Displaying items by tag: Europe

Europe: The closing date of the merger between refractory manufacturers RHI and Magnesita is expected to be 26 October 2017. This follows approval by the Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) for the prospectus for admission to listing of RHI Magnesita shares on the Premium Listing segment of the Official List of the UK Financial Conduct Authority and to trading on the London Stock Exchange’s (LSE) Main Market for listed securities. The new company, RHI Magnesita, will start trading on the LSE on 27 October 2017.

Europe: RHI and Magnesita have announced divestment agreements ahead of their proposed merger. RHI has signed a contract with a European refractories supplier for an undisclosed sum regarding the sale of its dolomite business in the European Economic Area. The sale consists of the production sites at Marone in Italy and Lugones in Spain. Magnesita has entered into a definitive agreement with Intocast to divest its business related to the production and supply of magnesia carbon bricks produced at the company's Oberhausen plant in Germany for Euro20.3m. Both sales were required by the European Commission as part of the merger process.

“With the sale of the two sites, the combination of RHI with Magnesita is also still right on schedule,” said RHI’s chief executive officer Stefan Borgas with regards to his company’s divestments “We expect the confirmation by the European Commission in the near future.”

RHI signed a contract in August 2017 to sell its production sites at San Vito in Italy and Sherbinska in Russia that produce fused cast refractories for the glass industry. Production at the company’s plant at Aken in Germany was stopped in the first half of 2017 for an indefinite period. RHI plans to sell or close the plant to maintain its production utilisation rate across the business.

Plenty to mull over this week in Cembureau’s newly published Activity Report for 2016. The association pulls together data from a variety of places including its own sources, Eurostat and Euroconstruct. For competition reasons much of it stops in 2015 but it paints a compelling picture of a continental cement industry starting to find its feet again.

Graph 1: Cement intensity of the construction sector in Europe, 2000 – 2015. Source: Cembureau calculation based on Eurostat and Euroconstruct in Activity Report for 2016.

The really interesting data concerns so-called cement intensity. This is the quantity of cement consumed per billion Euro invested in construction. Figures calculated by Cembureau from data from Eurostat and Eurocontruct show that cement intensity has remained stable in Germany, France and the UK but that it fell sharply in Spain and Italy from 2000 to 2015. In other words the pattern of construction changed in these countries. One suggestion for this that Cembureau offers is that construction moved from new projects to renovation and maintenance. These types of construction projects require less cement than new builds. Seen in this context the huge production over capacities seen in Italy and Spain in recent years makes sense as the local cement industries have coped with both the economic crash and a step change in their national construction markets.

Further data in the report falls in line with the impression given by the multinational cement producers in their quarterly and annual financial reports. Cement production picked up in the Cembureau member states from 2012 and in the European Union members (EU28) from 2013. Meanwhile, import and export figures disentangled from a close relationship at the time of the financial crash in 2008 with imports of cement declining and exports increasing markedly. Much of it will have originated from Italy and Spain as their industries coped with the changes. Cembureau then forecasts that cement consumption will rise in 2017 by 2.4% and 3.5% in 2018 in the 19 countries than form the Euroconstruct network. A key point to note here is that most of the larger European economies will see consumption consistently grow in 2017 and 2018 with the exception of France where it growth will remain positive but it will slow somewhat in 2018. This fits with last week’s column about France with the early reports from LafargeHolcim, HeidelbergCement and Vicat reporting slight declines in sales volumes so far in 2017.

Cembureau’s country-by-country analysis also provides a good overview of its member industries. Looking at the larger economies, residential construction was the main driver for cement consumption in France and Germany in 2016. In Germany further growth is hoped for from an increased infrastructure budget set by the Federal Government. Italian cement consumption fell in 2016 and further decreases are anticipated for 2017, particularly from the public sector. By contrast though the story in Spain is still one of declining cement consumption but one heavily mitigated by exports. Spain is the described by Cembureau as the leading EU export country. Finally, there’s little recent on the UK other than uncertainty concerns about the Brexit process and an anticipated rise in infrastructure spending by 2019. The sparse detail here is probably for the best given the current political deadlock in the UK following the continued fallout from the general election in early June 2017.

In summary, Cembureau’s data shows that modest growth is happening in the cement industries of its member countries. It’s not uniform and some nations such as Spain and Italy are coping with changes in the composition of their industries. Cembureau also highlights the unpredictable consequences of the UK’s departure from the EU as one of the biggest risks in 2017. Check out the report for more information.

Europe/Croatia: The European Commission has blocked the proposed takeover of Cemex Croatia by HeidelbergCement and Schwenk under the European Union (EU) Merger Regulation. The commission expressed concerns that the takeover would have significantly reduced competition in grey cement markets and increased prices in Croatia. The decision follows an investigation by the commission into the proposed deal where HeidelbergCement and Schwenk, two German cement companies, would acquire Cemex's assets in Croatia via their joint-venture company Duna Dráva Cement (DDC).

"We had clear evidence that this takeover would have led to price increases in Croatia, which could have adversely affected the construction sector. HeidelbergCement and Schwenk failed to offer appropriate remedies to address these concerns. Therefore, the Commission has decided to prohibit the takeover to protect competitive markets for Croatian customers and businesses," said Commissioner Margrethe Vestager.

The commission found that the takeover would have eliminated competition between companies that were competing directly for the business of Croatian cement customers and could have led to a dominant position in the markets. The combined market shares of the parties would have been around 45 - 50% in the markets and reached more than 70% in parts of the country, notably in Dalmatia. It found that DDC had been pursuing a strategy to increase sales in Croatia, resulting in more competitive prices for Croatian customers in recent years. Allowing the takeover would have reduced this competition. The commission also found that the remaining domestic cement suppliers and importers would not have been able to compete effectively with the new entity due to limited potential for sales expansion and due to being further from potential markets. In addition there are no independent terminals available on the Croatian coast for seaborne imports.

None of the proposed remedies offered by HeidelbergCement and Schwenk satisfied the commission. Options such as a granting access to a cement terminal leased by Cemex Croatia on the Neretva river in Metković in southern Croatia were deemed insufficient and temporary.

Cemex Croatia, the largest cement producer in the country, operates three cement plants, seven concrete plants, two aggregates quarries and a network of maritime and land-based terminals in Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Montenegro. DDC and HeidelbergCement are the largest cement importers in Croatia.

Cemex Croatia operates three cement plants, seven concrete plants, two aggregates quarries and a network of maritime and land-based terminals in Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Montenegro. DDC imports grey cement into Croatia from its plants in Hungary and Bosnia-Herzegovina, the closest competing plant to Cemex's plants in Split. HeidelbergCement imports grey cement into Croatia from a plant in Italy.

The Global Cement Weekly column of 22 February 2017 entitled ‘European Union (very) slowly tightens the screws on its Emissions Trading Scheme,’¹ bears witness to the misconception that we must choose between protecting the cement industry OR the climate. Quite the opposite is true: the objective is the cohesion between economic prosperity, meeting cement market demand AND lowering CO₂ emissions.

It is undisputed that, if climate protection is aspired to, there needs to be an adequate regulatory incentive that supports, perhaps even strengthens, industry’s profitability when companies act to lower their CO₂ emission. Some companies have tried selling low CO₂-cement at a price premium, marketing their lower embedded carbon. In a commodity market of a grey powder where low prices are a decisive purchasing point, this obviously doesn’t fly.

The only sustainable business incentive is to pass on the full cost of CO₂ not only in production but also in consumption of products. This would effectively result in higher cement sales prices for high-CO₂ cement and lower prices but higher margins for low-CO₂ cement, without losing competitiveness to producers that do not face regulatory CO₂ constraints. Hence, a win-win-win situation for low carbon cement producers, consumers and the environment. This is after all the purpose of the sectoral ETS mechanism with inclusion of importers and no free allowance allocation.

The studies undertaken by Boston Consulting Group (BCG) for CEMBUREAU simulated the potential gross margin for the domestic cement industry in case of different leakage prevention mechanisms. While this may sound shocking for some, there is nothing wrong with aiming at maximisation of gross margin. Quite the opposite, gross margin maximisation is absolutely necessary for the cohesion between economic prosperity and climate protection and the effectiveness of an ETS.

The BCG studies led to the conclusion that in case of a tightening CO₂ allowance cap and under certain market conditions the importers’ inclusion mechanism can yield the best margin for the industry. Since however, as the Global Cement Weekly column mentions, the EU only very slowly tightens the screws on the supply of emission allowances, there will be sufficient free allocation for industry and there remains little need to lower emissions and thus little need for an importers’ inclusion mechanism.

CEMBUREAU called into doubt the representativeness of the technology penetration reported by the Cement Sustainability Initiative’s Getting the Numbers Right database. It is a well-established fact that the penetration of modern preheater precalciner kilns in most emerging countries is higher than in Europe, because the industry is younger outside of Europe and hence most installations have been built with more recent, more energy-efficient technology. Besides the CSI database, cement CO₂ inventories exist for about 10 emerging countries. They all confirm the same.

Beyond the comparison with other regions however, an emissions trading system that after 12 years still enables one fifth of production being made using the most energy-intensive technologies objectively misses its purpose.

Despite consuming up to 50% more energy than the Best Available Technology, such installations can survive thanks to free allocation and the revenues from waste derived fuels. The industry legitimately highlights the environmental benefits of using waste as a fuel. However, it is questionable whether keeping energy-intensive installations alive thanks to cheap energy from waste is consistent with this environmental narrative.

The proposed changes to the EU ETS will not improve its effectiveness for the cement industry. Quite the opposite, it will make it even less effective because the introduction of a dynamic allocation based on a clinker benchmark completely nullifies the need for the industry to lower the clinker content in cement.

CEMBUREAU indeed has the right to protect the industry it represents, but is probably short sighted and ill informed when it does so to the detriment of society’s necessity to mitigate climate change. The rejection of the importers’ inclusion mechanism is a missed opportunity for the European Union to make the ETS effective and for the cement industry to maintain its competitiveness in a carbon constrained world.

Eric Olsen, CEO of LafargeHolcim, the largest global cement company, and chairman of the Cement Sustainability Initiative, has called for a meaningful and increasing carbon price that can be passed through the whole product value chain and for trade policy to be included in the ETS.²

Lakshmi Mittal, Chairman of ArcelorMittal, the largest global steel company, has also called for a border adjustment measure and inclusion of consumption in climate policies.³ High quality research by leading economists exists on this topic.⁴ Now that the reform of the EU ETS enters the trilogue negotiation between European Council, Commission and Parliament, these industry leaders should step forward with a concrete and workable solution to combine industrial, trade and climate policies by 2020.

1. http://www.globalcement.com/news/item/5836-european-union-very-slowly-tightens-the-screws-on-its-emissions-trading-scheme
2. WEF, Davos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_mhqcNR0uA
3. Financial Times: https://www.ft.com/content/8341b644-ef95-11e6-ba01-119a44939bb6
4. Climate Strategies, UK: http://climatestrategies.org/?s=consumption

France: The European Parliament has voted to approve a proposal by the European Commission to reduce carbon credits by 2.2%/yr from 2021 in its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). This is an increase from the 1.74% reduction specified in existing legislation. It will also double the capacity of the 2019 market stability reserve (MSR) to absorb the excess of credits or allowances on the market.

Members of the European Parliament (MEP) want to review the so-called ‘linear reduction factor’ with the intention to raising it to 2.4% by 2024 at the earliest. In addition MEPs want to double the MSR’s capacity to mop up the excess of credits on the market. When triggered, it would absorb up to 24% of the excess of credits in each auctioning year, for the first four years. They have agreed that 800 million allowances should be removed from the MSR as of 1 January 2021. Two funds will also be set up and financed by auctioning ETS allowances. A modernisation fund will help to upgrade energy systems in lower-income member states and an innovation fund will provide financial support for renewable energy, carbon capture and storage and low-carbon innovation projects.

The draft measures were approved by 379 votes to 263, with 57 abstentions. MEPs will now enter into negotiations with the Maltese Presidency of the European Council in order to reach an agreement on the final shape of the legislation, which will then come back to Parliament.

Environmental campaign group Sandbag has complained that the new proposal fails to hold to the European Union’s (EU) emissions reduction targets by 2030 that were signed as part of the Paris Agreement in 2016.

“Unless the Council intervenes to substantially strengthen the System, the EU ETS will now become simply an accounting mechanism, leaving meaningful climate action to happen elsewhere. The fact that the carbon price is unchanged as a result of the vote, still at a paltry Euro5, speaks volumes. Without being realigned with real emissions levels in 2020, the EU ETS may well end up existing for 25 years by 2030 without giving the any substantial impetus to decarbonisation,” said Rachel Solomon Williams, Managing Director at Sandbag.

Europe: Cembureau, the European Cement Association, has raised concerns that amendments submitted by the European Parliament’s Environment Committee, which foresee in an introduction of a Border Adjustment Measure (BAM) with the loss of free allowances for the cement sector in Phase IV of European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), starting in 2020, will be detrimental to the local cement industry. The association is concerned that the changes unduly affect the cement industry, although lime, brick and tile industry have been included also.

The association described included that a BAM against certain but not all sectors as 'discriminatory and legally flawed.' It raised the problems that the policy would bring for the competitiveness of the cement industry both globally and internally. It also blamed the influence of reports by non-government agencies upon policymakers.

Environmental campaign group Sandbag defended the changes as ones that could put a stop to the, ‘cement sector’s windfall profits from the ETS.’ It argued that the proposed import inclusion carbon mechanism would expand the scope of the ETS to
include imported materials for a number of sectors, meaning that products sold in the EU would face the same costs for carbon compliance, regardless of their origin.

"In a number of ways, this proposal marks a huge step forward in the evolution of the ETS. The proposed border adjustment measures are a good starting point for levelling the playing field for all cement producers," said Wilf Lytton, Industrial Carbon Researcher at Sandbag.

LafargeHolcim was the last major European cement producer to release its second quarter financial results last week. The collective picture is confused. Cement sales volumes have risen but sales revenue have fallen.

Most of the producers have blamed negative currency effects for their falls in revenue during the first half of 2016. Holding a mixed geographical portfolio of building materials production assets has kept these companies afloat over the last decade but this has come with a price. The recent appreciation of the Euro versus currencies in various key markets, such as in Egypt, has hit balance sheets, since the majority of these firms are based in Europe and mostly use the Euro for their accounting. Meanwhile, sales volumes of cement have mostly risen for the companies we have examined making currency effects a major contributor.

Graph 1 - Changes in cement sales volumes for major non-Chinese cement producers in the first half of 2016 compared to the first half of 2015 (%). Data labels are the volumes reported in 2016. Source: Company reports.

As can be seen in Graph 1, sales volumes have risen for most of the producers, with the exception of LafargeHolcim. Despite blaming shortages of gas in Nigeria for hitting its operating income, LafargeHolcim actually saw its biggest drop in sales volumes in Latin America by 13.2% year-on-year to 11.8Mt. The other surprise here was that its North American region reported a 2.7% fall to 8.8Mt with Canada the likely cause. Vicat deserves mention here for its giant boost in sales volumes due to recovery in France and good performance in Egypt and the US, amongst other territories.

Graph 2 - Changes in sales revenue for major non-Chinese cement producers in the first half of 2016 compared to the first half of 2015 (%). Data labels are the sales reported in 2016. Source: Company reports.

Overall sales revenue for these companies presents a gloomier scenario with the majority of them losing revenue in the first half of the year, with most of them blaming negative currency effects for this. Titan is included in this graph to show that it’s not all bad news. Its growth in revenue was supported by good performance in the US and Egypt. Likewise, good performance in Eastern Europe and the US helped Buzzi Unicem turn in a positive increase in its sales revenue. They remain, however, the exception.

Looking at sales revenue generated from cement offers one way to disentangle currency effects from performance. Unfortunately, only about half of the companies looked at here actually published this for the reporting period. Of these, LafargeHolcim reported a massive rise that was probably due to the accounting coping with the merger process that finalised in 2015. Of the rest - HeidelbergCement, Italcementi and Vicat – the sales revenue from each company’s cement businesses fell at a faster rate than overall sales. Like-for-like figures here would help clarify this situation.

Meanwhile, a mixed global patchwork of cement demand is focusing multinational attention on key countries with growing economies like Egypt and Nigeria. Both of these countries have undergone currency devaluation versus the Euro and are facing energy shortages for various reasons. The exposure of the multinational cement producers to such places may become clearer in the second half of the year.

Europe: The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled that a Greek law that requests employers to receive approval by the Labour ministry before making bulk redundancies is incompatible with European Union law. The judgement was made in relation to the layoff of a group of workers at the Halkida cement plant when Lafarge purchased the plant from AGET Heracles in 2013, according to the Athens News Agency. The Labour ministry blocked the request, citing conditions in the labour market, the financial situation of the company and the interest of the national economy. Lafarge then appealed to the Council of State, which then referred the case to the ECJ.

Europe: The Low Emissions Intensity Lime And Cement (LEILAC) consortium has secured Euro12m in funding over five years from the European Commission Horizon 2020 Grant programme to test Calix’s direct separation process to capture CO₂ emissions from cement and lime production. The consortium comprises HeidelbergCement, Cemex, Tarmac, Lhoist, Amec Foster Wheeler, ECN, Imperial College, PSE, Quantis and the Carbon Trust. The consortium will also contribute a further Euro9m towards the project.

During the first three years, the project will focus on finalising the design of the demonstration plant, to be constructed at the HeidelbergCement plant in Lixhe, Belgium once the necessary permits have been secured. The high temperature Direct Separation Calciner pilot unit will then undergo two years of testing in a standard operational environment, at a feed rate capacity of 240t/day of cement raw meal and 200t/day ground limestone respectively, on a continuous basis for several weeks.

Fundamental research on the process demands and performance will be carried out to demonstrate that the technology works sufficiently and robustly enough to be scaled up to full operational use. The project results will be shared widely with industry at key intervals during the testing.

Calix’s direct separation technology is achieved by re-engineering the process flows used in the best available technology for lime and cement calcination. Carbonate calcination occurs by indirect counterflow heating, and consequentially the flue gases are not mixed with the CO₂ emitted from the carbonate minerals. This technology is already operating at a commercial scale for magnesite calcination. It does not require any separation technologies, new materials or processes. The technology is complementary with other carbon capture methods already developed in the power and cement sector, such as oxyfuel, and can make use of alternative fuels.