Analysis

Climate activist Greta Thunberg memorably summarised the outcome of the 2021 United Nations (UN) Climate Change Conference (COP26) as “blah, blah, blah” but what did it mean for the cement and concrete industries?

Making sense of the diplomatic language the UN uses is a full time job due to its impenetrable jargon. This is partly why climate activists and others may have become jaded about the outcome of the world’s biggest climate change jamboree. The conference of the parties (COP) tried desperately to hang on to the 1.5°C warming aim set at the Paris event (COP21) in 2015. This is dependent though on countries sticking to their 2030 targets and becoming net-zero by 2050 or earlier. Unfortunately, both China and India, two of the world’s current top three CO₂ emitters, have announced net-zero dates of after 2050. Those two countries also drew fire in the western press for weakening the language used in the COP’s outcome document about the ‘phasing out’ or ‘phasing down’ of coal use. However, simply getting coal written on the final agreement has been viewed as a result. Other positive outcomes from the event included commitments for countries to review their 2030 targets in 2022, progress towards coordinating carbon trading markets around the world and work on adaptation finance from developed countries to developing ones.

The headline results from COP26 carry mixed implications for the building materials sector. The Paris agreement (COP21) has already achieved an effect in the run-up to COP26 by prompting the cement and concrete industries to release a roadmap from the Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA) in October 2021. Now it’s down to whether individual governments actually follow the targets and how they enforce it if they do. If they don’t, then the response from building material producers is likely to be mixed at best.

What may have a more tangible effect is the work on carbon markets at COP26. Countries were finally able to complete technical negotiations on the ‘Paris Agreement Rulebook,’ notably including work on Article 6, the section that helps to govern international carbon markets and allows for a global carbon offsetting mechanism. The European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) has shown over the last year how a high carbon price may be able to stimulate companies to invest in mitigation measures such as upping alternative fuels substitution rates and developing carbon capture and storage/utilisation projects. Critics would argue that it may simply be offshoring cement production and closing local plants unnecessarily. Making a more global carbon trading scheme work amplifies both these gains and risks. Either way though, having an international framework to build upon is a major development. Finally, work on adaptation finance could have an effect for cement producers if the money actually makes it to its destination. The big example of this announced at COP26 was a US$8.5bn fund to help South Africa reduce its use of coal. It is mainly targeted at power generation but local cement producers, as a major secondary user of coal, are likely to be affected too.

Alongside the big announcements from COP26 lots of countries and companies, including ones in the cement sector, announced many sustainability plans. One of these included the launch of the Industrial Deep Decarbonisation Initiative (IDDI) during COP26 by the governments of the UK, India, Germany, Canada and the UAE. This scheme intends to create new markets for low carbon concrete and steel to help decarbonise heavy industry. To do this it will disclose the embodied carbon of major public construction projects by 2025, aim to reach net zero in major public construction steel and concrete by 2050, and work on an emissions reduction target for 2030 which will be announced in 2022. Other goals include setting up reporting standards, product standards, procurement guidelines and a free or low-cost certification service by 2023.

All of this suggests that the pressure remains on for the cement and concrete sector to decarbonise, provided that the governments stick to their targets and pledges, and back it up with action. If they do, then the industry will remind legislators of the necessity of essential infrastructure and then continue to ask for financial aid to support the development and uptake of low carbon cements, carbon capture and whatever else. Further adoption of carbon markets around the world and global rules on carbon leakage could help to accelerate this process, as could adaptation finance and global standards for low carbon concrete. The next year will be critical to see if the 1.5°C target survives and the next decade will be crucial to see if global gross cement-related CO₂ emissions will actually peak. If they do then it will be a case of ‘hip hip hurrah’ rather than ‘blah blah blah’.

Volvo Autonomous Solutions and Holcim Switzerland announced this week that they are testing and developing the use of autonomous electric haulers in a limestone quarry. It’s a two-part project, as being able to run electric dump trucks will help Holcim to meet its sustainability goals by switching to renewable energy supplies. Automating the control of the trucks then lets Holcim work towards its digitisation targets as part of its ‘Plants of Tomorrow’ initiative. Holcim Switzerland has also been running a drone programme at the plant (see GCW520) and has been using a few electric concrete mixer trucks since early 2021.

The use of autonomous haulage systems (AHS) in quarries by the cement industry seems to mark the start of something new. As far as Global Cement Weekly can tell, the Volvo Autonomous Solutions - Holcim Switzerland project is the first one in the cement sector that has been announced publicly. Most of the examples of AHS to date have been for heavy mining applications such as iron ore, copper, oil sands and coal. Automation in limestone and aggregate extraction has been slower. One recent example in the aggregate sector was announced in late 2020 when Norway-based technology company Steer said it had signed a contract with Romarheim to supply three autonomous dump trucks for use in a stone quarry. Previously Steer has used its vehicles to clear unexploded ordinance for the Norwegian army.

AHS have been around commercially since the mid-2000s when Komatsu tested and then deployed one at a copper mine run by Codelco in Chile. By September 2021 Komatsu said it had commissioned over 400 trucks with its autonomous system and that these had hauled over 4Bnt of materials. For its part Caterpillar says it started its first automated vehicle research program in 1985 and was even testing a pair of Cat 773 dump trucks in the 1990s. However, it then took a pause before resuming after 2000 and starting its commercial projects in the 2010s. In April 2020 it hit 2Bnt of hauled materials by AHS using its MineStar Command product. Hitachi, Liebherr and Belaz have also been working on their own AHS products in conjunction with third party technology providers and these were developed later in the 2010s. Most of these products are complimentary control systems that have been added to existing models or can be added to new ones. Autonomous vehicle company ASI is the other big name in the field with its Mobius product. Unlike the other systems, this is purely a retrofit product. ASI does not make its own vehicles. Komatsu and Caterpillar have also developed retrofit kits for their systems.

Most of the products above look mostly like normal trucks with the addition of extra kit. Volvo and Scania have also been working on AHS but their products have been taking it further by removing the cab entirely. Scania launched its AXL product in September 2019. Volvo launched its Volvo Autonomous Solutions subsidiary in 2020 and its Tara system electric dump truck the same year. Volvo had previously planned to run a pilot for its Tara truck with Harsco Environmental carrying slag at the Ovako Steelworks in Hofors, Sweden. Unfortunately the pilot was disrupted by the start of the coronavirus pandemic shortly after it started.

It’s early days yet with the use of autonomous vehicles in the quarries of the cement and aggregates sectors. Obvious advantages are additional operational hours, better worker safety and reduced costs. As ever with automation, cutting out human jobs would be one disadvantage for the current workers at least. There is also the possibility that an experienced human driver using efficiency software tools might be better than a fully AHS. A challenge in the field is developing open standards or methods to allow autonomous machines to communicate or work with both products by the same manufacturer and its rivals, as well as with conventional human-driven ones. Another challenge is for the mining and quarrying industry to determine how flexible it wants its heavy vehicles to be. One thought to end with this that an autonomous vehicle with a cab and a steering wheel can still be driven by a human. The cab-less vehicles being tested by Volvo and Scania would be rather less useful if they get into a situation where the software can’t cope. Lots to consider.

If readers are aware of other examples AHS in the cement industry, please let us know at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

The news from Sri Lanka this week is that Lanwa Sanstha Cement is preparing to commission a new 3Mt/yr grinding plant in January 2022. The timing is apposite given the current shortages in the country.

Some inkling of local problems can be seen in the cement news over the last few months. In August 2021 Insee Cement said that it was operating at full capacity utilisation across its network. Later, at the end of October 2021, the government intervened in the import market by opening up the use of Trincomalee Harbour. This was followed by the nation’s other main producer, Tokyo Cement, announcing that it too was operating its grinding plant at Trincomalee at full capacity. It also said that, at the government’s behest, it was going to increase its import rate.

The new Lanwa Sanstha Cement unit originally came to international attention when Germany-based Gebr. Pfeiffer revealed details in 2019 of an order of two MVR 5000 C-4 type roller mills from Onyx Group. Lanwa Sanstha Cement has since said that the plant will cost US$80m. Once operational the unit at the Mirijjawila export processing zone of the Hambantota International Port will manufacture ordinary Portland cement, Portland slag cement, Portland limestone cement and blended hydraulic cement. A further equipment order for the project was announced this week when the Chinese-run Hambantota International Port Group signed an agreement with Lanwa Sanstha Cement to build a conveyor from the port to the plant. The deal also includes two ship unloaders.

Other new cement units on the horizon include an integrated plant project from Nepalese businessman Binod Chaudhary that was announced in mid-2019. The US$150m plant was planned for Mannar in the north of the island. However, not much more has been heard since then. Chaudhary’s company CG Cement operates a grinding plant in Nepal. More recently, in October 2021, local press reported that the government had tentative plans to build a new plant at the old state-owned Kankesanthurai site, also in the north. The plant was originally built in the 1950s and production ran until 1990 when the military took over the unit amid the then on-going civil war. Earlier in 2021 the government agreed to sell off the machinery at the site. However, much of it has gone missing in the intervening period! Proposals to revive the plant have circulated since the mid-2010s.

Graph 1: Cement production and imports in Sri Lanka, 2015 – 2021. Estimate for 2021 based on January to August data. Source: Central Bank of Sri Lanka.

The Sri Lankan cement market has faced a tough time over the last two years. First, total local production and imports fell by 11% year-on-year to 7.2Mt in 2020 from 8.1Mt in 2019. Then, imports fell by 18% year-on-year to 1.83Mt from January to August 2021 from 2.24Mt in the same period in 2020. Local production has more than compensated though, leading to growth in the total so far in 2021. There have been general economic reasons for why the ratio of imports to local production has fallen in 2020 and 2019 and this is explained in more detail below. Yet, imports hit a high of 5.68Mt in 2017 and have been declining since then both in real terms and proportionately.

Insee Cement summed up the local situation in its third quarter results by blaming cement shortages on input cost rises, supply chain disruption and negative exchange rates effects. The first two problems are issues everywhere around the world as economies speed up again following the coronavirus lockdowns but the last one is more specific to Sri Lanka. The country has faced a recession in its economy because the pandemic shut down tourism. The government initially introduced import limits to try and control foreign currency reserves. It then imposed price controls on essential foods and commodities, including cement, in September 2021 to try and stop shortages but this plan was abandoned a month later. Focusing on cement, some idea of the input cost inflation facing the sector can be seen in Tokyo Cement’s latest quarterly financial results. Its cost of sales rose by 72% year-on-year to US$59.5m in the six months to end of September 2021 from US$34.5m in the same period in 2020.

Lasantha Alagiyawanna, the State Minister of Consumer Protection, said at the end of October 2021 that it would take three weeks to import the required cement into the country. Whether this is enough to end the shortage remains to be seen. Yet, whatever does happen, it is likely that more production capacity from the likes of Lanwa Sanstha Cement and others will be welcome in 2022 and beyond.

Interesting move from HeidelbergCement this week with the news that it has agreed to buy a cement plant in Tanzania. The Germany-based multinational producer has signed a deal to buy a 68% stake in Tanga Cement from South Africa-based AfriSam. There has been no indication of the price but the arrangement will give HeidelbergCement a 1.3Mt/yr integrated plant in the north of the country along with a limestone quarry with reserves to last 30 years. The transaction is expected to close in the second quarter of 2022. HeidelbergCement says it then hopes to buy the remaining shares in the company.

HeidelbergCement already operates one integrated plant in Tanzania, Tanzania Portland Cement’s (TPC) Wazo Hill Plant in the capital Dar es Salaam. It took control of the plant in the early 2000s when its subsidiary Scancem International purchased over half of the company’s shares. The plant commissioned a new cement mill in 2014 to increase its production capacity to 2Mt/yr. Local press reported in April 2021 that the subsidiary planned to invest US$15m towards modernising the unit in 2021. It sells cement under the Twiga brand.

Tanga Cement runs a plant near Tanga that was originally commissioned in 1980. Holcim took it over in the mid-1990s before South-Africa based AfriSam assumed control in the early 2010s. The plant commissioned a second production line in 2016 and it has a production capacity of 1.3Mt/yr. It sells cement under the Simba brand.

HeidelbergCement’s decision to buy a plant in Tanzania is noteworthy because it goes against the general trend in acquisitions by western-based multinational cement companies in recent years. Instead of shrinking away from markets in developing economies and doubling-down on ‘safe havens’ in mature markets it has bought a plant in a developing country. Although one might argue that it does fit the definition of a well-chosen bolt-on acquisition.

Graph 1: Cement production in Tanzania, 2011 – 2020. Source: Tanzania National Bureau of Statistics.

As Graph 1 above shows, cement production in Tanzania has more than doubled over the last decade, from 2.4Mt in 2011 to 6.5Mt in 2020. Tanzania Portland Cement estimated local demand at 5.9Mt, including exports, in 2020. This was against a total cement production capacity, from both integrated and grinding plants, of 11Mt/yr. As well as the TPC and Tanga Cement plants mentioned above, Holcim runs an integrated plant in Mbeya and Huaxin Cement operates one near Tanga. Alongside this, new integrated plants have opened including Lake Cement’s 0.5Mt/yr Kimbiji plant in 2014 and Dangote Cement’s 3Mt/yr Mtwara plant in 2015. The big project on the horizon is a proposed 7Mt/yr integrated plant from China-based CNBM/Sinoma, although not much has been heard publicly about it since mid-2020. At that time local press was reporting that compensation was being finalised for residents of the proposed site near Tanga. Needless to say, given the size of the plant compared to the Tanzanian cement market, much of the plant’s output is intended for export.

With the CNBM plant in mind, it is noteworthy that HeidelbergCement committed to buying an extra plant in the country. Production has been going up over the last decade to presumably meet demand but the new Chinese project could potentially blot out the entire existing production. Tanzania faced a cement shortage at the end of 2020 despite coronavirus. TPC has repeatedly warned of production overcapacity in Tanzania and the challenges of competition. Yet it reported a new sales record in 2020 and growth of 7% in the national cement market. Despite a 5Mt overcapacity, TPC says it managed to adapt to the new market conditions. It also managed to grow its operating profit by 20% year-on-year to around US$46m in 2020 compared to HeidelbergCement Group’s 8% rise in results from current operations in 2020. This kind of return no doubt helped HeidelbergCement to make up its mind.

UltraTech Cement, Taiheiyo Cement, Cimtogo and the Chinese Cement Association (CCA) have all been talking about the same thing recently: energy prices.

India-based UtraTech Cement reported this week that coal and petcoke prices nearly doubled in the second quarter of its current financial year, leading to a 17% rise year-on-year in energy costs. Japan-based Taiheiyo Cement released a statement earlier in October 2021 saying that due to mounting coal prices it was planning to raise the price of its cement from the start of 2022. It principally blamed this on increased demand in China and a stagnant export market. It added that it was ‘inevitable’ that prices would rise further in the future. Meanwhile in West Africa, Eric Goulignac, the chief executive officer of Cimtogo, complained to the local press that the reason the company’s cement prices were going up was due to a 250% increase in the cost of fuels for the Scantogo plant and an increase in the price of sea freight of over US$35/t for transporting gypsum and coal.

Other places where the cost of energy has been biting cement producers include Turkey and Serbia. In the former, Türk Çimento, the Turkish Cement Manufacturers' Association, warned in June 2021 that the price of petcoke had nearly tripled over the previous year. Whether it was connected or not, the Turkish Building Contractors Confederation (IMKON) organised a strike in September 2021 due to high costs. The confederation claimed that the price of cement had tripled over the last year. In Serbia electricity prices have risen sharply in recent months in common with much of Europe. Local press reported comments last month from President Aleksandar Vučić saying that an unnamed cement producer had warned of a 25% rise in the price of cement if electricity prices remained high. In the UK the Energy Intensive Users Group (EIUG), a network of lobbying groups for heavy industry including cement, has been holding talks with the government on how to cope with growing energy costs. Finally, in the US, Lhoist warned in September 2021 that is was going to increase the cost of all of its lime products from the start of November 2021 due to increasing gas prices. These are just some of the reactions by cement and lime producers to the current global energy market. No doubt there are many more.

The current global energy crunch has widely been attributed to the waking up of economies following coronavirus-related dormancy in 2020 with supply failing to meet demand. Gas prices have risen to record highs and this has promoted electricity producers to switch to coal in the US, Europe and Asia. This in turn has put pressure on industrial users as both electricity and coal prices have grown and governments have taken action in some cases to protect domestic users. In Europe price pressure has lead to reductions in ammonia and fertiliser production. Power cuts have been reported in China and India.

In China a variety of factors have converged to create a crisis. These include shutting down coal mines on environmental and safety grounds, anti-corruption measures and even promoting mine closures to facilitate clean skies for national events such as the Communist party’s 100th anniversary. Disruption to import sources such as a ban on Australian coal on political grounds, flooding in Indonesia and a renewed coronavirus outbreak in Mongolia can’t have helped either. Thermal coal futures traded on the Zhengzhou Commodity Exchange hit a high of US$263/t on 15 October 2021 marking a 34% rise through the week and the largest weekly growth since trading started in 2013. The International Energy Agency estimates that coal demand in China grew by over 10% year-on-year in the first half of 2021 but coal production increased by just over 5%.

Industrial users have suffered as energy supplies have been rationed and producers asked to cut output. In September 2021 cement output fell by 12% year-on-year to 205Mt from 233Mt in September 2020. This is the lowest monthly figure for September since 2011. It’s also not the usual direction of double-digit rate of change that the Chinese cement sector is used to. The CCA attributed this mainly to energy controls, power shortages and high coal prices in Jiangsu, Hunan, Zhejiang, Guangdong, Guangxi, Yunnan, Shandong and elsewhere. Cement output for the first nine months of 2021 is still ahead of 2020 at 1.77Bnt compared to 1.67Bnt but it’s been slipping noticeably since July 2021.

This will leave energy users, including cement producers, watching the weather forecasts rather closely this winter. Should the Northern Hemisphere suffer a cold one then energy prices such as coal will reflect it. Industrial users may also become subject to energy rationing in many places. The knock-on effect of this then will be higher cement prices. However bad the winter does turn out to be though we can expect more cement companies trying to explain bashfully why their prices are going up. On the plus side any producer that can diversify its energy mix through solar, alternative fuels or whatever else is likely to be doing so soon if they are not already.