Analysis

Vicat’s plans to buy another 42% stake in Sinai Cement became public this week. Once completed, the France-based company should own 98% of the Egyptian company, based on previously published ownership figures. The announcement heralds a rapprochement in the relationship between the cement producer and the Egyptian government.

Last year Vicat raised a case against the government with the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) over an argument about how it could invest in Sinai Cement as a foreign company. All seems forgiven and forgotten now with a settlement agreement signed in March 2022 between Rania el Mashat, the Minister of International Cooperation on behalf of the Egyptian government, and Guy Sidos, the chairman and chief executive officer of Vicat Group. Local press reported that the government is trying to attract more direct foreign investment. Sinai Cement reported a loss attributable to its parent company of around US$19.1m in 2021, down from a loss of US$30.3m in 2020. However, its sales rose by 63% year-on-year to US$78m.

Sinai Cement has some specific operating issues related to its geographic position in the Sinai Peninsula and ongoing security concerns. Yet its mixed fortunes also sum up some of the continuing challenges the Egyptian cement industry is facing. After years of overcapacity, the government introduced reduced cement production quotas in July 2021 and this is mostly perceived to have improved prices in the second half of the year. Vicat described the arrangement as having capped the local market at 65% of its production capacity and it said that prices recovered ‘significantly’ as a result in the second half of 2021. Cemex’s regional chief Carlos Gonzalez told local press that the move had given plants “A glimmer of hope for the return of balance to the cement market.” The company has also announced a US$20m local investment backing up this view. Not all the foreign multinational companies entirely agreed, with HeidelbergCement reporting a ‘sharp’ decline in sales volumes although chief executive officer Dominik von Achten did describe the country as ‘coming back’ in an earnings call about his company’s financial results in 2021. Solomon Baumgartner Aviles, the chief executive officer of Lafarge Egypt, was also cooler about the production cap in a press interview in October 2021, describing it as too early to assess how well the cap was working and noting that the gap between supply and demand was still large.

Vicat said in its annual report for 2021 that, “Provided no further adverse geopolitical, health or security developments occur, the current climate is unlikely to jeopardise the prospects of an improvement in the subsidiary’s profitability, which should begin to gradually occur.” The geopolitical bit was timely given that Russia’s war in Ukraine started on 24 February 2022. It also targets the latest problem hitting Egyptian cement producers: energy costs. The head of Arabian Cement told Enterprise Press that initially some producers had opted to temporarily stop production and use stocks instead to attempt to try and wait until the energy price volatility ended. However, it stayed high so the cost of cement has gone up generally. Producers are now trying to switch to using a high ratio of natural gas, such as 10%, but this is dependent on the government letting them.

The Egyptian government, for its part, is facing a decision whether to supply subsidised gas for domestic industry or to export to Europe. The backstory here is that Egyptian cement producers are facing yet another step change in fuel supply. In the mid-2010s lots of plants switched from heavy fuel oil and gas to coal. High international coal prices could be heralding another change.

Alongside this the value of Egypt’s cement exports rose by 151% year-on-year to US$456m in 2021 from US$182m in 2020. The Cement Division of the Federation of Egyptian Industries has attributed this to growth mainly on the African market. This trend continued in January and February 2022 with cement exports up by 141% year-on-year to US$104m from US$43m. The main destinations were Ghana, Cameroon, Ivory Coast and Libya.

HeidelbergCement summed up the current state of the Egyptian cement market in its 2021 annual report as follows “The development of the Egyptian cement market continues to be determined by government intervention.” What happens next is very much in the hands of the state as it decides whether to extend the production cap, which fuels to subsidise, whether to allow exports and where to invest in infrastructure projects. One variation on this theme may be local decarbonisation targets. At the end of March 2022 the Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA) launched a series of Net Zero Accelerator initiatives, including one in Egypt. How a country that produces more cement than it needs reduces its CO₂ emissions presents another challenge for manufacturers and the government to grapple with.

African cement producers have confirmed their interest in calcined clay over the last month with two new projects. The big one was announced last week when FLSmidth revealed that it had received an order from CBI Ghana. This follows the launch of a Limestone Calcined Clay (LC3) project in Malawi in mid-March 2022 in conjunction with Lafarge Cement Malawi.

FLSmidth says that its order includes the world’s largest gas suspension calciner system and a complete grinding station. The kit will be installed at CBI Ghana’s plant near Accra in the south of the country. The new clay calciner system is expected to substitute 30 - 40% of the clinker in the final product, resulting in a reduction of up to 40% CO₂/t of blended cement compared to Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC). Overall the equipment manufacturers reckon that the grinding plant will reduce its CO₂ emissions by 20% compared to its current output. There has been no indication of how much the order costs but CBI Ghana expects energy and fuel savings, as well as lower overheads from clinker imports.

The public announcement of the Ghana project was also foreshadowed by the visit of Professor Karen Scrivener to the Ghana Standards Authority in February 2022. This was significant because Scrivener is the head of the Laboratory of Construction Materials at the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) and has been one of the key instigators of the LC3 initiative since the early 2000s. Other calcined clay cements are available such as Futurecem or polysius activated clay (see below) but LC3 is arguably the most famous given its promotion in developing countries.

The Malawi project is at a much earlier stage. The government launched the public private partnership LC3 project in mid-March 2022 in conjunction with Lafarge Cement Malawi and Terrastone, a brick manufacturer. The Ministry of Mining is currently developing a memorandum of understanding with the Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), a Germany-based development agency. India-based Tara Engineering has also been linked to the scheme.

One thing to note about the Malawi project is that it is the first calcined clay project in the cement industry based in East Africa. All the other African ones are based in West Africa. The other two projects in this region are run by Turkey-based Oyak Çimento and its subsidiary Cimpor. The first of these is a 0.3Mt/yr calcined clay and a 2400t/day cement grinding production line that was commissioned in mid-2020. This plant is based at Abidjan in Ivory Coast. The second is a new plant that Germany-based ThyssenKrupp Industrial Solutions is building for Oyak Çimento at Kribi in Cameroon. This unit has a 720t/day calcined clay and a 2400t/day cement production capacity and it will use the supplier’s ‘polysius activated clay’ technology. ThyssenKrupp’s involvement came to light in early 2020 and commissioning was scheduled for late 2021. However, no update on the state of the project has been issued so far in 2022.

As the above examples show, Sub-Saharan Africa has at least one live calcined clay plant, two plants are being built and there’s one more at the development stage. This puts the region neck-and-neck with Europe, which has a similar mixture of current and developing projects. This column has been covering the wider trend of the growing usage of various types of blended cements recently, particularly in Europe and the US, with slag cements, Portland Limestone Cement (PLC) and more. With PLC, for example, note the transition of another two North American cement plants to PLC this week alone. As for calcined clay cement, it is fascinating to see the focus move to a different part of the world. Several commentators have predicted that the future looks set to be dominated by blended cements using whichever supplementary cementitious material (SCM) is most available for each plant. The growth in calcined clay confirms this view.

Global Cement is researching clay calcination use in the cement industry for the next edition of the Global Cement Directory. Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. with any information on new industrial and research installations.

The economic fallout from the war in Ukraine continued this week with the news that Holcim plans to leave the Russian market. It said that it took the decision based on its “values to operate in the most responsible manner.” The company’s Russian subsidiary added that all of its plants would continue to operate as normal while it considered its divestment options.

Holcim’s road to withdrawal has been staggered. In February 2022 at the start of the war it pronounced its sympathy for any affected colleagues and their families and made a Euro1m donation to the Red Cross. Later it said that it would continue operating its business in Russia by following all regulations and supplying the local market. However, at this time it said it would suspend further capital investments in Russia and that it would “not benefit from our presence in this market.”

It’s unknown what prompted Holcim to take the plunge with Russia one month after the war started. At the very least, making decisions over assets valued this highly takes time. CM Pro has reported that the Russian government has considered introducing reference prices for building materials for infrastructure projects and that the Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS) has been monitoring prices for ‘unreasonable’ growth over the last month. This follows grumbling by the Ministry of Industry and Trade in late 2021 about an apparent low capacity utilisation rate in the country despite shortages in the Central Federal District.

CRH said that it was leaving its Russian concrete business in early March 2022. Yet the decision by Holcim makes it the first of the three western multinational cement producers with large-scale operations in Russia to publicly say it’s pulling out. Holcim, HeidelbergCement and Buzzi Unicem each operate at least two integrated cement plants in the region.

Lafarge entered the Russian market in 1996. Its successor Holcim runs plants at Voskresensk and Kolomna in the Moscow region, at Ferzikovo in the Kaluga region and Volsk in the Saratov region. Together the plants have a production capacity of around 9Mt/yr. Over the last decade Holcim and its predecessor has invested at least a reported Euro1.3bn in three of the plants. The dry-production line Ferzikovo plant was built in 2015. The Shchurovsky plant in Kolomna was originally founded in 1870 and claims to be the oldest in the country. In 2011 it started commissioned a new dry production line. The Volsk plant started a modernisation project in 2017. The fourth, the Voskresensk plant, was mothballed in 2016. However, in early February 2022 LafargeHolcim Russia said it was aiming to spend Euro23m towards restarting production at the site. This was likely due to a boom in construction in 2021. The subsidiary also owns three aggregate quarries in the Republic of Karelia region of the country, near the border with Finland.

Selling up in Russia looks set to be difficult for Holcim. This is principally due to the European and American economic sanctions and the Russian government’s stated intention to nationalise the assets of any company trying to leave. This is clearly why Holcim has worded its plans so vaguely. If or when a peace deal is reached between Russia and Ukraine, the business environment could change significantly, depending on the terms, complicating any existing sale process. Determining how much Holcim might want to get from such a sale in these conditions is complex. Smikom bought Eurocement from Sberbank for Euro2.1bn in 2021 giving it 10 plants. Could Holcim realistically expect to sell its plants for around Euro200m each in the current environment? As for the hit Holcim might take, in its annual report for 2021 it said that the group’s Russian operations represented around 1% of the 2021 consolidated net sales. This would have been around Euro260m. Its Russian cement production capacity was reported as being 9Mt/yr in 2021 or 3% of the group’s global figure of 293Mt/yr.

Finally, it is worth noting though that Lafarge’s charges of ‘complicity in crimes against humanity’ also continued to be tested in the French courts this week. The legal case relates to the conduct of Lafarge in Syria between 2011 and 2014. This is totally separate from the situation in Russia but it does highlight the issue of corporate ethics for the group once again. Following proceedings in December 2021, Beat Hess, chair of the board of Holcim said, “The described events concerning Lafarge SA were concealed from the Holcim board at the time of the merger in 2015 and go completely against the values of our company.” Consider that use of ‘values’ again. Holcim may be about to find out how much it is prepared to pay for its values as it departs Russia.

From the Nordics to the Mediterranean, European countries lead the field in reduced-clinker cement production using supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs). While consumers, faced with ever-greater choice, continue to opt for sustainability, projects to improve existing SCMs and develop new ones have won government backing and have become a matter of serious investment for other heavy industries beside cement. European cement producers’ decisions are steering the course to a world beyond CEM I. Yet, even in Europe, great untapped potential remains.

Companies generated a good deal of marketing buzz around their latest reduced-CO₂ cement ranges in 2021 and the first quarter of 2022: Buzzi Unicem’s CGreen in Germany and Italy, Holcim’s EcoPlanet in six markets from Romania to Spain, Cementir Holding’s Futurecem in Denmark and Benelux, and Cemex’s Vertua in Spain and several other countries. All boast reduced clinker factors through the use of alternative raw materials. This, however, is really a rebranding of a long-established norm in Europe.

Since 2010, cements other than CEM I have constituted over 75% of average annual cement deliveries across Cembureau member countries (all cement-producing EU member states, plus Norway, Serbia, Switzerland, Turkey, the UK and Ukraine). This statistic breaks down differently from country to country. CEM II is the norm in Austria, Finland, Portugal and Switzerland, with deliveries in the region of 90%. Portland limestone cement (PLC) makes up a majority of deliveries in all four. It has been central to Switzerland’s transition to 89% (3.72Mt) of CEM II deliveries out of a total 4.18Mt of cement despatched in 2021. There, the main types of cement were CEM II/B-M (T-LL) Portland composite cement, with 1.38Mt (33%), and two different classifications of PLC: CEM II/A-LL PLC, with 1.28Mt (31%), and CEM II/B-LL PLC, with 888,000t (21%).

A second approach is that of the Netherlands, where CEM III blast furnace slag cement with a clinker factor below 65% predominates, favoured for its sulphate resistance and the protection it offers against chloride-initiated corrosion of steel reinforcement in marine settings. By contrast, the UK has traditionally maintained a higher reliance on CEM I cement. This can be partly explained by the preference of builders there for adding fly ash or ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS) at the mixing stage. Nonetheless, CEM II Portland fly ash cement held a 14% (1.43Mt) market share in the UK’s 10.2Mt of cement consumption in 2021.

The UK Mineral Products Association (MPA) has identified limestone as an underutilised resource in the country’s cement production. Together with HeidelbergCement subsidiary Hanson Cement, it has applied for a change to National Application standards to allow the production of Portland composite cement from fly ash and limestone or GGBFS and limestone. The association has forecast that Portland composite cement could easily rise to 30 – 40% of UK cement consumption, and that this has the potential to eliminate 8% of the sector’s 7.8Mt/yr-worth of CO₂ emissions.

Metallurgical waste streams have long flowed into European cement production, primarily as GGBFS, but also as bauxite residue. In 2021, alumina production in the EU alone generated 7Mt of bauxite residue, of which the bloc recycled just 100,000t (1.4%) that year. Two projects – the Holcim Innovation Center-led ReActiv project and Titan Cement and others’ REDMUD project – aim to produce new alternative cementitious materials from bauxite residue.

By collaborating with other industries, cement producers’ investments can most effectively reduce the overall cost of using these materials in cement production. In Germany, HeidelbergCement and ThyssenKrupp’s Save CO₂ project aims to develop new improved latent hydraulic binders or alternative pozzolan from GGBFS by producing slag from directly reduced iron (DRI). The Save CO₂ team believes that GGBFS substitution for clinker has the capacity to eliminite 200Mt/yr of CO₂ emissions from global cement production.

Meanwhile in the world of mining, ThyssenKrupp and others’ NEMO project is investigating the recovery of a useable mineral fraction for cement production from the extractive waste of the Luikonlahti and Sotkamo mines in Finland and the Tara mine in Ireland, through bioleaching and cleaned mineral residue upcycling. This may give cement producers full access to Europe’s 28Bnt stockpiles of sulphidic mining waste, of which mines generate an additional 600Mt each year.

Denmark-based CemGreen, which produces the calcined clay supplementary cementitious material CemShale, is developing a shale granule heat-treating technology called CemTower. This consists of three pieces of equipment vertically integrated into cement plants’ preheaters, kilns and coolers, and brings the processing of waste materials – here oil shale – to the cement plant.

Lastly, cement producers are exploring the possible uses of waste made of cement itself. In Wallonia, HeidelbergCement subsidiary CBR’s CosmoCem project is investigating the production of alternative cement additives from large available flows of local demolition, soil remediation and industrial waste. Similarly, the Greece-based C2inCO₂ project seeks to mineralise fines from concrete recycling for HeidelbergCement to use in the production of novel cements in its Greek operations.

In Switzerland, ZND Portland composite cement (produced using fine mixed granulate from building demolitions) is the third largest cement type, with 178,000t (4.3%) of total deliveries – narrowly behind CEM I with 239,000t (5.7%).Holcim Schweiz developed its Susteno 4 ZND Portland composite cement with Switzerland’s lack of any ash or slag supply in mind, demonstrating the potential flexibility of a circular economic approach to cement production.

On 21 March 2022, the University of Trier reported that it is in the process of mapping mineral resources, waste deposits and usable residues ‘on a cross-border scale,’ in an effort to produce new materials for use in cement production. Industry participants include France-based Vicat, CBR, Buzzi Unicem subsidiary Cimalux and CRH subsidiary Eqiom. Vicat is preparing a kiln at its 1Mt/yr Xeuilley cement plant in Meurthe-et-Moselle to use in testing new alternative raw materials developed under the project.

For Cembureau and its members, work continues, with the goal of Net Zero by 2050 constantly in sight. This goal includes a reduction in members’ clinker-to-cement ratios to well below 65%. In this, the association and its members are working towards a world not just beyond CEM I, but beyond CEM II, too. What exactly this will mean remains to be seen.

Sources

CemSuisse, ‘Lieferstatistik,’ 11 January 2022, https://www.cemsuisse.ch/app/uploads/2022/01/Lieferstatistik-4.-Quartal-2021.pdf

WSA, ‘December 2021 crude steel production and 2021 global crude steel production totals,’ 25 January 2022, https://worldsteel.org/media-centre/press-releases/2022/december-2021-crude-steel-production-and-2021-global-totals/

MPA, ‘Low carbon multi-component cements for UK concrete applications,’ July 2018, https://prod-drupal-files.storage.googleapis.com/documents/resource/public/Low%20carbon%20multi-component%20cements%20for%20UK%20concrete%20applications%20PDF.pdf

European Commission, ‘European Training Network for Zero-waste Valorisation of Bauxite Residue (Red Mud),’ 16 July 2020, https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/636876

European Commission, ‘Industrial Residue Activation for sustainable cement production,’ 16 February 2022, https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/958208

Recycling Portal, Zement der Zukunft – Forschungsprojekt „SAVE CO₂“ gestartet, 28 May 2021, https://recyclingportal.eu/Archive/65677

h2020-NEMO, ‘Project,’ https://h2020-nemo.eu/project-2/

European Commission, ‘Green cement of the future: CemShale + CemTower,’ 14 April 2021, https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101009382

CosmoCem, ‘Communiqué de Presse,’ https://cosmocem.org/

CO₂ Win, ‘C²inCO₂: Calcium Carbonation for industrial use of CO₂,’ https://co2-utilization.net/en/projects/co2-mineralization/c2inco2/

Les Echos, ‘Rendre le ciment moins gourmand en CO₂,’ 21 March 2022, https://www.lesechos.fr/pme-regions/innovateurs/des-substituts-au-clinker-rendent-le-ciment-moins-gourmand-en-co2-1395002

Cement producers in the north of Pakistan have started to increase their use of coal from Afghanistan in response to the ongoing volatility in energy markets. Research from a report by Darson Securities found that companies were already using up to 70% Afghan coal in their fuel mix with a further 20% being considered. Most of the northern producers are reported to have secured the cheaper Afghan coal for about two months of inventory, although Maple Leaf Cement was said to have four to five months of inventory. Meanwhile in the south of the country, producers were reported to be facing a tougher situation as Afghan coal costs more for them due to higher logistics charges and export orders were being reduced due to the low cost of clinker internationally. So they are focusing on the domestic market instead.

Graph 1: Cement despatches in Pakistan, 2015 – 2021. Source: All Pakistan Cement Manufacturers Association.

Data from the All Pakistan Cement Manufacturers Association (APCMA) shows that cement despatches have been steadily growing since the mid-2010s with a blip in 2020 caused by the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. The upward trend has been driven by local sales. Exports have generally grown at the same time, with more variance, but they are yet to regain the high of nearly 11Mt reported in 2009. On a rolling annual basis, local sales have remained steady since mid-2021 but exports have been slowly falling. In April 2021 they were 9.17Mt but by February 2022 they were 7.33Mt. For the February 2022 figures APCMA blamed this on the growing cost of production, rising international freight rates, mounting coal prices and a trade ban with India. On that last point for example, Pakistan-based producers exported 1.21Mt of cement to India in the 2017 – 2018 financial year before exports stopped after February 2019. Despite a brief respite in the spring of 2021 talks are still ongoing to resume trade with India.

On the corporate side the country’s largest cement producer by capacity, Lucky Cement, drew the same conclusion as the APCMA with its half-year results to 31 December 2021. Its local sales volumes were down a little but its exports were down a lot. It noted that the reason its local sales were falling but national industry local sales were up slightly was due to some competitor plants being non-operational in the previous year. However, the company managed to keep sales revenue and earnings increasing year-on-year by successfully combating growing input costs with price rises. Bestway Cement, the country’s other large producer, reported a tougher situation in the second half of 2021, with both local sales and export volumes down. This was attributed to a boom in construction activity in the second half of 2020 as Covid-19 lockdowns were eased. Demand for cement since then was said to be ‘sluggish’ due to inflation and high commodity prices. It also pinned its marked fall in exports on political and economic instability in Afghanistan. However, turnover and operating profit were both up due to higher selling prices.

Elsewhere in the sector news since the start of 2021, Pakistan’s exports to South Africa remained stymied in early 2020 due to a review of ongoing tariffs and the government decision to restrict infrastructure projects to only using locally produced cement. On the sustainability front the APCMA started to set out its decarbonisation strategy in November 2021. It may have a long way to go given that a think tank reported earlier in the year that the cement sector was the largest emitter of coal-related CO₂ emissions in the country, even more than power generation. Alongside this plenty of capacity additions have been announced. Lucky Cement started commercial cement production at its 1.2Mt/yr integrated Samawah cement plant in March 2021. Various new cement plants and upgrades to existing plants have been proposed by Bestway Cement, Cherat Cement, Fauji Cement, Kohat Cement Company, Lucky Cement and Maple Leaf Cement. Finally of note to a sector troubled by energy prices, in September 2021 the Pakistan International Bulk Terminal said it was going to upgrade its coal handling capacity to around 17Mt/yr by 2024.

Last week’s Global Cement Weekly covered Turkey. The contrasts are interesting because both of these countries have high cement exports and have raised energy concerns recently. This leads to the question of whether other cement exporters may be vulnerable to the current situation. Pakistan isn’t the only country where the cement industry is facing the negative effects of growing energy costs. This week in the sector news, Spain-based Tudela Veguín has shut down the kiln at its La Robla plant down for 10 days due to high electricity prices, Thailand-based Siam Cement Group (SCG) announced it was reviewing its investment plans and the UK-based Mineral Products Association lobbied the government on the issue.

The shift to Afghan coal by Pakistan’s cement producers is rational given the current situation. No doubt fuel buyers all over the world are doing similar things. In January 2022 the International Monetary Fund (IMF) forecast that Pakistan’s gross domestic product would grow by around 4% for 2021, 2022 and 2023 but current geopolitical events may test these estimates. Over the last year domestic cement demand has remained strong but inflation, growing input costs and the impetus to further rise prices may change this. Meanwhile, lots of new production capacity is in the pipeline and, if or when it is built, it may add additional competition pressure. This may present a problem in Pakistan if capacity utilisation levels drop but input costs keep on going up.