Displaying items by tag: Government

A week ago, there were two fully-financed cement plant carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS) projects underway in the US.¹ Now, there aren’t.

Projects to decarbonise National Cement Company’s Lebec, California, plant and Heidelberg Materials North America’s Mitchell, Indiana, plant were each set to receive up to US$500m in US Department of Energy (DoE) funding on a one-for-one basis with private investments. The projects were to include eventual 950,000t/yr (Lebec) and 2Mt/yr (Mitchell) carbon capture installations. Additionally, the Lebec plant was to transition to limestone calcined clay cement (LC3) production and the use of alternative fuels (AF), including pistachio shells. Both were beneficiaries of the DoE’s US$6bn Industrial Demonstrations Program (IDP), touted by former US Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm as ‘Spurring on the next generation of decarbonisation technologies in key industries [to] keep America the most competitive nation on Earth.’ Disbursement of funding under the programme was frozen by executive order of President Trump in January 2025.^{2, 3}

On 30 May 2025, Trump’s Secretary of Energy announced that the government in which Granholm served had approved spending on industrial decarbonisation without a ‘thorough financial review.’ He cancelled remaining project funding in signature Trumpian style, in list form.⁴ Among 24 de-funded projects, Lebec and Mitchell accounted for US$1bn (27%) of a total US$3.73bn in allocated funds that have now been withdrawn.

It's hard not to feel sorry for the management of the Lebec and Mitchell plant and the teams that had been working to deliver these projects. Heidelberg Materials has yet to comment, though CEO Dominik von Achten was in North America in late May 2025. National Cement Company parent Vicat, meanwhile, conceded the setback with a strong statement of its commitment to CO₂ reduction, to 497kg/t of cementitious product globally.⁵ There was a diplomatic edge to the statement too, however. Echoing the Secretary of Energy, Vicat said that its target remains ‘solely based on existing proven technologies, including energy efficiency, AF substitution and clinker rate reduction’ – as opposed to ‘any technological breakthroughs’ like carbon capture. There are currently no public details of possible back-up financing arrangements for these projects; for now, the best guess at their status is ‘uncertain.’

Alongside these group’s local subsidiaries, another organisation that has to do business daily with the DoE is the American Cement Association (ACA). President and CEO Mike Ireland has continually acknowledged the complex needs of the government, while stating the association’s case for keeping support in place. With regard to these funding cuts, Ireland’s emphasis fell on the latter side: “Today’s announcement is candidly a missed opportunity for both America’s cement manufacturers and this administration, as CCS projects have long been supported by bipartisan members in Congress and bipartisan administrations.”⁶ He reasserted the ACA’s understanding that carbon capture aligns with the administration’s strategy to bolster domestic manufacturing and innovation.

The early 2020s heyday of US carbon capture was founded on gradual, consensus-based politics – unlike its demise. Table 1 (below) gives a non-exhaustive account of recent and on-going front-end engineering design (FEED) studies and the funding they received:

Additionally, MTR Carbon Capture, which is executing a carbon capture pilot at St Marys Cement’s Charlevoix plant in Michigan, previously received US$1.5m in Fossil Energy Research and Development funding towards a total US$3.7m for an unspecified cement plant carbon capture study.¹⁰

Market researcher Greenlight Insights valued industrial decarbonisation initiatives under the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (ODEC – the now defunct DoE office responsible, among other things, for the IDP) at US$65.9bn in cumulative returns in April 2025.¹¹ The government has yet to publish any account of how it might replace this growth, or the 291,000 anticipated new jobs that would have come with it. Given all this (along with the extensive financial and technical submissions that accompanied each project), the issues raised by the DoE are presumably budgetary, or else founded in a perception of CCUS as essentially uneconomical.

Carbon capture is very, very expensive. A fatuous reply is that so is climate change, just with a few more ‘verys.’ Hurricane Ian in September 2022 cost US$120bn, more than enough to fund carbon capture installations at all 91 US cement plants, along the lines of the former Lebac and Mitchell agreements.¹² Unlike climate change, however, carbon capture remains unproven. Advocates need to continually justify taxpayer involvement in such a high-risk venture.

At its Redding cement plant in California, Lehigh Hanson successfully delivered a funding-free FEED study, with its partner Fortera raising US$85m in a Series C funding. This presents an alternative vision of innovation as fully-privatised, in which the government might still have the role of shaping demand. This is borne out in the IMPACT Act, a bill which ‘sailed through’ the lower legislature in March 2025.¹³ If enacted, it will empower state and municipal transport departments to pledge to buy future outputs of nascent reduced-CO₂ cements and concretes.

A separate aspect of the funding cancellation that appears decidedly cruel is the targeted removal of grants to start-ups. Two alternative building materials developers – Brimstone and Sublime Systems – were listed for a combined US$276m of now vapourised liquidity. Both are commercially viable without the funding, but the effect of this reversal – including on the next generation of US innovators who hoped to follow in their footsteps – can only be chilling. As non-governmental organisation Industrious Labs said of the anticipated closure of the ODEC in April 2025: “We may see companies based in other geographies start to pull ahead.”

Heidelberg Materials’s Brevik carbon capture plant came online in June 2025, 54 months after the producer secured approval for the project. The term of a presidency is 48 months. This probably means that producers in the US will no longer see CCUS as a viable investment, even under sympathetic administrations.

Even as government funding for CCS flickers from ‘dormant’ to ‘extinct,’ the sun is rising on other US projects. Monarch Cement Company commissioned a 20MW solar power plant at its Humboldt cement plant in Kansas on 27 May 2025. The global momentum is behind decarbonisation, even if economics determines that it will only take the form of smaller-scale mitigation measures at US cement plants into the medium-term future. We can hope that these, at least, might include the AF and LC3 aspects of National Cement Company’s plans at Lebec.

References

1. Clean Air Task Force, ‘Global Carbon Capture Activity and Project Map,’ accessed 3 June 2025, www.catf.us/ccsmapglobal/

2. Democrats Appropriations, ‘Issue 5: Freezing the Industrial Demonstrations Program Undermines U.S. Manufacturing Competitiveness and Strands Private Investment,’ January 2025, www.democrats-appropriations.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/democrats-appropriations.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/5%20DOE%20Frozen%20Funding%20-%20Industrial%20Demos.pdf

3. Colorado Attorney General, ‘Attorney General Phil Weiser secures court order blocking Trump administration’s illegal federal funding freeze,’ 6 March 2025, www.coag.gov/press-releases/weiser-court-order-trump-federal-funding-freeze-3-6-25/

4. US Department of Energy, ‘Secretary Wright Announces Termination of 24 Projects, Generating Over $3 Billion in Taxpayer Savings,’ 30 May 2025, www.energy.gov/articles/secretary-wright-announces-termination-24-projects-generating-over-3-billion-taxpayer

5. Vicat, ‘Cancellation of funding agreement for the Lebec Net Zero project by the US Department of Energy,’ 3 June 2025, www.vicat.com/news/cancellation-funding-agreement-lebec-net-zero-project-us-department-energy

6. American Cement Association, ‘Statement from the American Cement Association on Department of Energy’s Cancellation of Clean Energy Grants,’ 30 May 2025, www.cement.org/2025/05/30/statement-from-the-american-cement-association-on-department-of-energys-cancellation-of-clean-energy-grants/

7. Gov Tribe, ‘Cooperative Agreement DEFE0031942,’ 30 September 2022, www.govtribe.com/award/federal-grant-award/cooperative-agreement-defe0031942

8. Higher Gov, ‘DECD0000010 Cooperative Agreement,’ 13 May 2024, www.highergov.com/grant/DECD0000010/

9. Gov Tribe, ‘Cooperative Agreement DEFE0032222,’ 7 February 2025, www.govtribe.com/award/federal-grant-award/cooperative-agreement-defe0032222

10. Higher Gov, ‘DEFE0031949 Cooperative Agreement,’ 1 May 2023, www.highergov.com/grant/DEFE0031949/

11. Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, ‘Jobs, Economic Impact of OCED Closure,’ 11 April 2025, www.c2es.org/press-release/oced-closure-could-cost-65-billion-290000-jobs/

12. National Centers for Environmental Information, ‘Events,’ accessed 4 June 2025, www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions/events/US/2022?disasters%5B%5D=tropical-cyclone

13. US Congress, ‘H.R.1534 - IMPACT Act,’ 26 March 2025, www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1534

Kenya: A judge has upheld the appointment of Mohamed Osman Adan as the managing director of East African Portland Cement Company (EAPCC). Employment and Labour Relations Court judge Byram Ongaya ruled that Adan was the only applicant to meet the 70% score threshold as prescribed in the company’s Human Resources and Procedures Manual.

“The court finds that the board’s recommendation that Mr Adan be appointed the managing director cannot be defeated upon the tests in Article 73(2) (a) on selection on the basis of personal integrity, competence, and suitability; and, Article 232 (g) on fair competition and merit as the basis of appointments and promotions,” said Ongaya.

Mr Adan’s appointment had been challenged by lawyer Apollo Mboya, who alleged that the board of directors had overturned Kenyan President William Ruto’s appointment of Bruno Oguda Obodha as managing director.

Najmat Al Samawa Cement (NAS Cement) in Iraq announced this week that its second production line was successfully fired up on 13 May 2025. The new 5500t/day line was formally announced in May 2023. It joins the existing line at the site and should bring the plant’s total production capacity to around 3Mt/yr. The plant is a joint-venture between Pakistan-based Lucky Cement Limited and the Al Shumookh Company in Dubai and its representatives in Iraq.

Global Cement Magazine interviewed Intezar Ahmad, the Director of Operations at NAS Cement, in the November 2024 issue. He explained that China-based TCDRI was the main contractor for both the original and new lines. Equipment for Line 2 was also supplied by Fives Pillard, Loesche and IKN. Commissioning was scheduled for the second quarter of 2025. This, nicely, appears to be spot on. Lucky Cement added in its statement about the new line this week that it is also building a new 0.65Mt/yr cement grinding mill at the plant. This addition is expected to be commissioned during the second half of the 2025 calendar year. Lucky Cement also operates a cement grinding plant, under a joint-venture, in Basra.

The expansion at NAS Cement is by no means the only one as there have been a number of project announcements over the last three months. Germany-based Gebr. Pfeiffer revealed in late-March 2025 that it had won an order to supply a vertical roller mill for the Al Amir cement plant in Najaf. This contract was awarded through the China-based contractor Sinoma Suzhou. Commissioning is planned for the second half of 2026. Then, one month later in April 2025, Prime Minister Mohammed Shia Al-Sudani made a statement launching ‘implementation works’ at four cement plants in Al-Muthanna Province. This included the 6000t/day Al-Arabi Cement Plant, the 6000t/day Al-Khairat Al-Muthanna Cement Plant, the 6600t/day Al-Samawa Cement Plant and the 6000t/day Al-Etihad Cement Plant. Al-Sudani also mentioned the start of commercial operations at NAS Cement’s second line. Subsequently, IVI Holding signed a US$240m deal with Sinoma Overseas in mid-May 2025 to build a 6000t/day plant in Al-Muthanna Province. Presumably, this is one of the projects that the government highlighted. Finally, the Kurdistan Region prime minister Masrour Barzani inaugurated the 6300t/day Dabin cement plant at around the same time. This last project was built by PowerChina together with a power station.

The Iraqi economy has been doing well in recent years. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) reported in May 2025 that the non-oil sector experienced “very strong growth” of 13.8% in 2023. This slowed down to 2.5% in 2024 due to a slowdown in public investment and in the services sector, and a weaker trade balance. However, the IMF noted that the agriculture, manufacturing, and construction sectors had remained resilient. Non-oil sector growth is forecast to remain subdued in 2025 amid a “...challenging global environment and financing constraints.” In its coverage of the new line at NAS Cement, Pakistan Today reported that the country has a notional cement production capacity of around 40Mt/yr but that many of the older plants have suffered from under-investment. Accordingly, the domestic market is around 25Mt/yr supported by state-funded housing projects, oil-field infrastructure schemes and reconstruction in Mosul. 3 - 4Mt of this is supplied via imports from Iran and Türkiye. The newspaper also noted the risk that all these new cement plant projects may face from variable gas supplies from the government. NAS Cement, for example, switched from heavy fuel oil (HFO) to gas in 2022.

Cement sector capacity expansion is coming in Iraq following a revived local economy. Risks abound though due to the country’s economic outlook, its dependence on oil and an geopolitical uncertainty. Yet money is being spent and new projects are starting to be commissioned. Onwards!

Demand for heavy building materials in the UK dropped in the first quarter of 2025, with ready-mix concrete sales reaching a new 60-year low.¹ In an update last week, the UK’s Mineral Products Association (MPA) attributed the decline to existing economic headwinds, compounded by global trade disruptions, reduced investor confidence and renewed inflationary pressures.

Major infrastructure projects – including the HS2 high-speed railway in the English Midlands, the Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant in Somerset and the Sizewell C nuclear power plant in Suffolk – failed to offset delays and cancellations by cash-strapped local councils to roadwork projects. Residential construction, meanwhile, is ‘slowly but steadily’ recovering from historical lows, amid continuing high mortgage rates since late 2024.

The most interesting part of the MPA’s market appraisal was its warning of ‘new risks emerging in the global economy.’ These concern the new tariffs raised by the US against its import partners. The possible consequences, the MPA says, imperil the UK’s supply chains, construction sector and growth.

Of particular immediacy is the threat of imports into the UK from countries that previously focussed on the US market. The MPA said that the industry ‘cannot compete’ against increased low-cost, CO₂-intensive imports. It named Türkiye, which sends around 6.9Mt/yr of cement and clinker to the US, as a key threat. Türkiye became subject to the blanket 10% ‘baseline’ tariff on 2 April 2025.

The MPA probably didn’t have a particular company in mind when it said this. However, it bears noting that Turkish interests gained a share of UK cement capacity in October 2024, when Çimsa acquired 95% of Northern Ireland-based Mannok. Besides the Derrylin cement plant (situated on the border between Fermanagh, UK, and Cavan, Ireland), Mannok operates the Rochester cement storage and distribution facility in Kent, 50km from London. The facility currently supplies cement from Derrylin to Southern England and the Midlands. It could easily serve as a base of operations for processing and distributing imported cement and clinker from further afield.

Meanwhile in South West England, Portugal-based Cimpor is building a €20 – 25m cement import terminal in the Port of Bristol. The company is subject to 20% tariffs on shipments to the US from its home country. Its parent company, Taiwan Cement Corporation, is subject to 32% US tariffs from Taiwan.

But the plot thickens… On 8 May 2025, the UK became the first country to conclude a trade agreement with the US after the erection of the new tariff regime, under which the US$73bn/yr-worth of British goods sold in the US became subject to a 10% tariff.² The latest agreement brought partial relief for an allied sector of UK cement: steel. 180,000t flowed into the US from the UK in 2024.³ In 2024, the UK exported 7120t of cement and clinker to the US, up by a factor of 10 decade-on-decade from just 714t in 2014, all of it into two US customs districts, Philadelphia and New York City.⁴

In what may be one of the first true ‘Brexit benefits,’ UK cement exporters now ‘enjoy’ a US tariff rate half that of their EU competitors, notably those in Greece. Like the UK’s more modest volumes, Greece’s 1.82Mt/yr-worth of cement and clinker exports stateside also enter via the US’ eastern seaports, at New York City, Tampa and Norfolk. Given the overlaps in ownership between the Greek and UK cement sectors, it is conceivable that optimisation of cement export flows across Europe may already be under discussion.

On 6 May 2025, the UK and Indian governments announced a trade deal that will lift customs duties on almost all current Indian exports to the UK. UK MPs are still seeking clarifications as to whether this will include industrial products that might be dumped.⁵ Theoretically, the threat from an oversupplied and fast-growing cement industry like India’s could be existential to the UK cement industry.

As the UK invests heavily in its future, including with the HyNet Consortium, imports pose a major threat. Given enough time, the UK could develop a leading position in the decarbonisation space. Will it have enough time? Existential threats certainly add a sense of jeopardy.

References
1. Mineral Products Association, ‘Weak start to 2025 for building materials sales amid growing economic headwinds,’ 6 May 2025, www.mineralproducts.org/News/2025/release16.aspx

2. HM Government, ‘UK overseas trade in goods statistics November 2024,’ 16 January 2025, www.gov.uk/government/statistics/uk-overseas-trade-in-goods-statistics-november-2024/uk-overseas-trade-in-goods-statistics-november-2024-commentary

3. UK Steel, ‘US 25% tariffs on UK steel imports come into effect,’ 12 March 2025, www.uksteel.org/steel-news-2025/us-25-tariffs-on-uk-steel-imports-come-into-effect

4. United States Geological Survey, ‘Cement in December 2024,’ January 2025, https://d9-wret.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/assets/palladium/production/s3fs-public/media/files/mis-202412-cemen.pdf

5. Welsh Liberal Democrats, ‘UK-Indian Trade Deal: Government Refuses to Answer Whether it Has Conceded on Cheap Indian Steel Imports,’ 6 May 2025, www.libdems.wales/news/article/uk-indian-trade-deal-government-refuses-to-answer-whether-it-has-conceded-on-cheap-indian-steel-imports

Sectoral adjustment continued for the cement industry in China in 2024. Now that the financial results from many of the larger China-based cement producers are out it gives Global Cement Weekly a chance to review the world’s biggest cement market. The decline in national output of cement accelerated in 2024 and the results showed this. CNBM summed up the situation as follows: “In 2024, affected by the reduction of real estate investment and the slowdown of infrastructure projects, the cement industry in China was caught in a situation of insufficient demand and aggravated overcapacity.” Output dropped by just under 10% year-on-year to 1.83Bnt in 2024 according to data from the National Bureau of Statistics of China (NBS). This is the fourth consecutive annual decline and the lowest figure the sector has experienced since around 2010.

Graph 1: Cement output in China, 2018 to 2024. Source: National Bureau of Statistics of China.

The China Cement Association’s (CCA) assessment concurred with CNBM. Although it detected a slowing in the decline in the second half of 2024, especially in the fourth quarter. It noted that the country has a production capacity of 1.81Bnt/yr and an estimated clinker utilisation rate of 53% in 2024. Note the large apparent difference this may suggest between the NBS and CCA figures. Data from the NBS for the first quarter of 2025 has shown a slowing of the decline. Output was 331Mt, a fall of just 1.7% year-on-year from the same period in 2023. The CCA’s prediction for 2025 is that cement demand will fall by 5% as the real estate market continues to deflate. However, it expects government-led capacity reduction schemes to start making progress.

Graph 2: Sales revenue from selected Chinese cement producers. Source: Company financial reports.

Graph 3: Sales volumes of cement and clinker from selected Chinese cement producers. Source: Company financial reports.

CNBM’s sales revenue fell by 14% to US$24.8bn in 2024. Sales of its Basic Building Materials segment fell by 23% to US$12.5bn. This was blamed on falling volumes and prices of cement and other heavy building materials. Sales from the group’s two other segments - New Materials and Engineering Technology Services - rose modestly but this wasn’t enough to hold up total group sales. Operating profit from the Basic Building Materials segment decreased by 45% to US$544m. It was a similar picture at Anhui Conch with sales revenue and net profit down by 36% to US$12.4bn and by 25% to US$1.01bn respectively. Notably, CNBM’s sales volumes of cement decreased by 21% to 245Mt in 2024 compared to a decrease of 6.5% to 268Mt by Anhui Conch. This made Anhui Conch the world’s biggest cement company by sales volumes in 2024.

Tangshan Jidong Cement and China Resources Building Materials Technology (CRBMT) both reported a similar situation. Revenue was down and a net loss was reported by the former. Both revenue and net profit were down for the latter. CRBMT said that its cement capacity utilisation rate was 69% in 2024, down from 71% in 2023. This appears to be significantly higher than the national rate mentioned above by the CCA but the company’s regional distribution may be at play here.

Following from recent years, Huaxin Cement bucked the general market trend and its revenue rose modestly to US$4.7bn in 2024. Its net profit still fell by 12.5% to US$330m. Its overseas businesses made the difference. It reported an increase of 37% to 16.2Mt in overseas cement sales with its non-China cement production capacity rising by 8% to 22.5Mt/yr. Milestones include various new or upgraded plant projects in Sub-Saharan Africa capped off by its announcement at the end of 2024 that it was preparing to buy Lafarge Africa. Other cement companies were also keen to promote overseas activity. CNBM said that the first signing of overseas merger and acquisition was achieved in 2024. This is likely to be the purchase of the Djebel El Oust cement plant in Tunisia from Votorantim Cimentos that was completed in late March 2025. Tangshan Jidong Cement acquired the remaining 40% share in South Africa-based Mamba Cement in April 2024.

All of this leaves the cement sector in China still waiting for the market to stabilise. US tariffs seem unlikely to have an effect in any meaningful way unless the general economy is altered. The declining real estate sector and cement production overcapacity are the main drivers at the national level. The CCA expects the real estate market to continue to fall in 2025 although it hopes that government remedy measures will start to show an effect. It is more optimistic about capacity reduction plans. One route towards this is through merger and acquisition activity. In a recent response to investors about industry integration, Huaxin Cement speculated that the sector might consolidate down to 30 companies from around 300 at present. There is clearly still a way to go.

Malaysia: The state government of Sabah has denied rumours that an investor has departed from the Tongod cement plant project. Industrial Development and Entrepreneurship Minister Datuk Phoong Jin Zhe told the Sabah State Legislative Assembly that Borneo Cement had confirmed that all parties involved in the project remain committed, according to the Star newspaper. He added that the project had received approval for earthworks but that construction work was waiting for the approval from an Environmental Impact Assessment report.

China-based Sinoma Industrial Engineering is preparing to build the 1.75Mt/yr plant. Two-thirds of the unit’s output is intended for the local market in Sabah. The rest will be exported. Ground-breaking work at the site was previously reported in April 2024. However, Borneo Cement subsequently faced accusations of unauthorised forest clearances later in the year.

Boral announced this week that it had secured around US$15m from the Australian government towards decarbonisation upgrades at its Berrima cement plant in New South Wales. The funding will go towards the company’s own investment in a kiln feed optimisation project. A new specialised grinding circuit and supporting infrastructure at the site is intended to increase the proportion of alternative raw materials (ARM) from 9% to 23% to decrease the amount of limestone the kiln uses. The use of more ARMs should also enable the unit to reduce its energy intensity. Boral plans to use ARMs including granulated blast furnace slag, steel slag, cement fibre board, fly ash and fine aggregates from recycled concrete. Commissioning and full operation of the changes are scheduled for 2028.

The Berrima plant officially opened its last set of changes, including a chlorine bypass unit, in December 2024. This was done to allow the plant to reach a thermal substitution rate (TSR) of 60% by the end of 2027. At the end of 2024 the company said it had a TSR of 30% having risen by 20% from 2023. Another similar decarbonisation project at the plant is a carbon capture and storage demonstration pilot trial involving the recarbonation of construction and demolition waste.

Parent company SGH said in its annual report for 2024 that Boral was continuing to advocate for a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) to prevent carbon leakage and that it had taken part in the ongoing government review on the issue. This lobbying was visible earlier in March 2025 when the Cement Industry Federation (CIF) publicly addressed the government on the issue ahead of its next budget. It asked that carbon leakage be addressed in the form of an import tax to protect the local cement and lime sector. Cement and lime imports from Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam and Japan are particularly seen as an issue. The government review into carbon leakage started in 2023 and is due to report back at some point in 2025, most likely after the parliamentary election in May 2025.

Another big sector news story to note is the ongoing acquisition of the cementitious division of the Buckeridge Group of Companies (BGC) by Cement Australia that was revealed in December 2024. Unsurprisingly, the European Commission (EC) approved the deal in late March 2025. Cement Australia’s parent companies Holcim and Heidelberg Materials are headquartered in Europe, but the EC concluded that the planned transaction was unlikely to dampen competition in Europe. The verdict of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is likely to be far more telling. It closed taking submissions on the proposed deal in late February 2025 and plans to release an update in May 2025.

The ACCC’s market inquiries letter reported that Cement Australia wants to run BCG Cement. However, under the acquisition proposal, BGC Quarries and BGC Asphalt will be acquired and operated by a new 50:50 joint venture between Holcim and Heidelberg Materials, which will operate as a production joint venture in respect of aggregates. Holcim and Heidelberg Materials have suggested taking four ready-mixed concrete (RMC) plants each in the greater Perth area. Finally, one RMC plant at Wangara could be divested due to the close proximity of existing plants run by Holcim and Heidelberg Materials. Whether this is what actually happens remains to be seen.

Finally, Holcim flagged-up Australia this week as one of the regions it intends to derive ‘profitable growth’ from after the planned spin-off of the US business. This approach is in line with the hunt by the big building materials companies for new growth markets as the cost of merger and acquisition activity in the US has risen. CRH, for example, bought a majority stake in AdBri in mid-2024. Further merger and acquisition activity in the cement sector in Australia seems less likely given its relative small size. Yet the higher economic growth forecast for the country compared to Europe is likely to keep multinationals interested.

The Pacific Cement Corporation (PACEMCO) held a groundbreaking ceremony this week officially ‘reopening’ its cement plant in Surigao City. The revival of the plant has been supported by investments by San Miguel Corporation (SMC). Various dignitaries attended the event including John Paul Ang, the chief operating officer of SMC, the mayor of Surigao City mayor and the governor of Surigao del Norte.

The plant has been closed since 2014 due to financial problems. At the time, Global Cement reported that the cement plant stopped operations in May 2014 after the Surigao del Norte Electric Cooperative cut its power supply for unsettled debts worth at least US$0.5m. PACEMCO was originally set up in 1967 and the plant had a production capacity of 0.22Mt/yr via one production line in 2014.

Earlier in March 2025 the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) was keen to highlight the efforts that Taiheiyo Cement Philippines (TCP) is making towards supporting the country's infrastructure capacity. Company executives met with the DTI and revealed plans including building a distribution terminal in Calaca, Batangas with the aim of targeting the Luzon market. This follows the construction of a new US$220m production line at TCP’s San Fernando plant in Cebu in July 2024.

Both announcements follow the implementation in late February 2025 of a provisional tariff on cement imports. The DTI started investigating imports in the autumn of 2024 and later decided to initiate a ‘preliminary safeguard measure’ following the discovery of a “causal link between the increased imports of the products under consideration and serious injury to the domestic industry.” The tariff takes the form of a cash bond of US$6.95/t or US$0.28/40kg bag of cement. It will be in place for 200 days, to mid-September 2025, while the Philippine Tariff Commission conducts a final investigation. The two main countries that will be affected are Vietnam and Japan. A large number of countries are exempt from the tariff including, notably, China and Indonesia. Both of these two countries were larger sources of imports to the Philippines during the five-year period the DTI is investigating. However, imports from these places have declined since 2021 and 2023 respectively.

Graph 1: Import of cement to the Philippines, 2019 - 2024. Source: Department of Trade and Industry.

A preliminary report by the DTI published in late February 2025 outlines the reasons for the provisional tariff. In summary it found that imports rose from 2019 and 2024 and the share of imports increased also pushing down the domestic share of sales. In the view of the report, the domestic cement sector experienced declining sales, production, capacity utilisation, profitability and employment for each year apart from 2021. One point to note is that the imports were split roughly 50:50 between local and foreign companies. Local company Philcement, for example, was the largest importer for cement to the Philippines from 2019 to 2024. In its statement to the DTI it said that it had invested in manufacturing the processing sites in the country. It argued that overprotection of the market discouraged competition and might not be aligned with the economic goals of the country.

Last time Global Cement Weekly covered the Philippines (GCW669) in July 2024 it looked likely that the government would take further action on imports. This has now happened on a temporary basis but it looks likely that it will become permanent. Recent investment announcements from local producers such as PACEMCO and TCP may be coincidental but they suggest a tentative confidence in the local sector.

Vietnam: Deputy Prime Minister Tran Hong Ha has given in-principle approval for a port project at Long Son My Xuan in Ba Ria-Vung Tau Province. The US$102m plan includes a 2.3Mt/yr cement grinding plant, according to the Saigon Times Daily newspaper. A 270m-long berth for ships up to 30,000dwt and four 530m berths for vessels up to 7500dwt will also be added.

The People’s Committee of Ba Ria-Vung Tau Province has been assigned to allocate land to the investor in accordance with the approved land use planning, land use plan, and port development master plan, ensuring compliance with land regulations.

Benin: France-based Chovet is reportedly preparing to support the construction of a 2Mt/yr integrated cement plant. Preparatory studies have been completed and construction is ready to start, according to 24 Heures au Bénin. The engineering company will be responsible for supervising all work, providing project management assistance and monitoring the quality of the installed infrastructure. The project was originally mandated at a meeting of the government’s Council of Ministers in late 2022.