Displaying items by tag: Russia

Russia: Siberian Cement’s (Sibcem) five cement plants produced 840,300t of cement in the first quarter of 2025, down by 5% year-on-year. The Topkinsky plant’s output fell by 10% to 346,500t, Iskitimcement by 9% to 210,200t, and Timlyuisky by 24% to 45,900t. Meanwhile, the Krasnoyarsk and Angarsk plants increased production by 10% and 21% to 128,600t and 109,200t respectively.

Vice president of Sibcem Gennady Rasskazov said “According to our calculations, in 2024 the capacity of the Siberian cement market decreased by 2% year-on-year, to 6.7Mt. Currently, demand continues to fall: in the first quarter of 2025, cement consumption in Siberia decreased by 4% year-on-year, and amounted to 1.08Mt. There is every reason to believe that negative trends will intensify in the future.”

Russia: Kavkazcement plans to spend US$224m on equipment modernisation after cement production costs rose by 30–34% in 2024, according to local news reports. The producer recorded a production increase of 11% year-on-year to 2Mt in 2024 and aims to grow output by a further 10% in 2025.

General director Sergey Bogomaz said “Cement from Kavkazcement is in demand in many regions of Russia. The main deliveries go to the Rostov Region, Volgograd Region and Krasnodar Krai. In our region, we see an increase in construction volumes. New infrastructure projects are emerging, such as the construction of the first airport in Karachay-Cherkessia.”

Belarus/Russia: Belarusian Cement Company has reached an agreement with the Republic of Khakassia for the delivery of regular coal shipments for its cement plants. The new agreement will ensure the weekly transport of approximately four trains loaded with coal from November 2024 - January 2025, meeting 100% of the demand of the Belarusian plants.

Taiwan: Taiwan Cement Corporation, one of the island's largest coal importers, will completely halt its cooperation with Russia, according to The Moscow Times. This decision exacerbates the challenges faced by Russian coal exporters, who have already seen a nearly 12% decline in exports from January to July 2024. Since spring 2023, Taiwan has purchased more than 10Mt of Russian coal, accounting for nearly 20% of the island's total coal imports.

The mountainous eastern shore of the Adriatic Sea and its hinterlands in Europe’s Balkan Peninsula have one of the world’s highest densities of countries: six, across a broad equilateral triangle of 212,000km². All six states – Albania, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Serbia – are historically characterised by political non-alignment, carrying over from the Cold War period, and all the more notable for the presence of the EU to the north (Croatia, Hungary and Romania) and east (Bulgaria and Greece).

A nine-plant, 9Mt/yr local cement sector serves the 16.8m-strong population of the unconsolidated ‘bloc.’ Albania has 2.8Mt/yr (31%), Serbia 2.7Mt/yr (30%), Bosnia & Herzegovina 1.6Mt/yr (18%), North Macedonia 1.4Mt/yr (15%) and Kosovo 500,000t/yr (6%), while Montenegro has no cement capacity – for now. Altogether, this gives this quarter of South East Europe a capacity per capita of 539kg/yr. The industry consists entirely of companies based outside of the region. Albania’s two plants are Lebanese and Greek-owned (by Seament Holding and Titan Cement Group respectively). Titan Cement Group also controls single-plant Kosovo and North Macedonia, and competes in the Serbian cement industry alongside larger and smaller plants belonging to Switzerland-based Holcim and Ireland-based CRH, respectively. Lastly, Bosnia & Herzegovina’s capacity is shared evenly between Germany-based Heidelberg Materials and Hungary-based Talentis International Construction, with one plant each.

Lafarge Srbija, Holcim's subsidiary in Serbia, announced plans for its second plant in the country, at Ratari in Belgrade, last week. No capacity has yet emerged, but the plant will cost €110m, making something in the region of the country’s existing 0.6 – 1.2Mt/yr plants seem likely. This would give Serbia over a third of total capacity in the Central Balkans and twice the number of plants of any other country there, expanding its per-capita capacity by 22 – 44%, from a regionally low 408kg/yr to 500 – 590kg/yr.

In announcing the upcoming Ratari cement plant, Lafarge Srbija laid emphasis on its sustainability. The plant will use 1Mt/yr of ash from the adjacent Nikola Tesla B thermal power plant as a raw material in its cement production. In this way, it will help to clear the Nikola Tesla B plant’s 1600 hectare ash dumps, from which only 180,000t of ash was harvested in 2023. Circularity has been front and centre of Holcim’s discussions of its growth in Serbia for some time. When Lafarge Srbija acquired aggregates producer Teko Mining Serbia in 2022, the group indicated that the business would play a part in its development of construction and demolition materials (CDM)-based cement and concrete.

Holcim’s Strategy 2025 growth plan entails bolt-on acquisitions in ‘mature markets,’ backed by strategic divestments elsewhere. Other companies have been more explicit about a realignment towards metropolitan markets, above all in North America, at a time when they are also diversifying away from cement and into other materials. Just why a leading producer should look to build cement capacity in Serbia warrants investigation.

Serbia is the only Central Balkan member of Cembureau, the European cement association. In a European market report for 2022, the association attributed to it the continent’s fastest declining cement consumption (jointly with Slovakia), down by 11% year-on-year. Like the rest of Europe, Serbia is also gradually shrinking, its population dwindling by 0.7% year-on-year to 6.62m in 2023, which limits hopes for a longer-term recovery. Serbia remains the largest country in the Central Balkans, with 39% of the total regional population.

Several factors have compounded Serbia’s difficulties as a cement-producing country. Firstly, like the Nikola Tesla B thermal power plant, its kilns run on coal. 50% of this coal originated in Russia and Ukraine in 2021, causing the entire operation to become ‘imperilled’ after the former’s brutal invasion of the latter in February 2022, according to the Serbian Cement Industry Association. In planning terms, this was a case of putting half one’s eggs in two baskets – and dropping them both.

Secondly, Serbia’s choice of export markets is mainly confined to either the EU or global markets via the River Danube, Black Sea and Mediterranean. Either way, it is in competition with a cement exporting giant: Türkiye. Serbia sold €19.7m-worth of cement in the EU in 2023, up by 63% over the three-year period since 2020 – 31% behind Türkiye’s €28.8m (more than double its 2020 figure).¹ One other Central Balkan country had a greater reliance on the EU market: Bosnia & Herzegovina. It exported €48.4m-worth of cement there, quadruple its 2020 figure and behind only China (€133m) and the UK (€54.7) in cement exports to the bloc by value.

Bosnia & Herzegovina’s cement industry underwent a different permutation at the start of 2024: an acquisition, replacing one EU-based player with another. Lukavac Cement, which operates the 800,000t/yr Lukavac cement plant in Tuzla, changed hands from Austria-based building materials producer Asamer Baustoffe to Hungary-based property developer Talentis International Construction. Talentis International Construction belongs to one of Hungary’s major family-owned conglomerates, Mészáros Csoport.

Besides Central Europe, Balkan countries have found a ready source of investments in the past decade in China. In construction alone, Chinese investments total €13.2bn in Serbia, €2.4bn in Bosnia & Herzegovina, €915m in Montenegro and €650m in North Macedonia.² This can be a booster shot to all-important domestic cement markets, but has some risks. Montenegro previously faced bankruptcy after Export-Import Bank of China began to call in an €847m loan for construction of the still upcoming A1 motorway in the country’s Northern Region. This did not put off the Montenegrin government from signing a new memorandum of understanding (MoU) with China-based Shandong Foreign Economic and Technical Cooperation and Shandong Luqiao Group for construction of a new €54m coast road in the Coastal Region in mid-2023.

In Montenegro, UK-based private equity firm Chayton Capital is currently funding a feasibility study for a partly state-owned cement plant and building materials complex at the Pljevlja energy hub in the Northern Region. Along with an upgrade to the existing Pljevlja coal-fired power plant, the project will cost €700m.

In 2026, EU member states will begin to partly tax third-country imports of cement and other products against their specific CO₂ emissions, progressing to the implementation of a 100% Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) by 2034. Montenegro led the Central Balkans’ preparations for the EU’s CBAM roll-out with the introduction of its own emissions trading system in early 2021. Bosnia & Herzegovina will follow its example by 2026, but other countries in the region have struggled to conceive of the arrangement except as part of future EU accession agreements.

Based on the average specific CO₂ emissions of cement produced in the EU, the World Bank has forecast that exporters to the bloc will be disadvantaged if their own specific emissions exceed 5.52kg CO₂eq/€.³ By contrast, any figure below this ought to offer an increased competitive edge. Albanian cement has average emissions of 4.71kg CO₂eq/€, 15% below ‘biting point’ and 13% below Türkiye’s 5.39CO₂eq/€. Albania’s government consolidated its anticipated gains by quintupling the coal tax for 2024 to €0.15/kg. The figure is based on the International Monetary Fund’s recommended minimum CO₂ emissions tax of €55.80/t, 21% shy of the current EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) credit price of €70.49/t.⁴

The Central Balkans is a region of apparently slow markets and industry growth regardless – to 11 cement plants, following the completion of current and upcoming projects. A recurrent theme of capital expenditure investments and the way investors talk about them may help to explain this: sustainability. Looking at the mix of technologies in the current nine plants, these include wet kilns and fuels lines built for conventional fossil fuels. This is not to presume that any given plant might not be happy with its existing equipment as is. Nonetheless, the overall picture is of a set of veteran plants with scope to benefit from the kind of investments which all four global cement producers active in the region are already carrying out elsewhere in Europe. Such plans may already be in motion. In late 2023, Titan Cement Group’s North Macedonian subsidiary Cementarnica Usje secured shareholder approval to take two new loans of up to €27m combined.

As the latest news from Serbia showed, taking care of existing plants does not preclude also building new ones. The cement industry of the Central Balkans is finding its position in the new reduced-CO₂ global cement trade – one in which old and new work together.

References

1. Trend Economy, ‘European Union – Imports and Exports – Articles of cement,’ 28 January 2024, https://trendeconomy.com/data/h2/EuropeanUnion/6810#

2. American Enterprise Institute, 'China Global Investment Tracker,' 3 February 2024 https://www.aei.org/china-global-investment-tracker/

3. World Bank Group, ‘Relative CBAM Exposure Index,’ 15 June 2023, https://www.worldbank.org/en/data/interactive/2023/06/15/relative-cbam-exposure-index

4. Ember, 'Carbon Price Tracker,' 26 August 2024, https://ember-climate.org/data/data-tools/carbon-price-viewer/

Russia: Belarusian Cement Company (BCC) increased its cement supplies to the Russian Federation by 3.5% year-on-year in the first half of 2024, and by 50% in June 2024, reports Belta News. Major sales markets for BCC in Russia include Moscow, Moscow Oblast, the Central Federal District and the North-Western Federal District.

Vyacheslav Golovatsky, deputy director general for foreign economic activities, credited the growth in foreign cement sales to logistics. He said “We did a lot of work in 2023. We created a commodity distribution network, BCC-Soyuz, which has its own cement transshipment facilities. When there were difficulties with cement delivery in late 2023 – early 2024, logistics came into play. We started routing deliveries, launching our own trains that consisted of our own cars. In March 2024, our first route train went to Russia, in May 2024 we had already 12 BCC route trains, and in June 2024 - 15. Our products have been delivered to transshipment facilities, unloaded and distributed to consumers more promptly.”

Türkiye: The value of Türkiye's cement exports to Russia has fallen by 15.5% to US$40m in the first half of 2024, compared to the same period in 2023, according to Türkiye's Trade Ministry. In June 2024, cement exports to Russia totalled US$7.2m, down by 5.5% from June 2023.

Additionally, Türkiye's total cement exports from January to June 2024 decreased by 9.4%, amounting to US$2.1bn. June 2024 saw a significant reduction, with exports valued at US$336.5m, an 18.3% decline from 2023.

Russia: Belarusian Cement has concluded a deal with the Moscow regional government to build a logistics facility in the region at Naro-Fominsk. Prime Press News has reported that the facility will cost US$22.5m. It will be equipped with ready-mix concrete, precast concrete and dry mix plants, as well as a rail terminal, storage areas and loading zones for despatches by road.

Director General Alexander Dovgalo said "This investment will not only bolster our logistics capabilities but also enhance our service quality for Russian partners and extend our market reach within Russia and the CIS member states."

Belarus: Belarus Cement Group (BCG) will export 67,000t of cement to Russia by rail in May 2024, using its own train, which will complete 18 runs. So far, the BCG train has completed 9 runs to the Central Federal District of Russia, delivering 37,000t of cement.

The Ministry of Architecture and Construction of Belarus said "This month, the BCG has launched a fixed-route train of its own hopper wagons to deliver cement to Russia. The first train was dispatched from the Belarusian cement plant (Kostyukovichi, Mogilev Oblast) to Moscow Oblast.”

Before Russia invaded mainland Ukraine on 24 February 2023, many predicted that full-scale conflict would be averted. When the attack began, Russian President Vladimir Putin himself expected a 10-day war, according to think tank RUSI. 15 May 2024 marks two years, two months and three weeks of fighting, with no end in sight.

Ukrcement, the Ukrainian cement association, recently published its cement market data for 2023, the first full year of the war. The data showed domestic cement consumption of 5.4Mt, up by 17% year-on-year from 4.6Mt in 2022, but down by 49% from pre-war levels of 10.6Mt in 2021. In 2023, Ukraine’s 14.8Mt/yr production capacity was 2.7 times greater than its consumption, compared to 1.4 times in 2021. Of Ukraine’s nine cement plants, one (the 1.8Mt/yr Amwrossijiwka plant in Donetsk Oblast) now lies behind Russian lines. Four others sit within 300km of the front line in Eastern and Southern Ukraine. Among these, the 4.4Mt/yr Balakliia plant in Kharkiv Oblast, the largest in the country, first fell to the Russians, but was subsequently liberated in September 2022.

Before the war, Ukrcement’s members held a 95% share in the local cement market. Their only competitors were Turkish cement exporters across the Black Sea, after the Ukrainian Interdepartmental Commission on International Trade successfully implemented anti-dumping duties against cement from Moldova and now-sanctioned Belarus and Russia in 2019. Since then, Turkish cement has also become subject to tariffs of 33 – 51% upon entry into Ukraine, until September 2026. The relative shortfall in consumption has led Ukraine’s cement producers to lean on their own export markets. They increased their exports by 33% year-on-year to 1.24Mt in 2023, 330,000t (27%) of it to neighbouring Poland.

Russia’s invasion has made 3.5m Ukrainians homeless and put the homes of 2.4m more in need of repair. In a report published in Ukrainian, the US Agency for International Development (USAID) set out its three-year rebuilding plan for the country. USAID projects an investment cost of €451bn, with the ‘main task’ besides homebuilding being to increase the share of industrial production in the economy. Ukraine is 90% equipped to produce all building materials required under the plan. Their production, in turn, will create or maintain 100,000 jobs and US$6.5bn in tax revenues. Reconstruction will also involve the Ukrainian cement industry returning to close to full capacity utilisation, producing 15 – 16Mt/yr of cement.

CRH, an established local player of 25 years, looks best set to claim a share of the proceeds. Stepping down an order of magnitude from billions to millions, Global Cement recently reported CRH’s total investments in Ukraine to date as €465m. Since war broke out, the company has more than tripled its rate of investment, to €74.5m. The Ireland-based group is in the protracted administrative process of acquiring the Ukrainian business of Italy-based Buzzi. If successful, the deal will raise its Ukrainian capacity by 56%, to 8.4Mt/yr – 57% of national capacity. This unusual clumping of ownership may be made possible by the participation of European Bank for Reconstruction and Development in partly acquiring the assets, as per a mandate letter signed with CRH in 2023.

Leading Ukrainian cement buyer Kovalska Industrial-Construction Group bemoaned the anticipated increase in market concentration. On the one hand, this sounds like a classic tiff between cement producers and users with shallow pockets. On the other hand, an antebellum allegation of cement industry cartelisation should give us pause for thought. Non-governmental organisation The Antitrust League previously reported Ukraine’s four cement producers to the government’s Anti-Monopoly Committee for alleged anticompetitive behavior. This was in September 2021, when Ukraine was barely out of lockdown, let alone up in arms. With all that has happened since, it may seem almost ancient history, yet the players are the same, CRH and Buzzi among them.

Ukrcement and its members have secured favourable protections from the Trade Commission, and, for whatever reasons, evaded the inconvenience of investigation by the Anti-Monopoly Committee – a state of affairs over which the Antitrust League called the committee ‘very weak.’ The league says that producers previously raised prices by 35 – 50% in the three years up to 2021. In planning a fair and equitable reconstruction, Ukrainians might reasonably seek assurance that this will not happen again.

All these discussions are subject to a time-based uncertainty: the end of the war in Ukraine. A second question is where the finances might come from. The EU approved funding for €17bn in grants and €33bn in loans for Ukraine on 14 May 2024. Meanwhile, countries including the UK have enacted legislation to ensure Russia settles the cost of the conflict at war’s end. If Ukraine achieves its military aims, then the finances may flow from the same direction as did the armaments that demolished Ukrainian infrastructure in the first place.

The first piece of Ukraine annexed by Russia was Crimea in February 2014, making the invasion over a decade old. Against such a weight of tragedy, the country cannot lose sight of the coming restoration work, and of the need to ensure that it best serve Ukrainians.