Displaying items by tag: UK

One of the summer news stories in the UK has been the drama surrounding the near-failure of dam near Whaley Bridge in Derbyshire. Concrete slabs on an overflow spillway fell away after a period of heavy rain leading to fears that the dam could fail inundating the area. Around 1500 local residents were evacuated for about a week as a precaution until the reservoir’s water level could be pumped down low enough for inspection.

No one was hurt in the incident but it has raised questions about the maintenance and renewal of infrastructure and how this fits with changing weather patterns caused by anthropogenic climate change. A sadder example of this is the collapse of the Morandi Bridge in Genoa, Italy in August 2018 that killed 43 people. This was later blamed on decaying steel rods in the structure. There have been similar debates in the US with President Donald Trump’s on-going attempts to push through a US$2tn infrastructure bill to repair the country’s structures. Although, predictably, it is floundering on the question of who is actually going to pay for it all.

In the UK, for example, cement production hit a high of over 15Mt in the late 1980s before declining to a low of 7.6Mt in 2009 and eventually climbing to above 9Mt/yr since 2015. A big cause of that decline was the 2008 financial crash and the subsequent government austerity policies. Yet, even with this taken into account, production was at around 11Mt/yr in the 2000s. How much, if any, of this production capacity gap of at least 4Mt between the late 1980s and the 2000s might be needed to maintain the country’s infrastructure? Southern Mediterranean countries like Spain and Italy offer even starker examples. Italy’s cement production fell to 19.3Mt in 2017 from nearly 40Mt in 2001. Spain’s production hit a high of around 50Mt/yr in 2007 with apparent production (local consumption and exports) falling to around 20Mt in 2018. Much of these declines are due to loss of export markets but the same basic questions remain about how much capacity will be required in the future to maintain and repair existing structures in developed nations. This could be imported but the usual constraints about moving heavy building materials around inland mean than at least some of this cement will need to manufactured locally.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimated in 2010 that the world would need 50Bnt of cement between 2015 and 2030. The global cement industry was already producing around 3.5Bnt/yr in 2015 according to the Global Cement Directory 2015 giving it overcapacity even then towards the estimated target. Global production capacity is just under 4Bnt/yr today. Estimates for the cost of global infrastructure requirements in this period range from US$1Tnr/yr to US$6Tnr/yr. The majority of this will go towards new infrastructure in developing countries but a minority portion will be required for maintenance. One study by the Brookings Institution and the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate estimated that developed countries would need around US$2Tn/yr for their infrastructure bills.

A study by management consultants McKinsey & Company in late 2017 reckoned that there was a worldwide US$55Tn spending gap between then and 2035 for infrastructure spending. It estimated that countries like the UK, Germany and the US needed to increase their annual spending on infrastructure as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) by 0.5%. Although Italy only needed to improve by 0.2%. Looking at the change in infrastructure investment rates suggests that the European Union (EU) actually started to improve its investment from 2013 to 2015 by 0.2% but that the US did not.

All of this goes to show that the show is definitely not over for building materials producers in developed countries. These industries may be mature but they should not be complacent. Roads need patching up, bridges need replacing and all sorts of other infrastructure projects are required even in places that have them already.

UK: Chris Leese has decided to leave Cemex UK after 30 years with the company. His varied career at Cemex has seen him taking responsibility for a broad range of activities, notably as Vice President of Readymix VP and more latterly as Vice President of Aggregates.

Leese has been a long-standing champion of health and safety improvements, taking a lead role at Cemex and the broader industry. He was the chair of the MPA Health and Safety committee for over nine years.

UK: Aggregate Industries has appointed Max Colligan as the managing director of its Ready Mix Concrete business and as a member of its executive committee. He holds over 30 years of experience in the construction industry. He holds a degree in civil engineering and has post-graduate qualifications in quarrying.

UK: Breedon Group has appointed Clive Watson as a non-executive director. He takes the post from 1 September 2019. Watson recently held the role of Group Finance Director at Spectris, a provider of productivity-enhancing instrumentation and controls. Prior to this he has held a number of senior finance positions with international businesses in the UK and overseas. He served as a non-executive director of Spirax-Sarco Engineering from 2009 to 2019, including as chair of the Audit Committee and latterly senior independent director, and is due to join DiscoverIE Group as a non-executive director in September 2019. It is anticipated that Watson will assume the chair of the Audit Committee at Breedon group when Susie Farnon steps down from the board in early 2020.

UK: Cemex has invested around Euro1m on relocating and upgrading its Eversley ready-mixed concrete plant. The new plant will be located at the Bramshill Quarry in Hampshire reducing the need for truck journeys to the fomer site nearby. The unit is being replaced with a Liebherr 2.25 mobile mix plant. The plant will have a storage capacity of 300t of cement, and 240t of aggregates. It will increase production from 80m³/hr to 24m³/hr. The inclusion of a central mixer will also enable special products such as traditional sand cement screed and flowing screeds like Supaflo to be produced, increasing the product range available.

UK: The Global Cement and Concrete Association (GGCA) has launched a photography competition to showcase the role of concrete in the world. The contest has three categories and is open to both professional and amateur photographers. A top price of US$10,000 is on offer for the winning entry.

Ireland/UK: Quinn Industrial Holdings has installed an automated weighbridge system supplied by Precia Molen at its limestone quarry at Crievehill near Fivemiletown, County Tyrone in Northern Ireland. The new weighbridge was completed in June 2019. It includes the company’s VS310CS pour on site surface weighbridge complete with driver operated control systems. Other upgrades at the site include a lorry wheel wash, a new access route and improved security, health and safety measures. Quinn purchased the quarry from Acheson and Glover in late 2018. It is using limestone from the mine to make cement.

UK: Breedon Group’s revenue grew by 18% year-on-year to Euro502m in the first half of 2019 from Euro424m in the same period in 2018. Its earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) rose by 22.3% to Euro90.9m from Euro74.0m. Cement sales volumes increased by 11% to 1Mt and ready-mixed concrete sales fell by 6% to 1.5Mm³.

"The period began well, with benign weather in the first quarter and generally healthy demand for our products, particularly in England, Wales and the Republic of Ireland, somewhat offset by fewer large projects in Scotland. Our performance in the second quarter was adversely impacted by lower volumes in Great Britain due to a flat construction market, ongoing project delays and competitive trading conditions. However demand in Ireland remained robust,” said group chief executive Pat Ward. He added that July 2019 had started well and that the group expected a ‘strong’ second half of the year.

UK: The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) has called on European building materials companies to take steps to fight climate change or face commercial extinction. Recommended changes from its new ‘Investor Expectations of Companies in the Construction Materials Sector’ report have been sent to the heads of LafargeHolcim, HeidelbergCement, CRH and Saint-Gobain. The report informs investor engagement with other construction material firms on the initiative’s global list of 161 focus companies. Investment bodies in the group represent US$2Tn in assets, assets under management and under advice.

“The cement sector needs to dramatically reduce the contribution it makes to climate change. Delaying or avoiding this challenge is not an option. This is ultimately a business-critical issue for the sector,” said Stephanie Pfeifer, the chief executive officer (CEO) of the IIGCC. “Major economies such as the UK and France are increasingly adopting economy-wide net zero emission targets. The cement sector needs to get ahead of the profound transformation their sector faces by addressing barriers to decarbonisation in the short- to medium-term if companies are to secure their future.”

Key details set out in the ‘Investor Expectations’ report include becoming carbon neutral by 2050. Companies are expected to set short, medium and long-term science-based targets to reach this goal. Building material companies should be public policy transparent and advocate for the Paris Agreement, they should implement a ‘strong’ governance framework assigning specific responsibility for climate change to a board committee or board member and they should provide enhanced corporate disclosure in line with the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD).

The IIGCC recognised the steps HeidelbergCement in particular has taken in already having committed to meeting key aspects of the investor expectations it has outlined. CRH, LafargeHolcim and Saint-Gobain have been encouraged to follow suit, given the ‘significant’ role they play as European-based multinationals. The group also praised the ambitious targets set by India’s Dalmia Cement to become carbon negative by 2040.

The UK waste fuels industry is facing potential challenge from changing Dutch environmental legislation. As part of its new National Climate Agreement the government in the Netherlands is considering imposing a tariff of Euro32/t on imported refuse-derived fuel (RDF) from the start of January 2020. It also wants to add a CO2 tax of Euro30/t on industrial emitters from the start of 2021.

This is bad news for the UK’s waste export market because 1.28Mt or 44% of exported waste fuels from the UK in 2018 went to the Netherlands. The majority of this was RDF. That was more than the next two biggest destinations, Sweden and Germany, combined. Andy Hill of Cynosure Partners summed up the UK situation in the June 2019 issue of Global Cement Magazine when he said, “The UK generates more far more waste than it has landfill, recycling and alternative fuel capacity combined. Quite simply, that’s why the UK exports and has become a leading force in Europe in terms of RDF and solid recovered fuel (SRF) exports.”

Graph 1: International Waste Shipments exported from England, 2011 – 2018. Source: UK Environment Agency.

Graph 2: Destinations of English waste fuels exports in 2018. Source: UK Environment Agency.

Waste management companies and their representative associations on both sides of the North Sea are not taking this terribly well. Robert Corijn, chair of the RDF Industry Group, a European waste organisation, summed up his members response by pointing out both the environmental cost of the new legislation and the risk to jobs in the UK. “RDF export forms a vital and flexible part of the UK’s waste management system, supporting over 6800 additional jobs in the UK, and saving over 0.7Mt/yr CO₂e emissions.” Robert Loos of the Dutch Waste Management Association made a similar response questioning what exactly the Dutch government was attempting to achieve.

Steve Burton, one of the directors of UK-fuels producer Andusia, went further by saying that the Dutch had proposed the move on environmental grounds because it has an incineration capacity of 8Mt/yr but produces only 6Mt/yr of waste. “So they think that by setting a tax it will significantly curtail how much gets incinerated in the Netherlands and thus produce less CO₂. All very sensible if you consider CO₂ in isolation in your own country. However, the Dutch Government aren’t looking at the bigger picture…” He then went on to point out that the RDF would then either get burnt elsewhere or landfilled resulting in no overall CO₂ emissions reduction. His further assessment, which you can read here, goes on to speculate amongst other things that Dutch Energy for Waste (EFW) plants could end up having to cut their gate fees by more than the import tariff in order to keep running. The state-owned EFW plants would then made a loss for the tax payers until the market stabilised. It should be noted that the data from the Environment Agency indicates that Andusia exported just under 38,000t of RDF to the Netherlands in 2018.

The more prickly issues of using waste fuels may prove tricky for Dutch legislators. Corijn’s distinction above of using CO₂e for the savings from RDF usage is important in this argument since burning RDF and alternative fuels, either for generating energy or making cement, still releases CO₂. In the European Union (EU) it’s the biomass fraction of RDF that’s important for the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and the like because biomass emissions are counted as carbon-neutral. Remove this effect and the benefit of waste fuels are more to do with the waste hierarchy and reusing materials rather than leaving them to rot and release methane, a gas with a more potent global warming effect than CO₂. Despite this, at face value, importing rubbish and then burning it to release yet more unwanted CO₂ may seem nonsensical to the parliamentarians. Perhaps the other thing they should consider is that waste-derived fuels are manufactured products to set specifications. On-going arguments around the world about the developed world ‘exporting its rubbish’ frequently ignore this point.

Since the new Dutch National Climate Agreement is currently at the proposal stage it has a long way to go before it becomes law. First it has to be turned into legislation and then this has to be approved by the Dutch Parliament. As indicated so far the waste management industry will continue to fight its corner with vigour.