Displaying items by tag: Heidelberg Materials

Poland: The Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) has launched an investigation into Cement Ożarów, Cemex Polska, Dyckerhoff Polska, Góradżdże Cement, Górażdże Beton and Holcim Polska over potential cement cartelisation. The office has not stated the exact triggers of such an investigation at this time.

ISB News has reported that UOKiK previously discovered an 11-year-long conspiracy to divide the market and fix prices between seven companies in 2009.

UOKiK President Tomasz Chróstny said "The return of a cartel would be particularly outrageous, considering that cement is one of the basic construction materials, necessary for the development of housing, road infrastructure and the entire economy."

If found to have been party to any agreement restricting competition, companies can expect penalties as high as 10% of turnover.

A week ago, there were two fully-financed cement plant carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS) projects underway in the US.¹ Now, there aren’t.

Projects to decarbonise National Cement Company’s Lebec, California, plant and Heidelberg Materials North America’s Mitchell, Indiana, plant were each set to receive up to US$500m in US Department of Energy (DoE) funding on a one-for-one basis with private investments. The projects were to include eventual 950,000t/yr (Lebec) and 2Mt/yr (Mitchell) carbon capture installations. Additionally, the Lebec plant was to transition to limestone calcined clay cement (LC3) production and the use of alternative fuels (AF), including pistachio shells. Both were beneficiaries of the DoE’s US$6bn Industrial Demonstrations Program (IDP), touted by former US Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm as ‘Spurring on the next generation of decarbonisation technologies in key industries [to] keep America the most competitive nation on Earth.’ Disbursement of funding under the programme was frozen by executive order of President Trump in January 2025.^{2, 3}

On 30 May 2025, Trump’s Secretary of Energy announced that the government in which Granholm served had approved spending on industrial decarbonisation without a ‘thorough financial review.’ He cancelled remaining project funding in signature Trumpian style, in list form.⁴ Among 24 de-funded projects, Lebec and Mitchell accounted for US$1bn (27%) of a total US$3.73bn in allocated funds that have now been withdrawn.

It's hard not to feel sorry for the management of the Lebec and Mitchell plant and the teams that had been working to deliver these projects. Heidelberg Materials has yet to comment, though CEO Dominik von Achten was in North America in late May 2025. National Cement Company parent Vicat, meanwhile, conceded the setback with a strong statement of its commitment to CO₂ reduction, to 497kg/t of cementitious product globally.⁵ There was a diplomatic edge to the statement too, however. Echoing the Secretary of Energy, Vicat said that its target remains ‘solely based on existing proven technologies, including energy efficiency, AF substitution and clinker rate reduction’ – as opposed to ‘any technological breakthroughs’ like carbon capture. There are currently no public details of possible back-up financing arrangements for these projects; for now, the best guess at their status is ‘uncertain.’

Alongside these group’s local subsidiaries, another organisation that has to do business daily with the DoE is the American Cement Association (ACA). President and CEO Mike Ireland has continually acknowledged the complex needs of the government, while stating the association’s case for keeping support in place. With regard to these funding cuts, Ireland’s emphasis fell on the latter side: “Today’s announcement is candidly a missed opportunity for both America’s cement manufacturers and this administration, as CCS projects have long been supported by bipartisan members in Congress and bipartisan administrations.”⁶ He reasserted the ACA’s understanding that carbon capture aligns with the administration’s strategy to bolster domestic manufacturing and innovation.

The early 2020s heyday of US carbon capture was founded on gradual, consensus-based politics – unlike its demise. Table 1 (below) gives a non-exhaustive account of recent and on-going front-end engineering design (FEED) studies and the funding they received:

Additionally, MTR Carbon Capture, which is executing a carbon capture pilot at St Marys Cement’s Charlevoix plant in Michigan, previously received US$1.5m in Fossil Energy Research and Development funding towards a total US$3.7m for an unspecified cement plant carbon capture study.¹⁰

Market researcher Greenlight Insights valued industrial decarbonisation initiatives under the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (ODEC – the now defunct DoE office responsible, among other things, for the IDP) at US$65.9bn in cumulative returns in April 2025.¹¹ The government has yet to publish any account of how it might replace this growth, or the 291,000 anticipated new jobs that would have come with it. Given all this (along with the extensive financial and technical submissions that accompanied each project), the issues raised by the DoE are presumably budgetary, or else founded in a perception of CCUS as essentially uneconomical.

Carbon capture is very, very expensive. A fatuous reply is that so is climate change, just with a few more ‘verys.’ Hurricane Ian in September 2022 cost US$120bn, more than enough to fund carbon capture installations at all 91 US cement plants, along the lines of the former Lebac and Mitchell agreements.¹² Unlike climate change, however, carbon capture remains unproven. Advocates need to continually justify taxpayer involvement in such a high-risk venture.

At its Redding cement plant in California, Lehigh Hanson successfully delivered a funding-free FEED study, with its partner Fortera raising US$85m in a Series C funding. This presents an alternative vision of innovation as fully-privatised, in which the government might still have the role of shaping demand. This is borne out in the IMPACT Act, a bill which ‘sailed through’ the lower legislature in March 2025.¹³ If enacted, it will empower state and municipal transport departments to pledge to buy future outputs of nascent reduced-CO₂ cements and concretes.

A separate aspect of the funding cancellation that appears decidedly cruel is the targeted removal of grants to start-ups. Two alternative building materials developers – Brimstone and Sublime Systems – were listed for a combined US$276m of now vapourised liquidity. Both are commercially viable without the funding, but the effect of this reversal – including on the next generation of US innovators who hoped to follow in their footsteps – can only be chilling. As non-governmental organisation Industrious Labs said of the anticipated closure of the ODEC in April 2025: “We may see companies based in other geographies start to pull ahead.”

Heidelberg Materials’s Brevik carbon capture plant came online in June 2025, 54 months after the producer secured approval for the project. The term of a presidency is 48 months. This probably means that producers in the US will no longer see CCUS as a viable investment, even under sympathetic administrations.

Even as government funding for CCS flickers from ‘dormant’ to ‘extinct,’ the sun is rising on other US projects. Monarch Cement Company commissioned a 20MW solar power plant at its Humboldt cement plant in Kansas on 27 May 2025. The global momentum is behind decarbonisation, even if economics determines that it will only take the form of smaller-scale mitigation measures at US cement plants into the medium-term future. We can hope that these, at least, might include the AF and LC3 aspects of National Cement Company’s plans at Lebec.

References

1. Clean Air Task Force, ‘Global Carbon Capture Activity and Project Map,’ accessed 3 June 2025, www.catf.us/ccsmapglobal/

2. Democrats Appropriations, ‘Issue 5: Freezing the Industrial Demonstrations Program Undermines U.S. Manufacturing Competitiveness and Strands Private Investment,’ January 2025, www.democrats-appropriations.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/democrats-appropriations.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/5%20DOE%20Frozen%20Funding%20-%20Industrial%20Demos.pdf

3. Colorado Attorney General, ‘Attorney General Phil Weiser secures court order blocking Trump administration’s illegal federal funding freeze,’ 6 March 2025, www.coag.gov/press-releases/weiser-court-order-trump-federal-funding-freeze-3-6-25/

4. US Department of Energy, ‘Secretary Wright Announces Termination of 24 Projects, Generating Over $3 Billion in Taxpayer Savings,’ 30 May 2025, www.energy.gov/articles/secretary-wright-announces-termination-24-projects-generating-over-3-billion-taxpayer

5. Vicat, ‘Cancellation of funding agreement for the Lebec Net Zero project by the US Department of Energy,’ 3 June 2025, www.vicat.com/news/cancellation-funding-agreement-lebec-net-zero-project-us-department-energy

6. American Cement Association, ‘Statement from the American Cement Association on Department of Energy’s Cancellation of Clean Energy Grants,’ 30 May 2025, www.cement.org/2025/05/30/statement-from-the-american-cement-association-on-department-of-energys-cancellation-of-clean-energy-grants/

7. Gov Tribe, ‘Cooperative Agreement DEFE0031942,’ 30 September 2022, www.govtribe.com/award/federal-grant-award/cooperative-agreement-defe0031942

8. Higher Gov, ‘DECD0000010 Cooperative Agreement,’ 13 May 2024, www.highergov.com/grant/DECD0000010/

9. Gov Tribe, ‘Cooperative Agreement DEFE0032222,’ 7 February 2025, www.govtribe.com/award/federal-grant-award/cooperative-agreement-defe0032222

10. Higher Gov, ‘DEFE0031949 Cooperative Agreement,’ 1 May 2023, www.highergov.com/grant/DEFE0031949/

11. Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, ‘Jobs, Economic Impact of OCED Closure,’ 11 April 2025, www.c2es.org/press-release/oced-closure-could-cost-65-billion-290000-jobs/

12. National Centers for Environmental Information, ‘Events,’ accessed 4 June 2025, www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions/events/US/2022?disasters%5B%5D=tropical-cyclone

13. US Congress, ‘H.R.1534 - IMPACT Act,’ 26 March 2025, www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1534

Europe: Heidelberg Materials and environment consultancy Arup have signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) to collaborate on decarbonisation of the built environment through carbon capture and storage-enabled cement and concrete.

The partners will conduct joint research and technical analysis on the deployment of CCS technologies across cement and concrete production. Heidelberg Materials and Arup previously began collaborating in November 2024 to assess the benefits and feasibility of carbon-captured cement and concrete.

France: Two workers have been hospitalised following an explosion at Heidelberg Materials’ Airvault cement plant. They were dismantling an old gas tank at the plant on 20 May 2025 when it exploded at around 17:30 local time, according to the La Nouvelle République newspaper. One worker was taken to a specialist burns unit and the other suffered an injured ankle.

Heidelberg Materials has launched an investigation to determine the exact cause of the explosion.

Ghana: CBI Ghana and joint venture partner Heidelberg Materials have commissioned the ‘world’s largest’ calcined clay plant in Ghana, according to an announcement by the German producer. The plant has a capacity of 400,000t/yr of calcined clay and uses local raw materials to reduce reliance on imported clinker.

Hakan Gurdal, member of the managing board of Heidelberg Materials, said “Based on calcined clay technology, we can now extend our offering of innovative, high-quality cement products, while reducing CO₂ emissions and utilising the rich local resources. The project has created over 300 local jobs."

US: Heidelberg Materials North America is upgrading its Cementon cement distribution terminal in New York. The producer will build a new packaging line with a 200t/hr Haver & Boecker rotary packing machine and a fully-automated Beumer palletising system. It will also expand its cement storage silos in order to support the growth of its bulk cement sales.

Demand for heavy building materials in the UK dropped in the first quarter of 2025, with ready-mix concrete sales reaching a new 60-year low.¹ In an update last week, the UK’s Mineral Products Association (MPA) attributed the decline to existing economic headwinds, compounded by global trade disruptions, reduced investor confidence and renewed inflationary pressures.

Major infrastructure projects – including the HS2 high-speed railway in the English Midlands, the Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant in Somerset and the Sizewell C nuclear power plant in Suffolk – failed to offset delays and cancellations by cash-strapped local councils to roadwork projects. Residential construction, meanwhile, is ‘slowly but steadily’ recovering from historical lows, amid continuing high mortgage rates since late 2024.

The most interesting part of the MPA’s market appraisal was its warning of ‘new risks emerging in the global economy.’ These concern the new tariffs raised by the US against its import partners. The possible consequences, the MPA says, imperil the UK’s supply chains, construction sector and growth.

Of particular immediacy is the threat of imports into the UK from countries that previously focussed on the US market. The MPA said that the industry ‘cannot compete’ against increased low-cost, CO₂-intensive imports. It named Türkiye, which sends around 6.9Mt/yr of cement and clinker to the US, as a key threat. Türkiye became subject to the blanket 10% ‘baseline’ tariff on 2 April 2025.

The MPA probably didn’t have a particular company in mind when it said this. However, it bears noting that Turkish interests gained a share of UK cement capacity in October 2024, when Çimsa acquired 95% of Northern Ireland-based Mannok. Besides the Derrylin cement plant (situated on the border between Fermanagh, UK, and Cavan, Ireland), Mannok operates the Rochester cement storage and distribution facility in Kent, 50km from London. The facility currently supplies cement from Derrylin to Southern England and the Midlands. It could easily serve as a base of operations for processing and distributing imported cement and clinker from further afield.

Meanwhile in South West England, Portugal-based Cimpor is building a €20 – 25m cement import terminal in the Port of Bristol. The company is subject to 20% tariffs on shipments to the US from its home country. Its parent company, Taiwan Cement Corporation, is subject to 32% US tariffs from Taiwan.

But the plot thickens… On 8 May 2025, the UK became the first country to conclude a trade agreement with the US after the erection of the new tariff regime, under which the US$73bn/yr-worth of British goods sold in the US became subject to a 10% tariff.² The latest agreement brought partial relief for an allied sector of UK cement: steel. 180,000t flowed into the US from the UK in 2024.³ In 2024, the UK exported 7120t of cement and clinker to the US, up by a factor of 10 decade-on-decade from just 714t in 2014, all of it into two US customs districts, Philadelphia and New York City.⁴

In what may be one of the first true ‘Brexit benefits,’ UK cement exporters now ‘enjoy’ a US tariff rate half that of their EU competitors, notably those in Greece. Like the UK’s more modest volumes, Greece’s 1.82Mt/yr-worth of cement and clinker exports stateside also enter via the US’ eastern seaports, at New York City, Tampa and Norfolk. Given the overlaps in ownership between the Greek and UK cement sectors, it is conceivable that optimisation of cement export flows across Europe may already be under discussion.

On 6 May 2025, the UK and Indian governments announced a trade deal that will lift customs duties on almost all current Indian exports to the UK. UK MPs are still seeking clarifications as to whether this will include industrial products that might be dumped.⁵ Theoretically, the threat from an oversupplied and fast-growing cement industry like India’s could be existential to the UK cement industry.

As the UK invests heavily in its future, including with the HyNet Consortium, imports pose a major threat. Given enough time, the UK could develop a leading position in the decarbonisation space. Will it have enough time? Existential threats certainly add a sense of jeopardy.

References
1. Mineral Products Association, ‘Weak start to 2025 for building materials sales amid growing economic headwinds,’ 6 May 2025, www.mineralproducts.org/News/2025/release16.aspx

2. HM Government, ‘UK overseas trade in goods statistics November 2024,’ 16 January 2025, www.gov.uk/government/statistics/uk-overseas-trade-in-goods-statistics-november-2024/uk-overseas-trade-in-goods-statistics-november-2024-commentary

3. UK Steel, ‘US 25% tariffs on UK steel imports come into effect,’ 12 March 2025, www.uksteel.org/steel-news-2025/us-25-tariffs-on-uk-steel-imports-come-into-effect

4. United States Geological Survey, ‘Cement in December 2024,’ January 2025, https://d9-wret.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/assets/palladium/production/s3fs-public/media/files/mis-202412-cemen.pdf

5. Welsh Liberal Democrats, ‘UK-Indian Trade Deal: Government Refuses to Answer Whether it Has Conceded on Cheap Indian Steel Imports,’ 6 May 2025, www.libdems.wales/news/article/uk-indian-trade-deal-government-refuses-to-answer-whether-it-has-conceded-on-cheap-indian-steel-imports

Germany: Heidelberg Materials increased its revenue by 5% year-on-year to €4.71bn in the first quarter of 2025. Operating earnings from current operations rose slightly to €235m from €232m in the previous year.

“Despite the political and economic uncertainties as well as difficult weather conditions in some regions, we got off to a very good start to the 2025 financial year,” chair Dominik von Achten said. “In particular, we benefitted from significant growth in the Africa-Mediterranean-Western Asia group area.”

He added “In the first three months of 2025, we continued to set the course for our sustainable transformation. Final preparations for our CCS lighthouse project in Brevik, Norway, are currently well underway. We started capturing, liquefying and temporarily storing CO₂ a few days ago as part of the plant's ramp-up. We look forward to the grand opening of the world's first large-scale industrial carbon capture facility at a cement plant in June.”

The company confirmed its outlook for the 2025 financial year. It expects full-year earnings of €3.25bn – €3.55bn.

Sweden: A court has granted Heidelberg Materials a 30-year licence to continue limestone mining at its Slite quarry on the island of Gotland, securing the future of the plant that produces 75% of Sweden’s cement. The court ruling replaces a 2022 four-year concession and follows a 2021 rejection of a long-term extension that had threatened cement rationing and job losses, according to Reuters.

Heidelberg Materials deputy CEO Karin Comstedt Webb said “The permit ensures a robust supply of cement to Sweden's construction sector for many years.”

Boral announced this week that it had secured around US$15m from the Australian government towards decarbonisation upgrades at its Berrima cement plant in New South Wales. The funding will go towards the company’s own investment in a kiln feed optimisation project. A new specialised grinding circuit and supporting infrastructure at the site is intended to increase the proportion of alternative raw materials (ARM) from 9% to 23% to decrease the amount of limestone the kiln uses. The use of more ARMs should also enable the unit to reduce its energy intensity. Boral plans to use ARMs including granulated blast furnace slag, steel slag, cement fibre board, fly ash and fine aggregates from recycled concrete. Commissioning and full operation of the changes are scheduled for 2028.

The Berrima plant officially opened its last set of changes, including a chlorine bypass unit, in December 2024. This was done to allow the plant to reach a thermal substitution rate (TSR) of 60% by the end of 2027. At the end of 2024 the company said it had a TSR of 30% having risen by 20% from 2023. Another similar decarbonisation project at the plant is a carbon capture and storage demonstration pilot trial involving the recarbonation of construction and demolition waste.

Parent company SGH said in its annual report for 2024 that Boral was continuing to advocate for a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) to prevent carbon leakage and that it had taken part in the ongoing government review on the issue. This lobbying was visible earlier in March 2025 when the Cement Industry Federation (CIF) publicly addressed the government on the issue ahead of its next budget. It asked that carbon leakage be addressed in the form of an import tax to protect the local cement and lime sector. Cement and lime imports from Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam and Japan are particularly seen as an issue. The government review into carbon leakage started in 2023 and is due to report back at some point in 2025, most likely after the parliamentary election in May 2025.

Another big sector news story to note is the ongoing acquisition of the cementitious division of the Buckeridge Group of Companies (BGC) by Cement Australia that was revealed in December 2024. Unsurprisingly, the European Commission (EC) approved the deal in late March 2025. Cement Australia’s parent companies Holcim and Heidelberg Materials are headquartered in Europe, but the EC concluded that the planned transaction was unlikely to dampen competition in Europe. The verdict of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is likely to be far more telling. It closed taking submissions on the proposed deal in late February 2025 and plans to release an update in May 2025.

The ACCC’s market inquiries letter reported that Cement Australia wants to run BCG Cement. However, under the acquisition proposal, BGC Quarries and BGC Asphalt will be acquired and operated by a new 50:50 joint venture between Holcim and Heidelberg Materials, which will operate as a production joint venture in respect of aggregates. Holcim and Heidelberg Materials have suggested taking four ready-mixed concrete (RMC) plants each in the greater Perth area. Finally, one RMC plant at Wangara could be divested due to the close proximity of existing plants run by Holcim and Heidelberg Materials. Whether this is what actually happens remains to be seen.

Finally, Holcim flagged-up Australia this week as one of the regions it intends to derive ‘profitable growth’ from after the planned spin-off of the US business. This approach is in line with the hunt by the big building materials companies for new growth markets as the cost of merger and acquisition activity in the US has risen. CRH, for example, bought a majority stake in AdBri in mid-2024. Further merger and acquisition activity in the cement sector in Australia seems less likely given its relative small size. Yet the higher economic growth forecast for the country compared to Europe is likely to keep multinationals interested.