Global Cement News

Kenya: Savannah Cement has appointed Ronald Ndegwa as its first Chief Executive Officer on 9 December 2013. The company was commissioned in July 2012 as Kenya's sixth cement manufacturer and has been operating without a substantive CEO since that time.

Savannah Cement board chairman, Benson Ndeta, disclosed that Ndegwa, who previously served as the director of supply chain at Tata Chemicals Magadi (Magadi Soda), has joined the firm with a clear brief to spearhead the business development agenda. Savannah Cement currently operates a state of the art, eco-friendly cement grinding plant with a capacity of 1.5Mt/yr.

"By retaining Ndegwa, a seasoned manufacturing and business management professional, Savannah Cement is making a bold statement that we intend to play a very key role in Kenya's, and indeed East Africa's, development agenda," said Ndeta.

India: Holcim Group, which is under the process of restructuring its holdings in India, has appointed Bernard Terver as additional director on the board of ACC and Ambuja Cements with effect from 4 December 2013.

Terver graduated from Ecole Polytechnique, Paris, in 1976 and has worked in the cement industry for more than 35 years. He has been in the service of Holcim since 1994, holding senior positions including that of CEO of Holcim Colombia and Holcim US.

The board also re-appointed Kuldip Kaura as the CEO and MD for one year with effect from 1 January 2014.

In late November 2013 Guangdong province in China announced that it will be launching its carbon emissions trading scheme (ETS) in December 2013. Together with six other pilot projects in China the scheme will be the second largest carbon market in the world after the European Union (EU) when fully operational. Yet with the EU ETS floundering from excess carbon permits, with a resulting low price of permits and large cement producers such as a Lafarge reported as stockpiling permits, what are the Chinese schemes planning to do differently to avoid these pitfalls?

Overall, China has announced that it intends to cut its carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by up to 45% by 2020 compared to 2005. In Guangdong, emissions from 202 companies will be capped at 350Mt for 2013, according to the local Development and Reform Commission. As shown in an article in the December 2013 issue of Global Cement Magazine, Guangdong province has a cement production capacity of 132.7Mt/yr, the second highest in the country after Anhui province.

From the perspective of the cement industry, Chunfang Wang from Huaxin Cement spoke about the importance of monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) at an International Emissions Trading Association (IETA) workshop that took place in Guangzhou, Guangdong in early 2013. From Wang's perspective, emission assessment standards were at a 'developmental' stage in China and 'smooth' carbon trading would depend on consistent standards being adopted everywhere. Although at the time the particulars of the Guangdong scheme were unknown, participants at the IETA event advised cooperation with scheme planners to ensure emission producers and purchasers remained part of the decision process. Sliding carbon prices in the EU ETS may have been beneficial for permit buyers but once the government planners become involved to revive the market they might lose out.

As the Economist pointed out the summer of 2013, an ETS is a cap-and-trade scheme. Since China appears to have no definite cap to carbon emissions, how can the trading work? The Chinese schemes cap carbon per unit of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Yet since GDP is dependent on production, any ETS run in this way would have to include adjustments at the end of trading. This would give central planners of the scheme plenty of wiggle room to rig the scheme. Worse yet, analysts Thomson Reuters Point Carbon have pointed out that the Chinese schemes face over-allocation of permits, the same issue that sank EU carbon prices. Additionally, one of the criticisms of the Guangdong Emissions Trading Scheme (GETS) pilot scheme was that the carbon prices may have been higher than expected due to market collusion.

The Chinese ETS projects face issues over their openness. If traders don't know accurately how much carbon dioxide is being produced by industry, such as cement production, then the scheme may be undermined. Similarly, over-allocating carbon permits may make it easier for producers to meet targets but it will cause problems in the trading price of carbon. However, given that a carbon emissions cap is an artificial mechanism to encourage markets to cut emissions, should any of these concerns really matter? The main question for Chinese citizens is whether or not China can cut its overall emissions and clear the air in its smog filled mega-cities.

Specifically for cement producers, it seems likely that large producers will be able to cope with the scheme best, from having more carbon permits to sell, to rolling out unified emissions assessment protocols, to liaising better with scheme planners. In Europe smaller cement producers, like Ecocem, have criticised the EU ETS for slowing a transition to a low carbon economy by subsidising the larger producers' emissions through over-allocation. In China, with its self-declared intention to consolidate an over-producing cement industry, whatever else happens it seems likely that smaller cement producers may become lost in the haze.

India: UltraTech Cement has appointed Arun Adhikari as an Additional Independent Director on the Board with effect from 3 December 2013.

Both Dangote Cement and PPC have reminded the world about their development plans for sub-Saharan Africa. In the wake of PPC's yearly results on 19 November 2013 came a spotlight on the South Africa-based cement producer's international ambitions. Not to be outdone, Nigeria's Dangote Cement then put out a press release detailing all of its big development projects.

Dangote and PPC are set to go into direct competition when the Dangote subsidiary, Sephakhu Cement, opens its 3Mt/yr integrated cement plant at Aganang, North West province in early 2014. It will be the first time the Nigerian cement giant will be producing cement in the same country as its competitor in sub-Saharan Africa, PPC. The encounter will set the tone for the producers' next clash when they both open cement plants in Ethiopia in 2015.

Both the African cement producers are targeting a swathe of south to east sub-Saharan Africa from South African to Ethiopia. PPC, based in South Africa, has a presence in neighbouring Botswana, Zimbabwe and Mozambique. It has bought stakes in cement producers in Rwanda, Ethiopia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo and has new cement plants on the way in Ethiopia, Rwanda, Zimbabwe and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In contrast to PPC's more 'organic' growth strategy from an established base, Dangote, with its existing presence in west Africa is about to enter this region. It has new projects planned in Kenya, Tanzania and Zambia, as well as in Ethiopia and South Africa.

To compare the financing behind each company's expansion, Dangote reported that it had committed US$884m for acquisitions in 2012. PPC intends to spend US$276m on capital expenditure in its 2014 financial year. If these figures from financial reports are correct, Dangote is spending three times as much as PPC on expansion. Dangote may have more money for expansion but PPC has long-standing presences in the region or has recently acquired them.

Dangote reported an 18% rise year-on-year in turnover to US$1.8bn in 2012. The same year its sales volumes increased to 10.4Mt from 8.66Mt in 2012. The company's installed cement production capacity was reported as 19.25Mt from three plants in Nigeria. In comparison, PPC reported a 13% rise in revenue to US$820m for its financial year to the end of September 2013. No exact cement productions figures were released but PPC said that cement sales increased by 7% in the period.

How Dangote and PPC spar in South Africa remains to be seen but one area where they may agree will be on imports. In its final results for 2013, PPC again highlighted the continuing threat of imports from Pakistan, mainly via Durban. Imports comprised 7.6% of national demand as of June 2013. In Nigeria in 2012 Dangote led successfully a campaign to cut foreign imports. Irrespective of increasing demand for cement, adding Dangote to the anti-cement import lobby in South Africa might well make space for a new producer.