Analysis

There were two main takeaways from the Global Future Cement Conference that took place in Brussels last week. Firstly, there are not any obvious alternatives to using cement and concrete. Secondly, serious at-scale commercial investment on capturing CO₂ process emissions from clinker production is still waiting for the right economic conditions.

Graph 1: Embodied energy versus embodied CO₂ of building materials. Source: Hammond & Jones, University of Bath, UK.

Although the conference was heavily focused on Europe, the graph above explains why the cement and concrete industries are sitting pretty right now in the face of mounting environmental activism. The sector may be responsible for 5 - 10% of annual CO₂ emissions but, put bluntly, there is simply no alternative. As Karen Scrivner from the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) explained during her presentation, concrete uses some of the most abundant minerals present on earth, notably silicon and calcium. Alternative chemistries are simply not backed up by available materials. The cement and concrete associations have strongly promoted the unique position by focusing on the whole lifecycle of building materials.

The energy and emissions research needs to be scrutinised much more closely but, if it’s correct, there is no way to maintain modern standards of living without concrete. And, judging from the response by the French public to a badly handled meagre carbon tax on diesel by the so-called Yellow Vest movement, whacking up the price of housing or infrastructure might go down badly, especially in developing countries.

Two immediate ‘outs’ presents themselves. Cement doesn't necessarily have to be made from clinker as Robert McCaffrey’s presentation reinforced (also given at the IEEE/IAS-PCA Cement Conference this year). Future research may find alternatives to clinker and wipe out the cement business in the process. Also, the graph above is based on per kilogramme amounts of each building material. It doesn’t indicate how much of each material is required to build things. Even if clinker-based building materials are irreplaceable, there is no reason why their market share might not decrease. This could have large consequences in a market already burdened by over-capacity.

Graph 2: Comparison of cost of carbon capture technology for the cement industry. Source: European Cement Research Academy (ECRA).

Solid research into carbon capture technology is proceeding apace, from the LEILAC project at HeidelbergCement’s Lixhe plant, to oxyfuel kiln development and other methods, as Jan Theulen from HeidelbergCement demonstrated in his presentation. Off-the-shelf technologies from other industries also exist ready to be used. Today, for example, Inventys has announced plans to test its own CO₂ capture technology with Lafarge Canada. Yet there are no commercial-scale installations in Europe. most likely due to the price burden it would place on the end product.

With the European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) entering its fourth phase and the carbon price holding above Euro20/t the question is: when will the serious investment begin in Europe? Notably, more than a few major European cement equipment manufacturers attended the Global Future Cement Conference, yet none are offering mature products to capture CO₂ emissions. Most or all have projects up their sleeves ready to be developed and sold but orders aren’t being received. The carbon price in Europe is the problem here. If it's too low then nothing happens outside of government subsidy. Too high and cement plants start being shut down because they become too expensive to run. To be fair to the cement sector other carbon emission mitigation strategies are being employed from alternative fuels usage to lowering the clinker factor and other methods but the endgame is based on reducing process emissions.

The challenge for the cement and concrete industry is to show legislators that their materials are essential and irreplaceable. They are doing this. The legislators then need to concoct ways of encouraging mass scale rollout of carbon emissions abatement technology without destroying the cement industry. This is far from certain right now. If nothing else it’s in governments’ interest to get this right because, as the Yellow Vest protests show, if they get it wrong their voters become angry. All of this is happening against the clock as CCU/S is required to get the cement industry past the 2050 2°C maximum warming target set by the Paris Agreement. In the meantime the cement industry is essentially in a holding position on the more far-reaching aspects of CO₂ emissions mitigation. Its products are likely irreplaceable but its carbon capture technology has to be encouraged by governments. This means that, for most cement producers, waiting to see what happens next is the way forward.

The 3rd Future Cement Conference and Exhibition is scheduled to take place in Vienna, Austria in 2021

Today is the first day of the Global FutureCem Conference taking place in Brussels, Belgium. The event is looking at how the cement industry can adapt to a low or zero carbon world. Although Global Cement is organising the event, it is clearly topical as two news stories this week demonstrate.

Firstly, the chief executive officers (CEO) from 13 US companies, including LarfargeHolcim, announced that they were lobbying the US government to enact business-led climate change legislation. The initiative, known as the CEO Climate Dialogue, included principles such as ‘significantly’ reducing US greenhouse gas emissions. This is shocking because, at face value, large-scale CO₂ emitters like LafargeHolcim have the most to lose from more rigorous environmental regulations. What do they have to gain from doing this? This is like turkeys voting for Christmas!

Interpretations of why LafargeHolcim and others might want to do this could go in a few directions. Firstly, the intention might be fully plausible. These companies could genuinely want to combat climate change. Secondly, more cynically perhaps, leading demands for legislation puts the lobbyists in the room when change is actually made. Given the integral nature of concrete in modern construction this is not necessarily a bad thing. Environmentalists may want to ban building materials that create CO₂ emissions but, until they can offer an alternative or convince people to accept reduced quality of life, then cement is the material of choice. Thirdly, leading change allows one to stay ahead of it or at least give the sector more time to react to it. The ‘turkeys’ may not want to vote for ‘Christmas,’ but perhaps ‘Christmas’ could be replaced with something else?

This latest initiative by the CEOs in the US has parallels with the creation of the Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA) in 2018. Like the current moves in the US, cement producers led the creation of the GCCA, to promote concrete as the sustainable building material of choice.

Meanwhile, Germany’s HeidelbergCement also announced this week that its CO₂ reduction targets to 2030 have been assessed against the Science Based Targets initiative’s (SBTi) criteria. Its SBTi target is to reduce scope 1 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 15% per ton of cementitious material by 2030 from a 2016 base year. HeidelbergCement has also committed to reduce scope 2 GHG emissions by 65% per ton of cementitious materials within the same timeframe. The SBTi target follows HeidelbergCement’s previous goal of a 30% reduction in its specific net CO₂ emissions by 2030 compared with 1990. It says it has achieved a reduction of 20% so far.

HeidelbergCement is a sustainability leader in the sector with various projects on the go including the Low Emissions Intensity Lime And Cement (LEILAC) consortium direct separation pilot project at the Lixhe cement plant in Belgium. Following SBTi is a continuation of this trend, albeit one that anchors it with a global consensus.

Coincidence perhaps but when the two largest non-Chinese cement producers start announcing sustainability stories like then the picture is changing. The questions at this point is how far will it go.

A full review of the 3rd Global FutureCem Conference will be published after the event. To find it and more information visit: http://www.globalcement.com/conferences/global-future-cement/introduction

Jan Jenisch and the team at LafargeHolcim only went and bloody did it! Apologies for readers not wanting yet more column inches on LafargeHolcim but when the world’s largest cement producer leaves an entire sub-continental market it deserves mention.

First Indonesia, then Malaysia and now the Philippines. LafargeHolcim will soon no longer produce clinker in Southeast Asia. That’s a region with 651 million inhabitants or around 8% of the world’s total population. All of those people need cement and other building products as their nations build houses, infrastructure and so on. And LafargeHolcim is no longer there.

The reason, of course, is local production overcapacity in many of these countries and rampageous importers pulling in cheaper product from elsewhere. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) includes Thailand and Vietnam, two of the world’s largest cement exporters. The region also borders China, the place which could produce 40% of the world’s cement if it so wanted. So, understandably, LafargeHolcim pulled the plug. Note that the recent divestments in the region didn’t include its seabourne trading wing, LafargeHolcim Trading. Oh no! Clearly, if you can’t beat them, you join them instead.

So, what to say about the Philippines sale? Unlike the divestments in Indonesia, this sale has valued the production base more highly. LafargeHolcim’s integrated production capacity, including the upgrade at its Bulacan plant, is being sold for over US$175/t with the partial share factored in. And that’s not even including the grinding plant at Mabini. The sale in Indonesia was US$120/t or lower. The Duterte administration’s infrastructure drive (Build, Build, Build) and muscular government action on imports have doubtless played their part here. Yet still LafargeHolcim sold. In the words of chief executive officer (CEO) Jan Jenisch the area was ‘hyper competitive.’

Back home at the group’s headquarters in Switzerland, the potential revenue of over US$4bn from the three ASEAN divestment is poised to trickle onto the balance sheets for 2019. If it were all to go towards debt reduction then these proceeds could pile drive the group’s net financial debt to below Euro10bn. This would be good place to be if the on-going Chinese-US trade tiffs became a little hotter, say, or in the case of a fresh banking crisis. Alternatively the group could pick a new region for development and start all over again or focus on diversifying its business along the building materials chain. And let’s not forget the potential legal bill from the on-going investigation into Lafarge Syria’s conduct during the Syrian civil war.

Throughout this whole exercise, from the outside looking in at LafargeHolcim’s actions, the thought has persistently been: what do they know that everyone else doesn’t? The answer, it may turn out to be, nothing. Yet, rightly or wrongly, we’re marvelling at the bravado of it all.

RHI Magnesita has taken the step this week of raising its prices globally by 5% for its products for its industrial and steel divisions. It has applied the increase to both its basic (magnesia and dolomite based) and non-basic products, varying in a range of 3% to 20%. It has blamed this on a global scarcity of raw materials caused mostly by Chinese environmental regulations on mining and processing. It goes on to attribute the issue to increased export taxes, more restrictive allocation of explosives and the nationalisation or controlled consolidation of mining operations in China. All of this has, “...structurally altered the production, pricing and dynamics for industrial minerals.”

Graph 1: Revenue in 2018 from industrial divisions at selected refractory producers. Source: Company reports.

Other major refractory producers, including Imerys and Vesuvius, reported similar mounting raw material costs in 2018. They also implemented price changes to maintain income and/or sales growth. As can partly be seen in Graph 1 some of the major refractory producers reported mixed fortunes in 2018 for their divisions that produce products for the cement industry.

RHI Magnesita noted that 2018 was a year of steady refractory market growth and relative stability for cement and lime from a global market perspective, with some significant variances on a regional basis. Imery’s Energy Solutions & Specialties division suffered due to flat markets. However, its High Resistance Materials division (not shown in Graph 1) benefited from the ongoing integration of Kerneos into the group. The group restructured its businesses at the end of 2018 creating a High Temperature Materials & Solution segment that brings together its various refractory concerns. Vesuvius' Steel Advanced Refractories division, which include monolithic products, reported particular growth in the Americas in 2018. Although it noted some market share loss in North Asia and in certain European countries, the latter due in price increases.

Refractories aren’t the only material or commodity used by the cement industry that has been distorted by Chinese domestic policy. Regulations on imports of waste streams including plastics started in 2017 leading to European and US suppliers struggling to find alternate markets. One implications of this appears to have been waste firms focusing on separating plastic into high and low calorific fractions to fight the downward price trends of a market glut. The outcomes are different but the sheer size and variety of China’s economy is increasingly affecting the cement industry in new and different ways.

RHI Magnesita’s travails in China and the debacle of waste imports bring to mind the quote by the 19th century Austrian diplomat Klemens von Metternic, ‘When Paris sneezes, Europe catches a cold.’ Metternic was referring to Napoleonic-era France and its aftermath. The modern version may have been used to reference the US but maybe it should be instead, ‘When China sneezes, the world catches a cold.’ Gesundheit.

One of the long running trends in the cement industry is that of production overcapacity. Sure enough more than a few news stories this week covered this, as various players reacted to international trade in clinker and cement. The Bangladesh Cement Manufacturers Association wants its government to cut import duties on clinker. Algeria’s shift from an importing cement nation to an exporting one continues.

Armenia and Afghanistan are coping with influxes of cement imports from neighbouring Iran. Pakistan’s cement exporters, who have been losing ground in Afghanistan, are once again lobbying to remove anti-dumping measures in South Africa. The argument between Hard Rock Cement and Arawak Cement in Barbados may have swung Hard Rock Cement’s way as the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has ruled in favour of lower tariffs for imports. Last week it was reported that the Rwanda Bureau of Standards had blocked cement imports from Uganda on quality requirement grounds.

The summarised version is that all this excess clinker and cement can cause arguments and market distortions as it finds new markets. Typically, the media reports upon the negative side of this, when the representatives of national industries defend their patch and speak out about ‘quality concerns,’ potential job losses and blows to the local economy. However, it isn’t always like this as the Afghan story shows this week. Here, although the Chamber of Commerce and Industries wants to promote locally produced cement, imports are welcome and the relative merits of different sources are discussed. Ditto the situation in Bangladesh where a predominantly grinding-based industry naturally wants to cut its raw material costs.

We’ve covered clinker and cement exports more than a few times, most recently in September 2018 when the jaw-dropping scale of Vietnam’s exports in 2018 started to become clear. Yet as the continued flow of news stores this week makes clear it’s a topic that never grows old.

Graph 1: Top cement exporting countries in 2018. Source: International Trade Centre.

Looking globally raises a number of issues. First, a warning. The data in Graph 1 comes from the International Trade Centre (ITC), a comprehensive source of trade statistics. Most of its figures are in line with data from government bodies and trade associations but its export figure is around a tenth of the estimated export figure for Iran of around 13Mt for its 2018 - 2019 year. Last time this column looked at exports similar issues were noted with a discrepancy between Vietnam’s exports from the ITC compared to government data.

Iran aside, all the usual suspects are present and correct. A point of interest here is that the list is a mixture of countries that make the headlines for their exports, like Vietnam, and those that are quietly just getting on with business. Japan for example exported 10.7Mt in 2018. More telling are the changes in exports from 2017 to 2018. Exports fell in Japan, China and Spain. They rose in Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, Pakistan and South Korea.

Looking globally, China is the elephant in the room in this topic given its apparent massive production overcapacity. The industry here is structurally unable to export cement on the scale of other countries but, as its major companies expand internationally, this may change. Despite this China still managed to be the third biggest exporter of cement to the US in 2018 at 2Mt and the fifth biggest in the world. Yet, as the ITC data shows, its exports fell by 30% year-on-year to 9Mt in 2018.

Vietnam, Pakistan and Turkey continue to be some of the key exporting nations with production capacities rising in defiance of domestic realities. Pakistan, for example, is coming off a building boom from the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor infrastructure project and all those plants are now looking for new markets. Vietnam says it is benefitting from industry consolidation in China. Its exports grew by 55% year-on-year rise to 31.6Mt. It shipped 9.8Mt to China in 2018. Its main export markets in 2019 are expected to be the Philippines, Bangladesh, China, Taiwan and Peru. Turkey, meanwhile, struggled with general economic issues in 2018. Its cement exports fell by 6% to 7.5Mt in 2018 according to Turkish Cement Manufacturers Association data. Once again this is at odds with ITC data, which reports nearly twice as many exports.

This touches the tip of the iceberg of a big issue but while production over-capacity continues these kinds of trade arguments will endure. Vietnam, for example, may be enjoying supplying cement in China as that country scales down production. Yet, what will happen to all of those Vietnamese plants once Chinese consumption stabilises?! Similar bear traps lie in wait for the other major exports. Alongside this many of the multinational cement companies are pivoting to concrete production. This may be in recognition of the fact that in a clinker-abundant world profits should be sought elsewhere in the supply chain. A topic for another week.

For an overview of some of these themes and more read Dr Robert McCaffrey’s article ‘The Global Cement Industry in 2050’ in the May 2019 issue of Global Cement Magazine and his forthcoming keynote presentation at the 61st IEEE-IAS/PCA Cement Conference 2019 at St Louis in Missouri, US.