UK steel decarbonisation strategy 'piecemeal': E3G

  • Market: Hydrogen, Metals
  • 20/02/24

The UK government's steel decarbonisation strategy is "piecemeal" and lacks a broader industrial policy, independent climate change think-tank E3G said today.

It said the UK is "not far behind" European counterparts with steel decarbonisation, citing deals to transition current blast furnace-based sites, implementation of a carbon border adjustment mechanism and tightening emissions trading allowances.

But the UK has made little progress on power grid expansion, and has been slow to develop demand-side mechanisms, E3G said.

It is vital that electricity costs are brought down for industrial users, which will otherwise face "fierce" competition from overseas producers that pay less for power. The government should also move to increase steel scrap processing and establish supply of hydrogen and green iron — without adequate scrap supply, a 100pc EAF-based sector will rely on imports, E3G said.

The think-tank said the government should establish a long-term strategy "that includes a vision for the future role of the steel sector in the UK economy and how it will be integrated in other UK manufacturing sectors".

Just becoming a secondary steelmaker will mean the country cannot produce all the requisite grades for its automotive industry, it added.

"There is a risk that without the ability to produce a diverse suite of products, some steel companies may suffer from negative commercial outcomes from weaker business models," it said.

In its steel policy scorecard comparison, E3G rated the UK C+ for its policy direction and clarity, and B- for its public funding.


Sharelinkedin-sharetwitter-sharefacebook-shareemail-share

Related news posts

Argus illuminates the markets by putting a lens on the areas that matter most to you. The market news and commentary we publish reveals vital insights that enable you to make stronger, well-informed decisions. Explore a selection of news stories related to this one.

News
17/04/24

Australia provides $256mn to high-purity alumina plant

Australia provides $256mn to high-purity alumina plant

Sydney, 17 April (Argus) — Australia's federal Labor government will offer A$400mn ($256mn) in loans to a high-purity alumina (HPA) processing facility, as part of its recently announced Future Made in Australia policy. Canberra has granted Australian developer Alpha HPA the funds via two separate agencies. The Northern Australian Infrastructure Facility and Export Finance Australia's (EFA) A$4bn critical minerals facility will each offer A$160mn and the two agencies will jointly fund a further A$80mn cost overrun facility, with drawdown on the grants contingent on Alpha HPA securing letters of intent for 10,000 t/yr in output. The announcement comes after the Queensland government provided A$21.7mn for the second stage of the facility at the industrial city of Gladstone in Queensland state. Australia's other HPA producer is Cadoux, formerly FYI Resources , is planning a 10,000 t/yr operation in Western Australia (WA) state's Kwinana industrial zone. The firm received an A$3mn grant from the WA government in November for an initial small-scale production plant. Graphite grant Canberra also brought forward an A$185mn EFA loan to Australian emerging graphite producer Renascor for stage 1 of its proposed vertically integrated battery anode material manufacturing project. A downstream graphite concentrator plant is planned for South Australia state with feedstock from the Siviour deposit, the largest outside Africa, Renascor said on 17 April. The original loan was approved in 2022, and Canberra said the concentrator project will now be realised sooner. Stage 2 will produce Australian-made purified spherical graphite for use in lithium-ion batteries required for electric vehicles and renewable technologies, Canberra said. Renascor is progressing advanced engineering designs for the mineral processing plant and non-process infrastructure while discussing binding offtake terms with existing partners, as well as with other battery-anode market participants. By Tom Major Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Read more
News

US Gulf lowest-cost green ammonia in 2030: Report


16/04/24
News
16/04/24

US Gulf lowest-cost green ammonia in 2030: Report

New York, 16 April (Argus) — The US Gulf coast will likely be the lowest cost source of green ammonia to top global bunkering ports Singapore and Rotterdam by 2030, according to a study by independent non-profits Rocky Mountain Institute and the Global Maritime Forum. Green ammonia in Singapore is projected to be sourced from the US Gulf coast at $1,100/t, Chile at $1,850/t, Australia at $1,940/t, Namibia at $2,050/t and India at $2,090/t very low-sulphur fuel oil equivalent (VLSFOe) in 2030. Singapore is also projected to procure green methanol from the US Gulf coast at $1,330/t, China at $1,640/t, Australia at $2,610/t and Egypt at $2,810/t VLSFOe in 2030. The US Gulf coast would be cheaper for both Chinese bio-methanol and Egyptian or Australian e-methanol. But modeling suggests that competition could result in US methanol going to other ports, particularly in Europe, unless the Singaporean port ecosystem moves to proactively secure supply, says the study. In addition to space constraints imposed by its geography, Singapore has relatively poor wind and solar energy sources, which makes local production of green hydrogen-based-fuels expensive, says the study. Singapore locally produced green methanol and green ammonia are projected at $2,910/t and $2,800/t VLSFOe, respectively, in 2030, higher than imports, even when considering the extra transport costs. The study projects that fossil fuels would account for 47mn t VLSFOe, or 95pc of Singapore's marine fuel demand in 2030. The remaining 5pc will be allocated between green ammonia (about 1.89mn t VLSFOe) and green methanol (3.30mn t VLSFOe). Rotterdam to pull from US Gulf Green ammonia in Rotterdam is projected to be sourced from the US Gulf coast at $1,080/t, locally produced at $2,120/t, sourced from Spain at $2,150/t and from Brazil at $2,310/t. Rotterdam is also projected to procure green methanol from China at $1,830/t, Denmark at $2,060/t, locally produce it at $2,180/t and from Finland at $2,190/t VLSFOe, among other countries, but not the US Gulf coast . The study projects that fossil fuels would account for 8.1mn t VLSFOe, or 95pc of Rotterdam's marine fuel demand in 2030. The remaining 5pc will be allocated between green ammonia, at about 326,000t, and green methanol, at about 570,000t VLSFOe. Rotterdam has a good renewable energy potential, according to the study. But Rotterdam is also a significant industrial cluster and several of the industries in the port's hinterland are seeking to use hydrogen for decarbonisation. As such, the port is expected to import most of its green hydrogen-based fuel supply. Though US-produced green fuels are likely to be in high demand, Rotterdam can benefit from EU incentives for hydrogen imports, lower-emission fuel demand created by the EU emissions trading system and FuelEU Maritime. But the EU's draft Renewable Energy Directive could limit the potential for European ports like Rotterdam to import US green fuels. The draft requirements in the Directive disallow fuel from some projects that benefit from renewable electricity incentives, like the renewable energy production tax credit provided by the US's Inflation Reduction Act, after 2028. If these draft requirements are accepted in the final regulation, they could limit the window of opportunity for hydrogen imports from the US to Rotterdam to the period before 2028, says the study. By Stefka Wechsler Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

News

Q&A: Ramaco adding production, sees market growth


16/04/24
News
16/04/24

Q&A: Ramaco adding production, sees market growth

New York, 16 April (Argus) — Randall Atkins is a founder and chief executive of metallurgical coal producer Ramaco Resources. He also has been involved in energy-related investment and financing activity for over 40 years. In this Q&A, edited for length and clarity, he discusses effects from the Francis Scott Key bridge collapse, his outlook for coal and the company's research projects. What effect has the Key bridge collapse and Port of Baltimore closing had on Ramaco and the US coal industry in general? Like most things of that tragic nature, it is going to take longer than everyone expects to actually solve the problem. I think where it is going to impact producers probably more is on the rails. There will be a need for...producers to rearrange stockpiles and to rearrange where they are going to try and ship, even at reduced levels. Particularly, CSX is going to have an immense logistical complexity to deal with over the near-term. We do not ship from Baltimore. We have not seen any problems, knock on wood, with our rail shipments post the incident. What are your long-term projections for metallurgical coal given expectations that low-volatile coal reserves will shrink in coming decades and the steel industry could be in oversupply? Low vol coal has traditionally been the highest priced coal and the dearest, if you will. High vol A coal has over the last few years grown in importance, and to the extent that there is any new increase in production in the US, it's high vol. What we perceive is that there is going to be a crowding in the high vol space. As a result, our increase in production is primarily in low vol. As far as the demand side is concerned, we do not believe that blast furnace steel demand is going to decline anytime soon. There's a lot of noise from the green community that hydrogen is going to replace coal in blast furnaces. We took some advice on that from the IEA…and when that question was posed (to IEA), the answer that was given was it would take about $1.5 trillion to build a pilot plant using hydrogen by 2035 and probably about another equal or greater sum to build a commercial facility by 2040. So, I don't lose a lot of sleep on the demand for coal for blast furnaces. What I do see shifting, however, is the US has held relatively steady at about 20mn short tons (18.1mn metric tonnes) of met coal demand over the last 10 to 15 years. The growth is clearly overseas, and the growth is clearly at the moment in Asia. When we started back in 2017, and 2018 was really our first year of production, we predominantly sold coal domestically; I think 80pc of our coal went to US steel mills. Now that is almost reversed. We're going to sell probably this year, 70pc overseas, and about a third or less domestically. With Europe moving towards electric arc furnace technology and significant new blast furnace capacity coming online in Asia, what kind of role will the US play as a coal supplier over the coming years? It is cheaper to use a blast furnace than electric arc. And the steel that they (Asian companies) mostly require is the heavier steel for cars and buildings and things of that nature. So, they have a bias towards blast furnace capacity. The US and Europe are very developed economies that are trying to go and wean away from coal, (while) the rest of the world is aggressively moving further into coal. People will shake their heads at the cost that European and American consumers will start to have to pay for that privilege. We see market growth is still there, but it's a different kind of growth. It will be more in the Asian markets, predominantly some in Europe, some in South America and Africa. The low vol coal demand in Asia is extremely strong because while they are able to buy high vol product from Australia very inexpensively, they do not have the low vol production. They need that to blend up to get the proper mix in their blast furnaces. There is a very good future for low vol, and that is the direction we are positioning ourselves. How confident is Ramaco about securing its investments in the longer run given the emphasis on ESG? What I see is sort of a dichotomy. In the thermal coal business, there's not a lot of investment in new mining there for the obvious reason that their customer base is declining. On the met side, it is a bit shortsighted from an investment standpoint because of the composition of the ownership of met coal companies. Virtually every major metallurgical coal producer except for us went through bankruptcy and post-bankruptcy proceedings. Their board composition became essentially distressed debt investors...Their interest was not developing a long-term coal company. Strategically their vision was: "How can we most quickly get money back out of that coal company?" We are certainly the only coal company that is doubling in size. We produced a little under 4mn st last year. We will be at about 4.5mn st this year. We can maybe go higher, depending upon the market. The market is not strong right now. The other issue (for coal producers) even when they weren't doing special dividends, is they've now shifted to doing large-scale share buybacks. You are starting to see the cost curve increase for most domestic coal producers. What you haven't seen, but I think you will probably find over the next probably 18 to 24 months, is you will begin to see depletion kick in. The amount of coal that they are able to produce from their existing operation will begin to decline. And that is strictly a result of not investing in new mine production. My approach was to kind of be a little bit of an outlier and then approach coal to products as an alternative use, certainly for thermal coal. And that, of course, brought us to rare earth (mineral extraction). Do you have funding for Ramaco's rare earth materials projects? Let me step back one step. We introduced the idea that we actually had rare earth (deposits) in May 2023….When we sent the samples to be tested, they tested them as if they were hard minerals. In other words, they did not combust off the organic material. What we have done since then, is we went back and we had samples that were probably 200-300 parts per million. From a commercial standpoint, we have kind of crossed the Rubicon that this is indeed sufficiently concentrated that it makes commercial sense. Now what we are doing is we are going through a process of further chemical analysis and testing to determine what is the best extraction and refinement technique. And the last point you raised was financing. We have a very nice growing mining metallurgical business, which can provide the funding to do whatever we want to do on rare earth. I am not too concerned about our financing capability. Any updates on your coal-to-carbon product projects ? We have looked at a number of different things with the national labs. We started looking at carbon fiber, which could be made from coal and we have got some patents around some very interesting processes. The areas that we are now focusing on...are using coal to make synthetic graphite. The other thing we are working on is using coal for direct air capture. We are considering going into a pilot phase sometime starting later this year with Oak Ridge National Laboratory on a synthetic graphite plant. As far as direct air capture, we probably have more work to do. We are also working on that with Oak Ridge. But I would hope that sometime by 2025, certainly 2026, we would perhaps have our first product, quote unquote, to be able to offer into the market. And it would be delightful if it was synthetic graphite. By Elena Vasilyeva Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

News

Liberty Whyalla blast furnace down after maintenance


16/04/24
News
16/04/24

Liberty Whyalla blast furnace down after maintenance

London, 16 April (Argus) — GFG Alliance is negotiating with workers at its Whyalla plant in Australia for "short-term" options as its blast furnace experienced operational and technical issues after maintenance work last month. Suppliers of the plant told Argus in late March that the blast furnace was experiencing issues. "Ageing assets like the blast furnace will eventually be retired as part of the Whyalla Steelworks transition to new technologies," a GFG spokesman said. "Plans are being developed to safely continue productivity of the blast furnace and, more broadly, the Whyalla Steelworks, as well as enable a more sustainable future." "GFG remains committed to returning the blast furnace safely to operational use," he added. GFG is a collection of entities including Liberty Steel. Whyalla has a production capacity of about 1.2mn t/yr, with about two-thirds of that cast into billet and sent by rail to GFG's Infrabuild business for processing into longs. Under the agreement between the two plants, payment from Infrabuild to Whyalla can be made before delivery. Infrabuild raised $350mn through a bond sale towards the end of last year at an interest rate of 14.5pc. Meanwhile, Liberty remains in talks with the Czech government over the emissions allowances for its Ostrava site. The Czech Ministry of Environment wants proof that Ostrava will produce again before granting free allowances to the site, and the significant change in its operating rates mean the company may not receive those allowances until June or July — its restructuring plan envisages selling a portion of those allowances in May. The idling of the blast furnace since October, and the stoppage of coking facilities at the site, also impacts the number of allowances that will be granted. Sources suggest coking is unlikely to restart, meaning there will be no allowances granted for the facility, while there is also concern about when the blast furnace may restart. "The EU emissions trading system is a complex system which is designed to avoid interference in the distribution of the allowances and the calculations of the emissions," a Liberty spokesperson said. "This system governs about 11,000 companies across the EU and Liberty Ostrava only expects to be treated in the same way as all the others." By Colin Richardson Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

News

Australian new environment agency to speed up approvals


16/04/24
News
16/04/24

Australian new environment agency to speed up approvals

Sydney, 16 April (Argus) — The Australian federal government announced today it will introduce new legislation in the coming weeks to implement the second stage of its Nature Positive Plan, which includes setting up a national environment protection agency to speed up approval decisions. The planned Environment Protection Australia (EPA) will initially operate within the Department of Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water until it transitions to become an independent statutory agency, with "strong new powers and penalties" to better enforce federal laws, the government said on 16 April. The EPA chief will be an independent statutory appointment, similar to the Australian federal police commissioner, so that "no government can interfere" with the new agency's enforcement work. The agency will be able to audit businesses to ensure they are compliant with environment approval conditions and issue environment protection orders to anyone breaking the law. Penalties will be increased, with courts able to impose fines of up to A$780mn ($504mn) or jail terms for up to seven years in cases of extremely serious intentional breaches of federal environment law. EPA will also be tasked with speeding up development decisions, including project assessments in areas such as renewable energy and critical minerals. Almost A$100mn will be allocated to optimise the approval processes, with its budget directed to support staff to assess project proposals and help businesses comply with the law. A new independent body Environment Information Australia (EIA) will also be created to provide environmental data to the government and the public through a public website. EIA will need to develop an online database giving businesses quicker access to data and helping EPA to make faster decisions. It will also need to publish state of environment reports every two years. The government said that an audit ordered by environment minister Tanya Plibersek last year found that around one in seven developments could be in breach of their offset conditions, when a business had not properly compensated for the impact a development was having on the environment, highlighting "the need to urgently strengthen enforcement". The planned new legislation is part of the federal government's reform of Australia's environmental laws including the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. Resource project decisions are currently made by the environment minister, with the move to an independent agency will removing any perception of political interference in such decisions, the government said when it first announced the reforms in late 2022. The first stage of the reform was completed late last year with new laws passed to create the Nature Repair Market, with further stages expected to be implemented in the future, the government said. Tight timing Resources industry body the Chamber of Minerals and Energy of Western Australia (CMEWA) welcomed the announcement that the federal government will take a "staged approach" to the implementation of the reforms but noted the timing of EPA's implementation was "tight". "We continue to hold reservations about the proposed decision-making model and will continue to advocate for a model that balances ecologically sustainable development considerations and includes the [environment] minister as the decision maker," CMEWA chief executive Rebecca Tomkinson said. The Minerals Council of Australia (MCA) said that it had been advocating for the creation of EIA, whose future collated data "will provide greater certainty and reduced costs for both government and project proponents", which "may shave years off project development". But it was cautious about potential "unintended consequences" stemming from more bureaucracy. "Australia has one of the most comprehensive environmental approvals processes in the world and the MCA has been clear about the significant risks of duplicative, complex and uncertain approvals processes pose to the minerals sector, the broader economy and the environment if we do not get this right," it warned. By Juan Weik Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Business intelligence reports

Get concise, trustworthy and unbiased analysis of the latest trends and developments in oil and energy markets. These reports are specially created for decision makers who don’t have time to track markets day-by-day, minute-by-minute.

Learn more