Displaying items by tag: UltraTech Cement

Coolbrook has been in the news recently with collaboration deals struck with Cemex and UltraTech Cement. First the Finland-based company officially launched its Roto Dynamic Heater (RDH) technology with a memorandum of understanding signed with Cemex in May 2022. Then, this week, it signed a similar agreement with UltraTech Cement.

The specifics of either agreement are unknown but the target is clearly to build an industrial pilot of an electric kiln – or something like it - at a cement plant. Coolbrook says it has run a pilot of its RDH technology in Finland. Further tests are now scheduled to continue for two years starting from September 2022 at the Brightlands Chemelot Campus at Geleen in the Netherlands. Commercial scale demonstrations are scheduled from 2022 with the hope of commercial use from 2024. Links with Cemex and UltraTech Cement seem to suggest progress. At the same time Coolbrook will be testing its RotoDynamic Reactor (RDR) technology, which promises to electrify the steam cracking process used in plastic manufacturing.

Publically available details on the RDH technology are light. In its promotional material Coolbrook says that it can achieve process temperatures of up to around 1700°C. This is crucial to achieve full clinker formation in a cement kiln. Reaching this temperature with non-combustion style kilns, such as solar reactors, has previously been a problem. Notably, Synhelion and Cemex said in February 2022 that they had managed to produce clinker using concentrated solar radiation. Retrofit possibilities and compact equipment size are also mentioned in the promotional material for the RDH. The former is an obvious attraction but size of equipment footprint is increasingly emerging as a potential issue for cement plants looking to reduce their CO₂ emissions. Rick Bohan from the Portland Cement Association (PCA) presented a summary of the potential and problems of emerging carbon capture and utilisation/storage (CCUS) technologies for cement plants in the US at the Virtual Global CemCCUS Seminar that took place on 14 June 2022. He noted that installing CCUS equipment makes cement plants start to look different (more like petrochemical plants in the view of Global Cement Weekly) and that they may require more space to install it all.

Coolbrook hasn’t been the only organisation looking at kiln electrification. The installation with the most available information on kiln electrification has been the Decarbonate project, led by the VTT, formerly known as the Technical Research Centre of Finland. The project has built a pilot rotary kiln with a length of 8m inside a shipping container. It has a production capacity of around 25kg/hr. The system reportedly uses fixed radiant heating coils around the kiln, surrounded by insulation materials. Early results presented to the 1st Virtual Global CemPower Seminar in late 2021 were that the kiln started up, sufficient calcination was occurring and the system was operated continuously for three days at a temperature of 1000°C with no problems reported. Further research was scheduled to carry on into 2022 with longer trials planned for three different materials.

HeidelbergCement’s subsidiary in Sweden, Cementa, completed a feasibility study on implementing electrified cement production at its Slite plant in 2019. It then said that it was conducting further study with electricity producer Vattenfall as part of CemZero project. This consists of three projects running to 2025. Namely: heat transfer with plasma in rotary kilns; direct separation of carbon dioxide from calcination of carbonate-based raw materials in the production of cement clinker and burnt lime; and carbon dioxide-free products with electrified production - reactivity of cement clinker with secondary additives. HeidelbergCement has since announced plans to build a full scale 1.8Mt/yr carbon capture and storage (CCS) plant at the Slite cement plant by 2030.

How this would fit with any kiln electrification plans is unknown. However, one attraction of moving to an electrical kiln, for all of the projects above, is to cut out the 40 – 50% of a cement plant’s CO₂ emissions that arise from the fuel that is burnt. Taking a kiln electric also makes CO₂ capture easier. Much of the remainder of the CO₂ released comes from the decomposition of limestone during calcination when clinker is created. Substitute out fossil or alternative fuels and the flue gas becomes much purer CO₂.

It is early days for cement kiln electrification but progress is happening both commercially and scientifically. The next step to watch out for will be the first pilot installation at a cement plant. One point to finish with is a comment that Rick Bohan made at the IEEE-IAS/PCA Cement Industry Technical Conference that took place in May 2022: carbon capture is expected to double a cement plant’s energy consumption. Kiln electrification is one potential route for cement production to reach net zero. CCUS is another. If one or both occur then a low carbon future could be a high energy one also.

Watch out for Global Cement’s forthcoming interview with Coolbrook in the September 2022 issue of Global Cement Magazine

For more on CCUS, download the proceedings pack for the Virtual Global CemCCUS Seminar 2022

For more on Synhelion and Cemex read the interview in the December 2020 issue of Global Cement Magazine interview

India: UltraTech Cement has entered into a collaboration with Finland-based Coolbrook to implement the latter’s roto dynamic heater (RDH) electric kiln technology in Indian cement plants. RDH technology uses renewable power to heat kilns to up to 1700°C.

UltraTech Cement managing director Kailash Jhanwar said “UltraTech is a forerunner in utilising renewable energy in its manufacturing operations. We are constantly looking at opportunities to improve process efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from our operations.” Jhanwar concluded “We believe that our collaboration with Coolbrook will help to further accelerate the decarbonisation of our operations.”

Coolbrook executive chair Ilpo Kuokkanen said “India is one of the most important potential markets for Coolbrook, as we want to make a global impact on CO₂ emission reductions. Cooperation with India’s largest cement producer UltraTech is a significant step in our strategy to decarbonise heavy industry processes globally. UltraTech is also an excellent addition to our comprehensive and responsive partnership ecosystem spanning across leading industrial actors, academic institutions, and the public sector.”

We return to India to discuss a potential fight that may be brewing in the cement sector. Competition between UltraTech Cement and Adani Group started when the latter won the race to buy Holcim’s cement assets in the country in May 2022. However, the rivalry stepped up a notch this week when UltraTech Cement responded by approving a US$1.7bn investment for expansion.

The leading Indian producer announced that it was committing the funds towards increasing its cement production capacity by 22.6Mt/yr. This will include a mixture of expansions to existing sites and building new plants such as new integrated units, new grinding units and new terminals. UltraTech Cement currently has a previous round of expansion that is set to be completed by the end of the 2023 financial year. Commercial production at the newly announced projects is forecast to start by the end of the 2025 financial year. The company finished off by saying that the upgrade projects would maintain its position as the third largest cement producer outside of China, with its total production capacity rising to 159Mt/yr.

Unusually for these kinds of press releases though, UltraTech Cement made of point of doing the calculation for any readers who might want to know how much this new capacity might cost. It is US$76/t. Adani Group didn’t do this when it said it had agreed to buy Ambuja Cements and ACC from Holcim but, unsurprisingly, it cost more, at least US$94/t based on the cash figure Holcim released for the deal. Note that Adani Group has valued the acquisition at US$10.5bn, which would put the capacity cost up to US$150/t. Other zingers in the press release included Kumar Mangalam Birla’s quote that his company held, “... a deep and nuanced understanding of the market dynamics of the cement industry.” Both of these additions to the statement suggest that UltraTech Cement is making a point about its new competitor.

Bloomberg has framed the actions of UltraTech Cement and Adani Group in the cement sector as a brewing corporate battle between old and new money. Both Kumar Mangalam Birla, chair of Aditya Birla Group - the owner of UltraTech Cement, and Gautam Adani were in the top 10 of the Forbes list of the richest people in India in 2021. Birla comes from inherited wealth, although he has undeniably expanded UltraTech Cement greatly during his tenure as chair. Adani is self-made. Cement is just part of the empires of both men but one risk to UltraTech Cement is just how fast an expansion-driven competitor with concerns in power generation and logistics might decide to try to shake up the cement sector.

It is interesting at this early stage to glimpse part of the potential strategies both cement companies may be employing. Adani Group is in the process of buying its way into the cement sector at a relatively high price for capacity. UltraTech Cement is responding by building new capacity at a lower price. Research by Kotak Institutional Equities cited in the Bloomberg article suggests that Adani Group could increase its 70Mt/yr capacity up to 100Mt/yr at US$80 – 90/t. This would cost up to around US$2.5bn but it’s not impossible. Kotak also reckons UltraTech Cement can eke out around US$3 – 4/t more in earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) compared to the existing Ambuja Cements and ACC assets. Adani Group might be able to cut this gap down through creating synergies by further merging the two companies.

This adds to the feeling that UltraTech Cement is in a stronger position as the incumbent market leader. Yet risks abound in the current inflationary conditions and even less is certain if Adani Group is prepared to invest heavily enough. After all, UltraTech Cement had a production capacity of only 23Mt/yr in 2010. Less than a decade later it became India’s largest cement producer. It is now Adani Group’s next move in the battle of the cement billionaires.

India: UltraTech Cement plans to invest US$1.67bn to expand its cement production capacity to 160Mt/yr. This corresponds to a capacity cost of US$76m/Mt/yr. The Business Standard newspaper has reported that the investment is part of parent company Aditya Birla’s planned US$9.91bn spending package to expand existing capacities and enter new sectors, including paints, via its subsidiary Grasim Industries. The investments will affect both its Indian operations and those overseas.

India: Cement producers and analysts say that a government cut to fuel duty may reduce the price of cement. The reduction may be minimal but it will stand out amongst inflation on other input costs for cement production, according to sources quoted by the Business Standard newspaper. Shree Cement hopes to pass on any reduction in costs from transportation to consumers but UltraTech Cement and JSW Cement are yet to announce a price cut. Most cement producers raised their prices by 8% month-on-month in April 2022 with a similar increase expected in May 2022.

Holcim agreed to sell its Indian assets to Adani Group this week for US$6.37bn. These include Holcim’s stakes in its local subsidiaries Ambuja Cement and ACC. The deal, if approved by the local competition body, should complete in the second half of 2022. This is one of the larger sales of cement company assets over the last decade. Adani Group, an Indian-based conglomerate with businesses across energy, transport and more, is now poised to become the second largest cement producer in India.

Global Cement Weekly previously covered a potential sale of Ambuja Cement and ACC in April 2022 when the story that Holcim was looking for a buyer first emerged in the Indian press. At the time local press speculated that the sale could generate as much as US$15bn for Holcim. So it is interesting to see that a figure of US$6.37bn has been agreed upon instead, less than half of the speculative figure. Roughly, as ever, this places a value of a little below US$100/t of cement production capacity. This seems like a relatively low pricing for these plants by international standards over the last decade. However, this doesn’t take into account many factors such as, for example, the condition of the plants, Holcim’s desire to change its business, the ease of selling up in India all in one go, other non-cement assets and so on. For Adani Group though, buying into heavy building materials production in a large market like India clearly seemed attractive. It is also worth noting that, similar to other cement sector acquisitions recently, here again is a buyer with a background in another carbon-heavy industry buying into another heavy emitter.

Table 1: Selected large scale acquisitions of controlling shares in non-Chinese cement production assets since 2012. Source: Global Cement news and company releases. Italcementi acquisition value reported by Reuters.

Table 1 above provides some historical context to Adani Group’s agreed acquisition by comparing it to other large completed deals in the cement sector over the last decade. Don’t forget that it is only looking at this from the cement sector. This list excludes changes in ownership in the Chinese cement companies in this period because, generally, there has been a government-driven consolidation in the industry through mergers rather than large-scale acquisitions. So, for example, the world’s current biggest cement producer CNBM had a reported production capacity of 350Mt/yr in 2012 and this rose to 514Mt/yr in 2020 as it absorbed other state-owned companies. The big merger it underwent during this time was with China National Materials (Sinoma) in 2018, primarily an engineering company that also produced cement.

The most obvious trend in Table 1 is the journey of Lafarge and Holcim from their merger in 2015 and the gradual realignment of the business subsequently. During this time the company has sold up in large markets outside of its core regions in Europe and North America. Latterly, it has also started to diversify away from heavy into lightweight building materials. One notable ‘nearly happened’ was LafargeHolcim’s attempt to sell its business in the Philippines to San Miguel Corporation for US$2.15bn in 2019. That deal collapsed when the Philippines Competition Authority failed to approve it within a year of its proposal. CRH enlarged itself from assets sold during the creation of LafargeHolcim and then picked up Ash Grove in the US in 2018. CRH’s head Albert Manifold memorably said in 2018 that his company was focusing on markets in developed countries and CRH’s large-scale acquisitions have largely followed this.

As for the others, HeidelbergCement’s purchase of Italcementi in 2016 almost appeared as a riposte to the formation of LafargeHolcim, albeit on a slightly smaller scale. It confirmed HeidelbergCement’s place as the world’s second largest non-Chinese cement producer. It is also one of the minority of truly multinational acquisitions on this list. Unlike LafargeHolcim and now Holcim though, HeidelbergCement hasn’t exhibited a desire to downsize or diversify at quite the same speed. UltraTech Cement’s acquisition of Jaiprakash Associates in 2017 confirmed its place as the largest Indian producer. That deal was publicly one of the longer lasting one as it originally started out in at least 2014 on a smaller scale and was later slowed down by the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) (MMDR) Amendment Act. Smikon’s purchase of Eurocement in 2021 almost looks like part of the isolation of the Russian economy, especially with the benefit of hindsight given by the invasion of the Ukraine in early 2022.

Mega-deals have lots of moving parts but two of the most tangible to broader audiences are the price and the timing. Cemex infamously got both of these wrong with its acquisition of Rinker in 2007 as it paid high just as the US subprime mortgage crisis started a wider global financial one. This was despite Cemex’s emergence over the previous 15 years as a multinational force to be reckoned with due in part to the so-called ‘Cemex Way’ approach to management, acquisitions and integration. Clear winners from the big acquisitions over the last decade are harder to spot but CRH and UltraTech Cement look strong so far. Adani Group has certainly picked a lively time to make a purchase on this scale following a global pandemic with ongoing global supply chain issues and disruptions to energy and food markets.

India: UltraTech Cement has successfully commissioned a second clinker line with a capacity of 2.7Mt/yr at its Hirmi cement plant in Chhattisgarh. The company says that it is on track to also commission a new 1.3Mt/yr grinding unit at the plant in mid-2022.

India: UltraTech Cement has taken legal advice for its planned bid for Holcim's Indian business and says that it will volunteer to divest 15Mt/yr-worth of cement assets in order to accelerate the Competition Commission of India (CCI) approval process which would follow on from the acceptance of any offer. The Economic Times newspaper has reported that UltraTech Cement has filed five long form merger notifications for acquisitions of this type since 2013. These included its purchases of Binani Cement and Century Cement, and of Jaypee Group's Gujarati cement assets.

The Financial Express newspaper has reported that fellow contender Adani Group has offered 'more than' US$10bn for the assets, while JSW Group plans to offer US$7bn. BusinessLine Online News has reported that a fourth company, steel producer ArcelorMittal, has also held initial talks with Holcim over the assets.

In considering possible competition issues arising under any future deal, the CCI will factor in planned and upcoming cement capacity. In Gujarat, where Holcim India subsidiaries ACC and Ambuja Cements operate 6.8Mt/yr-worth of capacity, Adani Group plans to build a new 10Mt/yr cement plant at Lakhpat.

Many first quarter financial results for cement producers are out already and what can be seen so far deserves discussion. The first observation is that the sales revenues of Chinese companies have suffered compared to their international peers. As can be seen in Graph 1 (below) CNBM increased its sales slightly in the first quarter of 2022 but Anhui Conch and China Resources Cement (CRC) had significant falls. Stronger results from CNBM’s non-cement production subsidiaries released so far suggest that the parent company’s slow performance is likely due to the cement market. The China Cement Association has reported that national cement output dropped by 12% year-on-year to 387Mt in the first quarter of 2022. It blamed this on the latest local coronavirus wave, limited construction project funds and poor weather.

Graph 1: Sales revenues in the first quarter of 2022 from selected cement producers. Source: Company financial reports. Note: SCG data is for its building materials division only.

Outside of China sales revenue growth has been better with Holcim and Dangote Cement leading the companies presented here. Holcim attributed its success to “strong demand, acquisitions and pricing”. Demand and pricing have been familiar refrains in many of the results reports this quarter. The undertone though has been the destabilising effects upon energy prices by the ongoing war in Ukraine. Holcim’s head Jan Jenisch summed it up as navigating “challenging times, from the pandemic to geopolitical uncertainty.” The producers with operations in the Americas and Europe seem to have coped with this so far mostly due to resurgent markets. Quarterly sales revenue growth for Holcim, CRH (not shown in the graphs) and Cemex each exceeded 10% year-on-year in both of these regions.

The regionally focused companies presented here have suffered more. India-based UltraTech Cement said that its energy costs grew by 48%, with prices of petcoke and coal doubling during the period. Nigeria-based Dangote Cement reported that its group sales volumes were down 3.6% mainly due to energy supply challenges in Nigeria. Internationally, its operations relying on cement and clinker imports – in Ghana, Sierra-Leone and Cameroon – were also hit by high freight rates caused by global supply chain issues. Thailand-based SCG said that national demand for cement demand fell by 3% due to negative geopolitical effects causing inflation, a delay to the recovery of tourism and a generally subdued market.

Graph 2: Cement sales volumes in the first quarter of 2022 from selected cement producers. Source: Company financial reports.

It’s too early to read much into it but one final point is worth considering from cement sales volumes in the first quarter of 2022. They have appeared to fall for the companies that have actually released the data. The reasons for CRC in China and Dangote Cement in Sub-Saharan Africa have been covered above. Holcim’s volume decline was 2% on a like-for-like basis and the others were all very small changes.

To summarise, it’s been a good quarter for those cement producers covered here with operations in North American and Europe. Energy instability caused by the war in Ukraine so far seems to have been passed on to consumers through higher prices with no apparent ill effect. The regional producers have suffered more, with the Chinese ones having to cope with falling demand and the others finding it harder to absorb mounting energy costs and supply chain issues. Plenty more first quarter results are due from other cement companies in the next few days and weeks and it will be interesting to see whether these trends hold or if others are taking place.

India: UltraTech Cement recorded consolidated sales of US$6.86bn in its 2022 financial year, up by 18% year-on-year from US$5.83bn. The Aditya Birla subsidiary's net profit was US$957m, up by 34% from US$713m. Its total expenses also increased, by 20% to US$5.61bn from US$4.69bn. The sharpest rise, of 45%, was in power and fuel expenses, to US$1.43bn from US$985m.