Analysis

There was a glimmer of good news visible through the Delhi smog this week with the launch of a market-based emissions trading scheme (ETS) for particulate matter (PM). A pilot has started at Surat in Gujarat. The scheme will apply to 350 industries in the locality and it will be scrutinised for wider rollout in the country.

China robustly started to tackle its industrial PM emitters a few years ago although the work remains on-going. In its wake India has increasingly made the wrong sort of headlines with horrifically high dust emissions. Delhi, for example, reportedly had PM2.5 emissions of over 440µg/m³ in January 2019. To give this some context, the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) annual upper guideline figure for safe human exposure is 10µg/m³. Research by the Financial Times newspaper suggested that more than 40% of the Indian population is subject to annual PM2.5 emissions of over 50µg/m³.

Air Quality Life Index (AQLI) research reckons that if India were able to meet its national PM2.5 standard of 40µg/m³ then its population would live 1.8 years longer or 4.3 years longer if it met the WHO guideline level. The current situation is an unnecessary tragedy. In strictly structural terms the country’s productivity is being thrown away by damaging the health of its workforce. For comparison amongst other major cement producing countries, AQLI data placed China’s PM2.5 emissions at 39µg/m³, Indonesia at 22µg/m³, Vietnam at 20µg/m³ the US at 9µg/m³. These figures cover all industries in different conditions and climates. If the US can do it, why not the others?

Back on trading schemes, the famous ETS at the moment is the European one for CO₂ emissions. Similar schemes are slowly appearing around the world as governments look at what the European Union (EU) did right and wrong. For example, South Africa started up a carbon tax in early June 2019. Yet as the supporting documents by the Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB) point out there have been a variety of ETS systems’ over the years. The US’s Acid Rain Program is generally seen to have achieved significant reductions in SO2 and NOx emissions although the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) has continued this work. Chile even ran its own PM ETS in the 1990s although the outcomes have been disputed.

One problem with a CO₂ ETS, and anthropomorphic or man-made climate change in general, is that it is intangible. Even if sea levels deluge major coastal cities, rising mean temperatures reduce agricultural yields and human populations contract sharply, people will still be arguing over the research and the causes. The beauty of a PM ETS is that if it works you can literally see and feel the results. A famous example here is the UK’s Clean Air Act in the 1950s that banished the fog/smog that London used to be famous for.

The Gujarat PM ETS is a pilot, the results of which will be considered by researchers from a number of US-based universities and the Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab. Explicitly, the study plans to use a randomised control trial to compares its results against the command and control style approach used in the rest of the country. On the cement-side various Indian news stories have emerged as state pollution boards have increasingly started fining producers for emission limit breaches. Clearly the government is taking dust emissions seriously. Reduction is long overdue.

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.

There were two main takeaways from the Global Future Cement Conference that took place in Brussels last week. Firstly, there are not any obvious alternatives to using cement and concrete. Secondly, serious at-scale commercial investment on capturing CO₂ process emissions from clinker production is still waiting for the right economic conditions.

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

Although the conference was heavily focused on Europe, the graph above explains why the cement and concrete industries are sitting pretty right now in the face of mounting environmental activism. The sector may be responsible for 5 - 10% of annual CO₂ emissions but, put bluntly, there is simply no alternative. As Karen Scrivner from the Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) explained during her presentation, concrete uses some of the most abundant minerals present on earth, notably silicon and calcium. Alternative chemistries are simply not backed up by available materials. The cement and concrete associations have strongly promoted the unique position by focusing on the whole lifecycle of building materials.

The energy and emissions research needs to be scrutinised much more closely but, if it’s correct, there is no way to maintain modern standards of living without concrete. And, judging from the response by the French public to a badly handled meagre carbon tax on diesel by the so-called Yellow Vest movement, whacking up the price of housing or infrastructure might go down badly, especially in developing countries.

Two immediate ‘outs’ presents themselves. Cement doesn't necessarily have to be made from clinker as Robert McCaffrey’s presentation reinforced (also given at the IEEE/IAS-PCA Cement Conference this year). Future research may find alternatives to clinker and wipe out the cement business in the process. Also, the graph above is based on per kilogramme amounts of each building material. It doesn’t indicate how much of each material is required to build things. Even if clinker-based building materials are irreplaceable, there is no reason why their market share might not decrease. This could have large consequences in a market already burdened by over-capacity.

Graph 2: Comparison of cost of carbon capture technology for the cement industry. Source: European Cement Research Academy (ECRA).

Solid research into carbon capture technology is proceeding apace, from the LEILAC project at HeidelbergCement’s Lixhe plant, to oxyfuel kiln development and other methods, as Jan Theulen from HeidelbergCement demonstrated in his presentation. Off-the-shelf technologies from other industries also exist ready to be used. Today, for example, Inventys has announced plans to test its own CO₂ capture technology with Lafarge Canada. Yet there are no commercial-scale installations in Europe. most likely due to the price burden it would place on the end product.

With the European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) entering its fourth phase and the carbon price holding above Euro20/t the question is: when will the serious investment begin in Europe? Notably, more than a few major European cement equipment manufacturers attended the Global Future Cement Conference, yet none are offering mature products to capture CO₂ emissions. Most or all have projects up their sleeves ready to be developed and sold but orders aren’t being received. The carbon price in Europe is the problem here. If it's too low then nothing happens outside of government subsidy. Too high and cement plants start being shut down because they become too expensive to run. To be fair to the cement sector other carbon emission mitigation strategies are being employed from alternative fuels usage to lowering the clinker factor and other methods but the endgame is based on reducing process emissions.

The challenge for the cement and concrete industry is to show legislators that their materials are essential and irreplaceable. They are doing this. The legislators then need to concoct ways of encouraging mass scale rollout of carbon emissions abatement technology without destroying the cement industry. This is far from certain right now. If nothing else it’s in governments’ interest to get this right because, as the Yellow Vest protests show, if they get it wrong their voters become angry. All of this is happening against the clock as CCU/S is required to get the cement industry past the 2050 2°C maximum warming target set by the Paris Agreement. In the meantime the cement industry is essentially in a holding position on the more far-reaching aspects of CO₂ emissions mitigation. Its products are likely irreplaceable but its carbon capture technology has to be encouraged by governments. This means that, for most cement producers, waiting to see what happens next is the way forward.

The 3rd Future Cement Conference and Exhibition is scheduled to take place in Vienna, Austria in 2021

Today is the first day of the Global FutureCem Conference taking place in Brussels, Belgium. The event is looking at how the cement industry can adapt to a low or zero carbon world. Although Global Cement is organising the event, it is clearly topical as two news stories this week demonstrate.

Firstly, the chief executive officers (CEO) from 13 US companies, including LarfargeHolcim, announced that they were lobbying the US government to enact business-led climate change legislation. The initiative, known as the CEO Climate Dialogue, included principles such as ‘significantly’ reducing US greenhouse gas emissions. This is shocking because, at face value, large-scale CO₂ emitters like LafargeHolcim have the most to lose from more rigorous environmental regulations. What do they have to gain from doing this? This is like turkeys voting for Christmas!

Interpretations of why LafargeHolcim and others might want to do this could go in a few directions. Firstly, the intention might be fully plausible. These companies could genuinely want to combat climate change. Secondly, more cynically perhaps, leading demands for legislation puts the lobbyists in the room when change is actually made. Given the integral nature of concrete in modern construction this is not necessarily a bad thing. Environmentalists may want to ban building materials that create CO₂ emissions but, until they can offer an alternative or convince people to accept reduced quality of life, then cement is the material of choice. Thirdly, leading change allows one to stay ahead of it or at least give the sector more time to react to it. The ‘turkeys’ may not want to vote for ‘Christmas,’ but perhaps ‘Christmas’ could be replaced with something else?

This latest initiative by the CEOs in the US has parallels with the creation of the Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA) in 2018. Like the current moves in the US, cement producers led the creation of the GCCA, to promote concrete as the sustainable building material of choice.

Meanwhile, Germany’s HeidelbergCement also announced this week that its CO₂ reduction targets to 2030 have been assessed against the Science Based Targets initiative’s (SBTi) criteria. Its SBTi target is to reduce scope 1 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 15% per ton of cementitious material by 2030 from a 2016 base year. HeidelbergCement has also committed to reduce scope 2 GHG emissions by 65% per ton of cementitious materials within the same timeframe. The SBTi target follows HeidelbergCement’s previous goal of a 30% reduction in its specific net CO₂ emissions by 2030 compared with 1990. It says it has achieved a reduction of 20% so far.

HeidelbergCement is a sustainability leader in the sector with various projects on the go including the Low Emissions Intensity Lime And Cement (LEILAC) consortium direct separation pilot project at the Lixhe cement plant in Belgium. Following SBTi is a continuation of this trend, albeit one that anchors it with a global consensus.

Coincidence perhaps but when the two largest non-Chinese cement producers start announcing sustainability stories like then the picture is changing. The questions at this point is how far will it go.

A full review of the 3rd Global FutureCem Conference will be published after the event. To find it and more information visit: http://www.globalcement.com/conferences/global-future-cement/introduction

Jan Jenisch and the team at LafargeHolcim only went and bloody did it! Apologies for readers not wanting yet more column inches on LafargeHolcim but when the world’s largest cement producer leaves an entire sub-continental market it deserves mention.

First Indonesia, then Malaysia and now the Philippines. LafargeHolcim will soon no longer produce clinker in Southeast Asia. That’s a region with 651 million inhabitants or around 8% of the world’s total population. All of those people need cement and other building products as their nations build houses, infrastructure and so on. And LafargeHolcim is no longer there.

The reason, of course, is local production overcapacity in many of these countries and rampageous importers pulling in cheaper product from elsewhere. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) includes Thailand and Vietnam, two of the world’s largest cement exporters. The region also borders China, the place which could produce 40% of the world’s cement if it so wanted. So, understandably, LafargeHolcim pulled the plug. Note that the recent divestments in the region didn’t include its seabourne trading wing, LafargeHolcim Trading. Oh no! Clearly, if you can’t beat them, you join them instead.

So, what to say about the Philippines sale? Unlike the divestments in Indonesia, this sale has valued the production base more highly. LafargeHolcim’s integrated production capacity, including the upgrade at its Bulacan plant, is being sold for over US$175/t with the partial share factored in. And that’s not even including the grinding plant at Mabini. The sale in Indonesia was US$120/t or lower. The Duterte administration’s infrastructure drive (Build, Build, Build) and muscular government action on imports have doubtless played their part here. Yet still LafargeHolcim sold. In the words of chief executive officer (CEO) Jan Jenisch the area was ‘hyper competitive.’

Back home at the group’s headquarters in Switzerland, the potential revenue of over US$4bn from the three ASEAN divestment is poised to trickle onto the balance sheets for 2019. If it were all to go towards debt reduction then these proceeds could pile drive the group’s net financial debt to below Euro10bn. This would be good place to be if the on-going Chinese-US trade tiffs became a little hotter, say, or in the case of a fresh banking crisis. Alternatively the group could pick a new region for development and start all over again or focus on diversifying its business along the building materials chain. And let’s not forget the potential legal bill from the on-going investigation into Lafarge Syria’s conduct during the Syrian civil war.

Throughout this whole exercise, from the outside looking in at LafargeHolcim’s actions, the thought has persistently been: what do they know that everyone else doesn’t? The answer, it may turn out to be, nothing. Yet, rightly or wrongly, we’re marvelling at the bravado of it all.