DOCSLIB.ORG

The Rise of Cement Kiln Incineration of Hazardous Waste

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Rise of Cement Kiln Incineration of Hazardous Waste The Power and The Dust Hazardous Waste Incineration In South Carolina Cement Kilns: A Report on the Global Players, the Ecological Impact, and Grassroots Resistance Copyright Movementech 2002 - Funded Through the Environmental Banckground Information Center Background: heavy metals, dioxins, furans and other dan- gerous substances into the air. Community Organization for Rights and Empowerment (CORE) leader Virginia Townsend •The facilities impact minority neighbor- requested that we provide assistance in under- hoods between these two towns. standing the impact of a large hazardous waste disposal operation in Southeastern South Carolina •The facilities border on sensitive wetland bordering Dorchester and Orangeburg Counties. areas. Citizens are concerned about the impact of upwards of 5 cement kilns located on a stretch of •The amount of waste shipped to this area land along Route 453, between Holly Hill and for disposal is substantial. Approximately Harleyville, SC. 20% of all TRI waste shipped offsite for dis- posal in SC is shipped to the facilities in The hazardous waste disposal operation being these two towns. carried out in this region falls under the rubric of “recycling.” Chemical wastes are shipped there •Safety-Kleen, one of the main companies and used as fuel in cement kilns where the adhe- involved in the delivery of hazardous waste sive constituent (aka “clinker”) of cement is manu- to Holly Hill, has been operating under factured. This type of waste disposal is consid- bankruptcy protection since 2000. ered recycling because the waste are supposedly being used productively. “Cement kilns,” thus •Giant is the largest burner of hazardous exploit a controversial loophole in hazardous waste in the Holly Hill, Harleyville area. waste law, and have become a cheap and largely Giant is described as a pioneer in the burn- unregulated disposal option for producers of haz- ing of waste fuel. ardous waste - a proverbial black hole. •Records indicate that in 1997 alone, Issues Raised: upwards of 161,000 tons of hazardous waste may have been burned in Holly Hill and Several key issues have become apparent in the Harleyville to make cement. course of the research on the situation in Holly Hill and Harleyville. •90% of the cement manufactured in Holly Hill and Harleyville probably was used with- •The incineration of hazardous waste in in 300 miles of there in the construction of cement kilns is not safe releasing toxic roads, sidewalks, houses, schools, hospitals Cement Kiln Incineration of Hazardous Waste and other structures. of cement kiln incineration - of how hazardous waste came to be used as waste fuel in cement •Lafarge burns less hazardous waste than kiln incinerators. We proceed from there to a the other two cement operations in the area. discussion of why this issue is controversial and They burn tires however, which also release why it is a threat to public health and safety. toxic chemicals into the air. Next we discuss the main players and the field and then we characterize the operations ongoing Structure of this report: in Dorchester and Orangeburg Counties, South Carolina. We conclude with recommendations This report begins with an outline of the history geared to the community. Activists and Public Interest Cementos Bio-Bio Safety Kleen Cementos Diamante Scancem Groups Cementos Portland The Seagram Company Ltd. American Lung Association CEMEX (Cementos Mexicanos) Semen Gresik Binational Toxics Project of the Texas Cemex Joint Venture Shell Oil Center for Policy Studies Ciments Francais Government of Singapore Investment Corporation Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League Cuvaison Winery Solite Corporation Chemical Weapons Working Group Dow Southdown Cement Common Cause Dundee Swatch Community Organization For Rights and DuPont Texas Industries (TXI) Empowerment (CORE) European Cement Association Thomas Schmidheiny Downwinders At Risk Fomento de Construcciones y Contratas, S.A. Union Bank of Switzerland Environmental Defense Fund Giant Cement Universal Studios Greenpeace Giant Resource Recovery Universal Music Group Greenpeace-Mexico Heidelberger Valencia Harrison Ford Holderbank Financiere Vencemos Huron Environmental Activist League (HEAL) Holnam (Holcim) Inc. Vivendi, S.A. Mexican Pesticides and Alternative Action Network Home Depot Vivendi Universal National Citizens Alliance (NCA) Hryhory Omelchenko World Business Council For Sustainable Development National Wildlife Federation Inversiones Samper Wolrd Environmental Council Network Against The Noth America Free Trade Keystone Cement Agreement Kodak Sierra Club The Koplowitz Family, Madrid LACSA (Sanson) Cement Industry and Other LaFarge Corporation LaFarge-Systech Cement Kiln Corporate Players Lorenzo Zambrano AIG Markus Akermann APO National Lime Association Assiut Cement North Texas Cement Company (aka Gifford-Hill) Blue Circle Industries PLC Portland Valderrivas, S.A. Boston Consulting Group Rizal Canal + Santee Cembureau 2 Cement Kiln Incineration of Hazardous Waste The Riise of Cement Kiilln IInciineratiion of Hazardous Waste According to Friends of the Earth campaigner Roger Lilley, it was import pressure from countries such as Korea, which forced prices for cement down by 40 per cent during the 1980’s, that led the US cement industry to resort to using hazardous waste to reduce their fuel bills. At first, they burned relatively clean liquid or “nurse” fuels — fuel which when combusted released high British thermal units (Btu). However, by the early 1990’s, as more and more of these wastes were being burned on-site by the industries which generated them, cement kilns began to maintain their income from waste disposal by taking large amounts of low Btu solids or sludges. Lilley quotes one cement manufacturer in 1987 stating that burning waste was becoming so profitable that: “It’s possible that ... cement will be just a by-product of waste burning.” The major legal loophole that allowed waste to be burned in cement kilns was the exemption of ‘recycled’ chemical wastes from the 1984 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Until the drafting of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) in 1976 by Congress, most hazardous wastes were simply buried. Concerned about dependence on foreign oil (under pressure from environmentalists) Congress sought the recovery of flammable wastes. Industries substituting chemical waste for fuel would be exempt from RCRA's stringent requirements. In 1980, Congress adopted the "Bevill Amendment," pursuant to which an EPA regulation excluded cement kiln dust from the definition of hazardous waste, subjecting it to tailored standards to be developed by the EPA. Following a February 1995 report to Congress, EPA's Regulatory Determination on Cement Kiln Dust promoted additional control in the interest of public health and the prevention of potential environmental damage. Accordingly, a program adapted to local plant conditions would be developed to control the site-specific risks and minimize compliance costs. Section 3004(q) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), enacted as part of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984, instructs the EPA to regulate facilities burning hazardous waste as fuel. The BIF or "Burning of Hazardous Waste in Boilers and Industrial Furnaces" rules, integrating the mandates of section 3004(q) and the Bevill Amendment, were promulgated to establish air emissions requirements for facilities burning hazardous waste as fuel. Before BIF rule enactment, the burning of hazwaste in cement kilns, was unrestricted, considered "recycling"and thus unregulated. A big loophole. Cement companies took advantage of interim status permits intended to enable trial burns to take place. Lilley pointed out that “these permits could be issued after just one restricted public hear- ing and gave no effective time limit to the duration of the trial. By 1990, 24 cement and 17 aggre- gate (lime) kilns were burning three billion pounds of hazardous waste across the US.” Grassroots Resistance to Cement Kiln Incineration of Hazardous Waste Opposition to hazardous waste burning in cement announced its intention to begin burning haz- kilns emerged from community groups, local gov- ardous waste as a substitute for natural gas and ernment, the medical profession and operators of coal, Congressman Martin Frost successfully commercial hazardous waste incinerators, which passed a federal law requiring cement plants are more expensive to operate, largely because burning hazardous waste in cities of 500,000 or they are more stringently regulated than cement more residents to be subject to the same health kilns. In 1984, when the Lafarge cement plant in and safety requirements as commercial incinera- Oak Cliff, a Dallas, Texas neighborhood, tors. As a result, Lafarge dropped its plans, and 3 Resistance continued page 5 Cement Kiln Incineration of Hazardous Waste The Faiillure of Regullatiion In early 1993, the EPA Draft Report on Dioxins fueled the controversy when it identified waste- burning cement kilns as a major source of dioxins. In September 1994, the American Lung Association produced a video [“Smoke and Mirrors”] on Texas cement plants, which was screened despite threatened legal action by the cement industry. Continued campaigning began to pay off when Southdown Cement, the only cement company that had lobbied for greater regu- lation of waste burning, pulled out of the waste business. Regulators shifted to examination of the waste dust from cement kilns burning hazardous waste and even the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Zurich and Paris, April 9, 2015 Eric Olsen Appointed As Future CEO of Lafargeholcim
    Zurich and Paris, April 9, 2015 Eric Olsen appointed as future CEO of LafargeHolcim In the framework of their proposed merger of equals, and following a proposal from Lafarge Chairman and CEO Bruno Lafont, the boards of directors of Lafarge and Holcim have approved the appointment of Eric Olsen as future Chief Executive Officer of LafargeHolcim, to be in office as from the closing of the merger project. Eric Olsen is presently Lafarge Executive Vice-President, Operations. He has been a member of the Group’s Executive Committee since 2007. Fifty-one years old, he has dual American and French nationalities. Eric Olsen has an international and extensive experience. He successfully held senior positions in operations and in the fields of finance, human resources and strategy. Eric Olsen also benefits from a deep experience of driving change linked to the roles he has played in matters of integration and organisation in multicultural environments. Commenting on the appointment, Wolfgang Reitzle, Chairman of the Holcim Board and future co-Chairman of LafargeHolcim said: “I very much welcome Eric Olsen as future CEO for LafargeHolcim. With his broad international experience and insights in key markets, he is best positioned to lead the combined company for the benefit of employees, shareholders and customers. Bruno and I will support Eric Olsen in creating a new joint culture that will be the key driver for our premier competitive position.” Lafarge Chairman and CEO, and future LafargeHolcim co-Chairman, Bruno Lafont said: “Eric has been proposed as future CEO of LafargeHolcim both for his personal and professional qualities.
    [Show full text]
  • Aggregates Market Investigation
    LAFARGE AGGREGATES LIMITED AND LAFARGE CEMENT UK LIMITED OVERVIEW SUBMISSION IN RESPONSE TO THE COMPETITION COMMISSION’S STATEMENT OF ISSUES NON-CONFIDENTIAL VERSION April, 2012 K&E 91146101.1 OVERVIEW SUBMISSION IN RESPONSE TO THE COMPETITION COMMISSION’S STATEMENT OF ISSUES 1. This Submission is made by Lafarge Aggregates Limited and Lafarge Cement UK Limited (together, “Lafarge”) in response to the Competition Commission’s (“CC”) Statement of Issues dated 8 March 2012. A. Executive Summary 2. The timing of the CC market investigation into the supply or acquisition of aggregates, cement and ready-mix concrete (“RMX”) (the “MIR”) presents a series of challenges for both the CC and market participants, including Lafarge: Market Decline. The MIR takes place against the backdrop of an economic downturn since 2008 which has been longer and more severe than any experienced by the construction materials industry within the last 30 years. The reduction in volumes has accelerated again in 2012 with year-on-year declines for the first quarter in excess of 10 per cent for aggregates and RMX, while GB cement volumes appear likely to decline or to remain flat at best in 2012. Industry forecasts do not predict any change in these trends before at least 2014, at which point demand is expected still to remain below levels seen in 2009. Any potential improvements will develop from a low base, resulting in sustained and significant levels of overcapacity. Combination of Lafarge and Tarmac. Lafarge announced in February 2011 the proposed combination of its UK construction materials business with that of Tarmac Limited (the “Proposed JV”).
    [Show full text]
  • Acquisition of Hope Construction Materials Creating the UK’S Largest Independent Building Materials Group 18 NOVEMBER 2015
    Acquisition of Hope Construction Materials Creating the UK’s largest independent building materials group 18 NOVEMBER 2015 BREEDON AGGREGATES 1 ACQUISITION OF HOPE CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS FOR £336 MILLION1 Creating the UK’s largest independent vertically-integrated building materials group • Hope is a leading independent producer of cement, aggregates and concrete • £202 million cash consideration and £134 million share consideration • Acquisition on a cash- and debt-free basis Strong strategic rationale for combination • Entry into cement market through one of the UK’s largest cement plants • Extended and highly complementary geographic footprint • Stronger platform for further bolt-on acquisitions and future growth Financially compelling and value-creating transaction • Double-digit underlying earnings accretion expected in first full year post-acquisition2 • Expected annual synergies of ~£10 million from operational improvements • A transformational deal, potentially nearly doubling Breedon’s annual underlying EBITDA 1 Subject to completion adjustments 2 This should not be construed as a profit forecast and should therefore not be interpreted to mean that earnings per share in any future financial period will necessarily match or be greater than those for the relevant preceding financial period BREEDON AGGREGATES 2 BREEDON AGGREGATES IS THE UK’S LEADING INDEPENDENT AGGREGATES BUSINESS Reserves and resources A fully-integrated aggregates company Over 500m tonnes Over 1,200 employees of owned or controlled mineral reserves and resources
    [Show full text]
  • Lafarge Document
    LAFARGE SHAREHOLDER’S GUIDE 2011 THE SHAREHOLDERS THE HEART OF LAFARGE PAGE 1 | LAFARGE | INDIVIDUAL SHAREHOLDER’S GUIDE 2011 1 LAFARGE IN 2010 06 Group Profile 09 Strategy and social commitments 11 Group Businesses BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND The Individual 2 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF LAFARGE Shareholders’ Relations Department is glad to 16 Board of Directors present you the individual 17 Executive Committee shareholders’ guide 2011. The purpose of this guide 3 LAFARGE ON THE STOCK MARKET is to answer your questions about Lafarge. 20 Lafarge stock 23 Dividend Who is the Group? 24 Distribution of capital What is its strategy 25 Actions affecting the shares in the last 10 years and commitments? How to stay informed? 4 LAFARGE SHAREHOLDERS We hope this guide will 28 Lafarge at your service meet your expectations 30 The Shareholders’ Consultative Committee and for further information, 31 General Meeting we recommend that you visit our website at www.lafarge.com, 5 MANAGE YOUR SHARES or contact the Individual Shareholders’ Relations 35 Share account Department 39 Buying or selling Lafarge shares (details on p. 45). 0 800 235 235 toll free number, for calls from France only. 1 Dear shareholders, 2 Bruno Lafont In 2010, numerous people joined us and today Lafarge has Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Lafarge. more than 270,000 individual shareholders, representing 11.1% of our shareholders base. In a difficult economic and stock market environment, this increase confirms your confidence and loyalty to Lafarge, for which I warmly grateful. For a very long time, individual shareholders have been a major focal point of Lafarge.
    [Show full text]
  • Acquisition of Hope 181115
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 18 November 2015 Breedon Aggregates Limited (“Breedon”) Breedon to acquire Hope Construction Materials Limited for £336m, creating the UK’s largest independent building materials group Breedon announces that it has entered into a conditional agreement with Cortolina Investments S.à.r.l. (the “Seller”) to acquire Hope Construction Materials Limited (“Hope”) for £336 million (the “Acquisition”). The combination of Breedon and Hope will create the UK’s leading independent producer of cement, concrete and aggregates and a vertically-integrated building materials group. The Acquisition is consistent with Breedon’s strategy of organic growth combined with the continuing consolidation of the smaller end of the UK heavyside building materials industry. Transaction highlights • Breedon has agreed definitive terms to acquire Hope for £336 million on a cash- and debt-free basis1 • Hope is a leading independent construction materials supplier in the UK with a national footprint of over 160 operational sites, including the Hope cement works in Derbyshire, 5 quarries and 152 concrete plants2 • In the 12 months ended 30 June 2015, Hope sold 1.6 million tonnes of cement3, 4.7 million tonnes of aggregates and 2.3 million cubic metres of concrete, generating revenue of £285.6 million and Underlying EBITDA of £37.0 million • The consideration for Hope will be payable in a combination of cash and new Ordinary Shares to be issued to Abicad Holding Limited (“Abicad”), an associated company of the Seller, upon completion of the Acquisition (“Completion”) 1 Subject to completion adjustments. 2 As at October 2015; includes co-located concrete sites and sites presently mothballed.
    [Show full text]
  • Cement in 1994, 1.3 Million Tons Was 1.17 Million Tons Or 10% of the Total
    CEMENT By Cheryl Solomon The industry's main product, portland California, Southern.—All other counties production, excluding Puerto Rico, increased by cement, makes up 95% of the total domestic in California. 5% to 74.3 million metric tons. production. The remainder comes from Chicago, Metropolitan.—The Illinois The industry operated 118 plants, including masonry, hydraulic, and aluminous cements. counties of Cook, DuPage, Kane, Kendall, 8 grinding facilities, to produce various types of In 1994, U.S. demand for cement increased Lake, McHenry, and Will. finished hydraulic cement. by approximately 7%. Domestic production of Illinois.—All other counties in Illinois. The size of individual companies, as a portland cement increased by 5%. Cement New York, Western.—All counties west of percentage of total U.S. finished cement imported for consumption increased to 11.3 a dividing line following the eastern boundaries production capacity, ranged from 0.4% to million metric tons. Portland cement values of Broome, Chenango, Lewis, Madison, 12.7%. The top 10 producing companies, in increased to approximately $61 per metric ton. Oneida, and St. Lawrence Counties. declining order of production, were Holnam New York, Eastern.—All counties east of Inc.; Lafarge Corp.; Essroc Materials, Inc., Legislation and Government Programs the aforementioned dividing line, except Southdown Inc.; Ash Grove Cement Co.; Blue At the beginning of the year, the Metropolitan New York. Circle Inc.; Lone Star Industries, Inc.; Lehigh Environmental Protection Agency announced New York, Metropolitan.—The five counties Portland Cement Co.; California Portland; and the availability of the agency's Report to of New York City (Bronx, Kings, New York, RC Cement Co., Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Download (13Mb)
    University of Warwick institutional repository: http://go.warwick.ac.uk/wrap A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD at the University of Warwick http://go.warwick.ac.uk/wrap/60315 This thesis is made available online and is protected by original copyright. Please scroll down to view the document itself. Please refer to the repository record for this item for information to help you to cite it. Our policy information is available from the repository home page. Monopoly Capitalism, Profits, Income Distribution and Unionism. Martin J. Conyon. f ( 0 I ' v" ' I» September 1991. , \ i ,',,' ,_ , A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Warwick CONTENTS Page List of Tables. v List of Figures. vii Acknowledgements viii Declaration. ix Abstract. x Chapter 1 Introduction. 1 Chapter 2 Profitability, income distribution and the degree of monopoly : recent U.K. experience. 5 2.1. Introduction. 5 2.2. Income distribution and the profit rate. 6 2.3. Income distribution, capacity utilisation, and the degree of monopoly 9 2.3.1. Monopoly capitalism, the profit rate and income distribution. 9 2.3.2. A stylised model of monopoly pricing and factor shares. 11 2.4. Recent U.K. evidence. 14 2.4.1. The degree of monopoly. 14 2.4.2. Proximate causes of the changes in the degree of monopoly. 16 2.4.3. Capacity utilisation, overhead costs and wages. 18 2.5 British corporate sector profitability and the functional distribution of income, 1963-1989 : introduction. 19 2.6. The decomposition of the rate of profit.
    [Show full text]
  • CRR 446/2002 a Study of the Provision of Health and Safety Information in the Annual Reports of the Top UK Companies
    HSE Health & Safety Executive A study of the provision of health and safety information in the annual reports of the top UK companies Prepared by System Concepts Ltd for the Health and Safety Executive CONTRACT RESEARCH REPORT 446/2002 HSE Health & Safety Executive A study of the provision of health and safety information in the annual reports of the top UK companies Laura Peebles, Ansgar Kupper and Tanya Heasman System Concepts Ltd 2 Savoy Court Strand London WC2R 0EZ This report details the findings of a research project to investigate the quality and quantity of health and safety information found in the annual reports of the top UK companies. At present, publicly listed companies are not legally required to include health and safety matters in their annual reports. The current Health and Safety Commission (HSC) Strategy Statement, however, contains an action point which focuses on public reporting of health and safety issues by larger companies. The aim is to promote the reporting of health and safety information in company annual reports and to provide guidance that would allow reporting of such information to a common standard. To assist the HSC with this strategy, System Concepts were commissioned by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to undertake an investigation of the provision of health and safety information in company annual reports. The study comprised a series of steps. The main objectives of the study were: i) To determine the current level of reporting of health and safety issues in annual reports of the top UK companies ii) To determine the quality of health and safety information reported.
    [Show full text]
  • Westbury Your Your
    37th established 1967 Edition 20 Maps & A-Z dentons of Businessesdentons 20 your Westbury directory Westbury 2020 © Hugh Llewelyn | Flickr.com Bratton Camp INDEPENDENT FAMILY FUNERAL DIRECTOR ‘Comprehensive Domestic & Commercial Service’ • Rewires • New builds & renovations • All lighting design • Fuse board upgrade • Alarm systems • CCTV and much more 24 hour service - quietly serving Westbury & surrounding villages for more than 60 years 01373 822764 01373 253128 [email protected] [email protected] www.arthurwmays.co.uk www.allelectricalsw.co.uk Septic Tank Emptying Providing our trusted service to the • Window cleaning West Country • Gutter clear & clean • Jet wash of driveways, patios, for 40 years fencing etc. 01373 451232 Tel: 01963 370924 www.jcsjetwash.co.uk www.wessexwaste.co.uk [email protected] Domain Name Website Services Hosting Website Design & Build LinkedIn Facebook SEO Services Advertising Campaigns Thought we were just a directory? Think again... Business Card Design & Print Print Services Mailshot Big & Small Campaigns By Email or Post For a hassle free quote or more info please call Letterheads, 0844 776 1967 Leaflets, Compliment Slips etc. etc. FOR MORE DETAILS ON OUR PRIVACY POLICY PLEASE VISIT OUR WEBSITE Contact us: Dentons Directories Ltd., Bridge House, Stati on Road, Westbury, BA13 4HR • www.dentonsdirectories.com 2 • search online at dentons.net A A ACCESS EQUIPMENT ADVERTISING & SEE PLANT & MACHINERY; SCAFFOLDING PROMOTIONAL PRODUCTS A B SEE SIGNS ACCOMMODATION A C SEE BED & BREAKFAST; CAMPING
    [Show full text]
  • Decision of Consent Tarmac Breedon
    Decision on Tarmac Trading Limited request for consent to reacquire 27 RMX plants from Breedon Group PLC The CMA’s decision on Tarmac Trading Limited request for consent to reacquire 27 RMX plnts from Breedon Group PLC given on 26 April 2018. Full text of the decision published on 15 May 2018. Please note that [] indicates figures or text which have been deleted or replaced in ranges at the request of the parties for reasons of commercial confidentiality. Summary 1. The CMA has decided to give Tarmac Trading Limited (Tarmac) consent to reacquire 27 ready-mix concrete (RMX) plants listed in Annex 1 from Breedon Group PLC (the Acquisition). As set out in detail below, this consent is required as a result of undertakings given to the Competition Commission (CC)1 on 26 July 2012 by Anglo American PLC (Anglo American), Anglo American Finance (UK) Limited, Lafarge S.A. (Lafarge), and Lafarge UK Holdings Limited and TL One Limited (JVCo) under section 82 of the Enterprise Act 2002 (the Act). 2. This consent is independent of, and without prejudice to, the CMA’s review of whether the Acquisition gives rise to a realistic prospect of a substantial lessening of competition (SLC) under section 33 of the Act.2 Background 3. On 1 May 2012, the CC published a report on the anticipated construction materials joint venture between Anglo American and Lafarge (Anglo 1 On 1 April 2014 the CMA took over the functions of the CC and the competition and certain consumer functions of the Office of Fair Trading (OFT).
    [Show full text]
  • Anglo American Announces Its Intention to Sell Its 50% Interest in Lafarge Tarmac to Lafarge for a Minimum Value of £885 Millio
    NEWS RELEASE 7 July 2014 Anglo American announces its intention to sell its 50% interest in Lafarge Tarmac to Lafarge for a minimum value of £885 million ($1.5 billion) (subject to Lafarge / Holcim merger related conditions, including Lafarge Tarmac being deemed an acceptable divestment remedy by the regulators) Anglo American plc ("Anglo American") announces that it has reached an agreement in principle for the sale of its 50% ownership interest in Lafarge Tarmac Holdings Limited ("Lafarge Tarmac" or the "JV") to Lafarge SA ("Lafarge") for a minimum value of £885 million (approximately $1.5 billion) in cash, on a debt and cash free basis and subject to other customary working capital adjustments. An announcement is being made at this stage as Lafarge intends to offer a full divestment of the JV to the European Commission as a remedy for the UK market in respect of the proposed merger of Lafarge and Holcim Ltd (“Holcim”). Under the terms of the in principle agreement, which is not legally binding, the sale will be subject to a number of conditions including the completion of the Lafarge /Holcim merger, the divestment of Lafarge Tarmac being accepted as a suitable remedy and approval of this sale transaction by the necessary regulators. Lafarge and Holcim have announced that they expect the merger to be completed in the first half of 2015. Anglo American and Lafarge will work towards finalising the terms of a definitive agreement in Q3 2014. In the event that a subsequent divestment of Lafarge Tarmac is agreed within 18 months of this sale being completed, then Anglo American will participate in a minority proportion of the upside beyond a small premium to the terms of this proposed transaction.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a Companies Excluded from the Sample
    Appendix A Companies Excluded from the Sample The 504 companies excluded from the sample are identified below. Along with the company name the original Times 1000 rank number (1970) is given. Reasons for exclusion are: - Company is not British. - Company is not the parent company. - Company has been taken over or has been subject to merger during the study period. - Company is not public quoted. - Company is a bank, finance house or similar. - Company has gone into liquidation during the study period. - Company is government-owned or -controlled. - 50 per cent or more of company shares are within a single holding, i.e. effectively giving outside. control. - Company has completely reformed its capital structure (e.g. by unbundling), thus voiding data continuity. Times 1000 Times 1000 Rank no. Company name Rank no. Company name (1970) (1970) 445 Aberdare Holdings 609 Army & Navy Stores 540 A D International 444 Aspro-Nicholas 477 Adams Butter 013 Associated British Foods 905 Advance Electronics 495 Associated British Maltsters 762 Aerialite 715 Atkinson Lorries 464 Aire Wool 868 Atlas Stone 093 Albright & Wilson 836 Austin-Hall Group 162 Alcan Aluminium 953 Australian Agriculture 349 Alcoa of Great Britain 151 Australian Estates Co. 682 Edgar Allen 330 Averys 661 Alliance Alders 599 A VP Industries 664 Allied English Potteries 630 A W Securities 045 Allied Suppliers 241 Bakelite Xylonite 040 Amalgamated Metal Corpora 613 Balfour Darwins tion 611 Bambergers 880 Jeremiah Ambler 837 Banbury Buildings Holdings 392 Arney Group 718 Bardolin 442 Anglo Thai Corporation 941 Barr & Stroud 388 Armour & Co. 897 Barrow Barnsley 177 178 The Strategy and Performance of British Industry, 1970-80 Times 1000 Times 1000 Rank no.
    [Show full text]