Analysis

The Queensland state government in Australia took a blunt approach to health and safety earlier this month when a report it commissioned said that it expected 12 deaths to occur in the mines and quarries sector over the next five years unless changes were made. This is far removed from the usual news stories that industry magazines like Global Cement and others cover. Typically, these are either plants or companies reaching Lost Time Injury (LTI) milestones or sad (but thankfully rare) reports of death.

The forecast in Queensland was based on a review of fatalities in the sector that the state commissioned from Sean Brady, Department of Natural Resource, Mines and Energy, looking at the years 2000 to 2019. Year-by-year the figures were significantly lower than those occurring in the 1900 to 2000 period but didn’t appear to have any discernable pattern. However, when presented as a 12-month rolling sum of fatalities, a two to three year cycle seemed to occur. Brady then went on to look at how the fatalities happened, how the industry behaved and reacted and what could be done to improve the situation. His recommendations included looking more deeply at the causes of seemingly unrelated accidents and then changing overall organisational behaviour and insight through methods such as adopting principles of High Reliability Organisational theory, simplifying the reporting system and changing the standard safety indicators like LTI.

That last point is interesting given the prevalence of LTI indicators on corporate sustainability reports in the cement industry. The point that Brady cites here is that LTI can become a measure of how well injuries are managed, not how safely an organisation is performing. For example, the definition of what an injury is can be manipulated, leading to distortion, as can workers being brought back to work before they recover or into lighter duties. Instead he recommends that ‘serious accidents’ be used in place of LTI. These are defined as incidents that result in a fatality or incidents where an individual requires admission to hospital for treatment of an injury. The preference here is based on so-called ‘serious accidents’ being unambiguous and transparent because they are defined by a third-party medical practitioner.

Wider critiques of health and safety measurements have identified under-reporting of incidents arising from safety incentive programmes, safety culture, employee perceptions of reporting and workplace bullying. This isn’t to say that the LTI measure is not fit for purpose. It has undoubtedly led to higher safety conditions around the world, with reduced injury and mortality from working conditions, and it allows for comparisons between organisations. Yet, any health and safety metric or indicator could be liable to bias or manipulation either unconsciously or consciously. Serious accidents, for example, could be potentially undermined by an organisation having its own medical centre and would also suffer from different health care systems in different locations. Throw in different legislative frameworks around the world and comparing countries can also start to become confusing.

This tension between data and real-life safety is acknowledged by the Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA) in its sustainability guidance from late 2018. It distinguishes between so-called ‘lagging’ indicators, like LTI and fatalities, which show the effectiveness of a safety programme after the fact and the importance of continual safety improvement plans that aim to prevent adverse events before they happen. It is easy to become lost in a dust storm of facts and figures on health and safety but, as the Queensland authorities and the GCCA agree, measuring health and safety is a means to an end. The aim is zero harm to everyone involved.

There was fantastic news for fans of novel cements this week, when Cementos Argos announced the completion of work on a new 0.45Mt/yr calcined clay production line at its Rio Claro plant in Colombia. This artificial pozzolanic material, developed and promoted by the Swiss-led LC3 consortium in recent years, can dramatically lower cement CO₂ emissions by replacing slag and/or fly ash in cement mixes. The Rio Claro plant is the first major cement plant to install such a line following smaller trials in Switzerland, India and Cuba.

Suitable clays are more widely available than slag and fly ash, alleviating some of the difficulty and cost of obtaining supplementary cementitious materials. They also need to be calcined at just 800°C, offering massive savings in terms of fuel costs, CO₂ emissions and embodied energy compared to Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) production. Karen Scrivener from the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), the leading academic party in the LC3 consortium, explained that calcined clays are at their best when in ternary (three-way) blends alongside clinker and limestone in the September 2019 issue of Global Cement Magazine. “It has long been known that calcined clays can be pozzolanic,” she explained. “When used alone, the maximum substitution level is around 30%, which gives a moderate saving in CO₂ emissions. However, if we substitute a further 15% of the clinker with limestone, we get a significant reduction in CO₂ emissions, with a product that has almost identical properties to the blend that contains just the calcined clay.”

While the exact composition of Rio Claro’s new products is unclear, it will enable Cementos Argos to produce ternary cement blends with CO₂ emissions 38% lower than OPC. Energy consumption is also cut by 30%, which provides secondary benefits in terms of reduced off-site CO₂ emissions. At the plant’s launch, Cementos Argos’ President Juan Esteban Calle clearly stated that calcined clays were the way forward, announcing, “With this project we are sowing the seeds of the Argos of the future. It starts today with a new production line at Rio Claro. In our commitment to climate change, this project makes us very proud.”

The response from Argos’ consumers will be keenly watched, especially in Europe. Just this week LafargeHolcim and Vicat, along with France’s Technical Association of the Hydraulic Binders Industry (ATILH), called on the European Commission and European Committee for Standardisation to hurry up and publish ternary cement standards across the European Union (EU). At the moment these producers are primarily concerned with CEMII / C-M and CEM VI cements. These classes of cement comprise a range of ternary blends that contain clinker and limestone, plus a third component, be it slag, fly ash, natural pozzolans or calcined clay. They claim that placing low-clinker cements on the market could reduce the amount of CO₂ emitted by 127kg/t, around 20% of the 656kg/t average in Europe at present.

Frustrated with the delays at Commission level, cement producers have now taken things into their own hands. The plan is to establish the same standard within each EU Member State at the national level, rather than waiting in vain for standards from ‘on high.’ One pressing driver for this behaviour is the rapid approach of the Phase 4 of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) in January 2021. In Phase 4 it is likely that EU cement producers will be allocated only 80% of the free allowances they have become accustomed to. They will have to buy the remainder at market prices, currently Euro25.1/t of CO₂ (17 February 2020). This will represent a massive new expense for some producers. The opportunity to sell cement that emits only 58% of the CO₂ of OPC is clearly exceedingly attractive as a way to reduce outgoings. CO₂ emissions will be reduced, of course but, as usual, the way to make companies do things is to hit them in the wallet.

Indeed, on this point, Vicat seemed to almost goad or ‘troll’ its competitors in Europe this week by announcing that it has never sold any EU ETS allowances and is sitting atop a 5Mt CO₂ reserve worth Euro120m. This is sufficient to last it until 2030 at current prices. The key part of that last sentence is ‘current prices,’ which are subject to change. In its press release, Vicat was keen to point out that it is not resting on its laurels, highlighted by its advocacy for ternary blends and continued development of alternative fuels. This may be wise, considering that EU ETS allowances will likely cost more once Phase 4 kicks in.

With clinker factors of just 50 - 65% for CEMII / C-M, and 35 - 50% for CEM VI, Edelio Bermejo, director of research and development (R&D) at LafargeHolcim insists, "These cements are no longer at the research and development stage. They have been widely validated and we are ready to produce them, especially as their manufacture does not require modification of our facilities." The establishment of Cementos Argos’ Rio Claro calcined clay plant proves his point. We can expect to hear a lot more about these blends in the coming months. In the words of Bermejo, “The future is here!”

Nirma Group won the auction for Emami Cement this week with an US$770m offer. The deal is subject to approval by the Competition Commission of India but it signals further consolidation for the Indian cement industry. It sets Nirma Group and its subsidiary Nuvoco Vistas in a strong position in Central, North and East regions of the country, if authorities agree to it.

Sometimes the press releases connected to corporate acquisitions can be accused of hyperbole but Nuvoco’s chairman Hiren Patel may be proved closer to reality than some when he said, “This acquisition is a momentous and transformational step in Nuvoco’s journey to becoming a major building materials company in India.” This is because Emami Cement operates one integrated cement plant in Risdah, Chhattisgarh and grinding units in Bihar, West Bengal and Odisha with a total installed capacity of 8.3Mt/yr. It also holds mining leases in Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh. Nuvoco Vistas runs four integrated plants in Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan and three grinding plants in West Bengal, Jharkhand and Haryana with a total installed capacity of around 15.2Mt/yr.

Put all of this together and Nuvoco Vistas has a capacity of 23.5Mt/yr. This may not make it a leader nationally, where it faces the likes of UltraTech Cement’s capacity of just under 110Mt/yr. Yet it does make the producer a serious player regionally in Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan. Backing this up are five grinding plants in East India. Hence, Hiren Patel might not be exaggerating all that much.

It’s difficult to ascertain the valuation of this deal given the mixture of integrated and grinding capacity that was on sale. Altogether, for its total of US$770m, Nirma Group has agreed to pay around US$93/t. Like any deal there must have been some haggling going on given that the projected price for Emami Cement drifted downwards as the auction went on. Emami Cement’s owners reportedly valued the company at around US$1.2bn before the auction and were subsequently said to be looking for US$1bn. Later, local media said that UltraTech Cement was likely to submit an offer around US$0.94bn.

In the wider context of the Indian cement industry, the picture looks similar to when this column looked at the country as a whole in December 2019. Since then the November 2019 production figures have been released showing that cement production grew in the first 11 months of 2019, to 308Mt, but at a far slower rate than in 2018. A growth in production in November 2019 also broke a downward trend since August 2019. Adding to this growing sense of optimism, analysts ICRA were forecasting increasing profitability for cement producers in the 2020 financial year due to ‘benign’ input costs. If correct then Nirma Group will have picked a good time to expand.

There have been rumours in the press this week that LafargeHolcim is weighing up its options in South Africa. Reports in the local press allege that the building materials company has tasked Credit Suisse Group with finding a buyer for its business. This may or may not be true, only time will tell, but South Africa certainly feels like a market where LafargeHolcim should be considering its future.

As a prominent but smaller producer in the country, Lafarge South Africa is behind PPC and AfriSam in terms of clinker production capacity. InterCement’s subsidiary Natal Portland Cement and Dangote’s subsidiary Sephaku Cement have a similar production base with an integrated plant each and one or two grinding plants. Halfway through 2019 LafargeHolcim was describing market conditions as ‘difficult’ in the country with it being the sole Sub-Saharan market holding back regional growth for the group. By the third quarter the situation had reportedly improved but net sales and cement sales volumes were flat for the year to date. A clearer picture should emerge when LafargeHolcim publishes its fourth quarter results at the end of February 2020.

PPC provided its view of the market in its half-year results to 30 September 2019. Its estimate was that the South African cement industry declined by 10 - 15% for the period, creating a competitive environment. It added that the situation had been, ‘exacerbated by imports and blender activity.’ Both its revenue and earnings fell year-on-year, although a 30% rise in fuel costs didn’t help either. Sephaku Cement suffered a similar time of it, with a 19% fall in cement sales volumes during the first half, although it reported improvement in the subsequent quarter. Overall, it blamed falling infrastructure investment for pressurising the market and allowing blending activity to mount. Sephaku Cement was also wary of the local carbon tax that started in June 2019 warning of a potential US$2.8m/yr bill.

PPC noted that cement imports had risen by 5% to 0.85Mt in the year to August 2019. This followed a lobbying effort by The Concrete Institute (TCI) in mid-2019 to implore the International Trade Administration Commission (ITAC) to look into rising imports levels. At the time the TCI’s managing director Brian Perrie expressed incomprehension that a country with six different cement production companies with an over-capacity rate of 30% could be facing this problem. This latest broadside tails South Africa’s previous attempt to fend off imports when it instituted anti-dumping duties of 17 – 70% against importers from Pakistan in 2015. Imports duly fell in 2016 but rose again in 2017 and 2018, mainly from Vietnam and China.

All of this sounds familiar following LafargeHolcim’s departure from the ‘hyper-competitive’ South-East Asian countries in 2019. Those countries also suffered from competition and raging imports. Bloomberg pointed out in a report on the local industry in 2016 that PPC’s, AfriSam’s and LafargeHolcim’s kilns had an average age of 32 years, suggesting that efficiency and maintenance were going to be concerns in the future. Also of note is LargeHolcim’s decision to move its South African operations from one subsidiary, Lafarge Africa, to another, Caricement, in mid-2019.

Some level of market consolidation would certainly help local overcapacity. Plus, surely, LafargeHolcim’s mix of inland integrated capacity and a grinding plant near the coast could prove enticing to some of the Asian companies pumping out all of those imports. The thought on the minds of potential buyers everywhere must be, if LafargeHolcim chief Jan Jenisch was bold enough to sell up in South-East Asia, how can he not in South Africa?!”

If you needed a sign that the cement industry has become serious about carbon capture it was the presence of two organisations offering CO₂ transport and storage capacity in northern Europe at last week’s Innovation in Industrial Carbon Capture Conference 2020 (IICCC). Both Norway’s Northern Lights and the Rotterdam CCUS (Project Porthos) were busy at their stands during the event’s exhibition. Meanwhile, Cembureau, the European Cement Association, said that it will work on finding other potential storage sites for CO₂ and on identifying existing gas pipelines that could be converted. The industry is planning what to do about CO₂ transport and storage.

As with the previous IICCC event in 2018 the heart of the programme was the Low Emissions Intensity Lime And Cement (LEILAC) project. Since then Calix’s 60m tall pilot Direct Separation Calciner unit has been built at the HeidelbergCement cement plant in Lixhe and has been tested since mid-2019. Early results look promising, with CO₂ separation occurring, calcined material produced and the tube structure and mechanical expansion holding up. Problems with thermocouples failing, blockages and recarbonation at the base of the tube have been encountered but these are being tackled in the de-bottlenecking phase. Testing will continue well into 2020 and plans for the next demonstration project at another cement plant in Europe are already moving ahead. LEILAC 2 will see industry partners Cimpor, Lhoist, Port of Rotterdam and IKN join Calix, HeidelbergCement and other research partners to work together on a larger 0.1Mt/yr CO₂ separation pilot scheduled for completion in 2025.

Alongside this HeidelbergCement presented a convincing vision of a carbon neutral future for the cement industry at the IICCC 2020. It may not be what actually happens but the building materials producer has a clear plan across the lifecycle chain of cement. It is researching and testing a variety of methods to capture CO₂ process emissions, is looking at supply chains and storage sites for the CO₂ and is working on recycling concrete as aggregates and cementations material via recarbonation. In terms of carbon capture technology, an amine-based industrial scale CCS unit looks likely to be built at Norcem’s Brevik plant in the early 2020s. HeidelbergCement’s other joint-research projects – direct separation and oxyfuel – are further behind, at the pilot and pre-pilot stages respectively. Each technology looks set to offer progressively better and cheaper CO₂ capture as they come on line.

Or put another way, cement companies in Europe could build industrial scale amine-based carbon (CC) capture plants now. Yet the game appears to be to wait until the cost of CCS falls through new technology versus the rising emissions trading scheme (ETS) price of CO₂. CC is expected to become economically feasible in a decade’s time, sometime in the 2030s. At which point there might be an upgrade boom as plants are retrofitted with CC units or new production lines are commissioned. Other ways of reducing the cement industry’s CO₂ emissions, of course, are being explored by other companies such as further reducing the clinker factor through the use of calcined clays (LC3 and others), solar reactor or electric-powered kilns and more.

The usual problem of how the construction industry can cope with a higher cost of cement was acknowledged at IICCC 2020 but it is largely being worked around. Higher priced cement poses competitive issues for specifiers and construction companies but it is widely expected to result in price rises below 5% for most residential end users. In the short-term government policy such as requiring low carbon cement in state building projects could stimulate the market. The start of this process can be seen already with the use of slag cements in various infrastructure projects.

Hans Bergman, Head Unit ETS Policy Development at the Directorate-General for Climate Action (DG Clima) partly addressed the cost issue by talking about the EU Green Deal. The EU wants to meet its new targets but it also wants to let gross domestic product (GDP) rise whilst greenhouse emissions fall. The EU ETS is its principle vehicle for this but the commission is wary of changes, such as making modifications linked to CCS, in case it undermines the system. Discussions are ongoing as the work on the Green Deal continues.

IICCC was a wider forum beyond just what LEILAC is up to. To this extent the CC projects involve multiple partners, including those from other cement companies like Cemex and Tarmac (CRH) in LEILAC and Dyckerhoff (Buzzi Unicem), Schwenk Zement and Vicat in the oxyfuel project. The decarbonisation fair included representatives from Vicat’s FastCarb project and Polimi’s Cleanker. Speakers from the European Climate Foundation, Acatech, INEA, TCM, SINTEF and Lhoist were also present.

During one speaker discussion Calix was described as the 'Tesla' of industrial CC by one speaker, who said that, “…there is a genuine competitive opportunity for those bold enough to grasp it.” Calix’s managing director Phil Hodgson enjoyed the accolade but the point was that leading innovation or setting the agenda offers advantages. In the case of industrial CC for the cement industry, change feels a step closer.