Analysis

The Hillhead Quarrying, Construction and Recycling Show is in full flow this week, taking place near Buxton in Derbyshire. As one delegate marvelled on the panoramic minibus journey down to the quarry, “It’s like a music festival without the music and… other stuff.” Indeed. Of course what one doesn’t find at Glastonbury and the like is a near comprehensive range of suppliers, over 600 of them, to the industry all in one place… in a quarry! Where else can one get up close and see the new hydrogen-powered generators and excavating vehicles that are being piloted? The official attendance figures don’t get released until after the event but on the ground it looks as busy as ever. It’s truly the place to be this week.

The show gives us a reason to take a look at the UK cement sector. Like many other countries around the world it is an election year in the UK, with a General Election scheduled for 4 July 2024. The result of this should determine the next Prime Minister and the ruling party. So, naturally, the MPA, the trade association for the aggregates, asphalt, cement, concrete, dimension stone, lime, mortar and industrial sand industries, is taking the opportunity to remind the political parties what its priorities are. The quick version is: support for decarbonisation; a streamlined planning system; and better delivery of projects. This sounds familiar to priorities in other countries but one British spin on this includes the UK’s carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM).

Graph 1: Domestic cement sales and imports in the UK, 2017 – 2022. Source: MPA.

Edwin Trout’s feature on the UK cement sector in the June 2024 issue of Global Cement Magazine presents a good overview of the last 12 months. The general UK economy has faced shocks in recent years such as Brexit, Covid-19 and the war in Ukraine. However, this has been further compounded by a downturn and high interest rates since late 2022 when the then Prime Minister Liz Truss caused market turbulence in the wake of a badly received government financial statement. As Trout relates, sales of heavy building materials have been in relative decline since mid-2022 with more of the same expected in 2024. Production of cement in 2023 is currently uncertain given the reporting time lag from the MPA but up until 2022 domestic cement sales fell somewhat but imports grew. This has created a situation where overall cement sales in 2022 were 12Mt, not far behind the annual level in the early 2000s. However, the share of imports has nearly doubled since then. More recent MPA data on mortar and ready-mixed concrete sales throughout the first nine months of 2023 suggest that market activity has decreased and poor weather at the start of 2024 looks set to have made this worse.

Despite the apparent slowdown in building materials sales the cement companies have been conducting smaller-scale maintenance and upgrade projects at their facilities and supply chain schemes such as the cement storage unit for deep sea shipping lines that Aggregate Industries said in February 2024 it was going to build at the Port of Southampton. The news the cement companies want to show off has been a steady stream of information about ongoing decarbonisation projects in the cement sector. C-Capture started a carbon capture trial at Heidelberg Materials’ Ketton cement works in Rutland in May 2024, Capsol Technologies said in March 2024 that it had been selected to conduct a study on its carbon capture technology at Aggregate Industries Cauldon cement plant in Staffordshire, Heidelberg Materials' Ribblesdale cement plant in Lancashire announced in March 2024 that it was taking part in a study to assess the use of ammonia as a hydrogen source for fuelling cement kilns and Heidelberg Materials awarded Japan-based Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) a front end engineering design contract for a carbon capture installation at its Padeswood cement plant in Flintshire in February 2024. Finally, on the divestment front, CRH completed the sale of its UK-based lime business to SigmaRoc for €155m in March 2024. The business operates from sites in Tunstead and Hindlow with five permitted lime kilns.

That’s it for this short recap on the UK for now. For a longer look at the UK cement sector read Edwin Trout’s feature in June 2024 issue of Global Cement Magazine.

Hillhead 2024 runs until 27 June 2024

Adani Group’s subsidiary Ambuja Cements signed a deal this week to buy Penna Cement for US$1.25bn. The agreement adds 14Mt/yr of cement production capacity to the group with a focus in the south of India. The acquisition is a big step towards the group’s target of reaching a capacity of 140Mt/yr by 2028. Ajay Kapur, the head of Ambuja Cements, also singled out the advantage the company hopes to gain from taking control of Penna Cement’s terminals saying that they would “prove to be a gamechanger by giving access to the eastern and southern parts of peninsular India.” The move is expected to increase the group’s market share in India by 2%, and by 8% in South India.

Penna Cement operates four integrated plants in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana with a capacity of 7Mt/yr. Two of these units also include waste heat recovery installations and one has a captive power plant. It runs two grinding plants in Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra with a capacity of 3Mt/yr. Another integrated plant is being built at Jodhpur in Rajasthan and a grinding plant at Krishnapatnam in Andhra Pradesh. Finally, the company owns four bulk cement terminals at Kolkata, Gopalpur, Karaikal and Kochi in India, one at Colombo in Sri Lanka and it also owns a 25,000t cement carrier.

Adani Group’s march towards that target of 140Mt/yr by 2028 started off in mid-2022 when it purchased Ambuja Cements and ACC from Holcim. This gave it a starting capacity of 68Mt/yr in the cement sector. Various smaller additions followed including new plants at Ametha and Dahej and the acquisitions of Asian Cement and Concrete, MyHome Industries and Sanghi Industries. The latter company was the biggest of these purchases. Once the in-progress projects from Penna Cement are built, Adani Group should have a capacity of 93Mt/yr. Another 20Mt/yr is reportedly at various stages of execution. The remaining 27Mt/yr is described as being ‘blueprint ready.’

Generally, the local financial press has been in favour of the transaction agreeing with the geographic advantages of Adani Group increasing its presence in the southern states. The benefits of the high number of railway sidings at Penna Cement’s plants were also commented upon as a means for Ambuja Cements to reduce its costs per tonne of cement. The logistics benefit from the port terminals is also expected by Adani Group’s chief financial officer to reduce the group’s logistics costs with an impact expected within the next year. However, it has been reported that Penna Cement’s operating performance had been weaker in the last financial year due to low sales volumes, poor operational efficiency and high coal costs. A takeover by Adani Group could certainly fix the latter two issues. Yet, it has also been reported that competition in the cement markets in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana is up, due to a mismatch between supply and demand. So, improving Penna Cement’s capacity utilisation in these regions might be harder to solve than simply being absorbed into Adani Group.

India’s two largest cement producers both have plans in motion to mount up production capacity by the end of the decade in what has been dubbed ‘the battle of the billionaires.’ The market leader is UltraTech Cement and it has shown reluctance to cede ground to the cement newcomer Adani Group. The former company’s current target is to make it to just under 190Mt/yr by 2027. It said it had a capacity of 152Mt/yr in May 2024. It is ahead of Adani Group by this measure but there is still plenty of scope for surprises. Given the rivalry between the companies there is a regular stream of speculation about which of the smaller cement producers they might be about to buy at any given time. For example, in October 2023 HeidelbergCement India was rumoured to be courting offers from UltraTech Cement, Adani Group and JSW Cement. Last week, Adani Group was reportedly interested in buying either Saurashtra Cement, the cement business of Jaiprakash Associates, Vadraj Cement or… Penna Cement. Occasionally the rumours are true after all. UltraTech Cement remains in first place for now but the situation may change.

The National Development and Reform Commission and other government bodies in China released plans this week to cap clinker production capacity at 1.8Bnt/yr by the end of 2025. Energy efficiency of existing capacity will be used as the driver to determine which production lines can remain open. 30% of capacity will be required to be above the benchmark energy efficiency level. Plants below this line will be obliged to upgrade or face elimination.

Points of interest from the longer release include detail on how the authorities intend to promote energy efficiency. Installing improved production line equipment is as might be expected. However, there is also a drive towards low-carbon fuel substitution such as an increased thermal substitution rate (TSR) through the use of alternative fuels (AF), promotion of renewable energy sources and, interestingly, no new cement plants will be able to add captive coal power plants. The government is targeting a TSR of 10% by the end of 2025 with 30% of lines using AF in some form or another. A plan to reduce the clinker factor in cement is also being pushed through for the increased use of blast furnace slag, fly ash, carbide slag, manganese slag and other supplementary cementitious materials. This last point might have big implications for the ferrous slag export market but that’s a story for another day.

Working out how much these new measures will affect the cement sector in China in the short term is not straightforward since it’s unclear what the country’s actual production capacity is and how much of it is actually active. Data from the National Bureau of Statistics of China showed that cement output was 2.02Bnt in 2023. The China Cement Association (CCA) estimated that the capacity utilisation rate was 59% in 2023. So, if the sector were using all of its integrated cement plants flat out, then one might crudely suppose that the national production capacity might be around 3.5Bnt/yr. This guess does not take into account the prevalence of blended cements and a whole host of other factors so should be treated with caution. Given that cement output fell by 5% year-on-year in 2023, output could be just over 1.8Bnt in 2025 if the rate of decline holds. Research by Reuters in April 2024, suggested that the capacity utilisation rate hit 50% in that month, suggesting that the sector could meet the target in 2024 if it’s a particularly bad year. So, provided the production cap is enacted along the same lines of peak-shifting, where plants are temporarily shut for periods, then the target looks well within reach.

As reported in April 2024, the Chinese cement sector has faced rationalisation in recent years as the real estate market collapsed. Output peaked in 2020 and then fell subsequently. Most of the big producers endured falling sales volumes, revenue and profit in 2022, although some managed to resist the continuing decline in 2023. One coping mechanism has been to focus on overseas markets as proposed by the government’s Belt and Road initiative. Huaxin Cement has been a particular proponent of this strategy. The CCA says that China-based companies have invested in and built 43 clinker production lines in 21 countries with a cement production capacity of 81Mt/yr. Another 43Mt/yr of capacity is currently being built outside of China with yet another 25Mt/yr of capacity proposed for construction.

It is interesting, then, to note that the CCA issued an official warning this week to its members to invest ‘cautiously’ in Uzbekistan. The association said in a statement that at the end of April 2024 the country had 46 integrated production lines with a cement production capacity of 38Mt/yr. This is double the country’s demand for cement. Half of this production capacity is managed by China-based companies. It added that the utilisation rate was currently 50%, that the price had dropped by about 40% since 2020 and that competition was ‘fierce.’ Incredibly, another 7Mt/yr of capacity is expected to be added in 2024. The CCA has advised Chinese companies to consider the state of the Uzbek cement market before making any more investments.

The two news stories we have explored this week cover two sides of the same issue: Chinese cement overcapacity. The local market is finally slowing down after a period of phenomenal growth and the big question is what is the actual market demand now that all the big stuff has already been built. The government gives every impression it is using the decline to meet its sustainability goals. Like institutions in many other places it has set itself targets that it seems likely to meet. The flipside of overcapacity at home is investment overseas. China-based plant equipment manufacturers have certainly done well out of this situation. Yet in Uzbekistan, at least, it looks like the cement sector in China has also managed to export its overcapacity. This has created the absurd situation where the CCA has implored its members and others to exercise the same self-discipline abroad that the government extols at home. Another way to put this might be that Chinese cement companies are increasingly unable to make money at home… or in Uzbekistan. This then leaves a query over where else enthusiastic Chinese cement investors may be causing market imbalances. One solution might be for the Chinese government to impose a cap on clinker production by its companies outside the mainland. Whatever happens next though, the introduction of a capacity cap in mainland China marks a decisive change to the local cement sector.

The Indonesian government emphasised its intention this week to use ‘green’ cement in the construction of its new capital city Nusantara in Borneo. However, this begs the question: what exactly is ‘green’ cement?

In this case, Mohammad Zainal Fatah, the secretary general of the Ministry of Public Works and Public Housing, told state media that his department was “seeking to encourage the supply of domestic-industry-based material resources and construction equipment, which can support sustainable infrastructure development principles." The ministry is working with state-owned cement producers such as Semen Indonesia (SIG) to ensure the provision of sustainable cement and related products. SIG was selected as a supplier for the project in late 2022 and, as of February 2024, has reportedly provided 400,000t of cement from its plants at Balikpapan and Samarinda.

This is admirable stuff. However, the timing of the announcement is curious given that both the head and deputy head of the Nusantara Capital City Authority resigned this week forcing the government to reassure investors that the project was still on. Cue some swift discussion about ‘green’ cement! Previously it was hoped that the first phase of the US$34bn project could be inaugurated on the country’s independence day in August 2024 with civil servants scheduled to start relocating to the site in the autumn.

SIG sells a number of ‘green’ blended cement products and some of these have received Green Label Cement certification from the Green Product Council Indonesia. The group says that these products have contributed up to a 38% drop in CO₂ emissions compared to Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC). This compares to the group’s clinker factor reduction rate of 69% and its Scope 1 emissions intensity reduction of 17% to 585kg/CO₂/t of cement in 2023 compared to 2010 levels.

Along similar lines, the Alliance for Low-Carbon Cement & Concrete (ALCCC) in Belgium also announced this week that it had released a new policy roadmap aimed at achieving net zero emissions by 2040. Amongst its recommendations were a focus on the standards for cement and concrete to promote low-carbon products and encouragement to create lead markets to develop demand for them.

Crucially, the ALCCC uses low-carbon cement in place of ‘green’ cement and this makes its definition clearer. ‘Green’ cement is a marketing term intended to associate cement with environmentalism. Yet there is no accepted definition describing how these products are more sustainable than, say, OPC. For example, a so-called ‘green’ cement could use 100% clinker manufactured with no CO₂ emissions-abatement, but it might be sustainable in other ways such as saving water. For the purposes of this article we’ll assume that ‘green’ cement means a low-carbon one. To further add to the confusion, ‘green’ concrete can be made using OPC in various ways but that’s beyond the scope of this piece. Clearly the world could do with some universal definitions.

US-based research and consulting company Global Efficiency Intelligence came to the same conclusion when it published its ‘What are Green Cement and Concrete?’ report in December 2023. It decided that - despite there being plenty of standards, protocols, and initiatives - there is no general agreement on the definition of ‘green’ cement or concrete. Its emissions intensity for cement summary table can be viewed below. It demonstrates the massive range of emissions intensity between the various standards. It is worth noting here that the description the Indonesian government may have been using for ‘green’ cement could already meet SIG’s Scope 1 emissions intensity reduction for its cement in 2023 depending on the standard being used.

Table 1: Emissions intensity definition for cement as stated by standards, protocols, initiatives, and policies with stated numerical quantity targets. Source: Global Efficiency Intelligence.

Part of the problem here is that there is a language gap between the simple definition of a cement that is less CO₂ emissions-intensive than OPC and the technical definitions used in the specifications and standards. Simply describing a cement product as ‘green’ can potentially cover anything that is slightly better than OPC down to a bona-fide net-zero product. Added to this is pressure from the manufacturers of new and existing cement products that use less or no OPC for regulators to move to performance-based standards to replace existing prescriptive standards, because it makes it easier for their products to be used. For more on this issue see Global Cement Weekly #606. Cement associations such as Cembureau and the Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA) have also called in their respective net zero roadmaps for changes to the standards system to promote low-carbon cement and concrete products.

The answer to what is ‘green’ cement is whatever the promoters want it to be. So, it might be helpful if the use of the word ‘green’ were banned in connection to any marketing activity related to cement products. Everyone could then adopt some kind of universal grading system using simpler language. One approach might be to copy the colour-coding scheme used by hydrogen to describe how it is made. One could use yellow for limestone blends, silver for slag, orange for clay, black for OPC made with carbon capture and so on… but not green! Another route might be to mandate the use of the carbon labels that some cement producers have used for at least a decade. Or something like the alphabet energy rating system used in the UK and EU for electrical appliances could be used. It’s too much to hope for a global system but simpler systems in the main markets would make it much easier to determine what exactly is ‘green’ cement.

Peter Edwards, Editor of Global Cement Magazine, discusses ‘sustainable’ cement in The Last Word in the June 2023 issue

Cemex announced last week that it will stop producing clinker at its Lloseta plant in Mallorca. Grinding activity at the site will continue, along with the shipment of bagged and bulk cement products. The company has framed the closure as part of its decarbonisation plans. The dismantling of the two preheater towers at the plant is scheduled to take place by the end of 2030. Cemex said that it will take this long to allow the cement plant to continue operating, as well as a neighbouring hydrogen unit and other nearby industrial units. The status of the Lloseta plant has been in question before. It was closed in early 2019 due to reduced cement demand and mounting European CO₂ emissions regulations. However, it reopened in 2021.

Readers may recall that Cemex España participated in the Power to Green Hydrogen Mallorca project. Land by the Lloseta cement plant was used to hold solar panels and a solar-powered hydrogen unit. Other partners in the project included energy suppliers Enagás and Redexis and renewable power and infrastructure company Acciona, among others. When the unit was commissioned in early 2022, it said it was the first solar power-to-green hydrogen plant in Spain. The link between Cemex and hydrogen is noteworthy given the cement company’s adoption of hydrogen injection as part of its alternative fuels strategy. Interestingly, Acciona planned to use a blockchain method to certify that hydrogen produced at the site was made using renewable energy sources. Heidelberg Materials also plans to use the same process to verify its evoZero brand of net-zero cement products in 2025. Another recent sustainability sector news story in Spain is the commissioning by Çimsa of a 7.2MW solar plant supporting its Buñol white cement plant in Valencia. The new installation is expected to supply about 18% of the plant’s energy needs.

On the corporate side of things, FCC revealed in mid-May 2024 that it was preparing to spin-off its cement and real estate subsidiaries into a new company called Inmocemento. The cement part of this is Spain-based Cementos Portland Valderrivas. The move is intended to bolster the values of the different parts of the business. The proposal will be put to FCC’s shareholders in late June 2024, with any resulting action taking place by the end of the year. The decision to separate FCC’s cement assets is reminiscent of the financial engineering Holcim has proposed with its US business. However, in this case the driver does not appear to be the disparity between the European and US stock markets.

Graph 1: Domestic consumption and exports of cement in Spain, 2013 - 2023. Source: Oficemen.

Market data was also out this week from Oficemen, the Spanish cement association. Domestic cement consumption grew year-on-year in April 2024 but the year so far is looking weaker with consumption from January to April 2024 down by 4.5% year-on-year to 4.65Mt. This is below Oficemen’s forecast for 2024 where it expected a stagnant situation. However, there are eight more months to go. In 2023 cement consumption fell by 3% to 14.5Mt and exports declined by 7.5% to 5.2Mt. The association blamed continued underinvestment in both the public and private sectors due to economic instability since the Covid-19 pandemic. Graph 1 above shows the wider situation in the Spanish cement market over the last decade. The share of exports has declined and local consumption rebounded after 2020 but has declined since then.

These news stories provide a snapshot of what’s been happening in Spain recently in the cement sector. Oficemen’s prediction for 2024 is gloomy but local consumption has risen over the past 10 years. Exports have fallen but the cement association has started to spin the country’s decarbonsiation drive as a potential positive for the industry’s competitiveness generally. It’s hard to discern right now but there might be an advantage for an export-focused country that conforms to European standards in the future if it can hold onto its capacity. Admittedly, that’s a big if. This thinking along sustainability lines could be seen earlier in May 2024 when Cementos Molins Group rebranded itself as Molins. It described the rebranding as a bid to represent the wider range of construction products it manufactures and sells beyond cement. Oficemen has also pointed out that the local market has room for development given the relatively low cement consumption per capita in Spain compared to its peers. So, whatever happens next, there is likely to be room for improvement in the cement market.