Displaying items by tag: US

US: Ash Grove Cement has appointed Chengqing (Cheng) Qi as its technical centre director at the company’s headquarters in Overland Park, Kansas. In his new role, Qi will oversee operations of the company’s technical centre. Greg Barger, an American Concrete Institute (ACI) Fellow and Ash Grove’s long-time technical centre director, will retire in 2017. Barger will continue in this role and work alongside Qi until the transition is complete.

Most recently Qi served as technical manager for a cement manufacturer where he was responsible for troubleshooting cement, concrete and aggregate performance, testing materials and evaluating new material sources. Prior to that, he was with Professional Service Industries in Fairfax, Virginia, as a materials engineer and petrographer.

Qi has authored or contributed to more than 20 technical papers in peer-reviewed journals and conference proceedings. He is a member of multiple technical committees for the ACI and ASTM International.

Qi holds a doctorate in civil engineering, with an emphasis on cement and concrete materials, from Purdue University’s School of Civil Engineering in West Lafayette, Indiana, and bachelor’s and master’s degrees in materials science and engineering from Southeast University in Nanjing, China.

Cementos Argos’ deal to buy the Martinsburg cement plant in West Virginia from HeidelbergCement makes a lot of sense. After all, the Colombian-based cement producer has seen its US cement assets perform well so far in 2016 with a cement sales volumes increase of 29% year-on-year to 1.99Mt and an overall sales revenue boost of 19.7% to US$700m. Compare that to the challenges the company has faced so far this year on its home turf in Colombia. There, cement sales volumes fell by 15.5% to 2.47Mt and sales revenue fell slightly to US$465m.

Argos has picked up the Martinsburg cement plant and eight cement terminals in the surrounding states for US$660m. The sale was mandated by the US Federal Trade Commission as one of the conditions of HeidelbergCement’s purchase of Italcementi including its US subsidiary Essroc, the current owner of the plant.

Symbolically, the purchase takes Argos right up to the Mason–Dixon line, the old survey line sometimes used to describe the dividing line between the so-called ‘north’ and ‘south’ in the US. The cement plant is south of the line in West Virginia but some of the cement terminals are firmly in the north-east. Outside of the company’s home turf in Colombia it has a maritime presence around the Gulf of Mexico. Although Martinsburg is inland, the new terminals in Norfolk, Virginia and Baltimore push Argos’ distribution network up the east coast. This could potentially push Argos into conflict with the subject of last week’s column, McInnis Cement, a Canadian cement plant under construction with eventual aspirations to sell its cement to the US.

Back in the US specifically the new plant will bring Argos’ total of integrated cement plants to four, joining Roberta in Alabama, Newberry in Florida and Harleyville in South Carolina. All together the producer will have a production capacity of around 6Mt/yr in the US following the acquisition. Back in 2014 when Global Cement visited Martinsburg the plant was distributing its cement about 60:40 via truck and rail. At that time the plant was shifting cement in an area from central Ohio eastwards to western Pennsylvania and south to southern Virginia, as well as in North Carolina.

Argos has paid US$300/t for Martinsburg’s production capacity of 2.2Mt/yr. As ever determining the cost of the terminals proves difficult. This compares to the US$267t/yr that Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua (GCC) paid to pick up two plants from Cemex in May 2016 or the US$375/t that Summit Materials paid Lafarge for a cement plant and seven terminals in July 2015. Previous Argos purchases in the US were around US$220 – 250/t for deals with Lafarge and Vulcan in 2011 and 2014 respectively. It is also worth considering that Essroc upgraded Martinsburg significantly in 2010 to a dry-process kiln and that the site has a waste-to-solid-fuel plant from Entsorga due to become operational in 2017.

The purchase of Martinsburg by Argos seems like an obvious move. It predicts a compound annual growth rate of 5.4% for cement consumption in the American states it operates within between 2016 and 2020. However, this may be optimistic given that the Portland Cement Association’s chief economist Ed Sullivan has downgraded his consumption forecasts for the US as a whole to 3.4% from 5% as he waits for the recovery to really kick in. The southern US states have also recovered faster since a low in 2009 than the northeastern ones. The purchase marks a new chapter in Cementos Argos’ expansion strategy

US: Martin Marietta Materials has elected two new directors to its board. John J Koraleski, former Chairman of the Board of Directors and CEO of Union Pacific Corporation, was elected to Martin Marietta's Board of Directors on 15 August 2016. Koraleski, aged 65 years, also served as Executive Chairman of the Board of Directors for Union Pacific from February 2015 until his retirement in September 2015. Koraleski will serve on Martin Marietta's Audit Committee, Management Development and Compensation Committee, and Executive Committee.

At its Annual Meeting of Shareholders in May 2016, Donald W Slager was elected to Martin Marietta's Board of Directors. Slager, aged 54 years, is President and CEO of Republic Services, as well as a member of its Board of Directors. Slager will serve on Martin Marietta's Finance Committee and Ethics, Environment, Safety and Health Committee.

The two new directors fill the seats previously held by Frank H Menaker, Jr and Richard A Vinroot, both of whom reached the mandatory retirement age provided in Martin Marietta's bylaws. They were not eligible for election at the 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders and retired from the Board after 23 and 20 years of service to the company, respectively.

Martin Marietta's 10-member Board of Directors now consists of nine outside directors.

US: Dust Control Technology (DCT) has appointed Laura Stiverson as its president. She joined the firm in 2008 and has been the general manager for five years. Stiverson has been cited as instrumental in developing a number of the company’s products, including the OdorBoss family of machines and the Fusion equipment design.

Incorporated in 2004, DCT supplies open-area dust suppression equipment for applications in recycling, demolition, waste and scrap handling, mining, slag and ash management, coal processing, landfills and other industries. Headquartered in Peoria, Illinois, the company supplies its dust and odour control products to customers around the world.

Back in the May 2016 issue of Global Cement Magazine we asked key people at the Portland Cement Association how they thought the US presidential election might affect the local cement industry. Wisely, for an advocacy organisation with offices in Washington DC, no one would be drawn, citing a lack of information. At that point it was still unclear who was going to be on the final ticket. However, we all missed a trick because one candidate, Donald Trump, had been talking about building ‘a border fence like you have never seen before’ since at least mid-2014. And that fence could potentially require a lot of cement.

Researchers at market analysts Bernstein’s sent a note to clients last week ahead of the Republican National Convention looking at the implications of if Donald Trump became president of the US and actually set out to build his 40ft high concrete wall between the US and Mexico. The result would be a 2.4Mt boost in demand for cement from cement producers near to the border. In terms of market demand Bernstein concluded that this would add over 1% to cement demand in both 2018 and 2019, a healthy ‘shot in the arm’ to the already pepped-up US cement industry, which is currently growing at around 5%/yr.

Map 1: Map of cement and ready-mix concrete plants near to the US - Mexico border. Source: Bernstein Materials Blast. Note – Bernstein does not show the Capitol Cement plant in San Antonio.

Needless to say, Bernstein’s calculations pile-drive assumptions into assumptions, atop of Trump’s political rhetoric. It bases its calculations on a border wall similar to the Israeli West Bank barrier built out of precast concrete panels. It also tries to model how much concrete and cement would be required depending on the differing height’s Trump has trumpeted at his rallies.

The kicker to this tongue-in-cheek analysis is that the construction company that stands to benefit the most from this infrastructure project is Mexican!

Cemex has significantly more cement plants and ready-mix concrete plants than any other company within a 200-mile zone either side of the border. Looking at integrated cement plants alone, it has six plants in the regions near to the proposed wall from the east and west coasts. Its nearest competitors, CalPortland with four plants and Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua with three plants, are more regionally based in the western US and Chihuahua state in Mexico. Clearly Cemex didn’t rate the chances of Donald Trump’s wall actually happening when it agreed to sell its Odessa cement plant to Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua in May 2016.

All of this goes to show that, wherever you stand on the Donald Trump presidency bid, if you manufacture cement near the US-Mexican border you might be working overtime if he (a) actually becomes president, (b) actually manages to start building his wall and (c) actually decides to make it using cement. Yet before anybody starts popping champagne corks consider this: there might also be unintended consequences for the cement sector. Restricting current legal and illegal migration trends from Mexico to the US might have a greater negative effect on the US cement industry, and the overall economy, than ordering one large infrastructure project. Working that one out is harder than a guesstimate of how much cement a border wall might consume. Probably best not to ask at this stage who might actually pay for the Great Wall of Donald Trump.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) gave HeidelbergCement permission to complete its acquisition of Italcementi assets in the US on 17 June 2016. This was the second and final major competition body that could have challenged the purchase, following approval by the European Commission in late May 2016. Although the FTC consent now faces a month for comment the deal is looking likely to complete towards the end of the summer.

HeidelbergCement and Italcementi have gotten away with having to sell just one cement plant and 11 terminals in the US. The Lafarge-Holcim merger in 2015 had it tougher. Those companies were forced to sell two cement plants, two slag grinding plant and a host of terminals. Admittedly LafargeHolcim is now the biggest cement producer in the US (and the world) but HeidelbergCement will hold more integrated cement plants in the US following its acquisition.

As predicted the FTC took exception with the proximity of the company’s assets in West Virginia and Pennsylvania following the acquisition. So the parties have agreed to sell the Essroc Martinsburg integrated cement plant in West Virginia. When Global Cement visited the plant in late 2013 the staff told us that cement from the plant was distributed from central Ohio eastwards to western Pennsylvania and south to southern Virginia. The plant also switched over to a FLSmidth dry production line in 2010 giving it a clinker production capacity of 1.6Mt/yr, making it one of the newer plants in the Essroc stable.

The FTC also flagged up competition concerns in five metropolitan areas: Baltimore-Washington, DC; Richmond, Virginia; Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, Virginia; Syracuse, New York; and Indianapolis, Indiana. In light of this the proposed consent agreement requires the merged company to divest seven Essroc terminals in Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania and a Lehigh terminal in Solvay, New York. Two additional Essroc terminals in Columbus and Middlebranch, Ohio are to be sold at the option of the buyer and subject to FTC approval. Finally, Essroc’s terminal in Indianapolis is to be sold to Cemex.

Funnily enough, the FTC took about a year to approve both the merger of Lafarge and Holcim and HeidelbergCement’s purchase of Italcementi. This compares to the European Commission which took nine months to approve the Lafarge-Holcim deal but which took 11 months to clear the HeidelbergCement-Italcementi one. Given the greater overlap of assets of the Lafarge-Holcim merger in both Europe and the US one might have thought that the approval process would have taken longer. Or maybe bureaucracy moves at a speed all of its own. Read into this what you will. The creation of the world’s second largest multinational cement producer draws closer.

US: Adriano Greco will become the CEO of FCT Inc from 1 August 2016. Greco became the company’s US-based sales director in early 2016. Greco has previously acted as managing director of Greco and as sales director for Gebr. Pfeiffer.

Other staff movements at FCT Inc include the appointment of Ricardo Costa as a technical director based in Brazil. The company will also open a new office in Florida to support its development in the Latin American market. Elsewhere in the group, Joel Maia has joined FCT as the technical director of its European subsidiary, FCT GmbH.

US: Summit Materials has appointed Joseph S Cantie as a new director, also serving on the Audit Committee. With the appointment of Cantie, Summit’s board now comprises eight members.

Cantie is the former Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of ZF TRW, a division of ZF Friedrichshafen, a global automotive supplier, a position he held from May 2015 until January 2016. He served in similar roles at TRW Automotive Holdings Corp., which was acquired by ZF Industries in May 2015, since 2003. Prior to that time, Cantie held other executive positions at TRW, which he joined in 1999. From 1996 to 1999, Cantie served in several executive positions with LucasVarity, including serving as Vice President and Controller. Prior to joining LucasVarity, Cantie spent 10 years with KPMG. He is currently a director for TopBuild Corp. where he serves on the Audit, Compensation and Governance Committees, and for Delphi Automotive PLC where he serves on the Audit and Finance Committees.

Cantie is a certified public accountant and holds a Bachelor of Science degree from the State University of New York at Buffalo.

Delegates at the IEEE-IAS/PCA Cement Industry Technical Conference in Dallas, Texas this week may have smiles upon their faces if the following data is correct. The US cement industry has rocketed into 2016 with solid sales growth. Multinational cement producer balance sheets are being propped up by the good news and data from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) backs it up.

LafargeHolcim led the pack with an 18.9% bounce in its cement sales volumes to 3.4Mt in the first quarter of 2016. Most of this rise was driven by high demand for building materials in the US supported by a ‘vigorous’ housing market and positive infrastructure spending. HeidelbergCement followed this up with a 13.8% in its cement sales volumes to 2.5Mt in North America. Cemex reported a 8% rise, Buzzi Unicem reported a 16.3% rise, Martin Marietta reported a 13.8% rise and Cementos Argos reported a 47.3% rise.

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

USGS data shows this ‘bounce’ in cement sales shipments at the start of 2016 quite well. Although the publicly released preliminary data only goes as far as February 2016 you can clearly see an up-tick at the start of the year. By comparison shipments in each of the main US census regions fell from January to February 2015 before picking up as the spring started. The main reason for this was the harsh winter in 2015. Overall, cement volumes rose by 11.6% year-on-year for the mainland US in January and February 2016. These were led by Maine, New York and Illinois in the Northeast and Midwest, presumably recovering from the previous winter, before a load of southern states, including Northern Texas and South Carolina, kicked in with growth of above 20%. As an aside it is also worth pointing out the seasonal variation between the Midwest and the West. The Midwest has a more pronounced summer production peak most likely due to the colder winters the region endures.

The reason for that bounce at the start of 2016 is important because it determines whether the US cement party will continue or not. A few of the cement producers in their financial reports mentioned that sales were up due to pent up demand following the harsh winter in 2015. HeidelbergCement gave a much more considered assessment than its rivals. They pointed out that, despite the growth in construction markets, economic growth slowed in the country in the quarter. This fits more in line with the Portland Cement Association’s (PCA) more cautious assessment that the construction industry in the US should be growing but that an uncertain economic outlook is messing with this. It seems that the US cement industry has growth for the moment but that certainty that this will continue is far more elusive. This week’s news that plans have been scrapped to build a third kiln at the Lafarge North America Joppa cement plant just adds to this feeling.

For further information on the US cement industry take a look at the May 2016 issue of Global Cement Magazine.

Cemex took a major step towards cutting its debts last week when it announced the sale of selected assets in the US for US$400m. Two cement plants in Odessa, Texas and Lyons, Colorado were included in the deal along with three cement terminals and businesses in El Paso, Texas and Las Cruces, New Mexico. Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua (GCC) was announced as the buyer.

Together the two plants being sold hold a cement production capacity of 1.5Mt/yr giving a rough cost of US$267/t for the assets. This compares to the cost of US$170/t that the European Cement Association (CEMBUREAU) estimates is required to build new capacity. Back in August 2015 when Taiheiyo Cement’s Californian subsidiary CalPortland purchased Martin Marietta Materials’ two cement plants in the state it paid US$181/t. Summit Materials paid far more at US$375/t in July 2015 when it purchased Lafarge’s cement plant in Davenport, Iowa, although that deal included seven cement terminals and a swap of a terminal. Other sales in 2014 to Martin Marietta Materials and Cementos Argos also hit values of around US$450/t involving lots of other assets including cement grinding plants and ready mix concrete plants.

Back on Cemex, the current sale to GCC maintains its position as the third largest cement producer in the US after the HeidelbergCement acquisition of Italcementi completes in July 2016 subject to Federal Trade Commission approval. However, it holds it with a reduced presence. Its cement production capacity will fall to 13Mt/yr from 14.5Mt/yr. It loses cement production presence in Colorado although it may retain distribution if it holds on to its terminal in Florence. In Texas it retains the Balcones cement plant near San Antonio and up to nine cement terminals depending on which ones it sells to GCC.

Selling assets in the US must be a tough decision for Cemex given that a quarter of its net sales came from the country in 2015. This was its single biggest territory for sales. This share has increased in the first quarter of 2016 as the US market for construction materials has continued to pick up.

Withdrawing from western Texas with its reliance on the oil industry makes sense. The plant it has retained in that state, the Balcones plant, is within the so-called Texas Triangle and so can hopefully continue to benefit from Texas’ demographic trends for continued housing starts and suchlike. Colorado is one of the middling US states in terms of population and likely to be a lower priority than other locations. The sales will see Cemex retrench its cement production base in southern and eastern parts of the country with the exception of the Victorville plant in California.

We’ve been watching Cemex keenly as other multinational cement producers have merged and laid out plans to merge in recent years. Saddled by debts, Cemex has appeared unable to either buy more assets itself and has remained distant from any talk of merger activity itself. The sales announcements in the US reinforce the image of a company taking action to relieve itself of its debts in 2016 following sales in Thailand, Bangladesh and the Philippines, and amended credit agreements and more borrowing. However, sales of cement plants in west Texas and Colorado outside of the strong markets in the US don’t quite suggest a company that has really committed yet to reducing its debt burden. Cemex continues to walk a tightrope between keeping the creditors at bay and riding the recovery in the US construction market.

This article was updated on 14 June 2016 with amended production capacity data for the Odessa cement plant