Concrete
Maximising AFR in Cement Manufacturing
Published
2 years agoon
By
Roshna
Shreesh A Khadilkar, Consultant and Advisor, and Former Director Quality and Product Development, ACC Ltd Thane, discusses the importance of optimising the use of alternative fuel and raw materials (TSR percentage) in cement production without affecting clinker quality.
We all know that in the calciner the CaCO3 undergoes calcination producing CaO, part of this CaO reacts with Al2O3, Fe2O3 SiO2 to form aluminates, ferrites, Belite and some CaO remain as uncombined CaO in the material that enters the kiln, this uncombined CaO further reacts, as the material passes through the kiln to form clinker of desired phase composition with at desired levels of free lime. If this uncombined CaO is less, the resultant clinker would have lower free CaO.
Due to fluctuations of moisture in the SAFR feed, the calciner outlet temperature tends to decrease/fluctuate although the calcination is complete, some of the above post calcination reactions of the CaO are decreased, as a result the uncombined CaO is higher, in the material entering the kiln. The reactions in the kiln are affected for the same throughput and either the clinker free lime is high or the clinker shows lesser C3S percentage (depending on the burnability of the kiln feed).
In plants equipped with XRD it would be possible to monitor the uncombined CaO in Hot meal and optimise the Calciner outlet temperatures so as to achieve the desired uncombined percentage of lime as explained above. If the value is much lower than the desired level it would indicate subsequent lower LSF in the clinker, so addition of lime sludge or limestone powder as explained above would maintain the desired clinker specs. These actions, if affected during the day, would help maintain the day’s average clinker quality.
Besides the variability of the moisture percentage, the ash percentage and its composition in SAFR could change the composition of calcining material and finally depending on these changes, the post calcination reactions would be affected, depending on the uncombined percentage of lime value (monitored by XRD of hot meal), the corrections as explained above would help correct the composition and maintain the burning zone performance and the resultant clinker quality. Thus, if the calciner outlet temperature / kiln inlet material / C6 material temp. (as the case may be) is maintained higher and necessary corrections are made through SAFR or through the kiln feed. We can maintain the uncombined CaO at desired level where we could get good kiln performance as well as a good/improved clinker quality even at a higher percentage of AFR/TSR.
In many plants there is a tendency to increase the clinker Fe2O3 as and when there is an excessive dust generation and dusty kiln performance, this attempt to increase Clinker Fe2O3 would not actually help in improving the kiln conditions and maintaining clinker quality. In another plant equipped with XRD, the limestone had higher Fe2O3 content and to compensate for the effect of the varying moisture of SAFR the Calciner outlet temperature was maintained at around 920oC so that the desired post calcination reactions could be achieved and the uncombined CaO (monitored by XRD of hot meal) was maintained at desired levels.
The clinker LSF also could be maintained but the Free CaO tended to be high. The hot meal XRD indicated that the belite formations were lower in hot meal as and when the clinker free lime was high. Although the Silica was contributed from the Solid AFR as this silica was sand/silt, which did not react, the clinker IR also was observed to increase by around 0.4 per cent use of pondash (having reactive silica) along with the solid AFR up to 1 per cent was observed to increase the Belite content of hot meal and the resultant clinker had desired phase formations with lower free lime. For calculation of PSF/Potential phase composition a correction was given to the clinker silica contents (by subtracting the change in IR of clinker).
Thus, it needs to be noted here that in RDF/MSW, SAFR the ash content may have coarse sand grains, which cannot at the calcination stage and it the burnability is sensitive to silica contents, such corrections of use of wet fly ash with the SAFR could be advantageous to maintain clinker quality. However, these corrections have to be affected during the day through XRD monitoring of Hot meal and subsequent Clinker (say after 40 minutes) so that at the end of the day the clinker is of desired quality specs.
Thus, in plants coprocessing higher levels of AFR it is recommended to have a ‘bi-hourly dashboard’ and the day average clinker consistency in Quality Monitored by ‘compliance percentage to clinker specs’ as shown in Tables 1 and 2.
Such a dashboard helps having the entire plant operations involved in taking bi hourly actions so as to maintain the quality and process targets with increase in SAFR/LQAFR thus, achieving a higher compliance percentage to clinker quality specs. This has enabled not only to maintain clinker quality but it also showed improvements in clinker quality.
Actions: In plant with high TSR percentage without XRD
The hot meal samples at different kiln inlet material temperatures were collected at 870,900n and 930oC along with corresponding clinker samples (after say 40 minutes) and the XRD analysis was carried out at external labs. Through the bi-hourly dashboard actions the clinker compositions were maintained as per desired target. The XRD Mineralogy of Hot Meal and clinker XRD are tabulated in Table 3.
Although the plant maintains 95 per cent DOC, the XRD however indicates >99.5 per cent calcination. Thus, even in the absence of XRD using the bi-hourly dashboard optimisation of clinker quality can be made possible, however having an XRD (even a low watts XRD) would always be advantageous, especially if the kiln feed shows moderate burnability.
Other important considerations
- As discussed above bi-hourly corrections made to clinker composition could be through the SAFR/RDF mix, in one plant it could be use of waste lime sludge/ in another plant use of wet pond ash/ in another use of limestone crusher dust/ high grade limestone powder depending on the corrections desired.
- In case such materials are not available in the plant for corrections, the necessary actions bi-hourly, to adjust the clinker LSF, could be by changes in proportion of high ash coal + coal Petcoke mix in calciner or it could be even be targeting an appropriate kiln deed composition to accommodate the ash percentage of SAFR/RDF or bihourly changing the feed rate (TPH) of SAFR, as per the bi-hourly clinker composition requirements.
- Reducing conditions can have substantial effects on clinker quality like problems with sulfur integration, Alite decomposition (strength reduction), conversion from C4AF to C3A (acceleration of setting), change in color of cement (from greenish grey to brownish), the detection of reducing conditions could be done using ‘Magotteaux Test’, it is important to assess the reducing conditions whether internal or peripheral, would indicate possible reasons.
- Internal reducing conditions indicate that due to changes in liquid viscosity the larger clinker nodules are black from outside but yellow to brownish in the internal core. Such clinker nodules roll down from the transition zone with an unburnt core which disintegrates on cooling due to gamma C2S. Such nodules have high free lime, delocalised or peripheral reducing conditions due to larger size of solid AFR component (shredded size) showing CO peaks.
- The Hot meal (2Cl+SO3) needs to be reliably monitored using XRF standards of Hot Meal. Every plant would have a threshold value of (2Cl+SO3), value >3.5 is reported to cause severe depositions at kiln inlet/riser duct/cyclones.
- The kiln system should be able to handle the higher gas volumes (calciner , inlet and preheater).
Increased percentage of AFR /TSR is associated with increase in limestone pile LSF which is linked to life of mines (Fig:2). This increase in limestone pile LSF would be more plant specific. - To lessen the impact on limestone Pile LSF/Mines life the plant would have to use, sweetener limestone (availability/cost), reduce the percentage use of high silica correctives with purer correctives, use petcoke or low ash coal (imported), use of waste lime sludges available from chemical industries.
- As discussed earlier the plant could use a mix fuel (petcoke + high ash coal), or (mix of petcoke + high ash wastes like Dolochar/spent carbon etc.) in the calciner, the mix ratio could be changed so as to improve clinker LSF during the day (as a bi-hourly actions).
High ash (high iron/high silica) wastes should not be fired through the kiln fuel; these wastes should be put through calciner fuel if feasible or along with solid wastes. It is always beneficial to have low ash coal (fuel) / petcoke in kilns. - It is recommended to use 4 per cent to 5 per cent high LSF Limestone in petcoke grinding (especially for kiln fuel). It improves the efficiency of petcoke grinding and would help to bind the sulphur during combustion in kiln, thus decreasing the SO3 of the hot meal. Using limestone decreases the SO3 fluctuations in the clinker and the excess of CaCO3 forms C3S clusters in the clinker, thus, improving clinker grindability.
- Petcoke grinding is usually controlled at 1 per cent to 2 per cent on 90 microns. However in certain grinding systems, the 45 microns residue is observed to be as high as 26 per cent to 28 per cent which could create reducing conditions and initiate some coating formation in pre pre-transition zone in kilns.
- Large storage yards to stock different types of solid AFR would help to mix the waste in certain proportions so as to achieve relative consistency in ash percentage or even chloride contents.
- An auto-sampler with shredder on the solid AFR conveyor would be useful. However, the analysis time would be around 4 to 5 hours which is too high.
- If the plant is reaching >25 per cent TSR, from a futuristics angle, having an online Cross Belt analyser like ‘Spectra Flow’ could help analyse moisture percentage, ash percentage and its constituents in real time, enabling rapid corrections to clinker compositions with necessary modifications to the kiln system even much higher TSR levels could be achievable.
- Higher TSR levels invariably are associated with increase in Hot meal alkalis, chlorides and sulphates and would necessitate chloride bypass.
- The procurement has a high responsibility of providing appropriate SAFR/RDF fuel of different ash percentage and of different chloride percentage (screened to remove sand/mud/stones).
- Wastes having CaO rich ash would always be advantageous for the same TPH of solid AFR, the TSR percentage would be higher if the NCY of the sold AFR is higher.
Conclusion
The paper indicates and discusses in some details the avenues for increased TSR percentage without affecting clinker quality. However, depending on calciner retention time and air volume availability there would be a certain maximum TSR percentage that can be achieved. It may be noted here that the kiln system would necessitate suitable upgradation for achieving a much higher TSR percentage. It is needless to mention that XRF Models with standardless software for elemental analysis of solid/liquid AFR would be advantageous and as discussed having an XRD would be a necessity to maintain clinker quality at higher TSR percentage.
Clinkers with High MgO (>4.5 per cent) would be a challenge and optimising the CaO/SiO2 ratio would be a key to improve clinker quality use of XRD in such clinkers would be an asset.
Futuristically, ‘Torrefaction Process’ (the process of degrading organic materials in a nitrogen or inert environment within a temperature range of 200oC to 300oC) of bio wastes if extended suitably to MSW wastes and other solid AFR to produce a bio coal, could become an excellent opportunity for increased TSR for cement plants.
In this paper I have tried to share some observations in a generalised manner made at different plants with different AFR/TSR percentage which could be useful for other plants for their future road map on maximising TSR percentage.
About the author:
Shreesh Khadilkar, Consultant and Advisor brings over 37 years of experience in cement manufacturing, having held leadership roles in R&D and product development at ACC Ltd. With deep expertise in innovative cement concepts, he is dedicated to sharing his knowledge and improving the performance of cement plants globally.




Indian Cement Review (ICR) and Fuller Technologies brought industry, policy and technology leaders together to discuss how cement innovation can drive green construction at scale, writes Rakesh Rao.
India is building at a pace few countries can match. Highways, airports, housing, logistics parks, industrial corridors and urban infrastructure are reshaping the country’s economic geography. But beneath this growth story lies a difficult question: can India continue to build at scale without locking itself into a high-carbon future?
That question formed the core of an online panel discussion titled “Driving Green Construction Through Cement Innovation”, organised by Indian Cement Review (ICR) in association with Fuller Technologies as the Presenting Partner on June 25, 2026. The webinar brought together experts from cement technology, R&D, global industry platforms, building performance policy and international development cooperation to examine how low-carbon cement and material innovation can accelerate India’s green construction transition.
The discussion came at a crucial time. India has committed to achieving net-zero emissions by 2070 and reducing the carbon intensity of its economy by 45 per cent by 2030. At the same time, the country’s construction sector is expanding rapidly, driven by urbanisation, infrastructure development, housing demand and industrial growth. Cement, as one of the most widely used construction materials, sits at the heart of this transition. It is indispensable to development, but also central to the challenge of reducing embodied carbon in buildings and infrastructure.
Moderated by Nitika Krishan, Senior Urban Infrastructure and Sustainable Policy Consultant, the panel featured:
- Kiranmai Sanagavarapu, Director, Low Carbon Solutions, Fuller Technologies;
- Dr Hemantkumar Aiyer, VP and Head R&D, Nuvoco Vistas Corp Ltd;
- Devika Wattal, Innovation Lead, Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA);
- Dr Sunita Purushottam, MD, GBPN India (Global Buildings Performance Network); and
- Vaibhav Rathi, Senior Technical Advisor, GIZ (the German Agency for International Cooperation)
Setting the tone for the discussion, Nitika Krishan underlined the scale of the challenge before the sector. “The question before us is no longer whether we build, but how we build sustainably,” she said. She pointed out that construction accounts for nearly 40 per cent of global energy-related carbon emissions when both operational and embodied carbon are considered. Cement production, she added, remains one of the hardest industrial processes to decarbonise.
For India, this is not merely an environmental issue. It is a development issue, a competitiveness issue and increasingly, a market issue. As one of the world’s largest cement producers and among the fastest-growing construction markets, India’s material choices will influence the carbon trajectory of its built environment for decades. As Krishan observed, sustainability solutions in economies such as India must not remain limited to laboratory success. They must be scalable, commercially viable and practical at national level.
The innovation gap: From technology to market
Experts believe that there is a need to bridge the innovation gaps for making decarbonisation in cement and concrete scalable. Devika Wattal of GCCA, explained, “The starting point must be the core cement manufacturing process itself. The first and foremost is the heart of our process, the heart of cement manufacturing. How do we reduce clinker? That is always a topic where industry is working very intrinsically.”
Clinker reduction remains one of the most important pathways for lowering emissions in cement. Since clinker production is energy-intensive and chemically emits carbon dioxide, reducing the clinker factor through supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs), blended cements and new chemistries can have a significant impact. Wattal also noted that carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS) will have a role, though it may not be the first lever for all markets.
However, she stressed that innovation cannot stop at technology development. A solution that works in the lab must also be adaptable to industry, scalable in production and acceptable in construction practice. “It is important for that innovation to be adaptable, to be scalable, and so that it can be executed in real time,” she said.
Wattal also called for stronger enabling systems around innovation. These include performance-based standards, product-level embodied carbon databases and clearer frameworks for evaluating green materials. Without these, low-carbon cement products may struggle to compete with conventional materials in procurement and design.
R&D must balance carbon, cost and performance
Bringing in the R&D perspective into the discussion, Dr Hemantkumar Aiyer of Nuvoco Vistas emphasised that low-carbon cement development cannot be treated as a single-variable exercise. Cement must perform in real construction conditions. It must deliver strength, durability, consistency and cost competitiveness, while also reducing carbon.
“The root of understanding and balancing all these aspects lies in materials, and knowing the materials,” he said.
According to Dr Aiyer, R&D teams must understand the variability of raw materials such as fly ash, slag and clinker. Different sources produce different material behaviours. This makes mix optimisation, material characterisation and processing-property relationships critical. When performance is affected, cement manufacturers must understand how strength enhancers, admixtures and other performance chemicals interact with the material system.
He also linked material science with process efficiency. Clinkerisation takes place at extremely high temperatures, around 1,400 to 1,450 degrees Celsius. Any improvement in raw mix design, process control or energy optimisation can, therefore, help reduce emissions and cost. Dr Aiyer pointed to artificial intelligence-based optimisation, Cement 4.0 tools and advanced software as important enablers for real-time process and material control.
“The more you understand the materials, the more you can control it,” he said.
LC3: The promise is proven, the sequencing is not
Limestone calcined clay cement, commonly referred to as LC3, has attracted global attention because it can reduce clinker content significantly by using calcined clay and limestone while maintaining performance in many applications. Kiranmai Sanagavarapu of Fuller Technologies said the technology itself has already moved beyond proof of concept. Fuller Technologies has worked with calcined clay technology for nearly two decades and has seen plants running in France and Ghana. These plants, she said, are meeting local and national specifications, while the economics are beginning to make sense.
“The calciner is performing, the economics is stacking up, it is making business sense to produce,” she said.
But if the technology is viable, why has adoption not scaled faster? For Sanagavarapu, the answer lies in project sequencing. Too often, clay characterisation happens after equipment is specified. This, she warned, is a backward approach because calciner design depends on clay mineralogy, kaolinite content, iron levels, reactivity, moisture and other variables.
“If you don’t know what your deposit looks like before you commit for the equipment, you are, in a way, going blind into designing,” she said.
She also identified permitting and plant integration as major bottlenecks. Environmental clearances, mining permissions and local regulatory approvals must begin early. Similarly, calcined clay must be integrated into existing grinding, blending and logistics systems from the design stage, not treated as an afterthought during commissioning.
India already has IS 18189:2023 standard for LC3, but Sanagavarapu pointed out that the standard is not yet visible enough in procurement documents. “The gap between what is technically being permitted and what the procurement is asking is the single biggest bottleneck,” she said.
In her view, successful scale-up depends on getting the sequence right: clay characterisation first, permitting in parallel, standards aligned with construction, and integration built into plant design.
India’s LC3 journey: Progress, but demand remains thin
Providing details of India’s LC3 commercialisation experience, Vaibhav Rathi of GIZ noted that JK Cement carried out the first commercial production of LC3 at its Rajasthan plant, followed by JK Lakshmi Cement three months later. These initiatives were supported by the International Climate Initiative of the Government of Germany, with IIT Delhi contributing deep institutional knowledge on LC3 research and BIS certification.
Rathi said India’s early experience has produced clear lessons. One of the biggest was the need to build capacity among regulators. While BIS certification existed, State Pollution Control Boards were unfamiliar with the technology and unsure about the approval pathway.
“The capacity building is not just needed amongst the producer and the users of the cement, but also the regulators who are working with this technology for the first time,” he said.
He also highlighted the need for better information on China clay deposits. Since China clay is currently classified as a minor mineral, centralised data on availability, quality and location is limited. If cement manufacturers are to adopt LC3 at scale, stronger mineral intelligence will be important.
The third issue is demand. LC3 has already been used in projects such as Palava City in Mumbai and Noida International Airport, but these remain limited examples. “It is in a chicken and egg situation,” Rathi said. “Cement companies are saying we need more demand, and users are saying there is not enough cement available.”
Public procurement, he suggested, could help break this cycle. If agencies such as CPWD and other public bodies begin testing, accepting and specifying LC3, it could create the market confidence needed for cement companies to invest in production and storage.
Building codes must catch up with innovation
Dr Sunita Purushottam of GBPN India argued that material choices will determine built environment emissions over the long term, but India’s current policy signals remain fragmented. Although LC3 has received BIS recognition, she pointed out that building codes, municipal bylaws, schedules of rates and sustainability codes do not yet provide uniform guidance on low-carbon cement.
“The current cement regulations are largely prescriptive and favouring traditional materials,” she said. This limits the ability of alternative materials to compete on performance, durability and emissions.
Dr Purushottam also raised the issue of taxation. Cement, including LC3, currently falls under the same GST bracket as conventional cement. A differentiated tax structure, she argued, could help accelerate market adoption. “In order for the market to demand LC3, that differentiation in the GST could go a long way,” she said.
She noted that green building certifications such as IGBC and GRIHA are already creating demand for low-carbon materials by assigning points for embodied carbon and sustainable material use. However, she said large-scale adoption will require regulatory mandates, particularly through building codes and state-level notifications.
She also cautioned that low-carbon cement alone does not solve the entire building performance problem. A material may reduce embodied carbon, but the operational carbon of a building depends on thermal performance, design, insulation and energy use. “The energy part has two elements,” she said. “One is the embodied carbon of the material itself, and the other is the operational carbon.”
Collaboration is the bridge between invention and impact
Wattal said GCCA sees innovation as a strategic priority and works through platforms that connect industry with academia and start-ups. “There is no way we will decarbonise our sector without innovation,” she said.
However, she stressed that research must be connected to actual industry challenges. Innovations developed in isolation may fail when they encounter real-world barriers such as raw material variability, plant integration, cost, standards and finance. Start-ups, too, need industry mentorship and scale-up pathways.
Wattal also flagged the importance of finance. Even strong technologies may struggle to attract investment if there is no common understanding of bankability. “We have always put projects into, is this a bankable project? But the definition of a bankable project has never been defined,” she said.
For India, she saw strong potential in its academic and start-up ecosystem, but said the challenge lies in alignment and prioritisation. The country has the research base, industrial capacity and market size. What it now needs is a coordinated route from innovation to deployment.
There is a practical concern for cement manufacturers: how can existing plants be adapted for lower emissions without compromising reliability or commercial viability?
Kiranmai Sanagavarapu addressed, “The reliability risk in calcined clay retrofit is definitely real, but it is almost always self-inflicted. The risk arises when a new process is added to an existing circuit without properly redesigning grinding and blending configurations.”
Existing cement plants, she explained, can take two broad routes. The first is external sourcing of calcined clay combined with mill optimisation. This requires lower capital investment and can potentially move in 12 to 18 months if other conditions are in place. It may reduce emissions by around 20 to 30 per cent. The second route is integrated calcination on site, which requires higher capital expenditure and longer lead times, but provides greater control over quality, supply and emissions reduction potential.
For Sanagavarapu, the principle is simple: low-carbon retrofits must be designed with intent. “Design it with an intent properly from the start. Start in the market conditions where the economics are already working,” she said.
Circularity: The overlooked advantage
According to Vaibhav Rathi, fly ash and slag are already well established in cement and construction (C&D), but construction and demolition waste remains underutilised. “C&D waste is a growing business opportunity which not many have taken up,” he said. India’s continuous construction and demolition activity creates huge volumes of waste, much of which contributes to air pollution, land degradation and material inefficiency. With the right processing and standards, this waste can be converted into useful construction products.
Rathi also pointed out that LC3 has a circular economy dimension that is often overlooked. It can use low-grade kaolin-rich clay left behind after high-grade clay is extracted for other applications. “LC3 is not only a low-carbon solution, but also a circular economy solution,” he said.
At the same time, he cautioned that LC3 in India is not yet cheap because it has not reached scale. Site-specific techno-commercial feasibility studies, supported jointly by development agencies and industry, could help companies assess whether LC3 production makes technical and financial sense at a given location.
Dr Purushottam added that India must address both low-carbon cement and construction waste together. “Both low-carbon cement and C&D waste go hand in hand. India does not have an option but to work on both,” she said.
Dr Aiyer called for policy shifts from both government and industry, including preferential purchasing of sustainable materials, minimum supplementary cementitious material requirements in public and public-private projects, and faster regulatory implementation. “If we can fast-track the regulatory standards and their implementation on the ground, that is the way to go,” he said.
From green ambition to green construction
Cement innovation is no longer only about chemistry. It is about systems. Low-carbon cement will scale only when technology, standards, procurement, finance, regulation, education and construction practice move together.
LC3 and other low-carbon technologies have shown promise. India has early commercial examples, strong research capability and growing market interest. But mainstream adoption will depend on whether demand can be created, regulators can be capacitated, standards can be embedded in procurement, and manufacturers can see a clear business case.
For a country building at India’s scale, the opportunity is enormous. Cement will continue to be central to infrastructure and urban development. The challenge now is to ensure that the cement used in India’s growth story carries a lower carbon burden.
- Rakesh Rao
Participate in Cement Expo 2026 and discover how next-gen infrastructure can be built with innovations in cement.
Concrete
JK Cement Declared Preferred Bidder For Gilund Limestone Block
Shares Edge Higher As Company Wins Rajasthan Block
Published
2 days agoon
June 30, 2026By
admin
JK Cement gained after being declared preferred bidder for the Gilund Limestone Block in Chittorgarh, Rajasthan, a lease area of 370.96 hectares. The firm saw its shares trade at Rs. 5550.05, up by 28.45 points or 0.52 per cent from the previous close of Rs. 5521.60 on the BSE. The scrip opened at Rs. 5569.15 and touched a high of Rs. 5625.00 and a low of Rs. 5531.00.
The stock recorded turnover of 1742 shares on the counter and the BSE group A stock with face value Rs. 10 has a 52 week high of Rs. 7565.00 on 20-Aug-2025 and a 52 week low of Rs. 4670.05 on 12-Jun-2026. Last one week high and low stood at Rs. 5625.00 and Rs. 5329.00 respectively. The promoters holding in the company stood at 45.66 per cent, while institutions and non-institutions held 40.61 per cent and 13.73 per cent respectively.
The e-auction conducted by the Government of Rajasthan resulted in the company being declared preferred bidder for the mining lease, and the allocation will enable the company to plan phased development of the deposit, subject to regulatory approvals. The Gilund block spans 370.96 hectares and its allocation is intended to support raw material security for the company’s cement operations in the region. The designation follows the government auction process and will allow the company to plan development and integration of the deposit into its supply chain.
The current market capitalisation stands at Rs. 430.38 billion (bn), reflecting market response to the mining news and prevailing valuation levels for the sector. Investors and analysts will watch for formal allotment and related disclosures that can clarify timelines, capital expenditure and expected production profiles. The report is intended for informational purposes and does not constitute investment advice, and market participants are advised to consult advisers before making decisions.
Concrete
Star Cement Named Preferred Bidder For Boro Lakhindong Block
Preferred bidder for limestone mining lease in Assam
Published
3 days agoon
June 29, 2026By
admin
Star Cement has been declared the preferred bidder for the mining lease for Boro Lakhindong West Block following e-auctions conducted by the Government of Assam. The block is located in Boro Lakhindong Village, Umrangso Tehsil, Dima Hasao District, Assam, and extends over an area of 123 hectares. The estimated limestone resource is 207.822 million (mn) tonnes (t), a quantity that will supply raw material for cement production and support the company’s manufacturing operations in the region.
The company is engaged in the manufacturing and selling of cement clinker and cement and distributes products across the north-eastern and eastern states of India. Star Cement operates plants and logistics networks that procure and process limestone to produce clinker for cement, and the addition of Boro Lakhindong is presented as a strategic enhancement of feedstock availability. The preferred bidder status secures rights to the specified lease area under the terms of the auction process.
Financial results for the company in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2026 showed a consolidated net profit rise of 20.24 per cent to Rs 1,481.0 mn on an 11.54 per cent increase in revenue to Rs 11,735.5 mn compared with the corresponding quarter of the previous year. Those results reflected higher sales volumes and revenue growth in the company’s primary markets and are cited in company disclosures accompanying the lease announcement. The reported performance provides context to the company’s ability to pursue and finance new mining lease opportunities.
Market reaction to the declaration was modest, with the scrip rising zero point thirty six per cent to trade at Rs 212 on the BSE. The award of the Boro Lakhindong lease concludes the e-auction process for the west block and assigns operational rights to Star Cement as the preferred bidder, subject to completion of statutory and contractual formalities.
Green Construction Through Cement Innovation
JK Cement Declared Preferred Bidder For Gilund Limestone Block
Star Cement Named Preferred Bidder For Boro Lakhindong Block
KERC Proposal To Cut Rooftop Solar Export Tariff Raises Concern
Indian Railways Plans Green Fly Ash Transport Network
Green Construction Through Cement Innovation
JK Cement Declared Preferred Bidder For Gilund Limestone Block
Star Cement Named Preferred Bidder For Boro Lakhindong Block
KERC Proposal To Cut Rooftop Solar Export Tariff Raises Concern

