Displaying items by tag: secondary cementitious materials

US: Solidia Technologies has filed a patent for a new hydraulic cement consisting of Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) and other supplementary cementitious materials (SCM) including lime, alkali hydroxides, clay minerals and over 10% synthetic pozzolan.

Solidia Technologies said, “In order to reduce global CO₂ emissions it is necessary to adopt new approaches to create a new generation of hydraulic cements. The most efficient cement kiln can produce OPC clinker with an associated emission of 816 kg of CO₂/t. Blending the ground cement clinker with SCM, which have low or zero associated production CO2 emissions, reduces the total embodied CO₂ of the final product. Using a cement with the lowest possible clinker factor for a given application is the most common industry approach to reducing the CO₂ footprint of concrete.”

US: Charah Solutions plans to open a grinding plant to make supplementary cementitious materials (SCM) from natural pozzolan at Oxnard in California. The unit will be accessible by truck and railway. It will sell pozzolan and other materials to concrete product manufacturers throughout south California.

The Oxnard plant will be operated in partnership with Diversified Minerals, a supplier and manufacturer of standard and custom blend cement and concrete products. It will receive natural pozzolan by truck and rail and then grind pozzolan marketed under the brand MultiPozz pozzolan. MultiPozz pozzolan will be distributed throughout Charah Solutions’ MultiSource materials network of more than 40 nationwide in the US with international sourcing and distribution.

“Fly ash is becoming more difficult to source in California, which is forcing the construction industry to look for viable alternatives. Natural pozzolan and other SCMs that meet ASTM specifications are generating very high interest. With Charah Solutions’ resources and DMI’s strategic partnership with the only active pozzolan mine in Southern California, we are both the closest and the first to bring these products to market,” said Jim Price, chief executive officer (CEO) of Diversified Minerals.

The US government proposed placing tariffs on cement this week as part of its slowly-escalating trade war against China. The latest list will face a 10% tariff from the end of August 2018 following a consultation period. Of relevance to the cement industry, it will include limestone flux, quicklime, slaked lime, gypsum, anhydrite, clinkers of Portland, aluminous, slag, supersulfate and similar hydraulic cements, white Portland cement, Portland cement, aluminous cement, slag cement, refractory cements, additives for cement, cement based building materials and more.

Graph 1: Imports of hydraulic cement and clinker to the US from China, 2012 – 2017. Source: United States Geologic Survey (USGS).

Graph 2: Major exporters of hydraulic cement and clinker (Mt) to the US in 2017. Source: United States Geologic Survey (USGS).

At face value it seems unlikely that the tariffs will do much direct damage to the cement sectors in either China or the US. United States Geological Survey (USGS) data reports that the US imported 2Mt of cement and clinker from China in 2017 out of a total of 13.6Mt of imports. China was the third-largest exporter of cement to the US after Canada and Greece. Given the mammoth size of the Chinese cement industry - it sold 2.3Bnt in 2017 according to National Bureau of Statistics of China - it is unlikely that losing this export stream will cause the sector to lose much sleep. If the exports are coming from smaller producers though it might well impact upon them disproportionally. Any potential shortfall in the US is likely to be met by any number of the world’s overproducing cement nations. Vietnam, Iran (!) and Indonesia are the first few candidates that spring to mind.

The other point to consider from the USGS data is that the value of the cement imported from China in 2017 was on the cheaper side. Altogether the value of Chinese imported cement came to US$132m in 2017. Yet it was the fifth cheapest for cost, insurance and freight per tonne out of 32 importing countries. Add a 10% tariff to that and it is still only the eighth cheapest. If these figures represent reality then it seems unlikely that tariffs will cause the Chinese imports to slow down much.

All of this pretty much fits the general impression of China as a country that produces the most cement in the world but it actually exports very little of it. Consultancies like Ad and Marcia Ligthart’s Cement Distribution Consultants have made a point of downplaying China’s export market in recent years due to a lack of deep water terminals for plants and a general inward focus. Yet the sheer amount of production capacity could have big implications if it ever does get properly connected to the sea.

Other products facing the new tariffs that have relevance for the cement industry include input materials like gypsum or secondary cementitious materials (SCM) like slag and fly ash. Gypsum isn’t likely to be a concern given the presence of established exporters in Canada, Spain, Thailand, Oman and the like. SCMs are more mercurial but don’t appear to be too intrinsic to the US market. Ferrous slag imports grew to 2Mt in 2015 according to USGS data but the main sources were Japan, Canada, Spain and Germany. Charles Zeynel of ZAG International at the Global Slag Conference 2018 posited that Chinese exports comprised up to 6Mt or 25% of the world market of traded international slag.

All of this suggests a symbolic nature to the US tariffs on Chinese cement and related products. Perhaps the real news story to have noted this week was the framework agreement signed between Denmark’s FLSmidth and China’s China National Building Material (CNBM), the world’s largest cement producer and one of its larger cement equipment manufacturers.

Typically many of the new cement plant projects Global Cement has reported upon recently involve a Chinese contractor that may or may not be using European engineering from companies like FLSmidth who previously would have been managing the build themselves. The point here is that new plants, production lines and upgrades at US cement plants might well be built by a Chinese company through its European partners. The new upgrade to Lehigh Hanson’s Mitchell plant in Indiana has been budgeted at US$600m. This is far more than the value of Chinese cement imported into the US in 2017.

CRH announced changes to its structure this week. The changes to its divisions follow the rapid growth of the company and may also anticipate the new cement assets it is about to take on-board once its acquisition of Ash Grove Cement completes in the US. Buried in one its regulatory filings covering the news were two graphs of changes in cement demand in the US and Europe through various financial depressions since the 1930s.

Graph 1: Changes in cement demand in US and Europe during financial depressions. Source: CRH with data from US Geological Survey, PCA, United Nations, Morgan Stanley etc.

The graphs serve their purpose for a public company as they show both markets in the current downturn starting to rise again. In other words it looks like the perfect time to invest in a building materials company! However, thinking more broadly the graphs give a timely reminder of how bad the last decade has been for the cement market, particularly in Europe. The period only really compares to the 1930s in decline and duration if the figures are accurate. It must be considered though that while the West has suffered, markets in the East, notably led by China and India, have boomed.

The financial crash in 2008 was precipitated by the US subprime mortgage market. Other potential market killers lie ahead no doubt. One such might be the so-called ‘Carbon Bubble.’ This idea has gained media traction this week with the publication of a paper in the Nature Climate Change journal examining the economic impact of decarbonisation, if or when it happens.

It’s not a new argument but it makes the assertion that as new technologies that replace fossil fuels start to influence the markets, traditional fuel producers like oil companies may face being stuck with ‘stranded’ assets as legislation toughens up and technology mounts. This in turn could cause a financial crash and it’s this aspect that the paper has looked at.

The ace in the hole from the Nature Climate Change paper is that the modelling here suggests a way out of the usual prisoner’s dilemma approach to climate change action. Once sufficiently-low carbon technologies hit a certain level of adoption, then any country holding out and using fossil fuels instead of taking of action may start to suffer economically. Or in other words cheating won’t pay.

The carbon bubble theory is pretty convenient for the climate change lobby as it gives it a financial reason to fight its enemies by targeting investors. One counter argument is realistically how fast and deep would the decarbonisation technologies actually have to be to cause significant financial disruption. Surely the oil producers would get out of risky assets before it was too late. Then again, maybe not.

The cement industry is in exactly the same situation as the oil producers as it too depends on carbon rich assets, in this case limestone, for its business to operate. If limestone assets become ‘stranded’ due to toughened legislation then how can production continue? In addition though, volatility in the fuels and secondary cementitious materials (SCM) markets already being observed from the cement industry may make one wonder about the existence of the carbon bubble. Markets for waste-derived fuels and granulated blast furnace slag are currently changing in the wake of the tightening of Chinese legislation both in and out of the country. In theory this could mean cheaper inputs for cement production but the market is hard to predict. The other classic recent example is how the US natural gas boom from fracking has reduced global oil prices with further effects on the coal and gas that cement producers use. This in turn has placed pressure on various countries that are reliant on their petrodollars and caused pain to their local cement industries, like Saudi Arabia for example. The price of Brent Crude may be rising at the moment but once it hits a certain threshold, the hydraulic fracking of gas wells in the US will resume pumping. Of course both waste inputs and fracking could just be attributable respectively to market distortions by a large country changing policy and a new technology finding its feet.

If the carbon bubble theory carries any weight then CRH’s cement demand graph during recessions may carry a warning to producers about what might happen if decarbonisation leaves the fossil fuel producers behind. With good timing for this theme South Korea’s Ssangyong Cement announced this week that it is close to completing a waste heat recovery (WHR) unit at its Donghae plant, one of the biggest in the world with seven production lines. The interesting detail here is that the WHR unit will work in conjunction with an energy storage system to form a microgrid. This kind of setup is well suited to using energy from renewables as well as from conventional sources like a national electricity grid. In other words, this is exactly the kind of development at a cement plant that might in a small way lessen its reliance on fossil fuels in the face of any potential supply issues.

The 2nd Future Cement Conference and Exhibition looking at how the cement industry can operate in a low- or zero-carbon world will take place in Belgium in May 2019