Displaying items by tag: European Commission

France: Lhoist and Air Liquide have signed a memorandum of understanding with the aim to build a carbon capture unit at Lhoist’s Réty lime plant in Hauts-de-France. Air Liquide wants to build and operate a unit from 2028 using its Cryocap FG (Flue Gas) technology to capture and purify 95% of the lime plant’s CO₂ emissions. The companies have jointly applied for the European Innovation Fund large scale support scheme to pay for the project. This partnership is a step towards the creation of a low-carbon industrial ecosystem in the Dunkirk area.

Lhoist’s ‘Chaux et Dolomies du Boulonnais’ plant in Réty is France’s largest lime production plant. A potential carbon capture unit at the plant could potentially reduce the CO₂ emissions of the plant by more than 600,000t/yr. Captured CO₂ would then be transported to a multimodal CO₂ export hub in Dunkirk, currently under development, and sent to be sequestered in the North Sea as part of the D’Artagnan project, which has received the PCI (Project of Common Interest) label from the European Commission. The implementation of the project will be possible as public funding from European and/or French schemes supporting decarbonisation become available.

France: The European Commission (EC) has awarded funding under its Innovation Fund 2021 for CRH subsidiary Eqiom’s upgrade to its Lumbres, Hauts-de-France, cement plant. The work includes the replacement of a kiln and the installation of a carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS) system at the plant, in collaboration with Air Liquide. The producer says that the project is one of seven selected under the EC’s K6 programme of innovation funding in line with the EU Green Deal.

Spain: The Balearic Environmental Commission has set more stringent environmental requirements than previously in its authorisation of Cemex’s Lloseta plant’s licence to operate. The Diario de Mallorca newspaper has reported that the authority has followed standards set out by European Commission decisions. The requirements cover emissions, dust and hazardous waste volumes.

Little trickles of detail about the European Union’s (EU) proposed carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) started to emerge last week. The key bit of information that Bloomberg managed to squeeze out of their source was that a transition period with a simplified system is being considered from 2023 and then a full version could turn up in 2026. Cement importers, and those in selected other heavy industries, would be required to buy electronic emission certificates at prices corresponding to those in the EU emissions trading scheme (ETS). Other titbits include: that the prices will be set on a weekly basis based on the average carbon permit price within the EU that week; a default value will be devised for importers who can’t back up their emissions data; and imports from a country with its own carbon pricing scheme will be entitled to a discount. The plans are due to be made public in mid-July 2021. Debate is then expected to follow before approval will be required from the European Parliament and member states.

The detail isn’t out there yet but the CBAM is set to collide with trade agreement territory. For example, how the draft agreement tackles issues such as exports from Europe and whether importers should be compensated for not receiving a free allocation of carbon credits could be seen to offer competitive advantage to one party or another. Climate policy will clash with trade policy once or if the CBAM makes in into law. At this point countries that import cement into the EU may start trying to negotiate or complaining to the World Trade Organisation. One previous example of climate policy bashing into trade agreements is when the EU tried and failed to apply the ETS to aviation in the early 2010s. The experience from this incident is expected to inform the European Commission’s approach on the CBAM.

Outside the EU, new carbon pricing schemes have been popping up all over the place and various cement associations are creating or refining their own carbon neutral plans. Last week in North America, for example, the Cement Association of Canada said it was working with the government on launching a roadmap by the end of 2021. In the US, the Portland Cement Association (PCA) has also been hard at work to publish its own roadmap by the end of 2021. Meanwhile, over in the oil sector there were a couple of victories for activist shareholders in May 2021 with Shell, Exxon Mobil and Chevron all being forced to make changes to their climate change polices by courts and activist investors. This makes one wonder how long it will be before the same thing happens to cement companies.

All this increases the pressure between trading agreements and climate legislation. One of the questions that has popped up at Global Cement’s webinar series has been whether attendees thought that a global carbon pricing and/or trading scheme might be a realistic position or not (the majority said ‘yes’ within 20 years). Yet the EU CBAM, all these sustainability plans and continued pressure by investor activist don’t happen in isolation. They occur in an interconnected world.

So it was both non-surprising and eye-popping to discover recently that a private carbon exchange is being prepared in Singapore for a launch by the end of 2021. Climate Impact X (CIX) is being backed by DBS Bank, Singapore Exchange, Standard Chartered and the Singapore-government owned investment company Temasek. As for which companies would actually voluntarily enter into a scheme that would actively reduce profits, the answer lies above. Any organisation looking to trade between carbon pricing jurisdictions might well have an economic incentive to find a truly international scheme that was reputable. Or, perhaps, a publicly owned company dealing in carbon-intensive products might be bullied into one by its activist investors. The focus on such an exchange being reputable is essential here, given the potentially large amounts of money that could be involved and the mixed views on existing carbon offsetting schemes. CIX says it will use satellite monitoring, machine learning and blockchain technology to ensure the integrity of its carbon credits and this is certainly thinking in the right direction. Until it arrives though, we wait to see the detail on the EU CBAM.

EU: The European Commission is reportedly planning to introduce its carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) for cement imports from 2023. Reporting by Bloomberg has revealed that a ‘simplified’ system could be used in a transition period from 2023 with the full mechanism due to start in 2026. Under the new system, cement importers would have to buy certificates at a price linked to the European Union (EU) emissions trading system (ETS). Details on the CBAM and wider environmental plans are due to be made public in mid-July 2021. However, full legal acceptance of the scheme will require approval by the European Parliament and member states.

In a previous response to a report on the CBAM in February 2021, Koen Coppenholle, the head of the European Cement Association (Cembureau), said that a CBAM was a useful tool to address the imports of products not subject to similar carbon constraints in the European Union. He added, “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.”

In May 2021 the EU ETS reached a price of Euro50/t following a significant rise from late 2020 onwards.

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.

Çimsa and its parent company Sabancı Holding renewed their ambition to become a global leader in the global white cement market this week with the formation of Cimsa Sabanci Cement. The new subsidiary brings together most of Çimsa’s international white cement companies including Cimsa Americas Cement Manufacturing and Sales Corporation in the US, Cimsa Cement Sales North in Germany, Cimsa Cementos Espana in Spain and Cimsa Adriatico in Italy. Notably, the new entity does not include businesses in Romania and Russia or at home in Turkey. The move coincides with regulatory approval from the Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia (CNMC) for Çimsa’s purchase of Cemex’s white cement business in Spain, including its integrated Buñol white cement plant, for around US$180m, which was first announced in March 2019.

The acquisition in Spain came with conditions though since Çimsa has now become the market leader in both bagged and bulk white cement locally, with a combined share of over 50% in the case of bulk white cement. Firstly, Çimsa has agreed to give Cementos Molins the rights to use its silo in Alicante along with a customer list over the last three years. Secondly, it has agreed to supply all its customers previously supplied from a silo in Seville from one in Motril instead for two years. The Motril terminal was purchased from Cemex. The idea here is to give Cementos Molins time to establish itself in the new market and for customers in the south of Spain to find alternative white cement suppliers if they want to. The latter condition was enough for the CNMC to approve the Cemex purchase in Spain. It was proposed on 24 September 2020 and then approved by the end of the month.

The wider picture is that Çimsa has been playing up its ambitions in white cement for a while now. At the time that the acquisition in Spain was announced, Tamer Saka, the president of Sabancı Holding Cement Group and chairman of Çimsa said, “With the integration of the Buñol white cement plant to our production and distribution networks, we will increase our white cement production capacity by 40%, translating into Çimsa becoming the world's largest white cement company.” This compares to Cementir’s self-declared world share of around 27% white cement production capacity, through its Aalborg White brand and others. Other recent developments at Çimsa include the commissioning of a 0.35Mt/yr white cement grinding plant in Houston, Texas by Cimsa Americas Cement Manufacturing and Sales Corporation in July 2019 with commercial sales starting later that year.

Back home in Turkey the domestic grey cement industry has faced difficulties in the last few years as the economy suffered, the capacity utilisation rate fell, competition increased in export markets and then coronavirus-related lockdowns caused further stress this year. By contrast the world white cement market has remained quite buoyant over the last decade, rising by around 7% year-on-year to 21Mt in 2018 and then remaining at a similar level in 2019.

HeidelbergCement memorably described white cement as a “niche product” when it left the scene in 2018 by selling its remaining shares in Lehigh White Cement in the US to Cementir. It has faced problems of its own this week with the decision by the European General Court (EGC) to uphold the European Commission’s (EC) previous ruling in 2017 to block a proposed takeover of Cemex Croatia by HeidelbergCement and Schwenk Zement. Funnily enough, that acquisition also revolved around a cement terminal. In this case the EC didn’t think that the offer by the potential buyers to grant access to a cement terminal in Metković in southern Croatia would be enough to assuage concerns about reduced competition following the transaction. Some you win, some you lose.

Croatia: A European Union (EU) court has ruled in favour of the European Commission’s antitrust veto of Germany-based HeidelbergCement and Schwenk Zement’s 2017 acquisition agreement with Mexico-based Cemex for acquisition of its subsidiary Cemex Croatia. The court said that the deal was anti-competitive in that it had the potential to push up cement prices in Croatia, in spite of HeidlebergCement and Schwenk Zement’s offer to grant other cement suppliers access to a terminal.

Europe: Cembureau, the European Cement Association, has announced that its ‘Cementing Europe’s Future: Building the Green Deal’ webinar will take place on 13 October 2020. The programme includes keynote speeches from association president Raoul de Parisot and German Minister of Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety Jochen Flasbarth. Additionally, members of the European Parliament and representatives of the European Commission, LafargeHolcim, HeidelbergCement and several other companies involved in the European cement industry will speak.

The headline from the cement section of FLSmidth’s first quarter results summed up what may be the current situation for many companies supplying the sector: “service relatively stable – cautious on capex.” The general picture across both its mining and cement businesses was ‘significantly’ increased demand for local resources, remote support and digital products. On the mining side FLSmidth pointed out that it was impossible to assess the impact of coronavirus on its business because of the difference between government policies. Some places continue lockdowns or impose additional restrictions but others are starting to ease them. This point has ramifications for multinational cement producers and other suppliers too. It seems likely to continue during the coming months as lockdowns ease at different rates in different countries.

On cement specifically, FLSmidth provided a good global view of what the pandemic and government responses are actually doing to the industry. It reports that around 80% of the world's cement plants (excluding China) are currently in operation with some operating at reduced capacity. It described the market for services as ‘relatively stable’ in the first quarter but that cement consumption was being reduced by lower construction activity, plant shutdowns and restricted access to sites leading to reduced demand for technical services and commissioning. By region it identified the biggest impact to its business from coronavirus in India and the Middle East. Generally, it says that cement producers are suspending capital investments until the impact of coronavirus on economies is clearer. There has been some good news though, with the supplier noting that several of its customers have been looking for services that can reduce their operational costs.

The European Commission tackled this pervading sense of uncertainty in its roadmap towards lifting coronavirus containment measures that was published on 15 April 2020. The Committee for European Construction Equipment (CECE) was keen to share this with its members this week, pointing out how the European Union (EU) plans to lift border controls and re-start economic activity.

The plan is to ease travel restrictions between border regions for cross-border and seasonal workers, and then between European areas with low coronavirus infection rates. External borders can later be reopened with access by non-EU residents to the EU scheduled for a second stage. To re-start economic activity the EU recommends, again, a phased approach focusing on sectors that are ‘essential’ to facilitate economic activity such as transport. The commission says it will also create a rapid alert function to identify supply and value chain disruptions, relying on existing networks such as Enterprise Europe Network (EEN), clusters, chambers of commerce and trade associations, small and medium enterprise (SME) envoys and more. Whether the EU can actually coordinate a return to normality following its poor response in aiding Italy at the start of the European outbreak of coronavirus remains to be seen. Yet, its historical roots as an economic community dating back to the Treaty of Rome in 1957 suggests it may be more successful when coordinating technical aspects of trade.

Detailed above are the views and plans of just one supplier and one continental organisation, although they are both prominent. The takeaway from this is that uncertainty is a major problem so far for the cement industry in the wake of the coronavirus outbreak. Companies have faced a cash crunch in the short term as economies slowed down and they are reluctant to release cash until the future becomes clearer. Large parts of the cement industry and its suppliers are very international, which exposes it to even more uncertainty. Different countries enforcing different restrictions and different easing strategies at different times create a major headache for everyone and a block to investment. Making cement is undeniably an essential industry and this realisation by legislators can be seen in some countries that at first shut down their plants before understanding that they needed them open after all! Suppliers should benefit from this too, although at reduced activity levels. We don’t know what kind of recovery will come – hopefully one releasing plenty of pent up demand. Yet one thing is certain. The work of the regional cement associations and those representing suppliers is going to be crucial in the coming months.