Analysis

Sinoma International Engineering revealed this week that it has signed a Euro218m contract to supply a new clinker production line for Holcim Belgium. The scope of the deal covers building the new line from limestone unloading via train to clinker transportation and storage. Provisional acceptance and first clinker are stipulated to occur within about four years, by late 2027. Holcim Belgium operates the Obourg Plant, its only integrated unit in the country, and the unit has been preparing to build a new line as part of its Go4Zero project.

Two main points compete for one’s attention with the project at the Obourg Plant. Firstly, this may be the first time a large Europe-based cement producer has publicly contracted a China-based supplier to build a new production line. Secondly, the new line is part of a process to first replace two wet kilns at the site with a dry kiln. This is part of a grand plan at the site to add oxyfuel technology to the plant and then start capturing most of the CO₂ emitted for sequestration in the North Sea.

On the first point, China-based Sinoma International Engineering reported to the Shanghai Stock Exchange in early December 2023 that it had signed a contract for the project. Holcim Belgium has not said that it has appointed the subsidiary of CNBM but this is not unusual. Buyers are at liberty to name suppliers, or not as may be the case. Holcim has been talking about the Go4Zero project for several years though, so appointing a lead contractor is not surprising.

Yet, some cement companies in Europe have previously been circumspect about revealing the use of China-based suppliers. Lafarge France, for example, did not appear to publicly name the involvement of Sinoma International Engineering and its subsidiaries on the construction of a new line at its Martres-Tolosane cement plant between 2019 and 2022, although Lafarge Poland did say in 2020 that it had contracted China Triumph International Engineering for an upgrade to its Małogoszcz cement plant. No doubt there have been other plant projects in Europe from China-based suppliers that Global Cement Weekly is unaware of. It is also worth considering that just because a lead contractor on a plant project is from a particular country it doesn’t mean that the equipment and other sub-contractors necessarily are. And, of course, to add to the confusion, some Europe-based equipment suppliers are owned by companies based in China.

This leads to the second point. Holcim Belgium’s eventual goal is to set up a full-scale carbon capture, transportation and sequestration (CCUS) operation at Obourg using oxyfuel technology by the end of the 2020s. Spending over Euro200m on building a new (but conventional) production line is not trivial but it is being presented as one step towards creating a cement plant for the net zero age. To this end Holcim Belgium has been less shy in naming its partners for the second phase of the project: Air Liquide; Fluxys; and TotalEnergies. This may be due to the collaborative nature of this phase though and the need to apply for European Union (EU) funding to support it. In July 2023 Holcim disclosed that the EU Innovation Fund had allocated grants for three of its projects including the one at Obourg.

For reference, a number of other full-scale oxyfuel projects have been announced in Europe including in Germany at Heidelberg Materials' Geseke cement plant, Holcim Deutschland's Lägerdorf plant in Germany and Schwenk Zement’s Mergelstetten plant. Another one is planned for Heidelberg Materials’ CBR's Antoing cement plant in Belgium. Most of these are planned for the late 2020s or with pilots sooner. The key bit of information to consider here is that adding oxyfuel technology to a cement kiln (or building one with it to start with) makes it easier to capture CO₂ from the flue gas as it is more concentrated. However, the technology is newer and less-tested than many post-combustion carbon capture methods. Hence, the world’s first full-scale CCUS unit at a cement plant, at Brevik in Norway, will use a post combustion method.

All of this begs the question about where the value will lie in building cement plants for the age of net zero? The planned work at Holcim Belgium’s Obourg Plant pretty much summarises this quandary. Building a cement production line is expensive but the cost of disposing of CO₂ may become the single-biggest driver of whether a plant is profitable or not if governments are serious about reaching net zero. To that end today’s announcement from the 2023 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP28) calling on the parties to “transition away from fossil fuels to reach net zero” is another sign of the increasing effects of the so-called ‘carbon agenda’ upon the cement sector. In which case the companies that can supply equipment to take care of the CO₂ emissions start becoming more important and discussions over who supplies the rest of the kit less so. Naturally, some cement equipment suppliers are already pivoting towards this approach. Others may find different solutions. Whether this works or not is a question for the future. In the mean-time, building new plants is looking increasingly collaborative.

The Global Cement & Concrete Association (GCCA) has been cheerleading at the 2023 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP28) in Dubai this week with the release of a progress report on the sector’s work towards reaching net zero by 2050. The headline figures are that net CO₂ emissions per tonne of cementitious material fell by 23% in 2021 compared to 1990 based on Getting the Numbers Right (GNR) data. Energy efficiency improved by 19% and the fossil fuel component used by the cement sector has fallen to 80% from 98% in 1990. The GCCA has described 2020 - 2030 as the “decade to make it happen” and has set some targets to back this up. Its members intend to reduce CO₂ emissions per tonne of cement by 20% by 2030 compared to 2020 levels and concrete CO₂ emissions per m3 by 25% over the same time-frame.

The new developments for the cement sector at COP28 so far have been the launch of separate but apparently similar initiatives to help decarbonisation through coordination between nations. The Cement Breakthrough Agenda, backed by the government of Canada and other partners, follows the creation of the Breakthrough Agenda at the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) whereby designated governments lead so-called ‘Priority Actions’ to decarbonise various sectors. The idea is to collaborate on measures such as policies, regulations and technologies to help reduce the cost of future investment in decarbonisation. The priority actions will be developed in 2023, worked towards in 2024 and then revised on a regular basis thereafter. The German Chancellor Olaf Scholz also launched the so-called ‘Climate Club’ on 1 December 2023 to help developing nations invest in technologies to decarbonise sectors such as cement and steel production. The intention is to set up the technical groundwork for a standardised calculation of CO₂ intensity in selected products, such as cement and steel, set definitions on what net zero is for these sectors and then set up a platform to connect countries with funding and technical support from governments and the private sector. Neither the Cement Breakthrough Agenda nor the Climate Club has mentioned funding though.

Additionally, Holcim announced that it had become a founding member of the Sustainable Markets Initiative’s SMI Circularity Task Force. The group aims to promote the circular economy to the private and public sector. Holcim was keen to point out that it is already recycling nearly 7Mt/yr of construction and demolition waste, with a target of 10Mt/yr pencilled in by 2025.

Other groups are not as upbeat as the GCCA though. The Global Carbon Project, for example, has estimated in its annual Global Carbon Budget that global fossil CO₂ emissions are set to rise by 1.4% year-on-year to 36.8Bnt in 2023. This figure includes both the CO₂ released by cement production and the CO₂ uptake from cement carbonation. Ongoing research by Robbie Andrew, a greenhouse gas emissions scientist at the CICERO Center for Climate Research in Norway and the Global Carbon Project, found that process emissions by the cement sector fell for the first time since 2015 in 2022, to reach 1.61Bnt. This decrease was most likely due to China’s falling cement production in 2022, stemming from a downturn in the local real estate sector. However, both the data from GCCA and the Global Carbon Project may be right simultaneously as they look at the emissions of the cement sector in different ways.

The GCCA’s job is to advocate for the cement and concrete sector and it is presenting itself well at COP28. Since its formation, it has set up roadmaps, encouraged collaboration and innovation, and is now reporting back on its progress. Net zero remains the goal by 2050, but the GCCA is being upfront about the role carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS) is expected to play after 2030 and the lack of any full-scale CCUS units so far. Yet it is tracking what has happened so far through the Green Cement Technology Tracker in conjunction with Leadership Group for Industry Transition (LeadIT).

As for the rest of COP28, various reports have been aired in the international press about whether the conference will call for a formal phase out of fossil fuels in some form or another. Whether it actually happens is another matter entirely, especially considering that the president of COP28 is the chief executive officer of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, and any eventual language would likely be vague. Yet the work by the GGCA and others has started to make the unthinkable a little more thinkable.

Taiwan Cement Corporation (TCC) has struck a deal to take control of the Türkiye and Portugal-based parts of OYAK’s cement business. The arrangement will see TCC grow its share of the joint-venture business in Türkiye to 60% from 40% at present and it will fully take over the Cimpor joint-venture in Portugal by purchasing OYAK’s 60% stake. Overall TCC is expected to pay around Euro740m for its acquisitions. A final agreement on the deal is expected to be signed in early December 2023.

The proposed deal follows on from when TCC originally spent US$1.1bn towards setting up joint-ventures as a junior partner with OYAK back in 2018. The situation now appears to have reversed with TCC becoming the main owner of the cement business in Türkiye and the sole owner of Cimpor in Portugal. In Türkiye this gives TCC control over the largest cement producer with seven integrated plants, three grinding plants, 47 ready-mixed concrete (RMX) plants, three aggregate quarries and one paper packaging plant. In Portugal (and Cape Verde) this puts TCC in charge of three integrated plants, two inactive grinding plants, 42 RMX plants, 15 quarries, two mortar plants and a cement bag unit.

This contrasts with last week’s news that CRH is buying one cement plant in Texas (with associated assets) for US$2.1bn. TCC is taking control of 10 plants in Türkiye and Portugal for Euro740m. It is not a fair comparison given the woes of the Turkish economy in recent years, prior joint-venture business ownership and so on. Yet it is one more example of the changing nature of cement company ownership around the world since the mid-2010s.

The state of the economy in Türkiye may well be a factor for the change in ownership at OYAK and Cimpor as well as negative exchange rate trends. High inflation has caused problems in recent years, although the government changed its stance on avoiding putting up interest rates following the elections in May 2023. Yet, in a statement about the OYAK deal, chair Nelson Chang said that “companies that do not understand carbon will not survive in the future.” His company is about to spend Euro740m and become the fifth largest cement producer in the world on the assertion that it does understand carbon. Good luck!

Accordingly, the language in the press releases both OYAK and TCC have released is all about sustainable growth and reducing carbon emissions. However, the detail on how exactly they intend to do this is vague. What is clearer though is that OYAK is hoping that TCC invests in energy storage and related industries such as lithium-ion battery additive carbon black in Türkiye. To this end a TCC subsidiary and OYAK are collaborating on a carbon black plant in Iskenderun and further investments may be in the pipeline. TCC and OYAK are also responsible for a couple of calcined clay projects in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Readers may recall that the chair of Chang pronounced in June 2023 that TCC was aiming to diversify the business towards over 50% sales from non-cement sectors by 2025. However, the share from the cement business was around 68% in 2022 and this latest deal with OYAK will likely send it in the ‘wrong’ direction. The company already has a production capacity of around 77Mt/yr from its cement plants in China and Taiwan. Majority ownership of OYAK Çimento and Cimpor Portugal will bump this up to 99Mt/yr and put the company into the top five of the world’s largest cement producers by capacity.

The final question here is what kind of owner TCC intends to be to its growing cement businesses in West Asia and Europe. Publicly at least, it has come across as a backseat investor since 2018 although it has been a minority owner. This has now changed but it will be interesting to observe whether the subsidiaries in the west will be run at arm’s length or more closely and if TCC unifies its global branding and so on. Watch this space.

The Hunter cement plant in Texas looks set to become one of the most expensive integrated units in the world following the announcement this week that CRH is preparing to buy it for US$2.1bn. The Ireland-headquartered company said that it has agreed to acquire the plant at New Braunfels near San Antonio from Martin Marietta Material. The deal also includes four cement terminals around and near to Houston and 20 ready-mixed concrete (RMX) plants near to San Antonio and Austin. It is expected to complete in the first half of 2024 subject to regulatory approval.

Assessing the value of this deal is tricky given the various RMX plants and terminals in strategic locations. However, solely based on integrated cement production capacity, this one works out at US$1000/t given that the Hunter plant has a production capacity of 2.1Mt/yr. The value of terminals and RMX plants in the right locations cannot be overstated, but it still appears to price the cement plant dearly. CRH bought Ash Grove in 2018 for US$350/t. Five years later and the price it is paying for cement production capacity in the US has nearly tripled.

Other more recent purchases in the US include US$395/t for UNACEM’s acquisition of the Redding cement plant in California earlier in November 2023, around US$525/t for the valuation of Argos North America’s four integrated plants in September 2023, or just over US$310/t for the proposed purchase of the Redding cement plant by CalPortland from Martin Marietta Materials in March 2022. The Argos North America valuation is another awkward one given that it is part of the proposed merger between it and Summit Materials and it also includes two grinding plants, 140 ready-mix concrete plants, and a distribution network of eight maritime ports and 10 inland terminals.

Figure 1: Map of CRH production assets in Texas. Source: CRH earnings presentation.

In a statement, CRH’s chief executive officer Albert Manifold highlighted the usual synergy benefits but he also mentioned the expected “self-supply opportunities.” He added that the company believed that there was “significant potential to unlock additional growth opportunities across an expanded footprint in this attractive growth market.” If the acquisition completes, the company will become the largest cement producer in the state, based on integrated production capacity, at around 3.2Mt/yr. Plus, as the company pointed out in its third quarter earnings update, it also operates the Foreman cement plant in Arkansas, just across the state border to the north-east. This then gives CRH and its subsidiary Ash Grove a cement plant and/or terminals in the main population areas in Texas, namely: Houston; San Antonio and Austin; and Dallas and Fort Worth.

One reason why CRH may have gone all out for a cement plant in Texas is because it is one of the few states in the US where cement shipments have actually increased so far in 2023. Data from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) shows that shipments of Portland and blended cement fell by 2% year-on-year to just under 71Mt in January to August 2023. Yet Texas comprehensively bucked this trend with shipments rising by 10% to 8.04Mt. The only other states with this kind of growth were Maine and New York. At the start of 2023 the Portland Cement Association (PCA) predicted a 3.5% decline in cement consumption in 2023 and based on the January to August 2023 data from the USGS it isn’t far off at present.

Meanwhile, selling its cement assets in Houston and San Antonio nearly brings Martin Marietta Materials’ decade-long excursion into the sector to an end. It purchased its cement plants in Texas in 2014 when it acquired Texas Industries (TXI). Plants in California were soon sold to CalPortland but Martin Marietta Materials later picked up two more cement plants in the state when it bought the US West Region of Lehigh Hanson from Heidelberg Materials in 2021. Then, once again, the plants were sold, this time to CalPortland and UNACEM, respectively. This now leaves Martin Marietta Materials with one integrated cement plant, Midlothian, and two terminals. The size of the Midlothian plant, at 2.4Mt/yr, still gives the company a decent presence in the state.

With US cement consumption expected to bounce back to growth in 2024 and the Texas market ahead of this, CRH’s decision to buy big from Martin Marietta Materials seems like a logical move given its focus on North America. The price may seem high, but the investment seems as close to a steady bet as it gets. The day after the Texas announcement CRH revealed that it was selling its lime business in Europe to SigmaRoc for US$1.1bn. The key bit though was that these assets generated earnings of around US$137m in 2022 but, by comparison, the new units in Texas are expected to earn US$170m in 2023. This suddenly makes the price agreed for Hunter seem more reasonable. Let’s check back in a couple of years to see how well CRH’s acquisition in Texas works out. In the meantime all eyes are likely to be on what Martin Marietta Materials does next with the Midlothian plant.

Last week the US General Services Administration (GSA) announced that it was investing US$2bn on over 150 construction projects that use low-embodied carbon (LEC) materials. The funding is intended to support the use of US-manufactured low carbon asphalt, concrete, glass and steel as part of the Inflation Reduction Act. For readers who don’t know, the GSA manages federal government property and provides contracting options for government agencies. As part of this new message, it will spend US$767m on LEC concrete on federal government buildings projects following a pilot that started in May 2023. The full list of the projects can be found here.

This is relevant because the US-based ready-mixed concrete (RMX) market has been valued roughly at around US$60bn/yr. One estimate of how much the US federal government spent on concrete was around US$5bn in 2018. So the government buys a significant minority of RMX in the country, and if it starts specifying LEC products, this will affect the industry. And, at present at least, a key ingredient of all that concrete is cement.

This isn’t the first time that legislators in the US have specified LEC concrete. In 2019 Marin County in California introduced what it said was the world’s first building code that attempted to minimise carbon emissions from concrete production. It did this by setting maximum ordinary Portland cement (OPC) and embodied carbon levels and offering several ways suppliers can achieve this, including increasing the use of supplementary cementitious materials (SCM), using admixtures, optimising concrete mixtures and so on. Unlike the GSA’s approach in November 2023 though, this applies to all plain and reinforced concrete installed in the area, not just a portion of procured concrete via a government agency. Other similar regional schemes in the US include limits on embodied carbon levels in RMX in Denver, Colorado, and a reduction in the cement used in RMX in Berkeley, California. Environmental services company Tangible compiled a wider list of embodied carbon building codes in North America that can be viewed here. This grouping also includes the use of building intensity policies, whole building life cycle assessments (LCA), environmental product declarations (EPD), demolition and deconstruction directives, tax incentives and building reuse plans.

Government-backed procurement codes promoting or requiring the use of LEC building materials for infrastructure projects have been around for a while in various places. The general trend has been to start with measurement via tools such as LCAs and EPDs, move on to government procurement and then start setting embodied carbon limits for buildings. In the US the GSA’s latest pronouncement follows on from the Federal Buy Clean Initiative and from when California introduced its Buy Clean California Act in 2017. Outside of the US similar programmes have been introduced in countries including Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK. On the corporate side members of the World Economic Forum’s First Movers’ Coalition have committed to purchasing or specifying volumes of LEC cement and/or concrete by 2030. Examples of whole countries actually setting embodied carbon emissions limits for non-government buildings are rarer, but some are emerging. Both France and Sweden, for example, introduced laws in 2022 that start by analysing life-cycle emissions of buildings and will move on to setting embodied carbon limits in the late 2020s. Denmark, Finland and New Zealand are also in the process of introducing similar schemes. The next big move could be in the EU, where legislators are considering embodied carbon limits for building materials as part of its ongoing revisions to its Energy Performance of Buildings Directive or the Construction Products Regulation legislations. Lobbying, debate and arguing remains ongoing at present.

To finish, Ireland-based Ecocem spent a period in the 2010s attempting to build a slag cement grinding plant at Vallejo, Solano County, in the San Francisco Bay Area of California. The project met with considerable local opposition on environmental grounds and was eventually refused planning permission. The irony is that slag cement is one of those SCM-style cements that Marin County, also in the San Francisco Bay Area, started encouraging the use of just a few years later. Ecocem held its inaugural science symposium in Paris this week. A number of scientists who attended the event called for existing low carbon technologies to be adopted by the cement and concrete sectors as fast as possible. One such approach is to lower the clinker factor in cement through the use of products that Ecocem and other companies sell. A point to consider is, if Marin County’s code or the GSA’s recent procurement directive came earlier, then that slag plant in Vallejo might have been built. Encouraging the use of LEC building materials by governments looks set to proliferate but it may not be a straightforward process. Clear and consistent policies will be key.