Displaying items by tag: European Union

Oman: Raysut Cement has been granted the CE and NF markings by France-based AFNOR Certification for some of the cement products manufactured at its Salalah plant. The cement producer has been advised that it is now able to export its CEM I 42.5R CE PM CP2 NF and CEM II/B-LL 32.5N CE products to the European Union. It follows the plant upgrading its quality management to meet the CE and NF requirements. The producer has also passed certifications for CE002:2020 or NF002:2019, NFP 15-317:2006 and NFP 15-318:2006, allowing it to export cement to islands in the Indian Ocean.

Spain: Mexico-based Cemex subsidiary Cemex España has announced plans to resume activity at its Lloseta cement plant in Majorca at a limited production level. The UltimaHora newspaper has reported that the company will employ the staff who stayed on for maintenance purposes from the plant’s January 2019 closure. After suspending activity at the plant the company had until mid-April 2021 to inform the local government of its plans for the site.

Cemex is in the process of establishing a green hydrogen plant at Lloseta with a Euro10m EU grant. It said, "We do not rule out that in the future the cement plant may adapt and become an industrial benchmark in the use of green hydrogen for the production of cement with a low carbon footprint."

Europe: Members of the European Parliament (MEP) have adopted a resolution supporting a European Union (EU) carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM). If enacted by the EU then a carbon tax could be levied on certain goods imported from outside the EU that don’t meet local decarbonisation standards. MEPs stressed that it should be World Trade Organisation compatible and not be misused as a tool to enhance protectionism.

The new mechanism is intended to be part of a broader EU industrial strategy and cover all imports of products and commodities covered by the EU emissions trading scheme (ETS). MEPs add that already by 2023, and following an impact assessment, it should cover the power sector and energy-intensive industrial sectors like cement, steel, aluminium, oil refinery, paper, glass, chemicals and fertilisers, which continue to receive substantial free allocations, and still represent 94% of EU industrial emissions.

“The CBAM is a great opportunity to reconcile climate, industry, employment, resilience, sovereignty and relocation issues. We must stop being naïve and impose the same carbon price on products, whether they are produced in or outside the EU, to ensure the most polluting sectors also take part in fighting climate change and innovate towards zero carbon. This is our best chance of remaining below the 1.5°C warming limit, whilst also pushing our trading partners to be equally ambitious in order to enter the EU market,” said EU Parliament rapporteur Yannick Jadot.

The European Commission is expected to present a legislative proposal on a CBAM in the second quarter of 2021 as part of the European Green Deal as well as a proposal on how to include the revenue generated to finance part of the EU budget.

Europe: The European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) has reached a price of Euro40/t for the first time in its history. Data from the environmental campaign group Sandbag show that on 9 March 2021 it hit Euro40.58/t. Carbon prices under the scheme started to climb in 2018 after stagnation in much of the 2010s. The fourth phase of the EU ETS started in January 2021.

The European Union (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) looked like it might be about to hit Euro40/t this week. It still might. You can blame it on the current cold front bringing snow to much of Northern Europe and the bedding into of the fourth phase of the ETS that started in January 2021. In early 2020 analysts were generally predicting an average price of around Euro30/t by 2030 bolstered by volatility in the price due to the start of the coronavirus pandemic. Yet the price recovered and so did the European Commission’s resolve to push through its European Green Deal. By mid-December 2020 the price had shot past Euro30/t and analysts were forecasting average prices of well over Euro50/t by 2030. Depending on one’s disposition this is the rate at which either serious decarbonisation attempts will begin to be viable for commercial companies, or the point at which more plants simply close.

Figure 1: European Union Emissions Trading System carbon market price in Euros (European Union Allowance), February 2020 – February 2021. Source: Sandbag.

One group which is well aware of the EU ETS and its consequences upon the cement industry is Cembureau, the European cement association. Some of its current lobbying efforts have been directed at trying to shape how the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanisms (CBAM) will appear in legislation proposals in June 2021. Its argument boils down to protecting its members from carbon leakage both in and out of the EU’s borders and maintaining free allocation until 2030 to ease the transition to a lower carbon economy. The former should find common ground. However, calls for a CO₂ charge exemption for EU exporters may perplex environmentalists, who might wonder how this could possibly encourage third party countries to introduce their own carbon pricing schemes. The latter is clearly pragmatism for an industry saying that it is facing change at a pace that may be too rapid for it to cope with. Concrete products do carry sustainability advantages over other building materials. Wiping out swathes of the region’s production base, simply because one knows exactly how much CO₂ they emit compared to rival building materials that one doesn’t, may not help the EU reach its climate commitments by 2050. As if to underline this fear, another European clinker line was earmarked for closure this week when Lafarge France announced the planned conversion of the Contes cement plant into a terminal.

Figure 2: Estimate of global cement production in 2018 by region. Source: Cembureau.

Figure 2 above puts the situation into a global perspective, showing that Cembureau’s members were responsible for below 7% of cement production in 2018. China produced an estimated 55% of global cement production in the same year. In terms of overall CO₂ emissions across all sources, the International Energy Agency (IEA) estimated that China produced 30% of CO₂ emissions in 2018.

It seems odd then that the introduction of an interim ETS in China at the start of February 2021 didn’t receive more global news coverage. The new scheme covers 2225 power companies across the country. It follows pilot regional schemes that have run since 2011, covering seven provinces and cities including Beijing, Shanghai and Guangdong. Previously, the country’s largest local carbon market, the China Emissions Exchange (Guangzhou), was based in Guangdong province and it included power generation, cement, steel, and petrochemical sectors. State news agency Xinhua reports that this scheme reduced carbon emissions from these industries by 12% from 2013 to 2019. The new national ETS is expected to include cement and other industries at a later stage.

Commentators in the European press have pointed out that the Chinese national ETS is actually planning to make an effort on transparency and to force companies to publish their pollution data publicly. Yet, they’ve also said that the data may be inaccurate anyway, echoing the usual Western fears about Chinese figures. Other concerns include the method of giving out pollution permits rather than allocating them by auction as in other cap and trade systems, which could reduce the incentive to reduce emissions. It’s also worth pointing out that carbon was priced at US$6/t under the Chinese system compared to around US$35/t in the EU and US$17/t in California, US at the end of 2020. At this price it seems unlikely that the Chinese national ETS will encourage much change without other measures.

The EU and Chinese ETS are at different stages but the differences in scale are stark. When or if the Chinese one goes national across those eight core industries it will likely leapfrog over the EU ETS and become the world’s largest with an estimated 13,235MtCO₂e under its purview. By contrast, the EU ETS manages 1816MtC0₂e according to World Bank data. The kind of dilemmas Cembureau and others are tackling with the EU ETS such as carbon leakage and how fast to tighten the system against heavy emitters are illustrative to other schemes in China and elsewhere.

Belgium: The European cement association Cembureau has called for the European Union (EU) to continue to permit the free allocation of carbon credits under the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) until it completes the roll-out of Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanisms (CBAM) in 2030 at the earliest. It said that this would provide indirect cost compensation and mitigate the risk of the relocation of industries. It would additionally incentivise emissions reduction by EU suppliers, ensure a smooth implementation of CBAM in the event of challenge to CBAM by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and mitigate distortions on the EU internal market, according to the association. It gave the example of cement producers competing with other building materials producers as a way in which an overlap period can limit the disruptive impact of CBAM on European value chains.

Chief executive officer Koen Coppenholle said, “A pragmatic approach is needed regarding the interaction of CBAM with the existing carbon leakage measures. A full co-existence of CBAM and free allocation is essential to minimise risks for the industry, avoid distortions on the internal market, safeguard the competitiveness of exports and provide certainty for investors. Such full co-existence, which can be done without any risk of ‘double protection,’ should last at least until the end of Phase IV of the EU ETS in 2030, following which the CBAM will hopefully be mature and expanded to cover most sectors of the economy.” He added, “CBAM is a useful tool to address the imports of products not subject to similar carbon constraints in the EU and therewith mitigates the carbon leakage risk allowing the European cement industry to deliver low-carbon investments. The Environment Committee’s report highlights some key points in this respect, notably that a CBAM should result in EU and non-EU suppliers competing on the same CO₂ costs basis, that the scope of CBAM should be wide to avoid market distortions and that both direct and indirect emissions should be included.”

Cement imports were one of the themes in this week’s news, with stories on the topic from South Africa and Ukraine. The former concerned the latest chapter in that industry’s saga on slowing down imports. The International Trade Administration Commission (ITAC) has started a review on tariffs imposed on cement from Pakistan that were introduced in 2015.

Local producers in South Africa have experienced mixed fortunes since 2015, such as PPC and AfriSam’s failed merger attempt or the introduction of a local carbon tax, and were starting to complain again about imports even before the effects of coronavirus in 2020. This led the Concrete Institute to lobby ITAC in 2019 about rising imports from other nations, principally Vietnam and China.

Back in 2013 cement imports from Pakistan to South Africa were 1.1Mt. This represented the vast majority of all imports to the country. Tariffs of 14 – 77% were imposed on Pakistan-based exporters in mid-2015, initially for six months, but this was then extended. Roughly a year later in mid-to-late 2016, Sephaku Holdings said that imports of cement had ‘significantly’ declined on a year-on-year basis, particularly from Pakistan. By the end of June 2016 approximately 0.16Mt had been imported compared to 0.5Mt in the previous period. However, it noted that 75% of the volume was from China. Since then imports started to creep up. Cement imports reportedly rose by 84% year-on-year in 2018 and then by 11% in 2019. Data from construction industry data company Industry Insight suggests that Vietnam accounted for 70% or 0.47Mt of the 0.68Mt of cement imported into South Africa in the first nine months of 2020. The remaining 30% or 0.20Mt came from Pakistan. In this kind of environment it seems unlikely that ITAC will do anything other than extend tariffs.

Meanwhile in the northern hemisphere, in Ukraine this week a court in Kiev dismissed a challenge by the Belarusian Cement Company to remove cement import tariffs from Russia, Belarus and Moldova that were introduced in mid-2019 for five years. Notably, a law firm representing Dyckerhoff Cement Ukraine, HeidelbergCement Ukraine, Ivano-Frankivsk Ukraine and CRH subsidiary Podilsky Cement commented favourably upon the court’s decision to uphold tariffs. These producers form UKRCEMENT, the association of cement producers of Ukraine. However, the association doesn’t include Russia-based Eurocement, which operates Ukraine’s largest cement plant at Balakleya. Relations have been poor between Russia and Ukraine since a war between the countries that started in 2014. So any trade tariffs implemented upon Russia and/or Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) members will inevitably carry the whiff of geopolitics. Yet, in Ukraine’s defence, it also started an anti-dumping investigation into cement imports from Turkey in September 2020. Nationalism may be relevant but let’s not discount hard-nosed economics just yet.

Turkey’s involvement in Ukraine leads to last week’s presentation at Global Cement Live by Sylvie Doutres, DSG Consultants on cement and clinker trade in and out of the Mediterranean region. Readers can watch the presentation here but the headline story here was the trend of reducing exports away from southern European countries such as Spain, Italy and Greece, to greater exports from North African countries and Turkey over the last decade. Turkey particularly has pushed its share of exports even more in 2020 despite (or perhaps because of) a tough domestic market. The general trend here away from southern Europe has been blamed on European Union-based (EU) producers becoming less competitive often against newer plants in nearby countries.

Battles between producers and government tariff policies are a perennial feature of any market in commodities such as cement. The ebb and flow of import and export markets cover many factors including production costs, distribution networks, tariff structures and more. Distinctive features of cement trading, for example, are the high cost of transporting heavy building materials over land and the world’s chronic cement production overcapacity. In the EU’s case one reason that often gets blamed is the emissions trading system (EU ETS) and the mounting cost it is imposing upon cement production. For example, today’s story that Holcim España wants to convert its integrated Jerez plant into a grinding unit has been blamed on falling exports and a reduction in ETS credits. It is noteworthy then that the EU ETS rate breached the Euro30/t level in December 2020. This may be good news for the sustainability lobby but the exodus of exports away from Southern Europe tells its own story. What form the EU ETS carbon border adjustment mechanism takes as part of the EU Green Deal will be watched closely by producers both inside and outside the EU.

Global Cement Live continues on 21 January 2021 with Kevin Rudd, Independent Cement Consultants, presenting 'Independent or third party factory acceptance testing of major cement plant equipment and critical spare parts and the challenges of Covid’

One of the last news stories we covered before the Christmas break was that Lafarge Poland had selected China-based Nanjing Kisen International Engineering as the general contractor for a Euro100m-plus upgrade to its Małogoszcz cement plant. This appears to be the first major European cement plant upgrade project to be publicly run by a Chinese contractor. There may be other European projects in the sector run by Chinese companies ‘on the down-low.’

If it is the first then this is a significant milestone for the growth of the Chinese industry. It is a noteworthy first for Nanjing Kisen in the European Union. Europe is the home, after all, of a number of locally-based contractors and companies that can build or upgrade cement plants including FLSmidth, Fives, ThyssenKrupp, IKN and others. Indeed, all of the work on this project might actually be conducted by local companies, selected by the general contractor. For example, Lafarge Poland says that the general contractor will select a subcontractor on the Polish market.

It’s easy to fall into jingoistic nostalgia but should we really be surprised that China can competitively build cement plants given the ferocious growth of its own industry over the last few decades? Arguments by Western critics against growing Chinese dominance in industry have tended to home in on excuses why they might be ‘cheating’ such as intellectual property theft, unfair state aid or the use of low-cost infrastructure loans to countries along its Belt and Road Initiative. That last one carries some irony given that not so long ago discussions about developing world debt were framed in the context of the Cold War and the oil crisis in the 1970s. Western countries were seen as the bogeymen depending on one’s political outlook. With this in mind, the Financial Times recently reported on data released in December 2020 that suggested that China might be heading into its own overseas debt crisis. The takeaway message here is that attempting to apply China’s whopping infrastructure boom elsewhere might not work so well without the same level of control. Exporting production overcapacity abroad may simply turn out to be something like a giant Ponzi scheme! For the cement industry this may mean a pause or wind-down in the number of new plants backed by Chinese money, often with Chinese contractors tied in, and that the rise of Chinese engineering firms might not seem as unassailable as all that after all.

This leads into another noteworthy story that we also published before Christmas on China’s latest proposal to further reduce production capacity at home. The Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) wants to tighten the ratio of production capacity that has to be closed before new capacity can be built from 1.25:1 to 1.5:1. The kicker is that the new rules also include a clause intended to restrict the use of so-called ‘zombie’ capacity in the swapping process by limiting eligibility to productions lines that have been operated for two or more consecutive years since 2013. These rules seem targeted at the present day but they could potentially push Chinese cement production capacity per capita to rates more similar to those found in developed economies elsewhere (i.e. halve existing Chinese production capacity). Many of the country’s kilns were built in the early 2000s and the average lifespan of a clinker kiln is 50 years. This suggests that the ministry is thinking seriously about culling capacity by the administration’s carbon neutrality target of 2060.

Chinese penetration in the European cement plant market is more of an after-thought given the pace of projects in Asia and Africa over the last decade and the maturity of the sector. It can also be misleading given that some very-European-sounding engineering companies are actually owned by Chinese concerns. Yet no doubt local contractors and suppliers would like to keep any business they can. On the other hand, more market share may be found in Europe over the coming decades from retrofitting CO₂ mitigating equipment or building the anticipated hydrogen revolution once the regulatory and financial framework starts to favour it. Or maybe shifts to service and/or machine intelligence-style packages are the way forward. Nanjing Kisen may be the first Chinese company to upgrade a European cement plant but the market focus may quickly move on. Time will tell.

Answers by email for when readers think the first cement plant or production line in the US will be built by a Chinese company.

Happy New Year from Global Cement

Poland: Lafarge Poland has chosen China-based Nanjing Kisen International Engineering as the general contractor for a Euro100m-plus upgrade to its Małogoszcz cement plant. The subsidiary of China Triumph International Engineering will deliver an engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) contract and it intends to select a local Polish subcontractor. This is the first project by the Chinese engineering company in Poland and the European Union.

The first works related to project started in October 2020. First clinker production from the upgrade is scheduled for December 2022 with overall commissioning planned for spring 2023. Part of the investment will be implemented in cooperation with the Krakow Technology Park as part of the Polish Investment Zone. LafargeHolcim says the upgrade project is part of its scheme to reduce its CO₂ emissions by 55% by 2025 compared to 1990 levels.

Ireland/UK: Mannok says that it has undertaken extensive preparatory measures to help its operations continue smoothly when the Brexit transition period ends on 31 December 2020. While keeping operations unchanged, the group has formed new legal entities such as Mannok GB, which will deal with UK customers. The group acknowledged that prices would depend on the future tariff arrangement between the UK and the EU, but would remain in line with market pricing. It added that the same effects would impacts competitors, who import significant amounts of raw materials from Europe.

The group said that it has been working closely with suppliers for over 18 months to ensure the security of its supply chains. It sources almost all raw materials for cement production from its own reserves.

Chief financial officer Dara O’Reilly said, “A key priority for us in all of this was to ensure that the service we can provide to our customers in a post-Brexit environment is as seamless as possible. We’ve made the changes to our structures; we’ve made the changes to how we operate and as a result of that, regardless of the outcome of the Brexit negotiations, we’re ready.”