Displaying items by tag: United States Geological Survey

Stop press! The Portland Cement Association (PCA) has renamed itself as the American Cement Association (ACA).

Speaking to the audience at the IEEE-IAS/PCA Cement Industry Cement Conference taking place this week in Birmingham, Alabama, ACA president Mike Ireland said that the new name better represents its members, from the Atlantic seaboard to the Pacific coast. He added that the old name, the PCA, had caused the association confusion over the years with it being mistaken as only representing Portland, Oregon, or Portland, Maine.

This follows comments from Ireland to Global Cement Magazine in April 2024. At that time he also mentioned how changing levels of production of ordinary Portland cement (OPC) compared to blended cements had suggested a rethink. Surveys were then sent out by the PCA asking people what they thought about in connection to the association and which name suggestions they liked. A year or so later and the new name has arrived. Thankfully the PCA didn’t determine the name by public ballot alone, thereby avoiding the risk of a joke name. Readers wondering about this can remind themselves about the time the UK Natural Environment Research Council ran a website survey asking what a new polar research ship should be called. The vessel was eventually called the RRS Sir David Attenborough rather than the internet’s choice of Boaty McBoatface!

Global Cement Weekly also reflected upon the point Ireland made about the change in the blends of cement being used. The adoption of Portland Limestone Cement (PLC) production in the US contributed to the rise in blended cements shipments. United States Geological Survey (USGS) data shows that shipments of blended cements more than doubled from 26Mt in 2022 to 61Mt in 2024. This compares to shipments of OPC of 41Mt in 2024. This change appears to have been mostly accepted so far, but it is not without its detractors. For example, take this campaign promoting a return to traditional Type I and II cements on ‘performance’ grounds.

As for the US cement market, USGS data shows that shipments of Portland and blended cement fell by about 13% year-on-year to 11.8Mt in the first two months of 2025 from 13.8Mt in the same period in 2024. This was for both domestic shipments and imports. Most of the cement companies that have so far released first quarter financial results for 2025 reported poor weather adversely affecting sales. Holcim noted that sales improved in March 2025. Cemex blamed its lower sales volumes of cement and ready-mixed concrete on the period having one less working day compared to 2024. CRH pointed out in its analysts’ presentation that the first quarter of the year is typically the smallest of the four in terms of sales volumes. The really interesting data may start to emerge in the second and subsequent quarters, as the markets and supply chains start to react to current US trade policy. At the time of writing, widespread tariffs on many countries were announced at the start of April 2025 but then subsequently paused for 90 days.

The American Cement Association has a new name for the 21st Century. The PCA has served it well as a name for over 100 years, but now seems a good time for a change. Whether the future is one of blended cements, carbon capture, a return to OPC or whatever else remains to be seen. Yet the future of construction in the US looks set to involve plenty of cement. There are sure to be challenges along the way. Here’s to the next 100 years.

President Trump said he was going to do it… and he did. The US announced tariffs on most imports on 2 April 2025 that took effect from 5 April 2025. So, once again, we ask what the consequences of this might be upon the cement sector.

Table 1: Estimated burden of US tariffs on selected countries importing cement based on 2024 data. Source: Based on USGS data.

Global Cement Magazine Editorial Director Robert McCaffrey posted a similar table to the one above on LinkedIn on 4 April 2025. It applies the new import tariffs to the value of imported hydraulic cement and clinker to the US in 2024 as reported by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). As such it gives us a starting idea of how the new tariffs might change what happens in 2025. For an idea of the volumes of cement imported to the US in recent years refer to the graph in GCW695.

However, a couple of key caveats were pointed out by commentators to that LinkedIn post. Marty Ozinga noted that the values from the USGS are customs values. Crucially, he said that the tariffs will be charged upon the FOB value of cement at the point of origin and not on the transport costs. This is significant because the cost of moving the cement can sometimes be more than half the total values reported in the table for certain countries. Another commentator wanted to make it clear that tariffs on imports are imposed upon the supply chain and are paid somewhere along it, typically by end users, rather than the originating country. Elsewhere, the feeling was very much one of waiting to see what would happen next and how markets would reorder.

Taken at face value, the first takeaway from Table 1 is that the variable tariffs disrupt the competitiveness of the importers. Any importer from a country with the lowest rate, 10%, now has an advantage over those with higher ones. Türkiye seems to be the obvious winner here as it was both the largest importer of cement in 2024 and it has the lowest rate. Vietnam appears to be a loser with a massive 46% rate. Canada and Mexico may have problems with a 25% tariff but how their cement gets to the US market may make a big difference as Ozinga mentions above. And so it goes down the list. What may be significant is how the order of the importers further down the list changes. For example, Algeria has a 30% rate compared to Egypt’s 10%. Both nations exported a similar volume of cement to the US in 2024.

The first casualty of the last week has been market certainty. The US announced the tariffs and stock markets slumped around the world. They started to revive on 8 April 2025 as the US government made more reassuring noises about trade talks but this was dampened by renewed fears of a US - China trade war. The orthodox economic view is that the US tariffs are increasingly likely to cause a recession in the US in the short term regardless of whether they have a more positive effect on the longer one. This view can be detected in former PCA economist Ed Sullivan’s latest independent report on the US economy. He acknowledged the fairness argument the US government has made, but warned of stagflation.

On the US construction market, prices look set to rise in areas that previously relied on imports or are near to them. Cement companies in the US should be able to sell higher volumes as some level of domestic production outcompetes imports. The sector produced 86Mt in 2024 and has a capacity of 120Mt/yr giving it a utilisation rate of 72%. It imported 20 - 25Mt of cement in 2024. One sign of this happening might be renewed investment in local capacity through upgrades, new lines and even new plants. However, a recession would reduce overall consumption. On the equipment side, there is likely to be a similar readjustment between local and foreign suppliers. Certainly, if the tariffs stick around then more non-US companies may be tempted to set up local subsidiaries and /or manufacturing bases if conditions permit. For example, note JCB’s doubling in size this week of a plant it is building in Texas. One interesting situation might occur if a US cement company wants to build a new production line. All the likely suppliers, at present at least, appear to be based outside of the US.

Finally, despite everything, Holcim declared this week that it had completed a $3.4bn bond offering ahead of the impending spin-off of Amrize in the US noting “strong investor interest in the future company.” It wants to shore-up confidence ahead of the creation of the new company at some point in the first half of the year. Holcim’s CEO said previously that he didn’t expect any blowback from tariffs as the company was a local business in the US. What may be worth watching for is whether the current disruption to stock markets causes any delays to the creation of Amrize.

The current situation with the tariffs is prompting a rapid-revaluation of the US construction market and the wider economy. US-based building materials companies look set to benefit but there may be disruption along the way. Foreign companies supplying the sector may well experience sharp changes in circumstances depending on how tariffs reorder supply chains. Prices for end-users look set to rise. We live in interesting times.

For Ed Sullivan’s take on the US cement sector read his article in the May 2025 issue of Global Cement Magazine

US: Cement shipments fell by 6% year-on-year to 103Mt in 2024 from 109Mt in 2023. Data from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) shows that domestic shipments of Portland and blended cement decreased by 6% to 82.9Mt from 88.2Mt. However, imports only dipped slightly to 19.8Mt. Particular declines in shipments were recorded in the north-east and Texas. Türkiye remained the biggest source of imports in 2024 (7.16Mt), followed by Canada (4.85Mt), Vietnam (4.17Mt), Greece (1.82Mt) and Mexico (1.32Mt). Clinker production dropped by 7% to 71.6Mt from 76.8Mt.

US President Donald Trump threatened tariffs on imports from Canada, China, Mexico and the European Union this week. Tariffs to Canada and Mexico were announced on 1 February 2025 and then paused for a month to allow for negotiations. Ones to China have been implemented. Tariffs to the European Union have been proposed but nothing has happened yet. What does this mean for the cement sector?

Graph 1: Imports of cement and clinker to the US. Source: USGS. Estimated data for 2024.

The data suggests that whacking 25% tariffs on cement imports from Canada and Mexico would have an impact. The US imported 26.5Mt of cement and clinker in 2023. Based on United States Geological Survey (USGS) data from January to October 2024, imports in 2024 have fallen by 8% year-on-year but they still represent a large chunk of consumption. Türkiye has been the biggest source of imports over the last five years but Canada has been the second biggest supplier. Together with Mexico, it provided over a quarter of imports in 2023. A similar share is expected in 2024. Greece, a country in the EU, has also been present in the top five importing countries to the US during this time.

The Portland Cement Association (PCA) reinforced this view. In a carefully worded statement it took pains to point out alignment with the intentions behind the tariffs, such as appreciating that the administration was open to negotiation and appeared to be flexible. However, it warned that the moves could adversely affect energy and national security, delay infrastructure projects and raise costs. It pointed out the import share from Canada and Mexico, adding that this represented nearly 7% of the US’ cement consumption. It noted which states were the main entry points for cement imports from the two countries. Finally, it highlighted the high level of consumption (36%) that imports from Canada might account for in northern states such as New York, Washington and so on. Meanwhile, Mexico’s National Chamber of Cement (CANACEM) warned that the proposed actions might trigger a ‘competitiveness crisis’ in the US.

Holcim’s CEO, by contrast, nonchalantly told Reuters that he didn’t expect any impact by tariffs on his business. Miljan Gutovic described the group’s US operations as a local business with production happening in the country and equipment and spare parts all being sourced locally. This optimistic view is likely to be influenced by the company’s impending spin-off of its US business. The listing in the US remains scheduled for the first half of 2025 with no complications expected from tariffs.

Clearly, implementing tariffs on imports of cement and clinker from Canada and Mexico could cause a shortage in the US in the short term. This, in turn, could lead to higher prices for consumers in the US. This potential effect would be pronounced in border regions that are reliant on imports. It is worth noting that a number of production lines in both Mexico and Canada have previously been mobilised to meet the export market to the US. These lines would likely be mothballed if tariffs were to be implemented, unless they could find other markets. In the medium term though, as the World Cement Association (WCA) pointed out this week, the world produces too much cement. So it looks likely that the US cement market would adjust to a new equilibrium. Taxing imports from the EU would have a similar effect. Although it seems like it would be less pronounced for the US cement market unless it was in conjunction with tariffs to Canada and Mexico. It would certainly be bad news for cement producers in Greece.

Cement producers in the US look set to benefit from tariffs as demand for their products and prices could increase. There is a risk that too sudden a change to the import market could cause adverse market effects through shortages. Many of these companies are multinational groups with headquarters in foreign countries. However, the strength of the US market compared to elsewhere has prompted some of these businesses to become more ‘American’ through listing in the US or focusing merger and acquisition activity in North America.

At this point we’re stuck in a half-way house place where import tariffs have been threatened and negotiations are pending. The relatively muted stock market reaction to the tariffs and Trump’s swiftness in enacting pauses suggest that it is brinkmanship by the US administration. If this situation continues for any length of time then it will likely have an effect all of its own. In which case don’t expect any export-focused investment by cement companies in Canada and Mexico any time soon.

The Portland Cement Association (PCA) is currently considering changing its name as part of a wider rebranding exercise. As the PCA’s president and CEO Mike Ireland puts it, “Portland cement no longer adequately represents the products PCA member companies manufacture, as they increasingly produce blended cements in today's environmentally conscious marketplace.” The exercise opens up a host of issues about the promotion of cement and concrete and the role of a trade association in the 21st century.

The reason the PCA holds its name is because ordinary Portland cement (OPC) became the most popular type of cement used to make concrete (and other building materials) in the second half of the 19th century. This continued in the 20th century without any issues. So naming a national cement association after the sector’s key product made sense at the time. The parent organisation that became the PCA was formed in 1902 and the PCA proper officially started in 1916 when cement producers met in Chicago and agreed to set up an expanded organisation.

One topic that was less of an issue in 1916, was considering a national cement association in an international context. Or in other words, should a national or regional cement association say where it is from in its name? Many associations do so elsewhere in the world but not all. Cembureau in Europe, the Cement Manufacturers’ Association in India and the Mineral Products Association in the UK for instance are three examples that do not. The PCA’s current name does not indicate where it is based and it has appeared to have coped for over 100 years. Curiously though, most of the suggestions that the PCA has put forward for its potential new name do include ‘America’ in some shape or form. Another connected problem is whether the general public in the US make the assumption that the PCA is a smaller group based in Portland, Oregon!

Mike Ireland points out another dilemma facing the PCA today with the rise in popularity of blended cements. The PCA, for example, worked on supporting the use of Portland Limestone Cement in the 2010s before lots of US producers started making it in the 2020s. To illustrate the scale of the change that this and other initiatives have created, United States Geological Survey (USGS) data shows that shipments of blended cements doubled from 26Mt in 2022 to just under 55Mt 2023. At the same time, shipments of Portland Cement fell by 37% year-on-year to around 52Mt from 83Mt. More blended cements were shipped in the US than OPC in 2023. So the PCA finds itself named after a minority cement product.

The other issue that Ireland touches upon is the environmental perception of cement by the general public and the problems for marketing, branding and advocacy this presents to a trade association. Simply put, it is far easier for the environmental lobby in developed economies to portray cement as ‘bad’ than it is for the cement sector to publicise the many small but incremental changes it has made or the monumental effect that cement and concrete have made upon human society over the last 150 years. Although it may not mean much to the wider public, to whom ‘cement is cement,’ the rise of blended cements in the US has handed the PCA the opportunity to differentiate cement into ‘good’ and ‘bad’ offerings. In this case high CO₂ emitting OPC becomes the old dirty product of the past and blended cements become clean shiny symbols of the future. It follows, therefore, that retaining the name of an old product for one of the biggest cement associations in the world might be considered unhelpful.

In some respects OPC and the PCA have become victims of their own success. Cement built the modern world and has become ubiquitous. So commonplace in most countries, in fact, that people outside of the building industry often fail to realise how crucial the stuff is. The tricky proposition for those marketing cement today is to somehow recognise the historical contribution that it has made to build our world whilst also conveying how it is changing to become more sustainable. Unfortunately for fans of OPC though this may mean dumping it from the name of the PCA.

US: US cement plants produced 91Mt of cement in 2023, according to data from the United States Geological Survey (USGS). This corresponds to a year-on-year decline of 2.2% from 93Mt in 2022. The figure places the US in fourth globally in cement production volumes, behind China with 2.1Bnt (in line with 2022 levels), India with 410Mt (up by 7.9% year-on-year) and Vietnam with 110Mt (down by 8.3%).

The Hunter cement plant in Texas looks set to become one of the most expensive integrated units in the world following the announcement this week that CRH is preparing to buy it for US$2.1bn. The Ireland-headquartered company said that it has agreed to acquire the plant at New Braunfels near San Antonio from Martin Marietta Material. The deal also includes four cement terminals around and near to Houston and 20 ready-mixed concrete (RMX) plants near to San Antonio and Austin. It is expected to complete in the first half of 2024 subject to regulatory approval.

Assessing the value of this deal is tricky given the various RMX plants and terminals in strategic locations. However, solely based on integrated cement production capacity, this one works out at US$1000/t given that the Hunter plant has a production capacity of 2.1Mt/yr. The value of terminals and RMX plants in the right locations cannot be overstated, but it still appears to price the cement plant dearly. CRH bought Ash Grove in 2018 for US$350/t. Five years later and the price it is paying for cement production capacity in the US has nearly tripled.

Other more recent purchases in the US include US$395/t for UNACEM’s acquisition of the Redding cement plant in California earlier in November 2023, around US$525/t for the valuation of Argos North America’s four integrated plants in September 2023, or just over US$310/t for the proposed purchase of the Redding cement plant by CalPortland from Martin Marietta Materials in March 2022. The Argos North America valuation is another awkward one given that it is part of the proposed merger between it and Summit Materials and it also includes two grinding plants, 140 ready-mix concrete plants, and a distribution network of eight maritime ports and 10 inland terminals.

Figure 1: Map of CRH production assets in Texas. Source: CRH earnings presentation.

In a statement, CRH’s chief executive officer Albert Manifold highlighted the usual synergy benefits but he also mentioned the expected “self-supply opportunities.” He added that the company believed that there was “significant potential to unlock additional growth opportunities across an expanded footprint in this attractive growth market.” If the acquisition completes, the company will become the largest cement producer in the state, based on integrated production capacity, at around 3.2Mt/yr. Plus, as the company pointed out in its third quarter earnings update, it also operates the Foreman cement plant in Arkansas, just across the state border to the north-east. This then gives CRH and its subsidiary Ash Grove a cement plant and/or terminals in the main population areas in Texas, namely: Houston; San Antonio and Austin; and Dallas and Fort Worth.

One reason why CRH may have gone all out for a cement plant in Texas is because it is one of the few states in the US where cement shipments have actually increased so far in 2023. Data from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) shows that shipments of Portland and blended cement fell by 2% year-on-year to just under 71Mt in January to August 2023. Yet Texas comprehensively bucked this trend with shipments rising by 10% to 8.04Mt. The only other states with this kind of growth were Maine and New York. At the start of 2023 the Portland Cement Association (PCA) predicted a 3.5% decline in cement consumption in 2023 and based on the January to August 2023 data from the USGS it isn’t far off at present.

Meanwhile, selling its cement assets in Houston and San Antonio nearly brings Martin Marietta Materials’ decade-long excursion into the sector to an end. It purchased its cement plants in Texas in 2014 when it acquired Texas Industries (TXI). Plants in California were soon sold to CalPortland but Martin Marietta Materials later picked up two more cement plants in the state when it bought the US West Region of Lehigh Hanson from Heidelberg Materials in 2021. Then, once again, the plants were sold, this time to CalPortland and UNACEM, respectively. This now leaves Martin Marietta Materials with one integrated cement plant, Midlothian, and two terminals. The size of the Midlothian plant, at 2.4Mt/yr, still gives the company a decent presence in the state.

With US cement consumption expected to bounce back to growth in 2024 and the Texas market ahead of this, CRH’s decision to buy big from Martin Marietta Materials seems like a logical move given its focus on North America. The price may seem high, but the investment seems as close to a steady bet as it gets. The day after the Texas announcement CRH revealed that it was selling its lime business in Europe to SigmaRoc for US$1.1bn. The key bit though was that these assets generated earnings of around US$137m in 2022 but, by comparison, the new units in Texas are expected to earn US$170m in 2023. This suddenly makes the price agreed for Hunter seem more reasonable. Let’s check back in a couple of years to see how well CRH’s acquisition in Texas works out. In the meantime all eyes are likely to be on what Martin Marietta Materials does next with the Midlothian plant.

The big US news this week has been that Summit Materials and Argos USA are planning to merge their operations. The new organisation will operate six integrated cement plants with a production capacity of 8.4Mt/yr, based on Global Cement Directory 2023 data. The companies say that this will make them the fourth biggest cement producer in the country, at 11.8Mt/yr, based on grinding capacity, and the largest domestically-owned operator. Additionally, the combined entity will also hold just under 5Bnt of aggregate reserves, 224 ready-mixed concrete (RMX) plants and 32 asphalt plants.

The deal is expected to close in the first half of 2024 subject to the usual regulatory clearances and shareholder approval. At this point Argos should own approximately 31% of the new company and Summit Materials’ shareholders will be the majority owner. Although, if we remember anything from the Lafarge-Holcim merger from nearly a decade ago, it is that if the share prices between the two companies diverge too much in the next six months then that proportion may change. In simple terms that split for Argos USA is in the region of where one might expect it to be given that Argos USA made 39% of the combined revenue for both itself and Summit Materials in 2022 and 28% of the combined earnings.

The two companies complement each other well for the purposes of forming a new heavy building materials concern. Summit Materials reported revenue of US$2.41bn in 2022, with 30% deriving from its aggregates businesses, another 30% coming from RMX and about 20% from paving. Cement generated US$341m, or 14%, of total revenue. By contrast Argos USA reported revenue of US$1.57bn in 2022 from a business just concerning cement and concrete. Geographically, Summit Materials’ integrated plants are in the Midwest, in Iowa and Missouri respectively, and its cement terminals follow the Mississippi River from Minneapolis to New Orleans. Notably, it made the point in the merger announcement that the deal would reduce the seasonality of its cement business. Argos USA’s plants and terminals are mostly spaced out in the Southern states with its plants in Alabama, Florida, South Carolina and West Virginia.

It goes against recent trends for a US-based company to be increasing its share in the domestic cement market, although it has resorted to teaming up with a Colombia-based one to do so. Usually it is foreign-headquarted companies making moves in the US. For example, Ireland-based CRH is in the final stages of switching its primary listing to the New York Stock Exchange. Its head Albert Manifold described the US construction market as going through a “golden age” earlier in the year whilst trying to sell the stock market move at the company’s annual general meeting. Meanwhile, there have been various smaller acquisitions such as Peru-based UNACEMs’ agreement to buy the Tehachapi cement plant in California from Martin Marietta Materials in August 2023.

Given the ongoing importance of the North American market for the international cement producers it is not surprising that merger and acquisition activity has been taking place. Each of the four largest US-based cement producers performed well in the first six months of 2023, increasing both revenue and earnings significantly. However, the picture is mixed. The Portland Cement Association (PCA) forecast at the start of 2023 that cement consumption would decline in the second half of 2023 due to a worsening general economic outlook. The downturn was estimated to be brief though as interest rates were expected to dip and infrastructure spending to rise in 2024. Half-year data from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) supported this view as shipments reached an estimated 51.0Mt, a slight decrease from the same period in 2022. The cement companies have made money so far in 2023 partly by raising their prices. Yet, some segments of the residential homebuilding market have also driven demand despite the general economic picture.

One last thing to consider is how much thought was given to the carbon risk of forming a new heavy building materials company in a developed economy in the 2020s. Sustainability receives a mention in Summit Materials’ investor presentation in the form of current achievements such as switching to blended cements or reducing fossil fuel usage but there is no suggestion that any serious investment to curtail process emissions is expected any time soon. However, one could make the case that the enlarged company might benefit from synergistic effects if it were forced to spend more on CO₂ emission reduction. This proposed merger concerns two existing organisations teaming up rather than new equity entering the arena. In this context it will be worth noting whether the next cement industry merger or acquisition in the US or Europe will involve existing companies or new entrants.

US: The United States Geological Survey has reported that the US consumed 40.5Mt-worth of cement shipments in the first five months of 2023. This corresponds to a 4.3% year-on-year fall from five-month 2022 volumes of 41.5Mt. Blended cement, primarily Type IL Portland limestone cement (PLC), accounted for 37% of shipments, compared to 16% in the corresponding period of 2022. Total demand rose by 4.3% year-on-year and by 19% month-on-month to 10.2Mt in May 2023. Imports of cement and clinker totalled 10.5Mt. The leading source of imported cement and clinker were Türkiye, which supplied 3.34Mt (32%), Canada, which supplied 1.58Mt (15%), and Vietnam, which supplied 1.3Mt (13%).

US production of clinker dropped by 2.1% to 29.5Mt in the first five months of 2023, from 30.1Mt a year earlier.

Heidelberg Materials North America held an official opening ceremony this week for its upgraded slag cement plant and terminal at Cape Canaveral in Florida. The US$24m project added a new roller press to the unit to increase its production capacity. In a statement Chris Ward, the president and chief executive officer of the company, said that it had made the investment to meet sustainability and resilient construction goals. Industrial Accessories Company (IAC) said in mid-2021 that it had been named as the engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contractor for the project. It planned to install a hydraulic roller press supplied by FLSmidth. IAC also said it was providing instrumentation equipment, hoppers, bins, belt conveyors, bucket elevators and dust collectors amongst other kit and services.

Other recent US slag cement-related news stories have concerned terminals. In late August 2022 Royal White Cement said it had leased a site on the Houston Ship Channel in Houston, Texas to handle and store approximately 100,000t of multiple cementitous products such as slag, ordinary Portland cement and white Cement. In May 2022 Titan America announced plans to spend US$37m on an upgrade to its Norfolk terminal in Chesapeake, Virginia. The major improvement was to add a 70,000t storage dome, with enlarged truck and railway capacity, to allow the site to import and distribute raw materials such as fly ash, slag and aggregates. Completion on this one was scheduled for some point in 2023. Titan added that the project was similar to the addition of a 70,000t dome under construction at the time at Titan's import terminal in Tampa, Florida.

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) estimates that domestic sales of iron and steel (ferrous) slags in the US amounted to 15Mt in 2022. Sales were around 20Mt in the 2000s but this fell to current levels in the 2010s as blast furnaces closed. In 2022 the USGS noted that, “domestic ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS) remained in limited supply because granulation cooling was known to be available at only two active US blast furnaces while, elsewhere, only one domestic plant produced pelletised slag in limited supply.” It added that the grinding of granulated blast furnace slag was only being carried out domestically by cement companies. Imports of slag were 2Mt in 2022. This is a decline from a peak of 2.6Mt in 2018 but higher than the period 2000 – 2015. The price of slag, meanwhile, hit a high of US$53/t in 2022. This is the highest price recorded by the USGS since at least 2000. It is double that of 2017.

Charles Zeynel of ZAG International noted in the June 2023 issue of Global Cement Magazine that cement producers in Florida, California, Texas, Georgia and the Carolinas are far from steel mills, so they import granulated blast furnace slag (GBFS) and other secondary cementitious materials (SCM). This certainly fits with Heidelberg Materials’ plan to upgrade its slag cement plant and terminal at Cape Canaveral. Also on the US market, Zeynel added that due to rising global demand for SCMs more of the available share of GBFS was being purchased by ‘richer’ markets such as Europe, North America and Australia. He continued that GBFS and GGBFS producers had also started increasing the price of their wares internationally. This too is apparent in the prices published by the USGS.

One final story with links to slag to note this week concerns the launch of the Alliance for Low-Carbon Cement & Concrete (ALCC) in Europe. The group brings together companies producing products or services intended to decarbonise the cement and concrete sectors. Two of the members – Ecocem and Hoffman Green Cement Technologies – are Europe-based slag cement producers. Two other members – Fortera and TerraCO₂ – are companies based in North America that are marketing and selling low-carbon SCMs.

Various start-up companies have been emerging on a regular basis in both North America and Europe with the aim of decarbonising cement and concrete in various different ways. The formation of the ALCC can be seen as part of this trend as the more successful non-traditional cement-concrete-aggregate companies establish themselves. One point that cement producers in North America are likely to be well aware of is that concrete is becoming less linked to clinker as the cost of carbon mounts and the clinker factor of cement lowers. Slag supplies may be finite but Heidelberg Materials North America’s latest investment in Florida is further acceptance that one doesn’t just need clinker to make concrete.

Read Charles Zeynel’s interview on SCM Trends in 2023 in the June 2023 issue of Global Cement Magazine

The 15th Global Slag Conference, Exhibition & Awards take place on 6 - 7 June 2023 in Düsseldorf, Germany