Analysis

Betolar has called today for a global performance-based standard to replace existing prescriptive standards. Riku Kytömäki, the head of Betolar, argued at the London-based Concrete Expo that the lack of a performance-based standard is holding back the use of low-carbon materials from replacing cement in concrete production. He said “the current regulations across the markets are restricting the use of circular materials allowed in concrete buildings.” Betolar produces Geoprime, an additive designed for use in cement-free concrete production with ash and ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS). This gives the company a financial reason to want standards to change, as it will potentially allow it to sell more of its product. However, as the company points out, “there is a huge need for new alternatives.” The world needs around 4Bnt/yr of cement but there is only 300Mt/yr of slag available.

Building materials producers and related companies wanting to change rules and standards in response to new trends is a common refrain. For instance, the increased use of alternative fuels by the cement sector has prompted all sorts of regulatory changes. However, rather than simply asking for amendments to the existing ways of doing things, Betolar is advocating for more wholesale change. It isn’t alone. Also this week the ASTM in the US announced that it is writing a specification to include a wider range of secondary cementitious materials (SCM). In addition, many of the interviews Global Cement Magazine has conducted with companies developing and marketing new types of cement and concrete in recent years have said similar things. Examples include the use of graphene, carbon nanotubes or sequestering CO₂ into industrial by-products to create novel secondary cementitious materials (SCM).

Prescriptive versus performance-based approaches to buildings and building materials tie into wider design philosophies about construction. The prescriptive approach provides detailed descriptions of regulations, methods and components, such as cement and concrete standards. With respect to concrete standards, this might mean setting mandatory SCM and cement proportions, determining allowable water content, certain types of aggregate to be used and so on. The performance approach focuses on the end results, although it can be just as codified and standardised as the prescriptive route. For concrete, for example, this means that performance is measured by standard test methods with defined acceptance criteria stated in the contract documents with no restrictions on the parameters of concrete mixture proportions.

For cement and concrete standards the prescriptive approach dominated in Europe and North America in the 20th century. However, this began to change in the US in 2002 when the National Ready Mixed Concrete Association (NRMCA) started working on its roadmap towards its Prescription to Performance (P2P) initiative. The key aim of the scheme was to shift the emphasis from prescribing (or indeed proscribing) the ingredients and their proportions in a concrete mixture to an emphasis on the performance properties of the combined materials. A decade later in the mid-2010s it found during a progress review that about half of the sample of project specifications studied were classified as ‘prescriptive.’ The biggest prescriptive restriction was on the quantity of SCMs set by specification writers. These were often percentages required in certain circumstances, such as freezing and thawing cycles, but imposed on all usage.

The current bout of interest in performance-based standards appears to be driven by the growing demand for cement and concrete products to lower their clinker factor by using higher amounts of SCMs. A far wider range of SCM-based products are being developed and coming to market and then encountering regulatory burden. These new material manufacturers are meeting up with the sustainability lobby, which also has an interest in decarbonising building materials. In 2022, for example, the Belgium-based Environmental Coalition on Standards (ECOS) started pushing for performance-based standards for cement. In a statement it said that, “it is commonly accepted that prescriptive specifications are convenient, but that this convenience is obtained at the expense of (eco-) innovation and decarbonisation.” It added that the switch to performance-based standards would also strengthen the European internal market for construction products as part of the Construction Products Regulation (CPR). It noted the ASTM standards for hydraulic cements (ASTM C-1157), that were developed in the 1990s in the US, and more recent developments in the field in Latin America.

It is worth pointing out that the prescriptive route does have its advantages. Using a prescriptive system is easier for less-experienced practitioners or generalists as it sets a minimum standard, even if it is over-engineered. Responsibility is shared out among the supply chain under a performance-based system for the quality of concrete. Under a prescriptive system, the supplier or contractor can be held responsible for quality control issues. For the performance approach this has to be specifically defined, although systems are in place to help. Making it harder via ‘red tape’ for new products to enter a market may stifle innovation but it also gives these new products far more time to be tested rigorously.

The whole prescriptive-performance standards issue opens up the wider implications of decarbonising construction materials. Where once there was a relatively small number of different types of cement and concrete now there are potentially hundreds, each looking for market share. Whether this situation will be the same in a decade’s time remains to be seen. A few common SCM-based cement and concrete products and formulations may predominate. For now, the future seems wide open and bigger changes, such as the global performance-based standards Betolar is advocating, may be required to support this. Considering the massive variation between countries and states, even within the US and the European Union, let alone the rest of the world, this seems ambitious. But it is not impossible!

Heidelberg Materials announced a US acquisition at the same time as the ongoing IEEE/IAS-PCA Cement Conference in Dallas, Texas this week. It has entered into a purchase agreement to acquire The SEFA Group, a fly ash recycling company based in Lexington, South Carolina. Its operations include five beneficiation plants, five utility partners, 20 locations and over 500 employees. It supplies fly ash to over 800 ready-mixed concrete plants in 13 states. It processes around 1Mt/yr of ash from storage ponds using its proprietary thermal beneficiation process. No value for the acquisition was disclosed.

The proposition for a heavy building materials manufacturer of securing a supply of fly ash is an attractive one. Fly ash can improve the performance of concrete, reduce its cost by lowering the amount of ordinary Portland cement (OPC) required and decrease the associated carbon footprint. It can also be use to make blended cement products. Heidelberg Materials and its US-subsidiary Lehigh Hanson could have various options here including using this new supply of fly ash internally, selling it on to other companies or licensing the beneficiation technology. Heidelberg Materials’ global sustainability report in 2021 reported that just under 9% of its cement-type portfolio comprised pozzolana or fly ash cements.

Graph 1: Coal combustion product production and use, 1991 – 2021. Source: ACAA.

Data from the American Coal Ash Association (ACAA) shows in Graph 1 that coal combustion products (CCP) production have declined in the last decade as the proportion used has steadily risen. In its annual production and use survey, the ACAA revealed that the use of harvested ash continued to grow in 2021 and that it constituted around 10% of the volume of ash recycled from current power plant operation. Thomas H Adams, the executive director of the ACAA, said “The rapidly increasing utilisation of harvested CCP shows that beneficial use markets are adapting to the decline in coal-fuelled electricity generation in the US. New logistics and technology strategies are being deployed to ensure these valuable resources remain available for safe and productive use.” Separately, the ACAA reported that coal-fuelled power stations represented about 50% of the country’s electricity demand in the mid-2010s compared to 20 – 25% in 2021 despite base-load remaining the same. It forecast that fly ash production was likely to remain fairly constant to around 2040 but that harvesting would help to cut the gap between supply and demand in some regional markets. It said that over 2Bnt of coal ash was in disposal. However, no indication of how recoverable this was given although it did note the higher cost of beneficiation. Work on updating specifications was ongoing to suit current circumstances.

As with the slag market, this presents a dilemma for cement and concrete producers that want to become more sustainable. They want to use more by-products from other carbon-intensive heavy industries – such as coal-fired power stations and steel plants – but these industries themselves are also trying to become more sustainable and are producing less secondary cementitious materials. Heidelberg Materials’ interest in a fly ash beneficiation company makes sense because it secures a bigger portion of a dwindling resource from the direct operations and opens up the possibility of selling the beneficiation technology to others. It is also worth mentioning that other fly ash thermal beneficiation processes are available. For example, Charah Solutions installed its MP618 technology at its Sulphur terminal in Louisiana in early 2019.

The general fly ash market in the US looks set to track the level of coal-fired power generation for the foreseeable future. Yet the proportion of CCPs being used continues to rise. In this context focusing on harvesting may be starting to make more financial sense. Charah Solutions’s new unit in 2019 and SEFA Group’s new units in 2020 and 2021 seem to support this view. Heidelberg Materials’ acquisition of SEFA Group may be further confirmation of this.

Holcim launched its formal take on construction and demolition waste (CDW) this week with the unveiling of its ECOCycle technology platform at the BAU architecture fair in Munich. This amounts to managing the distribution, processing, grinding and recycling of CDW back into new building material products. It claims that its concrete, cement and aggregate products can contain 10 - 100% of CDW with no drop in performance.

It is hard to gauge whether this is marketing for existing operations or the start of something new. Yet, in its 2022 Sustainability Report, Holcim said that it recycled 6.8Mt of CDW back into building products and that it is on track to meet its target of 10Mt by 2025. This target was neatly put into words as wanting “to build more new buildings from old ones.” Ahead of the announcement of the launch of ECOCycle, it added that it was going to roll out its Susteno product around Europe. This product, made from 20% CDW, was originally released in Switzerland in the late 2010s. Notably, recent acquisitions by Holcim that connect to its growing focus on CDW include Poland-based Ol-Trans in July 2022, UK-based Wiltshire Heavy Building Materials in October 2022 and UK-based Sivyer Logistics in April 2023.

As covered by Global Cement Weekly in February 2023, Holcim is not the only heavy building materials company pivoting to CDW. The European Union (EU) set a 70% recovery target for it in 2020 and various cement company sustainability reports have described the region as being receptive to moves into this sector. Cemex set up a global waste management subsidiary called Regenera at the end of January 2023. This division covers both alternative fuels, CDW and industrial by-products, so it is more general than Holcim’s current effort, but it shows intent in the same direction. Cemex previously set a target of recycling 14Mt/yr CDW by 2030.

Heidelberg Materials has been working on developing recycled concrete paste and its ReConcrete-360° concrete recycling process. As of its last sustainability report, this process had been tested at the pilot scale and is now being developed and scaled for industrial application. In addition to acquiring UK-based Mick George Group in December 2022 Heidelberg Materials has also purchased Germany-based RWG Holding in January 2023 and Germany-based SER Group in February 2023. All three companies operate in the CDW sector.

The other notable contribution that Heidelberg Materials has been making is as a partner of the ‘Circular City - Building Material Registry for the City of Heidelberg’ project. When Heidelberg Materials announced its involvement in the initiative in mid-2022 it said it was the first city in Europe to apply the principles of urban mining. The goal of the project is to take an inventory of the city’s buildings and then compile it in a digital material registry. The basis for the registry is the Urban Mining Screener developed by EPEA (Environmental Protection Encouragement Agency). This programme can estimate the composition of buildings based on building data such as location, year of construction, building volume or building type. Circular economy supply chains can then act accordingly when a building is retrofitted, demolished or deconstructed. So, for example, at the start of the project it worked out that a former US Army housing estate conversion site was calculated to contain approximately 466,000t of material, with about half in the form of concrete, a fifth in the form of bricks and 5% as metal.

That last example compares to a European Commission estimate that, as a whole, Europe generates around 450 - 500Mt/yr of CDW. A third of this is concrete. As with alternative fuels and slag previously, this may be money going into the ground. Recycling building materials is not new but any significant increase in reusing CDW that can reduce the clinker factor of cement (and the cement factor of concrete) offers a potentially cheaper route to building materials decarbonisation than carbon capture and utilisation/storage at current costs. Hence the continued interest.

Huaxin Cement completed its acquisition of a majority stake in Oman Cement this week. The China-based company estimated that the purchase price was around US$193m. Following the transaction with a subsidiary of the Oman Investment Authority, the country’s sovereign wealth fund, the cement producer now controls just under a 60% share in Oman Cement.

A key part of the deal includes Oman Cement’s integrated plant at Ruwi in the north of the country. The three-line unit has clinker and cement production capacities of 2.6Mt/yr and 3.6Mt/yr respectively. With the partial ownership share of 60% taken into account, this places the capacity purchase price at around US$124/t, a lower figure for capacity compared to other international acquisitions.

Oman Cement has a couple of new projects in the pipeline that have been mentioned on and off previously over the last year or so. These include the construction of a new 10,000t/day fourth production line, an upgrade to line 3 to 4000t/day from 3000t/day at present and plans for a new plant at the Special Economic Zone (SEZ) at Duqm. The company said it was looking for a contractor to carry out the upgrades at the Ruwi plant. However, Rashid bin Sultan al Hashmi, the chair of Oman Cement, said in the company’s annual results for 2022 that the Duqm project, operating under the name Al Sahawa Cement, had run into problems with the supply of gas for the proposed unit. Another recent development was the signing of a deal between Omani Environment Services Holding Company (Be’ah) and Oman Cement for the supply of refuse-derived fuel (RDF). As an aside, that last one may also have received a boost this week with the news that the local Environment Authority has suspended licenses for the export of used tyres from the country.

How these existing projects will fare under the new ownership remains to be seen, but Huaxin Cement has a track record for developing new cement production capacity outside of China. The cement producer describes itself as de-facto controlled by Switzerland-based Holcim although Holcim said in its annual report for 2022 that Huaxin Cement is a joint-venture. It currently operates plants in Cambodia, Kyrgyzstan, Malawi, Nepal, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Uzbekistan and Zambia and says that it has 10 additional projects in Africa, the Middle East and elsewhere in preparation for future business expansion. In 2022 it started operating a 3000t/day production line at Nepal Narayani and commenced the second stage of a project to build a 4000t/day clinker line at Maweni in Tanzania. Plus, as mentioned in our recent roundup of China-based producers, 13% of the group’s operating revenue derived from business outside of China in 2022 compared to 8% in 2021.

Other producers from outside of Oman have also been active locally in 2023. In late January 2023 India-based UltraTech Cement agreed a deal to buy a 70% stake in Duqm Cement Project International from Seven Seas for US$2.25m. The agreement covered a limestone mining lease that UltraTech Cement said was important for “raw material security.”

The other big development in the Oman cement market since we last covered the country in September 2021 was an intervention by the Capital Market Authority (CMA) on Raysut Cement. The chief financial officer resigned in November 2022 before the CMA questioned the company’s financial results for the second quarter of 2022. The CMA then replaced the board of Raysut Cement in December 2022 saying it had detected ‘material misrepresentation’ in the company’s third quarter results.

The last four months or so have marked a turning point for the local cement sector with a change in leadership for the two largest producers. Oman Cement reported strong growth in 2022 although it warned of “low priced cement being supplied by competitors.” Raysut Cement, unsurprisingly, recorded a loss in 2022. The construction market in the country is expected to grow as the economy leaves the coronavirus period behind, mounting energy prices boost national revenue and potentially some of this heads into infrastructure development. This puts the new management at both producers in a good position going forward.

Heidelberg Materials’ reaction to changes in the law in Hungary received attention this week in the German press. The government introduced its Act on Hungarian Architecture in March 2023 that will enable it to set production levels and prices upon foreign-owned cement producers when the new legislation takes force in July 2023. An unnamed executive at the Germany-based Heidelberg Materials told Der Spiegel that, "These regulations represent a complete violation of all rules of the European single market.” They added that the Hungarian government appeared to be trying to force the producer to sell up. The report further alleges that the owners of Duna-Dráva Cement, Heidelberg Materials and Schwenk Zement, also received an offer to buy them out in mid-2022 from an individual with links to Prime Minister Victor Orbán.

This latest move to corral the cement sector in Hungary follows a number of recent changes in legislation. Notably, Decree 404 was introduced in July 2021. This set a 90% tax on the ‘excess’ profits of cement, plaster, chalk, gravel, sand, clay, lime and gypsum producers with the stated intention of wanting to prevent rising prices. The government set a threshold price for cement of Euro56/t at the time. At the same time it also blocked exports of cement and other raw materials of declared strategic importance unless affected companies had registered with the Ministry of the Interior. The European Commission (EC) responded to a parliamentary question on the matter in November 2021 saying that it had sent a formal letter to Hungary informing it that it was breaching some parts of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (EU) on the free movement of goods. Although it noted that the new law also affected exports outside the EU, which was beyond the EC's remit. It added that the so-called ‘mining royalties’ did not seem to breach EU tax law.

Concerns over these issues between Hungary and Germany also surfaced in October 2022 when Orbán met with the German Chancellor Olaf Scholz. At this time Thomas Spannagl, the head of Schwenk Zement, said that the windfall profit tax in Hungary had a "serious negative" impact on business and that importers were not affected in the same way.

Heidelberg Materials’ subsidiary Duna-Dráva Cement is the largest cement producer by production capacity in Hungary with two integrated plants at Beremend and Vác. Together they have a production capacity of 2.8Mt/yr, according to the Global Cement Directory 2023, or about 70% of the country’s active national capacity. Heidelberg Materials reported that its result from equity accounted investments fell by 27% year-on-year to Euro262m in 2022 from Euro356m in 2023 due to a decline in earnings particularly in China and Hungary. This compares to a 4% drop to Euro3.74bn in its result from current operations before depreciation and amortisation across the whole business. Despite this it also noted that Hungary’s overall economic output had grown by 5% in 2022.

Just before the new laws affecting cement companies starting arriving in mid-July 2021, the Hungarian Competition Authority started an investigation into a “drastic” increase in raw material prices. This followed a warning a year earlier in 2020 that it had started competition supervision proceedings against the three main market participants: Duna-Dráva Cement, Lafarge Cement and CRH. All three are foreign-owned companies.

Lafarge Cement Hungary operates the Kiralyegyháza plant and it is due to change its name to Holcim in May 2023. Its predecessor companies, Holcim and Lafarge, also used to run plants at Hejocsaba and Lábatlan before the merger in 2015. However, the Hejocsaba plant ran into legal problems between Holcim and another investor, shut in 2011 and was later forcibly taken over by the other party in 2014. Today the plant operates as Hejőcsabai Cement- és Mészipari (HCM) but cement production is reportedly yet to restart nearly a decade later and Holcim says that legal proceedings are still ongoing. The Lábatlan plant, meanwhile, closed for good in the early 2010s. CRH took over some of Holcim’s other operations in Hungary in 2015 at the same time as the formation of LafargeHolcim but does not run any cement plants in the country at present. It does own cement plants in nearby countries that are able to supply the Hungarian market as well as running 19 concrete units. It describes itself as the “number two player” in the local market. It wasn’t specific on Hungary in its financial results for 2022 but it did describe sales in its Europe East region as being ahead of 2021, “due to a strong focus on commercial actions to offset significant cost inflation.”

Construction costs in Hungary do appear to have grown faster than other European countries in the second half of 2021 as the country came out of the coronavirus pandemic. However, the country's anti-immigrant labour stance may have also contributed to the situation, in addition to the high-energy prices and supply chain bottlenecks experienced elsewhere. In addition, cement companies are also capable of monopolistic behaviour. For example, Duna-Dráva Cement’s proposed acquisition of Cemex Croatia was blocked by the EC back in 2017 on competition grounds. However, given how international the cement industry has become, it is surprising to see this kind of treatment from a government within the European Union.