Analysis

With events moving fast in Europe with regard to the on-going health crisis, here are a few threads to consider from the cement industry news this week.

Firstly, there have been two solar power stories over the last week in North America. Grupo Argos said that it had installed a 10.6MW solar power plant at Cementos Argos’ Piedras Azules cement plant in Comayagua. Then US-based Alamo Cement Company was reported to have signed a contract with Renergetica to build a solar power plant at its integrated plant in San Antonio, Texas. Global Cement has looked at this topic on and off over the years from the steady addition of photovoltaic (PV) solar plants around the world to supply electricity to cement plants to more ambitious plans such as research into using concentrated solar power to start powering creating clinker directly. These two latest PV stories follow projects in El Salvador and Cyprus so far this year. We’re not going to comment now on the overall progress the cement industry is making towards moving away from fossil fuels but the general trend is encouraging.

Next, there are on-going investments and upgrade projects being announced. Germany’s KHD revealed on 17 March 2020 that is building a new raw mill and pyroprocessing line for an ACC plant in India. FCT combustion recently announced that it has won a deal to supply Titan Cement in the US with an upgrade to a kiln line to natural gas. Buzzi Unicem’s SLK Cement in Russia has agreed to co-process solid municipal waste at its Sukholozhskcement plant. South Africa’s PPC has invested in a pneumatic offloading facility and a silo for its George Depot cement terminal in the Western Cape. These will have likely been agreed before the global coronavirus outbreak but they are reminders that some level of capital expenditure by cement companies is happening.

In China the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) said this week that the domestic cement sector’s net profit grew by 20% year-on-year to US$26.6bn in 2019. With this in mind the first quarter results for 2020 from cement producers in China will make essential reading for producers from elsewhere around the world wondering what to expect. However, a recent interview with the president of Huaxin Cement, a company based in Hubei province at the epicentre of the outbreak, revealed that despite the short term economic disruption from the quarantine the company was expecting a rapid economic rebound after April 2020 provided that there is a suitable government stewardship. He also mentioned the key role the company was playing in disposing of clinical waste. As such it was hoping for tax breaks to support continuing incineration and the advancement of co-processing in general.

Finally, also on the health crisis, many cement industry events have been cancelled or postponed as work practices change including those organised by Global Cement. We’re taking our events online in the short term as virtual conferences with opportunities for information exchange and networking. We encourage as many of you as possible to register.

Announcements from two very different countries serve to highlight the global cement sector’s on-going and seemingly intractable overcapacity issues this week.

First up, India, the world’s largest democracy and second-largest cement market, will reportedly struggle to exceed 70% capacity utilisation in the forthcoming 2020-2021 fiscal year, according to the credit ratings agencies ICRA, India Ratings and Crisil. In the same week, however, we have heard that UltraTech Cement will launch a 3.5Mt/yr capacity expansion at its Bhogasamudam plant in Andhra Pradesh, while ACC committed to launching a 2.5Mt/yr plant in Chandrapur, Maharashtra early last week. In February 2020 Deccan Cements firmed up plans to expand its Mahankaligudem plant in Telengana and JSW wants to turn its Bilakalagudur plant into a 6Mt/yr beast. Back in January 2020. Shree Cement launched ambitious plans to spend US$1.3bn on upgrades in the period to 2023. With Indian capacity estimated to hit 500Mt/yr by the close of 2020, what do all of these producers know that ICRA et al don’t?

Second on the list is centrally-planned Vietnam, the world’s third-largest producer, having produced 96.5Mt of cement in 2019. Here, long-standing excessive capacity is looking increasingly ridiculous following a massive collapse in export sales in January and February 2020 due to the coronavirus outbreak. This, of course, continues to affect cement producers and users alike.

Just today, Nguyen Quang Cung, chairman of the Vietnam Cement Association (VNCA) said that demand is expected to remain high throughout 2020 as a whole. The Ministry of Construction (MoC) currently stands by its autumn 2019 forecast that Vietnam will produce a whopping 103Mt of cement this year. It expects domestic consumption to be around 70Mt, with exports of 33Mt. A 2.5Mt/yr plant in Tân Thắng Commune in the central province of Nghệ, and a 4.6Mt/yr plant in Bỉm Sơn Commune, Thanh Hóa, will come online in 2020, further adding to the country’s capacity. Exports were touted as the saviour of the sector back in January 2020. This assertion may now have to be revisited.

The drivers behind the overcapacity are different in each country. Indian producers have a long history of capacity addition in order to maintain or improve their market share. Standing still is tantamount to walking (or even running) backwards, so the biggest producers (and those that want to become big producers) tend to go ‘over the top’ with their expansion aims. Market forces eventually catch up with the smaller players, which find themselves bought up or shut down. This has the seemingly inevitable effect of maintaining low capacity utilisation rates.

In Vietnam, the overcapacity is due to central targets, which, as noted previously, are an entirely alien concept for cement producers across much of the rest of the world. As Vietnam’s obsession with high cement production has developed, it has become hooked on exports, entering a void recently vacated by Chinese exports. It often sells at scarcely-believable prices and now, with the introduction of the coronavirus into the mix, even these seem to be too high. After all, Vietnam’s cement association cannot ‘set targets’ for cement demand in other countries.

So… how to reduce capacity? There are two examples, again from different types of market. China has, of course, reduced its overcapacity massively to eliminate outdated capacity and improve the country’s environmental performance. This has been possible due to orders from the top of government. The other example can be found in Europe, where the EU Emissions Trading Scheme has finally found its teeth, with the oldest and least efficient plants now feeling the financial bite of their CO₂ emissions.

It remains to be seen whether the collapse of the export market will force the Vietnamese cement sector to rationalise its inventory. From a market-based mindset it is clear that it should follow China’s lead. India, meanwhile, has a massive overcapacity that market forces seem slow (or indeed unable) to clear. The EU route may be more applicable here, but one might expect resistance from cement producers. Also, the development and demographic differences between India and Europe are stark, indicating that there may be a need, at some point in the future, for 500Mt/yr of capacity. The Indian majors are counting on this and laying the groundwork for a step-change in the future. Indeed, in a few years, 500Mt/yr may look vanishingly small if demand increases rapidly. What are the chances of that?

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) took on direct implications for the international cement industry this week when an Italian vendor infected with the virus visited Lafarge Africa in Ogun state, Nigeria. The cement producer said that it had ‘immediately’ started contact tracing and started isolation, quarantine and disinfection protocols. This included initiating medical protocols at its Ewekoro integrated plant, although local press reported the unit’s production lines were still open. Around 100 people were thought to have had contact with the man.

Global Cement has been covering the epidemic since early February 2020 when the virus’ effect on the construction industry in China started to become evident. First, an industry event CementTech was postponed, financial analysts started forecasting negative financial consequences for producers and plants started going into coronavirus-related maintenance or suspension cycles. Then at least one plant started to dispose of clinical waste and now China National Building Material Group (CNBM) is considering how to restart operations at scale. Also, this week Hong Kong construction companies reportedly laid off 50,00 builders due to a lack of cement due to the on-going production suspension in China.

The major cement companies have identified that their first business risk from coronavirus comes from simply not having the staff to make building materials. LafargeHolcim’s chief executive officer Jan Jenisch summed up the group’s action in its annual financial results for 2020 this week when he said, “We are taking all necessary measures to protect the health of our employees and their families.” Other major cement producers that Global Cement has contacted have placed travel restrictions for staff and reduced access to production facilities.

The next risk for cement companies comes from a drop in economic activity. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) forecasts a global 0.5% year-on-year fall in real gross domestic product (GDP) growth to 2.4%, with China and India suffering the worst declines in GDP growth at around 1%. The global figure is the worst since the -0.1% rate reported by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 2009. The OECD blamed the disease control measures in China, as well as the direct disruption to global supply chains, weaker final demand for imported goods and services and regional declines in international tourism and business travel. This forecast is contingent on the epidemic peaking in China in the first quarter of 2020 and new cases of the virus in other countries being sporadic and contained. So far the latter does not seem to have happened and the OECD’s ‘domino’ scenario predicts a GDP reduction of 1.5%. All of this is likely to drag on construction activity and demand for cement and concrete for some time to come.

Moving to cement markets and production, demand is likely to be slowed as countries implement various levels of isolation and quarantine leading to reduced residential demand for buildings directly and as workforces are restricted. Business and infrastructure projects may follow as economies slow and governments refocus spending respectively.

The UK government, for example, is basing its coronavirus action plan on an outbreak lasting four to six months. This could potentially happen in many countries throughout 2020. This has the potential to create a rolling effect of disruption as different nations are hit. Assuming China has passed the peak of its local epidemic then its producers are likely to report reduced income in the first quarter of 2020. The effect may even be reduced somewhat due to the existing winter peak shifting measures, whereby production is shut down to reduce pollution. Elsewhere, cement companies in the northern hemisphere may see their busy summer months affected if the virus spreads. The effect on balance sheets may be visible with indebted companies and/or those with more exposure to affected areas disproportionately affected. The wildcard here is whether coronavirus transmits as easily in warmer weather as it does in the cooler winter months. In this case there may be a difference, generally speaking, between the global north and south. Exceptions to watch could be cooler southern places such as New Zealand, Argentina and Chile. Shortages, as mentioned above in Taiwan, potentially should be short term, owing to global overcapacity of cement production, as end users find supplies from elsewhere.

The cement industry is also likely to encounter disruption to its supply chains. Major construction projects in South Asia are already reporting delays as Chinese workers have failed to return following quarantine restrictions after the Chinese New Year celebrations. As other countries suffer uncontrolled outbreaks then similar travel restrictions may follow. Global Cement has yet to see any examples of materials in the cement industry supply chain being affected. On the production side, raw mineral supply tends to be local but fuels, like coal, often travel further. Fuel markets may prove erratic as larger consumers cut back and suppliers like the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) react by restricting production.

On the maintenance side cement plants need a wide array of parts such as refractories, motors, lubricants, gears, wear parts for mills, ball bearings and so forth. Some of these may have more complicated supply chain routes than they used to have 30 years ago. On the supplier side any new or upgrade plant project is vulnerable if necessary parts are delayed by a production halt, logistics delayed and/or staff are prevented from visiting work sites. Chinese suppliers’ reliance on using their own workers, for example, might well be a hindrance here until (or if) international quarantine rules are normalised. Other suppliers’ weak points in their supply chains may become exposed in turn. This would benefit suppliers with sufficiently robust chains.

Chinese reductions in NO₂ emissions in relation to the coronavirus industrial shutdown have been noted in the press. A wider global effect could well be seen too. This could potentially pose problems to CO₂ emissions trading schemes around the world as CO₂ prices fall and carbon credits abound. This might also have deleterious effects on carbon capture and storage (CCS) development if it becomes redundant due to low CO₂ pricing. In the longer-term this might undesirable, as by the time the CO₂ prices pick up again we will be that much nearer to the 2050 sustainability deadlines.

COVID-19 is a new pandemic in all but name with major secondary outbreaks in South Korea, Iran and Italy growing fast and cases being reported in many other countries. The bad news though is that individual countries and international bodies have to decide how to balance the economic damage disease control will cause, versus the effects of letting the disease run unchecked. Yet as more information emerges on how to tackle coronavirus, the good news is that most people will experience flu-like symptoms and nothing more. Chinese action shows that it can be controlled through public health measures while a vaccine is being developed.

Until then, frequent handwashing is a ‘given’ and many people and organisations are running risk calculations on aspects of what they do. It may seem flippant but even basic human interaction such as the handshake needs to be reconsidered for the time being.

The Queensland state government in Australia took a blunt approach to health and safety earlier this month when a report it commissioned said that it expected 12 deaths to occur in the mines and quarries sector over the next five years unless changes were made. This is far removed from the usual news stories that industry magazines like Global Cement and others cover. Typically, these are either plants or companies reaching Lost Time Injury (LTI) milestones or sad (but thankfully rare) reports of death.

The forecast in Queensland was based on a review of fatalities in the sector that the state commissioned from Sean Brady, Department of Natural Resource, Mines and Energy, looking at the years 2000 to 2019. Year-by-year the figures were significantly lower than those occurring in the 1900 to 2000 period but didn’t appear to have any discernable pattern. However, when presented as a 12-month rolling sum of fatalities, a two to three year cycle seemed to occur. Brady then went on to look at how the fatalities happened, how the industry behaved and reacted and what could be done to improve the situation. His recommendations included looking more deeply at the causes of seemingly unrelated accidents and then changing overall organisational behaviour and insight through methods such as adopting principles of High Reliability Organisational theory, simplifying the reporting system and changing the standard safety indicators like LTI.

That last point is interesting given the prevalence of LTI indicators on corporate sustainability reports in the cement industry. The point that Brady cites here is that LTI can become a measure of how well injuries are managed, not how safely an organisation is performing. For example, the definition of what an injury is can be manipulated, leading to distortion, as can workers being brought back to work before they recover or into lighter duties. Instead he recommends that ‘serious accidents’ be used in place of LTI. These are defined as incidents that result in a fatality or incidents where an individual requires admission to hospital for treatment of an injury. The preference here is based on so-called ‘serious accidents’ being unambiguous and transparent because they are defined by a third-party medical practitioner.

Wider critiques of health and safety measurements have identified under-reporting of incidents arising from safety incentive programmes, safety culture, employee perceptions of reporting and workplace bullying. This isn’t to say that the LTI measure is not fit for purpose. It has undoubtedly led to higher safety conditions around the world, with reduced injury and mortality from working conditions, and it allows for comparisons between organisations. Yet, any health and safety metric or indicator could be liable to bias or manipulation either unconsciously or consciously. Serious accidents, for example, could be potentially undermined by an organisation having its own medical centre and would also suffer from different health care systems in different locations. Throw in different legislative frameworks around the world and comparing countries can also start to become confusing.

This tension between data and real-life safety is acknowledged by the Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA) in its sustainability guidance from late 2018. It distinguishes between so-called ‘lagging’ indicators, like LTI and fatalities, which show the effectiveness of a safety programme after the fact and the importance of continual safety improvement plans that aim to prevent adverse events before they happen. It is easy to become lost in a dust storm of facts and figures on health and safety but, as the Queensland authorities and the GCCA agree, measuring health and safety is a means to an end. The aim is zero harm to everyone involved.

There was fantastic news for fans of novel cements this week, when Cementos Argos announced the completion of work on a new 0.45Mt/yr calcined clay production line at its Rio Claro plant in Colombia. This artificial pozzolanic material, developed and promoted by the Swiss-led LC3 consortium in recent years, can dramatically lower cement CO₂ emissions by replacing slag and/or fly ash in cement mixes. The Rio Claro plant is the first major cement plant to install such a line following smaller trials in Switzerland, India and Cuba.

Suitable clays are more widely available than slag and fly ash, alleviating some of the difficulty and cost of obtaining supplementary cementitious materials. They also need to be calcined at just 800°C, offering massive savings in terms of fuel costs, CO₂ emissions and embodied energy compared to Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) production. Karen Scrivener from the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), the leading academic party in the LC3 consortium, explained that calcined clays are at their best when in ternary (three-way) blends alongside clinker and limestone in the September 2019 issue of Global Cement Magazine. “It has long been known that calcined clays can be pozzolanic,” she explained. “When used alone, the maximum substitution level is around 30%, which gives a moderate saving in CO₂ emissions. However, if we substitute a further 15% of the clinker with limestone, we get a significant reduction in CO₂ emissions, with a product that has almost identical properties to the blend that contains just the calcined clay.”

While the exact composition of Rio Claro’s new products is unclear, it will enable Cementos Argos to produce ternary cement blends with CO₂ emissions 38% lower than OPC. Energy consumption is also cut by 30%, which provides secondary benefits in terms of reduced off-site CO₂ emissions. At the plant’s launch, Cementos Argos’ President Juan Esteban Calle clearly stated that calcined clays were the way forward, announcing, “With this project we are sowing the seeds of the Argos of the future. It starts today with a new production line at Rio Claro. In our commitment to climate change, this project makes us very proud.”

The response from Argos’ consumers will be keenly watched, especially in Europe. Just this week LafargeHolcim and Vicat, along with France’s Technical Association of the Hydraulic Binders Industry (ATILH), called on the European Commission and European Committee for Standardisation to hurry up and publish ternary cement standards across the European Union (EU). At the moment these producers are primarily concerned with CEMII / C-M and CEM VI cements. These classes of cement comprise a range of ternary blends that contain clinker and limestone, plus a third component, be it slag, fly ash, natural pozzolans or calcined clay. They claim that placing low-clinker cements on the market could reduce the amount of CO₂ emitted by 127kg/t, around 20% of the 656kg/t average in Europe at present.

Frustrated with the delays at Commission level, cement producers have now taken things into their own hands. The plan is to establish the same standard within each EU Member State at the national level, rather than waiting in vain for standards from ‘on high.’ One pressing driver for this behaviour is the rapid approach of the Phase 4 of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) in January 2021. In Phase 4 it is likely that EU cement producers will be allocated only 80% of the free allowances they have become accustomed to. They will have to buy the remainder at market prices, currently Euro25.1/t of CO₂ (17 February 2020). This will represent a massive new expense for some producers. The opportunity to sell cement that emits only 58% of the CO₂ of OPC is clearly exceedingly attractive as a way to reduce outgoings. CO₂ emissions will be reduced, of course but, as usual, the way to make companies do things is to hit them in the wallet.

Indeed, on this point, Vicat seemed to almost goad or ‘troll’ its competitors in Europe this week by announcing that it has never sold any EU ETS allowances and is sitting atop a 5Mt CO₂ reserve worth Euro120m. This is sufficient to last it until 2030 at current prices. The key part of that last sentence is ‘current prices,’ which are subject to change. In its press release, Vicat was keen to point out that it is not resting on its laurels, highlighted by its advocacy for ternary blends and continued development of alternative fuels. This may be wise, considering that EU ETS allowances will likely cost more once Phase 4 kicks in.

With clinker factors of just 50 - 65% for CEMII / C-M, and 35 - 50% for CEM VI, Edelio Bermejo, director of research and development (R&D) at LafargeHolcim insists, "These cements are no longer at the research and development stage. They have been widely validated and we are ready to produce them, especially as their manufacture does not require modification of our facilities." The establishment of Cementos Argos’ Rio Claro calcined clay plant proves his point. We can expect to hear a lot more about these blends in the coming months. In the words of Bermejo, “The future is here!”