Displaying items by tag: Europe

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.

Europe: The European Court of Justice has annulled a request for information by the European Commission into several cement producers in a cartel probe. The judgement could restrict the competition watchdog's investigative powers, according to reporting by the Wall Street Journal.

The commission opened an antitrust investigation in late 2010 looking at the activities of Cemex, Holcim, Lafarge, HeidelbergCement and others. Originally the cement companies were suspected by the commission of colluding with rivals to fix prices and share markets in Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Spain and the UK. However, the investigation was closed in mid-2015 due to insufficient evidence. Since then the cement producers have challenged the commission’s right to ask for the level of detail they requested. The ruling overturns a 2014 decision by the EU's General Court, which said the commission questionnaires were justified.

Europe: Cemex has completed the sale of its business operations in Austria and Hungary to Germany's Rohrdorfer Group for about Euro160m.

Cemex's Austrian operations, which comprise 24 aggregate quarries and 34 ready-mix plants, reported Euro219m in net sales in 2014. The operations in Hungary include five aggregate quarries and 34 ready-mix facilities and had net sales of some Euro42.7m in 2014.

Cemex hired Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, BNP Paribas and Morgan Stanley & Co International plc to act as financial advisors in this transaction. The proceeds from the sale will be used mainly to finance general corporate purposes and to pay off debt.

Europe: Cemex has signed an agreement for the sale of its operations in Austria, Hungary, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia.

Its assets in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia will be sold to Duna-Dráva Cement (HeidelbergCement) for approximately Euro231m. The assets mainly consist of three cement plants (approximately 1.66Mt of cement sold in 2014), two aggregate quarries (approximately 0.16Mt of aggregates sold in 2014) and seven ready-mix plants (approximately 0.25Mm³ of ready mix sold in 2014). Cemex's operations in Croatia, including Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia had net sales of approximately Euro124m in 2014.

Its assets in Austria and Hungary will be sold to Rohrdorfer Group for approximately Euro160m. The Austrian operations consist of 24 aggregate quarries (approximately 6.47Mt of aggregates sold in 2014) and 34 ready-mix plants (approximately 1.60Mm³ of ready-mix sold in 2014). Cemex's operations in Austria had net sales of approximately Euro217m in 2014. The Hungarian operations being divested consist of five aggregate quarries (approximately 1.36Mt of aggregates sold in 2014) and 34 ready-mix plants (approximately 0.46Mm³ of ready-mix sold in 2014). Cemex's operations in Hungary had net sales of approximately Euro42.2m in 2014.

The proceeds obtained from the transactions will be used mainly for debt reduction and for general corporate purposes. The closing of the transactions is subject to the satisfaction of standard conditions for this type of transaction, which includes authorisation by regulators. Cemex currently expects to finalise the transactions during the fourth quarter of 2015.

Europe: The European Commission has decided to close an antitrust investigation opened in December 2010 against a number of European cement manufacturers including Cemex, Holcim and HeidelbergCement, according to Construction Europe.

Originally the cement companies were suspected by the EC of colluding with rivals to fix prices in Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Spain and the UK. The commission said that there had been indications suggesting possible import/export restrictions, market sharing, price co-ordination and information exchanges in the markets for cement and related products. It said that inspections had been carried out in November 2008 and September 2009 at the premises of companies in Germany, France, the UK, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, Luxembourg and Spain.

The EC has now said that the evidence obtained in its investigation 'was not sufficiently conclusive to confirm these initial concerns,' adding 'the commission will continue to monitor closely developments in the European cement markets.'

The alleged cartel was said to have colluded in market sharing and price fixing in the markets for cement and cement-based materials such as ready-mix concrete, clinker, aggregates, blast-furnace slag, granulated blast-furnace slag, ground granulated blast-furnace slag and fly ash.