Analysis

The news from Sri Lanka this week is that Lanwa Sanstha Cement is preparing to commission a new 3Mt/yr grinding plant in January 2022. The timing is apposite given the current shortages in the country.

Some inkling of local problems can be seen in the cement news over the last few months. In August 2021 Insee Cement said that it was operating at full capacity utilisation across its network. Later, at the end of October 2021, the government intervened in the import market by opening up the use of Trincomalee Harbour. This was followed by the nation’s other main producer, Tokyo Cement, announcing that it too was operating its grinding plant at Trincomalee at full capacity. It also said that, at the government’s behest, it was going to increase its import rate.

The new Lanwa Sanstha Cement unit originally came to international attention when Germany-based Gebr. Pfeiffer revealed details in 2019 of an order of two MVR 5000 C-4 type roller mills from Onyx Group. Lanwa Sanstha Cement has since said that the plant will cost US$80m. Once operational the unit at the Mirijjawila export processing zone of the Hambantota International Port will manufacture ordinary Portland cement, Portland slag cement, Portland limestone cement and blended hydraulic cement. A further equipment order for the project was announced this week when the Chinese-run Hambantota International Port Group signed an agreement with Lanwa Sanstha Cement to build a conveyor from the port to the plant. The deal also includes two ship unloaders.

Other new cement units on the horizon include an integrated plant project from Nepalese businessman Binod Chaudhary that was announced in mid-2019. The US$150m plant was planned for Mannar in the north of the island. However, not much more has been heard since then. Chaudhary’s company CG Cement operates a grinding plant in Nepal. More recently, in October 2021, local press reported that the government had tentative plans to build a new plant at the old state-owned Kankesanthurai site, also in the north. The plant was originally built in the 1950s and production ran until 1990 when the military took over the unit amid the then on-going civil war. Earlier in 2021 the government agreed to sell off the machinery at the site. However, much of it has gone missing in the intervening period! Proposals to revive the plant have circulated since the mid-2010s.

Graph 1: Cement production and imports in Sri Lanka, 2015 – 2021. Estimate for 2021 based on January to August data. Source: Central Bank of Sri Lanka.

The Sri Lankan cement market has faced a tough time over the last two years. First, total local production and imports fell by 11% year-on-year to 7.2Mt in 2020 from 8.1Mt in 2019. Then, imports fell by 18% year-on-year to 1.83Mt from January to August 2021 from 2.24Mt in the same period in 2020. Local production has more than compensated though, leading to growth in the total so far in 2021. There have been general economic reasons for why the ratio of imports to local production has fallen in 2020 and 2019 and this is explained in more detail below. Yet, imports hit a high of 5.68Mt in 2017 and have been declining since then both in real terms and proportionately.

Insee Cement summed up the local situation in its third quarter results by blaming cement shortages on input cost rises, supply chain disruption and negative exchange rates effects. The first two problems are issues everywhere around the world as economies speed up again following the coronavirus lockdowns but the last one is more specific to Sri Lanka. The country has faced a recession in its economy because the pandemic shut down tourism. The government initially introduced import limits to try and control foreign currency reserves. It then imposed price controls on essential foods and commodities, including cement, in September 2021 to try and stop shortages but this plan was abandoned a month later. Focusing on cement, some idea of the input cost inflation facing the sector can be seen in Tokyo Cement’s latest quarterly financial results. Its cost of sales rose by 72% year-on-year to US$59.5m in the six months to end of September 2021 from US$34.5m in the same period in 2020.

Lasantha Alagiyawanna, the State Minister of Consumer Protection, said at the end of October 2021 that it would take three weeks to import the required cement into the country. Whether this is enough to end the shortage remains to be seen. Yet, whatever does happen, it is likely that more production capacity from the likes of Lanwa Sanstha Cement and others will be welcome in 2022 and beyond.

Interesting move from HeidelbergCement this week with the news that it has agreed to buy a cement plant in Tanzania. The Germany-based multinational producer has signed a deal to buy a 68% stake in Tanga Cement from South Africa-based AfriSam. There has been no indication of the price but the arrangement will give HeidelbergCement a 1.3Mt/yr integrated plant in the north of the country along with a limestone quarry with reserves to last 30 years. The transaction is expected to close in the second quarter of 2022. HeidelbergCement says it then hopes to buy the remaining shares in the company.

HeidelbergCement already operates one integrated plant in Tanzania, Tanzania Portland Cement’s (TPC) Wazo Hill Plant in the capital Dar es Salaam. It took control of the plant in the early 2000s when its subsidiary Scancem International purchased over half of the company’s shares. The plant commissioned a new cement mill in 2014 to increase its production capacity to 2Mt/yr. Local press reported in April 2021 that the subsidiary planned to invest US$15m towards modernising the unit in 2021. It sells cement under the Twiga brand.

Tanga Cement runs a plant near Tanga that was originally commissioned in 1980. Holcim took it over in the mid-1990s before South-Africa based AfriSam assumed control in the early 2010s. The plant commissioned a second production line in 2016 and it has a production capacity of 1.3Mt/yr. It sells cement under the Simba brand.

HeidelbergCement’s decision to buy a plant in Tanzania is noteworthy because it goes against the general trend in acquisitions by western-based multinational cement companies in recent years. Instead of shrinking away from markets in developing economies and doubling-down on ‘safe havens’ in mature markets it has bought a plant in a developing country. Although one might argue that it does fit the definition of a well-chosen bolt-on acquisition.

Graph 1: Cement production in Tanzania, 2011 – 2020. Source: Tanzania National Bureau of Statistics.

As Graph 1 above shows, cement production in Tanzania has more than doubled over the last decade, from 2.4Mt in 2011 to 6.5Mt in 2020. Tanzania Portland Cement estimated local demand at 5.9Mt, including exports, in 2020. This was against a total cement production capacity, from both integrated and grinding plants, of 11Mt/yr. As well as the TPC and Tanga Cement plants mentioned above, Holcim runs an integrated plant in Mbeya and Huaxin Cement operates one near Tanga. Alongside this, new integrated plants have opened including Lake Cement’s 0.5Mt/yr Kimbiji plant in 2014 and Dangote Cement’s 3Mt/yr Mtwara plant in 2015. The big project on the horizon is a proposed 7Mt/yr integrated plant from China-based CNBM/Sinoma, although not much has been heard publicly about it since mid-2020. At that time local press was reporting that compensation was being finalised for residents of the proposed site near Tanga. Needless to say, given the size of the plant compared to the Tanzanian cement market, much of the plant’s output is intended for export.

With the CNBM plant in mind, it is noteworthy that HeidelbergCement committed to buying an extra plant in the country. Production has been going up over the last decade to presumably meet demand but the new Chinese project could potentially blot out the entire existing production. Tanzania faced a cement shortage at the end of 2020 despite coronavirus. TPC has repeatedly warned of production overcapacity in Tanzania and the challenges of competition. Yet it reported a new sales record in 2020 and growth of 7% in the national cement market. Despite a 5Mt overcapacity, TPC says it managed to adapt to the new market conditions. It also managed to grow its operating profit by 20% year-on-year to around US$46m in 2020 compared to HeidelbergCement Group’s 8% rise in results from current operations in 2020. This kind of return no doubt helped HeidelbergCement to make up its mind.

UltraTech Cement, Taiheiyo Cement, Cimtogo and the Chinese Cement Association (CCA) have all been talking about the same thing recently: energy prices.

India-based UtraTech Cement reported this week that coal and petcoke prices nearly doubled in the second quarter of its current financial year, leading to a 17% rise year-on-year in energy costs. Japan-based Taiheiyo Cement released a statement earlier in October 2021 saying that due to mounting coal prices it was planning to raise the price of its cement from the start of 2022. It principally blamed this on increased demand in China and a stagnant export market. It added that it was ‘inevitable’ that prices would rise further in the future. Meanwhile in West Africa, Eric Goulignac, the chief executive officer of Cimtogo, complained to the local press that the reason the company’s cement prices were going up was due to a 250% increase in the cost of fuels for the Scantogo plant and an increase in the price of sea freight of over US$35/t for transporting gypsum and coal.

Other places where the cost of energy has been biting cement producers include Turkey and Serbia. In the former, Türk Çimento, the Turkish Cement Manufacturers' Association, warned in June 2021 that the price of petcoke had nearly tripled over the previous year. Whether it was connected or not, the Turkish Building Contractors Confederation (IMKON) organised a strike in September 2021 due to high costs. The confederation claimed that the price of cement had tripled over the last year. In Serbia electricity prices have risen sharply in recent months in common with much of Europe. Local press reported comments last month from President Aleksandar Vučić saying that an unnamed cement producer had warned of a 25% rise in the price of cement if electricity prices remained high. In the UK the Energy Intensive Users Group (EIUG), a network of lobbying groups for heavy industry including cement, has been holding talks with the government on how to cope with growing energy costs. Finally, in the US, Lhoist warned in September 2021 that is was going to increase the cost of all of its lime products from the start of November 2021 due to increasing gas prices. These are just some of the reactions by cement and lime producers to the current global energy market. No doubt there are many more.

The current global energy crunch has widely been attributed to the waking up of economies following coronavirus-related dormancy in 2020 with supply failing to meet demand. Gas prices have risen to record highs and this has promoted electricity producers to switch to coal in the US, Europe and Asia. This in turn has put pressure on industrial users as both electricity and coal prices have grown and governments have taken action in some cases to protect domestic users. In Europe price pressure has lead to reductions in ammonia and fertiliser production. Power cuts have been reported in China and India.

In China a variety of factors have converged to create a crisis. These include shutting down coal mines on environmental and safety grounds, anti-corruption measures and even promoting mine closures to facilitate clean skies for national events such as the Communist party’s 100th anniversary. Disruption to import sources such as a ban on Australian coal on political grounds, flooding in Indonesia and a renewed coronavirus outbreak in Mongolia can’t have helped either. Thermal coal futures traded on the Zhengzhou Commodity Exchange hit a high of US$263/t on 15 October 2021 marking a 34% rise through the week and the largest weekly growth since trading started in 2013. The International Energy Agency estimates that coal demand in China grew by over 10% year-on-year in the first half of 2021 but coal production increased by just over 5%.

Industrial users have suffered as energy supplies have been rationed and producers asked to cut output. In September 2021 cement output fell by 12% year-on-year to 205Mt from 233Mt in September 2020. This is the lowest monthly figure for September since 2011. It’s also not the usual direction of double-digit rate of change that the Chinese cement sector is used to. The CCA attributed this mainly to energy controls, power shortages and high coal prices in Jiangsu, Hunan, Zhejiang, Guangdong, Guangxi, Yunnan, Shandong and elsewhere. Cement output for the first nine months of 2021 is still ahead of 2020 at 1.77Bnt compared to 1.67Bnt but it’s been slipping noticeably since July 2021.

This will leave energy users, including cement producers, watching the weather forecasts rather closely this winter. Should the Northern Hemisphere suffer a cold one then energy prices such as coal will reflect it. Industrial users may also become subject to energy rationing in many places. The knock-on effect of this then will be higher cement prices. However bad the winter does turn out to be though we can expect more cement companies trying to explain bashfully why their prices are going up. On the plus side any producer that can diversify its energy mix through solar, alternative fuels or whatever else is likely to be doing so soon if they are not already.

In the two and a half years since Calix brought together cement producers across corporate and national boundaries to form the first Low Emissions Intensity Lime And Cement (LEILAC-1) consortium and commissioned a carbon capture installation at the Lixhe cement plant in Belgium on 10 May 2019, carbon capture and storage (CCS) has passed some major milestones. New installations have made Global Cement headlines from Canada (at Lehigh Cement’s Edmonton plant in November 2019) to China (at a China National Building Material (CNBM) plant in July 2021). Twelve other European cement plants now host current or planned carbon capture trials – including the first full-scale system, at HeidelbergCement’sBrevik plant in Norway. A second Calix-led project in Germany, LEILAC-2, attracted Euro16m-worth of funding from the European Union in April 2020.

The work of LEILAC-1 – backed by HeidelbergCement, Cemex, Lhoist, Tarmac and others, with Euro12m in funding – set the benchmark in innovation. Its pilot plant successfully captured 100% of 'unavoidable' process emissions by indirectly heating raw materials inside a vertical steel tube. Called direct capture, the model removes a CO₂ separation step, as our subsequent price analysis will reflect.

In October 2021, the LEILAC-1 consortium published its report of the concluded Lixhe trial. It described the three-fold key successes of the study:

1) Both limestone and raw meal may be processed;

2) CO₂ is successfully separated;

3) The energy penalty for indirect calcination is not higher than for conventional direct calcination.

Additionally, Calix’s first departure into the cement sector has demonstrated that its model exhibits no operational deterioration, does not suffer from material build-up and has no impact on the host plant when used in cement production. The plant’s clinker capacity remained the same as before the trial. Most importantly of all, the Lixhe cement plant recorded no process safety incidents throughout the duration of the trial.

The study has also put an evidence-based price tag on industrial-scale CCS at a cement plant for the first time: Euro36.84/t. Figure 1 (below) plots the full-cycle costs of three different carbon capture installations at retrofitted 1Mt/yr cement plants using 100% RDF, including projections for transport and storage. Installation 1 is an amine-based carbon capture system of the kind installed in the Brevik cement plant’s exhaust stack; Installation 2 is the Calix direct capture system and Installation 3 consists of both systems in combination. Direct capture’s costs are the lowest, while the amine retrofit and the combination installation are close behind at Euro43.68/t and Euro43.25/t respectively.

Figure 1: Full-cycle costs of three different carbon capture installations at retrofitted 1Mt/yr cement plants using 100% RDF

Installations 1 and 3 both entail additional energy requirements for the separation of CO₂ from flue gases and air. With the inclusion of the CO₂ produced thereby, the cost of Installation 1 rises to Euro94/t of net CO₂ emissions eliminated, more than double that of Installation 2 at Euro38.21/t. The combination of the two in Installation 3 costs Euro67.3/t, 76% more than direct capture alone. Figure 2 (below), breaks down the carbon avoidance costs for each one and compares them.

Figure 2: Carbon avoidance costs of three different carbon capture installations at retrofitted 1Mt/yr cement plants using 100% RDF

The Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA)’s seven-point Roadmap to Net Zero strategy puts CCS at the forefront of concrete sector decarbonisation. CCS is expected to eliminate an increasing share of global concrete’s CO₂ emissions, rising to 36% in 2050 – by then 1.37Bnt of a total 3.81Bnt. This will depend on affordability. Calix’s model has reduced the capital expenditure (CAPEX) of a carbon capture retrofit by 72% to Euro34m from Euro98m for the amine-based equivalent. When built as part of a new plant, the CAPEX further lowers to Euro27m. Both models may also be retrofitted together, for Euro99m. In future, Calix expects to install direct capture systems capable ofachieving Euro22/t of captured CO₂. By contrast, the cost of emitting 1t of CO₂ in the EU on 11 October 2021 was Euro59.15.

In what it calls the Decade to Deliver, the GCCA aims to achieve a 25% CO₂ emissions reduction in global concrete production between 2020 and 2030, in which CCS plays only a minor part of less than 5%. LEILAC-1 presents a visionof affordable carbon avoidance which complements cement companies’ 2030 CO₂ reduction aspirations.

Unlike conventional CCS methods, however, direct capture only does two thirds of a job – eliminating the emissions of calcination, but not combustion. This would appear to make it unsuited to cement’s longer-term aim of carbon neutrality by 2050 in line with the Paris Climate Accords’ 2°C warming scenario. On the other hand, direct capture is not designed to work alone. Calix recommends use of the technology in conjunction with a decarbonised fuel stream to eliminate the plant’s remaining direct emissions. This increases the price - by 47% to Euro56.05/t of CO₂ avoided for biomassand by more than double to Euro104.48/t for an E-kiln.

The Lixhe cement plant’s carbon capture story is one of a successful crossover from one industry into another: Calix previously applied the technology in the Australian magnesite sector. Realisation of the Calix carbon capture vision in the global cement industry is a challenge primarily due to the scale of the task. It will require continued collaboration between companies and with partners outside of the industry. Further than this, parliaments must continue to enact legislation to make emission mitigation the economic choice for producers.

There have been a couple of news stories worth noting in the Turkish market this week. First, it was revealed that Medcem had chosen Sintek Group to build a new production line at its integrated plant in Mersin. Second, Çimko Çimento agreed to buy two integrated plants and a grinding plant from Çimsa.

The Medcem upgrade project will see the subsidiary of Eren Holding add a second production line, with a clinker capacity of 9000t/day. Sintek Group reportedly has agreed to do this for US$128m. This follows an announcement from Medcem in late May 2021 that it was intending to invest over US$200m towards increasing its plant’s overall production capacity to 6.5Mt/yr from 3.5Mt/yr. The plan at this point was to start construction work in August 2021 with eventual commissioning of the second line in the first quarter of 2023. In addition the cement producer said at the time that it was going to open a new terminal in the US shortly. This was intended to join the company’s existing grinding plants in Cameroon and Tunisia and terminals in Russia and Northern Cyprus. On a side note, Medcem likes to point out that the 11,500t/day clinker production capacity on its existing line at its plant is the biggest in Turkey and Europe.

The Çimko Çimento deal with Çimsa was for US$127m. It includes the Nigde Kayseri integrated plants, the Ankara grinding plant and seven ready-mix concrete plants. As would be expected, the transaction is subject to the approval of the local competition authority.

Graph 1: Domestic and export cement sales in Turkey, January – June 2017 – 2021. Source: Türk Çimento.

Graph 1 above gives an idea why some cement producers might have decided that it’s time to expand either through upgrades or acquisitions. The general Turkish economy suffered a jolt in mid-2018 when the value of the Turkish Lira dropped and interest rates rose. The coronavirus pandemic hit in 2020 but after a slowdown at the start of that year the economy managed to grow. The growth has continued so far in 2021 but inflation rates have also soared. In the cement sector, annual domestic sales fell consecutively from 2017 to 2019. They started to recover in 2020 and so far in 2021 it looks like they are continuing to grow. As domestic sales fell the sector focused on exports and they have grown steadily on an annual and half-year basis since 2018. Annual exports hit a high of 16Mt in 2020 or 23% of total sales.

Despite this, in June 2021 the Turkish Cement Manufacturers' Association, Türk Çimento, was warning that input costs were mounting, particularly in the last year. It reported that the price of petcoke had nearly tripled in this period. It also warned of mounting production overcapacity, estimated at over 20Mt/yr in 2019 although down to 7Mt/yr in 2020. Coupled with a fall in annual domestic sales from 2017 to 2019, in its words, “The contraction in domestic consumption during that period steered our companies toward exports.” Some of the larger cement producers, including Oyak, Akçansa and Çimsa all reported healthy rises year-on-year in revenue and operating profit in the first half of 2021. They also reported mounting costs which have risen by 35 – 80%.

The other recent stories from Turkey to note are a two week strike organised by the Building Contractors Confederation (IMKON) in September 2021 due to high costs, particularly cement. The confederation claimed that the price of cement had tripled over the last year. Earlier, in late April 2021, the Turkish competition authority Rekabat Kurumu launched a probe into alleged collusion by nine cement producers including Oyak, Çimsa and Limak. We are not saying these two stories are connected. The current state of the Turkish economy is more than enough to cause input costs for cement producers to spike. Yet headlines like this cannot be reassuring to builders wondering why the cost of cement is going up.

In summary, it’s an uncertain time for the Turkish cement industry. Sales are recovering but this has been achieved by pushing exports more than a rally at home. Alongside this, currency instability and high inflation rates are raising costs for cement producers and end-users. This hasn’t been enough though to stop growth activity from a couple of producers in the last week.

For more on the Turkish cement sector read ‘Cement in Turkey’ in the October 2021 issue of Global Cement Magazine