Analysis

Lhoist’s Jean Marbehant pretty much summed up the bind the cement and lime industries face from the tightening COP21 climate agreement when he said, “We produce CO₂… and our by-product is lime.” He made the comment at a ground breaking event that HeidelbergCement hosted this week for a new carbon capture pilot project at the CBR Lixhe cement plant in Belgium. The project with the Low Emissions Intensity Lime And Cement (LEILAC) Consortium will test Australian company Calix’s direct CO₂ separation process at an operational cement plant for two years at a pilot level scale.

Previously the technology has been used by Calix in the magnesite calcining sector in Australia. Now it will be trialled at 10t/hr of raw material for cement production and 8t/hr of ground limestone in a 60m tall direct separation reactor that is about to be built next to the cement plant’s pre-heater tower. The process has a target to capture up to 95% of process CO₂ emissions. Construction is scheduled to be completed in 2018 and then followed by two years of operation and testing until the end of 2020. At this point the Euro12m funding ends but the next steps, if agreed, would be to test the process at a commercial scale for lime production and a large scale demonstration at a cement plant by 2025. Full scale commercial application at a cement plant would then happen by 2030.

The Innovation in Industrial Carbon Capture Conference was built around the various carbon capture initiatives that HeidelbergCement is involved with. The other big pilot is the oxyfuel project it is running with LafargeHolcim and the European Cement Research Academy (ECRA). As ECRA’s Volker Hoenig explained, this project is now set to move to the pilot scale at two cement plants in 2020 at a cost of Euro90m. The plants, in Italy and Austria, have been chosen so that the testing can start at a ‘simple’ plant and then move to a more complicated one. The former site, Colleferro, has a spare unused kiln that doesn’t use alternative fuels, making the testing less complicated. The latter, Retznei, does co-process alternative fuels and it also has a kiln bypass system. It’s also worth noting that Calix’s direct separation process is intended to be compatible with an oxyfuel kiln. Other technologies were also previewed at the conference such as the Cleanker calcium looping project, the CO2MIN mineral carbonation project, the Carbon8 process to make aggregates from flue gas and HeidelbergCement’s experiences with growing microalgae.

The event to mark the start of the pilot was an optimistic one but the cement and lime producers like Jean Marbehant have no illusions about the cliff face-steep challenge that meeting the CO₂ emissions reduction targets the Paris agreement potentially demands. One slide Marbehant discussed in his presentation placed the CO₂ marginal abatement cost for carbon capture at Euro90/t. However, since the European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) currently places the cost of CO₂ at Euro9/t the real question about the future of carbon capture is about who is going to pay the bill. Albert Scheuer, a board member of HeidelbergCement, made it clear how his company thinks the cost should be divided when he said that its end product was concrete and he explained just how much cement and concrete everyone uses in their lifespan. He may not have said that we all need to pay but he certainly made it feel that way. The future of carbon capture it seems may be a bit like a group of friends awkwardly deciding how to split the bill after a meal.

One speaker at the LEILAC event used the phrase ‘no silver bullet’ to describe how industrial CO₂ emissions could be cut and how Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) might be used. Perhaps more tellingly though has been the emergence of a new acronym that seems to be doing the rounds at the European Parliament, of ‘Carbon Capture and Something.’ That ‘something’ here is of critical importance as it can either put up or decrease the price that CCS will add to cement production. So, whilst moving to Carbon Capture and Something might suggest that legislators are starting to get realistic about what carbon capture might actually be able to do, it might also indicate a naïve lack of understanding of how hard cutting CO₂ emissions is from essential industries that produce CO₂ from their core process.

The challenge for cement producers in this kind of environment is deciding how far they should go towards exploring CO₂ reduction strategies whilst governments are not being precise about how they intend to meet their targets. Going first might bring an innovator advantages if the legislation toughens up, but the early cost is high. HeidelbergCement and others are definitely doing ‘something’ but commercial applications are at least a decade away at current funding levels. And that timescale doesn’t include rolling out the new technologies across the entire industry. Despite this it was reassuring to hear the director of the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Climate Action say that his outfit didn’t want to reduce cement production, only CO₂ emissions. This was ‘something’ cement producers want to hear.

A couple of news stories have emerged from West Africa this week reminding Global Cement of the growth potential the region holds. First Ghacem announced that it had opened a new truck terminal at Sefwi Dwenase in Ghana. Then LafargeHolcim Ivory Coast inaugurated a new mill at its grinding plant in Abidjan. Then Cimburkina, a subsidiary of Germany’s HeidelbergCement, said that it was starting work on enlarging its grinding plant at Kossodo in Burkina Faso.

The other theme that received some coverage this week was another attempt by an African government to regulate its hastily growing cement sectors. Jean-Claude Brou, the Minister of Industry and Mines in Ivory Coast also found time to announce the creation of a commission to monitor the quality control of cement when he inaugurated the new mill in Abidjan. As building collapses due to substandard cement in Nigeria have shown, this kind of government monitoring is essential to protect the public in booming markets. Unfortunately, rightly or wrongly, these kind of bodies often seem to end up embroiled in rows about imports of cement competing with local producers.

Away from the cut and thrust of the market, the new mill at Abidjan is particularly interesting because it was imported and reinstalled piece-by-piece from its original home at a former Holcim plant in Spain. The move cost Euro23m and LafargeHolcim say that it is now the largest horizontal ball mill in French-speaking west Africa. The 1Mt/yr year mill was originally manufactured by Polysius (ThyssenKrupp) in 2006 and uses a 4500kW motor.

Data from the National Institute for Statistics in Ivory Coast reported a 39% rise year-on-year in cement production to 1.64Mt in the first half of 2017. This follows reports of cement shortages in early 2017. The government then took the action of importing 0.15Mt of cement to meet the shortfall until local production capacity caught up.

This is starting to happen now with the LafargeHolcim opening. Other projects that were in the pipeline include Cim Ivoire’s 2.6Mt/yr grinding plant, also in Abidjan, that was due to be completed by the end of 2017. This project is interesting because Cim Ivoire is a subsidiary of Burkina Faso’s Cim Metal Group. It also operates a grinding plant, Cimfaso, near the capital Ouagadougou. Similar to LafargeHolcim it is preparing its supply lines to the African interior. Finally, Nigeria’s Dangote Cement was also building a 3Mt/yr grinding plant near Abidjan. This unit was due to be finished by the end of 2017 but there has been little news about it in recent months.

Ghana’s cement industry has been consolidating itself and is facing an oversupply situation. The government placed production capacity at 8.5Mt/yr in 2016 versus demand of 6Mt. It has since made the headlines with spats between local producers and foreign companies like Dangote Cement. Unlike Ivory Coast, Ghana has two integrated plants that, no doubt, want to preserve their markets from imports. Despite this, Ciments de l'Afrique (CIMAF) and Diamond Cement both opened plants in late 2016. More recently two grinding plant projects have been announced near Tema.

Although the timing is fortuitous , we admit that these stories are fairly loosely connected at best. However, they do illustrate an inward development trend in the region. Bigger and more efficient grinding plants to process locally made or imported clinker, more terminal infrastructure to distribute the cement and then more grinding plants further inside the region geographically as the logistics situation permits. The Cimburkina plant, for example, is situated in landlocked Burkina Faso. Clinker for its mills will initially be supplied by HeidelbergCement’s integrated Scantogo plant at Tabligbo. The drive to develop these countries moves ever forwards and they demand cement.

As readers in colder climes will understand: nobody likes a gas bill. Save some pity for LafargeHolcim Bangladesh then this week, as it faces attempts to hike the price it’s paying.

As reported by local press the government-run Jalalabad Gas Transmission and Distribution Systems (JGTDS) is trying to raise the rate for natural gas to the cement producer. Allegedly, LafargeHolcim Bangladesh is paying a lower unit cost for gas supplied to a power plant at its Chhatak cement plant than the fixed amount set by the country’s energy regulator. LafargeHolcim Bangladesh says the rate was set in a gas sales agreement (GSA) signed between JGTDS and its predecessor, Lafarge Surma Cement, in January 2003. The state body meanwhile has referred the issue up the chain of command to the Energy and Mineral Resources Division under the Ministry of Power, Energy and Mineral Resources.

JGTDS says that the plant is consuming around 450,000m3/day of gas. Of this, about a quarter is used to run the power plant and the remainder is used to power the cement plant’s kiln. The plot thickens though as LafargeHolcim Bangladesh is actually paying above the industry tariff for gas of US$0.09/m3. Commentators reckon the price of gas is set to rise in the future. Naturally the cement producer wants to stick to the pre-agreed price for the economic viability of the country’s main integrated cement plant. The Spanish embassy, representing Cementos Molins one of the owners of the company along with LafargeHolcim, has even gone as far as intervening in the argument.

The pressure is on LafargeHolcim Bangladesh because its sales revenue fell slightly year-on-year in 2016 but its fuel costs rose by 12%. As the country’s sole clinker producer it suffered from falling international clinker prices in a nation full of grinding plants. So far in the first nine months of 2017 its sales revenues have risen a little yet its profit has more than halved. Any change to its fuel costs would seem likely to damage the company at a delicate moment.

Energy costs for cement plants are nothing trivial as the graph above shows. It uses data from the German cement industry but the key takeaways are that the calorific ratios of the different types of energy cement production uses don’t directly correlate to the cost. Hence, in Bangladesh and other countries where the electricity grid might be unreliable or expensives, running one’s own captive power plant makes sense both for cost and supply reasons. As an aside that may not be applicable to Bangladesh right now, the stark disparity between the energy produced by alternative fuels and their cost proportion is a great reason to use them if the necessary supply chains can be organised. LafargeHolcim launched local operations for its waste management wing Geocycle in December 2017 so this point has not been lost the company.

The situation in Bangladesh is reminiscent of the bind Dangote Cement found itself in towards the end of 2016 in Tanzania. A dispute over gas prices for its Mtwara plant led to company boss Aliko Dangote negotiating personally with President John Magufuli to protect his investment. Governments want inward spending in the form of new industrial plants and multinationals want assurances on some of their costs, like fuel supplies, before they reach for the chequebook. However, if one side is seen to be getting too good a deal then the relationship can break down. LafargeHolcim Bangladesh may have bagged itself a scandalously low gas deal and the Bangladesh government may also be breaking an agreement. Bear in mind though, that with sales of nearly US$28bn in 2016, LafargeHolcim took in revenue nearly one tenth of Bangladesh’s gross domestic product. If the two parties don’t reach an accord, the consequences for both parties could be negative.

Asia Cement has completed its purchase of Halla Cement this week for US$723m. The deal has created the third largest cement producer in South Korea with a cement production capacity. This includes one integrated plant at Okgye, three slag grinding plants and a distribution network.

Graph 1: Cement producers in South Korea by cement production data from 2016. Chart includes mergers in 2017 and 2018 to represent current market share. Source: Korea Cement Association.

The Halla Cement transaction marks an on-going consolidation process in the local industry. 2017 proved a busy year with the purchase of Daehan Cement by Ssang Yong Cement and Hyundai Cement by Hanil Cement. Assuming the dust has settled this now leaves Ssang Yong Cement and its new subsidiary in the lead by cement production data from 2016 with 12.9Mt or a 23% market share, Hanil Cement next with 12.4Mt or a 22% share and Asia Cement with 10.8Mt or a 19% share. Overall the country produced 56.7Mt of cement in 2016, according to Korea Cement Association data. The remainder of production is shared between six producers.

Fears that the construction industry may have been about to slow down might have prompted Glenwood Private Equity and Baring Private Equity Asia to sell Halla Cement a little earlier than expected. However, they don’t appear to have done too badly out of this. The two private equity firms that bought Halla Cement from LafargeHolcim in 2016 seem to have made a cool US$180m on the deal. At the time it was reported in the local press that they paid US$542m for the cement producer. Glenwood Private Equity was the lead investor followed by Baring Private Equity Asia. They bought Lafarge Halla Cement in May 2016 and then were looking for buyers a year later in August 2017.

Cement consumption in South Korea has followed a rollercoaster path since 1992 hitting a high of 61.7Mt in 1997 and a low of 43.7Mt in 2014. It then rose to 55.8Mt in 2016. The consolidation behaviour by the cement producers suggests either a poor performing market or an uncertain one. Since the gap between the peak and the trough is more than Halla Cement’s production capacity no wonder its private equity owners were keen to get shot of it at the first sign of trouble. So let’s end with the words of Han Chul Kim, Managing Director of Baring Asia, from the time of the purchase from LafargeHolcim in 2016: "We couldn’t imagine a more solid platform from which to access the growth opportunities in the Korean market in the coming years.”

This week’s Plastics Strategy from the European Commission (EC) presents the cement industry with a narrowing target. If the Plastics Strategy is successful it will prevent plastics waste altogether. This will then eliminate the key calorific content of refuse-derived fuels (RDF) and disrupt co-processing supply chains at cement plants across the continent. If it is too lax then dumping plastics in landfill could become more economically viable, also changing the market dynamic. Neither extreme looks likely at this stage but the European cement industry needs to make its views known.

Cembureau, the European cement association, has done just that today with the publication of a position paper on the subject. It conveniently ignores the top two tiers of the waste hierarchy – prevention and re-use – but it does recognise that ‘high quality recycling’ is the preferred option. This is followed by the target of its lobbying: protecting co-processing. Make no mistake, this is supporting industrial behaviour change with solid environmental benefits. Its areas for policymakers to focus on include protecting co-processing: a ban on landfill; linking energy recovery to recycling; concentrating on the legislation; thinking about material lifespan sustainability benefits; and helping minimise the investment costs for processing facilities.

Providing cool heads prevail, the importance of co-processing plastics as part of any realistic plastics strategy seems unlikely to change any time soon. What’s more likely to be the real target for Cembureau is standardising measures on collection, sorting and material recovery across the European Union (EU). For example, as this column has reported twice in 2017 (GCW288 and GCW324), the issues with waste disposal legislation in Italy have led to various problems in the sector. Waste collectors found it easier to export RDF to Morocco from Italy rather than use it locally in 2016. The slag industry has also reported similar issues with reuse in Italy. The consolidation of the local cement industry following the takeover of Italcementi and Cementir by HeidelbergCement and of Cementizillo by Buzzi Unicem should present a more unified industry approach towards alternative fuels. Backup from the EC could solve the other half of the alternative fuels puzzle in Italy and help to deliver serious change. Ecofys data from 2014 showed the EU co-processing average rate as being 41%, with six countries – Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Bulgaria, Italy and Greece – having rates below 30%.

Vagner Maringolo of Cembureau outlined the market opportunities for waste uptake at cement plants at the 11th Global CemFuels Conference that took place in Barcelona in February 2017. He started by revealing that plastics represented over 40% of the total share of alternative fuels used in the EU in 2014. A ban on landfilling municipal waste was expected to boost the supply of RDF and a Cembureau/Ecofys study on the market potential of alternative fuels concluded that around 10Mt of waste was co-processed in cement kilns in the EU28 in 2015. This represented around 2% of total combustible waste each year but it represented 10% of all of the energy recovery from waste in the EU. In other words co-processing plastics waste offers a very attractive means for the EU to meet its sustainability targets.

However, before Cembureau and the cement industry starts popping the (reusable) champagne corks, consider the wider picture. China has banned imports of foreign waste in 2018 including RDF from the UK, a major exporter. Unless new markets are found this may impact the price of RDF in Europe. Brexit is another example how of European waste markets might be disrupted in the medium-term. Cement producers want a steady supply of cheap fuels but if the providers can’t make enough money from their products then the market will fail. The tightrope for Cembureau to walk with plastics is to promote RDF use and secure its supply. Persuading the EC to support this may involve some wobbling along the way.

The 12th Global CemFuels Conference on alternative fuels for cement and lime takes place in Berlin on 20 – 21 February 2018