Green360 inks agreement to fast-track its low-carbon concrete
The companies' 50:50 joint venture will produce and sell low-carbon retaining wall blocks to WA's hungry mining construction market, as well as the residential, infrastructure and commercial sectors.
Under the non-binding memorandum of understanding (MoU), PERMAcast will fund the acquisition of a specialised block-laying machine and a concrete batching plant, enabling the production of 1-metre-long low-carbon retaining wall blocks for net-zero or ESG compliant construction ventures.
The joint venture entity will have exclusive rights to purchase the blocks at cost from PERMAcast and on-sell them, with all profits shared equally between the partners.
Green360 says the agreement promises significant revenue and cash flow opportunities and will fast-track commercialisation of its new-world technology.
The company's proprietary cement formulations use industrial by-products to ensure the blocks have a lower embodied carbon footprint compared to traditional concrete products.
The in-house production model allows for precise control over mix designs, ensuring compliance with strict performance and sustainability standards, including net-zero and ESG targets increasingly demanded by major projects.
The blocks are expected to be the joint venture's first low-carbon product sold in commercial volumes, with production equipment slated for commissioning at PERMAcast's facilities by mid-next year, pending final agreements.
As WA's construction sector experiences a mining-induced boom cycle, giants such as BHP and Rio Tinto are bleeding the construction industry dry of supply in pursuit of port expansions, infrastructure and residential projects.
Green360 says its 1m blocks are in high demand for these applications, including main roads, flood and erosion control infrastructure, mining camps and camp expansions.
By producing the blocks in-house, the joint venture says it can tailor products to meet specific project needs - whether to meet strength, durability or environmental criteria - while maintaining cost efficiency and rapid scalability.
'We're excited to take this step with PERMAcast toward bringing low carbon retaining wall blocks to Western Australia - a region undergoing rapid growth in urban development, infrastructure and resource-driven construction.
Green360 Technologies executive chairman Aaron Banks
Banks said the 1000m x 350m x 350m format is widely used across the state for retaining walls, earthworks, road corridors, mining camps and port upgrades - making it a high-volume, high-impact opportunity to demonstrate its low carbon credentials.
The Australian concrete market is projected to reach $2.6 billion by 2033, fuelled by urbanisation and a push for sustainable construction practices, according to industry analysis from IMARC Group. However, a clear supply deficit for large-format retaining wall blocks, particularly those aligned with carbon reduction goals, has created a prime opportunity for Green360 and PERMAcast to capture market share.
The non-binding MoU exploits an immediate market gap on a global push to decarbonise the cement industry, which accounts for up to 8 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions. By leveraging PERMAcast's established infrastructure and Green360's innovative cement technology, the joint venture can capture market share as an early mover in the specialised industry segment.
While the MoU is non-binding and subject to final agreements, the partnership builds on a clear market need and a reputable partner in PERMAcast. Green360 is cementing its position as a leader in sustainable construction materials, ready to disrupt a rapidly growth low-carbon cement market with its flexible and sustainable solutions.
Is your ASX-listed company doing something interesting? Contact:
matt.birney@wanews.com.au
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
an hour ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Australia needs a new China strategy: America's promised pivot to Asia is unlikely
The ceasefire between Israel and Iran, should it last, is a resoundingly positive development. But regional peace in its current form, after Israeli offensives in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Iran, cannot be sustained in the long run without continuous American involvement. This has serious implications for America's longstanding commitment to disentangle itself from Middle Eastern affairs and shift focus firmly to the Pacific and its only peer superpower competitor: China. Successive Australian governments have staked their plans to navigate the growing superpower rivalry in our region upon promises of an American laser-focus on the Pacific that is unlikely to ever truly materialise. Just as Prime Minister Anthony Albanese prepares to meet President Xi Jinping in China this month, the ongoing role of the US in reshaping the balance of power in the Middle East in Israel's favour should have leaders and policymakers here questioning the viability of an American 'Pivot to Asia' that never arrives. For Australians, the stakes couldn't be higher. The pivot was first announced in November 2011, when then US president Barack Obama addressed the Australian Parliament. In response to the disastrous Bush-era campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama declared: 'After a decade in which we fought two wars that cost us dearly, in blood and treasure, the United States is turning our attention to the vast potential of the Asia-Pacific region.' Loading Obama promised to refocus the US-Australia partnership around maintaining a strategic balance as China's power expanded, while emphasising peaceful and co-operative relations in areas of mutual benefit, such as trade, diplomacy, climate and non-proliferation. Australia has doggedly upheld its end of the bargain, providing bases for American forces, joining new US-centred alliances and security pacts, such as the Quad and AUKUS, and signing onto exorbitant arms-procurement programs. But in the 14 years since a US president addressed our parliament, precious little of America's own commitments to the pivot have come to pass. The economic arm of the pivot was strangled in the cradle when President Trump formally abandoned the Trans-Pacific Partnership on the first day of his presidency in 2016. American commitment to diplomacy, multilateral institutionalism and regional trust-building have followed a similar trajectory. But the Trump administration retained a supposedly iron-clad commitment to abandon the neoconservative model of foreign interventions and begin to focus squarely on the challenges posed by a rising China. Trump's consistent stated opposition to these wars was one of the most popular ingredients in his early political success. Arguably the most critical moment in Trump's nascent election campaign occurred a week before the 2016 South Carolina Primary, when he decried the Iraq War as a 'big fat mistake' and called out the Republican establishment for lying about weapons of mass destruction. Trump went on to win South Carolina, and Jeb Bush, once the frontrunner, abandoned his campaign.
The Age
an hour ago
- The Age
Australia needs a new China strategy: America's promised pivot to Asia is unlikely
The ceasefire between Israel and Iran, should it last, is a resoundingly positive development. But regional peace in its current form, after Israeli offensives in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Iran, cannot be sustained in the long run without continuous American involvement. This has serious implications for America's longstanding commitment to disentangle itself from Middle Eastern affairs and shift focus firmly to the Pacific and its only peer superpower competitor: China. Successive Australian governments have staked their plans to navigate the growing superpower rivalry in our region upon promises of an American laser-focus on the Pacific that is unlikely to ever truly materialise. Just as Prime Minister Anthony Albanese prepares to meet President Xi Jinping in China this month, the ongoing role of the US in reshaping the balance of power in the Middle East in Israel's favour should have leaders and policymakers here questioning the viability of an American 'Pivot to Asia' that never arrives. For Australians, the stakes couldn't be higher. The pivot was first announced in November 2011, when then US president Barack Obama addressed the Australian Parliament. In response to the disastrous Bush-era campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama declared: 'After a decade in which we fought two wars that cost us dearly, in blood and treasure, the United States is turning our attention to the vast potential of the Asia-Pacific region.' Loading Obama promised to refocus the US-Australia partnership around maintaining a strategic balance as China's power expanded, while emphasising peaceful and co-operative relations in areas of mutual benefit, such as trade, diplomacy, climate and non-proliferation. Australia has doggedly upheld its end of the bargain, providing bases for American forces, joining new US-centred alliances and security pacts, such as the Quad and AUKUS, and signing onto exorbitant arms-procurement programs. But in the 14 years since a US president addressed our parliament, precious little of America's own commitments to the pivot have come to pass. The economic arm of the pivot was strangled in the cradle when President Trump formally abandoned the Trans-Pacific Partnership on the first day of his presidency in 2016. American commitment to diplomacy, multilateral institutionalism and regional trust-building have followed a similar trajectory. But the Trump administration retained a supposedly iron-clad commitment to abandon the neoconservative model of foreign interventions and begin to focus squarely on the challenges posed by a rising China. Trump's consistent stated opposition to these wars was one of the most popular ingredients in his early political success. Arguably the most critical moment in Trump's nascent election campaign occurred a week before the 2016 South Carolina Primary, when he decried the Iraq War as a 'big fat mistake' and called out the Republican establishment for lying about weapons of mass destruction. Trump went on to win South Carolina, and Jeb Bush, once the frontrunner, abandoned his campaign.
7NEWS
an hour ago
- 7NEWS
Where does Australia stand if WWIII begins?
In the event of a third global conflict, experts warn Australia would not be able to remain neutral. We would be automatically drawn into war by virtue of our strengthening military ties with America, two defence experts say. International security expert Dr Thomas Wilkins at the University of Sydney and Senior Research Associate at Nautilus Institute Richard Tanter agree that Australia's close strategic and technological bond with the US has effectively removed the option of neutrality from the table. 'If a third world war occurred, it would be reasonable to assume Canberra would live up to its presumed obligations under the ANZUS Treaty alliance and go to war with America,' Wilkins said. Australian involvement is no longer a question of if, but 'automatically' so, Tanter said. The experts also noted Australia hosts a series of major US military and intelligence bases, including Pine Gap joint defence station outside Alice Springs and the Tindal Air Base within the Northern Territory. 'The US has so many bases here — command and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance — they would be used on the first day of the war unless there was a very active Australian government move to deny use of these facilities, which won't happen,' Tanter said. Pine Gap's function goes beyond conventional military action, he said. 'Pine Gap is involved in nuclear command, control and communications, and warning.' 'In that sense, we are highly involved in the nuclear policy of the United States.' Hosting B-52 Bombers raises risk profile Australia has just signed an agreement to host US nuclear-capable B-52 bombers at the RAAF Tindal air base, further inserting Australia into US strategic thinking. While the aircraft won't deploy nuclear weapons while based here, Tanter warned that this action was a shift in Australia's role. 'This is a step from communications and control to deployment,' he said. 'Refuelling tankers will be based here, and Australian fighter jets will be providing escort cover.' 'We are part of the deployment system.' 'You don't necessarily need to have the bomb here to be in the nuclear command structure.' Strategic target in world war Inclusion of Australia within US military bases also makes it a potential target in a global war. 'China will understandably interpret Australia's deepening defence ties with the US as a threat to its own interests, will not approve of this position, and seek to consistently denounce it as destabilising,' Wilkins said. On the other hand, Tanter said we are not likely to face a threat from Iran. 'China has the missile capability and numbers to realistically target Pine Gap, and Australian governments have acknowledged this risk since the Cold War,' he said. 'However, despite having political tensions with Australia, Iran lacks both the long-range missile technology and the resources to reach targets 10,000km away, like Australia.' 'It does not possess intercontinental ballistic missiles, so a direct attack is highly unlikely under current circumstances.' Lessons from history Wilkins made comparisons with Australia's position during World War II. 'Australia put its faith in a weakening 'great power ally' to defend it (the UK), whilst not doing nearly enough to prepare its national military capabilities should this strategy fail, as it did with the fall of Singapore in February 1942,' he said. He warned that Australia is not prepared to face a third global war. 'The lack of psychological and material preparation for a major conflict in Australia at the present time ensures that war will be more costly to the nation than otherwise, again mirroring the experience of the Allies in the first part of the Pacific War.' Conscription technically possible Tanter believes that conscription could be reinstated in the event of a large war, although politically it is impossible. 'It's just a matter of decision and law,' he said. 'But the way the conscription worked back in the Vietnam War, it was highly unpopular, and conscripts were not particularly suited for most combat opportunities.' Room for independent policy shrinking Australia has some room for independent decision-making in conflicts involving the US, but this would come at significant political cost. 'In the event of a US-China war, Australia could act independently, but probably only at the cost of the alliance,' Tanter said. Australia has already locked itself into a subordinate role, he said. 'We've chosen to be technologically tied to the Americans, which restricts our options.' Moral questions remain Australia's alliances raise tough moral questions as tensions escalate. Tanter was critical of the Australian role in global conflicts and the broader narrative about defending a 'rules-based order'. 'There are no clean hands here,' he said, referencing recent conflicts such as the war in Gaza. 'The US and Israel are engaged in what I regard as ethnic cleansing or genocide.' 'In those circumstances, I think we need to have a policy like the Whitlam government had in 1973 — that we don't take sides.' As tensions rise globally, Australia's path may already be set — not by choice, but by alliance.
