Global Cement News

Dalmia Cement (Bharat) threw a spanner in the works of the sale of Lafarge India this week. The cement producer, part of Dalmia Group, appealed against the Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) revised approval of the sale in February 2016. Dalmia challenged the CCI’s approval on procedural grounds querying both the revised and original order for the sale. Subsequently the sale has been delayed until a hearing in May 2016.

Dalmia’s objections concern how the CCI’s original approval in March 2015 interacts with the revised approval given in February 2016. Lafarge India was originally asked by the CCI in February 2015 to sell off 5.2Mt/yr of cement production capacity in Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand in eastern India. The request was a condition to allow the merger of Lafarge and Holcim in the country. Lafarge lined up Birla Corporation to buy the two cement plants but an ambiguous amendment to the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) (MMDR) Act killed the deal. Then Lafarge India, a subsidiary of LafargeHolcim, announced that is was selling all of its assets in India. This includes three cement plants and two grinding stations with a total capacity of around 11Mt/yr.

Dalmia’s appeal may be planned to slow down the sale of a rival in the Indian cement business. Dalmia Group is the fifth largest cement producer in India with a capacity of 14.5Mt/yr. Lafarge India is, to an extent, a lame duck rival whilst the legal wranglings drag on.

However, the appeal may have a more serious side. A statement from the lawyers representing Dalmia also mentioned a challenge against the purchase requirements from the original CCI approval in March 2015. Specifically that any purchaser, “shall not have (directly or indirectly) operational capacity exceeding 5% of the total installed capacity in the relevant geographic market.” The confusion here is where that ‘relevant’ area refers to.

Originally the CCI designated this as Chhattisgarh, Odisha, Jharkhand, Bihar and West Bengal. And unsurprisingly, Dalmia holds more than 5% of production capacity in that region. If the CCI expands the relevant geographic area to more regions of the country then Dalmia’s market share is likely to fall. Local media reported that a bid for the Lafarge India assets by private equity firm KKR, which holds equity in a Dalmia subsidiary, was denied by the CCI. Cue the legal challenge.

It seems unlikely that the appeal by Dalmia will slow the sale down too much. If it is accepted then the CCI will have to reissue its approval for a second time and the sale will be delayed by a few months. If it is denied then the sale will proceed after a delay of one month. Either way the affair demonstrates how prized the Lafarge India assets have become. Indian local media reported that at least nine bids were made. It will be fascinating to see the price the winning bid makes when it is released.

Germany: Pascal Jager has joined Trapo AG as its international sales contact for French-speaking areas. Jager, aged 47 years, is a machine building engineer who brings technical competence from the automotive, packing and food sectors.

Trapo is a specialist in conveying technology, robotic systems and automation and it develops, manufactures and commissions production systems. The special, intelligent components of the conveying and handling systems are manufactured in Gescher-Hochmoor.

HeidelbergCement released more detail on its plans to buy Italcementi last week. The main points were that Italcementi’s operations in Belgium will be sold, the Italcementi brand will be retained, its research and development (R&D) centre will assume responsibilities for the entire group and up to 260 job losses are expected in Bergamo. The integration plan is expected to be complete by 2020.

Following an update in HeidelbergCement’s preliminary financial results for 2015 in February 2016, this was more focused on the practicalities of taking over a company. Sales of assets in Belgium were expected from the moment the deal was announced in July 2015. Between them the two companies operate three of the country’s four cement plants, holding 73% of the market by cement production capacity. Selling up Italcementi’s Belgian subsidiary Compagnie des Ciments Belges will maintain the existing market balance. Once this is done, from a cement sector perspective, interaction from the European Commission on the deal should merely be a formality.

Interestingly, no plans to sell assets in the US were announced. This is more ambitious on HeidelbergCement’s part because the acquisition has far bigger implications in that country. Merging Italcementi’s Essroc subsidiary and HeidelbergCement’s Lehigh Hanson subsidiary will see HeidelbergCement become the new second largest cement producer in the US with around 16.4Mt/yr. LafargeHolcim had a relatively easy ride from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) having to sell two integrated cement plants, two slag grinding plants and a series of terminals. As HeidelbergCement will become the second largest cement producer it seems unlikely that the FTC will be too demanding. However, post-acquisition the cement producer will own cement plants within 75 miles of each other in Pennsylvania and in Maryland and West Virginia. The FTC may take exception to this but perhaps HeidelbergCement is trying their luck to see if it can get away with it.

The decision to retain Italcementi’s i.Lab R&D centre in Bergamo, Italy raises questions about what will happen to the Heidelberg Technology Centre (HTC) in Leimen, Germany. The focus here is on making Bergamo the ‘product’ R&D division for the entire group. i.Lab was opened in early 2012 to fanfare, based in a building designed by architect Richard Meier and it cost Euro40m to build. How this fits with HeidelbergCement’s existing Global R&D team at the HTC remains to be seen.

Job losses of up to 260 personnel at Bergamo are regrettable but hardly unexpected. It may not be much comfort for any staff members facing redundancy but this figure is well below the figures bandied about in the media in late 2015 of first around 1000 and then nearer 500. Another 170 personnel will also be offered relocation packages taking the impact of the reorganisation up to about 400 of Italcementi’s 2500 workforce in Italy.

Looking at the wider situation with the acquisition this week, HeidelbergCement announced a record contract for Norcem, its Norwegian subsidiary, to supply 280,000t of cement over three years for an infrastructure project. Then, Carlo Pesenti, the chief executive officer of Italcementi, was reported making comments about the business’ expansion plans in Thailand and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Projects in Myanmar and Cambodia look likely once the acquisition is complete. Finally, the ratings agency Moody’s was drumming up attention for a market report by pointing out the implications for the multinational cement producers in India if a proposed rise in infrastructure spending gets approved. In summary HeidelbergCement and Italcementi are unlikely to benefit due to their southern Indian spread of assets and local production overcapacity.

HeidelbergCement may not be getting it all its own way but the acquisition of Italcementi remains on track so far. All eyes will be on how the US FTC responds to the deal.

India: Dilip Gaur has replaced K K Maheshwari as the managing director of Grasim Industries, with effect from 1 April 2016. Maheshwari will remain on the board as a non-executive director.

Gaur was previously the deputy-managing director of Ultratech Cement. Before that he worked for Birla Copper, Alexandria Carbon Black and Pan Century Edible Oils. He also worked for over 20 years with Hindustan Unilever. Gaur holds a bachelor of engineering degree in chemicals and took the Advanced Management Program at Harvard, US.

Tata Steel put up its UK business for sale last week. The Indian multinational declared that enough was enough having reported losses of over Euro2.5bn in the territory over five years. Non-UK readers may well wonder what the fuss is about. UK crude steel production comprised 10.9Mt in 2015 or about 0.7% of global production according to World Steel Association data according to World Steel Association data. By contrast the country produced 9.3Mt of cement in 2014 or about 0.2% of world production according to CEMBUREAU data according to CEMBUREAU data.

The UK’s flailing steel industry is worth discussing here for two reasons. Firstly, any decline in the local iron and steel industry will have implications for the supplementary cementitious materials (SCM) market as slag levels vary. Secondly, the cement industry in Europe may have lessons for a fellow heavy industry facing capacity rationalisation.

UK ground granulated blastfurnace slag (GGBS) production levels are low compared to total world supply. However, the UK Competition Commission certainly took note of the GGBS market in 2014. It was worried by LafargeTarmac’s and Hanson’s prominence in both the local GGBS supply chain and local cement production. At that time it ordered the HeidelbergCement subsidiary Hanson to sell one of its slag grinding plants to increase competition in the supply chain for GGBS. A GGBS plant in Scunthorpe was eventually sold to Francis Flowers in July 2015.

The general point here is that a Tata sale of its UK operations could have ramifications for the UK GGBS sector as existing deals are renegotiated following the shakeup. It would be even worse for the local slag market if any of the plants closed. No doubt the Competition Commission would also want to have its say to maintain some sort of competition in an already concentrated market. The UK cement market has been the bright spot in the multinational cement producers’ European regions in 2015. However, construction growth is starting to slow again with hints that the looming European Referendum in June 2016 may be having a negative effect. Uncertainty over GGBS supplies is not helpful in this atmosphere.

A wider lesson for other national cement industries looking in is that if Chinese steel continues flood the world market it will also hit the cement industry. Tata’s woes have been squarely blamed on China dumping its steel on the world market. Various jurisdictions promote the use of SCM cements and concrete for their low-carbon and sustainability properties. If local or existing GGBS supplies are hit then the cement industries may be penalised while the lawmakers and competition bodies play catch-up.

The wider point about heavy industry reducing its production capacity is one that the European cement industry will be well used to. Spain, for example, has seen its cement production drop from 55Mt in 2007 to 15Mt in 2014 according to Oficemen data. Alongside this, demand for cement has dropped to levels not seen since the 1960s. The European response has been to shut plants, sell assets and to merge companies.

The big question following the 2008 recession is whether ‘this’ is the new normal for mature construction markets. Eight years later global interest rates are still lagging and China’s economy is slowing down. All of the European infrastructure was built long ago meaning that steel and cement will only be required to maintain it. Luckily it looks likely that demand for SCMs should stay buoyant as industries are encouraged to decarbonise. The problem though is where the slag comes from. Oversupply in the short term in areas like Europe might be great for cement producers but as the iron and steel industries readjust to market reality there might be a hangover in store.