Analysis

Cementos Argos announced this week that it is starting the process for an initial public offering (IPO) for its US business. It said that this had followed several months of consideration by its board of directors. Getting listed on the New York Stock Exchange is expected to help the company ‘optimise’ its capital structure and promote growth, due in part to the recent approval of the US$1Tn Infrastructure Bill in the US and a general positive cycle expected for the local construction materials sector over the next decade.

Argos’ decision to go public in the US comes hot on the heels of several recent attempts in Colombia to buy stakes in two of the major shareholders of Grupo Argos, the parent company of Cementos Argos and Argos USA. First, Grupo Gilinski tried to buy a majority stake in Grupo Nutresa in early November 2021. Then, at the end of November 2021, Grupo Gilinski put in an offer for a large minority share, up to 32%, of Grupo SURA.

Argos, Nutresa and SURA are all part of a highly interconnected group of companies known as the Grupo Empresarial Antioqueño (GEA), which each own stakes in each other. In part this structure helps to prevent hostile takeover attempts. However, Grupo Gilinski appears to be trying to challenge this, in the eyes of some market observers. Grupo Argos is the next obvious target for such an attempt after Nutresa and SURA. In response Grupo Argos has said that it won’t take part in Grupo Gilinski’s public acquisition offer to buy shares in Nutresa (it owns around 10% itself). Instead it has accelerated its plans for Argos USA and also wants to consolidate its interests in road and airport concessions, energy and real estate into a single entity, also to be listed in New York. All of this can be seen as action intended to make any further moves by Grupo Gilinski on GEA harder. Corporate tussles between Grupo Gilinski and GEA also hark back to a long-running legal dispute from the late 1990s over the formation of Bancolombia.

It is reasonable for the US subsidiary of Cementos Argos to want to raise funds from an IPO. The business has gradually been expanding over the last 15 years or so. First it acquired ready-mix concrete operations in the southern US from 2005. Then it purchased two integrated cement plants from Lafarge in 2011, at Roberta in Alabama and Harleyville in South Carolina respectively. This was followed by the integrated Newberry plant in Florida from Vulcan Materials in 2014, along with two grinding units in Florida. Finally, it picked up the integrated Martinsburg plant in West Virginia from HeidelbergCement in 2016. More recently it has been divesting some of its concrete plants in the US. At present Argos USA is the ninth largest cement producer in the country by cement production capacity.

Its cement sales volumes have grown by 4.5% year-on-year to 4.6Mt in the first nine months of 2021 and earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortisation (EBIDA) rose by 25% to US$239m although sales revenue dipped very slightly to US$1.09bn. Ready-mixed concrete sales volumes have also fallen, by 12% to 3.98Mm³. The growth has been attributed to both residential and commercial markets and the Infrastructure Bill is expected to keep demand brisk for the next few years. Looking at the wider picture, cement generated about 64% of Grupo Argos’ revenue in 2020, its biggest share after energy generation and a concessions business. A third of Cementos Argos’ revenue so far in 2021 came from the US.

It’s fascinating to glimpse what may be some of the inner corporate workings of Grupo Argos and the various things it has to consider for its US cement business. The US subsidiary is clearly a major earner for it with a buoyant future. The Portland Cement Association (PCA) was forecasting cement consumption growth of nearly 8% in 2021 and 2% in 2022 in its summer summary and that was before the infrastructure bill made it into law. Further expansion in the US by Argos is to be expected and the planned IPO underlines this. Meanwhile whether this and other actions are enough to stymie Grupo Gilinski remain to be seen.

Holcim has announced today that it has concluded the sale of its 75% stake of its Zambian business to Huaxin Cement. Meanwhile, in Tanzania last week, Huaxin Cement officially commissioned a cement grinding line at its Tanzanian Maweni Limestone plant. China produces about half the world’s cement and some its producers are expanding overseas as domestic growth dwindles. These actions and others place increased scrutiny on sustainability issues for Chinese cement producers. Readers therefore may be interested to note the publication last week of a list of the 100 largest Chinese corporate emitters of CO₂ in 2020.

The Chinese Cement Association (CCA) website carries some highlights on the work by from the cement sector’s perspective. China Venture Carbon and Caixin compiled the list of publicly listed companies using a mixture of freely available data such as sustainability reports, by adjusting public data or by making estimates. The companies covered released 4.42Bnt of CO₂ in 2020 or 45% of the Chinese total. The 15 cement firms in the top 100 were responsible for 893Mt of CO₂ or around 9% of the national total. This ratio is in keeping with the usual 5 – 10% share of global CO₂ emissions attributed to cement production.

Graph 1: Global gross CO₂ emissions by large cement companies in 2020. Source: China Venture Carbon/ Caixin, corporate sustainability reports. Note: Includes all reported direct and indirect emissions for all company business lines.

Many of the Chinese cement companies already release sustainability data each year so this data isn’t exactly new. Yet seeing it all in one place like this is illuminating. Unsurprisingly, on the cement side the ranking is a list of producers ordered roughly by production capacity. The world’s biggest cement producer CNBM is also the cement company that emits the most CO₂. It released 255Mt of CO₂ in 2020. If it were a country, for example, it would be around the 20th largest emitter in the world with a similar output to France or Thailand. In China CNBM is then followed by Anhui Conch, BBMG, Tangshan Jidong Cement and China Resources Cement (CRC).

Graph 1 above also includes the total gross CO₂ emissions for other large cement producers outside of China in 2020 for comparison. These figures are estimates compiled from company sustainability reports and they attempt to cover all direct and indirect emissions across all business lines not just cement. Similar to the Chinese list, generally, the less CO₂ a cement company emits on this graph the less cement it produces. It is also worth noting that 2020 was an unusual year given the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic. Generally this reduced global manufacturing output but there was wide regional variation.

The other interesting point to note from the China Venture Carbon-Caixin project is that they re-ranked their list by carbon emission intensity, measured as emissions as a proportion of revenue. This totally changes the ordering. Where before the 15 cement companies were fairly evenly spaced out amongst power generators, coal producers and petrochemical companies, now all of them are in the top 50. As the CCA notes in its commentary, “The emission intensity of electricity and cement is much higher than that of other industries. The top 30 companies in terms of carbon emission intensity are almost all power and cement companies.” Whilst most of these companies are probably safe for the time being, given their size, what this might mean for smaller Chinese cement companies with high emission intensity in light of the Chinese government’s energy efficiency drives might be seen as worrying.

Promoting gross CO₂ emissions by cement producers is generally avoided by cement producers because it makes them look bad! It prompts an argument with the environmental lobby and doesn’t recognise the essential nature of cementitious building products to society. However, to their credit producers are publishing the data. The preferred metric for the non-Chinese multinationals is specific emissions per tonne of cement as this better shows the hard-work made to reduce emissions. However, this risks a credibility gap from the outside world, if specific emissions go down but total emissions keep rising each year. In the meantime though the more data the better from China and everywhere else.

Holcim’s investors’ event last week confirmed the changes the company has been making to its sales mix. At its Capital Markets Day it revealed its commitment to expand the net sales of its Solutions & Products division to 30% of the group total by 2025. This division covers products such as roofing, mortar, precast concrete and asphalt. At the same time it is reducing the proportion of sales from its cement division. Graph 1, below, from a presentation given by chief executive officer Jans Jenisch, hints at what group may be aiming for: roughly a third of its sales from cement; a third from aggregates and ready mixed concrete; and a third from the Solutions & Products division in 2025.

Graph 1: Forecast growth of sales by Holcim’s Solutions & Products division to 2025. Source: Holcim Capital Markets Day 2021 presentations on website.

To give readers an idea of the scale of change in Holcim’s cement business since the merger with Lafarge in 2015, just look at the figures. In 2015 LafargeHolcim sold 256Mt of cement and it had a cement production capacity of 374Mt/yr. In 2020 it sold 190Mt of cement and it had a cement production capacity of 288Mt/yr. However, the ratio of sales from cement has remained consistent at just below 60%.

This all changed in January 2021 when Holcim announced it was buying roofing and building envelope producer Firestone Building Products for US$3.4bn. Instead of trimming down the business to make synergistic changes as it had been for the previous five years the group significantly changed its sales mix. As noted in ‘2021 in Cement’ in the December 2021 issue of Global Cement Magazine, Holcim remains the world’s largest non-Chinese cement producer. Yet its acquisitions in 2021 have consisted of ready-mixed concrete and aggregate companies in mature markets, and Firestone. Its divestments have been cement subsidiaries. Since 2019, and including the agreed Brazilian sale, planned to complete in 2022, the group has generated US$4.1bn in these divestments. Almost as if to reinforce this change of direction the group also switched its name to Holcim in May 2021.

Aside from the focus on expanding the scope of the Solutions & Products division over the next few years, the group said at its recent investors’ event that it wants to lead in sustainability and innovation. It also reminded investors that growth remains in building materials markets. Once Jenisch had established the potential the construction market has in the coming years it was all about so-called ‘green’ growth. On the sustainability side this includes promoting the group’s Science Based Targets initiative net-zero targets by 2050, pushing sales of its low-carbon concrete products and working on increasing the uptake of construction and demolition waste in Europe. The group has a target of reaching 25% or higher for sales of its ECOPact ready-mixed concrete product by 2025. Holcim reported Scope 1 CEM specific CO₂ net emissions of 555kgCO₂/t in 2020 and it has target of 475kgCO₂/t by 2030. This is broadly in line with its peers. Cemex has also committed to 475kgCO₂/t or lower and HeidelbergCement is currently aiming for 500kgCO₂/t or lower by 2030.

Simultaneously promoting sustainability and growth in products that release CO₂ during their manufacture is quite the balancing act for all cement producers. The way Holcim appears to be squaring this particular circle is by heading elsewhere. Back in January 2021 we asked whether Holcim would leave it with the Firestone acquisition or go further. This question has now been answered with Holcim’s intent to increase the share of its Solutions & Products to 30% by 2025. Other large cement producers don’t seem to be diversifying their sales mix at the same speed but similar strategic thinking along supply chains can be seen from the proposed buyer of LafargeHolcim Brazil, Companhia Siderúrgica Nacional (CSN) Cimentos. CSN is a steel manufacturer and buying cement assets gives it somewhere to use its slag. Fittingly, Holcim’s investors’ day ended with a night out at a museum holding an exhibition on the history of concrete. For now at least concrete looks set to remain a key part of the business.

Climate activist Greta Thunberg memorably summarised the outcome of the 2021 United Nations (UN) Climate Change Conference (COP26) as “blah, blah, blah” but what did it mean for the cement and concrete industries?

Making sense of the diplomatic language the UN uses is a full time job due to its impenetrable jargon. This is partly why climate activists and others may have become jaded about the outcome of the world’s biggest climate change jamboree. The conference of the parties (COP) tried desperately to hang on to the 1.5°C warming aim set at the Paris event (COP21) in 2015. This is dependent though on countries sticking to their 2030 targets and becoming net-zero by 2050 or earlier. Unfortunately, both China and India, two of the world’s current top three CO₂ emitters, have announced net-zero dates of after 2050. Those two countries also drew fire in the western press for weakening the language used in the COP’s outcome document about the ‘phasing out’ or ‘phasing down’ of coal use. However, simply getting coal written on the final agreement has been viewed as a result. Other positive outcomes from the event included commitments for countries to review their 2030 targets in 2022, progress towards coordinating carbon trading markets around the world and work on adaptation finance from developed countries to developing ones.

The headline results from COP26 carry mixed implications for the building materials sector. The Paris agreement (COP21) has already achieved an effect in the run-up to COP26 by prompting the cement and concrete industries to release a roadmap from the Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA) in October 2021. Now it’s down to whether individual governments actually follow the targets and how they enforce it if they do. If they don’t, then the response from building material producers is likely to be mixed at best.

What may have a more tangible effect is the work on carbon markets at COP26. Countries were finally able to complete technical negotiations on the ‘Paris Agreement Rulebook,’ notably including work on Article 6, the section that helps to govern international carbon markets and allows for a global carbon offsetting mechanism. The European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) has shown over the last year how a high carbon price may be able to stimulate companies to invest in mitigation measures such as upping alternative fuels substitution rates and developing carbon capture and storage/utilisation projects. Critics would argue that it may simply be offshoring cement production and closing local plants unnecessarily. Making a more global carbon trading scheme work amplifies both these gains and risks. Either way though, having an international framework to build upon is a major development. Finally, work on adaptation finance could have an effect for cement producers if the money actually makes it to its destination. The big example of this announced at COP26 was a US$8.5bn fund to help South Africa reduce its use of coal. It is mainly targeted at power generation but local cement producers, as a major secondary user of coal, are likely to be affected too.

Alongside the big announcements from COP26 lots of countries and companies, including ones in the cement sector, announced many sustainability plans. One of these included the launch of the Industrial Deep Decarbonisation Initiative (IDDI) during COP26 by the governments of the UK, India, Germany, Canada and the UAE. This scheme intends to create new markets for low carbon concrete and steel to help decarbonise heavy industry. To do this it will disclose the embodied carbon of major public construction projects by 2025, aim to reach net zero in major public construction steel and concrete by 2050, and work on an emissions reduction target for 2030 which will be announced in 2022. Other goals include setting up reporting standards, product standards, procurement guidelines and a free or low-cost certification service by 2023.

All of this suggests that the pressure remains on for the cement and concrete sector to decarbonise, provided that the governments stick to their targets and pledges, and back it up with action. If they do, then the industry will remind legislators of the necessity of essential infrastructure and then continue to ask for financial aid to support the development and uptake of low carbon cements, carbon capture and whatever else. Further adoption of carbon markets around the world and global rules on carbon leakage could help to accelerate this process, as could adaptation finance and global standards for low carbon concrete. The next year will be critical to see if the 1.5°C target survives and the next decade will be crucial to see if global gross cement-related CO₂ emissions will actually peak. If they do then it will be a case of ‘hip hip hurrah’ rather than ‘blah blah blah’.

Volvo Autonomous Solutions and Holcim Switzerland announced this week that they are testing and developing the use of autonomous electric haulers in a limestone quarry. It’s a two-part project, as being able to run electric dump trucks will help Holcim to meet its sustainability goals by switching to renewable energy supplies. Automating the control of the trucks then lets Holcim work towards its digitisation targets as part of its ‘Plants of Tomorrow’ initiative. Holcim Switzerland has also been running a drone programme at the plant (see GCW520) and has been using a few electric concrete mixer trucks since early 2021.

The use of autonomous haulage systems (AHS) in quarries by the cement industry seems to mark the start of something new. As far as Global Cement Weekly can tell, the Volvo Autonomous Solutions - Holcim Switzerland project is the first one in the cement sector that has been announced publicly. Most of the examples of AHS to date have been for heavy mining applications such as iron ore, copper, oil sands and coal. Automation in limestone and aggregate extraction has been slower. One recent example in the aggregate sector was announced in late 2020 when Norway-based technology company Steer said it had signed a contract with Romarheim to supply three autonomous dump trucks for use in a stone quarry. Previously Steer has used its vehicles to clear unexploded ordinance for the Norwegian army.

AHS have been around commercially since the mid-2000s when Komatsu tested and then deployed one at a copper mine run by Codelco in Chile. By September 2021 Komatsu said it had commissioned over 400 trucks with its autonomous system and that these had hauled over 4Bnt of materials. For its part Caterpillar says it started its first automated vehicle research program in 1985 and was even testing a pair of Cat 773 dump trucks in the 1990s. However, it then took a pause before resuming after 2000 and starting its commercial projects in the 2010s. In April 2020 it hit 2Bnt of hauled materials by AHS using its MineStar Command product. Hitachi, Liebherr and Belaz have also been working on their own AHS products in conjunction with third party technology providers and these were developed later in the 2010s. Most of these products are complimentary control systems that have been added to existing models or can be added to new ones. Autonomous vehicle company ASI is the other big name in the field with its Mobius product. Unlike the other systems, this is purely a retrofit product. ASI does not make its own vehicles. Komatsu and Caterpillar have also developed retrofit kits for their systems.

Most of the products above look mostly like normal trucks with the addition of extra kit. Volvo and Scania have also been working on AHS but their products have been taking it further by removing the cab entirely. Scania launched its AXL product in September 2019. Volvo launched its Volvo Autonomous Solutions subsidiary in 2020 and its Tara system electric dump truck the same year. Volvo had previously planned to run a pilot for its Tara truck with Harsco Environmental carrying slag at the Ovako Steelworks in Hofors, Sweden. Unfortunately the pilot was disrupted by the start of the coronavirus pandemic shortly after it started.

It’s early days yet with the use of autonomous vehicles in the quarries of the cement and aggregates sectors. Obvious advantages are additional operational hours, better worker safety and reduced costs. As ever with automation, cutting out human jobs would be one disadvantage for the current workers at least. There is also the possibility that an experienced human driver using efficiency software tools might be better than a fully AHS. A challenge in the field is developing open standards or methods to allow autonomous machines to communicate or work with both products by the same manufacturer and its rivals, as well as with conventional human-driven ones. Another challenge is for the mining and quarrying industry to determine how flexible it wants its heavy vehicles to be. One thought to end with this that an autonomous vehicle with a cab and a steering wheel can still be driven by a human. The cab-less vehicles being tested by Volvo and Scania would be rather less useful if they get into a situation where the software can’t cope. Lots to consider.

If readers are aware of other examples AHS in the cement industry, please let us know at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.