Analysis
Search Cement News
US tariffs and the cement sector, April 2025
Written by David Perilli, Global Cement
09 April 2025
President Trump said he was going to do it… and he did. The US announced tariffs on most imports on 2 April 2025 that took effect from 5 April 2025. So, once again, we ask what the consequences of this might be upon the cement sector.
| Country | Volume (Mt) | Value (US$m) | Tariff | Added cost (US$m) |
| Türkiye | 7.16 | 595.88 | 10% | 59.59 |
| Canada | 4.85 | 577.02 | 25% | 144.26 |
| Vietnam | 4.17 | 336.70 | 46% | 154.88 |
| Mexico | 1.32 | 190.43 | 25% | 47.61 |
| Greece | 1.82 | 139.81 | 20% | 27.96 |
| Algeria | 0.96 | 86.36 | 30% | 25.91 |
| Colombia | 0.86 | 81.11 | 10% | 8.11 |
| UAE | 0.90 | 80.29 | 10% | 8.03 |
| Egypt | 0.71 | 75.64 | 10% | 7.56 |
| Spain | 0.59 | 47.56 | 20% | 9.51 |
Table 1: Estimated burden of US tariffs on selected countries importing cement based on 2024 data. Source: Based on USGS data.
Global Cement Magazine Editorial Director Robert McCaffrey posted a similar table to the one above on LinkedIn on 4 April 2025. It applies the new import tariffs to the value of imported hydraulic cement and clinker to the US in 2024 as reported by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). As such it gives us a starting idea of how the new tariffs might change what happens in 2025. For an idea of the volumes of cement imported to the US in recent years refer to the graph in GCW695.
However, a couple of key caveats were pointed out by commentators to that LinkedIn post. Marty Ozinga noted that the values from the USGS are customs values. Crucially, he said that the tariffs will be charged upon the FOB value of cement at the point of origin and not on the transport costs. This is significant because the cost of moving the cement can sometimes be more than half the total values reported in the table for certain countries. Another commentator wanted to make it clear that tariffs on imports are imposed upon the supply chain and are paid somewhere along it, typically by end users, rather than the originating country. Elsewhere, the feeling was very much one of waiting to see what would happen next and how markets would reorder.
Taken at face value, the first takeaway from Table 1 is that the variable tariffs disrupt the competitiveness of the importers. Any importer from a country with the lowest rate, 10%, now has an advantage over those with higher ones. Türkiye seems to be the obvious winner here as it was both the largest importer of cement in 2024 and it has the lowest rate. Vietnam appears to be a loser with a massive 46% rate. Canada and Mexico may have problems with a 25% tariff but how their cement gets to the US market may make a big difference as Ozinga mentions above. And so it goes down the list. What may be significant is how the order of the importers further down the list changes. For example, Algeria has a 30% rate compared to Egypt’s 10%. Both nations exported a similar volume of cement to the US in 2024.
The first casualty of the last week has been market certainty. The US announced the tariffs and stock markets slumped around the world. They started to revive on 8 April 2025 as the US government made more reassuring noises about trade talks but this was dampened by renewed fears of a US - China trade war. The orthodox economic view is that the US tariffs are increasingly likely to cause a recession in the US in the short term regardless of whether they have a more positive effect on the longer one. This view can be detected in former PCA economist Ed Sullivan’s latest independent report on the US economy. He acknowledged the fairness argument the US government has made, but warned of stagflation.
On the US construction market, prices look set to rise in areas that previously relied on imports or are near to them. Cement companies in the US should be able to sell higher volumes as some level of domestic production outcompetes imports. The sector produced 86Mt in 2024 and has a capacity of 120Mt/yr giving it a utilisation rate of 72%. It imported 20 - 25Mt of cement in 2024. One sign of this happening might be renewed investment in local capacity through upgrades, new lines and even new plants. However, a recession would reduce overall consumption. On the equipment side, there is likely to be a similar readjustment between local and foreign suppliers. Certainly, if the tariffs stick around then more non-US companies may be tempted to set up local subsidiaries and /or manufacturing bases if conditions permit. For example, note JCB’s doubling in size this week of a plant it is building in Texas. One interesting situation might occur if a US cement company wants to build a new production line. All the likely suppliers, at present at least, appear to be based outside of the US.
Finally, despite everything, Holcim declared this week that it had completed a $3.4bn bond offering ahead of the impending spin-off of Amrize in the US noting “strong investor interest in the future company.” It wants to shore-up confidence ahead of the creation of the new company at some point in the first half of the year. Holcim’s CEO said previously that he didn’t expect any blowback from tariffs as the company was a local business in the US. What may be worth watching for is whether the current disruption to stock markets causes any delays to the creation of Amrize.
The current situation with the tariffs is prompting a rapid-revaluation of the US construction market and the wider economy. US-based building materials companies look set to benefit but there may be disruption along the way. Foreign companies supplying the sector may well experience sharp changes in circumstances depending on how tariffs reorder supply chains. Prices for end-users look set to rise. We live in interesting times.
For Ed Sullivan’s take on the US cement sector read his article in the May 2025 issue of Global Cement Magazine
Update on Australia, April 2025
Written by David Perilli, Global Cement
02 April 2025
Boral announced this week that it had secured around US$15m from the Australian government towards decarbonisation upgrades at its Berrima cement plant in New South Wales. The funding will go towards the company’s own investment in a kiln feed optimisation project. A new specialised grinding circuit and supporting infrastructure at the site is intended to increase the proportion of alternative raw materials (ARM) from 9% to 23% to decrease the amount of limestone the kiln uses. The use of more ARMs should also enable the unit to reduce its energy intensity. Boral plans to use ARMs including granulated blast furnace slag, steel slag, cement fibre board, fly ash and fine aggregates from recycled concrete. Commissioning and full operation of the changes are scheduled for 2028.
The Berrima plant officially opened its last set of changes, including a chlorine bypass unit, in December 2024. This was done to allow the plant to reach a thermal substitution rate (TSR) of 60% by the end of 2027. At the end of 2024 the company said it had a TSR of 30% having risen by 20% from 2023. Another similar decarbonisation project at the plant is a carbon capture and storage demonstration pilot trial involving the recarbonation of construction and demolition waste.
Parent company SGH said in its annual report for 2024 that Boral was continuing to advocate for a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) to prevent carbon leakage and that it had taken part in the ongoing government review on the issue. This lobbying was visible earlier in March 2025 when the Cement Industry Federation (CIF) publicly addressed the government on the issue ahead of its next budget. It asked that carbon leakage be addressed in the form of an import tax to protect the local cement and lime sector. Cement and lime imports from Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam and Japan are particularly seen as an issue. The government review into carbon leakage started in 2023 and is due to report back at some point in 2025, most likely after the parliamentary election in May 2025.
Another big sector news story to note is the ongoing acquisition of the cementitious division of the Buckeridge Group of Companies (BGC) by Cement Australia that was revealed in December 2024. Unsurprisingly, the European Commission (EC) approved the deal in late March 2025. Cement Australia’s parent companies Holcim and Heidelberg Materials are headquartered in Europe, but the EC concluded that the planned transaction was unlikely to dampen competition in Europe. The verdict of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is likely to be far more telling. It closed taking submissions on the proposed deal in late February 2025 and plans to release an update in May 2025.
The ACCC’s market inquiries letter reported that Cement Australia wants to run BCG Cement. However, under the acquisition proposal, BGC Quarries and BGC Asphalt will be acquired and operated by a new 50:50 joint venture between Holcim and Heidelberg Materials, which will operate as a production joint venture in respect of aggregates. Holcim and Heidelberg Materials have suggested taking four ready-mixed concrete (RMC) plants each in the greater Perth area. Finally, one RMC plant at Wangara could be divested due to the close proximity of existing plants run by Holcim and Heidelberg Materials. Whether this is what actually happens remains to be seen.
Finally, Holcim flagged-up Australia this week as one of the regions it intends to derive ‘profitable growth’ from after the planned spin-off of the US business. This approach is in line with the hunt by the big building materials companies for new growth markets as the cost of merger and acquisition activity in the US has risen. CRH, for example, bought a majority stake in AdBri in mid-2024. Further merger and acquisition activity in the cement sector in Australia seems less likely given its relative small size. Yet the higher economic growth forecast for the country compared to Europe is likely to keep multinationals interested.
- Australia
- Boral
- Government
- Plant
- Upgrade
- GCW703
- construction and demolition materials
- Alternative Fuels
- chlorine bypass
- Cement Australia
- Holcim
- Heidelberg Materials
- BCG
- Cement Industry Federation
- lobbying
- European Commission
- carbon border adjustment mechanism
- Import
- Tax
- Australian Competition & Consumer Commission
- CRH
- Adbri
- concrete plant
Update on the Philippines, March 2025
Written by David Perilli, Global Cement
26 March 2025
The Pacific Cement Corporation (PACEMCO) held a groundbreaking ceremony this week officially ‘reopening’ its cement plant in Surigao City. The revival of the plant has been supported by investments by San Miguel Corporation (SMC). Various dignitaries attended the event including John Paul Ang, the chief operating officer of SMC, the mayor of Surigao City mayor and the governor of Surigao del Norte.
The plant has been closed since 2014 due to financial problems. At the time, Global Cement reported that the cement plant stopped operations in May 2014 after the Surigao del Norte Electric Cooperative cut its power supply for unsettled debts worth at least US$0.5m. PACEMCO was originally set up in 1967 and the plant had a production capacity of 0.22Mt/yr via one production line in 2014.
Earlier in March 2025 the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) was keen to highlight the efforts that Taiheiyo Cement Philippines (TCP) is making towards supporting the country's infrastructure capacity. Company executives met with the DTI and revealed plans including building a distribution terminal in Calaca, Batangas with the aim of targeting the Luzon market. This follows the construction of a new US$220m production line at TCP’s San Fernando plant in Cebu in July 2024.
Both announcements follow the implementation in late February 2025 of a provisional tariff on cement imports. The DTI started investigating imports in the autumn of 2024 and later decided to initiate a ‘preliminary safeguard measure’ following the discovery of a “causal link between the increased imports of the products under consideration and serious injury to the domestic industry.” The tariff takes the form of a cash bond of US$6.95/t or US$0.28/40kg bag of cement. It will be in place for 200 days, to mid-September 2025, while the Philippine Tariff Commission conducts a final investigation. The two main countries that will be affected are Vietnam and Japan. A large number of countries are exempt from the tariff including, notably, China and Indonesia. Both of these two countries were larger sources of imports to the Philippines during the five-year period the DTI is investigating. However, imports from these places have declined since 2021 and 2023 respectively.
Graph 1: Import of cement to the Philippines, 2019 - 2024. Source: Department of Trade and Industry.
A preliminary report by the DTI published in late February 2025 outlines the reasons for the provisional tariff. In summary it found that imports rose from 2019 and 2024 and the share of imports increased also pushing down the domestic share of sales. In the view of the report, the domestic cement sector experienced declining sales, production, capacity utilisation, profitability and employment for each year apart from 2021. One point to note is that the imports were split roughly 50:50 between local and foreign companies. Local company Philcement, for example, was the largest importer for cement to the Philippines from 2019 to 2024. In its statement to the DTI it said that it had invested in manufacturing the processing sites in the country. It argued that overprotection of the market discouraged competition and might not be aligned with the economic goals of the country.
Last time Global Cement Weekly covered the Philippines (GCW669) in July 2024 it looked likely that the government would take further action on imports. This has now happened on a temporary basis but it looks likely that it will become permanent. Recent investment announcements from local producers such as PACEMCO and TCP may be coincidental but they suggest a tentative confidence in the local sector.
Update on ammonia in cement production, March 2025
Written by David Perilli, Global Cement
19 March 2025
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 NOx 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.
Update on Nigeria, March 2025
Written by David Perilli, Global Cement
12 March 2025
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.



