Displaying items by tag: United States Geological Survey

US: The United States Geological Service (USGS) reported total cement deliveries of 89.7Mt in the first 10 months of 2021, up by 3.5% year-on-year from 86.7Mt in the corresponding period of 2020. Imports over the period totalled 13.8Mt, up by 17% from 11.8Mt.

10-month clinker production was 65.1Mt in 2021, up by 0.5% from 64.8Mt in the first 10 months of 2020.

US: Cement companies in the US produced 57.8Mt of clinker in the first nine months of 2021, in line with production in the corresponding period of 2020. Cement shipments including imports rose by 4.2% year-on-year to 79.9Mt from 76.7Mt, according to the United States Geological Service (USGS). The lead cement consuming states by total shipments were Texas, California and Florida. Texas received 11.4Mt of cement (14% of the national total), down by 8.5% from 12.4Mt, California received 8.19Mt (10%), up by 7.8% from 7.6Mt and Florida received 5.4Mt (6.8%), up by 5.6% from 5.11Mt.

US: The US Geological Survey (USGS) recorded a 0.8% year-on-year increase in total US cement shipments in the first half of 2021 to 50.4Mt from 50.0Mt in the first half of 2021. Domestic deliveries constituted 85% of the total at 42.6Mt, against 7.75Mt of imports (15%). Clinker imports were 1.23Mt, with a total value of US$81.6m. Turkey was the lead exporter of clinker to the US in 2020 at 470,000t (38%), followed by Saudi Arabia with 466,000t (38%) and Canada with 276,000t (22%).

Global Cement Weekly celebrates its 500th edition this week. This corresponds to nearly a decade’s worth of news and comment upon the cement industry, since the first edition went out in early June 2011. Time is brief, so the quick version of all of this is as follows: China; production growth; production overcapacity; grinding; corporate mergers; regionalisation; CO₂; digitisation; and coronavirus.

Those looking for the longer version should read Peter Edwards’ review of the 2010s in the December 2019 issue of Global Cement Magazine. Although be warned, few were expecting a global pandemic to rock markets and possibly hasten future trends when that article was written. Those looking for the even longer version should read the last 10 years of the magazine and the website… and then let us know what we missed.

Looking back at the first few editions of Global Cement Weekly brings to mind the LP Hartley quote, “the past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.” It’s all very familiar until one comes across the little things that makes one realise how much has actually changed.

For example, countries were imposing import tariffs on cement, companies were buying each other, national cement associations were lobbying hard for their members and cement plants were investing in alternative fuels equipment. All that stuff has been happening continually over the last decade and right into this week, with Russian media announcing who has won the auction to buy Eurocement and LafargeHolcim closing its deal to buy Firestone Building Products. Yet, Lafarge and Holcim were still separate companies and Italcementi was independent in 2011. On the sustainability side, Norcem and its parent company HeidelbergCement Group, with the European Cement Research Academy (ECRA), had just started a partnership agreement with Aker Clean Carbon (ACC) to study post-combustion CO₂ capture technology at Norcem’s plant in Brevik, Norway. Jump forward nine years and Norcem signed a deal with Aker Solutions in mid-2020 to order a full scale CO₂ capture, liquification and intermediate storage plant at Brevik.

The big numbers from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) show that global cement production grew by 24% to 4.1Bnt in 2020 from 3.3Bnt in 2010. However, the big growth had stopped by around 2013 and production has hovered between 4.0Bnt/yr and 4.2Bnt/yr ever since. Alongside this, Getting the Number Right (GNR) data indicates that net CO₂ emissions for cementitous products fell by 4% to 610kg/t in 2018 from 636kg/t in 2010. The former may show a levelling off of production as the Chinese market stabilised in the 2010s but the latter shows the progress that has been made in reducing cement-related CO₂ emissions and the scale of the challenge that remains ahead.

Graph 1: Embodied energy versus embodied CO₂ of building materials. Source: Hammond & Jones, University of Bath, UK.

Cement industry readers should not lose heart about the future of the industry though, while environmental pressure continues to mount. Graph 1 above shows the embodied CO₂ and energy of common building materials. Cement has been rightly identified as a major emitter of CO₂ but any society that desires to build strong structures cheaply and at scale requires concrete to do so whilst the data above remains unchallenged. The ratios may change, such as the perennial energy-cost influenced tug-of-war between asphalt and concrete roads, but concrete remains the only game in town. For now. At which point cement production becomes all about reducing the CO₂ emissions or capturing them, and determining who exactly pays for this. This then brings us to the present with the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme carbon price of over Euro40/t and other schemes popping up all around the planet. One echo from one of the early editions of Global Cement Weekly was the furore over Australia’s attempt at a carbon tax in the early 2010s. It was repealed in 2014.

One prediction about how the 2020s might be summarised for the cement industry is this: how to get away with pumping out all that CO₂? Let’s see what the next decade will bring.

US: Data from the US Geological Survey (USGS) shows that cement producers achieved volumes of 87Mt of Portland cement in 2020, a slight increase from 2019 levels. Portland and masonry cement volumes rose by 1% year-on-year to 89Mt from 88Mt, while clinker volumes remained level at 79Mt. Total cement shipments remained level at 103Mt. The value of shipments in 2020 was US$12.7bn. Total exports of cement and clinker were 1.0Mt, down from slightly over 1.0Mt in 2019. The USGS said that on-going upgrades, closed and mothballed plants, low capacity utilisation and relatively inexpensive imports constrained the industry’s growth.

Domestic consumption fell by less than 1% to 102Mt from 103Mt. Cement imports totalled 15.0Mt, up slightly from 14.7Mt, while clinker imports rose to 1.4Mt from 1.2Mt. This corresponded to a 15% rise in reliance on imports of cement and clinker. The main exporters of cement and clinker to the country were Canada, accounting for 33% of US imports, Turkey (16%), Greece (15%) and China (12%).

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

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

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

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

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

Ed Sullivan was present to tell Global Cement Live viewers about the Portland Cement Association’s (PCA) autumn forecast last week. The PCA expects US cement consumption to drop by 1.5% year-on-year on 2020. This is a weighted average of its three projections, which cover a gradual recovery from coronavirus-related economic disruption, a less controlled scenario and one where wide-spread vaccination has a positive effect in the second half of 2021. The first scenario is the PCA Market Intelligence’s most likely one but only the fast vaccination scenario predicts a return to growth in 2021. This is wide but understandable deviation from the PCA’s autumn forecast in 2019 that expected moderate growth albeit a slowly weakening economy. Almost nobody seriously expected 2020 to turn out like it has. Follow the link at the bottom of this article to view the presentation in full.

Graph 1: Portland & Blended Cement shipments by US region in 2019 and 2020. Source: United States Geological Survey (USGS).

We’ll now take a general look at the US cement industry so far in 2020 to compliment Sullivan’s economic overview. Up until 2020 cement consumption, production and imports had been growing steadily since the financial crash in 2008. Using August 2020 data the PCA says this is changing. Graph 1 above shows a general reverse of the position in the autumn of 2019 [LINK] with declines in the South and North-East and growth in the West and Midwest. Imports alongside this have continued to build. Overall, national cement shipments increased by 2.2% year-on-year to just under 50Mt in January to July 2020 from 48.9Mt in the same period in 2019. This was driven by growth of 10.8% in the Midwest. Missouri is the standout in the region, behind only Texas and California nationally as the third biggest cement shipping state so far in 2020.
From the corporate side, LafargeHolcim, the US’ biggest cement producer, described North America as having, “…the most resilience of all regions despite Covid-19 restrictions in some areas.” It reported an overall fall in cement volumes of 1.4% year-on-year to 8.9Mt in the first half of 2020. However, it didn’t go into specifics for the US. Cemex’s experience seemed to be doing better with an 8% rise in cement volumes supported by the infrastructure and residential sectors. HeidelbergCement went further and described the impact of coronavirus on the US economy as ‘significant.’ It reported a decrease in cement deliveries at its North American plants of 4.9%, to 7.1Mt. Both Buzzi Unicem and CRH reported cement sales growth of 4 – 5%, with CRH noting that, “strong volume trends in West supported by growth in our downstream businesses drove performance.”

Perusing the industry news reveals a slew of environmental stories. So far in 2020, Holcim US said it was going to run a carbon capture and storage (CCS) study at its Portland cement plant in Colorado, Alamo Cement signed a deal to build a solar farm, Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua’s (GCC) Rapid City plant in South Dakota announced plans for a wind farm, CalPortland launched a sustainable product line with a lower clinker factor, LafargeHolcim launched its ECOPact low-carbon concrete range, LafargeHolcim US also said it was adopting new environmental product declarations and Holcim US opened a solar power plant at its Hagerstown cement plant. There have been a few upgrade stories, like the new line being built at National Cement’s Ragland plant in Alabama or Lhoist’s new lime kiln projects, but Lehigh Hanson said it was suspending work on the upgrade to its Mitchell plant in Indiana in April 2020.

At this point all eyes are on the US Presidential election scheduled to run on 3 November 2020. Donald Trump’s long promised but never delivered infrastructure still hasn’t arrived although blame could be apportioned to both sides of the local political divide for this. The PCA believes that both presidential candidates will probably see it through although the Republicans’ interpretation might well involve more cement! In the interest of balance though, it also expects the Democrats to focus on low-income housing construction. At this stage it seems more likely that the early arrival of a coronavirus vaccine will have more impact on the cement industry in the short to medium term than the results of the election.

View Ed Sullivan’s presentation at Global Cement Live

US: The United States Geological Survey (USGS) has reported that total US cement shipments in the first three months of 2020 were 20.9Mt, up by 7.9% year-on-year from 19.4Mt. Imported cement accounted for 2.98Mt (14%) of shipments over the period, up by 22% from 24.4Mt.

The USGS said, “Measures instituted to mitigate the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic may cause disruptions in the cement industry across the United States and around the world. However, no US cement plant closures or idlings were reported in March 2020.”

Cemex pushed ahead yesterday and announced that it had sold the Kosmos Cement Company to Eagle Materials for around US$665m. It owns a 75% stake in the company, with Italy’s Buzzi Unicem owning the remaining share, giving it roughly US$449m once the deal completes. Proceeds from the sale will go towards debt reduction and general corporate purposes. The sale inventory includes a 1.7Mt/yr integrated cement plant in Louisville, Kentucky as well as seven distribution terminals and raw material reserves.

The decision to sell assets makes sense given Cemex’s financial results so far in 2019. It reported falling sales, cement volumes and earnings in the first nine months of the year although much of this was down to poor market conditions in Mexico. However, the US, along with Europe, was one of its stronger territories with rising sales. Earnings were impaired in the US, possibly due to bad weather in the southeast and competition in Florida, but infrastructure and residential development were reported to be promising.

Graph 1: Portland & Blended Cement shipments in 2018 and 2019. Source: United States Geological Survey (USGS).

Graph 2: Change in imports of hydraulic cement & clinker to the US in 2018 and 2019 from selected countries. Source: USGS.

United States Geological Survey (USGS) data also supports a picture of a growing US market. Shipments of Ordinary Portland Cement and blended cements grew by 2.4% year-on-year to 66.9Mt for the first eight months of 2019 from 65.4Mt in the same period in 2018. By region growth can be seen in the North-East, South and imports. Declines were reported in the West and Midwest. The states of Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee – the area where the Kosmos plant is located – saw shipments grow by 4% to 4.77Mt from 4.58Mt. It is worth noting that Louisville is in the north of Kentucky near the border with Indiana, where shipments also grew.

The Portland Cement Association’s (PCA) fall forecast may also have helped Cemex’s decision. Ed Sullivan, PCA Senior Vice President and Chief Economist, said that he expected cement consumption in the US to continue growing in 2019 and 2020 but with a slowing trend into 2021 following general gross domestic product (GDP) predictions. The PCA’s view is that pent-up demand following the recession in 2008 was gone and the economy was gradually weakening. Crucially though it didn’t think a recession was impending. In this scenario Cemex might be taking a medium-term view with regards to the Kosmos Cement Company.

Another more general interesting data point from the USGS was the change in import origins to the US. Imports grew by 11.3% to 66.9Mt in January to August 2019. The top five importing countries and their overall share remained the same but there was some movement between them. Turkish and Mexican imports surged at the expensive of Chinese ones as can be seen in Graph 2. The go-to explanation for this would be the on-going US - China trade war. Cemex is a Mexican company with a strong presence in both the US and Mexico. This change in the make-up of the import market in the US may also have informed its decision to sell Kosmos Cement as it looked at the macro scale.

More generally the US market is looking buoyant in the short to medium term. Plants are being sold like Kosmos Cement to Eagle Cement and the Keystone cement plant in Bath, Pennsylvania to HeidelbergCement and a major upgrade project is underway on the new production line at the Mitchell plant in Indiana. In Cemex’s case, as ever with asset sales, the seller sometimes has to make the hard decision of whether to divest a plant in a growing region to help the business in other places that might not be doing so well. The growth of America’s largest locally owned producer, Eagle Cement, may also give cheer to the US’ current ‘America First’ administration.

Talk of US tariffs on imports from Mexico was not troubling the National Chamber of Cement (CANACEM) this week. Director general Yanina Navarro pointed out to local media that Mexico only exports 1.42Mt or 3.4% of its total production of 44Mt/yr to its northern neighbour. This is a little higher than the 1.04Mt reported by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) in 2018, although that figure is believed to have underestimated imports to El Paso district in Texas. Mexico was the fifth largest exporter of hydraulic cement and clinker to the US behind Canada, Turkey, China and Greece.

Commentators pointed out that Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua (GCC) might be affected more that other Mexican producers as two of its plants are close to the border at Samalayuca and Juárez in Chihuahua. However, GCC operates five plants in the US. Cemex also has a plant near the US border at Ensenada in Baja California. Yet it’s the fourth largest producer in the US by integrated production capacity. If either company had its export markets seriously disrupted by any border duties they could likely focus on production in the US to compensate.

Once again this is similar to the situation with the proposed border wall where, although President Donald Trump wanted Mexico to pay, it would have been Mexican companies benefiting the most from any construction boom. This was also the case with the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), the successor to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The international structure of many of the larger Mexican cement producers insulates them from these kinds of political and trade disputes.

Mexican producers shouldn’t be too complacent though. Tariffs are likely to play havoc with integrated supply chains as in the car industry. Building materials will probably be affected less so but that 1.42Mt export figure is more than the production capacity of many individual Mexican cement plants. Taking away this export market will drag on the industry’s utilisation rate and alternate destinations may be hard to find. Note the trouble Mexico has had distributing its products in Peru. The Supreme Court there upheld a fine this week on UNACEM for trying to block the distribution of Cemex’s brand of cement in 2014. Also, although Trump’s tariffs on Chinese products may not have much of an impact on building materials, USGS data shows that Chinese imports of cement to the US fell by 27% year-on-year to 0.76Mt in the six months to the end of February 2019. Similar reductions could await Mexico’s exporters.

The general consensus from the free market press is that tariffs will ultimately hurt both economies. In agreement the Portland Cement Association (PCA) published a market report in April 2018 on the effects of tariffs on US cement consumption in the wake of tariffs on steel and aluminium imports from the European Union (EU), Canada and Mexico. The summary was that all forms of tariff – from minor to a global trade war – would likely result in reduced US cement consumption to varying degrees due to slower economic growth. A full-scale set of tariffs on Mexican imports is likely to induce similar consequences.