Analysis

It’s been a strong start to 2025 for the Brazilian cement sector. The National Cement Industry Union (SNIC) reported recently that cement sales in the first quarter of 2025 have been the strongest since 2015. Producers sold 15.6Mt in the three month period, a rise of 5.9% year-on-year from 14.7Mt in the same period in 2024.

The result has been attributed to a growing real estate market boosted by housing schemes such as the ongoing Minha Casa Minha Vida programme. SNIC also noted a growing labour market and wage increases, although sales from infrastructure projects failed to keep up. Unfortunately, SNIC is wary of whether the positive news will continue in the second half of 2025. Risks such as interest rates, growing general debt levels and the effects of any potential international trade wars all lie ahead.

Graph 1: Cement production in Brazil, 2017 - 2024. Production estimated for 2024 based on National Cement Industry Union (SNIC) preliminary data on sales. Source: SNIC.

Based on preliminary SNIC data from December 2024, the country likely had its best year in 2024 since the market peaked in the mid-2010s. Cement sales were reported to have risen by 3.9% to 64.7Mt in 2024. Consumption was 73Mt. An estimate of production based on the same rate of growth suggests that cement production may have grown to 69Mt in 2024 from 66.5Mt in 2023.

The three main cement companies - Votorantim Cimentos, InterCement and CSN - each reported domestic earnings growth in 2024. In Votorantim’s case net revenue in Brazil was flat in 2024 at US$1.39bn but its adjusted earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) increased by 4% year-on-year to US$390m supported by higher prices, volumes and lower costs. InterCement has been in a debt resolution process since December 2024, which will be discussed below. Its sales volumes of cement were flat at 8.6Mt and sales revenue fell by 6.6% to US$557m. Yet, adjusted EBITDA rose by 10.2% to US$135m. CSN’s sales volumes of cement increased by 5.9% to 13.5Mt and its cement business sales revenue by 5.7% to US$810m. However, its adjusted EBITDA zoomed ahead by 39.5% to US$231m. The group attributed its higher sales volumes of cement to its strategy of focusing on logistics and distribution centres to target new markets, build market share and boost synergies.

As covered by Global Cement Weekly previously, InterCement has been trying to sell assets since at least the early 2010s. High debt levels have been a problem more recently and the company entered into judicial recovery, a court-led debt recovery process, in December 2024. How this process plays out should inform the nature of any subsequent divestment of assets. InterCement attempted to sell its subsidiary in Argentina, Loma Nega, to CSN in 2024. Unfortunately, this reportedly failed due to the appreciation of Loma Negra and due to disagreements between bondholders and shareholders of parent company Mover, according to the Valor Econômico newspaper. At home in Brazil, Buzzi, CSN, Huaxin Cement, Polimix, Vicat and Votorantim have all been linked to a potential sale of InterCement assets in a piecemeal fashion. Votorantim, in particular, is expected to face opposition from the local competition regulator CADE if it attempted to buy all of InterCement’s cement plants.

It’s positive to see the cement industry in Brazil starting to reach the sales levels last recorded in 2014. SNIC, understandably, isn't taking anything for granted. It’s warned of more modest growth in 2025, compared to the strong opening quarter, with levels forecast to be somewhere between 1 - 1.5%. It says that this will depend on the “evolution of the economy, monetary policy and investments in infrastructure and housing.” It has also warned of “uncertainties arising from the US.” The other big ‘if’ is whether InterCement can actually start selling cement plants in 2025. Time will tell.

President Trump said he was going to do it… and he did. The US announced tariffs on most imports on 2 April 2025 that took effect from 5 April 2025. So, once again, we ask what the consequences of this might be upon the cement sector.

Table 1: Estimated burden of US tariffs on selected countries importing cement based on 2024 data. Source: Based on USGS data.

Global Cement Magazine Editorial Director Robert McCaffrey posted a similar table to the one above on LinkedIn on 4 April 2025. It applies the new import tariffs to the value of imported hydraulic cement and clinker to the US in 2024 as reported by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). As such it gives us a starting idea of how the new tariffs might change what happens in 2025. For an idea of the volumes of cement imported to the US in recent years refer to the graph in GCW695.

However, a couple of key caveats were pointed out by commentators to that LinkedIn post. Marty Ozinga noted that the values from the USGS are customs values. Crucially, he said that the tariffs will be charged upon the FOB value of cement at the point of origin and not on the transport costs. This is significant because the cost of moving the cement can sometimes be more than half the total values reported in the table for certain countries. Another commentator wanted to make it clear that tariffs on imports are imposed upon the supply chain and are paid somewhere along it, typically by end users, rather than the originating country. Elsewhere, the feeling was very much one of waiting to see what would happen next and how markets would reorder.

Taken at face value, the first takeaway from Table 1 is that the variable tariffs disrupt the competitiveness of the importers. Any importer from a country with the lowest rate, 10%, now has an advantage over those with higher ones. Türkiye seems to be the obvious winner here as it was both the largest importer of cement in 2024 and it has the lowest rate. Vietnam appears to be a loser with a massive 46% rate. Canada and Mexico may have problems with a 25% tariff but how their cement gets to the US market may make a big difference as Ozinga mentions above. And so it goes down the list. What may be significant is how the order of the importers further down the list changes. For example, Algeria has a 30% rate compared to Egypt’s 10%. Both nations exported a similar volume of cement to the US in 2024.

The first casualty of the last week has been market certainty. The US announced the tariffs and stock markets slumped around the world. They started to revive on 8 April 2025 as the US government made more reassuring noises about trade talks but this was dampened by renewed fears of a US - China trade war. The orthodox economic view is that the US tariffs are increasingly likely to cause a recession in the US in the short term regardless of whether they have a more positive effect on the longer one. This view can be detected in former PCA economist Ed Sullivan’s latest independent report on the US economy. He acknowledged the fairness argument the US government has made, but warned of stagflation.

On the US construction market, prices look set to rise in areas that previously relied on imports or are near to them. Cement companies in the US should be able to sell higher volumes as some level of domestic production outcompetes imports. The sector produced 86Mt in 2024 and has a capacity of 120Mt/yr giving it a utilisation rate of 72%. It imported 20 - 25Mt of cement in 2024. One sign of this happening might be renewed investment in local capacity through upgrades, new lines and even new plants. However, a recession would reduce overall consumption. On the equipment side, there is likely to be a similar readjustment between local and foreign suppliers. Certainly, if the tariffs stick around then more non-US companies may be tempted to set up local subsidiaries and /or manufacturing bases if conditions permit. For example, note JCB’s doubling in size this week of a plant it is building in Texas. One interesting situation might occur if a US cement company wants to build a new production line. All the likely suppliers, at present at least, appear to be based outside of the US.

Finally, despite everything, Holcim declared this week that it had completed a $3.4bn bond offering ahead of the impending spin-off of Amrize in the US noting “strong investor interest in the future company.” It wants to shore-up confidence ahead of the creation of the new company at some point in the first half of the year. Holcim’s CEO said previously that he didn’t expect any blowback from tariffs as the company was a local business in the US. What may be worth watching for is whether the current disruption to stock markets causes any delays to the creation of Amrize.

The current situation with the tariffs is prompting a rapid-revaluation of the US construction market and the wider economy. US-based building materials companies look set to benefit but there may be disruption along the way. Foreign companies supplying the sector may well experience sharp changes in circumstances depending on how tariffs reorder supply chains. Prices for end-users look set to rise. We live in interesting times.

For Ed Sullivan’s take on the US cement sector read his article in the May 2025 issue of Global Cement Magazine

Boral announced this week that it had secured around US$15m from the Australian government towards decarbonisation upgrades at its Berrima cement plant in New South Wales. The funding will go towards the company’s own investment in a kiln feed optimisation project. A new specialised grinding circuit and supporting infrastructure at the site is intended to increase the proportion of alternative raw materials (ARM) from 9% to 23% to decrease the amount of limestone the kiln uses. The use of more ARMs should also enable the unit to reduce its energy intensity. Boral plans to use ARMs including granulated blast furnace slag, steel slag, cement fibre board, fly ash and fine aggregates from recycled concrete. Commissioning and full operation of the changes are scheduled for 2028.

The Berrima plant officially opened its last set of changes, including a chlorine bypass unit, in December 2024. This was done to allow the plant to reach a thermal substitution rate (TSR) of 60% by the end of 2027. At the end of 2024 the company said it had a TSR of 30% having risen by 20% from 2023. Another similar decarbonisation project at the plant is a carbon capture and storage demonstration pilot trial involving the recarbonation of construction and demolition waste.

Parent company SGH said in its annual report for 2024 that Boral was continuing to advocate for a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) to prevent carbon leakage and that it had taken part in the ongoing government review on the issue. This lobbying was visible earlier in March 2025 when the Cement Industry Federation (CIF) publicly addressed the government on the issue ahead of its next budget. It asked that carbon leakage be addressed in the form of an import tax to protect the local cement and lime sector. Cement and lime imports from Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam and Japan are particularly seen as an issue. The government review into carbon leakage started in 2023 and is due to report back at some point in 2025, most likely after the parliamentary election in May 2025.

Another big sector news story to note is the ongoing acquisition of the cementitious division of the Buckeridge Group of Companies (BGC) by Cement Australia that was revealed in December 2024. Unsurprisingly, the European Commission (EC) approved the deal in late March 2025. Cement Australia’s parent companies Holcim and Heidelberg Materials are headquartered in Europe, but the EC concluded that the planned transaction was unlikely to dampen competition in Europe. The verdict of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is likely to be far more telling. It closed taking submissions on the proposed deal in late February 2025 and plans to release an update in May 2025.

The ACCC’s market inquiries letter reported that Cement Australia wants to run BCG Cement. However, under the acquisition proposal, BGC Quarries and BGC Asphalt will be acquired and operated by a new 50:50 joint venture between Holcim and Heidelberg Materials, which will operate as a production joint venture in respect of aggregates. Holcim and Heidelberg Materials have suggested taking four ready-mixed concrete (RMC) plants each in the greater Perth area. Finally, one RMC plant at Wangara could be divested due to the close proximity of existing plants run by Holcim and Heidelberg Materials. Whether this is what actually happens remains to be seen.

Finally, Holcim flagged-up Australia this week as one of the regions it intends to derive ‘profitable growth’ from after the planned spin-off of the US business. This approach is in line with the hunt by the big building materials companies for new growth markets as the cost of merger and acquisition activity in the US has risen. CRH, for example, bought a majority stake in AdBri in mid-2024. Further merger and acquisition activity in the cement sector in Australia seems less likely given its relative small size. Yet the higher economic growth forecast for the country compared to Europe is likely to keep multinationals interested.

The Pacific Cement Corporation (PACEMCO) held a groundbreaking ceremony this week officially ‘reopening’ its cement plant in Surigao City. The revival of the plant has been supported by investments by San Miguel Corporation (SMC). Various dignitaries attended the event including John Paul Ang, the chief operating officer of SMC, the mayor of Surigao City mayor and the governor of Surigao del Norte.

The plant has been closed since 2014 due to financial problems. At the time, Global Cement reported that the cement plant stopped operations in May 2014 after the Surigao del Norte Electric Cooperative cut its power supply for unsettled debts worth at least US$0.5m. PACEMCO was originally set up in 1967 and the plant had a production capacity of 0.22Mt/yr via one production line in 2014.

Earlier in March 2025 the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) was keen to highlight the efforts that Taiheiyo Cement Philippines (TCP) is making towards supporting the country's infrastructure capacity. Company executives met with the DTI and revealed plans including building a distribution terminal in Calaca, Batangas with the aim of targeting the Luzon market. This follows the construction of a new US$220m production line at TCP’s San Fernando plant in Cebu in July 2024.

Both announcements follow the implementation in late February 2025 of a provisional tariff on cement imports. The DTI started investigating imports in the autumn of 2024 and later decided to initiate a ‘preliminary safeguard measure’ following the discovery of a “causal link between the increased imports of the products under consideration and serious injury to the domestic industry.” The tariff takes the form of a cash bond of US$6.95/t or US$0.28/40kg bag of cement. It will be in place for 200 days, to mid-September 2025, while the Philippine Tariff Commission conducts a final investigation. The two main countries that will be affected are Vietnam and Japan. A large number of countries are exempt from the tariff including, notably, China and Indonesia. Both of these two countries were larger sources of imports to the Philippines during the five-year period the DTI is investigating. However, imports from these places have declined since 2021 and 2023 respectively.

Graph 1: Import of cement to the Philippines, 2019 - 2024. Source: Department of Trade and Industry.

A preliminary report by the DTI published in late February 2025 outlines the reasons for the provisional tariff. In summary it found that imports rose from 2019 and 2024 and the share of imports increased also pushing down the domestic share of sales. In the view of the report, the domestic cement sector experienced declining sales, production, capacity utilisation, profitability and employment for each year apart from 2021. One point to note is that the imports were split roughly 50:50 between local and foreign companies. Local company Philcement, for example, was the largest importer for cement to the Philippines from 2019 to 2024. In its statement to the DTI it said that it had invested in manufacturing the processing sites in the country. It argued that overprotection of the market discouraged competition and might not be aligned with the economic goals of the country.

Last time Global Cement Weekly covered the Philippines (GCW669) in July 2024 it looked likely that the government would take further action on imports. This has now happened on a temporary basis but it looks likely that it will become permanent. Recent investment announcements from local producers such as PACEMCO and TCP may be coincidental but they suggest a tentative confidence in the local sector.

UBE Mitsubishi Cement recently released an update on its commercial scale demonstration using ammonia as a fuel at its Ube plant. It is currently testing the use of ammonia in both the cement kiln and calciner at the site. It has set the aim of reaching a 30% coal substitution rate with ammonia in the cement kiln by the end of March 2025. It has described the project as a world first. Planned future work includes running ammonia combustion tests alongside post-consumer plastics.

The company announced the three-year project in mid-2023. Utilities company Chubu Electric Power has been working on it and UBE Corporation has been supplying the ammonia for the test. The scheme dates back to before Mitsubishi Materials and Ube Industries merged their cement businesses in 2022. Ube Industries previously took part in a government research project looking at the topic, running combustion tests and numerical analysis in small industrial furnaces.

Another ammonia research project in the cement sector was revealed in 2024 by Heidelberg Materials in the UK. The company was awarded just under €0.40m in funding by Innovate UK through its UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) fund, together with engineering consultants Stopford and Cranfield University. The 12-month feasibility study aimed to assess the use of ammonia as a hydrogen carrier and evaluate the most economical method of on-site ammonia cracking to generate hydrogen for use by clinker kilns. It also intended to investigate the various tiers of the UK's existing ammonia supply chain network for the suitable transportation, offloading and storage of ammonia.

The UK project explained that it was looking at ammonia as a hydrogen carrier due to its high volumetric energy density. This, potentially, makes ammonia easier and cheaper to store and transport than hydrogen. It pointed out that storing and transporting hydrogen is difficult and the chemical is expensive. It also noted that the volumetric energy density of ammonia is 45% higher than that of liquid hydrogen. The benefit of switching to a zero-carbon fuel was that it could cut CO₂ emissions by the cement and concrete sector in the UK by 16%.

The attraction of ammonia to the cement industry is similar to that of hydrogen. Both are versatile chemicals that can be produced and used in a variety of ways. The production processes and supply chains of both chemicals are linked. The Haber–Bosch process, for example, uses hydrogen to manufacture ammonia. It can also be cracked to release the hydrogen. When used as fuels neither release CO₂ emissions directly. This comes down to the method of production. Like hydrogen, there is a similar informal colour scheme indicating carbon intensity (Grey, Blue, Green and Turquoise). Despite the advantages listed above, the disadvantages of using ammonia include toxicity and NO_x emissions, as well as the fact that there is little experience of using ammonia as a fuel. The worldwide ammonia market was bigger by volume in 2023 with production of just under 200Mt compared to hydrogen production of just under 100Mt.

Back in Japan, the national government has been promoting the use of ammonia technology for the power generation sector. It added ammonia to the country’s national energy plan in the early 2020s following research on running power plants with a mixture of ammonia and coal. The ambition is to build up levels of ammonia co-firing at power plants, develop the necessary technology and grow supply chains. This, it is hoped, will broaden, diversify and decarbonise the domestic energy mix and pull together a new international market too. Unfortunately, this strategy has had criticism. One study by BloombergNEF in 2022 estimated, for example, that the electricity cost of Japan-based power stations switching to firing ammonia by 2050 would be more expensive than generation from renewables such as solar or wind.

This explains why the ammonia project by UBE Mitsubishi Cement is leading the way. The interest by a European cement company shows that others are thinking the same way too. Yet again, the potential decarbonisation solution for cement is likely to lead towards more complex industrial supply chains. The next steps to watch will be whether a cement plant in Japan actually starts to co-fire ammonia on a regular basis and if any more ammonia projects pop up elsewhere around the world.