Displaying items by tag: California

US: Cemex USA’s Victorville cement plant in California has won the Portland Cement Association (PCA)’s Chairman’s Safety Performance Award 2021 in the Large category. The award recognises top safety performance. The Victorville cement plant previously won the award in 2019 and 2020. Cemex USA says that the plant recorded zero incidents in 2020. Earlier in 2021, it surpassed four years without a lost time injury to any employee or contractor.

President Jaime Muguiro said “Safety is our top priority, and Victorville cement plant is demonstrating that Zero4Life is possible. We are proud of the continued commitment of our team, and their achievement is a great example of what can happen when everyone is dedicated to safety and works together to look out for one another.”

US: The California Senate has voted in favour of a proposed bill which will require the State Air Resources Board to develop a plan for the state’s cement producers to achieve net zero emissions of greenhouse gases by the end of 2045. A 40% reduction compared to 2019 levels would also be mandated by the end of 2035. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NDRC), an environmental advocacy group that is sponsoring the bill, has called for measures such as requiring public construction projects to use reduced-CO₂ cement and establishing purely performance-based specifications for legally defining cement to be adopted by the eventual strategy if the bill passes into state law. The proposed bill will next move to the California State Assembly as part of the local legislative process.

HeidelbergCement confirmed the rumours this week with the announcement that it was selling assets in the western US to Martin Marietta for US$2.3bn. The deal covers subsidiary Lehigh Hanson’s US West region cement, aggregates, ready-mixed concrete and asphalt businesses in California, Arizona, Oregon and Nevada. This includes two of its cement plants, with the exception of the 1.5Mt/yr Permanente cement plant in California, related distribution terminals, 17 active aggregates sites and several downstream operations. The companies expect to conclude the deal by 2022 but naturally it is subject to approval by competition bodies.

Well, this is a big one considering that one of the catalysts for the group’s divestment plan was the reduction of the value of its total assets by Euro3.4bn in July 2020 following a review. Depending on the exchange rate, the value of the divestment to Martin Marietta covers half to two thirds of that amount. Group chairman Dominik von Achten later told the media in February 2021 that the company was planning to sell the first of the five assets in early-to-mid 2021. However, cement isn’t the full story here since Lehigh Hanson operates three integrated plants in California and seven terminals. So, by elimination, the Tehachapi and Redding plants are the ones that are being sold along with some combinations of the terminals. Both of those plant have production capacities of around 0.8Mt/yr. Unless the terminals being sold have been valued highly, then the majority of the deal appears to encompass some or all of the 25-odd aggregate sites, 15 asphalt sites and 30 ready-mix concrete sites the company operates in the four states.

On the cement side it doesn’t seem unreasonable at face value for the authorities to allow Martin Marietta to take over most of Lehigh Hanson’s business in the region since it should broaden competition from a production angle. Instead of five companies in California with integrated plants, there will be six. For Martin Marietta, the deal also carries the feel of unfinished business in the region since it briefly held a cement business there for around a year in the mid-2010s. It acquired Texas Industries (TXI) in July 2014 and then sold the cement business in California to CalPortland in September 2015.

Both companies are pursuing different strategies. HeidelbergCement says it is hunkering down on its other four North American regions – the US Midwest, Northeast and South, plus Canada - through selected ‘bolt-on’ acquisitions and plant upgrades. Martin Marietta says it wants to take advantage of long term demand trends such as increased state infrastructure investment in California and Arizona and private-sector growth. It also reassured shareholders with its version of the acquisition/divestment story by saying it was going to generate value the same way it did previously with TXI. It’s a small thing but the acquisition also sees the US’ largest domestic cement producer increase its production base. The top five North American cement producers will remain controlled by companies headquartered in Europe but it is a step towards regionalism.

As for who’s right, in the short term, the west coast region looks good. The area included some of the best performing states in 2020 in terms of growth in cement consumption year-on-year in 2020 with the exception of Oregon. In its winter forecast the Portland Cement Association (PCA) attributed growth in the Mountain region of the US (including Nevada) to underlying economic fundamentals and favourable demographic trends, although it expected this to slow down in 2021. In the Pacific region it forecast consumption to grow modestly in 2021 due to residential construction. As if to underline the current situation, Cemex decided to recommission a kiln in Mexico in February 2021 to cope with cement shortages and project delays in California, Arizona and Nevada.

In the face of these figures HeidelbergCement’s decision to sell suggests either it dangled a juicy proposition with good short term prospects in front of the buyers or its long term projections are pointing elsewhere. Selling up, yet holding onto its largest cement plant in the region, also smacks of hedging its bets. No doubt it will be holding on to a few terminals too. On the other hand, it would be very interesting indeed to know what part, if any, HeidelbergCement’s internal carbon price played in its decision to divest in the western US. California has the country’s biggest carbon emissions trading scheme (ETS). If say, legislators suddenly decided to follow the price trend of the European Union’s ETS then things might look different.

US: HeidelbergCement subsidiary Lehigh Hanson has agreed to sell its assets in its US West region to Martin Marietta for US$2.3bn. The transaction includes the sale of its business activities in cement, aggregates, ready-mixed concrete and asphalt in California, Arizona, Oregon and Nevada, with the exception of the Permanente cement plant and quarry. The sale includes two cement plants with related distribution terminals, 17 active aggregates sites and several downstream operations. The companies expect to conclude the deal by 2022 subject to regulatory approval.

“The sale of our US West region activities is a major step in our portfolio optimisation as part of our ‘Beyond 2020’ strategy,” said Dominik von Achten, chairman of the managing board of HeidelbergCement. “We are simplifying our portfolio in North America and prioritising on the strongest market positions.” Chris Ward, president and chief executive officer of Lehigh Hanson added, “We will accelerate the build-out of our positions in the four key regions Canada, Midwest, Northeast and South through selected bolt-on acquisitions and capacity expansion projects in the future.”

US: Lehigh Hanson has signed a collaboration agreement with materials technology company Fortera. Under the agreement, the companies will establish a carbon capture and storage (CCS) system at the producer’s 0.8Mt/yr integrated Redding Cement plant in Shasta district, California. The system will produce a cementitious material for use in concrete production. The material will be the first of its kind to be produced at a cement plant.

"This collaboration with Lehigh Hanson will prove the commercial scalability, the quality of the final product, and the competitive economics of the Fortera process," said Ryan Gilliam, chief executive officer and co-founder of Fortera. He added that the Fortera process (ReCarb) has been designed to utilise the existing cement infrastructure, from the quarry to the kiln, but with less CO₂ emissions, lower energy, and lower processing temperatures, leading to 60% lower CO₂ emissions per tonne of product.

US: Germany-based HeidelbergCement subsidiary Lehigh Cement has taken legal action against the Santa Clara county planning and development director over processing delays to the company’s planning applications. The Los Altos Town Crier newspaper has reported that the producer plans to fill in an open-pit aggregates mine, to open a second mine and to cut through a natural ridge near to its integrated Permanente cement plant near Cupertino in California. The plans constitute an amendment to a plan previously approved in 2012 .

The company says that it has ‘exhausted available administrative remedies’ against the local government office. It said that the rights it seeks to exercise are not subject to permits. It added that the director deemed the application complete in 2019, before requiring additional processing steps.

US: Phoenix Industrial will install the raw mill for Denmark-based FLSmidth’s raw mill upgrade of CalPortland’s integrated Mojave cement plant in California. The company said that it will conduct civil, concrete, structural steel, mechanical and electrical work on the project. Mobilisation of crews to the site is due to begin in March 2021 with commissioning scheduled for December 2021. Saxum Engineering is also working on the upgrade.

News has been dripping out slowly over the last few months about which assets HeidelbergCement is planning to divest. This week reporting from Bloomberg suggested that the German-based building materials producer might be seriously considering selling one or more integrated plants in Spain. The idea is reportedly part of a wider review of its portfolio in the country with the possible inclusion of cement plants at San Sebastian and Bilbao at a future date also. A proposed price of Euro300m for the national business was put forward by the sources to the reporters but it is unclear how many cement plants that figure includes.

HeidelbergCement announced in July 2020 that it had reduced the value of its total assets by Euro3.4bn following a review. It blamed this on reduced demand for building materials due to the coronavirus pandemic and the devaluation of its Hanson subsidiary in the UK, in part related to the UK’s exit from the European Union. A divestment plan followed at its Capital Markets Day event in September 2020 when it said it was simplifying its country portfolio and prioritising the strongest market positions. To this end it said it was setting up a watch list of underperforming assets to keep an eye on.

Over the next few months a number of corporate reorganisations and actual confirmed divestments occurred as well as plenty of speculation. HeidelbergCement-controlled Suez Cement started to acquire a 100% stake in its own subsidiary, Tourah Portland Cement, in September 2020. Suez Cement then sold its majority stake in Kuwait-based Hilal Cement in late January 2021. This week HeidelbergCement Bangladesh informed the local stock exchange that it is planning to amalgamate its subsidiary Emirates Cement.

Signs that European reviews had taken place could be seen later in the autumn of 2020. In November 2020 the Italian press picked up on rumours that HeidelbergCement was planning to move subsidiary Italcementi’s research centre from Bergamo, Lombardy, to Heidelberg in Baden Württemberg. Whether this was ever a serious proposition or not, this appeared to have been avoided in early February 2021 when an Italian union said it had agreed with Italcementi to keep the research centre in Italy as well as a preserving jobs generally. Meanwhile, also in November 2020, France-based subsidiary Ciments Calcia announced a major upgrade at its integrated Airvault cement plant but along with the conversion of two other integrated plants into a grinding unit and a terminal respectively, and changes at the French headquarters at Guervill.

Just before Christmas the bigger speculations started to appear in the press, with a story suggesting that HeidelbergCement was considering selling assets in California, US, with a target price of US$1.5bn for three integrated plants and associated concrete and aggregate units. That story is particularly beguiling given Cemex’s decision this month to reopen a kiln in Mexico to supply cement to the southwest US to meet shortages (See GCW 493)! Incidentally, readers should also note the story this week about a shortage of natural gas exports from Texas, US, that has caused cement plants in northern Mexico to shut down. This week, as mentioned at the start, has seen Spain added to the list of places that HeidelbergCement might be considering selling up in. The Spanish market like Italy has been rationalising heavily over the last decade particularly as export markets have dwindled. Oficemen, the Spanish cement association, reported that domestic cement consumption fell by 10% year-on-year to 13.3Mt in 2020 from 14.7Mt in 2019. On top of this Oficemen has repeatedly warned of the threat that CO₂ emissions prices pose for its members’ exports.

Group chairman Dominik von Achten told Reuters this month that the company plans to sell the first of the five assets in early-to-mid 2021. Of course he wouldn’t say where, except for adding that the company would stay in ‘rock solid’ markets like Northern Europe. Indonesia has been seen as a candidate for disposal by analysts, likely due to local production overcapacity levels and LafargeHolcim’s own departure in Indonesia 2018. All Von Achten would say on the matter was that Indonesia was an ‘important’ market for the group. Whether it’s seen as important for reducing company debt or building value remains to be seen. HeidelbergCement hasn’t exactly been shy about saying what they are doing over the last half year or so but they are only going so far and they won’t comment on speculation. So in the meantime we must wait to find out more.

One news story to note recently has been Cemex’s decision to recommission a kiln in Mexico to address cement shortages in the southwest US. In early February 2021 the Mexico-based producer said it was spending US$15m to restart a 1Mt/yr kiln at its CPN cement plant in Hermosillo, Sonora. The unit is over 250km from the US border but Cemex said it was making the investment to cope with cement shortages and project delays in California, Arizona and Nevada. At present it supplies over 3Mt/yr to California, Arizona, and Nevada from its integrated plant in Victorville, California and via sea-borne imports. Efficiency improvements at Victorville and other unspecified supply chain changes are also planned.

Cemex isn’t the only company with an eye on the south-west US. Around the same time Japan-based Taiheiyo Cement concluded its deal with Semen Indonesia to buy a 15% stake in its subsidiary Solusi Bangun Indonesia (SBI) for around US$220m. It’s a long way from Arizona but the related statement mentioned plans to make SBI’s integrated Tuban plant in East Java more export focused, with the construction of a new jetty and silos. It intends to export 0.5Mt/yr of cement to Taiheiyo Cement’s business in the US. Its local subsidiary, CalPortland, runs two integrated plants in California and one in Arizona.

Chart 1: Annual change in US cement consumption by state, December 2019 – November 2020. Source: PCA & USGS.

In its recent winter forecasts the Portland Cement Association (PCA) reported that the Mountain region of the US recorded the highest growth in cement consumption in 2020, at 10%, due to underlying economic fundamentals and favourable demographic trends. Data from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) supports Cemex’s view too. Ordinary Portland Cement and blended cement shipments rose by 21% year-on-year to 2.74Mt in Arizona and New Mexico in the first 11 months of 2020 from 2.28Mt in the same period in 2019. This doesn’t quite tally in California where shipments fell slightly, by 0.8%, to 9.42Mt. However, it reported 12% growth to 2.38Mt in the first quarter of 2020, suggesting that the market could return sharply once the coronavirus epidemic is better under control. Overall, shipments in the US grew by 1.03% to 82.3Mt in the first 11 months of 2020, driven by growth in central regions. The PCA expects national cement consumption to grow by about 1% in 2021 with a ‘robust’ recovery driven by residential housing but slowed by uncertain coronavirus vaccination supplies and general market volatility.

In a world with too much clinker production capacity, it stands out to see two established producers so visibly chasing market share in a mature market. Rather than building new plants, both Cemex and Taiheiyo Cement are using or reviving existing production lines in other countries, and building import strategies as well as optimising their existing facilities in the regions. With the western building material multinationals now often looking to focus on ‘safe’ markets in Europe or North America the fight to grow market share in these regions is likely to become more intense. It also complicates decisions about when or if an existing plant should be mothballed or shut. After all, Cemex’s old production line in Hermosillo is about to become very useful indeed.

The European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) looked like it might be about to hit Euro40/t this week. It still might. You can blame it on the current cold front bringing snow to much of Northern Europe and the bedding into of the fourth phase of the ETS that started in January 2021. In early 2020 analysts were generally predicting an average price of around Euro30/t by 2030 bolstered by volatility in the price due to the start of the coronavirus pandemic. Yet the price recovered and so did the European Commission’s resolve to push through its European Green Deal. By mid-December 2020 the price had shot past Euro30/t and analysts were forecasting average prices of well over Euro50/t by 2030. Depending on one’s disposition this is the rate at which either serious decarbonisation attempts will begin to be viable for commercial companies, or the point at which more plants simply close.

Figure 1: European Union Emissions Trading System carbon market price in Euros (European Union Allowance), February 2020 – February 2021. Source: Sandbag.

One group which is well aware of the EU ETS and its consequences upon the cement industry is Cembureau, the European cement association. Some of its current lobbying efforts have been directed at trying to shape how the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanisms (CBAM) will appear in legislation proposals in June 2021. Its argument boils down to protecting its members from carbon leakage both in and out of the EU’s borders and maintaining free allocation until 2030 to ease the transition to a lower carbon economy. The former should find common ground. However, calls for a CO₂ charge exemption for EU exporters may perplex environmentalists, who might wonder how this could possibly encourage third party countries to introduce their own carbon pricing schemes. The latter is clearly pragmatism for an industry saying that it is facing change at a pace that may be too rapid for it to cope with. Concrete products do carry sustainability advantages over other building materials. Wiping out swathes of the region’s production base, simply because one knows exactly how much CO₂ they emit compared to rival building materials that one doesn’t, may not help the EU reach its climate commitments by 2050. As if to underline this fear, another European clinker line was earmarked for closure this week when Lafarge France announced the planned conversion of the Contes cement plant into a terminal.

Figure 2: Estimate of global cement production in 2018 by region. Source: Cembureau.

Figure 2 above puts the situation into a global perspective, showing that Cembureau’s members were responsible for below 7% of cement production in 2018. China produced an estimated 55% of global cement production in the same year. In terms of overall CO₂ emissions across all sources, the International Energy Agency (IEA) estimated that China produced 30% of CO₂ emissions in 2018.

It seems odd then that the introduction of an interim ETS in China at the start of February 2021 didn’t receive more global news coverage. The new scheme covers 2225 power companies across the country. It follows pilot regional schemes that have run since 2011, covering seven provinces and cities including Beijing, Shanghai and Guangdong. Previously, the country’s largest local carbon market, the China Emissions Exchange (Guangzhou), was based in Guangdong province and it included power generation, cement, steel, and petrochemical sectors. State news agency Xinhua reports that this scheme reduced carbon emissions from these industries by 12% from 2013 to 2019. The new national ETS is expected to include cement and other industries at a later stage.

Commentators in the European press have pointed out that the Chinese national ETS is actually planning to make an effort on transparency and to force companies to publish their pollution data publicly. Yet, they’ve also said that the data may be inaccurate anyway, echoing the usual Western fears about Chinese figures. Other concerns include the method of giving out pollution permits rather than allocating them by auction as in other cap and trade systems, which could reduce the incentive to reduce emissions. It’s also worth pointing out that carbon was priced at US$6/t under the Chinese system compared to around US$35/t in the EU and US$17/t in California, US at the end of 2020. At this price it seems unlikely that the Chinese national ETS will encourage much change without other measures.

The EU and Chinese ETS are at different stages but the differences in scale are stark. When or if the Chinese one goes national across those eight core industries it will likely leapfrog over the EU ETS and become the world’s largest with an estimated 13,235MtCO₂e under its purview. By contrast, the EU ETS manages 1816MtC0₂e according to World Bank data. The kind of dilemmas Cembureau and others are tackling with the EU ETS such as carbon leakage and how fast to tighten the system against heavy emitters are illustrative to other schemes in China and elsewhere.