Analysis

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.

Andrew Minson from the Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA) kicked off this week’s Virtual Global Concrete Conference with an overview of concrete’s role in the association’s 2050 climate ambition. The association announced in September 2020 that it was starting work on this roadmap for publication in the second half of 2021, just in time for the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference, currently schedule to take place in Glasgow, Scotland in November 2021. Minson ran through the topic, providing an overview of concrete’s intrinsic sustainable features and the policy levers the association is considering for its forthcoming roadmap.

One point from circular economy aspects of the plan included design for dis-assembly (DfD) and long life, loose fit modes of thinking around how a building using concrete should be conceived, designed, built, used and - crucially – reused. Long life, loose fit, low energy (to use its original name) was promoted by the Welsh architect Alex Gordon from the early 1970s. It covered themes of sustainability, flexibility and energy efficiency for building design ahead of both the 1970s oil crisis and the current climate one. DfD emerged in the 1990s as a way of thinking about a building’s demolition at the start and working from there. Deconstruction or demolition is prepared for through planning and design. It allows components and materials to be removed more easily, facilitating their subsequent reuse. So, components and materials can be removed more easily allowing their subsequent reuse and elements such as columns, walls, beams, and slabs can be disassembled to facilitate this. Last year Global Cement Weekly explored a similar path with the ideas of Dutch architect and commentator Thomas Rau (GCW348) and his concept of building materials as a service, following on from the Building Information Modelling (BIM) system, and the suggestion that companies simply rent (!) building materials from their manufacturers to encourage whole life thinking.

Chart 1: Uses of concrete by European Ready Mixed Concrete Organisation (ERMCO) members in 2018. Source: ERMCO.

Just how much concrete the world uses each year is a question beyond the scope of this article, given its range of applications and diversity of users. For example, the Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI) estimated 25Bnt in 2009. Later, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) technical committee for concrete, reinforced concrete and pre-stressed concrete placed the figure at around 33Bnt in 2016. It is worth considering how and where concrete is actually used. The chart above from the European Ready Mixed Concrete Organisation (ERMCO) shows how its members used concrete in 2018. Note that use in buildings comprised the biggest share, nearly two thirds, but that the rest included infrastructure, pavements, roads and more. Lifecycle thinking and its various offshoots can apply to all of these applications. Yet it’s easier to imagine a concrete building shell being reused within its lifespan than, say, a bridge or a road. Concrete used in infrastructure seems more suitable for re-use further down the waste hierarchy, such as recycling as an aggregate.

A few final thoughts to consider are that both Cemex and gypsum wallboard manufacturer Etex have invested in modular and/or offsite construction companies in January 2021. Both targets were relatively small companies suggesting growing interest in these sectors by larger players. Offsite building construction suits lifecycle thinking well because the modular components start off being built elsewhere before installation. Factoring in what happens afterwards should be relatively easy and expandable at scale. Finally, LafargeHolcim announced this week that it is acquiring two ready-mix concrete and aggregate suppliers in France and Italy that will give it 35 concrete plants in the region.

Sustainability places lifecycle thinking into mainstream building practice and some methods and tools will inevitably make it into any policy framework the GCCA will recommend. Whether some or all of the ideas above hang around remains to be seen but lifecycle thinking in some form or another is here already and not going anywhere.

The proceedings and video of the Virtual Global Concrete Conference 2021 are available to buy now

Register for the 2nd Virtual Global Concrete Seminar - 'Future Concrete' on 14 September 2021

There have been two developments from ThyssenKrupp’s ongoing restructuring worth noting by the cement sector in recent weeks. The first is that the Germany-based engineering and steel producer has stopped trying to sell its cement plant division. The second is that Denmark-based FLSmidth is holding serious talks about buying its mining division.

ThyssenKrupp first announced plans for a major restructuring in mid-2019 with an anticipated reduction of 6000 jobs across the business. The sale of its elevator business for Euro17.2bn to private equity was announced in February 2020. Later in May 2020 it then revealed plans to divide its previous business areas into core, dual and multi track segments. Core - including Materials Services, Industrial Components (Forged Technologies and Bearings) and Automotive Technology – would be kept as before. Dual-track – including Steel and Marine – would either be kept as before or considered for consolidation. Multi-track - including cement plant engineering, mining and more – would be sold, added to a partnership or closed. By size, core reported sales of Euro16.1bn (53%) in the company’s 2019 - 2020 financial year, dual-track reported Euro8.8bn (29%) and multi-track reported Euro5.5bn (18%).

Volkmar Dinstuhl, formerly in charge of mergers and acquisitions, was put in charge of Multi-track. By October 2020 he was publicly admitting that the division was planning to “find a solution for all our businesses within the next two years” including cement plant engineering. In the same interview he described the Multi-track division as an internal private equity fund. However, the elevator business sale has been seen by several commentators as giving ThyssenKrupp more freedom around how to conduct its restructuring. Three months later and Handelsblatt, a German business newspaper, reported this week that ThyssenKrupp’s cement plant division may have avoided its multi-track fate. It cited internal communication to employees about what’s been happening with the sale. Principally, orders have picked up in the company’s new financial year, since October 2020, and although a sale has not been ruled out, it won’t be pursued until late 2021 at the earliest. This is potentially good news for the sector as a sign that the market may be improving and definitely good news for those employees working for the division.

As a competitor, FLSmidth would have been expected to be potentially interested in buying either ThyssenKrupp’s mining or cement plant division, or both. So, the only question was, when it made a point of saying publicly that it was in non-binding negotiations to buy mining, what about cement?

Looking at the numbers shows that FLSmidth’s mining division did better than its cement one in the first nine months of 2020 with order take up year-on-year and the mining industry described as being relatively resilient during the coronavirus crisis, with the majority of mines operational across regions. By contrast it pointed out that the cement market was still ‘severely’ impacted by the coronavirus pandemic and that future cement demand was dependent on general economic growth. Acquisition activity in mining certainly seems like the safer bet at the moment. Yet the temptation to neutralise a competitor may have been a strong one. With the mining deal still in progress and the cement sale possibly ended for now, we’ll just have to wait and see. Other buyers for both divisions are no doubt waiting in the wings should circumstances allow.

One final fun fact to consider is that the man put in charge of selling both of ThyssenKrupp’s mining and cement plant divisions, Volkmar Dinstuhl, just happens to be a World Chess Federation (FIDE) recognised International Master. Being good at chess doesn’t automatically confer skill at anything else. Just look at former world champion Gary Kasparov’s political ambitions in Russia for example. Yet, ThyssenKrupp’s elevator division sale has been seen as one of the largest leveraged European buyouts in recent years and has appeared to have bought it some time to mull its options over its cement plant division. With this in mind, any potential buyers for the rest of Multi-track may be wondering just how many moves ahead this seller is thinking.