Akmenes Cementas has been making cement at the same site in Naujoji Akmené in Lithuania since 1952. During the Soviet era, the plant was run as a wet process facility, with up to eight kilns that supplied cement to all over the USSR. After Lithuania regained its independence in 1990, the plant underwent a period of rationalisation to adjust to market demands and was progressively upgraded to modern standards. Since 2014 a new 4500t/day dry process line from Germany's KHD Humboldt Wedag has been in operation. Global Cement's Peter Edwards recently visited the plant and spoke with Production Manager Edmundas Montvila.
Plant profile: Akmenes Cementas
Location: | Naujoji Akmené, Šiauliai County Lithuania |
Founded: | 1946 |
First cement: | 1952 |
Kiln: | KHD Pyroclon®-R LowNOx with Pyrotop (2014) 4500t/day (~1.2Mt/yr) |
Employees: | 480 (in high season) |
Ownership: | ~53% Lithuanian investors, ~38% Cemex, ~9% HeidelbergCement |
History and Introduction
Global Cement (GC): Can you outline the history of cement production at this site?
Edmundas Montvila (EM): The idea for a cement plant at Naujoji Akmené first arose during the Second World War and the Soviet government decided to build a plant here in 1946. Before the war it was clear that there was significant limestone here that was suitable for cement production.
The first and second kilns were 'from' Polysius but they were absolutely free of charge. This is because they were dismantled by the USSR from a plant in East Germany! They were transported to Lithuania and then reassembled here. The first kiln was installed in 1951 and made its 'first' cement in 1952.
Over the next 20 years the USSR added another two wet process lines to the plant to reach a capacity of around 0.5Mt/yr. Each of the kilns was different at that point.
In the 1970s a second plant was designed and built adjacent to the first, which also had four wet kilns. It was a real Soviet 'copy-paste' design that was used all over the USSR, in Russia, Belarus, Poland and elsewhere. By the end of the 1980s, the plant operated all eight lines at the same time, with a total capacity of 3M/yr.
During the Soviet time the production of cement in Lithuania was around 1000kg/capita. That's production of 3Mt/yr of cement and a population of around three million. It was very high and shows just how different the Soviet system was to the market we have today. Under the USSR, the cement made here could have been sent to Vladivostok! We also sent a lot of cement to Kaliningrad, which was a major centre for the Russian military.
A decision to upgrade to dry production
EM: After the restoration of Lithuania's independence, the adjustment to the market system meant that we didn't need to make as much cement. The plant used just one line from the first plant and two from the second plant in the 1990s.
This was an inefficient set-up and so in 2007 we decided to install a new dry process cement line. This was to reduce fuel consumption and increase capacity. The new line was designed to be installed within the footprint of Kilns 5 and 6 at the second plant. This was to allow us to keep using Kilns 7 and 8 during construction and to re-use the existing limestone crushing and cement grinding infrastructure. We decided to name it 'Kiln 5,' as it was an 'upgrade' of Kiln 5. This was crucial for the work to classify as a brownfield development and not a greenfield development.
The limestone crushing section is from the Soviet era. It can handle around 4Mt/yr of limestone and is therefore more than capable of crushing enough material for the new line. The cement grinding equipment dates from 1997, which was only 10 years earlier than the decision to upgrade.
In 2007 we began contract negotiations and, in 2008, the contracts were implemented. Of course, in 2006 - 2007 we had a market in Lithuania that was consuming 1.0 - 1.1Mt/yr of cement. However, due to the economic downturn it halved to around 0.5Mt/yr in 2009.
We had to freeze the dry process project for around two years because the market collapsed! We had actually received all of the equipment in 2008 and, of course, we had to honour the contracts. However, everything was kept in storage until 2010. At this point we had been able to carve out export markets in Russia (Kaliningrad), Belarus and Scandinavia and there were signs of improvement in the domestic market.
Production and process
GC: Can you describe the production process as used at the plant today?
EM: The process starts with the quarry, which is around 3km away from the plant. It is actually owned and operated by a separate company called Kalcitas. We have to buy the limestone and clay from the quarry and are responsible for the transportation of the material from the quarry to the plant. We operate a range of dumper trucks. In the past few years we purchased three BELAZ-7555B dumper trucks to complement our Soviet era BELAZ dumpers.
Our trucks take the limestone to our limestone crushing department, which dates from the Soviet era. There are two lines, each of 500t/hr, giving a total of 1000t/hr. Each line has a jaw crusher and a rotary crusher. This is more than enough for the dry process line. Despite being old, the machinery is reliable and it was certainly built-to-last. We had looked at installing a new crushing system, but the calculation shows that there is only a very small payback available. Clay is prepared using a new Bedeschi clay crusher, which came online with the dry process line.
The clay and the crushed limestone are mixed into three stockpiles; two 20,000t piles for clay and limestone and one 4000t stockpile for limestone. The limestone pile is for correcting the chemistry of the raw meal. The three piles are managed using a Bedeschi ceiling-mounted stacker and a separate Bedeschi reclaimer.
A system of conveyors delivers the material from the storage building to the raw meal grinding section, which is where KHD's area starts. The raw material is ground using a Tandem system, which comprises a 720t/hr dryer/crusher and 360t/hr ball mill.
The use of the dryer/crusher is quite unusual but it was decided that this would offer the best stability in raw meal fineness. The characteristics of our raw material mean that adding slightly different amounts of ingredients, for example sand, would make big changes to our fineness if we had gone with another system. An inconsistency like that is bad for
the stability of the process. The raw meal department receives waste heat from the preheater, which is a big increase in efficiency over the wet process from before. After it has been ground in the roller mill, the raw material is sent to a new 12,000t homogenisation silo, which was built by IBAU Hamburg from Germany.
After the silo comes the kiln, a three-pier design from KHD, which is rated at 4500t/day. It is 66m long and 4.8m in diameter. This is around 10m longer than KHD's standard designs. When we designed the project, we wanted to allow flexibility for the addition of alternative fuels to the line at a future date.
The four-stage preheater is equipped with a calciner. Formally it is a Pyroclon®-R LowNOx with a Pyrotop. The design is good for environmental performance and was also suitable for the introdution of as yet unidentified alternative fuels. We had to allow for future flexibility.
The clinker cooler is a KHD Pyrofloor PFC 6H3AH. It is a walking floor design with six hydraulically-controlled lanes that slowly shuffle the material. When we installed it, I was really surprised how well it performed. It was a very good selection by the company. In the old process the cooler was unstable and a total nightmare. However, the Pyrofloor can easily handle variations from earlier on in the process. If the kiln delivers too much material, too little material or material that it hotter than normal, it still performs really well.
From the cooler, a number of new Aumund conveyors take the material to the clinker silos, which date from the Soviet time. Their capacity is only 25,000t, but we also have overflow storage for the winter maintenance period. We currently have to truck the clinker to these, which are over 2km away. This is not an ideal solution but we are evaluating a potential investment in extra clinker silos on this site. Will we ever use Kilns 7 and 8 again? If not, we could dismantle them and build new silos where those kilns are currently located.
The cement grinding department has four mills, all from Volgocemmash, a Russian producer. Internally they have all been upgraded with new linings and balls; two by Maggoteaux and two by Estanda. We installed two separators, one from FLSmidth and one from Polysius. All of these upgrades were carried out in 1997, which was one of the first sections to be upgraded by the newly-privatised company.
In contrast to our clinker silos, we have a large cement silo capacity of around 50,000t. In reality the useable capacity is more like 38,000-42,000t, across 16 different silos. There were supposed to be another four cement silos but these were only partially constructed during the Soviet era. 30 years later it still looks like the work is going on!
Close to the cement silos we find the packing and palletising departments. The packing line comprises a Haver & Boecker Rotopacker with 10 spouts. The palletising system comes from Beumer, which operated as Haver & Boecker's sub-contractor during the project. The systems both date from 2005.
Fuels, additives and emissions
GC: What fuels are used at the plant?
EM: We use 100% Russian coal from Siberia. For us it is the best quality and Russia offers very low railway rates for coal transport so the price is also very good. Our rail link brings it all the way to our front door.
The coal is ground in two FLSmidth ATOX 17.5 mills, which have a capacity of 24t/hr each. The mills date from 2001 when we converted from using fuel oil to using coal.
GC: Do you have plans to introduce alternative fuels to the plant?
EM: We would like to introduce alternative fuels, indeed we used to run tyres at 12-13% thermal substitution on one of the wet lines. However, our waste handling infrastructure in Lithuania is only a few months old. We are only starting to learn what kinds of wastes are out there.
On top of this the government has decided that only government enterprises can use refuse-derived fuels (RDF). We think this is a really bizarre decision and we are in conversation regarding a possible U-turn on this. We are also not allowed to import RDF, unlike our neighbours at Cemex Latvia just over the border, so that is not an option. I think that this is a government-led decision based on our historic reliance on Russian gas. However, I think it will be only a matter of time before this decision is reversed.
Used tyres, on the other hand, are not considered to be a waste. Following the installation of some revised emission monitoring equipment we will be able to start with tyres again, perhaps at 3 - 4% to start with. We are consulting with KHD regarding how high we can go without major changes. Theoretically we could install a combustion chamber and go to 30% tyres on the line, but where would we get so many tyres in Lithuania? The reality will depend on a combination of supply and the ability of the line to accommodate the new fuel.
GC: You mentioned that the plant uses slag. Where does this come from and where does it get other additives?
EM: The slag is from Ukraine and our sand is sourced locally. The gypsum that we use comes from Knauf, a wallboard producer that mines natural gypsum. We buy it from its mines in Latvia and western Ukraine.
GC: What are your current emissions limits for the common stack emissions?
EM: For NOx the limit is 500mg/Nm3, SO2 is 400mg/Nm3, dust is 10mg/Nm3 and CO is 200mg/Nm3. As I mentioned, we are installing some new emissions monitoring systems and have contracted ABB to do this. It also installed the current equipment. When we first set up the plant we made a mistake in this area that meant we could not convert to standard condition measurements in real time. It was an oversight due to the seven year delay between design and construction. The regulations for reporting emissions are stricter than they were in 2007.
I should also mention at this point that the wider electrical and automation system for the plant was supplied by Siemens.
Building and commissioning the new line
GC: What were the most important factors that led to the new line being constructed?
EM: As I alluded to earlier the two most important factors were a decrease in specific fuel consumption per tonne of clinker and an increase in capacity. The wet lines, on average used 1380kCal/kg of clinker and the dry line uses just 850kCal/kg in compound operation. This is a 38% reduction in the amount of fuel needed, so it is a massive cost benefit. At the same time, we wanted to expand the capacity of the plant, which had been around 3600t/day when we had three wet kilns running. It is now 4500t/day.
GC: What led to the selection of KHD?
EM: When we started the project we commissioned the Swiss consulting company PEG to conduct a feasibility study. At that time Dr Hans Wilhelm Meyer was working there. He had very in-depth knowledge of pyroprocessing and recommended three suppliers: Polysius, FLSmidth and KHD.
With all due respect to Polysius we were not able to sign a deal because its order backlog was four years. It was 2007 and Polysius was completely booked up. It was very clear on this and it understood that we couldn't wait that long.
The selection between KHD and FLSmidth was close but in the end we were attracted to some aspects of the guarantees given by KHD. The equipment from Bedeschi was tied in with the KHD contract and we are very happy indeed with how the new system works together. Bedeschi's clay crushing contribution was also included in FLSmidth's proposal, such is the high regard that the company is held in by both main suppliers.
GC: What were the main challenges of the construction and commissioning?
EM: Of course the economic downturn that led to a two year delay was the single most problematic factor from a time perspective. However, from a construction perspective, we started the civil works in 2011. Of course, there were some small mistakes in design and a few corrections here and there that we had to change as we went along. Our main construction partners and civil design partners SWECO and PST were always able to solve these.
Overall commissioning was not too bad. It was difficult because we were learning about the dry process first hand for the first time. I have visited many other dry process lines but nothing could prepare us for dealing with our own. There were lots of small things that we had no experience in. Some incorrectly located sensors, some software bugs, some small mistakes we made with installation and more. The first couple of months after the hot commissioning started in July 2014 was a very busy time for me and everyone here.
GC: So how was the first 'birthday' in July 2015?
EM: It wasn't really a 'celebration' as such but we made a lot of progress over the first year. I want to optimise the plant for many parameters, chemical composition, grindability, throughput, etc. I would say that we are about 80 - 85% of the way towards 'finishing' but, of course the best plants never stop looking for ways to improve. I can see the 'end' of the task now though.
GC: More widely, how does Akmenes Cementas know that it is doing 'well'? You don't have a network of sister plants to draw from, for example.
EM: Ultimately we know from our customers, who are happy with our products and return to us. Beyond that, we make sure that we meet and exceed the requirements for mortar strength tests at two, seven and 28 days. We analyse the products for a large number of properties.
Products and customers
GC: What kinds of cement are produced here?
EM: Akmenes Cementas makes 12 types of cement, based on two different types of clinker: Normal clinker and lower-alkali clinker. We make about 50% of each. The lower alkali content is needed due to the chemistry of the local aggregates.
From each clinker we produce CEM I 42.5 N, CEM I 42.5 R and a higher grade CEM I 52.5 R. We also make two CEM II products; one containing up to 20% slag and one containing limestone. Each of these is available in normal alkali and lower alkali versions.
Finally we have a CEM III B, which is a sulphate-resistant cement that is used in water treatment plants. We manufacture it on a campaign basis according to customer requests. We make perhaps 25,000t of this per year.
When we get special requests, a customer can order a non-standard cement in the morning, we can start production the same evening and dispatch the cement the following day. Transport is the only limiting factor. This flexibility is an advantage when we talk with new and existing customers.
GC: What is the ratio of bulk to bagged cement?
EM: We sell around 20% bagged cement and 80% in bulk. We sell in 25kg, 35kg and 40kg bags depending on the market and the customer in question.
GC: How is cement dispatched?
EM: Around 80% of cement goes out by train. We actually have our own railway department, which is very unusual for a cement producer. The department has five locomotives and 170 wagons, which can travel all over the country and sometimes abroad. It's a big logistical challenge. Locomotives always need money for maintenance but they are cheaper for the customer. In ex-Soviet areas, if you have wagons, you have customers.
The other 20% goes out by truck. Obviously the local market is the main user of our trucked cement, since it is more expensive to use trucks than rail. We sell directly to the customer and have no trucks of our own.
GC: You hinted at exports. What markets are served aside from Lithuania?
EM: We produce around 1.0 - 1.1Mt/yr of cement and Lithuania takes about 50 - 55%. Most goes to Vilnius and Kaunas. Of the rest, we export to Russia, mostly Kaliningrad, which probably takes around 25% of our output. The other is split between smaller export markets like Poland, Belarus, Latvia, mainland Russia and some Scandinavian markets.
GC: How is your plant influenced by Cemex Latvia?
EM: There is clearly room for both plants in the market because its plant is much closer to Riga. In Latvia, Riga is by far the biggest city and so a lot of Cemex's cement goes there. Conversely, we are much closer to Kaliningrad. Of course, in the Soviet time the plants were not competing for markets. There was only one owner and one customer - the state.
I think it's also important to note that the companies have different philosophies. At Cemex Latvia many of the top managers are international staff and that brings in a lot of western European and North American cultural influences. Our stance is that we don't need to always take every cue from the west. Managing local staff and speaking with local customers certainly requires local knowledge. We are smaller and more flexible and can adapt to specific needs.
Markets and the future
GC: Is cement demand strong in the local market at present?
EM: In a word, 'No'! Lithuania still only needs 0.5Mt/yr at the moment but, around half the level we saw 10 years ago. In per-capita terms it is around 250kg/yr. On the other hand demand is very much influenced by incoming EU money for upgrading our infrastructure. Cement consumption can vary quite a bit with new projects, for example water treatment works.
GC: How seasonal is the market here?
EM: It's quite seasonal. The market picks up in late March until the end of November. In July or August we sell around 12 - 13% of our annual output, versus just 4 - 6% in each of December, January and February. Typcially we would stop the kiln in early January for around 40 - 45 days.
GC: What's your best estimate for the plant's capacity utilsation over the first year of operation?
EM: It's around 80% because we are still experiencing some small teething problems. It's rising though.
GC: What do you think will happen to cement demand in your markets in the coming 12 months?
EM: The local market will be stable. Perhaps there will be a 3 - 4% improvement in demand, but we shall have to wait and see. In some of our export markets, like Russia, demand could be influenced by political factors. Belarus, for example has become difficult to export to as its producers are working with very cheap gas. Two years ago we were able to export quite a lot of cement there but Belarus became self-reliant and suddenly the import rules all changed for material coming from the EU. That's the kind of political problems we can face. The depreciation of the Russian Ruble is another problem we are facing at the moment regarding exports to Kaliningrad.
GC: What about local and regional prospects over the next five to 10 years?
EM: I hope that we will see stability in the local market over the next couple of years so that we can optimise the new line and start to develop our alternative fuels programme. Overall demand it might increase by 5 - 10% over a five year period. I'd like to say 5% per year, but that isn't a real possibility these days. It is not 2005 any more!
GC: What is your biggest concern regarding the future, either about the market, the plant, regulations or other issues?
EM: I think our main problem is that we are independent. We can only learn from our own experiences and don't have a wide network of sister plants, as you say, from which we can learn. For instance we cannot send process engineers overseas to develop news skills and then bring them back into the plant with that knowledge. If there is anything we can do to introduce new information to the company, we must always do that.
Independence is flexibility. It's okay, but it is a double-edged sword. We have to strive to remain up-to-date with the latest developments in the industry and the market in order to minimise the disadvantages and maximise the advantages that our independence brings. In Lithuania, we say that in order to see improvement, you have to start with yourself. We continue to strive for that improvement.
GC: Thank you very much indeed for your time and interesting insights.
EM: You are very welcome!