Analysis

Many Saudi Arabian cement producers have reported increased annual sales and profits in recent weeks. Southern Province Cement’s sales revenue rose by 27% year-on-year to US$440m in 2020 from US$347m in 2019. Net Profit after zakat and tax increased to US$162m from US$123m. Other producers enjoyed similar boosts. The reason can be seen in the country’s domestic cement sales. They rose by 21% year-on-year to 51Mt in 2020 from 42Mt in 2019. After a promising start to the year the coronavirus pandemic hit local production hard in the second quarter of 2020. However, it nearly doubled year-on-year in June 2020 and kept up the pace thereafter.

Graph 1: Domestic cement sales in Saudi Arabia, 2010 – 2020. Source: Yamama Cement.

Graph 1 above puts the cement sales in 2020 into context over the last decade. Sales hit a high in 2015 but then started to wane as infrastructure spending dried up due to lower oil prices and decreased government spending. A ban on exporting cement was subsequently relaxed but the general market appeared to adapt to the new situation. This changed significantly in 2020 with analysts attributing the turnaround to programs organised by the Ministry of Housing. This growth has carried into 2021 with NCB Capital forecasting an increase of 3.5% in local cement sales in 2021 due to the ongoing housing programs, the country’s so-called ‘Giga’ projects and investment by its sovereign wealth fund, the Public Investment Fund (PIF), as part of its 2021 - 2025 strategy. They reported that demand created by the country’s large-scale projects began to be felt along the supply chain in the fourth quarter of 2020 and associated contracts have started to be issued.

To give an example of the scale of some of these schemes, one of the proposed giga projects is to build a new city called Neom from scratch near the Red Sea coast. The resulting conurbation is intended to showcase new technologies and diversify the Saudi Arabian economy away from hydrocarbons. It has a price tag of US$500bn. An airport was built in 2019 and a next step was announced in January 2021, introducing a 160km linear city without roads called ‘The Line.’ Doubtless it will require lots of cement to realise the dream in whatever forms it happens to end up taking.

The wider picture here is that global oil prices hit a low in April 2020 as coronavirus lockdowns triggered a worldwide drop in demand although they then started to recover. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates that Saudi Arabia’s gross domestic product fell by just under 4% in 2020. In response the PIF has upped its investment in the local economy including in the ‘Giga’ projects like Neom. There has been scepticism internationally about whether these projects will progress any further beyond press releases and actually get built. However, the cement producers’ financial results, cement sales figures and reporting from analysts like NCB Capital show that some investment is happening and it’s having results. The sector still faces a battle against overcapacity. It had a production utilisation rate of just under 70% despite the increase in cement production in 2020. Yet cement producers in Saudi Arabia have done well. While the Saudi Arabian government continues to spend on infrastructure in order to rebalance its economy this looks set to continue.

LafargeHolcim’s financial results for 2020 arrived this week, giving us data on many of the larger multinational cement producers. The Chinese ones are yet to release their results and some of the larger other ones such as CRH, Votorantim and InterCement are pending too. Yet, what we have so far gives a selective view on an unusual year. Revenue was down for most producers year-on-year in 2020 due to the effects of the coronavirus pandemic upon construction activity and demand for building materials. There were large regional differences between how countries implemented different lockdowns, how markets responded and how they bounced back afterwards. Generally, the financial effects of this were felt in the first half of 2020 with recovery in the second.

Graph 1: Sales revenue from selected cement producers in 2019 and 2020. Source: Company reports. Note: Figures calculated for Indian producers.

Graph 2: Cement sales volumes from selected cement producers in 2019 and 2020. Source: Company reports. Note: Figures calculated for Indian producers.

LafargeHolcim’s figure in Graph 1 above is a little misleading given that it has divested assets. Its like-for-like reduction in net sales was more like 6%, a similar figure to HeidelbergCement’s. Both experienced mixed results in North America and Europe but not terribly so. LafargeHolcim did relatively well in Latin America. HeidelbergCement found growth in its Africa-Eastern Mediterranean Basin region. It’s also worth noting the comparative leverage of each company: 1.4x for LafargeHolcim and 1.86x for HeidelbergCement. Both are slimming down but the latter’s ongoing divestment plan (see GCW 494) can be seen in the context of its debt to earnings ratio and the cash crisis that coronavirus threw up in 2020.

The contrast between these companies and Cemex and Buzzi Unicem is striking. Both of these benefitted from operations in the North America and parts of Europe. In Cemex’s case sales in Mexico and the US, made the difference despite falling sales elsewhere. Buzzi Unicem’s sales also held up in the US especially in the second half of the year. Europe was more mixed for both producers with growth reported in Germany but losses elsewhere.

The Indian producers tell a different story but one no less notable. Despite a near complete shutdown of production for around a month from late March 2020, the regional market largely recovered. As UltraTech Cement told it in January 2021, “Recovery from the Covid-19 led disruption of the economy has been rapid. This has been fuelled by quicker demand stabilisation, supply side restoration and greater cost efficiencies.” It added that rural residential housing had driven growth and that government-infrastructure projects had helped too. It expects pent-up urban demand to improve with the gradual return of the migrant workforce.

Unfortunately, Semen Indonesia, the leading Indonesian producer, suffered as the country’s production overcapacity was further hit by scaling back of government-based infrastructure projects as it tackled the health situation instead. Its solution has been to focus on export markets instead with new countries including Myanmar, Brunei Darussalam and Taiwan added in 2020 joining existing ones such as China, Australia and Bangladesh. The company’s total sales volumes may have fallen by 8% year-on-year to 40Mt in 2020 but sales outside of Indonesia, including exports, grew by 23% to 6.3Mt.

On a final note it’s sobering to see that the third largest seller of cement in this line-up was UltraTech Cement, a mainly regional producer. Regional in this sense though refers to India, the world’s second largest cement market. By installed production capacity it’s the fifth largest company in the world after CNBM, Anhui Conch, LafargeHolcim and HeidelbergCement. This move towards regionalisation among the large cement producers can also be seen in the large western-based multinationals as they are heading towards fewer but more selective locations. More on the world’s largest producer, China, when the producers start to releases their financial results towards the end of March 2021. Whatever 2021 brings, let’s hope it’s better than 2020.

News has been dripping out slowly over the last few months about which assets HeidelbergCement is planning to divest. This week reporting from Bloomberg suggested that the German-based building materials producer might be seriously considering selling one or more integrated plants in Spain. The idea is reportedly part of a wider review of its portfolio in the country with the possible inclusion of cement plants at San Sebastian and Bilbao at a future date also. A proposed price of Euro300m for the national business was put forward by the sources to the reporters but it is unclear how many cement plants that figure includes.

HeidelbergCement announced in July 2020 that it had reduced the value of its total assets by Euro3.4bn following a review. It blamed this on reduced demand for building materials due to the coronavirus pandemic and the devaluation of its Hanson subsidiary in the UK, in part related to the UK’s exit from the European Union. A divestment plan followed at its Capital Markets Day event in September 2020 when it said it was simplifying its country portfolio and prioritising the strongest market positions. To this end it said it was setting up a watch list of underperforming assets to keep an eye on.

Over the next few months a number of corporate reorganisations and actual confirmed divestments occurred as well as plenty of speculation. HeidelbergCement-controlled Suez Cement started to acquire a 100% stake in its own subsidiary, Tourah Portland Cement, in September 2020. Suez Cement then sold its majority stake in Kuwait-based Hilal Cement in late January 2021. This week HeidelbergCement Bangladesh informed the local stock exchange that it is planning to amalgamate its subsidiary Emirates Cement.

Signs that European reviews had taken place could be seen later in the autumn of 2020. In November 2020 the Italian press picked up on rumours that HeidelbergCement was planning to move subsidiary Italcementi’s research centre from Bergamo, Lombardy, to Heidelberg in Baden Württemberg. Whether this was ever a serious proposition or not, this appeared to have been avoided in early February 2021 when an Italian union said it had agreed with Italcementi to keep the research centre in Italy as well as a preserving jobs generally. Meanwhile, also in November 2020, France-based subsidiary Ciments Calcia announced a major upgrade at its integrated Airvault cement plant but along with the conversion of two other integrated plants into a grinding unit and a terminal respectively, and changes at the French headquarters at Guervill.

Just before Christmas the bigger speculations started to appear in the press, with a story suggesting that HeidelbergCement was considering selling assets in California, US, with a target price of US$1.5bn for three integrated plants and associated concrete and aggregate units. That story is particularly beguiling given Cemex’s decision this month to reopen a kiln in Mexico to supply cement to the southwest US to meet shortages (See GCW 493)! Incidentally, readers should also note the story this week about a shortage of natural gas exports from Texas, US, that has caused cement plants in northern Mexico to shut down. This week, as mentioned at the start, has seen Spain added to the list of places that HeidelbergCement might be considering selling up in. The Spanish market like Italy has been rationalising heavily over the last decade particularly as export markets have dwindled. Oficemen, the Spanish cement association, reported that domestic cement consumption fell by 10% year-on-year to 13.3Mt in 2020 from 14.7Mt in 2019. On top of this Oficemen has repeatedly warned of the threat that CO₂ emissions prices pose for its members’ exports.

Group chairman Dominik von Achten told Reuters this month that the company plans to sell the first of the five assets in early-to-mid 2021. Of course he wouldn’t say where, except for adding that the company would stay in ‘rock solid’ markets like Northern Europe. Indonesia has been seen as a candidate for disposal by analysts, likely due to local production overcapacity levels and LafargeHolcim’s own departure in Indonesia 2018. All Von Achten would say on the matter was that Indonesia was an ‘important’ market for the group. Whether it’s seen as important for reducing company debt or building value remains to be seen. HeidelbergCement hasn’t exactly been shy about saying what they are doing over the last half year or so but they are only going so far and they won’t comment on speculation. So in the meantime we must wait to find out more.

One news story to note recently has been Cemex’s decision to recommission a kiln in Mexico to address cement shortages in the southwest US. In early February 2021 the Mexico-based producer said it was spending US$15m to restart a 1Mt/yr kiln at its CPN cement plant in Hermosillo, Sonora. The unit is over 250km from the US border but Cemex said it was making the investment to cope with cement shortages and project delays in California, Arizona and Nevada. At present it supplies over 3Mt/yr to California, Arizona, and Nevada from its integrated plant in Victorville, California and via sea-borne imports. Efficiency improvements at Victorville and other unspecified supply chain changes are also planned.

Cemex isn’t the only company with an eye on the south-west US. Around the same time Japan-based Taiheiyo Cement concluded its deal with Semen Indonesia to buy a 15% stake in its subsidiary Solusi Bangun Indonesia (SBI) for around US$220m. It’s a long way from Arizona but the related statement mentioned plans to make SBI’s integrated Tuban plant in East Java more export focused, with the construction of a new jetty and silos. It intends to export 0.5Mt/yr of cement to Taiheiyo Cement’s business in the US. Its local subsidiary, CalPortland, runs two integrated plants in California and one in Arizona.

Chart 1: Annual change in US cement consumption by state, December 2019 – November 2020. Source: PCA & USGS.

In its recent winter forecasts the Portland Cement Association (PCA) reported that the Mountain region of the US recorded the highest growth in cement consumption in 2020, at 10%, due to underlying economic fundamentals and favourable demographic trends. Data from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) supports Cemex’s view too. Ordinary Portland Cement and blended cement shipments rose by 21% year-on-year to 2.74Mt in Arizona and New Mexico in the first 11 months of 2020 from 2.28Mt in the same period in 2019. This doesn’t quite tally in California where shipments fell slightly, by 0.8%, to 9.42Mt. However, it reported 12% growth to 2.38Mt in the first quarter of 2020, suggesting that the market could return sharply once the coronavirus epidemic is better under control. Overall, shipments in the US grew by 1.03% to 82.3Mt in the first 11 months of 2020, driven by growth in central regions. The PCA expects national cement consumption to grow by about 1% in 2021 with a ‘robust’ recovery driven by residential housing but slowed by uncertain coronavirus vaccination supplies and general market volatility.

In a world with too much clinker production capacity, it stands out to see two established producers so visibly chasing market share in a mature market. Rather than building new plants, both Cemex and Taiheiyo Cement are using or reviving existing production lines in other countries, and building import strategies as well as optimising their existing facilities in the regions. With the western building material multinationals now often looking to focus on ‘safe’ markets in Europe or North America the fight to grow market share in these regions is likely to become more intense. It also complicates decisions about when or if an existing plant should be mothballed or shut. After all, Cemex’s old production line in Hermosillo is about to become very useful indeed.

The European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) looked like it might be about to hit Euro40/t this week. It still might. You can blame it on the current cold front bringing snow to much of Northern Europe and the bedding into of the fourth phase of the ETS that started in January 2021. In early 2020 analysts were generally predicting an average price of around Euro30/t by 2030 bolstered by volatility in the price due to the start of the coronavirus pandemic. Yet the price recovered and so did the European Commission’s resolve to push through its European Green Deal. By mid-December 2020 the price had shot past Euro30/t and analysts were forecasting average prices of well over Euro50/t by 2030. Depending on one’s disposition this is the rate at which either serious decarbonisation attempts will begin to be viable for commercial companies, or the point at which more plants simply close.

Figure 1: European Union Emissions Trading System carbon market price in Euros (European Union Allowance), February 2020 – February 2021. Source: Sandbag.

One group which is well aware of the EU ETS and its consequences upon the cement industry is Cembureau, the European cement association. Some of its current lobbying efforts have been directed at trying to shape how the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanisms (CBAM) will appear in legislation proposals in June 2021. Its argument boils down to protecting its members from carbon leakage both in and out of the EU’s borders and maintaining free allocation until 2030 to ease the transition to a lower carbon economy. The former should find common ground. However, calls for a CO₂ charge exemption for EU exporters may perplex environmentalists, who might wonder how this could possibly encourage third party countries to introduce their own carbon pricing schemes. The latter is clearly pragmatism for an industry saying that it is facing change at a pace that may be too rapid for it to cope with. Concrete products do carry sustainability advantages over other building materials. Wiping out swathes of the region’s production base, simply because one knows exactly how much CO₂ they emit compared to rival building materials that one doesn’t, may not help the EU reach its climate commitments by 2050. As if to underline this fear, another European clinker line was earmarked for closure this week when Lafarge France announced the planned conversion of the Contes cement plant into a terminal.

Figure 2: Estimate of global cement production in 2018 by region. Source: Cembureau.

Figure 2 above puts the situation into a global perspective, showing that Cembureau’s members were responsible for below 7% of cement production in 2018. China produced an estimated 55% of global cement production in the same year. In terms of overall CO₂ emissions across all sources, the International Energy Agency (IEA) estimated that China produced 30% of CO₂ emissions in 2018.

It seems odd then that the introduction of an interim ETS in China at the start of February 2021 didn’t receive more global news coverage. The new scheme covers 2225 power companies across the country. It follows pilot regional schemes that have run since 2011, covering seven provinces and cities including Beijing, Shanghai and Guangdong. Previously, the country’s largest local carbon market, the China Emissions Exchange (Guangzhou), was based in Guangdong province and it included power generation, cement, steel, and petrochemical sectors. State news agency Xinhua reports that this scheme reduced carbon emissions from these industries by 12% from 2013 to 2019. The new national ETS is expected to include cement and other industries at a later stage.

Commentators in the European press have pointed out that the Chinese national ETS is actually planning to make an effort on transparency and to force companies to publish their pollution data publicly. Yet, they’ve also said that the data may be inaccurate anyway, echoing the usual Western fears about Chinese figures. Other concerns include the method of giving out pollution permits rather than allocating them by auction as in other cap and trade systems, which could reduce the incentive to reduce emissions. It’s also worth pointing out that carbon was priced at US$6/t under the Chinese system compared to around US$35/t in the EU and US$17/t in California, US at the end of 2020. At this price it seems unlikely that the Chinese national ETS will encourage much change without other measures.

The EU and Chinese ETS are at different stages but the differences in scale are stark. When or if the Chinese one goes national across those eight core industries it will likely leapfrog over the EU ETS and become the world’s largest with an estimated 13,235MtCO₂e under its purview. By contrast, the EU ETS manages 1816MtC0₂e according to World Bank data. The kind of dilemmas Cembureau and others are tackling with the EU ETS such as carbon leakage and how fast to tighten the system against heavy emitters are illustrative to other schemes in China and elsewhere.