Analysis

The two largest cement producers in Japan released their results for their 2023 financial years this week. Much like manufacturers elsewhere in the world they reported mounting sales revenues, but they also noted losses. Input prices such as coal rose in 2022 and these were passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. However, this was insufficient to stop them making a loss.

In the case of Taiheiyo Cement, its domestic sales volumes of cement remained stable at 13.4Mt in the year to 31 March 2023. It made a loss at home in Japan but still reported a profit in its overseas businesses, despite export volumes falling by 41% year-on-year to 2.44Mt. The group also noted delays at construction sites due to a lack of workers. Recent domestic developments for Taiheiyo include an agreement in October 2022 to buy the cement business of chemicals company Denka. Outside of Japan, in China, the group suspended the production and sale of cement from its Jiangnan-Onoda Cement subsidiary in February 2023 citing a 'tougher competitive environment,' although it justified this decision as part of its strategy to refocus on Southeast Asia. Then, in late April 2023, the company was forced to stop its proposed acquisition of the Tehachapi cement plant in the US due to an inability to obtain regulatory approval.

Sumitomo Osaka reported a similar situation, with cement sales volumes also down year-on-year. Again, cement price increases were unable to catch coal prices made worse by negative currency exchange effects. Having got the bad news out of the way, it then it took the opportunity to outline its medium term strategy to 2035. It said that becoming carbon neutral was the key to this. In its 2022 financial year cement accounted for around 70% of total sales. However, it is now aiming to reduce this to 65% by 2025 and 50% by 2035. If this sounds familiar this is because it is similar to what Holcim is doing with its growing light building materials division and its diversification away from the heavy building materials trio of cement, concrete and aggregates. Sumitomo Osaka plans to invest over US$3.5bn towards this goal by developing its presence in the semiconductors sector, building its business in Australia and starting new ventures in decarbonisation.

Of the other cement producers, Tokuyama Corporation said in late April 2023 that it was considering suspending operation of one of the three kilns at its 4.54Mt/yr Nanyo cement plant as part of measures to strengthen profitability. It reported a growing loss for the current financial year that it blamed on raw material and fuel costs. Mitsubishi Materials and Ube Industries formed their merged cement businesses in April 2022 known as Mitsubishi UBE Cement Corporation. Ube said, as part of its latest financial results, that, despite a gradual decrease in the domestic market, cement sales had remained stable but that the business was “heavily affected” by rising energy prices such as coal. It added that demand for cement and concrete remain strong in its overseas market in North America.

Graph 1: Sales and exports of cement in Japan from 2013 – 2022. Source: Japan Cement Association.

The Japanese cement market peaked in the 1990s. Domestic sales of cement in Japan have declined over the last decade, as can be seen in Graph 1 above, but at a slower rate. Exports rose to a peak of just under 12Mt in 2017 but have slipped a little since then. Data from the Japan Cement Association placed production at 53.2Mt in 2022 compared to 61.7Mt in 2013. This trend explains the move by the cement producers towards decarbonisation, offshoring, diversification and consolidation. The bump in fuel prices over the past year may have accelerated this process, as examples such as Taiheiyo Cement’s takeover of Denka and Sumitomo Osaka’s new business strategy suggest. The race continues to keep cement production profitable in a changing business environment.

Eagle Materials announced this week that it had completed the acquisition of Martin Marietta’s cement import business in the north of California. A key part of the deal includes the sale of a cement terminal at Stockton. No value for the transaction has been disclosed.

The agreement prompts discussion for two immediate reasons. Firstly, it continues the enlargement of Eagle Materials’ cement business with its second terminal in California. The company operates its cement business in a band running almost right across the US. It runs seven cement plants in seven different states and jointly operates, with Heidelberg Materials, a plant in Texas too. It also runs a network of 25 cement terminals, including the new acquisition, stretching from California in the west to Pennsylvania in the east.

Eagle Materials’ focus on the cement sector also harks back to its previous plans to separate its various businesses. In 2019 it approved a plan to split its heavy materials and light materials businesses into two publicly-traded entities. The decision was made in response to pressure by shareholder Sachem Head Capital Management to make the company, in its view, more valuable. A strategic portfolio review followed but the planned separation was subsequently delayed due to the Covid-19 pandemic and poor market conditions, amongst other reasons. The board of the company then cancelled the proposed separation in 2021 citing the financial benefits of a diversified business, opportunities for strategic growth and the divestment of its oil and gas proppants business.

The other talking point is that the Eagle Materials transaction follows a positive response by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in response to the abandonment of CalPortland’s attempt to buy the Tehachapi cement plant in southern California and two related terminals from Martin Marietta. CalPortland’s parent company Taiheiyo Cement said in late April 2023 that it had terminated the acquisition agreement originally announced in mid-2022 due to its inability to obtain approval from the FTC in a timely manner. Whilst the FTC did not say if it had directly tried to block the proposed deal it did say, “The abandonment is a victory for consumers and preserves competition for a key component of Southern California’s construction and infrastructure industries.”

The FTC argued that the transaction would have reduced the number of cement suppliers in Southern California from five to four, further concentrating an already concentrated market, and was “presumptively illegal.” It noted that the Tehachapi plant was only about 20km away from CalPortland’s Mojave cement plant. It went on to say that, if the deal had gone ahead, CalPortland was poised to own half of the cement plants serving the Southern California market. It added that it would have been well-placed to raise its prices and that, “the transaction would have also increased the likelihood for coordinated action between the remaining competitors in this concentrated market.”

The de-facto block by the FTC of the Tehachapi sale now opens up the question of who Martin Marietta might try to sell it to next. Cemex, Mitsubishi Cement and National Cement (Vicat) are the obvious contenders given that they each also run integrated plants in the state. Of course another company, especially one with some form of existing distribution network, may express interest. Given its enlarged presence in Northern California, Eagle Materials springs to mind. Other potential buyers are, of course, available.

Betolar has called today for a global performance-based standard to replace existing prescriptive standards. Riku Kytömäki, the head of Betolar, argued at the London-based Concrete Expo that the lack of a performance-based standard is holding back the use of low-carbon materials from replacing cement in concrete production. He said “the current regulations across the markets are restricting the use of circular materials allowed in concrete buildings.” Betolar produces Geoprime, an additive designed for use in cement-free concrete production with ash and ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS). This gives the company a financial reason to want standards to change, as it will potentially allow it to sell more of its product. However, as the company points out, “there is a huge need for new alternatives.” The world needs around 4Bnt/yr of cement but there is only 300Mt/yr of slag available.

Building materials producers and related companies wanting to change rules and standards in response to new trends is a common refrain. For instance, the increased use of alternative fuels by the cement sector has prompted all sorts of regulatory changes. However, rather than simply asking for amendments to the existing ways of doing things, Betolar is advocating for more wholesale change. It isn’t alone. Also this week the ASTM in the US announced that it is writing a specification to include a wider range of secondary cementitious materials (SCM). In addition, many of the interviews Global Cement Magazine has conducted with companies developing and marketing new types of cement and concrete in recent years have said similar things. Examples include the use of graphene, carbon nanotubes or sequestering CO₂ into industrial by-products to create novel secondary cementitious materials (SCM).

Prescriptive versus performance-based approaches to buildings and building materials tie into wider design philosophies about construction. The prescriptive approach provides detailed descriptions of regulations, methods and components, such as cement and concrete standards. With respect to concrete standards, this might mean setting mandatory SCM and cement proportions, determining allowable water content, certain types of aggregate to be used and so on. The performance approach focuses on the end results, although it can be just as codified and standardised as the prescriptive route. For concrete, for example, this means that performance is measured by standard test methods with defined acceptance criteria stated in the contract documents with no restrictions on the parameters of concrete mixture proportions.

For cement and concrete standards the prescriptive approach dominated in Europe and North America in the 20th century. However, this began to change in the US in 2002 when the National Ready Mixed Concrete Association (NRMCA) started working on its roadmap towards its Prescription to Performance (P2P) initiative. The key aim of the scheme was to shift the emphasis from prescribing (or indeed proscribing) the ingredients and their proportions in a concrete mixture to an emphasis on the performance properties of the combined materials. A decade later in the mid-2010s it found during a progress review that about half of the sample of project specifications studied were classified as ‘prescriptive.’ The biggest prescriptive restriction was on the quantity of SCMs set by specification writers. These were often percentages required in certain circumstances, such as freezing and thawing cycles, but imposed on all usage.

The current bout of interest in performance-based standards appears to be driven by the growing demand for cement and concrete products to lower their clinker factor by using higher amounts of SCMs. A far wider range of SCM-based products are being developed and coming to market and then encountering regulatory burden. These new material manufacturers are meeting up with the sustainability lobby, which also has an interest in decarbonising building materials. In 2022, for example, the Belgium-based Environmental Coalition on Standards (ECOS) started pushing for performance-based standards for cement. In a statement it said that, “it is commonly accepted that prescriptive specifications are convenient, but that this convenience is obtained at the expense of (eco-) innovation and decarbonisation.” It added that the switch to performance-based standards would also strengthen the European internal market for construction products as part of the Construction Products Regulation (CPR). It noted the ASTM standards for hydraulic cements (ASTM C-1157), that were developed in the 1990s in the US, and more recent developments in the field in Latin America.

It is worth pointing out that the prescriptive route does have its advantages. Using a prescriptive system is easier for less-experienced practitioners or generalists as it sets a minimum standard, even if it is over-engineered. Responsibility is shared out among the supply chain under a performance-based system for the quality of concrete. Under a prescriptive system, the supplier or contractor can be held responsible for quality control issues. For the performance approach this has to be specifically defined, although systems are in place to help. Making it harder via ‘red tape’ for new products to enter a market may stifle innovation but it also gives these new products far more time to be tested rigorously.

The whole prescriptive-performance standards issue opens up the wider implications of decarbonising construction materials. Where once there was a relatively small number of different types of cement and concrete now there are potentially hundreds, each looking for market share. Whether this situation will be the same in a decade’s time remains to be seen. A few common SCM-based cement and concrete products and formulations may predominate. For now, the future seems wide open and bigger changes, such as the global performance-based standards Betolar is advocating, may be required to support this. Considering the massive variation between countries and states, even within the US and the European Union, let alone the rest of the world, this seems ambitious. But it is not impossible!

Heidelberg Materials announced a US acquisition at the same time as the ongoing IEEE/IAS-PCA Cement Conference in Dallas, Texas this week. It has entered into a purchase agreement to acquire The SEFA Group, a fly ash recycling company based in Lexington, South Carolina. Its operations include five beneficiation plants, five utility partners, 20 locations and over 500 employees. It supplies fly ash to over 800 ready-mixed concrete plants in 13 states. It processes around 1Mt/yr of ash from storage ponds using its proprietary thermal beneficiation process. No value for the acquisition was disclosed.

The proposition for a heavy building materials manufacturer of securing a supply of fly ash is an attractive one. Fly ash can improve the performance of concrete, reduce its cost by lowering the amount of ordinary Portland cement (OPC) required and decrease the associated carbon footprint. It can also be use to make blended cement products. Heidelberg Materials and its US-subsidiary Lehigh Hanson could have various options here including using this new supply of fly ash internally, selling it on to other companies or licensing the beneficiation technology. Heidelberg Materials’ global sustainability report in 2021 reported that just under 9% of its cement-type portfolio comprised pozzolana or fly ash cements.

Graph 1: Coal combustion product production and use, 1991 – 2021. Source: ACAA.

Data from the American Coal Ash Association (ACAA) shows in Graph 1 that coal combustion products (CCP) production have declined in the last decade as the proportion used has steadily risen. In its annual production and use survey, the ACAA revealed that the use of harvested ash continued to grow in 2021 and that it constituted around 10% of the volume of ash recycled from current power plant operation. Thomas H Adams, the executive director of the ACAA, said “The rapidly increasing utilisation of harvested CCP shows that beneficial use markets are adapting to the decline in coal-fuelled electricity generation in the US. New logistics and technology strategies are being deployed to ensure these valuable resources remain available for safe and productive use.” Separately, the ACAA reported that coal-fuelled power stations represented about 50% of the country’s electricity demand in the mid-2010s compared to 20 – 25% in 2021 despite base-load remaining the same. It forecast that fly ash production was likely to remain fairly constant to around 2040 but that harvesting would help to cut the gap between supply and demand in some regional markets. It said that over 2Bnt of coal ash was in disposal. However, no indication of how recoverable this was given although it did note the higher cost of beneficiation. Work on updating specifications was ongoing to suit current circumstances.

As with the slag market, this presents a dilemma for cement and concrete producers that want to become more sustainable. They want to use more by-products from other carbon-intensive heavy industries – such as coal-fired power stations and steel plants – but these industries themselves are also trying to become more sustainable and are producing less secondary cementitious materials. Heidelberg Materials’ interest in a fly ash beneficiation company makes sense because it secures a bigger portion of a dwindling resource from the direct operations and opens up the possibility of selling the beneficiation technology to others. It is also worth mentioning that other fly ash thermal beneficiation processes are available. For example, Charah Solutions installed its MP618 technology at its Sulphur terminal in Louisiana in early 2019.

The general fly ash market in the US looks set to track the level of coal-fired power generation for the foreseeable future. Yet the proportion of CCPs being used continues to rise. In this context focusing on harvesting may be starting to make more financial sense. Charah Solutions’s new unit in 2019 and SEFA Group’s new units in 2020 and 2021 seem to support this view. Heidelberg Materials’ acquisition of SEFA Group may be further confirmation of this.

Holcim launched its formal take on construction and demolition waste (CDW) this week with the unveiling of its ECOCycle technology platform at the BAU architecture fair in Munich. This amounts to managing the distribution, processing, grinding and recycling of CDW back into new building material products. It claims that its concrete, cement and aggregate products can contain 10 - 100% of CDW with no drop in performance.

It is hard to gauge whether this is marketing for existing operations or the start of something new. Yet, in its 2022 Sustainability Report, Holcim said that it recycled 6.8Mt of CDW back into building products and that it is on track to meet its target of 10Mt by 2025. This target was neatly put into words as wanting “to build more new buildings from old ones.” Ahead of the announcement of the launch of ECOCycle, it added that it was going to roll out its Susteno product around Europe. This product, made from 20% CDW, was originally released in Switzerland in the late 2010s. Notably, recent acquisitions by Holcim that connect to its growing focus on CDW include Poland-based Ol-Trans in July 2022, UK-based Wiltshire Heavy Building Materials in October 2022 and UK-based Sivyer Logistics in April 2023.

As covered by Global Cement Weekly in February 2023, Holcim is not the only heavy building materials company pivoting to CDW. The European Union (EU) set a 70% recovery target for it in 2020 and various cement company sustainability reports have described the region as being receptive to moves into this sector. Cemex set up a global waste management subsidiary called Regenera at the end of January 2023. This division covers both alternative fuels, CDW and industrial by-products, so it is more general than Holcim’s current effort, but it shows intent in the same direction. Cemex previously set a target of recycling 14Mt/yr CDW by 2030.

Heidelberg Materials has been working on developing recycled concrete paste and its ReConcrete-360° concrete recycling process. As of its last sustainability report, this process had been tested at the pilot scale and is now being developed and scaled for industrial application. In addition to acquiring UK-based Mick George Group in December 2022 Heidelberg Materials has also purchased Germany-based RWG Holding in January 2023 and Germany-based SER Group in February 2023. All three companies operate in the CDW sector.

The other notable contribution that Heidelberg Materials has been making is as a partner of the ‘Circular City - Building Material Registry for the City of Heidelberg’ project. When Heidelberg Materials announced its involvement in the initiative in mid-2022 it said it was the first city in Europe to apply the principles of urban mining. The goal of the project is to take an inventory of the city’s buildings and then compile it in a digital material registry. The basis for the registry is the Urban Mining Screener developed by EPEA (Environmental Protection Encouragement Agency). This programme can estimate the composition of buildings based on building data such as location, year of construction, building volume or building type. Circular economy supply chains can then act accordingly when a building is retrofitted, demolished or deconstructed. So, for example, at the start of the project it worked out that a former US Army housing estate conversion site was calculated to contain approximately 466,000t of material, with about half in the form of concrete, a fifth in the form of bricks and 5% as metal.

That last example compares to a European Commission estimate that, as a whole, Europe generates around 450 - 500Mt/yr of CDW. A third of this is concrete. As with alternative fuels and slag previously, this may be money going into the ground. Recycling building materials is not new but any significant increase in reusing CDW that can reduce the clinker factor of cement (and the cement factor of concrete) offers a potentially cheaper route to building materials decarbonisation than carbon capture and utilisation/storage at current costs. Hence the continued interest.