Global Cement News

Zuari Cement's ground breaking of a new port-side packing terminal in Kochi, Kerala is the latest Indian cement news story with an eye on the sea. The Italcementi subsidiary's terminal won't be open until 2015 but the move shows that Indian producers are starting to tackle industry over-capacity through shipping lanes.

The Italcementi subsidiary holds two integrated cement plants and a grinding plant in Andhra Padesh and Tamil Nadu, two of India's biggest cement-producing states. In 2013 Italcementi reported that cement consumption fell for the first time in 10 years. Although Italcementi's cement and clinker sales rose by 1.6% in India in 2013, its revenue fell by 14% to Euro214m. Profit indicators like earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortisation (EBITDA) also fell. Targeting Kerala, one of the country's smallest cement producing states (0.6Mt/yr in 2013), makes sense.

Zuari Cement isn't the only Indian cement producer with its eye on shipping or on Kerala. At the end of March 2014, Gujarat producer Sanghi Industries announced plans to invest US$25m in ships and sea terminals. It plans to acquire six vessels in the next five years. It is also in the process of setting up terminals at Navlakhi port in Gujarat and at Mumbai port in Maharashtra.

Sanghi has stated that its aims are to find new markets, reduce fuel costs and increase its distribution networks. In an interview with Alok Sanghi, the director of Sanghi Cement, for a forthcoming issue of Global Cement Magazine, Sanghi revealed that Kerala is one of the four markets the producer focuses on within India (alongside Gujarat, Rajasthan and Maharashtra).

Neighbouring Pakistan is no stranger to exporting its cement around the world. Frequent complaints from east and south African press and cement producers attest to this. However, this week's story about plans to build the country's first 'dirty cargo' terminal at Port Qasim, Karachi marks a change from the normal narrative.

According to a Pakistan cement producer who Global Cement interviewed earlier in 2014, coal is the most common fuel used to fire cement kilns following a shift from gas in recent years. Subsequently coal prices rose, leading to higher cement prices in the country. A new terminal with the capacity to handle 12Mt/yr of coal (growing to 20Mt/yr in a second phase of the build) could certainly help cut input prices for the industry.

The producer also mentioned that most of the coal that Pakistan currently uses is imported from Indonesia and South Africa. So, indirectly, the South African coal industry appears to be making money helping to make Pakistan cement that eventually arrives back in South Africa to undercut local cement producers! They say that market always finds a way. Ships certainly help.

US: Titan Group has announced that after 20 years at the helm of Titan America, Aris Papadopoulos will retire from the position of CEO, effective 1 August 2014. According to a release, he will become Executive Chairman of ST Equipment & Technologies (STET), reporting to the Group CEO and also serve as an advisor.

The company noted that, commencing with a 1994 joint venture with Roanoke Cement, Papadopoulos led Titan America through a growth trajectory that included the acquisition of Tarmac America and Separation Technologies, modernising the company's two cement plants, numerous operational expansions and multiple concrete acquisitions.

"During Aris' tenure, Titan America grew from a cement joint-venture in Roanoke, Virginia, to the pre-eminent East Coast construction materials producer," said Dimitri Papalexopoulos, CEO of Titan Group. "Aris, more than anyone else, has shaped Titan America over two decades."

Bill Zarkalis, Group CFO since 2010, will succeed Papadopoulos. Zarkalis joined the Group in 2008 as Director of Business Development. He previously held executive positions at Dow Chemical. As CEO-designate, he will work closely with Papadopoulos to ensure a smooth transition. Michael Colakides will become Group CFO, effective 16 May 2014. Colakides recently returned to the Group as Senior Strategy Advisor after more than a decade in several banking industry executive roles.

Kuwait: Hilal Cement Company has appointed Muhammad Muhtashem Khan as a board member, effective 10 April 2014. He replaces Yan Mahdi Baqi.

A lot has happened since the 4 April 2014 announcement that Lafarge and Holcim intend to become LafargeHolcim. There have been several related announcements from around the global cement industry this week, prompting some interesting discussion with respect to the future look of the industry.

Oyak Group, which operates a number of plants in Turkey, appears to be limbering up for LafargeHolcim-based acquisitions in the UK, the EU or Africa, with aims to become a regional player. Meanwhile, Lafarge has pulled out of talks regarding its proposed acquisition of the Cementos Portland Valderrivas (CPV) plant in Vallcarca, Spain, directly citing the merger as the reason for this. We have also seen Colombia's Cementos Argos purchase a grinding plant in French Guiana, which was jointly-owned by Lafarge and Holcim. Announced just a few days after the merger, this asset was presumably jettisoned in order to avoid future issues with local anti-monopoly authorities. Finally, ACC and Ambuja have announced that they would retain their separate identities in India after the merger.

This flurry of announcements is likely to be just the start of frenzied speculation as the competitors of Lafarge and Holcim work out what assets are most likely to be sold. So what about the multinationals, Cemex and HeidelbergCement?

Cemex certainly has cause for concern, weighed down by the debt that it took on in 2007 with the acquisition of Australia's Rinker. It is in a relatively weak position with respect to acquiring any LafargeHolcim divestments. Could it lose market share? HeidelbergCement, by contrast, has long extoled the virtues of its financial efficiency policies and its diverse and forward-looking geographical spread. It could snap up more strategic assets after the merger. While both of these multinationals will be wary of dealing with an enlarged competitor in LafargeHolcim, they have the opportunity to increase their market shares and both will move up one position in the global cement producer rankings.

It is likely to be the smaller players that have the most to gain from the shedding of LafargeHolcim's various assets, especially those that enjoy strong domestic markets and have cash at the ready. Oyak Group has already entered the ring but what if Nigeria's Dangote, Brazil's Votorantim, Colombia's Cementos Argos or Thailand's SCG go on a spending spree? Could one of these rise to become a new global cement multinational?

However, if we can expect a change anywhere it will be in Spain. Following reports in 2012 that Spanish cement production had crashed to its lowest levels since the 1960s jobs have been shed and profits have evaporated. In 2013 Holcim and Cemex agreed to combine all of their operations in Spain. Roughly, according to the Global Cement Directory 2014, cement production capacity in Spain breaks down as follows: CPV (23%), Cemex (18%), Lafarge (11%) and Holcim (10%). Letting the Cemex-Holcim deal happen, followed by the Lafarge-Holcim merger and the CPV Vallcarca purchase, would have led to a major headache for Spain's competition authorities, creating an entity with 43% production market share! Unsurprisingly the first casualty has been the CPV Vallcarca deal. Whatever happens, the next 18 months will be an interesting period for the global cement industry.

The news that Holcim and Lafarge are planning a merger should come as no great surprise to long-term observers of the industry. Such mega-mergers have been periodically mooted over the decades and have already come to pass.

Lafarge took its present form through many acquisitions, but it was the mega-merger with Blue Circle Industries that brought it to pre-eminence. That deal was hard fought, rapidly becoming a hostile takeover after the then-CEO of Blue Circle, Richard Haythornthwaite, decided that the amount that the CEO of Lafarge, Bertrand Coulomb, was offering for his company was not high enough.

A year of claims, counter-claims, offers, rebuffs and haggling ensued, leading to a higher offer that was eventually accepted by the Blue Circle board. However, as Lafarge was a Euro-denominated company and Blue Circle was resolutely British (and was thinking in UK pounds sterling) after exchange rate variations had been taken into account, Lafarge paid less after a year than it had offered in he first place. The British CEO got a big pay-off and went on to greater glory, having appeared to extract a great deal more money (in GB pounds) for his shareholders. Apparently they teach this as a case study in business schools.

Mega-mergers have also shaped other giants in the industry. For example Chichibu-Onoda and Sumitomo-Osaka came together to make Taiheiyo Cement and Ciments Français was added to Italcimenti, although in this last case they still retain their separate identities. Often the deals amount to an accretive takeover by one larger company of a smaller one, but transformative deals consisting of a 'merger' of 'equals' also happen in the cement industry, and with good reason. The merging of research efforts; the optimisation of management; the rationalisation of procurement strategies: all of these will immediately save plenty of money.

However, it's on the financial side that these larger merged companies can sometimes see the most benefit. The cost of borrowing money is inversely proportional to the size of the company (and of the sums involved); the colossal sums demanded by overpaid and greedy bankers will diminish in proportion if the sums involved are larger. So, the cost of borrowing money to be able to invest in takeovers or for capital expenditure will reduce as a proportion of overall cost.

There are other significant potential savings as well, from operational synergies, although these can be harder to quantify and - critically - harder to retain once the competition technocrats have run their slide rules over the proposed deal. They generally do not like too much of the market ending in the hands of too few players.

A good case in point is the recent mega of Tarmac and Lafarge in the UK. To allow the deal to take place the merged company was obliged to sell off one of its key assets, the Hope cement plant, which is now owned and operated by newcomer Hope Construction Materials. Even after the deal has been completed, the market regulator is considering the possibility of making the merged company sell additional facilities, something that strikes Global Cement as 'just not on.'

However, with operations in 90 countries, Lafarge and Holcim can expect to face competition scrutiny in at least 15 countries including Brazil, Canada, Ecuador, France, the UK, the US, Morocco and the Philippines. Meanwhile, in Serbia it has been reported the two companies have a combined market share of 97% across all their business lines!

Lafarge and Holcim have overlapping facilities and distribution networks in a number of countries, and any merged company will probably be required to sell some of them to its competitors. Other companies might be licking their lips at the prospect, as usual CRH is already being lined up in the Irish press, but the units will be sold at a market rate - and not a penny less. It might be that the merged company cannot control which facilities are sold, meaning that they might end up with a less than optimised system. Not so good after all.

If the deal goes through, it will create a Europe-based behemoth with a production capacity of over 200Mt, enough to retain a place on the global top 10 companies with the ever-rationalising and concatenating Chinese companies. When the news first broke we asked what might the new company called? We liked a short mash-up of the two names, like Lolcim (a humorous nod to today's 'youth-speak' perhaps) or Hafarge. However, the level of preparation backing the merger plan soon became clear from financial due-diligence right down to a new name: LafargeHolcim.

Yet for all this co-ordinated work from companies that were meant to be competitors until as recently as March 2014, we should remember what happened to the proposed BHP Billiton-Rio Tinto takeover. Valued at a high of US$170bn it shrivelled up as the global economy collapsed in 2008 amidst concerns from regulators. The idea may be out there but LafargeHolcim has a long way to go before it actually exists.