Displaying items by tag: LafargeHolcim

“One of the worst moments in its history.” That’s how Paulo Camillo Penna, the newly appointed president of SNIC - the Brazilian National Union of Cement Industry - described his industry last week. Few people are likely to be envying his position at the moment. As Camillo Penna went on to explain, domestic sales of cement fell by 11.7% year-on-year to 57.2Mt in 2016. He added that following capacity utilisation rates of 70% in 2015 and 57% in 2016 that he expected the rate to fall below 50% in 2017. When he said it was bad he wasn’t kidding.

Graph 1: Brazilian cement sales from 2011 to 2016. Source: SNIC.

Graph 2: Regional Brazilian cement production from 2014 to 2016. Source: SNIC.

Graph 1 illustrates how stark the decline in cement sales has been since the growth period at the start of the 2010s. Sales have fallen by 15Mt since 2014 in a country that has a production capacity of 88Mt/yr. Graph 2 presents a regional picture of sales. Note in this graph the sharp drops in sales (21%) in the southeast region of Brazil, an area that contains the key cement producing states of Minas Gerais and Rio De Janeiro. The decline in the northeast region including the state of Bahia, another key cement producing state, has been less extreme but it is still over 15%.

Votorantim, the country’s largest cement producer by production capacity, reported that its cement sale volumes fell by 6% to 26Mt in the first nine months of 2016, with declines in Brazil offset by business in other countries like the US. Its sales revenue also fell, by 7% to US$3.03bn. InterCement’s cement and clinker sales volumes fell by 16% to 11.8Mt in the first half of 2016 and its sales fell by 31% to Euro898m. As it described it, ‘the political and economic instability in Brazil in the first half, impacting on unemployment, investment and government spending, ultimately retracted the construction activity, compressing cement consumption.’ To compound these problems newly opened production capacity also ‘intensified’ competition. Later in 2016 InterCement’s parent company Camargo Corrêa was reported to be in talks to sell a minority stake in Argentina’s Loma Negra to pay off its debts from the cement business in Brazil. Finally, from an international perspective, LafargeHolcim’s global results for the first nine months of 2016 were negatively impacted by ‘challenging’ conditions in Brazil amongst other countries. It laid out an environment of reduced sales volumes and falling prices, although it said that it had used cost cutting to fight this.

Politically, the fallout from the Petrobras bribery scandal is continuing to shake out in the construction industry. In October 2016 it was revealed that the Brazilian Development Bank BNDES had frozen loan payments to construction firms involved in overseas projects worth up to US$7bn, including Camargo Corrêa. The Brazilian economy is expected to grow modestly, at a rise of 0.5% gross domestic product (GDP) in 2017 after dropping in 2016 although this forecast was falling towards the end of 2016. More hopeful news came from the São Paulo state construction union, SindusCon-SP, that in December 2016 released a report forecasting that the construction industry’s output could rise by 0.5%. However, this was dependent on economic reforms.

The question for Camillo Penna and the rest of the Brazilian cement industry is: where exactly is the bottom of the curve? SNIC forecast that cement sales will contract by a further 5 – 7% in 2017 and this is below the 11.7% drop experienced in 2016. So, does SNIC think that the industry is starting to hit against a bedrock of demand that economic headwinds can’t shift? In this kind of environment it seems likely to expect increased merger and acquisition activity. The merger of Brazil’s Magnesita and Austria’s RHI refractory companies that was announced in the autumn of 2016 may just be the start.

With president-elect Trump due to take office this week we wonder what this means for the cement industry in Mexico. In 2016 this column looked a couple of times at the implications of Trump upon the US cement industry. First, we looked at who might benefit if he builds his wall along the Mexican border and then we wondered what his policies might mean for the US industry. To answer the latter first, the main issues for the US industry are infrastructure, changes to the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) and the repercussions if Trumps serious about a trade war with China. So long as a trade war doesn’t happen then Trump is probably good news for the US cement industry. As for Mexico, the joke has been that Trump will be good for the construction business ever since market analysts Bernstein’s passed a note around in the summer of 2016 about that wall.

Graph 1: Breakdown of Mexican cement industry by production capacity. Source: Global Cement Directory 2017.

The makeup of the domestic Mexican cement industry hasn’t changed too much in the last decade, even with the merger between Lafarge and Holcim, preserving the same market share in production capacity between the companies. Most of the producers have reported growth in 2016. Cemex reported that its cement sales volumes rose by 3% for the first nine months of 2016 and by 10% in the third quarter of that year. Overall though, its net sales fell slightly to US$2.16bn in the first nine months, alongside a fall in ready-mix concrete sales volumes. Cemex, crucially, also seems to have taken charge of its debts in 2016, saying that it was on track to meet its targets and that it had announced nearly US$2bn worth of divestments in that year. Currently the company is trying to buy out Trinidad Cement in the Caribbean, which may be a sign that it has turned a corner.

Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua’s (GCC) cement sales volumes rose in the first three quarters of 2016, in its case by 4%. Its overall net sales in Mexico rose by 4.2% in Mexican Pesos for the same period but fell when calculated in US Dollars due to currency variations. GCC attributed its sales growth to better pricing environment and increased cement volumes, mainly for projects in the commercial and industrial sectors that compensated for a decline in the public sector, following the culmination of two major urban paving and highway construction projects in 2015. At the smaller end of the market, Elementia reported that its cement sales skyrocketed by 30% to US$104m in the first nine months of the year aided by higher prices and volumes.

The major Mexican cement producers all have a presence in the US with the exception of Cruz Azul. Cemex has held assets north of the border for years, Cemento Portland Moctezuma has links to Buzzi Unicem, GCC bought US assets from Cemex in 2016 and Elementia completed its purchase of Giant Cement also in 2016. These companies have clinker in their kilns in plants on US soil manned by US citizens. This represents investment in local industry and it is exactly the kind of thing that appeals to the rhetoric of Trump’s approach so far. If the new president builds his wall then Mexican producers will probably be producing much of the cement that builds it. Even the Mexican Peso’s slow decline since 2014 could help the local cement industry, as it will cut the cost of moving exports and materials north of the border. Indeed, Enrique Escalante, the chief executive officer of GCC said in late 2016 that his company was ‘ready to build’ Trump’s wall.

However, the sheer uncertainty factor of an incoming president with as little experience of public office as Donald Trump must be giving chief executives pause for thought. After all, Trump's tweets before he has assumed office have forced car manufacturers to change policy. If he manages to disrupt the North American Free-Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in order to protect US jobs then the repercussions for the Mexican economy will be profound. It sends nearly three quarters of its exports to the US. Local cement producers would surely suffer in the resulting economic disruption.

So, currency devaluations aside, Mexican producers are making money from their cement operations at home and they are increasingly hedging their bets by operating or buying units in the US. Some, like GCC, are even being ebullient about the benefits that might come their way. It may be a bumpy ride but the Mexican industry is ready. However, it may wish to avoid appearing in any of Donald Trump’s tweets anytime soon.

As a companion to the trends based article in the December 2016 issue of Global Cement Magazine, here are some of the major news stories from the industry in 2016. Remember this is just one view of the year's events. If you think we've missed anything important let us know via LinkedIn, Twitter or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

HeidelbergCement buys Italcementi
Undeniably the big story of the year, HeidelbergCement has gradually acquired Italcementi throughout 2016. Notably, unlike the merger of Lafarge and Holcim, the cement producer has not held a party to mark the occasion. Instead each major step of the process has been reported upon incrementally in press releases and other sources throughout the year. The enlarged HeidelbergCement appears to be in a better market position than LafargeHolcim but it will be watched carefully in 2017 for signs of weakness.

LafargeHolcim faces accusations over conduct in Syria
The general theme for LafargeHolcim in 2016 has been one of divestments to shore up its balance sheet. However, one news story could potentially sum up its decline for the wider public. In June 2016 French newspaper Le Monde alleged that Lafarge had struck deals with armed groups in Syria, including so-called Islamic State (IS), to protect its assets in 2013 and 2014. LafargeHolcim didn’t deny the claims directly in June. Then in response to a legal challenge on the issue mounted in November 2016 its language tightened to statements condoning terrorism whilst still allowing some wriggle room. As almost all of the international groups in Syria are opposed to IS, should these allegations prove to be true it will not look good for the world’s largest cement producer.

China and India balance sector restructuring with production growth
Both China and India seem to have turned a corner in 2016 with growing cement production and a generally more upbeat feeling for the industries. Both have also seen some high profile consolidations or mergers underway which will hopefully cut inefficiencies. China’s focus on its ‘One Belt, One Road’ appears to be delivering foreign contracts as CBMI’s recent flurry of orders in Africa attests although Sinoma’s equipment arm was losing money in the first half of 2016. Meanwhile, India may have damaged its own growth in the short term through its demonetisation policy to take high value Indian rupee currency notes out of circulation. In November 2016 cement demand was believed to have dropped by up to half as the real estate sector struggled to adapt. The pain is anticipated to carry on until the end of March 2017.

US industry growth stuck in the slow lane
The US cement industry has failed to take off yet again in 2016 with growth lagging below 5%. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) has reported that clinker production has risen by 1% in the first ten months of 2016 and that it fell in the third quarter of the year. In response, the Portland Cement Association (PCA) lowered its forecasts for both 2016 and 2017. One unknown here has been the election of President-elect Donald Trump and the uncertainty over what his policies might bring. If he ‘goes large,’ as he said he wants to, on infrastructure then the cement industry will benefit. Yet, knock-on effects from other potential policies like restricting migrant labour might have unpredictable consequences upon the general construction industry.

African expansion follows the money
International cement producers have prospered at the expense of local ones in 2016. The big shock this year was when Nigeria’s Dangote announced that it was scaling back its expansion plans in response to problems in Nigeria principally with the devaluation of the Naira. Since then it has also faced local problems in Ghana, Ethiopia and Tanzania. Its sub-Saharan competitor PPC has also had problems too. By contrast, foreign investors from outside the continent, led by China, have scented opportunity and opened their wallets.

Changes in store for the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme
A late entry to this roundup is the proposed amendment to the European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). This may entail the introduction of a Border Adjustment Measure (BAM) with the loss of free allowances for the cement sector in Phase IV. Cembureau, the European Cement Association, has slammed the changes as ‘discriminatory’ and raised concerns over how this would affect competitiveness. In opposition the environmental campaign group Sandbag has defended the changes as ones that could put a stop to the ‘cement sector’s windfall profits from the ETS.’

High growth shifts to Philippines and other territories
Indonesia may be lurching towards production overcapacity, but fear not, the Philippines have arrived on the scene to provide high double-digit growth on the back of the Duterte Infrastructure Plan. The Cement Manufacturers Association of the Philippines (CEMAP) has said that cement sales have risen by 10.1% year-on-year to 20.1Mt in the first three quarters of 2016 and lots of new plants and upgrade projects are underway. The other place drawing attention in the second half of the year has been Pakistan with cement sales jumping in response to projects being built by the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor.

Global Cement Weekly will return on 4 January 2016

Switzerland: Eric Olsen, chief executive officer of LafargeHolcim, has been elected as the new chairman of the Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI) in 2017. The appointment was confirmed at the CSI’s annual CEO Meeting in Madrid.

“It is an honour for me to be chairing this important industry organization in the coming year. Sustainability in the construction sector is not the preserve of one organisation. I will focus on ensuring that the CSI continues to play an important role in building collaboration within our industry and encouraging joint action across the entire value chain. As one of the largest global sustainability programs ever undertaken by a single industrial sector, we have a real opportunity to drive change. Our plans are ambitious and we are conscious that we will only achieve them by working together”, said Olsen.

LafargeHolcim is one of the founding members of the CSI which is part of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and was launched in 1999 with the aim of supporting the progress of the global cement sector toward sustainable development. The CSI unites 23 major cement producers with operations in more than 100 countries. Collectively these companies account for around 30% of the world’s cement production and range in size from multinationals to local producers.

Construction firm DMCI Holdings announced plans this week to enter the Philippine cement market. The company intends to build one cement plant on Semirara and three cement grinding plants elsewhere – at Batangas, Iloilo and Zamboanga – to give it a national presence. DMCI’s managing director Victor Limlingan admitted to local press that his company was taking a gamble on spending US$368m in this way.

It has staked its money on the Duterte Infrastructure Plan, a scheme from the new administration that was elected in June 2016 to target US$165bn (!) towards infrastructure spending until the early 2020s. Even if a portion of this money makes it from political hyperbole to the diggers then it is likely to mean a sustained construction boom for an economy that is already growing at around 6%/yr. DCMI’s excitement was almost palpable in mid-November 2016 when it put out a press release calling for potential partners to help it benefit from the rush when it comes. Although the company did add that all the discussions were at the exploratory stage at this time because it was still awaiting bidding documents.

DMCI’s project joins six plants in various stages of planning and construction from San Miguel, Northern Cement, Eagle Cement and LafargeHolcim. In addition four existing plants are carrying out upgrades to increase their production capacity. Clearly, things are looking up for the local cement industry. DMCI follows San Miguel which announced that it was going to spend US$1bn on building five cement plants around the country in mid-2015.

In line with this kind of investment the Cement Manufacturers Association of the Philippines (CEMAP) said that cement sales had risen by 10.1% year-on-year to 20.1Mt in the first three quarters of 2016. This follows annual sales growth of 8.7% to 21.3Mt in 2014 and of 14.3% to 24Mt in 2015. CEMAP’s data for 2015 also shows that local demand overtook the country’s kiln capacity in 2014. Subsequently imports peaked to 314,000t in 2014, the highest level since 2002.

The country’s second largest producer Republic Cement, a joint venture between CRH and Aboitiz, reported sales growth similar to CEMAP’s one for the first three months of the year. LafargeHolcim, the largest producer, didn’t reveal any figures in its third quarter report but it marked the Philippines as one of its key contributors in the quarter. By contrast, Cemex noted lower growth in its third quarter report at 4% for the nine months to September 2016. It also said that the government transition following the election had slowed cement consumption, especially from infrastructure projects.

The Philippine cement industry is in the enviable position of being in a boom. The kind of problems it has to cope with includes provincial cement shortages, lobbying to increase usage of blended cements, scrutiny of prices by the government and a rise in technical smuggling. Once the new plants and upgrades start becoming operational the true nature of the market should become more apparent. At present it looks likely that DCMI gamble may turn out to be a wise one. The next question will be how many more companies want a piece of the piece too?

Morocco’s Directorate of Financial Studies and Forecasting has reported that cement sales rose by 8.4% year-on-year in October 2016. It's good news for a local cement industry that saw its sales fall from 16.1Mt in 2011 to a low of 14.1Mt in 2014. Sales picked up slightly in 2015 and it looks like the same is going to happen again in 2016. Data from the Moroccan Cement Association (APC) support this with consumption of cement very slightly higher for the first nine month for 2016. Good sales figures in October can only help.

Graph 1: Cement consumption for the first nine months of the year, 2013 – 2016. Source: L’Association Professionnelle des Cimentiers du Maroc.

2016 has also been an interesting time for the Moroccan cement industry due to consequences of the merger and acquisition activity by the multinational producers that operate there. In March 2016, amidst a slew of divestments, LafargeHolcim made a point of announcing that it was holding on to its cement businesses under Lafarge Maroc and Holcim Maroc and enlarging them with its local partner SNI to form LaafrgeHolcim Maroc. The deconsolidation of Holcim Maroc picked up a net gain before taxes of Euro219m for a total consideration of Euro463m, which should considerably add to the group’s cash proceeds.

It managed to avoid being forced to sell off assets by the local competition body when it merged in 2014 due to its relatively low stakes in its companies. Today it has a production capacity of 13.2Mt/yr from seven integrated cement plants or over half the country’s production capacity. In its annual report for 2015 LafargeHolcim said that its cement business saw its results improve, mitigating problems in its aggregate and ready-mix concrete markets. This was followed by good results in the first half of 2016. New projects in the pipeline include plans to build a cement plant in Agadir and a grinding plant in Laâyoune in Western Sahara.

2016 has also seen the acquisition of Morocco’s second largest cement producer, Ciments du Maroc, by HeidelbergCement as part of its purchase of Italcementi. It’s too soon for HeidelbergCement to have reported upon the territory in its first integrated quarterly financial report following the takeover but it did describe Morocco as a having a ‘high growth potential.’ How these assets fit into the wide portfolio of HeidelbergCement’s new production base will be interesting. Ciments de l’Atlas’ (CIMAT), the country’s third largest and local producer, saw its sales fall slightly to Euro124m in the first half of 2016. However, its net profit rose by 13% year-on-year to Euro30m.

The other story of note in recent months in Morocco has been the public outcry against a shipment of refuse-derived fuel (RDF) from Italy in June 2016 destined for a cement plant in Casablanca. The subsequent protests saw waste imports to be suspended, leading Hakima al-Haiti, the government minister at the heart of the affair, to describe the furore as causing damage to the country’s economy in the aftermath. However her opponents rallied under the phrase “Nous ne sommes pas une poubelle” or ‘We are not a trash can.’ Despite this setback for the secondary fuels market, LafargeHolcim highlighted the work its Ecoval waste processing subsidiary has been conducting producing RDF at its Oum Azza site ahead of the Climate Change Conference of the Parties held in Marrakech in mid-November 2016. Although the key difference here is that Ecoval is generating RDF from local waste streams not importing them.

Perhaps as a sign of the growth potential Morocco may hold, this week, a non-cement producer was revealed to be planning to build a cement plant at Tarfaya. Previously the company, Global Oil Shale, had intended to develop shale oil resources at the site but it has switched its plan to constructing a 1.6Mt/yr cement plant instead and hired Luis Verde, a former technical director at Cemex who has also worked for Dangote. Together with the Lafarge project in Laâyoune and the Ciement Sud (CIMSUD) plant also in Western Sahara due to open in mid-2017 it suggest that the investors smell opportunity.

Holcim Indonesia inaugurated a new cement terminal in Lampung last week. Unfortunately, the spectre of industry overcapacity haunts the country at present and the subsidiary of LafargeHolcim may be late to the party. The Indonesian Cement Association (ASI) has been publicly warning the government of overcapacity since the end of the summer. Its first line of action has been to lobby for restrictions on producer permits to slow the growth of new plants.

ASI figures show that cement sales in September 2016 fell by 3.3% to 5.64Mt compared to August 2016 due to lower residential sector demand. Domestic cement sales rose by 2.95% year-on-year to 44.7Mt in the first nine months of 2016 and the ASI expects sales growth of 3 – 4% for 2016 overall. Yet, the risk of overcapacity is stark. Cement production capacity has nearly doubled from 59.3Mt/yr in 2012 to 92.7Mt/yr in 2016 but demand is projected to only reach 65Mt in 2016, leaving a production oversupply of 27.7Mt. Regional consumption has fallen in Jakarta, Banten and West Java, particularly in the first two. Elsewhere, it has grown, particularly in Central Java, as well as Yogyakarta and East Java to a lesser extent.

Initial Global Cement Directory 2017 research places active production capacity at 66.3Mt/yr suggesting that the ASI may be exaggerating the risk of overcapacity. The additional c30Mt/yr capacity arises from plants that have been proposed, that are actually under construction or that have been mothballed. However, the ASI data should be more accurate as it represents the local producers. Either way, capacity is growing faster than consumption as can be seen in graph 1.

Graph 1: Cement consumption and production capacity in Indonesia, 2012 – 2016. Source: Indonesian Cement Association, Global Cement Directory 2012 – 2017.

Semen Indonesia, the country’s largest producer, reported that its revenue fell very slightly to US$1.4bn in the first nine months of 2016 and its net profit fell by 8.4% to US$215m. It blamed this on a fall in sales volumes and prices due to rising competition. The other large producers have said similar in the past. Indocement, the country’s second largest producer after Semen Indonesia, saw its revenue fall by 11.9% to US$837m in the first nine months of 2016 and its profit fell by 2.2% to US$231m. LafargeHolcim described the market as affected by overcapacity and ‘a difficult competitive environment.’

Back in May 2016 a feature on the predicament facing the Indonesian cement industry in the Jakarta Post suggested that producers were building new capacity despite the risks of overcapacity to win market share. Cement producers are about to find out whether this will work or not. Meanwhile it seems unlikely that the measures the ASI is suggesting will do much to alleviate the looming crisis. Still, on the positive side, it’s looking like a good time to buy cement as a consumer.

For more information about the cement industry in Indonesia view the first part of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) feature in the October 2016 issue of Global Cement Magazine

Brazil: Otmar Hubscher has been appointed as the new chief executive officer of Secil. He replaces Gonçalo Salazar Leite, according to the Negócios newspaper. Hubscher, a Swiss national, was previously the head of LafargeHolcim's Brazilian operations.

The other shock news from the US last week was LafargeHolcim’s poor cement sales volumes in North America so far in 2016. HeidelbergCement’s third quarter financial results followed and they give us an opportunity to compare the fortunes of the world’s two largest cement producers either side of a high profile merger.

Graph 1 - Changes in cement sales volumes for LafargeHolcim, HeidelbergCement and selected European multinational producers in the first three quarters of 2016 compared to the same period in 2015 (%). Data labels are the volumes reported in 2016. Source: Company reports.

Graph 1 shows the effect of HeidelbergCement’s completion of its acquisition of Italcementi in mid-October 2016. Now that the purchase is complete its sales volumes have taken a whopping 20% boost to 73Mt. LafargeHolcim by comparison is struggling to hold sales. Although do note the difference in sales volumes between the two largest cement producers in the world. LafargeHolcim has sold nearly 2.5 times the amount of cement as HeidelbergCement so far in 2016.

Graph 2 - Changes in sales revenue for LafargeHolcim, HeidelbergCement and selected European multinational producers in the first three quarters of 2016 compared to the same period in 2015 (%). Data labels are the sales reported in 2016. Source: Company reports.

The point to take away from Graph 2 is the huge difference turbulent currency exchange rates are having on the financial returns of these companies. Like-for-like reporting of sales revenue hasn’t helped LafargeHolcim to grow but it is making a big difference to the sales of Cemex and Vicat.

Focusing on LafargeHolcim, the group has had a tough time of it so far in 2016 with falling cement sales volumes and falling sales revenue year-on-year on both a straight comparison basis and like-for-like one. Like many European cement producers negative currency effects have plagued its financial reporting. However, unlike many of its European-based competitors its like-for-like sales figures have also declined.

Particular problems have been noted in Nigeria as well as Brazil, Indonesia and Malaysia. It has managed to keep its profit indicators such as earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) mostly rising through the first three quarters of 2016 on a like-for-like basis. Yet, to give an idea of the effect fuel supply problems had in Nigeria in the third quarter of 2016 on the group’s entire bottom line, excluding Nigeria from its results would have seen its adjusted operating EBITDA rise significantly. With regard to the rest of the world, cement sales volumes have fallen in every one of the group’s territories so far in 2016 including, worryingly, its North America region. Here, falling cement sales volumes have been blamed on delays to infrastructure projects and bad weather.

By contrast, HeidelbergCement has reported rising sales revenue and profit indicators such as earnings before interest and taxation (EBIT) although its profit has fallen. Most of the good financial cheer has been derived from the new Italcementi assets although most of its territorial cement sales revenues have grown even when the effects of the new purchase have been excluded. The exception has been Africa where the group mentioned problems in Ghana due to local competition and imports.

The comparison between the world’s largest European-based cement producers is stark. LafargeHolcim made a big show of announcing the merger between Lafarge and Holcim in mid-2015. Today it is battening down the hatches as its tries to claw profit from asset sales and synergy savings. HeidelbergCement almost casually announced that it had finalised its acquisition of Italcementi in October 2016 and it has proceeded to rack up the profits at its first subsequent financial report. However, HeidelbergCement may be waiting for the regulators to finish approving parts of the deal before it makes a final announcement. For example, the Federal Trade Commission only approved the sale of various US assets on 15 November 2016. Meanwhile, the credits ratings agencies passed their own judgement when Standard & Poor upgraded its rating of HeidelbergCement earlier this week.

LafargeHolcim remains a much larger company than HeidelbergCement despite the problems it is facing so provided it can keep the investors happy it should be fine as its whittles itself down to a more sustainable shape. To this end the Swiss press has been speculating whether chief executive officer Eric Olsen will announce job cuts and plant closures at an investors meeting on 18 November 2016.

One fascinating statistic stands out in a study on how the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) pays its bills: cement represented 4% of its revenue in 2015 or around US$100m. The Centre for the Analysis of Terrorism (CAT) came up with this figure as part of its analysis on how the group finances itself. Its data was based on available information such as local sources, internal ISIS documents and reports from governments and institutions.

What’s more, the previous year in 2014, CAT estimated that ISIS brought in US$300m from cement sales. The difference in revenue between 2015 and 2014 came about from the group losing control of territory. In late 2014 it controlled four cement plants: the Lafarge Al-Jalabiya plant in Ayn al-Arabin, the Al-Raqqah Guris Cement plant and Fallujah, Kubaisa and Al-Qa’im plants in Iraq. Altogether it had a cement production capacity of 7.5Mt/yr, a higher capacity than 62% of the cement producing nations that are recognised formally by the United Nations. Briefly it had production parity with countries like Angola, Uzbekistan and Kuwait.

However the loss of the Al-Jalabiya and Kubaisa plants has stifled this revenue stream. At its peak ISIS couldn’t have been selling cement for more than something like US$40/t (capacity / revenue) if the plants were operating at full capacity. Yet it’s much more likely that the plants were chronically under-utilised and prices significantly higher in the heat, dust and confusion of a militant group attempting to form a state in a warzone.

Global Cement Weekly has covered previously the furore that erupted when French media accused Lafarge of cutting deals with ISIS to keep its Jalabiya cement plant during the early stages of the Syrian Civil War. At the time of the revelations in June 2016 LafargeHolcim said that its first priority was the safety and security of its employees at the plant before it eventually closed it, although it did not deny accusations directly.

Since then the plant’s former security manager Jacob Waerness has popped up in an interview with Bloomberg in connection with a book he wrote about the affair. According to Waerness, Lafarge stayed in the country for too long before the plant was finally seized by ISIS in September 2014.

The problem for Lafarge, as other multinational companies left the warzone, was that the US$680m plant had only been operational since late 2010 before hostilities broke out in 2011. Essentially, it tried to wait out the conflict and then got left behind. Pertinent to the start of this column, Waerness says that as the more extreme groups took control of the surrounding area he was offered and declined a meeting with the IS finance chief in Raqqa in the summer of 2013. However else one might describe IS, it was and clearly is well aware of the revenue to be gained from functioning cement plants.

LafargeHolcim has since started an internal review into the reported allegations under the auspices of its Finance & Audit Committee. In September 2016 the Iranian-backed Fars News Agency was reporting that US special forces were using the Jalabiya plant as a base. If and when peace comes to the region it will be intriguing to find out what condition the plant is in. Until then, LafargeHolcim will have to wait and take the loss on its investment.