Carbon Dioxide Mentions in Steel Company Annual Reports

The following table shows the number of CO2 and carbon dioxide mentions in the annual reports of seven steel companies (the pdf file “fine” application was used to count the mentions):

 

company	CO2 mentions	carbon dioxide mentions	total CO2 and carbon dioxide mentions	2020 revenues billions usd	revenues per CO2-carbon dioxide mentions
nippon steel	149	1	150	43.6	0.29
tata steel	33	0	33	11.1	0.34
united states steel	13	2	15	9.7	0.65
arcelormittal	67	3	70	53.3	0.76
posco	62	3	65	53.2	0.82
nucor	2	2	4	20.1	5.03
gerdau	1	0	1	9.6	9.60
				average	2.50

The table also shows the 2020 estimated revenues (in billions USD) for each company and a revenue divided by the CO2 plus carbon dioxide total number of mentions ratio.

The number of times CO2 and carbon dioxide appear in steel manufacturers’ annual reports might be a proxy for the companies concerns with respect to their carbon dioxide emissions. Dividing that number ((the annual report number of CO2/carbon dioxide mentions into the company’s revenues (in billions)) gives a revenue per CO2/carbon dioxide mentions ratio. Such a ratio could be useful in evaluating a steel company’s interest in reducing its carbon dioxide emissions, as reflected by how much it writes about CO2 and carbon dioxide in its annual report.

Using these ratios help to compare a company’s concerns about its carbon dioxide emissions regardless of its size (in revenues).  For example, the smaller United States Steel has, proportionately to its size, about the same carbon dioxide emissions concerns (based on CO2/carbon dioxide mentions in the annual reports) as the much larger ArcelorMittal.

This blog is a follow-up to a previous blog I wrote, which provides similar analysis for cement manufacturing companies (click here to read that blog).  Based on the average revenues per CO2-carbon dioxide mentions (0.43 for the cement companies; 2.50 for the steel companies), the cement companies appear to be more concerned about carbon dioxide emissions than the steel companies.

 

Carbon Dioxide Mentions in Cement Company Annual Reports

The following table shows the number of CO2 and carbon dioxide mentions in the annual reports of eight cement companies (the pdf file “fine” application was used to count the mentions):

 

company	CO2 mentions	carbon dioxide mentions	total CO2 and carbon dioxide mentions	2020 revenues billions usd	revenues per CO2-carbon dioxide mentions
cemex	159	0	159	12.97	0.08
buzzi unicem	24	0	24	3.94	0.16
heidelberg	120	1	121	21.5	0.18
lafarge holain	71	0	71	24.64	0.35
eagle materials	0	4	4	1.62	0.41
ultratech	10	0	10	5.94	0.59
summit materials	2	1	3	2.33	0.78
crh	30	0	30	27.6	0.92

                                                                                            average  0.43

The table also shows the 2020 estimated revenues (in billions USD) for each company and a revenue divided by the CO2 plus carbon dioxide total number of mentions ratio.

The number of times CO2 and carbon dioxide appear in cement manufacturers’ annual reports might be a proxy for the companies concerns with respect to their carbon dioxide emissions. Dividing that number ((the annual report number of CO2/carbon dioxide mentions into the company’s revenues (in billions)) gives a revenue per CO2/carbon dioxide mentions ratio. Such a ratio could be useful in evaluating a cement company’s interest in reducing its carbon dioxide emissions, as reflected by how much it writes about CO2 and carbon dioxide in its annual report.

For example, from the above table, Buzzi Unicem and CRH have approximately the same number of CO2/carbon dioxide mentions in their annual reports (24 and 30), but CRH is approximately  seven times larger ($27.6 billion revenues divided by $3.94 billion revenues = 7). As a much larger company, CRH should be trying to emit much less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (with carbon dioxide reduction strategies). But the revenues per CO2/carbon dioxide mentions ratios for the two companies (0.16 for Buzzi Unicem and 0.92 for CRH) does not reflect, based on company size, more concern by CRH about carbon dioxide emissions.

A company’s pursuit and success in meeting sustainability development goals (SDGs) is becoming an important metric by many analysts in evaluating a company for investment and other considerations. Reduced carbon dioxide emissions is a critical SDG goal. Many metrics are used in SDG analysis. Perhaps the revenues per CO2-carbon dioxide mentions ratio, described above, could be useful. Click here to read more about SDG goals.

Cement manufacturing accounts for an estimated 8% of global carbon dioxide annual emissions. Click here for a CarbonBrief report on this. This enormous carbon dioxide emissions by cement manufacturing has been recognized as an important target in order for global carbon dioxide reduction goals to be met. Click here and here for Chemical & Engineering News and Scientific American articles on the various efforts being investigated to reduce carbon dioxide emissions during cement manufacturing.

 

Blockchain Service Providers

In a previous blog I identified six chemical companies that are exploring the use of blockchain technology to enhance their supply chain and other operations.  Click here to read that blog.

In this blog, I identify four companies that offer blockchain technology services to customers, such as chemical companies.  The following are those companies, with links to information on the companies’ services being offered:

• IBM.  IBM offers extensive products and solutions based on blockchain technology.  Click here to read about them.  A IBM report (click here) suggests that blockchain can transform supply chain networks in the chemical industry.
• SAP.  SAP blockchain products are described at this site (click here).  SAP describes how blockchain impacts the chemical industry at this site (click here).
• WIPRO.  WIPRO describes its blockchain expertise at a site (click here) and how blockchain can be applied in supply chains at this site (click here).
• Aetsoft.  Aetsoft identifies it blockchain development for supply chain applications at this site (click here).

It seems likely that blockchain technology use will increase in the chemical enterprise; for example, in building trusted supply chains.  A Deloitte report discusses this (click here to read the report).  Chemical companies who implement blockchain in their operations will likely need the assistance of blockchain service providers, such as the four identified above.

Blockchain Interest by Several Chemical Companies

Chemical company interest in using blockchain technology seems to be growing.  An internet search found that the following six companies have announced , since 2017, evaluations of blockchain technology:

1.                  BASF  is evaluating the use of blockchain in tracing the pallets it uses in its supply chain network.  The project combines blockchain technology with uniquely-designed pallets, equipped with signaling technologies so that the pallets can be confidently traced and characterized throughout their movements from BASF to the final destinations.

BASF is examining the use of blockchain for increasing the successful recycling of plastics that it produces.  The company believes that blockchain use might overcome a major obstacle to plastic recycling – the lack of confidence in tracing the plastic from production through final use and then to the hoped-for recycling.

2.                  Covestro is also evaluating blockchain for tracking their plastic products to the customer and ultimately to the hoped-for recycling of the plastic.  A goal is to provide reliable details on the plastic using blockchain that the plastic recyclers can trust as being correct.  Covestro is also examining blockchain use with products it sells to the automobile industry. 

3.                   Dow has a blockchain pilot project to test blockchain’s suitability for supporting flexible foams circular solutions. 

4.                  Eastman is evaluating blockchain use to certify that the products it makes from recycled plastics are indeed made from those recycled plastics. 

5.                  Solvay has recently started conducting trials on using blockchain to track and trace its products through its supply chains. 

6.                  Umicore is using blockchain technology to track materials used in batteries from the battery fabrication to the recycling of the battery. 

Here is an Accenture article (click here) and a Frankfurt School – Blockchain Center article (click here) that provide details on blockchain technology and its possible use in the chemical industry. 

It seems to me that blockchain technology could be a tool used in the chemical industry that positively changes many processes.

 

 

 

 

Chemical and Metal Shortage Alert – May 2021

 The purpose of this blog is to identify chemical and metal shortages reported on the Internet.  The sources of the information reported here are primarily news releases issued on the Internet.  The issue period of the news releases is May 2021. 

Section I below lists those chemicals and metals that were on the previous month’s Chemical and Metal Shortage Alert list and continue to have news releases indicating they are in short supply.  Click here to read the April 2021 Chemical and Metal Shortage Alert list. 

Section II lists the new chemicals and metals (not on the April alert).  Also provided is some explanation for the shortage and geographical information.  This blog attempts to list only actual shortage situations – those shortages that are being experienced during the period covered by the news releases.  Chemicals and metals identified in news releases as only being in danger of being in shortage status are not listed. 

Section I.   

• Chlorine (including trichloroisocyanuric acid): United States; production not keeping up with demand
• Construction materials:  United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom; production not keeping up with demand
• Lumber:  United Kingdom and United States; supply not keeping up with demand
• Palladium: global; mining not keeping with demand
• Polyolefins, such as polyethylene:  Europe and United States; production not keeping up with demand
• Steel:  global; production not keeping up with demand 

Section II.   Shortages Reported in May not found on the Previous Month’s Lists 

none 

• Reasons for Section II shortages can be broadly categorized as:  
• Mining not keeping up with demand: none
• Production not keeping up with demand: none
• Government regulations: none
• Sources no longer available: none
• Insufficient imports:  none
• Supply not keeping up with demand:  none