out. What the dickens was going on? A difference of opinion between the board and shareholders? A poor market in South Africa giving everyone the jitters? If any readers know, please get in touch. PPC’s poor showing at home mirrors Dangote Cement’s travails. Both companies have suffered domestically whilst going full tilt elsewhere in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Indonesia about to pick up?
And finally, a report from Fitch Ratings this week suggests that growth in Indonesia is set to pick up once again. The market dragged down HeidelbergCement’s mid-year financial results as cement consumption dropped in the same period. Like India, Indonesia faces a consumption-capacity mismatch. However, with annual consumption poised to grow at over 6%, the time to close that gap will narrow. Some good news to end the year with.

Global Cement Weekly will return on 3 January 2018. In the meantime Merry Christmas and a have Happy New Year!

India’s Economic Times (ET) has run a story today that really illustrates the heart of the current oversupply issues surrounding the cement sector in India. It reports that Binani Cement, one of the country’s many medium-sized domestic players, is circling the drain ahead of full bankruptcy proceedings. According to ‘senior officials,’ who spoke on the condition of anonymity, the company has already attracted interest from LafargeHolcim, HeidelbergCement and CRH, as well as a plethora of domestic players. There are a total of 15 interested parties so far: the three multinationals, nine domestic cement producers and three investment firms.

With 11.3Mt/yr of capacity, Binani Cement is not a small player by international standards. Unusually for an Indian producer, it even has capacity elsewhere, in China and Dubai. It is part of the larger BRAJ Binani Group, which is involved in glass fibre, energy, IT and more. The fact that the cement company is now up for sale really underscores the extent to which India doesn’t need the 100Mt/yr of extra capacity that was highlighted by the Cement Manufacturers Association in September 2017. India could lose 10 Binani Cements overnight and still have enough capacity to meet domestic demand!

Binani’s issues are, at least in part, geographic. It has assets exclusively in the north of India, which has seen weakened homebuilding and infrastructure activities since the implementation of the government’s demonetisation policy, as well as the highest impacts from rising imported fossil fuel prices. The implementation of India’s new Goods and Services Tax (GST), which has increased cement prices, has not helped. The bulk of Binani’s operations are in Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh, both states far from the coast. When even UltraTech Cement’s profit is down, the squeeze for some smaller producers is becoming too much. On its own Binani cannot handle the heat, but its assets would certainly make a nice addition for a larger player.

In this way, the consolidating Indian cement sector represents a microcosm of the global situation. Binani’s troubles highlight how much better large companies are at spreading the risks of operating in different markets. As discussed in our forthcoming December 2017 issue, the advantages of being a multinational player with a large number of geographical markets appears to be gradually returning once again, with smaller regional players once again suffering from geographical disadvantages.

Of course, in an environment ripe for consolidation it is very interesting to note that CRH is among the international players linked to Binani. It clearly wants the benefits of being a fully-fledged multinational and is going full-steam ahead to get there. It has spent Euro1.34bn on 27 acquisitions of various sizes in 2017, most notably the on-going purchase of Ash Grove Cement in the US. It is making a strong case to purchase PPC in Africa and a larger Indian base makes sense for the company in the longer term. It lost out on Lafarge India’s assets to Nirma in 2016.

We can be sure that the pace of mergers and acquisitions will continue to grow in the rest of 2017 and into 2018 in India and elsewhere. Would you bet against CRH pulling off an Ash Grove, PPC and Binani ‘triple?’ With the group finance director Senan Murphy stating that there was additional room for expansion in 2018, its intent certainly can’t be faulted.