Displaying items by tag: Türkiye

US: Total US cement shipments grew by 4% to 52.4Mt in the first half of 2022 from 50.4Mt in the same period in 2021. Data from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) shows that local shipments and imports rose by 3.5% to 44.1Mt and 7% to 8.31Mt respectively. The largest sources of imports of cement and clinker were Turkey at 4.57Mt, Canada at 2.19Mt, Mexico at 1.28Mt, Greece at 1.23Mt and Vietnam at 0.94Mt. The largest cement producing states in the reporting period, in descending order, were Texas, California and Missouri.

Turkey: KÇS Kipaş Çimento has placed an order with KHD Humboldt Wedag for a Pyrorotor for its Kahramanmaraş cement plant. The supplier says that the equipment will enable the plant's calciner to achieve an alternative fuel (AF) substitution rate of 90%. It will additionally restrict NO_x emissions to 800mg/Nm³. After a short shutdown for assemblage of gas duct connections, KHD expects to commission the upgraded system in mid-to-late 2023.

The company says that the KÇS Kipaş Çimento contract represents its 11th Pyrorotor order globally and the first in Turkey.

Turkey: Çimsa Çimento has completed the divestment of its 1Mt/yr Kayseri and 1.2Mt/yr Niğde integrated cement plants and its Ankara grinding plant to Fernas Group. The transaction was valued at Euro110m. The sale was originally announced in mid-June 2022.

Italy: Cementir Holding’s sales rose by 22% year-on-year to Euro811m in the first half of 2022 from Euro665m in the first half of 2021. Its earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) grew by 7.7% to Euro144m from Euro134m. Its net profit grew by 39% to Euro66.6m from Euro47.9m. During the half year the group sold 5.41Mt of cement and clinker, down by 0.8% from 5.46Mt. The group attributed this to local sales declines in China, Denmark and Turkey.

Chair and chief executive officer Francesco Caltagirone said, “The first-half 2022 results are aligned with our forecasts. Despite the severe geopolitical tensions and the significant increase in raw materials, energy and logistic costs, the group is showing great resilience thanks to an increased geographical and product diversification and a focused cost management.”

Turkey: Germany-based Aumund Fördertechnik has secured a contract to supply equipment for a sustainability-enhancing upgrade to Bursa Çimento Fabrikasi’s Bursa cement plant. The order consists of six belt bucket elevators, four chain bucket elevators, seven pan conveyors, three arched plate conveyors, three spillage conveyors and three drag chain conveyors. The equipment will be involved in cement production from raw material preparation through to clinker grinding.

The Bursa cement plant currently operates using an Aumund bucket apron conveyor and chain bucket elevators.

From 2027, the 27 member states of the European Union (EU) will begin to charge third country-based cement exporters for the CO₂ emissions of their products sold inside the bloc. The new Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) is a lynchpin in the strategy to reduce EU industries' CO₂ emissions by 55% between 1990 and 2030. Starving foreign cement industries of a source of income may also help to make them change their ways. A regional solution leveraged through an unfair head start, however, might cause progress to falter where it is most needed in the global fight against climate change.

Carbon leakage has hung over the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) since its inception in 2005. Cembureau, the European cement association, reported a 300% five-year increase in third-country cement imports up to 2021, with spikes matching those in ETS credit prices. Companies from Turkey to Australia have produced and transported their cement into the EU, at great CO₂ cost, while benefitting from a competitive edge over domestic producers, it would seem. Lawmakers rectified the situation by maintaining free allocations of ETS credits to EU industries, including cement, which received US$92m-worth in 2021.¹ In the wake of the Paris Agreement, an emissions pricing mechanism on cement imports first came before a vote of the member states in February 2017.

In what would become a recurring theme, opposition from all sides of the issue defeated the proposal. Most interesting was the international response: Brazil, China, India and South Africa voiced ‘grave concern’ over the proposed CBAM. A Russian representative at the Department of European Cooperation lamented the possible necessity of ‘response measures,’ while US Climate Envoy John Kerry coolly urged the EU to wait until after the COP26 climate change conference in November 2021. The outbursts were surprising given that the mechanism clearly conformed to World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules: free allocations were always expected to phase out in a mirror image of the CBAM phase-in. The proposal eventually adopted on 22 June 2022 set the end date for both as 2032.

In 2020, the EU imported US$383m-worth of cement and concrete across its external borders, down by 17% year-on-year from US$463m in 2019.² Imports had previously more than doubled decade-on-decade from US$204min 2009. China accounted for US$167m-worth (43%) of global cement and concrete exports to the EU in 2020, followed by Vietnam with US$34m (9%) and the UK with US$30m (7.9%). Other significant sources include Belarus (US$28m - 7.4%), Russia (US$13.8m - 3.6%), Bosnia and Herzegovina (US$13.5m - 3.5%), Serbia (US$13.1 million - 3.4%), Israel (US$13m - 3.4%), Turkey (US$12.6m - 3.3%) and the US (US$10.3m - 2.7%).

China

China’s first emissions trading scheme will be one year old on 16 July 2021. The scheme, covering more than twice the CO₂ emissions accounted for under the EU ETS, may lend an apparent synergy to EU energy policy and that of the bloc’s main trade partner.³ On the contrary, Chinese carbon credits cost 8.5% the price of EU ETS credits on 29 June 2022, with a growth rate of just 10% year-on-year, compared to 53% in EU ETS credit prices. Unlike their European equivalent, they are also restricted to the energy sector. Chinese cement exporters are unready to meet the CBAM on its own terms. The inclusion of indirect emissions further disadvantages plants operating in China’s 57% coal-powered economy. Premier Li Keqiang has warned countries to be on their guard against a ‘new green trade barrier.’

These concerns ought to be considered in light of the scale and diversified nature of the China-EU trade partnership. The eventual inclusion of polymers, hydrogen and ammonia under the CBAM still does not extend its scope beyond 3% of Chinese imports to the EU by value, enabling China to retain the leverage it has previously proved willing to exercise against those who threaten the perceived interests of global trade.

China plans to reach net zero CO₂ emissions by 2060 through an energy transition in which it invested US$266m in 2021, more than the next six ranked countries combined.⁴ In the medium-term future, the CBAM may become a green bridge, connecting with Chinese emissions reduction policies in a single carbon border measure to raise money for developing countries’ sustainable transitions, as suggested by former governor of the People’s Bank of China Zhou Xiaochuan. Until then, China seems well positioned to ensure that a fair share of the costs arising from the CBAM pass to importers and the consumer.

Turkey

Turkey provided 3.3% of the EU’s cement and concrete imports in 2020, but the volume corresponded to 13% of Turkey’s total exports of the same. Thus, the country has a high exposure to any adverse effects of the CBAM – quantified at an estimated US$789m/yr by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.⁵ Turkey’s ratification of the Paris Agreement in late 2021 is among the positive outcomes of the CBAM. The country now plans to align with the CBAM. In this, the Turkish cement industry will rely on a share of a US$3.2bn loan from the World Bank, France and Germany.

The UN has yet to receive an updated climate action plan from the Turkish government in line with its pledges. Should Turkey fail to transition within the short timeframe provided by the CBAM, its cement sector might increase its existing focus on the West African market, where it holds 55% and 46% market shares for cement and clinker imports to Ghana and Ivory Coast respectively. The beleaguered industry has one greater refuge still: the US market, which consumed 18% of Turkish cement exports in 2020.

North America

Discussions of the CBAM’s impacts in Canada and the US are tied to those countries’ on-going deliberations over possible adjustment mechanisms of their own. At present, individual provinces and states are responsible for implementing carbon pricing. An international emissions trading scheme, called the Western Climate Initiative, already exists between the US state of California and the Canadian province of Quebec. The Canadian government is conducting a consultation on federal Border Carbon Adjustment (BCA) credits in the context of economy-wide pricing.⁶ Carbon border adjustment was previously an item on the US Trade Policy Agenda in 2021, but disappeared in 2022. President Biden pledged to impose 'carbon adjustment fees or quotas on carbon-intensive goods from countries that are failing to meet their climate and environmental obligations' during his candidateship in the 2020 US presidential election. On 7 June 2022, two weeks before the EU adopted CBAM, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse introduced a carbon border adjustment bill to the US Senate, which it referred to its Committee on Finance.⁷

North American legislators will need to follow the European Parliament in building a broad centrist majority in order to pass their CBAMs. If they succeed, the world will gain a low-carbon axis of cement markets, bringing their trade partners behind them.

Other European countries

The UK cement industry expects to pay an extra US$30.1m/yr on account of the CBAM.⁹

A November 2021 report by the Ukraine Resource & Analysis Centre (Society and Environment) concluded that Ukraine's 'largest and most technological' cement producers will experience no critical influence from the CBAM when exporting to the EU.⁸ At that time, the Ukrainian strategy consisted of an alignment with any future CBAM. On 31 May 2022, The European Business Association calculated Ukrainian cement producers' total CBAM tax bill as US$3.36m/yr.¹⁰

Montenegro introduced its own emissions trading system, modelled on the EU ETS, in February 2021, a move which Bosnia and Herzegovina and North Macedonia have both announced their intent to follow.¹¹

Norway has called for international acceptance of the CBAM, but questioned the practicality of including indirect carbon pricing.

An example of the possible adverse effects of the CBAM comes from the EU's ban on Russian cement imports in April 2022. The loss of the EU market was one likely contributor to a rollback of climate regulation there.¹²

Developing countries

Non-governmental organisation (NGO) Oxfam has criticised the CBAM's failure to include an exemption for the least developed countries. The EU's solution is an indirect one: it will put CBAM revenues towards its budget, from which international climate finance funding will be raised to an equivalent level. As Paris Agreement signatories, EU member states already expect to contribute towards a total US$100bn/yr in climate finance funds for poorer countries in 2023.

Oxfam has recommended that the EU do more to take account of its disproportionate contribution to cumulative global CO₂ emissions. This would include directly paying CBAM revenues into international climate finance and accelerating the phase-out of free ETS allocations.

Conclusion

On 22 June 2022, the most sustainable cement market in the world successfully harnessed market forces to its emissions reduction ambitions. The European cement industry will be able to celebrate the end of carbon leakage. Cement companies outside of the EU, however, now face increased costs and lower prices for their product. The legislation addresses some of the harm that it causes to less developed countries; those – like China, Turkey and Vietnam – in the middle must meet it head-on.

So far, we have cited governments and lobby groups, but the real question of readiness for the CBAM lies with producers. Global cement companies, including those based in the EU, have implemented their sustainable cement technologies across all continents, and are beginning to reap the rewards of a new world where paying for pollution is unavoidable.

Sources

1. Sandbag, E3G and Energy Foundation, A Storm in a Teacup, Impacts and Geopolitical Risks of the European Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, August 2021, https://9tj4025ol53byww26jdkao0x-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/E3G-Sandbag-CBAM-Paper-Eng.pdf

2. Trend Economy, ‘Imports: European Union: 6810,’ 14 November 2021, https://trendeconomy.com/data/h2/EuropeanUnion/6810

3. Energy Monitor, ‘Carbon trading the Chinese way,’ 5 January 2022, https://www.energymonitor.ai/policy/carbon-markets/carbon-trading-the-chinese-way

4. China Power, ‘How Is China’s Energy Footprint Changing?’ https://chinapower.csis.org/energy-footprint/

5. Politico, ‘EU’s looming carbon tax nudged Turkey toward Paris climate accord, envoy says,’ 6 November 2021, https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-carbon-border-adjustment-mechanism-turkey-paris-accord-climate-change/

6. Canadian Climate Institute/L'Instut Climatique du Canada, 'Border Carbon Adjustments,' 27 January 2022, https://climateinstitute.ca/publications/border-carbon-adjustments/

7. Congress, 'S.4355 - Clean Competition Act,' 7 June 2022, https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/4355?s=1&r=6

8.Ukraine Resource & Analysis Centre (Society and Environment), ' The Impact of Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) on the EU - Ukraine trade,' November 2021, https://www.rac.org.ua/uploads/content/624/files/impactcarbonmechanismcbamukrainesummaryen.pdf

9. Burke et al, 'What does an EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism mean for the UK?' April 2021, https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/What-does-an-EU-Carbon-Border-Adjustment-Mechanism-mean-for-the-UK_FULL-REPORT.pdf

10. European Business Association, 'Ukrainian exporters to pay more than € 1 billion in carbon tax to the EU under the CBAM,' 31 May 2022, https://eba.com.ua/en/ponad-1-mlrd-yevro-podatku-na-vuglets-shhoroku-splachuvatymut-ukrayinski-eksportery-v-yes-v-ramkah-svam/

11. Balkan Green Energy News, 'Which Western Balkan countries intend to introduce carbon tax?' 18 May 2022, https://balkangreenenergynews.com/which-western-balkan-countries-intend-to-introduce-carbon-tax/

12. Climate Home News, 'Russian climate action and research is collateral damage in Putin’s war on Ukraine,' 26 May 2022, https://www.climatechangenews.com/2022/05/26/russian-climate-action-and-research-is-collateral-damage-in-putins-war-on-ukraine/

Turkey: Fernas Group has acquired Çimsa Çimento’s 1Mt/yr Kayseri and 1.2Mt/yr Niğde integrated cement plants and Ankara grinding plant, as well as ready-mix concrete assets in Aksaray, Ambar, Basakpinar, Cirgalan, Ereğli, Nevsehir and Kahramanmaras. Reuters News has reported the pre-tax value of the deal as US$110m.

Turkey: OYAK Cement has detailed its progress towards net zero CO₂ cement production in its Integrated Report 2021. The report's focus is sustainability and digitalisation. Under itsCement 4.0 CO₂ emissions reduction initiative, OYAK Cement has proceeded with efficiency improvements at its cement plants.

OYAK Cement is committed to net zero CO₂ cement production by 2050 and reductions in line with the Paris Agreement to limit global climate change to 1.5°C by 2030.The producer is collaborating withthe Science-Based Targets Initiative (SBTi) to realise its emission reduction goals.

More mergers and acquisition news emerged this week in the shape of potential buyers for Sika’s US admixtures business. Reporting from Bloomberg revealed that Holcim, HeidelbergCement and Turkey-based Sabancı Holding had all made it, amongst other unnamed companies, to a second round of bidding for the assets. Sika then confirmed this to the Finanz und Wirtschaft newspaper and added that the sale would also relate to Canadian assets as well. The intention here is to bypass the risk of a lengthy competition investigation in the US.

Switzerland-based Sika announced in November 2021 that it had signed a deal to buy MBCC Group from Lone Star Funds, a global private equity firm, for Euro5.2bn. At the time of the announcement Sika said that the transaction was subject to regulatory approval but it added that it was ‘confident’ that all required clearances would be obtained with closure planned for the second half of 2022. Known competition probes are now pending in the UK, Australia and New Zealand. A previous piece from Bloomberg suggested that internal analysis by Sika found that the company might need to divest operations with annual sales of around US$160m with a value of US$400m. However, the latest update suggests a value of up to US$1bn. The US represented US$1.71bn or 18% of Sika’s total group sales in 2021. Sika’s information to shareholders to let them know about the MBCC acquisition in November 2021, showed that MBCC had sales of around US$966m in the Americas in 2021 with 36 production plants. Overall, not just in the US, the deal is expected to change Sika’s technology mix from 40% concrete and cement systems to 49%, with most of the additions coming from concrete applications.

Divestments were always likely in an acquisition this large between competitors with shared geographies. What is interesting here to the cement sector is that the three named interested parties are all cement producers. Holcim is perhaps the least surprising given its size, pivot towards light building materials and the fact that its current head, Jan Jenisch, used to run Sika. If anyone knows how much an admixture company is worth, it’s the guy who ran one five years ago! HeidelbergCement does not have such a large light building materials business footprint but it is demonstrably interested in making heavy building material production more sustainable. Also, as the world’s second largest western multinational cement producer it is likely to be interested in an input market for some of its end products. Sabancı Holding is the outlier in this grouping with a more regional grey cement business based in Turkey, an international white cement business and a diverse set of business interests including finance and energy. Although, even as the smallest of the bunch, it still reported sales revenue of over US$9bn in 2021. One notable absence from the potential contenders list for Sika USA is Cemex. Its Urbanisation Solutions division, which produces admixtures among other products, reported sales of US$1.9bn in 2021 or 13% of the group’s total revenue. US$558m of this was made in the US.

The wider context in the North American admixture market is that the announcement of Sika’s deal with MBCC in November 2021 was followed about a month later when Saint-Gobain said it had entered into a deal to buy GCP Applied Technologies. This followed Saint-Gobain’s acquisition of Chryso in October 2021. However, Saint-Gobain said that the GCP deal would strengthen its position more in North America. Readers can find out more about Saint-Gobain’s ambitions here.

The final word at this stage should go on Lone Star Funds, the current owner of MBCC. Lone Star Funds bought the construction chemicals business from BASF for Euro3.17bn in September 2020. At the time the acquisition closed Saori Dubourg, a member of the board of executive directors of BASF, said “Lone Star has been a professional partner in this transaction and is committed to the future success of the business.” If the reporting is correct, Lone Star Funds is now selling the same business for over Euro5bn. There are two takeaways to consider at this point. One is that the perceived value of products that make cement and concrete more sustainable are growing. The other is that Lone Star Funds timed its acquisition of MBCC from BASF very well.

Italy: Cementir’s revenue rose by 21% year-on-year to Euro362m in the first quarter of 2022 from Euro301m in the same period in 2021. It attributed this to higher prices linked to the increase in the costs of fuels, electricity, raw materials, transport and services. Its earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) grew by 26% to Euro60.7m from Euro48.1m. Grey, white and clinker sales volumes increased by 1.8% to 2.4Mt and ready-mixed concrete sales volume remained stable at 1.13Mm³. Cement sales volumes grew in Belgium, Denmark and the US but fell in Turkey. Concrete sales volumes grew in Belgium and Norway but fell in Turkey, Sweden and Denmark.