Analysis

When we think about ‘up and coming’ regions for the global cement sector, Africa is high on many people’s lists. This is unsurprising given that Africa is the youngest continent on Earth, with a population set to boom to 2.5 billion by 2050 – or 1 in 4 of the global population for that year, according to the UN. This population, 1 billion higher than today, will drive rapid urbanisation. Cement capacities, currently around 350Mt/yr across the continent, will have to rise substantially to meet demand.

Filling part of this rise will be Amsons Group. This week it announced plans for a US$320m investment in a 1.6Mt/yr greenfield cement plant in Tanzania. It also promised a whopping US$400m to revamp Bamburi Cement in Kenya, should its existing US$180m bid for the Holcim subsidiary be accepted. Based on the numbers for Tanzania, this investment might be enough to take Bamburi Cement from 1.1Mt/yr to around 3Mt/yr, assuming similar project scope and equipment suppliers.

So, what is Amsons Group? Founded in 2000, Amsons is a Tanzania-based conglomerate with interests in construction, transport, flour, container depots, cement and concrete. It already operates Camel Cement, a grinding plant, in the Mbagala suburb of Dar es Salaam and it owns a 65% stake in the 1.1Mt/yr integrated Mbeya Cement plant, which it bought from Holcim in September 2023. The group’s website states that it emphasises local production of materials to reduce the nation’s reliance on imports. A greenfield cement plant fits right into that philosophy.

Looking at recent market trends, we see some positive news for Amsons. In Tanzania, cement production rose by 6.2% to 8Mt in 2023, according to the country’s Ministry of Industry. This followed a 9.7% rise in the prior year. Data is so far lacking for 2024. To the north, cement consumption ramped up strongly in Kenya in the second half of 2023, following a less than stellar start to the year. Thanks to a particularly strong June to September period, consumption finally ended 2023 around 0.8% higher than the previous year, at 9.6Mt. However, consumption tailed off in the final quarter. Worse, the first four months of 2024 - the most recent data available from the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics - saw a 10% decline in cement consumption relative to the same period of 2023, falling to 2.6Mt/yr.

As Africa lacks cement capacity compared to other regions, it is important to highlight that Amsons’ new plants will have to take on not just existing capacity in East Africa, but countries that export to the continent too. Indeed, this week Pakistan, a long-time agitator of South African cement producers, reported a year-on-year rise in exports for October 2024. Exports rose to 4.36Mt, a 9% increase compared to 4Mt in October 2023. This news comes amid precipitously falling domestic demand within Pakistan, with September 2024 shipments down by 22% year-on-year. It is also worth noting that Tanzania itself exported around 1.1Mt of cement to Rwanda, Burundi, Malawi, the DRC and Zambia in 2023. This figure will likely be higher in 2024, given the February 2024 launch of Huaxin Cement Tanzania Maweni Company’s 1.3Mt/yr plant in Mavini, which has a focus on exports.

This apparent abundance of existing capacity, plus exposure to imports, would appear to give an investor like Amsons Group pause for thought. However, it has committed to a total investment of US$900m. This is not small change. If we add in the money it paid for Mbeya Cement in September 2023 – the amount was not disclosed – Amsons will likely shell out more than US$1bn in just a few years. It is going ‘all in’ to become, in the words of its Managing Director Edha Nahdi, “one of the largest cement manufacturers in Kenya and Tanzania by 2030.” It will be very interesting to follow it on its journey.

Another potentially gargantuan deal in the US building materials sector emerged this week in the shape of Quikrete bidding to buy Summit Materials. The latter company announced that a non-binding acquisition proposal had been received and the business press revealed who it was from. Further reporting suggested that Summit Materials has a market value of around US$7bn.

Quikrete is well known in North America for its packaged concrete products that are often sold in distinctive yellow bags. Its brands include Quikrete cement and concrete, Pavestone and Keystone paver and block products and Rinker concrete pipe and storm-water products amongst others. The company says it operates over 90 manufacturing sites in the US, Canada, Puerto Rico and South America, although it does not appear to own any cement plants. Notably, it is privately owned.

The deal is likely to revolve around the ready-mixed concrete assets that Summit Materials runs. However, readers may recall that Summit Materials and Cementos Argos completed the merger of their operations in the US at the start of 2024. That deal was set to make Colombia-based Cementos Argos the largest shareholder in Summit Materials. The companies also said that it was going to set them up with the fourth-largest cement-making portfolio in the US, with a capacity of 11.6Mt/yr, and place them among the largest aggregates and concrete producers. So it will be interesting, to say the least, to see how Cementos Argos reacts to a change in plans so soon after the merger has finished. Assuming the deal is credible, how it reacts may suggest whether the company is following the money in the short term or sticking to a longer plan.

Yet another large deal in the building materials sector in North America reinforces the diverging fortunes between the markets there and in Europe. However, this dynamic can create its own problems. More details about Holcim’s spin-off of its business in North America, for example, emerged in October 2024. Press reports suggested that the group was considering a dual-listing as its Swiss and other European shareholders were potentially facing restrictions from holding shares outside of their home markets.

Despite the current frenzy for market share and margin in the US by multinational building materials companies though, the cement market hasn’t had the best year so far in 2024. US cement shipments actually fell year-on-year in 2023 and continued to do so during the first seven months of 2024, according to United States Geological Survey (USGS) data. The Portland Cement Association (PCA)’s Chief Economist Ed Sullivan blamed this mainly on high interest rates. He then noted in an autumn forecast that a cut in rates was likely to benefit the construction market from mid-2025 onwards. Anne Noonan, the CEO of Summit Materials, also noted the negative effect of interest rates on construction projects at a recent Colorado Business Roundtable event.

None of this has discouraged the hunger of companies to cash in on the US market. Even the uncertainty of the impending US presidential election taking place on 5 November 2024 has failed to quell this desire. In brief, either administration might take different approaches to trade protectionism, infrastructure investment plans, green investment, permitting, regulations and so on. Yet the market fundamentals are strong for building materials. Koch helped MITER Brands buy window and door manufacturer PGT Innovations for US$3.1bn in January 2024 and Owens Corning acquired another door producer, Masonite, for US$3.9bn in May 2024. Quikrete smells potential and it may follow.

Starlinger revealed this week that it had taken on copycats in China and won. The packaging machine manufacturer said that it had sued a number of China-based machine manufacturers and their customers, packaging producers, based on infringement of several of its patents. An out-of-court settlement was eventually reached with the case going before both a civil court and a Chinese court specialised in intellectual property. Naturally, Austria-based Starlinger did not say what the settlement involved other than stating that the proceedings had been “...settled with strict obligations for the machine manufacturers.”

It’s unclear how directly the case affected the cement sector. Starlinger did say that the case involved a replica of a proprietary sack conversion line for producing woven plastic sacks. Packaging producers, often in Asia, use Starlinger’s conversion lines to manufacture proprietary block bottom valve sacks made of polypropylene tape fabric for the cement and construction industries, although they are also used for other dry bulk goods such as rice, flour or chemical granulates.

Starlinger’s reasons for going public are interesting given that most companies steer well clear of discussing legal matters openly. In the accompanying press statement Harald Neumüller, the chief strategy officer of Starlinger, used the disclosure to promote his products by saying “Only the best are copied, as the saying goes.” He then went on to underline the company’s strengths in research and development. Yet he also admitted that this was “...little consolation if it has economic consequences for innovative machine manufacturers like us.”

Firstly it should be noted that battles over patents and ideas happen everywhere from time to time. Discussing international copyright theft has become politicised because it plays into the geopolitical rivalry between the US, Europe and China. One US-government commissioned estimate in 2017 reckoned that the US economy was losing US$225 - 600bn/yr due to counterfeit goods, pirated software and theft of trade secrets. This report has been criticised but it gives one an idea of the scale of the concern. However, there are also plenty of prognosticators in the western media who have spent the last two decades warning of a hard landing in the Chinese economy that hasn’t happened.

Bringing this discussion back to cement, following the collapse of the real estate market since 2021, cement output has fallen. Data from the National Bureau of Statistics of China shows that output decreased by 11% year-on-year to 1.33Bnt in the nine months from January to September 2024. This appears to be following a similar decline in local real estate investment. The market is still correcting itself and the government is making gradual changes but there has been no apparent cataclysm so far. China-based equipment suppliers don’t appear to have suffered to the same degree due to their foreign orders.

The standard western narrative is that when European or American companies sold their equipment in China from the 1990s onwards they contended with a rocketing economy and lax intellectual property (IP) enforcement. Such an environment reputedly made it easy for some local companies to copy machinery and sell it more cheaply. At the same time China’s industries legitimately surpassed their competitors leading to criticism about how they did it. Publicly available evidence of this behaviour in the cement sector is limited. One of the few includes action by Haver & Boecker, another packaging machine manufacturer, in the late 2010s. However, anecdotally, the view that IP was stolen in China is prevalent in the west whether it is true or false. No doubt readers will have their own experiences and opinions. None of which would be publishable. The issue has been superseded though as China’s cement sector has become the largest in the world by a considerable margin. The biggest manufacturers of cement plants in the world are now Chinese companies too. They either use their own equipment or buy in western kit depending on what the customer wants. They also own a number of their overseas competitors and more potential acquisitions look likely.

All of this is what makes Starlinger’s admission unusual. It has taken a stand and it may have paid off. At the very least the equipment supplier is wringing publicity out of the affair regardless of how big - or small - the settlement may have been. Others may follow.

One unusual thing about coverage of cement in the media is the way that discussions often centre precisely on its absence – that is, on alternatives to cement. These alternatives boast unique chemistries and performance characteristics, but are all produced without Portland cement clinker. They are generally called ‘alternative cements,’ perhaps because ‘cement-free cement’ does not have such a commercially viable ring to it. This contradictory tendency reached a new high in the past week, with developments in alternative cement across Asia, Europe, the Middle East and North America. Together, they hint at a more diverse future for the ‘cement’ industry than the one we know today.

Asia

In Indonesia, Suvo Strategic Minerals has concluded tests with Makassar State University of a novel nickel-slag-based cement. Huadi Nickel-Alloy Indonesia supplied raw materials, and tests showed a seven-day compressive strength of 37.5MPa. Suvo Strategic Minerals says that a partnership with Huadi Nickel-Alloy Indonesia for commercial production is a likely next step.

Europe

Cement producer Mannok and minerals company Boliden partnered with the South Eastern Applied Materials (SEAM) research centre in Ireland to launch a project to develop supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) from shale on 7 October 2024. The project will additionally investigate CO₂-curing of cement paste backfill for use in mines. Irish state-owned global commerce agency Enterprise Ireland has contributed €700,000 in funding.

UK-based SCM developer Karbonite expects to launch trial production of its olivine-based SCM with a concrete company in 2025. The start-up launched Karbonite Group Holding BV, with offices in the Netherlands, to facilitate this new phase. Karbonite’s SCM is activated at 750 – 850°C and sequesters CO₂ in the activation process, resulting in over 56% lower CO₂ emissions than ordinary Portland cement (OPC). Managing director Rajeev Sood told Global Cement that talks are already underway for subsequent expansions into the UAE and India.

Back in the UK, contractor John Sisk & Son has received €597,000 from national innovation agency Innovate UK. John Sisk & Son is testing fellow Ireland-based company Ecocem’s <25% clinker cement technology in concrete for use in its on-going construction of the Wembley Park mixed development in London.

At the same time, Innovate UK granted a further €3.23m to other companies for concrete decarbonisation. Recipients included a calcined clay being developed by Cemcor, an SCM being developed from electric arc furnace byproducts by Cocoon, a geopolymer cement technology being developed by EFC Green Concrete Technology UK and an initiative to develop alternative cement from recycled concrete fines at the Materials Processing Institute in Middlesbrough. Also included was the Skanska Costain Strabag joint venture, which is working on the London stretch of the upcoming HS2 railway. The joint venture, along with partners including cement producer Tarmac and construction chemicals company Sika UK, will test low-kaolinite London clay as a raw material with which to produce calcined clay as a cement substitute in concrete structures in HS2’s rail tunnels.

Middle East

Talks are underway between UK-based calcined clay producer Next Generation SCM and City Cement subsidiary Nizak Mining Company over the possible launch of a joint venture in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The joint venture would build a 350,000t/yr reduced-CO₂ concrete plant, which would use alternative cement based on Next Generation SCM’s calcined clay.

North America

Texas-based SCM developer Solidia Technologies recently patented its carbonatable calcium silicate-based alternative cement, which sequesters CO₂ as it cures.

Meanwhile, C-Crete Technologies made its first commercial pour of its granite-based cement-free concrete in New York, US. C-Crete Technologies says that the product offers cost and performance parity with conventional cement, with net zero CO₂ emissions. Its raw material is globally more abundant than the limestone used as a raw material for clinker. Other abundantly available feedstocks successfully deployed within C-Crete Technologies’ repertoire include basalt and zeolite.

Across New York State, in Binghamton, KLAW Industries has succeeded in replacing 20% of concrete’s cement content with its powdered glass-based SCM, Pantheon. KLAW Industries has delivered samples to local municipalities and the New York State Department of Transportation. Its success expands the discussion of possible circular cement ingredients from the industrial sphere into post-consumer resources.

In Calgary, Canada, a novel SCM has drawn attention from one of the major cement incumbents: Germany-based Heidelberg Materials. It invested in local construction and demolition materials (CDM)-based SCM developer EnviCore on 9 October 2024. The companies plan to build a pilot plant at an existing Heidelberg Materials CDM recycling centre.

Conclusion

Alternative cement developers are still finding the words to talk about their products. They may be more than ‘supplementary’ up to the point of entirely supplanting 100% of clinker. Product webpages offer ‘hydraulic binder,’ ‘pozzolan’ and even ‘cement.’ As alternative ‘cements’ are developed, they build on the work of pioneers like Joseph Aspdin and Louis Vicat. Start-ups and their backers are now reaching commercial offerings, on a similar-but-different footing to cement itself. None of these novel materials positions itself as the sole, last-minute ‘super sub’ in the construction sector’s confrontation with climate change. Rather, they are a package of solutions which can combine into a net zero-emissions heavy building materials offering, hopefully before 2050.

Related to this is the need for ‘technology neutral’ standards, as championed this week by the Alliance for Low-Carbon Cement and Concrete (ALCCC), along with 23 other European industry associations, civil society organisations and think tanks. The term may sound new, but the concept is critical to the eventual uptake of alternative cements: standards, the ALCCC says, should be purely performance-based. They ought not attempt to define what technology, for example cement clinker, makes a suitable building material. According to the ALCCC, Europe’s building materials standards are not technology neutral, but instead ‘gatekeep’ market access, to the benefit of conventional cement and the exclusion of ‘proven and scalable low-carbon products.’

At the same time, cement itself is changing. Market research from USD Analytics showed an anticipated 5% composite annual growth rate in blended cement sales between 2024 and 2032, more than doubling throughout the period from US$253bn to US$369bn. If you can’t beat it, blend with it!

For a further discussion of alternative cement and binders in Europe, see Global Cement’s interview with ALCCC co-ordinator Joren Verschaeve in the forthcoming November issue of Global Cement Magazine on 17 October 2024.

Adani Group’s latest target for acquisition in the cement sector was revealed this week to be Heidelberg Materials’ India-based business. The Economic Times newspaper reported that talks have started between the companies with a tentative value of US$1.2bn. As might be expected, Adani Group is said to be keen to close the deal down quickly. It wants to avoid an auction situation where it might face competitors. However, there may be some disagreement about the actual production capacity of Heidelberg Materials’ companies in India. If a deal were finalised, it might be completed by early 2027.

Heidelberg Materials’ capacity in India was listed as 14Mt/yr by the press but this could include the company’s grinding plants as well as its integrated ones. Heidelberg Materials, itself, says it has a capacity of 12.1Mt/yr from three integrated cement plants, four grinding plants and a terminal across 12 states. Data from the Global Cement Directory 2024 suggests that this refers to the group’s integrated cement capacity. The plants are roughly split equally between subsidiaries Heidelberg Materials India and Zuari Cement. Heidelberg Materials entered the Indian market in 2006 when it acquired Mysore Cement, Cochin Cement and established a joint-venture with Indorama Cement. It later added Zuari Cement to its portfolio when it bought Italcementi in 2016. The group used to run four integrated plants in India until in May 2024, when it shut down clinker production at its Ammasandra plant in Karnataka, although grinding activity has continued at the site.

Back in 2021 Heidelberg Materials’ CEO Dominik von Achten said that the group had considered selling anything following a business review. "There are no sacred cows. Everything was on the table." Indonesia was generally perceived by analysts as a likely sale target in the developing markets but nothing happened in the end. India wasn’t mentioned at this time, although no doubt it was being considered. Yet Holcim divested its businesses there in 2022. These were picked up by Adani Group for US$6.4bn. This, in turn, kicked off the rivalry in the Indian cement sector between market leader UltraTech Cement and Adani Group. Both companies are now in a race to build production capacity through expansion, new plants and acquisitions.

One reason why Heidelberg Materials may have decided now in particular to talk to Adani Group can be seen in its recent financial reports. In 2023 it said that its “cement and clinker deliveries increased moderately, as massive excess capacities persist in our core markets.” It then followed this up in 2024 by noting that deliveries were slightly down year-on-year in the first half of the year. It blamed this on excess capacity in South India. The subsidiary reported a net loss of €6.3m in 2023. An article by Holtec Consulting in the October 2023 issue of Global Cement Magazine implied that capacity utilisation was 56% in 2023, the lowest of the country’s regions. This is a particular problem for the company given that Zuari Cement is based in the south.

Funnily enough, a sale of 12.1Mt/yr capacity for US$1.2bn suggests a price of US$99/t, a similar figure to what Adani Group paid to buy Holcim’s assets in India in 2022. This may explain why Adani Group is trying to avoid an open sale for the Heidelberg Materials assets. Then again, maybe the market in southern India really is suffering. By comparison, when Adani Group concluded a deal to buy Penna Cements in August 2024 it paid US$1.2bn for an integrated capacity of about 7Mt/yr or around US$170/t. Factor in the low capacity utilisation rate in south India and this potential Adani-Heidelberg Materials deal ends up at roughly the same price.

Something that may help Adani Group reach its goal might be a formal merger between its two main cement companies, Ambuja Cements and ACC. The Mint newspaper reported on it this week, saying that Jefferies and Axis Capital has been hired as an advisor. This certainly makes sense in synergy savings but moving all the mining and leasing rights around might prove cumbersome. Regardless, Adani Group is on an expansion drive, with a capacity of 140Mt/yr targeted by 2028. All the smaller cement companies in the country are potentially targets.