Analysis

The European Union (EU) carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) started its transitional phase this week ahead of the full adoption of the scheme in 2026. Importers of goods with a high carbon cost, including cement, will have to report the direct and indirect CO₂ emissions associated with production. No financial penalty will be incurred during the transition period, but from 2026 onwards importers will have to start buying certificates at the EU emissions trading scheme (ETS) price. However, even the full version of the CBAM will be phased in with the cost of embedded emissions increased gradually from 2026 to 2034. Readers can catch up on the CBAM guidance for importers here.

Graph 1: Sources of cement and clinker imports to the EU in H1 2023. Source: Eurostat/Cembureau.

Global Cement Weekly has covered the EU CBAM frequently, but it is worth remembering which countries are most likely to be affected. According to data from Eurostat and Cembureau, the EU imported just over 10Mt of cement and clinker in 2022. This compares to around 2.5Mt in 2016. Graph 1 (above) is even more instructive, as it shows where the cement and clinker came from in the first half of 2023. Most of it was manufactured in countries on the periphery of the EU with, roughly, a third from Türkiye and a third from North Africa. These are the countries with the most to lose from the CBAM.

Graph 2: CO₂ emissions intensity for cement exports. Green signifies cleaner than the EU average, Red signifies more carbon intensive than the EU average. Source: World Bank.

Türkiye is the most exposed. Data from Türkçimento shows that it exported 3.4Mt of cement and clinker into the EU in 2022 or 13% of its total exports. Bulgaria, Italy and Romania were the main destinations for cement. Belgium, Spain and France were the main targets for clinker. Notably, more clinker than cement was exported to the EU. For context, in total Türkiye exported 18.5Mt and 8.5Mt of cement and clinker respectively in 2022. The US was the leading destination for Turkish cement at 9.7Mt and Ivory Coast for clinker at 1.3Mt. Türkiye seems set to tackle the problem that CBAM poses for its iron and cement sectors by introducing its own emissions trading scheme. One view expressed has been that if the country has to pay for its carbon emissions it would much rather pocket the money domestically than see it go to a foreign entity. A relative CBAM Exposure Index put together by the World Bank by June 2023 suggested that Türkiye would actually benefit slightly in comparison to some of its cement exporting rivals as the CO₂ emissions intensity of its cement exports was 4.85kg CO₂eq/US$. This study’s pivot point was 4.97kg CO₂eq/US$, putting Türkiye just across the line for increased competitiveness.

Cement export data for Algeria is harder to find but state-owned Groupe des Ciments d'Algérie (GICA) has been regularly issuing bulletins since 2018 detailing its cement exports. It previously had an export target of 2Mt for 2023 with destinations in Africa, Europe and South and Central America. Looking more widely, research by the African Climate Foundation (ACF) and the Firoz Lalji Institute for Africa at the London School of Economics and Political Science estimated that 12% of Africa’s cement exports ended up in the EU. It reckoned that the introduction of the CBAM and an EU ETS price of Euro87/t would reduce total African exports of cement to the EU by 3 - 5% if the EU ended its ETS free allowance. The World Bank CBAM Exposure study found that Egypt and Morocco were likely to become more competitive for cement exports but Tunisia less so. Unfortunately this analysis did not cover Algeria.

The third largest individual source of imports into the EU in the first half of 2023 was Ukraine. Research from the Kiev School of Economics estimated that the start of the CBAM would reduce the export volume of cement to the EU by 2 - 5%/yr. The World Bank study found that Ukraine would become less competitive as the emissions intensity of its cement exports was 7.62kg CO₂eq/US$. This would be compounded by the fact that more than 90% of the country’s cement exports ended up in the EU. However, since the EU backed the country when Russia invaded in early 2022, imposing the CBAM on exports has acquired geopolitical consequences. There has been lobbying on this issue from various sources, so this situation might be one to watch to gain a sense of how the EU might react when its sustainability aims clash with its political imperatives.

One major risk for the cement exporting countries soon to be affected by the CBAM is if other countries start to do the same in a domino effect before the exporters introduce their own carbon pricing schemes. Türkiye is clearly alert to this. Other countries are thinking the same way. The US, for example, has had senators discuss the merits of setting up its own version. It is also wise to using sustainability legislation to further its own economic ends as the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022 showed. At the moment the US needs lots of cement imports but were this to change then the case to enact a US CBAM might grow.

Finally, one should never discount the sheer amount of bureaucracy involved when dealing with the EU. The UK discovered this when it voted to leave the EU and now the rest of the world gets to enjoy it too! Christian Alexander Müller of Evonik told the Die Welt newspaper this week that Brussels had created a bureaucratic ‘Godzilla.' Another commentator noted that the European Commission only published its guidance document for importers on CBAM in mid-August 2023 and that helping export partners would be like teaching them Latin in just a few weeks. Bona fortuna!

Taiwan Cement has just commissioned a 107MWh energy storage project at its Yingde plant in Guangdong province, China. Subsidiary NHOA Energy worked on the installation and has been promoting it this week. The battery storage works in conjunction with a 42MW waste heat recovery (WHR) unit, a 8MWp solar photovoltaic unit and a proprietary energy management system. It is expected to store about 46,000MWh/yr of electricity and save just under US$3m/yr in electricity costs.

NHOA Energy, formerly known as Engie EPS before Taiwan Cement bought a majority stake in it, claims it is one of the largest industrial microgrids in the world. We can’t verify this for sure, but it is definitely large. For comparison, the 750MW Vistra Moss Landing Energy Storage Facility in California often gets cited as the largest such facility in the world. This is run by a power company, as are many other large battery energy storage systems. In its annual report for 2022 Taiwan Cement said it was planning to using NHOA’s technology to build seven other large-scale energy storage projects at sites in Taiwan including its integrated Suao, Ho-Ping and Hualien cement plants.

The aim here appears to be supplying renewable electricity to the national grid in Taiwan. Taiwan Cement is diversifying away from cement production, with an aim to derive over 50% of its revenues from other activities besides cement by 2025. In 2022 cement and concrete represented 68% of its sales, while its electricity and energy division, including power supply and rechargeable lithium-ion batteries, represented 29%. The company is also not using its own batteries at the Yingde plant. Instead it is using lithium iron phosphate batteries supplied by Ningde Times. This is worth noting, as the cement producer’s batteries are used in vehicles.

Global Cement regularly reports news stories on cement plants that are building photovoltaic solar power arrays. However, so far at least, energy storage projects at scale have been rarer. One earlier example of an energy storage system loosely associated with a cement plant includes the now decommissioned Tehachapi Energy Storage Project that was situated next to the Tehachapi cement plant in California. That project tested using lithium ion batteries to improve grid performance and integrate intermittent generation from nearby wind farms. It is also worth noting that Sumitomo Osaka Cement’s sister company Sumitomo Electric is one of the world’s larger manufacturers of flow batteries, although no installation at a cement plant appears to have happened yet. In simple terms, flow batteries are an alternative to lithium ion batteries that don’t store as much energy but last longer.

More recently, Lucky Cement in Pakistan started commercial operation of a 34MW solar power plant with a 5.59MWh energy storage unit at its Pezu plant in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in late 2022. Reon Energy provided the equipment including a lithium-ion based battery approach to the storage. Then, in March 2023, Holcim US said that it was working with TotalEnergies to build solar power capacity and a battery energy storage unit at the Florence cement plant in Colorado. TotalEnergies will install, maintain and operate a 33MW DC ground-mounted solar array and a 38.5MWh battery energy storage system at the site. Operation of the renewable energy system is expected to start in 2025.

Away from electrical batteries, the other approach to energy storage at cement plants that has received attention recently from several quite different companies has been thermal batteries. The two prominent groups using them at different scales are Rondo Energy and Synhelion. The former company has developed its Heat Battery technology, which uses refractory bricks to absorb intermittent renewable energy and then supply the energy back as a steady stream of hot gas for use in a cement plant mill, dryer, calciner or kiln. Both Siam Cement Group (SCG) and Titan Cement have invested in Rondo Energy. In July 2023 SCG and Rondo Energy said that they were planning to expand the production capacity of a heat battery storage unit at a SCG plant to 90GWh/yr. Synhelion, meanwhile, has been working with Cemex on using concentrated solar power to manufacture clinker. It achieved this on an ‘industrially viable scale’ in August 2023. It has since been reported that the companies are working on building a small scale industrial plant at Móstoles near Madrid by 2026. Crucially for this discussion though, the process also uses a thermal energy storage unit filled with ceramic refractory material to allow thermal energy to be released at night, and thus ensure continuous operation.

The examples above demonstrate that some cement companies are actively testing out storing energy at scale. Whilst this will not solve the cement sector’s process emissions, it does potentially start to make using renewable energy sources more reliable and reduce the variable costs of renewable power. Whether it catches on remains to be seen. Most of these kinds of projects have been run by power companies and that is where it may stay. It is instructive to note that Reon Energy was the only company to state that its battery-based energy storage system has a life-span of 8 - 12 years. Our current vision of a net-zero future points to high electrical usage but it may be shaped by how good the batteries are… from our phones to our cars to our cement plants.

For more information on Rondo Energy read the January 2023 issue of Global Cement Magazine

The core of the Caribbean cement industry consists of the Dominican Republic (with 5.9Mt/yr in integrated capacity), Cuba (4.7Mt/yr) and Jamaica (3.5Mt/yr). Haiti and Trinidad & Tobago also command small, single integrated plants, while there are numerous grinding plants and cement terminals along the region’s extensive coastlines. The industry has been the subject of new commercial and capital expenditure-related announcements in the past fortnight. Regarding the Caribbean’s cement producers, these developments seem to lack a single clear direction.

Caribbean market leader Cemex revealed that it was considering selling up in the region’s largest market, the Dominican Republic, on 1 September 2023. Bloomberg cited unnamed sources stating that the Mexico-based cement giant hired financial services JPMorgan Chase to explore the possible divestment of local subsidiary Cemex Dominicana. Exactly one year had passed since Cemex completed its sale of Cemex Costa Rica and Cemex El Salvador to Guatemala-based Cementos Progreso for US$329m. Sources clued in on the latest development reportedly expect Cemex Dominicana to command a selling price three times greater than the Central American divestments combined.

Cemex has discussed its scattered disposal of global assets since 2019 as a strategic realignment towards its main markets, in particular those in North America and Europe. On this understanding, the Caribbean straddles an invisible line between Cemex’s strategic core in North America and Central America on its periphery.

Just to the north of the line lies Jamaica. There, Cemex subsidiary Caribbean Cement will expand its Rockfort cement plant by 30% to 1.3Mt/yr through a US$40m upgrade, scheduled for completion in early 2025. Late last week, Caribbean Cement told investors that the upgrade will equip the plant with new equipment, including a new dosing system. The producer expects this to help the Rockfort plant to further increase its alternative fuel (AF) substitution rate. It co-processed 5.6% AF in its kiln during the first half of 2023, more than double its first-half 2022 substitution rate of 2.7%. Caribbean Cement began exporting cement to Turks and Caicos on 16 September 2023, and plans to increase its shipments there and elsewhere. Managing director Yago Castro reassured Jamaicans that Caribbean Cement would also continue to help meet domestic demand.

Currently, Caribbean Cement and fellow Jamaican producer Cement Jamaica compete in the domestic market against imports, including some cement from Dominican Republic-based Domicem. This enters the country via Buying House Cement’s Montego Bay terminal. Montego Bay Cold Storage, an affiliate of Buying House Cement, shared plans for a second, US$8m cement terminal in the city earlier in 2023. The facility is expected to help meet growing demand from residential and hospitality sector construction.

More new production capacity is soon to come online in the form of a 1.23Mt/yr grinding plant in the Dominican Republic. Cemento PANAM will own and operate the plant, while Germany-based Gebr. Pfeiffer will supply a 3750 C-4 vertical roller mill via engineering, procurement and construction contractor CBMI Construction.

In a market where the nearest cement exporter is only a short sail over the horizon, producers have to compete fiercely for their market shares, even at home. Disputes over Caribbean Community member states’ rights to protect domestic cement production have gone as high as the Caribbean Court of Justice. It ended Barbados-based Rock Hard Cement’s hopes of resuming exports to Trinidad & Tobago last year.

The Caribbean’s cement producers will be acutely aware of Cementos Argos’ planned expansion of its north-facing Cartagena, Colombia, cement export facility, hot on the heels of a previous, US$42m expansion. The South American giant says that it is targeting the US, where it anticipates an upcoming construction boom. Caribbean countries present other possible markets for producers like Cementos Argos, yet their cement industries might equally emulate any successes it enjoys in the US. Like Argos in Colombia, Jamaica’s Caribbean Cement is part of a group with an existing presence in the US. Its on-going investments in the Rockfort plant signal a readiness to catch the trade winds rapidly picking up in the Caribbean.

The big US news this week has been that Summit Materials and Argos USA are planning to merge their operations. The new organisation will operate six integrated cement plants with a production capacity of 8.4Mt/yr, based on Global Cement Directory 2023 data. The companies say that this will make them the fourth biggest cement producer in the country, at 11.8Mt/yr, based on grinding capacity, and the largest domestically-owned operator. Additionally, the combined entity will also hold just under 5Bnt of aggregate reserves, 224 ready-mixed concrete (RMX) plants and 32 asphalt plants.

The deal is expected to close in the first half of 2024 subject to the usual regulatory clearances and shareholder approval. At this point Argos should own approximately 31% of the new company and Summit Materials’ shareholders will be the majority owner. Although, if we remember anything from the Lafarge-Holcim merger from nearly a decade ago, it is that if the share prices between the two companies diverge too much in the next six months then that proportion may change. In simple terms that split for Argos USA is in the region of where one might expect it to be given that Argos USA made 39% of the combined revenue for both itself and Summit Materials in 2022 and 28% of the combined earnings.

The two companies complement each other well for the purposes of forming a new heavy building materials concern. Summit Materials reported revenue of US$2.41bn in 2022, with 30% deriving from its aggregates businesses, another 30% coming from RMX and about 20% from paving. Cement generated US$341m, or 14%, of total revenue. By contrast Argos USA reported revenue of US$1.57bn in 2022 from a business just concerning cement and concrete. Geographically, Summit Materials’ integrated plants are in the Midwest, in Iowa and Missouri respectively, and its cement terminals follow the Mississippi River from Minneapolis to New Orleans. Notably, it made the point in the merger announcement that the deal would reduce the seasonality of its cement business. Argos USA’s plants and terminals are mostly spaced out in the Southern states with its plants in Alabama, Florida, South Carolina and West Virginia.

It goes against recent trends for a US-based company to be increasing its share in the domestic cement market, although it has resorted to teaming up with a Colombia-based one to do so. Usually it is foreign-headquarted companies making moves in the US. For example, Ireland-based CRH is in the final stages of switching its primary listing to the New York Stock Exchange. Its head Albert Manifold described the US construction market as going through a “golden age” earlier in the year whilst trying to sell the stock market move at the company’s annual general meeting. Meanwhile, there have been various smaller acquisitions such as Peru-based UNACEMs’ agreement to buy the Tehachapi cement plant in California from Martin Marietta Materials in August 2023.

Given the ongoing importance of the North American market for the international cement producers it is not surprising that merger and acquisition activity has been taking place. Each of the four largest US-based cement producers performed well in the first six months of 2023, increasing both revenue and earnings significantly. However, the picture is mixed. The Portland Cement Association (PCA) forecast at the start of 2023 that cement consumption would decline in the second half of 2023 due to a worsening general economic outlook. The downturn was estimated to be brief though as interest rates were expected to dip and infrastructure spending to rise in 2024. Half-year data from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) supported this view as shipments reached an estimated 51.0Mt, a slight decrease from the same period in 2022. The cement companies have made money so far in 2023 partly by raising their prices. Yet, some segments of the residential homebuilding market have also driven demand despite the general economic picture.

One last thing to consider is how much thought was given to the carbon risk of forming a new heavy building materials company in a developed economy in the 2020s. Sustainability receives a mention in Summit Materials’ investor presentation in the form of current achievements such as switching to blended cements or reducing fossil fuel usage but there is no suggestion that any serious investment to curtail process emissions is expected any time soon. However, one could make the case that the enlarged company might benefit from synergistic effects if it were forced to spend more on CO₂ emission reduction. This proposed merger concerns two existing organisations teaming up rather than new equity entering the arena. In this context it will be worth noting whether the next cement industry merger or acquisition in the US or Europe will involve existing companies or new entrants.

Dangote Cement felt compelled to issue a statement clarifying its prices at the end of August 2023. In the release it stated what its ex-factory price was in Nigeria and added that transport costs and the location of a delivery could add additional expense. It made the declaration in response to alleged “misinformation” on social media channels that the company had been selling its cement more cheaply in the neighbouring country of Benin. A subsequent investigation by the This Day newspaper reported that Dangote Cement does not officially export cement to Benin and that the average price in the country was actually slightly higher than the end prices Dangote Cement provided. Competitor BUA Cement wasted no time though in saying at its annual general meeting that it would ‘crash the price of cement.’

All of this may sound familiar because a similar argument broke out in early 2021. At that time prices were rising following the outbreak of Covid-19, although other factors were at play. Then as now, Dangote Cement, the largest domestic producer, defended itself by publishing its prices and BUA Cement made another showy claim saying that it had no plans to raise the ex-factory price of its cement at the present time or in the future, “…barring any material, unforeseen circumstances.” The government also became involved with the Senate of Nigeria discussing the matter in relation to potential legislation at the time. Part of the problem here has been that Dangote Cement is the biggest producer and it has gradually started exporting cement from Nigeria in recent years and, regardless of any effects to the domestic market, it leaves it exposed to the kind of unsubstantiated scuttlebutt it has faced recently. Back in 2021 it briefly stopped exporting cement for a while before resuming it again in May 2021.

Graph 1: Half-year sales revenue from selected large cement producers in Nigeria. Source: Company reports.

Graph 1 shows how some of the large cement producers in Nigeria did in the first half of 2023. Dangote Cement is the market leader by a considerable margin and the figures here do not even include its sales elsewhere in Sub-Saharan Africa. Despite its market dominance its sales revenue has fallen so far in 2023 and the company blamed election uncertainty, a “cash crunch”, negative currency exchange issues and the weather. That said though it did manage to increase its earnings through initiatives such as using alternative fuels, making efficiencies at its plants and utilised compressed natural gas in its truck fleet.

BUA Cement and Lafarge Africa provided less descriptive context in their release. Both BUA Cement’s revenue and profit after tax rose year-on-year but Lafarge Africa’s profit after tax fell. This may have been due to a rise in fixed production costs such as staffing, by-products costs and electricity, although depreciation was also an issue.

For all of BUA Cement’s talk of “crashing the cement price” it is preparing to commission two new 3Mt/yr production lines at its Obu and Sokoto plants respectively in the first quarter of 2024. Given everything else that is going on in the Nigerian economy, such as inflation, and the large size of the country it seems unlikely to lower the price although it might slow down the rate by which the price continues to rise. In its 2022 annual report BUA Cement’s managing director Yusuf Haliru Binji said that the new production lines would enable it to potentially increase its exports. This is the logical next step for a local sector outgrowing its domestic bounds and this is exactly what Dangote Cement has done. Yet, as the recent price debacle has shown, the price of cement matters to Nigerians. If the price keeps going up all of the local producers may end up facing negative attention whether warranted or not.