Displaying items by tag: PCA

South Korea: Ssangyong C&E has exported 30,000t of low-carbon limestone cement (Type IL) to the US, its first such shipment following three years of research and development, according to AJU News. The product reportedly has a reduced clinker content and maintains the same physical performance as general cement. The producer plans to export 200,000t to the US in 2024 and 600,000t in 2025.

A Ssangyong C&E official said "Currently, our country's national standards stipulate that mixed cement only uses slag, fly ash and pozzolan. In order to reduce carbon emissions in the future, conditions must be created where various types of eco-friendly cement, including limestone cement, can be used."

US: Representatives of the Portland Cement Association (PCA) and its members are meeting politicians at Congress to discuss cement sector decarbonisation on 12 and 13 June 2024. The PCA says that meetings will address permitting processes and new emission standards affecting the industry.

PCA president and CEO Mike Ireland said "There's a lot happening in Washington this year that directly impacts America's cement manufacturers, which is likely why we have a record turnout of cement company leadership in town for this fly-in. Our industry's top objective is to reach carbon neutrality. While our companies appreciate recent funding from the Department of Energy to assist in decarbonisation efforts, it's still challenging for them to make significant advancements due to a cumbersome permitting system and unrealistic Environmental Protection Agency regulations that could lead to eventual cuts in plant operations and staffing. As the infrastructure law is hitting its stride, the country needs more cement and concrete, not less. We're here to ask Congress to work with us to arrive at reasonable policies and standards that will allow manufacturers to continue to provide the resilient, sustainable building materials our country has come to expect."

US: The Portland Cement Association (PCA) has commended the Connecticut Department of Transportation's approval of Portland limestone cement (PLC), marking its acceptance in all US states and the District of Columbia. PLC, with increased limestone content, maintains traditional Portland cement's efficacy but reduces CO₂ emissions by up to 10%. The US avoided more than 4Mt of CO₂ emissions in 2023 by using PLC and other blended cements. This achievement coincides with growing cement consumption by state transportation departments, fuelled by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.

Mike Ireland, president and CEO of PCA, said "This milestone is a huge step forward for sustainable American construction. Switching to PLC promises to save millions of tonnes of CO₂. Using a lower-emission product that meets all the performance requirements of traditional cement means the construction sector can build with durability, safety and sustainability in mind."

US: The US Department of Energy has selected four cement producers to receive funding under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act.

Heidelberg Materials US secured up to US$500m for its planned 2Mt/yr carbon capture project at the Mitchell cement plant in Indiana. National Cement also received up to US$500m, for its Lebec Net Zero limestone calcined clay cement (LC3) project in California. Summit Materials received up to US$216m for a series of clay calcination projects in Georgia, Maryland and Texas. Lastly, Roanoke Cement will receive up to US$61.7m for an LC3 project at its Troutville cement plant in Virginia.  These projects also involve developing a training, education and certification consortium in the cement sector.

Portland Cement Association (PCA) president and CEO Mike Ireland said "This funding is a welcome acknowledgement from the government that America's cement manufacturers are taking ambitious and significant steps toward reaching carbon neutrality. This will move the needle closer to achieving what industry considers the 'heavyweight' of carbon solutions: carbon capture utilisation and storage (CCUS). Once established nationwide, CCUS will greatly accelerate cement manufacturers' charge toward net zero."

Senior vice president of government affairs Sean O'Neill added “From passage of the Bipartisan Energy Act of 2020 to securing funding through the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, today's announcement is another major milestone in the cement industry's decarbonisation efforts. The PCA is committed to continuing to work with policymakers to ensure the regulatory environment facilitates rather than impedes these and future investments.

The Portland Cement Association (PCA) is currently considering changing its name as part of a wider rebranding exercise. As the PCA’s president and CEO Mike Ireland puts it, “Portland cement no longer adequately represents the products PCA member companies manufacture, as they increasingly produce blended cements in today's environmentally conscious marketplace.” The exercise opens up a host of issues about the promotion of cement and concrete and the role of a trade association in the 21st century.

The reason the PCA holds its name is because ordinary Portland cement (OPC) became the most popular type of cement used to make concrete (and other building materials) in the second half of the 19th century. This continued in the 20th century without any issues. So naming a national cement association after the sector’s key product made sense at the time. The parent organisation that became the PCA was formed in 1902 and the PCA proper officially started in 1916 when cement producers met in Chicago and agreed to set up an expanded organisation.

One topic that was less of an issue in 1916, was considering a national cement association in an international context. Or in other words, should a national or regional cement association say where it is from in its name? Many associations do so elsewhere in the world but not all. Cembureau in Europe, the Cement Manufacturers’ Association in India and the Mineral Products Association in the UK for instance are three examples that do not. The PCA’s current name does not indicate where it is based and it has appeared to have coped for over 100 years. Curiously though, most of the suggestions that the PCA has put forward for its potential new name do include ‘America’ in some shape or form. Another connected problem is whether the general public in the US make the assumption that the PCA is a smaller group based in Portland, Oregon!

Mike Ireland points out another dilemma facing the PCA today with the rise in popularity of blended cements. The PCA, for example, worked on supporting the use of Portland Limestone Cement in the 2010s before lots of US producers started making it in the 2020s. To illustrate the scale of the change that this and other initiatives have created, United States Geological Survey (USGS) data shows that shipments of blended cements doubled from 26Mt in 2022 to just under 55Mt 2023. At the same time, shipments of Portland Cement fell by 37% year-on-year to around 52Mt from 83Mt. More blended cements were shipped in the US than OPC in 2023. So the PCA finds itself named after a minority cement product.

The other issue that Ireland touches upon is the environmental perception of cement by the general public and the problems for marketing, branding and advocacy this presents to a trade association. Simply put, it is far easier for the environmental lobby in developed economies to portray cement as ‘bad’ than it is for the cement sector to publicise the many small but incremental changes it has made or the monumental effect that cement and concrete have made upon human society over the last 150 years. Although it may not mean much to the wider public, to whom ‘cement is cement,’ the rise of blended cements in the US has handed the PCA the opportunity to differentiate cement into ‘good’ and ‘bad’ offerings. In this case high CO₂ emitting OPC becomes the old dirty product of the past and blended cements become clean shiny symbols of the future. It follows, therefore, that retaining the name of an old product for one of the biggest cement associations in the world might be considered unhelpful.

In some respects OPC and the PCA have become victims of their own success. Cement built the modern world and has become ubiquitous. So commonplace in most countries, in fact, that people outside of the building industry often fail to realise how crucial the stuff is. The tricky proposition for those marketing cement today is to somehow recognise the historical contribution that it has made to build our world whilst also conveying how it is changing to become more sustainable. Unfortunately for fans of OPC though this may mean dumping it from the name of the PCA.

US: The Portland Cement Association (PCA) has elected Massimo Toso as its next chair. He is the current president and chief executive officer (CEO) of Buzzi Unicem USA and has worked as the vice chair of the association. He succeeds Filiberto Ruiz, president and CEO of Votorantim Cimentos North America, in the post.

Monica Manolas has been elected as vice chair. She is the first woman in the 21st century to be elected to the position and she currently works as the president of Ash Grove East. Jorge Wagner, CEO of Votorantim Cimentos North America, was also elected to the PCA Board of Directors.

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.

US: The Portland Cement Association (PCA) has announced the winners of its 2023 Safety Innovation and Chairman's Safety Performance Awards.

The Safety Innovation Award Program recognises companies that have developed innovative practices, projects and programs that improve safety at cement plants in the US. Entries are judged in five areas: innovation, ease of use and ease of construction, effectiveness and risk prevention. The recipients were:

• Distribution: Continental Cement, Continental Port Allen Terminal, Chesterfield, Missouri
• Quarry: CalPortland Company, CalPortland Oro Grande Plant, Oro Grande, California
• Pyroprocessing: GCC of America, GCC Tijeras Plant, Tijeras, New Mexio
• General Facility: Mitsubishi Cement Corporation, Mitsubishi Cushenbury Plant, Lucerne Valley, California

The Chairman’s Safety Performance Awards are given to member cement plants that did not have a reportable injury or illness during the year. Fifteen plants achieved this in 2023, which represented more than 10% of all active cement facilities in the US and its territories. The recipients were:

• Argos USA, Atlanta, Georgia
• Argos USA, Newberry, Florida
• Argos Puerto Rico Corp, Dorado, Puerto Rico
• Ash Grove Cement Company (CRH), Durkee, Oregon
• Ash Grove Cement Company (CRH), Midlothian, Texas
• Buzzi Unicem USA, Chattanooga, Tennessee
• Buzzi Unicem USA, Maryneal, Texas
• CalPortland Company, Rillito, Arizona
• GCC of America, Odessa, Texas
• Heidelberg Materials, Bellingham, Washington
• Martin Marietta Materials, New Braunfels, Texas
• Martin Marietta Materials, Midlothian, Texas
• Martin Marietta Materials, Tehachapi, California
• National Cement Company of California, Kern, California
• St Marys Cement (Votorantim), Detroit, Michigan

US: The Portland Cement Association (PCA) hosted a one-day session in mid-June 2023 aimed at establishing guidelines for the definition of 'low carbon' cement and concrete. The association called the session a 'Critical first step' towards ensuring clarity for stakeholders.

The PCA said "Low carbon is increasingly defined in the eye of the beholder, with little or no regard to either upstream and downstream impacts or short-term and long-term strength, durability and resilience concerns."

The Portland Cement Association (PCA) has launched a new website to promote the US cement industry’s progress towards net zero. It’s always interesting to see the different approaches the various associations around the world take in promoting the sector especially in response to mainstream media coverage that has often taken a negative view of cement and concrete. As sustainability thinking has permeated into society the stereotype that cement production releases vast amounts of CO₂ for little gain has been a hard one to shake off. Readers can draw their own conclusions on how well the PCA site works by looking at cementprogress.com.

Make no mistake, the PCA’s new website is a marketing tool designed to bring out some of the points of its carbon zero roadmap to a wider audience. Yet it is refreshing to see a national association website attempting to tell the general public what progress the cement industry is making towards reducing its CO₂ emissions. Unfortunately, it then avoids giving out any data that presents an overview of how it’s all actually going. This may come with time though as the roadmap was only released in late 2021. One number that does stick out on the site is that the PCA uses the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) carbon emissions data to calculate that the manufacture of cement accounts for 1.25% of total CO₂ emissions in the US. This is lower than the global figure of 7% that is often used from the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research - Oslo’s (CICERO) research. Both figures appear to be broadly correct based on the available data.

The real story here is to showcase the wide range of actions the PCA is taking as part of its roadmap. In the cement section, for example, the PCA is rightly able to demonstrate its recent work driving the transition to Portland Limestone Cement (PLC) production in the US. This then leads on to the usual beats of resilient construction, carbonation and a ’whole society’ approach to tackling the decarbonisation of the cement industry with suggestions that everybody from citizens to contractors to policy makers can do.

The wider context is that the big challenge facing cement advocacy groups today is that sustainability is a global issue but that such groups have generally been national or regional for most of their history. The national or regional cement associations have existed for decades serving the local needs of their members. This started to change in 1999 when the Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI) was created with its global approach to sustainability for the sector with its data gathering and technology roadmaps. In the 2010s global media attention started to focus on the large share of CO₂ emissions the cement industry was emitting as, coincidentally, China became the world’s largest cement producer. Then in the late 2010s the two global cement associations - the Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA) and the World Cement Association (WCA) - emerged with the GCCA taking over what the CSI did previously.

One problem that the PCA and the other associations face is that decarbonising the cement and concrete sectors is hard to do, expensive and will take decades. Until, or if, carbon capture is suddenly conjured up at scale, all of this work is inherently seen as boring by much of the media compared to, say. young photogenic environmental activists supergluing themselves to roads. One way to fight back against this is to show progress font-and-centre and to try and take back control of the narrative. This appears to be what the PCA is trying out in a more direct fashion than usual. The risk though is that any action by an industry-backed lobbying group to show off the work it is doing will simply be labelled as greenwashing, whether it’s fair or not. Of course, some environmentalists indulge in their own reverse version of this (industry staining?) to make the powerful but simple argument about the necessity of cutting CO₂ emissions but without taking fully into account or underplaying the scale of the societal changes necessary to do so. Either way, the cement industry and its advocates have an uphill struggle on their hands in the years ahead. This may require fresh thinking about how to win over hearts and minds.

The March 2023 issue of Global Cement Magazine includes an interview with Claude Lorea from the Global Cement & Concrete Association (GCCA)