|
KELLY H. FERGUSON
is editor of Pulp & Paper magazine
WHAT'S AHEAD
ENGINEERING
PULP & PAPER editors interview industry analysts, paper company decision-makers, and engineering consultants on their views of what types of capital projects are most effective to make North American mills more competitive. Projects at some major U.S. and Canadian mills will be profiled to show how companies are investing their tightly-controlled capital dollars to provide shareholder value while competing more effectively with both domestic and foreign producers.
FINISHING AND CONVERTING
PULP & PAPER profiles several paper finishing and converting operations, including Riverwood International's new coated paperboard converting plant at Perry, Ga. Other articles examine new calendering technology options for sheet smoothness and printing enhancements and a discussion of how new winding concepts are improving productivity at several mills.
|
Some stories never told
In the past year, several columns from the editors of Pulp & Paper have discussed the industry's constant struggle to "tell its story." Paper industry leaders seemingly use this phrase to mean a good public relations campaign that might persuade the public that North American pulp and paper mills are not the pollution-spewing, clear-cutting, odorous monstrosities that some groups portray them to be. In truth, the general public probably doesn't see the industry in that light.
One hindrance to telling the industry's story, at least from Pulp & Paper's perspective, is the indirect "chilling" effect that government agencies, the financial community, and company shareholders sometimes have. While P&P and its related publications rely on the openness of paper companies to let us relate the use of new technologies, innovative management concepts, and techniques for improved operations, there are many good stories that are never told.
GOOD PRESS BACKLASH. About 10 years ago, a Pulp & Paper editor was told of a U.S. mill that had gone to great lengths to work with the Environmental Protection Agency and the state regulatory authorities on categorizing and reducing its environmental impact. The agreed upon environmental permit for the mill included extensive biological monitoring around the mill, development of a habitat preservation program for an endangered plant species, and investment in a fairly costly research program on technologies for pulp mill pollution abatement.
The article, based on interviews with mill personnel, would have been a testament to how one mill had gone to extreme measures to meet and exceed permit levels. The mill cooperated with regulatory authorities to the point of investing large amounts of money and personnel.
However, such a good feature story was not to be. In the midst of detailing specifics of the permit programs and emission reduction results gained through process improvements, the mill became nervous about sharing information.
The reasoning? Publicity from such an article might spur regulatory agencies to rethink the permit levels, which were still being reviewed, and make the programs more harsh. Without a discussion of all the details, there really was no feature article, so the story was never shared publicly.
With all the fiberline modernization that has occurred in the industry during the past several years, there have been other opportunities to share environmental results. But many mills, willing to share process descriptions, are unwilling to publicize emission reduction data for fear of backlash.
WHAT SHAREHOLDERS DON'T KNOW ... About five years ago, a major paper company started up a brand new recovery boiler replacing two older boilers. The new boiler meant a number of improvements to mill operations, including higher productivity and environmental performance.
P&P pursued the installation story to the point of scheduling an interview at the mill. But at the last minute, mill management-spurred by corporate management-withdrew its invitation.
The reason? Corporate managers felt that although the project was absolutely necessary to the mill's long-term future, giving it too much publicity, especially regarding environmental improvements, would make the company's shareholders think the mill was "wasting capital" on non-production related projects. The strategy, as the P&P editor understood it, was to "play down" the project.
THE FINANCIAL VIEW. Recently, P&P made a request to profile a major mill modernization at a company often featured in our pages. However, the company was hesitant because some in the financial community were critical of publicity regarding the company's aggressive spending strategy.
These three examples raise numerous questions. Why are paper companies penalized for doing good things? None of these examples involved criticism from environmental activists but from groups that should be cooperative and supportive of investments that improve production and environmental performance.
And what do shareholders and the financial community expect from paper companies? To remain low cost and productive in the paper industry means sound operation and sometimes a major capital investment in new technology. Without such investment, a mill will slowly deteriorate and shut down. But with strategic investments, companies can stay on the cutting edge of competitive production.
In the September issue of P&P, editors will interview financial analysts, paper company executives, and engineering companies on how technologies are viewed by various stakeholders. We'll also explore what makes some capital investments more effective than others. Maybe that investigation will help determine what "story" is best to tell.
|
