ArcelorMittal Dofasco has silently pushed back its coal phase-out deadline for “decarbonized” steel production to 2050 from the previously set 2028, as per a federal government report. The company, a major greenhouse gas emitter in Ontario, has secured an additional $50 million from the federal government for this initiative, bringing the total federal contribution to $450 million.
This extension was revealed through an amendment on the Government of Canada’s website following the implementation of U.S. tariffs on Canadian steel and just before the federal election. The company clarified that while the timeline has been prolonged, its core objectives remain intact. The extra funding is earmarked for technical adjustments in the direct reduced iron module plans.
In contrast to the high-profile announcement in 2022 regarding the transition, the recent changes were discovered online by Evan Ubene from Environment Hamilton during a routine project update search. The initial plan included decommissioning blast furnaces and coke plants at Dofasco by 2028, replacing them with direct reduced iron technology and electric arc furnaces fueled by natural gas and hydrogen to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 60% and minimize harmful airborne pollutants.
Despite receiving $500 million from the Ontario government for electric arc furnaces, Dofasco has not utilized any of these funds according to the Ontario Ministry of Economic Development, Job Creation, and Trade. The iron production shift from blast furnaces to electric arc furnaces is expected to reduce emissions by three million tonnes annually, with the direct reduced iron production now relocated to ArcelorMittal’s Quebec facility in Contrecoeur.
The amended project proposal now emphasizes supporting numerous jobs during the engineering and construction phases, deviating from the previous commitment to maintain 4,600 full-time jobs in Canada. While the completion date remains set for 2028, uncertainties linger regarding the project’s scope and execution, with concerns raised about the lack of clarity and transparency in the revised plans.
As the project progresses, questions loom over the actual environmental impact and the company’s commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions effectively. Public scrutiny and demand for accountability persist as stakeholders seek clarity on the revised project direction and its implications for the community and the environment.