Author: Charlotte Gill

Making waves in the debate around artificial reefs

Posted on by Charlotte Gill

Aaran against

One of the regular arguments against any artificial structure – reefs or otherwise – is that it is not ‘natural’. But anyone that uses this line of reasoning to try and denounce the use or efficacy of artificial reefs is simply unwilling or unable to face facts. The damage we have done to our oceans is vast, and nature alone cannot reverse what man has done – at least not while we still exist on this planet.

Man-made reefs not only act as bastions for marine life, but also help drive fishermen and divers away from natural reefs

Man-made reefs have many uses and, though they may appear to be something of a relatively new invention, the reality is they have been around for centuries. In fact, the Japanese used them as far back as the 17th century as a tool for improving fish stocks, while the US, Australia and New Zealand have sunk many ships to use as makeshift diving attractions in bids to tempt tourists to sample their shores. But, most importantly, artificial reefs have helped support nearby natural reefs, which provide a home for over 25 percent of all marine life on our planet.

Due to years of pollution, over fishing and a host of other harmful human practices, over 350 million acres of natural coral reef has been destroyed. Man-made reefs not only act as bastions for the marine life that has lost its natural habitat, but also help drive fishermen and divers away from natural reefs, offering them a moment’s reprieve from man’s incessant activity.

Artificial reefs provide many benefits, and not just in helping to protect the natural environment and the ecosystems on which the fate of future generations depend. In Plymouth, England, sinking the HMS Scylla, an old Leander-class frigate of the Royal Navy, and allowing nature to take its course has helped revive part of the city’s economy, bringing in more than £1.1m each year from the local dive industry. “In real terms”, says Neville Copperthwaite, a marine consultant and project coordinator of Weymouth and Portland Wreck to Reef, “it means people get to keep their jobs and new ones are created, enabling coastal communities to stay together and thrive.”

Man-made reefs embody the new paradigm for environmental sustainability, which sees social and economic development as inextricably linked to environmental protection.

That is consistent with the UN World Commission on Environment and Development, which defined sustainability as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. The second of the two key points it highlighted within that definition (the first being the needs of the world’s poor) was that the environment’s ability to meet present and future needs should not be compromised.

In an ideal world, there would be no need for artificial reefs, but that is not the world we live in. This, sadly, is the state of modern conservationism. The only way to go down the ‘natural’ route would be, as some people suggest, to simply stop importing oil and halting the use of fossil fuels altogether, but that would have a catastrophic impact on our societies. Not to mention create a reality that many people would find themselves uncomfortable in accepting. If people really want to live in a world full of iPhones, fast cars and holidays to far-off lands, then fossil fuels are here to stay. And, if people are serious about ensuring biodiversity in our planet’s oceans, then artificial reefs are too.

Laura against

Whoever came up with the idea of tossing cars, tyres and potentially pollutant-riddled ships into the ocean with the aim of creating ‘artificial reefs’ clearly liked the idea of control. The ocean is one of the only natural spaces left on the planet. Sinking 2,500 New York subway cars into it (as has been the case so far under the Artificial Reef Project run by the tourism boards of the US’ East Coast states) means slapping the seas with the big almighty hand of humankind and damaging yet another part of the Earth.

Artificial reefs can attract invasive species, upsetting the natural balance

Yes, artificial reef makers set out with all good, environmentally motivated intentions. But artificial reefs can cause harm. If they are not planned and built carefully, they will disrupt natural habitats and displace the very fish they are supposedly trying to save.

Construction and deployment of such reefs can create debris, pollution and accidental damage, and the materials used can contain toxic materials that give off harmful pollutants. Regardless of how much care is taken in testing, cleaning and stripping artificial reefs, it’s impossible to predict exactly what effect they’ll have on surrounding ecosystems 10 or 20 years down the line.

In the 1970s, two million old tyres were thrown into Florida’s oceans to expand the artificial Osborne Reef. They failed to attract sea life as intended, broke apart from one another and ended up floating through the sea, leaving destruction in their wake. The US military didn’t set about cleaning up the remains of the disaster until 2007.

In 2000, an artificial surfing reef was sunk off the coast of El Segundo, near Los Angeles, with the aim of creating an alternative spot for budding surfers; it didn’t work and was removed two years earlier than planned out of environmental concerns.

As you can see, artificial reefs aren’t always as robust as natural ones. Powerful storms can sweep them away to unintended regions, causing damage to natural reefs.

According to US environmental advocacy group Ocean Conservancy, artificial reefs can also cause an unnaturally high concentration of marine life, exposing organisms to overfishing. And they can attract invasive species, upsetting the natural balance, according to a report by the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Unlike natural reefs, they’re also frequently left off the map, meaning fishing vessels and other ships can sail over and destroy them without ever knowing it.

Benefits to diving tourism and economies are often cited as reasons to support artificial reefs; in Florida they’re meant to divert divers away from natural ones. But they can also be self-defeating by encouraging more visitors and divers to come, causing more damage. That might be good for the local economy in the short term, but it’s only a matter of time before people start to seek out less popular, more natural and as yet undamaged alternatives as a result of excessive tourism around the artificial attractions.

What artificial reefs do is suggest it is OK to carry on producing, consuming and diving at ridiculously excessive levels, because there’s an apparent solution lying under that inviting azure sea. But disrupting natural habitats, releasing toxic pollutants and filling up the Earth’s only remaining untouched spaces seems a hefty price to pay for the sake of appeasing the guilty consciences of our over-consuming selves.

Tech M&As soar, but startups get swallowed

Posted on by Charlotte Gill

Facebook’s highly anticipated $19bn acquisition of WhatsApp last year seemed to mark the culmination of a growing trend in the tech industry; the biggest giants are snapping up some of the hottest startups, and they’re doing it more frequently than ever before. Over the past few years, everyone from Yahoo to Google, and from Facebook to Cisco has been in on the game, setting out on billion-dollar spending sprees to bolster their offerings.

But last year saw particularly noteworthy growth, with the number of tech M&As across the world in the first half of the year hitting the highest level since the millennium, and year-on-year growth for the period totalling a staggering 55 percent. $70.1bn was spent on acquisitions in the first quarter alone – double the sum of the same quarter the previous year – and the momentum isn’t anticipated to slow down any time soon.

The flurry is being driven by a range of factors, not least the increasingly common acqui-hire trend, whereby the big names buy startups with the intention of closing them down and keeping the talent. Startup acquisitions are also frequently being made as a means of helping the key players to remain at the top of the innovation leagues, according to Martin Zwilling, CEO and founder of Startup Professionals: “Every large company develops an internal inertia which makes innovation difficult”, he says, adding that it’s faster and cheaper to develop technologies by acquiring startups than by developing from within.

$70.1bn

Spent on tech M&As, Q1 2014

A game of monopoly
Aggressive M&A activity is frequently hailed as beneficial: it can mark an incentive for people to launch startups in the first place, according to Will Mitchell, professor and author of Build, Borrow or Buy. That cycle can, of course, be economically advantageous, generating funds that will then be invested in the local economy and into new companies.

But the potentially damaging implications of excessive acquisition activity are often ignored. Constant startup acquisitions can leave a few key players dominating, creating the sort of environment conducive to duopolies or even monopolies. Google holds a pretty firm grip on the search engine market, while Facebook has a hold over the social media sector, as Jeff Clavier, founder of Silicon Valley firm SoftTech VC recognises: “You could argue that, with 1.3 billion users, Facebook is sort of a monopoly in the social network space”, he says.

Indeed, in the US last year, Facebook owned four of the top 10 iOS and Google Play downloads (Facebook Messenger, Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp), according to a report by analytics provider App Annie. If Mark Zuckerberg’s empire continues on its aggressive buying tract, that 40 percent could grow to an even more dominant portion.

Clavier says: “WhatsApp has a monstrous user base and Facebook thought that eventually the size of the user base and the retention they have would become a competitor for Facebook, so they decided to bring them into the fold for this massive price.”

Limiting potential
Buying out and shutting down competitors as Facebook did with Instagram and WhatsApp is a common driver for the flurry of startup acquisitions in a wider context, according to tech writer Josh Constantine: “You end up with a choice: [the new startups] either eat your lunch or you buy their lunch. They disrupt you, or you acquire them,” he wrote in an article for TechCrunch. But as the key players grow their market share more and more, so it becomes ever harder for the smaller startups to develop independently and compete. As those smaller players struggle to compete with the bigger names, it becomes evermore necessary for them to be bought out – creating a vicious circle that further propels the dominant names towards duopoly status.

And the firms being bought can face negative consequences as a result of the acquisitions. “A small independent firm… has the freedom to do it what it wants and do it quickly”, Mitchell says. “Once it becomes part of a larger organisation… it inevitably faces some bureaucracy, it has to fit into the strategic objectives of the new owner, and that’ll slow it down.”

And according to Zwilling, the acquired company may find itself completely devoured by its parent: “The startup entity and brand are usually folded into the acquirer and disappear”, he says. That’s especially true with regard to talent acquisitions; startups that might have otherwise flourished are shut down – which also means reducing the number of apps available to consumers.

That’s not to deny the reality that acquisitions can, in some instances, fuel startup growth: PayPal, bought by eBay for $1.5bn in 2002, grew so rapidly it is now going independent and is set for an IPO this year, while YouTube, acquired by Google for $1.65bn in 2006, reached a valuation of $40bn according to an analysis by Jefferies last year. But such stories are few and far between.

Clavier argues startups sometimes make the wrong move in agreeing to a buyout. “There’s always the question of, did you sell too early or should you have sold?”, he says, adding that one of SoftTech’s startups, Niche (which connects celebrities on social media channels with brands to create advertising), could have achieved substantial growth independently. Instead, Twitter bought it for a fifth or even 10th of its potential future price.

Startups dissolving
Mitchell argues most startups wouldn’t reach big-name status if they weren’t bought out, and that most are relying on an acquisition for greater access to resources such as cash, technology, talent and a larger consumer base. But the truth is it’s impossible to know what stage they’d have reached independently because the majority are acquired before ever hitting the IPO level – meaning the future Facebooks, Googles and Amazons could be dissolving away under the stranglehold of the more dominant names.

As they do so, they boost the larger players yet further, moving them ever closer to –opoly status. Mitchell and Clavier argue a full-on monopoly or duopoly will never be seen, because new technologies will come along to replace the likes of Facebook and co.

In the earlier dotcom days, that was certainly the case: newer, smaller companies were able to compete with, and eventually outrun, the likes of Microsoft by winning on the innovation front. But times have changed. Now the dominant players simply incorporate the new technologies into their own bodies through constant acquisitions, growing bigger and bigger by swallowing up the smaller players.

In so doing, the market leaders remove anything that might one day stand in their way, combining the advantages of scale and resources with innovation acquired from outside. That creates a powerful concoction, and it’s one against which new companies are likely to find themselves extremely hard-pressed to compete. Although it might not quite take the giants to monopoly status, it is giving them an undeniably high level of power and a scale that’s not to be undermined.

The deflation/inflation balancing act

Posted on by Charlotte Gill

In 1923, John Maynard Keynes addressed a fundamental economic question that remains valid today. “Inflation is unjust and deflation is inexpedient”, he wrote. “Of the two perhaps deflation is… the worse; because it is worse… to provoke unemployment than to disappoint the rentier. But it is not necessary that we should weigh one evil against the other.”

The logic of the argument seems irrefutable. Because many contracts are ‘sticky’ (that is, not easily revised) in monetary terms, inflation and deflation would both inflict damage on the economy. Rising prices reduce the value of savings and pensions, while falling prices reduce profit expectations, encourage hoarding, and increase the real burden of debt.

The price level at any time is the result of many factors, of which monetary policy is perhaps the
least important

Keynes’s dictum has become the ruling wisdom of monetary policy (one of his few to survive). Governments, according to the conventional wisdom, should aim for stable prices, with a slight bias toward inflation to stimulate the “animal spirits” of businessmen and shoppers.

In the 10 years prior to the 2008 financial crisis, independent central banks set an inflation target of about two percent, in order to provide economies with a price-stability ‘anchor’. There should be no expectation that prices would be allowed to deviate, except temporarily, from the target. Uncertainty relating to the future course of prices would be eliminated from business calculations.

Since 2008, the Federal Reserve Board and the European Central Bank have failed to meet the two percent inflation target in any year; the Bank of England (BoE) has been on target in only one year out of seven. Moreover, in 2015, prices in the US, the eurozone, and the UK are set to fall. So what is left of the inflation anchor? And what do falling prices mean for economic recovery?

An expensive spike
The first thing to bear in mind is that the anchor was always as flimsy as the monetary theory on which it was based. The price level at any time is the result of many factors, of which monetary policy is perhaps the least important. Today, the collapse in the price of crude oil is probably the most significant factor driving inflation below target, just as in 2011 it was the rise in oil prices that drove it above target.

As British economist Roger Bootle pointed out in his 1996 book The Death of Inflation, the price-cutting effects of globalisation have been a much more important influence on the price level than the anti-inflation policies of central banks. Indeed, the post-crisis experience of quantitative easing has highlighted monetary policy’s relative powerlessness to offset the global deflationary trend. From 2009 to 2011, the BoE pumped £375bn into the British economy “to bring inflation back to target”. The Fed injected $3trn over a slightly longer period. The most that can be claimed for this vast monetary expansion is that it produced a temporary ‘spike’ in inflation.

The old adage applies: “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.” People cannot be forced to spend money if they have good reasons for not doing so. If business prospects are weak, companies are unlikely to invest; if households are drowning in debt, they are unlikely to go on a spending spree.

Fear of falling
So what happens to the recovery if we fall into what is euphemistically called ‘negative inflation’? Until now, the consensus view has been that this would be bad for output and employment. Keynes gave the reason in 1923: “The fact of falling prices”, he wrote, “injures entrepreneurs; consequently the fear of falling prices causes them to protect themselves by curtailing their operations.”

But many commentators have been cheered by the prospect of falling prices. They distinguish between ‘benign disinflation’ and ‘bad deflation’. Benign disinflation means rising real incomes for lenders, pensioners and workers, and falling energy prices for industry. All sectors of the economy will spend more, pushing up output and employment (and sustaining the price level, too). By contrast, ‘bad deflation’ means an increase in the real burden of debt. A debtor contracts to pay a fixed sum in interest every year. If the value of money goes up (prices fall), the interest he pays will cost him more, in terms of goods and services he can buy, than if prices had stayed the same (in the reverse, inflationary case, the interest will cost him less). Thus, price deflation means debt inflation, and a higher debt burden means lower spending. Given the huge levels of outstanding private and public debt, bad deflation, as Bootle writes, “is a nightmare almost beyond imagining”.

But how can we stop benign disinflation from turning into bad deflation? Apostles of monetary expansion believe that all you have to do is speed up the printing press. But why should this be any more successful in the future than it has been in the last few years?

Avoiding deflation – and thus sustaining economic recovery – would seem to depend on one of two scenarios: either a rapid reversal in the fall of energy prices, or a deliberate policy to raise output and employment by means of public investment (which, as a by-product, would bring about a rise in prices). But this would mean reversing the priority given to deficit reduction.

No one can tell when the first will happen and no governments are prepared to do the second. So the most likely outcome is more of the same: continued drift in a state of semi-stagnation.

Robert Skidelsky, a member of the British House of Lords, is Professor Emeritus of Political Economy at Warwick University.

Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2015.

Turning city waste into biofuels

Posted on by Charlotte Gill

By 2050, over two-thirds of the world’s population will live in cities. Urban infrastructure is already running well over capacity and innovative solutions are required to cope with this mass migration. Combine this with the fact that cities are also responsible for 80 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions and it becomes clear city life requires a rethink if it is going to meet the challenges of climate change and rising population growth.

One man who has begun reimagining the modern-day metropolis is Arthur Kay, founding partner of bio-bean, a company that turns London’s waste coffee grounds into advanced biofuels. We got the chance to chat with him.

What led you to become a founding partner in bio-bean?
My background is actually architecture, but more broadly, I am interested in the urban economy, focusing on extracting value from waste and other choice aspects from within the city. This enabled me to come up with the idea, but also gave me the skills from which to set up a business off the back of it.

It is quite unusual, I think, for someone to start outside their normal sphere and come to run a business that is not within their direct area of expertise or interest. Mine is neither in waste management nor even in biofuels; I am a generalist.

500,000

Tonnes of waste coffee grounds produced in the UK each year

Do you think your position initially as an outsider has given you a unique perspective on the renewable energy industry?
I really do actually. I think first a fresh-eyed approach, looking at challenges and problems from a different perspective. I came up with the idea while designing a coffee shop and coffee roasting facility, and looking at how to build a waste stream, by using a, at the time, relatively theoretical idea of using waste to power and heat buildings, which is not what most waste managers, or indeed most coffee shops, would be thinking about. This enabled me to come up with the idea, and also to develop some of the technology to industrialise the process.

How does the technology behind bio-bean work?
The front end is logistical: we work with existing waste contractors to piggyback off the supply chain, instead of putting additional trucks on the roads. We work with coffee shops and coffee factories to acquire that waste and then bring it to our facility, which is just outside London.

We use a drying technology and then an oil extraction technology, and finally a pelletising technology to valorise these wastes and turn them into two end products. The first is a biomass pellet, and the second is a biodiesel. The pellet is used in biomass boilers for heating buildings and the biodiesel is used in standard combustion engines to power vehicles.

What is the size of that market?
The biomass pellet market in the UK, we are talking about several million tonnes a year, with the Drax power station [in North Yorkshire] alone consuming about four million tonnes a year. In terms of the biodiesel market, we are talking about billions of litres in the EU, so both are very large markets and definitely well established. And I say this with a pinch of salt after the recent oil price debacle, but relatively stable markets too.

Coffee grounds are also used as fertiliser and in anaerobic digestion plants. Does that make them harder to get hold of?
I wouldn’t say it impacts us in terms of the scale that we are talking about at bio-bean, but it certainly does with how the consumer perceives it.

The first thing to mention is that we are not a bespoke or small-scale solution to this problem. We have industrialised the process and it is at that industrial scale that we are really looking to treat and deal. The UK alone produces about 500,000 tonnes of waste coffee grounds each year. That is a lot of fertiliser to spread on your geraniums. Even the most ambitious listeners of Radio 4’s Gardeners’ Question Time would struggle, so it is really about applying this technology at an industrial scale.

From my perspective, it is very good that people can use coffee grounds on their roses or to grow their mushrooms, but we are looking to work with some very, very big organisations at both ends of the supply chain in order to raise the whole industry, rather than looking at smaller scale, bespoke solutions.

What are the differences between your method and that employed by anaerobic digestion plants?
Anaerobic digestion is great because it is relatively simple. It is a very inefficient technology in some cases, and it is also quite capital-intensive. It is better than landfilling, that is for sure, but it is not actively positive for the environment. It remains one step off our technology: we have zero-percent waste and produce two carbon-neutral biofuels.

What is the ambition behind bio-bean?
I see the city as the most important space for human beings going forward. With an increasing urban population globally, I think the main challenges we face today, whether they be waste, energy, infrastructure, access to water or even our collective physical and mental well being, are challenges we feel more extremely in cities. My interest is in coming up with innovative solutions to city living, of which this is one, but I hope to set up companies and organisations that deliver further solutions of this nature.

Bio-bean is step one, certainly from a personal perspective, but also with bio-bean we are looking to valorise not just coffee waste streams but a whole host of additional waste streams that are currently a cost to get rid of, with nothing presently being done about them. These are things we would love to get our hands on in order to provide solutions that are positive for the economy and, obviously, the environment.

You’ve said you want to create a business structure that is environmentally and socially conscious. Could you elaborate?
I can’t go into too much detail about some of the ideas I am currently developing, but I can give you examples of what other people are doing from around the world that I think are pretty exciting.

One that is fantastic, which is happening in Santiago, in Chile, is looking to provide a very simple solution to the lowest common denominator step up from slum dwelling. So, again, providing a mass solution at a very, very cheap cost. What that company essentially does is add concrete shelters onto existing houses that can be » adapted and retrofitted as people move up the economic ladder. They simply provide a shell of a house, with water and electricity going into it. It is the retrofitting approach to council housing, and allows the inhabitants, as they move up the economic ladder, to adapt it to their personal needs and the environment.

Another example is a delivery drone, so, instead of a pizza or a package being delivered by courier or even the Royal Mail, this is a small electric drone, which essentially acts as your postman in the morning, your delivery boy at night, or a special delivery on a bespoke basis.

The final example, which I think is pretty exciting, is in Beijing. It has not been brought to market yet, but it has a rollout plan. The Chinese have developed what has been termed a ‘straddling bus’: a bus that essentially has runners either side of the road and can transport people at a fraction of the cost of developing rail infrastructure. It essentially piggybacks off the existing road infrastructure and can carry hundreds, if not thousands, of passengers at one time, at a very low cost, as well as reducing a lot of congestion at the same time.

Those are just three examples that are quite exciting projects, and projects that represent what cities in the next 20 to 30 years are going to look like.

Do you think the political environment in the UK is conducive to accomplishing the necessary environmental objectives?
Broadly speaking, I think yes, because I am not advocating scrapping everything and starting again, or even a huge change in political direction. I am more suggesting that, as part of our economic fabric, the environment and social values will increasingly need to play a role. You know, there are a number of very big companies that are beginning to understand this. Environmental strategies used to be a nice tagalong for business, but they are increasingly becoming essential.

I think, in the ideal world, you would not need to have environmental strategies and programmes in place because they would become so central to what the business did anyway, because, if they didn’t, it would cost so much it would become economically unviable. Of course, they would want to recycle because they could use that material in their next set of mobile phones or whatever business it is. It is about building that change into every aspect of people’s lives and organisations so it becomes the norm, as opposed to the exception. I think currently, it is still the exception, but increasingly less so.

To answer your point about what government should be doing, frankly, I would hope that governments would be leading from the front, however, that is not what we can expect. In an ideal world, yes, the government would be dictating to those businesses that they think aren’t doing a good enough job, but evidently that is not the case. But the key is to understand that it is not about putting heavy tariffs in place or bullying business. Instead, it should be made more attractive for businesses to do the right thing than the wrong thing. That is what I think government should be doing.

Arthur Kay, a founding partner of bio-bean, has various environmental plans
Arthur Kay, a founding partner of bio-bean, has various environmental plans

UN scientists say the world must cut all CO2 emissions by 2070 to prevent a global catastrophe. Is that achievable?
80 percent of emissions come from cities and I would suggest that, if we want to solve the problem, we should stop talking about global climate change and start talking about urban climate change. Because, if 80 percent of emissions do come from cities, then let’s address it where the problem lies, as opposed to talking to the world as if everyone is equally at fault, when it is clearly down to 400 cities around the world with million-plus populations. Let’s talk to those cities, rather than the whole world. And let’s come up with solutions that directly solve their challenges and problems. That is the low-hanging fruit.

Do you think different cities should specialise in different renewable industries?
I think that is critical, because you can’t apply a solar solution as effectively in Glasgow as you could in Marrakech. If it is going to be a carbon-neutral solution, we have to rely on the cities’ natural surroundings heavily and be aware that we are not going to take a step back economically or culturally as a result of these solutions, which are scalable to meet the challenges that we face today. Because, if we do what some people suggest – which is to simply stop importing oil and halt the use of fossil fuels – you know, that would have huge catastrophic impacts on our societies’ as it stands today.

Do you think those in the coffee industry are doing enough to protect against climate change?
Coffee is a fascinating crop and it gives a very interesting metric in terms of how we are
doing in a number of aspects, not just climate change, but economically. It is an absolutely massive industry and very well vertically integrated. It is also the second most traded tropical good in the world, after petroleum. It is an indicator.

In my own experience, we have focused very specifically on the human element on the coffee story, and rightly so. We have previously looked at the front end of the supply chain; the Fairtrade Foundation and Rainforest Alliance stand as a testament to that. Frankly, after people drink it, they do not care what happens to it, and so our interest is very much in terms of, you know, we drink over a couple of a hundred billions cups of coffee globally each year, and 100 percent of that, in terms of used coffee grounds, is wasted. It’s fantastic that we are focused on the front end of the supply chain, however, let’s also look after it once we are done drinking it, because we are turning our back on it currently.

Panama Canal expansion to enhance global trade

Posted on by Charlotte Gill

Over the last century, the dramatic increase in global trade has transformed the world into a thriving, bustling marketplace. With rapidly soaring demand throughout the world, trade routes have become busier and the strains on global logistics much greater. When the Panama Canal opened in 1914, it transformed the landscape for global shipping and allowed speedier access to destinations for traders. It has served the US particularly well, allowing far greater access to the East Coast than before, while transforming large parts of Central America too.

A sea route through this part of the world had been seen as an extremely attractive way of cutting the time it took to pass between the Pacific Coast and the Atlantic, but it wasn’t until the end of the 19th century that work properly began to cut through the region. France attempted to construct a sea-level canal, excavating huge amounts of land to make way, but ultimately abandoned the project. The US would go on to complete the project in 1913. In 2013, more than 12,000 ships carrying well over 200 million tonnes of cargo travelled through the canal.

144

Trade routes pass through the canal

$6.2bn

The canal’s predicted annual revenue by 2025

The Panama Canal in 2013:

12,000

Ships passed through

200m

Tonnes of cargo carried

Much-needed expansion
Though it has operated effectively for over a century, the need for expansion has been apparent for a number of years. The existing two-lock canal has restricted the size and volume of ships that can pass through, ultimately hindering the flow of trade.

As globalisation has gathered pace over the last century and new markets have sprung up, the pressure being placed on international trade routes has intensified. While it once served the world to great effect, routes have emerged during the last few decades that have challenged the Panama Canal’s status as the primary passageway for the world’s cargo ships. Coupled with the increasing size of these ships, it became clear at the turn of the millennium that a massive expansion of the Panama Canal was necessary if it was to keep up with global demand.

By 2006, the issue of expansion had become top of the agenda for Panama’s leaders, with then-president Martín Torrijos saying: “Just like the petroleum that has not been extracted is worthless and that, in order to extract it, you have to invest in infrastructure, the canal requires to expand its capacity to absorb the growing demand of cargo and generate more wealth for Panamanians.”

A massive expansion scheme was therefore announced that year and work began in 2007. With costs initially estimated at around $5.25bn, it represented a huge investment into a transformative new infrastructure project that would double the capacity of the Panama Canal. The project would include the construction of two new locks either side of the canal, the excavation of new channels that access the locks, a widening and deepening of the existing channels, and a raising of the maximum operating level of the Gatun Lake.

The project has proven popular with a number of international investors, with the Panama Canal Authority (ACP) securing loans from the likes of the Inter-American Development Bank, the Japan Bank for International Cooperation, the European Investment Bank, and the International Finance Corporation.

Originally intended for completion in the latter half of last year, the project has been beset by delays and cost overruns. In 2012, it was announced the project would be delayed by six months to early 2015, but that projection has since been shifted to some time at the beginning of next year.

The costs of the project have also been huge, with the initial estimated price being $5.25bn for the design, construction, testing, environmental mitigation, and other potential unforeseen costs. However, much of this money is going towards building the two new lock complexes, with each costing around $1bn. While these costs seem high for a developing nation, it is thought that the canal’s annual revenues could reach more than $6.2bn by 2025. However, these figures have been contested by a number of prominent Panamanians concerned about the impact on the rest of the economy.

Other opponents of the expansion have cited the impact on the environment that such a massive engineering project will have. While the ACP has claimed the environment – including forests, national parks, archaeological sites and local agriculture – will not be permanently damaged, campaigners worry it will irreparably harm the landscape. Others have claimed the quality of water in the region will be seriously worsened, with fears water supply may also be affected.

Impact on global trade
Such an expansion of a key trading route will inevitably have a big impact on global trade. A report published in October by Scotiabank said: “The expansion will have positive effects in many countries, but the primary beneficiary will likely be the United States. China, Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Ecuador also stand to gain as transport economics for oil, coal, copper and LNG improve, while Brazil and Argentina are unlikely to see any material benefits during the first years of operation. Improved shipping infrastructure will better lubricate international commerce and allow for a realignment of trade flows — what that looks like exactly, however, has yet to be determined.”

For US ports, in particular, such an influx of new trade routes and larger ships will mean a need to improve port infrastructure. At the same time, some industries that previously shipped to certain ports might change their routes. A study published last year by the Pacific Maritime Association, the shipping industry body that serves the West Coast ports of the US, suggested a considerable amount of work was needed if ports were going to harness the benefits of the newly expanded Panama Canal: “The impact of canal widening can best be understood in terms of risk versus uncertainty. The risk concerns balance sheet investments that will affect volumes and shipping rates (except for certain commodities such as fast fashion and electronics). Containerisation has by and large produced a steady decline in shipping rates for more than two decades. These major new investments may well continue the logic of rate decline. The uncertainty lies in the timing and economic geography of ‘winners’ who serve the Midwest market battleground. West Coast ports will need to respond with aggressive and innovative measures to avoid losing significant market share once the widened canal is fully operational.”

The report added certain industries may well shift to other ports, but those that need to access the market quickly will likely remain: “Ocean carriers will trade off lower prices for increased revenues on all-water routes for those products where speed is secondary (e.g. household goods, appliances and furniture), but ‘fast fashion retailers’ will remain in the domain of [West Coast ports] as speed to market is still key.”

The report concludes: “Uncertainty, as many economists recognise, is thus a reason for action, not inaction, and for thinking through in advance the impact of plausible alternative futures on current practices.”

Energy revolution
While global trade in general will greatly benefit from the expansion, there are also specific industries that will get a boost from the scheme. One is the energy market, with the US shale gas industry one of the main beneficiaries. Scotiabank suggests the US liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry that has emerged in recent years could get a significant boost from the increased capacity of the canal: “While more than 100 countries export or import merchandise through the canal, just 10 — the United States, China, Chile, Japan, Colombia, South Korea, Peru, Mexico, Ecuador and Panama — account for more than 75 percent of canal traffic by weight, and just the first three account for over 50 percent.

“It is likely that utilisation of the expanded canal will increase proportionally to current usage and more so for countries that export or import the commodities that will be the biggest beneficiaries of the expansion. The most obvious example of this is the large volume of US LNG export capacity that is expected to come on stream in the next few years and the Asian countries that will be the likely importers of that gas.”

Energy providers tend to require increasingly large ships to transport their oil or gas efficiently, and this has meant they have been unable to pass through the existing Panama Canal. “The canal has a relatively limited impact on the global energy system at present as its pre-expansion constraints limit traffic to only smaller classes of crude tankers and virtually none of the existing LNG tanker fleet”, Scotiabank said. “The expansion will open the canal up to a far larger swath of the global energy trade: over 80 percent of the current LNG fleet will be able to pass through the expanded canal and the maximum crude tanker capacity will increase by upwards of 25 percent, with larger tankers able to transit the canal through the use of the trans-canal pipeline (although doing so increases per-barrel costs). Increasing allowable tanker sizes decreases the unit transport cost, making seaborne transit more competitive with existing pipelines, especially for natural gas.

“The expansion will further bolster the ongoing energy revolution in the US. For oil, increased tanker capacity will allow for better economies of scale, facilitating improved logistics for US crude oil (if Washington drops its crude export ban) and refined petroleum exports, which have doubled over the past few years. For natural gas, the current LNG export capacity in the region stands at roughly 2.6 billion cubic feet per day, but that is expected to increase almost eight-fold by 2019 as the US completes its liquefaction facilities and rationalises its regulatory frameworks.”

This will in turn impact on the economic performance of North American economies, says Scotiabank: “Even if the lion’s share of the region’s natural gas does not end up in Asia, linking the Atlantic and Pacific basins, and easing access to Asian markets (where LNG is considerably more expensive) will allow exporters to demand a higher price in other markets, shrinking the wide disparities in global landed LNG prices. Higher prices will incentivise further North American natural gas development, which will have positive knock-on effects for Canadian, US and Mexican GDP growth and trade balances.”

Panama profits
Alongside the obvious benefits to global trade, local Panamanians are also likely to see an influx of money and jobs from the scheme. According to the ACP, as many as 40,000 jobs will have been created during the construction of the new locks and surrounding infrastructure, while further jobs will come once it is completed. The scheme has attracted a number of international partners to operate there, including Hong Kong’s Hutchison Whampoa, and international infrastructure and logistics engineering firm CH2M HILL. Selected as the programme manager of the scheme, CH2M HILL has helped with the excavation of an access channel to the new locks on the Pacific side of the canal, as well as the widening of existing channels and elevation of the Gatun Lake.

Writing for Port Technology International, a leading industry journal for the shipping industry, the Panama Canal Authority’s Marianela Dengo explained how important the scheme will be for both Panama and global trade: “The Republic of Panama is rapidly positioning itself as the transportation and logistics hub of the Americas. The country, located at the narrowest point of the Americas, provides unparalleled connectivity to world markets. The Panama Canal connects 144 routes and the country’s modern port system.

With terminals operated by SSA Marine, Hutchison Whampoa, Evergreen and PSA, it ranks among the most productive port systems in the Americas, handling 6.5 million TEU (twenty-foot equivalent unit) in 2011 and with projections for 8.4 million TEU by 2015.

“Only 80km separate the Atlantic and Pacific oceans in Panama, and connectivity is available by water, land and air. Panama’s dollarised economy, the Colón Free Zone, its strong banking system, the availability of warehousing space and third-party logistics, and the special tax and migratory incentives available to multinational companies doing business abroad, all compose a cluster of value-added activities that are making of Panama the best place to consolidate cargo in the Americas.”

Despite the problems the scheme has faced, the Panama Canal expansion project is undoubtedly one that will transform global trade and lead to quicker and easier access for a number of industries. Whether ports around the world are ready to benefit from this is unclear. It will undoubtedly mean an increase in the number of large ships sailing the seas, and many countries will need to ensure their ports and transport infrastructures are modernised to keep up with this grand new route.

Saudi Aramco loses government ties in major restructure

Posted on by Charlotte Gill

Al Arabiya has reported the oil giant Saudi Aramco is due to be restructured and detached from Saudi Arabia’s oil ministry. Saudi Aramco, which is involved in all aspects of upstream and downstream activities and plays an influential role in OPEC, is one of the world’s leading exporters of crude oil.

Saudi businessman Khalid Al-Falih has been appointed as the new chairman of Saudi Aramco, replacing Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi – a move that signifies a clear separation of the corporation from the government.

The separation of the petroleum ministry from Saudi Aramco further consolidates this stance and signifies a new era for the country’s most important sector

The decision was approved by the Supreme Economic Council, the state regulatory body that recently replaced the Supreme Petroleum Council as the ultimate authority for all affairs relating to oil and gas. Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the newly appointed head of the Supreme Economic Council, had proposed the change as part of his plans to develop the state’s energy strategy.

Experts see the move as a significant shift away from the traditional structure of the country’s dominant energy sector. The possible impact on the worldwide market is unknown, although some argue it will be minimal unless Ali al-Naimi is also replaced.

It has been a momentous week for Saudi Arabia, and one that sets the country’s history on a whole new path. On April 29, King Salman announced a new heir to the throne – replacing his brother, Muqrin bin Abdulaziz, with his nephew, Prince Mohammed bin Nayef. King Salman’s son Mohammed bin Salman was chosen as the second in line to the throne.

A multitude of other top ministerial rotations have also taken place since King Salman came to power, as well as the amalgamation of several state ministries and the removal of princes from government. King Salmon’s sequence of bold decisions marks a clear transition of power to the younger generation of Saudi Arabia’s ruling elite. Together with the restructuring of the state and its mode of operations, the incumbent’s leadership suggests a modern and long-term outlook for the country and a huge departure from the 83-year rule of his father.

The separation of the petroleum ministry from Saudi Aramco further consolidates this stance and signifies a new era for the country’s most important sector and source of revenue. The intention towards the diversification and modernisation of the economy is becoming increasingly clear – it appears to be undergoing a period of transformation that was unforeseen prior to King Salman’s rule.

Tesla puts a spark to energy storage

Posted on by Charlotte Gill

Electric car manufacturer Tesla is moving into the energy storage market with the launch of Tesla Energy. The move was announced by celebrity CEO Elon Musk on stage at the company’s design studio in Hawthorne, California, near Los Angeles.

Musk hopes his batteries will move people away from energy grids

The firm plans to launch a series of lithium-ion batteries, the same type used in its cars, to power homes and businesses. The batteries, which will come in both 7kWh and 10kWh units, will retail at $3,000 and $3,500 respectively. These batteries, the firm claims in a press release, will allow “homes, business, and utilities to store sustainable and renewable energy to manage power demand, provide backup power and increase grid resilience”.

With the batteries storing solar power, this branching out into energy storage is part of Musk’s vision for a clean energy future, with the company claiming “Tesla Energy is a critical step in this mission to enable zero emission power generation”.

In the same way that mobile phones took people off traditional landline grids, Musk hopes his batteries will move people away from energy grids. According to the Financial Times, Musk also believes Tesla Energy has potential in the developing world (where there is a lack of reliable energy) by allowing residents to “’leapfrog’ the rest of the world in adopting the new battery technology”.

The battery planned for residential use, called the Powerwall, is “intended to store solar energy and enable customers to bank grid electricity from non-peak periods and use it during peak times, saving money”, Business Insider reports. These batteries, available in different colours, are built to be mounted on the walls of homes and, according to Musk, are “like a beautiful piece of sculpture”. Businesses including Amazon and Target have pledged to support Tesla Energy’s initiative. The batteries are planned to be delivered to customers within the next few months.

Shell profits plummet during first quarter

Posted on by Charlotte Gill

The dramatic fall in global crude oil prices over the last 12 months is hitting the bottom lines of many of the industry’s leading firms, with Royal Dutch Shell the latest firm to announce a sharp decline in profits. The company has announced profits for the first quarter of 2015 fell by 56 percent on the previous year’s figure, hitting just £2.1bn.

Shell’s quarterly results managed to be slightly better than many analysts had predicted

However, while the news is indicative of one of the most difficult periods the industry has seen in years, Shell’s quarterly results managed to be slightly better than many analysts had predicted. This is in large part a result of the company’s refining business, which transforms crude oil into more valuable oil products.

Announcing the results, Shell CEO Ben van Beurden said the company’s wide range of operations meant it was relatively insulated against the sharp fall in global oil prices. He said: “Our results reflect the strength of our integrated business activities, against a backdrop of lower oil prices. In what is clearly a difficult industry environment, we continue to take steps to further improve competitive performance by redoubling our efforts to drive a sharper focus on the bottom line in Shell.”

Earlier this week, Shell’s rivals BP and Total announced similarly poor quarterly results. BP’s pre-tax profits have dropped to $2.28bn from $5.27bn at the same point last year. However, both firms also reported better than expected results because of their refinery businesses.

The oil industry is undergoing a significant change as a result of the falling price of crude, which has been exacerbated by OPEC’s – and particularly Saudi Arabia’s – decision to continue with high production levels. While the US industry has been hit particularly hard – Shell’s operations there made the greatest loss of its entire global business – refining crude into more valuable oil products such as petrol and chemicals has acted as a buffer for the industry.

Shell is also looking at other areas to invest. Earlier this month it agreed in principle to a deal to buy UK gas giant BG Group for £55bn, reflecting a wider move towards consolidation in the energy industry.

Fed refuses interest rate hike after sluggish US growth

Posted on by Charlotte Gill

Despite much speculation that the Federal Reserve would soon raise interest rates, a two-day policy meeting in Washington DC ended with officials deciding to keep them where they are.

Since the financial crisis, the Federal Reserve has maintained interest rates at the record-low level of nearly zero percent, with the intention of re-inflating the economy. It was expected that, as the economy picked up steam, interest rates would be raised accordingly. As job growth and household spending increased in late 2014, it was expected 2015 would see healthy economic growth, justifying a rise in interest rates.

Yet on April 29, the US Department of Commerce released figures showing that, in the first quarter of 2015, the economy had nearly stagnated, growing at only 0.2 percent. The Federal Reserve cites so-called “transitory factors”, such as a particularly bad winter discouraging consumer spending, as the causes of the low growth figures. Other reasons for the US’ sluggish economic performance include cuts in investment by energy firms due to falling oil prices and a dock worker strike on the West Coast (usually a busy hub of economic activity).

If the poor economic performance is just down to transitory factors and picks up in the second quarter, interest rates can be expected to rise. The Federal Reserve notes it would be “appropriate to raise the target range for the federal funds rate when it has seen further improvement in the labour market and is reasonably confident that inflation will move back to its two percent objective over the medium term”.

Can Nintendo get its mojo back?

Posted on by Charlotte Gill

In 1889, Nintendo – then Marufuku Co – began life as a simple playing card company. In the almost-eight decades that followed, it tried its hand at any number of businesses before finally sticking with video games. A staple of 80s and 90s childhoods and once a mainstay of the gaming community, Nintendo is today known less for innovative advances and cutesy characters, and more for a string of failed launches and below par financial results. Where once the Kyoto-based electronics company and immovable industry force topped the pile and showed no signs of budging for either love or money, stiff competition and wholesale changes to the market have since pulled the rug from underneath it.

After an especially joyless holiday season, Nintendo slashed its full-year earnings forecast in January, warning that, without a significant sales uptick, it could soon fall into sub-zero territory. Whereas Nintendo’s initial full-year profit forecast was JPY55bn ($453m) ending in March, less-than-impressive sales mean that dropped to a JPY25bn ($206m) loss, and heaped pressure on company executives. With a record-breaking 2007 still fresh in the memory (the result of the then-revolutionary Wii console), it’s scarcely believable the company could since have lost 80 percent from its $85bn market cap.

A difficult history
Nintendo is home to some of the video game industry’s most iconic characters: Mario, Donkey Kong and Kirby among them. Even today, the company’s trademark names are some of the best loved in the business. Head out to any gaming convention and chances are you’ll see dozens – if not hundreds – of attendees dressed as Pikachu, Samus Aran, Luigi and the like, all parading the conference floor to the tune of countless high fives and photo requests. Still, this affection has failed to turn much in the way of profit for a company that has now been on the slide for almost 20 years.

JPY55bn

Nintendo’s initial predicted profit, 2014/15

JPY25bn

Nintendo’s eventual predicted loss, 2014/15

In the 1980s and early 90s, the Nintendo Entertainment System and, to a lesser extent, the Super Nintendo Entertainment System heralded the beginning of a new era for home gaming. They gave rise to a long list of firsts, not least third-party development, four-way directional control pads and property licensing.

The Nintendo 64, released in 1996, was far from a flop but was outperformed by Sony’s PlayStation, and things got worse with the release of the GameCube in 2001: Sony’s PlayStation 2 and Microsoft’s Xbox both outsold Nintendo’s ‘purple lunchbox’. True, the release of the Wii granted the console maker a much-needed respite, but the company is once again struggling for relevance in today’s gaming market.

Nintendo’s latest third-quarter results show total sales of its latest console, the Wii U, are less than half of Sony’s PlayStation 4, despite a year’s head start. Where once Nintendo console shipments tipped the 26 million per year mark, they have fallen to a paltry 7.5 million in the space of only four years. Holiday sales have saved the company from out-and-out embarrassment, but the company’s showing in the latest console cycle makes for painful reading.

Casual success
Looking only at overall sales, Nintendo appears to be fast-approaching crisis point. But a second glance at the numbers shows there are still corners of the market in which the company outshines its rivals. For example, stellar Wii sales serve, if nothing else, to underline the company’s ability to sell video gaming to families and younger consumers – those falling under the ‘casual gamer’ bracket. It is here above all other areas that Nintendo has made a name for itself.

The company’s roster of characters is somewhat atypical for an industry best characterised by gun-wielding beefcakes and big-breasted damsels, and the colourful and cartoonish nature of its signature names lends itself well to younger consumers. Add to that the parlour-game-like nature of the Wii, and it is unsurprising the company should hold such a high standing in the families and young consumers category.

Even despite the recent hard times, Nintendo’s reputation in the casual gaming market is without rival. Speaking to TrustedReviews, the head of PlayStation UK, Fergel Gara, admitted the decline of Nintendo “could be detrimental to the market, unless people like us raise our game and help tap into the younger consumer group that they serve rather well”.

Still, this focus on the casual market is not enough to keep Nintendo from falling behind. It must address underlying structural changes to the industry, if only to remain within touching distance of the competition. Having dedicated considerable resources to expanding the gaming population by turning consumers on to casual titles, the mobile gaming revolution means this is less important than it was eight years ago. Consumers need no longer purchase dedicated consoles; the smartphone revolution means casual titles are more immediate and cheaper on a phone than they are on, for example, the Wii.

“Fortunately, because of the spread of smart devices, people take games for granted now”, said Shigeru Miyamoto, the world-renowned video game developer behind some of Nintendo’s biggest releases, in an interview with Edge magazine. “It’s a good thing for us, because we do not have to worry about making games something that are relevant to general people’s daily lives.”

True, the success of the Wii suggests Nintendo was right to target casual gamers and put its financial might behind motion capture technology, but the model has dated fast, and Nintendo must rethink its strategy or risk falling by the wayside.

Strategy switch-up
Some commentators eyeing Nintendo’s less-than-impressive bottom line have suggested the company abandon its hardware business, and many more are of the opinion the best course of action would be to bring the cycle of the Wii’s disappointing successor, the Wii U, to an end before any more damage is done.

Some suggest licensing what remain of the company’s most valuable assets – its IPs – could lend Nintendo a much-needed pick-me-up. Talk on this point has mostly centred on lending some of its best-loved characters to mobile platforms, and the company’s partnership with mobile portal DeNA points to a near future in which Mario and the gang will feature prominently in dedicated smartphone and tablet titles. However, doing so could well cheapen the brands and potentially pile further pressure on the company’s bottom line in the long term.

In choosing to lay out a long-term strategy at the beginning of last year, Nintendo started work on the task of turning its fortunes around. In a meeting with investors, Nintendo President Satoru Iwata acknowledged some of the company’s recent failings and outlined how the company could improve on its current situation. “I am here to tell you about our future, and to begin with, I would like to mention what Nintendo will not change”, he said. “Since the revision to our full-year financial forecast, there have been various reports and comments about us. However, we do not hold a pessimistic view of the future of dedicated video game platforms.”

By taking advantage of the Wii U GamePad (the console’s controller, which incorporates elements of tablet devices) and releasing a number of much-anticipated blockbuster titles, Nintendo can more easily meet its short-term targets. However, the company’s medium- to long-term prospects are far more complicated, and ask that Nintendo effectively redefines its video game platform, takes advantage of smart devices, expands its character licensing business and changes its approach to new markets, according to Iwata. Most important of all is Nintendo’s decision to expand into new lines of business.

Customers play with Nintendo’s current video game console, the Wii U, at a display stand in Japan
Customers play with Nintendo’s current video game console, the Wii U, at a display stand in Japan

A new ‘Blue Ocean’
“I have run Nintendo with the belief that the raison d’etre of entertainment is to put smiles on people’s faces around the world through products and services”, said Iwata. “This time, we decided to redefine our notion of entertainment as something that improves people’s quality of life in enjoyable ways, and take a step forward in expanding our business areas.” Nintendo’s revised remit is to improve people’s quality of life in enjoyable ways by stepping away from dedicated video game platforms and focusing first and foremost on health.

Nintendo’s well-received Wii Fit titles, which allow users to partake in their own personalised fitness programme, was a resounding success, and brought with them countless stories of how once-overweight individuals had gotten into shape by way of various in-game mechanics. Capitalising on a budding health and fitness industry, and willingness among consumers to trial new ways of keeping fit, Nintendo overturned common misconceptions about the gaming industry as one intended only for coach potatoes and slobs. It’s a market analysts expect will continue to thrive, at least for the immediate future.

For proof consumers are focusing more on health and fitness, doubters need look only at the mobile app industry, where the market in 2014 played host to an explosion of heath- and fitness-based titles. Flurry Analytics data showed that, in only the first six months of 2014, 62 percent of average daily app usage growth was attributable to wellness and fitness.

As it stands, the explosion in the health and fitness sector is primarily down to so-called fitness fanatics – those who spend three times more on fitness apps than the general population – though Nintendo is hoping to convince casual users to indulge a little more in the fun. In choosing to take its business into a “new Blue Ocean”, as Iwata calls it (meaning consoles, mobiles, wearables and non-wearables), the company can more easily engage health-conscious consumers and soon-to-be fitness fanatics. By expanding the ‘fit population’, as it did so successfully with the gaming population, Nintendo hopes to redefine health consciousness and leverage its strengths as a successful entertainment company.

True, the company could do with an immediate pick-me-up, if only to restore consumer confidence, but an objective look at the company’s achievements shows few others – if any – are as well qualified to capitalise on the market as Nintendo. Assuming the company can repeat its past success and woo consumers with its revamped focus on health and wellbeing, we could be about to see the beginning of a Nintendo revival.

Netflix

Posted on by Charlotte Gill

Reinventing the way the world consumes film and television, Netflix found a niche part of the market where many had assumed few options remained. In 16 years, the company’s innovative business plan has seen it attract over 50 million members. Admirably, the firm has relied on a fluid business model, allowing a variety of changes to its streaming services. Netflix has recently turned content creator as well as distributor, and hosts content in different geographies and markets.

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals

Posted on by Charlotte Gill

New York-based biotech giant Regeneron has been much lauded for its research and development department and forward-looking strategies. The company has won a long list of awards in the biotech sphere, and has been widely recognised as an outstanding place to work. Regeneron’s long list of product successes includes EYLEA, which was developed to help treat a cause of blindness among the elderly population. The firm continues to grow in a variety of directions, lending its expertise to a variety of causes.