Displaying items by tag: Singapore

Little trickles of detail about the European Union’s (EU) proposed carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) started to emerge last week. The key bit of information that Bloomberg managed to squeeze out of their source was that a transition period with a simplified system is being considered from 2023 and then a full version could turn up in 2026. Cement importers, and those in selected other heavy industries, would be required to buy electronic emission certificates at prices corresponding to those in the EU emissions trading scheme (ETS). Other titbits include: that the prices will be set on a weekly basis based on the average carbon permit price within the EU that week; a default value will be devised for importers who can’t back up their emissions data; and imports from a country with its own carbon pricing scheme will be entitled to a discount. The plans are due to be made public in mid-July 2021. Debate is then expected to follow before approval will be required from the European Parliament and member states.

The detail isn’t out there yet but the CBAM is set to collide with trade agreement territory. For example, how the draft agreement tackles issues such as exports from Europe and whether importers should be compensated for not receiving a free allocation of carbon credits could be seen to offer competitive advantage to one party or another. Climate policy will clash with trade policy once or if the CBAM makes in into law. At this point countries that import cement into the EU may start trying to negotiate or complaining to the World Trade Organisation. One previous example of climate policy bashing into trade agreements is when the EU tried and failed to apply the ETS to aviation in the early 2010s. The experience from this incident is expected to inform the European Commission’s approach on the CBAM.

Outside the EU, new carbon pricing schemes have been popping up all over the place and various cement associations are creating or refining their own carbon neutral plans. Last week in North America, for example, the Cement Association of Canada said it was working with the government on launching a roadmap by the end of 2021. In the US, the Portland Cement Association (PCA) has also been hard at work to publish its own roadmap by the end of 2021. Meanwhile, over in the oil sector there were a couple of victories for activist shareholders in May 2021 with Shell, Exxon Mobil and Chevron all being forced to make changes to their climate change polices by courts and activist investors. This makes one wonder how long it will be before the same thing happens to cement companies.

All this increases the pressure between trading agreements and climate legislation. One of the questions that has popped up at Global Cement’s webinar series has been whether attendees thought that a global carbon pricing and/or trading scheme might be a realistic position or not (the majority said ‘yes’ within 20 years). Yet the EU CBAM, all these sustainability plans and continued pressure by investor activist don’t happen in isolation. They occur in an interconnected world.

So it was both non-surprising and eye-popping to discover recently that a private carbon exchange is being prepared in Singapore for a launch by the end of 2021. Climate Impact X (CIX) is being backed by DBS Bank, Singapore Exchange, Standard Chartered and the Singapore-government owned investment company Temasek. As for which companies would actually voluntarily enter into a scheme that would actively reduce profits, the answer lies above. Any organisation looking to trade between carbon pricing jurisdictions might well have an economic incentive to find a truly international scheme that was reputable. Or, perhaps, a publicly owned company dealing in carbon-intensive products might be bullied into one by its activist investors. The focus on such an exchange being reputable is essential here, given the potentially large amounts of money that could be involved and the mixed views on existing carbon offsetting schemes. CIX says it will use satellite monitoring, machine learning and blockchain technology to ensure the integrity of its carbon credits and this is certainly thinking in the right direction. Until it arrives though, we wait to see the detail on the EU CBAM.

A great question was asked at yesterday’s Virtual Global CemTrans Seminar: what impact did the recent blockage of the Suez Canal cause to the cement industry? Luckily, Rahul Sharan from Drewry was on hand discussing freight costs following the start of the coronavirus pandemic.

As most readers will know, the Suez Canal was blocked in late March 2021 when the 200,000dwt Ever Given ran aground, at around six nautical miles from the southern entry of the canal. The ultra large container vessel was subsequently refloated and towed away just under a week later. While this was happening the fate of the ship became a global news story with business analysts totting up the cost of the obstruction. 40 bulk carriers were reported as waiting to transit the waterway the day after the blockage started and some of these were carrying cement. Reporting by the BBC noted that 369 ships were stuck waiting on either side of the blockage on the day before the ship was finally freed. The Suez Canal Authority (SCA) estimated their loss of revenue from the incident at US$14 – 15m/day. Analysts like Allianz placed the cost to the global economy at US$6 - 10bn/day.

In Sharan’s view the blockage of the Suez Canal happened at a potentially risky moment for cement and clinker shipping because there was already congestion in shipping lanes built up on the east coast of South America and around Australia. However, a delay of a week around the canal, followed by the resulting congestion dispersing quickly over the following days, does not seem to have had any major impact so far.

Sharan’s presentation at Global CemTrans also included a summary of cement shipping. The key takeaways were that clinker shipping overtook cement shipping in 2019 with a connected increase in fleets investing in handymax-sized vessels. He also pointed out the key cement and clinker importing countries in 2019, before the coronavirus pandemic started causing market disruption. For cement: the US, the Philippines and Singapore. For clinker: China, Bangladesh and the Philippines. Turkey and Vietnam were the biggest exporters for both in that year.

The Ever Given incident has highlighted the continued importance of the Suez Canal for global trade for commodities. Goods still need to be physically moved around, however much stuff we digitise. It also contrasts with the issues that the Egyptian cement sector has faced in recent years such as production overcapacity. While domestic cement plants have struggled to maintain their profits, plenty of cement carriers have been transiting through the Isthmus of Suez. Local producers may well have gazed at them and wondered where they were going.

One of them, Al-Arish Cement Company, took action in this direction this week with its first export shipment of clinker. The Clipper Isadora ship disembarked East Port Said port for Ivory Coast. Future shipments are planned for West Africa, Canada, the US and Europe. Ship tracking reveals that the Clipper Isadora has not taken the Suez Canal on this occasion.

The proceedings pack for the Virtual CemTrans Seminar 2 2021 is available to buy now

Kazakhstan: Sharcem, part of Singapore-based International Cement Group (ICG), plans to acquire US$16.3m-worth of cement assets in Kazakhstan. The Business Times newspaper has reported that the sellers are Kazakhcement and the Development Bank of Kazakhstan. Kazakhcement currently operates the 1.0Mt/yr Shar plant in Charsk, East Kazakhstan. ICG said that the opportunity presented an ‘attractive’ foothold in the growing Central Asian market. The acquisition is scheduled for completion by 31 May 2021 once the conditions of the sales and purchase agreement are finalised.

Singapore: Jurong Port has ordered three Siwertell ship unloaders from Bruks Siwertell to handle cement imports. The port’s cement terminal already has three Siwertell ship unloaders that have been used for over 20 years. Two of these will be replaced as part of the upgrade project.

The three new ST 490-M screw-type rail-travelling unloaders will each discharge cement, fly ash and cement slag from vessels up to 50,000dwt at a continuous rated capacity of 800t/hr. Two of the new unloaders are scheduled for delivery in May 2022 and the third by the end of 2022. All will be fully assembled prior to delivery and transported by heavy-lift ship. Final commissioning and performance tests will be carried out in Jurong Port.

Vietnam: ThyssenKrupp Industrial Solutions has announced the relocation of its Asia Pacific cement regional division headquarters to Hanoi from Singapore. The new headquarters are on the site of one of the company’s “largest cement plant engineering centres.” It retains offices in Singapore, Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines. The main motivation for the move is to better enable ThyssenKrupp to supply Vietnamese cement producers.

Cement technologies chief executive officer (CEO) Pablo Hofelich said, “In our new headquarters, we bring together experts from Germany, Singapore and Thailand to support the Vietnam office. Vietnam is the largest market in terms of cement production capacity in a dynamic and growing Asia Pacific.” Asia Pacific cement business CEO Lukas Schoeneck said, “We are focusing on know-how transfer and the development of solutions that are tailored to the requirements of the local markets in Asia Pacific. Besides, we will expand our service activities to strengthen our local footprint and proximity to clients. Lastly, we will push sustainable technologies within our Grey2Green initiative.”

Malaysia: Singapore-based Hong Leong Asia subsidiary HL Cement Malaysia has acquired an 88% stake in Tasek Corporation. Hong Leong Asia subsidiary Ridge Star has acquired the remaining 12% minority stake. MarketLine News has reported the total value of the deal as US$19.4m.

Philippines: LafargeHolcim’s sale of its 86% stake in Holcim Philippines to San Miguel Corporation for US$2.15bn has fallen through after the Philippines Competition Authority (PCC) failed to approve the deal within 12 months of its conclusion. Reuters News has reported that the agreement, dated 10 May 2020, covered the exchange of four integrated plants and one grinding plant. LafargeHolcim has been divesting assets to pay off debt. The sale of its Holcim Philippines stake would have completed its withdrawal from the South-East Asia market, where its operations across Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and the Philippines had been valued at US$4.90bn.

LafargeHolcim has said that three of its four integrated Philippines cement plants have been able to resume operations following the lockdown due to the coronavirus outbreak. It says that it will ‘focus on strengthening operations in the Philippines.’

No overarching theme this week but rather four changes of note in different markets. The first is Lehigh Hanson’s agreement to buy the integrated Bath plant in Pennsylvania, US, from Giant Cement, a subsidiary of Mexico’s Elementia. Lehigh Hanson, a subsidiary of Germany’s HeidelbergCement, plans to pay US$151m for the 1.1Mt/yr unit giving it a cost of US$137/t of cement capacity. That’s a similar price that Elementia paid when it acquired Giant Cement in 2016. The Mexican conglomerate paid US$220m for a 55% stake in 2016 for three cement plants with a combined production capacity of 2.8Mt/yr or US$143/t.

The purchase by HeidelbergCement draws a line following problems selling its business activities in Ukraine. The group blamed a drop in profit in the first half of 2019 on this. Since then though it has been linked to a takeover of UltraTech’s stake in Emirates Cement, the owner of the 0.5Mt/yr Emirates grinding plant in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Buying a cement plant in North America, its second most lucrative region after Western and Southern Europe, looks set to be a wise investment.

The timing here is interesting given that Elementia, the building materials company partly-owned by ‘Mexico’s richest man,’ Carlos Slim, has been steadily expanding in recent years. As stated above it only acquired Giant Cement in 2016. However, its net sales and earnings fell in the second quarter of 2019 caused by a market contraction in Mexico affecting all of its businesses. Sales from its cement businesses in the US and Central America grew but they fell by 6% at home in Mexico. Elementia said that proceeds from the sale of the Bath plant will be used for debt repayment and ‘general’ corporate purposes. Notably, Ricardo Naya Barba, the president of Cemex Mexico, has also described the local market as ‘difficult’ this week, in comments reported upon by local media.

Meanwhile in Africa, China’s Huaxin Cement purchased Maweni Limestone from Athi River Mining (ARM) Cement in Tanzania as part of the latter’s on-going administration process. Local press reported the transaction as costing US$116m and subject to regulatory approval. This one’s interesting because it shows a major Chinese cement producer buying related assets outside of China. This is likely part of the country’s Belt and Road Initiative to develop industry and infrastructure around the world and to give its overproducing industries new markets. Perhaps the surprise here is that Huaxin Cement hasn’t gone after the rest of Kenya’s ARM Cement… yet.

The other African news story of note this week was the confirmation that Singapore’s International Cement Group (ICG)’s intended purchase of Schwenk Namibia had failed. This deal was announced in March 2019 but it later ran into trouble when the Singapore Exchange blocked the proposed acquisition in June 2019 on the grounds that ICG didn’t appear to have the money to pay for it.

Lastly, Yamama Cement announced that it wants to sell its Production Lines 1-5, which have a daily clinker production capacity of 5600t/day. The producer previously temporarily shut down the lines in 2017 and it has been planning to build a new cement plant. Since then though it has faced shrinking sales and profits in the tough Saudi Arabian market.

The takeaway from all of this is that, despite the doom and gloom of a world producing too much clinker, some cement companies are targeting growth in specific territories. Sometimes these schemes succeed, as in the case of HeidelbergCement and Huaxin Cement, and sometimes they don’t, as ICG has found out. Heavy building materials like cement are costly to move around so a plant or assets in the right place at the right time can make a fortune.

Namibia: Singapore’s International Cement Group (ICG)’s intended purchase of Schwenk Namibia for US$104m has fallen through. The company stated that it will not buy the subsidiary of Germany’s Schwenk Zement, whose 1.0Mt/yr total integrated capacity consists of Ohorongo Cement’s Walvis Bay plant, over four months ahead of the deal’s long stop date of 31 January 2020. The deal’s deadline had previously been extended from 30 June 2019 following the Singapore Exchange forestalled the deal due to ICG’s inability to pay for the unprofitable company.

Singapore/Namibia: International Cement Group (ICG) has extended the stop date of its agreement to buy Schwenk Namibia by six months to 31 January 2020. It follows the decision by the Singapore Exchange to block the proposed acquisition in June 2019 on the grounds that it did not meet the requirements for a ‘very substantial acquisition.’ ICG announced in March 2019 that it had arranged to buy a 100% stake in Schwenk Namibia for US$104m. Schwenk Namibia owns a 69.8% share of Ohorongo Cement.