Analysis

UBE Mitsubishi Cement recently released an update on its commercial scale demonstration using ammonia as a fuel at its Ube plant. It is currently testing the use of ammonia in both the cement kiln and calciner at the site. It has set the aim of reaching a 30% coal substitution rate with ammonia in the cement kiln by the end of March 2025. It has described the project as a world first. Planned future work includes running ammonia combustion tests alongside post-consumer plastics.

The company announced the three-year project in mid-2023. Utilities company Chubu Electric Power has been working on it and UBE Corporation has been supplying the ammonia for the test. The scheme dates back to before Mitsubishi Materials and Ube Industries merged their cement businesses in 2022. Ube Industries previously took part in a government research project looking at the topic, running combustion tests and numerical analysis in small industrial furnaces.

Another ammonia research project in the cement sector was revealed in 2024 by Heidelberg Materials in the UK. The company was awarded just under €0.40m in funding by Innovate UK through its UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) fund, together with engineering consultants Stopford and Cranfield University. The 12-month feasibility study aimed to assess the use of ammonia as a hydrogen carrier and evaluate the most economical method of on-site ammonia cracking to generate hydrogen for use by clinker kilns. It also intended to investigate the various tiers of the UK's existing ammonia supply chain network for the suitable transportation, offloading and storage of ammonia.

The UK project explained that it was looking at ammonia as a hydrogen carrier due to its high volumetric energy density. This, potentially, makes ammonia easier and cheaper to store and transport than hydrogen. It pointed out that storing and transporting hydrogen is difficult and the chemical is expensive. It also noted that the volumetric energy density of ammonia is 45% higher than that of liquid hydrogen. The benefit of switching to a zero-carbon fuel was that it could cut CO₂ emissions by the cement and concrete sector in the UK by 16%.

The attraction of ammonia to the cement industry is similar to that of hydrogen. Both are versatile chemicals that can be produced and used in a variety of ways. The production processes and supply chains of both chemicals are linked. The Haber–Bosch process, for example, uses hydrogen to manufacture ammonia. It can also be cracked to release the hydrogen. When used as fuels neither release CO₂ emissions directly. This comes down to the method of production. Like hydrogen, there is a similar informal colour scheme indicating carbon intensity (Grey, Blue, Green and Turquoise). Despite the advantages listed above, the disadvantages of using ammonia include toxicity and NO_x emissions, as well as the fact that there is little experience of using ammonia as a fuel. The worldwide ammonia market was bigger by volume in 2023 with production of just under 200Mt compared to hydrogen production of just under 100Mt.

Back in Japan, the national government has been promoting the use of ammonia technology for the power generation sector. It added ammonia to the country’s national energy plan in the early 2020s following research on running power plants with a mixture of ammonia and coal. The ambition is to build up levels of ammonia co-firing at power plants, develop the necessary technology and grow supply chains. This, it is hoped, will broaden, diversify and decarbonise the domestic energy mix and pull together a new international market too. Unfortunately, this strategy has had criticism. One study by BloombergNEF in 2022 estimated, for example, that the electricity cost of Japan-based power stations switching to firing ammonia by 2050 would be more expensive than generation from renewables such as solar or wind.

This explains why the ammonia project by UBE Mitsubishi Cement is leading the way. The interest by a European cement company shows that others are thinking the same way too. Yet again, the potential decarbonisation solution for cement is likely to lead towards more complex industrial supply chains. The next steps to watch will be whether a cement plant in Japan actually starts to co-fire ammonia on a regular basis and if any more ammonia projects pop up elsewhere around the world.

There are two new cement plant stories to note in Nigeria this week. Firstly, the Kebbi State Government has signed an agreement with MSM Cement to build a 3Mt/yr plant. Secondly, drilling work has started on a forthcoming 10Mt/yr plant to be built by Resident Cement in Bauchi State.

The project in Kebbi State appears to be a new one, although the government has been looking for investors for a while. The state government and a subsidiary of MSM Group have signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) supporting the US$2.4bn initiative, according to local press. Alhaji Muazzam Mairawani, the chair of MSN Group, said that his company intends to develop the plant in four stages, each worth US$600m. The first stage has a schedule of production by early 2027. MSN Group started out in the fertiliser business and has since expanded into the oil and gas, shipping and agricultural sectors.

The project in Bauchi State has progressed further along and is bigger. The state government signed an MOU worth US$1.5bn with Resident Cement in mid-2024. The deal also includes a 100MW power plant, a dam and other amenities for the local community. Before the main announcement of the MOU, local press reported that Sinoma Nigeria Company was investing in the project. Subsequently, Bala Mohammed, governor of Bauchi State, said that the state owns a 10% stake in the plant.

These two new project stories follow the release of the annual reports for 2024 in recent weeks by the main cement producers in Nigeria. Global Cement Weekly touched upon this last week in its coverage of the results of major multinational building materials companies including Dangote Cement. That company’s sales revenue and earnings were boosted by growing sales volumes of cement in Nigeria. This was particularly impressive given that the country continues to face economic problems including high inflation and negative currency exchange effects. Dangote Cement said it managed to overcome these problems through “increased promotional activities and improved route to market solutions” thereby upping the market presence of its products. The company also managed to grow its exports to a record amount. It shipped 0.91Mt of clinker to Cameroon and Ghana out of a total export volume of 1.2Mt.

Graph 1: Sales revenue for large cement producers in Nigeria, 2023 - 2024. Source: Company financial reports.

It was a similar story from the two other large domestic cement companies. Lafarge Africa’s net sales grew at a similar rate to Dangote Cement in 2024 and it increased its profit after tax faster. Lolu Alade-Akinyemi, the CEO of Lafarge Africa, attributed this to the company’s “strong market positioning, operational efficiency, cost management and dedication to value creation.” BUA Cement grew its sales faster than the other two. Starting production on new production lines at its Sokoto and Obu plants is likely to have contributed to this. However, the company’s net profits rose at a lower rate than its competitors in 2024. This has been blamed on the poor market at the start of the year and negative currency exchange effects related to the loans that the company took out for its new lines.

Lafarge Africa ending on a high with its 2024 results is not surprising given that the company is currently being sold by Holcim to Huaxin Cement. The transaction is expected to close at some point in 2025. Huaxin Cement issued an update at the end of February 2025 saying that its accountants had been auditing the financial statements of Lafarge Africa. It also noted the depreciation of the Nigerian Naira in 2023 and 2024. This is all fairly standard stuff but check back later in the year to see how the sale has progressed.

The cement market in Nigeria is looking positive. New plants are on the way, the large cement producers are doing relatively well and the general economy may be improving. New entrants are also entering the market. However, consumers and legislators have increasingly questioned why the price of cement has remained so high in recent years. This continues to present a tricky situation to the market as it develops.

Cement producers based in North America and Europe reported stable revenues and growing earnings in 2024. Revenue growth at scale could be found in India and Sub-Saharan Africa. Notably, India-based UltraTech Cement’s sales volumes of cement surpassed those of Holcim’s. Yet, the European-headquartered multinationals were mostly happy due to increased earnings. Holcim lauded record performance in 2024, for example, and Heidelberg Materials reflected upon “a very good financial year.” This review of financial results looks at selected large heavy building materials companies, outside of China, that have released financial results so far.

Graph 1: Sales revenue from selected cement producers in 2023 and 2024. Source: Company reports. Note: Figures calculated for UltraTech Cement, consolidated data from Ambuja Cement used for Adani Cement.

Holcim’s net sales may have dropped on a direct basis from 2023 to 2024 but its focus is on earnings. Its recurring earnings before interest and taxation (EBIT) rose by 4% year-on-year to US$1.31bn in 2024 from US$1.26bn in 2023. And the changing nature of where its earnings come from in recent years has led to the impending spin-off of the US business, scheduled to occur by the end of the first half of 2025. The company will be called Amrize and will be listed on the New York Stock Exchange, with an additional listing on the SIX Swiss Exchange. By product line, sales were down for cement, ready-mixed concrete (RMX) and aggregates, but they were up for the group’s Solutions & Products division. Despite this earnings were up for all four product lines. By region sales fell in North America, Europe and Asia, Middle East & Africa. They rose in Latin America. For reference, North America and Europe are the group’s two biggest segments.

Heidelberg Materials’ sales revenue remained stable in 2024 on a direct basis, although it dipped slightly on a like-for-like comparison. Its result from current operations before depreciation and amortisation (RCOBD) grew by 6% to US$3.4bn. Geographically, revenue in Europe and Asia Pacific fell. RCOBD increased, notably, by 19% to US$4.80bn in North America. It grew everywhere else apart from Africa-Mediterranean-Western Asia. As is becoming customary for Heidelberg Materials, it made a point of highlighting its sustainability progress. This includes demonstrating progress towards its sustainable revenue target and reminding markets that the delivery of its first carbon captured net-zero cement evoZero product is planned during 2025. The group plans to release its 2024 full annual report at the end of March 2025.

Graph 2: Cement sales volumes from selected cement producers in 2023 and 2024. Source: Company reports. Note: Annualised sales volumes provided for CRH, figures calculated for UltraTech Cement.

CRH’s strength in North America gave it both rising revenues and earnings. Sales revenue from its Americas Materials Solutions division reported 5% growth to US$16.2bn in 2024. Adjusted earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) sprung up by 22% to US$3.75bn. Revenue growth was attributed to price increases and acquisitions. Earnings growth was pinned on growth across all regions, pricing, cost management, operational efficiency and gains on land asset sales. Despite this, reported volumes in the division were down in 2024. The group’s International Solutions division performed more in line with its competitors, with revenue down slightly but earnings up. Lastly, CRH’s annualised sales volumes of cement grew in 2024. This is likely primarily due to the group’s acquisition of assets in Australia.

Cemex had a tougher time of it in 2024, compared to the previous three companies, with both sales revenues and earnings down. Sales and earnings were down on a direct basis for each of its three main regions – Mexico, the US, and Europe, Middle East, and Africa - although the picture was better in Mexico on a like-for-like basis. Sales volumes of cement, RMX and aggregates were either static or down in each of these areas. In the US the group may have been unlucky as it took an earnings hit from four hurricanes and a deep freeze in Texas. Group earnings improved in the fourth quarter of 2024. In spite of this it introduced ‘Project Cutting Edge’ in February 2025, a three-year, US$350m cost saving exercise.

The first takeaway from UltraTech Cement’s performance in 2024 is that a second (mainly) national producer has overtaken the multinationals. This happened with several China-based cement producers over the last decade. Now it has occurred in India with Ultratech Cement. It reported sales volumes of 120Mt in the 2024 calendar year. Shifting to the Indian financial calendar, Ultratech Cement ‘s revenue rose slightly in the nine months to 31 December 2024 but its new profit fell by 19% year-on-year to US$458m. Local press has blamed this on weak price realisations despite sales volumes growing. At the same time its energy costs have fallen so far in its 2025 financial year. Adani Cement, meanwhile, reported strong growth in both revenue and earnings in the 12 months to 31 December 2024. It too is likely to become one of the world’s largest cement producers by sales volumes by 2030, outside of China, if it follows-through on its expansion targets.

Finally, Dangote Cement reminded us all what growth really looks like as the Nigerian market started to rebound. Sales revenue increased by 62% to US$2.39bn and EBITDA by 56% to US$591m. Despite high domestic interest rates in Nigeria the group managed to grow its sales volumes of cement. Elsewhere in Sub-Saharan Africa sales volumes declined a little due to bad weather conditions in Tanzania and election uncertainties in Senegal and South Africa.

The importance of the US market for many multinational cement producers continued in 2024. However, this reliance on one place can carry risks, as Cemex’s results seem to suggest. Another reminder of this occurred this week when the US government imposed 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico. The Portland Cement Association said in a statement, “The US cement industry would like to work with the administration to address federal laws and regulations that prevent American cement companies from increasing production, making it necessary for the US to import some 20% of its total cement consumption annually - including from Canada and Mexico.” Elsewhere, markets are changing as mega-markets such as India and Sub-Saharan Africa unleash their potential. China-based Huaxin Cement, for example, may start to gain a place on international round-ups like this one in 2025 when it completes its acquisition of Lafarge Africa.

The European Union (EU) is set to launch its Green Deal Industrial Plan, today, on 26 February 2025. It is the latest plan to help industry in the region reach net zero whilst remaining competitive. Key parts of the scheme that have been seen by the media include support for industries facing high energy prices, tax breaks for decarbonisation projects, simplifying the cross border adjustment mechanism (CBAM), linking funding for industrial CO₂ cutting more directly to revenue gathered from the emissions trading scheme (ETS) and revamping procurement rules.

Cembureau, the European cement association, presented its comments on the impending announcement earlier this week. On CBAM it said that more work was required on exports, “such as export adjustment or continued free allowances for exported goods through the application of the destination principle which merits more in-depth analysis and discussion as to its WTO compatibility.” On financing it called for 75% of ETS taxation on the cement sector to be funnelled straight back again in the form of a cement decarbonisation fund. On infrastructure it called for competitive access to low-carbon energy sources such as thermal biowaste and electricity. It also lobbied for the rapid-development of CO₂ pipelines and storage sites. Finally, on lead markets it asked that concrete carbonation and CO₂ use in construction materials be recognised as a carbon sink and that carbon capture and utilisation using CO₂ from industrial sectors be acknowledged through a review of the CO₂ accounting rules in the ETS.

Lobbyists from the other side of the argument, also ahead of the official unveiling of the Green Deal Industrial Plan, took a dim view of the ETS. A report published by Carbon Market Watch and WWF called for greater scrutiny to be placed on the scheme. Its argument is that the “current architecture of the EU ETS continues to reward heavy polluters by granting them free allowances instead of incentivising emissions reductions.” Holcim, Heidelberg Materials and Cemex were each singled out as having received more free allowances under the ETS than the actual emissions they were responsible for in 2023. The report also reflected the growing environmental backlash against carbon capture and utilisation and/or storage (CCUS). In its view the money from the ETS going into the Innovation Fund should be directed at schemes that directly reduce emissions, not at CCUS projects, although it did concede that the cement and lime industries were some of the few sectors that should be allowed funding towards CCUS. This may be a point for the cement sector to watch for in the future if there ends up being a wider backlash against CCUS in general.

The Carbon Market Watch-WWF case is that the cement sector (and others) have received far too many free allowances in the ETS for far too long. The authors admit that the allowances are set to fall fast, to 2034, as the CBAM comes in but they don’t think that anywhere near enough has been done. This has not been helped over the years by news stories occasionally emerging of idled cement plants appearing to make money from emissions allowances. These occurrences date back to the drop in production following the financial crash in 2008 but there have been more recent examples.

Graph 1: Allowances for and emissions from clinker production from the emissions trading scheme in the European Union, 2017 - 2023. Source: EU Transaction Log (EUTL).

As Graph 1 above shows the environmentalists may be overstating their point on the ETS given that emissions were higher than the free allocation in 2018, 2019, 2021 and 2022. Roughly speaking, both the allowances and emissions by the cement sector from clinker production have been dropping since 2017 and further back to the mid-2000s. The system is intended to squeeze emissions but it doesn't take into account short-term variations in market conditions. Cembureau data shows that production rose in 2021. Sure enough, emissions jumped above the allocation. Although the cement production data is yet to be released for 2023, it is looking fairly likely that it will have decreased. Hence, emissions have fallen below the allocation level.

Few are likely to be happy with the EU’s Green Deal Industrial Plan. For producers, it is unlikely to add sufficient support against the additional ‘green’ cost burden. For environmentalists, it doesn't go far enough. The usual equilibrium for EU sustainability legislation is aiming at the target of net-zero without killing industry. The current US administration has further tipped this balancing act with its threats to fight against CBAM and the like with trade tariffs. Tom Lord, Redshaw Advisors described the EU ETS as a political construct at the Global FutureCem Conference that took place in February 2025 in Istanbul. This also applies to the EU’s green legislation (like any laws). Subsequently, certainty is a word that crops up frequently in discussions about EU green policies. Can EU industry be certain that these political constraints remain should circumstances change? With the ETS allowances dropping, CBAM coming and industry facing higher energy prices than its competitors, we’re about to find out how committed the EU is on net-zero and who the winners and losers will be.

Two news stories to note this week concerning climate legislation in eastern Asia. First, the Indonesian government announced plans to create a mandatory carbon emissions trading scheme (ETS) for key industries including cement. Second, an initiative to set up a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) in Taiwan emerged.

The proposal in Indonesia has been expected by the local cement sector and the wider market. Back in November 2024 at the ASEAN Federation of Cement Manufacturers (AFCM) event, an Indonesian Cement Association (ASI) speaker said that a preparation period for carbon trading by industrial sectors was expected from 2025 to 2027 followed by an easing-in period and then full implementation from 2031 onwards. This latest announcement appears to confirm the planned roll-out of the country’s cap-and-trade system. So far the government has set up a carbon tax, a voluntary carbon trading scheme (IDX Carbon) and a mandatory carbon trading scheme for part of the power sector. Notably, the local carbon price for that last one is low compared to other schemes elsewhere around the world. In 2024 the World Bank reported a price of US$0.61/t of CO₂. Since it only started in 2023 it is still early days yet though.

The new information confirms that the cement, fertiliser, steel and paper industries will be added to the mandatory emissions trading scheme. As per other cap-and-trade schemes, low emitters should be able to sell spare credits. However, comments made by Apit Pria Nugraha, Head of the Center for Green Industry, Ministry of Industry, at a recent trade event in Jakarta suggested that companies that emit more than their allowance would have to pay a 5% levy on the excess and buy credits for the rest. This seems to be different from the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, where companies are fined only if they go above their allowance and they do not buy sufficient credits to cover themselves. However, we’ll have to wait to confirm this and other details.

Meanwhile in Taiwan, Peng Chi-ming, the Minister of Environment, announced that a bill establishing a local CBAM could be prepared in the second half of 2025. What is telling though is how the local press coverage of this story framed the trade policy aspects of such a scheme. Peng questioned how the EU CBAM might fare in response to the protectionist and pro-tariff administration in the US. He also noted that importers of cement and steel didn’t have to disclose their carbon emissions compared to local producers. Vietnam, unsurprisingly, was singled out as a likely target of a CBAM given that one third of Taiwan’s imports of cement come from there. Lastly, Peng also said that Taiwan would have to apply to the World Trade Organization for approval if or when it did set up its own CBAM.

Taiwan introduced a carbon tax at the start of 2025 with a standard price of US$9.16/t of CO₂ and lower prices for companies using approved reduction plans or meeting technology benchmarks. Research by Reccessary indicated that Taiwan Cement might face a carbon tax bill of US$41m and Asia Cement could be looking at US$28m based on 2023 data. These additional costs will increase operating costs and reduce profits.

All of this may sound familiar because it has already happened in Europe. Some form of carbon trading or taxation is introduced and then the debate moves on to carbon leakage via imports. The cement industries in Indonesia and Taiwan are unlikely to be aggravated directly by the EU CBAM but the wider economies of both countries are reacting to secure access to export markets. This, in turn, has implications for a heavy CO₂-emitting sector like cement. For example, if a CBAM isn’t already being considered in Indonesia, local heavy industry is likely to start lobbying for one, if the new ETS starts affecting import rates.

The Minister of Environment in Taiwan and others before him have identified that climate policies can be protectionist. As more countries regulate local carbon emissions, more trade disputes look likely. The big one right now might be the growing argument between the US Trump administration and the EU. Yet, every time a country sets up a new carbon scheme, a potential new argument over trade is brewing. And cement producers in Indonesia, Taiwan and everywhere else are stuck in the middle of all of this.