Analysis

Hydrogen and its use in cement production has been adding a dash of colour to the industry news in recent weeks. Last week, Lafarge Zementwerke, OMV, Verbund and Borealis signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to plan and build a full-scale unit at a cement plant in Austria to capture CO₂ and process it with hydrogen into synthetic fuels, plastics or other chemicals. This week, Air Products and ThyssenKrupp Uhde Chlorine Engineers (TUCE) signed a strategic agreement to work together in ‘key regions’ to develop projects supplying green hydrogen. Both of these developments follow the awarding of UK government funding in February 2020 to support a pilot project into studying a mix of hydrogen and biomass fuels at Hanson Cement’s Ribblesdale integrated plant.

As the title of this column suggests there is an environmental colour code to describe how hydrogen is made for industrial use. This is a bit more codified than when grey cement gets called ‘green’ but it pays to remember what the energy source is. So-called ‘green’ hydrogen is produced by the electrolysis of water using renewable energy sources such as hydroelectric or solar, ‘Grey’ hydrogen is made from steam reforming using fossil fuels and ‘Blue’ hydrogen is similar to grey but has the CO₂ emissions from the fuels captured and stored/utilised. Price is seen as the main obstacle to wider uptake of hydrogen usage as a fuel in industry although this is changing as CO₂ pricing mounts in some jurisdictions and the connected supply chain is developed. A study by BloombergNEF from March 2020 forecasted that green hydrogen prices could become cheaper than natural gas by 2050 in Brazil, China, India, Germany and Scandinavia but it conceded that many barriers would have to be overcome to get there. For example, hydrogen has to be manufactured making it more expensive than fossil fuels without government policy support and its, “lower energy density also makes it more expensive to handle.”

The three recent examples with respect to the cement industry are interesting because they are all exploring different directions. The Lafarge partnership in Austria wants to use hydrogen to aid the utilisation side of its carbon capture at a cement plant. The industrial suppliers, meanwhile, are positioning themselves in the equipment space for the technology required to use hydrogen on industrial plants. Secondly, ThyssenKrupp has alkaline water electrolysis technology that it says it has used at over 600 projects and electrochemical plants worldwide. Air Products works with industrial gas production, storage and handling.

Finally, the Hanson project in the UK will actually look at using hydrogen as a partial replacement for natural gas in the kiln combustion system. A Cembureau position paper in mid-2019 identified that the challenges to explore in using hydrogen in cement production included seeing how its use might affect the physical aspects of the kiln system, the fuel mass flows, temperature profile, heat transfer and the safety considerations for the plant. Later that year a feasibility study by the Mineral Products Association (MPA), Verein Deutscher Zementwerke (VDZ) and Cinar for the UK government department that is funding the Hanson project concluded that a hydrogen flame’s high heat in a burner alone might not make it suitable for clinker formation. However, the study did think that it could be used with biomass to address some of that alternative fuel’s “calorific limitations” at high levels. Hence the demonstration of a mixture of both hydrogen and biomass.

That’s all on hydrogen but, finally, if you didn’t log into yesterday’s Virtual Global CemProducer 2 Conference you missed a treat. One highlight was consultant John Kline’s presentation on using drones to inspect refractory in some hard to reach places. Flying a camera straight into a (cool) pyro-processing line was reminiscent of a science fiction film! Global Cement has encountered the deployment of unmanned aerial vehicles in quarry and stockpile surveys previously but this was a step beyond.

The proceedings pack - including video, presenter slides and delegate list - for the Virtual Global CemProducer 2 Conference 2020 is available to buy now

HeidelbergCement released their sustainability report for 2019 this week. Every large cement producer publishes one but this one is worth checking out because of the company’s ambition to become CO₂ neutral. Other companies are heading the same way but few of them have such developed and public plans.

Sustainability reports are often a hodgepodge of non-financial reporting bringing together environment, health and safety, community and other topics. Multinational companies cover a wide range of jurisdictions and combining reporting in these kinds of fields can be beneficial. Typically they are members of various bodies like the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) or the Global Cement & Concrete Association (GCCA) that give various levels of conformity between reports. Yet, the wider focus of sustainability reports gives companies a chance to promote what they are doing well, away from balance sheets.

One highlight of HeidelbergCement’s report is its progress towards reducing its specific CO₂ emissions per tonne of cement and its recognition by the Science Based Targets (SBT) initiative towards this goal. So far it has achieved a reduction of around 22% from 1990 levels to 599kg CO₂/t (net) with a target of a 30% reduction or 520kg CO₂/t by 2030. There is a lot more going on in the report but it’s led by the vision, ‘to offer CO₂-neutral concrete by 2050 at the latest.’ It plans to achieve this by increasing the proportion of alternative CO2-neutral raw materials and fuels, developing lower clinker cement types and capturing and utilising CO₂ emissions. A focus on concrete is worth noting given the pivot by building materials manufactures towards concrete in recent years.

Back in the present, HeidelbergCement is roughly in the middle of the pack of major European multinational cement producers with its specific CO₂ emissions for cement in 2019. LafargeHolcim reported 561kg CO₂/t and Cemex reported 622kg CO₂/t. This is a bit of a moving target since corporate acquisitions and divestments can change both the starting point and the apparent current progress. HeidelbergCement’s acquisition of Italcementi in 2017 or CRH’s purchase of Ash Grove did exactly that. The other thing to consider is that these companies manufacture a lot of cement. The actual gross CO₂ emissions from a multinational cement producer are immense. LafargeHolcim, one of the world’s largest multinational producers, emitted 113Mt of CO₂ in 2019 from process and fuel sources whilst making cement. To put that into context, estimates for total global CO₂ emissions range from 33 – 36Gt for 2019. The cement industry’s entire share was estimated by the International Energy Agency (IEA) to be 4.1Gt in 2018.

Where this sustainability report starts to become really interesting is where it talks about CO₂ capture and utilisation. Its plans in this department are more mature than many of its competitors with various initiatives at different levels of development, mostly in Europe. Norcem, its Norwegian subsidiary, recently signed an agreement with Aker Solutions to order a CO₂ capture, liquification and intermediate storage plant at its integrated Brevik cement plant. The deal is dependent on government support but it’s a serious proposal. As reported previously from the Innovation in Industrial Carbon Capture Conference 2020, HeidelbergCement is actively preparing to hook up with CO₂ transport and storage infrastructure. The driver is CO₂ pricing from initiatives like the European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). With the EU preparing for the next phase of the ETS and talk of the European Green Deal gathering pace, before the coronavirus outbreak at least, CO₂ prices in Europe look set to rise. HeidelbergCement is positioning itself to benefit from being the first major cement producer to head into CO₂ capture and storage/utilisation with a variety of methods intended for different CO₂ prices and regional requirements.

HeidelbergCement doesn’t mention the coronavirus pandemic in its latest sustainability report. The report covers 2019 after all, before all of this happened. These reports do include health and safety information of employees, so this may be something to look out for next year. However, Cemex did mention the coronavirus in relation to its climate action plans this week. Essentially it wants to maintain its plans as a ‘fundamental component’ of its efforts to recover from the health crisis. This chimes with media talk around so-called ‘green-led’ government-backed relief programmes. Governments are the ones who are likely to be handing out the money, probably in the form of infrastructure projects. So it’s the perfect opportunity for them to encourage change from the companies bidding for this funding. Sustainability reports and the information behind them will be a useful tool in accessing this cash.

Many people have been adapting to home working over the last few months due to the coronavirus pandemic and the resulting lockdowns. The digital tools have been present for years but current events were all that was needed to force everyone to try it out en masse, moving much of the back office, supporting and managerial functions to the homes of staff. Some of this communal clerical working may never come back in the views of some commentators. Other functions related to networking, such as sales or knowledge transfer, have moved to different channels like webinars and social networking or have resorted to older methods like using the telephone more. The balance between real world and remote networking may change but a return to some level in favour of the former seems likely.

The core processes of cement manufacture are resistant to this trend as workers need to be on site to mine limestone and maintain production lines. Although, that said, Global Cement Magazine has covered examples of remote commissioning and maintenance of equipment at plants in recent issues. Prior to this there has been steady work on remote monitoring of equipment and plants by both suppliers and producers and moves by cement companies to focus on digital operation such as LafargeHolcim’s ‘Plants of Tomorrow’ Industry 4.0 from 2019 or Cemex’s work on autonomous cement plant operations with Petuum.

Some ways in which cement companies have coped with social distancing recently have been revealed as they have published their best practice guides. Last week, for example, Holcim Philippines was promoting its various online customer interaction tools including its existing sales platform and a new online customer engagement program to ‘provide updates on the company’s directions, share knowledge and best practices on Health and Safety and to bond with business partners while quarantines are in place.’ Other companies have done similar things like the Cemex Go platform. On the supplier side there have been various announcements as companies have pushed their digital offerings. Meanwhile, the companies offering automation or remote operation products have been handed a unique stage to promote their wares.

Another example of cement companies trying something new in digital is the pilot that was announced this week by Siam Cement Group with the Bank of Thailand to test out payment systems using a central bank digital currency (CBDC). This likely has very little to do with the cement industry and much more to do with the sheer size of that conglomerate in Thailand. As the second largest company in the country, it’s an obvious target to try out something new like this at scale. The project will run from July 2020 until the end of the year. It will build on work that the central bank has carried out on Project Inthanon, a project between the bank and the eight financial institutions to study and develop a method for domestic wholesale funds transfer using wholesale CBDC. Any benefits using a CBDC eventually bring to Siam Cement Group and other producers in the country are likely to be limited to finance departments but savings are always welcome wherever they arise.

One cautionary note to consider though is that introducing changes to national currency systems can have impacts upon cement companies through general effects to the economy as a whole. The classic example of this in recent years is that of banknote demonetisation in India in late 2016. Cement production growth declined for about half a year at the time due to the disruption it caused.

The downside of this increased reliance on digital products and platforms is increased exposure to cybercrime. There was a rare good-news story in this area recently when Schmersal Group revealed that it had intercepted a network attack in progress in May 2020. It promptly took its IT network offline and disconnected its various systems, from the telephones, to its business software, to its production processes and automated storage systems, at all of its locations. Systems were then gradually cleansed and restored over the next two weeks. Schmersal’s response is commendable but chillingly it ended its press release by saying that, “the attack demonstrated that standard protection from antivirus programs and a firewall is powerless in the event of a targeted attack with previously unknown malware.” Companies had the same vulnerabilities before the pandemic but the increased reliance on digital platforms has heightened the potential risk. As we mentioned last time we covered this topic companies that admit to large scale malware attacks are hard to find most likely because it looks bad. Although since that article was published, Buzzi Unicem admitted that a ransonware attack on its information systems originating from its Ukrainian operations were delaying its financial disclosures in mid-2017.

In the longer term it will be interesting to see how much of the altered working patterns or methods created by the coronavirus lockdowns remain afterwards. The current situation isn’t quite like the ‘disruptive innovation’ business theory pedalled by Clayton M Christensen that has led in-part to established companies setting up start-up incubators to try and spot the next big new thing. Yet, existing trends are being sped up and this may lead to some surprises that were coming down the road anyway. For example, buying someone shares in video networking tool Zoom would have made a nice Christmas present this year! Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

April 2020 data from the Japanese Cement Association (JCA) suggests that Japan has avoided the worst effects of the coronavirus outbreak. The industry’s total sales fell by 2.4% year-on-year to 16.4Mt in the first four months of 2020 from 16.8Mt in the same period in 2019. This is the kind of change associated with business as usual market trends, rather than the 20% declines seen elsewhere around the world in association to the coronavirus. In part this reflects the country’s case and mortality rate, which are far lower than other Group of Seven (G7) countries. The reasons for this may be due to lower levels of testing, less stringent lockdown measures and a more effective public health strategy. That last point is perhaps even more impressive given the population’s high median age (47.3). Whatever the reasons, the overall effect on the construction materials business seems low.

Graph 1: Cement production, sales, imports and exports in Japan. Source: Japanese Cement Association.

Graph 1 above shows the Japanese cement market in a historical context. Production peaked in the mid 1990s at a little below 100Mt/yr followed by a decline to above 40Mt/yr since 2010. This informs the current situation once one removes any effects from the health emergency. As Naoki Ono, the chairman of the JCA and the chief executive officer (CEO) of Mitsubishi Materials, described it in late May 2020, domestic demand for cement fell by 3.8% year-on-year to 41Mt in 2019. He blamed this on the completion of construction work for the 2020 Tokyo Olympic and Paralympic Games, the end of a period of rebuilding following natural disasters and a shortage of manpower.

All of this may explain why Taiheiyo Cement announced the acquisition of a 15% stake in state-owned Semen Indonesia subsidiary Solusi Bangun Indonesia in April 2020. At the time the producer said explicitly that the partnership with Semen Indonesia was part of Taiheiyo Cement’s response to a, “forecasted long-term decline in domestic cement demand in Japan.” Given the competiveness of the Indonesian market it seems like a brave move given the country’s overcapacity, the departure of LafargeHolcim and the arrival of China’s Anhui Conch. Meanwhile at home, Mitsubishi Materials and Ube Industries said in February 2020 that the companies were discussing a potential merger of their cement businesses. The letter of intent suggests a schedule of late September 2020 to sign a definitive agreement and a target of April 2022 to complete the integration. This follows the two companies working together since 1998 on a joint venture called Ube-Mitsubishi Cement, which integrated their cement sales and logistics operations. Mitsubishi Materials and Ube Industries are the third and fourth largest producers by production capacity in the country. A merger would potentially give the combined entity the same production base as the largest producer, Taiheiyo Cement.

Taiheiyo Cement’s experience in its 2020 financial year to 31 March 2020 was in line with Naoki Ono’s summary above, with both sales and profits down. Its domestic sales volumes decreased by 5% to 14.5Mt, although exports rose by 11% to 3.9Mt. In its financial report it highlighted its key foreign markets in the US, China, Vietnam and the Philippines. Despite increasing its sales in its 2020 financial year, Sumitomo Osaka Cement’s operating income and profits fell. It blamed this on energy costs, principally coal, and other raw material inputs. It has since published its next medium-term management plan. This includes a number of measures such as cutting costs and looking at overseas expansion. Both Mitsubishi Materials and Ube Industries reported similar reductions in their sales and profits. Mitsubishi Materials noted that it had observed a decrease in cement shipment due to the construction delay caused by the coronavirus.

Ratings company R&I is optimistic about the Japanese market following the start to 2020. In a recent news release it concluded that domestic cement demand is ‘solid’ for the next few years due to order backlog and anticipated infrastructure projects. In its assessment local producers have been improving their cost structures since 2010 in ways that should support ‘certain levels of profit’ provided domestic demand remains around 40Mt/yr. In the medium to longer term though it still expects domestic demand to decrease slowly. Hence, the overseas expansion, merger and acquisition activity and cost cutting plans of the larger producers. Long trends aside, the Japanese cement sector is coping well so far with the global health pandemic.

Exports are the theme this week with news that the value of Turkey’s cement exports fell by 26% year-on-year in April 2020. Reporting from the Trend News Agency showed that the export market has been stable so far for the year to date, with some countries, like Kazakhstan, increasing exports and others, like France, decreasing exports. However the change in April may mark the start of a new trend.

As Tamer Saka, the chairman of the Turkish Cement Manufacturers’ Association (TÇMB), said earlier in the year, his country is one of biggest cement exporters in the world and among its most important markets are the US, Israel, Ghana and Ivory Coast. To look at one of these countries, United States Geology Survey (USGS) data shows that cement and clinker imports from Turkey to the US grew by 26% year-on-year to 1Mt for the first quarter of 2020 but that exports fell by 24% year-on-year to 0.11Mt in March 2020. Each of these countries is being affected in different ways by the coronavirus pandemic and at different times. Overall though, Saka’s and the TÇMB’s forecast in February 2020 that exports would rise by 15% year-on-year in 2020 is looking decidedly shaky. Any knock to the export market in Turkey is particularly unwanted given the poor state of the Turkish economy at the moment.

What would be useful to know here is how other major cement exporters are coping with the global situation. Data from the Pakistan Bureau of Statistics shows that Pakistan’s cement exports dropped by 31% year-on-year to 0.36Mt in April 2020. Data from the All Pakistan Cement Manufacturers Association (APCMA) for the same month tells a similar story. Its data shows a 57% drop in exports to 0.25Mt in April 2020, with a bigger share lost by plants in the north of the country than those in the south.

The other country to note is Vietnam. Here, data from the General Department of Vietnam Customs shows that cement exports fell by 9.7% year-on-year to 7.73Mt in the first quarter of 2020. This follows the announcement by Vietnam Cement Association (VCA) chair Nguyễn Quang Cung in May 2020 that all cement plant projects scheduled to begin in 2020 would be suspended. Luckily those currently being built avoided this fate. This has included a new line at Thanh Thang Group Cement’s integrated Bong Lang cement plant, which Germany’s Loesche has just sent a pair of clinker mills to this week.

These changes from the major cement exporters are bad for their host countries but the other side of the chain is how their destinations are affected. For example, Australia’s clinker imports nearly doubled between 2010 – 2011 and 2018 – 2019 to 4.1Mt. This compares to local clinker production of 5.6Mt in 2018 – 2019, according to the Cement Industry Federation and the Australian Bureau of Statistics. With this in mind, this week saw the resolution to a legal dispute between Wagners Holdings and Boral over a cement supply contract. Boral found a cheaper source of cement from Cement Australia in early 2019 and the two parties argued over their contract. This dispute may have nothing to do with foreign import levels but Wagners Holdings, Boral and Cement Australia all operate standalone clinker grinding plants and will all be subject to general market pricing trends. Higher international clinker levels may add pressure to pricing issues surrounding cement supply contracts in Australia and elsewhere.

Finally, cement trade flows aren’t the only commodity that has been affected by coronavirus disruption. The mass movement of workers home and then back to work is expected to complicate India’s return to business, as discussed in last week’s column. In this context it’s pleasing to come across one sign of normality. Local press in Hubei, China reported this week that workers from Huaxin Cement finally flew back to Uzbekistan. They were originally meant to commission a new plant in March 2020 but became stranded at home when they returned for the Chinese New Year. Commissioning of the plant is now planned for later in June 2020.

The Virtual Global CemTrans Conference and Exhibition 2020 on cement & clinker, shipping & trade, transport & logistics takes place on 16 June 2020. To find out more information and to register click here.