Displaying items by tag: Emissions Trading Scheme

UK: Mannok recorded sales of Euro270m in 2021, up by 16% year-on-year from Euro233m in 2020. The company’s earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) fell by 17% to Euro25.8m from Euro31.1m. The group attributed this to substantial cost absorption beginning in mid-2021. Energy prices rose by 66% year-on-year, while the cost of carbon emissions trading scheme (ETS) credits more than doubled to Euro80/t at the end of the year.

Mannok said that demand for its products remains resilient, supported by stronger cost recovery. It added that a levelling out in energy prices has driven stronger profitability in the first quarter and April of 2022.

UK: The Mineral Products Association (MPA) says it is disappointed that UK-based cement and lime producers have been excluded from the government’s compensation scheme for climate change costs. The association says that the government has, “missed an opportunity to support two essential industries during the current energy crisis, despite other industry sectors - which directly compete with cement and lime - receiving the compensation.”

Under the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) scheme, some energy intensive industries can apply for compensation from the indirect costs of the UK Emissions Trading Scheme (UK ETS) and Carbon Price Support (CPS) if they meet certain criteria. In the government’s 2021 consultation on the compensation mechanism, energy intensive industries needed to meet at least one of three tests to qualify. However, the MPA says that BEIS later changed this so that they had to pass all three tests and modified the targets.

Diana Casey, Director for Energy and Climate Change at the MPA, said “It is extremely disappointing that having met the criteria set out in the consultation, BEIS has decided to move the goalposts and exclude cement and lime from the scheme. UK manufacturers of all products face higher electricity and gas costs than European competitors, and this decision misses an opportunity to support the competitiveness of the UK cement and lime sectors, both essential foundation industries, especially during the current energy crisis and rapidly rising costs. Reaching net zero and delivering our economic potential requires huge investment from global businesses and it becomes harder to make the case for the UK as a location for such investment if policy costs make operating in the UK uncompetitive.”

EU: European Union (EU) member state governments have agreed to establish a carbon border adjustment mechanism on imports of polluting goods, including cement, from outside of the EU. Besides preventing carbon leakage, the member states hope that the mechanism will encourage EU partners to establish carbon pricing policies and combat climate change within the framework of the European Emissions Trading System (ETS).

Türkçimento’s Volkan Bozay took to the airwaves last week to raise the issues that the war in Ukraine is causing for Turkey-based cement producers. The head of the Turkish Cement Manufacturers’ Association explained, to the local Bloomberg HT channel, that the dramatic jump in the price of Newcastle Coal posed a serious threat to the sector. The price jumped nearly US$100/t in a single day in early March 2022. Bozay said that the cost of cement from a plant using imported coal would consequently rise by around US$15/t. He added that the association’s members had an average of 15 – 20 days of coal stocks.

Graph 1: Price of coal, March 2020 – March 2021. Source: Trading Economics.

In a separate press release Türkçimento revealed that Turkey, as a whole, imported approximately US$1.5bn of coal from Russia in 2021. The cement industry imported about 5Mt of coal in 2021, from all sources, although the majority of this came from Russia. Coal shipments from Russia since the start of the war were reported as ‘very limited or even not possible.’ It was further explained that each US$10/t increase in the price of coal put up plant production costs by US$1.5/t of cement.

Naturally Bozay’s appearance on a television news show carried a lobbying aspect. He called for government import standards – such as the sulphur ratio, lower heating values and volatile matter limits - to be relaxed to allow coal to be imported more freely from sources such as Colombia, Indonesia and South Africa. There was also a push to let in more alternative fuels such as tyres and waste-derived fuels. The bit that Bozay didn’t mention though was how many of his members had long term coal supply contracts in place to cushion them, from short term price inflation at least. Yet, if coal shipments from Russia have simply stopped, then the price is irrelevant. A cement kiln configured to run on coal stops when it uses up its stocks.

Turkey was the world’s fifth largest cement producer in 2021 according to the United States Geological Survey (USGS). Türkçimento data shows that in 2020 it exported 145,000t of cement to Russia by sea. Overall it exported 16.3Mt of cement and 13.5Mt of clinker. The US, Israel, Syria, Haiti and Libya were the top destinations for cement. Notably, Ukraine was the sixth largest recipients of cement, with 752,000t imported, although anti-dumping legislation introduced in mid-2021 looked set to reduce it until the war started. Ghana, Ivory Coast, Guinea, Cameroon and Belgium were the principal recipients of clinker. Cumulative cement exports for the year to October 2021 were up by 3% year-on-year compared to the first 10 months of 2020. Clinker exports were down by 27% though. Overall domestic production and sales in Turkey rose by 9.5%, suggested an estimated production figure of 79Mt for 2021.

Other fallout in the cement sector from the war in Ukraine this week included Ireland-based CRH’s decision to quit the Russian market. It entered the region in 1998 through a subsidiary based in Finland and was operating seven ready-mixed concrete plants via its LujaBetomix joint venture. CRH says that all operations in Russia have now stopped. In 2021 it sold its lime business in Russia, Fels Izvest, to Russia-based Bonolit. Although selling concrete plants is not trivial, these are far cheaper assets than clinker production lines. Germany-based HeidelbergCement, Italy-based Buzzi Unicem and Switzerland-based Holcim each operate at least one integrated cement plant in Russia. So far these companies have publicly expressed dismay at the humanitarian crisis unfolding in Ukraine and made donations to the Red Cross.

Graph 2: European Union Emission Trading Scheme price, 2020 – March 2022. Source: Sandbag.

Finally, one more surprise this week has been a crash in the European Union (EU) Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) carbon price from a high of Euro96/t in early February 2022 to Euro58/t on 7 March 2022. As other commentators have stated, normally the carbon price would be expected to follow the energy market, but this hasn’t happened. Instead investors have pulled out, possibly to maintain liquidity for other markets.

With the US set to ban Russian oil, gas and coal imports and phase-outs to varying degrees promised by the UK and the EU in 2022, we can expect more turbulence from energy markets in the coming days. As the Turkish example above shows, all of this can... and will... have effects on cement production.

The data on cement consumption for 2021 in Spain is out this week and it looks promising. As the national cement association Oficemen explained, last year was the sector’s best for over a decade, nearly reaching 15Mt consumption and exceeding the figure in 2019 before the Covid-19 pandemic started. Oficemen also singled out particular strong performance in December 2021. It now expects this growth trend to continue into 2022 with a forecast of 5% to 15.6Mt predicted based on both domestic and infrastructure segments.

Graph 1: Cement consumption in Spain, 2012 – 2021. Source: Oficemen.

The Spanish cement industry reached a peak consumption of over 50Mt in the late 2000s before hitting a near-50 year low in the 2010s in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. The market then started to recover in the second half of the 2010s until Covid-19 came along. A report on the Spanish cement market to the start of 2021 that lays out the situation can be found in the February 2021 issue of Global Cement Magazine. The larger news stories since then have been Votorantim Cimentos’ growth in the market through its acquisitions of FYM and Cementos Balboa, and Çimsa Çimento’s final completion of its deal to buy the Buñol white cement plant from Cemex. Each of these stories involve an integrated cement plant changing ownership.

Looking back at Oficemen’s summary describing 2012 depicts a much different dwindling market. However, one commonality it shares with the association’s roundup for 2021 is that it complains about the country’s disadvantage in electricity costs compared to its neighbours. Back in 2012 this was framed as holding back exports. As Oficemen noted at the time it exported 5.9Mt of cement in 2012, less than half the 13Mt it exported in 1983. Jump forward to 2021 and exports are now 6.8Mt. Energy is still a key issue though. Now Oficemen’s president, José Manuel Cascajero Rodríguez, says that the sector’s production costs have increased by 25% since the latest round of electricity price rises began. He then compares the cost of energy intensive industry in Spain unfavourably against France and Germany and calls for a structural change in the Spanish electricity market to make prices more predictable. Cement producers elsewhere in Europe and beyond may share Oficemen’s concerns regard unpredictable energy prices over the last six months but electricity has been a particular issue for Spain for a long time. To take one recent local example, in November 2021 Cementos Cosmos said it was planning to scale down the production of clinker at its Córdoba cement plant as a result of the high cost of electricity.

The other issue that gets raised in Oficemen’s 2021 summary is competition from cement importers outside the European Union (EU) and the necessity of a border carbon adjustment mechanism (CBAM) to take in account carbon taxation for producers within Europe. To jump back a bit, back in May 2021 the EU Emissions trading Scheme (ETS) reached Euro50/t. Then in December 2021 Cembureau, the European cement association, published a calculation predicting that if the EU ETS CO₂ cost made it to Euro90/t then this could represent 12 - 15% of the production costs of cement producers. Well, as readers will have guessed, the EU ETS beat Euro90/t on 2 February 2022 and then rose to Euro96.7/t on 7 February 2022. Answers in an email for when readers think the EU ETS price will top Euro100/t.

All of the above feeds neatly into the week’s other big Spanish news story: Cemex and Synhelion have successfully produced clinker from concentrated solar radiation at a pilot unit at the Very High Concentration Solar Tower of IMDEA Energy near Madrid. It’s early days yet as the process needs to be scaled up but, make no mistake, this is a big story. An interview with the team behind Cemex and Synhelion’s solar concentration project can be found in the December 2020 issue of Global Cement Magazine for more information. The SOLPART (Solar-Heated Reactors for Industrials Production of Reactive Particulates) project in France did similar research a few years ago but it didn’t reach the 1500°C target required to reach the sintering phase where clumps of clinker form. US-based Heliogen has been trying to industrialise concentrated solar energy but not much has been heard about its cement-industry ambitions since it said it reached temperatures of about 1000°C in 2019.

The relevance of an eventual full-scale concentrated solar unit for the entire production line or just the preheater and/or calciner at a cement plant in Spain makes considerable sense. At a stroke energy costs are reduced, diverted to a renewable source and any desired CO₂ capture becomes, in theory, easier and cheaper. Cemex said in the interview with Global Cement Magazine that the tentative next step would be a pilot unit at a cement plant, although, candidate plants could be in the US or Mexico, as well as Spain. Another side of the drive to cut energy and carbon costs can also be seen in a couple of photovoltaic solar projects supplying cement plants that were announced in 2021 for Spanish plants run by Cemex and Cementos Cosmos.

We leave the Spanish cement sector in a growth phase but with plenty of challenges ahead, not least from electricity costs and the mounting cost of carbon. Yet in common with other countries in Europe the industry faces a high-wire balancing act between staying economically viable and inching towards net zero. It’s conceivable that an industrial scale concentrated solar unit at a cement plant in Spain by 2030 might steady the wobbles along the way.

Czech Republic: The high prices of European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) emission allowances, more than Euro84/t of CO₂ emitted in the week to 28 January 2022, are likely to make cement production more expensive. Manufacturers are currently unclear how much prices will have to rise but stated that they could no longer absorb the rising cost of buying extra allowances.

Pavel Pavel Zdeněk, sales director of Lafarge Cement, the local Holcim subsidiary, said "The price of emission allowances are around Euro85/t. This year, the price may remain the same, but it could also rise to Euro100/t. This will already be reflected in the costs."

Europe: A forthcoming report by consultancy CemBR has forecast that the European cement industry could potentially face carbon related costs of over Euro1.5bn in 2022 if production continues at 2020 levels or earlier. It looks at the performance of the European cement sector and the impact of the Phase IV of the European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme ( ETS), which started in January 2021. Other key findings include that the sector reduced its carbon emissions per tonne of clinker by a 0.4% compound annual growth rate (CAGR) to the end of Phase III of the scheme.

The commercial market report has analysed the performance of each individual clinker producing plant in the scheme (including the UK) and has compared the end of Phase III with the beginning of Phase IV. It has also detailed the level of free allowances for part one of Phase IV and undertaken several analytical scenarios. Part one, running from 2021 to 2025, of Phase IV allowances for the whole scheme are around 16% lower than the 2020 level. Allowances have remained unchanged for this period but further ‘significant’ reductions are expected for part two of Phase IV. CemBR also reports that not all member countries are in the same position with regard to Phase IV with some countries exposed to more risk. In addition, there is a wide range of vulnerability with regards to carbon among the 201 operational clinker producing plants even within the same market.

The ‘EU ETS & Cement - Enter the Phase IV’ report is due to be published in February 2022.

Two stories tie into larger trends this week as Global Cement Weekly says goodbye to 2021. Firstly, the state government of Odisha dropped a bombshell this week with its approval for an 18.75Mt/yr cement plant. Keen readers of the Global Cement Directory should note that, if built, this would be around the 10th largest plant worldwide and possibly the biggest outside of China. Credit to Odisha and India though for showing us how to end the year!

Odisha has been encouraging steel production in recent years. In March 2021 local press reported that Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel (AMNS) had signed a memorandum of understanding with the state government for a US$6.6bn steel plant in the same district. Notably, a more binding agreement was intended to be signed once land and mining leases had been secured. This week the state said that its High Level Clearance Authority had approved an enlarged plan with AMNS worth US$13.5bn. This includes a 24Mt/yr steel plant and a 18.75Mt/yr cement plant. Both are to be built in phases over seven years. No further word on those land and mining leases though. How this fits into India’s overall plans for net zero CO₂ emissions by 2070 is anyone’s guess. Yet this is another cement project linked to steel production. Readers may recall that steel producer Companhia Siderúrgica Nacional (CSN) Cimentos picked up Holcim’s Brazilian cement plants in September 2021.

The other story of note this week was Cembureau’s calculation that if the European Union (EU) emissions trading scheme (ETS) CO₂ price reached Euro90/t then this could represent up to 15% of a cement plant’s production costs. The European cement association made the calculation using data from Ecorys, WIFO, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research for the EU Commission and Agora Energiewende. It wants the EU to bolster carbon leakage measures as soon as possible to fight rising import rates from outside the region. It is pushing for a delay to phasing out the free allocation in the ETS, bringing forward the proposed carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) and for legislators to tackle rising carbon and energy costs generally. It should be noted that the EU ETS price reached Euro88/t on 8 December 2021 but it has stayed below that level since then.

As mentioned at the start, both of the stories above connect to larger trends, principally the cement sector’s adjustments to meet its sustainability goals. A new cement plant with a readily available supply of ground granulated blast furnace slag, such as a potential AMNS unit might have, can reduce its clinker factor more easily than its competitors. One major story in Europe over the last two years has been the steep increase in the ETS price, and Cembureau is highlighting the problems this has caused its members. Global Cement Magazine has run a number of annual round-ups in the last two issues that cover these issues and others. Dr Robert McCaffrey’s news and trends list for 2021 from the Global Cement LIVE broadcast on 21 December 2021 pulls together many of these ideas and more and is well worth watching.

We’ll finish with a list of the top 10 news stories on the Global Cement website in 2021. This reflects what readers all over the world are interested in at a particular time and the list is also biased towards stories that were published in the first half of the year as they have had more time to gather views. Yet, note, new plants in Africa and South Asia, a cement shortage story, Holcim’s decision to change its name and the problems a European producer, Cementa, has had with its quarrying. All of these touch upon larger themes.

Top 10 news stories on Global Cement website in 2021

1. Dzata Cement bagging plant to open in mid-2021
2. UK faces short-term cement shortage
3. LafargeHolcim shareholders agree to change group name to Holcim
4. SRM Concrete acquires 24 concrete plants in Dallas from Cementos Argos
5. Bestway Cement to build new cement plant in Mianwali
6. ThyssenKrupp abandons sale of ThyssenKrupp Industrial Solutions cement section
7. Holcim launches new corporate brand identity
8. Swedish supreme court rejects application by Cementa to renew mining permit for Slite cement plant
9. Larsen & Toubro wins new 3.5Mt/yr cement plant contract in Rajasthan
10. ACC breaks ground on 2.7Mt/yr Ametha cement plant project

Enjoy the Christmas and New Year break if you have one.

Global Cement Weekly will return on 5 January 2022

Europe: Cembureau, the European cement association, has calculated that if the European Union (UN) emissions trading scheme (ETS) CO₂ cost reaches Euro90/t then this could represent 12 - 15% of the production costs of cement producers. The association made its calculation for an average cement plant in the region using data from Ecorys, WIFO, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research for the EU Commission and Agora Energiewende.

Cembureau has called for the EU government to delay its proposed ETS free allocation phase-out and to bring forward the implementation of its proposed carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) from 2026. It has called on policy makers to ‘use all the tools available to stabilise market prices, support energy intensive industries through state aid and examine the functioning of the European gas and electricity markets, as well as the EU ETS.’

Climate activist Greta Thunberg memorably summarised the outcome of the 2021 United Nations (UN) Climate Change Conference (COP26) as “blah, blah, blah” but what did it mean for the cement and concrete industries?

Making sense of the diplomatic language the UN uses is a full time job due to its impenetrable jargon. This is partly why climate activists and others may have become jaded about the outcome of the world’s biggest climate change jamboree. The conference of the parties (COP) tried desperately to hang on to the 1.5°C warming aim set at the Paris event (COP21) in 2015. This is dependent though on countries sticking to their 2030 targets and becoming net-zero by 2050 or earlier. Unfortunately, both China and India, two of the world’s current top three CO₂ emitters, have announced net-zero dates of after 2050. Those two countries also drew fire in the western press for weakening the language used in the COP’s outcome document about the ‘phasing out’ or ‘phasing down’ of coal use. However, simply getting coal written on the final agreement has been viewed as a result. Other positive outcomes from the event included commitments for countries to review their 2030 targets in 2022, progress towards coordinating carbon trading markets around the world and work on adaptation finance from developed countries to developing ones.

The headline results from COP26 carry mixed implications for the building materials sector. The Paris agreement (COP21) has already achieved an effect in the run-up to COP26 by prompting the cement and concrete industries to release a roadmap from the Global Cement and Concrete Association (GCCA) in October 2021. Now it’s down to whether individual governments actually follow the targets and how they enforce it if they do. If they don’t, then the response from building material producers is likely to be mixed at best.

What may have a more tangible effect is the work on carbon markets at COP26. Countries were finally able to complete technical negotiations on the ‘Paris Agreement Rulebook,’ notably including work on Article 6, the section that helps to govern international carbon markets and allows for a global carbon offsetting mechanism. The European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) has shown over the last year how a high carbon price may be able to stimulate companies to invest in mitigation measures such as upping alternative fuels substitution rates and developing carbon capture and storage/utilisation projects. Critics would argue that it may simply be offshoring cement production and closing local plants unnecessarily. Making a more global carbon trading scheme work amplifies both these gains and risks. Either way though, having an international framework to build upon is a major development. Finally, work on adaptation finance could have an effect for cement producers if the money actually makes it to its destination. The big example of this announced at COP26 was a US$8.5bn fund to help South Africa reduce its use of coal. It is mainly targeted at power generation but local cement producers, as a major secondary user of coal, are likely to be affected too.

Alongside the big announcements from COP26 lots of countries and companies, including ones in the cement sector, announced many sustainability plans. One of these included the launch of the Industrial Deep Decarbonisation Initiative (IDDI) during COP26 by the governments of the UK, India, Germany, Canada and the UAE. This scheme intends to create new markets for low carbon concrete and steel to help decarbonise heavy industry. To do this it will disclose the embodied carbon of major public construction projects by 2025, aim to reach net zero in major public construction steel and concrete by 2050, and work on an emissions reduction target for 2030 which will be announced in 2022. Other goals include setting up reporting standards, product standards, procurement guidelines and a free or low-cost certification service by 2023.

All of this suggests that the pressure remains on for the cement and concrete sector to decarbonise, provided that the governments stick to their targets and pledges, and back it up with action. If they do, then the industry will remind legislators of the necessity of essential infrastructure and then continue to ask for financial aid to support the development and uptake of low carbon cements, carbon capture and whatever else. Further adoption of carbon markets around the world and global rules on carbon leakage could help to accelerate this process, as could adaptation finance and global standards for low carbon concrete. The next year will be critical to see if the 1.5°C target survives and the next decade will be crucial to see if global gross cement-related CO₂ emissions will actually peak. If they do then it will be a case of ‘hip hip hurrah’ rather than ‘blah blah blah’.