Displaying items by tag: Cement Australia

In Australia and New Zealand, four producers operate a total of six integrated cement plants, with another 13 grinding plants situated in Australia. This relatively small regional cement industry has been on a decades-long trajectory towards ever-greater sustainability – hastened by some notable developments in recent weeks.

Oceania is among the regions most exposed to the impacts of climate change. In Australia, which ranked 16th on the GermanWatch Global Climate Risk Index 2021, destructive changes are already playing out in diverse ways.¹ Boral reported 'significant disruption' to its operations in New South Wales and southeast Queensland due to wet weather earlier in 2022. This time, the operational impact was US$17.1m; in future, such events are expected to come more often and at a higher cost.

Both the Australian cement industry and the sole New Zealand cement producer, Golden Bay Cement, have strategies aimed at restricting climate change to below the 2° scenario. Golden Bay Cement, which reduced its total CO₂ emissions by 12% over the four-year period between its 2018 and 2022 financial years, aims to achieve a 30% reduction by 2030 from the same baseline. The Australian Cement Industry Federation (CIF)'s 2050 net zero cement and concrete production roadmap consists of the following pathways: alternative cements – 7%; green hydrogen and alternative fuels substitution – 6%; carbon capture – 33%; renewable energy, transport and construction innovations – 35% and alternative concretes – 13%, with the remaining 6% accounted for by the recarbonation of set concrete.

Australia produces 5.2Mt/yr of clinker, with specific CO₂ emissions of 791kg/t of clinker, 4% below the global average of 824kg/t.² Calcination generates 55% of cement’s CO₂ emissions in the country, and fuel combustion 26%. Of the remainder, electricity (comprising 21% renewables) accounted for 12%, and distribution 7%. Australian cement production has a clinker factor of 84%, which the industry aims to reduce to 70% by 2030 and 60% by 2050. In New Zealand, Golden Bay Cement's main cement, EverSure general-purpose cement, generates CO₂ at 732kg/t of product.³ It has a clinker factor of 91%, and also contains 4% gypsum and 5% added limestone.

Alternative raw materials

Currently, Australian cement grinding mills process 3.3Mt/yr of fly ash and ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS). In Southern Australia, Hallett Group plans to commission its upcoming US$13.4m Port Augusta slag cement grinding plant in 2023. The plant will use local GGBFS from refineries in nearby Port Pirie and Whyalla, and fly ash from the site of the former Port Augusta power plant, as well as being 100% renewably powered. Upon commissioning, the facility will eliminate regional CO₂ emissions of 300,000t/yr, subsequently rising to 1Mt/yr following planned expansions. Elsewhere, an Australian importer holds an exclusive licencing agreement for UK-based Innovative Ash Solutions' novel air pollution control residue (APCR)-based supplementary cementitious material, an alternative to pulverised fly ash (PFA), while Australian Graphene producer First Graphene is involved in a UK project to develop reduced-CO₂ graphene-enhanced cement.

Golden Bay Cement is investigating the introduction of New Zealand's abundant volcanic ash in its cement production.

Fuels and more

Alternative fuel (AF) substitution in Australian cement production surpassed 18% in 2020, and is set to rise to 30% by 2030 and 50% by 2050, or 60% including 10% green hydrogen. In its recent report on Australian cement industry decarbonisation, the German Cement Works Association (VDZ) noted the difficulty that Australia's cement plants face in competing against landfill sites for waste streams. It described current policy as inadequate to incentivise AF use.

Cement producer Adbri is among eight members of an all-Australian consortium currently building a green hydrogen plant at AGL Energy’s Torrens Island gas-fired power plant in South Australia.

Across the Tasman Sea, Golden Bay Cement expects to attain a 60% AF substitution rate through on-going developments in its use of waste tyres and construction wood waste at its Portland cement plant in Northland. The producer will launch its new EcoSure reduced-CO₂ (699kg/t) general-purpose cement in November 2022. In developing EcoSure cement, it co-processed 80,000t of waste, including 3m waste tyres. The company says that this has helped in its efforts to manage its costs amid high coal prices.

Carbon capture

As the largest single contributor in Australia's cement decarbonisation pathway, carbon capture is now beginning to realise its potential. Boral and carbon capture specialist Calix are due to complete a feasibility study for a commercial-scale carbon capture pilot at the Berrima, New South Wales, cement plant in June 2023.

At Cement Australia's Gladstone, Queensland, cement plant, carbon capture is set to combine with green hydrocarbon production in a US$150m circular carbon methanol production facility supplied by Mitsubishi Gas Chemical Company. From its commissioning in mid-2028, the installation will use the Gladstone plant's captured CO₂ emissions and locally sourced green hydrogen to produce 100,000t/yr of methanol.

More Australian cement plant carbon capture installations may be in the offing. Heidelberg Materials, joint parent company of Cement Australia, obtained an indefinite global licence to Calix's LEILAC technology on 28 October 2022. The Germany-based group said that the method offers effective capture with minimal operational impact.

Cement Australia said “The Gladstone region is the ideal location for growing a diverse green hydrogen sector, with abundant renewable energy sources, existing infrastructure, including port facilities, and a highly skilled workforce." It added "The green hydrogen economy is a priority for the Queensland government under the Queensland Hydrogen Industry Strategy.”

Logistics

Australian and New Zealand cement facilities' remoteness makes logistics an important area of CO₂ emissions reduction. In Australia, cement production uses a 60:40 mix of Australian and imported clinker, while imported cement accounts for 5 – 10% of local cement sales of 11.7Mt/yr.

Fremantle Ports recently broke ground on construction of its US$35.1m Kwinana, Western Australia, clinker terminal. It will supply clinker to grinding plants in the state from its commissioning in 2024. Besides increasing the speed and safety of cement production, the state government said that the facility presents 'very significant environmental benefits.'

Conclusion

Antipodean cement production is undergoing a sustainability transformation, characterised by international collaboration and alliances across industries. The current structure of industrial and energy policy makes it an uphill journey, but for Australia and New Zealand's innovating cement industries, clear goals are in sight and ever nearer within reach.

References

1. Eckstein, Künzel and Schäfer, 'Global Climate Risk Index 2021,' 25 January 2021, https://www.germanwatch.org/en/19777

2. VDZ, 'Decarbonisation Pathways for the Australian Cement and Concrete Sector,' November 2021, https://cement.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Full_Report_Decarbonisation_Pathways_web_single_page.pdf

3. Golden Bay Cement, 'Environmental Product Declaration,' 12 May 2019, https://www.goldenbay.co.nz/assets/Uploads/d310c4f72a/GoldenBayCement_EPD_2019_HighRes.pdf

Australia: Cement Australia’s Gladstone cement plant in Queensland will host a study of methanol production from green hydrogen and captured CO₂. Japan-based Mitsubishi Gas Chemical Company will supply its green methanol production technology, while hydrogen and oxygen feedstocks will be sourced locally. Cement Australia and Mitsubishi Gas Chemical Company will collaborate on commercialisation of their green methanol. Cement Australia said that carbon capture and its utilisation in value added products is a strategic pillar of the company’s decarbonisation roadmap.

The cement producer said “The Gladstone region is the ideal location for growing a diverse green hydrogen sector, with abundant renewable energy sources, existing infrastructure, including port facilities, and a highly skilled workforce. The green hydrogen economy is a priority for the Queensland government under the Queensland Hydrogen Industry Strategy.”

Australia: The Queensland Supreme Court has ruled that Wagners must meet lower prices offered by a competitor in the market in its cement supply contract with Boral. Wagners suspended its supply of cement products to Boral for six months in early 2019 when Boral said it found cheaper cement from Cement Australia, according to the Australian newspaper. However, the court found that an October 2019 pricing notice for cheaper supplies from Cement Australia was ‘valid and effective’. Boral will continue buying cement from Wagners until 2031.

The Australian cement supply spat calmed down a little this week with the announcement that Wagners Holdings has agreed to resume the supply of cement products from its Pinkenba grinding plant in Brisbane to Boral. Legal proceedings are still on-going with a trial date set at the Supreme Court of Queensland in late November 2019.

The argument blew up publicly in March 2019, when Wagners said it had suspended its cement supply to Boral for six months. Wagners has a cement supply agreement with Boral whereby it supplies cement on an annual basis for a fixed price. However, Boral informed Wagners that it had found cheaper cement from a ‘long established’ supplier in South East Queensland. Local press speculated that this ‘long established’ supplier was Cement Australia, the joint venture between LafargeHolcim and HeidelbergCement. Wagners then had the choice to either match the lower price or suspend its supply. The disagreement took the legal route as the parties failed to reach an agreement. Wagner says that its cement supply agreement with Boral ‘remains binding on both parties’ until 2031.

Wagners later reported that it expected the suspension to cost it around US$7m in 2019. The deal with Boral constituted about 40% of its cement sales volumes. Its overall revenue grew year-on-year in its 2019 business year to the end of June 2019 but its cement sales volumes fell. Its earnings also fell. This was blamed on higher activity in lower margin areas such as contract haulage and fixed plant concrete, and delays in major infrastructure project work in South-East Queensland.

Boral, meanwhile, suffered from falling revenue and earnings from its Boral Australia subsidiary in its financial year to June 2019 due to a slowing construction market. Notably, its cement sales revenue rose by 7% due to ‘favourable’ pricing, higher volumes and cost-saving programs. It didn’t say whether the cost cutting included sourcing cement from a different supplier! All of this though was counteracted by lower contributions from its Sunstate joint venture (JV) with Adelaide Brighton and higher fuel and clinker costs.

All of this is fascinating because these kinds of disputes usually remain out of the public eye. The large size of Wagners’ cement supply deal with Boral meant that when it was threatened it likely had to tell its shareholders due to the potential financial impact. Whether Boral can wriggle out of the contract is now a matter for the courts.

The broader picture is that even though Boral Australia’s cement division seemed to be growing in its 2019 financial year it was still trying to reduce its costs in the face of a decelerating construction market. Added to this, the companies hold both a supplier and a competitor relationship. On the production side Boral operates an integrated plant at Berrima in New South Wales (NSW), a grinding plant at Maldon, NSW and another grinding plant in its Sunstate JV at Brisbane, Queensland. Wagners runs its own grinding plant at Pinkenba, Queensland. Both companies operate concrete plants. This is not unusual for a concentrated industrial sector like cement but it creates problems for the regulators. Note that, also this week, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission was reportedly paying attention to the links between Barro Group and Adelaide Brighton. Barro owns a 43% stake in Adelaide Brighton but the authorities are concerned about a possible overlap in the two companies’ roles as suppliers of cement, concrete and aggregates. Any slowdown in construction in Australia seems likely to heighten these kinds of issues.

Australia: The New South Wales Environment Protection Authority (EPA) has fined Port Kembla Milling’s cement and slag grinding plant US$23,000 for allegedly storing raw materials in the open, in breach of its licence conditions. Raw materials, including gypsum and limestone, were allegedly stored in the open at the subsidiary of Cement Australia on at least five occasions since January 2016 in breach of the site’s planning approval and licence conditions. Such materials should be stored in an enclosed location to prevent dust emissions.

“The requirement to store materials in an enclosed building is a key way to ensure dust emissions from bulk materials are prevented. A measure that is very important given the residential areas near Port Kembla port,” said EPA Regional Director Metropolitan Giselle Howard.

In addition to the fines, the EPA has also required Port Kembla Milling to complete an independent raw materials handling audit to confirm appropriate storage and management systems are put in place. The company has made some initial steps to respond to this request, and the EPA will continue to work with the licensee to ensure full compliance.

Australia: The Federal Court has upheld an appeal by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) and raised a fine against Cement Australia and its subsidiaries for anti-competitive agreements to US$16.1m. Originally the cement producer was fined US$13.4m but the ACCC argued it was too low. A cross appeal by Cement Australia was dismissed.

“The penalties imposed in competition cases are hugely important in deterring anti-competitive conduct, which is why we appealed the original penalties given to Cement Australia,” said ACCC Chairman Rod Sims.

The ACCC first brought the proceedings in 2008 against Cement Australia, Cement Australia Holdings, Cement Australia Queensland (formerly Queensland Cement Ltd), Pozzolanic Enterprises and Pozzolanic Industries. They were related to contracts that were entered into by Cement Australia companies between 2002 and 2006 with four power stations in South East Queensland, to acquire fly ash. The court found contraventions of the Competition and Consumer Act in 2014 and a fine was issued in 2016.

Unsurprisingly the European Commission blocked Duna-Dráva Cement’s (DDC) attempted purchase of Cemex Croatia this week. Merging the country’s biggest cement producer with its largest importer was going to be a challenge for the commission. Whereas in previous transactions the various parties offered business disposals to ease the commission’s concerns, here all they were got was access to a cement terminal in Metković in southern Croatia. And this facility on the Neretva river is currently being leased by Cemex! Clearly this didn’t give the impression of being a long term solution.

Compare this with the merger between Lafarge and Holcim in 2015 where multiple sales were proposed to make sure the deal went through. Or look at the acquisition of Italcementi by HeidelbergCement in 2016 where the parties sold Italcementi’s Belgian subsidiary Compagnie des Ciments Belges to Cementir to make the deal happen. In comparison to these deals the attempt by HeidelbergCement and Schwenk, through their subsidiary DDC, comes across as a calculated gamble designed to test the resolve of the commission. If the commission had somehow passed the proposed acquisition then the companies would have cornered the market. If it turned it down, as it has, then nothing would be lost other than putting together the bid. HeidelbergCement had its mind on bigger things as it bought and then integrated Italcementi.

Commissioner Margrethe Vestager summed up the mood of the commission: “For mergers between direct competitors, we generally have a preference for a clean, structural solution, such as selling a production plant. HeidelbergCement and Schwenk decided not to offer that. Instead they proposed to give a competitor access to a cement terminal in southern Croatia. Essentially, this amounted to giving a competitor access to a storage facility – without existing customers or established access to cement, without brands and without sales or managerial staff.”

Elsewhere, the other big story in the industry news this week was Votorantim’s decision to focus on the lime business in Brazil by adding lime units to some of its existing cement plants. Given the dire state of the local cement and construction industry, initiatives to break the deadlock have been expected. The alternative is plant closures and divestures, such as the ongoing talks by Camargo Corrêa to sell the other big local producer, InterCement. Votorantim plans to build lime units attached to the cement plants at Nobres in Mato Grosso, Xambioa in Tocantins, Primavera in Pará and Idealiza in Goiás. Unfortunately the agricultural areas of the country and ones with cement plants don’t overlay neatly. Cement production is mainly focused in the south-eastern states and Votorantim are targeting the Cerrado, in the centre of the country, for the lime business.

The scale of the project, at US$50m, the scale of the lime business generally and the addition of lime units at cement plants suggest that the pivot to lime can only be a sideline to cement and construction. Given the similarity of the cement and lime production processes the announcement would be much more significant were Votorantim set to convert clinker kilns into lime ones. A notable example of this was at Cement Australia’s Gladstone plant in Queensland, Australia. Here a mothballed FCB-Ciment clinker kiln was converted into a lime kiln in the early 2000s. At the time the cost of the conversion project was valued at just under US$20m. If Votorantim was seriously thinking of doing this at a few of their underperforming cement plants then one would expect the bill to be higher than US$50m. However, it’s early days yet.

A couple of news stories from Australia this week give us a reason to look at the country’s cement industry. All the main producers have now released their preliminary reports for the second half of 2016, with the exception of LafargeHolcim, one of the joint owners of Cement Australia. Essentially, the picture is mixed from two of the three main producers - Adelaide Brighton and Boral - with falling sales revenues but growing sales in the east. In mid-2016 the Australian Industry Group Construction Outlook survey predicted that the infrastructure, commercial and residential sectors would start to recover in the second half of 2016 leading to an upturn in 2017, although falling mining and heavy engineering construction was expected to continue to contrast in 2016.

The local market is split in clinker production terms with most of the producers (relatively) concentrated in the south and east of the country. Cement Australia leads in cement production capacity with 2.8Mt/yr or 42% of the country's production base from two integrated plants. Adelaide Brighton then comes next with 2.3Mt/yr or 35% from three plants and Boral follows with 1.5Mt/yr from one plant since the closure of clinker production at its Waum Ponds Plant in Victoria in 2012. The cement grinding plant situation is more varied with Adelaide Brighton's Northern Cement plant in the Northern Territory and BGC Cement plant in Western Australia amongst the country's 12 units, according to Global Cement Directory 2017 data. This total also includes a few slag cement grinding plants such as the Australian Steel Mill Services' plant and the Cement Australia-Ecocem plant that are both in Port Kembla.

Adelaide Brighton reported that its sales volumes of cement were down in 2016 due to major declines in Western Australia and the Northern Territory. Here, volumes had fallen by around 20% year-on-year. Unfortunately, a revival in southern and eastern Australia in the second half of the year wasn’t enough to stem the tide of poor sales. Power supply issues in Southern Australia also caused disruptions at both the company’s own plants and at those of its customers, leading to reduced sales. The cement producer also said that its import volumes had fallen by 2Mt due to lower sales in Western Australia and the Northern Territory and that import costs had increased due to a drop in the value of the Australian Dollar. Adelaide Brighton's reliance on imports is interesting given that this week Semen Padang, a subsidiary of Semen Indonesia, announced that it had started exporting cement to Australia.

Meanwhile, Boral Australia said that its cement revenue had fallen by 3% year-on-year to US$95.3m for its first half to 31 December 2016. However, cement sales volumes grew by 3% driven by higher direct sales. It also noted that competition and energy costs had increased in the period. HeidelbergCement, the other joint owner of Cement Australia, along with LafargeHolcim, said that its operations in Australia had delivered solid development due to strong residential construction demand and strong demand on the East Coast that compensated for a weaker mining sector. LafargeHolcim confirmed this in its half-year report adding that road infrastructure projects had also helped. It also noted that benefits to its adjusted operating earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) had been accrued through energy savings and lower clinker import costs.

LafargeHolcim's financial results for 2016 are due later this week on 2 March 2017. Potentially they have big implications for the Australian cement market given the rumours that were swirling around a year ago about a potential divestment. Although the signs so far suggest that its subsidiary Cement Australia did okay in 2016, pressure elsewhere in the group might prompt a sale of its share. We discussed this issue in December 2015 but since then Adelaide Brighton publicly said it was working on an acquisition plan, including strategy on how to cope with any potential competition issues. All eyes will be on LafargeHolcim later in the week.

Australia: The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has filed an appeal against a US$12.6m fine against Cement Australia, which it views is too low. On 16 May 2016 a Federal Court published orders imposing a penalty of US$13.7m on the cement producer. One order was then set aside, reducing the fine to US$12.6m. However, the ACCC contends that a penalty of over US$66m is more appropriate for the breaches of Australia’s competition legislation.

“The ACCC will argue to the Full Court that the penalties imposed on Cement Australia are manifestly inadequate, and not of appropriate deterrent value,” said ACCC Chairman Rod Sims. He added that suitable financial penalties were considered ‘essential’ as a deterrent to anti-competitive conduct and to prevent businesses viewing such behaviour as an acceptable cost of doing business.

The proceedings relate to contracts that were entered into by Cement Australia companies between 2002 and 2006 with four power stations in South East Queensland, to acquire fly ash. The court found numerous contraventions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. It also fined Christopher White, a manager in the Cement Australia fly ash business during the relevant period, a penalty of US$14,700 for his involvement in making the contravening contracts with the operator of the Swanbank power station in 2005.

Australia: The Kandos Bicentennial Industrial Museum has moved a ball mill from the former Cement Australia Kandos plant to its collection. The aim is to make the mill the centre of the museum's external collection, according to local press.

"We were very lucky to be offered the ball mill by Cement Australia," said Dr Buzz Sanderson, president of the Kandos Museum. "When Cement Australia decided to demolish the Kandos Cement Works, it asked us which parts we wanted to exhibit at the museum and the ball mill was one of them. There was a plan at one stage to place the ball mill down near the railway station at the entrance to town but there were just too many safety concerns."

The ball mill will be placed beside the Kandos Museum to give visitors to the museum a sense of how the machinery worked when it was in operation. The museum has had three sections cut away from the machine that will allow guests to look inside and see the inner workings of the machine.