Displaying items by tag: Gas

As readers in colder climes will understand: nobody likes a gas bill. Save some pity for LafargeHolcim Bangladesh then this week, as it faces attempts to hike the price it’s paying.

As reported by local press the government-run Jalalabad Gas Transmission and Distribution Systems (JGTDS) is trying to raise the rate for natural gas to the cement producer. Allegedly, LafargeHolcim Bangladesh is paying a lower unit cost for gas supplied to a power plant at its Chhatak cement plant than the fixed amount set by the country’s energy regulator. LafargeHolcim Bangladesh says the rate was set in a gas sales agreement (GSA) signed between JGTDS and its predecessor, Lafarge Surma Cement, in January 2003. The state body meanwhile has referred the issue up the chain of command to the Energy and Mineral Resources Division under the Ministry of Power, Energy and Mineral Resources.

JGTDS says that the plant is consuming around 450,000m3/day of gas. Of this, about a quarter is used to run the power plant and the remainder is used to power the cement plant’s kiln. The plot thickens though as LafargeHolcim Bangladesh is actually paying above the industry tariff for gas of US$0.09/m3. Commentators reckon the price of gas is set to rise in the future. Naturally the cement producer wants to stick to the pre-agreed price for the economic viability of the country’s main integrated cement plant. The Spanish embassy, representing Cementos Molins one of the owners of the company along with LafargeHolcim, has even gone as far as intervening in the argument.

The pressure is on LafargeHolcim Bangladesh because its sales revenue fell slightly year-on-year in 2016 but its fuel costs rose by 12%. As the country’s sole clinker producer it suffered from falling international clinker prices in a nation full of grinding plants. So far in the first nine months of 2017 its sales revenues have risen a little yet its profit has more than halved. Any change to its fuel costs would seem likely to damage the company at a delicate moment.

Energy costs for cement plants are nothing trivial as the graph above shows. It uses data from the German cement industry but the key takeaways are that the calorific ratios of the different types of energy cement production uses don’t directly correlate to the cost. Hence, in Bangladesh and other countries where the electricity grid might be unreliable or expensives, running one’s own captive power plant makes sense both for cost and supply reasons. As an aside that may not be applicable to Bangladesh right now, the stark disparity between the energy produced by alternative fuels and their cost proportion is a great reason to use them if the necessary supply chains can be organised. LafargeHolcim launched local operations for its waste management wing Geocycle in December 2017 so this point has not been lost the company.

The situation in Bangladesh is reminiscent of the bind Dangote Cement found itself in towards the end of 2016 in Tanzania. A dispute over gas prices for its Mtwara plant led to company boss Aliko Dangote negotiating personally with President John Magufuli to protect his investment. Governments want inward spending in the form of new industrial plants and multinationals want assurances on some of their costs, like fuel supplies, before they reach for the chequebook. However, if one side is seen to be getting too good a deal then the relationship can break down. LafargeHolcim Bangladesh may have bagged itself a scandalously low gas deal and the Bangladesh government may also be breaking an agreement. Bear in mind though, that with sales of nearly US$28bn in 2016, LafargeHolcim took in revenue nearly one tenth of Bangladesh’s gross domestic product. If the two parties don’t reach an accord, the consequences for both parties could be negative.

Bangladesh: LafargeHolcim Bangladesh has entered into a dispute with the government-run Jalalabad Gas Transmission and Distribution Systems (JGTDS) over the price of natural gas for a captive power plant at its Chhatak cement plant. JGTDS has argued that the cement producer is paying less than the rate fixed by the country's energy regulator, according to the Financial Express newspaper. However, LafargeHolcim claims that it is paying a tariff set by a gas sales agreement (GSA) signed between JGTDSL and Lafarge Surma Cement in January 2003. The row has been referred to the Energy and Mineral Resources Division (EMRD) of the Ministry of Power, Energy and Mineral Resources for clarification.

Egypt's cement producers have taken their fight to use coal to the opposition in recent weeks. Producers like Suez Cement and Titan have started pushing the benefits of using coal including its place as an international mainstay and highlighting the potential savings for the state.

In March 2014 the Minister of Trade and Industry Mounir Abdel Nour announced that cement companies could start using coal from September 2014. However, with pressure from environmental activists and even the Minister of Environment voicing disapproval for coal this seems to be a long way off. Fuel issues continue to bedevil Egyptian cement producers as reports emerged this week that gas supplies to 10 cement plants were cut. The plants, which represent 70% of the country's production base, have been forced to close temporarily. Egypt is one of the largest non-OPEC (Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) oil producers in Africa and the second largest dry natural gas producer on the continent.

The Egyptian government has been planning a reduction in the use of natural gas by industry. Yet the scale of the reduction has shifted. At first the Ministry of Petroleum intended to reduce supplies to cement plants by 35% in January and February 2014. Reportedly the price of cement then shot up by 30% in March 2014 to offset the rise in energy prices. Then the gas was cut completely, leading to the shutdowns.

In response Egyptian cement producers are investing in converting to using coal. This week Suez Cement announced a planned investment of US$40m to convert two of its four plants to use coal instead of natural gas subject to approval from the Ministry of Environment. Back in November 2013 Suez Cement announced similar plans to spend US$72.5m on converting its plants for coal. Similarly, Lafarge's preparations to use petcoke were also delayed by the ministry in February 2014.

Users of Egypt's gas supplies are caught between the reform of energy subsidies, a shortage in gas supplies and an increase in local demand. Industrial users like cement plants are stuck in a queue behind export markets and power plants. In addition international events such as the political instability in Ukraine might potentially rock the Egyptian gas market if Russian supplies were affected. The European markets would then start scrambling to secure their gas from other places such as Egypt.

In this situation, moving to the use of imported coal makes sense for cement producers. Yet groups like the 'Egyptians Against Coal' campaign argue that the issue is also about Egypt's sovereignty over its energy sources, not just pollution. Despite the optimism of the activists it seems unlikely that they can resist market pressures for long, especially with producers such as Suez Cement and the Arabian Cement Company announcing plans for increased alternative fuels substitution rates alongside their bigger plans for coal. Whether this is more than a sop remains to be seen.

Once dubbed 'King Coal' for its leading place in British industry before the second half of the 20th Century, coal is looking likely to take the crown as the fuel of choice in the Egyptian cement industry. How long it retains its crown though depends on the on-going competition between coal and gas use around the world.

Three news stories this week cover the gamut of fuels used by the cement industry in North America.

First we had an example of the changing trends in fossil fuel usage when TruStar Energy announced a deal to supply compressed gas to Argos USA. Then we moved to an example of recycled fuels used in co-processing when chemical waste firm ChemCare trumpeted its 100 million gallon milestone (that's 379,000m³ to the rest of the world) in supplying fuel-quality waste to the Lafarge co-processing subsidiary Systech Environmental. Finally, Cemex rounded off the main fuels groups with renewables, when it released pans to build a US$600m wind farm project in north-east Mexico.

Obviously fossil fuels still dominate in kilns north of the Darian Gap, as they do almost everywhere else, and fuel buyers wouldn't be doing their job properly if they weren't searching for the next best deal. Yet the range here shows a dynamic industry.

Jan Theulen from HeidelbergCement pointed out one example in the US at the recent Global CemFuels Conference held in Vienna. Here, rising landfill prices are increasing opportunities for alternative fuels use alongside changing US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) permitting for solid recovered fuel. Alternative fuels consultant Dirk Lechtenberg, in an interview with Global Cement Magazine in February 2014, singled out the US as one country that is developing its alternative fuels use. As he explained, "Even though the fossil fuel prices are quite low in the US, the industry is developing supply chains for alternative fuels to be more independent with their fuels sourcing."

This race between cheaper fossil fuels in the US (via shale gas) and increasing development in alternative fuels is fascinating. Specifically: why is it happening now? Gas prices have fallen and demand for cement is returning in the US. The annual mean Henry Hub natural gas spot price in the US fell from US$8.86/million BTU in 2008 to a low of US$2.75/million BTU in 2012. This compares to up to US$15/million BTU in Japan and US$9/million BTU in Europe.

Public environmental pressure made manifest by the policies of the EPA and general increased knowledge about co-processing may be factors for the surge in alternative fuels investment. Long lead times for alternative fuels schemes may be another. Planners making a decision about what fuels mix to pursue in 2008 at the start of the recession might well have bet on alternatives to spread their risk. Yet the cause could be something else, as shale gas takes over higher paying industries, such as electrical generation, and the cement industry continues to be priced out of the leftovers.

Ultimately what burns in a cement kiln comes down to price. Depending on how the shale gas market plays out in North America it would be ironic if 'frackers', the bogeymen of current environmentalists, inadvertently cleaned up the cement industry.