Displaying items by tag: Slag

Putting two speakers from the European Commission front and centre at the start of this year’s European Slag Association Conference (EuroSlag) in Metz, France was always going to cause a ruck. Once Coal and Steel Research Unit head Hervé Martin and steel sector policy officer Gabriele Morgante said their pieces and the panel opened up then the verbal punches started flying. Okay, this may be slightly exaggerated, but after a bunch of policy-heavy presentations, suddenly the situation became crystal clear. Was the agricultural use of ferrous slag going to be allowed to continue? What would be the classification of the slag? And so on. One Russian delegate commented afterwards, “I thought we had environmental problems in Russia.”

Jérémie Domas, Centre Technique et de Promotion des Laitiers Sidérurgiques (CTPL) explained in a later presentation that the heart of the current debate goes back to the European Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC). This legislation created an ambiguity over the status of slag between classifying it, as a waste or as a by-product, that the European industry has been battling over ever since. A multi-coloured map in Aurelio Braconi of the European Steel Association’s (Eurofer) presentation depicted the disarray this has caused with the varied legal statuses of slag across Europe. To add to this, Braconi’s home country of Italy, for example, is split into designating slag as both a product and a waste. His response was to say that the ‘human factor’ was important back home for utilising slag. The European Union (EU) is now working on its Circular Economy Package, which includes revised legislative proposals on waste, and it has been consulting on various issues throughout the year. It is this process is that been making slag producers twitchy.

Other delegates on the first session’s panel provided a bit more context, with Thomas Reiche of the German Technical Association for Ferrous Slag (FEHS) saying that the waste legislation didn’t need to be changed but that public procurement laws did. Eric Seitz of the French Association of the Users of industrial By-products (AFOCO) added that slag products had been sold for decades without any problems. However, he definitely wanted ‘strong’ support from the EU on the issue.

Moving on, Craig Heidrich of the Australasian (Iron & Steel) Slag Association (ASA) provided some interesting figures in his presentation on worldwide slag production that differ from the data often reported by trading companies. Heidrich reckoned that 567Mt of slag was produced in 2015 with a breakdown of 347Mt blast furnace (BF) slag and 220Mt steel slag.

Andreas Ehrenberg of the FEHS presented research on converting electric arc furnace (EAF) slag into a hydraulic material that could be used in cement or concrete production. Given that, using Heidrich’s figures for example, about a third of ferrous slag production is steel slag often created in an EAF, the potential implications of this line of inquiry are important. Unfortunately, the main disadvantages of the original EAF slag analysed in Ehrenberg’s work compared to BF slag are the lower CaO and SiO₂ contents and the higher MgO and Fe oxide contents. Laboratory-scale tests confirmed in principle the feasibility of forming clinker or ground blast furnace slag-like materials based on EAF slag. But the reduction and treatment steps in the process require a lot of effort and the economical value of the recovered metal is low. Taking the research further will require much more work on the semi-technical scale.

The other paper with particular relevance to the cement industry was Chris Poling of SCB International unveiling his company’s ground blast furnace slag (GBFS) micro-grinding mill, the Nutek Mill 2. The new mill is intended to allow slag grinding to take place in a much wider range of locations, along similar lines to the modular clinker grinding mills made by Cemengal or Gebr. Pfeiffer’s Ready2Grind line. The pilot project is being installed now in New York State, US. The mill has a GBFS capacity of 10 - 12t/hr with a target of 40 – 45kWh/t when fully optimised. Further units at the same location are planned for early 2018 with approval sought from the New York State Department of Transportation.

The 10th European Slag Conference is expected to take place in 2019. With more clarity expected from the EU on its Circular Economy Package there will be much to discuss.

Tata Steel put up its UK business for sale last week. The Indian multinational declared that enough was enough having reported losses of over Euro2.5bn in the territory over five years. Non-UK readers may well wonder what the fuss is about. UK crude steel production comprised 10.9Mt in 2015 or about 0.7% of global production according to World Steel Association data according to World Steel Association data. By contrast the country produced 9.3Mt of cement in 2014 or about 0.2% of world production according to CEMBUREAU data according to CEMBUREAU data.

The UK’s flailing steel industry is worth discussing here for two reasons. Firstly, any decline in the local iron and steel industry will have implications for the supplementary cementitious materials (SCM) market as slag levels vary. Secondly, the cement industry in Europe may have lessons for a fellow heavy industry facing capacity rationalisation.

UK ground granulated blastfurnace slag (GGBS) production levels are low compared to total world supply. However, the UK Competition Commission certainly took note of the GGBS market in 2014. It was worried by LafargeTarmac’s and Hanson’s prominence in both the local GGBS supply chain and local cement production. At that time it ordered the HeidelbergCement subsidiary Hanson to sell one of its slag grinding plants to increase competition in the supply chain for GGBS. A GGBS plant in Scunthorpe was eventually sold to Francis Flowers in July 2015.

The general point here is that a Tata sale of its UK operations could have ramifications for the UK GGBS sector as existing deals are renegotiated following the shakeup. It would be even worse for the local slag market if any of the plants closed. No doubt the Competition Commission would also want to have its say to maintain some sort of competition in an already concentrated market. The UK cement market has been the bright spot in the multinational cement producers’ European regions in 2015. However, construction growth is starting to slow again with hints that the looming European Referendum in June 2016 may be having a negative effect. Uncertainty over GGBS supplies is not helpful in this atmosphere.

A wider lesson for other national cement industries looking in is that if Chinese steel continues flood the world market it will also hit the cement industry. Tata’s woes have been squarely blamed on China dumping its steel on the world market. Various jurisdictions promote the use of SCM cements and concrete for their low-carbon and sustainability properties. If local or existing GGBS supplies are hit then the cement industries may be penalised while the lawmakers and competition bodies play catch-up.

The wider point about heavy industry reducing its production capacity is one that the European cement industry will be well used to. Spain, for example, has seen its cement production drop from 55Mt in 2007 to 15Mt in 2014 according to Oficemen data. Alongside this, demand for cement has dropped to levels not seen since the 1960s. The European response has been to shut plants, sell assets and to merge companies.

The big question following the 2008 recession is whether ‘this’ is the new normal for mature construction markets. Eight years later global interest rates are still lagging and China’s economy is slowing down. All of the European infrastructure was built long ago meaning that steel and cement will only be required to maintain it. Luckily it looks likely that demand for SCMs should stay buoyant as industries are encouraged to decarbonise. The problem though is where the slag comes from. Oversupply in the short term in areas like Europe might be great for cement producers but as the iron and steel industries readjust to market reality there might be a hangover in store.

Well, it seems like they were serious.

The UK Competition Commission has provisionally decided that Lafarge Tarmac should sell off one of its cement plants in the Midlands. The Commission also wants the sale to exclude buyers from any pre-existing UK cement producer. The door is open from Holcim or CRH downwards to enter the UK market. Although if the enforced Lafarge sale of Hope to Mittal Investments in 2012 is indicative, it may well be to an industry outsider.

If the move goes ahead it will open up the Midlands and north of England from four cement producers - Hope Cement, Lafarge Tarmac, Hanson and Cemex - to five. Lafarge Tarmac's cement production capacity lead of nearly 4Mt/yr will be knocked down to nearer 3Mt/yr, putting it level with Hanson Cement's production capacity.

Unsurprisingly Lafarge Tarmac is not best pleased, putting out the following in response to the commission's announcement. "The Commission's assumptions and reasoning have serious flaws and the biggest loser in this process will be the customer. There is strong evidence to demonstrate there is effective competition in the sector – with new players having recently entered the marketplace."

The Commission also wants to increase competition in the supply chain for ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS). According to the Commission findings Hanson dominates the UK GGBS market and Lafarge Tarmac controls the market for its precursor, granulated blast furnace slag (GBS). So production facilities may need to be sold by both Hanson and Lafarge Tarmac.

As an aside it's worth noting that the Belgian Competition Council recently imposed fines due to anti-competitive practices also related to GGBS. Also, elsewhere in the news this week Irish GGBS cement producer Ecocem is aligning itself with the EU carbon roadmap to 2050, partly at least because its product produces less CO₂ per tonne of cement. Whoever or whatever controls the supply of GGBS in the UK has implications for how emissions are lowered in the cement sector.

Other suggested measures from the Commission such as restricting the publication of UK cement market data seem problematic. Although it may make it more difficult for UK cement producers to collude it will also make it harder for related businesses (including press and industry analysts like Global Cement) to understand what is happening at any given time.

Finally, we have to ask what the effects of the Commission's suggestions might be at the start of an uncertain recovery in the UK construction market might be. According to the Minerals Production Association cement production fell from 8.5Mt in 2011 to 8Mt in 2012, the first decrease since 2009. 2013 seems set for modest growth on 2012. The implications of Commission's plans - if they happen – could be huge.