Displaying items by tag: PCA

The Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA) announced this week that it intends to take over the work done by the Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI). This marks a change in how the cement industry as a whole approaches sustainability and in the wider context how the sector manages itself on the world stage.

The CSI was set up in 1999 with the aim of advancing a sustainability agenda for the cement industry. It has done this by laying out strategy for the industry to follow in the form of technology roadmaps and publishing its ‘Getting the Numbers Right’ (GNR) data on CO₂ and energy performance information. By 2018 it had 24 cement company members composed of nine core members, 14 participating members and one affiliate member. It represents around 2.4Bnt/yr of global cement production capacity or over half of the world production, according to Global Cement Directory 2018 data.

The idea behind the membership was that the core members are all members of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and that the members would contribute ‘modest’ funds to run the organisation. That last point about WBCSD membership is worth noting because members need to stick to conditions such as publishing an annual sustainability report and agree to have the sustainability report reviewed and benchmarked by the WBCSD.

Figure 1: Outline of selected current global cement organisations with a sustainability remit. Source: Association websites, Global Cement Directory 2018.

The GCCA, which formed in early 2018, says it had formed a ‘strategic’ partnership with the WBCSD and that it will take over the work previously done by the CSI from the start of 2019. Although there’s no mention so far whether GCCA members have to actually become WBCSD members with all that this entails. At present the GCCA consists of nine major international cement producers, including over half of the world’s top 10 producers by production capacity, with a production base in every inhabited continent except Antarctica. Roughly speaking it represents just under 2Bnt/yr of global cement production capacity or about half of the world’s total.

Now where this starts to get confusing is that other cement associations exist with their own established advocacy roles and sustainability agendas. The established players include the various regional associations such as the Portland Cement Association in the US, Cembureau in Europe and so forth. The multinational ones also often represent national bodies.

Then there is the World Cement Association (WCA), which formed in 2016. This independent body is a private company run out of an office in London, UK with non-profit aims. It has 45 members but only three quarters are actual cement producers. Of these most are single-country cement manufacturers. The glaring standout is China National Building Material (CNBM) and its subsidiaries, representing over half of the association’s member’s cement production capacity. The production capacity of the WCA’s members is around 1Bnt/yr or a quarter of the global total. More than half of this comes from CNBM and its subsidiaries. Unsurprisingly then that Song Zhi Ping, the head of CNBM, is the president of the WCA. It too supports a sustainability agenda, saying that it, “seeks to co-operate with the WBCSD, CSI and regional and national Cement Associations.” What is noteworthy is how few of the current members of the WCA joined the CSI previously.

There is definitely a need for a global organisation advocating sustainability issues for the cement industry and by taking over the work of the CSI and the GCCA has cornered this part of what a global cement association might do. However, the GCCA represents less cement production capacity than the CSI did. The main omissions are the Indian producers, led by UltraTech Cement, as well as others. It seems likely that they will join the GCCA following the end of the CSI but there is no guarantee.

The other point arises when looking at these various cement associations is: who does what exactly? The CSI’s focus on sustainability gave it a purpose that it did well with a genuine appearance of independence. Its narrow focus also gave it a complimentary role to the existing national and regional associations. Global bodies like the GCCA and the WCA are clearly more into advocacy territory for their members. Also, a more general association approach like the GCCA and the WCA may clash with regional bodies like the PCA and Cembureau. Regional bodies seem better suited to the way governance works globally with regional groups such as the European Union (EU) or government departments in continental sized countries such as the US, China and India. However, a truly global cement body could respond better to coordinated environmental lobbying and fill in the gaps around the world in places with looser regional representation.

Sustainability is the immediate link between the CSI, the GCCA and the WCA. Indeed the WCA recently held a ‘Global Climate Change’ forum in Paris to discuss its own climate action plan. Yet, with the GCCA taking over the work the CSI does and the WCA saying it wants to cooperate with the CSI, the obvious outcome is that the GCCA will become the world’s apex cement association. It will represent the companies with the most cement production capacity, have a presence in every inhabited continent and take the lead on WBCSD issues. Beyond this though it will be interesting to see what, if anything else, the GCCA chooses to do.

Weather always seems like an excuse in cement company financial reports. It seems that it can pop up when a producer has nothing else to blame for its poor performance. Except, of course, when there has actually been some bad weather. With this in mind the weather is likely to have a rather larger presence in the next set of results for companies in the Caribbean and Florida in the aftermath of Hurricane Irma. The storm tore across the region in a rough north-western bearing, reaching Category Five hurricane status on the Saffir–Simpson scale with sustained winds of over 252km/hr. It caused loss of life and mass destruction to property and infrastructure.

Bottom lines flutter in the wind as construction markets upend in the wake of the weather. Yet cement companies have a more direct relationship with extreme weather events. Cement plants themselves are large industrial sites with staff and equipment that are vulnerable to the elements. This is covered by a company’s resilience strategy but it can include things like reducing non-essential staff levels, shutting down production and securing a site. Cemex USA, for example, set up telephone lines to help employees in need of assistance for both Hurricane Harvey in Texas in late August 2017 and Irma this week. Titan America shut down its Florida operations over the weekend ahead of Irma and then started reopening them on 12 September 2017.

To look at one facet of preparing a cement plant shutting a clinker kiln down with adequate notice, like for a maintenance period, is one thing. Yet doing it in an emergency is an entirely different proposition as the kiln generally needs time to cool down. Global Cement discovered what happens when a kiln is simply stopped when it visited the Cemex South Ferriby plant in the UK. The plant suffered a complete electrical outage following a tidal surge at the site. A 22m-long section of one of the kiln shells had to be replaced because it had been distorted by the sudden cooling.

Secondly, the concrete that cement is used to make plays a key role in what the Portland Cement Association (PCA) and others call resilient construction. Typically concrete structures and buildings survive extreme weather events better than other weaker building materials. Although a wide range of other factors such as building design, foundations and roofing construction are also important. Notably, much of the footage that emerged during the storm in Florida was shot from concrete buildings. As Cary Cohrs, former chairman of the PCA put it: "The greenest building is the one still standing." At the time of this push 2013 Cohrs and the PCA were lobbying to strengthen US building codes and standards. It is likely that the association will renew its efforts in the wake of Irma.

With the winds slackening, the clean up operation starts. Cemex USA’s Houston Terminal said it had reopened for business after Harvey despite being two feet under water a week earlier. As reports start to emerge about the scale of the devastation in the region following Hurricane Irma the insured losses have been estimated at US$20 – 65bn by analysts quoted by the Financial Times. Two things are certain though. One, bad weather is likely to make an appearance in the third quarter financial reports and, two, the rebuilding is going to need lots of cement.

Check out this great graph that the UK Mineral Products Association (MPA) released in its latest sustainable development report this week. It lays out where the MPA says the various direct and indirect costs come from climate change policies per tonne of cement.

Graph 1: The cumulative burden of direct and indirect cost of climate change policies on the cement sector (per tonne of cement). GBP£1 = Euro0.94 at time of writing. Source: MPA. 

If it’s correct then the two biggest contributors from carbon taxes on the price of cement in the UK arise from the Carbon Price Support (CPS) mechanism and the Renewable Obligation (RO). Between them the two policies account for around two-thirds of the carbon tax burden on the price of cement. Of note to an industry advocacy body like the MPA, both of these derive from local legislation and they could be changed or dispensed with separate to the Brexit negotiations to extricate the UK from the European Union that have just officially started.

The MPA then goes on to warn that these added costs could rise from GBP£3.24/t at present to GBP£4/t in 2020 and then the truly terrifying (to energy intensive manufacturers at least) GBP£17/t. Subsequently the MPA has flagged these potentially mounting costs as the biggest threat to the UK cement industry in the near future. Failure to act could mean more foreign imports, loss of jobs and damage to the security of supply. All very heavy stuff. The MPA’s warning was nicely timed to precede the UK government’s response to a consultation on another decarbonisation scheme, the Contracts for Difference (CfD) scheme. Here, the government is about to exempt high-energy users, including cement producers.

Essentially, the key message from the MPA’s report is that the cement sector is picking up but it is still below sales levels in 2007. At the same time it has made all these environmental improvements and, now, steadily tightening regulations threaten its future. Just compare this with the situation in the US where the Portland Cement Association (PCA) recently applauded President Donald Trump’s executive order to roll back environmental legislation from the Obama administration. Despite this it insisted that its members were committed to manufacturing products with a ‘minimal’ environmental footprint.

Funnily enough the MPA didn’t mention environmental issues when it released its updated Brexit priorities for the UK government. This is understandable given the graph above that suggests that the majority of the carbon costs on cement production come from UK legislation. However, sharing a land border with the EU south of Northern Ireland may give rise to all sorts of market skulduggery once any sort of post-Brexit deal becomes clear. And this doesn’t even take into account moving secondary cementitious materials about, like slag, or the UK’s international market in solid recovered fuels (SRF) and the like. Differences in UK and EU overall carbon costs on cement may start to have acute implications for producers in both jurisdictions as the negotiations build. In this atmosphere moves like Ireland’s Quinn Cement’s last month, to build a terminal on the UK side of the Irish border, make a lot of sense.

The Portland Cement Association (PCA) put out a positive forecast for residential housing in the US last week. PCA Chief Economist and Group Vice-President Edward J Sullivan announced that housing starts will increase by 20% to 1.2 million units in 2015 from around 950,000 units in 2014. Strong gains are also expected for 2016.

This is relevant because in previous forecasts growth has been pinned on residential construction demand where there was a lag in demand following the recession in 2008. The PCA has not said whether this improves on its last forecast from late 2014. At that time the US cement market in 2014 was expected to grow by 8% despite a late start to the building season and weaker than expected housing start figures. The latest release suggests that the PCA has become more optimistic about the number of houses being built.

Interestingly, Sullivan pointed out that the focus is on family homes, with high student debt levels excluding the millennial generation born in 1980 - 2000 and with the baby boomers now leaving the market. As an aside, it is worth mentioning that specifying millennials in relation to housing starts is pertinent outside the US also. In the UK, for example, age of first time house buyers has been steadily rising in recent years. This has implications for the construction market and the cement industry alike.

Back in the US, demographic trends are on the side of the cement producers, led by a rising population. Cement demand growth of around 8% is expected in 2015 and 2016. Forbes placed Houston, the location of last week's 2nd Global Well Cem Conference, as America's fastest-growing city. Census data show that it saw a population growth of 392,742 inhabitants in the metropolitan Houston area between 1 July 2010 and 1 July 2013. Put another way this amounted to an extra 10,909 people moving into town each month (!) during this period. That calls for a lot of cement as these people demand houses and infrastructure.

Unfortunately the fly in the ointment here is that the global price of oil has been falling since mid-2014 and Houston's growth is dependent on the oil industry and its associated industries. By extension the cement industry in Texas, the US's biggest producing state, is also vulnerable. Houston may be an extreme example but the PCA is already wondering what the implications of low oil prices will have on the US construction industry as a whole. To this end, Sullivan is set to forecast that short-term gains could be made in the housing market if the oil price stays low but it could have a negative effect if the low prices continue.

One question is whether the US housing market is already experiencing this boost yet. If it is, housing starts and cement production in 2014 may have been artificially stimulated by cheap oil. In this case cement production growth in the US over the next few years may be slower than expected. We'll have to wait and see what Sullivan predicts but in the meantime it might be worth delaying buying that nice new house in Houston.

US: The PCA board of directors has elected Lafarge North America's CEO John Stull as its 2014 - 15 chairman. He succeeds American Cement Co's Cary Cohrs.

"This is an important time for the PCA to champion resilient construction and advocate for critical national infrastructure funding, both of which will ensure the vitality of the cement industry," said Stull, who in addition to being a long-standing director has co-chaired the PCA Manufacturing Technical Committee.

Over a 22-year Lafarge Group career, Stull has progressed through vice president and regional president roles for US, Latin American and Sub-Saharan African businesses. He holds a chemical engineering degree from the University of Akron and is a Harvard Business School executive management programme graduate.