Displaying items by tag: Emissions Trading Scheme

HeidelbergCement released their sustainability report for 2019 this week. Every large cement producer publishes one but this one is worth checking out because of the company’s ambition to become CO₂ neutral. Other companies are heading the same way but few of them have such developed and public plans.

Sustainability reports are often a hodgepodge of non-financial reporting bringing together environment, health and safety, community and other topics. Multinational companies cover a wide range of jurisdictions and combining reporting in these kinds of fields can be beneficial. Typically they are members of various bodies like the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) or the Global Cement & Concrete Association (GCCA) that give various levels of conformity between reports. Yet, the wider focus of sustainability reports gives companies a chance to promote what they are doing well, away from balance sheets.

One highlight of HeidelbergCement’s report is its progress towards reducing its specific CO₂ emissions per tonne of cement and its recognition by the Science Based Targets (SBT) initiative towards this goal. So far it has achieved a reduction of around 22% from 1990 levels to 599kg CO₂/t (net) with a target of a 30% reduction or 520kg CO₂/t by 2030. There is a lot more going on in the report but it’s led by the vision, ‘to offer CO₂-neutral concrete by 2050 at the latest.’ It plans to achieve this by increasing the proportion of alternative CO2-neutral raw materials and fuels, developing lower clinker cement types and capturing and utilising CO₂ emissions. A focus on concrete is worth noting given the pivot by building materials manufactures towards concrete in recent years.

Back in the present, HeidelbergCement is roughly in the middle of the pack of major European multinational cement producers with its specific CO₂ emissions for cement in 2019. LafargeHolcim reported 561kg CO₂/t and Cemex reported 622kg CO₂/t. This is a bit of a moving target since corporate acquisitions and divestments can change both the starting point and the apparent current progress. HeidelbergCement’s acquisition of Italcementi in 2017 or CRH’s purchase of Ash Grove did exactly that. The other thing to consider is that these companies manufacture a lot of cement. The actual gross CO₂ emissions from a multinational cement producer are immense. LafargeHolcim, one of the world’s largest multinational producers, emitted 113Mt of CO₂ in 2019 from process and fuel sources whilst making cement. To put that into context, estimates for total global CO₂ emissions range from 33 – 36Gt for 2019. The cement industry’s entire share was estimated by the International Energy Agency (IEA) to be 4.1Gt in 2018.

Where this sustainability report starts to become really interesting is where it talks about CO₂ capture and utilisation. Its plans in this department are more mature than many of its competitors with various initiatives at different levels of development, mostly in Europe. Norcem, its Norwegian subsidiary, recently signed an agreement with Aker Solutions to order a CO₂ capture, liquification and intermediate storage plant at its integrated Brevik cement plant. The deal is dependent on government support but it’s a serious proposal. As reported previously from the Innovation in Industrial Carbon Capture Conference 2020, HeidelbergCement is actively preparing to hook up with CO₂ transport and storage infrastructure. The driver is CO₂ pricing from initiatives like the European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). With the EU preparing for the next phase of the ETS and talk of the European Green Deal gathering pace, before the coronavirus outbreak at least, CO₂ prices in Europe look set to rise. HeidelbergCement is positioning itself to benefit from being the first major cement producer to head into CO₂ capture and storage/utilisation with a variety of methods intended for different CO₂ prices and regional requirements.

HeidelbergCement doesn’t mention the coronavirus pandemic in its latest sustainability report. The report covers 2019 after all, before all of this happened. These reports do include health and safety information of employees, so this may be something to look out for next year. However, Cemex did mention the coronavirus in relation to its climate action plans this week. Essentially it wants to maintain its plans as a ‘fundamental component’ of its efforts to recover from the health crisis. This chimes with media talk around so-called ‘green-led’ government-backed relief programmes. Governments are the ones who are likely to be handing out the money, probably in the form of infrastructure projects. So it’s the perfect opportunity for them to encourage change from the companies bidding for this funding. Sustainability reports and the information behind them will be a useful tool in accessing this cash.

Hungary: Italy-based Entsorga has completed the installation of an automated alternative fuel (AF) line at a Hungarian cement plant.The upgrade consists of an Entsorga Spider crane and Pelican power system which will be able to maintain a continuous feed to the plant’s calcination system 24 hours a day.

Entsorga CEO Francesco Galanzino said, “Bringing a commission to a successful conclusion in the middle of the maximum intensity period of the coronavirus crisis has been a great satisfaction. The cement plant will make significant savings in CO₂ emissions.”

EU: Cembureau has welcomed the European Commission (EC)’s proposal for consultations on setting up a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) for imported goods including cement, and set out a number of ‘design principles’ that it says ‘should apply’. According to Cembureau, a CBAM ought to be: complementary to EU emissions trading scheme (ETS) free allowances (in the initial phase) and World Trade Organisation (WTO) compatible, based on importers’ verified emissions, including indirect emissions, applicable to all ETS sectors and capable of providing a CO2 charge exemption for EU exporters.

The EC has said that it will present a final proposal for a CBAM by mid-2021.

EU: The European Union (EU) has ignored lobbying calls from the cement industry in upholding the 31 March 2020 deadline for companies to submit emissions reports for 2019. EurActiv News has reported that “firms are struggling to have their reports verified” due to the coronavirus.

After reports are submitted, producers will have until 30 April 2020 to surrender any Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) credits needed to cover their reported emissions.

EU: The coronavirus has caused emissions credits sold under the Emissions Trading Scheme to take a price dive to Euro16.31/t of CO₂ on 19 March 2020, down by 36% month-on-month from Euro25.66/t on 19 February 2020 and 22% year-on-year from Euro21.01/t on 19 March 2020. Environmental consultancy firm Energy Aspects said, “As the COVID-19 outbreak is now spreading rapidly in Europe, it will start to reduce emissions as lockdowns are put in place in multiple countries,” according to Reuters. The European Commission has forecasted a 1.0% contraction in the EU economy in 2020, revising its February estimate of 1.4% growth year-on-year. This would correspond to a reduction in industrial CO₂ emissions of between 10.0Mt and 20.0Mt by the end of year.

UK: Parliament has voted to grant Her Majesty's Treasury powers to implement a UK emissions trading scheme (ETS) in line with the Climate Change Act (2008). Accountancy Daily News has reported that the ETS will be linked to the EU ETS ‘if such is suited to both sides’ interests,’ but, if not, will be subject to an alternative pricing mechanism. The Treasury said that “in a standalone UK ETS, additional market stability mechanisms can be implemented.”

Announcements from two very different countries serve to highlight the global cement sector’s on-going and seemingly intractable overcapacity issues this week.

First up, India, the world’s largest democracy and second-largest cement market, will reportedly struggle to exceed 70% capacity utilisation in the forthcoming 2020-2021 fiscal year, according to the credit ratings agencies ICRA, India Ratings and Crisil. In the same week, however, we have heard that UltraTech Cement will launch a 3.5Mt/yr capacity expansion at its Bhogasamudam plant in Andhra Pradesh, while ACC committed to launching a 2.5Mt/yr plant in Chandrapur, Maharashtra early last week. In February 2020 Deccan Cements firmed up plans to expand its Mahankaligudem plant in Telengana and JSW wants to turn its Bilakalagudur plant into a 6Mt/yr beast. Back in January 2020. Shree Cement launched ambitious plans to spend US$1.3bn on upgrades in the period to 2023. With Indian capacity estimated to hit 500Mt/yr by the close of 2020, what do all of these producers know that ICRA et al don’t?

Second on the list is centrally-planned Vietnam, the world’s third-largest producer, having produced 96.5Mt of cement in 2019. Here, long-standing excessive capacity is looking increasingly ridiculous following a massive collapse in export sales in January and February 2020 due to the coronavirus outbreak. This, of course, continues to affect cement producers and users alike.

Just today, Nguyen Quang Cung, chairman of the Vietnam Cement Association (VNCA) said that demand is expected to remain high throughout 2020 as a whole. The Ministry of Construction (MoC) currently stands by its autumn 2019 forecast that Vietnam will produce a whopping 103Mt of cement this year. It expects domestic consumption to be around 70Mt, with exports of 33Mt. A 2.5Mt/yr plant in Tân Thắng Commune in the central province of Nghệ, and a 4.6Mt/yr plant in Bỉm Sơn Commune, Thanh Hóa, will come online in 2020, further adding to the country’s capacity. Exports were touted as the saviour of the sector back in January 2020. This assertion may now have to be revisited.

The drivers behind the overcapacity are different in each country. Indian producers have a long history of capacity addition in order to maintain or improve their market share. Standing still is tantamount to walking (or even running) backwards, so the biggest producers (and those that want to become big producers) tend to go ‘over the top’ with their expansion aims. Market forces eventually catch up with the smaller players, which find themselves bought up or shut down. This has the seemingly inevitable effect of maintaining low capacity utilisation rates.

In Vietnam, the overcapacity is due to central targets, which, as noted previously, are an entirely alien concept for cement producers across much of the rest of the world. As Vietnam’s obsession with high cement production has developed, it has become hooked on exports, entering a void recently vacated by Chinese exports. It often sells at scarcely-believable prices and now, with the introduction of the coronavirus into the mix, even these seem to be too high. After all, Vietnam’s cement association cannot ‘set targets’ for cement demand in other countries.

So… how to reduce capacity? There are two examples, again from different types of market. China has, of course, reduced its overcapacity massively to eliminate outdated capacity and improve the country’s environmental performance. This has been possible due to orders from the top of government. The other example can be found in Europe, where the EU Emissions Trading Scheme has finally found its teeth, with the oldest and least efficient plants now feeling the financial bite of their CO₂ emissions.

It remains to be seen whether the collapse of the export market will force the Vietnamese cement sector to rationalise its inventory. From a market-based mindset it is clear that it should follow China’s lead. India, meanwhile, has a massive overcapacity that market forces seem slow (or indeed unable) to clear. The EU route may be more applicable here, but one might expect resistance from cement producers. Also, the development and demographic differences between India and Europe are stark, indicating that there may be a need, at some point in the future, for 500Mt/yr of capacity. The Indian majors are counting on this and laying the groundwork for a step-change in the future. Indeed, in a few years, 500Mt/yr may look vanishingly small if demand increases rapidly. What are the chances of that?

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) took on direct implications for the international cement industry this week when an Italian vendor infected with the virus visited Lafarge Africa in Ogun state, Nigeria. The cement producer said that it had ‘immediately’ started contact tracing and started isolation, quarantine and disinfection protocols. This included initiating medical protocols at its Ewekoro integrated plant, although local press reported the unit’s production lines were still open. Around 100 people were thought to have had contact with the man.

Global Cement has been covering the epidemic since early February 2020 when the virus’ effect on the construction industry in China started to become evident. First, an industry event CementTech was postponed, financial analysts started forecasting negative financial consequences for producers and plants started going into coronavirus-related maintenance or suspension cycles. Then at least one plant started to dispose of clinical waste and now China National Building Material Group (CNBM) is considering how to restart operations at scale. Also, this week Hong Kong construction companies reportedly laid off 50,00 builders due to a lack of cement due to the on-going production suspension in China.

The major cement companies have identified that their first business risk from coronavirus comes from simply not having the staff to make building materials. LafargeHolcim’s chief executive officer Jan Jenisch summed up the group’s action in its annual financial results for 2020 this week when he said, “We are taking all necessary measures to protect the health of our employees and their families.” Other major cement producers that Global Cement has contacted have placed travel restrictions for staff and reduced access to production facilities.

The next risk for cement companies comes from a drop in economic activity. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) forecasts a global 0.5% year-on-year fall in real gross domestic product (GDP) growth to 2.4%, with China and India suffering the worst declines in GDP growth at around 1%. The global figure is the worst since the -0.1% rate reported by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 2009. The OECD blamed the disease control measures in China, as well as the direct disruption to global supply chains, weaker final demand for imported goods and services and regional declines in international tourism and business travel. This forecast is contingent on the epidemic peaking in China in the first quarter of 2020 and new cases of the virus in other countries being sporadic and contained. So far the latter does not seem to have happened and the OECD’s ‘domino’ scenario predicts a GDP reduction of 1.5%. All of this is likely to drag on construction activity and demand for cement and concrete for some time to come.

Moving to cement markets and production, demand is likely to be slowed as countries implement various levels of isolation and quarantine leading to reduced residential demand for buildings directly and as workforces are restricted. Business and infrastructure projects may follow as economies slow and governments refocus spending respectively.

The UK government, for example, is basing its coronavirus action plan on an outbreak lasting four to six months. This could potentially happen in many countries throughout 2020. This has the potential to create a rolling effect of disruption as different nations are hit. Assuming China has passed the peak of its local epidemic then its producers are likely to report reduced income in the first quarter of 2020. The effect may even be reduced somewhat due to the existing winter peak shifting measures, whereby production is shut down to reduce pollution. Elsewhere, cement companies in the northern hemisphere may see their busy summer months affected if the virus spreads. The effect on balance sheets may be visible with indebted companies and/or those with more exposure to affected areas disproportionately affected. The wildcard here is whether coronavirus transmits as easily in warmer weather as it does in the cooler winter months. In this case there may be a difference, generally speaking, between the global north and south. Exceptions to watch could be cooler southern places such as New Zealand, Argentina and Chile. Shortages, as mentioned above in Taiwan, potentially should be short term, owing to global overcapacity of cement production, as end users find supplies from elsewhere.

The cement industry is also likely to encounter disruption to its supply chains. Major construction projects in South Asia are already reporting delays as Chinese workers have failed to return following quarantine restrictions after the Chinese New Year celebrations. As other countries suffer uncontrolled outbreaks then similar travel restrictions may follow. Global Cement has yet to see any examples of materials in the cement industry supply chain being affected. On the production side, raw mineral supply tends to be local but fuels, like coal, often travel further. Fuel markets may prove erratic as larger consumers cut back and suppliers like the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) react by restricting production.

On the maintenance side cement plants need a wide array of parts such as refractories, motors, lubricants, gears, wear parts for mills, ball bearings and so forth. Some of these may have more complicated supply chain routes than they used to have 30 years ago. On the supplier side any new or upgrade plant project is vulnerable if necessary parts are delayed by a production halt, logistics delayed and/or staff are prevented from visiting work sites. Chinese suppliers’ reliance on using their own workers, for example, might well be a hindrance here until (or if) international quarantine rules are normalised. Other suppliers’ weak points in their supply chains may become exposed in turn. This would benefit suppliers with sufficiently robust chains.

Chinese reductions in NO₂ emissions in relation to the coronavirus industrial shutdown have been noted in the press. A wider global effect could well be seen too. This could potentially pose problems to CO₂ emissions trading schemes around the world as CO₂ prices fall and carbon credits abound. This might also have deleterious effects on carbon capture and storage (CCS) development if it becomes redundant due to low CO₂ pricing. In the longer-term this might undesirable, as by the time the CO₂ prices pick up again we will be that much nearer to the 2050 sustainability deadlines.

COVID-19 is a new pandemic in all but name with major secondary outbreaks in South Korea, Iran and Italy growing fast and cases being reported in many other countries. The bad news though is that individual countries and international bodies have to decide how to balance the economic damage disease control will cause, versus the effects of letting the disease run unchecked. Yet as more information emerges on how to tackle coronavirus, the good news is that most people will experience flu-like symptoms and nothing more. Chinese action shows that it can be controlled through public health measures while a vaccine is being developed.

Until then, frequent handwashing is a ‘given’ and many people and organisations are running risk calculations on aspects of what they do. It may seem flippant but even basic human interaction such as the handshake needs to be reconsidered for the time being.

EU: Researchers from LafargeHolcim, Vicat and the Technical Association of the Hydraulic Binders Industry (ATILH), have called for harmonised European standards to enable the introduction of ternary cement blends such as CEM II C-M and CEM VI, which comprise clinker, limestone and supplementary cementitious materials, most commonly slag and fly ash, so that the European cement sector can lower its CO2 emissions. "It’s a very powerful short-term lever," said Fabrice Copin, director of the industrial process at ATILH.

The roadmap for achieving carbon neutrality in 2050, established by the industry in 2018, makes the development of new cements a priority. Placing low-clinker cements on the market could reduce the amount of CO2 emitted by 127kg/t, around 20% of the 656kg/t average in Europe at present.

With clinker factors of just 50-65% for CEMII / C-M, and 35-50% for CEM VI, Edelio Bermejo, director of research and development (R&D) at LafargeHolcim insists, "These cements are no longer at the R&D stage. They have been widely validated and we are ready to produce them, especially as their manufacture does not require modification of our facilities."

However, these new cements cannot be widely sold and used due to a legal deadlock at the European Commission level that hinders their approval, according to Xavier Guillot, the manager of standards coordination at LafargeHolcim. “To introduce them, the harmonised European standard which authorises their placing on the market must be revised,” said Guillot. “However, legal problems between the European Commission and the European Committee for Standardisation prevent the work from being finalised. The cement manufacturers are considering drafting a standard common to all member states, but which would be applied at a national level within each member state. We have to move forward to face the challenges we are asked to answer, namely reducing our CO2 emissions.”

One of the limits of CEM II / C-M and CEM VI cements is the availability of substitutes used to replace clinker which are clustered around other industrial sites such as steel plants and coal-fired power stations. "In the future, with an increase in the recycling of steel and possible relocations of steel mills, the deposits are likely to move away from our markets and to diminish,” said Laury Barnes, Vicat’s scientific director. “In addition, the current availability of slag will not cover all the needs for low-carbon cements. Likewise for the fly ash, which should become increasingly rare as the thermal power plants close.”

Barnes instead advocates calcined clays as a suitable replacement for slag and fly ash. "Clays are minerals found everywhere on Earth,” says Barnes, who, like Bermajo, advocates the use of LC3 cement blends being developed by a Swiss-Indian-Cuban consortium. These contain clay that has been heated to 800°C instead of slag or fly ash.

France: French press has reported that Vicat, the last remaining cement producer in French hands, has accumulated a large stockpile of EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) credits, sufficient to last it until 2030. It says that this makes it unique among cement producers covered by the scheme. It has never sold any of the credits that it was over-allocated in the first three stages of the ETS. It is thought that this will put it at a competitive advantage from the start of stage 4 in January 2021, when free allowances for the sector will become significantly scarcer.

Vicat has a stock of credits that represent 5Mt of CO₂, valued at Euro120m at the current market price. "It covers our activity in France and Switzerland and we will still be in a surplus position in 2030. We are entering the next European regulatory phase in a good condition," said CEO Guy Sidos.

Vicat is keen to point out that this does not mean it is complacent or will pollute at all costs. "At the end of 2019, we reduced our CO₂ emissions by 15% compared to 1990. The objective is a further decrease of 13% between today and 2030," explained Sidos.