Displaying items by tag: UK

Lafarge UK's release of its 2011 Sustainability Report for its cement business this week presented some bold headline figures. Key statistics for the period covering 2009 - 2011 included a 17% reduction in CO2 emissions through the use of solid recovered fuels (SRF), a 17% reduction in the use of electricity and a 26% cut in emissions to air.

For a European producer this is some positive news in a time of gloom. Looking a little deeper into the report reveals the usual ambiguities that can arise with interpreting statistics. Lafarge UK's fossil fuel consumption actually rose by 9% from 285,000t in 2009 to 311,000t in 2011. CO2 emissions to air rose by 15% from 2.31Mt to 2.65Mt. In terms of emissions per tonne of Portland Cement Equivalent (tPCE), the figures are more encouraging with fossil fuel use decreasing from 87kg/tPCE to 82kg/tPCE (6%) and CO2 emissions remaining stable at 704kg/tPCE. These figures are good considering that Lafarge's production increased from 2009 to 2011 due to construction for the London 2012 Olympics.

As mentioned in Edwin A R Trout's article 'The British cement industry in 2011 and 2012' the move to refuse-derived fuels (RDF) has consistently made the news with projects at several Lafarge plants. RDF use at Lafarge UK plants rose by 48%, from 92,758t in 2009 to 137,143t in 2011. Each of the alternate fuels – tyres, waste-derived liquid fuel, processed sewage pellets (PSP), meat and bone meal, SRF – roughly increased its unit share per tonne of cement produced by 2%.

Lafarge UK is clearly reacting to uncertain input costs and preparing for any further future green taxes. It failed to meet its 2011 target rate for RDF substitution of 31% (it reached 29%) but it has raised the target to 35% for 2012. It is also continuing to secure permits for PSP use at its Dunbar plant and SRF use at its Hope plant, although by the time this is approved Hope may be someone else's facility. However, the key question is, how can Lafarge push alternate fuels? It will be interesting to see how much Lafarge UK's fuel mix can be reduced in cost over the next five years.

According to government advisors cement producers pay more in the UK than other nations for their electricity and it's getting worse.

A Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) report published on Friday 13 July 2012 has shown that firms in the UK will be forced to pay an extra Euro36 in green taxes on top of the market price they pay for every megawatt hour of electricity by 2020 due to climate policies. This compares with Euro22 in Germany, Euro20 in Denmark, Euro19.3 in France and Euro12.7 in China.

As the Mineral Products Association (MPA) put it, "...cement is an internationally traded commodity and, if it costs more to make it here than to import it, then we are threatening a strategic indigenous manufacturing industry for no environmental gain." Or to put it more bluntly, if the cost of importing cement from France to the UK is less than the energy saving then say 'goodbye' to the UK cement industry. The issue raises one of the core problem of any carbon tax in a global economy. If your neighbours don't have the same tax as you then they can undercut you. Similar arguments rage in Australia and the US.

The UK will be the first country with legally binding targets for greenhouse gas emissions beyond 2020, with a pledge to introduce a carbon floor price of Euro19.98/t in 2013. As Edwin Trout explained in his recent article in Global Cement Magazine on the British Cement Industry in 2011 and 2012 the government took steps to address this in November 2011 with a Euro318m package for energy-intensive industries. Unfortunately as the MPA has now pointed out, the cement industry is ineligible for the first Euro140m of this package because the EU has ruled against such support for the sector in relation to the EU Emissions Trading Scheme.

Unsurprisingly alternative fuels trials are thriving in the UK, such as that at Lafarge UK's Aberthaw plant, which celebrates 100 years of operation this weekend.

UK: ANH Refractories Europe has hired Stefan Frank, a senior engineer with more than 20 years' experience, to drive export sales across Europe.

The senior refractory engineer has joined the Wirral based firm to bolster expertise in the cement sector. He has been charged with kickstarting a new campaign to increase ANH's profile and drive sales in emerging cement markets in countries including Turkey, Ukraine and Italy.

Frank holds more than 20 years' experience in the refractory industry. This has included roles at HeidelbergCement Group's Technology Center in Leimen, Baden-Württemberg, in Germany, and extensive work in the rotary kiln field.

ANH Refractories Europe managing director Peter Rooney said, " The European cement market has been a solid area for sales in the last 12 months and we believe Stefan has the knowledge and skills to build on this."

The American owned firm, which has a US turnover of US$550m, manufactures materials used in linings for furnaces, kilns and incinerators operating at high temperatures. It delivers refractory solutions, services and products to many industries including aluminium, petrochemical, power, incineration, mineral and glass.

UK: If Tarmac and Lafarge go through with their proposed JV tie-up in the UK, Lafarge will be obliged to sell its long-established Hope plant in Derbyshire, in the heart of the Peak District National Park, as well as its top-quality limestone quarry and rail depot connections. The Competition Commission has indicated that it would like an 'outsider' to buy the package, which also includes significant other assets in aggregates and readymix. The question is, who might be interested to buy it?

The UK is now a mature market, which has contracted significantly over the last decade, so that heady growth is not a possibility. The competition authorities will ensure that there is real competition in the UK building materials markets, so that only 'normal' margins of 5-10% can be expected - rather than inflated cartel-like or oligopolistic margins of 20% and beyond. Given that the return on capital invested is going to be quite low, why would anyone want to commit their cash (or their credit) to buying into the UK construction materials market? Why not put your money into bio-tech, or telecomms or even into a micro-development bank in the developing world?

I guess that it is largely down to a calculation of risk versus reward (as usual). The rewards of investing in a cement plant and integrated building materials business in the UK may be (relatively) low, but then the risks are also low: the UK is a fairly safe bet for long-term moderate growth, with strong population growth and robust GDP per capita.

Who would buy? A company that wants to balance its portfolio (perhaps a company with most of its eggs currently in the fast-growth/developing world basket), is cash rich (or has access to cheap credit), which is already in cement and aggregates and which might wish to carry home some of the technical knowledge from the deal might be interested. Perhaps some of the Chinese state-owned enterprises or ambitious mid-tier companies from the Middle East would be interested. As ever though, whether a deal is done depends on the price asked - and in the end, the price asked might be too high for anyone.

Lafarge UK has scored a notable success recently at its Cookstown Works reaching 10 years without a lost-time injury (LTI). It has emerged that this is the longest a Lafarge Group plant anywhere in the world has gone without a LTI. Cookstown also set the record the previous year in 2011, showing how far ahead it is of the rest of the group.

LTIs are generally defined as any work related injury or illness which prevents a worker from doing any work the day after the accident. Another similar measure is Lost Time Injury Frequency Rate (LTIFR), which takes into account hours worked by staff.

For example, in April 2011 Global Cement Magazine interviewed the safety manager at the Ste. Genevieve plant in Missouri, USA. He revealed a rate of zero lost-time incidents rate over the last 1.2 million-man hours and no LTIs over the last 700 days. Through construction the plant employed 2300 personnel and then 200 operational employees when it went live. By comparison Cookstown employs only 80 workers. Its LTIFR will be much lower.

The Mineral Products Association recorded a 81% reduction in LTIs between 2004 and 2009 for the UK cement industry. It has since set itself the further target to halve the LTIFR between 2009 and 2014. As of 2009 the UK LTIFR for direct employees was 3.59 per million hours worked. The MPAs target LTIFR for 2014 is 1.79 or lower.

Regardless of how you present the figures the Cookstown Plant LTI achievement is impressive. The challenge, as ever, lies in bettering it.