EU fertilizer industry calls for support: Q&A

As the EU gears up to install a new European Commission for 2024-2029, LAT Nitrogen's chief executive officer Leo Alders tells Argus political support remains necessary to tackle a range of challenges threatening EU industry, including subsidised US ammonia production with carbon capture, use and storage (CCUS), and the EU's 'unrealistic' goal of cutting net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 90pc by 2040.

But Alders sees growing political "goodwill" to help EU industry against cheap fertilizer imports from Russia, which are used to fund the country's war against Ukraine. Edited highlights follow.

What does the fertilizer industry want from the next European Commission?

Clear points are effectively releasing emissions trading system (ETS) funds for converting the industry to green fertilizers. We also want carbon sequestration to be allowed as it is in the US. And we need a policy on nutrient efficiency, which has never really happened. For us, too, spillage is not the desired objective.

The international context, too, is important. Grey ammonia produced in Europe could move to the same cost levels as US blue ammonia with subsidised CO2 sequestration. If or when that happens, then Europe will see massive imports of US blue ammonia. We think that by 2027 or 2028, volumes coming out of the US will grow exponentially. That's a trend that we think is unstoppable. The underlying issue, of course, is that energy in Europe is at higher price levels than on any other continent. We need to stay in Europe with our production capacity. But the threat is there.

Are 90pc GHG cuts by 2040 feasible for you?

When discussing the ETS measures, the carbon border adjustment mechanism, and so on, we took a positive approach as an industry. And we go alon

g with the zero [carbon] target for 2050. That's all right. But now the [2040] target is not official, more a desired milestone that emissions will be cut by 90pc by 2040. As an industry, we think that target is totally unrealistic and cannot support it. That's a clear point of view. Converting to a green industry will require massive capital. Technologically, it takes time to do all of this.

Is the ETS working well for the fertilizer industry?

Proceeds from ETS certificates go partly to national budgets and partly to the EU budget. That's all nice. But our industry needs to invest massively to complete the transition. We pay massive amounts of money for CO2 certificates. There was the promise that national and EU levels would subsidise decarbonisation projects from the ETS.

In reality, we've seen very few subsidies materialising. So we actually have a counter-proposal: why not allow the industry to park the money for green investments? In theory, the national level is obliged to reinvest 50pc of ETS income back into the industry. The reality is different.

Isn't the EU still wary of prohibitive €100-150/t tariffs on Russian fertilizers?

A ban on Russian fertilizer imports would require unanimity. Tariffs, though, require majority support among EU states. That seems feasible. At least 15 states appear to support the idea. There is actually no supply issue. We don't have any issues replacing Russian volumes. There may be a possible time element and rebalancing in the first three or four months. But after that, the European industry would be fully capable of supplying our farms.

So political support is growing?

More and more people understand how Russian gas is being transformed into fertilizer. They've understood that routing gas to Europe is becoming more and more difficult. The EU has been totally unsuccessful in pushing back against Russian urea, so Russia is building some 650,000 t/yr in extra capacity, expected on line next year or thereafter.

As an industry, we don't want to be shutting down units in Europe because of cheap subsidised Russian fertilizers. And then, what happens if one day Russia decides to cut or weaponise fertilizer supplies?

By Dafydd ab Iago