Analysis

Starlinger revealed this week that it had taken on copycats in China and won. The packaging machine manufacturer said that it had sued a number of China-based machine manufacturers and their customers, packaging producers, based on infringement of several of its patents. An out-of-court settlement was eventually reached with the case going before both a civil court and a Chinese court specialised in intellectual property. Naturally, Austria-based Starlinger did not say what the settlement involved other than stating that the proceedings had been “...settled with strict obligations for the machine manufacturers.”

It’s unclear how directly the case affected the cement sector. Starlinger did say that the case involved a replica of a proprietary sack conversion line for producing woven plastic sacks. Packaging producers, often in Asia, use Starlinger’s conversion lines to manufacture proprietary block bottom valve sacks made of polypropylene tape fabric for the cement and construction industries, although they are also used for other dry bulk goods such as rice, flour or chemical granulates.

Starlinger’s reasons for going public are interesting given that most companies steer well clear of discussing legal matters openly. In the accompanying press statement Harald Neumüller, the chief strategy officer of Starlinger, used the disclosure to promote his products by saying “Only the best are copied, as the saying goes.” He then went on to underline the company’s strengths in research and development. Yet he also admitted that this was “...little consolation if it has economic consequences for innovative machine manufacturers like us.”

Firstly it should be noted that battles over patents and ideas happen everywhere from time to time. Discussing international copyright theft has become politicised because it plays into the geopolitical rivalry between the US, Europe and China. One US-government commissioned estimate in 2017 reckoned that the US economy was losing US$225 - 600bn/yr due to counterfeit goods, pirated software and theft of trade secrets. This report has been criticised but it gives one an idea of the scale of the concern. However, there are also plenty of prognosticators in the western media who have spent the last two decades warning of a hard landing in the Chinese economy that hasn’t happened.

Bringing this discussion back to cement, following the collapse of the real estate market since 2021, cement output has fallen. Data from the National Bureau of Statistics of China shows that output decreased by 11% year-on-year to 1.33Bnt in the nine months from January to September 2024. This appears to be following a similar decline in local real estate investment. The market is still correcting itself and the government is making gradual changes but there has been no apparent cataclysm so far. China-based equipment suppliers don’t appear to have suffered to the same degree due to their foreign orders.

The standard western narrative is that when European or American companies sold their equipment in China from the 1990s onwards they contended with a rocketing economy and lax intellectual property (IP) enforcement. Such an environment reputedly made it easy for some local companies to copy machinery and sell it more cheaply. At the same time China’s industries legitimately surpassed their competitors leading to criticism about how they did it. Publicly available evidence of this behaviour in the cement sector is limited. One of the few includes action by Haver & Boecker, another packaging machine manufacturer, in the late 2010s. However, anecdotally, the view that IP was stolen in China is prevalent in the west whether it is true or false. No doubt readers will have their own experiences and opinions. None of which would be publishable. The issue has been superseded though as China’s cement sector has become the largest in the world by a considerable margin. The biggest manufacturers of cement plants in the world are now Chinese companies too. They either use their own equipment or buy in western kit depending on what the customer wants. They also own a number of their overseas competitors and more potential acquisitions look likely.

All of this is what makes Starlinger’s admission unusual. It has taken a stand and it may have paid off. At the very least the equipment supplier is wringing publicity out of the affair regardless of how big - or small - the settlement may have been. Others may follow.

One unusual thing about coverage of cement in the media is the way that discussions often centre precisely on its absence – that is, on alternatives to cement. These alternatives boast unique chemistries and performance characteristics, but are all produced without Portland cement clinker. They are generally called ‘alternative cements,’ perhaps because ‘cement-free cement’ does not have such a commercially viable ring to it. This contradictory tendency reached a new high in the past week, with developments in alternative cement across Asia, Europe, the Middle East and North America. Together, they hint at a more diverse future for the ‘cement’ industry than the one we know today.

Asia

In Indonesia, Suvo Strategic Minerals has concluded tests with Makassar State University of a novel nickel-slag-based cement. Huadi Nickel-Alloy Indonesia supplied raw materials, and tests showed a seven-day compressive strength of 37.5MPa. Suvo Strategic Minerals says that a partnership with Huadi Nickel-Alloy Indonesia for commercial production is a likely next step.

Europe

Cement producer Mannok and minerals company Boliden partnered with the South Eastern Applied Materials (SEAM) research centre in Ireland to launch a project to develop supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) from shale on 7 October 2024. The project will additionally investigate CO₂-curing of cement paste backfill for use in mines. Irish state-owned global commerce agency Enterprise Ireland has contributed €700,000 in funding.

UK-based SCM developer Karbonite expects to launch trial production of its olivine-based SCM with a concrete company in 2025. The start-up launched Karbonite Group Holding BV, with offices in the Netherlands, to facilitate this new phase. Karbonite’s SCM is activated at 750 – 850°C and sequesters CO₂ in the activation process, resulting in over 56% lower CO₂ emissions than ordinary Portland cement (OPC). Managing director Rajeev Sood told Global Cement that talks are already underway for subsequent expansions into the UAE and India.

Back in the UK, contractor John Sisk & Son has received €597,000 from national innovation agency Innovate UK. John Sisk & Son is testing fellow Ireland-based company Ecocem’s <25% clinker cement technology in concrete for use in its on-going construction of the Wembley Park mixed development in London.

At the same time, Innovate UK granted a further €3.23m to other companies for concrete decarbonisation. Recipients included a calcined clay being developed by Cemcor, an SCM being developed from electric arc furnace byproducts by Cocoon, a geopolymer cement technology being developed by EFC Green Concrete Technology UK and an initiative to develop alternative cement from recycled concrete fines at the Materials Processing Institute in Middlesbrough. Also included was the Skanska Costain Strabag joint venture, which is working on the London stretch of the upcoming HS2 railway. The joint venture, along with partners including cement producer Tarmac and construction chemicals company Sika UK, will test low-kaolinite London clay as a raw material with which to produce calcined clay as a cement substitute in concrete structures in HS2’s rail tunnels.

Middle East

Talks are underway between UK-based calcined clay producer Next Generation SCM and City Cement subsidiary Nizak Mining Company over the possible launch of a joint venture in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The joint venture would build a 350,000t/yr reduced-CO₂ concrete plant, which would use alternative cement based on Next Generation SCM’s calcined clay.

North America

Texas-based SCM developer Solidia Technologies recently patented its carbonatable calcium silicate-based alternative cement, which sequesters CO₂ as it cures.

Meanwhile, C-Crete Technologies made its first commercial pour of its granite-based cement-free concrete in New York, US. C-Crete Technologies says that the product offers cost and performance parity with conventional cement, with net zero CO₂ emissions. Its raw material is globally more abundant than the limestone used as a raw material for clinker. Other abundantly available feedstocks successfully deployed within C-Crete Technologies’ repertoire include basalt and zeolite.

Across New York State, in Binghamton, KLAW Industries has succeeded in replacing 20% of concrete’s cement content with its powdered glass-based SCM, Pantheon. KLAW Industries has delivered samples to local municipalities and the New York State Department of Transportation. Its success expands the discussion of possible circular cement ingredients from the industrial sphere into post-consumer resources.

In Calgary, Canada, a novel SCM has drawn attention from one of the major cement incumbents: Germany-based Heidelberg Materials. It invested in local construction and demolition materials (CDM)-based SCM developer EnviCore on 9 October 2024. The companies plan to build a pilot plant at an existing Heidelberg Materials CDM recycling centre.

Conclusion

Alternative cement developers are still finding the words to talk about their products. They may be more than ‘supplementary’ up to the point of entirely supplanting 100% of clinker. Product webpages offer ‘hydraulic binder,’ ‘pozzolan’ and even ‘cement.’ As alternative ‘cements’ are developed, they build on the work of pioneers like Joseph Aspdin and Louis Vicat. Start-ups and their backers are now reaching commercial offerings, on a similar-but-different footing to cement itself. None of these novel materials positions itself as the sole, last-minute ‘super sub’ in the construction sector’s confrontation with climate change. Rather, they are a package of solutions which can combine into a net zero-emissions heavy building materials offering, hopefully before 2050.

Related to this is the need for ‘technology neutral’ standards, as championed this week by the Alliance for Low-Carbon Cement and Concrete (ALCCC), along with 23 other European industry associations, civil society organisations and think tanks. The term may sound new, but the concept is critical to the eventual uptake of alternative cements: standards, the ALCCC says, should be purely performance-based. They ought not attempt to define what technology, for example cement clinker, makes a suitable building material. According to the ALCCC, Europe’s building materials standards are not technology neutral, but instead ‘gatekeep’ market access, to the benefit of conventional cement and the exclusion of ‘proven and scalable low-carbon products.’

At the same time, cement itself is changing. Market research from USD Analytics showed an anticipated 5% composite annual growth rate in blended cement sales between 2024 and 2032, more than doubling throughout the period from US$253bn to US$369bn. If you can’t beat it, blend with it!

For a further discussion of alternative cement and binders in Europe, see Global Cement’s interview with ALCCC co-ordinator Joren Verschaeve in the forthcoming November issue of Global Cement Magazine on 17 October 2024.

Adani Group’s latest target for acquisition in the cement sector was revealed this week to be Heidelberg Materials’ India-based business. The Economic Times newspaper reported that talks have started between the companies with a tentative value of US$1.2bn. As might be expected, Adani Group is said to be keen to close the deal down quickly. It wants to avoid an auction situation where it might face competitors. However, there may be some disagreement about the actual production capacity of Heidelberg Materials’ companies in India. If a deal were finalised, it might be completed by early 2027.

Heidelberg Materials’ capacity in India was listed as 14Mt/yr by the press but this could include the company’s grinding plants as well as its integrated ones. Heidelberg Materials, itself, says it has a capacity of 12.1Mt/yr from three integrated cement plants, four grinding plants and a terminal across 12 states. Data from the Global Cement Directory 2024 suggests that this refers to the group’s integrated cement capacity. The plants are roughly split equally between subsidiaries Heidelberg Materials India and Zuari Cement. Heidelberg Materials entered the Indian market in 2006 when it acquired Mysore Cement, Cochin Cement and established a joint-venture with Indorama Cement. It later added Zuari Cement to its portfolio when it bought Italcementi in 2016. The group used to run four integrated plants in India until in May 2024, when it shut down clinker production at its Ammasandra plant in Karnataka, although grinding activity has continued at the site.

Back in 2021 Heidelberg Materials’ CEO Dominik von Achten said that the group had considered selling anything following a business review. "There are no sacred cows. Everything was on the table." Indonesia was generally perceived by analysts as a likely sale target in the developing markets but nothing happened in the end. India wasn’t mentioned at this time, although no doubt it was being considered. Yet Holcim divested its businesses there in 2022. These were picked up by Adani Group for US$6.4bn. This, in turn, kicked off the rivalry in the Indian cement sector between market leader UltraTech Cement and Adani Group. Both companies are now in a race to build production capacity through expansion, new plants and acquisitions.

One reason why Heidelberg Materials may have decided now in particular to talk to Adani Group can be seen in its recent financial reports. In 2023 it said that its “cement and clinker deliveries increased moderately, as massive excess capacities persist in our core markets.” It then followed this up in 2024 by noting that deliveries were slightly down year-on-year in the first half of the year. It blamed this on excess capacity in South India. The subsidiary reported a net loss of €6.3m in 2023. An article by Holtec Consulting in the October 2023 issue of Global Cement Magazine implied that capacity utilisation was 56% in 2023, the lowest of the country’s regions. This is a particular problem for the company given that Zuari Cement is based in the south.

Funnily enough, a sale of 12.1Mt/yr capacity for US$1.2bn suggests a price of US$99/t, a similar figure to what Adani Group paid to buy Holcim’s assets in India in 2022. This may explain why Adani Group is trying to avoid an open sale for the Heidelberg Materials assets. Then again, maybe the market in southern India really is suffering. By comparison, when Adani Group concluded a deal to buy Penna Cements in August 2024 it paid US$1.2bn for an integrated capacity of about 7Mt/yr or around US$170/t. Factor in the low capacity utilisation rate in south India and this potential Adani-Heidelberg Materials deal ends up at roughly the same price.

Something that may help Adani Group reach its goal might be a formal merger between its two main cement companies, Ambuja Cements and ACC. The Mint newspaper reported on it this week, saying that Jefferies and Axis Capital has been hired as an advisor. This certainly makes sense in synergy savings but moving all the mining and leasing rights around might prove cumbersome. Regardless, Adani Group is on an expansion drive, with a capacity of 140Mt/yr targeted by 2028. All the smaller cement companies in the country are potentially targets.

Energy has been the theme for a couple of cement news stories of note from Egypt this week. The first concerns the government’s impending plan to centralise distribution of mazut (heavy fuel oil) to cement plants to help them cope with ongoing power shortages. Earlier in the week Cemex signed a deal with the Assiut Governorate to operate a second municipal solid refuse processing unit in the country. The company’s first Regenera facility, in Mahala, started operations in May 2024. Another story from mid-September 2024, along the same theme, covered the inauguration of an 18MW waste heat recovery (WHR) unit at Heidelberg Materials Egypt's Helwan Cement plant.

The wider story is that the country has faced so-called load shedding, or power rationing, since mid-2023 due to falling gas production, rising energy demand and negative currency exchange effects making it harder to buy fuel imports. The power cuts were extended in duration in July 2024 due to a heat wave. The government then said in late September 2024 that it is making investments to prevent domestic power cuts in 2025.

The cement stories mentioned above show some of the ways cement companies cut their energy costs. Two potential ways of doing this are to increase the use of alternative fuels (AF), such as municipal solid waste, or to install a WHR unit. Titan Cement, for example, reported AF thermal substitution rates of above 40% in Alexandria and above 30% in Beni Suef in the first half of 2024. The local press hasn’t reported power shortages amongst the country’s cement producers, but the plans to control the distribution of mazut suggest that either ‘something’ has happened or the government is trying to avoid ‘something.’ Readers may recall that producers have periodically faced step changes in power supplies over the years. In the mid-2010s, for example, lots of plants switched from heavy fuel oil and gas to coal. The energy price fluctuations following the start of the Russia - Ukraine war in 2022 then saw the price of coal rise.

However, what the foreign-owned producers have complained about in the first half of 2024 is the declining exchange rate of the Egyptian Pound. Cementir, Cemex and Titan Cement all noted this. However, Titan reckoned that International Monetary Fund and European Union investment had actually eased the economic situation in the first half of the year leading to an increase in the number of large construction projects.

One effect of the currency problems upon the cement market has been a focus on exports. At the start of September 2024 the Federation of Egyptian Industries said that national cement consumption in 2024 was expected to drop by 4% year-on-year to 45Mt. However, exports were projected to rise to 15Mt. The first and second most popular destinations so far in 2024 have been the Ivory Coast and Ghana. Yet, exports to Libya, the third biggest external market, may have had the biggest effect. These have been blamed for creating a shortage of trucks that was causing delays to the local construction sector. The round-journey from Egypt to Libya can take up to 12 days. This has left building sites bereft of raw material deliveries because all the trucks are elsewhere! Vicat acknowledged the growing importance of imports for its business in Egypt in its half-year report for 2024. It said that ‘sluggish’ domestic market conditions “were more than offset by growth in cement and clinker volumes for export to the Mediterranean and Africa regions.”

The wider picture of the cement sector in Egypt remains one of overcapacity with integrated capacity estimated above 70Mt/yr. The government introduced cement production quotas in mid-2021 and this stabilised prices (and profits). The recent state of the local economy may have strained this, but the latest round of external investment appears to have buoyed things for now. Although the effects of the Israeli military action in Lebanon may have unforeseen consequences upon neighbouring markets. In the meantime, cutting energy costs and growing exports offer two ways for producers to raise their profits.

CRH, formerly Cement Roadstone Holdings, announced this week that CEO Albert Manifold is retiring at the end of 2024. He will be replaced by current chief financial officer Jim Mintern in the role. Manifold will continue to work as an advisor to CRH in 2025. Manifold’s time at the head of CRH marks a decade of considerable change at the group. Crudely, CRH had a market capitalisation of US$19bn at the start of 2014 when Manifold became CEO. At the end of 2023 the group’s market capitalisation was US$50bn.

From a cement sector perspective the big events during Manifold’s tenure include CRH’s acquisition of assets around the world from the Lafarge-Holcim merger in 2015, the purchase of Ash Grove Cement in the US in 2018, the divestment of various businesses in emerging markets and the move of the company’s primary listing to the New York Stock Exchange in 2023. However, at the same time, CRH has been constantly sharpening its portfolio. So, for example, the group bought Germany-based lime and aggregates company Fels in 2017 only to later sell off its European lime business in 2023 and 2024. In the late 2010s the group sold off its US and Europe-based distribution businesses. Then, in 2022, it divested its Building Envelope business. Manifold was also the inaugural president of the Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA) when it formed in 2018.

Fairly or unfairly, CRH has given the sense over the last decade of often being ahead of the curve in following the cement markets. After it increased its portfolio when Lafarge and Holcim merged, it sold up relatively quickly in India and Brazil. Famously during an earnings call for CRH’s second quarter results in 2019, Manifold said that the group was prioritising its businesses in the developed world. CRH’s focus on the US in the late 2010s through the acquisition of Ash Grove Cement set it up well for the current strength of the cement market in North America, long before others joined the party. Another striking Manifold statement came at the company’s annual general meeting in 2023 when, in the run-up to the US listing move, he described his company as a ‘de facto’ American company.

Things that may have gone less well for Manifold on the cement side, that we know about, include CRH’s quiet attempt to divest its business in the Philippines in the late 2010s. The company wasn’t alone in trying through. Holcim publicly said that it had signed a deal to sell its local business in 2019 only to declare that it wasn’t happening the following year. Cemex is currently in the process of selling its subsidiary in the country, DMCI Holdings, but it hasn’t concluded yet. More recent acquisitions such as assets from Martin Marietta Materials in Texas in early 2024 and a majority stake in Adbri in Australia are clearly strategic and fit the definition of ‘bolt-on’ but they seem to lack the grand ambition of the earlier big deals.

Questions have also been asked about Manifold’s pay over the years. From 2016 onwards the Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS), for example, has repeatedly raised concerns about executive pay rises at CRH and recommended on occasion that shareholders reject them. Manifold became the highest paid head of an Irish public company and was reportedly the third highest paid CEO on the Financial Times Stock Exchange 100 Index (FTSE 100) in 2022. His response from one interview with the Irish Times newspaper in 2018 was simply: “I’m employed and paid very well to deliver shareholder returns.”

Looking back over the last decade, CRH was well placed to take advantage of the Lafarge-Holcim merger before Manifold started in 2014 but once he was in place it went for it and he led the charge. Yet, the Ash Grove Cement acquisition may prove to be the more momentous move given the current divergence of the European and North American markets. As readers may remember from the time, Summit Materials made a public counter offer but it was rebuffed. Albert Manifold was in charge of CRH and so he takes the credit. These are big shoes to fill. As Richie Boucher, the chair of CRH said in Manifold’s outgoing statement, “Under Albert’s leadership CRH has delivered superior growth and performance with consistently improving profitability, cash generation and returns.”