Analysis

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.

Northern Region Cement announced this week that it is planning to build a new cement production line in Iraq. It has signed an engineering, procurement, and construction deal with Germany-based KHD and its parent company AVIC for the supply of a 1.3Mt/yr production line. The contract has been valued at US$139m with a duration of 16 months, suggesting that the earliest the new plant might be commissioned would be from early 2025.

The Saudi Arabia-based company operates an integrated cement plant at Arar in Northern Borders Province and an integrated plant at Muwaqar, near Amman, in Jordan. It also took over a grinding plant in Basra, Iraq, in 2017 and runs this via its Um-Qasr Northern Cement subsidiary. It has not been disclosed so far where the new production line in Iraq will actually be or what type of equipment is being supplied. However, the price suggests a clinker pyro-processing line.

The timing of this project is noteworthy as it follows a number of other such announcements so far in 2023. In mid-August 2023 China-based Sinoma International Engineering said that it had signed a US$219m deal with Al-Diyar Company for Cement Industry and Industrial Investment to build a 6000t/day clinker production line with a 50MW captive power plant. The project is located in the Samawah area of Al Muthanna Province. First clinker production is scheduled from mid-2025. This followed the start of construction at another project in the Erbil province in the Kurdistan region of the country in June 2023. Kurdistan Region Prime Minister Masrour Barzani laid the foundation stone for a new 6000t/day cement plant. The DCCP Cement and Power plant is being built by local partner Dabin Group and China-based China Power Investment Corporation (PowerChina).

In May 2023 Pakistan-based Lucky Cement revealed that it was preparing to build a second production line at its integrated plant at Samawah. It runs the plant under the Najmat Al Samawah joint venture together with UAE-based Al Shumookh Group. The first 1.31Mt/yr line at the plant was started up in 2021. It said that the new proposed 1.82Mt/yr production line was intended to take advantage of renewed economic activity in Iraq, benefit from increasing numbers of construction projects and further supply clinker to Lucky Cement’s grinding plant joint-venture at Basra. Construction work on the new line was expected to start by September 2023 with a completion date scheduled by mid-2025. Earlier still in March 2023 the Iraqi General Cement Company signed a deal with Turkey-based Zodiac for the latter to build a new 1.8Mt/yr plant at the Hammam Al-Alil Complex in Nineveh Governorate.

The Cement Manufacturers Association in Iraq (CPA) has reported various meetings in 2023 it has held with the Minister of Industry and Minerals with the aim of supporting the sector. In March 2023 it was discussing developing a five year plan to increase cement production with the aim of surpassing a capacity of 40Mt/yr. For reference the Global Cement Directory 2023 placed local capacity at just under 10Mt/yr. Then, in June 2023, the conversation had moved on to talking about awarding new licences to build plants on a regional basis, warnings that capacity is growing too fast and setting standards.

All of this is positive news 20 years on from the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the insurgency that followed. The local economy has benefited from high oil prices and a period of political stability, followed by infrastructure investment. Holcim runs two cement plants in Iraq via its Lafarge Iraq subsidiary and it noted “strong domestic cement demand” in the country in 2022. The number of new cement plant projects so far in 2023 underlines a new confidence in the market. Unfortunately the war between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip threatens to undermine the previous period of calm should hostilities spread. However, the news from Northern Region Cement about its proposed new plant suggests that some level of business confidence remains for now.

UltraTech Cement approved a US$1.5bn capacity expansion plan this week. The initiative intends to add 21.9Mt/yr in production capacity by setting up four new cement plants, four upgrades and four new terminals. It will also add 39MW in waste heat recovery (WHR) units and alternative fuels feeding and handling investments. Commercial production at the new sites is scheduled to start from the 2026 financial year onwards.

The company is India’s largest cement producer by production capacity and the third biggest globally outside of China. Yet it is still growing as this latest announcement shows. Kumar Mangalam Birla, the chair of parent company Aditya Birla Group, revealed the ambition earlier this year, that UltraTech Cement wants to reach a production capacity of 200Mt/yr in the near future. This is likely to be ordinary Portland cement (OPC) capacity from both integrated and grinding plants. It reported a figure of 132Mt/yr in its annual report for the 2023 financial year. This latest capacity investment is its third in recent years. In December 2020 it announced investment of just below US$560m to add 12.8Mt/yr of capacity with commissioning by around the end of the 2023 financial year. It later confirmed that most of this had been completed on schedule. Then another US$1.55bn investment was ordered in June 2022 to add 22.6Mt/yr. This tranche of new plants and terminals is planned to be completed by the end of the 2025 financial year.

Graph 1: UltraTech Cement’s OPC production capacity and utilisation rate, 2017 - 2023 financial years. Source: Company annual reports.

The graph above shows how the company’s capacity has grown since 2017. This is the year in which it acquired 21Mt/yr of capacity from Jaiprakash Associates for US$2.5bn. These plants then show up in the capacity figure for 2018. The next big bump to capacity arrived in 2019 when UltraTech Cement was able to complete its purchase of Century Textiles & Industries, adding another 15Mt/yr of capacity. Since then though it has mainly been newly built plants or upgrades. It is also worth noting the capacity utilisation figures the company has reported. There has generally been an upward trend since 2017 with a dip during the Covid-19 pandemic years in 2020 and 2021. This has also been happening despite adding more capacity through both acquisitions and building new plants. The other point to note is that the cement company is mostly a wholly India-based one. It has presences in the UAE, Bahrain and Sri Lanka but these are small compared to the operations back home. In the 2023 financial year, 23 of its 24 integrated plants were domestic, 25 out of 29 grinding plants were and seven out of eight terminals were too.

UltraTech Cement’s current nearest rival, Adani Group, appeared on the scene in 2022 when it bought Holcim’s subsidiaries in India. The timing may have been coincidental but, after Holcim agreed to sell to Adani Group in May 2022, UltraTech Cement announced its US$1.55bn capacity drive in June 2022. A year later in June 2023 Adani Group targeted a capacity of 140Mt/yr by 2028. To give an idea of the market both of these companies are competing in, Ratings Agency ICRA’s last forecast in September 2024 predicted that cement volumes would grow by 9 - 10% in the 2024 financial year. Capacity expansion by all cement producers was expected to be driven by “steady demand for housing and increased government investments in infrastructure.”

UltraTech Cement may be the fastest expanding cement company in the world at the moment. India certainly needs the cement as its population overtook China’s in April 2023. The Aditya Birla Group company is not taking any chances with its competitors by maintaining its lead in capacity. One risk it may want to watch out for though is India’s nascent Carbon Credit Trading Scheme. Some form of carbon trading for the petrochemicals, steel, cement and paper sectors looks set to start in the second half of the 2020s. However, any such scheme is likely to favour incumbent manufacturers with newer plants. With the country’s net zero target set at 2070, UltraTech Cement has plenty of room to manoeuvre.

Cementos Molins has been celebrating the first anniversary this week of its alternative raw materials unit at its Sant Vicenç dels Horts plant near Barcelona. It has processed 75,000t of waste since September 2022 when the site started up. More is yet to come as the unit has a production capacity of up to 200,000t/yr. The facility receives waste in coarse, granular, powder and sludge formats. Waste from concrete plants is crushed and screened to produce recycled aggregate. Industrial and construction waste is dosed and homogenised to produce alternative raw materials for cement production.

Global Cement Weekly has covered construction and demolition waste (CDW) a couple of times already so far in 2023. A number of cement producers are investing in the sector - including Holcim, Heidelberg Materials, CRH, Cemex – by developing technology, buying up other companies, setting up internal CDW divisions and so on. Holcim and Heidelberg Materials have been the more obviously active participants over the past six months based on media coverage. In September 2023 Holcim France commissioned the Saint-Laurent-de-Mûre alternative raw materials plant and Holcim Group invested in Neustark, a company promoting technology to sequester CO₂ in CDW. In August 2023 Lafarge Canada also completed the first stage of a pilot project to use CDW in cement production at its St. Constant plant in Quebec. Heidelberg Materials meanwhile announced in October 2023 that a forthcoming upgrade to its Górażdże cement plant in Poland would include a new CDW recycling unit and in September 2023 it launched a CDW division for its subsidiary Hanson UK.

Previously we have described how the European Union (EU) has set recovery targets for CDW. However, McKinsey & Company published research in March 2023 setting out the economic case for cement and concrete companies looking at CDW. It estimated that “an increased adoption of circular technologies could be linked to the emergence of new financial net-value pools worth up to roughly Euro110bn by 2050.” It is not a certainty and there is risk involved, but adopting circular practices is one way to reduce this risk. It then went on to predict that recirculating materials and minerals could generate nearly Euro80bn/yr in earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) for the cement and concrete sectors by 2050. The biggest portion of this could come from using CDW in various ways such as a clinker replacement or as an aggregate in concrete production, or the use of unhydrated cement ‘fines.’ Capturing and using CO₂ and increasing alternative fuels (AF) substitution rates would have a financial impact but not to the same scale.

Graph 1: CO₂ abatement cost via circular technologies for cement and concrete sectors. Source: McKinsey & Company.

Graph 1 above puts all of the McKinsey circular technology suggestions in one place with the prediction that all of these methods could reduce CO₂ emissions from cement and concrete production by 80% in 2050 based on an estimated demand of 4Bnt/yr. The first main point they made was that technologies using CO₂, such as curing ready-mix or precast concrete, can create positive economic value at carbon prices of approximately Euro80/t of CO₂. Readers should note that the EU emissions Trading Scheme CO₂ price has generally been above Euro80t/yr since the start of 2022. The second point to note is that using CDW could potentially save money by offering CO₂ abatement at a negative cost through avoiding landfill gate fees and reducing the amount of raw materials required. This is dependent though on government regulation on CO₂ prices, landfill costs and so on.

Cement producers have been clearly aware of the potential of CDW for a while now, based on the actions described above and elsewhere, and they are jockeying for advantage. These companies are familiar with the economic rationale for AF and secondary cementitious materials (SCM) in different countries and locations. CDW usage is similar but with, in McKinsey’s view, existing CO₂ prices, landfill costs, and regulatory frameworks all playing a part in the calculations. Graph 1 is a prediction but it is also another way of showing the path of least resistance to decarbonisation. It is cheaper to start with AF, SCMs and CDW rather than barrelling straight into carbon capture. The beauty here is that cement and concrete sold, say, 50 years ago is now heading back to the producers in the form of CDW and it still has value.