Displaying items by tag: Europe

Belgium: The European Commission has approved the acquisition of sole control over Cimpor Portugal by Turkey’s Oyak. The commission ruled that there are no competition concerns between the cement producers given that they operate in different geographic markets. The deal was announced in late October 2018.

Europe: US-based company GCP Applied Technologies has received a European patent for increasing the efficiency of cement grinding by using sustainable raw materials. The grinding aids and quality improvers allow the use of bio-derived glycerol and reduce the use and the impact of oil-derived chemicals. The new Opteva and Tavero brand cement additives enable cement producers to reduce the energy consumption and the CO₂ emissions associated with cement production, with a reduced use, or no use at all, of oil-derived chemicals.

European Patent No. EP 1 728 771 B1 has been granted and registered into 17 European countries. The patent addresses methods for increasing the efficiency of cement and mineral grinding by using sustainable raw materials.

The patent relates to methods for improving the efficiency of grinding materials such as clinker and limestone, using glycerol derived from biofuel production, in combination with various grinding additives. GCP products can help to reduce the carbon footprint of cement and concrete. Grinding aids and quality improvers make cement manufacturing more efficient, while concrete admixtures can reduce the amount of cement needed to achieve a given strength specification.

Algeria: Groupe des Ciments d’Algérie’s (GICA) has made its first export to Europe. The Ministry of Industry and Mines said that 45,000t of cement was exported to Europe via GICA’s building materials distribution subsidiary, according to the L’Expression newspaper. The consignment was the last part of a contract to export 0.2Mt of cement to Europe.

This week’s Plastics Strategy from the European Commission (EC) presents the cement industry with a narrowing target. If the Plastics Strategy is successful it will prevent plastics waste altogether. This will then eliminate the key calorific content of refuse-derived fuels (RDF) and disrupt co-processing supply chains at cement plants across the continent. If it is too lax then dumping plastics in landfill could become more economically viable, also changing the market dynamic. Neither extreme looks likely at this stage but the European cement industry needs to make its views known.

Cembureau, the European cement association, has done just that today with the publication of a position paper on the subject. It conveniently ignores the top two tiers of the waste hierarchy – prevention and re-use – but it does recognise that ‘high quality recycling’ is the preferred option. This is followed by the target of its lobbying: protecting co-processing. Make no mistake, this is supporting industrial behaviour change with solid environmental benefits. Its areas for policymakers to focus on include protecting co-processing: a ban on landfill; linking energy recovery to recycling; concentrating on the legislation; thinking about material lifespan sustainability benefits; and helping minimise the investment costs for processing facilities.

Providing cool heads prevail, the importance of co-processing plastics as part of any realistic plastics strategy seems unlikely to change any time soon. What’s more likely to be the real target for Cembureau is standardising measures on collection, sorting and material recovery across the European Union (EU). For example, as this column has reported twice in 2017 (GCW288 and GCW324), the issues with waste disposal legislation in Italy have led to various problems in the sector. Waste collectors found it easier to export RDF to Morocco from Italy rather than use it locally in 2016. The slag industry has also reported similar issues with reuse in Italy. The consolidation of the local cement industry following the takeover of Italcementi and Cementir by HeidelbergCement and of Cementizillo by Buzzi Unicem should present a more unified industry approach towards alternative fuels. Backup from the EC could solve the other half of the alternative fuels puzzle in Italy and help to deliver serious change. Ecofys data from 2014 showed the EU co-processing average rate as being 41%, with six countries – Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Bulgaria, Italy and Greece – having rates below 30%.

Vagner Maringolo of Cembureau outlined the market opportunities for waste uptake at cement plants at the 11th Global CemFuels Conference that took place in Barcelona in February 2017. He started by revealing that plastics represented over 40% of the total share of alternative fuels used in the EU in 2014. A ban on landfilling municipal waste was expected to boost the supply of RDF and a Cembureau/Ecofys study on the market potential of alternative fuels concluded that around 10Mt of waste was co-processed in cement kilns in the EU28 in 2015. This represented around 2% of total combustible waste each year but it represented 10% of all of the energy recovery from waste in the EU. In other words co-processing plastics waste offers a very attractive means for the EU to meet its sustainability targets.

However, before Cembureau and the cement industry starts popping the (reusable) champagne corks, consider the wider picture. China has banned imports of foreign waste in 2018 including RDF from the UK, a major exporter. Unless new markets are found this may impact the price of RDF in Europe. Brexit is another example how of European waste markets might be disrupted in the medium-term. Cement producers want a steady supply of cheap fuels but if the providers can’t make enough money from their products then the market will fail. The tightrope for Cembureau to walk with plastics is to promote RDF use and secure its supply. Persuading the EC to support this may involve some wobbling along the way.

The 12th Global CemFuels Conference on alternative fuels for cement and lime takes place in Berlin on 20 – 21 February 2018

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.